'v
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
USllSPLANNPeSTUDY
SIR
•gwi' '
Snow Hill, Maryland to Delaware
Worcester County, Maryland
State Line
[Ml
/.
•on*
/
PART 2
U.S.
Federal Hi
I?.--,;-*<.
•V '-W-*'
SSSE".
•r.-iaS^sWBfssiS
r/rar
l*pw?;»:*i
:*B&
-------
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
US 113 PLANNING STUDY
Snow Hill, Maryland to Delaware State Line
Worcester County, Maryland
t...-!,«,. L
r«0
-\35flJ
sw.
•on"
ml
PART 2
U.S. pepa
Federal Higf
-------
-------
V.
COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
US 113 Planning Study
Snow Hill, Maryland to Delaware State Line
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Maryland State Highway Administration
-------
Ill .....
"""'i1;
Oil ...... Hi
'
I i
H irfiiSllithll'l; l!'!:.;''' (;•!!;,! ft1: i'itililliidlit;!*!' '«'l Ifjiiit
asm
I
f,,,,};,,{
m
ill
iii
^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^
life ill
*! il ::
i»iSft
iii
i," t
* ! j
-------
US 113 Planning Study
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Introduction
Coordination with environmental resource agencies, elected officials, organizations/
associations, and the public has been an important component of the US 113 planning study. Agency
coordination in preparation for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Section 4(f) Evaluation
(May 1997) document was conducted throughout the study. Chapters of the Draft ElS/Section 4(f)
Evaluation were submitted to the environmental resource agencies for their review and comment
prior to finalizing the document. Section VI of the Draft ElS/Section 4(f) Evaluation included a
compilation of correspondence with agencies, public groups, and elected officials.
For the purposes of this preliminary Final EIS, copies of this coordination as presented in
Section VI of the Draft ElS/Section 4(f) Evaluation have not been reproduced in this document.
Following circulation of the Draft ElS/Section 4(f) Evaluation in May 1997 and the June 17,
1997 Combined Location/Design Public Hearing, written comments were received from
environmental resource agencies, elected officials, organizations/associations, and the public. This
Section of the Final EIS presents these comment letters, and responses as appropriate, in the
following order (blue divider pages for each subsection). These comments and responses have also
been incorporated as appropriate into this document and the Southern Preferred Alternative and
the Northern Preferred Alternative.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Agency Letters on Draft ElS/Section 4(f) Evaluation (circulated May 1997)
and/or Combined Location/Design Public Hearing (held June 17,1997)
Agency letters Concurring on SHA's Pcefegpd Alternatives
Elected Officials tetters :
Organizations/Associations Letters
Minutes from InterAgency Meetings (excluding handouts)
Public Letters
Selected Revised Minutes of J.D. Review Meetings
Combined Location/Design Public Hearing - held June 17,1997
Approximately 700 people attended the Combined Location/Design Public Hearing co-
sponsored by the Maryland State Highway Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and held at the Stephen Decautar High School in Berlin, Maryland. Thirty-three citizens and twelve
elected officials spoke at the Hearing. All spoke in favor of dualization of US 113 from Snow Hill
to the Delaware state line and the need to complete this project soon. Of those who specified an
alternative, support was expressed for Alternative 3S in the south and the Combination Alternative
3N/4N or Alternative 4N Modified in the north; both with a 34' median.
V-l
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Following the Public Hearing, 2,248 letters expressing support for the dualization of US 113
and six (6) letters in opposition to the dualization were received. Section V.F. of this document
summarizes these letters and lists the names and addresses of all citizens who provided comments.
. < - ' J.1, ' , - ' ' „ •
Elected Officials who spoke in support of dualization
Senator Stoltzfus
Delegate Bozman
Delegate Conway
Senator Bunting (Del.)
Commissioner Trimper
Commissioner Barrett
Commissioner Purnell
Sheriff Martin
State Attorney Joel Todd
James Mathias-Mayor of Ocean City
Will Turner - Councilman Town of Berlin
Mayor Lippoldt - Mayor of Pocomoke City
Ms. Belts - representing Senator Mikulski
Summary of Organizations / Agencies who spoke
CRASH: Supported Alternatives 3S and 3N/4N Modified with 34' median. Talked about safety
concerns," aware of environmental issues and NEPA; they have done all they can do, it.is up to
SHA and the Corps to move forward (received standing ovation). Submitted approximately
1,600 letters in support of dualization of US 113.
Friendship Community Association: Supported Alternative 4N or .Combination Alternative
3N/4N Modified, opposed to Alternative 3N.
Ocean Pines Community Association: Supported Alternative 3S - 34' Median and Combination
Alternative 3N/4N - 34'Median.
; • . *• •
West Ocean City Association: Supported CRASH'S efforts, supported dualization.
Worcester County Environmental Trust: Supported the project; speed-up control of access!
Worcester County Economic Development: Supported dualization - expansion of existing
businesses and new businesses - economic benefits.
Worcester County Board of Education: Supported dualization; noted that 49 school buses and
42 bus stops are located along US 113.
. . ' .: » \ .V •:.•''••
Worcester County Commission on Women: Supported dualization of US 113.
Worcester County Farm Bureau: Supported dualization; concerned about large farm
equipment.
V-2
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Summary of Other Public Comments
Loss of family member, friend or neighbor
Safety issues, accident experiences
Growth and economic benefits
US 113 neglected, while funding stadiums and other roadway improvements in other parts
of the State
Save Historic Showell Store
Mix of traffic; local and long distance traffic, farm equipment, trucks and school buses
Opposition to Alternative 2S-201 Median
Summary of Private Testimony
Six individuals gave private testimony:
All supported dualization.
One suggested using an alignment through the wetlands near Race Track Road instead of the
current alignments.
One supported Alternative 4N or Combination Alternative 3N/4N Modified only.
V-3
-------
-------
A. Agency Letters on Draft ElS/Section 4(f) Evaluation (circulated May 1997) and/or
Combined Location/Design Public Hearing (held June 17,1997)
US 113 Planning Study
Chapter V
-------
.pa • M^WM : ! ' m *m. i in.- &
•if' ' i'llif1 ''!!!'» Ill :Hii" Jili !.-.- ........ ' 'IF ., ....... i-iii "i," ' ..... '.
tiJI'it1 ....... Bti'lU ..... IL I!1!!*",,!!'" •..',' '/ ...... !'!,: ,„": UiJCll ..... <,;,'• it-
* I ilil-iiii "(', ..... I'?! ..... ,-',;,»:•?»• ..... i, ......... r , f.-
"H , I !B ........ I'v •'••!»' .ill.' ..... A ..... ' "M -'"
,
•]•[ '''iiil '-"'kt
, i j; i: i" i, 11 i,,,, ni'i'ijitu inMiiiETii ',, m
.n.xill!1'1: I"""T ' 'Illir'"*''*' M lull lii'fi' '
: lit 11' ' HiHiiiiiir :'pi n;, ' 'i,;1!
"1:;!!',, < IF ,''« '< 'in
,, ,, .
' T:•& I'i!.,mm;&••: y -. •.: M. £ *.
iii
in in i iini I iii in
-------
US 113 Planning Study
A. Agency Letters on Draft ElS/Section 4(f) Evaluation (circulated May 1997) and/or Combined
Location/Design Public Hearing (held June 17,1997)
1. Federal Emergency Management Agency
2. United States Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service
3. United States Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service
4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
5. United States Army Corps of Engineers
(an attachment includes copy of their March 31,1997
letter and SHA's responses)
6. United States Environmental Protection Agency
7. Maryland Department of Natural Resources
8. United States Department of Commerce,
National Marine Fisheries Service
9. Maryland Office of Planning
10. United States Environmental Protection Agency
11. Mary land Department of the Environment
(via Maryland Office of Planning)
12. United States Department of the Interior-National Park Service
13. SHA response to EPA letter dated April 25,1997
14. Maryland Historical Trust
15. Maryland Historical Trust
16. United States Army Corps of Engineers*
May 22,1997
June 5,1997
June 20,1997
June 24,1997
July 18,1997
July 18,1997
July 21,1997
July 23,1997
July 24,1997
July 28,1997
August 4,1997
August 11,1997
September 4,1997
October 31,1997
November 7,1997
(2 pages)
(1 page)
(3 pages)
(2 Pages)
(2 pages)
(5 pages)
(1 page)
(2 pages)
(2 pages)
(3 pages)
(2 pages)
(2 pages)
(3 pages)
(3 pages)
(2 pages)
November 12,1997 (4 pages)
Copies of these letters, and responses as appropriate, are presented on the following pages.
• By telephone conversation on November 12, 1997, Maryland SHA was advised by the Corps that this
November 12,1997 letter replaced their earlier handwritten comments dated August 29,1997.
VA-1
-------
Federal Emergency Management Agency ,,
/ •. Region III - :
.-; liberty Sqware Building (Second Floor) . ^ •
1 ' " * •' 105 South Seventh Street ... .: • >.. !;" ;.;
Philadelphia, PA: 19106
May22,1997
Re: US 113 Planning Study, Worcester
County, Maryland
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Mail Stop C-301 _ . '
State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Dear Mr. Ege:
This letter is in response to our review of the Drafi • Environmenjl
agreement for making flood insurance avadable m a conimuiu^e ^re^ requirements
everyyear.
ThecommunityhasaresponsibUitytoe^ its
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
mapped floodplain, including changes to the
shodd be completed prior to an mctt
Revision process. I have enclos
and instructions for the map revuaon process. As
^^^MSam. This
un^
to National Flood
Revision for proposed
S&!K;,£E^ *=* «"i-±s
• • * -
-------
Also, in accordance with Executive Order (E.O,) 11988,;Federal Agencies are required to avofd
direct or indirect support of floodplain development whenever there is a practical alternative. If
an action must be located in the floodplain, then the agency must avoid the long- and short-term
adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modifications of the floodplain and must
minimize the potential harm to people and property and to natural and beneficial floodplain
values. ' •
I have enclosed a booklet entitled "Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing E.O.
11988" for your reference. Within this booklet, Part n - Decision Making Process outlines an
eight step process designed to reflect the decision making process required under Section 2(a)(I)
of the Order. Section 2 states, "In carrying out the activities described in Section 1 of this Order,
each agency has a responsibility to evaluate the potential effects of any actions it may take in a
floodplain; to ensure that its planning programs and budget requests reflect consideration of flood
hazards and floodplain management; and to prescribe procedures to implement the policies and
requirements of this Order."
In summary, the Federal Agency funding or constructing the project is responsible to ensure
compliance with E.O. 11988. Because this proposed project will be located in the floodplain, the
minimum requirements of the NFIP must be met through compliance with local floodplain
ordinances, including the requirement to submit technical data to FEMA for the purpose of
revising the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map for that community.
Our role is to offer guidance or assistance in any way that we can. If you have any questions
concerning this letter, map revisions, or any other floodplain management issue, please feel free to
contact me at (215) 931-5665.
Sincerely,
ErikJ.Rourke
Hydrologist
Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment
Enclosure: 1 .Revisions to National Flood Insurance Program Maps
2.Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing E.O. 11988
V Al-2
-------
, ,?•
£75 /13 Planning Study . :.<
• • •".»• H :,•",••.'!'• - -•••••.•.'U'^ •;••=• '".{••• • ' •• • ' • '• '
Response to Federal Emergency Management Agency letter dated May 27,1997
1. Information regarding any potential changes to the 100-year floodplains resulting from the construction
of the US 113 improvements will be provided by Maryland SHA to Worcester County.
2. Impacts to the 100-year floodplain'are unavoidable with the dualization of existing US 113. The project
will not, however, support further floodplain development. The crossings will also be designed to
minimize upstream and downstream modifications to the existing flood level to the extent possible.
3. .Based on currently available information, it is expected that adverse impacts to the 100-year floodplain
will be minimal as a result of this project. Steps will be taken during final design to ensure the potential
harm to people and property are minimized and the natural and beneficial values of floodplains are
. retained. ._ .
See Section IV.P, Construction Impacts, which also addresses construction activities in floodplain areas.
See also Section IV.D - Floodplains.
VA1-3
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Chesapeake Bay Field Office ,
177 Admiral Coehrane Drive
Annapolis, MD 21401
June 5, 1997
Ms. Susan Binder
Federal Highway Administration
Rotunda, Suite 220
711 West 40th Street
Baltimore, MD 21211
Attn: Mary Huie
Dear Ms. Binder:
Re: Cooperating Agency for US 113
iS reSP°nding t0 your re«uest to be a cooperating agency for
H3 A A
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Response to United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service letter
dated June 5,1997
1. SHA concurs that the protection of the significant amounts of high value wetlands along US 113 must
be a part of this project. The Preferred Alternatives reflect wetland avoidance and minimization efforts
accomplished following circulation of the Draft ElS/Section 4(f) Evaluation.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been involved in the US 113 planning study since the early stages
of, the field review and has attended the majority of the InterAgency Meetings.
VA2-2
-------
United States Department of the Interior..:- .- -.-•
HSH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Chesapeake Bay Field Office
177 Admiral Cochrane Drive
Annapolis, MD 21401
June 20,1997
2w;,i'S7
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.-*
Office of Flamming and Preliminary Engineering
Maryland State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street •
. Baltimore, MD 21202
Dear Mr. Ege:
Re: US 113, Snow Hill to DE Line
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is responding to your request for comments on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the U.S. 113 Planning Study, dated May,
1997. The project proposes dualization of U.S. 113, from Snow Hill to the Delaware State Line.
As determined in the field and mentioned in previous letters, the wetlands along U.S. 113
provide high value habitats for fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals Fish and wildlife
use wetland habitats during migration and as permanent habitat. Animals use these wetlands as
travel corridors and often cause safety problems when they attempt to cross the highway. Stream
migration of anadromous, catadromous, resident fish require obstruction-tree passage from
physical (i.e. drop-off) and behavioral (i.e. illumination level) barriers when spawning (O'leary
and Kynard 1986; Sutherland 1997; Theiss 1997) or foraging. Deleterious alterations of these
habitats during highway construction may cause a corresponding reduction in fish and wildlife
populations using these wetlands.
The data from the DEIS are not conclusive on the need for dualization of U.S. 113 along the ,
entire project area. The need for dualization in the study areas is based on safety and volume.
This dualization could impact wetland acreage ranging from 0 (TSM) to 40 acres (complete
dualization off alignment). The Service believes these wetland impacts could be minimised in
the most critical wetland areas. In the northern study area, the Service recommends alternative
3N-20', one of the least damaging alternatives, with a design speed of 50 MPH. This alternative
is proposed for construction along the existing alignment and provides increased safety and
capacity. It reduces wetland impacts from 25 to 4 acres by dualizing next to the existing
roadway, using guard rails along wetlands, and reducing the safety grading from 20 to 9 feet
This alternative also reduces stream impacts from 1,105 linear feet to 775 linear feet.
V A3-1
-------
In the southern study area, accident rates and traffic volumes do not exceed statewide averages
The southern area's total accident rate is half of the statewide average, and the fatality rate is
equal to the statewide average. The 2020 daily traffic estimate is half of the volume in the
northern study area. Duahzation seems unnecessary in the southern study area. We recommend
alternative 2S (TSM). This alternative would reduce potential wetland impacts from 14 to 0
acres and protect the bald cypress wetland. This alternative would also reduce stream impacts
from 870 linear feet to zero.
«s
We endorse thS 3N-201, at 50 MPH with guard rails, alternative in the northern study area, and
alternative 2S (TSM) in the southern study 'area. The Service does recommend that the following
upgrades be included on the 3N-201 alternative to improve fish and wildlife passage. Replace
corrugated pipes with box culverts to promote fish passage, and enlarge existing box culverts to
promote wildlife passage. These measures are necessary as an attempt to fully minimize
construction impacts to fish and wildlife.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide information relevant to fish and wildlife resources. If
you have any questions on these comments, please contact David W. Sutherland at (410) 573-
4535 or DavidJSurnerland@fws.gov.
Sincerely,
John P.
Supervisor
Chesapeake Bay Field Office
cc:
COE, Baltimore, MD (Michele Gomez)
SHA, Baltimore, MD (Loraine Straw)
FHA, Baltimore, MD (Mary Huie)
EPA, Philadelphia, PA (Danielle Algazi)
NMFS, Oxford, MD (John Nichols)
MDE, Baltimore, MD (Ray Dintaman)
MDE, Salisbury, MD (Alan Kampmeyer)
V A3-2
-------
Literature Cited
O'leary, J. and B. Kynard. 1986. Behavior, length, and sex ratio of seaward-migrating juvenile
Amencan shad and blueback herring in the Connecticut River. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society. 115:529-536.
Sutherland, a W 1997. Behavior of American shad and blueback herring in an Ice Harbor
fishway: Master's Thesis (draft), University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.
Theiss,E. 1997. Effects of fflumination intensity on water velocity selection of three Alosid
species. Master's Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.
V A3-3
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Response to United States Department of The Interior letter dated June 20,1997
1. Adverse impacts by each of the proposed alternatives (including the Preferred Alternatives) have been
noted throughout Chapter IV of the Final EIS. Mitigation measures to be considered to minimize the
deleterious effects of these impacts have also been addressed.
2. As addressed in Section HE - Preferred Alternatives and throughout Section IV of this document,
extensive wetland minimization avoidance measures have been developed for the Preferred
Alternatives. The Draft ElS/Section 4(f) Evaluation (Table IV-11) identified a total ,of 13.7 acres of
wetland impacts for Alternative 3S-341 Median (measured right-of-way line to right-of-way line). As a
result of the conceptual wetland minimization studies, this total impact has been reduced to
approximately 5 to 5Vz acres of wetland impacts (measured to limits of disturbance). Similarly, the Draft
EIS indicated 12.5 acres of wetland impacts for Combination Alternative 3N/4N Modified - 34' Median.
Using similar minimization techniques, this total impact has been reduced to approximately 7 to IVz
acres. While several acres of these reductions are attributable to the difference in measuring methodology
(i.e., right-of-way line to right-of-way line versus limits of actual disturbance), these reductions are also
the result of the minimization of median widths and roadside safety grading. The typical sections in
Section HE and the plans in Appendix A reflect the reduced median width and roadside grading widths
in sensitive wetland areas.
3. Current accident and traffic data are presented in Section I.C of this document (see Tables 1-1,1-2, and
1-3). Alternative 2S (Transportation Systems Management Alternative) was not preferred for the
Southern Study Area because it would not significantly enhance safety operations along the two-lane US
113 nor did it separate opposing directions of travel. As addressed in Section IV-L, significant
mitigation measures are included in the Southern Preferred Alternative at Wetland W-8.
4. Reducing design speed from 60 MPH to 50 MPH is not a normal consideration on a facility that is
classified as a Principal Arterial on level terrain. Furthermore, the adverse community impacts
associated with the Alternative 3N alignments through the Friendship community precluded its selection
as the preferred alternative. See AASHTO 1990 pg. 494.
USF&W is recommending replacing existing CMP's with box culverts and enlarging existing box
culverts to promote wildlife passage. These types of features would need to be determined upon the
completion of Hydraulic and Hydrologic analysis. The potential for additional wetland and floodplain
impacts would be analyzed if enlarged structures are determined feasible.
During final design, full consideration will be given to culvert modifications and bridging options. Until
detailed hydrologic and hydraulic data becomes available during final design, it is impossible to make
commitments regarding these structures.
VA3-4
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OP COMMERCE
The Under Secretary far
Oceans and Atmosphere
Washington. D.C. 20230
June 24, 1997
Mr. _ Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Office of Planning/Preliminary Engineering
State Highway Administration, Mail Stop C-301
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Dear Mr . Ege , Jr . : '
Enclosed are comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for US 113 Planning Study Snow Hill Maryland to
Delaware State Line Worcester County, Maryland. We hope our
comments will assist you. Thank you for giving us an opportunity
to review this document.
Sincerely,
Susan B. Fruchter
Acting NEPA Coordinator
Enclosure
Primed on Recycled Paper
V A4-1
THE ADMINISTRATOR
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OP COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admlnl««raelan
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
National Geodetic Survey
Silver Serins. Maryland SO910-3S3S
'JWT201397
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Donna Wieting
Acting Director, Ecology and Conservation
Office
PROM:
SUBJECT:
IL, Captain Lewis A. Lapine, NOAA
r Director, National Geodetic Survey
DEIS-9705-05—US 113 Planning Study, Show
Hill, Maryland, to Delaware State Line
Worcester County, Maryland
The subject statement has been reviewed within the areas of the
National Geodetic Survey's (NGS) responsibility and expertise and
in terms of the impact of the proposed actions on NGS activities
and projects.
*
All available geodetic control information about horizontal and
vertical geodetic control monuments in the subject area is
contained on the NGS home page at the following Internet World
Wide Web address: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov. After entering the
NGS home page, please access the topic "Products and Services"
and then access the menu item "Data Sheet." This menu item will
allow you to directly access geodetic control monument informa-
tion from the NGS data base for the subject area project. This
information should be reviewed for identifying the location and
designation of any geodetic control monuments that may be
affected by the proposed project.
If there are any planned activities which will disturb or destroy
these monuments, NGS requires not less than 90 days' notification
in advance of such activities in order to plan for their
relocation. NGS recommends that funding for this project
includes the cost of any relocation(s) required.
For further information about these monuments, please contact
John Spencer; SSMC3, NOAA, N/NGS; 1315 East West Highway;
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; telephone: 301-713-3169;
fax: 301-713-4175.
Primed on Recycled Paper
V A4-2
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Response to U.S. Department of Commerce letter dated June 24,1997
1. Maryland SHA's design engineers and contractors will utilize the National Geodetic Survey's (NGS)
monuments for project survey controls. Should construction activities require the relocation of one of
these monuments, SHA will so advise NGS no less than 90 days prior to this impact.
VA4-3
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
BALTIMORE DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1715
BALTIMORE, MD 21203-1715
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
:,ll)L 1 B, IH97
DELAWARE LINE) 97-
Operations Division
Subject: CENAB-OP-RX(MD SHA/US 113 :MD 394 TO
63647-9
Mr. Louis Ege, Jr. * .*_*.-
Maryland State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Dear Mr. Ege:
I am replying to your request of May 21, 1997 *»
on the subject Draft Environmental Impact statement /Sect ion 4 (f)
Evaluation (DEIS) . At this time, the Corps of Engineers has not
had an opportunity to review all comments to the }oint:
Corpl/S?!te Highway Administration public notice. The Corps has
extended its public notice comment period for the resource
aoencies who did not receive the public notice when it was
o?!gina?ly sent out for review until July 25, 1997 . UP°n receipt
and review of all comments, the Corps will provide SHA thorough
comments on the draft document and alternatives. The Corps has
the following preliminary comments on the DEIS.
i The DEIS still needs to include the information
reauested in our letter dated March 31, 1997 (Enclosure 1) .
Sthtugh responses were listed in a SHA document dated April 21,
1997? these responses did not adequately address the issues which
were raised by the Corps. All of the issues outlined in the
Corps letter must be in the NEPA document before we can consider
it as our document.
2. Cumulative effects and indirect impacts analysis in the
DEIS need to be improved. The Corps provided the SHA with
also recommended that the SHA use the Council of Environmental
Qua!i£y?nocment, "Considering Cumulative Effects Under the
National Environmental Policy Act," dated January 1997, to
further develop the cumulative effects discussion in the US 113
SSsV The cumulative and indirect impacts of the US 113 will
need to be discussed in the US 113 document to satisfy both NEPA
and Section 404.
V A5-1
-------
-2-
3. The Corps did not have the opportunity to review the
minutes of several of the US 113 meetings before they were
included in the DEIS. We do not concur with the minutes as shown
in the DEIS. The Corps provided comments on the field meeting
minutes to the Environmental Programs Division on July 15, 1997.
We suggest that such minutes be coordinated with the agencies
involved in the meeting for their review and concurrence prior to
being included in a NEPA document. We are providing revised
field meeting minutes (Enclosure 2), mitigation site search
minutes (Enclosure 3), and minutes from the March 25, 1997
interagency meeting (Enclosure 4) to be incorporated into the
document.
We look forward to receiving the comments submitted to you
in response to the US 113 public notice. The Corps will then
provide SHA with an assessment of the US 113 project which
incorporates these comments. The Corps also recommends that the
SHA have a working meeting with the agencies to review the
document and discuss comments which were raised and resolve any
outstanding issues. We look forward to meeting with SHA and the
resource agencies.
If you have any questions regarding this correspondence,
please call Ms. Michele Gomez at (410) 962-4343.
Sincerely,
Keith A. Harris
Chief, Special Projects
Permits Section
Enclosures
Copy Furnished:
Renee Sigel, FHWA
Danielle Algazi, USEPA
David Sutherland, USFWS
John Nicols, NMFS
Elder Ghigiarelli, Jr., MDE
Alan Kampmeyer, MDE-Salisbury
Beth Cole, MHT
V A5-2
-------
US 213 Planning Study
Response to U.S. Department of the Army letter dated July 15,1997
"I " s , ••;'••";.. • ; • ,
1. The COE letter dated March 31,1997 providing comments on the preliminary Draft EIS was reviewed
and the majority of these issues were addressed in the Draft ElS/Section 4(f) Evaluation (May 1997).
All changes to the document required have been made and are also reflected in the Final EIS. Reference
to the location of these changes'in the Final EIS are shown in bracketed, bold, italic text in the Response
to Comments. See Enclosure 1 (pages V A5(l)-l through -1,6).
2. A detailed cumulative effects analysis has been conducted for the US 113 Planning Study in accordance
with the guidelines in the Council on Environmental Quality's Considering Cumulative Effects Under
the National Environmental Policy Act", January 1997. Both the scope and the methodologies for this
analysis were developed in close consultation with Federal and state resource agencies. The scope,
methodologies, analysis and conclusion of this work is presented in Final EIS Section IV.Q.
f ' • ••
3. Meeting minutes have been revised and are included in Section V.E. of this Final EIS.
4. Maryland SHA has been forwarded a copy of the 3-volume transcript to the Corps.
VA5-3
-------
MAO " I
•'
«}
Operations Division
Subject: MD SHA/US 113
Mr. Louis Ege, Jr.
Maryland State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Dear Mr. Ege:
I am writing to convey our concerns and comments regarding the
Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (pre-DEIS) for the
US 113 Planning Study, dated February 19, 1997.
The alternatives described in the pre-DEIS are not adequate
for analysis using the 404 (b) (1) guidelines as described in 40 CFR
230.10. While we agree that there is a safety issue that needs to
be addressed along this study area, it is unclear how the range of
alternatives studied in the document satisfy a 404 alternatives
analysis given the overall project purpose of improving highway
safety. The Corps recommends that the alternatives discussed in
the conference call with the State Highway Administration (SHA) on
March 3, 1997 as well as the attached technical comments on
alternatives be studied along with the ones currently outlined in
the pre-DEIS.
A review of the document for NEPA compliance shows that
indirect and cumulative (past, present, and future) impacts have
not been properly addressed in accordance with CEQ regulations at
40 CFR Part 1508.8. Department of Army regulations require the
Corps consider indirect and cumulative impacts when rendering a
decision. Therefore the DEIS should be modified to address these
impacts .
As mentioned above, technical comments on the pre-DEIS are
attached for your consideration. Incorporation of these comments
will facilitate the SHA's and Corps' goal of meeting the
accelerated time line for this important project. If these
concerns and comments are not properly addressed in the DEIS, they
will be reiterated by the Corps at each concurrence point. The
DEIS must properly address NEPA and 404 requirements or this may
result in a lengthy evaluation of the project. The Corps is
available and willing to assist you in the development of the NEPA
documents for the US 113 study.
V A5(l)-l
-------
If you have any questions, please call Michele Gomez at
(410) 962-4343.
Sincerely,
CC:
Renee Siegel, FHWA
Danielle Algazi, EPA
David Sutherland, FWS
John Nichols, NMFS
Elder Ghigiarelli, MDE
Al Kampmeyer, MDE
Beth Cole/ MHT
Enclosure
Keith A. Harris
Chief, Special Projects
Permits Section
V A5(l)-2
-------
Corps of Engineers Comments on the Preliminary Draft Environmental
Impact Statement dated February 19, 1997
Summary
* In Section 8, it is stated that "... the majority of residents
within the study area, as well as the motorists using the existing
two-lane facility, strongly support the need to dualize the
remaining 23.8 miles of two-lane US 113." Is there documentation
available which supports this statement? Please clarify if there
is strong support to alleviate the number of traffic fatalities or
the need to dualize the highway. If there is no evidence to
support this statement, we suggest that it be removed as it
indicates a bias to dualization without examining all possible
safety alternatives to address the purpose and need.
Purpose and Need
Traffic Volumes & Levels of Service
* Please provide documentation to demonstrate that LOS C and D will
occur in the northern and southern areas of the study area.
Increased trips? Increased # people?
Safety
* Please provide information on the number of accidents which have
occurred in the currently dualized portion of US 113. Has the
number of accidents in these areas been reduced since the
dualization has occurred? Provide the type of accident, and the
time of day each accident occurred similar to the format used in
the accident reports provided with the SHA letter dated March 5,
1996. How does the US 113 study area accident statistics compare
with the US 50 from Berlin to Ocean City accident statistics?
* Please provide the status of the proposed Bill requiring drivers
on US 113 to leave their headlights on. Provide accident data for
MD 90 before and after this requirement went into effect similar to
the format used in the previous accident report mentioned above.
* Update the tables and figures showing the accident statistics so
that all are dealing with the same years of data. It is difficult
to read trends when the study years are different for each table.
* Please explain how the statewide average was derived. If a
comparison is made between similar facilities in the State, please
identify these facilities. Explain why the statewide average is
different for the northern and the southern segments of the study
area.
V A5(l)-3
-------
Planning and Project History
* Please describe how the accident rate, including thairiumbe r of
fatalities caused, has changed due to the implementation of the
safety measures since the 1990 US 113 study.
Alternatives Considered
* Fvnlain how the TSM alternatives do not fully address all safety
Lsuls for ?L ul 113 study. Explain how dualization alternatives
2SS JSo Sf2S SgZH^'™
S^t?^^i^»5SKf^ -af-flc
congestion and potential for collision with the local users.
* Please provide costs of all alternatives to be studied including
acquisition of right-of-way as well as construction costs.
* Explain how the wetlands impact was calculated
which were dropped from further study. At the time that these
alternatives were dropped these wetlands areas had not been
verified or surveyed.
* Please explain the need for a 34 foot median for the
an+.:Lv.«atives Discuss if a narrower median, or alternative
meaJuSs to divide the traffic lanes, can be used to avoid or
minimize wetlands impacts.
Rffecte* Environment
Land Use
Please provide a County zoning map which shows how the land in
. statement on
subdivisions
avc.3 ti Aithouah there may be no v*w*is» <-*-«—«•——•- •»
SIS' there may be proposals for new subdivisions along the study
area'. Please provide information from the County which i^^es
4-v>A i r»r<3^ T OTI of anv new or proposed resiQ©ivti«j. .
unti o.un*c»v-j.wji »"• .* ^>ioY"a s*nv subdivisions whicht are not
lirectly^^the stSy area but will require access via US 113?
Cultural Resources
* Please provide the letter and reference letter coordinating with
_
j (Q
V A5(l)-4
-------
Maryland Historical Trust oh the historic structures ;and
archaeological resources in the study area.
* All resources should be discussed in the same detail, that is ,
provide the criteria which the resource meets.
* For archaeological sites, explain why the remainder of the 81
documented sites are not eligible. Include and reference the Phase
I document as well as MHT's concurrence.
Groundwater Resources
* Explain what is meant by the statement "groundwater is expected
to be a sufficient source for demand within the project alignment."
* Explain the statement "Worcester County depends on surface water
for its water supply." If this is so the wetlands resources in
this areas are extremely important to maintain the quality of the
water supply.
Surface Water
* Explain how it was determined that some tributaries in the study
area were fed by underground springs. Provide any documentation,
including field verification, which supports this statement.
* Cross reference the discussion on habitat with the discussion of
surface waters.
* There are no natural ponds or lakes in the study area.
* Provide existing water quality data for any of the systems which
are in the study area.
Wetlands
* Please provide the documentation for determining the functional
assessment for the wetlands to be affected by the proposed
alignments.
* Provide documentation for the statement on page 111-26, "most of
the depressional and upland flat wetlands are located in the
northern study area and have been altered by previous logging
activity."
* Need to include information regarding the "new" wetlands which
were not verified at the time the document was developed.
* Preliminary review of the functional assessment of the wetlands
indicates that some wetlands have only one or no functions or
values. This functional analysis should be reviewed for accuracy
as field observations do not agree with the assessment in the
document. The Corps does not concur with the functional assessment
in the pre-DEIS. '
V A5(l)-5
-------
* In the Corps opinion, some of these wetlands are irreplaceable,
for example, the cypress swamps. Re-creating these systems will be
difficult at best. The avoidance or" these ecosystems should be a
priority.
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
* Explain how the species listed were identified for terrestrial,
aquatic and wetlands habitats. Field observations indicate that
there are more species in these areas than what is listed in the
document. Other species, i.e., New Jersey chorus frogs, spring
peepers, green snakes, etc., have also been observed.
* Please provide the method used for assessment of upland habitat.
Hazardous Waste
* There was what appears to be an abandoned gas station found near
the Wetland 37. This site needs to be included in the
identification of the potential hazardous waste sites along the
study area.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Traffic
* Explain why the No Build alternative, which is providing
improvements to intersections, and the TSM alternative, which
includes improvements to intersections and other safety measures
(i.e., lighting, rumble strips, etc.) will not reduce accident rate
or improve the study area.
* The explanation provided on page IV-3 states studies demonstrate
that dualization (i.e., separating traffic) with left turn refuge
areas will reduce the number of accidents on a highway by 24 %. If
this is so then a two lane highway separated by a median with left
turn refuge should also have the same results.
* Table IV-1, the note should be changed from "dualization" to j
"separated by a median." J
Social/ Economics/ and Land Use
* Explain how alternative 3 N, which follows the existing
alignment, has more impact to unimproved lands (135.4 acres) than
alternative 4 N Modified, which is for the most part on totally new
alignment (122.6 'acres) and the combination alternative (112
acres).
* Please provide the land use maps for the segments of the
watersheds (Coastal Bays and Pocomoke River) which are affected by
the US 113 study.' •
V A5(l)-6
-------
* Provide the status of the Worcester County Comorehens i ™=>
Development Plan. Also, provide information from the SStSS 5£m
which is pertinent to the US 113 study area. existing plan
Farmlands
* The Corps recognizes that any road construction will result in
the loss of prime agricultural land both for the hiahwav * a5
development due to the highway construction. nignway and
4. . any impacts to farmlands which will result
potential mitigation sites being developed in the area .
if
accessibility problem caused by alternative 4 w
™1 fa^fields was ^^red in ?S?he Ii to
impact to farmlands.
62 acres
&2 acres of
Soils, Geology, Topography
* Explain why the stormwater management and sediment co^v-ro
-entioned
Groundwater Resources
Surface Water Resources
V A5(l)-7
-------
* Pocomoke River and its tributaries will be affected by the road
improvements.
* The effects of stormwater management facilities on surface
waters needs to be addressed. Include both the physical location
of these as well as the potential for introduction of pollutants to
the waterway.
Floodplains
* It is stated that there will be no significant floodplain
impacts. Explain how this was determined.
* Provide the total number (acreage) of floodplain in the study
area.
Wetlands
* The proper term to be used is "waters of the United States,
including jurisdictional wetlands." This term includes both water
and wetlands.
* Define "MFTP."
* Loss of functions and values is not necessarily proportional to
the impact acreage (i.e., cypress swamp may have greater loss of
function and subsequently higher loss of value although there may
be less impact to the resource) .
* The wetladns and waterways located in this study area are
regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Avoidance,
minimization, and compensation of impacts to wetlands and waterways
is required in accordance with the 404 (b)(1) guidelines.
* Because of the difference in value of the different systems,
certain wetlands areas which are impacted may require a higher
mitigation ratio to offset the loss of these resources and the
length of time and difficulty it will take to recreate these
systems to replace their current functions.
* The mitigation ratios listed on page IV-42 in the pre-DEIS are
not correct. The "Maryland Compensatory Mitigation Guidance"
should be referenced. The ratios for creation or restoration are:
forested wetlands 2:1
scrub/shrub wetlands 2:1
emergent wetlands 1.5:1
* The potential functions lost should also include loss of
discharge/recharge areas.
* The statement regarding alternatives analysis on page IV-35
should be deleted.
@-
V A5(l)-8
-------
* The "new" wetlands areas which were not originally surveyed with
the rest of the wetlands areas will need to be identified and
discussed in this section.
on the wetladns maps.
These wetlands should also be located
* Without monitoring wells or well data for the proposed
mitigation sites, a statement cannot be made that mitigation for
impacted wetlands will be done easily with only minor excavation.
The ease of creating a cypress swamp or a swamp/floodplain wetland
and having it successfully replicate the functions of the impacted
area is highly questionable.
Vegetation and Wildlife
* There is no habitat evaluation discussed in this section nor are
impacts to habitat addressed. This habitat evaluation and
potential impacts needs to be addressed.
V A5(l)-9
-------
US 113 Planning
Response US. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers letter dated March 31,1997
(Enclosure 1)
INTRODUCTION:
The COE letter dated March 31, 1997 providing comments on the preliminary Draft EIS was reviewed and
theMajority of these issues were addressed in the Draft ElS/Section 4(f) Evaluation (May 1997) All
chants to the document required have been made and are also reflected in the Final EIS. Reference to the
Son of these changes in the Final EIS are shown in bracketed, bold, itahc text ,n the Response to
Comments. See Enclosure 1 (pages V A5(l)-l through -16).
1. Section 8 of the Summary chapter has been revised to clarify public support for the project.
[Summary Chapter, Section 8 of the Final EIS]
2. The growth rates used for the traffic data associated with the US 113 project area were developed from
dataSmtained in the Worcester County Comprehensive Plan along wit.input from the: Dist netTraffic
the Regional Planner, the Maryland Office of Planning, along with historical f^^^
MDSHA Traffic Volume Maps over the last 20 years as well as data obtained from MDSHA Traffic
Trends (count locations 37, 62 & 63). Count location 37 (US 13 at Beaverdam - south of the project
limits) has consistently shown growth rates between 2 percent to 2.5 percent over the last 15 years.
See also Chapter IV, Section B - land use.
[See also Section IV.B of the Final EIS]
3 SHA's threshold for upgrading a road is based on the statewide average. As discussed in both the
SummaS^apter and Chapter I, Section C.3 of this document, considerable emphasis has been
SoLcident experiences along existing US 113 which significantly exceed the statewide average
(statStically, the term significant is used when the accident rate is two or more standard deviations above
the average rate).
The statewide average accident rates are derived from a database of all Maryland roadways For roads
S similar characteristics (i.e., similar functional classification, roadway cross-section traffic
Derations) an accident average is computed. Hundreds of road segments were used in computing the
statewide accident rates for US 113.
statewide average for a particular type of accident is exceeded, typically the project will focus on
ufsTo reduce that pabular type of accident. Thus when safety is the purpose and needI of the
reject, measures to reduce those accidents that are greater than the statewide average are studied since
this will have the most significant effect on the overall accident rate.
US Route 113 within the study area dates from the late 1700's; the dualized portion around Berlin was
contacted in the early 1970's'as a divided bypass. The section of US 113 between Pocomoke City and
south of Snow Hill was dualized in the early 1970's. See Chapter II, Section A.
Paee S-6 • The accident data before dualization for the currently dualized portions of US 113 is not
available since it was dualized before 1970. The accident rates for two-lane undivided and four-lane
undivided rural roadways are available and can be used for comparison.
VA5(1)-10
-------
US 113 Planning Study
4.
5.
Dualization of US 113 through Berlin was completed in the early seventies. Statistics from many
roadway improvement projects throughout Maryland show that dualization to a four lane roadway from
two lanes has a proven effectiveness in providing a significant reduction in accident rates.
[Area accident data is presented in Appendix D of the Final EIS.J
The signs requiring drivers to leave their headlights on US 113 will be ready to be installed in mid May
prior to Memorial Day. Enforcement will begin the same day signs are installed.
Because of the varying level of details available for accident statistics, three tables are presented in the
current/revised document:
Table 1-2 Historical Accident Data - 16 Years (1980 through 1995)
Table 1-3 Detailed Accident Data - 6 Years (1990 through 1995)
Table 1-4 Fatal Accident Data - 17 Years plus 3 Months (January 1980 through March 1997)
Clarifying notes have been added.
[Accident data are presented in Section I.C (Table 1-2: Detail Analysis of 7-Years Accident Data,
Table 1-3: Tabulation of 17 Years + 9 Months Fatal Accident Data), and Appendix D of Final EIS]
See response '# 3. Footnote #1 on Tables 1-2 and 1-3 addresses why the statewide average is different for
the northern and southern segments of the study area.
[Footnotes on Table 1-2 in the Final EIS address why the statewide average is different for the
northern and southern segment of the study area.]
6. The No-Build Alternative would not provide major improvements to the existing US 113. Minor
improvements are planned for construction or were just recently implemented as part of SHA's normal
maintenance and safety programs. Since the alternatives are being compared based on possible future
scenarios, these minor improvements have been included in the analysis of the No-Build Alternative.
These improvements are listed in Chapter II, Table II-l and locations are shown in Chapter II, Figure
II-2. If the No-Build alternative were selected, these improvements reflect the safety and design
characteristics that would be in place.
Improvements must be in place for at least three years before an adequate amount of data is available
from which the magnitude of the safety improvement can be portrayed. Since many of these
improvements were just recently implemented, a study to evaluate their effectiveness cannot be
completed as yet.
The improvements are intended to increase safety and address some particular problem areas with
numerous low-capital measures. However, by the nature of such improvements, the results may be
positive in addressing safety, though minimal in their scope. Specifically/the minor improvements
would not provide features to prevent further opposite direction collisions as vehicles cross the
centerline; as occurs in most of the fatal accidents. Although the No-Build Alternative will therefore not
meet the project need, it was used as a basis for comparison for the analysis of the other alternatives.
7.
[See also Chapter 11 of the Final EIS.J
Chapter II has been revised to address these issues.
[See Section II.D.3 of the Final EIS.J
-------
US 113 Planning Study
8. Costs for right of way and construction are presented on Table S-l and in Chapter II.
ISce also Table S-l and Section II of the Final EIS.]
9 The best available wetlands mapping was used at each stage of this study to compare impacts. The
' wetland impacts presented in the DEIS are based on field verified and surveyed wetland boundaries
[The wetland impacts presented in Section IV.I of the Final EIS are based on field verified and
surveyed wetland boundaries.]
10 Accident data indicates that most fatal accidents occur when vehicles cross the centerline. The proposed
' median designs along the corridor will minimize the number of vehicles that cross over into opposing
traffic Recovery area widths suggested by FHWA roadside design guidelines is 30 feet; this figure is
based on studies of typical reaction and recovery areas necessary for vehicles that run off the road.
Alternatives with a 34 foot median would provide more recovery area for vehicles that leave the roadway
toward the center; meeting FHWA guidelines. The 20 foot median design effectively reduces the
number of vehicles that cross into opposing traffic, however, it has the disadvantage of providing less
recovery area for vehicles that leave the roadway before striking the barrier. Thus, the alternatives with
a 20' median effectively reduce fatal accidents but will have a higher incidence of fixed-object collisions
than alternatives with a 34 foot median.
The principal advantages of divided roadways are increased safety, driver comfort and ease of operation
Divided highways must provide enough room for a left turn lane so that vehicles are not using the travel
lanes There is a significant reduction in head-on collisions and virtual elimination of such accidents on
sections with wider medians. When turning bays are provided in the median, rear end collisions and
other inconveniences to through traffic resulting from left turn movements are greatly reduced. Divided
multi-lane arterials make for more relaxed and pleasant operation, particularly in inclement weather and
at night when headlight glare is bothersome. Headlight glare is reduced somewhat by narrow medians
but can almost be eliminated by wide medians.
[Dualization alternatives with a 20-foot median Were
addition,aSpresentedinSectionn.E(teXtandrypicalSectionS)andAPPendiXA(l'=
of the Preferred Alternatives), median widths have been reduced in areas of sensitive natural
resources, i.e., wetland areas. The proposed 34' median will be narrowed to either 10 or 16 at
specific locations.]
1 1. A graphic showing the zoning classification has been included in Chapter III, Section B (Land Use).
[See Figures III-4A through 4D in the Final EIS.]
12 Text has been added stating new residential development has occurred along Shingle landing Road and
' Bunting Road and that the coastal bay areas where future development is projected for home access to
US 1 13 via state and county roads.
[See Section III.A.2 in the Final EIS.]
13. See Chapter IV, Section C and Chapter VI.
[See Section IV. C and Chapter V in the Final EIS.]
14. See Chapter IV, Section C.
[See Section IV.C in the Final EIS.]
V A5(l)-12
-------
US 113 Planning Study
15. See Chapter IV, Section C.2.
[See Section IV.C in the Final EIS.] ,
16. See Chapter IV, Section F.
[See Sections IILG and IV.F in the Final EIS.]
17. See Chapter IV, Section F;
[See Section IILG and IV.F in the Final EIS.]
18. Natural stream flow is made up of three components: baseflow, interflow, and surface runoff. Perennial
streams generally have all three components, while intermittent streams lack the baseflow component.
Baseflow is the discharge of groundwater which maintains stream flow through the dry portions of the
year. The example of "underground springs" does not appropriately describe this baseflow component
and has been removed from the text.
19. Discussions of surface water resources in Chapter III, Section F and wetland resources in Section ffl-H
have been cross-referenced with aquatic and wetland habitat discussions in Chapter III, Section I.
[See Section HI.F and III.I in the Final EIS.]
20. The statement that there are no natural ponds or lakes in the study area has been noted in Chapter III,
Section F.2.
[Section IILF.2 in the Final EIS.]
*'-
21. Existing water quality data was not available for these small tributary systems.
22. The functional assessment has been revised using the New England Corps Descriptive Approach.
„ .Assessment teams including SHA and resource agency representatives have identified the principal
functions of representative wetland areas. These principal functions have been applied to all similar
wetlands jn the study area as reflected in Table ffl-16.
[See Section IILH and Table 111-18 of the Final EIS.]
23. Although the entire study area has been logged since the arrival of European settlers (as determined
through the review of historic aerial photographs and verified through coordination with NRCS), the
statement in the DEIS deals specifically with the depressional and upland flat wetlands of the northern
study area (Wetlands W-23,24, 25,26,27, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39) where direct observations of logging
and farming disturbances were made in the field. A reference for the NRCS verification has been added
to the DEIS in Section m-H.
[See Section III.H of the Final EIS.]
24. The wetland Jurisdictional Determination and functional assessment have been completed for this latest
submittal of the Final EIS, as have the avoidance and minimization alternatives. This is included in
ChapterTV, Section I.
[See Sections IILHr and IV.I of the Final EIS.]
25. The functional assessment has been revised using the New England Corps Descriptive Approach.
Assessment teams including SHA. and resource agency'representatives have identified the principal
functions of representative wetland areas. These principal functions have been applied to all similar
wetlands in the study area as reflected in Chapter III, Table 111-12.
[See Table 111-18 of the Final EIS.]
-------
US 113 Plannin
lst sWe of the road. Any alternative which involves the widening of the ex.stmg road w.ll
Measures to minimize these impacts include widening to the side where the wetland
^
completion of the wetland creation.
[See Section IV.I of the Final EIS.J
27 The wildlife species listed in the DEIS were identified from coordination with MD DNR, review of o*er
sources suchS field guides and checklists, and field observations dunng the summer of 1996. The
Sfof SDecTes is nSmeant to be comprehensive but to show a representative cross-secUon of the
which may be found at various times of the year in the study area.
EJS. See also Section IV.J.2 of the Final EIS.J
Chap er m Section M.2. Inclusion of this site in Chapter IV, Section N, was madvertently eft out of
S AprU 21 , 1997 publication of this DEIS. This site will be included in the next pubhcauon of rtus
DEIS.
[See Sections HIM and IV.N of the Final EIS.J
30. Accident rates for the No-Build and TSM alternatives are discussed in Chapter IV, Section A.5 and
presented on Table IV-1.
[See Section IV.A.5 of the Final EIS.J
31. Accident rates for Alternative 2S-20' Median are discussed in Chapter IV, Section A.5.
[See Section 7KA.5 of the Final EIS.J
32. Chapter IV, Section A 5, Table IV-1 has been reformatted to include each alternative being considered.
[See Section IV.A.5 of the Final EIS.J
V A5(l)-14
-------
US 113 Planning Study
33: SHA currently owns much of the right-of-way required under the Alternative 3N alignments. Total right-
of-way required, amount of right-of-way already owned by SHA and amount of additional right-of-way
required have been included in Table S-l. . . • . ,
[See Table S-l in the Final EIS.]
34. The existing land use graphic in Chapter III has been revised to show the land use within approximately
1 mile east and west of the existing roadway.
[See Figure III-3A through 3D in the Final EIS.]
35. Additional information from the County Comprehensive Plan (1989) has been provided in the Land Use
discussion in Chapter IV. The County Comprehensive Plan is currently being updated and is projected
to be completed by July 1,1997 to comply with the provisions of the State Economic Growth, Resource
Protection and Planning Act of 1992. This has been included in Chapter III in the Land Use discussion.
[A Supplement to the 1989 Comprehensive Development Plan for Worcester County was published
in September 1997. Both the 1989 Plan and the 1997 Supplement were used extensively in
understanding the development in Worcester County. These documents are referenced in Sections
III.A, IV.B and IV.Q of the Final EIS. See also Figures III-3A through 3D in the Final EIS]
36. No response required.
37. A footnote has been added to the Farmland impact summary table - Chapter IV, Table IV-7 stating that
additional Farmland impacts may occur as a result of wetland mitigation requirements. Pending selection
of mitigation sites for wetland impacts, farmland/other property impacts are unknown. These analyses
will be completed prior to the permit.
[See Table IV-7 and Section IV.D of the Final EIS.]
38. Indirect farmland impacts were calculated separately and are shown in more detail on Table IV-5.
[See Table IV-7 and Section IV.D of the Final EIS.]
39. Storm water management and sediment control measures are issues directly influenced by soils, geology
and topography. Some soils to be encountered within the study area are highly erodible. Therefore,
sediment control was briefly addressed. Impacts to wetlands, surface waters, and groundwater have been
addressed in the document.
[See Section IV.E of the Final EIS.]
40. Underground springs are recharged mainly by precipitation that filters through the soil. It is anticipated
that a minimal change in relief and decrease in recharge area resulting from roadway construction will
not significantly affect water recharge to underground springs and aquifers in this region.
[See Sections HLE and IV.F of the Final EIS.]
41. Compaction of soils may impact the infiltration of water into the soils; however, it is anticipated that
underground springs and aquifers will not be significantly impacted on the large scale.
[See Sections III.C and IV.E of the Final EIS.]
42. The selection of borrow sites for highway development is left up to the contractor. It is the contractor's
responsibility to obtain any required permits and adhere to all applicable regulations in obtaining of the
borrow material. To meet the requirements of Section 230.10, SHA has specified throughout the DEIS,
that the required borrow material, be obtained from clean, upland sites that are free of contamination.
[This has been carried through the Final EIS]
VA5(1)-15
-------
44. Discussions of the alteration of surface flow and loss of stream habitat have been added to Chapter IV,
flee Sec/fins 1V.F, IV.G, IV.H, IV.I, and IV.J of the Final EIS.J
AS The vearlv ADT volumes presented in the DEIS includes the average traffic for the entire year not just
I, "nfT^n" ThI summer ADT volumes are presented to demonstrate the dramatic sea onal
"Lf of Tffic. ™e sum^ADT volumes represent the average Saturday traffic from Memorial .toy
to Labor Da? The yearly ADT volumes represent the average year-round weekday (Monday through
Friday) traffic and are therefore the appropriate numbers to use for this analysis.
[See Section IV.G of the Final EIS.]
-?=;r,s^^
tapS £££?. toe been add nLd in Chap^r IV, Secdon G. Mitigation rceasures to ._»»
these impacts are also included.
[See Sections IV.G, and IV.Q of the Final EIS.]
«•
final design, when the drainage design is completed.
[See Sections IV.Fr IV.G, IV.H, and IV.I, of the Final EIS.J
"
will be no significant impact to the 100-year floodplams.
[See Section IV.H of the Final EIS.]
^
the study area.
[See Figures III-I1A through 11-D of the Final EIS.]
50. The terminology 'waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands' has been noted where
appropriate throughout the document.
51 This was a typographic error and has been replaced with "-US 113"
-
V A5(l)-16
-------
US 113 Planning Study
unavoidable impacts (both direct and indirect) will take into account these high value and highly
functioning wetland (see the response to Comment # 54).
[See Section IV.I of the Final EIS.J
53. The requirements of the Section 404(b)(l) guidelines have been addressed in Chapter IV, Section I.
[See Section IV.I of the Final EIS.J
54. The replacement ratios for creation or restoration of wetlands, as shown in Chapter IV, Section I, are
understood to be guidelines. The ratios may be adjusted up or down as appropriate to compensate for
losses of wetland functions and values. . • •
[See Section IV.I of the Final EIS.J
55. These higher ratios have been noted in Chapter IV, Section I.
[See Section IV.I of the Final EIS.J
56. Given the nature of the geology (unconsolidated sediments) of the study area, groundwater recharge
occurs everywhere that there is not impervious surfaces or active groundwater discharge. The addition
of the impervious road surface will account for a small percentage of the pervious surface and therefore
should have minimal impact on groundwater recharge. Groundwater discharge areas must be accounted
for in the roadway construction to ensure the roadway foundation is stable.
57. This statement was deleted from the DEIS.
58. The wetland Jurisdictional Determination and functional assessment have been completed for this latest
submittal of the DEIS, as have the avoidance and minimization alternatives. This is included in Chapter
IV, Section I.
[See Section IV.I of the Final EIS.J
59. The intent of the text was to point out that due to the low, flat topography of the study area, selected
mitigation sites would require relatively minor excavations. This statement has been removed from
Chapter IV, Section I.
60. Impacts to vegetation, wildlife habitat, and wildlife have been addressed in Chapter IV, Section H-l
and 2.
[See Section IV.J of the Final EIS.J
VA5(1)-17
-------
UNITED STA^ES,ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ;' i':
REGION III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107-4431
July 18,1997
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
Mr. Keith Harris
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Baltimore District
CENAB-OP-RX
P.O.Box 1715
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-1715
RE: US 113 from MD 394 to the Delaware State Line, Worcester County, MD: Draft EIS,
May 1997 and Joint Public Notice for Section 404 authorization.
Dear Messrs. Ege and Harris:
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR1500-1508), Section 309 of the
Clean Air Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection "
Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and the
Joint Public Notice for the above referenced proposal.
Based on our review of the DEIS, EPA has rated only those alternatives which
we believe would satisfy the purpose and need of the project. Due to the potential
impacts to 100 to 111 acres of upland forest habitat, 1565 to 1705 linear feet of stream
channel and 34.2 to 38.4 acres of mostly palustrine forested wetland habitat, EPA has
rated the environmental impacts of alternatives 4N Modified -20' & 34' Median (60
MPH) (dualization on new alignment) and 3S - 20' and 34' Median (dualization on
alignment) "EO" (Environmental Objections). Due to the potential impacts to 87 to 92
acres of upland forest habitat and 17 to 18.2 acres of mostly palustrine forested
wetland, EPA has rated the environmental impacts of alternative 2S-201 Median and
3N/4N Modified - 20' & 34' Median "EC" (Environmental Concerns). Due to the
possible 24 residential displacements, up to 1.13 acres and 3 properties of Historic
Resources affected and 6 archeological resources affected, EPA has rated alternative
3N-201 & 341 Median (50 & 60 mph), "EC". Based on the overall content and adequacy
Celebrating 25 Years of Environmental Progress
V A6-1
-------
of the document, EPA has rated the DEIS a "2" (Insufficient Information). A copy of
EPA s ranking system is enclosed for your reference. The detailed basis for these
ratings are contained in the following comments.
Project Discription
U.S. 113 northern study area extends from north of Berlin, Maryland to the
Delaware state line and the southern study area extends along U.S. 113 from south of
Snow Hill, Maryland to south of Berlin. The purpose and need of the project are based
primarily on safety and the significant number of fatalities occurring on U S 113 The
northern section is above the statewide average for fatalities and there is an immediate
need to provide safety measures to improve the conditions of the road in the northern
and southern portions. In addition to safety concerns in the northern portion of the
project, there is also a need to accommodate the growing population and land use
projections for the northern portion of Worcester County.
Environmental Objections
The wetlands and streams that would be impacted by alternative 4N Modified in
the northern portion of U.S. 113 are associated with the coastal bays of Maryland, the
wetlands and streams that are potentially impacted by alternative 3S Dualized in the
southern portion of U.S. 113 are part of the Pocomoke/Chesapeake Bay watershed
system and the coastal bays of Maryland. These systems act as natural filters
sediment traps, and are important habitat areas for wildlife. They also provide'flood
attenuation and nutrient removal functions. These wetland functions are not easily or
quickly duplicated. Most of the potential maximum 38.4 acres of wetlands impacted are
forested. Specifically in the southern section of U.S. 113, the potential loss of 1.6 acres
of Bald Cypress Swamp can not easily be replaced. If either alternative 2S and 3S are
chosen as the preferred alternative, EPA believes the Bald Cypress dominated wetland
(Wetland #8) can and should be avoided during the design stages of the project.
Environmental Concerns
The wetlands and streams associated with alternatives 3N/4N Modified
Combination and 2S - 20' median are located in the same watersheds and have the
same functions as the alternatives described above. However, with alternatives 3N/4N
and 2S, the impacts are avoided and minimized to 18.2 maximum acres of wetland
impacts. As presented in the document, these alternatives avoid ecological impacts
while still satisfying the purpose and need of the project. This is in accordance with the
requirements of Section 404 (b) (1) Guidelines of the Clean Water Act which requires
that the least damaging practicable alternative on the aquatic ecosystem be selected
unless there are other significant adverse consequences.
Alternative 3N further minimizes the impacts to wetlands in accordance with the
404 (b) (1) guidelines. However, because of the residential displacements and historic
V A6-2
-------
and arcneologica, ^sources potentially impacted, we have rated this alternative "EC".
Insufficient Information
The DEIS states in the -™
alternative 2S - 20' Median would be 34 . 2S js a
which projects 31 accidents annuaHy -TabteS-1^ tes mat a. substantial
moderate improvement for ^^^^SS^tSd^rminaUon that the 3S
^^
possible safety conditions for this alternative.
On page IV-57 of the DEIS, the ^^1?^^^^^ ~ **
County Plans do state that U.S. 113 is part or ine y.^ ^ ^ ^^ nQgr ^& water and
for the northern area. The DEIS states tnai u. . . U8e of population preference.
therefore not where the growth is^ojecteci to^oc _ ^ centers and
However, the attempt to localize the growl^ spraw. 10 aadditiona| future ecological
limiting the number of access points and in somers.tua 'ons l°crQSS functiona| teams.
access." EPA would like additional 'formation regara na When will they
• • » t ^A. J l««^^^^l
-------
that mitigation for wetlands should take an ecosystem approach, integrating both
aquatic and terrestrial habitat. We would like to remain involved in these plans and
would like to work to resolve any issues that need to be addressed. The Maryland
Coastal Bays Management Committee is in the process of developing action plans
which will include habitat and living resources restoration efforts within the watershed.
We recommend that SHA work closely with this committee in the development of
mitigation plans for wetland loss. Please contact Steve Talor, Program Director at
(410) 260-8744 for additional information. In addition, EPA would like to be invited to
participate in the review of storm water management facilities after the selection of the
preferred alternative.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions please
contact Danielle Aigazi. She can be reached by phone at (215) 566-2722, by facsimile
at (215) 566-2782 or by E-Mail at ALGA2I.DANIELLE@EPAMA!LEPA.GOV.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
cc: Michele Gomez, COE
David Sutherland, FWS
Mary Huie, FHA
John Nichols, NMFS
Elder Ghigiarelli, MDE
John D. FprrenTPrograrrTManager
NEPA & Wetlands Regulatory Review
Larry Hughes, DNR
Phil Hager, Worcester County Planning
Ray Dintaman, DNR
Christine Wells, MOP
Al Kampmeyer, MDE Salisbury
V A6-4
-------
4 fc«JG-01-19S7 12M9
EPfl REG 3 EflPD
215 566 2783 P.08^22
V '
SUMMARY OF RATING DEFINITIONS
AND FOLLOW UP ACTION"
Environmental Impae* of the Action •
A r el-ew hatnoTfdenfified any potential environmental impa
proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities for appficaton of
accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal.
environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the g"2SSIlSc3KR5
mifigafion measures that can reduce the environment^ impact. EPA^MOUld Oketo woncwnnme
agency to reduce thesa impacts.
*^
a newmllernative).
the final EJS stage, this proposal wit be recommended for referral to the CEQ. : .
Adequacy of the Impact Statement • .' / :
?n^Ay^^SaftBS^uatel^^
aHemativ. and those of ft. alternatives reasonabty ^
datawlledfon«snecsssary,buttheravtev«rmaysu8gestthe
Hut should te »oid*d b
analyses, or discussion should be Included In the final HS.
^^yi^s^s^^^Jffss^^
candidate- for referral to the CEQ.
.From EPAManua. 16-0 Pcfcyand Pfeccctaw for «,8RB«ewoftti.F«iefa{Action.lmpaCangth.En«ronm«rt
V A6-5
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Response to Environmental Protection Agency letter dated July 18,1997
1.
3.
4.
While we understand EPA's comments on the dualization alternatives as presented in the Draft EIS/
Section 4(f) Evaluation, recent studies and alignment refinements which have minimized wetland
impacts for the Preferred Alternatives have resulted in EPA's concurring with the Preferred
Alternatives (concurrence dated September 15, 1997, see Section V.B.).
Updated accident statistics and traffic data are presented in Section I.C. of this document including
Tables 1-1,1-2, and 1-3.
The Preferred Alternatives would result in the unavoidable loss of approximately 12 acres of wetlands
in the Pocomoke and Coastal Area watersheds. Mitigation planning for unavoidable wetland impacts
will address the replacement of existing wetland functions and values. SHA acknowledges that certain
functions and values are not easily or quickly duplicated, depending on the location of the selected
mitigation sites. Ongoing site selection studies will focus on landscape positions that offer the best
potential for replacing the functions and values of the impacted wetlands.
Impacts to the Bald Cypress dominated wetland (Wetland 8) cannot be completely avoided, and
additional minimization techniques will be employed to reduce wetland encroachment. Preliminary
design studies have been completed that reduce wetland impacts to 0.32 acres, as compared to 1.6 acres
reported in the Draft EIS. Minimization measures include construction of an epoxy coated retaining wall
16-feet beyond the edge of the travel lane, reducing the 34-foot grass median to a 16-foot paved median
with a guardrail separator, and reducing the 20-foot wide grass safety grading to 6-feet with a guardrail.
During final design, detailed studies will be completed to ensure that wetland impacts are minimized to
the greatest extent practicable.
The Northern Preferred Alternative minimizes impacts to wetlands in accordance with Section 404
(b) (1) guidelines as noted by EPA. Alternative 3N, which would require residential displacements and
would have adverse impacts on several historic properties, was not chosen as the preferred alternative.
However, the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) has determined that the Northern Preferred
Alternative does have an adverse effect on the National Register St. Martin's Church. Coordination with
MHT and the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation has been initiated in accordance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
As discussed in Section IV.A of this document, a considerable body of literature exists to support the
benefits of dualizing a two lane highway in terms of accident reduction. In every case, these supporting
data are based on studies of two-lane 2-way highways being dualized to four-lane divided highways.
Previous case studies of improvements similar to that proposed for Alternative 2S-201 median are not
available, hence making precise determinations of accident reduction somewhat speculative.
Furthermore, while the terms "moderate improvement" and "substantial improvement" are subjective,
Table S-l and IV-1 present best estimates for accident reductions associated with each of the alternatives'
under consideration as well as for the Preferred Alternatives.
Placement of the passing lanes for Alternative 2S-201 median was accomplished with the goal of
providing passing lanes (1 mile in length) approximately every 4 to 5 miles within the 16 mile segment
for the Southern Study area. In addition, these passing lanes were placed between intersections that were
at least a mile and a half apart and in areas to avoid/minimize residential/business impact and wetland
impacts.
VA6-6
-------
US 113 Planning Studv
6. The wetland minimization studies referenced on page IV-57 of the Draft EIS were primarily for the
dualization alternatives then under consideration, although similar strategies would clearly apply to
Alternative 2S-201 median. As previously discussed, the Preferred Alternatives reflect the results of
extensive wetland minimization and avoidance studies.
7. Secondary impacts have been addressed in the Final EIS, Section IV. Q - Cumulative Effects. Projected
and potential development has been studied in light of the development goals of Worcester County as
stated in the 1997 Supplement to the 1989 Comprehensive Development Plan for Worcester County.
Development projections forecasted in 1990 do not reflect the impact of Federal, state and local
conservation efforts, many of which are legislated.
8. The Maryland State Highway Administration's Access Management Team (AMT) meets a minimum of
once every three weeks. The Team consists of representatives from SHA Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering, Division of Engineering Access Permits, the Office of Council, Office of Real
Estate and the Office of Traffic and Safety. The AMT will meet regularly to review opportunities for
improving access to US 113. This will be done through the development process by reviewing site plans,
building permit application, property sale listings and access permit applications. These reviews will
be coordinated with the Worcester County Office of Planning. Access management has been ongoing
within the SHA since 1987.
Property owners and developers submit their plans to the local planning offices who in turn forward
those on the Primary Highway System, to the Access Management Team. The plans are reviewed on a
case by case basis to determine the best options.
• If the property has access via another public road the team will recommend that the owner use the
alternate means of access to the Primary highway.
• If access can only be obtained via a future service road or a public road a "TEMPORARY" access
permit may be issued. Once the improvement is realized, access to the Primary highway would be
via the service road or public road and the "temporary" access would be closed.
• If a property were to be landlocked by the State Highway Administration's proposed improvement
or it is not cost effective to construct a service road the team may recommend the purchase of the
property.
Existing permitted entrances remain as long as there is no change in land use or traffic operation
problems do not occur. However, these entrances could be closed as alternate access is provided.
9. Mitigation planning for unavoidable wetland impacts has been be conducted in accordance with the
sequencing guidelines developed by the interagency mitigation task force. Nine potential wetland
mitigation sites have been identified that are suitable for "in-kind" replacement of wetlands, and are
either near the proposed impact areas or within the same watershed. This work is being coordinated with
the Maryland Coastal Bays Management Committee and with the EPA. Wetland mitigation is discussed
in Section IV.I of the Final EIS
VA6-7
-------
Pairis N. Glendening
Governor
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
My 21,1997
John R. Griffin
Secretary
Carolyn D. Davis
Deputy Secretary
Neil J. Pedersen, Director
w
State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Dear Mr. Pedersen:
Engineering
to "™ *»* comment on the US 1 1 3
have detennuTed nc
contrnuedpartidpationrnmt^ Department looks forward to
environmental impacts as an alSv^»
environmental impacts as an alteriativVis'sdeTt^ fi™7S«-SUIC ma?nUZ1a a^oidance aad/or minimis
y a* « diuananve is selected, final designs are formulated, and approvals sought
staff at (4SlIST26oT33h?ye "* qUeSti°nS C°nCeming *"« conunente. P1^ contact me or Larry Hughes of my
Sincerely,
Ray C. Dintaman, Jr., Director
Environmental Review Unit
RCDrLEH
cc. John R. Griffin, Secretary
. ,
Sarah Taylor-Rogers, Assistant Secretary
Sandi Olek, CCWS
Lynn Davidson, FWHS
Renee Sigel, FHWA
Keith Harris, COE
John Forren, EPA
Robert Zepp.USFWS
Timothy Goodger, NMFS
James Noonan, MOP
Elder Ghigiarelli, MDE
J.Rodney Little, MHT
V A7-1
Telephone:
DNR TTY for the Deaf: (410) 974-3683
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Response to Maryland Department of Natural Resources letter dated July 21,1997
1 On September 17, 1997, SHA Administrator Parker F. Williams concurred with the planning team's
SomLndationforthePreferredAlternatives. ^^f^^^^1^^^
DNR also concurred with the planning team's recommendation for the Preferred Alternatives.
VA7-2
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmespnarfc Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Habitat And Protected
'-••*-. :. ._• Resources Division ? -, =
. - :- '-i .Oxford,Maryland21654
July 23, 1997
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director, Office Of Planning & Preliminary Engineering
State Highway Administration
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
Dear Mr. Ege:
We have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the U.S. Route 113
Planning Study, in Worcester County.
In general, the draft EIS contains an adequate level of information to cover the broad range of
issues that are associated with this project. However, we offer the following comments about two
issues discussed in the document.
Section IV (Environmental Consequences): parts pertaining to indirect and cumulative impacts
associated with the project provide a detailed discussion on the limited development that is
anticipated in the southern study area, and the minimal impacts the project will have on
stimulating development in this area. However, information provided in Section I (Purpose &
Need) on Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes predicts significant ADT volume increases
between 1995 and 2020 for the southern area. In fact, the normal (non-summer) ADT volume for
the southern area more than triples, from 3,500 (low end of the range) for 1995, to 10,800 (high
end of the range) for 2020. Therefore, the EIS should explain how anticipated future increases in
ADT volumes relate to anticipated low development levels in the southern area.
Section IV, page FV-5: the document states that because of an unusual design (i.e., one lane per
direction), and narrow median width, Alternate 2S-201 Median is not expected to improve traffic
safety to the same degree on the dualization alternates. However, Alternate 2S will have a
median width similar to some of the dualization alternates, and well as a median traffic barrier,
safety grading and/or guard rails. If it is anticipated that Alternate 2S will provide less safety
improvements than dualization, a more detailed explanation is needed.
Finally, it was stated in the document that the .."primary need for the proposed roadway
improvements is safety and not traffic capacity.." Because the southern study area differs
markedly from the northern area relative to the surrounding environment and traffic levels,
dualization may not be necessary in the southern area if a two-lane alternate can provide an
adequate level of safety improvements and traffic management. Consequently, Alternate 2S-201
Median, which reduces wetland losses by approximately half of that associated with dualization
alternates in the south, should be given full consideration during the upcoming review.
V A8-1
-------
If there are any questions concerning these comments, you may call John S. Nichols at
(410)226-5771.
Sincerely,
Timothy E.
Officer in Charge
Oxford Habitat Office
V A8-2
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Response to National Marine Fisheries Service letter dated July 23,1997
1. A comparison between the low end of the ADT range and the high end of the ADT from Table 1-1 range
does not provide an accurate representation. The location with an 1995 ADT of 3,500 in the southern
area in the non-summer months increased to 5,100, a net increase of 44 percent. The ADT volumes are
shown graphically in Figures IV-1A thru IV-1D and are described in Section IV-A.
2.
3.
Average Daily Traffic
Average Daily Traffic
1995
3,500
5,025
2020
7,450
10,800
Build & No Build:
Only a modest increase is forecast in this area (i.e., 3,500 up to 5,025 and
7,450 up to 10,800, or 1.5 percent per year).
Currently the ADT volumes on US 113 vary as a result of the variation in land use density throughout
the corridor. In areas where there are lower volumes of residential and commercial activity, a lower
ADT is generally observed. Since significant changes in land development patterns is not expected, a
uniform growth rate of 1.5 percent per year can be used for the entire study area to forecast the increases
in ADT for the year 2020. Thus, while the entire corridor will experience a growth in future traffic
volumes, the observed pattern of varying magnitudes in traffic volumes when moving from south to north
would remain the same. For example, in some of the more agricultural areas along the corridor, an ADT
of 3,500 vehicles per day has been observed; this is predicted to increase at a rate of 1.5 percent per year.
In the year 2020, traffic volumes of 5,025 could be expected in these areas. In some of the more densely
developed areas, the existing ADT volume is 7,450 vehicles per day. This volume is expected to
increase to 10,800 vehicles per day by the year 2020 using the same growth rate. A comparison of
existing and future traffic volumes should be made based on the volume experienced in one particular
area and to compare the absolute minimum existing volume to the maximum future predicted volume
would be an erroneous comparison.
As discussed under response #5 to EPA's July 18,1997 letter, a review of current research literature was
unable to identify any similar case studies in order assess accident reductions as a result of improvements
similar to Alternative 2S-20' median. While this alternative would provide positive traffic separation
through a median and the traffic barrier, passing operations would be severely constrained and operations
would clearly be atypical in terms of other highways on the Delmarva peninsula. Therefore, it was these
operational concerns, coupled with a lack of case studies, that led the study team to conclude that
Alternative 2S-201 median will provide less safety improvements than the dualization alternatives,
including the Preferred Alternatives.
As a result of extensive wetland minimization and avoidance studies completed for the Southern
Preferred Alternative, wetland impacts have been considerably reduced; from the 13.7 acres shown in
Table IV-11 of the Draft EIS to a range of 5 to 5'/2 acres. This level is now approximately equal to the
5.8 acres anticipated with Alternative 2S-20'median.
VA8-3
-------
MARYLAND Office of Planning
ParrlsN. Glendcnlng
Governor
July 24, 1997
Ronald M. Kreitner
Director
Mr. Neil I. Pedersen
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Maryland Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, MD 21202
REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
State Application Identifier: MD970605-0484
Description: Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Section 4(0 Evaluation for the US 113 Project
Applicant: Maryland Department of Transportation
Location: Worcester County
Approving Authority: State Highway Administration
Recommendation: Endorsement With Qualifying Comments)
Dear Mr. Pedersen:
to accordance with Presidential Executive Order 12372 and Code of Maryland Regulation 14.24.04, the State Clearinghouse
has coordinated the intergovemraental review of the referenced project. This letter constitutes the State process review and
recommendation. This recommendation is valid for a period of three years from the date of this letter.
Environment
including the Maryland Historical Trust and Business and Economic
Development have not submitted comments. This endorsement is contingent upon the applicant considering and addressing
any problems or conditions that may be identified by their review.
Worcester County and the Maryland Office of Planning found this project to be consistent with their plans, programs, and
objectives. The Maryland Energy Administration has no comment on this project because it is not related to their program
or functions.
The Maryland Department of Natural Resources found this project to be generally consistent with then- plans, programs, and
objectives, but included certain qualifying comments summarized below.
Summary of Comments:
The Coastal Zone Management Administration (CZMA) requires that federally conducted or supported activities which affect
the State's coastal zone be consistent, the maximum extent practicable, with the State's approved Coastal Zone Management
Program (CZMA, Section 307). For further information please call Mr. Elder Ghiagiarelli at (410) 631-8091.
Q1
V A9-1
507 West Preston Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21201-2365
State Clearinghouse: (410) 767-4490 Fax: 767-4480
-------
Mr. Neil J. Pedersen
July 24,1997
Page 2
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is currently conducting a review of the Draft EIS and will be commenting
directly to SHA. For information on the DNR review, please contact Larry Hughes of the Environmental Review Unit at (410)
260-8335. ,
Any statement of consideration given to the comments should be submitted to the approving authority, with a copy to
the State Clearinghouse. Additionally, the State Application Identifier Number must be placed on any correspondence
pertaining to this project. The State Clearinghouse must be kept informed if the recommendation cannot be accommodated
by the approving authority.
Please remember, you must comply with all applicable state and local laws and regulations. If you have any questions about
the comments contained in this letter or how to proceed, please contact the State Clearinghouse at (410) 767-4490. Also please
complete the attached form and return it to the State Clearinghouse as soon as the status of the project is known. Any
substitutions of this form must include the State Application Identifier Number. This will ensure that our files are
complete.
We appreciate your attention to the intergovernmental review process and look forward to your continued cooperation.
Sincerely,
Scribner H. Sheafor
Chief, Planning .Assistance and Review Unit
SHS:LG:mds
Enclosures
cc:
The Honorable Craig Johnson, Mayor
MDE - Steve Bieber
MEA - Frederick Hoover
DNR - Ray Dintaman
DHCD - Sue Hartman
DBED - Jim Gatto
WRCS - Gerald Mason
OPC - Mary Abrams
OPL - Scrib Sheafor
V A9-2
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Response to Maryland Office of Planning letter dated July 24,1997
1 Consultation and coordination with the Maryland Department of the Environment (Mr. Elder Ghigiarelli)
has been conducted during monthly InterAgency Meetings and review of the Draft ElS/Section 4(f)
Evaluation. A final determination that the project is consistent with the State's federally approved
Coastal Zone Management Program will be completed when wetland and waterway permitting actions
are conducted by MDE after design plans are prepared.
VA9-3
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III L'i'Vi^V
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107-4431 / • ,.
My 28,1997
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
RE: Interagency meeting July 16,1997 and US 113 recommended preferred alternative.
Dear Mr. Ege:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in the role of cooperating agency,
is offering this letter in response to the interagency meeting held July 16, 1997 and to
add to our comments sent July 18,1997 on the DEIS for U.S. 113. The following is a
summary of the U.S. 113 discussions:
• Sue Raj'an, representing SHA, described the public hearing in which
approximately 700 people attended, a majority of which were in favor of
dualization of U.S. 113 because of the safety concerns. She described the
approximately 1500 letters that she received in support of the project. She
stated that there were a few letters that were in opposition against the
dualization, but she stated that she thought that they might have been written by
the same person. While this may be true, a form letter response is standard
practice for public issues and should not be discounted. In fact, a majority of the
1500 letters received by SHA and COE were form letters and written by school
children. .
• Sue Rajan reviewed the comments that were outstanding from the June 24, 1997
conference call and stated that SHA would present their recommended preferred
alternative. EPA stated that this was not acceptable and had contacted SHA
prior to the meeting to express concerns regarding the presentation of the
recommended alternative. The official end of the comment period was July 18
and SHA had not receive all comments, including EFA's and other federal
resource agencies. EPA believes that agency comments are not being taken
into consideration in the process. The proposed elimination of alternatives prior
to the end of the comment period violates the Maryland NEPA/404 guidelines.
In addition, a letter from Neil Pederson of SHA thanked the agencies for
participating in the conference call and stated that the recommended preferred
Celebrating 25 Years of Environmental Progress
V A10-1
-------
alternative would be presented at the August interagency monthly meeting. The
COE and FWS agreed that the recommendations for alternatives should be
reviewed at the end of the comment period. SHA continued to describe SHA's
recommended preferred alternative at the interagency meeting despite
opposition.
Cathy Maher provided a slide presentation on SHA's preferred alternative. The
slides indicated that SHA will not select the No Build and TSM alternatives, 2S,
3N and 4N modified alternatives. The main reasoning behind eliminating the 2S
alternative included the inability of making a "u-turn" and the problem with
certain vehicles to compute the turn. The FWS stated that their pre-DEIS letter
recommended that the alternatives demonstrate use of jug handles and other
means to solve this type of issue. The use of "u-turns" as the main mechanism
to change direction will jeopardize safety and subsequent gains through road
•expansions and realignment. SHA challenged the agencies to provide designs
and alternative solutions. The FWS, COE and EPA believe that the
responsibility to provide engineering solutions to these safety issues lies with
SHA. The DEIS has not demonstrated that the safety issues were addressed
and should be addressed in the Final EIS.
Ms. Rajan discussed comments from the June 24th conference call. At this time,
questions were raised regarding the speed limit for trucks and the need for truck
weigh stations and increased enforcement. Ms. Rajan stated that SHA could not
find information regarding the effects of increased truck speeds and that there
were no public comments regarding the need for truck weigh stations along U.S.
113. The COE stated that there were a few people who spoke about the truck
traffic and the safety problems associated with it at the public hearing. EPA
stated that the fatality information found that 51 % of the fatal accidents were
truck related. The information regarding truck speed and risks associated with
"roving" weigh stations or ramp access to weigh stations is instrumental to the
improvements of safety on U.S. 113, regardless of which alternative is preferred.
Cynthia Simpson stated that currently SHA does is not have information on the
vicinity of the "roving" weigh stations, the frequency of these station or
enforcement procedures. These issues should be addressed in the Final EIS for
SHA to make a proper decision on alternatives.
SHA responded to the agencies concerns regarding secondary and cumulative
impacts by stating that SHA does not believe that secondary and cumulative
impacts need to be addressed because the main drive of this project is safety.
However, in a previous meeting on March 19,1997 (minutes dated March 25,
1997), the issues of indirect and cumulative impacts were discussed. It was
determined by SHA that because there was a strong case for both arguments: 1)
that 113 would be a catalyst for growth; or 2) that growth would occur regardless
of the infrastructure. Therefore, SHA stated that both would be presented in the
DEIS. SHA has not upheld this determination. Notwithstanding SHA's comment
V A10-2
-------
I
^
\-
I-
I-
I-
I-
I-
: ':•" - • - V. $?
to discontinue the indirect and cumulative impact study, the COE submitted
three documents pertaining to cumulative impact assessment for review and
consideration for the FEIS.
The COE stated that there were several comments from the public hearing,
including one from a state delegate and a C.RAS.H. representative, which
referred to the growth and the need for economic development in Worcester
County. The COE stated that this should be included in the secondary and
cumulative impact sections of the document. The EPA concurs and has stated
this in previous comment letters.
EPA would like responses to all unresolved issues that were discussed at the
interagency meeting. If you have any questions, please contact Danielle Algazi. She
can be reached by phone at (215) 566-2722, by facsimile at (215) 566-2782, or by E-
Majl at ALGAZI.DANIELLE@EPAMAILEPA.GOV.
Sincerely,
3hn Forren
NEPA Program Manager
cc: Michele Gomez, COE
David Sutherland, FWS
MaryHuie, FHA
John Nichols, NMFS
Elder Ghigiarelli, MDE
Larry Hughes, DNR
Phil Hager, Worcester County Planning
Ray Dintaman, DNR
Christine Wells, MOP
Al Kampmeyer, MDE Salisbury
V A10-3
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Response to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency letter dated July 28,1997
1. Agreed - As a result of the public hearing, approximately 2,030 letters were received. Of these, six
letters were in opposition to dualizing US 113. Please see the summary of Public Hearing comments for
more detailed information and Section V.F. of this Final BIS.
2. SHA's original schedule was to present the Preferred Alternatives in August, 1997. In order for SHA
to meet the project schedule, and due to the overwhelming support received at the Hearing and the letters
of support that were received following the Hearing, the project team identified the Preferred
Alternatives. SHA felt that presenting their preference to the agencies earlier would allow sufficient
time to obtain comments on the Preferred Alternatives from the agencies prior to the selection of an
alternative by the State Highway Administrator. It is true that SHA had not received comments from all
agencies prior to the July 16, 1997 meeting.
In order to address the agency comments and concerns, two additional meetings, one on August 20,1997
and another on September 10, 1997 were held. Agency comments were taken into consideration and
modifications were made to the Preferred Alternatives in order to minimize impacts.
3. SHA did look at jug handles as an alternative to U-turns. Jug handles require a signalized intersection
in order to operate and most intersections throughout the corridor are and will remain unsignalized.
The main reasoning behind eliminating the Alternative 2S-20 foot median was due to the inability to
make U-tums and concerns about operational effects. Alternative 2S provided for two lanes in each
direction with passing lanes. The alternative proposed a 20 foot wide median with a traffic barrier
separating the single northbound and southbound lanes. The cross-section with passing lanes would have
created some safety problems. Passing lanes may result in more high speed accidents as drivers are not
used to the transitions from a passing to a no passing section of roadway. Although this alternative did
address the fatal accidents, it did not provide for continuity through the corridor. This roadway would
therefore be atypical and not congruent with driver expectations.
Most fatal accidents (57.5 percent) haye resulted from Opposite Direction Collisions. To have an impact
on the number of fatal accidents and satisfy the purpose and need, the Preferred Alternatives should
reduce the incidence of opposite direction accidents. The provision of a median with traffic barriers
would nearly eliminate opposite direction collisions, thereby addressing a significant portion of the fatal
accidents.
The narrow median, however, could be expected to increase the number of fixed object collisions due
the proximity of the guardrail in the median. A reduced median provides less of a recovery area for
vehicles that leave the roadway. The overall accident rate is expected to improve in comparison to the
No-Build, but less than the degree of improvement anticipated for the dualization alternatives. The 20
foot median also provides for less room for storage of vehicles in the median. Left turning cars from all
four directions will conflict and compete for the same small median space. Most intersections in the
study area are unsignalized and adequate room for turning movements is desirable.
V A10-4
-------
US 113 Plannint
4. Several comments received from the public expressed concerns regarding increased truck traffic along
US 1 13 and a few suggested including a truck weigh station along this route could discourage trucks
using US 1 1 3 instead of US 1 3,
The possibility of a truck weigh station along US 1 13 has been further investigated and the results were
presented at the September 10, 1997 InterAgency meeting. SHA's Motor Carrier Division and the
Maryland State Pohce Commercial Vehicle Division were contacted regarding this matter Their
recommendation is to consider a truck pull-off area north of Snow Hill. This could be an exclusive pull-
off area or a wide shoulder. A permanent weigh station is not recommended due to cost and other
factors. ' •
Most of the fatal accidents involving trucks that occurred along US 1 13, were not found to be the fault
of the truck driver. As an additional safety measure, traveler education is recommended. As part of this
program, brochures or flyers regarding sharing the road with trucks can be distributed.,
5. A detailed cumulative effects analysis has been conducted for the US 1 13 Planning Study following the
guidelines in the Council on Environmental Quality's "Considering Cumulative Effects Under the
National Environmental Policy Act" (January, 1997). Both the scope and the methodologies for this
analysis were developed in close consultation with Federal and state resource agencies The scope
- methodologies, analysis and conclusion of this work is presented in the Final EIS, Section IV.Q. '
! " .•-*.'''. '-•••V: ' '"-
Two of the speakers at the public hearing for the US 1 1 3 Planning Study referred to the growth and the
need for economic development in Worcester County. The Worcester County Department of Economic
Development is committed to promoting the county and recognize that development will rely on the
preservation of the rural nature and natural resources present in the County. Most of the growth in the
County is occurring in the Ocean City and Ocean Pines area with Berlin and Newark being the other
growth center. Water treatment facilities are sited as a major limiting factor to development in much
of the county. However, County officials have also stated that the demand has not been present even at
locations with infrastructure in place.
6.
VA10-5
-------
parrisN. Giendening
Governor
MARYLAND Office of Planning
August 04, 1997
Mr. Neil J. Pedersen
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Maryland Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, MD 21202
State Clearinghouse Contact: La Verne Gray
Dear Mr. Pedersen:
please coniact the staff person noted above.
Thank you for your cooperation.
SHS:LG:okk
Enclosure
cc: The Honorable Craig Johnson. Mayor
Sincerely,
Ronald M. Kreitner
Director
-« **•*••'••
Scribner H. Sheafor .
Chief, Planning Assistance and Review unit
301 \Vat Preston Street • Baltimore. Maryland 2UOI-236S
Stew Cltartnshousc: (410) 767-4490 Fax: 767-4480
V All-1
-------
COMMENTS FROM THE MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
CONCERNING MD970605-0484
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Section 4(f) Evaluation for the US 113
Consistent with the following comments and response statements:
Any solid waste including construction, demolition and land clearing debris, generated
from the subject project, must be properly disposed of at a permitted solid wast©
acceptance facility or recycled if possible. Contact the Solid Waste Program at (410) 631 -
3318 for additional information.
The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) requests that efforts be made to
prevent contamination of the surface and groundwater of the State of Maryland during the
construction and renovation at the US 113 project. In the event that spills or other
releases of petroleum or hazardous materials occurs from the proposed operations which
may potentially impact State waters, MDE requests prompt notification at (410) 974-3551.
Section II, Affected Environment, Part M. Municipal, Industrial and Residual Waste Sites
addresses initial site assessment and field potential waste sites. The section mentions
that a review of MDE's Hazardous Waste Management Section files were reviewed in this
study. It is recommended that a more comprehensive file review be conducted to locate
potential waste sites to include reviewing all Waste Management Administration files, i.e.,
Oil Control Program, Solid Waste Program, CERCLA files. Please contact our Freedom
of Information Act Coordination Donald Mauldin at (410) 631-3422 to request a file review.
This project has undergone an air quality analyses completed for 1-hour and 8-hour CO
concentrations for the year 2000 and 2020 under the build and no-build alternatives. The
S/NAAQS for CO is 35.0 ppm for the A.M. or P.M. peak hour, and the 8-hour average is
9.0 ppm. According to the analysis, sixty-five receptor sites were monitored. The results
of the modeling indicate that no violations of either standard would occur. The modeling
outputs appear satisfactory. Therefore, alternative 3 (N&S) and alternative 4N are
acceptable build alternatives according to the results of the carbon monoxide analysis.
However, alternative 3 (N&S) appears to be a more appropriate option from an
environmental perspective. A dualization of the existing roadway should not have as
critical an impact as constructing a 4-lane divided highway on a new alignment.
V All-2
-------
US 123 Planning Study
Response to MDE (Maryland Office of Planning Clearinghouse) letter dated August 4,1997
1. A statement to this effect has been added in Section IV.N of the Final EIS.
2. As stated in Section IV.F of the Final EIS, because of the low Average Daily Traffic (ADT) projected
for this roadway, the project is expected to have minimal adverse impacts to surface and groundwater
quality. In the event of accidental spills, MDE will be notified per SHAs standard procedures.
3. The Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment Report, December, 1995, prepared by Gannett Fleming for
Maryland State Highway Administration presents the results of the MDE, Waste Management
Administration Information request. This documentation is contained within Appendix F of that report.
MDE coordination was performed through Donald Mauldin, MDE Public Information Act Coordinator.
If desired, Gannett Fleming can offer further explanation of why an inventory of all registered waste,
and/or storage, locations is needed for a study of this nature.
4. Alternative 3S-34' Median was chosen as the Southern Preferred Alternative. Alternative 3N/4N
Modified was chosen over the dualization of the existing roadway in the northern study area for a
number of reasons that involved environmental values: it would cause fewer impacts to historic
resources, fewer residential and business relocations, and less impact to 100-year floodplains.
VA11-3
-------
IN REPLY REFER TO:
fc* "» "* •
United States Department of the Intend) ~.v I ..
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
P.O. Box 37127
Washington, D.C 20013-7127
*-' •.''"•* y "**••
"•'/• i'/
AU6 11 1997
ER-97/308
Ms. Susan J. Binder •
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Authority
The Rotunda
711 West 40th Street, Suite 220
Baltimore, Maryland 21211
Dear Ms. Binder:
the DePartment of the
*~ ^ %S?
the ^laware State Line, Worceste^Coun?^
Section 4 (f ) Evaluation Comments
"££-3 r
f0^ we recommend continued cooperation and
Environmental Statement Comments
V A12-1
-------
Summary Comments
The Department of the Interior has ho objection to Section 4(f)
approval of this project by the Department of Transportation,
providing that the mitigation measures to minimize harm to the
three historic properties are adequately documented in the Final
Section 4(f) Evaluation.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely,
Willie R. Taylor
Director, Office
Policy and Compliance
cc: Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning
and Preliminary Engineering
State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street, Mailstop d-301
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
V A12-2
-------
US 113 Planninr Stud'
Response to United Sta.es Department of ^ ^^ ^
(including the Northern Preferred afl«) nZl T *" "" dualizatio» alternatives
SUbSe,»en, „ ctateto of .he oJlSSS ^ESoll^'T' °n f ' Mmi"'S Church-
met »ith representatives of St. Martin's Church a,d SmrT? i SHA.™d «»«*«nt representatives
of adverse imacts. " sumrch and MHT to develop mitigation for this deter
VA12-3
-------
Mary land Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
Parris N. Glendening
Governor
David L. Winstead
Secretary
Parker R Williams
Administrator
September 4,1997
RE: Project No. WO720B11
US 113
Delaware State Line to
MD 394 South of Snow Hill
Worcester County
Mr. John Forren
NEPA Compliance Section
Environmental Protection Agency
Region HI
841 Chestnut Street, 3ES43
Philadelphia PA 19107
Attention: Mr. Paul Wentworth
Dear Mr. Forren:
We have reviewed the comments on the subject Air Quality Analysis that are
contained in the letter from Ms. Danielle Algazi dated, April 25,1997. Based on
discussions with Federal Highway Administration, the Maryland Department of the
Environment and the Maryland State Highway Administration, we offer the following
responses:
+ Comment: While it is stated that the conformity requirements of 23 CFR
770 do not apply to this project, the requirements of the Transportation
Conformity Rule apply and should be so stated (page 2).
Response: The US 113 project is within an Air Quality Attainment Area
for CO and Ozone and with the exception of construction procedures
requirements, the conformity requirements of 23 CFR 770 do not apply.
However, the Transportation Conformity Rule does apply and will be
stated as such in subsequent air quality analyses.
+ Comment: Receptors should be cited (sic) according to EPA document:
Guideline For Modeling Carbon Monoxide From Intersections (PA 454/
92-005).
Response: Receptors were sited based on SHA Specifications for
Consulting Engineers, which requires 4 to 5 receptors per mile and at all
primary intersections or interchanges, rather the three worst intersections
suggested by the EPA guidance. The receptors were placed at locations
My telephone number is
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
V A13-1
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
Mr. John Forren
US 113: Delaware State Line to Snow Hill
September 4,1997
Page Two
to provide worst case pollutant concentrations and are in conformance
with FHWA guidance.
Comment: Areas where receptors should be expected, were not found.
This included intersection areas where there is only one receptor located
when there should be a receptor for each approach, on each side of the
road where queues will form.
Response; All intersections w©re analyzed. See above response.
Comm@nt: The analysis uses 24 deg C and 35 deg Cas input for
analysis. The correct temperature should correspond to each of the ten
highest non-overlapping 8 hour CO, monitoring values for the last 3 years.
This can b© obtained from the Aemmetric Information Retrieval Service
(AIRS).
Response: Th© actual temperatures used in th© analysis were 20° F for
the one hour analysis and 35° F for th® 3 hour analysis, per SHA
specifications. The EPA guidance permits using the average temperature
in January "as a simple alternative" to the method described above. The
average temperature for January in this area is 32° F, which would result in
lower pollutant concentrations than th© as-analyzed 20° F worst case on©
hour condition.
Comment: Th@ analysis shows a 1 m/s second and a 2 m/s wind speed
were used. A worst case wind speed of 1 m/s should b@ used for all
analyses.
Response: The SHA specifications require a 1 m/s (meter/second) wind
speed and stability class F for the one hour analysis and for the portion of
the 8 hour analysis after 5 p.m. A 2 m/s wind and stability class 0 is used
for the portion of the 8 hour analysis prior to 5 p.m. This methodology is in
conformance with FHWA guidance and results in worst case pollutant
concentrations.
Comment: Stability classes F and D were used in the analysis. The
Guidance recommends a stability class ofD only in urban settings.
Response: See above response. In addition, this project is in an rural
area.
V A13-2
-------
Mr. John Forren
US 113: Delaware State Line to Snow Hill
September 4, 1997
Page Three
In summary, the report for the US 113 project presents a detailed
comprehensive, worst case analysis that is in conformance with both FHWA and SHA
guidance for NEPA projects and the preparation of another analysis is not warranted.
We will continue to use the modeling methodology for CO as contained in the SHA
Specifications and the FHWA discussion paper "Air Quality Analysis for NEPA
Documents, August 1993", for predicting CO concentrations for NEPA documentation
and will use the EPA "Guidance for Modeling Carbon Monoxide From Roadway
Intersections" on projects that require a conformity analysis. .
If you have any questions, please feel free to call Mr. Bruce M. Grey, Assistant
Division Chief, SHA Project Planning Division at (410) 545-8540.
Very truly yours,
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
by:
Bruce M. Grey
Assistant Divisior/Chief
Project Planning
LHBGRG
cc: Ms. Danielle Algazi, EPA NEPA Project Coordinator
Ms. Diane Franks, Air Radiation Management Administration MDE
• Mr. Gary Green
Ms. Mary Huie
Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Ms. Sue Rajan
Ms. Lorraine Straw
V A13-3
-------
MARYLAND
HISTORICAL
Ptrrfs M. Giendehing, Governor
Patrtela J. Payne, Seeretaiy
TRUST
Office of Preservation Services
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
Deputy Division Chief
Project Planning Division
State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
RE: Project No. W0720B 11
US 1 13: MD 394 to the Delaware State Line
WorcesterCounty, Maryland
October 31,1997
. «**«,,* «*«u :—-~~°»-wuvuHg msronc SEracteres and archeoloeical sites or
i^=^tr±SS±?^sSSL * *-« •- SL*£*
1
V A14-1
-------
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
. October 31,1997
Page 2
The Criteria of Effect and Adverse Effect, as defined by 36CFR800.9, include more than just
the physical taking or destruction of National Register eligible historic properties as an
effect. The chart illustrating the Comparison of DEIS Alternatives included at ihe end of ihe
Concurrence Package does not accurately reflect the alternates' effects on historic properties.
It is misleading for the chart to list the impacts to historic properties as none, particularly
. when the selected alternate will have adverse effects.
3. The Conceptual Wetlands Minimization Studies section explains the present selected
alignment of US 113 at St Martin's Church as being due to "the Maryland Historical Trust
[determining] that the effect to St. Martin's Church from any dualization alternative is
adverse regardless of how close the roadway is to the church property," which thus allowed a
"considerable reduction of wetland impacts" (Concurrence Package, page 11). The Trust has
consistently argued that any road alignment would have an adverse visual effect on the
Church, because of the drastic change hi the historic setting, which is one of the
characteristics which qualifies the church for eligibility in the National Register. The
dualization of the highway in this locale will also increase traffic loads, noise, and vibrations.
The environmental documentation has said little with regard to the physical effect to the
church's structure as a result of increased traffic and what measures SHA has explored to
minimize these impacts. Does SHA have any information relative to truck weight, speed and
noise on adjacent structures given the proximity of the proposed highway? Please provide us
with any available reports on these cumulative effects. Does SHA intend to maintain the
signal light at the comer of US 113 and Racetrack Road? The Trust believes that such
continued traffic controls, along with lower traffic speeds, would be beneficial to St Martin's
structure. Would SHA be willing to maintain lofter speeds in an effort to reduce the physical
strain^ on the church?
4. Regarding the proposed wetlands mitigation, the Concurrence Package should note mat
Section 106 coordination must be completed to address the potential effects of proposed
wetlands mitigation on historic and archeological properties.
5. Although the Concurrence Package's title refers to mitigation, no discussion of mitigation tor
cultural resources is included. Because of the Selected Alternative's adverse effects, a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) must be negotiated and executed between SHA, FHWA,
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Trust, and any interested parties. The
MOA will include stipulations to mitigate the project's adverse effects on St. Martin's
Church and procedures for the evaluation and treatment of affected archeological properties.
Development of the MOA should include active participation from the Trust and St Martin's
Historical Foundation (SMHF). In addition to the possible traffic control mitigation
measures mentioned in hem 3 above, both SMHF and the Trust hope that the Perdue land
adjacent to the church's southern property line can be acquired for parking. If that is
possible, the Trust and St Martin's would look to SHA to assist with the creation of this area
as a significant mitigation measure. The MOA negotiation process will likely lead to the
consideration of additional mitigation measures for the project The Concurrence Package
should discuss mitigation measures for cultural resources, and the FEIS should include a
copy of the draft MOA.
5) _
V A14-2
-------
L
L
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
October 3 1,1997
Page 3
6.
As was discussed in the October 24 1907
• your office and Anne Biuder of the
Tuesday, November 4, 1997 to
Cation to St. Martin's Church,
easement. We understand
' will meet to discuss the san.e
Committee and St. Martin's hope
proposed mitigation by the end
bcSWai Lonaine S*™ *
Conuni^e will meet on
mitigati011 measurcs
PMpetUaI ^^ri
^S f SMHF' *" ^
Both
to
Is i
in the secal
Sincerely,
. Rodney little
T
cc:
JRL/EJC/AEB
Mr. Bruce Grey (SHA)
Dr. Charles Hall (SHA
Ms. Rita Sufiness (SHA)
Ms. Susan Rajan/Ms^orrais
Ms.ReneeSigel(FHWA)
Mr.DonKlima(ACHP)
SHA Interagency Review Group
Mrs. Howaid F. Verges
Mrs. Ricks Savage
ion Officer
V A14-3
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Response to Maryland Historical Trust letter dated October 31,1997
1. The requested information concerning historic structures, archeological sites, and Section 106
coordination has been included in this preliminary Final EIS. This document represents the revised
Concurrence Package.
2. Information on effects has been added to the Summary Chapter of the Final EIS, the Summary of
Environmental Impacts and Table S-l of the Final EIS.
3. Traffic volumes on US 113 are expected to increase over time regardless of the number of lanes
provided. A two-lane highway would still operate below the roadway's capacity until the year 2020.
The dualization is therefore not a capacity improvement and the intention of the widening is not to add
capacity. The primary function of the Preferred Alternatives will be to address the safety issues and
the number of fatalities along the roadway. The roadway widening will occur on the east side of the
roadway, away from the church. Therefore, approximately only half of the projected ADT will be use
the existing paved section of roadway as this portion of the proposed cross-section will be used for the
southbound lanes. The additional northbound traffic will actually be moved further from the church.
Hence, since the road will not be moved any closer to the church and the projected ADT is the same for
both the build and no-build, there will be no net increase in traffic loads, noise, and vibrations as a result
of these improvements.
The signal at Racetrack Road will be maintained, thus providing for a somewhat slower pace for vehicles
immediately in front of the St. Martin's Church. However, SHA cannot agree to maintain slower speeds
through the area as this may be incongruent with speeds throughout the rest of the corridor.
4. Regarding the proposed wetland mitigation, we are aware that Section 106 coordination must be
completed to address the potential effects of proposed wetland mitigation on historic and archeological
properties.
5. Mitigation will be discussed for all impacts in the Final EIS. The draft MOA will be appended.
6. The results of these meetings will be discussed with MHT as SHA is made aware of them.
7. There will be a minimal decrease in the net adverse effect to the St. Martin's Church property due to
noise, vibration, and traffic loads as a result of the Northern Preferred Alternative. However, SHA
will continue to explore feasible and creative measures to minimize and mitigate adverse effects to the
St. Martin's Church.
VA14-4
-------
MARYLAND
HISTORICAL
Parria N. Qlendening, Governor
; '.' Patricia «f. Payne, Secretary
TRUST
November 7,1997
Office o/ Preservation S*rvicts
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson, Deputy Division Chief
Project Planning Division '
State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
RE: Project NO. WO720B 11
US 113 Planning Study
Issues for Cumulative Effects Analysis
Dear Ms. Simpson:
Thank you for your recent letter, dated 25 September 1997 and received by the Trust on 29
September 1997, regarding SHA's proposed Cumulative Effects Analysis forme above-referenced
project. Unfortunately, the Trust was act able to participate ia the September 10, 1997 Intcragcncy
Meeting where this issue was discussed. Thus, we do not understand the rationale for SHA's selection
of some, but not all, of the resources included in the Affected Environment section of the DEIS for the
cumulative effects analysis. According to SHA's letter, cultural tesourecs will no! be addressed in the
cumulative analysis.
We have reviewed SHA's strategy for not addressing cultural resources in the cumulative effects
analysis. SHA's premise is that impacts to cultural counts have, and may continue to occur and that
protection of cultural resources would be accomplished through the Worcester County land use planning
process. SHA's opening paragraph does not include cultural resources as one of the sensitive areas of
concern .deotificd by the County. The protection of cultural resources at the county level is limited and
does not include consideration of impacts to archeological sites. We acknowledge that assessing
cumulative effects for cultural resources is difficult, given the lack of a comprehensive data base
However, SHA should consider cumulative effects on cultural resources as for other affected resource
types. The methods and level of the assessment for cultural resources may differ from that for other
resources given the availability of reliable information and the ability to reasonably assess cumulative
effects on historic properties.
For the US 1 13 project, we suggest that SHA consider including cultural resources in its
cumulative effects assessment in a general sense and confining the geographic coverage for that
assessment to the northeastern portion of the county - to encompass the project area and near vicinity
bHA may want to use a qualitative rather than a quantitative approach to assessing cumulative effects
Factors to consider include threats and stresses to cultural resources; land use patterns and changes
existing protection measures for cultural resources at the federal, state, and local level- and the '
reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts ftom the US 1 13 project on cultural resources, fa addition,
Division of Historical and Cultural Program? '
100 Community Place • Crownsville. Maryland 21032 • (410) 31
_
77,, Maryland Department of Housing, antt GcwwmVy Development ff>HCD) pledges «, foaer
the lener and VinV tf rt, ^for tchievtog equal homing opportwtoy fa
V A15-1
-------
11/13/1397 17:16 413-333-1105
Ms, Cynthia D. Simpson
November?, 1997
Page 2
vitato ofthe new road inftontofto property.
opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Adrninistrator, Aieheologicad Services
EJC/AEB
oc- Mr. Bruce Grey (SHA)
Dr. Charles Hall (SHA)
Ms.RcneeSigel(FHWA)
SHA IAR Group
Mrs. Howard F. Verges
Mrs. Ricks Savage
V A15-2
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Response to Maryland Historical Trust letter dated November 7,1997
1. SHA's rationale for the selection of items to be addressed in the Cumulative Effects analysis is further
addressed in Section IV.Q. of this Final EIS.
2. Section IV.Q has been revised to better address Cultural Resources in the Cumulative Effects Analysis.
V A15-3
-------
MOV 12 '97 03:03PM C£NftB-OP-R
DEPARTMENT PF THE ARMY
BALTIMORE W8TIWCT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1715
BALTIMORE, MD 21203-1715
REPtYTO
ATTENTION Of
'operations Division
Lbjeet: CENAB-OP-RX
-------
f
additional safety measures must be employed a long'-" With. : '
dualizing the remainder of the US 113 to properly address
safety along this highway. Such practices as placement of a
guard rail or some other form of barrier within the median
(regardless of the width of the median), safer
intersections/ overpasses where new highway intersects with
county roads/ eliminating access points to the highway/
etc./ should be cpnsidered to make the road safer for all
types of traffic. These safety issues/ i.e./ weigh
stations, guard rails/ rumble strips, access points, etc.,
will need to be addressed in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS).
The statement on page 11-15 regarding Alternate 2S-20 foot
median is misleading as it says that this alternate does not
"fully address capacity /operational problems.'1' According
to the purpose and need statement for the US 113 study :
indicates that there is not a capacity problem in the
southern area (south of Berlin). In addition, this
alternate could accommodate larger medians where
intersections with county roads occur to provide safer
crossings of the highway while utilizing a 20 foot median in
areas where aquatic resources are located. Therefore, the
statement should be deleted.
In the Affected Environment section of the document/ the
discussion on the Ocean Pines community should include the
date the comnunity was established/ its current size, and
any future plans for expansion. Th© discussion on Ocean
City needs to include projections for buildout and the
current size of the city (population range from non-summer
months to summer months). Also/ the discussion on the Wild
and Scenic Rivers in the area needs to be expanded. The
Pocomoke River is on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory. The
OS 113 project requires coordination with the National Park;
Service, Department of the Interior to avoid or mitigate
adverse effects on Wild and Scenic attributes of the river.
Current studies being done at the Pocomoke River/ including
the Pfeiateria problems/ need to be discussed in both the
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
sections. Other issues which need to be addressed in both
the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
sections are the discussion of past US 113 Impacts,
including the existing dualized road impacts as well as the1
two lane roadway, and impacts which occurred due to the •
construction of the uncompleted interchange with MD 90 need
to be included. The ongoing Ocean City Water Resources
Study by Planning Division of the Corps/ Baltimore District
which should also be discussed in both of these sections.
In the Environmental Consequences section the following
items need tc be addressed:'
2
V A16-2
-------
NOV
a. Discussion on how each alternate addresses safety
concerns, i.e., side impacts, angle accidents, head on
collisions, fixed object accidents, etc.
b. Indirect Impacts, how the land planning and the level of
service will be changed by dualization of the road, will
need to be addressed.
c Cumulative impacts discussion should include the Delaware
portions of US 113 and Virginia's dualization of the
Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel.
d. The discussion on Groundwater Resources states thaw there
are no substantial impacts to groundwater from the
construction alternates. There needs to be some
discussion on how it was! determined that this resource ^
will not be impacted. The discussion should also incluae
consideration of any borrow areas or stormwater
management facilities which may be planned for the road
construction. The document will need to address how
these potential activities may affect the groundwater,
i.e., potential for groundwater contamination, affect on
baseflow of adjacent streams fed by groundwater.
e. Surface waters must be addressed in the cumulative
effects discussion. Possible minimization of impacts to
this resource may occur through a variety of best
management practices, including but not limited to,
sediment control measures, water quality management.
Pollutants from impervious road surfaces will be a
chronic stress on water quality in the area unless
properly managed in water quality management facilities
located outside of the waterways and wetlands.
Previously stormwater quality had not been properly
addressed in the construction of US 113. The placement
of stormwater management .'facilities may also alter base
flow within adjacent streams. In addition, bridging of
new wetlands/waters crossings will minimize impacts to
surface waters. Time of year restrictions will pertain
to the wetlands as well as the waterway for those systems
which are broad floodplain wetlands. Discussion of the
ongoing problems/studies in the Pocomoke River also needs
to be included. As the current hypothesis on Pfeistena
is that it is caused by pollutants.entering the
headwaters, in the area, loss of natural steams and
adjacent wetlands may exacerbate the problem.
f In accordance with Executive Order 11988, any potential
impact to floodplain needs to be documented and assessed.
If the floodplain cannot be avoided then the minimum
requirements" of the National Flood Insurance Program must
be met. • . •
g Wetlands and potential impacts to this resource needs to
be assessed cumulatively,. Any activity which has the
potential to alter these 'systems must be addressed, .
including stormwater management facilities, borrow areas,
etc. Impacts to the wetlands will require mitigation.in
accordance with the Maryland Compensatory Mitigation .
Guidance dated August 1994. All proposed mitigation
V A16-3
-------
sites will require documentation to certify that the
SSTSJ SlLtiaoSnPrOVl^d right °f *% %* Xfofthe
Drotec? tnl if 5 2 n PufP°se3, a conservation easement to
SlS Se SarvSL f£?VU?th? r disturbance, coordination
weiA aa-ca to determine if hydrology is feaaiht^ a£ +•>,*
site, any W.tl,nd. of Sp.ct.l St«e Conc«n Uoat.d in
of "» "»»" 2 HentilSd? S
th«he« M « S°tp' •"" SH*' u v" indicated
tho.. infll»ff? if p^an? """""ities in addition to
Se follSf in *"• -?EIS- SH* Mi" n«d » verify if
su»ort rare plant connunitie.: bald
ant Khioh « have fish
and what can be done to resolve the problem.
The cumulative effects discussions should
MfeCt
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Response to Corps of Engineers letter dated November 12,1997
1 Addressing comments from the citizens and the agencies regarding truck mrffic and the need for a weigh
station along US 113, the possibility of a weigh station was investigated.
Trucks are approximately 14% of the average daily traffic along the study sections of US 113. From
1980 through 1996, trucks were involved in 9% of the total accidents in the south and 8% of the total
aSdeSthe northern section. Since 1980,42 fatal accidents occurred along the study sections of US
113 Tmcks were involved in 16 of these 42 fatal accidents (39 percent. Truck drivers were a
fault in 4 of the42 fatal accidents (9.5 percent). Fifteen (15) of these fatal accidents were alcohol
related (32 percent).
Currently there is a permanent weigh station in Salisbury along US 13. On US 113 the police
^forcement units are portable scales on the shoulder and pull trucks over for weighing and safety
"speS. sSS Motor Carrier Division and the Maryland State Police Comrnerc al Vehicles Division
were contacted regarding this issue. Their recommendation is to consider a pull-off area north of Snow
Sul for to purpose. This could be an exclusive pull-off area or a wider shoulder. A permanent weigh
station is not recommended due to cost.
Most of the fatal accidents that involved trucks, were not the fault of the truck driven As an additional
safety meLre, traveler education was recommended. As part of this program, brochures or flyers
regarding sharing the road with trucks can be distributed.
The majority of trucks along US 113 are associated with the local poultry industries.
2 As discussed in Section IV.A of this document, a considerable body of literature exists to support the
^^0 duauS a two lane highway in terms of accident reduction^ In every case ^ese supporUng
dam are based on smdies of two-lane 2-way highways being dualized to four-lane divideI highways
Previous case studies of improvements similar to that proposed for Alternative 2S-20 median are not
available hence making precise determinations of accident reduction somewhat specula we.
^±more whUe the terms "moderate improvement" and "substantial ^^f.^^^
Table S-l and W-l present best estimates for accident reductions associates with each of the alternatives
under consideration as well as for the Preferred Alternatives.
While wider medians could be provided at intersections along Alternative 2S-20' median to allow safer
Iss o™ rs the other safety and operational problems addressed in response 11 above preclude its
Son as'a feasible alternative for US 113. Therefore, details of wider medians at intersections along
Alternative 2S-20' median were not developed.
Placement of the passing lanes for Alternative 2S-20' median was accomplished with the goal of
providing passing lanes (1 mile in length) approximately every 4 to 5 miks within the 16milesegment
Ke Southemltudy area. In addition, these passing lanes were placed between intersections that were
aUeast a mile and a half apart and in areas to avoid/minimize residential/business impact and wetland
impacts.
V A16-5
-------
US 113 Planning Study
3. Ocean Pines, located east of study area, is a high density residential development. This private
community, located along the central coastal bay area of the county, was opened in 1968. Current
population at this development fluctuates between 8,200 residents during the winter months and 14,000
residents during the summer months. The community expects this population to increase to its capacity
of 14,000 residents during the winter months and 20,000 to 22,000 residents during the summer months
by the year 2008 (Gross, 1997).
4. Discussions with the Ocean City Department of Planning and Community Development clarified the
following information. The Final EIS, Section m.A.c. has been updated to include this information.
The Ocean City population of full time residents was 5,146 for the year 2020. The full time resident
population is expected to increase by 46% by the design year 2020 to 7,552 residents. Build out
population projections for Ocean City are discussed as resident and visitor populations combined. The
resident and visitor population projection for 2020, that this the peak population (summer) is estimated
at 346,900. This population has been fairly stable since 1985 and is the population number that the city
uses for planning purposes. The city has estimated build out of housing units, which includes owner
occupied units, rental units, and hotel units (rooms), to be 48,800 units. In 1988 there were 38,924 units
in Ocean City. The population information presented in the Draft EIS, Table 1H-2 describes average
seasonal populations. These numbers however represent resident and visitor populations combined.
5. The National Rivers Inventory has been addressed in Sections DIP and IV.G of the Final EIS.
6. Pfeisteria and other on-going water quality problems in the Pocomoke and coastal bays watersheds are
discussed in the cumulative effects analysis (Section IV.Q of the Final EIS).
7. The data regarding historic wetland losses contained in the cumulative impact assessment includes losses
caused by highway construction and therefore these previous impacts are not addressed separately.
8. The Ocean City Water Resources Study has been cited as a federal project occurring in Worcester
County in the Cumulative Effects analysis (Section IV.Q of the Final EIS).
9. Section IV.A.5. of the Draft EIS Section 4(f) Evaluation (pages IV-3 through IV-6) addressed the safety
consequences of each of the alternatives under consideration, including an approximation of the effect
on several specific types of intersections. Detailed forecasts of changes in accident experience by type
of accident are beyond the scope of this study.
10. The Worcester County Planning Commission recently adopted a Supplement to the County's 1989
Comprehensive Development Plan (1997). The Supplement strengthen^ the County's commitment to
preservation of the rural nature and natural resources of Worcester County. In addition, the Supplement
identifies the County's commitment to programs like Rural Legacy, outgrowths of Maryland's Resource
Protection and Planning Act and the Smart Growth Act of 1997. Land planning in Worcester County
will be guided by these documents, rather than by the configuration or alignment of US 113. Land
adjacent to the Preferred Alternatives for US 113 will be effected by SHA's access management plan
for this corridor. The US 113 corridor was added to SHA's Access Management Program in 1997.
Corridors in this program are eligible to use funds programmed in the Consolidated Transportation
Program for the purchase of access controls along agricultural frontage and in some instances to purchase
residential and commercial property. In the near term, a cross functional team will meet every few weeks
to review all access permit requests in the corridor to make recommendations on limiting the number of
VA16-6
-------
US 113 Planning Study
access points and in some situations to recommend denial of access. The goal of these initiatives is to
balance access to adjoining land with the need to preserve the flow of traffic and to improve safejy and
capacity of the highway system.
Through enforcement of the county's zoning ordinance and subdivision controls at the local level, use
of the guidelines established in the County Comprehensive Development Plan, and implementation of
SHA's Access Management Program; county land use objectives can be achieved, economic and
population growth can be accommodated and unplanned development can be avoided.
Traffic volumes for the design year 2020 are forecast to increase slightly (less than 1 percent) over the
No-Build, primarily because the land use and new development are assumed to be essentially unchanged
between the Build and No-Build. LOS, however, would greatly improve given the increased operational
flexibility and capacity of the roadway under the dualization alternatives. Traffic congestion has not
been a limiting factor for development in Worcester County. The increased capacity inherent in a
dualized facility will not create a demand for developable land.
11. The scope, including the geographic boundary, for the cumulative effects analysis of US 113 were
developed in close consultation with Federal and state resource agencies. Cumulative effects regarding
land use have been studied on a county-wide basis. The cumulative effects analysis for wetlands focuses
on upper and lower Pocomoke, Newport Bay, and Isle of Wight Bay sub watersheds for potential future
impacts while considering wetland impacts throughout the Worcester County for past impacts. The
cumulative effects regarding floodplains and other waters of the U.S. was considered for the whole
County.
The expansion of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel would have only a minor effect on traffic volumes
and were taken into account by the State Highway Administration when they made their traffic forecasts.
12. The dualization will have an impact on both groundwater quality and quantity, however, this impact is'
expected to be negligible as discussed in Section IV.F of the Final EIS. The purpose of stormwater
management is to reduce the impact on groundwater levels and stream baseflow and attempt to
approximate pre-construction conditions. By managing stormwater runoff, peak discharges are reduced,
groundwater infiltration is encouraged, and the quality of the runoff is improved.
13. All of the resources presented in Chapter ffl, Affected Environment have been reviewed for inclusion
in the cumulative effects analysis. The findings of this review are included in the Final EIS, Section
14. The minimization of adverse impacts through the strict adherence to erosion and sediment control
procedures has been addressed in Sections IV.E, F, G, and I of the Final EIS.
15. As stated in Section IV.G of the Final EIS, because of the low Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expected
on US 113, impacts to surface water quality are expected to be minimal. The implementation of
stormwater management strategies will help improve water quality.
, As cited in Section IV.G of the Final EIS, numerous studies have shown a direct correlation between the
ADT on a road and the toxic effects of the runoff.
VA16-7
-------
US 113 Planning Study
16. Stormwater management facilities have the potential to alter base flow within streams particularly if
stormdrains divert water from natural discharge areas. Stormwater management facilities for this project
are not expected to affect stream baseflow for the following reasons: 1) runoff from the road will be
normally conveyed to SWM facilities by open, grassed swales, which will allow for infiltration of runoff
and recharge of groundwater^ 2) SWM facilities will be sited to collect runoff within natural drainage
areas and will outfall to natural discharge streams, and 3) the purpose of SWM facilities is to reduce the
impact on baseflow by reducing peak runoff and encouraging infiltration. As stated in Section IV.I of
the Final EIS, final design of Stormwater management facilities will be planned to minimize hydrological
alterations to receiving streams.
17. See response #4 to United States Department of the Interior letter dated June 20,1997 (letter V A3).
18. Construction activity in wetlands and waterways will adhere to the time of year restrictions specified as
part of the Section 404 permit and Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Specific time of year
restrictions will be developed by the Corps and MDE during the permitting process, in consultation with
the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Maryland Department of
Natural Resources.
19. Pfeisteria and other on-going water quality problems in the Pocomoke and coastal bays watersheds are
discussed in the cumulative effects analysis (Section IV.Q of the Final EIS).
20. See Response to Letter VA 1, Comments 1, 2, and 3, and Letter VA 5(1), Comment 48.
21. Cumulative effects regarding wetlands are addressed in the Final EIS, Section IV.Q.
22. The effects of Stormwater management facilities has been addressed in Section IV.I of the Final EIS.
23. See also Response to Letter VA 5(1), Comment 42
A discussion of wetland mitigation requirements and guidance is contained in Section IV.I of the Final
EIS.
24. As stated in Sections ffl.H and IV.I, wetland W-15 is a wetland of "special state concern" because it
contains the rare (not listed) seaside alder (Alnus maritima).
25. The concerns identified in these letters have been noted. The bald cypress grove on Church Branch and
the sea level fens will not be impacted by the US 113 project. The rare plants identified are not listed
by Maryland's Heritage and Biodiversity Conservation Program. Through the implementation of
proposed minimization strategies, the proposed impacts to wetlands W-8, W-12, and W-13 were reduced
from 6.3 acres shown in the Draft EIS to 1.84 acres shown in the Final EIS for the Preferred
Alternatives.
V A16-8
-------
US 113 Planning Study
26. On-going coordination with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries and Tidewater
Administrations as well as National Marine Fisheries Service has not revealed any problems with fish
blockages on the streams in the vicinity of US 113. Available evidence suggests that all of these major
streams may be used by anadromous fish further indicating the lack of fish blockages. It' new fish
blockage problems are identified during the design and construction of the roadway, the removal of these
blockages can be considered to mitigate any adverse impacts caused by the proposed project.
27. All of the resources presented in Chapter in, Affected Environment have been reviewed for inclusion
in the cumulative effects analysis. The findings of this review are included in the Final EIS, Section
VA16-9
-------
B. Agency Letters Concurring on SHA's Preferred Alternatives
US 113 Planning Study
Chapter V
-------
iliSfJ ? ^lilitlM^^^ Pf&iJ''":K ?•• -<**
II II II II III 11 I II III! Ill |l III Illllll I II I I II I I I I I I III 111 II 111 111 I I II I II II 11 I III
111 1(111 111 I II I III IIIllllll I I II Illllll I III I I I Illllllllllllllll II 111 II I Illllll I I Illllll
SS*B4iw
1 iii!!i,:,,,p «,njjj|j|H ': 9iiiiiiii|i||i||i inuii "i ' *.:,,:;';,;"'k '^'w^'itli11' 'I!1'!1!1""!;1 »• >' '!
I it M1: MI! !; bjii!!!' Jill"! 'i' i!'!;*!1! jiffi! ' iiUiil'i ' "nil, i.,.*.!'1! • ,i"!' ", '^l'" g'L ! / V1!!!!1"1',' "'™'!i!»"i!,|l!i ijjj1", ", "' ill"'"*1 'I1 '>¥^ i1"1 !,"|M „' ||;| ,:: : i!,,:/1",,,11. i "i1 ALiJ1!!™1* |!l111 ''aiSSJIE •"• : i'l1 ','"1 : '• ' I
iiiii\j/iiilj!'',1!r:,,1'!ii '• 'wii«: H ,j, , i1';!' |'
iiliiiiii Hi 41" I1!1'1' R!!"! Sill''! a,,*1 'ilillll' ¥"iiiiB,! Till11- iJii •'.! I1 HP!1" "HP!1 " "!i^l?i'i- ':• jlwi'^Lit'.'^ •$ '";. rfiir>*^> V;v.. • S^ t , 'i""1''.'"" • „ ^ • ': , •i" ''* n i
ikwii jt/s^^^^^^^ ^'"II:T • ;:(•* w^wB' \.!t:-*im'kii!i?r'^ t'^'\\.. ;;:";. -i,- . , ~
f>:'§,/:•* :,,:;!, :i i;, ,""'"! '^ H ill
111' , ", ' , 1'i"|il i|||hi "", I 1 i i, ,'|ll. i
ll I it.111 ilHlllliiilii '« . linn ft II] i lin iillinJIIIIH1 „„." II "A,,: Iliiiil|ll||i iJi, ;'] 'in i, iJII'iii' ini1 . ^''''luRE'ilU.'..!;!'"':!! iii|i'i, jilil" inn'ThW i1""":1",!1 ' !'i,, \,r\ r1' ,,, ,,' iniEit",'i~ • "vvlr":" ' '.:>\\ V ', ,,''!•' \. < ,
, SI*1? .»!|| ' (('"Kithl' j.W>'L'L •* .illtiP ' ., ('i f 'M'l,!!!;,;*'1111,.: llr. I in':"'r V j'l.v 'Jif ':'H1. ..'I"1},;; K"\ "?r JW'li ';: 'WVJ: iV'i . -"'-I -.\' .'-. • • '!"" Mil!"* •.•,.;'.•. *-' , -" - + i'"."«v „"",; * In. , "
; 'E'lJiiIllJiilJUi:!! i IllUiililli:: f • ff ;. 'iiiiiii,;!!:1 «t/' I ill! ttiiilLllllllll!' JilJ'ilillilli,'?:;'!!!!!;!., .iiilJillllllll!!;:'.;,.,::!!!!:!;.1!;! ; lEiiiLii 4 1!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.:;]!]:!!!.!!!!!!!!!;!;^!!!!« I flfriO HflfcAWTf &.>*iJ ^&IU •. W. 'lii'iil':" :*. filli-ir.i „ rrjIillliiUli # i:'' C ,. t," »& M+t&t ..•: '„>,', ,:•• ffit' „ «•*•>•& id ^. ••• » '*• '"' '' I
-------
US 113 Planning Study
B.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Agency Letters Concurring on SHA's Preferred
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Highway Administration
Maryland Department of the Environment
National Marine Fisheries Service
\
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
United States Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Maryland Department of the Environment
United States Department of Commerce
National Marine Fisheries
United States Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Alternatives
September 15, 1997
September 16, 1997
September 16, 1997
September 16, 1997
September 16, 1997
September 17, 1997
September 18, 1997
December 18, 1997
December 19, 1997
January 15, 1998
(1 page)
(1 page
(1 page)
(2 pages)
(1 page)
(1 page)
(2 pages)
(1 page)
(1 page)
(1 page)
Copies of these letters, and responses as appropriate, are presented on the following pages.
VB-1
-------
Maryland Departmentof Transportation
State Highway Administration
September 12,1997
Parris N. Glendening
Governor
David L. Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
Mr. Roy Denmark
NEPA Compliance Section
Environmental Protection Agency
Region II!
841 Chestnut Street, 3EP30
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Dear Mr. Denmark:
Attached are the minutes from the US 113 Interagency Meeting held on September 10,1997. The
minutes describe an understanding of the issues and agreements that were reached at this meeting. Your
concurrence with these minutes is requested with the understanding that we will continue to work together
to develop this project such that agency concerns will be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) and the final design of the roadway.
More specifically, your signature below indicates that you can concur with the selected alternative
Alternative 3S and Alternative 3N/4N Combination both with a 34 foot median except where modified by
the conceptual wetland minimization plan assuming that:
• the conceptual wetland minimization plan as detailed in Tables 1 and 2 of the minutes were
incorporated into the design;
• the development of a suitable wetland mitigation plan is continuing and will be incorporated
into a final design;
• and US 113 is included in SHA's Access Management Program.
You may indicate your concurrence on the signature line below.
Please mail or fax your response to the attention of Sue Rajan before September 18. The fax number is
410-209-5014 and the mailing address is State Highway Administration, Project Planning Division, 707
North Calvert Street, Mailstop C-301, Baltimore, Maryland 21203.
Sincarely,
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Enclosure (7 Pages)
Concurrence:
.ft*
uum
ronmental Protection Ag
Date
phone number is
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1 -800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
V Bl-1
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
Sta te High way A dministra tion
September 12, 1997
Parris N. Glendening
Governor , •
David L Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
Mrs. Susan J. Binder
Federal Highway Administration
The Rotunda - Suite 220
711 West 40th Street
Baltimore, MD 21211
ATTN: Renee Sigel
Dear Mrs. Binder:
Attached are the minutes from the US 113 Interagency Meeting held on September 10,1997. The
minutes describe an understanding of the issues and agreements that were reached at this meeting. Your
concurrence with these minutes is requested with the understanding that we will continue to work together
to develop this project such that agency concerns will be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) and the final design of the roadway.
More specifically, your signature below indicates that you can concur with the selected alternative
Alternative 3S and Alternative 3N/4N Combination both with a 34 foot median except where modified by
the conceptual wetland minimization plan assuming that
• the conceptual wetland minimization plan as detailed in Tables 1 and 2 of the minutes were
incorporated into the design;
• the development of a suitable wetland mitigation plan is continuing and will be incorporated
into a final design;
• and US 113 is included in SHA's Access Management Program.
You may indicate your concurrence on the signature line below.
Please mail or fax your response to the attention of Sue Rajan before September 18. The fax number is
410-209-5014 and the mailing address is State Highway Administration, Project Planning Division, 707
North Calvert Street, Mailstop C-301, Baltimore, Maryland 21203.
Sincerely,
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
by:
Enclosure (7 Pages)
Neil J. Pedersen,
Office of Planning at
lor
! Preliminary Engineering
Coi
Federal Highway Administration
* ^ My telephone number is
Date
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
V B2-1
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
0 . ' . September 12,1997
Parris N. Glendening
Governor
David L Winstead
Secretary
Parker R Williams
Administrator
Mr. Elder Ghlgiarelli
MD Department of the Environment
Water Management Administration
Wetlands and Waterways Program
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
Dear Mr. Ghigiarelli:
Attached am the minutes from the US 113 Interagency Meeting held on September 10.1997. The
minutes describe an understanding of the issues and agreements that were reached at this meeting. Your
concurrence with these minutes is requested with the understanding that we will continue to work together
to develop this project such that agency concerns will be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEiS) and the final design of the roadway.
More specifically, your signature below indicates that you can concur with the selected alternative
Alternative 3S and Alternative 3N/4N Combination both with a 34 foot median except where modified by
the conceptual wetland minimization plan assuming that
i
• the conceptual wetland minimization plan as detailed In Tables 1 and 2 of the minutes were
incorporated into the design;
• the development of a suitable wetland mitigation plan is continuing and will be incorporated
into a final design;
• and US 113 is included in SHA's Access Management Program.
You may indicate your concurrence on the signature line below.
r
Please mail or fax your response to the attention of Sue Rajan before September 18. The fax number is
410*209-5014 and the mailing address is State Highway Administration, Project Planning Division, 707
North Caivert Street, Maflstop C-301. Baltimore, Maryland 21203.
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Enclosure (7 Pages)
Concurrence:
Date
My telephone number is
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hoaring or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Bex 717 • Baltimore, UD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Caivert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
V B3-1
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
September 12,1997
Parris N. Glendening |
Governor
David L. Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
Mr. John Nichols
Habitat and Protected Resources
National Marine Fisheries Service
Oxford Laboratory
Oxford, MD 21650
Dear Mr. Nichols:
Attached are the minutes from the US 113 Interagency Meeting held on September 10, 1997 The
c^ncSpnrfw th fn" Und6rstf ndi.n9 of *• issues •** agreements that were reached at this meeting. Your
to Son th,?n f TU"! 'S rSqUeSted With the Understandin9 «h* we will continue to work together
StatS rraaSn ^i396^ loncems wi" be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact
^statement (FEI5) and the final design of the roadway.
More specifically your signature below indicates that you can concur with the selected alternative
Alternates and I Alternative 3N/4N Combination both with a 34 foot median except where modLd by
the conceptual wetland minimization plan assuming that: K IWUHWU uy
• the conceptual wetland minimization plan as detailed in Tables 1 and 2 of the minutes were
incorporated into the design;
• the development of a suitable wetland mitigation plan is continuing and will be incorporated
into a final design;
• and US 1 1 3 is included in SHA's Access Management Program.
You may indicate your concurrence on the signature line below.
reS,?°nSl!0 the attention of Sue RaJ'an before September 1 8. The fax number is
North • /T "V^f I'3 State Highway Admin^ration, Project Planning Division. 707
North Calvert Street, Mailstop C-301, Baltimore, Maryland 21203.
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Enclosure (7 Pages)
Concurrence:
National Marirfe^shVries Service
Date
My telephone number is .
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
-——---"a "»-•..».«—. • .w. »*wx! 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
V B4-1
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
" ^SSSSfg££ffSS!^ A*"M.i«tPatioh
Habitat and Protected Resources
Division
904 South Morris Street
Oxford, Maryland 21654
16 September 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR: Sue Raj an
FROM: Tim Goodger
SUBJECT: us 113, 10 September 1997 Meeting Minutes
™ ^ shows that the acreage losses at Wetland 30 (0.71) and
Wetland 31 (0.58) are associated with construction of a 10-ft
median, which is incorrect. These acreage losses are associated
witn a 16-ft median, as shown in the "Wetland Impact Minimization"
document (page 5) distributed at the 10 September meeting.
©-J
°ne ^£ the consensus decisions reached at the 10 September meeting
was that the consultants investigate the feasibility of reducing
SS,,"?.? * ^ 16 to 10 feet' which would result in a slight
reduction in the acreage of wetland fill.
V B4-2
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Response to National Marine Fisheries Service (letter dated September 16,1997); reference State
Highway Administration's letter dated September 12,1997.
1. As presented on Table 3 (page 13) of the Concurrence Package - Preferred Alternatives and
Mitigation distributed by SHA during the October 15, 1997 InterAgency Meeting, acreage losses at
Wetland 30 have been revised from 0.71 to 0.68 as a result of the construction of a 10-foot median. The
0.71 acre impacts at Wetland 30 were associated with the wider median. Subsequent studies at Wetland
31 indicate the .58 acre impact, associated with the 16-foot wide median, is appropriate given
constrained sight distances.
2. The 10-foot wide median (paved and traffic barrier) was implemented at sensitive wetland crossings
in areas were the alignment is on tangent (i.e., sight distance is not an issue) and when the crossing is
more than 1,500 feet from the nearest intersection. For the Preferred Alternatives, 10-foot medians
are proposed at the three following crossings:
Wetland W-2
Wetland W-12
Wetland W-30
VB4-3
-------
13
0i:09ftM MD SHft PLAMSING 410 333 1045
P.14/16
MaiylandDepartmentofTransportation
State Highway Administration
September 12,1997
Parris N. Glendening
Governor
David L Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
Mr. Larry Hughes
MD Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Unit
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, MD 21401
Dear Mr. Hughes:
Attached are the minutes from the US 113 Interagency Meeting held on September 10, 1997. The
minutes describe an understanding of the issues and agreements that were reached at this meeting Your
concurrence with these minutes is requested with the understanding that we will continue to work together
to develop thfe project such that agency concerns will be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FQS) and the final design of the roadway.
More specifically, your signature below indicates that you can concur with the selected alternative
Alternative 3S and Alternative 3N/4N Combination both with a 34 foot median except where modified by
the conceptual wetiand minimization plan assuming that
• the conceptual wetland minimization plan as detailed in Tables 1 and 2 of the minutes were
incorporated into the design;
• fte development of a suitable wetland mitigation plan Is continuing and will be incorporated
into a final design:
• and US 1 1 3 is included in SHA's Access Management Program.
You may indicate your concurrence on the signature line below.
°r fex your resP°nse to the attention of Sue Rajan before September 18. The fax number is
M ;T??~? a.nd ** maitlns address is State Hi9hway Administration, Project Planning Division, 707
North Caivert Street, jWaflstop C-301, Baltimore, Maryland 21203.
Sinc
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Enclosure (7 Pages)
Concurrence:
Hc
. > /^ ^ ^LJ(^rC^r^g^
MD Department of Natural Resoui
My telephone number Is
Date
Maryland Relay Sen/ice tor Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800*735'2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O.* Box 717 • Baltimore, MO 21203.0717
Street Address: 707 North Caivert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
V B5-1
-------
17-1997 08:06 FROM U.S FISH&UILDLIFE SUC
TO
14102095014
P.02
State Highway Administration
September 12,1997
Parris N. Gtendening
Governor
David LjWihstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
Mr. Bob Pennington
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Chesapeake Bay Reid Office
177 Admiral Cochrane Drive
Annapolis, MD 21401
Dear Mr. Pennington:
v,r
«.
*
"^ «* *• ***** *>*«>«*'*
a M fbot medum «-* «*~ ««** i»
in Tabies
« and US US Is Incuded in SHA's /tews Maraseront Presram.
You may Indicate your concurrence on the signature lifle bete*.
North Caivart
P"**t Pla'mlll» °^«on,707
Enclosure (7 Pages)
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Depufy Director
Office of Planning s
nd Preliminary Engineering
V B6-1
TOTfiL P.02
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
BALTIMORE DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1715
BALTIMORE, MD 21203-1715
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
SEP 1 8 1997
Operations Division
Subject: CENAB-OP-RX(MD SHA/US 113: MD 394 TO DELAWARE LINE) 1997-63647-9
Mr. Louis Ege, Jr.
Maryland State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Dear Mr. Ege:
This letter is in response to the Maryland State Highway Administration's (SHA) request
for concurrence, dated September 12,1997, on the recommended altemate(s) to be identified hi
the final environmental document for the proposed subject project. SHA has requested that the
agencies provide a response to this request before September 18,1997.
This office has been a cooperating agency with the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and SHA in accordance with 40 CFR 1508.5 hi the development of the environmental
document We concur that the recommended alternate(s) as proposed by the SHA and as
coordinated with this office can be identified hi the final environmental document as the
SHA/FHWA preferred alternate(s). However, the SHA still needs to address the comments
which the Corps has provided on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and develop a
compensatory mitigation plan. In accordance with our requests at the interagency meetings, hi
telephone conversations, and past written requests, it is necessary for the Environmental Impact
Statement to include a cumulative effects analysis for all affected resources hi the corridor study,
not just those identified by the SHA. Also, the issue of the heavy truck usage along the corridor
has not been adequately addressed. According to the handouts provided at the August 20,1997
meeting, approximately 45 % of the fatal accidents which have occurred in the past twenty years
involved tractor trailer trucks. SHA needs to address how the dualization will eliminate the
unsafe conditions which currently exist on this highway. Many comments received during the
public comment period have indicated that although they are not against dualization, they do not
believe dualization alone will address the safety issue. All of these issues need to be adequately
addressed hi the decision document. In addition to these issues, the SHA has agreed to
investigate further muurnization of the wetlands and stream crossings by reducing the width of
the median hi these areas. Compensatory mitigation has also not been identified at this time.
A mitigation plan acceptable to the resource agencies will need to be provided by the SHA prior
to the issuance of a Corps permit
V B7-1
-------
Please have the SHA provide the preliminary final environmental document to this office
for a 60 day review period. You will need to allow additional time to incorporate comments or
make any revisions to the document prior to its release to the public.
The SHA is reminded that comments submitted during the circulation of the final
environmental document are to be forwarded to mis office to be incorporated within our section
404/10 public interest review for the subject project Comments will be incorporated into our
record and used to make a Department of the Army permit decision. Furthermore, that
concurrence to identify the proposed alternate(s) as the SHA/FHWA preferred alternate(s) in the
final environmental document, does not insure DA permit authorization of that alternate.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact
Ms. Michele Gomez of this office at 410-962-4343. '
cc: Renee Sigel, FHWA
Roy Denmark, EPA
Bob Pennington, FWS
Elder Ghigiarelli, MDE
Ray Dintaman, DNR
Beth Cole, MHT
Sue Rajan, SHA
Cynthia Simpson, SHA
Sincerely,
Keith A. Harris
Chief, Special Projects
Permit Section
V B7-2
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Response to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers letter dated September 18,1997
1. Responses to COE letters dated March 31,1997, July 18,1997, and November 12, 1997 are presented
in this Final EIS (Section V.A.). Wetland mitigation is discussed in Section IV.I.
2. All of the resources presented in Chapter ffl, Affected Environment have been reviewed for inclusion
in the cumulative effects analysis. The findings of this review are included in the Final EIS, Chapter
TV, Section Q - Cumulative Effects.
3. See Section I.C. of this document for updated accident data including truck involvement. As noted in
Section I.C.4., trucks were involved in 16 of the 42 fatal accidents (39%) which occurred from January
1980 through September 1997 along the 2-lane portions of US 113. Track drivers were at fault in 4 of
these 42 fatal accidents (9.5 percent). While SHA clearly agrees that the Preferred Alternatives will
not address all of the safety issues, the wider median, traffic barrier, roadside grading, and overall
improvements in traffic operations will result in substantial improvements in accident experience.
Section IV of this document was also updated to show how 11 of the 16 fatalities involving trucks could
have been avoided with dualization. Furthermore, Maryland SHA and Worcester County representatives
will continue to monitor existing development and require that redevelopment parcels access US 113
only at public roads.
In addition to the dualization that would occur under the Preferred Alternatives, SHA District 1 will
continue to implement spot improvements (similar to those detailed in the TSM alternatives) on an as
needed
4. As discussed in Section IH.E of this document, extensive wetland minimization and avoidance studies
have resulted in substantial reductions in wetland impacts. The Draft ElS/Section 4(f) Evaluation (Table
IV-11) identified a total of 13.7 acres of wetland impacts for Alternative 3S-34' Median (measured
right-of-way line to right-of-way line). As a result of the conceptual wetland minimization studies, this
total impact has been reduced to approximately 5 to 5'/2 acres of wetland impacts (measured to limit of
disturbance). Similarly, the Draft EIS indicated 12.5 acres of wetland impacts for Combination
Alternative 3N/4N Modified - 34' Median. Using similar minimization techniques, this total impact has
been reduced to approximately 7 to T¥t acres. While several acres of these reductions are attributable
to the difference in measuring methodology (i.e., right-of-way line to right-of-way line versus limits of
actual disturbance), these reductions are also the result of the minimization of median widths and
roadside safety grading.
5. In order to meet a February 1998 date for Location/Design Approval, SHA has agreed with the elected
officials that a 45 days review of the preliminary Final EIS is preferable.
6. Comments submitted during the circulation of the final environmental document will be forwarded to
COE to be incorporated within their section 404/10 public interest review for this project.
VB7-3
-------
••) 27 '98 09:43flM MINERALS OIL flND GflS DIV
P. 3/3
Mr. Elder Ghigiarelli
US 113 from MD 394 to Delaware Line
Page Two
w.,,.
Please check one:
Concur (without 'comments)
^
Concur (comments attached)
Do not concur (comments attached)
Attachment
cc: Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Ms. Gay Olsen
Mrs. R. Suseela Rajan
Ms. Kenee Sigel
Ms. Qynmia D. Simpson
Ms. Lorraine Screw
bate
V B8-1
-------
Mr. Timothy E. Goodger
US 113 from MD 394 to Delaware Line
Page Two
Concurrence wit Alternates <
Please check one:
Concur (without comments)
Concur (comments attached)
Do not concur (comments attached)
National Marine
Attachment
cc: Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Mr. Joseph Kressleih
Ms. Gay Olsen
Mrs. R. Suscela Rajan
Ms. Renee Sigel
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
Ms. Lorraine Strow
V.B9-1
-------
Mr. Robert Zepp
. US 113 from MD 394 to Delaware Line
Page Two
r=i '&
Concurrence with
Please check one-
^
-Rt
tor
Concur (without comments)
Concur (comments attached)
Do not concur (comments attached)
Study
U.S. Fish and
Attachment
cc: Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Ms. Gay Olsen
Mrs. R. Suseela Rajan
Ms. Renee Sigel
Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson
Ms. Lorraine Strow
Date
V B10-1
-------
-------
C. Elected Officials Letters
US 113 Planning Study
Chapter V
-------
liilill ..... » I it,, 'i is!" • IHf 7 iiij, " ";;f Iljf ; lili; ii! ..... ii ,m ; tH ..... ,; , : r ?>.
I/""'? ill! i !1.".*;J
'*" ' .MI!: ill
'i ..... »». ..... (• ..... ..... :«,; i ";r .
i) ....... i; ...... L; ..... i ...... ^ ..... i
..... s • :' ........ IL , ; 1,;% f :, f ,,,j;ii •; . i • ...... • • ; " > , ., ; \ i, ..... j „ i't^aw ;; JiSf ' ; I ....... ..... ft ' ''T • ..... ' «,
j^ : •• ..... ::« u; si ....... *i ..... ^ ...... r : w MM •*JBF- ..... i, ...... jit : f" •
^ft^ ...... 1*11 ..... i ....... ^ ...... & ...... i ....... KI ...... £ ........ ii ..... wr;
'1Iil|ii,l«^ IE " i:/; ill,:; ,.!: I;- , "i-!'!1" fflltii"! »:]"• *X I,1 • /'.i,,,,,;;* lli'1' V ' • " ri.vii ii JIB1; i,*:,;"" ,!',-l: ' IK1 1111!,!1!'';1,.!!1 JiJI
I »|!"!"' I1" llliljiiliiill' i>' : IP1 1I1II1 in 'I'll,:
iiiiii ....... fiirjiBiiniiiinmi ..... iiiiitninir.'! »i fj •' i|ii,,i: .."
irilll||li^ ' >n
i Jin IL >' ii |I#IPIL; h
_s, ,::, i» Vllftt;.:' l /,':;"''
\\i"; f i in mil i jim,1" ,;;:"!i v,: ji IT i, ..... , • • 'ii!' „ << / ..... ,11-4 ?;, '• ; ....... ^ :.>; ••: •< . • ..... •
• ' ...... n, .:: ,: ..... ...... i- ,i,,ii, ..... * i ...... m • -x •; ........... ti ...... a. •
"^if "II ..... iiiilili SJP "; iiiRi: ..... t"*(K l'""1 .'Bill iiV: ' ," i,' ' ..Jll'lll!1!1'!!!"' ,»i •:•• I ..... '
•:." ,.' :^'/M '<-.if'.: ,1 ........ *.• ;x, • .E'S. ...... I :! '
.11, 11 if : i Mi ' fl1 "' 'I1
III i if ........ llipiri ..... ,ii, iliffli V'tt '
liiilir.ll.'Jiiliiiii Uliiilll:1 nil, .'Slllllli "nit!,,, fti "
I11)!1!!1!! ,|||, '.III! !' I',,,,'! ,!' I'!' '"'I'll, I'lllii Ml"' |||||||I'I!|II| <"
, ...... i ..... I illiJflll 'i,:1'! if ,,,!i!,'i \ :J
^
I II, f'HUIlfjtl1; ....... I ,
illlllllllll&lill" T '
'"iHlllli llli'l'S, 'llJIIIIIIllll iTi'1' l'l
Iliril.fTIIBiH1';! iilnlfllllllli11,,,!. UllUlnlll Mill! "ifi!!'. ri :l:i : ilm 'Mi"
1 1:.-! - |:1T1 r iiiifii!1 '!, ""^ • ..... nil - ni ........ p, m * ' , - ,„ m* .wr'- - , ..... L • • i a , ...... T ^ j#*
..... i
i
III.!1 "h1
,.,,;», n "s, • • in1 f iii, i;! i,,'ih; i, :,;iifi "' lit,,,;1'!' ,„ ,„„;,., .I,;,,,, m IMP • i . *" i n i *' i, „ .*. . •; P i •• •"!!, '" • v-11 •'-, *! f- !» w t,,'" i
i iiifirri! p, i'! :! '»-; i 'Hi! is i' • , „ '"' • v unit „; n ? i,if t B A, 1J 1»i;i1i Ji i- ^ * '""i r • i • $ ,v ii :i ' "K ^ i; M ; 1 i-lh, .; \>* i ;s • *. \~ * •*.- • ! ^ "• ?' „ .1
I liillllllllllllllllElllllllf'''!'!1!'')!!1!,' |Ni|,ilil'ifl" IIVI!. lllllllHIt"! IF'i ii. lln i,niil -ii '"? ' ' ' "illllllll , , , illlliif W "l,!|i"',' '"I'!:'!!1,!!!,"!'!"!::!!,!! I'.i,'!,,,, "P I'M. i, , "C" "' :4:IIUlr i'i|'l iillilL II1'1!1!!"!,, !» ' ' 'In'illi' l!i,iil*lii I !», r ,!'l: ll|ll!;l*,1' > i||. i 'I"
I liiii'' iiij^^jH t i ~,,j ii ,r,':..i ii:,';i ;:•,?' ? ^ i^ it : :.;,,,'i , nm m i"!11! m^i ^ii i iiiii ;i "^,i ii ;,,'%,!
'1 i ,),„ "1, , t':,,, ;-i „ . ' i.
,;, i i it1 j "fiiif ]! •.' ,„.;
-------
US 113 Planning Study
C. Elected Officials Letters
1. Federal Officials
2. Maryland State Officials
3. Worcester County Officials
4. Local Officials '
Copies of these letters, and responses as appropriate, are presented on the following pages.
VC-1
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Page
1. Federal Officials
Honorable US Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
• letter from Senator Mikulski to
Federal Highway Administration Division
Administrator Susan J. Binder
dated June 1,1997
• letter from Administrator Binder to
Senator Mikulski
dated July 2, 1997
• letter from Maryland Governor Parris N. Glendening to
Senator Mikulski
dated August 27,1997
Honorable US Representative Wayne T. Gilchrest
• letter from Representative Gilchrest to
Maryland State Highway Administrator
Parker Williams
dated August 15, 1997
• letter from Administrator Williams to
Representative Gilchrest
dated August 29,1997
VC-2(1)
V C-2(2)
VC-2(3)
V C-2(5)
V C-2(6)
VC-2
-------
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI
MARYLAND
COMMITTEES:
APPROPRIATIONS
LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
WftEPlVPUASE R£F£R
"Entail States
WOKLO TOW* CENTEB. SWTE 251
401 E.PAATT STREET
BAUIMOHE. MO 212tt2-3m
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-2003
June 1, 1997
VrCE/TOO: M10I M3-tsiz
to WEST STREET. SUITE 2OZ
ANNAPOUS, MO 2MB1-244*
a
BALTIMORE-1410) 2
-------
July 2,1997
Re: Contract No. W072CB 11
US 113 from Snow Hill to tk.
Delaware State Line
Worcester County, Maryland
Senator Barbara A. Mikulsld
World Trade Center, Suite 253
401 E. Pratt Street :
Baltimore, Maryland 21202-3099
Dear Senator Mikulski:
Thank you for your June 1, 1997 letter concerning the public hearing and supporting the full
dualized highway for US 1 13 in Worcester County. Although we did not receive your letter until
June 20, 1997, Federal Highway Administration representatives were present at the joint public
hearing held at Stephen Decatur High School on US 50 in Berlin, Maryland on June 17.
Your support of the dualization of U.S. 1 13 as well as that of IOC's of Worcester County residents
is recognized by our agency. We are continuing to work with the Maryland Department of
Transportation, Federal and state agencies and the local governments to complete the studies
needed to move forward with this important project
Thank you again for your letter of support for the US 1 13 study project. Please feel free to
contact Renee Sigel, of my sta$ at (410) 962-4342 ext. 1 16 if you have any fiuther questions.
Sincerely yours,
Susan J. Binder
Division Administrator
cc: Mr. Roy Denmark, EPA
Mr. Keith Harris, COE
Mr.JohnWolflin,FWS
be: Ms. Susan J. Binder
Mr. Dave Lawton, FHWA Reg. 3
Mr. Neil Pedersen, SHA
v c-2(2)
-------
STATE OF MARYLAND
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
August 27, 1996
PARRIS N. GLENOENING
GOVERNOR
ANNAPOLIS OFFICE
STATE HOUSE
100 STATE CIRCLE
ANNAPOLIS. MARYLAND 2140t
, (410) 974-3901
WASHINGTON OFFICE
I NORTH CAPITOL STREFW
'•• WASHINGTON. 0,C. SOOOt
(202)638-2215
TOO (410) 333-3093
The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senate
Suite IE, Budding B
1201 Pemberton Drive '
Salisbury MD 21801-2403
Dear Barbara:
\ * ri.Thank you.for vour recent Ietter expressing concerns about US 113. I would like to
Ute this opportunity to respond to the three questions you raised. Let me begin with what
has been accomplished in the past and a status of our current activities.
^^^^
m • d ** Ddaware State Hne over *» last 10 vears- It has completed
major mtersection improvements along US 113 at US 13, MD 610, MD 589, Pitts Road, and
SSEfT StatC e' ^ S?A haS ^ hlStalled 15 street KShts ^ ^e dasher sign^T
and has made numerous spot safety improvements, including widening the painted lines
which separate northbound from southbound traffic, installing raised pavement markers
adding pavement marking arrows, and adding "no passing- signs. In addition, SHA also
3X?^ appr?xl^ely t° ?ercent °f US 113 "* ** »«- ^^ improvements (most of
which were made during the last five years) cost approximately $12 mUlion.
The US 113 project is included in the Department's Consolidated Transportation
Program for project development. We are evaluating a variety of alternatives including the
construction of an additional two-lane roadway adjacent to the existing facility and a new
four-lane road on new location for the section between Berlin and the Delaware state line
The cost of dualizing the entire length of US 113 would likely exceed $100 million. We*
IrTme hearin§ * *" ***** °f 199? *"d CXpeCt comPletion of *«
Traffic and accident studies were done in the late 1980's when a project plannine
study was initiated for US 113 from US 50 to the Delaware state line. The traffic aT
above Ti?^11^^ !f TT^i^6" WC bC:gan ** Project devel°P^nt effort mentioned
above. The entire section of US 113 has experienced 893 accidents in the past 15 years. O*
?n?f r?" ^ '1 10WCr *" Other Similar roadways- ^ northera sectionhas experienced
20 fatalities over that period of time which is cause for concern and is the primary focus of
our present project development efforts. ^
V C-2(3)
-------
The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski
Page Two
We would certainly prefer to be able to make an early commitment to the construction
of a project such as the dualization of US 113, but given the limits on both federal as well as
state transportation funding, we have not been able to do so at this time. As you are well
aware, Congress has not readily agreed to federal funding for highway projects in addition to
that provided through normal federal funding apportionments. In the coming year, as we
approach the re-authorization of the federal surface transportation programs, we will want to
work closely with you and other members of the Maryland Congressional delegation. We
hope to obtain the highest possible funding formula for Maryland, enabling us to undertake
projects such as US 113 as well as special categories of projects such as federally owned
highways like the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and the Baltimore Washington Parkway.
Thank you for your interest in the US 113 project. If you have any other questions
or comments, please feel free to call me or State Highway Administrator Parker Williams at
(410)545-0400.
Sincerely,
Parris N. Glendening
Governor
Enclosure
cc:
The Honorable David L. Winstead, Secretary, Department of Transportation
The Honorable James G. Barrett
The Honorable Bennett Bozman
Mr. Parker Williams .
V C-2(4)
-------
• ..VAYNE T. GILCHREST
lit District. Maryland
/
.COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
'AND INFRASTRUCTURE
CHAIRMAN. COAST GUARD AND
MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
WATER RESOURCES
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
FISHERIES CONSERVATION.
WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
August 15, 1997
Congress of tfte Brttteb States;
of &eprefitentatibesf
Q 332 CANNON BUUXNG
WASHINGTON. DC 20515
FAX: i202l 225-0254
, D 44 CAiviKTSr. SUITE 320
'";' i ANNAPOUS. MD 21401
., PKONI: 1410) 283-6321
FAX: 1410)263-7819
D 315 HIGH Smrr. Stan 105
CHCSTEHTOvm. MO 21620
PHONE: (410) 778-9407
FAX: (410) 778-9560
O ONI PLAZA EAST
SAUSIURV. MD 2180T
PHONE: 1410) 749-3184
FAX: (410) 749-8458
Parker Williams, Administrator
State Highway Administration
P.O. Box 8755
Baltimore/Washington International Airport, MD 21240
Dear Mr. Williams,
I am writing to invite you to a meeting on Thursday, September 18, 1997, in my Washington
office to discuss the dualization of Route 113 in Worcester County, Maryland.
Senators Barbara Mikulski and Paul Sarbanes will join me as we hear fiom the various federal
agencies involved in the permitting process for the project, including the Federal Highway
Administration, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The meeting is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. in my office, Room 332 in the Cannon Building, located
at 1st and Independence Avenue, SE. Please contact Cathy Bassett at (410) 263-6321 to RSVP.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Gilc^est
Member of Congress
WTG:cmb
V c-2(5)
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
August 29, 1997
Parris N.Glendening
Governor
David L Winstead
Secretary
Parker R Wi|liam$
Administrator
The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrist
United States House of Representatives
332 Cannon House Office Building
Washington DC 20515
Dear Congressman Gilchrist:
Thank you for your recent letter inviting me to a meeting on September 18, in your
Washington office to discuss the US 113 project in Worcester County. I understand
representatives from various federal agencies will be attending this meeting. My staff and I
will plan to attend the meeting.
Since the June 17 public hearing for US Il3, our staff members have met with the
resource agencies and have been working on addressing their issues and concerns regarding
the US 113 project. Currently we are developing options to further minimise wetland
impacts under the dualization alternatives.
Again, thank you for your continued interest in this project. I look forward to
meeting with you, Senator Sarbanes,' Senator Mikulski and the resource agencies on
September 18. If you need any information, please feel free to call me or Mr, Neil J.
Pedersen, our Director of Planning at (410) 545-0400._
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
cc:
Mr. Neil J. Pedersen, Director, State Highway Administration
V C-2(6)
Street
My telephone number is • '•—•
" Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. BoxTlV • Baltimore, MD 21203,0717. _
t Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland ^(K
-------
US 113 Planning Study
2. Maryland State Officials page
Honorable Louis L. Goldstein, Comptroller of the Treasury
• letter from Comptroller Goldstein to VC-3(1)
Maryland State Highway Administrator Parker Williams
dated May 15,1997
Honorable State Senator Richard F. Colburn
• letter from Senator Colburn (with attachments) to , VC-3(2)
Maryland State Highway Administration District 1
District Engineer Donnie L. Drewer -
dated August 1,1997
Honorable State Senator J. Lowell Stoltzfus
• letter from FHWA Division Administrator Susan J. Binder to VC-3(10)
Senator Stoltzfus
dated June 9, 1997
Honorable Delegate Bennett Bozman
• letter from Maryland State Highway Administrator Parker F.Williams to VC-3(12)
Delegate Bozman
dated February 10,1997
VG-3
-------
Louis L. Goldstein
Comptroller of the Treasury
'&// Louis L. Goldstein Treasury Building. P. O. Box 466
Annapolis, Maryland 21404-0466
May 15,1997
Honorable Parker Williams, Administrator
State Highway Administration
707 N. Caivert Street
Baltimore, Md. 21201
Dear Mr. Williams:
A pleasant good morning!
I wish to acknowledge receipt of the "Joint Public Notice", whiph I
received on May 14,1997, with regard to the Location/Design Publks Hearing
scheduled for Tuesday, June 17,1997 at 7:00 p.m, at Stephen pecaturHigh
School in Berlin, for the purpose of conducting a study to improve traffic
conditions and safety on US 113 from South of Snow Hill to the^ pelaware §tate
Line.
I think this is a very worthwhile project and you have my support. I wpulcl
appreciate your keeping me informed as plans are developed.
Keep up the good work!
With kindest personal regards and best wishes to you, you/ family antf staff
for continued success, good health and happiness, I remain
Most cordially yours,
Louts L. Goldstein
LLG:cc
V C-3(l)
Voice telephone: (410) 974-3801
For the hearing impaired: MRS 1-800-735-2258 * TDD (410) 974-3157 > EOE
-------
RICHARB F. COUBURN
CAPOI.INC COUNTY
OORCHESYlR COUNTY
TALBOT COUNTY
WICOMICO COUNTY
MEMOen
JUOI&M. PROCEEDINGS COMMITTEE
SPECIAL JOINT OVtSfUJJOMT COMMITTCKO
CHE3AP«>Kt BAY CHITICAI, AREAS
SENATE OF MARYLAND
, ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401-1991
OFFICE INDICATED
O ANN4POI.IS DFriCSl
W»OH 31 1 SENATE QFFICC BUIUOIHO
10) «4 1-SIBfO OR TOLL PkjcK
B MID-CHORE OFFICE-
P.O. «OH ISJ7
CAMBHrOOE.
U 10) 8J»-1 1 87. 9 1 8.939?
D V/ICOMICO COUNTY OfflCEl
P.O. »OXSST
ON. MARVUUW 21*30
August 1, 1997
Donnie Lee Darewer, District Engineer
District #l(Doche6terfSomer8etfWicomico,and Talbot Counties)
f • v . oOX 26/9
Salisbury, MD 2X802-2679
Dear Mr. Drewer:
Enclosed you will find a copy of a letter I received from a
very concerned constituent in the 37th District. rece:ivea £rom a
I would like to go on record as being
of the
as
keeP me UP to date on the progress regarding this
Sincerely,
Richard F. Colburn
Enclosure
c: Bob Hulburd
EeEffiOE
AU6
SftUSBURY
V C-3(2)
-------
C.R.A.S.H.
County Residents Action for Safer Highways
10776 Gray's Comer Road, #4
P. O. Box 1001
Berlin, MD 21811
Robert G. Hulburd, President
Rhonda Dykes, Treasurer
410-641-3939 Fax 410-641-9555
Joel Todd, Vice President
June Clendening, Secretary
July 24,1997
Honorable Richard F. Colburn
4731 Egypt Road
Cambridge, MD 21613
Dear Senator Colburn:
Although you may have seen them, I'm enclosing articles fronvTuesday's Dotty Times about
another victim that Route 113 has claimed and an editorial from the Maryland Times Press- The
latest tragedy occurred in the southern part of this dangerous, undivided highway.
t
This is the 72nd death on Route 113 in 20 years. Mr. Gross, who died, was a Vietnam veteran,
the father of three children, three stepchildren, three grandchildren and a large extended family.
His death alters forever the lives of many.
Also enclosed is an editorial and an article from today's Daily Times about the 71st victim's
survivors. Needless to say, our volunteer group and Worcester County citizens are deeply
concerned. The number of cars using the highway increases daily and the accident rate mounts.
We believe the evidence is clear and abundant for dualization of this entire span to move
forward rapidly and we ask that you do everything in your power to see that it does.
With kind personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
ob Hulburd, President
.*
SHOE,
AUG 5 t99fif
SALISBURY. OFFICE-
V C-3(3)
V &<« fie,/9***^* .iTi*^
* s?s**~*
-------
*>'. - -St
£*.3 '12-o »H IIIT . *g15$2s
tisstfifns^iifij
Biv-i !*1 Hi^ieis^.
^£
iFr|::-3|||ili|l|il||| IIjj
2i3a l!: tfilfllijB &": I §.j J|5 .•«•!'
fe^'S JS
-------
THE DAILY TIMES
K»lth Blrnu/Chiif Ex* cutiv* Offcf r
Guy D. CeMiBin, Kitqutive Editor
TTniMriir.Julyn.il*?
D.UR MISSION
nTaOa/fe'II/naittrfvutobtavltaldiHynfltctionor <£ \K
CBmmunKlw on th« lower D«lmirw Pmlntula. By providing A» '
ow? it to the innocent.;/
'driven to make the road
f ¥ aa safe a* we can and
then the margin for error is improved."
_rSo eaid Bob Hulburd. chairman of
County Resident* Action for Sefer
Highway*, at last month's public
hearing on Route 113 In Worcester
County.
' One of tho« "innocent drivers,* ••
Catrell Glen Gross, a 44-ysarold
fitUvillt man, lo*t his life Monday
afternoon in a ghaitly collision near
Public Landing Boad On Route 113.
; Groe* died instantly when hie vehicle
)wa* broadnded by a Ford. Explorer
Briven by a 23-year-old pregnant
IffOtnan whose young daughter w«» a
basscnger In the back seat The young
mother and daughter appeal not to be
iieriousty injured and fortunately, this
tragedy waa not compounded by the
death of the mother'* unborn cnild, .; •.
• Gross* death is the 72nd on Route'
113 in the la*t 20 years. • *
Thres other fatalitiea have occurred
within a querter-tnil* of that site in tde
laat 20 years: in 1979.1981 and 1994.
Even a cureory glance at the'datee
ahould startle any reader. : •
The rate at which accident* are .
occurring at that interjection—and on'
Route 113 ee a whole—ia accelerating,
as!»the number of fatalities.
There are any number of rsasooa for
t&isHncrtaied number* of vehicle*
(joptcinlly truck traffic), greater epeed,
iCtts distraction*, driver error.
o»t Importantly, the road is une*f*
[ has become — unsafe.
~ute 113 may not have bien bom a
r highway, to us* nature vs. •
IN SUMMATION
ITiere'e ba«t another fataUty en Route
113 In Woreirter County. Driver
errqn notwRhetondl«, duallntion
could haw already prevented m»ny
deatfte. When wUIUmHughter end?
nuirtura jargon, but it has grown to
become one.
Seven hundred people turned out at
the hearing last month in Worcester
County to tell state highway official*
•bout the need to do something — end
quickly—to atop the slaughter by this
mindles* murderer of innocent*.
CRASH, and many othere. believe
the beat solution ia a dualized highway
with a. median barrier. We agree: It's
hard to argue for any other alternative.
Money has been appropriated by the
eUte for engineering studies, as well aa
for the purchase of nght*of-way, once a
final eite for .a new Route 113 is chosen.
Qovl Parris N. Glendening, when he
viiited 7%e Daily Time* recently,
promised.he will see the project through.
Congressman Wayne Cflchtest, R-
lyfd.. ie workiog to set federal money to
help th« «Rbrt. And work has alreedy
begun at'Bnother deadly interjection,
Jarvi* Road and Route 113, to make it
eafar until a final solution can be
reached. Construction on a dualized
highway would likely not begin until
1999 at the earliest. .
Time is running out. ' "
The margin for error get* alimmer as
each year, each day, each moment
passee — like Darrell Grow — into
eternity.
V C-3(5)
-------
JLSj. u. J-/ JL JL J.1VJLJLJ k.>
Page 6
. 8, Chief Executive Officer
Gary D. Grossman, Executive Editor
SaliiburxMttylu'd
Tburtdty. June 19,1997
OUR MISSION
.The Daily Times strives to be a vital daily reflection of
communities on the lower Delmarva peninsula. By providing
timely, accurate information Ttie Dally Times brings "v. MC
readers together to live batter lives and build stronger ~\
communities. The Dally Times provides a forum for diverse *
viewpoints which lead our communities to soive problems.
OUR OPINION
Let no more die waiting
The words were coming herd. Her
voice trembled. She was crying
and trying to say something into
the microphone.
Another lady rose from the audience
to stand by her side and steady her and
help with the piece of paper she had
brought to help her say what she had to
say.
Memories had taken the speaker
back and love and pain were drowning
her words with tears.
People in the dim auditorium looked
at the floor. Their eyes, too. were sad
and wet.
Linda Figgs' son, you see, had been
. killed on Bouts 113 and had left behind
: a little boy, who was then 4 and now 7.
; The little boy had been waiting for hia
daddy to come home that day and now
was still missing his daddy.
It was the road that had taken the
little boy's father. It was the road, don't
you see. Someone called it the highway
of tears.
: Yes, the hearing had started with
: flat, factual information. The people
; from the state followed one another to
the microphone. This is how we plan a
• highway. This is how we protect the
wildlife. This is how we relocate people.
-This is how we maks sure it's fair. This
program. These funds. Title this. Title
ihatSit
The state people did their iobs well.
Then the mothers and husbands and
brother and drivers stood to tell their
tales of life and death, fear and injury
iand delay along Route 113 in Worcester.
County, Maryland, where 71 people
have perished in 20 years on a two-lane
highway.
, We have no idea how theu-stories
will look flattened into hearing
transcript bounded by stiff cardboard .
and (we fear) unread through eternity.
The words may be dry and complete
>nd follow one after another. They may
IN SUMMATION
Tht people have spoken. Now is the time
to dualize Route 113 in Worcester
County. Too many people have died
watting for Maryland to decide to act.
not rise and fall in anger and sadness
and halt for tears and stop for anguish.
In the auditorium at Stephen
Decatur High School Tuesday night, a
good measure of the power, eloquence
and dignity of the words came from
how they were spoken.
"Please excuse the tears," said the
mother, as she ended.
No need. The truth of Route 113
through Worcester County is more than
engineering and finance and traffic
count. The truth about Route 113 is a
feeling, a sense that those who travel it
and those who have been hurt by it
have suffered long and patiently the
delays, the patches and dismissals that
come from calculators.
Some have died waiting for Maryland
to decide it's time to dualize Route 113
and put a median strip in the center of
the four lanes of traffic. Then cars will
no longer cross over, pass dangerously,
spin into traffic and kill people, leaving
little boys without fathers, mothers
without sons.
No more.
The farmer who has to move slow
and cumbersome equipment said now
is the time.
The sheriff who has to deal with the
accidents and notify the survivors said
now is the time.
The educator who buses precious
children up and down that highway
said now is the time.
The man who came armed with
statistics to argue against dualizing the
>e podium and tore up
road stood at the r«v....... „..„ „„.«. ..,
his speech and said now is the time.
Now. said the people. Now.
V C-3(6)
-------
V C-3(7)
-------
1
ft
1
I
OP
5?
g*
•a
!i
IS
«!W
« «
31*
£.2 a
5*.
iSllilll
illll
HIRIW J
»J!w_tIl!Sl.S5
rfiiiiiMUii
> •
I W
HI1
1 1.
•^"^ /a* a -9.80>>»«s g_a *.s -»^e
oi
V C-3(8)
-------
T&e scorecard *
of pain for 113
gets another
check mark
Tli tie his been yci another addition
10 ihc »c«recai d bcii'G kept for U.S.
. Hltjliw.iy II).
This t»W*i jwiiiikfioci irtio the 'deaths*
category, o"« ir"» sww» <:>ch Vwf- It's a cat-
egory llu< is kept ui» a cumriuier. an J when
it is wiled vip, h beat* die names of 72 pco.
. pie who liave died travelling on HJ,
Thv l-1'oi iuWiw>n is 4-l-ycar-uld Oiiircll
C. Criuj. wliu JicJ Mmulay <:vi:niii|> iit a
heap ofiw'unxl can piled up on UK toad-
jiilc »o.ir Public Un jirig |(oad.
U|)un snrvtyiiiB Uic ilitec-cat |>ilcup.
O>uniy Cumint»!onc' l>1n Uaircll cjtlcd it
the wyrji wr«k lic'U o'er jccn. Hi* obiciva.
Hunt, however, will noi fit into the Comput-
er. nor will ih« agopy of Mr, Cross' family.
'Ilic inruciiutiion coniqiqcU in iltc or life-Ions
If co. nuyhc ilrU would be » rviorily pro-
ject. Certainly, then: u some movement in
the right direction. 'Hie widening of 113 ii
IwciiiK slvvlicd »"J coiutniction plans are
being drafted- Moreover, there have even
been some temporary »fety Improvements
iii.tde.hcn: and there vherc dn. |i doesn't carry a consider-
able ricroejiiagt; of die ita|c'» driving popu-
lation exit d.ty and in tff«l on the siotc's
commerce u uiiniuial. Utit. thoic ats the
luttlnlcs that citd w|> in llic computer and
iitllueiKO dec'uioiu.
Until UwttukKn sec the rum. anil agony
CitTtluiul. I'K- re.'l-l'fc tears, the funeral), Uic'
cor wrecks, die blood, die agony and the
liorror, just as Mr. Darren did on Monday,
change vill come slowly.
' AJ ittis is heiitu wtiiKii. 77 people have
divd on lint stretch of road in the bst 20
years.Tlicrc Is nu guauntec that number
ivill not have already gone higher.
1020
MAI?VI
V C-3(9)
-------
June 9, 1997
Re: Contract No. WO720B11
US 113 from Snow Hill to the
Delaware State Line
Worcester County, Maryland
Senator J. Lowell Stoltzfus • •
Room 409
Senate Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401-1991
Dear Senator Stoltzfus:
Thank you for your June 2, 1997 letter supporting the foil dualized highway for US 113 in
Worcester County. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is working with the Maryland
Department of Transportation, Federal and state agencies and the local governments to insure that
a full range of reasonable alternatives, including the no-build alternative, is considered during the
US 113 study. A dualized highway is included in several of the alternatives to be studied north
and south of Berlin.
All improvements have been assessed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS)/Section 4(f) Evaluation which has been prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This document includes an assessment of the need for the
improvements and a discussion of the alternatives considered. The approved DEIS/Section 4(f) fa
available for review. A joint public meeting will be conducted in conjunction with FHWA,
Maryland State Highway Administration, U.S. Corps of Engineers, and Maryland Department of
the Environment for this improvement project on June 17 at 7:00 p.m. Displays of the project
will be available at 6:00 p.m. for viewing. The public hearing will be held at Stephen Decatur
High School on US 50 in Berlin, Maryland.
Thank you again for your letter of support for the US 113 study project. Please feel free to
contact Renee Sigel, of my staff, at (410) 962-4342 ext. 116 if you have any further questions,.
Sincerely yours,
RENEE SICBL
Susan J. Binder
Division Administrator
V C-3(10)
-------
cc:
Mr. Louis Ege, SHA
Mr. Joe Kresslein, SHA
Ms. Sue Rajan, SHA
Ms. Cynthia Simpson, SHA
mhuie: cec 6/9/97 s:\mhuie\projects\dist_l\stoltzfu. 113
v c-
-------
Maty/and Department of Transportation
Sta te High way A dm in is tra tion
Davfd L. Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
February 10, 1997
The Honorable Bennett Bozman
Maryland House of Delegates
413 Lowe House Office Building
6 Governor Bladen Boulevard
Annapolis MD 21401-1991
Dear Delegate Bozman:
At the Transportation Commission legislative social on January 27, you had asked me
for a letter indicating pur commitment to expedite the environmental process, final design
and right-of-way acquisition for the US 113 Dualization project. As I mentioned to you, this
project has been placed on an accelerated schedule. We are working very closely with the
environmental agencies to address their questions and concerns to avoid any project delay.
The Location/Design Public Hearing is scheduled this Spring, at which we expect a large
number of citizens to testify in support of the project. Final design is scheduled to begin this
Summer on a compressed schedule, with right-of-way acquisition to begin in Summer 1998.
Thank you for your interest and support for this project. If I may be of any further
assistance, please feel free to call me or Mr. Neil Pedersen, our Director of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering, who can be reached at (410) 545-0411.
cc:
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
The Honorable James Barrett, President, Worcester County Commissioners
The Honorable Norman H. Conway, Member, Maryland House of Delegates
The Honorable Robert Cowger, Jr., Member, Worcester County Commissioners
The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Member, United States House of Representatives
The Honorable Jeanne Lynch, Member, Worcester County Commissioners
The Honorable Charles A. McClenahan, Member, Maryland House of Delegates
The Honorable James Purnell, Member, Worcester County Commissioners
The Honorable J. Lowell Stoltzfus, Member, Senate of Maryland
The Honorable Granville Trimper, Vice President, Worcester County Commissioners
Mr. Neil J. Pedersen, Director, State Highway Administration
The Honorable David L. Winstead, Secretary, Maryland Department of
Transportation
. My telephone number is
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
V C-3(12)
-------
-------
US 113 Planning Studv
3. Worcester County Officials
President County Commissioner Granville D. Trimper
• letter from President County Commissioner Trimper to
Maryland State Highway Administrator Parker F. Williams
dated June 24, 1997
• letter from Maryland State Highway Administrator Williams to
President County Commissioner Trimper
dated July 14, 1997
letter from President County Commissioner Trimper to
Maryland State Highway Administrator Williams
dated July 30, 1997
letter from Maryland State Highway Administrator Williams to
President County Commissioner Trimper
dated August 15, 1997
• letter from President County Commissioner Trimper to
Maryland State Highway Administrator Parker F. Williams
dated December 12, 1997
Page
V C-5(l)
V C-5(2)
V C-5(4)
V C-5(6)
V C-5(8)
Register of Wills Stephen V. Hales
• letter from Register of Wills Stephen V. Hales to
Maryland Department of Transportation Secretary David L. Winstead
dated June 6, 1997
• letter from Maryland State Highway Administrator Williams to
Register of Wills Hales
dated August 12,1997
Emergency Services Assistant Director Wade Taylor
• letter from Assistant Director Wade Taylor to
Maryland State Highway Administration Project Planning (Lorraine Strow)
dated January 5, 1998
V C-5(9)
V C-5(10)
VC-5(11)
VC-4
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Coalition of Elected Public Officials
• Petition signed by elected public officials of Worcester County
in support of dualization of US 113
dated June 10,1997
Page
V C-5(12)
signed by: • Robert W. Abele, Ocean Pine Board of Directors
• James M. Barrett, President County Commissioners
• Judith O. Boggs, Worcester County Republican Central Committee
• James L. Bowden, Judge of the Orphans Court
• Richard P. Brady, President Ocean Pines Association
• June Clendening, Democratic Central Committee
• Robert L. Cowger, Jr., County Commissioner Worcester County
• Kirk Daugherty, Democraic Central Committee
• Stephen V. Hales, Register of Wills
• Bob Hawkins, Vice President Pocomoke City, City Council
• Young Hines, Central Committee
• Karen Hoick, Democratic Central Committee
• Ronald Hon, Chair - Democratic Central Committee
• Jeanne Lynch, Commissioner Worcester County
• Charles T. Martin, Sheriff
• John Mayr, Central Committee
• Linda M. Morawski, Ocean Pines Board of Directors
• Richard H. Otten, Clerk of the Circuit Court
• Dennis Parker, Berlin Town Council
• Nathan P. Pears, Director, Ocean Pines Association
• James L. Pumell, County Commissioner Worcester County
• Carey Reece, Worcester County Alcohol/Drug Task Force
• James A. Roberts, M.D., Board of Directors Ocean Pines
• William D. Shockley, Judge of the Orphans Court
• Joel Todd, State's Attorney
• Granville D. Trimper, President Worcester County Commissioners
• Will A. Turner, Jr., Berlin Town Council
• Ken Tyler, Judge of the Orphans Court
• Darwin M. Way, Board Member Ocean Pines Association
• Mary Yenney, Board of Directors Ocean Pines
Sample letter from Maryland State Highway Administrator
Parker F. Williams to above signers of petition (a separate
and individual letter was forwarded to each signer).
V C-5(16)
VC-5
-------
.. JUS 33 '97 . 01:59PM SHfl flDMINISTRflTOR 410:333 1586
F*X: 410-892-3131
COMMISSIONERS
JAMES C. BAflHETT.
SRAMV/IU.C D. TRIMPER VICtt PRESIDENT
ROBERT LCOWGER. JR.
JEANNE LYNCH
JAMES L PUBNEli
COOKTY COMMISSIONERS
fflmmt
6ERALOT.UASON
CDWAMO H. HAMMOND. JK.
COUNTY ATTOBWHV
ROOM 112 .< COURTHOUSe
CHS wssr vwwer smasr
SNOW HILL, MARYLAND
21863-1072
June24, 1997
Parker F. Williams, Administrator }• • '
Maryland State Highway Adbnoinistration i.
707 North'Calvert Street ;.'
Baltimore, Maryland 21202 j
RE: Dualization of U. S. Route 113 - Worcester County
f
Dear Mr. Williams:
On behalf of the entire Board of County Commissioners, please accept our sincere
appreciation for moving forward on the duatizanon of U. S. Route 113 in Worcester County. At
the recent public hearing held June 17, there were over 600 attendees with all speakers *a favor
of the project. We are encouraged by the support for mis project which continues to pour in from
the many residents and visitors of the County and are excited to thlnic that this much needed
project may finally begin to take shape. However, we understand that the joint public hearing of
June 17, is but a first step in improving what has been called "one of the deadliest highways in
the State of Maryland," and we ask that you continue the Stale's support and funding of mis
critical project As you may be aware, this highway has claimed 71 lives since 1977. When this
project is completed, you can take pride in the countless lives which you will have saved through
your efforts.
We look forward to your continued support of this much needed project in Worcester
County as together we can ensure future safety of the residents and visitors of Worcester County.
GranvOle D. Trimper
President
GDT/KS:ddc
CC125/Dcautties£
V C-
Citizens and Government Working Together
-------
Mary/and Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
Parris N. Glendening
Governor
David L Winstead
Secretary —
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
July 14, 1997
The Honorable Granville D. Trimper
President m .
Worcester County Board of Commissioners
Court House
One West Market Street
Snow Hill MD 21863-1072
Dear Commissioner Trimper:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding the dualization of US 113 in Worcester
Coun^™^a~* St ^ "*" °f deCted °ffidalS ^ dtiZenS m "
recent public hearing.
alternative is selected.
may be reached at 410-545-0411.
cc:
Administrator
The Honorable David L. Winstead, Secretary, Maryland Department of Tn^ortation
M£ NeTl J. Pedersen, Director of Planning and Preliminary Engineering, State
Highway Administration
My telephone number is
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
^1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
V C-5(2)
-------
The Honorable Granville D. Trimper
July 14, 1997
Page Two
bcc: Ms. Renee Sigel, Team Leader, Federal Highway Administration
Mr. Donnie Drewer, District Engineer, State Highway Administration
Mr. John Lewis, Jr., State Legislative Officer, Maryland Department of
Transportation
Mrs. R. Suseela Rajan, Project Manager, State Highway Administration
V C-5(3)
-------
TIU 4t0432-l!t4
FAX: 41M32-313t
COUM1S3*ONEA3
OUANVWJS a TWMPfR FMSXXNT
JAUU 0. •AHAfTT. VCirafMMHT
ftOMAT L. cowatu, JA
JCAMNf LYNCH
jAUfSLPUflNCU
OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
(Emmtg
COURTHOUSE
ONE WIST MARKET STREET
SNOW HILL, MARYLAND
21863-1072
July 30, 1997
eERALOT. MASON
FAOumnnunvtcFKn"
EOWABO H. HAMMOND. JR.
Parker F. Williams, Administrator
Maryland State Highway Administration
707 N.Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
RE: Dualization of U. S. Route 1 13 - Worcester County
Dear Mr. Williams:
Thank you for your continued support of the complete dualization of U. S. Route 1 13. I
am saddened to report that just last week another life was lost on U. S. Route 113 at its
intersection with Public Landing Road near Snow Hill, Maryland. TTiis senseless loss of lives on
this highway (72 victims since 1977) underscores the urgency of the complete dualization of U.S.
Route 1 13 from Snow Hill north to the Delaware State line. Every day that passes leading to the
completion of this critical project extends the risk that our residents and visitors must fece as
they travel this dangerous highway which provides the primary means of transportation
throughout Worcester County.
At our meeting of July 29, 1997, the Worcester County Commissioners reviewed the
comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for this project submitted by the
United States Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service (dated June 20, 1997) and ^
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers - Baltimore District, and are deeply concerned regarding their
position. Specifically, the Fish and Wildlife Service has apparently concluded that the data from
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement are not conclusive on the need for dualization of U. S.
Route 113 along the entire project area. They claim that based upon the traffic volumes, accident
rate, and fatality rate, "dualization seems unnecessary in the southern study area." We believe
that nothing could be further from the truth. As I believe you are aware, the past three fatalities
hive occurred hi the southern portion of the study area which will undoubtedly be reflected when
the fatality rates are next computed for this highway. In summary, while the Commissioners
understand the need to minimize the impact of this project on the environment, we believe that
the safety of our citizens must be our primary and overriding consideration.
'
V C-5(4)
Citizens and Government Working Togtthtr
-------
We look forward to your continued support and expeditious implementation of this much
needed project in Worcester County. On behalf of the entire Board of County Commissioners,
we thank you for your concern for the safety of the citizens of Worcester County and the State of
Maryland.
Sincerely,
Granville D. Trimper
President
GDT/KS:ddc
cf: Congressman Wayne Gilchrest
Senator Paul Sarbanes
Senator Barbara Mikulski
Governor Parris N. Glendening
Comptroller Louis L. Goldstein
Senator Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr. (Speaker of the House)
Senator I. Lowell Stolizfus
Delegate Casper R. Taylor (Speaker of the House)
. Delegate fC. Bennett Bozman
Delegate Norman H. Conway
Secretary David L. Winstead. DOT
Mr. Lewis H. Ege, Jr.. MSHA
John P. Wolfiln, Chesapeake Bay Field Office
Michele Gomez, COE, Baltimore, MD
Loraine Strow, SHA, Baltimore, MD
Mary Huie, FHA, Baltimore, MD
Danielle AlgazL EPA. Philadelphia, PA
John Nichols. NMFS, Oxford, MD
Ray Dintaman. MDE, Baltimore, MD
Alan Kampmeyer, MDE, Salisbury, MD
CC125/Death
V C-5(5)
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
August 15, 1997
Parris N. Glendening
Governor
David L Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
The Honorable Granville D. Trimper
President
Worcester County Board of Commissioners
Court House
One West Market street
Snow Hill MD 21863-1072
Dear Commissioner Trimper:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding US 113 in Worcester County. We were
also sorry to hear about the recent fatality near Public Landing Road on US 113 and are very
concerned about the number of fatalities along this road. The State Highway Administration
(SHA) is looking at additional safety improvements that could be implemented as short-term.
solutions, until major improvements could be made.
The SHA considers this project to be a top priority and we are doing everything we can
to move this project on an expedited schedule. We understand the commissioners have
concerns regarding the comments received from the resource agencies. We have several
coordination meetings scheduled with the agencies to address their concerns and to review
minimization options being developed now for environmental sensitive areas. The SHA is also
completing additional analyses that the agencies have requested. We have also been providing
them with the latest accident information to keep them informed of the safety problems of
US 113.
Again, thank you for your letter. We appreciate your continued interest and support
for this project. If you need any additional information regarding this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact me or Mr. NeU Pedersen, our Director of Planning and Preliminary
Engineering who may be reached at 410-545- 0411.
cc:
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
Mr. Neil J. Pedersen, Director, Planning and Preliminary Engineering, State
Highway Administration
My telephone number is
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MID 21203-0717
Street AddrfiRSr 7fl7 North C.alvar* <5»mat • RalMmnra M«^.l.n^ 41tno
V C-5(6)
-------
The Honorable Granville D. Trimper
August 15, 1997
Page Two
bcc:
Mr. Donnie Drewer, District Engineer, State Highway Administration
Mr. John Lewis, Jr., State Legislative Officer, Maryland Department of
Transportation
Mrs. R. Suseela Rajan, Project Manager, State Highway Administration
The Honorable David L. Winstead, Secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation
v c-5(7)
-------
(TAX 410432.3131
COMMISSIONERS
QBANVX.LE 0, TOMPER. MSSIMNT
JAMES Q. BARRETT, VKM raunCNT
ROBERT L COWGER, JR.
JgANNf LYNCH
JAMBS UFUfiNEU.
97 DEC 23 PH h 22
OFFICE OF THE
COUNTYCOMMISSIWWHS..^ ^ ^'JJ OFFICE
GERALD T. MASON
.
fflinmig
EDWARD H. HAMMOND. -a.
COUNTY ATTORNEY
BOOM 1t8 COUBT HOUSE
'" ONEWCSTMAflKETSTBEET
SNOW HILL, MAFIYLANO
21863-1072
December 12, 1997
Parker F. Williams, Administrator
Maryland State Highway Administration
707 N.Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
RE: Dualization of U.S. Route 1 13 - Access Management
Dear Mr. Williams:
development in Worcester County, we understand that such growth niust be -fa ^nenhip with the State
efficiency of the public infrastructure. As such, the C^0^^^^^^ U.S. Route 1 13. In
, Hghwav Administration to implement and enforce a ^^^^ffSS> develop a draft transportation
feel free to contact
We look forward to working in continued parmership
,,'cderal agencies to facilitate this process and insure that the
-------
STEPHEN V. HALES
Register
<3j
0! $egfefer of
fflmmig,
ROOM #102 COURT HOUSE
ONE W. MARKET STREET
SNOW HILL, MARYLAND 21863-1074
June 6, 1997
Talsphone:
410-632-1523
Mr. David L. Winstead
Secretary of Transportation
P.O. Box 8755
BWI Airport, MD 21240-0755
Re: Duaiization of Route 113
Dear Mr. Winstead:
6611'119 ** P*fc input *"'
on June 17. 1997
^
revenue this County
Xto^EEtSS^.'******™
fth the
the amount of
delayed when you think
h,,» «, Present. Granted,
out other projects seem to find funds
-nd
S'°P °nce and for a« '» *« need.ess deafts of our children
Sino
Jprien V. Hales
Register of Wills
V 05(9)
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
Parris N. Glendening
Governor
David L Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
August 12, 1997
Mr. Stephen V. Hales
Worcester County Register of Wills
One West Market Street
Snow Hill MD 21863-1074
Dear Mr. Hales:
Thank you for your recent letter to Secretary Winstead supporting the dualization of
US 113 in Worcester County and urging approval of these improvement plans. The
Secretary asked me to respond on his behalf.
The State Highway Administration (SHA) considers the US 113 project to be a top
priority and has put it on a fast track. We just held the required location/design public
hearing and anticipate the Federal Highway Administration will grant location approval this
Winter. All comments received from the public, agencies and elected officials will be
evaluated before an alternative is selected. Your name has been added to our mailing list,
and your letter will be made part of the public hearing record.
Again, thank you for your letter. If you need additional information regarding this
matter, please do not hesitate to contact our Project Manager, Mrs. Sue Rajan, who may be
reached at 410-545-8514 or 1-800-548-5026.
cc:
JParfcerF. Williams'
Administrator
Mrs. R. Suseela Rajan, Project Manager, State Highway Administration
The Honorable David L. Winstead, Secretary, Maryland Department of
Transportation
My telephone number is ,
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
V C-5(10)
-------
TERESA A. OWENS
DIRECTOR
noouL-14 COURTHOUSE
ONE WEST K»B«T STREET
SNOW HILL, MARYLAND 21863-1000
TEL: 410-632-1311
FAX: 410-632-2141
Januarys, 1998
Ms. Lorraine Strow
Project Planning
Maryland S.H.A.
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Dear Ms. Strow:
I have spoken with the Fire Chiefs in the effected areas of Rt 113 that are to be
dualized. As a whole, each Chief is in favor of an expedient completion of the project. The only
negative issue which was presented by the Chiefs was a slight increase in response times. This
was due in fact to having to locate a median to access addresses on opposite sides of the
highway.
At the present time, only Pocomoke City and Berlin have dualized portions of Rt. 113. I
presented the Chiefs of these two company's with the concern noted above. They both stated
that any increase in response time was minimal, adding that they each have a sufficient amount
of medians to gain access to opposite sides of the highway. The Chief s in the effected areas
voiced this as a concern and would like the State to insure that adequate number of cross-overs
are included for emergency responders.
If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Wade Taylor
Assistant Director
V C-5(ll)
-------
Coalition of Elected Public Officials
Worcester County, MD
June 10,1997
.;,-
'••-*•
David L. Winstead
Secretary of Transportation
P. O. Box 8755
BWI Airport, MD 21240-0755
Dear Mr. Secretary:
We, the elected public officials of Worcester County, urge that your Department approve as
rapidly as possible full dualization of the undivided portions of Route 113.
We know that you are aware of the tragic deaths that have occurred on this dangerous stretch of
highway. What we have to look forward to hi the current situation is that deaths may double in
the next 25 years. We were elected to represent our constituents' best interests. Their best
interests are served by being able to travel through this county safely and not have to use roads
that by themselves pose a safety hazard. Route 113 is the only north-south route. Not only is it
traveled by our constituents but by persons traveling north-south along the eastern seaboard.
They also have a right and a desire to be able to traverse Worcester County safely.
One only has to look at the great interstate system that binds this republic together and does.it as
safely as possible to see what we want and believe we are entitled to. The American highway
system is unique hi the world. It links Ocean City, Maryland and Sacramenjfo, California. It
nurtures economic development fed by long-distance trucking. For the national economy as a
whole, this is clearly a blessing. For Worcester County, however, the blessing is mixed. Tractor-
trailers and big rigs haul the goods into and through our county that enhance economic progress.
But at the same time, these huge vehicles pose a threat to others and themselves when they must
travel on a single lane highway behind passenger vehicles. Complicating all traffic is slow
moving farm machinery that must use the same narrow road. This poses a clear and present
danger that must be changed.
We urge most strongly your expeditious action on construction of a full four-lane divided
highway on the undivided stretches of Route 113.
Address^ , ,
C^M?W -Ht*.
V 0-5(12)
-------
Name
Elective OfSCF
V^^\ H-t
Name
Elective Office
>se*z, y€^g
-------
-------
Name
Elective Office
Nfeie
lective Office 7
v .c-
-------
Mary/and Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
August 26, 1997
Parris N. Glendening
Governor
David L. Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
Thank you for your letter to Secretary Winstead on behalf of the Coalition of Elected
Public Officials, Worcester County, Maryland, supporting the dualization of US 113 in
Worcester County and urging rapid approval of these improvement plans. The Secretary
asked me to respond on his behalf.
Your comments regarding the mix of vehicles on US 113 has been noted. I agree with
you this roadway not only serves local traffic including wide farm vehicles, but also carries 1
long distance trucks and out of town travelers.
*
The State Highway Administration (SHA) considers the US 113 project to be a top
priority and has put this project on a fast track. We anticipate the Federal Highway
Administration will grant location approval this Winter. All comments received from the
public, agencies, and elected officials as a result of the June Location/Design Public Hearing,
will be considered in the decision making for this project. Your name has been added to our
mailing list, and your letter will be made part of the public hearing record.
Again, thank you for your letter. If you need additional information regarding this
matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mrs. Sue Rajan, our Project Manager, who may be
reached at (410) 545-8514 or 1-800-548-5026.
Sincere!'
cc:
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
The Honorable David L. Winstead, Secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation
Mrs. R. Suseela Rajan, Project Manager, State Highway Administration
My telephone number is
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MO 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
V C-5(16)
-------
US 113 Planning Study
4. Local Officials
Snow Hill Mayor Craig Johnson
• letter from Mayor Craig Johnson to
Maryland Department of Transportation Secretary David L. Winstead
dated June 2, 1997
• letter from Maryland State Highway Administrator Parker F. Williams to
Mayor Johnson
dated July 8, 1997
Berlin Administrative Director Andrew Fulghum
Berlin Chief of Police Prentice Lyons
letter from Berlin Administrative Director Andrew Fulghum and
Berlin Chief of Police Prentice Lyons to
Maryland Department of Transportation Secretary David L. Winstead
dated June 12,1997
Ocean City Mayor James N. Mathias, Jr.
• letter from Mayor James N. Mathias, Jr. to
Maryland Department of Transportation Secretary David L. Winstead
dated June 16, 1997
• letter from Maryland State Highway Administrator Parker F. Williams to
Mayor Mathias
dated July 24,1997
City of Pocomoke City Mayor Curt Lippoldt
• letter from Mayor Curt Lippoldt to
Maryland State Highway Administrator David L. Winstead
dated June 17,1997
letter from Maryland State Highway Administrator Parker F. Williams to
Mayor Lippoldt
dated July 24,1997
Page
VC-6(1)
VC-6(2)
V C-6(3)
V C-6(4)
V C-6(5)
VC-6(6)
V C-6(7)
VC-6
-------
SINOW
HIT Jl
•S^T- 1686-y86
MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF SNOW HILL
June 2,1997
DavidL. Winstead
Secretary of Transportation "
P.O. Box 8755
• BWI Airport, Maryland 21240-0755
Dear Secretary Winstead:
On behalf of myself and the Council of the Town of Snow EStt located in Worcester
County directly off of Rte. 113,1 urge that the State Highway Administration approve
plans for full dualization ofRte. 113 as rapidly as possible.
As you know, 71 people have lost their lives in the past 20 years on the undivided
sections ofRte. 113. Local population is growing at a rapid pace, particularly in the
north end of the county. This has greatly increased daily traffic on so-called "killer
highway", which is the only north-south route through the county. The evidence is
clear that local population growth will continue. This fact alone brings increased
traffic and increased risks. Added to this is tremendous growth in commercial traffic,
particularly huge trucks, making the journey through our county outright dangerous.
The widening ofRte. 113 has been debated for two decades; meanwhile, vehicular
deaths and injuries mount I support the safest route possible and the four-lane
divided highway is the only long-term remedy. We urge rapid approval of this project
Sincerely,
Johnson
P.S. We would like to receive information on future developments on Rte. 113. Please
add the Town of Snow Hill to the mailing list
V C-6(l)
Municipal Building • P.O. Box 348
Telephone: 410-632-2080
Snow Hill, Maryland 21863
Fax: 410-632-2858
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
July 8, 1997
Parris N. Glendaning
Governor
David L Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
The Honorable Craig Johnson
Mayor
Town of Snow Hill
Municipal Building
P.O. Box 348
Snow Hill MD 21863
Dear Mayor Johnson:
Thank you for your recent letter to Secretary Winstead on behalf of the Council of the
Town of Snow Hill and yourself supporting the dualization of US 113 in Worcester County
and urging rapid approval of these improvement plans. The Secretary asked me to respond
on his behalf.
The State Highway Administration considers the US 113 project to be a top priority
and has put this project on a fast track. We have just held the required location/design
public hearing and anticipate the Federal Highway Administration will grant location
approval this Winter. All comments received from the public, agencies and elected officials
will be evaluated before an alternative is selected. Your name has been added to our mailing
list, and your letter will be made part of the public hearing record.
Again, thank you for your letter. If you need additional information regarding this
matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Neil Pedersen, our Director of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering at (410) 545-0411 or Mrs. Sue Rajan, Project Manager, who may
be reached at (410) 545-8514 or 1-800-548-5026.
cc:
7. Williams
Administrator
The Honorable David L. Winstead, Secretary, Maryland Department of
Transportation
Mr. Neil J. Pedersen, Director of Planning and Preliminary Engineering, State
Highway Administration
Mrs. R. Suseela Rajan, Project Manager, State Highway Administration
My telephone number is
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MO 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 2120%
V C-6(2)
-------
TELEPHONE
410-641-2770
FAX
410-641-2316
Mayor
REXHAILEY ;
Council
Vice President
ELROYBRITTINGHAM, SR.
DEANBURRELL,SR.
PAULA LYNCH
F. DENNIS PARKER
WILLIAMTURNER •
Town Attorney
RAYMOND COAXES, JR.
Administrative Director
ANDREW FULGHUM
Sc (Dotmttt
10
^Berlin,
21811
June 12, 1997
David L. Winstead
Secretary of Transportation
P.O. Box 8755
BWI Airport, MD 21240-0755
Dear Secretary Winstead:
As residents and employers within Worcester County, we
urge that the State Highway Administration approve plans
for full duaUzation of Rte. 113 as rapidly as possible.
As you know, 71 people have lost their lives in the past 20
years on the undivided sections of Rte. 113. Local
population is growing at a rapid pace, particularly in the
north end of the county. This has greatly increased daily
traffic on so-called "killer-highway", which is the only
north-south route through the county. The evidence is clear
that the local population growth will continue. This fact
alone brings increased traffic and increased risks. Added to
this is tremendous growth in commercial traffic,
particularly huge trucks, making the journey through our
county outright dangerous.
The widening of Rte. 113 has been debated for two
decades: meanwhile, vehicular deaths and injuries mount
We support the safest route possible and the four-lane
divided highway is the only long-term remedy. We urge
rapid approval of this project
Sincerely,
Administrative Director
Prentice Lyons, Chief of Police
MAR YIANO
[MAIN STREET!
v c-6(3)
-------
TOWN OF
OCEAN CITY
The White Martin Capital of the World
MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
P.O. BOX 158
OCEAN car,
MARYLAND 21842-3922
June 16, 1997
(410) 2S9-S22I
FAX (410) 289-7385
Secretary David L. Winstead
Maryland Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 8755
Baltimore/Washington International
Airport, MD 21240
Dear Mr. Secretary:
On behalf of the citizens and Mayor and City Council of
Ocean City, I express full support for the improvements and
dualization effort currently winder study by the Maryland
Department of Transportation.
. As you would imagine, friends, families and visitors to
the Ocean City area travel this roadway on a daily basis. It
is reassuring to know a clear action plan greatly improving the
safety of the corridor is progressing forward.
As good citizens of this great State of Maryland, we stand
ready to assist you in this effort, and urge you to remain committed
to an expeditious solution. '
'MAYOR . .1 .
JAMES N. MATHIAS, JR.
:' Cm COUNCIL MEMBERS
_RICHARD -W: MJEEHAN
K frSSitttftt
~LEE DUGGAN
—VINCENT G1SRIEL. JR.
JAMES S. HALL
NANCY I_ HOWARD
WALTER C. MANN
W. GLENN STECKMAN. HI
DENNIS W. DARE
Cty Manager
CAROL L. JACOBS-
Oadtric
JMM/jm
V C-6(4)
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
July 24, 1997
Parris N. Glendening-
Governor
David L. Winstead
Secretary —
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
The Honorable James N. Mathias, Jr.
Mayor
Town of Ocean City
P.O. Box 158
Ocean City MD 21842-3922
Dear Mayor Mathias:
Thank you for your recent letter to Secretary Winstead on behalf of the dteis
Mayor anTcouncil of Ocean City expressing your support for tiie dualizaUon of US 113 in
Worcester County. The Secretary asked me to respond on his behalf.
The State Highway Administration considers US 113 to be a top priority and has put
it on a fit ttack Location approval from the Federal Highway Administration is anticipated
by Siis WtaSrwe£ plannfg to begin design activities this Fall for the northern portion
from US 50 to the Delaware State Line, since funding is available for this phase. Right-of-
wa^fsitionTs « funded and it could start in mid 1998, All comments recewed
from Se public, agencies and elected officials will be taken into consideration in the
selection of an alternative.
Again, thank you for your letter. Your letter and your testimony will be made part of
the pubUc hearing record. We appreciate your continued support for to^project,aid will
keen YOU updated on its progress. If you need any additional information regarding this
Ser, pSdo not hesitate to contact me or Mr. Neil Pedersen, our Director of Planning
and Preliminary Engineering at (410) 545-0411.
C Williams
Administrator
cc:
Mr. Neil J. Pedersen, Director of Planning and Preliminary Engineering, State
id L^Winstead, Secretary, Maryland Department of
Transportation
My telephone number is ——. •
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
V C-6(5)
-------
MAYOR
CURT LIPTOLDT
"FRIENDLIEST TOWN ON THE EASTERN SHORE"
June 17,1997
CITY MANAGER
RUSSELL W. BLAKE
Mr. David L. Winstead
Secretary of Transportation
c/o CRASH
PO Box 1001
Berlin, Maryland 21811
Dear Secretary Winstead:
Pocomoke City is located at the dualized southern end of US 113. Our citizens
are, however, very much interested in improving the safety of the highway throughout its
entire length including the northern end. Many work in the Ocean City area, especially
during the tourist season. Each work day commute for an Ocean City area employee
hying in Pocomoke City is approximately eighty miles round trip, some on dualized
highway and the remainder on single lane highway. Traveling such distances on a daily
basis on any highway is tiring and involves risk but the sudden narrowing of US 113 as
Pocomoke citizens travel north adds to the hazards - signs or no signs.
The mayor and council of Pocomoke City urgently request the Maryland State
Highway Administration to proceed with utmost haste to complete the dualization of
highway US 113. The most recent fatal accident on the non-dualized section involved a
prominent Pocomoke City school teacher. Our city and county as well as the family
cannot afford such a loss. If dualization will reduce the number of accidents on the'
northern end of the US 113 highway, the related cost or environmental impact is a small
pnce to pay for the lives saved.
We applaud the work of the CRASH committee, Worcester County government
and other interested parties in their sustained drive to resolve a long standing serious
problem. We are also very pleased that the State Highway Administration is actively
involved and working with the above groups and individuals as demonstrated by the June
17th public hearing and the related displays of information and engineering options It is
our hope that the end of this process will result in the immediate start of the construction
process.
CITY COUNCIL
MARION L. BUTLER
HONKS W. CANE
ROBERT L. HAWKINS
JOSEPH A. JACKSON HI
RICHARD P. TrrrERMARY
Thank you.
Sincerely,
CurtLippoldt
Mayor
CITY HAUL. P.O. BOX 29
POCOMOKE CrTY, MARYLAND 21851
PHONE (410) 957-1333
V C-6(6)
-------
Maryland Departmentof Transportation
State Highway Administration
Parris N. Glendening
Governor
David L. Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
July 24, 1997
The Honorable Curt Lippoldt
Mayor of Pocomoke City
City Hall
P.O. Box 29
Pocomoke City MD 21851
Dear Mayor Lippoldt:
Thank you for your recent letter to Secretary Winstead on behalf: of^the Council of
Pocomo™ atf £d yoLelf urging the State Highway Administration (SHA) to compete the
duSon of US 113 in Worcester County. The Secretary asked me to respond on his
behalf.
The SHA has identified US 113 to be a top priority and has Put it on!* J^ trac£
Location approval from the Federal Highway Administration « antiapated byi^ Wiator.
Welre planning to begin design activities this Fall for the northern portion from US 50 to
Ae^laWslate X, since funding is available for this phase. Kgh^^way acqui^on
bwStyteded and it could start in mid 1998. All ««"»££«?? pUbhC'
iencies Li elected officials will be taken into consideration in the selection of an
alternative.
Aeain thank you for your letter. Your letter and your testimony will be made part of
the pubUc^Srd. We appreciate your continued support for this project, and will
kcLyouSon its progress If you need any additional information regarding; to
Ser, pSdo not hesitate to contact me or Mr. NeOPedersen, our Director of Planning
and Preliminary Engineering at (410) 545-0411.
uua^wAw-j > *
BarkCTF. Williams
Administrator
cc: Mr. Neil J. Pedersen, Director, State ffigh^y Administration
The Honorable David L. Winstead, Secretary, Maryland Department of
Transportation
My telephone number is
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD *1203-07T7
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
V C-6(7)
-------
D. Organizations/Associations Letters
US 113 Planning Study
Chapter V
-------
ii'i:'1:1*!*!**,,, *ii':*ii|ii*ni|i|ii|ii|i|||j|B| P'jiiiijiPPiiijiiiiiRiRiiii'ijiiP'iiin' MHI,, *.i*'pi i ' ':. "i
:::::".: \ ?.\ ^ liiiiaiiii'^liiia W m -\ •" #,': •:» n1 i! rf;
SlliilVlil,!**'!!11!'!*" II' ;:"!,* , i ill'lira;!', il, Bl'lilll1**",'***"!* \nll>'1lllllllll|lll|lllllll mill* ,.'!PP!"i * il' lilll'iH "i'liMI *, , P .1
'' it'1" ' ,1'iif •" .JIjlliLilll,:1' |" 'K'l'h ,,i,'"PI,!ii' 'ii
' ''
II1IIV: "| I "Illlllll'lini .ill'i 'li;,;!1 IB EBIIIIlii ''" I'1!*, IB I*1 lllllllllllllllliPIIP.,, . 'ilB'illlll Ii1, ' IPIIIIIn, 1 iiliHiilillin In ,i' * iii '" I'*'',, lllllllllllllllllll UllirTHI11 'illlUlliLi! T'llKiJIIIPIIIIIIlll
lllLi:!'1::'; "! MB::!, liil I'lilil'1 'i !< ,;"!':1!'" ".Illlllllli:!!;" ;iili:!!lliiiil7':iiililliillil!ill!!{i|lii!::!:i iiiii:: III" ^1 ii'l ili1lllj||jl|!llll!!l:l!lllilliililllllllill,IIF, 'inpiN < .iiiiiiiiiii"-)!!"!:1! ..... ,in •iriiiiiii'iiF!!! • ...... i • , ii-
^ ma:n:- i .1 'Siiiu ...... i >n ...... ' i ' . '|>:1 , •< 'i, ,;, , , ;•, , 111
i ii i 1 1 1 ii ii 1 1 1 1 lllliillii i F il, 1 111; ' ' ' !i i iii] 'I i ! 'SI 1,4 11 ii T! 3! i^^
1 111 I II l«l|i [fill • ..... ..... ,:i ...... ..... ' !in •• ..... IK:!: 'MM !!!H^^^^
fi SI ' '! "ii ..... i?
..... iw iS!u^ ..... /.ill ' i, II wiib ' ;> ,,1;' » r ' ' ; > i1
' >:-il!ii ..... IIIK ....... 'K IIIH^^^^^^^^^^^ i'i ........ IHI; rill!:: 1 ...... C '; u!' ' ' 1: iilii'-'! ,/ ''tit 'l
.
iRi,':; I
111! *'* iiini! 1*1° \v f j!!!;;!*1*!!
"j 'iiBllliillllllllli1' -i"" in* fi,'H'llBi*, !!'!|i»
; 'j. 'i'!"", , "jjh y,
lllfllM^
•iiEii'i ni'iiip ': T, 111 iiiiifliiiiiiiiiBfflHiiiii"iBiiiiiiir liiiiiiipin i III|IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIPI .n BIB -1
i'1 : ID"" liiiliiiiiBillilBBIIBlB'Bi1 IIP Jill f lllil^!BBiiiiEII!'11l|l'!l:'l*ii*||,Bll "ii .li'ili |.ii:ii""l|<'i '41!' BBIIHB!,'" \'" ' "BE!,,,; '
^f^* " '!1^ '••;*::I"
' ^in^^^^^^^^^^ ii>(;!
I',;1!1!!!1!!!!;; /h.V « *
feJi^'iK"^^
'fc-.:1'!.i. I'll
L'Bilii'lBiBiiliii*,, El'IIIIIIBi,:" ilnilllllliiinlpi'iilPi'llnllllR Mi,-' Fil:!l', », 'ilil"*!*''!!'**1, >' B*1*„ *:"
! BJIKiiiM ....... Jfili,!"'. : ' ;: I ijf ' niNiiii," T' ........ "'»' ,«, LI ,'"'•/ < !l ^ .pi"1',:1; • ni!«F11!lli • ,; .ill IJi;:;'<:!!i!;; ^'
<] iilU! i \ 'IliiliiiJIllliRl ..... ' !!il|| HE !, . "': : \ rillllilllllli, '! il, : :!::' ': ..... !' '" ! ! 'I , f! , :, IHidri, II!' " ' illlllilllll'l, .ill; '" i^"1 ,,! 'i::,!!!11 f. Iii!1'!!
li'; i."1 IlIiiiilijB JliJIIU^ •(<*'' X ..... IIHiME'l!:!.^ 'fnFjiilhii:'1' i! ....... IE' ..... I L i i1 1' jillhi ii!!,!'1' .ii!"" i'"!" '•' :: !' ''Ill1 '!>l
!!!;!!1 'i|«|i' j!, iHi'lllniiJIII"1 flJIIIIIIIilllli.!'.!!!", iiipilllllllllllllillllllliilllLillliillllillllEnilillllllllli^^^ > ', ' K \£* III < '' TJI'llll ill:1' ""!il ' ll'lliljlill »l ' ' "' I'illlllilllil'l'i JJ:i:l'':i*i''t:;i:i'';i;i ..... I
[' U ii'iiiiiiiiiiiiini!" iiii;!;:,: MI,, 'liiini'.!!!., igiiiiiiipiiii;:' Mt • ;. -i4': n '"Hui" i, i Hiiiiiir'
iiiJi I !'^!1B i; 'l!,!ii^ kiili
...... ' i'iM iliH^^^^^ jii *XSs :t\ ..... , ; ' ...... (I • , s "':'l ',•• K-'A
; • ...... li'i;!,! ..... i> i. : •!!•• iiir::iiiiiiiii>
, ii
111111 i ..... IIIIIIIM
'torn • iiiiiLi ir1, i ' ' ...... ' ,."1" ...... i. K ' : t • i;: ,; I'liiii,'
• j'lii;')!' IIIHIIJ a; laiix11 'itmd^^^^ it
i'l,,',".!"';!'*''" , illli'.!',!, „ ; " 'Alii ' Ii','1!!;, ,, 'I'HIll!
-------
US 113 Planning Study
D. Organizations/Associations Letters
0. Worcester County Commission for Women
1. Maryland Environmental Trust
2. Showell Elementary School
3. Superintendent of Schools, Worcester County
4. Department of Economic Development, Worcester County
5. Snow Hill Police Department
6. Ocean Pines Civic Association
7. Berlin State Police Barracks
8. Ocean Pines Association, Inc.
9. Economic Development Advisory Board, Worcester County
10. West Ocean City Association, Inc.
11. Worcester Environmental Trust
12. C.R.A.S.H.
13. Assategue Coastal Trust
14. C.R.A.S.H.
April 3, 1997
April 29,1997
April 30,1997
May 28,1997
May 29,1997
June 2, 1997
June 9, 1997
June 10,1997
June 13,1997
June 17,1997
June 17,1997
July 11, 1997
July 24,1997
July 30,1997
December 9, 1997
(1 page)
(5 pages)
(1 page)
(1 page)
(2 pages)
(1 page)
(1 page)
(1 page)
(2 pages)
(2 pages)
(1 page)
(2 pages)
(8 pages)
(1 page)
(2 pages)
Copies of these letters, and responses as appropriate, are presented on the following pages.
VD-1
-------
CTiwrperaoa; Judy Hoggs
Vice Chtlrpenaa:
Barbara Beaubfca
Recording i
MiricVcJong
Buna Pirndl
Trtuurwr . j
ert
Huwnert tdwr
jar'
ityScnicc;
Jo CtiapbeJI
KifnriHn»;
TerauHavuurfaaclier
^^ibt
EartJUa BcauMca
Holca
Bin Gray
fttnsel» McCibe
£Be* £Qcbard
Sandy WiOcioson
410333158S
WORCESTER. COUNTY
COMMISSION FOR. WOMEN
POST OFFICE BOX 59
BJ5HOPVILL£MD21SP
• The Boo. fanis Gleodeofiing
Governor of Maryland
22401
Dear Goferoor Gfendi
^^^"
O ' / y Ana 3, last
BECEIVED
APR 8 1997
OF
Tb* Worcester County Camnrfoian tar Women
prioritize ftmiBng and ei^ilfo ftg A^H^tf^n ^f Bnntr * f* in
Warcater Coanty.
Stventy peopfe have Icrt their fives in automobile accidents
an tbb road sines 1977, tweaty*wo of whom have been fcffled
•within the lart ax yean. •
^PlW < •
of Won»Ar County, and tadeed Jor al! tluwe
I"^ Slflre to 'w **beach "^—""y
JuomO. Boggs
RECEIVED
V DO-l
Phone: (voice mail] 219-1835 Fax: (410) 250-4567 E-mail- joie8e@ecob9pi'cs.eom
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
The Secretary's Office
April 24, 1997
Parris N. Gtehdening
Govsmor
David L-Wlnstead
Secretary
John D. Poreari
Deputy Seetelaiy
Ms. Judith O. Boggs
Chairperson
Worcester County Commission for Women
P.O. Box 59
Bishopvffle MD 21813 ,
Dear Ms. Boggs:
Thank you for your letter to Governor Glendening regarding your request to prioritize
funding and to expedite the dualization of US 113 in Worcester County. The Governor
asked me to respond on his behalf.
The number of fatalities occurring along this stretch of US 113 is of great importance
to us. The State Highway Administration (SHA) has identified the US 113 project as one of
the top priorities and has placed it on an expedited schedule. Coordination with the various
Federal and State agencies is underway in order to meet the project schedule. The
Location/Design Public Hearing is scheduled for mid-June. The SHA is also looking at
interim improvements to make this a safer road.
Again, thank you for your letter. The Governor appreciates hearing ftom you and,
on his behalf, I also thank you for the interest which prompted you to write. If you need
additional information regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Parker F.
Williams, State Highway Administrator, at (410) 545-0400 or his Director of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering, Mr. Neil Pedersen, who may be reached at (410) 545-0411.
Sincerely,
cc:
David L. Winstead
Secretary
Mr. Neil J. Pedersen, Director of Planning and Preliminary Engineering, State
Highway Administration
Mr. Parker F. Williams, Administrator, State Highway Administration
My telephone number is (410)
865-1000
TTY Forth* Deafc (410) 885-1342
Post Office Box 8755. Bafitmore/Waahfogton International Airport. Maryland 21240-0755
. V DO-2
-------
MARYLAND ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST
April 29, 1997
Ms. R. Suseela Rajan
State Highway Administration
Project Planning Division
P.O. Box 717
Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717
Dear Ms. Rajan:
In reference to Department's proposed improvements to US 113 in Worcester County from
South of Snow Hill to the Delaware Line, the Maryland Environmental Trust and the Lower
Shore Land Trust jointly hold a perpetual conservation easement over a property owned by
Audrey E. and Paul E. Pennington.
The conservation features and the location of the Pennington's farm are described in detail on
the attached memorandum.
*
Please keep us informed as this study progresses.
Hutson
ktural Resources Planner
V Dl-l
-------
-
-ia A
'. MA&YIAND
TRUST
MEMORXNDTTM
TO: . ' • MET Easement Committee
VIA: '
•Aouaprjj
DATE:
uuoj
Sfifc§$i^*99JSiuj. jo piBog aquBip'spuauiujooaJ JJBIS
Thomas D.. Saunders'
StSA[BUy
September 27, 1996
pu uuoj[
Paul E.
'ennington,
Angela
County, Lxxation:
Size: '
Existing Residences:
Reserved Residences:
Subdivision Terms: . Division beyond the two existing parcels is prohibited
Issues:
Worcester County, north o
45.8 acres
Two
None
reflect "for
to
rro^
Jd SBaiy ^opup pug
Staff Recommendation: Approval
and
Background SUIJSQUI 3a«itutuoo jusuiasBg sqj
Paul E. and Audrey E.' Pennington and Michael P.
aq
offered- a
, — • . » »» kfc»r ; —
eW **** SZ 'ssjissiuoq ur saooB OMX .-SSJOB
" • ^ .!•••••• i • .» • f,wm imfm ' - •>** : JF ^fffff^^m a^'V*«*>i*V* y
• • Worcester County, State Property Map 20, Parcels 103 and 341, north ^ZBl&8![and U.S.
. Route 50 on the east side of MD .Route 1 13i -(See attached .map detail.)
9661 \IZ
CONSTANCE UEDER
Chair
AJAX EASTMAN
ViceOuitr
JOHN MURPHY
Secretory
' ELLEN H. KELLY
Treasurer
THOMAS D. SAUNDERS
Director
100 COMMUNITY PLACE ISTFLOOR CRO"WNSVILLE.MD 21O32-2O23 (410)514-7900 FAX (410)514-7919
V Dl«2
-------
-------
THE BEACH CLUB LIMITED
I9S*/2TI
336.99*
K2SI
AUDREY PENNINGTON
WORCESTER CO.
MAP 20, P. 103, 341
V Dl-4
-------
3F STUDY
SOUTHBOUND
DF STUDY
ORTHBOUND
WDAIW
tat* M*p* -1803
Itorio Stfuctut*
lotto StnKtum
•D
OVED
res
US 113 (Worcester Highway) PLANNING STUDY
From MD 394 (Market Street) Split to the Delaware State Line
Contract No. WO 720 - 101 - 170 - P
DUALIZE ALTERNATIVES
3N & 4N MODIFIED
From North of MD 818 (Main Street) - Georgetown Road
To North ofMD 90 (Ocean Expressway)
State
Highway
Administration
April, 1997
V Dl-5
Figure No.
15
-------
Maryland Departmentof Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L. Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
June 24, 1997
Re: Project No. WO720B 11
US 1 13 from Snow Hill to the
Delaware State Line
John Hutson
Natural Resources Planner .
Maryland Environmental Trust
100 Community Place, 1st Floor
Crownsville MD 21032-2023
Dear Mr. Hutson:
Thank you for providing us with information regarding the perpetual conserve™
"
rin "l*9 planni"9 phase and *• Lcwation/Design Public
^nng was held on June 17. Aseleoted alternative Is expected to be ohosen later this
m S[lould.Alte™tive 3N be selected, we would investigate possible design
My telephone number is
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
e. , Address: P-0- Box 717 • Baltimore, MO 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street . Baltimore, Maryland 21202
V Dl-6
-------
Mr. John Hutson
US 113 from Snow Hill to the
Delaware State Line
Page Two
Very truly yours,
Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
' 1?'' t •
• /l/lJ4<4S**-~ ,.
4\j?
Joseph R. Kresslem
Assistant Division Chief
Project Planning Division
Enclosures (2)
cc: Mr. Bruce M. Grey
Mr. Joseph Kresslein
Mrs. R. Suseela Rajan
Ms. Cynthia Simpson
Ms. Lorraine Straw
Mr. Jim Wynn
V Dl-7
-------
V Dl-8
-------
i
LENOBEP.HUFFER
y School
n grj
RECEIVE
GOVERNOR'S OFF
Governor Parris N. Glendemn?
State House
Armapolis, MD. 21401
Js
Bear Govearaor Glendenin^:
As you w^ll know, over TO jN»pto &ay« died to
years on UA Boute 113 in Worcester Comsiy. A mowmmt h^s been
«
of SIAC ( School iffiiiroveBi«it Advisory Com
ary School 5n.B«rii», Macy
to
concerned citizens and parents nnnvuur v—„ ,
, .,^_ ^ ^ doaKzatioB of UA Boute 113. We are certain
of serious and fetal accidents on this
nany of our ch&&6& and staJ^ travel every day.
Thank you for yonr Urne *ad conadteKition to this important
matter.1, . '• ! • •
SIAC Members fear ihowafflL Sch
Mrs.
Mr.
ACrs.
Mr. Jlxi Panons
Mr. Gerard Gan
Mre. Mary ParJcer
Mr. Hear? Beictar _
Mrs. "^T^isia Borodnli
Mr. Derek Jarmon
Mrs. Cnody CaflieU
Mr. Bobfirt EiaHsurd
Mrs, Angola Dannfa
Mxa. CjirolJohnflon
V D2-1
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
The Secretary's Office
Parrfs N. Glendenfng
Governor
David L.Winstead
Secretary
John D. Porcari
Deputy Secretary
May 22, 1997
School Improvement Advisory Committee (SIAC) Members
Showell Elementary School
11318 Showell School Road
Berlin MD 21811
Dear SIAC Members:
Thank you for your letter to Governor Glendening expressing your support for the
dualization of US 113 in Worcester County. The Governor asked me to respond on his
behalf.
The number of fatalities occurring along this stretch of US 113 is of great concern to
us also. The State Highway Administration (SHA) has identified the US 113 project as one
of its top priorities and has placed it on an expedited schedule. Coordination with the
various Federal and State agencies is underway in order to meet the project schedule. The
Location/Design Public Hearing is scheduled to be held at Stephen Decatur High School on
June 17. Meeting notification and a brochure containing project information will be mailed
in the near future. The SHA is also looking at interim improvements that can be
implemented more quickly to make this a safer highway.
Again, thank you for your letter. The Governor appreciates hearing from you and,
on his behalf, I also thank you for the interest which prompted you to write. If you need
additional information regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact SHA's Director
of Planning and Preliminary Engineering, Mr. Neil Pedersen, who can be reached at
(410)545-0411.
Sincerely,
David L. Winstead
Secretary
cc: Mr. Neil J. Pedersen, Director, State Highway Administration
My telephone number is (410)
865-1000
TTY For the Deaf: (410) 865-1342
Post Office Box 8755, Baltimore/Washington International Airport. Maryland 21240-0755
V D2-2
-------
d of Education of Worker County
^wOKESTEKHrGSW^
Newark, Maryland
May 23,1997
David L. Winstead
Seaetary of Transporfetioiv
P.O. Box 8755
BWI Aiiport, MD
RECEIVED
JUH 2 1997
--CREFTARY 6EPARTMET-
"-F TRANSPORTATION
Dear Sectary Winstead: . ',irafiflll of Worcester County,
Sincerely yours,
&VW,
of School
JMA/dpb
gSjr'""""'"1^
M^i Tony MdSI^b
Mr. Robert
Excellence m Education •
VD3-1
-------
Maryland Depart
The Secretary's Office
Parris N. Glendening
Governor
June 12, 1997
David L. WInstoad
Secretary
John D. Porear!
Deputy Secretary
Dr. Jon M. Andes
Superintendent of Schools
The Board of Education of Worcester County
6270 Worcester Highway
Newark MD 21841-9746
Dear Dr. Andes:
Thank you. for your recent letter supporting the dualization of US 113 in Worcester
County. The State Highway Administration (SHA) has identified the US 113 project as a top
priority and has placed it on an expedited schedule. After the Location/Design Public
Hearing is held on June 17, at the Stephen Decatur High School at 6 p.m. and all comments
received from the public, agencies and elected officials have been evaluated, an alternative
will be selected. We anticipate the Federal Highway Administration will grant location
approval late this Winter.
A copy of your letter is being forwarded to the SHA so your name can be added to
the projected mailing list. A brochure containing project information will be mailed to
everyone on the mailing list this month. Your letter is also being made part of the public
hearing record.
Again, thank you for your letter. If you need additional information regarding this
mater, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Neil Pedersen, SHA's Director of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering at (410) 545-0411 or Mrs. Sue Rajan, Project Manager, who may
be reached at (410) 545-5514 or 1-800-548-5026.
.Sincerely,
cc:
David L. Winstead
Secretary
Mr. Neil J. Pedersen, Director of Planning and Preliminary Engineering, State
Highway Administration
Mrs R Suseela Rajan, Project Manager, State Highway Administration
Mr. Parker F. Williams, Administrator, State Highway Administration
My telephone number Is 410-865-1000
TTY For the beat ^410) ^65-1342
Post Office Box 8755. BetHmore/Washingtoi International Airport. Maryland 2124
-------
DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
WARDEN S. RC3ENTHAU
cmtero*
(ttmrtttg
105 PEARL STREET
SNOW HILL, MARYLAND
21863
USA CHALLENGER
TOURISM COORDINATOR
May 29, 1997
David L. Winstead
Secretary of Transportation
P.O. Box 8755
BWI Airport, MD 21240-0755 '
Dear Secretary Winstead:
As a resident and the Economic Development Director of Worcester County, I urge the
State Highway Administration approve plans for full dualization of U.S. Rt 113 as rapidly as
possible.
As you know, 71 people have lost their lives in the past 20 years on the undivided sections
of U.S. Rt. 113. The local population is growing at a rapid pace, particularly in the northern end
of the county. This has greatly increased daily traffic on the so-called "killer highway", which is
the only north-south route through the county. Added to this is the tremendous growth in
commercial traffic, particularly tractor trailers, making the journey through our county outright
dangerous. :
From an economic standpoint, most companies list access to interstate highways as one of
the most important considerations in determining where a new facility will be located. Since we
are approximately 100 miles away from the nearest interstate highway, the.next best alternative is
a dualized U.S. highway, preferably with controlled access. From a commercial transportation
standpoint, it is clear that U.S. Rt. 113 is severely deficient. Those firms that are already located
in the county may be discouraged from expanding, while companies outside the area may not even
consider Worcester County as a possible location for their business.
V D4-1
-------
The widening of U.S.Rt 113 has been debatedfor two decades; meanwhile, vehicular
deaths and injuries mount. I support the safest route possible and the four-lane-divided highway is
the only long-term remedy. I urge rapid approval of this project.
Sincerely,
Warren S. Rosenthal
Director
WSR:dk
V D4_2
-------
MarylandDepartmentof Transportation
Sta te High way A dministra tion
Parris N. Glendening
Governor
David L. Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
August 14, 1997
Mr. Warren Rosenthal
Director
Worcester County Economic Development
105 Pearl Street
Snow Hill MD 21863
Dear Mr. Rosenthal:
Thank you for your letter to Secretary Winstead supporting the dualization of US 113
in Worcester County and urging rapid approval of this project. The Secretary asked me to
respond on his behalf.
In your letter, you had emphasized the importance of having US 113 dualized
preferably with controls of access. With all dualization alternatives, partial control of access is
proposed. In areas where the roadway is on new location, access would be fully controlled.
The State Highway Administration (SHA) is also considering limiting access for the existing
roadway through an access management program.
Your concerns for safety along the undivided sections of US 113 has been noted. SHA
considers the US 113 project to be a top priority and has put this project on a fast track. All
comments received from the public, agencies and elected officials will be evaluated before
making a decision on this project. Your name has been added to our mailing list, and your
letter will be made part of the public hearing record.
My telephone number, is
V D4-3
' Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
Mr. Warren Rosenthal
Page Two
Parker F.Williams
Administrator
cc:
MB.^R. Suseda Rajan, Prq'ect Manager, Slate Highway Administration
Tie Honcaawe Da«d L. Wtoaead, Secreajy> Maryfa,,J DepartnSTrfTtansportation
V D4-4
-------
SNOW,
(,86-1986
SNOW HILL POLICE DEPARTMENT
June 2,1997
David L. Winstead
Secretary of Transportation ;
P.O. Box 8755 £~
BWI Airport, Maryland 21240-0755 ,'
Dear Secretary Winstead:
As Chief of Police in the Town of Snow Hill, I urge that the State Highway
Administration approve plans for full dualization of Rte. 113 as rapidly as possible.
As you know, 71 people have lost their lives in the past 20 years on the undivided
sections of Rte. 113. Local population is growing at a rapid pace, particularly in the
north end of the county. This has greatly increased daily traffic on so-called "killer
highway11, which is the only north-south route through the county. The evidence is
clear that local population growth will continue. This fact alone brings increased
traffic and increased risks. Added to this is tremendous growth in commercial
traffic, particularly huge trucks, making the journey through our county outright
dangerous.
The widening of Rte. 113 has been debated for two decades; meanwhile, vehicular
deaths and injuries mount I support the safest route possible and the four-lane
divided highway is the only long-term remedy. We urge rapid approval of this
project.
Sincerely,
Orlando [A. Blake
Chief of Police
P.S. I would like to receive information on future developments on Rte. 113. Please
add the Town of Snow Hill to the mailing list.
Municipal Building • P.O. Box 348 • Snow Hill, Maryland 21863
Telephone: 410-632-2444 • Fax:410-632-2858
V D5-1
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
August 18,1997
Pikrris N. Gtenderiihg
Goyemor
David L Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
Mr. Orlando A. Blake
Chief of Police
Snow Hill Police Department
Municipal Building
P. O. Box 348
Snow Hill MD 21863
Dear Mr. Blake:
Thank you for your letter to Secretary Winstead supporting the dualization of US 113
in Worcester County and urging rapid approval of this project. The Secretary asked me to
respond on his behalf.
Your concerns for safety along the undivided sections of US 113 has been noted. The
State Highway Administration considers the US 113 project to be a top priority and has put
mis project on a fast track. All comments received from the public, agencies and elected
officials will be evaluated before making a decision on mis project. Your name has been
added to our mailing list, and your letter will be made part of the public hearing record. .
Again, thank you for your letter. If you need additional information regarding this
matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mrs. Sue Rajan, our Project Manager, who may be
reached at (410) 545-8514 or 1-800-548-5026.
cc:
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
Mrs. R. Suseela Rajan, Project Manager, State Highway Administration
The Honorable David L. Winstead, Secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation
My telephone number is
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
V D5-2
-------
OPCA
OCEAN PINES CIVIC ASSOCIATION .
570 OCEAN PINES, BERLIN, MD. 21811
. 9 June 1997
David L. Winstead
Secretary of Transportation
c/o CRASH '
P.O. Box tOOt
Berlin, MD 21811
Dear Secretary Winstead:
The Ocean Pines Civic Association, a community group with 500 current member
households, is vitally interested in Route 113 dualization and urges its approval at the
.earliest possible time.
In Ocean Pines alone the full-time population has reached 8,000 and contiues to grow,
having doubled in seven years. -We note that large truck traffic on Rte. 113 increases
daily. Speeds seem to increase as well, particularly at night when the two-way sections
of the road are especially treacherous. •
As regular users of Rte 113 ourselves and residents of a community which receives many
seasonal visitors, we are reminded almost daily of the perils of the two-way road as it
exists. Very recently one of our own residents nearly lost her life on a two-way section
south of Berlin; and the statistics show a frightening increase in accidents as traffic
increases.
The Ocean Pines Civic Association strongly supports the dualization of Route 113 and
urges the fastest possible approval and implementation of this project
Very truly yours,
Nancy R. McElgunn
Vice President and Secretary
cc: Representative Wayne Gilchrest
Senator J. Lowell Stoltzfus
Delegate Bennett Bozman
Commissioner Jeanne Lynch
Sue Rajan, Project Planning Div.
V D6-1
-------
«•• I .
Maryland'Department'ot
State Highway Administration
August 19, 1997
Parris N. Glendening
Governor
David L Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
Ms. Nancy McElgunn
Vice President and Secretary
Ocean Pines Civic Association
570 Ocean Pines
Berlin MD 21811
Dear Ms. McElgunn:
i . •
Thank you for your recent letter to Secretary Winstead expressing a strong support
from the Ocean Pines Civic Association for the duatizaioa of US 113 in Worcester County
and urging the festest approval of these improvement plans.< The Secretary asked me to
respond on Ms behalf.
The State Highway Administration (SHA) the US 113 project to be a top
pnonty and has put this project on a fast track. We anticipate the Federal Highway
Administration will gsant location appmval this Winter.
All comments received &om fee public,
the June Location/Design Public Hearing,
project. Your name has been added to our
the public hearing record.
Again, thank you for your letter. _ rf
matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mrs.
reached at (410) 545-8514 or 1-800-548-5026.
and elected officials as a result of
in the decision making for this
and your letter will be made part of
inflation regarding this
our Project Manager, who may be
cc:
Parker F, Williams
Administrator
The Honorable Bennett Bozman, Member, House of delegates
The Honorable Wayne Gilchrist, United Congress
The Honorable Jeanne Lynch, Commissioner, Worcester County
The Honorable J. Lowell Stoltzruss Member, Senate of Maryland
The Honorable David L. Winstead, Secretary, Maryland Department of
Transportation
Mrs. R. Suseela Rajan, Project Manager, Slate Highway Administration
My telephone number is -—=—-=~««^«_«_»_OT«ram!=__=m
' Maryland Relay Service for ImpaSmd Hearing or Speech
1-800-73S-22S8 Statewide Toil Free
V D6-2
M
707 Morth Calvsrt SSr®at
a-1203-0717
Maryland 212O2
-------
PARRISM
KKTHUSN KENNEDY TOWNSENO
iT.uvwo*
STATE OF MARYLAND
MARYLAND STATE POLICE
~ (410) 641-3101
Barrack "V"-Eastern Region
Berlin, Maryland 21811
June 10, 1997
COLONEL DAVID B. MITCHELL
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
Project Development Division
P. 0. Box 717
Baltimore, Maryland 21203
To Whom It May Concern:
I have recently- received. the. proposal _f ran the State
Highway Administration regarding a Combined Lo*a^°£'°S£
Public Hearing for the U.S. Route 113 Roadway V**™""*
for Worcester County. This report is comprehensive in
nature.
The Maryland State Police has been
safety for over 60 years. As a result of reviewing the
proposals for the improvements on O.S. Route 113, tne
Maryland State Police at Berlin Barrack is supportive of any
improvements which can be made to make this hxghway safer tor
the motoring public.
Thank you for sending this report to us for "view and
for keeping us apprised of matters involving highway
imprints for Worcester County. Should you have any
relative questions/ comments concerning this issue, please
feel free to call me at (410) 641-3101.
Sincerely,
A. "R. Walker - Lieutenant
Commanding - Barrack "V", Berlin
Department of State Police
ARW/lge
"Maryland's Finest1*
V D7-1
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
Lieutenant A. R. Walker
Commanding
Barrack "V Eastern Region
Department of State Police
Berlin MD 21811
Dear Lieutenant Walker:
August 18,1997
Parris N. Gtendening
Governor
David L Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
^ you for your letter expressing support from the Maryland State Police for any
improvements that would make US 113 a safer road.
The State Highway Administration (SHA) considers the US 1 13 project to be a top
priority and has put this project on a fast track. We have just held the required location/design
public hearing and anticipate the Federal Highway Administration will grant location approval
this Winter. All comments received from the public, agencies and elected officials will be
evaluated before an alternative is selected. Your letter will be made part of the public hearing
record and your comments will receive consideration during the decision making for this
project. Your name has been included in the mailing list to receive future information on the
project.
Thank you again for your input in this project. If you need additional information
regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mrs. Sue Rajan, our Project Manager,
who may be reached at (410) 545-8514 or 1-800-548-5026.
Very truly yours,
Louis H. Ege, Jr., Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
By:
R. Suseela Rajan, Pipiject Manager
Project Planning Division
cc: Mr. Dbnnie Drewer, District Engineer, State Highway Administration (w/incoming)
My telephone number is
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MO 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Caivert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
V D7-2
-------
i it f-f
1:37
OCEAN PINES ASSOCIATION, INC
289 fen Parlay - — — ^ • *-^ Maryland 21811 • (410) 641-7717
June 13, 1997
David L. Winatead
Maryland Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 8755
Baltimore/Washington
Interregional Airport MD 21240-0755
Dear Mr. Wlnstead:
RECEIVED
JUH 17 1997
SECRETARY
OF TRANSPORTAT10I*
The Governors
frustration, 5s very
« eMouragingtotheOceattPinescommumty.
can to prevent this carnage.
major route for trucks as well
Ourresidentsare
,. ^ ^mtte June 17th meeting at Stephen Decatur High School.
lookingforwardtotheJunei/ mee"^ f
Richard P. Brady
President
RPB/pce
copies to:
Governor
NeflPedersen
Parker "Wiffiams
"0
V D8-1
-------
, V' '• .J» a.I-,. *.-*!
•v-Jfc^
.is. s;.«
. PageS
J.Uavl3T4.OO , i
OUR MISSION
Let no more
T
;the aaaophona.
Asethw lady sess &
j~*^'iVT IL r»T""" '""" *"*f*™* '•
^ZJ^iffM^illll^^8^ •aadtefaaa^asfeifythssanfiwsssaaid * '
-Taaa^esenpe^fla aw Is ^ie iaia& ^^ * •
f %«* 9n«v»A«>A«B^ «. fl !_«._ * -»» 'B»«w •Twnr««»^ ^
•wm soaes prtdoos
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
Tho Secretary's Office
July 24, 1997
Parris N. Glendeni
Governor
David L Wlnstead
Secretary
John D. Porcari
Deputy Secretary
Mr. Richard P. Brady
President
Ocean Pines 'Association, Inc.
239 Ocean Parkway
2700 Ocean Pines
Berlin MD 21811
Dear Mr. Brady:
Thank you for your recent letter to Governor Glendening providing an update on the
June 17 public hearing for the US 113 project, along with the newspaper clipping on the
subject. The Governor reviewed your letter and asked me to respond on his behalf.
The State Highway Administration (SHA) recognizes the urgency and need for
improving US 113 and we are doing everything we can to expedite this project. Presently
we are evaluating all the comments received as a result of the public hearing and preparing
for the alternate selection. We are continuing close coordination with the environmental
resource agencies to meet the project schedule. Location Approval from the Federal
Highway Administration is anticipated this Winter.
-Design activities for the northern portion from US 50 to the Delaware State Line are
scheduled to begin this Fall, since funding is available for this phase. Right-of-way
acquisition is partially funded and it could start in mid 1998. I also want to assure you the
Governor considers the US 113 project a high priority for construction funding.
u- t' •?ank you for y°ur Ietter- T116 Governor appreciates hearing from you, and
on his behalf, I also thank you for the interest which prompted you to write. If you need
l??i , "5 inforrnati°n regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call Mr. Neil Pedersen,
°r °/ PIanning ™d Preliminary Engineering, who may be reached at
or Mrs. Sue Rajan, Project Manager who can be reached at 1-800-548-5026.
Sincerely,
cc:
David L. Winstead
Secretary
Mr. Neil J. Pedersen, Director, State Highway Administration
Mrs. Suseela Rajan, Project Manager, State Highway Administration
My taiophono number la 410-B6S-1000
TTY Forth* Deafc (410) 865-1342
Post Offlcs Box 8755, Baltimore/Washington International Airport. Maryland 21240*0755
V D8-3
-------
'.'/•'
«u»a
Secretary cf
P.O. B<» 1755
BWI Air^ r A MD 2124©4T?S5
V
IV'
•l
••V
RECETtfED
•-•
il
?v D9-1
-------
7-
. •
11-lBflM Sm ftDMINISTRflTOR 418?|33 1586
ri"
3
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
July 11, 1997
Parris N. Glendenmgj
Governor
David L. Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
Mr. Don Hastings
Chair
Worcester County
Economic Development Advisory Board
105 Pearl Street
Snow Hill MD 21833
Dear Mr. Hastings:
Thank you for your recent letter to Secretary Winstead supporting the dualization of
US 113 in Worcester County and urging to expedite the project. The Secretary asked me to
respond on his behalf.
In your letter, you had also emphasized how important US 113 is to the economic
growth of Worcester County and had listed the various reasons for evaluating this highway
differently than based on traffic counts for other highways. I agree with you this roadway
carries a mix of traffic including tourist buses, school buses, trucks and farm machinery mixed
with cars, serving both local and out-of-town travelers, and all these factors will be taken into
consideration in the evaluation.
The State Highway Administration (SHA) considers the US 113 project to be a top
priority and has put this project on a fast track. We have just held the required location/design
public hearing and anticipate the Federal Highway Administration will grant location approval
this Winter. All comments received from the public, agencies and elected officials will be
evaluated before an alternative is selected. Your name has been added to our mailing list, and
your letter will be made part of the public hearing record.
Again, thank you for your letter. If you need additional information regarding this
matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Neil J. Pedersen, our Director of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering at (410) 545- 0411 or Mrs. Sue Rajan, our Project Manager, who
may be reached at (410) 545-8514 or 1-800-548-5026.
lams
Administrator
My telephone number is ___ —
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1 -800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 « Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
V D9-3
-------
Mr. Don Hastings
My 11, 1997
Page Two
cc:
The Honorable David L. Winstead, Secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation
Mr Leonard Brown, Worcester County Economic Development Advisory Board
Mr' Robert Fisher, Worcester County Economic Development Advisory Board
M ' mity Laws, Worcester County Economic Development Advisory Board
M* Gabriel Purnell, Worcester County Economic Development Advisory Board
Mr Jerry Redden, Worcester County Economic Development Advisory Board
Mr' John Rogers, Worcester County Economic Development Advisory Board
M.! CotenlmUh, Worcester County Economic.Development^Advisory Bof
ul Anne Taylor Worcester County Economic Development Advisory Board
Mr'. SSTl Pede^sen, Director of Planning and Preliminary Engineering, State
Hiehway Administration .,..*•
Mrs R. Suseela Rajan, Project Manager, State Highway Administration
V D9-4
-------
vvesi
Ocean City
June 17, 1997
Neil J. Pedersen
State Highway Administration Office of Planning
Box 717
Baltimore, MD 21203
Dear Mr. Pedersen
The West Ocean City Association supports the efforts of CRASH and
implores your office to "fast track" the upgrading of the single
lane portions of Route 113. The State has taken too long to act on
improving this dangerous highway. The piecemeal "improvements"
have not stopped the carnage.
Your plan refers to "phases" for this project lasting until 2003.
Perhaps since many of us remember being promised dualization both
40 and 20 years ago, you can understand our skepticism when we see
"until 2003". Something must be done now and frankly most of the
county does not care- which dualization plan or route you chose just
as long as one is decided upon immediately and construction started
yesterday. • . .: .
Sinfierelv
Carolyn Cummins
President
P.O. BOX 704 • OCEAN CITY, MARYLAND 2 1 S 42
V D10-1
-------
int
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
August 1, 1997
Parris N. Glendening
Governor
David L. Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams •
Administrator
Ms. Carolyn Cummins
President
West Ocean City Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 704
Ocean City MD 21842
Dear Ms. Cummins:
Thank you for your recent letter supporting the efforts of CRASH and urging us
to expedite the upgrading of the two-lane portions of US 113 in Worcester County.
Your comments will be made part of the public hearing record and will be considered in
making a decision for this project.
The State Highway Administration (SHA) has identified US 113 as a top priority
and has put it on a fast track All comments received from the public, agencies and
elected officials will be considered in making a decision. I understand that most of the
area citizens support the dualization plan. We also need to get concurrence from the
environmental agencies on a selected alternative prior to receiving location approval
from the Federal Highway Administration. Location approval is anticipated this Winter.
The highway development process consists of four phases namely project
planning, final design, right-of-way acquisition and construction. This project is
currently in the project planning phase. We are planning to begin final design activities
this Fall for the northern portion from US 50 to the Delaware State Line, since funding
is available for this phase. During this phase construction plans and right-of-way plats
will be prepared. We expect the plats to be ready by mid 1998 to begin right-of-way
acquisition, which is funded in our current Transportation Program. If funding becomes
available, the earliest date construction could begin will be in 1999. In the meanwhile,
SHA is also looking at interim safety solutions along US 113.
My telephone number is (410) 545-0411
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
Ms. Carolyn Cummins
Page Two
Thank you again for your letter. Your name has been added to our mailing list to
receive future information on this project. If you need additional information regarding
this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mrs. Sue Rajan, our Project Manager, who
may be reached at (410) 545-8514 or 1 -800-548-5026.
Very truly yours,
Neil J. Pedenen, Director
Office of Planning and
cc: Mrs. R. Suseela Rajan, Project Manager, Highway Administration
V D10-3
-------
•H0mfit£r lEtmironmEtttal ©rttist
A COUNTY COMMITTEE OF THE MARYLAND ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST
POST OFFICE BOX 38
SNOW HILL. MARYLAND 21863
632-2640
July 11, 1997
Mrs. Sue Rajan
Project Manager
Wail Stop C-301
Project Planning Division
Maryland State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, (O 21202
Re: Location/Design, US 113 from South of Snow Hill
to the Delaware State Line
Dear Mrs. Rajan:
The Rt. 113 corridor from Snow Hill north is stressed and needs to be made
safer. However, it is important that plans for construction of the road
take into consideration the valuable ecosystems it transects.
With the exception of the area around Snow Hill, which drains into the
Pocomoke River, most of the runoff from construction and use of the completed
highway will impact the Ocean Coastal Basin which is presently under study
by local, state and federal agencies, as part of the National Estuary Program.
An immediate interim solution to the safety problem should be a greater police
presence to stop aggressive driving, tailgating and speeding, we also
recommend installation of a weigh station north of Snow Hill to check trucks
for overloading, brakes, and other safety features.
To help alleviate future problems, provisions for limiting access should
be carefully considered. Every driveway can be potentially lethal. Limited
access would also improve the aesthetics of the highway.
Consideration should also be given to safety for bicyclists and runners who
are increasingly using local roads.
Careful consideration must be given to minimize impacts on sensitive areas,
i.e., slopes, woods, streams and wetlands.
There should be generous mitigation (after avoidance) to compensate for the
damage to wetlands and woodlands. The State Highway Administration should
comply with Nontidal Wetland Regulations as well as with the Forest
Conservation Act. Mitigation should be close to the area impacted or at
least in the same watershed.
V Dll-1
Environment, the Trust - Man, the Trustee
-------
We trust that you will check with the State Heritage Program to insure that
rare and endangered plants will not be adversely affected by the project.
We support the avoidance/minimization alternatives set forth in Chapter IV,
pages 57-61, in the EIS, particularly in regard to reducing the footprint
of the dualized road. We understand that it may be necessary for additional
road construction to avoid wetlands. The use of bridges should be considered
where feasible. Some of the wetlands (such as your identification W-8) are
parts of active floodplains. Bridging may prevent damage to the roadway
in addition to having less impact on the resource.
There are certain areas along the proposed route between Snow Hill and Berlin
which are particularly rich. One such area is a short distance south of
the northernmost entrance to Newark (your identification W-12) where Massey
Branch flows under the road. At this point, on a recent inspection, we heard
a wood thrush, typical of forest interior dwelling birds which are declining
in number . We have also observed spring flowering plants in this area which
may not have been visible at the time of your inspection - trout lily,
bloodroot, spring beauties, and skunk cabbage. Some of these species are
rare on the Eastern Shore. We suggest that the footprint of the dualized
road in this area be narrowed by keeping the width of the median strip to
a minimum, not the maximum 34' mentioned in the study
On the area identified as W-13 a local botanist in our group has observed
false hellebore (veratrum viride), rare on the Shore.
We also want to comment on the area identified as UJ-8, the Purnell/Patty f s
Branch watershed. This rich cypress forest and floodplain was heavily
impacted, without mitigation, when the Snow Hill By -Pass was built. It helps
filter farm and road runoff to these tributaries before the water reaches
the river. The Pocomoke is presently under intense scientific and political
scrutiny due to the incidence of fish lesions. Additional road associated
impacts on this area, particularly to the east, should be avoided. The median
in this area should also be kept to a minimum.
Construction related impacts can be avoided by not allowing heavy equipment
in the stream channels, by using coffer dams, by ensuring easy fish passage
by way of proper structures, and not allowing fueling or service staging
areas where contamination can affect living resources.
Adequate sediment control, check dams, reseeding, etc., should be constantly
maintained to prevent sediments and nutrients from entering stream channels.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project.
Sincerely yours,
Ilia J. Fenrer
Chairman
cc: Alan Kampmeyer, MDE
cc: Coastal Zone Unit, MDE
cc: Michele Gomez, US Army CofE
V Dll-2
-------
r
US 113 Planning Study
Response to Worcester Environmental Trust letter dated July 11,1997
1 Through the strict adherence to erosion and Sediment control and stormwater management practices
and the implementation of other mitigation measures, the dualization of US 113 is expected to have
minimal adverse impacts to water quality in the coastal bays as stated in Section IV.G of the Final EIS.
Potential impacts to the coastal bays by the US 113 project and other development has been addressed
as part of the cumulative effects analysis in Section IV.Q of the Final EIS.
9 As a result of the Combined Location/Design Public Hearing held June 17, 1997, Maryland SHA,
Maryland State Police, and Worcester County representatives have stepped up enforcement activities
along US 113. In addition, the State Police have stepped up their random truck checks/truck weighing
program along US 113. Construction of a weigh station north of Snow Hill, Maryland, however, is not
appropriate given the numerous bypass routes that trucks could utilize when the facility is in operation
Therefore, the State Police prefer the increased flexibility afforded through their increased use of
mobile truck weigh stations.
3 Workin- in conjunction with representatives of Worcester County, Maryland SHA is developing an
access management program for the northern and southern study areas. This program is primarily
focused on parcels which are redeveloped and the need to limit access from redeveloped parcels to
public road intersections.
4 As shown on the typical sections in Section II.E of this document, the Preferred Alternatives include
10-foot paved outside shoulders. While these shoulders are available for use by bicyclists and runners,
it seems inappropriate to encourage their use on this primary highway system link. Preferably,
bicyclists and runners will be attracted to lower speed local roads.
5. As addressed throughout Section IV of this document, careful consideration has been given to
minimizing impacts on sensitive areas, especially streams and wetlands.
6 The State Highway Administration will comply with the Nontidal Wetland Regulations and the
Reforestation and Forest Conservation Acts. Mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will be
conducted in accordance with the sequencing guidelines developed by a Federal/State interagency task
force Potential wetland mitigation sites have been identified that are suitable for "in-kind" replacement
of wetlands, and are either near the proposed impact areas or within the same watershed. Landowners
of three candidate mitigation sites have indicated that they are interested in creating wetlands on their
property These three sites could provide in excess of 45 acres for wetland creation, which is greater
than a 2-1 replacement ratio for wetlands impacted by the preferred alternative. Forested areas impacted
by this project will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio within SHA right-of-way or in nearby state land.
7 Coordination with the state Heritage Program and the US Fish and Wildlife Service was conducted to
identify the potential for impacts to threatened and endangered species. The results of this coordination
and the subsequent investigations are addressed in Sections ffl.I and IV. J of the Final EIS.
During final design, full consideration will be given to culvert modifications and bridging options.
Until detailed hydrologic and hydraulic data becomes available during final design, it is impossible to
make commitments regarding these structures.
VD11-3
-------
US 113 Planning Study
8. As outlined throughout Chapter IV, numerous steps will be taken during the design and construction
of US 113 to minimize adverse environmental effects. Were feasible, the proposed median width has
been reduced to protect sensitive habitats.
9. This species is not listed as threatened or endangered in the state. Impacts to wetland W-l 3 have been
reduced by approximately 60% with the Preferred Alternative.
10. Through the use of various impact minimization strategies outlined in Section IV.I of the Final EIS, the
impacts to this wetland have been reduced to 0.32 acres for the Preferred Alternative.
11. In addition to addressing construction impacts throughout Section IV of this document, Section IV.P
addresses construction techniques in wetlands, Waters of the US, and floodplains.
VD11-4
-------
. l£:l7PM SHfl RDMINISTRftTOR 410 333 1586
CR.A.S.H.
County Residents Action for Safer Highways
10776 Grays Comer Road, #4
P.O. Box 1001
Berlin, MD 21811
RobertG.Hulbind,Presito
KhondaDykcs.Treasui.r
Secret^
Fax 4^4^9555
, 1997
RECEIVED
Honorable Pains dendening
Governor
Stale House, State Circle
Aimapolis,MD 21401-1991
Dear Govemoi
11097
DEPftRTMEKt
about aaoflier victim tot Route 113 te
souffiem part of this dangerous, undivided highway.
His • ^ ^ .'
•".' -t''-K.S;^.»"-;•'-
-------
, Mr. Robert G. Hulburd
Page Two
cc: Mr. Parker F. Williams, Administrator, State Highway Administration
Mr. Neil J. Pedersen, Director, State Highway Administration
V D12-2
-------
11 '97 .12:17PM SHR fiDMlNISTRATOR 410'333 1586
I'M ill
I
lilt'
st
|ri«fJliK
SIlllliS
, i
Sail
j?*.*-!
* .• ' . .
V D12-3
-------
'97"' .it- 1BPM
..•. •'.•
Page 6
Ka& Btenas><&ifif Esaeaiwe Offiesr
GasyJXdsosBsaajEaaB&e Edltas?
.H-/
!»««<»»» Jane IS, 1937
O-'UE -Miss 10
JBe Daily Times stdvat Is fe@ a viiai daily mffediiin @f
timely, accurate fnfsn&allofi
communities. 7%e &}$< fte® provide a fermis §§r diverse
viewpoints which i@ad ear
...
• OUR OPINION'
Let no ctie
AV • - "i; °
The words ^rere oazaragharf.Her V*""
«*M«MM •^A.^k'l*,?A^ fiV* aaajKo* «_._* *'•- *
.
the
Another butaoMteihftjiidtaet 'r @@@B^7semai3r peeste havs died
' '
,
Memori
back aa
her w
:.»ofcdseaad fell to aaferaad easiness
-.'aadliall for teasa sad step for aagulsh.
: The little boy tad feeeawgitisgftr his
daddy to eomaho@$ that dayaadasw
was staiaussinfH* daddy.
•It was the read ihathad tslsm ihs
Ixtfeie boy's fethss It wss the read, den'6
you see. Sesssoae called It the highway
• of tears. .
: Yes, the hearing had started wife
; flat, factual isforattfoa. 3hs people
• from the state followed oms aaotker to
the microphoat.This is how we plaa &
.
^thraz@hWoEm£@r COUQCJP is men thaa
...aaiJaaariaf ead inst&ea and trafie
VeeaakThe tro& tbeusEauteHSiaa
feslfag, g ssas3 thai those who travel it
• aailhass who have bees ht«t by it
• n^@ suffered Song sad paMontly sh«
. deliyi,tib psfehes and dismissals that
fi0rae &°n calculators.
> • S&E^ have died waiting for Maryland
*° ®es^8 i£°s sitte to ualS2e Sau?8 113
in the center of
idlife.This is how we relocate people.
This is how we make sare if a &is>. This
program. These foada^tis &k.Ti!le
pasa
; spin fata tna®s aad kill people, leaving
'H^I© boy» without fathers, movers
Tha ee&tA pAmj« «3sid6taa4aS,tKa pediua& «nd tara «sy ^j " D12— 4
9SS&said eowIs thatime. .< ^-i . • .
-------
SHfl RDMINISTRflTOR 410J333 1586
•THE DAILYJEIMBS
OUR MISSION'
»tv«aldaayrtfl«toaol •
kw,,,w j fewer Mmana Ptntaiuto. By PwWtoe (
V&iiely, accurate Information 7»t BaZD' JZfwa wwp
faf" T*» ^™ ,_ _ •• » •• H ,..^ -.-.jj vuiiul •0mim
KB
OUROPmiON
Route 113 toU^ontinues
x^-ir'"TT»
Y/V/ 2nve» to tuka tiw wad
VV «MA«sw«canMui
iK«a the margio. &r «nrsr a iaspse»^.
. r9o said Bob Kulburd^ duirtna of
'
IN5UMMAHON
oreeat«
'County.
&uitttreiazgoD.btttit]ui ffnwa. ta
fcaaJmeone,
Pitwvillc man, loat US 11K MOQlUr
Bfb9m»ain»,gluuUyt»UJiieaw»r
jPubUclAxuiingSotdo&BaaM^Io. _
j«u bro»d«ided to » Fotd Explewr
quickly—WStsp &»3laUCht»^rtbil
CRASH, aadfi&fiaystiitrs,'
in t
with R.m«iS*a 6mri«r.W« agm:
l^tH^thBsaotiicr'f uabemi
JGrtU' duth is the72&d«&
'1T&!oa«r fttaKiav. ocwrwd
ihould swrsle any rtadtt
..;(.Th«rit«*twhS«hwM
oecuning»t dutlntewadiea -r-ta^ <
Rauu llSaiawhol*— 5» ie
ea b the nomt«r ot&tailcUf.
tojieuny tnide trilBe^ |««lar ipoai.
K— . .
113 may aothKvt bees bom&
hlcfaww «o »u* aaturt vs.
•V D12-5
I '.••: -
-------
s
. ;*
•^
«
I
J -
1 i f1?»i
||T|||
. U«2 .. B4! s"
jilf'
J1«l g
i_ a* «. S P _ »» ^ •*• S *a « SS
SL3 w OS 1
la^JJ^j^e i
- B
V D12-6
-------
11 '97
SHH HummblKHiUK
..333 i=ao
-—«•-[-. O' AC* '
CRASH: Route 113 death
underscores need for project
. i. *
CRASH, from Pag»t
&M-
jeeu mera atUntloa. in ntunv far
'
. ,
Tit *uas ta meet Go* Panrir
ftct to fact to tcfl
much the Eastern
need* fcur Iiao Ott *
high>*«y traveled by u ioenM*
In Uii Greu CM*, the driver or
a Ford Explenr eressed over a
solid yellow Une iota He lau of
traffic E* uw Meliua EgbfTa
Explorer and cw«iv«i enta th»
right shooldtr to avoid hti; bot
t^Mta vat BO pliee 10 ueape.
The Ezplot*r barreled into th«
dtivjt1* ttde of Gron'a v^lude.
7L& -<*5ri*r-old — a fcther ef
thiaa rfuldrea, tLrat
dna and ti>z>« jraa
was killed imtaatly
Faoiljr »unb«n eeuld net be
readied fcrcor&mtBtTuajdajt.
Riliee and HuJbiad taid with
bamti; th» acddont
hxve ba«& Due^liM tens*.
Then, the wmt thing (* per-
••n) i» e°ioff e» J» UWif them*
»tif op, not nft an innoctstpcr-
a^a coming on. tkt other *uU,"
Hulhnrdfvd.
Ejlofl: 83. wat ttavalSsg with
bar young dtaghter at Hva tuai
of tht arridfnf Trooper Seats
Cook of tk» Xar^and Stata
Polioa aaid Seloff tpparenily &U
asleep or btomi du&raetad
vhfle drivia*. Ski Itas not teaa
ared.
Work-on tba duajizattea pro-
jact epatanue* toi sommer as
stitettghwajr officials toy to {at
17»« 1.
ua as police tccoesaoaaia i
. dene, measuring skid mark* and
1 ' * fth» points of impact.
. about six mostfis {stg-
, v»3 in aaciifattory condl-
UOQ at Pcninaula Rational Med-
ical Center Tuasday night. She
aecoeaia to aataa a« a
altenata rente fcrentittrufitioo.
Tlit dttdlin^far jmblie com-
scat waa July -IS. SBviraaan-
tal •f^yyj^ nust filrwi'* t&cir
eaoatoSi by Fridajt
Suu fclgbny affldaU wQJ .
*>aatt thwu^out Aagntt to him'
mar ool fiail to*d riaoa wtieh
h»vt i» !M
Jut aU too hjrieaL Ki ijnst all
^>»i ftrfffrtrf Mnltnrf^ f4?^- .
*& jueboadcneeeea fba
*
OBITUARIES
Darren Glen Gross
PTITSVILLE — Dan«Q Glen
Gross, 44. of here died Meades
July Si. 1S9T. in an aatoiaobUi
oeddenc near Snov ffilL
Bern in Stltfibunr, ha wu a,
sen oftiM late Chasts Lytux and
Mary Ellen Griffith, Vanes.
Gross was an Air Fere* veter
an vho semd ia VictBam. &_.
years for HAS
Wallops Island,-K« playvd safe
ball for ssveral yeaa.- BIOS
«»tt»t'y^«a .die -Old
Leagtu. : • • •
He is $urvjv«d By bis
Bartaxa i Cross; ewe daog
Bobbi Jean IogRiiang^<«i Far
•sonaburg .and Sauiiaii IO
GtM9 of Faraoaaburc &'B
G. Grois Jr.-
hurg: thrat
thraa broken,
of
Edward GPMB
iibuiy
A sSs j
1595 and a brother Laby Estl
Grew died in I960. ' • •
it M'jenl *KvJe» "PSI W a— !i
Saturday at U a.tn. a<( Saisa 4i
Funere.'1. Horaa OB -But Efeis
3trc«e tn SBllcbeiry. 'The He^-
Sam MeVHSHaau val sffick^.
Friecdi stay es!l Fr^ay taa 7
9 pan. at &e taaral •tons.
wifl be
dcnt tccno, but doctors adainic-
trrcd drnss ta «teo the contrac-
j.
V
.X V D12-7
-------
•
Tlie scorecard
of pain for 11 B
gets another
check mark
• * f
m hosfcsbtaesysiaaetlwrwkliiiea
I
X
TOi fate* ssaJisfeBoia i
B tos ihe naraes
hs'dtt»Seea,S«". Uofiansaatdst dw
1997
V D12-8
$$• -..- .-.•-.•:. .-.-- -•• • :-•
"2*.;:X!:£'-V^^ii^i^£^%~-.--;- .- -••--.- - —«-..-•.-
-------
-
I- fXJG. 07_/.97. 04:20PM SHA ADMINISTRATOR 410.333 1586
CR.A.S.BL
County Residents Action for Safer Highways
10776 Gray'siComerRoad, #4
P.O. Box 1001
Berlin, MD 21811
4 H97
SECRET
OF TRANSPORTATiOf
Robert G. Hulburd, President
Rhonda Dykes, Treasurer
Joel Todd, Vice President
June Clendening, Secietaiy
410-641-3939 Fax 410-641-9555
July 24,1997
D*vidL.Winstead ^ '
Secretary ofl^ansportation
P.O. Box 8755
Baltirooi»'V/ash. toterasdonal Airport
DearMi. Winstead:
ftwn Tuesday1*
I^stiag^occunedin.ttownfhfimi»rtof&isdaage»us, imdividad highway.
nd death on Route 113 in 20 year*. Mr. Gross, v*o died, was a Vietnam veteran,
^
His death alters forever ths live* of many.
L thtnki for your consideiatipa' and Mad personal regards, I tm
Sincerely,
Enclosures
'V D12-9
-------
/
Maryland Department of Transportation.
The Secretary's Office
August 26, 1997
ParrisN.Gttendenlng
Governor
David L.Winsfead
Secretary
John D. Porcari
Deputy Secretary
Mr. Robert G. Hulburd
President
V^.iv.A.S.li.
10776 Grays Comer Road #4
P.O. Box 1001
Berlin MD 21811
Dear Mr. Hulbuid:
Thank you for your letters and newsclips regarding the latest fetal accident that
occurred on the two-lane section of US 113 within the southern study area. The Governor's
and my deepest sympathies are with Mr. Gross's family.
As evidenced by the well attended June location/design public hearing for US 113,
there is overwhelming public support for this project The State Highway Administration
(SHA) has placed this project on an expedited schedule and we are trying to get location
approval from the Federal Highway Administration this Winter. Prior to that the SHA needs
to get concurrence from the environmental agencies on the selected alternative. As I
understand, SHA is continuing extensive coordination with the agencies.
You deserve recognition for your tireless efforts in leading CRASH to increase the
public awareness of this project I want to thank you for gathering the letters from a large
number of people including school children, business owners, farm owners, residents, and
several from families of accident victims. Many of the letters were very touching and will
all be included in the public hearing record.
Again, thank you for your letter and all your efforts on behalf of the local
communities. We look forward to your continued involvement in this project. If you have
any questions or if you need any additional information on the US 113 project, please do not
hesitate to contact Mr. Neil Pedersen, SHA's Director of Planning and Preliminary
Engineering, who may be reached at 410-545-0411.
^Siacereiy,
cc:
David L. Winstead
> Secretary
Mr. Parker F. Williams, Administrator, State Highway Administration
Mr. Neil J. Pedersen, Director, State Highway Administration
My telephone number la 410-865-1000
7TY For troDssfc (410) 885-1342
Peat Office Box 8756, BalUmora/Wachlngton International Airport, Maryland 21240-0755
V D12-10
-------
C. R. A. S. H.
County Residents Action for Safer Highways
10776 Gray's Corner Road, #4
P. O. Box 1001
Berlin, MD 21811
Robert G. Hulburd, President
Rhonda Dykes, Treasurer
410-641-3939 Fax 410-641-9555
Joel Todd, Vice President
June Clendening, Secretary
July 24,1997
Mr. Parker F. Williams
State Highway Administrator
P. O. Box 8755
Baltimore/Wash. International Airport
Baltimore, MD 21240
Dear Mr. Williams:
Although you may have seen them, I'm enclosing articles from Tuesday's Daily Times about
'-
His death alters forever the lives of many.
Also enclosed is an editorial and an article from today's Daily Times about the 71st victim's
suWivorsNeedless to say, our volunteer group and Worcester County citizens are deeply
££S/£number of cars using the highway increases daily and the accident rate mounts.
We beTeve the evidence is clear and abundant for dualization of this entire span^.move
fomard rapidly and we ask that you continue to do everything in your power to see that it does.
With thanks for your consideration and kind personal-regards, I am
' t
Sincerely,
Enclosures
V D12-11
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State High way Administration
August 20, 1997
Parris N. Gfendenfng
Governor
David L Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
Mr. Robert G. Hulburd
President
C.R.A.S.H.
10776 Grays Corner Road #4
P.O. Box 1001
Berlin MD 21811
Dear Mr. Hul
Thank you for your letter to Secretary Winstead informing him that the officers of
CRASH support a four-lane divided roadway with & 34-foot median with guardrail in the
center of US 113 from the Delaware line to south of Snow Hill. The Secretary asked me to
respond on his behalf.
The efforts by CRASH to increase the public's awareness of this project, thereby
making it possible for us to receive maximum public input, are greatly appreciated. Your
letter will be made part of the public hearing record. All comments received from the June
Public Hearing will be considered in making a decision on this project.
The State Highway Administration (SEA) considers the US 113 project to be a top
priority and has put this project on a fast track.. We anticipate location approval from the
Federal Highway Administration this Winter. We will continue to keep you informed as we
proceed.
Again, thank you for your letter. If you need additional information regarding this
matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mrs. Sue Rajan, our Project Manager, who may be
reached at 410-545-8514 or 1-800-548-5026. '
cc:
rker F. Williams
Administrator
Ms. June Clendening, Secretary, CRASH
Ms. Rhonda Dykes, Treasurer, CRASH
Mr. Joel Todd, Vice President, CRASH
Mrs. R. Suseeia Rajan, Project Manager, State Highway Administration
The Honorable David L. Winstead, Secretary, Maryland Department of
Transportation
My telephone number is
• Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717•• Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 212O2
V D12-12
-------
C. R. A. S. H.
County Residents Action for Safer Highways
10776 Gray's Corner Road, #4
'P. O. Box 1001
Berlin, MD 21811
Robert G. Hulburd, President
Rhonda Dykes, Treasurer
410-641-3939 Fax 410-641-9555
Joel Todd, Vice President
June Clendening, Secretary
July 24,1997
Mr. Neil Pederson, Director
Office of Planning
State Highway Administraiton
P. O. Box 717
Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Dear Neil:
Sest tragedy occurred in the southern part of this dangerous, undivided highway.
His death alters forever the lives of many.
With thanks for your consideration and kind personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
^^^-
.tMrd, President
Enclosures
It a^2^
/
V D12-13
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
Parris N. Glendening
Governor
David L Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
August 20, 1997
Mr. Robert G. Hulburd
President
C.R.A.S.H.
10776 Grays Corner Road #4
Berlin MD 21811
Dear Kir. HulbOrd:
Thank you for your letters to State Highway Administrator, Parker Williams, and me
regarding the recent fatality claiming the life of Mr. Gross. We were also saddened by the
news and would like to extend our sympathies to the Gross family.
The State Highway Administration (SHA) is making every effort to move this project
forward on an expedited schedule. We are continuing agency coordination to resolve issues
and concerns raised by the resource agencies so that we can keep the project on schedule. We
are still trying to get location approval from the Federal Highway Administration this Winter.
We appreciate your efforts and continued interest in this project. If you need additional
information regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or Mrs. Sue Rajan, our
Project Manager, who may be reached at (410) 545-8514 or 1-800-548-5026.
Very truly yours,
cc:
Neil J. Pedersen, Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
Mr. Bonnie Drewer, District Engineer, State Highway Administration
Mr. Parker F. Williams, Administrator, State Highway Administration
Mrs. R. Suseela Rajan, Project Manager, State Highway Administration
My telephone number is
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
V D12-14
-------
1
July 30, 1997
Mr. Louis Ege
Project Planning Division
State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
Fax: 410/209-5004
RE: US 113 Roadway Improvements
Dear Mr. Ege,
us
any new developments.
Sincerely,
is Koenings ^
'ocacy Chairman
ASSATEAGUE COASTAL TRUST
P.O. Box 731 • Berlin, MD 21811
(410) 629-1538 • Fax (410) 629-1059
E-mail: act@beachin.net
V D13-1
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Response to Assateague Coastal Trust letter dated July 30,1997
1. As outlined throughout Chapter IV, numerous steps will be taken during the design and construction
of US 113 to minimize adverse environmental effects. Were feasible, the proposed median width has
been reduced to protect sensitive habitats.
Through the strict adherence to erosion and Sediment control and stormwater management practices
and the implementation of other mitigation measures, the dualization of US 113 is expected to have
minimal adverse impacts to water quality in the coastal bays as stated in Section IV.G of the Final EIS.
Potential impacts to the coastal bays by the US 113 project and other development has been addressed
as part of the cumulative effects analysis in Section IV.Q of the Final EIS.
The preferred alternative follows the existing U.S. 113 right-of-way whenever possible. Where safety
or other environmental issues require new alignment of the roadway, wetland impacts will be minimized
to the greatest extent practicable by using alternative designs to reduce the footprint of the road.
The bald cypress grove on Church Branch and the rare plant communities associated with the Sea Level
Fens on tributary streams to Newport Bay are not within the project planning corridor and will not be
impacted by the preferred alternative.
V D13-2
-------
From: CRASH
To: County Commissioners :>/....
Date: Tuesday, December 9, 1997
7 ^ . •
RE: Supporting Access Management Plan for Route 113 Equalization
CRASH wants to be known for more than just helping to get Route 113 dualized. We
have a moral obligation to see that the effects of our efforts remain as safe in the future as
they are when dualization is first completed. CRASH'S reason to exist is to promote Safer
Highways and we all know the reason that the state has agreed to dualize Route 113 is
because of safety concerns. A threat to that safety may result from unmanaged
growth along the corridor. The most prudent course of action would be to actively pursue
a managed access plan on this highway. Limiting the points of access on Route 113 is totally
consistent with promoting safety-fewer driveways means a safer road.
What has happened to neighboring areas should be our wake up call. About 20 years
ago, the State of Virginia made by-passes around all the towns on Route 13. When that new
highway was completed there were no stop lights along Route 13. Now, 20 years later, there
are way too many stoplights and far too many driveways to count. You can also see the
effects of poor planning on Route 13 in Maryland. Adopting the policies of the State Highway
Administration may not be sufficient. In theory that plan sounds good, but if it gets us
something like Route 13 north of Salisbury, I don't think we want it! The folks in Wicomico
County will soon be asking for a by-pass to relieve the accidents and congestion for Route
13. We do not want our children and grandchildren having to lobby for a new by
pass of Route 113 in the future because of traffic lights, congestion, and more
accidents.
Worcester county's population is going to continue to grow. If we really are serious
about maintaining our rural character we must not allow rampant development along the
Route 113 corridor. The quality of life in Worcester County is dependent on our ability to
manage all aspects of our growth.
A letter from the State Highway Administration says, "Growth should be managed so
as to configure this growth in a way that maximizes the efficiency of our existing public
infrastructure." We feel that limiting the access on Route 113 is consistent with the "Smart
Growth" initiatives promoted by Governor Glendening. It would also be consistent for the
County Commissioners to support the State Highway Administration's goal of
ACCESS MANAGEMENT.
Of immediate concern to C RASH is that the county needs to show its support of the
State's access management plan. This show of support is imperative to send a message to
the environmental agencies that the county is concerned about secondary development that
could occur along the highway. These agencies want a show of support that proves that the
county is not promoting dualization of Route 113 just for economic development. We
support the SHA's request that you send a response to them which shows that
you support their access management plan. A positive response to support their plan
will show that you are committed to managed access on this road.
V D-14(l)
-------
^Tfte current approvals we have from these agencies are
m , We Wil! work with the county to implement and enforce ^access
management pohcy along US 1 13. A letter of support form the "court?
commissioners would be beneficial."
S™ ^means t0 monitor efforts to build withln «» Purred alignment o the road
before actual right of way acquisition. We would be willing to help sefuptois meeting
4£ °f the SuPP!emen« to the Worcester County 1989
V !t f SateS' that "the C0unty should work to encourage the
nr S Pfannin9' P^Srammlng and construction of the upgrades
necessary to remedy the existing inadequacies on US Route »
also
anc Twe must ^^ClST* tO Pr°m°te the dualizati°n °f the "ighway for thepreseht
rTsponsSe ^thfng to ' ^ neC8SSary !° ^^ i! f°r the future' This ls
Please let me know if I can be of assistance in any way.
regards,
cc:
lburd, Chairman of CRASH
Ed Ellis, President Worcester County Planning Committee
Ed Tudor, Worcester County Planning Department
Louis H. Ege, Jr. SHA
R. Suseela Rajan, SHA
Donnie Drewer, SHA
Congressman Wayne T. Gilchrest
V D-14C2)
-------
-------
E. Minutes from Inter Agency Meetings
US 113 Planning Study
Chapter V
-------
m EK ii; i mm ti1' j;i( a. )a/'n^::iVi$»:* ^ *
Illhl IlililiilUi:::,, HinlBIIIFi'l ULiflJ, mi:,!, Jlllllllliinil I'HIII'llillJIIIIIP'iirillllllllllllllillili liiilii'JIIiiii'.hPl!"'!!" "I > llFiiilllillillllhiMli'.'ii'liililH ,,•!! "'I, ,l .,!,«; ..nHnlll Jl'll'lJiir,1,1!. ,'iJ <
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ m.^r, >.i:-^.i'fafflw*m
jiii' i ; . ' iiH^ >: iaiiB^ 'ziii' :> <: Ji '< jlii ' ii:1!,!: !'> • rtr. i iiOtj! ' ii v iui ip'il'iH^^^^ ii ..... iin^
:ic/iiiiiiB^ ;:i ': • ,• 'ii- , ': : . \ • /
I 'miffi':
11 ,'ini : ii i; MS, linn1 iiiii,1,n iipiiijai'i,! jgiLiiiiiiiiiii'Uiygi'inu:,", it:1 '-iH!K il,:.>l!lllllllllllllllllll iiilinuililiiiliii1: Iliilliil'll! ....... :<'i!"" rnr
..... I!' <""i ..... iivi. 'VT':>'!m^ ...... '"ill. 1 ....... 1':,:, ' ' i I, ( , , ...... :," . ' ..... :; ,"• j i ...... It V" ..... ru"' ." 4i'il I
:1 linifi;::1 ..ai.,!,! ..... jkiii,,,,,,,1: jm m ,t*ii
•ii'Wii i"'"i,,, .n
aiiiif11^^^^^^^ Ji ..... i! T:,, r'vai.iiui
< "ii fin1) 'i/'iCii^^^^^^^^^ if i\ i
iii WIH^^^ xv ;
!!1" tiis: ...... ii> m ..... "'iih1!' ' • , i
^^ i' iiiiiiiiiiiiiii ,ii:iv ij'"'ii '.I'Jiiii, MI 'in i ii HOB i M; i" 11'1'1 "'i .1 '' i' » ': iinhh nl fiiiumiL! 'i ;i";;.i,i!"i:", i:ir I'm: ! iiH'»ii .1 in unlit iiiiiliin'.!^'*!!!''.!,"! • I'll111 m IIP imi,'i n1.1 M'i"n|ii'",i',i
i!iiiJ'iiiii'ii-i!rj:a .i-^ix M! i 9 k:L'!W^^
I!,*1 n.:1 'i 'i"!',,' ' ' , /iiiii.ij'1!1',, 'i iiii riir i1 ,.,:in:HI
til .:'•':,!'*: "• '"(.i .„: i,'",.')!;.; I!!' •liiilli": ->.Si\
..... tm>'m ..... i' ....... iiii!,
..... .» ...... i ...... IIK ..... ^-^^^ ...... : .......... r ............. i.hi::i ............. Ji ....... a^, ...... I
I
i iii ii»Hiiii, '•iiiniinini'iiiiii JiiiiiniKi!) , ' iiiiii ii u iniiinniiBiia ' iiiiiiiiii'ii i< i "m 'igii!™; J1::!!!;.! :i. , < , ....... . i.iiiiaiiiiiiiiii; i1 ri, ' "ni
!^
:i!i ' : ', T , ' 'i .it ; » \\ t: i jm~ , ihiii ':>:, '
, pi. iiniini ' .ii'i'iiiiiii/n , i i' 'b/ii^'iiiii'.uippHiii!! '.""iiiiip,!,1.: imini > iiMiH } »: .,,ir ii|:Hlllii|illlllllllllllllllli;iili!:i|i!i!,iiillllllillllili< li'ili":'!"!.!
l ill, 1,11, i' ii""TJi" " l^rii'ii" Elm ' 'V'"!"'1!
I Jill W,m 4!il:lK 11:::'? !:i iflSi iiB^^^^^^^^^^ !"'! '
!'%iii(i!il , , liilllM ii liiitl^liiH lilll'lliiitt ' , •Illlll1 aiilitlJillt1! iiii!!! i'KJili! ..... inilW'
'!(/llK ........ i\ 1- , :,:*lli::!.! i.. ' » ....... I ,.; iniE.:! > ; l!!.! 'iilliliiijlll' ' "i ;;i"l ill Liifiv,' .liililli liliJllE ' '''ulllliM^^^^^^^^^ I
-------
US 113 Planning Study
E. Minutes from InterAgency Meetings (excluding handouts)
1. Draft ElS/Section 4(f) Evaluation
Beginning in 1995, the US 113 Planning Study has been presented/discussed/reviewed by Federal
and state environmental resource agencies at numerous InterAgency Meetings. These meetings were
typically held monthly and addressed a wide variety of on-going projects. In addition to progress updates
and status, responses to issues raised at previous meetings were also addressed.
Section VI of the Draft ElS/Section 4(f) Evaluation (dated May 1997) presented the following
meeting minutes and correspondence from the InterAgency Meetings:
Item and Date
Minutes from Agency Field Review held August 3 & 4, 1995
February 27, 1997 Wetland Jurisdictional Review Minutes
October 29 to 31,1996 Wetland Jurisdictional Review Minutes
December 11,1996 Wetland Jurisdictional Review Minutes
November 26 and 27, 1996 Wetland Jurisdictional Review Minutes
January 22 and 23,1997 Wetland Jurisdictional Review Minutes
March 20, 27,28, 1997 Wetland Jurisdictional Review Minutes
Fish and Wildlife Service listing of natural habitats dated April 26, 1995
May 17, 1995 Interagency Review Meeting Minutes
September 18, 1996 Interagency Review Meeting Minutes
February 19, 1997 Interagency Review Meeting Minutes
March 19,1997 Interagency Review Meeting Minutes
March 25, 1997 Interagency Review Meeting Minutes
page reference
Draft EIS/4(f)
(May 1997)
VI-146
VI-170
VI-173
VI-177
VI-179
VI-182
VI-188a
VI-189
VI-194
VI-211
VI-228
VI-251
VI-256
2. Final EIS
Following circulation of the Draft ElS/Section 4(f) Evaluation in May 1997 and the June 17,1997
Combined Location/Design Public Hearing, the US 113 Planning Study has been presented/discussed/
reviewed by Federal and state environmental resource agencies at three InterAgency Meetings. Minutes from
these three meetings are presented on the following pages.
1. July 16,1997 InterAgency Meeting
Transcript (pp. 26-94)
2. August 20,1997 InterAgency Meeting
Minutes (without handouts) and Addendum
3. September 10,1997 InterAgency Meeting
Minutes (without handouts) and Addendum
VE-1
-------
MARYLAND STATE
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
INTERAGENCY REVIEW MEETING
July 16, 1997
State Highway Administration
211 E. Madison Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
V El-l
-------
MARYLAND STAIE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
July 16 1997
Mary Huie
Vance Hobbs
Wanda Brocato
Aimee Cauthorn
Joe Kresslein
Denise Winslow
Jim Wynn
Elder Ghigiarelli
Larry Hughes
Fatimah Hasan
Steve Elinsky
Craig Koppie
Dave Sutherland
Danielle Algazi
JillUtt
Cynthia Simpson
Christine Wells
Patricia Greene
Paul Malaney
Cathy Rice
FHWA
COE
SHA
SHA
SHA
SHA
SHA
MDE
DNR
MDOT
USAGE
USFW
USFW
EPA
EPA
SHA
MOP
SHA
SHA.
SHA
962-4342
962-6084
545-8569
545-8560
545-8550
545-8567
545-8520
631-8093
974-2798
865-1279
962-4503
573-4534
573-4534
566-2722
566-2781
545-8510
767-4572
545-8528
545-8516
545-0413
V El-2
-------
Tom Case
Mike CaUahan
Mark Radloff
Bill Carver
Lorraine Strow
Sue Rajan
Bic Mellor
Ernie Disney
Andy Parker
Kim Williams
Jack Hett
Phil Eager
Don Ostrander
Vanessa Braddy
Barb Solberg
SHA
SHA
SHA
SHA
SHA'
SHA
RKK
RKK
AD Marble
MHT
SHA
Worcester Planning
MNCPCC
SKA"
SHA
545-2573
545-8616
545-8512
545-8515
545-8526
545-8314
728-2900
728-2900
731-9588
514-7637
545-8617
632-1200
495-2184
545-8775
545-8830
V El-3
-------
Multi-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
site and miss the park and any other adjustments we can
make. Basically the purpose of the field review is to
make sure that everyone is aware of what all the issues
are out in the field. Looking at the map is different
from looking at the field.
QUESTION/COMMENT^
MR, MARK__RADLOFF. SHA:
Offered to put a packet of information together.
RESPONSE^
MR. DAVE SUTHERLAND!
Refused it saying he didn't need more paper.
QUESTION/COMMENT^
MS. LORRAINE
I'll pass around a field review master sheet with a
few dates on it for a field trip and if you have your
schedule with you and you can check off one of these
dates, fine. If not, my fax number is on here if you
will get back to me by Wednesday.
QUESTION/COMMENT^
On the Piscataway Creek there is a floodplain.
_ Page 26
1 There are, at the creek, four 117" wide x 79" high CMPA.
2 FEMA studies show that MD 223 is over topped by the ten
3 year storm. The design storm for MD 223 project is 100
4 year storm. We hae not yet completed our study.
6 RESPONSE:
7
8 MjLJMARKRADLOFF. SHA:
9 ~
10 We are looking once again at box culverts and/or
11 possibly a structure for the 100 year floodplain
12 activity. -
13
QUESTION/COMMENT:
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Page 2,1
cooperating in giving us comments in a timely manner
wnich made it possible for us to go to the public
hearing, meet the public hearing date.
The first item on the agenda, is to give you a
brief summary of the public hearing and then we had a
conference call on June 24th, we want to discuss the
issues raised at that conference call and how we are
going to address them and then we will present the
preferred alternative the team has come up with and set
your comments on that
We also want to discuss secondary impacts and
cumulative impacts. Then we will take questions and
comments and discuss the schedule.
Now the public hearing, some of you attended the
public hearing, we provided the tapes to a couple of
others and we are trying to get the transcript out as
soon as possible. We are waiting for me period to end
and we want to include all the written comments in the
transcript.
This was a large public hearing. Those who
attested saw that normally we don't see such a large
crowd. It was more man 700 people who attended the
meeting. Almost all the elected officials were there
except for one or two and most of msm spoke at the
meeting and about 33 citizens gave public testimony and
o gave private testimony.
I am not going into detail on mat Igaveyoua
i everyone get a handout here? Okay.
MR. JOE KRESSLEIN. SHA:
The next project is US 113, reoanmended alternate.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 US 113 Preferred Alternate
25 ~~
26
27
28
29
30
31 MS._SUE RAJAN. SHA:
32
33
First of all I want to thank you all for your
Conference Reporting Service
(410) 768-5918
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Handout gives & little bit more detail, but we are still
working oa fee writes comments, but I have read all of
the cmomests that have corns so far.
spoke ^itereeetiiigsimportieddualization of 113 all
the way fromSaow ffili to Delaware State Line. Iwill
get to the private testimony where one person said he is
supporting 3N. M the ote organizations and the
agencies including Bob Hulburd from CRASH, who evea sot
a standing ovation and submitted 1,600 letters
supporting duaUzalioa to us.
Friendship community also did testify and they
menooasd supporting 4N or She combination alternative
™ —* m»u* «uu wu&ao wuu apcibUK%! SSI 3115LS33Q.VG
actually said 3S and 4N or a combination for the north
with 34 foot mediaa. We also received comments fixan
Worcester County Etmronmeatal Trust, also Economic
Devdopaaeat Worcester County Board of Education,
COmtttlSPS^W* fifW ^R/ACWAe* YSrdUKju^Jk ff^ . * . •*+ «.
Son® of the comsseats that came ig> at tSe Bearing
are listed here, additional eosasseats. Many spoke of
losing a faarily sagmbgr, friend or neighbor, and safety
was tbg major emseera and maay narrated Use aeddeut
experiences Iky had Growth and economic beaefits, two
people talked aboutthat One was economic development
and theBother I think was Cbnraiissioner Barrett who spoke
about the growth in &e area.
Most of fee comments that we are getting are about
the eastern shore being aeglected and it is taking too
V El-4
Page25-Page28
-------
Multi-Page7
Page 2
1 long to complete the project One person said save the
2 historical Showell Store and then there were comments
3 regarding mix of traffic on the road: tractors and farm
4 vehicles, and the....tourists and local traffic. This
5 is the major north/south route in this county.
6
7 Six individuals gave private testimony. All of
8 them actually supported the improvements and
9 dualization. One suggested we consider a Western
10 alignment through the wetlands, west of Racetrack Road.
11 This was an old alignment, he was talking about that was
12 considered in 1973. 4N modified was moved to the east
13 side to avoid this wetland. He said I am not opposed to
14 the improvements, hut please consider that if we are
15 going to go with 3N or 4N Modified, please by to use
16 the existing road as much as possible.
17
18 All the others talked about why they are not
19 getting funding and they wanted the project to be
20 expedited and 4N Modified
21
22 We received close to 2,000 letters. I put
23 approximately 1,800 that we have recently counted out
24 and letters that we received. All except 6 were in
25 support of dualization from Snow Hill all the way to
26 Delaware State Line. Seven hundred letters were from
27 school children supporting dualization, 700 letters from
28 citizens supporting dualization, these were 700 was
29 form letters. Four hundred letters were....and personal
30 letters.
31
32 We received comments from the following agencies:
33 US Fish and Wildlife Service supporting 2S TSM and
Page 31
1 They all referred to US 113 as a "death trap" or
2 "killer highway" or "highway of tears" and we got
3 comments from the Board of Education telling us 49
4 school buses use this road daily and 42 bus stops along
5 the 2 lane section:
6
7 Then there were comments about truck traffic.
8 Perdue wrote they have 100 trucks using the road daily.
9 There were comments about not having a weigh station
10 along 113, that I will get to in a while. Other
11 comments were Safety improvements and headlight use are ~~
12 not going to solve the problem, "project is long
13 overdue". These are comments several people repeated in
14 many of the letters that we are getting
15
16 Next item on the agenda I want to get to is the
17 conference call. Following the public meeting we had a
18 conference call with some of the agencies and Federal
19 Highway and at that time some of the comments that we
20 received from the agencies are listed here, let me give
21 you copies of that
22
23 I'm not going to get into detail of answering all
24 those now, but we want to tell you how we are going to
25 address these comments. One was affects of increased
26 truck speeds from 49 miles per hour to 55, it was said
27 that earlier there was a truck speed posted 40 miles per
28 hour. I did some investigation but we couldn't find
29 when it was actually posted 40 miles per hour and no one
30 even in the district office remembers when it had a
31 track speed posted. It may be true, but I don't know
32 who gave that comment
33
Page 30
1 Alternate 3N for the north. Also—providing new box
2 culverts.....also requested upgrading existing
3 corrugated pipes to box culverts. US Department of
4 Commerce Maryland Environmental Trust, preservation
5 easement, that we will get into when we are discussing
6 the alternatives. Federal Emergency Management Agency
7 gave comments.
8
9 Worcester County Environmental Trust also gave us a
,0 detailed letter asking to miniTniyft impacts on wetlands,
1 etc and also said as a solution, install a weigh station
,2 north of Snow Hill....
3
4 Opposition to dualization, 6 comments that we
5 received in opposition .to dualization, 3 from the same
6 family it served and 2 of those looked like the same
7 person wrote. Four supports no build and two, those two
8 people who said the same thing, supports 2S - 20'
9 median.
0
1 Other written comments, we received letters from
22 all type of people, school teachers, farmers, business
3 owners, nurses, mail carriers, fireman, policeman,
4 children. They all wrote about someone they knew died
S on the road and also about they have observed so many
6 safety hazards, people driving on the shoulders and
7 trying to pass when it is unsafe etc.
8
9 We all got the feeling that this is a place where
0 the whole community feels like if a person dies on that
1 road, it is almost like a family member to them, so the
2 Whole community got together and they were all
3 supporting the project
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
25
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
I
r
_ . Page 32
Second comment was to address public comment
regarding the need for track weigh station along us 113.
We looked into this also. There is a weigh station on
Route 13 and they use portable scales and we have roving T
weigh station only along 113 now. I
The next item is address affects of increased
truck.....
QUESTION/COMMENT^
MS. DANIELLE ALGAZIJgPA-
What was the answer to that?
QUESTION/COMMENT^
MS. SUE RAJAN. SHA:
They have a roving weigh station. What they do is
they have....they.come with portable scales, set it op
and check randomly.
QUESTION/COMMENT^
MS. DANIELLE ALGAZ
Asked is that a mandatory thing?
RESPONSE:
MS. SUE RAJAN, SHA^
Conference Reporting Service
(410) 768-5918
V El-5
Page 29 - Page 32
-------
6
/
Multi-Page™
v - • Page 33
ov It is not done on a daily basis or anything, but
°iy ey do it at random.
» J
/ QUESTION/COMMENT:
6 MR. JIM WYNN, SHA:
7
8 The trucks can't avoid it because they don't know
9 when it is going to be set up.
10
11 QUESTION/COMMENT:
12
13 MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON, SHA:
14
15 The trucks try to avoid the scales.
16
17 QUESTION/COMMENT:
18
19 MS. SUE RAJAN, SHA:
20
21 They probably know Ihey do that rather than.
22
23 QUESTION/COMMENT: .
24 ~ '
25 MS. DANIELLE ALGAZL EPA:
26 ~ ~~
27 So is there anything that is going to be done as
28 far as putting a scale on 13?
29
30 RESPONSE:
31
32 MS. SUE RAJAN, SHA:
33
Page 34
1 Right now there are no plans for a weigh station
2 along US 113.
3
4 QUESTION/COMMENT:
5
6 MS. DANIELLE ALGAZI, EPA:
7
8 Even though there were a lot of comments mat said
9 trucks use this route to avoid the weigh stations on US
10 13?
11
12 QUESTION/COMMENT:
13
14 MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON, SHA:
15
16 What she said is we use the roving scale. We are
17 not planing on putting a weigh station in and we will
18 continue using that roving scale.
19
20 QUESTION/COMMENT:
21 ~ 7
^O X^CS Ti^"T^*X3nDT T T3? fmi^^f\A UT ^*^\t3*
^& XVXO* XV^AVyrj «—'* *f JJT?* \JVf A"-*i fr**nf m \^\JCt
23
24 I'm sorry, where are you using the roving scale?
26 RESPONSE:
27
28 MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON, SHA:
29
30 Wherever they decide to put it
32 QUESTION/COMMENT:
33
Paee35
1 MR. CRAIG KOPPffi: **
2 ' '
3 Asked where on 1 13? There is no room for mat
4 anywhere.
5
6 RESPONSE:
7
8 MS^CYNTHIA SrMPSON^_SHAr_
10 It does pose a safety issue when they put ft there
11 but they still have to weigh the trucks.
13 QUESTION/COMMENT:
14
15 MS. SUE RAJAN, SHA:
16
17 They pull over trucks to the shoulder. Even on
18 other roadways we have seen that
19
20 QUESTION/COMMENT:
21
22 MR, JIM WYNN. SHA:
23 - -
24 They must set up for a couple of hours and
25 combination
26
27 QUESTTON/COMMENT:
28 ' —
29 MS. DANIELLE ALGAZL EPA:
30 ""
31 I mink EPA is getting. — J guess what EPA is
32 getting to is we hid a question about what the
33 answer....comment period is July 1 8th and I think in
Page 36
1 order to understand how you are going to address these
2 comments, I think it is sort of premature to address
3 them right now.
4
5 Legally you need to wait until the end of the
6 comment period to address those issues and I am a little
7 bitconceued to tell you tiie trafii that you are Hying
8 to address these issues currently when you haven't'
9 heard everybody.
10
11 RESPONSE:
12 ~" ~
14
SS^fi 15 BtOt actnallv firfrfrpccam* ttwa veeruxc? 0T*A £»
6 identifying how we feel we are going to address the
7 issue. Now what is the intent of your getting the
8 information on the weigh station? I mean how will that
9 weigh into a decision? I mean do you want us to provide
20 you with the results?
21
22 QUESTION/COMMENT:
23
25
6 The information that is given as part of the draft
7 HS should also be used for minimizing the impacts and
8 also safety concerns and safety issues aod if you need
29 to weigh all those out before you stjsrt addressing these
0 issues.
1
2 So it is not so onuch a matter of Ms specific
3 questimalor^itisamattisrofalltheqisstionsthat
Conference Reporting Service
(410) 768-5918
V El-6
Page 33-Page 36
-------
Multi-Page
TM
Page 3
1 you are getting as a result of the public hearing
2 comments. I don't feel like you had, you know, the time
3 to be able to assess all of these, to be able to address
4 the comments at this stage and we actually got a letter
5 from Neil Pederson thanking us for being a part of the
6 conference call.
7
8 One of the things that he mentioned was that we
9 were to be addressing these issues until August, at the
10 August interagency meeting and I'm a little bit
11 uncomfortable doing it before the end of the comment
12 which is what
13
14 RESPONSE!
15
16
17
18 We are aware of the letter that was written to you
19 and we discussed this. We are identifying our preferred
20 alternative, we haven't even gotten to that part of the
21 agenda. 'What we are going through right now are comments
22 that we received at the conference call and we are
23 trying to explain to you how we anticipate addressing
24 those comments.
25
26 Because we are giving you information now does not
27 mean this is the final answer that will be in the final
28 document and we realize that we have to address all of
29 the comments that we have received on that draft
30 document in the final document
31
32 Because of the time frame, we have to start this
13 process now, we can't wait. You shouldn't assume that
MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SHA:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
QUESTION/COMMENT^
MS. SUE RAJAN. SHA:
Page 39
We received comments fromthe public before and at
the public hearing, following the hearing, now, we are
not getting any comments at all. Yesterday one comment
came and the day before one comment came and we have two
more days for the public comment period to end. We
understand that....agency comment period until the 25th.
We will take into consideration all the comments that —
have come in also unless they are totally different from
what we are hearing now, the preferred....based on
comments that have been received up to 2,000 from the
public and also from the engineering evaluation, the
team has identified a preferred alignment
We haven't selected the alternative, we haven't
recommended an altemate...we want to get more comments
on that preferred alignment and that is the main reason.
We understand that comment period....all those comments
will be taken into consideration that is coming in the
next 2 days.
QUESTION/COMMENT^
MS^ DANIELLE
You already have a preferred alternative.
RESPONSE:
MS^SUE RAJAN, SHA:
Page 3S
1 this is the final issue.
2
3 QUESTION/COMMENT:
4
5
6
7 What is your time frame? What is your schedule? I
8 mean I agree with Danielle.
9
10 QUESTION/COMMENT^
MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON, SHA:
We are going to address the schedule at the end of
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. MICHELLE GOMEZ, COEj
12
13
14
5 this presentation.
6
7
8
9
20
I agree with Danielle on what she is saying about
addressing comments and presenting a preferred
_ alternative. It is not correct to do that at this point
14 in time. The comment period closes on Friday the 18th
5 and the federal agencies and I think the state agency
6 also has an extension until July 25th as far as the
.7 Corps of Engineers public notice is concerned.
8
29 At this point in time, we haven't received any of
0 the comments that the State Highway has received in
1 regards to the public hearing, the transcript of the
2 public hearing or anything that was mailed in.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
9
Unless we get comments different from what we are
getting now that will change the preferred alternative,
this is how we look at it now based on comments that we
have heard.
I also have a newspaper clipping and I will send it
out if nobody has seen it and you asked for that
earlier. One thing I forgot to mention is prior to the
public hearing there was a newspaper letter to the
editor in opposition to the public Ihat you mentioned
earlier.
That person came to the hearing, he collected data,
accident data and. safety and he came to the hearing,
that was the only person who opposed so far.
QUESTION/COMMENT^
Page4U
\
But you haven't gotten all the agency comments yet.
RESPONSE:.
MS^SUE RAJAN. SHA:
I realize that and we are waiting for that We
will also include that Right now as you see in the
top, as of yesterday by 4 p jn., these are the comments
that we have received so far.
QUESTION/COMMENT!
Conference Reporting Service
(410) 768-5918
V El-7
Page 37 - Page 40
-------
Multi-Page
TM
MS. DANIELLE ALGAZI. EPA:
Page 41
Well EPA would officially like to make SHA aware
that this is against NEPA regulations and you are
setting yourself up for litigation and I just want to
make sure that is officially recorded
QUESTION/COMMENT;
MS^CYNTfflA SIMPSON. SHA:
It will be recorded and SHA is still saying this is '
not a final assessment of all of the impacts and we
recognize that and we agree that we have to address all
of those comments in the final document
You should not assume that because we are making
this presentation that this is the end all and be all
It has been cleared up fhrough....it is not the final
addressing of the comments. .
QUEZON/COMMENT:
MR. ELDER GHIGIARELLI:
SHA, and not to defend you guys, but it was made .
really clear in the conference call when they asked the
agencies for any outstanding issues on the NEPA document
at that time that they were doing so to get a head start
on addressing the issues.
I understand what you are saying, but I don't
understand why it was not brought up in the conference
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Page 43
MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON, SHA:
We can identify a preferred alternative.
RESPONSE:
MS. DANIELLE ALGAZL EPA:
Not in the NEP'AAKM process.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SHA:
In NBPA, yes you can identify a preferred
alternative. We did not do that in the DHS and we're
not actually doing that at this point All she is doing
right now is going through the comments that we received
at the conference caU and teUing you how we plan to
address them.
RESPONSE:
MS._ DANIELLE ALGAZL EPA:
Well that's what EPA's position is.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SEA:
Well can we finish the presentation?
call.
Page 42
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. DANIELLE ALGAZI EPA:
What we said is mat we couldn't tell you what
the...what our preferred alternate was at mis time and
we were going to wait until the end of the comment
period to be able to give you our concerns. I don't
think SHA is in a position to restate or rethink the
NEPA regulations that have been around since 1970. So
that is EPA's position.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. ELDER GHIGIARELLI:
Well that's fine, I mean it doesn't make a
difference from our perspective, if SHA wants to start
addressing some of the outstanding issues as they see
it, men they have to re-do or un-do what they have
done
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. DANIELLE ALGAZL EPA:
It is stating that they already have a
alternative is what I have a problem
determined.
d
itispre-
' Pass 44
QUESTION/COMMENT: ^
MS. DANIELLE ALGAZL EPA:
going to nave anymore comments.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. SUE RAJAN. SHA:
Now, back to the list of issues, s number of farms
access on US 113. This we are looking into and the
number of farm access that we can grve you, it was
difficult to find how many farms are thdre on both sides
that own properties on both sides that need to take the
farm equipments along US 113. Without .actually tai
to the farmers it was difficult. But we will try our
best to give you that answer.
We looked into the accident data to see how many
farm machine were involved in accidents since 1980 and
it showed 3 accidents involving 3 farm vehicles.
The next item since many speakers spoke in favor of
dualizing 113 because of economic benefits, secondary
development and access control need to be strengthened
in the document We found 2 speakers saying about the
economic benefits at the public hearing and one spoke
about growth, One was as you mentioned earlier.,
economic developmsnt...diiector who spofe.
We are actually looking at access.-.limited access
Conference Reporting Service
(410) 768-5918
V El-8
Page 41-Page 44
-------
Multi-Page
1M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Page 45
we actually do not think there is going to be a lot of
growth occurring. Also lack of water and sewer along US
113 would also prevent development occurring along this
road. But we are going to provide discussions in the
document.
OUESnON/COMMENT:
MS^3VnCHEiLLE_GQMEZ, COR
Even the CRASH representative spoke about how the
highway will promote economic growth in Worcester
County, so there were more than 2 speakers that
addressed that. There were more than 2 speakers who
addressed economic growth, one of them was Bob Hulburt,
the President of CRASH, he addressed the need for the
duaUzation to promote economic growth.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. SUE RAJAN, SHA:
We met with the County staff and talked about where
developments are going and all those things because they
are now going to be accessing the existing 113. We are
also now doing, this road has been added to our access
management program....cn> this year to control access
along the roadway.
This is like an ongoing access management
program..... approaching large farm property owners and
buying access control along those parcels. This is to
the south and actually for the entire length for the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Page 47
final so I guess I'm confused about what she just said
that makes you feel that she didn't get the message.
you
RESPONSE^
Sue just indicated that only 2 people spoke ___
QUESTION/COMMENT^
MS. SUE RAJAN. SHA:
I was...from my notes. There could be more than
two.
QUESTION/COMMENT!
MS^ CYNTHIA SMPSON^SHAr^
That says many. It says since many speakers.
QUESTION/COMMENT^
MS. SUE RAJAN. SHA:
It is true, earlier I mentioned two speakers at the
hearing suggested economic benefits - we haven't goner
the transcript yet, but we will look into that
QUESTION/COMMENT^
Page 46
1 road. We will have full control of access in areas
2 where the roadway is in new location and in other areas
3 partial control of access. Where the alignment is
4 shifted from the existing road, we would have full
5 control access utilizing the existing road as a service
6 road.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. DAVE SUTHERLAND, USFWj
I agree with Michelle of the Corps about the
7
8
9
0
1
2
3 speakers. I listened to the video tapes and there were
4 a. number of speakers there that mentioned economic
5 development and the benefits that they would get from
6 having a dualization of the highway there.
8 _ It is interesting that it wasn't further addressed
9 in the draft documents that have come out now what a
0 strong issue that really is here with this project
22
3
4
5
6 What is it that you all are questioning about how
7 Sue said we would respond? We realize it wasn't in the
8 draft document What she is saying is mat we are going
9 to strengthen that discussion in the final document
0
The draft document has been approved and it has to
2 be approved prior to the public hearing. What she is
saying now is how we are going to address it in the
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SHA:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
MS._CYNTmA. SIMPSON. SHA:
I am just trying to clarify, they are objecting
simply to what you just said.
OUESTION/COMMBNTl
Page 481
Right, but there were a number of them in the video
tape, all 5 hours of it or audio tape, mere were a
considerable amount that mentioned it
QUESTION/COMMENT^
MS^MICHELL^GOMEZ^OE:.
The other thing Ijust wanted to clarify, at the
conference call the Corps also indicated that a number
of our questions or comments that were sent to you in
our comments on the pre-draft were not answered, not
just an issue.....not just the secondary and cumulative
effects, but also a number of other issues or questions
that they were not addressed.
QUESTION/COMMENT^
MS. SUE RAJAN.
Stated okay. Regarding accident data, in.. .March
1997 letter, mis one the comment is below mat "please
provide information on the number of accidents dualized
portions of 1 13 and has the number of accidents in this
Conference Reporting Service
(410) 768-5918
V El-9
Page 45 - Page 48
-------
Multi-Page1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Page 49
area been reduced since the dualization has occurred?"
What happened is we couldn't get the earlier that
time the way they reported the data was not in the same
format so it was difficult for comparison and we
actually met with our accident study division to look at
the previous data; we have data if you are looking for 2
lane versus 4 lane, we've got the last 5 years statewide
data showing a 2 lane roadway with no access control
versus 4 lane roadway with controlled access.
I also have that data here and we will be sending
you a copy of that I think we gave you a whole package
before, but that has all types of roadways and I think ;
it was confusing. We will be addressing mat, we will
give you that information.
QUESTION/COMMENT :
QUESTION/COMMENT!
MR. DAVE SUTHERLAND^SFW-^
Yeah, truck accident data.
Page 5:
MS. SUB RAJAN. SHA^
That was truck accident data?
RESPONSE:
MS^SUE RAJAN. SHA:
It is not truck accident data, it is like an
average accident data along existing roadways all types
of accidents, 2 lane versus 4 lane.
And I also asked for US 50 to Berlin to Ocean City.
We felt it is not comparable to us 113 because of the
Page 50
1 type of accidents, type of vehicles and the number of
2 vehicles. It is not a similar type of roadway, it has
3 no control of access with a lot of developments along
4 that stretch of us so.
5
6 Normally wecxsmpareasimilar type of roadway, we
7 could get that information, but we didn't fed that is a
8 good comparison. You also asked on the list about MD
9 90 data, before and after headlight use went into
0 effect We could give you MD 90 data from 1981 onwards.
By looking at it the only thing is that at the same tit
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 Okay, I thought that was in the original package
12 that we gave, yeah. We have detailed information all
13 fatal accidents, including the vehicles involved. I
14 thought we gave that before.
15
16 QUESTION/COMMENT:
17 ~ ~~
20 Asked Michelle if the truck accident data has been
21 updated?
22
23 RESPONSE
25 MS. SUE RAJAN. SHA:
26 . ~~
27 Updated as of December'961 think. We will
28 provide what is available because we don't get the
29 reported accidents from '97 until late this year But
30 fatal accidents we have up to dale.
31 ••
32 QUESTION/COMMENT:
33 - .
other improvements also went into place such as putting
rumble strips along the median and even after that there
4 were fatal crashes, but we could get that date.
6 The only data we don't have available is....on 90,
that is...one must complete....97 and that was last
8 year, we didn't get that data. We have the other data
9 forMD90.
0
1
22
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
QUESTION/COMMENT^
Is the truck accident data, can it be updated hi
the final document for 113?
RESPONSE:
MS^SUE RAJAN. SHA:
What truck accident data are you talking about? How
many trucks were involved in the accident?
Conference Reporting Service
(410) 768-5918
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
The leasoa I said that is because as many or more
speakers m the public hearing mentioned that trucks
were a safety problem, added to the safety problem.
Actually of fce fatalities, 51% of the fatalities
were truck zelatsd accidents which I think is right
toe telling you what one of fee major problems ate on
QUESJION/COMMENTj.
In many of the comments we got, people were talking
about trucks, that's true. Because this traffic moves
slowly and people try to pass or pass on the shoulder.
RESPONSE:
And I don't think it is the slow moving trucks.
QUESTION/CQMMgNT^
RAJAKSHA:
v El-io
Page 49-Page 52
-------
1 Next item, US Fish and '• vildlife comments. This we
2 discussed....comments also EPA
3 addressed....development i.ssues...we'll be talking about
4 m a httle while under the next item on the agenda.
5 Corps requested a copy of transcript, you asked for the
6 transcript, we haven't rece< ved it yet As soon as we
7 get it, we will be providing that
8
9 Now we want to get to the next item on the agenda,
10 that is preferred alignment that the team has identified
11 based on the comments so far. Cathy?
13 QUESTION/COMMENT:
14
ig __;RI_
17 Once again, I wanted to remind you that the comment
18 period is not completed yet, there are 2 more days left
19 in the comment period However, I want to try to
20 present to you some of the reasoning as to why we are
21 looking at these preferred alternatives now because we
22 want to get your comments on them and be able to relay
23 your cx>mments on to the Administrator and that will have
24 an effect in his determination of selecting an
25 alternative which is why we want to try to explain some
26 of the reasoning as to why we are looking at a preferred
27 alternative right now.
28
29 First of all is a review of the purpose and need
30 The purpose and need for this project is again, fatal
31 accidents. There were a large number of fatal accidents
32 all throughout the study area and the rate is equal to
33 or above the statewide average.
" ""•" """ '
1 I'd first like to go through the southern study ^M
2 area. A review of the alternatives real quick reveal
3 there is a TSM alternative that we looked at which has a
4 number of...improvements, rumble strips in the middle
5 and on the shoulders, raised pavement markers
6 mtersectiou improvements, addition of turning'lanes.
8 Another alternative we looked at was 2S with a 20
9 foot median which was a 2 lane, one lane in each
10 duration, with a 20 foot median in me middle to try to
11 address some of the opposite direction collisions while
12 minimising the environmental impacts, so we tried to
13 reduce the cross sections as best we could.
15 There is also the 3S alternative which was a 4 lane
16 cross section, 2 lanes in each direction and again we
11 looked at a 34 foot median and also a 20 foot median to
18 reduce the impacts and I'd like to go over that
20 First of all 2S TSM we are not going to recommend
21 It may reduce some fatal accidents, but it doesn't
22 reduce a large portion of the fatal accidents it
23 provides some safety increases, but it is not going to
24 address a lot of the accidents. &
25
26 Our preferred alternative really needs to have a
27 median or barrier to separate the opposite flow of
28 traffic because 57.5% of the fatals £e caused by
29 opposite direction collisions and most fatal accidents
30 occur between intersections not at intersections, so we
31 want to have some kind of median or barrier separating
32 the opposite direction traffic. y«<*uu6
33
1 So we did look at the Alternative 2S with the 20
2 foot median which had one lane in each direction and a
3 median down the middle as a way of addressing these
4 £ accidents while also reducing the cross section as
5 best we could We are not going to recommend this,
6 there are a lot of safety problems with this.
8 There maybe e a lot of additional high speed
9 accidents due to the operations with the passing lanes
10 people are not used to this type of cross section, there
11 is no cross section like this throughout Maryland You
12 are going about passing lanes intermittently throughout
13 the comdor, throughout the southern corridor andthese
4 changes in cross section drivers are not used to this
15 There may be high speed collisions from people trying to
16 pass each other, that sort of thing. S
15 A A5° 10C3i ^l6"5 currently Pass each other on the
iy saoulders and with a median and then with a shoulder,
20 you're going to have a lot more people passing each
21 other on the shoulder which is additional safe?
22 hazard with this alternative
23
24 The inters^*™ operations are another problem.
e going to be very small. Cars will
TT" is or will have a lot of
—-c, _ „ with this alternative from the
„„ . T " ¥^y to? to ^ake a U turn they are
29 going to end up in the grass, the cars.
Also removing pavement for construction, in order
-- .« construct this we would have to remove some of the
33 existing roadway or somehow incorporate the existing
1 roadway into the median which is not a, that is kind of
2 an unorthodox construction method.
4 Finally the cost considerations, this is a 53
fi S^n,f>U^altBn?ativ? which fa comparable to some
-i £w£f vf atefa^w » «*• I MM fte others arT
8 of 52 5 • E^iS* rt t a **&*<*** cost for some
J ssafssas *«**•***•*•*»***
PageS<.
o ^ drainage issue which m
12 get into in a httle more detail, with a 20 foot median,
13 tite entire median would have be an impervious areT
S
5 » " a
!« ^^°g U5"?s ^ you can see that a typical car
16 would end up off the edge of the shoulder in orferto
i / msicc & \j turn
18
Jn ti 1i0^somecarsmaybeabletomakethis,Imeana
20 Honda for instance, but they would have a lot of
S°me Ca™ ma D0t « make it at
Conference Reporting Service
(410) 768-5918
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
X «. J^ 3 qUCStion?bout ^ Projected 2020 accident
29 rate in the comment for 2S, 20 median, versus the 3S
30 there is a difference of 3 accidents per year
32 A-ff'm J"Ust wonderin& I mean if it is such a small
ditterence. why is that such a substantial versus why .-„
El-11
Page 53 - Page 56
-------
such a difference in...J guess I'm still not
understand, that why...why this is such a lesser
alternate than the 3S median.
Multi-Pa
•Page 571
not that much different.
RESPONSE:
~
1? ^iATO*S*l«S?S.
18 the northbound roadway
19 from your driveway
20
RESPONSE
Wouldn't you do that on the dualized?
Yes, you can do that as well on the dualized.
So Acre is no difeence?
RESPONSE:.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
;31
32
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10 Well the difference is when you would have to eo i
" J" «>^ction, a major intersection vSSSf
12 make a U turn in order to go south. uu».."n
14 QUEST10N/COMMEN£
16
17
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
12
13
14
18
19
20
21
22
What about a flare out of the intereection?
RESPONSE:.
issue. Tfcercareanumberof
QUESTION/COMMENT^
MS^CATHY_MAHERL
26 nans.
27
28
29
31 imnaTfTw -£L-j ro i00lc * ^^ys to reduce
Page 601
[20
21
22
23
24
2.6
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
^.
And you'd have to do that with dualized, too.
RESPONSE
m Butwith the dualized you would
QUESTION/COMMpm
21
22
23
24
25
26
1.27
28
29
30
31
32
!33
Basically you'd have to acpamf every intersection.
V El-12
Page 57-Page 6Q
-------
Multi-Page7
Page 61
1 RESPONSE^
3 MR. JIM WYNN. SHA:
4
5 Because to provide the access for school buses and
6 trucks to make that U turn.
7
8 QUESTION/COMMENT:
10 MR. DAVE SUTHERLAND. USFW:
11
12 I don't see a lot of school buses making U turns on
13 2 lane roads. I don't follow that
15 QUESTION/COMMENT:
16
17 MR. HM WYNN. SHA:
18 .
19 They don't have to now. They could just make a
20 left turn onto the road.
22 QUESTION/COMMENT:
23
24 MR. DAVE SUTHERLANDjJJSFW:
25
26 It could be designed where they would have the
27 availability to make their turns other than U turns in
28 the middle of the road.
29
30 QUESTION/COMMENT:
31 ~
32 Ms. CATHY MAHHR:
33
Page 62
l They would be able to make turns, the problejn is
2 care. The cars would have a lot of difficulty making U
3 turns. That is, every vehicle on the road is not
4 going to be able to make a U turn with this alternative
5 which is one of the big operation problems with this
6 alternative.
8 ' QUESTION/COMMENT:
9 ~ •
10 MR. DAVE SUTHERLAND. USFW:
11
12 I think if you just opened up your mind a little
13 bit, there are plenty of designs you could accommodate
14 this....
15
16 QUESTION/COMMENT:
17
18 MS. CATHY MAKER:
19
20 There are also problems with the operations
21 throughout the corridor, the operations of the passing
22 lanes could cause more high speed collisions.
23
24 QUESTION/COMMENT:
25
26 MR. DAVE SUTHERLAND^USFW:
27
28 Well we arc addressing this U turn problem right
29 here.
30
31 QUESTION/COMMENT: ,
32
33 MS. CATHY MAKER:
— — . _ . .•
Page 61
1 Well this isn't the only reason we are not 1
2 recommending this alternative. There are a number of 1
3 others. 1
4 1
5 RESPONSE: 1
6 1
7 MR. DAVE SUTHERLAND. USFW: 1
8 1
9 Okay. Well I. don't agree, I mean you the 1
10 accident data is not statistically significant, it is 1
11 not statistically higher in this location and the j
12 traffic volumes even in the year 2020 just approach 1
13 later volumes or current volumes hi the northern part of 1
14 the highway. So I mean I don't understand why you can't 1
15 consider this as a valid alternative. 1
16
17 QUESTION/COMMENT:
19 MS NAN • ~ ~~
20 "
21 Well we did consider it as a valid alternative.
22
23 RESPONSE:
24
25 MR. DAVE SUTHERLAND, USFW:
26 ~
27 Now, that is 2S, go forward with.....
28
29 QUESTION/COMMENT:
30
31 MS. SUE RAJAN, SHA:
32
33 There is also public opposition to Alternative 2S
Page 64
1 that we got also. One thing is that even when people
2 make left turn at intersections, there is not
3 enough....distance, even 34 feet is not that good, but
4 it is better than 20 foot. For school buses that have
5 to make left turns, not only U turns, even for left
6 turns it creates a more dangerous condition.
8 Another thing is people do improper passing, even <
9 now that is one main thing that we got a lot of letters '<
10 on. People are making improper passing on the shoulder
1 1 There are a lot of farm machines trying to use the
12 shoulder and they are all hanging onto that edge, even 1
13 using the travel lane while people are trying to pass. |
14
1 5 With a 2 lane divided with 20 foot median, that
16 possibility of passing is not there, there are also
17 themany issues we listed before.
18
19 QUESTION/COMMENT:
20
21 MR. DAVE SUTHERLAND. USFW:
22
23 That type of problem is consistent throughout the
24 state and every state across the country where you have
25 got farm equipment creating problems.
27 QUESTION/COMMENT:
28 ~ ~ '
29 MR. JIM WYNN, SHA:
30
31 But we don't have any 2 lane roads with median
32 barriers. In other words you've got a farm vehicle
33 using one of the lanes going down one way, at opportune
Conference Reporting Service
(410) 768-5918
V El-13
Page 61 - Page 64
-------
Multi-Page
TM
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Page 65
.noments you can pass that vehicle, but if there is a
median barrier and there is a piece of farm equipment on
the road passing is impossible.
RESPONSE:
MR. DAVE SUTHERLAND. TJSFW^
The alternative that I recommended was that the
median......
QUESTION/COMMENT^
MR. JIM WYNN; SHA:
1 We got several letters from the public about the ^ ?
2 farm equipment using this road The farmers have to use
3 this road and we have to do something about it
RESPONSE:.
If there is a piece of farm equipment utilizing a
section of roadway, with a barrier there is no
18 opportunity to go around them at all, particularly if
19 there is a 22 foot wide combine.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
RESPONSE:
Well I mink there are ways to get around that
QyESTJON/CQMMENTl
¥S1_CATHY_MAHER:.
If you need a median break for the farm vehicles to
32 cross with the 20 foot median, you are creating an
33 additional safety hazard because every time you break
1 the median, that is considered a safety hazard to cars,
2 it is considered southing they can run into and cause
3 more extreme accident then what you would have
4 otherwise. With a 34 foot median, you have a little bit
5 more room so that you do need median break, it is not as
6 much of a safety hazard
Page 66
5
6
7
8
9
10
- . —i—• -——— —.~— OUUI^LU. obiuaa, it (XIIUQ n
12 designed to allow for infiltration in the median.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 In.
25 you are not i
_ -. * t_ t *" " ~ ~ ——w U)*» >«MMU W JJW&U LtOf WiWCE
26 underneath the sub base of the roadway. With a 34 foot
27 median you could use natural infiltration, but with a 20
28 foot, you are not going to have enough room and the
29 slopes are not going to come down at aaangls that is
30 going to allow you enough volume for a 10 year design
31 storm. —o—
32
KjEJjroN/CQMMENT;
MS^ATHYJMAHERi
Additionally with the 20 foot median both with me
2S and the 3S. Alternatives, the 20 foot median has to
be an impervious area straight across, it could not be
designed to allow for infiltrati '—
QUEJTION/COMWENTX
^J^^
Why is that?
RESPONSE:.
Page 68!
QUESTION/COMMENT^
7
8
9
10
11
12 How big a problem is this? I mean are we
13 about one tractor, two tractors? You know a
14 farm....how big a problem is this?
16 RESPONSE:
17
18
19
21 vehicles onlhe road
22
23
24
25
26
27 At this stage of the game you would think you would
28 have that right at your fingertips really.
30 RESPONSE:
31 ~
132 MS^SUE RAJAN, SHAj^ .
Will you get infiltration down in this area?
QUESTION/CQMMTRNT^
MS. SUE RAJAN, SHA!
We are trying to estimate the number of farm
QUESTION/COMMENT^
Do we get infiltration in tins area?
RESPONSE^
MR.
Conference
(410) 768-5911
sorting Service
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 Yes, the soils infiltrate in this area. What
17 SESJK^w* 2° f00t "^^ you "• So a foot and
W.e have a Pavement section say 2 1/2 feet
Sn which
pavement,
standards are we try to design 9
r~ i foot sc^rio vou wouldn't bVabfe to
do that, you'd have to widen the median and
23 water to an outfall point YouwS
24 quality that you would be looking for:
25
QUEJJJON/COMMENT:.
El-14
-------
Multi-Page
TM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
~ Page 69
MR._JQHN_ZANETn:.
Well to solve the problem you'd have to have larger
ditches on the oulside. In a 20 foot scenario you'd
have to go to a raised median closed drainage system.
QUESTION/COMMENT:.
MR._DAVE_SyXHERLAND, USFW:
I understand that, why can't you run pipes
underneath the road?
RESPONSE:.
MR-JQHN_ZANETT2L
Well you could do that periodically wherever your
outfall points are, but still you are not going to get
that water perking into the soil, cleaning out the
metals.
OUESTION/CQMMBNTL
Well if you could get the majority of that process
done, I can't imagine you wouldn't get the water
quality.
OUESTION/COMMENTL
MR. JOHN ZANETn
Page'/ j
1 MRV_ANDY_PARKERL
3 You are also going to be increasing the size of the
4 swales on the outside because they are going to have to
5 handle that volume that you would have had in the median
6 that is now going to have to be handled on the outside.
7
8 OUESTION/COMMENTL
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Well it is either handling it now with a 2 lane
situation without anything hi the middle.
QUESTION/COMMENT!
But think that we're adding 20 foot of impervious
roadway.
OUESTION/COMMEN11
MR. JOHN ZANETnL
Yes you are only picking up 12 foot of pavement.
OUESTION/COMMENTL
Yes and the total impervious area is greater with
the 20 foot median than with the 3S 34 foot median.
1 You are running it through pipes, it is not going
2 to happen.
4 OUESTION/COMMENTL
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Page 70
Why can't you run pipes under the highway to the
swale on the side of the highway that is now existing
there. It has the same function.
OUESTION/COMMENTL
MR. JOHN_ZANETnL
Well when you've got less than one half percent
slope on the main line, you have to do that quite
frequently and it would be very expensive.
QUESTION/COMMENT^
It is possible though?
RESPONSE:
MR. JOHN ZANETnL
It is possible, it is something that can be
designed certainly. It is a drainage issue.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
RESPQNSEL
Page 7
Yes, but I don't see why it has to be impervious,
why you can't leave the grass there, that's my whole
basis of my argument here.
QUESTION/COMMENT:.
MS. CATHY_MAHERL
The design issue is that if we did have a 20 foot __
median because of the size and the slope of the median
and the volume of water that we can transfer that way,
it would have to be an impervious area, it couldn't be
a.—
OUESTION/COMMENTL
MRJDAVE/SUTHERLAND, USFW:
Let's not go back again, we have just talked about
diverting some of that water underneath the highway
where it seems to be a problem where you would think
that the capacity of the water quantity is going to be
so great in those locations running underneath the road
into the swale and the sides of the road
RESPQNSEL
MR. JOHN^ZANTaTTlL
Conference Reporting Service
(410) 768-5918
Page 69 - Page 7:
V El-15
-------
Multi-Page
TM
Page 73
But you still would need to have impervious
material underneath the median regardless of where the
outfalls are. When you've got less than 1/2 percent
slope, the water is going to accumulate and lay there.
lit could wash out of a sub grade facility and
compromise the road.
We don't have 20 foot depressed medians in
Maryland. •
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. DAVE SUTHERLAND, USFW:
Pretty close to it
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. JOHN ZANETTI:
The only 20 foot medians we have in this state have
a raised median with an edge curving or a closed
section.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. DAVE SUTHERLAND, USFWi ;
What is on Route 50 now in those locations?
RESPONSE^
MR. JOHN ZANETTI:
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Page!
Wildlife Service at this point
QUESTION/COMMENT!
MS, CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SHA:
So we need to discuss it further.
QUESTION/COMMENT
MS. SUB RAJAN. SHA:
We have now a 2 lane roadway if we are going to
construct that median, we are actually not using the
existing pavement We need to tear out existing
pavement to make a grass median. I think that is why
the cost is so much for that alternate.
QUESTION/COMMENT!
MS. CATHY MAHERi
So anyway, to conclude, the reason for presenting
this today was to get your concerns and your issues so
that we'll be able to present those to the administrator
when we present this to him.
Our preferred alternative for the south would be 3S
with a 34 foot median, it addresses the safety issues,
it provides continuity for the system, you would have a
4 laae'cross section from Berlin to Snow Hill. We went
over the intersection design and operations, the
improved traffic operations and we have a large amount
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Page 74
It is at least 34 feet wide.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. MICHELLE GOMEZ. COE:
What about along like right before the Bay Bridge
Toll Plaza?
RESPONSE:
MR. DON OSTRANDERi
I believe that is a closed system.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SHA:
I don't think we're going to resolve this. I think
we need to note that there are drainage issues to be
resolved with the 20 foot median, that there are
numerous questions that the agencies have concerning the
drainage because even though State Highway is answering,
the highway engineer is answering, there are still
questions about it, so we need to discuss this
particular issue further.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR, DAVE SUTHERLAND. USFW:
He is not answering it adequately for the Fish and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Page 76
of public support for this alternative in comparison to
the 2S 20 foot median alternative.
So I'd like to go onto me northern study area and
oacsagara I wffl read the alternatives, lie so build,
again the TSM alternative similar to the one that we
have in the south with similar intersection
improvements, rumble strips. We also looked at the 3N
alternative which is generally on existing augnmeat as
shown over there on me msps.
The 3N is generally on existing alignment witii some
uaprovemeats in different areas. It is a 4 lane cross
section with either a 20 foot ami a 34 foot median for
this alternative. The 4N modified alternative follows a
new alignment starting just north of Berlin and goes
through the what was & graded interchange at MD 90 area,
ties back in at 589 to the 3N alternative, runs a litfle
bit soura of St Martin's Church and thea runs northward
on the alignment again and ties in at Shingle Landing
Road «»~——
Use 4N alternative again follows the 3N alternative
up to just norm of BishopvOle Road where it goes on
new alignment just to tiss west of the roadway and tigs
in just south of the Delaware State line.
The final alternative was a combination alternative
which combined me different aspects of the 3N and the
4N. It followed Use 4N alternative through Shingle
V 3i W _ 9 _«t .« . *_.* . *!L^ _*^.~
instead of utilizing that small area going offline
•** id. f_f 1 _.__„. J u.t_ • . > • *• . _. _
mere, it followed the existing alignment north of
Conference Reporting Service
(410) 768-5918
Page 73-Page 76
V El-16
-------
Multi-Page
TM
Page 77
1 Bishopville Road to the Delaware State line.
2
3 So we combined the two different alternatives to
4 develop this alternative. Again, the TSM will not be
5 recommended in the north, mainly because it doesn't
6 address a significant portion of the fatal accidents.
7 The TSM also won't address the purpose and need for the
8 north because we have a capacity problem in the summer.
9
10 Again, a review of some of the issues I went over
11 before, we want to 34 foot median because we feel that
12 it is a better design, has better intersection safety,
13 better U turning and intersection design, safety design,
14 it is better for farm equipment crossing, provides for
IS more safe farm equipment crossing, and again, the
16 stormwater design issues, so that is just our reasoning
17 for selecting a 34 foot median.
18
19 North of Berlin at this point we have narrowed it
20 down to the different alignments. We definitely want a
21 34 foot median with a 4 lane cross section and the
22 different alternatives that incorporate this are the 3N
23 with the 34 foot median, the 4N modified and the •
24 Combination Alternative.
25
26 So we are looking at the different alignments. We
27 considered a lot of issues, but some of the critical
28 issues that we feel are most important are the north are
29 the natural environmental impacts, first of all, mostly
30 the wetlands, the floodplain impacts, etc. The socio-
31 economic impacts, including displacements access control
32 is also a consideration between the different alignments
33 they have different aspects of access control associated
Page
provides continuity for the system, improves traffic
operations, it has less historic impacts than 3N and
less displacements than 3N and it also has less impacts
to wetlands than the 4N modified.
So just as an overview, these are the alternatives
that we are looking at that we prefer right now. I'm
going to have Lorraine go over the different impacts
associated with the preferred alternative.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. LORRAINE STROW.
Because of natural and socio econ impacts were one
of the factors in choosing alternates, Ms. Strow
presented a comparison of the impacts of the northern
alternates that had been in consideration. The
information was displayed via slide show. 3N, 4N
modified and 3N/4N, the combo, all with a 34 foot median
were then compared.
Attention was called to the heavy wetland impact
under 4N modified, the 24.8 are figure as opposed to 3N,
7.5 acres; the heavy displacements for 3N, 30 as
opposed to 4N modified, 12; and that the 3N/4N modified
is a compromise between the two, with wetland impacts of
the 4N modified cut in half and displacements of 19 are
significantly lower than that of 3N at 30 displacements.
3N impacts 5 historic sites that are either
National Register or National Register Eligible. From 3
of them it takes right-of-way. One would be definitely
Page 78
1 -with them.
2
3 We want to ensure that the preferred alternative
4 will address the safety problem, consider the cost
5 comparisons and the different issues associated with
6 public support of the different alternatives.
7
8 The natural environmental impacts for 4N were a lot
9 greater generally than for 3N. Tte combination
10 alternative generally fell in the middle for natural
11 environment impacts. Socio econ impacts were greatest
12 for the 3N alternative as it had a numoer of
13 displacements and also affected the most historic sites
14 of all the alternatives.
15
16 We have better access control with the 4N and the
17 combination alternative than we did under the 3N
18 alternative. There are less intersections associated
19 with the 4N and the combination alternative. Here are
20 cost comparisons of the different alternatives . The
21 public support is another issue as Sue went over. There
22 is generally more public support for the 4N, the
23 Combination Alternative and there is definitely public
24 supjjort for the 34 foot median with a 4 lane cross
25 section.
26
27 Our preferred alternative for the north is a 34
28 foot median, a 4 lane cross section and the Combination
29 Alternative. Again, that follows new alignment up until
30 Bishopville Road, where it follows the existing
31 alignment to the Delaware State line.
32
33 The Combination'Alternative addresses safety,
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Page
demolished, from another 27% of its right-of-way would
be taken and it could possibly be considered demolished.
It takes right-of-way from a 3rd, up to 14% of it The
remaining two would have their setting adversely
affected.
4N modified and 3N/4N Modified, both visually
impact one historic resource. The Maryland Historic
Trust has said they eliminated the view from the Old St
Martin's Church. Therefore, although they take no
right-of-way from the historical resource, they have an
adverse effect determination.
With lie comparison of the major impact of the
northern alternates completed, the complete summary of
impacts from your brochure and the brochure's
availability was noted.
Referring again to slides, a complete breakdown of
the impacts and the costs of 3S, the preferred alternate
in the south and the preferred alternate in the north,
the 3N/4N modified combination alternate was presented.
It was pointed out there are no architectural
resources in the south and one with the 3N/4N combo that
was adversely affected in its setting.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. SUE RAJAN. SHA:
Introduced the next item on the agenda — secondary
impacts and cumulative effects issues. Lorraine is
Conference Reporting Service
(410) 768-5918
V El-17
Page 77-Page 8(
-------
Page 81
l going to go over those issues. -&
2
3 QUESTION/COMMENT:
4
5 MS. LORRAINE STROW. SHA-
6
7 Distributed a handout that pooled together the
8 comments of resource agencies from varied sources on the
9 alterntes retained package.
10
11 The first issue listed was a comment on the DEIS:
12 "For cumulative and secondary impacts, the Corps had a
13 comment that we need acreage of wetlands lost by
14 watershed through forestry operations, prior converted
15 crop lands, areas filled for construction of us 113,
16 areas filled due to construction of dualized portions of
17113 (we have the construction of the 2 lane impact)
18 railroad bed developments, Routes 50, 90 and any other
19 roads which intersect with us 113." We are currently
20 scoping for our cumulative effects analysis. We are
21 looking closely at what appropriate spacial boundaries
22 should be, and with regard to time, what time period
23 our analysis should cover
24
25 We do not feel that watershed boundaries are :
26 appropriate as US 113 goes through only a small part of
27 one of the four sub water sheds. County boundaries
28 likewise seem too large an area and therefore
29 inappropriate.
30
31 Sub water shed boundaries of each stream on the
32 other hand may be a more fitting limit, although
33 presently we are looking at only the wetland impacts of
Multi-Page
TM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
OUESTION/CQMMgN]^
Pags83
— •-— - — • — -^0*1*5 IK* oioj. jjiuceeoing to the next
issue: "Development going in and the associated
unp&cts, *
On page 424 we have discussion of that Next
comment was "Elaborate on the area reserved for future
development around the present MD iw Maryland 90
mtechange." That is on page 424 in the document
Answer, how does improving us 113 affect improved
access to developable lands? " ««i««jveu
Sue has covered that and I don't want to go over
T^J^^888^ ** Wtetid development
I think we have covered mat
t's wedand impacts with
, that is, does it remove a
a wetland?" Byreviewfcg
as^ indirect
would eli™™^
wn of any wetland feat was previously
anpacted by the existing us us or would eliminate a
link wi&in a wetted that is either a hydrolcgical link
or a habitat link.
We will provide discussioa on links as well as
reviewfimction and value and provide mitigation
"Comment on the
regards to cumulative
1 the existing road in conjunction with the proposed
2 improvement's impacts.
4 Furthermore, it warrants some consideration that a
5 cumulative effects analysis may not be appropriate for a
6 project such as this where the direct beneficial effects
7 of safety are of paramount importances. Public
8 interests, in combination with direct effects of
9 displacements and farm land, 'and wetland impacts are
10 primary factors to be considered in making a decision
11 rather man any cumulative effects.
13 Clearly mis merits further consideration and,
14 towards mat end, a meeting with the Army Corps of
15 Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency is
16 being scheduled to finalize the spateial and temporal
17 limits and ensure that aUcommeats have been given
18 proper regard.
19
QUESTION/COMMENT^
Next eommsnt, "Discuss that enl
20
21
22
23
24
9 Lorraine, I'm aot understanding
10 You have covered it where?
12 RESPONS^
la this discussioa today.
Offered a couple of examples of cumulative impact
25 assessments which were in documents that the Corps'
26 reviewed and also a couple of scientific reports that
27 were done on cumulative impacts to be used for
28 cumulative effects section of the document
29
30 Also you should look at this book from CEQ which is
31 considering cumulative impacts, I don't know if you haw
32
33
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 ^jpwow cawsmauves ana mat we are also workins-
™ ££ ^^^H^ster County to SSeupSm
^o access management program for us 113.
28
29
30
31
32
we mentioned
Conference Reporting Service
(410)768-5918
V El-18
coming in fix>m fee
due to fe project
Page 81 - Page 84
-------
Multi-Page
TM
Page 85
"Discuss wetland impacts in terms of watershed
segments that us \\3 crosses." We direct you to page
429 of our DEIS. "Give total of wetland acres in
project area." This will be provided, we will get this
from our technical report
EPA had some comments in the current letter of
4/16/97: "Provide a historical perspective of land use
in the watershed area." We will compare the 1976 land
use plan from the county with the current land use plan
to get this historic perspective.
"Evaluate indirect impacts of the potential growth
associated with US 113 and the Worcester County
comprehensive plan. The potential to impact
environmental resources and the future land use of the
county." I think we really covered that with our
discussion.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON, SHA:
Excuse me, I am also observing people as I look
around the table, is there really any reason for us to
contiaue going over these comments and how we expect to
address than if we aren't really going to get comments?
I see people shaking their heads, so I know you
have questions or comments, but I'm not hearing them.
Is there any reason for her to continue going through
how we expect to address these comments?
Page 87
Suggested that, on a county level or town level,
they can figure out some bus routes whore bases
are not going to have to be turning or making U turns i.
the middle of the road. They can schedule bus routes to
make that not necessary.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. JOB KRESSLEIM, SHA:
Responded: Well, the type of thing that we need
from you is what ideas you are thinking of.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. JOE KRESSLEIN. SHA: ||
Asked Ms. Rajan if we have evaluated jughandles.
RESPONSE:
MS. SUE RAJAN. SHA:
Replied that we had not because of additional
impacts.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. DAVE SUTHERLAND, USFW:
Argued that putting up stuff on the screen like
that wastes time because there are other alternatives
and ways around that
1
Page 86
Two of the people who need to hear this aren't even
in the room rigot now.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. DAVE SUTHERLANP,, USFWi
Wanted to know how SHA's going to address the
problem with the farm tractors and buses, how they are
going to provide turning at U turns and how they can
provide the needed access and movement of these
different vehicles under the 2S alternative.
MR. JOB KRESSLBIN. SHA:
Can you possibly give us some input on what type of
things you are looking for?
RESPONSE:,
MR. DAVE SUTHERLAND, USFW:
I think that there are things that can be done. I
don't know that you have explored all the possibilities.
MR. JOE KRESSLBIN. SHA:
We feel that we have and that is why we are asking
you.
RESPONSE:
1 QUESTION/COMMENT:
2
3 MR. JOE KRESSLEIR SHA:
4 ~
5 Responded that in order to avoid wasting time in
6 the future, he wanted to get Mr. Sutherland's input rate
7 what specifically to look at We will be glad to do
8 that
9
10 RESPONSE:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 /
21
22
23
24'
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 Complained that she is not clear what is being told
33 to us here with regard to the secondary impacts. The
MR. DAVE SUTHERLAND, USFW:
Look at all alternatives.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MR. JOE KRESSLEIN. SHA:
We have.
'RESPONSE:.
MR. DAVE SUTHERLAND, USFW:
No, I don't think you have.
QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS, CHRIS WELLSJMOg:.
Conference Reporting Service
(410) 768-5918
.V El-19
Page 85 - Page 88
-------
Page 89
1 Maryland Office of Planning in its comments from
2 November 20th expressed some comments about effects on
3 both growth management efforts and access control We
4 are not listed here as even having commented on these
things, so I don't know what that means, our comments
are being addressed or not addressed or we just weren't
mentioned because they are similar to other agencies.
The information that is being said here is not
_- specific enough for me to comment They have talked to
11 the county, I don't know what that means, I don't know
12 what the outcome is going to be.
13
QUESTION/COMMENT:
Multi-Page
TM
_ Page 91
1 Expressed concern over the multitude of unresolved
2 issues and the activities that need to take place.
QUESTION/COMMENT^
MS. SUE RAJAN. SHA:
14
15
16
17
18 We talked to the county regarding future
19 development in the area and requested a developments
20 proposal information and other things about
21 access control we will go over that issue in the
22 document We have an access management program for the
23 south. We are looking at access management by reducing,
24 by not providing any new permits for access along the
25 road and also.....to prevent any commercial development
26
27 That is how the access management...similar to '<
28 what we did on US 50, we will look into that and also as
29 part of the project we will certainly control access .
30 along the road. Access will be allowed only at public
31 roads.
32
33 QUESTION/COMMENT:
MS^CYNTHIA SIMPSON^SHA-
Actually the 26th.
RESPONSE:.
Right Continued: We need to get the State
MS, CHRIS WELLS, MOP"
Page 90
1
2
3 I guess until I see it explained in some format, I
4 can't respond as to whether or not that addresses all of
5 our concerns.
RESPONSE:
MS. SUE RAJAN. SHA:
We will provide you with lhat information.
QUES1TON/COMMENTL
MS. LORRAINE STR
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Responded sorry we missed your comments, Chris.
18 Any further questions? I think that concludes our
19 presentation.
20
21 QUESTION/COMMENT:
22
23
24
25 I have one question of the agencies who are in the
26 room. Do you feel we need a separate 2 or 3 hour
27 meeting in the future to talk about the US 13 issues?
28 We can schedule mat at an interagency so you don' have
29 to come back for a separate meeting.
31 RESPONSE:.
33 MR^yANCB_HQBBS, COB:
Conference Reporting Service
(410) 768-5918
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 e nee ge e tate
15 Highway's information, we have hundreds and hundreds of
16 letters that need to get to the Corps of Engineers so
17 that we can review those. The longer they sit in State
18 Highway Administration boxes, the longer it is going to
19 take us to readeach one of those letters and respond
20 and we need those for our records as part of the joint
21 public notice. We need the transcripts for the
22 hearings, we need the private testimonies and public so
23 that we ;can form our record while State Highway
24 Administration forms their record.
25
26 Also it looks lite State Highway may be leaning for
27 one preferred alternative or selected alternative or
28 SHA's selected alternative and it
29 may be that there is more than one alternative that
30 could be carried onto final HS for study.
32 These are questions we need to resolve and tfiat is
33 whylamrecoamKndinglhatweinayaesdtositdowaand
MS^_CYNTmA_SIMPSON. SHA:
1 figure out what is going on in the project Itbihkif
2 EPA and the Corps and anybody else that is out there,
3 you know, feel that we are premature in doing the"'
4 thatwe are doing, we need to get that in writing, we
5 need to figure out how we are going to respond on that
6 and I mean that is just the benefit to SHA. Weaeedto
7 get this information shaken out
8
9 I would sacoannend that we sit down and figure out
10 what we want and I do agree with Dave Sutherland, when
11 we put things on the board and we have information that
12 evidently has occurred, we have looked at jughandles,
13 how come the agencies dcsi'tbaveihatinformationto
14 respond to?
15
16 Just let me continue. We need to get this
17 information. There has got to be a two way path on fee
18 information, it shouldn't bea one way path and tins is
19 what I'm seeing and this is just an outside observer
20 this is the only meeting I've been in and I'm just
21 trying to give you some input .
23 So there seems to be not a two way path going oa
24 right now and we need to fix that to get this project to
25 continue to move down the path. That's all I have to
26 say.
27
QUJKTION/COMMENTX
I'd just like to reiterate that I think we should
33 wait until the end of the comment period before we
Page 89 -Page 92
V El-20
-------
Multi-Page™ 1
Page 93
1 decide whether or not there should be a separate
2 meeting, but at this point the Trust has not completed
3 its review and has not made comments, so I would like to
4 wait until the end of the period to do so.
5
6 QUESTION/COMMENT:
7
8 MS. CYNTHIA SIMPSON. SHA:
9
10 Observed that there is a lot of distrust at least
11 as far as 1 13 is concerned and expressing concern that
12 the agencies need to understand is that the SHA is under
13 a lot of pressure to get this project approved and get
14 improvements implemented.
15
16 There are federal elected officials, there are
17 state elected officials, there are Worcester County
18 elected officials who feel that we have strung them
19 along for a number of years and are not making
20 improvements on the road.
21
22 It is in that context that Sue has developed this
23 schedule. We really need your input and your
24 assistance. The team that has made the presentation
25 today is making the presentation with the understanding
26 from their superiors that there is a schedule that has
27 tobemet
28
29 We are trying to begin that process, we are not
30 trying to finalize any process at this point, we are not
31 trying to ignore comment periods. I don't know whether
32 that means anything to you or not, but I am saying it
33
Page 94
1 There is a context in which this administration is
2 reacting and we are trying our best not to make this •
3 project extremely political. If we do not at least
4 appear to be responsive, not just to the agency concerns
5 but to the concerns of the citizens, then we get
6 extraordinary pressures placed on us and if it goes
7 political it will not just be State Highway being
8 pressured. I'm sure federal elected officials will also
9 be placing pressure on the other agencies.
10
11 We are simply trying to get a head start on the
12 process. It is critical that after the comment period
13 if we discuss with you the need for a meeting that we
14 get responses. We do not need anymore political
15 pressure on this project.
16
17 So Sue has passed out a schedule and that concludes
18 the discussion on 113.
19
20 QUESTION/COMMENT:
21
22 MR. JOE KRESSLEIN, SHA:
23
24 Before we break for lunch, the last project is
25 going to be MD 28, Bridge over Muddy Branch, Montgomery
26 County.
27
28
29
30
31
32 MD 28: Bridse over Muddy Branch
33
Page 9l
1 1
2
3 MR. JOHN NARE, SHA:
4
5 Stated he is presenting a proposed bridge
6 replacement project and a little history on it About
7 the last 5 to 6 years we have had—upgrade MD 28 on tiaJ
8 west side of 1-270.
9
1 0 The project will be running from MD 1 24 easterly
1 1 over to where the Key West Avenue construction is
12 currently going today. Within that project limits there
13 is an existing double type culvert at Muddy Branch th
14 crosses over MD 28.
15
16 The existing culvert is sub standard in that the
17 only anything...overtops the roadway. Here in this
18 schematic is a picture or the existing pipes which are
19 yellow, the structure is here.
20
21 Sometime ago this was presented to the interagency
22 we are just bringing it back to you all to update you 01
23 it since it has been quite some time, probably about 7
24 years since it was presented.
25
26 We looked at several different structures here back
27 at that time after modeling it, we comprised a triple
28 cell 11x6 by 11x6 box culvert, we submitted that to
29 the agency water resources. Was that approved? The
30 hydraulics?
31
32 RESPONSE:
33
Page &.j
1 UNIDENTIFIED:
2
3 ....that is the only thing....
4
5 QUESTION/COMMENT:
6
7 MR. JOHN NARER, SHA:
8
9 Okay, they approved concept and all we had to
10 submit at that tune was — plans. I guess our primary
11 mission for, presenting it today is to bring you up to
12 speed on it and get any feedback you all may have
13 regarding what we are presenting "here and what issues
14 you feel would be related to the project.
15
16 We are at about the point where we are going to
17 submit a permit, how long are we off on that?
18
19 RESPONSE:
20
21 MS. CHERYL JORDAN, SHA:
22
23 Still several months. We are shooting for
24 December.
25
26 QUESTION/COMMENT:
27
28 MR. JOHN NARER, SHA:
29 ~
30 We are putting in a permit for the entire project
31 through this area.
32
33 QUESTION/COMMENT:
Conference Reporting Service
(410) 768-5918
V El-21
Page 93 - Page 9t
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
MEMORANDUM
Parris N. Glendening
Governor
David L Winstead
Secretary .
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
TO: Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
FROM: Mrs. R. Suseela Rajan
Project Manager
DATE: August 29. 1^8? January 30. 1998Januqry3Q1999Jaajnry O,
SUBJECT: US 113 Interagency Meeting
On August 20, 1997 a meeting was held with SHA and the agencies involved with the development of the
US 1 13 project from South of Snow Hill to the Delaware State Line. The purpose of the meeting was to
fully address each issue on the project Those in attendance were:
SHA:
FHWA:
Neil Pedersen, Director of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Louis Ege, Jr., Deputy Director of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Cynthia Simpson, Deputy Division Chief for Project Planning Division
Sue Rajan, Project Manager, Project Planning Division
Steve Kouroupis, Highway Design
James Wynn, Project Planning Division
Jack Hett, Environmental Programs Division
Cathy Maher, Project Planning Division
Lorraine Straw, Environmental Manager, Project Planning Division
Dan Scheib, Regional and Intermodal Planning Division
Renee Sigel, Planning, Research and Environmental Team leader
Mary Huie, Environmental Protection Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Keith Harris
Michele Gomez
Jennifer Moyer
US EPA: Roy Denmark, NEPA Program Manager
Danielle Algazi
MDE: Terry Clark
M DNR: Larry Hughes
US F&W: Bob Pennington
David Sutherland
MOP: BihuiXu
My telephone number is l_
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
V E2-1
-------
RK&K: Lisa Zeimer, Project Planner
Ernest G. Disney, Designer
Robert A. Palmer, Environmental Specialist
Eric C. Mellor, Transportation Engineer
Sherry A. Burton, Transportation Planner
A.D. Marble: Andrew C. Parker, Environmental Scientist
These minutes were written by SHA and distributed to all the agencies and team members involved in
cturiy Subsequent to this distribution, the Corps of Engineers informed SHA of comments or
disagreement with some of the statements made in these minutes. Appropriate corrections and additions
are shown below in redline font as changes.
Neil J Pedersen began the meeting by highlighting a number of key issues that should be considered.
The US 113 project has received a significant amount of public support. The citizens in the area are well
organized and have mobilized the elected officials to push for a decision on this project. SHA has been
able to explain to the elected officials the reasons for why the project decision process must take so much
time but It is extremely difficult for SHA to provide the citizens with this type of understanding A meeting
wKh the agencies and Congressman Gilchrest is scheduled for September 18th and it will be important for
the agencies and SHA to reach a consensus before that meeting. Roy Denmark agreed with Mr.
Pedersen's goals to develop a consensus before the September 18 meeting. Our next meeting with the
agencies is scheduled for September 10. The goal of today's meeting will then be to review all the issues
that continue to be a concern for the agencies and address these issues either today or otherwise before
September 10.
Mr Pedersen mentioned that the enforcement agencies, FHWA, and SHA should look at this project with
the same goal in mind; to consider some creative approaches to wetland minimization while not sacrificing
safety (the purpose and need). With that in mind our goal should be to develop a plan that will minimize
impacts to wetlands while providing a safe design for the roadway by the September 10 meeting and be
prepared to present this solution to Congressman Gilchrest.
Issues/Comments and Response
SHA went through each of the agencies issues to try to resolve them one by one. The first part of the
meeting involved taking a few minutes to go over each issue to ensure that SHA is addressing the ,ssues
to the satisfaction of the agencies. The more time consuming issues such as wetland mitigation, access
management, and cumulative effects analysis would be addressed towards the end of the meeting. A
Sview all of the as yet unresolved issues that have been brought up by the agencies was provided in one
of the handouts. A list of issues and the items that SHA agreed to include in the FEIS follows.
1. Provide accident data for MD 90 before and after headlight use went into effect.
Response: 1980 through 1995 data included in handouts. Signs for headlight use were installed in
October 1981; the law went into effect in November 1995. Rumble strips were installed in 1988. Data
before 1980 is not available. SHA provided MD 90 accident data to the agencies at the meeting SHA
mentioned that rumble strips were installed on MD 90 in 1988 and further explained that a search for the
Bxact month of when the installation took place was not available in the records. It was explained at the
meeting that no discernible effect could be shown in the accident data as the result of installation of these
smaller improvements and therefore this information is not critical.
V E2-2
-------
Additional commitments: SHA will work with our Office of Traffic and Safety to develop an analysis of the
MD 90 accident data on a month to month basis to determine the effects that the additions of rumble strips
or headlight use had on the accident rates. The results will be discussed in the FEIS.
2. Provide accident rates for the dualized sections of US 113 before and after dualization.
Response: The accident data for the section of US 113 south of Snow Hill to Pocomoke City, and for the
portion through Berlin are available from 1980 through 1995 (see attached). Data before dualization is not
available. The dualization occurred in the early 1970's, and the accident records do not go back that far.
Also, accident reporting procedures have changed since 1979 and this data is not comparable to current
data.
Additional commitments: The FEIS will include a more detailed analysis of accident data along US 113.
Accident data for both the dualized and undualized sections of US 113 will be provided and a more
comprehensive analysis of this data will be developed and included in the FEIS. The analysis will include
the following elements:
• A comparison of these accident rates to the statewide averages for similar roadways and how this
comparison could be explained. '
• A discussion of how this data could be interpreted (i.e. how the accident rates may be affected by the
character or cross-section of the roadway).
• A breakdown of the accident data into the number of fatal accidents involving trucks, buses, or farm
equipment. Include discussion.
SHA provided MD 90 accident data to the agencies at the meeting. SHA mentioned that rumble strips
were installed on MD 90 in 1988 and further explained that a search for the exact month of when the
installation took place was not available in the records. It was explained at the meeting that no discernible
effect could be shown in the accident data as the result of installation of these smaller improvements and
therefore this information is not critical.
I
3. How does US 113 study area accident statistics compare with the section of US 50 from Berlin to
Ocean City?
Response: Accident rates were included in the handouts. This section of US 50 is highly developed with
no control of access. The type and volume of traffic using this highway are not same as in the case of US
113. Therefore, accident rates are not comparable.
Additional commitments:
• Since this data is not comparable to US 113, SHA will find a comparable roadway to include accident
data in the FEIS.
• SHA will compare the effects of dualization on another road in the state which was dualized after
1980. Accident data before and after dualization will be compared. The possibility of using US 50
through Vienna was suggested.
• SHA will provide an explanation of how the statewide averages were calculated including what roads
in the state are used for the statewide averages and what is the defining criteria for including a road in
this list.
• Statewide accident rates for dualized and undualized highways were handed out at the meeting. This
information will be included in the FEIS with an additional explanation of which statewide accident
rates are significantly higher for an undualized roadway.
4. Address effects of increased traffic due to the widening of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and tunnel
from two lanes to four lanes.
V E2-3
-------
Response: The construction project currently underway will only widen the two-lane causeway sections to
four-lanes, At this time, there are no plans to widen the tunnel sections. This is not expected to affect the
traffic volumes on the study sections of US 113.
Additional commitments: SHA will include information on the status of this project in the US 113 FEIS and
mention that the project will not have any effect on traffic volumes in the study area.
5. Address effects of increased truck speeds from 40 mph to 55 mph.
Response- Research is being done to find out when a lower speed was posted for trucks. Sue Rajan
provided a history of the increases in posted speed limits for the US 1 13 corridor.
Additional commitments: SHA will include a history of the posted speed limits along US 1 1 3 in the
document.
Keith Harris questioned why SHA would look at a design speed less than 60 mph when this could
Smorom se safety At the agencies' request, SHA considered designs that had a lower des.gn speed as
Sbte ways to minimize wetland impacts. These alternatives were considered with the understanding
SSlh Ts^eed HrrS and the cross-section would vary throughout the corridor thus compromises , roadway
safety. SHA was willing to study all possibilities; the conclusion of the studies of some alternatives
however depict a tradeoff between wetlands and safety issues.
6. Address the need for a truck weigh station along US 1 1 3. Several citizens expressed concerns
regarding truck traffic.
Resoonse- Currently there is a roving weigh station along US 1 1 3. The weigh station at Salisbury uses
Sffi^TrandomchecWng9alongUS113. Normally, they set the sca.es or .the JouWefarxJ
puH over trucks to weigh them. The police feel that this is sometimes <™ «^*|™? *hu! J^
are able to surprise the trucks. There are no plans to construct a weigh station along US 113 due to cost.
Additional commitments: SHA agreed to ensure that the design of US 1 1 3 will include
weight enforcement. During final design of the project specific pull-off areas w.H be idenMed.
ion on truck weight enforcement will be included in the FEIS mclud.ng how often they use the
sSales,Txamples of typical instances when it would be used, and how the enforcement ,s set up.
The FEIS will include a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of roving weigh stations COE
asked that further consideration of a truck weigh station along US 1 1 3 be pursued. SHA will meet with.
representatives from the Motor Carrier Division to discuss this issue.
The FEIS will also include a general update of the enforcement activities in the study area.
7 Address the effects of wide farm equipment on traffic operation. Assess the number of farm
accesses required and the amount of farm equipment using the road.
Response: The largest farm vehicle is the combine which is 20 to 25 feet in width. Tillers and planters
ranae from 18 to 20 feet in width. Many farmers own or lease parcels which are not adjacent to each
and requre travel along US 113. In the southern study area, there are 70 to 90 farm access points
tS MO to 55 along the existing road in the northern section. Eric Mellor presented some
on n?had gathered concerning the farm operations along the corridor Th.s mformafon was
ROT ^Consolidated Farm Service Bureau. It included a sampling of the typical operations
V E2-4
-------
along the corridor. The average trip length for farm equipment was 3.25 miles and farm vehicles currently
travel up to 8 miles along US 113. More information on farm vehicles will be developed for the FEIS.
Additional commitments: The information on farm equipment will be refined for the FEIS Additional
discussion on the ' «'««•"'<*•
design of the roadway will be modified to cover the impact that potential design modifications would have
on each type of vehicles using the roadway.
8. Minimize impacts to wetlands. Avoid impacts to Bald Cypress swamp.
Response: Avoidance/minimization options for wetlands are being developed and were presented at the
Additional commitments: The Cypress Swamp will be looked at in greater detail to identify methods to limit
impacts. Minimization strategies for all wetland will be further refined.
Accommodate wildlife passage by providing new box culverts to replace existing corrugated metal
9.
Response: SNA questioned whether it is appropriate to commit to modifying the structures at the stream
crossings at this point in the approval process. Detailed hydraulic studies should be completed before
informed decision can be made. ^uciwic
an
au
Additional commitments: The FEIS will state that the use of box culverts will be investigated in final
design. Where possible from a hydraulic standpoint, wildlife passage would be considered at the stream
crossings. :.
10. Address access control and potential future developments. Secondary impacts need to be fully
addressed in the FEIS. SHA will continue to work with the county. V
Response: In areas, where the alignment is on new location, there would be no private entrances Alonq
sections where construction is along the existing road, the goal is to restrict access to public roads only
where feasible and to minimize the number of new access points.
Additional commitments: SHA has looked at proposed alternative access points for a number of the
existing entrances along the corridor. This plan considered parcels where access could be moved or
consolidated with other entrances. The purchase of some properties will also evaluated A conceotual
access control plan will be included in the FEIS. ' «-<=HI««
1 1 . Cumulative effects and indirect impact analysis in the DEIS needs to be improved.
The agencies provided comments on the scope and methodology for the cumulative effects analysis The
gencies will be an integral part of the development of the cumulative effects analysis. The ' -
O /"llOTnhl itAfl tr\ tin A ("i^ts^Mni Ai<« IM *•-- - * • -- - — "- - ' - '" " "ii .. i / .,
be distributed to the agencies in November and this will include a compiete'se^tio'n^addre'ssinrcum'ulatf
effects. Thus the agencies will be given ample opportunity to provide comments on the cumulative crffe*
analysis. ~—~
Response: Due to time constraints, we were not able to discuss cumulative impacts at the meeting.
Additional commitments: After the meeting, SHA contacted the agencies asking for their comments on a
scope and methodology for addressing cumulative impacts.
V E2-5
-------
Strategies for minimizing the impacts to wetlands were considered for each individual wetland along the
entire corridor The goal of the wetland minimization study was to limit the impacts to wetlands while not
compromising safety. Some of the wetland minimization strategies that were considered are summarized
below;
The safety grading and construction easement was eliminated from the cross-section in wetland areas
thereby minimizing impacts. Guardrail was provided in place of the safety grading and the slope to the
limit of disturbance was adjusted.
The next minimization technique included looking at a smaller median in areas that were not near an
intersection For safety and operations, the 34 foot median was maintained at all intersections. An
attempt was made to taper to a 10 foot median for sensitive wetlands that were more than 1500 feet from
an intersection However, some wetlands are located along horizontal curves and a sight distance safety
problem occurs with a 10 foot median width. It has been determined that in areas where there is both a
wetland and a sharp curve, a 16 to 24 foot wide median would be the minimum needed to ensure safety.
The most notable example of where this combination of both a wetland and a sharp curve exists is at
Wetland 8 (the Cypress Swamp). USFWS suggested that this could be a Category 1 wetland. Because
this wetland is located on a sharp curve, a sixteen foot median would be required through this wetland to
provide for adequate sight distance. SHA is continuing to look at all applicable measures to minimize
impacts to this wetland in particular.
SHA also considered some alternative alignments in three areas to minimize wetland impacts. Further
development of these alternatives and some additional alignments that were suggested at the meeting are
continuing.
A listing of each wetland including its function and proposed minimization techniques was provided in the
handouts of the meeting and as an attachment to the meeting minutes. The meeting minutes are a brief
me
wUi ijj q* '^ ^. *""''_*** ..: ----- ------- __ - — ,,.,— - Ij*
eting and include only those items that are essential in either providing a short update
» • _ ' ~~ - . '"~. ~ ~, _ f _ ~_' . ___ : __ _!•—,:-.:— .MA Am* A^sJifisMt^iI inf/-\rnrtatir\r
for those involved in the project or to stand as a record of any major decisions
is kept at a minimum.
Any additional information
Cumulative Impacts .
Since we were not able to cover the cumulative impacts discussion, a package on cumulative impacts
was faxed to all agencies on August 22. This will be followed up by phone calls and meetings if
necessary to resolve the outstanding issues. The cumulative impacts package is also included with this
package.
The handouts from the meeting and the cumulative impacts presentation is included with these minutes.
A list of the attachments is as follows:
1. Agenda .,.,.»
2. Issues/Comments and Responses (with traffic information included)
3. Comparison among statewide accident rates(table and color graphs)
4. Cross-sections for minimizing wetland impacts
5. Wetland Minimization Table
6. Access Management Proposal
7. Cumulative Impacts Presentation
V E2-6
-------
A response to agency comments on truck, bus, and farm equipment usage, median widths, u-turns, and
storm water drainage issues was provided in the handouts of the meeting and as an attachment to the
meeting minutes. These responses will be included in the FEIS.
Future Meetings
The agencies will meet to discuss US 113 again;on September 10th. At that time SHA will more
completely address or present a plan to address all agency comments in the FEIS. The agencies will also
be meeting with Congressman Gilchrest on September 18th.
These minutes are based on the interpretation of the writer. If you have any additional questions or
comments please call Mrs, Sue Rajan, Project Manager at (410) 545-8514 or Ms. Catherine Maher
Project Engineer at (410) 545-8544.
by:
cc: Attendees
John Nichols (NMFS)
John Zanetti (SHA)
Bob Cunningham (SHA)
Steve Udsinski (SHA)
Joe Kresslein
(w/attach merits)
(w/attachments)
laher
Project Engineer
Project Planning Division
V E2-7
-------
Corrections and additions by the Corps of Engineers to the Minutes from the
August 20.1997 Meeting
On August 20, 1997 a meeting was held with SHA and the agencies involved with the
development of the US 113 project from South of Snow Hill to the Delaware State Line.
Meeting minutes dated August 29 were written by SHA and distributed to all the
agencies and team members involved in study. Subsequent to this distribution, the
Corps of Engineers informed SHA of comments or disagreement with some of the
statements made in these minutes. A list of the comments on the minutes is included
below with appropriate corrections and additions.
Agency Comment: To better understand the data provided by SHA, Corps of Engineers
(COE) requested the month in addition to the year in which rumble strips were
installed.
SHA Response: SHA provided MD 90 accident data to the agencies at the meeting.
SHA mentioned that rumble strips were installed on MD 90 in 1988 and further
explained that a search for the exact month of when the installation took place was not
available in the records. It was explained at the meeting that no discernible effect could
be shown in the accident data as the result of installation of these smaller
improvements and therefore this information is not critical.
Agency Comment: Requests for fatal accident data were misinterpreted by SHA.
SHA Response: Prior to this meeting, it was SHA's understanding that the agencies
requested data on US 50 for comparison to US 113 accident data. Data for US 50 from
Berlin to Ocean City was provided at the meeting. SHA additionally agreed to look at
accident data for US 50 through Vienna as this data would be more appropriate as this
may be more comparable to the US 113 study area.
Agency Comment: The FEIS needs to include a discussion of the need for truck weight
enforcement stations.
SHA Response: The FEIS will include a discussion of the advantages and
disadvantages of roving weigh stations. COE asked that further consideration of a
truck weigh station along US 113 be pursued. SHA will meet with representatives from
the Motor Carrier Division to discuss this issue.
Agency Comment: Request for results of the cumulative effects analysis
SHA Response: The agencies provided comments on the scope and methodology for
the cumulative effects analysis. The agencies will be an integral part of the
development of the cumulative effects analysis. The Pre-FEIS will be distributed to the
agencies in November and this will include a complete section addressing cumulative
effects. Thus the agencies will be given ample opportunity to provide comments on the
cumulative effects analysis.
V E2-8
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
Parris N. Glendening
Governor
David L. Winstead
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
Mrs. R. Suseela Rajan
Project Manager
January 30. 1998Septembar 13, 1Q07
i
US 113 Interagency Meeting
On September 10,1997 a meeting was held with SNA and the agencies involved with the
development of the US 113 project from South of Snow Hill to the Delaware State Line. The
purpose of the meeting was to fully address each issue on the project. Those in attendance
were: • i •
SHA:
FHWA:
Neil Pedersen, Director of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Louis Ege, Jr., Deputy Director of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Cynthia Simpson, Deputy Division Chief for Project Planning Division
Sue Rajan, Project Manager, Project Planning Division
John Zanetti, Highway Design Division
James Wynn, Project Planning Division
Jack Hett, Environmental Programs Division
Cathy Maher, Project Planning Division
Lorraine Straw, Environmental Manager, Project Planning Division
Jason Latham, Environmental Programs Division
William MacLeod, Transportation Services Division
Bob Cunningham, Transportation Services Division
Howard Weissberg, Bridge Hydraulics
Steve Udsinski, Highway Hydraulics
Renee Sigel, Planning, Research and Environmental Team Leader
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
>. Michele Gomez
Vance Hobbs
David Capka
US EPA: Roy Denmark, NEPA Program Manager
My telephone number is
Maryland Relay Service
1-800-735-223
Impaired Hearing or Speech
Statewide Toll Free
V E3-1
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Caivert Street » Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
MDE: Elder Ghigiarelli, Jr.
Terry Clark
M DNR: Larry Hughes
US F&W: Bob Pennington
David Sutherland
MOP: Christine Wells
NMFS: John Nichols
Tim Goodger
RK&K: David Wallace, Partner
Lisa Zeimer, Project Planner
Robert A. Palmer, Environmental Specialist
Jeremy Madaras, Engineer
A.D. Marble: Andrew C. Parker, Environmental Scientist
These minutes were written by SHA and distributed to all the agencies and team members involved in
study. Subsequent to this distribution, the Corps of Engineers informed SHA of comments or
OLUvlV uUUOCVilUwllfc iW Uliw \4iwM !«••**•• n%*i »| »• ••+* ^ ••• * f •"• •"•• * ^--j---
disagreement with some of the statements made in these minutes. Appropriate corrections and additions
are shown below in redline font as changes.
Cumulative Impacts
A package on cumulative impacts was faxed to all agencies on August 22, included in the
meeting minutes package from the August 10 meeting minutes, and distributed again at this
meeting to those who needed additional copies. This has been followed up by phone calls to
resolve the outstanding issues. Comments on the cumulative effects analysis are being
incorporated into the workplan.
Time Frame, Geographic Boundaries, and Analysis Methodologies
All agencies agreed with the time frame and the basis for an analysis methodology to be used
for the cumulative effects analysis. County, sub-watershed, and watershed boundaries will be
used as appropriate in the analysis. The Worcester County boundary will be used for most
issues while some issues (such as wetlands) will require an analysis based on the natural resource
boundaries (sub-watershed and watershed boundaries). The agencies and SHA agreed that the time
frame for the cumulative effects analysis will be from the early 1970's through 2020.
Issues List j,Af* *
A cumulative effects analysis will be conducted for the following issues: Wetlands and Waters of
the U.S., Surface Waters, Land Use, and Sensitive Areas of Concern. Sensitive Areas of
Concern include habitats for threatened and endangered species, wetlands, woodlands, coastal
bays, floodplains, and streams. The team felt that an analysis of steep slopes would not be
2S
V E3-2
-------
necessary since these are not extensive in Worcester County. Agency concerns reaardino
At the request of the agencies, floodplains was added to the list of issues for analvsis
"'" floodplalns are a reflulated resource- The
1. Data concerning the past effects to floodplains
2. Description of the regulatory requirements for floodplains
3. Explanation that cumulative impacts to floodplains would not be significant since
regulations prevent floodplain impacts signmcant since
It was decided at this meeting that each issue inehidad jn th
~*i< f*r i—"" ' ' '
^ -j —-" •—•'•"'"i iwww^» ii iwmwigu MI tl 1C? rMI6
Enwonment Section o, ,ne uralt Environmental Impact St^n.
sen, to .he agencies exp|alnlna tor which reso
cumulative effects analysis will be conducted and wh
also be included in the FEIS
These explanations will
Data Collection
included some
David Sutherland requested a past and present wildlife survey for the corridor and that
would have this information avai.ab.e. Mr. Sutherland also mil^S^^
analysis he would include a map of all floodplains in the area. SHA will contact DNR
to
Wetlands
V E3-3
-------
agreed that the resource agencies and SHA should look at this project with the same goal in
mind; to consider some creative approaches to cost-effective wetland minimization while not
sacrificing safety (the purpose and need). These conceptual strategies were developed for
each individual wetland along the entire corridor. An explanation of the wetland minimization
strategies was included in the 11X17 Wetland Minimization Report dated September 10, 1997.
Please contact Sue Rajan for a copy of this report if you did not receive it. With the exception of
the COE, SHA and the agencies agreed to a conceptual wetland minimization plan throughout
the entire project area for the Alternative 3S and 3N/4N Combination Alternative. The
minimization options to be incorporated into the project design are detailed in Tables 1 and 2.
Wetland 8 - The Cypress Swamp
Because Wetland 8 is a wetland resource of critical concern, special wetland minimization
techniques were investigated. The discussion centered around two options that had the least
impact to the wetland. One option included placing sheeting and shoring along the western side
of the proposed roadway to limit the impacts from widening on that side. Another option
included realigning the roadway and placing sheeting and shoring on both sides of the roadway
to further reduce impacts. The first option mentioned has 0.2 acres of impact more than the
realignment option. It was understood that the realignment option may involve significantly
higher costs than the other one. If a significant additional cost on the magnitude of $7-8 million
is necessary for realignment, then, with the exception of the COE.- the agencies agreed that
SHA could instead build the sheeting and shoring option with widening to the west of existing
road and purchase some portion of the Cypress Swamp for preservation.
Wetland 23 and 26 ._,,..,
Minimization for these wetlands consisted of beginning the transition from the existing dualized
roadway. SHA will look at the feasibility of further minimizing impacts to these wetlands.
Wetland 28 and 29
The alignment was moved closer to St. Martin's Church in order to minimize wetland impacts to
wetlands 28 and 29. The effect to St. Martin's Church is adverse regardless of how close the
roadway is to the church.
Wetland 36 ... t A iu.
The agencies suggested widening on the other side of the road to minimize impacts to this
wetland. Andy Parker (A.D. Marble) stated that a C&P switch gear building is located on the
other side of the roadway and moving this building would be somewhat involved and very costly.
43
V E3-4
-------
Table 1 - Conceptual Wetland Minimization Options to be included in Alternative 31
Wetland Number
1
2
3
4
5
5A
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
& <^»%4>i*%w» B 4 jl £._. -
Wetland
Functions
a
a.b.c.d
a
a,b
a,b
a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h
a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h
a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h
a.c.d
a,c,d
a,c,d
a.c.d.e.f.g.h
a.c.d.e.f.g.h
a.b.c.d.g
a.b.c.d.e
a.b.c.d.e
a.b.c.d.e
a.b.c.d.e
a.b.c.d.e
a.b.c.d.e
Option
for Implementation
C
D (10' Median)
B
No Impact
C
C
C
No Impact
see NOTE
B
No Impact
B
D (10' Median)
C
No Impact
D (16' Median)
D
D
C
No Impact
No impact
No Impact
C
Approximate
Impact (acres]
0.10
0.36
0
0
0.20
0.22 !
0.40
0
0.20
o
0
0
1.12
0.40
0
0.27
0.30
0.07
0.80
0
0
0
0.22
— - . _ __. _ —•——j ».-*....^ (4:1 side slope).
- Option C - 34 foot median with guardrail and 2:1 side slope.
• Option D - Reduced median width with guardrail and 2:1 side slope. For safetv
and operations the 34 foot median was maintained at all intersections. An attempt was made to taper
to a 10 foot median for sensitive wetlands that were more than 1500 feet from an intersection
However some wetlands are located along horizontal curves and a sight distance safety problem
occurs with a 10 foot median width. In areas where there is both a wetland and a sharp curve a 16
foot wide median would be the minimum needed to ensure safety.
NOTE: The °-2 acres of impact to Wetland 8 refects the impacts associated with
placing sheeting and shoring on the western side of the roadway. Please see the text
for further explanation.
Principal Wetland Functions
a) wildlife habitat
b) groundwater recharge/discharge
c) sediment/toxicant retention
d) nutrient removal
e) floodplain alteration
f) production export
g) uniqueness/habitat
h) visual quality/aesthetics
i) sediment/shoreline stabilization
j) fish/shellfish habitat
53
V E3-5
-------
Table 2 - Conceptual Wetland Minimization Options to be included in the Combination
Alternative 3N/4N
Wetland Number
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Wetland
Functions
a.b.d
a.b.d
a,b,d
a.b.d
a.b.d
a,b,c,d,e,f,h,i,j
a,b
a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.ij
a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.ij
a.b.d
a.b.d
a.b.d
a,b,d
a,b,d
a,b,c,d,e,f,h,i,j
Option
for Implementation
E
No Impact
No Impact
E
D (16-34' Median)
E
E
D (10' Median)
D (10' Median)
No Impact
No Impact
No Impact
No Impact
C
C
C
No Impact
C
Approximate
Impact (acres)
1.29
0
0
1.07
<1.18
0.92
<0.10
<0.71
<0.58
0
0
0
0
0.33
0.40
0.70
0
0.26
l^Jmj • | ^f | | ^^ ™ <^T • ^J\J fc • • • >**••»•«•• • »» • •• • ^~» - — — — — - — + ^ v .
Option C - 34 foot median with guardrail and 2:1 side slope.
Option D - Reduced median width with guardrail and 2:1 side slope. For safety
and operations the 34 foot median was maintained at all intersections. An attempt was made to taper
to a 10 foot median for sensitive wetlands that were more than 1500 feet from an intersection.
However some wetlands are located along horizontal curves and a sight distance safety problem
occurs with a 10 foot median width. In areas where there is both a wetland and a sharp curve, a 16
foot wide median would be the minimum needed to ensure safety.
Option E - Realignment with a 34 foot median and guardrail (2:1 side slope).
For some wetlands a reduced median was also possible.
"<" denotes "slightly less than"
Principal Wetland Functions
a) wildlife habitat
b) groundwater recharge/discharge
c) sediment/toxicant retention
d) nutrient removal
e) ftoodplain alteration
f) production export
g) uniqueness/habitat
h) visual quality/aesthetics
i) sediment/shoreline stabilization
j) fish/shellfish habitat
V E3-6
-------
Selected Alternative
The agencies were asked whether they would be able to concur on Alternative 3S and
Alternative 3N/4N Combination as the recommended alternative if the conceptual wetland
minimization plan were incorporated into this planning study. The following agencies agreed
that they would recommend concurrence with Alternative 3S and Alternative 3N/4N Combination
with a 34 foot median except where modified by the conceptual wetland minimization plan:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - concurs contingent on mitigation
Environmental Protection Agency - concurs contingent on mitigation
Federal Highway Administration- concurs contingent on safety study of narrowed median
National Marine Fisheries Service • concurs contingent on mitigation
Maryland Department of the Environment - concurs
Maryland Department of Natural Resources - concurs
Maryland Office of Planning - concurs contingent upon inclusion in the access management
program
The U.S. ACOE further responded that a permit would be foreseeable for Alternative 3S and
Alternative 3N/4N Combination with a 34 foot median except where modified by the conceptual
wetland minimization plan assuming these conceptual minimization options and a mitigation plan
is included.
Access Management
An access management plan is being developed for US 113 and the corridor has been included
for funding in the Access Management Program. A work-in-progress access management plan
was reviewed. An analysis of each property along the corridor is underway. The goal of the
program is to provide as much control of access as possible without condemnation of single-
resident properties.
As properties go up for sale they will either be purchased or their access could be reconfigured.
The program would then result in a reduction in the net number of access points.
Other Agency Comments
Handouts were provided at the meeting to address previous comments that the agencies had
concerning truck weigh stations, accident statistics, farm equipment, and a draft schedule for the
project. SHA will continue to work with the agencies to ensure that their comments are
adequately addressed.
Future Meetings
The agencies will be meeting with Congressman Gilchrest on September 18th.
76
V E3-7
-------
These minutes are based on the interpretation of the writer. If you have any additional
questions or comments please call Mrs. Sue Rajan, Project Manager at (410) 545-8514 or Ms.
Catherine Maher, Project Engineer at (410) 545-8544.
by:
Ms. Catherine Maher
Project Engineer
Project Planning Division
cc: Attendees
(w/attachments)
8Q
V E3-8
-------
On September 10 1997 a meeting was held with SHA and the agencies involved with
he development of the US 1 13 project from South of Snow Hill to the Delaware State
Line. Meeting minutes dated September 12 were written by SHA and distributed to all
toe agencies and team members involved in study. Subsequent to this distribution the
Corps of Engineers informed SHA of comments or disagreement with some of the'
statements made in these minutes. A list of the comments on the minutes is included
below with appropriate corrections and additions.
Agency Comment: Include the time frame that was agreed upon for the cumulative
effects analysis
SHAResponse: The agencies and SHA agreed that the time frame for the cumulative
effects analysis will be from the early 1 970's through 2020.
Agency Comment: The agencies stated that all resources discussed in the Affected
Env,ronment Section need to be addressed in the cumulative effects analysis. If there is
documentation that demonstrates that no effect would occur to that resource then
justification and documentation should be included in the FEIS.
SHA Response: It was decided at this meeting that each issue included
in the Affected Environment Section of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) will be reviewed for its relevance for cumulative effects
related to the US 1 13 planning study. A letter will be sent to the agencies
explaining for which resources a cumulative effects analysis will be
conducted and why. These explanations will also be included in the FEIS.
Agency Comment: SHA can obtain existing data from sources identified in the
cumulative effects analysis outline.
SHA Response: SHA is using this data.
Agency Comment: The meeting minutes stated that the agencies agreed to the
conceptual wetland mitigation plan at the meeting and the COE felt this statement was
inaccurate.
agencies with the exception of the COE signed their concurrence
with the September 9, 1997 minutes. The COE sent a letter of concurrence with the
Selected Alternative on September 18, 1997.
Agency Comment: The COE did not agree to an option at Wetland 8
SHAResponse: The COE did not concur with a minimization option at this meeting
pending additional studies to be completed in this area
V E3-9
-------
-------
F. Public Letters
US 113 Planning Study
Chapter V
-------
I !
iH^^^^^^^^^^^^ 'i: 1 '::." i: 4?:!' : ',; ii' '£,'',;.' i'"' i"
I- iita^^^ f'liiiir i rwnniniiR' (i'OTiBsar. in i:• ""!>;<, ''ii1;,; ft £"''" • • ' it ' >> ;.. is ' - ^ lai i "in
11 iiillilliilll H^^ pi i III ipiiii'IligK l.11.!
I
.' L: ui!1!11'x ,v:;:\.. ^S
! 1 1) HIT Iliim^^^^ ..... illiilii' tltf, IliliB^^^^^ t :hi : :i!l!lllll ..... IHI ............. iSiiiliil iJliiiK^^^^^^^^^^ ..... I«H^^^^ ill!!* :' :' k:";feNM*i ...... i;!': «" am ..... 1111!1 ,i : «"« ...... i ..... ,.;::!» ••" , ; .• • v.
I
^^ , .
iif? ...... i«^^^^^^^^^^ ..... w ..... s'1^ 'b ;:,,Ti- .J1"!!'"1
• ' ,; : • ;• '!" i]([ ' SSI,!-'",;
I liliifiiiB «:: 'Si":..' iilS^ 'lii''1''itiliii'iFiiii11^ iiiiiiliill^iSfilp MB^^^^^^^^ l'illlllli'j^^^^^^"i"^ .;'; ^ikifiiF'/;"' "'i"""; :': .i!" i :ii!iiii!!iKK '•" ''i^iiH^^^^: t P'11 'i1-'! "'I'lisi'i:' 1° i i n ' v ' : i1. i!::: •l:":iiit' I'Tt"' "i1
' " ! is liHit!;j,mmaiit(\, sfme. iiiiiiia,: •!iiiiiii^^^ itiM^^^ '>ii!K il!i'::^lilli9n M i liliiiifi', i HIIV^^^^^^^^ tfe:>i :>ii!]iif!",P :<3,:• 1 'ii.'!.':i(f ,• '''.1,: \ i" i: '" t :; v :<;• >, "Ht :fi!'J i I
I
rnams!\Vi^nam,A^^ VI>»:...liiin' '< ' • ii'"'< i i; ,:! . ,
I ill ..... til IHli -If ICliliiW^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ..... I ..... )!! ....... KVIiH 'ifiliiiH ..... I*! i!< ...... ii. ..... '•!' 1 HI": ........ j ! , "i '!'! ...... H, ..... ' ;i. ' >i .' > ...... . ' !, ' ,
..... ::£!
...... ^iiH^^^^^
', ''' I1 .V'lillllllll lillrlij;,,1!, 'Hi I
'.i: •: IIP' fii':*,"
n jiiiiiiiiiiniiiiniiiipnii'iiiiiiiiiiiii'iiiii juiii » iriiiiiiiinrLiiipniii'iPii1 «iiii;iiiiiiuji,: "iriii1""**'! ...... iiiJiipiiniiT'it.iiiii''":!! ..... i>n niii'inihii^iiiiiiJ1 k v,"11: ....... iiiiir'iihniiiiiiiii'iiii'fiNiaiiiiiiiuit, 'i'liBMJS"! it iViiinpiiiii1 ,i ,.11111 1":'
hir;, « i11 > ..... niiiiT ': ' «•!:
I !i i,;!!!, ]:: :,•• « i'iR <= : : • > • '•!';,< K ' : • ..... :|
'1 ' " .....
,,, ^ :; ..... » ' 3, tm
'
m B'"^ w& :;i it. mm
'
i.' in jniiiii'ii'iiiiiii'Tiiiiii
iii: v, iLidjiiiiiwe inn d'liii."'.!!!* mini!!1 nil ..... piiiniii!1! 'inn I'
iD11'1!™
';" waJ. ''li
' ^M .^ , "::;I
..... lifl'fii ....... ^i^fill'llh::"* ...... ^>KI'm ..... H^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ......
..... ii-i" iii!:1: '.IIIIIIIIM^^^^ 'rirVHiiil!1; ..... 1 ,,!,r •!•< i,; IIIH 'il! ..... ~i • iiiiii:., iiiilliSiliiiii>iiiiil)iW^^^^^^ ...... iiiiilliiV^^^^^^ •••ra^^ ill
..... :|"iK!' i,J^^ ...... Ii!': ....... ''' ....... f ;"",;• :! ",:'" tJ2It H! ............... »;i:i
^ ..... ii jDi1'!1: 'i<.i -jli: ....... i'Vii' ("jr., :;i''' :" f! ..... :" :i ....... "' ••iii1 , (iiiiif '•ill,;,! i. ' iniaii
..... fillip ....... l'f«^^^^^^^^^^ ..... llll'in^^^^^^^^^^^^ ....... !!K^^^^^ ...... il«^^^^^^^^^^ ..... <;::%l<:::i:<:
-------
US 113 Planning Strfdv
F. Public Letters
Following circulation of the Draft ElS/Section 4(f) Evaluation in May 1997 and the June 17 1997
Combined Location/Design Public Hearing, approximately 2,050 letters from the public were received by
SHA. SHA received letters from school teachers, farmers, business owners, nurses, mail carriers firemen
policemen, children and parents; many of which addressed accidents on US 113 and relayed information
concerning a friend, relative or neighbor who was in an accident. All except six were in support of
duahzation from Snow Hill to the Delaware state line. Letters of support from elected officials
organizations, agencies and citizens were received from the following groups:
700 letters from school children supporting dualization.
700 form letters from citizens supporting dualization.
400+ letters with specific comments from citizens, all in support of dualization.
Due to the huge number of public letters received on this project, the 2,050 public letters have not been
reproduced in this Final EIS. Those agencies or individuals who wish to review these letters are encouraged
to review the complete three (3)-volume Public Hearing transcript, which is on-display at several local
libranes in Worcester County; SHA District 1 Offices in Salisbury, MD; SHA Headquarters in Baltimore,
MD; and, FHWA Division Office in Baltimore, MD. Addresses and phone numbers for these locations are
as follows.
Berlin Branch Library
220 North Main Street
Berlin, MD 21811
(410) 641-0650
Ocean City Branch Library
14* Street & Philadelphia Avenue
Ocean City, MD 21842
(410) 289-7297
Maryland State Highway Administration
District One Office
660 West Road
Salisbury, MD 21802
(410) 543-6715
Snow Hill Branch Library
307 North Washington Street
Snow Hill, MD 21863
(410) 6323-2600
Pocomoke City Library
301 Market Street
Pocomoke, MD 21851
(410)957-0878
Maryland State Highway Administration
Headquarters
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
1-800-548-5026
Federal Highway Administration - Division Office
The Rotunda - Suite 220
711 West 40th Street
Baltimore, MD 21211
VF-1
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Each letter received on this project was reviewed by the Project Planning Team and an individual response
was mailed. The following pages list every name of the individuals who provided comment letters on this
project since May 1997.
Over 2 250 letters were sent to the State Highway Administration. Of these, 2248 letters expressed support
for a four-lane dualized highway. All letters stated concerns for the safety problems along the highway.
Close to 1,300 of these were form letters. Over 600 letters supporting dualization were written by
schoolchildren. A breakdown of the more specific comments and a tally of the number of similar comments
is listed below:
2248 comments in support of a four-lane, dualized highway
2248 comments expressed concerns regarding safety along the highway
97 comments that the project is long overdue
46 comments mentioned the dangers associated with trucks along the corridor,
increasing dangers from trucks
23 comments mentioned that safety improvements such as headlights, warning
flashers, and wide pavement markings have helped but are still not
completely solving the problem
17 comments talked about problems with passing including unsafe passing
areas, illegal passing, and the speed differences between passing drivers on
the roadway creates danger
16 comments about the growing population and traffic volumes creating
additional safety problems
14 comments mentioned the high number of tourists, out-of-town drivers,
increasing number of tourists traveling through the area
12 comments on the operation of farm equipment along the roadway
10 comments discussed safety and operational issues associated with school
buses along the roadway
6 comments that the road is necessary for the economic growth and
development of the area
5 comments noted differences between the cross-section of US 113 between
Delaware and Maryland and that Delaware reserves funding for US 113 and
so should Maryland
3 comments noted that drunk-driving is a problem
3 comments mentioned that more highway funds go toward the metropolitan
areas, the eastern shore is ignored when it comes to highway funding
3 comments mentioned that local and through traffic have different driving
habits
3 comments specifically supported Alternative 3S
3 comments mentioned a need for more police enforcement
2 comments asked for other improvements including lowering the speed limit;
add more stop lights; add warning flashers before stop lights; additional
guardrail, lighting, and intersection improvements
2 comments discussed wetlands: impacts to wetlands are undesirable but
necessary; elevate the roadway to avoid wetlands
• ~ ~~ VF-2
-------
US 113 Planning Study
2 comments suggesting that weigh stations are needed to prevent trucks from
using US 113 to bypass the weigh stations on US 13
2 comments expressing concerns about driveway access with a median and
truck access to local farms
2 comments specifically in support of a 34-foot median
2 comments expressed concern about impacts to their property
2 comments mentioned the need for safety improvements at the Jarvis/Bunting
Road Intersection
2 comments asked that the Friendship Area not be impacted by the proposed
improvements
comment specified support for Alternative 4N Modified
comment specified support for the 3N/4N Combined Alternative
comment asking to straighten the road
comment specifically against Alternative 2S
comment suggested an alternative alignment that follows the railroad tracks
south of Showell
Six letters expressed opposition to dualization of US 1 1 3. These letters specified a number of reasons for
their opposition and an explanation of each letter is presented below.
1. The accidents were not the result of problems with the roadway, but a problem of the drivers
atom toe tourisT' ^ *" aUemative> driven Sh°uld ** «**»•«» ™* something should be done
2' ?6 ??K Sh°U!d "Ot b! WidCned SinCe k WOUW affect ^ house- Instead. SP<* improvements
should be implemented where people have died. Alternatively, passing can be eliminated by
placing a barrier in the center of the road like on MD 90.
3. Against the dualization especially in the southern section since it will degrade the rural
environment Prefers Alternative 2S with a 20 foot median. The 34 foot median would require
more right-of-way than is necessary. An alternative with no median should be considered
Leave US 1 13 the way it is. There is no need to spend money on something that is not needed.
ft is not a dangerous road, just dangerous people. More police enforcement would helpful
5. Do not extend the highway into my yard. Tax money should not be going to a problem that only
happens because of bad drivers. Pretty soon the whole world is going to be one big piece of
^i^7h°uld^^0«tedtoUS50andUS13. Preferred alternative for the southern section
is 2b (20 foot median). Expressed opposition to dualization and a 34 foot median.
VF-3
-------
US 113 MAILING LIST
Ms. Amber Abrams
Mr. Edwin Abrams
Ms. Jeannette Abrams
Ms. Caitlin Adamchak
Mr. Mikhail Adamchak
M' Lura Adkins
Ms. Zaaira Ahmad
Mr. James Albert
Ms. Lauren Alexander
Mr. William E. Alleis, Jr.
Ms. Angela Allen
Mr. Bob Allen
Ms. Marilyn Allen
Ms. Leilani Ancheta
Mr. Paul Anderson
Ms. Caroline Andes
Mr. Jon M. Andes
Mr. Barry L. Andrews
Ms. Anna L. Andrews
Ms. Denise Apple
Ms. Kristy Apple
Ms. Mary Apple
Dr. Jane R. Apson
Mr. Brenton Archut
Mr. Donald Ardis
Ms. Lisa G. Ardis
Mr. Ralph Ardis
Ms. Tammy Armacost
Mr. Ernest H. Armstrong
Mr. Robert Arnold
Ms. Alison Ash
Ms. Louise Ash
Ms. Andrea L. Ashby
Mr. Keith Aydelotte
Mr. Dexter Ayers
Ms. Patricia Ayers
Mr. Greg Bacani
Mr. Barry Bacon
Ms. Deonna Bailey
M' Teresa Bailey
Ms. Tracey Bailey
Mr. David Lee Baine
Mr. In/in C. Bainum
Mr. Jordan Bakall
Ms. Jen Baker
Ms. Nicole Baker
Mr. Tommy Baker
M1 Jaime Ball
Ms. Christine Bane
Mr. Brian Bankert
Ms. Michelle Bankert
Ms. Patricia G. Barbely
Ms. Tammy L. Bare
Mr. Joseph Barkhead
Mr. Harrison Barne
Ms. Jamie Barrett
Ms. Rita Barrett
Ms. Jamie Bartlett
Ms. Rosemary Bartz
Mrs. Terri Batson
Ms. Debbie P. Baylis
Ms. Christy N. Beacuhamp
Ms. Laura Beauchamp
Mr. Mannie J. Beckett
Ms. Delores Beers
Ms. Gerri Bell
Ms. Phyllis A. Bell
Mr. Reginald H. Bell
Mr. Ryan Bell
Mr. Robert E. Benn
Mr. R. Keith Berdan
Ms. Joanne Berdan
Ms. Kristin Beringson
Mr. Shawn Berkey
Mrs. Mary Berthel
Ms. Kristen Betterton
Mr. Lewis Bilbrough
Mr. Robert Birch
Mr. Joseph Birch, III
Ms. Janet Birch
Ms. Lakeisha Bishop
Mr. Glen Blackburn
Ms. Nancy Blackburn
Ms. Jessica Blain
Ms. Margaret M. Blair
Ms. Allison Blake
M' Chimere Blake *
Chimere L Blake
Mr. D. Denny C. Bliss
Mr. William Blossfield
Ms. Mary Jane Blossfield
Ms. Janie Bloxom
Mr. Orman Bloxom
Ms. Thelma D. Bloxom
Mr. David Bodley
Mr. David W. Bodley
Ms. Joan Marie Bodley
Ms. Jessica Boiling
Mr. George Bonneville
Ms. Londora Bonneville
M' Morgan Bono
M1 Cora Booth
Mr. Raymond Borowski
Ms. Doris Borowski
Ms. Susan Boston
Mr. Hunter Bounds
Ms. Bessie Bowen
Ms. Shynika Bowen
Mr. Timothy Bowen
Ms. Beth A. Bowser
Mrs. Joyce Boyer
Mr. Daniel L. Bradford
Mr. Michael Bradford
M' E. R. Bradford, Jr.
Ms. Angela Brady
Ms. Eleanor Brady
Mr. Richard Brady
Ms. Theresa Branton
Mr. Bill Bratten
Mr. Gary Brenner
Ms. Kelly Brewington
Ms. Elsie E. Briddell
Ms. Ashley Bright
Ms. Jeanie Brink
Ms. Tracy L. Brisco
Mr. Wayne Briscole
Mr. Daniel Brissey
Ms. Chantal Brittingham
Ms. Kelly Brittingham
Ms. LaSharon C. Brittingham
Ms. Laura Brittingham
Ms. Taneka Brittingham
Mr. Bryan Brooks
Mr. John Broschard
Ms. Ashlee Brown
Ms. Carlie Brown
Ms. Carolyn Brown
Ms. Deborah A. Brown
Ms. Jackie W. Brown
Mr. James Brown
Mr. James E. Brown
Ms. Katie Brown
Ms. Nikole L. Brown
Ms. Shirley P. Brown
VF-4
-------
US 113 MAILING LIST
Ms. Sonya Brown
Mr. William H. Brown
Mr. Kevin Buchanan
Ms. Amanda Buckley
Ms. Virginia J. Bullis
Ms. Colleen A. Bunting
Ms. Leslie Bunting
Ms. Margaret Bunting
Mr. Layton E. Bunting, Jr.
Mr. Bernard Burner
Ms. Patricia Burner
Mr. William Burrows
Mr. Roger Burton
Mr. Thomas Burton
Ms. Betty Burton
Mr. Edward Burton, Sr.
Ms. Katherine Butler
Mr. Mel Butler
Ms. Angelina Buttion
Ms. Angelina Button
Mr. Harry W. Butts
Ms. Julia Byrd
Ms. Kristin Cadmus
Ms. Shirley E. Calvarese
Ms. Megan Canigiani
Ms. Amanda Cannon
Mr. Lawrence E. Cannon, Jr.
Mr. Samuel Card
Ms. Kim Carlins
Mr. Aaron Carmean
Ms. Heather Carpenter
Mr. Jason Carpenter
Mr. Joshua Lee Carpenter
Ms. Amy Carr
Mr. Howard L. Carstens
Mr. Kevin M. Carter
Mr. Matt Carter
Ms. Sabrina Gelid
Ms. Sarah Chandler
Mr. O. S. Chandler, III
Ms. Jeannine Chapman
Mr. Ralph L. Chapman
Mr. Greg Charvat
Mr. Chris Chavis
Mr. Albert Choht
Mr. George Choisser
Ms. Kandi Choisser
Ms. Phyllis Christopher
Mr. Josh Chrubert
Ms. Lovie Clark
Ms. Karen Clayland
Mr. Samuel Clayland
Ms. Crystal Clayland
Mr. B. Randall Coates
Mr. and Mrs. James E. Cody
Ms. Jessica Cody
Mr. Steve Cody
Mr. Albert P. Cohen
Mr. Rob Cole
Mr. Robert K. Cole
Ms. Mary Coleman
Mr. Reed Collick
Ms. A. Mary Collins
Ms. Cassie Collins
Mr. Frank Collins
Mr. Roosevelt Collins
Mr. Scott W. Collins
Ms. Shakkia Collins
Ms. Evy Jo Collins
Mr. Tim Collins
Ms. Wilsie Collins
Mr. Grover C. Collins 111
Mr. Brian Condon
Ms. Kristen Conn
Ms. Mary Conner
Mr. J. Donald Connor
Ms. Gretchen R. Connor
Mr. Jacob Cook
Ms. Stacy Copes
Ms. Terrica Copes
Ms. Tammy Cormacost
Mr. James Cosby
Mr. Robert Cost
Mrs. Margaret F. Coston
Ms. Robin L. Coston
M1 Travis Couger
Ms. Laura E. Coulbourn
Ms. Mary Jean Crandall
Mr. Jordan Criner
Ms. Isabella Cropper
Mr. Steven E. Cropper
M' Swell Cropper
Mr. James E. Cuffee
Ms. Yashica Cuffee
Mr. David Cunha
Mr. John L. Cunzeman
Mr. William Curtis, Jr.
Mr. McDaniel Custer
M1 Par Dade
Mr. Paul Daisby
Ms. Chansee L. Dale
Mr. Gregory Dale
Ms. Regina M. Dale
M' Lorinda Dale
M' Marvel Dale
Ms. Kristie L. Dalton
Ms. Virginia Dalton
Mrs. Elizabeth Davidson
Ms. Kristy Davis
Ms. Lorie Davis
Ms. Mandi Davis
Mr. Ronald L. Davis
Ms. Shanta L. Davis
Mr. Thomas H. Davis, IV
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Davis, Jr.
Ms. Susan Davison
Ms. Tammy DeBel
Ms. Bertha E. Deck
Ms. Nicole Denni
Ms. Belva Dennis
Ms. Brenda Dennis
Ms. Dorothy Dennis
Ms. Nicole Dennis
Ms. Virginia B. Dennis
Mr. Curt Dennis, Jr.
Ms. Ametta Derrickson
Mr. John Derrickson
Ms. Terri L. Derrickson
Ms. Melinda DeVaux
Mr. Francis J. Devlen
Ms. Alice N. Devlin
Ms. Debra Dickerson
Ms. Esther Dickerson
Mr. Thomas E. Dickerson
Ms. Kristyn DiPane
Ms. Lillian Disharoon
Ms. Carolyn Doherty
Mr. Scot Dolby
Ms. Ashley Donahue
Mr. Blair Donahue
Ms. Debbie Donahue
Ms. Jennifer Donnelly
Ms. Connie Donoway
Mr. Jerome J. Donoway
VF-5
-------
US 113 MAILING LIST
Ms. Doris P. Donaway
Mr. Mark Donoway
Ms. Robyn L. Donoway
Mr. Walter L. Donoway
Mr. Derron M. Doughty
Ms. Dorothy Doughty
Ms. Lesley Downes
M1 DJ. Drehoff
Ms. Vicki H. Drewer
Mr. Neal Drexel
Mr. John Driscoll
Ms. Ashley N. Dufendach
Mr. James Duff
Ms. Elizabeth Duff
Mr. Robert Duffy
Ms. Tysheka Duffy
Ms. Kimberly R. Dukes
Mr. Michael R. Dukes
Ms. Rhonda Dykes
Ms. Crystal Dypsky
Ms. Margaret Easton
Mr. Lowell Eby
Mr. Aaron Eckman
Mr. Patrick Elder
Ms. Lilly Elliott
Mr. Michael P. Ellis
Mr. Ronald J. Ellis, Jr.
Ms. Jean B. Ember
Mr. and Mrs. William N. Ember
Mr. & Mrs. C. J. Emerick
Mr. Jonathon Ennis
Mr. Michael Ennis
Mr. Phillip Entwistle
Ms. Emily Epperson
Ms. Paula M. Erdie
Mr. Bill Esposito
Ms. Andrea C. Eung
Mr. Rodney Evans
Ms. Rosellen G. Evans
Ms. Susie M. Faini
Mr. Neil Falter
Ms. Jody L. Falter
Ms. Ann Marie Fay
Mr. Frank Fay, Jr.
Mr. Ronald L. Feigh
Mr. Charles Felin
Ms. Margaret B. Fennell
Mr. Patrick Fennell
Mr. and Mrs. Albert W. Ferguson
Mr. and Mrs. George Figgs
Ms. Laura T. Figgs
Mrs. Lillian E. Figgs
Mr. Alan Fingado
Ms. Barbara Finney
Mr. Paul J. Fiore
Ms. Mary R. Fiore
M1 Blair Fisher
Ms. Lauciene Fitzgerald
Mr. Kyle Flaherty
Ms. Laura Flair
Ms. Atoya Fletcher
Ms. Carolyn Fletcher
Rev. Elton Fletcher
Mr. Eric Fletcher
Ms. Ericka Fletcher
Mr. Jason Flint
Mrs. Leiko Flint
Mr. David Foley
Mr. Sky Foley
Ms. Rose Fooks
Ms. Andrese R. Foreman
Mr. Barry Foreman
Ms. Dionne Foreman
Mr. John V. Foreman
Mrs. Nancy B. Fortney
Mr. Lennie Foxwell
Mr. John Frederick
Ms. Jill Freeman
Mr. Andrew Fulghum
Mr. Ptrentice Lyons
Ms. Ella Full
Ms. Gerry Furst
Mr. Corey James Gabrielle Tipton
Mr. William Gale
Mr. Philip D. Galiano
Mr. James Gallagher
Ms. Mary Gallagher
Mr. and" Mrs. T. M. Galloway
Mr. Lloyd Galyon
Mr. Paul D. Gardy, Sr.
M1 Victor M. Garrison
Mr. Howard Gearhart
Mr and Mrs. Charles Gentzel
Mrs. Stephanie George
Ms. Annie E. Gibbons
Mr. Kenneth D. Gibbons
Ms. Deborah Gilbert
Mr. Eric Giller
Ms. Gayle H. Gillispie
Mr. Lloyd Gillispie
Mr. Lawrence Ginn, Sr.
Ms. Nancy F. Gist
Mr. Ray V. Gladding
Ms. Ruth Glagola
Ms. Jennie Glogovics
Ms. Beverly Glogovies
M1 Jaime Gneade
Ms. Freda E. Godfrey
Ms. Shirley Goodman
Ms. Evelyn Gootee
Ms. Anna A. Gordy
Ms. Pauline D. Gordy
Mrs. Virginia H. Gordy
Ms. Sarah Goudette
Mr. Elliott Gouloeh
Mr. John R. Grady
Ms. Ann Granados
Mr. Charles E. Grant
Ms. Jessica Grattan
Ms. Mary E. Gray
Ms. Stella M. Grech
Ms. Dorothy Green
Mr. Marty Green
Mr. Harry F. Green
Ms. Mabel L. Green
Ms. Dollie Greenan
Ms. Jennifer Griffin
Ms. Autumn Grimes
Mr. Donald W. Griswold, Jr.
Mr. Harry S. Groton, Jr.
Mr. James M. Groves
Mr. and Mrs. George Gruss
Ms. Christy Guaziaso
Ms. Jessica Guiton
Ms. Patricia Gullion
Ms. Lucille Gumby
Mr. Mark A. Hafez
Ms. Barbara Hager
Mr. Stephen V. Hales
Mr. David Hall
Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Hall
M1 Henri Hall
Ms. Joanne T. Hall
M' Stephann Hall
VF-6
-------
US 113 MAILING LIST
Ms. Leikia Hallett Mr. Gregory J. Holden, Jr.
Mr. and Mrs. Ronald and Mary Han-tote. Dasha Holland
Mr. Clarence Hammond
Mr. Edward H. Hammond, Jr.
Mr. Arthur Hancock
Ms. Katie Hand
Ms. Chestina L. Handy
Ms. Danielle P. Handy
Mr. Jermaine Handy
Mr. Kenneth C. Hansely
Mr. Nicholas Hardt
M' Cris Harmon
Mr. Ralph Harmon
Mr. K. C. Harrington
Ms. Sherry Harrington
Ms. Laurel Harrington
Lt. Col. Ron Harrington
Ms. Sage Harrington
Mr. Darrell Harris
Mr. William Harris
Mr. Joseph G. Harrison, Jr.
Ms. Amanda Harvey
Ms. Keaundra L. Harvey
Ms. Tina Harvey
Mr. Charles D. Hastings •
Ms. Ashley Haywood
M' Erich Heim
Ms. Krista Heinlen
M' Kim Heiser
Mr. Brandon Helmuth
Ms. Judy Hemellen
Ms. Natalie Hemphill
Mr. Cliff Henry
Mr. Patrick Henry
Ms. Velda Henry
Mr. Brent Herrick
Mr. Paul L. Hexter, Jr.
Mr. Jake Hibernian
Ms. Cindy M. Hickman
Mr. Raymond E. Hickman
Ms. Sarah Hill
Mr. Albert Hilliard
Ms. Nicole Hills
Mrs. June Himmighoefer
Mr. James P. Hinds
Ms. Karen Hitch
Mr. Ryan Hitch
Mr. Bob Hodges
Ms. Mabel Holland
Ms. Rachel Holland
Ms. Rebecca Holland
Ms. Mary A. Holloway
Mr. Mike Hollyday
Ms. Charlotte Hollyday
Mr. John Holston, Jr.
Ms. Edna Holt
Ms. Lana Homan
Mr. and Mrs. Philip Honsinger
Ms. Frances Hooks
Ms. Ann R. Homer-Granados
Ms. Montoya Horsey
Ms. Joan M. Horstkamp
M1 W. C. Hough
Ms. Jessica Howard
Mr. Robert Huber
Ms. Sandra Huber
Mr. Bob Hudges
Mr. David Hudson
Ms. Jane Hudson
Mr. Virgil A. Hudson
Mr. John L. Hughes
Ms. Susan T. Hughes
Ms. Jenny D. Humphrey
Mr. Vaudoud Hunidez .
Mr. James Hunsucker
Ms. Bonnie Hunsucker
Mrs. Jane Huston
Ms. Sara laccetta
Ms. Sara lacchetta
Ms. Gina Marie lampieri
Ms. Jessica R. ikzuk
Mr. David Johnson
Ms. Jacqueline Johnson
Ms. Judy A. Johnson
Ms. Leronda Johnson
Mr. Milton Johnson
Mr. Phil Johnson
Mr. Richard Johnson
Ms. Eileen F. Johnson, Jr.
Mr. John Johnson, Jr.
Mr. Charles E. Jones
Mr. Charles W. Jones
Ms. Elaine Jones
Ms. Nina Jones
Ms. Christine M. Jones
Mr. Granvil Jones
Mrs. Helen Jones
Mr. Jake Jones
Ms. Kimberly Jones
Mr. William A. Jones, 111
Mr. Dennis Kalchthaler
Ms. Deborah Kancylar
Ms. Christine E. Kaufman
Mr. Matthew Keeley
Mr. Craig Keen
Mr. Robert L. Keesling
Ms. Viola K. Keesling
Ms. Melanie Keith
Mr. Matthew Kelley
Mr. Nelson Kelly
Ms. MaryJ.Kenlon
Mr. Doug Kidd
Ms. Cathy Kiesewetter
Mr. Jerome Kiesewetter
Ms. Mary Kiesewetter
Mr. Jerry Kiesewetter, Jr.
Moore Warfield Glick, Inc. Realtors Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth K. Kimball
Ms. Paula Isett
Ms. Cynthia Jackson-Jenkins
Mr. Charles James
Ms. Bemice James
Ms. Lisa Jarman
Ms. Cynthia Jackson Jenkins
Mr. and Mrs. Howard Jenkins
Mr. Charles R. Jenkins, Sr.
Mr. Curt E. Jennings, Jr.
Ms. Paula John
Mr. Alexander M, Johnson
Ms. Caroline F. Johnson
Ms. Julie A. Kinhart
Ms. Anne H. Kinstler
Mr. and Mrs. Floyd J. Kintner
Ms. Emily Kline
Mr. Charles W. Knight
Ms. Linda Knight
Mr. Robert Knighton
Ms. Michele H. Knopp
Ms. Audre Knot
Ms. Dana Knott
Ms. Jennifer S. Knox
Ms. Kristy Knox
VF-7
-------
US 113 MAILING LIST
Mr. John Koch
Mr. Henry A. Koenig
Ms. Julie Koenig
Ms. Mary Ann Konoski
Ms. Irene Kordick
Mr. and Mrs. Frank Kratz
M1 Tawney A. Kraus
Mr. Albert T. Krehely
Ms. Josephine T. Krehely
Mr. Lee Krempel
Ms. Natalia Kreuser
Ms. Kelly Krivitski
Mrs. Helen A. Kronen
Ms. Jennifer Kulha
Rev. and Mrs. Robert G. Kurtz
Ms. Jennifer L. Kutt
Mr. Kenny Kwack
Mrs. Mary LaCurts
M' Chris LaGarde
Ms. Alina Lee Lane
Ms. Lottie Lankford
Mr. Kevin Larkin
Ms. Christa Laurence
Ms. Christa Lawrence
Mr. and Mrs. Billie Laws
Ms. Brenda Laws
Mr. Barry R. Laws, Proprietor
Ms. Whitney Layfield
Mr. Larry V. Layman
Mr. James Layton
Ms. Loraine A. Lenhart
Mr. and Mrs. Paul F. Leonard
Mr. Joseph Lessman
Mr. Jordan Levy
Mr. and Mrs. Andy Lewis
Mr. Bruno T. Lewis
Mr. Carol Lewis
Mr. Larry L. Lewis
Mr. Lloyd Lewis
Mr. Michael D. Lewis
Mr. Mike Lewis
Ms. Roxie Lewis
Ms. Thelma Lewis
Mr. Vaughn Lewis
Mr. Noah Liab
Ms. Amy Lines
Ms. Tina Linton
Mr. John Lippin, Jr.
Ms. Meagan Littleton
Mr. William C. Litton
Ms. Doris Lloyd
Mr. Foreman H. Lockwodd
Mr. Joshua W. Long, II
Ms. Ida C. Longenecker
Ms. Marian W. Lowe
M' Chris Lynch
Ms. Jessica Lynch
Mr. Richard T. Lynch
Ms. Alma Lynch
Ms. Christina Maan
Mr. Jason Mack
Mr. David MacLeod
Ms. Bernice Magnone
Mr. Rudy Magnone
Mr. Mike Mahanna
Ms. Sherry Mahon
Ms. Mary Makinen
Mr. Ed Malone
Ms. Helen Malone
Ms. Katy Malone
Ms. Kelly Malone
Mr. Emerson Marcus
Ms. Ida H. Mariner
Mr. Otho M. Mariner, Jr.
Mr. Frank Marshall
Mr. Jamiliak T. Marshall
Mr. Linton S. Marshall, Jr.
Ms. Katie Martin
Mr. Thomas Martin
Mr. Carlton W. Mason
Mr. Chris Mason
Ms. Terri Mason
Ms. Ellen Mason
Mr. George T. Mason
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas C. Mason
Mr. Bernard Mattel
Mr. Rod Mattel
Ms. Roni Mattel
Ms. Tammy Mattel
Mr. George F. Mause
Ms. Marjorie J. Mause
Ms. Charlotte Mayo
Mr. John Mayo
Mr. Thomas J. Me Ghee
Ms. Cora McBride
Ms. Diania McBride
Ms. Eunice L. McCabe
Ms. Pamela McCabe
Mr. and Mrs. Ben McCabe, Jr.
Ms. Courtney McCarraher
Ms. Eileen McCarthy
Mr. Emmett McCarthy
Mr. Chad McClure
Mr. William T. McDermuth
Ms. Betty C. McDermuth
Mr. Edward P. McElgunn
Ms. Nancy R. McElgunn
Mr. Tom McGarvey
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Mclntyre
Mr. Craig McKeen
Ms. Susanne L. McKeen
Mr. Shaun McKenzie
Mr. S. George McKeown
Mr. and Mrs. P. McLane
Mr. James Meadows
Ms. Kellie Meehan
Mr. Bill Meredith
Ms. Jeannette Merrill
Mr. Frank Lee Merrill, Jr.
Mr. Chris Merritt
Ms. Mary Merritt
Ms. Glenda Middaugh
Mr. Michael Miles
Ms. Connie Miller
Ms. Ruby T. Mills
Mr. Steve Mills
Mr. Robert Lee Mills, II
Mr. William H. Mitchell
Ms. Carolyn M. Mitrecic
Mr. Jonathan Montague
Ms. Melanie Montero
Mr. Joseph E. Moore
Ms. Dionne Morris
Mr. Robert W. Morris
Ms. Kelly Morsell
Ms. Natalina J. Mozingo
M1 Chris Muin
Ms. Mary R. Muller-Thym
Mr. Charlie Mumford
Mr. Willie P. Mumford, Jr.
Mr. Daniel Mumma
Mr. John J. Munnelly
Ms. Jeannette Murray
Ms. Jennifer Murray
VF-8
-------
US 113 MAILING LIST
Ms. Peggy Murray
Mr. and Mrs. Tom Murray
Mr. Vaughn R. Murray
Ms. Barbara J. Myers
Mr. Robert Nealon
Mr. Shawn Neese
Mr. John Neff
Ms. April Nefferdorf
Ms. Nancy Nelson
Mr. Charles E. Nock
Ms. Lucille Nock
Ms. Gloria R. Nock
Mr. Narlen Nock
Mr. Charles E. Nock, Jr.
Mr. Everett E. Nock, Sr.
Mr. Louis O'Eugenio
Mr. Brandon Oakley
Ms. Rose Olive
Mr. Ricky Oltman
Mr. Nick Ortt
Mr. Ricky Ottman
Ms. Tary Jane Owens
Mr. Wes Owens
Mr. Roger L. Pacella
Mr. George W. Painter
Ms. Frances I. Painter
Mr. Allen L. Palmer
Mr. Christopher Palmer
Ms. Linda Palmer
Mr. Mathew John Palmer
Ms. Heather Parker
Ms. Joann Parker
Ms. Lindsay Parker
Mr. Richard A. Parolski
Mr. Christopher Parsom
Ms. Faye Parsons
Mr. Jeremy Parsons
Ms. Mary Lou Parsons
Ms. Nicole Parsons
M1 Robin Pattal
Ms. Ann Patterson
Ms. Catherine Patterson
Ms. Mercedes V. Patterson
Mrs. Carolie V. Patton
Ms. Lana Peacock
Mr. M. J. Peacock
Mr. Nate Pearson
Ms. Rosemary Pearson
Ms. Elizabeth Peloso
Ms. Gloria G. Pennewell
Ms. Elaine M. Peterson
Ms. Stephanie D. Petitt
Mr. Shawn Petrowski
M'Jamie Phillips
Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Picasso
Mrs. Edna Pilato
Mr. Jeffrey A. Pilchard
Ms. Mary B. Pilchard
Mr. John Pippin, Jr.
Mr. Lawrence C. Pitman
Mr. Bruce Planter
Ms. Anne M. Plumer
Ms. Anne Plummer
Ms. Marion Poole
Mr. Preston E. Poole
Rev. William J. Porter
Mr. Robert H. Post
Ms. Ruth Post
Ms. Heather Powell
Mr. Lawrence A. Powell
Ms. Marie M. Powell
Mr. Ronald Powell
Mr. Watson Powell
Mr. Wayne Powell
Ms. Alethea Predeoux
Ms. Holly Prettyman
Ms. Kristie Prettyman
Mr. Robert Prettyman
Mr. Henry Prince
Mr. George Pruitt
Ms. Ann Prince
Ms. Virginia Pruitt
Ms. Jo Anne Pruitt
Mr. Tad Pruitt
Ms. Betty Pruitt
Ms. Kati Pulley
Ms. Grace Purnell
Ms. Natoshia Pumell
Mr. Richie Pumell
Ms. Ruby L. Purnell
Mr. Joe Pylypczik
Ms. Patricia D. Pylypczik
Mr. Shu Hui Qhang
Mr. J. D. Quillin
Mr. Jeffrey B. Quillin
Mr. Eric Rada
Mr. Samah Ramadan
Ms. Samaher Ramadan
Mr. Graver C. Ramey, III
Mr. David Ramsden
Mr. Jeff Rankin
Mr. Robert Rappold
Mr. Richard W. Rask, Jr.
Ms. Mary Ratliff
Mr. Jed Rau ,
Mr. Matthew Reed
Mr. Justin Reham
Mr. Jesse Reno
Ms. Kristy Replogle
Mr. Alvin Revel
Mr. Calvin Revel
Mr. and Mrs. P. L. Reynolds
Mr. Bob Rhode
Ms. Jane Richards
Mr. James Richardson
Ms. Kimberly Richardson
Ms. Phyllis J. Richardson
Mr. Roger L. Richardson
Mr. Ben C. Robbins
Ms. Esther H. Robbins
Ms. Hannah Roberts
Dr. James A. Roberts
Ms. Amy Elizabeth Robertson
Mr. David Robins
Ms. Julia A. Robins
Mr. Donald S. Robinson
Mr. Geroge T. Roche
Mr. Bruce Rogers
Mr. Manuel Romero
Ms. Taronn Rounds
Ms. Debise Rowley
Ms. Sandra Rufsmyder
Mr. Morgan Runyon
Mr. Chris Russell
Ms. Lucille Russell
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Ruta
Mr. Richard C. Ruth
Ms. Dorothy Ruth
Mr. Artis Rutter
Ms. Leah Sabine
Mr. Arthur Sachs
Mr. Steve Sananikone
Mr. Rick Savage
Mr. Will Savage
VF-9
-------
US 113 MAILING LIST
Mr. Terry H. Saxon
Mr. Stan Scarbeck
Mr. Donald G. Schaefer
Ms. Shirley S. Schaefer
Ms. Evelyn Schaub
Mr. William Schaub
Mr. and Mrs. Donald Schmid
Ms. Catherine Schorifield
Mr. Fred Schultz
Ms. Phyllis Schultz
Ms. Kirsten Schultz
Mr. Billy Scothon
Ms. Edith L. Scott
Mr. John T. Selby
Mrs. Christie Selway
Ms. Jessica Selway
Mr. Nathan Sens
Mr. Travis W. Sepulveda
Ms. Paula Seth
Mr. Tom Shea
Ms. Eileen Shea
Mr. Bob Sheetz
Mr. Bobby Shockley
Mr. Brian Shockley
M' Chris Shockley
Mr. and Mrs. Curtis Shockley
Ms. Darlene M. Shockley
Mr. Edwin Shockley
Ms. Gail M. Shockley
Mr. Glen Shockley
Mr. Lester D. Shockley
Ms. Lisa Shockley
Mr. Raymond C. Shockley
M' Ronshell Shockley
Ms. Sandra Shockley
Mr. Bruce Shockly
Ms. Michelle Shoves
Mr. Duran Showell
Mr. Michael K. Showell
Mr. James L. Shreeve
Ms. Jeanne W. Shreeve
M1 E. L. Shughrae
Mr. Jerry Shumate
Ms. Sylvia W. Shumate
Mr. and Mrs. Mike Shumate
Mr. James R. Siegel
Mr. Derrick Simpson
Mr. and Mrs. Ray Simpson
Ms. Janice A. Skeeter Ms. Anne M. Sumer
Ms. Stacy Sklar Mr. Eugene Szalc
Col and Mrs. Douglas A. SlingerlandMr. John Talbot
Mr. John D. Smack
Ms. Leola A. Smack
Mr. Roger Smack
Mr. William Smiley
Ms. B. Jean Smith
Ms. Dennis E. Smith
Ms. Dolores Smith
Mr. Hugh Smith
Ms. Ruth Smith
Mr. Josh Smith
Ms. Linda T. Smith
Mr. Murray Smith
Ms. Rosalie Smith
Mr. Sabaii Smith
M' Terry L. Smith
Ms. Vicki L. Smith
Ms. Dorothy Smullen
Ms. Nepheka Snell
Mr. Vincent G. Sorensen
Mr. Aris C. Spengos
Ms. Katie Spiker
Mr. Roy Squares
Mr. Richard J. Stack
Mrs. Donna Stafford-Benvenuto
Mr. Allen D. Stallings
Ms. Carolyn Stallings
Ms. Stephanie Stanley
M1 W. E. Starck
Ms. Pat Stearn
Mr. David Stefayne
Ms. Marilyn R. Stefayne
M1 Kim Steger
Mr. Roger A. Steger, Sr.
Ms. Rachel Stephanoz
Mrs. Toby Sterinbach
Ms. Andrea Stevens
Mr. Will D. Stevenson
Ms. Elsie S. Stewart
Ms. Jamie Stewart
Ms. Melody G. Stifler
Mr. Brian Stillwell
Mr. and Mrs. Vicent Studmore
Mr. Demetrius Sturgis
Mr. Lamar Sturgis
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Sullivan
Ms. Eleanor Szalc
Ms. Irma Talbot
Mr. Steve Tamalavicz
Ms. Anna R. Taylor
Mrs. Anne W. Taylor
Ms. Barbara Taylor
Ms. Betheny Taylor
Ms. Bonita E. Taylor
Mr. Carlton G. Taylor
Ms. Connie E. Taylor
Mr. Marvin Taylor
Ms. Sarah Taylor
Mr. Shawn Taylor
Mr. James A. Taylor, Jr.
M' Darrell Taylor, Sr.
Mr. and Mrs. Mark Teaney
Mr. A.J.Theroux
Ms. Leanne M. Therres
Ms. Laurie Thomas
Ms. Casey Thompson
Mr. James Thompson
Ms. Janet Thompson
Ms. Lorraine Thompson
Mr. Phillip G. Thompson
Ms. Cheryl Tillett
Mr. and Mrs. Charles Timmons
Mr. Nick Timmons
Mr. Robert Tines
Mr. Corey Tipton
Ms. Elinor M Tipton
Ms. Lynette Tirdley
Ms. Reunika Toll
Mr. William Torrence, Sr.
Mr. Robert L. Trachy
Mr. Anthony Trader
Ms. Barbara R. Trader
M' Marion Trader
Mr. O. J. Trader
Ms. Valerie Trader
Ms. Victoria Trader
Mr. Norman Trader, Jr.
M' J.B. Tremellen
Ms. JudyTremellen
Mr. Jon B. Tremellen II
Ms. Barbara Tribeck
VF-10
-------
US 113 MAILING LIST
Mr. Stephen R. Trollinger
Mr. Ron Trostle
Ms. Phyllis E. Truitt
Mr. Thomas Tucker
Mr. Antonio Tull
Mr. Bruce Tull
Ms. Hope Tull
Ms. Kristen H. Tull
Ms. Marlinda Tull
Ms. Martha J. Tull
Ms. Megan Tull
Mr. Michael Tull
Ms. Priscilla S. Tull
Mr. Cecil F. Tull, III
Ms. Sundina Tumble
Ms. Lily V. Tunis
Mr. Brian K. Tunnell
Ms. Ellen M. Turner
Mrs. Kathyrn R. Turner
Mr. Cyril S. Turner, Jr.
Mr. Charles R. Twigg
Ms. Jennifer Tyler
Mr. Michael Tyler
Mrs. Fay Tyndall
Mr. Randy Tyndall
Mrs. Evelyn Underwood
Mr. James Underwood
Ms. Maxine Underwood
Ms. Lisa Usher
Mr. Rocio Valdez
Mr. James Valentine
Ms. Kristin VanKirk
Ms. Tracy Vargo
Ms. Belinda Vass
Ms. Erica Vathis
Ms. Gina L. Velong
Ms. Marie Velong
Mr. and Mrs. Robert E. Vest
Mr. Harold Vickers
Mr. Patrick E. Victor
Mr. Michael Von Houten
Ms. Phyllis Voultsides
Lt. A. R. Walker
Mr. Christopher Walsh
Ms. Lois Waples
Ms. Alma F. Ward
Mr. Billy Ward
Mr. Bruce Ward
Mr. Chris Ward
Ms. Mildred Ward
Mr. Paul M. Ward
Ms. Janice Ward
Ms. Dolores Warren
Ms. Gladys Warren
Ms. Rebecca Warren
Ms. Mary Warrington
Mr. Tom Washington
Mr. David Waters
Ms. Dorothy E. Waters
Ms. Dorothy L. Waters
Ms. Jacqueline M. Waters
Mr. Jarrett Waters
Ms. Myah B. Waters
Mr. Patrick Waters
Ms. Sandra E. Waters
Mr. Wilson E. Waters
Mr. Gladstone H. Waters, II
Mr. James C. Waters, Jr.
Mr. Jason A. Watson
Mr. Ron Weber
Mr. Eric M. Weigel
Ms. Rosie Weiland
Ms. Amanda Weir
Ms. Becky Weitzel
M' Billie Dee Wells
Mr. Carl Wells
Mr. Carl W. Wells
Ms. Mollie Wenker
Ms. Carla West
Ms. Kelly West
Mr. Sam West
Mr. John Westrope
Ms. Lorraine Westrope
Mr. Cletus Whaley
Ms. Kathryn F. Wheelehan
M1 A. J. White
Mr. and Mrs. Charles White
Ms. Gracey White
Mr. James T. White
Mr. Jeff White
Ms. Rebecca White
Ms. Tammy M. White
Ms. Monica Whitehead
Ms. Shelly Whitehead
Ms. Rebecca Whittenberger
Ms. Alice J. Whyte
Mr. Richard Widgen
Ms. Karen Widgen
Mr. Travis Wierengo
Mr. Hugh Wilde
Ms. Deborah K. Wilkerson
Ms. Hazel Wilkerson
Ms. Tracy M. Williams
Mr. Lewis Wilson
Ms. Regina Wilson
Ms. Audrey Wimbrow
Mr. Richard Wimbrow
Mr. Harry Winhaw
Mr. Carl H. Wipprecht
Mr. Pat Wise
Mr. Henry J. Wise, Sr.
M1 Jamie Wolff
Ms. Jan Woodward
Mr. David Wootter
Mr. Allen E. Wright
Ms. Carolyn Wright
Mr. Bill Yarzinsky
Ms. Marianne Yarzinsky
Mr. Thomas M. Yenney
Mr. Jason Yost
Mr. Tony Yost
Mr. Nathan Young
Ms. Tamelha Young
Mr. William Young
Mr. Joseph Zappina
Ms. Kathleen Zappina
Ms. Helen Zibec
Mr. Chris Zielinski
Mr. Greg Zielinski
Ms. Erin Zimmerman
Ms. Jessica Zirpoli
Ms. Jodie Zlotorzynski
Mr. Justin Zlotorzynski
Mrs. Teresa Zlotorzynski
Mr. Josh Zobenica
Ms. Elizabeth Zukas
VF-11
-------
-------
G. Selected Revised Minutes of J.D. Review Meetings
US 113 Planning Study
Chapter V
-------
, f,. S l!!!!!!:i!!|l!|!!!!i; "'' *!!!!' "PP!1' diSs, ,!' , '• i!" : , ! ¥.S ' ! ' '' „
ll'illllllliiiiii'lil J'lilli'illlllli >J, ,1 III1 "'llliiSllllliiiT, ,1 'II if!" IP1: "I !liEI!!ll lil'Jlllu.JIIII llllll
'! ": • , , jr, 1,1 «!• ,: ill' ! Ji' Jjf !£
, , ,
h • ' illli'aillEII1 'IIJIIIII , ;!' ,(! ........ Iliill >: . " i •< '''Hi!
, , ,
!', i>' ' .iJ'lilii'iilli'll.Kiikiii HI! lUIIIIIIIIIIIII" .1, I1 ill!!!!1 ' I'lilll '.il
, , , , , , , , , , , „ , ..
^^ ....... . ..... :;jpgpi£:ii
', •: vn «• >si it1
, „ i " r tft<, •
;H^^^^^ iriHKiiiimittMmwi i;;::t :iiiii«^^^^ ii mmi masi [».F;;; * m vw: v^w ;;! ,w M'-nrateiaiirt!!
iiii/lliiliiiii^ ' i "iiiiiiiiiiii,, iiiiil'ii.ii'iii'iyiiiiiiiiiiLiiiiiiiiiilii'iiiiiiiii'.iiiiiilmi, ,"i .niiiiuniiiii'Liiiiinii '".i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii,ii,,,, 'i iiiiiiiiiriiiiTi i i' 'I , ii,,, i"'..iiiiiii'iii "i'i.ii'i.ii iiiiiiiiil'li.iii,,, ,iiii ,i< i,,iniii, ,iii,iiiii ' ,i ,„" '"" i' i ,,,,""ii 'iiiiiii'inii, .liiiiiiiiiiiiiii' iii,i, "„ i 'iii i ni",i ,ii,i 'i'iii iii iii i', i" ,iiii iin.i .iiiiiiii ii '„ , iii,i"iii iiiiiiiii,|. i iii,' ,iiiiii< i , "nii , '2 Ii ' lirii ni i , i' ', "iiii'ii'i ". "iii, -' i,,ii'ii,,i° , i.ni ,, i ,„ „«"'"",,"".' "i - "iiiiiiiiii" « ,;'"; i" ! "i.\ |
iiM^ 'ii;!*'1 itcrFV '"i.3
4ii3iE^^^^^^ xV''!. ii ' '•: iiif'irti'';1"'/'!'
I :•
ii i!!••• ' iiiiiiiiiiiFs; <•iiiEiini iiHiiH^^^^^^^^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiin ia 'Mmnmsimt 'ini 'i iBii- in liiKiiiwoisiiii ..IHIIKHIM :'i>» i':1".!'./!1''!:11',•.>i i ' *!- «[• >' K a ••>'>,:« 'ii" !'-Xilf J IH' < 4 \ i ! l::"!!i!K' i!' llllH^ ., I!" i:" •l""r-'- f!" Sii ' ' • ''•' "' • Jill!1: '.liHf, • "< ••> ;!i
inI;K^ [.liiiiiM^^^^^^ .littjii li'lii"-'::'''!', "it1,';!!:/1"'" : ^'''''^'ihif-iiiitid i:*iiiv;!;i>Hii
;|:T; ;J|l|l!iiii|l|H!liJ''|l|||ll^^ Pllli JHIIIIill!!^ W'ljjlK «'l ;<|l|ii 'VV;' ": .^I'lIM1 • { i ^'iiiiii ,'' i, ' I>;«IIIIV '' ' '" " : ^r''1'1" I1:1'"1, illB'" ' 'l!lll'!|l!:illllll:!l!l1 '"'^ll1!'11
;L,
i lijliiil. i., iiiiiii^ Hi, : ' itii liii!1 /' l!\'" 'I1 lib IP:!,!!.,,,' il,,", Jii', . 'iiiiiiiii!:1 * 'i'iili1,
'jiilll!^^ ''*!:>'F'i'i:!'»:'••'">rt,;> 'Kf-"' :'"' ' ::,i 'i'-'/'AJi!!''! Jii I
•IK !I!M^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ i!H^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ il:W Illii'^^W^^^^ fl, :t,ir:' l<'i^i It .T^Jl-ili'ili li ! I
'li'C illlllF jKi'i i IIIR ,(llliiin^^^^^^^ ISJ'Hm&Him: liiilli:::fl!1i« ir. ii; i; I' St: "i>:i"ii: '•' ~, '*"'' ' ;,„ !'i" , > "' • '' i!j. -i :i:;i:i.t jillil:' it"'.'!1' ' ' • i'ii
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
December 2,1996
David L. Winsteac
Secretary
Parker F. Williams
Administrator
TO:
Rob Shreeve, Project Manager
Environmental Programs Division
FROM: Todd Nichols {revised January 28,1998 by Jack Heft} >
SUBJECT: U.S. 113, Wetland Jurisdictional
Field Review - Minutes
On November 25,1996, the first day of a two day field review, representative of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and SHA met at
8:00 AM at the Church located at U.S. 113 and MD 90. The attendees were:
Mr. David Sutherland U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Al Rizzo U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Jeff Trulick U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ms. Michele Gomez U.S, Amiy Corps of Engineers
Mr. Todd Nichols MD State Highway Administration
Gary Jellick Coastal Resources, Inc.
Due to the severe weather, the attendees agreed to meet back at the site at 12:00
noon. At noon the group reconvened and began the Jurisdictional review at
wetland 27. As was discussed at a previous meeting between Susan Jacobs,
Michelle Gomez, and Gary Jeliick, the group was to determine whether wetland
soils and hydrology was present. As a result of this review, it was determined
that although a primary indicator of hydrology was not present, that two
secondary indicators was adequate to verify hydrology (this was verified in the
IvS/ Corps Manual). After examination wetland flags were placed at the graded
toe of fill on the existing Rt 90 interchange, Most wetland flags were moved 100
feet or so west (away from proposed work). The hydrology of this system was
very complex, and with the thick understory of pepperbush and greenbrier, the
J.D was very time consuming. Gary Jellick noted all flags which were moved.
On November 26,1996 the group met at 8:00 AM and broke into two groups.
Todd Nichols and Jeff Trulick reviewed the wetlands adjacent to existing U.S.
113 and the others reviewed those wetlands along Alternate 4N, the selected
alternate. Gary Jellick will be writing Alternative 4N J.D. results.
My telephone number is
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
page 2.
Rob Shreeve
Results of Todd and Jeffs J.D. review:
W-24. No flags were moved, Jeff concurred with the J.D. of the forested
area; however, he did have some concerns about the farm field located south of
W-24. This area of farm field should be flagged as wetlands if any road
improvements are planned here.
W-25 This system is much more extensive than is depicted on the original
plans. The wetland line was extended about 300 ft. N.E. along U.S. 113. We
removed flags 4,5, & 6, but added flags 3D and 3E. The Corps will take
jurisdiction of the roadside ditch for several hundred feet as the ditch conveys
this wetland hydrology to other jurisdictional areas. Evidence of groundwater
flowing from the wetlarid into the ditch was present. W-24 and W-25 are
connected by groundwater and act as one hydrologic unit. Wetland boundaries
on this propei ty outside of right of way were not verified by COE. Note that
wetlands are present but not flagged due to outside of the ROW.
W-34 No flags moved, Jeff concurred with most of the flagged wetlands;
however, a corner of the farm field is disturbed farmed wetlands and should be
delineated and flagged. Jeff took note of recent logging activities 800 feet west of
U.S. 113.
W-33 No flags moved, Jeff concurred with the flagged wetlands. He felt
the ditch located near sta. 2265 is jurisdictional waters of the US conveying
hydrology to other jurisdictional areas. The ditch conveying hydrology to the
R4X wetland should be shown as jurisdictional.
W-36 The area has recently been "bushhogged", so we reflagged the
limits along U.S. 113.
Around 1:30 PM we met the rest of the attendees at W-37. We attempted to
verify the limits of the "upland island" 800 feet west of sta. 2315 on existing U.S.
113. After nearly forty-five minutes I decided to call the entire area in as
wetland; however, if alternate 4N is chosen SH A and COE will revisit this area to
determine presence of this upland island.
-------
In summary, the northern section was completed with minor changes The
biggest concern will be the status of the disturbed farmed wetlands.
If you have any further questions see me or call Gary Jellick.
Thanks for the opportunity to help out on this project.
-------
COASTAL
RESOURCES
INC
To: Rob Shreeve, Project Manager
Environmental Programs Division
From: Gary Jellick, Coastal Resources, Inc.
Date: December 11, 1996
Revised August 8, 1997
Subject: U.S. Route 113, Snow Hill to Delaware State Line
Wetlands Jurisdiction Determination,
Supplemental-Meeting Minutes for November 26 and 27,1996
The following documentation is intended to supplement the meeting minutes prepared by Todd
Nichols for the referenced project (see memorandum to Rob Shreeve dated December 2, 1996).
The attendance list and overview of the field review is provided in Mr. Nichols' minutes.
Northern Study Area Alternate 4N
Wetland 27 Flags 1A to 5A were moved 50 to 100 feet west away from the southbound on-
ramp. Flag #1 thru flag #37 along the mainline were verified by all in attendance.
Flags 38 to 40 were not verified by the agencies because they were outside the
proposed r/w.
Note: the entire group reviewed the delineation for Wetland 27 during the
afternoon of November 26. The group broke into two teams on November 27 to
continue the field, review. Michele Gomez, Al Rizzo, and Gary Jellick reviewed
the following wetlands.
Wetland 23 Two new flags (2A and 3 A) were added along the northern edge of the wetland to
include a wet "finger". All other flags were verified without modification.
As the team walked north along the proposed alignment toward Wetland 26, three
small depressional wetlands were identified that were not shown on the plans.
One of the depressions was flagged with nine flags (identified as New3). The
team decided not to flag the other two depressions in order to save time. Coastal
Resources will flag the remaining two depressions at a later date when the
agencies return to complete the review for the southern study area.
2988 Solomons Island Road, Edgewater, MD 21037
(410) 956-9000 Bait. (410) 269-9269 DC (301) 261-4805 FAX (410) 956-0566
-------
U.S 113 Meeting Minutes
December 11. 1996
Revised August 8, 1997
Page 2
Wetland 26 The agencies determined that a farmed wetland exists within the agricultural field
located approximately between station 3944 2013 and 2016. The farmed wetland
is contiguous with Wetland 26. The agencies also determined that the area of
phagmites, which was not originally flagged, should be included in the wetland by
connecting flag 1A to flag 8A (eliminate flags 2A to 7A). eliminating flags 1A to
3 A and connecting flag ISB to the farmed wetland.
Wetland 37 The agencies verified flags 1 to 41 along Alternate 4N with one modification:
flags 26 to 29 were removed so that now flag 25 should connect to flag 30.
Flags 1 to 31 along existing U.S. 113 were verfied by the agencies with the
following modifications: flag 25 was moved approximately 25 feet east toward
113 and the Corps made note that the wetland should extend approximately 10
feet into the mowed lawn of trailer home between flags 1 and 3. Ms. Gomez
stated that we could off-set the line on the map without moving the flags since it
is a mowed area.
In summary, the wetlands identified by Coastal Resources in the northern study area have been
field verified by the agencies, and surveying should now be completed for accurate
representation on the project plans. Coastal Resources will flag two, small depressional areas
between wetland 23 and wetland 26 for future verification by the agencies. Coordination with
the NRCS will be needed to address farmed wetlands in the study area; however, Ms. Gomez
stated that the Corps has the lead on linear projects.
If you have any questions regarding these minutes, please at (410) 956-9000.
cc: Todd Nichols
Andy Parker (RKK)
-------
COASTAL
RESOURCES
INC
MINUTES OF MEETING
Project: U.S. Route 113, Snow Hill to Delaware State Line
Project No. WO 720-1 -1 -170-P
Date: October 29 to 31, 1996
Revised December 8, 1997
Purpose: Wetland Jurisdiction Determination
Location: Snow Hill, Worcester County
In Attendence:
Lee Carrigan, SHA-PPD
Paul Maloney, SHA-PPD
Lorraine Straw, SHA-PPD
Robert Shreeve, SHA-EPD
Gary Jellick, CRT
Michele Gomez,USACE
Mary Huie, FHWA
Bill Carver, SHA-PPD
John Zanetti, SHA-HDD
Andy Parker, RK&K
David Sutherland, USFWS
Larry Hughes, MDDNR
The purpose of the meeting was to conduct a jurisdiction determination (JD) of forty wetlands
identified and flagged in the project planning area by Coastal Resources, Inc. The field review
was scheduled for three days.
The attendees met at the SHA District garage in Snow Hill at 8:00 a.m. on October ":9, 1996. Ai,
overview of the project waa presented by Lee Carrigan, Gary Jellick, and Andy Parker. The
initial schedule for the field review was to complete the southern study area on the first day, and
move to the northern study area on days 2 and 3. However, the schedule was revised within the
first few hours of the field review when it became apparent that much more time would b •
needed to complete the jurisdiction determination /or the entire planning area.
A joint decision was made to focus the field review on the northern study area since the northern
portion of the project would likely be built before the southern ,';udy area. The review was
shifted to the northern study area at 1:00 p.m. on October 29. The following information
summarizes the results of the jurisdiction determination in the order that the wetlands were
reviewed.
2988 Solomons Island Road, Edgewater, MD 21037
(410) 956-9000 Bait. (410) 269-9269 DC (30 i) 261 -4805 FA < (410) 956-0566
-------
U.S 113 Meeting Minutes
October 29 to 31, 1996
Revised December 8, 1997 ' ! , •
Page 2 •••••,••••..
r'-'- ;'?:- ' " ' ' '
Southern Study Area ;
Wetland 8 - West : side only. Wetland boundary between flag numbers +4*30 W5-1 thru WS-7H
(last flag) approved by the agencies and all in attendance. No changes to flagging.
Wetland 6 - West side only. Wetland boundary between flags 4A+0-8
flag) •* ***** NpLJhJ3LNM2B (last flag) verified
ditch that extends north of Wetland 6 to the culvert (approx. 250
determined to be jurisdictions! by the Corps because it connects two
wetland areas. The ditch should be shown as PEMx on the wetlarld
signifies that it is excavated. The ditch averages 8 feet wide south of the culvert and
£!±l A , n°f f ^ CUlVert' A flSg WaS Placed 10° feet north of *e culvert
delineate the limit of regulatory jurisdiction in the ditch.
No decision was made by the Corps concerning the ditch south of Wetland 6 along
Public Landing Road; additional information must be reviewed to make the JD
frciGr to minutfi^ rfflf^H Tii'sinon/ oo 0*2- i OA*? * • • *• •'*-'•
feet)
Wetland 5 - The wetland boundary from flags 1 to 9 (last flag) were verified by the agencies.
A new wetland area was identified by the Corps approximately 2000 feet north of
Wetland 5, near the Worcester County jail. The wetland was identified as New-1
and five flags were used to delineate the boundary. New-1 is approximately 30 x
100 feet, (refer to minutes Hated February 27, 1997 for Wetland S A)
l fwtif f ^gricultural field was obse^d approximately 1200 feet
north of Wetland 5. Wetland vegetation was present in the wet spot; however the
soil did not exhibit hydric characteristics. The Corps stated that the NRCS would
have to make the jurisdiction determination in this area.
The pond located on the east side of ITS 113 across from W.s
because it is outside nf the study area '
Wetland 3 - West side only. The wetland boundary between flags 1 and 6 (last flag) were
verified by the agencies. An area immediately south of Wetland 3 was inspected and
was determined not to be jurisdiction! by the Corps. This non-jurisdictional area
was not originally flagged by CRI, but shows up on the wetland delineation map
from previous site planning studies (NWI maps). The wetland designation will be
removed from the map. (refer to revised minutes frop! February 27 1 Q07>
Wetland 1 - West side only. Wetland boundary flags 1 to 5 (last flag) were verified.
A new wetland (New-2) was identified in a swale located 150 feet north of W-l
The wetland boundary will be flagged by CRI at a later date. Work is not
proposed on the east ^ of US 1 13. How.v^. jf work is pmpSL j* !£.
more detailed review of wetlands will need to take plgr^ T"-^— ^
-------
U.S 113 Meeting Minutes
October 29 to 31, 1996
Revised December 8, 1997
Page 3 :
Northern Study Area
Wetland 40 - West and East side. Wetland boundary verified between flags 1A to 11A (last flag)
on the east side, and flags IB to 13 B (last flag) on the west side. No changes made
to delineation.
Wetland 39 (on new alignment, north or Rt. 610) - Delineation verified by the Corps after several
flags were moved. Wetland flags have not yet been surveyed; therefore, the flag
numbers were not noted.
End of Day 1,4:45 p.m.
October 30, 1996 (8:00 a.m.) - Group met at Calvery Christ Church parking lot.
Wetland 37 (on new alignment, south of Rt. 610) - The delineation along the northern edge of
the wetland was reviewed (flags 32 to 49-last flag). The Corps disagreed with the
wetland flagging in this area and all flags were moved, generally to the tree line and
Rt. 610. The Corps also noted that the com field between Rt. 610 and the tree line
may be a wetland, and the NRCS would have to be consulted. Flags 1 to 31 were
not reviewed by the Corps.
Because of the time needed to review the wetland boundary on flat landscapes and the difference
between the original flagging and the Corps flagging, a joint decision was made to postpone the
JD on Wetland 37 and try to complete the JD for the major stream valleys of the northern study
area.
Wetland 38 (between RR tracks and Rt. 113) - Several flags were moved and the delineation
was extended to include the ditch along Rt. 113. All current flag locations (1-12)
were verified by the Corps.
Wetland 31 (west side and east side) - Verified flags 1 to 14 on the east side and flags 1 to 6A
(3cuth_end) on the west side. New flags (1A to SA 6A) were added to include a
swale along Rt. 113 in the northwest quadrant. Noto: last flag on cast aide 10 f/29 and
laot flag on west sido is ffO, which wore not verified.
Wetland 30 (west side and east side) - Verified delineation on the west side from flags 1 to 15
(last flag). Added two flags (1A and 2A) to ensure that the entire study area was
flagged. Verified delineation on east side from flags 1 to 24 (last flag on in southeast
quadrant) and 1A to 10A (last flag in northeast quadrant). The channel that enters
the wetland in the northeast quadrant is "waters of the U.S" (intermittent ag ditch).
End Day 2, 5:00 p.m.
October 31, 1996 (8:00 a.m.) - Group met at Calvery Christ Church parking lot.
-------
U.S 1 13 Meeting Minutes
October 29 to 31, 1996
Revised December 8, 1997
Page 4
WeUand 28 (west side
m the west side
Verified delineation on east side from flag 1 to « 20
EndDay3,ll:30a.m.
*"
«»*
956-
cc: Attendees
-------
Project:
Date:
Purpose:
Location:
COASTAL
RESOURCES
INC
MINUTES OF MEETING
U.S. Route 113 from MD 394 to Delaware State Line
Project No. WO 720-1-1-170-P
January 22 and 23, 1997
Revised December 8, 1997
Wetland Jurisdiction Determination
Snow Hill, Worcester County
In Attendence: Robert Shreeve, MD State Highway Administration, EPD
David Sutherland, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Michele Gomez, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Gary Jellick, Coastal Resources, Inc.
The purpose of the meeting was to complete the jurisdictional determination for the southern
study area between Snow Hill and Berlin. The attendees met at the SHA District garage in Snow
Hill at 8:00 a.m. on January 22,1997.
The agencies emphasized that the jurisdictional determination is valid only for the wetland areas
that were flagged within the study area. Wetlands have been flagged within 100-feet from the
edge of pavement on the side of the road where widening is proposed, and within 50-feet of the
edge of pavement on the side where no widening is proposed. If project plans are revised such
that disturbance will occur outside of the 50' or 100' study area, additional verification of
wetland boundaries will be necessary. Potential wetlands outside the study area are noted on the
project plans for information purposes only, and have not been field verified.
In addition to reviewing the location of flagged wetlands, the attendees also noted the
characteristics of the numerous ditches in the study area to determine regulatory jurisdiction.
The ditches have not been flagged; however, they are identified on the topographic base map for
the project. Those ditches that support wetland vegetation, or that appear to be channelized
natural streams, where determined to be jurisdictional by the agencies. The jurisdictional
determination for each ditch was noted on the project plans, and is not discussed in these
minutes.
2988 Solomons Island Road, Edgewater, MD 21037
(410)956-9000 Bait. (410) 269-9269 DC (301) 261-4805 FAX (410) 956-0566
-------
U.S 1 13 Jurisdictional Determination
Meeting Minutes
January 22 and 23, 1997
Revised December 8, 1997
Page 2
wff PUrP°Se °f calculatin§ imPa<*>> the ditches would be assigned a
width of 5-feet unless otherwise noted, and would be labeled with the suffix "x" to indicate that
the we land or stream is man-made or excavated (PEMx = emergent wetland ditch- R4x =
channelized intermittent stream; R2x = channelized perennial stream). The attendees also agreed
that the roadside ditches would be replaced in-kind, and that they should not be included in the
overall mitigation requirements for the project.
The following information summarizes the results of the jurisdiction determination in the order
that the wetlands were reviewed.
Wetland 1A - West side. This area is a new extension of Wetland 1, which was previously
verified by the Corps (referred to as New? »n 10/29-31/96 meeting minuted The
wetland boundary between flags 1A-1 to 1A-8 were verified by all in attendance
Wetland 1A has recently been logged and has a new growth of emergent and
scrub/shrub species. Wetland 1 and Wetland 1A are connected by a Jurisdictional
ditch located along U.S. 113. The Jurisdictional ditch will be labeled as PEMx on
the project plans.
Wetland 2
Wetland 3
Wetland 4
Wetland 7
Wetland 8
- Wes* East side. Wetland 2 was extended to the toe of slope for the road
embankment from approximately Station 1101 to Station 1091. Eleven new flags
were placed along the toe of slope and were labeled New-1 to New-11 Flag New-
11 ties-in to the existing flag E2-3. Flags E2-1 and E2-2 were removed.
The area on the east side of 113, opposite of Wetland 2, was reviewed by the
Corps; however, a final decision on regulatory jurisdiction was not made. The
Corps stated that additional information will be reviewed, and the SHA will be
informed if the area should be flagged. Coastal Resources did not flag the area as a
wetland because the plant community is predominately white oak (facu), loblolly
(fac-), red oak (facu), American holly (facu), and highbush blueberry (facw) (refer
to 2/27/97 meeting minutest ^~~
- East side. No changes made to wetland flagging. The agencies dstermined that
the ditch that enters the wetland from the south is Jurisdictional, and should be
labeled as PEMx.
- South side of Brick Kiln Road. This wetland was not reviewed because the
wetland is outside the design area. If final design impacts this area, the wetland
line will be verified by the agencies.
- Wetland boundary between Flag 6C and Flag 22C was verified by the agencies.
- East side of US in. The wetland boundary between Flag E5-1 and E5-22 was
verified by the agencies. The wetland line south of P..h?;c Landing RnaH wag
flagged bv CRI but was not verified bv the Corps because this area is outside
proposed impact area, ff this area is affected bv design change^ this wetland will
-------
U.S 113 Jurisdictional Detennination
Meeting Minutes
January 22 and 23, 1997
Revised December 8, 1997
Page 3
need to be confirmed. The area between wetland 7 and wetland 8 was not verified.
but the wetland line on the mapping was moved to follow the contour. More detail
will be needed in this area if a design change occurs. The wetland map was revised
between Station 1215 and Station 1205 to indicate that the wetland comes within
100 foot of the road; hi
verified by the agencies
itsidc the 50' study area- and wao not
Sta. 1315
Wetland 9
The wetland located in the northeast comer of the intersection of US 113 and Brick
Kiln Road was not verified because it lies outside of the proposed impact area.—If
this area is affected bv design changes, this wetland will need to be confirmed.
- West side. The wooded area immediately north of the Snow Hill Mennonite
Church near Test Plot 15 was reviewed. The agencies verified that jurisdictional
wetlands do not exist in the area. '
- West side. The jurisdictional area within 100 feet of the U.S. 113 is confined to
the stream channel. A scrub/shrub wetland fringe exists within the channel.
- East side. Wetland boundary flags verified. The map should be re-labeled to
indicate that emergent wetlands are located outside of the tree-line. The drainage
ditch along U.S. 113 immediately north of Wetland 9 is jurisdictional for a distance
of 50 feet past the last flag, and should be classified as PEMx.
Wetland 10 - West East side. All flags (E7-1 to E7-10) were verified by the agencies with no
modification.
- East West side. Agencies verified that jurisdictional waters are confined to the
streambank nf Five Mile Branch, which has been channelized. The channel was not
flagged.
Sta 1442 to
Sta 1457
- Wetlands shown on the mapping that are outside the proposed impact area were not
verified bv the Corps.
Sta 1555 - East side, approximately 500 feet north of Newark Rd. The agencies verified that
jurisdictional wetlands do not exist in the wooded area. This area appears to be
effectively drained by drainage ditches. However, a small emergent wetland,
predominantly soft rush, was identified along the south side of the wooded area,
within 50-feet of the road. The wetland was field measured to cover a 15'x50' area,
which will be shown on the final wetland maps. No flags were placed around the
emergent wetland.
Three wet spots were observed in the agricultural field on the west side of 113
between Station 1556 and Station 1561. One of the wet spots is within 100-feet of
the road The agencies Corps stated that NRCS photos shall be reviewed by
-------
U.S 113 Jurisdictional Deteunination
Meeting Minutes
January 22 and 23, 1997
Revised December 8, 1997
Page 4
delineate any farmed wetlands in this ^ea. The roadside
om Sta 1553 is mrisdictinnal - ~ — -
Sta. 1575 - West side. The wastewater treatment pond for the Town of Newark is not
considered junsdictional waters by the ageaeies Corps.
Wetland 11 - The portion of wetland 1 1 within the study area was verified bv the Corns On t
east side of IK? 1.1 the stream/wetland complex opens up to a wirier '
system. This portion was not verified because it is outside of the study area Tf this
area is affected bv design r.hatu*^ thfo wetland will need to be confirmed.
Wetland 12 -The wetland boundary was verified by the agencies with the
modifications:
West side, northern area
°f **
at driveway
* culverf
« Flag W9-3 and W9-4 were moved 20-feet south to the edge of the tree-line
• Flag W9-9 should connect to Flag W9-15; Flags W9-10 to W9-14 were removed
because the wetland extends to toe-of-slope of the road.
• Flag W9-22 was verified without modification (last flag)
West side, southern area
• Flags W9-23, 24, and 25 were moved 20-feet northeast.
« Flag W9-31 was moved 25-feet south
« Flag W9-32 (last flag) was verified without modification
« Ditch along road is Jurisdictional (PEMx) for 200-feet south of Flag W9-29
East side, southern area
• Flag E9-1 moved 90-feet south (last flag verified^
• Flag E9-2 moved 50-feet south
• Flag E9- 16 moved 10-feet east
• Flag E9-4-S 19 (last flag) verified without modification
East side, northern area
• Flag E9-20 moved 20-feet west
• Flags E9-33, 34, 35 were relocated to the toe of slope (SHA Survey Dept has
been instructed to survey new location of these flags. Flag 35 was last flat>
yenned. ~~
* Flag E9-19 last flag verified
-------
U,S 113 Jurisdictional Detcimination
Meeting Minutes
January 22 and 23, 1997
Revised December 8, 1997
PageS
Wetland 13 - West side. Flag W10-2 was moved 60-feet north along road. All other flags
W10-1 to W10-11 were verified by the agencies. The channel within 75 feet of
the culvert shall be labeled as a perennial stream on the final wetland map.
East side. Flag El0-3 moved 50-feet west to edge of phagmites at culvert. All
other flags (E10-1 to E10-11) were verified by the agencies.
Sta. 1697 West side. The agencies confirmed that Jurisdictional wetlands do not exist
within 100 feet of the road. Potential Wetlands (not confirmed) exist outside of
the 100-foot study area in this location. More detailed investigation will need to
be done if design changes occur in this area.
Wetland 14 - Wetland is outside the 50' study area and was not verified. The agencies verified
that no wetlands exist within 50-feet of the road. Flagged line was not verified:
more detailed investigation will need to be done if design changes occur in this
Wetland 15 - All flags (1 to 12) were previously verified by the Corps independently after the
last field review was completed on November 27,1996.
Wetland 16 - West side. All flags (1 to 11) verified without modification
East side. Flag 5A moved 25-feet south (Note: Flagging had not yet been
surveyed in this area; therefore, the survey plot will not need to be revised). A
potential wetland exists outside the 50-foot study area, between Wetland 16 and
Goody Hill Road.
Sta. 1733 - West side. A depressional forested wetland was identified, but not flagged, on the
west side between Wetland 15 and Wetland 16. The agencies stated that NRCS
photos shall be reviewed by SHA/CRI to confirm and delineate any farmed
wetlands in thio area the field located between Sta. 1734 and 1735.
Wetland 17 - Flag W14-2 was moved 55-feet north into a mowed lawn. (Note: Flagging had not
yet been surveyed in this area; therefore, the survey plot will not need to be
revised). The Corps stated that the lawn portion of the wetland should be
identified as a "Landscaped Wetland".
Sta. 1746- East side. A potential farmed wetland exists outside the 50-foot study area,
approximately 800-feet north of Goody Hill Road. The agencies stated that
NRCS photos shall be reviewed by SHA/CRI to confirm and delineate any farmed
wetlands in this area.
Sta. 1772 East side. Ditch in this area is Jurisdictional.
-------
U.S 113 Jurisdictional Determination
Meeting Minutes
January 22 and 23, 1997
Revised December 8, 1997
Page 6
Wetland 18 - West side. All flags (1 to 14) were verified by the agencies without modification.
East side. Six new flags (18A-1 to 18A-6) were placed between Sta. 4-36Q 1759
and Sta. 1762. (SHA Survey Dept. has been instructed to survey new location of
these flags). Flags 18B-1 to 18B-6 were verified by the agencies.
Wetland 19
Jurisdictional ditch which enters from the south side of W-19 connects to ditch on
west side of US 113. Flags El 6-1 to E16-7 were verified.
Wetland 20 - All flags between 17-1 and 17-12 were verified by the agencies. Several flags
were moved closer to the road; however, flag numbers were not noted because the
flags had not yet been surveyed.
Wetland 21 - East and West sides. All flags verified without modification.
Wetland 22 All flags verified without modification (flags 18-1 to 18-7)
Sta. 2010 On new alignment in northern study area - Two new wetlands were previously
identified by the agencies during the field review in November, 1996 and have
subsequently been flagged by CRI. The wetlands were flagged New4-l to 14 and
New5-l to 18. All flags were verified by the agencies without modification.
(SHA Survey Dept. has been instructed to survey these new locations)
If there are any additions or deletions to these minutes, please contact Gary Jellick at (410) 956-
9000.
cc: Andy Parker (RKK)
-------
Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
David L Wihslead I
Secretary
Parker'F. Williams]
Administrator
MEMORANDUM
Lou Ege, Jr., Deputy Director
Project Planning Division
Sue Rajan
Susan M. Jacobs, Acting Chief
Environmental Programs Division
TO:
ATTN:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
RE:
Attached for your use are the minutes of the January 22 and 23,1997, Jurisdictional
meeting To ensure that a complete set of the JD meeting minutes exists, the
jtesfrom the October29 -31. 1996, and November26 and 27, 1996, meetings are
aisoIncluded All the wetlands delineated by Coastal Resources have been venfiecby
tahSe US Army Corp of Engineers. The Marylanc*»*^^£^£^
wetlands and Waterways Division has stated that they will accept tne UOAOVJC
Wetlands ana vvaie y ^ ^ ^ ^.^ ^ JQ wag proceedingi and
Februarys, 1997
FMIS No.:
Description:
Wetland Jurisdictional Review
WO721B11
US 113 - Snow Hill to the Delaware Line
flagged or surveyed, but will be shown from the topographic mapping.
Thpre are still issues that need to be resolved as part of the Jurisdictional
wnl prace^th evaluating Infrared photos to determine the presence of wetlands m
the identified areas.
^^
determination.
My telephone number is _
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1-800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 • Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street - Baltimore, Maryland 21202
-------
Lou Ege
WO 721 B11
Februarys, 1997
[revised page 2, Jan 28,1998]
USAGE requested, at the November review, that SNA re-check the MD 90/US
113 (Alternate 4N) interchange for the presence of wetlands. At the November
meeting, USAGE noted that the area adjacent to the interchange may contain
wetlands. Due to time constraints, the area was not reviewed because it had not
been delineated. Coastal Resources will investigate and delineate as needed
FPD will request USAGE verify the delineation when USAGE is available.
As noted in the November minutes, Wetland 37 should have a comprehensive
delineation completed If Alternate 4N isfelected In the area of Sta. 2320+00.
Coastal Resources had previously Identified an extensive upland inclusion in the
wetland, but was unable to locate It at the time of this field meeting.
As referred to in January minutes, the area opposite Wetland 2 has since been
determined to have forested wetlands. USAGE determined that wetlands do
exist after an in-depth vegetative analysis determined that the vegetation was
hydrophytic. USAGE did not flag the wetlands. Coastal Resources will delineate
the wetlands.irv the .next week. £PD wil! request USAGE verify the delineation
when USAGE is available.
USAGE checked a wetland area found on the October JD. The wetland was
flagged as "New 1", but was questioned by USAGE. USAGE determined that the
wetland was larger than originally flagged. USAGE and USFWS delineated the
wetland. SHA needs to survey and show on the plans.
The resolution of these outstanding issues is underway. Please distribute these
minutes to all interested parties. If you have any questions or comments please
contact Robert Shreeve at (410) 545-8613.
-------
Project:
Date:
Purpose:
Location:
In Attendence:
COASTAL
RESOURCES
INC
MINUTES OF MEETING
U.S. Route 113, Snow Hill to Delaware State Line
Project No. WO 720-1-1-170-P
March 20,1997
Revised August 8, 1997
Field Review of Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites
Snow Hill, Worcester County
Robert Shreeve, SHA-EPD
Michele Gomez,USCOE
Al Kampmeyer MDE
Gary Jellick, CRI
The purpose of the meeting was to review potential wetland mitigation sites in the southern study
area that may be used to compensate for unavoidable wetlands impacts associated with the
project. The attendees met at the SHA District garage in Snow Hill at 10:00 a.m. on March 20
1997 Gary Jellick provided draft copies of site location maps and summary tables for each
recommended site based on a preliminary review by SHA and CRI. The following general
comments were made by the agencies that would be applicable to all potential mitigation sites:
1. Adjacent land use (current and future) shall be identified as it relates to potential impact on
the mitigation sites (i.e., habitat value, hydrology).
2 The U S Fish and Wildlife Service and USEPA shall be involved in ranking the suitability of
' potential sites for wetland mitigation. (Note: The USFWS and USEPA are scheduled to
review mitigation sites on March 28,1997).
3. Archcological Section 106 review of the sites shall be required before the agencies concur
with the use of the sites for wetland mitigation.
4 Consultation with the Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS) shall be
conducted to verify the status of Prior Converted Cropland or Farmed Wetlands that may
2988 Solomons Island Road, Edgewater, MD 21037
(410)956-9000 Bait. (410) 269-9269 DC (301) 261-4805 FAX (410) 956-0566
-------
U.S 113 Meeting Minutes :
March 20,1997
Revised August 8, 1997
Page 2 >
exist within the proposed mitigation sites, as well as areas which are currently in set aside or
acting as mitigation under the Food Security Act.
The following wetland mitigation sites were reviewed by the agencies and were determined to be
suitable for additional on-site investigations. At this time, the sites shall be considered potential
mitigation sites for the purpose of the environmental document. Final agency concurrence on
each site for permitting purposes shall occur after more detailed studies are completed. Refer to
the attached table for a general description of each site.
Sites that are potentially suitable for wetland mitigation:
2A -100' west of station 1035
3 - 2000' east of station 1080
4 - 2500' east of station 1105
4A -1000' east of station 1132
14 - 3600' west of station 1775
14A - 2000'east of station 1735
16 - 1000'east of station 1865
16A -100' west of station 1740
Site 6 (1500' east of station 1220) was reviewed and found to be unacceptable for additional
investigations because of questionable hydrology and the distance to the cypress swamp along
Patty's Branch. CRI and SHA will investigate another area to the south of Site 6 which may
offer a direct connection to the cypress swamp.
If there are any additions or deletions to these minutes, please contact Gary Jellick at (410) 956-
9000.
cc: Attendees
Sue Rajan (SHA-PPD)
Lisa Zeimer (RKK)
-------
COASTAL
RESOURCES
INC.
MINUTES OF MEETING
Project: U.S. Route 113, Snow Hill to Delaware State Line
Project No. WO 720-1-1-170-P
Date: March 27-28,1997 •
Revised December 8,1997
Purpose: Field Reviewof Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites
Location: Snow Hill, Worcester County
In Attendence: Jack Hett, SHA-EPD
Michele Gomez,USCOE
David Sutherland, USFWS
Danielle Algazi, EPA
Al Kampmeyer, MDE (3/27 only)
Gary Jellick, CRI (3/28 only)
Ricardo Gonzalez, CRI (3/27 only)
The purpose of the meeting was to review potential wetland mitigation sites in the northern and
southern study area that may be used to compensate for unavoidable wetlands impacts associated
with the project. The attendees met at the SHA District garage in Snow Hill at 10:00 a.m. on
March 27, 1997. Ricardo Gonzalez provided draft copies of site location maps and summary
tables for each recommended site based on a preliminary review by SHA and CRI.
The following wetland mitigation sites were reviewed by the agencies and were determined to be
suitable for additional on-site investigations. At this time, the sites shall be considered potential
mitigation sites for the purpose of the environmental document. Final agency concurrence on
each site for permitting purposes shall occur after more detailed studies are completed.
The following sites were reviewed on March 27, 1997. All attendees agreed that the sites are
suitable for additional investigations:
2988 Solomons Island Road, Edgewater, MD 21037
(410)956-9000 Bait. (410) 269-9269 DC (301) 261-4805 FAX (410) 956-0566
-------
U.S 113 Meeting Minutes
March 21-28,1997
Revised December 8, 1997
Page 2
alignment is selected.
i°n 2010'
loca'ion °f
on which
tracks and the mitigation site.
s
Site 33- 100' west of station 2335 (May not be suitable if alternative 4N is selected)
r and f°Und t0 be unaccePtaWe by the agencies for additional
tigations because of questionable hydrology, and the location between existing
a
land
In addition, the Corps of Engineers questioned the suitability of Site 22
use which may affect the potential for the site to provide wildlife habit
T?t OH r*v\A "D+ 1 1 O +• *1~ j.1 1 *«*vxfc__,. » .»„ WAW ifcj WLH1VAWU. UV
Kt yu and Rt 113 to the south and west, and has a gravel driveway along the northern boundary
The Corps also questioned the source of hydrology for the site. The SHA agreed that
would not be considered a primary mitigation site for the purpose of the envi
document TheUSFWS noted that the site was currently being used by shore birds and v
as the result of flooding caused by a recently constructed berm on the adjacent property.
March 28. 1997
The group met at the SHA Snow Hill garage at 8:30 am. to discuss the sites that were reviewed
on the prev10us day, and to discuss the wetland function assessment methodology presented £
he draft environmental document. The agencies do not accept the SHA checklist methodology
that was used for the environmental document, and stated that a preferred alternative could not be
determined until a more rigorous field method was used to evaluate wetland functions and
TheCorps of Engineers recommended, and the SHA agreed, that the New England method
wnnS SP !fl J wetland Unction assessment. The group decided that the field work
will be done with two teams, one for the north and one for the south. The field work will have to
be completed by April 4, 1997 to meet the schedule for the environmental document The Co^s
of Engineers stated the functional assessment could be completed on the basis of "wetland
systems , whereby similar wetlands would be grouped together for the purpose of data gamerin7
The agencies will report back to the SHA regarding the potential field dateTfor availabte staff
-------
U.S 113 Meeting Minutes
March 27-28. 1997
Revised December S, 1997
Page 3
• Site 10- 600' east of station 1450. All agencies agreed that Site 10 is acceptable for
additional investigations.
. Site 11- 1000' east of station 1520. The agencies prefer the area that is currently a horse
pasture to allow a connection with existing wetlands in the pasture.
. Site 12- 1000' west of station 1540. The far western portion of the field should be further
investigated for a possible connection to Coonsfoot Branch.
. Site 12A- 300' east of station 1560. All agencies agreed that Site 12A is acceptable for
additional investigations.
Site 6A (1500' east of station 1220) was reviewed and found unacceptable by the Corps of
Engineers because of the amount of cut that would be needed to function as a floodplam of
Pumell Branch (cypress area) «md the discontinuity of the site from the existing cypress area.
The group field review ended at 1:00 p.m., but sites 2A, 3, 4 and 4A were reviewed in the
afternoon by the USFWS and CRI (the Corps, MDE, and SHA previously reviewed these, ate on
March 20 1997) The USFWS agreed that these sites should be considered for additional
investigations. The USFWS and CRI also identified one additional site foat may be suitable for
SJon in the area of the cypress swamp. The site is located 800' east of station^ 1230
between the railroad tracks and the cypress swamp. Portions of the site are used for pasture
which comes within 20' of the swamp. A floodplain connection could be made by excavating
from 2-6 feet of soil. Approximately 2 acres may be suitable for mitigation. The site has been
designated as Site 6B and shall be reviewed by the SHA and the agencies during subsequent field
work in the project area.
If there are any additions or deletions to these minutes, please contact Gary Jellick at (410) 956-
9000.
cc: Attendees
buekajan(SHA-PPD)
Lisa Zeimer (RKK)
-------
Project:
Date:
COASTAL
RESOURCES
INC
MINUTES OF MEETING
U.S. Route 113, Snow Hill to Delaware State Line
Project No. WO 720-1-1-170-P
April 3-4,1997
Revised December 8, 1997
Purpose: Field Review of Wetland Functional Assessment - Corps Descriptive Approach
Location: Snow Hill, Worcester County, Maryland
In Attendance:
Jack Hett, SHA-EPD
John Denniston, SHA-EPD
Michele Gomez, USCOE
Jeff Trulick, USCOE
BobZepp,USFWS
David Sutherland, USFWS
Chuck Wemkara, CRI
Ricardo Gonzalez, CRI
The purpose of the meeting was to perform a functional assessment of representative wetlands in
the study area. The attendees met at the SHA District garage in Snow Hill at 8:00 a.m. on April
3, 1997. Coastal Resources Inc. provided copies of Appendix A: Consideration List from US
Corps of Engineers (USCOE) The Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement- Wetland
Functions and Values a Descriptive Approach, evaluation forms, and site location summary
tables for each of the wetlands.
Recognizing the similarity of many wetlands in the project area, the study team discussed the
™ TT?i°nS f°r sroupins wetlands ft* the purpose of the functional assessment in the DEIS
The USCOE suggested that by associating wetlands on the basis of their proximity and
hydrologic connection to other wetlands a more effective projection of the functions and values
of non-evaluated wetland sites could be made. A dialogue was conducted and a consensus was
reached as to an acceptable grouping of sites. Groupings were primarily based on the hydrologic
unit (i.e., physical connection within the subwatershed), Qfeeg-feeteg&^onoidorod. to a lessor
degree, woro wetland type, and landscape position. All wetlands in the study area that could be
impacted by the project were divided into 15 sub-groups; one reference:wetland.from each sub-
group was selected for site inspection to evaluate functions and values. A consensus was reached
on the following wetland groupings:
W-l and W-3 (Reference wetland W-3)
2988 Solomons Island Road, Edgewater, MD 21037
(410)956-9000 Bait. (410) 269-9269 DC (301)261-4805 FAX (410) 956-0566
-------
U.S 113 Meeting Minutes
April 3-4, 1997
Revised December S. 1997
Page 2
W-2
W-5 and W-5A (Reference wetland W-5A)
W-6, W-7, and W-8 (Reference wetland W-8)
W-9, W-10, and W-l 1 (Reference wetland W-9)
W-12 and W-l3 (Reference wetland W-l3)
W-15
W-l6 and W-l7 (Reference wetland W-l6). (Note: Upon review of additional mapping and
information in the office, W-l7 is a depressional wetland that is not associated with the
floodplain of W-16. In addition, W-17 is less than one acre. Therefore, it is the opinion of
CRT and SHA that W-17 is unlikely to have the same functions as W-16 and will not be
grouped with W-16 for the DEIS).
W-18, W-19, W-20, W-21, and W-22 (Reference wetland W-18)
W-23, W-24, and W-25 (Reference wetland W-23)
W-26
W-27, W-37, and W-39 (Reference wetland W-37)
W-28, W-30, W-31, and W-40 (Reference wetland W-31 W 28)
W-29
W-33, W-34, and W-36 (Reference wetland W-34
The attendees separated into 2 teams;
North Team
Ricardo Gonzalez
Tohn Denniston
JeffTrulick
David Sutherland
South Team
Chuck Weinkam
Michele Gomez
Jack Hett
Bob Zepp
It was decided that both teams would perform the first assessment together in an effort to ensure
a consistent approach to using the procedure. All the participants Agreed that functional
" " it Hid nnt tn nnnlv to V.'Ctlandj of tho rogion ^nnlH hn Hir.minned
indicators-feted in th - 4i .,
jfeffl-eeasidcration. It was felt that since the methodology had been developed in New England,
some indicators or characteristics would not be observed or would not relate to the normal
conditions found in the coastal plain physiographic region. Therefore, these indicators were
dismissed from consideration. For example in the Groundwater Recharge/Discharge section,
indicator 3 refers to stratified drift, which is a geomorphic feature associated with glacial activity
(a process that did not occur in this area). Additionally, in some cases, the indicators were not
clear to the group or insufficient data were available to assess the presence or absence of the
indicator. For example, the Groundwater Recharge/Discharge section consideration #17 refers to
-------
U.S 113 Meeting Minutes ,
A.pril 3-4, 1007
Revised December S. 1997
Page 3
piezometric data, which was not available for any of the sites assessed. The group felt
comfortable modifying the provided list of considerations/indicators given guidance provided in
Appendix A of the manual (page 20): "Considerations are flexible, based on best professional
judgment and interdisciplinary team consensus. This example provides a comprehensive base,
however, and may only need slight modifications for use in other projects."
Indicators omitted for consideration included for the groundwater recharge function, qualifiers 3,
11, 14, 44, and 17; fish and shellfish habitat Function, qualifier 13 (added the qualifier "in the
wetland" to qualifier 15); wildlife habitat functions, qualifier 22; and education/scientific
functions, qualifier 16. Also, in the wildlife habitat functions section, the water quality standard
of consideration #2 twe was changed from class A or B to Maryland use I olooa ono. By
consensus, the wetland size categories of were designated as 1-10, 10-100, and >100 acres,
primarily because these size categories were used previously for the Route 301 project in which
the New England method was applied for function and value assessment.
The functional wetland assessments were conducted by the two teams during the remainder of
Thursday, April 3 and they were completed on Friday morning April 4th. At the conclusion of
the fieldwork, the teams reconvened to discuss which functions were found to occur in the
reference wetlands. It was agreed that when the presence of at least half of the possible
considerations were observed, the likelihood was strong that the relative function may be
occurring. Following that step, the principal functions of the representative wetlands were
decided. Best professional judgment was used to determine which of the occurring functions
should be considered principle. Generally, the considerations/indicators that dominated the
evaluators impressions of the wetland were fairly consistent and it was usually quite obvious, to
those present, which of the functions were principle. Field sheets were gathered and given to
CRI to summarize in the DEIS. Copies of the field data sheets will be included in the Natural
Resources Technical Report.
A description of the wetlands assessed including the dominant characteristics influencing the
selection of the primary functions of that reference wetland follows.
Wetland 3 (W-l a^d W-3) is located in a narrow ditch on either side of US 113, approximately
400-feet south of Snow Hill Road. It appears that the area was originally a natural tributary to
Patty's Branch which was ditched for agricultural purposes. The area is classified as a palustrine
emergent wetland with a saturated water regime (PEM1B) on the east side of US 113, and a
palustrine forested wetland with a seasonal water regime (PFO1C) on the west side'of the
highway. The principal function associated with the wetland is wildlife habitat. The
observation of a variety of habitat and the presence of wildlife utilizing it dominated the
evaluators overall impression of the functions of this wetland.
The forested portion of the wetland is dominated by Acer rubrum (red maple) and Liquidambar
styraciflua (sweet gum). The emergent wetland is dominated by Salix nigra (black willow),
Juncus effusus (soft rush), Scirpus atrovirens (green bulrush), and Eleocharis sp. (spikerush
species).
-------
U.S 113 Meeting Minutes
April 3-4, 1997
Revised December S, 1997
Page 4
Wetland 2 is located on both sides of US 113, approximately 1,300-feet south of Snow Hill
Road and is associated with a broad drainage swale. The northeast comer of the wetland is
farmed, however, the majority of the area is classified as a palustrine forested wetland with a
saturated water regime (PFO1B). Acer rubrum (red maple) and Liquidambar styraciflua (sweet
gum) are the dominant species in the canopy of the forested wetland. The shrub layer is
dominated by Clethra alnifolia (coast pepperbush), Vaccinium corymbosum (highbush
blueberry), Viburnum dentatum (arrowwood), and Myrica cerifera (bayberry). Cinna
amndinacca (wood reed) is the dominant herbaceous species.
The principal wetland functions associated with W-2 are groundwater recharge/discharge,
sediment/ toxicant retention, nutrient removal, and wildlife habitat. The observation of a variety
of habitat and the presence of wildlife utilizing it, and its proximity to agricultural activity
dominated the evaluators overall impression of the functions of this wetland.
Wetland 5A (5A and 5) is located on the west side of US 113, approximately 1,000-feet south of
Public Landing Road. The wetland appears to have formed in an excavated area, possibly
created as a borrow pit for the original construction of US 113. The wetland does not appear to
have a direct hydrologic connection by way of surface waters. The area consists of palustrine
emergent wetlands along the edge of right-of-way, with palustrine scrub/shrub wetlands within
the interior of the wetland. Dominant vegetation includes Baccharis halimifolia (groundsel tree),
Phragmites australis (common reed), Dichanthelium acuminatum (panic grass), Pinus taeda
(loblolly pine), Juncus effusiis (soft rush), and Smilax rotundifolia (common greenbriar).
Principal functions and values associated with the wetland are groundwater recharge/discharge
and wildlife habitat. The observation of a variety of habitat and the presence of wildlife utilizing
it dominated the evaluators overall impression of the functions of this wetland.
Wetland 8 (W-6, W-7, and W-8) is located on either side of US 113 within the floodplain of
Pumell Branch, approximately 400-feet south of where the Maryland and Delaware Railroad
crosses the roadway. Pumell Branch is joined by Patty's Branch just to the east (upstream) of the
US 113 crossing over the waterway. The wetland is classified as a palustrine forested wetland
with a seasonal saturated water regime (PFO2/1E). Dominant vegetation observed in the forest
canopy includes Taxodium distichum (bald cypress), Acer rubrum (red maple) and Liquidambar
styraciflua (sweet gum). The shrub layer is dominated by Clethra alnifolia (coast pepperbush),
Vaccinium corymbosum (highbush blueberry), Alnus serndata (alder), and Ilex verticillata
(winterberry). The'dominant herbaceous species are Cinna arundinacea (wood reed), Osmunda
regalis (royal fem), and Saururus cernnus (lizards tail). The wetland was inundated to a depth of
4-inches throughout the majority of the floodplain. Other hydrologic indicators include water
marks, drainage patterns and water stained leaves.
The wetland is of particular note because it is dominated by bald cypress. Principal wetland
functions and values associated with the wetland are groundwater recharge/discharge, floodflow
floodplain alteration, sediment/toxicant retention, nutrient removal, production export, wildlife
habitat, uniqueness/heritage kakkat, and visual quality/aesthetics. The observation of a variety of
habitat and the presence of wildlife utilizing it, proximity to agricultural activity, and the
-------
U.S 113 Meeting Minutes
Aoptil 3-4,1997
Revised December 8. 1997
PageS
presence of unique species dominated the evaluators overall impression of the functions of this
" Wetland 9 ( W-9 W-10, and W-ll) is located on either side of US 113 in the floddplain of
Poorhouse Branch. The stream crosses US 113 approximately 250-feet north of Cedartown
Road. The area is classified as both a palustrine forested and a palustrine emergent wetland with
a saturated water regime (PFO/PEM1B). Dominant vegetation in the forested portions of the
wetland me hides Acer rubrum (red maple), and Salbc nigra (black willow) in the canopy and
Alnus sermlata (alder) in the shrub layer. The emergent wetland is dominated by Cephalanthus
occidentals (buttonbush), Impatiens capensis (jewelweed), Veronia noveboracensis (New York
ironweed), and Asclepias incamata (swamp milkweed). The wetland was inundated and
flowing, with water depths ranging from 6 to 12-inches. Water marks, sediment deposits and
drainage patterns were also observed.
Principal wetland functions and values associated with the wetland are sediment/ toxicant
, retention, nutrient removal, and wildlife habitat. The observation of a variety of habitat and the
presence of wildlife utilizing it as well as the wetlands proximity to agricultural activity
dominated the evaluators overall impression of the functions of this wetland.
Wetland 13 (W-12 and W-13) is located within the floodplain of Porter Creek which crosses US
1 13 just north of Newark Road. The area is classified as a palustrine forested wetland with a
saturated water regime (PFO1B). Dominant canopy vegetation in the wetland includes Acer
rubrum (red maple), Fraxinw pennsylvanica (green ash), Nyssa sylvatica (black gum) and
Liquidambar styraciflua (sweet gum). The dominant understory and shrub species are Magnolia
virginiana (sweet bay), Lindera benzoin (spicebush) and Clethra alnifolia (coast pepperbush)
The herbaceous layer is dominated by Symplocarpus foetidus (skunk cabbage), Saururus
cernuus (lizards tail), Impatiens capensis (jewelweed), Boehmeria cylindrica (false nettle) and
Woodwardia areolata (netted chainfern).
Principal wetland functions and values associated with the wetland are floodflow floodplain
alteration, sediment/toxicant retention, nutrient removal, production export, wildlife habitat
uniqueness/heritage babitat, and visual quality/aesthetics. The observation of a variety and
abundance of habitat and the presence of wildlife utilizing it and the wetlands proximity to
agricultural activity, streams, and inland bays dominated the evaluators overall impression of the
functions of this wetland.
Wetland 15 is a wetland of special state concern located on the west side of US 113
approximately 1,700 feet north of Downes Road. Alnus maritima (seaside alder) is located along
the road ditch and is listed as a state rare species. The area is classified as a palustrine forested
wetland with a seasonal water regime (PFO1C). At the time of the field visit, the wetland was
inundated to a depth of 3-inches and sediment deposits and drainage patterns were observed
Dominant vegetation within the canopy of the wetland includes Acer rubrum (red maple) and
Nyssa sylvatica (black gum). The understory and shrub layers are dominated by Magnolia
virgimana (sweetbay), Lindera benzoin (spicebush), Viburnum dentatum (arrowwood) and
-------
U,S 113 Meeting Minutes
April 3-4, 1997
Revised Dt>ct>mber S. 1997
Page 6
Almts maritima (seaside alder). The dominant herbaceous species are Woodwardia areolata
(netted chainfem) and Boehmeria cylindrica (false nettle).
Principal wetland functions and values associated with the wetland are groundwater
recharge/discharge, sediment/toxicant retention, nutrient removal, wildlife habitat, aa4
uniqueness/heritage habitat, and endangered species habitat. The observation of a variety of
habitat and the presence of wildlife utilizing it as well as the wetlands proximity to agricultural
activity and the presence of a unique endangered species dominated the evaluators overall
impression of the functions of this wetland.
Wetland 16 is located within the floodplain of Goody Hill Branch, which crosses US 113
approximately 2,600-feet north of Downes Road. The area is classified as a palustrine forested
wetland with a seasonal water regime (PFO1C). The wetland was inundated at the time of the
field visit with water depths ranging from 2 to 4-inches. Drainage patterns were also noted.
Dominant vegetation within the wetland includes Acer rubrum (red maple), Fraxinus
pennsylvanica (green ash) and Liquidambar styracijlua (sweet gum) in the canopy, Viburnum
dentatum (arrowwood) and Smilax rotundifolia (greenbrier) in the shrub layer and Impatiens
capensis (jewelweed), Boehmeria cylindrica (false nettle) and Saururus cernuus (lizards tail) in
the herbaceous layer.
Principal wetland functions and values associated with the wetland are groundwater
recharge/discharge, floodflow floodplain alteration, sediment/toxicant retention, nutrient
removal, and wildlife habitat. The observation of a variety of habitat and the presence of wildlife
utilizing it as well as the wetlands proximity to streams and agricultural activity dominated the
evaluators overall impression of the functions of this wetland.
Wetland 18 (W-18, W-19, W-20, W-21, and W-22) is located on both sides of US 113, just
south of Bays End Lane. The wetland is associated with an unnamed tributary to Catbird Creek
and is classified as a palustrine forested wetland with a seasonal saturated water regime (PFO1E).
The wetland was inundated up to a depth of 3-inches in some places. Areas that were not
inundated were saturated to the surface and the trunks of the trees within the wetland were
buttressed. Dominant vegetation in the wetland canopy includes Acer rubrum (red maple),
Nyssa sylvatica (black gum), and Liquidambar styraciflua (sweet gum). The dominant
understory and shrub species are Ilex opaca (American holly), Magnolia virginiana (sweetbay),
Viburnum dentatum (arrowwood) and Rhododendron viscosum (swamp azalea). Sphagnum
moss was the dominant species in the herbaceous layer.
Principal wetland functions and values associated with the wetland are groundwater recharge/
discharge, floodflow floodplain alteration, sediment/toxicant retention, nutrient removal, and
wildlife habitat. The observation of a variety of habitat and the presence of wildlife utilizing it as
well as the wetlands proximity to streams and agricultural activity dominated the evaluators
overall impression of the functions of this wetland.
Wetland 23 (W-23, W-24, and W-25) is located approximately 800-feet north of the split for the
existing dualized portion of US 113, and is classified as a palustrine forested wetland with a
-------
U.S 113 Meeting Minutes
A.pril 3-4, 1997
Revised December S. 1997
Page?
seasonal water regime (PFO1C). The wetland includes four depressions that are located within a
wooded area bounded by the Maryland and Delaware Railroad and US 113. Surface water runoff
is impeded by a constricted outlet beneath the railroad. . Dominant vegetation in the wetland
includes Acer rubrum (red maple), Liquidambar styraciflua (sweet gum ) and Nyssa sylvatica
(black gum) in the canopy, Leucothoe racemosa (fetterbush) and Viburnum nudum
(possum-haw) in the shrub layer and Wodwardia areolata (netted-chain fern) in the herbaceous
layer. Wetlands 24 and 25 are larger, more intact systems not entirely mapped by this study.
Principal wetland functions and values associated with the wetland are groundwater
recharge/discharge, nutrient removal, and wildlife habitat. The observation of a variety of habitat
and the presence of wildlife utilizing it as well as the wetlands proximity to agricultural activity
dominated the evaluators overall impression of the functions of this wetland
Wetland 26 is located along Alternate 4N Modified, approximately 2,200-feet north of the
southern boundary of the northern study area. The area is adjacent to the railroad line and is
primarily a mix of palustrine forested and palustrine scrub-shrub wetland with a saturated water
regime (PFO/PSS1B). A small portion of the wetland is also currently under cultivation and has
been classified as a farmed wetland during the jurisdictional determination. The wetland forms in
a topographic low and was inundated to a depth of 4-inches in some areas. Surface water runoff
is impeded by a constricted outlet beneath the Maryland and Delaware Railroad. The canopy of
the forested wetland is dominated by Acer rubrum (red maple) and Liquidambar styraciflua
(sweet gum). The shrub layer in the forested and scrub-shrub wetland is dominated by Myrica
cerifera (bayberry), Baccharis halimifolia (groundsel tree), and Smilax rotundifolia (common
greenbrier), while the dominant herbaceous species is Juncus effusus (soft rush). In the
agricultural field, the dominant vegetation includes Juncus effusus (soft rush), Scirpus cyperinus
(wool grass), Agrostis alba (redtop), Polygonum sp. (smartweed species), and Carex sp. (sedge
species).
Principal wetland functions and values associated with the wetland are groundwater
recharge/discharge, nutrient removal, wildlife habitat, and visual quality/ aesthetics. The
observation of an abundance and variety of habitat and the presence of wildlife utilizing it as well
-is th° wetlands proximity to agricultural activity dominated the evaluators overall impression
the functions of this wetland.
. r
01
Wetland 37 (W-27, W-37, and W-39) is large system located on the west side of US 113. It
begins approximately 2,500-feet north of Bishopville Road and extends parallel to US 113 for a
distance of approximately 2,600-feet. The area is classified as a palustrine forested wetland with
a saturated water regime (PFO1B) and has formed in a broad flat area with scattered unvegetated
depressional areas. The land surface has been significantly disturbed by past logging activities
within the wetland. Dominant woody vegetation in the wetland includes Acer rubrum (red
maple), Onerous phellos (willow oak) and Liquidambar styraciflua (sweet gum) in the canopy,
Magnolia virginiana (sweetbay) in the understory, and Vaccinium corymbosum (highbush
blueberry) in the shrub layer. The dominant herbaceous species include Woodwardia areolata
(netted chainfern) and Carex sp. (sedge species).
-------
U.S 113 Meeting Minutes
April 3-4, 1997
Revised December 8. 1997
Page 8
Principal wetland functions and values associated with the wetland are groundwater
recharge/discharge, nutrient removal, and wildlife habitat. The observation of a variety of habitat
and the presence of wildlife utilizing it as well as the wetlands proximity to agricultural activity
dominated the evaluators overall impression of the functions of this wetland.
Wetland 313S (W-28, W-30, W-31 and W-40) is located along Birch Branch which crosses US
113 approximately 1,300-feet north of Peerless Road. The wetland has formed within the
floodplain of the stream and is confined by the steep slopes which border the edges of the
floodplain. The area is classified as a palustrine forested wetland with a seasonally saturated
water regime (PFO1E). The canopy of the forest within the wetland is dominated by Acer
rubriim (red maple), Liquidambar styraciflua (sweet gum), and Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green
ash). Ilex opaca (American holly), Lindera benzoin (spicebush), Ilex verticillata (winterberry)
and Magnolia virginiana (sweetbay) are the dominant shrub/understory species, while Arisaema
triphyllum (jack-in-the-pulpit), Woodwardia areolata (netted chainfem), Osmunda cinnamomea
(cinnamon fern) and Saumrus cernuus (lizards tail) are dominant in the herbaceous layer.
Principal wetland functions and values associated with the wetland are groundwater
recharge/discharge, floodflow .floodplain alteration, fish and shellfish habitat, sediment/toxicant
retention, nutrient removal, production export, sediment/shoreline stabilization, wildlife habitat,
and visual quality/aesthetics. The observation of a variety and abundance of habitat and the
presence of wildlife utilizing it, the wetlands proximity to agricultural activity, and the size of the
associated stream dominated the evaluators overall impression of the functions of this wetland.
Wetland 29 is located northeast of the US 113 crossing of Church Branch, approximately 100'
northwest of where Alternate 4N Modified emerges from the floodplain of Church Branch. The
wetland has formed in an excavated depression that is most likely the result of past sand or
gravel borrow operations. The area is classified as a palustrine forested wetland with a
seasonally saturated water regime (PFO1E). Dominant vegetation within the wetland includes
Acer rubrum (red maple), Liquidambar styraciflua (sweet gum), and Pinus taeda (loblolly pine)
in the canopy and understory, Clethra alnifolia 4(coast pepperbush) in the shrub layer and
Phragmites australis (common reed) in the herbaceous layer.
Principal wetland functions and values associated with the wetland are groundwater
recharge/discharge, and wildlife habitat. The observation of a variety of habitat and the presence
of wildlife utilizing it dominated the evaluators overall impression of the functions of this
wetland.
Wetland 24 33- (W-33, W-34, and W-36) is located along existing US 113, approximately 100-
feet south of Kepler Lane. The area is classified as a palustrine forested wetland with a saturated
water regime (PFO1B). The land surface has been disturbed and is characterized by scattered
unvegetated depressions. Dominant woody vegetation observed in the wetland includes Acer
ntbnun (red maple), Nyssa sylvatica (black gum) and Liquidambar styraciflua (sweet gum) in
the canopy, Magnolia virginiana (sweetbay) in the understory, and Clethra alnifolia (coast
pepperbush) in the shrub layer. The dominant herbaceous specie's are Woodwardia areolata
(netted chainfem), and Osmunda cinnan\omea (cinnamon fem).
-------
April 3-4, 1997
Revised December 8. 1997
Page 9
and the presence of wildlife utilizing
dom,na,ed the evaluate, ove.,, i
the
please contact Ricardo Gonzalez at (410) 956-9000.
cc: Attendees
Sue Rajan (SHA-PPD)
Lisa Zeimer (RKK)
watad «
°bSerVa"°n of a varie
-------
-------
VI.
LIST OF PREPARERS
US 113 Planning Study
Snow Hill, Maryland to Delaware State Line
o
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Maryland State Highway Administration
-------
ii
'i!
'•If:
imSM
ma
w&
•I
ffi 'ii ! !!!!; !:• I !
$ i
•• i
1
ii m
ji|. M . "!l ||;.'., ' ji:!'' ,'»
, ;!1!!!!!:!v:::!!!hi:4l Pi
IP ,i** I i:!:!';
11 ''.''i I'll 'I" II, III I 1 I •„ I' ft' ' Hii'S'l ' "''
„•«,;•
.
•
-------
US 113 Planning Study
VI. LIST OF PREPARERS
A. Federal Highway Administration
Renee Sigel
Planning, Research and Environmental Team Leader
Mary Huie
Environmental Engineer
Kelly Hutchinson
Area Engineer
B. Maryland State Highway Administration
Louis Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Cynthia Simpson
Deputy Division Chief for Project Planning
James Wynn
Assistant Division Chief Project Management
Joseph Kresslein
Assistant Division Chief Environmental Management
Sue Raj an
Project Manager
Lorraine Strow
Environmental Manager
Catherine Maher
Project Engineer
Richard Ervin
Archeologist .
Rita Suffness
Architectural Historian
VI-1
-------
US 113 Planning Study
C. Rummel, Klepper and Kahl Team
1. Rummel Klepper and Kahl
David W. Wallace, PE
Partner - Transportation Planning
Andrew C. Parker (1995, 1996)
Project Manager
Lisa Zeimer
Project Planner
Ernest G. Disney
Designer
Robert L. Shaffer
Designer
Kevin P. Hughes
Noise Analyst
Barry L. Brandt, PE
Noise Analyst
James A. Burnett, BIT
Transportation Engineer
Jennifer L. Harrington
Soils/Geotechnical Engineer
Sherry B. Ways
Transportation Planner
Jeremy S. Madaras
Environmental Scientist - Wetlands
Robert E. Palmer, MS
Environmental Engineer - Wetlands
VI-2
-------
US 113 Planning Study
D.
2. Coastal Resources, Inc.
Betsy Weinkam
President
Charles Weinkam
Environmental Scientist
Gary Jellick
Environmental Scientist
Sarah Williamson
Environmental Specialist
3. Daniel Consultants, Inc.
Larry Green, PE
Project Engineer
4. A.D. Marble & Associates
Andrew C. Parker (1997)
Environmental Scientist
Other Consultants to SHA
1. KCI Technologies, Inc.
(Socio-Economic Analyses)
Patricia L. Hegberg
Environmental Planner
Steven Linhart
Environmental Planner
Nicholas S. Blendy
Environmental Planner
Richard A. Geidel
Cultural Resources Director
Margaret Bishop Parker
Senior Architectural Historian
VI-3
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Stuart P. Dixon
Senior Historian
2. The Wilson T. Ballard Company
(Air Quality Analyses)
Michael K. Kelly, PE
Air Quality Manager
3. Garrow & Associates, Inc.
(Cultural Resources)
Paul Webb
Senior Archeologist
Todd Cleveland
Architectural Historian
Thomas Lilly
Field Director
4. Gannet Fleming, Inc.
(Residual Waste Analyses)
Aaron M. Keel
Environmental Scientist
Scott J. Beeman
Environmental Engineer
David B. Smyth, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Chen Y. Yen, Ph.D., P.E., CHMM
Senior Chemist/Manager
Richard A. Pugh, C.E.
Environmental Manager
VI-4
-------
VII.
DISTRIBUTION LIST
US 113 Planning Study
Snow Hill, Maryland to Delaware State Line
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Maryland State Highway Administration
-------
1
.i;«rih:;i«ii; . i ..hte '.
a ! i
:; : x I S :
t: i!
:!: :
' ^v-i^.^:*«.irpii»'«A'«iww««i)««n™iiiHi»iiHiwitwi,
-------
US 113 Planning Study
VII. DISTRIBUTION LIST
^ Federal Agencies
Dr. Jerry Burke
State Conservationist
Natural Resource Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
339 Revell Highway, Suite 301
Annapolis, MD 21401
Mr. Jonathan Deason, Director
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
U.S. Department of the Interior
Main Interior Building, MS 2340
18th and C Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region ffl
Mr. Roy Denmark
NEPA Program Manager (3EP30)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Attention: Ms. Danielle Agazzi
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Federal Activities
NEPA Compliance Division
EIS Filing Section
Mail Code 2252-A
401 M. Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Mr. John Nichols
Habitat and Protected Resources
National Marine Fisheries Service
904 South Morris Street
Oxford, MD 21654
Mr. Donald Klima
Chief, Office of Planning and Review
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 809
Washington, D.C. 20004
VII-1
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Mr. John Wolflin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Delmarva Office
177 Admiral Cochrane Drive
Annapolis, MD 21401
Attention: Mr. David Sutherland
Commander
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O.Box 1715
10 S. Howard Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
Attention: Ms. Michelle Gomez
CENAB-OP-RX
Mr. Steven Graham
Federal Railroad Administration
Office of Economic Analysis
(RRP-32)
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
Ms. Cathryn Pomerantz
Environmental Officer
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Liberty Square Building
105 South 7th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Attention: Mr. Walter Pierson
State Agencies
Ms. Linda Janey, Chief
State Clearinghouse
Maryland Office of Planning
301 West Preston Street, Room 1101
Baltimore, MD 21201
State Clearinghouse Distribution
Local Governments
Maryland Office of Planning
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Budget and Fiscal Planning
Department of General Services
Department of Housing and Community Development
Department of Education
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
Interagency Committee for School Construction
Maryland Historical Trust
Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
V7/-2
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Ms. Kathleen Fay
Maryland State Department of Education
State Depository Distribution Center
Public Depository and Distribution Program
Enoch Pratt Free Library
400 Cathedral Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
Mr. Ray Dintaman
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Unit
Tawes State Office Building, B-3
Annapolis, MD 21401
Mr. Elder Ghigiarelli
Water Management Administration
Maryland Department of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
Mr. Steve Dawson
Non-Tidal Wetlands & Waterways Division
Water Management Administration
Maryland Department of the Environment
District Court/Multiservice Center
201 Baptist Street #22
Salisbury, MD 21801
Director
Public Affairs
Maryland Department of Transportation
BWI Airport
Mr. Fred Rappe, Director
Office of Systems Planning
and Evaluation
Maryland Department of Transportation
BWI Airport
Office of General Counsel
Maryland Department of Transportation
BWI Airport
VII-3
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Others
Maryland State Law Library
Upper Level Court of Appeal Building
361 Rowe Boulevard
Annapolis, MD 21401
Ms. Lynda Davis, Director
Library and Information Services Division
Legislative Reference Library
90 State Circle
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
County / Local Government
Worcester Planning Department
1 West Market Street
Room 1116 Court House
Snow Hill MD 21863-1070
Worcester Police/Fire/Emergency
1 West Market Street
Room L14 Court House
Snow Hill MD 21863
Worcester Department of Public Works
c/o Worcester County Commissioners
1 West Market Street
Court House
Snow Hill, MD 21863
Worcester Department of Parks and Recreation
6022 Public Landing Road
Snow Hill, MD 21863
Worcester Department of Economic Development
105 Pearl Street
Snow Hill, MD 21863
The Honorable James Barrett
President
Worcester County Commissioners
Courthouse
Snow Hill, MD 21863
The Honorable Robert Cowger, Jr.
Commissioner
Worcester County Commissioners
Courthouse
Snow Hill, MD 21863
VI1-4
-------
US 113 Planning Study
The Honorable Jeanne Lynch
Commissioner
Worcester County Commissioners
Courthouse
Snow Hill, MD 21863
The Honorable James Purnell
Commissioner
Worcester County Commissioners
Courthouse
Snow Hill, MD 21863
The Honorable Granville Trimper
Vice President
Commissioner
Worcester County Commissioners
Courthouse
Snow Hill, MD 21863
Citizens Groups
Mr. Robert G. Hulburd, President
CRASH
3122 Ocean Pines
Berlin, MD 21811
Mr. Michael Pennington, President
Friendship Community Association
10143 Three Penny Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
Mr. H. Clay Reister, IV, Vice President
Friendship Community Association
10577 Worcester Highway
Berlin, MD 21811
Mr. David H. Vomacka, Ph.D.
Woolpert LLP
409 East Monument Avenue
Dayton, OH 45402-1261
VII-5
-------
-------
VIII.
REFERENCES
£75 113 Planning Study
Snow Hill, Maryland to Delaware State Line
0
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
War/land State Highway Administration
-------
*'!<: |
m i I I! i i
'I ! 1 i
! IT B|
« ilj
i
ii: i*
j \jf is
m
rSi'ii ti.||;;l fr'i-'-
I I :ii II
, -• •" v&,, . v,MV.,^*'
-------
US 113 Planning Study
VIII. REFERENCES
ACOE, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Environmental Laboratory
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. '
ACOE, 1995. The Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement - Wetland Functions and Values •
A Descriptive Approach. US Army Corps of Engineers New England Division. 32 pp. NEDEpl
0360-l-30a.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 1990 "A Policy on
Geometric Design of Streets and Highways". Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
Barrett, Michael E., Robert D. Zuber, E. R. Collins HI, Joseph F. Malina, Jr., Randall J. Charbeneau
and George H. Ward. 1993. A Review and Evaluation of Literature Pertaining To The Quantity and
Control of Pollution From Highway Runoff and Construction. Auxtin, TX: Center for
Transportation Research.
Bohlen, Curtis; Catherine Stokes; David Goshom; and Wlater Boynton. 1997. Today's Treasures
for Tomorrow, Annapolis, MD: Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Baudrau, Diane, 1997. Worcester County Planning Permits and Inspections Office Personal
communication. Snow Hill, Maryland.
Brown, Mamie. 1997. Personal communication. Colliers Pinckard, Marketing Department
Baltimore, Maryland.
Burke, Robert C. and James A Sherburne. 1983. "Monitoring, Wildlife Populations and Activity
Along 1-95 to Northern Maine Before, During and After Construction". Washington D C •
Transportation Research Record 859. '
Claville, Judy. 1997. Personal communication. Worcester County Health Department. Snow Hill
Maryland. '
Coastal Board of Realtors. 1997. Listing Summary Report of Properties for Sale. Salisbury
Maryland. J'
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. US Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. GPO
Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. "Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National
Environmental Policy Act". Washington, D.C.: Council on Environmental Quality.
VIII-1
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Daniels, Bob. 1997. Personal communication. Maryland Department of the Environment.
Baltimore, Maryland.
Davidson, Lynn. 1996. Personal communication. Annapolis, Maryland: Maryland Department of
Natural Resources.
Delaware Department of Transportation. September 9, 1997. "Delaware's Corridor Capacity
Preservation Program."
Department of Geology, Mines, and Water Resources. 1955. "Somerset, Wicomico and Worcester
Counties Water Resources", State of Maryland.
Dintaman.RayCJr. 1995. Personal communication. Annapolis, Maryland: Maryland Department
of Natural Resources.
Dooling, R.J. 1982. "Auditor Perception in Birds." In Acoustic Communication in Birds, Vol. 1.
New York, NY: Academic Press
Draft Environmental Assessment, US 113, Georgetown to Milford, Delaware Department of
Transportation, 1992.
Driscoll E P E. Shelley, and E.W. Strecker, 1990. Pollutant Loadings and Impacts from Highway
Stormwater Runoff, Volumes HV. Federal highway Administration. Oakland, CA: Woodward-
Clyde Consultants, Inc.
Dupis T J Kester, P. Bretram, Jr. Meyer, M. Smith, and N. Kobriger. 1985. "Effects of Highway
Run-Off on Receiving Water. Volume H." Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
Environmental Work Group. 1998. Http.//wyl.ewg.org. 'Toxic Chemical Discharges."
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1979 and 1983 "Hood Insurance Rate Maps for Worcester
County, Maryland Unincorporated Area". Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
Federal Highway Administration. 1992. Project Development Branch, HEP-31. "Secondary and
Cumulative Impact Assessment in the Highway Project Development Process". Washington, D.C.:
Federal Highway Administration.
Federal Highway Administration. 1981. "Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects".
Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Transportation.
Federal Highway Administration. 1976. "Highway Runoff Water Quality Training Course Student
Workbook." Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
VIII-2
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Gannett Fleming. December 1997. "Phase H: Part 1: Preliminary Site Screening Investigation".
Baltimore, Maryland: Maryland State Highway Administration.
Gannett Fleming. 1995. "Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment". Baltimore, Maryland: Maryland
State Highway Administration.
Gong, E.J. Jr.. (Http://www.abcnews.com/sections/scitech/pfiesteria0919/) 1997.
Gross, Steve. 1997. Personal communication. Communications Director, Ocean Pines Association.
Ocean Pines, Maryland.
Hagar, Philip. 1997 and 1998. Personal communication. Worcester County Planning, Permits and
Inspections. Snow Hill, Maryland.
Haubert, John. 1997. Personal Communication. National Park Service. Washington, D.C.
Hastings, Robert. 1997. Personal communication. Ocean City Water Treatment Facility. Ocean
City, Maryland.
Heath, Ralph C. 1984. "Groundwater Regions of the United States." Washington, DC: US Geologic
Survey.
Hicks, Thomas, Memorandum: Use of Barriers on Two-lane Roadways - US 113 - Snow Hill to
Delaware State Line, Worcester County, Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway
Administration, 1997.
Hitchinson, K.E., Memorandum: Review of Proposed Modification to Draft EIS Alternatives - US
113 - Snow Hill to Delaware State Line, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, 1997.
Houston, Jesse. 1997. Personal communication. Ocean City, Maryland: Director, Ocean City
Department of Planning and Community Development.
Kobriger, N.P. 1984. "Source and Mitigation of Highway Runoff Pollutants -Volume I: Executive
Summary." Washington, DC.
Kobriger, N.P., T.L., Meinholz, M.K. Gupta, and R.W. Agnew. 1981. "Constituents of Highway
Runoff - Volume EH: Final Report." Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration.
Leedy, Daniel L. and Lowell W. Adams. 1982. "Wildlife Considerations in Planning and Managing
Highway Corridors." Columbia, Maryland: Urban Wildlife Research Center.
Lower Eastern Shore Tributary Team. 1996. Lower Eastern Shore Tributary Team Annual Report:
1995-1996. Salisbury, MD: Lower Eastern Shore Tributary Team.
VIII-3
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Luckman, Steve. 1997. Personal communication. Maryland Department of the Environment.
Baltimore, Maryland.
Lung, Wu-Seng. 1994. Water Quality Modelling of the St. Martin River, Assawoman and Isle of
Wigh't Bays. Baltimore, MD: Maryland Department of the Environment.
Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation. 1997. http.\\www.mda.state.md.us. Maryland Agricultural
Land Preservation Program.
Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development. 1995-96. Worcester County,
Maryland Brief Economic Facts. Baltimore; Division of Marketing, Maryland Department of
Business and Economic Development.
Maryland Department of the Environment. 1996. Maryland Water Quality Inventory, 1993-1995
(305(b) report). Baltimore, MD: Maryland Department of the Environment.
Maryland Department of the Environment. Environmental Permits Service Center.
"Facility/Application Summary Report for Worcester County, Maryland 1/92-7/97", "Nontidal
Wetland Impact Data by Watershed Segment- 1/91 to 12/31/96"
Maryland Department of Geology, Mining, and Water Resources. 1955. "Somerset, Wicomico, and
Worcester Counties Water Resources." Baltimore, Maryland.
Maryland Department of Labor, 1997. Personal communication, Baltimore; Maryland Department
of Labor.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1997. http.//www.gacc.com. "Maryland Seed Tree
Law."
Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1997. http.//www.gacc.com. "Roadside Tree Law."
Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1996. Personal communication. Annapolis, Maryland:
Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1995. Floodplain Maps. Annapolis, Maryland:
Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources. April 1989. Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quad Maps.
Annapolis, Maryland: Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1986. A Guide to the Conservation of Forest Interior
Dwelling Birds in the Critical Area. Annapolis, MD: Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission.
VIII-4
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Maryland Department of Transportation. 1995. Consolidated Transportation Program-1995 State
Report on Transportation FY 1995-FY 2000. Linthicum, Maryland: Maryland Department of
Transportation.
Maryland Geologic Survey. 1978. "Geologic Map of Worcester County." Baltimore, Maryland:
Maryland Geologic Survey.
Maryland Office of Planning. 1997. http.//www.mop.md.gov. "Existing and Potential Development:
Worcester County".
Maryland Office of Planning. 1997. http.//www.inform.umd.edu. "Worcester County Demographic
& Socio-Economic Information."
Maryland Office of Planning. 1997. http.//www.mop.md.gov/smartgrowth/. "Smart Growth and
Neighborhood Conservation". Maryland Office of Planning, Baltimore, Maryland.
Maryland Office of Planning. 1995. "Population Projections". Maryland Office of Planning,
Planning Data Services: Baltimore, Maryland.
Maryland Office of Planning - Planning Data Services. December, 1995. "Jobs-By-Place-Of Work
For Maryland Subdivisions." Maryland Office of Planning: Baltimore, Maryland
Maryland Office of Planning. 1994. "The Potential For New Residential Development in Maryland -
An Analysis of Residential Zoning Patterns". Maryland Office of Planning: Baltimore, Maryland.
Maryland Office of Planning, 1992. "Maryland Land Use/Land Cover 1990-2020 Forecast".
Maryland Office of Planning: Baltimore, Maryland.
Maryland Office of Planning, 1992. Land Use/Land Cover. Maryland Office of Planning:
Baltimore, Maryland.
Maryland Office of Planning, 1991. "Maryland's Land 1973-1990, A Changing Resource".
Publication 91-8. Maryland Office of Planning, Baltimore, Maryland.
Maryland State Data Center. 1997. httpy/www.mform.umd.edu. "Worcester County Housing Units
Authorized for Construction."
Maryland State Data Center. 1997. http.//www.mop.md.gov. Worcester County Forecasts.
Maryland State Data Center. Personal communication. 1997. Worcester County 2020 Forecasts,
revised June 1995.
Maryland State Highway Administration. No date. "Relocation Assistance - Your Rights and Your
Benefits" - Office of Real Estate: Baltimore, Maryland
VIII-5
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Maryland Stale Roads Commission. 1958. "A History of Road Building in Maryland". Baltimore,
Maryland.
Maryland State Roads Commission. No Date. "Construction Record for Roadlife Studies".
Planning Survey. Baltimore, Maryland.
McGee, H.W., et al., Effect of Highway Standards on Safety, NCHRP Report No. 374,
Transportation Research Board, 1995.
McGehan, Terry. 1977. Ocean City Engineering Department. Personal communication. Ocean
City, Maryland
McNabb, Tony. 1997. Personal communication. Worcester County Board of Education. Snow Hill,
Maryland.
McNally, M.G., Merheb, Omar. 1991 The Impact of Jersey Barriers on the Frequency and Severity
of Freeway Accidents, Institute of Transportation Studies.
Michael, Edwin D. 1975. "Effects of Highways on Wildlife.!' Morgantown, WV: West Virginia
University.
Morris, Harold, 1997. Personal communication. Planning Administrator, Worcester County
Planning, Permits and Inspection Office. Snow Hill, Maryland.
Mower, Judy. 1997. Personal communication. Worcester County Commission on Aging. Berlin,
Maryland.
Muschak, Werner. 1990. Pollution of Street Run-Off by Traffic and Local Conditions.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 197, Cost and Safety Effectiveness of
Highway Design Elements, Transportation Research Board, 1978.
Niehoff, Michael A. Cell from Hell
http://www.creamofthecrop.tierranet.com/grass_man/cellfromhell.htm). September 17, 1997.
North Carolina State University, Aquatic Botany Laboratory Pfiesteria piscicida Home Page.
(Http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/project/aquatic_botany/pfiestAitml). September 17, 1997.
Parker, Gregory. 1996. Personal communication. Worcester County Commission on Aging. Snow
Hill, Maryland.
Parsons, Jim. 1998. Personal communication. Perdue Chicken Corporation. Salisbury, Maryland.
Parsons, Jim. 1997. Personal communication. Perdue Chicken Corporation. Salisbury, Maryland.
VIII-6
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Pruitt, Sue. 1997. Personal communication. Worcester County Health Department*'Snow Hill,
Maryland.
Portele, G.J., B.W. Mar, R.R. Homer, and E.B. Welch. 1982. "Effects of Seattle Area Highway
Stormwater Run-off on Aquatic Biota." Seattle, WA: Washington State Department of
Transportation.
Rosenthal, Warren. 1997. Personal cornmunication. Worcester County Department of Economic
Development. Snow Hill, Maryland.
" . • • •,. t.
Rummel, Klepper and Kahl. 1997. "Technical Memorandum: Research of Median Treatments on
Rural Two-lane Highways". Baltimore, Maryland: Maryland State Highway Administration.
Schemnitz, Sanford D. 1980. Wildlife Management Techniques Manual. Washington, DC: The
Wildlife Society.
Schockley, Robert. 1997. Personal communication, Snow Hill, Maryland: Natural Resource
Conservation Service.
Schueler, Thomas R. and John Galli. 1991. "The Environmental Impacts of Stormwater Ponds."
Washington, DC: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
Seamons, L.L., Smith, R.N., Past and Current Median Barrier Practice in California, California
Department of Transportation, 1991.
Shelsby, Ted and Michael Dresser. 1997. "State to Get $200 Million for Bay Plan". Baltimore Sun.
Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Sun.
Sipple, William. 1994. "A Natural History of the Pocomoke River Watershed with Special
Reference to its Wetlands. *
Slater, David. 1997. Personal communication. Hammer, Siler, George Associates. Silver Spring,
Maryland.
Slater, Gary. 1997. Personal communication. Worcester County Assessment Office, Snow Hill,
Maryland.
Snow Hill Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. 1997. Personal cornmunication. Snow Hill, Maryland.
Soil Conservation Service. 1973 "Soil Survey of Worcester County, Maryland." Snow Hill,
Maryland. United States Department of Agriculture.
VIII-7
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Soil Conservation Service. 1996. "Prime Farmland Soils and Soils of Statewide Importance",
Snow Hill, Maryland. United States Department of Agriculture.
Southerland, Mark. 1993. "Evaluation of Ecological Impacts from Highway Development."
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
State Highway Administration. 1995. "Alternates Public Workshop and Combined Location/Design
Public Hearing". Baltimore, Maryland: Maryland Department of Transportation.
State of Maryland. 1993. Annotated Code of Maryland, Title 5, Subtitle 7A (State Economic Growth,
Resource Protection, and Planning Policy). Charlottesville, Virginia: Michie Publishing Company.
Taylor, Wade. 1997. Personal communication. Assistant Director, Worcester County Fire Marshal.
Snow Hill, Maryland.
Tiner, Ralph W. Jr. 1984. "Wetlands of the United Stated: Current Status and Recent Trends".
Newton Corner, MA: US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Tiner, Ralph W. Jr. 1987. "Mid-Atlantic Wetlands: A Disappearing Natural Treasure". Newton
Corner, MA: US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Tiner, Ralph W., Jr. and David G. Burke. 1995. Wetlands of Maryland. Hadley, MA: US Fish and
Wildlife Service and Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Town of Berlin CDMA. No date. Visit Historic Berlin Brochure. Berlin, Maryland.
Town of Ocean City, Maryland Department of Planning and Community Development. 1994 Socio-
economic Profile 1994. Town of Ocean City, Maryland: Department of Planning and Community
Development.
Town of Ocean City, Maryland Department of Tourism. 1996. Ocean City Maryland 1996 Visitor's
Guide. Town of Ocean City, Maryland: Department of Tourism and Community Relations.
Tustin, John. 1997. Worcester County Department of Public Works. Snow Hill, Maryland
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1992.1990 Census of Population and
Housing, Summary Tape File 3A.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1994. The
Farmland Protection Policy Act. Snow Hill, Maryland: Worcester County.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil Survey of
Worcester County Maryland.
VIII-8
-------
US 113 Planning Study
US Census Bureau. 1996. "Latest Population Estimates". US Census Bureau; Washington, DC
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur In Wetlands:
Maryland. St. Petersburg, Fl.
Virginia Department of Health. (Http://www.vdh.state.va.us/misc/alert.htm). November 3, 1997.
Voss, Carol. 1997. Personal communication. Brickhaven Adult Daycare Center. Snow Hill,
Maryland: Commission on Aging.
Walbeck, David. 1997. Personal communication. Maryland Department of the Environment,
Annapolis, MD: Maryland Department of the Environment.
Wells, David. 1997. Personal communication. Legg Mason, Real Estate Services. Baltimore,
Maryland.
Wilson, John F. 1996. Personal communication. Annapolis, Maryland: Maryland Department of
Natural Resources.
Wilson, Susie. 1997. Maryland State Highway Administration - Office of Traffic and Safety.
Personal communication. Baltimore, Maryland.
Winbrough, Phyllis, 1997. Worcester County Planning Permits and Inspections Office. Personal
communication. Snow Hill, Maryland.
Winters, G.R. and J.L. Gidley. 1980. "Effects of Roadway Run-Off on Algae." Washington, DC:
Federal Highway Administration.
Worcester County Department of Economic Development. 1997.
http.//www.skipjack.net/le_shore/worcestr/sitel.htn. "Worcester County,Maryland: Industrial Sites
- Pocomoke City Industrial Park."
Worcester County Department of Economic Development. 1996. Community Profile 1996/97. Snow
Hill, Maryland: Worcester County Department of Economic Development.
Worcester County Department of Economic Development. 1994. Worcester County Maryland.
Salisbury, Maryland: Cleary Design, Lie.
Worcester County Department of Planning Permits and Inspection. "Building Permits Logs" 1993
1994, 1995, 1996. '
Worcester County Planning Commission. 1997. Draft supplement to the Worcester County 1989
Comprehensive Plan. Snow Hill, MD: Worcester County Planning Commission.
vm-9
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Worcester County Planning Commission, 1997. Supplement to the Worcester County 1989
Comprehensive Plan, Worcester County Maryland. Snow Hill, Maryland.
Worcester County Planning Commission. 1989. Comprehensive Development Plan, Worcester
County Maryland. Snow Hill, Maryland: Redman/Johnston Associates. Ltd.
Worcester County Tourism Office. No date. A Guide to Golfing in Worcester County, Maryland
Brochure. Snow Hill, Maryland: Worcester County Tourism Office.
Worcester County Tourism. Undated. "The Pocomoke River: Maryland's First Wi|d and Scenic
River. Snow Hill, Maryland: Worcester County, undated.
Worcester County Tourism Office. No date. Worcester County, Maryland-Yours to Enjoy Brochure.
Snow Hill, Maryland: Worcester County Tourism Office.
Young, G. Kenneth, Stuart Stein, Pamela Cole, Traci Kammer, Frank Graziano, and Fred Bank.
1996. Evaluation and Management of Highway Runoff Water Quality. Washington, D.C.: Federal
Highway Administration.
Yousef, Y.A., T. Hvitved-Jacobsen, H.H. Harper, and L.Y. Lin. 1990. Heavy Metal Accumulation
and Transport Through Detention Pond Receiving Highway Runoff. The Science of Total
Environment. 93(1990)433-440.
VIII-10
-------
IX.
APPENDICES
US 113 Planning Study
Snow Hilly Maryland to Delaware State Line
0
Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering
Maryland State Highway Administration
-------
,• as!
:i mm !!!!
"A. .'if t1,1,,1'!," : P'v1 •IJ!,l,i" J"!
It
hi IK';':?;" »
^^ ! I
!H« (ill 1
;'!|:;!< ,";!,;• i'j'1!'1' ' j'jiiiili' i|i ':';
^^^^^^^
I!*:,:!1::;;}1:;!!1: ' s
m i i ii
* ill r! ! !'! p
a^
i i
I iiij
mss.
a ii
ii: ,
ill i
1, ! ,:•
•i ": i: ;:;•• f'Ml'J
-------
l/S 773 Planning Study
IX. APPENDICES
Appendix A
Project Plates for Preferred Alternatives, at 1" = 400' Scale
Key Map - Preferred Alternatives
Figure 1 Southern Preferred Alternative
from south of MD 394 (Market Street)
to south of MD 12 (Snow Hill Road)
Figure 2 Southern Preferred Alternative
from south of MD 12 (Snow Hill Road)
to north of MD 394 (Market Street)
Figure 3 Southern Preferred Alternative
from north of MD 394 (Market Street)
to north of Porters Crossing Road
Figure 4 Southern Preferred Alternative
from north of Porters Crossing Road
to north of Basket Switch Road
Figure 5 Southern Preferred Alternative
from north of Basket Switch Road
to south of Newark Road - Gunning Club Lane
Figure 6 Southern Preferred Alternative
from south of Newark Road. - Gunning Club Lane
to south of Ironshire Station Road - Mason Road
Figure 7 Southern Preferred Alternative
from south of Ironshire Station Road - Mason Road
to south of MD 818 (Main Street) - Germantown Road
IX-1
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Figure 8 Northern Preferred Alternatives
from north of MD 818 (Main Street) - Georgetown Road
to north of MD 90 (Ocean Expressway)
Figure 9 Northern Preferred Alternatives
from north of MD 90 (Ocean Expressway)
to south of Kepler Lane
Figure 10 Northern Preferred Alternatives
from south of Kepler Lane
to Delaware State Line
Appendix B
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Forms
Appendix C
Relocation Act
Appendix D
Statewide Comparable Accident Data
Appendix £
Fish and Wildlife Species in Worcester County
Appendix F
Memorandum of Agreement
Appendix G
Index
IX-2
-------
Appendix A
Preferred Alternative Plates, 400-Scale
Key Map + Preferred Alternatives
Figures 1 through 10
-------
it1,,!!1!!' , i Bin '' , ,'l'i ,, < ipi ' <:< ii||<|!||l Ji '/lliiif V >' "i.fcij' I'I
i!.!'!*!!!!*^/!!]'ailllllliaitii''^ ',»i!!!1!;!1'!!!!!"1'" i'11'1"!1'!% 'i:! I!M IM^ H;M mist rtfiim ('War i K"!" gif • SIB i" .r:. "H;;: j
SS^ S'i'M^^ !iiiii>iS 'iSIiii^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ iii'ii^ •' tk :t'' i '!'<,' ,ii liiiE i!i|l<< 11"!1'"" , f '::"' M tsrw&t VMS: M \
i: iiiiitIM^^ i1""ll!:!' ':;!: i11'' iidiii' iiiiii1'!,,' IK/ Iiiiii ii'? i 'f •:«I
iiig|iln^^ liiiiiff(j >i iiiiTit 'lii'0 Eiiitilpi1 ti ;,i'; i :M ft;1' • < > >' ;•,,» •". i v iiiiii1' ]• ;•!' Jiiiii11'!':'1!'?! [
14Kii 1,110111111 iiiiiiiiiiaiiiw^^^^^ .in ir nc • i1' 'jjii, ,11 'jii::in ':'', :,:u,,,im i1:HI:I»:"'!',,,ii
':tiHt "!"I'11III11I!!I1!>'«1L <>'" ..... EflliiW IIIIHiiliV
•••ill11! 'iljlll! ....... 11 !{i(lin»^^^^ ll«l •" "ill ...... : :;>! '!;
, ' ....... !":' ...... 1 1, " ^l V :. ' ,, eii 1 r '"'':" ,11 ' v1,,". >./ v> ?i,!"'''' i, ft i; ii
•iiiiiliiiiiiii: iiDiiniiniii iiiiii'iiiiiiiK : iiiiiiiiiiiH^ iiiiij'HiiH 'iiii tni ii' i, ,i"'in!' in I1 r' ii ii :; v, 'wi1" iiiiiiB i1 ,i Jiiiii+i1 ri1:1: iii"i:i I
1II1IIIIIB ' 111 •OIIIIIU^^^^^ iillin1 ln .III ' i,|| i i]|||i ,],• n diiiuhii „ r ' ft,'" n n; i, i,:' II ,:!'<, :,:, j|lilli|n"'' II' ,1; |il II illlK
MiiIllH^^^^^^^^^ lir Eft 111 «1H^ lil!M^^^^^^^^^^^ IliiB^^ l:,i!i' ii1
( I
IL;:>> lirinVM' llhllKi:,!1,;!!!! I; I'jililiillllll iniuim'
s\, uai j i!*1 ,,:ii 'iiiniinnii!,, < nn<' ;i >
ss 'is \\ tunna ::;v i M
ni: 4"x:,f~ \\± n unt :' ..... i^iiiKl!1 :n' u i s •" fli1 wiiEi c iin, i, ..... ;i<' „,, i ..... it • A ..... a A i: »!! '!': v,i: .,,:, MA: wv^ > ' i: ;, a11' • , '.i, ,j ...... • ..... nr le1:1; aii, • j, ,: ,!!i:::i!i!||i iJiiB!:!1 a1 !• , a I
-------
DELAWARE
MARYLAND
. /•'.•?':•'•. . ^ ./• >L ,a|l? Showell
Figure 9
_^, — ^ .-__j
"'!F--'"ili.H
Northern Study Area
7.5 miles
F ijf-: • '
Southern Study Area
miles
ASSA71EAGUE •.
Figure S
Figure 4 ';."
Snow Hill
Figure 2
j^ Spsnce.
X Public Land
US 113 PLANNING STUDY
Key Map for
Preferred Alternatives
Maryland
State Highway
Administration
February, 1998
-------
-------
Appendix B
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form
-------
Ill lllllllllllllllllIB 111 Illlllllllllllllllllllllll III 111
III III Illllllllllllll 11111 111 111 111 II III 111 I III 111 III 111
II 111 III 111 11III Illlllllllllllllllllllllll III III
Illlllllllllllllllllllllll I Illlllllllllllllllllll I 111 111 Illllllllllllll Illlllllllllllllllllllllll III I 111 111 I 111 Illllllllllllll II I 111 I I I Illllllllllllll 111 Illllllllllllll I 111 I II 111 I 111 I Illlllllllllllllllllllllll
Illllllllllllll 111 Illllll I I 111 I III immi 111 1 lllllllljllljllll.jljll lllllll .11111(1 Ill Illllll I II I III Illllllllllllll III 111 III III I Illllllllllllll \ I) 111 111
111 n i iiiiiiiiiiiiiii nil n in n n 11 in in n i
in I 111! LIU'11 "ML
III Illllll 111
iM
I 1
1 Illllll
lllllllllllll 1111 PI Illllll I 111 III II Illllllllllllll
ill IIP 111 I Illllllllllllll 111 111 III
">. , T I
III III Illllll IIIIIIB 111 Illllll II Illlllllllllllllllllllllll lull 1111 Illllllllllllll 11 I 11 111 I I Illllll
II Illllllllllllll
I i up 111 11 111 Illllll 111 111 llilili 111 II11|
Illllll 1111 ill I Illllll I ill I Illllll
Illllll II 111 II
lull i in1 Wi li1
I lllllll I ill n| Illllll I I1 Illllii I ill i lilni IP mi i III ill I lull ii
-------
US 113 Planning Study
APPENDIX B
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM
A Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form (Form AD-1006) and rationale for evaluation of site
assessment criteria were completed for and evaluated by the Worcester County Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) in February 1997 for the five build alternatives under consideration
at that time (TSM, 3S-341 Median, 3N-34' Median, 3N/4N Modified - 34' Median, 4N Modified).
Since then, additional alternatives have been added to the planning study and the number of
improvements associated with the TSM alternative have ben increased. This appendix includes a
copy of the evaluated February 1997 AD-1006 form and rationale for the original build alternatives
and the evaluated April 1997 AD-1006 form and rationale for the additional alternatives that would
impact farmland. For this Final Environmental Impact Statement, the 3S-34* median and the 3N/4N
Modified-34' Median Alternatives have been identified as the Preferred Alternatives for the southern
and northern study areas respectively.
IXB-1
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING page i of 2
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Namtl§fPf^Improvement Study (Snow Hill-DE line)
Proposed Land Use
Highway
PART 11 (To be completed by SCS)
Date Of Land Evaluation Request
February* 18, 1997
Administration
County And State
Worcester; MD
Date Request Received By SCS
Doss the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland?
. . . __!_.».—. _ -_*._/.'^.*__»*./ MM ••«•«• f\f +htf f
Doss the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local imporiantTarmidMui ,
(If n0f the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form). . JB
Major CropW
Yes No
Acres Irrigated
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
' Acres: $ & OO 9 %
Name Of Local'Site Assessment System
Average Farm Size
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: ^$JL JT&* 73
By SCS
PART til (To be completed by Federal Agency!
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site (&AA ' 1 KOW
-»ii<-g-Mp nf MRHA_
PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
ROW)
___
Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
. _ _
G'. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
.
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Dative Valug.
PART V {To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Site A
115.0
73.4
(To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion in^y***-! I ~>Q
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)' \ ?
135.4
3U£,
t>°
Site C
61.1
40.9
122.7
~mr
f^r
BO
61.9
40.9
112.2
-Jit-
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency!
Sits Assessment Cmeria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR SSS.Sfb!
1. Area tn Nonurban Use
•» Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
Maximum
Points
15
10
2Q_
'20
n/a
20
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
Alt. 4N \ Combo
JAlt.
20
10
20
0
n/a
10
-20
0
n/a
7, Si™ Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
a Auailahility Of Farm Support Services,
10. Qn-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland IFrom Par: V)
"total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment i .
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)
ss A Locai ii-B AssessiTi-snt \jsea
Dat^ Of Selection Sept. 17, 1997
No D
Site Selected: Sites A and D
Rtsss" rsrSawaion:
Impact Statement for the project.
IXB-2
Form AD-1006
(Set in:;rvctions on revurse siJe
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING Page 2 of 2
iRT 1 (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Name Of Project
IS 113 Improvement Study (Snow Hil
Proposed Land Use
lighway
,RT II (To be completed by SCS)
Date Of Land Evaluation Request
February 18, 1997
Federal Agency Involved
1-DE Line") Federal Hiehwav Administration
County And State
Worcester; MD
Date Request Received By SCS
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
(If no, the FPPA does not apply — do not complete additional pans of this form). ]£i D
jyiajor Cropfsl . r^ - /
NarneZW>7
Alternative Sits Hating
Site A
0.5
0.0
^ 3.0
'/
* coo &
^3
TSM
Alf.
14
Site B
8 :
0
Site C
20 i 0
n/a n/a
Site D
j
n/a n/a
i
10 0
25 0
5 5 !
20 .: 14
i
i
25 ! 0
10 i 1 ! '
160 42
:
100 10 !
160 42 !
260 52 :
•
i
(
I
lite Selected: See page IXB-2
, Date Of Selection
No •_!
ieaso- ror Seiner,on:
IXB-3
ISee Jnstrucnons on reverse ji
Form AD-3006 .10-.
-------
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM AD-1006
RATIONALE FOR EVALUATION OF SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
7 CFR 658.5(b)
US 113-SNOW HILL, MARYLAND TO DELAWARE STATE LINE
February 1997
1. How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1 mile from where the project is intended?
More than 90 percent - 15 points
90 to 20 percent - 14 to 1 point(s)
Less than 20 percent - 0 points
Aerial photography and land use maps were reviewed and a field review of the site was conducted to determine
nonurban use within a 1 mile radius of the project area. It was estimated that 90 percent of the land is in nonurban
use for all of the alternatives.
Rating- Alternative 3S-34' Median/60 MPH (Preferred Alternative) - 14 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/60
MPH (Preferred Alternative) - 14 points; Alternative 4N-34' Median/60 MPH - 14 points; Alternative 3N/4N-34
Median/60 MPH - 14 points; TSM Alternative - 14 points
2. How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use?
More than 90 percent - 10 points
90 to 20 percent - 9 to 1 point(s)
Less than 20 percent - 0 points
Aerial photography and land use maps were reviewed and a field review of the site ™.^^ »*?™£
nonurban use bordering on the site. It was estimated that 85 percent of Alternatives 3S-34 Median/60 MPH
(Preferred Alternative) and 3N-34' Median/60 MPH and the TSM alternative border on land m nonurban use and
more ton 90 percent of Alternatives 4N-34' Median and 3N/4N-34' Median/60 MPH (Preferred Alternative)
border on nonurban use.
Rating- Alternative 3S-34' Median/60 MPH (Preferred Alternative) - 8 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/60 MPH
8 points; Alternatives 4N-34' Median/60 MPH - 10 points; Alternatives 3N/4N-34' Median/60 MPH (Preferred
Alternative) -10 points; TSM Alternative - 8 points
3. How much of the site has been farmed (managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity) more than five of the
last 10 years?
More than 90 percent - 20 points
90 to 20 percent -19 to 1 point(s)
Less than 20 percent - 0 points
Historically, much of Worcester County land has been used for agricultural activities. Based on a review of aerial
photographs and land use maps, it is estimated that more than 90 percent of the land area for each of the build
alternatives has been farmed more that five of the last 10 years.
Rating: Alternative 3S-34' Median/60 MPH (Preferred Alternative) - 20 points; Alternative 3N-34'^dian/60
MPH - 20 points; Alternative 4N-34' Median/60 MPH - 20 points; Alternative 3N/4N-34 Median/60 MPH
(Preferred Alternative) - 20 points; TSM Alternative - 0 points
4 Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or covered by private
programs to protect farmland or covered by private programs to protect farmland?
Site is protected - 20 points
Site is not protected - 0 points
LXB-4
-------
The Maryland Department of Agriculture has an Agricultural Land Preservation Program to preserve sufficient
agricultural land in order to maintain a viable local base of food and fiber production for the citizens of Maryland.
According to the Worcester County Office of Planning, Permits and Inspection, there are no agricultural land
preservation districts located within the right-of-way limits of the project build alternatives.
Rating: Alternative 3S-34' Median/60 MPH (Preferred Alternative) - 0 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/60 MPH
- 0 points; Alternative 4N-34' Median/60 MPH - 0 points; Alternative 3N/4N-34' Median/60 MPH (Preferred
Alternative) - 0 points; TSM Alternative - 0 points
5. Criterion 5 is not considered applicable for corridor-type projects.
6. Criterion 6 is not considered applicable for corridor-type projects.
7. Is the farm unit(s) containing the site (before the project) as large as the average-size farming unit in the county?
As large or larger - 10 points
Below average - deduct 1 point for each 5 percent below the average; down to 0 points if 50 percent or more below
average - 9 to 0 points
According to the Worcester County Natural Resource Conservation Service, the average farm size in Worcester
County is 176 acres. Alternative 3N-34* Median/60 MPH impacts 24 properties engaged in agricultural activity.
Only two of these properties are equal to or greater than the county average. Except for one property, each of the
remaining farm parcels is less than the county average. Alternative 4N-34' Median/60 MPH impacts 19 properties
engaged in agricultural activity. Except for one property, each of the remaining farm parcels is less than the county
average. Alternative 3N/4N-34' Median/60 MPH (Preferred Alternative) impacts 20 properties engaged in
agricultural activity. Along this Alternative, one farm is greater thana the county average and one farm is less than
170 acres, but greater than 85 acres (half of the county average). Alternative 3S-34' Median/60 MPH (Preferred
Alternative) impacts 48 properties engaged in agricultural activity. Six of these parcels are equal to or greater than
the county average. Six of the remaining 42 parcels are less than 170 acres, but greater than 85 acres (half of the
county average). The remaining parcels are less than the county average. To arrive at the rating, the scores of the
impacted farm properties were added and then divided by the number of farm properties impacted by the
alternative.
Rating: Alternative 3S-341 Median/60 MPH (Preferred Alternative) - 2 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/60 MPH
- 1 point; Alternative 4N-34' Median/60 MPH - 0 points; Alternative 3N/4N-341 Median/60 MPH (Preferred
Alternative) - 1 point; TSM Alternative - 0 points
8. If this site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-farmable because
of interference with land patterns?
Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres directly converted by the project - 25 points
Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project - 24 to 1 point(s)
Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project - 0 points
Alternative 3S-341 Median/60 MPH (Preferred Alternative) is designed to parallel existing US 113 in the southern
study area. Farmland will be impacted in the parcels adjacent to existing US 113. Accessibility to remaining
farmland is expected to remain intact with this alternative. For most of its length, Alternative 3N-34' Median/60
MPH also parallels existing US 113. Most of the farmland impacts associated with this alternative will occur on
the parcels adjacent to the existing roadway. Alternatives 4N-34' Median/60 MPH and 3N/4N-34' Median/60 MPH
(Preferred Alternative) are the only alternatives that will bisect farmland parcels. The design of these alternatives
(four lanes w/a median) will create accessibility problems on six properties for the current property owners. These
parcels (tax parcel numbers 109,122, 118, 123,52 and 41) are located between Showell and southern study area
limits of these alternatives. Approximately 40.9 acres are indirectly impacted.
Rating: Alternative 3S-341 Median/60 MPH (Preferred Alternative) - 0 points; Alternative 3N-341 Median/60 MPH
- 0 points; Alternative 4N-341 Median/60 MPH - 25 points; Alternative 3N/4N-34' Median/60 MPH (Preferred
Alternative) - 25 points; TSM Alternative - 0 points
DCB-5
-------
9. Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support sevices and markets, i.e. far suppliers, equipment
dealer, processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets?
All required services are available-5 points
Some required services are available-4 to 1 point(s)
No required services are available-0 points
AH required services are available to the farms in the are for each alternative. Agricultural services are located in
Berlin, Salisbury and Snow Hill.
Rating: Alternative 3S-341 Median/60 MPH- (Preferred Alternative) - 5 poins; Alternative 3N-341 Median/60 MPH-
5 points; Alternative 4N-341 Median/60 MPH-5 points; Alternative 3N/4N-34' Mdeian/60 MPH - (Preferred
Alternative) 5 points; TSM Alternative-5 points
10. Does the site have substantial and well-maintianed on-fram investments such as barns, other storage building, fruit
trees and vines, field terraces, drainage, irrigation waterways or other soil and water conservation measures?
High amount of on-farm investment-20 points
Moderate amount of on-farm investment-19 to 1 point(s)
No on-farm investment-0 points
Farms within the study area reange from having a high amount of on-farm investment to no on-farm investment.
Most of the farms appeared tohave a moderate amount of on-farm investment I the form of chicken houses,
irrigation drainageways, barns and other outbuildings.
Rating: Alternative 3S-34' Median/60 MPH- (Preferred Alternative) 14 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/60
MPH-14 points; Alternative 4N-34' Median/60 MPH-14 points; alternative 3N/4N-34' Median/60 MPH -
(Preferred Alternative) 14 point; TSM Alternative-14 points
11. Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to non-agricultural use, reduce the demand for farm support
services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services andthus, the viability of the farms
remaining in the are?
Substantial reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-10 points
Some reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-9 to 1 point(s)
No significant reduction in demand for support services ifthe site is converted-0 points
None of the alternatives will reduce the demand for farmland support services. Many of the support services are
located in Berlin, Snow Hill and Salisbury.
Rating: Alternative 3S-341 median/60 MPH - (Preferred Alternative) 0 points; alternative 3N-34' Median/60 MPH-0
points; Alternative 4N-34' Median/60 MPH-0 points; Alternative 3N/4N-34' Median/60 MPH- (Preferred
Alternative) 0 points; TSM Alternative-0 points
12. Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture that is likely to
contribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to non-agricultural use?
Proposed project is incompatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-10 points
Proposed project is tolerable to existing agriculutral use of surrounding farmland-9 to 1 point(s)
Proposed project is fully compatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-0 points
Secondary development around the US 113/MD Route 90 interchange associated with Alternatives 4N-345' Median
and 3N/4N-34' Median/60 MPH (Preferred Alternative) could be and ideal location for secondary devleopoment.
However, this area is currently zoned for agriculuture use, as is much of the study area, and would require a zoning
change. Alternatives 3S-34' Median/60 MPH (Preferred Alternative), 3N-34' Median/60 MPH and the TSM
Alternative are designed along the existing US 113 which already has limited development. It is the intent of
DCB-6
-------
Worcester County to 1) "Encourage new development projects to locate in or near the existing population centers
and service centers (where planned) but also discourage development of the rural areas of the county" and 2)
"Maintain the rural character of Worcester county and its existing population center, small towns and villages
(Worcester County Planning Commission, 1997).
Rating: Alternative 3S-341 Median/60 MPH- (Preferred Alternative) 3 points; Alternative 3N-341 Median/60 MPH-
3 points; Alternative 4N-34' Median/60 MPH-5 points; alternative 3N/4N-34' Median/60 MPH - (Preferred
Alternative) 4 points; TSM Alternative- 1 point
Total Rating: Alternative 3S-34' Median - (Preferred Alternative) 66 points
Alternative 3N-34' Median -65 points '
Alternative 4N-34' Median - 93 points
Alternative 3N/4N-34' Median/60 MPH - (Preferred Alternative) 93 points
TSM Altemative-42 points
KB-7
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
c«.
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Pronosed Land Us
Date Of Land Evaluation Request
Federal Agency Involved
££DfV1
ounty And State
Ml
/ /
/l iM ?*>TA(7)
»^iy^&ji3g?£^^
ft:g^^e.sJte:i^nitaftf^
• (if "no^"tffe'FjPPA 'doeshdi'appjy,ttido:nqi'cp$pl.ete:^
•™"?™f—~^"Tr^^^^~™ J 1 . t . ' ,1 * . J ' •;,.--__• > t . i •'•»«.•>• i'S ^'.'.-'.J >Cn«iMrt14f A' 1 *in>l In C^r\ll*lVier4If*tlnn f'~° '*'--X1*!' ' ^>~ •' *
^^
fj&'ST^£;X?lfff*'~f*i*v*v^' -J 'f-**€rf*'
Nam^Ofiund Evaluation System UsedI/
PART HI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
•Fiarjftable'Land In GoW^dOjj^teion^/,^^;;^;:'^!;
Name Of Local sAe Assessment System ^~
Date Land Evaluation Ret
•',,•;.;•;
ted By SCS
ind Evaluation Returned By
'•&/3$yfc7<-
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site (&&£_
PART IV (To be'completedby SCS) ,Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland':
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
D. Ptrcamaga Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be ConvertedYSca/e of 0 to 100 Points)
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Sit* AutJjment Criteria {These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 653.5(b)
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment]
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)
Site Selected: see Page IXB-2
Rtaton For Selection'.
IXB-8
(Set Instructions on reverse sidel
Form AD-1006 (11
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
R** -2- o^Z.
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
uest
Eederai Agency .Involvm
Fed4r&i fi >&h(
Land Use
State \.
m
'$$£•?•?
Farmland As•Defitlgld in FPPA
'
B!$j By SCS
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site A
Alternative Si ter Rati ng
SiteB
SiteC
Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
. o
. /
C. Total Acres In Sjteto/>'|rhi>jt-oFu/A
-78. Q
. 0
11 f.O
/Q-Z.O
U^^
J&7J
B.', Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland.
81.1
C. Percentage Of .Farmland In County Or Local Gbvt. Unit To Be Convsrted •
v;.P.-K^.a:rcBhtagB pf.Farmland In Go^/;Jutitdlctjo:n4'Vtth 8am6 pf.Hisher Reiatlva-ya!i!J$;:
Y^j^;(fo^ec6rhpf^eclby^C$). Land Eyaluatipn Grlterion . . -....;.#5&;ft,;
|.;!:%/-.feReiatlye Valuei'pf. Earrnlarid fo frgCohyeriaJdVSfeig/g of 6 to
tt&.
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Bite Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5 (b)
Maximum
Points
Mt. Vy-
A/t
1. Area In Nonurban Use
JUL
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
2.0
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
o
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
Ala
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
JL.
10. Ori-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
'ART VII f To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100.
83
100
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment)
160
TOTAL POI NTS f Tbfa/ of above 2 lines}
260
/Y8
/Y.o
188
ilte Selected: see Page'. IXB-2
Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes D No D
leason For Selection:
IXB-9
-------
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM AD-1006
RATIONALE FOR EVALUATION OF SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
7 CFR 658.5 (b)
US 113-SNOW HILL, MARYLAND TO DELAWARE STATE LINE
April 1997
1. How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1 mile from where the project is intended?
More than 90 perceni-15 points
90 to 20 percent-14 to 1 point(s)
Less than 20 percem-0 points
Aerial photography and land use maps were reviewed and a field review of the site was conducted to determine
nonurban use within a 1 mile radius of the project area. It was estimated thai 90 percent of the land is in
nonurban use for all of the alternatives.
Rating: Alternative 2S/2N-14 points; Alternative 2S-20' Median/60 MPH-14 points; Alternative 3S-20' MedarirfSOMPH-
14 points; Alternative 3N-20' Median/50 MPH-14 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/50MPH-14 points; Alternative 3N-
20* Median/60 MPH-14 points; Alternative 4N-201 Median/60 MPH-14 points; Alternative 3N/4N-201 Median/60 MPH-
14 points
2. How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use?
More than 90 percent-10 points
90 to 20 percent-9 to 1 point(s)
Less than 20 percent-0 points
Aerial photography and land use maps were reviewed and a field review of the site was conducted to determine
nonurban use bordering on the site. It was estimated that 85 percent of Alternatives 2S/2N, 2S-201 Median/60 MPH,
3S-20' Median/60 MPH and 3N-20' Median/50 MPH, 3N-34' Median/60 MPH, 3N-201 Median/60 MPH border on
land in nonurban use and more than 90 percent of Alternatives 4N-20' Median/60 MPH and 3N/4N-20' Median/60
MPH border on nonurban use.
Rating: Alternative 2S/2N-8 points; Alternative 2S-20' Median/60 MPH-8 points; Alternative 3S-20' Median/60MPH-
8 potrns; Alternative 3N-20' Median/50 MPH-8 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/50MPH-8 points; Alternative 3N-20'
Median/60 MPH-8 points; Alternative 4N-20' Median/60 MPH-10 points; Alternative 3N/4N-201 Median/60 MPH-10
points
3. How much of the site has been farmed (managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity) more than five of the last
10 years?
More than 90 percent-20 points
90 to 20 percent-19 to 1 point(s)
Less than 20 percent-0 points
Historically, much of Worcester County land has been used for agricultural activities. Based on a review of aerial
photographs and land use maps, it is estimated that more than 90 percent of the land area for each of the dualization
alternatives and Alternative 2S-20' Median/60 MPH has been fanned more than five of the last 10 years. The majority
of the improvements associated with the 2S/2N Alternatives would occur within existing SHA right-of-way.
Rating: Alternative 2S/2N-0 points; Alternative 2S-20' Median/60 MPH-20 points; Alternative 3S-20' Median/60MPH-20
points; Alternative 3N-20' Median/50 MPH-20 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/50MPH-20 points; Alternative 3N-20'
Median/60 MPH-20 points; Alternative 4N-20' Median/60 MPH-20 points; Alternative 3N/4N-20' Median/60 MPH-20
IXB-10
-------
points
4. Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or covered by private
programs to protect farmland or covered by private programs to protect farmland?
Site is protected-20 points
Site is not protected-0 points
The Maryland Department of Agriculture has an Agricultural Land Preservation Program to preserve sufficient
agricultural land in order to maintain a viable local base of food and fiber production for the citizens of Maryland
According to the Worcester Couniy Office of Planning, Permits and Inspections, there are no agricultural land preservation
districts located within the right-of-way limits of the project build alternatives.
Rating: Alternative 2S/2N-0 points; Alternative 2S-201 Median/60 MPH-0 points; Alternative 3S-20' Median/60MPH-0
points; Alternative 3N-20' Median/50 MPH-0 points; Alternative 3N-341 Median/50MPH-0 points- Alternative 3N-201
Median/60 MPH-0 points; Alternative 4N-201 Median/60 MPH-0 points; Alternative 3N/4N-201 Median/60 MPH-0
points
5. Criterion 5 is not considered applicable for corridor-type projects.
6. Criterion 6 is not considered applicable for corridor-type projects.
7. Is the farm unit(s) containing the site (before the project) as large as the average-size farming unit in the county?
As large or larger-10 points
Below average-deduct 1 point for each 5 percent below the average, down to 0 points if 50 percent or more below
average-9 to 0 points
According to the Worcester County Natural Resource Conservation Service, the average farm size in Worcester County
»s 176 acres. Alternatives 3N-201 Median/50 MPH, 3N-34' Median/50 MPH and 3N-201 Median/60 MPH impact 24
properties engaged in agricultural activity. Only two of these properties are equal to or greater than thecounty average.
Except for one property, each of the remaining farm parcels is less than the county average. Alternative 4N-20'
Median/60 MPH impacts 19 properties engaged in agricultural activity. Except for one property, each of the remaining
(arm parcels is less than the county average. Alternative 3N/4N-20' Median/60 MPH impacts 20 properties engaged in
agricultural activity. Along this Alternative, one farm is greater than the county average and one farm is less than 176
acres, but greater than 88 acres (half of the county average). Alternative 3S-201 Median/60 MPH impacts 48 properties
engaged m agricultural activity. Six of these parcels are equal to or greater than the county average. Six of the remaining
42 parcels are less than 170 acres, but greater than 88 acres (half of the county average). The remaining parcels are less
than the county average. Alternative 2S-20' Median/60 MPH impacts 20 farmland parcels. Four of the parcels are
greater than 176 acres. Three of the parcels are less than 176 acres but greater than 88 acres. Thirteen of the parcels are
less than 88 acres in size. Alternative 2S/2N impacts 3 parcels, all of which are located in the southern study area. One
parcel is greater than 176 acres. Two parcels are less than 88 acres. To arrive at the rating, the scores of the impacted
farm properties were added and then divided by the number of farm properties impacted by the alternative.
Rating: Alternative 2S/2N-3 points; Alternative 2S-20' Median/60 MPH-3 points; Alternative 3S-20' Median/60MPH-2
points; Alternative 3N-20' Median/50 MPH-1 point; Alternative 3N-341 Median/50MPH-l point; Alternative 3N-20'
Median/60 MPH-1 point; Alternative 4N-20' Median/60 MPH-0 points; Alternative 3N/4N-20' Median/60 MPH-1 point
IXB-11
-------
8. If this site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-farmable because
of interference with land patterns?
Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres directly converted by the project-25 points
Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres directly convened by the project-24 to 1 point(s)
Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project-0 points
Alternatives 2S-201 Median and 3S-20' Median/60 MPH are designed to parallel existing US 113 in the southern study
area. Farmland will be impacted in the parcels adjacent to existing US 113. Accessibility to remaining farmland is
expected to remain intact with these alternatives. Alternatives 3N-201 Median/50 MPH, 3N-341 Median/50 MPH and 3N-
20' Median/60 MPH also parallel existing US 113. The farmland impacts associated with these alternatives will also occur
on the parcels adjacent to the existing roadway. Alternatives 4N-20' Median/60 MPH and 3N/4N-20' Median/60 MPH
are the only alternatives that will bisect farmland parcels. The design of these alternatives (four lanes w/ a median) will
create accessibility difficulties on six properties for the current property owners. These parcels (tax parcel numbers 109,
122, 118, 123, 52 and 41) are located between Showell and southern study area limits of these alternatives.
Approximately 47 acres are indirectly impacted by these alternatives. Improvements incorporated into Alternative 2S/2N
will occur mostly within the existing US 113 right-of-way.
Rating: Alternative 2S/2N-0 points; Alternative 2S-201 Median/60 MPH-0 points; Alternative 3S-201 Median/60MPH-0
points: Alternative 3N-20' Median/50 MPH-0 points; Alternative 3N-341 Median/50MPH-0 points; Alternative 3N-201
Median/60 MPH-0 points; Alternative 4N-20' Median/60 MPH-25 points; Alternative 3N/4N-20' Median/60 MPH-25
points
9. Does the site have available an adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e. farm suppliers,
equipment dealers, processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets?
All required services are available-5 points
Some required services are available^ to 1 point(s)
No required services are available-0 points
All required services are available to the farms in the area for each alternative. Agricultural services are located in
Berlin, Salisbury and Snow Hill.
Rating- Alternative 2S/2N-5 points; Alternative 2S-20' Median/60 MPH-5 points; Alternative 3S-20' Median/60MPH-5
points; Alternative 3N-20' Median/50 MPH-5 points; Alternative 3N-341 Median/50MPH-5 points; Alternative 3N-20'
Median/60 MPH-5 points; Alternative 4N-201 Median/60 MPH-5 points; Alternative 3N/4N-20' Median/60 MPH-5
points
10. Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as bams, other storage building, fruit
trees and vines, field terraces, drainage, irrigation waterways or other soil and water conservation measures?
High amount of on-farm investment-20 points
Moderate amount of on-farm investment-19 to 1 point(s)
No on-farm investment-0 points
Farms within the study area range from having a high amount of on-farm investment to no on-farm investment. Most
of ihe farms appeared to have a moderate amount of on-farm investment in the form of chicken houses, irrigation
drainageways, bams and other outbuildings.
Rating: Alternative 2S/2N-14 points; Alternative 2S-20' Median/60 MPH-14 points; Alternative 3S-201 Median/60MPH-
14 points; Alternative 3N-20' Median/50 MPH-14 points; Alternative 3N-34' Median/50MPH-l4 points; Alternative 3N-
20' Median/60 MPH-14 points; Alternative 4N-20' Median/60 MPH-14 points; Alternative 3N/4N-20' Median/60 MPH-
14 points
11. Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to non-agricultural use, reduce the demand for farm support
services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and thus, the viability of the farms
IXB-12
-------
remaining in the area?
Substantial reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-10 points
Some reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-9 to 1 pointfs)
No significant reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted^ points
Manvof^esupportservicesarelccated
Rating: Alternative 2S/2N-0 points; Alternative 2S-201 Median/60 MPH-0 points; Alternative
SSLJSSS,"1^1 ^an/5° MPH-° *** "I*™*" 3N'34' Mediao/SoSi
Median/60 MPH-0 points; Alternative 4N-20' Median/60 MPH-0 points; Alternative
Lt?Jtn? *d intCnSi ? °f *e .pr0p°Sed "* of *e site seemly incompatible with agriculture that it is likely to
contribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to non-agricultural use? - mat " * ^ to
Proposed project is incompatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-10 points
Proposed project is tolerable to existing agricultural use of surrounding fermLid-9 to 1 Dointfe)
Proposed project is fully compatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-0 points
*
Total Rating:
Rating: Alternative 2S/2N-1 point; Alternative 2S-20* Median/60 MPH-3 points; Alternative 3S-2
^^° ""** »**' Alteraative s^^«3taS55tt rptsi
s; Alternative 4N-20' Mediany60 MPH^ points; Alternative 3N/4N-20' MdS MPH-4
Alternative 2S/2N-45 points
Alternative 2S-20' Median/60 MPH-67 points
Alternative 3S-20' Median/60 MPH-66 points
Alternative 3N-20' Median/50 MPH-65 points
Alternative 3N-341 Median/50 MPH-65 points
Alternative 3N-20' Median/60 MPH-65 points
Alternative 4N-201 Median/60 MPH-93 points
Alternative 3N/4N 20' Median/60 MPH-93 points
IXB-13
-------
United Slates
Department of
Agriculture
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
301 Bank Street
Snow H5IL iMaryland 21363
(410)632-0939
SOILS OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE
FOR
WORCESTER COUNTY MARYLAND
ACRES
9,655
31,135
1,285
7,085
6,815
1,920
7,760
4,790
867
505
275
50,135
16,260
10,185
905
6,825
950
2,620
530
SOIL MAPPING UNIT
Fallsington Loam
Fallsington Sandy Loam
Fort Mott Loamy Sand, 0
Fort Mott Loamy Sand, 2
~~-
to 2 percent slopes »">?>
to 5 percent slopes
Klej Loamy Sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (Ct/4-
Klej Loamy Sand, 2 to 5 percent slopes 5
Lakeland Loamy Sand Clayey Substratum, 0 to 5 percent slopest-j
Lakeland Sand Clayey Substratum, 0 to 5 percent slopes .
Lakeland-Fort Mott Loamy Sands, 0 to 5 percent slopes ^
Matapeake Fine Sandy Loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes p\&C,
Matapeake Silt Loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes
Othello Silt Loam^-t
Pocomoke Loam, drained
Pocomoke Sandy Loam,
Portsmouth Sandy Loam
Portsmouth Silt Loam
Sassafras Sandy Loam, 5 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded
St Johns Loamy Sand 5"£
St Johns Mucky Loamy Sand
1/86
The N« tural Resources Conservation Service
Is art agsncyof the Depirtnento; Agriculture
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
IXB-14
-------
« United States
Department of
Agriculture
Soil
Conservation
Service
301 Bank Street
Snow Hill, Maryland 21863
(301)632-0939
PRIME FARMLAND SOILS
FOR
WORCESTER COUNTY MARYLAND
MdA
MdB
MeA
MeB
MoA
MOB
MpA
MpB
MtA
MtB
SmA
SmB2
SaA
SaB2
WoA
WoB
WdA
WdB
3,645 Matapeake Fine Sandy Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
5,505 Matapeake Fine Sandy Loam, 2 to 5 percent slooes
3,275 Matapeake Silt Loam, 0 to 2 percent slooes
2,010 Matapeake Silt Loam, 2 to 5 percent slooes
1,630 Mattapex Fine Sandy Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
615 Mattapex Fine Sandy Loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
3,855 Mattapex Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
865 Mattapex Loam, 2 to 5 percent slooes
4,560 Mattapex Silt Loam, 0 to 2 percent slooes
995 Mattapex Silt Loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
505 Sassafras Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
385 Sassafras Loam 2 to 5 percent slopes, moderately
eroded
7,435 Sassafras Sandy Loam, 0 to 2 percent slooes
13,560 Sassafras Sandy Loam, 2 to 5 percent slooes,
moderately eroded
2,310 Woodstown Loam, 0 to 2 percent sloces
515 Woodstown Loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
16,385 Woodstown Sandy Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
4,010 Woodstown Sandy Loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
IXB-15
A
The Soil Conservation Sat :e
is an agency of tha
United States Department ol Agriculture
-------
-------
Appendix C
Relocation Act
-------
^f .......
Illi: 'I'll,1,:.* •, I* !'•'"!! ? ..... III!/ "., ..... !l '"I"1!'!,1!" !„
'I '!!il!,l ' ''nilll 1!" ,,!!!lini!5J
''' 1-"' 'll|l|! ' 1''1 '1 !!ll!l '"'"" "1''1' :'"" '"'' "1'"1"1 ..... : ' 1'1 '' " 1
..... 1;'",: : »•:•• ...... i"v"
• {.ly • ••ii! i, js ..... n ....... :t:::M
.1 ^i .> ,jiiiiii«!""ii ........ • ; - ..... : •» '"' ...... !>, !i ..... ' : i '' r i> 'f1 "iiii ' ' IIK ::< •,•"';: . : K
ami* ..... vfj. .n i ,:":,iif' ..... : ...... ;" IA •<, ::~ ..... :*•" t ' "i: '", ' ifit:1'' •", ..... : ..... ::',ym : ' ..... LEK^^^ ..... '.iir, tt
Illllllllll 11(11 111 11! >|l l 11 111 111 III Ml 111 111!
Mil I II II I Illllllllll 111 ( Illllllllll lllllll|l||l|ll
in in 11 in i
Illllil "111 'ill 111 ml I ill'111 I11 111 hi1 (iHiilll I 111 "I'll III (111 il I hi Hi ill 1 li'll I Kl KM I i (| I'll
1111 Illliilll(11111 111 llnl 111 Illllllllll (
"l>% II I IIP I 111 Hill II
-------
Revised: December 24, 1996
State Highway Administration, Office of Real Estate
NUMMARY OF THE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM OF THE
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION OF MARYLAND
All State Highway Administration projects must comply with the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 USC 4601) as amended by Title
IV of the Surface Transportation & Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-17), the
Annotated Code of Maryland entitled "Real Property Article" Section 12-112 and Subtitle 2,
Sections 12-201 to 12-212. The Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway
Administration, Office of Real Estate administers the Transportation Relocation Assistance Program
in the State of Maryland.
The provisions of the Federal and State laws require the State Highway Administration to
provide payments and services to persons displaced by a public project. The payments include
replacement housing payments and moving costs. The maximum limits of the replacement housing
payments are $22,500 for owner-occupants and $5,250 for tenant-occupants. Certain payments may
also be made for increased mortgage interest costs and other incidental expenses. In order to receive
these payments, the displaced person must occupy decent, safe and sanitary replacement housing.
In addition to these payments, there are also moving expense payments to persons, businesses, farms
and non-profit organizations. Actual but reasonable moving expenses for residences are reimbursed
for a move of up to 50 miles or a schedule moving payment of up to $ 1,300 may be used.
In the event comparable replacement housing is not available within the monetary limits for
owners and tenants to rehouse persons displaced by public projects or available replacement housing
is beyond their financial means, replacement "housing as a last resort" will be utilized to accomplish
the rehousing. Detailed studies must be completed by the State Highway Administration before
relocation "housing as a last resort" can be utilized.
The moving cost payments to businesses are broken down into several categories, which
include actual moving expense payments, reestablishment expenses limited to $10,000 or fixed
payments "in lieu of actual moving expenses of $1,000 to $20,000. Actual moving expenses may
also include actual direct losses of tangible personal property and expenses for searching for a
replacement site up to $ 1,000.
The actual reasonable moving expenses may be paid for a move by a commercial mover or
for a self-move. Payments for the actual reasonable expenses are limited to a 50-mile radius unless
the State determines a longer distance is necessary. The expenses claimed for actual cost moves
must be supported by firm bids and receipted bills. An inventory of the items to be moved must be
prepared in all cases. In self-moves, the State will negotiate an amount for payment, usually lower
than the lowest acceptable bid. The allowable expenses of a self-move may include amounts paid
for equipment hired, the cost of using the business vehicles or equipment, wages paid to persons who
participate in the move, the cost of actual supervision of the move, replacement insurance for the
personal property moved, costs of licenses or permits required and other related expenses.
IXC-1
-------
Revised: December 24, 1996
State Highway Administration, Office of Real Estate
In addition to the actual moving expenses mentioned above, the displaced business is entitled
to receive a payment for the actual direct losses of tangible personal property that the business is
entitled to relocate but elects not to move. These payments may only be made after an effort by the
owner to sell the personal property involved. The costs of the sale are also reimbursable moving
expenses.
If the business elects not to move or to discontinue the use of an item, the payment shall
consist of the lesser of: the fair market value of the item for continued use at the displacement site,
less the proceeds from its sale; or the estimated cost of moving the item.
If an item of personal property which is used as part of a business or farm operation is not
moved and is promptly replaced with a substitute item that performs a comparable function at the
replacement site, payment shall be of the lesser of: the cost of the substitute item, including
installation costs at the replacement site, minus any proceeds from the sale or trade-in of the replaced
item; or the estimated cost of moving and reinstalling the replaced item.
In addition to the moving payments described above, a business may be eligible for a
payment up to $10,000 for the actual reasonable and necessary expenses of reestablishing at the
replacement site. Generally, reestablishment expenses include certain repairs and improvements to
the replacement site, increased operating costs, exterior signing, advertising the replacement location
and other fees paid to reestablish. Receipted bills and other evidence of these expenses are required
for payment. The total maximum reestablishment payment eligibility is $10,000.
In lieu of all moving payments described above, a business may elect to receive a fixed
payment equal to the average annual net earnings of the business. This payment shall not be less
than $1,000 nor more than $20,000. In order to be entitled to this payment, the State must determine
that the business cannot be relocated without a substantial loss of its existing patronage; the business
is not part of a commercial enterprise having more than three other establishments in the same or
similar business that are not being acquired; and the business contributes materially to the income
of a displaced owner during the two taxable years prior to the year of the displacement. A business
operated at the displacement site solely for the purpose of renting to others is not eligible.
Considerations in the State's determination of loss of existing patronage are the type of business
conducted by the displaced business and the nature of the clientele. The relative importance of the
present and proposed locations to the displaced business and the availability of suitable replacement
sites are also factors.
In order to determine the amount of the "in lieu of moving expenses payment, the average
annual net earnings of the business is to b/e one-half of the net earnings, before taxes during the two
taxable years immediately preceding the taxable year in which the business is relocated. If the two
taxable years are not representative, the State may use another two-year period that would be more
representative. Average annual net earnings include any compensation paid by the business to the
IXC-2
-------
Revised: December 24, J 996
State Highway Administration, Office of Real Estate
owner, owner's spouse, or dependents during the period. Should a business be in operation less than
two years, the owner of the business may still be eligible to receive the "in lieu of payment. In all
cases, the owner of the business must provide information to support its net earnings, such as income
tax returns, or certified financial statements, for the tax years in question.
Displaced farms and non-profit organizations are also eligible for actual reasonable moving
costs up to 50 miles, actual direct losses of tangible personal property, search costs up to $1,000 and
reestablishment expenses up to $10,000 or a fixed payment "in lieu of actual moving expenses of
$1,000 to $20,000. The State may determine that a displaced farm may be paid a minimum of
$1,000 to a maximum of $20,000, based upon the net income of the farm, provided that the farm has
been relocated or the partial acquisition caused a substantial change in the nature of the farm. In
some cases, payments "in lieu of actual moving costs may be made to farm operations that are
affected by a partial acquisition. A non-profit organization is eligible to receive a fixed payment or
an "in lieu of actual moving cost payment, in the amount of $1,000 to $20,000 based on gross
annual revenues less administrative expenses.
A more detailed explanation of the benefits and payments available to displaced persons,
businesses, farms and non-profit organizations is available in the "Relocation Assistance" brochure
that will be distributed at the public hearing for this project and be given to displaced persons.
Federal and state laws require that the State Highway Administration shall not proceed with
any phase of a project which will cause the relocation of any persons, or proceed with any
construction project, until it has furnished satisfactory assurances that the above payments will be
provided, and that all displaced persons will be satisfactorily relocated to comparable decent, safe
and sanitary housing within their financial means, or that such housing is in place and has been made
available to the displaced person.
IXC-3
-------
-------
1 )
Appendix D
Statewide Comparable Accident Data
Memorandum dated August 18, 1 997
Analysis of Accident Rates
3 pages
2) Memorandum dated August 20, 1997
Comparison of Statewide Accident Rates
3 pages
3 ) Memorandum dated September 9,1 997 ,
revised September 17, 1997
US 1 13 Accidents
8 pages
-------
imimmmnn in iiiiiiiiii inn iiiimi mmiiinn i mmnnini i mmmdmmmn in mi mm i inn inn mm n mini n inn imimnin limn mmmimnmmnmnmiii i inn nimnhmmminnimmimmmnmn minimi 11 iiiiiii in in i mm in inn inn i n iinini nimmimi n inn nlniini i mi i 111111111 niiini mm n miiini iiiiviiimnm in minimi mini in inn in n
iiiiini linn niiiiiiinnnn in i n n niiiiiinnnn iinniiiinnni iiiiiii iiinniiiiiinnnni I I id nil nil I nniiiiiiiiiiinnnn I iiiiiiiiiiiidhninn I nil in nun limn nil nil niiiiiiiiiinninnnnn ill I I nniiiiiiiinnnn I in inn I I n inn mind limn n id iiiiiinnnn» n iiiiiiininn I nil inn inn ill ill iinini mi»did nun inn in mil mini M nil I I n I
Inlllllllllllllllll Illlllllllllllllllilll ! llllllll'lllllllll'lllllllll Ill HI lilllllnJ lllnll 1 lillllM II 1111111 II11 111 Nllllll I'll •111 II Ill Illi'lli ll'llllllllllllllllllllllll 1 Ill 1)1 III "I ill III "IP l"l Illllllilll1 IlllllHII I1 ' n
IIIIIII
1 '''ilEfin '1III11I'1 '•lillilP'i
v jggiiiiin iiiiiiiiiaiiiiii!!!' ,in:i r iiuiin ma/a n uaum »iiiiiiii!iiii' fW>t sixt JAAI. ; IK iidiiiiiniii 'in;,1 u i SMM ws ? WTO iniiineiiniiiiiani'iiiii:.; nt;;:; lEiiiiiiinniiiHiinhv 'ji K • n!ii!v; mi Jv- •: i f .I'lnJ '•: *t •sii :,•. :\ n;;i" < s> W:" i1 ,i"i', :< j, i \t' <•!» • :'111
I I
;ii III I 111111 1 'I;!)!.'1 • '
nfVIX killT'! II »:illl*:iil!ll¥ : ! :'-v f, ...... : ..... In!; i ...... ": i! Ha. : :;
-------
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
RE:
Sue Rajan, SHA Project Planning
James Burnett, RK&K
8/18/97
US 113 - Analysis of Accident Rates
Comparison of US 113 accident rates to Statewide Averages
The following paragraphs summarize the accident rate comparison for several different types of accidents
for the dualized sections of US 113. It was written for a non-technical audience:
US 113 in Maryland can be divided into 4 distinct sections. The first, or southern-most section
begins at US 13 and extends 9.89 miles north to the town of Snowhill, MD. This 9.89 mile section has two
thru lanes in each direction and is currently divided by an 85± foot median that is planted with trees and
shrubs. Then, for 16.10 miles north to the town of Berlin, MD, the roadway is one lane per direction with
no median (this section is referred to as the "southern study area"). The only separation between vehicles
are paint markings down the centerline of the road. For the next 4.40 miles north through Berlin, MD, US
113 is again two lanes per direction and divided, this time by a 28± foot grassy median, partially planted
with trees (this area is known as "the area through Berlin"). Finally, for the next 7.45 miles north to the
Delaware state line, the road, is back to being one lane per direction separated by paint stripes only (this
section is known as the "northern study area").
Throughout the 16 year period from January, 1980 thru December, 1995, there were a total of 505
reported accidents in the 7.45 mile "northern" section. Of these 505 accidents, 20 were fatalities, 257
involved injuries and 228 were property damage only. To determine how these volumes of accidents
compared to other similar sections of roads throughout the state, they were converted into accident rates.
Accident rates simply show how many accidents occur per a given volume of traffic (usually
expressed in terms of # of accidents per 100 million vehicle miles of travel). These accident rates can
then be directly compared to statewide accident rates for roadways of similar width, # of lanes, access
control, etc., to determine if there is a safety problem, and if so, what the extent of the problem is. In the
"northern" section, the accident rate corresponding to the 505 total accidents was 159.4 acc/100MVMT.
Likewise, the accident rate for the fatalities was 6.3, injury accidents was 81.1, and property damage
accidents was 72.0 acc/100MVMT. These accident rates, along with the number and rates for all 4
sections of US 113, are shown in the following table (note that accident numbers and rates are also
provided for several other important categories of accidents):
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
Consulting Engineers ———————•
IXD-1
-------
Sue Rajan, SHA
US 113 Accident Memo
Page 2 of 3
US 113, Maryland RK&K Engineers
, 1 6 Year Accident Comparison (1 980 thru 1 995) August 1 8, 1 997
: on US 1 1 3 in Maryland
i
! Accident Type
; Fatal Accidents
•Injury Accidents
i Property Damage Accidents
Total Accidents
f Opposite Direction
! Hit-Fixed-Object
! Angle
Sideswipe
; Rear-end
Left Turn
Accident Rate for US 1 1 3 and
(Statewide Rate for a similar Section of Road)
*all rates in terms of #accidents/100MVMT
Log Miles of Sections
0.00-9.89
3.7* (2.0)
48.9 (69.8)
54.0 (63.6)
106.6 (135.8)
1.4 (1.9)
55.4* (28.7)
9.7 (26.7)
3.2 (9.7)
7.4 (26.9)
1.4 (13.8)
9.89-25.99
"southern Sect."
2.7 (2.5)
33.9 (74.6)
37.3 (62.2)
73.8 (139.3)
6.8 (9.5)
28.4 (38.8)
11.7 (23.1)
2.5 (6.4)
8.4 (24.8)
1.8 (9.3)
25.99-30.39
Through Berlin"
1.6 (1.8)
66.6 (89.4)
65.5 (74.3)
133.6 (165.6)
1.1 (2.1)
26.0 (22.4)
57.9* (29.3)
6.5 (9.1)
11.9 (32.8)
18.4 (22.2)
30.39-37.84
"Northern Sect."
6.3* (2.7) !
81.1 (79.6) |
72.0 (68.0)
159.4 (150.2) ;
17.0* (9.9) ;
57.5* (45.6) |
25.6 (22.4) J
8.2 (6.9) j
23.7 (26.0) j
7.9 (9.2) |
Several interesting relationships are revealed in the comparison of accident rates. First and most
importantly, the "northern study area" (currently undivided, log mile 30.39 to 37.84) has experienced fatal
accidents at a rate (6.3 acc/100MVMT) that is more than twice the statewide average rate (2.7
acc/100MVMT). This indicates that this section of US 113 has experienced more than twice the number
of fatal accidents as other two lane undivided roads throughout the state of Maryland between 1980 and
1995. Upon closer investigation (not shown in table) it is evident that this sixteen (16) year fatal accident
rate for US 113 represents twenty (20) fatal accidents that killed twenty-three (23) people. Fourteen (14)
of the twenty (20) fatal accidents were opposite direction collisions, three (3) were angle collisions, and the
remaining three were sideswipe, fixed object and pedestrian accidents. The overall (total) accident rate
for opposite direction accidents on the northern section of US 113 (17.0 acc/IOOMVMT) is also
dramatically higher than the statewide rate (9.9 acc/100MVMT).
In addition to the fatal and opposite direction accident rates being higher than the statewide
averages in the "northern" section, most of the other accident rates are higher as well including injury
accidents, property damage accidents, hit-fixed-object accidents (significantly higher than the statewide
average), sideswipe accidents and angle accidents. The accident history of this section of US 113 clearly
shows that there is a safety problem especially with opposite direction crashes.
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
Consulting Engineers
IXD-2
-------
Sue Rajan, SHA
US 113 Accident Memo
Page 3 of 3
The "southern study area" oi US 113 (log miles 9.89 to 25.99) has .
acc/100MVMT) that is somewhat higher than the statewide average (2.5 ace/ OOMVMT) This fatal
accident rate for US 113 corresponds with six (6) opposite direction crashes, f.ve (5) angle crashes, three
?3) elr-end crashes, two (2) hit-fixed-object crashes, and one (1) pedestrian crash. With the exception of
fatalities all of the other categories of accidents including total accidents were below the statewide rates
TOAction of roaS experienced fewer accidents of all types (other than fatalities) than other similar roads
n he XaS of Maryland between 1980 and 1995 (NOTE: other mitigating factors relating to roadway
safety, such as driver expectancy, may warrant infrastructure .mprovements in th.s section because it
could become the only remaining un-divided section of US 113 in the state of Maryland or Delaware).
The remaining two sections of US 113 in Maryland are both dualized
-------
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
RE:
Sue Rajan, SHA Project Planning
James Burnett, RK&K
8/20/97
US 113 - Comparison of Statewide Accident Rates
Comparison Among Statewide Accident Rates (Different Cross-Sections and Access Controls)
A comparison can be made between statewide accident rates for different types of roadways to
determine the safety benefit of one cross-section versus another. Accident rates for two different roads
were compared based on statewide averages from 1991 through 1995:
•• (TC3) Rural Divided Highway, Partial Control of Access, 4 or more lanes
> (TC8) Rural Non-Divided Highway, No Control of Access, 2 lanes
US 1 1 3, Maryland RK&K Engineers
Statewide Average Accident Comparison August 20, 1997
for Various Road Types in Maryland (1991-1995 data)
Accident Type
Fatal Accidents
Injury Accidents
Property Damage Accidents
Total Accfae|ts|;f
Opposite Direction
Hit Fixed Object
Angle
Sideswipe
Rear-end
Left Turn
Statewide Accident Rates for Various Roadways
(1991 thru 1995)
TC3
Rural Div. Highway,
Partial Control,
4+ lanes
1.87
39.94
36.01
1.03
22.13
18.17
4.57
9.93
4.83
TC8
Rural Non-Div. Hwy.,
No Control,
2 lanes
2.36
70.44
60.79
9.18
41.42
18.24
5.47
24.84
7.73
Based on the historical statewide averages, it is apparent that in most categories (fatal, injury,
property damage, total, opposite direction and hit fixed object, rear-end, and left turn) dualization will
significantly reduce accident rates. In the categories of angle and sideswipe accidents, little change
would be expected from dualization.
K:\USERSVJBURNETT\93-70-7\STATEACC.LET
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
Consulting Engineers
IXD-4
-------
US113
1992-1996
Fatal Accidents
Study
Rate
Statewide
DELAWARE STATE LINE
-«8A&
miles 37,84
US 113
1992-1996
Total Accidents
Study
Rate
125.8 < 132,2
110.0 < 148.3
54.5 < 122,9
115.3 > 101,7
LEGEND
US 13
mile 3.91 to mile 22.68
Divided Partial Control
1992-
Fatal Accidents
Study
Rate
2.6
&&!wids
S»t«
1.8
1996
Total Accidents
Study
Rate
98.8
StetfiWfet'
Rabi
84.6
US 13
mile 0.00 to mile 3.91
Dlvidad No Control
1992-
Fatal Accidents
Study
Rate
0.0
StatBWirfe
Rate
1.7
1996
Total Accidents
Study
Rate
77.7
$f«!
-------
Jfl
CO
(0
8
LU
UJ
D)
O>
O>
s 5
55
O
S x
> §
a z
1 1
S £
s
tU
O
IXD-6
-------
MEMO
193-70-11
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Sue Rajan, SHA
Cathy Maher, SHA
James Burnett, RK&K, LLP
US 113 Accidents
September 9,1997
Revised September 17,1997 (SHA comments)
SSSSS2
The following responses address the points raised by the resource agencies concerning the accident
analyses for the US 1 13 Planning Study:
MD90
Provide an analysis (before and after) of the effect of headlight use and the installation of rumble strips and
the passage of the headlight law. Use monthly accident data.
Response: Monthly accident data is not available from SHA, DOTS. Using SHA's annual data, the following
relationships were found:
Signs were installed in October, 1981 that requested motorists to use headlights at all times >oa ,MD
S) fol988 longitudinal rumble strips were installed along the shoulders and in the median to
dert^ilers of Sing the lane lines' In November, 1995, a law went into effect requn-rng the
use of headlights at all times on MD 90.
There are ™ rf^r relationships in any specific type of accident or in the overall accident rate when
opposite direction accidents in 1981 was atypical, since there were only 3 in 1980.
seemingly random pattern.
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
Consulting Engineers •
IXD-7
-------
US 113 Planning Study
September 9, 1997
rev. September 17, 1997 (SHA Comments)
Page 2
US 113 (entire length)
Provide updated color figures for the entire section of US 113 using 1990-1996 accident data.
Response: 1992 through 1996 data is already available, therefore, the graphic was updated using these years
(attached).
• Provide a discussion of the characteristics of the roadway and the relationship to accident rates
Response; The following paragraphs summarize the accident rate comparison for several different types of
accidents for the dualized sections of US 113.
US 113 in Maryland can be divided into 4 distinct sections. The first, or southern-most section
begins at US 13 and extends 9.89 miles north to the town of Snow Hill, MD. This 9.89 mile
section has two thru lanes in each direction and is currently divided by an 85 ± foot median
containing trees and shrubs. Then, for 16.10 miles north to the town of Berlin, MD, the roadway
is one lane per direction with no median (this section is referred to as the Southern Study Area).
The only separation between vehicles are paint markings down the centerline of the 24 foot wide
road. For the next 4.40 miles north through Berlin, MD, US 113 is again two lanes per direction
divided by a 28 ± foot grassy median, partially planted with trees (this area is known as "the area
through Berlin"). Finally, for the next 7.45 miles north to the Delaware state line, the road is one
lane per direction again, separated by paint stripes (this section is known as the Northern Study
Area). It should be noted that the 4 lane, divided sections of US 113 are not study areas in this
project but are included for comparison purposes.
Throughout the 5 year period from January, 1992 thru December, 1996, there were a total of 143
reported accidents in the 7.45 mile Northern Study Area. Of these 143 accidents, 4 were fatalities,
77 involved injuries and 62 were property damage only. To determine how these volumes of
accidents compared to other similar sections of roads throughout the state, they were converted into
accident rates (see section at end of memo about how accident rates are determined).
Accident rates simply show how many accidents occur per a given volume of traffic (usually
expressed in terms of # of accidents per 100 million vehicle miles of travel). These accident rates
can then be directly compared to statewide average accident rates for highways of similar # of
lanes, divided / non-divided, access control, etc., to determine the relative safety hazards, and if
so, what the extent of the problem is. In the Northern Study Area, the accident rate corresponding
to the 143 total accidents was 125.8 acc/lOOMVM. Likewise, the accident rate for the fatalities
was 3.5, injury accidents was 67.7, and property damage accidents was 54.5 acc/lOOMVM. These
accident rates, along with the number and rates for all 4 sections of US 113, are shown in the
following table (note that accident numbers and rates are also provided for several other important
categories of accidents):
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
Consulting Engineers
IXD-8
-------
US 113 Planning Study
September 9, 1997
rev. September 17, 1997 (SHA Comments)
PageS
US 113, Maryland
Table 1
5 Year Accident Comparison (1992 thru 1996)
on US 113 in Maryland
RK&K Engineers
September 17,1997
Accident Type
Accident Rate for Sections of US 113 Only
And, (Statewide Average Accident Rate for a similar Section of Road)
- - all rates in terms of #accidents/100MyM - -
US 113 - Log Miles of Sections
0.00-9.89
US 13 to Snow
Hill
9.89-25.99
Southern Study
Area
T
25.99-30,39
"Through
Berlin"
Injury Accidents
Property Damage Accidents
Opposite Direction
*accident rate is significantly higher than the statewide average accident rate for similar roads
30.39-37.84
Northern Study
Area
Several interesting relationships are revealed in the comparison of accident rates. First and most
importantly, the Northern Study Area (currently undivided, log mile 30.39 to 37.84) has
experienced fatal accidents at a rate (3.5 acc/lOOMVM) that is higher than the statewide average
rate (2.3 acc/lOOMVM) for the same 5 year time period. This indicates that this section of US 113
is experiencing a fatal accident rate per 100 million vehicle miles of travel (acc./lOOMVM) that
is higher than the five year (1991-1995) weighted statewide average fatal accident rate. Upon
closer investigation (not shown in table) it is evident that this five(5) year fatal accident rate for US
113 represents four (4) fatal accidents that killed four (4) people. Two (2) of the four (4) fatal
accidents were angle collisions, one (1) was a hit-fixed object collision, and the remaining one was
an opposite direction accidents. The accident rate for angle accidents in the northern section of US
113 (26.4 acc/lOOMVM) is also significantly higher than the statewide rate (18.3 acc/lOOMVM).
In addition to the fatal and angle accident rates being higher man the statewide averages in the
"northern" section, the majority of the remaining accident categories have accident rates that are
very close to the statewide average rates. The accident history of this section of US 113 clearly
shows that there is a safety problem especially with angle and hit-fixed-object crashes.
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
Consulting Engineers "• —
IXD-9
-------
US 113 Planning Study
September 9, 1997
rev. September 17, 1997 (SHA Comments)
Page 4
The Southern Study Area of US 113 (log miles 9.89 to 25.99) had the same fatal accident rate (2.2
acc/lOOMVM) as the statewide average. This fatal accident rate for US 113 corresponds with three
(3) opposite direction crashes, two (2) angle crashes, and one (1) rear-end crash. The accident rate
per 100MVM for all categories of accidents is consistent with or below the statewide rates for this
section. There are, however, other mitigating factors relating to roadway safety, such as driver
expectancy, that may warrant infrastructure improvements in this section because it could become
the only remaining un-divided section of US 113 in the state of Maryland.
The remaining two sections of US 113 in Maryland are both dualized (divided by a median). The
southern-most section (log mile 0.00 to 9.89) had a fatal accident rate (1.2 acc/lOOMVM) that was
lower than the statewide average rate (1.7 acc/lOOMVM). However, the hit-fixed-object rate
within that section of road (67.8 acc/lOOMVM) was significantly higher than the statewide rate
(22.5 acc/lOOMVM). The high number of hit-fixed object accidents indicates a possible roadside
design or clearzone problem. The wide median in this section is planted with numerous trees that
historically have been involved in several fatalities. While the overall accident rate for the section
(115.3 acc./lOOMVM) was higher (not significantly higher) than the statewide average rate (101.7
acc./lOOMVM), the rates for the remaining categories of accidents were all below the statewide
average rates.
The second dualized section of US 113 is located through Berlin, MD (log mile 25.99 to 30.39).
Within this section, all categories of accidents were below the statewide average rates except for
angle accidents. The rate between 1992 and 1996 on US 113 in this section for angle accidents
(52.4 acc/lOOMVM) was significantly higher than the statewide average rate (26.0 acc/lOOMVM).
Finally, the accident rates for all four sections were compared to determine what effect, if any,
could be expected from dualizing the two remaining two-lane sections of US 113. This comparison
indicates that a reduction in opposite direction collisions would be expected. In the two-lane
sections of US 113, the opposite-direction accident rates were 7.4 and 5.3 acc/lOOMVM, while
the opposite direction accident rates for the two dualized sections were both 0.0 acc/lOOMVM.
• Provide a breakdown of the number of fatal accidents by type (bus, truck, farm, etc.)
Response: Between 1980 and August of 1997, there were'53 falal accidents on US 113 in Maryland. Twenty
.(20) of these 53 collisions (38%) involved tractor'trailers or heavy trucks, 26 of 53 (49%) involved
passenger cars or light trucks only, four (4) of 53 (8%) involved pedestrians or bicycles, two (2)
out of 53 (4%) involved a motorcycle, one (1) out of 53 (2%) involved a transit bus, and none of
the fatal accidents involved farm equipment.
In terms of fault, 45 of the 53 fatal collisions (85 %) were caused by passenger cars or light trucks,
4 of 53 (8%) were caused by bicycles or pedestrians, 3 of 53 (6%) were caused by tractor trailers
or heavy trucks, and the remaining one (1) accident (2%) was caused by a motorcyclist.
Finally, 16 of the 53 fatal collisions (30%) between 1980 and August of 1997 were alcohol related
and all sixteen of them were caused by drivers of passenger cars or light trucks.
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
Consulting Engineers —————^—
IXD-10
-------
US 113 Planning Study
September 9, 1997
rev. September 17, 1997 (SHA Comments) /
Page 5
In terms of overall accident experience, the accident summaries provided by SHA only differentiate
between truck accidents and non truck accidents. Between 1980 and 1996, trucks constituted 8.4%
of all vehicles involved in collisions on US 113 in Maryland. Between 1992 and 1996, trucks
constituted 7.1 % all vehicles involved in collisions on US 113 in Maryland.
Provide a discussion on the effect that the speed limit changes have had on accident rates
Response: The first speed limit change on US 113 was reported by SHA to have occurred on August 18, 1978
when the speed limit decreased from 50 mph to 40 mph from MD 589 (log mile 33.30) to Shingle
Landing Road (log mile 34.39). Because we have no accident data before 1980, a before / after
comparison is not possible.
On December 20, 1982, the speed limit was increased from 50 mph to 55 mph from MD 394 (log
mile 9.89) to south of Germantown (log mile 26.00). The year after the speed limit was increased,
the accident rate dropped by 44%. Accident trends show that for the three years before the change
was made, the overall accident rate for this section averaged 90.7 acc./lOOMVM. The average
rate for the thirteen following years averaged 76.0 acc./lOOMVM. Based on these relationships
alone, it does not appear that the speed limit increase had a significant effect on accident rates.
However, with only 3 years of accident data available for the time period before the change, the
margin of error for the comparison could be very high.
In 1989, the speed limit was increased from 50 mph to 55 mph from south of Germantown (log
mile 26.00) to the end of the dualized section (log mile 30.23). Accident trends show that in the
year immediately following the change, the overall accident rate rose from 129.4 to 159.7
acc./lOOMVM. However, for the 10 years preceding the change, the average accident rate was
162.6 acc./lOOMVM while the average rate for the 6 years following the change was 108.1
acc./lOOMVM. Clearly, there are other factors influencing the accident trends on this section of
roadway.
US 50 through Vienna
• Compare accident data before and after dualization
Response:
Accident data for those dualized sections of US 113 prior to dualization is no longer available.
Dualization on those sections occurred in the early 1970's.
To determine the possible effects that dualization would have on the safety of US 113, another,
similar dualized roadway was chosen (US 50 through Vienna, MD) and the accident experiences
of both roads were compared.
US 50 through Vienna, MD passes through Dorcester and Wicomico Counties. US 50 in Dorcester
County (log mile 15.31 to 17.15) is classified as a rural, four lane divided road while US 50 in
Wicomico County (log mile 0.00 / county line to 4.53) is classified as a four lane divided road that
is 84% rural and 16% urban. Therefore, the statewide average accident rates are slightly different
for each County. The following table summarizes the accident experience on US 50 through
Vienna between 1992 and 1996:
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
Consulting Engineers —————
IXD-11
-------
US 113 Planning Study
September 9, 1997
rev. September 17, 1997 (SHA Comments)
Page 6
US 113, Maryland
Table 2
5 Year Accident Comparison (1992 thru 1996)
on US 50 through Vienna, Maryland
RK&K Engineers
September 17, 1997
Accident Type
[Fatal Accidents
| Injury Accidents
• - •
I Property Damage Accidents
I Total Accidents
Opposite Direction
' •••»-•.• i „, -
Hit-Fixed-Object
Angle
Sideswipe
Accident Rate for Sections of US 50 Only
And, (Statewide Average Accident Rate for a similar Section of Road)
- - all rates in terms of ^accidents/1 OOMVM - -
Log Mile
15.31 to 17.15
Dorcester Count
36.2
74.3
Statewide
Average
(102.4)
Log Mile
0.00 to 4.53
Wicomico County
•mmniiBas^cssiii^^^maaiitaT'i •"•'
2.2
42.4
Statewide
Average
Rear-end
27.2
0.0
5.4
-accident rate is signify higher than the statewide average accident raTe' for'sLlar roads
Based on this comparison, it is apparent that if ^northern section of US 113 had been dualized
foere would have been approximately 50% fewer fatal collisions, 42% fewer in\w action* W*
fewerproperty damage accidents and 41 % fewer total accidents/Within e^S^SStato
toere would have been 50% fewer opposite direction collisions, 39«lSXSdSS
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
Consulting Engineers —
IXD-12
-------
US 113 Planning Study
September 9, 1997
rev. September 17, 1997 (SHA Comments)
Page 7
US 113, Maryland RK&K Engineers
Table 3 September 17, 1997
5 Year Accident Comparison (1992 thru 1996
between US 50 and US 113 in Maryland
Accident Type
Fatal Accidents
Injury Accidents
Property Damage Accidents
Total Accidents ••* *" s^ *
Opposite Direction
Hit-Fixed-Object
Angle
Sideswipe
Rear-end
Left Turn
Accident Rates
- - all rates in terms of #accidents/100MVM - -
Average Accident Rate
US 50 through
Vienna, MD
2.0
39.3
32.5
* , ,73;^
2.5
26.5
4.3
4.5
16.8
32
Actual Accident Rate
US 113 in MD
Log mile 9.89-25.99
2.2
28.4
23.9
trl ' * 54.5
7.4
20.3
9.6
1.5
6.3
HirmiTmmJrt5_Br_
Actual Accident Rate
US 113 in MD
Log mile 30.39-37.84
3.5
67.7
54.4
* « - ^ 125.8'
5.3
43.1
26.4*
0.9
20.2
8,8
US 113, Maryland RK&K Engineers
Table 4 September 17, 1997
5 Year Accident Comparison (1992 thru 1996)
between US 50 and US 113 in Maryland
Accident Type
Fatal Accidents
Injury Accidents
Property Damage
Opposite Direction
Hit-Fixed-Object
Angle
Sideswipe
Rear-end
•^J^jflJUHL^, .
US 113 - Historical and Predicted # of Accidents (1992-1996)
based on US 50 accident rates
(mile 9.89-25.99)
Actual # of Ace
6
77
65
20
55
26
4
17
1 4
^Predjcted#of.-
5
106
* '88.
7
72
12
12
46
-.JL^^Ma
(mile 30.39-37.84)
^AjjtwaLfejLAff.Sj^,
4
77
62
•^ASV.'-il^^J'rff^S^i-fe'
c<&i?«v-14^|;Ki|?ip;
6
49
30
1
23
1Q
.^Jllldjejfed #,pi_
2
45
37
isrsss^y.*?::* "!«*.*?*"•*£ --•-:• ;• ..^;v..:A*-.
3
30
5
5
19
^^A*^****
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
Consulting Engineers .
IXD-13
-------
US 113 Planning Study
September 9, 1997
rev. September 17, 1997 (SHA Comments)
PageS
Provide an explanation of how statewide accident rates are calculated and how they are compared to
statewide rates:
Response: Accident rates are calculated by dividing the number of accidents (in a specific time period) by the
traffic volume over a defined length of road (in the same time period). Usually, accident rates are
expressed in terms of # of accidents per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (acc/lOOMVM). For
example, suppose the following traffic and accident characteristics were given, the accident rate
would be calculated using the formula as shown:
Length of roadway segment: 8 miles
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 1985-1990: 4,500 vehicles
#of fixed object accidents 1985-1990: 37 accidents
Accident rate=-
37 accidents
(4,500 vehicles) x (365 days) x (6 years) x (8 miles)
x 100,000,000 =46.9acc/1 OOMVMT
Statewide average rates are calculated using the same formula. The only difference being that every state
maintained section of highway throughout the state having the same characteristics is included.
Statewide average accident rates are calculated for a variety of roadway cross-sections, access
control, and regional locations found throughout the state. Separate statewide accident rates are
calculated for most combinations of these characteristics as follows:
- number of lanes (2 lane, 4 or more lanes)
- median type (divided, undivided)
- access control (no control, partial control, full control)
- region (urban, rural)
For example, the statewide average accident rate for 2 lane, undivided roads with no control of
access in rural regions are found by taking the average traffic, total mileage and total accident
experience for every state maintained 2 lane, rural, undivided highway in Maryland that has no
control of access.
A comparison of the statewide accident rate with the accident rate for a single section of highway
provides a statistical indication of the safety history of that highway as compared to all other
similar state maintained highways throughout Maryland.
• Compare the statewide accident rates for TC3 and TC8 (the color figure) and show which rates are
statistically significantly higher.
Response: Statewide accident rates for typical roadway sections cannot be compared with one another hi this
manner. Statistical significance (using the Morin's Upper Control Limit) is based on the vehicle
miles traveled for a subject roadway as compared to the statewide rate for the same type of road.
This type of comparison is not valid between two different overall statewide rates.
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
Consulting Engineers
IXD-14
-------
Appendix E
Fish and Wildlife Species in Worcester County
-------
lyiilM iXH I*!! i»..' fUM
ijiiiu iiijto^^ liiiiugiiiiB iniiiiiiiiii liiiiH^^ iiiiii/ita^ afiiM^ (iiinii;, ,1 w:.i it-, ii,i> t>f,:• i:i:iiiu;»
' jxiii T'i i^^ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIB^^^ mi , i I'm ii i ii, mi w^^ ill T ;:';«i: iiniiiiiinn^ PL »,in:;,, in ,N, iiiiiiii11 ,i, ,11, :i i pif'; 11|;»" ,} ,,i ': TI i ' a: • f»Illlll: ii,, diiniii:,
p." ' I" '' ' > '
tw piiiiiniH^ iiiii!;i!!';iii"' iiiii'lnuiiiii iin'T'iihir!1'! i iP'ivi'ViliLi'U .iii'i'i'11 N ' " ''iijiiii1 * ': iiiiinjhi 'in, ijiirif r mil1" jiiirfi,1
in iiiM^ i ;ii'iiiiiiiiiiii;i:f:i:iii * IMLUK),' tii' « itiinii rpiwiiHF' frt'KA :iii«^ r* iii" M (fi •': ,: it;' i; ;r"' IK;*!! • 'in:;* 'i "iLii ill! i" lull
,, , , f
If IT illlllH .list"',, illltilllilili"' i /Fill;' (IK, llllllllllli1 l^'JItisC'iil! \i>lli' , ,'' ' ' vi( lil'lllIIIHii i JiJIIIiilli:
iiiiH^^^^^^ itB^^^^ 10^ iilil'ii"'fiiiiii'ait1 > I'jii", l>':;j»: ip]niv-i. '•; ^i'1';,!'; iii' > ^ ;' ;'i i'f - ^' iijiii iiii/iii: i' IIE
Ilif; '^m_'f, i;Ji!f LM^^^ '!!™^ 1 i i" '*,: *• "ii!"'!' ?!:«i: ::';iv!*:: t ,i'llti i' !i ""' !1'1' "'i::""''." ;i:' S,''1 Vi™
IIHIIiiC lilllH
i
' '" ! ' '' " '" ' ' "1"""' " "'"' '"" ' "1;" 'jK^iiiB^Wfl'f'^
^Ellllillilillillllili'i!!!!!11!!!! aillli", f M 1,1 .li'ni Illllllliriii;': li'ifiiili!;;!! Hiii'fSlllii'!'' liail!1'!1' I1' 1! liiilllilllllllilki I!:::;!!::!1!,:1:;;1 liiiJltiiKiiiJIIHI'' i'lE:!;!:, I' MM !," Hiiiii!»li!lii:iilini!fr;:!!!I!i|||!il!!| ,;, iililJylll^tlillliflirJlili::! Hi !!II!H!!" .<„ i; i'iiii!1', ill^!1', •' F"' :':;!l!lii|!:!. ' <, i'1'"1 ••>llf" /: • '<' i' ' ,:!'lp fl '"f :;' !:'' !:•'' ;iili ^Jim 411
III* :• •", il III* ill:', ill ,i,ili livllllllllliyiilfliiiiliT' < v inl!!**! Jl lilillli I ll ilillll*: jllllllllililllllll'ii*' iiliiliilillllllillllililllilllllll il'":!'!!*!!*11* Ill ll** Ill** .'" Ill ,111< 'iLi',1 u,*'• i, III*' III* L**** III i:,i* '' liiiilll* hi ''IllllltllV* 'i"; *; I* affi ' 1*1, I ij* I iii1' '"" ,i \i\ ' : • "i>, . "' I .' ..'. ' If I Ill l|j>: iiillll;, ill
III I IJI I "'. ' "";
MIIW^^^ !i:i:'il';;:iFllU i|il]llin Ji,: '.,:, Z ' ri,;! '"I;_ '^'i iiiiilVllllp
^Ifii^fllipii^M^I^ H1. ffl !W££y^1^1;^-li4:1fI! !fl
i ! i 3
it ''liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiir': 'iiiiii1"!, m ii iiiiiiii ' ^ i :i; i'liii ii* I!'! ;i *i !iii< iiiiiiiiiiii
,|,li:
| j, IK j I'liiiiiiiii;*;. iif iiiiiiii'iin* ii*f! ij "iiiiifi * iiiif; 'I'l' "f iw ||i* j^':;, i'!;,,1:»*,, ,l!|1""' liiiiiiiiiiii'; i:j, •',; < ^iJ,;!1,,: < * iijiiiiiiiiiiii«' ;;< !i i,:'' ii"!;.'" i!1'!!!';!'!',!'" ,'''!"""''!' !!!;;l'!>1'1"'!' ''!!i ; •' " : i:!!'',' ' '• ';!./' "' i:!li!l',?, "i"!111!!!!!!!! 'I!1!!11!!!' I
JgCl^ liliiliillliiiiii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!^ i^JliiiiilVl! l£t IIIBli'1: Iflii'i if1!. 'I WWnl-u'^'- 4'" "''"" i«:'! r ' "' ""' '* W !• tfrTOtf! .11
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Appendix E-l: Freshwater Fish of Worcester County
Common Name Scientific Name
Sea Lamprey
Least Brook Lamprey
American Eel
Atlantic Sturgeon
Longnose Gar
Bowfin
Blueback Herring
Alewife
Hickory Shad
American Shad
Gizzard Shad
Eastern Mudminnow
Grass Pickerel
Chain Pickerel
Common Carp
Goldfish
Golden Shiner
Rosyside Dace
Blacknose Dace
Eastern Silvery Minnow
Common Shiner
Satinfm Shiner
Fathead Minnow
Ironcolor Shiner
Swallowtail Shiner
Bridle Shiner
Spottail Shiner
White Sucker
Creek Chubsucker
White Catfish
Yellow Bullhead
Brown Bullhead
Tadpole Madtom
Margined Madtom
Pirate Perch
Banded Killfish
Mummichog
Rainwater Killfish
Mosquitofish
Inland Silverside
Pettromyzon marinus
Lampetra aepytera
Anguilla rostrata
Acipenser oxyrhynchus
Lepisoseus osseus
Amia calva
Alosa aestivalis
A. pseudoharengus
A, medians
A. sapidissima
Dorosma cepedianum
Umbra pygmaea
Esox americanus
E. niger
Cyprinus carpio
Carassius auratus
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Clinostomus funduloides
Rhinichihys atraulus
Hybognathus regius
Luxilus cornutus
Cyprinella analostana
Pimephales promelas
Notropis chalybaeus
N. pocne
N. bifrenatus
N. hudsonius
Catostomus commersoni
Erimyzon oblongus
Ameiutus catus
A. natalis
A. nebulosus
Noturus gyrnus
N. insgnis
Aphredoderus sayanus
Fundulus diaphanus
F. heteroclitus
Lucania parva
Gambusia affinis
Menidia beryllina
IX E-l
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Common Name
Fourspine Stickleback
Threespine Stickleback
Slimy Sculpin
Mottled Sculpin
White Perch
Striped Bass
Black Crappie
White Crappie
Mud Sunfish
Banded Sunfish
Bluespotted Sunfish
Blackbanded Sunfish
Largemouth Bass
Pumpkinseed
Redbreast Sunfish
Bluegill
Yellow Perch
Tessellated Darter
Swamp Darter
Scientific Name
Apeltes quaracus
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Cottus cognatus
C. bairdi
Monroe americanus
M. saxatilis
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
P. annularis
Acantharchus pomotis
Enneacanthus obesus
E. gloriosus
E. chaetodon
Micropterus salmoides
Leponis gibbosus
L. aurtus
L. macrochirus
Perca flavescens
Efyeostoma olmstedi
E. Fusiforme
Sources: Lawrence, Page M. and Brooks M. Burr. 1991. A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes.
Peterson Field Guide Series. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Mclhinch, S. P. 1994. The Freshwater Fishes on the Delmarva Peninsula. Doctoral
Dissertation. Princess Anne,MD: Univ. Of Maryland, Eastern Shore Campus.
Thompson, Peter. 1985. Thompson's Guide to Freshwater Fishes. New York, NY:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
IXE-2
-------
175 173 Planning Study
Appendix E-2: Amphibians of Worcester County
Common Name Scientific Name
Marbled Salamander
Eastern Tiger Salamander
Four-toed Salamander
Red-backed Salamander
Eastern Mud Salamander
Eastern Spadefoot
American Toad
Fowler's Toad
Northern Cricket Frog
Green Treefrog
Northern Spring Peeper
Southern Gray Treefrog
Eastern Narrow-mouthed Toad
Bullfrog
Carpenter Frog
Green Frog
Southern Leopard Frog
Pickerel Frog
Woodfrog
Ambystoma opacum
A. tigrinum tigrinum
Hemidactylium scutatum
Plethodon ciereus cinereus
Pseudotriton montanus montanus
Scaphiopus holbroold holbrooki
Bufo americanus americanus
B. woodhouseifowleri
Acris crepitans crepitans
Hyla cinerea
H. crucifer crucifer
H. chrysoscelis
Gastrophryne carolinensis
Rana catesbeiana
R. virgatipes
R. damitans
R. utricularia utricularia
R. palustris
R. sylvatica sylvatica
Sources: Conant, Roger and Joseph T. Collins. 1991. A Field Guide to Reptiles and
Amphibians. Peterson Field Guide Series. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Harris, Herbert S. Jr. 1975. "Distributional Survey (Amphibia/Reptilia): Maryland
and the District of Columbia." Bulletin of the Maryland Herptological Society,
Volume 11, Number 3. Baltimore, MD: Maryland Herptological Society.
IXE-3
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Appendix E-3: Reptiles of Worcester County
Common Name Scientific Name
Northern Fence Lizard
Ground Skink
Five-lined Skink
Broad-headed Skink
Eastern Worm Snake
Ringneck Snake
Eastern Hognose Snake
Rough Green Snake
Northern Black Racer
Black Rat Snake
Eastern King Snake
Coastal Plain Milk Snake
Northern Water Snake
Northern Brown Snake
Northern Red-bellied Snake
Eastern Earth Snake
Eastern Ribbon Snake
Eastern Garter Snake
Northern Copperhead
Stinkpot
Eastern Mud Turtle
Common Snapping Turtle
Spotted Turtle
Eastern Box Turtle
Northern Diamondback Terrapin
Eastern Painted Turtle
Red-bellied Turtle
Atlantic Green Turtle
Atlantic Loggerhead
Sceloporus undulatus hyacinthinus
Leiolopisma laterale
Eumeces fasiciatus
E. laticeps
Carphis amoenus amoenus
Diadophis punctatus punctatus/edwardsi
Heterodon platyrhinos
Opheodrys aestivus
Coluber constrictor constrictor
Elaphe obsolata obsolata
Lampropeltis getulus getulus
L. triangulum temporalis
Natrix sipedon sipedon
Storeia dekayi dekayi
S. occipitomaculata occipitomaculata
Virginia valeriae valeriae
Thamnophis sauritus sauritus
T. sirtalis sirtalis
Agkistrodon contorix mokasen
Sternoterus odoatus
Kinosternon subrubrum subrubrum
Chelydra serpentina serpentina
Clemmys guttata
Terrapene Carolina Carolina
Malaclemys terrapin terrapin
Chrysemys picta picta
C. rubriventris
Chelonia mydas mydas
Caretta caretta caretta
Sources: Conant, Roger and Joseph T. Collins. 1991. A Field Guide to Reptiles and
Amphibians. Peterson Field Guide Series. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Harris, Herbert S. Jr. 1975. "Distributional Survey (Amphibia/Reptilia): Maryland
and the District of Columbia." Bulletin of the Maryland Herptological Society,
Volume 11, Number 3. Baltimore, MD: Maryland Herptological Society.
IXE-4
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Appendix E-4: Birds of Worcester County
Common Name
LOONS - GREBES
Red-throated Loon
Common Loon
Pied-billed Grebe
Horned Grebe
Red-necked Grebe
SHEARWATERS - STORM PETRELS
Northern Fulmar
Cory's Shearwater
Greater Shearwater
Sooty Sherwater
Manx Sherwater
Wilson's Storm-Petrel
Leach's Storm-Petrel
GANNET - PELICANS - CORMORANTS
Northern Gannet
Brown Pelican
Great Cormorant
Double-crested Cormorant
BITTERNS - HERONS - IBISES
American Bittern
Least Bittern
Great Blue Heron
Great Egret
Snowy Egret
Little Blue Heron
Tricolored Heron
Cattle Egret
Green-backed Heron
Black-crowned Night-heron
Yellow-crowned Night-Heron
White Ibis
Glossy Ibis
IXE-5
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Common Name
SWANS - GEESE - DUCKS
Fulvous Whistling-Duck
Tundra Swan
Mute Swan
Greater White-fronted Goose
Snow Goose
Brant
Canada Goose
Wood Duck
Green-winged Teal
American Black Duck
Mallard
Northern Pintail
Blue-winged Teal
Northern Shoveler
Gadwall
Eurasian Wigeon
American Wigeon
Canvasback
Redhead
Ring-necked Duck
Greater Scaup
Lesser Scaup
Common Eider
King Eider
Harlequin Duck
Oldsquaw
Black Scoter
Surf Scoter
White-winged Scoter
Common Goldeneye
Bufflehead
Hooded Merganser
Common Merganser
Red-breasted Merganser
Ruddy Duck
IXE-6
-------
US 113 Plannins Study
Common Name
VULTURES - HAWKS - FALCONS
Black Vulture
Turkey Vulture
Osprey
Bald Eagle
Northern Harrier
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Cooper's Hawk
Red-shouldered Hawk
Broad-winged Hawk
Red-tailed hawk
Rough-legged Hawk
Golden Eagle
American Kestrel
Merlin
Peregrine Falcon
QUAIL - RAILS - COOT
Northern Bobwhite
Black Rail
Clapper Rail
King Rail
Virginia Rail
Sora
Common Moorhen
American Coot
PLOVERS - SANDPIPERS
Black-bellied Plover
Lesser Golden-Plover
Wilson's Plover
Semipalmated Plover
Piping Plover
Killdeer
American Oystercatcher
American Avocet
Greater Yellowlegs
Lesser Yellowlegs
Solitary Sandpiper
IXE-7
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Common Name
Willet
Spotted Sandpiper
Upland Sandpiper
Whimbrel
Hudsonian Godwit
Marbled Godwit
Ruddy Turnstone
Red Knot
Sanderling
Semipalmated Sanderling
Western Sandpiper
Least Sandpiper
White-rumped Sandpiper
Pectoral Sandpiper
Purple Sandpiper
Dunlin
Curlew Sandpiper
Stilt Sandpiper
Buff-breasted Sandpiper
Ruff
Short-billed Dowitcher
Long-billed Dowitcher
Common Snipe
American Woodcock
Wilson's Phalarope
Red-necked phalarope
JAEGERS - GULLS - TERNS - AUKS
Pomarine Jaegar
Parasitic Jaegar
South Polar Skua
Laughing Gull
Little Gull
Common Black-headed Gull
Bonaparte's Gull
Ring-billed Gull
Herring Gull
Iceland Gull
Lesser Black-backed Gull
Glaucous Gull
IXE-8
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Common Name
Great Black-backed Gull
Gull-billed Tern
Caspian Tern
Royal Tern
Sandwich Tern
Common Tern
Forster's Tern
Least Tern
Black Tern
Black Skimmer
Dovekie
Razorbill
Atlantic Puffin
DOVES - CUCKOOS - OWLS - SWIFTS - HUMMINGBIRD
Rock Dove
Mourning Dove
Black-billed Cuckoo
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Barn Owl
Eastern Screech-Owl
Great Horned Owl
Long-eared Owl
Short-eared Owl
Northern Saw-whet Owl
Common Nighthawk
Whip-poor-will
Chuck-will's-window
Chimney Swift
Ruby-throated Hummingbird
Belted Kingfisher
WOODPECKERS - FLYCATCHERS
Red-headed Woodpecker
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
Downy Woodpecker
Hairy Woodpecker
Pileated Woodpecker
Northern Flicker
IXE-9
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Common Name
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Yellow-bellied Flycatcher
Acadian Flycatcher
Willow Flycatcher
Least Flycatcher
Eastern Phoebe
Great Crested Flycatcher
Western Kingbird
Eastern Kingbird
LARKS - SWALLOWS - JAYS - CROWS
Horned Lark
Purple Martin
Tree Swallow
Northern Rough-winged Swallow
Bank Swallow
Cliff Swallow
Barn Swallow
Blue Jay
American Crow
Fish Crow
TITMICE - NUTHATCHES - WRENS
Carolina Chickadee
Tufted Titmouse
Red-breasted Nuthatch
White-breasted Nuthatch
Brown-headed Nuthatch
Brown Creeper
Carolina Wren
House Wren
Winter Wren
Sedge Wren
Marsh Wren
KINGLETS - THRUSHES - THRASHERS
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
IXE-10
-------
US 113 Planning Studv
Common Name
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
Eastern Bluebird
Veery
Gray-cheeked Thrush
Swainson's Thrush
Hermit Thrush
Wood Thrush
American Robin
Gray Catbird
Northern Mockingbird
Brown Thrasher
WAXWINGS - SHRIKES - STARLING
Water Pipit
Cedar Waxwing
Loggerhead Shrike
European Starling
VIREOS - WOOD WARBLER^
White-eyed Vireo
Solitary Vireo
Yellow-throated Vireo
Warbling Vireo
Philadelphia Vireo
Red-eyed Vireo
Blue-winged Warbler
Golden-winged Warbler
Tennessee Warbler
Orange-crowned Warbler
Nashville Warbler
Northern Parula
Yellow Warbler
Chestnut-sided Warbler
Magnolia Warbler
Cape May Warbler
Black-throated Blue Warbler
Yellow-rumped warbler
Black-throated Green Warbler
Blackbumian Warbler
Yellow-throated Warbler
IXE-11
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Common Name
Pine Warbler
Prairie Warbler
Palm Warbler
Bay-breasted Warbler
Blackpoll Warbler
Cerulean Warbler
Black-and-white Warbler
American Redstart
Prothonotary Warbler
Worm-eating Warbler
Swainson's Warbler
Ovenbird
Northern Waterthrush
Louisiana Waterthrush
Kentucky Warbler
Connecticut Warbler
Mourning Warbler
Common Yellowthroat
Hooded Warbler
Wilson's Warbler
Canada Warbler
Yellow-breasted Chat
TANAGERS - SPARROWS
Summer Tanager
Scarlet Tanager
Northern Cardinal
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Blue Grosbeak
Indigo Bunting
Dickcissel
Rufous-sided Townee
American Tree Sparrow
Chipping Sparrow
Clay-colored Sparrow
Field Sparrow
Vesper Sparrow
Lark Sparrow
Savannah Sparrow
Grasshopper Sparrow
IX E-12
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Common Name
Sharp-tailed Sparrow
Seaside Sparrow
Fox Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Lincoln's Sparrow
Swamp Sparrow
White-throated Sparrow
White-crowned Sparrow
Dark-eyed Junco
Lapland Longspur
Snow Bunting
BLACKBIRDS - FINCHES
Bobolink
Red-winged Blackbird
Eastern Meadowlark
Yellow-headed Blackbird
Rusty Blackbird
Boat-tailed Grackle
Common Grackle
Brown-headed Cowbird
Orchard Oriole
Northern Oriole
Purple Finch
House Finch
Red Crossbill
Pine Siskin
American Goldfinch
Evening Grosbeak
House Sparrow
Sources: National Geograhic Society. 1987. Field Guide to the Birds of North America.
Washington, DC: National Geograhic Society.
Perterson, Roger Tory. 1980. A Field Guide to the Eastern Birds. Peterson Field
Guide Series. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Robbins, Chandler and Eriek Blum. 1996. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Maryland
and the District of Columbia. Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. Of Pittsburgh Press.
IXE-13
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Appendix E-5: Mammals of Worcester County
Common Name
Masked Shrew
Pygmy Shrew
Short-tailed Shrew
Least Shrew
Eastern Mole
Star-nosed Mole
Little Brown Myotis
keen's Myotis
Silver-haired Bat
Eastern Pipstrelle
Big Brown Bat
Red-Bat
Hoary Bat
Evening Bat
Eastern Cottontail
Eastern Chipmunk
Woodchuck
Gray Squirrel
Delmarva Fox Squirrel
Southern Flying Squirrel
Marsh Rice Rat
White-footed Mouse
Meadow Vole
Pine Vole
Muskrat
Southern Bog Lemming
Nutria
Norway Rat
House Mouse
Meadow Jumping Mouse
Coyote
Red Fox
Raccoon
Long-tailed Weasel
Mink
River Otter
Sika Deer
White-tailed Deer
Scientific Name
Sorex cinereus fontalis
Microsorex hoyi winnemana
Blarina brevicauda kirtlandi
Cryptotis parva
Scalopus aquaticus aquations
Condylura cristata cristata
Myotis lucifugus lucifugus
M. keenii septentrionalis
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Pipistrellus subflavus subflavus
Eptesicus fucus fucus
Lasiurus borealis borealis
L. cinereus cinereus
Nycticeius humeralis humeralis
Sylvilagus floridanus mediums
Tamias striatus fisheri
Marmota momax momax
Sciurus carolinensis pennsylvanicus
S. Niger cinereus
Glaucomys volans volans
Oryzomys palustris palustris
Peromyscus leucopus noveboracensis
Microtus pennsylvanicus nigrans
Pitymys pinetorum scalosoides
Ondatra zibethicus macrodon
Synaptomys cooperi stonei
Myocastor coypus
Rattus norvegicus
Mus musculus
Zapus hudsonius americanus
Canis latrans
Vulpes vulpesfulva
Procyon lotor lotor
Mustela frenata noveboracensis
M. Vison
Lutra canadensis lataxina
Cervus nippon
Odocoileus virginanus borealis
IXE-14
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Sources: Burt, William H. and Richard P. Grossenheider. 1980. A Field Guide to the
Mammals. Peterson Field Guide Series. New York: NY. Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Paradiso, John L. 1969. "Mammals of Maryland." North American Fauna, Number
66. Washington: DC. US Fish and Wildlife Service.
1X3-15
-------
-------
Appendix F
Memorandum of Agreement
-------
Ill (II 11 III I I ((111 III
•I I III
(111 Ill II III 111
ill Illllli
•Ill 1 1.1
i iiiiiii inn i in 111 iiiiiii iiiiiii i i
I Illllllllllll I II III
i ......
Illllli Illllllllll T1 Kililjil ....... '.'!i ....... [if'11!! ....... •' ..... 1111.1 II ...... Wl''i/fli fSBlltf' ..... Bllllli ........ limi ..... fllii'lli I; ...... K'N '>" i'.tHK I- . ' ; ..... i1 1"
..... ii; ..... .w ....... •; ..... €
-------
US 113 Planning Study
APPENDIX F
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Page F-2 Memorandum Of Agreement Among The Federal Highway Administration, And The
Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer, And Submitted To The Advisory
Council On Historic Preservation Pursuant To 365 CFR § 800.6(a) Regarding U.S.
Route 113 From Snow Hill To The Delaware Line
Page F-7 US 113 Memorandum of Agreement Coordination Meeting
Dated December 16, 1997
Page F-12 Federal Highway Administration letter to Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Dated December 19, 1997
F-1
-------
-------
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
AMONG THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION,
AND THE MARYLAND STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER,
AND SUBMITTED TO THE
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PURSUANT TO 36 CFR § 800.6(a)
REGARDING U.S. ROUTE 113 FROM SNOW HILL TO THE DELAWARE LINE
WHEREAS the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) proposes to assist the Maryland State Highway
Administration (SHA) with construction of U.S. Route 113 from Snow Hill to the Delaware Line; and,
WHEREAS after detailed study of various alternates, the FHWA has selected for construction Alternate 3S (34'
median) in the Southern Study Area and the Combination Alternate 3N/4N Modified (34' median) in the
Northern Study Area; and,
WHEREAS, the FHWA has determined that the project wilt have an adverse effect upon St. Martin's Church (WO-
23) a property listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and on which the Maryland Historical Trust
holds an historic preservation easement; and the project may have an effect on archeological properties eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places; and has consulted with the Maryland State Historic
Preservation Officer (MD SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR 800, regulations implementing Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470f); and,
WHEREAS, the SHA and the St. Martin's Church Foundation, Inc. (Foundation) have participated in the
consultation, and have been invited to concur in this Memorandum of Agreement (MO A);
NOW THEREFORE, FHWA and the MD SHPO agree, upon acceptance by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (Council), that the undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in
order to take into account the effect of the undertaking on historic properties.
Stipulations
The FHWA will ensure that the following measures are carried out:
I. St. Martin's Church (WO-25)
SHA shall work cooperatively with the MD SHPO and the Foundation to implement the mitigation measures
for St. Martin's Church (Church) stipulated below.
A Access, Parking Lot, and Pathway: SHA shall provide new entry from US 113 to the Church via the
planned access road on the west side of US 113. SHA shall design and construct a parking area with a
connecting accessible pathway to the Church in a location outside and/or within the church boundaries,
mutually agreed to by MD SHPO, SHA, and the Foundation. SHA shall ensure that the design and
location for the parking lot and pathway is developed in consultation with the MD SHPO and
Foundation and is compatible with the historic and architectural qualities of the Church and its setting in
terms of scale, massing, color and materials and that the design and specifications for the improvements
are submitted to the MD SHPO and Foundation for approval.
F-2
-------
B. Traffic Controls: SHA shall retain the traffic signal at comer of U.S. 113 and Racetrack Road (MD Route
#598). SHA shall maintain the speed limit in vicinity of church at 55 m.p.h. within the vicinity of the ChurcJ
C. Historic Markers and Monuments: SHA shall provide historic markers for the Church on US 113 withir
appropriate distances from die property. SHA shall also furnish a monument related to the Church's histonl
and consult with the MD SHPO and the Foundation to determine the appropriate siting and content for that"
monument.
D. Median Design and Landscaping: SHA shall ensure that the design for the median barrier and landscapinl
for US 113 along the Church property is compatible with the historic and architectural qualities of .the ChuiT
and is sensitive to the Church's scenic viewshed. SHA shall submit the design to the MD S.HB0 aiid
Foundation for review and comment.
1 .• ..i ^4'" ',. , -'' . ' _
E. Fence: SHA shall construct a fence which is compatible with the historic character and setting of the Chur|
to mark the eastern and southern boundary of the Church property, subject to the review and approval oft
Maryland Historical Trust for easement purposes. SHA shall submit the proposed fencing plan to the MD ]
SHPO and the Foundation for review and approval.
F. Archeology: SHA shall coordinate with the MD SHPO to consider the effects of proposed Church mitigaj
measures on archeological properties. If deemed necessary by the consultation, SHA shall prepare and
implement a program for the identification, evaluation, and treatment of archeological properties within the
area that will be directly impacted by the proposed measure.
G. Maryland Historical Trust Easement Approval: Any proposed changes or alterations within the currentl
boundary of the Church property shall require the approval of the Director of the Maryland Historical Trusj
(Trust), pursuant to the terms of the perpetual historic preservation easement the Trust holds on the proper
The MD SHPO shall coordinate the review of any proposed mitigation measures on the easement property I
with the Trust's Easement Committee review f *'" * '
\' •%
'-•':' s
II. Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Archeological Resources
A. Identification: In consultation with the MD SHPO, SHA shall complete and report archeological
identification efforts for the selected alternates in those portions of the area of potential effect (APE) .subject to
ground disturbance for which surveys have not been completed (including those areas where access was denied
during initial survey efforts, proposed wetland mitigation sites, storm water management areas, etc.), in order to
identify archeological resources potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. All
work shall be accomplished in accordance with the performance standards outlined in Stipulation V below.
''' ' i
B. Evaluation: In consultation with the MD SHPO, SHA shall evaluate the National Register eligibility of |
recorded archeological sites that might be impacted by the selected alternates, in accordance with 36 CFR § 800/
and using the criteria outlined in Bulletin 15, Guidelines for Applying the National Register Criteria for Evaluat^
published by the National Park Service. Previously completed Phase I investigations indicate that ten potentially
significant archeological sites will be impacted by Alternate 3S: 18WO181, 18WO183, 18WO184, 18WO185,
18WO190, 18WO191, 18WO196, 18WO201, 18WO203,and 18WO204. Two potentially significant archeolog
sites will be impacted by the Combination Alternate 3N/4N Modified: 18WO193, and 18WO212. SHA shall
evaluate the National Register eligibility of these 12 previously identified archeological sites, along with any sites)
identified by additional survey efforts performed under Stipulation II.A above. All work shall be accomplished:
accordance with the performance standards outlined in Stipulation V below.
F-3
-------
C. Treatment: If archeological evaluation identifies properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places, SHA shall develop a plan for their avoidance, protection, recovery, or destruction without recovery,
and public education/interpretation in consultation with the MD SHPO. SHA shall submit the treatment plan to the
MD SHPO for a 30 day review period. Unless the MD SHPO objects within 30 days after receipt of the plan, SHA
shall ensure that it is implemented prior to and in coordination with project ground disturbing activities within or
immediately adjacent to the site area(s).
Should data recovery investigations be warranted, the SHA shall ensure that a data recovery plan is
developed in consultation with the MD SHPO, consistent with the performance standards outlined in
Stipulation V below. The plan shall specify, at a minimum:
a) the property, properties, or portions of properties where data recovery is to be carried out, and
any property that will be destroyed without data recovery;
b) research questions to be addressed through data recovery, with an explanation of their relevance
and importance; the research methods to be used, with an explanation of their relevance to the
research questions; and, the methods to be used in analysis, data management, and data
dissemination, including a schedule;
c) proposed disposition of recovered materials and records;
d) proposed methods for involving the interested public in the data recovery, and for disseminating
the results of the work to the interested public; and, a proposed schedule for the submission of
progress reports to the MD SHPO.
SHA and the MD SHPO will meet on-site to evaluate the success of the fieldwork phase of any data
recovery program, near the end of the fieldwork efforts. SHA shall submit a management summary to the
MD SHPO documenting the completion of fieldwork for 15 day review. Upon receipt of the written
concurrence from the MD SHPO, SHA may proceed with construction activities in the site areas
concurrently with completion of the remaining laboratory, analyses, and reporting phases of the data
recovery work.
D. Reporting: SHA shall document the results of archeological survey, evaluation, and mitigation in
archeological reports responsive to contemporary professional standards, and in accordance with the performance
standards outlined in Stipulation V below. SHA shall provide the MD SHPO with an opportunity to provide review
and comment on all draft reports, and all comments shall be addressed by final reports. SHA shall ensure that all
final archeological reports resulting from actions pursuant to this agreement will be provided to the MD SHPO,
National Park Service, and other repositories as appropriate.
III. Additional Historic Properties to be Considered
Prior to the selection of sites for wetland mitigation or other ancillary activities associated with construction
of the project, SHA shall consult with the MD SHPO to assess the effect on historic properties. If indicated, SHA
shall undertake a survey adequate to identify and evaluate for National Register eligibility any historic properties
which may be affected by these activities. In consultation with the MD SHPO, SHA shall apply the National
Register criteria to each potentially eligible property identified in the survey(s). For each historic property identified,
SHA, in consultation with the MD SHPO, shall then apply the Criteria of Effect and Adverse Effect (36 CFR 800.9).
If the effect is not adverse, SHA shall obtain the MD SHPO's concurrence, and the action may proceed as
proposed. If the potential for an adverse effect to historic properties is found, SHA shall consult with the MD SHPO
to seek ways to avoid or reduce the effects on historic properties by relocating or modifying the proposed action. If
the avoidance of adverse effects proves unfeasible or impractical, the SHA and the MD SHPO shall consult to
develop and implement a treatment plan in accordance with 36 C.F.R. 800.5e. All work shall be accomplished in
F-4
-------
accordance with the performance standards outlined in Stipulation V below.
IV. Unanticipated Discoveries of Archeological Resources
In the event that previously unidentified archeological resources are discovered during grpund disturbing
activities within the APE. SHA shall halt construction work involving subsurface disturbance in the area of the
resource and in the surrounding area where further subsurface remains can reasonably be expected to occur. SI
shall immediately notify the MD SHPO of the discovery.
SHA and the MD SHPO, or an archeologist approved by them, shall immediately inspect the work site an]
determine the area and nature of the affected archeological resource. Construction work may then continue in the
area outside die archeological resource as defined by SHA and the MD SHPO.
Within three working days of the original notification of discovery, SHA, in conjunction with the MD SHPO.|
shall determine the National Register eligibility of the resource.
If the resource is determined eligible for the National Register, SHA shall prepare a plan for its avoidance,
protection, recovery, of destruction without recovery. Such a plan shall be approved by the MD SHPO prior to
implementation.
Work in the affected area shall not proceed until either:
• The development and implementation of appropriate data recovery dr other recommended mitigation
measures, or
• The determination is made that the located remains are not eligible for inclusion on the National Regi^
Any disputes over the evaluation or treatment of previously unidentified archeological resources will be resolved
using the process provided for in Stipulation V, Section D of this Agreement.
V. Administration
A. Professional Qualifications: SHA shall ensure that all archeological work carried Out pursuant to this
agreement is conducted by or under the direct supervision of a person or persons meeting at a minimum the Secret]
of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-9) for Archeologists. All architectural work
shall be carried out by or under the direct supervision of a person or persons meeting at a minimum the Secretary |
the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards (48 FR 44739) for Architectural History.
B. Standards and Guidelines: SHA shall ensure that all archeological work carried out pursuant to this
agreement is done in accordance with the principles and standards contained in:
• Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (48
44716-44742);
• Consulting About Archeology Under Section 106 (ACHP 1990);
• Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Investigations in Maryland (Shaffer and Cole 1994):
• Identification of Historic Properties: A Decisionmaking Guide for Managers (Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation and the National Park Service: Washington D.C. 1988);
• Guidelines for Completing the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties Form (Maryland Historical]
Trust 1991).
C. Curation: SHA shall ensure that all materials and records (including all recovered artifacts, documents
maps, and photographs) generated by the project for which clear title can be obtained shall
F-5
-------
be submitted to the MD SHPO for curation in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding for
Curatorial Services between the Maryland State Highway Administration and the Maryland Historical
Trust (1997). * ,v
D. Dispute Resolution: Should the MD SHPO object within 30 days to any documents submitted
for review or actions proposed pursuant to this agreement, the FHWA shall consult with the objecting party
to resolve the objection. If the FHWA determines that the objection cannot be resolved, the FHWA shall
request the further comments of the Council pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.6(b). Any Council comment
provided in response to such a request will be taken into account by the FHWA in accordance with 36 CFR
§ 800.6(c)(2) with reference only to the subject of the dispute; the FHWA's responsibility to carry out all
actions under this agreement that are not subjects of the dispute will remain unchanged.
Execution of the of this Memorandum of Agreement by FHWA and the MD SHPO, its subsequent
acceptance by the Council and implementation of its terms, evidence that FHWA has afforded the Council an
opportunity to comment on U.S. Route 113 from Snow Hill to the Delaware Line, Worcester County, Maryland,
and its effects on historic properties, and that FHWA has taken into account the effects of the undertaking on
historic properties.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Date:
/ — Susan J. Binder, Division Administrator
MARYLAND STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
Date:
^7
/J. Rodney Little, State Historic Preservation Officer
L/
^MINISTRATION
By: • , ,
Parker F. Vffliarife; Administrator
Date:
. . ..
ST. MARTIN'S CHURCH FOUNDATION, INC.
William E.
Date:
Accepted for the ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
By:
Date:
John M. Fowler, Executive Director
F-6
-------
Mary/and Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Parris N. Glendenl
Governor
David L. Winsteac
Secretary
Parker F. Williar
Administrator
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Louis H. Ege, Jr.
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and
Preliminary Engineering
R. Suseela Rajan
Project Manager
Project Planning Division
December 16,1997
US 113 Memorandum of Agreement Coordination meeting
On December 4,1997 representatives from the Federal Highway Administration, State
Highway Administration, the Maryland Historical Trust, and the St. Martin's Church
Foundation meet to go over mitigation measures for the MOA. Those in attendance
were:
Ms. Anne Bruder, Maryland Historical Trust
Ms. Beth Cole, Maryland Historical Trust
Mr. William E. Esham, III, St. Martin's Church Foundation
Mr. Bruce Grey, State Highway Administration
Ms. Mary Huie, Federal Highway Administration
Ms. Catherine Maher, State Highway Administration
Phase I Archeology
The Phase I archeology studies for the wetland mitigation sites are underway. There
are twelve sites being investigated that required Phase II investigations. Minor
revisions to the first draft of the MOA for archeology were made. Charlie Hall is going
to provide Beth Cole with additional text (see attached).
St. Martin's Church Property
William Esham is planning on approaching Perdue concerning a possible donation of
land from Perdue to the church in January. The church Foundation is looking for
donation of the area surrounding the church property. The area to the south could
potentially be used as a parking lot (to be constructed by SHA) and the area to the
north is being sought after because this area may potentially contain additional burial
sites. The church wants to enlarge the buffer area surrounding the church.
My telephone number is
Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech
1 -800-735-2258 Statewide Toll Free
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 717 « Baltimore, MD 21203-0717
Street Address: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202
F-7
-------
Charlie Hall offered to have his consultant archeological team look at the possible burial
sites behind the church and provide and assessment for the area. Catherine Maher will
investigate to find out whether a property owner contact letter was sent to the property
owner. Mr. Hall will provide a letter to Mr. Esham informing him of the results of these
investigations.
There is some concern as to whether the Perdue property has a legal access point and
how these proposed changes would have an effect on this access. Mr. Esham will
include these concerns in his correspondence with Perdue.
MOA Stipulations
The Maryland Historical Trust is developing the MOA for the St. Martin's Church
property. As part of the stipulations under the mitigation agreement MHT had listed a
number of possible stipulations that could be incorporated into the MOA. These
preliminary stipulations were used as a basis for discussion.
Stipulations that will be included in fh© MOA:
The design of the mitigation including the parking lot, path, and handicapped access
will be coordinated with SHA's Landscape Architecture Division. The design and the
materials selected will be reviewed by MHT and the Church's Foundation.
Construction of a parking area for the church
Plans for a parking lot for the church were shown at the meeting. One plan showed a
parking lot within the existing n'ght-of-way along the eastern side of the service road.
This parking location would not be feasible since Mr. Esham thought that this parking
area was to far from the church. The other potential parking area is located to the
• south of the church property on Perdue property. The plans distributed at the meeting
showed room for 22 spaces within this area. Mr. Esham indicated that the church was
looking for approximately 50 spaces and asked that the parking lot be located within the
church property if Perdue is unwilling to donate this land to the church. MHT stated that
the location of the parking lot within church property would be acceptable. Further,
Mary Huie (FHWA) stated that the construction of the parking lot on the property would
not be a Section 4(f) impact since this is bling implemented as part of mitigation and
not as part of a transportation improvement.' Mr. Esham and MHT expressed that they
were not interested in a asphalt parking lot but that a more suitable material such as
grasscrete or gravel would be more appropriate. Any alteration to the church property
will require Easement Committee approval by MHT.
Construction of a path leading to the church
A path to the church will also be provided as part of the mitigation in the MOA. This
path would be constructed of a similar material as the parking lot. Again., this would
not be a Section 4(f) impact since this is being implemented as part of mitigation and
not as part of a transportation improvement.
Median treatments in front of the church
Guardrail is to be used in the median throughout the project for safety reasons. The
guardrail would be terminated prior to the US 113/MD 589 intersection and an impact
F-8
-------
attenuator would be needed at the termination point. Because of the length of the left
turn lanes at MD 589, the guardrail may end far enough down the road so as to not
impact to the viewshed of the church. A more detailed analysis of the guardrail will be
conducted to determine the most plausible design with regards to the impacts to the
church. Impacts to the viewshed could also be lessened with the use of plantings.
Designs for the median treatments in front of the church property will be reviewed by
MHT. Potential guardrail treatments could include timber and this possibility will be
further investigated by SHA.
Roadway Grading
There will be minimal or no changes to the grading of the roadway in the area of the
church property.
Fence in front of church
The Church Foundation requested a split-rail type fence as part of the mitigation plan
for the church. SHA agreed to provide a fence inside the eastern property line of the
church.
Provide handicapped access
The church will develop a portable ramp for handicapped access. A permanent fixture
such as a ramp or chairlift would not be necessary.
Retention of the traffic signal at Racetrack Road
The traffic signal at MD 589 will be retained as part of the future improvements.
Historical Signs
There will be signs placed along the roadway to mark the St. Martin's Church as a
historic site in both travel directions along US 113. In addition, a historical monument
will be created and placed at an appropriate location to be decided based upon
coordination with MHT and the Foundation.
Landscaping Plan Review
A landscaping plan in the area of the church will be developed by SHA and submitted
for review by MHT and the Church Foundation.
The following stipulations were proposed for inclusion in the WIOA but will not be
included in the MOA:
Reduction of the speed limit in the vicinity of the church
MHT suggested lowering the speed limit in front of the church. The speed limit at St.
Martin's Church is currently 50 mph. The signal at Racetrack Road will be maintained
thus providing for a somewhat slower pace for vehicles immediately in front of the
church. However, SHA cannot agree to maintain slower speeds through the area as
this will be incongruent with speeds throughout the rest of the corridor. The roadway will
be designed for 60 mph. Drivers travel at a speed that is comfortable for the roadway
conditions and speed limits are posted at the 80th percentile speed at which the drivers
F-9
-------
would travel for this roadway. Posting the limits below this speed will cause additional
safety hazards since some drivers will obey the posted speed while others will drive at a
higher speed that is more appropriate for the roadway. A difference in speed will then
result in a safety problem. The posted speed limit will be 50-55 mph which would
conform to the posted speeds to the north and south of the area and is the typical
speed for a four-lane principal arterial.
Reduction of the median from 34 feet to 20 feet
The median was reduced in some areas to limit the impacts to wetlands while
maintaining a 34 foot median at all intersections. A reduced median width was
considered only if the wetland was located away from an intersection. Since the church
is located near the MD 589 intersection, a reduced median was not considered.
Additionally, the room in the median may be necessary for a double left-turn bay. The
left turn movement from southbound US 113 to MD 589 is a very heavy movement and
the need for a double left at this intersection will be investigated in design. Even if a
double left is not necessary at this time, it is prudent to leave this additional space for
any future improvement since intersection improvements may be necessary as traffic
volumes increase in the future.
Acquisition of property across the street from the church as a conservation/scenic
easement to protect the rural setting and viewshed from the church
Mr. Esham stated that the owner of this property was a member of the church
Foundation and felt that asking for donation of the property would not be appropriate
since he has donated much to the Foundation already. The back of the church is
currently located on a hill and over the roadway. A portion of the road is excluded from
the viewshed of the church because of this topography.
V
Concerns about Noise and Vibration impacts to the Church
Traffic volumes on US 113 are expected to increase over time regardless of the number
of lanes provided. A two-lane highway would still operate below the roadway's capacity
until the year 2020. The dualization is therefore not a capacity improvement and the
intention of the widening is not to add capacity. The only function of the selected
alternative will be to address the safety issues and the number of fatalities along the
roadway. The roadway widening will occur on the east side of the roadway, away from
the church. Therefore, approximately only half of the projected ADT will use the
existing paved section of roadway as this portion of the proposed cross-section will be
used for the southbound lanes. The additional northbound traffic will actually be moved
further from the church. Hence, since the road will not be moved any closer to the
church and the projected ADT is the same for both the build and no-build, there will be
no net increase in traffic loads, noise, and vibrations as a result of these improvements.
Cumulative Effects
MHT mentioned that the wording used in the cumulative effects section with regards to
historic resources was inappropriate. A cumulative effects analysis of historic
structures should not be conducted on a county-wide basis but that an analysis of the
northeastern portion of the county would be sufficient.
F-10
-------
Development of the MOA
The MOA will be drafted by MHT and circulated. Including a draft MOA in the FE1S will
satisfy MHT's requirements.
These minutes are based on the interpretation of the writer. If you have any additional
questions or comments please call Mrs. Sue Rajan, Project Manager at (410) 545-8514
or Ms. Catherine Maher, Project Engineer at (410) 545-8544.
by:
Ms. Catherine Maher
Project Engineer
Project Planning Division
Attachment
cc: Attendees
Lorraine Straw
John Zanetti
David Wallace
Joseph Kresslein
Cynthia Simpson
Rob Pearce
Bill Kuhl
Jim Wynn
Lou Ege
(w/attachment)
(w/attachment)
(w/attachment)
(w/attachment)
(w/attachment)
(w/attachment)
(w/attachment)
(w/attachment)
(w/attachment)
(w/attachment)
F-ll
-------
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
Region 3 •
Maryland Division
December 19,199% il
The Rotunda
Suite 220
711 West 40ih Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21211-2187
IN REPLY REFER TO:
Project No. WO720B11
US 113 Plaining Study: From
Snow Hill, MD to Delaware State Line
Worcester County, MD
Mr. Donald L. Klima
Director, Planning and Project Review
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation • .
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20004
Attention: Ms. Mary Ann Naber
\
Dear Mr. Klima:
The Federal Highway Administration is proposing to upgrade the remaining two-lane sections of
US 113 within Maryland, thereby improving safety and traffic operations along this 23.8 mile
transportation link on the Delmarva peninsula. (Enclosure 1) The Maryland State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), in accordance with 36 CFR 800.5, has determined that the
referenced undertaking will have an adverse effect on significant cultural resources. Therefore, in
accordance with 36 CFR 800.8 (b), we wish to notify you that the St. Martin's Church is eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places and invite the Advisory Council to participate in the
Section 106 consultation process. A draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is enclosed for
your review and comment (Enclosure 2)
St. Martin's Church, entered on the National Register on April 13, 1977, is situated on the west
side of US 113 at the intersection with Race Track Road (MD 589), south of the community
Showell. (Enclosure 3) It is also a Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) easement property. The
church is significant-as one of the few mid-18th century structures in Maryland. It is
architecturally significant under Criterion C for its fine construction features and conveys a strong
association with the early history of Worcester County. The present brick building was
constructed in 1759 to replace an earlier Anglican structure. The church is set back from the US
113/MD 589 intersection and is buffered from US 113 by a row of coniferous trees.
The proposed alignment funs from southwest of MD 589 and crosses the existing roadway
approximately 1800 feet south of the current intersection with MD 589. The alignment runs just
east of the existing US 113 roadway. Beginning about 1200 feet south of MD 589 the proposed
alignment transitions closer to the existing roadway until approximately 300 feet south of MD 589
where the proposed roadway would utilize the existing US 113 roadway as part of the proposed
- more -
F-l-2
-------
closer to the church than the existing roadway.
along the roadway and there is no room for acceleration.
the roadway will increase traffic loads and noise which would cause a change in the historic
setting.
concern.
As mitigation for impacts to the church, Mr. Esham suggested that a
donated to the church.
- more -
F-13
-------
We welcome your review and comments and request your review of our determination within 30
days of receipt of this letter. If you require additional information or clarification, please contact
Ms. Mary Huie at (410)-962-4342, ext. 148. Thank you for your continued assistance.
Sincerely yours,
GEORGE K. FR1CK, JR.
Enclosures (Photographs)
Susan Binder
Division Administrator
cc: Mr. Joe Kresslein, SHA
Ms. Cathy Maher, SHA
Ms. Sue Rajan, SHA
Ms. Lorraine Strow, SHA
Mhuie:jeh 12/19/97 s:\mhuie\dist_l\usll3\achp.det
F-14
-------
-------
Appendix G
Index
-------
• iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii MI ill iin ini IIP in 111 iiiiiiiii i 1111 » w iiiiiiiin 11 i ill ill « i iniiiii 11 q i P iiiiiii in in ill win i • nMUM nil FI in'' I'l'i"! ni1 in n i iiiii it in. i
in linn iiiiiiiiiiiininiin in nun in n iiiiiinii iiiinini i nil in i iiinnni in i in 11 in inn i in in iiiii 11 iniiniiniliinniiiiiinnii in in i in i iiiii i n
|
niiiiiliiiiiiinniiiiiinini inn |iiii|iiiinnniiinini iiii|iiiinl|iiiiinn nun iniinnnnninn in n in in
n in nil in nil iiiiiii n i n mini
11 ini in ini in i mil«i n n i
111 illllll III''I • ill Ill'iilili Iiiii I'll Ill ill I NT Ill I Ill Ill 111 in ^IHliI lilJUillni' II I'lli I1 111 IIIIIII II Ill i HI n" I' II i
if in 'iii;?1 .Mii, i
n mill n iiiiiiiiii111 in iiiiin 11111
iiiiniHi"'!^'!!'!!*! "iiiiiiiiiiiiiK M:.«i • '"''nun lire, m»i^ I'l'iiiinii• i" iiLi, ,;;'.ijiiii;;!ii
t1'"; nil! I' IWF ill'»IIIIIIIRIIIIIllllilllllllll' En, 'JliIKi If: Illlll'lllllllllH1' HI ill IIIII'nillH"!; .;,"»!'i" • 3 • i II' v l' • flulf! "UK"",. III1,,! i , Hi, ill, 'i:'l ;i „! II t ni:, r Ii? "i"" • „ 'II1"'', ,1 "IIP',„
'i,;..iiiHiir .iiiiiijiimii!!,;,,1!!!!!!!!..'iiiiiiiinnijiiiiiiiii'ii'i HiiiiiiiiiKjU'iiiiii11",!1 ,•' lii.iLiii'iiiii'iiiiin'f, i'"'1 ii" j'-'isiiiliii'''! I'l'1!,! j!!" ' ,,i,.,'iif, ,,ii>:i",ni ir > mi m; ,11,1 ,i •'«
''1
urn ..... ''i" tfir-TS IB^^^ ;!: ,n^^^^
11 '"ll!!i:i|!i!iii|iii ' in >'tf :t «n iJli'1' >:i iiiiiiiii Fir'nilJliiiiii'iilii''!::::!1 'li!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,:1}'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!1^!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!':!!!!!!:!!!^1!!1!111111!!!!!!!1 nii!!!!!!1"1!^!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,:11^)!!!11]!!!!!!!!!!!1111*^^!!!11^!11!!!!!!!111!1!!1!!!!!!!, '"ill"
:'ii:K IIIIH iiiii mi IK itiiiiK^^^^^^^^^^^^^ i. ' fiiai'i I:
;||ji ;,ri, ,,,|f M. .^ij-jjimijij
lijiir...', ii .'."'''""'ii'i,:*'! ..i1!:,!'1" "i t,.i*« , iiiiiii I
EL L ',,,i,i,i'.'! ,:;', , I,'1! . ',!£, !• •'•L^'.IB • 'IIIIIIIII
i ,'id1 ' » f * " iliiU'lVllillii;,1 •< illlll
B'nilii./illllllR ITIllillll'TliIIIIIIIIIILinlllllllllllllillllllilliii'iillrJIIilIiiillIf Ii
, , , ^ , j(i t ,^ p^ ;i;;;/!,;'.il £'' ^fl'f ^•.JlSsf.'Sii
,: i:3';' iiw^ i'liB mm, ii IJH iiir!"!!; ifi-iliiiiiriiisK I' i •'ftiS'in;*' .I'"?" .i!* i;i"'*:: iiii'., -, ' x]' v> :<3 :' •: «!>. 'ii:^iB I
ut^i^^in^^^^^^^ IK .Mi! ........ <: ..... iiiiiu^^ >•• ........... i ,•' :' ' iirj' ii-iSii'iiK: 'nil!" :>:,"» >>:ti>ji-l
^^^^ ..... iW^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ....... M:m, ...... 19^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ...... 'A'
............ .
:i' ..... I
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Accidents
ADT (Average Daily Traffic)
Air
Alternatives
Aquatic Habitat
Aquifer
Archeology
Avoidance Alternatives
Business displacements
Carbon Monoxide
Churches
Coastal Bay Area
Community Facilities
APPENDIX G
INDEX
S-2-4, S-9, Table S-l, S-18-20, S-23,1-1,1-2,1-6-12,
Tables 1-2 & 1-3, H-4, H-10,11-11,11-16,11-19, IV-5-IV-8
Table IV-1, IV-16, IV-156, Appendix D
S-2, S-3,1-3,1-4, Table 1-1,1-6, IV-3, Figure IV-1, IV-47-
IV-49
S-14,111-69,111-70, Figure 111-13, IV-13, IV-16, IV-45,
IV-92-IV-94, IV-126, IV-128, IV-129, IV-134, IV-155
S-l, S-4-9, Table S-l, S-l8-22,1-4,1-11,1-12, II-2-10, II-
12-17, H-19-25, H-27-39, H-41-50, HI-1, III-6,111-20,111-23,
IH-37, HI-38, ffl-49, m-55, HI-62, IH-70, HI-71, IV-2-IV-9
IV-ll-IV-19, IV-21-IV-39, IV-42-IV-45, IV-49, IV-50,
IV-53-IV-71, IV-77, IV-78, IV-81, IV-84, IV-89-IV-93
IV-99-IV-111, IV-124, IV-125, IV-127-1V-129, IV-131
IV-134, IV-151, IV-155, Appendix A
S-15, m-34, m-36, ffl-67, HI-68, IV-50, IV-51, IV-62, IV-79
IV-93, IV-144
IV-45, IV-46
S-7, S-8, S-13, H-2, m-20, m-22, m-23, m-64, IV-36, IV-38
IV-39, IV-42, IV-77
H-7,11-17,11-22, H-25-27, H-29, H-44, IV-63, IV-64, IV-77
S-7, S-8, Table S-l, S-21, H-7, H-26, IV-19, Table IV-3
111-69, IV-13, IV-93, IV-134
n-7, n-n, n-2i, n-26, n-42, m-7-9, m-2i, m-22,10-72-74
IV-12-IV-14, IV-18, IV-24, IV-31-IV-33, Appendix A,
Appendix F
IH-7, m-13, m-17, figure m-10, IV-16, IV-17, IV-25-IV-28,
IV-150, IV-151
m-7, m-8, Figure IH-2, III-l 1, ffl-13, IV-13, IV-15, IV-17
IV-19, IV-25, Appendix A
IXG-1
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Conclusions
Construction Impacts
CRASH
Cultural Resources
Culverts - Types and Location
Cumulative Impacts/Effects
Design Criteria
Design Speed
Design Year (2020)
Employment
Environmental Justice
Erosion and Sediment Control
Farmland
Fatalities
Fire companies
S-18
H-10, IV-15-IV-17, IV-20, IV-26, IV-30, IV-34, IV-35, IV-44,
IV-45, IV-50, IV-56, IV-58, IV-62, IV-82, IV-83, IV-91,
IV-93, IV-98, IV-107-1V-124, IV-128-1V-130, IV-149,
IV-155, IV-156
S-3,1-2, Ml, 1-12, II-3, Section V.D
S-4, S-9, S-18,111-20, Figure III-6, IV-30, IV-41, IV-42,
IV-133-IV-135
S-21, m-39, m-41, m-56, IV-50, Table IV-9, IV-55, IV-56,
IV-58, IV-63, IV-77, IV-79, IV-92, IV-93
S-9, S-17, IV-80, IV-98, IV-113-IV-123, IV-132-155
S-4, S-5, IV-5
S-5, S-6, S-10, S-22, S-23, II-6, II-8, II-9,11-18,11-20-22,
11-25, H-27,11-29, n-31, H-33, H-35, H-37, H-41, n-44, II-46,
11-50, IV-7, IV-14, IV-32, IV-68, IV-99
S-2, S-3, S-18,1-4-6,11-11, IIM, m-17,111-70, IV-3-IV-5,
IV-8, IV-13, IV-49, IV-97, IV-98, IV-100, IV-113-IV-123,
IV-128, IV-135, IV-145
S-16, III-2, III-3, III-ll, 111-12, IV-19, IV-20
HI-60, IV-12, IV-13
S-9, m-30, m-63, IV-45, IV-46, IV-56, IV-58, IV-82, IV-83,
IV-93, IV-129, IV-134, IV-146
S-9, II-7,111-12, m-14,111-21,111-22,111-27,111-28,
Figure III-9,111-30,111-37-39,111-49,111-56,111-59,111-66,
111-67,111-76,111-79, IV-18, IV-23, IV-25, IV-27, IV-29,
IV-43, IV-44, Table IV-7, IV-85, IV-133, IV-139-IV-141, IV-
146, IV-149, Appendix B
S-2-4, S-9, S-18,1-1,1-2,1-6-11, Table 1-3, Figure 1-1, II-1 1,
IV-5, IV-8, Appendix D
11-26, III-9,111-10, IV-14, IV-15, Appendix A
IXG-2
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Fish
Floodplain
Forest Interior Dwelling Species
Geology
Groundwater
Hale Farm/Mariner Farm
Historic Resources
Horizontal Alignment
Indirect Impacts
Lakes
Land Use
Land Use - existing
Land Use - future
Lane Widths
S-15, S-23,I-l, II-3,111-34-36,111-38,111-50,111-51 111-54
m-62-65, HI-68,111-69, IV-46, IV-48, IV-50, IV-51 IV-55
IV-56, IV-81, TV-83, IV-85, IV-93, IV-130, IV-131, IV-144*
IV-145
S-7, S-8, Table S-l, S-12, S-19, S-21, II-2,111-36-38,
Figure III-l 1,111-41-47,111-49-51,111-54,111-56-61
Table IV-10, ffl-66, IV-55-IV-58, IV-85, IV-86, IV-131 IV-
133, IV-147, IV-152-IV-154, Appendix A
111-67, IV-91, IV-142
111-24-26, Figure III-7,111-33,111-34, IV-44-IV-46, IV-134
S-24, m-39-42, m-45-54, ffl-62, ffl-63, m-65, IV-45, IV-46
IV-83, IV-85-IV-87, IV-147 .
ffl-21, Figure ffl-6, ffl-22, IV-31, IV-33, IV-34, Appendix A
(Figure 9) *
S-6, S-7, S-13,1-11, H-2, n-3, II-7,11-20, Figure III-6,11-26
H-39, III-8, HI-13,111-20-23,111-36,111-70,111-71,111-74
111-78, IV-30-IV-32, IV-34-IV-38, IV-41, IV-42, IV-98
IV-99, IV-109, IV-111, IV-113-IV-124, Appendix A
S-2,1-2, H-21, E-22, H-25-27, H-31-33, H-35-37, H-42, E-43
n-47, n-49
HI-l, IV-12, IV-19, IV-26, IV-29, IV-43, IV-44
III-35,m-63
S-20, H-2,111-13, Figure HI-3,111-14, IV-5, IV-9, IV-12,
TV-17, IV-22, IV-23, IV-25-IV-29, IV-47, IV-84-IV-86
IV-97, IV-132-IV-137, IV-139, IV-141, IV-142, IV-144,
IV-145, IV-147, IV-152-IV-154
S-6, S-12, III-l, 111-13-16, Figure III-3, Figure IH-5, ffl-27,
111-28,111-66,111-70,111-76,111-77, IV-138
S-12, ffl-17, Figure Ef-5, m-19, IV-25, IV-27, IV-28, IV-136
S-2, S-5,1-3, n-6, H-16-18,11-21,11-25,11-31,11-41, Figures
n-3,-4,-6,-7,-8,-10,-11, IVr4, IV-32
IXG-3
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Lemuel Showell House
Level of Service (LOS)
(Traffic)
Noise Analysis
Parkland
Permits
Pocomoke River
Police Services
Pollutants
Ponds
Population
Preferred Alternative
Prime Farmland Soils
Property Taxes
11-26, in-21, Figure IH-6, HI-22, IV-31, IV-34-IV-36, IV-42,
Appendix A (Figure 9)
S-2, S-3, S-18,1-4,1-5, IV-3, IV-4, Figure IV-1, IV-14;
IV-100
S-9, Table S-l, S-14,111-70-75, Figure 111-13, IV-13, IV-17,
IV-33, IV-34, IV-36, IV-38, IV-39, IV-62, IV-97-IV-113,
IV-128, IV-129, IV-155
S-13, Figure m-2,111-10, III-l 1,111-36,111-72,111-79, IV-2,
IV-15, IV-98
S-l, S-9, S-12-15, III-l, III-3,111-15, IV-17, IV-25, IV-28,
IV-29, IV-78, IV-136, IV-137, IV-146, IV-154
II-l, III-l 1,111-15,111-25,111-33-36, Figure 111-10,111-38,
111-68, IV-50, IV-56, IV-135, IV-142, IV-144-IV-146, IV-
149-IV-151, IV-154
III-9, Sections VC and VD
S-9, IV-46, IV-48, IV-49, Table IV-8, IV-55, IV-78, IV-91,
IV-92, IV-129, IV-143, IV-144, IV-146, IV-147
HI-33-35, HI-63, m-68, IH-79, IV-46, IV-48, IV-49, IV-148
s-15,1-1, n-i, in-i-3, m-5-8, m-is, m-n, m-is, m-34,
111-69, IV-ll-IV-13, IV-17, IV-22, IV-25, IV-27, IV-29,
IV-46, IV-135
S-l, Figure S-2, S-9, Table S-l, S-18-24,1-11, H-8,H-20,
11-24,11-39-50, Figure II-9, IV-1, IV-2, IV-5-IV-9, IV-11-
IV-19, IV-21-IV-40, IV-42-IV-46, IV-49, IV-50, IV-53,
IV-55-IV-61, IV-63, IV-71, IV-72.IV-74-IV-77, IV-84, IV-86,
IV-87, IV-89-IV-96, IV-100-IV-111, IV-124, IV-125,
IV-127-IV-129, IV-131, IV-139, IV-141, IV-143, IV-147,
IV-151, IV-152, IV-154, IV-155, Appendix A
111-28-30, Figure III-9, IV-43, IV-44, Appendix B
S-16,111-13, IV-23, IV-34, IV-156
IXG-4
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Vic's Country Store
Wetland Functions
Wetland Delineation
Wetland Impacts
Wetland Mitigation
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Wildlife
Wildlife Habitat
Worcester County
Zoning
111-21,111-22,111-74,111-79, IV-21, IV-31, IV-37, IV-38,
IV-42, IV-109, IV-126, IV-127, Appendix A (Figure 9)
m-39, m-41-54, Figure HI-12, IH-62-65, Table HI-18, IV-58,
IV-62, IV-77, IV-85-IV-87, IV-152
II-2,111-37, IV-33, Appendix A
S-l, S-6, S-7-9, Table S-l, S-12, S-21, S-22, S-24, II-7,11-39,
II-44, IV-1, IV-31, IV-59-IV-62, Tables IV-10, -11, -12,
-12A, IV-63-IV-77, IV-82, IV-84, IV-87, IV-89, IV-129,
IV-130, IV-135, IV-149-IV-152
S-24,11-19, IV-39, IV-44, IV-79, IV-84, Figure IV-2,
IV-86-IV-89, IV-152
S-l3,111-36, IV-56
S-13, S-15,1-1, II-3,111-38,111-45,111-46, ffl-64-67,111-69,
IV-81, IV-89, IV-91, IV-92, IV-133, IV-134, IV-140-IV-142,
IV-147
m-30, m-39-54,111-62,111-63,111-67, IV-62, IV-81, IV-85,
IV-86, IV-91, IV-92, IV-98, IV-133, IV-134, IV-141
S-2, S-23,1-1,1-2,1-4,1-12,1-13, II-l, II-2, H-40, HI-1-19,
111-22,111-24-28, III-30,111-31,111-33, ffl-36, EI-38, HI-48,
IH-68, m-69, m-79, IV-2, IV-3, IV-12, IV-14-IV-18, IV-23,
IV-25-IV-29, IV-33, IV-43, IV-132-IV-148, IV-152, IV-154,
IV-155
S-16, H-2, m-7, ffl-13-15, Figure III-4,111-17, IV-26-IV-29,
IV-137, IV-138, IV-140, IV-154, IV-155
IXG-7
-------
, I, III
III!
Ill
Ill1 i 111 Ilil
I III il 1 II IK 11
•bhrjit
MI
lull
II II II
n in
• ,!• mi
il thill III il 11 llii ,1 1 li 1U
iiiin nniii ••«•««»! •««•«• nmti i» • a im
if 51 w\ in "ii mm i tti IP b \ i • nit v n rn n 1111111111 ill in i mi" IP i n ft 111 n ft
in n i""ii i ill1 IN
•ii
i
n • nn^y mt
'it,! in
liniiioiiniw i i inn nil i i i mi 11 11 mini nrun i 11 niiiini
in n i mi i i ii i si ii i
null llllill 11 I ••III i III Illlll HI Hill 11 111 11 11 I HI Ml III I N
i I I 11H1 III
"." .J. If"
-------
US 113 Planning Study
Vic's Country Store
Wetland Functions
Wetland Delineation
Wetland Impacts
Wetland Mitigation
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Wildlife
Wildlife Habitat
Worcester County
Zoning
ffl-21, HI-22,111-74,111-79, IV-21, IV-31, IV-37, IV-38,
IV-42, IV-109, IV-126, IV-127, Appendix A (Figure 9)
in-39, m-41-54, Figure IE-12, m-62-65, Table HI-18, IV-58,
IV-62, IV-77, IV-85-IV-87, IV-152
II-2,111-37, IV-33, Appendix A
S-l, S-6, S-7-9, Table S-l, S-12, S-21, S-22, S-24, II-7,11-39,
H-44, IV-1, IV-31, IV-59-IV-62, Tables IV-10, -11, -12,
-12A, IV-63-IV-77, IV-82, IV-84, IV-87, IV-89, IV-129,
IV-130, IV-135, IV-149-IV-152
S-24,11-19, IV-39, IV-44, IV-79, IV-84, Figure IV-2,
IV-86-IV-89, IV-152
S-l3,111-36, IV-56
S-l3, S-l5,1-1, II-3,111-38, IE-45,111-46,111-64-67,111-69,
IV-81, IV-89, IV-91, IV-92, IV-133, IV-134, IV-140-IV-142,
IV-147
m-30, m-39-54,111-62,111-63,111-67, IV-62, IV-81, IV-85,
IV-86, IV-91, IV-92, IV-98, IV-133, IV-134, IV-141
S-2, S-23,1-1,1-2,1-4,1-12,1-13, II-l, II-2, H-40, IH-1-19,
111-22,111-24-28,111-30,111-31,111-33,111-36, IH-38, HI-48,
m-68, m-69, m-79, IV-2, IV-3, IV-12, IV-14-IV-18, IV-23,
IV-25-IV-29, IV-33, IV-43, IV-132-IV-148, IV-152, IV-154,
IV-155
S-16, H-2, m-7, m-13-15, Figure III-4,111-17, IV-26-IV-29,
IV-137, IV-138, IV-140, IV-154, IV-155
IXG-7
-------
------- |