Chapter 3

3
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This chapter summarizes the existing and future environmental conditions and potential
impacts of the project. Appendix D provides a list of technical reports that are available
separately and which contain detailed information (DVD attached to inside back cover of
this document).
3.1
REGIONAL AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
The project would connect with multiple local and regional transportation services. MTA
examined the existing transportation services and facilities in the project corridor, and the
planned and programmed improvements to those transportation networks. MTA analyzed
the No-Build Alternative and the Build Alternative to identify any potential effects on
regional and local transportation. Since the Build Alternative would introduce no new rail
services or uses into the project corridor, there would be no resulting changes to trip
generation or distribution, trip characteristics or modal splits.
3.1.1 Regulatory Context and Methodology

The analysis of regional and local transportation services and facilities defined the study
area as a quarter-mile on either side of the centerline for the rail alignment between Grove
Interlocking and Winans Interlocking. Figure 3.1-1 illustrates the regional and local
transportation corridors. MTA identified existing transportation services and facilities, and
assessed impacts, based on site visits, as well as information from the various transportation
agencies with jurisdiction or operations in the project corridor. MTA also reviewed relevant
planning documents published by these agencies to identify planned and programmed
improvements for all modes of the transportation network.
The project corridor falls within the jurisdiction of the Baltimore Regional Transportation
Board, a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) that receives support from the staff of
the Baltimore Metropolitan Council. MTA reviewed the MPOs current long-range
transportation plan (LRTP), Transportation Outlook 2035, and its current transportation
improvement program, Baltimore Region Transportation Improvement Program 2014-2017. MTA
also reviewed its own planning documents, as well as those produced by Amtrak and local
jurisdictions in the project corridor: Anne Arundel, Baltimore, and Howard Counties.
BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project
3-1
Environmental Assessment
3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
FIGURE 3.1-1: REGIONAL AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
3-2
The project corridor includes a portion of Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood

Marshall Airport (BWI Airport) property and its airspace. Consequently, this transportation
analysis includes coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in
accordance with federal aviation regulations, 14 CFR Part 77Safe, Efficient Use, and
Preservation of the Navigable Airspace.
3.1.2 Affected Environment

This section describes current and proposed transportation services and facilities, within the
project corridor.
Regional Characteristics
The rail line under study is part of the NEC and serves the Washington-Baltimore
consolidated metropolitan statistical area, connecting these two cities to each other and to
other metropolitan areas in the northeastern United States. The corridor serves Amtrak and
MARC Penn Line trains. Rail stations within the project corridor provide connections to
local bus services and BWI Airport. Passenger rail service is electrified and there are no atgrade rail crossings. Outside the project corridor, rail stations along this same line provide
connections to MARCs Camden and Brunswick Lines, MTAs Central Light Rail, and
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authoritys (WMATA) Metro.
Rail
The rail stations within, or just beyond, the project corridor are Odenton Station, BWI Rail
Station, and Halethorpe Station:
Odenton Station. This station is located in the town center of Odenton, MD,
approximately a mile south of Grove Interlocking, which is the southern terminus of the
project corridor. MARC serves the Odenton Station with 25 northbound trains and 25
southbound trains per weekday (schedules effective March 14, 2011). MARC averaged
2,100 riders per day at Odenton Station in fiscal year 2010, the most recent year for
which there is data.
BWI Rail Station. This station is located in Linthicum, an unincorporated area of Anne
Arundel County, and provides direct shuttle bus service to BWI Airport. The BWI Rail
Station serves both Amtrak and MARC Penn Line trains. According to schedules
effective June 9, 2013, Amtrak service includes:
o
On Fridays, the busiest weekday: 30 northbound Amtrak trains (23 Northeast

Regional, six Acela, and one Vermonter) and 32 southbound Amtrak trains (22
Northeast Regional, nine Acela, and one Vermonter)
On Sundays, the busiest weekend day: 27 northbound Amtrak trains (17

Northeast Regional, nine Acela, and one Vermonter) and 28 southbound Amtrak
trains 18 Northeast Regional, nine Acela, and one Vermonter)
3-3
Amtrak had 710,513 boardings and alightings at the BWI Rail Station in fiscal year 2013,
making it the second most heavily used Amtrak station in Maryland, after Baltimore
Penn Station. Amtrak ridership at BWI Rail Station in fiscal year 2013 was one percent
higher than in fiscal year 2012 (703,604) and 16 percent higher than in fiscal year 2011
(662,453).
o
According to MARC Penn Line weekday schedules effective December 9, 2013,

the service includes 24 northbound MARC trains and 27 southbound MARC
trains stopping at BWI Rail Station.
According to MARC Penn Line weekend service schedules effective December 7,

2013, the service includes 15 northbound trains on (nine on Saturday and six on
Sunday) and 15 southbound trains (nine on Saturday and six on Sunday). MARC
had 1,300 riders per weekday at BWI Rail Station in fiscal year 2010.
The existing BWI Rail Station has two high-level platforms serving the outside
tracks. The station includes a small building, with a ticket counter, a food
counter, restrooms, and a waiting area that is adjacent to a large parking garage.
Halethorpe Station. This station, located in an unincorporated area of Baltimore County,

is served only by MARC trains, with 21 northbound trains and 21 southbound trains per
weekday (schedules effective December 9, 2013). According to MARC Weekend Service
schedules, effective December 7, 2013, service includes 15 northbound trains (nine on
Saturday and six on Sunday) and 15 southbound trains (nine on Saturday and six on
Sunday). Unlike BWI Rail Station and Odenton Station, Halethorpe Station has four
tracks. MTA recently completed construction of a new Halethorpe Station that includes
two 700-foot, covered, high-level platforms that will allow passengers to enter and exit
from any of the train cars instead of the current limited number of train cars. This will
improve on-time performance and scheduling.
Relevant Plans and Projects
MTA reviewed the Comprehensive and General Plans for Anne Arundel, Howard and
Baltimore Counties, and other project-specific plans for information on relevant
transportation projects in the project vicinity. Relevant plans and projects include:
Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan
The NEC Master Plan was a joint effort among twelve northeastern states, the District of
Columbia, Amtrak, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), eight commuter rail
operators, three freight rail operators, and other stakeholders. The intent of the plan was to
identify a baseline of infrastructure improvements required to maintain the current system
in a state of good repair and to attain various goals for increased frequency, speed, and
reliability over a 20-year period. The NEC Master Plan based its recommendations on a
future service plan envisioned by the stakeholders for commuter, intercity passenger, and
freight operations. Within the project corridor, its proposed service plan would increase the
3-4
number of daily intercity passenger train movements from approximately 82 to 110 and the
number of daily commuter rail train movements from approximately 55 to 135 by 2030.
The NEC Master Plan specifically identifies the lack of island platforms and undersized
station facilities at BWI Rail Station, as well as the lack of a fourth track, as major issues in
achieving these goals. Other projects identified within or adjacent to the project corridor
include a continuous fourth track between Bridge Interlocking and Landover Interlocking in
Maryland (and eventually C Interlocking), various new or rebuilt interlockings, a new
Baltimore & Potomac (B&P) Tunnel, and signal upgrades.
MARC Growth and Investment Plan Update 2013 to 2050
The MARC Plan Update (MTA, 2013) is a targeted capital investment program with the goal
of incrementally increasing service capacity, frequency, and reliability on all three of the
MARC lines. The NEC Master Plan incorporated the goals and recommended projects
contained in the MARC Plan Update. For MARCs Penn Line, the goals included 15-minute
headways during peak hours and 30-minute headways during off-peak hours, as well as
additional express and limited service, weekend service (not currently offered), and
reliability of 95 percent on-time or better.
To achieve these goals, the plan proposes infrastructure upgrades phased in increments
through 2035. These proposed improvements are generally the same as those included in
the NEC Master Plan. In the initial time horizon, the plan proposes rebuilding BWI Rail
Station to expand the passenger facility and to accommodate an additional platform. Within
the 2015 timeframe, the plan proposes a continuous fourth track from south of Halethorpe
Station (where the fourth track currently terminates) to north of Odenton Station. This
fourth track would be coordinated with the rebuilt BWI Rail Station to provide platform
access for all tracks. When paired with other upgrades addressing interlockings, signals,
fleet, storage and maintenance facilities, and stations, the ultimate vision is transit-like
service along a four-tracked railroad corridor between New Carrolton and Aberdeen by
2035.
Anne Arundel County General Development Plan
The transportation section of Anne Arundel Countys General Development Plan (Anne
Arundel County, 2009) calls for a feasibility study of adding an additional MARC station to
the corridor. The General Development Plan places this station in the vicinity of the MD 100
crossing of the project corridor and would be coordinated with land use plans for new
transit-oriented development (see Section 3.2.2). Currently, Anne Arundel County has not
initiated any effort to determine the feasibility or potential benefits/impacts of this
proposed station.
Transit. Several transit providers serve the project corridor with intermodal connections
at rail stations. Odenton Station has direct connections to Central Maryland Regional
Transit Connect-A-Ride Route K, as well as a National Security Agency (NSA)-operated
shuttle for NSA and Fort Meade employees and visitors. BWI Rail Station has direct
3-5
connections to MTA local bus route 17, MTA commuter bus route 201, Howard Transits
Silver Route, a free BWI Airport Shuttle, and BWI Business Partnerships LINK Shuttle
(weekdays only). Halethorpe Station has a direct connection to MTA local bus routes 77.
Other fixed routes transit lines passing through the project corridor include Central
Maryland Regional Transit Connect-A-Ride Route J; MTA local bus routes 15 and 51;
and WMATA express bus route B30.
Baltimore Central Light Rail Line. The Anne Arundel County General Development Plan
recommends further study of extending the existing MTA Central Light Rail Line with a
new branch connecting the existing BWI Business District station with the Dorsey
MARC Station of the Camden Line in Howard County. It could potentially provide a
connection at BWI Rail Station. This project is not currently under study and does not
appear in the regions Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).
Freight. A limited number of freight trains operate within the project corridor. Norfolk
Southern (NS) has operating rights for freight service within the limits of the project
corridor. CSX has the right to operate overhead (through-freight) traffic but does not
currently exercise this right. NS operates an average of two trains per day. Both
railroads have indicated their intent to operate additional traffic through the project
corridor, increasing freight traffic to approximately eight trains per day. However, CSX
and NS have postponed their decisions, indefinitely, due to the current deteriorated
conditions of the CSX freight line beyond the limits of the project corridor.
Roadways. Two major limited access highways roughly parallel the project corridor
between Baltimore and Washington: the Baltimore-Washington Parkway (MD 295) and
I-95. The Baltimore-Washington Parkway intersects the project corridor just north of
BWI Rail Station and I-95 intersects the project corridor just north of Halethorpe Station.
Other limited access major regional highway facilities intersecting the project corridor
include:
o
Paul Pitcher Memorial Highway (MD 100)
I-195
Harbor Tunnel Throughway (I-895)
Major arterials in the project corridor include:

o
Reece Road (MD 174)
Dorsey Road (MD 176)
Telegraph Road/Aviation Boulevard (MD 170)
Washington Boulevard/Southwestern Boulevard (U.S. 1)
One local road, Amtrak Way, provides access to the BWI Rail Station and the 3,187-space
parking garage. Amtrak Way ties into MD 170 at a signalized intersection.
3-6
Most roadways within the project corridor are at Level of Service (LOS) A to C, ranging
from free-flowing traffic to minimal traffic congestion. The exceptions are MD 295, I-95,
and MD 170, which have LOS E, with heavy traffic congestion.
The regions LRTP divides projects into the following categories: Committed (assumed
implemented by 2012), Regionally Significant (of importance to all counties), and
Preferred Alternative (all projects programmed by 2035). The only Committed highway
project within the project corridor is the widening of the Baltimore-Washington
Parkway (MD 295) from four to six lanes between I-695 and I-195. The only Regionally
Significant project within the project corridor is the widening of I-95 from eight to 10
lanes from I-695 to the Prince Georges County line.
The regions LRTP includes the following Preferred Alternative projects:
o
Widening MD 175 from four to six lanes between MD 295 and MD 170
Widening MD 295 from four to six lanes between I-195 and MD 100
Widening MD 170 from two to four lanes between MD 175 and MD 100
Widening MD 100 from four to six lanes between the Anne Arundel/
Howard County line and I-95
Capacity improvements to MD 174 between MD 175 and MD 170
Air Transportation. BWI Airport is located in an unincorporated area of Anne Arundel

County, immediately east of the project corridor. A portion of its property falls within
the project corridor. Rail, transit, and roadway facilities provide ground access to the
airport. BWI Rail Station provides rail access from Baltimore, Washington, and points
beyond through both MARC and Amtrak service, but access to airport terminals
requires a transfer to a free shuttle bus. MTAs Central Light Rail Line serves the airport
with a direct terminal connection. MTA local bus route 17, MTA commuter bus route
201, and Howard Transits Silver Route provide direct terminal access. Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Bus B30 also serves the airport. MD 170 and I-195
provide the primary road access and connects the airport to MD 295 and I-95.
Based on passenger volumes, BWI Airport is the largest airport in the Baltimore region
and the second largest airport in the Washington-Baltimore region, behind Dulles
International Airport in northern Virginia. In 2013, the airport served 22.5 million
passengers (61,639 per day). BWI Airport employs approximately 9,700 individuals. The
airports most recent six year $155.6 million Capital Program (20082013) does not
include any major plans for airside or landside capacity increases.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. Pedestrian facilities are intermittent within the project
corridor. The highest quality resources exist in residential neighborhoods adjacent to
stations. At Odenton and Halethorpe Stations, contiguous networks of sidewalks and
crosswalks connect some residential areas to the stations. BWI Rail Station has virtually
no residential development within a half-mile radius, but pedestrian facilities do connect
the station with multimodal transfer points to the east and a growing commercial
3-7
district to the west. Halethorpe Station has a large amount of residential development
within a half-mile radius; however, many blocks lack contiguous pedestrian facilities.
The BWI Trail, a multiuse recreational path for both bicycles and pedestrians, follows a
12-mile paved route encircling BWI Airport. This trail has direct connections to the BWI
Rail Station and the MTA Central Light Rail Lines Linthicum Station. It connects to the
Baltimore and Annapolis (B&A) Trail, which extends southeast to Annapolis.
The Corporate Center Drive Pedestrian Walkway extends directly from the BWI Rail
Stations pedestrian overpass to an emerging office development to the west, which
includes the MDOT headquarters.
Near BWI Rail Station, a proposed off-road spur from the BWI Trail would connect to
Howard County, crossing the project corridor along the existing bridge at Stoney Run
Road. There are no proposals for major off-road bicycle or pedestrian facilities in
portions of the project corridor located within Howard or Baltimore Counties.
3.1.3 Probable Consequences

No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative would have no direct adverse impacts on local and regional
transportation services. However, the No-Build Alternative would not meet the transit
operational goals of reducing scheduling conflicts or improving service capacity, speed,
frequency, and reliability on Amtrak and MARC passenger rail services. It would not
improve operational efficiency at the BWI Rail Station. It also would not provide the
benefits associated with improving Amtrak and MARC train operations in the project
corridor or encourage travelers to use the improved rail services.
Build Alternative
The Build Alternative would have no adverse impacts to the regional or local transportation
system. The improvements in the Build Alternative are consistent with the regional and
local transportation plans for all elements and the operating agencies, Amtrak and MTA,
within the project corridor. The project affects the following resources:
Transit. The Build Alternative would facilitate MARC operations and meet the goals
contained in the MARC Plan Update of incrementally improving service capacity,
frequency and reliability. The NEC Master Plan integrates these goals and recommended
projects (including this project), and identifies a baseline of infrastructure improvements
to maintain the current amount of train traffic along the NEC and to meet goals for
increased frequency, speed and reliability over a 20-year period. The impacts of the
project on the regional and local transportation systems would be limited to construction
activities. During final design, the MTA would minimize these short-term impacts by
identifying the construction staging and sequencing necessary to maintain existing
service and reduce disruption to the passengers of Amtrak and MARC services.
3-8
Freight. The impacts to freight operations would be short-term during construction.

Trains may move in either direction on any of the tracks with the flexibility to shift from
tracks where work is underway. Construction activities may take place during intervals
between train movements. MTA would accomplish construction activities requiring
extended time, at night, with minimal impact to both freight and passenger train
operations.
Roadway. The Build Alternative would not have long-term adverse impacts on the
regional roadway network. Construction staging that maintains local traffic operations
would minimize the construction impacts of replacing the Reece Road Bridge over the
rail mainline and new fourth track.
Construction of the fourth track would have short-term impacts to the roadways in the
project corridor, with construction activities and workers using the existing
transportation network. The increased reliability and reduced travel times of the
intercity passenger and commuter trains anticipated from the improved operational
considerations would encourage long-distance travelers and commuters to use the rail
services, and remove vehicles from the roadways.
The Build Alternative will not impact the future roadway transportation improvements
identified in the planned and programmed improvements and long range transportation
plans in the region of the project corridor.
Air Transportation. The Build Alternative is consistent with the goals of the BWI Airport
Layout Plan (February 2011), to provide improved intermodal connectivity between
airport and rail services.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. The Build Alternative would not impact existing
pedestrian and bicycle facilities or the future trail improvements planned in the project
corridor. The Build Alternative would maintain access to existing pedestrian and bicycle
facilities during the construction phases of the project. The Build Alternative would not
impact future trail improvements planned along existing corridors.
Summary. The Build Alternative would improve transportation operations while having
no adverse impacts on the local and regional transportation network, including rail
services, highways and roadways, air transportation, and bicycle and pedestrian
facilities.
The four-track configuration and additional center platform at BWI Rail Station under
the Build Alternative would allow trains to operate more reliably by minimizing delays
associated with service deviations and maintenance operations. The addition of a fourth
mainline track, as well as the enhanced platforms, would allow northbound Acela trains
to avoid switching tracks to access the northbound BWI Rail Station platform. This
would save as much as five minutes of travel time and eliminate the delay currently
required by diverting trains from the middle Track 2 to Track 1 to access the platform.
The proposed platform arrangement and station improvements would benefit MARC
3-9
commuters and airport passengers using the BWI Rail Station facility, and intercity rail
passengers with destinations along the NEC and other national routes.
Best management practices (BMPs) for reducing traffic delays, detours or diversions
from the areas of construction will mitigate the temporary, short-term construction
impacts associated with the Build Alternative. Coordination with emergency services
would minimize impacts to the public.
3.2
LAND USE, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
This section identifies the existing and planned land use, land use controls, communities,
neighborhoods and community facilities in the project corridor, and describes the potential
impacts of the project.

The analysis of land use, neighborhoods, and community facilities defined its study area as
land within 500 feet on either side of the centerline for the rail alignment between Grove
Interlocking and Winans Interlocking. A combination of geographic information system
(GIS) data from Baltimore, Anne Arundel, and Howard Counties; aerial photographs;
Alexandria Drafting Company (ADC) street maps; and field visits helped to identify and
assess impacts on existing land uses, neighborhoods, and community facilities adjacent to
the project corridor. The MTA reviewed each jurisdictions comprehensive plan, relevant
small area plans, and specialized master plans to identify future conditions along the project
corridor.

This section describes current and proposed land use, neighborhoods, and community
facilities within the project corridor.
Regional Characteristics
Amtrak and MARC trains serve the Washington-Baltimore Consolidated Metropolitan
Statistical Area, connecting these two cities to each other and to other metropolitan areas in
the northeastern United States. The project corridor falls within the jurisdiction of one MPO,
the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board.
The portion of the project corridor between Grove Interlocking and Winans Interlocking is
largely suburban in character. The southern portion is a patchwork of lower- and middledensity residential uses, commercial uses, industrial uses, and open space. The central
portion comprises open space and commercial uses, many related to BWI Airport, and the
northern portion of the project corridor near Halethorpe Station is a mix of medium-density
residential uses, commercial uses, industrial uses, and open space. Figures 3.2-1A and 3.2-1B
illustrate existing land uses in the project corridor. The project corridor spans three local
jurisdictions:
3-10
Anne Arundel County

Howard County
Baltimore County
Land use characteristics within the three jurisdictions are:
Anne Arundel County. The land use study area includes a collection of residential uses,
commercial uses, industrial uses, and open space. The residential uses range in density,
from single-family detached homes on lots of about an acre, to single-family detached
homes on small lots, to single-family attached homes. Multi-family residential buildings
are rare, although some newer communities such as the Buckingham mixed-use
development in Hanover and the Seven Oaks neighborhood include apartment and
townhouse buildings. Residential neighborhoods also range in age, with several
subdivisions less than a decade old. Industrial and commercial uses are often
immediately adjacent to the rail corridor, with the newest developments in the vicinity
of BWI Airport.
Howard County. The rail corridor, itself, does not pass through Howard County
although a small portion of the land use study area falls within its boundaries. The
easternmost corner of the county, comprised of state parkland, is the only portion of
Howard County that falls within the project corridor.
Baltimore County. A short stretch at the northernmost end of the project corridor falls
within Baltimore County. The project corridor within Baltimore County contains a
diversity of land uses, including residential uses, commercial uses, industrial uses, and
open space. The residential uses in this portion of the project corridor are of medium
density, generally consisting of single-family detached homes on small lots.
3-11
FIGURE 3.2-1A: EXISTING LAND USE MAP 1 OF 2
3-12
FIGURE 3.2-1B: EXISTING LAND USE MAP 2 OF 2
3-13
Land Use Controls and Comprehensive Planning

The three local jurisdictions described above have control over land use regulations within
their boundaries. Local jurisdictions in Maryland are subject to the States Economic
Growth, Resource Protection and Planning Act (enacted in 1992 and amended in 2000 and
2009), which established policies and mandates for growth management and resource
protection according to a set of statewide Visions. The state enacted a series of legislations
in 1997, known collectively as the Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation
Initiatives, to direct growth to locally designated priority funding areas (PFAs) for
infrastructure improvement in support of the statewide Visions.
GIS highlighted the percentage of the project length that falls within designated PFAs. Of
the 9.3-mile project length, all but 0.7 mile falls within designated PFAs. This equates to
approximately 93 percent of the project corridor length occurring within PFAs. Exceptions
are typically required for projects that are not located entirely within the PFAs. The
Interagency Smart Growth Coordinating Committee approved a PFA exception for this
project on July 18, 2012 (Appendix A).
The following descriptions summarize the land use plans relevant to the project corridor,
with a focus on major proposed land use changes. These proposed land use changes would
occur with or without the implementation of the Build Alternative.
Anne Arundel County
The Anne Arundel County Council adopted the Anne Arundel County General Development
Plan (Anne Arundel GDP) on October 19, 2009, superseding its previous plan adopted in
1997.
The 2009 Anne Arundel GDP forecasts a large amount of growth in the county between 2005
and 2035, for both population (12.7 percent) and employment (44.7 percent). The Anne
Arundel GDP acknowledges the federal Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Initiative as
a major driver of change over the next decade, including an estimated 22,000 new jobs and
4,500 new households in the county. The Anne Arundel GDPs vision emphasizes
redevelopment and revitalization over new development, under the following themes:
Balanced growth and sustainability
Community preservation and enhancement
Environmental stewardship
Quality public services
The Anne Arundel GDP aims to preserve rural lands in the county, in part through the
implementation of targeted growth areas. The vast majority of the project corridor in Anne
Arundel County is within the countys PFA, but the targeted growth areas are a smaller size
and have a more explicitly defined role in accommodating higher density development.
Targeted growth areas can take the form of locally defined town centers, commercial
3-14
revitalization districts, or mixed-use districts. Three such targeted growth areas fall at least
partially within the project corridor:
MD 100 Mixed-Use Area. Located just north of where the project corridor crosses MD
100, this is proposed as a transit mixed-use area in coordination with implementation of
a new MARC station (see Section 3.1.2 for a discussion on the proposed MARC station).
This area, currently an industrial site, requires conceptual development plans before
rezoning, as well as an analysis of infrastructure and environmental impacts.
MD 176 Industrial Area. This area comprises two industrial areas north of the MD 176
crossing of the corridor that the Anne Arundel GDP currently designates as industrial
and open space but targets for industrial growth in the future.
BWI Airport Business District and Vicinity. This area proposes several mixed-use
districts. The Ridge Road area in Hanover falls within the project corridor boundary at
the BWI Rail Station. The 2004 BWI/Linthicum Small Area Plan previously planned this
area for industrial uses. More recently, the 2009 Anne Arundel County GDP designated
the area for transit mixed-use to allow office, retail, and high-density residential uses in
support of transportation opportunities at the airport and BWI Rail Station. Full buildout of this type of development is pending analysis of infrastructure needs and
constraints, as well as environmental impacts. However, some developments, such as
the new MDOT headquarters, have already occurred in this area.
Anne Arundel County also has a collection of sector plans, functional master plans, and
small area plans (SAPs). Sector plans address critical land use issues in unique
environments, and functional master plans address discrete subjects such a greenways or
transportation on a countywide basis. SAPs divide the county into community planning
areas scaled to facilitate land use recommendations at a greater level of detail and with more
community input than the Anne Arundel GDP. The recommendations of the previous (1997)
Anne Arundel GDP provide the basis for most of the current SAPs. The project corridor falls
within three community planning areas:
Odenton
Odenton Station does not fall within the land use study area but a small amount of land
from its relevant SAP does. This SAP proposed no changes to existing land use within the
portion of the Odenton community planning area that falls within the land use study area.
The Odenton Town Center Master Plan, adopted on March 15, 2010, included transit-oriented
development (TOD) around Odenton Station and proposed a retail development on vacant
land near MD 32. This development would be at the farthest southern boundary of the land
use study area.
Severn
The Severn SAP, adopted on July 15, 2002, called for a residential land use change from one
dwelling unit per acre, to two dwelling units per acre, in the project corridor near MD 174
but did not propose major land use changes for the land use study area. This SAP also did
3-15
not propose developing the transit mixed-use area in coordination with a new MARC
station near the MD 100 crossing of the project corridor, which appeared in the 2009 General
Development Plan.
BWI/Linthicum
This SAP, adopted on December 25, 2004, proposed transitioning the area west of the BWI
Rail Station from low-density residential uses to industrial uses. Since that time, plans,
including the countys 2009 General Development Plan, have shifted focus to a transit mixeduse area. The construction of Corporate Center Drive has helped spur that development in
the years since adoption of the BWI/Linthicum Small Area Plan.
Howard County
The Howard County Council adopted PlanHoward 2030 in July 2012 and amended it on
February 4, 2013. Within Howard County, the land use study area falls solely within the
Patapsco Valley State Park. The state of Maryland, which owns this parkland, has no
programmed land use changes.
Baltimore County
The Baltimore County Council adopted the Baltimore County Master Plan 2020 (Baltimore
County Plan) on November 15, 2010. The plan uses the term community enhancement areas
(CEAs) to refer to redevelopment opportunity zones intended to absorb new growth in the
form of mixed-use, compact communities. Although little more than a mile of the project
corridor falls within Baltimore County, the land use study area contains some of these
CEAs. The land use study area consists of a combination of T5 Urban Center and T4 General
Urban land use categories. Although Baltimore County does not have programmed land use
changes for the residential areas around Halethorpe Station, it designates these areas as
community conservation areas (CCAs). The industrial areas south of Halethorpe Station and
adjacent to the project corridor are CEAs. The Baltimore County Plan notes that a CEA
designation does not necessarily mean that a site should convert from its current use, only
that it could be eligible for such redevelopment.
Communities and Major Activity Centers
The land use study area includes several communities that lie within the three jurisdictions
described above, including formalized United States Census-designated places (CDPs),
smaller named communities with informal boundaries, and other major activity centers.
Table 3.2-1 identifies the communities and activity centers that fall within the land use study
area. Figure 3.2-2 shows locations of communities and major activity centers in the project
corridor.
3-16
TABLE 3.2-1: TYPES OF COMMUNITIES/ACTIVITY CENTERS

Community/Activity Center
Type
Odenton
CDP
Fort Meade
CDP and Major activity center (United States Army base)
Severn
CDP
Harmans
Community
Hanover
Community
BWI
Major activity center focused on BWI Airport, with related industrial activities
Linthicum
CDP
Elkridge
CDP
Patapsco
Community
Halethorpe
Community
Arbutus
CDP
Source: United States Census, 2010
Community Facilities
The land use study area contains numerous individual neighborhoods, ranging from large
commercial and mixed-use centers to residential subdivisions. Only two community
facilities are located within a 500-foot potential impact area for the project. An additional
two facilities were located within one-quarter of a mile of the project. All four community
facilities are located in Anne Arundel County. Table 3.2-2lists these facilities. Figures 3.2-3A
and 3.2-3B show the locations of neighborhoods and community facilities.
TABLE 3.2-2: ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Map Key
1
2
3
4
Facility/Service
Full Gospel Pentecostal Church
Severn United Methodist Church
Soccer Dome
MDOT Headquarters
Location
1210 Severn Station Road, Severn
1209, 1214 and 1215 Old Camp Meade Road, Severn
7447 Shipley Avenue, Harmans
7201 Corporate Center Drive, Hanover
Sources: Anne Arundel County ADC Map, 2004; Baltimore County ADC Map, 2000; Google maps 2011; field survey 2011.
3-17
FIGURE 3.2-2: COMMUNITIES AND MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS
3-18
FIGURE 3.2-3A: NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES MAP 1 OF 2
3-19
FIGURE 3.2-3B: NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES MAP 2 OF 2
3-20

The No-Build Alternative would have no effect on existing and future land uses along the
project corridor and no effect on neighborhoods and community facilities. The No-Build
Alternative would have no short-term construction impacts, and no acquisitions or
relocations. It would also not provide the benefits associated with improving Amtrak and
MARC operations in the project corridor.
Build Alternative
The Build Alternative would have few, if any, direct impacts on the existing and future land
uses within the project corridor. The land use and comprehensive plans of the jurisdictions
along the project corridor identify PFAs, CEAs and growth promotion areas (GPAs) that
provide land use planning for both existing and future growth, regardless of the selection of
the No-Build Alternative or the Build Alternative.
The Build Alternative focuses transportation improvements in the areas designated for
future land use development. Approximately 93 percent of the project length falls within
designated PFAs. Through the interagency coordination process, the Maryland Department
of Planning (MDP) has indicated their support for the project. The Interagency Smart
Growth Coordinating Committee approved a PFA exception on July 18, 2012 (Appendix A).
The Build Alternative would have no short-term impacts on land use, neighborhoods or
community facilities due to construction staging activities within the project corridor or at
station sites. Construction activities would not impact the current use of adjacent properties.
Any potential long-term or secondary impacts, due to transit or passenger rail
improvements such as improved operations and a reduction in delays, would generally
occur outside of the land use study area. The fourth track improvements would alleviate
existing operational problems and reduce scheduling conflicts between trains passing
between Grove Interlocking and Winans Interlocking. Since the BWI Rail Station
improvements are consistent with land use plans envisioned for this site, the Build
Alternative would have no adverse impacts.
Land Acquisitions and Relocations
Relocations result from right-of-way acquisitions that require the use of a property occupied
by a residence or business. Partial acquisitions occur when only a portion of an existing
parcel is required and does not result in relocation. Full acquisitions occur when a complete
parcel is required and results in either a residential or a business relocation. Federal and
state laws require that property owners receive fair market value for their land, and that
they have assistance in finding replacement business sites or dwellings. The Build
Alternative requires minimal right-of-way acquisitions, consisting of slivers of land
primarily on the east side of the existing right-of-way, and no full displacements or
relocations of residences or businesses. All land acquisitions and any relocations, if
3-21
necessary, will be completed according to the requirements of the Uniform Relocation

Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970, as amended; Title 49, Part 24 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR Part 24); and all applicable Maryland regulations
and policies.
The Build Alternative requires 10.88 acres of new right-of-way including 0.42 acre from the
west side, 9.51 acres from the east side of the project corridor, and 0.95 acre along Reece
Road. The majority of the new right-of-way would include existing transportation rights-ofway and existing state lands owned by MDOT, the Maryland State Highway
Administration (SHA), the Maryland Aviation Administration (MAA), and the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Near Reece Road, there are three small right-ofway acquisitions from private properties and one small right-of-way acquisition from the
Severn Full Gospel Pentecostal Church.
The right-of-way acquisition from the church property is 852 square feet of land along the
southern rear portion of the church property. The area is partially wooded and partially
cleared. There are no existing or planned improvements in this portion of the church
property. The other proposed right-of-way acquisitions from private properties are
scattered along the length of the project. Table 3.2-3 lists the right-of-way acquisitions based
on preliminary design plans.
TABLE 3.2-3: SUMMARY OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITIONS1
Property Ownership
Right-of-Way
Acquisition Totals
by Ownership Type
(acres)
Number of
Parcels Requiring
Partial Acquisition
Number of
Parcels Requiring
Full Acquisition
Maryland Department of Transportation

Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Maryland State Highway Administration
Maryland Aviation Administration
State of Maryland
Existing Roadway Rights-of-Way
Railroad Owned Properties
County Owned Properties
Privately Owned Properties
Religious Facilities
Other
Total
0.51
0.64
1.83
3.47
0.01
0.25
0.75
0.03
2.31
0.02
1.06
10.88
2
2
4
7
1
7
4
2
23
1
6
59
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Note: 1 Based on Preliminary Design Plans
Final design activities may further reduce right-of-way acquisitions. For example, easements
may limit the need to acquire new rights-of-way for some properties. Temporary easements
on adjacent properties may allow access to existing rail guideways and rights-of-way during
construction activities, and for construction staging and lay-down areas. If necessary, MTA
would obtain these temporary easements for a short time period and return the land to its
original condition prior to easement lease termination.
3-22
3.3
SOCIOECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS,

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDRENS
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS
This section identifies the socioeconomic conditions in the project corridor and describes the
potential impacts of the project on residents, environmental justice populations, businesses
and communities.

Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice (EJ) in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (February 1994), directs federal agencies to promote
nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the
environment, and provide access to minority and low-income communities for public
information on, and an opportunity for public participation in, matters relating to human
health or the environment. The EO directs agencies to use existing laws to ensure that:
They do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin
They identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income communities, and
They provide opportunities for community input during the NEPA process, including
input on potential effects and mitigation measures.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety
Risks (April 21, 1997), the FAA recently revised their policies and procedures for compliance
with NEPA (FAA Order 1050.1E) to include the assessment of environmental health and
safety risks. According to FAA Order 1050.1E, airport development projects may pose
disproportional risks to children including risks to health and safety that are attributable to
products or substances that a child is likely to come in contact with or ingest, such as air,
food, drinking water, recreational waters, soil, or products they might use or be exposed to
(FAA, 2006a).
Definitions of Minority and Low-Income
Revised EJ guidance from the USDOT Order 5610.2(a), Final Environmental Justice Order
(USDOT, 2012) defines minority and low income as follows:
Minority Individual. The United States Census Bureau classifies a minority individual as
belonging to one of the following groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian
American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Black (not of Hispanic Origin) and
Hispanic or Latino.
Minority Population. Any readily identifiable groups of minority persons who live in
geographic proximity and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient
3-23
persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who would be similarly affected
by a proposed USDOT program, policy, or activity.
Low-Income Individual. A person whose household income is at, or below, the United
States Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines.
Low-income Population. Any readily identifiable group of low-income persons who live
in geographic proximity and, if circumstances warrant, geographically
dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who would
be similarly affected by a proposed USDOT program, policy, or activity.
Identifying Minority and Low-Income Populations in the Project Corridor
As a tool for evaluating the proportionality of impacts and benefits, this analysis identified
EJ areas and non-EJ areas within the project corridor. The term non-EJ area does not
imply the absence of EJ populations living in the project corridor; rather, a non-EJ area is an
area where there is no potential for disproportionate impacts on EJ populations. An EJ
area includes any census block group in which the minority or low-income population
meets either of the following thresholds:
The minority or low-income population in the census block group exceeds 50 percent, or
The percentage of a minority or low-income population in the affected area is
meaningfully greater than the percentage of minority population in the general
population
This analysis defined meaningfully greater as a census block group in which the
percentage of minority or low-income residents was at least 10 percentage points or more
than the corresponding percentage in the surrounding jurisdiction (Anne Arundel County,
Baltimore County and Howard County, as appropriate) within the project corridor.
This analysis used thresholds for identifying EJ areas based on the CEQ guidance document,
Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ, 1997). In
2010, the United States Census Bureau did not collect income data so MTA used the 2011
American Community Survey (ACS) Five-Year Estimates to determine the presence of lowincome populations. The block group level is the smallest available census data level
included in the 2011 ACS Five-Year Estimates and is the most current income data level
available.
A block group is a sub-division of a census tract, and one of the smallest geographic areas
for which the United States Census Bureau tabulates population data. For comparison
purposes, the analysis used data reported at the block group level to analyze both minority
and low-income populations to provide a comparative data set for analysis. The 2011 ACS
Five-Year Estimates determined that 27 percent, 36.6 percent and 39.8 percent of the
residents in Anne Arundel County, Baltimore County and Howard County were minority
populations. In addition, 5.5 percent, 8.2 percent and 4.5 percent of the total population that
lived in Anne Arundel County, Baltimore County and Howard County lived below the
3-24
poverty line, respectively. Figure 3.3-1 illustrates the location of the block groups in the
project corridor.
Environmental Justice Study Area
The EJ study area spans Anne Arundel County, Baltimore County, and includes a very
small part of Howard County, all within the state of Maryland. The EJ study area includes
all or parts of 20 block groups. Two block groups, 9800.00 block group 1, the BWI Airport
property and 9802.00 block group 1, site of an industrial park and part of Patapsco Valley
State Park, do not contain any populations. Figure 3.3-1 presents the EJ areas and non-EJ
areas within the EJ study area, and illustrates the 1,000-foot potential impact area beyond
the projects limits of disturbance. The analysis used this impact area to estimate potential
impacts on EJ populations.

Socioeconomics
Section 3.2, Land Use, Neighborhoods, and Community Facilities describes the communities
bordering the project corridor. Land development has increased in the project corridor.
Recent suburban development in the southern portion of the project corridor includes
development near Arundel Mills Mall, continued development of the Seven Oaks subdivision and a new sub-division, Buckingham Place, located along MD 170. The vicinity of
Winans Interlocking contains older suburban developments and a less developed area
around the BWI Rail Station area, characterized by wetlands and other open space.
According to the 2011 ACS Five-Year Estimates, block groups in the EJ study area contain
30,921 people. This represents 4.1 percent of the Anne Arundel County population, less than
one percent of the Baltimore County population, and less than one percent of the Howard
County population (see Table 3.3-1).
TABLE 3.3-1: POPULATION
Total Population
Population within the

EJ Study Area
Percent of Population
within the EJ Study Area
Anne Arundel County
532,369
21,935
4.1%
Baltimore County
802,487
6,712
0.8%
Howard County
283,655
2,274
0.8%
1,618,511
30,921
1.9%
Jurisdiction
Total
Source: United States Census Bureau 2011 ACS Five-Year Estimates
Environmental Justice Populations

The total population in the EJ study area is 30,921 persons, with 14,222 of these persons (46
percent) identifying themselves as minorities and 871 persons (7.9 percent) meeting the
definition of low-income. Tables 3.3-2 and 3.3-3 present a summary of population data
including the percentages for minority and low-income persons. The percentage of minority
3-25
persons (46 percent) in the EJ study area is slightly higher than the countywide average of
Baltimore County (36.6 percent) and Howard County (39.8 percent), and is much higher
than Anne Arundel County (27 percent). The block groups in the EJ study area contained a
percentage of low-income persons (7.9 percent), which is higher than the countywide
average of Anne Arundel (5.5 percent) and Howard County (4.5 percent), and lower than
Baltimore County (8.2 percent). The percentage of low-income persons ranged from 0 to 29.2
percent in the EJ study area.
TABLE 3.3-2: BLOCK GROUPS MEETING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CRITERIA
Total Number of
Block Groups within
EJ Study Area
Minority Only
Block Groups
Low-Income Only
Block Groups
Both Minority &

Low-Income
Block Groups
Anne Arundel County
13
Baltimore County
Howard County
Total
20
Jurisdiction
Source: United States Census Bureau 2011 ACS Five-Year Estimates
TABLE 3.3-3: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POPULATIONS
32
Percentage of
Persons
Below
Poverty Level
3.7%
62.4%
74
10.1%
88.3%
121
13.0%
87.7%
138
14.8%
Total
Block Group
Population
Total
Minority
Population1
7401.03 BG 2
2,746
1,239
45.1%
7401.04 BG 2
1,856
1,158
7401.04 BG 3
2,376
2,099
7401.05 BG 1
2,999
2,630
Block Groups
within EJ Study Area
Percentage
Minority
Population*
Persons
Below Poverty
Level
7401.05 BG 2
546
469
85.9%
12
5.7%
7403.03 BG 1
2,251
799
35.5%
38
4.4%
7403.03 BG 2
1,888
711
37.7%
19
3.0%
7403.04 BG 1
2,594
1,086
41.9%
94
8.6%
7403.05 BG 4
2,458
1,696
69.0%
1.3%
7512.00 BG 3
366
63
17.2%
45
29.2%
7514.00 BG 1
1,013
241
23.8%
0.0%
7514.00 BG 2
842
62
7.4%
0.0%
9800.00 BG 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4304.00 BG 2
1,563
269
17.2%
67
11.4%
4304.00 BG 3
2,076
639
30.8%
120
16.4%
4306.00 BG 1
1,574
295
18.7%
18
2.8%
4306.00 BG 2
755
44
5.8%
33
11.8%
4307.00 BG 1
744
75
10.1%
13
4.1%
9802.00 BG 1
0.0%
0.0%
2,274
647
28.5%
38
5.7%
30,921
14,222
46.0%
871
7.9%
6012.01 BG 4
Project Area Totals
3-26
Block Groups
within EJ Study Area
Total
Block Group
Population
Total
Minority
Population1
Percentage
Minority
Population*
Persons
Below Poverty
Level
Percentage of
Persons
Below
Poverty Level
Anne Arundel County

Totals
532,369
143,996
27.0%
28,221
5.5%
Baltimore County Totals
802,487
293,966
36.6%
63,950
8.2%
Howard County Totals
283,655
112,773
39.8%
12,624
4.5%
Source: United States Census Bureau 2011 ACS Five-Year Estimates (poverty data)
1
Notes: Includes Black Not of Hispanic Origin, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Other Race, and
Two or More Races N/A means Not Applicable
Of the 20 block groups in the EJ study area, five block groups contain minority populations
of 50 percent or more (7401.04 block group 2; 7401.04 block group 3; 7401.05 block group 1;
7401.05 block group 2; and 7403.05 block group 4). No block groups contained low-income
populations of 50 percent or more. Table 3.3-4 and Figure 3.3-1 present the block groups that
meet or exceed the EJ thresholds. The analysis identified nine out of 20 block groups in the
EJ study area as minority and/or low-income areas using the meaningfully greater
threshold criteria for the presence of a minority population or a low-income population.
MTA considered these nine locations EJ areas for the purposes of the impact analysis.
TABLE 3.3-4: BLOCK GROUPS MEETING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE THRESHOLDS
Census Block Group
7401.03 BG 2
Minority
Meets
Meets
First Threshold1
Second Threshold2
No
Yes
Poverty
Meets
First Threshold1
No
Meets
Second Threshold2
No
7401.04 BG 2
Yes
Yes
No
No
7401.04 BG 3
Yes
Yes
No
No
7401.05 BG 1
Yes
Yes
No
No
7401.05 BG 2
Yes
Yes
No
No
7403.03 BG 1
No
No
No
No
7403.03 BG 2
No
Yes
No
No
7403.04 BG 1
No
Yes
No
No
7403.05 BG 4
Yes
Yes
No
No
7512.00 BG 3
No
No
No
Yes
7514.00 BG 1
No
No
No
No
7514.00 BG 2
No
No
No
No
9800.00 BG 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4304.00 BG 2
No
No
No
No
4304.00 BG 3
No
No
No
No
4306.00 BG 1
No
No
No
No
4306.00 BG 2
No
No
No
No
4307.00 BG 1
No
No
No
No
9802.00 BG 1
No
No
No
No
6012.01 BG 4
No
No
No
No
Notes: 1Percentage of minority or low-income residents more than 50 percent of block group total population
2
Percentage of minority or low-income residents more than 10 percentage points of the corresponding jurisdiction total
N/A means Not Applicable
3-27
FIGURE 3.3-1: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES
3-28

Current and future operations at the BWI Rail Station are not associated with any known
source that would adversely impact the health or safety of children.
The evaluation of potential impacts on EJ populations conforms to the requirements of EO
12898, United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Order 5610.2(a), the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 64
CFR 28550. The EJ guidance also informs the design of community outreach activities (refer
to Chapter 5, Public Involvement, Agency Coordination and Permits Required).
The No-Build Alternative would have no effect on EJ populations. The No-Build Alternative
would have no short-term construction impacts, and no acquisitions or relocations. It would
also not provide the benefits associated with improving Amtrak/MARC operations in the
project corridor.
Build Alternative
As described in Chapter 2, Description of Project and Alternatives Considered, and Section
3.2 Land Use, Neighborhoods and Community Facilities, the Build Alternative would not
have direct or indirect effects on land use, neighborhoods, or community facilities. The
Build Alternative would improve rail operations but would not create new jobs. While
several partial acquisitions would be required, no acquisition, relocation, or construction of
residences or businesses would be required. The Build Alternative would not impact
population growth trends.
Executive Order 12898 requires all federal agencies to develop an agency-wide
environmental justice strategy that identifies and addresses disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations. The USDOT Order 5610.2(a)
incorporates the intent and spirit of EO 12898 and provides the framework for EJ analysis as
part of a NEPA effort.
The USDOT has defined a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and
low-income populations as an adverse effect that:
Is predominantly borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population, or
Will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is
appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be
suffered by the nonminority population and/or non low-income population
The analysis considered two additional Executive Orders for the identification of tools to
reach EJ populations and to determine potential adverse effects. These include EO 13166,
Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency and EO 13045,
3-29
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks. Executive Order 13166 assists with the
identification of EJ populations and EO 13045 is important when conducting the evaluation
of impacts to EJ populations. The EJ analysis included the review of the air quality, noise
and vibration, hazardous materials, visual and traffic and transportation studies for the
project and a determination of the potential for disproportionate and adverse effects on EJ
populations.
For the purposes of the EJ analysis and disproportionate impacts determination, MTA
considered the potential environmental consequences of the project in order to determine
whether there would be disproportionately high and adverse effects on EJ populations. The
EJ areas are primarily located to the west of the existing project corridor. However, there are
three EJ areas located to the east of the project corridor. The greatest extent of project
activities (such as installation of new fourth track and relocation of catenary and signal
towers) would occur within the project corridor, along the east side of the existing rail line.
The Build Alternative is not expected to cause adverse noise and vibration, air quality,
hazardous materials, visual or traffic and transportation effects to EJ and non-EJ
populations. There would be no adverse effects to any populations in the project corridor,
including EJ populations. Therefore, the Build Alternative would not have a
disproportionate impact on EJ populations.
3.3.4 Environmental Justice and the Public Involvement Process

Full and fair access to meaningful involvement by low-income and minority populations in
project planning and development is an important aspect of environmental justice.
Meaningful involvement means that MTA invited participation from those groups typically
under-represented, throughout all the stages of project development. The timely outreach to
populations in the project corridor would legally satisfy the EJ criteria outlined in EO 12898.
Section 5-5 (d) of EO 12898 describes how to accomplish this goal by directing federal
agencies to:
Hold public meetings, as appropriate, for the purpose of fact-finding, receiving public
comments, and conducting inquiries concerning environmental justice; and
Prepare for public review a summary of the comments and recommendations discussed
at the public meetings.
It is important to inform EJ populations of the project development process and listen to
their feedback. The MTA uses this information in the design and evaluation of alternatives,
to avoid negative impacts to valued sites, and to support the development of safe, practical,
and attractive transportation options that are responsive to the concerns of EJ populations.
3-30
3.4
AIR QUALITY
This section summarizes the existing and future air quality conditions in the project corridor
and describes the potential impacts of the project.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the federal agency with
primary responsibility for implementation of the Clean Air Act (CAA). CAA, enacted in
1970 and substantially amended in 1990 (EPA, 2010a), serves as the primary framework for
federal air quality regulation, standards and guidance, and related research activities. For
regulatory purposes, air pollutants can be divided into those for which distinct,
concentration-based health-based exposure criteria have been developed (criteria air
pollutants) and others (often referred to as air toxics) for which exposure is typically
evaluated relative to units of cancer or non-cancer health risk (EPA, 2010b)(EPA, 2010c).
Health effects of criteria air pollutants most commonly include acute and/or chronic
respiratory and cardiac symptoms, but for some pollutants can also include adverse effects
to kidneys and reproductive, developmental and other physiological systems. The National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are federal standards for criteria air pollutants.
Table 3.4-1 lists the current NAAQS for the key criteria air pollutants.
TABLE 3.4-1: NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (PRIMARY)
Pollutant
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Lead (Pb)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Ozone (O3)
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Particulate Matter (PM10)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Level
Averaging Time
9 ppm
8-hour
35 ppm
1-hour
0.15 /m3 1
Rolling 3-Month Average
53 ppb
Annual (Arithmetic Average)
100 ppb
1-hour
0.075 ppm 3
8-hour
12 g
/m3
Annual (Arithmetic Average)
35 g
/m3
24-hour
150 g/m3
24-hour
75 ppb 4
1-hour
Source: EPA, 2011a

Notes: 1Final rule signed October 15, 2008. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 g/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until 1year after
an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978, the 1978 standard remains in
effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.
2This table shows the official level of the annual NO standard as 0.053 ppm, equal to 53 ppb, for the purpose of clearer comparison to
2
the 1-hour standard.
3
Final rule signed March 12, 2008. The 1997 ozone standard (0.08 ppm, annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration,
averaged over three years) and related implementation rules remain in place. In 1997, EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard (0.12 ppm,
not to be exceeded more than once per year) in all areas, although some areas have continued obligations under that standard (antibacksliding). The 1-hour ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average
concentrations above 0.12 ppm is less than or equal to 1.
4Final rule signed June 2, 2010. EPA revoked the 1971 annual and 24-hour SO standards in that same rulemaking. However, these
2
standards remain in effect until a year after EPA would designate an area for the 2010 standard, except for those areas that EPA
designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, where the 1971 standards remain in effect until EPA approves implementation plans to
attain or maintain the 2010 standard.
3-31
EPA classifies regions of the country with respect to their attainment, or the extent of their
nonattainment, of the NAAQS. Attainment designations for each pollutant are associated
with these specifically-defined geographic areas. Table 3.4-2 lists the corresponding
designations within Maryland.
Figure 3.4-1 (FHWA, 2005) shows the ozone areas within the regions surrounding the
project. Areas previously designated as nonattainment for a given NAAQS, and that EPA
re-designated to attainment, are maintenance areas for that pollutant. A plan for
maintaining compliance with the NAAQS must accompany the attainment re-designation
request for 10 years. A second maintenance plan must be prepared within eight years of the
re-designation demonstrating a further 10 years of attainment.
TABLE 3.4-2: MARYLAND AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT STATUS1
Pollutant
Averaging Time
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
8-hour (1985 standard)
Lead (Pb)
Rolling 3-month Average (2008 standard)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Annual (1985 standard)
Ozone (O3)
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Particulate Matter (PM10)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Standard
Concentration
Attainment
Status
9 ppm
0.15 g/m3
53 ppb
1-hour (1997 standard revoked)
0.12 ppm
0.08 ppm
35 g/m3
15
g/m3
150
g/m3
Annual (1997 standard revoked)
50 g/m3
140 ppb
30 ppb
500 ppb
Source: Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), 2012

Notes: 1In many cases, attainment designations have not been finalized with respect to the most recent NAAQS revisions, but have been
established (and remain in effect) for previous versions of the NAAQS. This is why values under the Standard Concentration column of
this table do not always match the corresponding values under the Level column in Table 3.4-1.
A = Attainment; M = Maintenance; N = Nonattainment; U = Unclassifiable; ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million;
mg/m3 = milligram per cubic meter; g/m3 = microgram per cubic meter.
States submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to EPA describing how each nonattainment
area within their boundaries will attain and maintain the NAAQS. Table 3.4-3 lists relevant
SIPs that include adopted regional attainment and maintenance plans. New or revised
NAAQS may accompany new ambient air monitoring requirements. EPA typically adopts
NAAQS with specific target dates for rendering attainment designations and for subsequent
submittal of SIP revisions for states containing nonattainment areas.
3-32
FIGURE 3.4-1: NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS WITHIN THE REGION
3-33
TABLE 3.4-3: KEY BALTIMORE-AREA AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT/

MAINTENANCE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Plan Name
NAAQS
Addressed In Plan
Key
Year
Planning
Significance
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Maintenance Plan for the Baltimore Carbon

Monoxide Attainment Area (SIP Revision 03-14,
December 15, 2003)
9 ppm, 8-hour
2015
Maintenance
demonstrated through
indicated year
Ozone (O3)
Baltimore Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone

State Implementation Plan and Base Year
Inventory (SIP Number: 07-04, June 15, 2007)
0.08 ppm
2009
Targeted attainment
year 1
2009
Targeted attainment
year 2
Pollutant
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Baltimore Nonattainment Area PM2.5 State

Implementation Plan and Base Year Inventory
(SIP Number: 08-04, March 24, 2008)
(1997 standard)
8-hour
15.0 g/m3, Annual
65 g/m3, 24-hour
Sources: MDE, 2003; MDE, 2007; MDE, 2008

Notes: 1To date, the Baltimore Nonattainment Area has not attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Submittal of the Baltimore Serious Nonattainment
Area 0.08 ppm 8-hour Ozone State Implementation Plan: Demonstrating Rate of Progress for 2008, 2011 and 2012 Revision to 2002 Base Year
Emissions; and Serious Area Attainment Demonstration (SIP Number 13-07) on June 17, 2013. 2MDE submitted a Baltimore Nonattainment Area PM2.5
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan (SIP Number: 13-10) on May 28, 2013.
At one time, EPA designated an area within the Baltimore City Central Business District (CBD)
as nonattainment for the CO NAAQS; however, the CBD is now a CO maintenance area (MDE,
2003). For lead, EPA issued final attainment designations for a revised standard in November of
2011 (EPA, 2011b). All counties within Maryland were designated as unclassifiable/attainment
with respect to the revised lead NAAQS. For NO2, EPA intended to render initial attainment
designations for the new 1-hour standard by the end of January 2012 (Wicher, 2012) and to redesignate areas, as appropriate, in 2016 and 2017 once the NO2 monitoring network had been
expanded and data from the network was sufficient to support refined designations (EPA,
2011c). Measurement data at the states current NO2 monitoring sites have remained below the
applicable threshold. Accordingly, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)
anticipates that all counties in the state will remain in an unclassifiable/attainment status
pending assessment of data collected from the expanded monitoring network (Hug, 2012).
Furthermore, MDE anticipated that the Baltimore ozone nonattainment area (bordered by a
dotted red line in Figure 3.4-1) will be reclassified from moderate to serious nonattainment with
respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA is proceeding with its implementation of a 2008
NAAQS revision of the 8-hour ozone standard pending reconsideration of this revised
standard. In December 2011, EPA concurred with the states recommendation of areas to be
designated as nonattainment with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS (EPA, 2011d). The agreedupon nonattainment counties are the same as those designated as nonattainment with respect to
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
On December 16, 2014, EPA published a Final Rule that requested redesignation of the
Baltimore Maryland non-attainment area to attainment status for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The
EPA designated the entire state as attainment with respect to the 2006 revision of the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. All of Maryland is also in attainment for both the 1996 SO2 NAAQS (since
3-34
updated) and the 1987 24-hour average PM10 standard (still current). EPA published guidance
in April 2014 to assist air agencies with implementing the 2010 1-hour NAAQS for SO2 in areas
designated as nonattainment for the standard (EPA, 2014).
To address the potential for individual federal actions to interfere with a states plans to meet
NAAQS, EPA promulgates conformity rules. The Transportation Conformity Rule applies to
transportation plans, transportation improvement programs (TIPs), and projects funded or
approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA). The General Conformity Rule (EPA, 2010d) applies to other categories of
federal actions, including projects funded or approved by FRA and FAA. For non-exempt
federal actions falling under the General Conformity Rule, the applicable regulations establish
emission thresholds (de minimis thresholds), below which conformity determinations are not
required. For the purposes of general conformity, EPA considers these increases as minimal.
Table 3.4-4 shows the applicable thresholds that are consistent with the air quality attainment
status for Maryland.
TABLE 3.4-4: DE MINIMIS EMISSION LEVELS FOR
GENERAL CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY
Pollutant
Emissions Component or
Precursor Pollutant
Area Characteristics
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Maintenance areas
N/A
Ozone
(O3)
Serious nonattainment areas
VOC
Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)
NOx
Maintenance areas
Direct emissions
SO2
Threshold
(tons/year)
100
50
501
100
100
NOx (unless determined not to be

a major precursor)
100
VOC or ammonia (if determined to

be major precursors)
100
Source: EPA, 2006

Notes: Nitric Oxide (NOx); VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds); SO2 (Sulfur Dioxide)
The state of Maryland administers a number of air pollution control programs. These address
various mobile, area-wide, and stationary air pollutant sources. The Maryland Healthy Air Act
(HAA), as implemented by the Clean Power Rule (CPR), intended to reduce emissions of NO2
and SO2 from the states coal-fired power plants (MDE, 2006).
Air toxics, also referred to as toxic air pollutants, are those pollutants that are known or
suspected to cause cancer and/or other serious health effects (e.g., reproductive effects or birth
defects) or have adverse environmental effects (EPA, 2009). Examples of toxic air pollutants
include benzene, present in gasoline, and diesel particulate matter (DPM), a byproduct of diesel
exhaust. Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including mobile sources (e.g.,
cars, trucks, mobile construction equipment and locomotives) and stationary sources (e.g.,
factories, refineries, and power plants), as well as indoor sources (e.g., some building materials
3-35
and cleaning solvents). Natural sources, such as volcanic eruptions and forest fires, also release
air toxics. The potential health effects of air toxics can include cancer; chronic eye, lung, or skin
irritation; neurological and reproductive disorders; and birth defects.
The most comprehensive federal regulatory framework for control of air toxics is based on the
list of regulated Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) maintained by EPA. The CAA includes
numerous provisions related to HAPs. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPs) are stationary source standards for hazardous air pollutants. NESHAPs
regulate the emissions of seven HAPs, including mercury. Maryland implements NESHAPs
through Code of Maryland Regulations 26.11.15 (Toxic Air Pollutants). EPA recently adopted
NESHAPs to limit the emissions of mercury compounds and other air toxics from coal- and oilfired power plants (EPA, 2011e). Marylands HAA and CPR also address mercury emissions.

When air pollutants are emitted, the dispersion of the pollutants, (in some cases) the chemical
reactions that occur after emission, and the exposure of receptors to pollutant concentrations
ultimately lead to, and determine, the impacts of those emissions on the surrounding
environment. These factors are sensitive to specific spatial relationships between pollutants and
receptors; emission quantities by themselves do not capture such information. However, EPA
can evaluate emissions for each of several categories of air pollutant sources separately.
The most recent comprehensive statewide emissions inventory available from EPA is for a base
year of 2008 (EPA, 2008). In that year, sources in the project vicinity (comprising Baltimore
County and Anne Arundel and Howard Counties) accounted for about one-quarter to one-third
of total statewide emissions of the considered pollutants (selected criteria air pollutants and/or
their precursors). Statewide, fuel combustion at electrical utility facilities accounted for the vast
majority of estimated emissions of SO2 and for a substantial proportion of NOx and direct PM2.5
emissions. On-road motor vehicles represented a major source of CO, NOx and VOC emissions.
Non-road diesel-powered vehicles and mobile equipment contributed primarily to emissions of
NOx and PM2.5. Fugitive dust is an important source of PM2.5 emissions, although it is
proportionally a larger contributor to total PM10 emissions.
Some criteria air pollutants are of greater concern on a localized rather than regional basis.
Carbon monoxide (CO) is such a pollutant. CO is a pollutant directly emitted into the
atmosphere from exhausts of gasoline-powered internal combustion engines (e.g., motor
vehicles, lawnmowers, etc.). Congested conditions at high-volume roadway intersections result
in locally elevated levels of CO, particularly under certain atmospheric conditions. The
Baltimore area attained the federal CO standard in the 1990s and EPA has subsequently
designated it as a maintenance area. In the meantime, CO emission rates for the on-road vehicle
fleet have decreased dramatically and, despite increases in motor vehicle travel, monitored CO
concentrations have shown a downward trend.
3-36
Air pollutant emissions directly or indirectly influence criteria air pollutant concentrations.
Table 3.4-5 summarizes concentrations of key criteria air pollutants for the last three years for
which complete annual data are available. This table shows that the city of Baltimore
maintenance area has not recently exceeded or approached the applicable CO NAAQS. NO2
concentration data recently collected at existing monitoring stations within Baltimore City and
Baltimore County (the only stations in Maryland for which NO2 data are currently available
from EPA) have remained below the most recent 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.
However, ozone concentrations measured within Anne Arundel County and elsewhere within
the Baltimore Serious Ozone Nonattainment Area have exceeded the corresponding 1997 and
2008 NAAQS, consistent with the areas continued nonattainment status. Since the Baltimore
area has attained the PM2.5 NAAQS standard, EPA approved Marylands request to redesignate the non-attainment area for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS to attainment status on
December 16, 2014. The Baltimore area includes Baltimore City, and Anne Arundel, Baltimore,
Carroll, Harford and Howard counties. PM10 concentrations monitored within Anne Arundel
County and across the state of Maryland have remained well below applicable attainment
thresholds.

With or without the project, the demand for passenger rail service will continue to grow in the
future. Construction of physical improvements recommended in the MARC Plan Update,
including those associated with the project, would result in temporary, construction-related air
pollutant emissions impacts.
The No-Build Alternative would have no short-term construction impacts, and no acquisitions
or relocations. It would also not provide the benefits associated with improving Amtrak or
MARC operations in the project corridor.
Build Alternative
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Project construction activities would emit air pollutants leading to temporary impacts at the
BWI Rail Station and other locations along the project corridor.
Table 3.4-6 demonstrates that project construction activities would generate criteria air pollutant
emissions well below the corresponding general conformity de minimis thresholds. Construction
of the project would be consistent with the SIP. Nevertheless, MTA and FRA will consider
reasonable mitigation measures including dust suppression, proper equipment maintenance
and tuning, and appropriate placement of stationary internal-combustion-powered equipment.
3-37
TABLE 3.4-5: CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT MONITORING DATA

Pollutant
CO
Averaging
Period
1-hour
8-hour
NO2
Ozone
1-hour
8-hour
Context
Parameter
24-hour
PM10
24-hour
2010
20111
Max. Concentration (ppm) for

Second Highest Day
City of Baltimore
Maintenance Area

Second Highest Day
> NAAQS (35 ppm)
Oldtown Fire Station,

City of Baltimore
Max. Concentration (ppm)
City of Baltimore
Maintenance Area
Max. Concentration (ppm)
> NAAQS (9 ppm)

City of Baltimore
98th Percentile Concentration

(ppb)
59
61
54
Statewide

(ppb)
59
61
54
> NAAQS (100 ppb)
Davidsonville
Recreation Center,
Anne Arundel County

Fourth Highest Day
0.070
0.087
0.087
Baltimore Ozone
Nonattainment Area

Fourth Highest Day
0.083
0.096
0.098
> 2008 NAAQS (0.075 ppm)
Anne Arundel Co.

Public Works Bldg.,
Glen Burnie

(g/m3)
25
28
25
Baltimore PM2.5
Nonattainment Area

(g/m3)
31
32
29
> 1997 NAAQS (65 g/m3)
> 2006 NAAQS (35

Annual
Mean
2009

City of Baltimore
> 1997 NAAQS (0.08 ppm,

effectively 0.084 ppm)
PM2.5
Value
Anne Arundel Co.

Public Works Bldg.
Concentration (g/m3)
11.1
11.0
10.9
Baltimore PM2.5
Nonattainment Area
Concentration (g/m3)
12.1
12.7
12.9
Anne Arundel Co.

Public Works Bldg.
Concentration (g/m3) for

Second Highest Day
36
45
24
Statewide
Concentration (g/m3) for

Second Highest Day
37
46
37
> NAAQS (150 g/m3)
> NAAQS (15
g/m3)
g/m3)
Source: EPA, 2012

1
Note: Annual statistics for 2011 are not final until May 1, 2012
3-38
TABLE 3.4-6: PREDICTED CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS

RELATED TO PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
Predicted Emissions (tons/year) by Pollutant
Analysis
Year
2012
2013
Project Component
VOC
NOx
CO
PM2.5
Station and Fourth Track
0.6
6.4
3.5
0.5
> Threshold
No
No
No
No
Station and Fourth Track
2.5
21.4
17.5
1.8
> Threshold
No
No
No
No
50
100
100
100
De Minimis Thresholds (tons/year)

Source: Parsons, 2011
Long-Term Operational Impacts

The Build Alternative is one of numerous planned and proposed projects intended to respond
to predicted increased demand for Amtrak and MARC service in the region. Individually, this
project would not change rail operations in a manner that would substantially influence air
pollutant emissions. Collectively, all of the planned rail improvement projects within the NEC
would enhance passenger rail service as an alternative to using the roadway network for
portions of passenger trips.
Growth in the frequency of electrified passenger rail service leads to corresponding increases in
electricity demand and, ultimately, associated growth in electricity generation. Much of the
power demand would occur from residential, commercial, industrial and transportation uses,
which contribute to air pollutant emissions. However, enhanced passenger rail service would
likely accommodate increased substitution of rail trips for motor vehicle trips. Resulting
reductions in motor vehicle emissions, due to fewer trips and small decreases in congestion
along competing roadway corridors, would reduce regional emissions of air pollutants from onroad vehicles. On a regional basis, this decrease in motor vehicle emissions would outweigh
increased emissions associated with marginal changes in power generation to accommodate
enhanced rail service.
3.5
NOISE AND VIBRATION
This section identifies the noise and vibration conditions in the project corridor and describes
the potential impacts of the project. It presents potential long-term changes in noise and
vibration conditions in the project corridor based on the operation of both conventional and
high-speed commuter rail service. This section also describes the short-term impacts of the
construction of the project.
3-39
3.5.1 Noise and Vibration

Noise
Measurements of noise, otherwise known as unwanted sound, use a logarithmic unit called a
decibel (dB). Noises contain sound energy at different frequencies whose range depends on the
individual noise source. Human hearing does not register the sound levels of all noise
frequencies equally and reduces the impression of high and low-pitched sounds. To replicate
the response of the human ear to noise, a noise analyst measures noise levels at different
frequencies using a process referred to as A-weighting. The noise level resulting from this
process is an A-weighted sound level, commonly expressed as dBA, and measures the relative
loudness of noise perceived by the human ear.
Noise levels from human activities at a specific location can vary widely over time. As a result,
the equivalent noise level (Leq) represents the time-varied noise levels produced over a period
of time as one number; the most common time period is 1-hour, represented as Leq (h). The
noise analyst commonly uses this descriptor to express the results from noise monitoring,
predictions and impact assessments at sensitive receptors where sleep is not an issue.
At sensitive receptors where sleep is essential, such as residences and hospitals, the descriptor
most often used in noise analyses is the day-night average sound level (Ldn). The Ldn adds
more weight to noises made during late night hours, as people tend to be more sensitive to
noises during these hours.
Several factors affect rail noise including the distance between the noise source to the receptor,
and the terrain between a receptor and a noise source. In this project, engine noise, wheel/rail
interaction, auxiliary equipment, and aerodynamic effects (Acela Express trains only) would
generate noise.
Vibration
Vibration, transmitted from rail movement on the tracks through the ground to adjacent
vibration-sensitive buildings, is an important consideration for rail transit projects. Occupants
of nearby buildings may notice the vibration, which arises from the movement of the train
wheels on the track. Ground-borne vibration can cause windows, pictures on walls or items on
shelves to rattle. Similar to noise, decibel units measure ground-borne vibration. However, to
avoid confusion with sound decibels, this chapter uses the abbreviation VdB for vibration
decibels.
For the project, sources of vibration would be mostly limited to the movement of train wheels
on the track. Additional temporary sources of vibration could come from construction
equipment, depending upon the activity involved.
Noise Impact Criteria
With respect to both conventional trains and high-speed rail noise, FRA has adopted FTA
criteria (FTA, 2006) to assess potential impacts of rail projects (Figure 3.5-1).
3-40
These criteria organize noise-sensitive land uses into the following three categories:
Category 1. Buildings or parks where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose
Category 2. Residences and buildings where people normally sleep
Category 3. Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use
The assessment of land use categories 1 and 3 use the Leq noise descriptor, while land use
category 2 properties use the Ldn descriptor. FTA guidance categorizes noise impacts as either
moderate impacts or severe impacts.
Vibration Impact Criteria
FRA has adopted FTA vibration criteria, as based on the maximum ground vibration caused by
a typical rail vehicle pass-by. Similar to FTA noise criteria, FTA vibration criteria use three land
use categories, with the only distinction that outdoor spaces are not included as a category.
FIGURE 3.5-1: ALLOWABLE TRANSIT NOISE INCREASES
Sources:
FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006

FRA, High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, October 2005
Table 3.5-1 shows FTA impact criteria for ground-borne vibration from conventional and highspeed rail transit systems. For residential buildings (category 2), the threshold applicable to this
project is 72 VdB. The applicable threshold for institutional uses (category 3) is 75 VdB. MTA
did not identify any category 1 land uses along the project corridor.
3-41
TABLE 3.5-1: GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION (GBV) AND

GROUND-BORNE NOISE (GBN) IMPACT CRITERIA FOR GENERAL ASSESSMENT
Land Use
Category
GBV Impact Levels

(VdB re: 1 micro-inch / sec)
GBN Impact Levels

(dB re: 20 micro Pascals/ sec)
Frequent
Events 1
Occasional
Events 2
Infrequent
Events 3
Frequent
Events 2
Occasional
Events 3
Infrequent
Events 4
Category 1: Buildings
where vibration would
interfere with interior
operations
65 VdB
65 VdB
65 VdB
NA 4
NA 4
NA 4
Category 2: Residences
and buildings where people
normally sleep
72 VdB
75 VdB
80 VdB
35 dBA
38 dBA
43 dBA
Category 3: Institutional
land uses with primary
daytime use
75 VdB
78 VdB
83 VdB
40 dBA
43 dBA
48 dBA
Source:
FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006.

FRA, High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, October 2005.
Notes: 1Definition of frequent events includes more than 70 vibration events per day. (Applies to high-speed and conventional rail)
2
Definition of occasional events includes between 30 and 70 vibration events per day (Only applies to conventional rail)
3
Definition of infrequent events includes less than 30 vibration events per day. (Applies to conventional rail only. For high-speed rail,
infrequent events is defined as less than 70 vibration events per day)
4
N/A means not applicable. Vibration-sensitive equipment is not sensitive to ground-borne noise
Because the project would not directly result in new service or an increase in existing service, in
order to determine future impacts, the assessment procedure considered whether existing
vibration conditions would exceed the FTA impact criteria. In addition, since the project would
occur within a corridor that contains both conventional and high-speed rail trains, which
typically operate within two different speed ranges, MTA used separate vibration prediction
methodologies for the two train types.
Based on methodology contained within the FTA guidance, MTA performed two separate
assessments for each train type for both the existing and future conditions. If the results of the
vibration assessment for existing conditions were to indicate that there is an existing vibration
impact, then vibration impacts related to the future-project condition would occur when the
predicted future vibration level exceeds the existing vibration level by 3 VdB or more.
Otherwise, the project impact would be determined based on a direct comparison of the project
vibration level to the relevant vibration impact criteria for either conventional trains or highspeed rail.
For residential buildings (category 2), the impact threshold applicable to this project is 72 VdB
for conventional trains under the frequent events category, and 80 Vdb for high-speed rail
under the infrequent events category. The applicable impact threshold for institutional uses
3-42
(category 3) is 75 VdB for conventional trains under the frequent events category, and 83 VdB
for high-speed rail under the infrequent events category.

Regulatory Context and Methodology
The section summarizes the methodology and findings contained within the BWI Rail Station
Improvements and Fourth Track Noise and Vibration Technical Report (2011). It presents findings in
accordance with NEPA requirements and FRAs Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts
(1999 and 2013) found in 64 Federal Register (FR) 28545. The assessment of noise and vibration
followed FTA guidelines, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006) and FRA
guidelines, HighSpeed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2005).
The evaluation methodology included the following steps:
Identify representative noise and vibration-sensitive receptors (consisting of residential uses
and an active use public recreation area). Figures 3.5-2A and 3.5-2B show the noise
monitoring locations.
Determine existing noise levels through the measurement of both short-term (1-hour) and
long-term (24-hour) noise levels. Tables 3.5-2 and 3.5-3 show the noise monitoring results.
Eliminate noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors, in accordance with FTA and FRA noise
and vibration distance screening procedures, if they were too distant from the corridor to
experience impacts from the project.
Predict future noise and vibration levels from the project for remaining receptors of the
distance screening process using noise and vibration general assessment procedures for
both conventional trains and high-speed rail.
Compare the actual project-related total noise exposure to the allowable project-related
noise exposure in order to determine potential noise impacts.
Assess vibration impacts for conventional trains and high-speed rail using generalized
ground-borne vibration curves provided in FTA and FRA guidance.
Compare predicted results for vibration and noise to applicable FTA and FRA impact
thresholds to identify potential impacts.
Recommend potential noise and vibration mitigation measures, as required.
3-43
FIGURE 3.5-2A: NOISE MONITORING LOCATIONS MAP 1 OF 2
3-44
FIGURE 3.5-2B: NOISE MONITORING LOCATIONS MAP 2 OF 2
3-45
TABLE 3.5-2: 2011 SHORT-TERM NOISE MONITORING RESULTS

Site #
Monitoring Location
Description
Land Use
Date
Duration
(Hours)
Existing Noise
Exposure (dBA)
Leq
Ldn1
ST-1
2645 Rainy Springs Court
Residence
1/10/2011
59.3
63.6
ST-2
7911 Jasons Landing Way
Residence
1/11/2011
53.9
59.1
ST-3
7823 Truitt Lane
Residence
1/6/2011
52.5
56.7
ST-4
1100 Old Elkridge Landing Road
Hotel
1/3/2011
58.8
63.1
ST-5
7918 Jasons Landing Way2
Jasons Landing Way

Community Center &
Pool
2/17/11
63.2
NA
Source: STV Incorporated, 2011

ST Short-term
1
Notes: The Ldn calculations, based on Leq measurements, are in accordance with FTA guidance.
2
This short-term noise level was taken from peak-hour data collected for Site LT-11
TABLE 3.5-3: 2011 LONG-TERM NOISE MONITORING RESULTS

Site #
Monitoring Location Description
Land Use
Date
Duration
(Hours)
Existing Noise
Exposure (dBA)
Ldn
LT-1
Residence
1/10/2011
24
68.1
LT-2
8533 Okeefe Drive
Residence
1/10/2011
24
64.7
LT-4
1330 Severn Station Road
Residence
1/11/2011
24
67.9
LT-5
7755 Siden Drive
Residence
2/15/2011
24
67.2
LT-9
7824 Truitt Lane
Residence
2/16/2011
24
64.6
LT-10
1248 Old Camp Meade Road
Residence
2/17/2011
24
68.3
LT-11
Residence
2/17/2011
24
63.1
LT-12
8160 Santa Fe Drive
Residence
2/17/2011
24
64.4
LT-3
Halethorpe Mobile Home

(including the Deller property)
Residence
1/13/2011
24
69.5
LT-6
13 Wynnewood Court
Residence
1/3/2011
24
67.7
LT-7
5717 1st Avenue
Residence
1/13/2011
24
63.3
LT-8
1802 Mayfield Avenue
Residence
1/5/2011
24
68.6
Park

Note: LT means Long-Term
3-46

With or without the project, demand for passenger rail service would continue to grow in the
future. The No-Build Alternative would not increase noise or vibration within the project
corridor. It would also not provide the benefits associated with improving Amtrak or MARC
operations in the project corridor.
Build Alternative
The focus of the noise and vibration analysis is on the potential impact of the Build Alternative
on sensitive receptors near the project corridor. It is important to note that the Build Alternative
would not result directly in additional numbers of Amtrak and MARC trains.
Noise
Once a noise screening process is complete, the prediction of noise impacts under the Build
Alternative involves the determination of noise levels at the representative noise sensitive
locations. MTA assessed predicted levels utilizing the applicable FTA noise criteria (which FRA
has adopted). For the Build Alternative, these assessment locations included category 2 land
uses such as single-family residences and hotels and one category 3 community building. MTA
assessed the levels of impact as a function of a sites distance from the track, the existing noise
level, and the total noise level under the Build Alternative. Each of the examined noise sensitive
receptors could be either uniquely affected by the Build Alternative or representative of a
cluster of potentially affected noise sensitive properties.
MTA determined that the Build Alternative would have no noise impacts at category 2 land use
locations (residences and hotels) or the one category 3 land use location (the Jasons Landing
community center and pool), as reflected in Tables 3.5-4 and 3.5-5. Each table shows the impact
determination assessments for each of the respective noise categories.
Noise receptors representing single-family residential neighborhoods adjacent to the railroad
tracks are between 68 feet (the residences at Halethorpe Mobile Home Park that receptor LT-3
represents) to 366 feet (the single-family residential neighborhood that receptor LT-7 represents)
from the rail with no intervening buildings. Existing night-time noise levels range from 63 to 70
dB (with the given distances from the railroad tracks). The project-related noise would be the
same as the existing noise levels for most receptors (e.g., the LT-3 receptors); below the existing
noise levels by 1 dB or more (e.g., the receptors LT-1, LT-5, and LT-6); or higher than existing
noise levels by no more than 2 dB (e.g., the receptors LT-11, LT-12, and LT-7).
3-47
TABLE 3.5-4: NOISE IMPACT GENERAL ASSESSMENT (2011) CATEGORY 2 LAND USES
Land Use
Existing
Ldn
Noise
Level
Distance
to Near
Track
(feet)
Actual
ProjectRelated Ldn
Noise
Exposure
Allowable
ProjectRelated Ldn
Noise
Exposure
Allowable
Increase in Noise
Level Over
Existing (dB)
Impact?
SFR
68
138
67
69
No
8533 Okeefe Drive
SFR
65
215
65
66
No
1330 Severn Station Road
SFR
68
100
68
69
No
7755 Siden Drive
SFR
67
170
66
68
No
7824 Truitt Lane
SFR
65
202
65
66
No
SFR
68
89
68
69
No
SFR
63
197
65
65
No
8160 Santa Fe Drive
SFR
64
156
66
66
No
Halethorpe Mobile Home Park (including the

Deller property)
SFR
70
68
70
71
No
13 Wynnewood Court
SFR
68
314
64
69
No
5717 1st Avenue
SFR
63
366
65
65
No
SFR
69
91
69
70
No
MFR
63
56
59
65
No
Representative Receptor Description

1100 Old Elkridge Landing
Road1

1Represents
Notes: SFR = Single-Family Residential, MFR = Multi-Family Residential
the Westin BWI Airport Hotel
TABLE 3.5-5: NOISE IMPACT GENERAL ASSESSMENT (2011) CATEGORY 3 LAND USES
Representative Receptor Description
Land Use
Existing
Ldn
Noise
Level
Community
Center and
Pool
63
Distance
to Near
Track
(feet)
Actual
ProjectRelated Ldn
Noise
Exposure
Allowable
ProjectRelated Ldn
Noise
Exposure
Allowable
Increase in Noise
Level Over
Existing (dB)
Impact?
232
66
66
No
3-48
With respect to the receptors for which the project-level noise exceeded existing noise levels, the
project-level noise did not result in any noise impacts. The project-related noise for receptors
LT-11, LT-12 and LT-7 was the same as the allowable project-related noise under the FTA
criteria. For the rest of the noise receptors for which the actual project-level noise exceeded
existing noise levels, the allowable project-related noise under FTA criteria is only 1 dB higher
than existing noise levels. Since the project-related noise would be less than the allowable
project-related noise for those receptors, there would be no noise impacts. When the ambient
noise is generally high for receptors close to the railroad tracks, additional noise from the
project that would not be significant, typically, would not have a large effect. For example,
receptor LT-3, which represents homes at the Halethorpe Mobile Home Park (closest to the
railroad tracks), had an existing noise level of 70 dB; a similar actual project-related noise level
of 70 dB (no change meaning the project noise is not a significant factor at this location); and
an allowable project-related noise level of 71 dB resulting in minimal changes (and not
significant enough to exceed criteria and result in a noise impact).
Residences represented by receptors LT-11, LT-12, and LT-7 have ambient noise levels which
are generally low (about 63 dB) and are located further away from the railroad tracks (the
farthest at 366 feet). When the ambient noise is generally low, but the receptor is relatively close
to the project, additional noise from the project typically would be more of a factor, and would
result in a larger increase from existing noise levels to allowable noise levels.
Vibration
Table 3.5-6 presents the results of the vibration predictions for conventional trains and Table
3.5-7 presents the results for high-speed rail. FTA guidance provided the basis for the
methodology of predicting vibration levels. MTA developed two separate assessments for each
system for both the existing and future scenarios. MTA assessed existing conditions to
determine whether vibration impacts currently exist.
If the assessment determined that the existing condition already resulted in a vibration impact,
then a project impact existed only if the future vibration level was greater than the existing
vibration level by more than 3 VdB. Otherwise, the project impact was determined based on a
direct comparison of the project vibration level to the relevant vibration impact criteria level. All
predictions are based on vibration category 2 land usage. The results indicated that there would
be no vibration impacts at any of the studied locations along the project corridor.
Sources of vibration under the Build Alternative would be mostly limited to the movement of
train wheels on the track. Although the proposed location of railroad tracks would be generally
closer to residences than the current alignment (for example, the proposed railroad tracks
would be seven feet closer to homes in the Halethorpe Mobile Home Park), the resulting
vibration generated by train wheels and track interactions would be minimal. The Build
Alternative would result in only 1 VdB change from existing and future vibration levels for
conventional train vibration. Vibration levels for high-speed rail would be similar for existing
and future conditions. The project would result in an increase of 1 VdB over existing vibration
levels and, therefore, would not result in vibration impacts.
3-49
TABLE 3.5-6: CONVENTIONAL TRAIN VIBRATION IMPACT GENERAL ASSESSMENT (2011) CATEGORY 2 LAND USES
Existing
Distance
to Track
Midpoint
(feet)
Future
Distance
to Track
Midpoint
(feet)
FTA
Threshold
(VdB)
Predicted
Existing
Vibration
Level
(VdB)
Predicted
Future
Vibration
Level
(VdB)
Currently
Existing
Vibration
Impact?
Future Existing
Vibration
(VdB)
Project
Impact?
Land
Use1
Land Use
Category
Train
Speed
(mph)
SFR
90
118
111
72
81
82
Yes
No
Halethorpe Mobile Home Park
SFR
90
97
90
72
83
84
Yes
No
SFR
90
117
111
72
81
82
Yes
No
Description
Note: 1 SFR = Single-Family residential
TABLE 3.5-7: HIGH-SPEED TRAIN VIBRATION IMPACT GENERAL ASSESSMENT (2011) CATEGORY 2 LAND USES
Existing
Distance
To Track
Midpoint
(feet)
Future
Distance
To Track
Midpoint
(feet)
FTA
Threshold
(VdB)
Predicted
Existing
Vibration
Level
(VdB)
Predicted
Future
Vibration
Level
(VdB)
Currently
Existing
Vibration
Impact?
Future Existing
Vibration
(VdB)
Project
Impact?
Land
Use1
Land Use
Category
Train
Speed
(mph)
7755 Siden Drive
SFR
125
191
188
80
68
68
No
NA
No
SFR
125
118
111
80
73
74
No
NA
No
8160 Santa Fe Drive
SFR
125
183
177
80
69
69
No
NA
No
Halethorpe Mobile Home Park
SFR
125
97
90
80
75
76
No
NA
No
SFR
125
117
111
80
73
74
No
NA
No
Description
SFR = Single-Family Residential
3-50
Summary
The results of the noise and vibration assessments indicate that the Build Alternative would
not cause large increases in noise or vibration levels at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore,
the proposed improvements to the BWI Rail Station and the operation of a new fourth track
would not result in noise or vibration impacts.
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Noise
FTA has developed reasonable guidance criteria for the assessment of construction noise,
which FRA has adopted and applied to the project. Using the FTA construction noise
criteria, MTA assessed the project-related construction noise for daytime construction
activities (7 A.M. to 10 P.M., as defined in the Maryland Noise Code). The results indicate
that project-related construction activities would not impact nearby noise-sensitive
receptors; however, both sporadic and temporary increases in construction noise may occur.
Any temporary increases in construction noise would reflect potential occurrences of
atypical events, given the inconsistent and transitory nature of some construction activities
and equipment usage. Consequently, the contractor would be required to use standard
construction noise control measures to reduce the likelihood of any increases in construction
noise above the maximum levels allowed under the Maryland Noise Code for construction
activities. Construction noise control measures include:
Use of shields or other physical barriers to restrict the transmission of noise
Use of sound proof housings or enclosures for noise producing machinery
Use of electrically operated hoists and compressor plants and use of silencers on air
intakes of equipment
Use of machinery with quiet operation
Use of line hoppers and storage bins with sound deadening material
Prohibiting the use of loud air or gasoline-powered saws
Carefully routing construction equipment and vehicles over streets that will cause the
least disturbance to residents
These processes would limit the exposure radius of construction noise in sensitive areas.
Vibration
At this stage of the project, MTA does not have precise information on construction
activities. As a result, MTA performed a general assessment for construction using FTA
vibration criteria to provide a conservative assessment of whether pile driving (the
construction activity that results in the most vibration) would cause construction-related
vibration impacts at the closest fragile building along the project corridor. Fragile buildings
3-51
typically include older wood-framed or historic structures. Chapter 3.12 of this document
identifies historic structures along the project corridor.
The results of the assessment concluded that project-related construction activities would
not damage any fragile buildings near the project corridor. Since construction activities
would be located mostly within the existing right-of-way, exposure to construction-related
noise of any one property would be limited. Accordingly, FRA and MTA do not anticipate
any construction-related vibration impacts.
Mitigation Measures
Noise
FTA noise guidance typically requires mitigation measures when a noise assessment
indicates predicted noise impacts. The noise assessment conducted for the project did not
predict noise impacts at any of the studied locations. Therefore, MTA has not proposed any
mitigation measures.
Vibration
FTA vibration guidance typically requires mitigation measures when a vibration assessment
indicates predicted vibration impacts. The vibration assessment conducted for the project
did not predict vibration impacts at any of the studied locations. Therefore, MTA has not
proposed any mitigation measures.
3.6
ENERGY AND SUSTAINABLE DESIGN
This section identifies the regulatory context and methodology, affected environment and
potential impacts of the project on energy resources.

FRA regulations require the assessment of any irreversible and irretrievable commitments
of energy resources and the potential energy conservation resulting from the project. In
addition, CEQ guidance mandates that environmental disclosure documents, like an EA,
assess the degree to which the project would result in an increase or decrease in overall
energy efficiency. MTA performed a qualitative assessment of the projects effects on energy
resources.

The NEC is electrified with an overhead catenary system dating to the mid 1930s. At the
railroads Jericho Park Substation south of the project corridor near Bowie, Maryland,
Amtrak converts the electric power to usable frequency and voltage compatible to the NEC
system. Amtraks transmission assets include four 138 kilovolt (kV) lines consisting of two
pairs of two-wire circuits through the project corridor.
3-52
The existing BWI Rail Station consists of a ticketing and waiting area with a limited
concession area and restrooms. Auxiliary structures include a parking garage, a staff
parking lot and a drive with bus bays and a taxi stand.
Scheduling conflicts and delays currently affect MARC and Amtrak because both the
passenger and commuter trains have to share the same tracks and platforms at the BWI Rail
Station. Delays and engine idle time cause inefficient energy use. There is a large variation
in average travel speeds approaching the station. These variations require trains to change
speed that, in turn, creates delays and results in reduced energy efficiency.

With or without the project, demand for passenger rail service would continue to grow in
the future. With the No-Build Alternative, there would be no energy expended associated
with construction. However, under the No-Build Alternative, scheduling conflicts and
delays would continue, and likely worsen, resulting in inefficiencies in energy usage due to
congestion and engine idle time.
Build Alternative
Temporary slowdowns in Amtrak and MARC rail traffic would occur during the
construction phase of the project. The construction phase will require additional energy
associated with heavy equipment usage and movement of materials. Construction activities
would require a minimal increase in energy usage, but MTA and FRA do not anticipate any
long-term impacts on energy usage as a result of the project.
The Build Alternative would not increase the number of commuter and passenger trains
beyond the levels expected with the No-Build Alternative. The modifications to Grove
Interlocking under the Build Alternative would place a new turnout connecting the new
fourth track to the three-track configuration that presently exists between Grove
Interlocking and Washington, D.C. In normal practice, northbound MARC trains would be
the primary user of the new turnout connection to the fourth track. Grove Interlocking is
located close to the Odenton commuter station used by MARC. The energy consumption
and run time impacts on these trains would be minimal, if any, because they would be
accelerating from the station at a relatively slow speed when using the new turnout.
Overall, the project would result in fewer train delays reducing idle and slow passage
times, enhancing travel efficiency, and reducing energy usage. The MARC trains would
benefit from the elimination of conflicts with Amtrak trains at Grove Interlocking and when
stopping at the station. The increased efficiency and reliability of the trains could encourage
the public to use rail service instead of automobiles, decreasing automobile energy
consumption.
MTA and FRA do not anticipate the need for any additional transmission assets to
implement the fourth-track element of the project. The Jericho Park Substation will continue
3-53
to supply power in the project vicinity. The nearby Constellation Energy and Mirant Energy
coal-fired generating stations could supply additional power, if necessary. Due to the NECs
previous use for heavy freight movements, there is an excess of potential supply of energy
from the primary power sources throughout the NEC, such as the hydroelectric power
station at Safe Harbor Dam in Pennsylvania.
The increase in the volume of people using the BWI Rail Station since its construction has
created a need to expand the stations facilities so that it can comfortably handle the large
number of patrons. The Build Alternative includes a new station with additional space for
ticketing and support, and a larger waiting area. The design and construction of the BWI
Rail Station will meet LEED Silver Standards. The new station could result in a slight
increase in energy usage for lighting and climate control due to the larger facility but the
increased energy efficiencies associated with the LEED design will offset this increase
completely.
Although MTA has not completed final design for the new BWI Rail Station, in order to
obtain LEED certification, MTA must use sustainable technologies, methods and materials
in the design and construction of the project improvements. Moreover, MTA could
incorporate sustainable design into the design and construction of the fourth track and third
platform by developing on previously disturbed area and avoiding impacts to the
surrounding environment. Additionally, a comprehensive stormwater management plan
would contribute to sustainable design within the project corridor.
Overall, the project may result in a slight increase in energy usage during construction and a
slight increase in energy usage from the larger BWI Rail Station. Increased train efficiency
and an overall decrease in energy consumption by Amtrak and MARC trains would balance
the reduction in congestion and engine idling time. There may be energy savings through
reduction in automobile trips if the increased efficiency and improved on-time performance
of Amtrak and MARC trains attract more riders. Therefore, because the project would not
result in a net increase in energy consumption, and actually may result in a net reduction in
energy consumption, MTA and FRA anticipate that mitigation measures will not be
required for energy usage.
3.7
WATER RESOURCES
This section identifies the surface and groundwater resources in the project corridor and
describes the potential impacts of the project.
3.7.1 Surface Water, Waterbodies, and Drainage Basins

Federal and state agencies regulate actions potentially affecting surface waters. Waters of
the United States (WUS), including wetlands, are surface waters that fall under the
jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) at the federal level.
3-54
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC 1344), pertains to dredging or filling
waters of the United States. By authority of 33 CFR 320-330, the USACE has jurisdiction over
all waters of the United States, and a Section 404 permit from the USACE is required to
dredge or fill in those waters. At the state level, MDE regulates surface waters (Refer to
Section 3.8, Wetlands and Floodplains). The National Park Service regulates rivers
designated as part of the national Wild and Scenic Rivers program (Refer to Section 3.7.2).
In addition, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the USACE regulate navigable
waterways and surface waters used for interstate commerce or subject to a tidal influence
under Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, respectively. Navigable
waters of the United States are those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide
and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to
transport interstate or foreign commerce (33 CFR Part 329.4). MTA identified navigable
waters within the project corridor through coordination with the USCG and USACE.
MTA used GIS data from the DNRs geospatial data website to identify surface water
resources and watershed boundaries and to determine, on a preliminary level, the resources
found within the project corridor. MTA also reviewed 7.5-minute topographic maps from
the United States Geological Survey (USGS); county aerial images and topography maps;
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS); Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) from the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA); the Maryland Hydrologic Unit Atlas to identify waterbodies (all named and
unnamed perennial streams, ponds, and rivers) and the sub-regional watersheds within the
project corridor; and other relevant materials.
MTA confirmed the location and characteristics of watercourses occurring within the project
corridor in the field during the wetland delineation (See Section 3.8) in spring/summer 2011
using the Unified Stream Methodology (USACE Norfolk District and Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, January 2007) and mapped their locations on project mapping
following the field survey. MTA calculated the lengths of streams within the project rightof-way based on the field survey. Section 3.8, Wetlands and Floodplains contains a
discussion of impacts to delineated wetlands and watercourses.
Affected Environment
The project corridor is located within the USGS Upper Chesapeake Bay sub-region, in the
Gunpowder-Patapsco and Severn hydrologic unit codes (HUC) 02060003 and 02060004, and
the MDEs six-digit watershed sub-basins of the Patapsco River (02-13-09) and West
Chesapeake Bay (02-13-10). Surface waters in the project corridor consist of two major
rivers, six named streams, and several unnamed tributaries, wetlands and ponds.
Ephemeral streams located along the project corridor occur mainly due to runoff from
impervious areas and topographical changes due to construction. The many intermittent
streams weave in and out of, and connect with, the large complexes of riverine wetlands in
the project corridor.
3-55
The named streams crossed by, or adjacent to, the project corridor include, from south to
north:
Severn Run. Flows easterly under the existing tracks within a large arch culvert
approximately one-half of a mile north of the MD 32 overpass in Jackson Grove
Beaver Creek. A tributary to Severn Run, flows southerly adjacent to the east side of the
existing tracks near Florida Avenue
Stony Run. Flows northerly along the west side of the project corridor for a distance of
approximately four miles between Dorsey Run Road and the Patapsco River, in northern
Anne Arundel County
Red Run Creek. Flows westerly under the existing tracks just north of BWI Rail Station
Patapsco River. The largest watercourse within the project corridor, flows easterly under
the existing rail bridge at the Anne Arundel/Baltimore County line
East and West Branches of Herbert Run. Flows easterly under the existing rail tracks
approximately one-half of a mile south of the Halethorpe Station
These are mainly perennial streams with enough flow to support crayfish, macroinvertebrates, amphibians, and fish. Figure 3.7-1 illustrates the primary surface waters and
waterbodies in the project corridor. Several additional smaller streams and tributaries to
these larger stream systems cross under, or flow parallel to, the project corridor. Wetlands,
ponds, and impoundments also occur regularly along the project corridor (see Section 3.8).
The Patapsco River is the only designated navigable waterway in the project corridor
subject to Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
3-56
FIGURE 3.7-1: PRIMARY SURFACE WATERS AND WATERBODIES
3-57
Probable Consequences
The No-Build Alternative would not impact existing surface waters in the project corridor.
Build Alternative
The Build Alternative would impact surface waters from construction of new or extended
bridge structures, extensions of existing culverts beneath the tracks, and relocation of
streams necessary to accommodate the new track and embankment width. At this early
stage of design, MTA has based calculated impacts on the anticipated limit of disturbance
(LOD), including both permanent impacts from project structures and facilities and shortterm, temporary impacts from project construction.
MTA calculated both short- and long-term impacts, together, and did not differentiate them
at this phase of study. MTA would restore temporarily impacted streams to, or above, their
original state following completion of construction. As project design progresses, short- and
long-term impacts would likely be reduced further, as the project LOD is better defined and
temporary and permanent impacts are differentiated.
The Build Alternative would impact a total of 4,647 linear feet of stream channel. The
project-related activities would likely impact several larger named streams and many
unnamed surface waters. The following list summarizes the anticipated alterations of larger
named streams crossed by, or adjacent to, the project. Listed from south to north, resources
include:
Severn Run. The current design of the Build Alternative does not require the extension
of the existing arch culvert. However, the current design calls for a minor encroachment
of the LOD on the stream channel due to the placement of temporary sediment and
erosion control measures. The project could avoid these impacts by using engineering
measures that MTA would develop during final design when avoidance and
minimization efforts will continue.
Beaver Creek. The current design of the Build Alternative calls for construction of a 480foot retaining wall (retaining wall 7.1) to avoid longitudinal impacts to Beaver Creek.
The wall would retain the proposed widened embankment, without which the project
would have had to relocate approximately 200 feet of Beaver Creek to the east. The
current design of the Build Alternative does not propose any extension of the existing
36-inch culvert. However, MTA anticipates that temporary construction access,
sediment and erosion control, and outfall protection within the project LOD will impact
a portion of Beaver Creek.
Stony Run. Stony Run parallels a large portion of the project corridor. Fill required for
the proposed widened rail embankment, north of Old Stoney Run Road and south of the
BWI Rail Station, will directly impact Stony Run. The current design of the Build
3-58
Alternative relocates the existing Stony Run stream channel west of the proposed
embankment. The design also includes a 1,875-foot-long retaining wall that minimizes
impacts to this stream and associated wetlands.
Red Run Creek. The Build Alternative would extend the existing culverts under the rail
line westward, permanently impacting a portion of Red Run Creek.
Patapsco River. The current design of the Build Alternative would construct a new
multi-span bridge across the Patapsco River just east of the existing rail crossing. The
project would place new bridge footings in the river, which would result in permanent
impacts to the waterway. To minimize the effects of new bridge piers on river flow, the
piers would align with the existing bridge piers. MTA based preliminary hydraulic
design considerations for the bridge on the existing structure and information available
on the FEMA FIRM maps. MTA would complete a full hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H)
analysis during final design of the project.
Based on coordination with the USCG, MTA does not anticipate any impacts to river
navigation from the project and no bridge permit is required under Section 9 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. In a June 2014 letter (Appendix A), the USCG
determined that the project is exempt from USCG bridge permitting requirements
because the portion of the Patapsco River crossed by the project is not used, susceptible
to use in [its] natural condition, or susceptible to use by reasonable improvement as a
means to transport interstate commerce. This determination is valid for a period of five
years, but USCG would need to reauthorize it if project construction commences after
this time period.
Despite this determination, impacts from the Patapsco River bridge crossing will still
require a permit for impacts to designated navigable waterways under Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act from the USACE. The USACE would issue this authorization as
part of the overall Section 404 CWA permitting process for wetlands and waterways.
East and West Branches of Herbert Run. The current design of the Build Alternative
adds a new single-span bridge just east of the existing rail crossing. According to the
preliminary engineering design, the new abutments would result in a small
encroachment on the channel of Herbert Run. The project LOD shows impacts to a
broader area to accommodate temporary construction access, although more detailed
designs for sediment and erosion control would likely minimize or avoid any permanent
impacts. Similar to the Patapsco Bridge, MTA would conduct detailed H&H studies
during final design of the project to confirm the preliminary analysis that the bridge
design would not negatively affect stream flow and allow for any necessary design
refinements.
In order to accommodate a fourth track, existing bridges and culverts would need to be
modified or extended. MTA reviewed twenty-six existing culverts of varying sizes
carrying water under the existing tracks for capacity, length, and condition. The
preliminary design includes recommendations for specific maintenance and
3-59
improvements at each culvert location as appropriate. Refer to Section 3.8 for potential
impact quantities for all surface waters.
The preliminary design of the Build Alternative limits stream and other resource impacts to
the greatest extent practicable within the constraints of the corridor and the projects
purpose and need. Avoidance and minimization measures already incorporated into the
preliminary design include 23 retaining walls, totaling approximately 13,410 linear feet of
wall. The Build Alternative includes nine of these retaining walls, approximately 7,740
linear feet, to minimize impacts to delineated watercourses. Refer to Section 3.8.1, Table 3.83 for a listing of retaining walls and protected watercourses and wetlands. Avoidance and
minimization of waterway impacts will continue during final design of the project and will
be fully coordinated with the USACE and MDE.
The MTA would perform stream relocations using natural stream design, which means that
the newly created channel would mimic the characteristics of an appropriate reference
stream. The permitting agencies will likely require further impact reductions as part of the
permitting process and will review unavoidable impacts to ensure that the project fully
mitigates project-related impacts. MTA, in cooperation with USACE and MDE, has
identified a range of potential conceptual stream mitigation sites that will compensate for
unavoidable stream impacts, as discussed in more detail in Section 3.8, Wetlands and
Floodplains.
3.7.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers

In 1968, Congress passed the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to protect rivers of the nation
which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic,
recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. The
National Park Service (NPS) designates, lists, and manages Wild and Scenic Rivers and
those that have the potential for designation as such.
The Maryland General Assembly passed the Maryland Scenic and Wild Rivers Act in 1968,
creating the Maryland Scenic and Wild Rivers System. The purpose of this Act is to preserve
and protect the natural values and enhance the water quality of rivers, or segments of rivers,
which possess outstanding scenic, geologic, ecologic, historic, recreational, agricultural, fish,
wildlife, cultural and other similar resources values (DNR, 2011).
MTA gathered information on existing designated wild and scenic rivers from agency
websites including NPS, MDE, DNR, and USFWS, and coordinated with DNR regarding
river designations and requirements. Coordination will continue as the project moves
forward to protect the eligible elements of local watersheds. Refer to Appendix A for agency
correspondence.
3-60
According to NPS, there are no designated Wild and Scenic Rivers in Maryland, and no
rivers located in the project corridor that are listed on the National Rivers Inventory
maintained by the NPS as having the potential for designation.
The Maryland General Assembly officially designated the Severn River and its tributaries at
the state level as a scenic river. Severn Run and Beaver Creek are both tributaries of the
Severn River. The project corridor crosses the Severn Run just north of Jackson Grove Road.
Beaver Creek runs parallel along the east side of the project corridor near Florida Avenue
(refer to Figure 3.7-1).
The No-Build Alternative would result in no immediate direct impacts on existing
designated Wild and Scenic Rivers.
Build Alternative
Each unit of state and local government, in recognizing the intent of the Scenic and Wild
Rivers Act and the Scenic and Wild Rivers Program, is required to take whatever action is
necessary to protect and enhance the qualities of a designated river. The project would have
a minor encroachment (10 feet) on Severn Run from the current design of the Build
Alternative. However, since this potential impact relates to the placement of temporary
sediment and erosion control measures, final design would potentially eliminate the impact.
The current design of the Build Alternative would not extend the existing stone masonry
arch structure over Severn Run.
The Build Alternative would impact approximately 100 linear feet of Beaver Creek.
However, a proposed 480-foot retaining wall (retaining wall 7.1) would minimize impacts to
Beaver Creek by retaining the proposed widened embankment to avoid displacing
approximately 200 feet of the creek eastward.
DNR must review work performed within state-designated Scenic and Wild River
watersheds to ensure no adverse effects on contributing features. Based on the nature of the
project an improvement to an existing rail corridor, the new construction will be consistent
with existing facilities and resource conditions. In addition, the Build Alternative does not
include new crossings of the Scenic and Wild River. The Build Alternative would not
substantially alter the landscape, and the use of BMPs will ensure the preservation of the
ecological resources within the local watersheds. During the final design and permitting
phase, MTA would provide project plans to DNR for review. Then, DNR will evaluate
whether impacts to the streams and related land resources affect the overall character of the
designated rivers in such a way as to jeopardize the scenic value of the resource.
3-61
While DNR will make the final determination in later phases of the project, MTA and FRA
anticipate that the Build Alternative will have no effect on the Scenic and Wild River
designations within the project corridor.
3.7.3 Water Quality

Section 401 and Section 402 of the federal CWA regulate water quality and the introduction
of contaminants to waterbodies. In Maryland, MDE is the regulatory agency responsible for
ensuring adherence to water quality standards.
Under the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR): Title 26 Department of the
Environment, Subtitle 08 Water Pollution, Chapter 02 Water Quality (26.08.02), the state has
adopted water quality standards to enhance and protect water resources and serve the
purposes of the federal CWA. The water quality standards serve this purpose by
designating uses to the waters of the state and setting criteria to protect these uses. The
standards indicate that the state shall protect water quality and maintain these designated
uses. MTA coordinated with DNRs Environmental Review Unit (2013) and online research
through the MDE website to determine designated uses and regulations for the waters
crossed by the alignment.
In compliance with CWA Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 and the Safe Drinking Water Act,
states develop a prioritized list of waterbodies that currently do not meet water quality
standards. The 303(d) prioritized list includes those waterbodies and watersheds that
exhibit levels of impairment requiring further investigation or restoration. MDE uses
monitoring data to compare stream conditions to water quality standards and determines
which streams are eligible for listing. Parameters monitored include: temperature, dissolved
oxygen, pH, fecal coliform, e.coli, enterococci, total phosphorus, chlorophyll a, benthic
macroinvertebrates, as well as metals and toxics in the water column, sediments, and fish
tissues. The waterbodies on this list are subject to a total maximum daily load (TMDL) of
these constituents. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a
waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards.
The project crosses several streams that COMAR designates as Use IV, including Severn
Run and its tributaries, Beaver Creek, and the Patapsco River mainstem. All other streams
the project crosses are Use I. Generally, COMAR permits no in-stream work in Use I streams
during the period from March 1 through June 15, inclusive. MDE permits no in-stream work
in Use IV streams during the period of March 1 through May 31, inclusive. The Use
classifications include:
Use I Water Contact Recreation and Protection of Nontidal Warm Water Aquatic Life.
These waters are suitable for water contact sports, leisure activities where individuals
3-62
may come in direct contact with the surface water, fishing, growth and propagation of
fish, other aquatic life and wildlife, and agricultural and industrial water supply.
Use IV Recreational Trout Waters. This designation includes all uses identified for Use I
in cold or warm waters that have the potential for or are capable of holding or
supporting adult trout for put-and-take fishing; and managed as a special fishery by
periodic stocking and seasonal catching.
DNR reports that the presence of yellow perch, a migratory fish species, has been
documented in the Patapsco River; therefore, the in-stream restriction period is extended
such that no in-stream work should occur in this resource from February 15 through June 15
(DNR, January 2014; see Appendix A).
Several streams in the project corridor have been included on the 303(d) list because of
water quality impairments, two of which have approved TMDLs (Table 3.7-1).
According to DNR, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) has been documented in the
Patapsco River near the project (Personal communication, Greg Golden, DNR; see Appendix
A). However, DNR has not documented SAV in the actual project corridor in the 30 years
(1978 to present) that the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) has been monitoring.
Additionally, the Patapsco River within the project corridor does not appear to provide
suitable SAV habitat due to limiting factors including poor water quality and clarity, current
velocity, and the dynamic nature of the channel substrate. If DNR identifies SAV within 500
yards of the project in the future, prior to construction, a time of year restriction on instream work would be required.
TABLE 3.7-1: TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) FOR STREAMS
WITHIN THE PROJECT CORRIDOR
Watershed
Bacteria
Impairments
Severn River
Not Impaired
Patapsco River
Lower North
Branch
Impaired with
TMDL Completed:
Fecal Coliform
2009
Biological
Channelization
Impairments
Ions
Sediments
PCBs
Not Impaired
Not
Impaired
Impaired
Combination
Benthic/Fishes
Bioassessments
2002
Not Impaired
Not
Impaired
Not Impaired
Impaired 2012
Sulfates and
Chlorides
2010
Impaired with
Mainstem
TMDL
Impaired
Completed:
PCB in Fish
Total Suspended Tissue 1996
Solids (TSS) 2011
Note: Total maximum daily load (TMDL) is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still
meet water quality standards
3-63
The No-Build Alternative would not impact the project corridors water quality beyond the
ongoing operation and maintenance of the rail facility.
Build Alternative
The project has the potential to impact water quality from short-term construction-related
activities and/or from the long-term operation of the project. Effects from the project after
construction would potentially be in the form of contaminated or nutrient-laden runoff from
increases in impervious surfaces from the rail and station facilities. The project will add
approximately 7.6 acres of new impervious surfaces, including the upgrades to the BWI Rail
Station.
Construction along the project corridor could also potentially result in short-term water
quality effects, such as increased sedimentation, increased turbidity from in-stream work,
and possible spills. Construction activities that could affect stormwater runoff include:
Excavating to widen cut sections and removing unsuitable (organic) material from
fill sections
Filling and placing ballasts to support the new track
Relocating access roads
Relocating or creating new trackside swales, and
Implementing any substructure work required for the catenary foundations, bridge or
culvert installation, or BWI Rail Station improvements
Construction-phase staging areas and haul roads, if needed, could also disturb the ground,
potentially causing erosion and sedimentation. However, with the minimization techniques
discussed below, MTA expects minimal long-term and short-term construction-related
impacts to water quality from the project.
The project will minimize potential short-term and long-term impacts to water quality
through strict adherence to an effective Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and
implementation of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) that meet the conditions
of the Maryland Stormwater Act of 2007 (MDE 2007). This Act promotes the use of
Environmental Site Design (ESD) techniques in place of traditional stormwater management
(SWM) practices. The goal of ESD is to utilize innovative non-structural techniques to
optimize the conservation of natural drainage features, minimize impervious surfaces, and
slow down runoff rates to maintain discharge timing and increase infiltration and
evapotranspiration.
The use of appropriate ESD techniques to manage stormwater, along with an MDEapproved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan during construction, will reduce the risk of
surface water contamination, and minimize the harmful effects of increased impervious
3-64
surfaces on surface waters. MTA incorporated preliminary ESD analysis, designs, and
sediment and erosion control plans into the preliminary engineering design. The primary
ESD measures provided along the project corridor are wet swales and grass swales, with
underground filtration and storage at the BWI Station. Erosion and sediment control
measures include sediment traps and basins, super silt fence, and other construction BMPs
designed in compliance with current regulations.
MTA, which has consulted with MDE regarding the proposed stormwater BMPs at a
preliminary design level, will continue consultation in later phases of the project to ensure
project compliance. MDE will review and approve all ESD measures as part of the
permitting process during final design to ensure that the project is in compliance with the
most current regulations. The project will adhere to the CWAs TMDL provisions by
coordinating with MDE and complying with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit process for project-related stormwater. Over the long-term, all
monitoring and maintenance of SWM facilities would comply with NPDES permits to
ensure that each facility continues to provide the intended level of quantity and/or quality
control.
3.7.4 Groundwater/Aquifers/Wells
In 1974, Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to regulate the public
drinking water supply. The SDWA and subsequent amendments mandate that states assess,
delineate, and map protection areas for their public drinking water sources, and determine
potential risks to those sources. Source water protection is not specifically mandated by the
SDWA; however states, tribes, and communities are encouraged to use this information to
protect the sources from pollution of major concern and may pass local regulations. SDWA
does not regulate private wells serving fewer than 25 individuals (EPA, 2004a).
MTA reviewed published data and coordinated with MDE and county health departments
to identify groundwater resources, determine local regulations and note the approximate
location of wells within the project corridor.
The project corridor is located in the "Patapsco Formation" (217PPSC), a local aquifer that,
along with other local aquifers that are hydrologically connected along the East Coast
following the fall line to the west, is part of the "Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer
system" (S100NATLCP, national aquifer) (USGS, 2003).
Sole Source Aquifers
Based on MDE data, there are no sole source aquifers in the project corridor; therefore, this
project would not have any effect on sole source aquifers.
3-65
Confined Aquifers
Much of the public water in southern Maryland comes from confined aquifers. A layer of
low permeability, such as clay, confines these aquifers. These confining layers may protect
aquifers from surface contamination and cause the water in these areas to be under pressure
so when wells are installed, the water level rises above the aquifer. There are two confined
aquifer wells in Anne Arundel County (USGS, 2013). These wells are not located within the
project corridor watersheds.
Groundwater/Wells
The majority of the drinking water in Maryland comes from surface waters or confined
aquifers, which supply public drinking water systems. Due to the nature of confined
aquifers, surface construction would not likely have an effect on the water source due to the
protective confining layer.
Several wells are located in the vicinity of the project corridor many of which are either
private wells or USGS monitoring wells, as the majority of this area relies on public drinking
water supplies. According to MDE, there is one source protection area located near the
project corridor south of BWI Airport, bounded by Donaldson Avenue (MD 174) on the
north and Grimm Road on the south. This is the source protection area for a public supply
well for the Anne Arundel County Department of Public Works, located on Telegraph Road.
The No-Build Alternative would have no impacts on the existing groundwater in the project
corridor.
Build Alternative
The project would be constructed mostly within, or immediately adjacent to, the existing rail
right-of-way and would not introduce a new source of potential pollutants. Contamination
of groundwater resources occurs when man-made chemicals such as gasoline, oil, and road
salts enter aquifers and render the water unsafe and unfit for human use. Some of the major
sources of these contaminants include storage tanks, septic systems, hazardous waste sites,
landfills, and the widespread use of road salts and chemicals.
The main sources of contamination to public drinking water supplies along rail lines are the
release of chemicals during construction, release of transported chemicals, salts and
chemicals used for snow and ice removal, and chemicals used for the maintenance of
vegetation. These chemicals can enter the groundwater via contaminated surface waters
and/or soils and have the potential to affect public water supplies. However, MTA and FRA
expect that treatment of surface water runoff from project construction and stormwater
BMPs will effectively reduce project-related impacts on groundwater. See Section 3.7.4 for
3-66
more information on project-related impacts to surface waters, and associated construction

BMPs and stormwater controls.
For the application of chemicals, Anne Arundel County recommends a setback of 100 feet
from wells to prevent contamination by chemicals. MDE recommends a construction
setback of at least 50 feet from well locations. The Anne Arundel County Department of
Public Works well on Telegraph Road south of MD 174, is located approximately onequarter of a mile east of the project corridor, well outside this recommended setback.
Therefore, potential effects to groundwater resources from the project would be negligible.
Although the project does not introduce a new source of pollutants, rail lines and associated
maintenance activities do have the potential to introduce contaminants to groundwater
resources. Therefore, the project will implement BMPs to minimize water quality effects
from potential contamination by limiting or avoiding snow removal or vegetation
maintenance chemicals near source protection areas and within 100 feet of well locations.
3.8
WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS
This section identifies wetlands and other WUS, and floodplains in the project corridor and
3.8.1 Wetlands
EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, mandates that each federal agency take action to minimize
the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance their natural
values. Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act regulate wetlands and other WUS. By
authority of 33 CFR 320-330, the USACE has jurisdiction over all WUS. A Section 404 permit
issued by the USACE will be required for any filling or dredging of WUS, including
wetlands. Additionally, the state regulates these resources via the Maryland Nontidal
Wetlands Protection Act. Impacts to WUS, including wetlands that MDE deems
unavoidable require permits under this Act.
Wetlands provide valuable habitat for fish and wildlife, improve water quality, perform
important hydrologic functions like regulating storm flow, maintain food chain and nutrient
cycling functions, and may support rare, threatened, or endangered species.
USACE (33 CFR 328.3[b]) and EPA (40 CFR 230.3[t]) currently define wetlands as:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. (USACE, 1987)
3-67
In accordance with USACE requirements, NEPA, and FRAs Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts (March 26, 1999 and January 14, 2013), MTA conducted a field
investigation of the project corridor to delineate the boundaries of wetlands and other WUS.
The results of the field investigation determined potential impacts to these resources from
the project and provided the basis for considering avoidance and minimization measures for
these resources during design. A review of published information and the results of the
field investigation further confirmed the wetland delineation.
The information MTA reviewed included: National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps from
the USFWS, the Wetlands Inventory from the DNR, various data from MDE, Soil Surveys of
Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties from the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), aerial photography, and topographic maps to identify potential jurisdictional
wetlands, including Nontidal Wetlands of Special State Concern (WSSC).
Field investigations took place between April 6 and October 26, 2011 to verify the extent and
character of wetlands within the project corridor (125 feet from the edge of the outermost
existing rails from MD 32, Patuxent Freeway, to Washington Boulevard, MD 1).
According to the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.23.06, a permit is required for
any activity that alters a nontidal wetland or its 25-foot buffer. This buffer is expanded to
100 feet for WSSC, which are the best examples of Maryland's nontidal wetland habitats and
are designated for special protection under the State's nontidal wetlands regulations.
Wetlands containing rare, threatened, or endangered (RTE) species are prime candidates for
designation as WSSC, but MDE also considers other characteristics, such as wetland size,
quality, and educational value.
MTA prepared and used mapping and GIS data collected during field investigations to
guide alternatives development, evaluate avoidance and minimization strategies during
preliminary engineering, and calculate impacts. MTA performed all fieldwork according to
the USACE Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and the Interim Regional Supplement to
the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
(USACE, 2008) using the routine on-site method. Each wetland and waterway was classified
into system, subsystem, class, and subclass according to Classification of Wetlands and Deep
Water Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al., 1979). MTA also conducted an
assessment of wetland functions and values using the USACE New England Method as
presented in The Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement Wetland Functions and Values: A
Descriptive Approach (USACE, 1999).
A table in Appendix E provides a summary of the primary characteristics and functions and
values of each wetland identified within the project corridor. Detailed field methodology,
published information, field results, and detailed descriptions of each system, can be found
in the Wetland and Watercourse Technical Report for the BWI Rail Station Improvements and
Fourth Track Project Environmental Assessment (MTA, 2012) (Appendix D).
3-68
The MTA delineated 94 wetlands (approximately 61 acres) within the project corridor.
Figure 3.8-1 shows an example of a typical wetland within the project corridor. The majority
of the systems delineated consist of forested or emergent (herbaceous), palustrine (inland,
nontidal and freshwater), wetlands associated with streams, and wildlife corridors. Thirteen
of these wetlands contain RTE species and/or are considered as WSSC.
Table 3.8-1 provides a summary of existing wetlands, their classification, their status as
either WSSC or non-WSSC, and the total acreages by wetland type. The delineation also
identified 61 streams or WUS. Figures 3.8-2A and 3.8-2B present the locations of delineated
wetlands and WUS at an overview level.
FIGURE 3.8-1: WETLANDS ALONG THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR
TABLE 3.8-1: SUMMARY OF EXISTING DELINEATED WETLANDS (ACRES)

Existing Wetland Type
Non-WSSC
Palustrine System Forested Wetland (PFO)

Palustrine System Scrub-Shrub Wetland (PSS)
Palustrine System Emergent Wetland (PEM)
Total
WSSC
Total
31.79
8.96
40.75
0.04
0.04
15.83
3.95
19.78
47.66
12.91
60.57
Source: Parsons/STV 2012
3-69
FIGURE 3.8-2A: EXISTING WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES MAP 1 OF 2
3-70
FIGURE 3.8-2B: EXISTING WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES MAP 2 OF 2
3-71
The No-Build Alternative would have no direct impacts on the existing wetlands in the
project corridor.
Build Alternative
In accordance with EO 11990, MTA has undertaken all practicable efforts from early
planning through the preliminary engineering phase to limit impacts from the Build
Alternative to WUS, including wetlands. MTA fully coordinated with resource and
regulatory agencies regarding the analysis of alternatives to reduce or avoid impacts. The
Build Alternative reflects specific alternative and design choices made to minimize impacts
to wetlands and address agency comments and concerns, particularly regarding
minimization of impacts to high quality WSSC. Appendix A, Public and Agency
Correspondence and Appendix B, Alternatives Report, contains detailed discussions on
alternatives analysis and agency coordination, and alternatives development. Due to the
fixed nature of the project corridor, and the considerable wetland and waterway resources
immediately adjacent to the existing track embankment, impacts to wetland and waterway
resources are unavoidable under the Build Alternative.
To determine project-related impacts, MTA overlaid the mapped WUS, including wetlands
onto the preliminary limits of disturbance (LOD) of the Build Alternative. The project would
impact approximately 6.98 acres of wetland and 4,647 linear feet of waterway (1.5 acres in
area), for which permits from the USACE and MDE would be required. Table 3.8-2 provides
a summary of anticipated wetland and waterway impacts. Figures 3.8-3A and 3.8-3B show
potential impacts to wetlands and waterways and identify both WSCC and non-WSCC.
TABLE 3.8-2: SUMMARY OF WETLAND AND WATERWAY IMPACTS (ACRES)
Impacts
Non-WSSC
WSSC
Total
Palustrine Forested
1.57
0.18
1.75
Palustrine Scrub-Shrub
0.03
0.03
Palustrine Emergent
3.86
1.34
5.20
5.46
1.52
6.98
Wetlands
Wetland Total
Waterways (linear feet)
4,647
Impacts to wetlands within the project corridor primarily occur from linear encroachments
into wetland areas from widening of the existing embankment. The largest areas of wetland
impact occur at the BWI Rail Station where MTA shifted the proposed new busbays and
station building northward to avoid impacts to WSSC west of the station and cultural
3-72
resources. The largest impact to streams are where stream relocations are necessary to move
channels that currently flow in areas where new and widened embankment fill will be
placed. In these areas, MTA would physically relocate streams outside of the limits of the
project corridor in order to accommodate the fourth track and embankment width.
The largest single waterway impact would occur where approximately 1,155 linear feet of
Stony Run, which currently flows immediately adjacent to the existing embankment, would
require relocation westward to accommodate the additional embankment width necessary
in the station area for the new track and platforms. Additional waterway impacts would
occur with extended culverts to carry streams beneath the added embankment width.
Section 3.7.1, Water Resources provides a discussion of impacts to named stream systems.
Throughout its development, MTA designed the Build Alternative to limit encroachment on
sensitive wetlands to the greatest extent practicable within the constraints of the corridor
and the projects purpose and need. As mentioned above, the Build Alternative reflects
specific alternative and design choices made to minimize impacts to wetlands in
collaboration with resource and regulatory agencies, resulting in a considerable reduction in
impacts to the highest quality resources in the corridor, including WSSC (See Appendix B).
MTA substantially avoided or reduced impacts of the Build Alternative throughout
planning and during preliminary engineering through use of alignment and facility shifts,
reduced limits of disturbance, and retaining walls. The use of retaining walls reduced
impacts to 17 wetlands; including four WSSC. Rather than fill, retaining walls were included
in the preliminary engineering design for areas along the alignment where better or
best wetlands were present.
MTA ranked delineated wetlands as good, better, or best based on their functional
integrity, extent of alteration by human activity, and likelihood of hosting RTE species.
Good wetlands may lack functional integrity and likely do not host RTEs. Better
wetlands are higher quality, maintain functional integrity, but likely do not host RTEs.
Best wetlands are those that are minimally altered by human activities, maintain
functional integrity with intact natural systems, and may host RTEs.
MTA conducted RTE surveys and determined that the actual locations of RTE populations
occur within a smaller subset of those wetlands designated as best. However, MTA
avoided, to the greatest extent practicable, these best and better wetlands throughout
the design process. Retaining walls have been included in the project design to limit impacts
to waterways and the potential for stream relocations, where feasible.
Table 3.8-3 provides a summary of the retaining walls proposed for the Build Alternative
and the resources protected.
3-73
TABLE 3.8-3: RETAINING WALLS TO MINIMIZE WETLAND, WATERCOURSE, AND FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS
Retaining
Wall1
Length
(Lf)2
Average
Height
(Lf)
3.1
85
Station 439, east side, Sheet CV-103
7.1
480
9.1
540
Station 890, east side, Sheet CV-109/110
Minimizes wetland impacts to SWET13A
15.1
240
Minimizes wetland impacts to SWET21A
26.1E
240
Station 700, west side, Sheet CV-126E
26.2E
1,875
Station 695, west side, Sheet CV-126E/127E/128E
27.1E
575
Station 680, east side, Sheet CV-127E/128E
29.1E
190
14
Station 660, east side, Sheet CV-129E
29.2E
215
Minimizes wetland impacts to NWET14A and NWET14B

Reduces impacts to floodplain associated with Red Run Creek
29.3E
240
15
Minimizes wetland impacts to NWET14B

29.4E
1,375
11
Station 655, east side, Sheet CV-129E/130E/131E
Location
Purpose
Avoids chasing slope and minimizes impacts to wetland SWET10A
Minimizes wetland and watercourse impacts to SWET18A and SWUS18A
Reduces impacts to floodplain associated with Beaver Creek
Minimizes wetland impacts to NWET6A (WSSC)

Reduces impacts to floodplain associated with Stony Run
Minimizes wetland and watercourse impacts to large WSSC complex
NWET13/NWUS13 and floodplain associated with Stony Run
Minimizes wetland and watercourse impacts to NWET5F and NWUS5G
Minimizes wetland impacts to NWET14A and NWET14B
Minimizes wetland and watercourse impacts to NWET14A, NWET 14B,

NWUS14H and NWUS14G
30.1E
1,295
Station 655, west side, Sheet CV-130E/131E
Minimizes wetland and watercourse impacts to NWET15C (WSSC),

NWET16B (WSSC), NWET16C (WSSC), NWUS16A and NWUS16D
31.1E
1,665
Station 635, east side, Sheet CV-131E/132E/133E
Wall mainly supports highway embankment but also minimizes wetland

impacts to NWET18A
32.1E
405
Station 620, west side, Sheet CV-132E/133E
3-74
Minimizes wetland and watercourse impacts to NWET16J and NWUS16I

TABLE 3.8-3: RETAINING WALLS TO MINIMIZE WETLAND, WATERCOURSE, AND FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS
Retaining
Wall1
Length
(Lf)2
Average
Height
(Lf)
43.1E
730
13
Station 660, east side, Sheet CV-129E/143E
Minimizes wetland impacts to NWET14A

34.2
815
Station 598, west side, Sheet CV-134
Mostly to avoid but also about 400' of this also avoids impacts to watercourse
NWUS26B
35.1
235
Station 595, west side, Sheet CV-135
Avoids impacts to watercourse NWUS27A
36.1
70
Station 576+50, east side, Sheet CV-136
Avoids impacts to wetland NWET20A
37.1
30
Avoids impacts to wetland NWET20A and floodplain associated with the

Patapsco River
38.1
255
10
Minimizes impacts to floodplain associated with the Patapsco River

(essentially a long wing wall of the north abutment)
39.1
1100
10
Minimizes wetland and watercourse impacts to NWET24C, NWET24E, and NWUS24A. Reduces im
Hebert Run
Location
Purpose
Notes: 1The retaining wall numbers correspond to the plan sheet of the 30 percent civil drawings for example, engineering plan CV-103 shows retaining wall 3.1. A single station value is
assigned to each wall in the table, solely as a means to identify its approximate location.
3-75
FIGURE 3.8-3A: WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSE IMPACTS MAP 1 OF 2
3-76
FIGURE 3.8-3B: WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSE IMPACTS MAP 2 OF 2
3-77
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse

impacts to wetlands and other WUS. Under the requirements of Section 404 and the Maryland
Nontidal Wetlands Protection Act, the MTA will obtain a Joint Federal/State Permit for any
impacts to WUS, including wetlands, resulting from project-related activities. MTA has fully
coordinated with the regulatory agencies throughout the project planning process to identify
and address, to the greatest extent practicable, agency regulatory concerns during the
alternatives design, analysis and advancement process. Coordination with regulatory agencies
on further avoidance and minimization and permitting issues will continue throughout later
phases of the project, and MTA will submit a Joint Permit application during final design for the
project.
As part of the permitting process, MTA would develop a detailed compensatory mitigation
package, including final mitigation design, for review and approval by the USACE and MDE
prior to permit issuance. All mitigation would be developed in accordance with the Federal
Compensatory Mitigation Rule (33 CFR Parts 325 and 40 CFR Part 230), and MDEs Maryland
Nontidal Wetland Mitigation Guidance (MDE Nontidal Wetlands and Waterways Division, 2011).
Even with the implementation of practicable measures to avoid and minimize impacts to
aquatic resources, mitigation measures may be required in the form of establishment/creation,
enhancement, or preservation to replace the loss of wetland, stream, and/or other aquatic
resource functions.
Traditionally, Section 404 determines mitigation requirements by the ratio of wetland acres or
stream length replaced to wetland acres or stream length lost. However, ratios are based on
providing functional replacement of impacted wetlands and streams, and final determination of
required ratios can only be determined during final design. However, to help guide mitigation
site search and planning efforts, MTA used historically typical ratios to provide an estimate of
potentially required mitigation. MTA typically mitigates the loss of wetlands of high quality
and/or that contain RTE species, such as WSSC, at a higher ratio.
Table 3.8-4 details the wetland impacts, estimated compensation ratios, and likely mitigation
acreage requirements MTA anticipates for the Build Alternative. The total estimated mitigation
required for impacts to Non-WSSC and WSSC wetlands is 10.28 acres, while estimated stream
mitigation is 4,647 linear feet.
MTA developed a Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan based on a comprehensive mitigation site
search, which resulted in a list of mitigation opportunities that, based on initial investigations
and coordination with the regulatory agencies, are preliminarily technically feasible and able to
provide functional replacement of impacted resources. MTA identified a total of 17.97 acres of
potential wetland mitigation and 13,165 linear feet of potential stream mitigation. The BWI Rail
Station and Fourth Track Improvement Project Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan (MTA, June 2014)
outlines the site search process and presents details for each site (see Appendix F).
3-78
TABLE 3.8-4: ESTIMATED WETLAND AND STREAM COMPENSATION RATIOS

Wetland Acres Compensation
Estimated (Replacement Ratio)2
Wetland Acres Impacted

Cowardin Class1
Non-WSSC
WSSC
Non-WSSC
WSSC
Total
Mitigation
Palustrine Forested
(PFO)
Palustrine ScrubShrub (PSS)
Palustrine Emergent
(PEM)
1.57
0.18
3.14 (2:1)
0.54 (3:1)
3.68
0.03
0.00
0.06 (2:1)
0.00 (3:1)
0.06
3.86
1.34
3.86 (1:1)
2.68 (2:1)
6.54
Wetland Total
5.46
1.52
7.06
3.22
10.28
Linear Feet of
Stream
4,647
4,647
4,647
Notes: 1PFO
2
= Palustrine Forested; PSS Palustrine Scrub-Shrub; PEM = Palustrine Emergent

Ratios and estimated acreages of wetland and linear feet of stream compensation are for mitigation planning purposes only. Coordination with
regulatory agencies during development of the Final Mitigation Plan will determine final ratios and required acreage/linear feet of compensation
based on functional replacement of impacted resources.
The MTA will develop a Phase II Final Mitigation Plan in compliance with the Federal
Mitigation Rule and state mitigation guidelines as part of the final design and permitting phase
of the project. Detailed technical studies to support mitigation design, property owner contacts
and negotiations, and continued agency coordination will occur during development of the
Final Mitigation Plan. With the avoidance and minimization measures incorporated in the
current design of the Build Alternative and the preliminary mitigation measures 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 WUS.
3.8.2 Floodplains
EO 11988, Floodplain Management and under United States Department of Transportation
(USDOT) Order 5650.2 regulates floodplains:
Each agency shall provide leadership and shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss,
to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and to restore and
preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains in carrying out its
responsibilities.
MDE regulates nontidal floodplains at the state level. Any construction in nontidal floodplains
would require a Waterway Construction Permit from MDE.
MTA identified floodplains in the project corridor using Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)
produced by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). MTA mapped and
analyzed the 100-year floodplain, an area with a one percent chance of being flooded each year.
In January of 2015, an amendment to Executive Order 11988 established a new Federal Flood
Risk Management Standard that provides greater flood resilience and risk reduction for
federally funded projects (The White House, 2015). The standard changes the evaluation of
3-79
floodplains under the EO from the 100-year floodplain, as assessed for this project, to the 500year floodplain (two percent chance of being flooded each year). FEMA is currently in the
process of developing guidelines for implementing the amended EO and directed agencies to
delay any implementation of the new standard until the guidelines are fully in effect. The new
standard may not be ready for full implementation until mid-May of 2015. During final design,
the MTA would re-evaluate the project for compliance with EO 11988, as amended, and in
accordance with the final implementation guidelines.
Figure 3.8-4 depicts the 100-year floodplains within the project corridor. The proposed
alignment traverses extensive areas of 100-year floodplain associated with several named and
unnamed watercourses. Floodplains traversed or bordered by the project corridor, listed from
south to north, include:
Severn Run on both sides of the tracks
Unnamed stream near Cunningham Road along the east side of the rail line
Unnamed tributary to Stony Run at MDOT property east of the rail line, south of Dorsey
Road
Stony Run, primarily west of the rail line near BWI Airport
Stony Run, tributaries to Stony Run, and Red Run Creek in the vicinity of BWI Rail Station
on both sides of the rail line
Patapsco River and associated wetlands on both sides of the rail line in an approximately
3,500-foot-wide width
Herbert Run (and the East Branch of Herbert Run) closely parallels and bisects the
northernmost 5,000-foot section of the project corridor
Two of these waterways, the Patapsco River and Herbert Run, also have a regulated floodway
crossed by the Build Alternative within the overall floodplain. A regulated floodway also exists
on Severn Run just downstream of the existing rail embankment. A floodway is the channel of
awatercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base
flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated
height. These floodways, designated though detailed hydrologic studies, are regulated by
FEMA, MDE, and localities through the permitting process to ensure that development in the
floodplain does not raise the base elevation of a designated floodway by more than a maximum
of one foot or a smaller increment as determined by MDE.
The No-Build Alternative would have no impacts on the existing floodplains in the project
corridor.
3-80
Build Alternative
The Build Alternative would require permanent fill within the 100-year floodplain to widen the
rail embankment to support a fourth track through low-lying areas. Additional temporary
impacts to floodplains would also occur from construction access, and sediment and erosion
control measures. Based on the LOD of the preliminary design, the project would disturb
approximately 19.6 acres of land within the mapped 100-year floodplain. This calculation
includes both permanent and temporary floodplain affects. The project would primarily disturb
floodplain areas associated with 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),
and Beaver Creek (0.1 acre). Figures 3.8-4A and 3.8-4B illustrate floodplain impacts.
Table 3.8-3 identifies the locations of retaining walls to minimize floodplain impacts. MTA has
designed crossings to minimize floodplain and floodway encroachments and possible flood
level increases, to the best extent practicable. MTA has considered and incorporated restoration
and preservation of the natural and beneficial value of floodplains in the project corridor,
wherever feasible. All construction occurring within the 100-year floodplain will follow MDE
Waterway Construction permitting procedures and will meet guidelines in accordance with EO
11988, Floodplain Management. The MTA would re-evaluate the projects compliance with EO
11988 during final design after FEMA finalizes and publishes the new implementation
guidelines.
Based on the current design of the Build Alternative and current guidelines, MTA does not
anticipate an increase in the base flood elevation of greater than one foot in the floodways
crossed by the project. The new crossings of the Patapsco River and Herring Run floodways will
occur on the downstream side of the existing crossing, with the bridge piers and culvert aligned
with the existing structures to minimize any change in the flow characteristics. However, the
project will require additional fill in both of these floodways. MTA will conduct a more detailed
analysis of the projects potential impacts to designated floodways and hydraulic floodplain
function using H&H floodplain modeling during later phases of design when greater
engineering detail is available to support such modeling. Results of these studies will determine
whether the project would have negative effects on specific storage areas for floodwaters or
alter flooding characteristics. If these studies determine that flood elevation changes would
occur, floodplain storage mitigation may be required to meet regulatory compliance standards
and would be determined at that time as part of the permitting process.
All construction occurring within the FEMA designated 100-year floodplain must comply with
FEMA approved local floodplain construction requirements. If, after compliance with the
requirements of EO 11988 and US DOT Order 5650.2, new construction of structures or facilities
are to be located in a floodplain, accepted floodproofing and other flood protection measures
would be applied to new construction or rehabilitation. The project would not exacerbate any
known downstream flooding issues. Stormwater measures, in accordance with Environmental
Site Design (Refer to Section 3.7, Water Resources), will help to minimize any post-construction
increases in runoff from the new impervious areas. The Patapsco River is a tidal waterway just
downstream of the project corridor. Stormwater runoff volume may be less of an influence on
flood characteristics of the Patapsco River than downstream tidal effects. As with other
3-81
waterways in the project area, the MTA will evaluate flood characteristics of this tidally
influenced waterway through H&H modeling during final design of the project.
FIGURE 3.8-4A: FLOODPLAINS AND FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS MAP 1 OF 2
3-82
Figure 3.8-4B: FLOODPLAINS AND FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS MAP 2 OF 2
3-83
3.9
ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section identifies terrestrial and aquatic species and habitat in the project corridor and
3.9.1 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species

The federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, provides for the conservation of
species that are endangered or threatened throughout all or a large part of their range, and the
conservation of the habitats on which they depend. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
affords the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with the opportunity to comment
on federally funded projects regarding potential impacts to federally listed species. The Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661 et. seq.) requires consultation with USFWS and with
state wildlife agencies (for this project, the DNR) for any federal-aid project involving work in
any stream or other water body.
In coastal areas, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries
Service (also known as NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service - NMFS) protects and
conserves marine mammals, sea turtles, and other threatened and endangered marine species
by implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. The
entire project corridor is within the federally designated coastal zone, therefore, MTA consulted
with NMFS.
The state of Maryland regulates sensitive species under the Nongame and Endangered Species
Conservation Act (Annotated Code of Maryland 10-2A-01). This law protects both federally
listed endangered species and those species deemed state endangered, threatened, or in need of
conservation based on habitat and conservation factors. This law is supported by regulations set
forth in COMAR Title 08.03.08, which contains the official state list of species considered
endangered, threatened, and in need of conservation (COMAR, 1985). The DNR Wildlife and
Heritage Service (WHS) is responsible for protecting resources under these provisions.
MTA consulted federal and state resource agencies regarding the potential occurrence of rare,
threatened, and endangered (RTE) plant and animal species in the project corridor. Responses
MTA received from these agencies are included in Appendix A and summarized below.
NMFS indicated in their January 13, 2011 response letter and subsequent coordination, that no
species listed under the jurisdiction of NOAAs NMFS are known to occur in the vicinity of the
project, and that no additional coordination with NMFS is needed (Colligan, 2011 and Vaccaro,
2013).
USFWS indicated in its February 2011 and February 2014 responses that, Except for occasional
transient individuals, no federally proposed or listed endangered or threatened species are
known to exist within the project impact area. Therefore, no Biological Assessment or further
3-84
Section 7 Consultation with the USFWS is required. However, the response notes that bald
eagles, while no longer federally listed, are still protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act, Lacey Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. As a result, starting on August 8,
2007, if your project may cause disturbance to the bald eagle, please consult the National Bald
Eagle Management Guidelines. (Koppie, 2011 and Miranda, 2013).
Subsequent coordination with the regional eagle coordinator with the USFWS Chesapeake Bay
field office determined that the project is not expected to impact the associated eagle
populations. USFWS conducted the most recent eagle survey in that area during 2004. The only
identified bald eagle nests are located several miles from the project site. USFWS requested that
MTA notify USFWS of the discovery of any new nests. However, project field studies have not
identified any new nests. USFWS does not anticipate requiring any time of year construction
restrictions, even if additional nests are found (Koppie, 2011).
DNRs March 2011 and March 2014 responses identified four state RTE species within close
proximity of Stony Run in the project corridor (Table 3.9-1). Stony Run is a WSSC.
TABLE 3.9-1: STATE-LISTED SPECIES POTENTIALLY PRESENT WITHIN
THE PROJECT CORRIDOR
Scientific Name
Common Name
State Status
Arundinaria gigantea
Giant Cane
Rare
Thelypteris simulata
Bog Fern
Threatened
Swamp Pink
Endangered, also federally-threatened
Clammyweed
Endangered
Helonias bullata
Polanisia dodecandra
Source: Byrne, 2011
Subsequent correspondence with DNRs WHS identified the need to conduct species
investigations for giant cane and bog fern near the nontidal WSSC and the project corridor (L.
Byrne, May 10, 2011). Based on coordination and guidance from DNR WHS and species habitat
characteristics, MTA conducted a targeted species survey for these plants within a portion of
the project corridor in accordance with the DNR WHSs Information Required to Document
Surveys for Rare Plants (DNR, 2011).
MTA conducted field investigations on May 13; June 29 and 30; September 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, and
30; and October 4 and 5, 2011, within the agreed upon target areas for giant cane and bog fern.
MTA observed both species within the project corridor, mapped the locations, and
photographed their occurrences (See Figures 3.9-1 and 3.9-2). This EA does not provide species
location maps to protect the species. Two occurrences of giant cane stands, totaling 4.56 acres,
are generally located south of Old Stoney Run Road and north of Stoney Run Road and are
comprised of six sub-occurrences, totaling over 13,000 stems. Twelve total occurrences of bog
fern, totaling 0.16 acre (approximately 3,000-4,000 fronds), were identified both east and west of
the railroad, approximately 3,000 feet north of the Dorsey Road overpass. Each occurrence is
comprised of one to five sub-occurrences.
3-85
FIGURE 3.9-2: GIANT CANE
FIGURE 3.9-1: BOG FERN
Bog fern (Thelypteris simulata) close-up from stand

identified near the project
Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantean) stand identified near

the project
Photo Date: September 29, 2011
Photo Date: September 21, 2011
The No-Build Alternative would have no direct impacts on the existing RTE species in the
project corridor.
Build Alternative
Based on preliminary engineering design, the LOD required to construct the project would
impact existing colonies of giant cane, but would avoid bog fern populations. Approximately
1,102 square feet (0.025 acre) of an existing population of giant cane on the east side of the rail
line would be impacted by grading adjacent to the terminus of the relocated access road,
stormwater treatment and right-of-way drainage swales, and temporary sediment and erosion
control measures south of Old Stoney Run Road. This represents approximately 0.5 percent of
the total 4.56-acre area of giant cane identified within the project corridor, and approximately
eight percent of the specific giant cane occurrence affected. The extent of this impact was
minimized by eliminating a portion of the trackside access road through this area.
Opportunities for complete avoidance were limited due to topography and the need for positive
drainage of the rail embankment. However, minimization of impacts to sensitive species and
their habitats, was an important factor in the overall development of the Build Alternative and
was coordinated with regulatory and resources agencies. MTA placed particular emphasis on
minimizing impacts to those sensitive species habitats related to WSSC, through major design
and alternative decisions. The Build Alternative reflects this collaborative process, and MTA
will investigate further minimization of this impact during final design. Other potential impacts
to RTE species present within the project corridor were avoided through alignment shifts and
limiting the width of the LOD, where practicable.
3-86
MTA provided preliminary RTE survey findings to DNR WHS with a request for further
guidance. DNR WHS confirmed that mitigation requirements for impacts to RTE species and
habitat, including impacts to nontidal WSSC and its buffer, would be determined on a case-bycase basis in later phases of design when more detailed engineering is underway. Impacts to
rare state species do not typically require mitigation after the implementation of all practicable
efforts to minimize impacts. However, ongoing coordination with DNR WHS throughout the
later design and permitting phases, when final LODs are available, will determine specific
mitigation measures, if required.
3.9.2 Forests
DNR regulates forest resources under the Maryland Forest Conservation Act (FCA). COMAR
15.15.03.02 defines forests as a biological community dominated by trees and other woody
species that are at least 50 feet wide and 10,000 square feet in area (Figure 3.9-3).
The FCA aims to protect forest resources and requires
the submittal of a Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) and a
Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) to the DNR Forest
Service for approval for any project requiring a grading
permit or erosion and sediment control plan on a tract of
40,000 square feet or more. The FSD characterizes
environmental features and existing forest cover within
the project boundaries, while the FCP documents the
projects proposed forest clearing, forest protection
measures, and proposed reforestation to mitigate forest
impacts.
FIGURE 3.9-3: FOREST STANDS
Forest Stands exist in close proximity to the rail

line, as seen in this view near the east side of the
Severn Run arch structure.
MTA conducted field investigations between April 6 and October 26, 2011 to identify forest
resources and specimen trees (at least 30 inches in diameter at breast height or 75 percent of the
State Champion of that species) in accordance with the State Forest Conservation Technical Manual
(DNR, 1997). MTA used this information, along with existing published data, to develop the
FSD/Environmental Features Map for submittal to DNR.
MTA delineated 44 forest stands within the project corridor, totaling 171 acres. In general,
wooded areas in the project corridor are early- to mid-successional, mixed
deciduous/coniferous forests. The upland forests are primarily dominated by red maple (Acer
rubrum), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), oaks (Quercus sp.), and tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), while the wetland forests are dominated by red maple, American
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), box elder (Acer negundo), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and
river birch (Betula nigra). All but two of these stands contained priority resources such as
3-87
streams or wetlands, making these forests a priority for retention under the FCA. MTA also
identified 70 specimen trees throughout the project corridor. Figures 3.9-4A and 3.9-4B illustrate
forest resources within the project corridor. MTA submitted the FSD to DNR, which approved
the FSD on February 2, 2012.
The No-Build Alternative would have no project-related impacts on the existing forest resources
in the project corridor.
Build Alternative
The Build Alternative would affect approximately 17.30 acres of mapped forest resources within
the project corridor. The majority of these impacts occur in narrow strips along the rail line
where grading adjacent to the new fourth track, the relocated access road, stormwater
management swales, temporary sediment and erosion control measures, and other project
elements encroach on the forested areas that parallel the existing embankment (refer to Figures
3.9-4A and 3.9-4B). In addition, the project would affect one specimen tree.
Once final design is underway for the project, MTA will coordinate further with DNR to
determine the appropriate timing for submittal of a preliminary FCP. A final FCP is required
once final design is complete. The FCP will include an application, maps, a forest conservation
worksheet, mitigation planting plans, and a long-term protection agreement as outlined in the
State Forest Conservation Technical Manual. The MTA will use the Technical Manual Forest
Conservation Worksheet during final design to calculate the amount of retention, reforestation,
and/or afforestation required to mitigate forest impacts.
Based on the preliminary engineering design and initial calculations using the Forest
Conservation Worksheet, approximately 20 acres of reforestation would be required as
mitigation for forest impacts associated with the Build Alternative. Because the preliminary
engineering LOD includes both permanent and temporary changes to the project corridor,
opportunities for reforestation in temporary impact areas may meet a portion of the
reforestation requirements. During final design, MTA will identify opportunities for
reforestation areas within the LOD and undisturbed portions of the right-of-way. However, if
mitigation measures cannot satisfy requirements wholly or partially on-site, then MTA would
expand the search for a mitigation site (or sites) to areas within the projects watersheds or into
the affected counties.
3-88
FIGURE 3.9-4A: FOREST STAND IMPACTS MAP 1 OF 2
3-89
FIGURE 3.9-4B: FOREST STAND IMPACTS MAP 2 OF 2
3-90
3.9.3 Terrestrial Habitat and Wildlife

MTA identified terrestrial habitats and potential wildlife within the project corridor through
review of aerial photography, on-line resources maintained by the DNR, and data collected
during project-related natural resource investigations, such as wetland and forest surveys.
MTA also mapped the locations of large contiguous forest habitats likely to support sensitive
Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS). FIDS habitat is a regulated resource within the
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (See Section 3.9.5), but is a diminishing resource in Maryland,
overall, and DNR strongly encourages minimization of impacts to forest interior habitat.
MTA identified potential FIDS habitat using DNRs GIS layer (2012) but reduced some areas
where project-related field assessments and aerial photography showed a lack of forest. A
review of each of these areas confirmed whether it met the criteria for potential FIDS habitat.
MTA calculated the acreages of the areas in GIS, along with potential FIDS interior areas to
determine existing resources in the project corridor.
Vegetated habitats of various widths border the rail line along the majority of its length;
however, many of these habitats are highly fragmented and disturbed natural areas. In the
southern portion of the project corridor, generally south of MD 100, residential development
surrounds the project corridor with a narrow forested or shrub hedgerow buffering the existing
rail line from maintained residential yards. Larger forested areas, related to continuous forested
stream valleys that cross the project corridor from west to east or blocks of undeveloped
forested lands bounded by highways and/or the rail line, occur periodically in this portion of
The remainder of the project corridor contains larger, more continuous forested resources
within and adjacent to the project corridor, which are associated with the Stony Run, Patapsco
River, and Herbert Run stream valleys and related wetlands. Non-forested terrestrial habitats
are relatively limited in the project corridor, but are generally comprised of non-forested
wetland areas within the forested stream valleys and maintained lawns associated with
commercial and industrial properties or the BWI Airport runways that abut the right-of-way.
The smaller more-disturbed terrestrial habitats in the project corridor would likely support
wildlife typical of suburban settings. Wildlife inhabiting these areas includes species adapted to
edge habitats such as white-tail deer, opossums, raccoons, groundhog, gray squirrel, mice, fox,
and common avian species. Open wetland habitats in the project corridor support a wider array
of avian species including waterfowl and wading birds, numerous reptiles and amphibians, and
mammals such as beaver and muskrat. The larger forested areas in the project corridor,
particularly those connected to a broader network of streams and forests, provided the highest
quality habitats. These areas would likely support those species already mentioned, as well as
more sensitive species such as FIDS.
3-91
FIDS typically require large tracts of forest (greater than 50 acres) of either broad riparian forest
(300-foot width) or areas containing at least 10 acres of forest interior (at least 328 feet from
forest edge) in which to maintain viable populations. Twenty-five species of FIDS breed within
the Critical Area (Jones et al., 2000), including hawks, woodpeckers, vireos, Wood Thrush,
Scarlet Tanager, and several warbler species. Eighteen of the 25 species occur within suitable
habitat near the project corridor (Ellis, 2010). The MTA has identified FIDS habitat in eight
locations within the project corridor. The largest areas of potential FIDS habitat are located
along the Patapsco River, between Stony Run and Ridge Road north of I-295, between
Corporate Center Drive and Stony Run north of Old Stoney Run Road, and east of New Ridge
Road south of Stoney Run Road (refer to Figures 3.9-5A and 3.9-5B).
The No-Build Alternative would not result in any project-related impacts to terrestrial habitats
and wildlife in or near the project corridor.
Build Alternative
The Build Alternative would impact terrestrial habitat and wildlife largely through the loss of
wetland and forest habitat, a total of 6.98 acres and 17.3 acres respectively, distributed over the
length of the project corridor. Individual impacts to habitat are relatively small and consist
primarily of small linear encroachments into already disturbed portions of the habitat.
However, an increase in higher-speed train activity in the project corridor could result in a
slightly higher incidence of wildlife train strikes and permanently displace some wildlife
species. Construction may temporarily displace mobile species such as birds and mammals
(which would likely move to existing adjacent habitat). Typically, these species quickly
relocate back to their former habitat after construction, or they may permanently relocate to
the nearest similar habitat. In either case, the Build Alternative would have a minor impact
regarding these issues.
The Build Alternative would not create any new breaks in existing FIDS habitat. Because the
project only widens the existing rail line that has already created gaps in the adjacent forests,
the impacts will be fairly minor and will not result in a loss of entire FIDS habitat areas. Projectrelated impacts to potential FIDS habitat will be in the form of encroachment into riparian forest
edges and by a small reduction in forest interior, due to forest edge encroachment. The potential
FIDS riparian forest encroachment area is 3.9 acres and the potential FIDS interior habitat
impact is 0.3 acre. The largest impact to riparian forest is located near the BWI Rail Station.
MTA has minimized impacts to terrestrial habitat and wildlife by locating the Build Alternative
on the existing, previously disturbed rail embankment on the east side of the corridor, and
minimizing the width of the LOD, to the extent practicable. The MTA will mitigate impacts on
terrestrial habitats through wetland mitigation and reforestation as discussed in Sections 3.8.1
and 3.9.2, respectively.
3-92
3.9.4 Aquatic Biota

Under the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR 26.08.02), the state has adopted water
quality standards to enhance and protect water resources and address the mandates of the
federal Clean Water Act (CWA). COMAR provides designated use classes for all Maryland
waterways. All of the streams in the project corridor are Use I or Use IV waters. Use I waters are
protected for water contact recreation and aquatic life and Use IV waters include all Use I
protections in addition to protection as recreational trout waters. See Section 3.7.4 for more
information on federal and state water quality regulations.
MTA gathered information on aquatic biota through review of published data sources and
coordination with DNR. The Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) sampled for fish on
Severn Run and Herbert Run, between 1995 and 2008. MBSS evaluated overall fish community
health at each sampling site using the Fish Index of Biotic Integrity (FIBI). Benthic
macroinvertebrates are an important food source for fish and are a useful indicator of overall
stream condition.
MBSS sampled benthic macroinvertebrates in all named streams in the project corridor between
1995 and 2009. Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected and analyzed using MBSS methods
(Stranko et al., 2010) or Stream Waders (SW) methods (Boward et al., 2011), a volunteer-based
organization managed by DNR. The MBSS and SW vary only in scoring methods, with the
latter using a family-level Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (BIBI), which scores sites similarly to
the genus-level BIBI used by MBSS (Stribling et al., 1998).
COMAR classifies the Patapsco River and Severn Run and its tributaries, including Beaver
Creek, as Use IV water-bodies. COMAR classifies the remaining stream segments located in the
project corridor as Use I (Maryland Department of the Environment, 2012).
A range of resident warm water fish species utilizes the streams within the project corridor.
Based on communications with DNRs Integrated Policy Review Unit, the Patapsco River
system supports largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and smallmouth bass (Micropterus
dolomieu), trout, and sports fishing activities. Anadromous fish species including white perch
(Morone americana), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), and river herring (Alosa spp.) have been
documented during their spring spawning season in the Patapsco River. Other migratory fish,
including American eel (Aguilla rostrata) and sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), have been
collected in streams within the project corridor. Severn Run is stocked with trout for
recreational fishing during the spring season, in reaches downstream of the project corridor
(refer to Section 3.7).
Fish community FIBI ratings at these sites ranged from Very Poor to Fair. Fish communities on
the Severn Run were rated as Fair and communities on Herbert Run were rated from Very Poor
to Fair. The majority of fish found within the project corridor were species considered to be
tolerant to pollution. The only exception, Herbert Run, contained a number of intolerant
3-93
species. Several species collected in the project corridor are considered sport fish including
chain pickerel (Esox niger), largemouth bass, rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), smallmouth
bass, and yellow perch.
For all streams in the project corridor, BIBI ratings ranged from Very Poor to Good, with a
majority of ratings in the Poor range (Table 3.9-2). BIBI rated the community at the Beaver
Creek site as Good the highest of all sites in the project corridor. The benthic
macroinvertebrate community in Beaver Creek, exhibiting a relatively high diversity, was
primarily comprised of sensitive individuals. Ratings in Severn Run ranged from Very Poor to
Fair. Sites rated as Poor primarily consisted of tolerant individuals, while those rated as Fair
primarily consisted of sensitive individuals. BIBI rated Stony Run and Red Run Creek as Poor,
and Herbert Run as Very Poor, with a low diversity, and almost all tolerant individuals. No
data on benthic macroinvertebrates in the Patapsco River were available within a mile of the
project.
TABLE 3.9-2: BENTHIC INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY (BIBI) RATINGS FOR SITES SAMPLED
WITHIN THE PROJECT CORRIDOR
Stream
Severn Run
BIBI Rating Range
Data Points (Method)
Years Sampled
Very Poor - Fair
7 (MBSS) and 2 (SW)
1997-2008
Beaver Creek
Good
1 (SW)
2003
Stony Run
Poor
4 (SW)
2005-2009
Poor
Very Poor
1 (SW)
3 (MBSS)
2005
1995-2009
Red Run Creek

Herbert Run
The No-Build Alternative would have no impacts on aquatic biota in the project corridor.
Build Alternative
The Build Alternative has the potential to impact aquatic biota in the project corridor by
increasing imperviousness and directly reducing available stream habitat from the extension of
culverts and construction of bridge abutments or in-stream piers, as in the case of the Patapsco
River Bridge. Construction of the bridges will require a water quality certification from MDE
and will incorporate MDE-approved best management practices.
The new bridge would maintain fish passage and migration similar to the existing structures.
The use of retaining walls has reduced potential direct impacts to aquatic biota by decreasing
the area of embankment fill and required culvert extensions. The MTA would mitigate direct
impacts to stream channels (see Section 3.8.1). Stormwater management controls and
construction-related BMPs would capture untreated runoff and greatly minimize project-related
water quality impacts on aquatic biota.
3-94
Stream relocations will be required in a number of locations where Stony Run or one of its
tributaries flows immediately adjacent to the existing rail embankment. These relocations could
also temporarily impact local aquatic biota. However, the relocations would be performed using
natural stream design, which means that the channel would mimic the characteristics of an
appropriate reference stream. Once the new stream channel is stabilized, resident fish and
benthic macroinvertebrates are expected to recolonize the relocated channel.
3.9.5 Coastal Zone Management and Chesapeake Bay Critical Area

According to Section 307 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended
(CZMA), and NOAA regulations (15 CFR part 930), federal actions occurring within or likely to
affect any land or water use, or natural resource of a states coastal zone, including cumulative
and secondary effects, must be consistent with a states federally-approved Coastal Zone
Management Plan (CZMP).
The Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) amended the CZMA to
clarify that federal consistency requirements apply when any federal activity, regardless of
location, affects any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone. The CZARA also
clarified that coastal impacts include cumulative and secondary effects.
The Maryland General Assembly passed the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (CBCA) Act in 1984,
which appears in Subtitle 18 of the Natural Resources Article, Title 8, of the Annotated Code of
Maryland (see COMAR 27.02.01-08 for detailed description and regulations). The CBCA Act
establishes a Critical Area boundary, defined as land and water areas within 1,000 feet of the
landward edge of tidal waters or tidal wetlands. The Critical Area boundary contains a 100foot buffer measured landward from a tidal water body. An expansion of this buffer may
include adjacent environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. wetland, steep slope, erodible soil, etc.).
The Critical Area contains three land development classifications that determine the
appropriate land use and the related mitigation requirement:
Resource Conservation Areas (RCAs). Areas
environments and resource utilization activities
characterized
by
nature-dominated
Limited Development Areas (LDAs). Areas developed at low or moderate intensity that also
contain areas of natural plant and animal habitats
Intensely Developed Areas (IDAs). Areas where residential, commercial, institutional,
and/or industrial developed land uses predominate and there is relatively little natural
habitat
For areas that are not intensely developed, the CBCA Commission places the following
restrictions:
Development limited to resource-based activities and residential development
Reforestation required for all clearing
3-95
Afforestation required if site is un-forested

No construction on slopes greater than 15 percent
The CBCA Act generally requires documentation of existing conditions within the Critical Area
boundary and coordination with the CBCA Commission to minimize disturbance and mitigate
for impacts to the Critical Area. MTA conducted a preliminary review of published information
to identify known resources within the CBCA including forest cover, delineated wetlands and
waterways, floodplains, soil series, and critical habitats. MTA created a Preliminary
Environmental Features Map using information obtained from published GIS data sources
available from DNR and projectspecific data collected during field investigations for other
resources.
The Patapsco River is the boundary between Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties, and the
Critical Area boundary extends 1,000 feet up-river from tidal influence. Figure 3.9-5 depicts the
Critical Area boundary in the vicinity of the project. Theoretically, the Critical Area boundary
should envelop both sides of the river. However, according to CBCA digital maps (DNR, 2001)
the Anne Arundel County coastal area boundary on the southeast side of the Patapsco River
extends a large distance upstream from the Baltimore County Critical Area boundary. The
digital mapping further defines the Anne Arundel County portion of the coastal area as RCA
land use designation.
MTA conducted a field survey on October 26, 2011 within the CBCA to identify and document
individual trees greater than two inches in diameter at ground level that are not associated with
a forest stand or other vegetative community. MTA characterized vegetative communities,
including forest stands within the CBCA, according to successional stage, common species, and
overall health. The State Forest Conservation Technical Manual (DNR, 1997) generally defines
vegetative communities as any tree-dominated floral community that does not meet the
definition of a forest. MTA identified forest stands as part of the full FSD conducted for the
entire project corridor.
3-96
FIGURE 3.9-5: CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL AREA MAP
3-97
According to NOAA, Marylands coastal zone extends to the inland boundary of the 16
counties bordering the Atlantic Ocean, the Chesapeake Bay, and the Potomac River, as far as the
municipal limits of Washington, D.C., and includes Baltimore City and all local jurisdictions
within the counties (NOAA, 2004). This includes the entire project corridor, except for a small
portion in Howard County, which is located outside the expected limits of disturbance.
The northern portion of the project corridor crosses a small portion of the CBCA, in the area
surrounding the Patapsco River and its floodplain. The CBCA Commission classifies this area as a
Resource Conservation Area (RCA). By letter dated March 10, 2011, the CBCA Commission
confirmed these areas were under their jurisdiction and project plans would require CBCA
Commission review and approval prior to project construction. Several natural resources have
been identified for the project within the CBCA, including wetlands, streams, and forests. Eight
wetlands and five waterways delineated for the project occur within the CBCA.
Additionally, 13 vegetative communities, including eight forest stands, are also located within the
CBCA portion of the project corridor. These forest stands are composed of 27 individual trees: 25
box elder, one green ash, and one northern red oak (Quercus rubra), ranging in diameter from 2.4
inches to 10 inches. A majority of the forest within the CBCA is potentially FIDS habitat. CBCA
Habitat Protection areas within the project corridor include buffers, forested areas, including FIDS
habitat, nontidal wetlands, and the Patapsco River and its tributaries.
The No-Build Alternative would have no impacts on the existing coastal zone resources and
CBCA.
Build Alternative
Marylands CZMP reflects existing laws and authorities, and other permit processes incorporate
the CZMP consistency determination. Since the Build Alternative impacts wetlands, the Coastal
Zone Consistency determination will be issued as part of the states wetlands authorization. A
Joint Federal/State Application for the Alteration of Floodplain, Waterway, Tidal or Nontidal
Wetland in Maryland will be prepared during the permitting phase of the project, which will
demonstrate to MDE and USCOE that the project is consistent with the states CZMP
regulations.
Based on the preliminary engineering LOD, the Build Alternative affects approximately 3.34
acres of the CBCA. Within these limits, the project would affect approximately 2.56 acres of
nontidal wetlands, 1,560 linear feet of stream channel, and 1.34 acres of forest. Three of the
potentially impacted forest edges are potential FIDS habitat, resulting in approximately 0.7 acre
of impact to FIDS. These impacts are encroachments to riparian habitat rather than interior
FIDS habitat impacts. During preliminary engineering, avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce these potential impacts included placing the new track in already disturbed areas, to
the extent practicable, and adding retaining walls to reduce the width of fill in some locations.
3-98
Additional efforts to reduce potential impacts to the CBCA will continue in final design. Any
forest clearing within the CBCA will require mitigation in the form of reforestation within the
Critical Area, in accordance with the CBCA regulations, either on-site or at an approved off-site
location. Ratios for reforestation range from 1:1 to 3:1, depending on the quality and location of
the impacted forests.
As documented in a letter from the CBCA on March 7, 2011 (Appendix A), ongoing
coordination between MTA and the CBCA Commission will be necessary during final design to
further reduce impacts, if possible, to define project-specific mitigation and ratios, and to
prepare and submit CBCA plans for review and approval. The CBCA Commission does not
typically give its approval until after the issuance of all other related environmental permits,
such as for wetlands and stormwater. The plan submittals would include the following
information:
Location and extent of all existing natural resources, including Habitat Protection Areas
Information regarding any clearing, grading, or other disturbance within the Patapsco River
buffer
Any tree clearing associated with the addition of the fourth track
Proposed mitigation for the above two items, as necessary, including the amount and
location
Information on any other necessary federal, state and local permits
3.10 PARKLANDS AND RECREATIONAL AREAS

This section identifies parklands in the project corridor and describes the potential impacts of
the project. The project passes through or near several publicly owned parklands. The MTA
identified existing and proposed open spaces and recreational areas along the project corridor.
The analysis of the No-Build Alternative and the Build Alternative identified potential effects
on parklands adjacent to the project corridor.

Two acts of federal legislation govern the treatment of parklands: Section 4(f) of the United
States Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended, and the United States Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. Section 4(f) protects publicly owned parks, recreational
areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and public and private historical sites from conversion to
transportation use unless it can be demonstrated that (a) there is no feasible or prudent
alternative to the use of such land; and, (b) that such use includes all possible planning to
minimize harm to resources. Chapter 6 provides a detailed Section 4(f) Evaluation for the
unavoidable impacts to parks.
The United States Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 established a funding source
for federal acquisition of recreational lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and other similar
3-99
resources. Section 6(f) of the Act contains provisions to protect and maintain the quality of lands
purchased using these funds, preventing the conversion of these resources from land uses other
than public outdoor recreational use. Chapter 6, the Section 4(f) Evaluation, summarizes the
investigation of Section 6(f) resources.
The analysis of parklands and recreational areas defined its study area as land within 500 feet
on either side of the centerline for the rail alignment between Grove Interlocking to Winans
Interlocking. A combination of GIS data, aerial photographs, reviews of local plans, contacts
with jurisdictional agencies, and field visits helped to identify and assess impacts on existing
open spaces and recreational areas adjacent to the project corridor. MTA reviewed local and
state plans to identify the locations of future parklands and recreational areas along the project
corridor. Appendix A includes copies of agency correspondence.

There are numerous current and proposed open spaces, and recreational areas, within the
project corridor. Table 3.10-1 and Figure 3.10-1summarize these facilities.
TABLE 3.10-1: PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND RECREATIONAL AREAS
Park/Open Space/
Recreational Areas
Ownership
Type
Patapsco Valley State Park
DNR
State Park
Severn Run 2 Greenway
Combination of Easements, Land Trusts, and

Public Ownership
Protected Greenway
Piney Run to Stoney Run Greenway

Public Ownership
Protected Greenway
Saw Mill Creek Greenway

Public Ownership
Protected Greenway
Stoney Run Greenway

Public Ownership
Protected Greenway
BWI Trail
Anne Arundel County
Multiuse Trail
Patapsco Valley 1 Greenway

Public Ownership
Protected Greenway
Patapsco Valley 2 Greenway

Public Ownership
Protected Greenway
Source: Parsons, 2011 and Anne Arundel County Greenway Master Plan
Note: There were no parkland facilities within the project corridor in Baltimore County
3-100
FIGURE 3.10-1: PARKLANDS, GREENWAYS, AND TRAILS
3-101
Regional Parklands
Patapsco Valley State Park boundaries span multiple counties, with land in Anne Arundel,
Howard, Baltimore and Carroll counties. The park follows the Patapsco River for a 32-mile
stretch, although it is not contiguous. Many recreational areas and trails are located throughout
the park, although none is located in the project corridor.
MTA initiated early coordination with the DNR, Maryland Park Service in a letter dated
February 28, 2011 to confirm the ownership of the lands and facilities, boundaries, and existing
and planned uses of the park within the project corridor. MTA also requested the disclosure of
the use and types of funding sources, in particular Section 6(f) funding, for acquisition of land
or development of park facilities. In a letter dated April 27, 2011, DNR concurred that the
project crosses DNR-owned property in Patapsco Valley State Park (Appendix A). However,
DNR currently uses those adjacent properties as vegetative buffer for Patapsco Valley State
Park, with no planned development at this time. Importantly, the letter from DNR stated that
the acquisition of the adjacent park property did not require federal funding, which is subject to
federal Section 6(f) restrictions.
Anne Arundel County Parklands and Recreational Areas
Anne Arundel County contains the following parks, recreational areas, multiuse trails, and
protected greenways in the project corridor:
Severn Run 2 Greenway. The Anne Arundel County Greenways Master Plan identifies Severn
Run 2 as a greenway for preservation. As of 2010, the county has protected roughly 26
percent of its 1,021 acres through a combination of easements, land trusts, and public
purchasing. The portion of this greenway in the project corridor contains both protected and
unprotected lands.
Piney Run to Stoney Run Greenway. The Anne Arundel County Greenways Master Plan
identifies Piney Run to Stoney Run as a greenway for preservation. As of 2010, the county
has protected roughly 44 percent of its 209 acres through a combination of easements, land
trusts, and public purchasing. The portion of this greenway in the project corridor contains
both protected and unprotected lands.
Saw Mill Creek Greenway. The Anne Arundel County Greenways Master Plan identifies Saw
Mill Creek as a greenway for preservation. As of 2010, the county has protected roughly 23
percent of its 421 acres through a combination of easements, land trusts, and public
purchasing. The portion of this greenway in the project corridor contains both protected and
unprotected lands.
Stoney Run Greenway. The Anne Arundel County Greenways Master Plan identifies Stoney
Run as a greenway for preservation. As of 2010, the county has protected roughly 31 percent
of its 500 acres through a combination of easements, land trusts, and public purchasing. The
portion of this greenway in the project corridor contains both protected and unprotected
lands.
3-102
BWI Trail. The BWI Trail, a paved multiuse recreational path for bicycles and pedestrians,
follows a 13.5-mile route encircling BWI Airport. This trail has direct connections to the BWI
Rail Station and the MTA Central Light Rail Lines Linthicum Station. It connects to the
Baltimore and Annapolis (B&A) Trail, which extends southeast to Annapolis. A proposed
off-road spur from the BWI Trail would connect to Howard County, crossing the project
corridor along the existing bridge at Stoney Run Road.
Patapsco Valley 1 Greenway. The Anne Arundel County Greenways Master Plan identifies this
greenway for preservation. As of 2010, the county has protected roughly 93 percent of its
658 acres through a combination of easements, land trusts, and public purchasing. The
portion of this greenway in the project corridor contains mostly protected lands and
overlaps with portions of Patapsco Valley State Park.
Patapsco Valley 2 Greenway. The Anne Arundel County Greenways Master Plan identifies this
greenway for preservation. As of 2010, the county has protected roughly 58 percent of its
1,004 acres through a combination of easements, land trusts, and public purchasing. The
portion of this greenway in the project corridor contains both protected and unprotected
lands and overlaps with portions of Patapsco Valley State Park.

The No-Build Alternative would have no impacts on parkland in the project corridor.
Build Alternative
Two parklands and recreational areas are adjacent to the project: Patapsco Valley State Park and
the BWI Trail. Several greenways also are located within the project corridor. Potential effects
on each of these properties include:
Patapsco Valley State Park property, owned by the DNR, is immediately adjacent to the existing
NEC right-of-way beginning just south of I-295 and extending northerly to the Patapsco River.
In their coordination letter dated April 27, 2011, DNR stated that they currently use the park
properties adjacent to the project as vegetative buffer for Patapsco Valley State Park, and have
no planned development at this time. DNR also stated that the acquisition of the parcels did not
include Maryland Program Open Space funding or federal funding.
The Build Alternative proposes the location of the fourth track on the east side of the existing
alignment with track construction on a new bridge over the Patapsco River, parallel to the
existing railroad bridge. Three narrow strips of additional right-of-way, a total of approximately
0.65 acre would be required from park property. Additionally, there are three parcels
designated as passive recreation areas associated with the Stoney Run Greenway. A small
amount of acreage, 0.26 acre, would be required from these three parcels. No adverse effects on
park resources would occur due to the project. Refer to Figure 3.10-2.
3-103
FIGURE 3.10-2: PARKLAND ACQUISITIONS
3-104
As a federally funded project, the use of Patapsco Valley State Park property requires that the
project meet the requirements of Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act. Refer to Chapter 6 for a
complete Section 4(f) assessment.
BWI Trail
The Build Alternative would remain within the existing rail right-of-way in the vicinity of the
BWI Trail and would have no impact on this recreational area.
3.11 VISUAL IMPACTS AND LIGHT EMISSIONS

This section identifies the visual and aesthetic conditions in the project corridor and describes
the potential impacts of the project. It contains a description of the landscape and visual context
in the project corridor, principal visual characteristics of the project, light emissions, and an
overview of the potential for project-related impacts on the surrounding visual environs. Please
refer to the BWI Rail Station Visual and Aesthetics Analysis Technical Report (May 2012) for more
detail regarding the visual and aesthetics analysis.

As noted in Section 3.2 Land Use, Neighborhoods, and Community Facilities, the project
corridor spans Anne Arundel County and Baltimore County, and includes a very small part of
Howard County, all within the state of Maryland. In addition to the federal guidelines
applicable to visual impact assessment and impact analysis, state and local jurisdictional plans
and policies may define important visual resources and assessment requirements.
Federal Highway Administration (23 USC 109)
In its implementation of NEPA, FHWA directs that final decisions regarding projects take into
account destruction or disruption of aesthetic values. The FHWA developed specific guidelines
for the evaluation of visual effects of highway projects (Publication No. FHWA-HI-88-054).
Although the project is not an FHWA initiative, this guidance is useful for visual impact
evaluation along corridors.
Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) Maryland Byways Program
SHA has established the Maryland Scenic Byways Program, which gives special consideration
to the scenic qualities along designated roadways.
Local Plans
Local plans and policies are pertinent to this analysis if they designate local visual resources, or
if they contain policy statements related to management of the visual environment or guidelines
applicable to the aesthetic qualities of new development. Refer to Section 3.2 Land Use,
Neighborhoods, and Community Facilities for discussion of plans and policies applicable to
development in the project corridor.
3-105
The 2009 Anne Arundel County General Development Plan (Anne Arundel GDP) refers to the
Countys desire to retain wooded areas for their inherent scenic quality and in locations that
they function as visual buffers. The BWI/Linthicum Small Area Plan references community
desires to establish and protect wooded areas as buffers around the airport, airport related uses,
industrial uses, and commercial uses where proximate to residential areas. The Severn Small
Area Plan references the protection and development of wooded areas, and defers to the Anne
Arundel Forest Conservation Act Program and the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Program for
implementation of such protections. Similarly, the Howard County General Plan 2000 (Howard
County Plan) refers to protection of wooded areas, both as scenic resources and as visual buffers.
Howard Countys Forest Conservation Act aims to protect existing forest resources as
functional ecosystems, and references their aesthetic values.
Both the Anne Arundel GDP and the Howard County Plan propose or designate scenic roads, but
no scenic roads are located near the project corridor. The Baltimore County Master Plan 2020
(Baltimore County Plan) designates and directs policy toward the protection of scenic routes,
scenic views and scenic gateways; however, no designated scenic resources are near the project
corridor. No designated Maryland byways scenic routes are located near the project corridor.
Methodology
The visual impact assessment followed the federal guidelines provided in the FHWA
publication, Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects (Publication No. FHWA-HI-88-054).
This methodology is widely used for rail projects, as its systematic and logical approach is
readily adapted to assessing changes in landscape conditions that may result from
transportation projects. The BWI Rail Station Visual and Aesthetics Analysis Technical Report
describes the methodology for the visual impact assessment.

Project Setting
The presence of rail, highway and airport infrastructure set in undeveloped, wooded wetlands,
and a mix of residential tracts and industrial parks, characterizes the general appearance of the
project corridor. The rail corridor predates much of the surrounding development and is a
major component of the landscape. The existing tracks are situated on raised earth embankment
and bridges constructed through forested areas and wetlands. This established linear landform
and corridor, defined by the clearing of trees and absence of buildings, characterizes the rightof-way. Rail infrastructure including tracks, catenary poles and lines, signal towers, and station
elements result in a utilitarian visual character along the project corridor.
Where natural areas remain, they comprise wetlands, typically wooded and with intermittent
surface waters, as well as upland wooded areas. Wooded areas, both within the project corridor
and abutting it, form a visual screen and buffer to surrounding uses, although the screening is
generally incomplete and visually permeable. There are many residential, industrial and
commercial uses with direct views, or only partially screened views, to the project corridor.
3-106
Visual Study Area

The analysis of visual and aesthetic conditions defined its study area as land within 500 feet on
either side of the centerline for the rail alignment between Grove Interlocking and Winans
Interlocking. The visual study area is consistent with the APE for architectural resources
defined in cooperation with the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) for the cultural resources
evaluation, making it sufficient to capture visual impacts where sensitive architectural features
may be present. Refer to Section 3.12, Cultural Resources.
Inventory of Visual Resources
Visual resources typically include designated federal, state or local landmarks (historic,
architectural, or natural landmarks); state or locally designated visual resources, including
scenic roads; and parks and recreational areas. MTA identified five visual resources in the
visual study area, including two open space area features and three historic resources eligible
for listing in the NRHP. Figure 3.11-1 illustrates the following five visual resources. Refer to
Section 3.12, Cultural Resources, for a detailed discussion of historic resources.
Corporate Center Drive Pedestrian Walkway
Harmans Post Office (NRHP-eligible)
Reece Road Bridge over Amtrak (NRHP-eligible)
Alternate U.S. 1 Bridge over U.S. 1 Northbound (NRHP-eligible)
Viewer Groups
Viewer groups potentially affected by, and sensitive to, visual changes in the project corridor
are primarily residents living in the immediately surrounding areas. Visitors to the Patapsco
Valley State Park or the BWI Trail are also potentially sensitive to changes in the visual environs
that characterize these resources. The assessment of impacts on these two resources is limited to
those areas where visitors may enjoy them, in the general vicinity of the rail corridor.

The No-Build Alternative would have impacts to visual resources or aesthetics within the
project corridor.
Build Alternative
The introduction of new at-grade rail adjacent to existing tracks in an existing and operational
rail corridor would not be a large change in the context of the existing visual environment.
Therefore, the project would not have major impacts to visual resources or aesthetics as a result
3-107
the fourth mainline track. The visual character of the rail corridor would generally resemble
existing conditions.
FIGURE 3.11-1: VISUAL RESOURCES
3-108
As described in Chapter 2, Description of the Project and Alternatives Considered, the Build
Alternative would replace the existing BWI Rail Station with a new structure within the existing
property and right-of-way. The new station would be elevated and include connections
between the existing parking garage and new passenger platforms.
The development of the BWI Rail Station would be visible from the Corporate Center Drive
Pedestrian Walkway. The changes to the BWI Rail Station site, although perceptible from the
Corporate Center Drive Pedestrian Walkway, would not alter the walkway users experience.
Therefore, the project would have no major impacts to visual and aesthetic quality for users on
the Corporate Center Drive Pedestrian Walkway. The station area enhancement would have the
positive effect of improving an existing landscape element in its functioning as a meaningful
landmark to rail passengers.
Aside from the new BWI Rail Station, vertical structures associated with the project comprise
only signal towers and catenary poles and lines. The Build Alternative would relocate some
existing poles and signal towers, and introduce new poles and towers in other areas. It is
expected that changes to signal tower and catenary pole locations (except potentially in cases
where the right-of-way may require alteration) would largely be visually imperceptible to the
general public as a change in rail corridor character or surrounding landscape. Therefore, the
project would have no major impacts on the visual environs due to the physical appearance of
signal towers or catenary poles, whether relocated or new to the corridor.
Given the concern with changes to the environment that may be experienced by residents and
park visitors, as sensitive viewer groups, the visual analysis focused on instances where the
changes would occur within suburban or exurban residential landscape units or near the BWI
Trail or Patapsco Valley State Park, particularly where forest stands may be affected. Visual
changes would occur in areas where the LOD extends beyond the rail right-of-way and into
identified forest stands along the eastern side of the alignment. In most cases, the LOD only
redefines the edge of an otherwise broad stand of forest (typically 50 feet or more of forest stand
would remain between the edge of the LOD and the visual study area boundary, often
extending beyond the visual study area).
There are cases in which the removal of trees and/or forest stand within the rail right-of-way
would result in a reduction of visual screening between industrial/commercial parks and the
rail. However, the project would not change the overall landscape, the experience of visual
resources, or the general aesthetic conditions in the project corridor. Although the project would
have a visible change due to the BWI Rail Station improvements, these changes would be
positive.
The existing lighting from the BWI Rail Station consists of street lighting around the parking
structures and lighting from the station building and at the platform. The surrounding area
around the station and existing rails is heavily wooded and the lighting is directional limiting
light emissions. Since the station tracks are located near the airport, the MTA would design the
Build Alternatives lighting systems to comply with FAA and airport lighting standards so that
there would be no negative impacts to runway operations or runway safety. The FAA promotes
the following measures to mitigate any potential lighting impacts: shielding lighting fixtures
3-109
with visors; angling fixtures toward the base of the mounting poles; directional lighting; or
using minimal pole heights or reduced wattage bulbs.
The lighting provided with the Build Alternative would be consistent with the existing
conditions of the site. Any additional lighting provided with the Build Alternative would be
minimal and directional; therefore, would not increase light emissions for the airport.
3.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES

This section identifies and assesses impacts on NRHP-eligible or listed historic properties and
other cultural resources.

The treatment of cultural resources is primarily governed by Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and its implementing regulations at 36 CRF 800.
Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings (i.e.,
projects) on cultural resources. The Section 106 process seeks early consultation among the
agency official and other parties with an interest in the effects on cultural resources. The goal of
consultation is to identify project effects on cultural resources and seek ways to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects.
In addition, Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as
amended, protects public and private historic properties from conversion to transportation use
unless (a) there is no feasible or prudent alternative to the use of such land; and (b) that such
use includes all possible planning to minimize harm to resources. Chapter 6 provides a detailed
Section 4(f) Evaluation for the unavoidable impacts to cultural resources.
Procedures for the identification, evaluation, and treatment of cultural resources are also
contained in other federal and state laws and regulations that consider historic preservation.
These laws include:
The Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974
The Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990
The Maryland Historical Trust Act of 1985, as amended
The Maryland Financial and Procurement Article 5A-325 and 5A-326 of the Annotated
Code of Maryland
In addition, NEPA addresses potential impacts on historic properties, in accordance with all of
the laws listed above, to determine the significance of a projects anticipated environmental
impacts.
3-110
Definition of Cultural Resources and Historic Properties

Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic archeological resources; historic architectural
or built properties, including districts, buildings, structures, and objects; historic and cultural
landscapes or sites; and traditional Native American resources. Cultural resources are valued
by, or representative of, a given culture or contain information about a culture.
Historic properties are those buildings, structures, districts, sites, and objects that are listed in or
determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The NRHP is
the nations inventory of historic properties including:
Archeological sites
Built architectural properties, such as buildings, bridges or historic districts
Statuary
Sites where historic events occurred, such as battlefields
Designed or historic landscapes
Traditional cultural properties
For the purposes of Section 106, properties that are eligible for listing in the NRHP are treated
the same as those properties that the NRHP formally lists. To be listed or eligible for listing in
the NRHP, four criteria are used to assess the significance of properties that are more than 50
years of age, although exceptions for more recently constructed properties can be made.
Historic properties must meet one or more of the following NRHP criteria, defined in 36 CFR
60.4, to qualify for eligibility:
Criterion A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of American history; or
Criterion B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in the American past; or
Criterion C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or
that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack
individual distinction; or
Criterion D. Yield, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
Historic properties must retain integrity. To qualify for NRHP eligibility or listing, properties
must possess several, or most of, the aspects of integrity that the NRHP has established. These
include integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Assessment of Potential Effects
The MTA assessed potential effects to historic properties, including historic architectural
properties and archeological sites, within the projects Area of Potential Effects (APE) and
Limits of Disturbance (LOD). For assessing impacts on cultural resources under NEPA, 40 CFR
1508.27 defines significant impacts in terms of context and intensity. These elements consider
3-111
the impacts on the community, the importance of a site, unique characteristics, and the severity
of the impact. Under NEPA, project mitigation for a significant impact can reduce those impacts
to less than significant through data recovery or other treatment measures. However, under
Section 106 of the NRHP, an adverse effect on a historic property does not necessarily equate to
a significant impact under NEPA.
In previous consultations, MTA and FRA established an initial project APE, and then revised it
as a result of changes in the project. FRA revised the APE, again, in response to the Maryland
Historical Trusts (MHT) comments to consider all areas where the undertaking may cause
alterations to the character or use of historic properties. MHT concurred with the revised APE
in correspondence dated May 9, 2012. Figures 3.12-1A and 3.12-1B show the APE.
The APE considers both direct and indirect effects to historic properties, including changes to
significant viewsheds. However, archeological investigations are constrained to the LOD, which
is the area where only direct effects would occur. The LOD is a smaller area within the APE.
Further information regarding the identification and assessment of potential effects to historic
properties and other cultural resources appears in the following sections.
3-112
FIGURE 3.12-1A: AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS MAP 1 OF 2
3-113
FIGURE 3.12-1B: AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS MAP 2 OF 2
3-114

MTA collected data on previously identified and evaluated historic properties within the APE,
both historic architectural properties and archeological sites, and completed determinations of
eligibility for the NRHP. Files from the MHT and the NRHP provided data.
Historic Architectural Properties within the APE
The report entitled Historic Architectural Resources Survey for the Proposed Baltimore Washington
International (BWI) Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project, Anne Arundel County and
Baltimore County (October 2011) provided information on historic architectural properties. Since
the completion of that report, project changes required a revision to the APE. As a result,
additional NRHP evaluations were required. MTA completed the MHT Determination of
Eligibility forms and Short Forms for Ineligible Properties for built resources more than 50 years
of age within the revised APE. MHT concurred with these determinations of eligibility in
correspondence dated May 9, 2012.
There are three historic architectural properties within the APE (see Figures 3.12-2A and 3.122B): Bridge No. 0207500 (AA-2125), Bridge No. 3011 (BA-2782), and the Harmans Post Office
(AA-2298). Table 3.12-1 presents the details of these three NRHP-eligible historic architectural
properties.
TABLE 3.12-1: NRHP-ELIGIBLE HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE
AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS
NRHP
Eligibility
Status
NRHPeligible
MIHP
Number
Historic
Property Name
Location
Description
MIHP # AA-2298
Harmans Post Office
1225 Old Dorsey Road, Harmans
Two-story, wood-frame,
center-gabled structure
MIHP # AA-2125
Bridge No. 0207500
MD 174 (Reece Road) bridge

over Amtrak, Severn
Single span, two-lane,

metal, girder bridge built
in 1931
NRHPeligible
MIHP # BA-2782
Bridge No. 3011
Alternate U.S. 1 Bridge over

U.S. 1 Northbound, Amtrak, and
Herberts Run, Halethorpe
Five-span, two-lane, metal,

girder bridge built in 1936
(new deck added in 1979)
NRHPeligible
3-115
FIGURE 3.12-2A: NRHP-ELIGIBLE HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL PROPERTIES MAP 1 OF 2
3-116
FIGURE 3.12-2B: NRHP-ELIGIBLE HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL PROPERTIES MAP 2 OF 2
3-117
Archeological Sites within the APE

MTA developed updated project mapping based on the technical reports completed in 2012.
This updated project mapping includes the LOD, where direct effects potentially may affect
archeological sites, within the larger APE that considers potential indirect effects to built
historic properties. Due to site security requirements, the project mapping did not identify
archeological sites; however, the identification and assessment determined that
archeological sites are located within the LOD. The following archeological sites are located
in the revised LOD:
Site 18AN1480. Previously inside the LOD, now completely outside of LOD after the
revision of the LOD. Construction impacts will occur on the other side of the tracks;
therefore, avoidance measures for this site should not be required. However, MTA
recommends protective measures such as fencing during construction.
Site 18AN1482. Previously outside of the LOD, now inside the LOD after the revision of
the LOD. Because there is potential for construction impacts to the site, MTA
recommends a Phase II investigation.
MTA identified 18 archeological sites adjacent to, or within, the APE and four of these sites
are located, at least partially, within the LOD (Table 3.12-2). Two sites were previously
identified: the Higgins Site (Site 18AN489), which is eligible for the NRHP, and Harmans
Area B (Site 18AN29B), which MTA did not evaluate. Two additional sites, the Telegraph
Dorsey Prehistoric Site (Site 18AN1478) and OKeefe Site East (Site 18AN1482) were
identified during the course of the current project MTA did not evaluate either site.
Portions of each of these four sites within the LOD may be subject to cutting and filling; rail
construction activities; construction or removal of access roads; installation of catenary poles
and other ancillary structures associated with the project.
There are portions of two additional sites that fall within the LOD. The current rail line
bisects the Harmans Site (18AN29A) but, within the site limits, the LOD tightly conforms to
the existing and previously disturbed track bed. As a result, the project would have no effect
to the Harmans Site. A small portion of the Emmettsville Indian Site (18AN621) also falls
within the LOD; however, MHT site records indicate that this site has been destroyed;
therefore, the project would have no effect on the Emmettsville Indian Site.
3-118
TABLE 3.12-2: ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO

THE AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS
Site
Within LOD?
Aboriginal
Historic Era
---
NRHP Eligibility Status
18AN29A
Yes
Indeterminate
Eligible
18AN29B
Yes
Mid/Late 19th Century
Unevaluated
18AN30
No
---
Listed
18AN253
No
MA, EW, LW
A, EW, MW,
LW
EW, MW, LW
---
Unevaluated
18AN367
No
LA, EW
---
Not Eligible
18AN489
Yes
P, A, EW, LW
---
Eligible
18AN494
No
---
Unevaluated
18AN619
No
---
Unevaluated
18AN621
Yes
EA, poss. LA
Unevaluated
18AN1209
No
---
18th/19th Century
Unevaluated
18AN1386
No
Indeterminate
Unevaluated
18AN1477
No
---
Unevaluated
18AN1478
Yes
Indeterminate
Indeterminate
Late 19th/Early 20th
Century
---
18AN1479
No
Indeterminate
---
Unevaluated
18AN1480
No
Indeterminate
Unevaluated
18AN1481
No
Indeterminate
Unevaluated
18AN1482
Yes
Indeterminate
---
Unevaluated
18AN1488
No
---
Unevaluated
Unevaluated
Note: P=Paleoindian, A=Archaic, MA=Middle Archaic, LA=Late Archaic. EW=Early Woodland, MW=Middle Woodland
LW=Late Woodland

MTA based its assessment of effects on the criteria of adverse effect as defined in 36 CFR
800.5. According to this portion of the regulations, the criteria of adverse effect include:
An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the
characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National
Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the propertys location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all
qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been
identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the propertys eligibility for the National
Register. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the
undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance, or be cumulative.
The assessment of effects must consider the character-defining features and integrity of
historic properties. The implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800.5 provide examples of
adverse effects, which include but are not limited to the following:
Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property
Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance,
stabilization, hazardous material remediation, and provision of handicapped access, that
3-119
is not consistent with the Secretarys Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
(36 CFR 800) and applicable guidelines
Removal of the property from its historic location
Change of the character of the propertys use or of physical features within the
propertys setting that contribute to its historic significance
Introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of
the propertys setting that contribute to its historic significance
Neglect of a property that causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and
deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance
to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian Organization, and
Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of federal ownership or control without adequate
and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the
propertys historic significance
Assessment of Effects on Historic Architectural Properties
The APE contains three historic architectural properties, which are eligible for listing on the
NRHP:
Bridge No. 0207500. The project plans refer to this bridge as the Reece Road Bridge. It is
a metal, plate girder bridge, built in 1931 to carry MD 174 over the Baltimore & Potomac
Railroad (now Amtrak). The project will require the demolition of this bridge to install
the proposed fourth track, which the current bridges span cannot accommodate. As a
result, the MTA would remove the existing bridge and replace it with a new bridge. This
demolition will result in an adverse effect to the historic bridge.
Bridge No. 3011. The project plans refer to this bridge as the Herbert Run Bridge. It is a
metal, plate girder bridge, built in 1936, which carries Alternate U.S. 1 over U.S. 1
Northbound, Amtrak, and Herbert Run. The project includes construction of an
additional track under Bridge No. 3011. The existing bridge can accommodate the
additional track and no part of the project will touch the structure or affect any historic
building materials. Since the project proposes to use continuously welded rail, which
minimizes vibration, the project would have no vibration impacts to the bridge. The
project may introduce new visual elements above the rail line that would be consistent
with the bridges original historic setting. Because the bridge is a transportation resource
originally constructed to provide safe road travel above the rail line, introduction of the
fourth track and related project work would have no adverse effect to the bridges
integrity or character-defining features.
Harmans Post Office. This late-nineteenth-century building formerly housed the post
office and general store for the town of Harmans. The construction of the post office
occurred just after construction of the adjacent Baltimore & Potomac Railroad. Proposed
work in the vicinity of the building includes an additional rail track parallel to the
3-120
existing rail line, which is to the east of the post office. To avoid affecting the post office,
the new track would be located to the east of the existing tracks rather than to the west.
The easternmost area is farther away from the post office, and locating the new track
there will avoid encroaching on the Harman Post Offices historic property boundary.
The project may introduce new visual elements above the rail line that would be
consistent with the post offices original historic setting. Since the project proposes to use
continuously welded rail, which minimizes vibration, the project would have no
vibration impacts to the post office. Installing the new track will not adversely affect the
integrity or character-defining features of the Harmans Post Office, which has always
coexisted next to the rail line. Therefore, the project will have no adverse effect on the
Harmans Post Office.
Assessment of Effects on Archeological Sites
The project may affect four archeological sites in the current LOD: the Harmans Site (Site
18AN29B), Telegraph Dorsey Prehistoric Site (Site 18AN1478), and OKeefe Site East (Site
18AN1482). Three of these sites exhibited intact deposits and archeological materials in the
revised LOD (Sites 18AN29B, 18AN1478, and 18AN1482). Recent design modifications have
reduced the potential effects to intact portions of Site 18AN489. Although the project will
have no adverse effect on this site, due to the significance and sensitivity of this site, the
projects MOA will include commitments to avoid or minimize effects to the site (including
protective fencing, field orientation/education for construction personnel, and on-site
archeological monitoring).
Potential effects on the four archeological sites located in the current LOD include:
Harmans Site (Site 18AN29B). The project will affect Site 18AN29B with construction of
riprap slope protection, riprap outlet protection, an earth dike, and a new access road on
the east side of the LOD; excavation for a swale on the east side of the revised LOD; cut
activities along the east side of the Amtrak rail corridor; and installation a new drop
inlet, catch basin and drain and super silt fence (which includes a chain link fence as
backing behind the fabric silt fence) on the east side of the LOD. As a result, the project
will result in a potential adverse effect to this site. MTA recommends a Phase II
evaluation to assess NRHP eligibility of this site.
Telegraph Dorsey Prehistoric Site (Site 18AN1478). The project will affect Site 18AN1478
with construction of an earth dike; cut activities along the west side of the site;
installation of a new drop inlet, catch basin and drain; and ground disturbance resulting
from equipment access to re-string overhead transmission and signal power lines. As a
result, the project will result in a potential adverse effect to this site. MTA recommends a
Phase II evaluation to assess NRHP eligibility of this site.
OKeefe Site East (Site 18AN1482). The project will affect Site 18AN1482 with cut and fill
activities along the western and northern edges of the site and by installation of a super
silt fence, which includes a chain link fence as backing behind the fabric silt fence. As a
3-121
result, the project will result in a potential adverse effect on this site. MTA recommends
a Phase II evaluation to assess NRHP eligibility of this site.
As MHT requested, Site 18AN489 was one of four previously recorded archeological sites
tested during the Phase I survey to determine the extent of disturbance on site deposits
within the LOD. One prehistoric artifact, a side-notched rhyolite projectile point of the
Middle to Late Archaic Normanskill or Bare Island type, was recovered from one shovel test
pit (Unit 10). The artifact was associated with pale brown, sandy silt, Stratum 2, identified
between 0.7 and 1.1 feet (0.21 and 0.34 meters) below grade. Shovel test units 10 and 13
appeared to contain exposed intact soil columns. The remaining shovel test units exhibited
disturbed soils. During the development of alternatives for the project, MTA advanced an
east station design that reduced project effects to Site 18AN489.
Updated GIS mapping of the area of LOD that extends into Site 18AN489 shows that the
project has further reduced potential project impacts. Although the LOD still extends into
the site boundaries, the portion of the site that has intact stratigraphy no longer falls within
the revised LOD. As construction-related soil disturbance will not have the potential to
affect intact portions of the site, MTA and FRA have made a determination of no adverse
effect for Site 18AN489. A revised copy of Phase I Archeological Survey, BWI Rail Station
Improvements and Fourth Track Project, Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties (August 2014), has
been submitted to MHT. Upon receiving comments from the MHT, the MTA will revise the
project MOA and circulate it to all consulting parties.
Two additional archeological sites, Selby Grist Mill-Mill Dam Site (Site 18AN1209) and
OKeefe Site North (Site 18AN1480) a possible rail workers camp are adjacent to, but
outside of, the LOD. Specifically, the historic mill race that is part of the Selby Grist Mill-Mill
Dam Site is on the west side of the tracks near the BWI Station. While the project would not
directly impact this site, MTA and FRA acknowledge that its proximity to the LOD
introduces the potential for construction impacts if appropriate measures are not deployed
to protect it. Although this site is located outside of the LOD, protective fencing and field
orientation for construction personnel is warranted because of its proximity to project work.
Protective measures during construction would protect Site 18AN1480. Since the LOD
includes limited construction impacts on the western side of the rail tracks, a number of
sites that were slated for protective fencing during construction are now sufficiently distant
from potential construction impacts, so that these protective measures are no longer
necessary.
Assessment of Effects on Native American Cultural Resources
Consultation with Native American groups is ongoing, although MTA has not identified
any sensitive Native American cultural resources in the APE. Consultation with the Oneida
Nation and other potentially interested tribes will continue as the Phase II investigations of
the prehistoric components of Sites 18AN29A, 18AN1478, and 18AN1482 are completed.
3-122
Summary of Potential Effects

The No-Build Alternative would have no effect to historic architectural properties or
archeological sites.
Build Alternative
The Build Alternative will have no adverse effect on Bridge No. 3011 or the Harmans Post
Office. It will have an adverse effect on one built architectural property, Bridge No. 0207500
(Reece Road Bridge) when evaluated according to the guidelines established as part of
Section 106 of the NHPA. However, Bridge No. 0207500 is a standard bridge type that is
ubiquitous in Maryland and throughout the United States. The demolition of the bridge will
result in an adverse effect but, according to 40 CFR 1508.27, this adverse effect does not
constitute a significant impact under NEPA.
The Build Alternative also will have an adverse effect on the following three archeological
sites in the LOD: the Harmans Site (Site 18AN29B), the Telegraph Dorsey Prehistoric Site
(Site 18AN1478) and the OKeefe Site East (Site 18AN1482). It will have no adverse effect on
the Higgins Site (Site 18AN489), which is also in the LOD. No adverse effect is expected on
one additional archeological site, Selby Grist Mill-Mill Dam Site (Site 18AN1209), which is
adjacent to, but outside of, the LOD.
Mitigation Measures
As there will be adverse effects to NRHP-eligible historic properties, the following measures
to mitigate these adverse effects have been included in the draft MOA to avoid or minimize
potential adverse effects. After additional discussions with MHT and consulting parties,
MTA would develop the projects MOA and include the final agreed-upon mitigation
measures, along with information on when the measures will occur and which agency will
be responsible for implementation.
Mitigation measures may include:
Phase II testing for archeological sites 18AN29B, 18AN1478, and 18AN1482 may be
required to determine eligibility for listing in the NRHP. If Phase II testing determines
that any of these three archeological sites are eligible for the NRHP, and the project
cannot avoid or minimize adverse effects, then a Phase III Data Recovery plan will be
developed and implemented in consultation with the MHT and other consulting parties
to mitigate these adverse effects.
Despite the reduced area of potential construction disturbance to Site 18AN489, careful
coordination will be required to assure that the project avoids or minimizes effects
during continued design development and construction. MTA may consider protective
fencing, field orientation/education for construction personnel, and on-site
archeological monitoring for Sites 18AN489, 18AN1209, and 18AN1480.
3-123
The demolition of Bridge No. 0207500 is an adverse effect. MTA will provide to MHT
black and white photographs sufficient to portray the bridges elevations, its
architectural and engineering details and its context in order to provide an accurate
record of the bridge and its setting. MTA would prepare the recordation according to
the photographic documentation requirements of the Standards and Guidelines for
Architectural and Historical Investigations in Maryland and Appendix E Guidelines for
Digital Images in the Trusts Guidelines and Resources for Compliance-Generated
Determinations of Eligibility. MTA will provide to MHT a copy (8 x 11 inches) of any
original drawings that may exist for Bridge No. 0207500.
Since MTA has identified no properties of traditional religious or cultural importance to
Native American Tribes, it has recommended no mitigation measures. If MTA identifies
traditional cultural properties in the future, then it will develop appropriate mitigation
measures in consultation with MHT, the Oneida Nation, and other consulting parties.
3.12.4 Section 106 Consultation

Consultation is ongoing pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA. This consultation includes
representatives of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) at MHT, and local county
and municipal authorities (including Baltimore County Office of Planning, Historic
Preservation Division; and Anne Arundel County Office on Planning and Zoning, Cultural
Resources Division). Due to potential effects on highway bridges, the MTA invited the
Maryland State Highway Administration to participate as a consulting party, which
accepted in a letter dated December 13, 2013. The MTA invited the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP) to participate in the Section 106 process, but the ACHP
declined in a letter dated June 4, 2012. See Appendix A for copies of this correspondence.
Although Maryland does not have any federally recognized resident tribes, MTA identified
eight Native American non-resident tribal groups as potential consulting parties that may
be interested in project effects on aboriginal archeological sites. MTA provided information
on potentially affected aboriginal archeological sites to representatives of the following
tribal entities: The Delaware Nation, Delaware Tribe of Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe,
Oneida Indian Nation, Onondaga Nation, Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, Stockbridge Munsee
Community of Wisconsin and the Tuscarora Nation.
The Eastern Shawnee Tribe responded that no known sites of Native American importance
occurred in the APE and, because the area had been previously disturbed, additional intact
Native American sites would not likely occur. Only the Oneida Indian Nation requested,
and was granted, consulting party status, and was provided the Phase I report (Appendix
A). The Delaware Nation also responded, but indicated that the location of the project does
not endanger cultural or religious sites of tribal interest.
MTA submitted the Phase I Archeological Survey Report and Section 106 Assessment of Effects
letter to MHT for review and comment on December 14, 2014. MHT responded on February
3-124
4, 2015, approving the revised draft of the archeological report and providing concurrence
with the assessment of effects stated above.
As archeological investigations of the aboriginal components of sites within the LOD are
completed, consultation with these tribal entities regarding the identification of potential
traditional cultural properties will continue. Provisions for continued tribal consultation,
including the treatment of any Native American human remains in accordance with the
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA - 43 CFR Part 10), will
be included in the project MOA.
MTA has provided consulting parties with project information and correspondence. MTA
will continue to coordinate with the Section 106 consulting parties and MHT as the project
progresses.
The execution and implementation of the MOA will conclude the Section 106 process under
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA).
3.13 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND FARMLAND

This section summarizes the existing and future geology, soils and prime and unique
farmlands in the project corridor and describes the potential impacts of the project.
3.13.1 Geology
There are no specific regulations or guidance documents for geology. MTA consulted the
Maryland Geological Survey online pamphlet, A Brief Description of Maryland Geology (1981),
for basic geologic information on the project corridor.
Maryland is part of six Physiographic Provinces: the Atlantic Continental Shelf, Coastal
Plain, Piedmont Plateau, Blue Ridge, Ridge and Valley, and Appalachian Plateau. The
project corridor is primarily located in the Coastal Plain Province with the northernmost
part of the corridor located near the Fall Zone between the Coastal Plain and Piedmont
Provinces.
The No-Build Alternative would not require any construction. Therefore, the No-Build
Alternative would have no impacts to geology.
3-125
Build Alternative
The Build Alternative would have no long-term effects on geology and topography. MTA
would conduct geotechnical investigations and subsurface studies at specific locations, as
necessary, before construction activities to obtain more detailed information on geologic
formations and identify any potential hazards.
3.13.2 Soils
MTA obtained information regarding soils through the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey. The analysis of soils defined its study area as within 300
feet of the centerline for the rail alignment between Grove Interlocking and Winans
Interlocking. Anne Arundel County and Baltimore County provided GIS mapping of soil
units.
Soils vary according to the underlying geology of the physiographic provinces. According
to the NRCS Web Soil Survey for Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties, there are 34
mapped soil units in the study area. The more urbanized portions of the corridor consist of
Udorthents or urban land complexes while the natural soils consist primarily of sands, and
silty and sandy loams.
Alternative would have no impacts to soils.
Build Alternative
The Build Alternative only requires minor right-of-way acquisitions adjacent to the existing
project corridor. The Build Alternative would have minor, short-term impacts on existing
soils in the project corridor. The project would use best management practices (BMPs), such
as pollution control devices, spill prevention programs, installation and maintenance of
runoff diversion structures and secondary containment structures for all construction
activities, as required. MTA will prepare sediment and erosion control plans in accordance
with the Maryland Department of Environment Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion
and Sediment Control (1994).
3-126
3.13.3 Prime, Unique, and Special Farmlands

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is intended to minimize the impact federal
programs have on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. For the purpose of the FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique
farmland, and land of statewide or local importance. Farmland subject to FPPA
requirements does not have to be cropland. It can be forest land, pastureland, cropland, or
other land, but not water or urban developed land.
MTA identified soils supporting prime farmlands and farmlands of statewide importance
using the NRCS Web Soil Survey for Anne Arundel County and Baltimore County. Through
coordination with NRCS, MTA determined that the FPPA does not apply to this project
since it is located within an area identified as an Urbanized Area (UA) on United States
Census Bureau mapping. Therefore, the affected land does not meet the Acts definition of
prime farmland. Appendix A contains the completed CPA-106 form and correspondence
letter from NRCS.
Alternative would have no impacts to prime or unique farmlands.
Build Alternative
The Build Alternative is located within a UA (as identified by the United States Census
Bureau) and is not subject to the FPPA. Therefore, the Build Alternative would have no
impact on prime or unique farmlands.
3.14 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

This section identifies hazardous materials in the project corridor and describes the potential
impacts of the project. A search of federal and state environmental databases identified sites
with hazardous material concerns. This section summarizes the methodology and results of
these database searches and identifies sites of higher concern.

The EPA and the MDE regulate hazardous materials under many statutes. The two main
statutes that regulate materials of primary concern include the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and their respective amendments.
3-127
RCRA regulates generators, transporters, and the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
of hazardous materials. RCRA defines these materials as having ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or toxicity. CERCLA provides a process to correct those sites already
contaminated with hazardous substances.

MTA completed a database search covering the rail corridor. Distances and databases
searched were in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
E1527-05 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment Process. For those databases with no defined search distance in ASTM E1527-05,
MTA used a reasonable standard distance. MTA did not conduct a full Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) during this phase of the project. MTA also did not
conduct field reviews, interviews, or research into previous land uses.
MTA identified over 200 hazardous materials records during the database search within the
standard search distances; however, it is important to note that there are often multiple
records for a single site.
MTA reviewed and narrowed down the extensive list of records to sites considered of
potential concern to the project. This was based on several factors including: active cleanup
or case status, former/current environmental enforcement, and proximity to the project.
Table 3.14-1 lists these sites along with the database(s) with which they are associated.
TABLE 3.14-1: LISTED HAZARDOUS MATERIAL RECORDS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Site ID
Site Name
Database Associations
C-001
Fort George G. Meade
NPL, CERCLIS, CORRACTS, RCRA-TSDF, RCRALQG, ROD, PADS
C-002
Station CLNRS
RCRA-SQG
C-003
1400 Odenton Road
ERNS
C-004
Ferguson Trenching Co. Inc.
UST, FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
C-005
Handex of Maryland Inc.
RCRA-CESQG, UST
C-006
Nevamar Corporation
CERCLIS NFRAP, RCRA-LQG, SHWS, UST,

OCPCASES, HIST LUST, VCP, LRP, FINANCIAL
ASSURANCE
C-007
Intercontinental Export-Import
SWRCY, VCP, LRP
C-008
Ametek Inc. - Special Filaments
CERCLIS NFRAP, CORRACTS, RCRA-NONGEN,

RAATS, LRP
C-009
Broadcast Sports Inc.
RCRA-NONGEN
C-010
Western District Roads Garage
C-011
Mobil Oil Corporation - SS# Ghg
RCRA-SQG
C-012
The Hardaway Company
RCRA-SQG, VCP, LRP
C-013
Vectra Corporation - Odenton;

Former Formica Property
CERCLIS NFRAP, SHWS, VCP, LRP
C-014
American Urethane Inc
RCRA-SQG
3-128
TABLE 3.14-1: LISTED HAZARDOUS MATERIAL RECORDS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

Site ID
Site Name
Database Associations
C-015
Hi-Tech Color, Inc.
LRP
C-016
Russell William Ltd.
RCRA-SQG
C-017
Shirley Burns-Bryant
OCPCASES
C-018
Bay Associates Environmental
RCRA-NONGEN
C-019
Powercon Corporation
RCRA-LQG
C-020
Cunningham Excavating, Inc.
MINES
C-021
Meade Heights Elementary School
RCRA-SQG
C-022
Severn United Methodist Church
HIST, LUST
C-023
Kop Flex Incorporated
CERCLIS NFRAP, CORRACTS, RCRA-LQG, AST,

VCP, LRP, SHWS
C-024
General Auto & Truck Repair
RCRA-SQG
C-025
Chesapeake Collision Central
RCRA-SQG
C-026
Aggregate Transport Corporation
C-027
Gunther Enterprise
C-028
Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers
Delisted NPL, CERCLIS, RCRA-SQG, CONSENT,

ROD, LRP, SHWS
C-029
Gunther's Transport Lot C;

Glen Burnie Hauling Service
OCPCASES, UST, AST, FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
C-030
Petroleum Management Inc.
RCRA-NONGEN
C-031
Northrop Grumman BWI
RCRA-LQG, TRIS, UST, AST, OCPCASES, FINANCIAL

ASSURANCE
C-032
Grafco
SWRCY
C-033
Brentwood Hotels LLC
RCRA-SQG
C-034
MCI World Come - Relay Junction
C-035
Recovermat Mid-Atlantic
SWF/LF, SWRCY
C-036
Kane Transfer
HIST LUST
C-037
Universal Auto Service
RCRA-CESQG
C-038
Martin Marietta Corporation
SHWS
C-039
Relay Elementary School
RCRA-SQG, OCPCASES
C-040
Electro-Motive Division of GMC
RCRA-NONGEN
C-041
Boyds Body Shop
RCRA-SQG
C-042
C.N. Robinson Lighting
SWRCY
C-043
Buckingham Automotive
RCRA-SQG
Source: EDR Database, August 2010
The database search report revealed 117 cases monitored by the Oil Control Program
(OCPCASES). OCPCASES include leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) and
aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), and other spills. Of the 117 OCPCASES, all but two are
closed, meaning a cleanup was completed or no further monitoring was required. The two
open OCP cases are associated with sites C-006 and C-017.
3-129

Alternative would have no impacts to hazardous materials.
Build Alternative
Upon further screening, MTA identified nine contamination sites within the search radii in
high profile federal and state databases, as shown in Table 3.14-2. The federal and state
databases represented include EPAs National Priorities List (NPL), Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Large Quantity Generators (LQG),
Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP), Land Restoration Program (LRP), and open
OCPCASES. The contamination sites generally have multiple database affiliations and have
the greatest potential to have large-scale contamination concerns requiring additional
investigation.
Of the nine sites identified in Table 3.14-2, the project has a more immediate potential to
impact three sites due to the close proximity of the properties, within 0.2 mile, of the rail
right-of-way. The sites, shown in bold in the table, are:
Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers located in the project corridor (C-028)
Shirley Burns-Bryant located in the project corridor (C-017)
Northrop Grumman BWI located in the project corridor (C-031)
TABLE 3.14-2: RECORDS LISTED IN HIGH PROFILE DATABASES
Listed Party1
Database
(Site ID; Distance from Project)
Fort George G. Meade

(C-001; 0.5+ mi)
Mid-Atlantic Wood
Preservers
(C-028; 0.1 mi)
Comments
NPL
Added to the Final NPL on 7/28/1998. Includes municipal and

domestic wastes, pesticides, electrical transformers, solvents,
PCBs, inert material, and waste petroleum, oil and lubricant
products. Documented releases of hazardous waste into the
Upper and Lower Patapsco aquifers and the Patuxent River
watershed.
CERCLIS
Added to database in 1979. Federal facility remedial

investigations/feasibility studies ongoing.
CORRACTS
Facility was assigned a high corrective action priority on

05/28/1993.
RCRA-TSDF
Handler is engaged in the treatment, storage or disposal of

hazardous waste.
RCRA-LQG
Handler generates 1,000 kg or more of hazardous waste or 1 kg

of acutely hazardous waste during any calendar month.
PADS
Certified as generator facility on 08/02/1992.
Delisted NPL
Site delisted from NPL on 07/18/2000.
CERCLIS
Mid-Atlantic Wood property has been remediated and sold to

Gunthers Leasing and Transport, Inc, an adjacent business.
3-130

Listed Party1
Database
Northrop Grumman
BWI
(C-031; 0.2 mi)
RCRA-SQG
Handler generates between 100 and 1,000 kg during any calendar

month and accumulates less than 6,000 kg of hazardous waste at
any time.
CONSENT
Full-text of the consent decree by the United States District

Court is available.
LRP
Site is listed in MDEs Land Restoration Program.
SHWS
Site is listed in MDEs State Hazardous Waste Sites database.
RCRA-LQG

TRIS
Handler releases toxic chemicals to the air, water, or land in

reportable quantities under SARA Title III, Section 313.
UST
Three 30,000 gal heating oil tanks currently in use.
AST
Eleven tanks containing heating oil and gasoline.
OCPCASES
Three cases were opened under Oil Control Program and were
closed in 2004, 2000 and 1994.
FINANCIAL
ASSURANCE
Facility opened insurance policy effective 03/01/2006.
CERCLIS NFRAP
Deferred to RCRA on 06/14/1989.
CORRACTS
Facility or area was assigned a low corrective action priority on

12/01/1991.
RCRA-LQG

AST
Three 1,500 gal tanks containing used oil; one 500 gal tank
containing additives; one 500 gal tank containing cutting oil; one
500 gal tank containing hydraulic oil; one 275 gal tank containing
lubricating oil.
VCP
Site is listed in MDEs Voluntary Cleanup Program.
LRP
SHWS
Site is listed in MDEs State Hazardous Waste Sites database.
CERCLIS NFRAP
Site preliminary assessment on 03/01/1984 determined no further

planned remedial action.
CORRACTS
Facility or area was assigned a low corrective action priority.
RCRA-NONGEN
Facility does not presently generate hazardous waste.
RAATS
Enforcement action taken on property by EPA.
LRP
CERCLIS NFRAP

remedial action planned.
RCRA-LQG

SHWS
Formerly investigated site under MDEs SHWS program.
UST
Six USTs, all permanently out of use.
Kop Flex Incorporated

(C-023; 0.4 mi)
Ametek Inc Special

Filaments
(C-008; 0.4 mi)
Nevamar Corp
(C-006; 0.4 mi)
Comments
3-131

Listed Party1
Database
Comments
OCPCASES
Case opened on 03/20/1995, listed as Well/GW Contamination

Motor/Lube Oil.
HIST LUST
Open case. Recover Type: Hand bailing the monitoring wells for
free product.
VCP
LRP
FINANCIAL
ASSURANCE
Six USTs registered under database.
Shirley Burns-Bryant
(C-017; 0.1 mi)
OCPCASES
Case opened on 3/10/2004, listed as Aboveground Tank

Residential Heating Oil.
Martin Marietta Corporation

(C-038; 0.8 mi)
SHWS
No further remedial action required.
Vectra Corp Odenton;
CERCLIS NFRAP

remedial action planned.
FORMER FORMICA
PROPERTY
SHWS
Formerly investigated site under MDEs SHWS program.
VCP
LRP
(C-013; 0.5 mi)
Source: EDR Database, August 2010

Note: 1Sites closest to the project corridor are shown in bold
Figures 3.14-1A and 3.14-1B show the locations of these priority hazardous materials. MTA
would acquire right-of-way from two of the sites listed in Table 3.14-1; Site C-019, Powercon
Corporation, and Site C-020, Patuxent Asphalt (formerly Cunningham Excavating).
Powercon Corporation is a listed Large Quantity Generator of hazardous materials. The
database lists Patuxent Asphalt (formerly Cunningham Excavating) in the database of active
mines. Neither of these two facilities has documented contamination issues. Based on
preliminary plans for the Build Alternative, no additional right-of-way will be required
from any of the identified higher concern hazardous materials properties listed in Table
3.14-2. At the request of MTA, Amtrak researched their records and responded that they are
not aware of any contamination within the Amtrak right-of-way in the project corridor.
To reduce the risk of liability, MTA recommends a Phase I ESA for all areas with potential
right-of-way acquisitions. The results of the Phase I assessments would determine if a Phase
II ESA is necessary. A Phase I ESA is part of the due diligence process and typically includes
database review as well as site inspection, interviews and research into historical land uses.
MTA would perform a Phase II ESA if the Phase I ESA identifies contamination or areas of
uncertainty. The Phase II ESA focuses on subsurface sampling and testing.
3-132
FIGURE 3.14-1A: PRIORITY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES MAP 1 OF 2
3-133
FIGURE 3.14-1B: PRIORITY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES MAP 2 OF 2
3-134
Mitigation Measures
To reduce the risk of liability, MTA will conduct a Phase I ESA in areas with potential rightof-way acquisitions. MTA would conduct Phase II ESAs based on the Phase I
recommendations. Site-specific ESAs for the areas of additional right-of-way would define
more precisely the areas, if any, which have hazardous wastes; the contamination and flow
of ground water; the proper remedial procedures; and the cost of such remediation. MTA
would plan and perform the assessment in accordance with the technical requirements and
ASTM standards of EPA regulations, and with MDE requirements.
Although MTA would attempt to identify contaminated sites before construction,
sometimes construction activities will uncover previously unknown contaminated soils
and/or groundwater. If construction activities encounter unknown contaminated soils
and/or groundwater, or a release occurs, MTA will follow federal and MDE regulations to
contain the material and protect worker safety. Coordination with MDE would be required
to determine appropriate mitigation measures.
3.15 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

The construction of the Build Alternative would cause temporary impacts associated with
railway construction, roadway construction, utility construction, and building construction.
Anticipated temporary impacts would include construction noise, dust and noise from
heavy equipment traffic, disposal of construction debris, and air and water pollution.
MTA would conduct construction activities in accordance with Amtraks System Safety
Program (SSP), which includes Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and
FRA safety requirements as noted above, and performed in a manner that allows existing
Amtrak, MARC, and Norfolk Southern trains to continue operating safely while
construction occurs on the new station and station area improvements. Adjustments to
existing train schedules would accommodate the work needed to add a fourth mainline
track and upgrade the signal system. Federal regulations (and traditional safety practices)
require the protection of train operations and workers on, or near, the tracks. This
separation is performed by flagmen who assure that workers nears the track are safe from
oncoming trains, direct the workers to retreat to a place of safety when trains pass, and
assure that the tracks are safe for train operation before permitting trains to pass.
As described in Chapter 3.14, Hazardous Materials, MTA will acquire right-of-way from
two recorded hazardous material sites for the project; neither of these two facilities has
documented contamination issues. At the request of MTA, Amtrak researched their records
and responded that they are not aware of any contamination in the Amtrak right-of-way
within the project corridor. MTA would conduct further analysis for potential hazardous
material concerns before acquisition of additional right-of-way.
Although MTA would attempt to identify contaminated sites before construction,
sometimes construction activities will uncover previously unknown contaminated soils or
groundwater. The presence of soil or groundwater contamination, or the existence of
3-135
hazardous materials, within existing or proposed right-of-way can have an adverse impact
on the cost and schedule to complete a transportation project. If construction activities
encounter unknown contaminated soils and/or groundwater, or a release occurs, MTA will
follow federal and MDE regulations to contain the material and protect worker safety.
Contaminated soil unearthed during construction could require treatment and disposal and
would not be usable for backfilling operations. MTA will coordinate with MDE to determine
appropriate mitigation.
MTA would address mitigation for construction impacts by using the guidelines established
for Erosion and Sediment Control as defined by the 2010 Maryland Standards and
Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control (Draft October 2009); MDE Water
Management Administration Maryland Stormwater Design Manual, Volumes I & II; the
General Permit for Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (effective January 1,
2009); and other best management practices for avoiding/minimizing/mitigating
construction related impacts to air, water, and soils.
Specific construction-related impacts and mitigation measures are discussed in more detail
under individual resource categories presented in this chapter.
3.16 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

This section summarizes the indirect and cumulative effects (ICE) analysis and describes the
potential impacts of the project.
3.16.1 Regulatory Context

The CEQ regulations implementing NEPA, set forth at 40 CFR Part 1500-1508, require
federal agencies to consider the environmental consequences of their actions, including not
only direct effects, but also indirect and cumulative effects. Some guidance documents use
the terms secondary effects and indirect effects interchangeably.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by an action and are later in time, or farther
removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR 1508.8). Indirect effects
can occur within the full range of impact types, such as changes in land use; economic
vitality; neighborhood character; traffic congestion; air quality; noise; vibration; and water
and natural resources. Examples of indirect effects can include growth-inducing effects and
other effects related to induced changes in development patterns and intensity, population
density, and growth rates, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems.
The CEQ definitions suggest three broad categories of indirect effects:
Alteration of the behavior and functioning of the affected environment caused by project
encroachment (physical, chemical, biological) on the environment
Project-influenced development effects (e.g., the land use effect)
Effects related to project-influenced development (e.g., effects of the change in land use
on the human environment)
3-136
Cumulative impacts result from the incremental consequences of an action (the project)
when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions (40 CFR
1508.7). The cumulative effects of an action may be undetectable when viewed in the
individual context of direct and even indirect impacts, but when added to other actions can
eventually lead to a measurable environmental change. Cumulative impacts are the net
result of both the project and the other improvements planned in, near, and around the
project. Moreover, based on CEQ guidance, this section also considers the potential for
cumulative effects from other reasonably foreseeable future actions that are included in
capital budgets or identified in the long-range plans of transportation agencies.
3.16.2 Methodology
The analysis generally adhered to the SHA published guidance for ICE, Indirect and
Cumulative Effects Analysis (ICE Analysis) Guidelines for Environmental Impact Statements, and
Environmental Assessments and Categorical Exclusions (2007) desk references, and training
materials for ICE impact assessment. The SHA approach to ICE analyses is an accepted
methodology for transportation projects in Maryland. While this approach was developed
for highway projects, it has particular applicability for this project. The projects new track is
analogous to improving a limited access highway, and the station area enhancements are
analogous to improving operations at an existing interchange.
For this project, MTA used the following multi-stage process for estimating indirect and
cumulative effects:
Stage I: ICE Analysis Scoping
o Identify resources directly impacted
o Establish an ICE geographic boundary
o Establish time frame for analysis
Stage II: ICE Analysis
Stage III: Mitigation
Resources of Interest
The analysis of indirect and cumulative effects considered any resource or component
of the physical, natural, or social environment that would be directly affected by the Build
Alternative. The MTA evaluated the following resources for this indirect and cumulative
effects analysis: wetlands, streams, floodplains, forests, cultural resources, and public
parks.
Geographic Boundary
The MTA developed the ICE geographic boundary (shown on Figure 3.16-1) by overlaying
several resource boundaries. Based on the overlay analysis, the ICE boundary reflects a
combination of the outer limits of the sub-watersheds and the United States Census block
groups.
3-137
FIGURE 3.16-1: INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS (ICE)

GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARY
3-138
Time Frame
MTA selected the past time frame based upon the beginning of the MARC trains
operational service, which began in circa 1982. The projects design year of 2035 was used as
the future time frame. The year 2035 is also the MARC trains current service planning
horizon year. The analysis did not include actions intended for a time beyond 2035 as they
are not considered reasonably foreseeable. Therefore, MTA used the time frame from 1982
to 2035 to assist in identifying population growth, land use trends, and historic and
projected transportation improvements within the project corridor and proposed ICE
boundary.
3.16.3 Indirect Impacts
Indirect impacts, or secondary effects, are caused by the action (construction of the
interlockings, track, and station improvements), and are later in time or farther removed
from the immediate project corridor, but still reasonably foreseeable. Secondary effects
could include growth-inducing effects, changes in land use, zoning, population, or growth
rate. In other words, indirect effects focus on known development proposals, or land use
changes that can only occur if a Build Alternative is constructed, or if the project changes the
rate of the development. Research to date has not identified any transportation, residential
or commercial development projects that are dependent on the Build Alternative.
The project would not induce secondary development from dependent projects, land use or
zoning changes, but may induce indirect impacts caused by changes to the rate of
development in the immediate vicinity of the existing stations, including the BWI Rail
Station. As there is little land available for development near the project corridor, these
secondary effects are expected to be minimal.
The analysis considered only those resources, directly impacted by the project, as having
potential indirect impacts. Based on the direct impact analysis detailed in earlier sections,
the resources that the Build Alternative would directly impact include wetlands, streams,
floodplains, forests, public parks, and cultural resources.
The MTA would avoid or minimize direct impacts to natural resources, where possible,
during final design and mitigate the impacts according to applicable regulations. Prior
sections described mitigation measures that include agency coordination and vegetation
replacement. A Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan (June 2014) (Appendix F) has been
prepared that documents possible mitigation sites to compensate for direct impacts to
wetlands and streams. This detailed report identifies a range of possible mitigation sites
located in project corridor watersheds that are conceptually appropriate for wetland
creation or enhancement, stream restoration and reforestation to compensate for impacts
from the Build Alternative.
Notable resource agencies including the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the Maryland Department
of the Environment (MDE) have participated in reviewing the properties in the field and
3-139
have reviewed the report. The Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan serves to demonstrate that
appropriate mitigation sites, acreages or quantities, are available within the watersheds
where the project would have direct impacts. This demonstrates that suitable mitigation
opportunities within the watershed exist to compensate for project impacts. MTA would
prepare a Phase II Final Mitigation Plan during final design of the project. The mitigation
measures at these resources will limit the geographic extent of the direct impacts and
minimize the long-term effects of the Build Alternative.
MTA will minimize direct impacts to floodplains, both permanent and temporary, by
constructing retaining walls. In addition, MTA will perform permitting activities for all
construction activities within the floodplain, as detailed in Section 3.8.2. The project would
not exacerbate any known downstream flooding issues and would confine impacts to the
project right-of-way.
The direct impacts to forests within the project corridor would occur predominately in
narrow strips along the rail line where grading adjacent to the new fourth track, the
relocated access road, stormwater management swales, temporary sediment and erosion
control measures, and other project elements encroach on the forested areas that parallel the
existing embankment. During final design, reforestation locations will be identified within
the LOD if possible or within the projects watershed or affected counties. The mitigation
measures will limit the geographic extent of the direct impacts and minimize the long-term
effects of the Build Alternative.
The Build Alternative would directly impact Patapsco Valley State Park owned by
Maryland DNR. The project would permanently acquire less than one acre of Patapsco
Valley State Park. The access to and use of the park would not be affected. DNR has
confirmed there would be no adverse impact from the right-of-way required from the park
as the park properties adjacent to the project are currently utilized as vegetative buffer for
Patapsco Valley State Park with no planned development at this time. The direct impacts to
parklands would be confined to the limited parcels needed from Patapsco Valley State Park
and would not impact other parks within or outside of the project corridor.
The direct impacts to cultural resources, confined to individual architectural and
archeological resources, would not affect surrounding properties. MTA evaluated the
potential for direct effects to the built historic properties in the project corridor. The Build
Alternative would have an adverse effect on one architectural historic property, the Reece
Road Bridge. Consultation with MHT will determine methods to mitigate potential impacts.
Based on the efforts to limit and then mitigate direct impacts of the Build Alternative, and
the limited proposed development surrounding the project corridor, it is anticipated that the
Build Alternative would have little, if any, indirect impacts to the surrounding area. The
No-Build Alternative would have no direct impact to the surrounding area; therefore, there
would be no indirect impacts.
3-140
3.16.4 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis assesses the effects that the project would have when
combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative
effects would result from other public or private development projects.
The No-Build Alternative would have a potential cumulative effect on rail operations in the
project corridor and beyond. Having the rail lines, two platforms, and station building
remain in their current configuration would lead to further delays and operational issues as
rail operations increase throughout the NEC, specifically between Washington, D.C. and
Baltimore.
Build Alternative
Beneficial cumulative effects of the Build Alternative include improved mobility and
accessibility for residents, commuters, and intercity rail and air passengers who travel to
Washington, D.C., Baltimore, and the communities in between. This project would also
support development in the areas designated by local jurisdictions.
There would be a potential cumulative effect on surrounding environmental resources,
specifically wetlands, streams, forests, floodplains, public parks, and cultural resources.
The study area has experienced small- to mid-sized residential and commercial
development since 1982. Table 3-16.1 highlights the developments constructed after 1982
directly adjacent to the rail lines and near the BWI Station. MTA expects the pattern of
construction in the study area to continue as evidenced by a review of Baltimore County
and Anne Arundel County development activity. Baltimore County contains three
properties proposed for development.
One project involves redevelopment/refurbishment of an existing 53-acre warehouse and
light industrial site. The other projects are residential subdivisions with a total of three
additional dwelling units. In Anne Arundel County, there are 21 properties proposed for
development on a total of 338 acres. The projects are a mixture of commercial and
residential development and parcel size ranges from 0.7 acre to 121 acres with an average
size of 16 acres and a median size of 4.2 acres. These developments would result in
approximately 425 new dwelling units and 232,000 square feet of commercial development.
Table 3.16-2 and Table 3.16-3 list the development projects.
3-141
TABLE 3.16-1: CONSTRUCTED DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1982

Property Name
Year Built
BWI Station Garage 1
1996
BWI Station Garage 2
2000
Corporate Center Drive Pedestrian Walkway
2007
BWI Trail
1994
MDOT Headquarters
2004
Wynnewood II
1989
Severn Woods
1984
Jasons Landing
1999, 2000
Severn Station Estates at Windswept
2005
Redbridge
1989
TABLE 3.16-2: BALTIMORE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

Property Name
Type of Project
Size (acres)
Hollins End Corporate Park - West
Commercial
53.0
Andrews Property
Residential
1.0
Bell/Wheeler Property
Residential
6.2
TABLE 3.16-3: ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

Property Name
Type of Project
823 Elkridge Landing Rd
Commercial
1.5
BWI Technology Park Phase 2
Commercial
44.3
Gar Mor Properties, llc Property
Commercial
2.3
Used Bike Emporium
Commercial
0.9
Liberty Ridge 1
Commercial
18.2
BWI Technology Park Phase 2 - Amended
Commercial
16.6
Arundel Mills Holdings, llc Prop - Modification
Commercial
4.2
Patel Property
Commercial
1.1
Glenn Property
Commercial
0.7
Seven Oaks, Odenton Town Center At
Commercial
120.7
Stromberg Property - Resub Of Residue
Residential
1.2
Ridge Retreat
Residential
2.4
Ascher l Property (2nd Mayfield Ave)
Residential
7.8
Sewell Prop Lt 1 & Bulk Par - Modification
Residential
1.3
Residential
2.3
Peterson Trust Property
3-142
Size (acres)
Property Name
Type of Project
Size (acres)
Harmans Ridge Sec 1 & 2
Residential
18.8
Boyers Ridge (Modification Process)
Residential
51.2
Loving Estates
Residential
4.0
Mill Crossing
Residential
15.6
Bussey Property
Residential
9.9
7836 Telegraph Road
Residential
13.0
Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport has a number projects

planned for construction over the next 20 years. However, most them occur inside the
fence on currently disturbed or impervious surfaces. Inside the fence projects include
expanding the International Terminal, which will require approximately eight acres of new
impervious area, relocating the fire training facility, possible construction (by others) of a
new aircraft maintenance facility, and constructing an interior perimeter road for use by
authorized vehicles in the airports northwest quadrant. Outside the fence planned airport
projects include performing vegetation clearing in the runway approaches to maintain FAA
Part 77 airspace clearances (MAA typically provides revegetation or other methods to limit
impacts to water quality and stormwater management) and constructing a new terminal
response Fire Rescue Station near Elkridge Landing Road.
NEC FUTURE is a Tier 1 EIS and comprehensive planning effort to define, evaluate, and
prioritize future investments in the NEC, from Washington, D.C. to Boston. FRA launched
NEC FUTURE in February 2012 to consider the role of rail passenger service in the context
of current and future transportation demands. Through the NEC FUTURE program, FRA
will determine a long-term vision and investment program for the NEC and provide a Tier 1
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Service Development Plan (SDP) in 2016 in
support of that vision. MTA coordinated with FRA and the NEC FUTURE team to ensure
that this project does not preclude the future program efforts. As of yet, there is no specific
funding or foreseeable construction timeframes identified in the NEC FUTURE planning
and programming study or Tier 1 EIS. Therefore, MTA and FRA have not included the NEC
FUTURE Alternatives in the cumulative impact analysis.
MTA compared present and future projects with land use plans to determine the potential
cumulative effects to forested areas and wetlands. Most of the large, contiguous parcels of
woodlands and wetlands are located in protected parkland areas and along streams within
the analysis boundary and are subject to protection from development. Cumulative effects
to forested areas could occur when the Build Alternative combines with other future
projects.
Cumulative effects are most likely to occur in areas designated for development. Wildlife
species would exhibit continued loss of habitat or habitat fragmentation, which could affect
the overall health of the surrounding ecosystem. Some impacts would occur within areas
zoned for development, but impacts to sensitive resources should be minimal due to the
3-143
laws and regulations in place to protect these resources, and the stringent permitting
procedures in place to ensure avoidance/minimization, to the extent practicable. Although
the Build Alternative would have cumulative effects to these resources, the effect would be
minimal based on mitigation required under state and local laws and regulations.
Cumulative effects to floodplains from this project when combined with other planned
projects are possible. Disturbance to floodplain vegetation and landscapes may cause loss of
hydraulic function. This loss could cause increased flooding, erosion and sedimentation,
thus affecting downstream channel morphology. Future development would have minimal
effect to 100-year floodplains due to existing regulations and the requirement for approval
from the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). Permits requiring avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation would offset most floodplain disturbances caused by
cumulative effects.
Cumulative effects to public parks and recreational areas could occur in locations that are
directly adjacent to areas designated for development growth. Existing laws would regulate
cumulative effects to public parklands resulting from federally funded transportation
projects. For example, Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966, prohibits the use of park and
recreational areas for transportation use unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative,
or the use is determined to be a de minimis impact.
Cumulative effects to some historic and archeological resources could occur, particularly to
resources that are within or adjacent to areas designated for development growth. Any
potential effects resulting from proposed federal actions would be addressed through either
Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. State
and locally-funded transportation projects or private development projects are not required to
comply with these federal laws; therefore, cumulative cultural resources effects are
anticipated for state, local or private projects when combined with other federal projects that
incur impacts.
3.17 SAFETY AND SECURITY

This section identifies safety and security issues in the project corridor and describes the
potential impacts of the project.

Safety relates to protection from accidents, including protection of people and property.
This project considers the safety of passengers and employees on passenger rail trains, on
platforms, and in the BWI Rail Station; the safety of railroad workers, both those operating
trains and those maintaining the NEC and its right-of-way; and the safety of motorists,
pedestrians, and cyclists in locations or access points where they enter the BWI Rail Station
or encounter other railroad facilities. Safety also pertains to the construction of the project.
3-144
Security relates to protection from intentional acts, including protection of people and
property from such deliberate acts and the foreseeable effects of these acts. Topics include
crime prevention, emergency response, law enforcement, and protection against terrorism.
Many of the laws related to safety and security improvements have been recently enacted
including the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), the Rail
Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA), and the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act
of 2009 (ARRA).
Amtrak
Amtrak is a corporation organized under the Rail Passenger Service Act, 49 USC Section
24101 et seq. and the laws of the District of Columbia. Congress authorized Amtrak to
operate intercity passenger rail service in the United States. As the primary owner of the
NEC, Amtrak is responsible for operating and maintaining most of the right-of-way,
structures, and supporting facilities. Nearly all of the services provided by Amtrak for
operations and maintenance also benefit the commuter and freight railroads that operate
over the NEC, including track maintenance and inspection along with police and security.
Amtraks Police and Security Department
The key function of Amtraks Police and Security Department is to provide for the safety
and security of Amtraks patrons and employees, and to protect equipment and personal
property from criminal acts, including acts of terrorism. It also responds to emergency
and/or critical incidents. The role of Amtrak police is fixed by statute 49 USC 24305(e), 49
USC 28101 and 49 CFR 207.
The Amtrak Police Department has developed a Security Improvement Program designed
to address its role as a traditional police department as well as a department that has a
counter-terrorism program. In addition, it seeks to ensure that appropriate emergency
response and evacuation procedures are in place to address crisis and consequence
management situations. In 2012, the Amtrak Police Department will expand its
comprehensive rail security efforts to provide increased right-of-way protection to detect
and deter terrorists.
Federal Railroad Administration Final Rules
In 1998, FRA issued the Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness Standards Final Rule to ensure
that passenger railroads engage in advanced planning for emergencies. The rule requires the
preparation, adoption, and implementation of emergency preparedness plans.
FRAs comprehensive Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Final Rule, issued in 2006,
includes requirements for equipment crashworthiness, and inspection, testing, and
maintenance of passenger rail cars.
3-145
Amtrak System Safety Program

Amtraks 2007 safety policy, Amtrak System Safety Program (SSP), guides prevention efforts
by identifying the policies, programs and strategies that promote a safe work environment
for both workers and passengers. The goals of Amtraks SSP is to seek to provide
passengers, contractors working on Amtrak right-of-way, and employees with the highest
practical level of safety by formally integrating safety into all phases of the Amtrak system,
including design, construction, modification and rehabilitation, operation, maintenance, and
procurement.
Amtraks Environmental Health and Safety Department (EHS) is responsible for
developing, monitoring and/or implementing programs, policies and procedures that
support the safety of employees, customers, neighbors and contractors to achieve/maintain
environmental compliance and public health compliance (food, water, and sanitation
aspects of train operations). The Safety group, one of three functional working groups
within the EHS Department, develops, and monitors programs, policies, and procedures to
promote worker safety/well being, and to help provide guidance to meet applicable United
States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and FRA regulatory safety
requirements.
Amtrak is required to interface with a wide variety of agencies including those of a
regulatory nature primarily FRA, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB),
OSHA, and the EPA as well as those associated with emergency response. As stipulated in
the SSP, compliance with applicable Amtrak and regulatory (OSHA, EPA, FRA, DOT, etc.)
safety rules, instructions and policies is critical to working safely and preventing
occupational injuries and illnesses and is the responsibility of each and every employee.
Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008
The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) strengthens the
passenger rail network in the United States by tasking Amtrak, the USDOT, FRA, states, and
other stakeholders with improving service, operations, and facilities. To address specific
safety and security improvements on the NEC, the USDOT is to establish an NEC Safety
Committee comprised of representatives of USDOT, Amtrak, freight carriers, commuter rail
agencies, rail passengers, and rail labor organizations which will report to the Northeast
Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission and Congress (PRIIA 212).
The PRIIA, which created new railroad investment programs and authorizes the
appropriation of funds to USDOT for FY 2009-13 to award grants to Amtrak to cover
operating costs and capital investments, affirms federal involvement in developing the
nations intercity passenger rail systems.
NEC Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission
The PRIIA authorized the NEC Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission to
oversee the NEC planning process. The Commission includes representatives of the
Northeast states, USDOT, and Amtrak. The Commissions charge includes setting policy
3-146
goals for the NEC, defining cost allocation methods and funding opportunities, and leading
cooperative planning efforts to achieve a unified vision for the future growth, development
and operation of the NEC.
Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008
The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA) was enacted to improve railroad safety.
This Act, among other provisions, has mandated the widespread installation of positive
train control systems on most of the railroad network in the United States by December
2015.
Positive Train Control
Positive train control (PTC) refers to technology that is capable of preventing train-to-train
collisions, over speed derailments, and casualties or injuries to roadway workers (e.g.,
maintenance-of-way workers, bridge workers, and signal maintainers) operating within
their limits of authority as a result of unauthorized incursion by a train. Prior to October
2008, PTC systems were being voluntarily installed by various carriers. However, as
mentioned above, the RSIA has mandated the widespread installation of PTC systems by
December 2015. FRA is supporting all rail carriers that have statutory reporting and
installation requirements to install PTC, as well as rail carriers that are continuing,
voluntarily, to implement PTC through a combination of regulatory reform, project safety
oversight, technology development, and financial assistance.
Amtrak is undertaking the implementation of PTC systems for rail traffic in the NEC by
installing Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System (ACSES) and Incremental Train
Control System (ITCS) its versions of PTC on sections of Amtrak-owned tracks along the
NEC. Amtrak is on target to complete this work prior to the December 2015 deadline.
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009
Congress passed the ARRA in 2009, which appropriated $1.3 billion to Amtrak for capital
investment. The ARRA requires that Amtrak allocate $850 million for funding to rebuild
and modernize infrastructure and equipment. In addition, the ARRA appropriated $450
million for security and life safety projects. As part of the ARRA, Amtrak prepared a rail
security list based upon the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) approach that is
balanced between two concepts: (1) deterrence, detection, and prevention and (2) response
and recovery.
The Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan
In 2007, before passage of the PRIIA, 12 northeastern states and the District of Columbia
worked cooperatively and collaboratively with Amtrak and FRA to develop the NEC Master
Plan. The NEC Master Plan reflects existing goals and plans through 2030. The NEC Master
Plan (published in 2010) presented the basic ideas for improvements in operating flexibility
and track capacity needed to support future enhanced, reliable and safe passenger rail
service on the existing NEC system.
3-147
A Vision for High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor

An Amtrak report published in 2010, A Vision for High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor
(NEC Vision Plan), builds upon the improvements outlined in the NEC Master Plan, which
would bring the current system to a state of good repair, ensure reliable service for all users,
and provide sufficient capacity to meet estimated ridership demand through 2030.
However, the NEC Master Plan does not address the means to provide the improvements in
travel time or service levels needed to attract or handle large numbers of new passengers or
help alleviate congestion on the regions heavily constrained highway and air networks.
Amtraks NEC Vision Plan presents a possible concept for next-generation high-speed rail in
the NEC, with new dedicated high-speed rail alignments, stations and equipment that can
provide substantial travel time savings and attractive premium service by providing rapid
connections between the Northeasts major hub cities and its smaller cities, airports, and
suburban hubs. Amtraks NEC Vision Plan for developing a new high-capacity, 220 mph
next-generation high-speed rail system is being fully integrated within the NEC
infrastructure and investment development program to bring together all funding, policy
and planning decisions to ensure high-speed rail projects are a critical element of NEC
improvement efforts.
Amtrak released an updated vision plan for the NEC in 2012 that presented refinements to
Amtraks phased implementation of high-speed rail, encompassing upgrades to existing
NEC infrastructure to enhance capacity at key chokepoints, improvements to reliability and
advancing a state of good repair for existing and new high-speed, intercity, commuter and
freight rail service, and the development of the next-generation high-speed rail system. As
delineated in Amtraks Strategic Plan FY 20112015, safety and security will remain
Amtraks top priority while still advancing its future vision for its passenger rail system.

The project corridor is a nine-mile existing section of the NEC between Grove Interlocking
in Anne Arundel County and Winans Interlocking in Baltimore County. The project corridor
is a sealed corridor and has no grade crossings where trains and vehicles could meet. As
mentioned above, Amtrak is the primary owner of the NEC and is responsible for operating
and maintaining most of the right-of-way, structures, and supporting facilities. As the NEC
network hosts high-speed and intercity passenger rail service (Amtraks Acela Express,
Northeast Regional, and Vermonter), commuter rail service (MTAs MARC Penn Line), and
freight trains operated by Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) on the same right-of-way, the
condition of that rail infrastructure is of critical importance to the safety, reliability and
efficiency of this core transportation facility.
According to Part III (Capital Project Detail List by Segment) of the NEC Master Plan, the
two- and three-track NEC between Washington, D.C. and Baltimore would be largely at
capacity by 2030. To facilitate improvements along the NEC, several projects are included in
the capital program for this segment. Many of these projects have safety benefits including:
signal system upgrades between Washington, D.C. and Baltimore; the new station building
3-148
at the BWI Rail Station; and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)/state of good repair
improvements at the BWI Rail Station.
Freight
NS operates an average of two trains per day in the project corridor. In addition, CSX has
the right to operate through-freight traffic but does not currently exercise this right.
Passenger and freight trains operate on the same right-of-way sharing the same
infrastructure: in this case, NS is utilizing tracks owned and maintained by Amtrak.
Although Amtrak passenger trains do not transport hazardous materials, freight trains on
the NEC do transport hazardous materials. As outlined in Amtraks SSP, in the event of a
spill or release of hazardous chemicals, the following documents will guide Amtraks
response: Northeast Corridor Train Dispatchers Manual of Instructions, Section 10, Emergency
Procedures; and the Amtrak Police Department Emergency Procedures Manual, Section 5,
Hazardous Materials Incidents.

The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on the existing safety and security of
passengers and employees within the project corridor. Although the No-Build Alternative
would not require any construction within the project corridor, it will not meet the goal of
improving overall safety and security for trains operating within the project corridor and
passengers utilizing the BWI Rail Station.
Build Alternative
As described earlier, Amtrak has current safety-related programs and policies to ensure the
safety of its passengers and employees. The design of the individual components for the
project requires continued coordination with Amtrak personnel to ensure compliance with
Amtrak operational standards and requirements.
The Build Alternative would upgrade the existing physical conditions of this portion of the
NEC, which would result in improved infrastructure, a lower level of required maintenance,
and enhanced operational safety on the NEC. All planned upgrades to the existing Amtrak
infrastructure would benefit Amtrak passenger rail, MARC commuter rail, and NS freight
trains that operate over the NEC, improving safety and security for all trains operating over
With the addition of a fourth track between Grove Interlocking and Winans Interlocking,
plus the planned upgrades of the signal system, the Build Alternative would reduce
congestion and improve safety on the NEC. The additional fourth track within the project
corridor would allow for a reduction in conflict points, resulting in greater overall safety
within the project corridor, and would also reduce travel times for Amtrak passenger rail
and MARC commuter rail.
3-149
Improvements at BWI Rail Station would reduce pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts,
and increase safety for pedestrians through providing more areas for pedestrian circulation
and traffic flow. The project improves traffic flow by separating taxis, kiss and ride and
buses, and includes bus lanes, busbays, a relocated taxi queue, and additional curb frontage
for kiss and ride drop-off/pick-up. On the platforms and at the station, MTA would
designate some lighting fixtures as emergency lights, to be installed approximately every
100 feet. MTA would design and construct the new BWI Rail Station according to the most
recent building safety standards. The Build Alternative would include provisions to
accommodate possible future improvements to the track and signal system (specifically the
proposed gauntlet track at BWI Rail Station) and support the recent implementation of
ACSES (Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System) along Amtrak routes.
The new, larger BWI Rail Station will require new communications systems (public address,
public information display, CCTV, and emergency telephone systems). The new systems
will replace the existing systems to bring them in line with current Amtrak standards,
enhancing safety and security measures at the station. The project will replace the existing
public address (PA) system to meet Amtrak standards and construct the new PA system
independently of the existing PA system, allowing the existing PA system to remain
operational during construction. Visual messaging signs, which provide visual paging,
emergency instructions, and other important messages, will be located approximately every
170 feet along the platforms. The new video surveillance system (VSS) at BWI Rail Station
will provide coverage of the new platforms and pedestrian bridge in line with Amtrak
Police Department guidelines. In order to meet current standards, three or four emergency
telephones will be located on each platform that will allow passengers to report
emergencies, remotely, to Amtrak personnel.
3-150

Chapter 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND

REGIONAL AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION

3.1.1 Regulatory Context and Methodology

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

FIGURE 3.1-1: REGIONAL AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The project corridor includes a portion of Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood

3.1.2 Affected Environment

On Fridays, the busiest weekday: 30 northbound Amtrak trains (23 Northeast

On Sundays, the busiest weekend day: 27 northbound Amtrak trains (17

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

According to MARC Penn Line weekday schedules effective December 9, 2013,

According to MARC Penn Line weekend service schedules effective December 7,

Halethorpe Station. This station, located in an unincorporated area of Baltimore County,

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Paul Pitcher Memorial Highway (MD 100)

Harbor Tunnel Throughway (I-895)

Major arterials in the project corridor include:

Reece Road (MD 174)

Dorsey Road (MD 176)

Telegraph Road/Aviation Boulevard (MD 170)

Washington Boulevard/Southwestern Boulevard (U.S. 1)

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Capacity improvements to MD 174 between MD 175 and MD 170

Air Transportation. BWI Airport is located in an unincorporated area of Anne Arundel

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1.3 Probable Consequences

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Freight. The impacts to freight operations would be short-term during construction.

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

LAND USE, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES

3.2.1 Regulatory Context and Methodology

3.2.2 Affected Environment

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Anne Arundel County

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

FIGURE 3.2-1A: EXISTING LAND USE MAP 1 OF 2

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

FIGURE 3.2-1B: EXISTING LAND USE MAP 2 OF 2

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Land Use Controls and Comprehensive Planning

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

TABLE 3.2-1: TYPES OF COMMUNITIES/ACTIVITY CENTERS

CDP and Major activity center (United States Army base)

Source: United States Census, 2010

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

FIGURE 3.2-2: COMMUNITIES AND MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS