Appendix A

APPENDIX
Public and Agency Correspondence
APPENDIX A AGENCY COORDINATION
A
A.1
APPENDIX A
AGENCY COORDINATION
LETTERS TO ELECTED OFFICIALS
The list of elected officials notified of the project appears below.

TABLE A.1-1: MAILING LIST FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS
Office
Name
Organization
Address
Federal
Tower I, Suite 1710, 100 South
Charles Street Baltimore, MD
Senator
Benjamin L. Cardin
U.S. Senate
Senator
Barbara A. Mikulski
U.S. Senate
Congressman
Dutch Ruppersberger
U.S. House of
Representatives
Brown's Wharf, 1629 Thames

Street, Suite 400 Baltimore,
MD
The Atrium, 375 West Padonia
Road, Suite 200 Timonium, MD
Congressman
John P. Sarbanes
U.S. House of
Representatives
600 Baltimore Avenue, Suite

303, Towson, MD
Senator
James E. DeGrange, Sr.
Senate of Maryland
Senator
Edward J. Kasemeyer
Senate of Maryland
Senator
Bryan W. Simonaire
Senate of Maryland
Delegate
Pamela G. Beidle
Maryland House of
Delegates
Delegate
Edward P. (Ned) Carey
Maryland House of
Delegates
Delegate
Mark S. Chang
Maryland House of
Delegates
Delegate
Eric D. Ebersole
Maryland House of
Delegates
State
BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project
James Senate Office Building,

Room 101, 11 Bladen Street,
Annapolis, MD
Miller Senate Office Building, 3
West Wing, 11 Bladen Street,
Annapolis, MD
James Senate Office Building,
Room 320, 11 Bladen Street,
Annapolis, MD
House Office Building, Room
161, 6 Bladen Street,
Annapolis, MD
Annapolis, MD
Annapolis, MD
Annapolis, MD
Environmental Assessment
APPENDIX A-1
APPENDIX A AGENCY COORDINATION
TABLE A.1-1: MAILING LIST FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS

Office
Name
Organization
Address

Annapolis, MD
Annapolis, MD
Annapolis, MD
Delegate
Terri L. Hill, M.D.
Maryland House of
Delegates
Delegate
Clarence K. Lam
Maryland House of
Delegates
Delegate
Theodore J. Sophocleus
Maryland House of
Delegates
County Executive
Kevin B. Kamenetz
Baltimore County
400 Washington Avenue,

Towson, MD
County Executive
Steven Schuh
Anne Arundel County
Arundel Center, 44 Calvert

Street, Annapolis, MD
Councilmember
John J. Grasso
Anne Arundel County

Council

Councilmember
Thomas E. Quirk
Baltimore County
Council
400 Washington Avenue,

Room 205, Towson, MD
Councilmember
Peter Smith
Anne Arundel County

Council
Councilmember
Jon Weinstein
Howard County Council

George Howard Building, 1st
Floor, 3430 Courthouse Drive,
Ellicott City, MD
County
APPENDIX A-2
Federal Government
Advisory Council on Historic Places
June 4, 2012
Mr. David Valenstein
Chief, Environment and Planning Division
Federal Railroad Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Ref:
Proposed BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

Anne Arundel County and Baltimore County, Maryland
Dear Mr. Valenstein:

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) recently received your supporting documentation
regarding the adverse effects of the referenced project on properties listed on and eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places. Based upon the information you provided, we have concluded that
Appendix A, Criteria for Council Involvement in Reviewing Individual Section 106 Cases, of our
regulations, Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 800), does not apply to this undertaking.
Accordingly, we do not believe that our participation in the consultation to resolve adverse effects is
needed. However, if we receive a request for participation from the State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, affected Indian tribe, a consulting party, or other party, we
may reconsider this decision. Additionally, should circumstances change, and you determine that our
participation is needed to conclude the consultation process, please notify us.
Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(b)(1)(iv), you will need to file the final Memorandum of Agreement (MOA),
developed in consultation with the Maryland SHPO and any other consulting parties, and related
documentation with the ACHP at the conclusion of the consultation process. The filing of the MOA and
supporting documentation with the ACHP is required in order to complete the requirements of Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review this undertaking. If you have any questions,
please contact Louise Brodnitz at 202-606-8527, or via email at lbrodnitz@achp.gov.
Sincerely,
Raymond Wallace
Historic Preservation Technician
Office of Federal Agency Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
McCurdy, Alaina
Dan Reagle
RE: BWI Rail Station and 4th Track Project - Draft Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan
Monday, March 31, 2014 3:04:27 PM
DanEPA has reviewed the Draft Phase 1 Conceptual Mitigation Plan for BWI Rail Station Improvements
and Fourth Track Project. We concur with comments that the Plan adequately identifies
potentially suitable stream and wetland compensatory mitigation sites in support of the
Environmental Assessment for the project.
We understand that the Plan utilized the worst case scenario for potential project impacts, which
included several acres of wetland of special state concern (WSSC). Acknowledging the importance
of continued avoidance and minimization of impact to wetlands and stream, we know that MTA
and FRA has pursued and developed alternatives that significantly reduce the amount of wetland
and stream impact, including WSSC, and will not need to utilize offset impacts for the worst case
scenario. In the event that the worst case scenario (west alignment option) were pursued,
additional and comprehensive discussions would need to occur to determine if the presented plan
were adequate to replace the lost functions and values of high quality wetlands and streams,
particularly including WSSC. In the unlikely scenario that the worst case scenario were selected,
EPA would not support the west alignment as the least environmentally damaging practicable
alternative when the project seeks the necessary CWA Section 404 permit. However considering
efforts taken to reduce impacts to wetlands and streams through avoidance and minimization, it
appears that the preliminary mitigation options included in the Plan will likely provide suitable
compensatory mitigation.
Also note, Section 404 under the 2008 Corps and EPA Compensatory Mitigation Rule does not
specify ratios for compensatory mitigation (page 2 of the Plan),and instead seeks to offset lost
functions and values of impacted wetlands and streams. Page 3/4- Please note that even if in the
future banking credits were available in the project watersheds, the banks may not properly offset
unavoidable project impacts and the use of banks may be determined to be inappropriate,
especially in the worst case scenario.
Please continue to coordinate this project and the future Phase 2 Mitigation Plan with EPA. Please
feel free to call/email if you would like to discuss.
Thanks,
Alaina
--------------Alaina McCurdy
Office of Environmental Programs
U.S. EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
phone: (215)814-2741
fax: (215)814-2783
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Christine Vaccaro - NOAA Federal

Dan Reagle
BWI Rail Station
Monday, December 09, 2013 3:29:31 PM
Hi there,
We received your request for endangered and threatened species listed by the
National Marine Fisheries Service in your study area for the above project. There are
no records of any species listed by NMFS in there areas you have delineated.
In the future, you can use our endangered species maps to help determine if any
marine resources are present within your study areas. These new maps are located
here:
http://www.nero.noaa.gov/protected/section7/guidence/maps/index.html
Cheers,
Chris
Chris Vaccaro
Fisheries Biologist
Protected Resources Division
NOAA Fisheries/NERO
Gloucester, MA
Phone: 978-281-9167
Email: christine.vaccaro@noaa.gov
National Resources Conservation Service
US Army Corps of Engineers
Based on the agreed upon project purpose, in accordance with established Corps policy,
the Corps will need to concur on the range of alternatives retained for detailed study in
the NEPA document. At a minimum, the NEPA document must comprehensively
evaluate the practicability of the following alternatives and construction techniques to
avoid and or minimize impacts to waters of the US., including jurisdictional wetlands:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
1)
m)
n)
0)
Fourth track alignment east of mainline

Fourth track alignment west of mainline
Fourth track alignment transitioning east and west of mainline
General or local alignment shifts
Rail station improvement alternatives
No build alternative
Bridges
Retaining walls
Steep side slopes
Temporary construction mats
Shortening/narrowing access roads
Stormwater management alternatives
Implementation of best management practices
Stream relocation as opposed to filling/culverting
Minimizing construction access through sensitive aquatic areas
We look forward to the scheduled AprilS, 2012 field meeting with the study team to
review impact areas and to discuss specific recommendations for avoiding and
minimizing impacts to waters of the US.
3. Corps public interest review factors. The decision to issue a permit will be based on an
evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed
activity and its intended use on the public interest. Among the factors that must be
evaluated as part of the Corps public interest review include: conservation, economics,
aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands and streams, historic and cultural
resources, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation,
shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, energy needs,
safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, water quality, considerations of property
ownership, air and noise impacts, and, in general the needs and welfare of the people.
Each of the Corps public interest factors must be evaluated comprehensively in the
NEP A document.
4. Delineation of all waters of the US., including jurisdictional wetlands, in the project area.
5. Quantify impacts (both temporary and permanent) to all waters of the US. (e.g.,
perennial, intermittent, ephemeral streams; rivers, lakes, ponds), including jurisdictional
wetlands, for each project alternative. For streams and rivers, include both the linear feet
ofstrearnlriver impacts (measured along the centerline) and square feet of impact. For
temporary wetland impacts, quantify any change in wetland classification (e.g., palustrine
forested to palustrine emergent, etc.).
6. Secondary, cumulative, and indirect impacts resulting from the project.
7. Environmental justice including compliance with Executive Order 12898 on
environmental justice.
8. Wetland and stream mitigation plans. Please be advised that the 2008 EP NCorps
mitigation rule requires the submission of final mitigation plans for Corps review and
approval, prior to issuing a Department of Anny standard permit decision.
9. Analysis of the project's compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended
by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 04-267) [essential fish habitat
(EFH) assessment].
10. Air quality Impacts (i.e., Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule
Review).
11. Compliance with the Executive Order on floodplains.
12. Project review schedule and NEPA document preparation schedule. Other important
milestones (e.g., public hearings, etc.) should also be listed in the NEP A document.
We look forward to working with your agency as the EA is developed and the review of the
project proceeds. A copy of this letter is being sent to Mr. William Seiger, MDE-Waterway
Construction Division, and Mr. Dan Reagle, Maryland Transit Administration. Should you have
any questions concerning this letter, please contact Mr. Jack Dinne of this office at
410-962-6005.
Sincerely,
9UL/L1P,'~
Joseph P. DaVia
Chief, Maryland Section Northern
Phase I (UNCLASSIFIED) - Outlook Web Access Light
1 of 1
https://www.portal.mdot.maryland.gov/owa/,DanaInfo=mdotgbexchca01....
Address Book
Reply
Mail
Reply to All
Forward
Move
Delete
Junk
Calendar
Phase I (UNCLASSIFIED)
Contacts
Dinne, John J NAB [JOHN.J.DINNE@usace.army.mil]
Options
Log Off
Close
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 4:16 PM

Deleted Items (41)
Drafts [2]
Inbox
To:
Dan Reagle
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Junk E-mail
Sent Items
Click to view all folders

BWI 4th rail ARRA (9)
CCT (4)
Dunkirk (1)
Dan,
In general, I concur with the draft Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan.
offer the following comments.
I wanted to
Table 1-I would recommend not using the word "required" in the third column. Perhaps
continue to use "projected" or "proposed" or "potential" wetland acres compensation.
Required definitely sounds like we have determined an amount at this time, which is
obviously not the case.
Freight RRs (6)

GIS (3)
Page 3, first full paragraph. I would recommend including "flow regime" in the list of
things considered for stream mitigation.
HR Benefits Union Job (1)

Security Grants
Southern MD Study
bike/ped (2)
subscribe
Finally, the plan covers the some of the 12 mitigation plan components very well (e.g.,
objectives, site selection criteria, background information for the baseline) but it
should include at least a little information on all the components. Even a sentence or
two about how about something like financial assurances would help.
Thanks for the opportunity to review and comment.
Manage Folders...
Jack Dinne
Maryland Section Northern
Regulatory Branch, Baltimore District
US Army Corps of Engineers
410 962-6005
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Connected to Microsoft Exchange
4/29/2014 7:40 AM
US Coast Guard
Commander
United States Coast Guard
Fifth Coast Guard District
431 Crawford Street

Portsmouth, Va. 23704-5004
Staff Symbol: (dpb)
Phone: 757-398-6629
Fax: 757-398-6334
Email: Lindsey.R.Middleton@uscg.mil
16591 D
23 MAR 11
Mr. John Newton
Manager, Environmental Planning
Maryland Transit Administration
6 Saint Paul Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
Dear Mr. Newton:
This is in response to your letter dated January 12, 2011, requesting a navigability determination
at the proposed railroad bridge site located across the Patapsco River (South Branch), in
Lansdowne, MD. We have examined the Patapsco River (South Branch) with regard to its status
as a navigable water of the United States for the purposes of Coast Guard bridge jurisdiction.
Our preliminary examination indicates that the waterway at the proposed bridge site may be
considered non-navigable or for a waiver of a Coast Guard Bridge Permit under Title 33 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 115.70 - Advance Approval category determination for bridges.
Advance approval waterways are those that are navigable in law, but not actually navigated by
other than small boats. The Commandant of the Coast Guard has given advance approval to the
construction or repair of bridges across such waterways. To confirm either determination, please
submit the following information: Plan drawings of the proposed bridge, preferably on an 8
x 11 sheet (the plan drawings must be at least 95% complete); and the names and addresses of
adjacent property owners within a half-mile radius of the bridge. Once we receive this
information, we will issue a 30-day public notice for comments.
If you have any questions, please contact Lindsey Middleton at above listed telephone number or
email address.
Sincerely
WAVERLY W. GREGORY, JR.

Chief, Bridge Administration Branch
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
Copy: CG Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management
US Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Natural Resources of Concern
This resource list is to be used for planning purposes only it is not an ofcial species list.
Endangered Species Act species list information for your project is available online and listed below for
the following FWS Field Ofces:
CHESAPEAKE BAY ECOLOGICAL SERVICES FIELD OFFICE
177 ADMIRAL COCHRANE DRIVE

ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401
(410) 573-4500
Project Name:
BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track
11/22/2013
Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPAC)
Version 1.4
Page 1 of 5
Project Location Map:
Project Counties:
Anne Arundel, MD | Baltimore, MD
11/22/2013
Version 1.4
Page 2 of 5
Geographic coordinates (Open Geospatial Consortium Well-Known Text, NAD83):

MULTIPOLYGON (((-76.6954231 39.2108575, -76.6967958 39.1954342, -76.6906197 39.1858606,
-76.6906168 39.185853, -76.6906171 39.1858448, -76.6940501 39.1725389, -76.6967961 39.1565708,
-76.6947365 39.1336748, -76.6947367 39.1336696, -76.7002298 39.1022383, -76.7002326 39.102231,
-76.700238 39.1022253, -76.7002451 39.1022222, -76.7002529 39.102222, -76.7002602 39.1022248,
-76.7002659 39.1022302, -76.700269 39.1022373, -76.7002692 39.1022451, -76.6947766 39.1336738,
-76.6968362 39.1565698, -76.696836 39.156575, -76.6940894 39.1725465, -76.6940891 39.1725481,
-76.6906581 39.1858463, -76.6968331 39.1954183, -76.6968357 39.1954243, -76.6968362 39.1954309,
-76.6954629 39.2108615, -76.6954628 39.2108623, -76.691343 39.242245, -76.6913405 39.2422524,
-76.6913354 39.2422583, -76.6913284 39.2422617, -76.6913206 39.2422622, -76.6913132 39.2422597,
-76.6913073 39.2422546, -76.6913039 39.2422476, -76.6913034 39.2422398, -76.6954231 39.2108575)))
Project Type:
Transportation
Endangered Species Act Species List (USFWS Endangered Species Program).

There are a total of 1 threatened, endangered, or candidate species, and/or designated critical habitat on your species list. Species on
this list are the species that may be affected by your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For
example, certain shes may appear on the species list because a project could cause downstream effects on the species. Please
contact the designated FWS ofce if you have questions.
Species that may be affected by your project:

Flowering Plants
Status
Species Prole Contact
Swamp pink (Helonias bullata)
Threatened species info
Chesapeake Bay Ecological

Services Field Ofce
FWS National Wildlife Refuges (USFWS National Wildlife Refuges Program).

There are no refuges found within the vicinity of your project.
11/22/2013
Version 1.4
Page 3 of 5
FWS Migratory Birds (USFWS Migratory Bird Program).

Most species of birds, including eagles and other raptors, are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16
U.S.C. 703). Bald eagles and golden eagles receive additional protection under the
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668). The ServicesBirds of Conservation Concern (2008) report
identies species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional
conservation actions, are likely to become listed under the Endangered Species Act as amended (16 U.S.C 1531
et seq.).
Migratory bird information is not available for your project location.
NWI Wetlands (USFWS National Wetlands Inventory).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency that provides information on the extent and
status of wetlands in the U.S., via the National Wetlands Inventory Program (NWI). In addition to impacts to
wetlands within your immediate project area, wetlands outside of your project area may need to be considered
in any evaluation of project impacts, due to the hydrologic nature of wetlands (for example, project activities
may affect local hydrology within, and outside of, your immediate project area). It may be helpful to refer to
the USFWS National Wetland Inventory website. The designated FWS ofce can also assist you. Impacts to
wetlands and other aquatic habitats from your project may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal Statutes. Project Proponents should discuss the relationship of these
requirements to their project with the Regulatory Program of the appropriate
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.
The following wetlands intersect your project area:
Wetland Types
NWI Classication Code
Approximate Acres
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
PSS1/EM1E
1.402344
PFO1C
6.604278
Freshwater Pond
PUBHh
1.461214
PSS1/EM1C
5.534593
Riverine
R2UBH
66.861832
PFO1/SS1C
10.128255
Freshwater Pond
PUBHh
0.354306
PFO1/SS1C
11.002269
Freshwater Pond
PUBHx
0.559903
PFO1/SS1C
2.883845
11/22/2013
Version 1.4
Page 4 of 5
11/22/2013
PFO1A
3.31443
Version 1.4
Page 5 of 5
State Agencies
Critical Area Commission
MD Aviation Administration
Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs
TI~
Maryland
MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Martin O'Malley, Governor Anthony G. Brown, Lt. Governor
Beverley K. Swaim-Staley, Secretary Ralign T. Wells, Administrator
December 29,2010
E. Keith Colston, Administrator
Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs
301 W. Preston Street, Suite 1500
Baltimore, MD 21202
Dear Mr. Colston:
The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) received a grant from the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) to advance conceptual engineering and to prepare a National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental assessment (EA) for station
improvements at the Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC)/Amtrak Baltimore
Washington International Airport (BWI) Rail station. The work includes construction of
a new platform, improvements to the current station, addition of a fourth track along the
Northeast Corridor Line and construction of an interlocking just north of the West
Baltimore MARC station. The general project area is defined as a 500-foot linear
corridor centered on the existing set of rail lines between Odenton Station and Halethorpe
Station, for a distance of approximately 10 miles (Attachment 1). A circle with a 500foot radius delineates the Bridge Interlocking area, north of West Baltimore Station, in
Baltimore City.
The FRA has directed that MTA commence the NEP A process with the preparation of an
EA. The EA will be prepared in accordance with FRA NEP A Environmental Procedures
for Considering Environmental Impacts, 64 FR 28545 (May 26, 1999). Two alternatives
will be discussed in the EA including no action and the improvements alternative.
We have initiated consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA) with the Maryland Historical Trust and requested assistance from them in
identifying appropriate Native American tribes and other interested parties for this
project. To ensure that any areas or resources of sacred or spiritual significance to Native
American groups are considered, we would also appreciate your help in identifying
Native American groups with any interests or concerns regarding traditional resources or
properties within the project area.
6 Saint Paul Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202-1614 TTY 410-539-3497 Toll Free 1-866-743-3682
MD Department of Environment
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
MDE
1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21230

410-537-3000 1-800-633-6101 http://www.mde.state.md.us
Martin O'Malley
Governor
Robert M. Summers, Ph.D

Acting Secretary
Anthony G. Brown
Lieutenant Governor
March 1,2011
Mr. John Newton

Environmental Planning Division
6 St. Paul Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
RE:
State Application Identifier: MD20 110114-0017

Project: BWI/Amtrak Station Improvements
Dear Mr. Newton:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced project. The document was circulated
throughout the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) for review, and the following comment is
offered for your consideration.
Any solid waste including construction, demolition and land clearing debris, generated from the
subject project, must be properly disposed of at a permitted solid waste acceptance facility, or recycled
if possible. Contact the Solid Waste Program at (410) 537-3318 for additional information.
Again, thank you for giving MDE the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions, please
feel free to call me at (410) 537-4120.
Sincerely,
~~
Clearinghouse Coordinator
Office of Communications
cc:
Bob Rosenbush, State Clearinghouse
RECEI\'ED
MAR
7 2011
OFFICE OF- PLANNING

PROJECT ()EVELOPMENT

1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore MD 21230
410-537-3000 1-800-633-6101
Martin O Malley
Governor
Robert M. Summers, Ph.D.

Secretary
Anthony G. Brown
Lt. Governor
January 13, 2014

Mr. Dan Reagle
6 Saint Paul Street, Room 923
Baltimore, MD 21202
Project: BWI Rail Station and 4th Track Project
RE: Responses to USEPA and Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) comments on the Draft Station
Alternatives Screening Memorandum
Mr. Reagle:
The Wetlands and Waterways Program has reviewed the Revised Draft BWI Rail Station Location Screening
Memorandum (Memo) dated November 14, 2013, as well as the responses to MDEs comments sent to you on
April 5, 2013. Comments #2 and #3 were not addressed in the revised Memo, leaving no comparison of wetland
and waterway impacts for each alternative. The revised Memo does not satisfy the States nontidal wetlands
requirements for the Alternative Site and Avoidance and Minimization Analyses required under the Maryland Code
of Regulations (COMAR) 26.23.02.05 without a comparison of impacts for each alternative. We understand that
cost is a major factor in which site is preferred; however, under COMAR 26.23.02.05, a comparison of impacts
between alternatives is required regardless of cost.
At this time, we are not requesting additional design for each alternative; however, please note that an estimate of
impacts for each alternative will be required as part of MDEs review of the Joint Permit Application. An estimate
of impacts for each alternative is best discussed during the planning process to avoid delays during the permitting
process. The estimate of impacts would also help quantify the statement regarding a 1.5 acre of wetland impact
reduction. The 1.5 acre reduction has no basis without a comparison of impacts between the alternatives.
The Memo would also benefit from a discussion of the advantages of building off-site. For example, what are the
benefits of building off-site from an operational standpoint? In other words, are there any additional operation costs
that need to be considered when there is on-going construction at an active station? Another potential benefit of
building off-site would be the potential to avoid impacts to the Nontidal Wetland of Special State Concern
(NWSSC) entirely. An off-site location would allow the current station to be removed, and the new track could be
added without additional impacts to the NWSSC. This alternative should be discussed as part of the Avoidance and
Minimization Analysis.
Page 1 of 2
If you have any questions, I may be reached at (410) 662-7464 ext 1653 or at Emily.Dolbin@maryland.gov.
Sincerely,
Emily Dolbin,
on Behalf of WMA,
Wetlands and Waterways Program
cc:
Mr. John Newton, MTA

Mr. Jack Dinne, Corps of Engineers
Mr. Elder Ghigiarelli, Deputy Administrator, Wetlands and Waterways Program
Ms. Amanda Sigillito, Chief, Nontidal Wetlands Division
Page 2 of 2

410-537-3000 1-800-633-6101
Martin O Malley
Governor

Secretary
Anthony G. Brown
Lt. Governor
April 14, 2014

Mr. Dan Reagle
Baltimore, MD 21202
RE: Draft Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan
Mr. Reagle:
The Wetlands and Waterways Program of the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) has reviewed the
Draft Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan for the BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project dated
December 2013. MDE has the following comments for inclusion in the Plan:
1. Please include a description of the type and acreage of the proposed nontidal wetland loss including; the
types of wetland plant communities, the associated dominant species in the existing wetlands, and the
functions and values of the existing wetlands.
2. Replacement ratios for Wetlands of Special State Concern (WSSC) will need to be discussed further and
approved by MDE. Please add a note to Table 1 that ratios for impacts to WSSC have not been approved
and are for planning purposes only. The approved ratio may be higher than 3:1 and is determined based on
functions and values of the WSSC. Impacts to WSSC should be avoided and minimized to the greatest
extent possible.
3. Briefly outline the potential site protection instrument(s) that the Maryland Transit Administration typically
uses for mitigation sites (e.g. conservation easements, deed restrictions, restrictive covenants, etc.).
If you have any questions, I may be reached at (410) 662-7464 ext 1653 or at Emily.Dolbin@maryland.gov.
Sincerely,
Emily Dolbin,
on Behalf of WMA,
cc:


410-537-3000 1-800-633-6101
Martin O Malley
Governor

Secretary
Anthony G. Brown
Lt. Governor
April 16, 2014

Mr. Dan Reagle
Baltimore, MD 21202
RE: BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project, Meeting Minutes of Agency Station Relocation
Screening Meeting, March 7, 2014
Dear Mr. Reagle:

The Wetlands and Waterways Program of the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) has reviewed the
BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project Meeting Minutes of Agency Station Relocation Screening
Meeting (Meeting Minutes) dated March 13, 2014, and the Revised Draft BWI Rail Station Location Screening
Memorandum (Revised Memo) dated February 7, 2014. The Meeting Minutes and Revised Memo adequately
address MDEs comments provided on January 13, 2014. The Program has no additional comments on the Meeting
Minutes or Revised Memo at this time.
MDE looks forward to reviewing the Alternatives Report upon its scheduled release in May 2014 and the
administrative Draft Environmental Assessment upon its scheduled release in November 2014.
If you have any questions, I may be reached at (410) 662-7464, ext. 1653, or at Emily.Dolbin@maryland.gov.
Sincerely,
Emily Dolbin,
on Behalf of WMA,
cc:

Mr. Joseph DaVia, Corps of Engineers
MD Department of Natural Resources
Coordination Sheet for Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Environmental

Review Unit information on fisheries resources, including anadromous fish, related to
project locations and study areas
REQUESTED BY:
DATE OF REQUEST:
January 3, 2010
Dan Reagle
410.767.3771 (p) 410.333.0489 (f)
Office of Planning | 9th Floor
6 St. Paul Street, 21202
PROJECT NAME / LOCATION / DESCRIPTION:
BWI/Amtrak Station Improvements, 4th Track and Bridge Interlocking
The study area is an approximately 9-mile long by 500-foot wide corridor along the railroad tracks between Odenton
and Halethorpe MARC stations. The study area occurs in Anne Arundel, Howard and Baltimore Counties and
Baltimore City (see attached maps).
NAME OF STREAM(S) (and MDE Use Classification) WITHIN THE STUDY AREA:
Severn Run : Use IV
Stony Run: Use I
Patapsco River: Use I
East Branch of Herbert Run: Use I
West Branch of Herbert Run: Use I
Stream crossing locations are in Anne Arundel, Howard and Baltimore Counties along the 9 mile corridor
SUB-BASIN (6 digit watershed):
Patapsco River 02-13-09 and West Chesapeake Bay 02-13-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DNR RESPONSE (sections below to be completed by MD DNR):

__X__Generally, no instream work is permitted in Use I streams during the period of March 1 through June 15,
inclusive, during any year. Where presence of Yellow Perch has been documented (Patapsco River), no instream
work should occur from February 15 through June 15.
__X__Generally, no instream work is permitted in Use IV streams (Severn Run) during the period of March 1
through May 31, inclusive, during any year.
ADDITIONAL FISHERIES RESOURCE NOTES:
The Patapsco River system supports Largemouth and Smallmouth Bass and sportsfishing activities. A range of
resident warm water fish species utilize each of these stream systems and their tributaries which in many cases cross
this alignment study corridor. Anadromous fish species include White Perch, Yellow Perch, and River Herring have
been documented during their spring spawning season in the Patapsco River. Severn Run is stocked with trout for
recreational fishing during the spring season, in reaches downstream of the project alignment.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES:
Any expected potential fish species should be adequately protected by the Use I instream work prohibition time of
year restriction referenced above, through sediment and erosion control measures, and other Best Management
Practices. To avoid potential adverse impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation beds, no instream work should be
conducted where they may be located from April 15 through October 15 of any year.
MD DNR, Environmental Review Unit signature

----------------------------------------------------DATE: ---------2-16-2011---------------------------------
Attachment 1
262.5
525
1,050
Feet
Scale 1" = 525'
75
150
300
Feet
Scale 1" = 525'
BWI Station Improvements,

Fourth Track and
Bridge Interlocking
Limits of Disturbance
Giant Cane within LOD(0.033144 Acres)
Imagery Sources: Maryland Department of Natural Resources, May 6, 2008. Pinnacle Mapping Technologies, Inc., April 5, 2010
Giant Cane(4.562652 Acres)
Bog Fern(0.158259 Acres)
RTE Species Impacts
June 20, 2013

Mr. Dan Reagle
Maryland Department of Transportation
6 Saint Paul Street
Baltimore, MD 21202-1614
RE:
Environmental Review for BWI Fourth Track Project Wetland and Stream Mitigations
sites, Anne Arundel/Baltimore/Howard Counties, Maryland.
Dear Mr. Reagle:

With the exceptions described below, the Wildlife and Heritage Service has no State or Federal
records for rare, threatened or endangered species within the boundaries of the project site as
delineated. As a result, we have no specific comments or requirements pertaining to protection
measures at this time. This statement should not be interpreted however as meaning that rare,
threatened or endangered species are not in fact present. If appropriate habitat is available,
certain species could be present without documentation because adequate surveys have not been
conducted.
The sites on Sheets 12-15 fall within areas known to support the state and federally-listed
Swamp Pink (Helonias bullata) as well as other plants listed by the State. Specific concerns are:
Site LP-036 overlaps partially with a Nontidal Wetland of Special State Concern
(NTWSSC) associated with Stony Run. Such NTWSSCs are regulated, along with their
100-foot upland buffer, as such by Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE).
Although there are no RT&E species known to occur on this mitigation site, we would
encourage the applicant to utilize stringent sediment and erosion controls during all
phases of work in this area, in order to reduce the likelihood of adverse impacts to the
RT&E species in close proximity to the site in Stony Run.
Site LP-034 is located within close proximity to RT&E species records associated with
Stony Run. We would encourage the applicant to maintain hydrology in the area if this
site is pursued as a mitigation site.
Site LP-033 is located within a portion of Stony Run that is upstream from RT&E species
occurrences. We would encourage the applicant to utilize stringent sediment and erosion
controls during all phases of work in this area, in order to reduce the likelihood of
adverse impacts to the RT&E species in close proximity to the site in Stony Run.
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
Sites LP-001, LP-002, LP-003 and LP-005 are located within very close proximity to
Swamp Pink occurrences associated with Stony Run. RT&E surveys have been
conducted in the area east of Harmans Road and found no records, so we are not
concerned with new occurrences of this species being present on the proposed mitigations
sites here. However, we would recommend that the proposed limits-of-disturbance be
clearly marked and enforced, to ensure that the known Swamp Pink population
immediately adjacent to Harmans Road be avoided.
The sites on Sheet 19 fall within areas known to support state-listed threatened Climbing Fern
(Lygodium palmatum) associated with Severn Run. Specific concerns are:
Site SR-002 and Site SR-013 both are located just upstream of the NTWSSC associated
with the mainstem of Severn Run. Although there are no RT&E species known to occur
on these mitigation sites, we would encourage the applicant to utilize stringent sediment
and erosion controls during all phases of work in this area, in order to reduce the
likelihood of adverse impacts to the RT&E species in close proximity to the site in
Severn Run.
The Site on Sheet 23 falls within the Gumbottom Creek which supports several RT&E species.
Specific concerns are that Site SR-004 that is located within the NTWSSC associated with
Gumbottom Bog. Although there are no RT&E species known to occur on this mitigation site,
we would encourage the applicant to utilize stringent sediment and erosion controls during all
phases of work in this area, in order to reduce the likelihood of adverse impacts to the RT&E
species in close proximity to the site in Gumbottom Creek.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to review this project. If you should have any further
questions regarding this information, please contact me at (410) 260-8573.
Sincerely,
Lori A. Byrne,
Environmental Review Coordinator
Wildlife and Heritage Service
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
ER
Cc:
#2013.0477.aa/ba/ho
J. Thompson, US FWS
K. McCarthy, DNR
410-260-8DNR or toll free in Maryland 877-620-8DNR dnr.maryland.gov TTY Users Call via the Maryland
Relay
March 14, 2014

Mr. Dan Reagle
6 St. Paul Street
RE:
Environmental Review for BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project,
Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties, Maryland.
Dear Mr. Reagle:

Thank you for providing us with the project history since our 2011 review. The Wildlife and Heritage Service
(WHS) has no comments regarding rare, threatened or endangered species for the portion of the project site
located north of Route 295 (Baltimore-Washington Parkway) or south of Route 176 (Dorsey Road). As in the
past, our concerns focus around the portion of the project route between Route 295 and Route 176, along Stony
Run just west of the airport.
This portion of Stony Run is designated in state regulations as a Nontidal Wetland of Special State Concern
(NTWSSC) and is regulated, along with its 100-foot upland buffer, as such by Maryland Department of the
Environment. It supports records of the following rare, threatened and endangered species:
Scientific Name
Helonias bullata
Thelypteris simulata
Arundinaria gigantea
Polanisia dodecandra
Common Name
Swamp Pink
Bog Fern
Giant Cane
Clammyweed
State Status
Endangered, also federally threatened
Threatened
Rare
Endangered
Surveys for these species were conducted and results submitted to us in March 2012. Based on these results, we
have the following comments on the 30% engineering plans referenced with that submittal. It is unlikely that
there would be direct impacts to Helonias bullata, Polanisia dodecandra, or Thelypteris simulata from this
project as proposed on those plans. A small portion of the Arundinaria gigantea population falls within the
limits-of-disturbance where it may be impacted by this project. Given that impacts to rare, threatened and
endangered species populations have been avoided to the extent practicable, the size of the Arundinaria
population on the project site, and the status of this species (rare but not listed in Maryland), the WHS feels that
this is acceptable.
In general, we would still like to emphasize the need for stringent adherence to all appropriate best management
practices for sediment and erosion control, and the possible need to contact Maryland Department of the
Environment for any permits needed for the NTWSSC on the project site.
410-260-8DNR or toll free in Maryland 877-620-8DNR dnr.maryland.gov TTY Users Call via the Maryland Relay
Page 2
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to review this project. If you should have any further
questions regarding this information, please contact me at (410) 260-8573.
Sincerely,
Lori A. Byrne,
Environmental Review Coordinator
Wildlife and Heritage Service
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
ER#
Cc:
2013.1826.aaba
M. Stauss, DNR
K. McCarthy, DNR
J. Thompson, US FWS
410-260-8DNR or toll free in Maryland 877-620-8DNR dnr.maryland.gov TTY Users Call via the Maryland Relay
MD Department of Planning
Mary/and Department ofPlanning
Martin 0 'Malley
Governor
Antho'!J G. Brown
Lt. Governor
Richard Eberhart Hall
January 18,2011
Mr. John Newton

Manager, Environmental Planning Division
6 St. Paul Street
STATE CLEARINGHOJJSE REVIEW PROCESS
State Application Identifier: MD20110114-0017
Reviewer Comments Due By: February 14,2011
Project Description: ARRA: Request for intial comments prior to E.A. for BWIIAmtrak Station Improvements: new platform;
fourth track and Bridge Interlocking Project
Project Address:
between Odenton Station, and Halethorpe Station
Project Location:
Baltimore City, Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties
Clearinghouse Contact: Bob Rosenbush
Dear Mr. Newton:
Thank you for submitting your project for intergovernmental review. Participation in the Maryland Intergovernmental Review and
Coordination (MIRe) process helps ensure project consistency with plans, programs, and objectives of State agencies and local
governments. MIRC enhances opportunities for approval and/or funding and minimizes delays by resolving issues before project
implementation.
The following agencies and/or jurisdictions have been forwarded a copy of your project for their review: the Maryland
DepartmentCs) of Natural Resources, the Environment, Transportation; the County of Baltimore, Baltimore City, Anne Arundel
County; and the Maryland Department of Planning; including the Maryland Historical Trust. They have been requested to contact
your agency directly by February 14,2011 with any comments or concerns and to provide a copy of those comments to the State
Clearinghouse for Intergovernmental Assistance. Please be assured that after February 14,2011 all MIRC requirements will have
been met in accordance with Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR 34.02.01.04- .06). The project has been assigned a unique
State Application Identifier that should be used on all documents and correspondence.
One form is enclosed with this letter. The "Project Status Form" should be completed and returned as you project has been
approved. If you need assistance or have questions, contact the State Clearinghouse staff noted above at 410-767-4490 or through
e-mail atbrosenbush@mdp.state.md.us. Thank you for your cooperation with the MIRC process.
Of~(
Linda C. Janey, J.D., Assistant Secretary
for Clearinghouse and Communications
LCJ:BR
cc: Mike Paone - MDPL *
Joe Abe - DNR *
Joane Mueller - MDE*
Margaret Carlisle - MDOT*
Jessie Bialek - BLCO*

Alyssa Commander - BCIT*
John Dodds - ANARP*
Steve Allan - MDPL *

Beth Cole - MHT*
11-0017_NDC.NEWdoc
301 West Preston Street - Suite 1101 - Baltimore, Maryland 21201-2305

Telephone: 410.167.4500 - Fax: 410.167.4480. Toll Free: 1.817.167.6272 TIY Users: Maryland Relqy
Internet: Planning.Marylandgov
MD Historical Trust
MTI
Maryland
MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Martin O'MaLLey, Governor Anthony G. Brown, Lt. Governor
BeverLey K. Swaim-StaLey, Secretary RaLign T. WeLLs, Administrator
March 18,2011
Ms. Elizabeth Cole, Administrator
Review and Compliance
Maryland Historical Trust
100 Community Place, 3rd Floor
Crownsville, MD 21032
RE:
Definition of the Area of Potential Effects for BWI MARC/Amtrak Station

Improvements, Fourth Track and Bridge Interlocking Project
Anne Arundel County, Baltimore County, and Baltimore City, MD
Odenton, Relay, and Baltimore West USGS 7.5'Quadrangles
Dear~~
In our letter dated December 29,2010, the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) initiated
Section 106 consultation with your office for station improvements at the Maryland Area
Regional Commuter (MARC)/Amtrak Baltimore Washington International Airport (BWI) Rail
station and the addition of a fourth track along the Northeast Corridor Line, between Odenton
Station and Halethorpe Station. The project also includes modification of Bridge Interlocking in
Baltimore City. This letter continues consultation with the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT)
and requests your review and comments on the area of potential effects (APE) for the project.
In accordance with 36 CR 800.4(a)(1), we are proposing to define the area of potential effects
(APE) as follows:
Archaeological APE will consist of the Amtrak Right-of-Way (ROW) on both
sides of the rail lines which constitutes the areas of disturbance for the proposed
undertaking as well as including possible construction staging areas and access
roads. The total ROW varies in width from 75 feet to 300 feet.
Architectural APE will consist of a SOD-foot wide linear corridor centered on the
existing set of rail lines beginning 1000 feet south of the Grove Interlocking and
ending 1000 feet north of the Winans Interlocking. A circle with a SOD-foot
radius delineates the Bridge Interlocking area north of the West Baltimore MARC
Station. This APE is of sufficient width to assess possible visual intrusions to
adjacent cultural resources.
Please find attached the following preliminary APE figures.
6 Saint PauL Street BaLtimore, MaryLand 21202-1614 TTY 410-539-3497 ToLL Free 1-866-743-3682
FILE COpy
Maryland Department of Planning
Martin O'Malley
Maryland Htstortcat Trust
Govanor
Richard Eberhart Hall
Anthony G, Brown
Matthew j. Power
Lt, Govtrrtor
Dtpury Sumary
:vtay 9, 2012
Mr, David Valenstein, Division Chief
Environmental and Systems Planning
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, D.C. 20590
Re:

Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties, Maryland
Dear Mr. Valenstein:

Thank you for providing the Maryland liistorical Trust (Trust) with additional information regarding the abovereferenced project. The Trust has reviewed the materials as part of our ongoing consultation for this
undertaking, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. We offer
the following comments and recommendations regarding the cultural resources investigations and await further
consultation among all involved parties to successfully conclude the project's Section 106 review.
Archeology: Trust staff reviewed the following draft report on the Phase I archeological survey conducted for
the proposed project: "Phase I Archeological Survey BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project,
Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties" (Gibb and Michailof2012). Straughan Environmental conducted the
investigations and prepared the draft report on behalf of the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) and
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Based on the information included in the report, we believe that the
FRA and MTA have made a reasonable and good faith effort to identifY archeological sites that may be
impacted by the undertaking. The Trust requests more detailed project information, as discussed below, in
order to make defensible recommendations regarding the need for further work or other treatment measures.
The archeological survey examined several previously recorded archeological sites located within and adjacent
to the project's area of potential effects (APE) and identified seven newly inventoried archeological sites within
the area investigated. The sites represent the area's broad range of human occupation and use, spanning
prehistoric through historic time periods. Several of the existing sites have already been determined eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and one is formally listed in the National Register. The
Phase I survey was geared at identification level work, so it reasonably did not include National Register
evaluations for the newly discovered sites or the previously unevaluated resources. Unfortunately, the level of
detail and project mapping included in the report is not sufficient for developing justifiable assessments ofthc
project's effects on archeological resources, as discussed below. Attachment 1 contains a table of the
archeological sites in the project vicinity, notes National Register eligibility status, and provides the Trust's
preliminary assessment of impacts and recommended action / request for further information.
The draft report presents detailed documentation on the survey's goals, methods, results, and general
recommendations. Attachment 2 lists the Trust's specific comments on the draft itself. Revisions to the
document are needed for it to meet the reporting requirements of the Trust's Standards and Guidelines jor
Archeological Investigations in l'vfaryland (Shatfer and Cole 1994). Furthermore, the final report must provide
sutlicient infonnatioll on which the sponsoring and reviewing agencies may make infonned decisions regarding the
100 Community Place Crownsville, Maryland 21032-2023
Telephone: 410.514.7600 Fax: 410.987.4071 Toll Free: 1.800.756.0119 TTY Users: Maryland Relay
Internet: http://mht.maryland.gov
Mr. David Valenstein, Division Chief

May 9, 2012
Page 2 of8
project's potential effects on archeological sites and the need for further work or other site treatments. We ask the
FRA/MTA to have the consultant address the issues discussed in Attachment 2 in the preparation of a revised and
final repOft, and look forward to receiving two copies of the final report for our library.
Historic Built EnvironmeIlt: Trust staff has reviewed the revised area of potential effects (APE) and revised
Determination of Eligibility (DOE) forms prepared in response to comments in our 14 December 2011
correspondence. We concur that the APE for the historic built environment encompasses the area within which
the undertaking may cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties. We have also determined
that the revised DOE forms and electronic database meet the Trust's guidelines and all materials will be
accessioned into our inventory. Our comments on the survey documentation are presented below.
Based on the revised documentation, we have determined that the following properties within the undertaking'S
APE are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register):
Baltimore & Potomac Railroad Survey District (MlHP No. AA-l 097), Anne Arundel County;
Maryland Distillery, Inc. ICalvert Distilling Co. (MlHP No. BA-3268), Relay, Baltimore, County;
B&O Railroad Bridge over the B&P Railroad (MlHP No. BA-3269), Halethorpe, Baltimore
County;
8694 Downey Road, Severn, Anne Arundel County;
934 Reece Road, Severn, Anne Arundel County;
945 Reece Road, Severn, Anne Arundel County;
1535 Florida Avenue, Severn, Anne Arundel County;
Powercon Field Corporation, 1551 Florida Avenue, Severn, Anne Arundel County;
Midway Industrial Park, 1710 Midway Road, Odenton, Anne Arundel County;
Friends Medical Laboratory, Inc., 5820 Southwestern Boulevard, Halethorpe, Baltimore County;
Eagle Express, 7449 Shipley Avenue, Harmans, Anne Arundel County;
Furnace Avenue Bridge over Stony Run, Hanover, Anne Arundel County;
Culvert at Sta. 638+50, Halethorpe, Baltimore County;
Culvert at Sta. 720+60, Patapsco, Anne Arundel County.
In our previous correspondence, we concurred that 21 properties were not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places. For the sake of clarity, those resources are repeated in the list above.
Prior investigations within the project's APE have identitied three resources that are eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places. They are:
Bridge No. 2075 (MIHP No. AA-2125), Reece Road Bridge, Anne Arundel County;

May 9, 2012
Page 3 01'8
Bridge No. 3011 (MIHP No. BA-2782), Washington Boulevard Bridge, Baltimore County;
Harmans Post Office (MIHP No. AA-2298) 1225 Old Dorsey Road, Harmans, Anne Arundel
County.
Assessment of Effects: We concur with FRA/MT A that the proposed undertaking will have an adverse effect
on historic properties. The project will require the demolition of the National Register-eligible Reece Road
Bridge No. 2075 (MIHP No. AA-2125) and may have an adverse effect on archeological properties. We agree
with the analysis presented in the summary Section 106 - Cultural Resource Studies and Coordination that the
undertaking will have no adverse effect on the Washington Boulevard Bridge No. 3011 and the Harmans Post
Office. Although we agree that the project also has the potential to impact significant archeological sites,
neither the draft archeological report nor the Section 106 summary contain sufficient project information to
accurately assess the project's effects on archeological sites and determine the need for further work or
treatment measures. To continue the consultation, we ask the FRA/MT A to provide us with the following
information:
Detailed project plans that illustrate the proposed limits of disturbance (LOD) along with the boundaries
of the existing and newly recorded archeological sites located within and adjacent to the APE;
Descriptions of any measures FRA/MT A propose to implement to avoid impacts to those resources
located in close proximity to the LOD (such as fencing during construction, contractor provisions,
alignment modification, etc.);
Specific assessments of effect for the identified archeological sites, with supporting justification; and
Clear recommendations for further archeological investigations or other site treatments.
We look forward to working with FRA/MT A to complete the assessment of effects on archeological resources
and develop an appropriate Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for this undertaking. If you have questions or
require further information, please contact Tim Tamburrino (for historic built environment) at 410-514-7637 or
ttamburrino@mdp.state.md.us or Beth Cole (for archeology) at 410-514-7631 or bcoler@mdp.state.md.us.
Thank you for providing us this opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
~e
Director I State Historic Preservation Officer
JRLlEJC/TJT 201202029
Attachment I - Archeological Sites Table
Attachment 2 - Trust Comments on Draft Archeology Report
cc:
Mr. John Newton (MTA)
;vIs. Michele Fishburne (FRA)
:vis. Louise Brodnitz (ACHP)
Mr. Jesse Bergevin (Onieda Indian Nation)
;vIs. Tamara Francis (Delaware Tribe of Indians)
Ms. Darian Schwab (Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning, Cultural Resources DiVision)
Ms. Karin Brown (Baltimore County Department of Planning, Preservation Services)
Dr. Charlie Hall (MHT)
\lis. Becky Morehouse (\IIHT/.lPPM)

May 9,2012
Page 4 of8
Attachment 1
Archeological Sites Table
Preliminary Trust Assessment of Effect I Further Information Needed
Archeological Site #
National Register Status
Preliminary Assessment
of Effect (Based on the
draft report)
MHT Recommendationl
Request for Further
Information
18AN29A
Eligible for NRHP
Uncertain
Need to see project plans
18AN29B
U nevaluated
Uncertain
Need to see project Plansl
18AN30
I Listed in the NRHP
Outside the APE
Avoidance
18AN253
U nevaluated
Site likely destroyed
No more work
18AN367
Not Eligible for NHRP
Site likely destroyed
No more work
Eligible for NRHP
Uncertain
18AN494
Unevaluated
Outside the APE
Avoidance
I 18AN619
Unevaluated
Site likely destroyed!
I 18AN489
i
No more work
outside the APE

18AN621
Site likely destroyed!
Unevaluated
outside the APE?

l8AN1209
U nevaluated
Outside the APE?
mAN 1386
U nevaluated
Outside the APE
Avoidance
18AN1477
U nevaluated
Outside the APE?
. l8AN1478
i
. 18AN1479
Unevaluated
Outside the APE?
Unevaluated
Outside the APE?
Need to see project plans I
18AN 1480
. Unevaluated
Outside the APE?
i Need to see project plans
18AN1481
Unevaluated
I Outside the APE?
18AN 1482
Unevaluated
OutSIde the APE?
18AN1488
Unevaluated
Outside the APE?

May 9, :20 1:2
Page 5 of8
ATT ACHMENT 2
TRUST COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT
PHASE I ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY

BWI RAIL STATION IMPROVEMENTS AND FOURTH TRACK PROJECT
I. The report needs to include clearly legible figures that illustrate the location of the project's area of
potential effects, archeological survey areas, the limits of previously inventoried sites as well as the
boundaries of the newly identified sites on the appropriate section of USGS quadrangle. Figures 2-2
and 3-9 should be produced at a larger scale, in sections on multiple pages as needed, to enable
readability of the information presented. Furthermore, the locations of the newly discovered sites
should be added.
2.
In addition, all ofthe detailed information noted in item 1 above needs to be illustrated on the relevant
sections of the project plans, showing limits of disturbance, and included in the final report.
3. Section 3.4 Previous Archeological Investigations: The discussion of the previously inventoried sites in
the project vicinity should note the National Register eligibility status for all the sites discussed. The
Elkridge site (18AN30) is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The Higgins Site
(18AN489) was determined eligible for the National Register, as reflected in the Trust's library records
and Determination of Eligibility database. For those sites that have not been formally evaluated or
listed in the National Register, the report should note that their National Register status remains
unevaluated.
4.
Based on the mapping presented in the report, the shovel testing in the following 19 areas appears to be
located partly, if not entirely, outside the red line representing the project's APE: Area 1,3,6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 22, 23, 26, 27,28, 30. The report should provide the rationale for this
apparent discrepancy and clarify whether this is a result of a mapping error, inconsistency, alignment
modification, or some other reason. If the level of mapping and shovel test recording is not sufficient to
enable accurate placement of the testing in relation to the project's APE and limits of disturbance, it
raises serious questions regarding the usefulness of the survey results for project planning and Section
106 purposes.
5. Section 5.2.1 Overview o/Segments and Section 5.3 Shovel Testing: The Overview section describes
the 30 designated survey areas in descending order extending from the south to the north in the APE.
The Shovel Testing results section describes the survey results by survey area in ascending order from
north to south in the project corridor. The report should employ a consistent order for its discussion of
the survey areas' overviews and results.
6.
Figure 5-23 (p. 64) should add the names of survey Areas 4 and 5.
7.
Several of the survey area figures contain a bold, wide red line - which the figure notes identify as
"purple" to indicate earthen embankments and possible abandoned railroad prisms. These bold lines
appear as red in the current version of the report. The color should be changed to black, so it is clearly
distinguishable from the red line representing the APE. Figure notes should be changed to note the
correct color designation.

May 9,2012
Page 6 of8
8.
The survey area figures presented throughout Section 5.3 need to clearly illustrate and label, with
appropriate site number designations, the limits of not only the newly identified archeological sites in
the survey areas, but also those previously recorded sites that are located adjacent to or in close
proximity to the APE. This information is essential for making informed decisions regarding the
project's potential effects on archeological resources. Where the boundaries of the sites are
approximate, a dashed line could be used and "approximate site boundary" noted. If the sites do not
extend onto the map illustrated, then it is fine to just include a notation that they are nearby, but off the
map shown.
9.
Figure 5-35 (p. 74) should add the boundaries of 18AN30.
10. Figure 5-36 (p. 76) should add the boundaries of 18AN494.
II. Figure 5-39 (p. 79) should add the boundaries of 18AN1386 and 18AN253.
12. Figure 5-40 (p. 80) should add the boundaries of 18AN 1209.
13. Section 5.3.5 Area 5: The description of the Area 5 testing within the boundaries of the Higgins Site
(18AN489) should include a much more detailed discussion of the site, state how the current APE
relates to areas of the site previously examined, and discusses how the identified soil stratigraphy
corresponds with that revealed in the prior excavations. Given the significance and sensitivity of this
resource, it is imperative that the report present accurate details regarding the site and the project's
potential effects to the resource. In addition, the author(s) should consult with Carol Ebright,
archeologist with the Maryland State Highway Administration and the principal investigator for the
prior work at Higgins site, regarding the findings of the survey and project implications for the site.
14. Figure 5-41 (p. 81) should add the limits of I 8AN62 I and 18AN619 if they extend onto the map.
15. Section 5.3. 7 Area 7: This section should add a discussion of site 18AN367 which appears to be
recorded in this locale, and its limits should be shown of Figure 5-45. [See item #20 below.]
16. Figure 5-46 (p. 86) should include the boundaries of 18AN 1479.
17. Table 5-3 (p. 87) should note the associated site number, 18AN 1479, for the artifact summary from
Area 8.
18. For those artifacts recovered from fill and other contexts not associated with an inventoried
archeological site, the report should note the "X" numbers assigned to the isolated finds for processing
and recording purposes. Where such finds are discussed, the report uses the phrase "The recovered
artifacts do not meet the criteria defined in Chapter 4." (See pages 88-89, for example.) It would be
helpful to replace this phrase or add language to clarify that the artifacts do not constitute an actual
archeological site.
19. Figure 5-49 (p. 90) should add the boundaries of 18AN 1488.

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Founh Track Project
May 9,2012
Page 7 of 8
20. Figure 5-50 (p. 92) includes a notation for "vicinity of ISAN367" on the west side of the tracks. The
Trust's GIS system records the site on the east side between the tracks and MD 170 in the vicinity of
Area 7, not Area 12. The report should correct the mapping and mention the site in the appropriate area
discussion. [See item #15 above.]
21. Figure 5-51 (p. 93) should illustrate the boundaries of ISAN29A and document that the site does not
extend into the current APE.
22. Section 5.3.13 Area 13: This section should include a more detailed discussion of the recovered
materials and related interpretations for ISAN29A, and note that the site was previously determined
eligible for the National Register.
23. Table 5-7 (p. 94) should note the associated site number, ISAN29A, for the artifact summary from Area
12.
24. Figures 5-52 (p. 9S), 5-54 (p. 99) and 5-56 (p. 103) should illustrate the boundaries of lSAN29B.
25. Since the survey identified portions of 18AN29B within survey Areas 15 and 16, it would be helpful if
the report integrated its discussion of results for the site as a whole, not just by survey area. In
addition, it is important to note that the site's National Register eligibility has not been previously
determined so its significance remains unresolved at this time.
26. Figures 5-57 (p. 105) and 5-5S (p. 106) should add the limits of l8AN 1477 and 18ANI478.
27. Table 5- I3 (p. 107) should be broken down and labeled by associated site and "X" number designations,
rather than indicating that the "shaded columns demarcate units that define the cluster." We assume the
cluster referred to is site ISANI477.
28. Table 5-14 (p. lOS) should include a column for total counts by artifact type and sum total.
29. Table 5-17 (po 117) should add the site numbers to the table title, include shading to distinguish between
the columns for the two sites, and include total columns for each individual site. As an alternative, the
historic artifact summaries could be presented in a separate table for each site.
30 . Figure 5-66 (p. liS) should add the boundaries for ISAN 1480 and 1SAN 14S1.
31. Table 5-19 (p. 119) should include the associated site number, 1SAN 1482, in the title.
32. Figure 5-67 (p. 119) should illustrate the boundaries of l8AN1482.
33. Section 6.1 Summary: The Summary should acknowledge that making informed evaluations of National
Register eligibility for the sites examined by the survey is not achievable at this time, given the level of
Phase I testing and linear constraints of the survey area, nor was it an anticipated outcome of the Phase I
effort. Thus, the National Register eligibility of the majority of the investigated sites remains
unevaluated. with the exception of the National Register listed site 18AN30 and the few sites that had
been previollsly evaluated for other projects.

May 9,2012
Page 8 of 8
34, For site comparison purposes, Table 6-1 Artifact Summary by Class and Area (p. 126) should note the
relevant archeological site numbers in the column headings for the survey areas.
35. Tables 6-3 (p. 129) and 6-4 (p. 130) should use complete site number designations, 18ANxxx, in the site
column.
36. Section 6.2 Conclusions and 6.3 Recommendations: The primary goal of a Phase I survey is to identify
archeological sites that may be impacted by the proposed undertaking. The resulting report is a primary
document used by the sponsoring and resource agencies to make informed project planning decisions.
Thus, it is essential that the report contains accurate information on the survey results; provides the most
current project details regarding the nature, extent and location of anticipated impacts; and presents
justifiable recommendations regarding the need for further work, valid assessments of the project's
effect on identified sites, and offers any other suggested site treatments - such as avoidance, fencing, etc.
The current report needs to provide greater detail, with supporting documentation, regarding the
project's effect on identified resources and its recommended site treatments. The report should contain
figures that illustrate the preliminary project plans and proposed limits of disturbance in relation to the
site locations and boundaries. The report must contain the graphic information to substantiate assertions
that specific sites are located outside the APE,
37. Table 6-4 (p. 130) should be modified to include all of the archeological sites located within and
adjacent to the APE, their National Register eligibility status, an assessment of the project's effects on
those sites, and specific recommendations.
38. Appendix C: Artifact Catalogues: The appendix should include the lot and "X" number designations
assigned to the materials for catalogue purposes, since the materials will be curated at the Trust's MAC
Lab.
39. Appendix D: Site Forms: The appendix only needs to contain copies of the update forms that were
produced for the previously inventoried sites examined by the current study. It is not necessary for the
report to contain copies of the complete forms for all the newly identified site, as per the Trust's
Standards and Guidelines.
40. The report needs to include an appendix with a copy of the terrestrial archeological permit the Trust
issued for the survey work that occurred on state owned property.
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Tim Tamburrino -MDPDan Reagle

Re: BWI Rail Station and 4th Track Project - Draft Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan
Wednesday, March 26, 2014 2:33:31 PM
Dan,
Thanks for providing us with a copy of the draft Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Report for the BWI Rail
Station and 4th Track Project. We understand that MTA has done some cursory screening of these
sites for the presence of historic properties using online records available in MERLIN and
acknowledges that MTA will need to do further study of these sites "during final design." The proposed
wetland and stream mitigation sites are located in areas that are likely to have a high potential for the
presence of archeological resources. Thus, we strongly recommend that MTA use its cultural resources
consultant to complete thorough archeological assessments of all the mitigation sites under
consideration PRIOR to the final selection and design of these mitigation facilities. Based on the results
of those assessments, Phase I archeological survey may be warranted in order to determine whether or
not the areas contain sites that may be eligible for the National Register and may be impacted by the
proposed work. This is essential information for MTA to have in order to make informed and
appropriate decisions regarding the selection of the mitigation sites for the project. We look forward to
further coordination with MTA to complete the Section 106 review of the entire project, including
ancillary and mitigation actions.
We ask that MTA please provide us with hard copies of any future documents circulated for review and
comment.
Thanks, Tim
Tim Tamburrino
Maryland Historical Trust / MDP
100 Community Place
Crownsville, MD 20132
tim.tamburrino@maryland.gov
410-514-7637
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Dan Reagle <DReagle1@mta.maryland.gov>
wrote:
Beth & Tim,
The MTA transmitted to natural and water resource agencies the draft Phase I
Conceptual Mitigation Report for impacts related to wetlands and streams.
Although the MHT does not regulate these resources you are a project partner and
MTA is sending you a link to the FTP site with the report so you may review the
report. I am also contacting you to acknowledge the MTA is aware it will need to
further study the potential mitigation sites during final design for potential impacts
to historic resources.
https://sftp1.mdot.state.md.us/
MD State Highway Administration
December 13, 2013

Re:
MTA Project Consulting Party

BWI Rail Station and 4th Track Project
Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties, Maryland
Mr. John Newton

Manager
6 St. Paul Street
Baltimore MD 21202-1614
Dear Mr. Little:
Introduction and Project Description
This letter responds to the Maryland Transit Administrations (MTA) invitation to the
Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) to participate as a consulting party in MTAs
BWI Rail Station and 4th Track Project since the project will affect SHA Bridge No. 0207500,
MD 174 (Reece Road) over Amtrak, MIHP No. 2125, which was determined eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places in 2001 by SHA and the Maryland
Historical Trust. The bridge is included in SHAs Historic Highway Bridge Program and is an
Eligible Historic Bridge. SHA agrees to participate as a consulting party under the requirements
of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Thank you for inviting SHA to participate. Please contact Ms. Anne E. Bruder at 410545-8559 (or via email at abruder@sha.state.md.us) with questions regarding standing structures
for this project.
Very truly yours,
Julie M. Schablitsky
Assistant Division Chief
cc:
Ms. Anne E. Bruder, SHA-EPLD

Dr. Julie M. Schablitsky, SHA-EPLD
My telephone number/toll-free number is
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech 1.800.735.2258 Statewide Toll Free
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone 410.545.0300 www.roads.maryland.gov
State Clearinghouse
State Officials
Local Government
Interagency Meeting Summaries
Memorandum of Meeting
Minutes of January 4, 2013 Agency Meeting
DATE:
January 14, 2013
TO:
Attendees (below)
FROM:
REFERENCE:

Meeting Minutes of Agency Meeting January 4, 2013, 10 AM
Attendees:
Name
Organization
Email
Dan Reagle
Maryland Transit Administration (MTA)
DReagle1@mta.maryland.gov
Tim Tamburrino
Maryland Historical Trust (MHT)
ttamburrino@mdp.state.md.us
Beth Cole
MHT
bcole@mdp.state.md.us
Mark Cheskey
Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB)
cheskey@pbworld.com
Alaina McCurdy
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
mccurdy.alaina@epa.gov
Steve Hurt
Maryland Department Environment (MDE)
shurt@mde.state.md.us
Bradley Smith
bsmith9@mdot.state.md.us
(MDOT)
Michelle Fishburne
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
michelle.fishburne@dot.gov
Sarah Williamson
Coastal Resources, Inc. (CRI)
sarahw@coastal-resources.net
Scott Lyle
MTA/PB
slyle@mta.maryland.gov
Joseph DaVia
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
joseph.davia@usace.army.mil
Jack Dinne
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
By phone conference
Adam Denton
FRA
By phone conference
Ryan Swick
FRA
By phone conference

1
General
Michelle Fishburne opened the meeting with introductions and noted that the agencies
were familiar with the project through previous Interagency Review Meetings (IRM).
The project as a whole includes providing a fourth track along approximately nine miles
of the Northeast Corridor (NEC), a new station and third platform at BWI Rail Station.
The primary purpose of this meeting was to hear agency feedback on the December
2012 Alternatives Development and Comparison Memorandum (ADCM) that was
distributed to attendees on December 12, 2012, discuss resources and impacts at the
BWI Rail Station, and discuss any agency concerns on the project overall. MTA and
FRA indicated they would like to address concerns and work through as many issues as
possible prior to release of the Environmental Assessment (EA) to the public. MTA/FRA
anticipates providing an administrative draft EA to the agencies for review and comment
in the coming months.
Dan Reagle then gave an overview summary of the project and the previously provided
ADCM, including:
the overall project purpose and need to improve safety and efficiency;
the primary project components;
the constrained nature of the corridor;
the anticipation of an east-side fourth track in the original NEC;
resource avoidance and minimization efforts to date, including reducing access

road widths and approximately 8,500 linear feet of retaining walls at a cost of
approximately $25 million;
differences in impacts between the West and East Station Options related to
water resources and the Higgins archaeology site; and
safety, functionality during construction, constructability and cost concerns

related to the East Station Option.
Alaina McCurdy asked if the access roads requested by Amtrak for the length of the
project are included in the LOD currently shown. Dan Reagle replied that they were
2
included in the plans and impact numbers. Alaina requested that MTA ensure that any
design of access roads ensure that stormwater management will not occur in wetlands.
Dan noted that the ADCM summarizes the decision-making process for identifying the
location for the fourth track along the entire nine-mile project length. The ADCM
includes discussions for locating the fourth track on the east side for the majority of the
nine-mile project length, but largely focuses on the BWI station area between milepost
105.00 and 107.00. In this area, five different options were originally investigated,
though three did not adequately meet the purpose and need and were dropped. The
two remaining options include an East Station Option and a West Station Option.
Both options have similar wetland impact acreages, except the West Station Option has
greater impacts to Wetlands of Special State Concern (WSSC), while the East Option
has greater impacts to the Higgins archeological site. In addition, there are also
concerns about the functionality, safety, and constructability of the station under the
East Station Option due to the need for construction of a temporary station and the
potential for serious pedestrian, vehicle, and construction activity conflicts.
Jack Dinne requested that MTA provide documentation of why a permanent east station
could not be built in a shifted location instead of building a temporary station and then
rebuilding the permanent station in its current location. Steve Hurt agreed that this
should be investigated and stated that they (MDE) had hoped that the document would
have addressed why an entirely new station location within this section of the corridor
had not also been investigated, given the many constraints and sensitive resources
around the current location. Scott Lyle noted that there were curves both north and
south of the current station and constructing stations on curves is problematic and
against Amtrak practices. After the curve to the south, the tracks enter the BWI runway
protection zone which prohibits construction of above-ground structures. Joe DaVia
pointed out that the USACEs March 2012 comment letter noted the need for
assessment of alternative station locations. Both Alaina McCurdy and Steve Hurt stated
3
that their formal project/document comments would include a request for analysis of
additional station locations if this issue was not fully addressed.
Michelle Fishburne stated that additional information about the station location issue
could be provided but that she would also like to get the agencies comments on the
current west versus east station options and information currently presented.
Steve Hurt stated that MDE felt that the analysis of the East Station Option safety and
constructability issues are not balanced with similar information for the West Station
Option and noted that all such analyses and presented information needs to be an
apples-to-apples comparison of alternatives. Dan Reagle noted that the body of the
ADCM is a balanced comparison, but that the information in Attachment C surrounding
constructing an East station was added later as the engineers started to weigh in with
concerns about that option. Michelle Fishburne noted that MTA could provide more
documentation on the pros and cons of both station alternatives and investigate if there
are engineering solutions to some of these constructability issues raised. Beth Cole
said that it would be helpful to have site plans in front of us that show all these
interactions so that MTA could walk them through the issues.
Scott Lyle shared that Amtrak safety officers had voiced concerns about the east station
option due to the limited space available for separating the Kiss and Ride facilities from
the station structures. For security, the public access areas for non-permitted vehicles
should be limited to areas as far removed as functionally possible from the station areas
where people will congregate. Alaina McCurdy asked if the Kiss and Ride facilities
could be moved to the north of the parking garage.
Scott Lyle noted that this concept has not been developed but there would likely be a
need to move the curve of Amtrak Way to accommodate that, and there are also
wetlands to the north of the station. Alaina said that she understood that there were
already changes to Amtrak Way needed, so why not look at that concurrently. Since
4
the wetlands north of the station are not WSSC wetlands, she felt that these impacts
could be preferable to greater WSSC impacts. Additionally, Alaina mentioned that
these proposed improvements really lock in the station location to this current location
surrounded by sensitive resources and EPA would want to make sure that this did not
set additional WSSC impacts in motion in the future for any further expansions.
Steve Hurt stated that the project must minimize all wetland impacts to the greatest
extent possible, and that MDE had some concerns about the impacts currently
presented in the ADCM. There does not appear to be a break out of total impacts by
cover type (i.e., PFO, PEM, Etc.) He asked if MTA had included impacts from the
proposed relocation of Stony Run westward into the vegetated wetland in the total
impacts. MTA said that it had not included such an impact and asked for clarification of
this issue. Sarah Williamson clarified that if the stream was relocated, the area where
the new stream channel would be placed is currently vegetated wetland and would be
converted to a different type of regulated resource. Such conversion is regulated under
state law and would be considered an impact and need to be included in the impact
totals. Scott Lyle asked why the stream would need to be relocated and couldnt just be
left to find a new path once the retaining wall was placed. Sarah stated that this would
likely cause the wall to be undermined and would also not be permitted by the agencies
in her experience. The agencies agreed and Joe DaVia asked that MTA do a worstcase estimate of the potential impacts from any stream relocations such as this, since a
detailed design would not be completed at this stage of planning and design. This would
add to the WSSC impacts.
Steve Hurt also noted that it appeared that some of the bump-outs in the LOD
surrounding the station extended outside of the area of the wetland delineation into
areas that look like WSSC or other wetlands on the aerial photo but that werent shown
as such. MTA agreed that this seemed to be true and that these areas would be
investigated and added as impacts if they were indeed wetlands. This may increase
the total impact to WSSC on the West Option. Bradley Smith mentioned that during the
5
field review the agencies had said that the wetlands on the east side of the tracks north
of the station were also high quality. Steve agreed that this was the case, but that the
WSSC is a legal designation in COMAR. Therefore, WSSC are regulated as higher
value and carry specific regulatory weight.
Michelle Fishburne stated that the group had a good understanding of the concerns
regarding the wetland resources in the project area and then asked that MHT present
their concerns and the issues surrounding the Higgins site. Beth Cole stated that the
Higgins site is a high priority archeological site for MHT and one of the only sites
remaining in Maryland with intact stratified layers all the way down to early archaic and
Paleo-Indian occupations. The site is National Register eligible, and while it is rare that
MHT advocates for preservation in place, they would do so in this case and have done
so since the 1980s. Numerous other projects have occurred in the area and MHT has
worked closely on these projects to avoid impacts as much as possible.
Beth noted that while the two station options are not substantially different in their
footprints, MHTs greatest concern with the East Station Option is that future design
requirements such as sediment and erosion control and retaining wall tie-ins, as well as
unintended construction impacts, would occur and negatively impact the site to a much
greater degree than for a West Station option. Joe DaVia stated that he would like to
see these impacts documented for both alternatives by both area and constructability
issues and potential for unintended construction impacts. Beth Cole stated that if the
East Station Option was selected there would need to be mitigation and data recovery,
which could be expensive.
Alaina and Joe reiterated the need to investigate building a permanent station to the
north of the current location for the East option. Joe indicated balancing potential
impacts between options would be especially difficult. Alaina asked about the possibility
of moving only the eastern-most station platform to the north to narrow the footprint right
at the station and using construction incentives to minimize impacts during construction.
6
Joe DaVia asked if the EA would have cost estimates. Michelle Fishburne replied that
there would be cost estimates. At this time mitigation estimates are not necessarily
included, particularly for the Higgins site, if an East Option were selected and mitigation
was required. Michelle asked if the agencies felt that the wetlands on the west are of
clearly higher quality and if the eastern wetlands are lower and might require a lower
mitigation ratio. Sarah Williamson noted that under the WSSC regulations the west
would be a higher ratio than the east. Joe DaVia stated that the federal agencies have
moved away from ratios and focus on functional replacement, however, the west
wetlands are of a very high quality.
Joe DaVia asked if the Higgins site mitigation could be provided in the form of
preservation. Beth Cole said that was unlikely as they had tried to get it listed on the
register, but the property owner was unwilling.
Steve Hurt asked that MTA explain the gauntlet track. Dan Reagle gave a brief
description of the gauntlet track. Scott Lyle explained that this track does not need to
be constructed with this project, but that space must be planned for it due to Norfolk
Southerns freight rights in the corridor. The gauntlet track will be designed to offset the
commuter track by only six inches and would cause minimal impacts. Freight use
cannot be precluded by this project. Alaina then asked if a gauntlet track technique
could be used to consolidate tracks in the station area and narrow the track footprint.
Scott Lyle replied that it would conflict with the purpose of the project since improving
flexibility and efficiency and reducing wait times in the station area was one of the main
project goals.
Michelle noted that FRAs goal is to work together to identify a preferred alternative that
minimizes impacts to the resources as much as practicable, because avoidance of all
impacts is not feasible for this project. In addition to avoiding significant impacts, it is
important to have a preferred alternative that the agencies could potentially consider as
7
a least environmentally damaging and practicable alternative (LEPDA). It would be a
waste of everyones resources and time to select a preferred alternative that could not
be permitted.
Michelle Fishburne noted that FRAs additional concerns, especially in relation to the
conversations today, included completing the EA with impacts minimized enough on an
alternative to get to a FONSI. The FONSI could include commitments to minimize
further, but there is only funding for 30% design available at this time. Scott Lyle noted
that Amtrak is very interested in the project and has said within the last few months that
they would like to advance the project to 65% design.
Michelle Fishburne asked what type of conceptual mitigation would be required at this
stage. Joe asked if an alternative will be selected with the EA and Michelle replied that
an alternative decision would need to be made in the EA to obtain public and agency
comments prior to FRA making a final determination on the project, such as a FONSI.
Michelle Fishburne asked if the agencies are comfortable with the project outside of the
station area issues. Steve Hurt asked for additional information for how the Patapsco
River Bridge crossing location was selected and asked for the design details as they
currently stand. Dan summarized the bridge design and location and it was noted that
the area could be visited through the distillery (Diageo North America, Inc.) if necessary.
Joe DaVia said he might conduct a field review independently with National Marine
Fisheries.
Beth Cole stated that MHT is satisfied with the cultural resource studies as long as the
area of potential affect does not change. MHT noted that the impacts could be
addressed through the Section 106 process, including a Memorandum of
Understanding. FRA and MHT preliminarily discussed the potential for a Programmatic
Agreement for the Higgins site if additional information, such as test borings and
retaining wall designs, were not available to make an effect determination. Dan
8
mentioned that the MOU is being drafted and will be submitted for review to the MHT
when the draft is finalized.
Joe said he would like to see conceptual mitigation in the document. Dan and Sarah
mentioned that a preliminary site search had been completed at the desktop level, but
that access to properties has not been made. From this effort, it appears that there is
ample mitigation opportunity in the impacted watersheds (based on the eight-digit HUC
code watershed scale). Joe said that the USACE would like to visit a few of the highest
ranked sites from the search to ensure that adequate mitigation exists for project
impacts.
To adjourn the meeting, Michelle Fishburne summarized the items the agencies
requested from the project team. These included:
Documentation on why alternative station locations in the vicinity of BWI were not
being retained.
More information on an east station layout commensurate with the west.

Investigation of a permanent station to the north of the existing station with
an eastern alignment through station area.
Wetland impact documentation.

Break out total impacts for each alternative by wetland type
Check wetland boundaries at bump out locations where it appears wetlands
many exist but are not currently shown and add impacts as needed.
Add estimate of impacts from relocation of streams into wetlands wherever
applicable
Clarify in the ADCM that the use of retaining walls is included in impacts
presented
Provide same functionality and safety information for west station alternative as
provided for east station alternative in Appendix C. All information presented for
the impacts from alternatives at the station needs to be apples to apples.

9
Provide any available pictures of the Patapsco River crossing area to the
agencies to aid in their understanding of the crossing selected and discussion of
why the downstream option was retained.
Organize a field visit to review potential mitigation sites.
Next Steps:
MTA will prepare minutes of this meeting and circulate to the meeting attendees
for comments
MTA will prepare the additional information and schedule a follow-up meeting
with MDE, USACE, and MHT to discuss the options at the BWI Station further.
An administrative Draft of the EA will be provided to the agencies for review and
comment
A field visit to review mitigation sites and the Patapsco crossing will be
scheduled.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 1:00 p.m.

10
Minutes of March 7, 2014 Agency Station Relocation Screening Meeting
DATE:
March 13, 2014
TO:
Attendees and Interested Parties
FROM:
Dan Reagle
REFERENCE:

Meeting Minutes of Agency Station Relocation Screening
Meeting, March 07, 2014, 1:00 pm
Attendees:
Name
Dan Reagle
Organization
Maryland Transit Administration (MTA)
Email
DReagle1@mta.maryland.gov
Scott Lyle
MTA
SLyle@mta.maryland.gov
Emily Dolbin
Maryland Department Environment (MDE)
edolbin@mccormicktaylor.com
Alaina McCurdy
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
mccurdy.alaina@epa.gov
Mark Cheskey
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Cheskey@pbworld.com
Michelle Fishburne
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
Michelle.fishburne@dot.gov
Sarah Williamson
Coastal Resources, Inc. (CRI)
sarahw@coastal-resources.net
Megan Niehaus
CRI
megann@coastal-resources.net
A meeting was held between the MTA project team, the FRA, and the federal and state
regulatory agencies to review the revised BWI Rail Station Location Screening
Memorandum that was resubmitted to the agencies in February 2014. Dan Reagle
opened the meeting with introductions and noted that the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) were unable to attend. Mr.
Reagle stated that he corresponded with the MHT by email and they were satisfied with
the memos conclusion that only the existing station should be examined in further
detail. While the USACE did not offer specific comments on the memo, they had not
1
provided any comments on the previous version, so no major comments are
anticipated. Mr. Reagle provided an overview of the project and current status of
activities. The project as a whole includes addition of a fourth track along approximately
nine miles of the Northeast Corridor (NEC) and a third platform at the BWI Rail Station,
as well as construction a new station building at the BWI Rail Station. Mr. Reagle noted
that the overall project purpose was to reduce operational constraints caused by past
and predicted growth and improve reliability within this portion of the Northeast Corridor
(NEC). Mr. Reagle, with support from Michelle Fishburne of FRA, stated that goal of the
meeting was to reach consensus on the findings of the memo that improvements should
be made at the existing station where infrastructure currently exists and not moved to a
new location along the corridor.
Ms. Williamson began the presentation of the screening process by explaining that the
nine mile stretch between Halethorpe and Odenton was evaluated for potential station
locations. After screening out areas containing fatal flaws, six sections were identified
as having potential for siting a new station. Considering environmental constraints and
all operational requirements, conceptual station layouts were created for each of these
six sections. Using the best available data, potential impacts were calculated for each
station location, and an impacts comparison table was created for inclusion in the
revised memo as requested by the agencies.
After more detailed screening, Sections 1 and 2 were dropped from consideration due
to increased wetland and stream impacts, community impacts, relatively high cost and
close proximity to existing stations. Section 6, also relatively close to an existing
station, was also dropped due to infrastructure conflicts and design issues. At the
conclusion of the discussion of these three station locations, Ms. Fishburne asked Emily
Dolbin of MDE and Alaina McCurdy of EPA if they had any further comments regarding
these areas. No concerns were voiced, so Ms. Fishburne stated that based on
everyones agreement on the findings for these three sections, they would be dropped
entirely from further consideration.
2
Sections 3a and 4 were also dropped from consideration in the screening memo. Ms.
Williamson explained that a station at Section 3a would result in minimal wetland impact
reductions over those anticipated at the existing station (Section 5) at a relatively high
cost. Section 3a would also have many community impacts. A station at Section 4, for
which property acquisition may be difficult, would result in impacts to state-listed rare
plant species, and an increase in Wetlands of Special State Concern (WSSC) and
stream impacts when compared to Section 5. Ms. Fishburne asked for any comments
related to the dismissal of these locations. Ms. McCurdy noted that the site in Section 4
would be less constrained if future station expansions were necessary. Ms. Williamson
pointed out that Section 4 would result in more impacts to WSSC and RTE than Section
5, and would work against the goal of minimizing impacts that originally triggered the
relocation screening effort. Ms. Fishburne commented that though the station in
Section 5 at the existing location is constrained by resources, the proposed station
meets the purpose and need of the project and will serve commuters through and
possibly beyond 2030.
Ms. Williamson explained that Section 3b and Section 5 are both located at reasonable
distances from the airport and existing stations, and include direct access to the
regional road network, making them the most feasible station locations of the six. A
station at Section 3b would reduce non-WSSC wetland impacts and impacts to the
Higgins site, but would result in a total take of the National Register eligible (NRE)
Harmans Post Office (a Section 4(f)/ Section 106 impact). Though building a station at
Section 3b would result in minimal wetland and stream impact reductions, the cost
would be 2.5 times higher than at Section 5, and investments at the existing station
would be lost. Improving the existing station in Section 5 would mean additional
wetland, stream, and floodplain impacts in comparison to Section 3b, and the station
would remain constrained by natural resources and the Higgins site. However, existing
investments would be sustained, minimal roadway improvements would be needed,
Section 4(f)/Section 106 impacts at Harmans Post office would be avoided, and cost
3
would be 2.5 times less than at Section 3b. Ms. Williamson concluded that MTA has
determined that keeping the station in Section 5 is the most practicable alternative and
is preferable to abandoning the existing station and constructing an entirely new facility
in Section 3b. MTA is committed to continuing to avoid and minimize impacts during
later design phases and will continue to document all avoidance and minimization
efforts in the EA.
The group then discussed these conclusions. Ms. McCurdy asked if mitigation for
impacts to the Higgins site was included in the table. Ms. Fishburne and Mr. Reagle
commented that mitigation is unlikely to be required as minimal impacts are anticipated
under the East Alignment North Station Alternative. Impacts would only have been
expected if cuts further into the existing slope were required. All design efforts thus far
has been conducted with this in mind. Ms. McCurdy questioned if use of Harmans Post
Office would be a Section 4(f) impact, wouldnt use of the Higgins archaeology site also
be a Section 4(f) use? Mr. Reagle explained that Section 4(f) protection explicitly
applies to NRE structures, but only applies to NRE archaeology sites after the lead
federal agency and MHT agree that it is warranted. Ms. McCurdy thanked the group for
making the shifts in the track and platform design to reduce WSSC impacts and stated
that the memo was much improved with the inclusion of the table. She stated that
summarizing and quantifying the impacts for comparison in the table supported the
practicability of leaving the station in Section 5. Ms. Dolbin also commented that the
addition of the table made the analysis clearer and provided the information that MDE
required. Ms. Dolbin asked if the mitigation costs in the table included wetland and
stream mitigation or just wetland mitigation. Scott Lyle, Ms. Williamson, and Mr. Reagle
clarified that mitigation costs included both stream and wetland mitigation for impacts
associated with the station areas only, including the existing station, and not the fourth
track. Ms. Dolbin suggested that a note be added to the table for clarification. Ms.
Fishburne then asked for final confirmation that MDE and EPA were satisfied with the
findings and presentation of the screening. Ms. McCurdy and Ms. Dolbin stated that
they were satisfied.
4
Mr. Reagle then summarized the next steps on the project including submittal of the
conceptual mitigation plan memo to the agencies in the next week or two, the upcoming
April Interagency Review Meeting (IRM), and submittal of the Alternatives report in May.
Ms. Fishburne stated that the EA will be circulated to the agencies as an administrative
draft and that all comments in advance would be appreciated. This is expected to occur
in November of 2014 with the Draft EA out for public review in January 2015, and a
public meeting in January 2015. Final NEPA determination is anticipated in July 2015.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:15 p.m.

5
Concurrence Page
By signature below, I document my agencys concurrence with the findings of the BWI
Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project Station Relocation Screening
Memorandum and understand that only station alternatives that involve improvements
at the existing BWI Rail Station facility will be examined further in the Environmental
Assessment (EA) process.
Name:
Agency:
Date:

6
BWI Rail Station Improvements and 4th Track Project

Interagency Meeting- Alternatives Report
Meeting Summary
June 16, 2014
Discussion Summary
After introductions, Dan Reagle of the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) reviewed
the project elements, recapped why it is needed, and turned the meeting over to Sarah
Williamson of Coastal Resources Inc. Ms. Williamson led the group through a
presentation of the Alternatives Report, which is presently under review by the agencies.
Notable points and dialogue included the following:
Alaina McCurdy (EPA) asked for clarification on avoidance and minimization of

impacts to WSSC achieved through limiting access roads. Scott Lyle (MTA)
responded that sections of access road were indeed removed where possible in the
WSSC area that is south and west of the station.
Alex Ollerman (MAA) asked if the project still included an overhead walkway
from the garage. Scott responded that the BWI East Option does not include an
overhead, concourse level connection to the garage. However, there would be a
new busway and busbays to enhance ground-level pedestrian safety.
Alaina McCurdy asked if the Reece Road bridge is historic. Dan Reagle (MTA)
confirmed that the Reece Road is historic and that it is included in the Section 4
(f) evaluation.
Robin Bowie (MAA) asked if the EA team was considering the ROW cost of the
MAA parcel to the north of the existing station. Scott responded that MTA had
included all known potential ROW acquisitions in the project costs. Ms. Bowie
noted that this portion of MAAs property had been purchased with federal grant
funds, and a fee simple purchase would be required along with an official federal
release.
Overall MAA is supportive of this use of their land, but needs to see the precise
footprint or land required by the project to ensure that the BWI project does not
encroach upon a conservation easement being developed for the recent Kitten
Branch stream project. They will need to see an itemized parcel by parcel
breakdown, along with detailed mapping. Robin indicated that the LOD of the
new BWI East Option is new information to MAA and that no one at MAA
beyond herself and Mr. Ollerman had seen the plans. (Note: PE plans were
previously sent to MAA by MTA).
1
6/30/2014
Marcus Brundage (FAA) added that because of the need for a federal land release
the BWI project EA will need to include all impact categories per FAA NEPA
guidelines 1050.1.E and 5050 4.B. There was discussion regarding who takes the
lead on Section 106 coordination with the SHPO, but after some clarification
about how long this EA effort has been underway, it was decided that FAA can
piggyback on the FRA lead process. Dan Koenig (FTA) emphasized that one
process is the preferred approach.
Beth Cole (MHT) recommended that when the effects letter is drafted, that MTA
share it with FAA to ensure that it is compatible with all FAAs requirements and
that FAA is on board with the findings prior to submittal to MHT.
Alaina McCurdy stated that she had expected that there would be more than just
the one build and the no- build covered in the EA. Dan and Michelle Fishburne
(FRA) explained that the intent is to summarize the process described in the
alternatives report in the alternatives chapter of the EA and include the detailed
alternatives report as an appendix. This approach keeps the EA streamlined by
addressing just the Recommended Build alternative (East Alignment - BWI East
Option) and the no build in the report body. Emily Dolbin (MDE) stated that
MDE agreed with USEPAs comment and would prefer to see both the East
Alignment BWI East and BWI West Options carried through the EA. Ms.
McCurdy noted that EPA is in support of the BWI East Option as the Preferred
Alternative, but would like to see both fully explored in the EA. She also
mentioned that she believed the USACE would also have concerns about
presenting only one build alternative in the EA. Both the FTA and MAA
representatives offered that their agencies often only have one build alternative in
their NEPA EAs. Most of the others in the room and by phone agreed that with
the alternative report included in the appendix, the information will all be there
and available to the public, so maybe it is more of an issue/discussion of
packaging. The MTA and FRA maintained that having an alternative that is
essentially unacceptable to the resource agencies in the body of the EA will only
confuse the reader/public and add a lot of unneeded text, figures and tables to the
EA. In addition, including multiple build alternatives is required for an EIS, but
not an EA. Ms. Fishburne suggested that providing the agencies with an outline
of the EA might ease their concerns. Dan Reagle noted that an outline didnt
seem necessary and that a conference call to clarify the agency concerns might be
best. The group agreed to table the discussion for the moment, and Emily
Dolbin (MDE consultant reviewer) will check with her supervisor Elder
Ghigiarelli on MDEs comfort level with only presenting one build alternative.
Ms. Fishburne inquired about receiving a LEDPA letter and Ms. McCurdy
indicated the USACE is unlikely to issue a LEDPA letter without a permit
application.
Beth Cole reminded the EA team that MHT does not want the locations of the
archeology sites displayed on the final public distribution documents. The team
2
6/30/2014
agreed to the request. Robin Bowie offered that many of their documents deal
with this and would be good examples to follow.
Greg Golden (MD DNR) asked whether the project will require right-of-way in
Patapsco Valley State Park and for clarification whether the park property is on
located on both sides of the corridor. Dan confirmed that the park is located on
both sides of the corridor and noted that MTA has coordinated with park
managers and has a De Minimis finding letter that he will share with Greg.
Marcus Brundage stated that there are actions per FAA NEPA requirements that
do trigger an EA Finding to be a FONSI/ROD instead of a FONSI and this 4(f)
impact may be one of them. And if so this now would require the document to be
elevated to the FAA Region (which would have legal review) but this review can
be done concurrent with his review at the District level however because its at
Region it may take more time.
As a side note Marcus mentioned, as food for thought, that from his experience
having review times during the months from November to January (this statement
was made independent of the FAA review time) has never proven to be fruitful
due to personnel taking leave (vacation, use or lose, etc) during this time. And if
the schedule presented has little room for flexibility this may pose a problem. He
only mentioned that as a caution.
Robin Bowie asked about public involvement for the project. Ms. Fishburne
replied that there had been a public involvement program from early on in the
project.
Follow-up Action Items:
MTA will share previous correspondence with DNR regarding impacts to

Patapsco Valley State Park.
MTA will send the BWI East Option LOD to MAA with a list of parcels affected.
Emily Doblin will check with Elder Ghigiarelli on the basis for his concerns with
one Build Alternative being presented in the EA.
MTA will convene a conference call with each of the agencies to facilitate
resolution on the format of the EA in regards to Alternatives.
Final Effects letter and archaeology report to MHT in August 2014.
3
6/30/2014
Tribal Coordination
Molesworth, Lauren A.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Catherine.Dobbs@dot.gov
Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:39 AM
Dan Reagle
FW: Maryland Area Regional Commuter/Amtrak Baltimore Washington International Airport
Rail Station
From: Jesse Bergevin [mailto:jbergevin@oneida-nation.org]

Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:07 AM
To: Dobbs, Catherine (FRA)
Subject: Maryland Area Regional Commuter/Amtrak Baltimore Washington International Airport Rail Station
On September 9, 2011, the Oneida Indian Nation (Nation) received a letter and documentation from the United States
Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) concerning the proposed station improvements for
the Maryland Area Regional Commuter/Amtrak Baltimore Washington International Airport Rail Station (Project). Your
letter states that FRA is the lead Federal Agency for the Project and asks whether the Nation wishes to be a consulting
party under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Based on information provided by FRA indicating the
potential for the project to affect Native historic resources, please include the Nation as a Section 106 consulting party for
the Project.
As planning for the project progresses, the Nation requests that FRA continue to consult with the Nation concerning
decisions or determinations in the Section 106 process concerning the Projects APE, level of effort to identify historic
properties, presence or absence of historic properties, National Register of Historic Places eligibility, findings of no effect
or adverse effect and measures to address or resolve adverse effects.
If you have any questions, please call me at (315) 829-8463.
Thank you,
Jesse Bergevin
Historic Resources Specialist
Telephone: (315) 829-8463
Facsimile: (315) 829-8473
E-mail: jbergevin@oneida-nation.org
Molesworth, Lauren A.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Catherine.Dobbs@dot.gov
Wednesday, November 09, 2011 4:04 PM
Dan Reagle
FW: Eastern Shawnee Tribe
FYIanother tribal BWI response. I will share with her the list of Tribes we contacted for the overall project.
Catherine
From: Robin Dushane [mailto:RDushane@estoo.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 3:57 PM
To: Dobbs, Catherine (FRA)
Subject: Eastern Shawnee Tribe
Ms. Dobbs,
I am replying to a request for consultation from your office dated Sept 9, 11.
The Cultural Preservation Department has reviewed the proposal. We are currently unaware of sites of significance for
the Shawnee in the area
for the Maryland Area Regional Commuter/Amtrak Baltimore Washington International Airport Rail Station.
I understand this area has been previously disturbed.
Considering these two factors, the ESTO supports station improvements.
May I inquire as to are there other federally recognized Tribes consulting with the FRA in Maryland?
This office has had little communication from your agency and Im not sure how it is organized.
Im guessing it is similar to State Depts. of Transportation/FHWA. When you get a chance maybe we could
visit over the phone.
If I may be of further assistance please dont hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Robin Dushane
Eastern Shawnee Tribe

Cultural Preservation Director
12705 S. 705 Rd.
Wyandotte, OK 74370
918 666 2435 ext 247 wk
918 533 4104 cell
The Delaware Nation

Cultural Preservation Office
P.O. Box 825 - 31064 State Highway 281- Anadarko, OK 73005
Phone: 405/247-2448 Fax: 405/247-8905
NAGPRA ext. 1403

Section 106 ext. 1181
Museum ext. 1181
Library ext. 1196
Clerk ext. 1182
February 10, 2015

RE:
BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project, Anne Arundel and
Baltimore Counties, Maryland
Ms. Fishburne,
The Delaware Nation Cultural Preservation Department received correspondence
regarding the above referenced project. Our office is committed to protecting sites
important to tribal heritage, culture and religion. Furthermore, the tribe is particularly
concerned with archaeological sites that may contain human burials or remains, and
associated funerary objects.
As described in your correspondence and upon research of our database(s) and files,
we find that the Lenape people occupied this area either prehistorically or historically.
However, the location of the project does not endanger cultural or religious sites of
interest to the Delaware Nation. Please continue with the project as planned. However,
should this project inadvertently uncover an archaeological site or object(s), we
request that you halt all construction and ground disturbance activities and
immediately contact the appropriate state agencies, as well as our office (within 24
hours).
Please Note the Delaware Nation, the Delaware Tribe of Indians, and the Stockbridge
Munsee Band of Mohican Indians are the only Federally Recognized Delaware/Lenape
entities in the United States and consultation must be made only with designated staff
of these three tribes. We appreciate your cooperation in contacting the Delaware
Nation Cultural Preservation Office to conduct proper Section 106 consultation.
Should you have any questions regarding this email or future consultation feel free to
contact our offices at 405-247-2448 or by email nalligood@delawarenation.com.
Sincerely,
Nekole Alligood
Director

Appendix A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

APPENDIX

Public and Agency Correspondence

APPENDIX A AGENCY COORDINATION

The list of elected officials notified of the project appears below.

Brown's Wharf, 1629 Thames

600 Baltimore Avenue, Suite

James E. DeGrange, Sr.

Edward P. (Ned) Carey

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

James Senate Office Building,

APPENDIX A AGENCY COORDINATION

TABLE A.1-1: MAILING LIST FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS

House Office Building, Room

Terri L. Hill, M.D.

400 Washington Avenue,

Anne Arundel County

Arundel Center, 44 Calvert

Anne Arundel County

Arundel Center, 44 Calvert

400 Washington Avenue,

Anne Arundel County

Howard County Council

Arundel Center, 44 Calvert

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

Advisory Council on Historic Places

Proposed BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

Dear Mr. Valenstein:

Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Transit Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Christine Vaccaro - NOAA Federal

National Resources Conservation Service

US Army Corps of Engineers

Fourth track alignment east of mainline

Phase I (UNCLASSIFIED) - Outlook Web Access Light

Dinne, John J NAB [JOHN.J.DINNE@usace.army.mil]

Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 4:16 PM

Click to view all folders

Freight RRs (6)

HR Benefits Union Job (1)

Connected to Microsoft Exchange

431 Crawford Street

WAVERLY W. GREGORY, JR.

US Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Natural Resources of Concern

177 ADMIRAL COCHRANE DRIVE

Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPAC)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Natural Resources of Concern

Project Location Map:

Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPAC)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Natural Resources of Concern

Geographic coordinates (Open Geospatial Consortium Well-Known Text, NAD83):

Endangered Species Act Species List (USFWS Endangered Species Program).

Species that may be affected by your project:

Species Prole Contact

Swamp pink (Helonias bullata)

Threatened species info

Chesapeake Bay Ecological

FWS National Wildlife Refuges (USFWS National Wildlife Refuges Program).