Scribd Logo
Fazer o upload

Bem-vindo(a) ao Scribd!

  • Untitled

    Enviado por

    M-NCPPC
    2 visualizações44 páginas

    Direitos autorais

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formatos disponíveis

    PDF ou leia online no Scribd

    Você considera este documento útil?

    Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

    Denunciar este documento

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato PDF ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    2 visualizações44 páginas

    Untitled

    Enviado por

    M-NCPPC

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato PDF ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    de 44
    VII. Preferred Alternative - B 2, Alignment Options fad TUWA, SHA pple ttal Groups and Meetings, Gver 60 separate informal community/civic meetings have been held to date for the ICC study. These meetings have allowed the study team to identify, diseuss, and address specific conceras of the individual groups. H, Impact Assessment of Alternatives L. Impact Refinements and Further Minimization ‘The ICC DEIS described avoidance and minimization efforts for alignment options and alueratives, In addition, based on agency and public comments, the TCC study team conducted several studies since the publication of the DETS 10 further refine and reduce community, culraral, wetland, stream, and park impacts. These studies included, but were not Limited ro: the following: © Minor shifts and reductions in right-of-way (ROW) where appropriate * Development of limits of disturbance (LOD) based oa slope requirements (whieh affected impact caleulations for secams, wetlands, flondplains, and Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FID) habirar) + Use of linear SWM approach in sensitive areas to reduce SWM pond sizefimpacts and evatuatica/incorperation of anderground storage facilities where appropriate Usedesaluation of retaining walls in sensitive ares te reduce inpals Underground SWM Advanced and redundant erosion and sediment control measures Comparative Water Resources Hasard Assessment (Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA), 2003) for Patuxent Reservoirs * Geotechnical investigations for feasibility and estimating = Aivtosics stully * Grade separation studies at MD 97 2. Alignment Options Chapter FV contains detailed descriptions of the options and related impacts. The comparison below focuses on the quanticative and qualitative differences berween the alignment eptions with avoidance, minimization, snd mitigation measures taken into account. Based on these comparisons, and considering agency and public comment, the Lead Agencies identified the Preferred Options within each corridor. ‘The summary of the Preferred Options can be found in Chapter VILB.3. (Note: In comparing the options, considerations were focused on those resources where imparts differed mong the options examined, Impucts that were similar, er that were not deciding factors, are not discussed in this analysis.) VII. Preferred Alternative - B 5. Stormwater Management Features lisa SESWA Conclusions The full ukgnment extending to US | hus besn identified us the preferred option. Although extending the ICC to US 1 would increase costs as well as impacts to the natural and socipeconomic environment, it would improve overall transportation and connections within Montgomery and Princ: George’s Counties (See Chapter IVJ.d for traffic forecasting results for both the full (end at US 1 and truncated (end at 1-95) alternatives). The Lead Agencies have coneluded that the connection co US 1, which is designed to operate more like an arterial roadway than a limited access highway, provides important access to 1-95 from new development that is planed between 1-95 snd US. 1 und along US 1, and provides congestion relief to MD 198 between US 1 and 1-95. 3. Preference for Each Alignment Option in Each Alternative Based on the unalysia provided above, the follawing representa the preferred aptians for the Corridor 1 and Corridor 2 Altematives: Corridor F Corridor 2AX Corridor 2DB Rock Creck Option C Rock Creck Option C Rock Creck Option C Northwest Brunch Option A Norbeck Option Norbcel Option A. Interchange wtLuyhill Row! Interchange at Latyhill Row Inenchange at Layhill Road, “Termination at US 1 Spencerville A to Burtonsville X Spencerville 1D to Burtonsville B Fairland Option A. Fairland Option A Termination at US 1 Termination at US 1 4, Enyironmental Stewardship Chapter VE provides a summary of the Human and Natural Resource Environmental Stewardship features proposed for each of the Build Altematives, ‘These Environmental Sicwurdship feaiures include activities intended io improve the ea‘sting culvaral, community, and natural resources. within the ICC study area, which bave been impacted by past development, in onder to help improve the relationship berween transportation and the environment. ‘The Enviromental Stowardship features, developed in coordination with the TAWG, satisfy this element of he TOC Purpose: anal Need i yubstartially dhe sarne degree for each alternative, ‘The list showa in Chapter VI is the Lead Agencies’ current commitments for features associated with each alternative. If any of the identified Favironmental Stewardship features is found not to be feasible im the future, that feature will be replaced with another itcrn or items of similar valuc. These replacement features will be taken in onder of priority from the list of features developed throughout the study and identified in the DBIS and technical reports. S. Stormwater Management Features The following summarizes the SWM approach being applied co the Build Alematives an the ICC. MDE Water Management Administration, Nonpoint Source Program is responsible for review and approval ef SWM and erosion and sediment conteol (ESC) plans for all State and fad TUWA, SHA Federal projevis in Maryland, Criteria dha tmust be followed! in Stormwater Design Manucl and MIDE’s Stormwater Managemew Guidelines Jor State and Federal Projects ‘July 2001). The [CC (and all SHA and MdT.A projects) must meet these criteria at a minimum, and would oxeced the minimum requirements in many casos, Tho Load ‘Agencies have made the following SWM design criteria commitments: a, For the Fntire 1CC Stormwater Quality Control = Treat stormwater from a 15" rainfall, exceeding 1.0" rainfall treatment as required by MDE regulations. This commitment stems from the Lead Agencies’ commitments in previous ICC studies to go beyond the minimum regulstory requirements when treating stormwater quality in cnvironrieatally sensitive areas (the entire ICC). + Address bridge deck runoff either through stocmwatsr treatment or by treating off-site areas as a trade off, Stormwater Quantity Contrat © Employ 12-hour extended dewention (ED) dry ponds along the ICC aligaments to address Channel Protection Volume (CPV) requirements where within Use III and Use IV wotersheds: Rock Creek, Northwest Branch, Upper Paint Branch and tributaries. Twenty-four hour ED will be used in Use T watersheds: Paraxent River and tribucaries, Litile Paint Branch, and Indian Creek and tributaries. # Provide 10 year stormwater flood control (Qp) in Prince George's County. There are no Qp requirernents in Munigarmery County, * Follow Monigomery County Depertment of Permitiing Services requirements for sections of ICC within Montgomery County Special Protection Areas (SPAs). Outside vf Special Protection Areas (SP As} ‘The general approach to addressing the criteria commitments abave for areas outside of the Montgomery County SPAs is as follows: # Employ grass chamet credits throughout all alignments and alternatives whore feasible to address Water quality reatment: e.g, the discharge velocity assaciated with the 1.5” storm. event shall nat exceed 1.0 fool per second in median and madside ditches. Note that top of fill ditches ate included on roadway typical sections to provide grass channel treanment, Where grass channel credits are not feasible, madicional SWM through ponds or filters (surface: oF underground) will be employed Co address waler quali * MDE is allowing the Lead Agencies to “bank” impervious surface on the project within major watersheds (e.g. Patuxent, Anacostia, and Rock Creck) so that there is some Aleaibility available when treating bridge deck runoff, etc. “Banking” impervious surface fad TUWA, SHA mgang: thal if excessive hardship or vest makes providing $WM difficult in a specific location, then, at MDE’s discretion, the Laad Agencies may be able to provide SWM for an. equivalent existing impervious area within the same watershed. Tn the Patuxent River watershed stormwater management ponds will inckde an additional 10,000 gallons of stormwater siorage volume, emergency containment shut-off valves, and waining of first responder personnel to uniniaize the risk that a tanker truck sized spill of liquid material might pose to the Rocky Gorge Reservoir, The additional storage and valves are: intended to provide. containment in the event of a liquid material spill on the highway during a rainfall event, co prevent deleterious material from moving downstream (o the weservoir. Public spill control response plaus will also be a integral partof stormwater designs in this watershed ‘Within Special Pratection Areas (SPAS) The general approach to addressing the criteria commitments ebove for areas within the ‘Montgomery County SPAS is as follows: Tneluck, cemtinuous, Tinear filtering devies (such as bionetention ar sand filters) in medians and outside roadway ditches toaddress water quality. The base roadway median of 36 feet is increased to 50 feet within SPAs to accommodate the linear filters. This design ix for the purpoge of meeting SPA requirements and addressing thermal impact concems in the SPAs. Pretreatment for linear filtering devices will be addressed by sheet flow through grass at shallow cross slopes in accordance with Stormwater Management Guidelines far State and Federal Projects, page 25, “Figure 1: Minimum Vegetative Filler Length Requirements ta Meet TS§ Removal Gal: Employ 12-hour ED in underground storage facilities to address CPV. Underground systems will allow the stonige and release required for ED without allowing thermal loading that is common in surface pands. This design is for the purpose. of addressing thermal impact concerns in the SPAs. Maximize the potential for infiltration to maintain cool stream baseflow. Tnfiltration pits created by botiumless cullection manholes (located downsirearn from water quality treatment) as well as groundwater recharge chrough the percent area and percent volume methods will meet or exceed MDE requirements. This des is for the purpose of addressing thermal and haseflow impact concerns in the SPA. Control and treat bridge deck runo‘f as well as runoff frum all other roadway impervious surfaces. This design is for the purpose of mneeting SPA requirements. fad TUWA, SHA + Direet discharge af roadway ranatT to Good Hope Tributary will he surietly controlled and avoided. To accomplish this, a partion af Corridor 1 roadway drainage between New Hampshire Avenue (MD 650) and Good Hope tributary would be diverted to Northwest Branch, including frequent storm discharges from a substantial partion of the Montgomery County Department of Public Works and Transportation maintenaice yard. Corridor 1 discharge from west of the Good Hope tributary that cannot physically be drained to the west would be carried across Good Hope in pipes hung from the proposed bridge, Treared stormwater discharge from the roadway where Corridor 1 is parallel to Good Hope would be discharged as close to the mainscem of Paint Branch as possi This SHA commitment is for the purpose of addressing USACE and MDE permining concems, a¢ well as resource concems identified hy DNR. Tt should be noted thar this diversion applies only to surface: runoff, so the off-site area infiltration characteristics, ‘would be maintained.as they are today. ANI pervious roadway ROW would also continue to provide infiftration during storm events Recognizing that stormwater treatment devices are not 100 percent effective, one clement included in the ICC studies is retrofitting existing impervious aureus within the vicinity of the IOC water quality improving features as Environmental Stewardship. The Lead Agencies tecogoize that Eavitonmeutal Stewardship cannot be considered in MIDE's Nootidal Wetlands and Waterways permit decision because it ix above and beyond regulatory requirements; however, Environmental Stewardship can be considered in MDE's Clean Water Act Scction 401 Water Quality Certification for proposed discharges to jurisdictional welands and waterways. Environmental Stewardship stormwster retrofit opporunities have been identified based on Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection (MCDEP) watershed plans, the needs identified therein, and field recomnaissance, Natural Resouree: Fnviroomental Stewardship opportunities identified include structural stormwater relrofits as well as stream restoration and reforestation. dd. Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) ‘The Lead Agencies have not made any commitments beyond mecting the present day regulatory requirements except that redundant sediment control measuscs would be employed ia seusitive areas including the Upper Rock Creck, and Paint Branch SPAs on Corridor 1 or 2 as well as the Rocky Gorge watershed for Corrider 2. In the planning pracess we have asked section engineers to designate ROW required to uecommodate vedimnent traps and busine ax well as provide roam along streams for construction of ESC devices. C. Evaluation of Corridors 1 and 2 The alternatives were evaluuted to-determine whith alternative would! bext meet the Project Need while bulancing impucts (o the sociecconomic, cultural, and natural environment, The Corsidor 1 and 2 Alternatives’ effects are compared velow for cach of three analysis categories; Transportation, Socioeconomic/Land Use, and Environment. Federal, State, and local agency comments are alse documented and taken inte account in reaching a decision on the Preferred Allerualive, These analysis categories are primmsily relaval tse Purpose uo Need elernecus to increase community mobility and safety; to facilitate the movement of goods and people: to and ¥ c VII. Preferred Alternative - C 3, Environmental Measures and Conceptual Mitigation contacted t@ detertaine any impacts thal the TCC would have-on the werviges uaey provitle, Awa result of the correspondence with these service providers, no- preference was shown for either Corridor 1, Corridor 24X, or Corridor 2B, Rather, the majority of the providers indieated that bath Corridors 1 and 2 (regardless of the options choxon) would provide: an additional route for fire and rescue services (0 respond 1n incidents, which would improve emergency response times. Corridors 1, 2AX, and 2DB would all provide a high-speed east-west transportation corridor to protect citizens in case of an emergency either for widespread evacuation or tespanse efforts in the National Capital area, where no such facility exists today, The No-Action Alternative would net provide fer such a transporation facility. By providing this east-west facility, homeland security would be improved under Corridors 1, 2X, and 2DB, thereby meeting this Project Need, J. Conclusion Regarding Sociaeeonomie and Land Use Analysis Qverall, Corridor 1 would have less adverse impacts on communities than Corridor 2AX and Corridor 228, and would be more consistent with land usc planning, zoning, and growth management jools in the region, This is mainly because a considerable portion of Corridor 1 is in the same: general location as the Master Plan Alignment shown in Master Plats throughout the study area. In addition, roughly two-thirds of the Corridor | Altemative would be within a PRA, while only one-third of the Corridor 2AN and 2DB Altcmatives would be within » PRA, indicating that Comrider 1 would bz mare consistent with Smart Growth initiatives, Corridor 1 would alse provide approximavely $47,601,000 of additional user benetig than Corridor ZAX and 2DB in 2010, and approximately $58,750,000 of additional benefit than Corridor 24X and 2DB in 2030, However, Comidor 24X and 2DB would generate greater ceonomic growth than Corridor ( by attracting approximately | $5 more firms (2,569 mone jobs) within the region and ‘would appear to have a slighily higher potential to retain existing businesses than Corridar 1. Based on this assessment, determined that Corridor | would beter meet the [CC Purpose and ating the movement of goods and people to and trom economic centers and Ling and ure development patterns reflecting local land use planning objectives, 3. Environmental Measures ond Conceptual Mitigation ‘This section evaluates the cavironmental impacts associated with Corridor 1, Corridar 24X, and Corridor 2D8 with particular attention where the ahemstives diverge between MD 97 and 1-95, Both quantitative and qualitative comparisoss of impacts are considered in the analysis. AL the conclusion of this section is a deseription of diz process for developing the proposed conceptual mitigacion package for cach Build Altemative. The conceptual mitigation sites arc incleded in Table VIF-i9. [es] ICC @OSHA Table VII-19, Conceptual Mitigation amber and Watershed! Potential Type em | a | Se Compensatory Mitigation Concept eum, | carider Penal ‘Stream Restoration Sites Indian Crk ear_| 10-9 and 1.62 ar cae on the mint of Indian Crock jst upsream an downs fhe ier se | nine” | MODtina | NrMitaalcomy eum hacedeagominscamenicoses | «TOS, | Como coor tat cael Both ahs re churnshaed by aber ne Neola are dincomet frm | PA. their floodplains, and have fai to poor bank stability. Portions of the riparian area are developed, Pe Tal Guay le tes are forest The comparator mkption cone C9 and 162 node eam ce ico | 1900tiar | Rateron ere iabon renova bam removal bark sabteation fodpan cen, OT comiors me, feat | blockage removal, parianbfer enhancement, and habitat enhancemen) C-pubte) | ana Comidor2 Goons Located inte Lat Fork subwatene of he Upper Pan Brash wate PBS ismade wpoltvo | py g pms | PaieBrancy | 12001Iwar | aces. The wosem reach socadenraly within Upper aint rch Park. Thoconspencutes | PS 5 | Coaaey Momgamer | "tke | seam renin efor nk sbaton,fiin cen pane emanesen fan | MN blockage removal and haba nanan, 1s ocd on Holywood Branch and flows soutbeasyunder Lae Dav ve Pain Branch | 4S0D1near_| convene ni Pun Branch inthe Fare Eas coms The conep for PB. 128 nodes PB-12B ‘Montgomery fect ‘stream restoration cfforss (bank stibilization, floodplain creation, utility confitcr resolurion, fish V-public Corridor 1 biocags removal nd riparian ule enhancaen. in “oct onthe mainstem of God Hope bury wo Pan Brash, The iis for de sie exend fom pois | nae t@ce | 1000tnear | sposiatsy 300 fect parma 700 fo downstream oft Goat Hope Rowcrosing ofthis | yy, |_Comior . feet | stream. The concept includes the following stream restoration effors (floodplain creation, bank et and Corridor 2 Goore Stllzaon ang eancing te bei tnd oh abs nd communis). ICC @2SHA Number and Watershed! Potential Type seer | Watershed! | Potential Compensatory Midgation Concent eng, | Comrdor Privat) ‘This st incides the maine of Nortwest Bratch from Roan Road downstream odin Springs Golf Course. A orion of Raling Stone ribtay ois Nerves Branch within the poet ate would ho be inded. Norwest Branch hae alr rom centred net from the oper wat, Severe chan! bed degradation and sreambenk ersionaevidem thmugh ot is reach, Reson ols ince water uly improvement agua habat Cehnument tnd ecomection of i chanel with x ative Hapa mn eto ede shar sess Nontwest | 4199p tinar | ste igh Now evens The retoraton concep or NWB incase allowing uream estonion | vate | condor xw.1so | “Banc | 11000 | fogs: Meodplain raion to pov encrgydiipaton of rove od ows, reduce criveshar | URtmte | Coridor) “Montgomery stresses, reduce channel incision, and increase infiltration and groundwater recharge; bank public ‘orridor Stinson o provide nergy Gaspton of erosive led ow, eee erosive sea asi, and ted bunk eruon and ina einen; enhcig te pian lle, tala of woody dors and ter yes ona covr and gavel cnn mut ons the best an Rab habia ad commits: Duc othe ngs an compe nar of th for, nl mitigation ret tssocied with his project ete determined The Nonhwes Branch ssw esol a ‘Nerve tothe Pat Branch downstream of I-95 Price serps Coy, ‘Thins the Lawer James Grok tibutry o Hwings River located slong Gold Mine Road Existing : anew | 200tinar | condion isthe atenbed areas ocd by aru! pices and more ren, conerion'o | ag ir PR254 | Montgomery feet suburban development. Water quality improvement in the Hawlings River is needed because is a T-pablie Corridor 2 Sica potion ofthe Roky Gorge watered Fish Passage Sites , Lose east of the itenecon of cach Drive and Pncunt Parkway on th maint of Rook . casi | ReekCtet | sop near ft | Crook win Rock Ck Pak Te Bockageiotaenped uly cowing nth avait depot | pubic | Comoe ‘oer approximately one foot causing a depth of flow of approximately two inches at normal flow. Lect cat of Beach Drivin the Candy Cane Park action of Rock Cet Pak. Thi i pati nora | BC | sop nerfs | fi boskage cael by 4 cones sewer eocenent tt exposed at lowe low condos Ia | gy. | _ Caidord ‘Montgomery. addition to restoring fish passage over the blockage, other improvements slated for this site include ™ and Corridor 2 Sreambenk sublinion and pran buffer improvement Wetland Creation Sites fi Et ene ICC QOSwA ‘Number and Watershed! | Potential ‘Type Site 1D aaa | eceesot ‘Compensatory Mitigation Concept eutktor | Corridor Private) 'NW-128 is currently a ballfeld located in Northwest Branch Recreational Park. The ste is in a good Northwest landscape position for wetland establishment, being located in the floodplain of Northwest Branch. Comidor 1 and Nw.i28 | Branely Sacres | The site would be excavated 2°3'to tap into groundwater or divert flows from Northwest Branch info | 1-public eaters Montgomery the ste, The balfield would be converted toa wetland/floodplin condition by removing the fil from the site. Located on the northside of Batchellors Forest Road across from Trotters Glen Golf Course inthe Northwest, Ieadwaters of Batchellors Run. The concept includes the following efforts: grading and planting to Comidor 1 and NW Branch Sacres | crete forested wetland and spraying to eradicate multiflora rose. ‘The concept fr ths site ist 1privae orridor Van Montgomery extend the existing wetland along the eastside ofthe stream and plan the site With forested wetland species 'PB-1 is located on the south side of Spencerville Road and east of Peach Orchard Road along & tributary to Paint Branch. The ste begins asa farm pond located on the southside ofthe steam. The stream is channelized through the ste with the northside of the stream revegetating with wetland par | Paioe Branch | 4 5.4, | species and a mix of wetland and upland species tothe south of the steam. The concept for this site| eae Corridor 1 Montgomery is to ereate forested wetlands on the south side ofthe stroam by excavating loss than five fest 1 m and Corridor 2 hydrological connect othe steam and existing groundwater. The northside ofthe stream could be reforesied with a mix of wetland and upland tee species. The pond would be removed as part ofthis concept to reduce thermal impacts othe sream. “This sit is Iocated east and west of Woodfield Road atthe Great Seneca crossing. This site an sci | Seneeacreek/| 1g... | active pasture cast of the rad and in hay production othe west of Woodfield Road, This site is Lepr Corre 1 Montgomery siuated inthe floodplain of Great Seneca Creck and receives both surface water input and bank and Corridor 2 ‘overflows that could suppor the hydrology ofa created wetland, This sit is located on the north side of Brink Read atthe Great Seneca Creek crossing along the east ‘Seneca Creck/ ‘bank of te stream. This ste is de fallow Novdplain of Great Seneca Creck wih some scattered wes Comidor 1 sea | Soe acres | and wetland seeps. The hydrology forth created wedand would be supported by groundwater and | I-publie | Conor gomery the hydric soils tha are mapped within the stream valley. Wildeat Branch, a tbutary to Great Seneca Creek, i located just upstream of this site and i classified as Class I trout waters. Mex This sit is an active cow pasture located atthe intersection of Bethesda Church Road and Clarksburg Rs ieee” | 19acryy | Revd within the Aoodplain of Bennett Crk. The compensatory mitigation concept for Site MRS 6 | vate Corridor 1 Monigonery to create 19 acres of forested wetlands and restore approximately 3,000 linear feet of stream, and Corridor 2 Exclusion of livestock would help stabilize the stream banks and contol erosion FHWA WA Number and Watershed! Potential Type seer | Watershed! | Potential Compensatory Mitigation Concept eng, | Comrdor Privat) “This se need a he comer of Homma Roa and Brink road wine Hogan of Gosen we Branch This tess ao lcsled arom from the Hawke mition si The compenssoy . se2 | Sener] sacs | tation comet for Ste Seino cate 2 aces of feed wet and eameaproxmaly | pubic | COMAOE) emery 2,500 linear feet of stream. The created wetlands could be hydrologically connected to the emergent ‘ellans ons and provide riparian bute the ream. ‘Sormwater Management Ketroft Sites Degraded seam canoe the south end of Fastway Driven eawood Pc The pnrraa | Paieprancty | —70acr | concer includes evaluating termatives previously Sveoped ty MDEP sod MWCOG pane | _Cogor] Montgomery | drainage area | to plan and construct an off-line extended detention facility to address one of the few remaining and Corridor 2 nontoled drainage ares contig to Good Hope Tbr. pa.ey | Prin Brant | _40acres | Unvoested oul chumel ext gully erosion ea of Timbslke Drive and Sibel Drive vepiewe | _Comidort . Montgomery | drainage area pri and Corridor 2 Tg yp wet el of Pew Road ReSoRmENaOR CONTENT 3 Oy ED pond to atemate lw witht ining topes, nludng panting tc Princ Brant | 2 ares Conor Paden 227 || sain fer and pond, Pond may net expan ino ajecen erklend Wo cape private rion Montgomery | drainage, ‘runoff for entire drainage area. ‘and Corridor 2 mmpan | 0 Tote Grea Hope Mir comuny, aljacet 0 he Rig Bach a Good Hope Road Conant pss | PastBranehy | SOases_ | Sod Good Hope Brive The concep nudes cemning up dis ding inflaton spree | Comior ngomcry ina trench and /or bioretention cells to the extent possible, and planting riparian Buffer. ‘Unconsoled uff fr bury ron of Rainbow Drive east of Webrough Sine poy | Print Branch’ | 13tacres | tnd went of Langside Sr. The cone clea comtrcing tem dy ED pont pute | Comoe 1 Montgomery | drainage area | attenuate flows without raising temperatures and planting the riparian buffer and sos and Corridor 2 pond Parkland Mitigation Sites Dunean | Nontwest ‘Would provide mitigation Tore use af Rock Cre Regional Prk, Mi Osx Sear Walley Pat Content Property | “Brancl” | 429aces | and Nord Branch Seam Valley Pak by providing seam valley proecon passive recreational | 1 pivae | Gumndon! No | somgomery pores and open space Tewetya ] Nonhwest Ths propery, adjacent othe Nonwet Branch Rareatonal Par wold prove mitigation fore im | Nancy | 232 aces | uscof Lay Loca Park and Nohwes Bch Recreational ark and woud inudeconsmucion | private | Conidort epeny | Montgomery of four bascball/softball fields and one soccer field, onsite parking, and restrooms. ICC @OSHA Number and Watershed! Potential Type ander aeoa | eee Compensatory Midgation Concent eng, | Comrdor Prat THe TE-a se props w npn fortis mpc to Norwest arch Reco Fa, veh | UpseePain Nortnest Branch Ste Valley Put Unt Sand Upper Punt Btn Sten Vall Par, cnara | UpperPan | | providing morescrege tan tht wich would beimpaced a these prs, Thogh neeadcem'o | age | Condor Allnyt Montgomery the Northwest Branch watershed, this site would help replace stream valley protection and passive e and Corridor 2 Proper teretional oppor within ds porion of te Costy and woul bette enhive Upper Fain Dram Yared. which ono th atone wate he say se The San Rend Propeny wold eave ops ndevlopd tan nie Rocky Gorge wiSaRE, thereby providing soc aly preection pase recreation nd conan fen sc as telat or mpact le Puen aver Watbed Conervaon Park an. Howard Duke sanint end | Rocky Goel ‘Wace Propry for Conor 2, Ti propery wuld provide miigain forthe impacto nin Roe | Nosky 49.2 acres | Northwest Branch Recreational Park, Northwest Branch Stream Valley Park — Unit 5, and Upper 2 public Corridor 2 pperties | Montgomery Paint Branch Stream Valley Park for Corridor 1, helping to replace stream valley protection and passive recreation parties within this oro of te County, and proving Dene tthe SSrive Upper Punt Seach and Rocky Gorge wares whch ae vo of thst ene semerhee he sy oe, The Sours Aaa Advent Prope is rope a mlgaon ore ipa wo Nowe rch Souther esetonl ars Northwest Brel Sitar Valley Put Unit and Upper Put Branch tears ‘sa | UpperPait | 95 gags | Vlley Park, providing mor acreage tun hat whch would be mpuctedat tee parks Thoughact_| sve | Comdort Adventist. ‘Branch ‘adjacent to the Northwest Branch watershed, this site would help replace stream valley protection and pri Proven passive reentonlopporniis within hs orn ofthe Coot and would Deli venave Upper Pin Branch waterbed wich isan of he mon env watered inthe sy are ‘The MeNell Pope is prope as miigaon fore impacts to Nortvest Branch Resend Part Norhwea Branch Sam Vale Park Unit Sand Upper Pan rach Steam Valley Park, menett | UperPaiot | 360 my | proving more aceape thant which would be inpeced aes as, Though not adcet’©| | aioe | Condor’ Property Branch the Northwest Branch watershed, this site would help replace stream valley protection and passive pri trea epportce wih is poi of Cay end wouh bette ele Upper Fain Bran Wasnt, ohh soo ft st egaine vation he sy se, Reforestation Sites ‘Appronally 20 ace of pti frsaton ara fas za Wied on Wasingion Subba SEntary Commlsion (WSSE) prety. Tee seas lacte wihin he Rocky Cope vad Waningion tnd he Tadelpha Reservar, Approunaely 16 ce are located in Montgomery County and Sanity” | Rocky Gorge! 35 acs ain Howard County Even tug te 35 es aed win Howard Coun ar oie conidor Sewer | Monigomery | 200acrx | of te coumies in which te ICC could be conamictd they al ect he Mayland Reforsaton | pbc | Caidor? Commision | and Howard Tw era bce thy ae lee itn te Rocky Gorge Waterbed. Haba and war aly improvements from reforestition within the WSSC properties would benefit Montgomery, Prince ‘George's, and Howard Counties by enhancing the reservoir buffer, connecting forest tracts, and once established, creating forest interior habitat ICC @2SHA Number and Watershed! Potential Type seer | Watershed! | Potential Compensators Mitigation Concept Cnr, | Comidor Private) ordination ad tally oar with Seneca sk Ss Park af egardng DO Maryland ‘foresiation clots win te park Preliminary discussions relied inthe Wetcaion of Maryn "Eppoximatly 200 ares of See parkland tt oul be sed for rfreation purposes, OF he 200 Depart | seoeca ree! | agp aug | eth 36st ae svalinble mmedil. In ordr tous Sse pst lands, a ncn review is pute | Comoe 1 Resources | Montgomery required of each park parcel potentially used for reforestation purposes by the DNR’s Land ‘Pa and Corridor 2 Management Uni. The purpose ofthe review sto enae thal etoreantion efforts donc confi tid ter potential park ues or commitments. DNR Land Management sal also conscing {ih Site land wihin the general proximity tothe sly eet cle than Seneca Chl Sate Par ‘The ICC study team s working closely with M-NCPPC sal oWenlyexsing parkland popes Maryland that may be suitable fer eeresation. ‘MNCPPC park properties or prions thera! Iced in 100- Natal ‘yet floodplains o other tensive exvizons ate iypcally Limited for active pak ue the placement Capital Df seats or for parking and are therefore fda! for feerestaon. Nemerou ss ba beca atvana | bovsiew | 7510100 | Acs tmeaphou Menponey Cen) tmp sf San ponies oye 1s tam | pbc | COMED Planning | Montgomery | seres | tp MNCPPC forth evew.”Soveral M-NCPPC regional park managers are cen reviewing om ‘commission these sites for refirestition purpoos. An estimated 75 fo 100 acts is tenavelyaccepable ts reforestation ares "Adina mitigation For otaral eoures paced in Rosk Grok Regional Par ave aniipaed te provided at the Casey Proper at Hopes Mil, which is locted outside of th ICC cudy aa neat Pookie in Montgomery Coumy. Tiss, which would become publ pertand, wool add an Cmey ‘ational 459 ares tothe pak system adjacont to wveal existing pats inkuding Seneca Cesk. Propery at | senecaCreet/| yg | Ste Pak, South Gemantown Reretonl Pa, Lie Seneca Set Valley ParkanéHoyles Mill | yyy. | Condor Heges Mil | ‘Mongomery Cnervition Pat, Preservation of is propry wil add over 340 sees of xing Foret and 214 | TPYBLC | at Conor 2 teres of erning FDS haba to the park cytes. There i approximately 118 sees of open land ha tay be avaiable for reforestation, which bul io belpncteae the FIDS habit to approximately Sed acoson se. Palma “Th IOC Tea as ened TOD To TSU ara op pcs Wat culd be TORE win prope Pertland mitigaion sies, This tfomstaion may include seam baller planing and’ oland Mitgnion | toughout | 100%0 50 | Plt se my foclude scam bat Comidor 1 Mgtion | trwasout | 100%150 | festa: botn ef which wuld mpove habia an mat uty conion. repute | Comidor fi Et ene ICC QOSwA ‘Number and Watershed! Potential Type stem | Watershed!) Potec ‘Compensatory Mitigation Concept em, | Corridor Private) Waly TEs aiipaed that as pat of he wevlnd somperation and Environmental Sewardship effons, S| shou addonal reforestation acreage opportunities willbe denied. Many of the wetland mitigation ste, CCompenaucry | tou for example, will have additional land other then the actual wetland area that could be used for Comidor 1 Nogedon ana | MOmgomerY | 75 crqq__| reforestation The ICC study team has identified approximately 75 acres of open space that could be | T-pablie | Comrdor Evonmenal 9 feforesied within the mitigation sts. This reforeation may include steam bufer planing and ‘Stewardship ‘George's upland reforestation: both of which would improve habitat and water quality conditions. Retain ised on enginearng concepts, there would be the creation of eolated parcels that ar unable for witiote | Mongomery | 354499 | velopment but possibly iea for eeresation. Inia! aalsis hastened approximately 75 to comidort rropsedicc | “and Prince | 788100 | Yop ates of reforestation can be expected fram these areas. These areas exist Uuughout each | t-putie | | Cordor) BOW | “George's cortior. In many cases, potential es are adjacent to existing fret cover. Th addon tothe potent refesation sts Meniied above, SHA has determined that reforestation credit exists within Montgomery and Prince George's County from planting that has occured in response to previously completed projects. This cri i a rest of planing tat had occumed above Unassigned fd beyond wha had been requires under regulatory guidance fora particular SHA project. 37 sea SHA fue located with Montgomery Coty and 34 are in Pace George's County. Of the 114.1 aces that ‘Reforestation are located within Montgomery County, six of the sites totaling approximately 58 acres occur within. sewage | ontgomery ‘WSSC property boundaries or within the viciity of Tiadlphia Lake Rosd. The 34 ses in Prince comridor Montemey | aad Prince | 501075 acres | George's County comprise approximately 90 acres ofthe unassigned acreage. republic | ae eet iton2 ‘dtrine | George's “Geos Overall field verifications have igentfed approximately 50 w 75 acres of unassigned sites that are conse, either in good condition, or that could be reforested. Some ofthe sites were removed fom the lst {due to the placement of noise walls, roadway improvements, or the insbilty to locate the reforestation area during the site verification process, Research on these sites will continue throughout the NEPA and mitigation processes. fad TUWA, SHA a. Wellands ‘The current study includes significant avoidance and minimization efforts to reduce wetland impacts (see Chapter IV.F.3.a and Chapter IV.F.7.¢), which has resulted in a reduction in acres of impacts to wetlands that were identified in the 1997 TCC BETS, ‘The total number of acres of ‘wetland impacts in this study ate greater compared with the 1997 DETS study enly when the approximately 27.5 to 28.91 acres of wetlands created incidental to mining, located in the area of Konterra west of 1-95, shich are jurisdictional emergent wetlands incidental to mining activities, are included in the current wetland delineation, Moreover, in this scudy wetland boundasies are inore accurately delineated using Glodal Positioning System (GPS) technology and are based on limits of disturbance rather chan right of way limits, ‘The minimization of wetland impacts is all the more significant considering that the wetlands delineated in the 1997 stedy were based on drought conditions that existed in the study area in 1996, which reduced the apparent size of the wetlands at that time. Finally, in the previous study the wetlands created incidental to mining activities were not considered jurisdictional wetlands by the USACE bacanse the area was being actively mined and the ponds were being used as gravel wash ponds, ‘The wash ponds have since been abandoned for that purpose. ‘These areas have now become colonized by wetland plant species, alheit dominated by the non-nauive invasive Phragmites austeatis, and are jurisdictional under the State's nontidal wetlands statute and the Federal Clean Water Act. USACE and MDE have both commented that these wetlands created incidental to mining have little, if any, habitat valve, sediment retention function, or flood svorage function, Overall, Corridor 1 would impact less acreage of wetlands than Corridors 2AX and 2DB (47.47 acres versus 50.51 and 53.57 acres, respectively). The wetland resources impacted by the IOC woat of MD 97 and cast of [-95 are the same for Comidor 1, Comidor 2AX, and Corridor 2DB since they share: an alignment in these areas, However, the averall character of the wetlands on Corridor I between MD 97 and 1-95 is notably different than those on Corridor 24X and Corridor 2DB in a number of watersheds, These differences are summarized in Table VIT-20. Table VII-20. Comparison of Impacted Wetland Resources on Corridor I vs. Corridar 2 Watershed. ‘Corridor 1 Corridor 2 Nontharest | Wetlands acoar in broad focdplaine andtend iy Wotlanis wend to he mad up af andlle: wetland Brunch | be large, diverse, ane localed in protected portions paucaes located along nacrovwer bewd water riparan ‘of an otherwise developed landscape. Their size and location cwate a highly fonctioning wwetlane/uplind mowtic with a mutare forest canopy, Numero bridges have heer includes in the project designs that substantially reduce the potential impactein these large weilands ‘corridors af the watenined. These wetlands are ‘Renerally located in trore d'sturhed lard eeapes ‘That have not had the long-tenm protection of the ‘broad parkland areas on Corridor 4. though as ‘beat water wetlands, they perform important rutrient retention and flecdlsteuation for downstrenr areas, Thiet the wale size ote steeam and welland systems, bridges were net ‘considered to he pmcticable. Th longest wet and system in this portion of Carvidor 2 {AX and DB) Gt the confluence of Nonhwest Branch and ‘Beyant's Nuvsory Trikutary hos been previensly sturdy the Nock Rua exter lisa SESWA ‘Watershed Corridor 1 Corridor 3 Paint Wetlands ave considerably smaller then thoss in Wollands oa Carrider | Canidor 2DB woald Branch | Northwest Branch, buLare alsa cansiceced to be 2A would be sirallar | completly avoid the high quality dus to theirforestod charactorané in sirc to hoac eresscd_| Paint Bronch wtershod ‘obation in a broxd, protccled riparian ecrridor. by Carder 1. While ‘These wetlands are located within he portion of the acrenge of impacts ‘poet Pain! Branch kaowa te suppost brown would be slightly lrvak The maority of Bee wells will ke lower ese wells bridged to avoid direct iempucts, -ayo support Stace rare Diane species ‘downstream af tie ICC. Haw ear, overall the veetunds ere located in amare eceniTy -isturbed iandscupe and ar outside 0” areas ‘determined to be the ‘ans: catieal habitat for brown rout Litle Paint | Welland in this waleshed axe Iocated in both _Comider 2 wauld sri the edge of lang wetland Branch | headwater arcas and along the mainstem of Lisle system known as McKew Beg, which isa Poin rach, ‘The wetlands i the Newlin af carla ir itis aks Wella l Special Sate Little Paine Beaneh. are pat of contiguous ‘Consem, With the construction ofthe ICC, his iparian covidoe, Use majeity af whichis to nea will be surrounded on three sides by prevoeted parkiand. Hewever, he-majority of tnupostation uses, however, should be nore these wellandls will he bedi avo juss, thaldevelopracel plained fr this ance woule be -expected to isolate this areain a sinlar fashion, Rodky | Newelland impacts in Dis watersbed Conder aX would | Condur 208 would Gorge impacta rambo of | impact a greater Reservoie staerow Meadplait | cumber and acreage ot “wetlands along floodplain wetlands ‘ibutaiest the Rocky | along tributes tothe ‘Gorge watershed, Rocky Gorge “These headwater Watershed than weellinds are primarily | Comidor 2AX. In rested, relaively | cormparison to rhose undisturbed and along 2AX. the provide water quality | headwater wetlands in “benefits to the the Rocky Gorge reservoir, ‘Watershed along 2DR ure larger and higher fanetioning. neowiding ertaler water cpt ‘benefits tthe reserve. Traian | Blighily lese-impects to Indian Creek weilands _Inpucs lightly mare aeeuge of Indian Crock Creek | hn Conidae 2, Tas majority of tie-vetlards are wetlands than Corrder 1. The majority ofthe degraded by niining olan ane degre! ly ry Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures were developed for the Build Alternatives ‘The size of the stream/wetland crossings on Corridor 1 were more conducive to the use of longer bridges, which allowed for minimization of impacts in high quality wetlands on this Corridor. erred Cet im fad TUWA, SHA Compensatory ritigation Wexcribed in a separate section) will fous on the replacement of the functions provided by an aquatic: resource: or wetland, in addition to the acreage affected. b. Streams Corridor 1 would impact over 4,300 linear feet more strewn channel than Corridor 24% (37,961 Tinear ft. versus 33,442 linear f) but only slightly more than Carrider 2DB (37,961 linear ft versus 37,438). ‘The streams impacted by the IOC west of ML-97 and east of 1-95 are the same for Corridors 1 and 2 as they share an alignment in these areas, Hewever, the overall character of the streqms on Corridyr 1 between MD 97 und 1-95 is differen, chan (hose om Corridor 2 ima number of watersheds. These differences, which are based on MCDEP Stream Protection Swategy data as well as DNR's Maryland Biological Sweam Survey (MBSS) data, are summarized in Table VIE-2I. Gverall, Corridor 1 would. inpact streams thar were rated by MCDEP/DNR MRSS 2s having more impaired physical and biological conditions (Chapter FIRS and Chapter IV.F.5 for mare information on relative stream conditions). Approximately 68 percent af the linear feet of stream impacts on Corridor 1 would occur in streams rated as “poor” or “very poot”, while 30 percent of the impacts would occur in streams raved. as “fair” or “good”, On the Corridor 2 Alvernatives, 62 percent (2AX) and 67 percent (2DR) of impacts would occur in streams with bigher impairment (rated as “poor” to “very poor”), while 35 percent (2AX) and 32 percent (2DB) of impaets would be to streams raicd as “fair” or “good”. ‘Thc most notable reason for the greater numbcr of impacts on Carridor 1 over Corridor 2X is that in two areas in particular, the narrow corridor reserved for the road completely overlays small ribuiary siream valleys that cannot be avoided due to adjacent land uses (impacts to these two streams are 1,097 and 3,502 linear feet), The two streams in these valleys have been rated as being in. “poor averall condition, Corridor | would reduce. potential impacts to the Rocky Gorge watershed, which is a valuable drinking water resource. for 5500000 650,000 people. However, it would itnpact the streana of the Paint Branch in locations that provide habieat for brown trout populations. Table VII-21. Comparison of Impacted Stream Resources on Corridor 1 vs. Corridor 2 Wutsrshed. Gorridon Corridor 2 Northwest | Corridoe 1 has mare linear feet af impart impacts 16 streams are less than for Cnevider 1 in Brunch | Nocthwest Branch tributaries, However,these both number of crossings and incur fect of pacts primarily ooca’in the lewer portions of impact. However, this sarrider primarily crosses the stream system, which have more impaired —_heuewater siream areas and aulwalersheds raled bislogical and physical conditions dhan the upper at “Gaod™ ta “Excellent” far phyweal and reaches in this wotershed (baed on Uke MCDEP biological seam vanditions, These smaller Stran Protection Strange and DNR data). Thee. hea€watcr sean are: algo Toss able t asci-nilate subwatersheds are generally cated by MCDEP as the impaeis of aiditional ioopervious surfaces. having "Poor"to "Fair” physical and bialagical stream coné tins, Tleweever, doa the canon ‘of he fleedplaing and wetlands within the riparian oredr, dhe largest of dhe streams are bridged, avoiding sticam channel impacts. lisa SESWA Watershed ‘Corridor 1 Corridor 2 Paint “impacts to seam channels would be greater than Tinpacti to stream “Thote would bena Branch | rr Corrdae 2, despite Seidging of the major chara. Irorn Corde strsam channels and riparian arcas, Impacts and 2AX would be Kew additional impervious surlaves woul oxsur-within than Far Chavior 1 asl fhe watersheds of the tibutoriosthat provids the impacts would oecar | unde Comvidor 2B, ‘ust eel abla or Une rv ita ‘outside uf watersheds | Impacts inthe lec Population, Streams impacted have been rwec by considered to be most | trout population wonld MCDEP as “Gool” io “Bieslloat” for physica) evitieal w une wut |e avoided with thin zon] biological aun eurdiions, nsevatie ‘population, Sirearn | alirnative, SWM and other minimizarion measures have been quulityis rated as developed gecittcalty forenis cesaurce 19 “raw “Facellere* ‘minimize these potential impacts, ‘by MCUEP. SWM and cater minima raban ‘measures developed far ‘is resource would sinimize potential negative effexs Tite Paint | Tenpaets io Tinea feet oF atreams would be ‘Srream impacts are substantially Tees han. for Brinch | approximately cieht times greater thun for ‘Conider 1, however, ampacts would opcur in Comridor 2. However, dbesestrearns are generally subwatersiods with slighty better slacam mire smpavset by developement aml ave rated ws conditions (“Fair 1 “Good than those in “Faic” bp MCDEP for physical and biological = Cortdar 1. someon. Rocky | Mevstream impacts in this wersherk ‘Conder 2AX would | Corridar 208 sould Gorge ‘impact ribururies that | impact tibunares that Reservoir ow directly tothe | few diecetly to the ‘Rocky Cerge Rocky Gorge Reservoir Ressivic,andooukd | Lira exeusideraldy inrease waver qualily | grenver degre daa impairment ofthe Contdnr2AX. The riservoir, a crtivaland | potential risk for waver ‘non-renewable drinking | cuality impacts tothe ‘walk rescuree. reservoir are also ‘Comices ZAC coud | bigher tor this increase Fisk of alternating, a8 ¢ asso chuzurdousmaterials | in close proximity to reaching the ‘eszevoir, | the reservoir tlt, SWM hus been wilored | resulting in less time se mininire these and distance to contain sets, buzerdous materials 2 tne vent ef a pil, Trdian | Slightly amaler impacts telndian Creek steams Tmpacts aightiy more linear feet of Indian Creek reste | thwn Carrion 3, sritwtaries thi Cnricar 1 Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures were devcloped for the: Build Alternatives. ‘The size of the stream crossings on-Comidar | were more conducive to the use of longer bridges, which allowed for jon of irapacts high quality streams on this Corridor. Compensatory mitigation will target prajocts that replace stream function when feasible and/or provide provernens 9 streum flow, hubital, and ply {1 eunditions, Selection of (he best mitigation sites for the Preferred Altemative will be coordinated with the resource agencies to erred Cet im fad TUWA, SHA in apuntlance wi the size and ensure (hat the best functional replavernent porsible is pron type of the impact, «. Floodplains Corridor 1 would itnpaut feys Movdplain: acreage than Corridor 24% andl 2DB (32.4 ares versus 41.5 and 44.3 aores respectively). ‘The floodplains impacted by all three alternatives would he identical west of MD 97 and east of 1-95 since they share che same alignment in these areas Hovrever, between MD 97 and 1 95, the overall character and projected impact to floodplains are nolubly different in a number of wawersheds, These differenges are surruarized in Table VIT22 below. Since the impacts fiewn Cortidor 2 AX aid 2DB would be extremely sitnilar, Table VIT- 22 does not differentiate between these two alternatives. Overall, Corridor 1 would avoid impacts 10 floodplains in the Rocky Gorge Watershed, and would reduce impacts ard crossings in the Northwest Branch watershed. Corridor 2AX and 20H would reduce forested floodplain impacts in the Liule Paint Branch watershed, and overall floodplain impacts in the Paint Branch watershed. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures were developed for the Build Alternatives, as discussed in the streams section above. Table VII-22. Comparison of Floodplain Impacts Corridor 1 vs. Corridor 2 Watershed Corridor 1 Corridor Nothwest | Very broad floodplains. Cerridor 1 would cross Floodplains in the mainstem of Northwest Branch and its Branca ‘hrough the LO0-year floodplain along the mainskm — tributaries are much narrowe:. Corridor 2 would have cof Northwest Branch in thret peependicalar bridec four pepeadiculur erossicgs and one longitudinal srovsings, crosing ofthe 190-year How plans to butares to Nonihoest Brunch. Othe four perpesdicular crossings, Vee woul be rig! andl ase wuld be eter, The ne longitodinal crossing wold fe big Paint “High coal Hoodalains lang Gum Spangs Corser would Fave-on: perpendicelm brdue crowing Branca | itutaryund'Good Hope trbwiny due to their othe 100-yer Hloadplin ofthe ure reaches of Pain ‘sain within velatively undovelopes tran valley Tear, parks,

    Você também pode gostar