Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study

Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility StudyEnvironmental Effectsanimals or contain a habitat type unique or rare in Maryland such as a bog. All four build options wouldrequire traversing five Sensitive Species Project Review Areas; however, field specific work would berequired to evaluate whether any species or feature of concern actually occurs within or near the areaof possible disturbance. Mitigation requirements would be dependent on the specifics of the resourcein question (e.g. protected plant or fish) and would be coordinated with the DNR and other stakeholderson a case by case basis.The No-Build option would not directly affect any forests or ecologically sensitive resources.7.2.5PotentialPropertyImpactsDirect property impacts immediately adjacent to existing NPS property and Maryland SHA right-of-waylimits occur primarily with the outside widening option, with little difference between the NPS andAASHTO/SHA typical section. Due to the requirement for an outside shoulder, the AASHTO/SHA insidewidening option could directly affect up to three properties. The NPS inside widening option could beconstructed without any additional property impacts on adjacent areas.Potential Property ImpactsPotential Property Impacts AASHTO/SHA NPSWidening Options Outside Inside Outside InsideResidential (each) 13-14 0-1 13-14 0Commercial (each) 2 1 2 0Institutional (each) 1-2 0-1 1-2 0Direct property impacts associated with either of the outside widening options would most likely occurin the residential communities of East Riverdale, Greenbelt, and Laurel.The No-Build option would not directly affect any adjacent properties.7.3QualityofLifeEffectsDuring the public outreach process concerns were raised about indirect impacts to communities andother land uses abutting the B-W Parkway that could result from possible facility expansion, includingloss of tree buffer to the existing facility, viewsheds, noise, and aesthetics. These subjects wouldundergo rigorous investigation should this study lead to the next step of planning. At this initialfeasibility study stage, these quality-of-life effects are anticipated to be greatest with either of the twooutside widening options. The AASHTO/SHA inside widening option also requires the construction of awider outside shoulder so some loss of trees on the outside would be required. The NPS insidewidening would likely result in the least amount of quality-of-life effects on neighboring communitiesbut would require the removal of some vegetation in the existing median area, and a change in the67 November 2012