Washington, D.C. To Baltimore Loop ProjectProposed by The Boring Company Environmental Assessment (Draft)

Washington, D.C.
to
Baltimore Loop Project
Proposed by The Boring Company
Environmental Assessment (Draft)
April 2019
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Project Overview and Project Purpose and Need..................... 1

1.1 Introduction............................................................................................... 1
1.2 Overview....................................................................................................... 2
1.2.1 The Loop System...................................................................................................2
1.2.2 Proposed System Development.......................................................................2
1.2.3 Future Operations..............................................................................................2
1.3 Project Description................................................................................... 3
1.3.1 Description of Proposed Project..................................................................3
1.3.2 Design and Construction..............................................................................33
1.3.3 Initial Operations..............................................................................................33
1.4 Purpose and Need..................................................................................... 33
1.4.1 Proposed Project Objectives........................................................................ 34
1.5 Federal, State, and Local Roles and Actions...................................34
1.5.1 Federal Highway Administration............................................................... 34
1.5.2 Federal Railroad Administration............................................................... 34
1.5.3 National Park Service..................................................................................... 34
1.5.4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.......................................................................35
1.5.5 Maryland Department of the Environment...........................................35
1.5.6 Others (State, District of Columbia and the
City of Baltimore).............................................................................................35
1.6 EA Process..................................................................................................36
1.7 Applicable Regulations and Orders...................................................36
1.7.1 Federal.................................................................................................................. 36
1.7.2 State.......................................................................................................................41
1.8 Required Permits......................................................................................43
1.9 Scoping........................................................................................................45
1.9.1 Agency Scoping................................................................................................. 45
1.9.2 Public Outreach................................................................................................ 45
1.10 Resource Areas for Environmental Analysis..................................45
Chapter 2: Description of the Alternatives Considered............................ 49
2.1 Alternatives Development.................................................................... 49
2.2 No-Build Alternative............................................................................. 49
2.3 Build Alternative.................................................................................... 49
2.3.1 Construction..................................................................................................... 49
2.4 Operations................................................................................................ 60
2.4.1 Infrastructure Characteristics.................................................................. 60
2.4.2 Equipment............................................................................................................ 60
2.4.3 Maintenance........................................................................................................61
2.5 Ridership and Parking............................................................................ 61
Page iii
Washington, D.C. to Baltimore Loop Project
2.6 NPS Land Exchange Alternatives........................................................ 61

2.7 Constructability of Preferred Alternative..................................... 61
2.8 Management of Construction Traffic...............................................62
2.9 Maintenance of Traffic Operations...................................................62
2.10 Materials Management Alternatives.................................................62
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.......... 63

3.1 Transportation........................................................................................63
3.1.1 Data Sources and Methodology............................................................... 63
3.1.2 Affected Environment.................................................................................... 63
3.1.3 Environmental Consequences.................................................................... 66
3.1.4 Minimization and Mitigation Measures....................................................75
3.2 Land Use......................................................................................................76
3.2.1 Data Sources and Methodology............................................................... 76
3.2.2 Affected Environment.................................................................................... 76
3.2.3 Environmental Consequences.................................................................. 106
3.2.4 Minimization and Mitigation Measures................................................. 108
3.3 Socioeconomic Environment..............................................................108
3.3.1 Data Sources and Methodology............................................................. 108
3.3.2 Affected Environment.................................................................................. 109
3.3.3 Environmental Consequences................................................................... 115
3.3.4 Minimization and Mitigation Measures.................................................. 117
3.4 Environmental Justice...........................................................................117
3.4.1 Data Sources and Methodology.............................................................. 117
3.4.2 Regulatory Framework................................................................................. 118
3.4.4 Environmental Consequences...................................................................126
3.4.5 Minimization and Mitigation Measures..................................................128
3.5 Cultural Resources............................................................................... 129
3.5.1 Data Sources and Methodology..............................................................129
3.5.2 Regulatory Framework.................................................................................129
3.5.3 Affected Environment...................................................................................138
3.6 Visual Quality and Aesthetics............................................................ 143
3.7 Parks and Recreation, and Section 4(f) Resources......................160
3.7.2 Regulatory Framework................................................................................ 160
Page iv

3.8 Noise and Vibration.............................................................................. 191
3.8.4 Environmental Consequences..................................................................200
3.8.5 Minimization and Mitigation Measures.................................................. 211
3.9 Air Quality............................................................................................... 212
3.10 Public Health and Safety.....................................................................222
3.10.2 Regulatory Setting........................................................................................ 222
3.11 Contaminated Sites and Hazardous Materials.............................225
3.11.3 Affected Environment................................................................................. 226
3.12 Surface and Ground Waters..............................................................242
3.12.3 Affected Environment..................................................................................244
3.13 Wetlands................................................................................................. 268
3.14 Floodplains..............................................................................................274
Page v
3.15 Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas, Coastal Zones,

and Other Management Areas...........................................................278
3.16 Geology and Soils..................................................................................292
3.17 Biological Resources............................................................................ 321
3.17.3 Affected Environment...................................................................................323
3.18 Energy........................................................................................................374
3.19 Utilities.....................................................................................................379
3.20 Indirect and Cumulative Effects...................................................... 384
Chapter 4: Agency and Public Coordination............................................. 395

4.1 Agency Scoping.......................................................................................395
4.2 Agency Coordination...........................................................................395
4.3 Public Information................................................................................395
Chapter 5: References..................................................................................... 397
Page vi
List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Conceptual Rendering of an AEV Inside a
Main Artery Tunnel..................................................................... 2
Figure 1-2: Location Map of the Proposed Project.................................4
Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map........................6
Figure 1-4: Typical Tunnel Cross-Section Showing
Two Possible Configurations: Parallel
(View 1) and Stacked (View 2).................................................. 31
Figure 1-5: Example of AEV Descending into a
Loop Station................................................................................ 31
Figure 1-6: Conceptual Artistic Rendering of
Ventilation Shaft....................................................................... 32

Figure 2-1: Conceptual Rendering of Tunnel Lining............................ 51
Figure 2-2: Rendering of Conceptual Ventilation Shaft
Connection to Main Artery Tunnel.....................................52
Figure 2-3: Loop Station Conceptual Renderings, Showing
Ramped (above) and Elevator (below) Options.................. 53
Figure 2-4: Conceptual Rendering of Maintenance Terminal............54
Figure 2-5: Launching of TBC’s Godot EPB TBM at the
Hawthorne Tunnel Shaft. TBM Trailing Gear
is Staged to the Left of the Shaft..........................................55
Figure 2-6: Settlement monitoring points, also known
as “Prisms,” used by TBC to monitor for surface
settlement along the tunnel alignment.............................57
Figure 2-7: Proposed Haul Routes for Soil Disposal............................59

Figure 3.1-1: Transit Stops within One-Quarter Mile of
Loop Station in Baltimore.......................................................67
Figure 3.1-2: Transit Stops within One-Quarter Mile of
Loop Station in Washington, D.C......................................... 68
Figure 3.2-1: Land Uses (Page 1 of 25)............................................................78
Figure 3.3-1: Cities, Towns, CDPs, and Counties within
the Project Study Area........................................................... 110
Figure 3.3-2: Census Tracts within the Project Study Area.................. 111
Page vii
Figure 3.4-1: EJ Analysis in Environmental Review................................. 119

Figure 3.4-2: EJ Study Area..............................................................................121
Figure 3.4-3: Minority Populations in the EJ Study Area...................... 122
Figure 3.4-4: Low-Income Populations in the EJ Study Area...............124
Figure 3.5-1: Cultural Resources Study Area........................................... 130
Figure 3.6-1: Project Location and B-W Parkway
Jurisdiction................................................................................ 145
Figure 3.6-2: View of the B-W Parkway North of the
Patuxent River, facing West.................................................146
Figure 3.6-3: Typical View of Oriole Park at Camden
Yards Parking Lot....................................................................146
Figure 3.6-4: Typical View of 55 New York Avenue NE,
Washington, D.C.......................................................................146
Figure 3.6-5: Typical View of TBM Launch Shaft Locations................. 147
Figure 3.6-6: TBC Test Tunnel Construction Site in
Hawthorne, California..........................................................149
Figure 3.6-7: (L) Typical View of the B-W Parkway (Leaf On),
(R) Typical View of the B-W Parkway (Leaf Off)..............150
Figure 3.6-8: Typical Aerial View of the B-W Parkway
and Adjacent Private Property............................................ 150
Figure 3.6-9: Typical Views Map along the B-W Parkway......................151
Figure 3.6-10: Typical View of B-W Parkway (Southern Segment
within NPS Jurisdiction)................................................... 156
Figure 3.6-11: Typical View of B-W Parkway Offramp
(Southern Segment within NPS Jurisdiction)................. 157
Figure 3.6-12: Camden Yards Parking Lot in
Baltimore, Maryland............................................................... 158
Figure 3.6-13: 55 New York Avenue, NE. Washington, D.C..................... 159
Figure 3.7-1: Parks and Recreation, and Section 4(f)
Resources Study Area.............................................................. 161
Figure 3.7-2: Resources Subject to Section 4(f) Evaluation................. 165
Figure 3.8-1: Typical Ground-borne Vibration Levels
and Criteria...............................................................................196
Figure 3.11-1: Hazardous Materials/Contaminated Sites.......................232
Figure 3.12-1: Surface Waters.........................................................................247
Figure 3.12-2: Potentiometric surface of the Patuxent
aquifer system in Southern Maryland and
Maryland’s Eastern Shore, September 2015......................258
Page viii
Figure 3.12-3: Cross-section of Aquifer System in the

Project Study Area..................................................................259
Figure 3.12-4: Area Aquifer System Cross-section Location................. 260
Figure 3.12-5: Potentiometric surface of the Lower
Patapsco aquifer system in Southern Maryland
and Maryland’s Eastern Shore, September 2015.............. 261
Figure 3.12-5: Area Aquifer System Cross-section Location..................263
Figure 3.15-1: Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas and
Biological Resources............................................................... 281
Figure 3.16-1: Geology.......................................................................................293
Figure 3.16-2: Surficial Soil Types.................................................................. 310
Figure 3.17-1: Vegetation Type within the Biological
Resources Study Area.............................................................. 337
List of Tables

Table 1-1: Potential TBM Launch Shaft Locations.............................. 33
Table 1-2: List of Required ROW Access Requiring
Permits for the Proposed Project........................................ 44
Table 2-1: Anticipated construction schedule.....................................50
Table 2-2: Anticipated Equipment Used for Construction
Operations....................................................................................54
Table 2-3: Disposal Locations for Proposed TBM Launch
Shaft Sites....................................................................................58

Table 3.1-1: Road and River Crossings Along
Proposed Project.......................................................................63
Table 3.1-2: Railroad Crossings Along Proposed Project....................65
Table 3.1-4: Planned and Programmed Transportation
Projects within the Project Study Area.............................69
Table 3.1-5: Proposed Haul Routes..............................................................70
Table 3.1-6: Calculated Average Haul and Delivery
Trips Generated........................................................................... 73
Table 3.2-1: Maryland Department of Planning Land
Use/Land Cover Dataset Land Use Categories...................76
Page ix
Table 3.2-2: Summary of Zoning at each Loop Stations

and TBM Launch Shaft Locations....................................... 105
Table 3.2-3: Land Use and Zoning at TBC Launch
Shaft Locations........................................................................ 107
Table 3.3-1: Cities, Towns, CDPs, and Counties within
Project Study Area..................................................................109
Table 3.3-2: Population Forecast................................................................112
Table 3.3-3: Mean Household Income.........................................................112
Table 3.3-4: Employment Actual and Forecast........................................113
Table 3.3-5: 2016 Commuting Statistics by Jurisdiction.......................113
Table 3.3-6: Community Resources............................................................. 114
Table 3.4-1: LEP Populations within EJ Study Area
Census Tracts............................................................................ 125
Table 3.6-1: Typical View Evaluation along NPS-Segment
of the B-W Parkway................................................................ 153
Table 3.7-1: Public Parks, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges,
and Schools with Public Recreational Facilities........... 162
Table 3.7 2: NRHP-listed or Eligible to be Listed Properties.............. 163
Table 3.8-1: FTA’s Construction Noise Assessment
Criteria (dBA)............................................................................ 193
Table 3.8-2: State of Maryland Maximum Allowable
Noise Levels (dBA).................................................................... 193
Table 3.8-3: City of Baltimore Noise Limits (dBA).................................. 193
Table 3.8-4: City of Cheverly Audible Distance Limits (feet)...............194
Table 3.8-5: District of Columbia Maximum Noise
Levels (dBA)................................................................................194
Table 3.8-6: FTA’s Construction Vibration Damage
Criteria (in/sec)......................................................................... 195
Table 3.8-7: Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels........................................ 197
Table 3.8-8: Definition of Acoustical Terms...........................................198
Table 3.8-9: Launch Shaft A Nearest Potential Receptor
and Sensitive Receptor Distances........................................201
Table 3.8-10: Launch Shaft B Nearest Potential Receptor
Table 3.8-11: Launch Shaft C Nearest Potential Receptor
Table 3.8-12: Launch Shaft D Nearest Potential Receptor
Page x
Table 3.8-13: Baltimore Loop Station Nearest Potential

Receptor and Sensitive Receptor Distances......................201
Table 3.8-14: DC Loop Station Nearest Potential Receptor
Table 3.8-15: TBM Launch Shaft Sites - Construction
Equipment Noise Values........................................................ 202
Table 3.8-16: Loop Stations - Construction Equipment
Noise Values.............................................................................. 202
Table 3.8-17: Ventilation Shafts: Construction Equipment
Noise Values...............................................................................203
Table 3.8-18: RCNM Results for Launch Shaft A .................................... 204
Table 3.8-19: RCNM Results for Launch Shaft B..................................... 204
Table 3.8-20: RCNM Results for Launch Shaft C......................................205
Table 3.8-21: RCNM Results for Launch Shaft D.....................................205
Table 3.8-22: RCNM Results for Baltimore Loop Station..................... 206
Table 3.8-23: RCNM Results for D.C. Loop Station................................. 206
Table 3.8-24: RCNM Results for Potential Launch Shaft E
Receptor Distances..................................................................207
Table 3.8-25: RCNM Results for Potential Ventilation
Shaft Receptor Distances.......................................................207
Table 3.8-26: Vibratory Construction Equipment.................................. 209
Table 3.8-27: Calculated Construction Vibration Level
and Thresholds.........................................................................210
Table 3.9-1: Applicable General Conformity De
Minimis Thresholds................................................................. 215
Table 3.9-2: Air Quality Index for Project Study Area
Jurisdictions in 2017................................................................ 215
Table 3.9-3: 2014 Maryland Greenhouse Gas Emissions....................... 217
Table 3.9-4: Estimated Annual Construction Criteria
Air Pollutant Emissions......................................................... 218
Table 3.9-5: Estimated Annual Operational Criteria Air
Pollutant Emissions................................................................ 219
Table 3.9-6: Estimated Project Construction GHG Emissions........... 220
Table 3.9-7: Estimated Annual Operational GHG Emissions............... 221
Table 3.11 1: Regulatory Environmental Listing Site Summary..........227
Table 3.11-2: Regulatory Tracking Sites Summary..................................230
Table 3.11-3: NPL Sites within the Hazmat Study Area.......................... 231
Page xi
Table 3.11-4: REC Sites Summary...................................................................237

Table 3.12-1: Watersheds within the Proposed Project
Study Area..................................................................................245
Table 3.12-2: Section 303(d) List of Impaired and Not
Attaining Waters.................................................................... 246
Table 3.12-3: Surface Water Crossings of the Study Area....................255
Table 3.12-4: MGS Coastal Plain Geophysical and
Lithological Ground Water Monitoring Wells.............263
Table 3.13-1: Wetland Types...........................................................................270
Table 3.13-2: Wetlands within the Project Study Area......................... 271
Table 3.15-1: Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas within the
Project Study Area................................................................. 280
Table 3.16-1: Soil Series within Project Study Area............................... 304
Table 3.16-2: Summary of Surficial Soil Types and Acreage,
Arranged Alphabetically by Symbol...................................305
Table 3.17-1: Vegetation Communities Within the Biological
Resources Study Area..............................................................324
Table 3.17-2: Dragonfly Species within the Biological
Resources Study Area..............................................................367
Table 3.18-1: Construction Phase Electricity Demand..........................376
Table 3.18-2: Construction Phase Diesel and Gas Usage.......................377
Table 3.18-3: Operational Electricity Demand..........................................378
Table 3.19-1: Utilities within the Project Study Area............................379
Table 3.20-1: Geographic Boundaries Used for ICE Analysis................386
Table 3.20-2: Reasonably Foreseeable Projects........................................ 388
Appendices
Appendix A - Maryland Environmental Policy Act Environmental
Assessment Form
Appendix B - TBC Assumptions and Calculations
Appendix C - Agency Coordination
Page xii
Acronyms
ACHP Advicory Council on Historic Properties
ACS American Community Survey
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AEV Autonomous Electric Vehicle
ANSI American National Standards Institute
APE Area of Potential Effect
AQI Air Quality Index
ASSE American Society of Safety Engineers
BCC birds of conservation concern
BDOT Baltimore City Department of Transportation
BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
BioNet Biodiversity Conservation Network
BMC Baltimore Metropolitan Council
BMP Best Management Practice
BPW Board of Public Works
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
BRTB Baltimore Regional Transportation Board
B-W Baltimore-Washington
BWI Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments
CDP census-designated places
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System
CESQG Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 Methane
CLEC Competitive Local Exchange Carriers
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e Carbon Dioxide equivalent
COC contaminates of concern
COMAR Code of Maryland Regulations
CORRACT Corrective Action Report
CRLP Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan
CWA Clean Water Act
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
CZMP Coastal Zone Management Program
D.C. District of Columbia
DCMR District of Columbia Municipal Regulations
DCRA Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
dB decibel
Page xiii
Acronyms (continued)
dBA A-weighted decibel scale
DBH diameter at breast height
DDOT District of Columbia Department of Transportation
DCSHPO District of Columbia Historic Preservation Office
DHHS Department of Health and Human Services
DNL Day-night average sound level
DOD Department of Defense
DOEE Department of Energy and Environment
DOI U.S. Department of the Interior
DPW Department of Public Works
EA Environmental Assessment
EDR Environmental Data Resources
EIA Energy Information Agency
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EJ Environmental Justice
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPB Earth Pressure Balance
ERNS Emergency Response Notification System
ESA Endangered Species Act
F Fahrenheit
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIDS Forest Interior Dwelling Species
FINDS Facility Index System
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impacts
FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act
FPL Federal Poverty Level
FR Federal Register
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites
GGE gasoline gallon equivalent
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GIA Green Infrastructure Assessment
GIS Geographic Information System
GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center
GWh gigawatt-hour
GWP global warming potential
HLUST Historic Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Page xiv
HPTP historic property treatment plans
HUD Housing and Urban Development
HWS Hazardous Waste Facilities
Hz Hertz
ICE Indirect and Cumulative Effects
IDA Intensely Developed Area
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
kW kilowatt
kHz kilo-hertz
LDA Limited Development Area
Leq A-weighted equivalent sound level
LF landfill
LEP Limited English Proficiency
LOS Level of Service
LRTP long-range transportation plan
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
LQG Large Quantity Generator
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MARC Maryland Rail Commuter Services
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCCC Maryland Commission on Climate Change
MD Maryland
MDE Maryland Department of the Environment
MDOT Maryland Department of Transportation
MDNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources
MDP Maryland Department of Planning
MDSHPO Maryland State Historic Preservation Office
MEPA Maryland Environmental Policy Act
MGD million gallons per day
MGS Maryland Geological Survey
MHT Maryland Historical Trust
MHTA Maryland Historical Trust Act
MIHP Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties
MMTCO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
μPa micropascals
MSATs Mobile Source Air Toxics
MT metric ton
MW megawatt
MWh megawatt-hour
MTA Maryland Transit Administration
N2O Nitrous Oxide
Page xv
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NCPC National Capital Planning Commission
NEC National Electrical Code
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHD National Hydrography Dataset
NHP Natural Heritage Program
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NISC National Invasive Species Council
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NO2 Nitrogren Dioxide
NOx Oxides of Nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priority List
NPS National Park Service
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NSA National Security Administration
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
O3 Ozone
OHP D.C. Office of Historic Preservation
OHWM Ordinary High-Water Mark
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PA Programmatic Agreement
PCCR Pre-Construction Condition Report
PEPCO Potomac Electric Power Company
PIP Public Involvement Plan
PJM PJM Interconnection
PM2.5 Particulate matter of 2.5 micrometers or smaller in size
PM10 Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns in size
PPM Parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
PSC Public Service Commission
PSCDC Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia
RAMP Real Estate Acquisition Management Plan
RCA Resource Conservation Areas
RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC recognized environmental condition
RFCE RFC East
Page xvi
RGA Recovered Government Archive
ROD Record of Decision
ROG reactive organic gases
ROW Right-of-way
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SEM Sequential Excavation Method
SEMS Superfund Enterprise Management System
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area
SHA State Highway Administration
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SHWS State Hazardous Waste Site
SMP Soil Management Plan
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SOx sulfur oxides
SPL Sound Pressure Level
SQG Small Quantity Generator
SSPRA Sensitive Species Project Review Area
SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic database
SWAP Source Water Assessment Program
SWF Solid Waste Facility
SWRCY Solid Waste Recycling
SWPP Source Water Protection Program
TBC The Boring Company
TBM Tunnel Boring Machine
TDSF Treatment Storage Disposal Facility
TEA Targeted Ecological Area
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TMP Traffic Management Plan
TPB Transportation Planning Board
TSS total suspended solids
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geologic Survey
UST Underground Storage Tank
UXO Unexploded Ordinance
VdB Velocity Decibels
VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program
VMMP Vibration Monitoring and Mitigation Plan
VOC volatile organic compound
WMATA Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Page xvii
WSA Water and Science Administration
WSSC Wetlands of Special State Concern
WWPP Wastewater Permits Program
Page xviii
Chapter 1: Project Overview and Project Purpose and Need
1.1 Introduction NEPA implementing Regulations 23 CFR 771. As

This Environmental Assessment (EA) for the the applicant, TBC is responsible for obtaining all
Washington D.C. to Baltimore Loop Project the necessary permits, approvals and property
(Project), proposed by The Boring Company rights needed for the construction and operation
(TBC), was prepared in accordance with the of the Project.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA). The EA was submitted to the Federal The Loop System offers several benefits, including
Highway Administration (FHWA) by the Maryland that it:
Department of Transportation (MDOT) State
Highway Administration (SHA), the state agency Enables high-speed travel: The Project offers
project sponsor (Appendix A) at the request of, and high-speed passenger travel between Washington,
pursuant to, additional direction provided by FHWA D.C. and Baltimore, with anticipated travel time
and cooperating agencies. Technical information being approximately 15 minutes.
forming the basis of this EA was developed and
prepared by TBC. Does not divide communities: Loop tunnels
do not divide communities or public spaces with
The publication of this document is for the purpose above-ground barriers or lanes.
of helping the agencies complete their analysis
of anticipated effects of the proposed Project on Functions irrespective of weather: Tunnel
the natural and human environment. Signing and travel is not impacted by snow, rain, wind, or
publishing this document does not constitute any severe temperature fluctuations, meaning weather
commitment or decision by FHWA or MDOT SHA should not affect the functionality or reliability of
on any matter, including approval by FHWA or the Loop System.
MDOT SHA of the use of Federal-aid Highway
Right-of-Way (ROW) for the Project; any agreement Avoids surface impacts: The Loop System is
by the State of Maryland to transfer property rights built primarily underground, and therefore largely
beneath ROW owned or controlled by MDOT SHA; avoids surface disruptions during both construction
State of Maryland approval to construct or operate and operation.
the Project; conditions applicable to any approvals
that may be made by FHWA or MDOT SHA; or Offers potential expansion: The Loop System
future obligation of the FHWA or State of Maryland can be expanded to more communities by the
to appropriate or obligate funds, contribute Federal construction of additional stations, or “Loop Stations,”
or State resources, or take any other action relating along the alignment that are connected to the Main
to the Project. Artery Tunnels via spur tunnels and elevator banks.
The role of the MDOT SHA regarding the Project Is designed to accommodate potential
proposed by TBC is limited to serving as the future Hyperloop technology: Loop tunnels
state agency project sponsor. At the request of could potentially serve as Hyperloop corridors.
and pursuant to additional direction provided Hyperloop pods designed to fit within Loop tunnels
by the FHWA, MDOT SHA is facilitating the could potentially transport passengers at speeds
NEPA process and transmittal of TBC’s technical of up to 700 mph (Musk, 2013). However, the
submittals and compiling the EA for transmittal to potential future use of Hyperloop technology is
FHWA for its approval in accordance with their currently unknown.
Page 1
1.2 Overview and initial operation of a transportation system that

1.2.1 The Loop System would carry passengers between Washington,
D.C. and Baltimore, Maryland.
The proposed Project is a high-speed Loop
underground transportation system that transports The proposed Project evaluated in this EA entails
passengers in autonomous electric vehicles, or the following infrastructure and operations:
“AEVs,” at speeds of up to 150 miles per hour. Loop • Loop Stations in Washington, D.C. and
is an all-electric, zero-emissions transportation Baltimore;
system. AEVs are battery-powered electric vehicles • Two Main Artery Tunnels;
with guidance systems to enable safe and reliable
• Up to 70 Ventilation Shafts;
transport within the Loop System (Figure 1-1).
• Four tunnel boring machine (TBM) Launch
Trips within the proposed Project would be Shaft sites;
point-to-point with Loop Station entry and exit • The conversion of TBM Launch Shafts into
points established at each terminus of the Main Maintenance Terminals; and
Artery Tunnels. Each Loop Station would have • Limited initial operation.
ramps, elevators, or spirals to transport AEVs
between the surface and the Main Artery Tunnels. This EA analyzes the potential impacts of the
proposed Project for purposes of compliance
After passengers board an AEV at a Loop Station, with NEPA and applicable federal and state
the AEV would accelerate into a “spur” or tunnel environmental statutes and regulations. This EA
offshoot, like a freeway on-ramp, before quickly identifies best practices and mitigation measures to
merging into the Main Artery Tunnel. Transport be implemented that address anticipated adverse
would be managed through an automated central environmental impacts of the proposed Project,
command system to ensure seamless operation of including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.
multiple AEVs within the Loop System.
1.2.3 Future Operations
1.2.2 Proposed System Development
Future Loop System expansion is anticipated. The
TBC envisions the development of the Washington, proposed Project is limited to the Main Artery
D.C. to Baltimore Loop System over time. The initial Tunnels, terminal Loop Stations, and associated
stage (the proposed Project) consists of construction ancillary features. This EA analyzes the cumulative
Figure 1-1: Conceptual Rendering of an AEV Inside a Main Artery Tunnel
Page 2
effects of the reasonably foreseeable future 1.3 Project Description

operations of the proposed Project based on 1.3.1 Description of Proposed Project
the best available information (Section 3.20).
However, no decision relating to future Loop The proposed Project would consist of the
Station locations would be made based on this EA. construction and operation of a Loop System
transport service between Washington, D.C. and
Key areas of potential expansion include the Baltimore (Figure 1-2).
construction of intermediate Loop Stations
alongside the Main Artery Tunnels to service The components of the proposed Project are:
the communities between Washington D.C. and • AEVs – Vehicles in which system users would
Baltimore. This could include modifying existing travel;
Ventilation Shafts to become Loop Stations. The • Main Artery Tunnels –Underground corridor of
exact placement of these potential future Loop travel for the AEVs;
Stations along the proposed Project alignment
• Loop Stations – Points for AEVs and passengers
would be determined based on user demand and
to access the Loop System between the ground
ridership. Loop Stations could be as small as one surface and the subsurface;
to two parking spaces, allowing easy integration in
• Ventilation Shafts – Structures to provide
busy city-centers, residential communities, or other
adequate Loop System ventilation, emergency
locations along the tunnel route. Alternatively,
egress and maintenance access;
larger Loop Stations could be built near public
transportation hubs to connect with existing • TBM Launch Shafts – Excavated shafts used to
“launch” TBMs, serving as the hub for surface -
transportation systems.
to - tunnel construction operations; and
A key feature of the Loop System is that after • Maintenance Terminals – Area for charging
future Loop Stations are added, all trips would and maintenance of AEVs, comprised of
converted TBM Launch Shafts following tunnel
remain point-to-point, meaning AEVs would travel
construction.
directly to their final destination without stopping at
intermediate stations. When hailing an AEV, each The Project would use a combination of public and
rider would input a destination prior to entering private property for construction and operation of
the Loop System. The rider would be transported the Loop System. Project activities and components
directly to his or her destination through an express which intersect subsurface lands (Main Artery
Main Artery Tunnel, with local service provided Tunnels, Ventilation Shafts, TBM Launch Shafts,
via spur tunnels. and Maintenance Terminals) would generally
be located beneath public highway ROW or
All future stages are conceptual at this time and beneath private land owned or leased by TBC.
are not sufficiently developed for environmental Project components that intersect with the surface
analysis and/or engineering. Future components (Loop Stations, Ventilation Shafts, TBM Launch
will (in addition to design and review) require Sites, and Maintenance Terminals) would be
additional permits, authorizations, and approvals located on private land owned or leased by TBC
to construct and operate and those are not included and public land owned and managed by the
in the proposed Project for this EA. Maryland Stadium Authority (for the Loop Station
in Baltimore).
The Project Study Area used in this EA for analysis of

the Project consists of the footprints of the proposed
Page 3
Figure 1-2: Location Map of the Proposed Project
Page 4
Loop Stations and TBM Launch Shaft locations, Infrastructure inside the Main Artery Tunnels
and an area 300 feet from public highway ROW would include the AEV drive surface, a lighting
boundaries along the proposed Project corridor system, a communications system (three distinct
(Figure 1-3). redundant communication paths), a video system,
emergency lighting and markings systems, and a
AEVs
walkway for emergency ingress/egress.
AEVs would be modified battery-powered electric
passenger vehicles equipped with guidance Electric, communication, and instrumentation
systems to allow for safe and reliable transport utilities will run throughout the tunnel in a keep-out
at speeds potentially up to 150 mph. AEV travel zone (area to house utilities) inside the tunnel. The
range and capacity would be consistent with power lines support only the tunnel infrastructure
traditional battery-operated passenger vehicles (lighting, communications, and video) and are
with future potential for higher-occupancy models. not used to power the AEVs, which are battery-
powered. Communication and instrumentation
Prior to operation of the proposed Project, Loop infrastructure are telecommunications wiring,
technology, including the use of AEVs inside the wireless communication hubs, and emergency
Loop system, will be subject to safety approval by phones. These devices would serve a triple
applicable regulatory authorities. purpose of providing communications in the
event of emergency, providing communications
Main Artery Tunnels
service to passengers, and communicating in
The Main Artery Tunnels would consist of twin, real-time with Loop technology for routing and
underground tunnels approximately 35.3 miles timetable management. Equipment would be
in length beneath between Washington D.C. and included within the tunnel structure: wiring would
Baltimore. Between these termini, the general run along the tunnel walls in accordance with
alignment of the Main Artery Tunnels would follow National Electrical Code (NEC) standards, and
highway ROW under U.S. Route 50/New York emergency phones would be mounted on tunnel
Avenue NE in Washington, D.C., the Baltimore walls at consistent intervals in compliance with
Washington (B-W) Parkway, Maryland (MD) 295, applicable safety regulations.
and Russell Street in the City of Baltimore.
Each tunnel would have a boring diameter of 14

feet, an outer diameter of 13.5 feet, and an inner
diameter of 12 feet (Figure 1-4). Each tunnel would
be bored using TBM technology. The crown (i.e.,
top or roof) and invert (i.e., bottom or floor) of each
tunnel would be approximately 30 and 44 feet
below the ground surface respectively; however,
in cases where underground infrastructure (e.g.,
utilities, bridge footings, subterranean pipelines,
etc.) or subterranean geologic features exist at
that depth, tunnel depth may increase to avoid
impacting these features. The Main Artery Tunnels
would be separated by approximately 14 feet
and would run in parallel (configurations include,
side-by-side, stacked, or a hybrid).
Page 5
Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 1 of 25)
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Figure 1-4: Typical Tunnel Cross-Section Showing Two Possible Configurations:

Parallel (View 1) and Stacked (View 2)
Note: Configuration can change along the length of the alignment.

Loop Stations
333 Camden Street, Baltimore, MD. This public
Loop Stations would be positioned at each property is owned and managed by the Maryland
terminus of the Main Artery Tunnel, providing a Stadium Authority.
mechanism to enter and exit the Loop System.
The Loop Station in Washington D.C. would be Loop Stations would include the necessary facilities
on private property owned/leased by TBC at 55 to support initial system operation, including
New York Avenue NE in Washington D.C. The entrances, signage, pedestrian queuing spaces,
Loop Station in Baltimore would be located in the appropriate safety measures, and attendants
parking areas at Oriole Park at Camden Yards, (Figure 1-5).
Figure 1-5: Example of AEV Descending into a Loop Station
Page 31
Elevators, ramps, or spirals would be installed at The horizontal side tunnel connection from the
each Loop Station location to raise and lower AEVs Main Artery Tunnel to the Ventilation Shaft would
out of the tunnel (one lane per direction). Riders have an approximate diameter of 12 feet.
would access the Loop Station by boarding the
TBM Launch Shafts
AEV at the surface or below grade via escalator.
Up to four TBM Launch Shafts would be
Ventilation Shafts
constructed and used along the proposed tunnel
Ventilation Shafts would house ventilation alignment for launching TBMs. The TBM Launch
equipment and provide tunnel maintenance access Shafts would be on private property owned or
and emergency ingress/egress points. Ventilation leased by TBC at intervals along the Main Artery
Shafts would be spaced approximately 0.5 to 2 Tunnels between Baltimore and Washington, D.C.
miles apart and would be installed at up to 70 at four of the five locations listed in Table 1-1 and
locations along both sides of the proposed Main shown in Figure 1-2. The TBM Launch Shafts would
Artery Tunnel alignment, depending on engineering be approximately 8,000 – 15,000 square feet in
and regulatory requirements determined during surface area and approximately 45 feet in depth.
final project design.
Four sites have been identified as likely TBM
Each Ventilation Shaft would have an approximate Launch Shaft locations. Key criteria for the siting
diameter between 12 feet and 24 feet. The surface of TBM Launch Shafts are locations adjacent to
interface of each shaft would be housed in a small the corridor ROW with adequate size (minimum
shed surrounded by a fence on land privately of 0.5 acre) to site TBM Launch Shaft construction
owned or leased by TBC (Figure 1-6). The shed operations and the potential to minimize
dimensions would be approximately 15 feet by environmental site impacts.
15 feet for 12-foot shafts or 30 feet by 30 feet
for 24-foot shafts, depending on the size of the An additional location, in the vicinity of Cheverly,
ventilation equipment. Alternatively, Ventilation MD, will be analyzed in this EA as an alternate
Shafts could be constructed with a single, flat TBM Launch Shaft site, with the specific alternative
steel grate covering such that no surface structure site selected based on compatibility with the key
would exist. design criteria.
Figure 1-6: Conceptual Artistic Rendering of Ventilation Shaft
Page 32
Table 1-1: Potential TBM Launch Shaft Locations

Site ID Address Property Acreage
A 805 Pinnacle Drive, Linthicum Heights, MD 10.3
B 7876 Milestone Parkway, Hanover, MD 17.3
C 12005 Laurel Bowie Road, Laurel, MD 0.7
D 7474 and 7500 Greenway Center Drive, Greenbelt, MD 7.2 and 5.5
E Unidentified Parcel(s), Cheverly Area, MD TBD
The exact locations of proposed TBM Launch Sites Lateral alignment of the Main Artery Tunnels
will be determined prior to the publication of a would vary within the highway ROW. Main Artery
decision document. Tunnels would be designed to stay 30 feet or
more below grade to avoid existing infrastructure
Maintenance Terminals
and would account for changes in tunnel depth
After completion of tunneling, between one and with changes in surface topography. The target
four TBM Launch Shaft sites could potentially be maximum gradient of the Main Artery Tunnel is
repurposed to serve as Maintenance Terminals two percent grade; however, AEVs and Main
for the AEVs. Activities anticipated to create such Artery Tunnel structures are capable of operating
a conversion would include the transformation at much steeper slopes, so, depths would tend to
of temporary shoring into permanent retaining vary as needed based on surface topography.
walls and the installation of permanent lighting Depths to top of crown may amount to 90 feet
and fixtures, maintenance lifts, electric car battery (e.g., near river crossings where topographic relief
chargers, and a site office. Additionally, decking or is generally greatest).
roofing may be added to cover the facilities. The
1.3.3 Initial Operations
roughly one to five employees per maintenance
facility would park above-ground adjacent to or As an all-electric transportation system, the Project
on top of the shaft (if decked). would provide a high-speed, zero-emissions
transportation option connecting Washington,
1.3.2 Design and Construction
D.C. and Baltimore.
The proposed Project includes the construction of
the Main Artery Tunnels, two Loop Stations, up to The system would operate up to 20 hours per
four TBM Launch Shafts, and up to 70 Ventilation day (hours of operation are flexible and not yet
Shafts. The orientation of the Main Artery Tunnels determined), with AEVs leaving each Loop Station
would be designed primarily in relation to the at predetermined times. Departure intervals would
configuration of public highway ROW, avoidance be determined by various factors including station
of existing infrastructure below ground, and depths size and passenger loading time. A one-way trip
of favorable geologic conditions. between Loop Stations in either direction would
take approximately 15 minutes.
Prior to final design of the proposed Project,
geotechnical analysis would be performed to 1.4 Purpose and Need
confirm the clearance necessary to avoid impacts TBC proposes construction and operation of the
to subsurface features. Key constraints to TBM Washington, D.C. to Baltimore Loop Project to
technology include a general minimum radius of create a safe, affordable, environmentally-friendly,
curvature of 520 feet and maximum inclination and expandable transportation alternative for a
of approximately ±4 degrees (a change of four congested urban transportation corridor.
vertical feet for every 100 lateral feet of tunnel).
Page 33
The purpose of the proposed Project is to provide interests in real property and other agreements
underground, high-speed passenger transportation between TBC and the MDOT SHA, the State of
between Washington, D.C. and Baltimore. Maryland, the District of Columbia Department
of Transportation (DDOT), and Baltimore City for
The proposed Project is needed because high the use of federally-funded ROW in Maryland,
travel demand between Washington, D.C. and Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, respectively.
Baltimore results in severe congestion, leading to Such agreements generally require the payment
inefficient and unreliable travel. The population of fair market value and require FHWA approval
in the Baltimore-Washington area is one of under 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
the densest population centers and one of the 710, subpart D. This NEPA review is a required part
densest urban agglomerations in the U.S. (U.S. of the FHWA decision-making process. FHWA
Census Bureau, 2015). Population in the area is could issue a Finding of No Significant Impact
projected to increase by 38 percent from 2005 (FONSI) or recommend additional environmental
to 2040 (FHWA, 2012a). Accordingly, the review.
demand on transportation infrastructure in the
1.5.2 Federal Railroad Administration
region would continue to increase along major
roadways and railways, thereby decreasing Generally, the Federal Railroad Administration
the level of service, reliability, and mobility of (FRA) has jurisdiction over the safety of railroads
existing options. At the same time, expanding and may prescribe regulations, issue orders or
existing surface transportation systems would waivers, or take other forms of regulatory action,
likely impact community features and cultural and as necessary for railroad safety. At this time, FRA
natural resources between Washington, D.C. and has not determined that the Loop Technology falls
Baltimore. under FRA’s safety jurisdiction. In the future, if FRA
makes such a determination, TBC may be required
1.4.1 Proposed Project Objectives
to seek and obtain FRA regulatory approval(s)
To meet the purpose and need for the Project, the before commencing operations.
proposed Project must include the following design
1.5.3 National Park Service
objectives:
• Maximize the use and utility of existing The proposed federal action being considered
public highway ROW to allow for reliable, by the National Park Service (NPS) is a land
high-speed travel between Washington, D.C. exchange that would provide TBC with an
and Baltimore; easement that would allow construction of two
• Minimize environmental impacts, particularly parallel tunnels, along with tunnel spurs to the
community impacts; and associated Ventilation Shafts, beneath the NPS-
• Minimize curves to optimize travel times, administered B-W Parkway. The NPS would make
design speed, and passenger comfort. a decision regarding the proposed action after
careful consideration of how the proposal would
1.5 Federal, State, and Local affect the overall purpose and significance of the
Roles and Actions B-W Parkway, as expressed in statute, regulation,
1.5.1 Federal Highway Administration and policy, pursuant to the requirements set forth
in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA),
The Proposed Project would require agreements NEPA, and other applicable laws.
for the non-highway subsurface uses of real
property interests in public highway ROW. This NPS is considering TBC’s proposal under its land
includes the conveyance of easements and other exchange authority at 54 U.S.C. 102901(b) or
Page 34
under other applicable authority. Depending on regulatory agency. A State Tidal Wetlands License
which authority is applicable, an exchange could would be required from the Board of Public Works
only take place if TBC can acquire appropriate (BPW) for the crossing of tidal waterways. In
non-federally owned property within the boundary addition, an authorization from MDE would be
of an NPS unit in Maryland and Washington, D.C., required for any unavoidable impacts to nontidal
or appropriate non-federally owned land adjacent wetlands, including a 25-foot nontidal wetlands
to the B-W Parkway. The TBC-acquired property buffer; waterways; and the 100-year nontidal
would be exchanged for an easement that would floodplain.
allow tunnel construction under the B-W Parkway.
1.5.6 Others (State, District of Columbia
The lands or interests in land to be exchanged
and the City of Baltimore)
by the parties must be of approximately equal
value. By agreement of the parties, values may Easements and other interests in real property and
be equalized by subtracting land from the parcels other approvals, rights, or permits will be needed
proposed for exchange; by an equalization from all ROW owners, including DDOT, Baltimore
payment from one party to the other; or, if the value City Department of Transportation (BDOT), the
of the land or interests in land conveyed by TBC State of Maryland, and MDOT SHA. TBC would
to the U.S. is greater than the value of the land or acquire, as may be required, any interests or
interests in land conveyed by the U.S. to TBC, by use rights in land needed for construction and
TBC donating the difference in values to the U.S. operation of the proposed Project. Additionally,
TBC has coordinated with the Maryland Stadium
Because of the indeterminate amount of time needed Authority and preliminarily determined that a
to fully accomplish this exchange of property, permit would not be required for construction of
the NPS may consider the possibility of issuing the Loop Station at Oriole Park at Camden Yards.
TBC a special use permit to allow for the initial However, construction plans at this location would
construction. If approved, NPS and TBC would undergo City of Baltimore Planning Department
enter into a preliminary land exchange agreement, review and comment, as well as the State of
which would identify the exchange parcels and/or Maryland’s Legislative Policy Committee review
the process through which those parcels would be and comment. The proposed use or conveyance
identified. That agreement would serve as the basis of State of Maryland assets for construction and
for the exchange of property interests. operation of the Project, including subsurface
easements beneath B-W Parkway ROW and the
1.5.4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Loop Station in Baltimore, would require approval
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is a by the State of Maryland’s BPW. Depending on the
Cooperating Agency for the purposes of this EA. nature and extent of State assets conveyed or used
The USACE would need to consider applications and the consideration provided by TBC, additional
under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act reviews and approvals may be required including,
and Section 408 of 33 U.S.C. If waters of the U.S. but not limited to, the Maryland Department of
are impacted by the proposed Project, the USACE Planning, Department of Legislative Services,
would also need to consider applications under the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee, the
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Section 3.12). Senate Education Health and Environmental
Affairs Committee, the House Environmental Affairs
1.5.5 Maryland Department of the
Committee, the House Appropriations Committee,
Environment
the House Committee on Ways and Means, and
The Maryland Department of the Environment the Legislative Policy Committee.
(MDE) is Maryland’s state environmental
Page 35
In addition, any right-of-entry or local permitting or funding) on the natural and built environment.
associated with preliminary engineering work NEPA requires a systematic interdisciplinary
such as geotechnical investigations would be analysis of the impacts and benefits of a proposed
coordinated with the appropriate county and/or action, including the following:
municipal authority. • The probable environmental impacts of the
action, including impacts to the natural and
1.6 EA Process built environment;
The EA would be made available to the public, • The effects of the proposed action on the
including local, state, and federal agencies, for transportation system;
review for 30 days. Substantive agency and public
• The measures taken to avoid potential impacts;
comments would be addressed. and
• Strategies for minimizing or mitigating
If the federal agencies with approvals over the
unavoidable impacts, as appropriate.
proposed Project determine that the proposed
Project would not have significant environmental Consultation with federal, state, and local
impacts, they would issue their respective FONSI. agencies and appropriate public participation in
A FONSI is a document that presents the reasons the environmental review process are required.
why the agency has concluded that there are
no significant environmental impacts projected The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
to occur upon implementation of the proposed regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) describe
Project. If, based on the EA and substantive public the means for federal agencies to develop the
and agency comment, federal agencies with environmental decision-making documents
approvals over the proposed Project determine that mandated by the NEPA in Section 102. Under the
the environmental impacts of the proposed action CEQ regulations, an EA should be developed when
would be significant, an Environmental Impact there is not enough information to determine whether
Statement (EIS) would need to be prepared. a proposed action may have significant impacts. If
an EA concludes that a federal action would result in
MDOT SHA’s submission of this EA does not obligate significant impacts, the agency is required to prepare
it to sponsor or participate in any other NEPA related an EIS or alter the action proposed. Otherwise, the
process or approvals including but not limited to: the agency is directed to issue a FONSI.
preparation and submission of an EIS for the Project;
re-evaluations that may be required following the Section 1508.09 of the CEQ regulations states that
submission of an EA and FONSI; environmental the purposes of an EA are to:
monitoring during construction of the Project; or any • Briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis
NEPA approvals that my be required related to the for determining whether to prepare an EIS or
expansion of the Project. a FONSI;
• Aid an agency’s compliance with NEPA when
1.7 Applicable Regulations and no EIS is necessary; and
Orders
• Facilitate preparation of an EIS when one is
1.7.1 Federal necessary.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. § 4321 ET SEQ) Preparation of an EA is used to help agencies
comply with Section 102(2)E of NEPA, which
The NEPA requires federal agencies to consider requires an agency to “study, develop, and
the impacts of their actions (e.g., federal approvals describe appropriate alternatives to recommended
Page 36
courses of action in any proposal which involves endangered plants and animals and the habitats
unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses in which they are found. The lead federal agencies
of available resources.” It provides for mitigation for implementing ESA are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
for impacts that may otherwise be considered Service (USFWS) and the U.S. National Oceanic
significant. and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries
Service. The USFWS maintains a list of endangered
FHWA, FRA, and FTA “Environmental Impact
species, which include birds, insects, fish, reptiles,
and Related Procedures” (23 CFR Part 771)
mammals, crustaceans, flowers, grasses, and trees.
This regulation prescribes the policies and The law requires federal agencies, in consultation
procedures of the FHWA, the FRA, and the Federal with the USFWS and/or the NOAA Fisheries
Transit Administration (FTA) for implementing NEPA Service, to ensure that actions they authorize,
as amended, and supplements the implementing fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize
NEPA regulations of the CEQ. Together these the continued existence of any listed species or
regulations set forth FHWA, FRA, FTA, and result in the destruction or adverse modification
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) of designated critical habitat of such species.
requirements under NEPA for the processing of The law also prohibits any action that causes a
highway and public transportation projects.1 “taking” of any listed species of endangered
fish or wildlife. Likewise, the import, export, and
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
interstate or foreign commerce of listed species
(54 U.S.C. §300101 et seq)
are all generally prohibited.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42
Act of 1966, as amended requires federal agencies
U.S.C. § 1251-1376)
to consider the potential effects of their undertakings
to historic properties. Generally, historic properties The Clean Air Act (CAA) is the comprehensive
are those that are more than 50 years of age, and federal law that regulates air emissions from
that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National stationary and mobile sources. Section 112 of
Register of Historic Places (NRHP). the CAA addresses emissions of hazardous air
pollutants. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
Advisory Council on Historical
(CAAA) revised Section 112 to first require
Preservation “Protection of Historic and
Cultural Properties” (36 CFR Part 800) issuance of technology-based standards for
major sources and certain area sources. “Major
36 CFR 800 NHPA and Executive Order (EO) sources” are defined as a stationary source or
11593), “Protection of Historic and Cultural group of stationary sources that emit or have the
Properties,” contains regulations of the Advisory potential to emit ten tons per year or more of a
Council on Historic Preservation to implement hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or
Section 106 of the NHPA as amended and related more of a combination of hazardous air pollutants.
presidential directives. An “area source” is any stationary source that is
not a major source.
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §
1531 et seq)
For major sources, Section 112 requires that the U.S.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) promulgates Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish
a program for the conservation of threatened and emission standards that require the maximum
1
Through a Final rule issued on October 29, 2018, FRA joined 23 CFR part 771 (83 FR 54489). However, for projects initiated prior to the
Final rule’s effective date (November 28, 2018), including the proposed Project, FRA will continue to follow its Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999).
Page 37
historic property is affected by the project

degree of reduction in emissions of hazardous air
or the project would have “no adverse
pollutants. These emission standards are commonly
effect” on the property in question.
referred to as “maximum achievable control
technology” or “MACT” standards. Eight years Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
after the technology-based MACT standards are U.S.C. § 2000D-2000D-4)
issued for a source category, EPA is required to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act states: “No person
review those standards to determine whether any in the U.S. shall, on the ground of race, color, or
residual risk exists for that source category and, if national origin, be excluded from participation
necessary, revise the standards to address such risk. in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected
to discrimination under any program or activity
U.S. Department of Transportation Act of
receiving Federal financial assistance.”
1966 (49 U.S.C. § 303 and 23 U.S.C. § 138)
/ FHWA “Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife
and Waterfowl Refuses, and Historic Sites” Under the law, state agencies, local or municipal
(Section 4(F)) (23 CFR Part 774) government entities, educational institutions,
for-profit and non-profit corporations and
Section 4(f) of the Department of the Transportation institutions that receive federal financial assistance
Act of 1966, referred to as Section 4(f) in this EA, are subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
stipulates that USDOT agencies cannot approve Federal authorities may refuse to grant or continue
the use of land from publicly owned parks, federal financial assistance for failure to comply
recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, with Title VI and its regulations.
or public and private historical sites unless the
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
following conditions apply:
U.S.C. § 12101 ET SEQ)
• USDOT determines that there is no feasible
and prudent avoidance alternative to the The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a
use of land from the property, and the action civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against
includes all possible planning to minimize individuals with disabilities in all areas of public
harm to the property resulting from such use. life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and
(23 CFR 774.3(a)); or, all public and private places that are open to the
• USDOT determines that the use of Section 4(f) public. The purpose of the law is to make sure that
property, including any measures to minimize people with disabilities have the same rights and
harm to (such as avoidance, minimization, opportunities as people without disabilities. Title
mitigation or enhancement measures) III applies to public accommodations and services
committed to by the applicant would have a operated by Private Entities. Title III also sets the
de minimis impact on the property (23 CFR minimum standards for accessibility for alterations
774.3(b). De minimis impact is defined in 23
and new construction of commercial facilities
CFR 774.17 as follows:
and privately-owned public accommodations.
»» For parks, recreation areas, and wildlife It directs businesses to make “reasonable
and waterfowl refuges, a de minimis
modifications” to their usual operations when
impact is one that would not adversely
serving people with disabilities. If transportation
affect the features, attributes, or activities
qualifying the property for protection is offered by a private company, it is covered by
under Section 4(f); and Title III. Privately funded transportation includes,
taxicabs, airport shuttles, intercity bus companies,
»» For historic sites, de minimis impact means
and hotel-provided transportation. The ADA
that the Department has determined, in
accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, that no requires that businesses take steps necessary
Page 38
to communicate effectively with customers with 3, 1899; 30 Stat. 1151) prohibits the construction
vision, hearing, and speech disabilities. of any bridge, dam, dike or causeway over or
in navigable waterways of the U.S. without
Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq)
congressional approval.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic
structure for regulating discharges of pollutants Under Section 10 of the Act, the building of
into the waters of the U.S. and regulating quality any wharfs, piers, jetties, and other structures is
standards for surface waters. Under the CWA, prohibited without congressional approval, and
EPA has implemented pollution control programs excavation or fill within navigable waters requires
such as setting wastewater standards for industry. the approval of the USACE Chief of Engineers.
EPA has developed national water quality criteria
EO 11988, Floodplain Management, 42
recommendations for pollutants in surface waters.
Federal Register (FR) 26951, Signed May 24,
The CWA requires states to publish an annual list of 1977
water bodies that are not meeting their beneficial
uses because of excess pollutants. These pollutants EO 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid to
can occur naturally or be a result of human activity. the extent possible the long and short-term adverse
The list of impaired waters, known as the Section impacts associated with the occupancy and
303(d) list, is based on violations of water quality modification of flood plains and to avoid direct
standards. The CWA made it unlawful to discharge and indirect support of floodplain development
any pollutant from a point source into navigable wherever there is a practicable alternative. In
waters, unless a permit was obtained. EPA’s accomplishing this objective, “each agency shall
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System provide leadership and shall take action to reduce
(NPDES) permit program controls discharges. Point the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of
sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and
or man-made ditches. Industrial, municipal, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial
other facilities must obtain NPDES permits if their values served by flood plains in carrying out its
discharges go directly to surface waters. responsibilities” for the following actions:
Section 404 of the CWA • Acquiring, managing, and disposing of

federal lands and facilities;
Section 404 of the CWA establishes a program to • Providing federally-undertaken, financed,
regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material or assisted construction and improvements;
into waters of the United States, including wetlands. and/or
Section 404 requires a permit before dredged or
• Conducting federal activities and programs
fill material may be discharged into waters of the affecting land use, including but not limited
United States, unless the activity is exempt from to water and related land resources planning,
Section 404 regulation. Permittees must show regulation, and licensing activities.
that steps have been taken to avoid impacts to
wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources; that The guidelines delineate an eight-step process that
potential impacts have been minimized; and that agencies should carry out as part of their decision-
compensation would be provided for all remaining making on projects that have potential impacts to
unavoidable impacts. or within the floodplain. The eight steps, which are
summarized below, reflect the decision-making
River and Harbors Act
process required in Section 2(a) of the Order:
Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation
Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403; Chapter 425, March
Page 39
• Determine if a proposed action is in the base

human health or environmental effects, including
floodplain (that area which has a one percent
interrelated social and economic effects, of their
or greater chance of flooding in any given year);
programs, policies, and activities on minority
• Conduct early public review, including public populations and low-income populations. The
notice;
USDOT Order instructs USDOT agencies to address
• Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives compliance with EO 12898 and requirements
to locating in the base floodplain, including within the USDOT Order in rulemaking activities.
alternative sites outside of the floodplain; FRA evaluated this final rule under Executive Order
• Identify impacts of the proposed action; 12898 and the USDOT Order and determined
• If impacts cannot be avoided, develop it would not cause disproportionately high and
measures to minimize the impacts and restore adverse human health and environmental effects
and preserve the floodplain, as appropriate; on minority or low-income populations.
• Reevaluate alternatives;
FHWA Order 6640.23A
• Present the findings and a public explanation;
and FHWA managers and staff must ensure that FHWA
programs, policies, and activities for which they
• Implement the action.
are responsible do not have a disproportionately
Agencies are required to select alternative sites high and adverse effect on minority populations
for projects outside the floodplains, if practicable, or low-income populations. When determining
and to develop measures to mitigate unavoidable whether a program, policy, or activity would
impacts. have disproportionately high and adverse effects
on minority and low-income populations, FHWA
EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 43 FR
managers and staff should take into account
26961, Signed May 24, 1977
mitigation and enhancement measures and
EO 11990 directs each agency to provide leadership potential offsetting benefits to the affected minority
and take action to minimize the destruction, loss, or and/or low-income populations. Other factors
degradation of wetlands. EO 11990 also directs that may be taken into account include design,
each agency to preserve and enhance the natural comparative impacts, and the relevant number of
and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out similar existing system elements in nonminority and
the agency’s responsibilities for: (1) acquiring, non-low-income areas.
managing, and disposing of federal lands and
EO 13166, Improving Access to Services for
facilities; (2) providing federally undertaken,
Persons with Limited English Proficiency,
financed, or assisted construction or improvements; 65 FR 50121, Signed August 11, 2000
and (3) conducting federal activities and programs
affecting land use. EO 13166 requires each federal agency to
“examine the services it provides and develop
EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address
and implement a system by which [limited English
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations, proficiency] persons can meaningfully access
59 FR 7629, Signed February 11, 1994 those services consistent with, and without unduly
burdening, the fundamental mission of the agency.”
EO 12898 and USDOT Order 5610.2(a) (91 EO 13166 directs each applicable federal agency
FR 27534, May 10, 2012) require USDOT to publish guidance for its respective recipients
agencies to achieve environmental justice as part clarifying that obligation. Different treatment based
of their mission by identifying and addressing, as upon a person’s inability to speak, read, write,
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
Page 40
or understand English may be a type of national with the continued use, operations, maintenance,
origin discrimination. and safety of the facility and must not interfere
with the free and safe flow of traffic. Generally
EO 13423, Strengthening Federal
current fair market value must be charged for the
Environmental, Energy, and Transportation
Management, 72 FR 33504, Signed January use or disposal of all real property interests and
24, 2007 FHWA approval.
Coastal Zone Management Act

EO 13423 mandates that federal agencies
conduct their environmental, transportation, Section 307 of the Federal Coastal Zone
and energy-related activities in support of Management Act of 1972, as amended (CZMA),
their respective missions in an environmentally, requires that proposed federal activities,
economically and fiscally sound, integrated, including direct federal actions, federal licenses
continuously improving, efficient, and sustainable and permits, and federal assistance to state and
manner. local governments, be consistent to the maximum
extent practicable with a state’s federally-
EO 13514, Federal Leadership in
approved Coastal Zone Management Program.
Environmental, Energy, and Economic
Performance, 74 FR 52117, Signed October The obligations of parties subject to comply with
5, 2009 federal consistency requirements of the CZMA are
outlined by the NOAA in 15 CFR Part 930.
EO 13514 mandated that at least 15 percent of
1.7.2 State
existing federal buildings and leases should meet
Energy Efficiency Guiding Principles by 2015, Maryland Transportation Article § 8-646
and that annual progress be made toward 100 Section 8-646 generally prohibits a person, unless
percent conformance of all federal buildings, with the person obtains a permit from MDOT SHA, from
a goal of 100 percent of all new federal buildings making an opening in any State highway, placing
achieving zero-net-energy by 2030. “Zero-net- any structure on any State highway; changing
energy building” is defined as “a building that is or renewing any structure placed on any State
designed, constructed, and operated to require highway; digging up any State highway for
a greatly reduced quantity of energy to operate, any purpose, including the placement of pipes,
meet the balance of energy needs from sources of sewers, poles, wires, or rails; planting or removing
energy that do not produce greenhouse gases, and any tree on any State highway; or placing any
therefore result in no net emissions of greenhouse obstruction or improvement on any State highway.
gases and be economically viable. Permit conditions are required to protect public
safety and to protect the highway and State assets
23 CFR Part 710, Subpart D
and finances, including insurance and indemnity
This subpart describes the grantee’s responsibilities necessary to protect same.
to control the use of real property acquired for a
project in which federal funds participated in any Disposition of State of Maryland Property:
phase of the project and related FHWA approvals. Maryland Transportation Article § 8-309;
The grantee must specify in its approved ROW Maryland State Finance and Procurement Article §
manual or Real Estate Acquisition Management 10-305; Maryland State Finance and Procurement
Plan (RAMP), the procedures for the maintenance, Article § 5-310.
ROW use agreements, and disposal of real
property interests acquired with funds for federal Priority Funding Areas: Maryland State Finance
highways. ROW use agreements must be consistent and Procurement § 5-7B-01, et. seq.
Page 41
Public-Private Partnerships: Maryland State Affairs Committee, the House Environmental Affairs
Finance and Procurement § 10A-101, et. seq. Committee, the House Appropriations Committee,
the House Committee on Ways and Means, and the
Section 8-309 of the Transportation Article Legislative Policy Committee.
establishes specific requirements governing the
Maryland Environmental Policy Act
disposition of real property or interests in real
property acquired by MDOT SHA, the fair market The Maryland Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)
value or alternate consideration required for such requires state agencies to prepare an environmental
conveyances, and Maryland BPW approval. effects report for each proposed state action
that would significantly affect the quality of the
Section 10-305 of the State Finance and environment (Appendix A). A proposed State
Procurement Article establishes requirements for action means requests for legislative appropriations
the transfer of any interest in State real or personal or other legislative actions that would alter the
property and approval by the Maryland BPW for quality of the air, land, or water resources.
the consideration that they determine is adequate.
Maryland Historical Trust Act of 1985
Section 5-310 of the State Finance and Procurement The Maryland Historical Trust Act (MHTA) of
Article requires State Agencies to notify the 1985, as amended, requires projects carried out
Maryland Department of Planning of any real by state agencies or that receive state funding to
property excess to its needs so that it can determine consult with the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT)
whether any other State or local governmental to determine if the project would have an effect
agency is interested in the property and make on historic properties. Under the MHTA, the MHT,
recommendations to the Maryland BPW. which is Maryland’s State Historic Preservation
Office (MDSHPO), has established standards
Maryland State Finance and Procurement § and guidelines for archaeological investigations
5-7B-01, et. seq., Priority Funding Areas, generally to identify, evaluate, and treat (e.g., avoid or
prohibits State funding or assistance outside of a mitigate) historic properties under the MHTA. These
Priority Funding Area without Maryland BPW guidelines implement the requirements of Section
approval. 106 of the NHPA, as well as Article 83B, section
6-607 (b)(8), (10), and (12); section 5-617 (f)(1);
Maryland State Finance and Procurement § section 5-618 (g); and section 5-623 (b)(2) of the
10A-101, et. seq., Public-Private Partnerships, Annotated Code of Maryland.
establishes Maryland BPW and General
State of Maryland Tidal Wetlands Act
Assembly Budget Committees notice, and
approval requirements for solicited and unsolicited The State of Maryland Tidal Wetlands Act restricts
Public-Private Partnerships. construction and development actions in tidal
wetlands. The Wetlands Act establishes that tidal
Depending on the nature and extent of State assets wetlands are managed to provide reasonable
conveyed or used and the consideration provided use while furnishing essential resource protection.
by TBC, as detailed in the above referenced Licenses, issued by the State’s BPW based on
laws additional reviews and approvals may be recommendations from the Water and Science
required including, but not limited to, the Maryland Administration (WSA), are required for projects
Department Planning, Department of Legislative in state wetlands. Permits are issued directly by
Services, the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee, WSA for projects in private wetlands. A permit
the Senate Education Health and Environmental
Page 42
or license must be obtained before a person fills, species. The act also sets forth penalties for
dredges, or otherwise alters a tidal wetland. unpermitted take of relevant species.
State of Maryland Nontidal Wetlands Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Law

Protection Act
The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Law was passed
The Maryland Nontidal Wetlands Protection Act to protect the overall quality of the Chesapeake
requires a state nontidal wetlands permit or letter Bay. The Critical Area is defined as the land area
of authorization from the Nontidal Wetlands and 1,000 feet inland from tidal water or tidal wetlands,
Waterways Division for activities in a nontidal and special permits must be obtained to disturb
wetland or within a 25-foot buffer or 100-foot vegetation (i.e., construction and excavation)
expanded buffer around a nontidal wetland. within this area. Under the law, local jurisdictions
For both state and federal law, the same general must create Critical Area Programs, and Anne
requirements for permits apply: Arundel, Prince George’s, Baltimore County, and
• Practical alternatives to building in a nontidal Baltimore City each have Critical Area Programs
wetlands do not exist; that may apply to the proposed Project.
• The activities avoid and minimize impacts to District of Columbia Historic Preservation
nontidal wetlands; and Regulations (DCMR 10-C)
• The activities would not cause or contribute to
The District of Columbia Historic Preservation
degradation of groundwater or surface water.
Regulations (DCMR 10-C) of 1983 stipulates
State of Maryland, Waterway Construction projects carried out within District of Columbia city
Statute boundaries consult with the District of Columbia
Chapter 526 of the Laws of 1933 established a Historic Preservation Office (DCSHPO) to
permanent State Water Resources Commission. determine if the project would have an effect on
Authorization is required for construction or repair historic properties. These guidelines implement
of the following projects in a waterway or a the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA, as
100-year floodplain: dams and reservoirs; bridges well as DCMR 10-C, Section C-201 and Section
and culverts; excavation, filling or construction; C-202 of the Municipal Regulations of the District
channelization; changing the course, current or of Columbia.
cross-section of any stream; temporary construction
(e.g., utility lines); or any other similar project. 1.8 Required Permits
All ROW owners, including the DDOT, BDOT,
Nongame and Endangered Species
MDOT and NPS would need to grant subsurface
Conservation Act
land access and construction permits (Table 1-2).
The Maryland Department of Natural Resources TBC would acquire, as may be required,
(MDNR) administers the Nongame and any interests or use rights in land needed for
Endangered Species Conservation Act (Code construction and operation of the proposed Project
of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 08.03.08), (Section 1.5.6 and Section 1.7.2).
which addresses impacts to any species designated
under the ESA as endangered, threatened, or other The construction of the Ventilation Shafts and TBM
species as designated by the state secretary as Launch Shafts would require coordination and
sensitive based on habitat and population factors. construction permitting through county and city
The act outlines the ability to prepare conservation planning offices.
plans and programs and allow for take of these
Page 43
Table 1-2: List of Required ROW Access Requiring Permits for the Proposed
Project
ROW
Location Route From To Miles
Ownership
MD 295/Russell Oriole Park at Baltimore County/
Maryland City of Baltimore 2.7
Street Camden Yards City Line
Baltimore County/
Maryland MD 295 State of Maryland MD 175 10.3
City Line
National Park Washington, D.C.
Maryland B-W Parkway MD 175 18.6
Service Border
U.S. 50/New Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. 55 New York Ave NE 3.7
York Avenue Border
Total 35.3
33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408)

reporting requirements, and other provisions to
Section 408 provides that USACE may grant ensure that the discharge does not hurt water
permission for another party to alter a Civil Works quality or people’s health. In essence, the permit
project upon a determination that the alteration translates general requirements of the CWA into
proposed would not be injurious to the public specific provisions tailored to the operations of
interest and would not impair the usefulness of the each person discharging pollutants.
Civil Works project. It is not yet known whether a
Section 408 permit would be required, though NPDES permits would be required during
this decision is currently being determined by construction should surface runoff of generated
USACE with regards to the tunnels’ crossings of waters need to be discharged into storm drain
the Anacostia River. systems or if treated on-site and directly returned
into the groundwater system.
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
requires that regulated activities conducted below Section 404 of the CWA establishes a program to
the Ordinary High Water elevation of navigable regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material
waters of the U.S. be approved/permitted by the into waters of the United States, including wetlands.
USACE. Regulated activities include the placement/ Section 404 requires a permit before dredged or
removal of structures, work involving dredging, fill material may be discharged into waters of the
disposal of dredged material, filling, excavation, United States, unless the activity is exempt from
or any other disturbance of soils/sediments or Section 404 regulation. Permittees must show
modification of a navigable waterway. that steps have been taken to avoid impacts to
wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources; that
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act
potential impacts have been minimized; and that
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act prohibits the compensation would be provided for all remaining
discharge of pollutants through a point source unavoidable impacts.
(e.g., any discernible, confined and discrete
conveyance, such as a pipe, ditch, channel, An individual permit is required for potentially
tunnel, conduit, discrete fissure, or container) into significant impacts. Individual permits are reviewed
a water of the U.S. unless they have an NPDES by USACE, which evaluates applications under a
permit. A NPDES permit would contain limits public interest review, as well as the environmental
on what one may discharge, monitoring and criteria set forth in the EPA CWA Section 404(b)
Page 44
• Prince George’s Sentinel

(1) Guidelines. For discharges that would have
only minimal adverse effects, a general permit • The Afro American
may be suitable. General permits are issued on a • El Tiempo Latino
nationwide, regional, or state basis for particular
categories of activities. The general permit process FHWA placed a notice of availability of the EA
eliminates individual review and allows certain and draft PA in the Federal Register. The project
activities to proceed with little or no delay, website, Federal Register notice of availability, and
provided that the general or specific conditions newspaper ads instruct the public to comment via
for the general permit are met. an online form or by mail.
1.9 Scoping Refer to Section 3.4 for additional outreach

1.9.1 Agency Scoping planned during the public comment.
A scoping meeting was held on March 13, 2018 1.10 R e s o u r c e Areas for
among federal, state, and local agencies and Environmental Analysis
TBC. The purpose of the meeting was to better An environmental analysis of the Project relative
understand the details of the Project and identify to the following resource areas is presented in
agencies’ informational needs for decision-making. Chapter 3. Unless otherwise noted within respective
Agency roles were reviewed, a presentation of environmental resource sections, the Project Study
the proposed Project was provided by TBC and Area defined for this analysis includes the potential
discussed in a question-and-answer session with area for siting Main Artery Tunnels and Ventilation
the agencies. Shafts, Loop Stations, and TBM Launch Shafts.
Loop Stations and TBM Launch Shafts areas are
1.9.2 Public Outreach
studied within the entire parcels they are located,
A digital public information presentation consisting at a minimum. Because the exact locations of
of a recorded video containing information related the Ventilation Shafts are unknown at this time, a
to the proposed Project would be hosted online 300-foot buffer from the outside edge of the project
during the public comment period following the corridor is applied to capture potential Ventilation
publication of this EA. The public information Shaft locations (Figure 1-3). Unless defined
presentation would be accessible via the internet explicitly within the specific resource section within
at www.dcbaltimoreloop.com during the public Chapter 3, the Project Study Area defined here was
comment period. used to evaluate each resource area for this EA.
Transportation
Newspaper ads to announce the public comment
period for the EA and draft Programmatic Transportation as a resource area evaluates
Agreement (PA) to fulfill requirements of Section effects on transportation as well as relationships
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act with existing transportation systems. Traffic,
as described in Section 3.5 were placed in the transportation prices, accessibility, and other
following newspapers: features. are all considered. The potential benefits
• Washington Post to traffic flow and mobility are assessed, as well
as the potential for negative effects on traffic due
• Baltimore Sun
to construction and hauling activities.
• Capital Gazette
• Laurel Leader
Page 45
Land Ownership, Jurisdiction and Land Use

stakeholders to the likely consequences of a project,
Land Ownership, Jurisdiction and Land Use refer and ensures that human values and concerns receive
to the existing land use, zoning, and general plan proper attention during project development.
land use designations. Land ownership measures
Environmental Justice and Title VI
who has rights to a given land or property area.
Jurisdiction delineates the powers who have the Environmental Justice and Title VI as a resource
official approval to make legal decisions and area includes the potential concerns regarding
judgments in a region. Land use is how a land social equity, which requires that all communities
area is used by the population, whether that be are treated fairly and are given equal opportunity
for recreation (forests, parks, etc.), institutional to participate in the planning and decision-
(stadiums, hospitals, schools), transport (roads, making process, with an emphasis on ensuring
railways, and airports), agricultural (farmland that traditionally disadvantaged groups are
for crops or livestock), residential (housing), or not excluded. These groups include, but are
commercial (business, factories, etc.) purposes. not limited to, ethnic minorities, low income
residents, persons with disabilities, and seniors.
Parks and Recreation Facilities, Including
Environmental justice is the fair treatment and
Section 4(F) Resources
meaningful involvement of all people with
Parks and recreation areas are resources and respect to the development, implementation and
services provided for the purposes of leisure, enforcement of environmental laws, regulations
entertainment, and recreational pursuits. Resources and policies. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
may be public spaces and facilities like parks, 1964 ensures, through federal legislation, that
nature preserves, open space areas, greenways, no person in the U.S. shall, on the ground of
trails, and built structures for sport, recreation, race, color, or national origin, be excluded from
or arts programs. Examples of services include participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
recreation activity programs, athletic leagues, subjected to discrimination under any program
special events, arts programs, and environmental or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
education programs.
Cultural and Historic Resources
Section 4(f) protects the use of land from publicly Section 106 of NHPA requires federal agencies to
owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and consider the effects of their undertakings on historic
waterfowl refuges, or public and private historical resources and to afford the Advisory Council
sites. DOT Operating Administrations cannot on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable
approve the use of such resources unless: opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
• There is no feasible and prudent avoidance Historic resources include any prehistoric or historic
alternative to the use of land; and the action district, site, building, structure, or object that is
includes all possible planning to minimize included in or eligible for inclusion on the NRHP.
harm to the property resulting from such use; or
Visual Quality and Aesthetics
• FHWA determines that the use of the property
would have a de minimis impact. Aesthetic or visual resources are the natural and
cultural features of the landscape that can be seen
Social and Economic Environment and that contribute to the public’s appreciative
Transportation investments have significant enjoyment of the environment. Visual resource or
economic and social consequences for society. aesthetic impacts are generally defined in terms of
The community impact assessment process alerts a project’s physical characteristics and potential
transportation planners, decisionmakers, and visibility and the extent to which the project’s
Page 46
presence would change the perceived visual surface, mostly in fractured rocks and the spaces
character and quality of the environment in which between particles of soil.
it would be located.
Waters of the U.S., Including Wetlands
Noise and Vibration
Waters of the U.S. are waters which are currently
Noise and vibration are both potential nuisances used, or were used in the past, or may be used
to the public, especially sensitive receptors. in the future, for interstate or foreign commerce,
Sensitive receptors of noise include residential including interstate tidal waters, wetlands, lakes,
areas, hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams),
elderly housing and convalescent facilities. mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, wet meadows, or
Sensitive receptors of noise and vibration also natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction
include historical and cultural buildings and of which could affect interstate or foreign
monuments which can be adversely affected by commerce. Waters of the U.S. do not include prior
vibrational activity. converted cropland.
Air Quality
Wetlands are defined as areas where water
Air quality is considered as a resource area not only covers the soil or is present either at or near the
in terms of potential criteria air pollutant releases surface of the soil all year or for varying periods
(those pollutants with established concentration of time during the year, including during the
maximums under the CAA to ensure public health), growing season.
but also in terms of potential odors and potential
Floodplains
releases of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) that
can contribute to global climate change and its A floodplain is an area of land adjacent to a
associated effects. stream or river which stretches from the banks of
its channel to the base of the enclosing valley walls,
Public Health and Safety
and which experiences flooding during periods of
Public health and safety as a resource area water input.
involves the mitigation of potential safety related
Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas, Coastal
incidents, typically including injuries or deaths,
Zones, and Other Management Areas
which are usually the result of one-time accidents.
In 1984, the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area
Contaminated Sites and Hazardous
Protection Act created heightened consideration
Materials
and regulation for activities and development
The contaminated sites and hazardous material within a strip of land 1000 feet from the edge of
resource area addresses the handling of hazardous Chesapeake Bay and any adjacent wetland(s).
materials and hazardous wastes that are subject to Similarly, the CZMA of 1972 created requirements
laws and regulations due to their potential effects for any activities/development in zones located
on public and environmental health. along the coastal interface of land and sea.
Surface Water and Ground Water Geology and Soils

Resources
Geology as a resource area deals with the
Surface water consists of water in streams, dynamics and physical history of the earth, the
rivers, lakes, etc. on the surface of the ground. rocks of which it is composed, and the physical,
Groundwater is water found underneath the chemical, and biological changes that the earth
has undergone or is undergoing. Soils are a
Page 47
Energy
vital resource for the use of land for agriculture.
Additionally, geotechnical properties of soils can Energy as a resource area deals with the supply
affect the integrity of civil structures and can affect and demand of energy supplies in a given area.
receptors through erosion and sedimentation. This includes energy in the form of electricity, gas,
Evaluation of soils would include the potential diesel, natural gas, and other substances.
for use as farmland, as well as potential for
Utilities
geotechnical risk and erosion/sedimentation.
The utility resource area discusses provisions to
Biological Resources
the public such as water, electricity, natural gas,
The biological resources area encapsulates the telephone service, and other essentials which require
health, vigor, biodiversity, etc. of animals and some type of infrastructure to reach their consumer.
plants, as well as the suitability and conditions
Indirect Impacts and Cumulative Effects
of their accompanying habitats. Vegetation
serves a primary role in the ecological health Indirect impacts are those resulting as a byproduct
of a region. Vegetation not only includes the of an action. Cumulative impacts refer to two or
consideration of individual plants, but also the more individual effects which, when considered
dynamic between different plants, plant species, together, are considerable or which compound or
and plant community dynamics. increase other environmental impacts. This section
examines incremental impacts of the proposed
Under the ESA of 1973, species may be listed as Project in combination with effects of other past,
either endangered or threatened. “Endangered” present, and reasonably foreseeable future
means a species is in danger of extinction projects. Both short-term and long-term cumulative
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. impacts are considered. Short-term impacts are
“Threatened” means a species is likely to become those related primarily to project construction,
endangered within the foreseeable future. All and long-term impacts are those related primarily
species of plants and animals, except pest insects, to permanent project features or operation of the
are eligible for listing as endangered or threatened. proposed Project.
Page 48
Chapter 2: Description of the Alternatives Considered
This EA evaluates the Build Alternative, also 2.3 Build Alternative

referred to as the proposed Project, and the The proposed Project, as described in Section 1.3,
No-Build Alternative. is the Build Alternative being evaluated in this EA.
There is only one Build Alternative presented in
2.1 Alternatives Development this EA; therefore, the Build Alternative is also the
Only a single alignment connecting Washington, Preferred Alternative.
D.C., and Baltimore, meets the Purpose and Need
2.3.1 Construction
of the proposed Project and satisfies the design
objectives identified in Section 1.4. Other potential The proposed Project includes the construction
alignments between the two cities maximizing of four main types of infrastructure, Main Artery
use of public ROW (e.g., an alignment following Tunnels, TBM Launch Shafts, Ventilation Shafts,
I-95 and public ROW between I-95 and each and Loop Stations.
city) would not satisfy the objectives to optimize
2.3.1.1 Phasing
travel times, design speed, or passenger comfort
because such alignments would involve curvatures TBC would construct the TBM Launch Shafts first,
that would require reductions in speed increasing followed by construction of the Main Artery Tunnels.
travel times and decreasing passenger comfort. TBC would construct the Loop Stations, Ventilation
Other alternatives using private land not owned Shafts, and install the AEV drive surface concurrent
by TBC could not be accomplished due to the with construction of the Main Artery Tunnels,
timely process and complexity related to acquiring where possible. Some items, such as permanent
many subsurface easements for private land, and lighting, would be installed after completion of the
eminent domain would not be used on this project. Main Artery Tunnels. TBM Launch Shafts may be
converted to underground Maintenance Terminals
2.2 No-Build Alternative after the primary infrastructure is complete.
Under the No-Build Alternative, TBC would not
construct or operate the Washington, D.C. to The anticipated construction schedule is shown in
Baltimore Loop Project. The No-Build Alternative Table 2-1. Tunneling would last 12 to 20 months,
entails continued use of existing transportation depending on tunneling speed, with the overall
options connecting Washington, D.C. and construction schedule anticipated to last a total
Baltimore, including the existing network of major of 15 to 23 months. This EA evaluates the most
roadways (U.S. 29 to I-695E, U.S. 50 to I-95N, conservative schedule scenario throughout the
U.S. 50 to I-295N, U.S. 50 to I-97N by way of resource areas analyzed.
MD 3), existing bus routes (e.g., Greyhound, Peter
2.3.1.2 Construction Methodology
Pan, etc.) rail (Amtrak), and transit (Maryland Rail
Commuter Services “MARC”) options connecting TBM Launch Shafts
these metropolitan areas. Four TBM Launch Shafts to launch the TBMs would
be on private land owned or leased by TBC adjacent
Transportation improvements between Washington, to the Main Artery Tunnel alignment. The Launch
D.C. and Baltimore would be limited to currently Shafts would be approximately 8,000 – 15,000
planned and programmed transportation projects square feet in surface area and approximately
associated with these existing transportation 45 feet in depth. These shafts would be built using
options and routine maintenance. standard excavation practices. The construction
process would generally occur over three phases.
Page 49
Table 2-1: Anticipated construction schedule

Month Activity
Month 0 All permits received
Months 1-3 TBM Launch Shaft Excavation and Construction
Month 4 Launch of initial 4 TBMs
Month 5 Launch of next 4 TBMs
Month 6 Launch of next 4 TBMs (if needed)
Month 7 Launch of next 4 TBMs (if needed)
Month 15-23 Completion of Construction*
* Schedule variability is based on tunneling speed achieved, which is dependent upon TBC’s technical progress
prior to start of construction.
Either TBM Launch Shafts or Ventilation Shafts Main Artery Tunnels

would be used for extraction of the TBMs at the TBC would construct the two Main Artery Tunnels
conclusion of tunneling. Conventional excavation using an expected eight, and up to 16, Earth
methods, such as pipe-jacking or Sequential Pressure Balance (EPB) TBMs. TBMs would be
Excavation Method (SEM), would be employed operated up to 24 hours per day advancing an
to connect short distances between TBM-bored assumed average rate of approximately 240
tunnels and cross passages. Pipe-jacking is a cumulative feet per TBM Launch Shaft per day.
trenchless mining method wherein ringed structural It is possible the final rate will be variable, and
supports are driven laterally by hydraulic jacks, based on machine performance and geology. Due
and the earthen tunnel face is excavated using to the maximum rate of tunneling by a TBM, the
conventional excavation machinery such as a overall project schedule would be determined by
mini excavator. SEM methods involve sequential the number of TBMs used. Each TBM operates with
mining of the tunnel face by excavation equipment a cycle of cutting and segment construction. As a
and sealing of the tunnel lining with shotcrete TBM advances, it passes excavated material into
(concrete/mortar) applied using a pneumatically- muck cars, which are hauled out of the tunnel by an
controlled hose. electric locomotive. The material is then deposited
into a truck to be disposed of. Each TBM then
In the event a TBM Launch Shaft is used for raises curved concrete segments to line the tunnel
launches for four TBMs, TBM cutterheads would one at a time (Figure 2‑1). Grout is then injected
be retrieved through Loop Stations or other through a fill port in the concrete segments to seal
TBM Launch Shafts, with the trailing gear either the annular space between the concrete segment
extracted in the same place or backed out through ring and the surrounding soil or rock.
the initial entry point. The remaining portion of the
tunnel would be completed using pipe-jacking The crown (top) and invert (bottom) of the tunnel
or SEM methods. In the unlikely event of a TBM would be located a minimum of approximately
rescue operation, SEM or similar mining methods 30 and 44 feet below the ground surface
would be used from a vertical shaft from private respectively; however, in cases where underground
land adjacent to the public ROW, identical to infrastructure (e.g., utilities, highway bridge
Ventilation Shaft construction. Alternatively, the footings, subterranean pipelines, etc.) exists at
TBM could potentially be removed from within the greater-than-normal depth, tunnel depth would
tunnel and backed out through its entrance. increase accordingly. The target maximum
gradient of the Main Artery Tunnel is two percent
grade; however, AEVs and Main Artery Tunnel
Page 50
Figure 2-1: Conceptual Rendering of Tunnel Lining
structures can operate at much steeper slopes, excavation techniques. The Ventilation Shafts would
so depths would vary, as needed, based on be connected to the Main Artery Tunnel by spurs,
surface topography. Depths to top of crown are which would be typically constructed through
anticipated to range from approximately 30 feet at pipe-jacking. Although spurs at Ventilation Shafts
the Washington, D.C. and Baltimore Loop Station would not be used for transportation during the
locations, and up to 90 feet near river crossings initial stage of the proposed Project, spurs may be
where greatest topographic relief is present. constructed for the potential future conversion of
Ventilation Shafts into Loop Stations (conversion of
Following construction of the Main Artery Tunnel, Ventilation Shafts into Loop Stations would require
TBC would install the AEV drive surface to serve additional regulatory review prior to conversion). In
as a level surface providing traction and guidance such a scenario, spurs would be constructed oblique
for the transport of AEVs. Other tunnel infrastructure to the Main Artery Tunnel (rather than perpendicular
would be installed in parallel, including power, to it, as shown in Figure 2-2) to allow acceleration
lighting, video, ventilation, safety systems, and and deceleration of AEVs within the spur between
communication systems. the Loop Station and Main Artery Tunnel.
Ventilation Shafts The Ventilation Shaft excavation methods would

Up to 70 Ventilation Shafts would be needed for vary depending on the ground conditions and the
the proposed Project. A total of 20 shafts would length of the tunnel spur. Tunnel spurs would vary in
be capable of ventilating the Main Artery Tunnels; length but would be no more than 0.25-mile-long
however, additional shafts would be potentially for emergency ingress/egress, if needed.
installed to provide redundancy or shorter spacing Methods include precast caisson/segmental shaft
to avoid sensitive resources (e.g., wetlands, excavation methods, concrete secant piles, and
floodplains, biologically sensitive areas) or to enable H piles and lagging. The footprint required during
appropriate emergency egress. Each Ventilation construction would be less than one-quarter acre.
Shaft would have a diameter of between 12 to
24 feet and would be constructed using standard
Page 51
Figure 2-2: Rendering of Conceptual Ventilation Shaft Connection to Main

Artery Tunnel
The vertical shaft would be fitted with elevators the ability to fit into a smaller area roughly the
and/or staircases to allow them to be used as size of one to two parking spaces per elevator, if
emergency exits. The horizontal portion of the needed (Figure 2-3).
Ventilation Shafts would typically be 12 feet in
diameter and be constructed through pipe-jacking. Critical lifts would be conducted using a crane. A
typical critical lift would include the removal of the
Along the section of tunnel alignment that extends TBM cutterhead, which would be disassembled
beneath the B-W Parkway, the above-ground from a pre-constructed excavation shaft and placed
infrastructure associated with Ventilation Shafts directly on flatbed truck for relocation off-site.
would typically be behind tree-lines and therefore
screened from view from B-W Parkway. In other
areas, visual screens would potentially be added Following construction of the Main Artery Tunnel
depending on surrounding uses. In cases where and TBM extraction, one or more TBM Launch Shafts
there are breaks in the tree-line, the Ventilation could be converted into Maintenance Terminals
Shafts would appear as fenced in areas, with where vehicle storage, repair, and charging
a small shed within the fenced area, as needed would occur. As part of the conversion process,
(Figure 1-6). The shed dimensions would be concrete finishing to the shaft walls, stairs, car lifts,
approximately 15 feet by 15 feet for 12-foot shafts and permanent lighting, coatings, and fixtures
or 30 feet by 30 feet for 24-foot shafts. would be installed within the shaft. Additionally,
the shaft could be covered with structural decking
Loop Stations
or intermediate floors to provide additional square
Loop Stations would be constructed using the footage over or within the shaft for use to park,
same excavation methods as vertical portions of charge, and service AEVs. Decking is the technique
Ventilation Shafts, except TBMs would terminate used to build stations under operating city streets
at Loop Stations; therefore, they would typically and would be installed using a crane to set structural
not require pipe jacking to connect to the Main flooring (e.g., concrete slabs on horizontal I-beams)
Artery Tunnel. Loop Stations would have shafts across the top of the shaft. The flooring would sit
approximately 45 feet wide by 100 feet long, with flush with the parking lot pavement if decked
Page 52
Figure 2-3: Loop Station Conceptual Renderings, Showing Ramped (above) and
Elevator (below) Options
at-grade. Above-grade features would include a to lower and remove each TBM into the shafts.
covering for the stairs, maintenance lifts, chargers, Figure 2-5 shows an image of an example TBM
employee parking spaces, and a tent or shed Launch Shaft and associated representative
structure for weather-proofing. The same electrical equipment.
equipment installed for construction would be used
2.3.1.4 Staging Areas for Construction
for operation (Figure 2-4).
Construction staging activities would occur on
2.3.1.3 Equipment
TBC-owned or leased land adjacent to each
Table 2-2 lists equipment used for construction of respective component with the exception of the Loop
each component. Station in Baltimore which would be constructed
on public property owned and managed by the
Additional equipment may be needed depending Maryland Stadium Authority. Construction staging
on site conditions. Dewatering equipment would areas for the TBM Launch Shafts and the Main
only be needed if/where dewatering were to take Artery Tunnels would be located adjacent to the
place (i.e., shaft construction below groundwater TBM Launch Shafts and would be between one-half
table). Bulldozer and paving equipment would and four acres. Staging areas for construction of
be used if site grading and finishing are required. Ventilation Shafts and Loops Stations would be less
than one-quarter acre is size.
A crawler crane with 230-ton capacity and a
100-foot boom length would be used temporarily
Page 53
Figure 2-4: Conceptual Rendering of Maintenance Terminal
2.3.1.5 Dewatering
Table 2-2: Anticipated Equipment Used for Construction Operations

Feature Phase Required Equipment Optional Equipment
Drill, loader, dewatering
Shaft Excavation Excavator, Crane
pump and tank
Site Prep Back hoe Dozer, paving equipment
TBM Launch Shaft and TBM (8 to 16), electric locomotive
Main Artery Tunnel (4), electric bridge crane (4),
grout plant (1), site office (4),
Tunneling
forklift (4), concrete trucks, slip
forming machine, construction
hand tools, electrical switchgear
Crane, drill, loader,
Excavation Excavator dewatering pump and
Loop Station tank
Crane, concrete trucks,
Installation Welding tools, generator
construction hand tools
Crane, drill, loader,
Excavation (Vertical) Excavator dewatering pump and
tank
For Pipejacking: Crane, grout Loader, dewatering
mixer/pump, mini-excavator, pump and tank, electric
pipejacking equipment locomotive
Ventilation Shaft Excavation (Lateral) For SEM mining: Crane, shotcrete
Loader, dewatering
mixer/pump, mini-excavator,
pump and tank, electric
articulating man lift or shotcrete
locomotive
pump
Crane or extendable boom
Installation forklift, concrete trucks,
construction hand tools
TBM Launch Shaft Crane, concrete truck/pump,
Maintenance Terminal Paint sprayer, scissor lift
Conversion hand tools
Page 54
Figure 2-5: Launching of TBC’s Godot EPB TBM at the Hawthorne Tunnel Shaft. TBM
Trailing Gear is Staged to the Left of the Shaft
Page 55
Dewatering is the manual draw-down of the shaft construction, the water would be collected
groundwater table used to build civil structures in a tank using a sump pump and discharged
below the water table and is often achieved by back into the storm drain or sewer system under
applying a constant pump of groundwater during a NPDES permit or sent for offsite disposal in
subsurface construction. No major dewater accordance with applicable regulations.
operations or dewatering areas are anticipated
2.3.1.6 Construction Monitoring
as part of the Build Alternative. The combined use
of EPB TBMs and precast concrete segment tunnel Subsurface land used for the proposed Project
lining generally eliminates the need for dewatering would be entirely beneath public ROW and
while tunneling. EPB TBMs have an articulated beneath private land owned/leased by TBC.
shield that is sealed against the pressure of water Settlement monitoring devices, likely including
inflows up to 10 Bar (approximately 10 times the temporary prisms, would be installed along the
pressure of the atmosphere). Additionally, the Main Artery Tunnel alignment to measure surface
EPB TBMs control the stability of the tunnel face settlement below public ROW and routinely
and ground surface. Stability is achieved by the monitored with survey equipment. The prisms
cutterhead chamber, which monitors and adjusts its would be oriented in lines transecting the tunnel
internal pressure to be equivalent to the pressures alignment area at discrete increments along the
of the outside formation of the tunnel face. Pressure length of the Main Artery Tunnel and left in place
equalization by the EPB TBM prevents the inflow for as long as deemed necessary by TBC and the
of groundwater through the tunnel face. state and local permitting agencies. Representative
photographs of the prisms (used above TBC’s Los
The EPB TBM erects precast concrete segments Angeles tunnel) are included in Figure 2-6.
which form the tunnel lining in five-foot intervals.
The concrete segments are outfitted with rubber The potential for adverse effects to existing structures
gaskets, and grout is injected to fill any voids from ground settlement during construction shall
outside the precast lining, which together seal the be minimized by refining the horizontal alignment
tunnel from groundwater. In sub-optimal scenarios, and vertical depth of the proposed Project, where
water can enter the tunnel. In that case, it is appropriate and practicable.
collected in a water tank and discharged back into
the storm drain or sewer system under a NPDES Additionally, surface and subsurface settlement
permit or sent for offsite disposal in accordance to utilities and structures, including but not limited
with applicable regulations. to the existing Baltimore-Washington Parkway
roadway and associated structures, would be
The construction of the TBM Launch Shafts and monitored. As a baseline, the Build Alternative
Ventilation Shafts uses civil structures that would would likely include continuous and live monitoring
be constructed using inert materials with low of settlement values such that they remain within
mobility and solubility (e.g., precast concrete, allowable ranges. The ultimate settlement
grout) that would create a seal from groundwater monitoring equipment to be implemented on the
resources. Where surface excavation would occur proposed Project and placement of monitoring
in shallow groundwater areas, dewatering could devices are dependent upon geologic conditions
potentially be employed. Alternatively, shaft and the location of existing structures relative to
construction could potentially be advanced using the Build Alternative.
“wet” shaft construction methods which maintains
the groundwater table during shaft construction. Allowable settlement thresholds for the Build
Should there be any groundwater removed during Alternative would meet or exceed industry-standard
Page 56
Figure 2-6: Settlement monitoring points, also known as “Prisms,” used by TBC
to monitor for surface settlement along the tunnel alignment
levels, and would be developed on a case-by-case 2.3.1.8 Spoils Removal

basis in coordination with FHWA and potentially An average of approximately 97 trucks per day
affected stakeholders, including underground would be needed to transport excavated soils from
utilities. In all cases, tunnel activities would be the TBM Launch Shaft sites to suitable disposal
performed while achieving less than the maximum facilities. It is anticipated that tunneling would be
settlement value (to be determined with applicable conducted for continuous 24-hour periods and
stakeholders). Alert levels for settlement would an average of approximately 4 to 8 trucks per
also be determined. If the alert level is reached, all hour would be needed per TBM Launch Shaft to
construction activity affecting the structure would move the excavated soil from the TBM Launch
be halted, an assessment of the cause of settlement Shafts during construction. Trucking haul hours
would be performed, and appropriate mitigation and quantities are ultimately subject to future
measures developed and implemented. planning and approvals. Soil removal activities
would include the routine handling as listed below.
2.3.1.7 Power Supply
The TBMs draw approximately 1.2 megawatts Excavation of TBM Launch Shafts, Ventilation
(MW) peak power during use and would use Shafts, and Loop Stations
the existing utility grid for supply. As each TBM An excavator located inside the shaft (TBM
would be in use for approximately 50 percent of Launch Shafts, Ventilation Shafts, Loop Stations)
construction time, its effective average power is floor would place excavated material directly
600 kilowatts (kW). Each TBM Launch Shaft would into a bucket hoisted by a crane (at ground
have up to four TBMs operating simultaneously. In surface) and placed directly into dump trucks for
addition to the TBMs, each of the four TBM Launch off-site removal. Excavation in “wet” shaft-sinking
Sites draw approximately 300 kW average conditions would occur using excavation
and 900 kW peak during construction hours. equipment solely from the ground surface, and/
As project design proceeds, consultation with or by creating an impermeable lateral barrier to
power generation and transmission utilities will be groundwater intrusion (e.g., drilling secant piles)
completed to address potential concerns related to prior to commencing excavation.
the availability of required power for construction
and operations of the proposed Project and effects Excavation of Main Artery Tunnels
on local power supply and distribution. TBC would remove earth material from the Main
Artery Tunnels using TBMs. TBMs allow soil and/
or bedrock that is displaced from the cutterhead
Page 57
to travel back along a screw conveyor to the rear subject to disposal facility requirements and any
of the machine where it can be deposited in a source-specific contaminants of potential concern,
rail car operated by electric locomotive. As the if present, based upon the review of potentially
material is deposited in the rail cars, TBC would contaminated sites proximate to the area of mining.
use air monitors to evaluate the potential presence Stockpiling of materials is not planned at any TBM
of organic vapors off-gassing from the material. A Launch Shaft. Rather, the locomotive cars would
photoionization device is further used to monitor dump directly into water-tight 20-foot intermodal
the presence of organic vapors. Additionally, the shipping containers on the TBM Launch Shaft
spoils are screened by qualified personnel for invert that in turn would be raised out of the Launch
the presence of visual staining or odor indicative Shaft and placed directly onto intermodal freight
of contamination. If the potential presence of chassis pulled by semi-truck tractor and driven to
contaminants is identified in excavated material, it an approved disposal facility.
is segregated and labeled accordingly. Excavated
material passing field testing is further segregated, Tunnel spoils would be delivered to several
sampled, and rush-analyzed for fast turnaround locations, depending on the presence of
in discrete intervals for potential contaminants. contaminants (Table 2-3, Figure 2-7).
Specific chemicals to be analyzed would vary,
Table 2-3: Disposal Locations for Proposed TBM Launch Shaft Sites
TBM Launch Shaft Site
A B C D E
Origin Location Linthicum
Hanover South Laurel Greenbelt Cheverly
Heights
Impacted Soil
Millersville Millersville Millersville
Facility Clean Earth Clean Earth
Landfill Landfill Landfill
389 Burns 389 Burns 389 Burns 6250 Dower 6250 Dower
Address
Crossing Rd. Crossing Rd. Crossing Rd. House Rd House Rd
Upper Upper
Severn, MD Severn, MD Severn, MD
City, State, Zip Marlboro, MD Marlboro, MD
21144 21144 21144
20772 20772
Haul Distance (mi) 16 9 15 18 18
Approx. 8000 Approx. 8000
Capacity - - -
tons/day tons/day
Clean Soil
Belle Grove Belle Grove Belle Grove
Gardner Road Gardner Road
Facility Recycling Recycling Recycling
Facility Facility
Facility Facility Facility
6931 6931
4944 Sands 16143 Gardner 16143 Gardner
Address Balt-Annapolis Balt-Annapolis
Rd. Rd. Rd.
Blvd. Blvd.
Brooklyn, MD Brooklyn, MD Lothian, MD Brandywine, Brandywine,
City, State, Zip
21225 21225 20711 MD MD
Haul Distance (mi) 4 16 24 30 27
2.5 million CY 2.5 million CY
Capacity - - -
total total
Unknown or unverified capacity is intentionally left blank.
Page 58
Figure 2-7: Proposed Haul Routes for Soil Disposal
Page 59
This EA assumes that spoils would be taken to one in Baltimore. Each Loop Station would have
landfills or other suitable (e.g., reclamation) elevators, ramps, or spirals that lower the AEVs into
facilities, however other potential soil reuse options the Main Artery Tunnel, one for each direction of
exist (Section 2.13). travel. Loop Stations would be platforms sitting
at-grade when not in use, resembling existing
2.3.1.9 Commissioning and Testing
ground finishing (e.g., sidewalk, driveways;
Before Loop deployment, necessary coordination Figure 2-4). Extra AEVs would be stored above
for testing and safety approvals would be completed or below ground near the Loop Station locations or
with agencies having jurisdiction. In addition to any in Maintenance Terminals. AEVs could be brought
permit conditions set by agencies with jurisdiction, to the surface and rest at-grade atop the Loop
TBC would schedule a site walkthrough with the Station or Maintenance Terminal elevator bank
agencies having jurisdiction and representatives where they could be parked and lowered into the
from the construction, design, quality control, ground during transport. Passengers would board
quality assurance and all third-party inspection the AEVs at the ground surface if the Loop Station
groups. Areas of potential improvement would be were ramped, or by riding an escalator down to
identified and documented. The agencies having the invert of a Loop Station shaft and enter an AEV
jurisdiction would decide what measures need to underground (Figure 2-3).
be taken to improve the identified and documented
Ventilation Shafts
deficiencies. The final product to be used by the
public would meet standards of quality as required Ventilation Shafts would include fans operating
by the agencies having jurisdiction. at low capacity during normal operation, and at
full capacity in the event of an emergency. One
2.4 Operations or more means of vertical access (e.g., elevator,
Due to limited size of the Washington, D.C. Loop man basket, stairs, or ladder) would be provided
Station location, initial operation of the Loop for ingress/egress.
System would be limited to 1,000 passengers
per direction per day. Future expansion may
accommodate more than 100,000 passengers Following the completion of the Main Artery
per direction per day when considering trips to Tunnel, one to four TBM Launch Shafts would be
future intermediate stations (Section 2.5). repurposed into Maintenance Terminals. AEVs
and all onboard systems would be inspected and
2.4.1 Infrastructure Characteristics
serviced in continuous rotation at the dedicated
Main Artery Tunnels Maintenance Terminal to keep them operating
Main Artery Tunnels would be outfitted with utilities reliably and safely. TBC would refinish the AEV drive
including lighting, electrical, and communication surface and replace AEVs as needed and perform
systems (Section 2.4.3). preventative maintenance. The Maintenance
Terminal would serve as a storage space for AEVs
The AEVs are battery-powered, and there is no that are not in service (Section 3.18).
electrical interface between the AEVs and tunnel
2.4.2 Equipment
which increases safety and reliability.
AEVs would be the only equipment used during
Loop Stations
operation of the Loop System. AEVs would operate
The proposed Project includes the construction using automated control systems within the Loop
of two Loop Stations at the termini of the Main System.
Artery Tunnels, one in Washington, D.C. and
Page 60
Fixtures inside the Loop System would include vent between potential intermediate Loop Stations (e.g.,
fans in Ventilation Shafts, two vehicle elevators and Laurel to Greenbelt).
potentially two escalators in each of the two Loop
Stations. Lighting, communication, and electrical The Washington, D.C. Loop Station has a small
conduction would be installed throughout the footprint and would be used to accommodate
tunnel. Electrical panels and switchgear to approximately 1,000 passengers per direction per
operate the Loop System would be used to power day. Therefore, upon construction of the proposed
the system served through distributed points at Project, the system would only support 1,000 riders
the Maintenance Terminal, Loop Station, and per day per direction, with additional capacity
Ventilation Shaft locations. potentially added later through the construction
of additional Loop Stations. The locations,
2.4.3 Maintenance
quantity, and size of potential future Loop Stations
The scope and frequency of maintenance activities are unknown. Additional study and analysis
to be completed by TBC would be set by the of potential future expansion in Loop System
agencies having jurisdiction. infrastructure and ridership would be conducted
later as a pre-condition of expansion.
Tunnel Maintenance
TBC would inspect and maintain the tunnel Use of the Loop System would prioritize pedestrians
infrastructure with similar frequencies and methods and cyclists. Therefore, no auxiliary parking
to current concrete roadways and equivalent structures are considered in the Build Alternative.
tunnels. This includes mapping and recording Ridership would be controlled using an online
any irregularities or signs of deterioration, such reservation system allowing passengers to book
as cracks, spalling (delaminating or fragmenting), seats in a Loop vehicle at a given departure time
water leakage, excessive steps/lips, and radial and destination, like that of a train or airline.
joint expansion. Corrective maintenance would
be performed based on the observations and at 2.6 NPS Land Exchange
the direction of the agencies having jurisdiction. Alternatives
See Section 1.5.3 - National Park Service.
Loop System Maintenance
AEVs and onboard systems would be inspected 2.7 Constructability of Preferred
and serviced in continuous rotation at Maintenance Alternative
Terminals to keep them running reliably and safely. Constructability of design is determined based on
TBC would perform routine preventive maintenance analysis of potential design factors. Geological
on AEVs and would replace the AEV drive surface properties of the proposed Project area, which
and AEVs as needed under the direction of the include soft sedimentary rock ranging to depths
agencies having jurisdiction. of over 100 feet, provide favorable EPB TBM
tunneling conditions (Thewes et al., 2017).
2.5 Ridership and Parking Additionally, a preliminary assessment of public
The Loop Main Artery Tunnels are designed to ROW widths and known infrastructure (e.g.,
transport more than 100,000 daily riders per bridge piles) along the proposed Build Alternative
direction per day, with the variation based on the indicate that the alignment fits the vertical and
final, and currently unknown, layout and quantity lateral design constraints for TBM tunneling and
of intermediate Loop Stations. These 100,000 Loop System operation.
riders encompass trips between the endpoints in
Washington D.C. and Baltimore, as well as trips
Page 61
2.8 Management of Construction appropriate to ensure safe and proper entry/exit

Traffic from these sites into public roadways. In the event
It is anticipated that an average of approximately any closures are required, such closures would be
4 to 8 trucks per hour would be needed at each preferentially performed during off-peak traffic
TBM Launch Shaft in order to move excavated hours and would utilize approved traffic control
soil from the tunnels, assuming 24-hour operation plans.
during tunneling. Appropriate construction traffic
control management plans would be developed 2.10 Materials Management
in accordance with local and state regulatory and Alternatives
permitting requirements in consultation with those An alternative to the spoils management approach
authorities, where appropriate (Section 3.1). described in Section 2.3.1.8 is to reuse the soil,
some soil with the following options for reuse:
2.9 Maintenance of Traffic • Building bricks for use in commercial
Operations construction projects and/or landscaping;
Maintenance of traffic operations is not anticipated • Engineered fill for construction and segment
to be required under baseline conditions of the Build production;
Alternative. Nevertheless, minor modifications may
• Material for local sand and aggregate
be considered.
businesses; and/or
Road closures are not anticipated at Loop Stations, • Fill for grout.
TBM Launch Shafts, or Ventilation Shafts. Trucks Soil reuse operations would occur off-site from TBM
would be provided sufficient staging on-site at Launch Shaft locations and would be subject to
such locations, and flaggers would be used where separate permitting and approvals (Section 2.3.1.8).
Page 62
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental

Consequences
3.1.1 Data Sources and Methodology
The Project Study Area generally used in this EA
for analysis of the Project consists of the footprints Aerial images, geospatial databases from the
of the proposed Loop Stations and TBM Launch FRA, and long-range transportation plans (LRTP)
Shaft locations, and an area 300 feet from public from the National Capital Region Transportation
highway ROW boundaries along the proposed Planning Board (TPB) and Baltimore Regional
Project corridor within which Ventilation Shafts Transportation Board (BRTB) were used to identify
would be located. and evaluate potential adverse effects resulting
from the proposed Project.
Where revised areas have been used to frame
3.1.2 Affected Environment
analysis for certain resources, those study areas
are identified and defined within each specific The following section provides a discussion of the
resource section of this chapter. existing transportation infrastructure within the
proposed Project Study Area.
3.1 Transportation
Existing Bridge Structures
The following section provides a discussion
of the affected environment, environmental The proposed Project has 50 undercrossings,
consequences, and avoidance, minimization and overcrossings, or river crossings. Undercrossings
mitigation measures proposed to reduce potential are typically structures that provide passage for a
adverse effects to transportation systems from the road or street under a highway, while overcrossings
proposed Project. This section identifies existing are typically structures that provide passage for a
and proposed transportation infrastructure within road or street over a highway. River crossings are
the Project Study Area and evaluates potential structures that provide passage for a roadway over
impacts to the transportation infrastructure from river bodies. These crossings typically require deep
construction and operation of the proposed Project. underground piles to support the surface structure
(Table 3.1-1).
Table 3.1-1: Road and River Crossings Along Proposed Project

Crossing # Crossing Location Intersection Structure Type
1 Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard Russell Street Overcrossing
2 W West Street Russell Street Undercrossing
3 W Ostend Street Russell Street Undercrossing
4 CSX Railroad Crossing Russell Street Undercrossing
5 I-95 MD 295 Overcrossing
6 CSX Hanover Railroad Crossing MD 295 Undercrossing
7 MD 295 Gwynns Falls River crossing
8 CSX Baltimore Railroad Crossing MD 295 Undercrossing
9 Waterview Avenue MD 295 Overcrossing
10 CSX Hanover Railroad Crossing MD 295 Overcrossing
11 Annapolis Road MD 295 Overcrossing
12 West Patapsco Avenue MD 295 Overcrossing
13 Daisy Avenue MD 295 Undercrossing
continued on following page
Page 63
Table 3.1-1: Road and River Crossings Along Proposed Project (continued)
Crossing # Crossing Location Intersection Structure Type
14 Pedestrian Bridge (Lansdowne) MD 295 Overcrossing
15 I-895 MD 295 Undercrossing
16 B-W Parkway Crossing Patapsco River River crossing
17 Nursery Road MD 295 Overcrossing
19 North Hammonds Ferry Road MD 295 Overcrossing
20 West Nursery Road MD 295 Overcrossing
21 Winterson Road MD 295 Overcrossing
23 Amtrak Railroad Crossing MD 295 Undercrossing
24 Ridge Road MD 295 Overcrossing
25 Hanover Road MD 295 Undercrossing
Paul T. Pitcher Memorial Highway
26 MD 295 Undercrossing
(MD 100)
27 Wright Road MD 295 Overcrossing
28 Arundel Mills Road MD 195 Overcrossing
29 Annapolis Road (MD 175) B-W Parkway Overcrossing
30 Connector Road B-W Parkway Overcrossing
31 Patuxent Freeway (MD 32) B-W Parkway Overcrossing
32 Laurel Fort Mead Road (MD 198) B-W Parkway Overcrossing
33 B-W Parkway Crossing Patuxent River River crossing
34 Laurel Bowie Road (MD 197) B-W Parkway Undercrossing
35 Powder Mill Road B-W Parkway Undercrossing
36 Beaver Dam Road B-W Parkway Undercrossing
37 Explorer Road B-W Parkway Overcrossing
38 Spellman Overpass B-W Parkway Overcrossing
39 Greenbelt Road (MD 193) B-W Parkway Overcrossing
40 I-495/I-95 B-W Parkway Undercrossing
41 Good Luck Road B-W Parkway Overcrossing
42 Riverdale Road (MD 410) B-W Parkway Undercrossing
43 Annapolis Road (MD 450) B-W Parkway Overcrossing
44 Landover Road (MD 202) B-W Parkway Undercrossing
45 Kenilworth Avenue (MD 201) B-W Parkway Undercrossing
46 CSX Railroad Crossing B-W Parkway Undercrossing
U.S. 50/New York Avenue NE
47 Anacostia River River crossing
Crossing
48 South Dakota Avenue NE New York Avenue Undercrossing
49 9th Street NE New York Avenue Overcrossing
50 Washington Metro Red Line New York Avenue Undercrossing
Source: Google Earth (2018), FRA (2017).
Page 64
Railroad Crossings Current and Proposed Transportation

Projects
Seven railroad corridors intersect the ROW of the
proposed Project. They include five rail lines owned The BRTB Maximize2040 Long Range Plan
by CSX, one owned by Amtrak, and one owned identifies the demand for transportation services
by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit for the next 20 years in the Counties of Baltimore,
Authority (WMATA). With the exception of the CSX Anne Arundel, Carroll, Harford, Howard, and
Hanover Railroad crossing across MD 295, all Queen Anne’s, and the Cities of Annapolis and
project intersects of railroad ROW occur through Baltimore. Within the Project Study Area, planned
an undercrossing (Table 3.1-2). No at-grade rail and proposed projects consist of the widening
crossings are within the Project Study Area; the rail of MD 295 from I-195 to MD 100. Planned and
system within the corridor is fully grade-separated. proposed projects intersecting the ROW limits of the
proposed Project include the widening of MD 100,
Existing Transportation Service
widening of MD 175 from MD 295 to MD 170, and
The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) and widening of MD 198. There are no transit projects
WMATA provide public transportation service proposed within the Project Study Area. Transit
within the Project Study Area (Table 3.1-3). Light projects intersecting the proposed Project include
rail, commuter rail, and several bus lines operated the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project to BWI Airport.
by MTA provide service within one-quarter mile
of the Loop Station in Baltimore (Figure 3.1-1). The The TPB Financially Constrained Long-Range
WMATA Red Line and several bus lines provide Transportation Plan (CRLP) documents the TPB’s aim
service to the area within one-quarter mile of the to meet the mobility and accessibility needs for the
Loop Station in Washington, D.C. (Figure 3.1-1). Counties of Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and
Prince George’s and the Cities of Bowie, College
Park, Frederick, Gaithersburg, Greenbelt, Laurel,
Rockville, and Takoma Park. Within the Project
Table 3.1-2: Railroad Crossings Along Proposed Project

FRA
Crossing
Crossing Crossing Name Location Jurisdiction Subdivision
Number
Number
Russell Street between City of CSX Hanover
4 140863B Ridgely Street and Warner Baltimore
Street Crossing
MD 295 between Russell Baltimore CSX Hanover
6 831615L Street and Annapolis Road County
Crossing
MD 295 north of Manokin Baltimore CSX Baltimore
8 831617A
Street County
MD 295 east of Washington Baltimore CSX Hanover
10 831621P
Boulevard Crossing County
MD 295 north of BWI MARC Anne Arundel Amtrak Mid-Atlantic
23 N/A
Rail Station County
B-W Parkway east of Prince George’s CSX Capital
46 140264F
Baltimore Avenue Crossing County
Washington Metro Red Line Washington WMATA N/A
50 N/A north of Norma-Gallaudet U D.C.
(New York Avenue) Station
Source: FRA (2017).
Page 65
Table 3.1-3: Public Transportation Services within One-Quarter Mile of the

Proposed Project
Operator Line Service Type
Light RailLink Light Rail
MARC Commuter Rail
CityLink Yellow (YW)
CityLink Navy (NV)
Frequent Daily Service Bus
CityLink Brown (BR)
CityLink Orange (OR)
MTA
Local Link 69
Local Link 70
Local Bus
Local Link 73
Local Link 75
210
Commuter Bus
215
Red Line Urban Rapid Transit
80
WMATA 90
Local Bus
92
P6
Source: Maryland GIS Data Catalog (2018a), DCGIS Open Data (2018)
Study Area, planned and proposed projects include within the Project Study Area resulting from the
the B-W Parkway (MD 295)/MD 193 (Greenbelt construction and operation of the proposed Project.
Road) – Intersection Improvement Project. Planned
3.1.3.1 Temporary Impacts
and proposed projects intersecting the proposed
Project include the Purple Line Transitway and the No-Build Alternative
MARC Penn and Camden Line Improvements. No temporary or construction-related impacts on
Other planned projects not identified in the BRTB transportation are anticipated from the No-Build
Maximize 2040 Long Range Plan or the TPB CRLP Alternative.
include the Baltimore-Washington Superconducting
Maglev Project (Table 3.1-4). Build Alternative
Based on the construction assumptions found
Haul Routes
in Appendix B, approximately 2,000,000
MDOT SHA provides oversight for route restrictions cubic yards of soil would be excavated over a
for truck trips in Maryland. In Washington, D.C., the projected tunnel construction period of 12 to 20
DDOT provides the same oversight for truck trips months. Schedule variability is based on tunneling
within Washington, D.C. boundaries. Table 3.1-5 speed achieved, which is dependent upon TBC’s
and Figure 2-7 describe proposed haul routes to technical progress prior to start of construction.
be used for construction of the proposed Project. Construction activities requiring truck trips include
Final haul routes are subject to regulatory approval shaft excavation at TBM Launch Shafts, Loop
by MDOT SHA and DDOT. Stations, Ventilation Shafts, and tunneling.
3.1.3 Environmental Consequences

The following section analyzes the potential
adverse effects to transportation resources
Page 66
Figure 3.1-1: Transit Stops within One-Quarter Mile of Loop Station in Baltimore
Page 67
Figure 3.1-2: Transit Stops within One-Quarter Mile of Loop Station in Washington, D.C.
Page 68
Table 3.1-4: Planned and Programmed Transportation Projects within the Project
Study Area
Metropolitan
Planning Project
ID Project Name Project Description
Oganization Type
(MPO)
The MD 295 Widening project would widen
1 MD 295 Widening the MD 295 segment from I-195 to MD 100 BRTB Highway
from 4 to 6 lanes.
2 MD 100 Widening the existing MD 100 roadway to accommodate BRTB Highway
additional traffic.
segments of the MD 175 from the Anne
3 MD 175 Widening Arundel County line to MD 295 from 2 to 3 BRTB Highway
lanes. The MD 175 segment from MD 295 to
MD 170 would be widened from 4 to 6 lanes.
4 MD 198 Widening the MD 198 to provide easier access to Fort BRTB Highway
Meade and Odenton Town Center.
The Bus Rapid Transit would emulate light rail
operations at a lower cost and is designed to
Bus Rapid Transit
5 link Howard County commuters from Dorsey BRTB Transit
to BWI Airport
MARC to Anne Arundel Mills to the BWI car
rental center to BWI Airport.
MD 193 Improvements at the intersection of B-W
6 Intersection Parkway (MD 295) and MD 193 (Greenbelt TPB Highway
Improvement Road).
The Good Luck Road project would widen the
7 Good Luck Road roadway segment from Kenilworth Avenue to TPB Highway
Cipriano Road from 2 lanes to 4 lanes.
The Purple Line is a 16-mile light rail line that
would extend from Bethesda in Montgomery
County to New Carrollton in Prince George’s
County. It would provide a direct connection
to the Metrorail Red, Green and Orange Lines;
at Bethesda, Silver Spring, College Park, and
Purple Line New Carrollton. The Purple Line would also
8 TPB Transit
Transitway connect to MARC, Amtrak, and local bus
services.
The Purple Line would be light rail and would

operate mainly in dedicated or exclusive lanes,
allowing for fast, reliable transit operations.
Twenty-one stations are planned.
Penn Line Service Increase trip capacity and frequency along all
9 TPB Transit
Improvements commuter rail lines on MARC.
Camden Line Increase trip capacity and frequency along all
10 TPB Transit
Improvements commuter rail lines on MARC.
Baltimore–
Proposed 39.8-mile, Superconducting
Washington
11 Maglev project traveling from Baltimore to N/A High Speed
Superconducting
Washington D.C.
Maglev Project*
Source: Maryland State Geographic Information Committee (2016), National Capital Region Transportation Planning
Board (2016).
* This Project is not included in the fiscally constrained long-term transportation plans under BRTB or TPB.
Page 69
Table 3.1-5: Proposed Haul Routes

Trip
Trip Destination Route Description
Origination
Head northeast on Pinnacle Dr toward W Nursery Rd (751
ft), turn left onto W Nursery Rd (0.993 mi), turn left onto N
Hammonds Ferry Rd (935 ft), turn right onto the Interstate 695
S ramp (1,112 ft), merge onto I-695 S (1.76 mi), keep left at
the fork to continue on I-97 S, follow signs for Annapolis/Bay
Millersville Landfill Bridge (9.76 mi), take exit 7 to merge ontoMD 3 S towardMD
32 W/Bowie/Odenton (0.608 mi), merge ontoMD 32 W via
the ramp to Odenton/Fort Meade (1.84 mi), take exit 3 for
Burns Crossing Rd toward Gambrills/Odenton (0.434 mi),
turn right onto Burns Crossing Rd (0.317 mi), turn right into
Millersville Landfill (761 ft), and arrive at Millersville Landfill.
Head east on Pinnacle Dr toward W Nursery Rd (164 ft),
turn left onto W Nursery Rd (0.993 mi), turn left onto N
Hammonds Ferry Rd (935 ft), turn right onto the Interstate
695 S ramp (1,112 ft), merge onto I-695 S (1.34 mi), take exit
Bell Grove Recycling 6A to merge ontoMD 170 N/N Camp Meade Rd toward N
TBM Launch Shaft A facility Linthicum (0.725 mi), turn right after NAPA Auto Parts (on
the left) (141 ft), turn right onto Baltimore Annapolis Blvd/S
Old Annapolis Rd (348 ft), turn left into Bell Grove Recycling
facility in Brooklyn, MD (249 ft), arrive at Bell Grove Recycling
facility in Brooklyn, MD.
Head northeast on Pinnacle Dr toward W Nursery Rd (712
ft), turn right onto W Nursery Rd (653 ft), turn right to merge
ontoMD 295 S (0.937 mi), keep right and merge onto I-195 W
(2.70 mi), take exit 4B for Interstate 95 S toward Washington
(0.350 mi), merge onto I-95 S (8.37 mi), take exit 38A to
Annapolis Junction
merge ontoMD 32 E toward Fort Meade (2.86 mi), take exit
Recycling and Transfer
11 for Dorsey Run Rd (0.426 mi), keep left at the fork, follow
Station
signs for Dorsey Run Road/Henkels Ln/Guilford Rd/Natl Bus
Pkwy (226 ft), turn left onto Dorsey Run Rd (1,299 ft), turn
right onto Guilford Rd (0.432 mi), sharp left onto Brock Bridge
Rd (0.275 m), and arrive at Annapolis Junction Recycling and
Transfer Station.
Head south toward Milestone Pkwy (62 ft), exit the traffic
circle onto Milestone Pkwy (0.367 mi), turn left ontoMD 175
E/Annapolis RdPass by Royal Farms (on the left in 3.2 mi)
(3.90 mi), take the ramp ontoMD 32 E/State Hwy 32 E (3.66
mi)
TBM Launch Shaft B Millersville Landfill
Take the Burns Crossing Road exit (709 ft), turn right onto
Burns Crossing Rd (0.277 mi), turn right onto Sappington
Station Rd (1,033 ft), turn left onto Burns Crossing Rd. (0.408
mi), turn right into Millersville Landfill (860 ft), and arrive at
Millersville Landfill.
Page 70
Table 3.1-5: Proposed Haul Routes (continued)

Trip
Origination
circle onto Milestone Pkwy (0.367 mi), turn right ontoMD 175
W (3.43 mi), merge onto I-95 N via the ramp to Baltimore
(4.77 mi), keep left at the fork to stay on I-95 N (2.87 mi),
take exit 49A for Interstate 695 E toward Glen Burnie/Key
Bell Grove Recycling Bridge (0.497 mi), merge onto I-695 S (3.01 mi), take exit
Facility 6A to merge ontoMD 170 N/N Camp Meade Rd toward
N Linthicum (0.725 mi), turn right after NAPA Auto Parts
- Genuine Parts Company (on the left) (141 ft), turn right
TBM Launch Shaft B onto Baltimore Annapolis Blvd/S Old Annapolis Rd (348 ft),
turn left (249 ft), and arrive at Bell Grove Recycling facility
in Brooklyn, MD.
circle onto Milestone Pkwy (0.367 mi), turn right ontoMD
Annapolis Junction
175 W (0.693 mi), turn left onto National Business Pkwy (889
Recycling and Transfer
ft), at the traffic circle, take the 1st exit onto Brock Bridge
Station
Rd (1.54 mi), and arrive at Annapolis Junction Recycling and
Transfer Station.
Head north onMD 197 N/Laurel Bowie Rd toward Mallard Dr
(2.97 mi), turn right ontoMD 198 E/Fort Meade Rd, Continue
to followMD 198 E (4.84 mi), take the ramp ontoMD 32 E (5.70
mi), take the Burns Crossing Road exit (709 ft), turn right onto
Millersville Landfill
Burns Crossing Rd (0.277 mi), turn right onto Sappington
Station Rd (1,033 ft), turn left onto Burns Crossing Rd (0.408
mi), turn right into Millersville Landfill (860 ft), and arrive at
Millersville Landfill.
Head north onMD 197 N/Laurel Bowie Rd toward Mallard
Dr (0.688 mi), make a U-turn at Muirkirk Rd, Continue to
followMD 197 S (12.2 mi), turn right onto US-301 S (2.23 mi),
Bell Grove Recycling
continue straight to stay on US-301 S (0.850 mi), exit ontoMD
Facility
214 E/Central Ave (3.59 mi), turn right onto Patuxent River
Rd (2.30 mi), turn right onto Sands Rd (2.04 mi), and arrive
at Belle Grove Recycling Facility in Lothian, MD.
TBM Launch Shaft C
Head north onMD 197 N/Laurel Bowie Rd toward Mallard Dr
(2.97 mi), sharp left onto Fort Meade Rd (0.332 mi), continue
onto Talbott Ave (387 ft), turn right onto 2nd St., Pass by Mr
Tire Auto Service Centers (on the left in 0.3 mi) (0.483 mi),
continue straight to stay on 2nd St., Pass by McDonald’s (on
the left in 0.6 mi) (0.725 mi), 2nd St. turns slightly right and
Annapolis Junction becomes Washington Blvd N (0.784 mi)
Recycling and Transfer Continue straight onto US-1 N/Washington Blvd N (1.19 mi),
Station merge ontoMD 32 E via the ramp to Fort Meade (0.830 mi),
take exit 11 for Dorsey Run Rd (0.426 mi), keep left at the
fork, follow signs for Dorsey Run Road/Henkels Ln/Guilford
Rd/Natl Bus Pkwy (226 ft), turn left onto Dorsey Run Rd
(1,299 ft), turn right onto Guilford Rd (0.432 mi), left onto
Brock Bridge Rd (0.275 mi), and arrive at Annapolis Junction
Recycling and Transfer Station.
Page 71
Table 3.1-5: Proposed Haul Routes (continued)

Trip
Origination
Head northeast toward Greenbelt Rd (522 ft), slight left
toward Greenbelt Rd (558 ft), turn left toward Greenbelt
Rd (177 ft), keep left to continue toward Greenbelt Rd (138
ft), turn left onto Greenbelt Rd (1.05 mi), merge ontoMD
201 N/Kenilworth Ave via the ramp to I-95/I-495 (0.298 mi),
slight right to merge onto I-495 S/I-95 S toward Andrews
TBM Launch Shaft D Clean Earth AFB/Richmond (12.3 mi), take exit 11A forMD 4 S/Penn. Ave
E toward Upper Marlboro (0.283 mi), merge ontoMD 4 S/
Pennsylvania Ave (1.57 mi), slight right toward Dower House
Rd (837 ft), turn right onto Dower House Rd (1.06 mi), turn left
to stay on Dower House Rd (823 ft), turn left onto Columbine
Ln (679 ft), turn right to stay on Columbine Ln (377 ft), and
arrived at Clean Earth.
Head northeast toward Greenbelt Rd (522 ft), slight left
toward Greenbelt Rd (558 ft), turn left toward Greenbelt
Rd (177 ft), keep left to continue toward Greenbelt Rd (138
ft), turn left onto Greenbelt Rd (1,214 ft), turn right onto
Southway (646 ft), turn right onto the Balt/Wash Pkwy ramp
TBM Launch Shaft D Gardner Road Facility to Washington (679 ft), merge onto Baltimore-Washington
Pkwy (0.413 mi), take the exit onto I-495 S/I-95 S toward
Richmond VA/Andrews a F B (14.8 mi), take exit 7A-7B forMD
5 S toward Waldorf (0.901 mi), slight right ontoMD 5 S/
Branch Ave (8.52 mi), turn right ontoMD 373 W (2.12 mi), turn
left (0.798 mi), and arrive at Gardner Road Facility.
Head south onMD 201 S toward Lydell Rd (0.319 mi), take
the ramp toMD 201 S/Kenilworth Ave/Washington (0.349
mi), take the exit onto US-50 E (2.13 mi), take exit 3B to
merge ontoMD 202 S/Landover Rdtoward Upper Marlboro
(3.04 mi), take the I-95 S/I-495 S ramp to Andrews AFB/
Richmond VA/Beltway (0.632 mi), keep left to continue on
Clean Earth Exit 15AB and merge onto I-495 S/I-95 S (5.32 mi), take exit
11A forMD 4 S/Penn. Ave E toward Upper Marlboro (0.283
mi), merge ontoMD 4 S/Pennsylvania Ave (1.57 mi), slight
right toward Dower House Rd (837 ft), turn right onto Dower
House Rd (1.06 mi), turn left to stay on Dower House Rd (823
TBM Launch Shaft E ft), turn left onto Columbine Ln. (679 ft), turn right to stay on
Search Area Columbine Ln (377 ft), and arrived at Clean Earth.
Head east on Lydell Rd toward Pepsi Pl (23 ft), turn left onto
Pepsi Pl (856 ft), continue onto Hospital Dr (0.512 mi), turn
left to stay on Hospital Dr (846 ft), turn right towardMD
202 S/Landover Rd (748 ft), turn right at the 1st cross street
ontoMD 202 S/Landover Rd (3.58 mi), take the I-95 S/I-495 S
Gardner Road Facility ramp to Andrews AFB/Richmond VA/Beltway (0.632 mi), keep
left to continue on Exit 15AB and merge onto I-495 S/I-95 S
(8.47 mi), take exit 7A-7B forMD 5 S toward Waldorf (0.901
mi), slight right ontoMD 5 S/Branch Ave (8.52 mi), turn right
ontoMD 373 W (2.12 mi), turn left (0.798 mi), and arrive at
Gardner Road Facility
Page 72
Excavation of TBM Launch Shafts, Loop Stations, Shafts, Loop Stations, and Ventilation Shaft sites
and Ventilation Shafts would take approximately along the proposed Project.
one month at each site. Excavated soils from tunnel
boring activities would be transported to a suitable Main Artery Tunnel depths to top of crown are
disposal facility using designated, approved haul anticipated to be a mimimum of 30 feet but would
routes. Table 3.1-6 provides a breakdown of the vary taking into account existing and proposed
haul and delivery trips anticipated to be generated aboveground structures such as bridge piles,
through the course of the proposed Project, based foundations, and any existing underground
on project-wide assumptions (Appendix B). utilities. Final Main Artery Tunnel depths would be
determined during final design to avoid conflicts
The following provides a discussion of with all existing, planned, and proposed projects
transportation-related temporary effects resulting and structures located within the Main Artery Tunnel
from each project feature. alignment. Additionally, settlement monitoring of
existing infrastructure would be conducted to avoid
Main Artery Tunnels. Construction of the Main settlement to such infrastructure (Section 2.3.1.6).
Artery Tunnels would occur in the subsurface
and is expected to progress at an average of TBM Launch Shafts. Up to 16 TBMs would
approximately 240 cumulative feet per day per enter the subsurface at four TBM Launch Shaft
TBM Launch Shaft. The construction of the Main locations and would operate for 24 hours a day
Artery Tunnels would occur underneath existing (subject to approval).
public ROW using TBM technology and would
not interface with existing aboveground structures. Construction-related impacts at TBM Launch Shaft
Surface construction activities associated with the locations would potentially include minor traffic
Build Alternative would occur at TBM Launch delays resulting from small increases in hourly
truck traffic volume on adjacent roadways due
Table 3.1-6: Calculated Average Haul and Delivery Trips Generated

Average Trips
Construction Number Construction Trucking Duration Trucking Generated
Site of Sites Phase Activity (Months) Hours (per site)
Daily Hourly
Delivery 1 12 1 <1
Shaft Excavation
TBM Launch Hauling 1 12 29 2
Up to 4
Shafts Delivery 12 12/24* 34 2/1
Tunneling
Hauling 12 12/24* 97 8/4
Delivery 1 12 1 <1
Loop Stations 2 Shaft Excavation
Hauling 1 12 12 1
Ventilation Delivery 1 12 1 <1
Up to 70 Shaft Excavation
Shafts Hauling 1 12 6 <1
Assumptions:
Assumes a Haul Truck capacity of 15 Cubic Yards
Assumes tunnel construction period of 12 months
All final trucking hours are subject to regulatory approval
Hourly average trips generated are provided as approximated whole numbers
* TBM Launch Shaft haul truck hours provide estimated trips generated for both the proposed 24-hour work
day as well as a conservative 12-hour workday.
Page 73
to equipment movement on trucks entering and However, the temporary addition of construction
exiting roadways to/from TBM Launch Shaft sites. truck trips would not result in the deterioration
Shaft excavation at each TBM Launch Shaft site of LOS along haul routes, and traffic conditions
is expected to generate two haul trips per hour would be restored upon project completion.
(Table 3.1-6). Approximately one delivery trip is
needed per day during this phase. Construction Loop Stations. No tunneling activities would
of the launch shaft site would be approximately occur at Loop Station sites.
one month in duration. The implementation of a
Traffic Management Plan (TMP) would minimize Shaft excavation at Loop Station sites would
temporary traffic delays on roadways adjacent generate an average of one haul trip per hour and
to TBM Launch Shaft sites by implementing traffic would require one daily delivery trip (Table 3.1-6).
management procedures. Construction would occur for approximately one
month. Although adverse effects to traffic conditions
Construction equipment is expected to be staged are not anticipated, the implementation of a TMP
within proposed TBM Launch Shaft properties would help to minimize temporary traffic delays on
on TBC-owned or leased land. Therefore, no roadways adjacent to Loop Station construction
long-term road or lane closures are anticipated. sites.
No foreseeable short-term temporary lane closures
would occur as part of the Build Alternative, but in According to the 2015 Baltimore City Bike Master
the event of such occurrences, the implementation of Plan, a bike trail is proposed to be constructed
a TMP would limit impacts related to lane closures. along Russell Street and Lee Street, located to the
west and south, respectively, to the Loop Station
Tunneling activities would commence upon in Baltimore (City of Baltimore, 2015). The bike
the completion of TBM Launch Shafts. During trail is suggested under the Bike Master Plan, but
tunneling, excavated material would be loaded funding is not yet determined. As the proposed
directly into trucks or temporarily stored on-site. Loop Station is located within a parking lot, the
Tunneling activities would require an average construction of the Loop Station at this location
of four to eight haul trips per hour and one to would not result in adverse effects on, or conflicts
two delivery trips per hour. For the purpose of with, the potential bike trail.
this analysis, the 12-month schedule was used
to provide a conservative estimate of highest Haul Routes. An average of approximately
trucking intensity. Given the ability to temporarily 97 trucks per day would be needed to transport
store soil on-site, haul trips could be scheduled to excavated soils from the TBM Launch Shaft sites
accommodate traffic patterns, such as avoidance to suitable disposal facilities (Section 2.3.1.8).
of hauling during peak traffic hours. Excavated soil would be transported from TBM
Launch Shaft sites to suitable disposal facilities
Ventilation Shafts. Up to 70 Ventilation Shafts via approved haul routes. Truck deliveries to TBM
would be required under the Build Alternative. Launch Shafts would include concrete segments,
ventilation pipes, grout, rail, equipment, and other
Shaft excavation at Ventilation shaft sites would needed materials. Construction-related trucking
generate up to six haul trips and one delivery would comply with applicable federal, state, and
trip per day for the duration of approximately local rules and guidelines, including allowable
one month. The proposed Project could have gross vehicle weight restrictions and haul route
an adverse impact on local traffic conditions in restrictions (e.g., avoidance of specific bridges
the area of construction activity and haul routes. or roads, residential streets, etc.). Haul trucks for
Page 74
spoils disposal would use the roads identified in Ventilation Shafts. Outside of emergency
Table 3.1-5 and Figure 2-7. scenarios, locations serving as Ventilation Shafts
would not be open to the public. Therefore, limited
According to the Highway Capacity Manual traffic to or from Ventilation Shafts would occur.
(Transportation Research Board, 2010), Level of
Service (LOS) for a roadway is typically calculated Loop Stations. Loop Stations in Baltimore and
by dividing the volume of a roadway (V) by the Washington, D.C. would complement the existing
capacity of a roadway (C). The resulting V/C ratio public transportation network and adjacent bus,
is then assigned a LOS ranking from “A” to “F.” The commuter rail, or light rail stations such as the
proposed Project would generate varying numbers Transportation Center at Camden Yards, which
of haul trips depending on the phase and type of is located approximately 650 feet northeast of
site, with highest average trip frequency of eight the Loop Station northern terminus. To encourage
haul trips per hour occurring at each TBM Launch the use of existing public transportation, no
Shaft site over the course of the tunneling period additional parking for Loop Station passengers
(Table 3.1-6). The proposed Project could have would be provided.
an adverse impact on local traffic conditions in
the area of construction activity and haul route. Initial ridership would be limited to 1,000 riders
However, the temporary addition of construction per direction per day (Section 2.5). Ridership
truck trips would not result in the deterioration would be controlled using an online reservation
of LOS along haul routes, and traffic conditions system. The purpose of this system is to offer an
would be restored upon project completion. improved customer experience while allowing for
free flow movement at Loop Stations and avoid
3.1.3.2 Permanent Impacts
unnecessary queueing at stations.
No Build Alternative
No permanent impacts to transportation facilities Loop Stations would be located in areas with ready
or system operations are anticipated from access to existing pedestrian facilities. There are
implementation of the No-Build Alternative. currently no designated bicycle lanes or facilities
located on Russell Street, West Lee Street, Eislen
Build Alternative Street, or West Camden Street located adjacent to
Main Artery Tunnels. The operation of the the Loop Station northern terminus, or on N Street
Main Artery Tunnels would occur completely in the Northeast and New York Avenue Northeast.
subsurface, and would not interfere with surface
3.1.4 Minimization and Mitigation
transportation services.
Measures
TBM Launch Shafts. Following the completion Traffic Management Plan – TBC would
of the Main Artery Tunnel, TBM Launch Shafts prepare a TMP during final design of TBM Launch
could potentially be converted into Maintenance Shafts and Loop Stations to minimize potential
Terminals. Although on-site parking may be temporary impacts to traffic and circulation during
provided for authorized personnel, on-site construction of the proposed Project. This TMP
personnel would also have the ability to access would include plans for traffic and wayfinding
potential Maintenance Terminals via the Loop signage(s) necessary to direct roadway users to
System or existing public transportation servicing designated routes, where applicable. This TMP
the area. No adverse effects to traffic or parking would consider the frequency of equipment
are anticipated. access to and from the Project and use off-peak
hours for equipment delivery. The use of flag
Page 75
attendants, dispatchers, and staging areas would of Planning (MDP) and approved comprehensive
be incorporated into the TMP. and master plans of counties and municipalities
within the project corridor.
3.2 Land Use
The following section describes existing land
ownership, jurisdiction, and land use within the Current Land Use and Management
affected environment and analyzes the potential Current land use and management within the
affects to land use from the proposed Project. Data Project Study Area consists of the following
were obtained from geospatial datasets provided generalized land use categories as classified by
by the State of Maryland and Washington, D.C. the MDP (2010) in the Land Use/Land Cover
dataset (Table 3.2-1, Figure 3.2-1).
Data used in this analysis includes land use/
land cover data from the Maryland Department
Table 3.2-1: Maryland Department of Planning Land Use/Land Cover Dataset

Land Use Categories
Land Use Category Definition
Residential
Low-density residential Detached single-family/duplex dwelling units, yards and associated areas.
Areas of more than 90 percent single-family/duplex dwelling units, with lot
sizes of less than five acres but at least one-half acre (.2 dwelling units/acre
to 2 dwelling units/acre).
Medium-density residential Detached single-family/duplex, attached single-unit row housing, yards, and
associated areas. Areas of more than 90 percent single-family/duplex units
and attached single-unit row housing, with lot sizes of less than one-half acre
but at least one-eighth acre (2 dwelling units/acre to 8 dwelling units/acre).
High-density residential Attached single-unit row housing, garden apartments, high-rise apartments/
condominiums, mobile home and trailer parks, areas of more than 90 percent
high-density residential units with more than 8 dwelling units per acre, and
residential subdivisions with lot sizes of less than 20 acres but at least 5 acres,
with a dominant land cover of open fields or pasture.
COMMERCIAL - Retail and Areas used primarily for the sale of products and services, including associated
Wholesale Services yards and parking areas. This category includes: airports, welcome houses,
telecommunication towers, and boat marinas.
INDUSTRIAL: Manufacturing Associated warehouses, storage yards, research laboratories, powerplants,
and industrial parks and parking areas.
Institutional Elementary and secondary schools, middle schools, junior and senior high
schools, public and private colleges and universities, military installations
(built-up areas only, including buildings and storage, training, and similar
areas), churches, medical and health facilities, correctional facilities,
government offices and facilities that are clearly separable from the
surrounding land cover, campgrounds owned by groups/community groups
(i.e. girl scouts), and sports venues.
Open Urban Land Urban areas where use does not require structures, or urban areas where
nonconforming uses characterized by open land have become isolated.
Open urban lands include golf courses, parks, recreation areas (except areas
associated with schools or other institutions), cemeteries, and entrapped
agricultural and undeveloped land within urban areas.
Page 76
Table 3.2-1: Maryland Department of Planning Land Use/Land Cover Dataset

Land Use Categories (continued)
Land Use Category Definition

Agriculture
Cropland Field crops and forage crops.
Pasture Land used for pasture, both permanent and rotated, and grass.
Row and Garden Crops Intensively managed truck and vegetable farms and associated areas.
Forest
Deciduous Forest Forested areas in which the trees characteristically lose their leaves at the
end of the growing season. Included are such species as oak, hickory, aspen,
sycamore, birch, yellow poplar, elm, maple, and cypress. Note that forest
classifications may not be reliable as to type (deciduous versus evergreen).
Evergreen Forest Forested areas in which the trees are characterized by persistent foliage
throughout the year. Included are such species as white pine, pond pine,
hemlock, southern white cedar, and red pine. Note that forest classifications
may not be reliable as to type (deciduous versus evergreen).
Mixed Forest Forested areas in which neither deciduous nor evergreen species dominate,
but in which there is a combination of both types.
Brush Areas which do not produce timber or other wood products but may have
cut-over timber stands, abandoned agriculture fields, or pasture. These areas
are characterized by vegetation types such as sumac, vines, rose, brambles,
and tree seedlings.
Water Rivers, waterways, reservoirs, ponds, bays, estuaries, and ocean.
Wetlands Forested or non-forested wetlands, including tidal flats, tidal and non-tidal
marshes, and upland swamps and wet areas.
Bare Ground Areas of exposed ground caused naturally, by construction, or by other
cultural processes, including landfills.
Transportation Major highways, light rail or metro stations and large “Park ‘N Ride” lots,
generally over ten acres in size. Major highways were defined as those
appearing on the State Highway maps as Controlled Access Highways or
Primary Highways.
Source: MDP (2010)
Page 77
Figure 3.2-1: Land Uses (Page 1 of 25)
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Land Ownership and Jurisdiction

Baltimore County
The Project Study Area is in the State of Maryland The County of Baltimore Master Plan 2020 is the
and the District of Columbia. In Maryland, the guiding document that directs future development
Study Area includes portions of of the City of in Baltimore County, and provides broad goals of
Baltimore, Baltimore County, Prince George’s protecting the environment, preserving agriculture,
County, City of Greenbelt, Town of Cheverly, Town and ensuring safe and attractive places to live
of Bladensburg and Anne Arundel County. and work (Baltimore County, 2010). The County
of Baltimore Master Plan 2020 does not indicate
The proposed Project would travel underneath specific planning areas in the Project Study Area
existing public ROW. The proposed Loop Station (Baltimore County, 2010).
in Washington, D.C., Ventilation Shafts, and
TBM Launch Shafts would be within TBC-owned Anne Arundel County
or leased land. The proposed Loop Station in Development Policy Areas of the Anne Arundel
Baltimore would be on land owned-managed County 2009 General Development Plan consists
by the Maryland Stadium Authority. ROW of the designation of the following areas:
landholders with jurisdictional authority in the • Targeted Growth Areas, where development
Project Study Area consists of: and redevelopment are highest priority;
• City of Baltimore • Managed Growth Areas, and;
• Maryland Stadium Authority • Rural Areas, where preservation of agricultural
• State of Maryland uses is encouraged.
• National Park Service Targeted Growth Areas are in Hanover, east and
• District of Columbia south of the I-195 junction; northeast, southwest,
and southeast quadrants of the junction with the
Access permits or approvals would be arranged MD 175 junction; and, along the junction with MD
with these public landholders for construction of 198. Rural Areas consists of the Patuxent Wildlife
the proposed Project. Research Refuge (Anne Arundel County, 2009).
TBC would acquire, as may be required, Prince George’s County

any interests or use rights in land needed for The Plan Prince George’s 2035 consists of
construction and operation of the proposed Project comprehensive recommendations for guiding
(Section 1.5.6 and Section 1.7.2). future development within Prince George’s County.
The plan designates eight Regional Transit Districts,
Future Land Use
which are the focus of the County’s planned
City of Baltimore growth and mixed-use development, and which
The City of Baltimore Comprehensive Master Plan, have the capacity to become major economic
adopted in July 2006, serves as the City’s long-rage generators. Six Neighborhood Reinvestment
plan providing guidance on issues relating to future Areas are designated for coordinated funding and
zoning, capital improvement, and policies affecting resources needed to stabilize and revitalize these
capital improvement spending. Mapping provided areas (Prince Georges County, 2014). The Plan
in the Comprehensive Master Plan indicates that the Prince George’s 2035 does not indicate a change
project area lies within a Commercial Mixed Use in future land use within the Project Study Area.
Node (Oriole Park at Camden Yards). No future
land use changes are proposed within the City of
Baltimore jurisdiction of the Project Study Area.
Page 103
Washington, D.C. capitalizes on the influence of State expenditures

The District of Columbia’s Comprehensive on economic growth and development. Funding
Plan is a 20-year framework that guides future for projects in municipalities, other existing
growth and development. The plan addresses communities, industrial areas, and planned growth
a range of topics including land use, economic areas designated by counties receive priority State
development, housing, environmental protection, funding over other projects. Maryland Priority
historic preservation, and transportation. Future Funding Areas intersecting the Project Study Area
land uses within the Project Study Area consist are: City of Baltimore, City of Greenbelt, Town of
of Commercial, Public and Institutional, and Cheverly, Bladensburg, Riverdale Park, portions
Residential, which remains unchanged from of the County of Baltimore, Anne Arundel County,
existing land use designations (D.C. Office of and Prince George’s County.
Planning, 2010).
Community Facilities
Zoning
Community facilities range from schools, colleges,
Counties and cities with jurisdiction along the universities, military institutions, churches, medical
alignment provide specific zoning and acceptable and health facilities, and correctional facilities, to
use guidelines for land development (Table 3.2-2). government offices. Parks and recreational facilities
The Loop Station in Baltimore is zoned for Public/ are considered community facilities and discussed
Institutional use. Acceptable uses for Public/ in detail in Section 3.7. Community facilities within
Institutional land use consists of schools and the Project Study Area based on MDP generalized
colleges, military installations (including buildings land use data consists of the following:
and storage, training, and similar areas) churches,
medical and health facilities, correctional facilities, Schools
government offices and facilities that are clearly • Bladensburg High School, 4200 57th Ave,
separable from the surrounding land cover, Bladensburg, MD 20710
campgrounds owned by groups/community • Parkdale High School, 6700 Riverdale Rd,
groups, and sports venues. The Loop Station in Riverdale, MD 20737
Washington, D.C. is zoned for Commercial use. • Maritime Institute of Technology, 5700 N
Acceptable uses for Commercial land include the Hammonds Ferry Rd, Linthicum Heights, MD
sale of products and services, including associated 21090
yards and parking areas, airports, welcome houses, • Lansdowne High School, 3800 Hollins Ferry
telecommunication towers, and boat marinas. Rd, Lansdowne, MD 21227
Smart Growth and Priority Funding Areas • Westport Elementary School, 2600-2686
Maisel St, Baltimore, Maryland, 21230
Maryland Incentive Zones for sustainable
• The Capital Guardian Youth Challenge
communities include portions of several locations
Academy, 3201 Oak Hill Dr, Laurel, MD
within the Project Study Area. These areas consist
20724
of City of Baltimore, City of Greenbelt, Landover
Hills New Carrolton, Greater Riverdale, Port Hospitals
Towns, and Town of Cheverly. • Prince George’s Hospital Center, 3003
Hospital Drive, Cheverly, MD 20785
According to MDP, Priority Funding Areas are
existing communities and places where local Museums
governments want State investment to support • National Cryptologic Museum, 8290 Colony
future growth. The 1997 Priority Funding Areas Act Seven Rd, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701
Page 104
Table 3.2-2: Summary of Zoning at each Loop Stations and TBM Launch Shaft
Locations
Location Zoning Acceptable Uses
The C-5 Downtown Zoning District is intended for Baltimore’s
Loop Station C-5 D.C. Downtown
Downtown and accommodates a wide range of uses normally
Baltimore Zoning District
associated with the downtown of a major city.
The C4 Commercial Highway district is generally intended for
larger scale auto-oriented retail and service businesses along
or near major traffic routes that serve local and regional
residents as well as the traveling public. In addition to most
C4 Commercial Highway
commercial uses found in the C3 zone, automobile, truck,
recreational vehicle and boat sales, rental and major repair
facilities may be located in this District. Minimum lot size is
TBM Launch Shaft A 10,000 square feet.
The W1 Industrial Park district is generally for those “clean”
industrial uses with minimal nuisance characteristics in a
landscaped park-like setting. Typical uses may include offices,
W1 Industrial Park
research and development laboratories, light manufacturing
including assembly. Support uses such as office supply stores,
restaurants, and hotels/motels are also allowed.
The MXD-E Mixed Use Employment district is designed to
promote the mixing of residential, commercial and industrial
uses in varying proportions depending on which of the four
MXD-E Mixed Use
TBM Launch Shaft B Mixed Use Districts (MXD-R, MXD-C, MXD-E and MXD-T) the
Employment
property has been zoned. The mixing of uses is optional and
where the mixing of uses has been pursued, a more intense
development is allowed.
C-S-C Commercial The C-S-C Commercial Shopping Center district is designed
TBM Launch Shaft C
Shopping Center for Retail and service commercial activities generally
The C-O Commercial Office district is designed for uses of a
predominantly nonretail commercial nature, such as business,
TBM Launch Shaft D C-O Commercial Office
professional and medical offices, or related administrative
services.
The I-1 Light Industrial district is designed for light intensity
I-1 Light Industrial manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution uses; 10%
TBM Launch Shaft E green area required.
Search Area The I-2 Heavy Industrial district is designed for highly
I-2 Heavy Industrial intensive industrial and manufacturing uses; 10% green area
required.
The purposes of the Downtown (D) zones(D-1-R, D-2,
D-3, D-4, D-4-R, D-5,D-5-R, D-6, D-6-R, D-7, and D-8) are
to provide for the orderly development and use of land
Loop Station Downtown Zone and structures in areas the Comprehensive Plan generally
Washington, D.C. (D-4-R/D-5) characterized as a) Central Washington; or b) Appropriate
for a high-density mix of office, retail, service, residential,
entertainment, lodging, institutional, and other uses, often
grouped into neighborhoods with distinct identities.
Source: MDP (2010), Anne Arundel County (2016), Prince Georges County (2018), and Opendata.dc.gov (2016).
Page 105
Stadiums would be staged within each proposed Loop

• M&T Bank Stadium, 1101 Russell St, Baltimore, Station terminus property line. No temporary
MD, 21230 impact to land uses surrounding the proposed
• Oriole Park at Camden Yard, 555 Russell St, Loop Station locations are anticipated.
Baltimore, MD, 21230
Ventilation Shafts. As part of the design
Police Protection features of the proposed Project, the Ventilation
• Park Police Headquarters, 6700 Riverdale Rd, Shaft sites would be selected to avoid resources
Riverdale, MD 20737 of importance to existing communities and other
sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools,
Government Offices parks, recreational areas, historical properties,
• Thomas JS Waxter Children’s Center, 375 Red agricultural lands, and forest lands. Based on
Clay Rd, Laurel, MD 20724 a review of MDP land use mapping, sufficient
• U.S. Secret Service James J. Rowley Training compatible lands designated for Transportation,
Center, Laurel, MD 20708 Commercial, and/or Industrial use are available
• Resco Incinerator, 1818 Annapolis Rd, within 300 feet of the Main Artery Tunnel alignment
Baltimore, Maryland, 21230 for the construction of Ventilation Shafts.
3.2.3 Environmental Consequences Construction of the Ventilation Shafts would require

The following section analyzes the potential use of excavators, forklifts, loaders, and a crane.
temporary and permanent impacts of the proposed Light and heavy equipment used for the proposed
Project to land use in the Project Study Area. Project would be staged within each respective
proposed Loop Station terminus property line. No
temporary impact to land uses surrounding the
No-Build Alternative proposed Loop Station are anticipated.
No temporary or construction-related impacts are
anticipated to land use from implementation of the TBM Launch Shafts. Although Launch Shafts A
No-Build Alternative. and B are entirely or partially within Forest land
uses according to MDP land use mapping, Launch
Build Alternative Shaft A is within Industrial Park zoning while Launch
Main Artery Tunnels. The Main Artery Tunnels Shaft B is within Mixed Use Employment zoning
would be underneath Russell Street in Baltimore, according to the 2016 Anne Arundel County
MD 295, the B-W Parkway and U.S. 50/New York zoning data (Table 3.2-3).
Avenue in Washington D.C., which are designated
for Transportation use. The vegetated areas of During construction, light and heavy equipment
highway interchanges along the ROW corridor used for the proposed Project would be staged
are designated for Other Developed Lands; within each respective TBM Launch Shaft property
however, the Main Artery Tunnels are expected owned or leased by TBC. No temporary impact to
to follow the existing ROW and therefore avoid land uses surrounding the proposed Launch Shaft
areas designated for Other Developed Lands use. locations are anticipated.
No changes to land use along the Main Artery
Tunnel alignment is required. Haul Routes. An average of approximately
97 trucks per day would be needed to
Loop Stations. During construction, light and transport excavated soils from each TBM
heavy equipment used for the proposed Project Launch Shaft site to suitable disposal facilities
Page 106
Table 3.2-3: Land Use and Zoning at TBC Launch Shaft Locations
TBM Launch Shaft Location Land Use Zoning
Launch Shaft A Forest, Industrial Industrial Park
Launch Shaft B Forest Mixed Use Employment
Launch Shaft C Commercial Commercial
Launch Shaft D Commercial Commercial
Launch Shaft E (Search Area) Industrial Industrial
Source: MDP (2010), Anne Arundel County (2016), Prince Georges County (2018), and Opendata.dc.gov (2016).
(Section 2.3.1.8 and Table 3.1-6). During 2018a) The Loop Station in Washington, D.C. is
construction of the proposed Project, trucks traveling within the District of Columbia Downtown Zone
to and from landfill/disposal facilities would (D-4-R/D-4), with the purpose to “provide for
use a designated haul route to ensure the safe the orderly development and use of land and
transportation of the excavated soils. Excavated structures… appropriate for a high-density mix of
soil disposal would not necessitate the construction office, retail, service, residential, entertainment,
of new landfill/disposal facilities that would impact lodging, institutional, and other uses, often grouped
existing land use. No haul route-related adverse into neighborhood with distinct identities.” (D.C.
impacts to land use are anticipated. Office of Zoning, 2016)

Through complementary design, both proposed
No Build Alternative Loop Stations are expected to be compatible with
No permanent impacts to existing land use are designated acceptable uses without necessitating
anticipated from the No-Build Alternative. a change in zoning. Required permits would be
coordinated with the respective planning officials
Build Alternative at the City of Baltimore and District of Columbia.
Main Artery Tunnels. The proposed Project The planned ridership for initial operation of
would connect Loop users from the City of the Loop (1,000 passengers per day in each
Baltimore, within a Priority Funding Area, to direction) is unlikely to result in land use adverse
Washington D.C. Other than the northern Loop impacts near the Loop Stations.
Station within the City of Baltimore, no other
stations are proposed inside Maryland. Within Ventilation Shafts. Ventilation Shaft sites would
Maryland, the proposed Project does not connect be selected to avoid resources of importance to
non-Priority Funding Areas or encourage growth in existing communities and other sensitive land uses,
non-Priority Funding Areas. The proposed Project such as residences, schools, parks, recreational
will be fully funded by The Boring Company. areas, historical properties, agricultural lands, and
Coordination with Maryland Department of forest lands. MDP mapping indicates that there
Planning to evaluate the applicability of the is adequate land of appropriate land use types,
Priority Funding Area Law to the proposed project at enough density, to accommodate Ventilation
is ongoing. Shafts along the Main Artery Tunnel alignment
while avoiding sensitive land use types such as
Loop Stations. The Loop Station in Baltimore agriculture and forest. Therefore, no permanent
is within the city’s Downtown Zoning District (C-5 adverse impacts to existing land use is anticipated
D.C.), with the purpose of accommodating “a as a result of construction of the Ventilation Shafts.
wide range of uses normally associated with the
downtown of a major city.” (City of Baltimore,
Page 107
TBM Launch Shafts. Land uses within TBM or indirectly, during construction and operations.
Launch Shaft locations range from Forest, Two areas make up the socioeconomic study area:
Commercial, to Industrial. Zoning within TBM the Project Study Area and the Regional Study
Launch Shaft locations ranges from Industrial, Area. Within the Project Study Area, the proposed
Mixed Use Employment, Commercial, and Project traverses 16 different cities, towns, and
Downtown (Table 3.2-3). census-designated places (CDP). A CDP is a
census-designated concentration of population
Each TBM Launch Shaft is expected to be for statistical purposes and includes small rural
compatible with designated acceptable uses communities and unincorporated communities.
without necessitating a change in zoning. Required
permits would be coordinated with the respective To facilitate analysis of the regional effects a
planning officials at the applicable county and/ Regional Project Study Area has been defined as
or municipality. the five counties/cities that the proposed Project
traverses through: Baltimore City, Baltimore
County, Anne Arundel County, Prince Georges
Measures
County; and Washington, D.C. (Table 3.3-1,
TBC shall coordinate with the Maryland Stadium Figure 3.3-1).
Authority and officials at relevant planning
agencies with jurisdiction to apply for and secure
necessary land use and/or zoning-related permits Data was obtained at both the county and census
and approvals to construct and operate Loop tract level, depending on the components being
Stations, TBM Launch Shafts, and Ventilation analyzed. The following data sources were used
Shafts to ensure that its various uses are permitted to gather useful information: 2000 U.S. Census
and compatible with corresponding land uses and Bureau data and 2010 Census and American
zoning at each land parcel. Community Survey (ACS) data; Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) mapping layers and
3.3 Socioeconomic Environment municipal property search databases were
This section analyzes the proposed Project’s used to determine community resources near the
potential impacts on socioeconomic conditions proposed Project.
within the Project Study Area. The proposed
Project could potentially impact socioeconomic To determine demographic makeup and population
conditions if it would result in business or residential for the Project Study Area, GIS software was used
displacements, restrict access to businesses to identify those census tracts that fall totally or
or community facilities, affect neighborhood partially within that boundary. A total of 44 census
character or cohesion because of new land tracts fall totally or partially within the Project Study
uses or adverse environmental impacts, or affect Area. Of the 44 census tracts, 35 are in the State
emergency services. This section evaluates the of Maryland and nine are in Washington, D.C.,
social and economic benefits the proposed Project (Figure 3.3-2).
may have on travel time, employment generation,
and public transportation improvements. Data on population and mean household income
was obtained for both the census tracts of the
Socioeconomic Study Area
Project Study Area and for the five jurisdictions for
The study area for the socioeconomic analysis the Regional Study Area. Employment and transit
includes areas within which the proposed Project information was only available for the Regional
could alter socioeconomic conditions, either directly Study Area.
Page 108
Table 3.3-1: Cities, Towns, CDPs, and Counties within Project Study Area
City Jurisdiction
Baltimore Baltimore City
Greenbelt Prince George’s County
Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.
Towns
Bladensburg
Cheverly Prince George’s County
Colmar Manor
CDPs
Baltimore Highlands
Baltimore County
Lansdowne
Linthicum
Severn
Jessup Anne Arundel County
Fort Meade
Maryland City
South Laurel
East Riverdale Prince George’s County
Woodlawn
3.3.2 Affected Environment place of residence. Income sources could range

Demographics from, but are not limited to, salary and wages,
Based on the 2012-2016 ACS five-year estimates investment gains, and pensions. The distribution of
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2010c), the total population household income within census tracts is used as
for census tracts of the Project Study Area is an indicator of economic conditions.
193,686. This is a small percentage (5.4 percent)
of the 2016 ACS Regional Study Area population The census tracts within the Project Study Area show
for the five jurisdictions totaling 3,563,105. an average mean household income lower than
that of each jurisdiction. The lowest mean household
The City of Baltimore and Washington, D.C. are income is in Baltimore County ($42,585) which is
centers of population and employment. Over the just less than double the poverty level threshold for
last two decades, in Maryland, both residents a family of four in 2016 of $24,563 (Section 3.4).
and jobs have migrated to suburban areas
Economic Resources
surrounding these metropolitan areas and that
trend is expected to continue in the next twenty Employment statistics are a measure of the number
years, according to estimates to the year 2040 of jobs in a jurisdiction. A large proportion of the
by MDP and Metropolitan Washington Council of major employers, defined as 5,000 employees or
Governments. Contrary to the population data for greater, in Baltimore City and Washington, D.C.
Maryland, Washington, D.C. has experienced a are primarily educational, medical or federal
dramatic population growth of 12.8 percent over government facilities. According to the Maryland
a seven-year period (Table 3.3-2). Department of Commerce, Johns Hopkins
University (25,000 employees) and Johns Hopkins
Household income is a measure that aggregates Health System (19,340 employees) are the major
the income of all individuals sharing the same employers along with University of Maryland
Page 109
Figure 3.3-1: Cities, Towns, CDPs, and Counties within the Project Study Area
Page 110
Figure 3.3-2: Census Tracts within the Project Study Area
Page 111
Table 3.3-2: Population Forecast

2016
% Change
Census 2040
2010 2016 (2010-2016)
Jurisdiction Tracts in Projection by
Census* Census* Total
Project Jurisdiction**
Population
Study Area
Baltimore City 620,538 621,000 0.1% 16,295 628,117
Baltimore County 799,195 825,666 3.3% 12,952 854,694
Anne Arundel County 527,020 559,737 6.2% 45,058 610,152
Prince Georges County 854,722 897,693 5.0% 87,203 941,713
Washington, D.C. 584,400 659,009 12.8% 32,178 771,200
Total 3,385,875 3,563,105 5.2% 193,686 3,918,276
* Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2010c)
** Source: Projections by MDP (2014), Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (2013)
Table 3.3-3: Mean Household Income

2016 Census Tracts
Jurisdiction 2010 2016 in Project Study
Area
Baltimore City $56,342 $44,262 $44,297
Baltimore County $99,441 $68,989 $42,585
Anne Arundel County $102,477 $91,918 $85,641
Prince Georges County $85,275 $75,925 $70,825
Washington, D.C. $91,778 $139,260 $54,443
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2010a)
Medical System (9,830 employees), University 2016 data from D.C. Department of Employment
System of Maryland (9,111 employees), MedStar Services Office of Labor Market Research, the
Health (6,027 employees) and LifeBridge Health largest employer in Washington, D.C. is the
(5,316 employees) in Baltimore City (Maryland Federal Government (170,063 employees)
Department of Labor, 2015a). The major followed by George Washington University,
employers in Baltimore County are the Social (10,000), Med Star Hospital Center (6,000) and
Security Administration (12,751 employees) and Children’s National Medical Center (5,338) (D.C.
University System of Maryland (6,358 employees) Department of Employment Services, 2016).
(Maryland Department of Labor, 2015b). Based
on data from the Maryland Department of Business The employment forecast shows employment
and Economic Development, the major employers incrementally increasing, with the greatest growth
in Anne Arundel County are Fort George Meade/ occurring in Washington, D.C. (Table 3.3-4).
National Security Agency (53,733 employees)
and Northrup Grumman (7,725 employees) Some workers may commute to jobs outside the
(Maryland Department of Labor, 2015c). The five jurisdictions. However, based on commuting
major employers in Prince Georges County are times, the Project Study Area workforce is contained
University of Maryland (18,726), Joint Base primarily within Baltimore City, Baltimore County,
Andrews (17,500 employees), and the Internal Anne Arundel County, Prince Georges County and
Revenue Service (5,539 employees) (Maryland Washington, D.C. The majority of the workforce
Department of Labor, 2015d). According to drives alone to work, particularly in Anne Arundel
Page 112
Table 3.3-4: Employment Actual and Forecast

2010 2015
Jurisdiction 2020 2025 2030
Actual Actual
Baltimore City 315,300 312,080 314,480 314,440 316,880
Baltimore County 440,380 442,800 449,140 449,760 448,850
Anne Arundel County 302,650 315,280 318,310 320,520 323,520
Prince Georges County 504,760 513,980 516,690 520,560 521,260
Washington, D.C. 783,457 798,000 846,000 895,000 938,000
Total 2,346,547 2,382,140 2,444,620 2,500,280 2,548,510
Source: MDP, Projects and State Data Center (2018), National Capital Regional Transportation Planning Board
(2018).
County (Table 3.3-5). Public transportation is most City, Baltimore County, Anne Arundel County, and
used in Baltimore City, Prince Georges County Prince Georges County.
and Washington, D.C. In Washington, D.C., about
Community Resources
18.9 percent of the workforce walks/bikes to work
indicating that they work near their residence. Schools, libraries, places of worship, hospitals, and
park/recreation areas are important resources to
According to data from the 2009-2013 ACS the surrounding community (Table 3.3-6).
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b), about 1.6 percent
Transit Options
of Baltimore City residents commute daily to
Washington, D.C. This data shows less than 1 Downtown Baltimore and Washington, D.C. are
percent of Washington, D.C. residents work in the about 40 miles apart. This short distance allows
Baltimore metro area. This data indicates that fewer for workers to commute daily between the two
residents in Washington, D.C. travel to Baltimore cities and tourists staying in Washington, D.C. to
City for work than those commuting from Baltimore experience the downtown Baltimore attractions
City to Washington, D.C., which is the larger or vice versa. Multiple transportation options
employment center (Table 3.3-4) compared to the are available between the two cities. Regularly
remainder of the Regional Study Area of Baltimore scheduled public bus and commuter rail service are
Table 3.3-5: 2016 Commuting Statistics by Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction
Commuting Mode Anne Prince
Baltimore Baltimore Washington,
Arundel Georges
City County D.C.
County County
Mean travel time to work
30.5 29.3 29.9 36.7 29.9
(minutes) 2012-2016
% total population in work
force that commute to 53.7% 61.2% 65.7% 64.6% 62.3%
work
Drive alone 59.8% 79.4% 80.1% 65.9% 33.7%
Carpool 9.2% 8.8% 7.6% 11.5% 5.4%
Public Transportation 18.4% 4.7% 3.7% 16.4% 36.8%
Work home 3.7% 3.8% 4.9% 2.8% 5.2%
Other (i.e. walk) 8.9% 3.3% 3.7% 3.3% 18.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2010)
Page 113
Table 3.3-6: Community Resources

Name Resource Type Address Location to Project
680 Eislen Street Within ¼ mile of Baltimore
Lions Club Park Public Park
Baltimore MD, 21201 Loop Station
Eislen Street and Russell Street Within ¼ mile of Baltimore
Eislen St. Traffic Island Public Park
Baltimore, MD 21201 Loop Station
Penn and Melvin Street 655 Melvin Drive Within ¼ mile of Baltimore
Public Park
Park Baltimore, MD 21201 Loop Station
Warner Street Traffic Warner Street Traffic Island Within ¼ mile of Baltimore
Public Park
Island Baltimore, MD 21230 Loop Station
601 West Conway Street Within ¼ mile of Baltimore
Conway Street Park Public Park
Solo Gibbs Park Within ¼ mile of Baltimore
Solo Gibbs Park Public Park
1101 Russell St Within ¼ mile of Baltimore
M&T Bank Stadium Stadium
Baltimore, MD, 21230 Loop Station
Oriole Park at Camden 555 Russell St Within ¼ mile of Baltimore
Stadium
Yards Baltimore, MD, 21230 Loop Station
Gwynns Falls Trail Within 300 ft of Main
Gwynns Fall Trail South Public Park/Trail
Baltimore, MD 21207 Artery Tunnels
2820 Indiana Ave Within 300 ft of Main
Indiana Ave Park Public Park
Baltimore, MD 21230 Artery Tunnels
Westport Elementary 2600-2686 Maisel St Within 300 ft of Main
School
School Baltimore, Maryland, 21230 Artery Tunnels
Recreational 8020 Baltimore National Pike Within 300 ft of Main
Patapsco State Park
Area Ellicott City, MD 21043 Artery Tunnels
Patapsco Valley State 8020 Baltimore National Pike Within ¼ mile of Launch
Park
Park Ellicott City, MD 21043 Shaft A
565 Brock Bridge Rd Within 300 ft of Main
Maryland City Park Public Park
Laurel, MD 20724 Artery Tunnels
Pheasant Run 12039 Pheasant Run Drive Within ¼ mile of Launch
Public Park
Community Park Laurel, MD 20708 Shaft C
12701 Laurel Bowie Road Within 300 ft of Main
Montpelier Park Public Park
Laurel, MD 20708 Artery Tunnels
Within ¼ mile of Launch
6565 Greenbelt Road
Greenbelt Park National Park Shaft D and within 300 ft
Greenbelt, MD 20770
of Main Artery Tunnels
Colmar Manor 3510 37th Ave Within 300 ft of Main
Public Park
Community Park Colmar Manor, MD 20722 Artery Tunnels
Westport Elementary 2600-2686 Maisel St Within 300 ft of Main
School
School Baltimore, Maryland, 21230 Artery Tunnels
Chesapeake Science 7321 Parkway Dr Within 300 ft of Main
School
Point Charter school Hanover, MD 21076 Artery Tunnels
National Cryptologic 8290 Colony Seven Rd Within 300 ft of Main
Museum
Museum Annapolis Junction, MD 20701 Artery Tunnels
3800 Hollins Ferry Rd Within 300 ft of Main
Lansdowne High School School
Lansdowne, MD 21227 Artery Tunnels
6001 Good Luck Road Within 300 ft of Main
Parkdale High School School
Riverdale, MD 20737 Artery Tunnels
Page 114
Table 3.3-6: Community Resources (continued)

Name Resource Type Address Location to Project
Rogers Heights 1900, 4301 58th Avenue Within 300 ft of Main
School
Elementary School Bladensburg, MD 20710 Artery Tunnels
Prince George’s Hospital 3003 Hospital Drive Within 300 ft of Main
Hospital
Center Cheverly, MD 20785 Artery Tunnels
6700 Riverdale Rd Within 300 ft of Main
Park Police Headquarters Police
Riverdale, MD 20737 Artery Tunnels
Source: Google (2018), National Park Service (2018)

inexpensive, reliable ways to get from Washington,
D.C. to Baltimore. A frequently used local transit No-Build Alternative
service between the two metropolitan areas is the No temporary impacts to the socioeconomic
MARC Camden and Penn Line, a commuter rail environment are anticipated from the No-Build
service which connects downtown Baltimore with Alternative.
Washington, D.C. There are multiple stops on the
MARC, including a stop at the BWI Rail Station Build Alternative
near BWI Airport. The trip from Washington, D.C. An estimated 12 workers are needed per TBM
to Baltimore typically takes one hour at a cost of used. Assuming for four TBMs used at each TBM
$8. Other modes of transportation are costlier. The Launch Shaft sites, up to 48 workers would be
Amtrak commuter train takes about 42 minutes staffed at each TBM Launch Shaft location in shifts.
and costs more than double that of the MARC Construction workers are expected to travel to
($17-$32). Amtrak Acela Express takes about construction sites from various locations throughout
35 minutes to travel from Washington, D.C. Union Maryland and Washington, D.C. The potential
Station to Baltimore Penn Station but costs about jobs generated typically require previous tunneling
$62-$98 (Amtrak, N.D.). experience, the majority which would likely come
from the existing labor pool in the general vicinity
of the Regional Study Area. The number of workers
The significance of socioeconomics impacts is anticipated to relocate into the Regional Study
assessed in terms of the proposed Project’s effects Area is not expected to be substantial such that it
on population trends, the local economy, and would impact existing socioeconomic conditions.
other socioeconomic resources (e.g., housing).
The magnitude of potential impacts can vary Main Artery Tunnels. Project design would
greatly depending on the location and nature of avoid displacements to residences such that
a proposed Project. For example, implementation adverse impacts to residential communities would
of an action that creates employment positions not occur. Tunnel boring activities would result
could be unnoticed in an urban area but could in no temporary impacts to the socioeconomic
have more apparent effects in a more rural region. conditions in the Project Study Area.
If potential socioeconomic impacts would result in
substantial shifts in population trends or result in Loop Stations. Adhering to a TMP as a
shifts in regional spending and earning patterns, minimization measure would minimize potential
adverse effects may occur. temporary social and economic impacts due to
truck traffic at the two proposed Loop Station
sites. There are no appreciable increases in
Page 115

noise or decreases in air quality expected during
construction (Section 3.8, 3.9). No Build Alternative
No permanent impacts to the socioeconomic
Ventilation Shafts. There are no material environment are anticipated from the No-Build
increases in noise or adverse air quality effects Alternative.
expected during construction (Section 3.8, 3.9).
Temporary adverse transportation-related effects Build Alternative
are not anticipated at Ventilation Shaft locations Operation of the proposed Project would not
during construction; as such, adverse temporary impact the current commuter rail system and
social and economic impacts are not anticipated. would not change travel patterns in the region.
TBC commits to minimizing local temporary The proposed Project would not improve access
transportation-related effects related to ventilation to major employment centers in Anne Arundel,
shaft siting and construction (Section 3.1). Prince George’s and Baltimore Counties such as
Fort Meade, University of Maryland, Joint Base
TBM Launch Shafts. Following the Andrews, and Social Security Administration.
implementation of a TMP, temporary impacts at
TBM Launch Shaft locations would be minimized Due to the number of employees needed to
during construction including temporary traffic operate the Project, staffing needed to operate
delays on adjacent roadways due to heavy/light the proposed Project would not have potential
equipment movement. to influence real estate trends or employment in
the region or cause demographic shifts. Rather,
Approximately 97 average truck trips per day would the proposed Project would support projected
be needed to transport excavated materials from the growth in the region. The proposed Project is
TBM Launch Shaft sites. Approximately two hourly expected to serve as an affordable, convenient,
haul trip and one daily delivery trips would occur and reliable alternative means of transportation to
during shaft excavation lasting approximately one surrounding communities near Loop Stations. As
month, and four to eight haul trips and two delivery such, the proposed Project is expected to benefit
trips per hour would occur during tunneling (Section surrounding communities and areas surrounding
2.3.1.8 and Table3.1-6). No adverse increases in the Loop Station terminus in Baltimore, Maryland
noise or air quality is expected during construction and Washington, D.C. through increasing travel/
in proximity to the TBM Launch Shaft sites commute options.
(Section 3.8, 3.9). Disposal facilities and haul routes
are discussed in Section 2.3.1.8. During construction Because operations would primarily occur
of the proposed Project, trucks traveling to and from underground, the proposed Project would not
landfill/disposal facilities would use a designated result in residential or business displacements,
haul route to ensure the safe transportation of the permanently restricted access to businesses
excavated soils. Increases in traffic volume are or community facilities, or the division of
anticipated at construction sites and along haul communities or changes to community cohesion
routes during construction. However, these increases or neighborhood quality. Surface infrastructure
are expected to be temporary, as traffic conditions would not create barriers that prevent access to
in adjacent communities are anticipated to return to streets, businesses, or community resources.
normal upon completion of construction.
Operations of the proposed Project would not
employ enough staff to substantially impact
local economies. Fares for the proposed Project
Page 116
are expected to be comparable to public is defined as the industrial zoned properties

transportation. Due to the limited capacity of adjacent to the Main Artery Tunnel alignment
ridership and connections, economic development near Kenilworth Avenue, which is within Census
opportunities would not be substantially impacted Tracts 8043 and 8044. The construction of the
by the proposed Project. launch shafts and the conversion of TBM Launch
Sites to Maintenance Terminals, if proposed, is
Main Artery Tunnels. Upon completion, not expected to result in permanent impacts to
operation of proposed Project in the Main Artery socioeconomic conditions.
Tunnels is not expected to result in adverse
permanent impacts to the socioeconomic
Measures
conditions.
Potential adverse temporary traffic-related effects
Loop Stations. The proposed Loop Stations would be minimized through the implementation
are within urbanized areas, mainly consisting of a TMP (Section 3.1.4). To minimize construction-
of commercial, public/institutional, industrial stage impacts on roadways, flaggers would be
and some residential land uses. Loop Stations used where appropriate to ensure safe and
are designed to fit into the fabric of existing proper entry/exit from these sites. In the event any
environments, and would not result in permanent temporary closures were needed, such closures
impacts to surrounding facilities upon project would be typically performed during off-peak
completion. At the Loop Station in Baltimore, traffic hours and would utilize approved traffic
the number of parking spaces lost would be control plans.
determined during the design of the proposed
Project and the Loop Station would require 3.4 Environmental Justice
approval from the Maryland Stadium Authority The following section identifies and analyzes
and the State of Maryland’s BPW. potential adverse effects to Environmental Justice
(EJ) populations along the proposed project
The operation of the Loop Stations at its proposed corridor.
locations in Baltimore, Maryland and Washington,
D.C. is not expected to result in adverse effects to
socioeconomic conditions. Data and information on demographics and
community characteristics provide a baseline to
Ventilation Shafts. Ventilation Shafts are identify EJ populations and communities within
designed to fit into the fabric of the existing the project area. Data products were based on
environment and would typically be behind 2011-2015 5-year summary files, American
tree-lines within fenced in areas containing a small Community Survey (ACS) from the U.S. Census
shed. No permanent impacts to socio-economic Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau 2015a). Data
conditions are anticipated from the operation of obtained included race and Latino/Hispanic
Ventilation Shafts. origin, household income, and poverty status
(low-income persons). The census analysis used
TBM Launch Shafts. Upon project completion, the most recent data available at the census tract
TBM Launch Shaft sites could be re-purposed and census tract block group (block group) levels.
to serve as maintenance facilities for project A block group is a smaller geographic area within
operation. The exact location of Launch Shaft E a census tract. Block groups were used in lieu of
is yet to be determined. The search area for the census tracts to help more accurately identify
construction and operation of Launch Shaft E concentrations of minority and low-income
Page 117
Executive Order 12898

populations. Limited English Proficiency (LEP) data
was not available at the block group-level, thus Projects involving a federal action (funding,
only census tract-level data was used. permit, or development) must comply with EO
12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Environmental justice population areas were Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
identified using the U.S. Environmental Protection Populations. This EO directs federal agencies
Agency’s (EPA) EJSCREEN. This GIS-based tool to take the appropriate and necessary steps to
enables the user to conduct a preliminary estimate identify and address disproportionately high and
of environmental conditions by providing map adverse effects of federal programs, activities, or
layers of a variety of demographic data and projects on the health or environment of minority
information on exposure to environmental risks. and low-income populations (Federal Register,
EJSCREEN was used to identify EJ communities 1994). Minority populations are identified based
along the project corridor and the haul routes. on available data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
EJSCREEN provides information on percent Low income populations are defined based on
minority population and percent low-income the Department of Health and Human Services
population for all block groups. LEP populations poverty guidelines.
were identified using census tract-level data from
Department of Transportation Order
the ACS.
5610.2(a)
Readily identifiable population groups that meet Departmental Order 5610.2(a) (Actions to Address
one or all of the following criteria were identified Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
as EJ population areas: Low-Income Populations) issued May 2, 2012
• The percentage of minority populations (Black updates the Department’s original Environmental
or African American, American Indian/ Justice Order, which was published April 15, 1997.
Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and The updated Order sets forth the USDOT policy to
Hispanic and Latino) exceeds 50 percent consider EJ principles in programs, policies, and
(Fifty Percent Analysis) for block groups. activities. It describes how the objectives of EJ would
• The percentage of a low-income population be integrated into planning and programming,
(household income is less than or equal to rulemaking, and policy formulation.
twice the federal poverty level) is near or
exceeds 50 percent for block groups. The updated Order reaffirms USDOT’s commitment to
• Census tracts with more than 10 percent of the EJ and clarifies certain aspects of the original Order,
population having Limited English Proficiency. including the definitions of “minority” populations
in compliance with the Office of Management
Figure 3.4-1 provides a flowchart of the EJ and Budget’s Revisions to the Standards for the
Analysis process. Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity
of October 30, 1997. The revisions clarify the
3.4.2 Regulatory Framework
distinction between a Title VI analysis and an EJ
Title VI analysis conducted as part of a NEPA review and
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects people affirm the importance of considering EJ principles
from discrimination based on race, color, and as part of early planning activities to avoid
national origin in federal programs and activities. disproportionately high and adverse effects.
Page 118
Figure 3.4-1: EJ Analysis in Environmental Review
Page 119
Executive Order 13166

Minority populations located in the EJ Study Area
In addition to EO 12898, all projects involving a are listed below. Figure 3.4-3 shows block groups
federal action (funding, permit, or development) with minority populations over 50 percent in the EJ
must comply with EO 13166, Improving Access Study Area.
to Services for Persons with Limited English
Proficiency. This EO directs federal agencies to Washington, D.C.
examine the services they provide in consideration • From BW Parkway to Loop Station along Route
of populations with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) 50 in Washington DC - Minority population
such that federal services and actions are available 70 percent. Communities include Gallaudet
to LEP persons consistent to the requirements of Title and Brentwood in Northeast Washington DC
VI. Presence of areas with LEP above 10 percent are
an indication that project materials may need to be Prince George’s County
translated to another language. • All areas along the BW Parkway (with
the exception of the Fort Meade Military
3.4.3 Affected Environment Reservation) - Minority populations range
The following section describes the race and from 50-95 percent. Communities include
Laurel, Lanham, East Riverdale, Woodlawn,
economic makeup of affected census tracts/block
Greenbelt, Hyattsville and Cheverly.
groups and identifies EJ populations within the EJ
Study Area. • HAUL ROUTE: MD 198 (Laurel). Minority
population 68 percent, includes:
Environmental Justice Study Area »» Laurel Fort Meade Road (MD 198) from
The study area for this analysis (EJ Study Area) is MD 32 to Study Area to Laurel Bowie
defined as the census tracts/block groups within Road (MD 197)
the footprint of the proposed Loop Stations, »» Laurel Bowie Road (MD 197) from Laurel
Ventilation Shafts, TBM Launch Shafts, and Fort Meade Road (MD 198) Study Area
300 feet of the right-of-way boundaries for the to I-295
Main Artery Tunnels. The EJ Study Area was also • HAUL ROUTE: MD 197 (Bowie) - Belle Grove
expanded to include the block groups along the Recycling Center, 4944 Sand Road, Lothian,
proposed haul routes (Figure 3.4-2). MD. Minority population 80 percent, includes:
»» Laurel Bowie Road (MD 197) from Old
Minority Population
Laurel Bowie Road to Annapolis Road
A Fifty Percent Analysis was conducted to identify (MD 450)
minority populations within the EJ Study Area »» Collington Road (MD 197) from Annapolis
pursuant to EO 12898. Minority populations are Road (MD 450) to Crain Hwy (MD 301)
defined as all individuals identifying as Black or »» Mitchellville Road
African American, American Indian/Alaska Native,
• HAUL ROUTE: I-495, MD 202, MD 4
Asian, Native Hawaiian or Hispanic and Latino in the
(Landover/Upper Marlboro) - Clean Earth,
ACS 2012-2016 5-year estimate (EPA, 2016a). This 6250 Dower House Road, Upper Marlboro,
analysis is conducted to initially identify the extent to MD. Minority population 98 percent, includes:
which minority populations reside within each group.
»» Landover Road (MD 202) from John
As an aggregate, the EJ Study Area population is
Hanson Hwy (MD 50) to I-495
comprised of a high percentage of minorities. An
aggregate of minority populations over 50 percent »» John Hanson Hwy (MD 50) from Study
Area Launch Shaft E to Landover Road
for the entire EJ Study Area indicates increased focus
(MD 202)
in the EJ analysis may be appropriate.
Page 120
Figure 3.4-2: EJ Study Area
Page 121
Figure 3.4-3: Minority Populations in the EJ Study Area
Page 122
»» Martin Luther King Jr Hwy (MD 704) Low-Income Populations

»» Pennsylvania Avenue (MD 4) from I-495 Low-income populations were determined by
to Dower House Road a demographic indicator of near or above 50
»» Dower House Road from Pennsylvania percent of “low income populations” for the
Avenue (MD 4) to Columbine Lane block groups. The percentage of “low income
• HAUL ROUTE: MD 5 and MD 301 population” was calculated as the percentage of
(Brandywine) - Gardner Road Facility, 16143 all residents where household income is below
Gardner Road, Brandywine, MD. Minority twice the federally defined poverty threshold, as a
population 86 percent, includes: percentage of all those for whom this poverty ratio
»» Branch Avenue (MD 5) from Moores could be determined. The rationale for using twice
Road to Crain Hwy (MD 301) the poverty threshold, is that the poverty thresholds
»» Accokeek Road (MD 373) from Branch are too low to adequately capture the populations
Avenue (MD 5) to Gardner Road adversely affected by low income levels, especially
(Lakeview at Brandywine Community) in high-cost areas such the DC region. Figure 3.4-4
shows block groups with low-income populations
Anne Arundel County over 50 percent in the EJ Study Area.
• Along BW Parkway from Route 100 to
Patapsco Ave (small portion near Patapsco Several of the block groups in the EJ Study Area
Ave is in Baltimore County) - Minority indicate low income populations are likely present.
population 90 percent. Communities include In Baltimore City, block groups for communities near
Hanover, Ehrmansville, Patapsco, Crestwood,
the BW Parkway from Patapsco Ave to Camden
Linthicum Heights
Yards show a low-income percentage of 49 percent.
• HAUL ROUTE: MD 175 (Fort Meade) - Also in Baltimore City, communities near the haul
Millersville Landfill, 389 Burns Crossing Road, route to the Belle Grove Recycling center show
Severn, MD. Minority population 61 percent,
block groups having 55 percent. In Prince Georges
includes:
County, block groups indicate over 50 percent
»» Annapolis Road (MD 175) from Study low-income populations in the East Riverdale area
Area to I-295 to MD 32 near the Launch Shaft E site. Also block groups near
»» Reese Road the Main Artery Tunnels in Washington DC show
»» Ridge Road (MD 713) greater than 50 percent low-income populations.
The block groups for these low-income areas were
Baltimore City/Baltimore County also identified as minority populations.
• Along BW Parkway from Patapsco Ave to
Camden Yards - Minority population 75 Limited English Proficiency Populations
percent. Communities include Westport, Executive Order 13166 requires Federal agencies
Middle Branch, Dorchester Heights Baltimore to examine and identify need for services to those
City – Camden area.
with LEP and to develop and implement a system
• HAUL ROUTE: I-695 at I-895 Spur to provide those services to those persons.
(Brooklyn) - Belle Grove Recycling Center,
6931 Baltimore Annapolis Blvd, Brooklyn, Approximately 14 percent of the EJ Study Area as
MD. Minority population 61 percent, includes:
a whole identified as LEP. Census tracts with higher
»» S. Camp Meade Road (MD Route 170) LEP populations include Census Tracts 4301.01
»» Baltimore Annapolis Blvd (MD Route 648) (20 percent), 8038.01 (14 percent), 8040.01 (12
»» Hammonds Lane percent), 8043 (10 percent), 8044 (10 percent),
8066.01 (12 percent), 8066.02 (20 percent),
Page 123
Figure 3.4-4: Low-Income Populations in the EJ Study Area
Page 124
Table 3.4-1: LEP Populations within EJ Study Area Census Tracts

Reference Language Spoken by LEP Population
Population Total LEP Asian
or Census Population Population Indo-
Spanish Pacific Other
Tract European
Islander
City of
621,000 2% 23% 17% 28% 12%
Baltimore
2101 2,376 2% 21% 33% 0% 0%
2102 2,888 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2201 4,196 1% 0% 0% 15% 0%
2502.05 4,489 4% 34% 4% 0% 0%
2503.01 2,346 1% 0% 46% 0% 0%
Baltimore
825,666 3% 20% 16% 23% 11%
County
4301.01 4,587 20% 63% 0% 0% 69%
4302 2,887 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
4303 5,478 3% 35% 0% 0% 0%
Anne Arundel
559,737 2% 15% 8% 17% 10%
County
7401.02 9,809 4% 9% 0% 32% 29%
7405 10,492 0% 0% 0% 7% 0%
7406.01 4,083 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
7406.03 2,569 3% 28% 0% 0% 0%
7503 2,757 2% 15% 28% 0% 0%
7504 4,004 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
7512 4,189 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
7515 7,155 2% 13% 0% 0% 0%
Prince George’s
897,693 5% 31% 11% 26% 10%
County
8002.06 3,959 4% 11% 8% 48% 12%
8002.08 8,161 4% 35% 3% 16% 0%
8002.11 3,060 4% 26% 6% 54% 0%
8004.11 3,717 2% 0% 16% 0% 13%
8036.05 7,001 4% 25% 0% 10% 0%
8038.01 2,502 14% 55% 0% 0% 0%
8038.03 6,262 4% 5% 5% 25% 16%
8040.01 4,877 12% 55% 38% 100% 33%
8041.02 5,956 6% 30% 30% 0% 7%
8042 3,098 2% 42% 0% 0% 0%
8043 3,331 10% 86% 0% 0% 9%
8044 2,844 10% 34% 0% 13% 14%
8066.01 4,585 12% 31% 74% 0% 0%
8066.02 5,541 20% 38% 35% 100% 21%
8067.06 3,311 10% 35% 11% 73% 0%
8067.08 3,979 6% 0% 0% 67% 12%
Page 125
Table 3.4-1: LEP Populations within EJ Study Area Census Tracts (continued)
Reference Language Spoken by LEP Population
Population Total LEP Asian
or Census Population Population Indo-
Spanish Pacific Other
Tract European
Islander
8067.10 5,758 10% 52% 13% 56% 7%
8067.12 3,517 2% 0% 0% 0% 23%
8074.08 5,744 1% 0% 0% 17% 0%
Washington,
659,009 4% 24% 8% 20% 19%
D.C.
106 6,449 1% 0% 8% 17% 0%
111 5,525 2% 0% 21% 100% 0%
87.01 2,642 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
87.02 2,026 3% 33% 0% 0% 19%
88.03 2,344 5% 58% 0% 0% 50%
88.04 2,500 2% 30% 0% 0% 0%
90 3,045 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
91.02 5,264 3% 23% 0% 100% 28%
96.01 2,383 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Totals/Average 193,686 14% -- -- -- --
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2010)
8067.06 (10 percent) and 8067.10 (10 percent). associated with the Build Alternative would occur
The majority of these populations are near the project at TBM Launch Shaft and Ventilation Shaft sites
alignment in Prince Georges County. Among LEP along the proposed Project.
households within the EJ Study Area, the primary
language spoken is predominately Spanish. TBM Launch Shafts. No displacement of
residential property is required for the construction
of TBM Launch Shafts. No displacement-related
The following section analyzes the potential adverse adverse effects to communities along the proposed
and disproportionate impacts to EJ communities Project would result under the Build Alternative.
within the EJ Study Area resulting from the
construction and operation of the proposed Project. Construction-related impacts at TBM Launch Shaft
locations may potentially include minor traffic
delays on adjacent roadways due to heavy/
No-Build Alternative light equipment movement. The implementation
No temporary or construction-related impacts on of a Traffic Management Plan as a minimization
EJ populations are anticipated from implementation measure, would aim to minimize temporary traffic
of the No-Build Alternative. delays on roadways adjacent to the TBM Launch
Shaft site.
Build Alternative
Main Artery Tunnels. The construction and Construction equipment is expected to be staged
operation of the Main Artery Tunnels would within the proposed TBM Launch Shaft property
occur underneath existing public ROW using TBM on TBC-owned or leased land. No other sites
technology and would not interface with existing other than the Ventilation Shaft locations would
aboveground structures. Construction activities
Page 126
be used for construction staging, including storage Construction equipment is expected to be

of construction equipment. staged within the proposed Ventilation Shafts on
TBC-owned or leased land. No other sites other
Air quality impacts would not exceed de minimis than the TBM Launch Shaft locations would be
levels for potential pollutants resulting from off-road used for construction staging, including storage
equipment, worker vehicles, vendor trucks, haul of construction equipment.
trucks, and fugitive dust (Section 3.9).
Construction-related air quality impacts would not
The TBM Launch Shaft sites would not be located exceed de minimis levels accounting for potential
near residential noise and vibration receptors such pollutants resulting from off-road equipment,
that adverse noise and vibration impacts would worker vehicles, vendor trucks, haul trucks, and
exceed locally-established acceptable levels fugitive dust (Section 3.9).
(Section 3.8). If noise impacts exceed locally-
established acceptable levels to residential The TBM Launch Shaft sites would not be in
noise and vibration receptors, temporary sound proximity to residential noise and vibration
walls would be used to mitigate exceedances to receptors such that adverse noise and vibration
acceptable levels. impacts would occur (Section 3.8). In the event that
noise impacts exceed pre-established acceptable
No adverse construction-related environmental levels to residential noise and vibration receptors,
effects are anticipated from the TBM Launch temporary sound walls would be used to mitigate
Shaft sites with the implementation of applicable exceedances to acceptable levels.
minimization and mitigation measures. TBM Launch
Shaft B and parts of the TBM Launch Shaft E Search No adverse construction-related environmental
Area are within both a minority and low income effects are anticipated from the Ventilation Shaft
EJ population. Based on the discussion above sites with the implementation of applicable
regarding construction- related impacts across minimization and mitigation measures. Because
TBM Launch Shaft sites, no disproportionately no residential property displacement would occur
adverse construction-related effects, including air under the Build Alternative, and no adverse air
quality and construction noise, would occur to quality and noise effects are anticipated with the
these minority or low-income communities. implementation of relevant mitigation measures,
construction of Ventilation Shafts would not result in
Ventilation Shafts. No displacement of disproportional adverse effects to EJ populations.
residential property is required for the construction
of Ventilation Shafts. Loop Stations. No adverse construction-related
environmental effects are anticipated resulting
Temporary impacts to areas surrounding from each Loop Station. No EJ populations are
Ventilation Shaft locations during construction may within either the Loop Station locations; therefore,
include minor traffic delays on adjacent roadways no temporary adverse effects or disproportionate
due to heavy/light equipment movement. The effects to EJ populations are anticipated.
implementation of a TMP as a minimization
measure, would aim to minimize temporary traffic Haul Routes. An average of approximately
delays on roadways adjacent to the TBM Launch 97 trucks per day would be needed to transport
Shaft site. excavated soils from the TBM Launch Shaft sites to
suitable disposal facilities (Section 2.3.1.8).
Page 127
Haul trucks traveling to and from landfill/disposal Ventilation Shafts. EJ populations were
facilities would use approved haul routes to ensure identified in potential Ventilation Shaft sites.
the safe transportation of the excavated soils. Selection of Ventilation Shaft sites would preclude
Potential adverse effects to adjacent communities the use of community resources of importance,
would be limited to the potential increase in traffic including parks, public lands, historical properties,
volumes (Section 3.1). and residences. Ventilation Shafts are designed to
fit into the fabric of the existing environment and
Potential haul routes would travel through existing would typically be behind tree-lines within fenced
highways designated for truck use and may travel in areas containing a small shed.
through minority and low-income populations.
Haul trips would not exceed de minimis air emission Loop Stations. Loop Stations are designed to fit
levels (Section 3.9). Roadway noise impacts into the fabric of existing environments and would
resulting from haul trips would not exceed existing not result in permanent impacts to surrounding
noise levels (Section 3.8). No disproportionately facilities during operation.
adverse effects to EJ populations would occur
resulting from haul trips. Operation of the proposed Project is expected to
serve as an affordable, convenient, and reliable
alternative means of transportation accessible from
No Build Alternative communities within proximity to Loop Stations.
No permanent impacts on EJ populations are Operation of the proposed Project would not result
anticipated from implementation of the No-Build in adverse effects to surrounding communities.
Alternative. Rather, the proposed Project is expected to benefit
communities surrounding Loop Stations through the
Build Alternative increase in travel/commute options.
Main Artery Tunnels. The construction and
operation of the Main Artery Tunnels would Neither Loop Station is within an EJ population;
occur completely in the subsurface, and would no disproportionate effects to EJ populations
not physically divide communities or result in the are anticipated from the implementation of Loop
displacement of residential property. Operation Stations under the Build Alternative.
of the proposed Project in the Main Artery Tunnels
would not result in adverse effects to aboveground
Measures
facilities. No disproportionate adverse effects to
EJ populations would occur. Communities within the EJ Study Area may
experience traffic congestion on local haul routes
TBM Launch Shafts. No traffic or parking- during construction. Congestion impacts would
related impacts are anticipated, and no adverse be temporary, impacting all communities along
effects are anticipated to surrounding properties the haul routes, with no disproportionately high
or communities adjacent to TBM Launch Shaft and adverse impacts to minority or low-income
locations. Because no adverse effects are populations. No communities within the EJ Study
anticipated from the operation of the proposed Area will experience permanent adverse impacts;
Project at TBM Launch Shafts, no disproportionately therefore, no disproportionately high and adverse
adverse effects are anticipated for minority or effects to minority and low-income populations
low-income populations. would occur by the Build Alternative or No Build
Alternative. No mitigation measures are proposed
Page 128
pursuant to the requirements of EO 12898 resource information was reviewed on the D.C.
(Figure 3.5-1). OHP website, including maps of historic districts
and buildings, completed and in-progress project
TBC would implement a Public Involvement reports addressing specific resources, and NRHP
Plan (PIP) describing a strategy to inform key nomination forms. Individual architectural resource
stakeholders and interested parties during the EA records for four buildings were requested from the
public comment period. D.C. OHP. In Maryland, 29 archaeological studies
have previously been performed in the Study
Specific outreach to EJ populations to inform Area. Within the City of Baltimore, approximately
them of the availability of the EA would include 25 percent of the Project Study Area has been
distribution of informational flyers, posted in studied archaeologically. Thirty-six archaeological
local libraries in close proximity to the identified studies have been previously performed in
EJ communities that describe the project and Washington, D.C. within 0.25-mile of the Project
summarize potential environmental effects on EJ Study Area. Overall, roughly half of the Project
communities, methods for submitting comments, Study Area in Washington, D.C. has been studied
and opportunities for receiving project updates archaeologically.
and additional information. The analysis provided
in this section identified the presence of several
communities with higher concentration of LEP Effects to historic properties, as defined in the
households that are predominately Spanish- NHPA, as amended, within the Cultural Resources
speaking. As such, Spanish translations of Study Area would be evaluated pursuant to Section
outreach materials would be distributed to provide 106 of the NHPA and the ACHP implementing
meaningful opportunities for LEP populations to regulations contained in 36 CFR Part 800. The
participate in the public involvement process. FHWA is acting as the lead agency for compliance
Advertisements of the notice of the availability of with the Section 106 process. The Cultural
this EA were provided in local publications within Resources Study Area begins at 55 New York
the geographic areas where EJ populations are Avenue NW in Washington, D.C. and terminates
identified. Among the publications, The Afro just south of Oriole Park at Camden Yards in
American and El Tiempo Latino publications target Baltimore, Maryland. The Cultural Resources Study
minority groups identified within the EJ Study Area. Area is comprised of a 300-foot radius around
the proposed ROW corridor and the footprints
3.5 Cultural Resources of the TBM Launch Shafts, potential Ventilation
3.5.1 Data Sources and Methodology Shaft locations, and Loop Stations. In total, the
area encompasses approximately 3,600-acres.
Records searches for the Project Study Area were
performed in both Maryland and Washington, FHWA has elected to do a phased identification
D.C. Archaeological sites, archaeological approach to the Section 106 compliance pursuant
studies, and NRHP properties, determination of to 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2). FHWA would prepare a
eligibility short forms, Maryland Inventory of project level PA pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14(b)
Historic Properties, and preservation easements (1) that would spell out the process to complete
in Maryland were reviewed using Medusa, the Section 106 compliance prior to construction and
State’s Cultural Resource Information System. In the roles and responsibilities of required, invited,
Washington, D.C., an archaeological records and consulting parties in the Section 106 process
search was performed by the D.C. Office of (Figure 3.5-1).
Historic Preservation (OHP) staff. Architectural
Page 129
Figure 3.5-1: Cultural Resources Study Area (Page 1 of 8)
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
National Historic Preservation Act

are required to comply with and implement. These
Projects that are on federal lands, involve federal are: the FRA, the NPS, the ACHP, the MDOT,
funding, or require certain federal permits are the MDSHPO, and the DCSHPO. Consultation
subject to compliance with the NHPA of 1966, with each of these agencies is on-going, and
as amended, (54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.) and its each agency has agreed to be a signatory to
implementing regulations (36 CFR 800). Section the PA adopted for this Project. Requests by
106 of NHPA requires federal agencies to other individuals, organizations, and agencies
consider the effects of their undertakings on historic to become consulting parties to the PA will be
properties and to afford the ACHP a reasonable reviewed and approved by FHWA in consultation
opportunity to comment on such undertakings (36 with MDSHPO and DCSHPO. The PA documents
CFR 800.1). Historic properties include any district, the phased process through a series of stipulations
site, building, structure, or object that is included by which the agencies and the applicant will
in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead identify, evaluate, and document potential historic
agency under Section 106 of NHPA must determine properties within the Project’s area of potential
the potential for effects to cultural resources within effect (APE), and take into the account the effect
the project area and consider mitigation measures of the undertaking on historic properties.
capable of avoiding or minimizing adverse effects
to historic properties. The MHTA requires projects As the lead agency, FHWA is responsible for
carried out by State agencies or that receive State government-to-government consultation with
funding to consult with the MHT to determine if federally recognized Native American tribes.
the project would influence historic properties. FHWA initiated consultation by letter on March
Under the MHTA, the MHT, which is MDSHPO, 29, 2018 to all tribes that could be affected by the
has established standards and guidelines for undertaking. The Section 106 PA will document
archaeological investigations to identify, evaluate, how FHWA will continue Tribal Consultation
and treat (e.g., avoid or mitigate) historic properties throughout the implementation of the project.
under the MHTA. These guidelines implement the
requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA, and
Article 83B, section 6-607 (b)(8), (10), and (12); Historic Structures – Maryland
section 5-617 (f)(1); section 5-618 (g); and section Ninety-seven historic architectural resources are
5-623 (b)(2) of the Annotated Code of Maryland. recorded in the Cultural Resources Study Area in
The District of Columbia Historic Preservation Maryland. These resources include 21 bridges,
Regulations (DCMR 10-C) of 1983 stipulates that 14 districts, 25 residences, 15 buildings, one
(as amended) projects carried out within District school, three parks, two cemeteries, one railway,
of Columbia city boundaries consult with the one tunnel, three roadways, two culverts, two
DCSHPO to determine if the project would have commercial properties, three warehouses, two
an effect on historic properties. These guidelines industrial properties, one water infrastructure
implement the requirements of Section 106 of the system, and one government/scientific research
NHPA, and DCMR 10-C, Section C-201 and center. The northern end of the Cultural Resources
Section C-202 of the Municipal Regulations of Study Area alignment passes along the edge of
the District of Columbia. Ridgley’s Delight Historic District. Although this
district is comprised of 115 individual buildings,
As the lead agency under Section 106, FHWA has only nine are in the Cultural Resources Study
initiated consultation with federal, state, and local Area based on the individually mapped buildings
agencies to ensure compliance with applicable in Medusa. Along the MD 295 corridor, the
laws and regulations that the consulting agencies Cultural Resources Study Area passes through
Page 138
two additional historic districts, Finger Piers and considered a National Park system unit and is
Westport, one cemetery, and Patapsco State federally owned and maintained by the NPS. The
Park. Finger Piers was determined not eligible NRHP form identifies the physical parkway and the
for listing in the NRHP, although one individual designed landscape, including views and vistas,
building (the Hanline Paint Company Building) vegetation, incorporation of natural topography,
in the district which is in the Cultural Resources attractive medians, creek and river crossings,
Study Area is eligible. and natural setting through hardwood and pine
forest, as integral elements. Contributing features
Westport Historic District is recommended as eligible include: entrance and exit ramps, interchanges,
for listing in the NRHP. Of the approximately 540 culverts, bridges, underpasses, overpasses, an
buildings within the historic district, 48 rowhouses access road, and B-W Parkway itself. The B-W
on the west side of the proposed alignment, and 84 Parkway is associated with the National Capital
rowhouses, three free-standing houses, six industrial Parkway system, which totals more than 74 miles
buildings, and one firehouse on the east side of in Washington, D.C., suburban Maryland, and
the proposed alignment, are within the Cultural northern Virginia.
Resources Study Area and are contributing elements
to the District. All but four of these buildings are more Further southwest is the D.C. Children’s Center
than 100 feet away from the proposed alignment. Forest Haven District, which is listed in the MIHP
The Mount Auburn Cemetery is an African-American and recommended eligible for the NRHP. The
cemetery listed in the NRHP. The three buildings that District covers 233 acres of the D.C. Children’s
are contributing elements to the significance of the 827-acre property. The district includes 18
resource are outside the Cultural Resources Study contributing buildings, one contributing structure,
Area, although numerous headstones and plots are and two contributing sites, and 16 non-contributing
within the Cultural Resources Study Area. Patapsco buildings and two non-contributing structures. The
Valley State Park is known as Patapsco State Park. proposed alignment intersects the northwestern
The proposed alignment runs east of and adjacent portion of the district. No buildings are contained
to the southernmost portion of Patapsco Valley within the intersecting area, but a small portion
State Park, known as the Belle Grove Area, and no may intersect the northwestern edge of the
historic buildings fall within the Cultural Resources cemetery, a contributing resource of the district
Study Area. that is immediately southeast of the B-W Parkway.
The Greenbelt Historic District is listed on both the
Beginning at MD 175, the proposed alignment NRHP and the MIHP and is a National Historic
follows the B-W Parkway, which is a significant Landmark. The Greenbelt Historic District covers
resource listed in the NRHP and MIHP with 789.05 acres and encompasses the entire town of
roughly 125 contributing resources and four Greenbelt, Maryland. This district abuts the western
non-contributing resources. The nineteen-mile side of the proposed alignment. Two buildings that
segment of the B-W Parkway begins south of are contributing elements to the district are within
Jessup Road (MD 175) and continues southward the Cultural Resources Study Area, but otherwise
to the Maryland/D.C. border. As stated in the all other contributors fall outside of the Cultural
nomination form, “the irregular ROW is 400 Resources Study Area.
to 800 feet wide, and contains the dual-lane
roadway, a variable-width median of 15 to Across the B-W Parkway from the Greenbelt Historic
200 feet, a flanking buffer of natural forest and District is the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC),
cultivated native vegetation, scores of culverts, and which is listed in the MIHP and recommended
22 bridges” (Leach, 1990). The B-W Parkway is eligible for the NRHP. The main campus of the
Page 139
GSFC, spanning 821 acres, is southeast of the B-W and amphibians. Contributing features include
Parkway and includes entrance and exit ramps to irregular ponds, marshes, and dikes along the
B-W Parkway, and Explorer Road, the planned Anacostia River floodplain, and two buildings: the
entry road corridor to the National Aeronautics 1912 board-and-batten Administration Building
and Space Administration (NASA) facility. The and two greenhouses built in 1913. The Cultural
road and exit ramps are not specifically listed in Resources Study Area crosses the northernmost
the GSFC nomination; however, the NASA GSFC portion of the gardens near the marshes, and
Access Road, built in 1966 and consisting of a no contributing buildings fall within the Cultural
pan-steel plate girder, wide-flange beams, and Resources Study Area.
six spans, is listed in the B-W Parkway form as a
non-contributing resource. None of the buildings The National Arboretum, measuring approximately
or other contributing elements associated with the 412 acres and headquartered at 3501 New York
GSFC fall within the Cultural Resources Study Area. Avenue NE, is near the east end of the Washington,
One bridge, which carries Annapolis Road over D.C. segment. The National Arboretum was
the B-W Parkway, was recommended as eligible established by Congress in 1927 and built between
for listing in the NRHP. Three bridges are part of 1927 and 1939 by landscape architects Frederick
the B-W Parkway and are considered contributing Law Olmsted, Jr. and Arthur A. Shurtleff. The
elements to that resource. All other bridges have National Arboretum was nominated as a District of
been individually determined to be not eligible for Columbia Historic Site in 1968 and to the NRHP in
listing in the NRHP. 1973 under Criterion C for its significant relationship
with landscape architecture, urban planning, and
Historic Structures – Washington, D.C.
arboriculture. The national register form notes that
Seventy historic architectural resources are in the arboretum area contains several prehistoric
the Cultural Resources Study Area, including habitation sites according to S.V. Proudfit’s 1890
26 warehouses, two motels, five manufacturing map of the area. A list of contributing features
properties, four gas/service stations, three and buildings was not developed for the 1973
buildings comprising one printing shop, two NR form; however, the significance evaluation
restaurants, one freight transfer facility, one calls attention to several arboretum plantings and
armored car service, one maintenance building, exhibits, such as “Fern Valley” the dogwood area,
a bank, a feed store, a dog pound, two gardens and the Mount Hamilton azaleas. Although listed
(plus two elements within the gardens which are in the archaeological records search, the United
individually recorded), 12 buildings, and the Brick Company Brick Works is an architectural
Washington, D.C. city plan (L’Enfant Plan). Five resource. This resource represents the remains of the
properties are listed in the NRHP. These include the United Brick Company Brick Works: a series of 12
two gardens, comprising the Kenilworth Aquatic beehive brick kilns, an associated narrow-gauge
Gardens, and the National Arboretum, in addition rail system, and administrative buildings. Although
to two of the National Arboretum’s individual the NRHP nomination form states 12 kilns were
components (National Capitol Gardens, National present in 1978 when the resource was listed,
China Gardens); the Hecht Company Warehouse; only three are still intact based on recent aerial
the United Brick Company Brick Works; and the photographs. Two intact kilns, one intact structure,
L’Enfant Plan. Kenilworth Gardens is situated at the foundations of seven kilns, and three structures
the northern portion of the D.C. segment, and just are within the Cultural Resources Study Area; all
east of and adjacent to the National Arboretum. other components of the resource are outside the
Spread over nine acres, the gardens are home to Cultural Resources Study Area.
important collections of water plants, fish, reptiles,
Page 140
The Hecht Company Warehouse property is at passes through commercial and semi-industrial
1401 New York Avenue NE, near the west end of settings and encompasses fourteen parklets that
the D.C. segment. The Hecht Company Warehouse collectively contain plantings, paths, ornamental
was built in 1937 by Abbott, Merkt, and Company, iron fencing, seating, and Washington Globe light
and designed by architect Gilbert V. Steel in the standards. More specifically, the nominated area
Streamline Modern style. The warehouse was consists of the ROW width and length. Along New
nominated as a District of Columbia Historic site in York Avenue NE, between the northeast boundary
1992 and to the NRHP in 1994 under Criterion C of Florida Avenue and North Capitol Street, no
for being “an outstanding example of Art Deco parks were noted. Regarding street-side features,
(Streamline Modern) style which stands as one the segment of New York Avenue between Florida
of the major triumphs of inter-war Modernism in Avenue and North Capitol Street featured a
Washington” (Stockbridge and Slaton, 1993). The variety of tear-drop pendant street lamps with
warehouse, a single building, is the only contributing decorative arm, double Washington globe street
building at the site. Of special importance, but not lamps (twin-20), and single Washington globe
recorded in the D.C. OHP record search, is the street lamps (No. 13/14/16/18), and more
L’Enfant Plan, a city plan that encompasses an modern, single-arm “cobrahead” streetlamps. No
estimated 3,565 acres in the District of Columbia. ornamental iron fencing, paths, or planting were
The plan for the City of Washington was designed noted in the section of the project that overlaps the
in 1791 by Pierre L’Enfant and mapped in 1792. NRHP nominated L’Enfant Plan area.
The L’Enfant Plan was nominated to the NRHP in
Archaelogical Resources – Maryland and
1997 under Criterion A, B, and C. The L’Enfant
Washington, D.C.
Plan has 33 contributing buildings, 27 contributing
sites, 8 contributing structures, and 69 contributing Thirty-one archaeological sites have been
objects. The nominated area was the L’Enfant Plan previously recorded in the Cultural Resources Study
with modifications made in accord with the 1901 Area within Maryland. The archaeological sites
McMillan Plan. It is bounded by Florida Avenue consist of nine prehistoric sites (four lithic scatters,
from Rock Creek NW to 15th Street NE, then south three procurement sites, one short-term camp, and
to C Street, and eastward to the Anacostia River, one site of unknown type), 20 historic sites (four
which are consistent with the original 200-year farms, a plantation house site, four rowhouses, a
old boundaries. rowhouse and industrial site, a domestic site, one
refuse scatter, one refuse scatter with structural
As stated in the NRHP nomination form, “the remains, a brick factory, a kiln, and three ruins of
meeting of diagonal and orthogonal thoroughfares homesites), a cemetery, and four multi-component
creates the historic and contemporary system of sites (two lithic scatters with historic refuse, lithic
parks, both the large open areas at the intersections scatter with a historic house site, and an historic
of avenues and the small geometric spaces streets refuse scatter with a prehistoric isolate). There are no
and avenues, and open space and vistas that recorded archaeological sites in Washington, D.C.
contribute to the planned, baroque design of the
capital of the United States” (Leach and Barthold,
1994). Elements within the Study Area include The exact Project components and precise
parks, open spaces, and character-defining locations of potential ground disturbance are not
features such as sculpture, fountains, and buildings. yet known. Therefore, a PA would be prepared
The entire length of New York Avenue, from 15th to ensure the Project is developed in accordance
Street NW to Florida Avenue NE, is listed among with the Section 106 process, and other federal
the contributing elements. New York Avenue NE and local regulations. The PA would require that,
Page 141
as Project design progresses, the APE would be fragile historic buildings from construction vibration
defined, and identification and evaluation of (Table 12-3 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration
potential historic properties would be conducted. Impact Assessment report); and 2) all construction
These efforts would be used to determine equipment would be under 0.12 in/s PPV as
potential adverse effects to historic properties, measured at 25 feet from the vibration source per the
and, if adverse effects are identified, historic FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,
property treatment plans (HPTP) would resolve the (Table 12-2). Another concern for potential indirect
effects. Known historic properties are generally adverse effects to historical properties would be
confined to near-surface and/or above-surface the surface footprints of Ventilation Shafts, Loop
resources. Tunnels of the Build Alternative would Stations, and TBM Launch Shafts. Construction
be constructed approximately 30 to 90 feet below of such surface features could potentially result in
the surface and would avoid these resources. the demolition or alteration of historic properties,
Surface footprints of Ventilation Shafts would be or alterations to landscapes or viewsheds within
permanent structures involving the demolition of historic districts, and therefore result in an indirect
above-ground and near-surface structures and adverse effect. The design and placement of surface
material, if present in the area of disturbance. TBM units would be reviewed to avoid or mitigate any
Launch Shafts and Loop Stations would not require potential adverse effects.
the demolition of existing historic buildings. The
physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or
Measures
alteration of an historic property or its immediate
surroundings such that the significance of the For the subsurface components of the proposed
property would be materially impaired could Project, the Build Alternative would avoid direct
potentially occur if ground disturbing activities potential impacts to known historic properties
and/or a permanent surface structure of the Build through project design. Known historic properties
Alternative (e.g., Ventilation Shaft sites) were to are all on or near the ground surface. According to
be sited within or adjacent to such a property. Table 12-3 of Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Design and placement of these Project components Assessment (Hanson et al., 2006), the PPV threshold
would be discussed in the PA to avoid, minimize, for historic buildings is 0.12 in/sec. Therefore, the
or mitigate potential adverse effects to historic Project design would site tunnels greater than 30
properties, both known and unknown. feet below ground surface and shaft locations
25 feet or more from historic properties so that
One concern for potential indirect adverse effects ground-borne construction vibration at historic
to historic properties would be due to construction properties would remain below the 0.12 in/sec
vibration. An indirect adverse effect could occur PPV threshold for historic properties (FTA, 2006).
if vibrations from drilling or construction were to
damage or alter an historic property such that In the unanticipated scenario that project design
the significance of the historic property would be alone would be insufficient to avoid potential
materially impaired. Vibration generated during impacts to historic properties due to construction
tunneling activities is anticipated to be below vibration (e.g., a Ventilation Shaft sited within 25
thresholds to effect cultural resources (Section feet of an historic property), a plan-to-ground
3.8). This is predicated upon the following: 1) a vibration analysis would be recommended for
field assessment showing vibrations from the TBM each potentially affected historic property. The
are around 0.02 in/s peak particle velocity (PPV) plan-to-ground vibration analysis would be
at the surface, a rate well below 0.12 in/s PPV, the performed by a qualified engineer in conformance
most conservative threshold for potential impact to with guidelines detailed in the FTA’s Transit Noise
Page 142
and Vibration Impact Assessment manual (Hanson to historic properties (both known and unknown),
et al., 2006). the PA would determine if and where construction
monitoring may be necessary.
A Vibration Monitoring and Mitigation Plan
(VMMP) for affected historic properties would 3.6 Visual Quality and Aesthetics
be prepared and include the vibration analysis The following section provides a discussion of the
results and any resource-specific recommended visual quality and aesthetic impacts relating to
mitigation measures (Section 2.3.1.6). Prior to the proposed Project. The discussion provided in
implementation of the VMMP, a Pre-Construction this section establishes a baseline for evaluating
Condition Report (PCCR) would be prepared visual resources in the Project Study Area, and to
for each affected property. The PCCR would evaluate how components of the proposed Project
document the existing condition of the historic may impact the existing environment.
property, including extensive, detailed photo and/
or video documentation, to serve as a baseline
for comparison and identification of possible The evaluation provided in this section is modeled
vibration-related issues that might develop after the visual impacts analysis methodology
during construction. The VMMP would address outlined in the FHWA Guidelines for the Visual
the procedures for monitoring to be completed Impact Assessment of Highway Projects (2015b).
during construction and would include thresholds
for the cessation of construction activities. If direct This section provides an analysis of typical views
and/or indirect adverse effects to an architectural (i.e., those areas that can be easily seen within the
resource that has been determined to be an historic project setting) to assess the visual setting present
property cannot be avoided, mitigation could be before and after the implementation of a project.
required, which could include, but is not limited Photographic documentation and visual simulation
to, stabilization of structures, compensation for the of typical sites where aboveground features may
loss or diminishment of the property, or relocation. potentially be constructed were undertaken to
All work would be performed in accordance with support the analysis and to provide a before-and-
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and after comparison.
Guidelines for Historic Preservation.
As it is not feasible to analyze the potential
The Project has the potential to encounter adverse views from the B-W Parkway, it is necessary to
effects to unknown (not-yet identified or recorded) select several viewpoints that would most clearly
historic properties (both architectural and display the visual effects of the proposed Project
archaeological). The PA would outline a phased at representative locations within its setting. These
approach to identify and evaluate unknown views represent the primary viewer groups that
resources, and measures to avoid, minimize, or would potentially be affected by the proposed
mitigate potential adverse effects to those resources Project. In addition to typical views adjacent to the
that are determined to be historic properties Loop Stations, seven typical views were selected
during construction or pre-construction activities. to analyze the existing and potential visual effects
Any such newly identified sites, if encountered, resulting from the proposed Project (Section 3.6.3).
would be evaluated for eligibility for listing in the
NRHP (and under local ordinances, as applicable)
and mitigation measures specific to the resource NEPA requires Federal agencies to undertake an
would be identified. As Project-related construction assessment of the environmental effects, including
activities have the potential to cause adverse effects visual impacts, of their proposed actions prior to
Page 143
undertaking the action (FHWA, 2015b). Other quality of the existing visual environment. Under
federal laws guiding visual quality and aesthetics the Build Alternative, temporary impacts would
include the Federal-aid Highway Act of 1980, occur during the construction phase only.
which requires that final decision of project
development is based in the best overall public TBM Launch Shafts: Three TBM Launch Shafts
interest, taking into consideration several socio- (Launch Shafts C, D, and E) would be constructed
economic, engineering, and environmental factors on private land owned or leased by TBC adjacent
including, specifically, aesthetic values. to the Main Artery Tunnel alignment along the
B-W Parkway. (Note that Launch Shafts A and B
are along MD 295, north of the B-W Parkway).
The NPS –managed B-W Parkway spans for Temporary fencing with privacy screens would
approximately 19 miles, beginning along the be installed at the perimeter of each TBM Launch
B-W Parkway from MD 175 and ending at the Shaft location. Within each construction site,
Maryland/D.C. border. The B-W Parkway electric bridge cranes would likely be the tallest
contains a tree-filled median and passes through temporary structure, with a maximum height of
woodlands surrounded by trees, which typically 50 feet. Lighting would be used to illuminate the
provide at least 150 feet of buffer between the construction site during nighttime operations;
B-W Parkway and private property outside of B-W however, lighting used for construction sites would
Parkway ROW (Figure 3.6-1). be pointed toward the construction site to minimize
potential adverse effects related to glare/nighttime
Figure 3.6-2 provides an image of the typical lighting conditions. Figure 3.6-6 provides a
visual setting along the B-W Parkway. street-level view of a similar construction site at
the TBC Test Tunnel site in Hawthorne, California.
Figure 3.6-3 and Figure 3.6-4 provide typical The view of potential Launch Shaft sites from the
views of the sites that would contain the northern B-W Parkway would be obstructed by the existing
and southern Loop Stations. Figure 3.6-5 provides tree line, including along the NPS-administered
typical views of the sites containing potential TBM segment of B-W Parkway.
Launch Shaft locations.
Ventilation Shafts: Ventilation Shafts would use
a relatively small area and would be designed to
The following section analyzes the potential fit into the surrounding environment. Regardless
temporary and permanent visual quality and of the Ventilation Shaft excavation method, the
aesthetic impacts from the proposed Project. footprint required for Ventilation Shaft construction
would be less than one-quarter acre and could be
Temporary Impacts
as little as one-tenth acre. Construction staging
No-Build Alternative of light or heavy equipment would be within the
No temporary or construction-related impacts to Ventilation Shaft footprint. Ventilation Shaft site
visual quality and aesthetics would be generated locations would be selected to maximize the use
from implementation of the No-Build Alternative. of existing tree lines to obstruct views of the sites
from the B-W Parkway.
Build Alternative
The analysis describes the temporary impacts Loop Stations: The footprint for each Loop
on visual quality and aesthetics as a result of Station would be approximately 45 feet wide by
implementation of the Build Alternative. The analysis 100 feet long, with the ability to fit into a smaller
evaluates the overall aesthetic character and visual area roughly the size of two parking spaces per
Page 144
Figure 3.6-1: Project Location and B-W Parkway Jurisdiction
Page 145
Figure 3.6-2: View of the B-W Parkway North of the Patuxent River, facing West
Figure 3.6-3: Typical View of Oriole Park at Camden Yards Parking Lot
Figure 3.6-4: Typical View of 55 New York Avenue NE, Washington, D.C.
Page 146
Figure 3.6-5: Typical View of TBM Launch Shaft Locations (Page 1 of 2)
Page 147
Figure 3.6-5: Typical View of TBM Launch Shaft Locations (Page 2 of 2)
Page 148
Figure 3.6-6: TBC Test Tunnel Construction Site in Hawthorne, California
elevator, if needed. During construction, a crane Main Artery Tunnels. The operation of the
would be used to extract TBMs from the Main Main Artery Tunnels would occur completely in
Artery Tunnel, which would terminate at each the subsurface and would not result in adverse
terminus. The Loop Station sites would not be visual quality and aesthetics effects.
visible from the B-W Parkway.
TBM Launch Shafts. Following the completion
of the Main Artery Tunnel, TBM Launch Shafts
No Build Alternative could potentially be converted into Maintenance
No permanent impacts to visual quality and Terminals. Maintenance Terminal locations
aesthetics would be generated from implementation would be decked and underground using the
of the No-Build Alternative. existing TBM Launch Shaft. In the case that an
aboveground shed option is considered to cover
Build Alternative the shaft, shed design would be subject to land use
The analysis below discusses potential visual quality code and approvals process such that height and
and aesthetic impacts under the Build Alternative. building aesthetics would be consistent with the
adjacent environment. No adverse visual quality
Typical Views and associated visual simulations are and aesthetics impacts are anticipated resulting
used to establish the visual setting, identify visual from the potential conversion of TBM Launch Shafts
resources, and identify potential visual intrusions into Maintenance Shafts.
that could occur resulting from the implementation
and operation of the Build Alternative. Simulations Ventilation Shafts: The B-W Parkway primarily
provided in this section are for illustrative purposes contains a tree-filled median and passes through
only and do not represent final design. Visual woodlands densely surrounded with trees, which
appearance is subject to change based on final typically provide at least a 150-foot buffer
design and incorporation of relevant building between the B-W Parkway boundaries and
guidelines, codes, and visual treatments. private property outside the ROW. Ventilation
Shafts would be constructed outside of the tree
Page 149
buffer, and as such, would not be visible during nine typical views were assessed along the
both leaf-on and leaf-off conditions. Figure 3.6-7 B-W Parkway to evaluate the likelihood that
provides an example view of the B-W Parkway aboveground project feature would be visible over
facing east. Figure 3.6-8 provides an example the adjacent tree lines. Each view is pointed toward
aerial view of the B-W Parkway in relation to the roadway, providing a typical view that motorists
neighboring private properties. would encounter while driving along the B-W
Parkway. Each view is spaced approximately two
This view is typical of the 19-mile stretch of the miles apart. Figure 3.6-9 provides a map showing
B-W Parkway. For the purpose of this analysis,
Figure 3.6-7: (L) Typical View of the B-W Parkway (Leaf On),
(R) Typical View of the B-W Parkway (Leaf Off)
Figure 3.6-8: Typical Aerial View of the B-W Parkway and Adjacent Private
Property
Page 150
Figure 3.6-9: Typical Views Map along the B-W Parkway
Page 151
the location of the NPS-maintained B-W Parkway, adjacent to areas devoid of trees for analysis
along with the location of each typical view. purposes only. Views of aboveground structures
would likely be partially blocked by the middle
The following provides an analysis of each typical ground from B-W Parkway. Figure 3.6-10 provides
view to evaluate the likelihood that each project a typical view and visual simulation of a potential
element would be visible from the B-W Parkway. 15 foot by 15 foot shed adjacent to this area.
Aboveground structures associated with Ventilation Figure 3.6-11 provides an example of an existing
Shafts would appear either as a 15 foot by 15 foot view of the Laurel Bowie Road off-ramp and a
or 30 foot by 30 foot shed. Shed structures would visual simulation of a potential Ventilation Shaft
vary in height but would typically be up to 15 feet for analysis purposes only.
tall. Ventilation Shafts could be covered by a metal
grate, requiring no aboveground structure. As Loop Stations: As each Loop Station would be
concluded by the typical view evaluation above, predominately belowground, they would fit into the
given the highly vegetated areas, which include fabric of the existing urban environment to minimize
densely populated trees approximately 30-40 feet the potential for adverse visual quality and aesthetic
tall with a buffer of at least 150 feet surrounding the impacts associated with aboveground structures.
B-W Parkway ROW, it is unlikely that aboveground Figure 3.6-12 and Figure 3.6-13 provide existing
structures associated with Ventilation Shafts would views and visual simulations of a potential Loop
be visible from B-W Parkway. Station at the Camden Yards parking lot and 55
New York Avenue, NE.
In addition to the views identified above, an area
toward the south of the B-W Parkway, within NPS
Measures
jurisdiction, provides a break from the typical
trees and vegetation surrounding the ROW. This If the view from public ROW of Ventilation Shafts
area is devoid of trees to accommodate a high associated with the Build Alternative could not be
voltage powerline running east-west through the adequately blocked by existing physical features,
B-W Parkway in Montpelier. It is unlikely that a such as trees and vegetation, mitigation measures,
Ventilation Shaft would be in this area; however, as determined by NPS, would be implemented by
this view was chosen to give a conceptual view TBC such that structures would blend in with the
of a Ventilation Shaft in the unlikely event that surrounding environment.
a Ventilation Shaft with a shed structure is sited
Page 152
Table 3.6-1: Typical View Evaluation along NPS-Segment of the B-W Parkway
1 2
View #1 faces south along the B-W Parkway. This View #2 faces south along the B-W Parkway. This
segment of the B-W Parkway contains a tree-lined segment of the B-W Parkway is densely lined with
median separating the northbound and southbound trees with heights greater than that of any proposed
lanes. Each side of the B-W Parkway ROW is densely aboveground features under the Build Alternative.
lined with trees with heights greater than that of any No potential Ventilation Shaft locations or private-
proposed aboveground features under the Build ly-owned properties located outside of the B-W
Alternative. No potential Ventilation Shaft locations Parkway would be visible from this view due to the
or privately-owned properties located outside of the dense tree buffer.
B-W Parkway would be visible from this view due to
the dense tree buffer.
3 4
View #3 faces south along the B-W Parkway. This View #4 faces south along the B-W Parkway. This
segment of the B-W Parkway contains a tree-lined segment of the B-W Parkway are separated by a
median separating the northbound and southbound grass median with some vegetation. The side of the
lanes. Each side of the B-W Parkway ROW is densely ROW is densely populated with trees with heights
populated with trees with heights greater than that greater than that of any proposed aboveground
of any proposed aboveground features under the features under the Build Alternative. No potential
Build Alternative. No potential Ventilation Shaft Ventilation Shaft locations or privately-owned
locations or privately-owned properties located properties located outside of the B-W Parkway
outside of the B-W Parkway would be visible from would be visible from this view due to the dense
this view due to the dense tree buffer. tree buffer.
Page 153
Table 3.6-1: Typical View Evaluation along NPS-Segment of the B-W Parkway (continued)
5 6
View #5 faces south along the B-W Parkway. This View #6 is fairly similar to View #5. This view faces
segment of the B-W Parkway are separated by a south along the B-W Parkway. This segment of the
grass median with a guardrail. The side of the ROW B-W Parkway are separated by a grass median with a
is densely populated with trees with heights greater guardrail. The side of the ROW is densely populated
than that of any proposed aboveground features with trees with heights greater than that of any
under the Build Alternative. No potential Ventilation proposed aboveground features under the Build
Shaft locations or privately-owned properties Alternative. No potential Ventilation Shaft locations
located outside of the B-W Parkway would be visible or privately-owned properties located outside of the
from this view due to the dense tree buffer. B-W Parkway would be visible from this view due to
7 8
View #7 faces south along the B-W Parkway. This View #8 faces south along the B-W Parkway. The
segment of the B-W Parkway are separated by northbound and southbound lanes of this segment
a grass median. The side of the ROW is densely of the B-W Parkway are separated by a brick guardrail
populated with trees with heights greater than that with some vegetation. The side of the ROW is densely
of any proposed aboveground features under the populated with trees with heights greater than that
Build Alternative. No potential Ventilation Shaft of any proposed aboveground features under the
locations or privately-owned properties located Build Alternative. No potential Ventilation Shaft
outside of the B-W Parkway would be visible from locations or privately-owned properties located
this view due to the dense tree buffer. outside of the B-W Parkway would be visible from
this view due to the dense tree buffer.
Page 154
Table 3.6-1: Typical View Evaluation along NPS-Segment of the B-W Parkway (continued)
9
This column left intentionally blank.

View #9 faces north along the B-W Parkway. The
northbound and southbound lanes of this segment
of the B-W Parkway are separated by a brick
guardrail. The side of the ROW is densely populated
with trees with heights greater than that of any
proposed aboveground features under the Build
Alternative. No potential Ventilation Shaft locations
or privately-owned properties located outside of the
B-W Parkway would be visible from this view due to
Page 155
Figure 3.6-10: Typical View of B-W Parkway (Southern Segment within NPS
Jurisdiction)
Existing View
Visual Simulation of a 15’ x 15’ Ventilation Shaft
Page 156
Figure 3.6-11: Typical View of B-W Parkway Offramp (Southern Segment within
NPS Jurisdiction)
Existing View
Visual Simulation of a 30’ x 30’ Ventilation Shaft
Page 157
Figure 3.6-12: Camden Yards Parking Lot in Baltimore, Maryland

Existing View
Visual Simulation of a Potential Loop Station*
* Conceptual visual simulation. Final design would follow applicable zoning, building, and safety requirements
Page 158
Figure 3.6-13: 55 New York Avenue, NE. Washington, D.C.

Existing View
Visual Simulation of a Potential Loop Station*
* Conceptual visual simulation. Final design would follow applicable zoning, building, and safety requirements
Page 159
3.7 Parks and Recreation, and and Urban Development (HUD) in developing
Section 4(f) Resources transportation projects and programs that use
3.7.1 Data Sources and Methodology lands protected by Section 4(f); if historic sites
are involved, coordination with the State Historic
The following section identifies properties subject to Preservation Officer (SHPO) is required.
Section 4(f) evaluation along the proposed Project
and analyzes potential project impacts to those In general, Section 4(f) use occurs with a U.S.
resources using data from Google Earth Pro, NPS, Department of Transportation-approved project or
USFWS, and NRHP databases from Maryland program when (1) Section 4(f) land is permanently
Medusa Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties incorporated into a transportation facility; (2) there
(MIHP) and Washington, D.C. OHP. is a temporary occupancy of Section 4(f) land that
is adverse in terms of the Section 4(f) preservation
purposes as determined by specified criteria (23
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation CFR 771.135 (p) (7))); and (3) Section 4(f) land
Act of 1966, codified in federal law as 49 U.S. is not incorporated into the transportation project,
Code (USC) 303, declares that “…it is the policy but the project’s proximity impacts are so severe
of the U.S. Government that special effort should that the protected activities, features, or attributes
be made to preserve the natural beauty of the that qualify a resource for protection under Section
countryside and public park and recreation lands, 4(f) are substantially impaired (constructive use)
wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites.” (23 CFR 771.135 (p)(1) and (2).
Section 4(f) properties include publicly owned
public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife or
waterfowl refuges, or any publicly or privately- Twelve public parks, one historic state park, two
owned historic site listed or eligible for listing on the national parks, one USWFS Research Refuge,
National Register of Historic Places. Public schools and three public schools with existing play and
with play and sports fields should be included in sports fields are within the Project Study Area
Section 4(f) evaluations because many public (Figure 3.7-1). Twenty historical properties eligible
schools and school districts use or allow the use of to be listed in the NRHP are within the Study Area.
public school play and sports fields for non-school A PA would be prepared as part of the proposed
activities, such as organized youth sports (FHWA, Project pursuant to the requirements under Section
2012b). Pursuant to Section 4(f), the Secretary 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of Transportation may approve a transportation (NHPA) (Table 3.7-1, Table 3.7-2).
program or project requiring the use of Section
4(f) properties only if:
• There is no prudent and feasible alternative to The Project Study Area contains a total of 38
using that land; and properties subject to Section 4(f) evaluation
• The program or project includes all possible (Figure 3.7-2). Based on the analysis of the location
planning to minimize harm to the park, of properties subject to Section 4(f) evaluation
recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, and Project design features, the proposed Project
or historic site resulting from the use. would not result in the permanent incorporation,
temporary occupancy, or constructive use of any
Section 4(f) further requires consultation with the of these properties. The proposed Project would
U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and, as not result in a Section 4(f) use.
appropriate, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and the U.S. Department of Housing
Page 160
Figure 3.7-1: Parks and Recreation, and Section 4(f) Resources Study Area
Page 161
Table 3.7-1: Public Parks, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and Schools with
Public Recreational Facilities
# Name Property Type Address Description
Public Parks and Recreational Areas
Eislen Street and This site is a small park area as part
Eislen St. Traffic
1 Public Park Russell Street of the Ridgely’s Delight historical
Island
Baltimore, MD 21201 residential neighborhood.
This site is a park owned and operated
Penn and Melvin 655 Melvin Drive by Baltimore Recreation and Parks,
2 Public Park
Street Park Baltimore, MD 21201 and features a playground, drinking
fountains, seating, and picnic tables.
This site is a small park area with a
680 Eislen Street
3 Lions Club Park Public Park small walkway and grass field. Park
Baltimore MD, 21201
ownership is unknown.
Warner Street Traffic This site is a small park area as part
Warner Street
4 Public Park Island of the Ridgely’s Delight historical
Traffic Island
Baltimore, MD 21230 residential neighborhood.
601 West Conway
Conway Street by Baltimore Recreation and Parks, and
5 Public Park Street
Park features roller skating and seating
Baltimore, MD 21230
areas.
This site is a historical park owned
and operated by Baltimore Recreation
Solo Gibbs Park
6 Solo Gibbs Park Public Park and Parks, and features a walking trail,
Baltimore, MD 21230
baseball field, water fountain/play area,
and bathroom facilities.
This site is a hiking and bicycling trail
owned by Baltimore Recreation and
Parks. The trail is operated under a
Gwynns Fall Trail Gwynns Falls Trail public-private partnership, where
7 Public Park/Trail
South Baltimore, MD 21207 the Parks and People Foundation
coordinates community involvement,
volunteer activities, and events along
the trail.
2820 Indiana Ave by Baltimore Recreation and Parks. This
8 Indiana Ave Park Public Park
Baltimore, MD 21230 site features a grass field and children’s
play area.
8020 Baltimore This site is a state park encompassing
Patapsco State National Pike 14,000 acres of land. The site include
9 Recreational Area
Park Ellicott City, MD park areas, hiking trails, state historic
21043 bridges, waterfalls, and camping areas.
This site is a park within Anne Arundel
565 Brock Bridge Rd County, and features a children’s play
10 Maryland City Park Public Park
Laurel, MD 20724 area, three baseball fields, four tennis
courts, and two grass fields.
12039 Pheasant Run This site is a community park located in
Pheasant Run
11 Public Park Drive Prince George’s County, and features a
Community Park
Laurel, MD 20708 wooded area.
12701 Laurel Bowie This site is a park featuring two baseball
12 Montpelier Park Public Park Road fields, one basketball court, and two
Laurel, MD 20708 tennis courts.
Page 162
Table 3.7-1: Public Parks, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and Schools with
Public Recreational Facilities (continued)
# Name Property Type Address Description
6565 Greenbelt Road
This site is a National Park managed
13 Greenbelt Park National Park Greenbelt, MD
by the NPS.
20770
3510 37th Ave This site is a park featuring play areas,
Colmar Manor
14 Public Park Colmar Manor, MD walking trails, picnic tables, and access
Community Park
20722 to boating along the Anacostia River.
Bounded southwest This site is an historical highway/
by the Washington, parkway. The section of the B-W
D.C. border near the Parkway listed under NRHP is bounded
15 B-W Parkway National Parkway
Anacostia River and southwest by the Washington, D.C.
northeast by Jessup border near the Anacostia River and
Road (MD 175). Jessup Road (MD 175).
Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge
National Wildlife This site is a research refuge owned
Visitor Center, 10901 and operated by USFWS. This site
Patuxent Research Wildlife and
1 Scarlet Tanager is the nation’s only national wildlife
Refuge Waterfowl Refuge
Loop, Laurel, MD refuge established to support wildlife
20708 research.
Schools with Public Access to Play and Sports Fields
3800 Hollins Ferry This site is a school within the Baltimore
Lansdowne High School with Play Rd County Public Schools system. This site
1
School and Sports Fields Lansdowne, MD features a basketball court, four tennis
21227 courts, a grass area, and a pond.
This site is a magnet school within the
6001 Good Luck Prince George’s County Public Schools
Parkdale High School with Play
2 Road system. This site features a baseball
School and Sports Fields
Riverdale, MD 20737 field, two tennis courts, and a track
and field facility.
This site is an elementary school within
1900, 4301 58th
the Prince George’s County Public
Rogers Heights School with Play Avenue
3 Schools system. This site features a
Elementary School and Sports Fields Bladensburg, MD
concrete baseball court, a play area,
20710
and a grass field.
Source: Google (2018), National Park Service (2018)
Table 3.7 2: NRHP-listed or Eligible to be Listed Properties

Record # Name Property Type Description
NRHP Listed Properties
This site is a historical residential
Ridgely's Delight neighborhood located south of the
B-3729/NR-628 Historic District
Historic District University of Maryland downtown campus
developed between 1816 and 1875.
Greenbelt National This site is a historic district located in
PG:67-4/NR-656 Historic District
Register Historic District Prince George’s County built in 1935.
This site is an historical highway. The section
of the B-W Parkway listed under NRHP is
NR-1084 B-W Parkway Historic Roadway bounded northeast by the Washington,
D.C. border near the Anacostia River and
Jessup Road at the Baltimore City line.
Page 163
Table 3.7 2: NRHP-listed or Eligible to be Listed Properties (continued)

Record # Name Property Type Description
Bridge 1611800 US 50 This site is an historical bridge listed on
DOE-PR-0379 Historic Bridge
over MD 295 NRHP as Contributor to B-W Parkway.
Bridge 1614201 MD 295 This site is an historical bridge listed on
NB over I-95 NRHP as Contributor to B-W Parkway.
Bridge 1614202 MD 295 This site is an historical bridge listed on
SB over I-95 NRHP as Contributor to B-W Parkway.
Mount Auburn This site is a historic African American
B-5060 Cemetery
Cemetery cemetery built in 1872.
Kenilworth Aquatic This site is a park and aquatic garden
NR 78000258 Garden
Gardens under the jurisdiction of the NPS.
This site is an arboretum operated by
U.S. National the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
NR 73002122 Garden
Arboretum Agricultural Research Service established
in 1927 by the U.S. Congress.
United Brick Co. Brick This site is a historic industrial site formerly
NR 78003061 Historic Building
Complex used as a brickyard.
Hecht Company This site is an historic building located in
NR 94000446 Historic Building
Warehouse Washington, D.C.
The L’Enfant Plan was an urban plan
Historic District/ developed for George Washington
NR 97000332 L’Enfant Plan
Urban Plan in 1791. This plan encompasses all of
Washington, D.C.
NRHP Eligible Properties
This site is a building constructed before
B-1086 Hanline Paint Company Building
1890.
Beltsville Agricultural
Research Center (BARC), This site is a residence eligible to be listed
PG:67-28 Residence
Carl Thies House, on the NRHP.
Building 510
This site is a cemetery located in Prince
PG:68-15 Fort Lincoln Cemetery Cemetery
George’s County.
DC Children's
This site is a district recommended to be
AA-2364 Center-Forest Haven District
listed on the NRHP.
District
Westport Historic This site is a district recommended to be
B-1342 District
District listed on the NRH.
This site is a residence recommended to
AA-760 Clark/Vogel House Residence
be listed on the NRHP.
BC5401 Bridge -
This site is a bridge recommended to be
B-4573 Annnapolis Road Over Bridge
listed on the NRHP.
B/W Parkway
BA-3003/ Patapsco Valley State This site is a park recommended to be
Park
AA-2290 Park listed on the NRHP.
Source: Leach (1990); Leach and Barthold (1994); Stockbridge and Slanton (1993); MDP (2018b).
Page 164
Figure 3.7-2: Resources Subject to Section 4(f) Evaluation (1 of 25)
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189

recreational properties, or Section 4(f) properties
No-Build Alternative would be required.
No temporary or construction-related impacts to
Section 4(f) resources are anticipated from the Haul Routes. An average of approximately
No-Build Alternative. 97 trucks per day would be needed to transport
excavated soils from the TBM Launch Shaft sites
Build Alternative to suitable disposal facilities (Section 2.3.1.8).
Potential temporary impacts to parks, recreational During construction of the proposed Project, trucks
properties and Section 4(f) properties because traveling to and from landfill/disposal facilities
of each of the design elements and the proposed would use a designated haul route to ensure the
truck haul routes are discussed below: safe transportation of the excavated soils and
would not necessitate temporary occupancy
Main Artery Tunnels. Construction of the Main or construction use of any parks, recreational
Artery Tunnels would occur underneath existing properties, or Section 4(f) properties within the
public highway ROW, and tunnel boring activities Study Area.
would result in no temporary occupancy or
construction use of parks, recreational properties,
or Section 4(f) properties. No Build Alternative
No use or permanent impacts to Section 4(f)
Loop Stations. Construction equipment is resources are anticipated from the No-Build
expected to be staged within the footprint of the Alternative.
proposed Loop Stations. No temporary occupancy
or constructive use of parks, recreational properties, Build Alternative
or Section 4(f) properties is required for Loop Main Artery Tunnels. During operation, AEVs
Station construction. would operate within the Main Artery Tunnels,
which would be underneath segments of the
Ventilation Shafts. Up to 70 Ventilation Shafts B-W Parkway, a NHRP-listed historical property.
are needed for the proposed Project. Ventilation Operation of the proposed Project would not result
Shafts would be constructed on TBC-owned or in the use of the B-W Parkway, nor would it alter
leased land within 300 feet of the public ROW. or change the appearance, purpose, or use of
As part of its design criteria, the proposed aboveground facilities. Operation of the proposed
Project would avoid all Section 4(f) properties. Project in the Main Artery Tunnels would not result
Construction equipment is expected to be staged in the use of parks, recreational properties, or
within or adjacent to the proposed Ventilation Section 4(f) properties.
Shafts on TBC-owned or leased land. No
temporary occupancy or constructive use of parks, Loop Stations. Section 4(f) properties adjacent
recreational properties, or Section 4(f) properties to the proposed Loop Station in Baltimore include
would be required. Conway Street Park and Ridgeley’s Delight Historic
District. Section 4(f) properties within 300 feet of
TBM Launch Shafts. TBM Launch Shafts would the proposed Loop Station in Baltimore include
be on TBC-owned or leased land adjacent to Warner Street Traffic Island, Eislen Street Traffic
the Main Artery Tunnel. Construction equipment Island Lions Club Park, Penn and Melvin Street
is expected to be staged completely within Park, Howard Street Tunnel, and Solo Gibbs Park.
TBC-owned or leased land. No temporary No Section 4(f) properties are adjacent or within
occupancy or constructive use of parks, 300 feet of the Loop Station in Washington, D.C.
Page 190
Operation of the Loop Station in both Baltimore would not result in the use of parks, recreational
and Washington, D.C. would not result in the use properties, or Section 4(f) properties.
of Section 4(f) properties.
Measures
Ventilation Shafts. Section 4(f) properties
within 300 feet of the proposed Main Artery The proposed Project would not result in temporary
Tunnel alignment are listed on Table 3.7-1 and or permanent use of parks, recreational properties,
Table 3.7-2. Selection of the Ventilation Shaft or Section 4(f) resources. With the incorporation
locations would preclude parks and recreational of standard project design criteria to avoid the
facilities, public lands such as public schools, selection of Ventilation Shafts and TBM Launch
and historical properties including those that are Shaft E sites within existing public parks and
listed or eligible to be listed on the NRHP. The recreational areas, schools with public recreational
construction and operation of Ventilation Shafts facilities, public wildlife and waterfowl refugees,
for the proposed Project would not result in the and NRHP-listed or eligible to be listed historic
use of parks, recreational properties, or Section properties, no minimization or mitigation measures
4(f) properties within the Study Area. would be warranted.
TBM Launch Shafts. Four TBM Launch Shafts are 3.8 Noise and Vibration
proposed along the proposed Project alignment. The following section examines the potential
Of the five potential TBM Launch Shaft locations impacts of noise and vibration resulting from the
under consideration, Launch Shaft A and B are construction and operation of the proposed Project.
not within 300 feet of Section 4(f) properties.
Launch Shaft C is adjacent to the NRHP-listed
segment of the B-W Parkway, and Pheasant Run The approach to analyzing potential noise and
Community Park; however, the operation of Launch vibration impacts from the proposed Project
Shaft C would not result in the use of the Section consisted of:
4(f) properties. Launch Shaft D is adjacent to the 1. An initial search and identification of potential
NRHP-listed segment of the B-W Parkway, and is receptors near known sources where the
approximately 300 feet north of Greenbelt Park, proposed Project would generate surface
a national park under the jurisdiction of the NPS. noise (i.e., TBM Launch Shafts and Loop
However, operation of Launch Shaft D would not Stations);
result in the use of the 4(f) properties. The location 2. Using maps to measure the distances between
of Launch Shaft E is not determined. Launch Shaft noise and vibration sources, and the nearest
E includes a search area covering private land receptors and sensitive receptors;
parcels adjacent to the B-W Parkway. The search 3. Quantitative modeling of anticipated noise
area is within the NRHP-listed segment of the B-W and vibration levels from construction and
Parkway around the vicinity of Kenilworth Avenue from operation of the Loop;
and the eastern sliver of Comar Manor Community 4. Comparison to regulatory thresholds/
Park. As part of the design features of the proposed guidance; and
Project, selection of the Launch Shaft sites would
5. Modeling of noise reducing systems, if
preclude parks and recreational facilities, public appropriate.
lands such as public schools, and historical
properties including those that are listed or eligible Methods used include analyses of projected noise
to be listed on the NRHP. In all, the operation of levels at the nearest identified sensitive receptors
the TBM Launch Shafts as maintenance facilities during each phase of construction using data
Page 191
and modeling methodologies from the FHWA equipment and determine whether the planned
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) construction would follow regulatory noise limits.
(FHWA, 2006; FHWA, 2008). Construction-
period vibration was modeled using guidance 23 CFR 772.19 Construction Noise states that one
from the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact should identify land uses or activities which may
Assessment Manual (FTA, 2018) be affected by construction noise and determine
minimization measures for said noise. Such analysis
Noise and Vibration Study Area
is required under 23 CFR 772.19 for both Type I
The Noise and Vibration Study Area is defined (the construction of a highway in a new location)
as the boundaries within the Project Study Area and Type II (a federal project for noise abatement
and the areas 500 feet from the areas where the on an existing highway) projects. However, the
proposed Project would generate surface noise. proposed Project does not match the classifications
GIS software was used to map potential receptors of a Type I or Type II project, and thus falls into the
near locations where surface construction Type III project classification. Under 23 CFR 772.19,
activities would occur under the Build Alternative. Type III projects do not require a noise analysis.
Geospatial databases including OpenStreetMap Nevertheless, noise analyses and modeling have
(2018) and Google Maps (2018) were used to been conducted to thoroughly evaluate potential
identify sensitive receptors. noise and vibration impacts due to the construction
of the proposed Project.
Noise Federal Transit Administration
Clean Air Act The Federal Transit Authority offers guidance for
Under Title IV of the Clean Air Act, the EPA evaluating potential noise impacts from transit
maintains authority to investigate and study systems and their construction in FTA: Transit
noise and its effects, disseminate information to Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual
the public, respond to inquiries on noise-related (FTA, 2018). FTA’s Construction Noise Assessment
matters, and evaluate the effectiveness of existing Criteria are summarized below in Table 3.8-1.
regulations (EPA, 2018a). Under Title IV of the
Clean Air Act, the EPA states that Federal agency State of Maryland
sponsoring activity resulting in noise that amounts The State of Maryland has regulations regarding
to a public nuisance would consult with the EPA to excess noise in the COMAR 26.02.03. The State’s
determine possible means of abating such noise. limits for noise levels are defined by Maximum
Allowable Noise Level’s (dBA) which are
Federal Highway Administration summarized in Table 3.8-2.
The FHWA offers guidance and resources for
evaluating potential temporary impacts due to The State of Maryland grants an exception to
construction noise. Per FHWA Highway Traffic the Maximum Allowable Noise Levels when the
Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance noise source is related to daytime construction or
(FHWA, 2011), to properly analyze potential noise demolition. Noise levels emanating from construction
impacts one should identify the anticipated types of or demolition site activities during daytime hours
construction activities, the noise levels attributable must still not exceed 90 dBA. During nighttime hours,
to such activities, and sensitive receptors close to the Maximum Allowable Noise Levels apply to
these activities. The FHWA RCNM allows users construction and demolition site activities.
to predict noise emission(s) from construction
Page 192
A person may not cause or permit the emission The City of Baltimore grants an exception to these
of prominent discrete tones2 and periodic noises3 noise limits for construction, repair, or demolition
which exceed a level which is 5 dBA lower than of a structure or street. These exceptions may
the applicable level listed in Table 3.8-2. not exceed maximum permissible sound levels
specified in Table 3.8-3 by more than 25 dBA.
City of Baltimore
The City of Baltimore sets noise limits in the City of City of Greenbelt
Baltimore Health Code § 9-206. The limits vary In the City of Greenbelt, maximum allowable noise
depending on the zoning of both the source property levels for construction activity are 65 dBA in the
and its neighboring properties. The noise limit ranges daytime and 55 dBA in the nighttime. Daytime is
for each zoning can be found in Table 3.8-3. defined as 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekday and 9
Table 3.8-1: FTA’s Construction Noise Assessment Criteria (dBA)

Zoning Day (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) Night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.)
Industrial 90 90
Commercial 85 85
Residential 80 70
Source: FTA (2018)
Notes: Construction Noise Assessment Criteria values are based on Leq noise levels, per FTA’s procedures
Table 3.8-2: State of Maryland Maximum Allowable Noise Levels (dBA)

Industrial 75 75
Commercial 67 62
Residential 65 55
Source: COMAR 26.02.03
Notes: Maximum Allowable Noise Levels are based on Leq noise levels
Table 3.8-3: City of Baltimore Noise Limits (dBA)

Source Zoning Day (7 a.m. to 9 p.m.) Night (9 p.m. and 7 a.m.)
75 at any point on property line of the use, 75 at any point on property line of the use,
Manufacturing 70 at a commercial boundary, and 70 at 70 at a commercial boundary, and 65 at
residential boundary residential boundary
Commercial 64 at a manufacturing boundary, and 58 at 64 at a manufacturing boundary, and 53 at
a residential boundary a residential boundary
Residential 61 at a manufacturing boundary, and 58 at 61 at a manufacturing boundary, and 53 at
a commercial boundary a commercial boundary
Source: City of Baltimore (2018)
2
“Prominent discrete tone” means any sound which can be distinctly heard as a single pitch or a set of single pitches. For the purposes of this
regulation, a prominent discrete tone would exist if the one-third octave band sound pressure level in the band with the tone exceeds the arith-
metic average of the sound pressure levels of the 2 contiguous one-third octave bands by 5 dB for center frequencies of 500 Hz and above
and by 8 dB for center frequencies between 160 and 400 Hz and by 15 dB for center frequencies less than or equal to 125 Hz. (COMAR
26.02.03)
3
“Periodic noise” means noise possessing a repetitive on-and-off characteristic with a rapid rise to maximum and a short decay not exceed-
ing 2 seconds. (COMAR 26.02.03)
Page 193
a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekends. Nighttime is defined prohibits creation of noise which disturbs the
as 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. on weekdays and 9 p.m. to peace, quiet, and comfort of a residential area or
9 a.m. on weekends. Construction activities are residences in all areas.
prohibited from 6 p.m. to 7 a.m., and all-day
Sunday and holidays, unless prior permission is City of Cheverly
granted (City of Greenbelt, N.D.) The City of Cheverly’s policies regarding
excessive noise in the Cheverly, Maryland Code
Baltimore County of Ordinances: Ordinance Number O-8-93,
Baltimore County Code Article 17, Title 3 states 12-9-93 and Ordinance Number O-8-97,
that domestic noise (i.e., noise related to human 10-9-97 prohibit excessive noise based on the
activity that is not created by machinery, tools, or distance from which it is audible (Table 3.8-4).
mechanical devices) should not be created in a
manner which “unreasonably disturbs the peace, The City of Cheverly grants an exception to the
quiet, and comfort of neighboring inhabitants” audible distance limits when the noise source
(Baltimore County, 2016). No noise ordinance is related to daytime construction or demolition
exists for other than domestic noise. (8:00 a.m. to 9 p.m.) Monday through Saturday,
excluding Christmas Day. During nighttime
Anne Arundel County construction hours the audible distance limits apply.
Anne Arundel County has a Noise Control
program which enforces the Maximum Allowable District of Columbia
Noise Levels outlined by the State of Maryland The District of Columbia Municipal Regulations
(Anne Arundel County, 2018). (DCMR) 20-2701 sets Maximum Noise Levels
(Table 3.8-5).
Prince George’s County
The Prince George’s County Code of Ordinances: The District of Columbia grants an exception to
Section 19, Division 2, Part 122 (CB-21-2011) the Maximum Noise Levels when the noise source
Table 3.8-4: City of Cheverly Audible Distance Limits (feet)

Continuous noise: 50 50 (from either the source of the
Nonresidential Intermittent noise: 100 noise or the property of the source
Impulsive noise: 150 of the noise)
Continuous noise: 30 30 (from either the source of the
Residential Intermittent noise: 50 noise or the property of the source
Impulsive noise: 50 of the noise)
Source: City of Cheverly (2018)
Notes: Intermittent noise is noise that is repeated at least once within a five-minute period from either the source
of the noise of the property that is the source of the noise
Table 3.8-5: District of Columbia Maximum Noise Levels (dBA)

Industrial 70 65
Light Industrial/Commercial 65 60
Residential/Special Use/
60 55
Waterfront
Source: District of Columbia (2017)
Page 194
is related to weekday construction or demolition Source-to-Receiver Model

from 7:00 a.m. to 7 p.m. Noise levels emanating The model used when analyzing acoustic
from construction or demolition site activities during propagation, or how sound/noise travels along
daytime hours cannot exceed 80 dBA. During its path, includes a source of the sound, a receiver
nighttime construction hours (7:00 p.m. to 7 a.m. (receptor) of that sound, and the actual path the
with an after-hour permit) the Maximum Noise sound travels between source and receptor. The
Levels in Table 3.8-5 apply to construction and level and attributes of noise perceived by the
demolition site activities. receptor is a function of the source loudness and
frequency, and the path properties (i.e., path
Vibration
obstructions, elevation changes, presence of wind).
Federal Transit Administration
The FTA provides guidance for evaluating potential Measuring Noise
vibration impacts from transit systems and their Continuous sound waves can be characterized
construction in FTA: Transit Noise and Vibration using general wave properties such as frequency
Impact Assessment Manual (FTA, 2018). Vibration and amplitude.
Damage Criteria is summarized in Table 3.8-6. It
should be noted that the FHWA has no standards Frequency is a measure of the time between waves
for vibration, which is why FTA standards are the and determines the pitch of a sound (a low frequency
only federal standards described. sound wave is perceived as a low-pitched sound; a
high frequency sound is perceived as a high-pitched
A vibration level that causes annoyance would sound). Frequency is measured in Hertz (Hz), which
be well below the damage threshold for normal are cycles of the wave occurring per second (500
buildings. When measuring impacts of vibration on wave cycles per second = 500 Hz). If a sound has
human receptors, the FTA cites maximum acceptable an extremely high frequency, this measurement
vibration levels based on a combination of land may be expressed in thousands of Hz by using
use category and the frequency of vibration events kilohrtz (kHz). The human hearing range is from
(Figure 3.8-1). approximately 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
Noise
Amplitude is measured by the energy, or measured
Definition height, of each wave and determines the loudness
Sound is the human perception of energy passing of a sound (a low amplitude sound wave would
through either a liquid (e.g., water) or more often be a quieter sound source, a high amplitude sound
a gas (e.g., air) via waves of pressure which wave source would be a louder sound source).
a vibrating object transmits. When sound is While magnitudes of sound are quantified by
unwanted, it is considered noise. The reasoning Sound Pressure Level (SPL) that are measured in
behind the lack of desire for the noise are factors units of micropascals (µPa), µPa is rarely used as a
such as its timing, its proximity, and its loudness. measure when describing sound and a logarithmic
Table 3.8-6: FTA’s Construction Vibration Damage Criteria (in/sec)

Class Building Category PPV (in/sec)
1 I. Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5
2 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
3 III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
4 IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12
Source: FTA (2018)
Page 195
Figure 3.8-1: Typical Ground-borne Vibration Levels and Criteria
scale is used instead. The logarithmic scale used to by characteristics of the human ear. Dominant
better assess sound is measured via decibels (dB). frequencies of a sound play a major role in how
Decibels create a logarithmic relationship between humans respond. Most people are sensitive to the
actual sound pressure and a given reference sound frequency range of 1000 to 8000 Hz and can
pressure. 20 µPa is the threshold of hearing for perceive sounds in that range substantially better
young people and the standard reference pressure than sounds of the same decibel strength which
used when measuring acoustics in air. Additionally, are outside that range. For this reason, a system
the logarithmic scale is such that 20 µPa roughly of weighting which takes this into account was
equals 0 db. On the decibel scale, an increase in 3 created called the A-weighting scale. This scale
dB represents a doubling of sound output. Decibels adjusts sound levels of individual frequency bands
cannot be added in a classical sense due to their depending on human sensitivity to those frequencies.
logarithmic nature. Thus, if one wants to assess the Decibels using this scale are denoted as dBA.
sound output of two identical sound sources, they
would simply take the first source’s dB level, and The A-weight scale uses the average young ear’s
add 3dB. The result would represent the cumulative frequency response when listening to most normal
decibel SPL of the two sources. sounds. With this scale, a change of 3 dBA is
commonly thought of as just perceptible, a change
Human Perception of Noise of 5 dBA is readily perceptible, and a change of
The decibel scale alone is not the best measure of 10 dBA is perceived as being twice as loud. The
humans’ perception of noise because it is affected range of human hearing is approximately 3 to
Page 196
140 dBA, with 110 dBA considered intolerable or dismissed. When the sound travels over soft ground
painful to the human ear (Table 3.8-7). such as dirt or grass, the loss of sound energy
results in a 4.5 dBA loss per doubling of distance
Factors Affecting Sound Propagation for a point source.
As sound travels over a distance, its amplitude and
frequency would change from its original source. Additionally, atmospheric effects can have a major
There are several factors which can affect how effect on noise propagation. Wind often has the
much a noise may be reduced, or attenuated, by largest effect over distances less than 500 feet,
the time it reaches a receptor. The first such factor and effects from air temperature changes can
is geometric spreading, which is the way a sound have significant effects when longer distances are
radiates from the source. A single or “point” source analyzed. Other atmospheric properties such as
decreases by 6 dBA with each doubling of distance. water content and turbulence can play a major
role in determining how noise travels.
The next factor is ground absorption which is the
loss of sound energy to the ground as it is not Lastly, shielding, or barriers, in the path of noise
perfectly reflected off the ground surface. On between source and receptor can substantially
hard surfaces, this loss is minimal and typically reduce the level of noise that reaches the receptor.
Table 3.8-7: Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels

Sound Level
Common Outdoor Noise Source Common Indoor Noise Source
in dBA
-110- Rock Band
Jet Flying at 1000 feet
-100-
Gas Lawn Mower at 3 feet
-90-
Diesel Truck at 50 mph Food Blender at 3 feet
-80- Garbage Disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, Daytime
Gas lawnmower at 100 feet -70- Vacuum Commercial at 10 feet
Commercial Area Heavy Traffic at 300 feet Normal Speech at 3 feet
-60-
Large Business Office
Quiet Urban, Daytime -50- Dishwasher in Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime -40- Theater, Large Conference Room (Background)

Quiet Suburban Nighttime Library
-30- Bedroom at night
Quiet Rural Nighttime Concert Hall (Background)
-20-
-10-
Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing -0- Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing

Source: California Department of Transportation (2013)
Page 197
The degree of this attenuation would depend on the statistical behavior of the variations is required.
properties of the shielding object such as size, Environmental sounds are commonly described
proximity to noise source, proximity to noise in terms of the equivalent sound level (Leq) which
receptor, density, and frequency of the noise describes the average acoustical energy content of
that is being analyzed. Differences in elevation noise for an identified period of time. Leq measuring
from source to receptor can provide a barrier-like average acoustic energy content means the Leq
shielding affect. Sometimes barriers are erected to of a time-varying noise and that of a steady
reduce noise levels, and typically a barrier which noise would equal each other if they deliver the
blocks the direct line from source to receptor can same acoustical energy over the course of the
result in at least a 5 dB noise reduction; however, time period measured. To measure sound levels,
a taller barrier could result in significantly greater one uses a sound level meter. Sound level meters
noise reduction. typically used for community noise monitoring
can accurately measure environmental noise
Noise Descriptors levels to within approximately plus or minus one
Over a short period of time, sound levels can dBA. They measure noise descriptors such as Leq
vary substantially. To describe the sound level in as described above, Lmax which is the maximum
a manner which is representative of its properties sound level in a measurement period, and more.
in that period of time, a method for describing the A list of acoustical terms and noise descriptors is
sound by the average properties of the sound or shown in Table 3.8-8.
Table 3.8-8: Definition of Acoustical Terms

Terms Definition
The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of
Ambient Noise Level
environmental noise at a given location.
A standardized filter used to alter the sensitivity of a sound level meter with respect to
A-Weighted Sound
frequency so that the instrument is less sensitive at low and high frequencies where
Level (dBA)
the human ear is less sensitive and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise.
A unit describing the amplitude of sound equal to 20 times the base 10 logarithm
Decibel (dB) of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The
reference pressure for sound waves traveling in air is 20 μPa.
Equivalent Sound
The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.
Level (Leq)
The number of times that a periodically occurring quantity repeats itself in a specified
Frequency (Hz) period. With reference to noise and vibration signals, the number of cycles per second.
Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz.
Noise Level The A-weighted noise level that is exceeded XX% of the time during the measurement
Percentile-Exceeded period. E.g., L10 is the sound level exceeded 10% of the time, L50 is the sound level
Sound Level (Lxx) exceeded 50% of the time, L90 is the sound level exceeded 90% of the time.
Maximum Sound
The maximum sound level measured during the measurement period.
Level (Lmax)
Minimum Sound
The minimum sound level measured during the measurement period.
Level (Lmin)
Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in μPa (or
micronewtons per square meter), where 1 pascal is the pressure resulting from a
force of 1 newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The sound pressure level
Sound Pressure Level
is expressed in decibels as 20 times the logarithm to base 10 of the ratio between
the pressures exerted by the sound to a reference sound pressure (e.g., 20 μPa in air).
Sound pressure level is the quantity that is measured directly by a sound level meter.
Source: FTA (2018)
Page 198
Vibration 3.8.3 Affected Environment

Ground-borne vibration is oscillatory, back- Transportation Infrastructure
and-forth, motion of the soil with respect to the The Main Artery Tunnels would be within existing
equilibrium position and can be quantified in terms public ROW. In many cases, the Main Artery
of velocity or acceleration. Velocity describes Tunnel would be directly below, or within proximity
the instantaneous speed of the motion, whereas to, existing roadways.
acceleration describes the instantaneous rate
of change of the speed. Because vibrational The Main Artery Tunnel would pass beneath
motion is oscillatory, there is no net movement seven railroad crossings, 50 undercrossings,
and average taken of the motion is zero. Typical overcrossings, or river crossings, and would not
outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne interfere with existing subsurface transportation
vibration are heavy construction equipment, infrastructure.
railroad operations, and traffic on rough roads.
If traffic is on a smooth roadway, then it rarely Underground Utilities
causes perceptible ground-borne vibration. Within the cities of Washington, D.C. and
Although not anticipated for the proposed Project, Baltimore, the Build Alternative would be beneath
ground-borne vibration has the potential to lead to municipal infrastructure, including utility lines (i.e.,
vibration-induced settlement, in which structures or sewer, water, telecommunications, electrical, and
foundations settle unevenly due to soil movement natural gas) and the transportation infrastructure
from vibration (Kim and Drabkin, 1995). listed above, in public ROW.
Measuring Vibration Patuxent Research Refuge

Ground-borne vibration can be described in The Noise and Vibration Study Area intersects
terms of PPV. PPV is defined as the maximum the Patuxent National Wildlife Reserve for
instantaneous positive or negative peak amplitude approximately 2.2 miles where the west side of
of the vibration velocity. The unit of measurement for the Reserve abuts the B-W Parkway north of the
PPV is inches per second (in/s). The PPV threshold Patuxent River and south of the Laurel Fort Meade
levels which the FTA cites as potentially damaging Road/MD 198 onramp, totaling approximately
to nearby buildings are outlined in Section 3.8.2. 60 acres. The Reserve is only within the Noise and
Vibration Study Area east of the B-W Parkway; the
Human Perception of Vibration corresponding areas on the west side of the B-W
Similarly to noise, vibration in terms of human Parkway do not include the Reserve. The part of the
response cannot adequately be assessed using a Patuxent Research Refuge that overlaps the Noise
measure which is not scaled to human perception. and Vibration Study Area is along the Main Artery
The level of PPV required to potentially cause Tunnel alignment; no features requiring surface
damage to nearby buildings is much higher than disruption (i.e., Loop Stations, TBM Launch Shafts,
the level of PPV required to potentially cause and Ventilation Shafts) would be within the Refuge.
annoyance to nearby humans. Thus, vibration can
be measured using Velocity Decibels (VdB) when Receptors and Sensitive Receptors in the
analyzing impacts of vibration on human receptors. Noise and Vibration Study Area
Vibration in terms of VdB scales the measurement The construction of the Main Artery Tunnels would
to a range which more accurately describes how occur more than 30 feet below ground along
humans perceive noise. The maximum VdB levels public ROW which is a heavily trafficked corridor.
which the FTA cites as acceptable for residential A general review of potential noise and vibration
and institutional land uses are listed in Section 3.8.2. receptors is identified based on existing land
Page 199
use (Figure 3.2-1). The list of sensitive receptors Build Alternative

includes the U.S. National Security Administration Main Artery Tunnels. Tunnel construction
(NSA), which is in the Project Study Area east of vibration studies indicate that TBMs used to
the B-W Parkway near the crossing of MD 32 in construct tunnels generate low levels of vibration
Fort Meade, Maryland. and ground-borne noise. The TBM produces little
to no noise that reaches surface land uses when it
TBM Launch Shafts and Loop Stations would be is operating underground; additionally, the TBM is
on publicly/institutionally, commercially, and slow-moving and causes very little vibration and
industrially zoned parcels. The nearest potential related ground-borne noise to the surrounding
receptor and nearest potential sensitive receptor of areas (Los Angeles County Metropolitan
noise and vibration within 500 feet of Loop Stations Transportation Authority, 2012). Measured tunnel
and Launch Shafts A-D are shown in Table 3.8-9 construction vibration analysis for similar soft soil
through Table 3.8-14 (Note: “N” denotes the tunnel projects reported vibration levels ranging
nearest overall receptor and “S” denotes the from 0.0024 to 0.0394 in/s PPV at a distance of
nearest sensitive receptor. The nearest receptor 33 feet from the vibration source (Verspohl, 1995),
is the nearest human-occupied establishment the other ranged from 0.0157 to 0.0551 inches per
susceptible to noise, while sensitive receptors are second PPV at the same 33-foot distance from the
defined as residences, schools, hotels, libraries, source (New, 1990). Given this range of potential
religions institutions, hospitals, and similar uses). vibration levels and considering the proposed
tunnel depths of greater than 30 feet below ground
Exact placements of Ventilation Shaft locations are surface and location under public highway ROW
yet to be determined. Ventilation Shafts would be (the Main Artery Tunnels would therefore be even
on private land along areas of existing roadway farther distances away from private businesses or
with high ambient noise levels. residences), vibration produced by the TBM would
be well below the FTA threshold for Category
A review of the Launch Shaft E Search Area IV buildings (those most susceptible to vibration
shows that it is an area with industrial land use damage), of 0.12 in/s PPV.
which includes several churches within 500
feet. The exact placement of the site within the Loop Stations, TBM Launch Shafts, and
Launch Shaft E Search Area would take site Ventilation Shafts. Table 3.8-15 through
surroundings into consideration and would be Table 3.8-17 list the construction equipment that
dependent on land availability. would be used during each phase of construction
for the Build Alternative, along with their expected
noise output levels and usage factors; the noise
The following section analyzes the potential levels provided are for a reference distance of
temporary and permanent noise and vibration. 50 feet. The RCNM methodology assumes that
construction noise levels would be reduced at a
3.8.4.1 Noise
rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance from the
Temporary Noise Impacts source, as is customary of noise attenuation in
normal ambient air conditions over relatively
No Build Alternative short distances.
There would be no temporary noise impacts from
implementation of the No-Build Alternative. Different, and changing, combinations of
the equipment listed above would operate
simultaneously during brief periods of each
Page 200
Table 3.8-9: Launch Shaft A Nearest Potential Receptor and Sensitive Receptor
Distances
Aerial Distance from Launch Shaft A
Receptor
(in feet)
N Royal Farms (gas station/convenience store) 480 ft
S Print-O-Stat 490 ft
Table 3.8-10: Launch Shaft B Nearest Potential Receptor and Sensitive Receptor
Distances
Aerial Distance from Launch Shaft B
Receptor
(in feet)
Bridges - Information Solutions &
N 430 ft
KEYW Corporation (office)
S Townhomes- The Enclave at Arundel Preserve 480 ft
Table 3.8-11: Launch Shaft C Nearest Potential Receptor and Sensitive Receptor
Distances
Aerial Distance from Launch Shaft C
Receptor
(in feet)
N 7Eleven (convenience store) 200 ft
S Primary Pediatrics 250 ft
Table 3.8-12: Launch Shaft D Nearest Potential Receptor and Sensitive Receptor
Distances
Aerial Distance from Launch Shaft D
Receptor
(in feet)
N LA Fitness 350 ft
S PM Pediatrics 460 ft
Table 3.8-13: Baltimore Loop Station Nearest Potential Receptor and Sensitive
Receptor Distances
Aerial Distance from Baltimore Loop
Receptor
Station (in feet)
N Conway Street Park 350 ft
Ridgely’s Delight Historic District and Adjacent
S 450 ft
Residential Neighborhood
Note: The site for the Baltimore Loop Lift includes Oriole Park at Camden Yards which is anticipated to remain;
however, site-on-site impacts to these receptors are not evaluated under NEPA. Nevertheless, construction
would not occur on scheduled event days, thus no adverse noise and vibration impacts to this potential
receptor are anticipated.
Table 3.8-14: DC Loop Station Nearest Potential Receptor and Sensitive Receptor
Distances
Aerial Distance from D.C. Loop
Receptor
Station (in feet)
N MS 1300 First St. LLC (office) 90 ft
Hyatt Place Washington, D.C./U.S. Capitol
S 250 ft
(hotel)
Page 201
Table 3.8-15: TBM Launch Shaft Sites - Construction Equipment Noise Values
Actual Usage
Component Phase Equipment
Lmax (dBA) Factor
TBM Launch Shaft and Main Artery Tunnel Excavation Excavator 80.7 40%
TBM Launch Shaft and Main Artery Tunnel Excavation Crane 80.6 20%
TBM Launch Shaft and Main Artery Tunnel Excavation Auger Drill 84.4 40%
TBM Launch Shaft and Main Artery Tunnel Excavation Loader 79.1 40%
TBM Launch Shaft and Main Artery Tunnel Excavation Water pump 80.9 80%
TBM Launch Shaft and Main Artery Tunnel Excavation Delivery/haul trucks 76.5 70%
TBM Launch Shaft and Main Artery Tunnel Site Prep Back Hoe 77.6 50%
TBM Launch Shaft and Main Artery Tunnel Site Prep Concrete/slurry truck 78.8 10%
TBM Launch Shaft and Main Artery Tunnel Site Prep Generator 80.6 50%
TBM Launch Shaft and Main Artery Tunnel Tunneling Ventilation fan 78.9 100%
TBM Launch Shaft and Main Artery Tunnel Tunneling Crane 80.6 10%
TBM Launch Shaft and Main Artery Tunnel Tunneling Grout Mixer 78.8 40%
TBM Launch Shaft and Main Artery Tunnel Tunneling Grout Pump* 81.4 10%
TBM Launch Shaft and Main Artery Tunnel Tunneling Compressor 77.7 10%
TBM Launch Shaft and Main Artery Tunnel Tunneling Delivery/haul trucks 76.5 70%
TBM Launch Shaft and Main Artery Tunnel Tunneling TBM* N/A 50%
Maintenance Facilities Conversion Crane 80.6 20%
Maintenance Facilities Conversion Concrete/slurry truck 78.8 10%
Notes: Equipment operates in the heading of the tunnel which renders its noise output at the surface to an
imperceptible level.
Usage factor is defined as the percentage of work hours in which the equipment is in use.
Table 3.8-16: Loop Stations - Construction Equipment Noise Values

Component Phase Equipment Actual Lmax (dBA) Usage Factor
Loop Stations Excavation Excavator 80.7 40%
Loop Stations Excavation Crane 74.7 20%
Loop Stations Excavation Auger Drill 84.4 40%
Loop Stations Excavation Loader 79.1 40%
Loop Stations Excavation Water pump 80.9 80%
Loop Stations Excavation Delivery/haul trucks 76.5 10%
Loop Stations Installation Crane 74.7 20%
Loop Stations Installation Concrete/slurry truck 78.8 10%
Loop Stations Installation Generator 80.6 50%
Notes: Usage factor is defined as the percentage of work hours in which the equipment is in use.
Page 202
Table 3.8-17: Ventilation Shafts: Construction Equipment Noise Values

Actual Lmax Usage
Component Phase Equipment
(dBA) Factor
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation Excavator 80.7 40%
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation Crane 80.6 20%
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation Auger Drill 84.4 40%
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation Loader 79.1 40%
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation Generator 80.6 50%
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation Water pump 80.9 80%
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation Delivery/haul trucks 76.5 5%
Ventilation Shafts Spur Construction Crane 80.6 20%
Ventilation Shafts Spur Construction Mini-excavator 77.6 60%
Ventilation Shafts Spur Construction Grout/Shotcrete Mixer 78.8 40%
Ventilation Shafts Spur Construction Grout/Shotcrete Pump 81.4 10%
Ventilation Shafts Spur Construction Generator 80.6 50%
Ventilation Shafts Spur Construction Water pump 80.9 80%
Ventilation Shafts Spur Construction Delivery/haul trucks 76.5 5%
Notes: Actual Lmax values from FHWA (2006)
Usage factor is defined as the percentage of work hours in which the equipment is in use.
construction day at the construction sites. ranging from 50 feet to 500 feet for each phase
However, equipment would likely not all be of the corresponding surface feature construction.
running simultaneously throughout the day. The analysis was conducted for airborne noise, as
Construction activities other than tunneling would ground-borne noise is not anticipated to impact
be limited to the daytime hours of 7am-7pm in nearest or sensitive receptors due to the depths
the State of Maryland and 7 am-7 pm in the of the tunnels.
District of Columbia, where unmitigated nighttime
construction noise exceedances are anticipated. Modeled noise results for construction of
the Build Alternative indicate that daytime
Table 3.8-18 through Table 3.8-23 show RCNM construction noise at known TBM Launch Shaft
results for TBM Launch Shafts A-D and Loop and Loop Station locations would not exceed
Stations. Note that the thresholds for Table 3.8-18 the applicable governing noise ordinances or
through Table 3.8-22 are sourced from the Code create adverse impacts on receptors during
of Maryland (COMAR 26.02.03); threshold daytime operations. Without mitigation, noise
for Table 3.8-23 are sourced from the District of from nighttime construction activities are likely to
Columbia Municipal Regulations 20-2701. exceed governing ordinances and could result
in adverse impacts. Mitigation measures would
Table 3.8-24 and Table 3.8-25 show RCNM be implemented to reduce noise levels to comply
results for TBM Launch Shaft E and Ventilations with governing ordinances and avoid temporary
Shafts, respectively, whose locations are not adverse impacts from construction-generated
yet determined. Potential receptors cannot be noise (Section 3.8.4).
accurately identified for these surface features
at this time but would be done during final
design. The following tables show calculated
construction noise levels at various distances
Page 203
Table 3.8-18: RCNM Results for Launch Shaft A

Royal Farms (Nearest Receptor)
Significance
Distance to Receiving Exceeds
Threshold Construction Exceeds Day
Receptor (ft) Land Use Night
(dBA) Noise (dBA) Threshold?
Threshold?
90 day /
480 Commercial
62 night
TBM Launch Shaft Excavation 65.7 No Yes
TBM Launch Shaft Site Prep 60.1 No No
TBM Launch Shaft Tunneling 62.6 No Yes
Maintenance Facility Conversion 55.2 No Yes
Print-O-Stat
(Nearest Sensitive Receptor)
Significance Exceeds
Distance to Receiving Construction Exceeds Day
Threshold Night
Receptor (ft) Land Use Noise (dBA) Threshold?
(dBA) Threshold?
90 day /
490 Commercial
62 night
Table 3.8-19: RCNM Results for Launch Shaft B

Bridges - Information Solutions and
KEYW Corporation (Nearest Receptor)
Threshold Night
(dBA) Threshold?
90 day /
430 Commercial
62 night
Maintenance Facility Conversion 56.2 No No
Townhomes- The Enclave at Arundel
Preserve (Nearest Sensitive Receptor)
Threshold Night
(dBA) Threshold?
90 day /
480 Commercial
62 night
Page 204
Table 3.8-20: RCNM Results for Launch Shaft C

7-Eleven (Nearest Receptor)
Significance
Distance to Receiving Calculated Exceeds
Threshold Exceeds Day
Receptor (ft) Land Use Construction Night
(dBA) Threshold?
Noise (dBA) Threshold?
90 day /
200 Commercial
62 night
TBM Launch Shaft Site Prep 67.7 No Yes
Primary Pediatrics
Significance
(dBA) Threshold?
90 day /
250 Commercial
62 night
Table 3.8-21: RCNM Results for Launch Shaft D

LA Fitness (Nearest Receptor)
Significance
(dBA) Threshold?
90 day /
350 Commercial
62 night
PM Pediatrics
Significance Calculated Exceeds
Distance to Receiving Exceeds Day
Threshold Construction Night
Receptor (ft) Land Use Threshold?
90 day /
460 Commercial
62 night
Page 205
Table 3.8-22: RCNM Results for Baltimore Loop Station

Conway Street Park
90 day /
350 Commercial
55 night
Loop Station Excavation 68.1 No Yes
Loop Station Installation 64.2 No Yes
Ridgely’s Delight Historic District and
Adjacent Residential Neighborhood
(Next Nearest Sensitive Receptor)
Calculated Exceeds
Significance Exceeds Day
Distance to Receiving Construction Night
Threshold Threshold?
(dBA)
90 day /
250 Commercial
55 night
Table 3.8-23: RCNM Results for D.C. Loop Station

MS 1300 First St. LLC (Nearest Receptor)
Significance
(dBA) Threshold?
80 day /
90 Commercial
60 night
Hyatt Place Washington, D.C./
U.S. Capitol (Nearest Sensitive Receptor)
80 day /
250 Commercial
55 night
Page 206
Table 3.8-24: RCNM Results for Potential Launch Shaft E Receptor Distances
Theoretical Distances to Receptor (ft)
Phase 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500
Calculated Construction Noise at Receptor for the Above Distance (dBA)
TBM Launch Shaft Excavation 85.3 81.8 79.3 77.4 75.8 74.5 73.3 72.3 71.4 70.5 69.8 69.1 68.4 67.8 67.3 66.8 66.3 65.8 65.3
TBM Launch Shaft Site Prep 79.7 76.2 73.7 71.8 70.2 68.8 67.7 66.7 65.7 64.9 64.2 63.5 62.8 62.2 61.7 61.1 60.6 60.2 59.7
TBM Launch Shaft Tunneling 82.3 78.7 76.2 74.3 72.7 71.4 70.2 69.2 68.3 67.4 66.7 66.0 65.4 64.8 64.2 63.7 63.2 62.7 62.3
Maintenance Facility Conversion 74.8 71.3 68.8 66.9 65.3 64.0 62.8 61.8 60.9 60.0 59.3 58.6 57.9 57.3 56.8 56.3 55.8 55.3 54.8
Table 3.8-25: RCNM Results for Potential Ventilation Shaft Receptor Distances
Theoretical Distances to Receptor (ft)
Phase 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500
Calculated Construction Noise at Receptor for the Above Distance (dBA)
Shaft Excavation (Vertical) 85.7 82.2 79.7 77.7 76.1 74.8 73.6 72.6 71.7 70.9 70.1 69.4 68.8 68.3 67.6 67.1 66.6 66.1 65.7
Spur Construction (Lateral) 84.0 80.5 78.0 76.1 74.5 73.2 72.0 71.0 70.1 69.2 68.5 67.8 67.1 66.5 66.0 65.5 65.0 64.5 64.0
Page 207
Haul Routes. Trucks hauling material to and be electric powered and ride on rubber tires inside
from proposed surface feature construction sites the Main Artery Tunnel 30 feet or more below
would generate noise while traveling to/from their ground which would shield transport noise, the
destinations. Their noise generation during operation additional noise from their operation within the
at surface construction sites of the Build Alternative is tunnel is not anticipated to be audible from the
incorporated into the previously summarized RCNM ground surface. Therefore, no adverse effects are
results. Trucks would follow approved haul routes anticipated from operation of the Loop system.
capable of handling large trucks (Section 2.3.1.8)
3.8.4.2 Vibration
and would include highways which generally contain
natural or man-made noise attenuating features, Temporary Vibration Impacts
such as tree-lines, swales, setbacks, and/or noise No Build Alternative
barriers between roadways and sensitive receptors. No temporary adverse vibration effects are
Noise contributions along haul routes from the Build anticipated under the No Build Alternative.
Alternative are anticipated to be minimal. Final haul
routes are subject to regulatory approval. Truck Build Alternative
trips generated by the Build Alternative would use If not managed properly, vibration from equipment
approved haul routes along existing roadways where operation during construction could have the
existing traffic-related noise is present. The proposed potential to cause direct damage to structures
Project could generate temporary adverse effects near the source of vibration. Although unlikely
on local noise conditions in the area of construction given the anticipated construction equipment
activity and haul routes. TBC would use to construct the proposed Project,
vibration-induced settlement could result in
Permanent Noise Impacts indirect damage to structures if vibration were to
The EPA Noise Effects Handbook (1981) lists cause movement in the ground supporting these
numerous adverse health effects that may be structures (Section 2.3.1.6). Table 3.8-26 Vibratory
directly linked to noise, such as stress related Construction Equipment shows the PPV levels of
illnesses, high blood pressure, hearing loss and vibratory construction equipment that would be
sleep disruption. The proposed Project is not used in each phase of construction.
anticipated to produce significant levels of noise
once operational. Operational noise of the Using the FTA’s guidance for modeling construction-
proposed Project would include the loading/ related vibratory building damage and human
offloading of passengers at Loop Station locations perception, Table 3.8-27 Calculated Construction
via electric elevators, intermittent use of ventilation Vibration Level and Thresholds provides the following:
fans at Ventilation Shaft locations, and operation 1. The most vibratory construction equipment
of AEVs within the Main Artery Tunnel. These (highest PPV for a reference distance of 25
project features are not anticipated to produce an feet) expected to be used in each phase of
appreciable amount of noise. As the Loop Stations construction for the proposed Project;
are electrically powered, their noise output would 2. The FTA’s building type thresholds for damage
be lower than would be necessary to reach outside (in PPV);
receptors. Ventilation Shafts would either be 3. The human perception threshold of acceptable
covered by a structure or grate, and ventilation vibration for residential dwellings (in VdB); and
fans therein would be installed, maintained, and
4. The distance at which each threshold
designed to operate at levels which would not
would not be exceeded for each type of
significantly contribute to existing above-ground construction equipment.
noise. Because the proposed Project’s AEVs would
Page 208
Construction of proposed surface features greater through 3.8-14, the nearest potential receptors of
than 21 feet away from receptors would not construction noise and vibration for Loop Stations
exceed thresholds for vibration building damage in and TBM Launch Shaft sites are greater than 79
all construction phases. Construction of proposed feet away from these features of the proposed
surface features greater than 79 feet away would Project. Therefore, the Build Alternative would not
not exceed the human perception threshold for result in direct adverse impacts to existing structures
acceptable vibration in residential building during due to vibration.
all construction phases. As provided in Table 3.8-9
Table 3.8-26: Vibratory Construction Equipment

Construction
Component Phase Equipment Equipment Reference
PPV at 25 ft (in/s)
TBM Launch Shafts and
Excavation Excavator 0.089
Main Artery Tunnel
Excavation Auger Drill 0.089
Main Artery Tunnel
Excavation Loader 0.076
Main Artery Tunnel
Excavation Delivery/haul trucks 0.076
Main Artery Tunnel
Site Prep Concrete/slurry truck 0.076
Main Artery Tunnel
Tunneling Delivery/haul trucks 0.076
Main Artery Tunnel
Tunneling TBM 0.008
Main Artery Tunnel
Maintenance Facilities Conversion Concrete/slurry truck 0.076
Loop Stations Excavation Excavator 0.089
Loop Stations Excavation Auger Drill 0.089
Loop Stations Excavation Loader 0.076
Loop Stations Excavation Delivery/haul trucks 0.076
Loop Stations Installation Concrete/slurry truck 0.076
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation - Vertical Excavator 0.089
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation - Vertical Auger Drill 0.089
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation - Vertical Loader 0.076
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation - Vertical Delivery/haul trucks 0.076
Spur Construction: Lateral
Ventilation Shafts Loader 0.076
Pipejacking
Ventilation Shafts Pipejacking equipment 0.008
Pipejacking
Ventilation Shafts Delivery/haul trucks 0.076
Pipejacking
Ventilation Shafts Loader 0.076
SEM Mining
Spur Construction: Lateral Delivery/haul trucks 0.076
Ventilation Shafts
SEM Mining
Source: FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018)
Page 209
Table 3.8-27: Calculated Construction Vibration Level and Thresholds

New Older Historic and Extremely
Residential Residential Some Older Susceptible Human
Structures Structures Buildings Buildings Perception
Most Construction PPV PPV PPV PPV Threshold
Vibratory Equipment Threshold Threshold Threshold Threshold
Component Phase
Equipment Ref PPV at 25
72 VdB
per Phase ft (in/s) 0.50 in/sec 0.30 in/sec 0.20 in/sec 0.12 in/sec
(0.016 in/sec)
Source to Receptor Distances Required for No Exceedance of Above
Threshold (ft):
TBM Launch
Excavator and
Shafts and Main Excavation 0.089 8 12 15 21 79
Auger Drill
Artery Tunnel
TBM Launch
Concrete/slurry
Shafts and Main Site Prep 0.076 7 11 14 19 71
truck
Artery Tunnel
TBM Launch
Delivery/haul
Shafts and Main Tunneling 0.076 7 11 14 19 71
trucks
Artery Tunnel
Maintenance Concrete/slurry
Conversion 0.076 7 11 14 19 71
Facilities truck
Excavator and
Loop Stations Excavation 0.089 8 12 15 21 79
Auger Drill
Concrete/slurry
Loop Stations Installation 0.076 7 11 14 19 71
truck
Shaft
Ventilation Construction- Excavator and
0.089 8 12 15 21 79
Shafts Vertical Auger Drill
Excavation
Spur
Loader and
Ventilation Construction-
Delivery/haul 0.076 7 11 14 19 71
Shafts Lateral
trucks
Excavation
Note: Thresholds used in Table 3.8 27 are from the FTA: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA, 2018), Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
The nearest potential receptor to a Loop Lift or TBM Launch Shaft is 90 feet, therefore there are no residential or commercial facilities adjacent to Loop Lifts or TBM
Launch Shafts that would be impacted by construction activities
Page 210
Ventilation Shaft locations remain to be proposed Project’s AEVs would ride on rubber tires
determined. Section 3.8.4 addresses minimization at depths of 30 feet or more beneath the ground
and mitigation measures which would reduce the surface, the vibration from their operation is not
potential for vibration-related impacts to potential anticipated to generate perceptible vibration.
receptors if a Ventilation Shaft were to be sited Therefore, no adverse vibration impacts are
within threshold distances listed in Table 3.8-27. anticipated from operation of the Loop system.
Temporary vibration impacts are not anticipated
to result from the proposed Project.
Measures
To minimize the potential for adverse impacts to The following minimization and mitigation measures
existing structures from ground settlement caused would be implemented to ensure that there are no
by vibration, the horizontal alignment and vertical adverse noise or vibration effects because of the
depth of the proposed Project components implementation of the Build Alternative.
would be adjusted during final design to avoid
the zone of influence of potential conflicts with Implement Construction Noise Controls.
adjacent structures or foundations such that the TBC would implement noise control practices during
risks of settlement beyond acceptable levels are construction where noise ordinance exceedances
minimized. In addition, settlement avoidance are anticipated, to minimize temporary noise
and monitoring measures would be implemented impacts. Controls include the following noise
(Section 2.3.1.6). reduction measures during construction:
• L i m i t e d C o n s t r u c t i o n H o u r s :
Permanent Vibration Impacts Construction activities other than tunneling
would be limited to the daytime hours of
No Build Alternative 7am-9pm in the State of Maryland and 7
No permanent noise or vibration impacts are am-7 pm in the District of Columbia where
anticipated under the No Build Alternative. unmitigated nighttime construction noise
exceedances are anticipated.
Build Alternative • Proper maintenance: Construction
The proposed Project is not anticipated to produce equipment would be properly maintained, as
significant levels of ground-borne vibration once poor maintenance of equipment may cause
operational. Operational vibration of the proposed excessive noise and vibration levels.
Project would include the loading/offloading of • Equipment mufflers, shrouds and
passengers at Loop Stations via electric elevators, shields: Noisy construction equipment would
intermittent use of ventilation fans at Ventilation be equipped with properly operating and
Shaft locations, and operation of AEVs within the maintained mufflers, air-inlet silencers where
appropriate, and other shrouds, shields, or
Main Artery Tunnel. These project features are not
other noise-reducing features that meet or
anticipated to produce an appreciable amount
exceed original factory specifications, to the
of vibration. As the Loop Stations are electrically extent practicable.
powered, their vibrational energy would be
• Idling minimization: Construction
lower than would be necessary to affect outside
equipment would be operated only when
receptors. Ventilation Shafts would either be
necessary and would be switched off
covered by a structure or grate, and ventilation when not in use. Idling inactive construction
fans therein would be installed, maintained, and equipment for prolonged periods (i.e., more
designed to operate in a manner which would not than 5 minutes) would not be permitted.
result in significant vibrational output. Because the
Page 211
• Equipment placement: Where practicable, related damage is suspected or results from

stationary noise sources would be positioned construction‐related activities. Accompanying
as far as possible from outside receptors and surveys would be conducted during and/or
sensitive areas. Where practicable, equipment following construction completion to assess
which produces directional noise would not and address vibration-caused damage,
face outside receptors and sensitive areas. where applicable.
• Construction equipment storage: To • Settlement monitoring and avoidance
the extent feasible, construction equipment measurements would be employed as
would be stored on the Project sites. This would described in Section 2.3.1.6.
reduce noise and vibration associated with
repeated transportation of the equipment to The proposed Project would comply with
and from the site. applicable Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) regulations to ensure
Noise Barriers. Prior to the commencement of worker safety regarding noise during construction
nighttime tunneling operations at TBM Launch Shaft of the proposed Project (Section 3.10).
sites, temporary noise barriers would be installed
between noise source and affected receptor(s) 3.9 Air Quality
where unmitigated noise levels modeled in this EA Air quality and GHG emissions for the proposed
are anticipated and/or detected to impede the Project were modeled using industry-standard
propagation of sound waves to such receivers. methods.
Openings in the barriers would be kept to the
minimum necessary for access of vehicles,
equipment, and construction material. These For both criteria air pollutants and GHGs,
barriers would be constructed from commercially construction of the Build Alternative was assumed
available acoustical panels lined with sound-‐ to be active up to 24 hours per day, 7 days per
absorbing material or from acoustical blankets week. Calculations assumed construction of four
hung from a supporting frame. Barriers would be TBM Launch Shafts, two Loop Stations, and 70
designed based on acoustic modelling to effectively Ventilation Shafts. Criteria air pollutant emissions
reduce noise levels from night tunneling activities and GHG emissions associated with the Build
to less than applicable regulatory limits and avoid Alternative were estimated for the following
adverse impacts on nearby potential receptors from emission sources:
temporary construction-related noise. • Construction-period operation of off-road
construction equipment, on-road hauling
Ground‐borne Vibration Control and vendor (material delivery) trucks and
M e a s u r e s . To m i n i m i z e p o t e n t i a l worker vehicles, and fugitive dust from soil
adverse effects from vibration, TBC would disturbance, and
implement the following vibration reduction • Operation of the Loop System, which includes
measures prior to and during project construction operation of electrical equipment at Loop
where vibration levels are likely to exceed Stations, Maintenance Terminal(s) where
applicable thresholds: charging of AEVs would occur, and Ventilation
Shafts, and fuel emissions associated with
• TBC would retain a qualified structural
commuting worker vehicles.
or geotechnical engineer to conduct
pre ‐construction surveys of adjacent Detailed air quality and GHG assumptions for the
structures (including photographing and/or Build Alternative are included in Appendix B and
videotaping) to document existing building described further below. This emissions analysis
conditions for future comparison if vibration- does not account for changes in general on-road
Page 212
traffic that may occur after the implementation of AP-42 emission factors were used to calculate
the Loop System. emissions from fugitive dust sources, which are
comprised of dust from on-road activity and
Air Quality
truck loading. Equations used are provided in
A spreadsheet-based model and emission factors Appendix B.
from the EPA Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator:
MOVES2014a (EPA, 2016b) and the EPA AP-42 For criteria air pollutants, the analysis was
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors conducted for a 15-month construction schedule,
(EPA, 1997) were used to model emissions from the shortest potential construction schedule
the Build Alternative. MOVES2014a is a computer assumed for the proposed Project. This is because
program which generates emission inventories and criteria air pollutant emissions from trucking are
emission factors based on specific user inputs. the largest emission source, and emissions due to
For the purposes of this Project, emission factors trucking are not time-dependent, but rather driven
were generated based on characteristics of the by the amount of deliveries or hauling needed,
jurisdictions within the Project Study Area. AP-42 both of which are a function of the length and size
has been published since 1972 as the primary of the proposed Project. Assuming a 15-month
compilation of EPA’s emission factor information construction schedule is the most conservative
and contains emission factors and process case, as it assumes these emissions are distributed
information for more than 200 air pollution source across a shorter time frame, making daily and
categories. annual emissions higher for the proposed Project.
Schedule variability is based on tunneling speed
The EPA develops the emission factors provided in achieved, which is dependent upon TBC’s technical
its models and publications using an extensive set progress prior to start of construction.
of emissions data, which are evaluated for quality
Greenhouse Gases
and then analyzed to derive emission factors
(EPA, 2013). Specifically, the MOVES2014a The effect each GHG has on climate change is
model was used to generate criteria air pollutant measured as a combination of the mass of its
emission factors for on-road emissions, which emissions and the potential of a gas or aerosol to
include emissions from construction-period trap heat in the atmosphere, known as its global
worker commuting, haul trucks, delivery trucks, warming potential (GWP), which varies among
and operation-period worker commuting, and GHGs. Total GHG emissions are expressed as a
off-road emissions, which includes diesel-powered function of how much warming would be caused by
construction equipment. The emission factors from the same mass of CO2 over a specified time interval,
MOVES2014a for on-road were generated in commonly 100 years. The Intergovernmental Panel
grams per mile; subsequently, these emission on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report
factors were multiplied by Project mileage estimates assumes that the GWP for CH4 is 28, which means
to obtain on-road emissions. Off-road emission that emissions of 1 metric ton (MT) of CH4 would
factors from MOVES2014a were generated in absorb as much heat over a 100-year timeframe
grams per horsepower-hours and were then as 28 MT of CO2. The GWP for N2O is 265, which
multiplied by equipment-specific horsepower was assumed in the calculated GHG emissions
values and estimated usage hours to generate (IPCC, 2014). The GHG emissions from electricity
off-road criteria pollutant emissions. The equations use were estimated using emission factors for the
used to derive off-road and on-road criteria air RFC East (RFCE) Region from the EPA Emissions
pollutants are described in Appendix B. and Generation Resource Integrated Database
(EPA, 2018c), a comprehensive source of data
Page 213
on the environmental characteristics of electric evaluated include volatile organic compounds

power generated in the United States, including: (VOCs; referred to as reactive organic gases
air emissions for nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, (ROGs)), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon
carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide; monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), particulate
emission rates; net generation; resource mix; and matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or
other attributes. For electric powered construction equal to 10 microns in size (PM10), and particulate
equipment, and operational equipment (all of matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or
which is electric powered), these emission factors equal to 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5). VOCs and
(in GHG mass per megawatt-hours (MWh)) NOx are important because they are precursors
were applied to energy consumption estimates. to ozone (O3).
The MOVES2014a model on-road emission
factors (in GHG mass per mile) were applied to The EPA sets National Ambient Air Quality
commuting, haul truck, and delivery truck mileage Standards (NAAQS) for selected criteria
estimates to obtain on-road GHG emission values. pollutants considered harmful to public health
Finally, emission factors (in GHG mass per gallons) and the environment, including: O3, CO, nitrogen
from the “EPA Emission Factors for Greenhouse dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate
Gas Inventories” document (EPA, 2018d) were matter, and lead, with an averaging time and
used in conjunction with energy consumption data form for determining compliance specific
estimates to obtain emission values for off-road, to each standard. Primary NAAQS are limits
diesel-powered construction equipment. The set to protect public health, including the health
equations described here used to obtain GHG of “sensitive” populations. Based upon air
emissions are provided in Appendix B. quality monitoring data, EPA designates areas
within each state as either in attainment, in non-
For GHG emissions, the analysis was conducted attainment, in maintenance, or unclassified. For
for a 23-month construction schedule, the longest areas of non-attainment, a federally enforceable
potential construction schedule assumed for the state implementation plan is implemented with
proposed Project. The primary contributor to GHG the goal of achieving attainment. “General
emissions from the proposed Project is electric- conformity” requirements apply to federal actions
powered construction equipment, particularly within nonattainment or maintenance areas to
the tunnel boring machines. Because the energy ensure that federal activities do not contribute
consumption and subsequent GHG emissions to a new violation of a NAAQS; actions do not
associated with electric-powered equipment is cause additional or worsen existing violations of
dependent on the length of time of the proposed or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS;
Project, assuming a 23-month construction and attainment of the NAAQS is not delayed.
schedule is the most conservative scenario for The proposed Project is not subject to the
calculating GHG emissions. Transportation Conformity requirements of 40
CFR 93 Subpart A as it is not a Federal Highway
Administration or Federal Transit Administration
Air Quality project;4 but, general conformity requirements
Criteria air pollutants are defined as pollutants apply. The general conformity regulations (40 CFR
for which the federal and state governments 93 Subpart B) establish de minimis thresholds for
have established ambient air quality standards, criteria pollutants and precursors. A “conformity
or criteria, for outdoor concentrations to protect determination” is required for each criteria pollutant
public health. Criteria air pollutants that are or precursor where the total of direct and indirect
4
See 40 CFR 93.101 for definition of an FHWA/FTA project.
Page 214
emissions of the criteria pollutant or precursor in a conformity de minimis thresholds for each of the
non-attainment or maintenance area would equal criteria pollutants which are nonattainment regions
or exceed any of the de minimis thresholds. for each of the jurisdictions contained within the
Project Study Area.
The Build Alternative is within the District of
Columbia, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Anne One measure of overall air quality is the Air Quality
Arundel County, and Prince George’s County. Index (AQI), which is a daily reporting index that
The District of Columbia and Prince George’s is calculated for four main criteria pollutants: O3,
County are designated marginal nonattainment particle pollution, CO, and SO2 (EPA, 2014). AQI
for the 2008 ozone standard and the 2015 ozone has six levels of health concern: good, moderate,
standard. Baltimore City is designated moderate unhealthy for sensitive groups, unhealthy, very
for the 2008 ozone standard and marginal for the unhealthy, and hazardous. AQI levels above
2015 ozone standard. Baltimore and Anne Arundel moderate typically correspond to criteria pollutant
County are designated moderate nonattainment for levels above NAAQS standards. Maryland’s air
the 2008 ozone standard, marginal nonattainment quality has been improving since 2004 (MDE,
for the 2015 ozone standard, and nonattainment N.D.a), and has subsequently seen a decrease in
for the 2010 SO2 standard. Because each of these the number of unhealthy and hazardous AQI days
jurisdictions is in nonattainment, general conformity per year. Table 3.9-2 shows the AQI in 2017 for
requirements apply. Table 3.9-1 lists the general each of the jurisdictions in the Project Study Area.
Table 3.9-1: Applicable General Conformity De Minimis Thresholds

VOC NOx CO SO2 PM2.5
Jurisdiction
Tons Per Year
Baltimore City 50 100 - - -
Baltimore County 50 100 - 100 -
Anne Arundel County 50 100 - 100 -
Prince George’s County 50 100 - - -
District of Columbia 50 100 - - -
Source: 40 CFR 93.153(b)(1)
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter; NOx = oxides of
nitrogen; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; VOC = volatile organic compound
Table 3.9-2: Air Quality Index for Project Study Area Jurisdictions in 2017
Unhealthy
for Very
Good Moderate Unhealthy
County Sensitive Unhealthy
Groups
Days Per Year
Baltimore City 281 81 3 - -
Baltimore County 290 63 11 1 -
Anne Arundel County* 216 43 6 - -
Prince George’s County 277 82 6 - -
District of Columbia 179 182 4 - -
Source: EPA Air Quality Index Report, 2018a
Notes: *Anne Arundel County only had 265 days of air quality monitoring during 2017
No Hazardous days were reported in 2017 in any of the five counties
Page 215
Greenhouse Gases
Maryland Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard
GHGs are gases that absorb infrared radiation program, and public transportation, forestry, and
and trap heat in the atmosphere. Without naturally zero waste initiatives. The District of Columbia has
occurring greenhouse gas emissions, the earth’s committed to reducing GHG emissions to 50 percent
average temperature would be close to zero below 2006 levels by 2032 and 80 percent below
degrees Fahrenheit (F). Global climate change 2006 levels by 2050. Washington, D.C.’s climate
concerns are focused on human activities that action plan, titled Climate of Opportunity, outlines
are increasing the atmospheric concentration of the various government- and community-focused
GHGs, thereby leading to an enhancement of the strategies the District intends to implement to reach
greenhouse effect and causing global warming. these reduction goals (2010).
Principal GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), O3, and The 2016 Annual Report prepared by the Maryland
water vapor. Of these gases, the atmospheric Commission on Climate Change (MCCC) identified
concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O have impacts of climate change on the state. Saltwater
been steadily increasing due to anthropogenic intrusion, loss of coastline, and changes in
activity; O3 and water vapor have relatively short temperature and precipitation patterns are among
atmospheric lifetimes (on the order of a few days the most significant impacts of climate change likely
to weeks), and their atmospheric concentrations to burden the State’s agricultural sector (MCCC,
are not rising because of human activity. Therefore, 2016). When the atmospheric concentration rises,
the GHG analysis is focused on emissions of CO2, this changes the chemical equilibrium between
CH4, and N2O. If the atmospheric concentrations the atmosphere and surface water, causing more
of GHGs rise, the average temperature of the lower carbon dioxide to be absorbed into the ocean and
atmosphere would increase. Globally, climate thus lowering the pH. This could potentially impact
change has the potential to impact numerous the productivity and profitability of Maryland’s
environmental resources though impacts related to already struggling blue crab and oyster populations.
future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. Climate change is expected to have negative effects
Although climate change is driven by global on local tourism. Hotter summer temperatures are
atmospheric conditions, climate change impacts expected to increase peak electricity demand in
are felt locally. the summer due to increased use of air conditioning
units. This makes it more difficult and potentially
Both the State of Maryland and Washington, D.C. more expensive for utilities to meet the immediate
have produced climate action plans and set carbon peak demand and increases the risk of system
reduction goals. In Maryland, the Greenhouse failure precisely when it is most needed. According
Gas Reduction Act was passed in 2009, requiring to the MDOT SHA, Maryland has approximately
the State to reduce GHG emissions by 25 percent 7,920 linear miles of roadways. Of those which
from 2006 levels by 2020, while having a positive are state-maintained, two percent are expected
impact on Maryland’s economy, protecting existing to be impacted by sea-level rise in 2050, and 4.5
manufacturing jobs, and creating significant new jobs percent by 2100 (MCCC, 2016). The warming
(MDE, 2015). To meet this goal, the MDE published projections are of concern for species that are at the
the GHG Emissions Reduction Plan in 2013, and a southernmost edge of their climatic range, including
subsequent updated in 2015. Key strategies within eelgrass which provides food and habitat for fish,
the Plan include electricity conservation through crabs and waterfowl. Bay acidification poses a
Maryland’s EmPOWER program, stricter vehicle potential problem for pH sensitive species, including
standards through the Maryland Clean Cars Program, crabs and oysters which require specific chemical
adoption of renewable energy sources through the conditions to create and maintain their shells.
Page 216
According to the MDE State of Maryland 2014 emission factors in conjunction with estimated
GHG Emission Inventory, GHG emissions in mileage and excavated material amounts were
the State of Maryland were 93.4 million metric used to calculate fugitive dust.
tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCO2e)
Temporary Impacts
in 2014, with the highest emitting sectors being
electricity use and on-road transportation (MDE, No-Build Alternative
2016). Table 3.9-3 shows 2014 Maryland GHG No temporary impacts to air quality are
emissions, by sector. anticipated from the No-Build Alternative.

Build Alternative
The following section analyzes the potential Construction of the Build Alternative would result in the
temporary and permanent impacts of the temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed
No-Build and Build Alternatives to air quality and caused by on-site sources (i.e., off-road construction
greenhouse gases. equipment and soil disturbance) and off-site sources
(i.e., on-road haul trucks, vendor trucks, and worker
3.9.3.1 Air Quality
vehicle trips). Table 3.9-4 presents the estimated
As part of its environmental review, the MDE maximum annual construction emissions generated
considers whether a project would result in a during construction of the Build Alternative.
significant impact to air quality. A quantitative
evaluation of construction-related emissions was The Build Alternative would not exceed the de
conducted and evaluated against the federal minimis thresholds (Appendix B, Table 3.9-1).
de minimis thresholds listed in Table 3.9-1 to Construction-generated emissions would be
determine whether implementation of the Build temporary and would not represent a long-term
Alternative would result in an adverse effect. source of criteria air pollutant emissions.
Criteria air pollutant emissions were calculated
Permanent Impacts
using MOVES2014a and AP-42 emission factors.
MOVES2014a emission factors were used in No-Build Alternative
conjunction with estimated equipment usage Under the No-Build Alternative, no permanent
provided by TBC to calculate off-road equipment impacts to air quality would be expected.
emissions, and with estimated mileage provided
by TBC to calculate on-road emissions. AP-42
Table 3.9-3: 2014 Maryland Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sector Emissions (MMTCO2e) Percent (%)
Electricity Use (Consumption) 33.8 36
Transportation - Onroad 28.9 31
Residential/Commercial/Industrial Fuel Use 15.8 17
Industrial Processes 4.8 5
Transportation - Nonroad 4.5 5
Waste Management 3.0 3
Agriculture 1.9 2
Fossil Fuel Industry 0.7 1
Total 93.4 100
Notes: MMTCO2e = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Source: MDE (2016)
Page 217
Table 3.9-4: Estimated Annual Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions

VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Emission Source
tons per year
TBM Launch Shafts: Off-road Equipment 0.69 6.17 2.97 0.01 0.43 0.41
Loop Lift - Baltimore: Off-road Equipment 0.02 0.14 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.01
Loop Lift - Washington, D.C. - Off-road Equipment 0.02 0.14 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.01
Ventilation Shafts: Off-road Equipment 1.41 9.64 5.41 0.02 0.88 0.85
On-road Delivery/Haul Trucks 4.49 34.40 13.86 0.06 3.50 2.48
Worker Commuting 0.10 0.42 5.11 0.00 0.07 0.02
Construction Fugitive Dust 10.96 2.69
Total 6.74 50.91 27.49 0.09 15.86 6.47
De Minimis Threshold 50 100 - 100 - -
Threshold Exceeded? No No No
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in
diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter; SOx = sulfur oxides; VOC = volatile
organic compound
Emission factors from MOVES2014a model run for Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Anne Arundel County,
Prince George’s County, and District of Columbia were used for all Off-road Equipment, On-road Delivery/
Truck, and Worker Commuting emissions.
AP-42 emission factors were used for Construction Fugitive Dust calculations (Section 13.2.1, Table 13.2.1-1,
and Section 13.2.4)
Fugitive dust emissions include on-road vehicle dust and truck loading emissions.
Calculations assume Project emissions are distributed over 15 months, the shortest estimated construction
period for the Project.
See Appendix B for full equipment list (including breakdown of diesel- versus electric-powered equipment)
and complete results.
Build Alternative conformity determination is not required for this

The operation of the proposed Project would Project, per 40 CFR 93.153.
implement a zero-emission, high-speed
Odors
transportation system. Because operation of
the Loop System is fully electric-powered, there A project that proposes a use that would produce
would be no on-site criteria air pollution sources. objectionable odors would be deemed to have
Operation of the proposed Project would result a significant odor impact if it would affect off-site
in criteria air pollutant emissions from worker receptors. Odor issues are subjective by the
vehicles traveling to and from the site for routine nature of odors themselves and because their
maintenance. MOVES2014a emission factors and measurements are difficult to quantify.
estimated commuting miles during operation were
used to calculate criteria air pollutant emissions The occurrence and severity of potential odor
due to operations of the Loop. Table 3.9-5 shows impacts depends on numerous factors. The
the estimated annual operational criteria air nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; the
pollutant emissions for the Project. wind speeds and direction; and the sensitivity of
receiving location each contribute to the intensity
The Build Alternative would not exceed the de of the impact. Although offensive odors seldom
minimis thresholds during operation. The analysis cause physical harm, they can be annoying and
showed that none of the pollutants exceeded the cause distress among the public and generate
de minimis emissions level. Therefore, a general citizen complaints.
Page 218
Table 3.9-5: Estimated Annual Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions

VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
tons per year
Worker Commuting 0.00 0.02 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00
de minimis threshold 50 100 100 -
Threshold Exceeded? No No No
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in
diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter; SOx = sulfur oxides; VOC = volatile
organic compound
Emission factors from MOVES2014a model run for Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Anne Arundel County,
Prince George’s County, and District of Columbia were used for operation Worker Commuting emissions
calculations.
See Appendix B for complete results.
Odors would be potentially generated from usage to calculate GHG emissions from off-road,
vehicles and equipment exhaust emissions during diesel-powered construction equipment.
construction of the Build Alternative. Potential
Temporary Impacts
odors produced during construction would
be attributable to concentrations of unburned No-Build Alternative
hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction Under the No-Build Alternative, no temporary
equipment. Such odors would disperse rapidly impacts to GHG emissions would be anticipated.
from the Project Study Area and generally occur
at magnitudes that would not affect substantial Build Alternative
numbers of people. Therefore, impacts associated Construction of the Build Alternative would result
with odors during construction would be minimal. in GHG emissions, which are primarily associated
with the use of off-road construction equipment,
3.9.3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
on-road vendor and haul trucks, and worker
There are no Federal, State, or local GHG vehicles. On-site sources of GHG emissions
emission thresholds established that apply to the include off-road equipment and off-site sources
Build Alternative. include on-road vehicles (haul trucks, vendor
trucks, and worker vehicles). Some of the off-road
A spreadsheet-based model was used to calculate construction equipment, including the TBM and
the total project GHG emissions. GHG emissions locomotive, run off grid-sourced electricity, while
were calculated from emission factors provided the rest is diesel-powered. It should be noted that
by MOVES2014a, eGRID, and “EPA Emission the use of the TBMs would be the largest source of
Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories.” GHG emissions from construction of the proposed
MOVES2014a emission factors were applied to Project. Off-road construction equipment, both
estimated mileage of haul trucks, delivery trucks, diesel- and electric-powered, and on-road
and commuter vehicles to obtain on-road emission vehicles would be used to construct TBM Launch
factors. Estimated electricity consumption was used Shafts, the Main Artery Tunnels, Loop Stations, and
with eGRID emission factors from the RFCE Region Ventilation Shafts (Table 3.9-6).
to obtain indirect GHG emissions from power
generation used to power electric equipment. “EPA The estimated total GHG emissions during
Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories” construction of the Build Alterative would be
was used in conjunction with estimated diesel approximately 108,000 MMTCO2e over the
construction period. Production of AEVs would be
Page 219
Table 3.9-6: Estimated Project Construction GHG Emissions

Diesel Powered
Project Usage CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Emission Source
gallons metric tons per project
Back Hoe 678 6.90 0.00 0.00 6.90
Concrete/slurry truck 223,417 2,274.38 0.13 0.06 2,274.40
Crane 77,437 788.30 0.04 0.02 788.31
Drill 49,135 500.20 0.03 0.01 500.20
Excavator 65,116 662.88 0.04 0.02 662.89
Forklift 49,167 500.52 0.03 0.01 500.53
Generator 21,637 220.26 0.01 0.01 220.26
Loader 22,567 229.73 0.01 0.01 229.73
Pipejacking Equipment 19,089 194.33 0.01 0.00 194.33
Small Crane 57,101 581.29 0.03 0.01 581.30
Water Pump 10,032 102.13 0.01 0.00 102.13
Total diesel powered 6,060.92 0.34 0.15 6,060.97
Electric Powered
Emission Source
MWh metric tons per project
Bridge Crane 1,031 354.43 0.02 0.00 356.20
Compressor 3,668 1,261.52 0.08 0.01 1,267.82
Grout Plant 2,951 1,015.03 0.07 0.01 1,020.10
Locomotive charger 21,550 7,411.36 0.49 0.09 7,448.36
Office 820 281.95 0.02 0.00 283.36
Outdoor Lighting 2,460 845.86 0.06 0.01 850.08
Tunnel Lighting (Construction) 10,915 3,753.69 0.25 0.04 3,772.43
Tunnel Boring Machine 140,544 48,334.97 3.19 0.57 48,576.26
Ventilation fan 84,326 29,000.98 1.91 0.34 29,145.76
Water chiller 1,747 600.72 0.04 0.01 603.72
Total electric powered 270,011 92,860.53 6.12 1.10 93,324.10
On-road
Emission Source
miles metric tons per project
Delivery/haul trucks 6,785,304 7,480.39 0.22 0.06 7,502.46
Commuter Vehicles 2,686,400 894.59 1.62 0.59 1,095.90
Total on-road - 8,374.98 1.84 0.65 8,598.36
Total emissions per project - 106,926.44 8.30 1.91 107,983.44
Notes: CH4 = methane; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; N2O = nitrous oxide
Diesel-powered equipment emissions calculated using “EPA Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories”
diesel fuel emission factors (Table 1)
A 24.84 gallons of diesel per MWh consumed for diesel-powered equipment assumed in diesel-powered
GHG emissions calculations (EIA, 2018d)
Electric-powered equipment emissions calculated using EPA eGRID RFCE Region emission factors (Table 6)
On-road emissions calculated using MOVES2014a model run for Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Anne
Arundel County, Prince George’s County, and District of Columbia emission factors
Total Project emissions are amortized over 30 years, assumed here to be the typical lifetime of a project
Assumes the longest estimated Project construction length of 23 months
See Appendix B for complete results.
Page 220
a fraction of overall GHG emissions generated by estimated commuting mileage provided by TBC
implementation of the Loop System. (Table 3.9-7).
Permanent Impacts
The estimated total GHG emissions during
No-Build Alternative operation of the Build Alterative would be
Under the No-Build Alternative no permanent approximately 43,000 MMTCO2e per year.
impacts the GHG emissions would be anticipated.
To provide context, the MTA Purple Line project,
Build Alternative a 16.2-mile light rail, anticipates that its Preferred
The proposed Project would result in operational Alternative would emit approximately 9.4 million
GHG emissions from worker vehicles traveling to MMTCO2e annually in 2040 (MTA, 2013), or an
and from the site and electricity use from elevators, average 26,000 MMTCO2e per day. In 2040,
AEVs, lighting, and tunnel infrastructure. Operation ridership for the Purple Line is anticipated to be
of the Loop System is fully electric-powered, and 74,000 total daily riders, making GHG emission
these GHG emissions were estimated using the 0.35 MMTCO2e per day per rider. The proposed
EPA eGRID emission factors for the RFCE Region Project would emit 43,000 MMTCO2e per year
and estimated electricity consumption provided (an average of 118 MT CO2e per day) when
by TBC technical engineering staff. GHG operating at 1,000 total daily riders per direction
emissions from worker vehicles were estimated (2,000 daily riders total). The proposed Project
using MOVES2014a emission factors and would emit 0.12 MMTCO2e per day per rider,
and therefore would likely emit less GHGs per
Table 3.9-7: Estimated Annual Operational GHG Emissions

Electric Powered
Annual Usage CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Emission Source
MWh metric tons per project
Outdoor Lighting 27,301 9,389.07 0.62 0.11 9,435.94
Tunnel Lighting (Operation) 11,788 4,053.99 0.27 0.05 4,074.23
Loop Lift 39 13.52 0.00 0.00 13.58
Maintenance Lift 211 72.50 0.00 0.00 72.86
Tesla Supercharger 550 189.23 0.01 0.00 190.17
Ventilation Fan 44,271 15,225.52 1.00 0.18 15,301.52
Total electric powered 84,160 28,943.82 1.91 0.34 29,088.31
On-road
Annual Usage CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Emission Source
miles metric tons per project
Commuter Vehicles 73,000 11,026.55 19.93 7.26 13,507.90
Total - 39,970.37 21.84 7.60 42,596.21
Notes: CH4 = methane; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; N2O = nitrous oxide
Electric-powered equipment emissions calculated using EPA eGRID RFCE Region emission factors (Table 6)
On-road emissions calculated using MOVES2014a model run for Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Anne
Arundel County, Prince George’s County, and District of Columbia emission factors
Total Project emissions are amortized over 30 years, assumed here to be the baseline lifetime of the proposed
Project
Assumes the longest estimated Project construction length of 23 months
See Appendix B for complete results
Page 221
passenger than other transportation projects of who are developing and testing the safety features
similar scale. of the Loop technology.
3.9.4 Minimization and Mitigation 3.10.2 Regulatory Setting

Measures
Construction of the proposed Project is subject
Emissions generated during construction of the to regulations enforced by the OSHA. OSHA
Build Alternative would not exceed the general establishes standards relating to toxic chemicals
conformity de minimis thresholds for VOC, CO, and workplace safety hazards and enforces these
NOx, or PM2.5. The following emissions best standards along with its state partners to achieve its
practices would be put in place where practicable goal of ensuring a safe work environment. OSHA
to avoid unnecessary emissions during Project requires employers to provide a safe and healthful
construction: workplace for their employees. In the State of
• Wetting of dry ground and excavated soil Maryland, private-sector workers are protected
sites, if appropriate depending on weather under Maryland’s OSHA-approved state plan
and soil conditions; (U.S. Department of Labor, N.D.). TBC would
• Setting an off-road speed limit of 15 miles per follow OSHA regulations when considering public
hour or slower; health and safety regarding the proposed Project
and would perform routine safety monitoring and
• Stabilizing soil disturbed during construction
activities prior to being hauled off for disposal; training so that job site and worker practices follow
OSHA standards.
• Avoiding the unnecessary idling of construction
equipment and onsite vehicles;
The American Society of Safety Professionals
• Covering haul vehicles to minimize track-out (formerly the American Society of Safety Engineers
emissions; [ASSE]) serves as the secretariat for 11 American
• Minimizing the use of equipment larger than National Standards Institute (ANSI) committees
the necessary size for the task. responsible for more than 100 safety standards
(ASSP, N.D.). These ANSI/ASSE standards
Per the preceding discussion, no adverse effects to promote occupational health and safety by making
air quality and GHG emissions are anticipated from workplaces safer and aiming to reduce injuries,
the proposed Project. illnesses, and fatalities. The A10.34-2001 standard
is part of a series of safety standards formulated
3.10 Public Health and Safety by the Accredited Standards Committee on Safety
This section primarily examines the potential in Construction and Demolition Operations (A10).
public health and safety impacts on construction The goal of A10.34-2001 is to protect members
site workers and the public during construction of the public from hazards associated with
and operation of the proposed Project. In construction, maintenance, repair, and demolition
addition, the analysis of health effects is based of structures in public areas. Project constructors
on the analyses of transportation, air quality, are responsible for implementing the standard as
contaminated and hazardous materials, noise, appropriate to the project’s specific size, location,
water quality and utilities. and degree of potential hazard to the public.

Generally, FRA has jurisdiction over the safety of
Project-specific information used to support the railroads and may prescribe regulations, issue
analysis was provided by TBC engineering staff orders or waivers, or take other forms of regulatory
action, as necessary for railroad safety. At this time,
Page 222
FRA has not determined that the Loop Technology the Clean Air Act deals with noise pollution and
falls under FRA’s safety jurisdiction. In the future, noise abatement (Section 3.8).
if FRA makes such a determination, TBC may
Water Quality
be required to seek and obtain FRA regulatory
approval(s) before commencing operations. FRA Sediment, chemicals and other contaminants
has provided TBC with technical assistance to generated during construction operations have
safely develop Loop’s future operation. the potential to enter surface and ground water
and impact water quality (Sections 3.12 and 3.13).
Transportation Utilities
During construction, haul and delivery trips to and Several utilities provide electricity, gas, water
from construction sites would have the potential to and wastewater, and communication services
result in temporary adverse effects on local traffic within the location of the proposed Project. Some
conditions. Equipment movement would have the transmission and conveyance lines providing utility
potential to require temporary lane closures, if services are underground (Sections 3.16 and 3.19).
warranted at select construction sites (Section 3.1).
Air Quality
Short- and/or long-term exposure to air pollution temporary and permanent impacts to public health
has been associated with a wide range of human and safety.
health effects, including increased respiratory
symptoms and hospitalization for heart or lung
diseases. Toxic air pollutants may cause cancer or No-Build Alternative
other serious health effects, such as reproductive Under the No-Build Alternative no temporary,
effects or birth defects (Section 3.9). construction-related impacts to public health and
safety are anticipated.
Contaminated Sites and Hazardous
Materials
Build Alternative
Construction operations involving groundwork Potential temporary impacts of the Build Alternative
and the movement of soils hold the potential for are associated with construction of the Main Artery
exposure to toxic or hazardous materials from Tunnels, Loop Stations, TBM Launch Shafts and
both natural and manmade sources, such as radon Ventilations Shafts, and include exposure to noise,
gas or soils contaminated by previous industrial air pollutant emissions, chemicals, hazardous
activity. Construction sites may be the source of materials, radiant heat, and heavy machinery.
contaminants, such as brake fluid and oil from Potential construction-related risks include cuts,
construction vehicles and equipment, and heavy lacerations, or trauma requiring medical treatment
metals from the wearing of brake linings (Sections or hospitalization, or resulting in death. There are
3.11 and 3.16). health-related risks due to exposure to chemicals
and hazardous materials on site.
Noise
The EPA lists numerous adverse health effects that To minimize these construction-related risks,
may be directly linked to noise, such as stress project construction areas would be managed
related illnesses, high blood pressure, hearing loss in accordance with OSHA and construction site
and sleep disruption (U.S. EPA, Office of Noise regulations as found in 29 CFR 1926 ANSI/ASSE
Abatement and Control, 1981). Subchapter IV of A10.34-2001 (R2012) Protection of the Public
Page 223
on or Adjacent to Construction Sites. TBC would Build Alternative

consider pedestrian hazards, lighting, radiation, Studies have shown that long commute times
machinery and vehicles, falling objects, security, contribute to health risks associated with a sedentary
pollution, noise, and hazardous substances when lifestyle and may affect mood and mental health as
undergoing site design and safety monitoring for well (Bakrania et. al, 2017). The Loop would allow
compliance with A10.34-2001. A construction people to travel between Washington, D.C. and
health and safety plan would be developed Baltimore in approximately 15 minutes. Compared
prior to construction in compliance with OSHA to the current travel times (between 40 and 100
regulations and A10.23-2001 standards, and minutes, or longer) this would be a significant
implemented during construction, to promote the reduction, that has the potential to contribute to a
safety and protection of construction workers and reduction in the health risks associated with long
the public. commute times.
Public hazard control measures would be If FRA determines that it has jurisdiction, it would
implemented to ensure adequate construction then expect TBC to obtain proper regulatory
site access control, traffic routing, fencing and approvals prior to commencing operations. As
barricading, signage, and security. Construction part of that potential approval process, TBC would
sites would be fully fenced and secured and develop operational plans covering emergency
equipped with 24-hour video surveillance, response and security, in coordination with the FRA
preventing unauthorized access to the sites and and other identified stakeholders. Additionally, as
protecting the public from construction hazards. part of any potential regulatory approval process,
Gates to construction sites would be locked, and TBC would need to submit detailed information
if needed for extra security, fences would be demonstrating the safe operation of the system
equipped with barbed or razor wire. including topics such as system design, AEV drive
surface design, AEV design, and signaling. Project-
Construction management approaches would be specific safety features would be designed and
implemented in areas that have been identified implemented in accordance with the directives and
as having a potential to contain contamination requirements of the agencies having jurisdiction,
(Section 3.11). If contaminated soil is encountered and may include:
during construction operations, the soil would be • Ventilation Shafts that would serve as
contained and disposed of in accordance with emergency egress routes;
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) • Passenger restraint systems;
and USDOT regulations.
• Emergency lighting and backup power
sources;
Temporary transportation, noise, air quality,
hazardous material, water quality, and utility • Sensors to monitor environmental conditions,
impacts during construction have the potential to such as gases, pressure, and temperature;
affect public health and safety (Sections 3.1, 3.8, • Fire safety, detection, and suppression
3.9, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.16, and 3.19). measures, including the sensors;
• Communications systems;
• Video monitoring systems; and,
No Build Alternative
• Routine safety equipment inspection and
No permanent impacts to public health and safety
maintenance.
are anticipated under the No-Build Alternative.
Page 224
TBC would coordinate with the fire officials having Additional web-based research was conducted, as
jurisdiction within the Project Study Area, and other needed, to conduct site reconnaissance for potential
agencies with jurisdiction, to confirm that design areas of concern. Unless noted, the EDR Report is
of the Project provides sufficient means of access the source of the data provided in this section.
and egress to emergency responders in case of
an emergency. Through the implementation of This section identifies the sites containing
these safety features, no adverse effects to public contaminated materials that have the potential
health and safety are anticipated as a result of the to expose people and/or the environment to
operation of the Build Alternative. hazardous substances. It summarizes and defines
the regulatory databases that were searched and
the National Priority List Sites. Existing conditions
Measures
on these sites were further evaluated to focus
The proposed Project would adhere to existing on those sites with a recognized environmental
regulatory requirements, including applicable condition (REC) where hazardous substances are
OSHA construction regulations, ANSI/ASSE present or are likely to be present.
guidance, and RCRA regulations. Operational
safety design is ongoing and would be developed Project activities may cause the movement of
to comply with applicable regulations. contaminated or hazardous materials from areas
of ground disturbance or other construction activity
3.11 Contaminated Sites and into the soil, surface or groundwater, or may result
Hazardous Materials in the exposure of people to these potentially
A hazardous material is any substance or harmful substances.
combination of substances that has been
Hazmat Study Area
determined to be capable of 1) causing, or
significantly contributing to, an increase in For analysis purposes, two study areas were
mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, analyzed; the Project Study Area and a Hazmat
or incapacitating reversible illness; or 2) posing a Study Area. The Hazmat Study Area was defined
substantial hazard to human health and safety, or as the area within one-eighth mile (approximately
the environment when improperly treated, stored, 960 feet) from the outer edges of the Main Artery
transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Tunnel ROW.
Hazardous materials may include such substances
3.11.2 Regulatory Setting
as petroleum products, fuels, and solvents.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The proposed Project is subject to the requirements of
The analysis methodology consisted of reviewing the RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6901 et. seq.), which provides
existing data available in federal and state a national framework for the proper management
databases and records, which are fully discussed of hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste.
in two Radius Map Reports (covering the northern This law gave the EPA authority to develop
and southern portions of the proposed Project regulations, guidance and policies to ensure
area) prepared by Environmental Data Resources, the safe management and cleanup of solid and
Inc., herein referred to as the EDR Report (EDR, hazardous waste. Subtitle C of the RCRA focuses
2018a; EDR, 2018b). The EDR Reports represent on hazardous solid waste, where criteria are set
a consolidated review of existing data available for hazardous waste generators, transporters, and
in applicable environmental databases, including treatment, storage and disposal facilities.
federal, state, city, and tribal information sources.
Page 225
Comprehensive Environmental Response,

lamps, and mercury thermostats (DOEE, 2017). Any
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or
regulated waste generated within DOEE jurisdiction
“Superfund”)
is subject to the requirements under the RCRA.
Any spills of hazardous substances on the
proposed Project construction sites would be
subject to CERCLA requirements, which set Federal Regulatory Environmental Listing Sites
requirements for responding to spills of hazardous Review of the regulatory environmental listings
substances. CERCLA established prohibitions and produced by the EDR Report resulted in the
requirements concerning closed and abandoned identification of 293 listings within the Project Study
hazardous waste sites, provided liability for persons Area and a total of 528 listings within the Hazmat
responsible for releasing hazardous substances, Study Area (Table 3.11-1).
and established a trust fund to provide for cleanup
Regulatory Tracking Sites
when no responsible party could be identified.
Review of the regulatory tracking sites produced
Code of Maryland Regulations
by the EDR Report resulted in the identification of
The proposed Project must adhere to the COMAR, 438 sites within the Project Study Area and 1266
particularly Title 26, which corresponds to sites within the Hazmat Study Area. Table 3.11-2
regulations governing MDE. Specific subtitles provides a list of databases used for regulatory
regarding hazardous materials that may be tracking of hazardous materials, hazardous
applicable to the proposed Project include: material storage tanks, dry cleaners, permitted
• Subtitle 12 – Radiation Management, facilities, and compliance information. Identified
sites do not indicate that hazardous materials are
• Subtitle 13 – Disposal of Controlled Hazardous
Substances, being released, or other immediate concern. The
first five databases contain information of facilities
• Subtitle 14 – Hazardous Substances Response
that present a threat of release. The remaining
Plan,
provide information on facilities with permitted
• Subtitle 15 – Disposal of Controlled discharges and their compliance histories. If these
Hazardous Substances – Radioactive sites have a documented release of hazardous
Hazardous Substances, and
materials to the environment, these sites would be
• Subtitle 17 – Water Management. listed on databases summarized in Table 3.11-2.
D.C. Department of Energy and Environment National Priority List Sites
The D.C. Department of Energy and Environment The National Priority List (NPL) provides a list of
(DOEE) Hazardous Waste Program “protects sites of national priority among the known releases
human health and the environment from the hazards or threatened releases of hazardous substances,
of mismanaged waste, helps reduce the amount pollutants, or contaminants throughout the U.S.
of waste generated, and ensure that generated and its territories. The NPL is intended primarily to
wastes are managed in an environmentally sound guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant
manner” (DOEE, 2018). The DOEE follows the further investigation under the Superfund Program.
requirements under the RCRA for management NPL sites are classified into existing, proposed,
of hazardous materials, which may include used and delisted. Table 3.11-3 and Figure 3.11-1
oil, dry cleaning fluid, oil-based paint and paint summarizes and describes the location, status, and
thinners, some concentrated cleaning products, contaminates of concern (COC) for the NPL-listed
most aerosol products, spoiled gasoline, car or sites within the Hazmat Study Area.
forklift batteries, rechargeable batteries, fluorescent
Page 226
Table 3.11 1: Regulatory Environmental Listing Site Summary

Sites Within Sites Within
Site Type Definition Project Hazmat
Study Area* Study Area*
The NPL is a subset of Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and
National Priorities List
Liability Information System (CERCLIS) and 2 0
(NPL)
identifies over 1,200 sites for priority cleanup
under the Superfund Program.
A site that has been proposed for listing on the
Proposed NPL NPL through the issuance of a proposed rule 0 0
in the Federal Register.
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes
the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites
Delisted NPL 0 1
from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR
300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL
where no further response is appropriate.
Federally owned or operated facilities
that manage hazardous waste or from
Federal Facility 0 0
which hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants have been or may be released.
Tracks hazardous waste sites, potentially
hazardous waste sites, and remedial activities
Superfund Enterprise
performed in support of EPA’s Superfund
Management System 2 3
Program across the United States. The list was
(SEMS)
formerly known as CERCLIS, renamed to SEMS
by the EPA in 2015.
Tracks sites that have no further interest under
the Federal Superfund Program based on
SEMS-ARCHIVE available information. The list was formerly 3 7
known as the CERCLIS-NFRAP, renamed to
SEMS ARCHIVE by the EPA in 2015.
Identifies hazardous waste handlers with
Corrective Action
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 3 1
Report (CORRACT)S
(RCRA) corrective action activity.
RCRA-Treatment A hazardous waste management facility that
Storage Disposal receives hazardous wastes for treatment, 2 1
Facility (TSDF) storage or disposal.
MD State Hazardous State hazardous waste site records are the
0 4
Waste Site (SHWS) states’ equivalent to CERCLIS.
A discrete area of land or excavation (facility)
that receives household waste. Facility may also
MD or D.C. Solid receive other types of nonhazardous wastes,
Waste Facility /Landfill such as commercial solid waste, nonhazardous 1 1
(SWF/LF) sludge, conditionally exempt small quantity
generator waste, and industrial nonhazardous
solid waste.
MD Solid Waste
A listing of recycling facilities. 0 2
Recycling (SWRCY)
Page 227
Table 3.11-1: Regulatory Environmental Listing Site Summary (continued)

Cases monitored by the Oil Control Program
(OCP). These cases can be leaking underground
MD OCPCASES storage tanks and other belowground releases, 48 167
leaking aboveground storage tanks, spills and
inspections.
In 1999, the Department of the Environment
stopped adding new sites to its Recovery
MD HIST LUST Sites Database. Current leaking underground 3 15
storage tank information may be found in the
OCPCASES database.
The VCP supports a state’s brownfield program
MD and D.C. designed to address sites that are burdened
Voluntary Cleanup by real or reasonably perceived environmental 5 19
Program (VCP) issues that may hamper real estate transactions
or redevelopment.
State brownfields that have received federal
funding to conduct assessments. A brownfield
MD and D.C. is a property, the expansion, redevelopment,
7 20
BROWNFIELDS or reuse of which may be complicated by the
presence or potential presence of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant.
Brownfields are real property, the expansion,
redevelopment, or reuse of which may be
US BROWNFIELDS complicated by the presence or potential 5 17
presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant,
or contaminant.
A listing of sites with institutional controls
in place. Institutional controls include
administrative measures, such as groundwater
US, MD, and D.C. INST use restrictions, construction restrictions,
6 11
CONTROL property use restrictions, and post remediation
care requirements intended to prevent
exposure to contaminants remaining on site.
Typically includes Deed Restrictions.
Emergency Response
Records and stores information on reported
Notification System 37 38
releases of oil and hazardous substances.
(ERNS)
Hazardous Materials Contains hazardous material spill incidents
Information Reporting reported to the Department of Transportation 28 21
System (HMIRS) (USDOT).
Hazardous Waste
A complete list of the Federal Agency
Compliance Docket 1 0
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Facilities.
Listing (Docket HWC)
The listing includes locations of Formerly Used
Formerly Used Defense Sites properties where the US Army
1 0
Defense Sites (FUDS) Corps of Engineers is actively working or would
take necessary cleanup actions.
This data set consists of federally owned or
administered lands, administered by DOD, that
Department of
have any area equal to or greater than 640 0 0
Defense (DOD)
acres of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands. continued on following page
Page 228
Table 3.11-1: Regulatory Environmental Listing Site Summary (continued)

EPA maintains a "Watch List" to facilitate
dialogue between EPA, state and local
environmental agencies on enforcement
EPA WATCH LIST 0 1
matters relating to facilities with alleged
violations identified as either significant or
high priority.
Database includes facilities expected to need
corrective action by 2020. Inclusion in the
2020 Correction
2020 Universe does not necessarily imply 1 0
Action
failure on the part of a facility to meet its RCRA
obligations.
ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy
Record of Decision
at an NPL (Superfund) site containing technical 3 0
(ROD)
and health information to aid in the cleanup.
Active Mines and Mineral Processing Plant
operations for commodities monitored by the
US MINES 0 0
Minerals Information Team of the US Geologic
Survey (USGS).
An inventory of land and water impacted by
ABANDONED MINES 0 0
past mining (primarily coal mining) operations.
Unexploded Ordnance
A listing of unexploded ordnance site locations. 0 0
Sites (UXO)
Records of coal gas plants, MGPs. The byproduct
from this process was frequently disposed of
EDR Manufactured
directly at the plant site and can remain or 0 1
Gas Plants (MGP)
spread slowly, serving as a continuous source
of soil and groundwater contamination.
MD Recovered
Provides a list of SHWS incidents derived from
Government Archive
historical databases and includes many records
State Hazardous 0 4
that no longer appear in current government
Waste Facilities List
list.
(RGA HWS)
MD Recovered
Provides a list of landfills derived from historical
Government Archive
databases and includes many records that no 2 0
Solid Waste Facilities
longer appear in current government lists.
List (RGA LF)
MD and D.C.
Recovered Provides a list of LUST incidents derived from
Government Archive historical databases and includes many records
133 191
Leaking Underground that no longer appear in current government
Storage Tank (RGA lists.
LUST)**
LEAD SMELTERS A listing of former lead smelter site locations. 0 3
* Because the above sites are detailed within two EDR reports, some NPL-related sites were duplicated in
the north and south EDR reports. The NPL-related site counts have been adjusted in the above table to
eliminate duplication of sites. Based on review of the EDR reports and plotted maps, it is not anticipated
that other sites are duplicated between reports. Duplicate sites may exist within the EDR report based on
how it was reported and indexed. The counts for these types of sites have not been adjusted in the above
table. For example, 1801 Annapolis Road has 10 ERNS listings; 1501, 1525, and 1551 Russell Street is listed
twice under MD INST CONTROLS; etc.
** DC RGA LUST sites were not tallied within the South EDR Report. The number of sites is based on the results
provided by EDR within an Excel spreadsheet.
Page 229
Table 3.11-2: Regulatory Tracking Sites Summary

RCRA-Large Quantity
Generator (LQG), Small
Large quantity generator, small quantity
Quantity Generator
generator, conditionally exempt small
(SQG), Conditionally
quantity generator, and no longer regulated 55 164
Exempt Small Quantity
RCRA facilities that generate, transport, store,
Generator (CESQG),
treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste.
Non-Generators/NLR
(NonGen/NLR)
MD/DC/Virginia
Underground Storage Registered USTs 79 205
Tank (UST)
FEMA UST A listing of all FEMA owned UST. 0 0
USTs through 1996 (in MD) and 1999 (in
MD/D.C. HISTORICAL UST D.C.) that may or may not be included on the 43 134
current UST inventory.
MD DRYCLEANERS A listing of registered dry-cleaning facilities. 0 5
Aerometric Information
A listing of permitted facilities and emissions
Retrieval System Facility 29 92
information.
Subsystem
Contains both facility information and
Facility Index System
’pointers’ to other sources that contain more 109 321
(FINDS)
detail.
Supports the information needs of the
national enforcement and compliance
Integrated Compliance
program as well as the unique needs of the 22 55
Information System
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program.
Enforcement and Provides integrated compliance and
Compliance History enforcement information for about 800,000 91 255
Information regulated facilities nationwide.
US and MD NPDES A listing of wastewater permit locations. 10 35
*: Because the above sites are detailed within two EDR reports, some NPL-related sites were duplicated in
the north and south EDR reports. The NPL-related site counts have been adjusted in the above table to
eliminate duplication of sites. Based on review of the EDR reports and plotted maps, it is not anticipated
that other sites are duplicated between reports. Duplicate sites may exist within the EDR report based on
how it was reported and indexed. The counts for these types of sites have not been adjusted in the above
table. For example, 1801 Annapolis Road has 10 ERNS listings; 1501, 1525, and 1551 Russell Street is listed
twice under MD INST CONTROLS; etc.
Page 230
Table 3.11-3: NPL Sites within the Hazmat Study Area

Site 1: Fort George G. Meade (FGGM) - MD9210020567
2250 Rock Avenue, Fort George G. Meade, MD
Location: The FGGM site is located in northwestern Anne Arundel County, Maryland, along the Little Patuxent
and Patuxent Rivers, midway between Baltimore, Maryland and Washington, D.C. FGGM has been a permanent
Army installation on site since 1917. Site activities include materials storage and waste disposal activities;
Contaminated wetlands, soil, sediment, surface water and groundwater with hazardous chemicals were
identified at the site. Remedial investigations and remedy construction are underway.
Status: Remedial investigations and remedy construction are underway. EPA has selected remedies for five
of the site’s operable units (OUs). Remedies for those OUs include long-term groundwater monitoring; land
use restrictions; sweeps for and proper disposal of unexploded ordnance; monitored natural attenuation of
groundwater contamination; removal of source area soil; and injections to treat contaminated groundwater.
Maps on the DENIX website show the BW Parkway as the northwest boundary for the UXO concern. These
maps identify potential UXO areas at FGGM that adjoin or are located southeast of the BW Parkway as FGGM
82, FGGM-002-R-01, and FGGM-001-R-01 (U.S. Department of the Army, 2007). Each of these three areas have
a score of “MRSPP evaluation no longer required.” FGGM-002-R-01 and FGGM-001-R-01 specifically state that
no land use restrictions or land use access controls are required (DENIX, N.D.). A ProPublica interactive web
publication mapped 56 hazardous sites at FGGM. The “high risk” areas are located approximately southeast
of the Site (ProPublica, 2017). Based on topography, it appears that groundwater is moving away from the
Site. Source areas are shown in the U.S. Department of the Army FGGM Final Site Inspection map (2007), the
ProPublica Fort George G. Mead map (2017), and EPA Superfund Records of Decision published December 30,
1998 and July 20, 1999 to be southeast of the Site. Based on this information, it appears that the UXO areas
have been cleared; however, this needs to be confirmed with the proper authorities. Further information is
needed to determine the extent of groundwater contamination at this site.
COCs: 1-METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-p-DIOXIN (TCDD), 2-A-4,6-DNT, 4-AMI-
NO-2,6-DINITROTOLUENE, 9H-FLUORENE, ACENAPHTHENE, ACENAPHTHYLENE, ACETOPHENONE, AL-
PHA-CHLORDANE, ANTHRACENE, ARSENIC, BENZENE, BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE, BENZO(GHI)PERYLENE,
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE, BENZO[A]ANTHRACENE, BENZO[A]PYRENE, BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE,
CADMIUM, CHLORDANE, CHLOROETHENE (VINYL CHLORIDE), CHLOROFORM, CHROMIUM, CHRYSENE,
COBALT, DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE, DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE, FLUORANTHENE, GAMMA-BHC,
HEPTACHLOR, HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE, HEXAHYDRO-1,3,5-TRINITRO-1,3,5-TRIAZINE (RDX), INDENO(1,2,3-CD)
PYRENE, LEAD, MERCURY, METALS, METHANE, NAPHTHALENE, PCE, PHENANTHRENE, PYRENE, SELENIUM,
TCE, TETRACHLOROETHENE, THALLIUM, TNT, TRICHLOROETHENE, and UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE (UXO).
Databases: NPL, SEMS, CORRACTS, RCRA-TSDF, RCRA-LQG, US ENG CONTROLS, US INST CONTOL, ROD
Site 2: Beltsville Agricultural Research Center - MD0120508940
10300 Baltimore Avenue, Building 312C, Beltsville, MD
Location: the 6,500-acre Beltsville Agricultural Research Center site is located in Prince George’s County,
Maryland at 10300 Baltimore Avenue, Baltimore. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has owned and
operated the area as a research park for soil, water, air, plant and animal sciences since 1910. Waste disposal
activities at several former landfills and other disposal areas contaminated soil, groundwater and surface water
with hazardous chemicals. Cleanup of some site areas is complete; remedial investigations and feasibility
studies are underway at several other site areas.
Status: Cleanup has included several removal actions, or short-term cleanups, to address immediate threats
to human health and the environment. Removal actions between 1993 and 2011 included off-site disposal
of 70,000 tons of waste from an on-site landfill, and the cleanup of PCB and pesticide-contaminated soils.
Several other sites are under investigation and may be subject to further removal actions.
COCs: 1,1-DCE, TCE, TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE, and cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE.
Databases: NPL, SEMS, CORRACTS, RCRA-LQG, US ENG CONTROLS, US INST CONTROLS, ROD, RAATS
Page 231
Figure 3.11-1: Hazardous Materials/Contaminated Sites (1 of 4)
Page 232
Page 233
Page 234
Page 235
Sites with a Recognized Environmental

Build Alternative
Condition
The Build Alternative may require the demolition or
Sites with the potential for large-scale contaminant alteration of buildings. Asbestos and lead-based
migration, known existing contamination, or open paint may be encountered during these activities.
cases of past releases of a hazardous material If present, materials containing asbestos and lead
affecting the subsurface are defined as REC would be handled in accordance with industry-
(Table 3.11-4). These sites were identified based standard management procedures during the
upon the review of the EDR Report. The sites listed demolition of buildings or removal of structures
include sites with the potential to have subsurface to minimize the risk of exposing people, soil, or
contamination, including landfill/disposal, surface and ground water to these contaminants.
Brownfields, LUSTs, Institutional Control, and VCP
sites. The NPL or “Superfund” sites are provided Hazardous materials, such as contaminated
on Table 3.11-3. groundwater and/or soil, may be encountered
during excavation and construction of the Build
Each of the MD OCPCASES, BROWNFIELDS, and Alternative. As part of the design features of the
SEMS-ARCHIVE listings were reviewed. However, proposed Project, TBC would conduct soil and
sites with a closed status or a no further remedial groundwater sampling near sites with known
action planned status are presumed to have been groundwater and/or soil contamination prior
remediated in compliance with regulatory standards. to beginning construction to minimize the risk of
Table 3.11-4 provides a list of sites that are known unanticipated discovery of hazardous materials or
to have resulted in subsurface contamination. Sites vapor intrusion from contaminated groundwater,
in UST or other databases used solely for tracking should they be encountered, such that steps may
sites without a reported release have the potential be taken to properly handle and dispose of
to result in the release of hazardous materials contaminants. Sampling would help determine
due to construction of the subsurface of the Build the extent and profile of contamination in the
Alternative but are not included below because the subsurface and if it potentially affects the proposed
presence of contaminants is unconfirmed. Project where excavation and dewatering activities
may occur.
Figure 3.11-1 show a map of all NPL Sites, Delisted
NPL Sites, and REC Sites within the Project Study
Area and Hazmat Study Area.

temporary and permanent impacts of the proposed
Project due to contaminated sites and hazardous
materials within the Hazmat Study Area.

No-Build Alternative
No temporary or construction-related impacts due
to contaminated sites and hazardous materials are
anticipated from the No-Build Alternative.
Page 236
Table 3.11-4: REC Sites Summary

Map
Site Address Type of Site Concern
ID
Groundwater and soil contamination
The 1400, 1500, and 1600 blocks
MD BROWNFIELDS including chlorinated solvents, petroleum,
of Warner Street, Baltimore, MD
(#MD1274 and PAH, metals, and pesticides. A Health and
(aka 1411, 1501, 1601, 1633
1,2 #MD1425), MD LRP, Safety Plan is required for excavation
Warner Street; 1551 Russel Street;
MD INST CONTROL, beneath the cap. ICs are recorded at Liber
2104 WO)
MD VCP, other 17534, Folio 335 and Liber 17561, Folio
(within Study Area)
271-288 and Folio 289-306).
MD OCPCASES, A 2015 incident remains open with no
1530 Russell Street,
US AIRS, FINDS, additional details (facility ID 15-0433BC,
3 Baltimore, MD
ECHO, MD UST, MD registration number 20162). Further
(within Study Area)
Financial Assurance information is needed.
MD HIST LUST,
MD RGA LUST, MD
610 W West Street, Open case (92-1678BC), which includes
UST, MD Financial
4 Baltimore, MD ongoing groundwater monitoring with
Assurance, MD
(within Study Area) sampling of monitoring wells only.
OCPCASES, and MD
HIST UST
IC issued in 2017 to restrict groundwater
MD INST CONTROL,
use and industrial land use, and includes
2101 Russell Street, MD LRP, MD
an excavation notification restriction and an
5 Baltimore, MD OCPCASES, MD
excavation material disposal requirement.
(within Study Area) UST, MD Financial
Soil contamination of metals, petroleum,
Assurance
and PAHs.
This hazardous waste treatment and
CORRACTS, disposal facility was assigned a medium
RCRA-TSDF, corrective action priority. Facility imported,
RCRA-LQG, MD transported, treated, stored, and disposed,
OCPCASES, MD UST, including: batteries, pesticides, thermostats,
US FIN ASSUR, 2020 ignitable and reactive wastes, arsenic,
1910 Russell Street,
COR ACTION, MD metals, chlorinated volatile compounds,
6 Baltimore, MD
Financial Assurance, solvents, oils, cyanide, acids, spent
(within Study Area)
RI, WI, PA, NY and materials, petroleum products, sludges,
NJ MANIFEST, furans, and various others. In 2010,
MD NPDES, ERNS, migration of contamination groundwater
HMIRS, MD ENG was under control as well as current human
CONTROLS, exposures. In 2011, the facility was issued a
no further action.
Recovered government archive solid
MD RGA LF, waste facility. Paid $77,500 penalty to
1801 Annapolis Road,
RCRA-LQG, FINDS, the Maryland Clean Air Fund for mercury
7 Baltimore, MD
ECHO, NJ and NY emissions (MDE, 2011). It is unknown if
(within Study Area)
Manifest, ERNS any type of subsurface contamination is
associated with this facility.
IC specified commercial and industrial
7135 Standard Drive, MD OCPCASES, MD
land use restrictions, groundwater use
8 Hanover, MD INST CONTROL, MD
restrictions, and excavated material
(within Study Area) VCP, MD LRP
disposal requirements.
300 New York Avenue, NE,
NFRAP-Site does not qualify for the NPL
9 Washington, D.C. SEMS-ARCHIVE
based on existing information.
(within Study Area)
Page 237
Table 3.11-4: REC Sites Summary (continued)

Map
ID
SEMS-ARCHIVE,
RCRA-CESQG,
3501 New York Avenue, ERNS, D.C. UST, D.C. NFRAP-Site does not qualify for the NPL
10 Washington, D.C. RGA LUST, FINDS, based on existing information. LUSTs at
(within Study Area) DOCKET HWC, ECHO, Building 19 in 2004 and 2005.
NJ MANIFEST, PA
MANIFEST,
SEMS-ARCHIVE,
TSCA, RCRA-SQG,
MD SWHS, MD
OCPCASES, MD HIST
LUST, MD HIST UST, NFRAP status for SEMS-ARCHIVE listing.
2800 52nd Ave, ICIS, US AIRS, FINDS, MD OCPCASES and MD HIST LUST have
11 Hyattsville, MD ECHO, MD AIRS, NY closed status. Hazardous waste and landfill
(52 feet to WNW) MANIFEST, MD RGA site. Due to volume of activity and landfill,
LUST, MD LRP, MD a records review is recommended.
NPDES, MD Financial
Assurance, MD
RGA HWS, RMP, PA
MANIFEST
Generated mercury, benzene, solvents, etc.
RCRA-SQG, ERNS, type wastes. ERNS listing was for 5,000
1818 New York Avenue, NE
MLTS, FINDS, ECHO, gallons of material pumped from a flooded
12 Washington, D.C.
NY MANIFEST, D.C. sump to an incorrect area. Material on
(within Study Area)
UST, D.C. HIST UST, paved surface evaporated. Nothing done
about material in storm sewer.
LUST listing in 2004-2012. Three USTs in
DC RGA LUST,
use (2 5,000-gallon and 1 4,000-gallon).
515 New York Avenue, D.C. UST, ECHO,
Nine tanks permanently out of use. ERNS-
13 Washington, D.C. RCRA-CESQG, NJ and
4,000-gallons of diesel spilled on concrete;
(within Study Area) PA MANIFESTS, ICIS,
cleanup completed. ERNS and HMIRS: 1
ERNS, HMIRS
gallon of fuel spilled and cleaned up.
In 1993, a storage tank with a broken pipe
released 4,000 gallons of ferric sulfate,
ERNS, MD
2611 Pepsi Place, which reached water. A motor/lube oil tank
OCPCASES,
14 Cheverly, MD was closed in 2007; a release and cleanup
MD NPDES, PA
(within Study Area) are noted. Eight tanks are permanently out
MANIFESTS
of use (6 10,000-gallon; 1 4,000-gallon, and
1 500-gallon).
LUST listing in 2004-2012. ERNS: Shell sold
1944 Bladenburg Road NE,
site to KFC which was building a restaurant
15 Washington, D.C. DC RGA LUST, ERNS
when it found and ruptured an oil-water
(within Study Area)
separator and tank.
Two MD OCPCASES listed with closed
3001 Hospital Drive,
MD OCPCASES, MD status. However, the MD HIST LUST case is
16 Boiler Room, Cheverly, MD
HIST LUST open and requires sampling of monitoring
(within Study Area)
wells only.
300 Morse Street, NE,
Soil and groundwater contamination: TPH,
17 Washington, D.C. DC VCP
TCE, and PCE. Active site.
(within Study Area)
Page 238

Map
ID
LUST listing in 2004-2012. Historically, 5
DC RGA LUST, D.C.
LUST cases were associated with this site
BROWNFIELDS,
1401 New York Avenue, NE, as well as a bulk fuel plant and trucking
RCRA-NONGEN/NLR,
18 Washington, D.C. terminal in the 1940s and a gasoline station
FINDS, ECHO, US
(within Study Area) in the 1960s. Rail spurs were historically
BROWNFIELDS, D.C.
located on both the northern and southern
UST,
portion of the property.
155 O Street, NE, Privately owned. Developed / voluntary
19 Washington, D.C. DC BROWNFIELDS remediation action program (VRAP). No
(within Study Area) further details provided.
Privately owned. “VCP ESA Initiat.” Sanborn
and Historical Aerial Photographs identified
2132 West Virginia,
the usage of the subject property as
20 Washington, D.C. DC BROWNFIELDS
ranging from undeveloped land with
(within Study Area)
gasoline stations to parking lot and used
auto parts company.
2002 Fenwick Street,
Privately owned. No further details
provided.
(within Study Area)
LUST listing in 2004-2012. Three USTs
permanently out of use (2 15,000-gallon
diesel and 1 1,000 gallon waste oil). Site
was formerly occupied by a bus repair and
US BROWNFIELDS,
storage yard operated by Greyhound Bus
1249-1345 New York Avenue, NE, D.C. BROWNFIELDS,
22, Lines, which operated a repair garage. Two
Washington, D.C. FINDS, D.C. UST,
23 gasoline stations formerly occupied the site
(within Study Area) RCRA NONGEN /
and at least 10 USTs were located on site,
NLR, NY MANIFEST,
four of which may be abandoned-in-place.
The historical use of the site was for bus
repair and painting which would include
the use of chlorinated solvents.
Was part of the Philadelphia, Baltimore
1941-2201 New York Avenue, NE, Washington Railroad Company property
24, US BROWNFIELDS,
Washington, D.C. from around 1913 until around 1959.
25 FINDS
(within Study Area) Unknown media affected and it is unknown
if cleanup would be required.
DC RGA
1501 Eckington Place, NE,
LUST, HMIRS, LUST listing 2004-2012. Two USTs currently
Washington, D.C.
26 RCRA-CESQG, NY in use (2,500 and 10,000-gallon diesel
(within Study Area)
and NJ MANIFESTS, USTs).
FINDS, ECHO,
6551 Riverdale Road,
LUST listing in 1995-1999. No further
28 Riverdale, MD MD RGA LUST
information provided.
(within Study Area)
29, 805 and 809 Barkwood Court,801,
IC issued in 2005 with commercial
30, 803, and 80A Barkwood Court MD INST CONTROL,
and industrial land use controls, and
31, Lithicum, MD MD VCP, MD LRP
groundwater use restrictions.
32 (29 feet to WNW)
ERNS, SSTS, US Groundwater contaminated with
1809 Bayard Street,
BROWNFIELDS, RCRA chlorinated constituents. Soil with metals
33 Baltimore, MD
NONGEN / NLR, US and PAH. Slopes to southeast, toward the
(18 feet to NW)
AIRS, FINDS, ECHO site.
Page 239

Map
ID
MD UST, MD
Groundwater use restriction, industrial
Financial Assurance,
710 West Ostend Street, and commercial land use restrictions, and
MD OCPCASES, PA
34 Baltimore, MD excavated material disposal requirements
Manifest, MD INST
(22 feet to WNW) in place. Known petroleum and chlorinated
CONTROL, MD VCP,
groundwater contamination.
MD LRP
SEMS-ARCHIVE,
US BROWNFIELDS,
1900 Bladensburg Road, NE, ECHO, FINDS, RCRA NFRAP. Known petroleum groundwater
35 Washington, D.C. NONGEN / NLR, NJ contamination. Confirm contamination is
(62 feet to S) MANIFEST, D.C. UST, not present in subsurface.
D.C. BROWNSFIELD,
D.C. HIST UST
2225 Lawrence Avenue, NE, DC SWF/LF, Solid waste facility/landfill license
36 Washington, D.C. RCRA-CESQG, FINDS, expired on 11/30/2016. Records review is
(84 feet to N) ECHO, ICIS recommended.
RCRA-CESQG,
An open 2009 event is listed under MD
US AIRS, FINDS,
6631 Riverdale Road, OCPCASES. Groundwater contamination
ECHO, MD UST, MD
37 Riverdale, MD is noted. Area slopes to the north /
Financial Assurance,
(125 feet to E) northwest towards the site. Records review
MD OCPCASES, MD
is recommended.
HIST UST, MD NPDES
MD OCPCASES, MD
Financial Assurance, Noted groundwater contamination, cleanup
4820 Frolich Lane, MD HIST LUST, MD and case closed status. However, MD HIST
38 Hyattsville, MD HIST UST, RCRA LUST is an open case with monitoring from
(29 feet to SE) NONGEN/NLR, sampling wells only. No active remediation.
FINDS, ECHO, MD Records review is recommended.
RGA LUST, HMIRS
6181 Annapolis Road, MD OCPCASES, MD MD HIST LUST is an open case with
39 Landover Hills, MD HIST LUST, MD RGA monitoring from sampling wells. Slopes to
(182 feet to SE) LUST the east, toward the site.
MD OCPCASES, MD
5011 Creston St, MD HIST LUST is an open case with
HIST LUST, US AIRS,
40 Hyattsville, MD monitoring from sampling wells. Slopes to
FINDS, ECHO, MD
(28 feet to SE) the southwest, toward the site.
RGA LUST
2421 Kenilworth, MD HIST LUST is an open case with
41 Prince George’s County, MD MD HIST LUST monitoring from sampling wells. Slopes to
(21 feet to SE) the southwest, towards the site.
12607 Laurel Bowie Road, MD HIST LUST is an open case with
MD HIST LUST, MD
42 Laurel, MD monitoring from sampling wells. Slopes to
RGA LUST
(126 feet to NWW) the northeast, towards the site.
Groundwater contamination. Commercial
2510 Schuster Drive, MD INST CONTROL, and industrial use restrictions and
43 Hyattsville, MD MD VCP, MD NPDES, excavation notification restrictions and
(63 feet to ESE) MD RGA LUST vapor barrier. Slopes to the southwest,
towards the site.
US BROWNFIELDS,
1900 Gallaudet Street, NE, Slopes toward the site. Unknown if
D.C. BROWNFIELDS,
44 Washington, D.C. groundwater contamination is present.
RCRA NONGEN/NLR,
(80 feet to SSE) Recommend file review.
FINDS, ECHO
Page 240

Map
ID
301-315 R Street, NE,
Developed / other site. Further information
is needed.
(86 feet to NNW)
Notices of violation noted. Recommend
9848 Mallard Drive, MD DRYCLEANERS,
file review to confirm no groundwater
46 Laurel, MD ICIS, US AIRS, FINDS,
contamination. Variable terrain. Could
(182 feet to ESE) ECHO
potentially slope towards the site.
A higher frequency and potentially higher the proposed Project. Materials to be used during
concentrations of contaminants are anticipated construction include biodegradable foaming
in urban/industrialized areas nearer to the urban agents that would be injected ahead of the face
centers of Baltimore and Washington, D.C. Most of the EPB TBM to increase stability of soft ground
of the construction would occur approximately materials, lubricants, and greases for the tunnel
30 feet or more below surface. Therefore, it is boring machine, and lubricants and diesel fuel for
relevant to determine subterranean conditions for off-road construction equipment. These materials
the Build Alternative through records collection would be used within the footprint of the TBM and
and review, and/or subsurface sampling. Based would be used in concentrations such that soil
on a review of existing available records and contamination would not occur. The implementation
data, substantial contact with soil contaminants of the SMP would ensure that excavated soils are
or hazardous materials is not anticipated for most tested for contamination and ensure that proper
of the Build Alternative alignment. Sampling and procedures would be followed for the testing,
analysis of soil and groundwater (if present) would handling, storage, transport, and disposal of soil
occur for nearby sites with known groundwater encountered during excavation activities. The
and/or soil contamination to ensure that potential use of these materials would be managed using
contaminants or hazardous materials impacts Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the safe
are minimized, and that soils are transported to handling, storage, and disposal of these materials
disposal facilities accordingly. during construction of the Build Alternative in
accordance to the RCRA and DOT regulations.
To minmize the potential for public health effects, BMPs may include: developing established
a Soil Management Plan (SMP) will be prepared waste accumulation areas, using storage lockers
and implemented that defines response actions for flammable materials, using primary and/or
to be followed for addressing contaminated soils secondary containment, preventing accumulation
potentially encountered.The SMP would outline of waste, maintaining access to and within stored
the procedures for the testing, handling, storage, waste areas, and properly documenting the
transport, and disposal of soil encountered during disposal of generated waste.
construction of the proposed Project. The SMP
would address proper dewatering procedures,
if applicable, and would describe handling and No Build Alternative
disposal of groundwater in accordance applicable Under the No-Build Alternative, no permanent
regulations (Section 2.3.1.8). impacts or exposure of hazardous materials are
anticipated under the No-Build Alternative.
Hazardous materials would not be used in
hazardous concentrations during construction of
Page 241
Build Alternative Soil Management Plan – A SMP would be

Potentially hazardous materials used during developed to outline the procedures for the
operation of the Loop may include oils, refrigerant, testing, handling, storage, transport, and
and/or coolant. However, use of these materials disposal of soil encountered during construction
would be restricted to Maintenance Terminal areas of the proposed Project. The SMP would address
for the maintenance of AEVs. These materials would proper dewatering procedures in areas where
be properly managed using BMPs for the safe contaminated groundwater is encountered, if
handling, storage, and disposal of these materials applicable. The SMP would describe handling and
would be in accordance to the RCRA and DOT disposal of groundwater in accordance applicable
regulations. BMPs may include: developing regulations, as necessary.
established waste accumulation areas, using
storage lockers for flammable materials, using 3.12 Surface and Ground Waters
primary and/or secondary containment, preventing 3.12.1 Data Sources and Methodology
accumulation of waste, maintaining access to
and within stored waste areas, and properly The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National
documenting the disposal of generated waste. Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (2018) was used to
identify and characterize surface water resources.
GIS software was used to identify surface waters
Measures
within the Project Study Area.
Impact minimization measures would be
implemented through stages of the proposed Watershed and groundwater well data were
Project to limit the potential for adverse effects used from the MDE website (MDE, 2018b). The
from hazardous materials or contaminated sites. USGS NHD is an online database that provides
The following measures would be implemented information on the United States’ drainage network,
to minimize potential exposure and risk to human including rivers, stream, lakes, coastline, and other
health, safety, and the environment relating to water features. The database provides information
contaminated sites and hazardous materials: on watershed boundaries. MDE provides data
and mapping resources on watersheds specific to
Preliminary Site Investigation – File reviews would the State. Note that the MDE database provided
be conducted to better assess the distribution of for the identification of water resources for the
contaminants and inform subsurface investigation. Project Study Area, including those areas within
Prior to final design of the proposed Project, Washington, D.C.
sampling and analysis of soil and groundwater
(if present) would be conducted near sites with To analyze potential impacts to surface and
known groundwater and/or soil contamination groundwater resources due to the proposed
of potential concern. Environmental sampling Project, data from the sources were used along
and testing would be conducted for geotechnical with GIS software to identify waters near the
borings. These measures would help determine proposed Project. The resources identified were
the presence, extent, profile, and concentrations analyzed by type of water resource, distance to
of contaminants in the subsurface that may be the Project, and depth to groundwater to determine
encountered during construction of the Build if construction and operational activities would
Alternative. If contaminants are identified in have an impact on those resources.
significant quantities, safety training/PPE and/or
engineering controls would be put in place.
Page 242

District of Columbia Water Pollution Control
Clean Water Act Act, and the District of Columbia Stormwater
The CWA is the primary federal statute governing Management and Soil Erosion and Sediment
discharge of pollutants into waters of the United Control regulations, described below.
States, which are aquatic habitats and special
aquatic sites including wetlands, lakes, rivers, Section 403 of the CWA was established
streams, intermittent streams, and ponds. under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899 and prohibits the unauthorized
The principal goal of the CWA is to establish water obstruction or alteration of any navigable
quality standards to restore and maintain the water of the United States. Construction of a
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the structure in or over a navigable water of the
nation’s waters by preventing point (concentrated U.S. must be accompanied by the approval
output) and nonpoint (widely scattered output) of the USACE. A navigable water is defined
pollution sources. Some key sections are: as “those waters subject to the ebb and flow
of the tide shoreward to the mean high-water
Section 401 of the CWA requires any mark and/or are presently used, or have been
applicant requesting a federal permit or used in the past, or may be susceptible for
license for activities that may result in discharge use to transport interstate or foreign capacity”
into waters of the U.S. to first obtain a Section (USACE, 2018).
401 certification from the state in which
the discharge originates. The Section 401 Section 404 of the CWA regulates the
certification verifies the prospective permits discharge of earthen fill, concrete, and other
comply with the state’s applicable effluent construction materials into waters of the U.S.
limitations and water quality standards. and authorizes the USACE to issue permits
Federal permits or licenses are not issued until regulating the discharge of dredge or fill
the Section 401 certification is obtained. material into waters of the United States. The
most common types of Section 404 permits
Section 402 of the CWA formed the NPDES, for transportation projects are 1) Nationwide
which regulates pollutant discharges, including Permit 14 (Linear Transportation Projects),
stormwater runoff from construction sites, into which authorizes projects with less than
waters of the United States. An NPDES permit 0.50 acre of permanent loss to waters with
sets specific discharge limits for point-source no impacts to special aquatic areas such as
pollutants into waters and outlines special wetlands, and 2) individual permits, which
conditions and requirements for a project are required for projects that affect more
to reduce impacts to water quality. In the than 0.50 acre of waters or cause impacts to
State of Maryland, the MDE is the issuing jurisdictional wetlands.
authority of NPDES permits. NPDES permits
are a part of the Wastewater Permits Program Section 408 of the CWA was established
(WWPP), which uses a combination of state under Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors
and federal permits to control industrial and Act of 1899 and allows for the alteration or
municipal wastewater discharges. The EPA permanent occupation or use of a USACE
is the issuing authority for NPDES permits civil works project by another party, with the
in the District of Columbia. In Washington, approval of USACE. Upon a determination
D.C., permittees must comply with applicable that the proposed alteration would not be
District of Columbia regulations, including the injurious to the public interest and would not
Page 243
impair the usefulness of the civil works project, outlined in Chapter 5 of Title 21 of DCMR.
permission may be granted to another party NPDES permittees must abide by Chapter 11,
to alter the project. Water Quality Standards, and Chapter 19, Water
Quality Monitoring Regulations, under the District
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states, of Columbia Water Pollution Control Act of 1984.
territories, and authorized tribes to report the
MDE Source Water Protection Program
status of the “states” waters to the U.S. EPA
(33 U.S.C. 1251–1387). The law requires The MDE Source Water Protection Program
these entities to establish priority rankings for (SWPP) was established in 1999 to meet the
waters listed in the report and to develop total requirements of Section 1453 of the Safe Drinking
maximum daily loads (TMDLs) of constituents Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 and
of concern for impaired waters, which do assess the vulnerability to contamination of all
not meet water quality standards set and public drinking water sources in Maryland (MDE,
implemented by the reporting entity. Impaired 1999). The SDWA 1996 Amendments call for a
waters are divided into assessment units, and formalized Source Water Assessment Program
management strategies are planned and (SWAP) that consists of delineating boundaries of
implemented for the assessment units. areas providing source waters for public systems,
inventorying significant potential sources of
District of Columbia Water Pollution
contamination, and determining the susceptibility
Control Act of 1984
of public water systems to such contaminants.
The D.C. Water Pollution Control Act of 1984 was Data from this SWAP, which is inclusive of both
enacted to regulate against water pollution and surface and groundwater, is intended to inform a
preserve and restore aquatic life in the District of SWPP. Implementation of the SWPP is founded on
Columbia waters. The law prohibits the discharge prevention activities involving local governments,
of pollutants into District waters, with limited water suppliers, consumers, and residents of the
exceptions. It requires the mayor to study aquatic watershed. The proposed Project would be required
life to determine licensing and fee requirements to adhere to conditions set forth by MDE’s SWPP.
for fishing and other sport or industry activity
Code of Maryland Regulations
and reevaluate water quality standards every
three years. Under the law, discharges from a The proposed Project must adhere to the COMAR,
point source require a permit, and discharges particularly Title 26 which corresponds to MDE.
of oil, gas, anti-freeze, acid, or other hazardous Title 26, Subtitle 08, Sections 01-04 of the
substances in hazardous quantities are prohibited COMAR regulates water pollution. Additionally,
to any street, alley, sidewalk, or other public Title 26, Subtitle 17, Sections 01, 02, and 04 of the
space (DOEE, 1985). COMAR oversees water management applicable
to the proposed Project.
District of Columbia Municipal Regulations
The Project Study Area within Washington, D.C.,
is subject to the District of Columbia Municipal Watersheds
Regulations (DCMR). Specifically, Title 21 – Water A watershed is defined by the USGS as an area of
and Sanitation outlines regulations pertinent to land that drains streams and rainfall to a common
water resources within the Study Area. Per NPDES outlet. A watershed consists of surface waters such
requirements within the District, the proposed as lakes, streams, reservoirs, and wetlands, and all
Project must abide by Stormwater Management the underlying groundwater within the land area
and Soil Erosion and Sediment Control provisions (Table 3.12-1).
Page 244
Table 3.12-1: Watersheds within the Proposed Project Study Area

Watershed # Area (acres) Part of:
021309031010 13,084 02130903 Baltimore Harbor
021309051043 9,901 02130905 Gwynns Falls
021309061012 12,888 02130906 Patapsco River L N Br
021311050952 7,980 02131105 Little Patuxent River
021311050948 8,321 02131105 Little Patuxent River
021311040940 7,766 02131104 Patuxent River upper
021311040938 10,193 02131104 Patuxent River upper
021402050823 9,061 02140205 Anacostia River
021402050822 14,247 02140205 Anacostia River
021402050808 1,814 02140205 Anacostia River
021402050808 1,814 02140205 Anacostia River
021402050808 14,013 02140205 Anacostia River
Source: MDE (2018b)
The Section 303(d) List of Impaired and Not Yards. This is a developed area; there are no
Attaining Waters for the State of Maryland was surface waters near the Loop Station.
reviewed to determine whether unique or impaired
waters are present within the watersheds. Waters TBM Launch Shaft A: The potential location
with Section 303(d) impairments have TMDLs which for TBM Launch Shaft A include portions of an
are pollutant discharges that must not be exceeded NHD listed waterway. Surface water crossing
for the listed water to meet water quality objectives. 11 on Figure 3.12-1, an unnamed tributary to
the Patapsco River, partially crosses through
Surface Water
the potential location of TBM Launch Shaft A.
According to the USGS NHD, there are 48 surface However, the property has been graded since
waters within the Project Study Area (Figure 3.12-1). the most recent publication of the NHD dataset;
Each numbered crossing is listed in Table 3.12 3. field reconnaissance with USACE representatives
Major stream crossings above the Main Artery indicated that no water feature is present.
Tunnels and at Loop Stations and potential TBM
Launch Shaft locations are described. TBM Launch Shaft B: No surface water features
are within the proposed location of TBM Launch
Main Artery Tunnels: Major stream crossings Shaft B.
along the Main Artery Tunnels alignment are
Gwynns Falls, the Patapsco River, Stony Run, TBM Launch Shaft C: No surface water features
Deep Run, the Little Patuxent River, the Patuxent are within the proposed location of TBM Launch
River, Beaverdam Creek, Brier Ditch, and the Shaft C.
Anacostia River.
TBM Launch Shaft D: No surface water features
Baltimore Loop Station: The Baltimore Loop are within the proposed location of TBM Launch
Station would be in the parking lot of Camden Shaft D.
Page 245
Table 3.12-2: Section 303(d) List of Impaired and Not Attaining Waters
Corresponding
Section 303(d) Listing Impairments
Watershed #
Total suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand,
debris/floatables/trash, PCB in fish tissue, mercury in
fish tissue, phosphorus, total nitrogen, enterococcus,
Anacostia River Watershed MD02140205
heptachlor epoxide, lack of riparian buffer, sulfates,
chlorides, and chlordane polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs)
Total suspended solids, mercury in fish tissue, escherichia
Patuxent River Upper MD02131104
coli (e. coli), chlorides and sulfates
Total suspended solids, phosphorus and sedimentation/
Little Patuxent River MD02131105
siltation
Patapsco River L N Br MD02130906 Total suspended solids, e. coli, chlorides, and sulfates
Total suspended solids, fecal coliform, PCBs in fish tissue,
Gwynns Falls MD02130905
chlorides and water temperature
Copper, cyanide, chlordane, zinc: sediments, lead:
sediments, PCBs in sediment and fish tissue, phosphorus,
Baltimore Harbor Watershed MD02130903
enterococcus, chromium-sediments, total suspended
solids, nitrogen and debris/floatables/trash.
Source: MDE (2018a)
TBM Launch Shaft E Search Area: No surface The Project Study Area is underlain by the Patuxent
water features are within the potential search area and Lower Patapsco aquifer systems (MDE,
of TBM Launch Shaft E. N.D.b). The Patuxent aquifer system is present
throughout the Maryland Coastal Plain and is an
Washington, D.C. Loop Station: The important source of water in both Anne Arundel
Washington, D.C. Loop Station would be in a and Prince George’s Counties. According to the
developed area; there are no surface waters Maryland Geological Survey (MGS), the Patuxent
features near the site. aquifer system consists of the sandy portions of the
Lower Cretaceous-age Patuxent Formation (next to
Groundwater
lowest member of the Potomac Group). The typical
Groundwater supports uses such as drinking composition of the aquifer system is medium- to
water, irrigation, industrial purposes, and surface coarse-grained, feldspathic and quartzose sands
water recharge. In Maryland’s Coastal Plain (the and gravels interbedded with layers of red,
area of the state generally south and east of I-95), mottled, and gray clay. Sands within the Patuxent
it is the sole source of fresh drinking water (MGS, aquifer are white or light gray to orange brown,
2018a). In the Project Study Area, groundwater angular and moderately sorted, and commonly
is primarily used for public water supply and contain significant amounts of interstitial clay. In the
domestic, self-supplied residential water, followed lowest portions of the Patuxent Formation, gravels,
by irrigation and thermoelectric uses (USGS, often containing angular to rounded clasts of
2010). Particularly, the counties of Anne Arundel gray clay, and coarse ferruginous conglomerates
and Prince George rely heavily on aquifers for their commonly occur (MGS, 2018a). The Patuxent
water supply. The drawdown of groundwater by Formation aquifer system has a thickness that
over pumping wells can lead to saltwater intrusion, ranges from about 125 to 525 feet. The elevation
which is an issue present in aquifers adjacent to of the top of the aquifer system ranges from about
Chesapeake Bay. 170 feet above sea level near its outcrop to as
much as 4,200 feet below sea level near Ocean
Page 246
Figure 3.12-1: Surface Waters (Page 1 of 8)
Page 247
Page 248
Page 249
Page 250
Page 251
Page 252
Page 253
Page 254
Table 3.12-3: Surface Water Crossings of the Study Area

Length
Surface Wetland
in Est.
Water Tributary Watershed # on
Name Study Type Width Tidal?
Crossing to: ID Figure
Area (ft)1
# 3.12-1
(feet)
Gwynns Artificial Path
1 888 60 2130905 Yes 3
Falls (River)
Patapsco Stream/ River
2 Unnamed 773 18 2130906 No 4
River (Perennial)
3 Unnamed 351 N/A 2130906 No N/A
River (Intermittent)
4 Unnamed 790 N/A 2130906 No 5
Patapsco Artificial Path
5 795 200 2130906 No 6
River (River)
Patapsco Artificial Path
6 272 246 2130906 No 5
River (River)
7 Unnamed 983 N/A 2130906 No N/A
8 Unnamed 1356 11 2130906 No N/A
9 Unnamed 811 8 2130906 No N/A
River (Perennial)
10 Unnamed 1708 N/A 2130906 No N/A
11 Unnamed 334 N/A 2130906 No N/A
12 Unnamed 221 N/A 2130906 No 7
Stream/ River
13 Stony Run 1344 N/A 2130906 No N/A
(Intermittent)
Stream/ River
14 Stony Run 917 N/A 2130906 No N/A
(Intermittent)
Stream/ River
15 Stony Run 632 N/A 2130906 No 8
(Perennial)
Stream/ River
16 Stony Run 803 25 2130906 No 8
(Perennial)
Stream/ River
17 Deep Run 343 N/A 2130906 No 9
(Perennial)
Stream/ River
18 Deep Run 852 1 2130906 No 10
(Intermittent)
Stream/ River
19 Deep Run 843 57 2130906 No 10
(Intermittent)
Stream/ River
20 Deep Run 894 20 2130906 No 10
(Intermittent)
Stream/ River
21 Deep Run 1030 8 2130906 No 10
(Intermittent)
Stream/ River
22 Deep Run Piny Run 1027 25 2130906 No 10
(Perennial)
Page 255
Table 3.12-3: Surface Water Crossings of the Study Area (continued)

Length
Surface Wetland
in Est.
Area (ft)1
# 3.12-1
(feet)
Stream/ River
23 Unnamed Piny Run 1331 10 2130906 No 10
(Perennial)
Stream/ River
24 Unnamed Piny Run 2637 N/A 2130906 No 12
(Intermittent)
Stream/ River
25 Unnamed Piny Run 836 45 2130906 No N/A
(Intermittent)
Stream/ River
26 Unnamed Dorsey Run 122 N/A 2131105 No N/A
(Intermittent)
Stream/ River
27 Unnamed Dorsey Run 1610 16 2131105 No N/A
(Intermittent)
Stream/ River
28 Unnamed Dorsey Run 1990 50 2131105 No N/A
(Perennial)
Stream/ River
29 Unnamed Dorsey Run 353 N/A 2131105 No 13
(Perennial)
Little
Artificial Path
30 Patuxent 1144 65 2131104 No 15
(River)
River
Patuxent Stream/ River
31 Unnamed 1300 N/A 2131104 No 17
Patuxent Artificial Path
32 848 40 2131104 No 18
River (River)
Patuxent Stream/ River
33 Unnamed 885 15 2140205 No 18
River (Perennial)
Beaverdam Stream/ River
34 Unnamed 1835 6 2140205 No 20
Creek (Intermittent)
35 Unnamed 1256 12 2140205 No 20
Creek (Perennial)
36 Unnamed 736 6 2140205 No N/A
37 Unnamed 760 N/A 2140205 No N/A
38 965 40 2140205 No 21
Creek (Perennial)
Beck Stream/ River
39 Unnamed 1175 N/A 2140205 No 21
Branch (Perennial)
40 Unnamed 1373 N/A 2140205 No 22
Creek (Perennial)
41 Unnamed 1849 N/A 2140205 No 22
Anacostia Stream/ River
42 Unnamed 1061 N/A 2140205 No 23
43 Unnamed 1077 10 2140205 No 23
River (Perennial)
Page 256
Table 3.12-3: Surface Water Crossings of the Study Area (continued)

Length
Surface Wetland
in Est.
Area (ft)1
# 3.12-1
(feet)
44 Unnamed 877 1 2140205 No N/A
Stream/ River
45 Brier Ditch 899 49 2140205 No 24
(Perennial)
46 Unnamed 1129 25 2140205 No N/A
River (Perennial)
47 Unnamed 770 20 2140205 No N/A
River (Perennial)
Anacostia Artificial Path
48 1050 14 2140205 Yes 25
River (River)
Source: USGS (2018a)
1
N/A under the Estimated Width column refers to surface water features whose width too small to be visible in aerial
imagery and subsequently cannot be measured.
City. (MGS, 2018a). Transmissivity, an indicator of Groundwater elevations measured in September

flow of groundwater through an aquifer, ranges in 2015 in drinking water wells in the vicinity of
the Patuxent aquifer system from 20 feet2/day in the Build Alternative indicate that the elevation
Charles and Harford Counties to 21,950 feet2/ of the top of the Patuxent aquifer ranged from
day in Baltimore County. Values are typically 17 feet below sea level (76 feet below ground
highest northeast of Washington, D.C., and surface) near the Anacostia River in Washington,
decrease significantly in Charles and southern D.C. to165 feet above sea level (45 feet below
Prince George’s Counties (MGS, 2018a). ground surface) in a well nearby where the
Patuxent formation outcrops several miles west
Overall, groundwater elevations in the Patuxent of the Build Alternative (Staley et al., 2016). A
aquifer system near the Project Study Area are map of the potentiometric surface of the Patuxent
lowest nearby water bodies in Washington, D.C. aquifer system in relation to the proposed Project is
and Baltimore, and highest in the vicinity west of provided in Figure 3.12-2. Figure 3.12-3 shows the
Fort Meade. The potentiometric surface is defined elevation of various aquifers within and adjacent
as the imaginary surface that defines the level to to the Project Study Area. The hydrogeologic
which water in a confined aquifer would rise were cross-section is nearly perpendicular to the
it completely pierced with wells. In this area, the alignment of the proposed Project. As shown in
potentiometric surface dips to the southeast from Figure 3.12-3, the Build Alternative is above the
165 feet above sea level (45 feet below ground Patuxent aquifer system and crosses the Upper
surface) in Howard County to as deep as 21 feet Patapsco and Lower Patapsco aquifer systems.
below sea level (160 feet below ground surface) at Figure 3.12-4 locates the cross-section shown in
Fort Meade where the potentiometric surface forms Figure 3.12-3.
a cone of depression (an area where groundwater
flows from all directions, generally caused by According to the MGS, the geology of the
groundwater extraction by water supply wells). Lower Patapsco aquifer system consists of the
sandy portions of the lower part of the Lower
Cretaceous-age Patapsco Formation. The
Page 257
Figure 3.12-2: Potentiometric surface of the Patuxent aquifer system in Southern Maryland
and Maryland’s Eastern Shore, September 2015
Source: Modified from Staley, et al. (2016).
Page 258
Figure 3.12-3: Cross-section of Aquifer System in the Project Study Area
composition of the aquifer system is white to Groundwater elevations measured in September

yellow, fine- to medium-grained feldspathic and 2015 in drinking water wells near the Study Area
quartzose sands and gravels interbedded with indicate the highest measured water level was
layers of red, gray, and mottled silty clay (MGS, 106 feet above sea level (44 feet below ground
2018a). The Lower Patapsco aquifer system is surface) near the outcrop area of the aquifer
present throughout the Maryland Coastal Plain. system in northern Prince George’s County.
The elevation of the top of the aquifer system Water levels were lower towards well fields at
ranges from about 100 feet above sea level near Severndale, Broad Creek, Arnold, and Crofton
where it outcrops to more than 2,900 feet below Meadows. Measured groundwater levels were
sea level near Ocean City and total thickness 91 feet below sea level (180 feet below ground
along a line trending approximately parallel to surface) at Severndale, 63 feet below sea level
strike from southern Maryland to the upper Eastern (144 feet below ground surface) at Broad Creek,
Shore ranges from about 250 to 350 feet; strike 80 feet below sea level (204 feet below ground
is subparallel to the alignment of the proposed surface) at Arnold, and 43 feet below sea level
Project. Transmissivity of the Lower Patapsco (177 feet below ground surface) at Crofton
aquifer system ranges from 40 feet2/day in Prince Meadows (Figure 3.12-5).
Georges County to 11,900 feet2/day in Anne
Ground Water Quality
Arundel County. The highest values typically occur
in Anne Arundel County and decrease both to the According to the MGS Coastal Plain geophysical
north and to the south (MGS, 2018a). and lithological logs, data points have been
established within proximity to the Project Study
Page 259
Figure 3.12-4: Area Aquifer System Cross-section Location

Note: The Study Area in Figure 3.12-4 is the Study Area of the Staley, et al. (2016) report from which the data was sourced, not the
Study Area of the proposed Project
Page 260
Figure 3.12-5: Potentiometric surface of the Lower Patapsco aquifer system in Southern
Maryland and Maryland’s Eastern Shore, September 2015
Page 261
Area (MGS, N.D.). These data indicate salt intrusion Stream crossings intersecting the proposed
and a radium presence. Sources of salt (chloride) Project including the Anacostia River, Beaverdam
in groundwater are atmospheric deposition, road Creek, Patuxent River, Piney Run, Stony Run, the
salt, brackish-water intrusion, fertilizers (potassium Patapsco River, Gwynns Falls and their tributaries
chloride), backflushing of water softening are all classified as Use I streams which support
systems, and human and animal wastes. Because anadromous fish including yellow perch, a
concentrations of chloride in precipitation are low, common game fish.
and there are no near-surface naturally-occurring
salt deposits in Maryland, high chloride levels in The MDNR Wildlife and Heritage Service identified
shallow groundwater usually indicate the effects of specific river and stream crossings within the Project
land-based human activity. Chloride concentrations Study Area as having nearby records of aquatic
greater than about 250 mg/L give drinking water species of special concern. These locations are:
a salty taste (MGS, 2018a). The implications of 1. Dorsey Run immediately north of the National
radium are discussed further in Section 3.16. Business Park – Dorsey Run supports
occurrences of the American Brook Lamprey
Groundwater monitoring wells listed in (Lethenteron appendix) and the Glassy
Table 3.12-4 are in proximity to the Project Study Darter (Etheostoma vitreum), both state-listed
Area (Figure 3.12-1). The Project Study Area is threatened fish species.
generally situated within the unconfined portion of 2. Little Patuxent River, approximately ¼
the Lower Patapsco aquifer; the Patuxent aquifer mile southwest of the crossing by State
is present at depths of over 210 feet. Route 32-Star Spangled Banner Highway –
Nearby records of the Glassy Darter, a
Aquatic Ecology federally endangered fish species.
The proposed Project crosses the Patapsco River, the 3. Little Patuxent River, on the east side of
Patuxent River, and the Anacostia River, along with MD 295 around Combat Road – Nearby
their respective tributaries. These water features feed records of the Glassy Darter.
the Chesapeake Bay and support a wide range of 4. Patuxent River, near Brock Bridge Road –
aquatic species. The Chesapeake supports plants, Approximately ½-mile from where an
algae, and plankton which serve as the foundation occurrence of the Atlantic Spike (Elliptio
of the food chain for larger organisms such as fish, producta), a freshwater mussel species with
crabs, and mollusks. The Chesapeake Bay supports In Need of Conservation state status in
Maryland. As listed above, the Patuxent River
hundreds of species of fish, shellfish, amphibians,
contains a Nontidal Wetland of Special State
reptiles, birds, and mammals (MDE, 2018c).
Concern which supports 16 specially-listed
species, including two threatened, five rare,
The Project Study Area includes tidal tributaries to four highly rare, four endangered species.
the Chesapeake Bay at Gwynn’s Falls, the Patapsco
5. Beaverdam Creek, in three locations: at
River, and Anacostia River. Tidal tributaries to
Powder Mill Road, at Beck Branch, and north of
the Chesapeake Bay can harbor diverse and Midway Road – As listed above, Beaverdam
productive communities of aquatic organisms, Creek contains wetlands designated as
supported by complex food webs; these tidal Nontidal Wetlands of Special State Concern
tributaries can serve the key function as spawning with documented species including American
and nursery uses for migratory fish, where suitable Brook Lamprey, which is listed as a threatened
(i.e., unpolluted) conditions are present (Batiuk, et fish species.
al., 2009; EPA, 2003). Tidal tributaries play an
important role in Chesapeake Bay ecology.
Page 262
Table 3.12-4: MGS Coastal Plain Geophysical and Lithological Ground Water
Monitoring Wells
Lower Patapsco
Patuxent Aquifer
Aquifer
Elevation
of well Formation Formation Formation
Well ID Latitude Longitude Bottom Formation
(feet Bottom Top
amsl) elevation Top Depth
Depth elevation
(feet (feet bgs)
(feet bgs) (feet amsl)
amsl)
AA Ac 11 39˚11’4” N 76˚40’41”W 137 180 -43 310 -173
AA Bc 241 39˚7’52” N 76˚44’2”W 280 185 95 260 20
AA Bb 81 39˚6’27” N 76˚46’14”W 165 165 0 210 -45
PG Be 22 39˚2’58” N 76˚48’16”W 130 95 35 225 -95
PG Bd 65 39˚1’2” N 76˚51’40”W 164 70 94 220 -56
PG Cd 23 38˚59’36” N 76˚50’60”W 180 210 -30 365 -185
Source: MGS (N.D.)
bgs = below ground surface
amsl = above mean sea level
Figure 3.12-5: Area Aquifer System Cross-section Location
Page 263

encountered, would require USACE review
The following section analyzes the potential under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
temporary and permanent impacts of the No-Build In addition, the Anacostia River crossing is a
and Build alternatives to surface and groundwater federal navigation channel, and requires USACE
in the Project Study Area review under Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act (i.e., 26 U.S.C. Section 408). Coordination
is ongoing for review of locations wherein the
No-Build Alternative Main Artery Tunnels would cross underneath
Under the No-Build Alternative, no temporary navigable waterways. Based on preliminary
or construction-related impacts are anticipated, correspondence received from USACE under
and the condition of the surrounding surface and Section 408 dated November 14, 2018, the
ground water would remain unchanged. Main Artery Tunnels would need to be at least 10
feet below the authorized depth of the Anacostia
Build Alternative River. Based on preliminary coordination with the
USACE Navigation Office, Section 408 permit
Surface Waters would not likely be required pending the review
Main Artery Tunnels: The Main Artery Tunnels of engineered plans of the Main Artery Tunnels.
would cross under the following major surface Prior to construction of the tunnel, TBC would
water features: Gwynns Falls, the Patapsco River, be required to notify the US Coast Guard of the
Stony Run, Deep Run, the Little Patuxent River, the proposed construction; following construction,
Patuxent River, Beaverdam Creek, Brier Ditch, as-built drawings would be submitted to NOAA
and the Anacostia River. The Main Artery Tunnels for incorporation into navigational charts.
would typically be designed at depths of 30
feet or more below ground surface depending Baltimore Loop Station: As there are no
on subsurface conditions. Main Artery Tunnel surface waters near the Baltimore Loop Station site,
would be constructed a minimum of 20 feet no construction-related impacts to surface waters
below streambeds. Tunnels would be deepened, are anticipated at this location.
as necessary, depending on geotechnical and
hydrologic properties of the geologic conditions TBM Launch Shaft A: The potential location for
underlying streams and the navigational and TBM Launch Shaft A includes portions of surface
structural considerations, where applicable, water crossing number 11; site reconnaissance
and would be deepened if necessary to avoid indicates that the surface water feature is not present.
potential impacts to existing infrastructure. Main Nevertheless, BMPs would be implemented to
Artery Tunnels would be unlikely to cause impacts minimize potential degradation to off-site water
to surface waters. bodies that may be nearby (Section 3.12.4).
Authorizations under Section 404 of the CWA are TBM Launch Shaft B: As there are no mapped
not anticipated to be required, as no dredged or surface waters within the proposed location of
fill material would be placed within the Ordinary TBM Launch Shaft B, no construction-related
High-Water Mark of a Water of U.S. impacts to surface waters are anticipated.
Correspondence received from the USACE, dated TBM Launch Shaft C: As there are no mapped
December 4, 2018 stated that river crossings surface waters within the proposed location of
under the Anacostia River and Patapsco River, TBM Launch Shaft C, no construction-related
the proposed Project’s two navigable waterway impacts to surface waters are anticipated.
Page 264
TBM Launch Shaft D: As there are no mapped Therefore, engineering design and stabilization
surface waters within the proposed location of construction methods would be used to minimize
TBM Launch Shaft D, no construction-related groundwater infiltration into the tunnels.
impacts to surface waters are anticipated.
Dewatering is the manual draw-down of the
TBM Launch Shaft E Search Area: As there groundwater table used to build civil structures
are no mapped surface waters within the Search below the water table and is often achieved
Area for the proposed location of TBM Launch by applying a constant pump of groundwater
Shaft E, no construction-related impacts to surface during subsurface construction. Dewatering
waters are anticipated. may occur during construction of the proposed
Project; however, it is not anticipated during the
Washington, D.C. Loop Station: As there are tunneling phase due to the use of EPB TBMs. The
no mapped surface waters near Washington, D.C. combined use of EPB TBMs and precast concrete
Loop Station site, no construction-related impacts segment tunnel lining generally eliminates the
to surface waters are anticipated. need for dewatering while tunneling. EPB TBMs
each have an articulated shield that is sealed
Ventilation Shafts: Ventilation Shaft locations against the pressure of water inflows up to 10
are still to be determined (up to 70 would be Bar (approximately 10 times the pressure of the
constructed), but would be spaced up to 2 atmosphere). The EPB TBMs control the stability
miles apart, providing enough distance to avoid of the tunnel face and ground surface. Stability
surface waters. is achieved by the cutterhead chamber, which
monitors and adjusts its internal pressure to be
Groundwater equivalent to the pressures of the outside formation
The Build Alternative would be constructed within of the tunnel face. Pressure equalization by the EPB
the Lower Patapsco aquifer and shallower than TBM prevents the inflow of groundwater through the
the depths of the Patuxent aquifer. At the depths of tunnel face. The EPB TBM erects precast concrete
the Build Alternative, the Lower Patapsco aquifer segments which form the tunnel lining in 5-foot
is unconfined and serves as a recharge and/or intervals. The concrete segments are outfitted with
discharge area for the aquifer. rubber gaskets, and grout is injected to fill voids
outside the precast lining, which collectively seal
The Main Artery Tunnels, TBM Launch Shafts, the tunnel from groundwater. In rare scenarios,
and Ventilation Shafts would be built using inert water can enter the tunnel. In that case, water
materials; therefore, local or regional impacts would be collected in a water tank, and then
to groundwater quality are not anticipated. The disposed of in compliance with local, state, and
well logs indicate that artesian conditions5 would federal regulations. Hazardous materials would
not likely be present; baseline water pressure not be used in hazardous concentrations while
would be the similar to atmospheric pressure in tunneling. As a result, groundwater impacts are
unconfined (water table) aquifers, and roughly anticipated to be minimal.
10 times lower than the allowable pressures of the
TBM. Therefore, adverse impacts of flooding from The construction of the TBM Launch Shafts and
construction within an aquifer are not anticipated. Ventilation Shafts has the potential to interact with
Nevertheless, geotechnical and hydrogeologic groundwater resources. As with tunnel construction,
assessments would be conducted prior to the these civil structures would be constructed using
design and construction of subsurface features. inert materials with low mobility and solubility
5
Artesian conditions occur when a well is drilled and water rises upward due to pressure confined in the aquifer.
Page 265

(e.g., precast concrete, grout) that would create a
seal from groundwater resources. Inert materials No Build Alternative
are those that are non-reactive. Low mobility The No-Build Alternative would have no
and solubility indicate that the materials interact permanent impacts on surface waters or
minimally with surrounding groundwater, and do groundwater resources.
not dissolve or react to form potential hazards to
groundwater. Should groundwater seepage occur Build Alternative
during excavation, the water would be collected
in a tank using a sump pump and discharged Surface Waters
back into the storm drain or sewer system under a The Build Alternative would not involve direct
NPDES permit or sent for offsite disposal. contact with surface waters due to the subsurface
nature of the proposed Project and the avoidance
Where hydraulically conductive hydrogeologic of surface waters for the Loop Stations, TBM Launch
conditions are present, construction of TBM Launch Shafts, and Ventilation Shafts. The Loop Stations are
Shafts, Loop Stations, and Ventilation Shafts below at areas which are already impervious surfaces,
the water table would have the potential to lower and Ventilation Shafts would be contained to areas
nearby groundwater levels if dewatering were of either 15 feet by 15 feet or 30 feet by 30 feet; up
to take place. Minimization measures would be to 70 Ventilation Shafts would be constructed, for
required to minimize potential impacts to sensitive an upper limit of 63,000 square feet of impervious
groundwater and surface water resources (e.g. surface in total to be added due to the proposed
drinking water wells, wetlands, etc.) during Project. The four TBM Launch Shafts, which may
excavation (Section 3.12.5). be converted to Maintenance Terminals, would
introduce up to 15,000 square feet of impervious
Aquatic Ecology surface each, for a total of 60,000 additional
Aquatic ecology is dependent on suitable square feet of impervious surface; additional
chemical, physical, and biological conditions to runoff resulting from the Build Alternative would
support healthy habitat. Ecological degradation be managed by a stormwater management plan.
has potential to occur due to the runoff of pollutants
in urban watersheds, erosion and sedimentation Groundwater
of water bodies, alterations in temperature, Permanent impacts to groundwater are not
pH, salinity, and oxygen, and the introduction anticipated. The proposed project would
of non-native invasive species. No in-stream not contribute point or non-point sources of
construction would be conducted as part of contaminants to groundwater. Civil structures such
the Build Alternative. As described below, the as tunnels and/or shafts would be constructed
proposed Project would employ storm water control using inert materials with low mobility and
BMPs to avoid erosion, runoff, and sedimentation solubility (e.g., precast concrete, grout) that create
to surface water, wetlands, and ground water. a seal from groundwater resources; therefore, once
The Build Alternative is not anticipated to result in operational, the Build Alternative would minimally
direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological interact with surrounding groundwater and would
alterations of the waters or substrate, or result in the not degrade the quality of groundwater resources.
loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species Groundwater levels would return to steady state
and their habitat, or other ecosystem components following the completion of dewatering operations;
including migratory and spawning habitats. therefore, it is anticipated that the proposed
Project would not permanently degrade or impair
groundwater resources.
Page 266
3.12.5 Minimization and Mitigation »» P r e s e r v a t i o n o f E x i s t i n g

Measures Vegetation: Where present, maintain
existing vegetation to allow for drainage
The following project design features would be of storm water by avoiding the placement
implemented to minimize adverse effects to surface of staging areas of materials and
water and ground water resources: equipment on top areas of vegetation,
• Preconstruction design would include and by installing preventive vehicle traffic
the advancement of soil borings, which controls in areas of vegetation using
would determine elevation, quality, and/ markers or barriers.
or transmissivity of groundwater. Although 2. Temporary Sediment Controls/ Perimeter
not anticipated, should artesian conditions Controls
be identified in an area of excavation
»» Fiber rolls: Place fiber rolls downslope
during the field subsurface investigation,
from erosion-prone areas and around
site-specific construction and/or dewatering
temporary stockpiles, as needed.
methods would be developed to prevent or
Maintenance would require that
accommodate the inflow of groundwater or
sediment build up is removed before it is
surface water. Potential methods are “wet
accumulated.
excavation,” which uses the addition of water
during construction to maintain equilibrium »» Sandbag Barrier/Gravel Bag
with the groundwater inside the shaft, Berm: Install sandbag or gravel bag
meanwhile soil is excavated using a clamshell barriers along site perimeters to contain
excavator or similar equipment; and slurry wall stormwater.
construction, where reinforced concrete walls 3. Wind Erosion Control/Dust Control
are constructed to support areas with a high
»» Use barriers and tarps to surround and
groundwater table. Water is not expected to
cover excavated soil prone to transport
be produced in significant quantities but would
by wind to minimize sediment from exiting
be handled in accordance with applicable
the property due to wind erosion.
regulations (Section 3.11).
»» Where granular materials must be
• Civil infrastructure would be designed and
stored outside, employ barriers and
constructed in a manner not to inhibit surface
tarp coverings to prevent dust from
water flows to surface water resources (i.e.,
contaminating stormwater.
divert or impede downhill flow or dissect
such resources). 4. Tracking Control
• During excavation, excess soil would »» Stabilized Construction Entrance/
be handled, stored, and disposed of in Exit: Stabilize construction entrances/
accordance with the SMP (Section 3.11). exits with materials such as crushed
concrete (“rip-rap”) driveways or shake
Storm water management BMPs would be plates to reduce the potential for track-out
implemented for surface disturbances to protect of sediments on tires of trucks and worker
surface and ground water resources from pollution vehicles. The track-out control should be
such as erosion and stormwater runoff. These BMPs at least four times the circumference of the
would be outlined in a Stormwater Management largest vehicle tire using each entrance/exit.
Plan and include: »» Driveway Maintenance: Perform
1. Soil Stabilization: maintenance of the track-out control to
remain free of sediments such that its
»» Scheduling: Schedule construction sediment control function would not be
activities in such a way to minimize earth impeded. Sweep and remove sediment
disturbance activity.
Page 267
tracked out by vehicles beyond the property

field delineations occurred for the analysis, as
before the close of the next business day.
TBM Launch Shaft A was the only TBM Launch
5. Non-storm Water Management Shaft or Loop Station location containing mapped
»» Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning: wetlands. Aerial images were used to identify
Establish designated vehicle and waterbodies not included in the USGS NHD
equipment cleaning areas to direct database, such as ephemeral channels, open
washing away from storm drain inlets or water, on-line stormwater management facilities
watercourses; minimize water usage to such as catch basins, and inactive mining areas.
prevent wastewater from entering storm
drains. Direct wastewater into sediment 3.13.2 Regulatory Setting
basins or similar containments and contain
1986/1988 Regulatory Definition of “Waters
and dispose of soaps and solvents off-site.
of the United States”
»» Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance:
See Section 3.12.2 for a definition of Waters of
Maintain proper care to ensure that
chemicals or pollutants are not released the U.S.
due to the maintenance of vehicles and Executive Order 11990 Protection of
equipment on site. Use drip pans to contain Wetlands
fluids and equip maintenance areas with
spill protection devices. Setup designated Under Executive Order 11990 – Protection of
maintenance areas outside of stormwater Wetlands, 1977, federal agencies are required
flow paths; and handle and dispose of oil, to consider alternatives to wetland sites and limit
fluids, and lubricants in accordance with potential damage to wetlands. The Order applies
applicable provisions. to federal lands and facilities construction and
With the implementation of project design features improvement projects, as well as federal activities
and relevant BMPs, no adverse impacts to surface and programs affecting land use (FEMA, 2018a).
or ground water resources are anticipated from the The requirements of the Order include determining
proposed Project. whether the proposed Project would be in or affect
wetlands, preparing a wetlands assessment to
3.13 Wetlands describe alternatives, and allowing the public an
According to the EPA, a wetland is an area in which opportunity to review the assessment.
water covers the soil or is present at or near the
Section 404 of Clean Water Act
surface of the soil for all or part of the year (EPA,
2018e). Wetlands can support both aquatic and Section 404 of the CWA regulates discharge of fill,
terrestrial species. concrete, and construction materials into Waters
of the U.S., including wetlands (Section 3.12.2).
Maryland Nontidal Wetlands of Special
The USGS NHD database (2018) was used in
State Concern
the analysis of Waters of the U.S., including
wetlands. The analysis used GIS software to Title 26, Subtitle 23, Chapter 06, Sections 1 and
identify resources within the Project Study Area. 2 of the COMAR provides protection to certain
Watershed data was accessed from the MDE wetlands with rare, threatened, endangered
website. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) species, or unique habitats. These wetlands are
data are the primary source used for mapping the identified as Wetlands of Special State Concern
wetlands. TBC conducted a wetland delineation (WSSC) and are protected through requiring
for the entire TBM Launch Shaft A site, that was a 100-foot buffer from development. A WSSC
field verified by USACE (Appendix C). No other is defined as a wetland having exceptional
Page 268
ecological or educational value of statewide within this area. Under the Law, local jurisdictions
significance (COMAR, 2018). The MDE is must create Critical Area Programs. Anne Arundel,
responsible for identifying and regulating WSSCs. Prince George’s, and Baltimore County each have
The USFWS NWI provide the basis for identifying Critical Area Programs that may apply to the
WSSCs (Maryland GIS Data Catalog, 2017b). proposed Project (Section 3.15).
District of Columbia Wetland Conservation

The proposed Project must adhere to COMAR Title
Plan
26, Subtitle 24, Chapters 01 to 05 (the Maryland
Tidal Wetlands Act of 1970), which regulates tidal The District’s Wetland Conservation Plan was
wetlands. published in 1997 to outline goals for the
protection, restoration, and enhancement of
Maryland Tidal Wetlands Act of 1970
wetlands, with the objective of achieving no net
Under COMAR Title 26, Subtitle 24, Chapters 01 loss of wetlands within the District, and eventually
to 05, the Maryland Tidal Wetlands Act of 1970 overall net-gain of wetlands. The Plan establishes
restricts construction and development actions a framework to manage, preserve, and extend
in tidal wetlands to address the loss of wetlands remaining wetlands, through assessment of
afflicting the State due to unregulated activities wetlands, coordination with wetland stakeholders,
such as dredging, dumping, and filling. The act and implementation of regulations to protect
mandates the mapping of tidal wetlands through wetlands (Center for Watershed Protection, 1997).
the Maryland Tidal Wetlands Program. Under
the act, permits must be obtained for projects
impacting State wetlands, including dredging, pier In 1979, a comprehensive classification system of
construction, and stormwater discharges. wetlands and deepwater habitats was developed
for the USFWS (Cowardin et al., 1979). The
Maryland Nontidal Wetlands Protection
following major classes of wetlands are defined
Act
under the Cowardin system:
The Maryland Nontidal Wetlands Protection
Act regulates activities in the State’s nontidal Marine - Open ocean overlying the
wetlands, including the alteration of vegetation continental shelf and coastline exposed
and hydrology, with the goal of decreasing the net to waves and currents of the open ocean
loss of nontidal wetlands. Put into place in 1991, shoreward to (1) extreme high water of spring
the Act requires a state nontidal wetlands permit or tides; (2) seaward limit of wetland emergents,
letter of authorization from the Nontidal Wetlands trees, or shrubs; or (3) the seaward limit of
and Waterways Division for activities within a the Estuarine System, other than vegetation.
25-foot buffer of a nontidal wetland or 100-foot Salinities exceed 30 parts per thousand (ppt).
expanded buffer around a nontidal WSSC.
Estuarine - Deepwater tidal habitats and
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Law
adjacent tidal wetlands that are usually
The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Law was passed semi-enclosed by land but have open,
in 1984 by the Maryland General Assembly to partly obstructed, or sporadic access to the
protect the overall quality of the Chesapeake Bay. ocean, with ocean-derived water at least
The Critical Area is defined as the land area 1,000 occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff
feet inland from tidal water or tidal wetlands, from the land. The upstream and landward
and special permits must be obtained to disturb limit is where ocean-de rived salts measure
vegetation (i.e., construction and excavation) less than .5 ppt during the period of average
Page 269
annual low flow. The seaward limit is (1) an boundary; (3) water depth in the deepest part of
imaginary line closing the mouth of a river, the basin less than 2 m (6.6 ft) at low water; and
bay, or sound; and (2) the seaward limit of (4) ocean-derived salinities less than 0.5 ppt.
wetland emergents, shrubs, or trees when not
included in (1). Table 3.13-1 lists the mapped wetland types in the
Project Study Area.
Riverine - All wetlands and deepwater
habitats contained within a channel except Table 3.13-2 provides a summary of the wetlands
those wetlands (1) dominated by trees, shrubs, in the Project Study Area. Figure 3.12-1 presents a
persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or summary map and details of the wetlands crossed
lichens, and (2) which have habitats with by the proposed Project. The crossing numbers
ocean-derived salinities more than .5 ppt. in Table 3.13-2 correspond with the Wetlands
crossings points in Figure 3.12-1. These crossings
Lacustrine - Wetlands and deepwater habitats are discussed in relation to the Main Artery Tunnel
(1) situated in a topographic depression or alignment and the potential locations of surface
dammed river channel; (2) lacking trees, features of the proposed Project.
shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent
mosses, or lichens with greater than 30% Main Artery Tunnel: In general, the Project
areal coverage; and (3) whose total area Study Area for the Main Artery Tunnel alignment
exceeds 8 hectares (20 acres); or area less under the Build Alternative contains small, forested/
than 8 hectares if the boundary is active shrub wetland systems that are associated with
wave-formed or bedrock or if water depth surface water crossings. Wetland systems within
in the deepest part of the basin exceeds 2 m the Project Study Area of the Build Alternative are
(6.6 ft) at low water. Ocean-derived salinities found at crossing numbers 2, 15, 16, 23, 27, 28,
are always less than .5 ppt. 30, 34, 35, 43 and 44 (all nontidal wetlands)
(Section 3.12).
Palustrine - All nontidal wetlands dominated by
trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent Larger wetland systems are found outside of the
mosses, or lichens, and all such tidal wetlands Main Artery Tunnel ROW alignment. These are
where ocean-derived salinities are below .5 large freshwater forested/shrub wetland systems
ppt. This category includes wetlands lacking adjacent to crossing numbers 4, 5, 30, 32, 33,
such vegetation but with all the following and 38, which are nontidal wetlands, and crossing
characteristics: (1) area less than 8 hectares; number 48, which is a tidal wetland (Section 3.12).
(2) lacking an active wave-formed or bedrock
Table 3.13-1: Wetland Types

Wetland Type Cowardin Classification Description
Freshwater- Forested and Shrub Palustrine forested and/or Woody wetlands; forested swamp,
wetland Palustrine shrub shrub bog
Herbaceous march, fen, swale or
Freshwater Emergent wetland Palustrine emergent
wet meadow
Vegetated and non-vegetated
Estuarine and Marine intertidal
Estuarine and Marine wetland brackish and saltwater marsh,
wetlands
shrubs, beach, bar, shoal or flat
Riverine deepwater and
Riverine River or stream channel
associated wetlands
Page 270
Table 3.13-2: Wetlands within the Project Study Area

Wetland of
Acreage within Cowardin
Crossing # Tributary to: Special State
Project Study Area Classification
Concern
1 Gwynns Falls 0.7 Estuarine No
2 Gwynns Falls 0.0 Riverine No
3 Gwynns Falls 2.5 Riverine No
4 Patapsco River 0.3 Palustrine No
6 Patapsco River 3.9 Riverine No
8 Stony Run 0.6 Palustrine No
9 Deep Run 0.3 Palustrine No
10 Deep Run 0.5 Palustrine No
11 Piny Run 0.1 Palustrine No
12 Piny Run 0.6 Palustrine No
13 Little Patuxent River 0.1 Palustrine No
14 Little Patuxent River 14.4 Palustrine No
15 Little Patuxent River 1.3 Riverine No
16 Patuxent River 0.1 Palustrine No
17 Patuxent River 0.4 Palustrine No
18 Patuxent River 30.0 Palustrine Yes
19 Patuxent River 1.2 Riverine Yes
20 Beaverdam Creek 0.9 Palustrine No
21 Beaverdam Creek 8.8 Palustrine Yes
22 Beaverdam Creek 1.0 Palustrine No
23 Anacostia River 5.1 Palustrine No
24 Brier Ditch 1.3 Palustrine No
25 Anacostia River 11.8 Palustrine No
26 Anacostia River 2.5 Riverine No
Source: USGS (2018)
Baltimore Loop Station: The Baltimore Loop TBM Launch Shaft B: No NWI wetlands or
Station would be at the parking lot of Camden NHD water features are within the proposed
Yards in a developed area; there are no NWI location of TBM Launch Shaft B.
wetlands or other Waters of the U.S. near the Loop
Station site. TBM Launch Shaft C: No NWI wetlands or
NHD water features are within the proposed
TBM Launch Shaft A: NWI wetlands GIS location of TBM Launch Shaft C.
mapping shows a linear freshwater forested/
shrub wetland within the potential location for TBM Launch Shaft D: No NWI wetlands or
TBM Launch Shaft A. TBC conducted a wetland NHD water features are within the proposed
delineation, verified by the USACE, and determined location of TBM Launch Shaft D.
that there were no wetlands present within the Limit
of Disturbance for the site (Appendix C).
Page 271
TBM Launch Shaft E Search Location: No including wetlands, are anticipated. Construction
NWI wetlands or NHD water features are within the would not occur within a 100-foot buffer of WSSC,
proposed search location of TBM Launch Shaft E. which is regulated by the Nontidal Wetlands
Protection Act and Program and COMAR Title 26.
Washington, D.C. Loop Station: The
Washington, D.C. Loop Station would be within a TBM Launch Shaft A: The potential location
developed area, and there are no NWI wetlands for TBM Launch Shaft A includes portions of a
or NHD water features near the site. freshwater forested/shrub NWI wetland and an
NHD listed waterway. The USACE has verified
There are three wetlands of Special State Concern the wetland delineation and determined that
in the Project Study Area. Two of these wetlands there are no wetlands present within the Limits of
are associated with the Patuxent River and one Disturbance (Appendix C). Construction would not
associated with Beaverdam Creek. For any occur within a 100-foot buffer of WSSC; therefore,
structures whose locations are yet to be determined, no temporary adverse effects to wetlands during
TBC will be required to carry out additional agency construction are anticipated.
coordination and review as project development
advances to address regulatory approval and TBM Launch Shafts B through D, and TBM
permit procedures, including consideration of state Launch Shaft E Search Location: As there are
jurisdictional waters, wetlands, wetland buffers, no wetlands or water features within the proposed
and Special State Concern wetlands with MDE. location of these TBM Launch Shaft sites or search
location, no temporary construction-related
physical impacts to Waters of the U.S., including
The following section analyzes the potential wetlands, are anticipated at these locations.
temporary and permanent impacts of the proposed Construction would not occur within a 100-foot
Project to Waters of the U.S. within the Project buffer of WSSC.
Study Area, including wetlands.
The potential location for TBM Launch Shaft E is
adjacent to freshwater forested/shrub wetlands,
No-Build Alternative NHD listed waterways, and riverine features.
Under the No-Build Alternative, no temporary However, these surface water features are at the
impacts are anticipated to the surrounding boundary of the Project Study Area, and the TBM
wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Launch Shaft location would be chosen such that
it would not impact surface waters. BMPs would
Build Alternative be implemented as part of surface disturbance
Main Artery Tunnels: The Main Artery Tunnels associated with these project elements to avoid
would be constructed 30 feet or more below ground. impacts to these nearby surface waters.
Construction of the Main Artery Tunnels would occur
completely underground and would not result in Washington, D.C. Loop Station: As there are
temporary surface disturbance or physical impacts no wetlands or water features within the Project
to Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Study Area of the proposed Washington, D.C.
Loop Station location, no temporary construction-
Baltimore Loop Station: As there are no related physical impacts to Waters of the U.S.,
wetlands or water features within the proposed including wetlands, are anticipated.
Baltimore Loop Station, no temporary construction-
related physical impacts to Waters of the U.S.,
Page 272
Ventilation Shafts: Locations are still to be the TBM Launch Shafts and construction impacts
determined, but would be spaced up to 2 miles of Maintenance Terminals would be limited to
apart, with enough flexibility in site selection to the TBM Launch Shafts. Ventilation Shafts and
allow wetlands to be avoided. The final design of Maintenance Terminals would be designed with
the proposed Project would avoid construction of industry-standard drainage plans and features.
Ventilation Shafts within a 100-foot buffer of WSSC. Their design and construction would be regulated
under existing water quality and stormwater
Other Potential Construction Impacts regulations; therefore, negative impacts resulting
Potential construction-related impacts due to from increased impervious surfaces are not
surface disturbance at TBM Launch Shaft and anticipated. Discharges to Waters of the U.S. are
Loop Station locations include clearing of forests not anticipated.
and vegetation as well as sediment runoff into
wetlands and surface water features. The TBM Main Artery Tunnels: The Main Artery Tunnels
Launch Shaft E search location is the only TBM would be constructed 30 feet or more below ground.
Launch Shaft location that contains wetlands. Construction of the Main Artery Tunnels would occur
With the implementation of BMPs, adverse effects completely underground and would not result in
to wetlands due to construction-related surface permanent surface disturbance or physical impacts
disturbances are not anticipated. to Waters of the U.S., including wetlands.
Authorization under Section 404 of the CWA is Baltimore Loop Station: As there are no wetlands
not anticipated to be required, as no dredged or or water features within the proposed Baltimore Loop
fill material would be placed within the Ordinary Station, no permanent impacts to Waters of the U.S.,
High-Water Mark (OHWM) of a Water of U.S. including wetlands, are anticipated at this location.
Nor would an authorization from MDE be required The Loop Station would not be within a 100-foot
for impacts to non-tidal wetlands (COMAR Title buffer of WSSC.
26, Subtitle 23).
TBM Launch Shafts: The potential location
The Build Alternative is not anticipated to have for TBM Launch Shaft A includes portions of a
temporary impacts to Waters of the U.S., including freshwater forested/shrub NWI wetland and an
wetlands. NHD listed waterway. The USACE has verified a
wetland delineation and determined that there are
no wetlands present (Appendix C). TBM Launch
No Build Alternative Shaft A would not be within a 100-foot buffer
The No-Build Alternative would have no permanent of WSSC; therefore, no permanent impacts to
impacts to Waters of the U.S. wetlands are anticipated.
Build Alternative As there are no wetlands or water features within

Under the Build Alternative, no permanent above the proposed location of TBM Launch Shaft B, C,
ground structures are anticipated to be built or D, no permanent impacts to Waters of the U.S.,
within a wetland or Water of the U.S. Permanent including wetlands, are anticipated. TBM Launch
aboveground structures are designed to have Shafts B, C, and D would not be within a 100-foot
minimal footprints. TBM Launch Shafts may be buffer of WSSC.
converted into Loop Maintenance Terminals; the
location and area of disturbance associated with The potential location for TBM Launch Shaft E is
Maintenance Terminals would be the same as for adjacent to freshwater forested/shrub wetlands,
Page 273
• Storm water BMPs would be installed as part

NHD listed waterways, and riverine features.
of surface disturbance associated with project
However, these surface water features are at
construction (Section 3.12.4). BMPs specific
the boundary of the Project Study Area, and the to the preservation of wetlands and Waters
TBM Launch Shaft location would be chosen such of the U.S. are:
that it would not impact these surface waters.
»» Minimize clearing and maximize retention
BMPs would be implemented as part of surface
of forest;
disturbance associated with these project elements
to avoid impacts to these nearby surface waters. »» Stabilize soil within 24 hours and make
special effort to retain fine particle silt,
sand and clay sediments;
Washington, D.C. Loop Station: As there are
no wetlands or water features within the proposed »» Implement redundant sediment control
measures such as double silt fencing;
Washington, D.C. Loop Station location, no
permanent impacts to Waters of the U.S., including »» Minimize disturbance of steep slopes (15
wetlands, are anticipated. percent slope or greater) and areas of
highly erodible soils, and;
Ventilation Shafts: Locations for ventilation »» Conduct frequent inspection of these
shafts are still to be determined, but would be measures for immediate correction of
spaced up to 2 miles apart with enough flexibility problems;
in site selection to allow wetlands to be avoided. »» If construction work were to occur nearby
Ventilations Shafts would be outside the 100-foot permanent or intermittent streams or
buffer of WSSC in the final design of the Project. nontidal wetlands, protect by a minimum
100-foot undisturbed vegetated buffer.
Overall, the Build Alternative is not anticipated to With the implementation of the design features
have permanent adverse impacts to Waters of the and BMPs, no adverse impacts to Waters of the
U.S. or wetlands. U.S., including wetlands, are anticipated from the
proposed Project.
For any structures whose locations are yet to
be determined, TBC will be required to carry 3.14 Floodplains
out additional agency coordination and review 3.14.1 Data Sources and Methodology
as project development advances to address
regulatory approval and permit procedures, Data on floodplains was obtained from the Federal
including consideration of state jurisdictional Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood
waters, wetlands, wetland buffers, and Special Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) which identify flood
State Concern wetlands with MDE. hazard areas as Special Flood Hazard Areas
(SFHAs). Floodplain data from the FIRM maps was
used to enable analysis of the distribution of flood
Measures
hazard areas within the Project Study Area for this
Design features and BMPs would be implemented section (FEMA, 2018b). Data from the National
to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to Waters Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) was used
of the U.S., including wetlands, from the proposed to examine floodplains near the Anacostia River.
Project:
• The location of Ventilation Shafts would be
selected to avoid wetlands and Waters of
the U.S.
Page 274

limitations and permitting of activity within
Executive Order 11988 – Floodplains floodplains. In the State of Maryland, there are
Management permitting requirements for constructing within a
Areas surrounding and immediately adjacent to 100-year flood zone, as discussed below.
rivers, creeks, and lakes have an increased risk of
State of Maryland, Waterway Construction
inundation. Executive Order 11988 amends the
Statute
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 to reduce the Chapter 526 of the Laws of 1933, (legislation based
risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on on recommendations of the 1931 Commission),
human safety, health and welfare, and restore and established a permanent State Water Resources
preserve the natural and beneficial values served Commission. The legislation reflected concern
by floodplains (FEMA, 2018c). The Order requires about deficiencies in the policies and programs
federal agencies to avoid long and short-term of the State of Maryland with respect to water
adverse impacts associated with the occupancy resources, including measurement, allocation of
and modification of floodplains, and to avoid direct water resources, and structures. Authorization is
and indirect support of floodplain development required for construction or repair of the following
wherever there is a practical alternative. The Order projects in a waterway or a 100-year floodplain:
outlines an eight-step decision making process that dams and reservoirs; bridges and culverts;
agencies should carry out to assess a potential excavation, filling or construction; channelization;
project’s impacts to or within the floodplain. The changing the course, current or cross-section of
eight steps are: any stream; temporary construction (e.g., utility
1. Determine if a proposed action is in the base lines); or any other similar project.
floodplain (that area which has a one percent
Washington, D.C. Flood Hazard Rules
or greater chance of flooding in any given year)
2. Conduct early public review, including Washington, D.C. has enacted and implemented
public notice the floodplain regulations required for participation
in National Flood Insurance Program. For
3. Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives
to locating in the base floodplain, including construction in Washington, D.C. within the Special
alternative sites outside of the floodplain Flood Hazard Areas, projects must comply with the
Title 12 DCMR - D.C. Construction Codes and Title
4. Identify impacts of the proposed action
20 DCMR Chapter 31 - Flood Hazard Rules. The
5. If impacts cannot be avoided, develop revised Flood Hazard Rules, dated 2010, provides
measures to minimize the impacts and restore details and technical provisions for floodplain
and preserve the floodplain, as appropriate
development requirements and permitting process.
6. Reevaluate alternatives
7. Present the findings and a public explanation
8. Implement the action. A floodplain is defined as any land area susceptible
to being inundated by floodwaters from any
MDE Water Management Regulations source (FEMA, 2018d). The SFHA is defined as the
The proposed Project must adhere to the COMAR, area that would be inundated by the flood event
particularly Title 26 which corresponds to MDE. having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or
Title 26, Subtitle 17, Chapters 04 and 05 of exceeded in any given year. The 1-percent annual
COMAR regulate water management of and chance flood is referred to as the base flood or the
construction within floodplains. Title 26, Subtitle 100-year flood. Moderate flood hazard areas
08, Chapters 03 and 04 regulate discharge are the areas between the limits of the base flood
Page 275
and the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (or 500-year) The Anacostia River has an associated civil works
flood. The areas of minimal flood hazard are flood control project. The Flood Control Act of
the areas outside the SFHA and higher than the 1950 authorized flood control measures along
elevation of the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood the Anacostia that would afford protection against
(FEMA, 2018d). Floodplains (100-year flood a flood considerably greater than the maximum
zones) within the Project Study Area are mapped flood of record, which occurred on August 23,
in Figure 3-12.1. The areas within the Project Study 1933. USACE built five levee systems, two in
Area that include 100-year and 500-year flood Maryland and three in the District as a result of
zones are primarily along the Main Artery Tunnel the legislation. In Maryland, there is a levee
alignment. A small part of the southern edge of system on the Northeast Branch and one on the
the TBM Launch Shaft E Search Location is within Northwest Branch. According to the NCPC report,
the floodplain. and as shown in Figure 3.12-1, these levees are
approximately 0.5 mile west of the Project Study
The majority of the Project Study Area falls within Area near Bladensburg, Maryland (NCPC, 2008).
an area of minimal flood hazard. There are a Channel improvements were implemented along
limited number of crossings that are within a both branches, although the navigation channel
mapped floodway, defined as a channel of a extends upstream only to Bladensburg. As a part
river or stream and the parts of the floodplain of the Anacostia River flood control project, USACE
adjoining the channel that are required to carry installed pumping stations to protect against
and discharge the floodwater of a river or stream. levee-caused flooding. Levees, floodway channel,
These floodways are associated with major surface and pumping stations are inspected annually. The
waters within the Project Study Area and their levees continue to require maintenance, particularly
major tributaries, and include crossing number tree removal, to stay within USACE compliance.
1 - Gwynns Falls, 4 and 5 - Patapsco River, 9
- Unnamed Patapsco River Tributary, 15 and
16 - Stony Run, 20 - Deep Run, 23 - Piny Run, The following section analyzes the potential
30 - Little Patuxent River, 32 and 33 - Patuxent temporary and permanent impacts of the proposed
River, 38 - Beaverdam Creek, 39 - Beck Branch, Project to floodplains in the Project Study Area.
43 and 44 - unnamed tributary to the Anacostia
River, 45 - Brier Ditch, and 48 - Anacostia River
(Table 3.12-3, Figure 3.12-1). No-Build Alternative
Under the No-Build Alternative, no temporary
According to a 2008 report from the NCPC, adverse effects to floodplains are anticipated.
the hydrology of the Anacostia tributary system
is “flashy” (i.e., it has a quick flow response to Build Alternative
rainfall) with intense flow conditions even in Surface features under the Build Alternative would
moderate rainfall events. Channelization of the either avoid 100-year or 500-year floodplains,
Anacostia’s tributaries, along with urbanization, or, where present, it has been determined that
results in higher runoff volumes that flow quickly into enough space is available to avoid 100-year
the mainstem. Conversely, in dry weather, the tidal or 500-year flood plains. Construction staging
river portion is sluggish, and water can languish areas would not be in the 100-year or 500-year
for 100 to 110 days in drought periods. Average floodplain. Therefore, no temporary adverse
daily inflow into the tidal river is approximately effects on floodplains are anticipated as a result
138 cubic feet per second (roughly 61,934 gallons of construction.
per minute) (NCPC, 2008).
Page 276

The Main Artery Tunnels would be underground
No Build Alternative and not generate fill activities within floodplains.
The No-Build Alternative would have permanent TBM Launch Shafts and Loop Stations would not
adverse effects to floodplains. occur within floodplains. Ventilation Shafts would
be spaced up to 2 miles apart, allowing for the
Build Alternative avoidance of floodplains at major floodway
Under the Build Alternative, no permanent above crossings. Main Artery Tunnels would maintain
ground structures would be constructed within the depths greater than 20 feet beneath stream
100-year floodplain. Parts of the proposed Project bottoms; as such, floodways, local and regional
alignment that cross flood zones primarily include storm water and/or flood attenuation systems
the Main Artery Tunnels, which are underground surface water flow would not be physically altered
and would not impact the floodplain. A small or affected. As described in Section 3.19 - Utilities
portion of the southern edge of the TBM Launch of this EA, utility coordination and the review of
Shaft E Search Location is within the floodplain, as-built drawings would be conducted prior to
however construction of the TBM Launch Shaft the final placement of civil structures of the Build
within the floodplain would be avoided in the final Alternative to avoid storm drains and other storm
design of the proposed Project. Other potential water and flood attenuation systems.
TBM Launch Shaft and Loop Station locations are
outside the floodplain. As such, no adverse effects The Build Alternative includes the construction of
to floodplains are anticipated due to operation project features that require surface disturbance
of the proposed Project. including TBM Launch Shafts, Loop Stations, and
Ventilation Shafts. These Project elements would not
The proposed Project would cross underneath the result in any fill activities being introduced within
Anacostia River, a navigable waterway, and within the Project Study Area and would not involve
one-half mile to the west of the two-section levee structures that could affect local or regional flood
implemented by the Anacostia River flood control control infrastructure.
project. As such, coordination with USACE under
Section 408 of the CWA is being undertaken to Baltimore Loop Station: The Baltimore Loop
ensure that the Build Alternative is developed and Station is not within a 100-year flood zone; no
constructed in a manner that would ensure that the impacts to floodplains or flood control systems
usefulness of the civil works project is not impaired are anticipated.
and that the alteration is not injurious to the public
interest. Based on preliminary correspondence TBM Launch Shaft A: The TBM Launch Shaft A
received from the USACE, dated November 14, is not within a 100-year flood zone; no impacts to
2018, it has determined the tunnel must be deeper floodplains or flood control systems are anticipated.
than 20 feet below the thalweg (defined as the
deepest part of any cross-section of a river) of TBM Launch Shaft B: The TBM Launch Shaft B
the Anacostia River, to avoid conflict with the is not within a 100-year flood zone; no impacts to
USACE structure. Conceptual design of the Project floodplains or flood control systems are anticipated.
indicates the tunnel would be constructed a depth
of greater than 20 feet below the thalweg, however TBM Launch Shaft C: The TBM Launch Shaft C
compliance with Section 408 would occur during is not within a 100-year flood zone; no impacts to
final design. floodplains or flood control systems are anticipated.
Page 277
TBM Launch Shaft D: The TBM Launch Shaft D 3.15 Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas,
is not within a 100-year flood zone; no impacts to Coastal Zones, and Other
floodplains or flood control systems are anticipated. Management Areas
TBM Launch Shaft E Search Location: The
southern edge of the potential location for TBM Geospatial data from the Maryland GIS Data
Launch Shaft E Search Area is within a 500-year Catalog showing Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas
and 100-year flood zone. However, these was reviewed for the analysis of this resource
floodplains are at the boundary of the Project Study area (2018). The analysis involved using GIS
Area, and the TBM Launch Shaft location would software to identify potential resources within the
be chosen such that it would not occur within the Project Study Area that could be affected by the
floodplain. Therefore, no impacts to floodplains or proposed Project. Coordination with agencies
flood control systems are anticipated. having jurisdiction for governing laws, including
the MDE, MDNR, and the Maryland Critical Area
Washington, D.C. Loop Station: The Commission, was conducted to identify resources
Washington, D.C. Loop Station location is not within within the Project Study Area.
a 100-year flood zone; no impacts to floodplains
or flood control systems are anticipated.
State of Maryland Chesapeake Bay Critical
3.14.5 Minimization and Mitigation Area Law
Measures
The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Law was passed
The following design features would be in 1984 by the Maryland General Assembly to
implemented to avoid adverse effects to floodplains protect the overall quality of the Chesapeake Bay.
from the proposed Project: The Critical Area is defined as the land area 1,000
• Prior to site placement and design, Ventilation feet inland from tidal water or tidal wetlands,
Shaft locations and TBM Launch Shaft E would and special permits must be obtained to disturb
be sited to avoid floodplains. Ventilation vegetation (i.e., construction and excavation)
Shafts would be spaced up to 2 miles apart, within this area. Under the Law, local jurisdictions
allowing for the avoidance of floodplains at must create Critical Area Programs, and Anne
major floodway crossings. Arundel, Prince George’s, Baltimore County, and
• At floodway crossings, Main Artery Tunnels Baltimore City each have Critical Area Programs
would be designed to maintain depths greater that may apply to the proposed Project.
than 20 feet beneath stream bottoms; as such,
floodways, local and regional storm water The goals of these Critical Area Management
and/or flood attenuation systems surface Programs are to improve water quality by reducing
water flow would not be physically altered adverse impacts of human activity, to conserve
or affected.
and restore fish, plant and wildlife habitat while
• Utility coordination and the review of as-built accommodating growth and revitalization, and
drawings would be conducted prior to the final to promote a more attractive and sustainable
siting of civil structures of the Build Alternative
environment for citizens (Baltimore City Department
to avoid storm drains and other storm water
of Planning, 2011).
and flood attenuation systems.
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement
With the implementation of the design features
described above, no adverse effects to floodplains The mission of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
are anticipated from the proposed Project. Agreement is to restore and protect the Bay through
Page 278
a partnership of six states (namely Maryland, boundary of the counties bordering the Atlantic
Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, and Ocean, the Chesapeake Bay, and the Potomac
Delaware), the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake River up to the municipal limits of Washington, D.C.
Bay Commission, and the federal government. In the Atlantic Ocean, the boundary extends to
Specific goals of the Agreement include: the limit of Maryland’s three-mile jurisdiction. The
• Protection, restoration, and enhancement of District of Columbia is not currently designated as
fisheries; a coastal state and does not have an applicable
• Restoration, enhancement, and protection of Coastal Zone Management Program.
land and water habitats; Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas
• Reduction of pollutants to improve water
Under the State Chesapeake Bay Critical Area
quality;
Law, all land within the Critical Area, except
• Removal of toxic contaminants; for land owned by the federal government, is
• Maintenance of healthy watersheds with high assigned one of three land classifications based
quality and ecological value; on the predominant land use and the intensity of
• Increase in diversity of those who actively development (MDNR, N.D.). The purpose of these
support the conservation of the Bay; land classifications is to guide development with use
• Conservation of landscapes for maintaining and intensity restrictions in such a way that growth
water quality and habitat; is contained near or within existing developed
• Expansion of access to the Bay; areas and natural habitats are preserved. The three
land classifications are defined below:
• Education of students to be able to protect and
restore local watersheds; and • Intensely Developed Areas (IDAs): IDAs are
defined as areas in which 20 or more adjacent
• Increase in the resiliency of the Chesapeake acres of residential, commercial, institutional,
Bay to changing climate conditions or industrial land uses predominate.
(Chesapeake Bay Program, 2014). Development is concentrated in IDAs, and
Federal Coastal Zone Management Act subsequently there is little natural habitat.
Section 307 of the CZMA of 1972, as amended, Focus of the Critical Program in these areas
requires that proposed federal activities, including is on improving water quality and requiring
development techniques that reduce pollutant
direct federal actions, federal licenses and
loads associated with stormwater runoff.
permits, and federal assistance to State and local
Projects within IDAs are subject to a “10
governments, be consistent to the maximum extent percent Rule” which requires that developed
practicable with a State’s federally-approved sites reduce pollutant loads at least 10 percent
Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP). below loads generated at the same site prior
The obligations of parties subject to comply with to development. Habitat Protection Areas
federal consistency requirements of the CZMA must be designated within IDAs to promote
are outlined by the NOAA in 15 CFR Part 930. the clustering of development, which reduces
Maryland’s CZMP is a “networked” program that impervious surfaces and increases the area
is based on existing State laws and regulations. of natural vegetation; however, there are no
Thus, Maryland’s Federal Consistency decision is clearing limits or lot coverage limits within
IDAs (MDNR, N.D.).
based on a project’s compliance with applicable
State laws, regulations, and enforceable policies • Limited Development Areas (LDAs): LDAs are
that make up the Maryland CZMP (Ghigiarelli, defined as areas characterized by low or
2004). The boundary of Maryland’s coastal moderate intensity development but contain
areas of natural plant and animal habitats. Low
zone, as defined in its CZMP, consists of the inland
Page 279
to moderate development includes areas that goals; as such, lot coverage restrictions, forest
have a housing density between one dwelling and woodland retention, and stormwater
unit per five acres and four dwelling units per management practices are all implemented to
acre and contain public water, sewer, or both, maintain important areas of plant and wildlife
or have IDA characteristics but are less than habitat in the Chesapeake Bay (MDNR, N.D.).
20 acres in size. Typically, runoff water quality
within LDAs is not substantially impaired; as 3.15.3 Affected Environment
such, focus in LDAs is on conservation of This section describes the affected environment
existing areas of natural habitat, as well as regarding Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas, coastal
preservation of water quality. Lot coverage zones, and other management areas and outlines
restrictions are the primary method that these applicable regulations that govern these areas
goals are achieved. Lot coverage is defined within the proposed Project Study Area.
as the percentage of a lot that is occupied by
structures, parking areas, roads, walkways,
The proposed Project Study Area contains IDAs,
pavers, gravel, or man-made material, and
lot coverage is typically limited to 15 percent LDAs, and RCAs. Table 3.15-1 shows the area of
of the lot or parcel. Critical Area programs each of these development area types contained
require that development projects replace within the Study Area. A map of these areas is
cleared forest cover to protect the health and shown in Figure 3.15-1.
habitat of the Chesapeake (MDNR, N.D.).
• Resource Conservation Areas (RCAs): Main Artery Tunnels: Most of the Critical Area
RCAs are defined as areas characterized listed within the Project Study Area (Table 3.15-1)
by natural environments or areas where is along the alignment of the Main Artery Tunnels.
resource utilization activities are taking These areas include the Gwynns Falls River outlet
place. Resource utilization activities include to the Chesapeake (near the I-95 crossing) and the
agriculture, forestry, fisheries activities, and Patapsco River crossing in Baltimore City and the
aquaculture. RCAs make up approximately Anacostia River crossing in Prince George’s county
80 percent of the Critical Area and contain the near the Washington, D.C. border.
most restrictive land use regulations. Typically,
new commercial, industrial, and institutional
Along the Main Artery Tunnel alignment, there are
land uses are not permitted, and residential
density is limited to one dwelling unit per 20 54.7 acres of IDA, 3.8 acres of LDA, and 80.5
acres. Conserving the ecological value of acres of RCA.
RCAs is important to achieving Critical Area
Table 3.15-1: Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas within the Project Study Area
Development Area Type Area Contained within the Project Study Area (Acres)
Intensely Development Area 58.1
Limited Development Area 3.8
Resource Conservation Area 80.6
Source: Maryland GIS Data Catalog (2018)
Page 280
Figure 3.15-1: Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas and Biological Resources (Page 1 of 8)
Page 281
Page 282
Page 283
Page 284
Page 285
Page 286
Page 287
Page 288
Loop Stations, TBM Launch Shafts, and Washington, D.C., is within the Maryland
Ventilation Shafts: The Build Alternative Coastal Zone, and subsequently subject to the
includes the construction of Loop Stations, TBM CZMA, Maryland CZMP, and NOAA regulations
Launch Shafts and Ventilation Shafts. The following (15 CFR part 930) which contain the CZMA
sections describe Critical Areas as they relate to obligations for those required to comply with
these Project features (Figure 3.15-1). federal consistency requirements.
Baltimore Loop Station: The proposed location Maryland’s CZMP is a networked program in which
of the Baltimore Loop Station is is outside the Critical existing State regulations and permits are used to
Area and contains no IDAs, LDAs, or RCAs. enforce the CZMA. Through coordination with
MDE’s Maryland Federal Consistency Coordinator,
TBM Launch Shaft A: The potential location for it has been determined that the only authorization
TBM Launch Shaft A is outside the Critical Area, required for CZMA Federal Consistency is a Tidal
and subsequently contains no IDAs, LDAs, or RCAs. Wetland License from the BPW, pending the final
locations of the Ventilation Shafts.
TBM Launch Shaft B: The potential location for
TBM Launch Shaft B is outside the Critical Area,
and subsequently contains no IDAs, LDAs, or RCAs. The following section analyzes the potential
temporary and permanent adverse effects resulting
TBM Launch Shaft C: The potential location for from the No-Build and Build Alternatives to
TBM Launch Shaft C is outside the Critical Area, Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas, coastal zones, and
and subsequently contains no IDAs, LDAs, or RCAs. other management areas in the Project Study Area.

TBM Launch Shaft D: The potential location for
TBM Launch Shaft D is outside the Critical Area, No-Build Alternative
and subsequently contains no IDAs, LDAs, or RCAs. Under the No-Build Alternative, no temporary or
construction-related adverse effects are anticipated
TBM Launch Shaft E Search Area: The to Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas, coastal zones,
proposed Search Area for TBM Launch Shaft E or other management areas.
is adjacent to the Critical Area surrounding the
Anacostia River. As such, the southeast border of Build Alternative
the Search Area is partially within the Critical Area. The following section describes potential temporary
There are 3.4 acres of IDA and 0.1 acres of RCA environmental consequences due to construction
within the Search Area of TBM Launch Shaft E. of the proposed Project.
Washington, D.C. Loop Station: The Main Artery Tunnels: The Main Artery
proposed location of the Washington, D.C. Loop Tunnels would cross under Critical Areas at the
Station is outside the Critical Area and contains no following locations: Gwynns Falls (near the I-95
IDAs, LDAs, or RCAs. crossing), the Patapsco River crossing, and the
Anacostia River crossing. The Main Artery Tunnels
Coastal Management Zones
would typically be designed to pass 30 feet or
Maryland’s Coastal Zone includes 16 counties more below the ground surface, depending on
(including Baltimore, Anne Arundel and Prince subsurface conditions. Tunneling operations during
George’s) and Baltimore City. The entire Project construction would take place at these depths, and
Study Area, less the portion contained within as such, the Main Artery Tunnels would not result
Page 289
in temporary adverse effects to Critical Areas or temporary adverse impacts to protected areas
coastal zones, as the tunnels would be sufficiently within coastal zones are anticipated.
deep underground such that no disruptions
to Critical Area natural habitats, addition of TBM Launch Shaft B: The potential location
impervious surface area, or loss of wetlands or for TBM Launch Shaft B is outside the Critical
vegetation would occur. Area, and therefore would not disrupt protected
Critical Area natural habitats during construction
Prior to construction of the Build Alternative, TBC of the proposed Project. No wetlands are within
would be required to obtain permits for Main Artery the potential location for TBM Launch Shaft B;
Tunnel crossings of all tidal waterways; the State therefore, no disruption to wetlands that must
of Maryland’s Federal Consistency determination, be preserved for CZMA Federal Consistency is
pursuant to Section 307 of the CZMA, would be anticipated due to construction.
transmitted to TBC as part of the required license.
TBM Launch Shaft C: The potential location
Loop Stations, TBM Launch Shafts, and for TBM Launch Shaft C is outside the Critical
Ventilation Shafts: The Build Alternative Area, and therefore would not disrupt protected
includes the construction of two Loop Stations, four Critical Area natural habitats during construction
TBM Launch Shafts and up to 70 Ventilation Shafts. of the proposed Project. No wetlands are within
The locations of these sites relative to Critical Areas the potential location for TBM Launch Shaft C;
and wetlands are shown in Figure 3.15 1 and therefore, no disruption to wetlands that must
Figure 3.12-1. be preserved for CZMA Federal Consistency is
anticipated due to construction.
Baltimore Loop Station: The proposed location
of the Baltimore Loop Station is outside the Critical TBM Launch Shaft D: The potential location
Area, and therefore would not disrupt protected for TBM Launch Shaft D is outside the Critical
Critical Area natural habitats during construction Area, and therefore would not disrupt protected
of the proposed Project. The site does not contain Critical Area natural habitats during construction
wetlands that must be preserved for CZMA Federal of the proposed Project. No wetlands are within
Consistency; therefore, no temporary adverse the potential location for TBM Launch Shaft D, so
effects to protected areas within the coastal zone no disruption to wetlands that must be preserved
due to construction are anticipated. for CZMA Federal Consistency is anticipated due
to construction.
TBM Launch Shaft A: The potential location for
TBM Launch Shaft A is outside the Critical Area, TBM Launch Shaft E Search Area: The
and therefore would not disrupt protected Critical proposed Search Area for the location of TBM
Area natural habitats during construction of the Launch Shaft E is partially within the Critical Area
proposed Project. The site contains portions of a and contains IDAs and RCAs associated with the
freshwater forested/shrub NWI wetland and a Anacostia River crossing. Construction would
National Hydrography Dataset listed waterway; occur such that these areas are not disturbed;
however, the USACE conducted a field visit on therefore, construction activities of the TBM Launch
August 31, 2018 and determined that there were Shaft would avoid protected Critical Area natural
no jusridictional wetlands present within the Limit habitats. No wetlands are within the search area
of Disturbance (parcel boundary) for the site for the potential location of TBM Launch Shaft E,
(Appendix C). Construction would not occur within so no disruption to wetlands that must be preserved
a 100-foot buffer of the wetland; therefore, no
Page 290
for CZMA Federal Consistency is anticipated due Maintenance Terminal would be chosen such that it
to construction. would not be within the Critical Area. Therefore, no
permanent loss of natural habitat or wetlands would
Washington, D.C. Loop Station: The occur due to the construction of TBM Launch Shafts
proposed location of the Washington, D.C. Loop and permanent Maintenance Terminals.
Station is outside the Critical Area, and therefore
would not disrupt protected Critical Area natural Ventilation Shaft locations along the alignment would
habitats during construction of the proposed be preferentially selected as much as practicable
Project. The site does not contain wetlands that such that they are outside the Critical Areas, as well
must be preserved for CZMA Federal Consistency; as wetlands that exist within the proposed Project
therefore, no adverse effects to protected areas Study Area. Nevertheless, if Ventilation Shafts were
within the coastal zone are anticipated. proposed to be constructed within a Critical Area,
Ventilation Shaft sites would be designed to comply
Ventilation Shafts: There are 54.7 acres of with the land use, development, and stormwater
IDA, 3.8 acres of LDA, and 80.5 acres of RCA regulations outlined under the Critical Area law.
within the 300-foot buffer of the Main Artery Therefore, Ventilation Shafts would not contribute
Tunnel alignment. While the locations of Ventilation to adverse effects within Maryland Critical Areas
Shafts are currently undetermined, they would be or the Maryland Coastal Zone.
selected to avoid Critical Areas, wetlands, and
other areas protected by the CZMA as much as
Measures
practicable. In the event that construction of a
Ventilation Shaft within a Critical Area were to be The following design features and BMPs would be
proposed, development and design of Ventilation implemented to minimize adverse effects to Critical
Shafts would be coordinated with the local Critical Areas, coastal zones, or other management areas:
Area Commission in compliance with applicable • Final design of Ventilation Shafts would
design requirements. Construction BMPs would be preferentially avoid Chesapeake Bay Critical
implemented to minimize adverse effects to Critical Areas where practicable. Should the final
Areas and coastal zones during construction of the design of Ventilation Shafts be within the
proposed Project (Section 3.15.4). Critical Area, the design would comply with
the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Law and
3.15.4.2 Permanent Impacts the Project would obtain necessary permits,
No Build Alternative such as zoning approval, building permits,
and grading permit.
The No-Build Alternative would have no permanent
adverse effects to Critical Areas or coastal zones. • Final design of Ventilation Shafts would avoid
wetlands to comply with the Maryland CZMP.
Build Alternative • Storm water BMPs would be installed, where
Loop Stations are proposed outside the Critical practicable, as part of surface disturbance
Area and in developed areas that do not contain associated with project construction. BMPs
wetlands or surface water features; as such, the specific to the preservation of Critical Area
natural habitats and wetlands are:
station structures would not result in the permanent
loss of Critical Area natural habitats or other »» Minimize clearing and maximize retention
protected wildlife features. The only potential TBM of forest;
Launch Shaft location that would be within a Critical »» Stabilize soil within 24 hours and make
Area is the search area for TBM Launch Shaft E. special effort to retain fine particle silt,
The location of this TBM Launch Shaft and potential sand and clay sediments;
Page 291
»» Implement redundant sediment control

industry standards and building code requirements.
measures such as double silt fencing;
Settlement monitoring would be conducted to
»» Minimize disturbance of steep slopes (15 avoid and prevent settlement impacts to overlying
percent slope or greater) and areas of built infrastructure. Further discussion of settlement
highly erodible soils;
monitoring is contained in Section 3.16.5.
»» Conduct frequent inspection of these
measures for immediate correction of 3.16.2 Regulatory Setting
problems; and Code of Maryland Regulations
»» If construction work were to occur nearby The proposed Project must adhere to the COMAR,
permanent or intermittent streams or particularly Title 26, which corresponds to MDE.
nontidal wetlands, protect by a minimum Specific subtitles applicable to the proposed Project
100-foot undisturbed vegetated buffer.
regarding geology and soils are Subtitle 12 –
With the implementation of the design features and Radiation Management, Subtitle 13 – Disposal
BMPs described above, minimal adverse effects to of Controlled Hazardous Substances, Subtitle
Critical Areas, coastal zones, and other management 14 – Hazardous Substances Response Plan,
areas are anticipated from the proposed Project. Subtitle 15 – Disposal of Controlled Hazardous
Substances – Radioactive Hazardous Substances,
3.16 Geology and Soils and Subtitle 17 – Water Management.
3.16.1 Data Sources and Methodology 3.16.3 Affected Environment
The USGS geologic map database (N.D.) and Geology
MGS geologic map database (2018) were Due to the subsurface nature of tunneling projects
used to enable geospatial analysis of surface and their interaction with various geological
geology. Textual references to known geologic features during construction, understanding the
units were reviewed. The USDA Natural Resource existing geology is important for both designing
Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey project elements and determining potential impacts.
Geographic database (SSURGO) and DCGIS According to MGS, two major geologic provinces
Open Data database were used to enable review are near the Project Study Area, however the entire
of surface soils. Methodology involved using GIS Project Study Area lies within the Atlantic Coastal
software to identify geology, soils, and prime Plain province just east of the Piedmont province..
farmland, and applying engineering expertise to
determine the potential impact of the proposed The Atlantic Coastal Plain Province is underlain by
Project given the geological features and soils a wedge of unconsolidated sediments including
types within the Project Study Area. gravel, sand, silt, and clay, which overlaps the rocks
of the eastern Piedmont along an irregular line
Prior to design of subsurface structures, a of contact known as the Fall Line (Figure 3.16-1).
geotechnical investigation would be conducted Eastward, this wedge of sediments thickens to more
to adequately characterize the geotechnical than 8,000 feet at the Atlantic coast line. Beyond
conditions of soils to be encountered where this line is the Atlantic Continental Shelf Province,
tunnels, Loop Stations, TBM Launch Shafts, and the submerged continuation of the Coastal Plain,
Ventilation Shafts of the Build Alternative would be which extends eastward for at least another 75
constructed. Soils reports would inform the location- miles, where the sediments attain a maximum
specific design requirements for shoring systems thickness of about 40,000 feet. The sediments of
and tunnel linings, anticipated settlement values, the Coastal Plain dip eastward at a low angle,
as well as pavement and foundation design per generally less than one degree, and range in
Page 292
Figure 3.16-1: Geology (Page 1 of 8)
Page 293
Page 294
Page 295
Page 296
Page 297
Page 298
Page 299
Page 300
age from Triassic to Quaternary. The younger 0 to 150 feet (0 to 45 m) in thickness. Economic use
formations appear at the surface successively to of these deposits for use as aggregate (sand and
the southeast across Southern Maryland and the gravel) is limited. These deposits include Holocene
Eastern Shore. A thin layer of Quaternary gravel alluvium deposited more recently than Pleistocene
and sand covers the older formations throughout epoch, including alluvium deposited upstream in
much of the area (MGS, 2018b). rivers such as the Potomac, and at shorelines at
sea/bay level (MGS, 2000; MGS, 1968).
The Piedmont Plateau Province is on the surface
west of the Fall Line and underlies the Atlantic Upland Deposits are Miocene to Pleistocene river,
Coastal Province at depth. The Piedmont Plateau estuary, and shallow marine deposits consisting
Province is composed of hard, crystalline igneous of sand, gravel, and to a lesser extent, silt and
and metamorphic rocks and extends from the clay. This mapped unit ranges in thickness from
inner edge of the Coastal Plain westward to 0 to 50 feet (0 to 15 m). In some places, these
Catoctin Mountain, the eastern boundary of the deposits form upland surfaces due to the resistance
Blue Ridge Province. Bedrock in the eastern part of gravels. Economic uses include sand and gravel
of the Piedmont consists of schist, gneiss, gabbro, for building materials (MGS, 2000; MGS, 1968).
and other highly metamorphosed sedimentary
and igneous rocks of probable volcanic origin. Lower Cretaceous Potomac Group are sedimentary
In several places, these rocks have been intruded rocks deposited in non-marine river floodplain
by granitic rocks. Deep drilling has revealed that and back-swamp depositional environments.
similar metamorphic and igneous rocks underlie Provenance is from eroded Appalachian bedrock
the sedimentary rocks of the Coastal Plain. Several sediments transported toward an opening
domal uplifts of Precambrian gneiss mantled proto-Atlantic Ocean (MGS, 2000; MGS, 1968).
with quartzite, marble, and schist are present in
Baltimore County and in parts of adjacent counties. Patapsco Formation consists of interlensing
Differential erosion of these contrasting rock types sands, silts, and clays with the clays being
has produced a distinctive topography in this part highly colored and variegated (red, gray,
of the Piedmont (MGS, 2018b). white, and chocolate). The clays grade rapidly
upward and laterally into cross-bedded
The Project Study Area is as close as approximately sands and silts; contain thick lenses of lignite
one mile east of the Fall Line geologic contact with (low-rank coal) clay that yields numerous
the Piedmont Province north of the Patapsco River. plant fossils. The formation unconformably
Farther south, the Project Study Area becomes overlies the Arundel Formation or the Patuxent
progressively more distant from the Fall Line. Formation where the Arundel is absent
(Brenner, 1963). Sandy bands of coarser
The Atlantic Coastal Plain surficial geologic units materials are at times interstratified. The sands
mapped in the Project Study Area that would frequently contain much decomposed feldspar
interact with the proposed Project include the and less frequently rounded lumps of clay. The
following (listed chronologically from recent to sands are often cross-bedded, and all deposits
older rocks; Figure 3.16-1). give evidence of shallow-water origin (Clark,
1897). Thickness of the formation ranges
Lowland Deposits are characterized by Pleistocene from 0 to 400 feet. Economic uses include
bay and river shore sediments deposited during extraction of yellow ochre (limonite) for paint
higher water levels, consisting of silt, clay, sand, and color base, and clay for bricks and pottery.
to a lesser extent, gravel. These deposits range from The Raritan Formation was previously mapped
Page 301
as a separate geologic unit, which has since basement rocks. Economic and important
been combined with the Patapsco Formation uses include mining of sand and gravel for
(USGS, 2018d). building materials, and sand layers which form
aquifers (Brenner, 1963; USGS, 2018; Clark,
Arundel Formation consists of clay with minor 1897). Refer to Section 3.12 - Surface and
sand and silt, ranging in thickness from 3 to Ground Waters, of this EA for a discussion of
100 feet. The formation is a series of large groundwater and aquifers in the Study Area.
and small lenses of iron-ore bearing clays
that occupy ancient depressions in surface Undifferentiated Mesozoic Rocks include
of Patuxent formation. The clays are highly coarse-grained conglomerate with pebbles of
carbonaceous. Lignitized trunks of trees are quartzite, pegmatite, serpentine, and vein quartz
often found in upright position with their roots at base of the formation; reddish-brown, gray and
still intact. Vast quantities of nodules of iron green, mottled, fine- to coarse-grained sandstone,
carbonate are scattered through the tough siltstone, and shale. These rocks are present in the
dark clays. In upper parts of the formation, subsurface only and have a maximum thickness
the carbonate ores have changed to hydrous (penetrated) of 600 feet (MGS, 2000).
oxides of iron. The Arundel Formation is
divided into clay and sand facies. The clay Precambrian Undifferentiated Crystalline Rock
facies is 0.5 to 10 m thick and is gray, brown, consists of weathered schist and mica gneiss with
black and red kaolinitic and illitic clays with pegmatite dikes, serpentine, and metagabbro
quartz silt locally interbedded with quartz encountered in Eastern Shore deep test wells.
sand lenses and pods. The sand facies is Hornblende gneiss and biotite-quartz gneiss was
0.5 to 3 m thick and is well-sorted, medium- encountered in southern Prince Georges County
to fine-grained quartz sand with locally test wells (MGS, 2000; MGS, 1968).
abundant lignite fragments (Crowley, 1976).
Economic uses include raw materials for brick, Near Fort Meade, basement rocks of the Piedmont
terra cotta, and pottery; and as an iron ore range from approximately 240 feet below ground
(iron carbonate) (USGS, 2018d). surface (Staley, et al., 2004).
Patuxent Formation is composed of Artificial fill consisting of certified and uncertified

cross-bedded and lenticular sands and fill material in the use of construction and land
gravels with minor amounts of light gray, reclamation activities was not mapped in the
brown, and pink clay beds. Hematite-limonite Study Area but is understood to be present in the
cements are present. Sand beds generally upper 5 feet or more in many areas of past surface
contain considerable kaolinized feldspar, disturbance.
producing a clearly defined arkose. Clay
lumps are scattered throughout. The sand The Project Study Area is predominantly underlain
beds frequently pass over gradually into by the Potomac Group. Lowland Deposits are
sandy clays and eventually into argillaceous mapped at the surface in several locations,
materials that are commonly light colored, but primarily where rivers and streams are present,
often highly colored and variegated not unlike including the Anacostia River, Beaverdam Creek,
the Patapsco formation. The arenaceous beds Patuxent River, Dorsey Run, Patapsco River,
are cross-bedded, evidence of shallow-water Gwynn Falls. Lowland deposits include central
origin. Thickness ranges from 0 to 350 feet. Washington, D.C. including the corresponding
The formation rests directly on crystalline southern endpoint and vicinity. Upland Deposits
Page 302
occur sporadically within the Project Study Area, Early Cretaceous age is well-known for its rich
at Greenbelt Park, near Laurel Fort Meade Road, paleontology (Kranz and Santucci, 2004). The
near Arundel Preserve/MD 175, and near the Potomac Group flora provides the “longest and
I-195 junction. most complete sample of data on early angiosperm
evolution where both pollen and megafloral
Main Artery Tunnels of the proposed Project would [leaves, flowers, etc.] have been collected. The
be 30 to 90 feet below the ground surface. At the Potomac Group sediments have also produced
depths anticipated, crystalline basement rocks are over 100 fossil specimens of cycadeoid tree
not anticipated to be encountered. fragment fossils. The majority were discovered at
several dozen localities between Baltimore and
The clays in soils encountered within the Potomac Washington, D.C., generally within several miles
Group have a medium to very high swelling of what is now the B-W Parkway.
potential (District of Columbia Water and
Sewer Authority, 2016). Swelling clays can The B-W Parkway also cuts through more recent
produce additional loads on structures due to sediments including Quaternary terrace deposits
the stress changes that occur during construction. and alluvium. The terrace deposits are made up of
Geotechnical analysis would identify swelling coarse sand, pebbly sand and gravel, with lesser
capacity of soils in the Study Area and recommend amounts of silt-clay and can be found in disjunct
design and construction methods for structures to bodies flanking major streams. The terrace deposits
accommodate loads from swelling, as needed, for are believed to be the result of stream erosion
the Build Alternative. during the early Quaternary, and due to more
recent (renewed) downcutting and erosion, are
Radon is a natural gas formed from the radioactive now isolated on the valley walls above the modern
decay of radium-226 (226Ra) in the uranium-238 floodplain. Although not particularly common,
decay series and is the number one cause of lung some plant and insect fossils have been reported in
cancer in non-smokers. In the Project Study Area, terrace deposits though none specifically in areas
the District of Columbia is designated as a Zone through which the parkway passes (Kranz and
3 (low) radon risk area. Baltimore City, Anne Santucci, 2004).
Arundel County, and Prince George’s County
Soils
are designated as Zone 2 (medium) radon
exposure risk. Baltimore County is designated as The most prevalent soil series within the Project
a Zone 1 (high) radon risk, but in general, radon Study Area are shown in Table 3.16-1. Soils consist
concentrations in groundwater and soil vapor are of a variety of soil classifications shown in Table
highest in granitic and metamorphic rocks, and 3.16-2 and Figure 3.16-2.
lower in mafic and carbonate rocks. There are no
crystalline rocks immediately underlying the Project The soil types within the Christiana soil series are
Study Area (EPA, 2015). defined as moderately well drained soils whose
major uses include urban development, woodland
Paleontological Resources
and cropland. Russett soils are moderately well
While there have been no formal paleontological drained soils whose major uses include wooded,
inventories undertaken for along the B-W Parkway, urban and suburban development. Udorthents
existing studies indicate that paleontological and Urban Land soil series both contain a variety
resources are likely present in the geologic of anthropogenically modified soils, typically fill
formations underlying the B-W Parkway (Kranz (udorthents) or paved surfaces and buildings
and Santucci, 2004). The Potomac Group of (urban land). The Zekiah soil series is classified as
Page 303
Table 3.16-1: Soil Series within Project Study Area

Soil Series Area within the ProjectStudy Area (Acres)
Christiana Complex 624
Russett Complex 646
Udorthents 569
Urban Land 537
Zekiah 146
Source: Maryland GIS Data Catalog (2017d)
saturated with water for a long period of time,

a poorly drained soil whose primary use includes
and they either do not flood frequently or are
wetland wildlife habitat (USDA, 2015). protected from flooding (USDA Soil Survey
Staff, 1993).
Important farmlands are protected under the
• Farmland of Statewide Importance: According
Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). to the Farmland Protection Policy Act Manual
The purpose of the FPPA is to minimize the impact (USDA, 2012), Farmland of Statewide
Federal programs contribute to the unnecessary Importance is land, “in addition to prime
and irreversible conversion of farmland to and unique farmlands, that is of statewide
nonagricultural uses. Federal agencies are importance for the production of food, feed,
required under the FPPA to: use criteria to fiber, forage, and oil seed crops (7 CFR Section
identify and consider the adverse effects of 657.5). The State government, (i.e., the office
their programs on the preservation of farmland; of the State Secretary of Agriculture or a higher
consider alternative actions that could lessen office) must designate farmland of statewide
importance. The NRCS State Conservationist
adverse effects; and ensure that their programs,
must concur with this designation in order for
to the extent practicable, are compatible with
it to apply to FPPA.”
state government, local government, and private
programs and policies to protect farmland. • Unique farmland is land other than prime
farmland that is used for the production of
specific high-value food and fiber crops
Soil types classified as important farmlands include
(USDA, 2012).
the following:
• Prime Farmland: Land that has the best
combination of physical and chemical
characteristics for producing food, feed,
forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and is
available for these uses. It has the soil quality,
growing season, and moisture supply needed
to produce economically sustained high yields
of crops when treated and managed according
to acceptable farming methods, including
water management. In general, prime
farmlands have an adequate and dependable
water supply from precipitation or irrigation, a
favorable temperature and growing season,
acceptable acidity or alkalinity, acceptable
salt and sodium content, and few or no rocks.
They are permeable to water and air. Prime
farmlands are not excessively erodible or
Page 304
Table 3.16-2: Summary of Surficial Soil Types and Acreage, Arranged Alphabetically
by Symbol
Farmland
Symbol Soil Type Acres
Classification
24UB Matapeake-Urban land complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes Not prime farmland 1.8
33UB Urban land-Sunnyside complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes Not prime farmland 13.8
Urban land-Sunnyside-Christiana complex, 0 to 8 percent
34UB Not prime farmland 15.2
slopes
Urban land-Sunnyside-Christiana complex, 8 to 15 percent
34UC Not prime farmland 6.6
slopes
35B Sunnyside fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Not prime farmland 3.2
35C Sunnyside fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 3.6
36UB Sunnyside-Urban land complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes Not prime farmland 6.0
38C Udorthents, clayey, very deep, 0 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 7.9
39C Udorthents, sanitary landfill, 0 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 2.4
42E Udorthents, smoothed, 0 to 35 percent slopes Not prime farmland 25.6
43U Urban land-Udorthents complex, occasionally flooded Not prime farmland 33.2
44UC Urban land, 0 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 129.2
7UB Christiana-Urban land complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes Not prime farmland 9.0
Farmland of statewide
ApB Aquasco silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 2.9
importance
All areas are prime
BaA Beltsville silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 4.1
farmland
All areas are prime
BaB Beltsville silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 17.2
farmland
BaC Beltsville silt loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes 12.4
importance
Bd Beltsville silt loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Not prime farmland 3.1
BfB Beltsville-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes Not prime farmland 9.5
Bn Bourne fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 1.9
BuB Beltsville-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes Not prime farmland 12.1
All areas are prime
CaB Chillum loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 3.6
farmland
CaC Chillum loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes 12.0
importance
CaD Chillum silt loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 2.4
CbB Chillum-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes Not prime farmland 19.2
CbD Chillum-Urban land complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 6.8
CcC Christiana-Downer complex, 5 to 10 percent slopes 144.0
importance
CcD Christiana-Downer complex, 10 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 52.6
CcE Christiana-Downer complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes Not prime farmland 71.2
CcF Christiana-Downer complex, 25 to 40 percent slopes Not prime farmland 28.6
All areas are prime
CcrB Christiana-Sassafras complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes 62.3
farmland
CcrC Christiana-Sassafras complex, 5 to 10 percent slopes 43.4
importance
Page 305
by Symbol (continued)
Farmland
Classification
Christiana-Sassafras-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent
CdB Not prime farmland 2.8
slopes
Christiana-Downer-Urban land complex, 5 to 15 percent
CdD Not prime farmland 180.8
slopes
Christiana-Sassafras-Urban land complex, 5 to 15 percent
CdD Not prime farmland 4.0
slopes
Ce Christiana silt loam Not prime farmland 16.7
Cf Christiana-urban land complex Not prime farmland 8.9
CF Codorus and Hatboro soils, frequently flooded Not prime farmland 31.6
All areas are prime
CfA Codorus silt loams, 0 to 3 percent slopes 10.5
farmland
Codorus and Hatboro soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently
CHA Not prime farmland 32.0
flooded
CrC Croom gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes Not prime farmland 0.5
Comus and Codorus soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally All areas are prime
CTA 8.6
flooded farmland
Cx Croom-urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 1.7
All areas are prime
DoB Downer-Hammonton complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.4
farmland
DoC Downer-Hamonton complex, 5 to 10 percent slopes 7.9
importance
DoD Downer-Hammonton complex, 10 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 5.8
All areas are prime
DvB Downer-Hammonton complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes 34.5
farmland
DvC Downer-Hammonton complex, 5 to 10 percent slopes 8.4
importance
Downer-Hammonton-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent
DwB Not prime farmland 16.2
slopes
DxC Downer-Phalanx complex, 5 to 10 percent slopes 28.0
importance
DxD Downer-Phalanx complex, 10 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 10.7
EkA Elkton silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Not prime farmland 3.1
Prime farmland if
EwB Evesboro-Downer complex 0 to 5 percent slopes 10.4
irrigated
Fallsington sandy loams, 0 to 2 percent slopes, Northern Prime farmland if
FaaA 40.4
Coastal Plain drained
FD Fluvaquents - Ponded Not prime farmland 12.9
GbD Galestown-Urban land complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 9.6
Gf Galestown and Rumford soils Not prime farmland 8.6
Ik Iuka - Sandy Loam Not prime farmland 0.9
IsA Issue silt loam, occasionally flooded Not prime farmland 4.6
Iu Issue-Urban land complex, occasionally flooded Not prime farmland 28.6
Ke Keyport fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Not prime farmland 7.0
Page 306
Farmland
Classification
All areas are prime
KeB Keyport silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 2.0
farmland
LY Longmarsh and Indiantown soils, frequently flooded Not prime farmland 13.5
MmC Matapeake silt loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes 10.0
importance
MpB Matapeake-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes Not prime farmland 28.2
MpD Matapeake-Urban land complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 18.0
MRD Matapeake and Mattapex soils, 10 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 5.2
Mispillion and Transquaking soils, 0 to 1 percent slopes, tidally
MT Not prime farmland 0.0
flooded
Mispillion and Transquaking soils, 0 to 1 percent slopes, tidally
MZA Not prime farmland 10.9
flooded
NM Nanticoke and Mannington soils, tidally flooded Not prime farmland 0.1
PeB Patapsco-Evesboro-Fort Mott complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes 2.4
importance
PfB Patapsco-Fort Mott complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes 27.4
importance
PfC Patapsco-Fort Mott complex, 5 to 10 percent slopes 23.4
importance
PfD Patapsco-Fort Mott complex, 10 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 20.9
Patapsco-Fort Mott-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent
PgB Not prime farmland 2.5
slopes
All areas are prime
RcA Russett-Christiana complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 3.0
farmland
All areas are prime
RcB Russett-Christiana complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes 96.6
farmland
All areas are prime
RfB Russett fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 29.0
farmland
RhB Russett-Christiana-Hambrook complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes Not prime farmland 178.1
RhC Russett-Christiana-Hambrook complex, 5 to 10 percent slopes Not prime farmland 121.8
Russett-Christiana-Hambrook complex, 10 to 15 percent
RhD Not prime farmland 89.1
slopes
All areas are prime
RsB Russett fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 0.2
farmland
RsC Russett fine sandy loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes 6.0
importance
RsD Russett fine sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 1.4
RuB Russett-Christiana-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes Not prime farmland 62.2
RuB Russett-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes Not prime farmland 18.8
RuD Russett-Urban land complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 6.9
RyB Russett-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes Not prime farmland 11.0
All areas are prime
SaB Sassafras fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 10.3
farmland
Page 307
Farmland
Classification
All areas are prime
SaB Sassafras sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 3.7
farmland
All areas are prime
SaC Sassafras sandy loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes 27.7
farmland
SaC Sassafras sandy loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes 27.7
importance
SaD Sassafras fine sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 6.7
All areas are prime
SbB Sassafras loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 2.2
farmland
ScC Sassafras-Croom complex, 5 to 10 percent slopes 2.6
importance
SDE Sassafras and Croom soils, 15 to 25 percent slopes Not prime farmland 0.8
Sg Sassafras-urban land complex, 15 to 40 percent slopes Not prime farmland 4.2
All areas are prime
ShA Sassafras-Hambrook complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 14.4
farmland
Sm Sunnyside fine sandy loam Not prime farmland 7.9
SME Sassafras and Croom soils, 15 to 25 percent slopes Not prime farmland 11.5
SnB Sassafras-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes Not prime farmland 27.4
SnD Sassafras-Urban land complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 4.4
SOF Sassafras and Croom soils, 25 to 40 percent slopes Not prime farmland 4.5
U1 Udorthents Not prime farmland 1.9
U1 Udorthents, clayey, smoothed Not prime farmland 19.1
U11 Udorthents, deep, 0 to 8 percent slopes Not prime farmland 0.9
U3 Udorthents, Sandy Not prime farmland 2.0
U5 Udorthents, Clayey Not prime farmland 8.6
U8 Udorthents, Sandy, Smoothed Not prime farmland 2.0
UaD Udorthents, 15 to 25 percent slopes Not prime farmland 0.9
Ub Urban Land Not prime farmland 225.7
Uc Urban land-Beltsville complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes Not prime farmland 9.2
UcF Udorthents, highway, 0 to 65 percent slopes Not prime farmland 19.2
UdaF Udorthents, highway, 0 to 65 percent slopes Not prime farmland 164.1
UduD Udorthents-Urban land complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 1.6
Un Urban land Not prime farmland 2.0
UoB Udorthents, loamy, 0 to 5 percent slopes Not prime farmland 164.9
UoD Udorthents, loamy, 5 to 15 percent slopes Not prime farmland 66.6
UoE Udorthents, loamy, 15 to 25 percent slopes Not prime farmland 38.9
UpB Udorthents, reclaimed gravel pits, 0 to 5 percent slopes Not prime farmland 7.0
UpC Udorthents, reclaimed gravel pits, 5 to 10 percent slopes Not prime farmland 35.6
Ur Urban land, 0 to 8 percent slopes Not prime farmland 6.1
Urban land-Christiana-Downer complex, 5 to 15 percent
UrcD Not prime farmland 1.6
slopes
UreB Urban land-Elsinboro complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes Not prime farmland 16.1
Page 308
Farmland
Classification
Urban land-Issue complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes, occasionally
UrkB Not prime farmland 0.0
flooded
UrrB Urban land-Russett-Christiana complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes Not prime farmland 36.7
Urban land-Zekiah complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently
UrzA Not prime farmland 3.2
flooded
UuB Urban land-Udorthents complex, 0 to 8 percent Not prime farmland 14.1
UuC Urban land-Udorthents complex, 8 to 15 percent Not prime farmland 2.8
Uz Urban land Not prime farmland 21.8
W Water Not prime farmland 24.2
All areas are prime
WdA Woodstown sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 21.0
farmland
All areas are prime
WdB Woodstown sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 21.1
farmland
All areas are prime
WoB Woodstown sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 6.2
farmland
Wp Woodstown-urban land complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes Not prime farmland 0.5
WrB Woodstown-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes Not prime farmland 11.1
WuB Woodstown-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes Not prime farmland 12.9
Zekiah and Issue soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently
ZBA Not prime farmland 56.0
flooded
ZS Zekiah and Issue soils, frequently flooded Not prime farmland 89.6
Source: Maryland GIS Data Catalog (2017d), DCGIS Open Data (2006)
Page 309
Figure 3.16-2: Surficial Soil Types (Page 1 of 8)
Page 310
Page 311
Page 312
Page 313
Page 314
Page 315
Page 316
Page 317
As detailed in Table 3.16-2, Prime Farmland and the nature and significance of paleontological
Farmland of Statewide Importance are distributed resources, should they be encountered, and to
throughout the Project Study Area, totaling 709 minimize the potential for adverse effects to these
acres, generally in the central portion of the resources.
alignment of Anne Arundel and Prince George’s
counties in less developed areas. Unique farmland A total of approximately 2,000,000 cubic yards
was not identified within the Project Study Area. of excavated earth material would be generated
Soil series that tend to be prime farmlands include in construction of the Main Artery Tunnels and
Downer, Patapsco, Russett, Sassafras, and shafts, including at Ventilation Shafts, TBM
Woodstown. Therefore, the Russett series is the only Launch Shafts, and Loop Station locations. Earth
prevalent soil series within the Project Study Area material generated during the excavation of
that has a high frequency of being prime farmland shafts or tunnels would initially be stored on-site
or farmland of statewide importance. for soil sampling in accordance with disposal
site acceptance criteria before being disposed
of in accordance with applicable laws and
The following section analyzes the potential rules. Alternatively, earth materials suitable for
temporary and permanent impacts of the the fabrication of construction materials would
proposed Project to geology and soils in the potentially be segregated and processed
Project Study Area. accordingly. During construction, TBM Launch
Shafts would occupy over one-half acre for
staging of equipment and materials, including
No-Build Alternative storage of materials. Ventilation Shaft and
The No Build Alternative would not result in the Loop Station locations would occupy under
excavation of earth materials. As such, no adverse one-quarter acre.
effects to geology and soils would occur.
Earth materials, if not properly managed,
Build Alternative would have the potential to be carried off-site
Main Artery Tunnels for the Build Alternative would by processes of erosion, runoff, and sheetflow
be constructed using TBMs. Each TBM would utilize to locations such as adjacent properties, public
a steel cutterhead that excavates soil at the face of roadways, and streams. Sedimentation of streams
the tunnel. Excavated soil is then transported via have the potential to affect aquatic, riparian or
a screw auger and conveyor system and placed wetland habitats by reducing water quality.
into bins for transport off-site. For further details on how excavated material
would be handled, refer Section 2.3.1.18. The
Smaller paleontological resources, if present, implementation of a SMP and storm water
would be able to pass through the screw management BMPs outlined in Section 3.11 and
auger relatively intact and could potentially 3.12 would minimize impacts of erosion and
be recovered before soil is transported offsite. runoff on prime farmlands. Additionally, sites
However, if encountered, some paleontological are either urban or have been graded for future
resources may be damaged or destroyed, and development; therefore, there is no appreciable
it may not be possible to document and recover value of the sites for future agricultural use.
all paleontological resources encountered. Pre- Additionally, excavation of Main Artery Tunnels
construction visual surveys, resource training and can potentially lead to ground settlement, which
response measures as described in Section 3.16.5, has the potential to cause damage to overlying
would be implemented, as applicable, to assess structures, such as utilities, building foundations
Page 318
and sensitive structures. Discussion of settlement TBM Launch Shaft A: The potential location
monitoring is provided in Section 2.3.1.6. for TBM Launch Shaft A includes 1.9 acres of
prime farmland and 9.5 acres of farmland of
Geologic hazards related to geotechnical statewide importance. If TBC is unable to construct
conditions (e.g., swelling clays) would be mitigated the Launch Shaft in an area that is not prime
through the incorporation of geotechnical design farmland, the FPPA would be followed, including
recommendations into structural plans. Radon an assessment of a Farmland Conversion Impact
gas is not anticipated to be a hazard because rating with responsible agencies.
the setting of the Build Alternative would be at
shallower depths than crystalline bedrock and TBM Launch Shaft B: The potential location
associated aquifers; additionally, the Main Artery for TBM Launch Shaft B includes 5.3 total acres
Tunnels would be sealed with gaskets to mitigate of prime farmland, 3.5 acres of which are prime
vapor intrusion. Naturally occurring gases would farmlands if drained. If TBC is unable to construct
be removed/diluted by ventilation systems and the Launch Shaft in an area that is not prime
monitored in the event of an exceedance in action farmland, the FPPA would be followed, including
levels for safety of occupants. an assessment of a Farmland Conversion Impact
rating with responsible agencies.
Main Artery Tunnels would be subterranean
and therefore would not affect prime, unique, TBM Launch Shaft C: There are no prime
or state/local farmland areas. As previously farmlands or farmland of statewide importance
mentioned, unique farmland was not identified within the potential location of TBM Launch
within the Project Study Area. Shaft C. No construction-related impacts to prime
farmlands or farmland of statewide importance are
Surface disturbances would occur from the anticipated at this location.
excavation the Ventilation Shafts and TBM
Launch Shafts. Increased human activity during TBM Launch Shaft D: There are no prime
construction could result in the potential for farmlands or farmland of statewide importance
trampling and/or removal of vegetation or soil within the potential location of TBM Launch Shaft D.
compaction near Ventilation Shaft and TBM No construction-related impacts to prime farmlands
Launch Shaft sites during construction. If either or farmland of statewide importance are anticipated
were to occur, such changes could affect the rate at this location.
of rainfall interception and evapotranspiration,
soil moisture, water penetration pathways, surface TBM Launch Shaft E Search Location: There
flows, and erosion. Potential temporary impacts are no prime farmlands or farmland of statewide
due to soil disturbances at specific ancillary importance within the potential location of TBM
facilities due to construction of the proposed Launch Shaft E. No construction-related impacts
Project are described below. to prime farmlands or farmland of statewide
importance are anticipated at this location.
Baltimore Loop Station: There are no prime
farmlands or farmland of statewide importance Washington, D.C. Loop Station: There are no
at or near the location of the Baltimore Loop prime farmlands or farmland of statewide importance
Station. No construction-related impacts to prime at or near the location of the Washington, D.C. Loop
farmlands or farmland of statewide importance Station. No construction-related impacts to prime
are anticipated at this location. farmlands or farmland of statewide importance are
anticipated at this location.
Page 319
Ventilation Shafts: Ventilation Shaft locations the design of structural components to minimize
are yet to be determined. Based on the analysis potential hazards.
and mapping provided in Section 3.16.2, there
appears to be enough land within the Project Study Geotechnical risks outlined in this section (e.g.,
Area to site potential Ventilation Shaft locations swelling clays) would be mitigated through design.
such that prime farmlands or farmland of statewide Prior to design, geotechnical sampling would
importance could be avoided. If TBC is unable to be conducted in areas of the proposed Project
construct potential Ventilation Shafts in an area that to assess subsurface conditions. Geotechnical
is not prime farmland, the FPPA would be followed, recommendations would be incorporated into the
including an assessment of a Farmland Conversion design of structural components in order to mitigate
Impact rating with responsible agencies. potential hazards. Soil samples will be logged for
the potential presence of paleontological resources
and the geologic formations to be encountered
No Build Alternative during excavation within the Project Study Area.
The No-Build Alternative would have no permanent
impacts are anticipated from the No-Build Stormwater runoff prevention controls would be
Alternative on geology, soils, or farmland soils. put in place to avoid runoff from construction sites
and excavated soil from TBM Launch Sites and
Build Alternative Ventilation Shaft sites. Additionally, revegetation
Construction of the proposed Project would involve activities using non-invasive species would be
the permanent removal of soil in varying amounts: conducted following surface disturbances to
under one-tenth acre for Ventilation Shafts; and vegetated areas to promote soil stability.
approximately one-quarter acre for TBM Launch
Shafts. Only TBM Launch Shafts A and B are near Settlement Avoidance and Monitoring. The
prime farmlands, and the permanent conversion potential for adverse effects to existing structures
of these farmlands would be on lands that have from ground settlement during construction shall
already undergone grading for development. The be minimized by refining the horizontal alignment
design of the Build Alternative minimizes the area and vertical depth of the proposed Project, where
of above ground features, therefore an increase in appropriate and practicable.
impervious surfaces resulting in adverse effects due
to permanent project features is not anticipated. Additionally, surface and subsurface settlement
Loop Stations would be under 10,000 square feet; to utilities and structures, including but not limited
however, Loop Station locations are in urbanized to the existing Baltimore-Washington Parkway
areas with existing soil disturbance and would not roadway and associated structures, would be
impact any prime farmlands or increase the area monitored. As a baseline, the Build Alternative
of impervious surfaces. would likely include continuous and live monitoring
of settlement values such that they remain within
allowable ranges. The ultimate settlement
Measures
monitoring equipment to be implemented on the
Geotechnical risks (e.g., swelling clays) would be proposed Project and placement of monitoring
minimized. Prior to design, geotechnical sampling devices are dependent upon geologic conditions
would be conducted in areas of the proposed Project and the location of existing structures relative to
to assess subsurface conditions. Geotechnical the Build Alternative.
recommendations would be incorporated into
Page 320
Allowable settlement thresholds for the Build 3.17 Biological Resources

Alternative would meet or exceed industry- This section provides a discussion of the existing
standard levels, and would be developed on a affected environment, potential environmental
case-by-case basis in coordination with FHWA consequences, and avoidance, minimization and
and potentially affected stakeholders, including mitigation measures that would be taken to avoid,
underground utilities. In all cases, tunnel activities minimize or mitigate potential adverse effects
would be performed while achieving less than to biological resources, including vegetation,
the maximum settlement value (to be determined terrestrial and aquatic wildlife and habitat, and
with applicable stakeholders). Alert levels for threatened and endangered species.
settlement would also be determined. If the alert
level is reached, all construction activity affecting
the structure would be halted, an assessment of Geospatial databases showing terrestrial wildlife
the cause of settlement would be performed, and and habitat information were reviewed, including
appropriate mitigation measures developed and the following (Figure 3.15-1):
implemented. • Maryland Biodiversity Conservation Network
(BioNet) (Maryland GIS Data Catalog,
Paleontological Resources
2018c)
The following minimization measures and/or • Maryland Critical Areas (Maryland GIS Data
actions would be taken to minimize the potential Catalog, 2018d)
for adverse effects to paleontological resources,
• Maryland Protected Lands - Local Protected
should they be encountered: Lands (Maryland GIS Data Catalog, 2014)
• Visual Surveys. At locations where surface • Maryland Living Resources - Sensitive Species
disturbance is anticipated, pre-construction Project Review Areas (Maryland GIS Data
visual surveys would be conducted by TBC Catalog, 2010)
personnel within the limits of disturbance to
avoid or minimize, where possible, the loss • Maryland Green Infrastructure Hubs and
of paleontological resources at or near the Corridors (Maryland GIS Data Catalog,
ground surface. 2005)
• Resource Training. Personnel conducting • Maryland Focal Areas - Targeted Ecological
ground moving activities would be trained Areas (Maryland GIS Data Catalog, 2011)
with an overview of proper communication The USFWS Information for Planning and
protocols in the event of a paleontological Consultation (IPac), a web-based database,
discovery. was used to characterize terrestrial and aquatic
• Unintentional Discovery of Paleontological wildlife habitats and identify whether any federally
Resources. If paleontological materials are listed, threatened, or proposed for listing species,
discovered during construction, a qualified critical habitat, migratory birds, or other natural
paleontological resource professional would
resources have potential to occur within the
assess the nature and significance of the find
Biological Resources Study Area, defined as the
and recommend applicable minimization or
mitigation measure(s). footprints of the proposed Loop Stations and TBM
Launch Shaft locations, and an area 500 feet from
public highway ROW boundaries. An IPaC is an
automatically generated list of species and other
resources such as critical habitat, collectively
referred to as “trust resources” under USFWS
Page 321
jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on essential fish habitat (EFH), and ensure a safe and
or near a user-provided geographical area. sustainable supply of seafood. Federal agencies
are required to consult with NMFS on actions that
would adversely affect EFH, including adverse
Federal Endangered Species Act changes to waters of substrate, species and their
The ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is habitat, other ecosystem components, or the
implemented by USFWS and National Marine quality and/or quantity of EFH.
Fisheries Service (NMFS) through a program that
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
identifies and provides for protection of various
species of fish, wildlife, and plants deemed to be The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits
in danger of or threatened with extinction. The the take of any migratory bird or any part, nest, or
ESA provides for designation of critical habitat, eggs of any such bird. Under the MBTA, “take” is
defined in ESA Section 3(5)(A) as specific areas defined as pursuing, hunting, shooting, capturing,
within the geographical range occupied by a collecting, or killing, or attempting to do so (16
species where physical or biological features U.S.C. 703 et seq.).
“essential to the conservation of the species” are
Clean Water Act
found and that “may require special management
considerations or protection.” Critical habitat may Pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, the USACE
include areas outside the current geographical regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill
area occupied by the species that are nonetheless material into “waters of the United States.” The term
“essential for the conservation of the species.” “wetlands” (a subset of waters of the United States)
The Biological Resources Study Area does not is defined in 33 CFR 328.3(b) as “those areas that
overlap within any critical habitat (Figure 3.15-1, are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
USFWS Critical Habitat). water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances
Moreover, Section 7 of the ESA requires that do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
Federal agencies ensure that any actions they adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
take, including those they fund or authorize, do Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
not jeopardize the existence of any federally bogs, and similar areas.” In the absence of
listed threatened or endangered species. This wetlands, the limits of USACE jurisdiction in
is accomplished through informal, or formal, non-tidal waters, such as intermittent streams,
consultation with the USFWS using procedures extend to the “ordinary high-water mark,” which
outlined in Section 7 of the ESA. is defined in 33 CFR 328.3(e).
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

and Management Act – Essential Fish
Habitat Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and golden
eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) are federally protected
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (BGEPA), passed in 1940 to protect the bald
is the primary law governing marine fisheries eagle and amended in 1962 to include the golden
management in U.S. federal waters. Key eagle (16 U.S.C. 668a–d). The BGEPA (16 U.S.C.
objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are to 668–668d) prohibits the take, possession, sale,
prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, purchase, barter, offering to sell or purchase, export
increase long-term economic and social benefits, or import, or transport of bald eagles and golden
use reliable data and sound science, conserve eagles and their parts, eggs, or nests without a
Page 322
permit issued by USFWS. The definition of “take” the project is exempt from the Maryland Forest
includes to pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, Conservation Act. However, if greater than
kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb. The act 20,000 square feet of forest clearing were to
prohibits any form of possession or taking of both occur, compliance with the Maryland Forest
eagle species, and the statute imposes criminal Conservation Act would be necessary.
and civil sanctions as well as an enhanced penalty
provision for subsequent offenses.
Vegetation Communities
Executive Orders 13112 and 13751
The proposed Project passes through an urbanized
Executive Order 13112, signed on February 3, corridor that includes a large variety of vegetation
1999, and Executive Order 13751, signed on communities. Most of the vegetation communities
December 5, 2016, calls for safeguards against have been subjected to historical and consistent
the spread and impacts of invasive species. disturbance. The forested areas that remain are
Executive Order 13751 amends Executive Order associated with streams and rivers that bisect the
13112 and “directs actions to continue coordinated corridor. Most of the forested areas are disturbed
Federal prevention and control efforts related due to their proximity to development. A total of 13
to invasive species.” (The White House, 2016) specimen trees (greater than 30 inches in diameter
Executive Order 13751 gives the National Invasive at breast height (DBH) or 75 percent of the State
Species Council (NISC) the institutional authority champion) were identified within the corridor
to facilitate coordination, raise awareness, and (Harrison, 2016).
remove barriers to the ability of Federal agencies
to prevent, eradicate, and control invasive species. Vegetation communities are highly varied across
the extent of the Biological Resources Study Area.
Maryland Nongame and Endangered
The majority of the area is characterized by urban,
Species Conservation Act
suburban, commercial, and agricultural land uses
The MDNR administers the Nongame and with few natural habitat areas remaining. Forests in
Endangered Species Conservation Act (COMAR the Biological Resources Study Area are generally
08.03.08), which addresses impacts to any fragmented by development and/or past and
species designated under the ESA as endangered, present agricultural use. Terrestrial habitat consists
threatened, or other species as designated by the mostly of smaller patches of low-quality deciduous
state secretary as sensitive based on habitat and forest. The communities, relative sensitivity, and
population factors. This Act outlines the ability to description of each vegetation community within
prepare conservation plans and programs and the Biological Resources Study Area are shown in
allow for take of these species. This Act outlines Table 3.17-1 and Figure 3.17-1.
penalties for unpermitted take of relevant species.
Wildlife and Habitat
Maryland Forest Conservation Act
A search using the IPaC system indicated the
The Maryland Forest Conservation Act, enacted potential presence of one listed species, 32 species
in 1991, is intended to minimize the loss of forests of migratory birds, and one National Wildlife
throughout the State and compliance with the Refuge within the Biological Resources Study Area.
law is typically required before a sediment and The report returned no results for critical habitats
erosion control permit is issued for a project. The or fish hatcheries.
proposed Project would be a linear and primarily
underground project with less than 20,000 square
feet of anticipated forest clearing; therefore,
Page 323
Table 3.17-1: Vegetation Communities Within the Biological Resources Study Area
Vegetation
Community
Global
Classification
Conservation Description
(Preliminary
Status
Crosswalk to
Harrison, 2016)
NatureServe Id:
CES202.593 This is the conifer dominated expression of this ecological system. This forested system of the northeastern U.S. ranges
Appalachian
from central New England west to Lake Erie and south to the higher elevations of Virginia and West Virginia. It is one of
Hemlock Forest
Varies from the matrix forest types in the northern part of the Central Interior and Appalachian Division. Northern hardwoods such as
G2G3 S1 to G4 Acer saccharum, Betula alleghaniensis, and Fagus grandifolia are characteristic, either forming a deciduous canopy or mixed
(East-central
SU depending with Tsuga canadensis (or in some cases Pinus strobus). Other common and sometimes dominant trees include Quercus spp.
Hemlock
on composition (most commonly Quercus rubra), Liriodendron tulipifera, Prunus serotina, and Betula lenta. It is of more limited extent and
Hardwood Forest)
of community. more ecologically constrained in the southern part of its range, in northern parts of Virginia and West Virginia.
Appalachian
This is the hardwood dominated expression of this ecological system. This forested system of the northeastern U.S. ranges
Northern
from central New England west to Lake Erie and south to the higher elevations of Virginia and West Virginia. It is one of
Hardwood Forest NatureServe Id:
the matrix forest types in the northern part of the Central Interior and Appalachian Division. Northern hardwoods such as
CES202.593
Acer saccharum, Betula alleghaniensis, and Fagu grandifolia are characteristic, either forming a deciduous canopy or mixed
(Central
with Tsuga canadensis (or in some cases Pinus strobus). Other common and sometimes dominant trees include Quercus spp.
Appalachian G4 S2
(most commonly Quercus rubra), Liriodendron tulipifera, Prunus serotina, and Betula lenta. It is of more limited extent and
Northern
more ecologically constrained in the southern part of its range, in northern parts of Virginia and West Virginia.
Hardwood Forest)
Atlantic Coastal
Plain Upland This system of upland Pinus palustris‐dominated vegetation ranges from southern Virginia (beginning approximately at the
Longleaf Pine James River) to northeastern Florida (excluding longleaf pine of the Fall‐Line Sandhills, accommodated by another ecological
Woodland NatureServe Id: system), where it was once perhaps the most extensive system in the Outer Coastal Plain within its range. Examples and
CES203.281 associations share the common feature of upland (non‐wetland) moisture regimes and natural exposure to frequent fire. They
(Uncertain: does occur on a variety of well‐ to excessively drained soils, and on the higher parts of upland‐wetland mosaics. The vegetation
not align with any Uncertain is naturally dominated by Pinus palustris. Most associations have an understory of scrub oaks. The herb layer is generally
natural community well‐developed and dominated by grasses. Aristida stricta primarily dominates in the northern part of its range, and Aristida
included in beyrichiana in the southern part. Frequent, low‐intensity fire is the dominant natural ecological force.
Harrison, 2016)
Page 324
Table 3.17-1: Vegetation Communities Within the Biological Resources Study Area (continued)
Vegetation
Community
Global
Classification
(Preliminary
Status
Crosswalk to
Harrison, 2016)
Barren
This is the deciduous hardwood dominated expression of this ecological system. These oak and oak‐pine forests cover large
areas in the low‐ to mid‐elevation Central Appalachians and middle Piedmont. The topography and landscape position range
from rolling hills to steep slopes, with occasional occurrences on more level, ancient alluvial fans. In the highly dissected fall
zone of Maryland and the District of Columbia, where the Piedmont and Coastal Plain meet, it is also found on dry knolls
capped with Pleistocene‐ and Tertiary‐aged fluvial cobble and gravel terrace deposits. Soils are typically coarse and infertile;
Central
they may be deep (on glacial deposits in the northern and terrace deposits in the southern parts of the system’s range),
Appalachian Dry
NatureServe Id: or more commonly shallow, on rocky slopes of acidic rock (shale, sandstone, other acidic igneous or metamorphic rock).
Oak Forest
CES202.591 The well‐drained soils and exposure create dry conditions. The forest is mostly closed‐canopy but can include patches of
more open woodlands. It is dominated by a variable mixture of dry‐site oak and pine species, most typically Quercus prinus,
(Appalachian/
G1 S1 Pinus virginiana, and Pinus strobus, but sometimes Quercus alba and/or Quercus coccinea. The system may include areas
Northern Piedmont
of oak forest, pine forest (usually small), and mixed oak‐pine forest. Heath shrubs such as Vaccinium pallidum, Gaylussacia
Riverside Outcrop
baccata, and Kalmia latifolia are common in the understory and often form a dense layer. Embedded submesic ravines
Woodland)
and concave landforms support slightly more diverse forests characterized by mixtures of oaks, several hickories, Cornus
florida, and sometimes Liriodendron tulipifera. Small hillslope pockets with impeded drainage may support small isolated
wetlands with Acer rubrum and Nyssa sylvatica characteristic. Disturbance agents include fire, windthrow, and ice damage.
Increased site disturbance generally leads to secondary forest vegetation with a greater proportion of Pinus virginiana and
weedy hardwoods such as Acer rubrum.
This is the deciduous hardwood expression of this ecological system. This system encompasses open or patchily wooded
hilltops and outcrops or rocky slopes in the Central Appalachians, High Allegheny Plateau, and Lower New England / Northern
Central
Piedmont. It occurs mostly at lower elevations, but occasionally up to 1220 m (4000 feet) in West Virginia. The substrate
Appalachian Rocky
rock is generally granitic or of other acidic lithology, although near the northern limit of its range in New England, examples
Oak Woodland NatureServe Id:
can also occur on intermediate, base‐rich, or mafic bedrock including traprock. The vegetation is patchy, with woodland
CES202.600
as well as open portions. Pinus rigida (and within its range Pinus virginiana) is diagnostic and often mixed with xerophytic
(Central
Quercus spp. and sprouts of Castanea dentata. In New England, some examples lack pine and feature Juniperus virginiana
Appalachian Pine G4 S4
or Ostrya virginiana as important codominants with oak. Some areas have a fairly well‐developed heath shrub layer, others
- Oak / Heath
a graminoid layer, the latter particularly common under oaks or other deciduous trees. Conditions are dry and for the most
Woodland)
part nutrient‐poor, and at many, if not most, sites, a history of fire is evident. In the Central Appalachians ecoregion, this
system is rarely found on sandy soils rather than rock.
Page 325
Vegetation
Community
Global
Classification
(Preliminary
Status
Crosswalk to
Harrison, 2016)
Developed
Close-grown crops - according to the USDA are "Crops that are generally drill-seeded or broadcast, such as wheat, oats, rice,
Eastern Cool
barley, and flax." Areas used for the production of annual crops, such as corn, soybeans, vegetables, tobacco, and cotton,
Temperate Close N/A
and also perennial woody crops such as orchards and vineyards. Crop vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of
Grown Crop
total vegetation. This class also includes all land being actively tilled.
Eastern Cool
Deciduous forest vegetation in urban settings. Forest vegetation resulting from succession following significant anthropogenic
Temperate
N/A disturbance of an area. It is generally characterized by unnatural combinations of species (primarily native species, though
Developed Ruderal
they often contain slight or substantial numbers and amounts of species alien to the region as well).
Deciduous Forest
Eastern Cool
Evergreen forest vegetation in urban settings. Forest vegetation resulting from succession following significant anthropogenic
Temperate
Developed Ruderal
Evergreen Forest
Eastern Cool Herbaceous dominated vegetation in the urban settings of the Eastern cool temperate region. Includes areas with a mixture
Temperate of some constructed materials, but mostly vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. These areas most commonly include
N/A
Developed Ruderal large-lot single-family housing units, parks, golf courses, and vegetation planted in developed settings for recreation,
Grassland erosion control, or aesthetic purposes.
Eastern Cool
Mixed forest vegetation in urban settings. Forest vegetation resulting from succession following significant anthropogenic
Temperate
Developed Ruderal
Mixed Forest
Eastern Cool Shrub dominated vegetation in the urban settings of the Eastern cool temperate region. Includes areas with a mixture of
Temperate some constructed materials, but mostly vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. These areas most commonly include large-lot
N/A
Developed Ruderal single-family housing units, parks, golf courses, and vegetation planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion control,
Shrubland or aesthetic purposes.
Eastern Cool
Temperate Fallow/ N/A Cropland removed from active production.
Idle Cropland
Page 326
Vegetation
Community
Global
Classification
(Preliminary
Status
Crosswalk to
Harrison, 2016)
Eastern Cool
Areas of grasses, legumes, or grass-legume mixtures planted for livestock grazing or the production of seed or hay crops,
Temperate Pasture N/A
typically on a perennial cycle. Pasture/hay vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of total vegetation.
and Hayland
Eastern Cool Areas used for the production of annual crops, such as corn, soybeans, vegetables, tobacco, and cotton, and also perennial
Temperate Row N/A woody crops such as orchards and vineyards. Crop vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of total vegetation. This
Crop class also includes all land being actively tilled.
Eastern Cool Close-grown crops - according to the USDA are "Crops that are generally drill-seeded or broadcast, such as wheat, oats, rice,
Temperate Row barley, and flax." Areas used for the production of annual crops, such as corn, soybeans, vegetables, tobacco, and cotton,
N/A
Crop - Close and also perennial woody crops such as orchards and vineyards. Crop vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of
Grown Crop total vegetation. This class also includes all land being actively tilled.
Eastern Cool
Deciduous ruderal forest vegetation found in open spaces of the Eastern cool temperate region. Forest vegetation resulting
Temperate
from succession following significant anthropogenic disturbance of an area. It is generally characterized by unnatural
Undeveloped N/A
combinations of species (primarily native species, though they often contain slight or substantial numbers and amounts
Ruderal Deciduous
of species alien to the region as well).
Forest
Eastern Cool
Evergreen ruderal forest vegetation found in open spaces of the Eastern cool temperate region. Forest vegetation resulting
Temperate
Undeveloped N/A
Ruderal Evergreen
Forest
Eastern Cool Ruderal herbaceous vegetation found in open spaces of the Eastern cool temperate region. Forest vegetation resulting
Temperate from succession following significant anthropogenic disturbance of an area. It is generally characterized by unnatural
N/A
Undeveloped combinations of species (primarily native species, though they often contain slight or substantial numbers and amounts
Ruderal Grassland of species alien to the region as well).
Eastern Cool
Mixed ruderal forest vegetation found in open spaces of the Eastern cool temperate region. Forest vegetation resulting
Temperate
Undeveloped N/A
Ruderal Mixed
Forest
Page 327
Vegetation
Community
Global
Classification
(Preliminary
Status
Crosswalk to
Harrison, 2016)
Eastern Cool Ruderal shrub vegetation found in open spaces of the Eastern cool temperate region. Forest vegetation resulting from
Temperate succession following significant anthropogenic disturbance of an area. It is generally characterized by unnatural combinations
N/A
Undeveloped of species (primarily native species, though they often contain slight or substantial numbers and amounts of species alien
Ruderal Shrubland to the region as well).
Eastern Cool Deciduous forest in low to moderately urbanized settings. Forest vegetation resulting from succession following significant
Temperate Urban N/A anthropogenic disturbance of an area. It is generally characterized by unnatural combinations of species (primarily native
Deciduous Forest species, though they often contain slight or substantial numbers and amounts of species alien to the region as well).
Eastern Cool Evergreen forest in low to moderately urbanized settings. Forest vegetation resulting from succession following significant
Evergreen Forest species, though they often contain slight or substantial numbers and amounts of species alien to the region as well).
Eastern Cool Includes areas with a mixture of some constructed materials, but mostly vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. These areas
Temperate Urban N/A most commonly include large-lot single-family housing units, parks, golf courses, and vegetation planted in developed
Herbaceous settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes.
Eastern Cool Mixed forest in low to moderately urbanized settings. Forest vegetation resulting from succession following significant
Mixed Forest species, though they often contain slight or substantial numbers and amounts of species alien to the region as well).
Eastern Cool Shrub dominated vegetation in urban landscape. Includes areas with a mixture of some constructed materials, but mostly
Temperate Urban N/A vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. These areas most commonly include large-lot single-family housing units, parks,
Shrubland golf courses, and vegetation planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes.
Eastern Cool
N/A Areas used for the production of wheat. Crop vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of total vegetation.
Temperate Wheat
Shrub dominated vegetation in the urban settings of the eastern warm temperate region. Includes areas with a mixture
Eastern Warm
of some constructed materials, but mostly vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. These areas most commonly include
Temperate Urban N/A
large-lot single-family housing units, parks, golf courses, and vegetation planted in developed settings for recreation,
Shrubland
erosion control, or aesthetic purposes.
Page 328
Vegetation
Community
Global
Classification
(Preliminary
Status
Crosswalk to
Harrison, 2016)
This systems group comprises floodplain forests in the southeastern United States, from southern Virginia south to central Florida and west
to the Gulf Coast, Mississippi River, and eastern Texas. It includes broad gradients of river size, soil nutrient levels, and flood frequency.
Flooding ranges from semipermanent in the wettest areas to intermittent and short on the higher portions of the floodplain. Some of the
major geomorphic features associated with different community types include natural levees, point bars, meander scrolls, oxbows, and
sloughs. Small river floodplain forests have fewer major geomorphic floodplain features typically associated with large river floodplains.
Those features that are present tend to be smaller and more closely intermixed with one another, resulting in less obvious vegetational
zonation. Large rivers have greater variation in water levels and have flood regimes that integrate the effects of very large watersheds.
Depositional landforms are larger, and communities can be more segregated. Along the Mississippi River and other very large rivers, low
bottomlands are characteristic. These are seasonally flooded backswamps, with flooding usually more frequently than every two years,
generally by still water that may be impounded behind natural levees. Vegetation generally includes forests dominated by bottomland
hardwood species and other trees tolerant of flooding. However, herbaceous and shrub vegetation may be present in certain areas,
particularly on recently deposited bars and in oxbow lakes. Most examples are nearly contiguous over large areas, broken only by the river
Gulf and Atlantic itself. Higher terraces may have a mosaic of floodplain and upland systems, and may include nonriverine wetland systems. Some of the most
Natureserve typical and characteristic tree species found in stands of this systems group include Taxodium distichum, Nyssa aquatica, Acer saccharinum,
Coastal Plain
CES203.629 Platanus occidentalis, Populus deltoides, Acer negundo, and Salix nigra. Other trees may include Celtis laevigata, Carya illinoinensis, Fraxinus
Floodplain Forest
pennsylvanica, Gleditsia triacanthos, Liquidambar styraciflua, Nyssa biflora, Quercus laurifolia, Quercus lyrata, Quercus michauxii, Quercus
Ranges from nigra, Quercus pagoda, Quercus phellos, Quercus similis, Quercus texana, Quercus virginiana, Salix nigra, Ulmus americana, and Ulmus
(Coastal Plan: crassifolia. Three distinct groups of associations can be recognized. The lowest, wettest areas have some combination of Taxodium distichum
GNR S4 to
Piedmont and Nyssa aquatica dominating. Natural levees and riverfronts have a diverse mixture of trees that typically includes Platanus occidentalis,
G3G4 S3?
Bottomland Forest) Celtis laevigata, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Acer saccharinum, Acer negundo, and other species that benefit from the high light levels and
heavy alluvial deposition of these sites. Soils are typically sandier than those of the lower bottomlands. Arundinaria gigantea (giant cane)
is a common understory in these forests on natural levees and higher point bars, and may become dominant after thinning or removal
of the overstory. Willow and cottonwood sandbars may have an open‐canopy (woodland‐type) structure. Moderate to high parts of the
floodplain away from the levee are usually dominated by bottomland hardwoods, various mixtures of wetland oaks, including Quercus
laurifolia, Quercus michauxii, Quercus pagoda, and sometimes a number of other oak species, along with Liquidambar styraciflua or other
species. The wettest forests can be simple in structure, with an understory but little shrub or herb layer; others tend to have well‐developed
subcanopy, shrub, and herb layers. Woody vines are usually prominent. Shrubs and small trees include Alnus serrulata, Arundinaria gigantea,
Carpinus caroliniana, Cephalanthus occidentalis, Clethra alnifolia, Cornus foemina, Crataegus viridis, Forestiera acuminata, Ilex decidua,
Itea virginica, Morella cerifera, Planera aquatica, Sabal minor, and Sebastiania fruticosa. Vines may include Berchemia scandens and Smilax
bona‐nox. Herbaceous species may include Boehmeria cylindrica, Carex complanata, Carex debilis, Carex intumescens, Carex joorii, Leersia
virginica, Lycopus virginicus, Mikania scandens, Saccharum baldwinii, and Typha latifolia. Aquatic and floating herbs include Lemna minor,
Nelumbo lutea, Nuphar advena (= Nuphar lutea ssp. advena), and Nymphaea odorata.
Page 329
Vegetation
Community
Global
Classification
(Preliminary
Status
Crosswalk to
Harrison, 2016)
This systems group encompasses the floodplains of small streams in the Gulf and Atlantic coastal plains of the southeastern
United States, north to southern New Jersey. Compared to larger river systems, flooding tends to be variable and of shorter
duration. These landscapes usually encompass a variety of habitats resulting from natural hydrological spatial patterns (i.e.,
meander scars, sloughs, gravel bars, old depressions, and/or oxbows are present). Most of the communities are temporarily
flooded, with the possible addition of smaller‐scale seasonally flooded features such as beaver‐created herbaceous wetlands
and shrub‐dominated features. The vegetation generally consists almost entirely of forests of wetland trees, but occasional,
small shrubby or herbaceous sloughs may also be present. Examples of these systems may include a number of different plant
Gulf and Atlantic communities, each with distinctive floristic compositions. Wetter examples may be strongly dominated by Taxodium distichum
Coastal Plain Small and Nyssa biflora. Other canopy trees include Betula nigra, Celtis laevigata, Diospyros virginiana, Fraxinus pennsylvanica,
NatureServe Id:
Stream Riparian Gleditsia triacanthos, Liquidambar styraciflua, Pinus taeda, Platanus occidentalis, Quercus laurifolia, Quercus lyrata (in longer
CES203.630
Woodland hydroperiod stands), Quercus michauxii, Quercus nigra, Quercus pagoda, Quercus phellos, Quercus texana, Ulmus americana,
Ulmus crassifolia, and Ulmus rubra. Except in the very wet examples, subcanopy, shrub, and herb layers are generally well‐
G3G4 S3?, G3G4
(Coastal Plain: developed and woody vines are also prominent. Associated species vary to some extent with geography but include Carya
S4, or G4 S4
Piedmont glabra, Magnolia grandiflora, Quercus virginiana, Liquidambar styraciflua, Acer barbatum, Fraxinus americana, Fraxinus
Bottomland Forest) caroliniana, Celtis laevigata, Sabal minor, Sebastiania fruticosa, Serenoa repens, and Itea virginica. Shrubs and understory
trees may include (depending on length of hydroperiod) Carpinus caroliniana, Cephalanthus occidentalis, Cornus obliqua,
Crataegus marshallii, Ilex opaca, Ostrya virginiana, Salix nigra, and Vaccinium fuscatum. In addition, Arundinaria gigantea
may be present. Vines may include Berchemia scandens, Smilax bona‐nox, and Toxicodendron radicans. Some herbs may
include Bidens aristosa, Boehmeria cylindrica, Carex cherokeensis, Carex debilis, Carex digitalis, Carex joorii, Chasmanthium
latifolium, Geum canadense, Glyceria striata, Leersia virginica, and Polygonum hydropiperoides. Smaller‐scale features may be
dominated by shrubs (Cephalanthus occidentalis, Decodon verticillatus) and/or perennial and annual herbs. In the Gulf Coastal
Plain, this systems group includes small streams and sloughs that course through the coastal prairie in Louisiana and Texas.
Page 330
Vegetation
Community
Global
Classification
(Preliminary
Status
Crosswalk to
Harrison, 2016)
This systems group consists of poorly drained, organic or mineral soil flats and basins of the Atlantic and Gulf coastal
NatureServe Id: plains. These areas are saturated by rainfall and seasonal high-water tables. Most are not associated with river floodplains,
CES203.636 although one component system is a tidal swamp. Dominant tree species vary with geography. South of Virginia, Taxodium
Gulf and Atlantic
distichum and Nyssa spp. are the most characteristic trees in many of these swamps. In the North Atlantic Coastal Plain,
Coastal Plain
This b r o a d Chamaecyparis thyoides, Acer rubrum, Liquidambar styraciflua, Nyssa sylvatica, Quercus phellos, and Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Swamp Systems
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n are characteristic dominants. Tidal wooded swamps from Virginia to Florida are dominated by Taxodium, Nyssa, or Fraxinus.
could include In the Mississippi River Valley, along with Taxodium distichum and Nyssa spp., characteristic trees include Acer rubrum, Carya
(various Non
GNR S N R aquatica, Fraxinus profunda, Gleditsia aquatica, Planera aquatica, Quercus lyrata, Quercus palustris, and Salix nigra. At the
Alluvial Wetlands)
t o G 1 G 2 S 1 southern edge of this group’s range, hydric hammocks in northern to central Florida are characterized by Chamaecyparis
sensitivities. thyoides and Sabal palmetto. Important wetland oaks throughout much of the range include Quercus michauxii, Quercus
pagoda, Quercus phellos, and Quercus laurifolia.
This systems group includes tidal marshes in various settings along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and barrier islands. Salt,
brackish, and freshwater marshes are included. Regular tidal flooding occurs over most of the system, with irregular flooding in
unusually high tides occurring in the upper zones. Tides bring nutrients, making the regularly flooded marshes fertile. Storms
may push saltwater into brackish areas, acting as a disturbance to vegetation. The dominant factors in vegetation variability
NatureServe Id: are salinity and geography. Salt marshes are often dominated by Spartina grasses, often forming large and low‐diversity but
CES203.638 high‐productivity expanses. Juncus roemerianus is also common and, like Spartina, may be dominant over large areas. Local
depressions in upper zones may be hypersaline due to concentration of salt by evaporation; Salicornia spp., Sarcocornia
Gulf and Atlantic
This broad spp., and Distichlis spicata are characteristic in these salt pannes. In brackish settings, Spartina maybe characteristic as well,
Coastal Plain Tidal
classification but it is often mixed with or replaced by other graminoids such as Schoenoplectus spp. Brackish marshes may include large
Marsh Herbaceous
could include patches of flats with low forbs (along the northern Atlantic Coast); Sagittaria subulata and Limosella australis are typical.
GNR SU to G2 S1 Fresh to oligohaline tidal marshes may be characterized by Zizania spp., Zizaniopsis miliacea, Eleocharis spp., Sagittaria spp.,
sensitivities. and Typha spp. They typically occur along bay margins near inflowing rivers, extending up the tidal reaches of those rivers.
While tidal marshes are characteristically herbaceous, they may support inclusions of shrublands dominated by Baccharis
halimifolia, Borrichia frutescens, or other shrubs. Salt marsh “islands” of slightly higher elevation also support Juniperus
virginiana. Fresh and oligohaline marshes can have a heterogeneous physiognomy including shrublands, grasslands, and
aquatic herbs. Individual systems in this group are differentiated based on salinity, geography, and tidal dynamics and energy.
Page 331
Vegetation
Community
Global
Classification
(Preliminary
Status
Crosswalk to
Harrison, 2016)
This systems group includes tidal marshes in various settings along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and barrier islands. Salt,
brackish, and freshwater marshes are included. Regular tidal flooding occurs over most of the system, with irregular flooding in
unusually high tides occurring in the upper zones. Tides bring nutrients, making the regularly flooded marshes fertile. Storms
may push saltwater into brackish areas, acting as a disturbance to vegetation. The dominant factors in vegetation variability
NatureServe Id:
are salinity and geography. Salt marshes are often dominated by Spartina grasses, often forming large and low‐diversity but
CES203.638
high‐productivity expanses. Juncus roemerianus is also common and, like Spartina, may be dominant over large areas. Local
depressions in upper zones may be hypersaline due to concentration of salt by evaporation; Salicornia spp., Sarcocornia
Gulf and Atlantic This broad
spp., and Distichlis spicata are characteristic in these salt pannes. In brackish settings, Spartina may be characteristic as well,
Coastal Plain Tidal classification
but it is often mixed with or replaced by other graminoids such as Schoenoplectus spp. Brackish marshes may include large
Marsh Shrubland could include
patches of flats with low forbs (along the northern Atlantic Coast); Sagittaria subulata and Limosella australis are typical.
GNR SNR to
Fresh to oligohaline tidal marshes may be characterized by Zizania spp., Zizaniopsis miliacea, Eleocharis spp., Sagittaria spp.,
G1G2 S1S3
and Typha spp. They typically occur along bay margins near inflowing rivers, extending up the tidal reaches of those rivers.
sensitivities.
While tidal marshes are characteristically herbaceous, they may support inclusions of shrublands dominated byBaccharis
halimifolia, Borrichia frutescens, or other shrubs. Salt marsh “islands” of slightly higher elevation also support Juniperus
virginiana. Fresh and oligohaline marshes can have a heterogeneous physiognomy including shrublands, grasslands, and
aquatic herbs. Individual systems in this group are differentiated based on salinity, geography, and tidal dynamics and energy.
Vegetation dominated (typically >60% canopy cover) by introduced species. These are spontaneous, self-perpetuating, and
Introduced
not (immediately) the result of planting, cultivation, or human maintenance. Land occupied by introduced vegetation is
Herbaceous N/A
generally permanently altered (converted) unless restoration efforts are undertaken. Specifically, land cover is significantly
Wetland
altered/disturbed by introduced riparian and wetland vegetation.
Managed Tree
Plantation - Even-aged, regularly spaced forest stands established by planting and/or seeding in the process of afforestation or
Southeast Conifer N/A reforestation where individual trees are generally > 5 meters in height. Specifically, this class refers to plantations dominated
and Hardwood by evergreen species.
Plantation Group
Page 332
Vegetation
Community
Global
Classification
(Preliminary
Status
Crosswalk to
Harrison, 2016)
These oak‐dominated forests are one of the matrix forest systems in the northeastern and north‐central U.S. Occurring
in dry‐mesic settings, they are typically closed‐canopy forests, though there may be areas of patchy‐canopy woodlands.
They cover large expanses at low to mid elevations, where the topography is flat to gently rolling, occasionally steep. Soils
Northeastern are mostly acidic and relatively infertile but not strongly xeric. Local areas of calcareous bedrock, or colluvial pockets, may
Interior Dry-Mesic NatureServe Id: support forests typical of richer soils. Oak species characteristic of dry‐mesic conditions (e.g., Quercus rubra, Quercus alba,
Oak Forest CES202.592 Quercus velutina, and Quercus coccinea) and Carya spp. are dominant in mature stands. Quercus prinus may be present
G1 SNR but is generally less important than the other oak species. Castanea dentata was a prominent tree before chestnut blight
(Hardwood Inland eradicated it as a canopy constituent. Acer rubrum, Betula lenta, and Betula alleghaniensis may be common associates; Acer
Dune Ridge Forest) saccharum is occasional. With a long history of human habitation, many of the forests are early‐ to mid‐successional, where
Pinus strobus, Pinus virginiana, or Liriodendron tulipifera may be dominant or codominant. Within these forests, hillslope
pockets with impeded drainage may support small isolated wetlands, including non‐forested seeps or forested wetlands
with Acer rubrum, Quercus bicolor, or Nyssa sylvatica characteristic.
Northern Atlantic NatureServe Id: This system consists of vegetation of barrier islands and other coastal areas, ranging from northernmost North Carolina
Coastal Plain CES203.264 northward to southern Maine (where extensive sandy coastlines are replaced by rocky coasts). A range of plant communities
Dune and Swale Va r i e s f r o m may be present, but natural vegetation is predominately herbaceous, with Ammophila breviligulata diagnostic. Shrublands
Shrubland G1G2 S1 to G2G3 resulting from succession from grasslands may occur in limited areas. Both dune uplands and non‐flooded wetland vegetation
S2 depending on of interdunal swales are included in this system. Small patches of natural woodland may also be present in limited areas,
(Maritime Dune composition of especially in the northern range of this system. Dominant ecological processes are those associated with the maritime
Scrub) community. environment, including frequent salt spray, saltwater overwash, and sand movement.
Northern Atlantic
Coastal Plain This ecological system is comprised of dry hardwood forests largely dominated by oaks, ranging from sandy glacial and
Hardwood Forest outwash deposits of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and Long Island, New York, south to the Coastal Plain portions of Maryland
NatureServe Id:
and Virginia south to about the James River. Quercus alba, Quercus prinus, Quercus coccinea, and Quercus rubra are typical,
CES203.475
(Central and Ilex opaca is sometimes present. In the northern half of the range, conditions can grade to dry‐mesic, reflected in the
G4 S4
Appalachian Pine local abundance of Fagus grandifolia. These forests occur on acidic, sandy to gravelly soils with a thick duff layer, often with an
- Oak / Heath ericaceous shrub layer. From New Jersey south to Virginia, this system also includes oak‐beech/heath forests on steep slopes.
Woodland)
Page 333
Vegetation
Community
Global
Classification
(Preliminary
Status
Crosswalk to
Harrison, 2016)
Northern Atlantic
This system encompasses a range of woody vegetation present on barrier islands and near‐coastal strands, from Virginia
Coastal Plain
NatureServe Id: Beach, the northern range limit of Quercus virginiana, northward to the extent of the Atlantic Coastal Plain. It includes forests
Maritime Forest
CES203.302 and shrublands whose structure and composition are influenced by proximity to marine environments, including both
upland and wetlands. Vegetation includes narrow bands of forests with often stunted trees with contorted branches and
(Mid-Atlantic
G2 S2 wilted leaves and dense vine layers (Edinger et al., 2002). A range of trees may be present depending upon actual location
Coastal Maritime
and degree of protection from most extreme maritime influences.
Forest)
This system is comprised of a group of dry pitch pine woodlands and forests of deep sandy soils ranging from Cape Cod
(Massachusetts) south through Long Island (New York) and the New Jersey Coastal Plain, with occasional occurrences north
to southernmost Maine and south to the Anacostia watershed (Maryland). The vegetation is characterized by a tree canopy
of Pinus rigida with a tall‐shrub layer dominated by Quercus ilicifolia and a low‐shrub layer characterized by Vaccinium
pallidum or Vaccinium angustifolium. The system is heavily influenced by fire, the composition and structure of its components
Northern Atlantic varying with fire frequency. In general, tree oaks are more prevalent in those stands having a longer fire‐return interval, fire
Coastal Plain Pitch frequencies of 8‐10 years foster the growth of “pine plains,” i.e., dwarf pine stands 1 meter in height. Pine barrens with a
NatureServe Id:
Pine Barrens history of more‐or‐less biennial burns for Vaccinium angustifolium production may have very few trees and be characterized
CES203.269
as sandplain grasslands. Dwarf‐shrubs such as Arctostaphylos uva‐ursi, Vaccinium angustifolium, and Hudsonia ericoides
(Appalachian Pitch typify the field layer of pine plains and sandplain grasslands. Schizachyrium scoparium and (in close proximity to the coast)
GNR S2
Pine Pavement Schizachyrium littorale are common grasses. Scrub oak stands may occur without pine cover, particularly in low‐lying
Woodland) areas that do not intersect the water table, where cold‐air drainage inhibits pine growth. North of the glacial boundary,
heathlands characterized by Arctostaphylos uva‐ursi, Corema conradii, and Morella pensylvanica and grasslands characterized
by Schizachyrium littorale, Schizachyrium scoparium, and Danthonia spicata occur as small (or occasionally large) patches.
The Pine Barrens of New Jersey are very similar in structure and composition to those north of the glacial boundary but
are characterized by additional species, such as Quercus marilandica, Pyxidanthera barbulata, Leiophyllum buxifolium, and
others. Where the water table is close to the surface, pitch pine lowland vegetation (described as a separate system) occurs.
Page 334
Vegetation
Community
Global
Classification
(Preliminary
Status
Crosswalk to
Harrison, 2016)
Open Water
Recently
Logged-Herb and N/A Areas dominated by herbaceous ground cover following tree harvesting
Grass Cover
Ruderal Forest-
Forest vegetation resulting from succession following significant anthropogenic disturbance of an area. It is generally
Northern and
N/A characterized by unnatural combinations of species (primarily native species, though they often contain slight or substantial
Central Hardwood
numbers and amounts of species alien to the region as well).
and Conifer
Ruderal For-
Forest vegetation resulting from succession following significant anthropogenic disturbance of an area. It is generally
est-Southeast
N/A characterized by unnatural combinations of species (primarily native species, though they often contain slight or substantial
Hardwood and
numbers and amounts of species alien to the region as well).
Conifer
This upland system of the Atlantic Coastal Plain ranges from Delaware south to interior Georgia in a variety of moist but
non‐wetland sites that are naturally sheltered from frequent fire. Such sites include lower slopes and bluffs along streams
and rivers in dissected terrain, mesic flats between drier pine‐dominated uplands and floodplains, and local topographic high
Southern Atlantic areas within bottomland terraces or nonriverine wet flats. Soil textures are variable in both texture and pH. The vegetation
Coastal Plain Mesic consists of forests dominated by combinations of trees that include a significant component of mesophytic deciduous
NatureServe Id:
Hardwood Forest hardwood species, such as Fagus grandifolia or Acer barbatum. Its southern limit is generally exclusive of the natural range of
CES203.242
Pinus glabra as mapped by Kossuth and Michael (1990) and Magnolia grandiflora as mapped by Outcalt (1990). Upland and
(Northern Coastal bottomland oaks at the mid range of moisture tolerance are usually also present, particularly Quercus alba, but sometimes
G5 S4
Plain / also Quercus pagoda, Quercus falcata, Quercus michauxii, Quercus shumardii, or Quercus nigra. Pinus taeda is sometimes
Piedmont Mesic) present, but it is unclear if it is a natural component or has entered only as a result of past cutting. Analogous systems on the
Gulf Coastal Plain have pine as a natural component, and this may be true for some examples of this system. Understories
are usually well‐developed. Shrub and herb layers may be sparse or moderately dense. Within its range, Sabal minor may
be a prominent shrub. Species richness may be fairly high in basic sites but is fairly low otherwise.
Page 335
Global Conservation Status Ranks:
G1 Critically Imperiled - At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors.
G2 Imperiled - At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors.
G3 Vulnerable - Rare or uncommon. At moderate risk of extinction or elimination due to a restricted range, relatively few occurrences, recent and widespread
declines, or other factors.
G4 Apparently Secure - Uncommon but not rare. Apparently secure, but with cause for long-term concern.
G5 Secure - Demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure. Common, widespread, and abundant, although it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially
at the periphery; not vulnerable in most of its range.
GNR Not Ranked: Global status has not yet been assessed.
State Conservation Status Ranks:

S1 Critically Imperiled - Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extirpation
from the state; generally with 5 or fewer occurrences state-wide, and/or covering less than 50 ha (124 ac) in aggregate; or covering a larger area but highly
threatened with destruction or modification. Species and community types with this rank are considered highly state rare and are actively tracked by the
Natural Heritage Program.
S2 Imperiled - Imperiled in the state because of rarity or because of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state. Generally with 6–20
occurrences state-wide, and/or covering less than 250 ha (618 ac) in aggregate; or covering a larger area but threatened with destruction or modification.
Species and community types with this rank are considered state rare and are actively tracked by the Natural Heritage Program.
S3 Vulnerable - Vulnerable in the state either because rare and uncommon, or found only in a restricted range (even if abundant at some locations), or
because of other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. Generally with 21–100 occurrences state-wide; or with a larger number of occurrences subject
to relatively high levels of threat; may be of relatively frequent occurrence in specific localities or geographic parts of the state. Species or Community Types
with this rank are considered “watchlist” and are not actively tracked by the Natural Heritage Program.
S4 Apparently Secure - Uncommon but not rare, and usually widespread in the state. Some cause for longterm concern due to declines or other factors.
S5 Secure: Common, widespread, abundant, and secure in the state, and essentially ineradicable under present conditions.
SNR Not ranked: State status has not yet been assessed.
SU Unrankable - Possibly in peril range-wide, but its status is uncertain; more information is needed.
Page 336
Figure 3.17-1: Vegetation Type within the Biological Resources Study Area (Page 1 of 25)
Page 337
Page 338
Page 339
Page 340
Page 341
Page 342
Page 343
Page 344
Page 345
Page 346
Page 347
Page 348
Page 349
Page 350
Page 351
Page 352
Page 353
Page 354
Page 355
Page 356
Page 357
Page 358
Page 359
Page 360
Page 361
Terrestrial Wildlife
miles where the west side of the Reserve abuts the
Migratory Birds B-W Parkway north of the Patuxent River and south
Migratory birds of conservation concern (BCC) of the Laurel Fort Meade Road/MD 198 onramp,
include: American oystercatcher (Haematopus totaling approximately 60 acres. The Reserve is
palliatus), black-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus only located within the Biological Resources Study
erythropthalmus), bobolink (Dolichonyx Area east of the B-W Parkway; corresponding
oryzivorus), Canada warbler (Cardellina areas on the west side of the B-W Parkway do
canadensis), Cerulean warbler (Setophaga not include the Reserve.
cerulea), clapper rail (Rallus obsoletus), dunlin
(Calidris alpina), eastern whip-poor-will Biodiversity Conservation Areas
(Antrostomus vociferus), golden-winged warbler The BioNet of Maryland is a geospatial layer that
(Vermivora chrysoptera), Kentucky warbler systematically identifies and prioritizes ecologically
(Geothlypis formosa), king rail (Rallus elegans), important lands to conserve Maryland’s biodiversity
least tern (Sternula antillarum), lesser yellowlegs (i.e., plants, animals, habitats, and landscapes).
(Tringa flavipes), long-eared owl (Asio otus), This dataset hierarchically aggregates numerous
Nelson’s sparrow (Ammodramus nelsoni), prairie separate data layers developed by MDNR’s
warbler (Setophaga discolor), prothonotary Natural Heritage Program (NHP) according to
warbler (Protonotaria citrea), purple sandpiper the BioNet Criteria Matrix (Maryland GIS Data
(Calidris maritima), red-headed woodpecker Catalog, 2018c).
(Melanerpes erythrocephalus), red-throated
loon (Gavia stellata), ruddy turnstone BioNet includes and prioritizes the following:
(Arenaria interpres), rusty blackbird (Euphagus • Only known occurrences of species and
carolinus), saltmarsh sparrow (Ammodramus habitats
caudacutus), seaside sparrow (Ammodramus • Globally rare species and habitats
maritimus), semipalmated sandpiper (Calidris
• State rare species and habitats
pusilla), short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus
griseus), snowy owl (Bubo scandiacus), • Animals of Greatest Conservation Need
whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), willet (Tringa • Watch List plants and indicators of high-quality
semipalmata), and wood thrush (Hylocichla habitats
mustelina). The specific locations of these species • Animal assemblages (e.g., colonial nesting
were not provided. Of these, several would not be waterbirds, forest interior species)
expected to occur within the Biological Resources • Hotspots for rare species and habitats
Study Area (e.g., red-throated loon, snowy owl)
• Intact watersheds
due to the lack of suitable habitat or would not be
affected by the Build Alternative because much of • Wildlife corridors and concentration areas
the Project is underground.
BioNet has prioritized these resources into a
Federally Protected Birds five-tiered system:
Federally protected birds include the golden eagle • Tier 1 – Critically Significant for Biodiversity
and bald eagle for which could be covered under Conservation
the BGEPA. • Tier 2 – Extremely Significant for Biodiversity
Conservation
Patuxent Research Refuge
• Tier 3 – Highly Significant for Biodiversity
The Biological Resources Study Area intersects the
Conservation
Patuxent Research Refuge for approximately 2.2
Page 362
• Tier 4 – Moderately Significant for Biodiversity

need for a regional or landscape-level view for
Conservation
wildlife conservation.
• Tier 5 – Significant for Biodiversity
Conservation The GIA identified two types of important resource
Areas deemed Critically Significant for Biodiversity lands, “hubs” and “corridors.”
Conservation occur in the Biological Resources
Study Area (listed in geographic order from north Hubs are typically large contiguous areas,
to south; Figure 3.15-1): separated by major roads and/or human land
1. Dorsey Run crossing near Colony Fairfield, uses, that contain one or more of the following:
MD; • Large blocks of contiguous interior forest
2. Little Patapsco River crossing; (containing at least 250 acres, plus a transition
zone of 300 feet)
3. In a portion of the Patuxent Research Refuge
North; • Large wetland complexes, with at least 250
acres of unmodified wetlands;
4. At the Patuxent River crossing;
• Important animal and plant habitats of at least
5. In Springfield Road Park; and, 100 acres, including rare, threatened, and
6. Near Beck Branch. endangered species locations, unique ecological
communities, and migratory bird habitats;
Tier 3 through 5 areas are present predominantly
• Relatively pristine stream and river segments
where undeveloped lands are present (which, when considered with adjacent forests
(Figure 3.15-1). and wetlands, are at least 100 acres) that
support trout, mussels, and other sensitive
Green Infrastructure Assessment aquatic organisms; and
The Green Infrastructure Assessment (GIA) was • Existing protected natural resource lands
developed to provide decision support for MDNR’s which contain one or more of the above (e.g.,
land conservation programs. Maryland’s green state parks and forests, National Wildlife
infrastructure is a network of undeveloped lands Refuges, locally owned reservoir properties,
that provide the bulk of the state’s natural support major stream valley parks, and Nature
system. The green infrastructure serves as vital Conservancy preserves).
habitat for wild species and contributes in many
ways to the health and quality of life for Maryland Corridors are linear features connecting hubs
residents. The GIA tool was developed to identify together to help animals and plant propagules to
Maryland’s key green infrastructure. The GIA was move between hubs. Wildlife corridors contribute
based on principles of landscape ecology and to population viability by:
conservation biology and provides a consistent • Assuring the continual exchange of genes
approach to evaluating land conservation and between populations, which helps maintain
restoration efforts in Maryland. It specifically genetic diversity;
attempts to recognize: a variety of natural resource • Providing access to adjacent habitat areas,
values (as opposed to a single federally listed representing additional territory for foraging
species of wildlife, for example), how a given and mating;
place fits into a larger system, the ecological • Allowing for a greater carrying capacity; and
importance of natural open space in rural and
• Providing routes for colonization of habitat
developed areas, the importance of coordinating
lands following local population extinctions or
local, state and even interstate planning, and the
Page 363
habitat recovery from ecological catastrophes

Forest Interior Dwelling Species
(e.g., fires).
The potential habitat layer for Forest Interior
Corridors were identified using many sets of Dwelling Species (FIDS) in the State of Maryland
data, including land cover, roads, streams, are modeled locations depicting where FIDS
slope, flood plains, aquatic resource data, and habitat might occur based on biological criteria.
fish blockages. Corridors connect hubs of similar FIDS-positive locations have not been field tested
type (hubs containing forests are connected to or field verified for actual FIDS presence.
one another; while those consisting primarily
of wetlands are connected to others containing FIDS were mapped within the Biological Resources
wetlands). Corridors generally follow the best Study Area at the following locations:
ecological or “most natural” routes between hubs. 1. Patapsco River crossing,
Typically, these are streams with wide riparian
2. South of I-695 near Hammonds Ferry Road,
buffers and healthy fish communities. Other good
wildlife corridors include ridge lines or forested 3. Vicinity of the MD 195 interchange/Patapsco
Valley Park
valleys. Developed areas, major roads, and other
unsuitable features were avoided (Maryland GIS 4. South ofMD 100 interchange north of Canine
Data Catalog, 2005). Road,
5. Little Patuxent River crossing to MD 197,
Green Infrastructure Zones intersect the Biological 6. South of MD 197 to southern end of Greenbelt
Resources Study Area at the following locations: Park, and
1. Patapsco River crossing, 7. Anacostia River crossing.
2. Vicinity of the MD 195 interchange/Patapsco
Valley Park, Targeted Ecological Areas
Targeted Ecological Areas (TEAs) are lands and
3. Isolated locations south of MD 100 interchange,
watersheds of high ecological value that have
4. Dorsey Run crossing, been identified as conservation priorities by the
5. Little Patuxent River crossing, MDNR for natural resource protection. These areas
6. Patuxent River crossing, represent the most ecologically valuable areas in
Maryland, according to the State.
7. Vicinity of Springfield Road Park,
8. Beck Branch crossing, TEAs were developed based on the GIA as
9. Vicinity of Greenbelt Park. discussed above and include a climate change
adaptation component which identifies areas
Terrestrial Habitat
important for sustaining wetlands ecosystems that
Swamp Pink are changing and moving landward in response
Swamp pink (Helonias bullata) is the only species to sea level rise. TEAs represent the highest-ranked
the IPaC listed as potentially present within the ecological baseline areas for these components.
Biological Resources Study Area. Swamp pink TEAs do not include developed lands or lands that
represents a monotypic genus in the lily family are in the 0 foot to 2-foot inundation zone based on
(Liliaceae), which historically occurred along the 2011 Maryland Sea-Level Affecting Marshes
small streams and in swamps, bogs, and other Model study (Maryland GIS Data Catalog, 2011).
wetlands from New York to northern Georgia
(USFWS, 2018b). The swamp pink is a federally- TEAs in the Biological Resources Study Area occur
listed threatened species. The swamp pink habitat at the following locations:
range is shown in Figure 3.15-1.
Page 364
1. Dorsey Run crossing,

Letters from the MDNR on May 23, 2018 and June
2. Little Patuxent River crossing toMD 197, and 11, 2018 indicated that there are several state-listed
3. Vicinity of Springfield Park and Beck Branch species which might occur within the project area.
crossing. These range in listing status from Uncertain, Rare,
Highly Rare, Threatened, and Endangered. Of
Sensitive Species Project Review Areas these, there are one mussel (Atlantic spike), and
Sensitive Species Project Review Areas (SSPRAs) three fish species (glassy darter, American brook
are areas buffered by MDNR that primarily contain lamprey, and white catfish) which are wholly
habitat for rare, threatened, and endangered aquatic, and one plant (Short’s hedge-hyssop)
species and rare natural community types. that is associated with stream banks, lake margins,
and wet meadows.
SSPRAs identified within the Biological Resources
Study Area include: Feedback provided by MDNR indicates that there
1. Area southeast of I-195 junction, are four areas within or nearby the Biological
Resources Study Area with occurrences of state-
2. Vicinity of Dorsey Run crossing,
designated rare, threatened or endangered
3. Little Patuxent River crossing and vicinity, species and their habitats:
4. Patuxent River crossing and vicinity, • Between MD 175 and MD 32, a portion
5. Springfield Road Park vicinity, and of Dorsey Run is intersected and supports
6. Beck Branch crossing. occurrences of American brook lamprey and
the glassy darter- both are state-listed fishes.
The Biological Resources Study Area does not • Between MD 32 and MD 198, Little Patuxent
intersect an EFH (NOAA, 2018) or any National River is intersected and supports occurrences
Estuarine Research Reserves (Maryland GIS Data of glassy darter.
Catalog, 2013). • Just north of MD 197, is an occurrence of
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Atlantic spike, a freshwater mussel species
with In Need of Conservation state status
A search using the IPaC system indicted the potential in addition to 13 species of dragonfly, two
presence of one federally listed species, 32 species fish species, and one plant species that are
of migratory birds, and one National Wildlife variously state listed as rare, highly rare,
Refuge within the Biological Resources Study Area. threatened, endangered, or uncertain.
The report returned no results for critical habitats or • Portions of Beaverdam Creek intersects the
fish hatcheries. TBC coordinated with the USFWS, project at three locations and American brook
MDNR, and Government of the District of Columbia lamprey and three dragonflies have been
Depart of Energy and Environment to request recorded in the vicinity.
information on the presence of rare, threatened, and Correspondence received from the DOEE,
endangered species in the vicinity (Appendix C). dated November 5, 2018 indicated that seven
rare, threatened, or endangered species
In a letter dated May 8, 2018, the USFWS are known to occur, or may occur within the
indicated that, while the proposed Project is within District of Columbia. These species include the
range of IPaC-listed species, the proposed project Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum),
is Not Likely to Adversely Affect listed species or Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus), Dwarf
critical habitat. As such, no Biological Assessment wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Northern
or further Section 7 consultation with the USFWS bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), Northern
would be required. long‐eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), Hay’s
Page 365
Spring amphipod (Stygobromus hayi), and the communities historically experience disturbance,
Kenk’s amphipod (Stygobromus kenki). Based on they would be expected to regenerate after
observations, surveys, and data derived from the construction, the proposed Project would
District of Columbia’s Wildlife Action Plan, DOEE potentially affect, but is not expected to adversely
determined that no known listed species occur affect vegetation communities.
within the Biological Resources Study Area.
According to the correspondence with USFWS,
Dragonfly Species MDNR, and DOEE, the proposed Project is not
In addition to USFWS and MDNR correspondence, anticipated to adversely affect rare, threatened,
the Biological Resources Study Area contains and endangered species protected under the ESA.
an additional 13 dragonfly species which have
varying levels of sensitivity. The critical aspect of Main Artery Tunnels. The construction of the
these species’ life cycle is related to laying eggs Main Artery Tunnels would occur underneath
within water bodies. Table 3.17-2 provides a existing public ROW using TBM technology and
description of each dragonfly species that has the would not interface with aboveground resources,
potential to occur within the Biological Resources including biological resources. All construction
Study Area. activities associated with the Build Alternative
would occur at TBM Launch Shaft and Ventilation
Shaft sites along the proposed Project.
The GIS layers referenced, including BioNet, GIA,
and TEA, are algorithm-driven composite maps that TBM Launch Shafts. Construction activities at
do not provide specific information regarding the TBM Launch Shaft sites would potentially include
species present and biodiversity and conservation the generation of fugitive dust, use of chemicals,
values. As a result, although these layers provide altered hydrology, non-native invasive species,
a qualitative basis for planning purposes, too little and noise.
information is provided to determine potential
effects associated with construction of the Build Generation of Fugitive Dust. When improperly
Alternative. This section evaluates environmental managed, excessive dust can decrease the vigor
consequences based upon the other data sources and productivity of special-status plants through
presented above. effects on light, penetration, photosynthesis,
respiration, transpiration, increased penetration
of phytotoxic gaseous pollutants, and increased
No-Build Alternative incidence of pests and diseases. These impacts to
The No-Build Alternative would have no temporary plants can result in changes to community structure
or construction-related impacts on biological and the function of vegetation communities, resulting
resources or species/habitats of concern. in impacts to suitable habitat for wildlife species.
Fugitive dust generated from the Build Alternative
Build Alternative would occur from the handling of excavated soils
Impacts to vegetation associated with the Loop and the generation of particulate emissions from on
Stations, haul roads, and Ventilation Shafts would road and off-road equipment. The Build Alternative
occur within disturbed and developed lands. is not anticipated to exceed air quality significance
Impacts associated with most TBM Launch Shafts criteria for fugitive particulate matter. Fugitive dust
would occur within disturbed or developed areas, would be limited because excavation sites would
but some natural vegetation communities would be distributed throughout the Biological Resources
be affected. Because the impacts are minimal, the Study Area rather than in one concentrated
Page 366
Table 3.17-2: Dragonfly Species within the Biological Resources Study Area
Species Name Status Description Literature Cited
Laura’s clubtail (Stylurus laurae) is a species
of dragonfly in the clubtail family, known as iNaturallist: https://
Gomphidae. Laura’s clubtail has green eyes www.inaturalist.org/
with a dark brown face; males have green taxa/113402-Sty-
thoracic markings and brown legs, females lurus-laurae
yellow thoracic markings and thighs. The
Bug Guide: https://
wide diffuse lateral brown strip on the thorax
bugguide.net/node/
Laura’s clubtail Rare distinguishes this species from Riverine and
view/28387
Towne's clubtails, which are also smaller. Like
other clubtails, the tip of the abdomen is wide. Odonata Central:
Stripes on the club are red-brown in color. https://www.
This species is uncommonly found within the odonatacentral.org/
Eastern U.S. and adults occur along shallow, index.php/FieldGuide-
well shaded rivers and streams with cobble, Action.get/id/46750
sand or mud substrate.
Yellow-sided skimmer (Libellula flavida) is a
species of dragonfly in the skimmer family, iNaturallist: https://
known as Libellulidae. Adult male yellow-sided www.inaturalist.org/
skimmers resemble Spangled Skimmers, but taxa/104576-Libellu-
lack the white spot on wings. Side of abdomen la-flavida
is yellow. Female yellow-sided skimmers also
resemble female Spangled Skimmer, but have Bug Guide: https://
Yellow-sided more yellow on abdomen. This species occurs bugguide.net/node/
Rare
Skimmer within the Eastern U.S. from New York to view/4087
Florida and Texas, most common in the coastal
plain. Adults occur within seeps, marshy ponds, Odonata Central:
lakes, borrow pits, slow moving streams, and https://www.
bogs March through October and feed on odonatacentral.org/
other insects by foraging from weed stems in index.php/FieldGuide-
clearings. Males would patrol and defend small Action.get/id/47124
pools and borrow pits.
Sely’s Sundragon (Helocordulia selysii) is a
species of emerald dragonfly in the family
known as Corduliidae. This is an uncommon
dark species with clear wings. It has a pale iNaturallist: https://
yellow face and a deep medial depression www.inaturalist.org/
on the top of the frons. The thorax is brown, taxa/102457-Helocor-
thickly clothed with silky hairs. The legs are dulia-selysii
black. There is a basal dark spot followed by
Bug Guide: https://
a series of smaller spots along the anterior
bugguide.net/node/
Selys’ Sundragon Threatened margin of each wing. The abdomen is dark with
view/45925
pale spots laterally on the middle segments.
Segment 3 has a nearly complete basal ring. Odonata Central:
The abdomen in males is slightly clubbed. https://www.
This species occurs within small streams in odonatacentral.org/
forests, typically with sandy bottoms, in the index.php/FieldGuide-
Southeastern U.S. Adults of this species prefer Action.get/id/45522
open sunny glades in woods, and may be seen
foraging along forest edges. Males commonly
hover while patrolling.
Page 367
(continued)

Elfin skimmer (Nannothemis bella) is a species
of dragonfly in the skimmer family, known as
Libellulidae. This species is very small. Males
iNaturallist: https://
have pale blue body with white on face,
www.inaturalist.org/
clubbed abdomen. Females have banded
taxa/106516-Nanno-
pattern. This species occurs in southern
themis-bella
Elfin Skimmer Endangered Canada, northern tier of U.S. from Wisconsin
east to New England, south in Appalachians to Bug Guide: https://
Georgia and Alabama. All populations of this bugguide.net/node/
species make significant seasonal migrations. view/10887
Habitat preferences include bogs and fens,
March through September and May through
August in north areas (Canada).
Treetop Emerald (Somatochlora provocans) is taxa/112804-Somato-
a species of emerald dragonfly in the family chlora-provocans
known as Corduliidae. This species is metallic
Treetop Emerald Endangered brown with brilliant green eyes. This species NatureServe:
occurs within forest or boggy seepages in http://explorer.
Eastern Louisiana to Kentucky and New Jersey, natureserve.org/
south to the Florida Panhandle. servlet/NatureServe?-
searchName=Soma-
tochlora+provocans
Baskettail (Epitheca costalis) is a species of
emerald dragonfly in the family known as
Corduliidae. This is a typical baskettail with
a hairy thorax and a spot of yellow on the iNaturallist: https://
side. The wings are marked with a basal spot www.inaturalist.org/
of brown or in some females there may be taxa/100211-Epithe-
a brown stripe across the front edge of the ca-costalis
wings. The males have a slender abdomen and
Baskettail Highly Rare
long cerci (greater than 3.4 mm). This species Odonata Central:
is known to occur in lakes, ponds and slow https://www.
reaches of streams and rivers within the Eastern odonatacentral.org/
U.S. and southern Great Plains. It may be seen index.php/FieldGuide-
in feeding swarms or perching on twigs and Action.get/id/45501
bushes in large numbers. Males patrol along
shorelines for long distances and mating pairs
perch on stems at the water’s edge.
Martha’s pennant (Celithemis martha) is a www.inaturalist.org/
species of skimmer dragonfly in the family taxa/100211-Epithe-
known as Libellulidae. This species is known ca-costalis
throughout the northeast from Nova Scotia NatureServe:
Martha’s Pennant Highly Rare
to Virginia, however it is absent in Vermont. http://explorer.
It is rare throughout its range, except coastal natureserve.org/
Massachusetts, particularly Cape Cod where servlet/NatureServe?-
it is common. This species breeds in ponds. searchName=Celithe-
mis+martha\
Page 368
(continued)
Taper-tailed Darner (Gomphaeschna antilope)
is a species of darner in the family known as
Aeshnidae. This small dark darner has green
eyes in life and the costal margin of the
wings are yellow. The first and third or fourth
antenodal crossveins are usually thickened and
there is a single bridge crossvein. The middle
half of the female forewing is generally tinted
taxa/101639-Gom-
amber. The posterior abdominal segments in
phaeschna-antilope
the male have green spots and the middle
Taper-tailed
Rare abdominal segments in the female each
darner Odonata Central:
have white spots laterally and brown-orange https://www.
spots dorsally. This species occurs in shallow odonatacentral.org/
sphagnum bogs and swamps in Southeastern index.php/FieldGuide-
U.S. from New Hampshire south to Florida Action.get/id/45094
and west to Louisiana. Females lay eggs in wet
wood just above the water line. This species
is unusual among darners in that it readily
perches on tree trunks. Feeding swarms are not
uncommon and are usually made up entirely
of males.
Sphagnum Sprite (Nehalennia gracilis) is a
species of narrow-winged damselfly in the
taxa/106651-Nehalen-
family known as Coenagrionidae. This tiny
nia-gracilis
damselfly has a thorax that is emerald green
dorsally and blue ventrally. The tip of the
Sphagnum Sprite Rare NatureServe:
abdomen is solidly blue. This species occurs http://explorer.
in bogs and fens containing sphagnum moss natureserve.org/
within Eastern U.S. and parts of southeast servlet/NatureServe?-
Canada from Maine south to Florida and searchName=Neha-
Georgia and parts of Alabama. lennia+gracilis
Sphagnum Sprite (Nehalennia intergricollis) is
a species of narrow-winged damselfly in the
family known as Coenagrionidae. This species is iNaturallist: https://
uncommon in the southwestern most reaches www.inaturalist.org/
of its range. It would not likely be confused taxa/106652-Nehalen-
with other damselflies in the region because of nia-integricollis
its small size, metallic green coloration and the
southern Sprite Highly Rare
presence of blue on abdominal segment 10. Odonata Central:
This species occurs in ponds, lakes, bogs and https://www.
slow reaches of streams with moderately dense odonatacentral.org/
vegetation in the Eastern U.S. from New York index.php/FieldGuide-
to Texas. Southern Sprite is generally found Action.get/id/43210
close to the ground perching in thick clusters
of sedges and grasses.
Page 369
(continued)

Banded spiketail (Cordulegaster obliqua
fasciata) is a species of spiketail dragonfly in
the family known as Cordulegastridae. The eyes
are aqua-blue. There are two broad pale yellow
stripes laterally on the thorax. The wings are
taxa/98422-Cordule-
clear and rarely become smoky. The abdomen
gaster-obliqua
is dark red-brown with yellow spear-shaped
banded spiketail Highly Rare marks on segments 2-7. This subspecies Odonata Central:
is the southern form is found in Arkansas https://www.
and Louisiana and is generally larger than odonatacentral.org/
Cordulegaster obliqua. Habitat preferences index.php/FieldGuide-
include small, rapidly flowing spring-fed Action.get/id/45452
forest streams and seepages with sandy or
muck bottoms occurring within the Eastern
U.S. and Canada.
Fine-lined emerald (Somatochlora filosa) is
a species of emerald dragonfly in the family
known as Corduliidae. This is an uncommon
species with brilliant iridescent green eyes, a
dark metallic green thorax and two pale lateral
stripes. It is the only species in the region
with the first stripe interrupted or distinctly
angulated medially. The second stripe is iNaturallist: https://
wider. Its face is pale in front and metallic www.inaturalist.org/
blue on top. The wings in young females often taxa/112791-Somato-
become amber apically. The legs are black. The chlora-filosa
abdomen is dark metallic brown or black with
Fine-lined Emerald Rare
the basal segments marked with 3 pale stripes Odonata Central:
laterally. There are narrow white basal rings https://www.
on segments 8-10. The female has a grooved odonatacentral.org/
ovipositor. Distinctive pale lateral stripes would index.php/FieldGuide-
differentiate this species from the other striped Action.get/id/45803
emeralds in the region. This species occurs in
spring-fed seeps and forest streams within the
Southeastern U.S. from New Jersey to Texas.
This species is typical of the genus, usually seen
flying high over paths, trails, and roads in the
early morning and late afternoon and evening.
Males feed in forest clearings.
Spring blue darner (Rhionaeschna mutata)
taxa/111734-Rhion-
is a species of darner in the family known
aeschna-mutata
as Aeshnidae. This species occurs in shallow
waters including bogs, fens, sinkhole ponds,
Spring Blue darner Endangered NatureServe:
bog ponds, small lakes, and artificial ponds. http://explorer.
Species range includes New York west to natureserve.org/
Wisconsin, south to Virginia and west to servlet/NatureServe?-
Missouri. searchName=Rhion-
aeschna+mutata
Page 370
location, and because TBM Launch Shaft sites habitat for ground-dwelling fauna that may
where soil handling would primarily occur are in disperse seed.
developed areas not adjacent to wildlife species.
BMPs to be incorporated as a design feature of Alteration of the on-site hydrologic regime can
the proposed Project, including the wetting of dry potentially affect plants and wildlife. Altered
ground and excavated soil sites, if appropriate, hydrology can allow for the establishment of
setting an off-road speed limit of 15 miles per hour non-native plants and wildlife species. Changes
or slower, stabilizing soil before being hauled in plant composition can affect the native
off for disposal, and covering haul vehicles to vegetation communities and wildlife habitat. The
minimize track-out emissions, would further reduce Build Alternative would apply a 100-foot buffer
the potential for effects to biological resources. where appropriate and would not result in adverse
effects to hydrology; therefore, adverse impacts to
Chemical Pollutants. The Build Alternative is not biological resources are not expected to occur.
anticipated to include the handling of hazardous
materials but would involve the handling of Non-Native, Invasive Plant and Animal
potentially environmentally detrimental substances Species. Invasive plant species that thrive in
such as fuels and solvents. With the implementation edge habitats are a well-documented problem
of measures outlined in Section 3.11, including the throughout the U.S. Development can fragment
use of BMPs for use and storage of hazardous native plant populations, which may increase
materials during construction, potential adverse the likelihood of invasion by exotic plants due to
effects biological resources such as the the increased interface between natural habitats
contamination of nearby surface waters and and developed areas. Several adverse effects
groundwater and indirectly impact wildlife species of non-native species in natural open areas may
through poisoning or altering suitable habitat include, but are not limited to, the fact that exotic
would not occur. plants compete for light, water, and nutrients
and can create a thatch that blocks sunlight from
Changes in Hydrology. Hydrologic alterations reaching smaller native plants. Exotic plant species
include changes in flow rates and patterns in can alter habitats and displace native species over
streams and rivers and dewatering, which may time, leading to extirpation of native plant species
affect adjacent and downstream aquatic, wetland, and subsequently suitable habitat for wildlife
and riparian vegetation communities. Although not species. The introduction of non-native, invasive
anticipated, water quality impacts could include animal species can negatively affect native species
chemical-compound pollution (fuel, oil, lubricants, that may be pollinators of or seed dispersal agents
paints, release agents, and other construction for special-status plant species. In addition, trash
materials), erosion, increased turbidity, and can attract invasive predators such as ravens and
excessive sedimentation (Section 3.12). The raccoons that could impact the wildlife species in
removal of native vegetation can increase runoff the Biological Resources Study Area. The Build
from roads and other paved surfaces, resulting in Alternative would not involve the introduction of
increased erosion and transport of surface matter non-native, invasive plan animal species, either
into special-status plant occurrences. Altered directly or indirectly; therefore, adverse impacts
erosion, increased surface flows, and underground are not expected to occur.
seepage can allow for the establishment of
non-native plants. Changed hydrologic conditions Noise. Noise impacts can have a variety of indirect
can alter seed bank characteristics and modify impacts on wildlife species, including increased
stress, weakened immune systems, altered foraging
Page 371
behavior, displacement due to startle, degraded would not result in adverse effects to biological
communication with conspecifics (e.g., masking), resources or takes of any species protected under
damaged hearing from extremely loud noises, and Section 7 of the ESA, or under the Magnuson-
increased vulnerability to predators. In this case, Stevens Act.
noise impacts may occur through construction and
as a result of the ventilation fan use at each of TBM Launch Shafts. TBM Launch Shafts are
the Ventilation Shaft sites. However, this area is anticipated to be located on existing paved and
currently an existing transportation corridor and developed land, land with no sensitive vegetation
experiences varying current level of noise inputs. communities, terrestrial wildlife and habitat, or rare
Following the implementation of noise mitigation threatened, and endangered species. As such,
measures (Section 3.8), project construction and no adverse effects to biological resources are
long-term venting is not expected to significantly planned. TBC commits to avoid temporary and
increase the ambient noise condition. TBM Launch permanent effects on sensitive biological resources
Shafts would avoid FIDS habitats. Therefore, while related to TBM Launch Shaft siting, construction
noise may affect wildlife, it is not likely to adversely (Section 3.17.5).
impact wildlife.
Ventilation Shafts. As part of the design
Ventilation Shafts. Construction-related effects features of the proposed Project, Ventilation
to biological resources at Ventilation Shaft sites Shaft locations would be constructed outside of
would be similar to those at TBM Launch Shaft sites. sensitive biological areas such that adverse effects
to vegetation communities, terrestrial wildlife and
Loop Stations. Biological resources are not habitats, and rare, threatened, and endangered
anticipated to occur due to the developed nature species would not occur. In addition, Ventilation
of the proposed locations. As such, construction- Shaft locations would be constructed on the
related effects to biological resources are not corresponding areas of the Biological Resources
anticipated. Study Area on the west side of the B-W Parkway,
which is outside of the boundaries of the Patuxent
Haul Routes. Haul routes would follow existing Research Refuge; therefore, no adverse effects to
surface streets and highways and would not critical habitats are expected to occur.
require the acquisition of additional ROW such
that adverse effects to biological resources The USFWS, NMFS, MDNR, and DOEE were
would occur. Anticipated haul trips would be requested to provide input on the presence of
imperceptible based on the anticipated trips rare, threatened, and endangered species near
required such that indirect effects to biological the Project.
resources is not anticipated.
Correspondence with the USFWS, dated May 8,
2018, indicated that while the proposed Project
No Build Alternative is within range of IPaC-listed species, it is unlikely
No permanent impacts to biological resources are that the species would occur within the Biological
anticipated from the No-Build Alternative. Resources Study Area (Appendix C).
Build Alternative In an email response dated November 1, 2018,

Main Artery Tunnels. The construction and NMFS indicated that there is no EFH designated in
operation of the Main Artery Tunnels would Gwynns Falls or the Anacostia River. A search of the
occur completely in the subsurface, and as such IPaC system did not indicate the potential presence
Page 372
of any NMFS trust resources within the project As project design proceeds, additional consultation
Biological Resources Study Area, and NMFS has with the agencies having jurisdiction will be
not responded to further inquiries from TBC. completed to address any potential future concerns
related to the presence or impact on federal- or
Letters from the MDNR on May 23, 2018 and state-listed species or candidate species of concern.
June 11, 2018 indicate that there are several
species which might occur within the Biological Loop Stations. Loop Stations are on existing
Resources Study Area (Appendix C). These range paved and developed land, with no existing
in sensitivity from Uncertain, Rare, Highly Rare, vegetation communities, terrestrial wildlife and
Threatened, and Endangered. Of these, there are habitat, or rare threatened, and endangered
one mussel (Atlantic spike), and three fish species species. As such, no adverse effects to biological
(glassy darter, American brook lamprey, and white resources are anticipated.
catfish) which are wholly aquatic, and one plant
(Short’s hedge-hyssop) that is associated with
Measures
stream banks, lake margins, and wet meadows.
The proposed Project would avoid impacts to The following standard project feature would be
wetland resources, would be applying a 100-foot implemented to reduce adverse effects to biological
buffer where appropriate, and would not alter resources resulting from the Build Alternative:
hydrology; therefore, no impacts to these aquatic
species are anticipated. The Build Alternative would be designed to avoid
the construction of Ventilation Shafts and TBM
Based on DOEE observations, surveys, and data Launch Shafts within FIDS and SSPRAs.
derived from the Wildlife Action Plan, it was
determined that the Biological Resources Study No part of the Build Alternative would be on
Area does not harbor listed species. Based on this the Patuxent Research Refuge. Therefore, a
information, the proposed Project is not likely to Compatibility Determination would not be required.
adversely affect rare, threatened, or endangered
species, and incidental take of protected species Ventilation Shafts and TBM Launch Shafts would
under Section 7 of the ESA would not occur. be outside of streams, swamps, bogs, and other
wetlands, and thus would avoid disturbances of
Finally, while not considered to be affected by swamp pink habitat and the species. As project
the Build Alternative, the IPaC report indicates design proceeds, additional consultation with the
the presence of suitable habitat for the swamp agencies having jurisdiction will be completed to
pink within a portion of the Biological Resources address any potential future concerns related to
Study Area. While the Project would aim to avoid the presence or impact on federal- or state-listed
suitable habitat for the species, measures would be species or candidate species of concern. If such
taken to protect the species through performance features were to be within a 200-foot radius of
of pre-construction surveys during bloom season mapped features, a habitat assessment and
by a qualified individual and possible design focused survey during the bloom season would
refinements if development within or adjacent to be conducted prior to construction to determine
the suitable habitat for the species is necessary. swamp pink habitat is not present. If present,
Therefore, impacts to swamp pink are not expected. additional measures to protect or avoid them would
TBC may be required to complete plant surveys by be developed and implemented. Control measures
the agencies having jurisdiction under the ESA to would be implemented to avoid indirect effects
confirm effect determinations. related to dust, chemical pollutants, and hydrology.
Page 373
In addition, DOEE recommended the following changes that may occur after the implementation
measures: of the Loop System, as this is outside of the scope.
• Monitoring the proposed and surrounding 3.18.2 Affected Environment
project areas regularly for the presence of
species of concern, for the duration of the Electricity is provided by two utilities within the
project. Project Study Area: Baltimore Gas and Electric and
• Immediately notifying the USFWS and DOEE the Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO).
regarding any changes in the presence of Baltimore Gas and Electric services Baltimore
federally threatened or endangered species, City, Baltimore County, Anne Arundel County,
to determine further actions. and a small portion of Prince George’s County.
Baltimore Gas and Electric serves more than 1.25
3.18 Energy million customers over an area of approximately
3.18.1 Data Sources and Methodology 2,300 square miles (BGE, 2018). According to
data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA), in
Data used to support this analysis for both 2016, Baltimore Gas and Electric retailed 12,223
construction- and operation-related energy gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity to its end users
consumption included the anticipated equipment (EIA, 2016).
specifications for the proposed Project provided
by TBC (Appendix B). PEPCO is the electricity provider for the District of
Columbia and the remainder of Prince George’s
Construction-related energy consumption was County. PEPCO has 842,000 customers over 640
estimated by modeling the equipment and process square miles, spread across Washington, D.C.,
requirements for each of the TBM Launch Shafts, Prince George’s County, and Montgomery County
Main Artery Tunnels, Loop Stations, and Ventilation (PEPCO, 2018). In 2016, PEPCO retailed 3,048
Shafts. The analysis assumed four TBM Launch GWh of electricity to the District of Columbia and
Shafts, two Loop Stations, and 70 Ventilation another 5,978 GWh in the State of Maryland
Shafts would be constructed. Appropriate power (EIA, 2016).
values were assigned for each type of equipment
to determine the total electricity requirements for Gas is provided by two utilities, Baltimore Gas
the construction phase of the Project. Appendix B and Electric, and Washington Gas. As previously
contains details on construction equipment and described, Baltimore Gas and Electric primarily
activity assumptions used to determine energy serves Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and Anne
usage for the proposed Project. Arundel County, while Washington Gas serves
most of Prince George’s County and the District
Operation-related energy consumption was of Columbia.
estimated by modeling the estimated usage of
each of the key components necessary for the Ninety percent of petroleum imported to Maryland
proposed Project operations, including: tunnel is consumed by the transportation sector (EIA,
lighting, outdoor lighting, Loop lifts, maintenance 2018a). In 2016, the transportation sector in
lifts, ventilation fans, and battery chargers for the Maryland consumed 2.6 billion gasoline gallon
AEVs. Activity assumptions and conversion factors equivalents (GGEs) of gasoline and 606 million
can also be found in Appendix B. It should be noted GGEs of diesel fuel6 (U.S. DOE, 2016). In 2017,
that this analysis does not account for changes in the State of Maryland had 3.5 million barrels of
general on-road traffic and subsequent energy use distillate fuel oil stocks. Fuel stock data for the
6
606 million GGEs of diesel fuel is equal to 532 million gallons of diesel fuel (CEC, N.D.).
Page 374
District of Columbia, as well as Maryland motor The estimated electricity requirement during the
gasoline stocks, were unavailable. construction phase of the proposed Project is
approximately 270,000 MWh (approximately
12,000 MWh per month on average), which is
The following section analyzes the potential conservatively modeled to be drawn over 23
temporary and permanent impacts of the proposed months, the longest length of time anticipated to
Project to energy in the Project Study Area. complete construction. At less than 0.7 percent of
the 21,249 GWh of electricity sold by Baltimore
Gas and Electric and PEPCO in 2016, the average
No-Build Alternative annual electricity demand for construction of the
No temporary or construction-related energy proposed Project is anticipated to be able to be
impacts are anticipated from the No-Build provided for by the existing utilities. The peak
Alternative. demand for electricity would be greatest at the
TBM Launch Shaft sites where the TBM and
Build Alternative tunneling support operations would be powered,
The construction phase of the proposed Project would estimated to draw 29.0 MW of instantaneous
use a combination of diesel-fueled and electrically- peak power overall distributed among four sites,
powered equipment on site. It is anticipated that or up to 7.3 instantaneous peak power per TBM
equipment such as excavators, cranes, delivery Launch Shaft site. PJM Interconnection (PJM), the
and haul trucks, loaders, drills, and forklifts would regional transmission operator for both Baltimore
be used. Electrical equipment, including TBMs and Gas and Electric and PEPCO, maintains a network
grout plants would be used and would be powered of power transmission lines within proximity of the
by existing electric utilities within the Project Study TBM Launch Shaft sites that would service this
Area. Note that the largest energy demand for the demand. During construction, energy demand at
proposed Project would be from the tunnel boring Loop Stations would be consistent with loads from
machines; up to 16 would be used, which have a existing uses that surround the sites, which include
power demand of 1,200 kW or 1.2 MW. Most of commercial properties, residential subdivisions,
the equipment types and processes that would be and industrial and community use sites, street
used during construction of the proposed Project lighting, and traffic signals. Coordination with
are diesel-fueled, with the largest demand for diesel utilities was initiated and would continue
fuel coming from diesel-operated trucks. The main throughout development of the proposed Project;
construction phase components that would require it is anticipated that construction of the proposed
energy for the Build Alternative include: Project would be within the capacity of both
• TBMs; Baltimore Gas and Electric and PEPCO and no new
energy supply facilities, distribution infrastructure,
• TBM Launch Shafts: fans, compressors, bridge
crane, water chiller, and shaft lighting; or capacity enhancing alterations to existing
facilities are would be required. As project design
• Construction machinery: excavators, forklifts,
proceeds, consultation with power generation and
loaders, and a crane;
transmission utilities will be completed to address
• Excavated material locomotives; potential concerns related to the availability of
• Tunnel lighting; and, required power for construction and operations of
• Excavated material hauling trucks. the proposed Project and effects on local power
supply and distribution.
Table 3.18-1 shows the electricity demand of
construction of the proposed Project.
Page 375
Table 3.18-1: Construction Phase Electricity Demand

Total
Totally
Equipment Peak Daily Electricity Project
Quantity Project Total Project
Power Power Work Demand Energy
Equipment Type for Duration Project Electricity
Demand Demand Hours per Day Demand
Project (Months) Hours Demand
(kW) (MW) per Unit (MWh) (Million
(MWh)
Btu)
Tunnel Boring Machine 1,200 16 19.2 20 12 117,000 230 140,000 478,000
Locomotive Charger 184 8 1.5 20 24 117,000 35 22,000 75,000
Grout Plant 63 8 0.5 20 10 47,000 5 3,000 10,000
Ventilation Fan 120 48 5.8 20 24 703,000 138 84,000 287,000
Compressor 63 8 0.5 20 12 59,000 6 4,000 14,000
Bridge Crane 88 4 0.4 20 5 12,000 2 1,000 3,000
Water Chiller 19 8 0.1 20 19 94,000 3 2,000 7,000
Lighting* varies - 1.0 20 - 50,000 22 13,000 44,000
Office 20 4 0.1 20 17 41,000 1 1,000 3,000
Total Demand - - 29.0 - - - 443 270,000 921,000
Average Demand per TBM
7.3 111 67,500 230,250
Launch Shaft Site
Notes: * See Equipment Lookup table in Appendix B for various lighting power demands
Daily Work Hours Per Unit reflect total equipment usage over a 24-hour workday
23 month construction scheduled assumed for energy demand analysis
Page 376
Both diesel and gasoline would be required to diesel fuel, making demand of the proposed
support the construction of the proposed Project Project negligible. Motor gasoline sales were
(Table 3.18-2). The proposed Project is estimated approximately 124 million gallons per day in 2017,
to consume approximately 596,000 gallons and regional supply was 1.2 billion barrels, making
from diesel-powered equipment, 678,000 impacts to regional gasoline supply and demand
gallons of diesel from haul and delivery trucks, negligible as well (EIA, 2018b; EIA, 2018c). The
and approximately 158,000 gallons of gasoline proposed Project’s demand of 158,000 gallons
from worker vehicle trips. The largest consumer of gasoline for worker vehicles would additionally
of diesel would be for the trucks hauling soil from not significantly increase Maryland’s existing
TBM Launch Shafts, but diesel would be used transportation gasoline demand of 2.6 billion
by equipment delivery trucks and construction gallons per year.
equipment. It is anticipated that the majority of
diesel used would be “ultra-low-sulfur-diesel” Based on the availability of the existing supply
containing a sulfur content of less than 15 parts and infrastructure, the proposed Project is not
per million (ppm). anticipated to result in adverse effects to the
energy supply.
According to data from the EIA (EIA, 2018d) the
East Coast region of the United States’ annual
diesel supply is approximately 384 million barrels No Build Alternative
(the total of field production, renewable fuels and The No-Build Alternative would have no permanent
oxygenate plant net production, refinery and impacts on energy transmission or use.
blender net production, and imports), or 3.54
Build Alternative
billion gallons. Prime supplier sales of diesel fuels
were approximately 51 million gallons per day The proposed Project would be fully electric
in 2017 (EIA, 2018b). Overall, the demand on in its operations and is estimated to consume
regional diesel supply for the proposed Project approximately 84,050 MWh of electricity per
would be 1.3 million gallons over a two-year year. The proposed Project would draw electricity
construction period, or less than 0.10 percent of the for the following operations and components:
regional supply; therefore, impacts to the regional • Vehicle elevator operations;
diesel supply and demand would be negligible.
• Lighting (tunnel and outdoor);
The proposed Project’s demand of 1.3 million
gallons is less than 0.3 percent of Maryland’s • Maintenance lift operations;
2016 transportation-sector consumption of • Ventilation fans;
Table 3.18-2: Construction Phase Diesel and Gas Usage

Usage Type Miles MWh Gallons Million Btu
Offroad Equipment* - 24,000 596,000 82,000
Haul Trucks** 5,780,000 - 578,000 79,000
Delivery Trucks** 1,004,000 - 100,000 14,000
Worker Vehicles: Construction*** 2,686,000 158,000 19,000
Diesel Total 6,784,000 1,274,000 175,000
Gasoline Total 2,686,000 158,000 19,000
Notes: * Assumes 24.84 gal/MWh (diesel)
** Assumes 10 mile/gal (diesel)
*** Assumes 17 mile/gal (gasoline)
Page 377
• Loop communication/diagnostic systems; and,

uses 10,163 kWh per month and the average
• AEV battery chargers. Maryland industrial facility uses 41,940 kWh per
month (Electricity Local, 2018), while the Project,
The electricity requirements for each component once operational, would use approximately
are shown in Table 3.18-3. 7,000 MWh per month. This is the equivalent of
powering approximately 170 industrial facilities,
At approximately 84,050 MWh per year, the which would be distributed from energy sources
electricity demands of the proposed Project across the length of the proposed Project.
account for 0.4 percent of existing annual
energy use within the Project Study Area. Prior As the proposed Project is fully electric in its
to operation, one or more TBM Launch Shafts operations, there would be no natural gas
would be converted to a Maintenance Terminal; requirements for the operational phase of the
the existing utilities within the Project Study Area proposed Project. Gasoline needed to power
that were used for powering electric-powered operational employee commuter vehicles would
construction equipment would be used for be approximately 4,300 gallons per year, which
operation of the proposed Project. PJM maintains is negligible to supply and demand of the state
a network power transmission lines within the and region.
proximity of the Loop Station sites, which would
service operational demand. Peak demand would Based on the ability of existing supply and
be 1.4 MW per Loop Station during operations infrastructure to meet the demands of the proposed
(2.9 MW total), with another 13.3 MW needed Project operations, no new electrical or natural
to power the Ventilation Shafts and 0.7 MW gas supply facilities, distribution infrastructure, or
needed to power Maintenance Terminals. These capacity enhancing alterations to existing facilities
peak power demands would be distributed along are anticipated to be required to operate the
the corridor and would be consistent with power proposed Project.
serving existing land uses, including residential,
commercial, and industrial uses. It should be noted
Measures
that the electricity demand per year presented in
Table 3.18 3 reflects the initial Project operation The following energy use reduction measures
accounting for 1,000 passengers per day in each would be implemented to minimize impacts on
direction (a total of 2,000 passengers daily). In energy supply as a result of the implementation of
a maximum capacity scenario of daily transport the Build Alternative:
of 100,000 passengers per direction per day, • Haul routes would be optimized as much as
annual electricity demand would increase to practicable to minimize vehicle miles travelled;
approximately 54,000 MWh, from 550 MWh.
The average Maryland commercial building
Table 3.18-3: Operational Electricity Demand

Per Year Peak Demand
Electricity Demand: Operation Per Year (MWh)
(Million Btu) (MW)
Ventilation Shafts (lighting, ventilation) 70,000 239,000 13.3
Loop Lift Stations/Tunnel Infrastructure
13,500 46,000 2.9
(lighting, elevators, communication)
Maintenance Terminals (AEV charging) 550 1,900 0.7
Total Demand 84,050 286,900 -
Page 378
• Scheduling would take into consideration

from utility providers in the Project Study Area
maximizing transport of fully loaded trucks;
(Table 3.19-1).
• Idling of construction equipment and trucks
would be limited where practicable; and, 3.19.2 Affected Environment
• Energy efficiency settings would be used to This section provides a discussion of the utilities
manage electrical equipment to minimize the within the vicinity of the proposed Project Study
amount of electricity necessary to operate the Area. Utilities that would be required by the
Loop system. proposed Project include electricity, gas, water,
With the implementation of these features and wastewater. Pipeline incidents caused by
described above, no adverse impacts to energy damage from improper excavation can result in
supply are anticipated from the proposed Project. fatalities and injuries, as well as property damages,
environmental damages, unintentional fire or
3.19 Utilities explosions, and associated costs.
3.19.1 Data Sources and Methodology Regulatory Setting
This section describes the regulatory and The Maryland Public Service Commission (MD
environmental setting for utilities within the Project PSC) and Public Service Commission of the
Study Area. It also describes the potential impacts District of Columbia (PSCDC) are the agencies
to utilities that would result from the implementation that regulate utility companies in Maryland
of the proposed Project. and the District of Columbia, respectively. They
are responsible for ensuring that utility rates are
Potential impacts to utilities associated with the “just and reasonable,” and the services are safe,
proposed Project were based on the review of reliable and good quality. These agencies enforce
existing utilities within the Project Study Area, compliance with federal damage prevention and
along with energy and water consumption pipeline safety requirements.
estimates for the proposed Project. Existing utility
data sources include information and mapping In Maryland, work near underground utilities is
regulated by the Maryland Underground Facilities
Table 3.19-1: Utilities within the Project Study Area
Water and
Location Electricity Gas Communications
Wastewater
Baltimore City Baltimore City
Department of
Baltimore County Water and Power
Baltimore Gas and Baltimore Gas and Anne Arundel

Electric Electric County Water
Anne Arundel and Wastewater
County Service; Baltimore
City Department of 50+ independent
Water and Power telecommunication
companies
Baltimore Gas and Washington
Baltimore Gas
Prince George’s Electric; Potomac Suburban Sanitary
and Electric;
County Electric Power Commission
Washington Gas
Company (PEPCO) (WSSC)
Potomac Electric District of Columbia
Washington, D.C. Power Company Washington Gas Water and Sewer
(PEPCO) Authority
Page 379
2. Provide information, such as the proposed

Damage Prevention Authority, a stakeholder-run
work site, time of excavation, time to complete
organization that can enforce the Underground
the job, and type of work to be done.
Facilities Damage Prevention (Miss Utility) Law.
State law requires that persons planning an 3. Obtain the appropriate permits required to
excavate from concerned agencies: DCRA
excavation or demolition project notify the owners
when excavating on private property;
of nearby utility facilities so that the locations can
DDOT when excavating on public space;
be clearly marked. Any entity proposing to dig and the District Department of Energy and
in Maryland must give at least 2 full business Environment, if necessary.
days’ notice and obtain approval, or a “ticket.”
No mechanized equipment is allowed within 18 Electricity
inches of the outermost surface of an underground Electricity is provided by two utilities within the
facility or utility line. Project Study Area: Baltimore Gas and Electric
and PEPCO. Baltimore Gas and Electric is
In Washington, D.C., excavation in public space is responsible for distributing electricity to Baltimore
monitored and enforced through the DDOT public City, Baltimore County, Anne Arundel, and a small
space permitting process. Under Washington, portion of Prince George’s County. Baltimore
D.C. Official Code § 9-431.01, DCMR, Gas and Electric serves more than 1.25 million
Title 24 Chapter 23, and the DDOT Standard customers over an area of approximately 2,300
Specifications for Highways and Structures, any square miles (BGE, 2018). In 2016, Baltimore
person performing excavation work in public Gas and Electric retailed 12,223 gigawatt-hours
space must obtain a public space permit from (GWh) of electricity to its end users (EIA, 2016).
DDOT and comply with all legal requirements
for safe excavation, including the requirement to PEPCO is responsible for distributing electricity to
call Miss Utility prior to excavation and comply the rest of Prince George’s County and the District
with all safe digging requirements. DDOT has of Columbia. PEPCO has 842,000 customers over
a requirement that permit holders comply with 640 square miles, spread across Washington,
all District laws and regulations, including the D.C., Prince George’s County, and Montgomery
Underground Facilities Protection Law (D.C. County (PEPCO, 2018). In 2016, PEPCO retailed
Official Code Title 34, Subtitle VII, Chapter 27). 3,048 GWh of electricity to the District of Columbia
PSCDC’s Office of Compliance and Enforcement, and another 5,978 GWh in the State of Maryland
as part of its damage prevention function, has the (EIA, 2016).
authority to inspect construction sites and issue
Stop Work Orders. Baltimore Gas and Electric and PEPCO are the
only electricity distributers within the Project Study
In addition, the Department of Consumer and Area; electricity generation comes from numerous
Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) performs inspections sources and transmission is managed by the
of excavation work performed on private regional transmission organization, PJM. PJM
property. When excavating on private property, manages a network of transmission lines within
the owner must: the Project Study Area.
1. Call Miss Utility at least 48 hours prior to Gas
excavation to obtain a ticket. Miss Utility
would issue a ticket and site inspection would The two natural gas providers within the Project
take place for the purpose of marking the Study Area are Baltimore Gas and Electric and
underground utility services. Washington Gas. Baltimore Gas and Electric
services Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Anne
Page 380
Arundel County, and parts of Prince George’s and Sewer Master Plan, water production wells
County, while Washington Gas services the are located outside of the Project Study Area.
remainder of Prince George’s County and the (Anne Arundel County, 2017)
District of Columbia. Both utilities manage a
network of transmission and distribution pipelines, WSSC owns and maintains three dams, Brighton,
while receiving gas from several different suppliers T. Howard Duckett, and Little Seneca, to service
within and outside of the region. None of these 1.8 million customers (WSSC, 2018). WSSC has
suppliers are located within the Project Study Area. two filtration plants, the Potomac plant and the
Patuxent plant, which combined can support a
Water and Wastewater
maximum demand of 383 MGD (WSSC, 2015).
There are several public potable water and
wastewater treatment providers within the Project District of Columbia Water and Sewer covers
Study Area. The Baltimore City Department of a service area of approximately 725 square
Public Works (DPW) provides water and sewer miles, providing water to 681,000 residents and
to Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and parts of treating wastewater for 1.6 million people (D.C.
Anne Arundel. The rest of Anne Arundel County Water, 2017a). The utility also provides wholesale
is serviced by Anne Arundel County Water and wastewater treatment services to several adjoining
Wastewater Service. The primary water and sewer municipalities in Maryland and Virginia. District
provider in Prince George’s County is WSSC. of Columbia Water and Sewer distributes water
In the District of Columbia, District of Columbia through a 1,300-mile series of pipes from the
Water and Sewer Authority is responsible for Potomac River via the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
providing drinking water and sewage collection Washington Aqueduct (D.C. Water, 2017b).
and treatment. Private wells are also commonly
Communications
used within the Project Study Area, typically for
private farm use. Over 50 telecommunication companies service
the state of Maryland and Washington, D.C.
Baltimore DPW sources its water from surface (PSCDC, 2018; MD PSC, 2018). The Regional Bell
water, specifically the Liberty Reservoir on the operator in the Project Study Area is Verizon, with
North Branch of the Patapsco River, the Loch the remaining companies being Competitive Local
Raven Reservoir received from Gunpowder Falls, Exchange Carriers (CLECs) that provide alternative
and the Susquehanna River (Baltimore City DPW, telecommunication options throughout the region.
2018). From these water sources, Baltimore DWP These companies provide the infrastructure network
treats water at three different plants, Montebello I, that enables telecommunication access to the
Montebello II, and the Ashburton Filtration Plant. Project Study Area.
Combined, these three plants provide 360 million
gallons per day (MGD) of drinking water to the
City of Baltimore. The following section analyzes the potential
temporary and permanent impacts of the proposed
Anne Arundel Water and Wastewater Service has Project to utilities within the Project Study Area.
a system capacity of 66.5 MGD, drawing from
55 different production wells to service 114,000
customers. Anne Arundel’s wastewater service No-Build Alternative
also has a capacity of 47.6 MGD (Anne Arundel No temporary or construction-related impacts to
Bureau of Utility Operations, 2018). Based on a utilities within the Project Study Area are anticipated
review of the Anne Arundel County 2017 Water from the No-Build Alternative.
Page 381
Build Alternative Construction of the proposed Project would not

Based on a review of utility capacity data and require the use of natural gas.
the location of the proposed Project, utilities
described in the previous section are anticipated It is anticipated that the proposed construction sites
to have enough capacity to service the electricity, would have existing water supply connection due
gas, water, and wastewater demands of the to their developed locations. Most of the water
construction of the proposed Project. Coordination needs would occur during the tunneling phase
with the utility providers is ongoing to confirm that of construction, which is expected to last up to
demand for the proposed Project can be met by 20 months and require up to 4,000 gallons of
existing capacity. This coordination would be water per day per TBM (up to 16,000 gallons
completed before construction of the proposed of water per day per site) for tunneling and
Project commences. support operations. In comparison, the average
person uses about 80-100 gallons of water per
Potential temporary impacts to energy use day in the U.S. (USGS, 2016). Most of the water
including fuels during construction of the proposed required would be injected at the TBM cutterhead
Project are discussed in Section 3.18. Construction to condition the soil.
of the proposed Project is expected to last up to 23
months. Schedule variability is based on tunneling The excavated material (muck) would be hauled
speed achieved, which is dependent upon TBC’s away via haul trucks and therefore not require
technical progress prior to start of construction. wastewater treatment. The remaining wastewater
The anticipated total, non-recoverable, electrical not disposed of with tunnel muck, approximately
demand for the proposed Project during this time 2,000-4,000 gallons of wastewater per day per
is 270,000 megawatt-hours (MWh). This equates site, would be generated from grout production,
to approximately 12,000 MWh per month. Peak which can potentially contain high pH (basic) and
instantaneous electrical demand would be up to high total suspended solids (TSS). Wastewater
7.3 MW per TBM Launch Shaft site. According would be treated on-site (at the TBM Launch
to statistics provided by the EIA, the total annual Shaft sites) using standard operating procedures
electricity sales from the transportation industry including carbon-dioxide treatment to reduce pH
within Maryland and Washington D.C. is 864,227 and/or settlement tanks to reduce TSS before being
MWh in 2017 (EIA, 2018e). In other words, the disposed off-site via trucks or disposed of using the
temporary electrical need for the proposed Project existing sewer system. Because of the temporary
is anticipated to be 16 percent of the 2017 annual nature of the construction phase and the relatively
transportation-related sales. small amount of potential construction wastewater
that would be generated, the proposed Project
The 270,000 MWh total demand, or approximately may be connected to a sanitary sewer system in
12,000 MWh of demand per month, during the areas sufficiently served by the existing water and
construction phase, is anticipated to be within the wastewater utilities, where wastewater would be
capacity of Baltimore Gas and Electric and PEPCO, treated downstream. The limited amount of water
at less than 0.7 percent of 2016 electricity sales. to be used or wastewater to be generated by the
Given the temporary nature of the construction proposed Project would not require the construction
energy needs, it is anticipated that sufficient supply of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
of electricity would be available to the proposed the expansion of existing facilities.
Project.
Excavation and tunneling can potentially cause
damage or service disruption where underground
Page 382
utilities are contacted with heavy machinery. Operations are fully electric; thus, the proposed
Excavation can potentially lead to ground Project would not require any natural gas, and
settlement which, when occurring in high enough there would be no impacts to natural gas utilities.
levels, can cause damage to underground utilities. Annual operational electrical use is anticipated to
Settlement monitoring would be conducted to be 84,050 MWh per year. Peak energy demand
avoid such an occurrence. per day is expected to be 1.4 MW per Loop
Station, with up to 13.3 MW needed to power
No utility relocation is proposed as part of the Ventilation Shafts and 0.7 MW needed to power
proposed Project. At a typical depth of at least 30 Maintenance Terminals. Electricity demand for
feet, the Main Artery Tunnel would be constructed the proposed Project’s operations would be well
at depths deeper than existing known or unknown within the capacity of both Baltimore Gas and
underground utilities. Although conflicts with Electric and Pepco, at less than 0.4 percent of
existing underground utilities are not anticipated 2016 electricity sales.
at the depth of the proposed Project and the risk
of unanticipated underground utility conflicts Communications for operation of the Build
are low, a Pre-Construction Survey involving the Alternative would occur through an intranet
review of as-built drawings, field surveys, and within the Main Artery Tunnels. TBC would
on-going coordination with utilities and private coordinate radio frequency settings for internal
well owners to identify the location of underground communication systems with essential service
utilities, would minimize the risk of unanticipated providers such as first responders and government
underground utility conflicts to as low as institutions to avoid impacts to their established
reasonably practicable. The Pre-Construction communications networks.
Survey would inform final tunnel design and
tunnel depth, and coordination would inform Water usage is anticipated to be intermittent and
the need for field reviews to confirm the location minimal for operation of the proposed Project.
of underground utilities prior to construction. Water usage for operations would be limited to
Additional details of the Pre-Construction Survey, cleaning of the tunnel interior, exterior structures
utility coordination, and Settlement Monitoring and surfaces, and AEVs. Water required for
can be found in Section 3.16.5. these activities would be drawn periodically in
volumes up to 4,000 gallons on a given day and
anticipated to use less than 2 acre-feet of water
No Build Alternative per year. Water used during permanent operations
Under the No-Build Alternative, there would be would be discharged to existing sewer systems; as
no permanent structures or use of utilities within the discussed previously, existing sewer systems would
Project Study Area. Therefore, no permanent impacts be capable of receiving this volume of discharge.
are anticipated under the No-Build Alternative. As such, the proposed Project’s operations would
not adversely impact water or wastewater utilities
Build Alternative within the Project Study Area.
Based on a review of utility capacity data and
the location of the proposed Project in developed
Measures
communities, utilities described in the previous
section are anticipated to have enough capacity As part of the proposed Project, the following
to service the electricity, water, and wastewater activities would occur prior to construction as a
demands of the operations of the proposed Project. standard design feature of the proposed Project.
Page 383
Pre-Construction Survey and Utility Coordination. 3.20 Indirect and Cumulative

A Pre-Construction Survey, which includes a review Effects
and analysis of as-built drawings and maps would The CEQ’s regulations implementing the procedural
be conducted during design to determine the provisions of the NEPA, set forth in 40 CFR Part
location and depth of subsurface structures within 1500 et seq., require federal agencies to consider
the Project Study Area. Utilities would be contacted the potential for indirect and cumulative effects from
to coordinate obtaining as-built drawings. Field a project. Indirect effects are those that are “caused
surveys and the review of historical aerial imagery by an action and are later in time or farther removed
would be conducted to analyze information that is in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable”
not included in as-built drawings and maps such (40 CFR 1508.8). Indirect effects can include the
that risk to utilities would be reduced to as low as full range of impact types, such as changes in land
reasonably practicable. use, economic vitality, neighborhood character,
traffic congestion, air quality, noise, vibration, and
For key utility crossings, field confirmation of water and natural resources.
utilities, either through direct (i.e., physically
exposing and/or contacting buried utilities to Cumulative impacts can result from the incremental
identify their locations) or remote sensing (e.g., consequences of an action when added to other
subsurface geophysical imaging) methods would past and reasonably foreseeable future actions
assist in resolving data gaps such as instances (40 CFR 1508.7). The direct effects of an individual
where as-built drawings are absent. The Pre- action may be negligible but may contribute
Construction Survey would inform structural to a measurable environmental impact when
design of the proposed Project such that the considered cumulatively with other past and/
locations and dimensions of existing subsurface or future projects. Since the analyses presented
structures and utilities are incorporated into in other sections of this EA assess the potential
design drawings and effects related to conflicts direct effects of the proposed Project, this section
with or settlement to existing utilities would be addresses the potential for indirect and cumulative
avoided. Ongoing utility coordination, including effects (ICE) that could occur at a later time, or
contacting Miss Utility to obtain approval within a larger geographic region.
48 hours prior to the start of construction, as
required by law, would further reduce the risk of
encountering unanticipated underground utility The following section provides a discussion of the
when conducting subsurface work. potential indirect and cumulative effects resulting
from the implementation of the proposed Project.
Settlement Monitoring. Settlement monitoring Minimization and mitigation measures proposed to
would be conducted for the Build Alternative reduce potential adverse indirect and cumulative
during construction to monitor settlement to existing effects from the proposed Project are discussed.
utilities (Section 2.3.1.6). Utility stakeholders
would be involved during the pre-construction This ICE analysis follows the basic framework
and construction process to coordinate design identified in the CEQ NEPA regulations for
and construction monitoring; at specific locations examining the indirect and cumulative effects of a
where large or sensitive utilities are present (e.g., proposed action, which are:
sewer lines), the maximum deformation before • Identify environmental resources of interest;
construction is halted would be agreed upon with
• Determine geographic and temporal
the lead agency, agency having jurisdiction and/ boundaries;
or the utility stakeholder (Section 2.8.1.6).
Page 384
• Identify past, present, and reasonably

their scope as each section analyzes the proposed
foreseeable future projects from relevant LRTP,
Project within the context regional standards.
including the National Capital Region TPB and
BRTB, to be considered as a part of the ICE Indirect and cumulative effects on these resource
analysis; and areas are addressed in the respective sections and
are excluded from this ICE analysis.
• Assess the indirect and cumulative effects to
the environmental resources of interest within Temporal Boundary
the geographic and temporal boundary.
Temporal boundaries are the timeframes for the
3.20.2 Affected Environment ICE analysis. The timeline used for this analysis
Environmental resources analyzed are those that was 2008 (ten years prior) through 2040, which
would be indirectly affected by the construction is the planning horizon of land use plans included
and operation of the proposed Project and those in this ICE analysis.
that have the potential to experience cumulative
Geographic Boundary
effects from the proposed Project when considered
in combination with other reasonably foreseeable Unless noted, the geographic limits for this ICE
actions. Resources that may experience indirect analysis are comparable to those used for the
and cumulative effects are: analysis, which typically identified resources that
• Transportation; were within or intersect the 300-foot buffer from
the ROW boundaries containing the Main Artery
• Land Use;
Tunnel alignment. Table 3.20-1 provides a list of
• Socioeconomic Conditions and Environmental the extent of indirect and cumulative effects created
Justice;
by the proposed Project.
• Cultural Resources;
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions
• Visual Quality and Aesthetics;
• Parks, Trails, Recreational Resources Table 3.20-2 provides a list of existing and
(Section 4(f) resources); reasonably foreseeable projects within the ICE
boundary.
• Noise and Vibration;
• Public Health and Safety; Indirect Effects Analysis
• Surface and Ground Waters; An indirect effects analysis assesses impacts caused
• Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands; by an action, such as the proposed Project, which
• Floodplains; occur later in time or farther removed in distance than
direct effects but are still reasonably foreseeable.
• Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas, Coastal
Indirect effects may also occur if the action changes
Zones, and Other Management Areas;
the extent, pace, and/or location of development
• Geology and Soils; and, and if this change affects environmental resources.
• Biological Resources.
The purpose of the proposed Project is to create
Direct adverse impacts from contaminated a safe, affordable, environmentally-friendly
and hazardous materials would be minimized transportation alternative for a congested urban
at the source as part of the proposed Project transportation corridor. While it is possible that
(Section 3.11); as such, it is not considered in the the proposed Project could induce growth and
ICE analysis. The Air Quality and Greenhouse improved socioeconomic outcomes in communities
Gases (Section 3.9), Energy (Section 3.18), and served by Loop Stations, the area surrounding Loop
Utilities (Section 3.19) analyses were cumulative in Stations generally include public/institution and
Page 385
Table 3.20-1: Geographic Boundaries Used for ICE Analysis

Resource Sub-Boundaries
Equivalent to Study Area for direct effects and
Transportation transportation services within one-quarter mile of
proposed Project
Land Use
Equivalent to Study Area for direct effects
Socioeconomic Conditions and Environmental Justice
Cultural Resources APE
Visual Quality and Aesthetics
Parks, Trails, Recreational Resources (Section 4(f)
resources)
Noise and Vibration
Public Health and Safety
Surface and Ground Waters
Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands
Floodplains
Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas, Coastal Zones, and
Other Management Areas
Geology and Soils
Biological Resources
commercial land uses; therefore, induced growth occurred, are occurring, and would likely occur
effects would be minimal. Moreover, the scope of as a result of any action or influence, including the
the proposed Project that is considered in this EA direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts
includes operation of the Loop system, with initial of a proposed activity. The resources subject to a
ridership of 1,000 passengers per day in each cumulative impact assessment are determined on a
direction. These ridership figures are unlikely to case-by-case basis as not all resources directedly
greatly impact economic growth, land use patterns, impacted by a project would require a cumulative
neighborhood character, or traffic congestion. impact analysis.
Indirect impacts are addressed in the resource
3.20.2.1 Transportation
area sections within Chapter 3. No other indirect
effects to resources identified in this ICE analysis Reasonably foreseeable projects within
are anticipated to result from the proposed Project. one-quarter mile of the proposed Loop Station
in Baltimore, include the Baltimore–Washington
Cumulative Effects Analysis
Superconducting Maglev Project (Maglev Project).
Cumulative impacts are defined by the CEQ as There are no other reasonably foreseeable
“the impact on the environment which results from transportation projects within one-quarter mile of
the incremental impact of the action when added the proposed Loop Stations.
to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions regardless of what agency (Federal One of the station locations being considered
or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other for the proposed Maglev Project is Camden
actions. Cumulative impacts can result from Station in Baltimore, which is approximately 650
individually minor but collectively significant feet northeast of the proposed Loop Station that
actions taking place over a period of time” (40 would be within the parking lots of Oriole Park
CFR § 1508.7). Cumulative impacts include the (BW Maglev, 2018b). As of the writing of this EA,
total impacts to a particular resource that have the Maglev Project is undergoing environmental
Page 386
review. An Alternatives Report has been published in this ICE analysis, cumulative land use-related
in November 2018. The current schedule for the construction effects are not anticipated to occur.
Maglev Project estimates a draft EIS in Fall 2019
and a Final EIS and ROD in 2020. The anticipated Reasonably foreseeable road widening and
start of construction for the Maglev Project is not improvement projects would mainly occur within
yet known. the existing ROW, or in areas immediately adjacent
to the existing ROW. Meanwhile, reasonably
The proposed Project may have the potential foreseeable transportation projects, such as the
to result in cumulative construction effects if Purple Line Transitway and the Maglev Project are
it coincides with the construction period of a anticipated to require new and additional ROW,
reasonably foreseeable project. The proposed resulting in the conversation of existing land uses
Project is anticipated to complete its environmental to transportation uses.
review and regulatory approvals process in 2019.
Taking into consideration the publicly available The majority of the proposed Project would be
project schedule provided by the Maglev Project constructed underneath existing ROW designated
(Final EIS anticipated in 2020), the proposed for transportation use. Loop Station locations are
Project would not conflict with the construction proposed to be constructed at an existing parking
of the Maglev Project (BW Maglev, 2018c). lot (Loop Station Baltimore), and a commercial lot
The proposed Project would complement the (Loop Station D.C.). Loop Stations would blend
existing transportation network by alleviating and in with the existing environment and would not
meeting travel demands between Baltimore, and require or result in the change in surrounding land
Washington, D.C. As such, the proposed Project use similar to that of a large transportation hub.
is anticipated to result in positive cumulative Up to 70 Ventilation Shafts are proposed along
transportation effects along with other reasonably the corridor. Ventilation Shafts would be used for
foreseeable transportation projects. tunnel ventilation and emergency ingress/egress
and would not have a transportation use such that
3.20.2.2 Land Use
it would result in the change in land use. Taking into
Reasonably foreseeable projects within the 300 consideration the anticipated construction years of
feet of the ROW containing the Main Artery Tunnel the existing and reasonably foreseeable projects
alignment include the MD 295 Widening, MD 100 in this ICE analysis, cumulative land use-related
Widening, MD 175 Widening, MD 198 Widening, effects are not anticipated to occur.
Bus Rapid Transit to BWI Airport, MD 193
3.20.2.3 Socioeconomic Conditions and
Intersection Improvement, Good Luck Road, Purple
Environmental Justice
Line Transitway, Penn Line Service Improvements,
and the Maglev Project (Table 3.20-2). Existing and reasonably foreseeable projects
within the 300 feet of the ROW containing the
With the exception of the Maglev Project, which Main Artery Tunnel alignment include the MD
currently does not have a defined construction year, 295 Widening, MD 100 Widening, MD 175
all reasonably foreseeable road widening, and Widening, MD 198 Widening, Bus Rapid Transit
improvement projects and transportation projects to BWI Airport, MD 193 Intersection Improvement,
included in this ICE analysis have a construction Good Luck Road, Purple Line Transitway, Penn Line
year of between 2020 and 2025. Taking into Service Improvements, and the Maglev Project
consideration the anticipated construction years for (Table 3.20-2).
the existing and reasonably foreseeable projects
Page 387
Table 3.20-2: Reasonably Foreseeable Projects

Metropolitan
Map Planning Project
Project Name Project Description Project Status
ID Organization Type
(MPO)
The MD 295 Widening project would widen Identified in the Maximize 2040 Long Range Plan;
1 MD 295 Widening the MD 295 segment from I-195 to MD 100 BRTB Highway planning document has horizon year of 2040;
from 4 to 6 lanes. construction start date unknown.
2 MD 100 Widening the existing MD 100 roadway to accommodate BRTB Highway planning document has horizon year of 2040;
additional traffic. construction start date unknown.
segments of the MD 175 from the Anne Identified in the Maximize 2040 Long Range Plan;
3 MD 175 Widening Arundel County line to MD 295 from 2 to 3 BRTB Highway planning document has horizon year of 2040;
lanes. The MD 175 segment from MD 295 to construction start date unknown.
MD 170 would be widened from 4 to 6 lanes.
4 MD 198 Widening the MD 198 to provide easier access to Fort BRTB Highway planning document has horizon year of 2040;
Meade and Odenton Town Center. construction start date unknown.
The Bus Rapid Transit would emulate light rail
operations at a lower cost and is designed to Identified in the Maximize 2040 Long Range Plan;
Bus Rapid Transit
5 link Howard County commuters from Dorsey BRTB Transit planning document has horizon year of 2040;
to BWI Airport
MARC to Anne Arundel Mills to the BWI car construction start date unknown.
rental center to BWI Airport.
Improvements at the intersection of B-W
MD 193
Parkway (MD-295) andMD 193 (Greenbelt Under planning and design; completion expected in
6 Intersection TPB Highway
Road), including bicycle/pedestrian 2025.
Improvement
accommodations.
The Good Luck Road project would widen the
Under planning and design; completion expected in
7 Good Luck Road roadway segment from Kenilworth Avenue to TPB Highway
2025.
Cipriano Road from 2 lanes to 4 lanes.
Page 388
Table 3.20-2: Reasonably Foreseeable Projects (continued)
Metropolitan
Map Planning Project
Project Name Project Description Project Status
ID Organization Type
(MPO)
The Purple Line is a 16-mile light rail line that
would extend from Bethesda in Montgomery
County to New Carrollton in Prince George’s
County. It would provide a direct connection
to the Metrorail Red, Green and Orange Lines;
at Bethesda, Silver Spring, College Park, and
Purple Line New Carrollton. The Purple Line would also
8 TPB Transit Under construction; projected completion in 2020.
Transitway connect to MARC, Amtrak, and local bus
services.
The Purple Line would be light rail and would

operate mainly in dedicated or exclusive lanes,
allowing for fast, reliable transit operations.
Twenty-one stations are planned.
Penn Line Service Increase trip capacity and frequency along all Under planning and design; completion expected in
9 TPB Transit
Improvements commuter rail lines on MARC. 2029.
Camden Line Increase trip capacity and frequency along all Under planning and design; completion expected in
10 TPB Transit
Improvements commuter rail lines on MARC. 2029.
Baltimore–
Proposed 39.8-mile, Superconducting Maglev
Washington Super- High Record of Decision expected in 2020; construction
11 project traveling from Baltimore, Maryland N/A
conducting Maglev Speed funding not yet determined.
and Washington, D.C.
Project*
Source: Maryland State Geographic Information Committee (2016), National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (2016), BW Maglev (2018a)
* This project is not included in the fiscally constrained long-term transportation plans under BRTB or TPB.
Page 389
In combination with the existing and reasonably yet to be determined, the proposed Project and
foreseeable projects, the proposed Project may reasonably foreseeable projects within the APE
contribute to cumulative increases in mobility may have the potential to adversely affect historical
and access to transit between Baltimore and resources. A determination of effect will be made
Washington, D.C. Population, employment, under the Section 106 Programmatic Agreement.
and housing supply is anticipated to continue
3.20.2.5 Visual Quality and Aesthetics
to grow throughout the region; however, the
proposed Project is not anticipated to result in The proposed Project would not substantially alter
growth beyond those projected for the region. the overall visual and aesthetic character of the
The proposed Project would not contribute to any area surrounding the proposed Project or obstruct
reasonably foreseeable disproportionate impacts important views to or from visually sensitive resources.
to EJ communities. By improving mobility and Given the proximity of the proposed Project from
introducing an alternative means of travel between any existing and reasonably foreseeable projects,
Baltimore and Washington, D.C., the proposed no cumulatively adverse effects to visual and
Project would have a beneficial cumulative impact aesthetics resources are anticipated.
to socioeconomic conditions and EJ populations.
3.20.2.6 Parks, Trails, Recreational
3.20.2.4 Cultural Resources Resources (Section 4(f)
resources)
Reasonably foreseeable projects within the APE
of the proposed Project include segments of the The proposed Project would not require the use
MD 295 Widening, MD 100 Widening, MD 175 of Section 4(f) resources, including parks, trails,
Widening, MD 198 Widening, Bus Rapid Transit and recreation facilities. Although the proposed
to BWI Airport, MD 193 Intersection Improvement, Project would travel underneath the existing
Good Luck Road, Purple Line Transitway, Penn Line B-W Parkway ROW within NPS jurisdiction,
Service Improvements, and the Maglev Project which is a scenic parkway, no surface features
intersecting the proposed Project APE. As of the would be constructed within the ROW such that
writing of this EA, an Alternatives Report, published it would constitute a Section 4(f) use or would be
November 2018, outlined potential alignment constructed adjacent to B-W Parkway such that
and station options for the Maglev Project. An it would result in unmitigable adverse effects to
underground station with surface access points visual resources. Tunneling under a Section 4(f)
is one of the options being considered for the property would result in a Section 4(f) use only if
Maglev Project’s station in Baltimore near the 1) archeological sites that warrant preservations in
proposed Loop Station. A potential aboveground place are adversely affected, 2) permanent harm
or underground station is also under study to serve to the purposes for which the park, recreational
as a potential station for the Maglev Project’s area, or refuge was established; 3) there is
station in Washington, D.C., adjacent to the Loop substantial impairment to the integrity of a historic
Station in Washington, D.C. (BW Maglev, 2018b). site; or the exception for temporary occupancy is
not met. (FHWA, 2018)
A PA would be prepared to outline a phased
approach to identifying and evaluating cultural Based on coordination with the NPS, the proposed
resources, and for developing measures to avoid, tunnel within NPS jurisdiction would be designed at
minimize, or mitigate potential adverse effect to a depth such that it would not impair the usefulness
those resources that are determined to be historic of existing and future planned developments on
properties during construction or pre-construction B-W Parkway. Therefore, no adverse effects to
activities. While the APE for cultural resources is Section 4(f) resources are anticipated resulting
Page 390
from the proposed Project. Reasonably foreseeable potential conflicts between the Loop system and
projects identified as part of this ICE analysis may vehicles at-grade. As such, beneficial cumulative
have the potential to result in impacts to Section effects to public health and safety are anticipated
4(f) resources. As part of the final design of the from these projects.
proposed Project, as-built drawings and relevant
3.20.2.9 Surface and Ground Waters
coordination would be conducted to identify and
avoid potential underground conflicts and inform The proposed Project is not anticipated to result
tunnel structure design to accommodate existing and in adverse effects to surface and ground waters
future structures. As such, the proposed Project would or aquatic ecology with the implementation of
not require the use of, or result in adverse effects to, best management practices (Section 3.12.4).
parks, recreational, or Section 4(f) resources such Taking into consideration existing and reasonably
that it would result in cumulative adverse effects. foreseeable projects, no cumulative adverse effects
to surface and ground waters or aquatic ecology
3.20.2.7 Noise and Vibration
are anticipated.
The proposed Project is not anticipated to result
3.20.2.10 Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands
in adverse effects relating to noise and vibration
with the implementation of noise barriers and The civil structures associated with the proposed
construction hour limitations at select construction Project would be constructed with inert materials
sites. Although cumulative noise and vibration with low mobility and solubility (e.g., precast
effects may have the potential to result from any concrete, grout) that would create a seal from
existing and reasonably foreseeable projects groundwater resources once construction is
neighboring construction sites of the proposed completed. Should there be any ground water
Project, projects included in this ICE analysis are seep, the water would be collected in a tank using
at distances such that cumulative construction noise a sump pump and discharged back into the storm
and vibration effects would not occur. drain or sewer system under a NPDES permit or
sent for offsite disposal (Section 3.12). As a result,
Operation of the proposed Project would not the proposed Project is not anticipated to adversely
result in adverse effects relating to noise and impact water quality of waters of the U.S.
vibration; therefore, no cumulative adverse effects
due to noise and vibration effects are expected Dewatering can potentially result in the drawdown
to occur taking into consideration all reasonably of surface water levels, which can have deleterious
foreseeable actions. effects on wetlands (Section 3.12.3). Overall,
the Build Alternative is not anticipated to affect
3.20.2.8 Public Health and Safety
wetlands whether constructed below or above the
Taking into consideration existing and reasonably groundwater table.
foreseeable projects (Table 3.20 2), no cumulative
adverse effects to public health and safety are The proposed Project would not require fill within
anticipated to result from the proposed Project. Waters of the U.S. or wetlands. There is enough land
Reasonably foreseeable projects, including available for the proposed Project to avoid these
road-widening and transportation improvement resources for the construction of any ancillary project
projects, all aim to improve public health and features, including Ventilation Shafts. Taking into
safety through addressing existing transportation- consideration existing and reasonably foreseeable
related deficiencies. The proposed Project would projects, no cumulative adverse effects to Waters of
not include at-grade crossings, which eliminates the U.S. or are anticipated.
Page 391
3.20.2.11 Floodplains
of a Farmland Conversion Impact rating with
Cumulative effects of flooding, in consideration with responsible agencies. Taking into consideration
other existing and reasonably foreseeable projects, existing and reasonably foreseeable projects
would be reduced by avoidance of development (Table 3.20-2), and given that all roadway
within floodplains and implementation of required projects identified in this ICE analysis are within
federal and state regulations. No cumulative the existing ROW, no cumulative adverse effects
adverse effects to flooding are anticipated. to farmlands are anticipated to occur.
3.20.2.12 Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas,

As part of the design of the proposed Project,
Coastal Zones, and Other
Management Areas as-builts of existing structures within proximity of
the Main Artery Tunnel would be evaluated such
Only the TBM Launch Shaft E Search Area is that the structure and depth of the tunnel would
partially within the Chesapeake Bay Critical take into consideration existing structures and
Area. Final design of Ventilation Shafts would foundations such as bridge piles. In addition,
preferentially avoid Chesapeake Bay Critical on-going settlement monitoring would occur
Areas where practicable. Should the final design (Section 2.3.1.6). Taking into consideration the
of Ventilation Shafts build within the Critical Area, existing and reasonably foreseeable projects,
the design would comply with the Chesapeake no cumulative adverse effects to farmlands or
Bay Critical Area Law and TBC would obtain geology are anticipated to occur.
necessary permits, such as zoning approval,
3.20.2.14 Biological Resources
building permits, and grading permit.
The proposed Project would not result in adverse
Siting of ancillary project features would avoid effects to biological resources. Although Ventilation
wetlands, as to comply with the applicable Maryland Shaft locations are not yet known, the proposed
Coastal Zone Management Program. There are no Project would avoid construction in areas with
existing and reasonably foreseeable projects within known sensitive biological resources identified
the Critical Area contained by the TBM Launch in Section 3.17. Given the proposed Project’s
Shaft E Search Area, as such, no cumulative adverse distance from existing and reasonably foreseeable
effects to critical areas, coastal zones, and other projects identified in this ICE analysis, no adverse
management areas are anticipated. cumulative effects to biological resources,
including any vegetation communities, terrestrial
3.20.2.13 Geology and Soils
wildlife and habitats, and rare, threatened, or
Sites selected for Loop Station and TBM Launch endangered species.
Shaft development include prime farmland (7.2
3.20.2.15 Summary
acres total, including 1.9 acres at the potential
site for TBM Launch Shaft A and 5.3 acres at The proposed Project is expected to contribute
the potential site for TBM Launch Shaft B) and positively to the overall cumulative effects of
farmland of statewide importance (9.5 acres at reasonably foreseeable actions on each of the
the potential site for TBM Launch Shaft A). To the resources considered. The proposed Project is
extent practicable, design and construction of anticipated to have an overall positive impact
project features at these sites would aim to avoid on the region by improving connectivity between
these resources. However, if unable to construct Baltimore and Washington, D.C. through the
outside of prime farmlands and/or farmland of introduction of an innovative, high-speed, express
statewide importance, appropriate steps of the transportation system. Overall, the proposed
FPPA would be followed, including an assessment
Page 392
Project is not expected to substantially contribute

to adverse cumulative effects.

Measures
Because the proposed Project would not result

in adverse cumulative effects after taking into
consideration reasonably foreseeable actions, no
additional minimization and mitigation measures
are needed.
Page 393
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 394
Chapter 4: Agency and Public Coordination
4.1 Agency Scoping TBC would acquire, as may be required, any

A scoping meeting was held on March 13, 2018 interests or use rights in land and all other
among Federal, state and local agencies and The approvals needed for construction and operation
Boring Company. The purpose of the meeting of the proposed Project (Section 1.1, Section 1.5.1,
was to better understand the details of the Project Section 1.5.6, Section 1.7.2, and Section 1.8).
and identify information needs that each agency
would require for decision-making based on their 4.3 Public Information
agency’s role and responsibility. Agency roles Opportunities for public input are available
were reviewed, a presentation of the proposed through the designated public comment for the
Project was provided by The Boring Company and EA, continuing until April 10, 2019. A digital
discussed in a question-and-answer session with public information presentation consisting of a
the agencies, and an outline for EA drafting and recorded video containing information related to
next steps was devised. the proposed Project will be hosted online during
the public comment period. The public information
4.2 Agency Coordination presentation will be accessible via the internet at
Coordination between the TBC and federal, state www.dcbaltimoreloop.com throughout the public
and local regulatory and resource agencies comment period. Copies of the EA and draft
has continued through the development of this Section 106 Programmatic Agreement will also be
EA. TBC will be required to carry out additional available for review through FHWA offices within
coordination and project review coordination the corridor and local libraries. Specific outreach
as project development advances to address to Environmental Justice populations to inform them
outstanding regulatory approval and permit of the availability of the EA will include distribution
procedures, including, but not limited to, of informational mailer/flyers that describe the
right-of-way use permissions, Clean Water Act project and summarize potential environmental
Section 402 and 404 compliance, Section 408 effects on EJ communities, methods for submitting
review under the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation comments, and opportunities for receiving project
Act, Section 106 compliance consistent with the updates and additional information.
project Programmatic Agreement, and NPS Land
Exchange requirements.
Page 395
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 396
Chapter 5: References
40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B. Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal
Implementation Plans. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/part-93/subpart-B.
American Society of Safety Professional (ASSP), N.D. “About ASSP: History”. Accessed on October 22,
2018 from https://www.assp.org/about/history.
Amtrak, N.D. Schedules. National Railroad Passenger Corporation. Accessed on August 1, 2018 from
https://www.amtrak.com.
Anne Arundel Bureau of Utility Operations, 2018. Utility Information. Accessed on October 10, 2018
from https://www.aacounty.org/departments/public-works/utilities/index.html.
Anne Arundel County, 2018. Noise Control. Accessed on December 12, 2018 from https://www.
aacounty.org/services-and-programs/noise-control.
— 2017. 2017 Water and Sewer Master Plan. Accessed on December 3, 2018 from https://www.
aacounty.org/departments/planning-and-zoning/long-range-planning/water-and-
sewer/2017-wsmp/index.html.
— 2016. Anne Arundel County Zoning. Accessed on January 2, 2018 from http://gis-world2.aacounty.
org/HTML5Viewer/Index.html?configBase=http://gis-world2.aacounty.org/Geocortex/
Essentials/REST/sites/ZoningMap/viewers/ZoningMapH5/virtualdirectory/Resources/
Config/Default.
— 2009. Bill No. 64-09. General Development Plan. Accessed on January 2, 2019 from http://planning.
maryland.gov/Documents/OurWork/compplans/09_CMP_AnneArundel.pdf.
Bakrania, Kishan and L. Edwardson, Charlotte and Khunti, Kamlesh and Bandelow, Stephan and J.
Davies, Melanie and Yates, Thomas, 2017. Associations Between Sedentary Behaviors and
Cognitive Function: Cross-Sectional and Prospective Findings from the UK Biobank. American
Journal of Epidemiology. 187. 10.1093/aje/kwx273.
Baltimore City Department of Planning, 2011. Baltimore City Critical Area Management Program Manual:
Draft: November, 2011.
Baltimore City Department of Public Works (DPW), 2018. Water Quality Operations. Accessed on
October 10, 2018 from https://publicworks.baltimorecity.gov/pw-bureaus/water-wastewater/
water/operations.
Baltimore County, 2016. Baltimore County Code Article 17, Title 3.
— 2010. Master Plan 2020. March 7, 2018. Access on January 2, 2019 from http://resources.
baltimorecountymd.gov/Documents/Planning/masterplan/mp2020/cvibrantcom.pdf.
Page 397
Baltimore to Washington Superconducting Maglev Project, 2018a. Final Preliminary Alternatives

Screening Report. Accessed on November 5, 2018 from https://www.bwmaglev.info/images/
document_library/reports/pasr/SCMAGLEV_PASR_January_2018_FullVersion_v2.pdf.
— 2018b. Final Alternative Report. Accessed on January 3, 2019 from https://www.bwmaglev.info/

images/document_library/reports/alternatives_report/SCMAGLEV_Alts_Report_Body-
Append-A-B-C_Nov2018.pdf.
— 2018c. Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed on January 3, 2019 from https://www.bwmaglev.

info/index.php/faqs.
Batiuk, R.A., Breitburg, D.L., Diaz, R.J., Cronin, T.M., Secor, D.H., and Thursby, G., 2009. Derivation
of habitat-specific dissolved oxygen criteria for Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries.
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. Vol 381. Accessed from https://pdfs.
semanticscholar.org/30d7/f158b90004a4ebe43c4270bcbe428e291176.pdf.
BGE, 2018. Regional Demographics. Accessed on October 10, 2018 from https://www.bge.com/
DoingBusinessWithUs/Pages/RegionalDemographics.aspx.
Brenner, G.J., 1963. The spores and pollen of the Potomac Group of Maryland: Maryland Geological
Survey Bulletin, No. 27. Accessed on January 4, 2019 from https://msa.maryland.gov/
megafile/msa/speccol/sc6000/sc6046/000000/000001/000000/000069/pdf/
mdsa_sc6046_1_69.pdf.
California Department of Transportation, 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis
Protocol. Accessed on January 15, 2019 from http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/
TeNS_Sept_2013A.pdf.
California Energy Commission (CEC), N.D. Gasoline Gallon Equivalents for Alternative Fuels. Accessed
on December 5, 2018 from https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/transportation_data/gge.
html.
Center for Watershed Protection, 1997. District of Columbia Wetland Conservation Plan. Accessed
on November 29, 2018 from https://doee.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/
publication/attachments/District%20of%20Columbia%20Wetland%20Conservation%20
Plan_1997.pdf.
Chesapeake Bay Program, 2014. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. Accessed on October
31, 2018 from https://www.chesapeakebay.net/documents/FINAL_Ches_Bay_Watershed_
Agreement.withsignatures-HIres.pdf.
City of Baltimore, 2018a. Zoning. Accessed on January 2, 2019 from https://gis-baltimore.opendata.

arcgis.com/datasets/5645866640f6436f8f37de3d3fbcbbb3_0.
— 2018b. City of Baltimore Health Code. § 9-206.
Page 398
— 2015. 2015 Baltimore City Bike Master Plan. Accessed on December 10, 2018 from http://
transportation.baltimorecity.gov/sites/default/files/2015%20Bike%20Master%20Plan.pdf.
— 2006. The Comprehensive Master Plan. Accessed on February 26, 2019 from http://www.
baltimorecity.gov/sites/default/files/070909_CMPfullplan.pdf.
City of Cheverly, 2018. Cheverly, Maryland Code of Ordinances. Ordinance Number O-8-93, 12-9-93
and Ordinance Number O-8-97, 10-9-97.
City of Greenbelt, N.D. City of Greenbelt Code Chapter 11.5.
Clark, W.B., 1897. Outline of present knowledge of the physical features of Maryland: Maryland
Geological Survey [Report], v. 1, pt. 3, p. 172-188.
Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR), 2018. Title 26 – Department of the Environment.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater
habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. Accessed
on January 3, 2019 from http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/classwet/index.
htm (Version 04DEC1998).
Crowley, W.P., 1976. The geology of the crystalline rocks near Baltimore and its bearing on the evolution
of the eastern Maryland Piedmont: Maryland Geological Survey Report of Investigations, No. 27.
D.C. Department of Employment Services, 2016. District of Columbia Top 200 Employers by Size Class.
Accessed on August 1, 2018 from https://does.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/does/
page_content/attachments/Top%20200%20Employers-2016Q4.pdf.
D.C. Office of Planning, 2010. Comprehensive Plan – Future Land Use Map. Accessed on February
26, 2019 from https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/
attachments/CompPlanLandUseMap.pdf.
D.C. Office of Zoning, 2016. Zoning Regulations of 2016. Accessed on January 2, 2019 from https://
dcoz.dc.gov/zrr/zr16.
D.C. Water, 2017b. From the Potomac to Your Pipes. Accessed on January 5, 2019 from https://www.
dcwater.com/drinking-water.
DCGIS Open Data, 2018. Transportation. Accessed on November 5, 2018 from https://maps2.dcgis.
dc.gov/dcgis/rest/services/DCGIS_DATA/Transportation_WebMercator/MapServer.
DCGIS Open Data, 2006. Soil Type. Accessed on April 5, 2018 from http://opendata.dc.gov/datasets/
soil-type.
Page 399
DENIX, N.D. “MRS Inventory Site Details”. Accessed on April 20, 2018 from https://www.denix.osd.
mil/mmrp/mrsi/mmrp-detail/?compId=2100&state=MD&ffidee=MD321022056700.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 2018. Federal Poverty Level Thresholds. Accessed
on August 1, 2018 from https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines.
Dieter, C.A., Maupin, M.A., Caldwell, R.R., Harris, M.A., Ivahnenko, T.I., Lovelace, J.K., Barber, N.L.,
and Linsey, K.S., 2018. Estimated use of water in the United States in 2015: U.S. Geological
Survey Circular 1441, 65 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1441. [Supersedes USGS Open-File
Report 2017–1131.]
District of Columbia Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE), 2018. “Hazardous Waste”. Accessed
on November 29, 2018 from https://doee.dc.gov/service/hazardous-waste.
— 2017. RCRA C Hazardous Waste. Accessed on November 29, 2018 from https://doee.dc.gov/
sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/service_content/attachments/HW%20-%20bldg%20
managers%20slides%208-16-17-6.pdf.
— 2010. Climate of Opportunity: A Climate Action Plan for the District of Columbia. Accessed on
December 12, 2018 from https://doee.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/
publication/attachments/ClimateOfOpportunity_web.pdf.
— 1985. Water Pollution Control Act of 1984. Accessed on January 3, 2019 from https://doee.dc.gov/
sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/publication/attachments/WaterPollAct.pdf.
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, 2017. D.C. Water At A Glance. Accessed on October
10, 2018 from https://www.dcwater.com/dc-water-glance.
— 2016. Geotechnical Baseline Report, DC Clean Rivers Project, Division J – Northeast Boundary Tunnel.
Volume 3, Book 1 of 2. June 1, 2016.
District of Columbia, 2017. District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR) 20-2701.
Edinger, Gregory J., Evans, D.J., Gebauer, Shane, Howard, Timothy G., Hunt, David M., and Olivero,
Adele M. (editors), 2002. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised
and expanded edition of Carol Reschke’s Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for
review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Albany, NY.
EDR, 2018a. DC-Baltimore Loop (North) EDR Area/Corridor Report. Published April 19, 2018.
— 2018b. DC-Baltimore Loop (South) EDR Area/Corridor Report. Published April 19, 2018.
Electricity Local, 2018. Maryland Electricity Rates and Consumption. Accessed on December 5, 2018
from https://www.electricitylocal.com/states/maryland/.
Page 400
Energy Information Agency (EIA), 2018a. Maryland State Energy Profile Analysis. Accessed on October
10, 2018 from https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=MD.
— 2018b. Price, Sales Volumes, and Stocks by State. Accessed on October 26, 2018 from https://www.
eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_mkt_dcu_R10_a.htm.
— 2018c. Refinery, Bulk Terminal, and Natural Gas Plant Stocks by State. Accessed on December 5,
2018 from https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_stoc_st_a_EPM0F_STR_mbbl_a.htm.
— 2018d. Supply and Disposition. Accessed on May 1, 2018 from https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/

pet_sum_snd_d_r10_mbbl_a_cur.htm.
— 2018e. 2017 Total Electric Industry – Sales (Megawatthours). Accessed on October 29, 2018 from
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/pdf/table2.pdf.
— 2016. State Electricity Profile Data.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2018a. Executive Order 11990, Protection of
Wetlands, 1977. Accessed on October 3, 2018 from https://www.fema.gov/executive-order-
11990-protection-wetlands-1977.
— 2018b. “Special Flood Hazard Area”. Accessed on April 7, 2018 from https://www.fema.gov/
national-flood-hazard-layer-nfhl.
— 2018c. “Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management”. Accessed on October 3, 2018 from
https://www.fema.gov/executive-order-11988-floodplain-management-0.
— 2018d. “Flood Zones”. Accessed on April 4, 2018 from https://www.fema.gov/flood-zones.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2018. Section 4(f) Tutorial, Environmental Review Toolkit.
Accessed on December 10, 2018 from https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/env_topics/4f_
tutorial/use_other.aspx.
— 2015a. Federal Highway Administration Environmental Justice Reference Guide. Accessed on August
1, 2018 from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/publications/
reference_guide_2015/fhwahep15035..pdf.
— 2015b. Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects. Accessed on October 22,
2018 from https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/env_topics/other_topics/VIA_Guidelines_
for_Highway_Projects.aspx.
— 2012a. Baltimore-Washington Parkway Widening Feasibility Study.
— 2012b. Section 4(f) Policy Paper. Accessed on January 2, 2019 from https://www.environment.fhwa.
dot.gov/legislation/section4f/4fpolicy.pdf.
Page 401
— 2011. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance (FHWA-HEP-10-025).
Prepared by: U.S. Department of Transportation.
— 2008. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), Software Version 1.1. Prepared by: U.S.
Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, John A. Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center, Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division.
— 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide: Final Report. Accessed on January
15, 2019 from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/
rcnm.pdf.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), N.D. “About FRA”. Accessed on October 22, 2018 from https://
www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0002.
— 2017. Summary Rail Crossings/Grade Crossings Spatial File. Accessed on November 5, 2018 from
https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/railroad-crossings-national.
Federal Register, 1994. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations. Vol 9. No. 32. Accessed on August 1, 2018 from https://www.
archives.gov/files/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12898.pdf.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2018. FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual:
FTA Report No. 0123. Accessed on January 15, 2019 from https://www.transit.dot.gov/
sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-
assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Office of Planning and Environment, 2006. Transit Noise and
Vibration Impact Assessment.
Ghigiarelli, Elder, 2004. A Guide to Maryland’s Coastal Zone Management Program Federal Consistency
Process. Accessed on October 31, 2018 from https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/consistency/
media/md.pdf.
Google Inc., 2018. Google Earth Pro. Search retrieved on August 3, 2018.
Google Maps, 2018.
Hanson, Carl E., David A. Towers, and Lance D. Meister, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning
and Environment. Report Number FTA-VA-90-1003-06. Accessed of April 18, 2018 from https://
www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf.
Harrison, Jason W., 2016. The Natural Communities of Maryland: 2016 Natural Community Classification
Framework. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Service, Natural
Heritage Program, Annapolis, Maryland. Unpublished report. 35 pages.
Page 402
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2014. IPCC Fifth Assessment: Climate Change
2014 Synthesis Report.
Kenworthy, J.P. and V. L. Santucci. 2004. “Paleontological Resource Inventory and Monitoring, National
Capital Region”. National Park Service TIC# D-289
Kim, D. S. and Drabkin, S., 1995. “Factors Affecting Vibration Induced Settlement”. International
Conferences on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics,
pp 13. Accessed on February 27, 2019 from https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=3080&context=icrageesd.
Kossuth, S.V. and Michael, J.L., 1990. Pinus glabra Walt., Spruce Pine, pp. 355-358. In R.M. Burns and
B.H. Honkala (eds.), Silvics of North America, Vol. 1, Conifers, USDA Forest Service, Agriculture
Handbook 654, Washington, D.C.
Leach, Sara Amy and Elizabeth Barthold, 1994. National Register of Historic Places Nomination form
for the L’Enfant Plan of the City of Washington, District of Columbia. Document on file with the
Office of Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C.
Leach, Sara Amy, 1990. National Register of Historic Place Nomination form for the Baltimore-Washington
Parkway. Document on file with Maryland Historic Trust.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2012. Regional Connector Transit Corridor,
Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, pp 4-145. Accessed on
January 15, 2019 from http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/connector/images/Final_
EIR/chapter_4.7_noise_and_vibration.pdf.
Maryland Commission on Climate Change (MCCC), 2016. 2016 Annual Report. Accessed April
2018 from http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Marylander/Documents/MCCC/
Publications/2016Report/MCCC_2016_final.pdf.
Maryland Department of Commerce, 2015a. Major Employers in Baltimore City, Maryland. Accessed
on August 1, 2018 from http://commerce.maryland.gov/Documents/ResearchDocument/
MajorEmployersInBaltimoreCity.pdf.
— 2015b. Major Employers in Baltimore County, Maryland. Accessed on August 1,

2018 from http://commerce.mar yland.gov/Documents/ResearchDocument/
MajorEmployersInBaltimoreCounty.pdf.
— 2015c. Major Employers in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Accessed on August 1,

MajorEmployersInAnneArundelCounty.pdf.
Page 403
— 2015d. Major Employers in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Accessed on August 1,

MajorEmployersInPrinceGeorgesCounty.pdf.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), N.D. “Development in the Critical Area”. Accessed on
October 31, 2018 from http://dnr.maryland.gov/criticalarea/Pages/development_in_CAC.aspx.
Maryland Department of Planning (MDP), 2018a. Maryland State Data Center. Accessed on August 1,
2018 from https://planning.maryland.gov/msdc/Pages/default.aspx.
— 2018b. Medusa, Maryland’s Cultural Resource Information System – Maryland Inventory of Historic
Properties. Accessed on August 6, 2018 from https://mht.maryland.gov/secure/Medusa/
Search.aspx.
— 2014. Maryland State Data Center. Accessed on August 1, 2018 from https://planning.maryland.
gov/MSDC/Pages/projection/projectionsbytopic.aspx.
— 2010. 2010 Land Use/Land Cover Update. Accessed on January 2, 2019 from http://planning.
maryland.gov/Documents/OurProducts/landuse/AppendixA_LandUseCategories.pdf.
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), N.D.a. “Historical Air Quality Data”. Accessed on
November 6, 2018 from https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Air/AirQualityMonitoring/
Pages/HistoricalData.aspx.
— N.D.b. “Source Water Assessment for Non-Community Systems in Anne Arundel County”. Accessed
on October 9, 2018 from http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/water_supply/
Source_Water_Assessment_Program/Documents/www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/
watersupply/SWAPS/Anne%20Arundel/Non%20Community%20Systems%20in%20
Anne%20Arundel.pdf.
— 2018a. Maryland’s Searchable Integrated Report Database [Combined 303(d)/305(b) List].

Accessed on October 3, 2018 from https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/tmdl/
integrated303dreports/pages/303d.aspx.
— 2018b. “Maryland watershed ID: Map of Maryland’s 8-Digit Watersheds”. Accessed on

October 9, 2018 from http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/water/tmdl/datacenter/
pages/8digitwatershed.aspx.
— 2018c. “Our Treasured Ecosystem”. Accessed on October 9, 2018 from https://mde.maryland.gov/

programs/Water/TMDL/TMDLImplementation/Pages/what-is-the-bay.aspx.
— 2016. State of Maryland 2014 Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory Documentation. Accessed on
November 6, 2018 from http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Air/ClimateChange/
Documents/2014Inventory/MD2014PeriodicGHGInventory.pdf.
Page 404
— 2015. 2015 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act of 2009 (GGRA) Plan Update. Accessed on
December 12, 2018 from https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Air/ClimateChange/MCCC/
Publications/ClimateUpdate2015.pdf.
— 2011. “MDE, Attorney General Enter into Agreement with Wheelabrator Baltimore, L.P. to Address
Alleged Emissions Violations at Baltimore Facility Settlement Agreement Follow Operational
Failure, Failed Test for Mercury Limits, Includes $77,500 Penalty”. Accessed on April 22, 2018
from https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Pressroom/Pages/121311.aspx.
— 1999. Maryland’s Source Water Assessment Program. Accessed on October 22, 2018 from http://
www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/water_supply/Documents/www.mde.state.md.us/
assets/document/water/swap-new.pdf.
Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), 2018. Maryland FY 2018 – FY 2023 Consolidated

Transportation Plan.
Maryland Geological Survey (MGS), N.D. “Coastal Plain Geophysical and Lithologic Logs”. Accessed
on October 9, 2018 from http://www.mgs.md.gov/groundwater/geologs.html.
— 2018a. “Coastal Plain Aquifer Information”. Accessed on April 30, 2018 from http://www.mgs.
md.gov/groundwater/coastal_plain_aquifers_mobile.html.
— 2018b. “Maryland Geology”. Accessed on April 26, 2018 from http://www.mgs.md.gov/geology/

index.html.
— 2000. “Coastal Plains Rocks and Sediments”. Accessed on April 26, 2018 from http://www.mgs.
md.gov/esic/geo/lgcp.html.
— 1968. “Geological Map of Maryland”. Accessed on October 9, 2018 from http://www.mgs.md.gov/

geology/geologic_map/md_geologic_map.html.
Maryland GIS Data Catalog, 2018a. “Maryland Transit”. Accessed on November 5, 2018 from https://
geodata.md.gov/imap/rest/services/Transportation/MD_Transit/FeatureServer.
— 2018b. “Maryland Critical Areas – Critical Areas”. Accessed on October 31, 2018 from http://data.
imap.maryland.gov/datasets/maryland-critical-areas-critical-areas.
— 2018c. “Maryland Biodiversity Conservation Network – BioNet”. Accessed on April 5, 2018 from
http://data.imap.maryland.gov/datasets/maryland-biodiversity-conservation-network-bionet.
— 2018d. “Maryland Critical Areas – Critical Areas”. Accessed on April 5, 2018 from http://data.
imap.maryland.gov/datasets/maryland-critical-areas-critical-areas.
Page 405
— 2017a. “Maryland Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality – Maryland Tidal Waters (2014)”.
Accessed on April 26, 2018 from http://data.imap.maryland.gov/datasets/maryland-
integrated-report-of-surface-water-quality-maryland-tidal-waters-2014.
— 2017b. “Maryland Wetlands – Wetlands, Linear (Special State Concern)”. Accessed on April 26, 2018
from https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=fa8f868f50ad42f48b9620b89fc5fba6.
— 2017c. “Maryland Wetlands – Wetlands, Polygon (Special State Concern)”. Accessed on April 26, 2018
from https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=fa8f868f50ad42f48b9620b89fc5fba6.
— 2017d. “Maryland SSURGO Soils – SSURGO Soils”. Accessed on April 5, 2018 from http://data.
imap.maryland.gov/datasets/maryland-ssurgo-soils-ssurgo-soils.
— 2014. “Maryland Protected Lands - Local Protected Lands”. Accessed on April 24, 2018 from http://
data.imap.maryland.gov/datasets/77c20913139d4534b1aa5c72f18d1cde_5.
— 2013. “Maryland Research Reserves - Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research Reserves”.
Accessed on January 5, 2019 from http://data.imap.maryland.gov/datasets/maryland-
research-reserves-chesapeake-bay-national-estuarine-research-reserves.
— 2011. “Maryland Focal Areas - Targeted Ecological Areas”. Accessed on April 24, 2018 from http://
data.imap.maryland.gov/datasets/maryland-focal-areas-targeted-ecological-areas.
— 2010. “Maryland Living Resources - Sensitive Species Project Review Areas”. Accessed on April 24,
2018 from http://data.imap.maryland.gov/datasets/maryland-living-resources-sensitive-
species-project-review-areas.
— 2005. “Maryland Green Infrastructure - Green Infrastructure Hubs And Corridors”. Accessed on April
24, 2018 from http://data.imap.maryland.gov/datasets/maryland-green-infrastructure-green-
infrastructure-hubs-and-corridors.
Maryland Public Service Commission (MD PSC), 2018. “The Telecommunication Division”. Accessed on
October 29, 2018 from https://www.psc.state.md.us/telecommunications/.
Maryland State Geographic Information Committee, 2016. “Interactive Mapping for the Maximize
2040 Long Range Plan”. Accessed on November 5, 2018 from http://msgic.org/interactive-
mapping-maximize2040-long-range-plan/.
Maryland Transit Administration (MTA), 2013. Purple Line Final Environmental Impact Statement and
Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. Accessed on December 12, 2018 from http://www.purplelinemd.
com/en/about-the-project/studies-reports/feis-document.
Page 406
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 2013. “Region to Number Nearly Seven

Million in 2040”. Accessed on August 1, 2018 from https://www.mwcog.org/about-us/
newsroom/2013/02/13/region-to-number-nearly-seven-million-in-2040-cooperative-
forecast-employment-growth-population/.
Musk, Elon, 2013. Hyperloop Alpha.
National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), 2008. Report on Flooding and Stormwater in
Washington, DC. January 2008.
National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, 2018. Cooperative Forecast

Round 9.0. Accessed on August 1, 2018 from https://www.mwcog.org/file.
aspx?&A=0u9N7KABYLwAQAbpi5pni8hnTYub8QGVQ%2B688kheSn8%3D.
— 2016. Financially Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan for the National Capital Region.
Accessed on November 5, 2018 from http://www1.mwcog.org/clrp/resources/2016/
CLRP2016_Brochure.pdf.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2018. “NOAA Essential Fish Habitat
Mapper”. Accessed on May 3, 2018 from https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/
efhmapper/.
National Park Service (NPS), 2018. National and State Park Database. GIS Data retrieved from ArcGIS
Online on August 3, 2018.
— 2002. National Register Bulletin 15. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service: Washington, D.C.
Nealer, Rachael et al., 2015. Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave. Union of Concerned Scientists. Accessed
on November 6, 2018 from https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/
Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf.
New, B.M., 1990. Ground Vibration Caused by Construction Works. Tunneling and Underground Space
Technology, Vol-5, No. 3, pp 179-190.
Noise and Vibration Control, Pg.174. L.L. Beranek Editor, 1971 Ed.
Opendata.dc.gov. Accessed November 2018. http://opendata.dc.gov/.
OpenStreetMap, 2018.
Outcalt, K. W., 1990. Magnolia grandiflora L., Southern Magnolia, pp. 445-448. In R. M. Burns and B.
H. Honkala (eds.), Silvics of North America, Vol. 2, Hardwoods, USDA Forest Service, Agriculture
Handbook 654, Washington, DC.
Page 407
Pagel, J.E., Whittington, D.M., and Allen, G.T., 2010. Interim Golden Eagle inventory and monitoring
protocols; and other recommendations. Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO), 2018. Company Information. Accessed on October
10, 2018 from https://www.pepco.com/AboutUs/Pages/CompanyInformation.
aspx?Origin=PEPCOButtomNavigation.
Prince George’s County Code of Ordinances: Section 19, Division 2, Part 122. CB-21-2011.
Prince Georges County, 2018. GIS Open Data Portal. Accessed on January 2, 2018 from http://gisdata.
pgplanning.org/opendata/search.asp?s=zoning.
— 2014. Plan Prince George’s 2035. Accessed on February 2, 2019 from http://mncppcapps.org/
planning/publications/BookDetail.cfm?item_id=279&Category_id=1.
ProPublica, 2017. “Fort George G. Meade”. Accessed on April 20, 2018 from https://projects.propublica.
org/bombs/installation/MD3210220567002100.
Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia (PSCDC), 2018. “Historical and Analytic Information
for Telecom”. Accessed on October 29, 2018 from https://dcpsc.org/Utility-Information/
Telecom/Historical-and-Analytical-Information-for-Telecom.aspx.
Staley, A. W., Bell, S. C., Andreasen, D. C., and Bolton, D. W., 2004. Hydrogeologic Data for the
Coastal Plain Sediments Northwest of Fort Meade, Maryland. Maryland Geological Survey.
Administrative Report 09-02-04.
Staley, A.W., Andreasen, D.C., and Curtin, S.E, 2016. Open-file report No. 16-02-02: Potentiometric
surface and water-level difference maps of selected confined aquifers in southern Maryland
and Maryland’s Eastern Shore, 1975-2015. Maryland Department of Natural Resources and
Maryland Geological Survey.
Stockbridge, Jerry G. and Deborah Slaton, 1993. National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form
for the Hecht Company Warehouse. Document on file with Document on file with the Office of
Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C.
The White House, 2016. Executive Order – Safegaruding the Nation from the Impacts of Invasive
Species. Accessed on December 12, 2018 from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-
press-office/2016/12/05/executive-order-safeguarding-nation-impacts-invasive-species.
Thewes., M; Langmaack, L.; Freimann, S. 2017. “Soil Conditioning with Artificial Soil and Foam in
EPB-Tunneling”. Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2017 – Surface challenges –
Underground solutions. Bergen, Norway.
Page 408
Transportation Research Board. 2016. Highway Capacity Manual. 6th ed. Washington, D.C.:
Transportation Research Board.
Tunnelbuilder.com, 2007. “World Record for Hard Rock Shield TBM Advance at La Cabrera Tunnel.”
Accessed on December 20, 2018 from http://tunnelbuilder.com/News/World-Record-for-
Hard-Rock-Shield-TBM-Advance-at-La-Cabrera-Tunnel.aspx.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2018. What is the definition of “Waters of the United States”
and “Navigable Waters of the United States”?. Accessed on October 22, 2018 from http://
www.swl.usace.army.mil/Portals/50/docs/regulatory/Navigable%20Waters%20of%20
the%20US.pdf.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2015. “Census Urban Area List.” Accessed on December 20, 2018 from https://
www2.census.gov/geo/docs/reference/ua/.
— 2010a. 2006-2010 “American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates”.
— 2010b. 2009-2013 “American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates”.
— 2010c. 2012-2016 “American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates”.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey Staff, 1993. “Soil Survey Manual”. Soil Conservation
Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. Archived from the original on 2006-08-15.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2015. “Official Soil Series Descriptions”. Accessed on
October 23, 2018 from https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/
geo/?cid=nrcs142p2_053587.
— 2012. “Farmland Protection Policy Act Manual”. Accessed on October 23, 2018 from https://www.
nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1049284.pdf.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 2016. “Maryland Transportation Data for Alternative Fuels and
Vehicles”. Accessed on October 10, 2018 from https://www.afdc.energy.gov/states/md.
U.S. Department of Labor, N.D. “All About OSHA”. Accessed on October 22, 2018 from https://www.
osha.gov/Publications/all_about_OSHA.pdf.
U.S. Department of the Army, 2007. “Final Site Inspection: Fort George G. Meade, Maryland: Map
1”. Published April 2007.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), 2017. “Understanding the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA)”. Accessed on October 22, 2018 from https://cms.dot.gov/transition/fra-
%E2%80%8Bunderstanding-federal-railroad-administration.
Page 409
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2018a. “Clean Air Act Title IV – Noise Pollution”. Accessed
on January 15, 2019 from https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/clean-air-act-title-
iv-noise-pollution.
— 2018b. “Air Quality Index Report”. Accessed on November 6, 2018 from https://www.epa.gov/
outdoor-air-quality-data/air-quality-index-report.
— 2018c. “Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID)”. Accessed on April 2018
from https://www.epa.gov/energy/emissions-generation-resource-integrated-database-
egrid.
— 2018d. “Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories”. Accessed on November 6, 2018 from
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-03/documents/emission-factors_
mar_2018_0.pdf.
— 2018e. “What is a Wetland?”. Accessed on October 4, 2018 from https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/

what-wetland.
— 2016a. Promising Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews. Accessed on October 26, 2018
from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/nepa_promising_
practices_document_2016.pdf.
— 2016b. MOVES2014a. Accessed on October 2018 from https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/

moves/moves2014a-latest-version-motor-vehicle-emission-simulator-moves_.html.
— 2015. “EPA Map of Radon Zones”. Accessed on January 4, 2019 from https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2015-07/documents/zonemapcolor.pdf.
— 2014. Air Quality Index: A Guide to Air Quality and Your Health. Accessed on November 6, 2018
from https://www3.epa.gov/airnow/aqi_brochure_02_14.pdf.
— 2013. “Recommended Procedures for Development of Emissions Factors and Use of the WebFIRE
Database”. Accessed on November 6, 2018 from https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/efpac/
procedures/procedures81213.pdf.
— 2003. “Technical Support Document for Identification of Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and
Attainability”. EPA 903-R-03-004. Region III Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis,
Maryland.
— 1999. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: USA Fort George G. Meade (TAP) OU”. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Published July 20, 1999.
— 1998. “EPA Superfund Record of Decision: USA Fort George G. Meade (TTA) OU”. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Published December 30, 1998.
Page 410
— 1997. AP-42, 5th Edition. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.
— 1981. The Noise Effects Handbook, Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Accessed on January
15, 2019 from http://www.nonoise.org/library/handbook/handbook.htm.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Noise Abatement and Control, 1981. “The Noise
Effects Handbook”. Accessed on November 5, 2018 from http://www.nonoise.org/library/
handbook/handbook.htm.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2018a. Wildlife or Waterfowl Refuges Database. GIS Data
retrieved from ArcGIS Online on August 3, 2018.
— 2018b. Swamp Pink. Accessed on January 5, 2019 from https://www.fws.gov/southeast/wildlife/

plants/swamp-pink/.
— 2011. Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. Accessed on January 5, 2019 from http://orsolutions.
org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/DRAFT-Eagle-Conservation-Plan.pdf.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), N.D. “Maryland geological map data”. Accessed on April 24, 2018
from https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/state.php?state=MD.
— 2018a. USGS NHD Database: Stream Crossings.
— 2018b. “Surface Water Use in the United States”. Accessed on January 3, 2019 from https://water.
usgs.gov/edu/wusw.html.
— 2018c. USGS NHD Database: Waters of the U.S. Identification.
— 2018d. “National Geological Map Database”. Accessed on October 9, 2018 from https://ngmdb.
usgs.gov/Geolex/search.
— 2016. Water Questions and Answers. Accessed on October 29, 2018 from https://water.usgs.gov/
edu/qa-home-percapita.html.
— 2010. Water Use Data. Accessed on October 9, 2018 from https://md.water.usgs.gov/waterdata/

wateruse/index.html.
Verspohl, J., 1995. Vibrations on Buildings Caused by Tunneling. Tunnels and Tunneling, March, pp 21-24.
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC), 2018. WSSC Dams and Reservoirs. Accessed on
October 10, 2018 from https://www.wsscwater.com/dams.
— 2015. Water Filtration. Accessed on October 10, 2018 from https://www.wsscwater.com/education-

and-recreation/about-water/water-filtration-1.html.
Page 411
Appendix A
Maryland
Environmental
Policy Act
Environmental
Assessment Form
Maryland Environmental Assessment Form
Yes No Comments
A Land Use Considerations
Section 3.14. While location of some
Will the action be within the 100 year project components is unknown, TBC is
1 X
flood plain? committing to locate structures outside
of floodplains.
Will the action require a permit for
project components is unknown, TBC is
2 Construction or alternation within the X
committing to locate structures outside
50 year flood plain?
of floodplains.
project components is unknown, TBC is
3 dredging, filling, draining or alteration X
committing to locate structures outside
of a wetland?
of wetlands.
Section 2.3.1.8. The proposed project
Will the action require a permit for the does not include the construction or
construction or operation of facilities operation of any new disposal facilities.
4 Unknown
for solid waste disposal, including Ultimate management of potential
dredge and excavation spoil? contaminated soils has not been
finalized.
Will the action occur on slopes Project design criteria provides siting
5 X
exceeding 15%? flexibility to avoid steep slope areas
Stormwater Management and Soil
Will the action require a grading plan
6 X Erosion and Sediment Control Plans
or a sediment control permit?
required by MDE and DOEE
Will the action require a mining permit Spoils from tunneling would be taken
7 X
for deep or surface mining? to landfills.
8 X No wells are proposed
drilling a gas or oil well?
Will the action require a permit for Project does not involve airport
9 X
airport construction? construction or air transport
Project does not involve Potomac
crossing, but does require USACE review
under Section 408 for tunnel crossing
10 the crossing of the Potomac River by Unknown
under civil works associated with the
conduits, cables or other like devices?
Anacostia River at the MD/D.C. border -
Section 3.12
Project will cross under the NPS-managed
Baltimore-Washington Parkway, but no
use of the park is proposed. A Land
Will the action affect the use of a Exchange between NPS and the applicant
public recreation area, park, forest, will be completed - Section 1.5.3.
11 X
wildlife management area, scenic river Location of some project components is
or wildland? unknown, but TBC commits to avoiding
public recreation areas, parks, forests,
wildlife management areas, scenic rivers
and wildlands.
Location of some project components
is unknown. Cultural resources will be
Will the action affect the use of any evaluated under the requirements of the
12 natural or manmade features that are Unknown Section 106 Programmatic Agreement.
unique to the county, state, or nation? No other unique natural or manmade
features have been identified within the
Project Study Area.
Page 1 of 5
Yes No Comments
Location of some project components
Will the action affect the use of an is unknown. Cultural resources will be
13 archeological or historical site or Unknown evaluated under the requirements of the
structure? Section 106 Programmatic Agreement -
Section 3.5.
B Water Use Considerations
Project does not involve change in
Will the action require a permit for watercourse, but does require USACE
the change of the course, current, or review under Section 408 for tunnel
14 X
cross-section of a stream or other body crossing under civil works associated
of water? with the Anacostia River at the MD/D.C.
border - Section 3.12
Project does not involve dam, reservoir,
or waterway obstruction but does
Will the action require the construction,
require USACE review under Section
15 alteration, or removal of a dam, X
408 for tunnel crossing under civil works
reservoir,or waterway obstruction?
associated with the Anacostia River at
the MD/D.C. border - Section 3.12
Will the action change the overland The project would potentially produce
16 flow of storm water or reduce the X 123,000 square feet of new impervious
absorption capacity of the ground? surface area within the project corridor.
Will the action require a permit for the
17 X No wells are proposed
drilling of a water well?
Will the action require a permit for No water appropriation or use is
18 X
water appropriation? proposed
The proposed project does not involve
19 construction and operation of facilities X
water treatment or distribution
for treatment or distribution of water?
Will the project require a permit for the
The proposed project does not involve
construction and operation of facilities
20 X sewage treatement or land disposal of
for sewage treatment and/or land
liquid waste derivatives
disposal of liquid waste derivatives?
If tunneling requires dewatering
procedures, collected groundwater
Will the action result in any discharge would be collected and discharged to
21 X
into surface or sub-surface water? municipal wastewater or storm sewer
system and require NPDES permit -
Section 2.3.1.5
If so, will the discharge affect ambient
A NPDES permit would be required for
22 water quality parameters and/or X
any discharges to waterways.
require a discharge permit?
C Air Use Considerations
Operation of earthmoving equipment
and haul trucks would generate
temporary de minimis air emissions
Will the action result in any discharge
23 X during construction. No permanent air
into the air?
emissions are proposed from operation
of the proposed all-electric powered
transportation system.
Page 2 of 5
Yes No Comments
Use of best management practices
(e.g. to minimize exhaust and dust
If so, will the discharge affect ambient
generation) would be implemented
24 air quality parameters or produce a X
to minimize air quality effects. No
disagreeable odor?
substantial effects on ambient air quality
would be expected - Section 3.9
Operation of earthmoving equipment
and haul trucks would temporarily
increase local ambient noise during
construction. No permanent effect from
Will the action generate additional
operation of the proposed all-electric
25 noise which differs in character or level X
powered transportation system would
from present conditions?
be expected - Section 3.8. When
necessary, controls would be put in
place to maintain noise levels below
acceptable thresholds.
The proposed project would primarily
operate underground, with surface
Will the action preclude future use of
26 X features/interfaces consisting of
related air space?
low-level, one-story structures - Sections
1.2 and 1.3
Will the action generate any
27 radiological, electrical, magnetic, or X Section 3.10
light influences?
D Plants and Animals
While the location of some project
Will the action cause the disturbance, components is unknown, TBC commits
28 reduction or loss of any rare, unique or X to avoiding significant reduction or loss
valuable plant or animal? of fish or wildlife habitats through the
measures outlined in Section 3.17.
While the location of some project
Will the action result in the significant components is unknown, TBC commits
29 reduction or loss or any fish or wildlife X to avoiding significant reduction or loss
habitats? of fish or wildlife habitats through the
measures outlined in Section 3.17.
use of pesticides, herbicides or other
30 X Section 3.17
biological, chemical or radiological
control agents?
E Socio-Economic
Sections 3.2 and 3.3. While the
Will the action result in a pre-emption location of some project components
31 or division of properties or impair their X is unknown, TBC commits to avoiding
economic use? pre-emption or division of properties
or impairment of their economic use.
Sections 3.2 and 3.3. No displacements
Will the action cause relocation of
or relocations are proposed. While the
activities, structures, or result in a
32 X location of some project components
change in the population density or
is unknown, TBC commits to avoiding
distribution?
displacements and relocations.
Page 3 of 5
Yes No Comments
No changes to land use patterns or
economic growth that would influence
33 Will the action alter land values? X
land value are anticipated from the
proposed project. - Section 3.20.
Section 3.1. Construction activity could
result in temporary adverse impacts
on local traffic in areas of construction
Will the action affect traffic flow and activity and haul routes. Permanent
34 X
volume? effects on traffic flow and volume are
not anticipated due to the limited
ridership of up to 1,000 riders per
direction per day.
Will the action affect the production,
extraction, harvest or potential use of
35 X Sections 3.2 and 3.16
a scarce or economically important
resource?
Will the action require a license to
No timbering or forest product
36 construct a sawmill or other plant for X
production is proposed
the manufacture of forest products?
Section 3.2. While the location of
some project components is unknown,
Is the action in accord with federal,
TBC would coordinate with local
37 state regional, and local comprehensive X
governments and commits to ensuring
or functional plans – including zoning?
the proposed Project is consistent with
planning and zoning.
No substantial effect on employment
Will the action affect the employment is anticipated for construction or
38 X
opportunities for persons in the area? operation of the proposed project -
Section 3.3
Will the action affect the ability of
39 the area to attract new sources of tax X Section 3.3
revenue?
Will the action discourage present
sources of tax revenue from remaining
40 X Section 3.3
in the area, or affirmatively encourage
them to relocate elsewhere?
Will the action affect the ability of the
41 X Section 3.3
area to attract tourism?
F Other Considerations
Section 3.10. Operation safety approval
is separate from the NEPA approval
process and would occur prior to
operations of the Loop system. TBC
Could the action endanger the public
42 Unknown will coordinate with state and local
health, safety or welfare?
police, fire and rescue to ensure the
safety of the system and the ability of
local emergency services to respond to
emergencies in the Loop system.
Could the action be eliminated without
deleterious affects to the public
43 X
health, safety, welfare or the natural
environment?
Page 4 of 5
Yes No Comments
Project is physically located within
Will the action be of statewide the corridor between Baltimore and
44 X
significance? Washington D.C., with all effects
constrained to this area.
Are there any other plans or actions
(federal, state, county or private) Cumulative effects are considered in
that, in conjunction with the subject Section 3.20. No synergistic impacts
45 X
action could result in a cumulative or to public health, safety, welfare or the
synergistic impact on the public health, environment are anticipated.
safety, welfare, or environment?
Section 3.18. It is assumed that no
additional power generation or capacity
would be required to construct/
Will the action require additional power
46 Unknown operate the proposed system. TBC will
generation or transmission capacity?
coordinate with power utilities to ensure
adequate capacity exists to construct
and operate the Loop system.
G Conclusion
This Environmental Assessment has
This agency will develop a complete been prepared to address compliance
47 environmental effects report on the X with the National Environmental
proposed action. Policy Act (NEPA) and the Maryland
Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).
Additional State Requirements
Section 3.17. Location of some project
48 Tree Impacts Unknown
components is unknown.
Section 3.15. Location of some project
49 Chesapeake Critical Area Unknown
components is unknown.
Page 5 of 5
Appendix B
Assumptions and
Calculations
Project Assumptions
Project Name D.C. to Baltimore Loop Project
Main Artery Tunnel Assumptions Project Duration and Personnel**
Working Hours per

Dimensions TBM Shaft/Tunnel/Loop Stations Schedule Duration (Months) Day
Boring Diameter 14.0 ft Excavation 1 12
Radius 7.00 ft Site Prep 1 12
Inner Diameter 12.0 ft Installation 1 12
Inner Radius 6.00 ft Tunneling 12-20 24
Tunnel Area (OD) 153.94 sq ft Conversion 1 12
Tunnel Area (ID) 113.10 sq ft Operation 12 14.4
Total Project Length 70.6 miles Total Project Duration 15-23
Total Project Length 372768 ft
Concrete Shelf Fill Area 2.0 sq ft Ventilation Shafts Schedule
Concrete Shelf Percentage fill 1.8% - Demo 0.5 12
Shaft Excavation 0.5 12
Volume Spur Construction 0.5 12
Volume of dirt removed (OD) 57,383,175 cf Ventilation install 0.5 12
Volume of dirt removed (OD) 2,125,303 cy
Volume of tunnel (ID) 42,159,068 cf Days per Week worked 7
Volume of tunnel (ID) 1,561,447 cy Workers per Day (construction) 192
Volume of air remaining (subtracting shelves) 41,413,532 cf Workers per Day (operation) 10
Volume of air remaining (subtracting shelves) 1,533,835 cy Total Days of Tunneling 365-608
Volume of concrete (segments) 745,536 cf Total Days of Overall Project Construction 456-700
Volume of concrete (segments) 591,468 cy Year of Construction 2019
Trucking Ventilation Shaft Assumptions

Dirt Removal Number of Shafts*** 70
Volume of dirt per truck 15.0 cy Dimensions Shaft Spur
Total dump trucks 141687 trucks Shaft Diameter 24 12 ft
Total Haul Trucks per Day (round up) 389 trucks Cross sectional Area 452 113 sq ft
Haul Route Distance (1-way)* 17.7 miles Shaft depth/Spur length 60 100 ft
Haul Route Travel per Day 13771 miles Volume excavated per shaft 27,143 11,310 cf
Haul Route Travel for Project 5,015,715 miles Volume excavated per shaft 1005 419 cy
Total volume (all shafts) 70,372 29,322 cy
Tunnel
Input deliveries Per day Total Increment (ft)
Concrete Segments 102.1 37277 10 Trucking
Ventilation pipe 12.8 4660 80 Dirt removal
Grout 5.1 1864 200 Volume of dirt per truck 15.0 15.0 cy
Rail 1.0 373 1000 Total dump trucks 4691 1955 trucks
Conditioner 2.0 746 500 Total Haul Trucks per Day 307.6 128.2 trucks
Other 10.2 3728 100 Haul Route Distance (1-way) 17.7 17.7 miles
Total other deliveries (round up) 134.0 41936 Haul Route Travel per Day 10890 4538 miles
Input Delivery Distance (1-way) 10.0 miles Haul Route Travel for Project 166,077 69,199 miles
Input Delivery Travel per Day 2680 miles
Input Delivery Travel for Project 978,200 miles Deliveries
Total Trucks per Day 523.0 trucks Deliveries per shaft 10 10 trucks
Total Miles per Day 16,451 miles Total deliveries 700 700 trucks
Total Miles per Project 6,004,469 miles Deliveries per day 46 46 trucks
Deliveries Route Travel per Day 918 918 miles
Delivery Travel for Project 14,000 14,000
*Haul route distance is an average of the haul distance to disposal locations listed in Chapter 2 of the EA Total Trucks 5391 2655
**Calculations assume the most conservative scenarios for respective resource areas: 3.9 - Greenhouse Gases, 3.18 - Energy, and 3.19 Total Trucks per day 353.5 174.1
Utilities (23 months), 3.1 - Trucking and 3.9 - Air Quality(15 months)
***Schedule variability is based on tunneling speed achieved, which is dependent upon TBC’s technical progress prior to start of
construction
D.C. to Baltimore Loop Project A-1 March 2019

Environmental Assessment
Project Assumptions
Commuting Miles Loop Station Assumptions TBM Launch Shaft Assumptions

Average 1-way Commute 10 miles Number of Shafts 2 Number of Shafts 4
Commute Distance per Day During Construction 3840 miles Dimensions Dimensions
Total Commute Distance During Construction 1,752,000 miles Shaft Length 80 ft Shaft Length 180 ft
Commute Distance per Day During Operation 200 miles Shaft Width 30 sq ft Shaft Width 50 sq ft
Total Commute Distance During Operation 73,000 miles Shaft Depth 60 ft Shaft Depth 40 ft
Total Commute Distance 1,825,000 miles Volume excavated per shaft 144,000 cf Volume excavated per shaft 360,000 cf
Volume excavated per shaft 5,333 cy Volume excavated per shaft 13,333 cy
Water Usage Total Volume 10,667 cy Total Volume 53,333 cy
Water usage per day 4000 gallons
Water usage for project 1,460,000.0 gallons Trucking Trucking
Water energy intensity 11,111 kWh/MG Dirt removal Dirt removal
Power for water usage 16222.06 KWh Volume of dirt per truck 15.0 cy Volume of dirt per truck 15.0 cy
Total dump trucks 711 trucks Total dump trucks 3556 trucks
Total Haul Trucks per Day 23.3 trucks Total Haul Trucks per Day 116.6 trucks
Haul Route Distance (1-way) 17.7 miles Haul Route Distance (1-way) 17.7 miles
Haul Route Travel per Day 825 miles Haul Route Travel per Day 16507 miles
Haul Route Travel for Project 25,173 miles Haul Route Travel for Project 503,467 miles
Deliveries Deliveries
Deliveries per Loop 20 trucks Deliveries per Shaft 20 trucks
Deliveries per day 1 trucks Deliveries per day 3 trucks
Deliveries Route Travel per Day 26 miles Deliveries Route Travel per Day 52 miles
Delivery Travel for Project 800 miles Delivery Travel for Project 1600 miles
Total Trucks 731 Total Trucks 3576

Total Trucks per day 24.6 Total Trucks per day 119.2
D.C. to Baltimore Loop Project

A-2 March 2019
Equipment Lookup
Equipment Fuel Type Power (kW) Power (hP) Usage Factor Load Factor Model Year Acum. Use Hrs.
Excavator Diesel 118 158 80% 0.38 2011 1000
Crane Diesel 254 340 20% 0.29 2011 1000
Small Crane Diesel 194 260 20% 0.29 2011 1000
Drill Diesel 165 221 80% 0.50 2011 1000
Loader Diesel 151 203 40% 0.42 2011 1000
Water pump Diesel 19 25 80% 0.42 2011 1000
Back Hoe Diesel 37 50 50% 0.42 2011 1000
Concrete/slurry truck Diesel 298 400 10% 0.42 2011 1000
Generator Diesel 63 84 50% 0.74 2011 1000
Ventilation fan Electric 120 161 100% 0.42 2011 1000
Locomotive charger Electric 184 247 100% 0.42 2011 1000
Grout Plant Electric 63 84 80% 0.42 2011 1000
Office Electric 20 27 70% 0.42 2011 1000
Delivery/haul trucks Diesel 336 450 70% 0.42 2011 1000
Tunnel Boring Machine Electric 1200 1609 50% 1.00 2011 1000
Tunnel Lighting (Construction) Electric 746 1000 100% 0.42 2011 1000
Tunnel Lighting (Operation) Electric 2237 2999 100% 0.42 2011 1000
Outdoor Lighting Electric 70 94 100% 0.42 2011 1000
Vehicle Elevator Electric 37 50 5% 0.42 2011 1000
Tesla supercharger Electric 75 100 35% 0.42 2011 1000
Ventilation fan Electric 120 161 100% 0.42 2011 1000
Maintenance lift Electric 40 54 20% 0.42 2011 1000
Pipejacking equipment Diesel 100 134 60% 0.42 2011 1000
Forklift Diesel 66 89 40% 0.20 2011 1000
Water chiller Electric 19 25 80% 0.42 2011 1000
Bridge Crane Electric 88 118 20% 0.29 2011 1000
Compressor Electric 63 84 50% 0.74 2011 1000
kW to Hp 1.34102 hp/kW

Environmental Assessment A-3 March 2019
Project Energy Use Calculations
(23‐month Construction Schedule)
Phase Total Hours per

Construction/ Emission Type Peak Electric Duration Daily Work Usage Hours per Total Hours Project kWhr per kWh for MWh per MWh for MWh to Gal
Component Phase Operation Equipment Classification Fuel Type Power (kW) Power (kW) Power (hP) Quantity (months) Hours Factor Day per Unit per Day (23 Months) day Project day Project Project Model Year
Calculation Identifier: A B C D E F G H I J K L M O P Q
I*(E*30.5)*
A*D (Days per week O*24.84 gal/MWh
Calculation: -- (if electric) -- -- -- -- -- F*G H*D worked/7) A*I A*J K/1000 L/1000 (if diesel) --
TBM Launch Shafts Excavation Construction Excavator Offroad Diesel 117.82 - 158.00 4 1 12 80% 9.6 38.4 1,171 4,524 137,992 4.52 137.99 3,427.17 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Excavation Construction Crane Offroad Diesel 253.54 - 340.00 4 1 12 20% 2.4 9.6 293 2,434 74,236 2.43 74.24 1,843.73 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Excavation Construction Drill Offroad Diesel 164.80 - 221.00 4 1 12 80% 9.6 38.4 1,171 6,328 193,014 6.33 193.01 4,793.70 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Excavation Construction Loader Offroad Diesel 151.38 - 203.00 4 1 12 40% 4.8 19.2 586 2,906 88,647 2.91 88.65 2,201.63 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Excavation Construction Water pump Offroad Diesel 18.64 - 25.00 4 1 12 80% 9.6 38.4 1,171 716 21,834 0.72 21.83 542.27 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Excavation Construction Delivery/haul trucks Onroad Diesel 335.57 - 450.00 25 1 12 70% 8.4 207 6,309 69,416 2,117,194 69.42 2,117.19 52,582.72 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Site Prep Construction Back hoe Offroad Diesel 37.29 - 50.00 4 1 12 50% 6 24 732 895 27,293 0.89 27.29 677.84 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Site Prep Construction Generator Offroad Diesel 62.64 - 84.00 4 1 12 50% 6 24 732 1,503 45,852 1.50 45.85 1,138.77 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Tunnel Boring Machine Electric Electric 1,200.00 19,200.00 1,609.22 16 20 24 50% 12 192 117,120 230,400 140,544,000 230.40 140,544.00 Not Diesel 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Locomotive charger Electric Electric 184.00 1,472.00 246.75 8 20 24 100% 24 192 117,120 35,328 21,550,080 35.33 21,550.08 Not Diesel 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Bridge Crane Electric Electric 87.99 351.97 118.00 4 20 24 20% 4.8 19.2 11,712 1,689 1,030,571 1.69 1,030.57 Not Diesel 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Grout Plant Electric Electric 63.00 504.00 84.48 8 20 24 40% 9.6 76.8 46,848 4,838 2,951,424 4.84 2,951.42 Not Diesel 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Office Electric Electric 20.00 80.00 26.82 4 20 24 70% 16.8 67.2 40,992 1,344 819,840 1.34 819.84 Not Diesel 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Forklift Offroad Diesel 66.37 - 89.00 4 20 24 40% 9.6 38.4 23,424 2,549 1,554,590 2.55 1,554.59 38,609.85 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Concrete/slurry truck Offroad Diesel 298.28 - 400.00 4 20 24 40% 9.6 38.4 23,424 11,454 6,986,920 11.45 6,986.92 173,527.43 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Ventilation fan Electric Electric 120.00 5,760.00 160.92 48 20 24 100% 24 1152 702,720 138,240 84,326,400 138.24 84,326.40 Not Diesel 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Crane Offroad Diesel 253.54 - 340.00 4 20 24 20% 4.8 19.2 11,712 4,868 2,969,441 4.87 2,969.44 73,749.16 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Delivery/haul trucks Onroad Diesel 335.57 - 450.00 313 20 24 70% 16.8 5258.4 3,207,624 1,764,537 1,076,367,839 1,764.54 1,076,367.84 26,732,714.63 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Compressor Electric Electric 62.64 501.11 84.00 8 20 24 50% 12 96 58,560 6,013 3,668,133 6.01 3,668.13 Not Diesel 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Water chiller Electric Electric 18.64 149.14 25.00 8 20 24 80% 19.2 153.6 93,696 2,863 1,746,730 2.86 1,746.73 Not Diesel 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Tunnel Lighting
Tunneling Construction (Construction) Electric Electric 745.54 745.54 999.78 1 20 24 100% 24 24 14,640 17,893 10,914,647 17.89 10,914.65 Not Diesel 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Outdoor Lighting Electric Electric 70.00 280.00 93.87 4 20 24 60% 14.4 57.6 35,136 4,032 2,459,520 4.03 2,459.52 Not Diesel 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Conversion Construction Crane Offroad Diesel 253.54 - 340.00 4 1 12 20% 2.4 9.6 293 2,434 74,236 2.43 74.24 1,843.73 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Conversion Construction Concrete/slurry truck Offroad Diesel 298.28 - 400.00 4 1 12 10% 1.2 4.8 146 1,432 43,668 1.43 43.67 1,084.55 2011
TBM Launch Shafts Operation Operation Tesla supercharger Electric Electric 74.57 298.28 100.00 4 12 14.4 35% 5.04 20.16 7,379 1,503 550,220 1.50 550.22 Not Diesel 2011
Loop Stations Excavation Construction Excavator Offroad Diesel 117.82 - 158.00 2 1 12 80% 9.6 19.2 586 2,262 68,996 2.26 69.00 1,713.58 2011
Loop Stations Excavation Construction Small Crane Offroad Diesel 193.88 - 260.00 2 1 12 20% 2.4 4.8 146 931 28,384 0.93 28.38 704.96 2011
Loop Stations Excavation Construction Drill Offroad Diesel 164.80 - 221.00 2 1 12 80% 9.6 19.2 586 3,164 96,507 3.16 96.51 2,396.85 2011
Loop Stations Excavation Construction Loader Offroad Diesel 151.38 - 203.00 2 1 12 40% 4.8 9.6 293 1,453 44,323 1.45 44.32 1,100.81 2011
Loop Stations Excavation Construction Water pump Offroad Diesel 18.64 - 25.00 0 1 12 80% 9.6 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2011
Loop Stations Excavation Construction Delivery/haul trucks Onroad Diesel 335.57 - 450.00 25 1 12 70% 3 74 2,253 24,792 756,141 24.79 756.14 18,779.54 2011
Loop Stations Installation Construction Small Crane Offroad Diesel 193.88 - 260.00 2 1 12 20% 3 6 183 1,163 35,480 1.16 35.48 881.19 2011
Loop Stations Installation Construction Concrete/slurry truck Offroad Diesel 298.28 - 400.00 2 1 12 10% 3 6 183 1,790 54,585 1.79 54.59 1,355.68 2011
Loop Stations Installation Construction Generator Offroad Diesel 62.64 - 84.00 2 1 12 50% 6 12 366 752 22,926 0.75 22.93 569.39 2011
Loop Stations Operation Operation Tunnel Lighting (Operation) Electric Electric 2,236.61 2,236.61 2,999.34 1 12 14.4 100% 14.4 14.4 5,270 32,207 11,787,819 32.21 11,787.82 Not Diesel 2011
Loop Stations Operation Operation Outdoor Lighting Electric Electric 70.00 280.00 93.87 4 12 14.4 100% 14.4 57.6 21,082 4,032 1,475,712 4.03 1,475.71 Not Diesel 2011
Loop Stations Operation Operation Vehicle Elevator Electric Electric 37.29 149.14 50.00 4 12 14.4 5% 0.72 2.88 1,054 107 39,301 0.11 39.30 Not Diesel 2011
Loop Stations Operation Operation Maintenance lift Electric Electric 40.00 200.00 53.64 5 12 14.4 20% 2.88 14.4 5,270 576 210,816 0.58 210.82 Not Diesel 2011
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation Construction Excavator Offroad Diesel 117.82 - 158.00 70 0.5 12 80% 9.6 672 10,248 79,176 1,207,427 79.18 1,207.43 29,987.71 2011
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation Construction Small Crane Offroad Diesel 193.88 - 260.00 70 0.5 12 20% 2.4 168 2,562 32,572 496,726 32.57 496.73 12,336.72 2011
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation Construction Drill Offroad Diesel 164.80 - 221.00 70 0.5 12 80% 9.6 672 10,248 110,746 1,688,870 110.75 1,688.87 41,944.83 2011
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation Construction Loader Offroad Diesel 151.38 - 203.00 70 0.5 12 40% 4.8 336 5,124 50,863 775,657 50.86 775.66 19,264.26 2011
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation Construction Water pump Offroad Diesel 18.64 - 25.00 70 0.5 12 80% 9.6 672 10,248 12,528 191,049 12.53 191.05 4,744.89 2011
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation Construction Generator Offroad Diesel 62.64 - 84.00 70 0.5 12 50% 6 420 6,405 26,308 401,202 26.31 401.20 9,964.27 2011
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation Construction Delivery/haul trucks Onroad Diesel 335.57 - 450.00 353.5 0.5 12 70% 3 1061 16,174 355,905 5,427,548 355.90 5,427.55 134,798.81 2011
Ventilation Shafts Spur Construction Construction Small Crane Offroad Diesel 193.88 - 260.00 70 0.5 12 20% 2.4 168 2,562 32,572 496,726 32.57 496.73 12,336.72 2011
Ventilation Shafts Spur Construction Construction Grout Plant Electric Electric 63.00 - 84.48 0 0.5 12 80% 9.6 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Not Diesel 2011
Ventilation Shafts Spur Construction Construction Excavator Offroad Diesel 117.82 - 158.00 70 0.5 12 80% 9.6 672 10,248 79,176 1,207,427 79.18 1,207.43 29,987.71 2011
Ventilation Shafts Spur Construction Construction Pipejacking equipment Offroad Diesel 100.00 - 134.10 70 0.5 12 60% 7.2 504 7,686 50,400 768,600 50.40 768.60 19,088.98 2011
Ventilation Shafts Spur Construction Construction Loader Offroad Diesel 151.38 - 203.00 0 0.5 12 40% 4.8 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2011
Ventilation Shafts Spur Construction Construction Water pump Offroad Diesel 18.64 - 25.00 70 0.5 12 80% 9.6 672 10,248 12,528 191,049 12.53 191.05 4,744.89 2011
Ventilation Shafts Spur Construction Construction Generator Offroad Diesel 62.64 - 84.00 70 0.5 12 50% 6 420 6,405 26,308 401,202 26.31 401.20 9,964.27 2011
Ventilation Shafts Spur Construction Construction Delivery/haul trucks Onroad Diesel 335.57 - 450.00 174 0.5 12 70% 3 522 7,964 175,249 2,672,546 175.25 2,672.55 66,375.46 2011
Ventilation Shafts Installation Construction Small Crane Offroad Diesel 193.88 - 260.00 70 1 12 20% 3 210 6,405 40,715 1,241,816 40.72 1,241.82 30,841.79 2011
Ventilation Shafts Installation Construction Forklift Offroad Diesel 66.37 - 89.00 70 1 12 40% 3 210 6,405 13,937 425,083 13.94 425.08 10,557.38 2011
Ventilation Shafts Installation Construction Concrete/slurry truck Offroad Diesel 298.28 - 400.00 70 1 12 10% 3 210 6,405 62,639 1,910,486 62.64 1,910.49 47,448.91 2011
Ventilation Shafts Operation Operation Ventilation fan Electric Electric 120.00 8,400.00 160.92 70 12 14.4 100% 14.4 1008 368,928 120,960 44,271,360 120.96 44,271.36 Not Diesel 2011
Ventilation Shafts Operation Operation Outdoor Lighting Electric Electric 70.00 4,900.00 93.87 70 12 14.4 100% 14.4 1008 368,928 70,560 25,824,960 70.56 25,824.96 Not Diesel 2011
D.C. to Baltimore Loop Project A-4

Environmental Assessment March 2019
Project Off‐Road Criteria Air Pollutant Calculations
(15‐month Construction Schedule)
Construction/ Horsepower Calendar

Total Hours per
Accumulated hours Load Factor VOC_EF NOx_EF CO_EF SO2_EF PM10_EF PM2.5_EF VOC Emissions NOx Emissions CO Emissions SO2 Emissions
PM10 PM2.5
Component Phase Equipment (hp), if diesel
Model year
year
Project
on equipment
(See equipment lookup HP ID
(g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr) Results (kg/project) (kg/project) (kg/project) (kg/project)
Emissions Emissions
Operation (15 Months) table) (kg/project) (kg/project)
C Q J R S T U V W X Y Z
Assumed 1000 Load factors
See notes for
C Q -- J hours for all assumed based on Derived from MOVES2014a U*C*J*S/1000 V*C*J*S/1000 W*C*J*S/1000 X*C*J*S/1000 Y*C*J*S/1000 Z*C*J*S/1000
HP ID ranges
equipment equipment type
TBM Launch Shafts Excavation Construction Excavator 158.0 2011 2019 1171 1000 0.3819 175 0.26 1.73 0.82 0.003 0.175 0.170 18.6 122.4 57.8 0.2 12.4 12.0
TBM Launch Shafts Excavation Construction Crane 340.0 2011 2019 293 1000 0.29 600 0.18 1.84 0.71 0.003 0.102 0.099 5.2 53.2 20.6 0.1 3.0 2.9
TBM Launch Shafts Excavation Construction Drill 221.0 2011 2019 1171 1000 0.5025 300 0.17 1.13 0.34 0.003 0.060 0.058 22.7 146.9 44.7 0.4 7.8 7.6
TBM Launch Shafts Excavation Construction Loader 203.0 2011 2019 586 1000 0.4154 300 0.17 1.13 0.34 0.003 0.060 0.058 8.6 55.8 17.0 0.1 3.0 2.9
TBM Launch Shafts Excavation Construction Water pump 25.0 2011 2019 1171 1000 0.4154 50 0.28 3.62 1.08 0.003 0.167 0.162 3.4 44.0 13.1 0.0 2.0 2.0
TBM Launch Shafts Excavation Construction Delivery/haul trucks 450.0 2011 2019 6309 1000 0.4154 600 0.18 1.84 0.71 0.003 0.102 0.099 214.4 2174.7 841.8 3.5 120.7 117.1
TBM Launch Shafts Site Prep Construction Back hoe 50.0 2011 2019 732 1000 0.4154 75 0.67 4.34 3.58 0.004 0.501 0.486 10.2 65.9 54.5 0.1 7.6 7.4
TBM Launch Shafts Site Prep Construction Generator 84.0 2011 2019 732 1000 0.74 100 0.53 2.81 3.24 0.004 0.451 0.437 24.2 127.7 147.2 0.2 20.5 19.9
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Tunnel Boring Machine 0.0 2011 2019 70272 1000 1 1200 0.25 3.15 0.91 0.003 0.110 0.106 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Locomotive charger 0.0 2011 2019 70272 1000 0.4154 300 0.17 1.13 0.34 0.003 0.060 0.058 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Bridge Crane 0.0 2011 2019 7027 1000 0.29 175 0.26 1.73 0.82 0.003 0.175 0.170 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Grout Plant 0.0 2011 2019 28109 1000 0.4154 100 0.53 2.81 3.24 0.004 0.451 0.437 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Office 0.0 2011 2019 24595 1000 0.4154 50 0.28 3.62 1.08 0.003 0.167 0.162 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Forklift 89.0 2011 2019 14054 1000 0.2 100 0.53 2.81 3.24 0.004 0.451 0.437 133.0 702.1 809.6 0.9 112.8 109.4
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Concrete/slurry truck 400.0 2011 2019 14054 1000 0.4154 600 0.18 1.84 0.71 0.003 0.102 0.099 424.6 4306.1 1666.7 7.0 239.0 231.8
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Ventilation fan 0.0 2011 2019 421632 1000 0.4154 175 0.26 1.73 0.82 0.003 0.175 0.170 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Crane 340.0 2011 2019 7027 1000 0.29 600 0.18 1.84 0.71 0.003 0.102 0.099 126.0 1277.6 494.5 2.1 70.9 68.8
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Delivery/haul trucks 450.0 2011 2019 3215822 1000 0.4154 600 0.18 1.84 0.71 0.003 0.102 0.099 109,297.4 1108445.9 429036.4 1798.7 61525.6 59679.8
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Compressor 0.0 2011 2019 35136 1000 0.74 100 0.53 2.81 3.24 0.004 0.451 0.437 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Water chiller 0.0 2011 2019 56218 1000 0.4154 50 0.28 3.62 1.08 0.003 0.167 0.162 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Tunnel Lighting (Construction) 0.0 2011 2019 8784 1000 0.4154 1000 0.25 3.13 0.89 0.003 0.106 0.103 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TBM Launch Shafts Tunneling Construction Outdoor Lighting 0.0 2011 2019 21082 1000 0.4154 100 0.53 2.81 3.24 0.004 0.451 0.437 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TBM Launch Shafts Conversion Construction Crane 340.0 2011 2019 293 1000 0.29 600 0.18 1.84 0.71 0.003 0.102 0.099 5.2 53.2 20.6 0.1 3.0 2.9
TBM Launch Shafts Conversion Construction Concrete/slurry truck 400.0 2011 2019 146 1000 0.4154 600 0.18 1.84 0.71 0.003 0.102 0.099 4.4 44.9 17.4 0.1 2.5 2.4
TBM Launch Shafts Operation Operation Tesla supercharger 0.0 2011 2019 7379 1000 0.4154 175 0.26 1.73 0.82 0.003 0.175 0.170 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Loop Stations Excavation Construction Excavator 158.0 2011 2019 586 1000 0.3819 175 0.26 1.73 0.82 0.003 0.175 0.170 9.3 61.2 28.9 0.1 6.2 6.0
Loop Stations Excavation Construction Small Crane 260.0 2011 2019 146 1000 0.29 300 0.17 1.13 0.34 0.003 0.060 0.058 1.9 12.5 3.8 0.0 0.7 0.6
Loop Stations Excavation Construction Drill 221.0 2011 2019 586 1000 0.5025 300 0.17 1.13 0.34 0.003 0.060 0.058 11.4 73.5 22.3 0.2 3.9 3.8
Loop Stations Excavation Construction Loader 203.0 2011 2019 293 1000 0.4154 300 0.17 1.13 0.34 0.003 0.060 0.058 4.3 27.9 8.5 0.1 1.5 1.4
Loop Stations Excavation Construction Water pump 25.0 2011 2019 0 1000 0.4154 50 0.28 3.62 1.08 0.003 0.167 0.162 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Loop Stations Excavation Construction Delivery/haul trucks 450.0 2011 2019 2253 1000 0.4154 600 0.18 1.84 0.71 0.003 0.102 0.099 76.6 776.7 300.6 1.3 43.1 41.8
Loop Stations Installation Construction Small Crane 260.0 2011 2019 183 1000 0.29 300 0.17 1.13 0.34 0.003 0.060 0.058 2.4 15.6 4.7 0.0 0.8 0.8
Loop Stations Installation Construction Concrete/slurry truck 400.0 2011 2019 183 1000 0.4154 600 0.18 1.84 0.71 0.003 0.102 0.099 5.5 56.1 21.7 0.1 3.1 3.0
Loop Stations Installation Construction Generator 84.0 2011 2019 366 1000 0.74 100 0.53 2.81 3.24 0.004 0.451 0.437 12.1 63.8 73.6 0.1 10.3 10.0
Loop Stations Operation Operation Tunnel Lighting (Operation) 0.0 2011 2019 5270 1000 0.4154 1200 0.25 3.15 0.91 0.003 0.110 0.106 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Loop Stations Operation Operation Outdoor Lighting 0.0 2011 2019 21082 1000 0.4154 100 0.53 2.81 3.24 0.004 0.451 0.437 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Loop Stations Operation Operation Vehicle Elevator 0.0 2011 2019 1054 1000 0.4154 75 0.67 4.34 3.58 0.004 0.501 0.486 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Loop Stations Operation Operation Maintenance lift 0.0 2011 2019 5270 1000 0.4154 75 0.67 4.34 3.58 0.004 0.501 0.486 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation Construction Excavator 158.0 2011 2019 10248 1000 0.3819 175 0.26 1.73 0.82 0.003 0.175 0.170 163.0 1070.7 505.8 1.9 108.2 104.9
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation Construction Small Crane 260.0 2011 2019 2562 1000 0.29 300 0.17 1.13 0.34 0.003 0.060 0.058 33.8 218.2 66.3 0.5 11.6 11.2
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation Construction Drill 221.0 2011 2019 10248 1000 0.5025 300 0.17 1.13 0.34 0.003 0.060 0.058 198.9 1285.7 390.9 3.2 68.3 66.2
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation Construction Loader 203.0 2011 2019 5124 1000 0.4154 300 0.17 1.13 0.34 0.003 0.060 0.058 75.5 488.2 148.4 1.2 25.9 25.1
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation Construction Water pump 25.0 2011 2019 10248 1000 0.4154 50 0.28 3.62 1.08 0.003 0.167 0.162 30.2 385.0 114.5 0.4 17.7 17.2
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation Construction Generator 84.0 2011 2019 6405 1000 0.74 100 0.53 2.81 3.24 0.004 0.451 0.437 211.6 1117.4 1288.4 1.5 179.6 174.2
Ventilation Shafts Shaft Excavation Construction Delivery/haul trucks 450.0 2011 2019 16174 1000 0.4154 600 0.18 1.84 0.71 0.003 0.102 0.099 549.7 5575.1 2157.9 9.0 309.4 300.2
Ventilation Shafts Spur Construction Construction Small Crane 260.0 2011 2019 2562 1000 0.29 300 0.17 1.13 0.34 0.003 0.060 0.058 33.8 218.2 66.3 0.5 11.6 11.2
Ventilation Shafts Spur Construction Construction Grout Plant 0.0 2011 2019 0 1000 0.4154 100 0.53 2.81 3.24 0.004 0.451 0.437 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ventilation Shafts Spur Construction Construction Excavator 158.0 2011 2019 10248 1000 0.3819 175 0.26 1.73 0.82 0.003 0.175 0.170 163.0 1070.7 505.8 1.9 108.2 104.9
Ventilation Shafts Spur Construction Construction Pipejacking equipment 134.1 2011 2019 7686 1000 0.4154 175 0.26 1.73 0.82 0.003 0.175 0.170 112.9 741.4 350.2 1.3 74.9 72.7
Ventilation Shafts Spur Construction Construction Loader 203.0 2011 2019 0 1000 0.4154 300 0.17 1.13 0.34 0.003 0.060 0.058 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ventilation Shafts Spur Construction Construction Water pump 25.0 2011 2019 10248 1000 0.4154 50 0.28 3.62 1.08 0.003 0.167 0.162 30.2 385.0 114.5 0.4 17.7 17.2
Ventilation Shafts Spur Construction Construction Generator 84.0 2011 2019 6405 1000 0.74 100 0.53 2.81 3.24 0.004 0.451 0.437 211.6 1117.4 1288.4 1.5 179.6 174.2
Ventilation Shafts Spur Construction Construction Delivery/haul trucks 450.0 2011 2019 7964 1000 0.4154 600 0.18 1.84 0.71 0.003 0.102 0.099 270.7 2745.2 1062.6 4.5 152.4 147.8
Ventilation Shafts Installation Construction Small Crane 260.0 2011 2019 6405 1000 0.29 300 0.17 1.13 0.34 0.003 0.060 0.058 84.4 545.6 165.9 1.3 29.0 28.1
Ventilation Shafts Installation Construction Forklift 89.0 2011 2019 6405 1000 0.2 100 0.53 2.81 3.24 0.004 0.451 0.437 60.6 320.0 368.9 0.4 51.4 49.9
Ventilation Shafts Installation Construction Concrete/slurry truck 400.0 2011 2019 6405 1000 0.4154 600 0.18 1.84 0.71 0.003 0.102 0.099 193.5 1962.4 759.6 3.2 108.9 105.7
Ventilation Shafts Operation Operation Ventilation fan 0.0 2011 2019 368928 1000 0.4154 175 0.26 1.73 0.82 0.003 0.175 0.170 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ventilation Shafts Operation Operation Outdoor Lighting 0.0 2011 2019 368928 1000 0.4154 100 0.53 2.81 3.24 0.004 0.451 0.437 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Energy and Air Quality Calculation Notes
Conversion Factors
1 gal diesel fuel = 137,381 Btu 137,381 Btu

1 KWh = 3,413 Btu 3,412 Btu
1 KWh = 0.02 gal 0.02 Gal
1 MWh = 24.84 gal 24.84 Gal
Source: EIA, 2018
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=about_energy_units
Notes:
Electricity demand and emissions associated with construction of the Main Artery Tunnels are accounted for under the phase "Tunneling"
Emission factors from MOVES2014a model run for Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Anne Arundel County, Prince George's County, and District of Columbia
HP ID Ranges (used to determine emission factors for various equipment types)

6 3 < hp <= 6
11 6 < hp <= 11
16 11 < hp <= 16
25 16 < hp <= 25
40 25 < hp <= 40
50 40 < hp <= 50
75 50 < hp <= 75
100 75 < hp <= 100
175 100 < hp <= 175
300 175 < hp <= 300
600 300 < hp <= 600
750 600 < hp <= 750
1000 750 < hp <= 1000
1200 1000 < hp <= 1200
2000 1200 < hp <= 2000
3000 2000 < hp <= 3000

Air Quality Equations
EQUATION 1
Diesel off-road equipment, in tons per year:
365 1
𝐷𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑙 𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝐸𝐹 ∗ 𝐻𝑃 ∗ 𝐿𝐹 ∗ 𝑡 ∗ 2.2046 𝑥 10 ∗ ∗
𝑑 2000
EF = Emission Factor generated by MOVES2014a in g/hp-hour
HP = Equipment Horsepower in hp
LF = Equipment Load Factor (unitless)
t = Total Project Usage Hours in hours
d = Total Project Days of Construction
Assumes 2.2046 x 10-3 lb/g
Constants used: 365 days/year; 2000 lbs/ton
EQUATION 2
On-road equipment, in tons per year:
365 1
𝑂𝑛 𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝐸𝐹 ∗ 𝑉𝑀𝑇 ∗ 2.2046 𝑥 10 ∗ ∗
𝑑 2000
EF = Emission Factor generated by MOVES2014a in g/mile
VMT = Total Project Vehicle Miles Traveled
d = Total Project Days of Construction
Assumes 2.2046 x 10-3 lb/g
Constants used: 365 days/year; 2000 lbs/ton
D.C. to Baltimore Loop Project March 2019

A-7
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Equations
EQUATION 3
Diesel off-road equipment, in metric tons per project (construction) or metric tons per year (operation):
𝐷𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑙 𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝐺𝐻𝐺 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝐸𝐹 ∗ 𝑈

EF = Emission Factor in kg/gal for CO2, g/gal for CH4 and N2O
U = Total Project Usage in gallons
Constants used: 1000 g/kg; 1000 kg/metric ton
1 Equation does not show conversion of kg to metric tons (CO ) and g to metric tons (CH and N O)
2 4 2
EQUATION 4
Electric-Powered equipment, in metric tons per project (construction) or metric tons per year (operation):
1
𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝐺𝐻𝐺 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝐸𝐹 ∗ 𝑈 ∗ 0.45359 ∗
1000
EF = Emission Factor in lb/MWh
U = Total Project Usage in MWh
Assumes 0.45359 kg/lb
Constants used: 1000 kg/metric ton
EQUATION 5
On-road equipment, in metric tons per project (construction) or metric tons per year (operation):
1 1
𝑂𝑛 𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝐺𝐻𝐺 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝐸𝐹 ∗ 𝑉𝑀𝑇 ∗ ∗
1000 1000
EF = Emission Factor generated by MOVES2014a in g/mile
VMT = Total Project Vehicle Miles Traveled
Constants used: 1000 g/kg; 1000 kg/metric ton
D.C. to Baltimore Loop Project March 2019

A-8
On-road Emissions
Mobile Vehicle Emission Factors

VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O3
Vehicle Type g/mile1
Passenger 0.06 0.27 3.31 0.00 0.05 0.01 333.01 0.60 0.22
Heavy-Heavy Duty 0.75 5.74 2.31 0.01 0.58 0.41 1,102.44 0.03 0.01
- lb/mile2
Passenger 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.00
Heavy-Heavy Duty 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.43 0.00 0.00
Notes: 1 Emission factors taken from EPA MOVES2014a for motor vehicles within Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Anne Arundel County, Prince George's County, and
District of Columbia.
2
Pound per mile assumes there are 453.6 grams per pound.
3
N2O emission factors taken from The Climate Registry's 2018 Default Emission Factors Table 13.4.
Mobile Vehicle Emissions

Miles/project VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O
Construction lb/project
Commuter Miles - Construction 1,752,000 239.91 1,057.99 12,776.64 8.55 179.96 43.46 1,286,211.72 2,324.68 846.61
Trucking - Main Artery Tunnel 6,004,469 9,920.78 75,955.01 30,601.35 126.41 7,737.52 5,483.89 14,593,401.24 430.60 117.00
Trucking - Ventilation Shafts 263,276 434.99 3,330.37 1,341.77 5.54 339.26 240.45 639,872.04 18.88 5.13
Trucking - Loop Stations 25,973 42.91 328.56 132.37 0.55 33.47 23.72 63,126.19 1.86 0.51
Trucking - TBM Launch Shafts 505,067 834.49 6,388.97 2,574.04 10.63 650.84 461.28 1,227,525.78 36.22 9.84
Total 11,473.09 87,060.90 47,426.16 151.68 8,941.05 6,252.81 17,810,136.98 2,812.24 979.08
Operation
Commuter Miles - Operation 73,000 10.00 44.08 532.36 0.36 7.50 1.81 53,592.15 96.86 35.28
Notes: See Equation 2 for derivation of On-road Emissions in tons/year

Fugitive Particulate Matter Emissions
Source Miles Vehicle Weight 1. Emission factors from AP-42, Section 13.2.1 (Paved Roads).
Commuter Miles - Construction 1,752,000 2.4 E = k * (sL)0.91 * (W)1.02
Trucking - Main Artery Tunnel 6,004,469 12 2. Silt loading from California Air Resources Board, Areawide Source Methodologies, Section 7.9,
Trucking - TBM Launch Shafts 505,067 12 Entrained Paved Road Dust, Paved Road Travel (July 1997).
Trucking - Access Shafts 263,276 12 https://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/fullpdf/full7-9_2016.pdf
Trucking - Loop Stations 25,973 12 Silt loading is average of freeways, major, collector, and local roads.
Composite 10.03
Paved Road Fugitive Dust Emission Factors

PM10 PM2.5
Average
sL Emission Emission
Weight
(g/m2) Factor Factor
(tons)
Vehicle Type (lb/VMT) (lb/VMT)
Worker Vehicles and Delivery Trucks 0.101 10.03 0.00287 0.000704
Fugitive Dust Emissions from On-Road Activity

Source Type PM10 (lb/day) PM2.5 (lb/day) PM10 (lb/project) PM2.5 (lb/project) PM10 (lb/year) PM2.5 (lb/year)
Commuter Miles - Construction 11.02 2.70 5,027.47 1,234.02 2.01 0.49
Trucking - Main Artery Tunnel 54.90 13.47 20,037.20 4,918.22 8.01 1.97
Trucking - TBM Launch Shafts 47.52 11.66 1,449.32 355.74 0.58 0.14
Trucking - Access Shafts 49.54 12.16 755.49 185.44 0.30 0.07
Trucking - Loop Stations 2.44 0.60 74.53 18.29 0.03 0.01
Total 165.42 40.60 27,344.01 6,711.71 10.94 2.68
Truck Loading Emissions

Truck Loading/Unloading/Drops
EF=k x (0.0032) x (U/5)^1.3/(M/2)^1.4
Truck Loading Emissions Truck Loading Emissions by Location
PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5
U= 2.2 2.2 lb/day ton/year lb/day ton/year
M= 21 21 TBM Launch Shafts and Main Artery Tunnel - Offroad Equipment 9.57E-02 1.75E-02 1.45E-02 2.65E-03
k= 0.35 0.053 Loop Station - Baltimore - Offroad Equipment 2.34E-04 4.28E-05 3.55E-05 6.48E-06
EF (lb/ton)= 1.43E-05 2.17E-06 Loop Station - Washington, D.C. - Offroad Equipment 2.34E-04 4.28E-05 3.55E-05 6.48E-06
lb/day ton/year Ventilation Shafts - Offroad Equipment 4.38E-03 8.00E-04 6.63E-04 1.21E-04
PM10 1.01E-01 1.84E-02 Total 1.01E-01 1.84E-02 1.52E-02 2.78E-03
PM2.5 1.52E-02 2.78E-03
kg/day kg/year
PM10 4.56E-02 1.67E+01
PM2.5 6.91E-03 2.52E+00
Total Tons Ft3 Density (lb/ft3) Tons/Day Total Construction Fugitive Dust
3,204,480 61,802,892 103.7 7023.52 PM10 PM2.5
1 lb = 0.453592 kg 0.453592 ton/year ton/year
Fugitive Dust Emissions from On-Road Activity 10.94 2.68
Notes: Emissions equation from AP-42, Section 13.2.4 (Aggregate Handling and Storage Piles) Truck Loading Emission 1.84E-02 2.78E-03
Density was assumed 1.4 tons per cubic yard Total 10.96 2.69
Construction Fugitive Dust as shown in Table 3.10-4 is the sum of "Fugitive Dust from On-Road Activity" and "Truck Loading Emissions"
Source: Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor Advanced Conceptual Engineering Preliminary Geotechnical Report, October 2010

A-10
GHG Calculations
D.C. to Baltimore Loop Tunnel Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction
Equipment Type MT for Project
1
Project Usage
Diesel (Gal) CO2 EF Unit CH4 EF Unit N2O EF Unit CO2 (kg) CH4 (kg) N2O (kg) CO2e (kg) CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Back Hoe 678 10.18 kg/gal 0.57 g/gal 0.26 g/gal 6,900.43 0.39 0.18 6,900.48 6.90 0.00 0.00 6.90
Concrete/slurry truck 223,417 10.18 kg/gal 0.57 g/gal 0.26 g/gal 2,274,380.70 127.35 58.09 2,274,399.66 2,274.38 0.13 0.06 2,274.40
Crane 77,437 10.18 kg/gal 0.57 g/gal 0.26 g/gal 788,304.77 44.14 20.13 788,311.34 788.30 0.04 0.02 788.31
Drill 49,135 10.18 kg/gal 0.57 g/gal 0.26 g/gal 500,198.14 28.01 12.78 500,202.31 500.20 0.03 0.01 500.20
Excavator 65,116 10.18 kg/gal 0.57 g/gal 0.26 g/gal 662,882.61 37.12 16.93 662,888.13 662.88 0.04 0.02 662.89
Forklift 49,167 10.18 kg/gal 0.57 g/gal 0.26 g/gal 500,522.46 28.03 12.78 500,526.64 500.52 0.03 0.01 500.53
Generator 21,637 10.18 kg/gal 0.57 g/gal 0.26 g/gal 220,261.63 12.33 5.63 220,263.46 220.26 0.01 0.01 220.26
Loader 22,567 10.18 kg/gal 0.57 g/gal 0.26 g/gal 229,729.01 12.86 5.87 229,730.93 229.73 0.01 0.01 229.73
Mini-excavator 0 10.18 kg/gal 0.57 g/gal 0.26 g/gal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pipejacking equipment 19,089 10.18 kg/gal 0.57 g/gal 0.26 g/gal 194,325.82 10.88 4.96 194,327.44 194.33 0.01 0.00 194.33
Slip forming machine 0 10.18 kg/gal 0.57 g/gal 0.26 g/gal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Small Crane 57,101 10.18 kg/gal 0.57 g/gal 0.26 g/gal 581,291.96 32.55 14.85 581,296.81 581.29 0.03 0.01 581.30
Water pump 10,032 10.18 kg/gal 0.57 g/gal 0.26 g/gal 102,126.32 5.72 2.61 102,127.17 102.13 0.01 0.00 102.13
2
Construction Diesel Total 6,060.92 0.34 0.15 6,060.97
Electric Project Usage1 (MWh) CO2 EF Unit CH4 EF Unit N2O EF Unit CO2 (lb) CH4 (lb) N2O (lb) CO2e (lb) CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Bridge Crane 1,031 758.2 lb/MWh 0.05 lb/MWh 0.009 lb/MWh 781,378.75 51.53 9.28 785,279.46 354.43 0.02 0.00 356.20
Compressor 3,668 758.2 lb/MWh 0.05 lb/MWh 0.009 lb/MWh 2,781,178.60 183.41 33.01 2,795,062.49 1,261.52 0.08 0.01 1,267.82
Grout Plant 2,951 758.2 lb/MWh 0.05 lb/MWh 0.009 lb/MWh 2,237,769.68 147.57 26.56 2,248,940.82 1,015.03 0.07 0.01 1,020.10
Locomotive charger 21,550 758.2 lb/MWh 0.05 lb/MWh 0.009 lb/MWh 16,339,270.66 1,077.50 193.95 16,420,837.71 7,411.36 0.49 0.09 7,448.36
Office 820 758.2 lb/MWh 0.05 lb/MWh 0.009 lb/MWh 621,602.69 40.99 7.38 624,705.78 281.95 0.02 0.00 283.36
Outdoor Lighting 2,460 758.2 lb/MWh 0.05 lb/MWh 0.009 lb/MWh 1,864,808.06 122.98 22.14 1,874,117.35 845.86 0.06 0.01 850.08
Tunnel Boring Machine 140,544 758.2 lb/MWh 0.05 lb/MWh 0.009 lb/MWh 106,560,460.80 7,027.20 1,264.90 107,092,419.84 48,334.97 3.19 0.57 48,576.26
Tunnel Lighting (Construction) 10,915 758.2 lb/MWh 0.05 lb/MWh 0.009 lb/MWh 8,275,485.39 545.73 98.23 8,316,797.32 3,753.69 0.25 0.04 3,772.43
Ventilation fan 84,326 758.2 lb/MWh 0.05 lb/MWh 0.009 lb/MWh 63,936,276.48 4,216.32 758.94 64,255,451.90 29,000.98 1.91 0.34 29,145.76
Water chiller 1,747 758.2 lb/MWh 0.05 lb/MWh 0.009 lb/MWh 1,324,370.76 87.34 15.72 1,330,982.14 600.72 0.04 0.01 603.72
Construction Electric Total 3 92,860.53 6.12 1.10 93,324.10
Onroad Project Usage1 (Miles) CO2 EF Unit CH4 EF Unit N2O EF Unit CO2 (g) CH4 (g) N2O (g) CO2e (g) CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Delivery/haul trucks 6,785,304 1,102.44 g/mile 0.03 g/mile 0.01 g/mile 7,480,390,874.21 220,719.84 59,973.06 7,502,463,891.70 7,480.39 0.22 0.06 7,502.46
Commuter Vehicles 2,686,400 333.01 g/mile 0.60 g/mile 0.22 g/mile 894,585,975.20 1,616,861.59 588,831.18 1,095,898,362.49 894.59 1.62 0.59 1,095.90
4
Construction On-road Total 8,374.98 1.84 0.65 8,598.36

GHG Calculations
Operation MT per year

Equipment Type
Electric Project Usage1 (MWh) CO2 EF Unit CH4 EF Unit N2O EF Unit CO2 (lb) CH4 (lb) N2O (lb) CO2e (lb) CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Outdoor Lighting 27,301 758.2 lb/MWh 0.05 lb/MWh 0.009 lb/MWh 20,699,369.51 1,365.03 245.71 20,802,702.55 9,389.07 0.62 0.11 9,435.94
Vehicle Elevator 39 758.2 lb/MWh 0.05 lb/MWh 0.009 lb/MWh 29,798.34 1.97 0.35 29,947.10 13.52 0.00 0.00 13.58
Maintenance Lift 211 758.2 lb/MWh 0.05 lb/MWh 0.009 lb/MWh 159,840.69 10.54 1.90 160,638.63 72.50 0.00 0.00 72.86
Tesla Supercharger 550 758.2 lb/MWh 0.05 lb/MWh 0.009 lb/MWh 417,176.79 27.51 4.95 419,259.37 189.23 0.01 0.00 190.17
Tunnel Lighting (Operation) 11,788 758.2 lb/MWh 0.05 lb/MWh 0.009 lb/MWh 8,937,524.22 589.39 106.09 8,982,141.11 4,053.99 0.27 0.05 4,074.23
Ventilation Fan 44,271 758.2 lb/MWh 0.05 lb/MWh 0.009 lb/MWh 33,566,545.15 2,213.57 398.44 33,734,112.25 15,225.52 1.00 0.18 15,301.52
Operation Electric Total 5 28,943.82 1.91 0.34 29,088.31
Onroad Project Usage1 (Miles) CO2 EF Unit CH4 EF Unit N2O EF Unit CO2 (lb) CH4 (lb) N2O (lb) CO2e (lb) CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Commuter Vehicles 73,000 333.01 g/mile 0.60 g/mile 0.22 g/mile 24,309,401.50 43,936.46 16,000.85 29,779,846.81 11,026.55 19.93 7.26 13,507.90
6
Operation On-road Total 11,026.55 19.93 7.26 13,507.90
Total Emissions 147,266.81 30.14 9.51 150,579.65
Notes:
1
See Master Table equipment list for Project Usage source
2
See Equation 3 for deriviation of Construction Diesel GHG emissions
3
See Equation 4 for deriviation of Construction Electric GHG emissions
4
See Equation 5 for deriviation of Construction Onroad GHG emissions
5
See Equation 4 for deriviation of Operation Electric GHG emissions
6
See Equation 5 for deriviation of Operation Onroad GHG emissions
Conversion Factors
lb to kg: 1 lb = 0.453592

GHG Emissions Factors (2018)
Fuel Type CO2 EF Unit CH4 EF Unit N2O EF Unit

Diesel (Offroad EPA) 10.18 kg/gal 0.57 g/gal 0.26 g/gal
Passenger Vehicles (MOVES2014a) 0.73 lb/mile 0.00 lb/mile 0.00 lb/mile
Heavy-Heavy Duty (MOVES2014a) 2.43 lb/mile 0.00 lb/mile 0.00 lb/mile
Electricity (RFCE Region EPA) 758.2 lb/MWh 0.05 lb/MWh 0.009 lb/MWh
Sources:
EPA Emission Factors:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-03/documents/emission-factors_mar_2018_0.pdf
EPA MOVES2014a

Appendix C
Agency Coordination
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Chesapeake Bay Field Office
177 Admiral Cochrane Drive
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay
May 8, 2018
The Boring Company

12200 Crenshaw Blvd
Hawthorne, CA 90250
RE: SLI 1159 DC Baltimore Loop
Dear Mike Thompson:
This responds to your letter, received April 26, 2018, requesting information on the presence of
species which are federally listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened in the
above referenced project area. We have reviewed the information you enclosed and are
providing comments in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884,
as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
This project as proposed is “not likely to adversely affect” the endangered, threatened, or
candidate species listed on your IPaC species list because while the project is within the range of
the species, it is unlikely that the species would occur within the project area that was submitted.
Therefore, no Biological Assessment or further section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is required. Should project plans change, or should additional information on
the distribution of listed or proposed species become available, this determination may be
reconsidered.
This response relates only to federally protected threatened or endangered species under our
jurisdiction. Limited information is currently available regarding the distribution of other rare
species in the District of Columbia. However, the Nature Conservancy and National Park
Service (NPS) have initiated an inventory of rare species within the District. For further
information on such rare species, you should contact Diane Pavek of the National Park Service at
202-339-8309.
An additional concern of the Service is wetlands protection. Federal and state partners of the
Chesapeake Bay Program have adopted an interim goal of no overall net loss of the Basin’s
remaining wetlands, and the long term goal of increasing the quality and quantity of the Basin’s
wetlands resource base. Because of this policy and the functions and values wetlands perform,
the Service recommends avoiding wetland impacts. All wetlands within the project area should
2
be identified, and if alterations of wetlands is proposed, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Baltimore District, should be contacted for permit requirements. They can be reached at
(410) 962-3670.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide information relative to fish and wildlife issues, and
thank you for your interests in these resources. If you have any questions or need further
assistance, please contact Trevor Clark at (410) 573-4527.
Sincerely,
Genevieve LaRouche
Supervisor
4/26/2018 IPaC: Resources
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
IPaC resource list

This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat
(collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS)
jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list
may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be
directly or indirectly a×ected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and
extent of e×ects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-
p
speciÒc ((e.g.,
g , vegetation/species
g p y ) and p
surveys) j p
project-speciÒc ((e.g.,
g , magnitude
g g of p
and timing p
proposed
activities) information.
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS
oÕce(s) with jurisdiction in the deÒned project area. Please read the introduction to each section that
follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional
information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.
Project information
NAME
DC-Baltimore Loop
LOCATION
District of Columbia and Maryland
DESCRIPTION
Please see the project description through the following link:
https://www.boringcompany.com/eastcoast/
Local oÕce
Chesapeake Bay Ecological Services Field OÕce
 (410) 573-4599
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/V4MX3F5SUZDWRFE4ZLD6X6MXCI/resources#migratory-birds 1/18
 (410) 266-9127

Annapolis, MD 21401-7307
http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/
http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/endsppweb/ProjectReview/Index.html
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project
level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species.
Additional areas of inÓuence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of
the species range if the species could be indirectly a×ected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a
dam upstream of a Òsh population, even if that Òsh does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly
impact the species by reducing or eliminating water Óow downstream). Because species can move,
and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the
project area. To fully determine any potential e×ects to species, additional site-speciÒc and project-
speciÒc information is often required.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary
information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of
such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal
agency. A letter from the local oÕce and a species list which fulÒlls this requirement can only be
obtained by requesting an oÕcial species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see
directions below) or from the local Òeld oÕce directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and
request an oÕcial species list by doing the following:
1. Log in to IPaC.
2. Go to your My Projects list.
3. Click PROJECT HOME for this project.
4. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed species1 and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological
g Services Program
g of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Òsheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA Fisheries2).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list.
Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species
p under their jjurisdiction
jurisdiction..
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows
species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more
information.
2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an oÕce of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
The following species are potentially a×ected by activities in this location:
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Swamp Pink Helonias bullata Threatened

No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4333
Critical habitats
Potential e×ects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered
species themselves.
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.
Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act1 and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act2.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory
birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing
appropriate conservation measures, as described belo
below.
ow.
1. The Migratory
g y Birds Treaty
y Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle
g Protectionon
nAAct
ct of 1940.
ct
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Birds of Conservation Concern ht http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/

h tp://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/
p g g g p
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
birds-of-con nse
se at
servat
atio
io
on-
n-co
onc
ncern.php
p p
Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/
ht
ttpp:/
:///w
/www
ww.ffws
w .gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/
g g p j g
conservation-measures.php
co
onnsser
erva
rva
ati
tion-measures.phpp p
Nationwide conservation measures for birds
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf
h
htttp://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf
p g g y p g p
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of
Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more
about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below.
This is not a list of every bird you may Ònd in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list
will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have
sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your
location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur o× the Atlantic Coast,
additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your
list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important
information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory
bird report, can be found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to
reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at
the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project
area.
NAME BREEDING SEASON (IF A

BREEDING SEASON IS INDICATED
FOR A BIRD ON YOUR LIST, THE
BIRD MAY BREED IN YOUR
PROJECT AREA SOMETIME WITHIN
THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED,
WHICH IS A VERY LIBERAL
ESTIMATE OF THE DATES INSIDE
WHICH THE BIRD BREEDS ACROSS
ITS ENTIRE RANGE. "BREEDS
ELSEWHERE" INDICATES THAT THE
BIRD DOES NOT LIKELY BREED IN
YOUR PROJECT AREA.)
American Oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus Breeds Apr 15 to Aug 31

This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
http
ps://ecos.fw
f s.gov/ecp
p/sp
pecies/8935
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Breeds Oct 15 to Aug 31

This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but
warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential
susceptibilities in o×shore areas from certain types of development or
activities.
Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Breeds May 15 to Oct 10

https://eco
cos.fw
o f s.gov/ecpp/sp
pecies/9399
Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Breeds May 20 to Jul 31

Canada Warbler Cardellina canadensis Breeds May 20 to Aug 10

Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea Breeds Apr 29 to Jul 20

Clapper Rail Rallus crepitans Breeds Apr 10 to Oct 31

This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird
Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Dunlin Calidris alpina arcticola Breeds elsewhere

Eastern Whip-poor-will Antrostomus vociferus Breeds May 1 to Aug 20

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Breeds elsewhere

This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but
warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential
susceptibilities in o×shore areas from certain types of development or
activities.
http
ps://ecos.fw
f s.gov/ecp
p/sp
pecies/1680
Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera Breeds May 1 to Jul 20

http
ps://ecos.fw
f s.gov/ecp
p/sp
pecies/8745
Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus Breeds Apr 20 to Aug 20

King Rail Rallus elegans Breeds May 1 to Sep 5

https://eco
co
os.fw
f s.gov/ecp
p/sp
pecies/8936
Least Tern Sterna antillarum Breeds Apr 20 to Sep 10

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa Óavipes Breeds elsewhere

Long-eared Owl asio otus Breeds elsewhere

Nelson's Sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni Breeds May 15 to Sep 5

Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Breeds May 1 to Jul 31

Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31

Purple Sandpiper Calidris maritima Breeds elsewhere

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Breeds May 10 to Sep 10

Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata Breeds elsewhere

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres morinella Breeds elsewhere

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Breeds elsewhere

Saltmarsh Sparrow Ammodramus caudacutus Breeds May 15 to Sep 5

Seaside Sparrow Ammodramus maritimus Breeds May 10 to Aug 20

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla Breeds elsewhere

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus Breeds elsewhere

Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus Breeds elsewhere

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Breeds elsewhere

http
ps://ecos.fw
f s.gov/ecp
p/sp
pecies/9483
Willet Tringa semipalmata Breeds Apr 20 to Aug 5

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Breeds May 10 to Aug 31

Probability of Presence Summary

The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities
to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ “Proper
Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report” before using or attempting to interpret this
report.
Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your
project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A
taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey e×ort (see below) can be used
to establish a level of conÒdence in the presence score
score. One can have higher conÒdence in the
presence score if the corresponding survey e×ort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week
where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For
example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of
them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is
calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence
across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted
Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week
of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is

0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of
presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its
entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.
Survey E×ort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys
is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey e×ort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas o× the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all
years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
aprobability
probability of presence abreeding
breeding season asurvey
survey e×ort ano
no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
American
Oystercatcher
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
Conservation Concern
(BCC) throughout its
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC Vulnerable
(This is not a Bird of
(BCC) in this area, but
warrants attention
because of the Eagle
Act or for potential
susceptibilities in
o×shore areas from
certain types of
development or
activities.)
Black-billed Cuckoo
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Bobolink
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Canada Warbler
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Cerulean Warbler
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Clapper Rail
BCC - BCR (This is a
Bird of Conservation
Concern (BCC) only in
particular Bird
Conservation Regions
(BCRs) in the
continental USA)
Dunlin
particular Bird
(BCRs) in the
continental USA)
Eastern Whip-poor-
will
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Golden Eagle
Non-BCC Vulnerable
(This is not a Bird of
(BCC) in this area, but
warrants attention
because of the Eagle
Act or for potential
susceptibilities in
o×shore areas from
certain types of
development or
activities.)
Golden-winged
Warbler
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Kentucky Warbler
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
King Rail
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Least Tern
particular Bird
(BCRs) in the
continental USA)
Lesser Yellowlegs
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Long-eared Owl
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Nelson's Sparrow
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Prairie Warbler
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Prothonotary
Warbler
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Purple Sandpiper
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Red-headed
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Red-throated Loon
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Ruddy Turnstone
particular Bird
(BCRs) in the
continental USA)
Rusty Blackbird
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Saltmarsh Sparrow
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Seaside Sparrow
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Semipalmated
Sandpiper
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Short-billed
Dowitcher
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Snowy Owl
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Whimbrel
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Willet
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Wood Thrush
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any
location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur
in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding
their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be
breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures and/or permits may be
advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present
on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my speciÒed location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that
may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network
(AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried
and Òltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects,
and that have been identiÒed as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle
(Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to o×shore activities or
development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not
representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your
project area, please visit the E-bird Exp
Explore
plore Data Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring
in my speciÒed location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the AvAvian
A ian
Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of susurvey,
urvey, b
banding,
anding, and citizen science
datasets .
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To
learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability
of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.
project
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my proj
o ect area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-
round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology y All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you
are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology y Neotrop
Neotropical
pical Birds guide. If a bird
on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project
area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe speciÒed. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated,
then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range
anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the PaciÒc Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the
continental USA; and
3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of
the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in o×shore areas from certain
types of development or activities (e.g. o×shore energy development or longline Òshing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, e×orts should be made, in particular, to
avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For
more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts
and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially a×ected by o×shore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird
species within your project area o× the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also
o×ers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review.
Alternately, you may download the bird model results Òles underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS
Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including
migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird
tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a p
permit
ermit to avoid violating the Eagle
Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern.
To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identify f ing what other birds may be in your
identifying
project area, please see the FAQ “What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my
speciÒed location”. Please be aware this report provides the “probability of presence” of birds within the 10 km grid
cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at
the survey e×ort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the “no data” indicator (a red horizontal
bar). A high survey e×ort is the key component. If the survey e×ort is high, then the probability of presence score can
be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey e×ort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and,
therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying
identify
f ing what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they
might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to conÒrm
presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential
impacts from your project activities, should presence be conÒrmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit
the FAQ “Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds” at
the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands

Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a
'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to
discuss any questions or concerns.
This location overlaps the following National Wildlife Refuge lands:
LAND ACRES
Patuxent Research Refuge 10,427.44 acres
 (301) 497-5580
 (301) 497-5577
12100 Beech Forest Road, Room 138

Laurel, MD 20708-4036
https://www.fws.gov/refuges/proÒles/index.cfm?id=51640
Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory

Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army
y Corps
p of Engineers
g
District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update
our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual
extent of wetlands on site.
This location overlaps the following wetlands:
ESTUARINE AND MARINE DEEPWATER

E1UBL
E1UB
E1
1UB
BL
FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND
PEM1R
PEM1A
PEM1C
PEM1T
PEM1S
PEM1Fx
FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND
PFO1A
PFO1C
PFO1E
PFO1S
PFO1/SS1E
PSS1/EM1A
PSS1R
PFO1/EM1S
PFO1/EM5R
PSS1/EM1R
PSS1A
PSS1Ch
FRESHWATER POND
PUBV
PUBHx
PUBHh
PAB3/EM1F
PUSCh
PUBH
PABHx
PUBFx
RIVERINE
R1UBV
R2UBH
R1USQ
Q
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the Na

National
N ational Wetlands Inventory
y website
Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information
on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery.
Wetlands are identiÒed based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use
of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland
boundaries or classiÒcation established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the
amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth veriÒcation work conducted. Metadata
should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or Òeld work. There may be
occasional di×erences in polygon boundaries or classiÒcations between the information depicted on the map and the
actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial
imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic
vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some
deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberÒcid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These
habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.
Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may deÒne and describe wetlands in a
di×erent manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this
inventory, to deÒne the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the
geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities
involving modiÒcations within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or
local agencies concerning speciÒed agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may a×ect such
activities.
May 23rd, 2018
Mike Thompson
The Boring Company
1 Rocket Road
Hawthorne, CA 90250
Subject: MDDNR comments for the Environmental Assessment for the DC-Baltimore Loop Tunnel
Project along the New York Ave. to 295 Corridor, Baltimore City/ County, Prince George’s and Anne
Arundel Counties, Maryland
Dear Mr. Thompson;
The above referenced project has been reviewed to determine the natural resources of concern near
the proposed DC-Baltimore Loop Tunnel project alignment. The proposed activities include the
construction of two 35 mile tunnels roughly following the New York Ave to 295 corridor to Baltimore.
Four launch pits and ventilation shafts spaced at half mile intervals along the alignment are proposed.
There are many stream crossings which intersect the proposed alignment including but not limited to,
the Anacostia River, Beaverdam Creek, Patuxent River, Piney Run, Stony Run, the Patapsco River,
Gwynns Falls and their tributaries. These are all classified as Use I streams which support anadromous
fish including yellow perch. Generally no instream work is permitted within Use I streams from
February 15th and June 15th of any given year in order to protect spawning fish. These Time of Year
restrictions would only be in effect for in-stream activities. If the project will avoid these resources by
boring beneath them than the Time of Year restriction period would not need to be applied to the
permit conditions.
The Wildlife and Heritage Service has determined that there are the following areas along the project
route, which are of potential concern for impacts to rare, threatened or endangered species and their
habitats. From north to south, they are:
There is a portion of Dorsey Run which intersects the project route at a location immediately north of
the National Business Park (shown as Dorsey Run Crossing on the project map). Dorsey Run supports
occurrences of the American Brook Lamprey (Lethenteron appendix) and the Glassy Darter
(Etheostoma vitreum), both state-listed threatened fish species.
There is a crossing of the Little Patuxent River approximately ¼ mile southwest of the crossing of the
project route by MD Route 32, and another portion of the project route which is located in close
proximity to a tributary to the Little Patuxent River occurring on the east side of MD Route 295 (in the
Tawes State Office Building – 580 Taylor Avenue – Annapolis, Maryland 21401
410-260-8DNR or toll free in Maryland 877-620-8DNR – dnr.maryland.gov – TTY Users Call via the Maryland Relay
area of Combat Road as shown on the project map), both of which are in close proximity to records of
the Glassy Darter.
On the northwest side of the project route approximately ½-mile from where the Patuxent River
crosses it (near Brock Bridge Road on the project map), is an occurrence of the Atlantic Spike (Elliptio
producta), a freshwater mussel species with In Need of Conservation state status in Maryland.
On the southeast side of the project route where the Patuxent River crosses it, there is a Nontidal
Wetland of Special State Concern. Nontidal Wetlands of Special State Concern are regulated along
with their 100-foot upland buffers, by Maryland Department of the Environment. This wetland
supports the following rare species:
Scientific Name Common Name State Status

Stylurus laurae Laura’s Clubtail Rare
Libellula flavida Yellow-sided Skimmer Rare
Helocordulia selysii Selys’ Sundragon Threatened
Nannothemis bella Elfin Skimmer Endangered
Somatochloa provocans Treetop Emerald Endangered
Epitheca costalis Baskettail Highly Rare
Celithemis martha Martha’s Pennant Highly Rare
Gomphaeschna antilope Taper-tailed Darner Rare
Nehalennia gracilis Sphagnum Sprite Rare
Nehalennia intergricollis Southern Sprite Highly Rare
Cordulegaster obliqua fasciata Banded Spiketail Highly Rare
Somatochlora filosa Fine-lined Emerald Rare
Rhionaeschna mutata Spring Blue Darner Endangered
Ameiurus catus White catfish Uncertain
Etheostoma vitreum Glassy Darter Threatened
Gratiola viscidula Short’s Hedge-hyssop Endangered
Parts of Beaverdam Creek intersect with the project route at three locations: Powder Mill Road, Beck
Branch and north of Northway Road. Beaverdam Creek contains wetlands designated as Nontidal
Wetlands of Special State Concern, which are regulated along with their 100-foot upland buffer as
such by Maryland Department of the Environment. Records for species documented in these wetlands
in close proximity to the project route include:

Lethenteron appendix American Brook Lamprey Threatened
Gomphus rogersi Sable Clubtail In Need of Conservation
Given that all of these species are associated with wetlands or streams, we would like to point out
that maintaining wetland and stream water quality and hydrology are essential to conserving the
habitats that support these rare species. In order to avoid degradation of rare species’ habitats and
detrimental impacts to rare species’ populations, we recommend applying supplemental protection
measures in addition to the best management practices that will prevent changes to wetland and
stream hydrology and water quality.
For above-ground construction, such as station construction, we recommend pursuing environmentally

sensitive design to address stormwater runoff by promoting the use of nonstructural best
management practices to the maximum extent. The goal is to mimic natural infiltration patterns
across the site in order to maintain natural hydrology. Methods could include the use of sheet flow to
buffers, vegetated channels for road runoff, methods of bioretention, and reduction of impervious
cover.
Regarding above-ground construction, shaft and tunnel pit construction, and tunnel boring, we
recommend the following measures to minimize the risk of sedimentation in aquatic and wetland
habitats, and to minimize changes to the hydrology of these habitats: Minimize clearing and retain
forest; stabilize soil within 24 hours and make special effort to retain fine particle silt, sand and clay
sediments; redundant sediment control measures such as double silt fencing; and frequent inspection
of these measures for immediate correction of problems. Permanent and intermittent streams and
nontidal wetlands should be protected by a minimum 100 foot undisturbed vegetated buffer, and
steep slopes (15% slope or greater) and areas of highly erodible soils should not be disturbed.
The Forest Conservation Act requires that before the issuance of a grading or sediment control permit,
the applicant shall have an approved Forest Conservation Plan and Forest Stand Delineation (Nat. Res.
Art. 5-1601–5-16122, Annotated Code of Maryland). The Maryland Forest Service recommends that
the forest stand delineation and forest conservation plan be submitted to our office for review and
approval. The Act provides for the retention of forested areas in sensitive areas on the subject
property as one method of mitigation.
Any tree that originates within a public road right-of-way is considered a roadside tree under the
Maryland Roadside Tree Care Law (NRA 5-406) and Regulations (COMAR 08.07.02) and any plans to
remove, trim, or plant trees within the public right-of-way are required to obtain a permit from the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources Forest Service.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 410 260-8736.
Sincerely;
Christopher Aadland
Environmental Review Program
June 11, 2018
Mike Thompson
The Boring Company
1 Rocket Road
Hawthorne, CA 90250
Subject: MDDNR-WHS comments for the Environmental Assessment for the DC-Baltimore Loop
Tunnel Project along the New York Ave. to 295 Corridor, Baltimore City/ County, Prince George’s
and Anne Arundel Counties, Maryland
Dear Mr. Thompson;
This letter is a follow-up from the DNR correspondence you have received from Christopher Aadland
(dated May 23rd, 2018) in response to your request for additional location information. Below is a copy
of our original comments that have been tagged with a letter that corresponds to the letters on the
attached map showing the general locations of these areas. All information in Mr. Aadland’s letter is
still applicable.
The Wildlife and Heritage Service has determined that there are the following areas along the project
route, which are of potential concern for impacts to rare, threatened or endangered species and their
habitats. From north to south, they are:
A. There is a portion of Dorsey Run which intersects the project route at a location immediately north
of the National Business Park (shown as Dorsey Run Crossing on the project map). Dorsey Run
supports occurrences of the American Brook Lamprey (Lethenteron appendix) and the Glassy
Darter (Etheostoma vitreum), both state-listed threatened fish species.
B. There is a crossing of the Little Patuxent River approximately ¼ mile southwest of the crossing of
the project route by MD Route 32, and another portion of the project route which is located in
close proximity to a tributary to the Little Patuxent River occurring on the east side of MD Route
295 (in the area of Combat Road as shown on the project map), both of which are in close
proximity to records of the Glassy Darter.
C. On the northwest side of the project route approximately ½-mile from where the Patuxent River
crosses it (near Brock Bridge Road on the project map), is an occurrence of the Atlantic Spike
(Elliptio producta), a freshwater mussel species with In Need of Conservation state status in
Maryland.
Tawes State Office Building – 580 Taylor Avenue – Annapolis, Maryland 21401
410-260-8DNR or toll free in Maryland 877-620-8DNR – dnr.maryland.gov – TTY Users Call via the Maryland Relay
Page 2
June 11, 2018
D. On the southeast side of the project route where the Patuxent River crosses it, there is a
Nontidal Wetland of Special State Concern. Nontidal Wetlands of Special State Concern are
regulated along with their 100-foot upland buffers, by Maryland Department of the
Environment. This wetland supports the following rare species:

Libellula flavida Yellow-sided Skimmer Rare
Nannothemis bella Elfin Skimmer Endangered
Somatochloa provocans Treetop Emerald Endangered
Epitheca costalis Baskettail Highly Rare
Celithemis martha Martha’s Pennant Highly Rare
Gomphaeschna antilope Taper-tailed Darner Rare
Nehalennia gracilis Sphagnum Sprite Rare
Nehalennia intergricollis Southern Sprite Highly Rare
Cordulegaster obliqua fasciata Banded Spiketail Highly Rare
Somatochlora filosa Fine-lined Emerald Rare
Rhionaeschna mutata Spring Blue Darner Endangered
Ameiurus catus White catfish Uncertain
Etheostoma vitreum Glassy Darter Threatened
Gratiola viscidula Short’s Hedge-hyssop Endangered
E. Parts of Beaverdam Creek intersect with the project route at three locations: Powder Mill Road,
Beck Branch and north of Northway Road. Beaverdam Creek contains wetlands designated as
Nontidal Wetlands of Special State Concern, which are regulated along with their 100-foot upland
buffer as such by Maryland Department of the Environment. Records for species documented in
these wetlands in close proximity to the project route include:

Lethenteron appendix American Brook Lamprey Threatened
Gomphus rogersi Sable Clubtail In Need of Conservation
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (410) 260-8563.
Sincerely,
Lynn Davidson
Wildlife and Heritage Service
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Department of Energy and Environment
November5,2018

Ms.LanaLau,EnvironmentalProtectionSpecialist
OfficeofProjectDevelopmentandEnvironmentalReview
FederalHighwayAdministration
1200NewJerseyAveSE
Washington,DC20590

Re: Section7Consultation–TheBorningCompany(LoopProject)

DearMs.Lau:

TheDepartmentofEnergyandEnvironment(theDepartment)hasreviewedtheFederal
HighwayAdministration’s(FHA)requestforaconsultationregardingsection7(c)ofthe
EndangeredSpeciesAct(theAct)of1973,asamended(16U.S.C.1531etseq.)inconnection
withtheproposedLoopproject.Theresponsetothisrequestiswrittenbelow.Pleasebe
advisedthatthisresponseisnotanassessmentofpotentialimpacts.

InteragencyCooperation

Sec.7.
(c)BIOLOGICALASSESSMENT.—(1)Tofacilitatecompliancewiththerequirementsofsubsection
(a)(2),eachFederalagencyshall,withrespecttoanyagencyactionofsuchagencyforwhichno
contractforconstructionhasbeenenteredintoandforwhichnoconstructionhasbegunon
thedateofenactmentoftheEndangeredSpeciesActAmendmentsof1978,requestofthe
Secretaryinformationwhetheranyspecieswhichislistedorproposedtobelistedmaybe
presentintheareaofsuchproposedaction.IftheSecretaryadvises,basedonthebest
scientificandcommercialdataavailable,thatsuchspeciesmaybepresent,suchagencyshall
conductabiologicalassessmentforthepurposeofidentifyinganyendangeredspeciesor
threatenedspecieswhichislikelytobeaffectedbysuchaction.Suchassessmentshallbe
completedwithin180daysafterthedateonwhichinitiated(orwithinsuchotherperiodasis
mutuallyagreedtobytheSecretaryandsuchagency,exceptthatifapermitorlicense
applicantisinvolved,the180Ͳdayperiodmaynotbeextendedunlesssuchagencyprovidesthe
applicant,beforethecloseofsuchperiod,withawrittenstatementsettingforththeestimated
lengthoftheproposedextensionandthereasonstherefor)and,beforeanycontractfor
constructionisenteredintoandbeforeconstructionisbegunwithrespecttosuchaction.Such
assessmentmaybeundertakenaspartofaFederalagency’scompliancewiththerequirements
ofsection102oftheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyActof1969(42U.S.C.4332).(2)Anyperson
whomaywishtoapplyforanexemptionundersubsection(g)ofthissectionforthataction
mayconductabiologicalassessmenttoidentifyanyendangeredspeciesorthreatenedspecies
whichislikelytobeaffectedbysuchaction.Anysuchbiologicalassessmentmust,however,be
1200 First Street NE, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20002 | (202) 535-2600 | doee.dc.gov
conductedincooperationwiththeSecretaryandunderthesupervisionoftheappropriate
Federalagency.

InaccordancewiththeActpleasenotethatthefollowingspeciesareknowntooccurinormay
occurintheDistrictofColumbia.

ScientificName CommonName Status
Acipenserbrevirostrum Shortnosesturgeon Endangered/Present
Acipenseroxyrinchus Atlanticsturgeon Endangered
oxyrinchus
Alasmidontaheterodon Dwarfwedgemussel Endangered
Clemmysmuhlenbergii Northernbogturtle Threatened
Myotisseptentrionalis NorthernlongͲearedbat Threatened/Present
Stygobromushayi Hay’sSpringamphipod Endangered/Present
Stygobromuskenki Kenk’samphipod Candidate

Evaluation

Accordingtocurrentobservations,surveys,anddataderivedfromtheDistrict’sWildlifeAction
Plan,theproposedprojectareadoesnotharboranylistedspecies.Asaresult,thefollowing
actionsaresuggested.

x TheDepartmentandFHAshallmonitortheproposedandsurroundingprojectareas
regularlyforthedurationoftheproject.
x IfeithertheDepartmentorFHAidentifyanychangesregardingthepresenceof
federallythreatenedorendangeredspeciesitshallnotifytheotherimmediatelyto
determinefurtheractions.
x Thisresponsedoesnotcharacterizenorquantifythepresenceofmorecommonspecies
thatmaybefederallyprotected(e.g.migratorybirds).
x Unlessotherwisepermittedbylaw,allDistrictofColumbiaandfederallawspertaining
tofishandwildlifeshallremainineffectforthedurationoftheproject.

Finally,thiscorrespondenceinnowaycircumventsornullifiesanyotherpermitsorprocesses
thatmayberequiredinconnectionwiththisproject.Formoreinformationpleasecontactme
byphoneat(202)997Ͳ9607orviaemailatbryan.king@dc.gov.

Sincerely,

BryanD.King
AssociateDirector
Page 2 of 2
PLNHWKRPSVRQ#ERULQJFRPSDQ\FRP
)URP .ULVW\%HDUG12$$)HGHUDONULVW\EHDUG#QRDDJRY!
6HQW 7KXUVGD\1RYHPEHU30
7R PLNHWKRPSVRQ#ERULQJFRPSDQ\FRP
&F .DUHQ*UHHQH12$$)HGHUDO
6XEMHFW 5H):12$$10)6,QIRUPDWLRQ5HTXHVW
dŚĂŶŬƐDŝŬĞ͘tŝƚŚŽƵƚƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͕/ĐĂŶƉƌŽǀŝĚĞǇŽƵƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƉƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌǇĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ͗

&ŝƐŚĂŶĚtŝůĚůŝĨĞŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŝŽŶĐƚ

dŚĞŶĂĐŽƐƚŝĂZŝǀĞƌĂŶĚ'ǁǇŶŶƐ&ĂůůƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞŚĂďŝƚĂƚĨŽƌĂǀĂƌŝĞƚǇŽĨEKƚƌƵƐƚƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͘dŚĞǇƐĞƌǀĞƐĂƐŶƵƌƐĞƌǇĂŶĚ
ĨŽƌĂŐĞĂƌĞĂĨŽƌĂŶĂĚƌŽŵŽƵƐĨŝƐŚƐƵĐŚĂƐĂůĞǁŝĨĞ͕ďůƵĞďĂĐŬŚĞƌƌŝŶŐ͕ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶƐŚĂĚ͕ĂŶĚŚŝĐŬŽƌǇƐŚĂĚ͘ĨĨŽƌƚƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞ
ŵĂĚĞƚŽĂǀŽŝĚĂŶĚŵŝŶŝŵŝǌĞĂĚǀĞƌƐĞĞĨĨĞĐƚƐƚŽƚŚĞĂƋƵĂƚŝĐĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ͕ƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌůǇƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƌĞůĞĂƐĞŽĨƐƵƐƉĞŶĚĞĚ
ƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƚŝŶƚŚĞǁĂƚĞƌǁĂǇ͘ĞƉĞŶĚŝŶŐŽŶƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐƐ͕ƚŝŵĞŽĨǇĞĂƌƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƚŝŽŶƐŵĂǇďĞŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇƚŽƉƌŽƚĞĐƚ
ŵŝŐƌĂƚŝŶŐĂŶĚƐƉĂǁŶŝŶŐĨŝƐŚ͕ƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌůǇŝĨƚŚĞƌĞŝƐĂƌŝƐŬŽĨĨƌĂĐͲŽƵƚƐĚƵƌŝŶŐƚƵŶŶĞůŝŶŐ͘&ƵƌƚŚĞƌĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŝŽŶŵĂǇďĞ
ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚďǇƚŚĞůĞĂĚ&ĞĚĞƌĂůĂŐĞŶĐǇ͘

DĂŐŶƵƐŽŶͲ^ƚĞǀĞŶƐ&ŝƐŚĞƌǇŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĐƚͲƐƐĞŶƚŝĂů&ŝƐŚ,ĂďŝƚĂƚ

ƐƐĞŶƚŝĂů&ŝƐŚ,ĂďŝƚĂƚ;&,ͿŚĂƐŽŶůǇďĞĞŶĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŵŝǆŝŶŐǌŽŶĞĂŶĚƐĞĂǁĂƚĞƌƉŽƌƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞŚĞƐĂƉĞĂŬĞĂǇ͘
dŚĞƌĞŝƐŶŽ&,ĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚŝŶ'ǁǇŶŶƐ&ĂůůƐ͕DĂŶĚŶĂĐŽƐƚŝĂZŝǀĞƌ͕Dͬ͘&ŽƌĂůŝƐƚŝŶŐŽĨ&,ĂŶĚĨƵƌƚŚĞƌ
ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞǀŝƐŝƚŽƵƌǁĞďƐŝƚĞĂƚ͗ŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ŐƌĞĂƚĞƌĂƚůĂŶƚŝĐ͘ĨŝƐŚĞƌŝĞƐ͘ŶŽĂĂ͘ŐŽǀͬŚĂďŝƚĂƚ͘ŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŝŽŶƵŶĚĞƌ
DĂŐŶƵƐŽŶͲ^ƚĞǀĞŶƐŝƐŶŽƚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͘

ŶĚĂŶŐĞƌĞĚ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐĐƚ

zŽƵŵĂǇŶĞĞĚƚŽĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞǁŝƚŚŽƵƌWƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐŝǀŝƐŝŽŶŝŶƚŚĞŶĂĐŽƐƚŝĂZŝǀĞƌ͘WůĞĂƐĞĐŽŶƚĂĐƚƌŝĂŶ,ŽƉƉĞƌ
ĂƚďƌŝĂŶ͘Ě͘ŚŽƉƉĞƌΛŶŽĂĂ͘ŐŽǀŽƌ;ϰϭϬͿϱϳϯͲϰϱϵϮ͘

/ŬŶŽǁ/ŚĂǀĞŚĞĂƌĚŽĨƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚͲŚĂǀĞǇŽƵƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚŝƚĂƚĂŶŝŶƚĞƌĂŐĞŶĐǇŵĞĞƚŝŶŐŝŶD͍
dŚĂŶŬƐ͊
<ƌŝƐƚǇ

KŶtĞĚ͕KĐƚϯϭ͕ϮϬϭϴĂƚϭ͗ϭϵWDфŵŝŬĞ͘ƚŚŽŵƉƐŽŶΛďŽƌŝŶŐĐŽŵƉĂŶǇ͘ĐŽŵхǁƌŽƚĞ͗
,ŝ<ĂƌĞŶ͕

dŚĂŶŬǇŽƵĨŽƌƚŚĞƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͘tŝůůůŽŽŬĨŽƌǁĂƌĚƚŽŚĞĂƌĨƌŽŵ<ƌŝƐƚǇ͘

DŝŬĞ

&ƌŽŵ͗<ĂƌĞŶ'ƌĞĞŶĞͲEK&ĞĚĞƌĂůфŬĂƌĞŶ͘ŐƌĞĞŶĞΛŶŽĂĂ͘ŐŽǀх
^ĞŶƚ͗tĞĚŶĞƐĚĂǇ͕KĐƚŽďĞƌϯϭ͕ϮϬϭϴϱ͗ϮϴD
dŽ͗ŵŝŬĞ͘ƚŚŽŵƉƐŽŶΛďŽƌŝŶŐĐŽŵƉĂŶǇ͘ĐŽŵ
Đ͗<ƌŝƐƚǇĞĂƌĚͲEK&ĞĚĞƌĂůфŬƌŝƐƚǇ͘ďĞĂƌĚΛŶŽĂĂ͘ŐŽǀх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗&ǁĚ͗&t͗EKED&^/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶZĞƋƵĞƐƚ
DǇĂƉŽůŽŐŝĞƐDŝŬĞĨŽƌŵŝƐƐŝŶŐƚŚŝƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚ͘/ĂŵĐŽƉǇŝŶŐ<ƌŝƐƚǇĞĂƌĚŝŶŽƵƌŶŶĂƉŽůŝƐ͕DĨŝĞůĚŽĨĨŝĐĞŽŶǇŽƵƌ
ŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ͘^ŚĞŝƐŽƵƌƌĞŐŝŽŶĂůďŝŽůŽŐŝƐƚĨŽƌDĂƌǇůĂŶĚĂŶĚǁŝůůƌĞƉůǇƚŽǇŽƵƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞĂƐƐŽŽŶĂƐƉŽƐƐŝďůĞ͘dŚĂŶŬǇŽƵĨŽƌ
ǇŽƵƌƉĂƚŝĞŶĐĞ͘

<ĂƌĞŶ'ƌĞĞŶĞ
DŝĚͲƚůĂŶƚŝĐ&ŝĞůĚKĨĨŝĐĞƐ^ƵƉĞƌǀŝƐŽƌ
EKͬEĂƚŝŽŶĂůDĂƌŝŶĞ&ŝƐŚĞƌŝĞƐ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ
'ƌĞĂƚĞƌƚůĂŶƚŝĐZĞŐŝŽŶĂů&ŝƐŚĞƌŝĞƐKĨĨŝĐĞ
,ĂďŝƚĂƚŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ
:ĂŵĞƐ:͘,ŽǁĂƌĚDĂƌŝŶĞ^ĐŝĞŶĐĞƐ>ĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌǇ
ϳϰDĂŐƌƵĚĞƌZĚ͘
,ŝŐŚůĂŶĚƐ͕E:ϬϳϳϯϮ
ϳϯϮϴϳϮͲϯϬϮϯ;ŽĨĨŝĐĞͿ
ͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲ&ŽƌǁĂƌĚĞĚŵĞƐƐĂŐĞͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲ
&ƌŽŵ͗фŵŝŬĞ͘ƚŚŽŵƉƐŽŶΛďŽƌŝŶŐĐŽŵƉĂŶǇ͘ĐŽŵх
ĂƚĞ͗tĞĚ͕KĐƚϯϭ͕ϮϬϭϴĂƚϭ͗ϰϰD
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗&t͗EKED&^/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶZĞƋƵĞƐƚ
dŽ͗фŬĂƌĞŶ͘ŐƌĞĞŶĞΛŶŽĂĂ͘ŐŽǀх
,ŝ<ĂƌĞŶ͕
&ŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƵƉƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐĂŶĞŵĂŝůĨƌŽŵĞĂƌůŝĞƌƚŚŝƐǇĞĂƌ͘tĞĂƌĞƐƚŝůůĂǁĂŝƚŝŶŐED&^ĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘
tŽƵůĚǇŽƵďĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌĂƉŚŽŶĞĐĂůůƚŽďƌŝĞĨůǇƌĞǀŝĞǁƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͍
ZĞŐĂƌĚƐ͕
DŝŬĞ

&ƌŽŵ͗ŵŝŬĞ͘ƚŚŽŵƉƐŽŶΛďŽƌŝŶŐĐŽŵƉĂŶǇ͘ĐŽŵфŵŝŬĞ͘ƚŚŽŵƉƐŽŶΛďŽƌŝŶŐĐŽŵƉĂŶǇ͘ĐŽŵх
^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂǇ͕ƉƌŝůϮϯ͕ϮϬϭϴϱ͗ϮϵWD
dŽ͗<ĂƌĞŶ͘'ƌĞĞŶĞΛŶŽĂĂ͘ŐŽǀ
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗EKED&^/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶZĞƋƵĞƐƚ

'ŽŽĚĂĨƚĞƌŶŽŽŶ<ĂƌĞŶ͕

ŽŶŶĂƵƐĐĞŵŝŽĨDKd^,ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚ/ĐŽŶƚĂĐƚǇŽƵƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐĂƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚƵŶŶĞůŝŶŐƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŚŝĐŚĐƌŽƐƐĞƐƚǁŽ
ƚŝĚĂůůǇͲŝŶĨůƵĞŶĐĞĚǁĂƚĞƌǁĂǇƐ͘dŚĞĐƌŽƐƐŝŶŐƐĂƌĞĂƚƚŚĞ'ǁǇŶŶ&ĂůůƐ͕DĂŶĚŶĂĐŽƐƚŝĂZŝǀĞƌ͕DͬĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚ
<D>͘

ůƚŚŽƵŐŚǁĞǁŝůůďĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǀĞŶƚŝůĂƚŝŽŶƐŚĂĨƚƐĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ;ůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐdͿ͕ŽƵƌƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŽƵůĚŽŶůǇ
ƚƵŶŶĞůƵŶĚĞƌŶĞĂƚŚƚŚĞƐĞƚŝĚĂůĂƌĞĂƐ͘tĞĂƌĞĐŽŶƚĂĐƚŝŶŐǇŽƵƚŽƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĂƌĞǀŝĞǁŽĨƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƚŚĞ
EKED&^͛ƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌĂǀŽŝĚĂŶĐĞĂŶĚŵŝŶŝŵŝǌĂƚŝŽŶŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐ͘WůĞĂƐĞƐĞĞƚŚĞĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚ<D>ŽĨƚŚĞƐƚƵĚǇ
ĂƌĞĂŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƚŚĞƚŝĚĂůĐƌŽƐƐŝŶŐƐ͕ĂŶĚůĞƚŵĞŬŶŽǁŝĨĂŶǇĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŝƐŶĞĞĚĞĚŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽ
ĞǆĞĐƵƚĞƚŚŝƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚ͘

ZĞŐĂƌĚƐ͕

DŝŬĞdŚŽŵƉƐŽŶ͕W͘'͘
WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů'ĞŽůŽŐŝƐƚͮdŚĞŽƌŝŶŐŽŵƉĂŶǇ
ϭZŽĐŬĞƚZŽĂĚͮ,ĂǁƚŚŽƌŶĞͮͮϵϬϮϱϬ
нϭ͘ϯϭϬ͘ϵϯϲ͘ϱϬϲϯͮďŽƌŝŶŐĐŽŵƉĂŶǇ͘ĐŽŵ

ͲͲ
Kristy Beard
Marine Habitat Resource Specialist
Habitat Conservation Division
NOAA Fisheries

Annapolis, MD 21401
410-573-4542

KWWSZZZQPIVQRDDJRY

)URP %ROH'RQDOG5&,986$50<&(1$%86'RQDOG5%ROH#XVDFHDUP\PLO!

6HQW 0RQGD\6HSWHPEHU$0
7R 0LNH7KRPSVRQ
6XEMHFW ):3LQQDFOH'ULYH
$WWDFKPHQWV 0DSB'DWD6KHHWVB B3KRWRB([KLELW86$&(SGI
Dƌ͘dŚŽŵƉƐŽŶ͕

dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞŶŽƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚǁĞƚůĂŶĚƐǁŝƚŚŝŶǇŽƵƌƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ>ŝŵŝƚŽĨŝƐƚƵƌďĂŶĐĞ;zĞůůŽǁŽƵŶĚĂƌǇͿ͘WůĞĂƐĞƐĞĞƚŚĞĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚ
ŵĂƉ͘/ĨǇŽƵŚĂǀĞĂŶǇƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞůĞƚŵĞŬŶŽǁ͘

dŚĂŶŬƐ͕
ŽŶ

ŽŶĂůĚZ͘ŽůĞ
h͘^͘ƌŵǇŽƌƉƐŽĨŶŐŝŶĞĞƌƐ͕ĂůƚŝŵŽƌĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ
Ϯ,ŽƉŬŝŶƐWůĂǌĂ
ĂůƚŝŵŽƌĞ͕DϮϭϮϬϭ
;ϰϭϬͿϵϲϮͲϲϬϳϵ

ƐƐŝƐƚƵƐŝŶďĞƚƚĞƌƐĞƌǀŝŶŐǇŽƵ͊
WůĞĂƐĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞŽƵƌďƌŝĞĨĐƵƐƚŽŵĞƌƐƵƌǀĞǇ͕ůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐůŝŶŬ͗
ŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬĐŽƌƉƐŵĂƉƵ͘ƵƐĂĐĞ͘ĂƌŵǇ͘ŵŝůͬĐŵͺĂƉĞǆͬĨ͍ƉсƌĞŐƵůĂƚŽƌǇͺƐƵƌǀĞǇ

ͲͲͲͲͲKƌŝŐŝŶĂůDĞƐƐĂŐĞͲͲͲͲͲ
&ƌŽŵ͗<ůĞďĂƐŬŽ͕DŝŬĞ΀ŵĂŝůƚŽ͗D<ůĞďĂƐŬŽΛǁĞƚůĂŶĚƐ͘ĐŽŵ΁
^ĞŶƚ͗dƵĞƐĚĂǇ͕^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϰ͕ϮϬϭϴϭϬ͗ϮϵD
dŽ͗ŽůĞ͕ŽŶĂůĚZ/sh^ZDzE;h^ͿфŽŶĂůĚ͘Z͘ŽůĞΛƵƐĂĐĞ͘ĂƌŵǇ͘ŵŝůх
Đ͗DŝŬĞdŚŽŵƉƐŽŶфŵŝŬĞ͘ƚŚŽŵƉƐŽŶΛďŽƌŝŶŐĐŽŵƉĂŶǇ͘ĐŽŵх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗΀EŽŶͲŽ^ŽƵƌĐĞ΁ϴϬϱWŝŶŶĂĐůĞƌŝǀĞ

ŽŶ͗

dŚĂŶŬǇŽƵĨŽƌŵĞĞƚŝŶŐǁŝƚŚŵĞŽŶͲƐŝƚĞůĂƐƚǁĞĞŬ͘ƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞĨŝŶĚĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚƚǁŽǁĞƚůĂŶĚĚĞůŝŶĞĂƚŝŽŶĚĂƚĂ
ƐŚĞĞƚƐ͕ƉŚŽƚŽŐƌĂƉŚƐƚĂŬĞŶĂƚĞĂĐŚĚĂƚĂƉŽŝŶƚ͕ĂŶĚĂǀŝĐŝŶŝƚǇŵĂƉĚĞƉŝĐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞĚĂƚĂƉŽŝŶƚƐ͘/ĨƚŚĞ
ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŝƐĂĐĐĞƉƚĂďůĞ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞdŚĞŽƌŝŶŐŽŵƉĂŶǇǁŝƚŚĂůĞƚƚĞƌŽĨŶŽͲũƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇďĞƚǁĞĞŶWŝŶŶĂĐůĞƌŝǀĞĂŶĚƚŚĞͬtWĂƌŬǁĂǇĂŶĚEƵƌƐĞƌǇZŽĂĚ͘WůĞĂƐĞĚŽŶŽƚŚĞƐŝƚĂƚĞƚŽĐŽŶƚĂĐƚŵĞŝĨǇŽƵ
ŚĂǀĞĂŶǇƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐ͘

DŝĐŚĂĞů:͘<ůĞďĂƐŬŽ͕Wt^͕ͮDĂŶĂŐĞƌͲDŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ

tĞƚůĂŶĚ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐĂŶĚ^ŽůƵƚŝŽŶƐ͕/ŶĐ͘фůŽĐŬĞĚŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ǁĞƚůĂŶĚƐ͘ĐŽŵͬх͕ĂĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶŽĨdŚĞĂǀĞǇdƌĞĞǆƉĞƌƚŽŵƉĂŶǇ
фůŽĐŬĞĚŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ĚĂǀĞǇ͘ĐŽŵͬх

ϭϭϯϭĞŶĨŝĞůĚŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ͕^ƵŝƚĞ>ͮDŝůůĞƌƐǀŝůůĞ͕DĂƌǇůĂŶĚϮϭϭϬϴ

DĂŝŶ͗ϰϭϬ͘ϲϳϮ͘ϱϵϵϬͮĐĞůů͗ϰϭϬ͘Ϯϳϭ͘ϰϳϵϯ

ŵŬůĞďĂƐŬŽΛǁĞƚůĂŶĚƐ͘ĐŽŵͮůŽĐŬĞĚǁǁǁ͘ǁĞƚůĂŶĚƐ͘ĐŽŵфůŽĐŬĞĚŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ǁĞƚůĂŶĚƐ͘ĐŽŵх

WůĞĂƐĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚďĞĨŽƌĞƉƌŝŶƚŝŶŐ͘

'ZDEd&KZdZE^&ZK&/E&KZDd/KE

dŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŝŶƚŚŝƐ;ƚŚĞƐĞͿĨŝůĞ;ƐͿŝƐtĞƚůĂŶĚ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐĂŶĚ^ŽůƵƚŝŽŶƐ͕/ŶĐ͘ΖƐ;t^^/ΖƐͿŝŶƚĞƌŶĂůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĂŶĚŚĂƐďĞĞŶ
ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚďǇt^^/ĨŽƌĞǆĐůƵƐŝǀĞƵƐĞďǇŝƚƐƐƚĂĨĨ͘/ƚŝƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŚĞƌĞǁŝƚŚĨŽƌŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŽŶůǇĂŶĚŝƐŶŽƚƚŽďĞƌĞůŝĞĚƵƉŽŶ
ďǇĂŶǇƉĂƌƚŝĞƐŽƚŚĞƌƚŚĂŶt^^/ΖƐƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĚĞŵƉůŽǇĞĞƐ͘ŶǇƌĞůŝĂŶĐĞƚŚĞƌĞƵƉŽŶďǇĂŶǇƉĂƌƚǇŽƚŚĞƌƚŚĂŶt^^/ΖƐƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĚ
ĞŵƉůŽǇĞĞƐƐŚĂůůďĞĂƚƚŚĂƚƵƐĞƌΖƐƐŽůĞƌŝƐŬ͖ĂŶĚƐĂŝĚƵƐĞƌĐŚŽŽƐŝŶŐƚŽƌĞůǇƵƉŽŶƚŚŝƐŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĂŐƌĞĞƐ͕ƚŚĂƚďǇƌĞůǇŝŶŐŽŶ
ŝƚ͕ŚĞͬƐŚĞĂĐĐĞƉƚƐĨƵůůƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďŝůŝƚǇĨŽƌĂůůǁŽƌŬƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŚĞƌĞƚŽĂŶĚĂŐƌĞĞƐƚŽŝŶĚĞŵŶŝĨǇĂŶĚŚŽůĚt^^/ŚĂƌŵůĞƐƐĨƌŽŵ
ĂŶǇĂŶĚĂůůůŝĂďŝůŝƚǇĂƌŝƐŝŶŐĨƌŽŵŽƌƌĞůĂƚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞƵƐĞŽĨŽƌƌĞůŝĂŶĐĞƵƉŽŶƐĂŝĚŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͘dŚĞƉĂƌƚǇƌĞĐĞŝǀŝŶŐƚŚŝƐ
ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞĨŽƌƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŶŐĂŶǇĨƵƚƵƌĞƵƉĚĂƚĞĚĂŶĚͬŽƌĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĐŽƉǇŽĨƚŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŚĞƌĞŽŶƉƌŝŽƌƚŽ
ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŝŶŐƚŚŝƐŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĨŝŶĂů͘EŽƵƉĚĂƚĞŶŽƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶǁŝůůďĞƐĞŶƚ͘ŶǇĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐŽƌƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐĂƌĞƚŽďĞĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĚŝŶ
ǁƌŝƚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞƉƌĞƉĂƌĞƌĂƚt^^/͘zydZd/E'd,^&/>^͕zKh'ZdKd,^dZD^EKE/d/KE^hE>^^
^hWZ^zKd,Z'ZDEd͘

L:\Proposals\GIS\2018\PinnacleDrive_805\ENVR\18_2018_Pictometry.mxd

'DWD3RLQW

'DWD3RLQW
Site Winter 2018 Natural Color Imagery

805 Pinnacle Drive
0
N 200
Feet
Original Scale:
1 " = 200 '
Source: Pictometry®
Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. 9LFLQLW\0DS

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: 805 Pinnacle Drive City/County: Anne Arundel Sampling Date 8 /31/2018
Applicant/Owner: The Boring Company State: MD Sampling Point: 1

Investigator(s): Mike Klebasko Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): N/A Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 5-10%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR S; 149A Lat: 39°12'49" Long: 76°40'46" Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Christiana-Sassafras complex, 5-10 % slopes NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, et
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No

Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Soils are heavily compacted and filled/mixed with gravel. Photo numbers 1 and 2 in Exhibit 1.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Sphagnum Moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No wetland hydrology indicators present. Evidence of temporary flooding.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
L:\_Maryland\Projects\MD01000s\MD01700\MD1732.01\Admin\05-ENVR\AGCP&EMP_Datapoints.accdb
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants Sampling Point: 1
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' Radius ) % Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species 1
1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant 1
3. Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
5. Percent of Dominant Species 100.0%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
7. Prevalence Index worksheet:
8. Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover OBL species x1=
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
FACW species x2=
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' Radius ) FAC species x3=
1. FACU species x4=
2. UPL species x5=
3.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
= Total Cover 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0¹
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' Radius )

1. Eleocharis sp. 45 NI
2. Echinochloa muricata 35 FACW
3. ¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
5. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
6. Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
7. more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
8. height.
9. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
10. than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
11. m) tall.
12. Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
80 of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 40 20% of total cover: 16 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' Radius ) height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).

Nomenclature and indicators from The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings with updates through April 2018; NI species are not used in
the Dominance Test Calculation. Photo 1 in Exhibit 1.
SOIL Sampling Point: 1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(Inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type¹ Loc² Texture Remarks
0-3 in 7.5YR4/6 75 7.5YR5/4 25 C Silty Clay
3-14 in 7.5YR4/6 80 7.5YR4/3 20 D Silt Loam Compact; gravelly
¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise notes.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:
Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Suface (S9) (LRR S, T, U 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P,S,T)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)(MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (Inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
*Soils - all fill; very compact. Photo 2 in Exhibit 1.
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: 805 Pinnacle Drive City/County: Anne Arundel Sampling Date 8 /31/2018
Applicant/Owner: The Boring Company State: MD Sampling Point: 2

Investigator(s): Mike Klebasko Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): N/A Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 10-15%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR S; 149A Lat: 39°12'48" Long: 76°40'47" Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Russett-Christiana-Hambrook complex, 10-15% slopes NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, et
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No

Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Soils are heavily compacted and filled/mixed with gravel. Photos 3 and 4 in Exhibit 1.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Sphagnum Moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No wetland hydrology indicators present; evidence of temporary flooding.
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants Sampling Point: 2
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' Radius ) % Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species 1
1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant 1
3. Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
5. Percent of Dominant Species 100.0%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
7. Prevalence Index worksheet:
8. Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover OBL species x1=
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
FACW species x2=
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) FAC species x3=
1. FACU species x4=
2. UPL species x5=
3.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8. 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
= Total Cover 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0¹
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' Radius )

1. Echinochloa muricata 50 FACW
2. Eleocharis sp. 40 NI
3. Typha latifolia 2 OBL ¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Cyperus strigosus 1 FACW be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
5. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
6. Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
7. more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
8. height.
9. Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
10. than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
11. m) tall.
12. Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
93 of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 46.5 20% of total cover: 18.6 Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' Radius ) height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).

Nomenclature and indicators from The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings with updates through April 2018; NI species are not used in
the Dominance Test Calculation. Photo 3 in Exhibit 1.
SOIL Sampling Point: 2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(Inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type¹ Loc² Texture Remarks
0-14 in 7.5YR4/6 70 7.5YR5/1 10 D Silt Loam Compact; gravelly
7.5YR5/3 20 D Silt Loam Compact; dry, crumbly
¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise notes.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:
Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Suface (S9) (LRR S, T, U 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P,S,T)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)(MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (Inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Soils are heavily compacted. Mixed with gravel. Photo 4 in Exhibit 1.
EXHIBIT 1
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
805 PINNACLE DRIVE
WSSI #MD1732.01
1. Vegetation at Data Point 1.
2. Soil profile at Data Point 1.

EXHIBIT 1
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
805 PINNACLE DRIVE
WSSI #MD1732.01
3. Vegetation at Data Point 2.
4. Soil profile at Data Point 2.
L:\_Maryland\Projects\MD01000s\MD01700\MD1732.01\Admin\05-ENVR\Wetland Delineation\2018-09-
04_Photo_Exhibit_Pinnacle.docx
)URP (OGHU*KLJLDUHOOL0'(HOGHUJKLJLDUHOOL#PDU\ODQGJRY!
6HQW 0RQGD\0D\$0
7R -RVHSK$EH'15
&F PLNHWKRPSVRQ#ERULQJFRPSDQ\FRP&KULVWRSKHU$DGODQG'155LFKDUG2UWW'15
6XEMHFW 5H6/,'&%DOWLPRUH/RRS
ůů͕

/ŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝŶĐĞ^,ĂŐƌĞĞĚƚŽĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞ͕ĂůŽŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞůĞĂĚĨĞĚĞƌĂůĂŐĞŶĐŝĞƐ͕ƚŚĞ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ;Ϳ͕ƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚƚŽEW͘/ŚĂǀĞƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚŝŶƐĞǀĞƌĂůŽĨƚŚĞǁĞĞŬůǇ
ĐŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĐĂůůƐ͕ĂƌƌĂŶŐĞĚďǇ^,͕ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŽƌŝŶŐŽŵƉĂŶǇĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌ^ƚĂƚĞĂŶĚĨĞĚĞƌĂůĂŐĞŶĐŝĞƐ͕ĂŶĚŚĂǀĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ
ĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐŽŶƉĞƌƚŝŶĞŶƚƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞĚƌĂĨƚ͘ƚƚŚŝƐƉŽŝŶƚ͕ŝĨƚŚĞŽƌŝŶŐŽŵƉĂŶǇŝƐƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůŝŶŝƚƐĞĨĨŽƌƚƐƚŽĂǀŽŝĚ
ŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚŽŶŽŶƚŝĚĂůǁĞƚůĂŶĚƐĂŶĚƚŚĞϭϬϬͲǇĞĂƌŶŽŶƚŝĚĂůĨůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞǀĞŶƚŝůĂƚŝŽŶƐŚĂĨƚƐ͕ƚŚĞŽŶůǇ
ǁĞƚůĂŶĚƐĂŶĚǁĂƚĞƌǁĂǇƐĂƵƚŚŽƌŝǌĂƚŝŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ^ƚĂƚĞĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŝůůďĞĂd/ĚĂůtĞƚůĂŶĚƐ>ŝĐĞŶƐĞĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ
ŽĂƌĚŽĨWƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐĨŽƌƚŚĞĐƌŽƐƐŝŶŐŽĨĂůůƚŝĚĂůǁĂƚĞƌǁĂǇƐ͘dŚĞ^ƚĂƚĞΖƐ&ĞĚĞƌĂůŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶĐǇĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚ
ƚŽ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϯϬϳŽĨƚŚĞ&ĞĚĞƌĂůŽĂƐƚĂůŽŶĞDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĐƚ͕ǁŝůůďĞƚƌĂŶƐŵŝƚƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ
>ŝĐĞŶƐĞ͘

>ĞƚŵĞŬŶŽǁŝĨĂŶǇŽŶĞŚĂƐĂŶǇƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐ͘

'ŝĚŐĞ

ůĚĞƌ'ŚŝŐŝĂƌĞůůŝ͕:ƌ͘
ĞƉƵƚǇWƌŽŐƌĂŵĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŽƌ
DĂƌǇůĂŶĚ&ĞĚĞƌĂůŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶĐǇŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŽƌ
tĞƚůĂŶĚƐĂŶĚtĂƚĞƌǁĂǇƐWƌŽŐƌĂŵ
tĂƚĞƌĂŶĚ^ĐŝĞŶĐĞĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ
DĂƌǇůĂŶĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ
WŚŽŶĞ͗;ϰϭϬͿϱϯϳͲϯϳϲϯ
ĞůĚĞƌ͘ŐŚŝŐŝĂƌĞůůŝΛŵĂƌǇůĂŶĚ͘ŐŽǀ

KŶ^Ăƚ͕DĂǇϭϮ͕ϮϬϭϴĂƚϴ͗ϰϰWD͕:ŽƐĞƉŚďĞͲEZͲфũŽƐĞƉŚ͘ĂďĞΛŵĂƌǇůĂŶĚ͘ŐŽǀхǁƌŽƚĞ͗
,ŝDŝŬĞ͗

/ĂŵŐŽŝŶŐƚŽďĞŽƵƚŽĨƚŽǁŶƚŚŝƐƵƉĐŽŵŝŶŐǁĞĞŬ͕ďƵƚǁĞĐĂŶƚŽƵĐŚďĂƐĞǁŚĞŶ/ƌĞƚƵƌŶ͘/ŶƚŚĞŵĞĂŶƚŝŵĞ͕/ΖǀĞĐŽƉŝĞĚ
ŽƵƌ&ĞĚĞƌĂůŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶĐǇŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŽƌDƌůĚĞƌ'ŚŝŐŝĂƌĞůůŝ;'ŝĚŐĞͿĂŶĚƚŚĞDĂƌǇůĂŶĚ'ĞŽůŽŐŝĐĂů^ƵƌǀĞǇŝƌĞĐƚŽƌDƌ͘
ZŝĐŚĂƌĚKƌƚƚ͘

dŚĂŶŬƐŚƌŝƐĨŽƌĨŝĞůĚŝŶŐƚŚŝƐĨŽƌŵĞ͕'ŝĚŐĞĂŶĚZŝĐŚ͘

tĞůŽŽŬĨŽƌǁĂƌĚƚŽŚĞĂƌŝŶŐŵŽƌĞĂďŽƵƚƚŚŝƐŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘

ĞƐƚ͕:ŽĞďĞ

KŶ&ƌŝ͕DĂǇϭϭ͕ϮϬϭϴĂƚϭϮ͗ϯϭWD͕фŵŝŬĞ͘ƚŚŽŵƉƐŽŶΛďŽƌŝŶŐĐŽŵƉĂŶǇ͘ĐŽŵхǁƌŽƚĞ͗
ŚƌŝƐ͕

dŚĂŶŬǇŽƵĨŽƌƉƵƚƚŝŶŐŵĞŝŶĐŽŶƚĂĐƚǁŝƚŚ:ŽĞ͘
:ŽĞ͕
/ũƵƐƚůĞĨƚĂǀŽŝĐĞŵĂŝů͘WůĞĂƐĞůĞƚŵĞŬŶŽǁǁŚĞŶŵŝŐŚƚďĞĂŐŽŽĚƚŝŵĞƚŽƐƉĞĂŬƐŽ/ĐĂŶŐŝǀĞǇŽƵĂŶŝŶƚƌŽƚŽƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘
KƚŚĞƌǁŝƐĞǇŽƵĂƌĞĂůǁĂǇƐǁĞůĐŽŵĞƚŽĐĂůůŵǇŶƵŵďĞƌďĞůŽǁ͘
dŚĂŶŬƐ͊
DŝŬĞdŚŽŵƉƐŽŶ͕W͘'͘
WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů'ĞŽůŽŐŝƐƚͮdŚĞŽƌŝŶŐŽŵƉĂŶǇ
ϭZŽĐŬĞƚZŽĂĚͮ,ĂǁƚŚŽƌŶĞͮͮϵϬϮϱϬ
нϭ͘ϯϭϬ͘ϵϯϲ͘ϱϬϲϯͮďŽƌŝŶŐĐŽŵƉĂŶǇ͘ĐŽŵ
&ƌŽŵ͗ŚƌŝƐƚŽƉŚĞƌĂĚůĂŶĚͲEZͲфĐŚƌŝƐƚŽƉŚĞƌ͘ĂĂĚůĂŶĚΛŵĂƌǇůĂŶĚ͘ŐŽǀх
^ĞŶƚ͗&ƌŝĚĂǇ͕DĂǇϭϭ͕ϮϬϭϴϴ͗ϰϯD
Đ͗:ŽƐĞƉŚďĞͲEZͲфũŽƐĞƉŚ͘ĂďĞΛŵĂƌǇůĂŶĚ͘ŐŽǀх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ZĞ͗^>/ϭϭϱϵĂůƚŝŵŽƌĞ>ŽŽƉ
ĞĂƌDŝŬĞ͖
zŽƵĐĂŶƌĞĂĐŚŽƵƚŶŽǁƚŽ:ŽĞďĞǁŚŽŝƐŝŶĐŚĂƌŐĞŽĨŽƵƌDEZŚĞƐĂƉĞĂŬĞĂŶĚŽĂƐƚĂů^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ&ĞĚĞƌĂů
ŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶĐǇƌĞǀŝĞǁ͘,ĞǁŝůůůĞƚǇŽƵŬŶŽǁǁŚĂƚŝƐŶĞĞĚĞĚĂŶĚǁŚĂƚƚŚĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝƐ͘,ĞĐĂŶďĞƌĞĂĐŚĞĚĂƚ
:ŽƐĞƉŚ͘ĂďĞΛŵĂƌǇůĂŶĚ͘ŐŽǀŽƌ;ϰϭϬͿϮϲϬͲϴϳϰϬ͘>ĞƚŵĞŬŶŽǁŝĨǇŽƵŶĞĞĚĂŶǇƚŚŝŶŐĞůƐĞ͘
ŚƌŝƐ

KŶ&ƌŝ͕DĂǇϭϭ͕ϮϬϭϴĂƚϭϭ͗ϮϮD͕фŵŝŬĞ͘ƚŚŽŵƉƐŽŶΛďŽƌŝŶŐĐŽŵƉĂŶǇ͘ĐŽŵхǁƌŽƚĞ͗
/ĂůƐŽŚĂĚĂĨŽůůŽǁƵƉƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶʹĚŽǇŽƵŬŶŽǁǁŚŽǁĞƐŚŽƵůĚĐŽŶŶĞĐƚǁŝƚŚŝŶ
DEZŚĞƐĂƉĞĂŬĞĂŶĚŽĂƐƚĂů^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƚŽĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞƚŚĞ&ĞĚĞƌĂůŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶĐǇ
ZĞǀŝĞǁŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂĐƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ&ĞĚĞƌĂů͍ŽĂƐƚĂůŽŶĞDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĐƚ͘

&ƌŽŵ͗ŵŝŬĞ͘ƚŚŽŵƉƐŽŶΛďŽƌŝŶŐĐŽŵƉĂŶǇ͘ĐŽŵфŵŝŬĞ͘ƚŚŽŵƉƐŽŶΛďŽƌŝŶŐĐŽŵƉĂŶǇ͘ĐŽŵх
^ĞŶƚ͗&ƌŝĚĂǇ͕DĂǇϭϭ͕ϮϬϭϴϴ͗ϮϬD
dŽ͗ĐŚƌŝƐƚŽƉŚĞƌ͘ĂĂĚůĂŶĚΛŵĂƌǇůĂŶĚ͘ŐŽǀ
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗&t͗^>/ϭϭϱϵĂůƚŝŵŽƌĞ>ŽŽƉ

ŚƌŝƐ͕

&z/͕ŝŵƉĂĐƚĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵ&t^ŝƐĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚ͘

,ŽǁŝƐǇŽƵƌƌĞǀŝĞǁĐŽŵŝŶŐĂůŽŶŐ͍>ĞƚŵĞŬŶŽǁŝĨ/ĐĂŶƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂŶǇŝŶĨŽƚŚĂƚ
ǁŽƵůĚŚĞůƉ͘

&ƌŽŵ͗<ƌƵƉŝŶƐŬǇ͕:ŽƐĞƉŚфũŽƐĞƉŚͺŬƌƵƉŝŶƐŬǇΛĨǁƐ͘ŐŽǀ
фŵĂŝůƚŽ͗ũŽƐĞƉŚͺŬƌƵƉŝŶƐŬǇΛĨǁƐ͘ŐŽǀхх
^ĞŶƚ͗dƵĞƐĚĂǇ͕DĂǇϴ͕ϮϬϭϴϰ͗ϯϱD
фŵĂŝůƚŽ͗ŵŝŬĞ͘ƚŚŽŵƉƐŽŶΛďŽƌŝŶŐĐŽŵƉĂŶǇ͘ĐŽŵх͖dƌĞǀŽƌůĂƌŬ
фƚƌĞǀŽƌͺĐůĂƌŬΛĨǁƐ͘ŐŽǀфŵĂŝůƚŽ͗ƚƌĞǀŽƌͺĐůĂƌŬΛĨǁƐ͘ŐŽǀхх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗^>/ϭϭϱϵĂůƚŝŵŽƌĞ>ŽŽƉ

ͲͲ

5LJKWFOLFN RUWDSDQGKROGKHUHWR GR ZQORDGSLFWXUHV7RKHOSS UR WHFW\ RXUSULY DF\ 2XWORRN SUHY HQWHGDXWRPDWLFGRZQORDGRIWKLVSLFWXUHIURPWKH,QWHUQHW
0' /RJ RS QJ
&KULVWRSKHU$DGODQG
(QYLURQPHQWDO3ODQQHU
(QYLURQPHQWDO5HYLHZ
'HSDUWPHQWRI1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV
7D\ORU$YH(
$QQDSROLV0'
RIILFH
FKULVWRSKHUDDGODQG#PDU\ODQGJRY

GQUPDU\ODQGJRY

&OLFNKHUHWRFRPSOHWHDWKUHHTXHVWLRQFXVWRPHUH[SHULHQFHVXUYH\

ͲͲ
5LJKWFOLFN RUWDSDQGKROGKHUHWRGRZQORDGSLFWXUHV7RKHOSSURWHFW\ RXUSULY DF\ 2XWORRN SUHY HQWHGDXWRPDWLFGRZQORDGRIWKLVSLFWXUHIURPWKH,QWHUQHW

0'/RJRSQJ
-RVHSK$EH
&RDVWDO3ROLF\&RRUGLQDWRU&KHVDSHDNHDQG&RDVWDO6HUYLFH
'HSDUWPHQWRI1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV
7D\ORU$YHQXH(
$QQDSROLV0'
RIILFH
FHOO
MRVHSKDEH#PDU\ODQGJRY

GQUPDU\ODQGJRY
&OLFNKHUHWRFRPSOHWHDWKUHHTXHVWLRQFXVWRPHUH[SHULHQFHVXUYH\

Click here to complete a three question customer experience survey.

Washington, D.C. To Baltimore Loop ProjectProposed by The Boring Company Environmental Assessment (Draft)

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Washington, D.C. To Baltimore Loop ProjectProposed by The Boring Company Environmental Assessment (Draft)

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Washington, D.C.

Chapter 1: Project Overview and Project Purpose and Need..................... 1

2.6 NPS Land Exchange Alternatives........................................................ 61

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.......... 63

3.7.4 Environmental Consequences.................................................................. 160

3.15 Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas, Coastal Zones,

Chapter 4: Agency and Public Coordination............................................. 395

Chapter 5: References..................................................................................... 397

Chapter 1: Project Overview and Project Purpose and Need..................... 1

Chapter 2: Description of the Alternatives Considered............................ 49

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.......... 63

Figure 3.4-1: EJ Analysis in Environmental Review................................. 119

Figure 3.12-3: Cross-section of Aquifer System in the

Chapter 1: Project Overview and Project Purpose and Need..................... 1

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.......... 63

Table 3.2-2: Summary of Zoning at each Loop Stations

Table 3.8-13: Baltimore Loop Station Nearest Potential

Table 3.11-4: REC Sites Summary...................................................................237

Chapter 1: Project Overview and Project Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction NEPA implementing Regulations 23 CFR 771. As

1.2 Overview and initial operation of a transportation system that

Figure 1-1: Conceptual Rendering of an AEV Inside a Main Artery Tunnel

effects of the reasonably foreseeable future 1.3 Project Description

The Project Study Area used in this EA for analysis of

Figure 1-2: Location Map of the Proposed Project

Each tunnel would have a boring diameter of 14

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 1 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 2 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 3 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 4 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 5 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 6 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 7 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 8 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 9 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 10 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 11 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 12 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 13 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 14 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 15 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 16 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 17 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 18 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 19 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 20 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 21 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 22 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 23 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 24 of 25)

Figure 1-3: Detailed Proposed Project Boundaries Map (Page 25 of 25)

Figure 1-4: Typical Tunnel Cross-Section Showing Two Possible Configurations:

Note: Configuration can change along the length of the alignment.

Figure 1-5: Example of AEV Descending into a Loop Station

Figure 1-6: Conceptual Artistic Rendering of Ventilation Shaft

Table 1-1: Potential TBM Launch Shaft Locations

historic property is affected by the project

Section 404 of the CWA • Acquiring, managing, and disposing of

• Determine if a proposed action is in the base

Coastal Zone Management Act

State of Maryland Nontidal Wetlands Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Law

33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408)

• Prince George’s Sentinel