You are on page 1of 506

January2015

MARCNORTHEAST
MAINTENANCEFACILITY
EnvironmentalAssessmentandDraftSection4(f)Evaluation
Section106oftheNationalHistoricPreservationActof1966

CecilCounty,Maryland
MarylandTransitAdministrationOfficeofPlanning
6St.PaulStreet
Baltimore,Maryland
[Grabyourreadersattentionwithagreatquotefromthe
212021614
document or use this space to emphasize a key point To place

ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

AnEnvironmentalAssessment(EA)hasbeenpreparedinaccordancewiththeNational
EnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)toevaluatethepotentialenvironmental,cultural,and
socioeconomiceffectsthatmayresultfromtheproposedMarylandAreaRegionalCommuter
(MARC)NortheastMaintenanceFacilityinCecilCounty,Maryland.Theproposedprojectwill
addressMARCneedsonthePennLine,oneofthreeMARCoperatingcommuterlines,which
spansfromWashingtonD.C.sUnionStationtoPerryville,MD.TheMarylandTransit
Administration(MTA)initiatedtheNEPAprojectscopingprocessin2010andistheproject
sponsor.TheFederalTransitAdministration(FTA)istheleadfederalagency.

PURPOSEANDNEED
Thepurposeoftheprojectistodevelopafacilitythatwouldefficientlyserveoperation,
maintenance,inspectionandstoragerequirementsoftheMARCPennLineFleet.Anewfacility
wouldaccommodatecurrentoperationalneedsandprojectedridershipgrowth,andallowfor
futureexpansion.TheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilityprojectwouldaddressfour
specificneeds:
1. NeedforadditionalMARCPennLinetrainstorage
2. Needtoconsolidatemaintenance,inspectionandstoragefunctionsforthecurrent
MARCsystem
3. Needtosupportridershipgrowthexpectedby2035andsystemexpansionnorthofthe
SusquehannaRiver
4. NeedtosupportAmtraksNortheastCorridor(NEC)growthplanandplannedexpansion
ofhighspeedrailbecauseofsharedrailroadfacilities

ALTERNATIVESDEVELOPMENT
SiteselectioncriteriafortheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilityweredevelopedtoevaluate
sitesalongtheNEC.Thecriteriaincludedthefollowing:

Asite60acresorgreater
DirectlyadjacenttotheNEC
AllowforAmtrakconnectionrequirementswhichincludeaminimumlengthoflead
tracksandtwopointsofconnection
MinimumstoragecapacityforcurrentandfuturePennLinetrains
Enoughspacewithinthe60acreorgreatersitetoaccommodateashopfacility
includinginspectionpitandsandingfacility
AsitenorthoftheSusquehannaRiver

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

While not originally included in the site selection criteria, it was later identified that a site is
needed north of the Susquehanna River to accommodate service expansion as well as avoid
bottleneckingofhighspeedtrainsattheSusquehannaRiverBridge.WithlimitedMARCstorage
attheMartinStateAirportFacilitymidwaybetweenBaltimoreandPerryville,afacilityatthe
northendofthelinebettersupportscurrentandfutureMARCoperations,includingthepotential
expansionofMARCservicenorth.
FivesitesthatmettheminimalcriteriawereevaluatedanddocumentedintheMARC
MaintenanceFacilitySiteSelectionReport(February2012),whichisavailableinAppendixA.An
additional6siteswerealsoevaluatedaspartoftheNEPAprocess.
Allsiteswereevaluatedindetailbasedontheabilitytomeettherequiredacreage,engineering
feasibility,systemsrequirementsfortherailroadfacilities,Amtrakconnectionrequirements,
andenvironmentalconsiderations.MTAspreferredlocation,PerryvilleA,islocatedin
Perryville,MD,southofPrincipioFurnaceRoadbetweenFirestoneRoadandPrincipioStation
Road.ThisEAidentifiesthePerryvilleAsiteastheBuildAlternative.Theothersiteswere
determinednottomeettheprojectspurposeandneedand/orcontainsignificant
environmental,socioeconomicorconstructionandoperationalconstraints,asfollows:

OpusTheOpussitedoesnothavetherequiredacreage(lessthan60acres)andis
locatedsouthoftheSusquehannaRiver.Therewouldbeengineeringissuesincluding
theconstructionoftwonewcrossovers,whichwouldaddsignificantcosttotheproject
andcouldresultinunacceptablesafetyandoperationalproblemswithAmtrak
operationsontheNEC.Theprojectwouldresultinsignificantenvironmentalimpacts
andwouldbeincompatiblewithexistingzoningrestrictions(withinthePerryman
WellfieldProtectionZone).
AberdeenProvingGround(APG)TheAPGsitehastheappropriateacreage,butis
southoftheSusquehannaRiver.TheAPGSiteislistedontheNationalPrioritiesList
(NPL)DatabaseasaSuperfundcleanuplocationandcontainsUnexplodedOrdinance
(UXO)whichwouldrequireremovalpriortolandclearance.Engineeringissues,
includingtheconstructionofonenewcrossoverandonenewturnoutinanexisting
interlocking,wouldaddsignificantcost.Theprojectwouldimpact25acresofforest,13
acresofForestInteriorDwellingSpecies(FIDS)habitat,inadditionto100year
floodplainandwetlandimpacts.
PrologisThePrologissitehastheappropriateacreage,butissouthofthe
SusquehannaRiver.Engineeringissues,includingtheconstructionofonenewcrossover
andonenewturnoutinanexistinginterlocking,wouldaddsignificantcost.Theproject
wouldrequirestormwatermanagementpondrelocationandcause13acresofforest
impacts,100yearfloodplainimpactsandupto24acresofwetlandimpacts.Thissite
wouldrequireacquisitionofanindustrialpropertyandseveralpartialresidential
properties.

ii

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

PerryvilleBThePerryvilleBsitehastheappropriateacreage,buthasengineering
constraints,includingthecompleterelocationofAmtraksMaintenanceofWayfacility
andconstructionoftwonewcrossoversinanexistinginterlocking,thatwouldadd
significantcost.Thislocationwouldcauseunacceptablesafetyandoperationalissues
withAmtrakoperationsontheNEC,andtherewouldbeimpactstotheChesapeakeBay
CriticalAreaanduptotwoacresofforestimpacts.
NewBengiesTheNewBengiessitehastheappropriateacreage,butissouthofthe
SusquehannaRiver.ThissiteisnotcompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlanandthe
engineeringissues,includingtheconstructionofa4thNECtrackandhighwaybridge
reconstruction,wouldaddsignificantcost.Environmentalimpactsinclude44acresof
forests,fouracresofwetlands,and51acresofFIDShabitat.Therewouldbe0.4acresof
residentialpropertyimpacts.
ChesapeakeTheChesapeakesitehastheappropriateacreage,butissouthofthe
SusquehannaRiver.ThissiteisnotcompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlanand
engineeringissues,includingtheconstructionoflongleadtrackswouldaddsignificant
cost.ThissiteisalsolocatedonAPGandaccesswouldbedifficult.Theprojectwould
resultinimpactstounknownhazardousmaterials,53acresofforestimpacts,fiveacres
ofwetlandimpacts,22acresofimpactswithinthe100yearfloodplain,12acreswithin
theChesapeakeBayCriticalAreaand47acresofFIDShabitat.
ChelseaTheChelseasitehastheappropriateacreage,butissouthoftheSusquehanna
River.ThesitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlanand
engineeringissues,suchasconstructionofadditionaltrack(4.4miles),wouldadd
significantcost.Theprojectwouldalsoresultinimpactsto26acresofforest,oneacre
ofwetlands,19acresofFIDShabitat,oneacrewithinthe100yearfloodplain,and53
acreswithintheChesapeakeBayCriticalArea.
PerrymanThePerrymansitehastheappropriateacreage,butissouthofthe
SusquehannaRiver.Engineeringissues,includingbridgereconstruction,relocationof
MD199(PerrymanRoad)andtheadditionofanewinterlocking,wouldaddsignificant
projectcosts.Theprojectwouldalsoresultinimpactstosixacresofforest,fouracres
ofwetlands,oneacreofFIDShabitatand27acresofahistoricdistrict.
CarpentersPointTheCarpentersPointsitehastheappropriateacreageandislocated
northoftheSusquehannaRiver.However,thesitewouldnotbecompatiblewith
AmtraksNECMasterPlan.Engineeringissues,includingtheconstructionofa4thNEC
track,reconstructionoftwobridges,andrelocationoftheMARCturnout,wouldadd
significantcost.Theprojectwouldresultinimpactsto53acresofforestand53acresof
FIDShabitat.
MasonDixonTheMasonDixonsiteislocatednorthoftheSusquehannaRiverbut
wouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan.Inaddition,engineering
issuesincludingtheconstructionofa4thNECtrack,twomilesofleadtrack,andthe
reconstructionoftwobridgeswouldaddsignificantcosts.Therearealsounknownrisks
associatedwithanexisting750feetdeepmineralextractionpitthatwouldrequirefill
suitableforrailroadloading.Theprojectwouldresultinimpactsto32acresofforest

iii

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

impacts,16acresofwetlandimpacts,8,240linearfeetofwaterwaysand59acresof
FIDShabitat.
TwoadditionalsiteslocatedsouthoftheSusquehannaRiverwereconsideredasaresultof
publiccommentsreceivedduringtheNEPAprocesstheNorfolkSouthernYardSiteandthe
BurkheimerSite.Prohibitiveengineeringandenvironmentalconstraintswereidentifiedduring
initialscreeningwhichpreventedthesesitesfrombeingconsideredfordetailedevaluation.
UndertheNoBuildAlternativeaMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldnotbe
constructed.Thisalternativewaseliminatedearlyonintheplanningprocessbecauseitdoes
notmeetthepurposeandneed,butisconsideredasabaselineagainstwhichthePreferred
Alternativeiscompared.TheNoBuildAlternativewouldresultinnoadverseimpactstoair
quality,noiseandvibration,soils,wetlandsandstreams,vegetationandwildlife,cultural
resourcesandcommunityresourcesattheproposedsite.However,ongoingandfuture
plannedprojectswithinthestudyareamaybeimplemented,suchasvariousdevelopmentand
redevelopmentprojects.Apositivegrowthtrendisexpectedtocontinue.

IMPACTS
ThisEAidentifiestheimpactstosocioeconomic,cultural,andnaturalresources.TableES1
summarizestheimpactthattheproposedMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldhaveon
environmentalresourcesintheprojectarea,aswellasproposedavoidance,minimization,and
mitigationmeasures.

TABLEES1.SUMMARYOFEFFECTSTONATURAL,CULTURAL,ANDSOCIOECONOMICRESOURCES
Environmental
Resource

PreferredAlternativeEffects

AirQuality

Theoperationoftheproposed
projectsemissionsimpactonair
qualityhasbeendeterminedbythe
regionalMPO(WILMAPCO)toconform
withairqualityregulations.Thiscovers
emissionsofozoneprecursorsaswell
ascarbonmonoxideandparticulate
matter.

Noise&Vibration

Nonoiseandvibrationimpactswould
occur.

Mitigation,Commitments,and
MinimizationMeasures
MTAwouldimplementtheMaryland
DepartmentoftheEnvironments(MDE)
dustandemissionscontrolmeasuresduring
construction.
MTAwouldmeettheEPAsstringent
emissionsstandardswhichincludesthe
purchaseofTier4locomotives.Inaddition
waysideelectricpowerwouldbeinstalled
intheyardtoeliminatetheneedfor
locomotivestoidlewhennotbeingplaced
inservice.
Constructionspecificationswouldrequire
theContractortoadheretoapplicable

iv

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

Environmental
Resource

Geology&Soils

WaterResources

PreferredAlternativeEffects

Mitigation,Commitments,and
MinimizationMeasures

local,Stateandfederalnoiseemission
standards,andtouseonlyequipmentwith
noisecontrols.
TheproposedfacilitywouldutilizeBest
ManagementPractices(BMPs)toprotect
soilsfromerosionanddepositioncausedby
humanactivitiesduringconstructionin
ordertominimizeenvironmental
Topographywouldbepermanently
disturbance.
alteredtolevelthefacilityand

constructlandscapedbermsaroundthe Erosionandsedimentcontrolmeasures
MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility. wouldbeinstalledpriortobeginningland
disturbancesandwouldnotberemoved
untilthedisturbedlandareasarestabilized.
Suchpracticesincludeseedingormulching
forsurfacestabilization,siltfences,haybale
dikes,andwaterqualityswales.
Noinstreamworkwouldoccurduringthe
periodofMarch1stthroughJune15th,
inclusive,duringanyyear.ASedimentand
Therewouldbe4,050linearfeetof
ErosionControlPlanwouldbe
waterwayimpactstoatributaryof
implementedduringconstructionto
MillCreek.
minimizesurfacerunoff.Anytemporarily
90.5acresofagriculturallandinthe
disturbedareaswouldberestoredandre
LowerSusquehannaRiver
vegetated.
watershedwouldbeconvertedto

Urbanland.
MTAwouldadheretoMaryland
27.1acresofagriculturallandinthe
DepartmentofNaturalResources(DNR)
LowerFurnaceBaywatershed
minimizationrecommendations,including
wouldbeconvertedtoUrbanland.
preservingexistingriparianvegetationin
Theproposedfacilitywouldresult
theareaofthestreamchannelasmuchas
in22.5acresofnewimpervious
possibletomaintainaquatichabitatand
surfacesinthewatershed,which
provideshadingtothestream,andavoiding
wouldhaveslightnegativeimpacts
impactstothestreamandassociated
onwaterquality.
riparianvegetationinareasdesignatedfor
theaccessofequipmentandforthe
removalordisposalofmaterial.

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

Environmental
Resource

Wetlands

PreferredAlternativeEffects

Theproposedfacilitywouldresultin
35,879squarefeet(0.823acres)and
3,361linearfeetofimpactsto
waterways,and14,667squarefeet
(0.336acres)ofimpacttowetlands.

Vegetation&
Wildlife

Approximately141,635squarefeet
(3.256acres)offorestedarea
wouldbeimpactedbytheproject.
Theproposedfacilitywould
restrictrowcropvegetationon
approximately98.18acres.
Theproposedfacilitywould
temporarilydecreasewetland
squarefootageandtherefore
impactaquaticwildlife.Impactsto
terrestrialwildlifearenotexpected
tooccur.
AccordingtoDNRandUSFishand
WildlifeServices,impactstoRare,
ThreatenedandEndangered
speciesarenotanticipatedasa
resultoftheconstructionor
operationofthefacility.

Mitigation,Commitments,and
MinimizationMeasures
Tomitigateshorttermimpactstowetlands
andwaterwaysduringconstruction,
constructionactivitieswouldbecompleted
usingtheBMPssetforthbyMDE,anda
SedimentandErosionControlPlanwould
beimplementedtominimizesurface
runoff.

Thisprojectwouldrequirethesubmittalof
aJointFederal/StateApplicationforthe
AlterationofAnyFloodplain,Waterway,
TidalorNontidalWetlandinMaryland,as
thisprojectwouldimpactnontidalwetland
andwaterways.

MTAwouldmitigatewetlandandwaterway
impactsinaccordancewiththeUnited
StatesArmyCorpsofEngineers
recommendations.
Constructionactivitieswouldbecompleted
usingtheBMPssetforthbyMDE,anda
SedimentandErosionControlPlanwould
beimplementedtominimizesurface
runoff.

MTAwouldreforestapproximately8.5
acresoflandlocatedinthenortheast
portion,southwestportionandalongthe
easternboundaryofthepropertythatMTA
ispurchasingforonsitereforestation.
ForestConservationPlanswouldbe
submittedDNRforreviewandcomment
whenfinaldesignplansaredeveloped.

vi

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

Environmental
Resource

PreferredAlternativeEffects

ThePhaseIandPhaseIIEnvironmental
SiteAssessmentsidentifiedarsenic
contaminationacrossthesite,
HazardousMaterials potentiallyassociatedwithnormal
backgroundlevels.Thereisalsothe
potentialforhydrocarbon
contamination.
Theproposedfacilitywouldresultin
changestotheaestheticenvironment.
Visual&Aesthetic
Itwouldreplacetheexistingrowcrop
Environment
farmandmultiplesmallfarmstructures
withtheMARCfacility.
Fivearcheologicalsiteswereidentified
withintheAreaofPotentialEffects
(APE).Onearcheologicalsite,the
CoudonFarmSite(18CE383)hasbeen
determinedeligiblefortheNational
RegisterofHistoricPlaces(NRHP).
Fourabovegroundproperties,which
arecurrentlylistedontheMaryland
CulturalResources
InventoryofHistoricPlaces(MIHP),
withintheAPEhavebeendetermined
NRHPeligible.Theseincludethe
Anchorage(MIHPNo.CE1230),the
CrothersHouse(MIHPNo.CE1566),
Lindenwood(MIHPNo.CE700),and
theWoodlandHistoricDistrict(MIHP
No.CE145).

Mitigation,Commitments,and
MinimizationMeasures
TheMTAwoulddevelopaHealthand
SafetyPlanpriortoconstruction,asafety
capwouldbeinstalledforundisturbed
arseniccontaminatedsoils,andadditional
samplingandremediationwouldtakeplace
fordisturbedarseniccontaminatedsoils
priortoconstruction.
MTAwouldconstructbermsandprovide
landscapingthatwouldprovideavisual
bufferaroundthefacility.Additionally,
MTAwoulduselightingdesignedto
minimizenuisancetonearbyresidents.

Culturalresourceconsultation,including
effectsdeterminations,isongoing.MTAis
currentlyworkingwiththeMaryland
HistoricalTrusttodevelopavoidance,
minimization,andmitigationmeasuresto
resolveadverseeffectstohistoric
properties.

vii

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

Environmental
Resource

PreferredAlternativeEffects

Mitigation,Commitments,and
MinimizationMeasures

Socioeconomic&
Environmental
Justice

LandUse&Zoning

PublicServices
Utilities&Safety

Theproposedfacilitywould
displaceanapproximate120acre
parcel,whichcontainsagricultural
outbuildings,rowcrops,andtwo
residences.
Theproposedfacilitywould
requireanadditional1.34acresof
privatepropertyacquisitionfroma
totalofthreeproperties.
Theprojectwouldnothavehigh
anddisproportionateeffectson
minorityandlowincome
populations.
Theproposedprojectwould
introduceanewvisualelementto
patronsandstaffoftheFurnace
BayGolfCourseandAllPaws
AnimalWellnessClinic;however,
daytodayoperationswouldnot
beaffected.
Theproposedprojectwouldchange
thelanduseofthesitefromhigh
densityresidentialtoindustrialland
use.CecilCountyidentifiestheproject
siteasadesignatedGrowthAreaanda
futureemploymentarea.
Apowerlinecurrentlyrunsparallelto
therailwayline.Publicaccesstothe
proposedfacilitywouldcreatesafety
issues.Aportionofthepowerline
wouldberelocatedtoallow
constructionandoperationofthe
facility.

MTAwouldpurchaseprivatepropertyin
accordancewithfederalrequirements
includingtheFederalUniformRelocation
AssistanceandRealPropertyAcquisition
PoliciesActof1970.Fairmarketvalue
wouldbeprovidedtoallpropertyowners
ascompensationforrightofway
acquisitions.Inadditionrelocation
assistancewouldbeavailablefordisplaced
residents.

MTAwouldworkwiththeSusquehanna
WorkforceNetworktomaximize
employmentopportunitiesforlocal
residentsandbusinesses.

Theproposedfacilitywouldincorporate
screeningandbufferingofemployment
areasfromadjacentresidentialuses,as
recommendedforDesignatedGrowth
AreasbytheCecilCountyComprehensive
Plan.
TheMTAwoulddevelopsecuritymeasures
topreventunauthorizedaccesstothe
maintenancefacility,includingafence
surroundingtheentiretyofthefacility.

viii

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

Environmental
Resource

Transportation

PreferredAlternativeEffects
Theproposedmaintenancefacility
wouldrequire30employeesin2018.
Theresultsofthetrafficstudyindicate
thatallstudyintersectionsare
projectedtooperateatanacceptable
LevelofService(LOS)ofDorbetterand
theCoudonBlvdapproachtoUS40is
projectedtooperateatLOSC.
Furthermore,asignalisnotwarranted
attheintersectionofCoudonBlvdat
MD7.

Mitigation,Commitments,and
MinimizationMeasures

Althoughintersectionsareprojectedto
operateatacceptablelevelsofservice,
MTAwouldconsultwithSHAtodetermine
ifsignaltimingscouldbeadjustedfor
marginalimprovements.

SUMMARY
BasedontheresultsofthisEnvironmentalAssessment(EA)theproposedMARCNortheast
MaintenanceFacility,locatedatthePreferredAlternative(PerryvilleA),wouldnotcausea
significantimpactonthenaturalorhumanenvironment.IncompliancewiththeNational
EnvironmentalPolicyActtheMTAhasundertakenconsultationwithallrelevantstakeholders
andwouldcontinuetoconsultwithstakeholdersthroughouttheprojectslife.ThisEAhasbeen
signedbytheMTAandFTAanddistributedtofederal,stateandlocalagencies,aswellas
organizations,otherinterestedpartiesandthepublic.UponreviewoftheEAandcomments
received,theFTAsfindingwouldresultineitheraFindingofNoSignificantImpact(FONSI)or
therequirementforanEnvironmentalImpactStatementtobeprepared.

ix

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

TABLEOFCONTENTS
1

IntroductionandProjectDescription.....................................................................................1
1.1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................1

1.2

ProjectPurpose................................................................................................................1

1.3

NeedfortheProject........................................................................................................1

1.4

StudyAreaandBackground.............................................................................................4

1.5

ProjectDescription..........................................................................................................4

1.5.1
1.6

ApplicableLawsandRegulations.....................................................................................6

1.6.1

Laws..........................................................................................................................6

1.6.2

Regulations...............................................................................................................6

1.6.3

ExecutiveOrders.......................................................................................................6

1.7
2

DetailedProjectDescription.....................................................................................5

EANextSteps...................................................................................................................7

DescriptionofAlternatives.....................................................................................................8
2.1

SiteSelectionProcessandFindings.................................................................................8

2.1.1

Opus........................................................................................................................11

2.1.2

AberdeenProvingGround......................................................................................13

2.1.3

Prologis....................................................................................................................15

2.1.4

PerryvilleB..............................................................................................................15

2.1.5

PerryvilleA..............................................................................................................18

2.1.6

NewBengies............................................................................................................20

2.1.7

Chesapeake.............................................................................................................20

2.1.8

Chelsea....................................................................................................................23

2.1.9

Perryman.................................................................................................................25

2.1.10 CarpentersPoint.....................................................................................................27
2.1.11 MasonDixon...........................................................................................................29
2.1.12 AdditionalSitesConsidered....................................................................................31

2.2

NoBuildAlternative.......................................................................................................32

2.3

BuildAlternative(PerryvilleA).......................................................................................32

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequencesNoBuildAlternative..............34
3.1

AirQuality......................................................................................................................34

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

3.2

NoiseandVibration.......................................................................................................34

3.3

GeologyandSoils...........................................................................................................34

3.4

WaterResources............................................................................................................34

3.5

Wetlands........................................................................................................................35

3.6

VegetationandWildlife.................................................................................................35

3.7

HazardousMaterials......................................................................................................35

3.8

Visual&AestheticEnvironment....................................................................................35

3.9

CulturalResources.........................................................................................................35

3.10 SocioeconomicandCommunityResources...................................................................35
3.11 EnvironmentalJustice....................................................................................................36
3.12 LandUseandZoning......................................................................................................36
3.13 PublicServices,UtilitiesandSafety...............................................................................36
3.14 Transportation...............................................................................................................36
4

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequencesBuildAlternative....................37
4.1

4.1.1

StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................37

4.1.2

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................37

4.1.3

Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................38

4.2

NoiseandVibration.......................................................................................................39

4.2.1

StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................39

4.2.2

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................40

4.2.3

Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................44

4.3

GeologyandSoils...........................................................................................................44

4.3.1

StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................44

4.3.2

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................44

4.3.3

Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................46

4.4

WaterResources............................................................................................................46

4.4.1

StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................46

4.4.2

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................47

4.4.3

Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................50

4.5

AirQuality......................................................................................................................37

Wetlands........................................................................................................................51

xi

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

4.5.1

StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................51

4.5.2

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................51

4.5.3

Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................54

4.6

VegetationandWildlife.................................................................................................54

4.6.1

StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................54

4.6.2

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................55

4.6.3

Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................58

4.7

HazardousMaterials......................................................................................................60

4.7.1

StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................60

4.7.2

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................60

4.7.3

Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................61

4.8

Visual&AestheticEnvironment....................................................................................63

4.8.1

StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................63

4.8.2

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................63

4.8.3

Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................64

4.9

CulturalResources.........................................................................................................64

4.9.1

StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................64

4.9.2

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................67

4.9.3

ProposedMitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................71

4.10 SocioeconomicandCommunityResources...................................................................71
4.10.1 StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................71
4.10.2 AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................72
4.10.3 Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................77
4.10.4 StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................77
4.10.5 AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................78
4.11 LandUseandZoning......................................................................................................80
4.11.1 StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................80
4.11.2 AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................80
4.11.3 Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................83
4.12 PublicServices,UtilitiesandSafety...............................................................................83
4.12.1 StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................83

xii

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

4.12.2 AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................83
4.12.3 Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................83
4.13 Transportation...............................................................................................................84
4.13.1 StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................84
4.13.2 AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................84
4.13.3 Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................86
4.14 Section4(f)Resources...................................................................................................86
4.14.1 StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................87
4.15 IndirectandCumulativeEffects.....................................................................................88
4.15.1 Methodology...........................................................................................................88
4.15.2 EnvironmentalResourcesofInterest.....................................................................88
4.15.3 GeographicBoundary.............................................................................................89
4.15.4 TemporalBoundary................................................................................................89
4.15.5 ReasonablyForeseeableDevelopment..................................................................89
4.15.6 IndirectEffectsAnalysis..........................................................................................90
4.15.7 CumulativeEffectsAnalysis....................................................................................90
4.16 ConstructionImpacts.....................................................................................................94
4.16.1 DescriptionofProposedConstructionActivities....................................................94
4.16.2 EnvironmentalEffects.............................................................................................94
5

CoordinationandConsultation...........................................................................................100

AbbreviationsandAcronyms..............................................................................................101

References..........................................................................................................................104

LISTOFTABLES
TableES1.SummaryofEffectstoNatural,Cultural,andSocioeconomicResources..................iv
Table1:MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitySiteSearchMatrix...........................................10
Table2:2018FacilityAnnualOperationalEmissions..................................................................38
Table3:ReceptorLocations,ExistingNoiseLevelandPredictedImpacts..................................43
Table4:SummaryofWetlandImpacts........................................................................................54
Table5:SummaryofPhaseIfindings..........................................................................................60
Table6:NRHPListedorEligiblePropertiesintheHistoricPropertyAPE...................................68
Table7:DeterminationofEffectsfortheMARCMaintenanceFacilityonAboveGroundNRHP
HistoricProperties........................................................................................................................69

xiii

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

Table8:SummaryofRightofWay(ROW)Acquisitions.............................................................74
Table9:MinorityandLowIncomePopulations..........................................................................79
Table10:ReasonablyForeseeableDevelopmentwithintheICEBoundary................................89
Table11:ProjectCoordinationSummary..................................................................................100

LISTOFFIGURES
Figure1.1
Figure2.11
Figure2.12
Figure2.13
Figure2.14
Figure2.15
Figure2.16
Figure2.17
Figure2.18
Figure2.19
Figure2.110
Figure2.111
Figure2.112
Figure2.17
Figure4.21
Figure4.22
Figure4.3
Figure4.4
Figure4.5
Figure4.61
Figure4.62
Figure4.7
Figure4.9
Figure4.101
Figure4.102
Figure4.111
Figure4.112
Figure4.14
Figure4.15

AmtrakNortheastCorridor...................................................................................2
PotentialSitesalongAmtrakNortheastCorridor.................................................9
AlternativeSite:Opus..........................................................................................12
AlternativeSite:APGEdgewood.........................................................................14
AlternativeSite:Prologis.....................................................................................16
AlternativeSite:PerryvilleB................................................................................17
AlternativeSite:PerryvilleA................................................................................19
AlternativeSite:NewBengies.............................................................................21
AlternativeSite:Chesapeake..............................................................................22
AlternativeSite:Chelsea.....................................................................................24
AlternativeSite:Perryman..................................................................................26
AlternativeSite:CarpentersPoint.......................................................................28
AlternativeSite:MasonDixon.............................................................................30
ProposedProjectSite..........................................................................................33
NoiseSensitiveAreasandReceiverSites............................................................40
VibrationScreeningArea.....................................................................................42
SoilGeology.........................................................................................................45
WaterResources.................................................................................................48
Wetlands..............................................................................................................53
Vegetation...........................................................................................................56
ReforestationArea..............................................................................................59
HazardousMaterials............................................................................................62
CulturalResources...............................................................................................65
CensusTracts&GrowthAreas............................................................................73
Socioeconomic.....................................................................................................75
ExistingLandUse.................................................................................................81
Zoning..................................................................................................................82
Transportation.....................................................................................................85
IndirectandCumulativeEffects..........................................................................91

APPENDICES
AppendixA:MARCMaintenanceFacilitySiteSelectionReport

xiv

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

xv

AppendixB:NoiseAssessmentReport
AppendixC:AgencyCoordination
AppendixD:Section106Coordination
AppendixE:StandingStructuresReport
AppendixF:MHTConcurrence
AppendixG:Section4(f)
AppendixH:PublicOutreach

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

INTRODUCTIONANDPROJECTDESCRIPTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION
ThisEnvironmentalAssessment(EA)waspreparedinaccordancewiththeNationalEnvironmental
PolicyAct(NEPA)toevaluatethepotentialenvironmental,cultural,andsocioeconomiceffectsthat
mayresultfromaproposedMarylandAreaRegionalCommuter(MARC)northeastfacilityinCecil
County,Maryland.TheproposedprojectwilladdressMARCneedsonthePennLine,oneofthree
MARCoperatingcommuterlines,whichstretchesfromWashingtonD.C.sUnionStationto
Perryville,MD.TheMarylandTransitAdministration(MTA)initiatedtheNEPAprojectscoping
processin2010andistheprojectsponsor.TheFederalTransitAdministration(FTA)isthelead
federalagency.
MARC,knownpriorto1984asMarylandRailCommuter,isacommuterrailsystemcomprising
threelinesintheBaltimoreWashingtonMetropolitanArea.ThethreeMARCoperatinglinesare
theBrunswickLine,CamdenLineandPennLine.MARCisadministeredbytheMTA,aMaryland
DepartmentofTransportation(MDOT)agency,andisoperatedundercontractbyBombardier
TransportationServicesUSACorporationandAmtrakovertracksownedbyCSXTransportationand
Amtrak.TheproposedprojectwouldaddressMARCcurrentandfutureneedsonthePennLine(see
Figure1.1).

1.2 PROJECTPURPOSE
Thepurposeoftheprojectistodevelopafacilitythatwouldefficientlyserveoperation,
maintenance,inspectionandstoragerequirementsoftheMARCPennLineFleet.Thenewfacility
wouldaccommodatecurrentoperationalneeds,projectedridershipgrowthontheMARCPenn
Line,andallowforfutureexpansion.

1.3 NEEDFORTHEPROJECT
TheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilityprojectwouldaddressfourspecificneedsoftheMARC
system,asdescribedbelow:
1. NeedforadditionalMARCPennLinetrainstorage.
2. Needtoconsolidatemaintenance,inspection,andstoragefunctionsforthecurrentMARC
system.
3. Needtosupportexpected2035ridershipgrowthandsystemexpansionnorthofthe
SusquehannaRiver.
4. Becauseofsharedrailroadfacilities,needtosupportAmtraksNortheastCorridor(NEC)
growthplanandplannedexpansionofhighspeedrail.

NOTE: MAP NOT TO SCALE

LEGEND
NORTHEAST CORRIDOR USED BY MARC

FIGURE 1.1
AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

NeedforadditionalMARCtrainstorage:Currently,MARCstoresandservicessixofthePenn
LinetrainsetsatPennsylvaniaStationinBaltimore,Marylandandtheremainingtwotrainsets
arebeingstoredattheMARCMartinStateAirportFacility.Bothfacilitiesareatstorage
capacitywithnoroomforanticipatedMARCgrowthinservicealongtheexistinglineand
potentialfutureexpansiontoWilmington.Requirementsforasitetosupportadditionalstorage
includeasitecomprisingaminimumof60acres,locateddirectlyadjacenttotheNortheast
Corridor(NEC)andasitethatallowsforAmtrakconnectionwhichincludesaminimumlength
ofleadtracksandtwopointsofconnection.
Needtoconsolidatemaintenance,inspection,andstoragefunctionsforthecurrentMARC
system:ThecurrentdependenceonAmtrakformaintenanceandinspectionoftheMARCtrains
storedatPennsylvaniaStationresultsininefficiencies,schedulingconflicts,delaysingetting
equipmentbackonline,andhighlaborcosts.NormallyAmtraksvehicleshavepriority
regardingcleaning,repairsandmaintenance.Inaddition,thePennsylvaniaStationworkspaces
areexposedtotheweather,andbecausethereislimitedtrackcapacity,nonewequipmentcan
beaccommodated.AnMTAcontrolledfacilitywouldallowMARCtoprioritizerepairsand
improvecosteffectivenessbycompetitivelybiddingfortheoperationofthefacility.
NeedtosupportprojectedridershipgrowthandsystemexpansionnorthoftheSusquehanna
River:TheMARCGrowthandInvestmentPlan(MGIP)isprojectingridershiptodoubleby2035.
ThePreferredAlternativewouldaccommodatethestorageandmaintenanceoftheneeded
additionalequipmenttomeettheanticipatedridershipgrowth.Growthinridershipisan
importantcomponentoftheWilmingtonMetropolitanAreaPlanningCoordinatingCouncilair
qualityplanningandtheMTAsplansforthereductionofgreenhousegasemissionsneededto
meettheGovernors2020emissiongoals.TheabilitytoexpandMARCserviceisconstrainedby
operatingonAmtraksNECtracksandlackofadditionalstorageandmaintenancefacility
capacitytoaccommodateadditionalMARCtrainequipment.TheMTAisaddressingthe
potentialforexpansionofMARCservicenorthofPerryvillethroughcoordinationwiththe
DelawareDepartmentofTransportation(DelDOT)andtheSoutheasternPennsylvania
TransportationAuthority(SEPTA).WithstorageandmaintenancefacilitiescurrentlyatPenn
StationandMartinStateAirport,anewstorageandmaintenancefacilitylocatedwithin20
milesofNewark,Delawareisexpectedtoprovidetherequiredadditionalcapacityforthe
existingserviceareaaswellasalocationconducivetopotentialexpansionoftheMARCservice
northbyreducingoperationalcostsassociatedwithsignificantdeadheadtravel.The
SusquehannaRiverislocatedapproximately21milessouthofNewark,Delawareandprovides
anappropriategeographicboundaryforconsiderationofpotentialsites.
NeedtosupportAmtraksNECgrowthplanandplannedexpansionofhighspeedrail:
AmtraksVisionfortheNortheastCorridor(2012)proposesexpansionoftransportation
capacityalongtheNortheastCorridor,includinghighspeedrailserviceprovidedbyAcela
Express.AsaresultofAmtrakandMARCsharingtracks,expansionwouldincludeinvestmentin
infrastructurethatwouldallowoperationalseparationbetweeninterstate,regional,andlocal
services.TheneedtosupportAmtraksNECgrowthplanincludesconsiderationofprojects

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

outlinedintheAmtrakNortheastCorridorInfrastructureMasterPlan(2010).TheMasterPlan
identifiesthreebridgesinnorthernMarylandwhichrequirerehabilitationorreplacementdue
tolimitedcapacityandupgraderequirements.TheSusquehannaRiverRailBridgeisoneofthe
threebridgesrequiringreplacementorrehabilitationandiscurrentlyunderenvironmentaland
engineeringanalysis.

1.4 STUDYAREAANDBACKGROUND
TheMTAisproposingtoconstructamaintenancefacilityandtrainstorageyardalongAmtraks
NortheastCorridor(NEC)tosupportMARCoperations(seeFigure1.1).TheNEC,whichclosely
parallelsI95formostofitslength,isafullyelectrifiedrailwaylinethatservestheNortheast
megalopolisoftheUnitedStates.OwnedprimarilybyAmtrak,itrunsfromBostonthrough
NewYorkCity,Philadelphia,andBaltimoretoWashington,D.C.Thecorridorisusedbyalarge
numberofAmtraktrains,includingthehighspeedAcelaExpress,intercitytrains,andseveral
longdistancetrains.Mostofthecorridoralsohasfrequentcommuterrailservice,oneof
whichisoperatedbyMARC.
TheMTAidentifiesMARCfutureandstrategicneedsandprovidesjustificationforfundingin
theMTAsannualcapitalandoperatingbudget,submittedtoMDOT. MTAoriginallyevaluateda
broadstudyareaalongtheNEC,betweenBaltimoreCityandtheDelawareStateLineto
accommodatethisfacility.TheinitialstudyareawasdeterminedtomeetMARCfuture
strategicneedsasdefinedintheannualcapitalandoperatingbudget.Thesestrategicneedsare
updatedregularlybasedonchangingridershipconditions.Duetochangingneedsandridership
growthpatternsitwasdeterminedthatanewmaintenancefacilitywouldneedtobelocated
within20milesofNewarkDelawarealongtheNECwithinMarylandinordertosupportfuture
expansionnorth.InadditiontheexistingSusquehannaRiverBridgeservesasabottleneckfor
highspeedpassengerandcommuterrailduetolimitedcapacitythussupportingtheneedto
locatetheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitynorthoftheSusquehannaRiver.

1.5 PROJECTDESCRIPTION
TheproposedMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldprovideMARCwiththecapabilityof
storing,servicingandinspectingcompletecommuterrailtrainsetsdailyandofperforming
scheduledandunscheduledmaintenanceandrepairworkonbothlocomotivesandpassenger
cars.Theprojectwouldsupporttheexistingeighttrainsets(10locomotivesand53coaches,
includingacombinationofmultiandsinglelevelcoaches)currentlyoperatingonMARCsPenn
Linewithapotentialexpansionofthefacilitytosupporta2035MARCoperatingfleetof25
locomotives,181multilevelandsinglelevelcoaches,andonedieselswitchlocomotiveto
servicethePennLine.

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

1.5.1

DetailedProjectDescription

FacilitiesattheproposedMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldinclude:

Serviceandinspectionpitthatconsistsoftwotracks,afulltrainlengthopenpitand
multilevelinspectionplatformslocatedwithintwoofthetrainsetstoragetracks;thepit
wouldbecoveredwithasemiopenshedtoprovidesomeprotectionfromweather
Semipermanentbuildingforthestorageofparts,supplies,andconsumables
Atleasttwosemipermanentbuildingsfortraincrews,supervisors,andmaintenance
andinspectionpersonnel
Locomotiveservicingstationequippedwithspillcontainmentforfuelingdiesel
locomotivesandnonrevenuevehiclesthatmayoperatefromorcyclethroughthe
proposedfacility,andforfillingoflocomotivesandboxes
Parkingarea
Fuelingandsandingpad
Commercialpowersubstation
Two20,000gallon,abovegrounddieselfuelstoragetanksandfueltruckdeliverypad
withspillcontainment
AccessroadfromPrincipioFurnaceRoadtothemaintenancefacility,aswellasaccess
roadwayswithinthefacility
Stormwatermanagementfacilitydesignedasanextendeddetentionshallowwetland.

ActivitiestobeperformedattheproposedMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywould
requireaworkforceof90duringconstructionofthefacilityandapproximately30employees
duringoperationofthefacilityforjobsincludingtraincrewmembers,inspectors,carcleaners,
administrativestaff,andshopandmaintenancestaff.Duringoperation,thefacilitywould
operate24hoursperdaywithpeakoperationsduringnighttimehours.Activitieswould
include:

Dailyandperiodicinspectionsandservicingoflocomotivesandcoaches,including
inspectionofwheelsandbrakes,cabsignalsandsandersoflocomotives,
dumping/servicingofonvehicletoiletsystems,andreplenishingpotablewatersupplies
Dailylocomotivefuelingandsandingandinspectionofcabsignalsandbrakes
Maintenanceforcoacheswouldincludeinteriorcoachcleaning,replenishingof
consumablesandtheperiodicemptyingofonboardwastewatertreatmentsystems
Dailyinspectionsofbrakes,wheelsandtruckframesoncoaches
Longerperiodinspectionswouldbedoneat180and365dayintervalsforcoachesand
30,180and365dayintervalsforlocomotives
MiddayStoragefortrainsetsreceivinginspectionandservicing
Overnightstorageoftrainsets
Dailyassignmentsoftraincrews

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

Periodicdeliveriesofdieselfuel,sand,parts,suppliesandconsumables

1.6 APPLICABLELAWSANDREGULATIONS
1.6.1

NationalEnvironmentalPolicyActof1969(42U.S.C.4321etseq)
NationalHistoricPreservationActof1966(16U.S.C.470etseq)
EndangeredSpeciesAct16(16U.S.C.1531etseq)
CleanAirActAmendmentsof1990(42U.S.C.12511376)
FederalTransitLaws[49U.S.C.5301,5323(b),]
U.S.DepartmentofTransportationActof1966(49U.S.C.303and23U.S.C.138)
RiversandHarborsActof1899(33U.S.C.401)
LandandWaterConservationActof1956(16U.S.C.460)
UniformRelocationAssistanceandRealPropertyActof1970(42U.S.C.4601etseq)
TitleVIoftheCivilRightsActof1964(42U.S.C.2000d2000d4)
AmericanswithDisabilitiesAct(42U.S.C.12101etseq)
CleanWaterActof1972(33U.S.C.1251etseq)
UrbanForestPreservationActof2002(D.C.Law14309;D.COfficalCode8651.01et
seq.)
1.6.2

Regulations

CEQRegulationsforImplementingtheProceduralProvisionsoftheNational
EnvironmentalPolicyAct(40CFRParts15001508)
AdvisoryCouncilonHistoricalPreservationProtectionofHistoricandCultural
Properties(36CFRPart800)
FHWA/FTAEnvironmentalImpactandRelatedProcedures(23CFRPart771
FHWA/FTAParks,RecreationAreas,WildlifeandWaterfowlRefuses,andHistoricSites
[Section4(f)](23CFRPart774)
FTACircular4703.1(EnvironmentalJustice)
StateofMarylandTidalWetlandsAct
StateofMarylandNontidalWetlandsProtectionAct
1.6.3

Laws

ExecutiveOrders

EO11988,FloodplainManagement.42FR26951,SignedMay24,1977
EO11990,ProtectionofWetlands.43FR26961,SignedMay24,1977
EO12898,FederalActionstoAddressEnvironmentalJusticeinMinorityPopulations
andLowIncomePopulations.59FR7629,SignedFebruary11,1994
EO13166,ImprovingAccesstoServicesforPersonswithLimitedEnglishProficiency.
65FR50121,SignedAugust11,2000

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

EO13423,StrengtheningFederalEnvironmental,Energy,andTransportation
Management.72FR33504,SignedJanuary24,2077
EO13514,FederalLeadershipinEnvironmental,Energy,andEconomicPerformance.
74FR52117,SignedOctober5,2009

1.7 EANEXTSTEPS
ThisEAhasbeensignedbytheMTAandFTAanddistributedtofederal,stateandlocal
agencies,aswellasorganizationsandotherinterestedparties(refertoDistributionListin
AppendixCforacompletelistofrecipients).Therewillbea30dayreviewperiodfortheEA;
thecommentdeadlineispostedontheprojectwebsite(http://mta.maryland.gov/marc
maintenancefacility).Duringthis30dayreviewperiod,theEAisavailableinthelocalPerryville
Library,thePerryvilleTownHallandontheprojectwebsite.Followingthe30dayreview
period,theFTAwillconsiderthecommentsreceivedontheEAandwillprepareafinding.The
findingwillresultineitheraFindingofNoSignificantImpact(FONSI)documentorthe
requirementforanEnvironmentalImpactStatementtobeprepared.IfaFONSIisissuedthe
documentwillsummarizethecommentsreceivedduringthe30dayreviewperiodanda
responsetothosecommentsaswellasdiscussthepreferredalternativeincludingthecriteria
usedduringtheselectionprocessandhowthecriteriawereweighed.

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

DESCRIPTIONOFALTERNATIVES

Thischapterdescribesthesiteselectionplanningprocessusedtoidentifyanddevelop
alternativesandprovidesasummaryoftheevaluatedsitesandtheselectionprocess.

2.1 SITESELECTIONPROCESSANDFINDINGS
Between2012and2014MTAevaluatedelevenpotentialsitesalongtheNECcorridorto
accommodatetheproposedMARCMaintenanceFacility(seeFigure2.11).BasedonMARC
needs,criteriaweredevelopedtoidentifyasitetoaccommodateaMARCmaintenancefacility.
Minimalcriteriaincluded:

Asite60acresorgreater
DirectlyadjacenttotheNEC
AllowforAmtrakconnectionrequirementswhichincludeaminimumlengthoflead
tracksandtwopointsofconnection
MinimumstoragecapacityforcurrentandfuturePennLinetrains
Enoughspacewithinthe60acreorgreatersitetoaccommodateashopfacility
includinginspectionpitandsandingfacility
AsitenorthoftheSusquehannaRiver

AsitenorthoftheSusquehannaRiverisrequired,becauseitwouldprovideastoragefacility
nearthecurrentterminusofthePennLine.WiththeMARCMartinStateAirportFacility
midwaybetweenBaltimoreandPerryville,afacilityatthenorthendofthelinewouldbetter
supportcurrentandfutureMARCoperations.
Potentialsiteswereevaluatedbasedontheminimalcriterialistedaboveaswellasthe
engineeringandenvironmentalrequirementsnecessarytoaccommodatetheproposedMARC
MaintenanceFacility.Costswereaconsiderationinpotentialalternativelocations,butcosts
werenotusedasanabsolutemeasureforfeasibilityoflocations. Anevaluationoffivepotential
locationsidentifiedin2012wasdocumentedintheMARCMaintenanceFacilitySiteSelection
Report(February2012)forthefollowingsites:Opus,AberdeenProvingGround(APG),Prologis,
PerryvilleBandPerryvilleA(seeAppendixA).Anadditional6siteswereidentifiedand
evaluatedin2013and2014:NewBengies,Chesapeake,Chelsea,Perryman,CarpenterPoint,
andMasonDixon.AllelevensitesaresummarizedinTable1.

3
62

ST

PU
C

RD

ER

IN

IO

U
F

(M

BL

V D

AVE

EN
A IK

YL AN

AW
AY

MA R

IK E

TE H W Y 2 2
S TA

.!
!
.

HA

YOR
D

BE
LA

.
!

HW
MA
N

HE
R

RD

ST

INE

PO
IN
T

AU
GU

Chelsea

ST
A

EA

APG Edgewood

CH

RD

LOC
H

95

RD
EY
F

EE
RL
I
A

RD

D
ER

New Bengies

V
RO

N
ER

D
BLV

TG

.
!

ST
EA

I8

US

5
I -9

KENT COUNTY

95
I-6

SCALE: 1 INCH = 6 MILES


0
3
6

M A SS

L OC

RAV
EN B

Chesapeake

I 95

95
I- 6

RIVER RD

12 MILES

FIGURE 2.1-1

LEGEND

.
!

.
.!
!

CRY

.
!

RD

Prologis

Opus

Y 40
US HW

RK
EY

.
!
!
.

KR

Mason Dixon

TU

DELAWARE

Perryville B

ON

RD

RD
FO

HW

Carpenter Point

Perryman

BALTIMORE COUNTY

J F K MEMORIAL HWY

I
SK
LA

.
!!
.

RD

R
P

N
I O

RD

AP

WY

AT

YV
I L
LE

S C

ST

AY

IH

I
I P

A
L

C
I N

ORN

U
P

PR

E D

IL

15 5

RD

Perryville A
(Preferred
Site)

OU

STATE HWY

IN

S T W EST HWY

M
A

PE
RR

D
R

AI R

HW

FA
LL
ST
S WEE T

US

CECIL COUNTY

RD
EA

T E LEGR A P H R D

I9
5

ISVIL
LE

RD

AVE

HARFORD COUNTY
NORR

NG O

RD

WI
NO
CO

HW

ST

HW
Y

6
13

AD

ST
AT
E

S RD

E
AT

HARK
IN

Examined Site
NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

COUNTY BOUNDARY

G
OR

NE

RD

CYP RES S RD

SITES EXAMINED ALONG


AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

TABLE1:MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITYSITESEARCHMATRIX

Opus

Aberdeen
Proving
Ground

Prologis

Perryville
B

Perryville
A

New
Bengies

Chesapeake

Chelsea
RoadSite

Provides
additionalMARC
trainstorage

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Allows
Consolidationof
Maintenance&
Storage

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Supports
expected
ridershipgrowth,
NECgrowthplan,
&islocatednorth
ofSusquehanna
River

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Perryman Carpenters Mason


Site
Point
DixonSite

Impactsto
protectedZones

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Impactsto
wetlands(acres)

No

3.3

24

No

0.336

4.4

4.6

1.1

3.7

0.2

15.9

SuperfundSite

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Sitecanbe
doubleended

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Interfereswith
Amtrak
operations

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Impactsto
Hydrology
(streams&
wetlands)

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Impactsto
forests(acres)

3.4

25.1

13.2

2.3

3.3

43.9

52.7

25.8

5.9

52.7

32.0

Impactsto
culturalresources

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Potentially

Yes

Potentially

Potentially

No

No

Potentially

No

No

No

Potentially

ImpactstoRare,
Threatened,or
Endangered
SpeciesFIDS
Habitat(acres)

No

13.4

No

No

No

51.3

47.3

19.2

1.2

53.4

59.0

Impactsto
CriticalArea
(acres)

No

No

No

No

No

12.2

52.7

No

No

No

Significantsoil
contamination
present

10

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

Opus

Aberdeen
Proving
Ground

Prologis

Perryville
B

Perryville
A

New
Bengies

Chesapeake

Chelsea
RoadSite

Impactsto100
yearFloodplains
(acres)

No

1.8

4.5

No

No

No

21.9

1.3

No

No

No

SignificantNoise
Impacts

No

No

Potentially

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Perryman Carpenters Mason


Site
Point
DixonSite

Significantearth
movingrequired

No

No

No

No

Yes

Potentially

Potentially

Potentially

Potentially

Yes

Yes

Accessto
highways

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

SiteAccess
restrictions

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Construction
timeframeinline
withMTAneeds

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Requires
constructionof
turnout

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Requires
reconstructionof
roadways/bridges

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Belowarebriefdescriptionsandlocationmapsfortheelevenevaluatedsites,aswellaseach
siteslanduse,spacecharacteristicsandprosandconsaspresentedintheSiteSelectionReport
anddeterminedinsubsequentinvestigations.
2.1.1

Opus

TheOpusSiteislocatedontheeastsideoftheNEC,southofMarylandBoulevard(MD715)and
northofEastMichaelsvilleRoadinPerryman,MarylandinHarfordCounty(seeFigure2.12).
Thesiteisapproximately57acresandboundontheeastsidebytheAberdeenProvingGround
(APG)property.TheportionofthesitethatwouldbeoccupiedbyMTAsimprovementswould
beapproximately48acres,includinganaccessroadthatwouldconnectthestatehighwaysat
thenorthend.
TheOpusSitewouldrequiretheconstructionoftwonewcrossoversinPerryinterlocking.This
sitelocationmaycreatepossibleinterferencewithproposedfutureAmtrakcapacity
improvementwork(additionaltracks).Theseconditionsarenotconsistentwiththeproject
purposeandneed,specificallyAmtraksNECgrowthplan.TheOpusSitewouldrequire
propertyeasements.ThetotalestimatedcosttodevelopthissiteforaMARCNortheast
MaintenanceFacilitywouldbe$446Million,notincludingrightofwaycosts.

11

Y
E HW
S TAT

BE

NE
Y

CR

ST
EP
OL
D

RD

ST

RD

M
AR
YL
AN
D

BL
VD

ERRY RD

CH

D
UTI A R
SP ES

NB
RA

AN

PO

AN

RR

Y RUN

RD

OPUS

PE
RR
YM

LO

FL
IN

RD

y
I

CI
RE
LL
IC
T

SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

CR

L
NE
AN

NE
Y

EE

FI E
PHILLIPS

HW

CH
E

LS
EA

RD

RO

TE
ST

RO

APPROX. SITE LOCATION

PERRYMAN WELLFIELD
PROTECTION DISTRICT

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

WATERWAY

100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

POTENTIAL FOREST NEAR SITE

POTENTIAL FIDS HABITAT

DNR OR NWI WETLAND

CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL


AREA

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

SCALE: 1 INCH = 2,000 FEET


0
1,000
2,000 FEET

LEGEND

A
SE
EL
CH

LD R

FIGURE 2.1-2
ALTERNATIVE SITE
OPUS

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

TheOpusSiteislocatedinthevicinityofindustriallandusesthatmayposeahazardous
materialssubsurfacecontaminationriskandwouldrequirebothPhaseIandPhaseII
EnvironmentalSiteAssessmentspriortoselectionofthesite.Additionalpotential
environmentalimpactswouldincludeimpactsto3.4acresofforestedarea(requiring11.9acres
ofreforestation).ThesiteislocatedwithinthePerrymanWellfieldProtectionZoneandisnot
compatiblewithHarfordCountyzoningrestrictions.
AlthoughtheOpusSitehastheappropriateacreagerequiredfortheMARCMaintenance
Facility,thesitelocation(southoftheSusquehannaRiver)doesnotmeettheprojectsstated
purposeandneed,thereareengineeringissuesthatwouldaddsignificantcosttotheproject,
unacceptablesafetyandoperationalproblemswithAmtrakoperationsontheNEC,theproject
wouldresultinsevereenvironmentalimpactsandwouldbeincompatiblewithWellfieldZoning
restrictions(seeTable1).
2.1.2

AberdeenProvingGround

TheAPGEdgewoodSiteislocatedonthesouthsideoftheNEC,northofMagnoliaRoad
(MD152)andsouthofEmmortonRoad(MD24)(seeFigure2.13).Thesiteisapproximately
6,800feetlong,rangesfromapproximately30feetwideontherailroadtrackstoapproximately
800feetwide,andhasatotalsiteofapproximately74.1acres.Theportionofthesitethat
wouldbeoccupiedbyMTAsfacilitywouldbeapproximately59acres.Theproposedsiteis
locatedentirelywithinAPG,whichisfederallandandcurrentlyundermilitaryuse.TheAPGSite
islistedontheNationalPrioritiesList(NPL)DatabaseasaSuperfundcleanuplocationand
containsUnexplodedOrdinance(UXO)whichwouldrequireremovalpriortolandclearance.
TheAPGSitewouldrequireconstructionofonenewcrossoverandonenewturnoutinthe
existingMagnoliaInterlocking.TheAPGSiteislocatedwithinthevicinityofmilitary/industrial
landusesthatmayposeahazardousmaterialssubsurfacecontaminationrisk.
Thesitewouldrequire60acresfromAPGthroughanEnhancedUseLease(EUL).Thisprocess
wouldrequirecoordinationwithanapprovalfromAPGforsecurityclearances;therefore,
constructiontimeisunknown.Asatenantofasuperfundsite,theMTAmaybesubjectto
liabilityconcerns.Anadditional15.1acresoflandwouldbeacquiredforutilityrelocationsand
1.9acreswouldbetemporarilyimpactedduringconstruction.Thetotalestimatedcostto
developthissiteforaMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldbe$529Million,not
includingrightofwaycosts.
Additionalpotentialenvironmentalimpactswouldincludeimpactstohazardousmaterials;
wetlandareas;100and500yearfloodplains;25.1acresofforestedarea(requiring25.4acres
ofreforestation);and13.4acresofForestInteriorDwellingSpecies(FIDS)habitat.
AlthoughtheAPGSitehastheappropriateacreage,thereareengineeringissuesthatwould
addsignificantcosttotheprojectanditcausessevereimpactstoenvironmentalresources
protectedunderFederalstatutes,includingSuperfundhazardousmaterialsconcerns.In

13

SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

NU

EN

REID

ER C

RD

VE
LA
TTA

CA

APG

OPUS

A
nch

New turnout and crossing required


at the Magnolia Interlocking.

dB
ra
or

H OA D L E

Em

IA

RD

OL
GN
MA

re
ek

lC

AD

WATERWAY

DNR OR NWI WETLAND

CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL AREA

POTENTIAL FIDS HABITAT

BGE AERIAL POWER


TRANSMISSION LINE

ALTERNATIVE SITE
APG EDGEWOOD

SIEB
E

ST

Y RD

FIGURE 2.1-3

TH

100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

ST

ALLE

IS S O

POTENTIAL FOREST NEAR SITE

3 7T

AT K

TS

AU

ST

RD

1. APG is a federally-designated Superfund Site,


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

34

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

APPROX. SITE LOCATION

IN

N RD

OON RD

SCALE: 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET


0
500
1,000 FEET

41
S

Constraint Factors:

IGLOO ST

TWOO D RD

LAG

RT R

FO
RT

na

Ca

W ES

LEGEND

Y R OA D

RO

HO
YLE

11TH S
T

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

addition,thelocationisnotconsistentwiththeprojectpurposeandneed,specificallybeing
locatedsouthoftheSusquehannaRiver.
2.1.3

Prologis

ThePrologisSiteislocatedonthenorthsideofAmtraksNECandapproximately1,800feet
southofTrimbleRoadintheCityofEdgewood,Maryland.Thesiteisapproximately8,200feet
longandrangesfromapproximately30feetwidealongtherailroadtracksto1,300feetwide
withatotalsiteareaofapproximately73acres(seeFigure2.14).Theportionofthesitethat
wouldbeoccupiedbyMTAwouldbeapproximately56acres.Thetotalestimatedcostto
developthissiteforaMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldbe$483Million.
ThePrologisSitewouldrequireconstructionofonenewcrossoverandonenewturnoutinthe
existingMagnoliaInterlocking.Thissiterequiresfullacquisitionofanindustrialpropertyand
severalpartialresidentialpropertyacquisitions.SeveralhomesabuttheAmtrakrightofwayat
thenorthendneartheexistingWoodInterlocking.Additionaltrainmovementsmayproduce
noiseimpacts.Further,thislocationmayrequiremodificationtotheMD152andMD24
bridges,ifitisfoundthattheretainingwallsrequiredforinstallationoftheleadtrackswould
beinsufficienttosupporttheabutments.
Constructionofthesitewouldrequirerelocationofastormwatermanagementpond.
Additionalenvironmentalimpactsincludeimpactstoforestedareas(13.2acres)requiring16.5
acresofreforestation;100and500yearfloodplain;and19wetlandsand6waterways
systems.
AlthoughthePrologisSitehastheappropriateacreage,thereareengineeringissuesthatwould
addsignificantcosttotheproject,stormwatermanagementpondrelocationandsevere
impactstoenvironmentalresourceswithsignificantcosttomitigatingtheseimpacts.In
addition,thelocationisnotconsistentwiththeprojectpurposeandneed,specificallybeing
locatedsouthoftheSusquehannaRiver.
2.1.4

PerryvilleB

ThePerryvilleBSiteislocatedonthesouthsideoftheNEC,directlyeastoftheIKEA
DistributionCenter,andnorthwestofFurnaceBayinPerryville,CecilCounty,Maryland
(seeFigure2.15).Thesiteisapproximately6,500feetlong,andrangesfromapproximately30
feetwidealongtherailroadtracksto1,400feetwide.Thesitewouldbeadjacenttotheexisting
AmtrakMaintenanceofWay(MOW)baseofoperationsforthepersonnelandequipmentthat
maintaintheNEC.TheportionofthesitethatwouldbeoccupiedbyMTAsfacilitywouldbe
approximately44acres.
PerryvilleBwouldrequirethecompleterelocationoftheMOWfacility(estimatedcostof$58
Million)andconstructionoftwonewcrossoversintheexistingPerryInterlocking.Thissite
locationmaycreatepossibleinterferencewithproposedfutureAmtrakcapacityimprovement

15

SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

R ST

A LN

YA

EM

OR

ST

NR

APG

BR

K
ROP

LE

CH

MB

OPUS

CA R M E

I
TR

RD

AN

PROLOGIS

D
HOA

D
ROA

OS

A RK

ER R

LEY

O
IGL

OW

EN

RD

Constraint Factors:

AT
K

ST

D
WISE
R

1. Difficulty obtaining permits due to impact to 11 to 21


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

RD

ST

RD
34 T

LI

ST

42
N

40TH ST

NO

34
T

100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

ALTERNATIVE SITE
PROLOGIS

M
AG

ALLE
Y

DELINEATED FOREST STAND

CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL


AREA

AU

SIE
B

EK

RE

DELINEATED WETLAND

IS S

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

FIGURE 2.1-4
HAN L ON RD

D
R

POTENTIAL FIDS HABITAT

IN

WATERWAY

RD

APPROX. SITE LOCATION

IVY

55

55

LEGEND

555

CANAL C

G OON R D

38TH ST

LA

AD

ON R

SCALE: 1 INCH = 1,250 FEET


0
625
1,250 FEET

D
OD R
W E S TWO

RO

ER

TR

LI
A

New turnout and crossing required


at the Magnolia Interlocking.

MA

ST

VE
AL A
T
T
NU

E
HD

H ST

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

555

LL
MI

SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

CR

Demolition of abandoned
road bridge

EE

OU

SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

KR

DO

BL
VD

ILA
PH

Copyright: 2012 Esri,


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

PERRYVILLE B

DE

LP

A
HI

RO

AD

?
FURNACE BAY

Amtrak MOW

A
IKE
Y
WA

Ikea

L
MIL

RE

FI

EK

RE

S TO

NE R
D

Construction of three new crossovers


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

Susquehanna
River bridge

SCALE: 1 INCH = 2,000 FEET


0
900
1,800 FEET

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

FIGURE 2.1-5

LEGEND
APPROX. SITE LOCATION

WATERWAY

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

POTENTIAL FIDS HABITAT

POTENTIAL FOREST NEAR SITE

100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

NWI or DNR Wetland

CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL AREA

ALTERNATIVE SITE
PERRYVILLE B

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

work(additionaltracksandnewSusquehannaRiverBridge).Theseconditionsarenot
consistentwiththeprojectsstatedpurposeandneed,specificallyAmtraksNECgrowthplan.
PerryvilleBwouldrequire15.3acresoffullpropertyacquisition(MOWBase),45.6acresof
partialacquisition(IkeaDistributionCenter)and15.8acresoftemporaryeasements.Thetotal
estimatedcosttodevelopthissiteforaMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilityis$531Million.
PerryvilleSiteBislocatedwithinthevicinityofindustriallandusesthatmayposeahazardous
materialssubsurfacecontaminationrisk.Additionalpotentialenvironmentalimpactswould
includeimpactsto2.3acresofforestedarea(requiring13.6acresofreforestation);impacts
withintheChesapeakeBayCriticalArea;andpotentialculturalresourcespresentwithinand
adjacenttothesite.
ThePerryvilleBlocationdoesnotmeettheprojectspurposeandneed.Inaddition,thereare
engineeringissuesthatwouldaddsignificantcosttotheproject,thislocationcauses
unacceptablesafetyandoperationalissueswithAmtrakoperationsontheNEC,andthere
wouldbesignificantimpactstoenvironmentalresources.
2.1.5

PerryvilleA

ThePerryvilleASiteislocatedonthenorthsideoftheAmtrakNEC,southofMD7(Principio
FurnaceRoad),andsouthandeastoftheintersectionofMD7withBroadStreet
(seeFigure2.16).Theproposedprojectsiteisapproximately8,000feetlongandrangesfrom
30feetwidealongtherailroadtracksto1,500feetwidewheretheaccessroadisproposedand
thetotalsiteareaisapproximately110acres.Theportionofthesitethatwouldbeoccupiedby
MTAsimprovementswouldbeapproximately56acres.
PerryvilleAisusedforagriculturalpurposesbutiszonedhighdensityresidential.Themajority
ofthesiteiscleared,providingpotentiallocationsforonsitemitigationofwetlandandforest
areaimpacts.Potentialenvironmentalimpactswouldincludelessthan1acreofwetland
impacts,4.4acresofforestedareaimpactsandprivatepropertyacquisitionfromtheedgeofa
golfcourseandothercommercialpropertiesalongtheNEC.Thereisahighpotentialforfull
acquisitionofhistoricresources(farmstead)locatedonthesite.Thetotalestimatedcostto
developthissiteforaMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldbe$355Million,excluding
propertyacquisition.
ThePerryvilleASitelocationmeetstheprojectspurposeandneedaswellasprovideslandfor
wetlandandforestareamitigation.However,therewouldbeasignificantimpacttohistoric
resources,andMTAwouldberesponsibleforallrequiredminimizationandmitigation
measures.

18

LL
MI
Furnace Bay
Golf Course

D
OA

55
555
5
5
5
555
555

55
555 55
5
5
555
55
55
5

5
5
5555

5
55

555Y
WA
55

5
555
5
5
5
555

5555
5555

5
55

55
5
55
55
5
55
55
55 555 5
5555

5
5555
5
5
5
55
Potential
5555
5
5
cultural
5
5
resource
55555
5
5
5
55
5555
555
5
55 5
5
5
5
55
Amtrack MOW
5555
55 555555
55
5555
5
5
5
55
5
5555
5
5
5
5
5
5 55
55
5555
5555
5
5
5
5
5 55
5555

5 555

A
IKE

555
5555

IA

D
LA
I
PH

PH
EL

Constraint Factors:

Construction of
new lead track
and turnout

MIL
RE E
LC

55

55

555

LEGEND

FI

RE

S TO
NE R
D

SCALE: 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET


0
500
1,000 FEET

1. Heavy grading may be required to make the site


level.
2. No existing connection to NEC.
3. Full acquisition of historic farmstead property.
4. Several partial acquisitions required.
5. No direct access to highways.
6. Requires two turnouts connecting to main line
Track 4.

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

LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE

DELINEATED WATERWAY

POTENTIAL FIDS HABITAT

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

DELINEATED WETLAND

DELINEATED FOREST STAND

100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL


AREA

FIGURE 2.1-6
ALTERNATIVE SITE
PERRYVILLE A

555
55
5
5
55
5
5
555

5
555
5
5
5
555
5
5
5
555
5
5
5
555
5
5
555
5 5555

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

55

PERRYVILLE B

DO

555
5555
5555
55555
55
5555 55
5555 555555
5555
5555
5555
5555
5555
5555
5555
5555
5555
5555
5555
5555
5555
5555
5555
5555
5555
5555
5555
5555
555
555
555
555
555

OU

55

Purchase of ROW
for construction of
new lead track
and turnout

5
55
555
555
5 5555
555
555
555
555
555
555

D
KR
EE
CR

PERRYVILLE A

5
5

5
555
555
555
555
555

SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

55
55 555

y
I

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

555

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

2.1.6

NewBengies

TheNewBengiesSiteislocatedsouthoftheSusquehannaRiver,onthewestsideoftheNEC
alongNewBengiesRoadinBaltimore,MarylandacrossfromtheMartinStateAirport
MaintenanceFacility(Figure2.17).
ThissitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan,inthattheleadtrackstoa
maintenancefacilityatthissitewouldhavetodivergefromAmtrakTrack3whichisahigh
speedtrack.Amtrakdoesnottypicallyallowtrackstodivergefroma125mphtrackintolow
speedfacilities,sotheymayrequiretheconstructionofa4thtrack.Theconstructionwouldbe
costlyduetothelengthoftrackrequired,adistanceofapproximately5.3miles,whichcould
resultinapproximately$133$177Millioninadditionalprojectcosts.IfAmtrakwouldallowthe
leadtrackstobeconnectedtoTrack3,thelayoutwouldrequiremodificationinorderto
provideadirectconnection.Additionally,theexistingMD43(WhitemarshBoulevard)bridge
thatcrossesovertheNECwouldneedtobereconstructedtoaccommodatetheleadtracks.
TheNewBengiessiteisalsoconstrainedtothenorthbyalargebuildingcurrentlyunder
construction.
Developingthissiteforamaintenancefacilitywouldresultinimpactstoapproximately44acres
offorestedarea,4acresofwetlands,and51acresofFIDSHabitat.Forestmitigationwould
likelybeapproximately50to60acres,andforestmitigationcostswouldbeapproximately
$750,000to$900,000forthissite.Wetlandsmitigationcostswouldcostapproximately
$500,000forthissite,notincludingcostsfordesignorpropertyacquisition.Constructionofa
maintenancefacilityatthissitewouldresultinapproximately0.4acresofresidentialproperty
impacts.
TheNewBengieslocation,whichissouthoftheSusquehannaRiver,doesnotmeetthe
projectsstatedpurposeandneed.Also,itisnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMaster
Plan.TherequiredconstructionofoverfivemilesofTrack4andpotentialreconstructionofa
highwaybridgewouldresultinengineeringissuesaddingsignificantcosttotheproject.
Developmentofthissitewouldsignificantlyimpacttoenvironmentalresources,including
forestsandwetlands.
2.1.7

Chesapeake

TheChesapeakeSiteislocatedsouthoftheSusquehannaRiver,ontheeastsideoftheNEC,
justnorthofwhereitcrossestheGunpowderRiverandsouthofHoadleyRoadinEdgewood,
Maryland(Figure2.18).ThissiteispartoftheAPGandiscurrentlyownedbytheU.S.
Government.
AccesstothissiteisprovidedthroughtheAPGproperty.Negotiationsregardingaccessrights
withAPGcoulddelaytheprojectforanextendedperiodoftime.Thissitewouldnotbe
compatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlanandthestatedpurposeandneedfortheproject,in
thattheleadtrackstoamaintenancefacilityatthissitewouldhavetodivergefromAmtrakthe

20

?
NEW
BENGIES
BL
VD

Residential Property

WH
ITE
M

AR

WATERWAY

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

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

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

LEGEND
APPROX. SITE LOCATION

SCALE: 1 INCH = 2,000 FEET


0
900
1,800 FEET

PO

RO
A

WILSON
IN T

VD
BL

x
A

EA S T E

RN

SH

Copyright: 2012 Esri,


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

FIGURE 2.1-7
POTENTIAL FOREST NEAR SITE

POTENTIAL FIDS HABITAT

NWI OR DNR WETLAND

100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

ALTERNATIVE SITE
NEW BENGIES

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility


G
MA
NO
LI A

CHESAPEAKE

AD
RO

FO

Copyright: 2012 Esri,


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

RT
E
YL
HO
RO

AD

GU

NP

OW

DER FALLS
Constraint Factors:
1. Located south of the Susquehanna River.
2. Not compatible with NEC Master Plan or the
stated purpose and need.
3. Lead tracks to a facility at this site would diverge
from Track 2 in a curve which is the northbound
high speed track.
4. Proposed site is on Aberdeen Proving Ground
which will cause access difficulties.
5. Developing the site would result in impacts to:
unknown hazardous materials, 53 acres of forest,
5 acres of wetland, 22 acres of floodplain, 12 acres
of Critical Area, and 47 acres for FIDS habitat.
SCALE: 1 INCH = 2,000 FEET
0
1,000
2,000 FEET

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

LEGEND

WATERWAY

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

APPROX. SITE LOCATION

POTENTIAL FOREST NEAR SITE

100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

NWI OR DNR WETLAND

CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL


AREA

POTENTIAL FIDS HABITAT

FIGURE 2.1-8
ALTERNATIVE SITE
CHESAPEAKE

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

northboundhighspeedtrack.Amtrakwouldlikelynotallowthisconnectionwithtracksto
divergefrom125mphtrackintolowspeedfacilitiesduetosafetyconcerns.Anotheroptionfor
leadtrackstothissitewouldbetoextendtheexistingTrackAacrosstheGunpowderRiverona
newbridgefromanexistinginterlockingtothesite,whichwouldbeasignificantcost.
Developingthissiteforamaintenancefacilitywouldresultinimpactstounknownhazardous
materialsontheAPG,53acresofforestedarea,5acresofwetlands,47acresofFIDShabitat,
22acreswithinthe100yearfloodplain,and12acreswithintheChesapeakeBayCriticalArea.
Theforestimpactswouldrequireextensivecoordination,andmitigationwouldcost
approximately$750,000to$900,000forthissite.Impactstowetlandswouldcost
approximately$500,000forthissite,notincludingcostsfordesignorpropertyacquisition.
Impactswithinthe100yearfloodplaincouldrequirecoordinationwithandapermitfromthe
MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment(MDE)andcoordinationwiththeFederalEmergency
ManagementAgency(FEMA).ImpactswithintheChesapeakeBayCriticalAreaandAtlantic
CoastalBayswouldrequirecoordinationwiththeCriticalAreaCommission.
TheChesapeakelocation,whichissouthoftheSusquehannaRiver,doesnotmeettheprojects
statedpurposeandneed.Also,thissitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMaster
Plan.Thereareunknownrisksforencounteringcontaminatedmaterialsasthesiteispartofthe
APG,anddevelopmentofthissitewouldsignificantlyimpactenvironmentalresources
protectedunderFederalstatutes,includingforests,floodplain,wetlands,andCriticalArea.
2.1.8

Chelsea

TheChelseaSiteislocated,southoftheSusquehannaRiver,onChelseaRoadontheeastside
oftheNEC,justnorthofwhereitcrossesBushRiverinAberdeen,Maryland(Figure2.19).This
sitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan,inthattheleadtrackstoa
maintenancefacilityatthissitewouldhavetodivergefromthenorthboundhighspeedtrack.
Amtrakmayrequiretheconstructionofthefuture4thtracktoallowMARCtrainstodecelerate
toasuitableoperatingspeedforenteringthemaintenancefacility.Constructionofa4thtrack
wouldlikelycost$110$147Millionduetothelengthoftrackrequired,adistanceof
approximately4.4miles.Also,thenorthleadtrackwouldrequireconnectiontotheNECina
curvedlocation,whichwouldnotbepermitted.Therefore,thenorthleadtrackwouldhaveto
beextendedapproximately2milesnorthwardtoreachtangenttracknearChelseaRoad
overheadhighwaybridge.
DevelopingtheChelseaSiteforamaintenancefacilitywouldresultinimpactstoapproximately
26acresofforestedarea,1acreofwetlands,19acresofFIDShabitat,1acrewithinthe
100yearfloodplain,and53acreswithintheCriticalArea.Forestmitigationwouldcost
approximately$400,000forthissite,notincludingpropertyacquisition.Wetlandmitigation
costswouldbeapproximately$100,000forthissite,notincludingdesignorproperty
acquisition.Impactswithinthe100yearfloodplaincouldrequirecoordinationwithanda

23

SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

CHELSEA

Copyright: 2012 Esri,


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

Constraint Factors:
1. Located south of the Susquehanna River.
2. Not compatible with NEC Master Plan.
3. Lead tracks to a facility at this site would diverge
from Track 2 which is a high speed track.
4. Environmental impacts include 26 acres of forest,
1 acre of wetlands, 19 acres of FIDS habitat,
1 acre within the 100-year floodplain, and
53 acres within the Critical Area.
SCALE: 1 INCH = 2,000 FEET
0
900
1,800 FEET

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

LEGEND

WATERWAY

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

APPROX. SITE LOCATION

POTENTIAL FOREST NEAR SITE

100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

NWI OR DNR WETLAND

CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL AREA

POTENTIAL FIDS HABITAT

FIGURE 2.1-9
ALTERNATIVE SITE
CHELSEA

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

permitfromMDEandcoordinationwithFEMA.ImpactswithintheChesapeakeBayCritical
AreaandAtlanticCoastalBayswouldrequirecoordinationwiththeCriticalAreaCommission.
TheChelsealocation,whichissouthoftheSusquehannaRiver,doesnotmeettheprojects
statedpurposeandneed.Also,thissitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMaster
Plan.Thelongleadtrackconstructionwouldaddsignificantcosttotheproject,aswellas
potentialconflictswithsafetyandoperations.Developmentofthissitewouldsignificantly
impacttoenvironmentalresources,includingforests,floodplain,wetlands,andChesapeakeBay
CriticalArea.
2.1.9

Perryman

ThePerrymanSiteislocated,southoftheSusquehannaRiver,onthewestsideoftheNEC,near
PerrymanandCanningHouseRoadsjustnorthoftheBushRiver(Figure2.110).Thereisan
existingbridgecrossing(ChelseaRoad)thatcrossesovertheNECtrackswithinthePerryman
Site.Thisbridgewouldneedtobereconstructedtoaccommodatetheleadtracksonthe
northernend.Also,MD199(PerrymanRoad)wouldhavetoberelocated;therelocationwould
beapproximately7000feetinlengthandcoulddisplaceresidentialpropertiesatthesouthend
oftheproject.
ThereisnoexistingtrackconnectiontoAmtraksNEC.Anewinterlockingplantwouldbe
requiredontheNECnorthofthesite.ThesouthleadtrackwouldentertheNECwithinacurve
andwouldthereforerequireanapproximately4,800footextensionsouthwardtoreach
tangenttrackandmakeaconnectiontothemainlineattheexistingBushInterlocking.The
interlockingadditionswouldprovidethenecessarycrossoverstomakeMARCtrainmovements
betweenanymainlinetrackandadoubleendedfacility.However,Amtrakhasstateditisnot
infavoroftheadditionofanewinterlockinginthesectionoftracknorthofthesitebecause
theMARCtraincrossovermovementswouldslowAmtraktrafficinwhatisconsideredhigh
speedtrack.Theroadwayandtrackworkwouldresultinapproximately$25.8$33.3Millionin
additionalprojectcostsfortheconstructionoftherequiredleadtracks.
ANortheastMaintenanceFacilityatthePerrymanSitewouldresultinimpactstoapproximately
5.9acresofforestedarea,3.7acresofwetlands,and1.2acresofFIDShabitat.Forest
mitigationwouldcostapproximately$90,000forthissite,notincludingpropertyacquisition.
Wetlandmitigationcostswouldbeapproximately$400,000forthissite,notincludingdesignor
propertyacquisition.
InaccordancewithTransitNoiseandVibrationImpactAssessment,May2006(FTAVA90
100306),screeningdistanceswereappliedtothePerrymanSitetoidentifypotentialnoise
impacts.TheCranberryMethodistChurch,aculturalresourceidentifiedbytheMaryland
HistoricalTrust(MHT),islocatednorthofthesite,onthewestsideofPerrymanRoad(MD159)
andfallswithinthescreeningdistanceandcouldpotentiallybeimpactedbynoise.Singlefamily

25


A
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

A
CR

NBERRY RD

A
CH
NN
EL

PERRYMAN

RD

SE
EL

Perryman
Historic District
ST
TE

EA
ELS
CH

RO

HW

AD

Constraint Factors:
1. Located south of the Susquehanna River.
2. The Chelsea Road bridge over NEC tracks would
need to be replaced.
3. Environmental impacts include 5.9 acres of forest,
3.7 acres of wetlands and 1.2 acres of FIDS habitat.
No existing track connection to Amtrak's NEC.
4. A new interlocking plant will be required on the NEC
north of the site.
5. Potential impacts to the Perryman Historic District.
SCALE: 1 INCH = 2,000 FEET
0
1,000
2,000 FEET

LEGEND
APPROX. SITE LOCATION

WATERWAY

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

DNR OR NWI WETLAND

POTENTIAL FIDS HABITAT

PERRYMAN WELLFIELD
PROTECTION DISTRICT

POTENTIAL FOREST NEAR SITE

CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL


AREA

FIGURE 2.1-10
ALTERNATIVE SITE
PERRYMAN

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

residentialpropertiesarelocatedadjacenttothesiteboundarytothenorth.Approximately
thirtytwo(32)residencesfallwithinthescreeningdistanceandcouldpotentiallybeimpacted
bynoisefromtheproposedPerrymanSite.MTAwouldberesponsibleforidentifyingnoise
impactsandmitigation,ifnecessary.
ThePerrymanHistoricDistrictwasrecommendedeligiblein1991fortheNationalRegisterof
HistoricPlacesandispartiallylocatedwithinandadjacenttothenortheasternboundaryofthe
proposedPerrymansite.Approximately27acresofthishistoricdistrictliewithintheboundary
ofthePerrymansiteandwouldpotentiallybedirectlyimpactedbydevelopmentofthissite.
ThePerrymanlocation,whichissouthoftheSusquehannaRiver,doesnotmeettheprojects
statedpurposeandneed.Also,Amtrakhasstatedthatitisnotinfavoroftheinstallationofa
newinterlockinginthisarea.Developmentofthissitewouldimpactforests,wetlands,and
culturalresources.
2.1.10

CarpentersPoint

TheCarpentersPointsiteislocatednorthoftheSusquehannaRiver,alongtheeastsideofthe
NECinPerryville,MarylandsouthofUS40andMD7intersection,andeastoftheintersection
ofMD7(PrincipioFurnaceRoad)andMD267(BaltimoreStreet)(Figure2.111).
ThissitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan,inthatitislocatedadjacent
toaportionofthetwotracksectionoftheNEC,wherebothtracksareconsideredhighspeed.
TheleadtrackstoamaintenancefacilityatthissitewouldhavetodivergefromAmtraks
northboundhighspeedtrack.Amtrakmayrequiretheconstructionofthefuture4thtrack,
whichwouldallowMARCtrainstodeceleratetoasuitableoperatingspeedforenteringthe
maintenancefacility.Constructionofa4thtrackwouldbeadistanceofuptoapproximately6.4
milesatacostupto$213Million.
Atthissite,thenorthleadtrackcouldnotconnectintoacurveinthetracks.Theleadtrack
wouldhavetobeextendedapproximately2milesnorthwardtoreachatangenttomakethe
connectiontothemainline.Thiswouldalsorequireasignificantlengthofretainingwallsand
theextension(reconstruction)oftheBaltimoreStreetandBladenStreetbridgesonMD267.
Theleadtrackconstructionandthetwobridgereconstructionswouldaddsignificantcostto
theproject.ThesouthleadtrackconnectionwouldbemadeinthevicinityofthefutureAmtrak
FurnaceInterlocking.ThismayrequireadditionalfuturecostsforrelocationoftheMARC
turnouttoaccommodateAmtrakstracklayoutfortheinterlocking.
Thispropertyiscurrentlyzonedagricultural;however,theentiresiteisforestedand
undeveloped.Developingthissiteforamaintenancefacilitywouldresultin53acresofforest
impactsand53acresofFIDShabitatimpacts.Forestmitigationcostswouldbeapproximately
$750,000to$900,000forthissite,notincludingpropertyacquisition.

27

SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

CARPENTER
POINT

?
W

Copyright: 2012 Esri,


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

OL

PH

ILA
DE
LP

H IA

RO

AD

ER P
ENT
P
R
CA

SCALE: 1 INCH = 2,000 FEET


0
1,000
2,000 FEET

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

WATERWAY

OA

Constraint Factors:

1. Not compatible with Amtrak's NEC Master Plan.


2. Located adjacent to a portion of the two-track section
of the NEC, where both tracks are considered high-speed.
3. Environmental impacts include 53 acres of forest
and 53 acres of FIDS habitat.
4. The required construction of over 5 miles of Track 1,
potential reconstruction of two highway bridges,
and relocation of the MARC turnout would result in
engineering issues adding significant cost to the project,
as well as potential conflicts with safety and operations.

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

LEGEND
APPROX. SITE LOCATION

TR
O IN

100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

DNR OR NWI WETLAND

POTENTIAL FIDS HABITAT

CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL


AREA

POTENTIAL FOREST NEAR


SITE

FIGURE 2.1-11
ALTERNATIVE SITE
CARPENTER POINT

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

LocatingtheNortheastMaintenanceFacilityattheCarpentersPointsitewouldnotbe
compatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan.Therequiredconstructionofoverfivemilesofa
4thTrack,anadditionaltwomilesoftracktoreachatangentsection,potentialreconstruction
oftwohighwaybridges,andrelocationoftheMARCturnoutwouldresultinengineeringissues
thatwouldaddsignificantcosttotheproject,aswellaspotentialconflictswithsafetyand
operations.DevelopmentofthissitewouldcausesignificantimpactstoforestsandFIDS
habitat.
2.1.11

MasonDixon

TheMasonDixonSiteislocatednorthoftheSusquehannaRiverinPerryville,Marylandalong
AmtraksNEC,southofUS40andMD7intersection,andjustwestoftheintersectionofMD7
(PrincipioFurnaceRoad)andMD267(BaltimoreStreet)(Figure2.112).Thissiteispartofthe
activeMasonDixonQuarry.ThetotalsiteareaneededforimprovementstosupportaMARC
MaintenanceFacilityatthislocationisapproximately87acres.
ThissitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan,inthatthesitewouldnot
haveaccesstotheproposedlowspeedthirdtrackontheeastsideofthecurrenttwo
highspeedtracks.TheleadtrackswouldhavetodivergefromAmtrakTrack3whichis,andwill
beinthefuture,thesouthboundhighspeedtrack.Amtrakdoesnottypicallyallowtracksto
divergefrom125mphtrackintolowspeedfacilities,sotheymayrequiretheconstructionofa
4thtracktoallowMARCtrainstodeceleratetoasuitableoperatingspeedforenteringthe
maintenancefacility.ConstructionofTrack4wouldcostupto$213Millionduetothelengthof
trackrequired,whichwouldbeadistanceupto6.4miles.Constructionofa4thtrackmayalso
beincompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlantrackconfiguration.AmtraksNECMasterPlan
showsthatthetwoexistingtracksareslatedtobecomethehighspeedtracksusingthe
proposednewSusquehannaRiverBridge.Aspartofthatproject,Amtrakplanstoaddathird
trackthatwouldinterferewithaccesstothewestsideoftheNEC.
Atthissite,thenorthleadtrackcouldnotconnectintoacurveinthetrackstomakethe
connectionstothemainline.Theleadtrackwouldhavetobeextendedapproximately2miles
northwardtoreachatangentonthemainline.Thiswouldalsorequireasignificantlengthof
retainingwallsandtheextension(reconstruction)oftheBaltimoreStreetandBladenStreet
bridgesonMD267.Theleadtrackandhighwaybridgeconstructionwouldaddsignificantcost
totheproject.
Thereisanexisting750footdeepmineralextractionpitonthesite.Thereareunknownrisks
associatedwithfillingthepitandotherunknownrefillareasonthesitethatmaynotbe
suitableforrailroadloading.Thesiteproposedisheavilyforestedwithanexcavatedsettling
pondatthewesternendandanopenwaterareaattheeasternend.ConstructionofaMARC
MaintenanceFacilityatthissitewouldresultin32acresofforestimpacts,16acresofwetlands,
8,240linearfeetofwaterways,and59acresofFIDShabitat.Theextentofthepotential
wetlands,waters,andforestimpactsaresogreattheMTAmaynotbeabletoobtainthe

29

SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

y
I
MASON
DIXON

Copyright: 2012 Esri,


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

?
W

OL
D

PH

ILA
D

EL
PH

IA R
OA

A
Constraint Factors:

Mineral Extraction Pit

CA R

SCALE: 1 INCH = 2,000 FEET


0
1,000
2,000 FEET

OA

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

LEGEND

FIGURE 2.1-12

APPROX. SITE LOCATION

100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

DNR OR NWI WETLAND

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

POTENTIAL FIDS HABITAT

CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL


AREA

WATERWAY

TER
PEN

R
INT
PO

1. Not compatible with Amtrak's NEC Master Plan.


2. The site would not have access to the proposed
low-speed third track on the east side of the current
two high speed tracks.
3. Environmental impacts include 32 acres of forest
impacts,16 acres of wetland impacts, 8,240 linear
feet of waterways and 59 acres of FIDS habitat
4. Construction of 5.4 miles of fourth track would be
required. The lead track would be extended
approximately 2 miles northward to reach a tangent
on the mainline, requiring significant retaining walls
and the extension of two bridges.
5. There are also unknown risks associated with an
existing 750 feet-deep mineral extraction pit that would
require fill suitable for railroad loading

POTENTIAL FOREST NEAR SITE

ALTERNATIVE SITE
MASON DIXON

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

necessarypermitsfromtheUnitedStatesArmyCorpofEngineers(USACE)andMDEfor
constructiononthissite.Inaddition,mitigationfortheseimpactscouldbecostprohibitiveand
couldexceed$8Million,notincludinglandpurchaseandwaterwaymitigation.Locatingthe
NortheastMaintenanceFacilityattheMasonDixonsitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraks
NECMasterPlan.Therequiredconstructionofapproximatelyfivetosixmilesofa4thtrack,an
additionaltwomilesofleadtrack,andpotentialreconstructionoftwohighwaybridgeswould
resultinengineeringissuesaddingsignificantcosttotheproject,aswellaspotentialconflicts
withsafetyandoperations.Developmentofthissitewouldcausesignificantimpactsto
environmentalresources.Therearealsounknownrisksassociatedwiththeexistingmineral
extractionsitethatwouldhavetobefilledtodevelopthissiteintoamaintenancefacility.
2.1.12

AdditionalSitesConsidered

Additionalsiteswereconsideredasaresultofpubliccommentthroughouttheplanning
process.TheyincludetheBurkheimerandNorfolkSouthernYardSites.TheBurkheimerSiteis
locatedonthesouthsideoftheCSXTPhiladelphiaSubdivisionrightofwayandtheeastsideof
WinchRoad,eastofthetownofPerryville,MD.PrincipioCreekformstheeastandsouth
boundariesofthesite.TheCSXTmainlineissingletrackatthislocation.Thesiteisanopen
fieldwitharesidenceandseveralbarnsandotheroutbuildingswithaccessfromWinchRoad.
ThissiteisnotadjacenttoAmtraksNEC,requiringoperatingagreementswithbothCSXTand
NorfolkSoutherntomovetrainsbetweenthePerryvilleStationandtheMaintenanceFacility.
TheoperationsofCSXT,NorfolkSouthernandMARCwouldresultinlowschedulereliabilityas
freighttrainsrarelyadheretoschedules.Thecrossslopeofthesitewouldrequireasignificant
quantityoffillmaterialtobeimportedtokeeppairtracksatthesameelevation.Locationof
theMARCfacilityatthissitewouldprecludeMARCfromeverbeingabletomakethisfacility
accessibletoelectriclocomotives/electricpoweredtrains.Inaddition,wetlands,streamsand
the100yearfloodplainarewithinthesite.
TheNorfolkSouthernSiteislocatedinEastBaltimoreandisboundedonthewestbyKresson
Street,onthesouthbyFayetteStreet,onthesoutheastbyCSXTsrightofwayfortheSparrows
PointBranch,onthenortheastbyAmtraksNEC,andonthenorthbyawarehouseproperty.
Thereiscurrentlynotrackservingthissite,butthepropertyisaccessiblebyNorfolkSouthern
fromitsBayviewYardandPresidentStreettracks.Thesitedoesnotmeetthecriterionofbeing
locatednorthoftheSusquehannaRiver,andanothersitewouldstillhavetobefoundfora
storagefacilitylocatednorthoftheRiverinthefuture.Thesitewidthandlengthare
insufficienttoaccommodatethenecessaryPennLinetrainsets.Also,theNorfolkSouthernsite
wouldnotmeettherequirementofbeingdoubleendedbecauseofitsorientationtotheNEC;
thefacilitywouldbestubendedwithasingleleadtrackthatwouldpassundertheCSXTbridge
overtheNECandconnecttoNorfolkSouthernsPresidentStreettrack.Anexistingcrossover
wouldprovideaccessfromtheNorfolkSoutherntrackstotheNECjustsouthoftheproposed
BayviewMARCStation.Trackstoashopbuildingwouldalsobestubended.Atransfertableor
turntablewouldberequiredtoprovideaccesstoandfromthesouthendoftheshopifthe
northendofanyshoptrackwasoccupied.Additionally,coordinationwithNorfolkSouthern

31

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

wouldberequiredtodevelopasuitableadjustmentofthealignmentofitsPresidentStreet
tracksinordertoaccommodatetheturnoutandleadtracktotheMARCfacility.TheNorfolk
Southernsitewouldnotbeabletobeexpandedinthefuture.
DevelopmentoftheNortheastMaintenanceFacilityattheBurkheimerandtheNorfolk
SouthernYardsites,locatedsouthoftheSusquehannaRiver,isnotfeasibleduetoengineering
andenvironmentalconstraints.

2.2 NOBUILDALTERNATIVE
TheNoBuildAlternativeproposesnonewMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilityalongtheNEC
corridor.ThisalternativeprovidesabaselineforcomparisonoftheproposedMARCNortheast
MaintenanceFacility.TheNoBuildAlternativewouldnotinvolvethepurchaseandconversion
ofanexistingrowcropfarmpropertyintotheMARCMaintenanceFacility.Futureactivityin
theprojectareaisunknown.Currently,themajorityofthepropertyisleasedoutfor
agriculturaluse,andtheexistingfarmhouseisusedasaresidence.However,thepropertyis
zonedhighdensityresidentialandlocatedinagrowtharea,indicatingthatthepropertywould
haveadifferentuseinthefuture.ThisEAidentifiesthepotentialimpactsoftheNoBuild
AlternativeinSection3.

2.3 BUILDALTERNATIVE(PERRYVILLEA)
MTAspreferredlocation,PerryvilleA,islocatedinPerryville,MDsouthofPrincipioFurnace
RoadbetweenFirestoneRoadandPrincipioStationRoad(seeFigure2.17).ThisEAconsiders
thePerryvilleAsiteastheBuildAlternative.ThePerryvilleASitelocationmeetstheprojects
purposeandneedaswellasprovideslandforonsitewetlandandforestareamitigation.The
otheralternativesstudiedintheSiteSelectionReport(seeAppendixA)andthoseoutlined
aboveweredeterminednottomeettheprojectspurposeandneedand/orcontainsignificant
environmental,socioeconomicorconstructionandoperationalconstraints.
ThisEAidentifiesthepotentialshorttermandpermanentimpactsoftheBuildAlternative.Short
term, or construction, impacts would occur during the construction of the MARC Northeast
Maintenance Facility, while longterm, or permanent, impacts would be associated with the
futurepresenceandoperationoftheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilityatthePerryvilleA
location.

32

FOREST
MITIGATION
AREA

NOT TO SCALE

FIGURE 2.3
PROPOSED PROJECT SITE

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

AFFECTEDENVIRONMENTANDENVIRONMENTALCONSEQUENCES
NOBUILDALTERNATIVE

TheNoBuildalternativewouldnotinvolveanyconstruction.Therefore,therewouldbeno
shorttermimpactsassociatedwiththeNoBuildAlternative.Longtermenvironmentalimpacts
oftheNoBuildAlternativeforeachenvironmentalresourcearediscussedinthefollowing
sections.

3.1 AIRQUALITY
TheNoBuildAlternativewouldinvolveagriculturalactivitiesthatrequiretheuseoffarming
machinery,whichareasourceofairpollutants.Farmoperationsarenotsubjectto
transportationconformity.TheNoBuildAlternativewouldconformtotheState
ImplementationPlan(SIP),inaccordancewith23CFRPart771.118(d).ThereareBest
ManagementPractices(BMPs)forfarmsintheChesapeakeBaywatershedthatfarmerscanuse
toimproveairqualitybyreducingodorsandotherpollutantswhilemaintainingfarm
production.

3.2 NOISEANDVIBRATION
TheNoBuildAlternativewouldinvolveagriculturalactivitiesthatrequiretheuseoffarming
machinery,whichareanoisesource.Farmoperationsarenotsubjecttoanyfederalorcounty
noiseregulationsorordinances.

3.3 GEOLOGYANDSOILS
TheNoBuildAlternativewouldinvolveagriculturalactivitiesthatwouldinvolvecontinued,
localizeddisturbancetotopographyandsoilsassociatedwithcropplantingandharvesting.Soil
erosionwouldmostlikelybealongtermeffect.ThereareBMPsforfarmsintheChesapeake
Baywatershedthatfarmerscanusetoreducesoilerosionandsedimentrunoffwhile
maintainingfarmproduction.

3.4 WATERRESOURCES
TheNoBuildAlternativeinvolvescontinuedagriculturalproduction.Agricultureisthelargest
sourceofnutrientandsedimentpollutionenteringlocalstreamsandtheChesapeakeBay.
Therefore,farmingactivitiescanhaveadirectimpactonwaterquality.ThereareBMPsthat
Marylandfarmerscanusetomanagenutrientsandhelpprotectwaterqualitywhile
maintainingfarmproduction.

34

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

3.5 WETLANDS
TheNoBuildAlternativewouldnotinvolveconstructionandwouldnotinvolvethefillingor
conversionofwetlands.Therewouldcontinuetobedirecteffectsonanisolatedemergent
wetland(WP001)thatislocatedinthemiddleofarowcropagriculturalfield,asshownon
Figure4.5.Itislocatedwithintheactiverowcropfarmarea,andthefarmingofthiswetland
wouldcontinuetoaffectthevegetationinthewetlandalthoughthehydrologyofthiswetland
wouldnotbeimpacted.

3.6 VEGETATIONANDWILDLIFE
TheNoBuildAlternativewouldnotinvolveconstructionandisthereforeexemptfromthe
provisionsoftheFCA.Currentlyfarmingoperationswouldcontinueontheclearedagricultural
field.Therewouldbenolongtermimpactonvegetationorterrestrialhabitat.Becausefarming
operationscanhaveadirecteffectonwaterquality,theNoBuildAlternativecouldimpact
aquaticwildlife.ThereareBMPsthatMarylandfarmerscanusetomanagenutrientsandhelp
protectwaterqualitywhilemaintainingfarmproduction.

3.7 HAZARDOUSMATERIALS
TheNoBuildAlternativewouldnotinvolveconstruction.Therefore,therewouldnotbeany
directeffectonhazardousmaterials.

3.8 VISUAL&AESTHETICENVIRONMENT
TheNoBuildAlternativewouldnotinvolveconstruction,andthecurrentagricultural
operationswouldcontinue.Therefore,therewouldbenochangetotheexistingaesthetic
environment.

3.9 CULTURALRESOURCES
TheNoBuildAlternativewouldnotinvolveconstruction,andthecurrentoperationswould
continue.TheNoBuildAlternativewouldnotbesubjecttotheprovisionsofSection106ofthe
NHPAof1966,asamended.Furthermore,therewouldbenoadverseeffectoncultural
resources.

3.10 SOCIOECONOMICANDCOMMUNITYRESOURCES
TheNoBuildAlternativewouldnotinvolveconstruction,andthecurrentagricultural
operationswouldcontinue.Therefore,therewouldbenochangetotheexistingsocioeconomic
orcommunityresources.

35

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

3.11 ENVIRONMENTALJUSTICE
TheNoBuildAlternativewouldinvolvecontinuedagriculturaloperationsandwouldnotbe
subjecttotheprovisionsofEO12898.

3.12 LANDUSEANDZONING
TheNoBuildAlternativewouldnotinvolveanyconstruction,andthecurrentlandusewould
continue.Althoughthelandisusedpredominatelyforagriculturalpurposes,theprojectareais
currentlyzonedforhighdensityresidentiallanduse.Furthermore,theprojectareaislocatedin
aCecilCountyDesignatedGrowthAreaandfutureEmploymentarea.Therefore,thecurrent
landuseisnotcompatiblewiththeexistingzoninganddoesnotsupportthecountydesignated
landusegoals.

3.13 PUBLICSERVICES,UTILITIESANDSAFETY
TheNoBuildAlternativeswouldnotinvolveconstruction,andcurrentagriculturaloperations
wouldcontinue.Therewouldbenochangetotheexistingpublicservices,utilities,andsafety
withtheNoBuildAlternative.

3.14 TRANSPORTATION
TheNoBuildAlternativewouldnotinvolveconstruction,andcurrentagriculturaloperations
wouldcontinue.Therefore,therewouldbenochangesinvolvingthecurrenttransportation
network.CurrentoperationsoftheMARClinewouldcontinue,buttheNoBuildAlternative
doesnotsupportfutureMARCgrowth.

36

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

AFFECTEDENVIRONMENTANDENVIRONMENTALCONSEQUENCESBUILD
ALTERNATIVE

TheproposedimprovementsassociatedwiththeMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywould
resultinphysicalchangesthatmayaffectthehumanandnaturalenvironmentwithinthe
projectarea(PerryvilleASite).Theanalysiscontainedinthischapterwilldetermineifthe
environmentalimpactswouldbesignificantintermsofNEPA.Discussionsofindividualsocial,
cultural,andnaturalresourcesareincludedwithineachofthesesections.

4.1 AIRQUALITY
4.1.1

StudyAreaandMethodology

TheWilmingtonMetropolitanAreaPlanningCoordinatingCouncil(WILMAPCO)isthe
MetropolitanPlanningOrganization(MPO)forPerryville,CecilCounty,Maryland.WILMAPCO
developsairqualityplansfornonattainmentandmaintenancepollutantsandprecursors,and
helpsimplementthoseplansregionwide.WILMAPCOisalsoresponsibleformodeling
transportationimprovementsforairqualityimpacts,inaccordancewithconformity
regulations.InadditiontoWILMAPCO,MDEandtheMarylandDepartmentofTransportation
(MDOT)alsoprovideinputandassistanceinpreparationofairqualityplans.WILMAPCOis
responsibleforairqualityconformityandworkscooperativelywithMDOTandMDEin
conductingothertransportationrelatedairqualityactivitiesfortheregion.
Theairqualityassessmentdescribesthepotentialregionalandlocalairqualityimpactsfrom
theproposedproject.Monitoringdatafromnearbystationsprovidedbackground
concentrationswhichwereusedtodeterminetheairqualityimpactsinthelocalvicinityofthe
proposedproject.ThesestationsarelocatedinEssex,Maryland(locatedapproximately30
milessouthwest),DelawareCity,Delaware(locatedapproximately30mileseast),Wilmington,
Delaware(locatedapproximately30milesnortheast)andHarfordCity,Maryland(located
approximately8mileseast).
4.1.2

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences

Theprojectislocatedinanonattainmentareaforthe1997and20088hourO3National
AmbientAirQualityStandards(NAAQS)butisinanattainmentareaforallothercriteria
pollutants.
Emissionssourcesassociatedwiththefacilityoperationincludevehicles,onsitediesel
locomotives,dieselfuelstoragetanks,landscapingequipmentandtestingofemergency
generators.Indirectemissionswouldincludeelectricityandnaturalgasdemandsbythe
buildings.
AsoutlinedinTable2theannualemissionsfromtheoperationoftheMARCNortheast
MaintenanceFacilityareexpectedtobelow.

37

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

TABLE2:2018FACILITYANNUALOPERATIONALEMISSIONS
Emission
Source
Passenger
Vehicles
AreaSource
Indirect
Electricity
Diesel
Generator
DieselStorage
Tanks
Locomotives
Total

Emissions(tonsperyear)
VOC

CO

NOx

SOx

PM10

PM2.5

CO2

0.153

3.340

0.310

0.004

0.341

0.091

286.892

2.889

0.004

0.092

0.006

0.000

0.000

396.756

1.254

7.101

1,461

0.013

0.235

0.045

0.000

0.002

0.002

294.567

0.041

0.94
4.033

4.147
7.726

17.627
19.382

0.015
7.127

0.615
0.958

0.597
0.690

2,439.254

Theproposedprojectsoperationalemissionsimpactonairqualitywouldbenegligible.
Inaddition,WILMAPCOslatestLRTPisthe2040RegionalTransportationPlanUpdate
(WILMAPCO2011),whichwasadoptedinJanuary2011andreceivedFHWAandFTAapproval
inMarch2011.WILMAPCOslatestRTIPistheFiscalYear20152018Transportation
ImprovementProgramAmendments(WILMAPCO2014),whichwasapprovedinMarch2014,
andincludedtheMARCFacility.
COHotSpotAnalysis
TheprojectareaisnotanonattainmentormaintenanceareaforCO.Therefore,noCOhotspot
analysisisrequiredperUSEPAguidance(40CFR93.116).
PMHotSpotAnalysis
TheprojectareaisnotanonattainmentormaintenanceareaforPM10andPM2.5.Therefore,no
PMhotspotanalysisisrequiredperUSEPAguidance(40CFR93.116).
4.1.3

Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures

TheproposedMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilityprojectwouldbelocatedinanareathat
hasbeendesignatedasnonattainmentforO3andattainmentforallothercriteriapollutants.
Thelongtermemissionsfromtheoperationofthefacilityarelow,andtheimpactsofthese
emissionstoairqualityintheprojectvicinitywouldbenegligible.NoTransportation
Conformitydeterminationisrequiredfortheprojectconstructionphase.Consequently,the
projectsconstructionandoperationwouldconformtotheSIP,inaccordancewith23CFRPart
771.118(d).

38

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

DuringoperationMTAwouldmeettheEPAsstringentemissionsstandards,whichincludesthe
purchaseofTier4locomotives.Inadditionwaysideelectricpowerwouldbeinstalledinthe
yardtoeliminatetheneedforlocomotivestoidlewhennotbeingplacedinservice.

4.2 NOISEANDVIBRATION
ThenoiseandvibrationanalyseswerecompletedinaccordancewiththeFTAsTransitNoise
andVibrationImpactAssessment(May2006),specificallytheguidanceonperformingnoise
andvibrationscreeninganalysesandgeneralassessments.
4.2.1

StudyAreaandMethodology

Noise
Ascreeningandgeneralrailnoiseassessmentwascompletedtodeterminetheproposed
projectspotentialtoresultinnoiseimpactsfromoperationoftheproposedMARCNortheast
MaintenanceFacility.AllnoiseimpactanalysiscalculationswereconductedwithintheFTA
NoiseandVibrationImpactAssessmentGuidelines(May2006).Theextenttowhichindividuals
areaffectedbynoisesourcesiscontrolledbyseveralfactorsincluding:

Durationandfrequencyofsound
Distancebetweenthesoundsourceandthereceptor
Interveningnaturalormanmadebarriersorstructures
Ambientnoiseenvironment

Noisesensitivelandusesincludetractsoflandwherequietisanessentialelementintheir
intendedpurpose(Category1),residencesandbuildingswherepeoplenormallysleep
(Category2),andinstitutionallanduseswithprimarilydaytimeandeveninguse(Category3).
Alllandusecategoryimpactlevelsareafunctionoftheexistingnoiseexposureversusthe
projectnoiseexposure;meaningthatthehighertheexistingnoiselevels,themorenoisea
proposedprojectmustproduceinordertoimpactsurroundingproperties.
Thepurposeoftherailtransitnoisescreeningprocedureistoidentifyareaswithpotential
noiseimpactsfromtheproposedfacilityandleadtracks.UsingFTAsNoiseScreening
Procedures,itwasdeterminedthatanoisescreeningareaof1,000feetfortheNortheast
MaintenanceFacilityanda600footscreeningdistancefortheleadtrackswouldbe
appropriate.ThenoisescreeningareaisshownonFigure4.21.
Vibration
Vibrationscausedbytrainsarebasedonvelocity,displacement,trackandwheelconditionand
accelerationofgroundmovement.AGeneralVibrationAssessmentfortheproposedproject
wascompleted.Vibrationgeneratingactivitiesassociatedwiththeoperationofthefacility

39

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

includethemovementsoftrainsetsfromtheNECtotheproposedfacility.Vibrationsensitive
landusesincludebuildingswherevibrationwouldinterferewithinterioroperations(Category
1),buildingswherepeoplewouldnormallysleep(Category2),andinstitutionallanduseswith
primarilydaytimeuse(Category3).TheFTAmethodologyestablishedandidentifiedsensitive
landuseswithinavibrationscreeningarea.Theproposedprojectwouldbeclassifiedasa
ConventionalCommuterRailroad,andthevibrationscreeningdistancesareasfollows:

Category1LandUse600feet
Category2LandUse200feet
Category3LandUse120feet

ThescreeningdistancesforCategory1,2,and3landusesisshownonFigure4.22.
4.2.2

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences

Noise
ItwasdeterminedthattheoperationsoftheproposedMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility
wouldhavethreemainnoisesources:

Afixedguidewaywithdieselelectriclocomotives
Stationarysourcecommuterrailstoragetracks
Stationarysourcerailyardandshop

Peakhouroperationswereestimatedattwo(2)trainmovementstoaccountforthedailystart
up,inspectionandidlingofthemaximumnumberofdiesellocomotivesstoredonthefacility
storagetracksduringnighttimeandnonpeakdaytimehours.Nighttimenoiselevels,9:00pm
to6:00am,estimateswereincreasedby10dB(A)asrequiredbytheFTAguidelines(see
AppendixB).Thenoiseanalysisaccountedfortrainsenteringandexitingthefacilitybetween
7:00pmand7:00am,witheveningtrainsrunningaslateasmidnight.Thefirsttrainstoleave
thefacilityinthemorningleavepriorto7:00am.
Existingnoiseexposureatnoisesensitivelandusesidentifiedduringthenoisescreening
procedureweredeterminedbytakingfour(4)24hournoisemeasurementsatrepresentative
receptorlocationswithineachnoisesensitivelandusearea(seeFigure4.21).Noisesensitive
landuseswithinthenoisescreeningareainclude:

Receptor1:Residenceat1096PrincipioFurnaceRoadandAllPawsAnimalWellness
Clinicat1098PrincipioFurnaceRoad
Receptor2:Residenceat93MillCreekLane(Woodlands)
Receptor3:Residencesat2MillCreekRoadand1323PrincipioFurnaceRoad
Receptor4:FurnaceBayGolfCourse

40

NR
TIO
TA
D

YV
ILL
ER

S
IO

R
EK

PE
RR

CIP

RE
D

WY

WY

C
LL
MI

IH
SK
LA
U
P

IH
SK
LA
U
P

IN
PR

yI

CO
UD

ON

!
(2

BL
VD

!
(3
!
(4

MARYLAND AV
E

CECIL AVE

!
(1

AD

ST

AY
AW
IKE

O
BR

KN
T RA
AM

C
AST
T HE
OR

FIRE
STO
N

SCALE: 1 INCH = 1,250 FEET


0
625
1,250

R
OR

ID

RECEPTOR
NOISE SCREENING AREA

SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

PERRYVILLE A

Scale: 1 in = 6 miles

E RD

2,500
FEET

Sources: Esri, HERE,


DeLorme, USGS, Intermap,
increment P Corp., NRCAN,
Esri Japan, METI, Esri China

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,
swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

FIGURE 4.2-1

LEGEND:

!
(

SITE LOCATION MAP

OR

NOISE SENSITIVE AREA


NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

NOISE SENSITIVE AREAS


AND RECEIVER SITES

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

PR
INC
O
IPI

PE

PR

IN

FU

RD

Furnace Bay
Golf Course

BL
VD

E
MARYLAND AV

CECIL AVE

ON

CO
UD

25 South Woodland
Farm Lane
(displacement)

PI
CI

CE

A
RN

RR
YV
I LL

ER

R
ION
AT
ST

KR
EE

HW

HW

CR

KI

KI

LL
MI

PU

S
LA

PU

S
LA

AD

ST

SUSQUEHANNA
2 MillWoodland
Creek
North
RIVER
Road
Farm
Lane

A
IKE

O
BR

SITE LOCATION MAP

Y
WA

PERRYVILLE
A
d

FIRE
S

96
10

TON
E

SCALE: 1 INCH = 1,250 FEET


0
625
1,250

Pr

Scale: 1 in = 6 miles

RD

2,500
FEET

LEGEND:
CATEGORY 1 LAND USE
SCREENING AREA

CATEGORY 3 LAND USE


SCREENING AREA

CATEGORY 2 LAND USE


SCREENING AREA

VIBRATION SENSITIVE
RECEPTOR

in

io
cip

Fu

rn

e
ac

a
Ro

Copyright: 2012 Esri,


DeLorme, NAVTEQ, Sources:
Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ,
USGS, Intermap, iPC,

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

FIGURE 4.2-2
VIBRATION SCREENING AREA

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

Receptors1through3areclassifiedasCategory2landusesastheyareresidences.TheAll
PawsAnimalWellnessClinicwaslocatedwithinthesameparcelastheresidenceat1096
PrincipioFurnaceRoad.Giventhatresidentialareashavestricternoiserequirementsthan
businessesundertheFTAguidelines,theentirepropertywasevaluatedconservativelyasa
residence.TheonlynonresidentiallanduseidentifiedwastheFurnaceBayGolfCoursewhich
isaCategory3.Althoughhistoricalsites(suchasWoodlandsinArea3)areoftenconsidered
Category3landusesbecausetheyoperateasdaytimemuseums,Woodlandsisconsideredto
beaCategory2landusebecauseitfunctionsasaprivateresidence.
Noresidentialpropertieswouldexperiencenoiseimpactsuponinitialoperationofthefacility.
Noneofthereceptorswouldbeimpactedfromtheproposedproject.
TheCategory3receptorsiteatFurnaceBayGolfCoursewouldnotbeimpactedundertheFTA
criteria.Thegolfcoursewouldexperiencea1dB(A)increaseoverexistingnoiselevelsunder
theproposedprojectconditions,resultinginatotalnoiseexposureof59dB(A).Predictedtotal
noiseexposureandimpactlevelsforeachreceptorcanbefoundinTable3.

TABLE3:RECEPTORLOCATIONS,EXISTINGNOISELEVELANDPREDICTEDIMPACTS

Receptor
Number

Location

Residenceat1096
PrincipioFurnaceRoad
andAllPawsAnimal
WellnessClinicat1098
PrincipioFurnaceRoad
Residenceat93Mill
CreekLane
(Woodlands)
Residencesat2Mill
CreekRoadand1323
PrincipioFurnaceRoad
FurnaceBayGolf
Course

3
4

Predicted
Predicted
Measured Project
TotalNoise
LandUse
Noise
Sound
Exposure
Category
Exposure
Level1
(dB[A])
(db[A])

Increase
Over
Existing
(dB[A])

FTA
Impact
Levelof
the
Project

59

53

60

None

60

48

60

None

55

49

56

None

58

49

59

None

1.AllCategory2levelsareshownasLdnwithunitsinAweighteddecibels(dB[A]).AllCategory3SoundLevelsareshownashourlyequivalentsound
levels(Leq[h])withunitsinAweighteddecibels(dB[A]).

BasedonthemeasuredexistingsoundlevelsandFTAsNoiseImpactCriteriaforTransit
Projects,itisdeterminedthattherewillbenosevereormoderateimpactstothereceptors.

43

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

Vibration
Theaffectedenvironmentforvibrationincludessensitivelanduseswithinthevibration
screeningarea,asdefinedbyFTA.ForthePerryvilleAsite,sensitivelandusesincludeone
buildingthatiscurrentlylocatedontheCoudonpropertythatisusedasaresidence
(Category2),butMTAisproposingtopurchasethisproperty(seeFigure4.22).
4.2.3

Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures

Therearenomoderateorseverenoiseorvibrationimpactstothesurroundingrecepotrs.
Therefore,nomitigationisrecommenedfortheproposedproject.

4.3 GEOLOGYANDSOILS
4.3.1

StudyAreaandMethodology

Todeterminetheprojectspotentialimpactongeologyandsoilswithinthestudyarea,MTA
identifiedthecharacteristicsofthesurroundingPhysiogeographicProvincebasedon
informationavailablefromtheMarylandGeologicSociety.MTAalsocoordinatedwiththe
NaturalResourcesConservationService(NRCS)toidentifypotentialfarmlandsoilswithinthe
projectstudyarea.
4.3.2

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences

ThestudyareaiswithintheCoastalPlainphysiographicprovincewhichischaracterizedby
broadnecksoflandseparatedbywidetidalrivers.WithinthelowerpartofCecilCounty,where
thestudyareaislocated,thesebroadrivernecksstretchformiles,withgentlyrollingsurfaces
risingfrom60to80feetabovetidewater.LowlanddepositsoriginatingfromthePleistocene
eracompriseamajorityofthestudyarea.BasedoninformationprovidedbyNRCS,amajority
(106outof114acres)ofthesoilswithinthestudyareaareconsideredprimefarmlandor
farmlandofstatewideimportance(seeFigure4.3).
Theexistingtopographyofthestudyareagentlyslopesfromthehighestelevationnearthe
northeastcornerofthestudyareatothelowerelevationsinthesoutheastportionofthestudy
area.Muchofthemiddleportionofthestudyareaappearsrelativelyflat,withhigher

44

NsB

MxC
MyD

VndB
BeB

MtB

VndB

BaA

NsA

CbC

SITE LOCATION MAP

CbD

CbC

NsA

MkB

BeB

UwA

CbB

SME

CbD

AqB

SaC

Hw

MuB

EmA

PERRYVILLE A

AqB

Scale: 1 in = 6 miles
BeB

BeC

AuC

BuC

MkB

UzC

BeB

BuC
CbB

Ch

VoB

CbC

I
PR

BuB

O
IPI
C
N

R
FU

NA

CE

AuB

RD

AuD

CbC

MkC

CbB

BuB

FURNACE BAY
GOLF COURSE

Za

EmA

BeA

BuB

A
IKE

VbB

SCALE 1 INCH = 1,250 FEET


NsB FEET
0
625
1,250
UwA

WoA

LEGEND

LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR
SOIL TYPE BOUNDARY

BuB

MkB

NsA

NsB
BuB

MkC

BeA

PRIME FARMLAND
FARMLAND OF
STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE

MkD

Ht

SaD

SaB

CbB
BuB

SME

Lc

BuB

BuA
SOILS

BuB

NsB

NsB

Za

Up

IKEA

BuA

BuA

CbD
BuA

BuB

MuB

AuD

CbB

CbC

EmA

BuC

MkC

GnC

CbC

NsA

WoA

MkC

BuB

UzF

SMF

MkB

MkC

Y
WA

VbB

AqA

WoA

SME

NsA

MkB
FaA

AuC

CbD

BuA

CsA

AuC

SME

UzF

CbC

AuC

SgB

BuA

MtB

SME

UzC

MkB

BuB

AuB

AuB

SME
GnB

UzF

NsA

Up

AqB

CbB

BuC

CbD

CbC

KpB

BeB

CbB

BuB

BuB

CbC

VbB

CbB

MkB

BuB

NsA

SME

CbD
CcD

MuB
CbC

SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

CbD

MkC

MkC
CbB

NsB
SME

CbC

CbD

CbD
MkB

AqA
AuB
AuC
AuD
BeA
BuA
BuB
CbB
CbC
CsA
EmA
FaA
MkB
MkC
NsA
SgB
SME
UP
WoA

CbB

KEY

BuC

BuC slopes (Hydric-10%)


Aquasco silt AuD
loam, 0 to 2 percent
Aura AuD
gravelly sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
Lc
Aura gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes
Aura gravelly sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes
BuB
BuB
NsB
Beltsville silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (Hydric-5%)
BuB slopes
ButlertownNsB
silt loam,BuB
0 to 2 percent
Lc
Lc (Hydric-5%)
Butlertown silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes (Hydric-5%)
Chillum silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
Chillum silt loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes
Crosiadore silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (Hydric-5%)
Elkton silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (Hydric-40%)
Fallsington sandy
loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (Hydric-40%)
MkD
Matapeake
2 to 5 percent slopes
MkC silt loam,
MkD
W slopes W
Matapeake
silt loam, 5 to 10 percent
MkC
MkD
Nassawango silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (Hydric-5%)
MkD
Sassafras gravelly loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
Sassafras and Croom soils, 15 to 25 percent slopes (Hydric-3%)
Urban land
Woodstown loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (Hydric-10%)

FIGURE 4.3

SOIL GEOLOGY

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

Za

SaD

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

elevationsneartheroadway.ThetopographyadjacenttotheNECconsistsofsteeperslopesin
thewoodedareasbetweentheexistingrowcropfieldandthestreamthatparallelstheNEC.
Theconstructionoftheproposedprojectwouldpermanentlyalterthetopographyofthestudy
areaandpotentiallythesoiliffillisaddedtothesite.Therefore,theprojectsshortterm
impactswouldbethesameasthelongtermimpacts.Thesitewouldbeinitiallyclearedand
appropriatelygradedtosupportthefacilityandthestormwaterrunoff.Themaintopographic
changeswouldresultfromtheconstructionoflandscapedbermsbetweenthefacilityandthe
roadway.TheconstructionoftheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilityandassociatedlead
trackswouldresultin150,000cubicyardsoftopsoilstripingand130,000cubicyardsofcutsoil.
Thecutsoilwouldbeusedonsitetoconstructtheberms.Additionalfillmayneedtobe
broughtonsite.
InaccordancewithFarmlandProtectionPolicyAct,MTAcoordinatedwiththeNRCSregarding
thepresenceoffarmlandwithinthestudyarea.NRCSassessedafarmlandconversionimpact
ratingof142forthesite.Theratingsystemappliesupto260pointsforasite,andsiteswith
thehighestcombinedscoresareregardedasmostsuitableforprotectionunderthefarmland
conversioncriteriaandsiteswiththelowestscoresareregardedasleastsuitable.TheFPPA
doesnotrequirefurtherconsiderationforprotectionortheevaluationofothersitesforany
sitewithanimpactratingthatislessthan160points.Therefore,thissitedoesnotrequire
furthercoordinationoranalysisundertheFPPA(seeAppendixC).
4.3.3

Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures

TheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldbedesignedtomeetallrequirementsto
reducethelikelihoodandseverityofahazardousmaterialspillorleak.Thiswouldinclude
appropriatehandlinginhazardousmaterialsstorageareasaswellastheprovisionofspillkitsin
theeventofaspill.Thesemeasureswouldreducethepotentialimpacttothegeologyandsoils
atthefacility.

4.4 WATERRESOURCES
4.4.1

StudyAreaandMethodology

Thestudyareaforidentifyingpotentialimpactstoallwaterresourcescoincidewiththe
projectsstudyareaboundary.Toidentifywaterresourcesthatwouldpotentiallybeimpacted,
areviewofpublishedstateandfederaldatasourcesthatincludedtheMDE,Maryland
DepartmentofNaturalResources(DNR),andtheFederalEmergencyManagement
Administration(FEMA)wasconducted.Specificmethodologiesidentifyingpotentialimpactsfor
eachwaterresourcearediscussedbelow.

46

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

SurfaceWater

TheMTAidentifiedDNR8digitwatershedsaswellasstreamsthatarelocatedwithinthe
proposedprojectarea.ThisinformationwascollectedutilizingcountyGeographicInformation
Systems(GIS)desktopresourcesaswellasfieldsurveys.
Groundwater
Todeterminetheprojectspotentialimpactongroundwater,MTAidentifiedknownsourcesof
groundwaterwithintheproposedprojectareausingUnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey(USGS)
data.
WaterQuality
TheMDEhasestablishedacceptablestandardsforseveralparametersforeachdesignated
StreamUseClassification.Potentialstreamimpactswereidentifiedbasedonthedesignated
useclassificationsandpreviousstreamhealthimpactsassessments.
Floodplain
TheU.S.DepartmentofTransportationOrder(USDOT)5650.2,entitledFloodplain
ManagementandProtectionidentifiespoliciesandproceduresforensuringthatproper
considerationisgiventotheavoidanceandmitigationofadversefloodplaineffects.TheMTA
reviewedthemostrecentfloodplainmapspublishedbyFEMAinordertodeterminewhether
theprojectsstudyareacoincidedwiththe100yearfloodplainandidentifyanyneeded
mitigationmeasures.
WildandScenicRivers
TheDNRScenicandWildRiversprogramwasdevelopedtoprotectthestatesrecreational,
scenic,andaquatichabitatqualitiesofitswildandscenicriversundertheNationalWildand
ScenicRiverActof1968.AfederalprogramalsoexiststoprotecttheNationswildandscenic
rivers,theNationalScenicandWildRiversSystem.
4.4.2

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences

SurfaceWater
ThestudyareacontainstwoDNRwatersheds;FurnaceBay(02130609),andLower
SusquehannaRiver(02120201)(DNR,2014a).Theproposedprojectwouldimpactunnamed
tributariestoMillCreek,whichisatributarytotheChesapeakeBay,atraditionalnavigable
waterway(seeFigure4.4).
TheFurnaceBaywatersheddrains21.2squaremiles(13,623acres).Withinthiswatershed,
10percentofthelandisurban,45percentisagricultural,44percentisforested,andlessthan

47

SITE LOCATION MAP


SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

PERRYVILLE A

PR
Scale: 1 in = 0 miles

C
IN

O
IPI

R
FU

E
AC

RD

FURNACE BAY
GOLF COURSE

MD

MI

LL

CR
E

EK

ES
FIR

IKEA

TON
ER

SCALE
0

1 INCH = 1,250 FEET

625

1,250 FEET

LEGEND

LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE

WATERBODY

DELINEATED WETLAND

CRITICAL AREA

DELINEATED WATERWAY
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

WATERWAY

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

FIGURE 4.4

WATER RESOURCES

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

1percentisbarrenland(DNR,2014b).Theprojectareaencompassesapproximately1,178,453
squarefoot(27.05acres)ofthiswatershed.TheLowerSusquehannaRiverwatersheddrains
31.07squaremiles(19,885acres).Withinthiswatershed,28percentofthelandisurban,
29percentisagricultural,43percentisforested,andlessthanonepercentisbarrenland
(DNR,2014c).Theproposedprojectencompassesapproximately3,944,466squarefoot
(90.55acres)ofthiswatershed.
AllwaterwayslocatedwithinthestudyareadraintoMillCreek,partoftheLowerSusquehanna
Riverwatershed.MillCreekisclassifiedasaUseIwaterbody,whichgeneralusesarewater
contactrecreationandprotectionofnontidalwarmwateraquaticlife.MillCreekis
approximately6.6miles(35,000linearfeet)inlengthandoriginatesinBainbridgenearthe
intersectionofJacksonParkRoadandCraigtownRoad.MillCreekflowssouthpassingunder
I95,throughPerryvilleReservoirbeforecrossingunderUS40andthenflowsthroughaculvert
underneaththeCSXrailway.UnnamedtributariestoMillCreekfoundwithinthestudyarea
convergewithMillCreekjustbeforetheculvertattheCSXrailway.MillCreekthentravels
approximatelyanother6,000linearfeetsoutheastwhereitconvergeswiththeChesapeake
Bay.AmajorityofMillCreekisboundedbyforestbuttraversesalandscapedottedwith
residentialdevelopmentsandfarmland.
TheproposedprojectareawouldnotimpactMillCreekdirectly,butwouldhowever
permanentlyimpactatributarytoMillCreek.Thistributaryflowssouthwestthroughthe
FurnaceBaywatershedalongtheexistingrailroadcrossing,whereitcrossesintotheLower
SusquehannaRiverwatershed,flowsunderneathFirestoneRoadandemptiesintoMillCreek.
Thelongtermeffectsoftheproposedprojectwouldincludeimpactingthistributary
approximately450feetnortheastoftheFirestoneRoadandRailwaycrossingforapproximately
1,300linearfeettothenortheast.Thistributarywouldalsobeimpactedfartherupstreamfrom
theinitialimpactlocationinfourdifferentlocationsrangingfromapproximately450linearfeet
to1,030linearfeet,withatotalofapproximately4,050linearfeetofproposedimpacts.
Theproposedprojectwouldconvertapproximately90.5acresofagriculturallandintheLower
SusquehannaRiverwatershedtoUrbanland,whichislessthan1percentofthetotal
watershed.Theproposedprojectwouldalsoconvertapproximately27.1acresofagricultural
landintheFurnaceBaywatershedtoUrbanland,whichisalsolessthan1percentofthetotal
watershed.
Groundwater
GroundwaterisanimportantsourceofdrinkingwaterinCecilCounty.Thestudyarea,located
intheCoastalPlainphysiographicregion,liesinthecrystallinerocksaquiferwhichdatesback
tothePrecambrianera(Weber,2007).AccordingtoWeber(2007),thecrystallinerocksarenot
consideredanimportantsourceofwatersupplyinCecilCounty.Groundwaterrechargeis
decentralized,withrainfallsoakingintotheunconsolidatedbedsofgravel,sand,silt,andclay
throughouttheland.

49

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

Theproposedprojectwouldhavenoshorttermorlongtermeffectongroundwater.The
installationofthetracksandbuildingswouldoccuralmostcompletelyonthesurfaceandonly
minorchangestothemovementsofthegroundwatertablearelikelytooccurduringgrading
andconstructionoftheproject.
WaterQuality
MillCreekisclassifiedasUseI,whichisdesignatedforwatercontactrecreationandprotection
ofnontidalwarmwateraquaticlife.TheConservationFundperformedawaterqualityanalysis
betweenMay2005andApril2006throughoutCecilCountythatexaminedbiologicaland
chemicalstreamcriteriaforuseinCecilCountysGreenInfrastructurePlan.MillCreekwas
foundtohaveunnaturallyhighlevelsofnitrateandhighammoniumlevels.Duringthesampling
periodMillCreekrecordedahighorthophosphate(PO4)concentrationonlyonce(Conservation
Fund,2007).
AccordingtoMarylandBiologicalStreamSurvey(MBSS)samplingdatafrom19942004,Mill
CreekwasfoundtosupporttherichestbenthicmacroinvertebratecommunityinMarylands
CoastalPlainphysiographicprovince.MBSShasconductedmultiplesurveyswithintheFurnace
BayandtheLowerSusquehannaRiversubwatershedssince1994.Inparticular,MillCreekwas
sampledin2004inanareaupstreamfromtheprojectsite.TheFishIndexofBioticIntegrity
(IBI)isclassifiedasGood(comparabletoreferencestreamsconsideredtobeminimally
impacted),andtheBenthicIBIisclassifiedasGood(DNR,2004).
Theproposedprojectwouldpermanentlyincreaseimpervioussurfacesbyapproximately18
acres,whichwouldhaveaslightnegativeimpactonwaterquality.Impervioussurfacesincrease
therateatwhichpollutantsandnutrientsemptyintolocalrivers,lakesandestuaries.
Floodplain
Thestudyareadoesnotcoincidewiththe100yearfloodplain(seeFigure4.4),andtherewould
benoprojectactivitieswithinthe100yearfloodplain.
WildandScenicRivers
Thestudyareadoesnotcontainanyfederallyorstatedesignatedwildandscenicrivers.
Therefore,theprojectwouldnotaffectwildandscenicrivers.
4.4.3

Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures

AlthoughtheprojectwouldpermanentlyimpactatributarytoMillCreek,theUnitedStates
ArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE)hasindicatedthattheimpactscouldbeconsideredself
mitigatingiftheoverallfunctionandvaluesofthetributarywereimprovedwithintheproject
design.MTAwillcontinuetoworkinconjunctionwithUSACEtoensurethattheprojectdesign
wouldbeconsideredselfmitigating.

50

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

InaletterdatedMarch22,2012,theDNREnvironmentalReviewUnit(ERU)reportedthatMill
CreekisclassifiedasaUseIP,andgenerally,noinstreamworkispermittedinUseIPstreams
duringtheperiodofMarch1stthroughJune15th,inclusive,duringanyyear.Inadditiontothe
instreamworkrestrictions,DNRERUnotedthatexistingriparianvegetationintheareaofthe
streamchannelshouldbepreservedasmuchaspossibletomaintainaquatichabitatand
provideshadingtothestream.Areasdesignatedfortheaccessofequipmentandforthe
removalordisposalofmaterialwouldavoidimpactstothestreamandassociatedriparian
vegetation.Anytemporarilydisturbedareaswouldberestoredandrevegetated.TheMTA
wouldconsidertheDNRERUrecommendations.
Stormwaterrunoffduringoperationsoftheproposedprojectwouldbetreatedinaccordance
withtheMDEguidelinesforstormwatermanagementpriortobeingreleasedtosurfacewaters.
ThelargeStormwaterManagementFacilityisdesignedasanextendeddetentionshallow
wetland.Thistypeoffacilityisdesignedwiththreegoalsinmind:includingimprovingwater
qualitybyallowingsedimenttosettleoutofthesiterunoffpriortobeingreleasedfromthe
facility,italsousesaquaticplantlifetoremovemuchofthenitrogenandotherpollutants
typicallyfoundinsiterunoff.Additionally,thefacilitywouldallowrunofftobeabsorbedback
intothegroundkeepingthegroundwatertablesintheareaatacceptablelevels.Thefacilityis
designedtomanagelargerstormeventsanddischargetheoutflowatcontrolledratesoveran
extendedperiodtokeepwaterwaysdownstreamofthesitefromerodingandbecoming
inundated.

4.5 WETLANDS
4.5.1

StudyAreaandMethodology

WatersoftheU.S.,includingwetlands,areregulatedunderSection401and404oftheClean
WaterAct,theMarylandTidalWetlandsAct,andtheStateofMarylandNontidalWetlands
ProtectionAct.MTAconductedawetlanddelineationinaccordancewiththe1987U.S.Army
CorpsofEngineersWetlandDelineationManualwithclarificationsandmodificationsinthe
summerof2013.BasedonthisdelineationapreliminaryJurisdictionalDeterminationhasbeen
submittedto,andapprovedby,theUSACEfortheproject.Thestudyareaforthewetland
delineationcoincidedwiththestudyareaboundary.MTAalsoattendedapreapplication
meetingwithMDEandtheUSACEonSeptember13,2013andapreJurisdictional
DeterminationmeetingonNovember15,2013regardingwetlandpermitting.
4.5.2

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences

Thewetlanddelineationidentifiedsevennontidalwetlandsandsevennontidalwaterways;
however,portionsofonlyfourwaterwaysandthreewetlandsarelocatedwithinthelimitsof
disturbanceandwouldbepermanentlyimpactedbytheproposedproject(seeFigure4.5).
Withtheexceptionoftheisolatedwetlands,theidentifiedsystemscontributeflowtoMill
Creek(approximately932feetsouthwestofthestudyarea),atributarytotheChesapeakeBay.

51

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

Therewouldbeimpactstoanintermittent(WL017)streamthatextendsalongthesouthern
boundaryofthestudyareaparalleltotheexistingtracks.Thisstreamisonaverage8to12feet
wideandincludesasubstratecomposedofboulders,cobbles,gravel,sand,vegetationandsilt.
Theproposedprojectwouldimpactanapproximately33,024squarefoot(0.758acre)and
3,160linearfootportionofthiswaterway.
Anintermittent(WL006)andanephemeral(WL012)streamwhichextendsouthinthe
westernmostportionofthestudyarea,perpendiculartotheexistingtracks,wouldbe
impacted.Thesestreamsareonaverage2to6feetwideandincludeasubstratecomposedof
silt,clay,andcobble.Theproposedprojectwouldimpactanapproximately613squarefoot
(0.014acre)and95linearfootportionofthesewaterways.
Anintermittent(WL010)streamthatextendssoutheastalongtheborderoftherowcropfield
andtheFurnaceBayGolfCoursewouldbeimpacted.Thisstreamisonaverage30to40feet
wideandincludesasubstratecomposedofboulders,cobbles,gravel,sand,andsilt.The
proposedprojectwouldimpactanapproximately2,242squarefoot(0.051acre)and106linear
footportionofthiswaterway.
Anisolatedemergentwetland(WP001)islocatedinthesouthwesternportionofthestudy
area.Thiswetlandreceivesgroundwaterandsurfacewaterrunofffromsurroundinguplands.It
islocatedwithinanactiverowcropfieldandasaresult,thevegetationissignificantly
disturbed.Theproposedproject,constructionandoperations,wouldnotimpactthiswetland.
Anisolatedemergentwetland(WP002)thatislocatedinthesouthwesternportionofthestudy
area,paralleltotheexistingtracks,wouldbeimpacted.Thiswetlandreceivesgroundwaterand
surfacewaterrunofffromsurroundinguplands.Itislocatedwithinanactiverowcropfieldand
asaresult,thevegetationissignificantlydisturbed.Theproposedprojectwouldimpactan
approximately3,680squarefoot(0.084acre)portionofthiswetland.
Ascrubshrubwetland(WP005)thatislocatedinthesouthwesternportionofthestudyarea
withinamaintainedoverheadutilityrightofway,paralleltotheexistingtracks,wouldbe
impacted.Thiswetlandreceivesuplandrunoffandgroundwaterfromthesurroundingareaand
conveyssurfacewatersouthwest,ultimatelycontributingflowtoMillCreek.Theproposed
projectwouldimpactanapproximately10,987squarefoot(0.252acre)portionofthiswetland.
Predictedtotalwetlandimpactintotalareaandlinearfeetforeachsystemaresummarizedin
Table4.

52

SITE LOCATION MAP


SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

I
PR

PERRYVILLE A

O
IPI
C
N

R
FU

NA

R
CE

FURNACE BAY
GOLF COURSE

Scale: 1 in = 6 miles

MD
7

WL010

LL

CR

EE

WL017

MI

WP001

WL012

WL006

002
WP

WP005

IKEA

ES
FIR
TON
ER

SCALE

LEGEND

LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

DELINEATED WATERWAY
DELINEATED WETLAND

1 INCH = 1,000 FEET

500

1,000 FEET

FIGURE 4.5
WETLANDS

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

TABLE4:SUMMARYOFWETLANDIMPACTS
System

SystemType

ImpactArea(SF/ACRE)

ImpactLinearFeet

Waterway
Waterway
Waterway
Waterway

33,024SF/0.758ACRE
525SF/0.012ACRE
88SF/0.002ACRE
2,242SF/0.051ACRE

3,160LF
68LF
27LF
106LF

35,879SF/0.823ACRE

3,361LF

0SF/0ACRE
3,680SF/0.084ACRE
10,987SF/0.252ACRE

N/A
N/A
N/A

WetlandTotal

14,667SF/0.336ACRE

N/A

GrandTotal

50,546SF/1.159ACRE

3,361LF

WL017
WL006
WL012
WL010

WaterwayTotal
WP001
WP002
WP005

Wetland
Wetland
Wetland

4.5.3

Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures

ThisprojectwouldrequirethesubmittalofaJointFederal/StateApplicationfortheAlteration
ofAnyFloodplain,Waterway,TidalorNontidalWetlandinMaryland,asthisprojectwould
impactnontidalwetlandandwaterways.Basedontheabovecalculations,wetlandand
waterwayimpactsarenotexpectedtoreachthresholdsthatwouldrequireanindividual
permit.MTAwouldmitigateanywetlandandwaterwayimpactsinaccordancewithregulatory
agency(USACEandMDE)recommendations,includingmitigationata2:1ratioforforestedand
scrubshrubwetlandsanda1:1ratioforemergentwetlands.Generally,waterwayimpactsmust
bemitigatedata1:1ratio.However,mitigationmeasuresaresubjecttocasebycasereview
andapproval;ultimately,afunctionalreplacementofthestreamsystemisrequired.MTAhas
identifiedpotentialonandoffsiteopportunitiestocompensatefortheprojectswetlandand
waterwayimpacts.

4.6 VEGETATIONANDWILDLIFE
4.6.1

StudyAreaandMethodology

Vegetation
TheMarylandForestConservationAct(FCA),enactedin1991,isintendedtominimizetheloss
offoreststhroughoutthestate.Theproposedprojectisnotexemptfromtheprovisionsofthe
FCA,andtherefore,MTApreparedandsubmittedaForestStandDelineationtoDNRthat
identifiedtheexistingforestcoverandtheenvironmentalfeaturesoftheproposedproject
area.ThestudyareafortheForestStandDelineationcoincideswiththestudyareaboundary.

54

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

TerrestrialWildlife
Potentialimpactstoterrestrialwildlifeandhabitatwereevaluatedbasedontheaboveforest
standdelineation;areviewofavailableGISdatasuchasFIDS,SensitiveSpeciesReviewAreas,
andGreenInfrastructure,aswellasfieldreconnaissance.Thestudyareafordetermining
potentialimpactstoterrestrialwildlifecoincideswiththeprojectsstudyareaboundary.
Migratorybirdspecieswereidentifiedwithintheprojectarea,asdefinedundertheMigratory
BirdTreatyActof1918(50CFR21,November2013).
AquaticWildlife
PotentialimpactstoaquaticwildlifewereevaluatedbasedontheMBSSsamplingdatafrom
19942004.Thestudyareafordeterminingpotentialimpactstoaquaticwildlifecoincideswith
thewatershedboundaries.
Rare,Threatened,andEndangeredSpecies
TheU.S.FishandWildlifeService(USFWS),DNRWildlifeandHeritageService,NationalMarine
FisheriesService(NMFS),andDNREnvironmentalReviewUnitwereeachrequestedtoprovide
inputonthepresenceofrare,threatened,andendangered(RTE)speciesinthevicinityofthe
proposedproject.
4.6.2

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences

Vegetation
Theproposedprojectwouldpassthroughmultiplevegetatedareas(seeFigure4.61).A
majorityoftheprojectareacontainsrowcropvegetationsuchascorn,wheat,soybeans,etc.
Therearealsotwoforeststands(ForestStandAandForestStandD)thatarelocatedwithinthe
projectareaandareassociatedwithwetlandsand/orwaterwaysthatrunparalleland
perpendiculartotheexistingrailroadtracks.
Theproposedprojectwouldpermanentlyrestrictrowcropvegetationonapproximately98.18
acres.Approximately116,551squarefeet(2.68acres)ofForestStandAand25,084squarefeet
(0.576acre)ofForestStandDwouldbeimpactedbytheproject.
TerrestrialWildlife
Thepresenceofterrestrialwildlifeisafunctionofavailablehabitats.Themajorityofthestudy
areaiscurrentlyfarmland,withtheexceptionoftwoforeststands,asidentifiedabove.The
studyareadoesnotincludeanyforestedareasthatimmediatelyadjoinlargerforestedareas,
generallyneededtoprovidehabitatsuitableforFIDSorotherforestdwellingspecies.
However,portionsofthestudyarealocatedwithinforeststandsprovidesuitablehabitatfor
disturbancetolerantspeciesandspeciesadaptedtowoodlandedgessuchaswhitetaileddeer

55

SITE LOCATION MAP


SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

PERRYVILLE A

I
PR

O
IPI
C
N

R
FU

NA

R
CE

FURNACE BAY
GOLF COURSE

33.1" NORTHERN RED OAK

Scale: 1 in = 6 miles

MD
7
52.1" TULIPTREE

30.2" RED MAPLE

38.5" WHITE ASH

38.0" PRINCESS TREE

33.7'' AMERICAN SYCAMORE

IKEA

ES
FIR
TON

SCALE

ER

1 INCH = 1,000 FEET

500

1,000 FEET

D
LEGEND

LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE
SPECIMEN TREE

EXISTING FOREST BOUNDARY


NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

FIGURE 4.6-1
VEGETATION

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

(Odocoileusvirginianus),Easterngraysquirrel(Sciuruscarolinensis),Easterncottontail
(Sylvilagusfloridanus),raccoon(Procyonlotor),andEasternchipmunk(Tamiasstriatus).
ConstructionandoperationoftheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldnotviolatethe
MigratoryBirdTreatyAct,becausethereisnosuitablehabitatwithintheprojectlimits.In
addition,operationswillnotinvolveillegaltakes,possession,import,export,transport,sell,
purchase,barter,orofferforsaleofanymigratorybird,ortheparts,nests,oreggsofsucha
bird.
Clearingfortheproposedprojectwouldmostlyoccurwithintheexistingrowcroppasture,
whichdoesnotprovidesuitablehabitatforterrestrialwildlife.Theconstructionofthelead
trackswouldimpactthevegetatedbufferalongtherailroadtracks,whichwaspreviously
disturbed.Disturbancetolerantspecieswouldendure.Therefore,impactstowildlifeare
expectedtobeminimal.
AquaticWildlife
AccordingtoMBSSsamplingdatafrom19942004,MillCreekwasfoundtosupporttherichest
benthicmacroinvertebratecommunity(45taxafroma100specimensubsample)intheentire
state(Kazyaketal.,2005).ThissitehadthehighestbenthicIBI(4.7)inMarylandsCoastalPlain.
MillCreekwassampledin2004inanareaupstreamfromtheprojectsite.TheFishIBIis
classifiedasGood(comparabletoreferencestreamsconsideredtobeminimallyimpacted),and
theBenthicIBIisclassifiedasGood.ItreceivedOptimalratingforInstreamHabitat,Epifaunal
Substrate,andRiffleQuality.
AccordingtoDNRERU,thefishspeciesthathavebeenidentifiedinnearbylocationsbythe
MBSSinclude:Americaneel,blacknosedace,bluegill,blueridgesculpin,browntrout,common
shiner,creekchub,cutlipminnow,greensunfish,pumpkinseed,rosysidedace,tessellated
darter,andwhitesucker.AccordingtoDNRsStreamHealthinteractivemap,MillCreekinthe
areaoftheproposedproject,hasaratingofgood.
Theproposedprojectwouldpermanentlyimpactaquaticwildlifebyincreasingimpervious
surfaces.Impervioussurfacesincreasethevolumeandrateatwhichexcessstormwaterenters
nearbywaterbodies.Thisextremeinfluxofwatercoulddamageplant,fish,andinvertebrate
habitat,aswellascauseerosiontostreambanksandthestreambedwhichprovidehabitatfor
aquaticwildlife(UNH,2007).
Rare,Threatened,andEndangeredSpecies
CorrespondencereceivedfromtheUSFWS,datedMay7,2013,andfromtheDNRWildlifeand
HeritageService,datedJuly30,2013,indicatesthattherearenostateorfederallylistedRTE
plantoranimalspeciesknowntoexistwithinthevicinityoftheprojectarea(seeAppendixC).

57

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

Basedontheabovementionedagencycoordination,noRTEspecieshavebeenidentifiedinthe
studyareaandimpactstoRTEspeciesarenotanticipatedasaresultoftheconstructionor
operationofthefacility.
4.6.3

Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures

Vegetation
Duringfinaldesignoftheproposedproject,MTAwillsubmitaForestConservationPlanthat
willincludethefollowing:anapplicationform,descriptionofthelimitsofdisturbanceofthe
project,howtheexistingforestedandsensitiveareaswouldbeprotectedduringconstruction,
calculationsofforestdisturbedandretained,treereplantingrequirements,andatree
replantingplanforthelongtermmaintenanceandprotectionofthosetrees.MTAwouldbe
abletomitigatefortheforestlossonsite.Becausetheproposedfacilitywouldbelocated
adjacenttotheexistingrailroadtracks,therewouldbelandalongPrincipioFurnaceRoadthat
wouldremainopenspace.MTAwillreforestapproximately8.5acresoflandlocatedinthe
northeastportion,southwestportionandalongtheeasternboundaryofthepropertythatMTA
ispurchasingforonsitereforestation(seeFigure4.62).Thereforestationwouldbedesigned
byacertifiedarboristandwouldmeettherequirementsoftheFCA.
AquaticWildlife
InaccordancewiththeDNRERUrecommendation,MTAwouldnotperformanyinstreamwork
duringtheperiodofMarch1stthroughJune15th,inclusive,duringanyyear.Inadditiontothe
instreamworkrestrictions,DNRERUnotedthatexistingriparianvegetationintheareaofthe
streamchannelshouldbepreservedasmuchaspossibletomaintainaquatichabitatand
provideshadingtothestream.Areasdesignatedfortheaccessofequipmentandforthe
removalordisposalofmaterialwouldavoidimpactstothestreamandassociatedriparian
vegetation.Anytemporarilydisturbedareaswouldberestoredandrevegetated.
ThisprojectwouldrequirethesubmittalofaJointFederal/StateApplicationfortheAlteration
ofAnyFloodplain,Waterway,TidalorNontidalWetlandinMaryland,asthisprojectwould
impactnontidalwetlandandwaterways.MTAwouldmitigateanywetlandandwaterway
impactsinaccordancewithregulatoryagency(USACEandMDE)recommendations,including
mitigationata2:1ratioforforestedandscrubshrubwetlandsanda1:1ratioforemergent
wetlands.Generally,waterwayimpactsmustbemitigatedata1:1ratio.However,mitigation
measuresaresubjecttocasebycasereviewandapproval;ultimately,afunctionalreplacement

58

SITE LOCATION MAP


SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

PERRYVILLE A

I
PR

O
IPI
C
N

R
FU

NA

R
CE

FURNACE BAY
GOLF COURSE
Scale: 1 in = 6 miles
Scale: 1 in = 6 miles

MD

MI
LL

CR

EE

7
IKEA

ES
FIR
TON

SCALE

ER

1 INCH = 1,000 FEET

500

1,000 FEET

LEGEND

LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE

PROPOSED REFORESTATION AREA


NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

FIGURE 4.6-2

REFORESTATION AREAS

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

ofthestreamsystemisrequired.MTAhasidentifiedpotentialonandoffsiteopportunitiesto
compensatefortheprojectswetlandandwaterwayimpacts.

4.7 HAZARDOUSMATERIALS
4.7.1

StudyAreaandMethodology

InJuly2013,aPhaseIEnvironmentalSiteAssessmentwasconductedattheproposedproject
siteandsurroundingproperties.Theinvestigationconsistedofareviewofcurrentandhistoric
activitiesandconditionsatthestudyareaandsurroundingproperties,includingnonintrusive
visualinspectionofthestudyarea;reviewoflocal,state,andfederalregulatorydatabase
records;reviewofavailablehistoricrecords;andasurveyofadjacentlanduses.
InMay2014,aPhaseIIEnvironmentalSiteAssessment(ESA)wasconducted.ThePhaseIIESA
wastocharacterizethesubsurfaceconditionsthatmightbeencounteredduringanyre
developmentofthestudyareabyMTA.TheinformationthatwascollectedduringthePhaseII
ESAwillassistincharacterizingsubsurfacecontamination,creatingimpactedmaterialhandling
plans,andmitigatingpossibleexposurescenariosforonsiteexcavation.
4.7.2

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences

Table5summarizesthePhaseIEnvironmentalSiteAssessmentfindingsintheprojectarea(see
Figure4.7).

TABLE5:SUMMARYOFPHASEIFINDINGS
Site
ID
4

Site
Name

RecognizedEnvironmentalConditions

Coudon
Farm

Surficialcontaminationassociatedwith
twoheatingoilASTs

Coudon
Farm

Coudon
Farm

Surficialcontaminationassociatedwith
twowasteoildrums

Subsurfacecontaminationassociated
withthehistoricalgasolineUSTs

Sampling
Soilsamplingtoa
maximumof5feet
belowground
surface
Soilsamplingtoa
maximumof5feet
belowground
surface
Soilsamplingtoa
maximumof20feet
belowground
surface

Analysis
DRO
GRO
Metals

DRO
GRO
PAH
Metals
DRO
GRO
VOCs
SVOCs
Metals

60

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

TABLE5:SUMMARYOFPHASEIFINDINGS
Site
ID

Site
Name

RecognizedEnvironmentalConditions

N/A

Existing
railroad
tracks

Surficialcontaminationassociatedwith
theexistingrailroadtracks.Routine
railroadoperationscommonlyuse
hazardousmaterialssuchasPCBoils,
creosote,compoundsanddegreasers

Sampling
Soilsamplingtoa
maximumof5feet
belowground
surface

Analysis
PCBs
VOCs
SVOCs

SoilsamplesweregatheredandanalyzedduringPhaseII.Accordingtothedatacollected,
arsenicrelatedcontaminationwasreportedinthe20soilsamplescollectedwithinthestudy
area.ArsenicconcentrationswerereportedabovetheMDENonResidentialCleanupStandard
inall20samples.AlthoughthearsenicconcentrationsexceedtheNonResidentialCleanup
Standard,themajorityofthedetectionswascomparabletoUnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey
(USGS)AnticipatedTypicalConcentrations(ATC)forMaryland(4.9mg/kg),andthereforemay
betheresultofnaturalbackgroundconcentrationsencounteredinthearea.Thegreatest
concentrationsofarsenicwerereportedinthesamplescollectedneartheheatingoilASTsat
theCoudonFarmproperty.
Petroleumodorswereobservedduringthedrillingactivitieswithincloseproximitytothe
easternmostUSTlocationandduringthecollectionofthehandaugersamplesalongthe
northernsideoftheNECrailroadtracks.However,noconcentrationsofpetroleumrelated
contaminantsreportedinthelaboratoryanalysisexceededMDEsNonResidentialCleanup
standards.
Analyticaldatacompletedfromsamplescollectedfromeachofthesixsubsurfacesoillocations
indicatedconcentrationsthatdidnotexceedtheMDEnonresidentialcleanupstandardor
werenotdetected.
4.7.3

Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures

TheMTAwouldcomplywiththefollowingrecommendationstominimizepotentialriskto
humanhealthandsafety,andsafetytotheenvironment:

Developasitespecifichealthandsafetyplanthatdiscussessafehandlingofarsenic
impactedsoilstoensuresafetyoftheexcavationandconstructioncontractors.
Ifitisdeterminedthatsoilsinthevicinityofthearsenicexceedanceswillremainin
placeduringredevelopmentofthestudyarea,aprotectivecap(concrete,asphalt,
buildingfoundation,et.)orsimilarlandusecontrolsshouldbeimplementedinthearea
topreventanydirectcontactwitharseniccontaminatedsoilsandtoeliminateany
potentialdirectexposurepathwaywiththesurroundingpublic.

61

P
ila

Ph

ph

l
de

ia

in
Pr

Rd

i
Ph

pio

ci

la

lp
de

hia

eR

ac

n
ur

Rd

Site 4:
Coudon Farm

Limit of
Disturbance

!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(

(
!
(!

SCALE: 1 INCH = 250 FEET


0
125
250 FEET

LEGEND
LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE
PROPERTY BOUNDARY

!
(
!
(
!
(

WASTE OIL DRUM


HEATING OIL AST
HISTORICAL GASOLINE UST

FIGURE 4.7

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

Ifitisdeterminedthatsoilsinthevicinityofthearsenicexceedanceswillbeexcavated
duringredevelopmentofthestudyarea,representativesoilsamplesshouldbecollected
fromtheexcavatedsoilspriortooffsitedisposal.Therepresentativesamplesshouldbe
analyzedaccordingtotheToxicityCharacteristicLeachingProceduretoproperly
characterizethewaste,unlessothertestingisrequiredbyselectedlandfillfacility.

4.8 VISUAL&AESTHETICENVIRONMENT
4.8.1

StudyAreaandMethodology

Thevisualandaestheticenvironmentwasassessedprimarilythroughfieldreconnaissanceand
topographicanalysis.Usingtheproposedbuildingcharacteristicsandexistingtopography,MTA
determinedthefutureaestheticenvironmentandthelineofsitefromnearbyresidentstothe
proposedfacility.
4.8.2

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences

Thecurrentvisualandaestheticenvironmentofthestudyareaisdominatedbyopenspaceand
farmlandwithsomeresidentialandindustriallandscapes.Theproposedprojectsite,aswellas
landdirectlyacrossPrincipioFurnaceRoad,iscurrentlyrowcropfarmland.Thegolfcourseis
largelyopenspace,andtheresidentialpropertiesarelowdensity.Themajorindustrialareasin
theprojectvicinityarealargeIkeadistributioncenter,whichissouthwestoftheproposedsite,
andtheAmtrakMOWFacility,whichisimmediatelysouthoftheproposedsite.Bothfacilities
arelocatedonthesouthernsideoftherailroadtracks.TheIkeabuildingisthetallestand
longestbuildingintheprojectvicinityandcanbeseenfromadistanceinalldirections.The
MOWfacilityisgenerallyshieldedbyvegetation;however,thelightsusedatthefacilityare
relativelyhigh.Theexistinglightscanbeseenbyresidentsfromaconsiderabledistancefrom
thefacility.
Theproposedprojectwouldresultinchangestotheaestheticenvironmentfromconstruction
andoperationoftheproject.TheproposedNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldreplacea
rowcropfarm.Afterconstruction,muchoftheproposedfacilitywouldberelativelyatgrade.
Thetallestbuildingonthesitewouldbeapproximately31feettall,whichwouldbevisibleto
theclosestresidentsduetothelocaltopography.However,MTAwouldconstructbermsaspart
oftheprojectdesignthatwouldrangeinheightfrom425feetandwillbevegetated,providing
additionalscreening.Theproposedfacilitywouldbelargelyshieldedbyvegetationandterrain.
ThelightingfortheproposedprojectwouldmeetMARCoperationalneedswhileminimizing
lightspilloverandglaretoadjacentproperties.MTAslightingdesignconsiderationsinclude:

DarkSkycompliance(encouragestheuseoffullcutofffixturesthatcastlittleornolight
upward)
LowMastFixtureswithshielding

63

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

Targetedlightingatworkstations
Landscapingtocreatescreening

Theproposedprojectwouldrequireleadtrackstobeconstructedtoconnecttheexisting
railroadtracksandtheproposedfacility.Thesouthernleadtrackswouldbeimmediately
adjacenttotheexistingrailroadandduetotheslopingtopographynoteasilydiscerniblefrom
theexistingNECtrackswhenviewingthesitefromPrincipioFurnaceRoadortheadjacent
properties.Althoughtheleadtrackwouldbeadjacenttotheexistingtracksthatcurrently
bisectthegolfcourse,thenorthernleadtrackswouldencroachonthenorthsideofthe
FurnaceBayGolfCourseandwouldpotentiallybemorevisibletogolfcourseusersthanthe
existingtracks.
4.8.3

Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures

Sincethefacilitywouldbeadjacenttotherailroadtracks,therewouldbeaconsiderable
portionofthepropertythatwouldbeundeveloped.Therefore,MTAwouldbuildbermsranging
from4to25feethighandplantvegetationthatcouldgrowupto20feethigh.Bermand
plantingheightwouldbedependentontherequirementsoflocalresidentsandthegeneral
public.Thebermsandvegetationwouldbestrategicallyplacedtoprovideavisualbuffer
aroundthefacility.Additionally,MTAwoulduselightingthatwouldminimizenuisanceto
nearbyresidents.Inaddition,theentrancedrivetothefacilitywouldbecurvedwiththeberms
locatedalongtheentrancedrivetopreventadirectsightlinefromPrincipioFurnaceRdtothe
buildingsandtracks,providingadditionalscreening.

4.9 CULTURALRESOURCES
4.9.1

StudyAreaandMethodology

Section106oftheNationalHistoricPreservationAct(NHPA)of1966,asamendedrequires
federalagenciestotakeintoaccounttheeffectofanyundertakingonhistoricproperties.In
December2013,theFTAinitiatedSection106consultationwiththeMarylandHistoricalTrust
(MHT)(seeAppendixD).Stakeholderconsultation,includingTribalconsultation,wasinitiated
onMarch28,2014,alongwithotherstakeholdersbyprovidinganinvitationletterfollowedby
hardcopiesoftheArcheologyandCulturalResourcesManagementreportsforreviewand
consideration.NoneoftheinvitedconsultingpartiesorTribalMembersacceptedtheinvitation
toconsultontheproject(seeAppendixD).Consultationcontinuesthroughouttheplanning
process.
StandingStructures
FTAdefinedtheprojectsareaofpotentialeffect(APE)tobewithin0.25mileoftheproposed
project,includingananticipatedconstructionzonewhichincorporatesphysicaldisturbance
areas(Figure4.9).The0.25miledistanceaccountsfordirectandindirecteffectsoncultural

64

Not to scale

LEGEND

AREA OF
POTENTIAL EFFECT

PROPOSED
TRACK

PROPOSED
FACILITY

CONTRIBUTING
STRUCTURES

WOODLANDS FARM
SOUTH

Coudon Farm
Archaeological
Site

WOODLANDS FARM
HISTORIC DISTRICT
ANCHORAGE
PROPERTY
CROTHERS
HOUSE

LINDENWOOD
PROPERTY
WOODLANDS
FARM HOUSE
ANCHORAGE
HOUSE

FIGURE 4.9

CULTURAL RESOURCES

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

resources,includingphysical,visual,andnoiseeffectsonhistoricabovegroundpropertiesfrom
theproposedundertaking.MTAevaluatedthehistoricpropertiesintheAboveGroundHistoric
PropertiesAPEfortheirNRHPeligibility.Themethodologyusedtoresearch,inventory,and
analyzethepropertyfollowstheSecretaryoftheInteriorsStandardsfortheIdentificationof
HistoricProperties,MHTStandardsandGuidelinesforArchitecturalandHistoricalInvestigation
inMaryland(MHT,2000),andGeneralGuidelinesforComplianceGeneratedDeterminationsof
Eligibility(MHT,2009)Researchmethodsandtheresultsoftheanalysiswereincorporatedinto
neworrevisedMIHPinventoryforms(seetoAppendixD).StaffreliedondiscussionswithMTA,
consultantprojectstaff,localpropertyowners,andkeyhistoricalrepositoriesinCecilCounty,
BaltimoreandAnnapolisaswellasreviewingpastreportsandonlineresearchcatalogs.
BetweenOctober22and24,2013andNovember12and13,2013,fieldwork(i.e.onsite
pedestrianandwindshieldreconnaissancesurvey)wasconductedontheaboveground
resources,withina0.25mileradiusoftheAboveGroundHistoricPropertiesAPE.Fieldnotes,
digitalphotographs,andglobalpositioningsystem(GPS)coordinatesweredocumentedto
meetMHTsrequirementsforMIHPformdocumentation.
Additionalinformationandmaterialsweregatheredtodevelopahistoricalcontexttobetter
understandandevaluatethepotentialhistoricalsignificanceofsurveyedresources.Foreach
surveyedproperty,workresultedinthefollowing:

Asummarystatementofsignificance
Adefinitionofperiod(s)ofsignificance
AdiscussionoftheNRHPeligibilityofeachsurveyedhistoricpropertyunderapplicable
criteriaandaspectsofintegrity

Archeology
BetweenOctober28,2013andNovember14,2013,aPhaseIarchaeologysurveyof
approximately110acresofagriculturalland,knownastheCoudonSitenearPerryville,
Maryland,tookplace.Intotal,1,349shoveltestpits(STPs)wereexcavatedalongacontrolled
gridthroughoutthestudyarea.Thegridwasspacedat20meterintervalsintheagricultural
fieldandat10meterintervalsinthefarmstead;10meterintervaldelineationshoveltestswere
alsodugwhendeemednecessarytobetterdefinesiteboundariesintheagriculturalfield.Each
STPwasacircularexcavationapproximately3540centimetersindiameterextending10
centimetersintoculturallysterilesubsoil.SoilsexcavatedfromeachSTPwerescreenedthrough
6.3millimeterhardwaremeshtoensureuniformartifactrecovery.
BetweenJanuary6andJanuary17,2014,aPhaseIIevaluationofarcheologicalresources
identifiedduringthePhaseIidentificationsurveyoccurred.AdditionalSTPsweredugand1x1
meterexcavationunitswereexcavatedtolocatesubsurfacefeatures.Testunitlocationswere

66

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

basedonareasofartifactdensityanddistribution.Whenfeatureswereencountered,they
weremappedandphotographed.
Artifactswerecollected,cleaned,processed,andanalyzedinaccordancewithMHTs(2005)
StandardsandGuidelinesforArcheologicalInvestigationsinMarylandCollectionsand
ConservationStandards,TechnicalUpdateNo.1.
4.9.2

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences

StandingStructures
OneofthepropertieslistedintheAboveGroundHistoricPropertiesAPEislistedintheNRHP
(Figure4.9)andthreeofthepropertiesareconsideredeligibleforNRHPlisting.Theproperties
areasfollows:

TheAnchorage(CE1230)
CrothersHouse(CE1566)
Lindenwood(CE700)
WoodlandsFarmHistoricDistrict(CE145)

Threeoftheproperties(TheAnchorage[CE1230],Lindenwood[CE700]andWoodlands
Farm[CE145])werepreviouslydocumentedwithintheMIHP.WoodlandsFarm,encompassing
theoriginalhomeandoutbuildingsnorthofMD7,waslistedontheNationalRegisterof
HistoricPlacesin1977asoutlinedinTable6.
ThreeofthefourNRHPeligiblepropertieshaveassociatedacreagethatisconsidereda
significantcharacterdefiningfeatureofthehistoricsetting(seeFigure4.9).Thespace
surroundingahistoricallysignificantbuildingorstructureoftenprovidesthehistoricproperty
withoneofsevenaspectsofhistoricintegrity;IntegrityofSetting.NationalRegisterBulletin
15:HowtoApplytheCriteriaforNationalRegisterEvaluationrefersnotonlytothespecific
placewhereapropertywasbuiltoraneventoccurred,butalsotothecharacteroftheplacein
whichthepropertyplayeditshistoricalrole.Itinvolveshow,notjustwhere,thepropertyis
situatedanditsrelationshiptosurroundingfeaturesandopenspace.Settingoftenreflectsthe
basicphysicalconditionsunderwhichapropertywasbuiltandthefunctionsitwasintendedto
serve.Inaddition,thewayinwhichapropertyispositionedinitsenvironmentcanreflectthe
designer'sconceptofnatureandaestheticpreferences.Thesefeaturesandtheirrelationships
shouldbeexaminednotonlywithintheexactboundariesoftheproperty,butalsobetweenthe
propertyanditssurroundings(NRBulletin15:44).
TheCrothersHouselandscapingadjacenttothedriveandhouseisacharacterdefiningfeature
thatconveysthedesignintentofalargecountryestatehouse.Agolfcoursesurroundsthe
CrothersHouse,andthelandscapingislimitedtothe1acreboundaryoftheinventoried
property.BecausetheCrothersHouseissurroundedbyamoderngolfcourse,onlythearea
containingthearchitecturallysignificantelementsofthehouse,whichincludethestonelined

67

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

drives,isincludedwithintheboundariesoftheNRHPeligibleproperty.Becauseofthegolf
course,theCrothersHousehasacompromisedintegrityofsetting.
TheAnchorageandtheWoodlandFarmHistoricDistricthavefarmlandthatisanimportant
characterdefiningfeaturefortheproperties.TheAnchoragehasmaintaineditsoriginal
21acrefarmsitethatwaspurchasedbyAdmiralandMrs.Lamdinin1877.Theretentionofthis
acreageanditsagriculturalfeelingconveythehistoricassociationofthepropertywiththe
Lamdinfamily.
TheWoodlandsFarmHistoricDistrictincludestheoriginalNRHPlistedWoodlandsFarmonthe
northsideofMD7andaproposedexpansiontoincludefarmstructuresandthefarm
landscapesouthofMD7.Theproposedadditiontothehistoricdistricthasextensiveamounts
oflandassociatedwithitshistoricuse.Ofthemorethan900acresidentifiedinthe1940
appraisal,slightlyover400acresremain.Althoughthecurrentacreageissufficienttoconveyits
historicsetting,feeling,andassociationwiththeagriculturalsignificanceofthefarm,further
reductionoftheacreageandlossofbuildingsandstructureshistoricallyassociatedwiththe
farmingoperationswouldmaketheextentandscaleoftheWoodlandsHistoricDistrictless
apparent.
ThefourpropertiesarediscussedinmoredetailintheStandingStructuresReport
(seeAppendixE).OnJune18,2014,theMHTconcurredwiththedeterminationofeligibility
(seeAppendixF).

TABLE6:NRHPLISTEDORELIGIBLEPROPERTIESINTHEHISTORICPROPERTYAPE

Name

Address

1 TheAnchorage

50MillCreekRd

2 CrothersHouse

97Chesapeake
ViewRoad

3 Lindenwood

1287Principio
FurnaceRoad

WoodlandsFarm
4
HistoricDistrict

Northandsouth
sideofMD7

MIHP
No.

Criterion(a)
Considered

Integritypresent

Integrity
absent

NRHP

AandC

Setting,Feeling,
Location,Association,
Design,Workmanship

Material

Eligible,
CriteriaA
andC

CE1566

Setting,Feeling,
Location,Association,
Design,Workmanship,
Materials

None

Eligible,
CriterionC

CE700

Location,Design

Setting

Eligible,
CriterionC

AandC

Materials,
Workmanship,Design,
Association,Setting,
Feeling,Location

None

Eligible,
CriteriaA
andC

CE1230

CE145

68

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

TheproposedundertakingislocatedonfarmlandthatispartoftheWoodlandsFarmHistoric
District.Theundertakinghasadirectadverseimpactonthishistoricpropertybecauseitwould
changethecharacteranduseofahistoricresourceafarmfieldhistoricallyassociatedwith
theWoodlandsCoudonfamilyfarm.Asacontributinglandscapeelement,thefieldcurrently
hasintegrityofworkmanship,design,andmaterialsevidencedbyitsplantedrows,general
shape,bufferingvegetation,andaccessroads.Theseareasofintegritywouldbedirectly
compromisedbytheproposedfacility.Thefacilitywouldadverselyaffectthespatial
relationshipandviewshedsbetweentheindividualhistoricresourcesthatcontributetothe
significanceofthefarm.
TheproposedfacilitywouldalsobevisiblefromthemainhouseoftheWoodlandsFarm
HistoricDistrict.Acomputersimulatedgraphic3DSketchUpmodelingdatademonstratesthe
facilityslowprofilewithalongsectionofthefacilityvisiblefromtheyardinfrontoftheMain
HouseoftheWoodlandsFarmHistoricDistrict.
ItisprobablethattheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldbevisiblefromseveral
otherlocationsinthehistoricdistrict,includingareasthatdonothavethevegetationbuffer
depictedintheabovephotos.Theproposedundertakingwouldhaveanadverseindirector
visualeffectonthecharacterdefiningfeaturesoftheAnchorage,specificallytheintegrityof
setting,feelingandassociation.
OnJuly25,2014FTAsubmittedthefindingofeffectsonculturalresourceswithintheMARC
NortheastMaintenanceFacilitysAPE.OnAugust27,2014,theMHTconcurredwiththe
determinationofeffectsfortheNRHPlistedoreligibleAboveGroundNRHPHistoricProperties
summarizedinTable7.

TABLE7:DETERMINATIONOFEFFECTSFORTHEMARCMAINTENANCEFACILITYONABOVEGROUND
NRHPHISTORICPROPERTIES.
Address

MIHP
No.

Criterion(a)
Affected

1 TheAnchorage

50MillCreek
Rd

CE1230

Setting,Feeling,
Association,

IndirectAdverse
Effect

2 CrothersHouse

97Chesapeake
ViewRoad

CE1566

Setting

NoAdverseEffect

3 Lindenwood

1287Principio
FurnaceRoad

CE700

Setting

NoAdverseEffect

Name

Integrity
Compromised

Determinationof
Effect

69

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

TABLE7:DETERMINATIONOFEFFECTSFORTHEMARCMAINTENANCEFACILITYONABOVEGROUND
NRHPHISTORICPROPERTIES.

Name

Woodlands
4 FarmHistoric
District

Address

Northsideof
MD7

MIHP
No.

Criterion(a)
Affected

CE145

AandC

Integrity
Compromised

Determinationof
Effect

Materials,
Workmanship,Design, DirectandIndirect
Association,Setting,
AdverseEffect
Feeling,Location

UponMHTsconcurrencewiththedeterminationofeffectsFTAprovidedaninvitationto
consultinthedevelopmentofaMemorandumofAgreement(MOA)totheAdvisoryCouncilon
HistoricPreservation(ACHP).
TheFTA,MTAandMHTarecurrentlydevelopinganMOAwhichwilloutlineagreedupon
measuresthatFTAandMTAwilltaketoavoid,minimizeormitigatetheadverseeffectsto
culturalresources.
Archeology
Approximately1,940prehistoricandhistoricartifactswererecoveredfrom195STPsandfrom
thesurfaceoftheplowedfield.Brickfragments,coalfragments,orpiecesofcoalandglassslag
comprisedroughlyhalfoftheartifactassemblage.Anadditional940historicartifactsconsisted
ofhistoricceramicshards;containerandwindowglassshards;handwrought,cut,andwire
nails;tacksorroofingnails,tarshingles,claysmokingpipefragments,ahorseshoe,metal
machineparts,aportionofaceramicdollhead,andacopperbutton.Therecoveredhistoric
artifactassemblageincludedexamplesoflateeighteenthcenturymaterialslikebluetransfer
printedpearlware(circa17831835),nineteenthcenturyartifactssuchassquarecutnailsand
Rockinghamwares,andobjectsofrecentmanufacture,includingwirenails,plasticbottlecaps,
andaluminumcanpulltabs.
Asmallnumberofisolatedprehistoricartifactswerealsorecovered.Theseincludedtwo
completeprojectilepointsandtwoprojectilepointfragments.Oneofthepointsisanexample
oftheBareIslandstyle,whichdatesto29002500BC(McAvoyandMcAvoy,1997),whilethe
secondismorereminiscentoftheCalvertstylepointdatedto750BCAD200(Steponaitis,
1986).Severalchertandquartziteflakeswerealsorecovered.
Sixarchaeologicalsites,includingthemulticomponentCoudonFarmSite(18CE383),the
historicCoudonLocusA,B,andCsites,thehistoricCoudonDrainagesiteandtherecent
historicCoudonRoadsitewererecordedduringthisstudy.Additionalsiteevaluation
excavationexcavationscompletedatportionsoftheCoudonFarmSite,theCoudonLocusB

70

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

site,andtheCoudonDrainagesitetodetermineifanyarepotentiallyeligibleforlistinginthe
NRHP.
TestingdidnotidentifyanyhistoricallysignificantorintactculturaldepositsattheCoudon
LocusBsite,ortheCoudonDrainageSite.However,archaeologicaldepositsandintact
subsurfacefeaturesassociatedwithalateseventeenthandearlyeighteenthcentury
occupationofthesitewererecoveredattheCoudonFarmsite.Artifactsfromthesubsequent
nineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturyoccupationsassociatedwiththeCoudonfamily,who
currentlyowntheproperty,wererecoveredaswell.TheCoudonFarmsiteisrecommendedfor
listingintheNRHP.OnJune18,2014,theMHTconcurredthattheCoudonFarmSite(18CE383)
iseligibleforinclusionintheNRHP,andonAugust27,2014theMHTconcurredwiththe
determinationofeffectsfortheNRHPeligiblearcheologicalsite(AppendixF).
4.9.3

ProposedMitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures

MTAiscurrentlyworkingwithMHTandFTAtodevelopavoidance,minimization,and
mitigationmeasurestoresolvesadverseeffectstohistoricpropertiesthatwillbememorialized
inaMemorandumofAgreement(MOA).

4.10 SOCIOECONOMICANDCOMMUNITYRESOURCES
Socioeconomicandcommunityresourcespredominantlyincludeelementsofthehumanor
manmadeenvironment.Specificresourcesandimpactsevaluatedforthisprojectinclude:

NeighborhoodsandCommunities
PropertyImpactsandDisplacements
CommunityFacilitiesandServices
TrafficandTransportation
LocalEconomy
RegionalEconomy
LandUseandZoning
LocalPlanning
MarylandSmartGrowth
4.10.1

StudyAreaandMethodology

NeighborhoodsandCommunities
Neighborhoodsandcommunitieswithintheprojectstudyareawereidentifiedandassessed
usingU.S.Censusgeographyboundariesandfieldreconnaissance.MTAcollecteddemographic
characteristicsforcommunitiesintheprojectvicinity.Thelocationsofresidentialcommunities
withinandincloseproximitytothestudyareawereverifiedduringasitereconnaissance.

71

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

PropertyImpactsandDisplacements
Theprojectwouldrequirerightofwayfromportionsofsomepropertiesintersectingthe
proposedlimitofdisturbance.MTAidentifiedallpropertiesintersectingtheproposedstudy
area.Foreachpropertyidentified,MTAidentifiedthepropertyowner,propertytype,and
currentlanduse,andcalculatedtheareaofanynewrightofwayrequiredfromtheproperty.
CommunityFacilitiesandServices
Thestudyareaforidentifyingpotentialimpactstocommunityfacilitiesandservicescoincided
withtheprojectsstudyareaboundary.Thelocationsofcommunityfacilitiesandservices
withintheprojectsstudyareawereprimarilyidentifiedthroughasitereconnaissance.
LocalandRegionalEconomy
Toidentifytheprojectspotentialeconomicimpact,MTAidentifiedlocalandregionaleconomic
resourcesnearthestudyareaandreviewedlocalandregionallanduseandeconomictrendsas
wellaseconomicincentivesthatcouldimpactthestudyarea.Localbusinesseswerealso
verifiedduringfieldreconnaissance.
MarylandSmartGrowth
TheMarylandPlanningActof1992andMarylandSmartGrowthInitiatives,whichincludesthe
PriorityFundingAreas(PFAs),makeitpublicpolicytoconcentratepublicfacilitiesand
infrastructureinareaswheregrowthisplannedespeciallynearexistingpopulationcenters.
PFAs,asdefinedbytheMarylandDepartmentofPlanning(MDP),areexistingcommunitiesand
placeswherelocalgovernmentsareaffordedstateinvestmenttosupportfuturegrowth.
MarylandscountiesmaydesignateareasasPFAsiftheymeetguidelinesforintendeduse,
availabilityofplansforsewerandwatersystems,andpermittedresidentialdensity.An
evaluationoftheprojectstudyarearelativetothePFAswascompletedtoidentifytheprojects
potentialimpactsonsmartgrowth.
4.10.2

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences

NeighborhoodsandCommunities
ThestudyareaislocatedwithinandimmediatelyeastofthetownofPerryvilleinCecilCounty,
MD.TheproposedMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldpredominatelybelocatedon
theexistingCoudonproperty,whichisanactiverowcropfarm.TheCoudonpropertyhasone
residentialstructureandmultiplenonresidentialoutbuildings.Theentireprojectareais
locatedinCensusTract312.02BlockGroup2(seeFigure4.101).
Therearemultipleresidentialpropertiesincloseproximitytotheproposedproject,primarily
alongPrincipioFurnaceRoadandMillcreekRoad.Theclosestresidencesarelocatedalong

72

JA
ON
RD

AVE

5
I9

LC
EK
RE

RD

U
CO

RD

RD

Copyright: 2012 Esri,


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

RD

ST

IS
W
LE

LODGE LN

LL

PERRYVILLE A

RS POINT
CARPENT E

Scale: 1 in = 1 miles

JUNIATA ST

DA
OO
W

SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

LL

40

RD

SITE LOCATION MAP

RD

OH
TJ

WY

HIA

SCALE 1 INCH = 3,800 FEET


0

LN

REVOLUTION ST

LEGEND

EL
P

RD

CENSUS TRACT 312.02


BLOCK GROUP 03

IN
SA

SH

FU

CE

HI

OHIO ST

O ST

ST
RY
ER
H
C

O
PI
CI
IN
R
P

A
RN

N
TAI
UN

AY
AW
IKE

KI

AS
UL

Y
HW

LE D

MO

PERRYVILLE
AIKEN AVE

CIRC

AD

D
LV

RIV E

R
D

BAY

MIL

S UM P TER DR

PH
IL

BELV

CENSUS TRACT 312.02


BLOCK GROUP 01

RE

I
AT
ST

SO
N

BL
YT

SO
CK

PAT
TE R

EDE

RD

HE

WINCH RD

TO

CENSUS TRACT 312.02


BLOCK GROUP 02
E RD

CH

D AL

FR
EN

LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE

TOWN BOUNDARY

2010 CENSUS TRACT

2010 GROWTH AREA

BLOCK GROUP

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

1,900

3,800 FEET

FIGURE 4.10-1

CENSUS TRACTS & GROWTH AREAS

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

PrincipioFurnaceRoadimmediatelywestandeastoftheproposedprojectlocation.Thereisa
farmdirectlyacrossfromtheproposedprojectsite,whichhasmultipleresidentialstructureson
thepropertythataresetbackabout1,000feetfromtheroadway.Therearealsoresidential
propertieslocatedonthegolfcoursepropertythatwouldneighbortheprojectsiteontheeast.
Theresidencesareapproximately1,500feetawayfromthesite.
LandAcquisition
Thestudyareaincludesoneagricultural,andthreecommercialproperties.Agricultural
propertiesincludetheCoudonproperty,aresidentialrowcropfarm.Thispropertycontains
tworesidentialbuildings,sixoutbuildings,andarowcroppasture.Commercialproperties
includetheFurnaceBayGolfCourse,anopenpasture,andanemptywarehouse.Noother
knownresidentialstructureswerefoundwithinthestudyareaduringfieldreconnaissance(see
Figure4.102).
TheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilityprojectwoulddisplaceonepropertytheCoudon
property.Theentire110.50acrepropertywouldbeacquiredbyMTA.Theprojectwouldalso
requiretheacquisitionof1.34acresofprivatepropertyfromatotalofthreeadditional
propertyowners(seeFigure4.102).Theproposedrightofwayacquisitionsaresummarizedin
Table8.

TABLE8:SUMMARYOFRIGHTOFWAY(ROW)ACQUISITIONS
PropertyOwner
WoodlandsCoudonInc.&
CoudonWilsonL.&etal
(65WoodlandFarmLane)
HowardJ.andBeverleeC.Neff
IkeaPropertyInc.
FrenchmenLandCompanyInc.
Total

ROWReqd
(acres)

PropertyType

CurrentUse

110.50

Agricultural

Residential
RowcropFarm

0.26
0.82
0.26
111.84

Commercial
Commercial
Commercial

FurnaceBayGolfCourse
OpenPasture
EmptyWarehouse

CommunityFacilitiesandServices
TherearetwocommunityfacilitieslocatedneartheproposedprojecttheFurnaceBayGolf
CourseandtheCommunityFireCompanyofPerryville,MD(seeFigure4.102).TheFurnaceBay
GolfCourseisapublicgolfcourselocatedimmediatelyeastoftheprojectsite.Thegolfcourse
has18holesthatarelocatedoneithersideofAmtrakspropertyandrailroadtracks;bothsides
areconnectedbyagolfcoursebridge.Thegolfcoursealsohasa250footdrivingrangeinthe
southwestportionoftheproperty.

74

IH

WY

L
MIL

K
AS
UL

C
IN
PR

CR

IO
IP

R
FU

E
AC

RD

EE
KR
D

FURNACE BAY
GOLF COURSE
CO
UD

ON

BL
VD

Howard J. and
Beverlee C. Neff

ALL PAWS
ANIMAL WELLNESS

Woodlands-Coudon Inc. &


Coudon Wilson L. & et al

FURNACE BAY
GOLF COURSE

THE COMMUNITY
FIRE COMPANY
STATION 6
AMTRAK MOW

SITE LOCATION MAP

Ikea Property Inc.

SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

Frenchmen Land
Company Inc.

A
IKE

PERRYVILLE A

Y
WA

Comm. Fire
Company of
Perryville, MD

IKEA
Scale: 1 in = 6 miles

SCALE 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET


0

500

1,000 FEET

LEGEND

Copyright: 2012 Esri,


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

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

FIGURE 4.10-2

LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE

PROPERTY TO BE ACQUIRED

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

SOCIOECONOMIC

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

TheCommunityFireCompanyofPerryville,MDisacombinedvolunteer/careerfirestationthat
servestheTownofPerryvilleandsurroundingcommunities.ThefirestationfacesPhiladelphia
Road,andtherearofthepropertyhasaforestedbufferthatabutstheexistingrailroad.
Theproposedprojectwouldintroduceanewvisualelementtothegolfcourseusersand
residents.Proposedreforestation,forcompliancewiththeForestConservationActof1991,
wouldoccuradjacenttotheexistingtreebufferresultinginabufferbetweenthefacilityand
thegolfcourse.Theproposedprojectwouldhaveinfrastructurethatwouldbeupto31feettall
whichwouldbevisiblefromsomeareasonthegolfcoursebutotherareaswouldbescreened
bytheproposedreforestation.
LocalandRegionalEconomy
Theproposedprojectlocationoperatesasarowcropfarm.Theproposedsiteislocatedinthe
CecilCountyDevelopmentDistrictandthePerryvilleIndustrialParkEnterpriseZone.Thestate
providesincometaxcreditstoqualifyingbusinessesthatlocatewithinthiszone.TheCoudon
propertyiscurrentlyleasedoutforfarmoperationsandassociatedtaxescurrentlysupportthe
localeconomy.The2010CecilCountyComprehensivePlanidentifiestheprojectareaasa
DesignatedGrowthArea,wheretheCountywishestoencourageandattractgrowthand
development.Furthermore,TheCecilCountyFutureLandUseMapidentifiestheprojectarea
asafutureEmploymentarea.TheintentoftheEmploymentareasistoprovideformajor
industrial,manufacturing,office,andbusinessusesandeconomicdevelopmentopportunities
inbusinessparksandcampusesnearmajorroads.Thegoalistoprovidesufficientlandarea
andopportunitiestosupporttheexpansionoftheCountysemploymentbaseandcreate
opportunitiesforlongtermeconomicdevelopment.
TherearetwolocalbusinessesinproximitytotheproposedprojectsiteTheAllPawsAnimal
WellnessClinicandtheFurnaceBayGolfCourse.TheAllPawsAnimalWellnessClinicoffers
generalandemergencypetcareservices.ItslocatedonPrincipioFurnaceRoadwestofthe
proposedprojectsite.Itisoneofthecloseststructurestotheproposedproject.Thereisalsoa
localMARCstationlocatedinPerryvilleapproximately1.5mileswestoftheproposedproject
site,whichsupportsthelocalandregionaleconomy.
MTAwouldpurchasetheCoudonpropertytoconstructandoperatetheproposedproject.The
propertywouldnolongerbeasourceoflocaltaxrevenueunderstateownership.The
constructionofthefacilitywouldpotentiallyprovidetheopportunitytoemployandpurchase
goodsfromregionalcontractors,andallowlocalresidentstoobtainemploymentatthefacility
duringbothconstructionandoperation.Also,localcompanieswouldpotentiallyprovide
indirectservicesduringoperationssuchaslandscapingorhousekeeping.Likewise,thereisthe
potentialforthefacilitysemployeestorelocatetotheprojectvicinityand/orpurchaselocal
goodsandservices.Thefacilitywouldbeconstructedby2018andwouldemploy
approximately33employees.

76

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

TheFurnaceBayGolfCoursewouldhavepropertyimpactsandvisualimpactsasdescribed
above.Daytodaygolfcourseoperationswouldnotbeaffectedbytheconstructionor
operationoftheproposedproject.TheproposedprojectwouldbevisiblefromtheAllPaws
AnimalWellnessClinic,althoughtheviewwouldbeobstructedbybermsandlandscaping.The
constructionandoperationoftheproposedfacilitywouldnotimpacttheoperationsofthe
animalclinic.AlthoughtrafficwouldmarginallyincreasealongPrincipioFurnaceRoad
(seeSection4.13),theproposedprojectwouldnotimpactaccesstotheselocalbusinesses.
TheproposedprojectwouldsupportexistingMARCoperationsandaccommodateridership
growthandsystemexpansion,bothofwhichareanticipatedtoincreasethemovementof
passengersalongtheexistingMARCraillines.ThePerryvilleMARCstationcouldexperience
increasedridershipandextendedservice,whichwouldfurtherbenefitthelocalandregional
economy.
MarylandSmartGrowth
TheprojectareaislocatedentirelywithinadesignatedPFA.Therefore,theproposedprojectis
consistentwiththePlanningActof1992andMarylandsSmartGrowthInitiatives,andit
supportsthestatessmartgrowthpolicies.
4.10.3

Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures

MTAwouldpurchaseprivatepropertyinaccordancewithfederalrequirementsincludingthe
FederalUniformRelocationAssistanceandRealPropertyAcquisitionPoliciesActof1970.Fair
marketvaluewouldbeprovidedtoallpropertyownersascompensationforrightofway
acquisitions.Inadditionrelocationassistancewouldbeavailablefordisplacedresidents.
TominimizeimpactstotheAllPawsAnimalClinic,bermsandlandscapingwouldbeconstructed
aroundthefacilitytoobstructtheirviewtheNortheastMaintenanceFacility.Reforestation
adjacenttotheGolfCourseboundarywouldprovidescreeningforpatronsandemployeesof
thegolfcourse.
Asameanstomitigatethelossofregionaleconomicbenefitfromuseofthepropertyfor
agriculturalpurposesMTAwouldworkwiththeSusquehannaWorkforceNetworktomaximize
employmentopportunitiesforlocalresidentsandlocalcompaniestopotentiallyprovide
indirectservicesduringoperationssuchaslandscapingorhousekeeping.Constructionofthe
facilitywouldpotentiallyprovidetheopportunitytoemployandpurchasegoodsfromregional
contractors,andallowlocalresidentstoobtainemploymentatthefacilityduringboth
constructionandoperation.EnvironmentalJustice
4.10.4

StudyAreaandMethodology

Ananalysisofpossibledisproportionatelyhighandadverseeffectsonenvironmentaljustice
populationswasconductedfortheproposedMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilityin

77

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

accordancewithEO12898,FederalActionstoAddressEnvironmentalJusticeinMinority
PopulationsandLowincomePopulations;U.S.DOTOrder5610.2(a),ActionstoAddress
EnvironmentalJusticePolicyGuidanceforFederalTransitAdministrationRecipientsandFTA
Circular4703.1,EnvironmentalJusticePolicyGuidanceforFederalTransitAdministration
Recipients.
Minoritypopulationswithinthestudyareawereidentifiedusingdatafromthe2010U.S.
Census,andlowincomepopulationswereidentifiedusingdatafromthe20082012U.S.
CensusAmericanCommunitySurvey5YearEstimates.Fieldreconnaissancewasalso
conductedtosupplementtheCensusdataanalysis.Censusdatawascollectedatthecensus
tractlevel(income)andattheblocklevel(raceandethnicity),andcomparedtodataforCecil
County,Maryland,asawhole,asareference.Thestudyareafortheenvironmentaljustice
analysisisdefinedasCensusTract312.02,BlockGroup2(seeFigure4.102).
Lowincomepopulationsareidentifiedwhenthemedianhouseholdincomeinthecensustract
thatintersectsthestudyareaisatorbelow$33,075,or150percentoftheHHS2010poverty
guidelineforafamilyoffour.1
4.10.5

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences

BasedontheCensusdemographicsdescribedabove,theaverageminoritypercentageofthe
projectareais18percent,andthelowincomepercentageoftheprojectareais16.1percent.
Table9displaystheminoritypopulationofCecilCounty,CensusTract312.02,anditsthree
BlockGroups,aswellasthelowincomepopulationofCensusTract312.02andthecounty.
EachoftheBlockGroupsminoritypercentagesexceedsthecountyspercentageof12.6
percent.ThepercentageoflowincomepersonsinCensusTract312.02exceedsthecounty
averageby6.5percent.

FTACircular4703.1suggeststheuseofalocallydevelopedpovertythreshold,suchasthatusedforFTAsgrant
program,toidentifyalowincomeperson.Thegrantprogramdefinesalowincomepersonasanindividualwhose
familyincomeisatorbelow150percentoftheHHSpovertyguideline.TheHHSpovertyguidelinesareissued
eachyearandareasimplificationofthepovertythresholdspublishedbytheU.S.CensusBureau.TheHHS
povertyguidelinesareusedforadministrativepurposesbythefederalagenciestodetermine,forexample,
financialeligibilityforcertainfederalprograms(HHS,2012).
TheU.S.CensusBureauusesasetofmoneyincomethresholdsthatvarybyfamilysizeandcompositionto
determinewhoisinpoverty(U.S.CensusBureau,2012).Ifafamilystotalincomeislessthantheapplicable
threshold,thenthatfamilyandeveryindividualinitisconsideredinpoverty.Forexample,FamilyAhasfour
membersconsistingoftwoadultsandtwochildren,andthetotalincomeofallfamilymemberswas$20,000in
2010.The2010povertythresholdforafamilyoffourwithtwochildrenwas$22,113in2010,and,therefore,
FamilyA(andeveryindividualinthisfamily)isconsideredinpovertyaccordingtotheU.S.CensusBureauofficial
definition.

78

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

TABLE9:MINORITYANDLOWINCOMEPOPULATIONS

CecilCounty

Category

CensusTract
312.02,Block
Group1

CensusTract
312.02

CensusTract
312.02,Block
Group2

CensusTract
312.02,Block
Group3

Population

Population

Population

Population

Population

Total
Population

101,108

100

5,570

100

2184

100

1,154

100

2,232

100

WhiteAlone1

88,348

87.4

4,541

81.5

1,856

85.0

952

82.5

1,733

77.6

BlackAlone1

6,080

6.0

624

11.2

179

8.2

109

9.4

336

15.1

American
Indianand
AlaskaNative
Alone

246

0.2

28

0.5

0.2

0.6

17

0.8

AsianAlone1

1,078

1.1

67

1.2

24

1.1

26

2.3

17

0.8

43

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.2

0.2

90

0.1

11

0.2

0.3

0.0

0.2

1,816

1.8

99

1.8

38

1.7

27

2.3

34

1.5

3,407

3.4

193

3.5

76

3.5

31

2.7

86

3.9

12,760

12.6

1,029

18.5

328

15.0

202

17.5

499

22.5

9.6

Native
Hawaiianand
OtherPacific
IslanderAlone
SomeOther
RaceAlone
Twoormore
racesAlone1
Hispanicor
Latino2
TotalMinority
Persons

LowIncome

16.1

Source:U.S.Census2010,SummaryFile1TableP9;ACS20082012Estimates,TableS1701
1
ThesecategoriesdonotincludeHispanicorLatinoindividuals.
2
Hispaniccanbeofanyrace.

Basedonthefieldinvestigation,onlyafewindividualhomesarelocatedwithinthevicinityof
theproposedprojectsdirecteffects.Therefore,lessthan0.1percentofthe5,570individuals
livinginCensusTract312.02andeachofitsblockgroupswouldbeimpactedbytheproject.
Duetothesmallnumberofresidences,CensusTractorCensusBlockGroupleveldatais
insufficientindeterminingwhetherlowincomeorminoritypopulationsexistintheproject
area.
Thedirecteffectsoftheproposedprojectonnearbyresidentsareminimal.Noresidencesother
thanthoselocatedontheCoudonpropertywouldrequirerightofwayacquisition.

79

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

Additionally,noresidenceswouldhavenoiseorvibrationimpacts(seeSection4.2),andthe
facilitywouldbelargelyshieldedfromnearbyresidences(seeSection4.8).Impactsonnatural
resources(i.e.wetlandsandhabitat)wouldbelocalizedwithinthestudyareaandwouldbe
mitigatedforbasedonUSACErequirements.Becausetheprojecteffectsareminimalandare
isolatedtoveryfewresidents,effectscouldnotbehighanddisproportionateforminorityand
lowincomepopulations.

4.11 LANDUSEANDZONING
4.11.1

StudyAreaandMethodology

Thestudyareaforidentifyingpotentiallanduseandzoningimpactscoincideswiththeprojects
studyareaboundary.ExistinglandusewasidentifiedusingbothMDPandCecilCounty
GovernmentGISdata.ExistingzoningwasidentifiedbyCecilCountyGovernment.MTA
reviewedexistingcomprehensiveplanningdocumentstoidentifyfuturelanduse
recommendations.
4.11.2

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences

Theproposedprojectsitecurrentlyhasanagriculturallanduseandissurroundedby
agriculturallandusestothenorthandwest,openspacetotheeast,andindustriallanduseto
thesouth(seeFigure4.111).TheAllPawsAnimalWellnessClinic,whichisdirectlyadjacentto
theproposedprojectsite,hasacommerciallanduse.Therearesomelowdensityresidential
landusesalongportionsofPrincipioFurnaceRoad.Althoughthelanduseoftheprojectsiteis
currentlyagricultural,theCoudonpropertyiszonedasHighDensityResidential(see
Figure4.112).ItisalsolocatedinCecilCountysdesignatedDevelopmentDistrict,the
PerryvilleIndustrialParkEnterpriseZone,andastatedesignatedPFA.
The2010CecilCountyComprehensivePlanidentifiesthefuturelanduseoftheprojectareaasa
DesignatedGrowthArea.DesignatedGrowthAreasarecomprisedofallareaswherethe
Countywishestoencourageandattractgrowthanddevelopment.DesignatedGrowthAreas
includeareaswheretheFutureLandUsewouldberesidential,mixeduse,oremployment,and
theareasarecurrentlyservedbypublicwaterandsewerorcouldbeinthefuture.TheCecil
CountyFutureLandUseMapidentifiestheprojectareaasafutureEmploymentarea.The
intentoftheEmploymentareasistoprovideformajorindustrial,manufacturing,office,and
businessusesandeconomicdevelopmentopportunitiesinbusinessparksandcampusesnear
majorroads.Thegoalistoprovidesufficientlandareaandopportunitiestosupportthe
expansionoftheCountysemploymentbaseandcreateopportunitiesforlongtermeconomic
development.TheComprehensivePlanrecommendsthatEmploymentusesshouldbe
screenedandbuffered,wherenecessary,tominimizenegativeimpactstoadjoiningresidential
landuses.
Theproposedprojectwouldchangethelanduseoftheproposedprojectsitetoinstitutional
landuse.However,thecurrentzoningoftheprojectarea,alongwiththeCountysfutureland

80

I9

PU

LA

H
KI

WY
SITE LOCATION MAP
LAND USE KEY

SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

AGRICULTURAL

PERRYVILLE MARC

OPEN SPACE

PERRYVILLE A

COMMERCIAL
MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
INDUSTRIAL
INSTITUTIONAL
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

SCALE 1 INCH = 3,000 FEET


0
1,500
3,000 FEET

LEGEND

LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE
NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

TRANSPORTATION
WATERWAYS AND WETLANDS

Scale: 1 in = 6 miles

Sources: Esri, DeLorme,


NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap,
iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan,
METI, Esri China (Hong

FIGURE 4.11-1

EXISTING LAND USE

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

LL
MI
CR
EE
KR

OU

DO

BL
VD

ILA
PH

DE

IA
PH

RO

Furnace Bay
Golf Course

AD

Amtrack MOW

BI

Business - Intensive

C-2

Commercial Highway

L-2

Industrial

FURNACE BAY

L C

EMU Employment Mixed Use

Y
WA

Business - General

MIL

BG

A
IKE

ZONING DISTRICT KEY:

RE

EK

NAR Northern Agricultural - Residential


OS

Open Space

R-1

Residential Single Family

R-2

Residential Single Family

R-3

Residential Multifamily

RM

High Density Residential

ST

Suburban Transitional Residential

TC

Town Center Mixed Use

LEGEND
LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE
PRIORITY FUNDING AREA
NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

SCALE: 1 INCH = 2,000 FEET


1,000
2,000
FEET
Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid,0 IGN, IGP,
and the
GIS User
Community

FIGURE 4.11-2
ZONING

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

usedesignation,indicatethatthecountysupportsdevelopmentinthisarea.Thedeveloped
parcelwouldstillhaveaconsiderableamountofopenspaceadjacenttoPrincipioFurnace
Road,andtheproposedfacilitywouldbebufferedfromtheresidentialareas.
4.11.3

Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures

Theproposedfacilitywouldincorporatescreeningandbufferingofemploymentareasfrom
adjacentresidentialuses,asrecommendedforDesignatedGrowthAreasbytheCecilCounty
ComprehensivePlan.

4.12 PUBLICSERVICES,UTILITIESANDSAFETY
4.12.1

StudyAreaandMethodology

Adesktopsearchofpublicutilitiespresentonthesitewascompletedpriortocommencement
ofpreliminaryengineeringdesign.Inadditionsitesurveyingwasundertakentodeterminethe
locationofpublicutilitieswithinthesiteandthenecessityforrelocation.
Additionally,astudywasundertakentodeterminewhethertheproposedwatersupplysystem,
seweragesystemandsolidwasteacceptancefacilitywouldbeadequatetoservetheproposed
projectandnotoverloadanypresentfacilities.Thestudyalsotakesintoaccountallexistingand
approveddevelopmentinthePerryvilleservicearea.
Considerationofsafetyandsecuritymeasureshasbeenincludedindevelopmentofthe
preliminarydesign.Specificsiteattributes,suchastopographyandpublicaccess,havebeen
considered.Thesiteisnotopentothepublicandsafetyandsecuritymeasureswouldbe
developedtopreventaccesstothesitebythegeneralpublic.
4.12.2

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences

Publicutilitiespresentwithinthesiteincludepowertosupporttheresidentialbuildingspresent
atthesouthwesternportionofthesite.Apowerlinecurrentlyrunsparalleltotherailwayline
andaportionofthispowerlinewouldrequirerelocationtoaidinconstructionandoperationof
thesite.
Theproposedfacilitywouldbeaccessedonlybyemployeesandauthorizedpersons.The
generalpublicwouldnotbeprovidedaccesstothefacilitybuildingsorstorageyard.
4.12.3

Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures

TheMTAwoulddevelopsecuritymeasurestopreventunauthorizedaccesstothemaintenance
facilityincludingafencesurroundingtheentiretyofthefacility.Thereisminimalneedfor
publicaccesstothefacility.SecuritymeasureswouldcomplywithHomelandSecurityandUS
DOTdirectives.

83

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

4.13 TRANSPORTATION
4.13.1

StudyAreaandMethodology

Todeterminetheprojectspotentialimpactontransportationresources,MTAcompleteda
trafficstudy,whichanalyzedexistingandpotentialtrafficpatternsandvolumesnearthe
proposedproject.Thestudyareafortransportationresourcesincludedthemainroadwaysand
intersectionsthatcouldbeimpactedbynewtrafficenteringandexitingtheproposedfacility.
Thetrafficstudy,availableontheprojectwebsite,includedacapacityanalysisperformed
accordingtotheTransportationResearchBoardsHighwayCapacityManual(HCM)Synchro
methodology.TheHCMdefinessixlevelsofservice,rangingfromAtoF,whereLOSA
representsthebestoperatingconditionsfromthetravelersperspectiveandLOSFtheworst.
Foratrafficimpactstudy,MarylandStateHighwayAdministration(MDSHA)requiresallstudied
intersectionstooperateatLOSDorbetter.Thetrafficstudyalsoincludedsignalwarrant
analysesattheintersectionofCoudonBlvdatMD7,basedontherequirementsofMDSHAs
MarylandManualonUniformTrafficControlDevices(MdMUTCD)2011edition.
4.13.2

AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences

Twomajorhighwaysservethearea:I95andPulaskiHighway(US40).Thesiteiseasily
accessiblefromHarfordCountyviatheUS40ThomasHatemMemorialBridgeoverthe
SusquehannaRiver.Asmallertwolanehighway,PrincipioFurnaceRoad(MD7),runsnortheast
alongtheprojectsite,providingdirectaccessfromtheTownofPerryville.Regionaltrafficfrom
US40reachesthesiteviaCoudonBoulevard,atwolaneroadwaywhichoffersanorthsouth
connectionbetweenUS40andMD7.ThecommunityofPerryPoint,locatedsouthoftheTown
ofPerryville,isconnectedtoMD7viathetwolaneFirestoneRoad(MD327)(seeFigure4.14).
ThetrafficstudyidentifiedonebusstopalongnorthboundCoudonBlvd,approximatelyhalfway
betweenUS40andMD7.Additionally,thestudyidentifiedsixbusstopsalongUS40between
CoudonBlvdandMD7.AllofthesestopsserveCecilTransitRoute2(PerryvilleConnection).
Thisbusoperatesfrom5:45AMto6:45PM,with90minuteheadways.Nobusstopswere
identifiedalongMD7.ThenearesttrainstationservicedbytheAmtrakNECislocatedwestof
theproposedprojectwithintheTownofPerryville.ThePerryvillestationisaterminusforthe
MARCPennLine.
Accordingtothetrafficstudy,trafficgrowthhasbeenstagnantinthisarea.NearbyAnnual
DailyTrafficdataalongtheThomasHatemMemorialBridgeshowsannualgrowthof0.5
percent.AccordingtotheCecilCountyDepartmentofPublicWorks,therearenoapprovedor
pendingdevelopmentsthatareexpectedtogenerateadditionaltrafficinthestudyarea.The
PerryPointVeteransAdministration(VA)isrelocatingitstruckentrancefromPerimeterRoad
atVABoundaryRoadtoMD327(FirestoneRoad)atMarionTappParkway.Boththecurrent
andtheproposedlocationarelocatedtothewestofthestudyintersections,andwouldnot
changetravelpatternsthroughthestudyarea.

84

$
d
"
!
y
I

N Woodland Farm
Ln

AMTRAK
NORTHEAST
CORRIDOR

SITE LOCATION MAP


SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

$
"
!

PERRYVILLE A

PERRYVILLE
"

MARC STATION
Scale: 1 in = 6 miles

Copyright: 2012 Esri,


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

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri
China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community

LEGEND

LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE
NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

SCALE
0

1 INCH = 2,000 FEET

1,000

2,000 FEET

FIGURE 4.14

TRANSPORTATION

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

Thetrafficstudydeterminedthatthefollowingintersectionscouldbeimpactedbyadditional
trafficassociatedwiththeproposedmaintenancefacility:

US40atCoudonBlvdsignalizedintersection
CoudonBlvdatMD7(PhiladelphiaRd)unsignalizedintersection
US40atMD7(PrincipioFurnaceRd)/BelvedereRdsignalizedintersection

Theproposedmaintenancefacilitywouldemploy33individualsin2018.Nearlyallnewtraffic
associatedwiththemaintenancefacilityisexpectedtoarrivefromUS40,andwouldaccessthe
sitebyeitherturningrightfromeastboundUS40ontoCoudonBlvd,leftfromwestboundUS40
ontoCoudonBlvd,orleftfromwestboundUS40ontoMD7.Fromthere,vehicleswouldtravel
alongCoudonBlvdandMD7toaccessthesite.
Theresultsofthetrafficstudyindicatethefollowing:

AllstudyintersectionscurrentlyoperateatanacceptableLOSDorbetterduringthe
peakhours.
Under2019NoBuildandBuildconditions,andunder2035NoBuildconditions,allstudy
intersectionsareprojectedtooperateatanacceptableLOSDorbetter.
TheNBCoudonBlvdapproachtoUS40isprojectedtooperateatLOSCunderboth
NoBuildandBuildconditionsin2018.
AsignalisnotwarrantedattheintersectionofCoudonBlvdatMD7.
4.13.3

Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures

Basedonthefindingsofthetrafficstudy,theMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitycanbe
constructedwithoutrequiringanygeometric(physical)improvementstothestudy
intersections.MTAwouldsharetheresultsofthetrafficstudywithSHAandtheCecilCounty
DepartmentofPublicWorkstoallowtheseagenciestoconsideradjustmentofsignaltimingsto
improvetheintersectionLOSatUS40andCoudonBlvdtoD,andtheLOSalongthenorthbound
CoudonBlvdapproachtoE.

4.14 Section4(f)Resources
Section4(f)oftheDepartmentofTransportationActof1966stipulatesthatDepartmentof
Transportagenciescannotapprovetheuseoflandfrompubliclyownedparks,recreational
areas,wildlifeandwaterfowlrefuges,orpublicandprivatehistoricalsitesunlessthefollowing
conditionsapply:

TheFTAdeterminesthatthereisnofeasibleandprudentavoidancealternativeto
theuseoflandfromtheproperty,andtheactionincludesallpossibleplanningto
minimizeharmtothepropertyresultingfromsuchuse(23CFR774.3(a));or

86

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

TheFTAdeterminesthattheuseofSection4(f)property,includinganymeasuresto
minimizeharm(suchasavoidance,minimization,mitigation,orenhancement
measures)committedtobytheapplicant,willhaveademinimisimpactonthe
property(23CFR774.3(b)).

4.14.1

StudyAreaandMethodology

TheproposedsiteforthismaintenancefacilityislocatedinPerryville,Maryland,northofthe
NEC,southofMD7(PrincipioFurnaceRoad)andsoutheastoftheintersectionofMD7and
BroadStreet(seeFigure2.17).ThestudyareafortheSection4(f)resourcesstudyincludedthe
areassurroundingtheproposedsitetoincorporateall4(f)resourcespotentiallyaffectedbythe
project.
Therearenopubliclyownedparksorrecreationalfacilitiesinthevicinityoftheproposed
project.HistoricsiteswereidentifiedinaccordancewiththeSection106processofthe
NationalHistoricPreservationAct,asamended.ForthepurposesofSection4(f)(seeAppendix
G),ahistoricsiteisanyprehistoricorhistoricdistrict,site,building,structure,orobject
includedin,oreligibleforinclusionin,theNationalRegister,whichistheequivalentofa
historicpropertyunderSection106(23CFRPart774.17).
AfeasibleandprudentavoidancealternativeavoidsusingSection4(f)propertyanddoesnot
causeothersevereproblemsofamagnitudethatsubstantiallyoutweighstheimportanceof
protectingtheSection4(f)property.InassessingtheimportanceofprotectingtheSection4(f)
property,itisappropriatetoconsidertherelativevalueoftheresourcetothepreservation
purposeofthestatute.
Analternativeisnotfeasibleifitcannotbebuiltasamatterofsoundengineeringjudgment.An
alternativeisnotprudentif:

Itcompromisestheprojecttoadegreethatitisunreasonabletoproceedwiththe
projectinlightofitsstatedpurposeandneed;

Itresultsinunacceptablesafetyoroperationalproblems;

Itcausesseveresocial,economic,orenvironmentalimpactsevenafterreasonable
mitigation;severedisruptiontoestablishedcommunities;severedisproportionate
impactstominorityorlowincomepopulations;orsevereimpactstoenvironmental
resourcesprotectedunderotherFederalstatutes;

Itresultsinadditionalconstruction,maintenance,oroperationalcostsofan
extraordinarymagnitude;

Itcausesotheruniqueproblemsorunusualfactors;or

It involves multiple factors that while individually minor, cumulatively cause unique
problems,orimpactsofextraordinarymagnitude.

87

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

ElevenalternativesthatavoidallSection4(f)properties,includingtheNoBuildAlternative,
havebeenevaluatedbyMTA(seeAppendixG).Theavoidancealternativesareanalyzedin
accordancewiththedefinitionoffeasibleandprudentavoidancealternativefoundin23CFR
774.17.
ConsultationbetweenMTA,FTAandMHTtominimizeimpactstoSection4(f)propertyis
ongoing.

4.15 INDIRECTANDCUMULATIVEEFFECTS
Beyondtheconsiderationsrelatedtotheproposedprojectsdirecteffects,theCEQNEPA
regulationsalsorequirethattheindirectandcumulativeeffects(ICE)ofaprojectbeexamined
(40CFR1508.25(c)).Indirecteffectsaredefinedas,effectswhicharecausedbytheaction
andarelaterintimeorfartherremovedindistance,butarestillreasonablyforeseeable.
Indirecteffectsmayincludegrowthinducingeffectsandothereffectsrelatedtoinduced
changesinthepatternoflanduse,populationdensityorgrowthrate,andrelatedeffectsonair
andwaterandothernaturalsystems,includingecosystems(40CFR1508.8(b)).Cumulative
effectsaredefinedas,Impactsontheenvironmentwhichresultfromtheincrementalimpact
oftheactionwhenaddedtootherpast,present,andreasonablyforeseeablefutureactions
regardlessofwhatagency(FederalornonFederal)orpersonundertakessuchotheractions
(40CFR1508.7).
4.15.1

Methodology

ThisICEanalysisfollowsthebasicassessmentstepsidentifiedintheCEQNEPAregulations,
whichareasfollows.

Identifyenvironmentalresourcesofinterest
Determinegeographicandtemporalboundaries
Identifypast,present,andreasonablyforeseeablefutureprojectstobeconsideredas
partoftheICEanalysis
Assesstheindirectandcumulativeeffectstotheenvironmentalresourcesofinterest
withinthegeographicandtemporalboundary
4.15.2

EnvironmentalResourcesofInterest

Environmentalresourcesthatwillbeanalyzedarethosethatwouldbedirectlyaffectedbythe
constructionandoperationoftheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilityandthosethathave
thepotentialtoexperiencecumulativeeffectsfromtheaggregateofimpactsoftheMARC
NortheastMaintenanceFacilityandotherreasonablyforeseeabledevelopment.Theresources
assessinthisICEanalysisareasfollows.

Waterresources
VegetationandWildlife

88

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

CulturalResources
SocioeconomicandCommunityResources
LandUseandZoning
TransportationandPublicServices
4.15.3

GeographicBoundary

Thegeographiclimitationsofindirectand/orcumulativeeffectsassociatedwiththeproposed
projectreachbeyondtheprojectarea.Sincetherearevariousfactorsthatcontributetothe
geographiclimitoftheICEanalysis,theICEboundarywasdevelopedthroughasynthesisof
resourcesubboundariesintooneoverallboundary.Censustracts,12digitwatersheds,and
planningboundaries,includingtheareasMetropolitanPlanningOrganizationdemographic
boundaryfortraffic,employmentandpopulation,weretheprimarysubboundaries
synthesizedindevelopingtheICEboundaryastheyrelatedirectlytotheresourcesthatwould
bedirectlyimpactedbytheproject.Othersubboundarieswereconsideredintheanalysis
includingPFAs,historicboundary,trafficanalysiszonesandtheCecilCountyEnterpriseZones.
TheICEboundaryisshownonFigure4.15.
4.15.4

TemporalBoundary

ThepasttimeframedesignatedforthisICEanalysisis1970.Thebasisforchoosing1970comes
fromavailabledatademonstratingpopulationandlandusechangesintheprojectvicinity;1970
actsasabaselineforfuturetrendsinthecounty.Thelandusesince1970hastransitionedaway
fromprimarilyagriculturetosupportingincreasedresidentialandcommercial.Thefuture
timeframeis2030duetotheprojectsdesignyearandCecilCountysStrategicPlanprojections.
4.15.5

ReasonablyForeseeableDevelopment

ThefollowingtableliststhereasonablyforeseeabledevelopmentprojectswithintheICE
boundary(seeFigure4.15).

TABLE10:REASONABLYFORESEEABLEDEVELOPMENTWITHINTHEICEBOUNDARY
Map
ID
1

IKEA

Amtrak

CecilCounty

4
5

Owner/Operator

Frenchman
CrossingLLC
SumpterWoods

Name

Notes

IKEADistribution
CenterSolarArray
SusquehannaBridge
expansionand
reconstruction
PerryvilleIndustrial
Park
FrenchmanCrossing
LLC
SumpterWoods

Planstodoublethesizeofitsrooftopsolararray
EngineeringandNEPAworkhavebegunonthe
expansionandreconstructionofthehistoric
bridge.
CecilCountyEnterpriseZone
ProposedSubdivision*
ProposedSubdivision*

89

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

TABLE10:REASONABLYFORESEEABLEDEVELOPMENTWITHINTHEICEBOUNDARY
Map
ID

Owner/Operator
GarrettPoint
(RichmondHills)
CedarCorner
PrincipioStation
FrenchmanLand
CompanyInc.
FielderProperty&
Tiller
PrincipioHealth
Center

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Amtrak

13

Veterans
Administration
(VA)

Name

Notes

GarrettPoint
(RichmondHills)
CedarCorner
PrincipioStation
FrenchmanLand
CompanyInc.
FielderProperty&
Tiller
PrincipioHealth
Center
AmtrakCorridor
Improvements

ProposedSubdivision*
ProposedSubdivision*
ProposedSubdivision*
ProposedSubdivision*
ProposedSubdivision*
ProposedSubdivision*
AlongtheentirelengthoftheNECinthestudy
area
HousingdevelopmentontheVAscampusfor
formerlyhomelessveteransandtheirfamilies

TheVillage

*CecilCountyOfficeofPlanningandZoning(April2013)

4.15.6

IndirectEffectsAnalysis

Inadditiontothedirecteffectsoftheproposedaction,marketdemand,localplanning,land
availability,andsupportinfrastructurearefactorstoconsiderwhendeterminingindirect
effects.Theproposedprojectwouldnotindirectlyaffectlandusechangesorfuture
developmentwithintheICEboundary.Theprojectservesaspecificpurpose,isisolated,and
mustbelocatedadjacenttotheNEC.AnypotentialfutureexpansionoftheMARCNortheast
MaintenancefacilitywouldbecontainedwithintheexistingCoudonpropertyboundary.The
proposedprojectwoulddirectlyemploylessthan40people;therefore,additionalresidentialor
supportingcommercialusewouldnotbenecessary.Theproposedprojectwouldnotindirectly
induceorsupportadditionaldevelopment.Noneofthereasonablyforeseeabledevelopment
withintheICEboundaryisdependentontheproposedproject.Allreasonablyforeseeable
developmentprojectssupportthegrowthinitiativesidentifiedinlocalandregional,
comprehensiveplanningdocumentsandwillproceedindependentlyoftheMaintenance
Facility.Theproposedprojectisnotexpectedtoindirectlyaffectchangesinpropertyvalues.
Likewise,theproposedprojectwouldnotindirectlyaffecttheoperationsoforaccesstonearby
businesses.
4.15.7

CumulativeEffectsAnalysis

Plannedtransportationanddevelopmentinthecumulativeeffectsstudyareaisprogrammed
oranticipatedtooccurindependentlyoftheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility.Thevast
majorityofthesedevelopmentsaretothenorthoftheproposedsite.Projectionsof

90

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

$
d
"
!
5

PU L

I9

10
!
(

!
(7
!
(5
!
(6

!
(8
!
(9

"

!
(

PERRYVILLE
MARC STATION

y
I

11
!
(

IO
IP
NC
I
PR

!
(4

HW
S KI

IKEA
AMTRAK
PERRYVILLE INDUSTRIAL PARK
FRENCHTOWN CROSSING, LLC
SUMPTER WOODS
GARRETT POINT (RICHMOND HILLS)
CEDAR CORNER
PRINCIPIO STATION
FRENCHMAN LAND COMPANY, INC.
FIELDER PROPERTY AND TILLER
PRINCIPIO HEALTH CENTER
AMTRAK CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
(ALONG ENTIRE LENGTH OF TRACK
DISPLAYED ON THIS MAP)
THE VILLAGE

D
ER
AC
N
R
FU

SITE LOCATION MAP

!
(3

!
(1

SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

PERRYVILLE A

13
!
(

SCALE: 1 INCH = 3,500 FEET


0

LEGEND

LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE

WATERWAY

ICE BOUNDARY

2010 CENSUS TRACT

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

1,700

3,400 FEET

Scale: 1 in = 6 miles

Copyright: 2012 Esri,


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

FIGURE 4.15

INDIRECT AND

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

anticipatedlanddevelopmentarebasedoncurrentlocalandregionallanduseandgrowth
managementobjectivesandregulationsandalreadyconsideredintheimplementationofthe
proposedproject.
TheproposedMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldincrementallycontributetothe
cumulativeeffectsonenvironmentalresourceswhencombinedwithotherpast,present,and
futureactions.Generally,thedirect,adverseeffectsoftheMARCNortheastMaintenance
Facilitywouldbelocalizedandwouldoccurwithintheprojectareaboundary.Collectively,the
proposedprojectinconjunctionwiththedevelopmentprojectslistedinTable10wouldhave
cumulativeenvironmentaleffects.Thecumulativeeffectsofindividualenvironmental
resourcesaredescribedbelow.
WaterResourcesTheLowerSusquehannaRiverandFurnaceBaywatersheds,locatedwithin
theICEboundary,containlargeareasofagriculturallandaswellasforestedandurbanland.
Waterqualityimpairmentsoccurinparticularstreamswithinbothofthewatersheds.Future
developmentbyotherswouldberegulatedbystatewaterresourceslawsintendedtoprotect
waterwaysandwaterquality.
MTAwouldbesubjecttothesamelawsandregulationsintheimplementationandoperation
oftheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility.Directeffectsonsurfacewatersareanticipated
tobeminorandlocalized,mainlyassociatedwithtemporaryconstructionactivities.MTAhas
soughttominimizenewimpervioussurfacesandwouldobtainapplicableMaryland
DepartmentoftheEnvironmentpermits,wouldaddressstormwatermanagement,andaimto
protectwaterqualityandimportantaquaticresources.Consequently,theroleoftheMARC
NortheastMaintenanceFacilityincumulativeeffectsonsurfacewaterresourcesisnegligible
giventhecurrentandproposedamountofurbandevelopment.
WetlandsWithintheICEboundary,thereareapproximately90acresofwetlandsandwaters.
Thepermanentdirecteffectoftheproposedprojectonwetlandsislessthanoneacreandwill
befullymitigated.Wetlandsimpactsareregulatedbytheboththefederalandstate
governments,andwetlandmitigationisrequiredforallprojectsthatdirectlyaffectwetlands.
ThroughouttheICEboundary,cumulativeimpactstowetlandsandwaterwayswouldbe
minimizedandmitigatedbyprojectspecificfederalandlocalprotectiveregulations(including
Sections404and401oftheCWA)andstormwater,sediment,anderosioncontrolmeasures
thatwouldbeconditionsofindividualconstructionpermits.Consideringthestructuredwetland
mitigationrequirements,therewouldbeanoverallminorcumulativeimpactonwetlandsand
waterways.
VegetationandWildlifeWithintheICEboundary,thereareover2,500acresofforestand
approximately90acresofwetlandsandwaterway.Impactstotreesandotherhabitatareasare
regulatedbystateandlocalgovernments,andoftenresultinanetincreaseofareaof
vegetationandwildlifehabitat.Also,stateandlocalregulations,includingtheUrbanForest
PreservationAct,requireprojectspecificcompensatorymitigationfortheremovalof

92

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

vegetation;andmanylocalgovernmentandspecialinterestorganizationspromoteandsupport
treeplanting.However,privatedevelopmentsarenotsubjecttothesamelevelofscrutinyand
mitigationasprojectssponsoredbygovernmentagencies.Eventhoughtherearemitigation
measurestomoderateimpactstovegetation,vegetationtakestimetomature.Treeremoval
wouldoccurwithintheICEboundaryandincrementalreductioninvegetationisprobable.
CulturalResourcesThecumulativeeffectsstudyareacontainsthreeresourceslistedonthe
NRHP,thePerryPointMansionHouseandMill,theWoodlandsandPrincipioFurnace,along
with47resourceslistedontheMarylandInventoryofHistoricPlaces.Thepotentialdirect
effectsoftheproposedprojectarelistedinSection4.9.Theproposedprojectwould
contributetominor,adversecumulativeimpactsonculturalresources.Futuredevelopment
withinthehistoricdistrictwouldbesubjecttoreviewandeffectsdeterminationbyMHT.
Likewise,federalorstateprojectsarerequiredtogothroughtheSection106process,which
wouldmitigateandpotentialfutureeffects.However,privatedevelopmentoutsideofthe
historicdistrictwouldnotbeheldtothesamelevelofscrutiny.
SocioeconomicandCommunityResourcesTheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility,
combinedwiththeforeseeabledevelopmentprojectsidentifiedinTable10wouldhavea
moderatecumulativeeffectonsocioeconomicresourceswithintheICEboundary.Thelocaland
regionalplanningdocumentssupportandencouragegrowthinthisarea,whichovertimehas
transitionedfrompredominantlyagriculturalinnaturetoincludeavarietyoflanduses
includingindustrial,residential,andcommercialthatbothsupportthelocaleconomyandaffect
communityresources.AlthoughMTAwouldnotpaylocaltaxes,theproposedprojectincludes
mitigationtosupportthelocaleconomyandminimizeimpactstocommunityresources.In
addition,throughtheoperationoftheMARCPennLinetheMTAprovidesatransitoperation
whichservicesthelocalcommunity;withoutthedevelopmentofamaintenancefacilityMARC
operationswouldnotbecapableofmeetingexpectedgrowthandservicedemand.Ofthe13
reasonablyforeseeabledevelopmentswithinthecumulativestudyboundaryeightconsistof
newsubdivisionswhichwouldincreasethelocalpopulation.Residentswithinthese
subdivisionswillpaytaxesbutwillrequiretheuseofcommunityservices,potentially
necessitatinganincreaseintheprovisionofcommunityresourcesbylocalandstateagencies.
LandUseandZoningTheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility,combinedwiththe
foreseeabledevelopmentprojectsidentifiedinTable10wouldhaveamoderatecumulative
effectonlanduseandzoningwithintheICEboundary.Thelocalandregionalplanning
documentssupportandencouragedevelopmentwithintheICEBoundary,whichovertimehas
transitionedfrompredominantlyagriculturallandusetoincludeavarietyoflandusesincluding
industrial,residential,andcommercial.Theprojectsiteiszonedhighdensityresidential.Ifitis
notdevelopedfortheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility,ithasthepotentialtobe
developedforhighdensityresidentialhousing.
TransportationandPublicServicesThelocalandregionalplanningdocumentssupport
growthanddevelopmentinthearea,andallforeseeablegrowthanddevelopmentwouldhave

93

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

incrementaleffectsontransportationandotherpublicservicesandutilitieswithintheICE
boundary.Theproposedprojectwouldcontributetotheadverse,cumulativeeffect.However,
theproposedprojectdirecteffectwouldbemarginal.Effectswouldbemitigatedthroughlocal
permittingregulations.Additionally,theproposedprojectwouldallowforthegrowthofthe
MARCPennLineservicetomeetexpectedfuturedemandincludingincreasedtransitrequired
bylocalresidentssurroundingtheproposedsite.

4.16 CONSTRUCTIONIMPACTS
Thischapterevaluatesthetemporaryimpactsthatcouldoccurduringconstructionofthe
MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilityproject.Asdiscussedbelow,thesemayinclude
temporarydisruptionstolanduseandneighborhoodcharacter,archaeologicalresources,
traffic,airqualityandnoise,hazardousmaterials,waterresourcesandsoilandvegetation.This
typeofimpactcouldoccurwiththeNoBuild,whichwouldinvolvepotentialconstructionof
newfacilitiesneartheprojectsite.
4.16.1

DescriptionofProposedConstructionActivities

ConstructionactivitiesfortheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldincludedemolition
andclearing;gradingwherenecessary;excavation;removalofcontaminatedsoils,ifany;
pouringfoundations;buildingandstructureerection;andassociatedutilitywork.
Constructiononsitewouldgenerallyoccurduringnormalworkhours(7AMto4PM)to
minimizeeffectsonresidentsandworkers.Truckmovementswouldtypicallybespread
throughoutthedayonweekdays.Whereverpossible,theschedulingofdeliveriesandother
constructionactivitieswouldtakeplaceduringoffpeaktravelhourstoavoidcausing
congestionandtominimizeinterruptionstodaytimetrafficmovements.Itisanticipatedthat
constructionstagingwouldoccurontheproposedprojectsite.
4.16.2

EnvironmentalEffects

AirQuality
Theprincipalairqualityimpactassociatedwithconstructionactivitiesisthepossiblegeneration
offugitivedust,whichcanvarywidelyintermsofvolumeandsizeofparticulatematter
generated.Fugitivedustisassociatedwithearthmoving,suchassitegrading,filling,and
excavationforfoundations.Alargeproportionofthefugitivedustgeneratedbyconstruction
activitieswouldbeofrelativelylargeparticlesize,andwouldbeexpectedtosettletothe
groundwithinashortdistance.Tominimizetheseproblems,erosionanddustcontrol
procedureswouldbefollowedduringconstructionandwouldinclude:

94

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

Minimizingtheareaofdisturbedsoilbycarefulplanningofgradingoperationssothat
onlytheareasneededforanyparticularconstructionactivityaredisturbed;
Minimizingthetimespanthatsoilisexposed;
Sprayingwaterondustysurfaces;and
Usingdrainagediversionmethods(siltfences)tominimizesoilerosionduringsite
grading.

Mobilesourceemissionsmayresultfromtheoperationofconstructionequipment,andfrom
trucksdeliveringmaterialsandremovingdebrisattheconstructionsite.Construction
equipmentwouldbeequippedwithairpollutioncontroldevices,whereavailableandwhennot
costprohibitiveandunnecessaryidlingoftrucksandequipmentwouldbeminimized.These
requirementswouldbeincludedaspartofthespecificationsoftheconstructioncontract.
Additionally,dustandemissionscontrolmeasureswouldbetakeninaccordancewithMDE
requirementsandassurethatconstructionequipmentcomplieswiththeEnvironmental
ProtectionAgencys(EPA)Tier2engineemissionsstandards,including:

Coveringtruckswhenhaulingsoils,stone,ordebris
Stabilizingorcoveringstockpiles
Usingultralowsulfurdieselfuelfordieselequipment
Minimizingdirttrackingbywashingtrucksbeforeleavingtheconstructionsite

ItisexpectedthattheconstructionphaseoftheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywould
takelessthanfiveyears.Therefore,noTransportationConformitydeterminationisrequiredfor
theconstructionphaseoftheprojectperUSEPAguidancefortheconstructionportionofthe
project(40CFR93.123(c)(5)).
NoiseandVibration
Constructionoftheproposedprojectwouldgeneratenoiseandvibrationfromconstruction
equipment,constructionvehicles,anddeliveryvehiclestravelingtoandfromtheprojectsite.
Noiselevelscausedbyconstructionactivitieswouldvarywidely,dependingonthephaseof
constructionexcavations,foundation,constructionofthestructures,etc.andthespecific
taskbeingundertaken.
Constructionspecificationswouldrequirethecontractortoadheretoapplicablelocal,State,
andfederalnoiseemissionstandards,andtouseonlyequipmentwithappropriatenoise
controls.CecilCountydoesnothaveanoiseordinancethatregulatesconstruction.Any
concernsregardingnoisewouldbehandledthroughtheTownofPerryville.
Duringconstruction,possibleshorttermnoiseminimizationmeasurescouldincludethe
following:

95

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

Conductingtheconstructionduringthedaytimeasreasonablyfeasible
Locatingstagingareasandstationaryequipmentawayfromresidentialareasas
reasonablyfeasible

Adequatelynotifyingthesurroundingpublicofconstructionactivitiesandprovideacomplaint
line.MTAisseekingcommentsontheseproposedmeasuresandcommitmentswouldbe
finalizedintheFONSI.
Constructionactivitieswouldgenerallytakeplaceduringnormalweekday,daytimehours(7am
to4pm)althoughSaturdayworkmaybenecessaryduringcertainweekendstocompensatefor
adverseweatherconditionsduringthepriorworkortomeettheschedulingneedsofindividual
contractors.
Whiletherewouldbesometemporarynoiseimpactscreatedbytheconstructionactivities,all
effortswouldbemadetoreducetheintrusivenatureofthesetemporaryactivities.Therefore,
constructionoftheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldnotresultinsignificant
adversenoiseimpacts.
Constructionvibrationistypicallyofconcernwhenfragilebuildingsarelocatedlessthan90feet
fromtheconstructionactivities.Exceptforthebuildingsbeingrazedduringconstruction,there
arenohistoricstructuresorotherwisefragilebuildingswithin90feetoftheprojectsite.
Therefore,theproposedprojectwouldnotresultinsignificanttemporaryadverseimpactsfrom
constructionvibration.
SoilandVegetation
Duringthesitepreparation,grading,andexcavation,baresoilwouldbeexposed,whichhasthe
potentialtocauseimpactsfromerosionanduncontrolledrunoff.
Duringtheconstruction,bestmanagementpractices(BMPs)wouldbeutilizedtoprotectsoils
fromerosionanddepositioncausedbyhumanactivities.AsaconditionoftheErosionand
SedimentControlPermitthatwouldbeobtainedfromMDE,MTAwillcommittofollowing
constructionpracticesspecifiedinthe2011MarylandStandardsforErosionandSediment
Control(MDE,2011),suchasprovidingstabilizedconstructionentrances,shorttermandlong
termvegetationstabilization,siltfences,shorttermandlongterminletandoutletprotection,
andsedimenttrapsorbasins.Specificshorttermandlongtermmitigationandminimization
measureswillbedevelopedfurtherasdesignplansarefinalized.

96

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

WaterResources
Duringconstruction,theshorttermeffectoftheproposedprojectisthepossibilityof
additionalnutrientsandsedimentsinthesurfacerunoff,whichcouldenternearbywetlandsor
waterwaysincludingMillCreek.
ASedimentandErosionControlPlanwouldbedevelopedandimplementedinaccordancewith
theStormwaterManagementActof2007.Theplanwouldaddressproperslopeandsoil
stabilizationcontrolsduringconstructiontopreventrunoff.Also,constructionactivitieswould
becompletedusingtheBMPssetforthbyMDEthatincludebutarenotlimitedto:utilizationof
sedimentcontrolfencing;stockpilingexcessfilloutsideofwetlandsandwetlandbuffers;
placingheavyequipmentonadequatematstopreventdamageandcompactionofwetlands,
wetlandbuffers,andwaterways.
MTAwouldimplementBMPsincludingerosionandsedimentcontrolmeasuresconsistentwith
MDEstandardsandspecificationsforErosionandSedimentControl,duringconstructionto
controlrunoffandpollutantsfromenteringthestormwatermanagementsystem.
Therefore,constructionoftheproposedprojectwouldnotresultinsignificanttemporary
adverseimpactsonwaterquality.
HazardousMaterials
AsdiscussedinChapter3.7,HazardousMaterials,priortoconstructionoftheproposed
project,furtherenvironmentalinvestigationwouldbeconductedthatmayidentifytheneedfor
remedialactivities.Regulatedmaterials,suchasasbestos,arelikelypresentinsomeofthe
buildingstobeacquiredandwouldrequireasappropriate,abatementanddisposalin
accordancewithapplicablelawspriortobuildingdemolitionorrenovation.Alldemolition,
excavation,andconstructionactivities,includingtheremovalanddisposalofasbestos,
contaminatedsoilsandgroundwater,andhandlingofleadbasedpaint,wouldbeundertaken
bylicensedhandlersincompliancewithlocal,State,andfederalregulations.
Inaddition,priortoconstruction,MTAwoulddevelopasitespecifichealthandsafetyplanthat
discussessafehandlingofarsenicimpactedsoilstoensuresafetyoftheexcavationand
constructioncontractors.Ifitisdeterminedthatsoilsinthevicinityofthearsenicexceedances
willremaininplaceduringredevelopmentofthestudyarea,aprotectivecap(concrete,
asphalt,buildingfoundation,etc)orsimilarlandusecontrolswouldbeimplementedinthe
areatopreventanydirectcontactwitharseniccontaminatedsoilsandtoeliminateany
potentialdirectexposurepathwaywiththesurroundingpublic.Additionallyifsoilsinthe
vicinityofthearsenicexceedanceswillbeexcavatedduringconstruction,representativesoil
sampleswouldbecollectedfromtheexcavatedsoilspriortooffsitedisposal.The
representativesampleswouldbeanalyzedaccordingtotheToxicityCharacteristicLeaching

97

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

Proceduretoproperlycharacterizethewaste,unlessothertestingisrequiredbytheselected
landfillfacility.
Thesitespecifichealthandsafetyplanwouldalsooutlineconstructionmanagementmeasures
tobeimplementedwhichwouldreducethelikelihoodandseverityofpotentialspillsandleaks
ofhazardousmaterialsduringconstruction.
Withthesemitigationmeasuresinplace,constructionoftheproposedprojectwouldnotresult
insignificantadverseimpactsfromexposuretoorreleaseofregulatedmaterials.
StandingStructuresandArchaeologicalResources
Constructionactivitiesincludingtheclearingandgradingofthesitewouldimpactcultural
resources.Culturalresourceconsultation,includingeffectsdeterminationandmitigation
measures,isongoing.Priortoconstruction,MTA,FTA,andMHTwilldevelopavoidance,
minimization,andmitigationmeasurestoresolveadverseeffectstohistoricproperties.
Potentialmitigationincludesthefollowing:

ProvideadetailedrecordationofthebuildingsandstructuresintheWoodlandsSoutharea
thatwouldbedemolished.ThiswillnotbeaHistoricAmericanBuildingsSurvey/Historic
AmericanEngineeringRecord(HABS/HAER)report,butahigherlevelthantheinitial
investigation),includingdigital35mmformatphotography.

DevelopmentofahistoriclandscapestudyforTheWoodlands(CE145).Thisstudywould
documentcropstypesandagriculturalpracticesoverthelifeofthefarm.Inaddition,
historiclandscapingpractices,includingplantingofwindbreaksorhedgerows,irrigation
ditches,accesspathsandroads,alongwithdecorativeplantingplanswouldberesearched
anddocumented.Inaddition,aplanscalemappingofthefarmwouldbedevelopedusing
historicrecordstoprovideapictureofthislargefarmduringspecificperiods.Thehistoric
landscapestudywouldbeconsistentwithNRBulletinsGuidelinesforEvaluatingand
DocumentingRuralHistoricLandscapes,andHowtoEvaluateandNominateDesigned
HistoricLandscapes.
CoordinationwiththeCecilCountyTourismOfficeandDepartmentofPlanningaswellas
theLowerSusquehannaHeritageGreenwaytoidentifyprojectsalreadyidentifiedintheir
managementplanthatwouldbeappropriatemitigationthatcouldbefundedor
implementedbyMTA.

Preparationofpubliceducationmaterials(printedandwebbased)basedontheAbove
GroundHistoricPropertiesReport(July2014)fortheproject,emphasizingthearchitectural
traditionsofthearea,includingthebarnsandotheragriculturaloutbuildings.Education
materialswouldbeconsistentwithrecommendationsincludedinNRBulletinandmade

98

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

availableontheprojectwebsite:TellingtheStories:PlanningEffectiveInterpretive
ProgramsforPlacesListedintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces.
LandUseandNeighborhoodCharacter
Allconstructionprojectshavethepotentialtoresultintemporaryimpactsonsurrounding
communities.Increasesinairqualityemissionsandnoise,andthegeneralvisualqualityof
constructionsitesallhavethepotentialtoaffectadjacentlandusesandcommunitycharacter.
However,thelevelofimpactvariesgreatlydependingonthescopeanddurationof
constructionactivities.ConstructionactivitiesassociatedwiththeMARCNortheast
MaintenanceFacilitywouldbedisruptivetonearbyresidencesandparticularlythoseclosestto
thesitesofactiveconstruction.Thisdisruptionwouldbetemporary,however,andthereforeis
notconsideredasignificantadverseimpact.
Traffic
Constructionoftheproposedprojectwouldinvolveminorincreasestotrafficvolumeson
PrincipioFurnaceRoadbecauseofconstructionworkertripsandtruckdeliveries.Construction
crewswouldarriveandleavetheprojectsiteduringtypicalworkhours(6amto7amand4pm
to5pm).

99

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

COORDINATIONANDCONSULTATION

TheMTAhascoordinatedwiththecurrentownersofthePerryvilleAsite,adjacentproperty
owners,electedofficials,Amtrak,theTownofPerryville,andCecilCounty.Table11briefly
summarizesthenatureoftheseongoingefforts.

TABLE11:PROJECTCOORDINATIONSUMMARY
Entity
Amtrak
TownofPerryville
CecilCounty
District34BDelegate(Cecil
County)totheMarylandHouse
ofDelegates
FurnaceBayGolfCourse
FrenchmanLandCompany,Inc.
IKEAProperty,Inc.
ChesapeakeScienceandSecurity
CorridorRegionalRailMeeting
CoudonFamily

CoordinationEfforts
Technicalcoordinationontrackandsystemdesign,thenew
SusquehannaBridgecrossingproject,developmentofasigned
andexecutedMTAAmtrakMasterProjectAgreement
Projectbriefingsandstatusupdates,Q&A,identifyandcoordinate
onissuesandconcerns,water/sewerconnection
Projectbriefingsandstatusupdates,Q&A,identifyandcoordinate
onissuesandconcerns
Projectbriefingsandstatusupdates,Q&A,identifyandcoordinate
oneconomicissuesandotherconcerns
Projectbriefings,Q&A,identifyissuesandconcerns,rightofentry
Projectbriefings,Q&A,identifyissuesandconcerns,rightofentry
Projectbriefings,Q&A,identifyissuesandconcerns,rightofentry
Projectbriefings
Projectbriefings,technicalcoordinationforhistoricresourcesand
propertyaccess

ACommunityOpenHousewasheldattheCommunityFireCompanyofPerryvilleon
October29,2013.TheMTAdescribedtheproposedprojectandsolicitedpubliccomments
fromapproximately72attendees.Mostofthewrittencommentsexpressedconcernsabout
projecteffectsontraffic,noise,lighting,chemicaluse,andwastewatertreatment.TheMTA
respondedinwritingtoallcommentsreceivedduring,andsubsequentto,theOpenHouse.A
secondopenhousewillbeheldinFebruary2015.AppendixHcontainsthepublicoutreach
materialsincludingpublicmeetingadvertisements,displayboards,andpubliccomments.
AppendixCcontainsdocumentationoftheMTAsplanninglevelconsultationswithregulatory
agencies.Inbrief,theMTAconductedplanninglevelcoordinationwiththeNRCSregarding
farmlandconversion,andtheDNRandUSFWSregardingpotentialimpactstofish,wildlife,and
habitats.ConsultationshavebeeninitiatedandareongoingwiththeMDEandUSACE
regardingpotentialimpactstowetlandsandwaterways,andtheMHTregardingcultural
resources.

100

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

ABBREVIATIONSANDACRONYMS

APE

AreaofPotentialEffect

APG

AberdeenProvingGround

BG&E

BaltimoreGas&Electric

BlockGroup

CensusTractBlockGroup

BMP

BestManagementPractice

BRAC

BaseRealignmentandClosure

CEQ

CouncilonEnvironmentalQuality

CFR

CodeofFederalRegulation

CO

Carbonmonoxide

CO2

Carbondioxide

CSX

ChessieSeaboardMerger,RailwayTransportation

dB(A)

Aweighteddecibels

DBH

DiameteratBreastHeight

DNR

MarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources

DNRERU

MarylandDepartmentofNaturalResourcesEnvironmental
ReviewUnit

DRO

DieselRangeOrganics

EA

EnvironmentalAssessment

EO

ExecutiveOrder

ERU

EnvironmentalReviewUnit

EUL

EnhancedUseLease

FCA

MarylandForestConservationAct

FEMA

FederalEmergencyManagementAgency

FHWA

FederalHighwayAdministration

FPPA

FarmlandProtectionPolicyAct

FR

FederalRegister

FTA

FederalTransitAdministration

GIS

GeographicInformationSystem

101

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

GPS

GlobalPositioningSystem

GRO

GasolineRangeOrganics

HAZMAT

Hazardousmaterialsanditems

HCM

HighwayCapacityManual

HVAC

Heating,Ventilation,andAirConditioning

IBI

IndexofBiologicalIntegrity

ICE

IndirectandCumulativeEffect

MARC

MarylandAreaRegionalCommuter

MBSS

MarylandBiologicalStreamSurvey

MDE

MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment

MDOT

MarylandDepartmentofTransportation

MDP

MarylandDepartmentofPlanning

MDSHA

MarylandStateHighwayAdministration

MGIP

MARCGrowthandInvestmentPlan

MHT

MarylandHistoricTrust

MIHP

MarylandInventoryofHistoricProperties

MOW

MaintenanceofWay

MTA

MarylandTransitAdministration

NAAQS

NationalAmbientAirQualityStandards

NEC

NortheastCorridor

NEPA

NationalEnvironmentalProtectionAct

NHPA

NationalHistoricPreservationAct

NMFS

NationalMarineFisheriesService

NOx

Nitrogenoxide

NPL

NationalPrioritiesList

NRCS

NaturalResourcesConservationService

NRHP

NationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces

O3

Ozone

PCB

PolychlorinatedBiphenyl

PFA

PriorityFundingArea

102

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

PAH

Polycyclicaromatichydrocarbons

PM2.5

ParticulateMatterlessthan2.5micrometersindiameter

PM10

ParticulateMatterlessthan10micrometersindiameter

PO4

Orthophosphate

RTE

Rare,Threatened,andEndangered

RTIP

RegionalTransportationImprovementPlan

SAV

SubmergedAquaticVegetation

SIP

StateImplementationPlan

SOx

Sulphuroxide

SVOC

SemiVolatileOrganicCompounds

USACE

UnitedStatesArmyCorpsofEngineers

USDA

UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture

USDOT

UnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation

USEPA

UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency

USFWS

UnitedStatesFishandWildlifeService

U.S.C

UnitedStatesCode

USGS

UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey

UXO

UnexplodedOrdinance

VA

VeteransAdministration

VdB

Velocitydecibels

VOC

VolatileOrganicCompound

103

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

REFERENCES

BaltimoreBusinessJournal.(2012,Nov,29).CecilCountyhealthCenterPlotsMassive
Expansion.RetrievedFromtheBaltimoreBusinessJournalwebsite:
http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/blog/realestate/2012/11/cecilcountyhealthcenter
plots.html
BaltimoreSun.(2013,April16).IkeadistributioncenterinPerryvilleplugsinMd.'slargest
solarroof.RetrievedFromtheBaltimoreSunwebsite:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20130416/business/bsbzikeasolarroof
20130416_1_distributioncenterrooftop34millionkilowatthours
CecilCountyOfficeofEconomicDevelopment.EnterpriseZones.RetrievedFromtheCecil
CountyOfficeofEconomicDevelopmentwebsite:
http://www.ccgov.org/dept_ecdev/business_enterprise.cfm
CecilCountyOfficeofPlanning&Zoningwebsite.(2012,May,22).CapitalImprovement
Program.RetrievedFromtheCecilCountyOfficeofPlanning&Zoningwebsite:
http://www.ccgov.org/uploads/Commissioners/2013%20CIP%20Approved%20522
20121.pdf
CecilCountyOfficeofPlanning&Zoningwebsite.(2013,April,1).SubdivisionPipeline.
RetrievedFromtheCecilCountyOfficeofPlanning&Zoningwebsite:
http://www.ccgov.org/uploads/PlanningAndZoning/Maps/SubdivisionPipeline_4_1_13_ANSI
_E.pdf
CecilCountyOfficeofPlanning&Zoningwebsite.(2013,Aug,19).Planning&ZoningMeeting
Minutes.RetrievedFromtheCecilCountyOfficeofPlanning&Zoningwebsite:
http://www.perryvillemd.org/documents/PZMinutesAugust2013.pdf
CecilDaily.(2013,Aug,21).TechSchoolexpansionneededinCecilCounty.RetrievedFromthe
CecilDailywebsite:http://www.cecildaily.com/opinion/letters/article_c9c2b12e5c0a5bc6
8ceed3c5e375a61c.html
DNR.(2004).MBSSDataSummaryfor:LSUS292E2004.Retrievedfrom
http://mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/mbss/SA_site2k.cfm?siteyr=LSUS292E2004.
DNR.(2014a).WatershedProfiles.Retrievedfrom
http://mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/wsprofiles/surf/prof/prof.html.
DNR.(2014b).MarylandsSurfYourWatershedWatershedProfile,FurnaceBay.Retrieved
from
http://mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/wsprofiles/surf/prof/wsprof.cfm?watershed=02130609.

104

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

DNR.(2014c).MarylandsSurfYourWatershedWatershedProfile,LowerSusquehanna
River.Retrievedfrom
http://mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/wsprofiles/surf/prof/wsprof.cfm?watershed=02120201.
KAZYAK,P.F.,J.V.KILIAN,S.A.STRANKO,M.K.HURD,D.M.BOWARD,C.J.MILLARD,ANDA.
SCHENK.2005.MarylandBiologicalStreamSurvey20002004.Vol.9:Streamandriverine
biodiversity.Md.Dept.Nat.Resourc.,Annapolis.
FTA.(May2006).TransitNoiseandVibrationImpactAssessment,FTAVA90100306.
Retrievedfromhttp://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf
MDE.(December2011).2011MarylandStandardsandSpecificationsforSoilErosionand
SedimentControl.Retrievedfrom
http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/StormwaterManagementProgram/SoilErosio
nandSedimentControl/Pages/programs/waterprograms/sedimentandstormwater/erosionsed
imentcontrol/index.aspx
MarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources.(1999).LowerSusquehannaBasinEnvironmental
AssessmentofStreamConditions.Annapolis,MD.Retrievedfromwebsite:
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/irc/docs/00001984.pdf
MarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources.(2005).MarylandBiologicalStreamSurvey2000
2004,Volume8:CountyResults.Annapolis,MD.Annapolis,MD.Retrievedfromwebsite:
http://www.dnr.md.gov/streams/pdfs/ea055_county.pdf
MarylandDepartmentofPlanning.(2013,Apr,23)BRACReport.RetrievedFromthe
MarylandDepartmentofPlanningwebsite:
http://www.mdp.state.md.us/msdc/military/Report/Main_text.pdf
MarylandStateHighwayAdministration(2012).TownBoundaries.Retrievedfromthe
MarylandStateHighwayAdministrationwebsite:
http://www.sha.maryland.gov/Index.aspx?PageId=282.
MarylandStateHighwayAdministration.(2011).MarylandManualonUniformTrafficControl
Devices(MdMUTCD)2011editionascitedinMarylandTransportationAuthority.(nd).
MARCMaintenanceandStorageFacilityPerryvilleATrafficImpactStudy.Baltimore,
Maryland:MarylandTransportationAuthority.AvailablefromtheMarylandStateHighway
AdministrationWebsite:
http://www.roads.maryland.gov/mmutcd/2011_rev122011_MDMUTCD_Complete.pdf.
MarylandTransportationAuthority(n.d.).MARCMaintenanceandStorageFacility
PerryvilleATrafficImpactStudy.Baltimore,Maryland:MarylandTransportationAuthority.

105

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
PERRYVILLEMD

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

PerryvillePatch.(2013,June,28).AmtrakSeeksInputonSusquehannaRailroadBridge
Project.RetrievedFromthePerryvilleParchwebsite:
http://perryville.patch.com/groups/politicsandelections/p/amtrakseeksinputon
susquehannarailroadbridgeproject
StreamHealthInteractiveMap.Retrievedfromwebsite:
http://www.streamhealth.maryland.gov/
TheConservationFund.(December2007).LandConservation,Restoration,andManagement
ForWaterQualityBenefitsinCecilCounty,MarylandTechnicalReportfortheCecilCounty
GreenInfrastructurePlan.Retrievedfrom
http://www.ccgov.org/uploads/PlanningAndZoning/General/CecilCoMD_TechReport%20
%20Water%20quality.pdf.
TransportationResearchBoard.HighwayCapacityManual(HCM).ascitedinMaryland
TransportationAuthority(n.d.).MARCMaintenanceandStorageFacilityPerryvilleATraffic
ImpactStudy.Baltimore,Maryland:MarylandTransportationAuthority.
UnitedStatesCensusBureau;Census2010and20062010U.S.CensusAmericanCommunity
Survey.GeneratedbyAlvernaDurham;usingAmericanFactFinder(September2013)
UnitedStatesCouncilonEnvironmentalQuality.(1997).EnvironmentalJusticeGuidance
UndertheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct.
UnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation.(2012).FinalDOTEnvironmentalJusticeOrder
(5610.2(a)).
UniversityofNewHampshire,NewHampshireEstuariesProject.(April2007).TheImpactsof
ImperviousSurfacesonWaterResources.Retrievedfrom
http://www.prep.unh.edu/resources/pdf/theimpactsofnhep04.pdf
USGS,TheUSGSWaterScienceSchool.(17March2014).WaterQuestions&AnswersWhy
arewetlandsandaquatichabitatsimportant?.Retrievedfromhttp://water.usgs.gov/edu/qa
aroundwetlands.html.
Weber,Ted.(2007).Landconservation,Restoration,andManagementforWaterQuality
BenefitsinCecilCounty,Maryland.TheConservationFund.Annapolis,MD.

106




APPENDIXA

MARCMaintenanceFacilitySiteSelectionReport
















MARC Maintenance Facility

SITE SELECTION REPORT

February 2012

FINAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ i
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA ................................................................................................................... 1
2.1 RAILROAD FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ 1
2.2 RAILROAD SYSTEMS CRITERIA............................................................................................ 2
2.3 AMTRAK CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS........................................................................... 3
3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 4
4.0 SITE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION .............................................................................................. 7
4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

PERRYVILLE B (SOUTH OF AMTRAK) SITE, PERRYVILLE, MARYLAND .................... 8


4.1.1 Railroad Suitability ............................................................................................................ 9
4.1.2 Environmental/Contamination Concerns (HAZMATS) .................................................... 13
4.1.3 Natural Resources .............................................................................................................. 14
4.1.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 16
4.1.5 Potential Noise Impacts ..................................................................................................... 17
4.1.6 Socioeconomic Profile of Adjacent Neighborhoods ......................................................... 17
4.1.7 Stormwater Management ................................................................................................... 18
4.1.8 Property Impacts (Acquisition).......................................................................................... 18
4.1.9 Site Pros and Cons ............................................................................................................. 18
PERRYVILLE A (FARM) SITE, PERRYVILLE, MARYLAND............................................... 19
4.2.1 Railroad Suitability ............................................................................................................ 19
4.2.2 Environmental/Contamination Concerns (HAZMATS) .................................................... 22
4.2.3 Natural Resources .............................................................................................................. 23
4.2.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 25
4.2.5 Potential Noise Impacts ..................................................................................................... 26
4.2.6 Socioeconomic Profile of Adjacent Neighborhoods ......................................................... 26
4.2.7 Stormwater Management ................................................................................................... 26
4.2.8 Property Impacts (Acquisition).......................................................................................... 27
4.2.9 Site Pros and Cons ............................................................................................................. 27
OPUS SITE, PERRYMAN, MARYLAND .................................................................................. 28
4.3.1 Railroad Suitability ............................................................................................................ 28
4.3.2 Environmental/Contamination Concerns (HAZMATS) .................................................... 30
4.3.3 Natural Resources .............................................................................................................. 34
4.3.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 35
4.3.5 Potential Noise Impacts ..................................................................................................... 36
4.3.6 Socioeconomic Profile of Adjacent Neighborhoods ......................................................... 36
4.3.7 Stormwater Management ................................................................................................... 36
4.3.8 Property Impacts (Acquisition).......................................................................................... 36
4.3.9 Site Pros and Cons ............................................................................................................. 37
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (APG) EDGEWOOD, MARYLAND ................................ 37
4.4.1 Railroad Suitability ............................................................................................................ 37
4.4.2 Environmental/Contamination Concerns (HAZMATS) .................................................... 40
4.4.3 Natural Resources .............................................................................................................. 42
4.4.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 44
4.4.5 Potential Noise Impacts ..................................................................................................... 45
4.4.6 Socioeconomic Profile of Adjacent Neighborhoods ......................................................... 45
4.4.7 Stormwater Management ................................................................................................... 45

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.5

4.4.8 Property Impacts (Acquisition).......................................................................................... 46


4.4.9 Site Pros and Cons ............................................................................................................. 46
PROLOGIS SITE, EDGEWOOD, MARYLAND........................................................................ 46
4.5.1 Railroad Suitability ............................................................................................................ 47
4.5.2 Environmental/Contamination Concerns (HAZMATS) .................................................... 49
4.5.3 Natural Resources .............................................................................................................. 51
4.5.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 53
4.5.5 Potential Noise Impacts ..................................................................................................... 53
4.5.6 Socioeconomic Profile of Adjacent Neighborhoods ......................................................... 53
4.5.7 Stormwater Management ................................................................................................... 53
4.5.8 Property Impacts (Acquisition).......................................................................................... 54
4.5.9 Site Pros and Cons ............................................................................................................. 54

5.0 CAPITAL COSTS EVALUATION ....................................................................................................... 55


5.1 COST ELEMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 55
5.1.1 Preliminary Elements ........................................................................................................ 55
5.1.2 Site Work Elements ........................................................................................................... 55
5.1.3 Track Elements .................................................................................................................. 56
5.1.4 New Facilities .................................................................................................................... 57
5.1.5 Amtrak Connection............................................................................................................ 58
5.1.6 Bridge Construction ........................................................................................................... 58
5.1.7 Contingencies and Escalation ............................................................................................ 58
5.1.8 Professional Services ......................................................................................................... 58
5.2 CAPITAL COST RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 58
6.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................... 59

FIGURES
FIGURE 1 Site Location Map ............................................................................................................. 8a
FIGURE 2 Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site-Environmental Constraints Map ............................. 9a
FIGURE 3 Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site-Yard and Shop Layout ............................................ 9b
FIGURE 4 Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site-Property Impacts and Zoning Map .......................... 9c
FIGURE 5 Perryville A (Farm) Site-Environmental Constraints Map................................................ 19a
FIGURE 6 Perryville A (Farm) Site- Yard and Shop Layout ............................................................. 19b
FIGURE 7 Perryville A (Farm) Site-Property Impacts and Zoning Map ............................................ 19c
FIGURE 8 Opus Site-Environmental Constraints Map ....................................................................... 28a
FIGURE 9 Opus Site-Yard and Shop Layout ...................................................................................... 28b
FIGURE 10 Opus Site-Property Impacts and Zoning Map ................................................................. 28c
FIGURE 11 APG Edgewood Site-Environmental Constraints Map ................................................... 37a
FIGURE 12 APG Edgewood Site-Yard and Shop Layout .................................................................. 37b
FIGURE 13 APG Edgewood Site-Property Impacts and Zoning Map ............................................... 37c
FIGURE 14 Prologis Site-Environmental Constraints Map ................................................................ 47a
FIGURE 15 Prologis Site-Yard and Shop Layout ............................................................................... 47b
FIGURE 16 Prologis Site-Property Impacts and Zoning Map ............................................................ 47c

TABLES
TABLE 1 MARC Alternatives Analysis-Site Selection Matrix .......................................................... 4a
TABLE 2 MARC Alternatives Analysis-Major Costs ........................................................................ 4b
TABLE 3 MARC Maintenance Facility-Site Selection Decision Factors ........................................... 4c
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX A Systems Evaluation Drawings


APPENDIX B Correspondence
APPENDIX C Detailed Cost Estimates

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) is proposing to construct a MARC locomotive and
passenger car maintenance facility and train storage yard connected to Amtraks Northeast
Corridor (NEC). A new MARC Maintenance Facility is required to support existing MARC
operations, accommodate ridership growth and system expansion, and relocate primary
equipment maintenance functions to an MTA-controlled facility. The proposed MARC
Maintenance Facility would significantly reduce MARCs dependence on Amtrak for inspection,
maintenance and repair work on its locomotives and passenger cars, and would eliminate its
current situation of storing and servicing trainsets at Pennsylvania Station in Baltimore which
offers limited track capacity and work spaces exposed to the weather.
The proposed MARC Maintenance Facility would initially be capable of supporting the existing
eight trainsets currently operating on the Penn Line and would be expandable to ultimately
support a Year 2035 MARC Penn Line operating fleet of 25 electric locomotives, 181 multilevel coaches, and one diesel switcher locomotive. Additionally, the facility will also include
capacity to support performance of a limited amount of unscheduled minor repair activities on
coaches that are to be operated on the Brunswick and Camden Lines, primarily during mid-day
layovers. Separate tracks will be provided for trainset storage, trainset inspection, repaired car
storage, bad order car storage, train washing and protect power.
Based on input from MARC, certain criteria necessary to accommodate the proposed MARC
Maintenance Facility at any site were developed. Criteria included site requirements such as a
minimum area of 30 acres; storage yard requirements including minimum storage capacity to
accommodate current Penn Line trains; shop facility requirements including inspection pit,
sanding facility and train washer; and Amtrak connection requirements including minimum
length for lead tracks and two points of connection.
The following five sites are evaluated in this report: Perryville B (South of Amtrak), Perryville A
(Farm), Opus, APG Edgewood and Prologis. The sites are presented in geographic order starting
with Perryville B (South of Amtrak) in Perryville, Maryland to the southwest to Prologis, in
Edgewood, Maryland. Each site has significant costs and/or obstacles associated with the
development of the site. The most significant costs/obstacles for each site are included below:
Perryville B Site Relocation of the Amtrak Maintenance of Way (MOW) Base
Perryville A Site Private farm onsite is likely cultural resource that may prevent
development during Section 4(f) NEPA process
Opus Site Property located in an area that is designated the Perryman Wellfield
Protection District which may create zoning/development issues; coordination issues with
Amtraks NEC Master Plan II for location of interlockings in high speed territory
APG Site Property would be developed as an EUL; Federal land under military use
with known hazardous waste contamination on the property will likely make
development difficult with additional liability concerns; significant quantity of imported
fill material required
Prologis Site Requires several full/partial commercial acquisitions, eight partial
residential acquisitions and the relocation of an existing stormwater management facility
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) is proposing to construct a MARC locomotive and
passenger car maintenance facility and train storage yard (herein referenced as MARC
Maintenance Facility) connected to Amtraks Northeast Corridor (NEC). The MARC
Maintenance Facility is required to support existing MARC operations, accommodate ridership
growth and system expansion, and relocate primary equipment maintenance functions to an
MTA-controlled facility. The MARC Maintenance Facility would significantly reduce MARCs
dependence on Amtrak and CSXT for inspection, maintenance and repair work on its
locomotives and passenger cars, and would eliminate its current situation of storing and servicing
trainsets at Pennsylvania Station in Baltimore which offers limited track capacity and work
spaces exposed to the weather.
The MARC Maintenance Facility would accommodate the existing eight trainsets currently
operating on the Penn Line and would be expandable to support a Year 2035 MARC Penn Line
operating fleet of 25 electric locomotives, 181 multi-level coaches, and one diesel switcher
locomotive. Additionally, the facility will include capacity to support performance of a limited
amount of unscheduled minor repair activities on coaches that are to be operated on the
Brunswick and Camden Lines, primarily during mid-day layovers. Separate tracks will be
provided for trainset storage, trainset inspection, repaired car storage, bad order car storage, train
washing and protect power.

2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA


Based on input from MARC, certain criteria necessary to accommodate the proposed MARC
Maintenance Facility at any site were developed. These site requirements and criteria include
overall space and systems requirements for the railroad facilities, Amtrak connection
requirements, environmental requirements, and zoning requirements.
RAILROAD FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS
The railroad site, storage yard, and shop facility requirements for any candidate site
include:

2.1

General Site
Site must be a minimum of 30 acres to accommodate the necessary yard and shops
in such a way that they can be positioned on the site to provide efficient exchange of
vehicles between the two. Location of the site immediately adjacent to Amtraks
Northeast Corridor is preferred.
Access to roads that will accommodate truck traffic
Parking lot space for employees and visitors expandable to accommodate future
personnel
Space for an electrical substation for 60 Hz power
Space for a traction power substation for 25 Hz power
Space for stormwater management facilities
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
1

Sufficient space for a passenger car repair shop and locomotive shop that could be
expanded to accommodate growing fleet size
Storage Yard
Minimum train storage capacity must accommodate current Penn Line trains: two 6car trainsets, three 7-car trainsets, two 8-car trainsets, and one 9-car trainset;
preferred that each track accommodate a 10-car trainset to avoid future track
lengthening
Must be expandable for up to a total of 17 trainsets of ten cars each plus a
locomotive
Doubled-ended facility preferred
20-foot track centers with paving between; with 30-foot track centers every fourth
track, maximum, to allow for placement of catenary poles
All turnouts to be No. 8, minimum, except larger at Amtrak connection
Train crew, dispatcher and car cleaner facilities for approximately 40 people at 100
ft2 per person overall size; needs to be expandable to accommodate future personnel
Shop Facility
A minimum of one inspection pit track with a minimum 1,000-foot pit length
One locomotive inspection pit with a pantograph inspection platform required where
each electric locomotive can be inspected every day
Locomotive sanding facility
Diesel locomotive fueling facility with 70,000-gallon storage tank capacity
Train washer
Shop building must have sufficient space to handle the normal maintenance and
inspection cycles for the anticipated locomotive and car fleets, space for unscheduled
repairs, plus space for offices and locker rooms
Wheel truing machine (in separate building preferred)
Storeroom building
Maintenance, Operations, and Administrative Offices and Support Spaces; ultimate
square footage and staffing levels TBD
Parking for staff, crews, and visitors, with road access for delivery trucks, etc.
2.2

RAILROAD SYSTEMS CRITERIA


The proposed facility is for the storage and maintenance of electric locomotives and
electric (and diesel) locomotive powered passenger trains, and it must interface with Amtraks
electrified and signaled Northeast Corridor. To be fully integrated into this corridor the proposed
facility must be capable of being equipped with NEC-compatible systems including Catenary,
Electric Traction Substations and Railroad Communications and Signals. Except for the electric
traction substations, these systems requirements have little impact on the space requirements of
each site, but the costs of the systems components required to make each site interface properly
with the NEC are a major component in the site evaluation process. The criteria used to apply
the various systems disciplines to each site include:

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
2

Catenary System
All catenary related work is assumed to follow Amtrak ET Standard requirements of
AED-1 and AED-2, as well as require review/approval by Amtrak. These Amtrak
Standards, as well as the design teams previous experience working with Amtrak ET
have been considered in developing the evaluation of the five proposed sites.
Electric Traction Substations
All electric traction facility improvements are assumed to follow Amtrak ET Standard
requirements per CE 500, CE 501, and CE 502 specifications, and will also require
review/approval by the Electric Traction Design Group of Amtrak. These Amtrak
Standards, as well as the design teams previous experience working with Amtrak ET
have been considered in developing the evaluation of the five proposed sites. With any
significant modification to Amtraks power system, a power study would be required to
evaluate the loading at any of the proposed yard locations.
Railroad Communications and Signals (C&S)
All Communications & Signals (C&S) facility improvements and/or modifications to
Amtraks mainline tracks will be guided and reviewed by the C&S Design Group of
Amtrak. Each site will require a method to remote control and power the yard switches,
switch heaters, and blue flag indicators for the train storage tracks and shop facilities.
Maintenance Facility Yard Control System
Install power operated, remote controlled switch machines, with rail heaters throughout
maintenance facility yard. Install and program Yard Control Center located within yards
Operations Center. Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV) will be installed
throughout the yard. Conventional track circuit or wheel counter technology shall be
utilized to insure switch locking integrity. The following are part of the Maintenance
Facility Yard Control System:
Power Operated Switch Machines - Control of switch machines will be either relay
controlled or radio based and power derails with blue flag protection shall be
provided as required.
Operations Center - A Yard Control Center with CCTV monitors will be located
within Operations Center. The Yard Control Center will be capable of controlling
and indicating all elements of yard operations.
Closed Circuit Television Cameras - CCTV cameras with the ability to remotely
zoom and pan will be installed on light towers and buildings to maximize coverage of
the entire yard.
Power - 480VAC, 25Hz power will be distributed throughout yard for switch heaters.
Switch heaters will be controlled from switch heater cases via SCADA network from
the Yard Control Center.
2.3

AMTRAK CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS


The following are required for Amtrak connections:

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
3

Two points of connection to Amtraks Northeast Corridor


Turnouts for connection to Amtrak tracks must be No. 15, minimum
Lead tracks connecting Amtrak Northeast Corridor with yard must, at a minimum, be
long enough to hold a 10-car trainset and locomotive without fouling Amtrak or other
MARC tracks

3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY


Several tables were produced to aid in the site selection process. Table 1 titled MARC
Alternatives Analysis-Site Selection Matrix presents the comparative results of the evaluation
process. Each site was summarized with regards to site characteristics (e.g., area requirements,
acquisitions, zoning, land use, etc.), property impacts (i.e., full and partial residential and
business/commercial acquisitions), natural resources (e.g., potential forest impacts, floodplains,
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area, etc.), hazardous materials, cultural resources (i.e., onsite and
offsite historic sites), and potential permanent noise impacts to residential and historic properties.
Table 2 titled MARC Alternatives Analysis-Major Costs presents the comparative costs related to
each site with regards to the railroad construction for the yard and shop, site work, connection to
Amtrak, and total construction costs. Table 3 titled MARC Maintenance Facility-Site Selection
Decision Factors presents the decision making criteria including the concerns and the positive
aspects of each site that will likely drive the decision to choose the best site on which to develop
the MARC Maintenance Facility.
With regards to hazardous wastes, Whitman, Requardt and Associates, LLP (WR&A) reviewed
preliminary map reports for each of the sites from Environmental Data Resources (EDR) that
depict Federal and State regulatory agency databases for the site and surrounding vicinity. EDR
searched the following databases at the noted search distances:
FEDERAL DATABASES SEARCHED BY EDR
DATABASE

NPL
Proposed NPL
Delisted NPL
NPL LIENS
CERCLIS

CERC-NFRAP

DESCRIPTION
National Priorities List (Superfund). Hazardous waste sites targeted for
possible long-term remedial action under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS).
Proposed National Priority List Sites.
National Priority List Deletions. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establish the criteria that EPA uses to
delete sites from the NPL.

SEARCH
DISTANCE
1 mile
1 mile
1 mile
Target
Property

Federal Superfund Liens.


Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS). Sites that are proposed for or on the NPL, or
in the screening or assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL.
Archived CERCLIS sites with a status of No Further Remedial Action Planned
(NFRAP), denoting sites where, following an initial investigation, either no
contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly without
need for the site to be placed on the NPL, or the contamination was not
serious enough to require Federal Superfund action or NPL consideration.
The NFRAP status does not necessarily indicate that no environmental

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
4

mile

mile

Table 1. MARC Alternatives Analysis - Site Selection Matrix


Perryville B

Perryville A

Opus

54.04

56.90

APG
74.05

Prologis

76.61*

Full Property Acquisitions (acres)


Partial Property Acquisitions (acres)

15.28
45.58

113.95
6.77

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

63.88
3.69

Area to be Leased For Project (acres)


Temporary Construction Easements on Amtrak Right-of-Way (acres)
Track Lease on Amtrak Right-of-Way (Track-Feet)

0.0
15.75
20,420

0.0
0
220

48.0*
8.89
11,519

58.92*
1.94
3,308

0.0
5.25*
7,667

Total Site Area (acres)

76.61

120.72

56.90

74.05

72.82

(Town of Perryville-76.6
total acres) L2-Industrial

(Cecil Co.-116.6 total acres)


RM-High Density Residential
& EMU-Employment Mixed
Use; (Town of Perryville-3.24
total acres) L2-Industrial

(Harford Co.-56.1 total


acres) LI-Light Industrial
py

Military

GI (Harford Co.-72.8 total


acres)-General Industrial;
R2-Urban Residential

None

Project does not comply


with zoning on residential
parcels

Site Characteristics
Program Area Requirements (acres)*

Zoning

Zoning Restrictions

Current Land Use


Adjacent Land Use Issues

NOTES: *does not include areas required for wetland and forest mitigation
Property Impacts
Residential-Full Acquisitions (acres)

Residential-Partial Aquistions (acres)


Other Business/Commercial - Full Acquisitions (acres)

Other Business/Commercial - Partial Aquistions (acres)


NOTES:
Natural Resources
Potential Stream Crossings or Impacts (No.)
Potential Wetland Impacts (Acres)
Mitigation

zoning; however, letter


dated 8/30/11 from Harfod
County Executive, David
Craig indicatesthat County
Project does not comply with will work with developers
zoning on residential and
and MTA in development
employment mixed use
process to protect
None
parcels
wellheads
CoudonAgricultural/Residential;
MOW Base-Industrial; Ikea- White Land Co.-Industrial;
Agricultural
Agricultural
Neff-Commercial
Residential and Historic
Cecil Land Trust to East
None
District to South

*44-MTA improvements,
27.5-Relocation of Amtrak
MOW base; Amtrak costs
are 11.2% of the total
project cost

Perryville B
0

*Pearce, Elizabeth; et al
property to be leased

Perryville A

Opus

Coudon (113.95)

Estimated Reforestation/Afforestation Requirements (acres)


Mitigation

NOTES:

None
*Area available for
development under
Enhanced Use Lease (EUL)
with APG for this site is
237.7; 74.05 acres includeMARC Facility=58.92
Relocated BGE
Easement=15.13

Commercial ParcelsAg/Forest/Industrial;
Residential
Residential 300' to east;
APG to south

* 0.06 acres is TCE from


Deutsche Bank Trust
Co./BGE Co.

APG
0

Prologis
0

Merritt (0.65), Delcostello


(1.17), Myers (0.40), Bon
(0.08), Orellana (0.09),
Meadows (0.05), Sills (0.08),
McDougall (0.11)

National RR Passenger Co.


(Amtrak) (15.28)

Prologis Exchange (63.88)

Oldcastle Precast (1.06)

Prologis

(Unimproved) IKEA
Property, Inc. (45.58)

Community Fire Company of


Perryman (2.1), French Land
Co. (1.18), IKEA (0.83),
Howard J. & Beverlee C. Neff
(2.66)
Coudon (113.95)-Potential
Historic Farmstead-Potential
4(f) Evaluation

Perryville B

Perryville A

Opus

APG

None

None

None

3.3*

4.8

N/A

N/A

N/A

NOTES:
Potential Forest Impacts (Acres)

Federal

55.67

Offsite*
pOffsite**
pp
3.3 acres of wetlands (not
field delineated) **ECP
Report states, "...it is
unlikely that the
reestablishment of wetlands *Forested wetlands can not
be enhanced. Offsite
and
wetland mitigation
forests can be done on other
required.
APG property."

2.3

12.2

3.4

25.1

8.2

13.6

29.9

12.0

25.4

16.5

Offsite*

Onsite*

Onsite*

Offsite*

Onsite and offsite*

*Additional acreage could


possibly be aquired from
the Ikea parcel

*Parcel is mostly
undeveloped, so there is
abundant space to plant

*Parcel is mostly
undeveloped, so there is
abundant space to plant

unlikely that the


reestablishment of wetlands
and
forests can be done on other
APG property." and "No
*Site will only
monetary payment for
loss of forested areas will be accommodate 11.8 acres of
planting, remaining must be
allowed or accepted by
offsite or fee-in-lieu
APG."

FEMA 100-year floodplain (Acres)

None

2.0*

None

1.8*

4.45*

Potential Forest Interior Dwelling Species Habitat (Acres)

None

None

None

13.4

None

1.7
2-Ikea property-potential

0.4

None

None

None

1-Ikea property to southpotential soil contamination

None

APG is a SUPERFUND Site

None-Upgradient from APG

soil contamination

potential soil contamination;


MOW Base potential soil
contamination from
historical land use

APG-SUPERFUND Site
adjacently southeast

APG is a SUPERFUND Site

APG-SUPERFUND Site
adjacently south

1.0

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

MDNR Sensitive Species Project Review Areas (Acres)

Potential Hazardous Material On-Site Impacts

soil contamination; MOW


Base potential soil
contamination from
historical land use

1-Ikea property to south-

1-Ikea property-potential
Potential Hazardous Material Off-Site Impacts
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (Acres)
Parkland (State/County/Local)
NOTES:
Cultural Resources
Historic Sites - onsite (No.)

Historic Sites - offsite (No.)

NOTES:
Potential Permanent Noise Impacts
Residential Properties (No.)
Historic Properties (No.)
NOTES:
Asterisk (*) = Note

*Impacts to Floodplain will require engineering analysis and permitting from MDE and County Planning/Zoning
Perryville B
Perryville A
Opus
APG
Prologis
0

1*

unknown*

Meeting House" 1,000 feet


south (HA-357); 11-MIHP:
"Building E5695", warehouse
(HA-1851), "U.S. Army
Assembly Plant" (HA-2049),
"Edgewood Arsenal
Industrial Survey" (HA-2069),
"Rollins House" (HA-1612),
"Magnolia Store and Post
1-National Register of
Office" (HA-188), 32 Fort
Historic Places (NRHP)
Hoyle Road (HA-1684), 30
2-Circa 1850 farm
"Woodlands" located
Fort Hoyle (HA-1683),
approximately 1,000 feet
property approximately
"Brown-Fletcher House (HAnorth of parcel (CE-145) ; 2200' north*; Maryland
1570), 25 Fort Hoyle (HAMIHP within 1,000 feet of 2 -MIHP: SHA Bridge 12058 1684), "Magnolia Methodist
Inventory of Historic
(HA-1978) and "Mitchell
site: "Mill Creek/Coudon
Properties (MIHP) potential
Church" (HA-187), and 23
Farm Complex", ruins (HAHouse" (CE-1471) and
archeaological resource
Fort Hoyle (HA-1681).
1588). *Closest is 400'
"Lindenwood" (CE-700).
"Shipley Point Farm" (CE*Closest site (HA-1684) is
northeast.
Closest is 400' to southwest.
538) 200' to south
400' southwest.

13-MIHP: "Rollins House"


(HA-1612), "Magnolia Store
and Post Office" (HA-188),
32 Fort Hoyle Road (HA1684), 30 Fort Hoyle (HA1683), "Brown-Fletcher
House (HA-1570), 25 Fort
Hoyle (HA-1684), "Magnolia
Methodist Church" (HA187), 23 Fort Hoyle (HA1681), 10 Fort Hoyle (HA1680), 8 Fort Hoyle (HA1679), 7 Fort Hoyle (HA1678), 4 Fort Hoyle (HA1677), and "Arthur Powell
House" (HA-186). *Closest
site is 100' to southwest.

*ECP Report states that


approximately 40 acres of
the total EUL is classified as
High Potential for
Archaeologic
Resources. Approximately
50% of the project area falls
within this classification.

*Will require Section 4(f)


for Constructive Use if
determined eligible for
listing on NRHP

*Currently not evaluated and


Circa 1850 farm - If
determined Eligible for
listing in the NRHP Section
4(f) evaluation required

Perryville B

Perryville A

Opus

APG

Prologis

17

14

1-Farm property
approximately 200' north

All potential noise impacts will need further investigation to determine whether an actual impact exists. Feasiblity of mitigation would be
evaluated by cost/benefit analysis.

Table 2. MARC Alternatives Analysis - Major Costs


Railroad Construction For Yard & Shop (Major Items)
Remove Track (Ft.)
Total Cost

Perryville B

Perryville A

Opus

APG Edgewood

Prologis

21,920

1,300

$0

$0

$25,400

$0

MARC = $428,000
Amtrak = $0

Remove Turnouts (No.)


Total Cost

19
MARC = $163,000

$0

$0

$34,200

$0

Amtrak = $0
Construct Ballasted Track (Ft.)
Total Cost

66,000
MARC = $8.3 M

44,000

43,000

42,400

44,500

$8.4 M

$8.1 M

$8.1

$8.5 M

40

40

44

40

$5.0 M

$5.0 M

$5.5 M

$5.0 M

$26.5 M

Amtrak = $4.2 M
Construct Yard Turnouts (No.)
Total Cost

53
MARC = $4.4 M
Amtrak = $2.3 M

Systems Work (All MARC):


Catenary*

$26.3 M

$26.8 M

$26.5 M

$26.8 M

Communications and Signals

$5.9 M

$5.9 M

$5.9 M

$5.9 M

$5.9 M

Traction Power Substation*

$2.5 M

$2.5 M

$3.9 M

$11.5 M

$11.5 M

Perryville B

Perryville A

Opus

APG Edgewood

Prologis

77

54

57

74

56

$8.1 M

$8.6 M

$14.8 M

$14.0 M

440,000

270,000

1,121,000

280,000

$9.1 M

$6.0 M

$24.5 M

$8.2 M

* These costs are removed if MARC decides to


eliminate electric locomotives
Site Work (Major Items)
Drainage (Ac.)
Total Cost

MARC = $7.2 M
Amtrak = $4.4 M

Site Grading for Tracks (Total CY)


Total Cost

665,000
MARC = $10.7 M
Amtrak = $3.3 M
89,400

Paving (SY)
Total Cost

MARC = $2.6 M

64,000

75,000

75,900

55,000

$3.2 M

$3.8

$3.6M

$2.7 M

$550,000

$0

$350,000

$0

$86.5

$86.5

$86.5

$86.5

Amtrak = $1.9 M
Building Demolition

$409,000

New Buildings
Total Cost

MARC = $86.5 M
Amtrak = $4.8 M

Overhead Highway Bridge Reconstruction

$500,000

$1.6 M

$0

$80,000

$380,000

Relocate Existing Utilities


Connection to Amtrak NEC

$0
Perryville B

$0
Perryville A

$0
Opus

$2.0 M
APG Edgewood

$0
Prologis

Overall Cost
Total Construction Costs

$6.8 M
Perryville B

$6.8 M
Perryville A

$8.6 M
Opus

$6.8 M
APG Edgewood

$7.2 M
Prologis

$328.0 M

$325.6

$386.0

$352.8 M

$449.6 M

$446.1

$528.9

$483.3 M

Neat Construction

MARC = $330.3 M
Amtrak = $57.2 M

Total Project Cost

MARC = $452.5 M
Amtrak = $78.3 M

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Decision Factors
February 2012

Perryville A
Amtrak Position/Conflicts
o Amtrak is supportive of this location
Natural Resource/Hazmat Impacts and NEPA Considerations
o Located on potential Section 4(f) property (Coudon farm site)
o Proximity to residential development
Property Acquisition
o Requires acquisition/relocation of residence of active farm
o Owners willingness to sell unknown, Cecil County Planning suggests this would be a lesser
concern
Total Estimated Cost: $449.6 Million
Perryville B
Amtrak Position/Conflicts
o Relocation of Amtrak MOW Base Coordination and Schedule Delays
o Potential conflicts with Amtrak high speed intercity trains
o Potential conflicts with proposed new Susquehanna River crossing and approaches
o Amtrak is not supportive of this location
Natural Resource/Hazmat Impacts and NEPA Considerations
o Possible Section 4(f) (viewshed)
Property Acquisition
o Possible unwilling seller (Amtrak)
Requires complete relocation of Amtrak MOW facility prior to constructing MARC facility
o Additional expense ($58.1 Million)
o Schedule impacts
Total Estimated Cost: $530.9 Million
OPUS (Mitchell Property)
Amtrak Position/Conflicts
o Potential Impacts to Amtrak high speed intercity trains. Amtrak may require construction of
new station tracks at Aberdeen to avoid operations conflicts.
o Requires construction of two new NEC interlocking where none exist today. MTA would be
solely responsible for cost of maintenance.
o Amtrak is not supportive of this location
Natural Resource/Hazmat Impacts and NEPA Considerations
o Likely fewest impacts to on-site natural resources
o Located within Perryman Wellfield Protection Zone, source of about 25% of Harford
County municipal water supply
o Earlier (summer 2010) coordination with Harford County Planning & Zoning and
Department of Public Works indicates that Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility is not
compatible with wellfield zoning restrictions
Property Acquisition
o Site available through lease, as proposed in Clark Constructions unsolicited proposal

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Decision Factors
February 2012

o Payments would be considered a capital lease


Total Estimated Cost: $446.1 Million*
* assumes traditional MTA Design-Bid-Build approach, exclusive of ROW costs

APG Edgewood
Amtrak Position/Conflicts
o Amtrak is supportive of this location
Natural Resource/Hazmat Impacts and NEPA Considerations
o Superfund Site
o Impacts to wetlands, streams, and forests (no on-site mitigation for wetlands and/or forests)
o Proximity to residential development
Property Acquisition
o Project would be developed in coordination with APG and the Army Corps of Engineers as
an Enhanced Use Lease (EUL).
o Payments would be considered a capital lease
As tenant to EUL developer on a Superfund site, MTA would be considered an operator under
CERCLA and therefore potentially subject to liability concerns
Liability concerns regarding right of entry and site access will affect MTAs ability to
perform site work related to Planning, NEPA Documentation, and Development of
Construction Specs
o Schedule Impacts
o Could affect MTA control of design specifications and construction
Total Estimated Cost: $528.9 Million*
* assumes traditional MTA Design-Bid-Build approach, exclusive of ROW costs

ProLogis
Amtrak Position/Conflicts
o Amtrak supportive of this location
Natural Resource
o Impacts to wetlands, floodplain, and forests
Property Acquisition
o ProLogis expressed interest in MTA proposal during prior assessment of site
o Requires partial acquisition of undeveloped portion of commercial property
o Possible impacts to adjacent residential properties (partial acquisition or construction
easement)
Total Estimated Cost: $483.3 Million

FEDERAL DATABASES SEARCHED BY EDR


DATABASE

LIENS 2

CORRACTS
RCRA-TSDF
RCRA-LQG

RCRA-SQG

RCRA-CESQG
RCRA-NonGen
ERNS
HMIRS
US ENG
CONTROLS
US INST
CONTROL

DOD
FUDS
US
BROWNFIELDS
CONSENT
ROD
UMTRA
DEBRIS REGION
9
ODI
TRIS

DESCRIPTION
concerns are present.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) Lien information. A Federal CERCLA (Superfund) lien can exist
by operation of law at any site or property at which EPA has spent
Superfund monies.
Hazardous waste handlers with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) corrective action activity.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS),
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) facilities. Hazardous waste handlers.
RCRIS sites that are large-quantity generators (LQG) of hazardous waste.
LQGs generate over 1,000 kg of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of acutely
hazardous waste per month.
RCRIS sites that are small-quantity generators (SQG) of hazardous waste.
SQGs generate between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per
month.
RCRA-Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators. CESQGs generate
less than 100 kg of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous
waste per month.
RCRA-Non Generators. Non-Generators do not presently generate
hazardous waste.
Emergency Response Notification System. Releases of oil and hazardous
substances.
Hazardous Materials Information System Database. A list of release incident
information reported to the Department of Transportation by carriers of
hazardous materials.
Engineering Controls Sites List. A list of sites with engineering controls in
place including various forms of caps, building foundations, liners, and
treatment methods.
Sites with Institutional Controls. A listing of sites with institutional controls in
place, including administrative measures, such as groundwater use
restrictions, construction restrictions, property use restrictions, and post
remediation care requirements.
Department of Defense Sites. Data set of federally owned or administered
lands having area equal to or greater than 640 acres of the US, Puerto Rico,
and the US Virgin Islands.
Formerly used Defense properties where USACE will take necessary cleanup
actions.
A listing of Brownfield sites.

SEARCH
DISTANCE

Target
Property
1 mile
mile
0.25 mile

0.25 mile

0.25 mile
0.25 mile
Target
Property
Target
Property
mile

mile

1 mile
1 mile
mile

Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees. Major legal settlements that


establish responsibility and standard for cleanup at NPL (Superfund) sites.
Records of Decision. ROD documents mandate a permanent cleanup at
an NPL (Superfund) site containing technical and health information to aid
in the cleanup.
Uranium Mill Tailings Sites. (Mined by private companies for federal
government use in national defense programs.)
Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations. A listing of illegal
dump sites located on the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation located in
eastern Riverside and northern Imperial County, California.
Open Dump Inventory: Disposal facility that does not comply with one or
more of CFR Part 257 or Part 258 Subtitle D Criteria.
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System. TRIS identifies facilities, which
release toxic chemicals into the air, water, and land in reportable
quantities.

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
5

1 mile
1 mile
mile
mile
mile
Target
Property

FEDERAL DATABASES SEARCHED BY EDR


DATABASE
TSCA

FTTS

HIST FTTS
SSTS

ICIS

US CDL
LUCIS
RADINFO
DOT OPS
PADS
MLTS
MINES
FINDS

RAATS
SCRD
DRYCLEANERS

DATABASE
INDIAN
RESERV
INDIAN LUST
INDIAN UST
INDIAN VCP

DATABASE
Manufactured
Gas Plants
EDR Historical
Auto Stations

DESCRIPTION
Toxic Substance Control Act. An inventory, which includes locations and
chemical production of more than 700 processors and manufacturers of
chemicals.
National Compliance Database tracking administrative cases and
pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA,
TSCA, and EPCRA.
FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing. Information was
obtained from the National Compliance Database. May include data not
in newer FTTS database.
Section 7 Tracking Systems of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act.
Integrated Compliance Information System supports information needs of
the national enforcement and compliance program as well as the unique
needs of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program.
Clandestine Drug Labs Database. Locations listed by the U.S. Department
of Justice.
Land Use Control Information System. Contains records of land use control
information pertaining to the former Navy Base Realignment and Closure
properties.
Radiation Information Database. EPA regulated facilities for radiation and
radioactivity.
Incident and Accident Data from the Department of Transportation, Office
of Pipeline Safety Incident and Accident data.
PCB Activity Database System. The PADS database stores information
about facilities that handle polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Material License Tracking System. MLTS contains information on sites
licensed by the NRC to handle radioactive materials.
Mines Master Index File containing all mine identification numbers issued for
mines active or opened since 1971.
Facility Index System. An inventory of all facilities that are regulated or
tracked by EPA.
RCRA Administrative Tracking System. RAATS contains records based on
enforcement actions issued under RCRA pertaining to major violations and
includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA LOCAL
(VIRGINIA)
State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners listing

TRIBAL DATABASES SEARCHED BY EDR


DESCRIPTION
Indian administered lands of the US having area equal to or greater than 640
acres.
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land.
Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land.
Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
DESCRIPTION
Database including records of coal gas plants used in the US from the 1800s
to 1950s.
Database from business directories of potential gas stations/service stations.

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
6

SEARCH
DISTANCE
Target
Property
Target
Property
Target
Property
Target
Property
Target
Property
Target
Property
mile
Target
Property
Target
Property
Target
Property
Target
Property
0.25 mile
Target
Property
Target
Property
mile

DATABASE
1 mile
mile
0.25 mile
mile

DATABASE
1 mile
0.25 mile

EDR Historical
Cleaners

Database from business directories of potential dry cleaning establishments.

0.25 mile

LOCAL (MARYLAND) DATABASES SEARCHED BY EDR


DATABASE
SHWS
SWF/LF
SWRCY
OCPCASES
HIST LUST
UST
Historical UST
AST
INST CONTROL
VCP
DRYCLEANERS
BROWNFIELDS
AIRS
LEAD
NPDES

DESCRIPTION
Notice of Potential Hazardous Waste Sites
Permitted Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
Recycling Directory
Oil Control Program Cases
Recovery Sites
Registered Underground Storage Tank List
Historical UST Registered Database
Permitted Aboveground Storage Tanks
Voluntary Cleanup Program Applicants/Participants
Voluntary Cleanup Program Applicants/Participants
Registered Drycleaning Facilities
Eligible Brownfields Properties
Permit and Facility Information Listing
Lead Inspection Database
Wastewater Permit Listing

SEARCH
DISTANCE
1 mile
mile
mile
mile
mile
0.25 mile
0.25 mile
0.25 mile
mile
mile
0.25 mile
mile
Target Property
Target Property
Target Property

4.0 SITE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION


WR&A produced a document titled MARC Maintenance Layover Facility, Site Alternatives
Evaluation for MTA and dated October 2008 that evaluated six sites including Norfolk Southern
Railways Chrysler Facility Support Yard in Newark, Delaware; Perryville A (Farm) Site in
Perryville, Maryland; Aberdeen Yard (A&B) Sites, Maryland; Perryman A (Cannery) Site in
Perryman, Maryland; Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) in Edgewood, Maryland; and Biddle
Street Site in the City of Baltimore, Maryland. It was subsequently determined that the Norfolk
Southern Chrysler Facility Support Yard and the Aberdeen Yard (A&B) Sites were not practical
for development. The other four sites and three additional sites (Prologis Site in Aberdeen,
Maryland; Opus Site in Perryman, Maryland; and Perryville B [South of Amtrak] Site in
Perryville, Maryland) were subsequently evaluated in subsequent Site Alternatives Evaluation
documents. The following five sites are evaluated in this report: Perryville B (South of Amtrak),
Perryville A (Farm), Opus, APG Edgewood and Prologis. The sites are presented in geographic
order starting with Perryville B (South of Amtrak) in Perryville, Maryland, and proceeding
southwest to Prologis, in Edgewood, Maryland. The remaining two sites were dropped from the
evaluation process for the following reasons:
The Biddle Street Site is 23 acres in area and was eliminated from the site evaluation
process because it did not meet the site requirement of 30 acres and because it could not
be configured with two connection points to Amtraks NEC per the MARC Maintenance
and Train Storage Facility Site Assessment Criteria.
Perryman A (Cannery) Site was eliminated from the site evaluation process due to its
relatively small size (37 acres), potential impacts to cultural resources, possible noise
impacts to nearby residences, and the major work that would be required to provide two
connection points to Amtraks NEC.

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
7

The locations of the five sites are included in Figure 1 - Site Location Map.

4.1

PERRYVILLE B (SOUTH OF AMTRAK) SITE, PERRYVILLE, MARYLAND


The Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site is located on the south side of the NEC,
northeast of Mill Creek, and northwest of Furnace Bay in Perryville, Maryland. The proposed
project site is approximately 6,500 feet long, and ranges from approximately 30 feet wide along
the railroad tracks to 1,400 feet wide. Adjacently south of the railroad tracks on the proposed
site is the existing Amtrak Maintenance of Way (MOW) Base. The Amtrak MOW Base is a
facility operated by Amtrak for the purpose of providing a strategically located base of
operations for the personnel and equipment that maintain the NEC from Wilmington to
Baltimore. This base of operations includes space for stockpiles of materials as well as
supervisory offices, equipment maintenance facilities, training facilities, and locker room
facilities for the crews. The Perryville MOW Base is responsible for maintenance of the track,
structures, catenary, signals, communications and emergency response to infrastructure damage
on the NEC from Wilmington to Baltimore. The storage tracks provide a staging area away from
the high-speed mainline tracks for the work trains and track-mounted machines and vehicles that
provide the normal maintenance on the line. These include trains of materials such as crossties
and ballast, and specialized production maintenance units such as tie units, surfacing units,
switch exchangers, welded rail units, and wire trains. At least two of the tracks need to be at
least 2,000 feet long to provide storage for welded rail trains.
The program area requirements for this project are approximately 76.6 acres, which
includes 15.75 acres of temporary construction easements, 45.58 acres of partial acquisitions of
the Ikea property, and 15.28 acres of full property acquisition of the MOW Base owned by the
National Railroad Passenger Corp. The portion of the site that would be occupied by MTAs
improvements would be approximately 44 acres. The area occupied by the improvements
associated with the relocated MOW Base would be approximately 27.5 acres. The site would
provide adequate acreage for current and future train storage and equipment maintenance
requirements.
According
to
the
Town
of
Perryville
website
(http://www.perryvillemd.org/planning_zoning.html), the Ikea property is zoned L2 by the Town
of Perryville which is the light industrial district. According to the Town of Perryville Zoning
Ordinance, the purpose of the light industrial district is to provide for a wide variety of light
manufacturing, fabricating, processing, wholesale distributing and warehousing uses
appropriately located for access by major thoroughfares or railroads. New residential
development is excluded. According to Ms. Mary Ann Skilling, Town of Perryville Planning
and Zoning, the entire Ikea parcel is located within the Town of Perryville and is zoned L2.
There is no heavy industrial zoning designation within the Town of Perryville Zoning
Ordinance. According to Mr. Cliff Houston, Zoning Administrator with Cecil County Planning
and Zoning, the Amtrak property which houses the MOW Base was previously zoned in Cecil
County, but has recently been annexed into the Town of Perryville. The Amtrak property would
therefore also be zoned as L2 by the Town of Perryville. According to Mr. Houston, the Cecil
County Zoning Ordinance was recently changed effective May 1, 2011. Adjacently north of the
site, there is the NEC and the Perryville A (Farm) Site which consists of two parcels zoned RMhigh density residential district. Land use at the Perryville B Site is designated as Agricultural
on the undeveloped Ikea property and Industrial on the Amtrak MOW Base property. There is a
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
8

APG Edgewood & Prologis


Site

Opus Site

Amtrak Northeast Corridor

SCALE:
N.T.S.

February 2012

DATE:

Site Location Map

FIGURE:

MARC Maintenance Facility

MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Perryville A & B
Site

golf course to the northeast and agricultural land followed by Furnace Bay and Mill Creek
located to the south. The Ikea distribution warehouse is located adjacently west of the site and
residential properties are located to the northwest of the site. Figure 2 presents the
environmental constraints associated with the site. Figure 3 presents the proposed yard and shop
layout. Figure 4 presents the property impacts and zoning associated with the site.
4.1.1 Railroad Suitability
Site The Perryville B Site is suitable for a double-end yard, but to achieve a workable
site layout would require the relocation of the existing Amtrak MOW Base. However, the site is
bounded on the west by the large Ikea warehouse and on the east by a private golf course, both of
which limit the length of the site. Space for a relocated Amtrak MOW Base appears to be
available immediately south of its existing location in what is currently a farm field owned by
Ikea. It is relatively level and at an elevation similar to that of the Amtrak MOW Base tracks.
Amtrak Connection There are two existing lead tracks connecting the Amtrak MOW
Base to the NEC on the north and south ends of the site. The existing north lead track is longer
and is connected to NEC Track 2 at PRINCE Interlocking. This connection appears to require
no modification to serve as the north lead track for the proposed MARC facility and, with the
installation of one additional turnout in the lead track, it could serve as the north lead track and
NEC connection for the relocated Amtrak MOW Base. The south lead track is shorter and is
connected to NEC Track 1. It would be necessary to construct a longer lead track on the south
end with a new turnout off Track 1 in order to get sufficient holding length for a 10-car MARC
trainset. Lengthening of the existing south lead track may require demolition of all or part of an
abandoned overhead road bridge (Coudons Road South). The installation of one additional
turnout in this longer lead track would allow it to serve as the south lead track and NEC
connection for the relocated Amtrak MOW Base. At PERRY Interlocking south of the site, three
additional crossovers will need to be installed to permit southbound train movements from the
yard to reach the Perryville MARC Station on NEC Track 4. As an alternative NEC Track 1
could be shortened so that its connection to Track 2 would be moved north, and the new lead
track turnout would be connected directly to Track 2, thereby eliminating the cost and need for a
third crossover.
Track Relocation of the Amtrak MOW Base would require the removal and
reconstruction of approximately 22,000 feet of existing track and at least 19 turnouts. The
MARC facilities, including the yard and shop and lead tracks, would require the construction of
approximately 48,600feet of track and 35 turnouts.
Catenary System At the present time the existing MOW Base yard facility is not
wired for electric train storage. The nearest Amtrak traction power substation is Perryville
(Substation 16), and is located approximately one mile from the proposed yard. At this site, it is
envisioned that insulated overlaps with disconnect switches would be installed in the yard lead
catenary, with approximately 61,000 feet of two-wire catenary required for this new yard facility.
Three preliminary layout drawings have been developed to help plan the Catenary and ET
concepts for this location (See Drawings ET-4, ET-5 and ET-6 in Appendix A).
Advantages from a Catenary Perspective:
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
9

&(




)HHW

(QGRI6WDWH
0DLQWHQDQFH

8(



&(

$'
52

(1
$9

&(

\U)ORRGSODLQ

\U)ORRGSODLQ

'151:,:HWODQGV

&KHVDSHDNH%D\&ULWLFDO$UHD

6HQVLWLYH6SHFLHV3URMHFW5HYLHZ$UHDV

+LVWRULF3URSHUWLHV

0DU\ODQG(QYLURQPHQWDO7UXVW

&HFLO/DQG7UXVW

7
6

&2
8

9HWHUDQV$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ0HGLFDO&HQWHU0,+3&(

+LVWRULF3ODFHV

),5(6
72 1(
5

'

58%9

&(

)RUHVW,QWHULRU'ZHOOLQJ6SHFLHV ),'6 $UHD

$,.(1$9(

&(

3(0(K

3URJUDP$UHD5HTXLUHPHQWV

/HJHQG

&(&,/$9(

% /9

0$5</$1'$9

1
&
,1

&(

$0

'57

38%)E



,.

(861
((03

$<
($:

UH
HN

&

LO O

&RXGRQ
V5RDG1RUWK
%ULGJH2YHU5DLOURDG

5
,' 2
55
2
&
6 7

$JULFXOWXUDO

&(

5HVLGHQWLDO

+ ($
57
12
.
75$

3RWHQWLDO
&XOWXUDO
5HVRXUFH

'
5

&RXGRQ
V5RDG6RXWK
%ULGJH2YHU5DLOURDG
1RW,Q6HUYLFH

)8

$
51

0L[HG&RPPHUFLDO,QGXVWULDO

35

2
3,

$JULFXOWXUDO

&(

&(

5HVLGHQWLDO

&(

(8%/

(861

(8%/

((03

38%+

3)26

3HUU\YLOOH%6LWH

38%)[

38%)[

38%)E

3666

3666

)LJXUH

((03

(861

((03

3666 3)26

3(0&

0$5&0DLQWHQDQFH)DFLOLW\
(QYLURQPHQWDO&RQVWUDLQWV0DS


)HEUXDU\

)XUQDFH
%D\

(861

3666

(8%/

(861

(663

366(0(

2
'

57

&5
//
0,
'
.5
(
(

&+
$

5
'

3(

//

6$
5'
,( :

5
+$

(
&+
9
.(

*

1. Two new 12kV feeders and supporting hardware can be installed on existing
catenary structures from the existing Amtrak Perryville Substation to the proposed
Perryville facility.
2. Space appears to be available to accommodate 12kV feeder breakers and an
associated gantry structure with bus and motor operated disconnect switches to
sectionalize catenary power within the yard. Drawing ET-5 in Appendix A
indicates possible locations to place ET equipment for this purpose.
Disadvantages from a Catenary Perspective:
1. The existing 12 kV phase breaks are located in all four main track catenaries
about 1200 feet south of the existing south lead track of the proposed yard
facility. This will require a more complex control and protection scheme to
integrate the yard into the existing power supply configuration.
2. The proposed 1,500 foot south yard lead would join Main Track 4 within the
12kV phase break overlaps. Assuming that at least 1,500 feet is desired for the
south lead, the proposed lead track must be extended several hundred feet to clear
the phase break overlaps. A phase break indicator rosette should be installed on
the overhead bridge (assumed to be 58.34) above the south lead track, and phase
break indicators should be installed where the north lead track meets the NEC.
Phase break status could also be integrated in to the C&S modifications to control
operations on the south yard lead.
3. The placement of the new MARC layover facility and new Amtrak MOW Base
immediately adjacent will prove operationally challenging under normal
conditions. Under certain emergency conditions, such as with open 12 kV phase
breaks, severe impacts on both Amtrak and MARC traffic could occur.
4. Structural analysis would be required for all of the structures supporting the new
12kV feeders, which may lead to additional cost to replace or guy overloaded
structures.
If standby power for equipment is to be available separate from the locomotive, an
independent utility 60 HZ supply will be required. The utility supply for the various other yard
facilities should include this capability.
Electric Traction Substations The nearest Amtrak traction power substation is
Perryville (Substation 16), and is located approximately one mile south of the proposed yard.
Advantages from an ET Substation Perspective:
1. Amtraks Substation 16 has more than ample capacity to supply all required
12kV, 25Hz envisioned load at this yard location, including track switch heaters.
(The existing substation capacity is 22.5MVA.)

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
10

2. Substation 16 has recently undergone extensive renovations, such as replacement


of all five 4.5MVA traction power transformers, breakers, power cables and
SCADA RTU.
3. Substation 16 has ample space within its confines to allow easy expansion for
new circuit breaker bays to provide 12kV feeders to the proposed yard.
4. Existing catenary structures can be modified to support new 12kV feeders to the
yard facility.
5. A 12 kV switching structure is envisioned to receive the incoming feeders from
Perryville Substation. As noted in the Catenary section, space appears available at
both the east and west ends of the yard for this equipment as shown on Drawing
ET-2. Two breakers will be required, as well as several motor operated
disconnect switches for yard sectionalizing.
6. Amtrak maintenance employees are headquartered at Substation 16.
Disadvantages from an ET Substation Perspective:
1. The presence of the 12kV phase breaks near this yard location must be
considered so a proper protection scheme is developed to allow for transfer trip.
2. The only alternate source of 25Hz catenary power to feed this location, in the
event the feeder system is lost, would be via taps from the trolley network.
Communications and Signals The Perryville B site would be located at MP 58.7 in
Perryville, Maryland. The required lead track lengths shown on the drawings are from clearance
point of the last yard switch to the Interlocking signal governing the entrance to the mainline.
For discussion purposes we will assume that the northern yard lead switch will be in the existing
limits of PRINCE and the southern yard lead switch will be within the existing limits of PERRY.
PRINCE Interlocking Signal Changes:
1. New 91 Switch (northern yard lead) and new Signal 9N.
2. Relocate existing Signal 1N southward to accommodate 91 Switch.
3. Additional interlocking track circuits for detector locking and parallel movements
with Switch 02 (Amtrak MOW Base).
4. Replace all-relay controlled interlocking with microprocessor(s) due to major
signal modifications.
5. Positive Train Control (PTC) and CETC modifications.

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
11

PERRY Interlocking Signal Changes:


1. New 19 Switch (southern yard lead) and new Signal 9S.
2. Relocate existing Signal 1S and 21 Switch northward.
3. Add new 32 Switch to allow access from the proposed maintenance facility to all
tracks.
4. Additional interlocking track circuits for detector locking.
5. Replace all-relay controlled interlocking with microprocessors due to major signal
modifications.
6. PTC and CETC modifications.
Railroad-Related Issues Issues at this site include high cost, delayed completion of the
MARC facility and a significant amount of coordination with Amtrak. Since the existing
Amtrak MOW Base would have to be relocated, MTA would likely have to bear the cost of
constructing two storage yards. Construction of the new Amtrak facility and acceptance by
Amtrak would be required prior to MTA receiving construction access for demolition of the
existing MOW Base. This process would represent a delay of approximately two years to MTA
being able to have its MARC facility placed in service. Coordination with Amtrak would also be
significant for this site during both design and construction. Amtraks design review process
could slow design time by several months, and coordination of construction activities with the
existing MOW base, and later with its relocated MOW base are likely to have an undetermined
impact on the construction schedule of the MARC facility. It will also be necessary to
coordinate with Amtrak to be sure that the new MARC facility does not interfere with Amtraks
proposed future tracks. While consideration has been given on the conceptual track plan to
where these tracks could be located, no final determination of their alignment or configuration
was available from Amtrak to use as a basis for the conceptual layout. In comments dated
September 20, 2010, Amtrak indicated its concerns about this site:
The Amtrak MOW base is likely to become busier in the future, and the MARC
facility would restrict future expansion
Possible competition for main line and lead track space between Amtrak work trains
and MARC trains
Longer deadhead times for MARC trains in the crowded NEC
Amtrak is not prepared to accept the curved track layout necessary to fit the relocated
MOW Base into the available space
A planned relocation of the existing MOW Base would make interim capital
investments by Amtrak hard to justify
Complicated construction staging issues
Loss of ground storage capacity for Amtrak materials
Impacts to future track realignments to Perry and Prince Interlockings
Complications to potential Susquehanna Bridge replacement
Complications for potential third track between Elkton and Perryville.
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
12

4.1.2 Environmental/Contamination Concerns (HAZMATS)


WR&A reviewed a preliminary map report from EDR for the Perryville B (South of
Amtrak) Site and surrounding vicinity. The EDR report did not identify the project site as a site
of known environmental concern or regulation. There were three sites of regulatory concern in
the surrounding vicinity. The site location in relation to the project site, its regulatory status, and
other applicable information are listed in the table below.
EDR IDENTIFIED REGULATORY SITES ON PROJECT SITE AND IN SURROUNDING REGION
DISTANCE/DIRECTION
LOCATION
DATABASE INFORMATION
FROM PROJECT SITE
Ikea Industrial Park Property
Route 7 and Woodland Farm
Lane
Perryville, Maryland

VCP
INST CONTROL

+ 100 feet west

OCPCASES
OCP Case #: 04-0704CE
Facility Status: Closed
Date Open: 10/15/2003
Date Closed: 7/28/2004
Release: Yes
Cleanup: Yes
Facility Code: Not Reported
Coastal Unilube Inc.
950 Principio Furnace Road
Perryville, Md 21903

OCP Case #: 94-1662CE


Facility Status: Closed
Date Open: 12/10/1993
Date Closed: 1/5/1994
Release: Not Reported
Cleanup: Not Reported
Facility Code: Not Reported

+ 400 feet northwest

FINDS

Firestone Perryville Plant


Firestone Road/Route 7
Perryville, Md 21903

SHWS

+ 1,200 feet northwest

As shown in the table above, the Ikea Industrial Park property located adjacently west of
the project site is a potential site of regulatory concern or regulation within approximately 100
feet of the project site. According to information available from the MDE website
(http://websrvr.mde.md.gov/assets/document/brownfields/Ikea.pdf), the Ikea Industrial Park
property was entered into the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) in 2001 due to elevated levels
of metals (thallium and mercury) found during subsurface investigations of the site. Previous
land use at the site was agricultural. No groundwater contaminants were identified.
Groundwater beneath the site reportedly flows towards the southwest, generally away from the
Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site. Although no obvious sources of hazardous materials appear
to be located within approximately 400 feet of the project site, it is possible that metals such as
thallium and mercury may have been introduced into the area possibly from historical
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
13

agricultural land use practices on the property. In addition, industrial land use at the MOW Base
has the potential to affect the onsite soils from possible spills/leaks from vehicles and storage of
materials onsite. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) may be recommended prior
to selection of the site in order to adequately determine whether subsurface contamination may
be reasonably expected to be encountered during construction activities.
4.1.3 Natural Resources
Wetlands The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and Maryland Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) maps were examined for wetlands in the vicinity of the Perryville B
(South of Amtrak) Site. Wetlands are generally associated with the forested areas adjacent to
Mill Creek to the southwest of the project site and along Furnace Bay to the south and east of the
project site. Aerial photography provided by GoogleMaps and www.bing.com/maps was
examined in the vicinity of the Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site. Mill Creek is observed
flowing to the south-southeast under the NEC approximately 2,000 feet west of the western
portion of the project site and discharges into Furnace Bay to the south. No wetlands or streams
appear to be located on the Perryville B site.
Prior to development of the site, a formal wetland delineation will be required. Waters of
the U.S., including wetlands, on and around the site will be delineated, flagged in the field, and
surveyed in accordance with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), November 2010.
Plans showing the areas of impact to the streams, wetlands, and 25-foot wetland buffers will be
included in a Joint Permit Application (JPA) submitted to the Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) that details the avoidance,
minimization and mitigation required as a result of impacts on the project site. If mitigation is
determined to be required, it may be accounted for by purchase of wetland credits at a wetland
bank within the watershed, payment to the Maryland Wetlands Compensation Fund, on-site
mitigation, or off-site mitigation.
Floodplains The 100-year floodplain is located roughly in the same location as the
wetlands depicted by NWI and DNR mapping, as mentioned in the previous Wetlands section.
The Perryville B site is not located within the 100-year or 500-year floodplains. The closest
floodplains to the site are associated with Furnace Bay, located approximately 500 feet southeast
of the northeastern portion of the project site, and Mill Creek located approximately 1,400 feet to
the southwest of the site.
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (CBCA) According to the Cecil County GIS
(www.ccgov.org) and the Maryland Environmental Resource & Land Information Network
(MERLIN) database (www.mdmerlin.net), the northeastern portion of the Perryville B (South of
Amtrak) Site along the railroad tracks is located within the Critical Area designated as Resource
Conservation Area. According to the DNR website, the Maryland General Assembly enacted the
Chesapeake Bay Protection Act in 1984 to reverse the deterioration of the Bay. The Act required
that the 16 counties, Baltimore City, and 44 municipalities surrounding the Chesapeake and
Atlantic Coastal Bays implement land use and resource management programs designed to
mitigate the damaging effects of water pollution and loss of natural habitat. The Act designated
all lands within 1,000 feet of tidal waters or adjacent tidal wetlands as Critical Areas.
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
14

Development proposals within the Critical Area would be submitted for review and approval by
the Critical Area Commission.
Maryland Forest Conservation Act (MFCA) The purpose of the MFCA (Natural
Resources Article Sections 5-1601 through 5-1613) was to minimize the loss of Marylands
forest resources during land developmental activities by requiring that forests and other sensitive
areas be part of the site planning process. Any activity with land disturbance of 40,000 square
feet (nearly one acre) or greater is subject to the MFCA and will require a Forest Stand
Delineation (FSD) of the site and a Forest Conservation Plan (FCP). The FSD identifies the
existing forest cover and the environmental features of the project site. The FCP describes the
limits of disturbance of the proposed project and how the existing forest and sensitive areas will
be protected during and after development. Existing forested areas affected as part of the site
development may require reforestation (planting of trees to replace forests that have been
cleared) or afforestation (planting of trees where forests have not recently been located). The
Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site is comprised of agricultural fields, tree rows, and a forested
area in the eastern portion of the project site. Development of the site will result in impacts to
forest communities. In accordance with the MFCA, an FSD and FCP will be required. If
reforestation/afforestation cannot be accomplished onsite, offsite areas may be identified, credits
may be purchased from a reforestation bank, or lastly MTA may pay into the Forest
Compensation Fund. Fee-in-lieu payment into the Forest Compensation Fund is only accepted
by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) if it can be proven that onsite or
offsite planting is not feasible.
Preliminary calculations for existing forest coverage and reforestation requirements were
determined by studying aerial photographs of the site. Any area with tree cover was counted as
forest. Field verification required for the FSD will further define the actual boundaries of the
forest. It is possible that areas that appear as forest on aerial photographs may not meet the
definition of forest as stated in the State Forest Conservation manual. The Perryville B site
contains approximately 2.3 acres of forest cover. Based on the State Forest Conservation manual
worksheet calculations, approximately 13.6 acres of reforestation will be required for this site.
Very limited space is available to plant onsite, and therefore offsite may be the best option.
Additional undeveloped acreage could possibly be acquired from the adjacent IKEA property for
the plantings.
Threatened & Endangered Species Areas potentially containing threatened &
endangered species are designated in MERLIN as Sensitive Species Project Review Areas.
These areas primarily contain habitat for rare, threatened, and endangered species and rare
natural community types and it generally includes, but does not specifically delineate, such
regulated areas as Natural Heritage Areas, Wetlands of Special State Concern, Colonial
Waterbird Colonies, and Habitat Protection Areas. According to the MERLIN database, there is
a Sensitive Species Project Review Area depicted in the Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site in
the easternmost portion of the project site. If the Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site is proposed
to be developed, correspondence will be sent to DNR and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
confirm the presence/absence of threatened & endangered State and Federal species,
respectively. If threatened & endangered species are suspected on the site, DNR/U.S. Fish and

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
15

Wildlife Service may require additional species/habitat surveys, time of year construction
restrictions, and/or avoidance of particular areas on the site.
Forest Interior Dwelling Species According to DNR, animals referred to as Forest
Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) require habitat in the interior of large forests for optimal
reproduction and survival. The most researched and best known FIDS are a group of birds that
include the scarlet tanager (Piranga rubra), American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), hooded
warbler (Wilsonia citrina), and barred owl (Strix varia), among others. FIDS Habitat is provided
protection under the Critical Areas Law in Maryland. It has been defined as a forest tract that
meets either of the following conditions:
a. Greater than 50 acres in size and containing at least ten acres of forest interior habitat
(forest greater than 300 feet from the nearest forest edge); or
b. Riparian forests that are, on average, at least 300 feet in total width and greater than 50
acres in total forest area. The stream within the riparian forest must be perennial, as indicated on
the most recent U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographic maps or as determined by a site
visit.
The DNR GIS data for FIDS habitat areas was reviewed for the Perryville B (South of
Amtrak) Site. The GIS data product contains only the results of a model depicting where
potential FIDS habitat might occur based on certain defined criteria. These polygons have not
been field tested or field verified for actual FIDS presence. FIDS habitat is located adjacent to
the far northeast portion of the Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site. Conservation of FIDS
habitat is strongly encouraged by DNR. DNR provides guidelines to help minimize project
impacts on FIDS and other native forest plants and wildlife.
4.1.4 Cultural Resources
The MERLIN database was searched for the existence of cultural resources in the vicinity
of the Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site. The MERLIN database presents information
regarding Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties, Maryland Historic Trust Easements, and
properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). There is one historic
property listed on the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties listed as Shipley Point Farm
(CE-538) located approximately 300 feet south of the eastern portion of the site. According to
Mr. Tim Tamburrino, Preservation Officer for the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT), the
Maryland State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO), he observed aerial photos of the Shipley
Point Farm on the www.bing.com/maps website and it appears as though the structures
associated with the Shipley Point Farm are gone. Therefore, there are no architectural cultural
resources located there. However, it is possible that there are still archaeological resources still
there.
In addition, a farmstead is located approximately 150 feet north of the NEC to the north
of the Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site and located on the Perryville A (Farm) Site.
According to Mr. Tamburrino, the property located on the Perryville A (Farm) Site is not
included in the MHT GIS database and the farm at this location has not been evaluated. Mr.
Tamburrino observed aerial photos of the farm on the www.bing.com/maps website and stated
that it appears as though the property is a potential cultural resource judging from the age and
condition of the structures on the site. The farm has a mansion and several outbuildings that
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
16

appear to be over 50 years old. According to the Maryland Department of Assessments and
Taxation, the property is identified as Map 34, Grid, 11, Parcel 43 and the primary structure on
the property is listed as being built in 1850. Prior to development of the site, correspondence
with MHT would be required to determine whether there would be effects of the project on the
existing historical properties, as well as the potential cultural resource on the Perryville A (Farm)
Site.
If it is determined that this farm is eligible to be listed on the NRHP, a Section 4(f)
evaluation would be required for the Perryville B site. A Section 4(f) evaluation must be
conducted for Federally funded (in part or all) projects in concurrence with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Section 4(f) stipulates that the use of a historic site
as part of a project must be avoided unless no feasible and prudent alterative exists.
Development of the Perryville B site may be considered a constructive use of the historic
resource. Constructive use occurs when the transportation projects proximity impacts are so
severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for protection
under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired or diminished. A constructive use occurs when the
projected noise level increase attributable to the project substantially interferes with the use and
enjoyment of a noise-sensitive facility of a resource protected by Section 4(f), such as enjoyment
of a historic site where a quiet setting is a generally recognized feature or attribute of the sites
significance. Constructive use determination is rare and impacts can often be mitigated.
4.1.5 Potential Noise Impacts
In accordance with Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006 (FTAVA-90-1003-06), screening distances were applied to the Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site to
identify potential noise impacts. As previously mentioned in the Cultural Resources section,
there is a historic property listed on the Maryland Historic Property Site listed as Shipley Point
Farm (CE-538) which is located approximately 300 feet south of the site. Because the structures
of this historic resource have been removed and only below-ground archaeological resources
may remain, this site is not considered noise sensitive. The farm located adjacently north on the
Perryville A site, however, is located within the screening distance and is considered noise
sensitive. In the event that Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site is selected for development, a
general noise analysis, in accordance with FTA guidelines, may be required to determine noise
impacts to this farm and explore mitigation options if impacts occur.
4.1.6 Socioeconomic Profile of Adjacent Neighborhoods
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the neighborhoods adjacent to this site correspond to
the census tract 312.02. The total population was 4,628 people with 2,367 males and 2,261
females. 79% of the population above 25 years of age had a high school diploma, whereas
approximately 11% had at least a bachelors degree. The median income was relatively higher at
$44,531 with a low rate of unemployment at 2.0%. Less than 6% of families were reported to be
below the poverty level. The community was dominated by whites who constituted
approximately 90% of the population, with less than 7% African-Americans. Hispanics (of any
race) accounted for approximately 2% of the entire population in the tract. Census tract data
from the 2010 U.S. Census was not available at the time this report was written.

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
17

4.1.7 Stormwater Management


Located on terrain similar to the Perryville A site, the existing land uses within the
proposed project limits include an Amtrak facility in addition to agricultural use. Relocation of
the existing Amtrak MOW Base may result in a net decrease of impervious area after
construction of the proposed MARC project. The underlying soil composition is HSG Type D
on the northern half and HSG Type B on the southern half of the site. Runoff from this site
discharges directly to a tributary to Mill Creek, which directly discharges to the Chesapeake Bay.
The Perryville B site is located outside of the 100-yr floodplain, but the northeast portion along
the NEC is located within the Critical Area boundary. In addition, the existing Amtrak site
would have to be relocated adjacent to the proposed MARC facility as part of this work.
It is envisioned that stormwater management at this site would be comprised of
Environmental Site Design (ESD) elements where applicable, such as grass swales, green roofs
and micro-bioretention facilities. Use of pervious pavement on the southern half of the facility
may be an option with regards to soil type, although proximity of groundwater may restrict its
use. Tests to confirm groundwater levels and infiltration rates should be made in the future.
Despite efforts to achieve ESD, the significant increase in impervious area is expected to require
construction of a stormwater management pond in order to meet the latest MDE requirements for
quality and quantity treatment. This proposed pond would likely be located just down-slope of
the proposed track facilities and would fulfill treatment requirements for the MARC and Amtrak
facilities. Property in addition to the Right of Way required for the track and buildings will be
required for this pond.
4.1.8 Property Impacts (Acquisition)
In addition to the full property acquisition of the 15.28-acre Amtrak MOW Base site, the
undeveloped property to the south of the MOW Base would have to be acquired for the
relocation of the Amtrak MOW Base. According to the Maryland Department of Assessments
and Taxation, the property is identified as Map 34, Parcel 0081, is 267.5 acres in area and is
owned by Ikea Property, Inc., which includes the large Ikea warehouse. Development of this
property would require purchase and subdivision of approximately 45.58 acres of the property in
consent with the Ikea Corporation. The program area requirements for this project are
approximately 76.6 acres, which also includes 15.75 acres of temporary construction easements
along the Amtrak Right-of-Way.
A conservation easement approximately 156 acres in size listed as the Cecil Land Trust
and owned by the Maryland Environmental Trust (MET) is located adjacently east and south of
the proposed Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site, according to Mr. Adam Block, Central Region
Planner and Legislative Liaison for MET. MET easements would restrict the development of a
layover facility on the easement. Prior to development or expansion, the borders of the proposed
site and the location of the Cecil Land Trust easement should be surveyed to ensure there is no
encroachment onto the easement.
4.1.9 Site Pros and Cons
Pros:
Second only to the Perryville A site for shortest deadhead time to Perryville
No major grading should be required
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
18

Almost no clearing required except for lead track construction


Cons:
Would require construction of two new crossovers in Perry Interlocking
Deadhead time to Penn Station is greater than all studied sites and equal to
Perryville A
Relocation of existing MOW Base presents coordination issues and potential
schedule delays
Potential issues regarding existing cultural resources, HAZMAT, and Critical
Area
Considered by Amtrak to be the least favorable site
Possible interference with proposed future Amtrak capacity improvement work
(additional tracks and new Susquehanna River Bridge)
Major Cost Factors Include:
o Construction of a new Amtrak MOW Base
o Construction of two crossovers and a relocated turnout at Perry
Interlocking
o Possible demolition of an abandoned road bridge spanning the NEC.
4.2

PERRYVILLE A (FARM) SITE, PERRYVILLE, MARYLAND


The Perryville A (Farm) Site is located on the north side of the Amtrak NEC, south of
Route 7-Principio Furnace Road, and south and east of the intersection of Route 7 with Broad
Street. The proposed project site is approximately 8,000 feet long and ranges from 30 feet wide
along the railroad tracks to 1,500 feet wide where the access road is proposed and the total site
area is approximately 121 acres. The portion of the site that would be occupied by MTAs
improvements (i.e., program area requirements) would be approximately 54 acres. The site
would provide adequate acreage for current and future train storage and equipment maintenance
requirements.
According to the Cecil County Department of Planning and Zoning
(http://www.ccgov.org/dept_planning/index.cfm), the Perryville A Site farm property consists of
a parcel zoned RM-high density residential district. Current land use on the Site is designated as
Agricultural/Residential. Development of the site will require a zoning change. According to
Ms. Skilling with the Town of Perryville Planning and Zoning, if Perryville A site is chosen for
development, the site would likely have to be annexed into the Town of Perryville to account for
utilities services (e.g., water and sewer) to be supplied by the Town. The Town of Perryville
currently provides utilities to the MOW Base for Amtrak on the south side of the tracks.
Adjacent zoning consists of EMU-employment mixed use district on the golf course parcel to the
east. EMU is a zoning designation that allows for certain commercial, residential and light
industrial uses. Adjacent zoning to the west and south is designated at L2-light industrial by the
Town of Perryville. Figure 5 presents the environmental constraints associated with the site.
Figure 6 presents the proposed yard and shop layout. Figure 7 presents the property impacts
and zoning associated with the site.
4.2.1 Railroad Suitability
Site The Perryville A Site meets the requirements for construction of a double-ended
facility and would provide easy access for trains originating and terminating at Perryville.
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
19


)HHW

'
2$
5
%

7
6

%/9
),5( 6
72 1(

'

 

&(

&2

1

&(

\U)ORRGSODLQ

\U)ORRGSODLQ

'151:,:HWODQGV

&KHVDSHDNH%D\&ULWLFDO$UHD

6HQVLWLYH6SHFLHV3URMHFW5HYLHZ$UHDV

+LVWRULF3URSHUWLHV

'
2

&(

0DU\ODQG(QYLURQPHQWDO7UXVW

&HFLO/DQG7UXVW

9HWHUDQV$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ0HGLFDO&HQWHU0,+3&(

+LVWRULF3ODFHV

)RUHVW,QWHULRU'ZHOOLQJ6SHFLHV ),'6 $UHD


3(0(K

3URJUDP$UHD5HTXLUHPHQWV

/HJHQG

)

5' 5
7



:$<
,. ($

67
+ ($

$JULFXOWXUDO

&(

25
5 ,'
5
& 2

5HVLGHQWLDO

7
25
.1
$
75
$0

3RWHQWLDO
&XOWXUDO
5HVRXUFH

'

&RXGRQ
V5RDG6RXWK
%ULGJH2YHU5DLOURDG
1RW,Q6HUYLFH

,2

3
&,

5

&(
1$
5
8

$JULFXOWXUDO

0L[HG&RPPHUFLDO,QGXVWULDO

,1
35

&(

&(

5HVLGHQWLDO

//
0, 5 '
.
((
&5

&(&,/$9(

&(

)HEUXDU\


&(

&RXGRQ
V5RDG1RUWK
%ULGJH2YHU5DLOURDG

5'

0$ 5</$ 1'$9(

(
&+
(
$.
3(
$
6
(:
9 ,
3HUU\YLOOH$6LWH

)XUQDFH
)LJXUH
%D\

(8%/

0$5&0DLQWHQDQFH)DFLOLW\
(QYLURQPHQWDO&RQVWUDLQWV0DS

(861

(861

3666

(8%/

(861

(663

Heavy grading will be required for the two lead tracks since the existing ground is higher than
the elevation of the NEC. Construction of the south lead track may require the reconstruction of
the north end of the existing Firestone Road (MD Route 327) bridge over the NEC and possible
adjustment of the vertical and/or horizontal location of a commercial overhead electric power
line. Construction of the north lead track will likely require the reconstruction of the north end
of a private overhead road bridge belonging to the adjacent golf course. Right-of-way
requirements for construction of the north lead track may also impact the golf course.
Demolition will include two out-of-service road bridges over Amtraks NEC Coudons Road
South and Coudons Road North.
Amtrak Connection Construction of two new lead tracks, one each on the north and
south ends of the site, would provide connections to the existing Amtrak PRINCE and PERRY
Interlockings, respectively. No additional crossovers would be required in either interlocking,
and the proposed lead tracks would require only one turnout each to connect to NEC Track 4 in
the respective interlockings.
Track The MARC facilities, including the yard and shop and lead tracks, would require
the construction of approximately 49,000 feet of track and 40 turnouts.
Catenary System The nearest Amtrak traction power substation is Perryville
(Substation 16), and is located approximately one mile from the proposed yard. At this site, it is
envisioned that insulated overlaps with disconnect switches would be installed in the yard lead
catenary, with approximately 61,000 feet of two-wire catenary required for the new yard facility.
Three preliminary layout drawings have been developed to help plan the Catenary and ET
concepts for this location (See Drawings ET-1, ET-2 and ET-3 in Appendix A).
Advantages from a Catenary Perspective:
1. Two new 12kV feeders and supporting hardware will be installed on existing
catenary structures from the existing Amtrak Perryville Substation to the proposed
Perryville A facility.
2. The existing 12 kV phase breaks are located in all four main track catenaries
about 1200 feet south of the existing south lead track of the existing Amtrak
MOW Base. The proposed extended south lead track of the proposed yard clears
the phase break overlaps.
Disadvantages from a Catenary Perspective:
1. Space does not appear to be adequate to accommodate 12kV feeder breakers and
an associated gantry structure with bus and motor operated disconnect switches to
sectionalize catenary power within the yard. Drawings ET-2 and ET-3 in
Appendix A indicate possible locations to place ET equipment for this purpose.
2. Additional phase break indicator rosettes should be installed in the vicinity of
the south lead and north lead tracks. Phase break status could also be integrated
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
20

into the C&S modifications to control operations on the north yard lead to prevent
bridging of out-of-phase circuits when phase breaks are open.
3. Structural analysis would be required for all of the structures supporting the new
12kV feeders, which may lead to additional cost to replace or guy overloaded
structures.
If standby power for equipment is to be available separate from the locomotive, an
independent utility 60 HZ supply will be required. The utility supply for the various other yard
facilities should include this capability.
Electric Traction Substations The nearest traction power substation is Perryville
(Substation 16), and is located approximately one mile from the proposed yard.
Advantages from an ET Substation Perspective:
1. Amtraks Substation 16 has more than ample capacity to supply all required
12kV, 25Hz envisioned load at this yard location, including track switch heaters.
(The existing substation capacity is 22.5MVA, located approximately 1 mile
away)
2. Substation 16 has recently undergone extensive renovations, such as replacement
of all five, 4.5MVA traction power transformers, breakers, power cables and
SCADA RTU.
3. Substation 16 has ample space within its confines to allow easy expansion for
new circuit breaker bays to provide 12kV feeders to the proposed yard.
4. Existing catenary structures can be modified to support new 12kV feeders to the
yard facility.
5. A 12 kV switching structure is envisioned to receive the incoming feeders from
Perryville Substation. As noted in the Catenary section, space appears available at
both the east and west ends of the yard for this equipment as shown on Drawing
ET-2 in Appendix A. Two breakers will be required, as well as several motor
operated disconnect switches for yard sectionalizing.
6. Amtrak maintenance employees are headquartered at Substation 16.
Disadvantages from an ET Substation Perspective:
1. The presence of the 12kV phase breaks near this yard location must be
considered so a proper protection scheme is developed to allow for transfer trip.
2. The only alternate source of 25Hz catenary power to feed this location, in the
event the feeder system is lost, would be via taps from the trolley network.
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
21

Communications and Signals The proposed Perryville A site would be located at MP


58.7 in Perryville, Maryland, across the Amtrak NEC from the proposed Perryville A site. The
required lead track lengths shown on the drawings are from clearance point of the last yard
switch to the Interlocking signal governing the entrance to the mainline. For discussion purposes
we will assume that the northern yard lead switch will be in the existing limits of PRINCE and
the southern yard lead switch will be within the existing limits of PERRY.
Railroad Related Issues As far as can be determined from available information, both
of the proposed lead tracks could be impacted by Amtraks plans for future track capacity
improvements. The preliminary plans indicate that significant changes could take place at
PERRY Interlocking, and that PRINCE Interlocking would be eliminated altogether. These
changes could affect MARC operations during their construction but would not permanently
leave MARC without either connection. Coordination with Amtrak during design of this facility
will be necessary to ensure that the new MARC facility does not interfere with Amtraks
proposed future tracks. While Amtrak has not performed an engineering review of the
conceptual plans for this site, it took no exception to the plans as presented at a meeting held at
MTA.
4.2.2 Environmental/Contamination Concerns (HAZMATS)
WR&A reviewed a preliminary map report from EDR for the Perryville A (Farm) Site
and surrounding vicinity. The EDR report did not identify the project site as a site of known
environmental concern or regulation. There were several sites of regulatory concern in the
surrounding vicinity. The site location in relation to the project site, its regulatory status, and
other applicable information are listed in the table below.
EDR IDENTIFIED REGULATORY SITES ON PROJECT SITE AND IN SURROUNDING REGION
DISTANCE/DIRECTION
LOCATION
DATABASE INFORMATION
FROM PROJECT SITE
Ikea Industrial Park Property
Route 7 and Woodland Farm
Lane
Perryville, Maryland

Coastal Unilube Inc.


950 Principio Furnace Road
Perryville, Md 21903

VCP
INST CONTROL

+ 300 feet south

OCPCASES
OCP Case #: 04-0704CE
Facility Status: Closed
Date Open: 10/15/2003
Date Closed: 7/28/2004
Release: Yes
Cleanup: Yes
Facility Code: Not Reported
OCP Case #: 94-1662CE
Facility Status: Closed
Date Open: 12/10/1993
Date Closed: 1/5/1994
Release: Not Reported
Cleanup: Not Reported
Facility Code: Not Reported
FINDS

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
22

+ 350 feet north

EDR IDENTIFIED REGULATORY SITES ON PROJECT SITE AND IN SURROUNDING REGION


DISTANCE/DIRECTION
LOCATION
DATABASE INFORMATION
FROM PROJECT SITE

Firestone Perryville Plant


Firestone Road/Route 7
Perryville, Md 21903

Perryville Elementary SchoolStorm Drain


Maryland Ave./Maywood
Perryville, Md 21903

SHWS

+ 500 feet north

OCPCASES
OCP Case #: 96-1333CE
Facility Status: Closed
Date Open: 1/4/1996
Date Closed: 1/2/1997
Release: Yes
Cleanup: Not Reported
Facility Code: Ground Seep
Investigation/Cleanup

+ 1,600 feet west

As shown in the table above, the Ikea Industrial Park property located adjacently south of
the project site is a potential site of regulatory concern or regulation within approximately 300
feet of the project site. According to information available from the MDE website
(http://websrvr.mde.md.gov/assets/document/brownfields/Ikea.pdf), the Ikea Industrial Park
property was entered into the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) in 2001 due to elevated levels
of metals (thallium and mercury) found during subsurface investigations of the site. Previous
land use at the site was agricultural. No groundwater contaminants were identified.
Groundwater beneath the site reportedly flows towards the southwest, generally away from the
Perryville A (Farm) Site. It is possible that metals such as thallium and mercury may have been
introduced into the area possibly from historical agricultural land use practices on the property.
A Phase I ESA may be recommended prior to selection of the site in order to adequately
determine whether subsurface contamination may be reasonably expected to be encountered
during construction activities.
4.2.3 Natural Resources
Wetlands NWI and DNR maps were examined for wetlands in the vicinity of the
Perryville A (Farm) Site and none were found. Aerial photography provided by GoogleMaps
and www.bing.com/maps was examined in the vicinity of the Perryville A (Farm) Site and no
obvious wetlands were observed. However, waters of the U.S. associated with Mill Creek were
observed crossing beneath the tracks in the southwestern portion of the site. It also appears as
though a small tributary or drainageway runs parallel to the NEC railroad tracks on the southern
border of the site and discharges into Mill Creek in the southwestern portion of the site. Mill
Creek flows south toward the confluence of Mill Creek with Furnace Bay to the southeast of the
site and discharges into the Chesapeake Bay.
Prior to development of the site, a formal wetland delineation will be required. Waters of
the U.S., including wetlands, on and around the site will be delineated, flagged in the field, and
surveyed in accordance with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), November 2010.
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
23

Plans showing the areas of impact to streams, wetlands, and 25-foot wetland buffers will be
included in a JPA submitted to MDE and USACE that details the avoidance, minimization and
mitigation required as a result of the impacts on the project site. If mitigation is determined to be
required, it may be accounted for by purchase of wetland credits at a wetland bank within the
watershed, payment to the Maryland Wetlands Compensation Fund, on-site mitigation, or offsite mitigation.
Floodplains According to the MERLIN database, Cecil County GIS and the DNR
website, there are 100- and 500-year floodplain areas associated with Mill Creek along the NEC
railroad tracks in the southwestern portion of the project site. According to Joe Johnson,
floodplain administrator with the Cecil County Department of Planning and Zoning, placement
of fill in the floodplain requires a variance through the Planning and Zoning office. The variance
request will solicit comments from the National Flood Insurance Program office and go to the
County Board of Appeals. According to Mr. Johnson, Cecil County rarely requires an
engineering analysis or reviews elevations; however they will not issue a variance until an MDE
Waterway Construction Permit is obtained.
In addition to complying with County requirements for floodplain development, a JPA
must be submitted to MDE to receive a Waterway Construction Permit for any temporary or
permanent impacts within a non-tidal floodplain. To be properly permitted, floodplain impacts
may not increase flooding or create a dangerous situation during flooding, especially on nearby
properties. Also, the project must maintain fish habitat and migration, and protect the waterway
from erosion. An engineering analysis will most likely be required to model the pre- and postdevelopment floodplain. It is likely that development of the Perryville A site will exceed the
minor project threshold of 100 CY of net fill and 5,000 square feet of disturbance, placing it into
the major project category. Major projects require public notice, adjacent property owner
notification, and often an engineering analysis. Permit review can take up to twelve months for a
major project vs. ten months for a minor project.
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (CBCA) The Perryville A (Farm) Site is located just
outside of the CBCA. According to the Cecil County GIS (www.ccgov.org) and the MERLIN
database, the closest Critical Area designated as a Resource Conservation Area is approximately
300 feet to the east, and is associated with Furnace Bay. There is also Critical Area designated
as Corporate Limit (Critical Area within the Town of Perryville) approximately 1,100 feet south
of the project site associated with Mill Creek. There will be no affect on CBCA if the Perryville
A (Farm) Site is developed.
Maryland Forest Conservation Act (MFCA) The site is comprised primarily of
agricultural fields and tree rows. Development of the site will result in minor impacts to forest
communities. In accordance with the MFCA, an FSD and FCP will be required. If
reforestation/afforestation cannot be accomplished onsite, offsite areas may be identified, credits
may be purchased from a reforestation bank, or lastly MTA may pay into the Forest
Compensation Fund.
Preliminary calculations for existing forest coverage and reforestation requirements were
determined by studying aerial photographs of the site. Any area with tree cover was counted as
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
24

forest. Field verification required for the FSD will further define the actual boundaries of the
forest. It is possible that areas that appear as forest on aerial photographs may not meet the
definition of forest as stated in the State Forest Conservation manual. The entire Perryville A
site to be acquired contains approximately 10.37 acres of forest cover; 9.72 acres within the
program area requirements and 0.65 acres outside of the program area requirements. Based on
the State manual worksheet, approximately 26.3 acres of reforestation will be required for this
site. The Perryville A parcel is mostly cleared and therefore provides abundant space to plant
onsite.
Threatened & Endangered Species According to the MERLIN database, there is a
Sensitive Species Project Review Area depicted within the northeast portion of the Perryville A
(Farm) Site and is associated with an area in the vicinity of Furnace Bay. If the Perryville A
(Farm) Site is proposed to be developed, correspondence will be sent to DNR and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to confirm the presence/absence of threatened & endangered State and
Federal species, respectively. If threatened & endangered species are suspected on the project
site, DNR/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may require additional species/habitat surveys, time of
year construction restrictions, and/or avoidance of particular areas on the project site.
Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) The DNR GIS data for FIDS habitat areas
was reviewed for the Perryville A (Farm) Site. No FIDS habitat areas are located on the
Perryville A (Farm) Site. The closest FIDS habitat is located adjacently south of the
southwestern portion of the site and approximately 800 feet east of the eastern portion of the
Perryville A (Farm) Site.
4.2.4 Cultural Resources
The MERLIN database was searched for the existence of cultural resources in the vicinity
of the Perryville A (Farm) Site. There is one historic property listed in the NRHP located
approximately 800 feet north of the project site along the north side of Principio Furnace Road
(Route 7) and known as Woodlands (NR-568; Maryland Historic Property Site, CE-145). The
NRHP describes Woodlands as an estate of the Coudon family, an important family in Cecil
County, especially in the field of religion since the 18th Century. The Reverend Joseph Coudon,
father of the first Coudon to own Woodlands, served as rector to St. Mary Annes Church in
nearby North East, Maryland, from 1787 to 1792. The building was built circa 1810-1820 and
has a large number of original outbuildings still intact and continuing to perform as part of a
working farm. A property listed on the Maryland Historic Property Site is also located
approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the site and is listed as Lindenwood (CE-700).
A farmstead is located in the southern portion of the property. The farm has a mansion
and several outbuildings that appear to be over 50 years old. According to Mr. Tim Tamburrino,
Preservation Officer for MHT, the property located on the Perryville A (Farm) Site is not
included in the MHT GIS database and the farm at this location has not been evaluated. Mr.
Tamburrino observed aerial photos of the farm on the www.bing.com/maps website and stated
that it appears as though the property is a potential cultural resource judging from the age and
condition of the structures on the site. According to the Maryland Department of Assessments
and Taxation, the property is identified as Map 34, Grid, 11, Parcel 43 and the primary structure
on the property is listed as being built in 1850. Prior to development of the site, correspondence
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
25

with MHT would be required to determine whether there would be effects of the project on the
existing historical properties, as well as the potential cultural resource on the Perryville A (Farm)
Site. If it is determined that this farm is eligible to be listed on the NRHP, a Section 4(f)
evaluation would be required for the Perryville A site. A Section 4(f) evaluation must be
conducted for Federally funded (in part or all) projects in concurrence with the NEPA process.
Section 4(f) stipulates that the use of a historic site as part of a project must be avoided unless no
feasible and prudent alterative exists. Because alternative sites may be suitable for development
for the MARC Maintenance Facility, it is likely that the Perryville A site will be eliminated from
consideration during the Section 4(f) evaluation.
4.2.5 Potential Noise Impacts
In accordance with Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006 (FTAVA-90-1003-06), screening distances were applied to the Perryville A (Farm) Site to identify
potential noise impacts. A total of seven residences are located within the screening distance and
could potentially be impacted by noise from the proposed Perryville A (Farm) Site. The
residences are located to the northwest of the site boundary near Woodlands Farm Lane with the
closest residence approximately 500 feet from the site boundary. In the event that Perryville A
(Farm) Site is selected for development, a general noise analysis, in accordance with FTA
guidelines, may be required to determine noise impacts to these residences and explore
mitigation options if impacts occur.
4.2.6 Socioeconomic Profile of Adjacent Neighborhoods
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the neighborhoods adjacent to this site correspond to
the census tract 312.02. The total population was 4,628 people with 2,367 males and 2,261
females. 79% of the population above 25 years of age had a high school diploma, whereas
approximately 11% had at least a bachelors degree. The median income was relatively higher at
$44,531 with a low rate of unemployment at 2.0%. Less than 6% of families were reported to be
below the poverty level. The community was dominated by Whites who constituted
approximately 90% of the population, with less than 7% African-Americans. Hispanics (of any
race) accounted for approximately 2% of the entire population in the tract. Census tract data
from the 2010 U.S. Census was not available at the time this report was written.
4.2.7 Stormwater Management
Situated on gently rolling terrain comprised entirely of agricultural land use, this site has
virtually no existing impervious area that would require removal. Located near the mouth of the
Susquehanna River, the underlying soil composition is HSG Type C on the western half and
HSG Type B on the eastern half of the site. Runoff from this site discharges directly to a
tributary to Mill Creek, which directly discharges to the Chesapeake Bay. Despite its proximity
to the Bay, the Perryville A site is located outside of the 1,000-ft Critical Area. The far
southwestern portion of the Perryville A site is located within the 100-yr floodplain.
It is envisioned that stormwater management at this site would be comprised of ESD
elements where applicable, such as grass swales, green roofs and micro-bioretention facilities.
Additionally, pervious pavement may be compatible at this location due to the lack of HSG Type
D soils and anticipated depth of the seasonal high groundwater table. However, the significant
increase in impervious area is expected to require construction of a stormwater management
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
26

pond in order to meet the latest MDE requirements for quality and quantity treatment. This
proposed pond would likely be located within the perimeter of the proposed facility due to
existing grading conditions. This may require reconfiguration of the track layout as proposed.
4.2.8 Property Impacts (Acquisition)
According to the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation, the large central
farm property is identified as Map 34, Grid, 11, Parcel 43, and is approximately 114 acres in area
and is owned by Woodlands-Coudon Inc. & Coudon Wilson L & et al. The site is a private farm
and is residential/agricultural in use and would require a full property acquisition. Partial
acquisitions of four additional properties totaling 6.77 acres would be required adjacent to the
NEC. Approximately 2.66 acres would be acquired to the east and is owned by Howard J. &
Beverlee C. Neff which is the location of the Furnace Bay Golf Course. The three partial
acquisitions to the west would be required from the properties owned by Ikea Property, Inc (0.83
acres), Frenchman Land Company, Inc. (1.18 acres), and Community Fire Company of
Perryman, MD (2.10 acres). Land acquisition may be a constraint and will add to the cost of
development.
4.2.9 Site Pros and Cons
Pros:
Least deadhead time to Perryville
No additional crossovers required in Perry and Prince Interlockings
Site can be double-ended
Easy access to site for trains originating and terminating in Perryville
Mostly open space should require minimal clearing and grubbing
No anticipated effects to Critical Area
Cons:
Heavy grading may be required to make site level
Deadhead time to Penn Station is greater than of all studied sites and equal to
Perryville B
No existing connection to NEC
Zoning change from residential to industrial
Potential full acquisition of historic resource (farmstead) located on site may
eliminate the site from consideration during the Section 4(f) evaluation, several
partial acquisitions also required
Possible 100-year floodplain impacts
Major Cost Factors Include:
o Grading
o Two turnouts connecting to main line Track 4
o Demolition of two old road bridges over NEC (Coudons Road North and
South)
o Purchase of ROW along edge of golf course for lead track on north end
o Reconstruction of Firestone Road bridge over NEC to accommodate lead
track on south end

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
27

4.3

OPUS SITE, PERRYMAN, MARYLAND


The Opus Site is located on the east side of the NEC, south of Maryland Boulevard (MD
Route 715) and north of East Michaelsville Road in Perryman, Maryland. It is bounded on the
east side by the Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) property. The proposed project site is
approximately 9,700 feet long and ranges from approximately 30 feet wide along the railroad
tracks to approximately 900 feet wide and the total site area (i.e., program area requirements) is
approximately 56.9 acres. The portion of the site that would be occupied by MTAs
improvements would be approximately 48 acres including an access road that will connect with
public highways at the north end. Temporary construction easements along the railroad tracks
totaling approximately 8.9 acres would also be required. The site would provide adequate
acreage for current and future train storage and equipment maintenance requirements.
According
to
the
Harford
County
website
(http://www.harfordcountymd.gov/PlanningZoning/index.cfm), the property is zoned LI-Light
Industrial. The APG property located to the east is federal land currently under military use.
Located on APG property is Ruggles Golf Course, located adjacently east of the northern portion
of the site and Philips Army Airfield, located approximately 3,000 feet southeast of the central
portion of the site. A mix of properties designated as Industrial District and Residential District
are located to the southwest, and properties listed as Industrial District are located to the west.
Current land use on the site is agricultural. Figure 8 presents the environmental constraints
associated with the site. Figure 9 presents the proposed yard and shop layout. Figure 10
presents the property impacts and zoning associated with the site.
4.3.1 Railroad Suitability
Site The Opus Site meets the requirements for construction of a double-ended facility.
The site is currently a working farm field and is relatively level and is at an elevation similar to
the Amtrak main tracks. Sections of the site are groundwater recharge areas for the Harford
County water supply in the Perryman Wellfield Protection District.
Amtrak Connection Since there are no existing interlockings located nearby on the
NEC, two new interlockings will have to be constructed. A curve in the NEC main tracks
located just north of the MD Rt. 715 overhead highway bridge would force the location of the
new interlocking on the north end to be just south of the overhead bridge approximately at the
site of a proposed future interlocking identified in the MARC Growth and Investment Plan as
BOOTH Interlocking. The location of MARCs proposed crossovers would have to be
coordinated with those of Amtraks proposed POPLAR Interlocking (as identified on the
Northeast Corridor Master Plan II), and the end result would dictate the location of the beginning
of the north lead track. This, in turn, would dictate the location of the north ladders for the
MARC facility, placing it roughly in the middle of the Opus Site. The south lead track and the
crossovers required for the interlocking at the south end of the site would place the new south
interlocking just north of the Chelsea Road overhead highway bridge at the south end of the site,
approximately at the site of a proposed future interlocking identified in the MARC Growth and
Investment Plan as CHELSEA Interlocking. Amtraks track capacity expansion plans indicate
that, ultimately, Amtrak would have 4 main tracks and one freight siding in this area where there
are currently only 3 tracks. The ultimate addition of the fourth track in this area will need to be
coordinated with Amtrak to ensure sufficient clearance between the MARC yard tracks and the
future track.
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
28

3URJUDP$UHD5HTXLUHPHQW
3)2&

3)2&

3)2&

3)2&
3)2&

3)2&

3HUU\PDQ+LVWRULF'LVWULFW
3)2$

3)2$

)RUHVW,QWHULRU'ZHOOLQJ6SHFLHV ),'6 $UHD

3)2$

6HQVLWLYH6SHFLHV3URMHFW5HYLHZ$UHD

38%+[

3I

3)2$

&1$:HWODQG'HOLQHDWLRQ
3)2&

3)2$

3)2& 3)2&

3)2&
'151:,:HWODQGV
3)2$
3)2&

3)2$ 3)2&

3)2$

3)2$
\U)ORRGSODLQ
3)2& 3)2&

3)2$

< 6+2
57
+:
/1
.,

3)2& 3)2$

38%)[

3(0)K

38%+K
3(0&

38%+K

3(0$K

+$

5
'

$
+, /
6 3

38%+[ 3)2$

+$

9'
%/
, $
3+
/
'(

5'
<0
$1

3)2&

3(
55

3(0$

3)2&

3)2&

3)2$

38%+K
38%+[
3)2$

3)2$
386&[

366$

3)2& 3)2(

3)2$

+$
3(0&
386&[

&

UR
YL

$E

386&[

7$
*(
$
9(

3

UIR
UG
+D

HU
G

38%+[

3)2$
38%+

$0
75
$.
1
25
7+
($
67
&
25
5,
'2
5

386&[
3)2&

HH
Q

38%)[

+$

RX
QW
\
QJ
*
UR
XQ
G

&U
DQ
E

HU
U\
5
X

3)2&
3)2$

$'
9$
1

57
/1

3(0$[

3)2&

3)2&
3)2$ 366&

6+
2

3)2(
3(0)[

3)2$

57
/1

Q
HH
UG
\
QW
EH
RX
I$
&
R
W\
UG
&L
IR
DU
+

3)2& 3)2&

6+
2

3)2& 3)2$ 3)2$

3)2$

3)2$

+$

3)2&

81
5
5<
(5

3(0&K

38%)K

1%

6 3

3)2(K

+$

$
&5

(/
$'
+, /

3+
'
2/

3(0&

9' +$
%/
, $
3+

$
,/

3)2&

+$

'

3(0&K
3(0)K

3)2&

'
5
,$
3+
/
'(

5'
,$
3+
(/
'
$
+,/
'3
2/

5
/
,/
+

'
5

3)2&

38%+[

9'
%/
, $
3+

$5
3/

6
/$
38

3)2&

32

3)2$

3)2&

(/
$'
+, /
6 3

3I

366&
3)2&
\U)ORRGSODLQ
3)2&
3)2$

3(0(

1
72
:
1(

+,&.2
5<'5

3)2$
3)2&

38%)K

7
5'

3)2&

32
6

3)2$

:
$/
.(
5
67

3)2&

3(0&

3HUU\PDQ6XSSO\:HOOV

$9
(

9(
$
2/

+LVWRULF3ODFHV

-$
0(
6

0(
(.
6
'5

5
&$

3)2$

67
7
6
%%
1'
:(
8
0
5
('
'
21
$9
9(
($
9(
'*
$
,

5
5'
0%
)2
&$
2;
(
$9
$1
/
5
+$

&,5
(/
/ ,
&7

/HJHQG

3)2$

/$
:
67

3)2$

3)2$

:
5'
/ '
),(
36
,
/
/
3+,

3(0& 386&
3(0&

5
3(

386&[
3)2(0&

:

5<

386&[

1
0$
%<

386&

+$

+$





+$

+

+$ $ 






+$

+$ 
 
 


386&

3(066&

386& 386&
386&

3)2&

+$

386&

:

:

386&

+$
:

386&

+$
:

+$

  

366(0(

386&

386&


38%)[
)HHW

3(0&

3)266&

8 386&

7(
67
+:
<

+$
+$
+$
+$

0$5&0DLQWHQDQFH)DFLOLW\
(QYLURQPHQWDO&RQVWUDLQWV0DS

3(0(

2SXV6LWH

3)266&

3(0(

38%+K
3(0$
3)2$

3)2&

)HEUXDU\


3(0&
3(0&

366$

)LJXUH

Track The MARC facilities, including the yard and shop and lead tracks, would require
the construction of approximately 48,000 feet of track and 40 turnouts.
Catenary System The nearest Amtrak traction power substation is Perryman
(Substation 17), and is located approximately one mile from the proposed yard. At this site, it is
envisioned that insulated overlaps with disconnect switches will be installed in the yard lead
catenary, with approximately 64,000 feet of two-wire catenary required for this new yard facility.
Five preliminary layout drawings have been developed to help plan the Catenary and ET
concepts for this location (See Drawings ET-18, ET-19, ET-20, ET-21 and ET-22 in Appendix
A).
Advantages from a Catenary Perspective:
1. Two new 12kV feeders and supporting hardware will be installed on existing
catenary structures from the existing Amtrak Perryman Substation to the proposed
Opus facility.
Disadvantages from a Catenary Perspective:
1. Space does not appear to be adequate to accommodate 12kV feeder breakers and
an associated gantry structure with bus and motor operated disconnect switches to
sectionalize catenary power within the yard. Drawings ET-19 and ET-20 in
Appendix A indicate possible locations to place ET equipment for this purpose.
2. Structural analysis would be required for all of the structures supporting the new
12kV feeders, which may lead to additional cost to replace or guy overloaded
structures.
3. Additional catenary work would be necessary due to two new interlockings that
will be required to service this yard.
If standby power for equipment is to be available separate from the locomotive, an
independent utility 60 HZ supply will be required. The utility supply for the various other yard
facilities should include this capability.
Electric Traction Substations The proposed Opus location in the Perryman Maryland
vicinity has some major advantages for a direct connection to the 12kV distribution network that
is supplied from Sub 17 Perryman at MP 67.4. At the present time Sub 17 is a two traction power
transformer substation. With the additional loading that will arrive with a yard complex, power
system upgrades will be necessary to support both NEC traffic and a yard complex.
Advantages from an ET Substation Perspective:
1. Amtraks existing Perryman Substation 17 is approximately two miles away and
can support direct connection at 12kV, 25Hz envisioned load at this yard location,
including track switch heaters.

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
29

2. Substation 17 has at least one available transformer bay to accommodate an


upgrade, with a possibility to incorporate another bay for a total of four
(4.5MVA) transformer units.
3. Existing catenary structures can be modified to support new 12kV feeders to the
yard facility.
4. A 12 kV switching structure is envisioned to receive the incoming feeders from
Perryville Substation. As noted in the Catenary System write-up, space appears
available at both the east and west ends of the yard for this equipment as shown
on Drawings ET-19 and ET-20 in Appendix A. Two breakers will be required, as
well as several motor operated disconnect switches for yard sectionalizing.
Disadvantages from an ET Substation Perspective:
1. The only alternate source of 25Hz catenary power to feed this location, in the
event the feeder system is lost, would be via taps from the trolley network.
2. The new envisioned 12 kV switching structure would require an approximate land
parcel 50Ft X 100Ft in size, requiring additional land acquisition.
Communications and Signals The proposed Opus facility would be located at MP 68
between BUSH and OAK Interlockings. Two new interlockings would be required in order to
service the yard facility. CHELSEA (MP ~69.0) would be located at the south end and POPLAR
(MP ~67.3) to the north. These interlockings would consist of two #20 crossovers and one
turnout. New signal bridges would be required at both interlockings. ABS signal circuit
revisions would be required to accommodate the new interlockings.
Railroad-Related Issues Issues with this site include high cost and a significant
amount of coordination with Amtrak. Amtraks comments about this site dated September 20,
2010, stated the following:
New interlockings bracketing the facility would be required, which would be a
significant maintenance burden on Amtrak and present significant financial requirements for
MTA. Maintenance for this new infrastructure would be solely for MTAs benefit and would
have to be at MTAs sole expense. Potential new station tracks serving Aberdeen may be
required in order to avoid operational conflicts in very high speed territory.
These statements seem to conflict with the future track improvements identified in the
Northeast Corridor Master Plan II and MARC Growth and Investment Plan, which show the
aforementioned POPLAR and CHELSEA interlockings and a future fourth track. Therefore, it is
unclear as to exactly what, if any, future improvements Amtrak may be planning for this location
and how they might impact the MARC facility at the Opus Site. Correspondence from Amtrak is
included in Appendix B.
4.3.2 Environmental/Contamination Concerns (HAZMATS)
WR&A reviewed a preliminary map report from EDR for the Opus Site and surrounding
vicinity. The EDR report did not identify the project site as a site of known environmental
concern or regulation. There were several sites of regulatory concern in the surrounding vicinity.
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
30

The site location in relation to the project site, its regulatory status, and other applicable
information are listed in the table below.
EDR IDENTIFIED REGULATORY SITES ON PROJECT SITE AND IN SURROUNDING REGION
DISTANCE/DIRECTION
LOCATION
DATABASE INFORMATION
FROM PROJECT SITE
DOD
Aberdeen Proving Ground
NPL
(Edgewood Area)
CERCLIS
+ 200 feet east
US ENG CONTROLS
Off Route 40
US INST CONTROLS
Edgewood, Md 21010
ROD
(Listed 6 times)

Pier I Imports
913 Old Philadelphia Road
Aberdeen, Md 21001

Randall and Susan Strock


1615 Perryman Road
Aberdeen, Md 21001

OCPCASES
OCP Case #: 95-2517HA
Facility Status: Closed
Date Open: 5/17/1995
Date Closed: 7/5/1995
Release: Not Reported
Cleanup: Not Reported
Facility Code: Not Reported
OCPCASES
OCP Case #: 91-1198HA
Facility Status: Closed
Date Open: 12/7/1990
Date Closed: 8/6/1998
Release: Yes
Cleanup: Yes
Facility Code: Tank Closure-Motor/Lube oil

+ 500 feet northwest

+ 1,700 feet west

Historical LUST
UST
Historical UST
RCRA-NonGen

Fowler Distributing Company


921 Old Philadelphia Road
Aberdeen, Md 21001

R. L. Strock Building
1621 Perryman Road
Aberdeen, Md 21001

OCPCASES
OCP Case #: 92-0158HA
Facility Status: Closed
Date Open: 7/15/1991
Date Closed: 11/13/1991
Release: Not Reported
Cleanup: Not Reported
Facility Code: Not Reported

+ 1,700 feet north

OCP Case #: 91-1759HA


Facility Status: Closed
Date Open: 3/8/1991
Date Closed: 3/14/1991
Release: Not Reported
Cleanup: Not Reported
Facility Code: Not Reported
OCPCASES
OCP Case #: 91-2654HA
Facility Status: Closed
Date Open: 8/24/1990
Date Closed: 8/24/1990

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
31

+ 1,900 feet west

EDR IDENTIFIED REGULATORY SITES ON PROJECT SITE AND IN SURROUNDING REGION


DISTANCE/DIRECTION
LOCATION
DATABASE INFORMATION
FROM PROJECT SITE
Release: Not Reported
Cleanup: Not Reported
Facility Code: Not Reported

Perryman Grocery
1551 Perryman Road
Aberdeen, Md 21001

OCPCASES
OCP Case #: 93-0503BC3
Facility Status: Closed
Date Open: 9/4/1992
Date Closed: 9/8/1992
Release: Not Reported
Cleanup: Not Reported
Facility Code: Not Reported

+ 2,000 feet northwest

Historical LUST

Ark Rigging & Transfer


1025 Old Philadelphia Road
Aberdeen, Md 21001

OCPCASES
OCP Case #: 90-1606HA
Facility Status: Closed
Date Open: 2/21/1990
Date Closed: 7/20/1994
Release: Not Reported
Cleanup: Not Reported
Facility Code: Not Reported

+ 2,400 feet northwest

The Opus Site is not identified as a site of environmental concern or regulation. APG
Edgewood, located east of the Opus Site, is associated with confirmed releases of a variety of
hazardous materials into the soil and groundwater in a variety of places on the APG property. As
a result, the APG property is listed on the National Priority List (NPL) database, which identifies
sites for priority cleanup under the Superfund program, and the CERCLIS database, and has a
variety of engineering controls in place to prevent contact with known contaminants in the soils,
sediments, groundwater, and structures on the APG property. It is therefore possible that the
subsurface of the project site may contain hazardous materials from migration of hazardous
materials from the APG property. A Phase I ESA and a Phase II ESA with environmental
sampling may be recommended prior to selection of the site in order to adequately determine
whether subsurface contamination may be reasonably expected to be encountered during
construction activities.
A document titled Phase I ESA, Mitchell Property, Aberdeen, Maryland dated May 2005
prepared by Weston Solutions, Inc. for Opus East, LLC was provided to WR&A from MTA.
The Phase I ESA concluded that there was one recognized environmental condition (REC)
associated with the property. Groundwater beneath the site may be contaminated with
chlorinated solvents. According to groundwater sampling information from the Harford County
Water Operations Department, several water wells along the eastern border of the project site
have detected trichloroethelene levels at concentrations that exceed MDE cleanup levels.
Weston Solutions, Inc. stated that if groundwater was used in the future, additional sampling and
research regarding the chlorinated solvent levels in the groundwater should be considered.

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
32

According to the Harford County Water Source Protection District Map, located on the
Harford County Government, Department of Planning and Zoning website
(www.harfordcountymd.gov/PlanningZoning), the entire Opus Site is located within the
Perryman Wellfield Protection District. Regulations were adopted in the Harford County Zoning
Code, effective December 22, 2008, and Amended thru May 31, 2011, which would prohibit
development with proposed uses within the district that could pose a threat to groundwater.
According to a phone interview with Ms. Jacqueline Ludwig, Chief of the Water and Sewer
Engineering & Administration Division of the Harford County Department of Public Works, the
wells in the Perryman Wellfield Protection District produce approximately 5,000,000 gallons of
water per day or 25% of the drinking water for Harford County. The area is a very important
source of drinking water for the County.
Initial correspondence with the Harford County Department of Planning and Zoning
revealed that County approval for a proposed train maintenance and layover facility within the
Perryman Wellfield Protection District would likely be denied. However, there appeared to be
nothing in the County Code that specifically prohibited a train maintenance and layover facility.
Attorneys (Stark and Keenan) for the owners of the Opus property (Frederick O. Mitchell and
Elizabeth Pierce) further inquired as to whether the proposed maintenance and layover facility
could be approved by the Harford County Department of Planning and Zoning. In a letter to Mr.
Robert Lynch, Esquire, Stark and Keenan, dated April 15, 2011, Mr. C. Pete Gutwald, Director
of the Harford County Department of Planning and Zoning, wrote, ...after review of your letter
regarding the above referenced property and the specific activities proposed to occur thereon
identified in your letter, I have determined that the materially similar use identified in the
Harford County Zoning Code would be a Train Station. A Train Station is a principle permitted
use in the LI zoning district on the property identified as Tax Map 58, Parcel 503.
Support by Harford County for the Opus Site as a potential MARC Maintenance Facility
location was stated in a letter dated August 30, 2011, from Mr. David R. Craig, Harford County
Executive to Hon. Beverly Swaim-Staley, Secretary of Transportation for the Maryland
Department of Transportation. Mr. Craig stated, I along with members of our DPW and
Planning & Zoning teams have met with the proposed developers for this site and feel that their
plan is both workable and takes into account measures to protect the environment and our
wellhead areas. Should this site prove to be a favorable location for the MTA, we will continue
to work with the developers and MTA to ensure a smooth development process.
Correspondence is included in Appendix B.
Hydrogeologist, Steve Mogilnicki with Whitman, Requardt & Associates, was consulted
for information regarding the Perryman water supply wells. Information for the Perryman wells
can be found in the 1997 report, MGS Report of Investigations No. 63, by the Maryland
Geological Survey. The wells in closest proximity to the proposed maintenance facility, Wells
#8 and #9, draw from a confined aquifer designated Aquifer 2 in the region. Wells #8 and #9
are located several hundred feet from the proposed facility. Groundwater flow modeling by the
MGS indicated that the contributing area for the wells is partly beneath the proposed
maintenance facility. The contributing area is a theoretical mappable area in which recharge
(possibly including leaks or spills of contaminants) can reach the water well. From a
groundwater protection standpoint, the Opus site for the facility is a poor site. Theoretically,
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
33

there may be some protection of the wells given that the water supply aquifer is confined, but
contaminants could still move through confining layers. If further analysis of this site is to be
conducted, a site-specific groundwater study, including records review, a site visit, and
additional groundwater analysis including new modeling is recommended. In addition, the
extent and hydrogeologic properties of the confining layers would need additional
characterization.
4.3.3 Natural Resources
Wetlands NWI and DNR maps were examined for wetlands in the vicinity of the Opus
Site and none were depicted on the project site. However, there were several Palustrine Forested
(PFO) and Palustrine Emergent (PEM) wetlands within approximately 500 feet of the project site
along the eastern border of the project site and approximately 250 feet west of the central portion
of the project site. Aerial photography provided by www.bing.com/maps was examined in the
vicinity of the Opus Site and no obvious wetlands or waters of the U.S. were observed on the
site.
A report was provided to WR&A by MTA entitled Wetlands Delineation, Mitchell
Property dated April 17, 2006 for Opus East L.L.C. by CNA Engineers. The wetland delineation
stated that there were approximately 0.94 total acres of wetlands on the Mitchell property
consisting of several non-tidal PFO wetlands associated with the forested area on the eastern
portion of the Mitchell property and a relatively small PFO non-tidal wetland located in the
northern corner of the property located approximately 400 feet south of the intersection of Short
Lane with the NEC. The PFO wetlands located on the eastern portion of the Mitchell property
are located approximately 600 feet east of the site boundary. The small PFO wetland in the
northern corner of the Mitchell property appears to be located approximately 100 feet from the
proposed northern access road that will connect with Short Lane. There were no stream channels
identified during the wetland delineation. The wetland delineation was not verified by MDE or
USACE.
Prior to development of the site, a formal wetland delineation will be required. Waters of
the U.S., including wetlands, will be delineated, flagged in the field, and surveyed in accordance
with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic
and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), November 2010. Plans showing the areas of
impact to streams, wetlands, and 25-foot wetland buffers will be included in a JPA submitted to
MDE and USACE that details the avoidance, minimization and mitigation required as a result of
the impacts on the project site. If mitigation is determined to be required, it may be accounted
for by purchase of wetland credits at a wetland bank within the watershed, payment to the
Maryland Wetlands Compensation Fund, on-site mitigation, or off-site mitigation.
Floodplains The Opus Site is located outside of the 100- and 500-year floodplains.
The closest floodplain is approximately 2,000 feet to the northwest and is associated with
Cranberry Run which discharges into Church Creek. There will be no affect on floodplains if the
Opus Site is developed.
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (CBCA) The Opus Site is located outside of the
CBCA. The closest Critical Areas are associated with Church Creek, located approximately one
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
34

mile to the northwest. The land along these waterways 1,000 feet inland are designated as
Resource Conservation Areas, according to the MERLIN database. Since the closest edge of the
Critical Area is approximately 4,000 feet away, there will be no affects to Critical Areas if this
site is selected.
Maryland Forest Conservation Act (MFCA) The site is comprised primarily of
agricultural fields and tree rows. In accordance with the MFCA, an FSD and FCP will be
required. Although there are few forested areas on the project site, afforestation will be required
to plant the site to the minimum afforestation threshold (15%) and reforestation will be required
for any forest removed. If reforestation/afforestation cannot be accomplished onsite, offsite
areas may be identified, credits may be purchased from a reforestation bank, or lastly MTA may
pay into the Forest Compensation Fund.
Preliminary calculations for existing forest coverage and reforestation requirements were
determined by studying aerial photographs of the site. Any area with tree cover was counted as
forest. Field verification required for the FSD will further define the actual boundaries of the
forest. It is possible that areas that appear as forest on aerial photographs may not meet the
definition of forest as stated in the State Forest Conservation manual. The Opus site to be
impacted contains approximately 3.41 acres of forest cover. Based on the State manual
worksheet, approximately 11.95 acres of reforestation will be required for this leased site. The
Opus parcel is mostly cleared and therefore provides abundant space to plant on the parcel.
Threatened & Endangered Species According to the MERLIN database, there were
no Sensitive Species Project Review Areas depicted in the vicinity of the Opus Site. The closest
Sensitive Species Project Review Area depicted in the MERLIN database is approximately 3,000
feet to the northwest of the project site and is associated with Church Creek. If the Opus Site is
proposed to be developed, correspondence will be sent to DNR and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to confirm the presence/absence of threatened & endangered State and Federal species,
respectively. If threatened & endangered species are suspected on the project site, DNR/U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service may require additional species/habitat surveys, time of year
construction restrictions, and/or avoidance of particular areas on the project site.
Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) The DNR GIS data for FIDS habitat areas
was reviewed for the Opus Site. No FIDS habitat areas are located on the Opus Site. There are
FIDS habitat areas surrounding the site located approximately 1,000 feet to the west, 700 feet to
the northeast and 1,000 feet to the east.
4.3.4 Cultural Resources
The MERLIN database was searched for the existence of cultural resources in the vicinity
of the Opus Site. The southern portion of the project site is located approximately 750 feet north
of the Perryman Historic District (HA-1722) in the Maryland Historic Property Site database.
There is one historical property (Mitchell Farm Complex ruins; HA-1588) and one bridge (SHA
12058, HA-1978) listed in the Maryland Historic Property Site database located within 1,000
feet of the northern portion of the project site. Multiple historic properties are located greater
than 1,000 feet from the site to the southwest. None of the properties have documentation
available on the MERLIN database, except for the F.O. Mitchell & Brothers, or Mitchells Office
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
35

Building (HA-1659) located approximately 1,500 feet southwest of the site, and the U.S. Post
Office (HA-1658) also located approximately 1,800 feet southwest of the site. Prior to
development of the site, correspondence with MHT would be required to determine whether
there would be effects of the project on the historical properties.
4.3.5 Potential Noise Impacts
In accordance with Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006 (FTAVA-90-1003-06), screening distances were applied to the Opus Site to identify potential noise
impacts. There are no historical or residential properties that fall within the screening distance of
the project site. Industrial areas are generally located west of the site, but would not be
considered noise sensitive.
4.3.6 Socioeconomic Profile of Adjacent Neighborhoods
The neighborhoods adjacent to this site correspond to the census tract 3024 and according
to the 2000 U.S. Census, the total population was 2,745 people with 1,363 males and 1,382
females. Approximately three-fourths of the population above 25 years of age had a high school
diploma, whereas approximately 15% had at least a bachelors degree. The median income was
$35,951 with a 3.5% rate of unemployment. A large percentage of families (15.3%) were
reported to be below the poverty level. The racial composition of the community included
Whites at approximately 74%, with 22.5% African-Americans. Hispanics (of any race)
accounted for less than 3% of the entire population in the tract. Census tract data from the 2010
U.S. Census was not available at the time this report was written.
4.3.7 Stormwater Management
Located on existing farmland, the OPUS site has no existing impervious area apart from
the existing railway ballast. Underlying soils at this site are primarily HSG Type B, with some
Type C and a minimal amount of Type D present as well. Runoff from this site discharges
to an unnamed tributary of Romney Creek, which discharges directly into the Chesapeake Bay.
This site is located entirely outside of the Critical Area, as well as the 100-yr flood plain (FIRM
No. 24025C2081D).
It is anticipated that stormwater management will be accomplished at this site using ESD
to the maximum extent practicable supplemented with a traditional stormwater Best
Management Practice (pond). ESD elements that may be applicable to this site include pervious
pavement for parking and light-duty areas, micro-bioretention, bio-swales and other similar
elements. The groundwater elevation at this site is presently unknown, and may preclude use of
some devices if its elevation is close to the surface. Topography on this site suggests that the
pond would be located to the south east of the proposed facility in additional adjacent open
space. No major changes to existing drainage patterns would be anticipated under this plan.
4.3.8 Property Impacts (Acquisition)
The program area requirements for this site total 56.90 acres. Approximately 8.89 acres
would consist of temporary construction easements along the NEC and the rest of the property
(48.01 acres) would be leased. According to the Maryland Department of Assessments and
Taxation, the parcel to be leased is defined as Tax Map 58 Parcel 503 and is owned by Elizabeth
M. Pearce et al.
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
36

4.3.9 Site Pros and Cons


Pros:
Deadhead time to Perryville is less than from Penn Station
No major grading should be required
Almost no clearing required except for lead track construction
Highway access available at the north end of site
No anticipated effects to T&E species, wetlands, 100-year floodplain, and Critical
Area
Cons:
Requires construction of two new interlockings in Amtrak NEC
Second longest deadhead time from Penn Station of all sites studied
Site located in the Perryman Wellfield Protection District presenting zoning issues
Major cost factors include construction of two interlockings with at least two
crossovers, each

4.4

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (APG) EDGEWOOD, MARYLAND


The Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) Edgewood Site is located on the south side of the
NEC, north of Magnolia Road (MD Route 152) and south of Emmorton Road (MD Route 24).
The proposed project site is approximately 6,800 feet long and ranges from approximately 30
feet wide on the railroad tracks to approximately 800 feet wide and has a total site area (i.e., the
program area requirements) of approximately 74.1 acres. The portion of the site that would be
occupied by MTAs improvements would be approximately 58.9 acres. An additional 15.1 acres
will be required for relocation of the existing BGE aerial power transmission line which is
currently in a right-of-way approximately 130 feet wide. The site is located wholly within APG
which is federal land currently under military use. The site would provide adequate acreage for
current and future train storage and equipment maintenance requirements. Figure 11 presents
the environmental constraints associated with the site. Figure 12 presents the proposed yard and
shop layout. Figure 13 presents the property impacts and zoning associated with the site.
4.4.1 Railroad Suitability
Site The APG Edgewood Site meets the requirements for construction of a doubleended facility and would provide easy MARC train access to both Baltimore and Perryville. A
BGE aerial power transmission line currently occupies the length of the site and would have to
be relocated further south during site development. Construction of the south lead track may
require reconstruction of the south end of the Magnolia Road overhead highway bridge, but more
information is required to adequately assess the actual situation. There are several small
structures or bunkers on the site currently in use by APG that would have to be demolished and
their functions relocated to other parts of the base. Development of this site could require fills of
up to 20 feet in depth and totaling as much as 1,000,000 CY of material.
Amtrak Connection Two existing Amtrak interlockings, WOOD and MAGNOLIA
Interlockings, are located at the north and south ends of the site, respectively, and provide most
of the track crossovers necessary to access this site. The site has an existing lead track
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
37

1,000

PFO1C PEM1C

HA-1612

HA-188

HA-1683

S
WE

PFO1E

HA-1682
HA-1570 HA-1684

2,000
Feet

RD
OD
WO

PFO1A

PUBHx

ST
AU

IN

RD

PUBFx

PUBFx

PUBHx

HA-1851

PUBHx

un
ro

PUBHx

PUBHx

T
37TH S

ty
un g G
Co ovin
d
r
r
rfo n P
Ha d e e
er
Ab

PUSCx

RD

500

HA-1680

PFO1A

PUBHh

S
STO KE

E2EM1P6

O
YL

HA-1678

HA-1677
HA-1679

HA-1681

HA-187

HA-186

PUBHh

LN
HT S
Forest Interior
Dwelling
Species (FIDS) Area
KN IG

500-yr Floodplain

100-yr Floodplain

Chesapeake Bay Critical Area

RO Wetlands
DNR/NWI

PK

LN
Potential Wetlands
delineated by Geotechnical Assoc. Inc., dated April 1989
A

ST

E2EM1P6

PFO1R

PEM1C

HA-357

CO

PEM1C

PEM1C

HA-1852

PEM1C

T
NU

L
TA

KS

TN

PFO1E

PFO1E

OR
RI D

PEM1C

PFO1E

ST
EA

34TH ST

PFO1C

PFO1C

H
RT

PUBHh

NO

ek
re
C
al
an
C
PEM1C

J ST

IG

O
LO

K
RA
T
AM

PFO1A

PFO1C

PFO1E

PARKER RD

HA-2034

February 2012HA-1963

BAPG
LA
CK

MAGNOLIA RD

PFO1A

K RD

PFO1E

STAR

HA
WK

Site
RD

MARC Maintenance Facility


Environmental Constraints Map

PFO1A

HA-2009

PFO1C

E
AV

RD

FO
R

PUBH

Edgewood Arsenal Industrial Survey- MIHP HA 2069

US Army Assembly Plant - MIHP HA 2049

Historic Places

DR
TH
EG
AP

Program Area Requirements

LE R D

Inl
et

HA-1606

TRIMB

11TH ST

Legend

Re
a

MAGNOLIA RD

rdo
n

E
L AV
U TTA

LAGOON RD

N
OLD

SIEB
ER T
RD

E
AV

ALLEY RD

EY

ST

RD

DL
HOA

32N
D

N
TO
OR

CT

CE
M

M
EM

R
IDE
RE
R

ST
TE
RY

AL
TT
NU

ST

EMM ORTON RD

B
CO
JA

D
ES

WA E
HL I
R

N
AN

C
MC

VE
EA

RD
PUBHx

Figure 11

HA-1962

WISE
R

PL
MA

EN
OW

N
HA NLO
RD

T
38TH S

ATKISSON RD

42N D ST

connecting it to the NEC at WOOD Interlocking. Track 1 would need to be extended at the
south end to provide a long enough lead track to hold a ten-car MARC trainset, and this would
require moving the turnout to Track 1 from Track 2 further south in MAGNOLIA Interlocking.
Additionally, one crossover will need to be added at MAGNOLIA Interlocking to provide full
access to the MARC facility to and from the south.
Track The MARC facilities, including the yard and shop and lead tracks, would require
the construction of approximately 47,100 feet of track and 44 turnouts.
Catenary System At this site, it is envisioned that insulated overlaps with disconnect
switches will be installed in the yard lead catenary, with approximately 58,000 feet of two-wire
catenary required for this new yard facility. Four preliminary layout drawings have been
developed to help plan the Catenary and ET concepts for this location (See Drawings ET-12, ET13, ET-14 and ET-23 in Appendix A).
Advantages from a Catenary Perspective:
1. The construction for the APG Edgewood site has the benefits of being constructed
in new territory not affected by working around an existing active location such
as the case with the Perryville B site.
2. The APG Edgewood site would require a new substation in the vicinity, identified
as Magnolia Substation, and conceptually shown on enclosed Drawing ET-13 in
Appendix A. With such a facility, the level of redundancy can be accommodated
with reduced 12kV feeder lengths from those described at either Perryville
facility. Structural analysis for the new feeder installation would be limited to
only two structures.
3. Overlaps can be installed in all mainline tracks to accept new feeders from the
proposed substation, with no concern regarding phase break positioning and
resultant protection schemes. Crossarms, switches, and feeder assemblies will be
installed on existing catenary poles to connect to the catenary overlaps.
Disadvantages from a Catenary Perspective:
1. Work is required on the 138kV Transmission Network. The east and west
Amtrak 138kV, 25HZ transmission lines will be dead-ended north and south, then
directed into the new 138/12 kV substation to be built on the west side of the
Amtrak ROW, opposite the proposed yard site.
2. The two pairs of 138kV transmission take-off poles would require reinforcing
with a crossbeam or truss.
3. A new pole would need to be set on the east side of the ROW to receive the two
yard 12kV yard feeders from the 12kV substation bus structure.

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
38

If standby power for equipment is to be available separate from the locomotive, an


independent utility 60 HZ supply will be required. The utility supply for the various other yard
facilities should include this capability.
Electric Traction Substations The proposed APG Edgewood site is located at
approximately MP 76.5 in Edgewood and not near any existing Amtrak Substation facility.
Advantages from an ET Substation Perspective:
1. Land parcels appear to be available to accommodate new traction power
substation/equipment for a yard facility at this location, but appear to be outside
Amtraks right-of-way. See Drawings ET-13 in Appendix A for a conceptual
substation location.
2. With a new traction power substation envisioned at this facility, the level of
redundancy and power reliability is significantly greater than the Perryville
location. See Drawing ET-23 in Appendix A for a conceptual single line diagram.
3. With a new traction power substation envisioned at this facility, Amtrak will
mandate that they assume all maintenance responsibilities for the new substation.
Disadvantages from an ET Substation Perspective:
1. Modifications to the existing 138kV system and an entirely new substation would
be required at this facility. Such an installation would mandate interconnection
with the mainline and additional breakers for the yard, thereby being much more
expensive to implement than the Perryville location.
2. The new envisioned traction power substation would require an approximate land
parcel 250Ft X 200Ft in size, requiring additional land acquisition.
Communications and Signals The APG Edgewood site would be located at MP 76.5
in Edgewood, MD. The required lead track lengths shown on the drawings are from clearance
point of the last yard switch to the Interlocking signal governing the entrance to the mainline.
For discussion purposes we will assume that the northern yard lead switch will be the existing
76.8 Electric Lock switch (Arsenal Ind.) just south of the limits of WOOD and the southern yard
lead switch will be moved south of the existing Track 2 limits of MAGNOLIA.
WOOD Interlocking Signal Changes:
1. New 91 Switch (northern yard lead) and new Signal 9N.
2. Relocate existing Signal 1N southward to accommodate 91 Switch.
3. Additional interlocking track circuits for detector locking.

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
39

4. Replace all-relay controlled interlocking with microprocessor(s) due to major


signal modifications.
5. PTC and CETC modifications.
MAGNOLIA Interlocking Signal Changes:
1. New 19 Switch (southern yard lead) and new Signal 9S.
2. New 21 Switch and new 2N & 2S Signal.
3. New 32 Switch and new 3N Signal.
4. Retire existing 21 Switch and 3N, 2N, 2S & 1S Signals.
5. Replace all-relay controlled interlocking with microprocessors due to major signal
modifications.
6. PTC and CETC modifications.
Signal Aspect modifications at Signals 784 and GUNPOW Interlocking to accommodate
reconfigured MAGNOLIA Interlocking.
Railroad-Related Issues In comments dated September 20, 2010, Amtrak indicated its
preference for this site as compared with the Perryville B and Opus Sites. The existing lead track
on the north end of the site would need to be rebuilt with new rail, crossties, fasteners and
ballast.
4.4.2 Environmental/Contamination Concerns (HAZMATS)
WR&A reviewed a preliminary map report from EDR for the APG Edgewood Site and
surrounding vicinity. The EDR report identified the project site as a site of known
environmental concern or regulation. There were also several sites of regulatory concern in the
surrounding vicinity. The site location in relation to the project site, its regulatory status, and
other applicable information are listed in the table below.
EDR IDENTIFIED REGULATORY SITES ON PROJECT SITE AND IN SURROUNDING REGION
DISTANCE/DIRECTION
LOCATION
DATABASE INFORMATION
FROM PROJECT SITE
DOD
Aberdeen Proving Ground
NPL
(Edgewood Area)
CERCLIS
Project Site
US ENG CONTROLS
Off Route 40
US INST CONTROLS
Edgewood, Md 21010
ROD
(Listed 6 times)
Harford County Waste to
Energy
1 Magnolia Road
Joppa, Md 21085

OCPCASES
OCP Case #: 94-2045HA
Facility Status: Closed
Date Open: 1/28/1994

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
40

+ 100 feet west


southwest

EDR IDENTIFIED REGULATORY SITES ON PROJECT SITE AND IN SURROUNDING REGION


DISTANCE/DIRECTION
LOCATION
DATABASE INFORMATION
FROM PROJECT SITE
(Listed 4 times)
Date Closed: 10/27/2009
Release: Not Reported
Cleanup: Not Reported
Facility Code: Not Reported
SWF/LF
NPDES
AIRS

Heinsohn Property
2009 Nuttal Avenue
Edgewood, Md 21040

Birchfield Property
8 Railroad Avenue
Edgewood, Md 21040

Dennis Rembold
116 Magnolia Road
Edgewood, Md 21040

OCPCASES
OCP Case #: 05-0819HA
Facility Status: Open
Date Open: 1/11/2005
Date Closed: Not Reported
Release: Yes
Cleanup: Not Reported
Facility Code: Aboveground Tank-Residential
Heating Oil
OCPCASES
OCP Case #: 00-1952HA
Facility Status: Closed
Date Open: 5/26/2000
Date Closed: 9/27/2000
Release: Yes
Cleanup: Yes
Facility Code: Aboveground Tank Leak
OCPCASES
OCP Case #: 7-1889HA
Facility Status: Closed
Date Open: 3/24/1987
Date Closed: 10/27/2009
Release: Not Reported
Cleanup: Not Reported
Facility Code: Not Reported

+ 700 feet northeast

+ 1,100 feet northeast

+ 1,800 feet west


northwest

The APG Edgewood site is associated with confirmed releases of a variety of hazardous
materials into the soil and groundwater in a variety of places on the APG property. As a result,
the APG property is listed on the NPL database, which identifies sites for priority cleanup under
the Superfund program, and the CERCLIS database, and has a variety of engineering controls in
place to prevent contact with known contaminants in the soils, sediments, groundwater, and
structures on the APG property. It is therefore possible that the subsurface of the project site
may contain hazardous materials from migration of hazardous materials from the APG property.
A Phase I ESA and a Phase II ESA with environmental sampling is recommended prior to
selection of the site in order to adequately determine whether subsurface contamination may be
reasonably expected to be encountered during construction activities. It may also be likely that
institutional and engineering controls may be required as part of site development.

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
41

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers produced an Environmental Condition of Property


(ECP) report dated November 2011 for the approximate 200-acre area of land proposed for
development for the MARC Maintenance Facility. The ECP summarized the nature and status
of environmental contamination or hazards regarding the site that may affect development. Ten
previous or present environmental investigations were found at the following sites:
G-Street Salvage Yard (Land Use Controls [LUCs] and CERCLA Five Year
Reviews required)
Gas Mask Pit Investigation Near Gate 24 (investigation closed)
Route 24 Gate Expansion Investigation (investigation closed)
G-Street Radiation Site (Draft Remedial Investigation [RI] phase)
WWII Railroad Yard (LUCs and CERCLA Five Year Reviews required)
Building 99 Experimental Filling Plant (LUCs and CERCLA Five Year Reviews
required)
West Canal Creek Aquifer (Draft Final RI phase)
Building E5770/Magnolia Road Radiological Test Site (LUCs and CERCLA Five
Year Reviews required)
Westwood Cluster 14 Northeastern Surficial Aquifer (CERCLA Five Year
Reviews required)
Twelve Munition Response Sites Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP)
for Edgwood Area (Draft RI phase)
The ECP report stated that all of the above sites have statistical risks. It was concluded that, It
is viable for them to lease the site if the construction excavation is handled with regard to
unexploded ordnance and munitions debris.
4.4.3 Natural Resources
Wetlands According to NWI, DNR and Base wetland maps, there are several PFO and
Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom (PUB) wetlands located throughout the project site. Upon
inspection of aerial photography provided by GoogleMaps, the PUB wetland located within the
project site adjacently south of the NEC and west of Siebert Road appears to be a pond
approximately 325 feet long and 100 feet wide. Canal Creek appears to begin at this pond and
eventually discharges approximately one mile to the southwest into the Gunpowder River. A
100-year floodplain, wetlands, and Critical Area are associated with Canal Creek adjacently
south of the project site as it flows toward and crosses under Magnolia Road.
According to the ECP report, there were approximately 3.3 acres of visible water in the
proposed project site. According to the APG Wetland Program Manager, Jodi Knowles, there is
a potential for more areas within the project area to be delineated as wetlands prior to
development.
Prior to development of the site, a formal wetland delineation will be required. Waters of
the U.S., including wetlands, will be delineated, flagged in the field, and surveyed in accordance
with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic
and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), November 2010. Plans showing the areas of
impact to streams, wetlands, and 25-foot wetland buffers will be included in a JPA submitted to
MDE and USACE that details the avoidance, minimization and mitigation required as a result of
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
42

the impacts on the project site. If mitigation is determined to be required, it may be accounted
for by purchase of wetland credits at a wetland bank within the watershed, payment to the
Maryland Wetlands Compensation Fund, on-site mitigation, or off-site mitigation. MDE prefers
that mitigation occur on-site and in-kind rather than using a wetland bank which can conflict
with recent Federal (USACE) mitigation guidance which favors wetland banks before on-site
wetland creation. However, for sites with potential for onsite wetland creation, generally it is the
most practical and feasible option for a particular site that is approved by the agencies. Certain
conditions (hydric soils, suitable topography, and wetland hydrology) must be present on site for
a wetland to survive. The most practical and preferred alternative is expanding existing wetlands
and re-creating wetlands into unwooded areas (fields or arms). In some situations it is possible
to enhance an existing wetland or stream, however impacting upland forest to create wetlands is
not an acceptable method. For the APG Edgewood site, it is possible that mitigation could be
accomplished elsewhere on the APG property with their cooperation. However, the ECP report
states, MTA needs to be cognizant of the fact that it is unlikely that the reestablishment of
wetlands and forests can be done on other APG property.
Floodplains According to the MERLIN database, Harford County GIS and the DNR
website, there are 100- and 500-year floodplain areas along the NEC railroad tracks in the
southwestern portion of the project site. In addition, there is a 100-year floodplain associated
with Canal Creek to the north of Magnolia Road adjacently south of the project site. The 100year floodplain is located approximately 1,100 feet south of the NEC railroad tracks. According
to Ms. Betsy Weisengoff, employee for Harford County Public Works-Water Resources, Harford
County discourages development within a floodplain. However, an engineering analysis
showing that additional areas will not be flooded or affected by the rise in elevation of the
project site, and construction plans depicting impacts in a floodplain, may be submitted for
approval by the County. Harford County does not regulate floodplain development on APG
property. The majority of the floodplain impacts for the APG site are located within the Amtrak
right of way in Harford County with just a small portion on the APG property. The APG portion
may have to been coordinated directly with APG.
In addition to complying with Harford County and APG floodplain requirements, a JPA
must be submitted to MDE to receive a Waterway Construction Permit for any temporary or
permanent impacts within a non-tidal floodplain. To be properly permitted, floodplain impacts
may not increase flooding or create a dangerous situation during flooding, especially on nearby
properties. Also, the project must maintain fish habitat and migration, and protect the waterway
from erosion. An engineering analysis will most likely be required to model the post
development floodplain. It is anticipated that development of the APG site will exceed the minor
project threshold of 100 CY of net fill and 5,000 square feet of disturbance, placing it into the
major project category. Major projects require public notice, adjacent property owner
notification, and often an engineering analysis.
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (CBCA) According to the MERLIN database and
Harford County GIS, there is Critical Area located adjacently south of the central portion of the
project site approximately 800 feet south of the NEC railroad tracks. As there is no apparent
development within the Critical Area, there is no review or approval required by the Critical
Area Commission.
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
43

Maryland Forest Conservation Act (MFCA) The APG Site is heavily forested and
comprised primarily of mixed hardwood communities. Development of the site will require an
FSD and an FCP. The FSD identifies the existing forest cover and the environmental features of
the project site. The FCP describes the limits of disturbance of the proposed project and how the
existing forest and sensitive areas will be protected during and after development. Existing
forested areas affected as part of the site development may require reforestation (planting of trees
to replace forests that have been cleared) or afforestation (planting of trees where forests have
not recently been located). If reforestation/afforestation cannot be accomplished onsite, offsite
areas may be identified, credits may be purchased from a reforestation bank, or lastly MTA may
pay into the Forest Compensation Fund.
Preliminary calculations for existing forest coverage and reforestation requirements were
determined by studying aerial photographs of the site. Any area with tree cover was counted as
forest. Field verification required for the FSD will further define the actual boundaries of the
forest. It is possible that areas that appear as forest on aerial photographs may not meet the
definition of forest as stated in the State Forest Conservation manual. The APG site to be leased
contains approximately 25.1 acres of forest cover. Based on the State manual worksheet,
approximately 25.4 acres of reforestation will be required. It is possible that APG may have area
available elsewhere on the APG property for reforestation or forest conservation. However, the
ECP report states, MTA needs to be cognizant of the fact that it is unlikely that the
reestablishment of wetlands and forests can be done on other APG property.
Threatened & Endangered Species According to the MERLIN database, there were
no Sensitive Species Project Review Areas depicted in the vicinity of the APG Site. If the APG
Site is proposed to be developed, correspondence will be sent to DNR and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to confirm the presence/absence of threatened & endangered State and Federal
species, respectively. If threatened & endangered species are suspected on the project site,
DNR/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may require additional species/habitat surveys, time of year
construction restrictions, and/or avoidance of particular areas on the project site.
According to the ECP report, the Edgewood Area is a designated habitat for the bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The report states that there are no known active nests on the
proposed project site. There were no other threatened or endangered species listed in the report
as being known to occur on the proposed project site.
Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) The DNR GIS data for FIDS habitat areas
was reviewed for the APG Site. FIDS habitat area associated with Canal Creek is located in the
southeastern portion of the APG Site. Another small FIDS habitat area appears to be located in
the northeastern portion of the site adjacent to Siebert Road. A total of approximately 13.4 acres
of FIDS habitat is located within the proposed project site.
4.4.4 Cultural Resources
The MERLIN database was searched for the existence of cultural resources in the vicinity
of the APG Edgewood Site. There is one historic property listed in the NRHP (HA-357) located
approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site. There are eight MIHP identified historic
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
44

properties located with 1,000 feet of the project site to the southwest and three located south of
the project site adjacent to Magnolia Road. Prior to development of the site, correspondence
with MHT would be required to determine whether there would be effects of the project on the
historical properties.
According to the ECP report, APG has located and catalogued 1,282 historic structures
and 75 archeological sites within the boundaries of the entire installation. An area listed as
having a High Potential for Archaeologic Resources is located adjacent to the south-central
portion of the proposed project site near Canal Creek.
4.4.5 Potential Noise Impacts
In accordance with Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006 (FTAVA-90-1003-06), screening distances were applied to the APG Edgewood Site to identify
potential noise impacts. There are no historical properties that fall within the screening distance
of the site. Residential neighborhoods are located on the west side of the track, northwest of the
proposed site, with approximately 17 houses that may fall with the screening distance. An
evaluation of Noise Impact would be required.
4.4.6 Socioeconomic Profile of Adjacent Neighborhoods
This site corresponds to the census tract 3015 and according to the 2000 U.S. Census, it
had a population of 961 people with 435 males and 526 females. 2000 U.S. Census data
indicates that the median age was 19 years and no one was over 55 years of age. Over 94% of
the population over 25 years of age had a high school diploma whereas approximately 31% had
at least a bachelors degree. The median household income was high at $45,341, the rate of
unemployment was 0% and only 3.3% families were below the poverty level. The racial
composition of the tract included 58% whites, approximately 31% African-Americans and just
over 8% were Hispanics (of any race). Census tract data from the 2010 U.S. Census was not
available at the time this report was written.
4.4.7 Stormwater Management
Located on an existing military installation within the boundaries of the Aberdeen
Proving Grounds, this site has a moderate amount of existing impervious area that may be
removed as part of construction of a new facility. The underlying soil composition includes
HSG Type D, B and C relatively evenly distributed throughout the site. Runoff from this
site discharges to a tributary to Canal Creek, which directly discharges to the Chesapeake Bay.
The APG site is located outside of the 1,000-ft Critical Area, but partially within the 100-yr
floodplain for the southwestern portion of the site.
It is anticipated that stormwater management will be accomplished at this site using a
combination of ESD elements and a traditional stormwater pond. ESD devices may be used as
applicable, such as grass swales, green roofs and micro-bioretention facilities. Use of pervious
pavement portions of the facility may see limited use due to restrictive onsite soil types. The
proposed pond would likely be located within the limits of the proposed track facilities, and
would discharge to the nearby Canal Creek.

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
45

4.4.8 Property Impacts (Acquisition)


The site is located on property currently owned by APG which is a U.S. Army Garrison
facility with several security related functions and at least one other tenant. If APG is chosen by
MTA for development, the site will be acquired from APG via an Enhanced Use Lease (EUL).
As mentioned previously, the portion of the site that would be occupied by MTAs
improvements (i.e., program area requirements) would be approximately 58.9 acres. An
additional 15.1 acres will be required for relocation of the existing BGE aerial power
transmission line for a total site area of approximately 74.1 acres. An additional 1.94 acres of
temporary construction easements would be required along the Amtrak Right-of-Way.
Development at this site will require coordination, a formal agreement and security clearance
from the APG authorities. According to Mr. Charles Faller with the Enhanced Use Lease Team
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the EUL property may be moved outside of the secured
area to eliminate potential emergency lockdown issues related with homeland security events.
4.4.9 Site Pros and Cons
Pros:
No new interlocking required in NEC
Configuration of existing lead track turnout and existing crossovers in WOOD
Interlocking will allow MARC trains access to and from facility from either track
in Edgewood Station thereby allowing trains to go into and out of service at
Edgewood if desired by MARC
Deadhead time to Perryville is less than from Penn Station
No anticipated effects to Critical Area
Considered by Amtrak to be the most preferred site
Cons:
May require construction of one new crossover and one new turnout in
MAGNOLIA Interlocking
Time to construction is unknown since proposal will have to be considered and
acquired from APG via an EUL
Shortest deadhead time to Penn Station of all sites studied, and equal to Prologis
Site
Site may require as much as 1,000,000 CY of fill material
Potential HAZMAT issues associated with APG, potential issues regarding 100year floodplain and wetlands
Major Cost Factors Include:
o Addition of at least one crossover at MAGNOLIA Interlocking
o Relocation of the existing BG&E aerial electric transmission lines
o Relocation of existing APG functions
4.5

PROLOGIS SITE, EDGEWOOD, MARYLAND


The Prologis Site is located on the north side of Amtraks NEC and approximately 1,800
feet south of Trimble Road in the City of Edgewood, Maryland. The proposed project site is
approximately 8,200 feet long and ranges from approximately 30 feet wide along the railroad
tracks to 1,300 feet wide and a total site area of approximately 72.8 acres. The portion of the site
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
46

that would be occupied by MTAs improvements (i.e., program area requirements) would be
approximately 55.7 acres. The site is partially forested and partially agricultural in use. The
property would require a full acquisition of the properties owned by Prologis Exchange MD,
LLC which total 63.88 acres and are zoned by Harford County as General Industrial District.
Partial acquisitions totaling 3.69 acres would be required of properties that are zoned Urban
Residential to the east and west of the project site. APG and the APG Edgewood Site are located
south of the site on the opposite side of the NEC. Figure 14 presents the environmental
constraints associated with the site. Figure 15 presents the proposed yard and shop layout.
Figure 16 presents the property impacts and zoning associated with the site.
4.5.1 Railroad Suitability
Site The Prologis Site meets the requirements for construction of a double-ended
facility. Construction of the south lead track will likely require reconstruction of the north end of
the Magnolia Road overhead highway bridge, and construction of the north lead track will likely
require reconstruction of the north end of the Emmorton Road overhead highway bridge, but
more information is required to adequately determine the extent of any necessary reconstruction.
There is an existing stormwater management pond located near the center of the site.
Amtrak Connection Two existing Amtrak interlockings, WOOD and MAGNOLIA
Interlockings, are located at the north and south ends of the site, respectively, and provide most
of the track crossovers necessary to access this site. A new turnout off existing Track 4 at
WOOD Interlocking would provide access for the lead track at the north end. At the south end
Track 4 would need to be extended to provide a space where the south lead track could be
connected, and this would require moving the turnout to Track 4 from Track 3 further south in
MAGNOLIA Interlocking. This situation is made necessary by the location of the Magnolia
Road overhead highway bridge. As an alternative the lead track could be extended, without
extending existing Track 4, and its turnout could be connected to Track 3 instead. Either
extension would move the south end of MAGNOLIA Interlocking further south. Additionally,
one crossover would need to be added at MAGNOLIA Interlocking to provide full access to the
MARC facility to and from the south from Track 2.
Track The MARC facilities, including the yard and shop and lead tracks, would require
the construction of approximately 49,700 feet of track and 40 turnouts.
Catenary System Similarly to that of the other sites, it is envisioned that insulated
overlaps with disconnect switches will be installed in the yard lead catenary, with approximately
58,000 feet of two-wire catenary required for this new yard facility. Four preliminary layout
drawings have been developed to help plan the Catenary and ET concepts for this location (See
Drawings ET-15, ET-16, ET-17 and ET-23 in Appendix A).
Advantages from a Catenary Perspective:
1. The construction for the Prologis site has the benefits of being constructed in
new territory not affected by working around an existing active location as is
the case with the Perryville B site.

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
47

YL
E

HA-188

400

800

D
DR
OO
W
1,600
ST
Feet WE

2
15

HA-1683

HA-1684

PUBHx

Ab

PUBFx

PUBFx

ty
un
nd
Co
ou
Gr
rd
g
o
rf
in
a
v
H
ro
nP
ee
e rd

LAG

NR
OO

PUSCx

DR
PUBHx

HA-1851

NO

H
RT

PUBHx

PUBHx

K
RA
MT

PUBHx

ST
EA

I
RR
CO

PFO1R

PEM1C

OO
IGL

PEM1C

J ST

R
DO

an

al

ST

HA-357

e
re

PUBHh

PFO1C

PFO1C

PFO1A

PFO1E

PFO1E

E
AV

PFO1C

PFO1E

11TH ST

PARKER RD

February 2012

T
NS
AN
MAGNOLIA RD Figure 14

Prologis Site

MARC Maintenance Facility


PFO1A
Environmental Constraints
Map

PEM1C

PEM1C

PFO1E

AL
TT
NU

HA-1570

PFO1A

HA-1681

HA-1680

HA-1679

HA-1677

HA-1678

PFO1A

/M
RD

HA-1682

HA-186

PUBHh

PFO1C

PUBHh

MAGNOLIA RD

NO
AG
M

A
LI
RT

HA-187

KNIG

LN
500-yr Floodplain
HTS

100-yr Floodplain

DNR Wetlands

Potential Wetland delineated by Geotechnical Assoc. Inc., dated April 1989

R
Edgewood
Arsenal Industrial Survey- MIHP HA 2069

K
OP

L
US Army AAssembly
Plant - MIHP HA 2049

Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) Area

PUBH

VE
AL A
UTT

RD

FO
R

E RD
TRIMBL

Program Area Requirement

Historic Places

Legend

N
OLD

LE RD

E
AV

FORT H
OY

LU
T

B
C

RD

LEY

rd o
nI
n le

AL
TT
NU
MO
EM
ON
RT

D
HOA

Re
a

TH
EG
AP

SK

ST

ALLEY RD

RC
IDE
RE

RT R
D

B
CO
JA

SI EB
E

C
MC

2. The Prologis site will require a new substation in the vicinity, identified as
Magnolia Substation, and conceptually shown on enclosed Drawing ET-16. With
such a facility, the level of redundancy can be accommodated with reduced 12kV
feeder lengths from those described at either Perryville facility. Structural
analysis for the new feeder installation would be limited to only two structures.
3. Overlaps can be installed in all mainline tracks to accept new feeders from the
proposed substation, with no concern regarding phase break positioning and
resultant protection schemes. Crossarms, switches, and feeder assemblies will be
installed on existing catenary poles to connect to the catenary overlaps.
Disadvantages from a Catenary Perspective:
1. A new pole would need to be set on the east side of the ROW to receive the two
yard 12kV yard feeders from the 12kV substation bus structure.
If standby power for equipment is to be available separate from the locomotive, an
independent utility 60 HZ supply will be required. The utility supply for the various other yard
facilities should include this capability.
Electric Traction Substations The proposed Prologis site is located at approximately
MP 76.5 in Edgewood and not near any existing Amtrak Substation facility.
Advantages from an ET Substation Perspective:
1. Land parcels appear to be available to accommodate new traction power
substation/equipment for a yard facility at this location, but appear to be outside
Amtraks right-of-way. See Drawing ET-16 in Appendix A for a conceptual
substation location.
2. With a new traction power substation envisioned at this facility, the level of
redundancy and power reliability is significantly greater than either of the Perryville
locations. See Drawing ET-23 in Appendix A for a conceptual single line diagram.
3. With a new traction power substation envisioned at this facility, Amtrak will mandate
that they assume all maintenance responsibilities for the new substation.
Disadvantages from an ET Substation Perspective:
1. Modifications to the existing 138kV system and an entirely new substation would be
required at this facility. Such an installation would mandate interconnection with the
mainline and additional breakers for the yard, thereby being much more expensive to
implement than the Perryville A, Perryville B, or the Opus locations.
2. The new envisioned traction power substation would require an approximate land
parcel 250ft X 200ft in size, requiring additional land acquisition.
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
48

Communications and Signals The proposed Prologis site would be located at MP 76.5
in Edgewood, MD, across Amtraks NEC from the proposed APG Edgewood site. For
discussion purposes we will assume that the northern yard lead switch will be in the
existing limits of WOOD interlocking and the southern yard lead switch will be moved
south of the existing Track #3 limits of MAGNOLIA.
Railroad-Related Issues The overhead highway bridges for Magnolia Road/MD Rt.
152 at the south end of the site, and Nuttal Avenue/MD Rt. 24 at the north end of the site appear
to provide sufficient vertical clearance for the lead tracks, but may require the addition of
retaining walls to support the abutments and permit the earthwork required to install the lead
tracks and possible lengthening of the bridges on the north ends. The existing stormwater
management pond located in the central portion of the site will have to be filled and its function
assumed by a new stormwater management design, as mentioned above. The south lead track
may impact the 100-year floodplain.
4.5.2 Environmental/Contamination Concerns (HAZMATS)
WR&A reviewed a preliminary map report from EDR for the Prologis Site and
surrounding vicinity. The EDR report did not identify the project site as a site of known
environmental concern or regulation. There were several sites of regulatory concern in the
surrounding vicinity. The site location in relation to the project site, its regulatory status, and
other applicable information are listed in the table below.
EDR IDENTIFIED REGULATORY SITES ON PROJECT SITE AND IN SURROUNDING REGION
DISTANCE/DIRECTION
LOCATION
DATABASE INFORMATION
FROM PROJECT SITE
DOD
Aberdeen Proving Ground
NPL
(Edgewood Area)
CERCLIS
+ 200 feet south
US ENG CONTROLS
Off Route 40
US INST CONTROLS
Edgewood, Md 21010
ROD
(Listed 6 times)

Harford County Waste to


Energy
1 Magnolia Road
Joppa, Md 21085
(Listed 4 times)

OCPCASES
OCP Case #: 94-2045HA
Facility Status: Closed
Date Open: 1/28/1994
Date Closed: 10/27/2009
Release: Not Reported
Cleanup: Not Reported
Facility Code: Not Reported

+ 500 feet southwest

SWF/LF
NPDES
AIRS

Heinsohn Property
2009 Nuttal Avenue
Edgewood, Md 21040

OCPCASES
OCP Case #: 05-0819HA
Facility Status: Open
Date Open: 1/11/2005
Date Closed: Not Reported
Release: Yes

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
49

+ 500 feet northeast

EDR IDENTIFIED REGULATORY SITES ON PROJECT SITE AND IN SURROUNDING REGION


DISTANCE/DIRECTION
LOCATION
DATABASE INFORMATION
FROM PROJECT SITE
Cleanup: Not Reported
Facility Code: Aboveground Tank-Residential
Heating Oil

Birchfield Property
8 Railroad Avenue
Edgewood, Md 21040

Dennis Rembold
116 Magnolia Road
Edgewood, Md 21040

OCPCASES
OCP Case #: 00-1952HA
Facility Status: Closed
Date Open: 5/26/2000
Date Closed: 9/27/2000
Release: Yes
Cleanup: Yes
Facility Code: Aboveground Tank Leak
OCPCASES
OCP Case #: 7-1889HA
Facility Status: Closed
Date Open: 3/24/1987
Date Closed: 10/27/2009
Release: Not Reported
Cleanup: Not Reported
Facility Code: Not Reported

+ 1,000 feet northeast

+ 1,800 feet west

The Prologis Site is not identified by EDR as a site of environmental concern or


regulation. APG Edgewood, located approximately 200 feet south of the Prologis Site, is
associated with confirmed releases of a variety of hazardous materials into the soil and
groundwater in a variety of places on the APG property. As a result, the APG property is listed
on the NPL database, which identifies sites for priority cleanup under the Superfund program,
and the CERCLIS database, and has a variety of engineering controls in place to prevent contact
with known contaminants in the soils, sediments, groundwater, and structures on the APG
property. It is therefore possible that the subsurface of the project site may contain hazardous
materials from migration of hazardous materials from the APG property. A Phase I ESA and a
Phase II ESA with environmental sampling may be recommended prior to selection of the site in
order to adequately determine whether subsurface contamination may be reasonably expected to
be encountered during construction activities.
A document titled Phase I Environmental Assessment of The Gap Inc., Atlantic
Distribution Center, Greater Harford Industrial Park, 1701-1709 Trimble Road, Edgewood,
Harford County, Maryland 21040, produced by Property Solutions, Inc. for ProLogis and dated
October 25, 2005 was provided to WR&A by MTA. A REC was identified regarding a floor
drain in the building to the north of the Prologis Site. No other RECs were identified in the
study. It was noted in the Phase I document that several groundwater wells are located on and
around the Prologis Site and the neighboring APG site to the south. According to General
Physics Corporation (APGs environmental consultant) the Prologis Site is hydrogeologically
upgradient of APG according to groundwater modeling performed with measured groundwater
levels in the groundwater monitoring wells. Therefore, contaminated groundwater that may be
present under APG is unlikely to migrate to groundwater under the Prologis Site.

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
50

4.5.3 Natural Resources


Wetlands According to the NWI and DNR maps, there are several wetlands adjacent to
the Prologis Site and one large PUB wetland located in the central portion of the site. However
aerial photography provided by GoogleMaps, indicates that this wetland is likely a stormwater
management pond. MDE does not generally consider maintained stormwater management ponds
to be jurisdictional waters of the U.S.; however, concurrence in this matter is advised. There is a
large PFO wetland indicated adjacently northeast of the site and west of Old Nuttal Avenue;
three smaller PEM wetlands and two PUB wetlands are indicated adjacently northwest of the site
along The Gap Drive; and one PFO wetland is indicated adjacently northwest of the
southwestern portion of the site where the proposed tracks intersect with Magnolia Road. The
October 25, 2005 Phase I document produced by Property Solutions, Inc., referenced above,
includes a document titled ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey dated March 31, 2005 of the project
site area which indicates non-tidal wetlands located to the east of the site near Old Nuttal Avenue
and in the central portion of the site from The Gap Drive south to the railroad tracks. Notes on
the survey indicate that the wetland locations were taken from a study by Geo-Technology
Associates, Inc. dated April 1989. The Geo-Technology Associates, Inc. study was not included
in the Phase I document from Property Solutions, Inc. Prior to development of the site, a formal
wetland delineation will be required. Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, will be delineated,
flagged in the field, and surveyed in accordance with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0),
November 2010. Plans showing the areas of impact to streams, wetlands, and 25-foot wetland
buffers will be included in a JPA submitted to MDE and USACE that details the avoidance,
minimization and mitigation required as a result of the impacts on the project site.
If mitigation is determined to be required, it may be accounted for by purchase of wetland
credits at a wetland bank within the watershed, payment to the Maryland Wetlands
Compensation Fund, on-site mitigation, or off-site mitigation. MDE prefers that mitigation occur
on-site and in-kind rather than using a wetland bank which is in direct conflict with recent
Federal (USACE) mitigation guidance which favors wetland banks before on-site wetland
creation. However, generally it is the most practical and feasible option for a particular site that
is approved by the agencies. Certain conditions (hydric soils, suitable topography, and wetland
hydrology) must be present on site for a wetland to function adequately. In some situations it is
possible to enhance an existing wetland or stream, however if a wetland is forested, MDE will
not allow removal of trees to construct wetlands. Most of the existing wetlands on the Prologis
site that will not be disturbed are forested, and therefore cannot be enhanced or expanded.
Offsite mitigation, purchase of wetland credits at a wetland bank within the watershed, or
payment to the Maryland Wetlands Compensation Fund might be the best option for this site.
Another possibility may be to purchase the adjacent property that includes Reardon Inlet and
propose to enhance the riparian buffer of Reardon Inlet as out-of-kind mitigation. Such
mitigation is typically only accepted as part of other wetland creation and is usually less credited
at 10:1. It appears as though there is a non-forested area adjacent to the east side of Reardon
Inlet that could benefit from vegetation plantings.
Floodplains According to mapping provided by Harford County, a portion the Prologis
Site is located inside of the 100-year and 500-year floodplains. The proposed tracks located on
the southwestern portion of the site lie within the floodplain. According to Ms. Betsy
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
51

Weisengoff, employee for Harford County Public Works-Water Resources, Harford County
discourages development within a floodplain. However, an engineering analysis showing that
additional areas will not be flooded or affected by the rise in elevation of the project site, and
construction plans depicting impacts in a floodplain, may be submitted for approval by the
County.
In addition to complying with County requirements for floodplain development, a JPA
must be submitted to MDE to receive a Waterway Construction Permit for any temporary or
permanent impacts within a non-tidal floodplain. To be properly permitted, floodplain impacts
may not increase flooding or create a dangerous situation during flooding, especially on nearby
properties. Also, the project must maintain fish habitat and migration, and protect the waterway
from erosion. An engineering analysis will most likely be required to model the pre- and postdevelopment floodplain. It is anticipated that development of the Prologis site will well exceed
the minor project threshold of 100 CY of net fill and 5,000 square feet of disturbance, placing it
into the major project category. Major projects require public notice, adjacent property owner
notification, and often an engineering analysis.
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (CBCA) According to mapping provided by Harford
County, the Prologis Site is located outside of the CBCA.
Maryland Forest Conservation Act (MFCA) There are many forested areas within
the Prologis Site. In accordance with the MFCA, an FSD and FCP will be required. If
reforestation/afforestation cannot be accomplished onsite, offsite areas may be identified, credits
may be purchased from a reforestation bank, or lastly MTA may pay into the Forest
Compensation Fund.
Preliminary calculations for existing forest coverage and reforestation requirements were
determined by studying aerial photographs of the site. Any area with tree cover was counted as
forest. Field verification required for the FSD will further define the actual boundaries of the
forest. It is possible that areas that appear as forest on aerial photographs may not meet the
definition of forest as stated in the State Forest Conservation manual. The entire Prologis site to
be acquired contains approximately 13.21 acres of forest cover; 8.24 acres within the program
area and 4.97 outside the program area. Based on the State manual worksheet, approximately
16.48 acres of reforestation will be required. The Prologis site will accommodate only 11.8 acres
of planting; the rest (4.68) would have to be offsite.
Threatened & Endangered Species According to the MERLIN database, there are no
Sensitive Species Project Review Areas on the project site. If the Prologis Site is proposed to be
developed, correspondence will be sent to DNR and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
confirm the presence/absence of threatened & endangered State and Federal species,
respectively. If threatened & endangered species are suspected on the project site, DNR/U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service may require additional species/habitat surveys, time of year
construction restrictions, and/or avoidance of particular areas on the project site.
Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) DNR GIS data for FIDS habitat areas was
reviewed for the Prologis Site. No FIDS habitat areas are located on the Prologis Site. The
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
52

closest FIDS habitat areas are located adjacently northwest of the southwestern portion of the site
to the east of where the proposed tracks intersect with Magnolia Road and south of the NEC
approximately 250 feet southeast of the central portion of the site.
4.5.4 Cultural Resources
The MERLIN database was searched for the existence of cultural resources in the vicinity
of the Prologis Site. There are twelve cultural resources associated with the Maryland Inventory
of Historic Properties located within 1,000 feet of the southwestern portion of the project site to
the northwest along Fort Hoyle Road and the U.S. Army Assembly Plant (HA-2049) located to
the south of the southwestern portion of the project site.
4.5.5 Potential Noise Impacts
In accordance with Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006 (FTAVA-90-1003-06), screening distances were applied to the Prologis Site to identify potential noise
impacts. No cultural resources are depicted within the screening distances of the project site by
the MERLIN database. A commercial/industrial structure is located north of the site, but would
not be considered noise sensitive. Single family residential properties are located to the west,
east, and northeast of the project site. Approximately fourteen residences fall within the
screening distances and could potentially be impacted by noise from the proposed Prologis Site.
In the event the Prologis Site is selected, a general noise analysis, in accordance with FTA
guidelines, may be required to determine noise impacts to these residences and explore
mitigation options if impacts occur.
4.5.6 Socioeconomic Profile of Adjacent Neighborhoods
Single family residential properties are located to the west, east, and northeast of the
project site. This site corresponds to the census tract 3015 and according to the 2000 U.S.
Census, it had a population of 961 people with 435 males and 526 females. 2000 U.S. Census
data indicates that the median age was 19 years and no one was over 55 years of age. Over 94%
of the population over 25 years of age had a high school diploma whereas approximately 31%
had at least a bachelors degree. The median household income was high at $45,341, the rate of
unemployment was 0% and only 3.3% families were below the poverty level. The racial
composition of the tract included 58% whites, approximately 31% African-Americans and just
over 8% were Hispanics (of any race). Census tract data from the 2010 U.S. Census was not
available at the time this report was written.
4.5.7 Stormwater Management
Observed in the aerial photography were several stormwater management ponds on and
around the Prologis Site that appear to be associated with the large mixed commercial/industrial
structure that is located adjacently west of the site. It is likely that the stormwater management
pond(s) was built to account for the development of the commercial/industrial structure. If the
Prologis Site is developed, the stormwater management pond(s) and/or drainage structures will
have to be relocated. In addition, stormwater will have to be accounted for as a result of
development of the project site. Prior to development of the site and/or relocation of the
stormwater management pond(s) or drainage structures, permission must be granted by the
owner, an appropriate alternative location must be identified that provides sufficient area so that
sufficient stormwater quality and quantity treatment is provided for existing areas as well as
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
53

newly developed areas that make sense with the given topography and future runoff from the
site. Site plans regarding stormwater management will be submitted to Harford County for
approval if this site is chosen for development.
It is anticipated that stormwater management will be accomplished at this site using a
combination of ESD elements and a traditional stormwater pond. ESD devices may be used as
applicable, such as grass swales, green roofs and micro-bioretention facilities. Use of pervious
pavement may see moderate use with hydrologic soil groups onsite being primarily HSG Type
B and C. The proposed pond would likely be located within the limits of the proposed track
facilities with track reconfiguration likely required to accommodate the pond area. This
proposed pond would discharge to nearby Reardon Inlet.
4.5.8 Property Impacts (Acquisition)
As mentioned previously, full property acquisitions totaling 63.88 acres will be required
for the properties owned by Prologis Exchange MD, LLC. Partial acquisitions totaling 3.69
acres would be required from seven residential properties to the east of the project site and one
industrial and two residential properties to the west of the project site. Approximately 5.25 acres
of temporary construction easements will also be necessary to develop this project site. The total
site acreage to be impacted would therefore be approximately 72.8 acres.
4.5.9 Site Pros and Cons
Pros:
No new interlocking required in NEC
No anticipated effects to T&E species, cultural resources and Critical Area
Cons:
May require construction of one new crossover and one new turnout in
MAGNOLIA Interlocking
Several homes abut the Amtrak right-of-way at the north end near WOOD
Interlocking, and additional train movements may produce noise impacts
Relocation of existing stormwater management pond(s) and potential impacts to
100-year floodplain and wetlands
Requires industrial property full acquisition and several residential property
partial acquisitions
Major Cost Factors Include:
o Extension of Track 4 and addition of at least one crossover at Magnolia
Interlocking
o Modifications to the MD Rt. 152 and MD Rt. 24 overhead highway
bridges if it is found that retaining walls required to permit the installation
of the lead tracks would be insufficient to support the abutments
o Relocation of existing stormwater management facility
o Full/partial acquisition of three industrial and several residential properties

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
54

5.0 CAPITAL COSTS EVALUATION


Order of magnitude capital cost estimates were developed for each of the candidate sites to
provide a planning level cost comparison among the sites which would serve as another
evaluation criterion. Elements of the capital cost estimates included preconstruction costs such
as mobilization and stakeout, clearing and grubbing and erosion and sediment control; site work
costs such as demolition, grading, drainage, utility connections, site lighting, sub-ballast and
paving; track costs including the various types of track included in the proposed buildings, track
removal, electrification, turnouts, switch heaters, and signals and controls; facilities costs such as
various types of buildings and train servicing equipment and structures; the cost of connecting
the proposed facility to the Amtrak Northeast Corridor; and the costs of modifying existing
infrastructure such as bridges and utility lines to accommodate the proposed facility. A summary
of the capital costs evaluation is also presented in Table 2- MARC Alternatives Analysis-Major
Costs.
5.1

COST ELEMENTS

5.1.1 Preliminary Elements


Preconstruction This item includes mobilization and stakeout, both expressed as
percentages of the sum of all estimated work items. Mobilization is 4% while stakeout is 2%.
Clearing And Grubbing This item is expressed as a cost per developed/disturbed acre
and includes removal of trees, brush and root mat to a depth of one foot.
Erosion and Sediment Control This item is expressed as a percentage of the estimated
cost of drainage for the entire site.
5.1.2 Site Work Elements
Drainage This item includes stormwater management and is expressed as a cost per
developed/disturbed acre.
Grading These items include excavation, placement and compaction of embankment,
removal of excess excavation, and furnishing suitable material for embankment. Grading
assumes removal of 2.5 feet of earth from all track areas with removed material being used either
as embankment or being removed from site.
Sub-ballast This item includes furnishing, placing and compacting eight inches of subballast for all ballasted tracks and turnouts.
Paving The various paving items include furnishing, placing and compacting
bituminous paving of appropriate depths to suit anticipated service conditions.
Site Lighting This item is expressed as a cost per acre for those areas outside of the
buildings where servicing of the trains would take place (i.e. storage tracks and access roads,
fueling pad, train washer), or where train crews might be expected to walk frequently (i.e. around
turnouts and along yard ladder tracks).
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
55

Water, Sewer and Gas Connections This item includes the anticipated cost of onetime connections to these utilities and does not include construction of the service lines to the
proposed facilities from the connections since it is not know at this time where those utility
connections might be made.
On-Site Electric Conduits, Manholes, etc. This item represents the anticipated cost of
furnishing and installing the electrical infrastructure for a 480-volt stand-by power system at the
storage tracks.
Electric Substation and Commercial Power Connection This item includes the cost
of furnishing and installing an A.C. substation and connection to the commercial power grid to
provide power to the buildings (does not include traction power).
Fence This item includes furnishing and installing an eight-foot perimeter fence and
road and track gates around the entire facility.
Demolition This item includes removal of any existing structures.
5.1.3 Track Elements
Remove Track/Turnouts These items include removal of any exiting tracks and
turnouts. No salvage value credit has been applied to the unit costs.
Construct Track/Yard Turnouts These items include the furnishing and placing of
various types of track (both inside and outside of the buildings) and turnouts including (as
appropriate) rails, crossties, switch ties, ballast, fasteners and other track material (OTM).
Install Grade Crossings These items include furnishing and installing various types of
grade crossings to suit anticipated service conditions. The cost of tracks in the crossings is not
included and is covered by the previous item.
Bumping Posts This item includes the cost of furnishing and installing rigid bumping
posts on stub-end tracks.
Switch Heaters This item includes the furnishing and installation of electric switch
heaters on each yard turnout.
Electrification This item includes the cost of furnishing and installing catenary support
poles, anchors and foundations, a three-wire catenary system, signal power feeders, bonding and
grounding, and sectionalizing and switching equipment.
Track Signals and Controls This item includes the furnishing and installation of all
yard signal equipment and logic controllers in the control office and at both entrances to/from the
yard.

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
56

5.1.4 New Facilities


Servicing and Inspection Building This item includes a two-track building that
includes pits and inspection platforms for performing all necessary daily inspections for trains
operating on the Amtrak NEC.
Maintenance and Shop Building This item includes a six-track shop building that
includes space for locomotive and passenger car repair including lifts, pits, cranes, wheel truing
machine, auxiliary shop spaces, tools and equipment, and locker room facilities.
Trainwash Building This item includes a single-track building, all washing equipment,
chemical storage tanks, water and chemical recovery equipment, and a locomotive and
undercarriage wash facility.
Train Servicing Platforms These items include platforms located adjacent to the train
storage tracks to be used for access to the stored trainsets by car cleaning and serving personnel.
Offices and Train Operations Building This item includes administrative and
supervisory offices, training rooms, dispatchers office, meeting room, communications room,
and operations center.
Storeroom This item includes a building with a truck loading/unloading dock,
connected to the maintenance and shop building, capable of housing sufficient parts and tools to
support the operations in the maintenance and shop building.
Train Crew Building This item is for a separate structure with supervisory offices and
facilities (locker rooms, meeting room, lounge) for train crews, plus space for train cleaning and
servicing personnel and their supplies. This office can be constructed with the storage yard as
part of the first phase of construction of the overall facility so that train operations can
commence once the storage yard is completed.
Fueling This item is for a fueling facility for diesel locomotives and includes a 10,000
gallon above-ground fuel tank, delivery system and fueling pad with spill containment.
Traction Power Substation This item includes furnishing and installation of an
electrical substation for providing power to the catenary system. Where Amtrak has a nearby
existing traction power substation, this item includes only the connection to the Amtrak
substation.
480 Volt Standby Power System This item includes the control panels and other
equipment necessary for providing standby power to trainsets while stored in the yard in order to
maintain lights, heat and air conditioning without operating the head-end power units on diesel
locomotives.
Communications This item is for all SCADA, voice and data communications
connections and equipment necessary to maintain contact between the facility and the MARC
trains, and for operation of infrastructure within the facility.
MARC Maintenance Facility
Site Selection Report
57

5.1.5 Amtrak Connection This item includes the track and systems work necessary
to connect the proposed facility to the Amtrak NEC and provide the operational flexibility
necessary to allow the MARC trains to arrive at and depart the proposed facility without making
reverse movements on the NEC.
5.1.6 Bridge Construction This item is for anticipated modifications to existing
overhead highway bridges associate with several of the sites and includes demolition and
reconstruction of the existing superstructures and substructures as necessary to accommodate
construction of new tracks to the proposed facility.
5.1.7 Contingencies and Escalation The sum of the preceding items provides a Base
Cost to which must be added several contingency and escalation items to arrive at a Neat
Construction Cost. Contingent items include a planning contingency of 40% and a construction
contingency of 15%. An escalation factor of 3.5% per year for two years (assuming a two-year
design window) was also added. An additional two-year escalation was applied to the Perryville
B Site since construction of the MARC facility would be delayed by approximately two years by
the construction and relocation of a new Amtrak MOW Base.
5.1.8 Professional Services These allowances were determined by applying their
respective percentages to the Neat Construction Cost. Professional Services include preliminary
engineering, future changes and claims, consultant design fee, MTA design cost, construction
inspection and related services, and MTA construction cost. Right-of-way costs and agency
force account costs cannot be determined at this time and were, therefore, not included. Adding
these Professional Service costs to the Neat Construction Cost yields the Total Project Cost.

5.2

CAPITAL COST RESULTS


Capital cost estimates in 2011 dollars were prepared for each of the five candidate sites
and are included in Appendix C of this report. The total project cost includes a two-year
escalation factor at 3.5% per year. The results of the planning level capital cost estimates are
shown in the table below.
Site
Perryville B
Perryville A
Opus
Edgewood APG
Prologis

Neat Construction Cost


$387.5 M
$328.1 M
$325.6 M
$386.0 M
$352.8 M

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
58

Total Project Cost


$530.9M
$449.6 M
$446.1 M
$528.9 M
$483.3 M

6.0 CONCLUSIONS
MTA is proposing to construct a MARC locomotive and passenger car maintenance facility and
train storage yard connected to the NEC. Five sites were ultimately included in this document
for further analysis and included the Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site, the Perryville A (Farm)
Site, the Opus Site, the APG Site, and the Prologis site. As noted in Table 1-Site Alternatives
Evaluation Matrix, each site has significant costs and/or obstacles associated with the
development of the site. The most significant costs/obstacles for each site are included below:
Perryville B Site Relocation of the existing Amtrak MOW Base
Perryville A Site Private farm onsite is likely cultural resource that may prevent
development during Section 4(f) NEPA process
Opus Site Property located in an area that is designated the Perryman Wellfield
Protection District which may create zoning/development issues; coordination issues with
Amtraks Northeast Corridor Master Plan II for location of interlockings in high speed
territory
APG Site Property would be developed as an EUL; Federal land under military use
with known hazardous waste contamination on the property will likely make
development difficult with additional liability concerns; significant quantity of imported
fill material required
Prologis Site Requires several full/partial commercial acquisitions, eight partial
residential acquisitions and the relocation of an existing stormwater management facility.

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report
59

APPENDIX A
SYSTEMS EVALUATION DRAWINGS

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report

APPENDIX B
CORRESPONDENCE

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report

APPENDIX C
DETAILED COST ESTIMATES

MARC Maintenance Facility


Site Selection Report

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE


MARC Perryville B Site Maintenance Facility: Conceptual Cost Estimate
Yard & Shop Tracks and Facilities - Amtrak & All MARC Phases Combined
Project Name: MARC Maintenance Facility
Date Prepared: 12/22/2011
ID
ITEM DESCRIPTION
PRELIMINARY
1
Preconstruction
Mobilization (4% of items 2 through 56)
Stakeout (2% of items 2 through 56)
2
Clearing and Grubbing - MARC
3
Clearing and Grubbing - Amtrak
4
Erosion and Sediment Control (25% of items 5+6)
Subtotal
SITE WORK:
5
Drainage - MARC
6
Drainage - Amtrak
7
Grading - MARC - with on site soil
8
Grading - Amtrak - with on site soil
9
Grading - contingency - MARC
10
Grading - contingency - Amtrak
11
Grading - import / export - MARC
12
Grading - import / export - Amtrak
13
Sub-ballast (Furnish, Place, and Compact) - MARC
14
Sub-ballast (Furnish, Place, and Compact) - Amtrak
15
Paving - Access Roads & Walkways - 8" - MARC
16
Paving - Heavy Duty - 14" - MARC
17
Paving - Heavy Duty - 14" - Amtrak
18
Site Lighting - MARC
19
Site Lighting - Amtrak
20
Water, Sewer and Gas connections
21
On Site Electric conduits, manholes, etc. - MARC
22
On Site Electric conduits, manholes, etc. - Amtrak
23
Electric Substation & commercial power connection
24
Fence
25
Building Demolition
Subtotal
TRACK
26
Remove Track
Remove Turnouts
27
Construct Track - Ballasted - MARC
28
Construct Track - Ballasted - Amtrak
29
Construct Track - Embedded
30
Construct Track - Pedestal
31
Install asphalt and rubber grade crossings
32
Install conc panel grade crossings - MARC
33
Install conc panel grade crossings - Amtrak
34
Construct Yard Turnouts - MARC
35
Construct Yard Turnouts - Amtrak
36
Bumping Posts
37
38
Switch Heaters
39
Electrification
40
Track Signals and Controls

QUANTITY

UNIT

1.0
1.0
48.0
29.0
1.0

lump sum
lump sum
Acre
Acre
lump sum

48.0
29.0
85000.0
50000.0
100000.0
50000.0
330000.0
50000.0
25500.0
14300.0
12885.0
41290.0
35178.0
25.0
10.4
1.0
1120.0
950.0
1.0
9255.0
1.0

Acre
Acre
CY
CY
CY
CY
CY
CY
CY
CY
SY
SY
SY
Acre
Acre
LS
LF
LF
LS
LF
LS

21,920.00
19.0
43700.0
22120.0
1930.0
2670.0
540.0
610.0
250.0
35.0
18.0
3.0
40.0
1.0
1.0

Project Phase: Conceptual


UNIT COST
TOTAL

$
$
$
$
$
$

7,973,597
3,986,799
48,000
58,000
2,887,500
14,953,896

$
150,000.00
$
150,000.00
$
25.00
$
25.00
$
20.00
$
20.00
$
20.00
$
20.00
$
56.00
$
56.00
$
32.00
$
54.00
$
54.00
$
15,000.00
$
15,000.00
$
610,000.00
$
100.00
$
100.00
$ 2,000,000.00
$
35.00
$
408,918.00

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

7,200,000
4,350,000
2,125,000
1,250,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
6,600,000
1,000,000
1,428,000
800,800
412,320
2,229,660
1,899,612
375,000
156,000
610,000
112,000
95,000
2,000,000
323,925
408,918
36,376,235

TF
Each
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
Each
Each
Each
Each
LS
LS

$
19.50
$
8,550.00
$
190.00
$
190.00
$
500.00
$
1,100.00
$
450.00
$
850.00
$
850.00
$
125,000.00
$
125,000.00
$
8,100.00
$
23,300.00
$ 26,250,000.00
$ 5,600,000.00

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

427,440
162,450
8,303,000
4,202,800
965,000
2,937,000
243,000
518,500
212,500
4,375,000
2,250,000
24,300
932,000
26,250,000
5,600,000
57,402,990

1.0
1.0
1.0
8.0
14200.0
20700.0
5700.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3894.0
14388.0

LS
LS
LS
Each
SF
SF
SF
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
SF
SF

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

35,500,000.00
33,400,000.00
5,600,000.00
170,000.00
260.00
260.00
260.00
330,000.00
550,000.00
330,000.00
2,500,000.00
360,000.00
280.00
260.00

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

35,500,000
33,400,000
5,600,000
1,360,000
3,692,000
5,382,000
1,482,000
330,000
550,000
330,000
2,500,000
360,000
1,090,320
3,740,880
95,317,200

1.0

LS

$ 6,750,000.00

6,750,000

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

500,000
211,300,321
84,520,128
44,373,067
24,230,283
23,060,631
387,484,431
19,374,222
30,998,754
38,748,443
9,687,111
30,998,754
13,561,955
-

530,853,670

$
$

1,000.00
2,000.00
-

Subtotal
NEW FACILITIES

41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54

Servicing and Inspection Building


Maintenance and Shop Building
Trainwash Building
Train Servicing Platforms
Offices and Train Operations Building
Storeroom
Train Crew Building
Fueling
Fuel Tanks (2 each 35,000 gallons)
Communications
Traction Power Substation
480V, 3-Phase, Standby Power System
AMTRAK Shop Building
AMTRAK Office Building
Subtotal
AMTRAK CONNECTION

55

56
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
O
P

Connection to Track 1 - Modifications to Perry and Prince Interlockings


BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
Reconstruct Bridge connecting golf course

1.0
LS
$
BASE ESTIMATE SUBTOTAL (Lines 1 thru 50)
PLANNING CONTINGENCY (40% of line A)
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (15% of line A+B)
ESCALATION (3.5%/yr thru construction completion for lines A+B+C) 2 yr.
ADD'L ESCALATION (3.5%/yr add'l MTA costs due to construction of Amtrak Facility) 2 yr
NEAT CONSTRUCTION COST (A+B+C+D+E)
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (5% of lines A+B+C+D+E)
(5% -10% range)
FUTURE CHANGES AND CLAIMS (8% of lines A+B+C+D+E)
CONSULTANT DESIGN FEE (10% of lines A+B+C+D+E)
(10% - 20% range)
MTA DESIGN COST (2.5% of lines A+B+C+D+E)
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND CRS (8% of lines A+B+C+D+E)
MTA CONSTRUCTION COST (3.5% of lines A+B+C+D+E)
RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) (See Note 2)
41.0
Acre
ROW CONTINGENCY (20% of line J)
ROW ESCALATION (4%/yr thru start of construction for lines J and K)
AGENCY FORCE ACCOUNTS
lump sum

TOTAL PROJECT COST


CTP

PP:
PE:
CO:
RW:

500,000.00

$
$
$
$

19,374,222
48,435,554
463,043,895
-

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE


MARC Perryville A Site Maintenance Facility: Conceptual Cost Estimate
Yard Tracks & Train Crew Facilities - All Phases Combined
Project Name: MARC Maintenance Facility
Date Prepared: 12/21/2011
ID
ITEM DESCRIPTION
PRELIMINARY:
1
Preconstruction
Mobilization (4% of items 2 through 45)
Stakeout (2% ofitems 2 through 45)
2
Clearing and Grubbing
3
Erosion and Sediment Control (25% of item 4)
Subtotal
SITE WORK:
4
Drainage
5
Principio Creek Structure
6
Grading - with on site material
7
Grading - contingency
8
Grading - import / export
9
Subballast (Furnish, Place, and Compact)
10
Paving - Access Roads & Walkways - 8"
11
Paving - Heavy Duty - 14"
12
Site Lighting
13
Water, Sewer and Gas connections
14
On Site Electric conduits, manholes, etc.
15
Electric Substation & commercial power connection
16
Fence
17
Building Demolition
Subtotal
TRACK
18
Remove Track
Remove Turnouts
19
Construct Track - Ballasted
20
Construct Track - Embedded
21
Construct Track - Pedestal
22
Install asphalt and rubber grade crossings
23
Install conc panel grade crossings
24
Construct Yard Turnouts
25
Bumping Posts
26
27
Switch Heaters
28
Electrification
29
Track Signals and Controls

QUANTITY

UNIT

1.0
1.0
54.0
1.0

lump sum
lump sum
Acre
lump sum

54.0
1500.0
50000.0
100000.0
290000.0
25000.0
12750.0
50900.0
30.6
1.0
950.0
1.0
16800.0
1.0

Acre
SF
CY
SY
CY
CY
SY
SY
Acre
LS
LF
LS
LF
LS

0.0
0.0
44080.0
2230.0
2980.0
720.0
730.0
40.0
2.0
40.0
1.0
1.0

Project Phase: Conceptual


UNIT COST
TOTAL

$
$
$
$
$

7,179,700
3,589,850
162,000
2,025,000
12,956,550

$
150,000.00
$
300.00
$
25.00
$
20.00
$
20.00
$
56.00
$
32.00
$
54.00
$
15,000.00
$
610,000.00
$
100.00
$ 2,000,000.00
$
35.00
$
550,000.00

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

8,100,000
450,000
1,250,000
2,000,000
5,800,000
1,400,000
408,000
2,748,600
459,000
610,000
95,000
2,000,000
588,000
550,000
26,458,600

TF
Each
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
Each
Each
Each
LS
LS

$
19.50
$
8,550.00
$
190.00
$
500.00
$
1,100.00
$
450.00
$
850.00
$
125,000.00
$
8,100.00
$
23,300.00
$ 26,800,000.00
$ 5,600,000.00

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

8,375,200
1,115,000
3,278,000
324,000
620,500
5,000,000
16,200
932,000
26,800,000
5,600,000
52,060,900

1.0
1.0
1.0
8.0
14200.0
20700.0
5700.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

LS
LS
LS
Each
SF
SF
SF
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

35,500,000.00
33,400,000.00
5,600,000.00
170,000.00
260.00
260.00
260.00
330,000.00
550,000.00
2,500,000.00
360,000.00
330,000.00

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

35,500,000
33,400,000
5,600,000
1,360,000
3,692,000
5,382,000
1,482,000
330,000
550,000
2,500,000
360,000
330,000
90,486,000

1.0

LS

$ 6,750,000.00

6,750,000

1.0

LS

150,000.00

150,000

1.0

LS

$ 1,100,000.00

1,100,000

1.0

LS

BASE ESTIMATE SUBTOTAL (Lines 1 thru 36)


PLANNING CONTINGENCY (40% of line A)
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (15% of line A+B)
ESCALATION (3.5%/yr thru construction completion for lines A+B+C) 2 yr.
NEAT CONSTRUCTION COST (A+B+C+D)
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (5% of lines A+B+C+D)
(5% -10% range)
FUTURE CHANGES AND CLAIMS (8% of lines A+B+C+D)
CONSULTANT DESIGN FEE (10% of lines A+B+C+D)
(10% - 20% range)
MTA DESIGN COST (2.5% of lines A+B+C+D)
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND CRS (8% of lines A+B+C+D)
MTA CONSTRUCTION COST (3.5% of lines A+B+C+D)
RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) (See Note 2)
41.0
Acre
ROW CONTINGENCY (20% of line J)
ROW ESCALATION (4%/yr thru start of construction for lines J and K)
AGENCY FORCE ACCOUNTS
lump sum

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

300,000
1,550,000
190,262,050
76,104,820
39,955,031
21,817,777
328,139,678
16,406,984
26,251,174
32,813,968
8,203,492
26,251,174
11,484,889
-

TOTAL PROJECT COST

449,551,359

3,000.00
-

Subtotal
NEW FACILITIES

30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

42

Servicing and Inspection Building


Maintenance and Shop Building
Trainwash Building
Train Servicing Platforms
Offices and Train Operations Building
Storeroom
Train Crew Building
Fueling
Fuel Tanks (2 each 35,000 gallons)
Traction Power Substation
480V, 3-Phase, Standby Power System
Communications
Subtotal
AMTRAK CONNECTION
Connection to Track A - Modifications to Perry and Prince
Interlockings

BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
43

Demolish remains of 2 private road bridges over Amtrak

44

Construct railroad bridge over Mill Creek for south lead track

45

Retaining wall north end of Firestone Rd bridge over Amtrak


Subtotal

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
O

CTP

PP:
PE:
CO:
RW:

300,000.00

$
$
$
$

16,406,984
41,017,460
392,126,915
-

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE


MARC Opus Site Maintenance Facility: Conceptual Cost Estimate
Yard Tracks & Train Crew Facilities - All Phases Combined
Project Name: MARC Maintenance Facility
Date Prepared: 12/22/2011
ID
ITEM DESCRIPTION
PRELIMINARY:
1
Preconstruction
Mobilization (4% of items 2 through 41)
Stakeout (2% of items 2 through 41)
2
Clearing and Grubbing
3
Erosion and Sediment Control (25% of item 4)
Subtotal
SITE WORK:
4
Drainage
5
Grading - with on site material
6
Grading - import / export fill material
7
Grading - contingency
8
Subballast (Furnish, Place, and Compact)
9
Paving - Access Roads & Walkways - 8"
10
Paving - Heavy Duty - 14"
11
Site Lighting
12
Water, Sewer and Gas connections
13
On Site Electric conduits, manholes, etc.
14
Electric Substation & commercial power connection
15
Fence
16
Building Demolition
Subtotal
TRACK
17
Remove Track
Remove Turnouts
18
Construct Track - Ballasted
19
Construct Track - Embedded
20
Construct Track - Pedestal
21
Install asphalt and rubber grade crossings
22
Install conc panel grade crossings
23
Construct Yard Turnouts
24
Bumping Posts
25
26
Switch Heaters
27
Electrification
28
Track Signals and Controls

QUANTITY

UNIT

1.0
1.0
57.0
1.0

lump sum
lump sum
Acre
lump sum

57.0
120000.0
50000.0
100000.0
25000.0
12750.0
62160.0
30.6
1.0
1220.0
1.0
16800.0
0.0

Acre
CY
CY
CY
CY
SY
SY
Acre
LS
LF
LS
LF
LS

0.0
0.0
42859.0
2230.0
2980.0
720.0
730.0
40.0
4.0
40.0
1.0
1.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
8.0
14200.0
20700.0
5700.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Project Phase: Conceptual


UNIT COST
TOTAL

$
$
$
$
$

7,125,010
3,562,505
513,000
2,137,500.00
13,338,015.00

$
150,000.00
$
25.00
$
20.00
$
20.00
$
56.00
$
32.00
$
54.00
$
15,000.00
$
610,000.00
$
100.00
$ 2,000,000.00
$
35.00
$
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

8,550,000
3,000,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
1,400,000
408,000
3,356,640
459,000
610,000
122,000
2,000,000
588,000
23,493,640

TF
Each
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
Each
Each
Each
LS
LS

$
19.50
$
8,550.00
$
190.00
$
500.00
$
1,100.00
$
450.00
$
850.00
$
125,000.00
$
8,100.00
$
23,300.00
$ 26,500,000.00
$ 5,600,000.00

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

8,143,210
1,115,000
3,278,000
324,000
620,500
5,000,000
32,400
932,000
26,500,000
5,600,000
51,545,110

LS
LS
LS
Each
SF
SF
SF
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

35,500,000.00
33,400,000.00
5,600,000.00
170,000.00
260.00
260.00
260.00
330,000.00
550,000.00
3,850,000.00
360,000.00
330,000.00

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

35,500,000
33,400,000
5,600,000
1,360,000
3,692,000
5,382,000
1,482,000
330,000
550,000
3,850,000
360,000
330,000
91,836,000

1.0
LS
$ 8,600,000.00
BASE ESTIMATE SUBTOTAL (Lines 1 thru 36)
PLANNING CONTINGENCY (40% of line A)
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (15% of line A+B)
ESCALATION (3.5%/yr thru construction completion for lines A+B+C) 2 yr.
NEAT CONSTRUCTION COST (A+B+C+D)
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (5% of lines A+B+C+D)
(5% -10% range)
FUTURE CHANGES AND CLAIMS (8% of lines A+B+C+D)
CONSULTANT DESIGN FEE (10% of lines A+B+C+D)
(10% - 20% range)
MTA DESIGN COST (2.5% of lines A+B+C+D)
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND CRS (8% of lines A+B+C+D)
MTA CONSTRUCTION COST (3.5% of lines A+B+C+D)
RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) (See Note 2)
41.0
Acre
ROW CONTINGENCY (20% of line J)
ROW ESCALATION (4%/yr thru start of construction for lines J and K)
AGENCY FORCE ACCOUNTS
lump sum

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

8,600,000
188,812,765
75,525,106
39,650,681
21,651,585
325,640,136
16,282,007
26,051,211
32,564,014
8,141,003
26,051,211
11,397,405
-

446,126,987

9,000.00
-

Subtotal
NEW FACILITIES

29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

41
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
O

Servicing and Inspection Building


Maintenance and Shop Building
Trainwash Building
Train Servicing Platforms
Offices and Train Operations Building
Storeroom
Train Crew Building
Fueling
Fuel Tanks (2 each 35,000 gallons)
Traction Power Substation
480V, 3-Phase, Standby Power System
Communications
Subtotal
AMTRAK CONNECTION
Connection to Track A- Construction of Chelsea and Poplar
Interlockings

TOTAL PROJECT COST


CTP

PP:
PE:
CO:
RW:

$
$
$
$

16,282,007
40,705,017
389,139,963
-

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE


APG Edgewood MARC Maintenance Facility: Conceptual Cost Estimate
Yard Tracks & Train Crew Facilities - All Phases Combined
Project Name: MARC Maintenance Facility
Date Prepared: 12/14/2011
ID
ITEM DESCRIPTION
PRELIMINARY:
1
Preconstruction
Mobilization (4% of items 2 through 42)
Stakeout (2% of items 2 through 42)
2
Clearing and Grubbing
3
Erosion and Sediment Control (25% of item 4)
Subtotal
SITE WORK:
4
Drainage
5
Site Demolition
6
Grading - with on site material
7
Grading - import / export fill material
8
Grading - contingency
9
Subballast (Furnish, Place, and Compact)
10
Paving - Access Roads & Walkways - 8"
11
Paving - Heavy Duty - 14"
12
Site Lighting
13
Water, Sewer and Gas connections
14
On Site Electric conduits, manholes, etc.
15
Electric Substation & commercial power connection
16
Fence
Subtotal
TRACK
17
Remove Track
Remove Turnouts
18
Construct Track - Ballasted
19
Construct Track - Embedded
20
Construct Track - Pedestal
21
Install asphalt and rubber grade crossings
22
Install conc panel grade crossings
23
Construct Yard Turnouts
24
Bumping Posts
25
26
Switch Heaters
27
Electrification
28
Track Signals and Controls

QUANTITY

UNIT

1.0
1.0
74.0
1.0

lump sum
lump sum
Acre
lump sum

74.0
1.0
121000.0
900000.0
100000.0
26400.0
26140.0
49720.0
39.0
1.0
2320.0
1.0
10555.0

Acre
lump sum
CY
CY
CY
CY
SY
SY
Acre
LS
LF
LS
LF

1300.0
4.0
42400.0
2230.0
2980.0
645.0
550.0
44.0
2.0
44.0
1.0
1.0

Track Foot
Each
Track Foot
Track Foot
Track Foot
Track Foot
Track Foot
Each
Each
Each
LS
LS

1.0
1.0
1.0
14200.0
20700.0
5700.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Project Phase: Conceptual


UNIT COST
TOTAL

$
$
$
$
$

8,466,275
4,233,138
370,000
3,700,000.00
16,769,413.10

$
200,000.00
$
350,000.00
$
37.00
$
20.00
$
20.00
$
56.00
$
32.00
$
54.00
$
15,000.00
$
610,000.00
$
100.00
$ 2,000,000.00
$
35.00

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

14,800,000
350,000
4,477,000
18,000,000
2,000,000
1,478,400
836,480
2,684,880
585,000
610,000
232,000
2,000,000
369,425
48,423,185

$
19.50
$
8,550.00
$
190.00
$
500.00
$
1,100.00
$
450.00
$
850.00
$
125,000.00
$
8,100.00
$
23,300.00
$ 26,800,000.00
$ 5,600,000.00

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

25,350
34,200
8,056,000
1,115,000
3,278,000
290,250
467,500
5,500,000
16,200
1,025,200
26,800,000
5,600,000
52,207,700

LS
LS
LS
SF
SF
SF
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

35,500,000.00
33,400,000.00
5,600,000.00
260.00
260.00
260.00
330,000.00
550,000.00
11,500,000.00
360,000.00
330,000.00

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

35,500,000
33,400,000
5,600,000
3,692,000
5,382,000
1,482,000
330,000
550,000
11,500,000
360,000
330,000
98,126,000

1.0

LS

$ 6,750,000.00

6,750,000

1.0

ls

80,000.00

80,000

1.0
LS
$ 2,000,000.00
BASE ESTIMATE SUBTOTAL (Lines 1 thru 36)
PLANNING CONTINGENCY (40% of line A)
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (15% of line A+B)
ESCALATION (3.5%/yr thru construction completion for lines A+B+C) 2 yr.
NEAT CONSTRUCTION COST (A+B+C+D)
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (5% of lines A+B+C+D)
(5% -10% range)
FUTURE CHANGES AND CLAIMS (8% of lines A+B+C+D)
CONSULTANT DESIGN FEE (10% of lines A+B+C+D)
(10% - 20% range)
MTA DESIGN COST (2.5% of lines A+B+C+D)
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND CRS (8% of lines A+B+C+D)
MTA CONSTRUCTION COST (3.5% of lines A+B+C+D)
RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) (See Note 2)
41.0
Acre
ROW CONTINGENCY (20% of line J)
ROW ESCALATION (4%/yr thru start of construction for lines J and K)
AGENCY FORCE ACCOUNTS
lump sum

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

2,000,000
224,356,298
89,742,519
47,114,823
25,727,442
386,941,081
19,347,054
30,955,287
38,694,108
9,673,527
30,955,287
13,542,938
-

530,109,282

5,000.00
-

Subtotal
NEW FACILITIES

29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

40

Servicing and Inspection Building


Maintenance and Shop Building
Trainwash Building
Offices and Train Operations Building
Storeroom
Train Crew Building
Fueling
Fuel Tanks (2 each 35,000 gallons)
Traction Power Substation
480V, 3-Phase, Standby Power System
Communications
Subtotal
AMTRAK CONNECTION
Connection to Track A - Modifications to Magnolia and Wood
Interlockings

BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
41

42
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
O

Retaining wall south side of Magnolia Rd bridge over Amtrak


RELOCATION OF BGE TRANSMISSION LINE
Relocate 5700 LF of transmission line

TOTAL PROJECT COST


CTP

PP:
PE:
CO:
RW:

$
$
$
$

19,347,054
48,367,635
462,394,592
-

Note 1: Connection to Amtrak Magnolia Siding at WOOD Interlocking assumes that signal infrastructure for former connection is still
in place and requires only upgrading and reconnection.
Note 2: Right-of-way is assumed to be a lease to be negotiated with APG. No lease figures are available at this time.

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE


MARC Prologis Site Maintenance Facility: Conceptual Cost Estimate
Yard Tracks & Train Crew Facilities - All Phases Combined
Project Name: MARC Maintenance Facility
Date Prepared: 12/20/2011
ID
ITEM DESCRIPTION
PRELIMINARY:
1
Preconstruction
Mobilization (4% of items 2 through 43)
Stakeout (2% of items 2 through 43)
2
Clearing and Grubbing
3
Erosion and Sediment Control (25% of item 4)
Subtotal
SITE WORK:
4
Drainage
5
Grading - with on site material
6
Grading - import / export fill material
7
Grading - contingency
8
Subballast (Furnish, Place, and Compact)
9
Paving - Access Roads & Walkways - 8"
10
Paving - Heavy Duty - 14"
11
Site Lighting
12
Water, Sewer and Gas connections
13
On Site Electric conduits, manholes, etc.
14
Electric Substation & commercial power connection
15
Fence
16
Building Demolition
Subtotal
TRACK
17
Remove Track
Remove Turnouts
18
Construct Track - Ballasted
19
Construct Track - Embedded
20
Construct Track - Pedestal
21
Install asphalt and rubber grade crossings
22
Install conc panel grade crossings
23
Construct Yard Turnouts
24
Bumping Posts
25
26
Switch Heaters
27
Electrification
28
Track Signals and Controls

QUANTITY

UNIT

1.0
1.0
56.0
1.0

lump sum
lump sum
Acre
lump sum

56.0
150000.0
30000.0
100000.0
25000.0
12750.0
42170.0
30.6
1.0
1220.0
1.0
16800.0
0.0

Acre
CY
CY
CY
CY
SY
SY
Acre
LS
LF
LS
LF
LS

0.0
0.0
44510.0
2230.0
2980.0
720.0
780.0
40.0
2.0
40.0
1.0
1.0

Project Phase: Conceptual


UNIT COST
TOTAL

$
$
$
$
$

7,718,771
3,859,386
504,000
3,500,000.00
15,582,156.80

$
250,000.00
$
37.00
$
20.00
$
20.00
$
56.00
$
32.00
$
54.00
$
15,000.00
$
610,000.00
$
100.00
$ 2,000,000.00
$
35.00
$
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

14,000,000
5,550,000
600,000
2,000,000
1,400,000
408,000
2,277,180
459,000
610,000
122,000
2,000,000
588,000
30,014,180

TF
Each
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
Each
Each
Each
LS
LS

$
19.50
$
8,550.00
$
190.00
$
500.00
$
1,100.00
$
450.00
$
850.00
$
125,000.00
$
8,100.00
$
23,300.00
$ 26,500,000.00
$ 5,600,000.00

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

8,456,900
1,115,000
3,278,000
324,000
663,000
5,000,000
16,200
932,000
26,500,000
5,600,000
51,885,100

1.0
1.0
1.0
8.0
14200.0
20700.0
5700.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

LS
LS
LS
Each
SF
SF
SF
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

35,500,000.00
33,400,000.00
5,600,000.00
170,000.00
260.00
260.00
260.00
330,000.00
550,000.00
11,500,000.00
360,000.00
330,000.00

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

35,500,000
33,400,000
5,600,000
1,360,000
3,692,000
5,382,000
1,482,000
330,000
550,000
11,500,000
360,000
330,000
99,486,000

1.0

LS

$ 7,200,000.00

7,200,000

1.0

LS

290,000.00

290,000

1.0

LS

90,000.00

BASE ESTIMATE SUBTOTAL (Lines 1 thru 36)


PLANNING CONTINGENCY (40% of line A)
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (15% of line A+B)
ESCALATION (3.5%/yr thru construction completion for lines A+B+C) 2 yr.
NEAT CONSTRUCTION COST (A+B+C+D)
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (5% of lines A+B+C+D)
(5% -10% range)
FUTURE CHANGES AND CLAIMS (8% of lines A+B+C+D)
CONSULTANT DESIGN FEE (10% of lines A+B+C+D)
(10% - 20% range)
MTA DESIGN COST (2.5% of lines A+B+C+D)
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND CRS (8% of lines A+B+C+D)
MTA CONSTRUCTION COST (3.5% of lines A+B+C+D)
RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) (See Note 2)
41.0
Acre
ROW CONTINGENCY (20% of line J)
ROW ESCALATION (4%/yr thru start of construction for lines J and K)
AGENCY FORCE ACCOUNTS
lump sum

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

90,000
380,000
204,547,437
81,818,975
42,954,962
23,455,915
352,777,288
17,638,864
28,222,183
35,277,729
8,819,432
28,222,183
12,347,205
-

TOTAL PROJECT COST

483,304,885

9,000.00
-

Subtotal
NEW FACILITIES

29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

41

Servicing and Inspection Building


Maintenance and Shop Building
Trainwash Building
Train Servicing Platforms
Offices and Train Operations Building
Storeroom
Train Crew Building
Fueling
Fuel Tanks (2 each 35,000 gallons)
Traction Power Substation
480V, 3-Phase, Standby Power System
Communications
Subtotal
AMTRAK CONNECTION
Connection to Track A- Modifications to Magnolia and Wood
Interlockings

BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
42
43

Retaining wall north end of Emmorton Rd bridge over


Amtrak
Retaining wall north end of Magnolia Rd bridge over Amtrak
Subtotal

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
O

CTP

PP:
PE:
CO:
RW:

$
$
$
$

17,638,864
44,097,161
421,568,859
-




APPENDIXB

EZ











General Noise Assessment


MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility Perryville A
Location

Prepared for:
Maryland Transit Administration
6 Saint Paul Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
Prepared by:

10245 Old Columbia Road


Columbia, Maryland 21046

August 2014

Table of Contents
Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ 1
Existing Conditions _________________________________________________________________ 1
Proposed Conditions ________________________________________________________________ 1
Transit Noise Fundamentals ____________________________________________________________ 4
Screening Procedure __________________________________________________________________ 5
General Rail Noise Assessment __________________________________________________________ 9
Noise Impact Analysis Results ________________________________________________________ 10
Mitigation _________________________________________________________________________ 12

Figures and Tables


Figure 1. Perryville A Site Location Map _________________________________________________ 3
Figure 2. Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects _________________________________________ 5
Figure 3. Noise Sensitive Areas and Receiver Sites _________________________________________ 7
Table 1. Land Use Categories and Metrics for Transit Noise Impact Criteria _____________________ 4
Table 2. Source Reference Levels at 50 feet from Center of Site Stationary Sources _______________ 9
Table 3. Receptor Locations, Existing Noise Level and Proposed Project Predicted Impacts ________ 10
Table 4. Receptor Locations, Existing Noise Level and Potential Expansion Predicted Impacts ______ 12

Appendices
Appendix A. Rail Impact Spreadsheets

Introduction
MTA proposes to purchase a 112-acre property east of the Town of Perryville, in Cecil County, Maryland
to construct a maintenance facility for the MARC train system. A screening and a general rail noise
assessment was completed to determine the projects potential to result in noise impacts from
operation of the proposed MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The proposed MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility would be constructed on a farm property that
contains two residential buildings and various outbuildings along Principio Furnace Road, east of South
Woodland Farms Lane. The farm property is jointly owned by Woodlands-Coudon, Inc., Wilson L.
Coudon et al., and is located between the Amtrak railroad tracks and Principio Furnace Road. South of
the proposed facility, and south of the railroad tracks, is a large IKEA distribution facility and the Amtrak
Maintenance of Way (MOW) facility. An industrial facility is located to the west of the proposed facility.
Residences are located north and west of the proposed facility, and the Furnace Bay Golf Course is
located to the east (Figure 1). The primary sources of existing noise are transportation-related and
include:
Amtrak rail line on the south side of the proposed facility
Principio Furnace Road, a 2-lane roadway on the north side of the proposed facility
An IKEA Distribution Facility south of the rail line
An Amtrak MOW Facility south of the rail line
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
The yard and shop facility would be constructed to accommodate the proposed project operations with
the potential for future expansion. For the purpose of the general noise analysis, the proposed project
operations and the potential future expansion operations were analyzed in two separate modeling
scenarios.
Proposed Project Operations
The project operations would include a fixed guideway lead track with diesel electric locomotives, a
railcar and locomotive shop, operations center, servicing and inspection building, support shops, offices,
a storeroom, a wash facility, a passenger car repair building, a commercial power substation, a fueling
and sanding pad, two diesel fuel above ground storage tanks, parking facilities, and 19 track sidings to
accommodate the repair and storage of trains. Diesel locomotive daily startup and inspection would be
performed at the proposed Perryville A site for a maximum of 5 locomotives at any time. Trains would
access the proposed facility via the lead tracks that connect the Amtrak railroad tracks to the proposed
facility, and motor vehicles would access via a road that extends southward to the facility from Principio
Furnace Road.

Noise-generating activities associated with the operation of the facility would include the use of the
following vehicles and equipment:

Air compressor
Train Movements
Fuel Trucks
Diesel Locomotive Start up/Daily Inspection

The majority of the train maintenance activity on the site would occur between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.,
although some train storage and maintenance activity could occur throughout the day between 10:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m., including non-peak hour use of layover tracks. Fuel delivery would occur between
7:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.
Potential Expansion Operations
Potential Expansion operations would remain consistent with the proposed project activities and
maintenance operation schedule with three exceptions. The addition of a train washer, the number of
diesel locomotives, and train sets maintained at the Perryville facility would increase to accommodate a
minimum of 5 to a maximum of 18 train sets and up to 36 locomotives. Although the facility can feasibly
support 36 locomotives, it is estimated that the likely maximum would be 27. Miscellaneous equipment
movements including rolling stock in and out of the shop via Trackmobile would occur at an estimated
rate of about 6 movements per 24 hours.

FOREST
MITIGATION
AREA

SITE LOCATION MAP


SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

IKEA
NOT TO SCALE

PERRYVILLE A

Scale: 1 in = 6 miles

Sources: Esri, DeLorme,


NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap,
iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan,
METI, Esri China (Hong

FIGURE 1
MARC NORTHEAST MAINTENANCE FACILITY
PERRYVILLE A SITE
CECIL COUNTY, MARYLAND

MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION


PERRYVILLE MARC MAINTENANCE AND
STORAGE FACILITY

Transit Noise Fundamentals


The extent to which individuals are affected by noise sources is controlled by the following factors:

Duration and frequency of sound


Distance between the sound source and the receptor
Natural or manmade barriers or structures
Ambient noise environment

The unit used for measuring rail transit noise levels is the A-weighted decibel, dB(A), which accentuates
noise levels within the range of human hearing. Because the duration and frequency of sound is a factor
in how sound is perceived, the noise level in dB(A) is averaged over a period of time and can be written
as L eq or L dn dependent on the specified timeframe. The L eq (h) represents the average noise level over
an hour. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) land use area categories are defined in Table 1.
Institutional land uses that are only affected by noise during daytime operating hours, Category 3 under
the FTA guidelines, are measured as L eq (h). When determining the potential for noise impacts, L eq (h) is
calculated for the peak noise hour of the day. Residential land uses, Category 2 under the FTA
guidelines, are reported as L dn, a cumulative 24-hour noise descriptor. To account for increased noise
sensitivity in places where people sleep at night, nighttime noise (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) is increased
by 10 dB.
TABLE 1. Land Use Categories and Metrics for Transit Noise Impact Criteria
Land Use
Category

Noise Metric
(dBA)

Outdoor Leq(h)*

Outdoor Ldn

Outdoor Leq(h)*

Description of Land Use Category


Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in their
intended purpose. This category includes lands set aside for
serenity and quiet, and such land uses as outdoor
amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as well as National
Historic Landmarks with significant outdoor use. Also
included are recording studios and concert halls.
Residences and buildings where people normally sleep.
This category includes homes, hospitals and hotels where a
nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of utmost
importance.
Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening
use. This category includes schools, libraries, theaters, and
churches where it is important to avoid interference with
such activities as speech, meditation and concentration on
reading material. Places for meditation or study associated
with cemeteries, monuments, museums, campgrounds and
recreational facilities can also be considered to be in this
category. Certain historical sites and parks are also
included.

* L for the noisiest hour of transit-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity.
eq

All land use category impact levels are a function of the existing noise exposure versus the project noise
exposure; meaning that the higher the existing noise levels, the more noise a proposed project must
produce in order to impact surrounding properties. As Figure 2 illustrates, the combinations can result in
either no impact, a moderate impact, or a severe impact. Noise impact criteria vary by land use as
described above in Table 1.

FIGURE 2. Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects


(Source: FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment)

Screening Procedure
The purpose of the rail transit noise screening procedure is to identify areas with potential noise impacts
from the proposed facility. Two screening distances were used to determine the rail noise screening
area for the proposed maintenance facility. FTA provides an unobstructed screening distance of 1,000
feet for yard and shop facilities. The screening distance of 1,000 feet was applied to the outer boundary
of the proposed facility, excluding the lead tracks. The screening distance for the lead tracks at the
eastern and western extents of the proposed facility was determined based on the proposed operations
of the fixed guideway system. The parameters used for calculating the screening distance from the lead
tracks are listed below:

18 train sets with 1 or 2 locomotives traveling on the lead tracks during nighttime hours
Trains traveling at speeds of 15 miles per hour

FTA specifies that the appropriate noise screening distance is the distance where the project noise
reaches 50 dBA. A screening distance of 600 feet from the lead tracks was determined using the FTA
guidelines for a fixed guideway system. The noise screening area was mapped to determine the noise5

sensitive land uses that are located within the screening distance. The screening area, which shows the
combined 1,000-foot screening distance for the maintenance facility and the 600-foot screening
distance for the lead tracks, is shown in Figure 3.

ER
RR
YV
I LL
PE

65

E
MARYLAND AV

CECIL AVE

/1
96
10

8
09

in
Pr

ut
So

io
cip

d
oo
hW

r
Fu

la

ce
na

r
Fa
nd

a
Ro

n
La

BL
VD

FU

R
ION
AT
ST

ON

RD

O
IPI

North Woodland
Farm Lane

IN

PI
CI

INC

PR

2 Mill Creek
Road

CO
UD

Furnace Bay
Golf Course

SITE LOCATION MAP


AD

ST
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

A
IKE

O
BR

PR

KR
EE

KI

CR

LA

HW

AS

LL
MI

PU

I
SK

L
PU

Y
HW

C
NA

Y
WA

PERRYVILLE A

FIRE
S

TON
E

SCALE: 1 INCH = 1,250 FEET


0
625
1,250

Scale: 1 in = 6 miles

RD

2,500
FEET

NOISE SCREENING AREA

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

FIGURE 3

LEGEND:
RECEIVER

Sources: Esri, DeLorme,


NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap,
iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan,
METI, Esri China (Hong

NOISE SENSITIVE AREA


NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

NOISE SENSITIVE AREAS


AND RECEIVER SITES

MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION


PERRYVILLE MARC MAINTENANCE AND
STORAGE FACILITY

Noise sensitive land uses within the noise screening area include:

Area 1: Residences at 1096 and 1098 Principio Furnace Road


Area 2: Residence at 2 Mill Creek Road
Area 3: Residence at 64 Woodlands Farm Lane South
Area 4: Residence at 93 Mill Creek Lane (Woodlands)
Area 5: Furnace Bay Golf Course
Area 6: Residence at 311 Charter Hill Road
Area 7: Residence at 1323 Principio Furnace Road

Areas 1 through 4 and areas 6 and 7 are classified as Category 2 land uses as they are residences. The
only non-residential land use identified was the Furnace Bay Golf Course which is a Category 3. Although
historical sites (such as Woodlands in Area 3) are often considered Category 3 land uses because they
operate as daytime museums, Woodlands is considered to be a Category 2 land use because it functions
as a private residence. Any zoning changes that may occur after this report may result in a change to the
land use categories and therefore may affect the results. A map of the noise sensitive land use areas and
representative existing measurement receiver location is shown on Figure 3.

General Rail Noise Assessment


The purpose of the general rail noise assessment is to determine the extent and severity of predicted
noise impacts at the noise sensitive land uses identified during the rail noise screening procedure. The
operational characteristics of the proposed facility and the propagation path between the facility and
noise sensitive land uses were accounted for in the noise impact assessment.
All noise impact analysis calculations were conducted within the FTA noise impact analysis spreadsheets
as required by the FTA guidelines. While the frequency and timing of events, speed, and distance from
the noise source are all project specific parameters, at this level of analysis, noise emissions from
common maintenance equipment within a rail yard and shop is accounted for collectively in the
reference level provided in the FTA Noise and Vibration Manual for Yards and Shops. The reference level
includes the following noise producing activities:

Locomotive and rail


car passbys
Locomotives Idling
Squeal on tight
curves

Horns
Warning Signals
Coupling /uncoupling
Auxiliary equipment

Crossovers/switches
Break squeal
Air release

This reference value is adjusted within the FTA impact analysis spreadsheets to account for distances
and movements that differ from the reference conditions. The FTA reference levels and conditions for
stationary rail noise sources can be found in Table 2 below.
TABLE 2. Source Reference Levels at 50 feet from Center of Site Stationary Sources
Source

Reference
SEL (dBA)

Reference Conditions

Yards and Shops

118

20 train movements in peak activity hour

Layover Tracks

109

One train with diesel locomotive idling for one


hour

Crossovers

100

One train

Crossing Signals

109

3600 seconds duration

(Source: FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment)

It was determined that proposed MARC Maintenance and Train Storage Facility would have three main
noise sources:
A fixed guideway with diesel electric locomotives
Stationary source commuter rail layover tracks
Stationary source rail yard and shop
The general assessment calculations for the proposed MARC Maintenance and Layover Facility were
adjusted for the maximum potential movements of the proposed locomotives to be maintained. The
estimated future hours of operations are not anticipated to change between the proposed project and
9

the potential future expansion operations. Peak hour operations were estimated at 5 locomotive
movements for the project and 27 locomotive movements during the maximum likely potential
expansion to account for the daily start up, inspection and idling of the maximum number of diesel
locomotive stored on the facility layover tracks during nighttime and non-peak daytime hours. Nighttime
noise levels, 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. estimates were increased by 10 dB(A) as required by the FTA
guidelines. The lead tracks into and out of the facility were evaluated as a fixed rail guideway operating
between 4:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. for departures and again between 7:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. for
arrivals.
Existing noise exposure at noise sensitive land uses identified during the noise screening procedure were
determined by taking five, 24-hour noise measurements at representative receptor locations within
each noise-sensitive land use area. The L dn was calculated from the 24 hourly L eq(h) values, for Category 2
testing sites. For the one Category 3 test site, the Furnace Bay Golf Course, the peak hour L eq(h) was used
as recommended by the FTA guidelines. The peak hour used in the analysis for the Furnace Bay Golf
Course was 9:00 p.m. During the 24-hour noise measurement at the Golf Course, the 9:00 p.m. hour had
the loudest noise volume. The measured values were input as the existing noise levels in the FTA noise
impact analysis spreadsheets for each individual measurement location. Distances between the
receptor sites and the noise source were calculated from the midline of the tracks for the fixed
guideway and from the center of the proposed facility for the yard and shop related noise sources.
Shielding attenuation was not accounted for since there were no intervening barriers between the
facilities and the receptor sites. Data used in the rail spreadsheet are located in Appendix A.
NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS
Proposed Project
One (1) residential, representative receptor site would experience severe noise impacts under the
proposed project conditions. The impact would occur at the 65 Woodland Farm Lane South site. Existing
L dn at 65 Woodland Farm South would be 59 dB(A). The proposed conditions would increase noise levels
10 dB(A) over current sound levels, resulting in a total noise exposure of 69 dB(A). No other residential
properties would experience noise impacts.
The Category 3 receptor site at Furnace Bay Golf Course would not be impacted under the FTA criteria.
The golf course would experience a 1 dB(A) increase over existing noise levels under the proposed
project conditions, resulting in a total noise exposure of 59 dB(A). Predicted total noise exposure and
impact levels for each receptor can be found in Table 3.
TABLE 3. Receptor Locations, Existing Noise Level and Proposed Project Predicted Impacts
Receptor
Number

Location

Land
Use
Category

Farmhouse, 65
Woodland Farm Lane
South

Existing
Conditions,
Measured
Sound
1
Level

Predicted
Project
Noise
Exposure
(dB[A])

Predicted
Total
Noise
Exposure
(dB[A])

Increase
Over
Existing
(dB[A])

FTA
Impact
Level

59

63

65

Severe

10

TABLE 3. Receptor Locations, Existing Noise Level and Proposed Project Predicted Impacts
Receptor
Number

3
4
5
6
7

Location

Residences, 1096 &


1098 Principio
Furnace Road
House (Woodlands),
Woodlands Farm Lane
North
House, 2 Mill Creek
Road
Furnace Bay Golf
Course
311 Charter Hill Road
1323 Principio
Furnace Road

Land
Use
Category

Existing
Conditions,
Measured
Sound
1
Level

Predicted
Project
Noise
Exposure
(dB[A])

Predicted
Total
Noise
Exposure
(dB[A])

Increase
Over
Existing
(dB[A])

FTA
Impact
Level

59

53

60

None

60

48

60

None

55

49

56

None

58

49

59

None

52

46

53

None

60

48

60

None

1.
All Category 2 levels are shown as Ldn with units in A-weighted decibels (dB[A]). All Category 3 Sound Levels
are shown as hourly equivalent sound levels (Leq[h]) with units in A-weighted decibels (dB[A]).
NOTE: Any topographical changes to the project site for landscape purposes were not included in this analysis.

Based on the measured existing sound levels and FTAs Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects, it is
determined that Severe Noise Impacts would occur for this project at the 65 Woodland Farm Lane South
location. Because MTA proposes to purchase this property and cease residental use, no further noise
mitigation is recommended fir this project.
Potential Expansion
Two residential properties would experience no noise impacts, two of the properties will experience a
moderate noise impact and one property will experience a severe noise impact under the proposed
conditions. The most severe impacts would occur at the 65 Woodland Farm Lane South site. Existing L dn
at 65 Woodland Farm South was 58 dB(A). The proposed conditions would increase noise levels 16 dB(A)
over current sound levels, resulting in a total noise exposure of 75 dB(A). 1096 Principio Furnace Road
and 2 Mill Creek would both experience moderate noise impacts with an increase from existing levels of
5 dB(A) and 4 dB(A) respectively. Woodland Farm Lane North would experience a predicted noise level
increase of 1 dB(A) over existing levels and would not be impacted under the FTA criteria.
The Category 3 receptor site at Furnace Bay Golf Course would not be impacted under the FTA criteria.
The golf course would experience a 3 dB(A) increase over existing noise levels under the Phase II
proposed conditions, which would result in a total noise exposure of 61 dB(A). Predicted total noise
exposure and impact levels for each receptor can be found in Table 4.

11

TABLE 4. Receptor Locations, Existing Noise Level and Potential Expansion Predicted
Impacts
Existing
Conditions,
Measured
Sound
1
Level

Predicted
Project
Noise
Exposure
(dB[A])

Predicted
Total
Noise
Exposure
(dB[A])

Increase
Over
Existing
(dB[A])

FTA
Impact
Level

Receptor
Number

Location

Land
Use
Category

Farmhouse, 65
Woodland Farm Lane
South

59

71

71

12

Severe

59

60

62

Moderate

60

54

61

None

55

56

58

Moderate

58

55

60

None

3
4
5

Residences, 1096 &


1098 Principio
Furnace Road
House (Woodlands),
Woodlands Farm
Lane North
House, 2 Mill Creek
Road
Furnace Bay Golf
Course

311 Charter Hill Road

52

51

55

None

1323 Principio
Furnace Road

60

55

61

None

1.
All Category 2 levels are shown as Ldn with units in A-weighted decibels (dB[A]). All Category 3 Sound Levels
are shown as hourly equivalent sound levels (Leq[h]) with units in A-weighted decibels (dB[A]).
NOTE: Any topographical changes to the project site for landscape purposes were not included in this analysis.

Based on the measured existing sound levels and FTAs Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects, MTA
has determined that Moderate to Severe Noise Impacts would occur. Because MTA intends to purchase
the severly impacted property at 65 Woodland Farm Lane and cease residential use, mitigation would
not be required by MTA.

Mitigation
MTA is not required to mitigate for moderate noise impacts. The severly impacted property at 65
Woodland Farm Lane will be purchased by MTA and therefore does not require noise mitigation. There
are no noise mitigation recommendation s for this project.

12

General Noise Assessment


Perryville A MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

Appendix A
Rail Impact Spreadsheets

June 2014

Federal Transit Administration


Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet
Copyright 2007 HMMH Inc.
version: 7/3/2007

Noise Impact Criteria


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-1)

Project: Perryville A
Project Results Summary

85

Existing Ldn: 59 dBA


Total Project Ldn: 63 dBA

Existing Noise (Measured or Generic Value):

Increase: 6 dB
Impact?: Severe

Woodland Farm Lane South


2. Residential
59 dBA

Distance to Impact Contours


Dist to Mod. Impact Contour: --Dist to Sev. Impact Contour: --Noise Source Parameters
Number of Noise Sources:
Noise Source Parameters
Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

1
15
2

Avg. Number of Locos/train

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings

Adjustments

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

Distance
Adjustments

Source 1
Fixed Guideway
Diesel Electric Locomotive

Avg. Number of Locos/train


Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr

Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr
Distance

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:

Source 2
Stationary Source
Layover Tracks (commuter rail)
2
40

Severe Impact

55

Woodland Farm Lane


South

50

40

Nighttime hrs

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

1343.06
0
No
No
No
No

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-2)
20

Source 2 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-2):

58.9 dBA
55.9 dBA
62.9 dBA
63.1 dBA

15

10
6 dB

0
40

45

50

Source 3 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-3):

40.7 dBA
40.7 dBA
47.1 dBA
63.2 dBA

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)


Moderate Impact

251.19
0
No
No
No
No
Source 3
Stationary Source
Rail Yard & Shops

Moderate Impact

63 dBA
60

40

1
40
0.7

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

65

Leq(day): 46.0 dBA


Leq(night): 43.0 dBA
Ldn: 50.0 dBA

873.99
0
No
No
No
No

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

Adjustments

70

15
1

Daytime hrs

Distance

75

45

Source 1 Results

Noise Exposure Increase (dB)

Receiver:
Land Use Category:

80
Project Noise Exposure/Ldn (dBA)

Total Noise Exposure: 65 dBA

Receiver Parameters

Severe Impact

Woodland Farm Lane South

Federal Transit Administration


Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet
Copyright 2007 HMMH Inc.
version: 7/3/2007

Noise Impact Criteria


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-1)

Project: Perryville A
Project Results Summary

85

Existing Ldn: 59 dBA


Total Project Ldn: 53 dBA

Existing Noise (Measured or Generic Value):

Increase: 1 dB
Impact?: None

1098 Principio Furnace Road


2. Residential
59 dBA

Distance to Impact Contours


Dist to Mod. Impact Contour: --Dist to Sev. Impact Contour: --Noise Source Parameters
Number of Noise Sources:
Noise Source Parameters
Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

1
15
2

Avg. Number of Locos/train

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings

Adjustments

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

Distance
Adjustments

Source 1
Fixed Guideway
Diesel Electric Locomotive

Avg. Number of Locos/train


Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr

Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr
Distance

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:

Source 2
Stationary Source
Layover Tracks (commuter rail)
2
40

Moderate Impact

60

Severe Impact

55

40

Nighttime hrs

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

1392.14
0
No
No
No
No

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-2)
20

Source 2 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-2):

45.5 dBA
42.5 dBA
49.5 dBA
51.6 dBA

15

10

5
1 dB

0
40

45

50

Source 3 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-3):

40.3 dBA
40.3 dBA
46.7 dBA
52.8 dBA

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)


Moderate Impact

859.51
0
No
No
No
No
Source 3
Stationary Source
Rail Yard & Shops

1098 Principio
Furnace Road

53 dBA
50

40

1
40
0.7

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

65

Leq(day): 43.3 dBA


Leq(night): 40.3 dBA
Ldn: 47.3 dBA

1320
0
No
No
No
No

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

Adjustments

70

15
1

Daytime hrs

Distance

75

45

Source 1 Results

Noise Exposure Increase (dB)

Receiver:
Land Use Category:

80
Project Noise Exposure/Ldn (dBA)

Total Noise Exposure: 60 dBA

Receiver Parameters

Severe Impact

1098 Principio Furnace Road

Federal Transit Administration


Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet
Copyright 2007 HMMH Inc.
version: 7/3/2007

Noise Impact Criteria


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-1)

Project: Perryville A
Project Results Summary

85

Existing Ldn: 60 dBA


Total Project Ldn: 48 dBA

Existing Noise (Measured or Generic Value):

Increase: 0 dB
Impact?: None

Woodland Farm Lane North


2. Residential
60 dBA

Distance to Impact Contours


Dist to Mod. Impact Contour: --Dist to Sev. Impact Contour: --Noise Source Parameters
Number of Noise Sources:
Noise Source Parameters
Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

1
15
2

Avg. Number of Locos/train

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings

Adjustments

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

Distance
Adjustments

Source 1
Fixed Guideway
Diesel Electric Locomotive

Avg. Number of Locos/train


Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr

Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr
Distance

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:

Source 2
Stationary Source
Layover Tracks (commuter rail)
2
40

65

Moderate Impact

60

Severe Impact

55

Woodland Farm Lane


North

50
48 dBA

40
40

Leq(day): 38.8 dBA


Leq(night): 35.8 dBA
Ldn: 42.8 dBA

Nighttime hrs

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

1676.6
0
No
No
No
No

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

20

Source 2 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-2):

36.9 dBA
33.9 dBA
40.8 dBA
44.9 dBA

15

10

0 dB

0
40

45

50

Source 3 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-3):

38.2 dBA
38.2 dBA
44.7 dBA
47.8 dBA

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)


Moderate Impact

1908.88
0
No
No
No
No
Source 3
Stationary Source
Rail Yard & Shops

45

Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-2)

1
40
0.7

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

Source 1 Results

2631.89
0
No
No
No
No

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

Adjustments

70

15
1

Daytime hrs

Distance

75

45

Noise Exposure Increase (dB)

Receiver:
Land Use Category:

80
Project Noise Exposure/Ldn (dBA)

Total Noise Exposure: 60 dBA

Receiver Parameters

Severe Impact

Woodland Farm Lane North

Federal Transit Administration


Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet
Copyright 2007 HMMH Inc.
version: 7/3/2007

Noise Impact Criteria


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-1)

Project: Perryville A
Project Results Summary

85

Existing Ldn: 55 dBA


Total Project Ldn: 49 dBA

Existing Noise (Measured or Generic Value):

Increase: 1 dB
Impact?: None

2 Mill Creek
2. Residential
55 dBA

Distance to Impact Contours


Dist to Mod. Impact Contour: --Dist to Sev. Impact Contour: --Noise Source Parameters
Number of Noise Sources:
Noise Source Parameters
Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

1
15
2

Avg. Number of Locos/train

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings

Adjustments

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

Distance
Adjustments

Source 1
Fixed Guideway
Diesel Electric Locomotive

Avg. Number of Locos/train


Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr

Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr
Distance

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:

Source 2
Stationary Source
Layover Tracks (commuter rail)
2
40

65
Moderate Impact

60

Severe Impact
2 Mill Creek

55
50

49 dBA

40
40

Leq(day): 40.7 dBA


Leq(night): 37.7 dBA
Ldn: 44.7 dBA

Nighttime hrs

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

1531.18
0
No
No
No
No

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

20

Source 2 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-2):

39.4 dBA
36.4 dBA
43.4 dBA
47.1 dBA

15

10

5
1 dB

0
40

45

50

55

Source 3 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-3):

39.2 dBA
39.2 dBA
45.6 dBA
49.4 dBA

60

65

70

75

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)


Moderate Impact

1514.71
0
No
No
No
No
Source 3
Stationary Source
Rail Yard & Shops

45

Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-2)

1
40
0.7

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

Source 1 Results

1976.39
0
No
No
No
No

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

Adjustments

70

15
1

Daytime hrs

Distance

75

45

Noise Exposure Increase (dB)

Receiver:
Land Use Category:

80
Project Noise Exposure/Ldn (dBA)

Total Noise Exposure: 56 dBA

Receiver Parameters

Severe Impact

2 Mill Creek

80

Federal Transit Administration


Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet
Copyright 2007 HMMH Inc.
version: 7/3/2007

Noise Impact Criteria


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-1)

Project: Perryville A
85

Project Results Summary


Existing Leqh: 58 dBA
Total Project Leqh: 49 dBA

Existing Noise (Measured or Generic Value):

Increase: 1 dB
Impact?: None

Furnace Bay Golf Course


3. Institutional
58 dBA

Distance to Impact Contours


Dist to Mod. Impact Contour: --Dist to Sev. Impact Contour: --Noise Source Parameters
Number of Noise Sources:
Noise Source Parameters
Source Type:
Specific Source:
Noisiest hr of
Activity During
Sensitive hrs

Distance

Number of Locos/train
Speed (mph)
Number of Events/hr

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings

Adjustments

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:
Noisiest hr of
Activity During
Sensitive hrs

Number of Trains/hr

3
Source 1
Fixed Guideway
Diesel Electric Locomotive

Leqh: 47.7 dBA

1
15
2

70
65

Moderate Impact

60

Severe Impact

55

Furnace Bay Golf


Course

50

49 dBA

45

40

45

50

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:

Source 2 Results
Leqh: 41.4 dBA

2
40

Noisiest hr of
Activity During
Sensitive hrs

Number of Trains/hr
0

Source 3 Results
Leqh: 36.2 dBA

Incremental Leqh (Src 1-3): 48.9 dBA


18

Distance
Adjustments

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

2026.66
0
No
No
No
No

70

75

80

15

10

1 dB
40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)


Moderate Impact

1262.3
0
No
No
No
No
Source 3
Stationary Source
Rail Yard & Shops

65

20

18
40
0.7

Adjustments

60

Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-2)

Incremental Leqh (Src 1-2): 48.6 dBA

Distance

55

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

670.06
0
No
No
No
No
Source 2
Stationary Source
Layover Tracks (commuter rail)

75

40

Source 1 Results

Noise Exposure Increase (dB)

Receiver:
Land Use Category:

80

Project Noise Exposure/Leqh (dBA)

Total Noise Exposure: 59 dBA

Receiver Parameters

Severe Impact

Furnace Bay Golf Course

Federal Transit Administration


Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet
Copyright 2007 HMMH Inc.
version: 7/3/2007

Noise Impact Criteria


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-1)

Project: Perryville A
85

Project Results Summary


Existing Ldn: 52 dBA
Total Project Ldn: 46 dBA

Existing Noise (Measured or Generic Value):

Increase: 1 dB
Impact?: None

311 Charter Hill Road M6


2. Residential
52 dBA

Distance to Impact Contours


Dist to Mod. Impact Contour: --Dist to Sev. Impact Contour: --Noise Source Parameters
Number of Noise Sources:
Noise Source Parameters
Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

1
15
2

Avg. Number of Locos/train

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings

Adjustments

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

Distance
Adjustments

Source 1
Fixed Guideway
Diesel Electric Locomotive

Avg. Number of Locos/train


Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr

Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr
Distance

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:

Source 2
Stationary Source
Layover Tracks (commuter rail)
2
40

Moderate Impact

60

Severe Impact

55

311 Charter Hill


Road M6

50

Leq(day): 34.4 dBA


Leq(night): 31.4 dBA
Ldn: 38.4 dBA

46 dBA

40

Nighttime hrs

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

1531.18
0
No
No
No
No

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

20

Source 2 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-2):

24.7 dBA
21.7 dBA
28.7 dBA
38.8 dBA

15

10

1 dB
40

45

50

Source 3 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-3):

39.2 dBA
39.2 dBA
45.6 dBA
46.5 dBA

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)


Moderate Impact

5855
0
No
No
No
No
Source 3
Stationary Source
Rail Yard & Shops

45

Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-2)

1
40
0.7

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

65

40

Source 1 Results

5201
0
No
No
No
No

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

Adjustments

70

15
1

Daytime hrs

Distance

75

45

Noise Exposure Increase (dB)

Receiver:
Land Use Category:

80
Project Noise Exposure/Ldn (dBA)

Total Noise Exposure: 53 dBA

Receiver Parameters

Severe Impact

311 Charter Hill Road M6

Federal Transit Administration


Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet
Copyright 2007 HMMH Inc.
version: 7/3/2007

Noise Impact Criteria


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-1)

Project: Perryville A
Project Results Summary

85

Existing Ldn: 60 dBA


Total Project Ldn: 48 dBA

Existing Noise (Measured or Generic Value):

Increase: 0 dB
Impact?: None

1323 Principio Furnace Road


2. Residential
60 dBA

Distance to Impact Contours


Dist to Mod. Impact Contour: --Dist to Sev. Impact Contour: --Noise Source Parameters
Number of Noise Sources:
Noise Source Parameters
Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

1
15
2

Avg. Number of Locos/train

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings

Adjustments

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

Distance
Adjustments

Source 1
Fixed Guideway
Diesel Electric Locomotive

Avg. Number of Locos/train


Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr

Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr
Distance

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:

Source 2
Stationary Source
Layover Tracks (commuter rail)
2
40

Moderate Impact

60

Severe Impact

55

1323 Principio
Furnace Road

50
48 dBA

40
40

Nighttime hrs

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

1965
0
No
No
No
No

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

20

Source 2 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-2):

37.9 dBA
34.9 dBA
41.9 dBA
46.7 dBA

15

10

0 dB

0
40

45

50

Source 3 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-3):

36.5 dBA
36.5 dBA
42.9 dBA
48.3 dBA

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)


Moderate Impact

1737
0
No
No
No
No
Source 3
Stationary Source
Rail Yard & Shops

45

Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-2)

1
40
0.7

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

65

Leq(day): 41.0 dBA


Leq(night): 38.0 dBA
Ldn: 45.0 dBA

1870
0
No
No
No
No

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

Adjustments

70

15
1

Daytime hrs

Distance

75

45

Source 1 Results

Noise Exposure Increase (dB)

Receiver:
Land Use Category:

80
Project Noise Exposure/Ldn (dBA)

Total Noise Exposure: 60 dBA

Receiver Parameters

Severe Impact

1323 Principio Furnace Road

Federal Transit Administration


Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet
Copyright 2007 HMMH Inc.
version: 7/3/2007

Noise Impact Criteria


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-1)

Project: Perryville A
85

Project Results Summary


Existing Ldn: 59 dBA
Total Project Ldn: 71 dBA

Existing Noise (Measured or Generic Value):

Increase: 12 dB
Impact?: Severe

Woodland Farm Lane South


2. Residential
59 dBA

Distance to Impact Contours


Dist to Mod. Impact Contour: --Dist to Sev. Impact Contour: --Noise Source Parameters
Number of Noise Sources:
Noise Source Parameters
Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

1
15
9

Avg. Number of Locos/train

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings

Adjustments

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

Distance
Adjustments

Source 1
Fixed Guideway
Diesel Electric Locomotive

Avg. Number of Locos/train


Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr

Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr
Distance

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:

Source 2
Stationary Source
Layover Tracks (commuter rail)
9
40

Moderate Impact

60

Severe Impact

55

Woodland Farm Lane


South

50

40

40

Nighttime hrs

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

13

1343.06
0
No
No
No
No

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

20

Source 2 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-2):

65.4 dBA
63.7 dBA
70.4 dBA
70.6 dBA

15
12 dB

10

40

45

50

Source 3 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-3):

44.8 dBA
44.8 dBA
51.2 dBA
70.6 dBA

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)


Moderate Impact

251.19
0
No
No
No
No
Source 3
Stationary Source
Rail Yard & Shops

45

Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-2)

6
40
0.7

13

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

65

Leq(day): 52.5 dBA


Leq(night): 50.8 dBA
Ldn: 57.5 dBA

873.99
0
No
No
No
No

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

Adjustments

71 dBA

70

15
6

Daytime hrs

Distance

75

45

Source 1 Results

Noise Exposure Increase (dB)

Receiver:
Land Use Category:

80
Project Noise Exposure/Ldn (dBA)

Total Noise Exposure: 71 dBA

Receiver Parameters

Severe Impact

Woodland Farm Lane South

Federal Transit Administration


Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet
Copyright 2007 HMMH Inc.
version: 7/3/2007

Noise Impact Criteria


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-1)

Project: Perryville A
85

Project Results Summary


Existing Ldn: 59 dBA
Total Project Ldn: 60 dBA

Existing Noise (Measured or Generic Value):

Increase: 3 dB
Impact?: Moderate

1098 Principio Furnace Road


2. Residential
59 dBA

Distance to Impact Contours


Dist to Mod. Impact Contour: --Dist to Sev. Impact Contour: --Noise Source Parameters
Number of Noise Sources:
Noise Source Parameters
Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

1
15
9

Avg. Number of Locos/train

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings

Adjustments

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

Distance
Adjustments

Source 1
Fixed Guideway
Diesel Electric Locomotive

Avg. Number of Locos/train


Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr

Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr
Distance

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:

Source 2
Stationary Source
Layover Tracks (commuter rail)
9
40

Moderate Impact

60

60 dBA

1098 Principio
Furnace Road

50

40

Nighttime hrs

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

13

1392.14
0
No
No
No
No

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-2)
20

Source 2 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-2):

52.1 dBA
50.3 dBA
57.0 dBA
59.1 dBA

15

10

5
3 dB

40

45

50

Source 3 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-3):

44.4 dBA
44.4 dBA
50.8 dBA
59.7 dBA

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)


Moderate Impact

859.51
0
No
No
No
No
Source 3
Stationary Source
Rail Yard & Shops

Severe Impact

55

40

6
40
0.7

13

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

65

Leq(day): 49.8 dBA


Leq(night): 48.1 dBA
Ldn: 54.8 dBA

1320
0
No
No
No
No

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

Adjustments

70

15
6

Daytime hrs

Distance

75

45

Source 1 Results

Noise Exposure Increase (dB)

Receiver:
Land Use Category:

80
Project Noise Exposure/Ldn (dBA)

Total Noise Exposure: 62 dBA

Receiver Parameters

Severe Impact

1098 Principio Furnace Road

Federal Transit Administration


Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet
Copyright 2007 HMMH Inc.
version: 7/3/2007

Noise Impact Criteria


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-1)

Project: Perryville A
85

Project Results Summary


Existing Ldn: 60 dBA
Total Project Ldn: 54 dBA

Existing Noise (Measured or Generic Value):

Increase: 1 dB
Impact?: None

Woodland Farm Lane North


2. Residential
60 dBA

Distance to Impact Contours


Dist to Mod. Impact Contour: --Dist to Sev. Impact Contour: --Noise Source Parameters
Number of Noise Sources:
Noise Source Parameters
Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

1
15
9

Avg. Number of Locos/train

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings

Adjustments

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

Distance
Adjustments

Source 1
Fixed Guideway
Diesel Electric Locomotive

Avg. Number of Locos/train


Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr

Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr
Distance

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:

Source 2
Stationary Source
Layover Tracks (commuter rail)
9
40

Moderate Impact

60

Severe Impact

55

54 dBA

40

Nighttime hrs

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

13

1676.6
0
No
No
No
No

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-2)
20

Source 2 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-2):

43.4 dBA
41.6 dBA
48.3 dBA
52.4 dBA

15

10

1 dB
40

45

50

Source 3 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-3):

42.4 dBA
42.4 dBA
48.8 dBA
54.0 dBA

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)


Moderate Impact

1908.88
0
No
No
No
No
Source 3
Stationary Source
Rail Yard & Shops

Woodland Farm Lane


North

50

40

6
40
0.7

13

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

65

Leq(day): 45.4 dBA


Leq(night): 43.6 dBA
Ldn: 50.3 dBA

2631.89
0
No
No
No
No

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

Adjustments

70

15
6

Daytime hrs

Distance

75

45

Source 1 Results

Noise Exposure Increase (dB)

Receiver:
Land Use Category:

80
Project Noise Exposure/Ldn (dBA)

Total Noise Exposure: 61 dBA

Receiver Parameters

Severe Impact

Woodland Farm Lane North

Federal Transit Administration


Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet
Copyright 2007 HMMH Inc.
version: 7/3/2007

Noise Impact Criteria


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-1)

Project: Perryville A
85

Project Results Summary


Existing Ldn: 55 dBA
Total Project Ldn: 56 dBA

Existing Noise (Measured or Generic Value):

Increase: 3 dB
Impact?: Moderate

2 Mill Creek
2. Residential
55 dBA

Distance to Impact Contours


Dist to Mod. Impact Contour: --Dist to Sev. Impact Contour: --Noise Source Parameters
Number of Noise Sources:
Noise Source Parameters
Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

1
15
9

Avg. Number of Locos/train

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings

Adjustments

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

Distance
Adjustments

Source 1
Fixed Guideway
Diesel Electric Locomotive

Avg. Number of Locos/train


Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr

Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr
Distance

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:

Source 2
Stationary Source
Layover Tracks (commuter rail)
9
40

Moderate Impact

60

Severe Impact

56 dBA

55

40

Nighttime hrs

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

13

1531.18
0
No
No
No
No

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-2)
20

Source 2 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-2):

45.9 dBA
44.1 dBA
50.9 dBA
54.6 dBA

15

10

3 dB

40

45

50

55

Source 3 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-3):

43.4 dBA
43.4 dBA
49.8 dBA
55.8 dBA

60

65

70

75

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)


Moderate Impact

1514.71
0
No
No
No
No
Source 3
Stationary Source
Rail Yard & Shops

2 Mill Creek

50

40

6
40
0.7

13

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

65

Leq(day): 47.2 dBA


Leq(night): 45.5 dBA
Ldn: 52.2 dBA

1976.39
0
No
No
No
No

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

Adjustments

70

15
6

Daytime hrs

Distance

75

45

Source 1 Results

Noise Exposure Increase (dB)

Receiver:
Land Use Category:

80
Project Noise Exposure/Ldn (dBA)

Total Noise Exposure: 58 dBA

Receiver Parameters

Severe Impact

2 Mill Creek

80

Federal Transit Administration


Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet
Copyright 2007 HMMH Inc.
version: 7/3/2007

Noise Impact Criteria


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-1)

Project: Perryville A
85

Project Results Summary


Existing Leqh: 58 dBA
Total Project Leqh: 55 dBA

Existing Noise (Measured or Generic Value):

Increase: 2 dB
Impact?: None

Furnace Bay Golf Course


3. Institutional
58 dBA

Distance to Impact Contours


Dist to Mod. Impact Contour: --Dist to Sev. Impact Contour: --Noise Source Parameters
Number of Noise Sources:
Noise Source Parameters
Source Type:
Specific Source:
Noisiest hr of
Activity During
Sensitive hrs

Distance

Number of Locos/train
Speed (mph)
Number of Events/hr

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings

Adjustments

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:
Noisiest hr of
Activity During
Sensitive hrs

Number of Trains/hr

3
Source 1
Fixed Guideway
Diesel Electric Locomotive

70

65

Moderate Impact

60

Severe Impact

55 dBA

55

45

40

45

50

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:
Noisiest hr of
Activity During
Sensitive hrs

Number of Trains/hr
0

Source 2 Results
Leqh: 47.9 dBA

Source 3 Results
Leqh: 40.3 dBA

Incremental Leqh (Src 1-3): 55.3 dBA


18

Distance
Adjustments

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

2026.66
0
No
No
No
No

70

75

80

15

10

5
2 dB

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)


Moderate Impact

1262.3
0
No
No
No
No

13

65

20

9
40

Source 3
Stationary Source
Rail Yard & Shops

60

Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-2)

670.06
0
No
No
No
No

18
40
0.7

Adjustments

55

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

Incremental Leqh (Src 1-2): 55.2 dBA

Distance

Furnace Bay Golf


Course

50

Leqh: 54.3 dBA

1
15
9

Source 2
Stationary Source
Layover Tracks (commuter rail)

75

40

Source 1 Results

Noise Exposure Increase (dB)

Receiver:
Land Use Category:

80
Project Noise Exposure/Leqh (dBA)

Total Noise Exposure: 60 dBA

Receiver Parameters

Severe Impact

Furnace Bay Golf Course

Federal Transit Administration


Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet
Copyright 2007 HMMH Inc.
version: 7/3/2007

Noise Impact Criteria


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-1)

Project: Perryville A
85

Project Results Summary


Existing Ldn: 52 dBA
Total Project Ldn: 51 dBA

Existing Noise (Measured or Generic Value):

Increase: 3 dB
Impact?: None

311 Charter Hill Road


2. Residential
52 dBA

Distance to Impact Contours


Dist to Mod. Impact Contour: --Dist to Sev. Impact Contour: --Noise Source Parameters
Number of Noise Sources:
Noise Source Parameters
Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

1
15
9

Avg. Number of Locos/train

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings

Adjustments

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

Distance
Adjustments

Source 1
Fixed Guideway
Diesel Electric Locomotive

Avg. Number of Locos/train


Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr

Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr
Distance

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:

Source 2
Stationary Source
Layover Tracks (commuter rail)
9
40

Moderate Impact

60

Severe Impact

55

40

Nighttime hrs

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

13

1531.18
0
No
No
No
No

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-2)
20

Source 2 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-2):

31.2 dBA
29.5 dBA
36.2 dBA
46.3 dBA

15

10

5
3 dB

40

45

50

Source 3 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-3):

43.4 dBA
43.4 dBA
49.8 dBA
51.4 dBA

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)


Moderate Impact

5855
0
No
No
No
No
Source 3
Stationary Source
Rail Yard & Shops

311 Charter Hill


Road

51 dBA

50

40

6
40
0.7

13

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

65

Leq(day): 40.9 dBA


Leq(night): 39.2 dBA
Ldn: 45.9 dBA

5201
0
No
No
No
No

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

Adjustments

70

15
6

Daytime hrs

Distance

75

45

Source 1 Results

Noise Exposure Increase (dB)

Receiver:
Land Use Category:

80
Project Noise Exposure/Ldn (dBA)

Total Noise Exposure: 55 dBA

Receiver Parameters

Severe Impact

311 Charter Hill Road

Federal Transit Administration


Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet
Copyright 2007 HMMH Inc.
version: 7/3/2007

Noise Impact Criteria


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-1)

Project: Perryville A
85

Project Results Summary


Existing Ldn: 60 dBA
Total Project Ldn: 55 dBA

Existing Noise (Measured or Generic Value):

Increase: 1 dB
Impact?: None

1323 Principio Furnace Road


2. Residential
60 dBA

Distance to Impact Contours


Dist to Mod. Impact Contour: --Dist to Sev. Impact Contour: --Noise Source Parameters
Number of Noise Sources:
Noise Source Parameters
Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

1
15
9

Avg. Number of Locos/train

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings

Adjustments

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:
Daytime hrs

Nighttime hrs

Distance
Adjustments

Source 1
Fixed Guideway
Diesel Electric Locomotive

Avg. Number of Locos/train


Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr

Speed (mph)
Avg. Number of Events/hr
Distance

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Avg. Number of Trains/hr

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

Noise Source Parameters


Source Type:
Specific Source:

Source 2
Stationary Source
Layover Tracks (commuter rail)
9
40

Moderate Impact

60

Severe Impact

55

55 dBA

40

Nighttime hrs

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

13

1965
0
No
No
No
No

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed


(FTA Manual, Fig 3-2)
20

Source 2 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-2):

44.4 dBA
42.7 dBA
49.4 dBA
54.2 dBA

15

10

1 dB
40

45

50

Source 3 Results
Leq(day):
Leq(night):
Ldn:
Incremental Ldn (Src 1-3):

40.7 dBA
40.7 dBA
47.1 dBA
55.0 dBA

55

60

65

70

75

80

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)


Moderate Impact

1737
0
No
No
No
No
Source 3
Stationary Source
Rail Yard & Shops

1323 Principio
Furnace Road

50

40

6
40
0.7

13

Distance from Source to Receiver (ft)


Number of Intervening Rows of Buildings
Noise Barrier?

65

Leq(day): 47.6 dBA


Leq(night): 45.8 dBA
Ldn: 52.5 dBA

1870
0
No
No
No
No

Avg. Number of Trains/hr


0

Adjustments

70

15
6

Daytime hrs

Distance

75

45

Source 1 Results

Noise Exposure Increase (dB)

Receiver:
Land Use Category:

80
Project Noise Exposure/Ldn (dBA)

Total Noise Exposure: 61 dBA

Receiver Parameters

Severe Impact

1323 Principio Furnace Road




APPENDIX













March 15, 2013


Ms. Lori Byrne
Environmental Review Coordinator
Wildlife and Heritage Service, E-1
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401
RE: MARC Maintenance Facility Perryville A
Dear Ms. Byrne:
The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) is proposing to purchase the site known as
Perryville A and construct a MARC locomotive and passenger car maintenance facility and train
storage yard connected to Amtraks Northeast Corridor (location map attached). Approximately
30 acres of the 54 acres will be used for the facility.
We are requesting information concerning state threatened or endangered species and unique
habitat that may occur in the study area. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free
to call me at (410) 767-3780.

Sincerely,

Kelly Lyles
Environmental Planning Division, MTA

Enclosure
cc:
Mr. John Newton, MTA

Coordination Sheet for Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Environmental


Review Unit information on fisheries resources, including anadromous fish, related
to project locations and study areas
DATE OF REQUEST March 19, 2013:

NAME OF REQUESTOR: Kelly Lyles

PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION: MTA MARC Maintenance Facility, Cecil County Maryland

The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) is proposing to purchase the site known as
Perryville A and construct a MARC locomotive and passenger car maintenance facility
and train storage yard connected to Amtraks Northeast Corridor (location map attached).
Approximately 30 acres of the 54 acres will be used for the facility.
NAME OF STREAM(S) (and MDE Use Classification) WITHIN THE STUDY AREA:
Mill Creek, USE I-P

SUB-BASIN (6 digit watershed):


02-12-02 ; Lower Susquehanna River Watershed

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DNR RESPONSE:
_X__Generally, no instream work is permitted in Use I-P streams during the period of March 1
through June 15th, inclusive, during any year.
ADDITIONAL FISHERIES RESOURCES NOTES
Fish species identified by Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) in nearby locations include
American eel, blacknose dace, bluegill, blue ridge sculpin, brown trout, common shiner, creek chub, cutlip
minnow, green sunfish, pumpkinseed, rosyside dace, tessellated darter, and white sucker.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON BMPS:
Existing riparian vegetation in the area of the stream channel should be preserved as much as possible to
maintain aquatic habitat and provide shading to the stream. Areas designated for the access of equipment
and for the removal or disposal of material should avoid impacts to the stream and associated riparian
vegetation. Any temporarily disturbed areas should be restored and re-vegetated.

MD DNR, Environmental Review Unit signature

-----------------------------------------------------

DATE: ---------3-22-2013-------------------

APPENDIXD

S

Legend

476

76

81

PA

LOD

83

Camden

_
^

NJ

Baltimore Metro Area


D CM D

DE

295

VA

1,000

500

CLIENT
PROJ

2,000 Feet

Source: USGS 7.5' Series quads:


Havre De Grace, MD 1993

1,000 Meters

MTA

MARC Facility Phase I Survey

REVISION NO
SCALE
\\10.90.4.1\erm\MTA\MARC Facility 2013\
E. Data\E.4 GIS\Projects

0
1:24,000

DES BY

RXK

10/04/13

DR BY

RXK

10/07/13

CHK BY

SS

10/07/13

TITLE

Project Location
PROJ NO

12420 Milestone Center Dr.


Germantown, MD 20876

20836023

FIGURE

Legend

476

76

81

PA

LOD

83

Camden

_
^

NJ

Baltimore Metro Area


D CM D

DE

295

VA

1,000

2,000 Feet

500

1,000 Meters

Source: Bing Maps

CLIENT
PROJ

MTA

MARC Facility Phase I Survey

REVISION NO
SCALE
\\10.90.4.1\erm\MTA\MARC Facility 2013\
E. Data\E.4 GIS\Projects

0
1:11,999

DES BY

RXK

10/04/13

DR BY

RXK

10/07/13

CHK BY

SS

10/07/13

TITLE

Project LOD
PROJ NO

12420 Milestone Center Dr.


Germantown, MD 20876

20836023

FIGURE


  
-2>9-!'-!% .0686@E
 .@.- >.<560?

& 

.? ?5;C:

 ,

% ,

& ,

!% .0686@E $5.?2  &A>B2E


$%#

%)&#" "#

!'
 "'

&&

%+

%+

 

 

 

'' 

!682?@;:2 2:@2> >


2>9.:@;C: ! 

!% .0686@E &6@2 $8.:

(%

$%# "#

 

Above Ground APE


Archaeological APE

500 1,000 Feet

250

500 Meters

Source: Bing Maps


CLIENT

MTA

PROJ

MARC Facility Phase I Survey

REVISION NO
SCALE
\\10.90.4.1\erm\MTA\MARC Facility 2013\E. Data
\E.4 GIS\Projects\LocatorMap.mxd

0
1:18,000

DES BY

KJM

10/22/13

DR BY

RXK

10/22/13

CHK BY

SS

10/22/13

TITLE

APE Boundaries
PROJ NO

12420 Milestone Center Dr.


Germantown, MD 20876

20836023

FIGURE

500

1,000 Feet

.
!
0

250

500 Meters

Architectural Resources to Match SHPO Letter

Source: Bing Maps


CLIENT

MTA

PROJ

MARC Facility Phase I Survey

REVISION NO
SCALE
\\10.90.4.1\erm\MTA\MARC Facility 2013\E. Data
\E.4 GIS\Projects\LocatorMap.mxd

0
1:17,412

DES BY

RXK

10/23/13

DR BY

RXK

10/23/13

CHK BY

SS

10/23/13

TITLE

Architectural Resources Within Study Area


PROJ NO

12420 Milestone Center Dr.


Germantown, MD 20876

20836023

FIGURE

Attachment 6: Methodology, Potentially Affected Resources, and Potential Consulting


Parties
MTA will undertake investigations to determine the presence of historic properties, such as aboveground resources and archaeological sites, defined as those that are listed, or eligible for listing, in
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). All work will be conducted or directed by staff
that meet the Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR Part 61) in
Architectural History, History, and Archaeology. Resumes for project personnel are available upon
request.
Research Methodology
The methodology used to research, inventory, and analyze the property will follow the Secretary of
the Interiors Guidelines for Historical Documentation and the Standards and Guidelines for
Historical and Architectural Investigations in Maryland. The methodology statement will define
documentation objectives and research designs. Research methods and the results of analysis will
be incorporated into new or revised Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP) inventory
forms.
Research methodologies will target repositories with high potential for containing relevant
historical materials. Selection of repositories with the highest potential to contain useful
background information will result from discussions with MTA staff, URS project staff, and local
property owners, as well as past reports, and review of on-line research catalogs. Data collection
efforts will emphasize review of historic photographs, maps, accounts, and period descriptions.
These will be used to document the design, setting, and alterations to the properties within the
project area. Research materials will include MIHP forms, photographs, historic newspaper
accounts, and histories related to the project area and buildings or sites contained in the project
area. URS and SEI will review existing background information relevant to this study, including
the 1977 MIHP Form CE145 for Woodlands and preliminary research, photographs, maps, and
other information provided by MTA. Additionally, URS and SEI will access information on file at
the MHT regarding previously recorded archaeological sites and previously conducted
archaeological investigations in and within a one-mile radius of the project area.
SEI will conduct original, primary, and secondary-source research at key historical repositories in
Cecil County, Baltimore, Annapolis, and other locations in Maryland and Washington, D.C. The
following table provides an overview of recommended research materials with names of
repositories and brief descriptions of relevant source material.
Table 1
Locations of Repositories and Research
Location
Baltimore,
Maryland

Repository
Enoch Pratt Library

Resources Located
Cecil County Vertical Files and County
Histories including 300th Anniversary
Commemorative Book (1974), Blumgarts At
the Head of the Bay (1996), Cecil County
Reference Book (1956), and Johnsons History
of Cecil County (1967) and 1858 Martenet and
1877 Lake, Griffing & Stephenson maps

Location
Baltimore,
Maryland
Elkton,
Maryland

Repository
Maryland Historical
Society
Historical Society of
Cecil County

Elkton,
Maryland

Cecil County Public


Library, Elkton Central
Branch
Crownsville, Maryland Historical
Maryland
Trust Library,
Washington
D.C.

Library of Congress,

Resources Located
Same county histories at Enoch Pratt Library
Vertical files on agriculture; 1880 Agricultural
Census; post card and photo files; and
additional histories as relevant
Available local histories or genealogies

Archaeological files; 1850 to 1880


Agricultural Census for relevant district, Cecil
County
Maps including 1799 Hauducoeur map of the
head of the Chesapeake and Susquehanna
River, 1858 Martenets Map of Cecil County,
1877 Lake, Griffing & Stephenson Illustrated
Atlas, 1900 and 1902 Maps of Cecil County
Showing Agricultural Soils, 1908 Post Office
Department Rural Delivery Map, 1950
Topographic map showing election districts

All appropriate published resources will be utilized. SEI will also provide text on the cultural
history of the project area and on previously recorded sites and archaeological investigations in and
within a one-mile radius of the project area for inclusion in the report of archaeological
investigations.
Based on desktop research and a brief field reconnaissance, URS and SEI have identified the
following 13 architectural resources within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) (see Attachments
4 and 5). These resources require research, analysis, and completion/revision of long form MHT
Determinations of Eligibility (DOE) due to anticipated physical, visual, or noise effects associated
with construction and operation of the MARC Maintenance Facility:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

House The Anchorage (MIHP, CE-1230); 50 Mill Creek Lane;


House Lindenwood (MIHP, CE-700; 1287 Principio Furnace Road;
House The Woodlands (MIHP, CE-145); 93 Mill Creek Lane;
House Furnace Bay Golf Course Clubhouse; 79 Chesapeake View Road;
House 75 Chesapeake View Road
House 1096 Principio Furnace Road;
House 1050 Principio Furnace Road;
House 1323 Principio Furnace Road
House 2 Mill Creek Lane;
Farm Complex (appears to include 3 houses and multiple outbuildings); Woodlands Farm
Lane South;
Bridge Woodlands Farm Lane South over railroad tracks;
Bridge Chesapeake View Road over railroad tracks; and
Bridge Unnamed farm road over railroad tracks.

The Above-Ground Area of Potential Effects (APE) for above-ground resources, to include the

area of anticipated physical, visual, and noise effects. It is anticipated that this APE will be located
within a 0.25-mile radius from the project site and will include any properties 50 or more years old
located within the vista to and from the project site. The Archaeological APE will be the
approximately 120-acre project site. URS will conduct a Phase I archaeological survey of the
APE. Approximately 115 acres of the APE, which consists of agricultural fields, will be subjected
to pedestrian inspection and shovel testing at 20-meter intervals with 10-meter radial tests if
archaeological resources are encountered. The approximately 5 acre farmstead in the southwestern
portion of the APE will be subjected to pedestrian inspection and shovel testing at 10-meter
intervals. If necessary, URS will conduct a Phase II archaeological evaluation of any
archaeological resources encountered during the Phase I investigation that have the potential to be
eligible for listing in the NRHP.
A preliminary list of Section 106 consulting parties include local government representatives,
recognized tribal representatives that attach significance to the property, and other parties that, due
to the nature of the undertaking and their likely effects on historic properties, may have a
demonstrated interest, including legal and economic interests, on the effect of the undertaking on
historic properties. URS will work with MTA, MHT, FTA, and the Marylands Governors
Commission on Indian Affairs to identify tribal representatives to be notified of the undertaking
and provided them the opportunity to comment. Potential consulting parties include:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

The Town of Perryville Office of Planning and Zoning


Cecil County Office of Planning and Zoning
Cecil County Historical Society
Piscataway-Conoy Tribe
Piscataway Indian Nation
Accohannock Indian Tribe, Inc.
Assateague Peoples Tribe
Nause-Waiwash Band of Indians, inc.
Pocomoke Indian Tribe, Inc.
Youghiogheny River Band of Shawnee Indians, Inc.

Public participation will be coordinated with the MTA and follow their established protocol.
Written notification will be provided to adjacent property owners, local government groups, and
other interested parties as appropriate, providing them an opportunity to comment on the proposed
project and its effect on historic properties. The following is URSs working schedule for the
CRM tasks associated with this undertaking.
Table 2
Section 106 Timeline Tasks Milestones and Delivery Dates
Task
1

Milestone
Task 1 Section 106 Initiation and Research

Phase I Archaeological Survey


Phase II Archaeological Evaluation (if
necessary)
(Artifact Analysis/Curation)

Delivery Dates
November/December 2013
Phase I March 1, 2014
Phase II April 29, 2014
Analysis: 30 days after completion
of field investigations;
Curation: 45 days following
acceptance of Final Report

Task

Milestone

Delivery Dates

Architectural Historic Survey/ NRHP

December 2013

Archaeological Resources Report


Above Ground Resources Report

Memorandum of Agreement, if needed

Draft Report: 60 days after


completion of field investigations;
Final Report: 30 days following
receipt of comments
90 days after receipt of MHT
concurrence with NRHP eligibility
determinations and effects analysis




APPENDIXE

StandingStructuresReport



F I N A L

R E P O R T

NATIONAL HISTORIC
PRESERVATION ACT SECTION
106 CONSULTATION FOR MARC
NORTHEAST MAINTENANCE
FACILITY, PERRYVILLE, CECIL
COUNTY, MARYLAND
CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
REPORT: ABOVE-GROUND HISTORIC
PROPERTIES
Prepared for
Maryland Transit Administration
6 St. Paul Street
Baltimore, Maryland, 21202-1614

July 2014

URS Corporation
12420 Milestone Center Drive, Suite 150
Germantown, MD 20876
Project Number 20836023

Table of Contents
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................. vi
SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1
Background .............................................................................................. 1-1
1.1.1 Description of the Undertaking.................................................... 1-1
1.1.2 Purpose of the Report................................................................... 1-2
1.2
Alternatives Analysis ............................................................................... 1-3
SECTION TWO: METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1
Background Research .............................................................................. 2-1
2.2
Fieldwork ................................................................................................. 2-3
2.3
Evaluation of NRHP Eligibility ............................................................... 2-4
SECTION THREE: HISTORIC CONTEXT ................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1
Exploration and Colonization .................................................................. 3-1
3.2
Farming and Industry............................................................................... 3-4
3.3
Revolutionary War and Religion ............................................................. 3-7
3.4
War of 1812 ............................................................................................. 3-9
3.5
Agrarian Reform ...................................................................................... 3-9
3.6
Industrial Prosperity and Transportation Expansion.............................. 3-12
3.7
Post-Civil War Cecil County ................................................................. 3-13
3.8
Twentieth Century Cecil County ........................................................... 3-14
SECTION FOUR: SURVEY RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1
Delineation and Justification of Above-Ground Historic Properties
Area of Potential Effects.......................................................................... 4-1
4.2
National Register of Historic Places Properties in the
Above-Ground Historic Properties APE.................................................. 4-3
4.2.1 Properties Not Listed in the NRHP or Considered
Eligible for Listing....................................................................... 4-3
4.2.2 Properties Listed in the NRHP or Considered Eligible
for Listing................................................................................... 4-11
4.2.3 Summary of Properties in the Above-Ground Historic
Properties APE........................................................................... 4-12
SECTION FIVE: DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS.................................................................................... 5-1
5.1
The Anchorage (CE-1230)....................................................................... 5-2
5.2
Crothers House (CE-1566) ...................................................................... 5-5
5.3
Lindenwood (CE-700) ............................................................................. 5-7
5.4
The Woodlands Farm Historic District (CE-145).................................. 5-10
5.5
Other Indirect Effects............................................................................. 5-23
5.6
Summary of Effects on Above-Ground Historic Properties .................. 5-24
SECTION SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 6-1
SECTION SEVEN: BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 7-1

17-JUL-14\\

Table of Contents
Attachments
Attachment 1

Federal Transit Administration Section 106 Initiation Letter

Attachment 2

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility Open House, October 2013,


Presentation Materials

Attachment 3

Resumes of Key Personnel

Attachment 4

Woodland Farm, 1940 Appraisal

Attachment 5

Maryland Historical Trust Determination of Eligibility Forms and


Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties Forms
The Anchorage (CE-1230)
Baker House (CE-1561)
Baker-Howe House (CE-1569)
Bromwell House (CE-1564)
Crothers House (CE-1566)
Lindenwood (CE-700)
Pennsylvania, Washington, and Baltimore Railroad Bridge 57-85 (CE-1562)
Pennsylvania, Washington, and Baltimore Railroad Bridge Carrying Chesapeake
View Road (CE-1565)
Pennsylvania, Washington, and Baltimore Railroad Bridge 58-34 (CE-1563)
Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #55 (CE-1568)
Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #58 (CE-1567)
Woodlands Farm Historic District (CE-145)

Figures
Figure 1: MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility project location........................................... 1-18
Figure 2: The MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility project ................................................. 1-19
Figure 4: Captain John Smiths Map of Chesapeake Bay Perryville Area Segment with
Susquehanna Figure 1612 (north is right side of image) ........................................... 3-1
Figure 5: Virginia and Maryland as it is planted and inhabited this present year 1670
by Augustine Herman, Published by Augustine Herrman and Thomas
Withinbrook, 1673 ..................................................................................................... 3-3
Figure 6: Disputed Areas on Maryland Pennsylvania Border, c. 1673 .................................... 3-4
Figure 7: 1799 Hauducoeur Map of the head of the Chesapeake Bay......................................... 3-7
Figure 8: Embankments: High and other land, to prevent them from being inundated
by land-floods, or tide (Farmers Register, 1838:429).......................................... 3-10
Figure 9: Woodlands Farm, haying ........................................................................................... 3-11

17-JUL-14\\

ii

Table of Contents
Figure 10: Philadelphia and Baltimore and Washington Railroad Systems and
Connections, January 1, 1904 (northern half of map) ............................................. 3-15
Figure 11: Woodlands Farm Property of Coudon Estate, June 1940..................................... 3-16
Figure 12: Atlas Powder Company............................................................................................ 3-17
Figure 13: Surveyed Properties in the Above-Ground APE........................................................ 4-2
Figure 14: Baker House, facing north.......................................................................................... 4-4
Figure 15: Baker-Howe House, facing north............................................................................... 4-5
Figure 16: Bromwell House, looking west .................................................................................. 4-6
Figure 17: PW&B Railroad Bridge 57-85, looking southwest .................................................... 4-7
Figure 18: PW&B Railroad Bridge 58-34, looking southeast ..................................................... 4-8
Figure 19:PW&B Railroad Bridge Carrying Chesapeake View Road, looking
northwest.................................................................................................................... 4-9
Figure 20: Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #58, looking east................................... 4-10
Figure 21: Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #55, looking south ................................ 4-11
Figure 22: Above-Ground historic properties APE showing NRHP listed or eligible
buildings/structures and non-NRHP eligible buildings/structures........................... 4-13
Figure 23: The Anchorage, main house faade, facing northeast................................................ 5-3
Figure 24: From The Anchorage facing southeast toward the project area................................. 5-4
Figure 25: From The Anchorage facing southeast toward the project area, with
computer-simulated building silhouette..................................................................... 5-4
Figure 26: Crothers House faade facing southeast..................................................................... 5-5
Figure 27: View from Crothers House facing southwest toward the project area....................... 5-6
Figure 28: View from Crothers House, facing southwest toward the project area with
computer-simulated building silhouette..................................................................... 5-6
Figure 29: Lindenwood, facing northwest ................................................................................... 5-8
Figure 30: View from Lindenwood, facing south toward project area........................................ 5-9
Figure 31: View from Lindenwood, facing south toward the project area with
computer simulated building silhouette ..................................................................... 5-9
Figure 32: Woodlands Farm North Complex ............................................................................ 5-12
Figure 33: Woodlands Farm South Complex ............................................................................ 5-12
Figure 34: Farm Fields 1 and 2 (North Complex) and Farm Fields 3 and 4 (South
Complex) within the Woodlands Farm Historic District......................................... 5-13
Figure 35: Woodlands Main House faade and east elevation, facing northeast ...................... 5-15
Figure 36: Woodlands Main House west elevation, facing east................................................ 5-16

17-JUL-14\\

iii

Table of Contents
Figure 37: Bank barn and loafing sheds, north complex south elevation, facing
northeast................................................................................................................... 5-16
Figure 38: Implement shed and granary, south complex south and east elevations,
facing northwest....................................................................................................... 5-17
Figure 39: Springhouse, south complex north and west elevations, facing southeast............... 5-17
Figure 40: Locations of elements of the project and possible future expansion of
MARC improvements, superimposed on aerial map of the Woodlands
Farm Historic District .............................................................................................. 5-19
Figure 41: Detail: locations of elements of the project and possible future expansion of
the MARC improvements superimposed, on aerial map of the south
complex of the Woodlands Farm Historic District boundary.................................. 5-20
Figure 42: Detail: locations of elements of the project and possible future expansion of
the MARC improvements, superimposed on aerial map of the south
complex of the Woodlands Farm Historic District, showing buildings to be
demolished highlighted............................................................................................ 5-21
Figure 43: View from Woodlands Farm Historic District, next to Main House facing
southeast toward the project area............................................................................. 5-22
Figure 44: View from Woodlands Farm Historic District next to Main House facing
southeast, toward project area with computer-simulated building silhouette.......... 5-22
Figure 45: Location of NRHP listed and eligible approximate property boundaries and
footprint of MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility project elements (red)........... 5-26
Tables
Table 1: MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility Site Search Matrix ......................................... 1-4
Table 2: Repositories and Research............................................................................................. 2-2
Table 3: U.S. Non-population Census, Products of Agriculture: Selected Totals,
Average, and Coudon Farms, Cecil County, Maryland, 7th District, 1860............. 3-11
Table 4: NRHP Determinations for Historic Properties in the Above-Ground APE ................ 4-14
Table 5: NRHP Listed or Eligible Properties within the Above-Ground Historic
Property APE Evaluations for Criteria of Adverse Effect ......................................... 5-2
Table 6: Contributing and non-contributing resources, north and south complex,
Woodlands Farm Historic District ........................................................................... 5-14
Table 7: Recommended Determination of Effects for the MARC Northeast
Maintenance Facility on Above-Ground NRHP Historic Properties....................... 5-24

17-JUL-14\\

iv

Acronyms and Abbreviations


APE

Area of Potential Effects

APG

Aberdeen Proving Grounds

BMP

Best Management Practices

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

CA

Critical Area of the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays

DOE

Determination of Eligibility

EA

Environmental Assessment

EUL

Enhanced Use Lease

FEMA

Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIDS

Forest Interior Dwelling Species

FTA

Federal Transit Administration

MARC

Maryland Area Regional Commuter

MHT

Maryland Historical Trust

MIHP

Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties

MOW

Maintenance of Way

MTA

Maryland Transit Administration

NEC

Northeast Corridor

NEPA

National Environmental Policy Act

NPL

National Priorities List

NRA

National Recovery Act

NRHP

National Register of Historic Places

PW&B

Pennsylvania, Washington, and Baltimore Railroad

SEI

Straughan Environmental, Inc.

URS

URS Corporation

U.S.C.

U.S. Code

VA

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

17-JUL-14\\

Executive Summary
The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) is proposing to construct a Maryland Area
Regional Commuter (MARC) maintenance facility in Perryville, Cecil County, Maryland. The
proposed project will address MARC needs on the Penn Line, one of three MARC operating
commuter lines, which stretches from Washington D.Cs Union Station to Perryville, MD.
The purpose of the project is to develop a facility that would efficiently serve operation,
maintenance, and storage requirements of the MARC Penn Line Fleet. A new facility would
accommodate current operational needs and projected ridership growth, and allow for future
expansion. The MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility project would address four specific
needs:
x
x
x
x

Need for additional MARC Penn Line train storage


Need to consolidate maintenance and storage functions for the current MARC system
Need to support ridership growth expected by 2035 and system expansion north of the
Susquehanna River
Because of shared infrastructure, need to support Amtraks Northeast Corridor (NEC)
growth plan and planned expansion of high speed rail

Site selection criteria for the MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility were developed to evaluate
potential sites. Eleven sites were evaluated based on each sites ability to provide optimal
acreage, engineering feasibility, systems requirements for the railroad facilities, Amtrak
connection requirements, and environmental considerations. MTAs preferred location,
Perryville A, is located in Perryville, MD south of Principio Furnace Road between Firestone
Road and Principio Station Road. The other sites were determined not to meet the projects
purpose and need and/or contain significant environmental, socioeconomic or construction and
operational constraints.
The project will use both state and federal funding. Because federal funding is involved, the
proposed project is subject to a review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended. Section 106 of NHPA requires Federal agencies to take into
account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and afford the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The
Section 106 process seeks to accommodate historic preservation concerns with the needs of
Federal undertakings through consultation among Federal agencies and other parties with an
interest in the effects of the undertaking on historic properties, commencing at the early stages of
project planning. The goal of consultation is to identify historic properties potentially affected
by the undertaking, assess its effects and seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse
effects on historic properties.
The above-ground historic properties within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site were identified
and evaluated for their potential to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
The below-ground historic properties were evaluated in a separate study.
A survey of the project area resulted in the identification of 12 properties that dated back to the
early 19th century, and these properties were evaluated for NRHP eligibility. The evaluation
indicated that eight were not considered eligible for NRHP listing. Three properties, The

17-JUL-14\\

vi

Executive Summary
Anchorage, Crothers House, and Lindenwood, were considered NRHP eligible for their
association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history
(Criterion A) and/or for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction or for possessing high artistic values (Criterion C).
The last property, Woodlands Farm, was listed in the NRHP in 1979. The evaluation of
Woodlands Farm (outlined herein) has resulted in a recommendation that the property be
expanded into a larger NRHP Historic District.
The project was evaluated for its potential to adversely affect the NRHP-listed property and the
three NRHP-eligible properties, and it was determined that the project will have an indirect
adverse effect on The Anchorage, as well as significant direct adverse effects and indirect
effects on the Woodlands Farm Historic District. MTA consultation with the Maryland
Historical Trust, the Federal Transit Administration, and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation regarding the adverse effects on historic properties will be required.
The results of the Section 106 review will be used in the Environmental Assessment that is being
developed for the project.

17-JUL-14\\

vii

Introduction
SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1

BACKGROUND

The Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC) Northeast Maintenance Facility in Perryville,
Cecil County, Maryland (project), will provide the MARC Penn Line with a maintenance and
storage facility that will accommodate current operational needs, projected ridership growth, and
planned system expansion.
The purpose of the project is to develop a facility that will efficiently serve operation,
maintenance, and storage requirements of the MARC Penn Line Fleet. The new facility would
accommodate current operational needs, projected ridership growth on the MARC Penn Line,
and allow for expansion in the future.

1.1.1

Description of the Undertaking

Facilities at the proposed MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility would be located within an
approximately 60-acre footprint and would include:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

Servicing and inspection pit that consists of two-tracks, a full-train-length open pit and
multi-level inspection platforms located within two of the trainset storage tracks; the pit
will be covered with a semi-open shed to provide some protection from weather
Semi-permanent building for the storage of parts, supplies, and consumables
At least two semi-permanent buildings for train crews, supervisors, and maintenance and
inspection personnel
Locomotive servicing station equipped with spill containment for fueling diesel
locomotives and non-revenue vehicles that may operate from or cycle through the
proposed facility, and for filling of locomotive sandboxes
Parking area
Fueling and sanding pad
Commercial power substation
Two 20,000-gallon, aboveground diesel fuel storage tanks and fuel truck delivery pad
with spill containment
Access road from Principio Furnace Road to the maintenance facility, as well as access
roadways within the facility
Stormwater management facility

Activities to be performed at the proposed MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility would require
a workforce of 90 during construction of the facility and approximately 30 employees during
operation of the facility for jobs including train crew members, inspectors, car cleaners,
administrative staff, and shop and maintenance staff. During operation, the facility would operate
24 hours per day with peak operations during nighttime hours. Activities would include:
x
x

Daily and periodic inspections and servicing of locomotives and coaches, including
inspection of wheels and brakes, cab signals and sanders of locomotives,
dumping/servicing of on-vehicle toilet systems, and replenishing potable water supplies
Daily locomotive fueling and sanding and inspection of cab signals and brakes

17-JUL-14\\

1-1

Introduction
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

Maintenance for coaches such as; interior coach cleaning, replenishing of consumables
and periodic emptying of on-board wastewater treatment systems
Daily inspections of brakes, wheels and truck frames on coaches
Longer period inspections will be done at 180- and 365-day intervals for coaches and
30-, 180- and 365-day intervals for locomotives.
Mid-day Storage for trainsets receiving inspection and servicing
Overnight storage of trainsets
Daily assignments of train crews
Periodic deliveries of diesel fuel, sand, parts, supplies and consumables

1.1.2

Purpose of the Report

The proposed project must comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) because the project will use federal funds. A
Section 106 initiation letter is provided in Attachment 1. The purpose of Section 106 is to
determine whether a proposed project will have any effect on historic properties. The
implementing regulations for Section 106 are set forth in 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of
Historic Properties. As part of the planning process and environmental review for the proposed
MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility, MTA contracted URS Corporation (URS) to provide
Section 106 consultation services. MTA is a division of the Maryland Department of
Transportation.
The information obtained during the reviews that were conducted as part of the Section 106
consultation process will also be used in the development of an Environmental Assessment (EA),
under the authority of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in accordance with NEPA, the
Council on Environmental Qualitys NEPA regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, and the
FTAs Environmental Impact and Related Procedures at 49 CFR Part 622.
The Section 106 consultation process was initiated in December 2013 with a letter from FTA to
the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT), which functions as Marylands State Historic Preservation
Office (Attachment 1). The letter provided an overview of the proposed undertaking, research
and site investigation methodology for above-ground historic and archaeological resources, and a
draft schedule for Section 106 consultation.
This report presents the results of the identification and evaluation of above-ground historic
properties and the determination of effects of the proposed undertaking on these historic
properties. An undertaking is defined in 36 CFR Part 800 as a project, activity, or program
funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including
those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out with Federal financial
assistance; and those requiring a Federal permit license or approval. (36 CFR Part 800, Section
16:15). A report with the results of the archaeological analysis has been submitted separately to
the MHT.

17-JUL-14\\

1-2

Introduction
1.2

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

MTA evaluated potential sites along the NEC corridor to accommodate the proposed MARC
Maintenance Facility. Based on MARC needs, criteria were developed to identify a site to
accommodate a MARC maintenance facility. Minimal criteria included:
x
x
x
x
x
x

A site 60 acres or greater


Directly adjacent to the NEC
Allow for Amtrak connection requirements which include a minimum length of lead
tracks and two points of connection
Minimum storage capacity for current and future Penn Line trains
Space to accommodate a shop facility including inspection pit and sanding facility
A site north of the Susquehanna River to provide a storage facility at the current end of
the Penn Line.

MTA selected eleven preliminary locations that met the minimal criteria. MTA evaluated the
eleven potential locations based on acreage and systems requirements for the railroad facilities,
Amtrak connection requirements, and environmental requirements necessary to accommodate
the proposed MARC Maintenance Facility. Some sites had fatal flaws including environmental
impacts or operational impacts to Amtrak rail service that would prohibit construction at those
locations. Costs were a consideration in potential alternative locations, but costs were not used
as an absolute measure for feasibility of locations. This evaluation was documented in the MARC
Maintenance Facility Site Selection Report, February 2012 for the following sites: Opus,
Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Prologis, Perryville B and Perryville A. Additional sites were
evaluated in 2013 and 2014 and are summarized in Table 1.

17-JUL-14\\

1-3

Introduction
Table 1: MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility Site Search Matrix
Aberdeen
New
Proving
Prologis
Chesapeake
Bengies
(south of
Ground
(Site 2)
Site (Site 1)
Trimble Rd) (Superfund
site)

Chelsea
Road Site
(Site 3)

Perryman
Site (Site 4)

Opus
Perryville B
(south of Perryville
(Adjacent
Carpenters
Maryland
A
to Amtrak Point (Site 5)
Blvd in
(Coudon)
M-O-W)
Perryman)

MasonDixon Site
(Site 6)

Provides
additional MARC
train storage

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Allows
Consolidation of
Maintenance &
Storage

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Supports
expected
ridership growth,
NEC growth plan,
& is located north
of Susquehanna
River

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Impacts to
protected Zones

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Impacts to
wetlands (acres)

4.4

4.6

21-Nov

3.3

1.1

3.7

No

1.2

No

0.2

15.9

Superfund Site

No

No

No

yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Site can be
double ended

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Interferes with
Amtrak
operations

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Impacts to
Hydrology
(streams &
wetlands)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Impacts to
forests (acres)

43.9

52.7

8.2

25.1

25.8

5.9

3.4

4.4

2.3

52.7

32

Impacts to
cultural
resources

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Significant soil
contamination
present

No

Potentially

Potentially

Yes

No

No

Potentially

No

Potentially

No

Potentially

51.3

47.3

No

13.4

19.2

1.2

No

No

No

53.4

59

Impacts to
Critical Area
(acres)

No

12.2

No

No

52.7

No

No

No

No

No

Impacts to 100
year Floodplains
(acres)

No

21.9

4.5

1.8

1.3

No

No

No

No

No

No

Significant Noise
Impacts

No

No

Potentially

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Impacts to Rare,
Threatened, or
Endangered
Species - FIDS
Habitat (acres)

17-JUL-14\\

1-4

Introduction
Aberdeen
New
Proving
Prologis
Chesapeake
Bengies
Ground
(south of
(Site 2)
Site (Site 1)
Trimble Rd) (Superfund
site)

Significant earth
moving required

Chelsea
Road Site
(Site 3)

Perryman
Site (Site 4)

Opus
Perryville B
(south of Perryville
(Adjacent
Carpenters
Maryland
A
to Amtrak Point (Site 5)
Blvd in
(Coudon)
M-O-W)
Perryman)

MasonDixon Site
(Site 6)

Potentially

Potentially

No

No

Potentially

Potentially

No

Yes,
berms

No

Yes

Yes

Access to
highways

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Site Access
restrictions

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Construction
timeframe in line
with MTA needs

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Requires
construction of
turnout

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Requires
reconstruction of
roadways/bridges

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Source:MARC Maintenace and Storage Facility Draft Environmental Assessment, 2014

Below are brief descriptions for the 11 evaluated sites; each sites land use and space
characteristics; and each sites pros and cons as presented in the Site Selection Report and
determined in subsequent investigations.

Opus
The Opus Site is located on the east side of the NEC, south of Maryland Boulevard (MD 715)
and north of East Michaelsville Road in Perryman, Maryland in Harford County. The site is
approximately 57 acres and bound on the east side by the Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG)
property. The portion of the site that would be occupied by MTAs improvements would be
approximately 48 acres, including an access road that will connect the state highways at the north
end.
The Opus Site would require the construction of two new crossovers in Perry interlocking. This
site location may create possible interference with proposed future Amtrak capacity
improvement work (additional tracks). These conditions are not consistent with the project
purpose and need, specifically Amtraks NEC growth plan. The Opus Site would require
property easements. The total estimated cost to develop this site for a MARC Northeast
Maintenance Facility Is $446 Million, not including right-of-way costs.
The Opus Site is located in the vicinity of industrial land uses that may pose a hazardous
materials subsurface contamination risk and would require both Phase I and Phase II
Environmental Site Assessments prior to selection of the site. Additional potential environmental
impacts would include impacts to 3.4 acres of forested area (requiring 11.9 acres of
reforestation). The site is located within the Perryman Wellfield Protection Zone and is not
compatible with Harford County zoning restrictions.

17-JUL-14\\

1-5

Introduction
Although the Opus Site has the appropriate acreage required for the MARC Maintenance
Facility, the site location (south of the Susquehanna River) does not meet the projects stated
purpose and need, there are engineering issues adding significant cost to the project,
unacceptable safety and operational problems with Amtrak operations on the NEC, and the
project would result in severe environmental impacts and would be incompatible with Wellfield
Zoning restrictions (Table 1).

Aberdeen Proving Ground


The APG Edgewood Site is located on the south side of the NEC, north of Magnolia Road
(MD 152) and south of Emmorton Road (MD 24). The site is approximately 6,800 feet long and
ranges from approximately 30 feet wide on the railroad tracks to approximately 800 feet wide
and has a total site of approximately 74.1 acres. The portion of the site that would be occupied by
MTAs facility would be approximately 59 acres. The proposed site is located entirely within
APG, which is federal land and currently under military use. The APG Site would require
construction of one new crossover and one new turnout in MAGNOLIA Interlocking. The APG
Site is located within the vicinity of military/industrial land uses that may pose a hazardous
materials subsurface contamination risk. The APG Site is listed on the National Priorities List
(NPL) Database as a Superfund cleanup location.
The site would require 60 acres from APG through an Enhanced Use Lease (EUL). This process
would require coordination with an approval from APG for security clearances; therefore,
construction time is unknown. As a tenant of a superfund site, the MTA may be subject to
liability concerns. An additional 15.1 acres of land would be acquired for utility relocations and
1.9 acres would be temporarily impacted during construction. The total estimated cost to develop
this site for a MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility is $529 Million, not including right-of-way
costs.
Additional potential environmental impacts would include impacts to hazardous materials;
wetland areas; 100- and 500- year floodplains; 25.1 acres of forested area (requiring 25.4 acres
of reforestation); and 13.4 acres of Forest Interior Dwelling Species habitat (Table 1).
Although the APG Site has the appropriate acreage, there are engineering issues adding
significant cost to the project and it causes severe impacts to environmental resources protected
under Federal statutes, including Superfund hazardous materials concerns. In addition, the
location is not consistent with the project purpose and need, specifically being located south of
the Susquehanna River.

Prologis
The Prologis Site is located on the north side of Amtraks NEC and approximately 1,800 feet
south of Trimble Road in the City of Edgewood, Maryland. The site is approximately 8,200 feet
long and ranges from approximately 30 feet wide along the railroad tracks to 1,300 feet wide
with a total site area of approximately 73 acres. The portion of the site that would be occupied by

17-JUL-14\\

1-6

Introduction
MTA would be approximately 56 acres. The total estimated cost to develop this site for a MARC
Northeast Maintenance Facility is $483 Million.
The Prologis Site would require construction of one new crossover and one new turnout in
MAGNOLIA Interlocking. This site requires full acquisition of an industrial property and several
partial residential property acquisitions. Several homes abut the Amtrak right-of-way at the north
end near WOOD Interlocking. Additional train movements may produce noise impacts. Further,
this location may require modification to the MD 152 and MD 24 bridges, if it is found that the
retaining walls required for installation of the lead tracks would be insufficient to support the
abutments.
Construction of the site would require relocation of a stormwater management pond. Additional
environmental impacts include impacts to forested areas (13.2 acres) requiring 16.5 acres of
reforestation; 100- and 500-year floodplain; and 19 wetlands and 6 waterways systems (Table 1).
Although the Prologis Site has the appropriate acreage, there are engineering issues adding
significant cost to the project, stormwater management pond relocation and severe impacts to
environmental resources with significant cost to mitigating these impacts. In addition, the
location is not consistent with the project purpose and need, specifically being located south of
the Susquehanna River.

Perryville B
The Perryville B Site is located on the south side of the NEC, directly east of the IKEA
Distribution Center, and northwest of Furnace Bay in Perryville, Cecil County, Maryland. The
site is approximately 6,500 feet long, and ranges from approximately 30 feet wide along the
railroad tracks to 1,400 feet wide. The site would be adjacent to the existing Amtrak
Maintenance of Way (MOW) base of operations for the personnel and equipment that maintain
the NEC. The portion of the site that would be occupied by MTAs facility would be
approximately 44 acres.
Perryville B would require the complete relocation of the MOW facility (estimated cost of $58
Million) and construction of two new crossovers in Perry Interlocking. This site location may
create possible interference with proposed future Amtrak capacity improvement work (additional
tracks and new Susquehanna River Bridge). These conditions are not consistent with the
projects stated purpose and need, specifically Amtraks NEC growth plan. Perryville B would
require 15.3 acres of full property acquisition (MOW Base), 45.6 acres of partial acquisition
(Ikea Distribution Center) and 15.8 acres of temporary easements. The total estimated cost to
develop this site for a MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility is $531 Million.
Perryville Site B is located within the vicinity of industrial land uses that may pose a hazardous
materials subsurface contamination risk. Additional potential environmental impacts would
include impacts to 2.3 acres of forested area (requiring 13.6 acres of reforestation); impacts

17-JUL-14\\

1-7

Introduction
within the Critical Area; and potential cultural resources present within and adjacent to the site
(Table 1).
Although Perryville B location meets the projects purpose and need, there are engineering issues
adding significant cost to the project, this location causes unacceptable safety and operational
issues with Amtrak operations on the NEC, and there are significant impacts to environmental
resources.

Perryville A
The Perryville A Site is located on the north side of the Amtrak NEC, south of MD 7 (Principio
Furnace Road), and south and east of the intersection of MD 7 with Broad Street. The proposed
project site is approximately 8,000 feet long and ranges from 30 feet wide along the railroad
tracks to 1,500 feet wide where the access road is proposed and the total site area is
approximately 110 acres. The portion of the site that would be occupied by MTAs
improvements would be approximately 56 acres.
Perryville A is used for agricultural purposes but is zoned medium density residential. The
majority of the site is cleared, providing onsite mitigation for wetland and forest area impacts.
Potential environmental impacts would include less than 1 acre of wetland impacts, 4.4 acres of
forested area impacts and purchase of right-of-way along the edge of a golf course to connect to
the NEC. There is a high potential for full acquisition of historic resources (farmstead) located on
the site. The total estimated cost to develop this site for a MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility
is $355 Million, excluding property acquisition.
The Perryville A Site location meets the projects purpose and need as well as providing land for
wetland and forest area mitigation. However, there would be a significant impact to historic
resources.

New Bengies (Site 1)


The New Bengies Site is located south of the Susquehanna River, on the west side of the NEC
along New Bengies Road in Baltimore, Maryland across from the Martin State Airport
Maintenance Facility. This site would not be compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan, in that
the lead tracks to a maintenance facility at this site would have to diverge from Amtrak Track 3
which is, and will be in the future, the southbound high speed track. Amtrak does not typically
allow tracks to diverge from an 125 mph track into low speed facilities, so they may require the
construction of a 4th track (Track 4) to allow MARC trains to make a high-speed diverging move
onto Track 4 where they can then decelerate to a suitable operating speed for entering the MARC
yard. Track 4 would also serve as an acceleration track for trains entering the NEC. Construction
of Track 4 would be costly due to the length of track required, possibly from as far as existing
GUNPOW Interlocking to the site of proposed ESSEX Interlocking, a distance of approximately
5.3 miles, which could result in approximately $133 Million - $177 Million in additional project

17-JUL-14\\

1-8

Introduction
costs. The addition of new, electrified track along the existing Northeast Corridor is estimated to
be approximately $25 Million to $33.33 Million per mile.
There is an existing highway bridge MD Route 43 (Whitemarsh Boulevard) that crosses over the
NEC tracks within Site 1. This bridge would need to be reconstructed to accommodate the lead
tracks and would therefore add significant cost to the project. Further, this site is constrained to
the north by a large building currently under construction. If Amtrak would allow the lead tracks
to be connected to Track 3, the layout would require modification in order to provide a direct
connection.
Developing this site for a maintenance facility would result in impacts to approximately 44 acres
of forested area, 4 acres of wetlands, and 51 acres of FIDS habitat. Forest impacts of this
magnitude would require the MTA to comply with the Maryland Forest Conservation Act.
Approval would be contingent upon providing adequate forest mitigation, which is likely 50 to
60 acres. Mitigation costs for large tracts of forest impacts often include the purchase of land for
mitigation and planting or payment into a forest conservation bank.
Construction of a maintenance facility at this site would result in approximately 0.4 acres of
residential property impacts. Impacts to wetlands would require coordination with the US Army
Corps of Engineers and Maryland Department of the Environment. Mitigation costs for these
impacts would likely cost approximately $100,000 per acre, for a total of approximately
$500,000 for this site, not including costs for design or property acquisition.
This site would not be compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan, in that the lead tracks to a
maintenance facility at this site would have to diverge from Amtrak Track 3 which is, and will be
in the future, the southbound high speed track. The required construction of over five miles of
Track 4 and potential reconstruction of a highway bridge would result in engineering issues
adding significant cost to the project. Development of this site would cause severe impacts to
environmental resources protected under other Federal statutes, including forests and wetlands.
Construction of this site for the maintenance facility would also result in impacts to residential
properties.

Chesapeake (Site 2)
The Chesapeake Site (Site 2) is located south of the Susquehanna River, on the east side of the
NEC, just north of where it crosses the Gunpowder River and south of Hoadley Road in
Edgewood, Maryland. This site is part of the Aberdeen Proving Ground and is currently owned
by the US Government.
Access to this site is provided through the APG property. Negotiations regarding access rights
with APG could delay the project for an extended period of time. This site would not be
compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan and the stated purpose and need for the project, in
that the lead tracks to a maintenance facility at this site would have to diverge from Amtrak
Track 2 in a curve which is, and will be in the future, the northbound high speed track. Amtrak

17-JUL-14\\

1-9

Introduction
would likely not allow this connection with tracks to diverge from 125 mph track into low speed
facilities due to safety concerns. Another option for lead tracks to this site would be placing the
turnout on the existing Gunpowder River Bridge in tangent track, but still in Track 2. This option
would likely be even less acceptable to Amtrak. The only other option for lead tracks to this site
would be to extend existing Track A across the Gunpowder River on a new bridge from
GUNPOW Interlocking to the site, a huge cost that would likely be unacceptable to the State.
Developing this site for a maintenance facility would result in impacts to unknown hazardous
materials on the APG, 53 acres of forested area, 5 acres of wetlands, 47 acres of FIDS habitat, 22
acres within the 100-year floodplain, and 12 acres within the Critical Area (CA). Forest impacts
of this magnitude would require extensive coordination, compliance and mitigation which would
be approximately $750,000 to $900,000 for this site. Impacts to wetlands would require
coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers and Maryland Department of the
Environment. Mitigation for wetland impacts would cost approximately $500,000 for this site
(not including costs for design or property acquisition).
Impacts within the 100-year floodplain resulting in added fill material would require
coordination with and a permit from the Maryland Department of the Environment. Increases to
elevations within the floodplain would require extensive coordination with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and potentially the purchasing of floodplain
easements.
Impacts within the CA of the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays would require coordination
with the Critical Area Commission and adherence to the requirements stipulated for work
occurring within the CA. The CA requirements will dictate the type, extent and location of
improvements particularly within the 100-foot buffer. The CA requirements may involve fee in
lieu or plantings to offset impacts.
It is unreasonable to proceed with the alternative in light of the projects stated purpose and need,
as the site is south of the Susquehanna River and therefore does not support system expansion
north of the River. This site would not be compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan in that the
lead tracks to a maintenance facility at this site would have to diverge from Amtrak Track 2 in a
curve which is, and will be in the future, the northbound high speed track, or new lead tracks off
an existing bridge; both options would likely be unacceptable to Amtrak for safety and
operational reasons. There are unknown risks for encountering contaminated materials as the site
is part of the APG. Development of this site would cause severe impacts to environmental
resources protected under other Federal statutes, including forests, floodplain, wetlands, and the
CA.

Chelsea (Site 3)
The Chelsea Site (Site 3) is located, south of the Susquehanna River, on Chelsea Road on the
east side of the NEC, just north of where it crosses Bush River in Aberdeen, Maryland. This site

17-JUL-14\\

1-10

Introduction
was previously considered in the initial site search for the 2012 Site Selection Report, and was
eliminated.
This site would not be compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan, in that the lead tracks to a
maintenance facility at this site would have to diverge from Amtrak Track 2 which is, and will be
in the future, the northbound high speed track. Amtrak may require the construction of the future
4th track, Track 1, to allow MARC trains to make a high-speed diverging move onto Track 1
where they can then decelerate to a suitable operating speed for entering the MARC yard. Track
1 would also serve as an acceleration track for trains entering the NEC, causing safety concerns.
Construction of Track 1 would likely be very costly due to the length of track required, possibly
as far as from existing BUSH Interlocking to the site of proposed BOOTH Interlocking, a
distance of approximately 4.4 miles. This would add approximately $110 Million to $147
Million project costs for the construction of the tracks required. Also, the north lead track would
require connection to Track 2 (or Track 1) in a curve, which would not be permitted due to the
superelevation of the tracks and the geometry of the turnout. The north lead track would have to
be extended approximately 2 miles northward to reach tangent track near Chelsea Road overhead
highway bridge.
Developing the Chelsea Site for a maintenance facility would result in impacts to approximately
26 acres of forested area, 1 acre of wetlands, 19 acres of FIDS habitat, 1 acre within the 100-year
floodplain, and 53 acres within the CA. Forest impacts of this magnitude would require extensive
coordination, compliance and mitigation which would be approximately $400,000 for this site,
not including property acquisition.
Impacts to wetlands would require coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers and
Maryland Department of the Environment, a joint Federal/State Permit, and mitigation. Wetland
mitigation costs would be approximately $100,000 for this site, not including design or property
acquisition.
The addition of fill material in the 100-year floodplain would require a permit from the Maryland
Department of the Environment. Increases to elevations within the floodplain would require
extensive coordination with the FEMA and potentially the purchasing of floodplain easements.
Impacts within the CA of the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays would require coordination
with the Critical Area Commission, adherence to CA requirements, and may involve fee in lieu
or plantings to offset impacts.
It is unreasonable to proceed with the alternative in light of the projects stated purpose and need,
as the site is south of the Susquehanna River and therefore does not support system expansion
north of the River. This site would not be compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan, in that
the lead tracks to a maintenance facility at this site would have to diverge from Amtrak Track 2
which is, and will be in the future, the northbound high speed track. The required construction of
over four miles of Track 4 and an additional two miles to reach a tangent section of track would
result in engineering issues adding significant cost to the project, as well as potential conflicts

17-JUL-14\\

1-11

Introduction
with safety and operations. Development of this site would cause severe impacts to
environmental resources protected under other Federal statutes, including forests, floodplain,
wetlands, and Critical Area. Site 3 is therefore not feasible and prudent and is eliminated because
it causes other severe problems of a magnitude that substantially outweigh the importance of
protecting the Section 4(f) properties.

Perryman (Site 4)
The Perryman Site is located, south of the Susquehanna River, on the west side of the NEC, near
Perryman and Canning House Roads just north of the Bush River. This site was previously
considered in the initial site search for the 2012 Site Selection Report, and was eliminated.
There is an existing bridge crossing (Chelsea Road) that crosses over the NEC tracks within the
Perryman Site. This bridge would need to be reconstructed to accommodate the lead tracks on
the northern end and would therefore add significant cost to the project. Perryman Road (MD
Route 199) would have to be relocated to skirt the proposed facility. This road relocation would
be approximately 7,000 feet in length and could displace residential properties at the south end of
the project.
There is no existing track connection to Amtraks NEC. A new interlocking plant will be
required on the NEC north of the site. The south lead track would enter the NEC within a curve
and would therefore require an approximately 4,800-foot extension southward to reach tangent
track and make a connection to the mainline at the existing Bush interlocking. The interlocking
additions would provide the necessary crossovers to make MARC train movements between any
main line track and a double-ended facility. However, Amtrak has stated it is not in favor of the
addition of a new interlocking in the section of track north of the site because the MARC train
crossover movements would slow Amtrak traffic in what is considered high speed track.
The above highway and track work would result in approximately $25.8 Million to $33.3 Million
in additional project costs for the construction of the tracks required. Developing the Perryman
Site for a maintenance facility would result in impacts to approximately 5.9 acres of forested
area, 3.7 acres of wetlands, and 1.2 acres of FIDS habitat. Forest impacts would require
extensive coordination, compliance and mitigation which would be approximately $90,000 for
this site, not including property acquisition. Impacts to wetlands would require coordination with
the US Army Corps of Engineers and Maryland Department of the Environment, a joint
Federal/State Permit, and mitigation. Wetland mitigation costs would be approximately $400,000
for this site, not including design or property acquisition.
In accordance with Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006 (FTA-VA-901003-06), screening distances were applied to the Perryman Site to identify potential noise
impacts. Cranberry Methodist Church is the only cultural resource identified by the MHT. It is
located north of the site, on the west side of Perryman Road (MD Route 159) and falls within the
screening distance and could be potentially impacted by noise. An industrial park is located east
of the site, across the existing Amtrak right-of-way and is currently under construction but would

17-JUL-14\\

1-12

Introduction
not be considered noise sensitive. Single family residential properties are located adjacent to the
site boundary to the north. Approximately thirty two (32) residences fall within the screening
distance and could potentially be impacted by noise from the proposed Perryman Site.
Approximately twenty (20) of the potentially impacted residences are first-row. In the event
Perryman site is selected, a general noise analysis, in accordance with FTA guidelines, may be
required to determine noise impacts to these residences and the Cranberry Methodist Church, and
to explore mitigation options if impacts occur.
While it is not quantifiable, development of this site can be expected to be opposed by the
residents of Perryman and the adjacent settlement of Michaelsville which straddles the NEC.
Recently the Michaelsville residents, the Bush River Community Council, and the Forest Greens
& Perryman Community Association raised concerns about the planned development by MRP
Industrial (MRP Realty) of the Mitchell farm property on the east side of the NEC that was the
site identified as the Opus Site in the site alternatives study for this project. Their stated concerns
essentially match those of the residents around the Perryville Site A.
Although the Perryman Site would avoid impacts to the cultural resources identified at Perryville
Site A, it is not feasible because 1) it is unreasonable to proceed with the alternative in light of
the projects stated purpose and need, 2) it results in additional construction and mitigation costs
of an extraordinary magnitude, 3) Amtrak has stated that it is not in favor of the installation of a
new interlocking in this section of track due to the impact on train speeds and 4) the project
would result in severe environmental impacts.

Carpenters Point (Site 5)


This site is located north of the Susquehanna River, along the east side of the NEC in Perryville,
Maryland south of US 40 and MD 7 intersection, and east of the intersection of Principio
Furnace Road (MD 7) and Baltimore Street (MD 267). The Carpenters Point Site would not be
compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan, in that it is located adjacent to a portion of the twotrack section of the NEC, where both tracks are considered high-speed. The lead tracks to a
maintenance facility at this site would have to diverge from Amtraks Track 2 which is, and will
be in the future, the northbound high speed track. Amtrak may require the construction of the
future 4th track, Track 1, to allow MARC trains to make a high-speed diverging move onto
Track 1 where they can then decelerate to a suitable operating speed for entering the MARC
yard. Track 1 would also serve as an acceleration track for trains entering the NEC. Construction
of Track 1 would likely be very costly due to the length of track required, possibly as far as from
existing BACON Interlocking to the site of proposed FURNACE Interlocking, a distance of
approximately 5.4 miles (approximately $135 Million to $180 Million1 in additional project
costs), or to existing PRINCE Interlocking, a distance of approximately 6.4 miles ($160 Million
to $213 Million in additional project costs).
At this site, the north lead track could not connect into a curve in the tracks. The lead track
would have to be extended approximately 2 miles northward to reach a tangent to make the

17-JUL-14\\

1-13

Introduction
connection to the mainline (approximately $50 Million to $66.7 Million) in additional project
costs. This would also require a significant length of retaining walls and the extension of
(reconstruction) the Baltimore Street and Bladen Street bridges on Route 267. These two existing
highway bridges that cross over the NEC tracks would need to be reconstructed adding
significant cost to the project.
The south lead track connection to either Track 2 or Track 1 would be made in the vicinity of the
future Amtrak FURNACE Interlocking. This may require additional future costs for relocation of
the MARC turnout to accommodate Amtraks track layout for the interlocking.
This property is currently zoned agricultural; however, the entire site is forested and
undeveloped. Developing this site for a maintenance facility would result in 53 acres of forest
impacts and 53 acres of FIDS habitat impacts. Forest impacts of this magnitude would require
extensive coordination, compliance and mitigation which would be approximately $750,000 to
$900,000 for this site, not including property acquisition.
This site would not be compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan, in that the lead tracks to a
maintenance facility at this site would have to diverge from Amtrak Track 2 which is, and will be
in the future, the northbound high speed track. The required construction of over five miles of
Track 1, an additional two miles of track to reach a tangent section, potential reconstruction of
two highway bridges, and relocation of the MARC turnout would result in engineering issues
adding significant cost to the project, as well as potential conflicts with safety and operations.
Development of this site would cause severe impacts to environmental resources protected under
other Federal statutes, including forests and FIDs habitat.

Mason-Dixon (Site 6)
The Mason-Dixon Site is located north of the Susquehanna River in Perryville, Maryland along
Amtraks NEC, south of US 40 and MD 7 intersection, and just west of the intersection of
Principio Furnace Road (MD 7) and Baltimore Street (MD 267). This site is part of the active
Mason-Dixon Quarry. The total site area needed for improvements to support a MARC
Maintenance Facility at this location is approximately 87 acres.
This site would not be compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan, in that the site would not
have access to the proposed low-speed third track on the east side of the current two high-speed
tracks. The lead tracks would have to diverge from Amtrak Track 3 which is, and will be in the
future, the southbound high speed track. Amtrak does not typically allow tracks to diverge from
125 mph track into low speed facilities, so they may require the construction of a 4th track
(Track 4) to allow MARC trains to make a high-speed diverging move onto Track 4 to decelerate
to a suitable operating speed for entering the MARC yard. Track 4 would also serve as an
acceleration track for trains entering the NEC. Construction of Track 4 would be costly due to
the length of track required, possibly from as far as the existing BACON Interlocking to the site
of proposed FURNACE Interlocking, a distance of approximately 5.4 miles (approximately $135
Million to $180 Million in additional project costs), or to existing PRINCE Interlocking, a

17-JUL-14\\

1-14

Introduction
distance of approximately 6.4 miles ($160 Million to $213 Million in additional project costs).
Construction of a Track 4 may also be incompatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan track
configuration, and connections to Track 3 may not be possible in this area.
Amtraks NEC Master Plan shows that the two existing tracks are slated to become the high
speed tracks using the proposed new Susquehanna River Bridge. As part of that project, Amtrak
plans to add a third track, which would be an extension of Track 4 (the track to connect to the
maintenance facility). This would cut off access between the planned low-speed track and the
west side of the NEC.
At this site, the north lead track could not connect into a curve in the tracks to make the
connections to the mainline. The lead track would have to be extended approximately 2 miles
northward to reach a tangent on the mainline (approximately $50 Million to $66.7 Million). This
would also require a significant length of retaining walls and the extension of (reconstruction)
the Baltimore Street and Bladen Street bridges on Route 267. These two existing highway
bridges that cross over the NEC tracks would need to be reconstructed adding significant cost to
the project.
There are unknown risks associated with an existing 750 foot-deep mineral extraction pit that
would require fill and other unknown refill areas on the site that may not be suitable for railroad
loading.
The site proposed is heavily forested with an excavated settling pond at the western end and an
open water area at the eastern end. Construction of a MARC Maintenance Facility at this site
would result in extensive environmental impacts including: 32 acres of forest impacts, 16 acres
of wetlands, 8,240 linear feet of waterways, and 59 acres of FIDS habitat. The extent of the
potential wetlands, waters, and forest impacts are so great the MTA may not be able to obtain the
necessary permits from the Army Corp of Engineers and Maryland Department of the
Environment for construction on this site. In addition, mitigation for these impacts could be costprohibitive. Preliminary costs for forest mitigation would be between approximately $450,000
and $600,000 and wetland mitigation would be between approximately $2,080,000 and
$8,320,000, not including land purchase and waterway mitigation.
This site would not be compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan, in that the lead tracks to a
maintenance facility at this site would have to diverge from Amtrak Track 2 which is, and will be
in the future, the northbound high speed track. The required construction of approximately five
to six miles of Track 4, an additional two miles of track to reach a tangent section, and potential
reconstruction of two highway bridges would result in engineering issues adding significant cost
to the project, as well as potential conflicts with safety and operations. Development of this site
would cause severe impacts to environmental resources protected under other Federal statutes,
including wetlands and waterways, forests and FIDs habitat. There are also unknown risks
associated with the existing mineral extraction site that would have to be filled to develop this
site into a maintenance facility.

17-JUL-14\\

1-15

Introduction
No Build Alternative
The No Build Alternative proposes no new MARC maintenance facility along the NEC corridor.
This alternative provides a baseline for comparison of the proposed MARC Northeast
Maintenance Facility.

Build Alternative (Perryville A Site)


MTAs preferred location for the MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility is located in Perryville,
Maryland, south of Principio Furnace Road between Firestone Road and Principio Station Road.
The EA considers the Perryville A site as the Build Alternative. The other alternatives studied in
the Site Selection Report were determined not to meet the projects purpose and need.
As shown in Figure 1, the proposed MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility will be north of an
existing Amtrak Maintenance of Way (MOW) Base facility. Other surrounding land uses include
a large IKEA distribution center immediately west of the Amtrak facility. Northwest of the
IKEA facility is a community volunteer fire station, school, and suburban residential
development. A privately owned golf course is east of the proposed project site, and farmland
and rural development are north of the site.
Facilities at the proposed MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility would be located within an
approximately 60-acre footprint and would include:
x

x
x
x

x
x
x
x
x
x

Servicing and inspection pit that consists of two-tracks, a full-train-length open pit and
multi-level inspection platforms located within two of the trainset storage tracks; the pit
will be covered with a semi-open shed to provide some protection from weather
Semi-permanent building for the storage of parts, supplies, and consumables
At least two semi-permanent buildings for train crews, supervisors, and maintenance and
inspection personnel
Locomotive servicing station equipped with spill containment for fueling diesel
locomotives and non-revenue vehicles that may operate from or cycle through the
proposed facility, and for filling of locomotive sandboxes
Parking area
Fueling and sanding pad
Commercial power substation
Two 20,000-gallon, aboveground diesel fuel storage tanks and fuel truck delivery pad
with spill containment
Access road from Principio Furnace Road to the maintenance facility, as well as access
roadways within the facility
Stormwater management facility

The project (Figure 2) will support the existing eight trainsets currently operating on MARCs
Penn Line and include construction of the following:

17-JUL-14\\

1-16

Introduction
x

x
x

2-Track, 485 Inspection and Servicing Area Extension dedicated work area
equipped with spill containment for fueling diesel locomotives and non-revenue vehicles
that may operate from or cycle through proposed facility and for sandbox filling for
diesel and electric locomotives.
Train Storage Tracks 17,700 feet of track for train storage, inspection pits, the fueling
and sanding station, turnouts, yard throat tracks to allow trains to change tracks, and
access.
Diesel Fuel Tanks two 20,000 gallon above-ground diesel fuel storage tanks will be
located next to the fueling and sanding station.
Staff Buildings and Parking two semi-permanent buildings to accommodate train
crews, inspectors and car cleaning personnel and for storage of materials and supplies, 40
parking spaces, and two structures over the fueling and sanding station and the inspection
and servicing pit, and sand silo.
Stormwater Management Facility an approximately 3 acre storage pond with a fence.

Approximately 30 employees will work at the facility after the project is complete. Project
development includes ongoing coordination with property owners, surrounding neighbors,
Amtrak, Cecil County, and the Town of Perryville. The public was provided with information on
the proposed project at the first public meeting in October 2013. The informational materials
from this meeting are provided in Attachment 2. The next public meeting is scheduled for spring
2014. If the proposed project is approved, construction is slated to begin in 2016.

17-JUL-14\\

1-17

Source:MTA
Figure 1: MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility project location

17-JUL-14\\

1-18

Introduction

Source: MTA
Figure 2: The MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility project

17-JUL-14\\

1-19

Introduction

Methodology
SECTION TWO: METHODOLOGY
MTA provided URS with background information on previous MTA-led cultural resource
investigations, documentation, and other project-related materials including photographs, maps,
and other information. URS and its Small Business sub consultant, Straughan Environmental,
Inc. (SEI), reviewed existing background information relevant to this study, including the 1977
Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP) Form CE145 for Woodlands and
preliminary research, photographs, maps, and other information provided by MTA.
The URS team that conducted this study consisted principally of historians and architectural
historians who exceed the Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualification Standards cited
in 36 CFR Part 61 in their respective disciplines. Project Manager Mark Edwards and Technical
Lead and Assistant Project Manager Jeff Winstel directed the team of URS Germantown cultural
resource management professionals. Architectural Historians Brian Cleven and Lorin Farris
assisted with research and completed site visits to survey and photo-document historic properties
in the Above-Ground Historic Properties Area of Potential Effects (APE) and developed the
MHT MIHP forms for the surveyed properties and MHT National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) Determination of Eligibility (MHT DOE) forms. SEI Cultural Resource Specialist Sarah
Michailof conducted primary source and chain-of title-property research on the surveyed
properties. Copies of project staff resumes may be found in Attachment 3.

2.1

BACKGROUND RESEARCH

Research methodologies targeted repositories with high potential for containing relevant
historical materials. Selection of repositories with the highest potential to contain useful
background information resulted from discussions with MTA staff, URS project staff, and local
property owners, and reviewing past reports and online research catalogs. Data collection
emphasized reviews of historical photographs, maps, accounts, and period descriptions to
document the design, setting, and alterations to the properties in the project area.
Research materials included MIHP forms, photographs, historical newspaper accounts, and
histories related to the project area and buildings or sites in the project area. URS and SEI
reviewed existing background information relevant to the study, including the 1977 Woodlands
MIHP Form CE145 and preliminary research, photographs, maps, and other information
provided by MTA.
The methodology used to research, inventory, and analyze the property follows the Secretary of
the Interiors Guidelines for Historical Documentation (26 CFR 800.4) and the Standards and
Guidelines for Historical and Architectural Investigations in Maryland (MHT, 2000). Research
methods and the results of analysis have been incorporated into new or revised MIHP inventory
forms.
SEI and URS conducted original, primary, and secondary-source research at key historical
repositories in Cecil County, Baltimore, Annapolis, and other locations in Maryland and in

17-JUL-14\\

2-1

Methodology
Washington, D.C. Table 2 provides an overview of recommended research materials with the
names of repositories and brief descriptions of the relevant source material.
Table 2: Repositories and Research
Location

Repository

Resources Located

Baltimore, MD

Enoch Pratt Library

Cecil County vertical files and county histories including


300th Anniversary Commemorative Booklet (1974),
Blumgarts At the Head of the Bay (1996), Cecil County
Reference Book (1956), Johnsons History of Cecil County
(1981), and the 1858 Martenet map (Martinet, 1858) and
1877 Lake, Griffing & Stephenson Illustrated Cecil County
Atlas

Maryland Historical
Society

Same county histories as at Enoch Pratt Library

Historical Society of
Cecil County

Vertical files on agriculture; 1880 Agricultural Census;


postcard and photo files; and additional histories as relevant

Cecil County Public


Library, Elkton Central
Branch

Available local histories or genealogies

Crownsville, MD

Maryland Historical
Trust Library

Archaeological files; 1850 to 1880 Agricultural Census for


relevant district, Cecil County

Washington, D.C.

Library of Congress

Maps including 1799 Hauducoeur map of the head of the


Chesapeake [Bay] and Susquehanna River, 1858 Martenets
Map of Cecil County, 1877 Lake, Griffing & Stephensons
Illustrated Cecil County Atlas, 1900 and 1902 maps of Cecil
County showing agricultural soils, 1908 Post Office
Department Rural Delivery Map, 1950 topographic map
showing election districts

Elkton, MD

All appropriate available published resources were reviewed. Based on desktop research and a
brief field reconnaissance, the following architectural resources in Perryville, Maryland, were
identified and MHT DOE and MIHP long forms were completed due to anticipated direct and
indirect effects associated with construction and operation of the proposed project:
x
x
x
x
x
x

The Anchorage (MIHP, CE-1230), 50 Mill Creek Road


Lindenwood (MIHP, CE-700), 1287 Principio Furnace Road
Crothers House (MIHP CE-1566), 79 Chesapeake View Road
Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #55 (MIHP CE-1568), 1906 Principio Furnace
Road
Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #58 (MIHP CE-1567), 1050 Principio Furnace
Road
Woodlands Farm Historic District (MIHP CE-145), current MIHP CE-145, dated 1977,
proposed for expansion to Historic District with 21 contributing resources and 3 noncontributing resources, encompassing approximately 348 acres

17-JUL-14\\

2-2

Methodology
x
x
x

2.2

Pennsylvania, Washington & Baltimore Railroad Bridge 58-34 (MIHP CE-1563),


Woodlands Farm Lane South over railroad tracks
Pennsylvania, Washington & Baltimore Railroad Bridge Carrying Chesapeake View
Road (MIHP CE-1565), Chesapeake View Road over railroad tracks
Pennsylvania, Washington & Baltimore Railroad Bridge 57-85 (MIHP CE-1562), 1350
Principio Furnace Road

FIELDWORK

On October 22-24, 2013 and November 12-13, 2013, URS conducted fieldwork consisting of
onsite pedestrian and windshield reconnaissance survey of the above-ground resources, within a
0.25-mile radius of the Above-Ground Historic Properties APE to meet the following objectives:
x

x
x

Observe, identify, and selectively document the characteristics/character-defining


features of properties that appear 50 years or older located within the Above-Ground
Historic Properties APE
Observe, identify, and selectively document properties that are listed or appear to be
eligible for listing in the NRHP, including their existing condition and identifying
thresholds for NRHP integrity
Determine potential boundaries of NRHP-listed or eligible properties in the AboveGround Historic Properties APE
Identify contributing and non-contributing properties for NRHP listed or eligible
properties as needed

Property access was granted to URS by property owners for only a few properties, limiting the
amount of information that could be gathered. URS surveyors took photographs from the public
rights-of-way and used online visual information to complete the survey forms. MTA discussed
with the MHT the inability of URS to gather complete survey information, per MHT survey
guidelines, and the MHT concurred with this alternate approach.
URS prepared written notes, digital photographs, and global positioning system (GPS)
coordinates sufficient to meet MHTs requirements for MIHP form documentation. Photographs
from the NRHP-listed or eligible properties within the Above-Ground Historic Properties APE
were taken toward the project site and from the project site towards the historic properties.
Because of the lack of approval received by URS from property owners to access their
properties, written descriptions of architectural resources cover only exteriors of all buildings
and structures surveyed. URS has produced one set of archival, black and white prints from
digital images, consistent with MHTs Standards for Submission of Digital Images to the
Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MHT, 2008).
URS used information from the 1977 MIHP form for Woodlands (CE-145), additional materials
provided by MTA, and other existing information, including previously conducted research and
surveys to develop a historical context to better understand and evaluate the potential historical

17-JUL-14\\

2-3

Methodology
significance of surveyed resources. The historical context allowed URS to identify and
investigate important themes and overarching economic and social systems that coherently unite
the area. For each surveyed property, work resulted in the following:
x
x
x

A summary Statement of Significance


A determination of period(s) of significance
A recommendation of the NRHP eligibility of each surveyed historic property under
applicable criteria and aspects of integrity

This study was undertaken to determine the NRHP eligibility of buildings and structures
included within the boundaries of the Above-Ground Historic Properties APE. All work
complies with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Identification of Historic
Properties, MHT Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Historical Investigation in
Maryland (MHT, 2000), and General Guidelines for Compliance-Generated Determinations of
Eligibility (MHT, 2009) for documentation as noted above.

2.3

EVALUATION OF NRHP ELIGIBILITY

With the information gathered from background research and site visits, URS evaluated the
historic properties in the Above-Ground Historic Properties APE for their NRHP eligibility.
The National Register Criteria for significance define the scope of the NRHP; they identify the
range of resources and kinds of significance that will qualify properties for listing in the National
Register and are written broadly to recognize the wide variety of historic properties associated
with history and prehistory (National Park Service, 2002:1).
Properties can be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A if they are associated with an event or
a series of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
Properties may be eligible for NRHP listing under Criterion B if they are associated with the
lives of persons significant in our past. Properties may be NRHP eligible under Criterion C if
they embody the distinctive characteristics of a building type, period, or method of construction;
represent the work of a master; possess high artistic values; or represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Properties may be
eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or history. Criterion D is most often applied to
archaeological districts and sites, although it can apply to buildings or structures that contain
important information.
Carrying equal weight with the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation is the propertys historic integrity,
which is defined as the ability of a property to convey its historic significance. The National
Register recognizes the following seven aspects of historic integrity: integrity of location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Eligibility for listing in the NRHP
requires that a property retain most if not all of the aspects of integrity, depending on the
application of the criteria.

17-JUL-14\\

2-4

Historic Context
SECTION THREE: HISTORIC CONTEXT
3.1

EXPLORATION AND COLONIZATION

In 1608, when Captain John Smith explored the upper Chesapeake Bay for the Virginia
Company of London, the area that is now Cecil County was under the dominion of the
Susquahannocks, a subset of the Algonquians. Captain John Smith wrote that the warriors wore
wolf skins and lived in palisaded villages (Carter, 2006). Other sources commented on their large
size and reputation as capable hunters and fierce warriors (Figure 4).

Approximate location of the


Upper Chesapeake Bay,
Susquehanna River, and other
northern tributaries

Source: National Park Service (http://www.smithtrail.net/captain-john-smith/smiths-maps/)


Figure 3: Captain John Smiths Map of Chesapeake Bay Perryville Area Segment with Susquehanna Figure
1612 (north is right side of image)

In 1632, King Charles I of England presented Cecil Calvert with a charter and ownership of
more than approximately seven million acres of land in the Maryland colony (Weissman, 1986).
In 1633, William Clayborn established the first European settlement in Cecil County at the

17-JUL-14\\

3-1

Historic Context
mouth of the Susquehanna River near Perryville (Johnston, 1881). The next year, the Calvert
family began promoting settlement of the area through the headright system. This system granted
small tracts of water accessible land to colonists who paid for their own passage across the
Atlantic Ocean. The amount of land was typically 50 acres a head (Hunter, 1979).
The Susquehannocks were at their zenith in the 1640s when their population is estimated to have
exceeded 6,000 (Carter, 2006). European explorers, including Captain John Smith, described
them as capable of quickly amassing a large group of warriors. The Susquehannocks were almost
constantly in conflict during most of the 16th century. The Iroquois were often raiding their
settlements, and Susquehannocks fought with the Swedes in Delaware, often armed by the Dutch
in New York (Youssi, 2006).
After a number of skirmishes with settlers in Maryland, war between the English settlers and
Susquehannocks ensued, ending with a treaty in 1652. The treaty provided the Susquehannocks
ammunition, cannon, and men in exchange for their lands west and north of the Chesapeake Bay
including lands eastward from the Choptank to the Elk Rivers (Johnston, 1881). By 1675, the
tribe was decimated by disease, particularly smallpox, and fighting with the Iroquois. The
Iroquois captured and assimilated the last of the Susquehannocks by the end of the century
(Youssi, 2006).
By the 1670s, other Europeans began settling in Cecil County, including Dutch, Finnish, and
Swedish immigrants. Under the leadership of Governor Stuyvesant of New Amsterdam, the
Dutch disputed the boundary between Maryland and Delaware. Augustine Herman was
instrumental in resolving this dispute by producing a detailed map of the region in 1673
(Johnston, 1881). The map drawn by Herman (Figure 5) contains the following description of the
area where the Susquehanna River enters into the Chesapeake Bay:
The great Sufsquahana [sic] River runs up Northerly to the Sinnicus [Senacas]
above 200 miles with diverse Rivers and Branches on both sides to the East and
Welt [sic] full of falls and Mes [sic] until about 10 or 12 miles above the
Susquahanna fort and it runs cleare [sic] but Down wards not Navigable but with
great dangers with Indian Canoos [sic] by Indian Pilots (Herman, 1673).
In return for his mapping services, Herman received 4,000 acres along the eastern shore of the
Chesapeake. These tracts of were called Bohemia and Little Bohemia (Johnston, 1881).
Herman ultimately possessed title to approximately 30,000 acres, primarily in the southern part
of the county. Throughout the 17th century, the region became increasingly settled. In 1674,
Cecil County was created out of Baltimore County.

17-JUL-14\\

3-2

Historic Context

Approximate location
of Susquehanna
River

Source: Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division


Figure 4: Virginia and Maryland as it is planted and inhabited this present year 1670 by Augustine Herman,
Published by Augustine Herrman and Thomas Withinbrook, 1673

In 1680, George Talbot, cousin of the second Lord Baltimore, was granted 32,000 acres in
northern Cecil County and parts of Chester County in Pennsylvania in exchange for securing the
border between Maryland and Pennsylvania (Johnston, 1881). His land was known as
Susquehanna Manor. A condition of Talbots land grant required him to import 640 people over
12 years. Most of these people were of Scots-Irish descent and were recruited from northern
Irelands Ulster Plantation.
The Calvert family was Roman Catholic, and the official church of the Maryland Colony was
Anglican. Other forms of Christianity also existed in the county because of settlement patterns
and land ownership disputes. The Jesuits established themselves at Hermans Bohemia Manor in
1704. In 1745, these Jesuit missionaries established a secondary school that is thought to be the
predecessor of Georgetown University (Johnston, 1881). By 1720, Talbot had attracted enough
Scot-Irish settlers that a Presbyterian Church was established in Little Elk Valley.
In 1723, an Anglican missionary complained that the area was filled with a greater number of
dissenters than ever, by reason of these fresh recruits sent up of late from the North of Ireland
(Johnston, 1881:435). A 1737, the Anglican clergy of Maryland presented a petition to the King
of England stating that Marylands Quakers were not satisfied with the established church, and

17-JUL-14\\

3-3

Historic Context
that they had induced some of the inhabitants of Maryland to transfer the acknowledgement of
the right of their lands from Maryland to Pennsylvania (Johnson, 1881:435). The Anglicans in
Maryland were asking for clergy to reside on the border to prevent a recurrence of this trouble
(Johnson, 1881:435). Although the Christian population of the county had become somewhat
diverse, Anglicans retained the social and economic power in the county, including control of the
county courts, prior to the Revolutionary War (Blumgart, 2010).

Source: Penn State University (http://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/Claimed%20land.png)


Figure 5: Disputed Areas on Maryland Pennsylvania Border, c. 1673

The struggle to define the northern border of Maryland with Pennsylvania continued into the
18th century (Figure 6). William Penn had received the charter for Pennsylvania in 1681 and the
charter for Delaware in 1682. The Calverts had claimed Delaware for themselves prior to Penns
claim (Johnston, 1881). Penn began issuing patents for land to loyal Pennsylvania settlers and
encouraged them to settle in Talbots land. Both sides continued to attempt to undermine the
other in this manner until the King and the Chancellery Court ultimately became involved. In
1760, an agreement was reached by commissioning Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon to
survey the line. They finished their work in 1766 and established the Mason-Dixon Line, which
remains the border between Maryland and Pennsylvania (Johnston, 1881).

3.2

FARMING AND INDUSTRY

Cecil County attracted farming during the early Colonial era with its fertile soil, well-drained
pastureland, and access to markets due to water transport (Lutz, 1975). Early Cecil County

17-JUL-14\\

3-4

Historic Context
residents, like many Eastern Shore settlers, cultivated tobacco, hoping to realize substantial
profits from the volatile European markets. In 1679, Jasper Danckaerts, a traveler through the
upper part of the Eastern Shore peninsula noted that the principal crop was tobacco (Blumgart,
2010). Sixty-five years later, Dr. Alexander Hamilton found that British grain, as wheat, barley
and oats characterized the farming operation in the area (Lutz) La Rochefoucauld observed By
1760 the northern winter wheat had become famous. This they sent to the Brandywine Mills in
Philadelphia and to Baltimore (Lutz, 8-1).
The English colonized the Eastern Shore and Southern areas of Maryland and grew tobacco.
Germans from Pennsylvania and New York settled in the Piedmont Plateau. While the English
established manors and plantations, the Germans were known for keeping livestock and building
barns to store feed (Trimmer, 1944:7). Records of the Cecil County Orphans Court contain
descriptions of late 18th century farms and plantations. A c. 1790 description of the estate of
Benjamin Walmsley included the following improvements: one log kitchen, one quarter, one
corn house, one old tobacco house, one granary, and one hen house. The old tobacco house is
described as with weather boarding off and part on the granary roof in bad repair, the corn
crib in tolerable repair and the hen house in good repair (Blumgart, 2010:249-50).
Descriptions of these estates written between 1785 and 1800 make clear that by the number of
granaries and corn houses, compared to the number of tobacco houses, that agriculture in Cecil
County was predominately grain, rather than tobacco based (Blumgart).
Cecil County also developed an industrial economy with the 1724 start of production at the
Principio Furnace, the first iron furnace in Maryland and one of the first in the country. The
Principio Furnace produced an estimated 25,000 tons of pig iron exported to England between
1718 and 1755 (Parish, 1971: 8-1). By 1726, the Principio Company expanded its operations to
Virginia through an agreement with Augustine Washington (President Washingtons father)
regarding the supply and shipment of ore from his Virginia Plantation near Accokeek. The
company also built the Kingsbury Furnace in Baltimore and the Lancashire Furnace on the
Patapsco. A description of the 1751 holdings of the company included slaves and livestock [sic]
in abundance; their tracts of land, chiefly woodland, for coaling, were of vast extent, amounting
in the aggregate to nearly 30,000 acres in Maryland (Parish, 8-3).
Another early industry associated with Cecil County was milling. The flow and drop of water in
streams was the principal source of mechanical power in industry until about 1870, when steam
engines began replacing the water wheel. Water milling was typically a rural enterprise that
linked two vital components: a productive agricultural or woodlot area and watercourses for
transporting processed goods to larger population centers for consumption or further processing.
Cecil County straddles the fall line between the coastal plain and the piedmont, and its northsouth waterways are fast-running and suited to producing power for milling (Blumgart, 2010).
Eighteenth century Cecil county residents who took advantage of the emerging grain markets
and the locally abundant supply of water found milling to be a profitable venture. Grist and
merchant mills were constructed throughout the county especially in the southern section
(Parish).
17-JUL-14\\

3-5

Historic Context
Grain was a high-value product that was easier to transport then lumber. The value of grain
increased with high-quality milling, so farmers preferred to take grain to a well-equipped mill
run by a competent miller (Gordon and Malone, 1994: 75). A Cecil County history, published in
1807 and credited to Joseph Scott, stated that Cecil County had 50 saw mills, along with 53 grist,
4 fulling, 2 oil mills, 4 forges, and several rolling and slitting mills. Big Elk and Little Elk Creeks
provided some of the best waterpower in the country, and the area was noted for its numerous
mills (Ewing, 1974).
Merchant John Bateman first patented the land that contains and surrounds the current Coudon
family farm, Woodlands (CE-145). In 1659, Woodlands was part of a 2,200-acre tract. The tract
included Perry Point (where the Perry Point Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center
campus is presently located) and Perry Neck, the historical name of the peninsula of land that is
east of Perry Point between Mill and Principio Creeks (Miller, 1949).
The tract changed hands numerous times during the 18th century, with little indication when
improvements occurred that are apparent in the 1799 Hauducoeur map (Figure 7). In 1710,
Captain Richard Perry of London purchased the tract, and in 1728, ownership transferred to John
Perry, George Perry, Ann Templer, and Dorothy Barren (nephews and nieces of Richard Perry).
In 1729, the land transferred to Phillip Thomas, in 1763 to Phillips son Samuel, and in 1784 to
Richard Thomas (Miller, 1949; Archives of Maryland, 2005). At the time of the first federal
census in 1790, Richard Thomas is listed as a resident of North Susquehanna (Hundred) in Cecil
County. It is unknown whether he resided at Perry Point or elsewhere on his property, but the
census records note that his household includes 9 free white persons and 51 slaves. Phillip
Thomas constructed the mansion known as Perry Point in 1750. The mansion still stands on
the VA campus (Miller, 1949).
The 1799 Map of the Chesapeake Bay and Susquehanna River is the earliest map of southern
Cecil County that provides information on land ownership and land use. Along Perry Point and
Perry Neck, the Hauducoeur map indicates that R. Thomas is the owner of land. The 1799 map
indicates the location of Post Road as well as New Road, which forms a shorter, northern cut off
Post Road. This map indicates that the area was farmed, with cultivated fields located south of
the Post Road and three structures located in the general vicinity of the present Coudon family
farm complex. In 1800, John Stump purchased Perry Point and Perry Neck from George Gale
(Land Records of Cecil County, 1821-1822).

17-JUL-14\\

3-6

Historic Context

Approximate Area
of Perry Neck

Source: C. P. Hauducoeur (John Carter Brown Library, Brown University


(http://jcb.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet/detail/JCBMAPS~1~1~2851~101317)
Figure 6: 1799 Hauducoeur Map of the head of the Chesapeake Bay

3.3

REVOLUTIONARY WAR AND RELIGION

Cecil County participated in the Revolutionary War by forming the Bohemia, Susquehanna, and
Elk Battalions (Cecil County History, n.d.). Because of the countys location at the head of the
bay, it was strategically important. General Washington passed through Cecil County on August
25, 1777, to observe the situation in the area, knowing that the English were sailing up the bay.
In 1777, 300 English ships, carrying 15,000 soldiers commanded by General Howe, landed at
Elk River. They made camp at Elkton and outnumbered all of Cecil Countys citizens. People
hid their horses, cattle, and valuables in the woods. After a few days of stocking up on
provisions, the British marched northward to Brandywine and Philadelphia.
Colonel Henry Hollingsworth, in the prime of his life during the Revolutionary War, arranged
for munitions to be manufactured in Cecil County to supply the Continental Army (Johnston,
1881). The Head of the Elk was regarded as a midpoint between the northern and southern
colonies, and Hollingsworth performed the function of commissary when the troops marched
through the village (Johnston). Congress authorized Hollingsworth to manufacture gun barrels
and bayonets and advanced him 500 pounds. Johnson credits Hollingsworth with being the first

17-JUL-14\\

3-7

Historic Context
person that engaged in the manufacture of warlike munitions in this State for the use of its
soldiers (Johnston, 323). Edward Parker, another resident of the county, was commissioned to
supply the army with linen and woolen goods and had 5 looms constantly employed in
manufacture (Johnston, 323).
During the Revolutionary War, the Quakers, being pacifist, did not fight, although this made
some doubt their patriotism. Presbyterians, however, were known for being on the side of the
colonists against the mother country. Johnstons 1881 county history states that:
Their form of church government was eminently democratic, and most, if not all
of them, were the descendants of those who, in some form, had suffered for
conscience sake on the other side of the Atlantic. Hence, it was not strange that
they joined the crusade for liberty, and denounced the encroachments of the
British Parliament with an eloquence and vehemence that would have done credit
to their founder (Johnston, 1881: 438).
Soon after the Revolutionary War, the Coudon family name begins to appear in local histories.
In 1781, Joseph Coudon was appointed lay reader of the North Elk vestry and was chosen curate
of the North Elk Parish in 1785. At that time, Reverend Coudon resided at the plantation near
Elkton (Johnston, 362). The town of Elkton lacked a church, the old chapel being in disrepair,
and the previous cleric preached in a tent erected next to the old chapel. Reverend Coudons
written plea for funds to build a church provides the following description of the town of Elkton.
It has been too long remarked by the numerous travelers that pass through our
village, as well as regretted by the friends of it, that notwithstanding the rapidly
growing importance of the placethe various scenes of industry and exertions it
is noted foramidst the many building that are daily saluting our eyes, and rising
and about to rise to viewthere is no appearance of even an humble building
dedicated to worship and service of the supreme ruler of the universe on whom
we depend for all we have or can hope to enjoy (Johnston).
Coudon was suggesting residents and friends purchase 3-pound subscriptions to fund the church.
The decision of what society of professing Christians it shall principally be appropriate (what
would be the Christian denomination of the church) determined by a vote of subscribers
(Johnston, 364). Johnston writes that Coudons enterprise was a failure owing to the
unpopularity of most of the clergy of the Episcopal church, and the fact that Methodism
prevailed to some extent in the surrounding country (Johnston). The same year an Anglican
churchman published a pamphlet stating, Churchmen not only exclaim against the impositions
of the late establishment, whereby parsons were erected into little popes about the country, but
they still see nothing sacred in the clerical character (Johnston, 437).
Reverand Coudon was ordained in 1787 and installed as rector of the parish. In 1788 he labored
part of the time in St. Augustine parish and in Appoquinimink, Delaware. He had charge of St.

17-JUL-14\\

3-8

Historic Context
Augustine Church in North Elk and St. Anns near Middleton from 1789 to 1792, when he died
(Johnston).

3.4

WAR OF 1812

Similar to many Maryland counties and towns on the Chesapeake Bay, Cecil County was
invaded by the British as part of their Chesapeake Bay campaign. England declared the bays of
the Cheseapeake and Delaware under blockade in December 1812 (Johnston). Admiral Cockburn
commenced with pillaging and plundering the towns along the coasts of the Chesapeake Bay.
Although most of the men in the county had been called up for service in Baltimore, the
remaining men in Cecil County tried to mount defenses, including an observation camp at the top
of Bulls Mountain with a line of military posts that extended to Elkton (Johnston).
In 1813, Admiral Cockburns squadron succeeded in invading and burning Frenchtown,
followed by the destruction of Fredericktown and Georgetown. The British attack on Havre de
Grace across the water resulted in the burning of two-thirds of the towns buildings and rampant
plunder. Fearing the arrival of the French in the upper bay, the British made their way to the
southern areas of the Chesapeake Bay, but people in the northern areas continued to fear
attackes. When news of the Treaty of Ghent reached the area, many of the countys citizens
celebrated (Johnston, 422).

3.5

AGRARIAN REFORM

By the early 19th century, the land in Cecil County was losing nutrients. Destructive farming
methods and slopes of three to nine feet induced erosion and the occasional formation of gullies.
Maryland Governor Thomas Johnson, writing to George Washington in 1791, described the
ravages that common farming methods brought to once-fertile lands:
It has been generally tended that the first two years in tobacco, the third Indian
corn, and sown down in wheat. After this destructive course the land is often
again planted the next year with Indian corn, and sown down again with wheat or
rye, without any assistance. The crops accordingly lessen, till the land becomes so
exhausted that its produce sparely pays for the ploughing [sic] (Blumgart, 2010:
249).
One contemporary commentator blamed grain as much as tobacco for the condition of the soil,
referring to the great Exhausters Maize and Wheat followed by a barely momentary cessation
rom [sic] uninterrupted courses of exhausting corn corps (Blumgart).
By the early 19th century, experimental or scientific farming had become popular in England.
Wealthy gentlemen farmers had the time and money to experiment with new crops, livestock,
and cultivation methods. Farm periodicals, agricultural societies, and exhibitions became popular
ways to highlight new practices and share new methods. In America, not only wealthy farmers
but all classes of farmers developed keen interest in more cost-effective and productive
agricultural practices.

17-JUL-14\\

3-9

Historic Context
A popular and useful new method to improve soil conditions was the addition of a mix of
manure and plaster, which increased yield and quality for both wheat and corn production. This
information spread through newspapers and periodicals, such as the Elkton Press, a generalcirculation newspaper published from 1823 to 1832, which featured the column Farmers
Register, and The American Farmer, a magazine published in Baltimore starting in 1819.
Agricultural experiments that were successful led to new methods, and farming was eventually
revitalized. The use of plaster stiffened the soil, which created a need for more efficient plows
and more manure to lighten the soil. Crop rotation and new fertilizers increased yields. New
harvest machines developed, such as the mechanical reaper (Blumgart). Figure 8 shows
examples of suggested methods for creating and planting on embankments to prevent crop loss
due to flooding.

Source: Farmers Register (1838)


Figure 7: Embankments: High and other land, to prevent them from being
inundated by land-floods, or tide (Farmers Register, 1838:429)

Reverend Joseph Coudons descendants were part of the agricultural and economic prosperity of
the first half of the 19th century in Cecil County. Caroline Whitaker, daughter of Principio
Furnace Companys George Whitaker, married Joseph Coudon II in 1820. Two years later,
Joseph Coudon II purchased a 149-acre parcel north of the Post Road containing Woodlands
from Robert Archer and the portion of Perry Neck south of the Post Road from John Stump
(Land Records of Cecil County, 1832).
The U.S. Non-population Census, Productions of Agriculture in 1860 provides insight into
Coudons farming operations. See Table 3.

17-JUL-14\\

3-10

Historic Context
Table 3: U.S. Non-population Census, Products of Agriculture:
Selected Totals, Average, and Coudon Farms, Cecil County, Maryland, 7th District, 1860
District 7
(128 Farms)

Average
Farm

Joseph Coudon

Henry S. Coudon

Improved acreage

8,235 acres

64 acres

100 acres

225 acres

Unimproved acreage

11,591 acres

91 acres

50 acres

87 acres

Cash value of farm

$584,455

$4,566

$7,000

$12,000

Value of slaughtered livestock

$16,919

$132

$120

$250

Value of farming implements


and machinery

$24,876

$194

$500

$500

Value of livestock

$59,875

$468

$700

$1,800

Wheat

25,555 bushels

200 bushels

300 bushels

500 bushels

Indian corn

56,504 bushels

441 bushels

600 bushels

600 bushels

Category

Source: U.S. Census (1860a)

The Coudons were clearly one of the more prosperous farmers in the 7th District of Cecil County
in 1860. They had a higher percentage of improved-to-unimproved land, (Figure 9) their cash
value was nearly double or triple that of the average farm, and the value of their livestock and
production of bushels was appreciably higher than the average farm. Based on the cash value of
the farm, Henry S. Coudons farm was in the top 10 percent of the 128 farms in the district, and
the combined value of the Coudon brothers farms made them the second most valuable farm in
the district. The most valuable farm was John Stumps farm at Perry Point, valued at $20,000 in
1860 (The U.S. Non-population Census, Productions of Agriculture, Cecil County, Maryland, 7th
District, 1860).

Source: W. Coudon Collection


Figure 8: Woodlands Farm, haying

17-JUL-14\\

3-11

Historic Context
3.6

INDUSTRIAL PROSPERITY AND TRANSPORTATION EXPANSION

Cecil Countys economy in the first half of the nineteenth century was an active and prosperous
collaboration of industry, transportation, and agriculture. The opening of the Chesapeake and
Delaware Canal in 1829 connected the Chesapeake Bay and the port of Baltimore to the
Delaware River and Wilmington, and the county had a larger market for its goods. An
agricultural building boom followed with new barns, granaries, silos, and dairy houses being
constructed to accommodate the dairy herds and grain harvests, replacing the tobacco houses of
the previous century (Blumgart, 2010). In addition, developing industries took advantage of the
areas abundant natural resources and access to effective transportation systems.
Rock quarrying became a leading Cecil County industry in the area of Port Deposit, farther north
along the Susquehanna River. In the 1830s, Ebenezer McClenahan started a quarry near Fort
Deposit, and his quarry annually increased its output tonnage of cut granite (Blumgart). In 1837,
his business shipped 371,250 metric tons of granite from Port Deposit. The light-draft vessels
that lined the towns wharfs provided inexpensive transport and sent Port Deposit granite as far
south as Richmond, Virginia (Blumgart). Quarried granite was also shipped by rail to markets in
Baltimore and later to Philadelphia and Washington D.C. Although other smaller quarries
opened, none could compete with McClenahans quarry.
Cecil County already had paper milling, initially started to meet the demand for domestic paper
during Colonial times and the English boycott of goods. After iron, the manufacture of paper was
regarded as the most important industry in Cecil County. The first paper-makers in the county
were brothers Samuel and William Meeter, who were the owners of the Providence Paper Mill
on the Little Elk Creek in the early part of the 19th century.
Robert Carters Cecil Paper Mill started in 1816. By mid-century, his son owned the mill, and it
became the first mill in the county to make paper by machine (Ewing). The mill provided all of
the paper to the Baltimore Sun by the last half of the 19th century and was one of several to
establish a mill town in the county. George Childs, editor and proprietor of the Philadelphia
Public Ledger, a daily newspaper that operated from 1836 to 1942, acquired a mill in Cecil
County and greatly increased production, offering a tonnage incentive to workers (Carnegie,
1981.)
The Principio Furnace, owned by George Whitaker, is listed in the 1860 U.S. Non-population
Census, Schedule 5, Products of Industry as having a value of $50,000, which is a little over 10
percent of the $464,985 total value for industry in the 7th District of Cecil County. Newland C.
Comps Door and Sash Manufacturing Company was valued at $80,000, making the Principio
Furnace the second most valuable industry in the district at that time.
The furnace is listed as water-powered and employing 90 men. The average monthly cost of
labor was $1,913. The following material costs are listed for the year: 1,500 tons of limestone,
$2,260; 5,000 tons of ore, $16,450, 160,000 tons of bituminous coal, $9,600, and 2,500 tons of
anthracite coal, $7,750. These numbers do not add up to a profitable year. Multiplying the

17-JUL-14\\

3-12

Historic Context
average monthly cost of labor by 12 months and adding this to yearly costs for raw materials, the
total figure comes to $59,016. With the total value of its annual product at only $50,000, the
industrial operation clearly lost money.
The county had a robust ferry business, and several small rail lines were chartered in the 1830s,
including the Baltimore and Port Deposit Railroad Company, which was chartered by the
Maryland General Assembly in 1832 (Johnston, 1881). The Delaware and Maryland Railroad
Company was also chartered that year to build a railroad from some point on the Delaware Line
to Port Deposit or some other location on the Susquehanna (Johnston). Work started on this road
in 1836, and the company soon united with the Wilmington and Susquehanna Railroad
Company, chartered by the State of Delaware for making a connection from Pennsylvania
through Wilmington to the Susquehanna River and Maryland. Because the Baltimore and Port
Deposit line actually terminated in Havre de Grace, the Wilmington and Susquehanna terminated
in Perryville. The 1831-chartered Philadelphia and Delaware County Railroad Company
increased its capital and surveyed a line to the Maryland border in 1836 (Johnston).
In 1838, all three companies consolidated under the name of the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and
Baltimore Railroad Company. In 1848, the railroad was built through the Perryville area of Cecil
County (Ewing, 1975). The 1858 Martinet Map of Cecil County clearly shows the Philadelphia,
Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad Company running from Port Deposit, down to Perryville
across Mill Creek and east to Principio Furnace, and running through Joseph Coudons property
(Martinet, 1858).

3.7

POST-CIVIL WAR CECIL COUNTY

During the Civil War, Cecil County played role similar to its role in the Revolutionary War.
Because of its location, the county served as a strategic staging area for Union soldiers and
supplies (Cecil County History, n.d.). At the start of the war, Confederate sympathizers in
Baltimore destroyed the rail lines, making Perryville the farthest south Union soldiers could
travel by train. Ferries lined the shores of the Susquehanna River to serve as transport, and John
Stumps Perry Point became a Union Army base. As in most of Maryland, Cecil County
exhibited divided loyalties, and the Civil War left many scars.
Rail lines from north, south, and west were converging on the area, an important connecting
point to large urban markets such as Philadelphia and Baltimore. In 1866, the Philadelphia,
Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad Company constructed a single-track wooden bridge over
the Susquehanna River from Perrys Point to Havre de Grace, providing an alternative to the
nearly 30-year-old train ferry service. Reinforcements and additional abutments were added to
the bridge for the next 12 years.
With the Civil War came a huge demand for current news, delivered in newspapers. Even before
the war, public interest in the increasingly heated debate over slavery and the admission of new
states to the Union resulted in a dramatic increase in newsprint prices around 1854. This injected
significant amounts of new capital into the paper industry, resulting in the construction of new

17-JUL-14\\

3-13

Historic Context
mills and the enlargement of old ones (Kravitz, 1979). Prior to the Civil War, Maryland had only
15 paper mills. By 1873, the number increased to 28 mills, which remained the same for the next
20 years. Rags were replaced with chemically treated wood and ground wood, creating new
types of pulp. Today, the paper industry is dominated by pulp as a raw resource (Kravitz).
Unlike most industries, the paper and pulp wood industry did not overwhelmingly convert to
steam power until after the Civil War. In 1870, the paper and wood pulp industry obtained 72
percent of its power from waterwheels, and as late as 1909 still employed 60 percent
waterpower. As in the Colonial era, paper mills still needed large amounts of both power and
water in production, especially with wood pulp grinding and waste disposal (Hunter, 1979).
The 1880 U.S. Census Products of Industry in the 3rd and 4th Election Districts of Cecil County
listed three paper mills: Cecil Paper Mills, Harlan & Bros., and the Public Ledger Company. The
Public Ledger Company mill had a reported capital investment of $100,000, substantially more
than the Cecil Paper Mills ($55,000) and the Harlan Bros. Mill ($10,000). The Public Ledger
reported 70 employees, including five children, and the Harlan Bros. had only 10 employees.
None of the three machines apparently used rags, suggesting their paper was made from wood
pulp. All three were water-powered, as opposed to steam powered.
The U.S. Census of 1880 indicates that the amount of capital invested in iron manufactories in
Cecil County ($550,000) included the blast furnace of George P. Whitaker on the Principio
Creek and the four rolling mills and forges of the McCullough Iron Company in Rowlandville
North East and Westamerell (Johnston, 1881). The former Principio Iron Company became the
Whitaker Iron Company. The companys last furnace opened in 1890 and ceased production
after World War I (Parish, 1971).

3.8

TWENTIETH CENTURY CECIL COUNTY

In the early 1900s, the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad Company merged with
the Pennsylvania Railroad (Figure 10). The 1903 Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington
Railroad Company First Annual Report, for the Year 1903 (Office of the Secretary, 1903), lists
statistics from 1882 to 1903 indicating the growing profitability of the line. The net earnings
were listed in 1882 as $1,420,180.90 and $2,959,078.66 in 1903. In 1882, the average
expenditure per mile was 1.8 cents, and the average profit per mile was 0.63 cents. By 1903,
both costs and profits were down. The average expenditure per mile was 0.79 cents, and the
profit per mile was only 0.22 cents. The cost per passenger per mile also reflects this trend; in
1882, it was 1.6 cents, of which 0.64 cents was profit. By 1903, the cost per passenger, per mile
remained 1.6 cents, with a 0.43-cent profit per passenger per mile.
In 1903, the railroads profit was almost split between freight and passenger. Revenue from
freight in that year was 47.81 percent of earnings, and passenger travel accounted for 43.69
percent of earnings. Although fruits and vegetables and grain represented sizeable portions of the
total tonnage carried by the line in 1903 (591,070 and 266,892, respectively) the majority of
tonnage was attributable to anthracite coal (1,999,091), bituminous coal (1,156,040), and lumber

17-JUL-14\\

3-14

Historic Context
(1,867,658) (Office of the Secretary, 1903:35-39). In 1905, the Pennsylvania Railroad built a
new station in Perryville. This Colonial Revival station is consistent with a larger pattern of
system upgrades during the railroads golden age (Ewing, 1974).

Source: 1903 Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington Railroad Company First Annual Report, for the
Year 1903, Office of the Secretary
Figure 9: Philadelphia and Baltimore and Washington Railroad Systems and Connections,
January 1, 1904 (northern half of map)

By the close of the 19th century, the family farms and industries that characterized Cecil County
were becoming obsolete. The staggering wheat yields of Midwestern farms, with their large
combines and flat lands, greatly out-produced farms in areas such as Little Elk Creek. The huge
farms of the Midwest were using steam-powered machines that could cut, thresh, and bag wheat
and ship it out by railroad from Chicago or Moline all in one day (Blumgart, 2010). By the turn
of the 19th century, Cecil County farms were still rooted in the tradition of horse-drawn reapers
and binders.
Agricultural production in the 20th century supplied local produce markets in Baltimore and
Philadelphia. Milk, eggs, and other fresh food items were the typical emphasis on farms located
outside large and growing urban areas. In Cecil County, a small canning industry developed
based on local tomato and corn production. Horse -drawn wagons carried the produce to markets

17-JUL-14\\

3-15

Historic Context
or the local cannerysmall facilities that were close to each other and that operated only a few
months each year (Blumgart.).
Joseph Coudon IV purchased The Anchorage and Lindenwold farms in 1919 for sons Joseph V
or George Price Whitaker Coudon, Joseph Coudon Vs grandson, Wilson L. Coudon. There was
a long-standing connection between the Whitaker family and the Coudons as evidenced by the
sons of Joseph Coudon IV, Joseph V and George Price Whitaker Coudon. Against their fathers
wishes, they left the area and farming in the early 20th century to work for the Whitaker Iron
Company, later the Wheeling Steel Corporation, an offshoot of the Principio Furnace Company,
founded by their great-grandmothers father (Coudon, 2013). As referenced above, the Whitaker
Iron Companys production was declining in Cecil County after the 1890s (Parish, 1971). Ore
deposits in the mid-Atlantic area were depleted, and the furnaces of Birmingham, Alabama, the
Great Lakes, and the Ohio Valley region were rapidly beginning to control the metal production
industry. These furnaces could produce huge amounts of iron at a relatively low cost, and the
price of pig iron fell to the point that it was no longer profitable to make (Blumgart, 2010).
When Joseph Coudon IV died in 1940, his heirs had the property appraised. As Figure 11 shows,
the estate was quite large, with a total of 60 buildings. The Anchorage (CE-1230) and the
Lindenwood (Bldg. 14) are identified as Mansions. The Greek Revival-style Coudon family
house (CE-145) in the upper left quadrant is also identified as Mansion (Bldg. No. 1). None of
the buildings south of the Pennsylvania Railroad line in the lower left quadrant are extant.
Attachment 4 contains a copy of the complete appraisal report.

Source: William Coudon Personal Collection


Figure 10: Woodlands Farm Property of Coudon Estate, June 1940

17-JUL-14\\

3-16

Historic Context
The 20th century landscape of Cecil County was greatly affected by World Wars I and II. The
area was developed for armament production and as military bases. Factors that changed the
county between the wars included technological advances that began to harness the countys
resources and the federal governments Depression-era National Recovery Act (NRA). As in
previous periods of armed conflict, the geographic location of the county had strategic
advantages for accommodating troops and providing armaments and provisions. Perry Point, the
Stump family home, was acquired by the federal government to construct the massive Atlas
Powder Company, which manufactured explosives (Blumgart, 2010). See Figure 12.

Source: Harvard Art Museums/Fogg Museum


Figure 11: Atlas Powder Company

In 1926, after protracted negotiations with the State of Maryland, the Philadelphia Electric
Company started construction on the Conowingo Dam across the Susquehanna River. The
Baltimore-based construction company, Arundel Corporation, was awarded the contract and
4,000 workers poured into Hartford and Cecil counties. Railroad lines were re-routed, and the
impounded lake held back by the dam stretched 14 miles and was approximately one mile wide
(Blumgart.).
With the Depression, many people abandoned the rural life of Cecil County and moved to
Baltimore or Philadelphia in the hope of finding employment. NRA construction projects helped
to create jobs in the county and resulted in the construction of a new Cecil County courthouse, a
new high school, a post office, and the construction of Route 40 and other infrastructure
(Blumgart) World War II brought the U.S. Army and Navy to Cecil County. During the war
years, the countys population tripled (Blumgart). Within one year of the closing of Port
Deposits 1894 Tome Boarding School for Boys, the U.S. Navy purchased the 11-building
17-JUL-14\\

3-17

Historic Context
campus and used it as a training ground for thousands of seamen. The former boarding school
was renamed the Bainbridge Naval Training Center after the commanding officer of the U.S.F.
Constitution. The training ground grew enormously, adding hundreds of barracks, classrooms,
gymnasiums, and mess halls and accommodating 35,000 recruits at its peak.
Triumph Industries, a small fireworks manufacturer in Elkton, began manufacturing explosives,
including land mines. Federal contracts poured in after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and the
former small fireworks manufacturer quickly became over-extended. The federal government
confiscated the company in 1942 and turned it over to a group of Pittsburgh businessmen who
invested $4 million and built approximately 1,000 small self-contained buildings for shell
packing operations (Blumgart). By May 1943, 11,500 workers had moved into Elkton, most of
them women, increasing the towns population threefold. With the lack of housing, insufficiently
stocked stores, and straining infrastructure, on more than one occasion, the Bainbridge Base
Military Police had to assist the Elkton Police Department with maintaining order (Blumgart).
The Elkton United Service Organization (USO) stepped in to administer and manage the town,
serving as a conduit for federal funds and supplies (Blumgart).
After World War II, the county returned to a sense of normalcy. The population declined and
farming returned, although the percentage of cultivated land declined. Light industries began
appearing on the landscape, and pleasure craft began appearing on the bay and the Susquehanna
River as leisure time increased (Blumgart, 159). In 1967, the John F. Kennedy Memorial
Highway (I-95) opened through Cecil County, adding to suburban development by providing
commuter access to Philadelphia and Baltimore.

17-JUL-14\\

3-18

Historic Context
SECTION FOUR: SURVEY RESULTS
4.1 DELINEATION AND JUSTIFICATION OF ABOVE-GROUND HISTORIC
PROPERTIES AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS
As defined in 36 CFR 800.16(d), the Area of Potential Effects (APE) is the geographic area or
areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or
use of historic properties, if such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by
the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused
by the undertaking.
In the project Scope of Work, URS had determined that the effects of the project on aboveground historic properties would be within 0.25 mile of the proposed project, including an
anticipated construction zone and subsequent physical disturbance areas, as shown in Figure 13.
The 0.25-mile distance accounts for direct and indirect effects, including physical, visual, and
noise effects, on historic above-ground properties from the proposed undertaking. Fieldwork,
research, and documentation of viewsheds confirmed this 0.25 mile APE as being the area in
which the potential direct and indirect impacts of the undertaking on the historic above-ground
properties listed or recommended for listing in the NRHP would occur.

17-JUL-14\\

4-1

Source: ESRI World Imagery


Figure 12: Surveyed Properties in the Above-Ground APE

17-JUL-14\\

4-2

Historic Context

Historic Context
4.2 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES PROPERTIES IN THE
ABOVE-GROUND HISTORIC PROPERTIES APE
In October and November 2013, all properties 50 years old and older within the Above-Ground
Historic Properties APE were surveyed. Twelve properties were identified and photodocumented, and field survey forms were prepared. Research on these properties was conducted
at national and local repositories, including the National Archives and Records Administration,
Library of Congress, MHT, Maryland Hall of Records, Cecil County Historical Society, and
public libraries. In addition, information from a historical context was used to determine the
historical and architectural significance of the properties. MHT DOE forms and MIHP forms for
these properties are located in Attachment 5.
In applying the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation, consideration was given to the properties
associative qualities along with individual properties historical integrity. Character-defining
features were determined, and all seven aspects of integrity were considered for each property,
with emphasis on the areas of integrity most relevant to the considered NRHP Criteria. For
properties with an association with significant historical events, trends, or persons, integrity of
association, feeling, location, and setting was important. Properties that evidenced important
examples of architectural or engineering methods, design, or types were evaluated for integrity
of materials, workmanship, and design.

4.2.1
Listing

Properties Not Listed in the NRHP or Considered Eligible for

Eight of the 12 properties inventoried and researched are not NRHP listed and are considered
ineligible for NRHP listing. These properties are as follows:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

Baker House
Baker-Howe House
Bromwell House
Philadelphia, Washington, and Baltimore Railroad Bridge 57-85
Philadelphia, Washington, and Baltimore Railroad Bridge 58-34
Philadelphia, Washington, and Baltimore Railroad Bridge Carrying Chesapeake View
Road
Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #58
Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #55

The eight properties are described below. The four properties that were determined to be NRHP
listed or considered eligible for listing are described in Section 4.2.2.

Baker House (CE - 1561)


The Baker House is located at 1323 Principio Furnace Road, 1.4 miles northeast of Perryville,
Maryland (Figure 14). The property is a 2.5-acre site that has a house, two contemporary
17-JUL-14\\

4-3

Historic Context
outbuildings, and an in ground pool. The property had been part of Lindenwood (CE-700), a
220-acre farm that had belonged to the Coudon family since 1880.

Source: URS
Figure 13: Baker House, facing north

Farm fields and small amounts of low density, residential properties surround the southeastfacing house. The residence sits on a south-sloping ridge above the floodplain of the Chesapeake
Bay. This 1963 split-level house is 50 years old, but research on the property indicates no
historical association that would merit consideration under Criterion A or B. The ubiquitous
nature of the split-level house type and the use of replacement windows indicate the property is
not architecturally significant and is not eligible under Criterion C for architecture. The Baker
House is determined to be ineligible for the NRHP.

Baker-Howe House (CE - 1569)


The Baker-Howe House, located at 2 Mill Creek Road, is a 1.48-acre property with a house, two
contemporary outbuildings, and one temporary carport (Figure 15). The house is a two-story,
wood-frame, split-level constructed in 1966. The house is surrounded by farm fields and some
residential development and is situated on a south-sloping ridge above the Chesapeake Bay
floodplain. The residence sits on a concrete slab foundation and features a medium-pitch, crossgable roof covered with asphalt shingles. The house is clad with stretcher bond brick. The roof
gables are horizontal vinyl siding and contain attic vents. The house has double-hung and
horizontal sliding, vinyl-frame window sashes with brick sills.

17-JUL-14\\

4-4

Historic Context

Source: URS
Figure 14: Baker-Howe House, facing north

This 1966 split-level house is less than 50 years old. Research on the property indicates that it
has no historical association that would merit consideration under Criterion A or B or Criteria
Consideration G, properties that have achieved significance within the last 50 years. The
ubiquitous nature of the split-level house type and the replacement fenestration suggest that the
property is not architecturally significant and does not qualify under Criterion C. The house is
not eligible for NRHP consideration because of its age and lack of architectural significance and
significant historical association.

Bromwell House (CE-1564)


The Bromwell House at 80 Chesapeake View Road and is located on a small knoll with two
other modern residences clustered on the west side of what was once a farm lane (Figure 16).
On the west side of the lane is a barn that is separated visually by a tree line.
The house and two outbuildings are currently at the heart of the Furnace Bay Golf Course,
constructed in 2000. The house has fairways crossing just in front. The house lot contains a
large, wood-frame garage appended to a small brick and stone outbuilding. Dr. R.E. Bromwell
constructed the Bromwell house on a 224-acre farm. After Bromwell died, the farm became the
Friendship Dairy Farm and was owned and run by the Rowland family.
The property no longer represents an agricultural property from the 19th or 20th century.
Additionally, the vinyl siding and vinyl cladding under the eaves and the replacement vinyl
windows compromise the integrity of the design, materials, and workmanship of the house.
Research in Johnstons History of Cecil County (Johnston, 1967) and Blumgarts At the Head of
the Bay (Blumgart, 2010) indicate no association between the residence and persons of historic
significance.

17-JUL-14\\

4-5

Historic Context

Source: URS
Figure 15: Bromwell House, looking west

Although the Friendship Dairy Farm likely sold its products to nearby urban markets and is
perhaps associated with the early 20th century market farming period of Cecil County
agriculture, the current house, barn, and shed on the property have little resemblance to an early
20th century dairy farm. The property is adjacent to low-density suburban development and a
golf course. The Bromwell house is not eligible for NRHP consideration under Criterion A or B
because of the propertys lack of integrity of setting, feeling, and association. The house is not
eligible under Criterion C for architecture because of the vinyl siding and windows that
compromise the houses integrity of design, materials, and workmanship.

Philadelphia, Washington, and Baltimore Bridge 57-85 (CE 1652)


Philadelphia, Washington, and Baltimore (PW&B) Railroad Bridge 57-85, also known as the
1905 Woodlands Farm East Bridge, is an approximately 240 foot-long abandoned farm bridge
that crosses Amtraks Northeast Corridor mainline tracks (Figure 17). Both ends of the bridge
are located in thick woods. The bridge is an extant example of a Warren pony truss span bridge
popular during late 19th and early 20th centuries. Constructed in 1905, the bridge comprises
three, 60 foot-long Warren pony trusses and a 60 foot-long plate girder span, all constructed of
riveted iron. The bridge rests on cut stone block abutments, and metal piers rest on cut stone
foundations. Associated with the working operation of the Woodlands Farm owned by the
Coudon family from 1822 and farmed until 1970, PW&B Railroad Bridge 57-85 represents a

17-JUL-14\\

4-6

Historic Context
known historic bridge type and is one of several in the immediate area that spans the tracks and
dates to the first decade of the 20th century.

Source: URS
Figure 16: PW&B Railroad Bridge 57-85, looking southwest

The bridge no longer has integrity of setting, feeling, and association with an agricultural
landscape needed to convey agricultural association under Criterion A, and it is not associated
with persons of historical significance. The bridge is a minor example of a ubiquitous bridge type
common throughout the United States in the middle of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th
century. Its integrity of design, materials, and workmanship has been compromised by the
replacement of the wire mesh on the railings with corrugated metal. The structure does not
possess engineering or design significance and is not eligible under Criterion C for engineering
significance.

Philadelphia, Washington, and Baltimore Bridge 58-34 (CE 1563)


PW&B Bridge 58-34, also known as the 1905 Woodlands Farm South Bridge, is an
approximately 300 foot-long abandoned farm bridge that crosses Amtraks Northeast Corridor
mainline tracks (Figure 18). The bridge currently extends from a former access road for
Woodlands Farm Lane South, which is now heavily overgrown with trees, and ends at an IKEA
warehouse distribution center.

17-JUL-14\\

4-7

Historic Context

Source: URS
Figure 17: PW&B Railroad Bridge 58-34, looking southeast

The bridge is an extant example of a Warren pony truss span bridge popular during late 19th and
early 20th centuries. Constructed by the Philadelphia, Washington, and Baltimore Railroad in
1905, the bridge consists of three Warren pony trusses and a girder span, all constructed of
riveted iron. The bridge rests on cut stone block abutments, and the bridges metal piers rests on
cut stone foundations. The bridge is associated with the working operation of the Woodlands
Farm owned by the Coudon family and farmed until 1970. PW&B Bridge 58-34 is an example of
a historic bridge type and is one of several in the immediate area that spans the tracks and dates
to the first decade of the 20th century.
The bridge no longer has the setting and feeling of being part of an agricultural landscape. The
bridge is a minor example of a ubiquitous bridge type common throughout the United States in
from the middle of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century. Its integrity of design,
materials, and workmanship has been affected by the replacement of the wire mesh on the
railings with corrugated metal. The bridge lacks sufficient historical integrity to be eligible for
NRHP consideration.

17-JUL-14\\

4-8

Historic Context
Philadelphia, Washington, and Baltimore Railroad Bridge Carrying Chesapeake View
Road (CE 1565)
The PW&B Railroad Bridge Carrying
Chesapeake View Road is an
approximately 120 foot-long Warren pony
truss former farm bridge that crosses
Amtraks Northeast Corridor mainline
tracks (Figure 19). It is located in the
middle of a golf course and now conveys
golfers and their carts from one section of
the course to the other. The bridge is an
extant example of a Warren pony truss
span bridge popular during late 19th and
early 20th centuries. Constructed in 1905,
the bridge comprises two 120 foot-long
trusses constructed of riveted iron and rests
on cut stone block abutments. The bridge
was built as part of a farm lane that
provided access between the farmyard and
the fields to the south. The bridge
represents a known historic bridge type and
is historically associated with the
Bromwell Farm (CE-1564).

Source: URS
Figure 18:PW&B Railroad Bridge Carrying Chesapeake
View Road, looking northwest

The bridge no longer has integrity of


setting, feeling, or association with an
agricultural landscape, and it is not associated with events or persons of historical significance.
The bridge is a minor example of a ubiquitous bridge type common throughout the United States
from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th century. Its integrity of design, materials, and
workmanship have been compromised by the replacement of the wire mesh on the railings with
corrugated metal and the installation of metal grating applied to the bridge deck. The bridge is
not considered eligible for the NRHP.

Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #58 (CE 1567)


The Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #58, is a T-shaped two-story wood-frame
farmhouse with a full-length hipped roof porch (Figure 20). The residence has a 20-foot setback
from the right-of-way, and the 2.205-acre parcel contains a modern concrete-block garage and a
wood-frame shed. Early 20th century row low-density modern housing is located east of the
house and modern commercial properties are located west and south of the property. The
building was constructed in 1910 as a tenant farmhouse as part of the Woodlands estate. The
house and a 3.2-acre parcel were sold in 1955. The land was subdivided in 1986, reducing the
parcel to 2.205 acres. A meat house was torn down in 1986.
17-JUL-14\\

4-9

Historic Context

Source: URS
Figure 19: Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #58, looking east

Although the Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #58, is associated with the historic
Woodlands Farm (CE-145), it has undergone changes that have sacrificed its historic integrity.
Due to the subdivision and the demolition of the meat house, the property lacks integrity of
setting and feeling. The alterations to the house, including the installation of aluminum siding
and vinyl windows, reconfiguring the chimneystacks and placement of rear additions have
resulted in a lack of integrity of design, workmanship and materials. Woodlands Farm Tenant
House, Building #58, is not considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #55 (CE 1568)


Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #55, at 1096 Principio Furnace Road has a main house
and four outbuildings: a modern garage, privy, small equipment shed, and modern equipment
building. The house is a two-story, wood-frame American Foursquare constructed in 1900
(Figure 21). The property encompasses a 3.847-acre site and is surrounded by farm fields and
some residential development and is situated on a south-sloping ridge above the floodplain of the
Chesapeake Bay. The house rests on a fieldstone foundation and basement and is clad with
horizontal vinyl siding, one-over-one, double-hung, vinyl-frame windows and a medium-pitch,
pyramid hip roof covered by asphalt shingles.

17-JUL-14\\

4-10

Historic Context

Source: URS
Figure 20: Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #55, looking south

This American Foursquare house was constructed as a tenant farmhouse in support of operations
of the Woodlands Farm. Only the house and one of the four outbuildings appear to be historic.
The outbuildings are covered with vinyl siding and the original windows appear to have been
replaced with vinyl sash windows throughout. The property now functions as a veterinary office.
The additional outbuildings and the subdivision of the lot compromise the propertys association
with its historic agricultural function. The use of vinyl in the building modifications has also
compromised the propertys historic integrity. The house and property are not eligible for listing
in the NRHP because of the lack of integrity of setting, association, feeling, design, materials,
and workmanship.

4.2.2

Properties Listed in the NRHP or Considered Eligible for Listing

Three of the properties in the Above-Ground Historic Properties APE are listed in the NRHP. An
additional fourth property -- an expansion of an individual NRHP listed property -- is considered
eligible for NRHP listing. The four properties are as follows:
x
x
x
x

The Anchorage (CE-1230)


Crothers House (CE-1566)
Lindenwood (CE-700)
Woodlands Farm Historic District (CE-145)
17-JUL-14\\

4-11

Historic Context
URS architectural historians and historians recommend the three previously documented MIHP
and the NRHP properties (The Anchorage [CE-1230], Lindenwood [CE-700], and Woodlands
Farm [CE-145]), continue to be listed in the MIHP and the NRHP.
Three of the four NRHP-eligible properties have associated acreage that is considered a
significant character-defining feature of the historic setting. The Crothers House landscaping
adjacent to the drive and house is a character-defining feature that conveys the design intent of a
large country estate house. A golf course surrounds the Crothers House, and the landscaping is
limited to the 1-acre boundary of the inventoried property. The Woodlands Farm Historic
District and The Anchorage have farmland that is an important character-defining feature for the
properties.
The Anchorage has maintained its original 21-acre farm site that was purchased by Admiral and
Mrs. Lamdin in 1877. The retention of this acreage and its agricultural feeling convey the
historic association of the property with the Lamdin family.
The Woodlands Farm Historic District has extensive amounts of land associated with its historic
use in its past. Of the more than 900 acres identified in the 1940 appraisal, slightly over 400
acres remain. Although the current acreage is sufficient to convey its historic setting, feeling, and
association with the agricultural significance of the farm, further reduction of the acreage and
loss of buildings and structures historically associated with the farming operations will make the
extent and scale of the Coudon family farm and estate less apparent.
The four properties are discussed in more detail in Sections 5.2 through 5.4.

4.2.3
APE

Summary of Properties in the Above-Ground Historic Properties

Figure 22 depicts the locations of the 12 properties surveyed and evaluated in the Above-Ground
Historic Properties APE. Properties are color-coded to indicate if they are considered NRHP
listed or eligible, or not, and the proposed boundary for the expanded Woodlands Farm Historic
district is delineated. Figure 21 also indicates the approximate locations of the MARC Northeast
Maintenance Facility. Table lists the 12 properties by name, address, NRHP Criteria considered,
areas of integrity present or absent, and NRHP eligibility recommendations.

17-JUL-14\\

4-12

17-JUL-14\\

4-13

Figure 21: Above-Ground historic properties APE showing NRHP listed or eligible buildings/structures and non-NRHP eligible buildings/structures

Source: ESRI World Imagery

Historic Context

2 Mill Creek Lane

97 Chesapeake View
Road
1287 Principio
Furnace Road
Approx. 1350
Principio Furnace
Road
Approx. 1200
Principio Furnace
Road
97 Chesapeake View
Road

1096 Principio
Furnace Road
1050 Principio
Furnace Road
North side of
Maryland Route 7

Bromwell House

Baker-Howe House

Crothers House

Lindenwood*

Philadelphia, Washington
and Baltimore Railroad
Bridge 57-85
Philadelphia, Washington
and Baltimore Railroad
Bridge 58-34
Philadelphia, Washington
and Baltimore Railroad
Bridge Carrying
Chesapeake View Road
Woodlands Farm Tenant
House, Building # 55

Woodlands Farm Tenant


House, Building # 58

Woodlands Farm Historic


District*

11

12

*Previously listed in MIHP and or NRHP

10

1323 Principio
Furnace Road
80 Chesapeake View
Road

Baker House

Address
50 Mill Creek Road

Name

The Anchorage*

No.
1

CE-1565

CE-145

CE-1567

A and C

A and C

A and C

CE-1563

CE-1568

A and C

A and C

Criterion
Considered

CE-1562

CE-700

CE-1566

CE-1569

CE-1564

CE-1561

CE-1230

MIHP
No.

Materials, Workmanship,
Design, Association,
Setting, Feeling, Location

Location

Location

Location

Location

Location,

Setting, Feeling, Location,


Association, Design,
Workmanship, Materials
Location, Design

Location

Location

Setting, Feeling, Location,


Association, Design,
Workmanship
Setting, Feeling, Location,

Integrity Present

Materials, Workmanship,
Design, Association,
Setting, Feeling
Materials, Workmanship,
Design, Association,
Setting, Feeling
None

Materials, Workmanship,
Design, Association,
Setting, Feeling
Materials, Workmanship,
Design, Association,
Setting, Feeling
Materials, Workmanship,
Design, Association,
Setting, Feeling

Setting

Materials, Workmanship,
Design, Association
Setting, Feeling,
Association, Design
Workmanship, Materials
Setting, Feeling,
Association, Design
Workmanship, Materials
None

Materials

Integrity Absent

Table 4: NRHP Determinations for Historic Properties in the Above-Ground APE

17-JUL-14\\

4-14

Eligible, Criteria A
and C

Not Eligible

Not Eligible

Not Eligible

Not Eligible

Not Eligible

Eligible, Criterion C

Eligible, Criterion C

Not Eligible

Not Eligible

Not Eligible

Eligible, Criteria A
and C

NRHP

Historic Context

Determination of Effects
SECTION FIVE: DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS
This report concludes that the proposed project will have effects on the NRHP-eligible properties
in the Above-Ground Historic Property APE. The determination of effects is the result of the
application of the criteria of adverse effect as described in 36 CFR 800.5, Assessment of
Adverse Effects. According to the statute, a proposed project has an adverse effect when [the]
undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that
qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP in a manner that would diminish the integrity of
the propertys location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association.
Examples of adverse effects are physical damage or destruction to all or part of the property,
alteration to the property, and moving the property. Indirect effects can also be adverse, such as a
change in the character of the propertys use or elements of its setting, introduction of visual,
atmospheric or audible elements, neglect, change in use, and transfer lease or sale.
Direct effects were determined by overlaying Google Earth Pro satellite imagery, depicting the
locations of historic buildings, with the proposed site plan for the project. Indirect or visual
effects of the proposed undertaking were assessed using computer simulations of the proposed
facility. Building masses were based on footprint information in the site layout plans and threedimensional images in Sketch-Up provided by MTA. Terrain information, orthophotography, and
site photography information were combined to establish perspective views within the 3-D
model using ESRIs ArcScene extension software. Images showing the building masses were
then imported into Adobe Photoshop to blend them into site photographs that were taken from
the NRHP listed or eligible properties facing the proposed project location. An image of the
proposed facility was then inserted into the photograph of the undertaking site taken from the
four properties considered to be eligible for NRHP listing.
The NRHP listed or eligible properties within the Above-Ground Historic Property APE to be
affected by the proposed undertaking are shown in Table 5:

17-JUL-14\\

5-1

Determination of Effects
Table 5: NRHP Listed or Eligible Properties within the Above-Ground
Historic Property APE Evaluations for Criteria of Adverse Effect
Name

Address

MIHP
No.

Criterion(a)
Considered

Integrity
present

Integrity
absent

The Anchorage

50 Mill Creek
Road

CE1230

A and C

Setting, Feeling,
Location,
Association,
Design,
Workmanship

Material

Eligible,
Criteria A
and C

Crothers House

97
Chesapeake
View Road

CE1566

Setting, Feeling,
Location,
Association,
Design,
Workmanship,
Materials

None

Eligible,
Criterion
C

Lindenwood

1287
Principio
Furnace Road

CE700

Location,
Design

Setting

Eligible,
Criterion
C

Woodlands Farm
Historic District

North side of
Maryland
Route 7

CE145

A and C

Materials,
Workmanship,
Design,
Association,
Setting, Feeling,
Location

None

Eligible,
Criteria A
and C

NRHP

The undertakings direct and indirect effects on each property were evaluated as described in the
following sections.

5.1

THE ANCHORAGE (CE-1230)

The Anchorage is a 22-acre property with associated farm fields and an 1878 Victorian-era
farmhouse, with one historic outbuilding and one non-historic outbuilding (Figure 23). The
property is located on Mill Creek Road, approximately 2 miles north of the proposed
undertaking. The property is considered eligible for NRHP listing under Criterion A for
agriculture and Criterion C for architecture. The property appears to have integrity of setting,
feeling, association, location, workmanship, and design. The vinyl windows and other smallscale alterations have detracted from the houses integrity of materials. The proposed
undertaking will have no direct impact on this historic property. No physical destruction or
alteration will directly affect the historic fabric of this property.

17-JUL-14\\

5-2

Determination of Effects

Source: URS
Figure 22: The Anchorage, main house faade, facing northeast

The proposed undertaking is clearly visible from The Anchorage, creating an indirect effect. The
following photographs were taken from the property looking southeast toward the project site.
Figures 24 and 25 contain a before view toward the project area, and the same view containing a
computer-generated light purple silhouette of the proposed project.

17-JUL-14\\

5-3

Determination of Effects

Source: URS
Figure 23: From The Anchorage facing southeast toward the project area

Source: URS
Figure 24: From The Anchorage facing southeast toward the project area,
with computer-simulated building silhouette

17-JUL-14\\

5-4

Determination of Effects
The computer-simulated graphic size and scale is based on 3-D Sketch Up modeling data
supplied by MTA. The image shows that the northeast section of the facility will be visible from
this property. This is an adverse visual effect. The property is significant under Criterion A for
agriculture, and the visual presence of the industrial facility will diminish the existing setting of
the historic property, which is a character-defining feature of its NRHP eligibility.

5.2

CROTHERS HOUSE (CE-1566)

The Crothers House is a large-scale, random ashlar clad, high-style Colonial Revival house
constructed in 1936 (Figure 26). Curved stone sidewalls flank the curving entrance drive, which
is lined with low stone walls. The drive and landscaping choreograph the visitors first
impression of the house, providing a grand view of this country estates main house. The
symmetrically fenestrated core has an eave orientation, classical entry portico with Tuscan
columns, and multi-paned sash windows and five roof dormers. Symmetrically placed side
appendages are recessed with the east appendage consisting of sun porch with sleeping porch
above.
Omar and Margaret Crothers built the house and lived in it for four years. Both went on to serve
as Maryland State senators in the 1950s. The house is not associated with the couples roles as
elected state government officials, but the grand house is considered a significant local example
of high-style Colonial Revival architecture associated with rural estates of the wealthy in the
early 20th century. The property has integrity of design, materials, workmanship, location,
feeling, and association. The house currently functions as the club house for the golf course,
which was built in 2000 and surrounds the building. The property does not retain integrity of
setting.

Source: URS
Figure 25: Crothers House faade facing southeast

17-JUL-14\\

5-5

Determination of Effects
The proposed undertaking is visible from the Crothers House. Figure 27 and 28 were taken from
the property looking southeast toward the project site. Figure 27 contains a computer-generated
light purple silhouette of the proposed project.

Source: URS
Figure 26: View from Crothers House facing southwest toward the project area

Source: URS
Figure 27: View from Crothers House, facing southwest toward the project
area with computer-simulated building silhouette

17-JUL-14\\

5-6

Determination of Effects
Figure 28 indicates that a part of the northeast section of the proposed facility will be visible
from the property. Although this is an effect on the integrity of setting, it does not constitute an
adverse effect because of the Crothers Houses current lack of integrity of setting and because of
the houses central location on the golf course. In addition, the significance of the house is
architectural; the houses integrity of design, materials, and workmanship will not be affected by
the indirect effect on a partial and distant view of the proposed facility. The proposed
undertaking does not diminish the buildings integrity of feeling or association as a grand estate
house from the early 20th century. The proposed facility will have has no adverse effect on the
character-defining features of the Crothers House that make it eligible for NRHP listing under
Criterion C for architecture.

5.3

LINDENWOOD (CE-700)

Lindenwood is a c. 1845 Hall and Double Parlor house, a vernacular house type associated with
the Mid-Atlantic cultural region (Figure 29). Levi H. Evans owned the property and built the
house, having purchased the tract, known as Friendship, from Nathaniel Chew. In 1829, the
Maryland General Assembly appointed him as one of a group of commissioners tasked with
locating the country line between Cecil and Harford Counties. Mr. Evans also served as a judge
in the Cecil County Orphans Court in 1850 and 1860. Mr. Evans died in 1868, and the 397-acre
farm was divided between his son and daughter, with his son receiving the house and 220 acres.
Lindenwood is eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion C. Although Mr. Evans was
involved with local governance there is no indication that he played a significant or important
role in local governance. The house is a local example of a regionally significant early 19th
century house type: the Hall and Double Parlor. Although the house has been altered by the
removal of apparently Victorian-era decorative elements, it is the massing, scale, fenestration
pattern, and roof with double chimney elements that convey its association. These features are
intact, and the house displays integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. The integrity of
location is intact, along with the buildings integrity of feeling and association with early 19th
century vernacular architecture. The house lacks integrity of setting, being flanked by modern
split-level houses and having the garage/house building located on the property. Mr. Evans
property is not listed in the U.S. non-population Census, Products for Agriculture in 1850 or
1860. Apparently, Mr. Evans was not a farmer, but the lack of an agricultural setting for the
property does not diminish his historical association with the house or the houses significance as
a vernacular building type reflective of the regions cultural heritage.

17-JUL-14\\

5-7

Determination of Effects

Source: URS
Figure 28: Lindenwood, facing northwest

The proposed undertaking is visible from Lindenwood. Figures 30 and 31 were taken from the
property looking southeast toward the project site. Figure 31 contains a computer-generated light
purple silhouette of the proposed facility.

17-JUL-14\\

5-8

Determination of Effects

Source: URS
Figure 29: View from Lindenwood, facing south toward project area

Source: URS
Figure 30: View from Lindenwood, facing south toward the project area
with computer simulated building silhouette

17-JUL-14\\

5-9

Determination of Effects
Figure 30 shows that almost the entire facility will be visible from the property and will have an
indirect effect on the integrity of setting. However, this is not considered an adverse visual effect
because of Lindenwoods current lack of integrity of setting, being located between two 1960s
spilt-level houses and the converted garage/residence structure on the property. In addition, the
significance of Lindenwood is based on its representation of a vernacular building type.
According to agricultural production records from the U.S. Census, Mr. Evans did not farm any
District 7 Cecil County property. The agricultural setting of the area is not considered a
character-defining feature of Lindenwood. In summary, the proposed facility will have no
adverse effect on the character-defining features of Lindenwood that make it eligible for NRHP
listing under Criterion C for architecture as an intact and important example of a vernacular
building type associated with the Mid-Atlantic cultural region.

5.4

THE WOODLANDS FARM HISTORIC DISTRICT (CE-145)

Woodlands Farm Historic District was listed in the NRHP in 1977, and the nomination included
the Greek Revival main house and the 11 outbuildings adjacent to the main house. The revised
MIHP form expands the nominated property to include 412.5 additional acres historically
associated with Coudon family farming operations and 13 additional buildings or structures.
When the property was appraised in 1940, it consisted of more than 900 acres (Appendix 4).
The Coudon family has owned this land and complex of farm buildings and structures since
1822. The family stopped farming the land in 1970. Woodlands has been associated with the
evolution of Cecil County agriculture throughout the early 19th century through the third quarter
of the 20th century, spanning years that included the early 19th century Agrarian Reform, the
mid-19th century period of prosperity and expansion, and the local market farming economy of
the twentieth century.
The Woodlands Farm Historic District is eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A for
agricultural significance, representing almost 150 years of continued agricultural use of a large
tract of land in the region. The non-population records, slave records, correspondence, and
property appraisals contain information highlighting major components of a local agricultural
history. The number and variety of buildings and structures that are intact represent the role of
tenant farmers and foremen in the transition to a post-bellum, large-scale agricultural operation.
Under Criterion C, the historic district is eligible for architectural significance and as an
important landscape whose individual elements collectively represent a historically significant
unit. The Main House is a locally significant example of Greek Revival style architecture.
Originally, a vernacular side-hall and double parlor house with a rear kitchen ell, the mid-century
prosperity of the farm resulted in a renovation and expansion reflecting the then-popular Greek
Revival style. Although restrained in terms of decorative elements, the stylistic influence is seen
in the attenuated first floor windows and more squat second-floor windows, creating a stately
weighted massiveness associated with a Greek Temple form. The imposing front portico with its

17-JUL-14\\

5-10

Determination of Effects
large paired Doric columns and full entablature and flat roof clearly associate the house with the
Greek Revival style.
Several outbuildings on the farm also have architectural significance. Bank barns on the farm
typically include vertical board siding, earthen banks and stone retaining walls, threshing floor
doors, and loafing sheds that enclose a feedlot. The variety of the buildings on the farm,
including a roof cellar, a chicken coop, corncribs, and various sheds and tenant houses present an
impressive array of building types.
Overall, the Woodlands Farm Historic District has a high degree of integrity. The individual
buildings, the functional groupings, and the associated farm fields have clear association with a
large family-owned 19th through early 20th century farm. The farms integrity of location,
setting, and feeling are well represented by patterns and process represented by the combined
elements of this cultural landscape. Although some of the buildings have vinyl siding or sections
of vinyl siding, the majority of the buildings, including the principal ones, such as the Main
House, barns and large corn crib, chicken house, and numerous sheds evidence their original
exterior vertical board siding and stone walls along with windows, doors, and roofing materials.
Although the tenant buildings have been vinyl-sided and do not have integrity of material and
workmanship, they are integral parts of the historic landscape of the farm and are considered
contributing resources of the historic district.
Figures 32 and 33 depict the majority of buildings and structures within the north and south
complexes of the Woodlands Farm Historic District, and identify which are considered as
contributing and non-contributing resources. (Attachment 2, Figure 1 within the Woodlands
Farm Historic District MIHP form, located in Appendix 5, shows the location of North
Complexs Tenant House, Tenant House Privy and Tenant House General Utility Shed.) Figure
34 identifies the fields that are being considered as contributing resources within the historic
district.
Archaeological site 18CE383, which is located within and is a contributing element of the
Woodlands Farm Historic District, has been determined eligible by MHT per correspondence
dated June 18, 2014. A full discussion of this site and other archaeological site investigations and
assessments within the district boundary can be found in the archaeological report for this project
and the MHT archaeological site form (Koziarski and Seibel 2014).

17-JUL-14\\

5-11

Determination of Effects

Source: Google Earth Professional


Figure 31: Woodlands Farm North Complex

Source: Google Earth Professional


Figure 32: Woodlands Farm South Complex

17-JUL-14\\

5-12

Determination of Effects

Source: URS and ESRI World Imagery


Figure 33: Farm Fields 1 and 2 (North Complex) and Farm Fields 3 and 4 (South Complex) within the
Woodlands Farm Historic District

17-JUL-14\\

5-13

Determination of Effects
The following table presents a summary of the resources and their status as contributing or noncontributing resources within the Woodlands Farm Historic District (CE-145).
Table 6: Contributing and non-contributing resources, north and south complex, Woodlands Farm
Historic District
North Complex
Contributing Resources
Non-Contributing Resources
Main House (building)
Pool House (building)
Carriage House/Garage (building)
Pool (structure)
Privy (building)
Tenant House General Utility Shed (building)
General Equipment Barn (building)
Managers House (building)
Corncrib (structure)
Ice House/Root Cellar (structure)
Bank Barn with Loafing Shed (building)
Tenant House (building)
Tenant House Privy (building)
Farm Fields 1 (site)
Farm Fields 2 (site)
South Complex
Contributing Resources
Tenant House (building)
Barn and Loafing Shed (building)
Foreman Houses Garage (building)
Bungalow (building)
Foremans House (building)
Meat House (structure)
Chicken House (structure)
Springhouse (structure)
Blacksmith Shop (building)
Bull pen (building)
Bank Barn with Loafing Sheds (building)
Farm Field 3 (site)
Farm Field 4 (site)

Non-Contributing Resources
Tenant Houses Garage (building)

Archaeological site 18 CE379 (site)


Archaeological site 18 CE380 (site)
Archaeological site 18 CE381 (site)
Archaeological site 18 CE382 (site)

Archaeological site 18 CE383 (site)


North Complex
x Contributing Resources 12
x Non-Contributing Resources 3
South Complex
x Contributing Resources 14
x Non-Contributing Resources 5

17-JUL-14\\

5-14

Determination of Effects
Grand Total Entire Historic District
x Contributing Resources 26
x Non-Contributing Resources - 8

Based on field work and literature analysis, the individual contributing elements in the South
Complex of Woodlands Farm Historic District are not individually eligible for listing in the
NRHP. These buildings, structures and sites do not represent significant or important examples
of their respective type, have not played a significant role in historic events, patterns of events or
have a direct association to a person(s) who made a significant contribution in local history or
recognized field of study or profession. The elements in the South Complex of Woodlands Farm
District contribute to the Woodlands Farm Historic District, but are not individually eligible for
listing in the NRHP.
Figures 35 through 39 are a representative sample of the type and variety of buildings and
structures on the north and south complexes of the Woodlands Farm Historic District. For a more
comprehensive listing of the farms contributing resources, see Attachment 4.

Source: URS
Figure 34: Woodlands Main House faade and east elevation, facing northeast

17-JUL-14\\

5-15

Determination of Effects

Source: URS
Figure 35: Woodlands Main House west elevation, facing east

Source: URS
Figure 36: Bank barn and loafing sheds, north complex south elevation, facing northeast

17-JUL-14\\

5-16

Determination of Effects

Source: URS
Figure 37: Implement shed and granary, south complex south and east elevations, facing northwest

Source: URS
Figure 38: Springhouse, south complex north and west elevations, facing southeast

The proposed undertaking is located on farm fields that are contributing resources within the
Woodlands Farm Historic District. The undertaking will have a direct adverse impact on this

17-JUL-14\\

5-17

Determination of Effects
historic district, resulting in the demolition of 11 contributing buildings or structures and one
contributing historic archaeological site (CE 18CE383) in the Woodlands Farm Historic
Districts South Complex, roughly one-half of the farms total number of contributing resources.
In addition, the projects direct adverse effects will change the character and use of additional
components of this historic district, particularly farm fields 3 and 4, which are historically
associated with the Woodlands Coudon family farm.
As purposefully manipulated contributing landscape elements, the farm fields currently have
integrity of workmanship, design, and materials evidenced by its planted rows, general shape,
buffering vegetation, and access roads. These areas of integrity will be directly compromised by
the proposed facility. The historic district as a whole will also be adversely affected by the
development of the proposed facility. The facility will adversely affect the spatial relationship
and viewsheds between the individual historic resources that contribute to the significance of the
farm. Figure 40 and Figure 41 (in detail from Figure 40) illustrate the locations of the project,
including buildings, structures and tracks, superimposed on a current aerial map of the boundary
and resources within the Woodlands Farm Historic District. Figure 42 clearly highlights the
buildings that will be demolished in the farms south complex as part of the project undertaking.

17-JUL-14\\

5-18

Determination of Effects

Source: ESRI, URS


Figure 39: Locations of elements of the project and of MARC improvements, superimposed on aerial map of
the Woodlands Farm Historic District

17-JUL-14\\

5-19

Determination of Effects

Source: ESRI, URS


Figure 40: Detail: locations of elements of the project of the MARC improvements superimposed, on aerial
map of the south complex of the Woodlands Farm Historic District boundary

17-JUL-14\\

5-20

Determination of Effects

Source: ESRI, URS


Figure 41: Detail: locations of elements of the project of the MARC improvements, superimposed on aerial
map of the south complex of the Woodlands Farm Historic District, showing buildings to be demolished
highlighted

17-JUL-14\\

5-21

Determination of Effects
The proposed facility will also be visible from the main house of the Woodlands Farm Historic
District. Figures 42 and 43 were taken from the Main House looking southeast toward the project
site. Figure 43 contains a computer-generated light purple silhouette of the proposed facility

Source: URS
Figure 42: View from Woodlands Farm Historic District, next to Main House facing southeast toward the
project area

Source: URS
Figure 43: View from Woodlands Farm Historic District next to Main House facing
southeast, toward project area with computer-simulated building silhouette

The computer-simulated image indicates that a low profile and partial sections of the facility will
be visible from the yard through the tree line in front of the Main House of the Woodlands Farm

17-JUL-14\\

5-22

Determination of Effects
Historic District. It is probable that the MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility will be visible
from several other locations in the north complex of the historic district, including areas that do
not have the vegetation buffer depicted in the above photos. The proposed undertaking will have
both a direct adverse effect and an adverse indirect or visual effect on the character-defining
features of the Woodland Farm Historic District.

5.5

OTHER INDIRECT EFFECTS

As stated previously, adverse indirect effects can include the introduction of atmospheric or
audible elements, including noise, airborne particulate matter, and vibration. Although these
potential effects were not evaluated for this report, they are being evaluated in the EA that MTA
is preparing for the proposed undertaking. Construction at this scale includes short-term,
temporary negative impacts from additional noise, particulate matter, and vibration during the
construction period.
To determine operational noise impacts from the facility, the EA includes a screening and
general rail noise assessment of the proposed undertaking. Noise impacts were determined by the
duration and frequency of the sound, the distance between the sound and the receptor,
intervening natural or manmade barriers or structures and the ambient noise environment. The
noise screening area is defined as a 1,000 feet distance from the MARC Northeast Maintenance
Facility combined with distances of 600 feet from the lead tracks.
The EAs application of the FTAs Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects determined that
Severe Noise Impacts would occur to one property within the Above-ground Historic Property
APE, and Woodlands Farm Historic District. The Tenant House, (identified in the EA as
Farmhouse) located at 65 Woodland Farm Lane South, would experience severe noise impacts
with noise levels increasing from 10 dB(A) over current sound levels. According to the EA,
MTA has proposed to purchase the property and discontinue its use as a residence. The EA
contends that the purchase of this property and discontinuation of the propertys residential
function justifies a recommendation for no noise mitigation for this project.
MTA has not identified the tenant house at 65 Woodland Farm Lane south for demolition
(Figure 42). Although the future use has not been identified, it is clear that a residential use is
not an option. Changing the use of a building is automatically considered an adverse effect
under Section 106; however, the severe noise impacts created by the undertaking will result in an
indirect adverse effect to the Tenant House at 65 Woodland Farm Lane. The propertys integrity
of setting, feeling and association will be diminished. The buildings significance under Criterion
A for association with agriculture will be lost, due to the physical and associative relationship to
the agricultural land use and the historic district as a whole being significantly compromised.
Vibration impact analysis was also completed as a part of the project EA. Vibrations that will be
caused by the running of trains is based on velocity, displacement, track and wheel condition and
acceleration of ground movement. Analysis concluded two properties would experience groundborne noise at levels that are not acceptable, also referred to as noise levels that would exceed the

17-JUL-14\\

5-23

Determination of Effects
impact criterion. One of the properties is located outside the Above-ground Historic Property
APE and the other property is the Tenant House located in the South Complex of the Woodlands
Farm Historic District (65 Woodlands Farm South) that is slated for purchase by MTA at which
point the property will no longer be utilized as a residence.
The EAs analysis of the Visual Quality (Visual & Aesthetic Environment) noted that the
Amtrak MOW facility, which is located opposite the proposed MARC facility location across the
railroad tracks, produces a relatively high amount of light, which can be seen by residents from
a considerable distance. The proposed lighting for the project will meet MARC operational
needs while minimizing light spillover and glare. Lighting design or the proposed facility will
consider dark sky compliance, using low mast fixtures with shielding, targeted lighting at work
stations and possible landscaping to create screening.

5.6

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ON ABOVE-GROUND HISTORIC PROPERTIES

Table 6 summarizes the recommended determination of effects for the NRHP listed or eligible
Above-Ground NRHP Historic Properties.
Table 7: Recommended Determination of Effects for the MARC Northeast Maintenance
Facility on Above-Ground NRHP Historic Properties
No.

Name

Address

MIHP
No.

Criterion
Affected

Integrity
Compromised

Determination of
Effect

The
Anchorage

50 Mill Creek
Road

CE-1230

Setting, Feeling,
Association,

Indirect Adverse
Effect

Crothers
House

97 Chesapeake
View Road

CE-1566

Setting

No Adverse Effect

Lindenwood

1287 Principio
Furnace Road

CE-700

Setting

No Adverse Effect

17-JUL-14\\

5-24

Determination of Effects

No.
4

Name
Woodlands
Farm
Historic
District

Address
North side of
Maryland
Route 7

MIHP
No.
CE-145

Criterion
Affected
A and C

Integrity
Compromised
Materials,
Workmanship,
Design,
Association,
Setting, Feeling,
Location

Determination of
Effect
Direct Adverse
Effects: 12
contributing
resources in
Woodlands Farm
Historic District,
South Complex, 3
contributing sites
(fields 3 and 4, and 1
historic
archaeological site
18 CE383); and
overall character of
district; Indirect
Adverse Visual
Effects on remaining
contributing
resources and
districts overall
character; and severe
noise effects on the
South Complex
Tenant House.

Figure 44 illustrates the approximate boundaries of the NRHP listed or eligible properties in
relation to the project area and footprint of the proposed MARC facility.

17-JUL-14\\

5-25

Determination of Effects

Source: ESRI, URS


Figure 44: Location of NRHP listed and eligible approximate property boundaries and
footprint of MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility project elements (red)

17-JUL-14\\

5-26

Conclusions and Recommendations


SECTION SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on analysis of the proposed MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility in Cecil County,
Maryland, this report concludes that the proposed undertaking will result in adverse effects from
the demolition of approximately half the number of contributing resources within the Woodlands
Farm Historic District, and from adverse effects on character-defining features of NRHP listed or
eligible properties in the Above-Ground Historic Properties APE. Section 106 regulations in 36
CFR Part 800 states that adverse effects are to be resolved through continued consultation,
providing the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation with the opportunity to participate in
consultation. Consulting parties, including the public, will be notified and provided previous
Section 106 consultation information and the opportunity to express their views. If MTA, the
FTA, and the State Historic Preservation Office agree on how the adverse effects will be
resolved, they will execute a Memorandum of Agreement that will stipulate measures of
mitigation.
The direct adverse effect of the undertaking on historic properties results from the demolition of
12 contributing resources located in the Woodlands Farm Historic Districts South Complex, and
impacts on the agricultural fields that currently characterize the project location. Indirect effects
of the undertaking will also compromise the setting of NRHP listed and eligible properties. The
design of earthen berms is currently under evaluation by MTA, and will be carefully coordinated
with the FTA and MHT so as to not create additional indirect effects on the remaining
contributing resources of the Woodland Farm Historic District, and/or other NRHP-eligible
historic properties.
Acceptable measures of mitigation are those that avoid, reduce or offset the undertakings
adverse effect on historic properties. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) will be developed to
mitigate direct and indirect adverse effects on the NRHP properties as discussed in this analysis.
Mitigation of this effect could be accomplished through a variety of measures, potentially
including the completion of Historic American Building Survey (HABS), Historic American
Engineering Record (HAER), and/or Historic American Landscape Survey (HALS)
documentation of properties that will be demolished. Other educational products, such as
interpretive studies or educational panels, or the preparation of one or more studies focusing on
the countys agricultural and/or landscape history, could also be prepared.
With continued public input and input from the consulting parties and potential signatories of a
MOA, further consultation among the MTA, MHT, and the FTA will occur. Mitigation measures
will be proposed and considered. Agreement on these mitigation measures will lead to the
completion of the Section 106 consultation process for the MARC Northeast Maintenance
Facility.

17-JUL-14\\

6-1

Bibliography
SECTION SEVEN: BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blumgart, Pamela Jones (editor)
2010 At the Head of the Bay: A Cultural and Architectural History of Cecil County,
Maryland. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd., Atglen, Pennsylvania.
Carnegie, Dianne
1981 Childs Maryland. Historical Society of Cecil County, unpublished Cecil County
History: An Introduction, Revolutionary War. Electronic document,
www.ccgov.org/tourism/history, accessed December 17, 2013.
Carter, John, Sunbury: A History, Bucknell Environmental Center, Bucknell University 2006.
Electronic document,
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/environmental_center/sunbury/website/
HistoryofSusquehannock Indians.shtml, accessed December 9, 2013.
Cecil County.
1821-1822 Land Records of Cecil County, JS Vol. 19 f. 384.
Cecil County.
1823 Land Records of Cecil County. JS Liber 20 f. 341.
Ewing. Edna
1974 Northeastern Cecil County. 300th Anniversary Commemorative Booklet, Historic
Sketches and Pictures of Cecil County, Maryland.
Ewing, Jean
1975 Perry Point Mansion and Mill. Maryland Inventory of Historical Properties Form CE146, 1975. Electronic document, http://mdihp.net/index.cfm, accessed January 22, 2014.
Farmers Register
1838 Electronic document, https://archive.org/details/farmersregister05ruff, accessed January
22, 2014.
Gordon, Robert B., and Patrick M. Malone
1994 The Texture of Industry: An Archaeological View of the Industrialization of North
America. Oxford University Press, New York.
Hauducoeur, C.P. Hauducoeur map of the head of the Chesapeake Bay, 1799, Available at John
Carter Brown Library, Brown University)
http://jcb.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet/detail/JCBMAPS~1~1~2851~101317. Accessed
December 21, 2013
Herman, Augustus
1675, Virginia and Maryland, 1673. Published by the Authorities of His Majesties Royal
License and particular Privileges to Augustus Herman and Thomas Withinbrook.

17-JUL-14\\

7-1

Bibliography
Hunter, Louis C.
1979 The Headright System. A History of Industrial Power in the United States, 17801930. Volume I. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. Electronic document,
www.u-s-history.com, accessed December 17, 2013.
Johnston, George
1967 History of Cecil County, Maryland and the Early Settlements Around the Head of
Chesapeake Bay and on the Delaware River, with Sketches of some of the told Families of
Cecil County, Originally published in 1881, republished by Regional Publishing Company,
Baltimore.
Kravitz, Beth Donna 1979 The Mills of Providence, Maryland. Bachelor of Arts Thesis,
University of Delaware.
Lutz, George W. III
1975 Little Elk Creek Historic District. Maryland Inventory of Historical Properties Form,
CE-655. Electronic document, http://mdihp.net/index.cfm, accessed January 22, 2014.
Martenet, Simon J.
1858 1858 Martinets Map of Cecil County, Maryland.
Maryland Department of Transportation
2007 MARC Growth & Investment Plan. Electronic document,
http://mta.maryland.gov/sites/default/files/marcplanfull.pdf, accessed January 21, 2014.
Maryland Historical Trust.
2008 Standards for Submission of Digital Images to the Maryland Inventory of Historic
Properties.
Maryland Historical Trust.
2006, Standards and Guidelines for Historical and Architectural Investigations in Maryland
Maryland Historical Trust.
2009, General Guidelines for Compliance-Generated Determinations of Eligibility
National Park Service
2002 National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form,
Washington D.C.
Parish, Mrs. Preston
1971 Principio Furnace. Maryland Inventory of Historical Properties Form CE-112.
Electronic document, http://mdihp.net/index.cfm, accessed January 22, 2014.
Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington Railroad Company 1903 Philadelphia, Baltimore and
Washington Railroad Company First Annual Report, for the Year 1903, Office of the
Secretary. Philadelphia, Press of Allen Land and Scott.

17-JUL-14\\

7-2

Bibliography
Trimmer, John P.
1944 Agricultural Maryland: A Sketch of Free State Farming. The Maryland Department of
Information, Old Treasury Building, Annapolis, Maryland cooperating with the Maryland
Agricultural Extension Service, The University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
U.S. Census
1860a Products of Agriculture, Cecil County, Maryland, 7th District.
U.S. Census
1860b Products of Industry Cecil County, Maryland, 7th District.
Weissman, Peggy B.
1987 How to Use Historic Contexts in Maryland: A Guide for Survey, Registration,
Protection and Treatment Projects: Preservation Policy White Paper #9. Annapolis
Maryland, Maryland Historical Trust.
Youssi, Adam
2006 The Susquehannocks' Prosperity & Early European Contact, 2006. Electronic
document, www.hsobc.org/on-the-susquehannocks-natives-having-previously-used-what-isnow-baltimore-county-as-hunting-grounds, accessed December 9, 2013.

17-JUL-14\\

7-3




APPENDIXF

MHTConcurrence















APPENDIXG

Section4(f)











MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
Perryville,Maryland

DRAFTSECTION4(f)EVALUATION

FEDERALTRANSITADMINISTRATION
USDEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION

MARYLANDTRANSITADMINISTRATION
MARYLANDDEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION

DRAFTNovember5,2014

DraftSection4(f)Evaluation

DraftNovember5,2014

Contents
I.

Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1

II.

RegulatoryFramework..........................................................................................................................1
A. Applicability......................................................................................................................................1
B. Use....................................................................................................................................................2
C. Section4(f)Evaluation.....................................................................................................................2
1.

AnalyzeAvoidanceAlternatives....................................................................................................3

2.

DetermineAlternativewithLeastOverallHarm...........................................................................3

3.

AllPossiblePlanning.....................................................................................................................3

4.

CoordinatewithOfficialswithJurisdiction...................................................................................4

III.

ProposedAction................................................................................................................................4

A. PurposeandNeed............................................................................................................................4
B. ProjectBackground..........................................................................................................................5
C. ProjectDescription...........................................................................................................................6
D. PreferredAlternative........................................................................................................................7
IV.

Section4(f)Properties......................................................................................................................9

V. Section4(f)Use...................................................................................................................................13
VI.

AvoidanceAnalysis..........................................................................................................................13

A. SitesEvaluatedintheMARCMaintenanceFacilitySiteSelectionReport...................................14
1. PerryvilleBSiteAvoidanceAlternative,Perryville,Maryland.................................................14
2. OpusSiteAvoidanceAlternative,Perryman,Maryland...........................................................18
3. AberdeenProvingGroundSiteAvoidanceAlternative,Edgewood,Maryland.......................20
4. PrologisSiteAvoidanceAlternative,Edgewood,Maryland.....................................................22
B. AdditionalAvoidanceAlternativeSitesEvaluated.......................................................................24
1. NoBuildAlternative...................................................................................................................24
2. NewBengiesSiteAvoidanceAlternative.................................................................................24
3. ChesapeakeSiteAvoidanceAlternative....................................................................................26
4. ChelseaSiteAvoidanceAlternative...........................................................................................28
5. CarpentersPointSiteAvoidanceAlternative............................................................................31
6. MasonDixonSiteAvoidanceAlternative..................................................................................33
7. AvoidanceAnalysisSummary....................................................................................................36
VII.

LeastOverallHarmAnalysis............................................................................................................38

A. LocationAvoidanceAlternatives....................................................................................................38
1.

PerrymanSiteLocationAvoidanceAlternative..........................................................................38

MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility

DraftSection4(f)Evaluation

DraftNovember5,2014

2.

SouthPostRoadSiteLocationAvoidanceAlternative................................................................40

3.

ClarkRoadSiteLocationAvoidanceAlternative.........................................................................43

4.

WestOldPhiladelphiaRoadSiteLocationAvoidanceAlternative.............................................45

5.

ElkNeckStateForestSiteLocationAvoidanceAlternative........................................................48

B. MinimizationAlternativestothePreferredAlternativeSite..........................................................48
1.

MinimizationAlternative1.........................................................................................................48

2.

MinimizationAlternative2.........................................................................................................51

3.

MinimizationAlternative3.........................................................................................................53

C. LeastOverallHarmSummary.........................................................................................................55
VIII.

AllPossiblePlanningtoMinimizeHarm.........................................................................................58

IX.

Coordination...................................................................................................................................58

A. AgencyCoordination.......................................................................................................................58
B. Localities.........................................................................................................................................59
C. PublicComments............................................................................................................................59

MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility

DraftSection4(f)Evaluation

I.

WorkingDraftOctober17,2014

Introduction

This Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation has been prepared pursuant to Section 4(f) of the US
Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. 303(c), and with the Federal Transit
Administrations(FTA)andFederalHighwayAdministrations(FHWA)Section4(f)regulationsin
23 CFR Part 774. Additional guidance was obtained from FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A
(FHWA1987b)andtherevisedFHWASection4(f)PolicyPaper(FHWA2012).
ThisSection4(f)evaluationidentifiespropertiesintheprojectstudyareaprotectedbySection
4(f), evaluates the use of these properties, and presents documentation required for FTA to
approve the use of Section 4(f) properties. After consideration of comments received on this
Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation and in accordance with 23 CFR 774.5(a), a Final Section 4(f)
Evaluationwillprovideadeterminationonwhetherfeasibleandprudentavoidancealternatives
totheuseexist,andwhetherallpossibleplanningtominimizeharmtotheresourceshasbeen
performedforFTAtoapprovetheuseofSection4(f)properties.
TheMarylandTransitAdministration(MTA),incoordinationwiththeFTA,astheleadFederal
agency,isproposingtoconstructamaintenancefacilityandtrainstorageyardalongAmtraks
NortheastCorridor(NEC)tosupportMarylandAreaRegionalCommuter(MARC)operations.As
part of this project, public parks, recreation areas, wildlife and/or waterfowl refuges were
identifiedinthestudyarea.Alsoreconnaissancesurveysandintensivefieldsurveysofhistoric
resourceswereconductedwithintheAreaofPotentialEffect(APE).Thesesurveysidentified
the Preferred Alternative site for the MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility as part of the
WoodlandsFarmComplexHistoricDistrict,whichislistedontheNationalRegisterofHistoric
Places(NRHP).ThelikelyeffectsoutlinedintheDraftEvaluationwillbeusedtodetermineuse
(permanent,temporaryorconstructive)oftheSection4(f)propertyintheFinalEvaluation.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to assess the potential impact of the project on the
environmentalandculturalresourceswithinandadjacenttothepreferredalternativelocation
including impacts to Section 4(f) properties. After review of the EA the Federal Transit
Administration may make a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The Final Section 4(f)
evaluationwouldbeincludedintheFONSI.

II.

RegulatoryFramework
A.

Applicability

Section4(f)oftheUSDepartmentofTransportationActof1966,49USC303(c)isaFederalLaw
that prohibits the use of publiclyowned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and/or waterfowl
refuges, or any significant historic sites, whether privately or publicly owned. Section 4(f)
requirementsapplytoalltransportationprojectsthatrequirefundingorotherapprovalsbythe
USDOT. As a USDOT agency, FTA must comply with Section 4(f). FTA cannot approve a
transportationprojectthatusesaSection4(f)property,unless:

MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility

DraftSection4(f)Evaluation

DraftNovember5,2014

TheFTAdeterminesthatthereisnofeasibleandprudentavoidancealternativetothe
useoflandfromtheproperty,andtheactionincludesallpossibleplanningtominimize
harmtothepropertyresultingfromsuchuse(23CFR774.3(a));or

The FTA determines that the use of Section 4(f) property, including any measures to
minimize harm (such as avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or enhancement
measures)committedtobytheapplicant,willhaveademinimisimpactontheproperty
(23CFR774.3(b)).

B.

Use

Pursuantto23CFR774.17,auseofSection4(f)propertyoccurs:

When land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility. Pursuant to 23


CFR 774.17, a permanent use occurs when land from a Section 4(f) property is
permanently incorporated into a transportation project. This may occur as a result of
partial or full acquisition of the Section 4(f) property, permanent easements, or
temporaryeasementsthatexceedregulatorylimits;

Whenthereisatemporaryoccupancyoflandthatisadverseintermsofthestatute's
preservationpurposeasdefinedin23CFR774.13(d);thatis,whenoneofthefollowing
criteriafortemporaryoccupancyarenotmet:
o The duration of the occupancy must be less than the time needed for the
constructionoftheproject,andnochangeofownershipoccurs.
o Both the nature and magnitude of the changes to the Section 4(f) land are
minimal.
o No permanent adverse physical changes, nor interference with activities or
purposesoftheresourcesonatemporaryorpermanentbasis,areanticipated.
o Thelandmustbereturnedtoaconditionthatisatleastasgoodasexistedprior
totheproject.
o There is documented agreement with the appropriate Federal, State, or local
officials having jurisdiction over the land that the above conditions have been
met.

When there is a constructive use of a Section 4(f) property. As defined in 23 CFR


774.15(a), a constructive use occurs when the transportation project does not
incorporatelandfromaSection4(f)property,buttheproject'sproximityimpactsareso
severethattheprotectedactivities,features,orattributesthatqualifythepropertyfor
protectionunderSection4(f)aresubstantiallyimpaired.

C.

Section4(f)Evaluation

The term Section 4(f) evaluation is used in this section to refer to the process of
assessing avoidance alternatives, determining the alternative with the least overall
harm, and considering all possible planning to minimize harm for the property. This
analysisisrequiredforallusesofSection4(f)propertyexceptinthecaseofademinimis
usedetermination.Thestepsinthisanalysisaredescribedbelow:
MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility

DraftSection4(f)Evaluation

DraftNovember5,2014

1.
AnalyzeAvoidanceAlternatives
Inthisstep,FTAconsidersalternativesthatcompletelyavoidtheuseofaSection4(f)property.
TheavoidanceanalysisappliestheSection4(f)feasibleandprudentcriteria(23CFR774.17(2)
and (3)). An alternative is not feasible if it cannot be built as a matter of sound engineering
judgment.Analternativeisnotprudentif:

It compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the


projectinlightofitsstatedpurposeandneed;

Itresultsinunacceptablesafetyoroperationalproblems;

It causes severe social, economic, or environmental impacts even after reasonable


mitigation; severe disruption to established communities; severe disproportionate
impacts to minority or low income populations; or severe impacts to environmental
resourcesprotectedunderotherFederalstatutes;

It results in additional construction, maintenance, or operational costs of an


extraordinarymagnitude;

Itcausesotheruniqueproblemsorunusualfactors;or

It involves multiple factors above that while individually minor, cumulatively cause
uniqueproblems,orimpactsofextraordinarymagnitude.

2.
DetermineAlternativewithLeastOverallHarm
IfnofeasibleandprudentalternativeisidentifiedthatwouldavoidusingaSection4(f)
property,thenFTAmayonlyapprovethealternativethatwouldcausetheleastoverallharmto
Section4(f)propertiesidentifiedbybalancingthefollowingfactors(23CFR774.3(c)(1)):(1)the
abilitytomitigateadverseimpactstoeachSection4(f)property;(2)therelativeseverityofthe
remainingharmaftermitigation;(3)therelativesignificanceofeachSection4(f)property;(4)
theviewsoftheofficialswithjurisdictionovertheproperty;(5)thedegreetowhicheach
alternativemeetsthepurposeandneed;(6)themagnitudeofadverseeffectstoresourcesnot
protectedbySection4(f);and(7)substantialcostdifferenceamongthealternatives.
3.
AllPossiblePlanning
All possible planning means that all reasonable measures identified in the Section 4(f)
evaluation to minimizeharm or mitigate for adverse impacts and effects must be included in
theproject.
For public parks, recreation areas and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, the measures may
include (but are not limited to): design modifications or design goals; replacement of land or
facilities of comparable value and function; or monetary compensation to enhance the
remainingpropertyortomitigatetheadverseimpactsoftheprojectinotherways.
For historic sites, the measures normally serve to preserve the historic activities, features, or
attributesofthesiteasagreedbytheFTAandtheofficial(s)withjurisdictionovertheSection
4(f)resourceinaccordancewiththeconsultationprocessunder36CFRPart800.
MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility

DraftSection4(f)Evaluation

DraftNovember5,2014

In evaluating the reasonableness of measures to minimize harm, the FTA would consider the
preservationpurposeofthestatuteand:

Theviewsoftheofficial(s)withjurisdictionovertheSection4(f)property;

Whether the cost of the measures is a reasonable public expenditure in light of the
adverse impacts of the project on the Section 4(f) property and the benefits of the
measuretotheproperty;and

Any impacts or benefits of the measures to communities or environmental resources


outsideoftheSection4(f)property.
4.

CoordinatewithOfficialswithJurisdiction

FTAandMTAarecoordinatingwiththeofficialswithjurisdictionovertheprotectedproperties
forwhichadeterminationismadeinthisDraftSection4(f)Evaluation.

III.

ProposedAction
A.

PurposeandNeed

The purpose of the project is to develop a facility that would efficiently serve operation,
maintenance, inspection and storage requirements of the MARC Penn Line Fleet. The new
facility would accommodate current operational needs, projected ridership growth on the
MARCPennLine,andallowforfutureexpansion.
The MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility project would address four specific needs of the
MARCsystem,asdescribedbelow:
1. NeedforadditionalMARCPennLinetrainstorage.
2. Need to consolidate maintenance, inspection, and storage functions for the current
MARCsystem.
3. Need to support expected 2035 ridership growth and system expansion north of the
SusquehannaRiver.
4. Becauseofsharedrailroadfacilities,needtosupportAmtraksNortheastCorridor(NEC)
growthplanandplannedexpansionofhighspeedrail.
NeedforadditionalMARCtrainstorage:Currently,MARCstoresandservicessixofthePenn
LinetrainsetsatPennsylvaniaStationinBaltimore,Marylandandtheremainingtwotrainsets
are being stored at the MARC Martin State Airport Facility. Both facilities are at storage
capacitywithnoroomforanticipatedMARCgrowth.
Need to consolidate maintenance, inspection, and storage functions for the current MARC
system:ThecurrentdependenceonAmtrakformaintenanceandinspectionoftheMARCtrains
stored at Pennsylvania Station results in inefficiencies, scheduling conflicts, delays in getting
equipment back online, and high labor costs. Normally Amtraks vehicles have priority
regardingcleaning,repairsandmaintenance.Inaddition,thePennsylvaniaStationworkspaces
areexposedtotheweather,andbecausethereislimitedtrackcapacity,nonewequipmentcan
MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility

DraftSection4(f)Evaluation

DraftNovember5,2014

be accommodated. An MTAcontrolled facility would allow MARC to prioritize repairs and


improvecosteffectivenessbycompetitivelybiddingfortheoperationofthefacility.
NeedtosupportprojectedridershipgrowthandsystemexpansionnorthoftheSusquehanna
River:TheMARCGrowthandInvestmentPlan(MGIP)isprojectingridershiptodoubleby2035.
The Preferred Alternative would accommodate the storage and maintenance of the needed
additional equipment to meet the anticipated ridership growth. Growth in ridership is an
importantcomponentoftheWilmingtonMetropolitanAreaPlanningCoordinatingCouncilair
qualityplanningandtheMTAsplansforthereductionofgreenhousegasemissionsneededto
meettheGovernors2020emissiongoals.TheabilitytoexpandMARCserviceisconstrainedby
operating on Amtraks NEC tracks and lack of additional storage and maintenance facility
capacity to accommodate additional MARC train equipment. The MTA is addressing the
potential for expansion of MARC service north of Perryville through coordination with the
Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) and the Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority (SEPTA). With storage and maintenance facilities currently at Penn
Station and Martin State Airport, a new storage and maintenance facility located within 20
miles of Newark, Delawareis expected to provide the required additional capacity for the
existingserviceareaaswellasalocationconducivetopotentialexpansionoftheMARCservice
north by reducing operational costs associated with significant deadhead travel. The
SusquehannaRiverislocatedapproximately21milessouthofNewark,Delawareandprovides
anappropriategeographicboundaryforconsiderationofpotentialsites.
Need to support Amtraks NEC growth plan and planned expansion of high speed rail:
Amtraks Vision for the Northeast Corridor (2012) proposes expansion of transportation
capacity along the Northeast Corridor, including high speed rail service provided by Acela
Express.AsaresultofAmtrakandMARCsharingtracks,expansionwouldincludeinvestmentin
infrastructurethatwouldallowoperationalseparationbetweeninterstate,regional,andlocal
services. The need to support Amtraks NEC growth plan includes consideration of projects
outlinedintheAmtrakNortheastCorridorInfrastructureMasterPlan(2010).TheMasterPlan
identifiesthreebridgesinnorthernMarylandwhichrequirerehabilitationorreplacementdue
tolimitedcapacityandupgraderequirements.TheSusquehannaRiverRailBridgeisoneofthe
threebridgesrequiringreplacementorrehabilitationandiscurrentlyunderenvironmentaland
engineeringanalysis.

B.

ProjectBackground

In2012,MTAevaluatedpotentialsitesalongtheNECcorridortoaccommodatetheproposed
MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility. Based on MARC needs, criteria were developed to
identifyasitetoaccommodateaMARCmaintenancefacility.Minimalcriteriaincluded:

Asite60acresorgreater(theactualfacilityfootprintisdependentonsitespecific
engineeringconstraintsandvariesforeachsiteconsidered.Sixty(60)acresprovidesa
minimumacreagewhichcanbeusedwhenevaluatingpotentialsites).
DirectlyadjacenttotheNEC

MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility

DraftSection4(f)Evaluation

DraftNovember5,2014

AllowforAmtrakconnectionrequirementswhichincludeaminimumlengthoflead
tracksandtwopointsofconnection
MinimumstoragecapacityforcurrentandfuturePennLinetrains
Enoughspacewithinthe60acreorgreatersitetoaccommodateashopfacility
includinginspectionpitandsandingfacility
AsitegenerallynorthoftheSusquehannaRivertoaccommodateserviceexpansionnorthof
Perryville

Recently,theMTAhasbeguntoexaminethepotentialforexpansionofMARCservicenorthof
Perryville.Whilenotoriginallyincludedinthesiteselectioncriteria,itwaslateridentifiedthata
site is needed north of the Susquehanna River to accommodate service expansion as well as
avoidbottleneckingofhighspeedtrainsattheSusquehannaRiverbridge.WithlimitedMARC
storageattheMartinStateAirportFacilitymidwaybetweenBaltimoreandPerryville,afacility
atthenorthendofthelinebettersupportscurrentandfutureMARCoperations,includingthe
potentialexpansionofMARCservicenorth.
Inthe2012study,MTAevaluatedfivepotentiallocationstoaccommodatetheproposedMARC
Northeast Maintenance Facility based on: acreage and systems requirements for the railroad
facilities, Amtrak connection requirements, and environmental effects. Some sites had fatal
flaws including environmental impacts or operational impacts to Amtrak rail service that
would prohibit construction at those locations. Costs were a consideration in potential
alternative locations, but costs were not used as an absolute measure for feasibility of
locations. This evaluation was documented in the MARC Maintenance Facility Site Selection
Report,February2012.Followingthestudyandfurtheranalysisofthesites,MTAspreferred
locationforthemaintenancefacilityisinPerryville,Maryland,southofPrincipioFurnaceRoad
betweenFirestoneRoadandPrincipioStationRoad,asseeninFigure1.

C.

ProjectDescription

TheproposedMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldprovideMARCwiththecapabilityof
storing, servicing and inspecting complete commuter rail trainsets daily and of performing
scheduledandunscheduledmaintenanceandrepairworkonbothlocomotivesandpassenger
cars. The project would support the existing eight trainsets (10 locomotives and 53 coaches)
currentlyoperatingonMARCsPennLinewithapotentialexpansionofthefacilitytosupporta
2035MARCoperatingfleetof25locomotives,181multilevelcoaches,andonedieselswitch
locomotivetoservicethePennLine.
The entire site is 121 acres, with 56 acres needed for the maintenance facility. The site plan
includes: a servicing and inspection pit covered with a semiopen shed, semipermanent
storagebuildingsforpersonnel,locomotiveservicingstation,parkingarea,fuelingandsanding
pad with two 20,000 gallon aboveground diesel fuel storage tanks, commercial power
substation, access road from Principio Furnace Road and access roadways within the facility,
andastormwatermanagementfacility.Theestimatedtotalcostforconstructionoftheproject
is $355 Million, not including rightofway. Rightofway costs are unknown at this time and
cannotbedetermineduntilNEPAhasbeencompleted.
MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility

DraftSection4(f)Evaluation

D.

DraftNovember5,2014

PreferredAlternative

The Preferred Alternative site, Perryville A, is located on the north side of the Amtrak NEC,
south of MD 7 (Principio Furnace Road), south and east of the intersection of MD 7 with
CoudonBoulevardandapproximately1milenorthoftheSusquehannaRiverRailBridgealong
theNEC(Figure1).ThePreferredAlternativesiteisapproximately8,000feetlongandranges
from 30 feet wide along the railroad tracks to 1,500 feet wide where the access road is
proposedandthetotalsiteareaisapproximately121acres.

ThePreferredAlternativesiteisusedforagriculturalpurposes,butiszonedhighdensity
residential.Themajorityofthesiteiscleared,providingpotentiallocationsforonsitemitigation
ofwetlandandforestareaimpacts.Potentialenvironmentalimpactswouldincludelessthan
oneacreofwetlandimpacts,4.4acresofforestedareaimpacts,privatepropertyacquisition
fromtheedgeofagolfcourse,andothercommercialpropertiesalongtheNEC.Thereisahigh
potentialfordemolitionofhistoricresources(farmstead)locatedonthesite.
The Preferred Alternative meets the projects purpose and need, meets all the site criteria
requirementsandprovideslandforonsitewetlandandforestareamitigation.However,there
wouldbeanadverseeffecttohistoricresources,andMTAwouldberesponsibleforallrequired
minimizationandmitigationmeasuresinaccordancewith36CFR800.

MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility

FOREST
MITIGATION
AREA

FIGURE 1
NOT TO SCALE

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SITE

MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION


NORTHEAST MARC MAINTENANCE AND
STORAGE FACILITY

DraftSection4(f)Evaluation

IV.

DraftNovember5,2014

Section4(f)Properties

There are no publicly owned parks or recreational facilities in the vicinity of the proposed
action.HistoricsiteswereidentifiedinaccordancewiththeSection106processoftheNational
Historic Preservation Act, as amended. Per 23 CFR 774, Section 4(f) requirements apply to
historic sites listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as identified in
accordancewiththeSection106processoftheNationalHistoricPreservationAct,asamended
AsurveyoftheAreaofPotentialEffects(APE)fortheprojectidentified12propertiesthatwere
greater than 50 years old. Four properties, the Woodlands Farm Historic District, the
Anchorage, Crothers House, and Lindenwood, are considered eligible for the NRHP (Table 1).
ThePreferredAlternativewouldhaveadirectuseontheWoodlandsFarmHistoricDistrictand
theusewouldnotbeademinimisimpact.
Table1:SummaryofAboveGroundNRHPHistoricPropertiesandSection4(f)Applicability
PropertyName
TheAnchorage
CrothersHouse
Lindenwood
WoodlandsFarm
HistoricDistrict

Address
50MillCreek
Road
97Chesapeake
ViewRoad
1287Principio
FurnaceRoad
Northandsouth
sideofMD
Route7

NRHP
Eligibility
CriteriaA
andC

DeterminationofEffect Section4(f)Use
IndirectAdverseEffect
forvisualeffect

None

CriteriaC

Noadverseeffect

None

CriteriaC

Noadverseeffect

None

CriteriaA
andC

DirectandIndirect
AdverseEffect

Yes,directuseto
contributingelements
withinthehistoricdistrict

The Anchorage is a 22acre property with associated farm fields and an 1878 Victorianera
farmhouse, with one historic outbuilding and one nonhistoric outbuilding. The property is
locatedonMillCreekRoad,approximatelytwomilesnorthofthePreferredAlternative.There
isnodirectuseoftheproperty;however,theproposedMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility
wouldbevisiblefromthisproperty.
The Crothers House is a largescale random ashlar clad highstyle Colonial Revival house
constructed in 1936. Curved stone sidewalls flank the entrance drive, which is lined with low
stonewalls.Thedriveandlandscapingchoreographthevisitorsfirstimpressionofthehouse,
providing a grand view of this country estate main house. The landscaping adjacent to the
driveway and house is a characterdefining feature that conveys the design intent of a large
country estate house. A golf course surrounds the Crothers House, but the landscaping is
limitedtotheoneacreboundaryoftheinventoriesproperty.TheFurnaceBayGolfCourseis
notsubjecttoSection4(f)becauseitisaprivatelyownedandoperatedgolfcourse.Itisopento
thegeneralpublicbutsubjecttofees.
TheLindenwoodHouseisalocalexampleofaregionallysignificantearly19thcenturyhouse
typewithaHallandDoubleParlor.ThePreferredAlternativewouldhavenoadverseeffecton
the characterdefining features of Lindenwood that make it eligible for NRHP listing under
MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility

DraftSection4(f)Evaluation

DraftNovember5,2014

Criterion C for architecture as an intact and important example of a vernacular building type
associatedwiththeMidAtlanticculturalregion.ThePreferredAlternativewouldnothavean
adverseeffecttothisproperty.
The Woodlands Farm Historic District (MIHP CE145) was listed in the NRHP in 1977 and
consistsofalargefarmcomplexlocatedonthenorthandsouthsideofMarylandRoute7,1.5
mileseastofPerryville,Maryland(Figure2).TheassessmentofthePreferredAlternativeresultedin
aproposedexpansionoftheWoodlandsFarmHistoricDistricttoencompassstructuresandagricultural
fieldssouthofMarylandRoute7.TheWoodlandsFarmHistoricDistrictiseligibleforlistingonthe

NRHPunderCriterionAforagriculturalsignificance,representingalmost150yearsofcontinued
agriculturaluseofalargetractoflandintheregion.ThisHistoricDistrictisalsoeligibleunder
Criterion C for architectural significant and important lands whose individual elements
collectivelyrepresentahistoricallysignificantunit.
The Woodland Farm is divided into a north farm complex and a south farm complex and
includes approximately 350 acres. The north farm is located on Woodlands Farm Lane North
includes the main house, carriage house/garage, privy, general equipment barn, managers
house,corncrib,barn,anicehouse/rootcellar,aningroundpoolwithpoolhouse,andatenant
housewithaprivyandmodernutilityshed.Theingroundpoolwithpoolhouseandthetenant
housewithaprivyandmodernutilityshedareconsiderednoncontributingresources.
The Woodlands Farm south complex is located on Woodlands Farm Lane South (Figure 3).
Althoughhistoricallyassociatedwiththe1977WoodlandsNRHPproperty,thesouthfarmwas
not included in the nomination. The FTA made an eligibility determination that the south
complex is part of the NRHP historic district and a revised Maryland Inventory of Historic
Properties(MIHP)formwassubmittedtotheSHPOonJuly22,2014.TherevisedMIHPform
expandsthehistoricdistrictboundarytoincludeapproximately200acreshistoricallyassociated
withtheCoudonfamilyfarmingoperationsandincludes14contributingelements,including11
buildings,twoagriculturalfields,andonearcheologicalsite.Thecomplexofbuildingsincludes
atenanthouse,tenanthousesgarage,bankbarnwithloafingsheds,bullpen,blacksmithshop,
chicken house, foremans house, foreman houses garage, barn with loafing shed, bungalow,
meathouse,springhouse,andthesurroundingfarmfield(Figure3).Thetenanthousesgarage
isnoncontributing.Someofthebuildingsarenotvisiblefromthepublicrightway.Anasphalt
roadprovidesaccesstothesouthfarmcomplexpropertyfromWoodlandsFarmLaneSouth.
The Woodlands Farm south complex is surrounded by farm fields and is south of Maryland
Route7andnorthoftheAmtrak(formerlyPhiladelphia,Washington,andBaltimore)raillines.
The farm fields in the boundary for the Woodlands Farm Historic District are contributing
featuresfortheirsignificancetotheagriculturalsettingthatconveysthehistoricfunctionofthe
property.Thefieldsaredirectlyassociatedwithimportantthemesofagriculturaldevelopment,
suchastheshiftfromtobaccotograinfarming,AgrarianReform,TenantFarmingandMarket
Farming.ThesizeandimportanceoftheCoudonfarmingoperationscontributedtothearea's

MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility

10

CE

AS K
PUL

y
I
A PE

ST
AT
IO

Y
I HW

DR

CR
LL
MI

North Farm Complex

C
IN
PR

KR

EE

O
PI

R
FU

C
NA

RD

CO

DO

ON

DA
R CORNER RD

C
YS
BA

A
RO

KS

BL
VD

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

ST

South Farm Complex

A7
}
IK

EA

RD

NU

FI
FT
H

E
AV

ST

Furnace
Bay

RY

L
800
400

LEGEND

EIGHTH

AVEN
U

ED

800

1,600

Feet

ST

Woodlands Farm
Historic District
Property Boundary

Figure 2:

Woodlands Farm Historic District


September 2014

WINCH RD

PERRYVILLE RD

JA
C

RD

Bungalow
Foreman's Garage

Foreman's House

Barn w/
Loafing Shed

Meat House

Tenant's
House

Chicken House

Blacksmith's Shop

Tenant's
House Garage

Bank Barn w/
Loafing Shed

Spring House

Bull Pen

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

LEGEND
Woodlands Farm
Historic District

100

50

100

200

Feet

Property Boundary

Figure 3:

Historic Stuctures within


Woodlands Farm South Complex
September 2014

DraftSection4(f)Evaluation

DraftNovember5,2014

economy,productivity,oridentityasanagriculturalcommunity,andthehistoricintegrityof
thefieldsisaugmentedbytheextanthistoricfarmbuildings,andthefieldsprovidethehistoric
farm buildings with integrity of feeling, association, setting, and design, clearly reflecting the
historicfunctionoflandscapeduringtheperiodofsignificance.

V.

Section4(f)Use

Of the 110 acres in the Woodlands Farm south complex (all of which are contributing to the
District itself), approximately 56 acres would be permanently used for construction of the
MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility.Theconstructionofthefacilitywoulddemolishallofthe
standingstructuresontheWoodlandsFarmsouthcomplex,whicharecontributingelementsto
theHistoricDistrict(Figure3).Noneofthestandingstructuresonthepropertyareindividually
eligibleforlistingontheNRHP.ThePreferredAlternativewouldhaveanadverseeffectonthe
WoodlandsFarmHistoricDistrictintermsofSection106oftheNationalHistoricPreservation
Act.IntermsofSection4(f)oftheDepartmentofTransportationAct,theactionwouldresultin
a permanent use of contributing elements of the Historic District. Therefore, an avoidance
alternativeevaluationandleastharmanalysishavebeenpreparedforthepotentialSection4(f)
impactsatthePreferredAlternativesite.

VI.

AvoidanceAnalysis

A feasible and prudent avoidance alternative avoids using Section 4(f) property and does not
cause other severe problems of a magnitude that substantially outweighs the importance of
protectingtheSection4(f)property.InassessingtheimportanceofprotectingtheSection4(f)
property, it is appropriate to consider the relative value of the resource to the preservation
purposeofthestatute.ThepreservationpurposeofSection4(f)isdescribedin49U.S.C.303(a),
which states: It is the policy of the United States Government that special effort should be
madetopreservethenaturalbeautyofthecountrysideandpublicparkandrecreationlands,
wildlifeandwaterfowlrefuges,andhistoricsites.
Analternativeisnotfeasibleifitcannotbebuiltasamatterofsoundengineeringjudgment.
Analternativeisnotprudentif:

It compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the


projectinlightofitsstatedpurposeandneed;

Itresultsinunacceptablesafetyoroperationalproblems;

It causes severe social, economic, or environmental impacts even after reasonable


mitigation; severe disruption to established communities; severe disproportionate
impacts to minority or low income populations; or severe impacts to environmental
resourcesprotectedunderotherFederalstatutes;

It results in additional construction, maintenance, or operational costs of an


extraordinarymagnitude;

Itcausesotheruniqueproblemsorunusualfactors;or

MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility

13

DraftSection4(f)Evaluation

DraftNovember5,2014

It involves multiple factors above that while individually minor, cumulatively cause
uniqueproblems,orimpactsofextraordinarymagnitude.

MTAevaluatedelevenalternativesthatavoidallSection4(f)properties,includingtheNoBuild
Alternative, have been evaluated by MTA. The avoidance alternatives are analyzed in
accordancewiththedefinitionoffeasibleandprudentavoidancealternativefoundin23CFR
774.17.
Fourofthe10buildalternativeswerepreviouslyevaluatedaspartoftheMARCMaintenance
Facility Site Selection Report (2012). An additional six avoidance alternatives were evaluated
(including a nobuild option). Refer to Figure 4 for an overview of the avoidance alternative
sitesconsidered.RefertoTable2foracomparisonoftheavoidancealternativesconsidered.

A.

SitesEvaluatedintheMARCMaintenanceFacilitySiteSelectionReport

1.
PerryvilleBSiteAvoidanceAlternative,Perryville,Maryland
PerryvilleBSitewouldavoidallSection4(f)properties.PerryvilleBSiteislocatedonthesouth
side of the NEC, directly east of the Ikea Distribution Center, northeast of Mill Creek, and
northwest of Furnace Bay in Perryville, Maryland, north of the Susquehanna River (Figure 5).
The site is approximately 6,500 feet long and ranges from approximately 30 feet wide (along
theleadtracksadjacenttotheAmtrakmainlinetracks)to1,400feetwide.Thesitecurrently
houses the Amtrak Maintenance of Way (MOW) base of operations for the personnel and
equipmentthatmaintaintheNECfromWilmingtontoBaltimore.Theportionofthesitethat
wouldbeoccupiedbyMTAsimprovementswouldbeapproximately44acres.
PerryvilleBSitewouldrequirethecompleterelocationoftheAmtrakMOWfacility(estimated
cost of $58 Million) in order to achieve a workable site layout and construction of two new
crossovers in Perry Interlocking. An interlocking is an arrangement of signals and signal
appliances so interconnected that their movements must succeed each other in proper
sequence. Reconstruction of an interlocking is costly due to the construction of new or
refurbishedtrack,signalsandcatenary(additionalinformationisincludedinAttachmentA).A
crossover is a pair of switches that connects two parallel rail tracks, allowing a train on one
track to cross over to the other. While crossovers allow additional train movement flexibility
they require a reduced speed (no more than 80 miles per hour). This is not compatible with
AmtraksNECInfrastructureMasterPlanandtheneedforhighspeedrailalongtheNEC. This
sitelocationmaycreatepossibleinterferencewithexistingserviceandproposedfutureAmtrak
capacityimprovementwork.
These conditions are not consistent with the project purpose and need, specifically Amtraks
NEC growth plan. Construction time until operation would also be at least a year longer, as
Amtraks MOW would have to bereconstructed, and then relocatedbefore MTA could begin
constructionoftheMARCMaintenanceFacility.PerryvilleBSitewouldrequire15.3acresoffull
property acquisition (MOW Base), 45.6 acres of partial acquisition (Ikea Distribution Center)
and 15.8 acres of temporary easements. The total estimated cost to develop this site for a
MARCMaintenanceFacilityis$531Million($176MillionmorethanthePreferredAlternative
site).
MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility

14

DraftSection4(f)Evaluation

DraftNovember5,2014

PerryvilleBSiteislocatedwithinthevicinityofindustriallandusesthatmayposeahazardous
materials subsurface contamination risk. Additional potential environmental impacts would
include impacts to 2.3 acres of forested area (requiring approximately 13.6 acres of
reforestation);oneacreofimpactswithintheCriticalArea(definedas,alllandwithin1,000feet
of the Mean High Water Line of tidal waters or the landward edge of tidal wetlands and all
watersofandlandsundertheChesapeakeBayanditstributaries);andincloseproximitytoone
historicproperty,listedontheMIHPwitharcheologicalpotential.ItislikelythattheMIHPsite
would be eligible for the NRHP and that the archeological site may extend into the parcel
neededforconstructionofthisalternative.
ThePerryvilleBsiteisnotafeasibleandprudentavoidancealternative.Itisunreasonableto
proceed with the site in light of the projects stated purpose and need because the required
relocation of Amtraks MOW does not meet the stated need to support Amtraks Northeast
Corridor (NEC) growth plan and planned expansion of highspeed rail. The relocation and
reconstruction of Amtraks MOW also adds significant cost (approximately 49.5 percent
increaseoverthePreferredAlternativesitenotincludingrightofwaycosts)totheprojectand
wouldresultinunacceptableoperationalissueswithAmtrakoperationsontheNEC.Forthese
reasons,thePerryvilleBSiteisthereforenotafeasibleandprudentavoidancealternativeand
iseliminatedbecauseitcausessevereproblemsofamagnitudethatsubstantiallyoutweighthe
importanceofprotectingtheSection4(f)properties.

MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility

15

Figure 4

Perryville B
Interstate

US Highway

MD Highway
Railroad

40

Figure 5 Perryville B Site


October 2014

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,
Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

0.15

0.3

0.6 Miles

DraftSection4(f)Evaluation

DraftNovember5,2014

2.
OpusSiteAvoidanceAlternative,Perryman,Maryland
TheOpusSitewouldavoidallSection4(f)properties.Theapproximately57acresiteislocated
on the east side of the NEC, south of Maryland Boulevard (MD Route 715) and north of East
Michaelsville Road in Perryman, Maryland, south of the Susquehanna River (Figure 6). It is
bound on the east side by theAberdeen Proving Ground (APG) property. The portion of the
site that would be occupied by MTAs improvements would be approximately 48 acres,
includinganaccessroadthatwillconnectwithstatehighwaysatthenorthend.
Parts of the site are groundwater recharge areas for the Harford County water supply within
thePerrymanWellfieldProtectionZone.TheuseofthissiteasaMARCmaintenancefacilityis
notcompatiblewithHarfordCountyzoningrestrictions.
The Opus Site would require the construction of two new crossovers in Perry Interlocking as
there are no existing interlockings located nearby on the NEC. This site location will create
interference with proposed future Amtrak capacity improvement work (additional tracks and
AmtraksproposedPOPLARInterlocking).Theseconditionsarenotconsistentwiththeproject
purpose and need, specifically Amtraks NEC growth plan due to the requirement for slower
trainspeedsthroughcrossovers(refertoAttachmentA).Thetotalestimatedcosttoconstruct
this site for a MARC Maintenance Facility is $446 Million, not including rightofway costs,
whichis$91MillionmorethanthePreferredAlternativesite.
TheOpusSiteislocatedwithinthevicinityofindustriallandusesthatmayposeahazardous
materials subsurface contamination risk and would require both a Phase I and Phase II
Environmental Site Assessment prior to selection of the site. Additional potential
environmentalimpactswouldincludeimpactsto3.4acresofforestedarea(requiring11.9acres
ofreforestation).
Although the Opus Site would avoid impacts to the Section 4(f) properties identified at the
PreferredAlternativesite,itisnotaprudentalternative.Itisunreasonabletoproceedwiththe
alternative in light of the projects stated purpose and need, as the site is south of the
SusquehannaRiverandthereforedoesnotsupportsystemexpansionnorthoftheRiver.The
construction of two new crossovers needed to develop this site would result in engineering
issues adding significant cost to the project (approximately 25.6 percent over the Preferred
Alternative site, not including rightofway costs) and result in operational problems with
AmtrakoperationsontheNEC.Forthesereasons,theOpusSiteisthereforenotafeasibleand
prudent avoidance alternative and is eliminated because it causes severe problems of a
magnitudethatsubstantiallyoutweightheimportanceofprotectingtheSection4(f)properties.

MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility

18

Interstate
40

US Highway

40

MD Highway
Opus

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,
AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Figure 6 Opus Site


October 2014

0.15

0.3

0.6 Miles

DraftSection4(f)Evaluation

DraftNovember5,2014

3.
AberdeenProvingGroundSiteAvoidanceAlternative,Edgewood,Maryland
The Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) Site would avoid all Section 4(f) properties identified at
the Preferred Alternative site. This site is located on the south side of the NEC, north of
Magnolia Road (MD Route 152) and south of Emmorton Road (MD Route 24), south of the
SusquehannaRiver(Figure7).Theproposedprojectsiteisapproximately6,800feetlongand
rangesfrom30feetwide(alongtheleadtracksadjacenttotheAmtrakmainlinetracks)to800
feetwideandhasatotalsiteareaofapproximately74acres.Theportionofthesitethatwould
beoccupiedbyMTAsimprovementswouldbeapproximately59acres.Theproposedproject
siteislocatedentirelywithinAPG,whichisfederallandandcurrentlyundermilitaryuse.
The APG Site is located within the vicinity of military/industrial land uses that may pose a
hazardous materials subsurface contamination risk and a safety risk associated with the
potentialpresenceofunexplodedordinances.TheAPGSiteislistedontheNationalPriorities
List Database as a Superfund cleanup location. Development of this site would require
relocationofexistingAPGfunctionsandexistingBG&Eaerialelectricaltransmissionlines.The
APGSitewouldrequireconstructionofonenewcrossoverandonenewturnoutinMAGNOLIA
Interlocking.
TheSitewouldrequire58.9acresfromAPGthroughanEnhancedUseLease(EUL).Thisprocess
would require coordination with and approval from APG for security clearances; therefore,
construction time is unknown. As a tenant on a superfund site, the MTA may be subject to
liabilityconcerns.Anadditional15.1acresoflandwouldbeacquiredforutilityrelocationsand
1.9 acres would be temporarily impacted during construction. The total estimated cost to
constructthissiteforaMARCMaintenanceFacilityis$529Million,notincludingrightofway
costs,whichis$174MillionmorethanthePreferredAlternativesite.
Additional potential environmental impacts would include impacts to hazardous materials (a
known Superfund site); 3.3 acres of wetland/ WUS areas; 1.8 acres of 100 and 500year
floodplains;25.1acresofforestedarea(requiring25.4acresofreforestation);and13.4acresof
ForestInteriorDwellingSpecies(FIDS)habitat.
AlthoughtheAPGSitewouldavoidimpactstotheSection4(f)resourcesidentifiedatthe
PreferredAlternativesite,itisnotafeasibleandprudentavoidancealternative.Itis
unreasonabletoproceedwiththealternativeinlightoftheprojectsstatedpurposeandneed,
asthesiteissouthoftheSusquehannaRiverandthereforedoesnotsupportsystemexpansion
northoftheRiver.Theconstructionofonenewcrossoverandturnout,relocationofelectric
transmissionlinesandAPGfacilitiesandwellastheunknowntimeforconstructiononAPG
propertywouldresultinengineeringissuesaddingsignificantcost(approximately49percent
overthePreferredAlternativesite,notincludingrightofwaycosts)totheproject.TheAPG
Siteisthereforenotafeasibleandprudentavoidancealternativeandiseliminatedbecauseit
causessevereproblemsofamagnitudethatsubstantiallyoutweightheimportanceof
protectingtheSection4(f)properties.

MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility

20

Aberdeen Proving Ground


Interstate

US Highway

MD Highway

Figure 7 Aberdeen Proving Ground Site


October 2014

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,
AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

0.15

0.3

0.6 Miles

DraftSection4(f)Evaluation

DraftNovember5,2014

4.
PrologisSiteAvoidanceAlternative,Edgewood,Maryland
ThePrologisSitewouldavoidallSection4(f)propertiesidentifiedatthePreferredAlternative
site.ThesiteislocatedinEdgewood,Maryland,southoftheSusquehannaBridge,onthenorth
sideoftheNECandapproximately1,800feetsouthofTrimbleRoad(Figure8).Theproposed
project site is approximately 8,200 feet long and ranges from 30 feet wide (along the lead
tracksadjacenttotheAmtrakmainlinetracks)to1,300feetwide;thetotalsiteareacomprises
approximately73acres.TheportionofthesitethatwouldbeoccupiedbyMTAsimprovements
would be approximately 56 acres. The total estimated cost to construct this site for a MARC
Maintenance Facility is $483 Million, not including rightofway, which is $128 Million more
thanthePreferredAlternativesite.
ThePrologisSitewillrequiretheextensionofTrack4andconstructionofonenewcrossover
and one new turnout in MAGNOLIA Interlocking. This site requires full acquisition of an
industrialpropertyandseveralpartialresidentialpropertyacquisitions.Severalhomesabutthe
AmtrakrightofwayatthenorthendnearWOODInterlocking,potentiallyrequiring2.6acresof
residentialpropertyand65acresofcommercialproperty.Further,thislocationmayrequire
modificationstotheMDRoute152andMDRoute24bridges,ifitisfoundthatretainingwalls
required to permit the installation of the lead tracks would be insufficient to support the
abutments.
Constructionofthesitewouldrequirerelocationofanexistingstormwatermanagementpond.
Additionalenvironmentalimpactsincludeimpactstoforestedarea(13.2acres)requiring16.5
acres of reforestation; 100 and 500year floodplain; and 19 wetlands and 6 waterways
systems. There is also the potential for encountering contaminated materials as the site is
adjacenttotheAPGproperty,aknownSuperfundSite.
Although the Prologis Site would avoid impacts to the Section 4(f) resources identified at the
PreferredAlternativesite,itisnotprudent.Itisunreasonabletoproceedwiththealternativein
lightoftheprojectsstatedpurposeandneed,asthesiteissouthoftheSusquehannaRiverand
therefore does not support system expansion north of the River. The extension of Track 4,
constructionofonenewcrossoverandonenewturnout,propertyacquisitions,andpotential
reconstructionoftwohighwaybridgeswouldresultinengineeringissuesaddingsignificantcost
totheproject(approximately36percentoverthePreferredAlternativesite,notincludingright
ofway costs). The Prologis Site is therefore not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative
anditisbeingeliminatedbecauseitcausessevereproblemsofamagnitudethatsubstantially
outweightheimportanceofprotectingtheSection4(f)properties.

MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility

22

Prologis

Interstate

US Highway

MD Highway
Railroad

Figure 8 Prologis Site


October 2014

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,
AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

0.15

0.3

0.6 Miles

DraftSection4(f)Evaluation

DraftNovember5,2014

B.

AdditionalAvoidanceAlternativeSitesEvaluated

1.
NoBuildAlternative
The NoBuild Alternative would avoid all Section 4(f) properties identified at the Preferred
Alternativesite.UndertheNoBuildAlternative,noimprovementsorconstructionbeyondthat
whichisalreadyplannedandprogrammedareincluded.IfanewMARCMaintenanceFacility
werenotbuilt,growthwouldbelimitedinthatadditionalMARCtrainscouldnotbeacquiredas
currentlythereisnotenoughstoragecapacitytoaddtrains.AlsoMARCservicecouldnotbe
expandednorthofPerryville.
AlthoughtheNoBuildAlternativewouldavoidimpactstotheSection4(f)properties,itisnot
prudentbecauseitwouldnotmeetthepurposeandneedfortheproject.Specifically,theNo
Build Alternative would not provide the needed additional MARC train storage or a MARC
managedmaintenancefacility,andwouldnotsupportfutureexpansionofMARCorAmtraks
NECgrowthplan.Therefore,theNoBuildAlternativecausessevereproblemsofamagnitude
thatsubstantiallyoutweighstheimportanceofprotectingtheSection4(f)properties.
2.
NewBengiesSiteAvoidanceAlternative
The New Bengies Site would avoid all Section 4(f) properties identified at the Preferred
Alternativesite.NewBengiesSiteislocatedsouthoftheSusquehannaRiver,onthewestside
of the NEC along New Bengies Road in Baltimore, Maryland across from the Martin State
AirportMaintenanceFacility(Figure9).
ThissitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan,inthattheleadtrackstoa
maintenancefacilityatthissitewouldhavetodivergefromAmtrakTrack3whichis,andwillbe
in the future, the southbound high speed track. Amtrak does not typically allow tracks to
divergefroman125mphtrackintolowspeedfacilities,sotheywillrequiretheconstructionof
a4thtrack(Track4)toallowMARCtrainstomakeahighspeeddivergingmoveontoTrack4
where they can then decelerate to a suitable operating speed for entering the MARC yard.
Track4wouldalsoserveasanaccelerationtrackfortrainsenteringtheNEC.Constructionof
Track 4 would be costly due to the length of track required, possibly from as far as existing
GUNPOWInterlockingtothesiteofproposedESSEXInterlocking,adistanceofapproximately
5.3miles,whichcouldresultinapproximately$133Million$177Million1inadditionalproject
costs.
ThereisanexistinghighwaybridgeMDRoute43(WhitemarshBoulevard)thatcrossesoverthe
NEC tracks within the New Bengies Site. This bridge would need to be reconstructed to
accommodatetheleadtracksandwouldthereforeaddsignificantcosttotheproject.Further,
thissiteisconstrainedtothenorthbyalargebuildingcurrentlyunderconstruction.IfAmtrak
wouldallowtheleadtrackstobeconnectedtoTrack3,thelayoutwouldrequiremodification
inordertoprovideadirectconnection.

Theadditionofnew,electrifiedtrackalongtheexistingNortheastCorridorisestimatedtobeapproximately$25
Millionto$33.33Millionpermile.

MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility

24

New Bengies
Railroad

Interstate

US Highway

MD Highway

Sour