Appendix F

APPENDIX
Phase I Conceptual
Mitigation Plan
BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

Technical Memorandum
Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan

June 2014
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
I.
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
II. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 1

III. PHASE I CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ............ 5
A. WETLANDS .......................................................................................................... 6
1. Stage I Desktop Wetland Site Investigation .................................................... 6
2. Stage II Wetland Site Ranking and On-site Investigations .............................. 7
3. Wetland Mitigation Results ................................................................................. 9
B. STREAMS ........................................................................................................... 12
1. Desktop Stream Site Identification ................................................................... 12
2. Windshield Survey and Preliminary Site Ranking ............................................ 13
3. Stream Mitigation Results ................................................................................ 13
IV. PHASE I CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PACKAGE ................................................ 14
Appendices
Appendix A Characteristics of Potentially Impacted Wetlands
Appendix B Vicinity Map, Site Descriptions, and Site Maps
Appendix C Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Coordination Responses
Appendix D Meeting Minutes
Appendix E Maryland Historical Trust Investigation
I.
INTRODUCTION
The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) is currently preparing an Environmental

Assessment (EA) for the proposed BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track
project in Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties, Maryland.
The proposed project
includes the construction of approximately nine miles of new fourth track between Grove
Interlocking and Winans Interlocking within the Maryland portion of the Northeast
Corridor (NEC), as well as improvements to the BWI Rail Station consisting of an
additional station platform and replacement station building. If constructed, the project
would result in unavoidable impacts to wetlands and waterways, despite early and ongoing efforts to avoid and minimize these impacts to the extent practicable. As part of
the project planning process, MTA undertook a comprehensive mitigation site search to
identify suitable sites to compensate for potential project wetland and waterway impacts
in accordance with state and federal guidance should the project be constructed. This
Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan details the methods and results of the mitigation site
search and presents a package of mitigation opportunities that have been reviewed and
accepted on a conceptual basis by the regulatory agencies as providing preliminarily
suitable compensatory mitigation options.
II.
BACKGROUND
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act provides regulatory authority to the US Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) to issue or deny permits for the discharge of dredged or fill
material into waters of the US, including special aquatic sites (e.g., wetlands, mud flats,
riffle pool complexes, and vegetated shallows). Under the requirements of Section 404
and the Maryland Nontidal Wetlands Protection Act, a Joint Federal/State Permit would
be required for any impacts to Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, resulting from the
BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track project. As part of the permitting
process, a detailed compensatory mitigation package, including final mitigation design,
would need to be developed and approved by the USACE and Maryland Department of
the Environment (MDE) prior to permit issuance. All mitigation would be developed in
accordance with the Federal Compensatory Mitigation Rule (33 CFR Parts 325 and 40
CFR Part 230), and Maryland State compensatory mitigation guidelines. When
practicable measures have been taken to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic
resources, mitigation may be required in the form of establishment/creation,
enhancement, or preservation to replace the loss of wetland, stream and/or other
aquatic resource functions. Mitigation options under both the Federal Rule and state
mitigation guidelines could include mitigation banking credits, in-lieu fees, or permitteeresponsible mitigation using a watershed approach in that order of preference.
No matter what form of compensatory mitigation is adopted; the mitigation plan must
follow the same 12 fundamental components as set out in the Federal Mitigation Rule.
While details of how each of the 12 fundamental components will be addressed will not
be fully known until final mitigation site selection and design, preliminary information on
how each of the 12 components may be addressed are included below.

1
June 2014
Objectives The primary objective will be to provide functional replacement for

wetland and stream resources impacted by the project.
Site selection criteria Conceptual site selection criteria are detailed in the
narrative below. Final site selection criteria will include technical suitability to
meet mitigation objectives (functional replacement) as determined by more
detailed site investigations in later phases of the project as well as feasibility of
property acquisition.
Site protection instruments The final mitigation site(s) will be placed in longterm protection. Depending on the final site selection, the mitigation site would
be placed in a conservation easement to be managed by MTA or transferred to a
public resource agency for long-term management. Or if the site is on already
publicly-owned and protected lands, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or
other formal agreement would be reached with the public agency to ensure longterm protection and management of the site.
Baseline information (for impact and compensation sites) Baseline information

on the wetlands potentially impacted by the project is provided in the BWI Rail
Station and Fourth Track Project Wetland and Watercourse Technical Report
(February 10, 2012), and in summary form in Appendix A. Preliminary baseline
information on potential mitigation sites is provided in this document, (Appendix
B) and additional detailed technical information gathered during the final site
selection and design will be compiled in later phases of the project as part of the
development of the Final Mitigation Plan.
Credit determination methodology Final mitigation credits will be determined in

coordination with MDE and the USACE during development of the Final
Mitigaiton Plan and will be based on functional replacement of impacted
resources.
Mitigation work plan The mitigation work plan will be based on the specific
mitigation site(s) selected and will be developed as part of the Final Mitigation
Plan in coordination with the regulatory agencies.
Maintenance plan Following construction, the mitigation site will be monitored

in accordance with the project permit conditions. The site will be subject to
regular inspections to determine the progress and continues viability of the
mitigation, typically for a period of five years.
Ecological performance standards Performance standards will be established

through the development and approval of monitoring protocols coordinated with
the regulatory agencies during development of the Final Mitigation Plan.
Monitoring protocols will likely be based on those regulary used by MTAs sister
agency, the State Highway Administration, or something similarly able to
document that the mitigation objectives have been met to a satisfactory level
over the monitoring period.

2
June 2014
Monitoring requirements A Monitoring Plan will be developed based on permit

conditions and agency accepted performance standards and monitoring
protocols. Typically monitoring is required for five years post-construction.
Long-term management plan As mentioned earlier, any project mitigation

site(s) will be legally protected in perpetuity through conservation easements and
or protection and management agreements (ie. MOU) with public entities if a
selected site is publically owned or is to be transferred to a public resource
management agency. MTA will be responsible for the long-term management of
any sites that remain under its ownership, or will transfer the land to another
public resource management agency that will accept responsibility for long-term
management as part of the transfer agreeement.
Adaptive management plan An adaptive management plan will be developed

as part of the Final Mitigation Plan, but will generally be intitiated through the
Monitoring Plan and will consist of contingencies to address any deficiencies
noted during the monitoring. Data from the monitoring of the site(s) will be
analyzed to determine site success and if deficiencies are found, remediation will
occur and additional monitoring will be undertaken to ensure success. Examples
of adaptive management strategies potentially employed for wetland mitigation
sites include hydrologic adjustment, invasive species control, supplemental
plantings, soil amendment, and other measures specifically tailored to address
specific deficiencies.
For streams, adaptive management could include
additional monitoring assessments, adjustment of stream structures, plantings, or
other measures to address deficiencies.
Financial assurances Mitigation funding has been included in cost estimates for
future phased of the project and will be part of the public funding required for
design and construction of the project.
A Compensatory Mitigation Package is typically developed in two phases:
Phase II Final Mitigation Plan
The Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan is based on a comprehensive mitigation site

search, and results in a list of proposed mitigation opportunities that, based on initial
investigations, are preliminarily both technically feasible and able to provide functional
replacement of impacted resources. The Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan is typically
initiated either during the project planning process or early in final design to ensure that
ample opportunities exist to compensate for project related impacts. The Phase I Plan
may contain an excess of potential sites to allow for viable replacement site options if
detailed site investigations in Phase II result in a site being dropped from further
consideration for any reason. Phase II includes detailed on-site technical investigations
of the top-ranked sites from Phase I and development of all the required elements to
satisfy the Federal Mitigation Rule. Phase II is usually undertaken during final design of
a project.

3
June 2014
Traditionally, mitigation requirements under Section 404 are determined by the ratio of
wetland acres replaced to wetland acres lost. Ratios are based on providing functional
replacement of impacted wetlands, and final determination of required ratios can only
be determined during final mitigation design; however, emergent wetlands are often
mitigated on a 1:1 replacement basis, while forested and scrub shrub wetlands are
mitigated on a 2:1 basis. Wetlands of unusually high quality and/or that contain rare
species, such as Wetlands of Special State Concern (WSSC) are typically mitigated at a
higher ratio, often a 3:1 ratio for forested and scrub-shrub resources and a 2:1 ratio for
emergent wetlands.
The decision to replace function, acreage, or both may be adjusted at the discretion of
the USACE or MDE, depending on the project impacts and practicability of the
proposed mitigation. In general, the larger project area wetlands located in the
floodplain of Stoney Run and its tributaries provide a wider array of functions, such as
floodflow alteration, fish and wildlife habitat, sediment trapping, nutrient removal,
groundwater discharge/recharge, and in the case of WSSC and some other wetlands,
rare species habitat. The smaller, more disturbed wetlands typically provide only one to
three of these primary functions. Specific information on the characteristics of the
potentially impacted wetlands, including wetland function, is provided in Appendix A,
and in more detail in the BWI Rail Station and Fourth Track Project Wetland and
Watercourse Technical Report (February 10, 2012).
Table 1 provides a preliminary estimate of acreage requirements for wetland
compensation for the proposed project with the East Alignment - BWI West Option
alternative based on the above referenced replacement ratios. The East Alignment BWI West Option alternative was used to calculate potential mitigation requirements
because its greater impact to WSSC results in a higher potential mitigation requirement
than the East Alignment BWI East Option alternative. This Phase I Conceptual
Mitigation Plan was developed to ensure that all potential impacts could be mitigated
regardless of the alternative selected.

4
June 2014
Table 1: Projected Wetland Compensation Ratios
Cowardin
Class1
Wetland Acres Impacted2
Non-WSSC
PFO
PSS
PEM
Total
0.50
0.02
2.29
2.81
WSSC
1.98
0.00
2.08
4.06
Wetland Acres
Compensation
Estimated
(Replacement Ratio)3
NonWSSC
WSSC
1.00 (2:1)
5.94 (3:1)
0.04 (2:1)
0.00 (3:1)
2.29 (1:1)
4.16 (2:1)
3.33
10.10
Total
Mitigation
6.94
0.04
6.45
13.39
PFO = Palustrine Forested; PSS Palustrine Scrub-Shrub; PEM = Palustrine Emergent

Acres impacted is based on the East Alignment- BWI West Option alternative and has been rounded up
to the nearest hundredth.
3
Ratios and estimated acreages of wetland compensation are used for mitigation planning purposes only.
Final ratios and required acreage of compensation will be negotiated with regulatory agencies during
development of the Final Mitigation Planand will be based on functional replacement of impacted
resources.
2
The agencies also typically target compensatory stream mitigation projects to replace
stream functions when feasible. In addition to stream channel improvements, mitigation
measures for waterway impacts consider the size, stream order, flow regime, and
location of the stream to determine appropriate stream mitigation. In general, stream
improvements are credited on a 1:1 basis for linear foot, and sometimes square foot, of
improvement, when stream restoration is the selected form of mitigation. However,
specific mitigation credit for channel restoration and other forms of waterway mitigation
is negotiated with the agencies on a case-by-case basis. Other mitigation measures,
such as removal of fish blockages, riparian buffer enhancements, and stormwater best
management practices (BMPs) and similar water quality improvements, may also be
used at the agencies discretion. Based on a 1:1 replacement ratio, the project would
need to provide 5,886 linear feet of stream improvement for the 5,886 linear feet of
stream affected.
This Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan has been completed in support of the EA and
Preliminary Engineering phase of the project. The methods used in developing the Plan
are detailed below. Phase II will be initiated following the final NEPA determination, and
is required to be complete prior to issuance of the state and federal wetland and
waterways permits.
III. PHASE I CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
The Federal Mitigation Rule prioritizes using approved mitigation banks whenever
possible. Based on recent research and coordination with regulatory agencies and
bank developers for other MTA projects in the region, there are no active mitigation

5
June 2014
banks located within or near the targeted watersheds for this project at this time.
Further coordination will be initiated in later phases of the project for any mitigation
opportunities that may become available through mitigation banking sites in the future.
The regulatory agencies have also indicated that payment to a fee in-lieu program for
mitigation (e.g., MDE Wetland Compensation Fund) is not the preferred mitigation for
this project. Because of the general lack of approved wetland/stream mitigation banks
and in-lieu fee sites in Maryland, the project will need to seek permittee-responsible
mitigation to compensate for unavoidable wetland and stream impacts. Overall, the site
search followed a watershed approach, and was based on identifying suitable sites that
furthered specific watershed recommendations presented in MDEs 2006 document,
Prioritizing Sites for Wetland Restoration, Mitigation, and Preservation in Maryland.
In general, the development of the Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan occurred in two
stages. Stage I consisted of a desktop review of existing published sources and
focused on watershed improvement opportunities such as local and state watershed
studies and EPAs Watershed Resources Registry, as well as an original GIS-based
search for additional sites that may not have been identified previously by others. Stage
II consisted of detailed field surveys of the highest ranked sites, where property access
was obtained, to more fully evaluate each sites mitigation potential. The sites found to
be most suitable during the Stage II field investigations were ranked and compiled for
review by the agencies in the field. Coordination with the regulatory agencies and other
environmental agencies is ongoing and will continue through concurrence on this Phase
I Conceptual Mitigation Plan and in later phases of the project.
The following discussion summarizes the methods used to identify potentially suitable
permittee-responsible stream and wetland mitigation sites to compensate for wetland
and waterway impacts for the BWI Rail Station and Fourth Track Project.
A. WETLANDS
The wetland mitigation site search process focused on locating non-forested areas with
the highest potential for wetland creation or restoration with emphasis on in-kind
replacement within the United States Geological Survey (USGS)-designated
watersheds impacted by the project corridor. These watersheds include the Lower
North Branch of the Patapsco River, represented by the eight-digit Hydrologic Unit Code
(HUC) 02130906, and the Severn River (HUC-8 012131002).
1. Stage I Desktop Wetland Site Investigation
a. Water Resources Registry Search
The Watershed Resources Registry (WRR) is a Geographical Information System (GIS)
-based targeting tool that was created by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
other partners as part of a Green Highways Partnership project to integrate the Clean
Water Act with multiple state programs. Potential wetland restoration sites listed in the
database are identified as areas that have somewhat, poorly, or very poorly drained

6
June 2014
soils, and do not have existing wetlands or forest. The WRR database scores the
potential wetland restoration sites using an array of ecological factors and a maximum
5-point scoring system per site.
The web-based application was used to locate potential wetland restoration sites in the
Lower North Branch Patapsco and Severn River watersheds. However, when these
sites were checked against current aerial mapping, the majority of the WRR sites were
determined to be located in areas deemed unsuitable for wetland creation or large-scale
restoration such as heavily forested areas or on developed areas and buildings.
b. Watershed Studies and Other Documents
The Anne Arundel and Baltimore County portions of the MDE document Prioritizing
Sites for Wetland Restoration, Mitigation, and Preservation in Maryland (MDE, 2006)
was reviewed for potential sites within the Lower Patapsco and Severn River
watersheds. Many of these sites were found to overlap sites identified from other
sources or were unsuitable for similar reasons as those in the WRR. Pertinent
watershed studies, reports, and mapping were reviewed to determine potential areas
suitable for wetland creation within the targeted watersheds. However, the document
review found that the watershed studies only included wetland creation in the context of
recommended stormwater treatment projects. Typically, stormwater treatment wetlands
would not be appropriate to use for wetland mitigation unless the environmental
resource agencies agree that this type of out-of-kind mitigation would be acceptable to
provide functional replacement for wetland impacts associated with the project. As a
result, potential wetland mitigation sites were not identified from these sources.
c. GIS-Based Search
Additional potential wetland restoration sites in the Lower North Branch Patapsco and
Severn River watersheds were identified using aerial photographs (BING, 2012; Google
Earth, 2012) and GIS data layers for soils (NRCS, 2012), and MDNR/NWI wetland data
(MDNR, 2005; USFWS, 2002). A buffer of 200 feet was placed on MDNR/NWI
wetlands within the watersheds. Areas of primary hydric soils (NRCS, 2012) within the
watersheds were intersected with the 200-foot NWI/MDNR wetlands buffer to identify
potentially suitable wetland creation sites. These sites were further reviewed using
aerial photography (BING, 2012; Google Earth, 2012) to eliminate sites with obvious
constraints such as public utilities and forest cover, or sites unable to provide mitigation
acreage greater than 0.5 acre.
2. Stage II Wetland Site Ranking and On-site Investigations
Potential wetland mitigation sites in Stage I were investigated further via on-site and
desktop evaluations. A windshield field survey was conducted of sites visible from
public roadways to confirm current land use and preliminary site suitability. A number of
the sites identified during the GIS and document review were found to be unsuitable for
wetland creation and dropped from further consideration. Property access notification
letters were then sent to the owner of record for the sites deemed suitable following the

7
June 2014
wind-shield survey. Each potential wetland mitigation site carried forward was
preliminarily scored and ranked based on GIS data and windshield survey observations,
when possible, using the following criteria: soils, hydrology, landscape position,
vegetation, habitat and water quality, and potential site constraints.
The soils criteria place an emphasis on those sites that are mapped as hydric soils, with
higher scores related to a greater percentage of hydric soils mapped on site. Hydric
soils are mapped in GIS using the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
hydric soils lists for Baltimore, Anne Arundel, and Howard Counties for each potential
wetland creation site. The hydrology criteria includes a review of visible on-site surface
water or groundwater input, and drainage area using ArcView GIS applications at the
desktop level and on-site investigations. The drainage area and groundwater/surface
water inputs were evaluated from the USGS quadrangles, and the presence of ditches
or seeps on site was determined from observations during the windshield survey. Sites
that have artificial drainage and a high drainage area to site size ratio received higher
scores for this category.
The vegetation criteria places an emphasis on manipulated/maintained vegetative
landscapes such as crops, pastures, fallow fields and lawns. These types of sites were
initially assessed using aerial photos to identify wet signatures and active farmland.
The conversion of these areas from active agriculture or other maintained states to their
original wetland state often proves to be more feasible and sustainable than creation of
wetlands in a new area. The proper substrate may be present, seed sources may be
on-site or nearby, and the appropriate hydrological conditions may exist or may be more
easily recovered. The Mitigation Memorandum of Agreement between the USACE and
EPA states that, because the likelihood of success is greater and the impacts to
potentially valuable uplands are reduced, restoration should be the first option
considered (Fed. Regist. 60 (Nov.28): 58605).
Habitat and water quality criteria were established through review of GIS data to
determine if the site is contiguous to a riparian corridor or a forest greater than 100
acres. Sites that are connected to habitat corridors scored higher for this category.
Those sites that receive drainage from agricultural land and urban land also received
higher scores for this category.
Potential site constraints include utility and access limitations as determined through onsite investigations and review of aerial photographs or available GIS utility data. The
fewer utilities associated with a site and the presence of an access road from the
potential wetland establishment site to a public road resulted in higher scores for a site.
The MTA was not granted access to a number of the potentially suitable sites. Sites
where access was not granted have been dropped from consideration at this time, but
remain as potential backup sites for future use if needed. Each potential wetland
mitigation site where access was granted was visited to field-evaluate the scoring
criteria. Most criteria evaluated were scored with a factor of 10, 5, or 1, for a total of 100
points. A score of 10 represents the highest or best possible score for all but the hydric
soil criterion. Hydric soils were more heavily weighted with a best possible score of 15.

8
June 2014
The higher the total score, the more suitable the site is for wetland restoration or
creation.
The MTA has also coordinated with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Environmental
Review Unit -Fisheries, and the DNR Wildlife and Heritage Division, regarding rare,
threatened, or endangered species (RTE) presence within or near the potential
mitigation sites. Where RTE species occur nearby, ongoing coordination efforts will be
required during the Phase II Final Conceptual Mitigation Plan. The responses from this
coordination are provided in Appendix C.
3. Wetland Mitigation Results

From the Stage I investigations, 19 possible wetland mitigation sites were identified for
further study in Stage II. Property access was granted to 14 of these sites. All of these
14 sites were visited and evaluated. Following the on-site investigations, nine of these
sites were dropped for various reasons including recent development, lack of adequate
hydrology, and topographic setting. The remaining five sites were carried forward and
presented to the regulatory agencies to obtain their input and feedback regarding site
viability in providing suitable compensatory wetland mitigation for impacts anticipated
from the BWI Rail Station and Fourth Track project. Details and status of the potential
wetland mitigation sites are presented in Table 2.

9
June 2014
Table 2: Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites

Subwatershed/
Stream
County
LP001
LowerPatapsco/
StoneyRun
Anne
Arundel
39.139258/ PalmettoDriveand
76.710774 AcrocomiaDrive
1.10
LP002
LowerPatapsco/
StoneyRun
Anne
Arundel
39.139239/ MacedoniaDrive
76.709128 andCambiumCourt
2.04
LP003
LowerPatapsco/
StoneyRun
Anne
Arundel
2.02
LP005
LowerPatapsco/
StoneyRun
Anne
Arundel
0.57
SiteID
LP007
LowerPatapsco/
TribtoPatapsco
River
Lat/Long
39.24886/
Baltimore
76.727968
NearestRoad
Intersection
VineyardHillRoad
andBullBranch
Court
PebbleCreekDrive
andDeborahJean
Drive
PebbleCreekDrive
andDeborahJean
Drive
LP008
LowerPatapsco/
TribtoDeepRun
Howard
39.204752/
76.754894
LP009
LowerPatapsco/
TribtoDeepRun
Howard
39.203394/
76.758499
Baltimore
39.355427/ OffuttRoadand
76.831116 PetticoatCourt
LP011
LP011A
LP022
LP032
LowerPatapsco/
TribtoMardella
Branch
LowerPatapsco/
TribtoMardella
Branch
LowerPatapsco/
TribtoPatapsco
River
LowerPatapsco/
BensRun
39.356195/ OffuttRoadand
Baltimore
76.833709 PetticoatCourt
WashingtonStreet
39.237137/
andnortheast
Baltimore
76.681574
Avenue
39.334071/ RidgeRoadand
Baltimore
76.792045 KratzLane
AmtrakWayand
Anne
39.186565/
AviationBoulevard
Arundel
76.692153
(MD170)
Preliminary
Acres
2.05
2.65
Source
PreliminaryComments
lowerareasmayprovideforwetlandcreation,
CRI
reforestationareaavailable,withinBWI4mileradius,
Desktop
notinlinewithrunways
northeastcornerisclosetosameelevationaswaterin
CRI
pond,reforestationareaavailable,withinBWI4mile
Desktop
radius,notinlinewithrunways
CRI
sandysoils,approximatelythreefeetaboveelevationof
Desktop pond,withinBWI4mileradius,notinlinewithrunways
drypond,containssomewaterandhydrophytic
vegetation,additionalexcavationcouldcreatewetland
CRI
Desktop andincreasedetention,withinBWI4mileradius,notin
linewithrunways
eastsideofstream,gentleslope,minimalgradingto
CRI
interceptgroundwater,associatedwithstream
Desktop
restorationsiteLP007
openhorsepasturewithsmallstreamonwestside,
CRI
groundwaterinterceptionappearspossible
Desktop
Preliminary
Score
FinalStatus
71
DroppedduringStageIIduetorecentdevelopment
76
90
Selectedforinclusionintheconceptualmitigation
plan
90
76
plan
78
DroppedduringStageIIduetolackofadequate
hydrology
1.77
oldfieldatbaseofstormwatermanagementpond,
CRI
approximatelytwofeetabovewaterelevationinstream
Desktop
81
plan
5.83
lowlandscapeposition,lamprushacrossopenfield,
CRI
associatedwithstreamrestorationLP012
Desktop
76
plan
1.98
lowlandscapeposition,openfield,associatedwith
CRI
streamrestorationLP012
Desktop
76
plan
43
DroppedduringStageIIbecauseoftoomanysite
constraints
76
Droppedbecauseofdeniedaccess
35
DroppedduringStageIIbecauseofexcessivecut
required
68
81
hydrology
1.26
1.82
MTA#1
LowerPatapsco/
StonyRun
SR001
SevernRiver/
TribtoSevern
Run
Anne
Arundel
39.114611/ OldOakRoadand
76.654261 TepperRoad
3.88
SR002
SevernRiver/
TribtoSevern
Run
Anne
Arundel
UniversityDrive,
39.114611/
TepperRoadand
76.650202
NewCutRoad
0.82
1.58
abandonedhouseandparkonwestside,above
CRI
stormwatermanagementarea,channelappears
Desktop
ephemeral,lowtomoderatepotential
CRI
openfield,lowlandscapeposition,lamprushobserved,
Desktop groundwaterinterceptionpossible
associatedwithStonyRun,existingwetlandtothe
MTA
north,withinBWI4mileradius,inlinewithrunways
adjacentstreamconstrictedatroadcrossing,hydrology
CRI
appearspossiblewithincurrentfieldwithexistingwater
Desktop
levels,associatedwithstreamrestorationSR013
swaleinfieldcontainssurfacewaterandtwohealthy
CRI
blackwillows
Desktop
June 2014
10
SiteID
SR004
SR005
SR006
SR007
SR008
Subwatershed/
Stream
SevernRiver/
Gumbottom
Branch
SevernRiver/
TribtoIndian
CreekBranch
SevernRiver/
TribtoIndian
CreekBranch
SevernRiver/
JabezBranch
SevernRiver/
JabezBranch
County
Anne
Arundel
NearestRoad
Intersection
WaterburyHeights
39.052663/
DriveandSheridan
76.60216
Road
Lat/Long
Preliminary
Acres
1.29
Source
PreliminaryComments
private,aerialimagerysuggestsarearetainswaterfor
CRI
extendedperiodsoftime
Desktop
Preliminary
Score
FinalStatus
62
openfieldwestofstormwatermanagementarea
Anne
Arundel
39.047622/ WaterburyRoadand
76.047622 SevernChapelRoad
2.84
MDE
57
hydrology
Anne
Arundel
39.047518/ WaterburyRoadand
76.631318 SevernChapelRoad
1.84
flatfieldwithwetswaleinmiddlecontainingsurface
CRI
water
Desktop
64
hydrology
Anne
Arundel
Anne
Arundel
39.052424/
76.651087
39.050319/
76.655725
53
67
BaldwinDriveand
CecilAvenuesouth
CecilAvenuesouth
andChurchillRoad
3.34
5.45
CRI
lamprushwithinlowerarea,reforestationavailable
Desktop
lamprushwithinlowerarea,reforestationavailable
CRI
Desktop
June 2014
11
B. STREAMS
The stream mitigation site-selection process focused on locating stream segments with
the highest need and potential for restoration within the Lower North Branch Patapsco
River and Severn River watersheds.
1. Desktop Stream Site Identification
a. Water Resources Registry Search
The WRR was used to investigate possible stream mitigation sites in the Lower North
Branch Patapsco and Severn River watersheds. Most sites were eliminated from the
list due to conflicts with existing landuse (buffer locations appearing on buildings or
roads) or inadequate buffer width (less than 50 feet). Sites were also excluded if they
existed on privately-owned lawns or institutional athletic fields. Additional riparian buffer
enhancement sites were identified through desktop analysis using recent aerial
photographs that showed streams with little to no existing woody vegetation.
b. Watershed Studies and Other Documents
Pertinent watershed studies, reports, and mapping were reviewed to determine potential
stream reaches suitable for restoration within the targeted watersheds. The following
documents or data sources were reviewed for potential stream mitigation sites:
Lower Patapsco River Watershed Action Plan (Howard County, March 2006)
MDE Prioritizing Sites for Wetland Restoration, Mitigation, and Preservation in
Maryland (MDE, 2006)
Anne Arundel County Watershed, Ecosystem, and Restoration Services Mapping
Application Data for the Severn River and Lower Patapsco River watersheds
Friends of the Lower Patapsco, GIS stream walk data
Potential stream mitigation sites identified from these studies and data sources were
filtered for suitability as mitigation projects by location, stream order, and stability.
Stream restoration reaches classified as unstable stream types in the watershed studies
were preferentially selected. Unstable stream types include stream reaches that are
incised or entrenched, over-widened (high width-depth ratios), or associated with
sediment problems. Additional stream reaches were also selected if the stream
channels contained a fish blockage. Fish blockages are defined as debris jams, severe
head-cuts, or exposed infrastructure that prevent fish from freely moving up or
downstream. Each of the stream sites selected as potential BWI Rail Station and
Fourth Track project mitigation were also evaluated using aerial photography (BING,
2011; Google, 2011) to ensure recent conditions are similar to riparian conditions at the
time of the watershed study.
12
June 2014
2. Windshield Survey and Preliminary Site Ranking

Additional evaluation was completed on potential stream mitigation sites through further
desktop analysis and windshield surveys where sites were visible from public roadways.
Potential stream mitigation sites were scored and ranked using the following criteria:
bank erosion, floodplain condition, riparian vegetation, habitat and water quality, Green
Infastructure linkage, constraints, and fish blockages.
Each potential stream mitigation site was evaluated in relation to the scoring criteria
from GIS, aerial photography, available County assessment data, and/or windshield
survey where accessible.
Stream sites that show severe bank erosion, are
disconnected from the floodplain, or are likely to have poor existing in-stream habitat
opportunities were scored high as potential restoration sites. The riparian vegetation
criteria gives more points to sites located in urban or agricultural areas where additional
riparian buffer could have significant water quality benefits, and sites that have an
existing riparian forest were scored low for riparian vegetation. Project constraints were
determined by the presence of utilities that would negatively affect design and ease of
construction access, which was rated on proximity to a public road. Sites within 500
feet or less of a public road scored the highest for access. Most criteria evaluated were
scored with a factor of 10, 5, or 1, for a total of 100 points. A score of 10 represents the
highest or best possible score for all but the bank erosion criterion. Sites with severe
bank erosion were more heavily weighted with a best possible score of 15. The higher
the total score, the more suitable the site is for stream restoration.
As was done for the wetland sites, the potential for RTEs at all potential stream
mitigation sites investigated during Stage II was coordinated through the DNR and
USFWS. The responses from this coordination are provided in Appendix C.
3. Stream Mitigation Results
From the Stage I investigations, 19 possible stream mitigation sites were identified for
further study in Stage II. One site was split into three individual sites during Stage II,
increasing the total to 21 sites. Property access was granted to 16 of these sites. All of
these 16 sites were visited and evaluated. Following the on-site investigations, seven of
these sites were dropped due to site constraints and the lack of opportunities for
restoration. The remaining nine sites were carried forward and presented to the
regulatory agencies to obtain their input and feedback regarding site viability in
providing suitable compensatory stream mitigation for impacts anticipated from the BWI
Rail Station and Fourth Track project. Details and status of the potential wetland
mitigation sites are presented in Table 3.
13
June 2014
Table 3: Potential Stream Mitigation Sites

SiteID
Subwatershed/
stream
County
LP004
LowerPatapsco/
DavisBranch
LP007
LowerPatapsco/
TribtoPatapsco
River
Baltimore
LP012
LowerPatapsco/
MardellaBranch
Baltimore
LP014
LowerPatapsco/
BriceRun
Baltimore
LP015
LowerPatapsco/
BensRun
Baltimore
LP017
LowerPatapsco/
BensRun
Baltimore
LP018
LowerPatapsco/
BensRun
Baltimore
LP025
LowerPatapsco/
TribtoPatapsco
River
Baltimore
LP028
LP030
LP033
LP034
LP035
Howard
Lat/Long
NearestRoad
Intersection
BrownsFarm
39.319791/ Roadand
76.872673 Woodstock
Road
VineyardHill
39.24886/
RoadandBull
76.727968
BranchCourt
OffuttRoad
39.356889/
andPetticoat
76.829984
Court
OldCourtRoad
39.348381/
andTallowtree
76.818776
Road
39.317936/ DogwoodRoad
76.791847 andRitterRoad
OldCourtRoad
39.359109/
andBarryPaul
76.784838
Road
BrambleLane
39.360715/
andGrayFox
76.784838
Road
Tredegar
39.261391/ Avenueand
76.751224 Seminole
Avenue
CrosbyRoad
39.300047/
andKing
76.760836
WilliamDrive
LowerPatapsco/
TribtoPatapsco
Baltimore
River
LowerPatapsco/
Shelbourne
TribtoWest
39.248599/
Baltimore
RoadandCircle
BranchofHerbert
76.709384
Terrace
Run
Minnetonka
LowerPatapsco/ Anne
39.144296/
RoadandTwin
StonyRun
Arundel
76.692955
OaksRoad
DorseyRoad
LowerPatapsco/ Anne
39.165956/
(MD176)and
StonyRun
Arundel
76.698693
ShipleyAvenue
I195and
LowerPatapsco/ Anne
39.193062/
AviationBlvd.
StonyRun
Arundel
76.690926
(MD170)
Preliminary
Linear
Feet
PreliminaryComments
Preliminary
Score
FinalStatus
unabletoview,likelytohaveerosionissuesduetolackof
riparianvegetation
63
68
Selectedforinclusionintheconceptualmitigationplan
63
Thisstreamsitewaseventuallysplitintothreesections
LP012,LP012A,andLP012B.Allthreesectionwere
selectedforinclusionintheconceptualmitigationplan
Source
1,782 CRIDesktop
787 CRIDesktop
3,441 CRIDesktop
containsunvegetated/erodingbanksonmeanders,
potentialforreconnectingfloodplain,associatedwith
wetlandcreationLP007
experiencingaggradation,someerosion,lackofriparian
buffer,associatedwithwetlandcreationLP011andLP
011A
2,544 CRIDesktop
unabletoview,likelytohaveerosionduetolackof
riparianvegetation
73
4,595 CRIDesktop
someareashavebadlyerodingbanks
67
461 CRIDesktop
concretelined,unlikelytoberemovedduetoflashyflows,
possibleretrofitopportunity
57
DroppedafterStageIIbecauseoftoomanysite
constraints
666 CRIDesktop
severelyerodingbanks,erodingparkinglotoutfalls,
possibleretrofit,limitedbysewerlinesonbothsidesof
stream
67
constraints
341 Friends/DEPS severelyerodedgully,undercutapronatoutfall
70
constraints
914 Friends/DEPS allmeanderbendsaremoderatelytoseverelyeroded
54
DroppedafterStageIIduetolackofopportunitiesfor
restoration
onUMBCcampus,severeerosionnorthendofgravel
parkinglot
60
Portionofsiteselectedforinclusionintheconceptual
mitigationpackage
numerousidentifiederosionandobstructionsites,red
condition,withinBWI4mileradius
67
DroppedafterStageIIduetolackofopportunitiesfor
restoration
numerousidentifiederosionandobstructionsites,
orange/redcondition,withinBWI4mileradius
70
package
numerousidentifiederosion,obstruction,andheadcut
sites,orange/redcondition,withinBWI4mileradius
67
package
1,230 Friends/DEPS
AACounty
2,007 Watershed
Mapping
AACounty
6,539 Watershed
Mapping
AACounty
7,471 Watershed
Mapping
June 2014
14
Subwatershed/
stream
County
LP036
LowerPatapsco/
StonyRun
Anne
Arundel
SR009
SevernRiver/
JabezBranch
Anne
Arundel
SR010
SevernRiver/
SevernRun
Anne
Arundel
SR011
SevernRiver/
SevernRun
Anne
Arundel
SR012
SevernRiver/
SevernRun
Anne
Arundel
SR013
SevernRiver/
SevernRun
Anne
Arundel
SiteID
Lat/Long
NearestRoad
Intersection
RidgeRoadand
39.195991/
Corporate
76.697299
CenterDrive
HogFarmRoad
39.071987/ and
76.646913 Heatherfield
Lane
ReeceRoad
39.120668/ (MD174)and
76.710573 ReeceHeights
Drive
TelegraphRoad
39.103903/ (MD170)and
76.693827 JacksonGrove
Road
OldMillRoad
39.102176/
andRedmiles
76.689284
Road
OldOakRoad
39.111041/
andTepper
76.655316
Road
Preliminary
Linear
Feet
Preliminary
Score
FinalStatus
numerousidentifiederosion,obstruction,andheadcut
sites,orangecondition,withinBWI4mileradius
60
package
MDEidentifiedfishblockageatculvertonHogFarmRoad
64
package
AACounty
11,161 Watershed
Mapping
numerousidentifiederosion,obstructionandheadcut
sites,red/orangecondition,withinBWI4mileradius
70
AACounty
3,088 Watershed
Mapping
numerousidentifiederosion,obstructionandheadcut
sites,red/orangecondition
70
constraints
severeerosionsiteandnumerousobstructionsites,
orangecondition
65
constraints
numerouserosionandobstructionsites,redcondition,
associatedwithwetlandcreationsiteSR001
75
Source
AACounty
1,732 Watershed
Mapping
266 MDE
AACounty
1,754 Watershed
Mapping
AACounty
1,885 Watershed
Mapping
PreliminaryComments
June 2014
15
IV. PHASE I CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PACKAGE

Following the completion of Stages I and II of the mitigation site search, the most
feasible sites were presented to the USACE and MDE representatives. Field visits were
conducted with the agencies at 13 sites on July 9 and 10, 2013. Agency feedback on
each of the sites was solicited during the field reviews and field meeting minutes were
developed summarizing the sites presented and agency comments received
(Appendix D). Based on the on-site investigations during Stage II, and the agency
review comments during and following the field review, preferred sites were selected for
inclusion in the Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan (Table 4). During the on-site
investigations, preliminary acreages and linear feet of potential wetland and stream
mitigation at each site were adjusted based on actual site conditions and more refined
estimates of potential mitigation area. A total of 17.97 acres of potential wetland
mitigation and 13,165 linear feet of potential stream mitigation are presented in this
Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan. Further investigation of these sites may include the
opportunity for stormwater management (SWM) BMP practices, but potential stream
mitigation credit for SWM has not been accounted for at this time. An index map,
detailed site information, and maps of each site identified for the Phase I Conceptual
Mitigation Plan are presented in Appendix B.
Three of the sites have been identified as having a known federally-listed RTEs in or
near the potential site. Sites where RTE species occur nearby will require ongoing
coordination efforts with USFWS and DNR Wildlife and Heritage during development of
the Phase II Final Mitigation Plan.
To further identify site constraints and future investigations required for the selected
wetland and stream mitigation sites, a preliminary review of existing online records was
completed for each of the sites included in the conceptual mitigation package using
MERLIN (Marylands Environmental Resources and Land Information Network) to
determine the likely need for future historical resource investigations. The likelihood of
archaeological sites in or near the sites could not be determined from this review, as
this information is not available on MERLIN. It should also be noted that this preliminary
review did not include a Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) library visit, nor did it include
site visits. Based on the preliminary review of historic properties, all of the sites
included in the Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan will require further cultural
investigations during the development of the Phase II Final Mitigation Plan. The results
of the preliminary review for each site, selected for inclusion in the Phase I Mitigation
Plan, can be found in a table provided in Appendix B. During Phase II it will be
necessary to consult professional cultural resource specialists and to fully coordinate
site plans with the MHT.
Additional coordination with the Maryland Aviation Administration (MAA) regarding any
sites near the airport would also be conducted. Airport zoning regulations, enforced by
MAA, limit land use changes that may act as wildlife attractants, i.e. detention/retention
ponds, roosting habitats, and wastewater treatment plants within a four-mile radius of
BWI. Any wetland creation sites would need to be evaluated, coordinated with MAA,
and reviewed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in regards to its
14
June 2014
potential to be a wildlife attractant. In addition, wetland creation in line with airport

runways within this four-mile radius will not be allowed by MAA. All land use changes
within the BWI four-mile radius are required to obtain an Airport Zoning Permit from
MAA.
This Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan has been prepared in support of the project EA
for the BWI Rail Station and Fourth Track project. A Phase II Final Mitigation Plan will
be developed in compliance with the Federal Mitigation Rule and State mitigation
guidelines as part of the Final Design and permitting phase of the project. Detailed
technical studies to support mitigation design, property owner contacts and
negotiations, and continued agency coordination will occur during development of the
Final Mitigation Plan.
15
June 2014
Table 4: Conceptual Mitigation Sites

CONCEPTUAL WETLAND AND STREAM MITIGATION SITES
Site ID
Type of
Mitigation
Potential
Wetland
Acreage
LP-003
Wetland
3.44
LP-007
Wetland
Stream
2.05
LP-009
Wetland
1.77
LP-011
Wetland
8.73
LP-012
Stream
LP-011A
LP-012A
Wetland
Stream
LP-012B
Stream
LP-030
Potential
Stream
Length
(linear
feet)
800
Known
RTE
Nearby
Cultural
Investigation
Required
Location
Watershed
Property
Ownership
Hanover
Lower
Patapsco
Private
Yes
Yes
Public
No
Yes
Private
No
Yes
Catonsville
Elkridge
Lower
Patapsco
Lower
Patapsco
Ellicott City
Lower
Patapsco
Private
No
Yes
Ellicott City
Lower
Patapsco
Private
No
Yes
1,630
Ellicott City
Lower
Patapsco
Private
No
Yes
Stream &
BMP
1,230
Arbutus
Lower
Patapsco
Public
No
Yes
LP-034
Stream
4,120
Harmans
Lower
Patapsco
Public/
Private
Yes
Yes
LP-035
Stream
1,540
Linthicum
Heights
Lower
Patapsco
Private
No
Yes
LP-036
Stream
1,350
Linthicum
Heights
Lower
Patapsco
Public
Yes
Yes
SR-009
Stream
275
Millersville
Severn
River
Private
No
Yes
Total Mitigation
Estimate:
1,420
1.98
800
17.97
13,165
16
June 2014
AppendixA:Characteristics of Potentially Affected Wetlands
BWIRailStationImprovementsandFourthTrackProject
June 2014
Characteristics of Potentially Impacted Wetlands

East Alignment BWI West Option
Wetland
ID
Class
NWET4A
PEM1A
NWET4B
PFO1A
NWET5A
PEM1C
NWET5C
PEM1C
NWET5D
PEM1C
NWET6A
PFO1C
NWET11D
PEM1A
NWET11E
PEM1A
NWET12A
PEM1C
NWET12E
PFO1A
NWET13A
PEM1C
NWET13C
PEM1C
NWET13E
PEM1C
NWET13F
PEM1C
Dominant Vegetation
Common Name
Broad-leaf cattail
Rice cut grass
Red maple
Ash-leaf maple
Southern arrow-wood
Small-spike false nettle
Groundivy
Reed sp.
Skunk cabbage
Sensitive fern
Sweet-bay
Flowering dogwood
Southern arrow-wood
Common boneset
Arrow-leaf tearthumb
Skunk cabbage
Japanese stilt grass
Black gum
Tuliptree
Sweet-bay
Coastal sweet-pepperbush
Skunk cabbage
Uptight sedge
Hairy bittercress
Eastern hayscented fern
Reed canary grass
Cinnamon fern
Scientific Name
Typha latifolia
Leersia oryzoides
Acer rubrum
Acer negundo
Viburnum dentatum
Boehmeria cylindrica
Glechoma hederacea
Phragmites sp.
Symplocarpus foetidus
Onoclea sensibilis
Magnolia virginiana
Cornus florida
Viburnum dentatum
Eupatorium perfoliatum
Persicaria sagittata
Microstegium vimineum
Nyssa sylvatica
Liriodendron tulipifera
Magnolia virginiana
Clethra alnifolia
Carex stricta
Cardamine hirsuta
Dennstaedtia punctilobula
Phalaris arundinacea
Osmunda cinnamomea
Lamp rush
Red maple
Brookside alder
Skunk cabbage
Greater bladder sedge
Uptight sedge
Juncus effusus
Acer rubrum
Alnus serrulata
Clethra alnifolia
Carex intumescens
Carex stricta
Acer rubrum
Diospyros virginiana
Viburnum dentatum
Clethra alnifolia
Thelypteris
noveboracensis
Poaceae sp.
Parthenocissus
quinquefolia
Toxicodendron radicans
Onoclea sensibilis
Nuphar lutea
Platanus occidentalis
Cornus amomum
Red maple
Common persimmon
Southern arrow-wood
Skunk cabbage
New York fern
Grass sp.
Virginia creeper
Eastern posion-ivy
Common persimmon
Sensitive fern
Yellow pond-lilly
American sycamore
Silky dogwood
Impact
(acres)
Principal
Functions and
Values
0.31
FA, NR, WH, U/H
0.02
FA, NR, PE, WH,

U/H
0.00
GR/D, FA
0.00
FA, ST/R, WH
0.00
WH
0.02
FA, ST/R, NR,

WH, ESH
0.03
GR/D, FA, WH
0.08
GR/D, FA, WH
0.02
F&SH
0.09
F&SH, WH
0.26
FA, ST/R
0.60
FA
0.56
FA, ST/R, NR
0.23
FA, ST/R
Wetland
ID
Class
NWET13H
PFO1C
NWET13I
PFO/SS1C
NWET13J
PEM1C
NWET13K
PFO1C
NWET13L
PEM1C
NWET14A
PFO1C
NWET14B
PEM5C
NWET15A
PFO1C
NWET15B
PFO1C
NWET15C
PFO1C
Dominant Vegetation
Common Name
Blackberry sp.
Red maple
River birch
Southern red oak
Horsebrier
Japanese honeysuckle
Black gum
Southern red oak
White oak
American hazelnut
Dotted smartweed
Scientific Name
Rubus sp.
Acer rubrum
Betula nigra
Quercus falcata
Clethra alnifolia
Smilax rotundifolia
Lonicera japonica
Nyssa sylvatica
Quercus falcata
Quercus alba
Clethra alnifolia
Corylus americana
Persicaria punctata
Dotted smartweed
Polygonum punctatum
River birch
American sycamore
Common winterberry
Horsebrier
Eastern poison-ivy
Flowering dogwood
Betula nigra
Ilex verticillata
Lonicera japonica
Smilax rotundifolia
Cornus florida
Quercus palustris
Acer rubrum
Magnolia virginiana
Ilex verticillata
Viburnum dentatum
Polygonum sp.
Parthenocissus
quinquefolia
Smilax rotundifolia
Vaccinium corymbosum
Cornus amomum
Acer rubrum
Quercus falcata
Lindera benzoin
Smilax rotundifolia
Osmunda cinnamomea
Acer rubrum
Nyssa sylvatica
Viburnum dentatum
Clethra alnifolia
Arisaema triphyllum
Quercus alba
Acer rubrum
Magnolia virginiana
Eubotrys racemosa
Nyssa sylvatica
Pin oak
Red maple
Sweet-bay
Common winterberry
Southern arrow-wood
Skunk cabbage
Knotweed sp.
Virginia creeper
Eastern poison-ivy
Horsebrier
Highbush blueberry
Silky dogwood
Reed canary grass
Red maple
Southern red oak
Northern spicebush
Horsebrier
Cinnamon fern
Red maple
Black gum
Southern arrow-wood
Jack-in-the-pulpit
White oak
Red maple
Sweet-bay
Swamp doghobble
Black gum
Impact
(acres)
Principal
Functions and
Values
0.24
FA, NR, WH
0.40
FA, ST/R
0.31
FA, F&SH, ST/R,

NR, PE, WH
0.44
FA, NR, WH
0.16
FA, NR, WH
0.01
FA, WH
0.03
FA, S/SS, WH
0.01
FA, ST/R, WH
0.72
FA, ST/R, WH
0.17
FA, ST/R, WH
Wetland
ID
Class
NWET16B
PEM5C
NWET16C
PFO1C
NWET16J
PEM1A
NWET18A
PSS1A
NWET24E
PFO1A
NWET24F
PFO1A
NWET25A
PEM1A
NWET30B
PFO1A
NWET31A
PEM2B
SWET11A
PEM1Gr
SWET13A
PFO1C
Dominant Vegetation
Common Name
Horsebrier
Skunk cabbage
Skunk cabbage
Rice cut grass
Red maple
Gray dogwood
Southern arrow-wood
Skunk cabbage
Eastern posion-ivy
Weeping willow
America sycamore
Narrow-leaf cattail
Red maple
Callery pear
Narrow-leaf cattail
Lamp rush
Ash-leaf maple
American sycamore
Highbush blueberry
Northern spicebush
Spotted touch-me-not
English ivy
Grape sp.
Green ash
Tuliptree
Lizards tail
Blackberry sp.
Red maple
Green ash
Black gum
Common reed
Carolina dayflower
Green ash
Red maple
Northern spicebush
Honey locust
Slippery elm
Black locust
Green ash
Devils pitchfork
Straw-color flat sedge
Tuliptree
Virginia pine
Sweetgum
Broad-leaf cattail
Small carp grass
Tall fescue
Red maple
Sweet-bay
Black gum
Northern spicebush
Southern arrow-wood
Scientific Name
Smilax rotundifolia
Leersia oryzoides
Acer rubrum
Cornus racemosa
Viburnum dentatum
Salix x sepulcralis
Typha angustifolia
Acer rubrum
Pyrus calleryana
Clethra alnifolia
Typha angustifolia
Juncus effusus
Acer negundo
Lindera benzoin
Impatiens capensis
Hedera helix
Vitis sp.
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Impatiens capensis
Saururus cernuus
Rubus sp.
Acer rubrum
Nyssa sylvatica
Phragmites australis
Commelina caroliniana
Acer rubrum
Lindera benzoin
Gleditsia triacanthos
Ulmus rubra
Robinia psuedoacacia
Bidens frondosa
Cyperus strigosus
Pinus virginiana
Liquidambar styraciflua
Typha latifolia
Arthraxon hispidus
Festuca arundinacea
Lonicera japonica
Acer rubrum
Magnolia virginiana
Nyssa sylvatica
Lindera benzoin
Viburnum dentatum
Clethra alnifolia
Impact
(acres)
Principal
Functions and
Values
0.52
FA, NR, WH
0.01
FA, NR, WH
0.00
GR
0.02
WH
0.02
FA, F&SH, WH
0.02
FA, F&SH, ST/R
0.05
FA, WH
0.00
GR/D
0.09
WH
0.00
n/a
0.09
WH
Wetland
ID
Class
SWET14A
PFO1J
SWET15A
PEM1Cr
SWET15B
PEM1Cr
SWET16A
PEM1
SWET18A
PFO1F
SWET21A
PFO1Z
SWET23A
PEM1Cdx
SWET24A
PEM1J
SWET24B
PEM1J
Dominant Vegetation
Common Name
Black cherry
Northern long sedge
Mannagrass sp.
Horsebrier
Virginia creeper
Red maple
Tuliptree
Southern arrow-wood
Cinnamon fern
Horsebrier
Broad-leaf cattail
Scientific Name
Prunus serotina
Carex folliculata
Glyceria sp.
Smilax rotundifolia
Parthenocissus
quinquefolia
Acer rubrum
Clethra alnifolia
Viburnum dentatum
Impatiens capensis
Osmunda cinnamomea
Smilax rotundifolia
Typha latifolia
Broad-leaf cattail
Annual bluegrass
Grass sp.
Tuliptree
Red maple
Highbush blueberry
Common winterberry
Skunk cabbage
American sycamore
Loblolly pine
Eastern white pine
Black cherry
Red maple
Tall fescue
Eastern poison ivy
Red maple
Franks sedge
Knotweed sp.
Eastern poison-ivy
River-bank grape
Red maple
Southern arrow-wood
Asiatic tearthumb
Eastern red cedar
Common reed
Southern arrow-wood
Skunk cabbage
Wrinkle-leaf goldenrod
Oriental bittersweet
Typha latifolia
Poa annua
Poeceae sp.
Acer rubrum
Clethra alnifolia
Ilex verticillata
Pinus taeda
Pinus strobus
Prunus serotina
Acer rubrum
Festuca arundinacea
Lonicera japonica
Acer rubrum
Carex frankii
Persicaria sp.
Lonicera japonica
Vitis riparia
Acer rubrum
Viburnum dentatum
Persicaria perfoliata
Lonicera japonica
Juniperus virginiana
Viburnum dentatum
Solidago rugosa
Celastrus orbiculatus
Lonicera japonica
Impact
(acres)
Principal
Functions and
Values
0.02
WH
0.01
n/a
0.01
n/a
0.02
n/a
0.19
FA, F&SH, WH
0.02
n/a
0.03
ST/R
0.73
n/a
0.32
n/a
Bold=WSSCwetlands
n/a=Noprincipalfunctionswererecordedduringthefunctionalassessment.However,thesewetlandsdo
providelimitedfunctionssuchasWH,S/TR,butatalowerlevelthanthelargermorediversesystems.
3
GR/D=GroundwaterRecharge/Dishcarge,FA=FloodflowAlteration,ST/R=SedimentTrapping/Retention,
NR=NutrientRemoval,PE=ProductionExport,F&SH=FishandShellfishHabitat,S/SS=ShorelineStabilization,
WH=WildlifeHabitat,U/H=Uniqueness/Heritage,ESH=EndangeredSpeciesHabitat
2
Functions and Values of Impacted Wetlands

East Alignment BWI East Option
Wetland
ID1
Class
NWET4A
PEM1A
NWET4B
PFO1A
NWET5A
PEM1C
NWET5F
PEM1C
NWET6A
PFO1C
NWET11D
PEM1A
NWET11E
PEM1A
NWET12A
PEM1C
NWET12E
PFO1A
NWET13A
PEM1C
NWET13C
PEM1C
NWET13E
PEM1C
NWET13F
PEM1C
NWET13H
PFO1C
Dominant Vegetation
Common Name
Broad-leaf cattail
Rice cut grass
Red maple
Ash-leaf maple
Southern arrow-wood
Small-spike false nettle
Ground ivy
Reed sp.
Skunk cabbage
Sensitive fern
Narrow-leaf cattail
Black gum
Tuliptree
Sweet-bay
Skunk cabbage
Uptight sedge
Hairy bittercress
Eastern hayscented fern
Reed canary grass
Cinnamon fern
Scientific Name
Typha latifolia
Leersia oryzoides
Acer rubrum
Acer negundo
Viburnum dentatum
Boehmeria cylindrica
Glechoma hederacea
Phragmites sp.
Onoclea sensibilis
Typha angustifolia
Nyssa sylvatica
Magnolia virginiana
Clethra alnifolia
Carex stricta
Cardamine hirsuta
Dennstaedtia punctilobula
Osmunda cinnamomea
Lamp rush
Red maple
Brookside alder
Skunk cabbage
Greater bladder sedge
Uptight sedge
Juncus effusus
Acer rubrum
Alnus serrulata
Clethra alnifolia
Carex intumescens
Carex stricta
Acer rubrum
Viburnum dentatum
Clethra alnifolia
Thelypteris
noveboracensis
Poaceae sp.
Parthenocissus
quinquefolia
Onoclea sensibilis
Nuphar lutea
Cornus amomum
Rubus sp.
Acer rubrum
Betula nigra
Quercus falcata
Clethra alnifolia
Smilax rotundifolia
Red maple
Common persimmon
Southern arrow-wood
Skunk cabbage
New York fern
Grass sp.
Virginia creeper
Eastern poison-ivy
Common persimmon
Sensitive fern
Yellow pond-lily
American sycamore
Silky dogwood
Blackberry sp.
Red maple
River birch
Southern red oak
Horsebrier
Impact
(acres)
Principal
Functions 2,3
0.31
FA, NR, WH,

U/H
0.00
FA, NR, PE,

WH, U/H
0.01
GR/D, FA
0.50
FA, S/TR, NR
0.06
FA, ST/R, NR,

WH, ESH
0.03
GR/D, FA, WH
0.08
GR/D, FA, WH
0.02
F&SH
0.09
F&SH, WH
0.14
FA, ST/R
0.60
FA
0.45
FA, ST/R, NR
0.18
FA, ST/R
0.03
FA, NR, WH
Wetland
ID1
NWET13I
NWET14A
Class
Dominant Vegetation
Common Name
Scientific Name
Lonicera japonica
PFO/SS1C
Black gum
Southern red oak
White oak
American hazelnut
Dotted smartweed
PFO1C
Pin oak
Red maple
Sweet-bay
Common winterberry
Southern arrow-wood
Skunk cabbage
Knotweed sp.
Virginia creeper
Eastern poison-ivy
Horsebrier
Nyssa sylvatica
Quercus falcata
Quercus alba
Clethra alnifolia
Corylus americana
Persicaria punctata
Quercus palustris
Acer rubrum
Magnolia virginiana
Ilex verticillata
Viburnum dentatum
Polygonum sp.
Parthenocissus
quinquefolia
Smilax rotundifolia
Cornus amomum
Quercus alba
Acer rubrum
Magnolia virginiana
Eubotrys racemosa
Nyssa sylvatica
Smilax rotundifolia
Leersia oryzoides
Acer rubrum
Cornus racemosa
Viburnum dentatum
Salix x sepulcralis
Typha angustifolia
Acer rubrum
Pyrus calleryana
Clethra alnifolia
Typha angustifolia
Juncus effusus
Acer negundo
Lindera benzoin
Impatiens capensis
Hedera helix
Vitis sp.
Impatiens capensis
NWET14B
PEM5C
NWET15C
PFO1C
NWET16B
PEM5C
NWET16C
PFO1C
NWET16J
PEM1A
NWET18A
PSS1A
NWET24E
PFO1A
NWET24F
PFO1A
Highbush blueberry
Silky dogwood
Reed canary grass
White oak
Red maple
Sweet-bay
Swamp doghobble
Black gum
Horsebrier
Skunk cabbage
Skunk cabbage
Rice cut grass
Red maple
Gray dogwood
Southern arrow-wood
Skunk cabbage
Eastern poison-ivy
Weeping willow
America sycamore
Narrow-leaf cattail
Red maple
Callery pear
Narrow-leaf cattail
Lamp rush
Ash-leaf maple
American sycamore
Highbush blueberry
Northern spicebush
English ivy
Grape sp.
Green ash
Tuliptree
Impact
(acres)
Principal
Functions 2,3
0.08
FA, ST/R
1.08
FA, WH
1.35
FA, S/SS, WH
0.01
FA, ST/R, WH
0.22
FA, ST/R, WH
0.02
FA, NR, WH
0.02
GR
0.03
WH
0.02
FA, F&SH, WH
0.02
FA, F&SH,
ST/R
Wetland
ID1
Class
NWET25A
PEM1A
NWET30B
PFO1A
NWET31A
PEM2B
SWET11A
PEM1Gr
SWET13A
PFO1C
SWET14A
PFO1J
SWET15A
PEM1Cr
SWET15B
PEM1Cr
SWET16A
PEM1
SWET18A
PFO1F
SWET21A
PFO1Z
Dominant Vegetation
Common Name
Lizards tail
Blackberry sp.
Red maple
Green ash
Black gum
Common reed
Carolina dayflower
Green ash
Red maple
Northern spicebush
Honey locust
Slippery elm
Black locust
Green ash
Devils pitchfork
Straw-color flat sedge
Tuliptree
Virginia pine
Sweetgum
Broad-leaf cattail
Small carp grass
Tall fescue
Red maple
Tuliptree
Southern arrow-wood
Cinnamon fern
Horsebrier
Broad-leaf cattail
Scientific Name
Saururus cernuus
Rubus sp.
Acer rubrum
Nyssa sylvatica
Commelina caroliniana
Acer rubrum
Lindera benzoin
Gleditsia triacanthos
Ulmus rubra
Robinia psuedoacacia
Bidens frondosa
Cyperus strigosus
Pinus virginiana
Liquidambar styraciflua
Typha latifolia
Arthraxon hispidus
Festuca arundinacea
Lonicera japonica
Acer rubrum
Magnolia virginiana
Nyssa sylvatica
Lindera benzoin
Viburnum dentatum
Clethra alnifolia
Prunus serotina
Carex folliculata
Glyceria sp.
Smilax rotundifolia
Parthenocissus
quinquefolia
Acer rubrum
Clethra alnifolia
Viburnum dentatum
Impatiens capensis
Osmunda cinnamomea
Smilax rotundifolia
Typha latifolia
Broad-leaf cattail
Annual bluegrass
Grass sp.
Tuliptree
Red maple
Highbush blueberry
Common winterberry
Skunk cabbage
American sycamore
Loblolly pine
Eastern white pine
Black cherry
Red maple
Tall fescue
Typha latifolia
Poa annua
Poeceae sp.
Acer rubrum
Clethra alnifolia
Ilex verticillata
Pinus taeda
Pinus strobus
Prunus serotina
Acer rubrum
Festuca arundinacea
Red maple
Sweet-bay
Black gum
Northern spicebush
Southern arrow-wood
Black cherry
Northern long sedge
Mannagrass sp.
Horsebrier
Virginia creeper
Impact
(acres)
Principal
Functions 2,3
0.05
FA, WH
0.00
GR/D
0.09
WH
0.00
n/a
0.09
WH
0.02
WH
0.01
n/a
0.01
n/a
0.02
n/a
0.19
FA, F&SH, WH
0.02
n/a
Wetland
ID1
Class
SWET23A
PEM1Cdx
SWET24A
PEM1J
SWET24B
PEM1J
Dominant Vegetation
Common Name
Eastern poison ivy
Red maple
Franks sedge
Knotweed sp.
Eastern poison-ivy
River-bank grape
Red maple
Southern arrow-wood
Asiatic tearthumb
Eastern red cedar
Common reed
Southern arrow-wood
Skunk cabbage
Wrinkle-leaf goldenrod
Oriental bittersweet
Scientific Name
Lonicera japonica
Acer rubrum
Carex frankii
Persicaria sp.
Lonicera japonica
Vitis riparia
Acer rubrum
Viburnum dentatum
Persicaria perfoliata
Lonicera japonica
Juniperus virginiana
Viburnum dentatum
Solidago rugosa
Celastrus orbiculatus
Lonicera japonica
Impact
(acres)
Principal
Functions 2,3
0.03
ST/R
0.73
n/a
0.32
n/a
Bold=WSSCwetlands
n/a=Noprincipalfunctionswererecordedduringthefunctionalassessment.However,thesewetlandsdo
providelimitedfunctionssuchasWH,S/TR,butatalowerlevelthanthelargermorediversesystems.
3
GR/D=GroundwaterRecharge/Dishcarge,FA=FloodflowAlteration,ST/R=SedimentTrapping/Retention,
NR=NutrientRemoval,PE=ProductionExport,F&SH=FishandShellfishHabitat,S/SS=ShorelineStabilization,
WH=WildlifeHabitat,U/H=Uniqueness/Heritage,ESH=EndangeredSpeciesHabitat
2
AppendixB:VicinityMap,SiteDescriptions,andSiteMaps
June2014
Legend
MD County Boundaries
Lower Patapsco Watershed
Map Sheets
Project Corridor
BWI Rail Station and

4th Track Project
Potential Mitigation Sites
Index Map
1 inch = 2 miles
Severn River Watershed
Miles
0
December 2013
2013
November
BWI Rail Station and 4th Track Project

Potential Wetland and Stream Mitigation Site at Unnamed Tributary of
Mardella Branch
(LP-011, LP-012)
Existing Conditions Summary
Location Information
County:
Watershed:
Coordinates:
Location:
Property Ownership:
Constraints:
Baltimore County
Lower Patapsco
USGS Quad: Ellicott City
3921'24.09"N / 7649'49.28"W
Southwest of the intersection of Offutt Rd and Peddicoat Ct, Woodstock, MD
Private
Bridge on Offutt Rd is included in the MHT Historic Bridge Inventory
Site Conditions
Parcel Area(s):
Landscape Position:
Drainage Area:
Habitat Location:
Mapped Soils:
Mapped Wetlands:
Green Infrastructure:
43.33 acres
Existing Land Use: Fallow Field
Stream Valley/Floodplain
Adjacent Land Use: Agricultural, Residential
960 acres
Contiguous to wetland/upland forest >100 acres
Cordorus silt loams
No NWI or DNR wetlands mapped on site
No Green Infrastructure near site
This site is located southwest of the intersection of Offutt Rd and Peddicoat Ct. This site is associated
with an unnamed tributary of Mardella Branch. The stream channel exhibits instability, moderate bank
erosion, headcutting, and incision due to historical straightening. There is evidence that channel incision
may be a result of accumulation of legacy sediments in the floodplain. The field adjacent to the stream
site LP-011 appears suitable for wetland creation. In addition, sites LP-011 and LP-012 could be
combined with site LP-012B. These two stream channels could be relocated and resized to maximize the
wetland functions at site LP-011.
Summary of Opportunities
Stream Restoration Approximately 1,420 linear feet
Wetland Creation Approximately 8.73 acres
Restoration Objectives
Wetland Creation
Stream Stabilization
Habitat Improvement
Floodplain Reconnection
Sediment Storage
Nutrient Uptake
Carbon Sequestration
Restoration Concept
In order to increase flood frequency, which will provide hydrology for the wetland creation project,
there will be a combination of design techniques utilized including, floodplain grading, raising the
streambed, and reducing the cross sectional area of the channel
Relocate stream to create meandering planform to maximize stream length, groundwater recharge,
flood frequency and sediment/nutrient treatment in restored wetlands
Bank grading to improve floodplain connectivity and reduce sediment loading
Installation of in-stream structures to improve channel stability and improve in-stream habitat

Mardella Branch
(LP-012B)
County:
Watershed:
Coordinates:
Location:
Property Ownership:
Constraints:
Baltimore County
Lower Patapsco
3921'22.41"N / 7649'44.98"W
East of the intersection of Offutt Rd and Peddicoat Ct, Woodstock, MD
Private
Site Conditions
Parcel Area(s):
Landscape Position:
Drainage Area:
Habitat Location:
Mapped Soils:
Mapped Wetlands:

28.43 acres
832 acres
Cordorus silt loams
This site is located east of the intersection of Offutt Rd and Peddicoat CT. LP-012B is associated with an
unnamed tributary of Mardella Branch. The stream channel exhibits instability, moderate bank erosion,
headcutting, sediment transport issues, and minor to moderate incision. There is evidence that channel
incision may be a result of accumulation of legacy sediments in the floodplain. The field adjacent to the
stream site LP-011 appears suitable for wetland creation. In addition, site LP-012B could be combined
with LP-011 and LP-012. These two stream channels could be relocated and resized to maximize the
wetland functions at site LP-011.
Stream Stabilization
Habitat Improvement
Sediment Storage
Restoration Concept

Mardella Branch
(LP-011A, LP-012A)
County:
Watershed:
Coordinates:
Location:
Property Ownership:
Constraints:
Baltimore County
Lower Patapsco
3921'22.56"N / 7650'1.39"W
West of the intersection of Offutt Rd and Peddicoat Ct, Woodstock, MD
Private
Site Conditions
Parcel Area:
Landscape Position:
Drainage Area:
Habitat Location:
Mapped Soils:
Mapped Wetlands:
34.20 acres
896 acres
Cordorus silt loams
No NWI and DNR wetlands mapped on site
This site is located southwest of the intersection of Offutt Rd and Peddicoat Ct. This site is associated
with an unnamed tributary of Mardella Branch. The stream channel exhibits instability including incision
and moderate bank erosion due to historical straightening. There is evidence that channel incision may be
a result of accumulation of legacy sediments in the floodplain. A small field on the south side of the
stream may be suitable for wetland creation if the stream is relocated and resized.
Stream Restoration Approximately 800 linear feet
Wetland Restoration
Stream Restoration
Habitat Improvement
Sediment Storage
Nutrient Uptake
Restoration Concept
In order to increase flood frequency, which will provide hydrology for the wetland creation project,
there will be a combination of design techniques utilized including, floodplain grading, raising the
streambed, and reducing the cross sectional area of the channel
Installation of in-stream and floodplain woody debris to improve habitat and nutrient processing
Legend
Potential Stream Sites
Potential Wetland Sites
Project Corridor
MNDR/NWI Wetlands
Streams
Hydric Soils
Topo (2')
!
(

4th Track Project
SHEET 1 of 8
1 inch = 250 feet
Potential BMP
0
125
250
Feet
500
December 2013
2013
November

Mardella Branch
(LP-007)
County:
Watershed:
Coordinates:
Location:
Property Ownership:
Constraints:
Baltimore County
Lower Patapsco
3914'41.40"N / 7643'40.93"W
Southwest of the intersection of S Rolling Rd and Foxhall Farm Rd,
Catonsville, MD
Public (MD DNR)
None
Site Conditions
Parcel Area(s):
Landscape Position:
Drainage Area:
Habitat Location:
Mapped Soils:
Mapped Wetlands:

110 acres
Stream Valley
Adjacent Land Use: Forest, Residential
640 acres
Codorous silt loams
Green Infrastructure Gap and Hub south of site
This site is located southeast of Foxhall Farm Rd and is associated with an unnamed tributary of Mardella
Branch. The stream channel exhibits instability, moderate to severe bank erosion, irregular planform, and
severe lack of sediment transport due to historical straightening and downcutting. A field on the east side
of the stream would require minor grading to intercept ground water and restore a palustrine forested
wetland. The stream channel would be relocated and resized to maximize stream length, nutrient uptake,
carbon sequestration, flood frequency, and sediment storage in the restored wetlands.
Wetland Creation
Maximize Stream Length
Habitat Improvement
Sediment Storage
Nutrient Transformation
Restoration Concept
Minimal grading to east of unnamed tributary to the Patapsco River to create wetlands
Project Corridor
MNDR/NWI Wetlands
Streams
Hydric Soils
Topo (2')
!
(

4th Track Project
Legend

SHEET 2 of 8
1 inch = 150 feet
Potential BMP
0
75
150
Feet
300
December 2013
November

Potential Stream Mitigation Site at West Branch Herbert Run
(LP-030)
County:
Watershed:
Coordinates:
Location:
Property Ownership:
Constraints:
Baltimore
Lower Patapsco
3914'55.76"N / 7642'31.98"W
USGS Quad: Relay
Northwest of the intersection of Sulfur Spring Rd and Shelbourne Rd,
Arbutus, MD.
Public (State of Maryland)
None
Site Conditions
Parcel Area:
Landscape Position:
Drainage Area:
Habitat Location:
Mapped Soils:
Mapped Wetlands:
Existing Land Use: Forest

49.7 acres
Stream Valley
Adjacent Land Use: State Campus, Forest
128 acres
Contiguous to wetland/upland forest 25-100 acres
Issue-Urban land complex
NWI and DNR wetlands mapped north of site
No Green Infrastructure adjacent to site
This site is located northwest of the intersection of Sulfur Spring Rd and Shelbourne Rd, and is associated
with West Branch Herbert Run. The stream corridor is forested, with the University of Maryland Baltimore
County to the northwest and residential development to the east and south. The stream channel is
disconnected from its floodplain. This stream channel appears to be actively incising and experiencing
moderate to severe bank erosion. The stream does not appear to provide good in-stream habitat and
lacks riparian cover. Stream restoration opportunities at this site include the opportunity to increase
stream length, create large floodplain benches, and increase riparian forest cover for the stream channel.
There are additional opportunities for stormwater treatment through the creation of bioretention cells
adjacent to the stream.
SWM BMP Installation
Increasing stream length
Creating floodplain benches
Treating stormwater through bioretention
Reconnecting the stream to the floodplain
Reducing bank erosion and in-stream sedimentation
Enhancing the riparian buffer and resolving utility conflicts
Enhancing the habitat conditions and the benthic and fish communities
Creating sediment storage
Restoration Concept
Relocation of the stream channel to increase stream length
Creation of floodplain benches to provide energy dissipation of erosive flood flows, reduce erosive
shear stresses, store sediment, reduce channel incision, and increase infiltration and groundwater
recharge
Bank stabilization to provide energy dissipation of erosive flood flows, reduce erosive shear
stresses, and reduce bank erosion and in-stream sedimentation
Installation of in-stream structures to protect exposed utilities
Riparian buffer plantings and installation of woody debris and other types of in-stream cover and
gravel channel material to enhance the benthic and fish habitats and communities
Installation of BMPs at stormwater outfalls and parking lots to provide water quality and quantity
improvements
Legend
Project Corridor
MNDR/NWI Wetlands
Streams
Hydric Soils
Topo (2')
!
(

4th Track Project
SHEET 3 of 8
1 inch = 150 feet
Potential BMP
0
75
150
Feet
300
December
November 2013

Potential Wetland Mitigation Site at Pebble Creek Drive
(LP-009)
County:
Watershed:
Coordinates:
Location:
Property Ownership:
Constraints:
Howard
Lower Patapsco
3912'14.75"N / 7645'29.77"W
USGS Quad: Savage
Southwest of the corner of Pebble Creek Dr and Deborah Jean Dr, Elkridge,
MD
Private
None
Site Conditions
Parcel Area:
Landscape Position:
Drainage Area:
Habitat Location:
Mapped Soils:
Mapped Wetlands:
Existing Land Use: Forest and Field

6.84 acres
Floodplain
Adjacent Land Use: Residential
25.6 acres
Contiguous to wetland/upland forest 25 - 100 acres
Fallsington sandy loam and Chillum loam
Not located within Green Infrastructure
This wetland site is located along the southeast side of Pebble Creek Dr, in Elkridge, MD. An open area
northeast of the small stream appears suitable for wetland creation. The area is situated topographically
low and is slightly higher than the elevation of an unnamed tributary to Deep Run. A stormwater retention
area exists upslope on the northeast side of the site.
Wetland Creation - Approximately 1.77 acres
Wetland Creation
Nutrient Uptake
Restoration Concept
Minor grading to intercept groundwater and create wetland
Invasive species management
Project Corridor
MNDR/NWI Wetlands
Streams
Hydric Soils
Topo (2')
!
(

4th Track Project
Legend

SHEET 4 of 8
1 inch = 150 feet
Potential BMP
0
75
150
Feet
300
December 2013
November

Potential Stream Mitigation Site at Stony Run
(LP-035, LP-036)
County:
Watershed:
Coordinates:
Location:
Property Ownership:
Constraints:
Anne Arundel
Lower Patapsco
3911'46.34"N / 7641'50.15"W
USGS Quad: Relay
South of the I-295, I-195 interchange, Linthicum Heights, MD
Private and Public (Anne Arundel County)
Utilities and railroad
Site Conditions
Parcel Area:
Landscape Position:
Drainage Area:
Habitat Location:
Mapped Soils:
Mapped Wetlands:
59 acres
Existing Land Use: Forest and Open Space
Stream Valley
Adjacent Land Use: Forest, Railroad
5,632 acres
Contiguous to wetland/upland forest 25-100 acres and >100 acres
Zekiah and Issue soils
NWI and DNR wetlands mapped on site
Gap and Hub Green Infrastructure adjacent to site
This site is located south of the I-295 and I-195 interchange, and is associated with Stony Run. The
stream corridor is partially forested, with nearby railroad tracks and commercial development. The stream
channels at site LP-035 and LP-036 are still partially connected to their floodplains but the streams appear
to be widening and potentially incising. The streambanks appear to be actively eroding causing in-stream
sedimentation, threatening railroad tracks at LP-035, and forming lateral gravel bars. The channels
appear to be trying to resolve their unstable planform caused by historic channelization, and a lack of
sediment transport caused channel widening. These sites are good mitigation opportunities because
restoration of the stream channels will provide protection of adjacent wetland forest; in particular,
upstream wetlands which are considered as Wetlands of Special State Concern and known to contain
plants that require a specific hydrologic regime. In addition, it will increase flood frequency in the
floodplains and provide protection of unstable channels that appear to be contributing large amounts
sediment.
Increasing flood frequency of stream channel
Protecting riparian wetlands
Stabilizing channel reduce sedimentation and create sediment sink
Increasing carbon and nutrient cycling
Enhancing the riparian buffer and resolving utility conflicts
Enhancing the habitat conditions and the benthic and fish communities
Restoration Concept
Relocating and resizing channel to increase stream length and flood frequency.
Increasing floodplain connectivity to provide energy dissipation of erosive flood flows, store fine
sediment, reduce erosive shear stresses, reduce channel incision, increase infiltration and
groundwater recharge
Provinding bank stabilization to provide energy dissipation of erosive flood flows, reduce erosive
shear stresses, and reduce bank erosion and in-stream sedimentation
Installation of in-stream structures to protect exposed utilities
Project Corridor
MNDR/NWI Wetlands
Streams
Hydric Soils
Topo (2')
!
(

4th Track Project
Legend

SHEET 5 of 8
1 inch = 250 feet
Potential BMP
0
125
250
Feet
500
December
2013
October 2013

Potential Stream Mitigation Site at Stony Run
(LP-034)
County:
Watershed:
Coordinates:
Location:
Property Ownership:
Constraints:
Anne Arundel
Lower Patapsco
3909'49.80"N / 7641'50.64"W
USGS Quad: Relay
West of the intersection of Railroad Ave and Shipley Ave, Severn MD
Public (Anne Arundel County), Private
Sewer Line
Site Conditions
Parcel Area:
Landscape Position:
Drainage Area:
Habitat Location:
Mapped Soils:
Mapped Wetlands:
61 acres
Stream Valley
Adjacent Land Use: Forest, Commercial
2112 acres
Hub, Gap and Corridor Green Infrastructure adjacent to site
This site on Stony Run intersects Dorsey Rd, and runs parallel to Airport Loop (MD 170). The stream
channel is straightened and over-widened. Although the main channel appears to be acting as a large
conveyance of sediment due to its straightening, the major concern is the large number of actively
headcutting channels draining adjacent floodplain wetlands. Downstream of the railway crossing the
stream appears to be more actively eroding. There appears to be a lack of in-stream habitat.
SWM BMP Installations
Increase stream length
Re-establish grade control to prevent riparian wetlands from being drained
Reduce bank erosion and in-stream sedimentation
Enhance the habitat conditions for benthic and fish communities
Store sediment
Restoration Concept
Creation of vegetated in-stream benches
Install grade control step-pools to prevent wetland drainage and prevent sedimentation that will
continue if incising floodplain channels are not restored.
Bank stabilization to provide energy dissipation of erosive flood flows, reduce erosive shear
stresses, and reduce bank erosion and in-stream sedimentation
Increase flood frequency downstream of railway crossing to create sediment storage and
floodplain/wetland enhancement
Project Corridor
MNDR/NWI Wetlands
Streams
Hydric Soils
Topo (2')
!
(

4th Track Project
Legend

SHEET 6 of 8
1 inch = 250 feet
Potential BMP
0
125
250
Feet
500
December 2013
November

Potential Wetland Mitigation Site at Pebble Creek Drive
(LP-003)
County:
Watershed:
Coordinates:
Location:
Property Ownership:
Constraints:
Site Conditions
Parcel Area:
Landscape Position:
Drainage Area:
Habitat Location:
Mapped Soils:
Mapped Wetlands:
Anne Arundel
Lower Patapsco
398'29.33"N / 7642'27.9"W USGS Quad: Relay
East of the intersection of Macedonia Dr and Cambium Ct, Hanover, MD
Private
None
34.68 acres
Existing Land Use: Forest, Field
Flat
Adjacent Land Use: Residential, Forest
256 acres
Contiguous to wetland/upland forest 25 - 100 acres
Zekiah and Issue soils, Patapsco-Fort Mott-Urban land complex, and
Pepperbox loamy sand
Located within Green Infrastructure gap
This wetland site is located east of the end of Cambium Ct, in Hanover, MD. An agricultural field exists
that may be suitable for wetland creation. The area is situated topographically intermediate and is slightly
higher than the elevation of a nearby pond. Sandy soils underlie the field and moderate grading will be
necessary to intercept groundwater in order to create wetlands.
Wetland Creation - Approximately 3.44 acres
Wetland Creation
Nutrient Uptake
Floodflow Alteration
Restoration Concept
Moderate grading to intercept groundwater and create wetlands
Legend
Project Corridor
MNDR/NWI Wetlands
Streams
Hydric Soils
Topo (2')
!
(

4th Track Project
SHEET 7 of 8
1 inch = 100 feet
Potential BMP
0
50
100
Feet
200
December 2013
November

Potential Stream Mitigation Site at Jabez Branch
(SR-009)
County:
Watershed:
Coordinates:
Location:
Property Ownership:
Constraints:
Anne Arundel
Severn River
3904'19.34"N / 7638'49.02"W
USGS Quad: Odenton
Northwest of the intersection of Hog Farm Rd and Cecil Ave, Millersville,
MD.
Private
Culvert profile
Site Conditions
Parcel Area:
Landscape Position:
Drainage Area:
Habitat Location:
Mapped Soils:
Mapped Wetlands:

23 acres
Stream Valley
Adjacent Land Use: Forest, Residential
2432 acres
Site is located within a Green Infrastructure Hub
This site is located northwest of the intersection of Hog Farm Rd and Cecil Ave, and is associated with the
mainstem of Jabez Branch. The stream corridor is forested, with nearby low density residential
development. The culvert through Hog Farm Rd is providing grade control for the upstream reach and is
also acting as a large fish blockage. There is significant grade loss, approximately seven feet, in the
streambed from upstream of Hog Farm Road to downstream of Hog Farm Road. Construction of a fish
passage structure will provide access for a native, self-sustaining, brook trout population to upstream
portions of Jabez Branch.
Provide fish passage for a native, self-sustaining, population of brook trout through a blockage at
Hog Farm Road
Improve brook trout habitat
Restoration Concept
Create a series of vortex step pools downstream of the major blockage to raise the water surface
elevation to maintain base flow through the culvert and provide fish passage
Reconfigure streambed upstream of culvert to alleviate minor blockage on upstream side of Hog
Farm Road
Legend
Project Corridor
MNDR/NWI Wetlands
Streams
Hydric Soils
Topo (2')
!
(

4th Track Project
SHEET 8 of 8
1 inch = 150 feet
Potential BMP
0
75
150
Feet
300
December 2013
November
Appendix C:Rare,Threatened,andEndangeredSpeciesCoordinationResponses
June 2014
USFWS Chesapeake Bay Field Office -- Online certification letter
1 of 2
http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/EndSppWeb/ELEMENTS/onlineletter...
Online Certification Letter

Today's date:
Project:
Dear Applicant for online certification:

Thank you for choosing to use the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chesapeake Bay Field
Office online list request certification resource. This letter confirms that you have reviewed
the conditions in which this online service can be used. On our website (http://www.fws.gov
/chesapeakebay/EndSppWeb/ELEMENTS/listreq.html) are the USGS topographic map areas
where no federally proposed or listed endangered or threatened species are known to occur in
Maryland, Washington, D.C. and Delaware.
You have indicated that your project is located on the following USGS topographic map(s)
Based on this information and in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we certify that except for occasional
transient individuals, no federally proposed or listed endangered or threatened species are
3/28/2013 10:19 AM
USFWS Chesapeake Bay Field Office -- Online certification letter
2 of 2
http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/EndSppWeb/ELEMENTS/onlineletter...
known to exist within the project area. Therefore, no Biological Assessment or further
section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required. Should project
plans change, or if additional information on the distribution of listed or proposed species
becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered.
This response relates only to federally protected threatened or endangered species under our
jurisdiction. For additional information on threatened or endangered species in Maryland,
you should contact the Maryland Wildlife and Heritage Division at (410) 260-8540. For
information in Delaware you should contact the Delaware Natural Heritage and Endangered
Species Program, at (302) 653-2880. For information in the District of Columbia, you should
contact the National Park Service at (202) 535-1739.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also works with other Federal agencies and states to
minimize loss of wetlands, reduce impacts to fish and migratory birds, including bald eagles,
and restore habitat for wildlife. Information on these conservation issues and how
development projects can avoid affecting these resources can be found on our website
(www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay)
We appreciate the opportunity to provide information relative to fish and wildlife issues, and
thank you for your interest in these resources. If you have any questions or need further
assistance, please contact Chesapeake Bay Field Office Threatened and Endangered Species
program at (410) 573-4527.
Sincerely,
Genevieve LaRouche
Field Supervisor
3/28/2013 10:19 AM
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Chesapeake Bay Field Office
177 Admiral Cochrane Drive
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay
July 12, 2013
Mr. Dan Reagle

Maryland Transit Administration
6 St. Paul Street, Rm 923
Baltimore, MD 21202
RE: 38 potential wetland and stream mitigation sites located in Baltimore, Howard and Anne
Arundel Counties for the proposed station improvements (construction of a new platform,
improvements to the current station and addition of a fourth track along the Northeast Corridor
Line) at the Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC)/Amtrak Baltimore Washington
International (BWI) Airport Rail station
Dear Mr. Reagle:
This responds to your letter, received March 28, 2013, requesting information on the presence of
species which are federally listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened within the
above referenced project area. We have reviewed the information you enclosed and are
providing comments in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884,
as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed all of the proposed mitigation sites
for the proposed station improvements at the MARC/Amtrak BWI Airport Rail station. The
federally threatened swamp pink (Helonias bullata) has been documented to occur near some of
the mitigation sites. Swamp pink is a perennial wildflower that inhabits a variety of freshwater
wetlands, including spring seepages, swamps, bogs, wet meadows and margins of small streams.
Swamp pink is located near site LP-034 on sheet 13 of 23 and sites LP-001, LP-002, LP-003 and
LP-005 on sheet 15 of 23. The Service concurs with the following swamp pink
recommendations that are in the June 20, 2013 letter from Lori A. Byrne of the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources. The recommendations are:
1. Site LP-034 - The applicant should maintain hydrology in the area if this site is
pursued as a mitigation site.
2
2. Sites LP-001, LP-002, LP-003 and LP-005 - The proposed limits-of-disturbance
should be clearly marked and enforced, to ensure that the known Swamp Pink
population immediately adjacent to Harmans Road is avoided.
Except for occasional transient individuals, no other federally proposed or listed endangered or
threatened species are known to exist within the project impact area. Should project plans
change, or if additional information on the distribution of listed or proposed species becomes
available, this determination may be reconsidered.
This response relates only to federally protected threatened or endangered species under our
jurisdiction. For information on the presence of other rare species, you should contact Lori
Byrne of the Maryland Wildlife and Heritage Division at (410) 260-8573.
Effective August 8, 2007, under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) removed (delist) the bald eagle in the
lower 48 States of the United States from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife. However, the bald eagle will still be protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act, Lacey Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. As a result, starting on August 8,
2007, if your project may cause disturbance to the bald eagle, please consult the National
Bald Eagle Management Guidelines dated May 2007.
If any planned or ongoing activities cannot be conducted in compliance with the National Bald
Eagle Management Guidelines (Eagle Management Guidelines), please contact the Chesapeake
Bay Ecological Services Field Office at 410-573-4573 for technical assistance. The Eagle
Management Guidelines can be found at:
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/ecologicalservices/pdf/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidel
ines.pdf
In the future, if your project can not avoid disturbance to the bald eagle by complying with the
Eagle Management Guidelines, you will be able to apply for a permit that authorizes the take of
bald and golden eagles under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, generally where the
take to be authorized is associated with otherwise lawful activities. This proposed permit
process will not be available until the Service issues a final rule for the issuance of these take
permits under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
An additional concern of the Service is wetlands protection. Federal and state partners of the
Chesapeake Bay Program have adopted an interim goal of no overall net loss of the Basins
remaining wetlands, and the long term goal of increasing the quality and quantity of the Basins
wetlands resource base. Because of this policy and the functions and values wetlands perform,
the Service recommends avoiding wetland impacts. All wetlands within the project area should
be identified, and if construction in wetlands is proposed, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Baltimore District, should be contacted for permit requirements. They can be reached at (410)
962-3670.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide information relative to fish and wildlife issues, and
3
thank you for your interest in these resources. If you have any questions or need further
assistance, please contact Andy Moser at (410) 573-4537.
Sincerely,
Genevieve LaRouche
Supervisor
June 20, 2013

Mr. Dan Reagle
Maryland Transit Administration
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
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
Appendix D: Meeting Minutes
June2014
Memorandum of Meeting
Minutes of July 9th & 10th, 2013 Agency Mitigation Field Review
DATE:
July 23, 2013
TO:
Dan Reagle, Maryland Transit Administration (MTA)
FROM:
Sarah Williamson, Coastal Resources, Inc. (CRI)
REFERENCE:
BWI Station and Fourth Track Project

Meeting Minutes of Agency Mitigation Field Review
July 9 & 10, 2013, 9:30 AM
Attendees:
Dan Reagle
Maryland Transit Administration (MTA)
DReagle1@mta.maryland.gov
Date(s)
Attended
9th & 10th
Emily Dolbin
Maryland Department Environment (MDE)
edolbin@mccormicktaylor.com
9th & 10th
David Walbeck
MDE
david.walbeck@maryland.gov
9th & 10th
Alaina McCurdy
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
mccurdy.alaina@epa.gov
9th only
Jack Dinne
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
john.j.dinne@usace.army.mil
9th & 10th
John Policarpo
USACE
john.n.policarpo @usace.army.mil
9th & 10th
Nick Ozburn
USACE
nicholas.r.ozburn @usace.army.mil
9th & 10th
Adam Tatone
Coastal Resources, Inc. (CRI)
adamt@coastal-resoruces.net
9th & 10th
Sarah Williamson
CRI
sarahw@coastal-resources.net
9th & 10th
Matt Hubbard
CRI
matth@coastal-resources.net
9th & 10th
Name
Organization
Email
Day 1 Tuesday, July 9th
General
A field meeting was held between MTA, members of the BWI Rail Station and 4th Track
consultant team, and the federal and state regulatory agencies, to review potential sites
1
for mitigating unavoidable wetland and waterway impacts that could result from project.
Dan Reagle opened the meeting with introductions and then provided an overview of
the project and current status of activities. The project as a whole includes providing a
fourth track along approximately nine miles of the Northeast Corridor (NEC), adding a
third platform at the BWI Rail Station and construction a new station at the BWI Rail
Station. He 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 stated that MTA planned to provide updated
versions of the Station Location Alternatives Memorandum and Patapsco Bridge
Crossing Memorandum along with responses to agency comments by September 2013.
The results of the more detailed engineering being conducted on the East Alignment
option, including a northern station shift is anticipated to be available for review in
January of 2014, with a review draft of the EA forwarded to the agencies in May of
2014. The EA is expected to go the public in the summer of 2014.
Ms. Williamson and Mr. Tatone explained that a comprehensive mitigation site search
had been conducted in the two subwatersheds impacted by the proposed project, the
Lower Patapsco and Severn River watersheds, to identify potential mitigation
opportunities. A wide-range of existing GIS resources were overlaid and reviewed to
identify open-lands with suitable landscape positions, soils, hydrology sources, and land
use for wetland creation and or stream restoration. Published watershed studies from
Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties and non-profit groups were also reviewed to
identify potential stream improvements or stormwater retrofits. Property owners were
then contacted for each site to gain permission to conduct preliminary on-site
investigations. Numerous property owners denied access, particularly in the Severn
River watershed. Sites where permission was granted were investigated for soil type,
depth to groundwater, stream condition, construction access, potential infrastructure
conflicts, and other parameters. Sites were then preliminarily ranked. The eleven most
suitable stream and wetland sites are included in the field review packet sent to the
agencies the previous week and handed out at the meeting.
2
Ten out of the eleven sites are in the Lower Patapsco watershed, where the majority of
the project impacts would occur. As mentioned earlier, many of the property owners in
the Severn River watershed denied access. In addition, the Severn watershed
generally has steeper topography and sandier soils, making suitable wetland creation
sites less prevalent. The Severn River site where access was granted is a stream
restoration site.
The group then boarded a van to view the sites, generally working from north to south.
A detailed discussion of the sites visited and comments received are included below:
Sites LP-011, LP-012, and LP-012B These sites represent a combined wetland and
stream site east of Offutt Road. Mr. Tatone reported that during the onsite reviews, that
depth to groundwater ranged between 15 and 31 inches in areas that were not already
likely wetlands, and that soils became considerably sandier when groundwater was
reached. The concept at this site would be to grade the area north of the stream to
intercept groundwater and relocate and stabilize the stream, increasing sinuosity and
floodplain access, resulting in reduced erosion and higher nutrient uptake. All the
agencies expressed general approval of the site, though additional data would need to
be gathered to ensure that conceptual design ideas were indeed feasible. The project
team explained that detailed studies would not be conducted until later phases of the
project, and that MTA was looking for preliminary concurrence that the sites and overall
concepts appeared suitable to mitigate project impacts and should be carried forward
for more detailed study. Mr. Ozburn noted that the sandy subsoils could be a concern
and would need to be investigated to make sure a clay liner or other engineering
solution would not be required to ensure hydrology. Mr. Tatone replied that more
detailed studies on soils would be conducted, but that the initial investigations indicated
that minimal excavation would be needed to be able to expose the local groundwater
table, and so hydrology should be more than adequate for a forested wetland. Ms.
3
Dolbin suggested that MTA also investigate the other side of the stream for wetland
creation to maximize the site.
Sites LP-011A & LP-012A These sites, on the west side of Offutt Road, also
represent both stream and wetland opportunities. The agencies concurred that these
sites also looked conceptually suitable for mitigation, though it was noted that there was
likely less creation area, and that greater excavation would be likely be needed than at
the previous sites.
Site LP007 The agencies generally concurred with the suitability of this site and noted
that the stream was particularly unstable in its lower reaches. Ms. Dolbin thought it was
suitable but looked like it might need greater excavation than the earlier sites and was
also relatively smaller. Mr. Tatone said he would bring his boring logs the next day to
confirm the depth to groundwater at the time of the on-site investigations (logs reported
a groundwater depth of between 14 and 21 inches). Ms. McCurdy noted that she liked
that it was closer to the project impact areas than the previous sites.
Site LP030 This site is located on the UMBC campus between athletic fields. All of
the agencies liked the idea of the BMP suggested to retrofit the eroding gravel parking
lot, but thought the site was highly constrained by the slope and adjacent land uses.
Mr. Walbeck noted that a positive aspect of the site is that it could be monitored by the
University as part of a student study.
LP009 This site, located between Pebble Creek Drive and I-95, was only investigated
for wetland creation at the time of the on-site reviews, but Mr. Walbeck suggested that if
this site was to move forward, that the stream should be investigated for stream
improvement potential as well. Ms. McCurdy expressed some concerns regarding the
amount of excavation that might be required at the south end of the site. (The next day,
Mr. Tatone reported that depth to groundwater in the borings he took was between 18
and 38 inches.)
4
The field review adjourned for the day at approximately 2:30 pm.
Day 2 Wednesday, July 10th
Site LP-034 This site is located along Stony Run, between two industrial areas, just
west of the project area. The agencies concurred that there were ample stream
improvement opportunities at this site, particularly where small wetland outflow streams
are down-cutting as they cross the sewer line and beginning to drain the large adjacent
wetland. Ms. Dolbin noted that this project should include addressing the stormwater
coming from the adjacent industrial area that is likely contributing to the stream erosion
and wetland degradation, as part of the project. Mr. Walbeck suggested checking with
the County to see if they were already proposing something at this site. A number of
agencies noted that if left unaddressed, that much of the existing wetlands would likely
be drained in a few years.
Site LP-036 This site is along Stony Run, immediately adjacent to the project area.
The stream is actively eroding and down-cutting, and is beginning to under-drain the
extensive wetland system. Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Tatone reminded the group that the
Wetland of Special State Concern was on this stream, just upstream of the restoration
site and that further down-cutting of the stream and draining of the wetland would
threaten any suitable habitat for the swamp pink and eventually convert the area to
uplands. Mr. Dinne noted that the USACE would be concerned about the wetland
impacts that would be necessary to implement a stream restoration, here, but that it
would not be a fatal flaw in the project. These temporary impacts would need to be
accounted for and the wetlands restored and monitored.
Site LP-035 This stream site is on the tributary to Stony Run, across the tracks from
LP-036 and just downstream of the BWI station. Mr. Dinne noted that the proximity to
the project was excellent at both this site and LP-036. The stream was observed to be
5
actively eroding and unstable and undermining a section of the rail berm. Mr. Tatone
noted that the upstream portion of this stream was being restored as mitigation for
impacts within the airport. Restoring the downstream portion would be beneficial as it
could build off the work that would be already completed upstream.
Site LP-003 This wetland creation site is located next to residential neighborhoods on
a parcel that was agricultural. The parcels across the stream are being converted from
orchard to residential. It is unclear whether the proposed site may also be slated for
development. Mr. Walbeck stated that he thought the site was suitable for creation but
that development pressure might make it unavailable before the project would secure
the site. In addition, some noted that the site may require more excavation than many
of the others, and the sandy soils may make sustaining hydrology challenging unless
groundwater can be reached.
Site SR-009 This stream site is located along Jabez Branch, in the Severn River
watershed, where the stream passes under Hog Farm Rd. Jabez Branch is a notable
stream as it is the only naturally reproducing trout stream in the Coastal Plain of
Maryland. The road culvert appears relatively new, but there is a large fish blockage
below the culvert, where it looks like past attempts to control grade and provide
passage have failed. There is active erosion downstream, with raw exposed banks.
The agencies agreed that this would be a good site for improvement, and Mr. Ozburn
recommended a more gradual grade change than what appeared to have been
previously employed to allow fish passage and reduce erosive forces on the
downstream channel. This was the last site visited, as the only remaining site, MTA #1,
could not be accessed.
Mr. Dinne stated that the overall site package contained numerous sites that looked
highly suitable, and that in general he preferred the sites that included both stream and
wetland opportunities, or sites that would stabilize stream head cuts and preserve
existing wetlands that were being actively drained by stream instability. He noted that
6
the only site he had concerns about was site LP-030, the stream site at UMBC. While
he thought the stormwater retrofit was a good opportunity, he felt the stream restoration
potential was too constrained and had a higher potential for failure. Ms. Dolbin echoed
much of the USACEs opinion on the overall package and noted that once further
studies were completed, some of the stream sites that would address wetlands currently
being drained by stream erosion might possibly qualify for wetlands enhancement or
preservation credit along with stream credit. However, that would need to be discussed
in the context of the entire site design and overall mitigation package.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:00 p.m.
7
Appendix E: Historic Properties Screening
June2014
Appendix E: Historic Properties Screening
June2014
WetlandandStreamMitigationSites
PreliminaryBuiltHistoricPropertiesAssessment
A search of online records using MERLIN was conducted in order to determine the presence or
extent of known historical properties using available MHT and National Register of Historic
Places data. The following table shows the results of the online investigation.
SiteID
LP003
LP007
LP009
LP011
LP011A
LP012B
LP030
LP035
LP036
SR009
PresenceofHistoricProperties
Noknownhistoricresourceissues
WithinhistoricsiteMIHP:BA3003PatapscoStatePark
MIHP:BA3116Overhills(NomanJamesHouse),nearby
Noknownadditionalhistoricresourceissues
JacobZeltmanFarm(ZeltmanHorseStables)siteMIHP:HO640,
whichwasevaluatedbytheMHTtohavenoarchitecturaldistinction
orhistoricalsignificance
MIHP:BA2656Bridge(SHAB0183),hasbeenacceptedbythe
HistoricBridgeInventory
MIHP:BA10Dr.ThomasZedekiahOffuttHouse,nearby
SeeLP011
SeeLP011
MIHP:BA2683(SHAB0189),wasreviewedandeligibilitywasnot
recommended
MIHP:BA3051CowdensvilleAfricanAmericanSurveyDistrict,no
documentationonfile

Appendix F

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Appendix F

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

APPENDIX

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan

Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan

II. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 1

Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan

The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) is currently preparing an Environmental

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan

Objectives The primary objective will be to provide functional replacement for

Baseline information (for impact and compensation sites) Baseline information

Credit determination methodology Final mitigation credits will be determined in

Maintenance plan Following construction, the mitigation site will be monitored

Ecological performance standards Performance standards will be established

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan

Monitoring requirements A Monitoring Plan will be developed based on permit

Long-term management plan As mentioned earlier, any project mitigation

Adaptive management plan An adaptive management plan will be developed

A Compensatory Mitigation Package is typically developed in two phases:

Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan

Phase II Final Mitigation Plan

The Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan is based on a comprehensive mitigation site

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan

Table 1: Projected Wetland Compensation Ratios

Wetland Acres Impacted2

PFO = Palustrine Forested; PSS Palustrine Scrub-Shrub; PEM = Palustrine Emergent

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan

3. Wetland Mitigation Results

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan

Table 2: Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan

2. Windshield Survey and Preliminary Site Ranking

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan

Table 3: Potential Stream Mitigation Sites

341 Friends/DEPS severelyerodedgully,undercutapronatoutfall

914 Friends/DEPS allmeanderbendsaremoderatelytoseverelyeroded

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan

IV. PHASE I CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PACKAGE

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project

Phase I Conceptual Mitigation Plan

potential to be a wildlife attractant. In addition, wetland creation in line with airport

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project