Environmental Assessment - MdTA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

GPL ETL • MD 152: Option 1 • MD 152: Option 1A • MD 152: Option 4 • MD 152: Option 4A • MD 24: Option 2 • MD 24: Option 2 • MD 543: Option 1 • MD 543: Option 7A • MD 543: Option 7 • MD 22: Option 1 • MD 22: Option 1 5. Park and Ride Facilities Park and Ride facilities are located at each of the existing interchange locations. Each park and ride facility was analyzed based upon a 10 year trend usage, transit compatibility, and future needs. Based upon the study, new park and ride facilities are proposed at MD 152 and MD 24. Several sites were evaluated for each location. The sites were evaluated based upon meeting the number of parking spaces required, access, transit service, environmental impacts, compatibility with adjacent land uses, and availability of the properties. The impact analysis for the proposed park and ride facility at MD 152 and MD 24 are included in the interchange impact analyses. E. Alternative Comparison To compare impacts to environmental resources for each mainline Build Alternative, each mainline Build Alternative will include the interchange option with the largest footprint possible, identifying a worst-case impact at each location. The MD 152 Option 4, MD 24 Option 2, MD 543 Option 1, and MD 22 Option 1 were included with the General Purpose Lanes Alternative in calculating impacts. The MD 152 Option 4A, MD 24 Option 2A, MD 543 Option 7A, and MD 22 Option 2 were included with the Express Toll Lanes Alternative. All impacts calculated for the interchange options for the I-95/MD 152 and I-95/MD 24 Interchanges include impacts for proposed park & ride facilities. Section 200 Draft Environmental Assessment S-4 Summary
1. Environmental Impacts Table S-1 summarizes the environmental impacts associated with each Build Alternative. Table S-1. Environmental Impacts RESOURCE CATEGORY No-Build Alternative General Purpose Lanes Alternative Express Toll Lanes Alternative NR/NRE Historic Sites Impacted (number) 0 0 0 NR/NRE Archaeological Sites Impacted (number) 0 0-1 0-1 Prime Farmland Soils (acre) 0 48.3 68.1 Stream Impacts (linear feet) 0 9,500 16,000 Floodplain (acre) 0 3.9 7.7 Woodland (acre) 0 72 122 Wetlands (acre) 0 0.5 1.3 Threatened/Endangered Species Impacts (species) 0 0 0 Air Quality Impacts (sites exceeding CO S/NAAQS) N/A 0 0 Noise Impacts (number) N/A 6 NSAs 7 NSAs Section 4(f) Resource Impacts (acre) 0 0 0 2. Communities/Right-of-Way (ROW) Impacts Table S-2 summarizes the ROW and community impacts associated with each mainline Build Alternative. Most of the ROW impacts for the Build Alternatives include linear strips of land along the mainline, polygonal sections of land required for stormwater management facilities and park and ride lots, and additional land required for new ramp configurations for the proposed interchange improvements. There is one commercial displacement associated with the proposed improvements at the I-95/MD 24 Interchange for both of the Build Alternatives. There will be one impact to a Community Facility. The Trinity Baptist Church’s undeveloped potion of their property will be impacted due a proposed park and ride lot in that location. Trinity Baptist Church views the placement of the park and ride on their property as a benefit because they will have access to it for additional parking on the weekends and for special events. Neither of the Build Alternatives will divide/disrupt any of the communities in the study area. Section 200 Draft Environmental Assessment S-5 Summary
Page 1: November2007
Page 4 and 5: Figure S-1: Study Area Map D. Proje
Page 8 and 9: Table S-2. Communities/Right-of-Way
Page 10 and 11: Table of Contents I. PURPOSE AND NE
Page 12 and 13: Figure II-7. MD 543 Option 1 Figure
Page 14 and 15: I. PURPOSE AND NEED A. Identificati
Page 16 and 17: Figure I-1: Study Area Map C. Backg
Page 18 and 19: areas within or connecting county-d
Page 21 and 22: . Safety The accident rate for Sect
Page 23 and 24: Table I-2. AM and PM Average Daily
Page 25 and 26: Table I-4. Crash Data for Years 200
Page 27 and 28: equired to cross 3 or more general
Page 29 and 30: This concept would provide good ove
Page 31 and 32: No Build Interchange Analysis • I
Page 33 and 34: • Option 3: Single Point Urban Di
Page 35 and 36: Analysis: • Option 1A provides th
Page 37 and 38: Analysis: • Option 1 would mainta
Page 39 and 40: Two through lanes would generally b
Page 47 and 48: 3. Express Toll Lane Alternative Th
Page 49 and 50: to the I-95 northbound ETLs. Two I-
Page 56 and 57:
F. Comparison of Alternatives The f
Page 58 and 59:
would be enhanced through a reducti
Page 60 and 61:
Table II-2. Estimated Travel Speeds
Page 62 and 63:
. MD 152 The future needs forecast
Page 64 and 65:
Figure II-16. MD 24 Park and Ride F
Page 66 and 67:
III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND IMPAC
Page 68 and 69:
Executive Order 12898 defines minor
Page 70 and 71:
Table III-2: Population Statistics
Page 72 and 73:
Build Alternatives The Build Altern
Page 74 and 75:
The study area consists of 7 commun
Page 76 and 77:
Table III-4: Communities Located wi
Page 78:
Table III-4: Communities Located wi
Page 81 and 82:
communities could experience indire
Page 83 and 84:
MD 24 Option 2 (Appendix A, Plates
Page 85 and 86:
surrounding communities as the incr
Page 87 and 88:
There are also some minor impacts t
Page 89 and 90:
allow access to and from the ETLs v
Page 91 and 92:
lanes, reduced median width, and th
Page 93 and 94:
volumes and congestion increase thr
Page 96 and 97:
c. Cemeteries In addition to the ce
Page 98 and 99:
points at any of the postal facilit
Page 100 and 101:
The Maryland Transit Administration
Page 102 and 103:
1. Employment Characteristics Table
Page 104 and 105:
geographic base of a particular bus
Page 106 and 107:
would not be altered, aside from th
Page 108 and 109:
543), and the areas both north and
Page 110:
2. Effects on Land Use No-Build Alt
Page 114 and 115:
The historic architecture APE for t
Page 116 and 117:
an additional 5 land types (alluvia
Page 118 and 119:
• Seeding, sodding, and stabilizi
Page 120 and 121:
2. Aquatic Resources a. Surface Wat
Page 122 and 123:
located within the southeast quadra
Page 124 and 125:
• A permanent WUS impact would in
Page 126 and 127:
The following highlights wetland im
Page 128 and 129:
For an all-inclusive impact summary
Page 130 and 131:
since this area was altered during
Page 132 and 133:
BMPs would include stormwater manag
Page 134 and 135:
year floodplains, 0.8 acres within
Page 136 and 137:
Option 2, MD 543 Option 7, and MD 2
Page 138 and 139:
General Purpose Lanes Alternative T
Page 140 and 141:
impacts more LSTs due to its larger
Page 142 and 143:
Table III-17. Alternative Impacts t
Page 144 and 145:
The No-Build Alternative would have
Page 146 and 147:
improvements, EPA’s MOBILE 6.2 em
Page 148 and 149:
using this facility. Diesel trucks
Page 150 and 151:
The EPA is the lead Federal Agency
Page 152 and 153:
zoning or the development of guidel
Page 154 and 155:
3. Exposure Levels and Health Effec
Page 156 and 157:
cannot evaluate the validity of the
Page 158 and 159:
NSA 07 consists of single family ho
Page 160 and 161:
NSA 20 consists of single family re
Page 162 and 163:
etween the hours of 6:00 AM and 6:0
Page 164 and 165:
Table III-20. Short-term Noise Meas
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
• Traffic flow conditions (volume
Page 172 and 173:
averaging. If the average cost per
Page 174 and 175:
Table III-22 Predicted Noise Levels
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Table III-23. Summary of Noise Abat
Page 184 and 185:
Table III-25. Noise Barrier ‘Cost
Page 186 and 187:
The noise barrier investigated is l
Page 188 and 189:
The noise barrier was optimized to
Page 190 and 191:
Express Toll Lanes Alternative The
Page 192 and 193:
NSA 23 The noise barrier investigat
Page 194 and 195:
Express Toll Lanes Alternative The
Page 196 and 197:
The No Build Alternative will not i
Page 198 and 199:
area (the widening of I-95 from MD
Page 201 and 202:
Active Agricultural Land Due to int
Page 203 and 204:
cumulative impacts to floodplains w
Page 205 and 206:
The indirect and cumulative effects
Page 207 and 208:
IV. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS A. Fo
Page 209 and 210:
The fifth Focus Group Meeting was h
Page 211 and 212:
Finally, an update on the status of
show all

Environmental Assessment - MdTA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?