CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS CENTER
FOR MARINE RESEARCH AND EXPLORATION
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AUGUST 1992
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION m
PHILADELPHIA, PA
In Cooperation With
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION AND
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Prepared by:
GANNETT FLEMING, INC.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
-------
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS CENTER
FOR MARINE RESEARCH AND EXPLORATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents i
List of Tables v
List of Figures v
List of Acronyms vi
Executive Summary ES-1
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
1.1 Project Location and Description 1-1
1.2 Project History and Background 1-6
1.3 Project Funding 1-8
1.4 Project Purpose 1-9
1.5 Project Need 1-12
2.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
2.1 No Federal Action 2-1
2.2 Project Postponement 2-1
2.3 Criteria for Site Selection 2-2
2.4 Renovation/Expansion of Existing Facility 2-3
2.5 Acquisition and Renovation of Alternate
Existing Facilities 2-3
2.6 Alternative Construction Sites 2-4
2.7 Summary 2-4
3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
3.1 Natural Environment 3-1
3.1.1 Physiography 3-1
3.1.2 Vegetation and Wildlife . . . 3-1
3.1.3 Floodplains & Wetlands 3-2
3.1.4 Ambient Air Quality 3-4
i
-------
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS CENTER
FOR MARINE RESEARCH AND EXPLORATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(con't)
3.1.5 Ambient Noise 3-4
3.1.6 Groundwater 3-4
3.2 Man-Made Environment 3-5
3.2.1 Land Use Patterns 3-5
3.2.2 Transportation Facilities 3-7
3.2.2.1 Existing Street System 3-7
3.2.2.2 Parking Access 3-8
3.2.2.3 Mass Transit 3-8
3.2.2.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Access 3-9
3.2.3 Historic and Cultural Resources 3-10
3.1.3.1 Historic Elements 3-10
3.1.3.2 Archaeological Sites 3-11
3.2.4 Public Utilities 3-11
3.2.5 Water Quality 3-14
3.2.5.1 Dredging 3-14
3.2.5.2 Stormwater Management 3-14
3.2.5.3 Wastewater Management 3-15
3.2.5.4 Erosion and Sediment Control 3-16
3.2.6 Waste Management 3-16
3.2.6.1 Hazardous Waste Management 3-17
3.2.6.2 Solid Waste Management 3-17
3.2.6.3 Biological Waste Management 3-17
3.2.6.4 Recycling 3-17
ii
-------
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS CENTER
FOR MARINE RESEARCH AND EXPLORATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(con't)
4.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATIYE MEASURES
4.1 Impacts to the Natural Environment and Mitigative Measures 4-1
4.1.1 Physiography 4-1
4.1.2 Vegetation and Wildlife 4-1
4.1.3 Floodplains & Wetlands 4-2
4.1.4 Air Quality 4-3
4.1.5 Noise 4-4
4.2 Impacts on the Man-made Environment and
Mitigative Measures 4-5
4.2.1 Land Use Patterns 4-5
4.2.2 Transportation Facilities 4-6
4.2.2.1 Existing Street System 4-6
4.2.2.2 Parking Access 4-6
4.2.2.3 Mass Transit 4-7
4.2.2.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Access 4-7
4.2.3 Historic and Cultural Resources 4-7
4.2.3.1 Historic Elements 4-7
4.2.3.2 Archaeological Sites 4-8
4.2.4 Public Utilities 4-9
4.2.4.1 Water, Electric, Communications,
as, and Steam 4-9
4.2.4.2 Energy Conservation Measures 4-10
#
4.2.5 Water Quality 4-10
in
-------
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS CENTER
FOR MARINE RESEARCH AND EXPLORATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(con't)
4.2.5.1 Dredging 4-10
4.2.5.2 Stormwater Management 4-12
4.2.5.3 Wastewater Management 4-12
4.2.5.4 Erosion and Sediment Control 4-13
4.2.6 Waste Management 4-14
4.2.6.1 Hazardous Waste Management 4-14
4.2.6.2 Solid Waste Management 4-15
4.2.6.3 Biological Waste Management 4-15
4.2.6.4 Recycling 4-15
4.2.7 Aquaculture 4-16
4.3 Summary of Impacts 4-16
5.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 5-1
REFERENCES R-l
APPENDIX A - Photo Survey of Study Area
APPENDIX B - Agency Coordination
APPENDIX C - Public Participation
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
1-1 Funding Sources for the Christopher Columbus Center 1-8
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Project Location 1-2
1-2 Existing Site Conditions 1-3
1-3 Proposed Site Layout 1-5
3-1 100-year Flood Plain Map 3-3
3-2 Surrounding Land Use Map 3-6
fom I (m
V
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
BCCC
Baltimore City Community College
BRESCO
Baltimore Refuse Energy System Company
BTEC
Baltimore Thermal Energy Corporation
CCC
Christopher Columbus Center
CMA
Center of Marine Archaeology
COMB
Center of Marine Biotechnology
EO
Executive Order
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
GSA
General Services Administration
HABS
Historic American Buildings Survey
HAER
Historic American Engineering Record
LICO
Little Italy Community Organization
MNHP
Maryland Natural Heritage Program
MOA
Memorandum of Agreement
MPA
Maryland Port Administration
MSDS
Material Safety Data Sheet
MTA
Mass Transit Administration
NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NASA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
OSHA
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
SOP
Standard Operating Procedures
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
WRA
Water Resources Administration
vi
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Environmental Assessment has been prepared in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts resulting
from the construction and operation of the Christopher Columbus Center for Marine
Research and Exploration (the "Center") at the Inner Harbor in Baltimore, Maryland. The
assessment has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in
cooperation with the General Services Administration (GSA) and the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA).
The Christopher Columbus Center is needed to accommodate the projected growth
of the Center of Marine Biotechnology (COMB). COMB is a national and international
leader in marine biotechnology research and the Center would capitalize on this leadership.
The Center is also needed to help establish the Greater Baltimore region as a global life
sciences community and help the State of Maryland fulfill its obligations under the Federal
Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987.
Site selection criteria for the Center include public accessibility, and proximity to
water, the National Aquarium, and to other university and research institutions.
Congressional appropriations for the Center, channelled through the EPA, GSA, and
NASA total over $54 million through fiscal year 1993. To date, total funding for the Center
from Federal, State, City, and private sources totals over $160 million.
The following alternative actions were examined to determine whether they would
meet the above project needs and site selection criteria:
(1) no action,
(2) project postponement,
(3) renovation/expansion of existing facilities,
ES-1
-------
(4) acquisition and renovation of alternate existing facilities,
(5) alternative sites, and
(6) the proposed action - the construction of the Center at Baltimore Inner
Harbor.
Only the proposed action, the construction and operation of the Christopher Columbus
Center at Baltimore Inner Harbor, would meet the project needs and site selection criteria, as
well as take advantage of Congressional appropriations and other sources of funding.
The environmental assessment identified the following potential adverse environmental
impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the Center: (1) construction of a
facility within a 100-year flood hazard area, (2) disturbance of tidal wetlands (waters and
bottom sediments) adjacent to Piers 5 and 6 at Baltimore Inner Harbor, (3) temporary decrease
in ambient air quality due to construction operations, (4) temporary increase in noise due to
construction operations, (5) permanent loss of approximately 400 public parking spaces, (6)
demolition of one historic building and reconstruction of one historic resource, both of which
are eligible for the National Register, and (7) temporary impacts to water quality and aquatic
ecosystems as a result of dredging.
ES-2
-------
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
-------
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
1.1 Project Location and Description
The proposed action is the construction of the Christopher Columbus Center for Marine
Research and Exploration (the "Center") in Baltimore, Maryland. The Center would serve as
a national and international focal point for marine science research and related academic and
business activities.
The proposed site for the Center is an 8.3 acre, City-owned parcel on Piers 5 and 6, in
Baltimore's Inner Harbor (Figure 1-1). Piers 5 and 6 extend south from Pratt Street into the
harbor and are bounded on the east by the Jones Falls and on the West by a docking slip and
Pier 4. Piers 5 and 6 are connected to East Falls Avenue to the east by a vehicular bridge and
to Pier 4 to the west by a pedestrian bridge. Except for a former restaurant building occupying
the northwest corner of Pier 5, the proposed site is currently entirely paved and used as a public
parking lot for 620 vehicles (Figure 1-2 and Appendix A - Photo Survey).
The Center would include the following in Phase I of its development: a national center
of marine biotechnology, a graduate studies and research center for marine biotechnology and
nautical archaeology, teaching and educational enrichment facilities, and an exhibition area.
Approximately 255,200 square feet of space would be provided for research, education,
administrative, and public/exhibition uses. A preliminary breakdown of square footage by
function is as follows:
Research and Center of Marine Biology 156,000 sq. ft.
Education: Center of Marine Archaeology 19,000 sq. ft.
General
Administration! Christopher Columbus Center 8,000 sq. ft.
Public Area: Exhibit Area and Training
43,200 sq. ft.
Other:
Mechanical/Electrical
29,000 sq, ft,
Total - 255,200 sq. ft.
1-1
-------
FIGURE 1-1
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
SCALE: I INCH " APWOX. 3 MILKS
AUGUST 1992
-------
-------
Approximately 230 parking spaces will be provided outside the facility for the general public
and 25 spaces will be provided inside the Center for COMB personnel.
Phase II of the Center's development is designed to occur on the project site, to the
east of the primary facility. The facility expansion would eliminate the 230 public parking
spaces on the site.
Docking facilities for oceanographic research vessels are contemplated along the
western bulkhead of Pier 5 and between Piers 5 and 6. When not in use, the ships may be
i
open to the public as part of the Center's exhibition facilities. Three historic vessels, the
Coast Guard Cutter Taney, the submarine Torsk, and the lightship Chesapeake, would also
be moved to permanent locations adjacent to the Center amd be opened to the public. The
location of the historic vessels would not affect docking of the research vessels.
The facility will be five-stories high, with an additional two-level mechanical
penthouse, at a scale which is compatible with surrounding buildings. The design for the
facility will be of an organic nature, consistent with the mission of the Center and with the
aesthetic/architectural character of the Inner Harbor area. Figure 1-3 illustrates the
proposed site layout with landscaping including ornamental trees, shrubs, and flowers, a
possible reflecting pool and fountain, and promenades.
The bulkheads surrounding the northern portion of Piers 5 and 6 are deteriorating.
In order to develop the proposed site, new bulkheads would be constructed in front of the
existing installation, with new pilings placed outside the existing bulkheads. These pilings
would support a relieving platform that would remove the loading on the current
construction, while leaving the existing bulkheads, which are historically significant, in place.
1-4
-------
-------
1.2 Project History and Background
The concept of a public exposition/marine research institution is not a new one to the
City of Baltimore. In fact, the idea for the Christopher Columbus Center has evolved over a
period of more than ten years, beginning with the establishment of the National Aquarium in
1983. The Aquarium was designed for a purpose similar to that of the Center: to combine
marine research with public exposition.
In 1982, a marine museum was proposed for the Piers 5 and 6 site in an effort to create
a waterfront institution in the Inner Harbor that would link the harbor with the Chesapeake Bay
through a focus on history and environmental education. This museum concept was modified
to become a principle component of the Center.
In 1985, the Center of Marine Biotechnology (COMB) made a decision to move its
facilities from College Park, Md., to the Baltimore City Community College on Pratt Street, just
north of the project site. COMB, which is the scientific cornerstone of the Christopher
Columbus Center, moved its facilities in order to ensure greater access to the molecular biology
and medical research conducted in Baltimore and to take advantage of the National Aquarium's
experience in fish-handling.
In 1986, an ad hex; group, formed by prominent Mary landers from both the public and
private sectors, met to develop a concept for a major public project that would commemorate
the Christopher Columbus quincentenary in 1992. The concept that emerged was to create a
new downtown institution that would serve as a scientific research center and an educational
magnet for workforce training. This concept coincided with earlier visions for a maritime
research facility in the Inner Harbor area and was formally proposed to the Mayor of Baltimore
in 1986.
The ad hoc group approached the directors of the National Aquarium in 1987 to discuss
the possibility of the Aquarium managing the development and operation of such an institute.
1-6
-------
The Aquarium board declined because at the time it was focusing on its own expansion and
lacked the capital and staff to undertake such an effort.
The ad hoc group decided to proceed without the Aquarium's direct involvement, and
in November 1987, met to plan the development and implementation of a marine research,
exposition, and training center. This formed the basis of what later became the Board of the
Christopher Columbus Center of Marine Research and Exploration.
The Federal Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (43 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) mandated that
individual states take charge of and preserve their underwater heritage as part of a national
conservation and cultural mission. This legislation coincided with and reinforced previous state
efforts related to marine research and exploration. A Center for Marine Archaeology, which
will help meet Maryland's obligations under the Act, is a unit of the proposed Center.
Early in 1988, the Board of the Christopher Columbus Center Development, Inc., a non-
profit entity, was formed to define the purpose of the Center, to direct its development, and to
manage its operations. By-laws were established in August, 1988. Fundraising studies and an
Economic Impact Analysis for the Center were conducted in 1990. The Christopher Columbus
Center for Marine Research and Exploration was formally dedicated in October 1991, with the
aim of maintaining the United States' leadership in the field of marine biotechnology.
Federal appropriations for the Center, granted through the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA); National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); and the General
Services Administration (GSA), for fiscal years 1991 and 1992 were the result of strong
Maryland Congressional Delegation involvement in the project. This Federal funding
necessitated compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EPA has
assumed the lead agency role in complying with NEPA, with GSA and NASA acting as
cooperating agencies.
1-7
-------
1.3 Project Funding
The Christopher Columbus Center will be funded by a combination of federal, state, city,
and private funds. To date, Congress has appropriated $31,500,000 to the Christopher
Columbus Center (3 P.L. 102-139 and 102-141). EPA granted $6.0 million for planning for the
Center. GSA granted $5.5 million for planning and design and NASA granted $20.0 million
for construction.
The sources and timing of project funding as of 7/1/92 are as follows:
TABLE 1-1
FUNDING SOURCES FOR THE CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS CENTER
($ 000's)
Approved to
Date
FY 1993
FY 1994
FY 1995 and
beyond
TOTAL
Federal
31,500
12,500***
10,304***
NA
54,304
EPA
6,000
NA
NA
NA
6,000
GSA
5,500
NA
NA
NA
5,500
NASA
20,000
++*
***
NA
***
State
11,680
7,120
NA
18,000
City
55,680
6,680
8,300
70,660
Land
34,200
NA
NA
NA
34,200
Parking*
12,000
NA
NA
NA'
12,000
Other
9,480
6,680
8,300
24,460
Private
50
10,000
6,950
NA
17,000
TOTAL
98,910
22,500
31,054
8,300
160,764
*+* - To be determined
NA - Not Applicable
* - Source: Revenue Bonds
- Included in "approved to date"
Source: Christopher Columbus Center of Marine Research and Exploration Fact Sheet, 7/7/92.
1-8
-------
1.4 Project Purpose
The purpose of the Christopher Columbus Center is to serve as an international marine
research, development, and educational facility dedicated to state-of-the-art science and
exhibition. It is designed to capitalize on American leadership in the field of biotechnology, to
create economic opportunity in the region (by creating jobs and job training facilities and
stimulating investment and growth), to help further the Baltimore region's goal of becoming a
global life sciences community, and to help bring science and technology into the public realm.
The major components of the Christopher Columbus Center are the Center of Marine
Biotechnology, the Center of Marine Archaeology, a training and development center, and an
exhibition facility.
The Center of Marine Biotechnology
The Center of Marine Biotechnology (COMB) is a unit of the University of Maryland's
six-division Maryland Biotechnology Institute and will serve as the scientific cornerstone of the
Center. It is the only marine science institution in the United States totally dedicated to the
fields of marine molecular biology and molecular genetics. Examples of current and proposed
COMB activities and their projected impact include:
Pharmaceuticals - development of treatments for cancer, AIDS and other auto-immune
disorders, and cardiovascular disease based on marine organisms.
Food Supply - development of disease-resistant fish and shellfish, with specific focus on
the Chesapeake Bay oyster; genetic research aimed at increasing the growth of selected
food species, thereby enhancing the potential for investment-scale aquaculture and
marketing.
1-9
-------
Biodiversity - understanding mechanisms to ensure the preservation of threatened game
and commercial species.
Bioremediation - development of environmentally-safe methods for cleaning fouled
marine environments, including micro-organisms that reduce toxic substances.
Marine Products - development of longer lasting and environmentally safe paints and
treatments for ships, hulls and other marine structures that will resist barnacles and other
organisms; development of new adhesives and bonding agents for paint based on marine
organisms.
COMB facilities in the Center would include state-of-the-art lab modules, lab support
functions including electron microscopy and magnetic resonance imaging, fish handling and
storage facilities, and teaching facilities.
Center of Marine Archaeology
The Center of Marine Archaeology (CMA) would focus on research in the areas of
marine exploration in deep water, diving technology and instrumentation, underwater robotics,
contract archaeology and salvage, resource recovery, and chemical preservation technology. The
following will be included in the CMA:
A graduate studies program affiliated with the University of Maryland
A first stage conservation laboratory associated with the Maryland
Historical Trust
The National Center for Preservation Technology, an affiliated project
with the National Oceanographic and Atmospherics Administration
1-10
-------
CMA facilities in the Center would include classroom and teaching space; preservation
labs; research space for fiber-optics, robotics, side-scan sonar, and other underwater retrieval
technologies; and exhibition space for the display of recovered artifacts.
Training and Development Center
The training and development center would be a shared, multipurpose operation used by
COMB, CMA, and others for teaching and other routine academic facilities, as well as for
community outreach. Joint programs will be conducted between the Christopher Columbus
Center and area schools, colleges, and universities.
The training and development center would augment the already successful, existing lab
technician program between COMB and Baltimore Community College. This type of job
training program is a critical component of the region's new life sciences strategy for economic
development. In addition, the center would serve as a location for conducting conferences and
for facilitating dialogue with the industrial and financial sectors that will play pivotal roles in
turning the Center's research into marketable products.
Exhibition Facility
Complementing the Center's training and development facility and other Inner Harbor
attractions such as the National Aquarium and the Maryland Science Center, the exhibition area
would serve as a working, participatory science laboratory space. The design of the entire
Christopher Columbus Center, with public spaces, visible lab facilities, and interconnected units,
is intended to show actual work in progress, not simulations. The exhibition facility will be
oriented toward science exposition (showing change and technical evolution in progress) as
opposed to a museum approach. Oceanographic research vessels docked at the facility may be
used for exhibition when not otherwise in use.
1-11
-------
1.5 Project Need
Marine biotechnology is a rapidly growing and economically rewarding area of scientific
research and development. The field has already begun to achieve impressive results in areas
such as pharmaceuticals, food supply, bioremediation, and products for marine applications.
The Christopher Columbus Center would be the first facility in the United States devoted
specifically to this science and is needed to capitalize on American leadership in the field.
The greater Baltimore region is committed to establishing itself as a global life sciences
community. The Center would help Baltimore become an anchor in an increasingly science-
and technology-driven economy. In the business community, the Center would help attract
private-sector investment and promote the growth of local technology-based firms. The Center
, . wokio /M.trrnK from marine research. The Abell Foundation
will emphasize generating marketable outputs
projects that companies spawned by research at the Center would pump $300 million annually
into Maryland's economy. In the education community, the Center will help educate and tain
technicians and scientists needed in the life sciences industry.
The Federal Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 requires states to take initiative in
preserving their underwater heritage. The Center has been designated as the home of a number
of new programs that will help Maryland fulfill its obligations under this Act.
The Center of Marine Biotechnology is currently housed in facilities at the Baltimore City
Community n>eซ facilities are too small and technologically inadequate for the needs
of a major scientific research institution. Projected growth of COMB will only intensify the
,5 expansion space is not available and renovation costs are excessive, business
community, the Center would help attract private-sector investment and promote the growth of
local technology-based firms. The Center will emphasis generating marketable outputs from
marine research. The Abell Foundation projects that companies spawned by research at the
Center would pump $300 million annually into Maryland's economy. In the education
1-12
-------
community, the Center will help educate and train technicians and scientists needed in the life
sciences industry.
The Federal Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 requires states to take initiative in
preserving their underwater heritage. The Center has been designated as the home of a number
of new programs that will help Maryland fulfill its obligations under this Act.
The Center of Marine Biotechnology is currently housed in facilities at the Baltimore City
Community College. These facilities are too small and technologically inadequate for the needs
of a major scientific research institution. Projected growth of COMB will only intensify the
situation as expansion space is not available and renovation costs are excessive.
1-13
-------
2.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
-------
2.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
2.1 No Federal Action
The need for this facility is substantial as outlined in Section 1.5; thus, no federal action
is not a reasonable option. In the context of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
no action would be the denial of funding assistance by General Services Administration (GSA),
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) or denial of Federal permits. Congressional appropriations for planning, design, and
construction of the Center total $31.5 million to date. Without such funding the Center would
be forced to seek alternate sources of financial support.
The site is zoned a Central Commercial District and the land use is designated
Residential/Commercial (see Section 3.2.1). Thus, the site will eventually be developed
according to these regulations. This area constitutes the last major waterfront development area
in the Inner Harbor and the principal pedestrian artery between Inner Harbor and the
redeveloping Inner Harbor East and Fells Point areas. The City of Baltimore has, for many
years, envisioned and planned a maritime-oriented exhibition, training and entertainment facility
at this location. The City will implement an appropriate alternative facility construction project
if this project does not move forward.
2.2 Project Postponement
Postponing development of the Center is not a reasonable alternative. The Center's
principal occupant, the Center of Marine Biotechnology (COMB), has outgrown its current
quarters and is operating in cramped and technologically inadequate facilities at the Baltimore
City Community College (BCCC). Projected growth of the COMB and the development of joint
projects between it and other institutions such as the National Aquarium justify development of
the Center. The Center for Marine Archeology (CMA) is the designated home of a number of
new programs required to meet the State's obligations under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act.
2-1
-------
Lastly, the need to address educational and employment opportunities for the citizens of the City
of Baltimore is a priority.
As mentioned in the previous section, Congressional appropriations totaling $31.5
million, of which approximately $3.1 million has been expended, would be forfeited if the
project were postponed.
2.3 Criteria for Site Selection
The following section outlines the criteria that were considered in the selection of the
proposed site for the Christopher Columbus Center. Listed below are the selection criteria in
order of importance:
1. Location in Baltimore Area - COMB, the major component of the Center, is a
national and worldwide leader in the science of marine biotechnology research;
must relocate to larger facilities due to inadequate space at their existing facilities.
2. Direct access to navigable waters to allow docking and public exposure of
research vessels used by COMB and CMA.
3. Proximity of the facility to National Aquarium to continue joint fish breeding
projects, to share technology and staff experience, and public involvement and
education.
4. Proximity of facility to other university and research institutions to share
resources, as well as to provide accommodations and support services to visiting
scientists.
5. Proximity to public attractions to enable successful public outreach.
2-2
-------
2.4 Renovation/Expansion of Existing Facilities
The proposed project's major user, the Center of Marine Biotechnology, occupies
quarters in the nearby Baltimore City Community College building. This structure is inadequate
for the technical and technological needs of a major scientific research institution. The COMB
occupied what is converted classroom space with the expectation that it would eventually relocate
to more adequate facilities when they became available.
Operational costs are excessive and even minor renovations are expensive. Additionally,
BCCC's own academic programs and need for space to offer other educational programs limit
any expansion potential for COMB. Another disadvantage for COMB at its existing location is
the lack of water access, which is necessary for biotechnology research. Due to these facts, this
alternative is not feasible. Figure 1-1 and Figure 3-2 are maps of Baltimore's Inner Harbor and
highlight geographic locations of the existing COMB facility, National Aquarium, and other
research facilities.
2.5 Acquisition and Renovation of Alternate Existing Facilities
The acquisition and renovation of an existing facility is not feasible.
No existing facilities meet all the criteria for site selection. In addition, within the
immediate area of the Inner Harbor, which is a locational attribute addressed in Section 2.3,
there are no existing buildings suitable for redevelopment. Technical limitations are significant
and potential renovation costs would be excessive. Use of this building might also require
displacement of the existing tenants that have invested significant capital in customizing their
space.
2-3
-------
2.6 Alternative Construction Sites
As indicated earlier, there are no other sites within the Inner Harbor area that meet the
site selection criteria. While there may be additional sites within the Baltimore area that are of
sufficient size for the Center, there are no other available sites with direct water access and in
close proximity to the National Aquarium and major tourism areas.
Required proximity to the waterfront precludes inland sites for the project. Scientists
must have ready access to visiting research vessels. As mentioned previously, COMB and the
National Aquarium have launched a joint fish breeding project, which increases efficiently and
is practical. This joint venture may spur other joint projects in the future.
2.7 Summary
Based on project need, congressional appropriation of funds, local and state financial and
political support for this project, and the above listed site criteria, the preferred alternative is the
only reasonable alternative for development of the Christopher Columbus Center.
2-4
-------
3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT OF THE
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
-------
3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT OF THE
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
3.1 Natural Environment
3.1.1 Physiography
The proposed site lies within the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province and is
characterized by Cretaceous (water deposited) soils which thicken southeastward and overlie
weathered crystalline bedrock of Pre-Cambrian Age. The project site was once part of the
marshy, delta-like area where the Jones Falls emptied into the northwest branch of the Patapsco
River. The original shoreline was located several blocks north of the project site.
Soils underlying Piers 5 and 6 consist of various man-made and natural fill materials,
highly compressible organic silts and sands, gravely and silty residual soils before reaching
gneiss bedrock at depths ranging from 55 to 77 feet below the existing ground surface.
The site slopes gently from elevation +10 feet in the northeast corner of Pier 6 to
elevation +6 feet in the center of the site. The first floor elevation of Harrison's Inn and
Restaurant on the southern end of Pier 5 is +9.4 feet. The property surrounding Harrison's
slopes from +9.4 feet to +6.0 feet inside the bulkheads. Elevations of the top of bulkheads
around Harrison's range from +7.0 feet to +6.0 feet. The lowest elevation on the site is +5
feet, on the southeastern corner of Pier 6.
3.1.2 Vegetation and Wildlife
Terrestrial vegetation and wildlife are virtually nonexistent in the proposed project area.
Aquatic vegetation and wildlife is limited to those species which are present are commonly found
in urban areas. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Maryland Natural Heritage Program
were consulted to determine if any state or federally protected, threatened, or endangered species
3-1
-------
are present at or near the site. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the
peregrine falcon is the only federally listed endangered species known to be present in the Inner
Harbor area. A pair of the falcons nest on the USF&G building, seven blocks west of the
proposed site. According to the Maryland Natural Heritage Program (MNHP), no known
Federal or State threatened or endangered plant or wildlife species are present at the project site.
Appendix B contains correspondence from USFWS and MNHP.
The State of Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene issued a health
advisory on February 6, 1986, concerning recreational fishing and consumption in some areas
of the Baltimore Harbor. Studies indicated that certain fish species in the Harbor, including
channel catfish and american eel, may contain unusually high concentration of Chlordane.
Chlordane is an insecticide that is a suspected carcinogen and long-term exposure is considered
a risk. This health advisory is still in effect today.
3.1.3 Floodplains and Wetlands
Flnndnlains
The proposed project site is located within the 100-year flood hazard area as identified
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as is the rest of the Inner Harbor
waterfront area (Figure 3-1). Virtually the entire site is located in Zone AE, which is the 100-
year flood hazard area associated with the Patapsco River sub-estuary. The 100-year flood depth
(or depth of inundation from 100 year flood waters) in Zone AE is estimated to be 3.7 feet. The
extreme northeast comer of Pier 6 is located in ZONE AO, which is the 100-year flood hazard
area associated with the Jones Falls. The 100-year flood depth in Zone AO is estimated to be
2 feet.
Wetlands
There are no wetlands located on the proposed building site. The proposed project
3-2
-------
SOURCE: City of Baltimore, Flood Insurance Rate Map
ULJIUL-Jl
]dt
LEGEND
1'' * 1 Zone AE 100-Year Flood Hazard Area (Patapsco River)
Zone AO 100-Year Flood Hazard Area (Jones Falls)
FIGURE 3-1
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN MAP
SCALE: 1 INCH - 700 FEET
AUGUST 1992
-------
area includes the waters adjacent to the piers which are classified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service system as estuarine, subtidal, unconsolidated-bottom wetlands. There are no shallow
waters (less than six feet) and no productive habitats within the proposed project area.
3.1.4 Ambient Air Quality
The City of Baltimore is in non-attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for ozone and is classified as a severe region, meaning that ozone
concentrations exceed 0.18 ppm.
The central business district of Baltimore is also in non-attainment with the NAAQS for
carbon monoxide. The area is classified as moderate, with ambient values exceeding 9.1 ppm.
3.1.5 Ambient Noise
No ambient noise measurements are available for this site. The predominant noise source
is vehicular traffic typical of an urban area. The noise-sensitive areas closest to the site are the
condominiums at Scarlett Place, located approximately 200 feet east of Pier 6; the Baltimore
City Community College, located approximately 300 feet northwest of the piers; Harrison's Inn
on Pier 5; and the Pier Six Concert Pavilion.
3.1.6 Groundwater
Groundwater is present on the site at depths ranging from 7 to 10 feet. Groundwater
testing was conducted by May 1992. Unfiltered groundwater samples indicated elevated
concentrations of several trace metals when compared with Marine Waters Quality Criteria.
Filtered samples indicated no significant concentrations of trace metals. Details of the
groundwater study can be found in Draft Soil Borings and Analyses, Fill Material and
Groundwater, Pier 5 and 6, EA Engineering, August 1992.
3-4
-------
Groundwater in the vicinity of the project site is not used for drinking water.
3.2 Man-made Environment
3.2.1 Land Use Patterns
The Baltimore City Planning Department's proposed land use designation for the project
site, under the Inner Harbor East Renewal Plan, is Residential/Commercial. The site is zoned
B-5-1 (Central Commercial District) and is currently being used for parking.
The proposed site is located entirely within the 1,000-foot Critical Area for the
Chesapeake Bay. Baltimore City's Critical Area Management Program establishes development
guidelines for its Critical Area, a strip of land 1,000 feet from mean high tide extending along
the entire length of the shoreline. Within this Critical Area, the City has enacted provisions to
establish and protect vegetation and wildlife habitat within the Critical Area Buffer - a strip of
land extending 100 feet inland from the water's edge. Baltimore has divided its Critical Area
according to land use types and densities described in the state law. The project area has been
designated Waterfront Revitalization, and as such, the City's Critical Areas Management
Program requires that buffer and stormwater management regulations be addressed. Buffer
regulations require a walkway or promenade and landscaped vegetative plantings in the area 100
feet landward from the water's edge. Stormwater management regulations require a ten percent
reduction of phosphorus runoff from pre-construction conditions.
Surrounding land uses are commercial, institutional, recreational, open space, and urban
residential. Commercial activity in the area is a mixture of public, professional, financial, and
retail services typical of a major urban center.
As illustrated in Figure 3-2 (Baltimore Inner Harbor Area), the site is adjacent to the
National Aquarium (Pier 3), the Marine Mammal Pavilion (Pier 4), Harrison's Inn and
Restaurant, and the Pier Six Concert Pavilion. It is in close proximity to Scarlett Place, the
3-5
-------
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
BALTIMORE INNER HARBOR AREA
9CALC: I INCH - 42SIEET AUGUST 1992
-------
Baltimore City Community College, Harborplace, the Gallery at Harborplace, the Convention
Center, the Maryland Science Center, Rash Field, Federal Hill Park, Oriole Park at Camden
Yards, and the Baltimore Arena.
Open space in the Inner Harbor is provided by numerous, individual landscaped areas
and by the harbor promenade which extends from the Canton to the South Baltimore
Neighborhood. The promenade will ultimately connect all of the attractions located along the
Harbor for a 7.5 mile stretch.
The aesthetic character of the area surrounding the proposed site is typical of a revitalized
urban area. Architectural styles are an eclectic mix, ranging from early 20th century
commercial structures to contemporary condominiums and the almost futuristic Aquarium.
Both rental and owner-occupied housing are available in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed site, as well as throughout the Baltimore metropolitan area. A variety of forms of
urban housing are available within one mile of the site. Suburban housing is accessible by
automobile commute or mass transit.
3.2.2 Transportation Facilities
3.2.2.1 Existing Street System
As illustrated in Figure 3-2, the proposed project site is bounded by Pratt Street on the
north, with an existing access point off Pratt Street. An extension of Eastern Avenue, west of
President Street, bridges the Jones Falls and provides vehicular and pedestrian access to Piers
5 and 6.
The street system in downtown Baltimore is characterized by pairs of one-way streets in
alternating directions designed to efficiently move the traffic into and out of the downtown area.
Interstate 83 begins just east of the project site as President Street, an arterial highway, and
3-7
-------
continues north of Fayette Street as a four-lane interstate facility through Baltimore City and
Baltimore County to Pennsylvania. This interstate provides the major connection to areas north
of the City. Connection to 1-95, east of the city, can be made via Fayette Street or Eastern
Avenue through Little Italy. The terminus of 1-395, with access to 1-95 and the southern
metropolitan area, is 9 blocks west and 2 blocks south of the project site.
Major morning traffic movement into the Inner Harbor area follows 1-83 and St. Paul
Street south and Lombard Street west, or 1-395 or Maryland 295 north and Pratt Street east.
Calvert and Charles Streets are also used by northbound traffic. Afternoon return traffic
reverses these patterns. The peak traffic flows near the site occur between 7 and 9 am and 3
and 5 pm. Morning traffic volumes reach 2,200 to 2,400 vehicles per hour on both Pratt Street
and Lombard Street. Evening traffic volume is approximately 500 vehicles per hour lower than
the morning volume on Lombard Street and 300 vehicles per hour higher on Pratt Street.
(Source: City of Baltimore, Department of Transportation)
3.2.2.2 Parking Access
The proposed site currently consists of a large asphalt-paved area, divided into four, city-
owned parking lots totaling 620 metered, ticketed, and free spaces. Within three blocks north
and three blocks west of the site are approximately 160 on-street parking spaces, 472 parking
lot spaces, and 3,625 garage spaces. (Source: City of Baltimore, Department of Transportation,
Parking Rate Survey)
3.2.2.3 Mass Transit
Bus service is provided throughout the City by the Mass Transit Administration (MTA).
Eight of the MTA express routes have stops near the site on Lombard, Pratt, and President
Streets.
3-8
-------
The Baltimore Central Light Rail Line, currently under construction by the MTA, will
provide a transit connection between northern Anne Arundel County, near the Baltimore-
Washington International Airport (BWI), and Baltimore County. The first leg, between Camden
Station in Baltimore City (west of the Center) and Timonium in Baltimore County was opened
in Spring 1992. The closest station to the Center is the Pratt Street Stop, which is approximately
ten blocks west of the site.
The METRO, Baltimore's subway, extends from the Charles Center Station northwest
to a terminus station at Owings Mills in Baltimore County. A total of twelve stations and 8,000
parking spaces line the existing system. An eastern extension, currently under construction, will
terminate at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. On the current line, the nearest station is
approximately ten blocks from the proposed site, at Charles and Fayette Streets. A new station,
five blocks northeast of the site, is under construction just east of the Jones Falls Expressway
near the Shot Tower. The anticipated completion date for this section of the METRO is late
1994.
3.2.2.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
Because the Inner Harbor is a commercial, business, and tourist district of the City, large
volumes of pedestrian traffic are evident on weekends as well as on weekdays. Two pedestrian
footbridges connect Piers 3 and 4 and Piers 4 and 5. A vehicular and pedestrian bridge connects
Pier 6 to Eastern Avenue. Other elevated pedestrian walkways provide connections to ships,
employment centers, and hotels. A pedestrian bridge will soon be completed that will connect
Piers 5 and 6 to the Inner Harbor East Subdivision, a major mixed-use development east of the
site at Fleet Street.
There are no designated bicycle lanes or trails in the immediate area, although there is
limited bicycle usage of the roadways in the area.
3-9
-------
3.2.3 Historic and Cultural Resources
3.2.3.1 Historic Resources
In order to prepare necessary documentation for compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, a historic resources survey was conducted in April 1992 to
identify historic resources on the site which might be eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. The survey identified two eligible historic resources on the proposed site;
Connolly's Seafood Restaurant and the bulkheads of Piers 5 and 6. (Detailed information on the
two resources can be found in the Historic Sites Inventory Forms prepared for the Maryland
Historical Trust.)
Connolly's Restaurant, located on the northwest corner of Pier 5, was probably
constructed during the 1920s, and is the last remaining example of structures devoted to early
mid-20th century commercial activity on the piers in Baltimore's Inner Harbor. Connolly's
meets National Register Criterion A because it was associated with the Chesapeake-based
commerce of the early 20th century.
Piers 5 and 6, constructed from 1908 to 1910, were among the first concrete piers
constructed in seawater in the United States. The piers meet National Register Criterion C
because they embody the distinctive characteristics of a method of construction. The solid piers,
consisting of filled bulkheads, were important in the evolution from timber pile to reinforced
concrete for seawater construction.
Historic resources near the project site which have been listed or determined eligible for
listing on the National Register include the Seven Foot Knoll Lighthouse on the southern end
of Pier 5, moved to the site in 1986 in connection with the development of Harrison's Inn and
Restaurant; the Pratt Street Power Plant which occupies the northern half of Pier 4; the US
Coast Guard Cutter Taney; the USS Torsk; the lightship Chesapeake; and the US Frigate
Constellation docked at Pier 1. The Business and Government Historic District is also adjacent
3-10
-------
to the site and is listed in the National Register. Appendix B includes correspondence received
from the Maryland Historical Trust and Baltimore City's Commission for Historic and
Architectural Preservation.
3.2.3.2 Archaeological Resources
In 1987 and 1988, archaeological investigations were conducted on Piers 5 and 6 in
conjunction with the development of the Harrison's Inn and Restaurant at Pier 5 and the
installation of new utilities on the Piers. The Baltimore Center for Urban Archaeology
performed the investigations for the Charles Center Inner Harbor Development, Inc., in
anticipation of federal involvement in the project which would necessitate compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The investigations included exploratory
trenching followed by intensive excavations.
The testing revealed the presence of intact structural remains along with fill materials
used in the creation of the piers. In addition, excavations uncovered several industrial features
related to a large scale manufacturing plant which occupied the block in the late 19th and early
20th centuries. In particular, the structural remains of the Smith and Wicks Tin Can
Manufactory (1880 - 1890) and the R. Tynes Smith Can Company (1890 - 1904) were
uncovered. For a detailed description of the investigations, see Simmons, Scott E., An
Investigation of the Archaeological Resources Associated with Piers 5 and 6 and the Harrison's
at Pier 5 Complex, Baltimore, MD, Baltimore Center for Urban Archaeology, 1990.
3.2.4 Public Utilities
The Christopher Columbus Center site, encompassing Piers 5 and 6 and the fill area
between these piers as well as Pratt Street bordering the site to the north, contains utility systems
representing both public and private ownership. The utility systems now serving Piers 5 and 6
were constructed from 1905 to the present. The majority of the utility systems were renewed,
however, during the "Pier 5 & 6 Utilities" project in 1987.
3-11
-------
These utilities will serve as the source for the Center connections to accommodate the
increased load requirements for project construction and operation. This section briefly outlines
water, electricity, communications, gas and steam utility systems that exist adjacent to and at
the project site.
Water
The water distribution systems contained within the proposed site are publicly owned by
the City of Baltimore. The systems are located within easements and rights-of-way that are
maintained by the City. The components of the systems include building service connections,
distribution mains, fire hydrants, metering facilities, landscape plumbing, and valving and vaults.
Electric
The electrical system found within the site is cooperatively owned by the City of
Baltimore and Baltimore Gas & Electric Company. The City owns the majority of the duct
systems, and Baltimore Gas & Electric Company has proprietorship of the electrical distribution
system located within the site rights-of-way and easements; however, a portion of the system lies
inside older ducts that were constructed within the project site itself. The components of the
duct system include below-grade ducts, handboxes, junction boxes, distribution lines, switch gear
and line and transformer manhole/vault structures. The components of the electrification system
include cables, conductors, certain metering, transformer, and system controls.
Electrical service for Connolly's Restaurant is independent of the site electrical system.
This structure is serviced by electrical conductors which are contained in a duct system lying
north-south under Pratt Street at the northeast section of the restaurant.
3-12
-------
Communications
The communications duct system on-site is cooperatively owned. The cables, equipment,
and the older duct systems including manholes (found within the project site) are owned by the
Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of Maryland; the new duct systems and manholes
are owned by the City of Baltimore. The new duct system is located within easements and
rights-of-way of the site, and the older duct system is primarily located within the project site.
The components of the communications system include below-grade ducts, manholes, pedestals,
terminals and other communications-related equipment.
Gas
The gas system existing on-site is owned by the Baltimore Gas & Electric Company. It
has been installed within rights-of-way of the project site and is maintained by BG&E personnel.
The components of this system include gas main piping facilities, appurtenant pressure regulating
devices, and valving and vaults. A 6" wrapped steel pipe containing medium pressure gas is the
main that services the project site. It enters the site on the west side of Pier 6 originating from
a 24" gas main running east-west in the center of Pratt Street.
Steam
Although steam piping is currently absent within the site boundaries, it may be considered
as a possible utility service connection to Christopher Columbus Center. The Baltimore Thermal
Energy Corporation (BTEC) is the owner of the district heating system within the City and has
expressed interest in expanding their system from the Central Business District to the Harbor
East area and specifically to provide service to the Christopher Columbus Center. BTEC steam
is partially produced by incineration of municipal waste by the Baltimore Refuse Energy Systems
Company (BRESCO) incinerator, owned by Wheelabrator Environmental Services.
3-13
-------
3.2.5 Water Quality Management
3.2.5.1 Dredging
Dredged material from the Inner Harbor, according to previous studies, contains
excessive metallic salts of zinc, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, cadmium, molybdenum,
nickel, manganese, and cobalt. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources has indicated
that some bottom material in areas of the Inner Harbor does not support benthic organisms -
aquatic plants, worms and small shellfish.
Dredging of materials from Inner Harbor requires that permits be obtained from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the Maryland Port Administration (MPA).
3.2.5.2 Stormwater Management
The storm drainage systems contained within the project are publicly owned and
maintained by the City of Baltimore. The components of the system include roof drains,
drainage piping, manholes, inlets, and trench drains. Within the project site, the longest
drainage piping system is found along the west side of Pier 6. This system drains stormwater
collected from a low point through inlets piped to manholes and discharged into a concrete
headwall/box type structure at the north end of the slip between Piers 5 and 6. This system was
expanded to the west to drain Harrison's Circle during the construction of that circular
landscaping area and driveway.
A short drainage system at the south end of Connolly's Restaurant drains stormwater
from a driveway on the east side of the building. This system is discharged into the slip area
between Piers 4 and 5 at the southwest corner of the restaurant.
3-14
-------
Trench drains and a slotted drain remove runoff from the filled area on the east side of
Harrison's Inn and Restaurant, discharging the stormwater directly into the slip area between
Piers 4 and 5.
In 1983, the State of Maryland adopted rules and regulations establishing criteria and
procedures for stormwater management in an effort to decrease the deterioration of the
Chesapeake Bay and its waterways. In addition, in 1985 the State created the Critical Area
Commission to oversee and regulate development of the environmentally sensitive 1,000-foot
zone landward from all state tidal waters. The City of Baltimore Department of Planning, in
conjunction with the Department of Public Works, oversees the Baltimore City Critical Area
Management Program for the State Critical Areas Commission. The site of the proposed Center
lies within the critical area designated in the City Critical Area Management Program as a
"Waterfront Revitalization Area". The implications of this designation for stormwater
management measures at the proposed Center are discussed in Section 4.2.5.2.
3.2.5.3 Wastewater Management
The sanitary sewer system located on-site is publicly owned by the City of Baltimore.
The system is located within easements and rights-of-way and is maintained by Baltimore City
Maintenance personnel. The components of the system include building service connections,
lateral and connector sewers, manholes and cleanouts.
A 10" sanitary sewer system exits the site in the center of Pier 5 to an existing 15"
sanitary system which then flows northeast across Pratt Street. The 10" sanitary pipe is laid
south to Eastern Avenue where it splits to two separate drainage areas with 8" pipes, one
heading further south to the Lighthouse area for Pier 5 waste collection, and the other heading
east to a terminal manhole at the northeast corner of Harrison's Inn and Restaurant. An
extension of this main is anticipated during the Concert Pavilion renewal, which will extend the
sanitary main on from the terminal manhole to the east side of Pier 6 and south to the Music
Tent. The system services Connolly's Restaurant from 10" and 15" pipes in Pratt Street,
3-15
-------
Harrison's Inn and Restaurant from the 8" sanitary sewer in Eastern Avenue, the Lighthouse and
utility benches from the 8" sanitary sewer along the perimeter of Pier 5.
3.2.5.4 Erosion and Sediment Control
There are no existing measures in place at the project site to control erosion and sediment
that may originate from existing site conditions and uses because the site is currently asphalt.
3.2.6 Waste Management
3.2.6.1 Hazardous Waste Management
There is currently no hazardous waste generated at the project site.
In August 1992, EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, in association with RK&K
Engineering, assessed the environmental conditions present at Piers 5 and 6. The testing
consisted of geotechnical soil borings to determine the type of materials contained within the
piers. These tests were conducted in preparation for the construction of the Christopher
Columbus Center. Soils were analyzed using Full Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedures
for volatile and non-volatile organic compounds, and trace metals. Groundwater analyses
included both total and dissolved metals on the EPA Priority Pollutant List.
The results of the soil boring tests indicated that no significant environmental problems
are associated with the site. In addition, no evidence of disposal of hazardous waste or other
materials was identified. However, some soil samples did reveal elevated concentrations of
copper and lead.
3-16
-------
3.2.6.2
Solid Waste Management
All solid waste generated at the project site is disposed of primarily at the BRESCO
incinerator, or secondarily at the Pulaski incinerator, both under contract with the City of
Baltimore. All ash from incineration at both BRESCO and Pulaski is disposed of at the
Quarantine Road Landfill. Refuse generated by commercial and quasi-public uses is removed
by privately-contracted commercial haulers. The City provides refuse collection for its
residents.
3.2.6.3 Biological Waste Management
There is currently no biological waste generated at the project site.
3.2.6.4 Recycling
There is currently no recycling of any materials at the project site. According to the
Maryland Recycling Act of 1988, the City of Baltimore is required to recycle 20% of its waste
stream by January 1, 1994. At this time, commercial and institutional establishments are not
required to recycle, although it is suggested. However, the Northeast Maryland Waste Authority
has indicated that a number of counties in Maryland are or have considered mandatory recycling
initiatives for commercial and institutional facilities.
3-17
-------
4.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES
-------
4.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATTVE MEASURES
4.1 Impacts to the Natural Environment and Mitigative Measures
4.1.1 Physiography
Development of the proposed site would require the removal of the existing asphalt
paved surface, the excavation of subsurface fill, and the installation of foundation piles.
Generally accepted soil erosion and sediment control practices, as addressed in Section
4.2.5.4, would be implemented during construction to minimize the amount of soil loss and
associated adverse impacts.
Dewatering of the proposed site may be necessary. A water appropriation permit has
been requested from the Maryland Water Resources Administration (WRA) with the
understanding that it may not be needed, or that the actual volume may be much less than
that stated in the permit request. A response to the permit application is expected from
WRA by 10/15/92.
4.1.2 Vegetation and Wildlife
Construction on Piers 5 and 6 would not have a negative impact on vegetation and
wildlife, as essentially none exists. Landscaping associated with the project is estimated to
re-vegetate approximately 0.8-1.2 acres of the site with native, drought-tolerant trees, shrubs,
and flowers. Activities associated with the proposed action (i.e. bulkhead replacement,
pedestrian bridge replacement, and dredging) that may affect aquatic ecosystems adjacent
to the Piers are addressed in Section 4.2.5.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has determined that the proposed
action would not adversely affect the peregrine falcons that currently nest in the Inner
Harbor area. Correspondence received from USFWS is included in Appendix B.
4-1
-------
4.1.3 Floodplains and Wetlands
Floodplains
Because the proposed site lies within the 100-year flood hazard area, the proposed action
must be reviewed for compliance with Executive Order (EO) 11988 of 1977 - Floodplain
Management (as amended by Executive Order 12148 of 1979). The proposed action is not
considered to be a "critical action" as defined in Executive Order 11988, as it would not "pose
a greater than normal risk for flood-caused loss of life or property." According to the Executive
Order, the proposed action can be undertaken only if:
(1) there is no practicable alternative outside the floodplain,
(2) the no action alternative is not practicable, and
(3) the floodplain site has been determined to be practicable.
Chapter 2 demonstrated why (1) an alternative outside the floodplain, and (2) no action
would not be practicable.
The City of Baltimore Planning Department, which largely follows Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) regulations and guidelines for floodplain development, is
responsible for determining whether the proposed floodplain site would be practicable. In
addition, the Planning Department is responsible for reviewing project development to ensure
floodplain requirements are met. The design of the Center is being coordinated with the
Planning Department and FEMA to address its location in the flood hazard area. To comply
with the Baltimore City ordinance, all occupiable space in the Center would be located at
elevation 9.7 feet or above, which will place it at least one foot above the 100-year flood hazard
level. The Center will not be a "critical area" facility.
The proposed action would meet all Federal and State Coastal Zone Management
requirements (16 CFR 923).
4-2
-------
Wetlands
Construction on Piers 5 and 6 would not affect wetlands because none are present.
However, activities associated with the proposed action (i.e. bulkhead replacement, pedestrian
bridge replacement, and dredging) would affect the adjacent waters and bottom sediments, which
are regulated under the Maryland Wetlands Regulations (COMAR 08:05.07). These effects are
addressed in Section 4.2.5.
A state wetlands license has been issued by the Maryland Board of Public Works for
bulkhead replacement. It is valid until 12/31/95. A wetlands license issued by the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources is required for slip dredging. Approval is expected in
November 1992. The original scope of work included a cul-de-sac to be built over tidal
wetlands. The cul-de-sac was eliminated from the plans.
4.1.4 Air Quality
Impacts
Air quality in the project area would be affected by short-term construction operations
and long-term operation of the Center. The construction of the Center would result in air
contaminant emissions of particulate matter (dust from clearing, excavation, filling, etc.) and a
relatively small amount of smoke, noxious odors, and gases from construction equipment.
Air quality impacts related to the long-term operation of the Center involve (1) emission
discharges from the research laboratory fume hoods and (2) emissions from vehicles.
Mitigation
A number of measures can be implemented to minimize or eliminate the amount of dust
and particulates generated from construction. Wetting exposed earth or using dust palliatives
4-3
-------
are effective dust control measures. Wheel washing devices can be used when construction
vehicles enter public roads from the construction area. Loaded material taken from the
construction area should be covered to avoid spillage and reduce the possibility of dust being
blown from the carrier vehicle. These measures are typically required in the construction
contract documents, either as standards or special provisions. Heavy-duty diesel equipment is
subject to requirements under the Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Program, and
measures must be incorporated into the construction contract to assure that the appropriate
emissions control equipment remains on the vehicles and is properly maintained and serviced.
Laboratory discharges are exempt from air permit requirements under the Maryland Air
Pollution Control Regulations COMAR 26:11.02.03(6)(f). The primary source of air
emissions at the Center will be from laboratory hood exhaust. Chemicals at COMB are used
in such small quantities that insignificant impacts to air quality are anticipated. Vehicular
emissions associated with the Center would be insignificant and not expected to effect the area's
non-attainment status for ozone and carbon monoxide.
4.1.5 Noise
Impacts
Construction activities at the proposed project site would result in a temporary increase
in noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the site. Construction noise would be of fixed
duration, usually limited to the daylight hours.
Operation of the facility would not be expected to result in a significant change from the
present ambient noise conditions, with the exception of noise from research vessels' horns as
they enter and leave the docking area.
4-4
-------
Mitigation
Impacts due to construction noise are a function of the length of construction, equipment
types, and equipment usage cycles. The following Construction Noise Specifications would
mitigate adverse noise impacts in the area:
1. All construction equipment powered by an internal combustion engine shall be
equipped with a properly maintained muffler.
2. Air compressors shall meet current EPA noise emission exhaust standards.
3. Air powered equipment shall be fitted with pneumatic exhaust silencers.
4. Stationary equipment powered by an internal combustion engine shall not be
operated within 150 feet of noise sensitive areas without portable noise barriers
placed between the equipment and the noise sensitive sites.
5. To minimize the duration of high noise levels, construction operations responsible
for high noise levels should be scheduled, whenever possible, to coincide with
each other.
4.2 Impacts on the Man-made Environment and Mitigative Measures
4.2.1 Land Use Patterns
The proposed action is consistent with the City's Residential/Commercial proposed land
use designation for this site and with the Central Commercial District zoning.
In accordance with the City of Baltimore's Critical Areas Management Plan, buffer and
stormwater management regulations must be addressed. Buffer regulations require a promenade
and landscaping in the area 100 feet landward from the water's edge. A promenade is planned
for the site as well as vegetative landscaping; however, the Critical Areas Plan allows the.
development of 100 percent of the 100-foot buffer area in the Waterfront Revitalization Subarea,
4-5
-------
subject to a $2.50 per square foot offset fee for the total buffer area not landscaped.
Stormwater management is further discussed in Section 4.2.5.2.
The design of the site, including a promenade and landscaping, would contribute to
the availability of open space and recreational areas in the Inner Harbor area.
Because housing availability in the metropolitan area is adequate for the proposed
action, no negative housing impacts are anticipated.
4.2.2 Transportation Facilities
4.2.2.1 Existing Street System
The proposed action would have minor effects on the existing street system. It would
not require the addition of a new access point to the site, nor would it result in an increase
in traffic flow, since the site is currently used for parking. However, relocation of some
utility services would result in the temporary obstruction of one lane of traffic on Pratt
Street.
4-9-7.-7. Parking Access
The existing site currently provides 620 public parking spaces, while the Center would
provide only 230 public and 25 private parking spaces. This reduction in available parking
should have little impact on parking availability since numerous parking facilities are located
near the project site. (City of Baltimore, Department of Transportation, 1992 Parking
Survevl Upon completion of Phase II, only the 25 private parking spaces will remain. The
combination or uses at the project site will not require any off-street parking spaces per
Section 9.0-3 of the Zoning Ordinance of Baltimore City (see Appendix B).
4-6
-------
4.2.2.3
Mass Transit
The proposed action may result in increased use of mass transit, but no adverse impacts
are expected.
4.2.2.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
During construction, the sidewalk on the south side of Pratt Street would be closed and
pedestrian traffic would be re-routed to the north side of the street. The replacement of the
pedestrian bridge between Piers 4 and 5 will require the installation of a temporary bridge until
construction of the permanent bridge is completed. Construction of the replacement bridge
would require the placement of pilings to support the structure. Placement of pilings to support
a bridge is not considered by the Corps of Engineers to be within their jurisdiction. Letters of
approval for the bridge replacement have been received from the U.S. Coast Guard, the
Maryland Water Resources Administration, and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
An approval letter from the Maryland Port Administration is expected by September 1,1992.
After construction, the proposed action would not interfere with pedestrian or bicycle
access. The extension of the harbor promenade, a component of project development would
enhance pedestrian and bicycle usage.
4.2.3 Historic and Cultural Resources
4.2.3.1 Historic Resources
The General Services Administration (GSA) has been the Federal agency responsible for
ensuring project compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16
U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
4-7
-------
Both Connolly's Restaurant and the Pier 5 and 6 bulkheads have been determined eligible
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR Section 60.4). Application of
the Criteria of Adverse Effect (36 CFR Section 800.9) has determined that the proposed action
would have an adverse effect upon both resources. Connolly's Restaurant would be demolished
under the proposed action. However, construction of the replacement bulkheads would take
place in a manner that would allow the existing bulkheads to remain in place.
A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Maryland Historical Trust and GSA
has been prepared as set forth in Section 106. The MOA has been signed by both the Trust and
GSA and has been sent to the Advisory Council for final approval.
The MOA includes the following mitigation measures: (1) recordation of both
Connolly's Restaurant and the bulkheads according to Historic American Buildings
Survey/Historic Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) standards, with review and approval by
HABS/HAER, (2) salvage of architectural elements from Connolly's Restaurant for curation,
reuse, or public education, and (3) design review for new construction by the Maryland
Historical Trust.
The contemporary design for the Center would be compatible with the historic and
architectural qualities of the surrounding historic properties in terms of scale, massing, size, and
materials. The Center would not be expected to have a negative impact on the nearby Business
and Government Historic District because of the eclectic mix of architectural styles and building
sizes found in the Inner Harbor area.
4.2.3.2 Archaeological Resources
Archaeological resources at the proposed site have been thoroughly documented. Based
upon the available archaeological information, the Maryland Historical Trust has concluded that
the impact of the proposed action on archaeological resources would not be significant and that
4-8
-------
further archaeological investigation of the proposed site would not be necessary.
Correspondence from the Maryland Historical Trust is contained in Appendix B.
4.2.4 Public Utilities
4.2.4.1 Water, Electricity, Communications, Gas, and Steam
Implementation of the proposed action would require connections to utility services on
and near the site. In addition, it may be necessary to relocate several water mains, electrical
duct systems, and a gas main. The following utility service connections and/or uses are
anticipated:
Electrical service would enter from one or more of the systems on Pratt Street or
from the existing system servicing Piers 5 and 6.
Telephone service can enter from the existing system or from a different system
in Pratt Street.
Water service would be provided from Pratt Street.
Gas service, if required, can be served from Pratt Street or possibly from the on-
site 6" system.
Steam service, if used, can be provided from the existing system in Lombard
Street.
Construction impacts to existing distribution systems on site can be avoided or mitigated
by measures such as supporting the utility structures during construction and placing carefully
tamped backfill upon completion in order to prevent subsidence and collapse. For utilities in
the vicinity of pile-driving operations, preauguring below the elevation of the utilities and use
of vibration monitoring equipment may be required.
As further site design preparations become available for construction of the Center, such
as the extent of the building footprints, and the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems,
4-9
-------
a determination of utility loads required at the site will be made. At that time, a reevaluation
of possible impacts of the proposed project on exiting utilities may be required. However, load
capacities are sufficient for all utilities required for project construction and operation.
4.2.4.2 Energy Conservation Measures
Energy conservation measures would be incorporated into the design of the facility.
Measures under consideration include: variable speed fan and pump drives, energy efficient
lighting, special glass systems, wall and roof insulation, and energy recovery from the laboratory
exhaust systems. In addition to energy conservation measures, energy management practices
would be followed to shift consumption to off-peak periods, thus reducing the need to build
additional power generating plants. The effectiveness of using district steam for heating
purposes would also be considered (see correspondence in Appendix B).
The EPA - Region III staff would assist the Christopher Columbus Center Development,
Inc. to identify new design technologies and other opportunities for conserving energy.
4.2.5 Water Quality
4.2.5.1 Dredging
The City of Baltimore obtained a U.S. Army Corp of Engineers dredging permit (Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act) in 1987. In 1990, the permit's original expiration date was
extended to 1993. The permit allows the City to dredge approximately 4,700 cubic yards of silt
and debris from an area between Piers 4 and 5, extending as far as 200 feet channelward of the
bulkhead along Pratt Street. The permit indicates clamshell dredging is the preferred dredge
technology and that all dredged spoil materials would be deposited at the Masonville, Maryland
Disposal Facility.
4-10
-------
Other agencies requiring permits for dredging include the Maryland Port
Administration (disposal approved for Masonville, MD), the Maryland Department of the
Environment (Water Quality Certification for dredging - approval expected by November
1992), and Maryland Department of Natural Resources (Wetlands License required for slip
dredging - permit needed by January 1993).
An analysis of sediments between Piers 5 and 6 was conducted in October 1984
(Elutriate and Bulk Sediment Analysis of Inner Harbor Sediments Between Pier 4 and 5 -
A Data Report, 1984). Parameters tested in the report included: arsenic, cadmium, total
chromium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver. The Maryland Port Administration
(MPA) has accepted the data as adequate for their purposes for reviewing disposal
requirements. As noted previously, disposal of the dredge spoil has been approved by the
MP A. Additional testing of dredged material using; particle size, distribution, moisture
content, and Atterberg limits, will determine the type of permitted disposal facility that can
accept the dredged material.
The physical process of removing sediments from the slip would resuspend sediment,
possibly strip away existing aquatic habitat; and disturb invertebrates and fish. Increased
turbidity due to resuspended sediment causes decreased light penetration, elevated water
temperatures, a shift of free-floating algae, lowered dissolved oxygen, and irritation of fish
gills.
To restrict the entrance of suspended solids into adjacent harbor waters during
dredging, a silt curtain is to be placed channelward of all operations. U.S. EPA standard
dredge and/or fill conditions incorporated in the permit require that the dredging is to be
done so as to minimize both disturbance of the bottom and increases in turbidity. Also,
deposition of dredged material on shore and all earthwork operations on shore are to be
carried out so as to minimize erosion of the material and preclude its entry into the
waterway. Finally, measures must be employed to prevent spills of fuels or lubricants.
4-11
-------
4.2.5.2 Stormwater Management
City stormwater management criteria require that the post-development 2- and 10-year
storm flows not exceed pre-development levels. Also, because the proposed site is located in
the Jones Falls watershed, post-development 100-year flows also must not exceed pre-
development levels. These requirements would be met by eliminating runoff where the
reflecting pool would replace impervious surface and by decreasing the total area of impervious
surface through incorporation of vegetative landscaping.
Current designs outline that stormwater runoff would be treated by passage through oil
and grease separators and grit chambers before discharge to the harbor.
Due to its location within 1,000 feet of a state tidal area, the proposed site is subject to
the Baltimore City Critical Area Management Program. Under this program, the project must
reduce the pollutant loading to 90% or less of the pre-development loading. Some of the "Best
Management Practices" that have been identified by the Critical Area Commission as means to
achieve this reduction include reducing the impervious area, oil/grit separator inlets, infiltration
devices, and retention/detention ponds. Due to the high groundwater levels, miscellaneous fill
material in the soil, and lack of space, it may not be feasible to achieve the 10% reduction
through the suggested measures. Under the City Critical Area Management Program, if site
conditions make it infeasible to achieve the 10% reduction on site, a developer of a site may
satisfy the requirement by paying an offset fee to be used by the City to fund reductions in
runoff pollutants in another area.
4.2.5.3 Wastewater Management
The volume and characteristics of wastewater generated at the Center are not yet
estimated. Wastewater would be discharged to the City system; no wastewater would be
discharged from the site to the adjacent waters. Wastewater contaminated from carcinogens or
other processes undertaken at the Center are to be collected for disposal. Specific disposal
4-12
-------
procedures will be consistent with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and local
pollutant discharge requirements.
Existing service connections to the Pratt Street sewer may be undersized, necessitating
construction of new connections. The Center would conform to pretreatment standards for
laboratory discharges, if required.
4.2.5.4 Erosion and Sediment Control
Construction of the Center would require an erosion and sediment control plan approved
by the City of Baltimore Department of Public Works. Measures to control erosion and
sediment during construction activities are required for all developments disturbing more than
5,000 square feet of land. Erosion and sediment control devices must remain functional until
the contributing drainage area is stabilized with paving, vegetation, or adequate ground cover.
Typical measures to control erosion and sedimentation for this type of development
include:
Silt fence around the perimeter of small drainage areas to trap and filter dirty
runoff.
Storm drain inlet protection devices to restrict dirty runoff from entering the
storm drain system.
Sediment traps or ponds for larger drainage areas to collect and retain dirty
runoff. However, these may not be practical on the proposed site due to space
constraints.
For an excavated area, sediment-laden runoff is collected in traps or pits and
pumped to portable tanks or adequate above-ground devices for retention and
settlement prior to discharge.
4-13
-------
4.2.6 Waste Management
4.2.6.1 Hazardous Waste Management
The Christopher Columbus Center's main tenant is the Center of Marine Biotechnology
(COMB). COMB is a component of the Maryland Biotechnology Institute of the University of
Maryland system. COMB's role is that of a research institute dedicated to the study of molecular
biology and molecular genetics in the area of marine science. COMB incorporates thirteen
individual research laboratories, and is projected to double its size within the next four years.
COMB's status as a laboratory facility dictates that certain safety programs are to be
outlined in a facility safety plan. These safety programs include hazardous waste management,
employee training program, safety inspections, control equipment and operation (including
vented fume hoods) and medical programs. Therefore, the COMB has developed a "Chemical
Hygiene Plan" that describes COMB's safety programs and procedural guidelines. This plan is
required by the Department of Labor (29 CFR 1910 - Subpart Z - enacted December 1990)."
The Chemical Hygiene Plan can be obtained or referenced at the COMB facilities at Baltimore
City Community College.
A number of hazardous chemicals are currently used at COMB for ongoing marine
biotechnology research, although quantities used are relatively small. As required by the
Occupation Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Health and Safety Standards, all
chemicals at COMB are manifested on Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS). All hazardous
wastes that require disposal by COMB are also manifested so as to track this waste from point
of generation to final disposal site. This procedure also ensures proper storage, handling, and
transport of all hazardous wastes, as well as disposal.
Hazardous waste generated at COMB is disposed of every three (3) months in association
with disposal schedules at the University of Baltimore at Maryland. According to COMB,
approximately 60 gallons of hazardous waste requiring disposal is generated at the facility every
4-14
-------
3 months. As the facility expands at the Christopher Columbus Center, these volumes are
expected to increase. Currently, Laidlaw Environmental Services collects, transports, and
disposes of all hazardous waste generated at COMB at permitted disposal facilities.
The above listed hazardous waste management practices at COMB are not expected to
alter or change significantly at the Christopher Columbus Center.
4.2.6.2 Biological Waste Management
Biological waste at COMB includes fish manure and carcasses as a result of research.
The fish manure is currently disposed of directly into the City of Baltimore sanitary sewer
system, as per pollutant discharge requirements. Fish carcasses and other parts are transported
to the University of Maryland at Baltimore and are incinerated at their medical waste incinerator.
This practice will continue at the Center.
4.2.6.3 Solid Waste Management
Non-hazardous and non-infectious refuse generated at the Center will be removed by a
licensed commercial refuse hauler and disposed at the Baltimore Refuse Energy System
Company (BRESCO) incinerator or the Pulaski incinerator, both of which are under contract
with the City to process the City's waste. The City's contracts provide sufficient capacity to
dispose the waste generated at the proposed Center.
4.2.6.4 Recycling
Recycling programs for paper, plastic, glass, and aluminum will be incorporated into the
facility operation procedures. The use of recycled materials and supplies (i.e. drywall, tile,
pavers, insulation material, and rated doors) will be considered in the facility design.
4-15
-------
4.2.7 AquaCulture
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) are being developed for the housing and use of
aquatic species in the aquaculture facility at the Christopher Columbus Center. Guidelines of
the United States Department of Agriculture concerning animal welfare and the American
Association of Accreditation for Laboratory Animal Care will be followed for design and for
care and use of aquatic species. A manual will be developed by the Animal Care Committee
at the COMB to adopt and establish these guidelines for users of the Christopher Columbus
Center aquaculture facility. Plans have been made to employ an experienced, full-time person
to manage and operate the aquaculture facility.
Water supplies within the tanks will be thermoregulated. Fresh, brackish, and salt water
tanks are planned. Fresh water will be obtained from the City of Baltimore's water system,
while salt water environments will be prepared using Instant Oceanฎ. Fresh and salt water will
be continually filtered, circulated to large tanks, and pumped back to the fish-holding tanks.
Brackish water will be prepared by mixing fresh and salt water. Water quality will be controlled
by monitoring and adjusting for such parameters as dissolved oxygen, ammonia, Ph, water
hardness, nitrates, etc. To prevent fish loss, troughs, grates, and screens will cover all
discharge openings to the city sewer system. Veterinary care of aquatic species will be through
contractual arrangements with the National Aquarium of Baltimore.
4.3 Summary of Impacts
The construction and operation of the Christopher Columbus Center would result in both
beneficial and minimal adverse environmental impacts to the following:
Vegetation and Wildlife - Landscaping associated with the proposed action would re-
vegetate approximately 1.5 acres of the site, which is currently a paved parking area.
Construction activities may affect aquatic ecosystems adjacent to Piers 5 and 6.
4-16
-------
Floodplains - The Center would be constructed on a site located entirely within a
100-year flood hazard area.
Wetlands - Bulkhead replacement, pedestrian bridge replacement, and dredging
would affect waters and bottom sediments adjacent to Piers 5 and 6.
Air Quality and Noise - Construction activities may result in temporary or short-
term adverse impacts to air quality and noise. Operation of the facility would result
in minimal, if any, adverse impacts to air quality.
Transportation Facilities - Construction activities may result in temporary or short-
term adverse impacts to transportation facilities. Permanent impacts would include
the loss of approximately 400 public parking spaces. Pedestrian access in the Inner
Harbor area would be enhanced.
Historic and Cultural Resources - Implementation of the proposed action would
necessitate the demolition of Connolly's Restaurant, and the reconstruction of the
Piers 5 and 6 bulkheads, both of which are eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places.
Water Quality - Dredging activities may result in short-term adverse impacts to
water quality and aquatic ecosystems adjacent to Piers 4 and *>.
Finally, the functions of the Center would greatly increase scientific knowledge and
public understanding of marine ecology, biotechnology and related fields.
4-17
-------
5.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
-------
5.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Development of the site has been subjected to significant public scrutiny and
comment with respect to both previous planning and the current project development plans
Listed below is a brief history of public review procedures throughout the project's
development.
City of Baltimore budget hearings and process for fiscal years 1991, 1992 and 1993,
leading to commitment of $24,660,000 in General Obligation bonds and other
support, $12 million in parking revenue bonds, and $34 million in land.
State of Maryland budget hearings and process for fiscal years 1991, 1992 and 1993,
leading to commitment of $12.18 million.
Federal government budget hearings and process for fiscal years 1991,1992 and 1993,
leading to commitment of $315 million.
Baltimore City Planning Commission preliminary review of concept plan
Meeting with representatives of the neighboring institutions, such as the National
Aquarium, the Scarlett Place condominiums association, and the Little Italy
Community Organization (LICO), which represents the residential community to the
east of Scarlett Place, across President Street, have been held
Public notice and opportunity for public comment about the concept of the project
through the review and approval process undertaken by the U.S Army Crops of
Engineers m connection with the dredging and fill permit, NABOP-RW (City of
Baltimore) 84-0950, dated June 14, 1984.
5-1
-------
Widespread publicity in the media Numerous articles from the print media supporting
a finding that information about the project has been broadly disseminated and there has
been on-going opportunity for public input
Development of the site in general, the current proposal for which is fully consistent with
past efforts, has also been publicly addressed in the context of the Inner Harbor Urban
Renewal Plan dated November 19, 1971, and subsequently amended for the construction
of the Harrison's complex and the Pier Six Concert Pavilion
EPA - Region III Inter-agency meeting for the Environmental Assessment as required
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that was held on August 12, 1992
in Baltimore The session was held to solicit comments and concerns for the preparation
of this Environmental Assessment
EPA placed Public Notices in the Baltimore Sun and Capital-Gazette (Annapolis) on
8/3/92 describing the proposed project and soliciting comments and concerns about the
project
Refer to Appendix C (Public Participation) for additional public participation information
that includes federal, state and local public meetings and hearings that were held, and newspaper
articles pertaining to the Christopher Columbus Center
5-2
-------
REFERENCES
-------
REFERENCES
Aquaculture at the Christopher Columbus Center. August 1992. Prepared by Richard E.
Cowart.
Baltimore Center for Urban Archaeology. 1987. An Archival Investigation of the
Archaeological Resources Associated with Harrison's at Piers 5 and 6. Baltimore.
Maryland. Prepared by Barbara K. Weeks.
Baltimore Center for Urban Archaeology. 1990. An Investigation of the Archaeological
Resources Associated with Piers 5 and 6 and the Harrison's at Pier 5 Complex (18BC62
& 18BC631 Baltimore. Maryland. Prepared by Scott E. Simmons.
Center of Marine Biotechnology Chemical Hygiene Plan. 1991.
Christopher Columbus Center Development. 1990. Christopher Columbus Center Development
Site Study. Prepared by Rummel, Klepper, and Kahl.
Christopher Columbus Center Development. Draft Environmental Information Document.
Christopher Columbus Center for Marine Research and Exploration. Baltimore.
Maryland. June 1992. Prepared by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology.
City of Baltimore, Department of Housing and Community Development. 1973. Engineering
and Feasibility Report. Inner Harbor East. Baltimore. Maryland. Prepared by Whitman,
Requardt, and Associates.
City of Baltimore, Department of Planning. Baltimore City Critical Area Management Program.
1988.
City of Baltimore, Department of Transportation. 1992 Parking Rate Survey.
Harbor Development Services Partnership. July 1992. Draft Asbestos and Lead Paint
Assessment. Pier 6 Parking Building. Baltimore Harbor. Baltimore. Maryland. Prepared
by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.
Harbor Development Services Partnership. July 1992. Final Asbestos and Lftrt Paint
Assessment. Connolly's Seafood Restaurant. Pier 5. Baltimore Harbor. Baltimore.
Maryland. Prepared by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.
Harbor Development Services Partnership. August 1992. Draft Soil Borings and Analysis. Fill
Material and Groundwater. Piers 5 and 6. Prepared by EA Engineering, Science, and
Technology, Inc.
R-l
-------
State of Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. February 5, 1986. Health
Advisory.
Whitman, Requardt, and Associates. October 1984. Elutriate and Bulk Sediment Analyses of
Inner Harbor Sediments Between Piers 5 and 6. A Data Report. Prepared by EA
Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.
R-2
-------
APPFivmre a
AUTa JEdivlA a
-------
PHOTO 2: View looking sooth across the project site. The Pier Six Concert Pavilion and the Harrison's Inn and Restaurant are in the background.
PHOTO 1: View looking west across project site (Piers 5 and 6) toward the National Aquarium. Marine Mammal Pavilion and the Power Plant.
-------
PHOTO 3: View looking northwest from Pier 6 slip across project site toward downtown Baltimore. The Power Plant and Baltimore City Community College are pictured in the
background.
PHOTO 4: View east of Pier 5 and Connollev's Seafood Restaurant. The Scarlett Place Condominiums are pictured in the background.
-------
PHOTO 6: View southwest looking across project site from Pratt Street. Pictured in background are the Marine Mammal Pavilion, the National Aquarium and Harrison's Inn and
Restaurant.
PHOTO 5: View south from Pratt Street at slip between Piers 4 and 5.
The Marine Mammal Pavilion and Harrison's Inn and Restaurant are pictured in the background.
-------
Photo 8: Architects' rendition of the Christopher Columbus Center.
Photograph courtesy of LHNSCAPE INCORPORATED, 747 Dundas Street East, Toronto, Ontario, Canada MSA 2C4.
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
CITY OF BALTIMORE
KURT L. SCH.MOKE, Mayor
COMMISSION FOR HISTORICAL AND
ARCHITECTURAL PRESERVATION
Charles L Benton. Jr. Building
Suite 1037, 417 E. Fayette Street
Baltimore, Marvland 21202
May 27, 1992
Ms. Lauren Bowlin
Preservation Officer
Office of Preservation Services
Review and Compliance
The Maryland Historical Trust
100 Community Place
Crowusville, Maryland 21032-2023
RE:
Dear Lauren:
Elinor Bacon has kindly forwarded to us the inventory forms for Piers 5 and
6, and the Connelly's Restaurant, which were recently prepared by Betty Bird.
We know that you are presently working on the Section 106 documentation and
mitigation process for the Christopher Columbus Center, and that this is the
appropriate time for you to receive our comments regarding eligibility.
Please be advised that we concur with Betty Bird's findings and recommendations,
regarding the significance of these structures and their National Register
eligibility. The research presented in the inventory form is very complete
and clearly cites the ways in which the structures meet eligibility criteria.
Connelly's Seaford Restaurant is the only remaining early 20th century
structure located on an Inner Harbor pier and, for that reason, it is worthy
of documentation.- The significant early reinforced concr/ste construction of
Piers 5 and 6 establishes the National Register eligibility of these structures,
as well.
Please advise us if you wish to receive any additional comment or information
from CHAP. Betty's inventory forms are so complete that you probably have
everything that you will need.
Thank you for your consideration.
cc. Elinor Bacon
Betty Bird
Kathleen G. Kotarba
Executive Director
KGK/lw
<2^ Primed on recycled paper with environmentally friendly soy based ink.
Christopher Columbus Center
(Piers 5 and 6, and Connelly's
Restaurant)
Sincerely,
-------
. /Cbcfe^/
MARYLAND
HISTORICAL
William Donald Schacfer
Governor
June 6, 1991
Jacqueline H. Rogers
Secretary, DIICD
TRUST
Office of Preservation Services
Mr. David M. Gillece
Acting President
Center City - Inner Harbor Development, Inc.
Suite 2100, Two Hopkins Plaza
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
RE: Christopher Columbus Center of
Marine Research and Exploration
Bulkhead Reconstruction
MD910416-0302
Dear Mr. Gillece:
Our office has received the project listed above for our
review and comment through the Maryland State Clearinghouse for
Intergovernmental Assistance.
The Christopher Columbus Center is a large, multi-phased
construction project proposed for Piers 5 and 6 in Baltimore. The
current phase of the project, according to the information supplied
by the Clearinghouse, concentrates on the bulkhead construction of
Pier 5. Funding for this work will be a Public Works Grant from
the Economic Development Administration (EDA) of the U.S.
Department of Commerce. Funding for the Pier 6 bulkheads is
anticipated from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The bulkhead construction is only a small portion of the
overall project. Federal financial assistance is anticipated from
the General Services Administration (GSA) and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Permits from the Army Corps of Engineers
and the United States Coast Guard will be necessary to complete the
project. A financial commitment from the State of Maryland is also
being sought.
Because the project will utilize federal and state assistance,
it is subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, and its implementing regulations, 36 CFR
Part 800, and Article 83B Sections 5-617 and 518 of the Annotated
Code of Maryland. These laws require all federal and state
agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic
properties. Because multiple agencies share this responsibility,
it will be advantageous for Center City - Inner Harbor to consult
with the agencies to identify one which will agree to take the lead
in the Section 106 revie
Division .. _ jrams
Department of Housing and Community Development
100 Community Place. Crownsvillc, Maryland 21032-2023 (301) 514-7600
-------
Mr. David Gillece
June 6, 1991
page 2
The first steps of the Section 106 process are the
identification and evaluation of historic properties within the
project's area of potential effects (see enclosed pamphlet).
In reviewing the Clearinghouse material, the Trust believes
that:
Extensive archeological investigations have already
been completed for the project area; further
archeological work is not warranted.
The extent of historic standing structures eligible
for the National Register located within the area of
potential effect has not been identified nor evaluated.
The piers are currently composed of bulkheads which date
to 1904-1908. They were constructed after the Baltimore
Fire of 1904 and display advanced engineering technology
for the period. The Trust requests that a determination
of eligibility report be prepared to assess the National
Register eligibility of these structures.
Connelly's Restaurant is an additional historic
property located within the area of potential effect
which may be eligible for the National Register. The
Trust recommends that Connelly's be evaluated as well.
The reports should be completed in accordance with the
"Interim Guidelines for Completing Maryland Inventory of
Historic Properties Form" and address the National
Register Criteria of Evaluation. Our office is willing
to assist in the development of the reports. The
determination of eUffiftiUfry sports should be prepared
bv a qualified professional whose credentials meet the
standards identified in 36 CFR 61, Appendix A. Enclosed
you will find a list of consultants who meet these
standards.
Additional historic properties have been identified
adjacent to the project site: the Seven Foot Knoll
Lighthouse, the Pratt Street Power Plant and the U.S.C.G.
Taney. All of these historic structures have already
been determined eligible or listed in the National
Register of Historic Places. The Business and Government
Historic District is listed in the National Register and
are adjacent to the project site as well.
The second step in the 106 process is the determination by the
lead federal agency of the effects of the project on all National
Register listed and eligible properties. This determination
-------
Mr. David Gillece
June 6, 1991
page 3
assesses how the project impacts the significant historic
resources. The Trust believes that:
The bulkhead proposal includes the demolition and
reconstruction of the original 1904 bulkheads due to
structural deterioration and the demolition of Connelly's
Restaurant. If the structures are determined eligible
for the National Register, then the construction work
should be performed in accordance with the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. According
to the federal regulations 36 CFR 800.9(b), demolition
and reconstruction constitutes an adverse effect on an
historic resource. The Standards advocate the repair and
reuse of existing historic materials. Please provide
evidence of the structural deterioration of the bulkheads
such as photographs illustrating the deterioration and an
engineer's report discussing the conditions as well as
alternatives that were considered in addition to
demolition. We would be very interested in receiving a
copy of the foilowing reports: "Engineering Feasibility
Report - Inner Harbor East - Baltimore. Maryland;"
Whitman. Rpquardt and Associates, March. 1973 ana "Pier
6 Bulkhead Inspection;" Whitman Reguardt and Associates;
August, 1990.
Once the Trust and the involved agencies reach
consensus regarding the effects of the proposed
construction work on historic properties, a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) would be prepared and submitted to the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent
federal agency established to monitor federally-assisted
projects affecting historic properties. The MOA would
include stipulations developed as measures to mitigate
any adverse effects on historic properties. The
recording and selective salvage of structures to be
demolished are typical stipulations of an MOA. The lead
agency would have the option of inviting the Advisory
Council into the review process now. The Council has
thirty days to respond to the signed MOA.
Due to the complexity and importance of this project, the
Trust is willing to meet with you and other involved agencies at
your convenience to discuss the Section 106 review and its
requirements. Please feel free to call me or Ms. Lauren Bowlin at
(301) 514-7600.
-------
Mr. David Gillece
June 6, 1991
page 4
We look forward to working with you on this exciting project.
Enc.
WJP/LLB
cc: Mr. Anthony Costa (GSA)
Ms. Judith Troast (EPA)
Mr. Frank Monteferrante (EDA)
Mr. Jeff Middlebrooks
Ms. Kathleen Kotarba
Mr. J. Rodney Little
Mr. Larry Fogelson
Ms. Mary Johnson
Mr. Joseph M. Coale III
Mr. Fred Shoken
William Ji Pencek, Jr.
Chief
Office of Preservation Services
-------
CITV OF BAI /J'JMORK
1.1 i." ( m c.ii
V.'Ai'TMKNT ' W 'S!\>0 AK'l)
C( )MM1 JNJ'I'V DKVF.I X il'MRNT
;if vV. HK.Mv'N. (.,/.*#ป!u;r
.v ' [.' vc.iiijv N.'fvl. MvKyUtu! ZVliM
July 20, 1992
Fllinor R. Bacon, Partner ป
Harbor Development Services
Partnership
527 N. Charles Street, Suite 300
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
near Ms. Bacon:
This is in response to your letter requesting verification of the
off-street parking requirements for the proposed Christopher Colunbus
Center Development.
IVie proposed development is located in a B-5-1 Central Connteccial
Zoning District. The Christopher Colunbus Center, as you indicate in your
preliminary net square footage report submitted with your letter, will
contain a total of 255,200 square feet consisting of a center of Marine
Biology, a center of Marine Archeology, a public Exhibit area, administation
offices and other accessory support areas.
The combination of uses as noted will not require any off-street
parking spaces per Section 9.0-3 of the Zoning Ordinance of Baltimore City.
I can be reached by telephone at 396-4185 if you require any
additional information.
Subject: Christopher Columbus Center
Sincerely,
David C. Tanner
Zoning Administrator
DCl/bd
O ,
-------
RACHEL F. EDDS. Acting Director
8th Floor, 417 E. Fayette Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202-3416
August 18, 1992
Mr. Peter Claggett
U. S. Environmenta] Protection Agency
Region ill
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Re: Christopher Columbus Center for
Marine Research and Exploration
Dear Mr. Claggett:
At the inter-agency coordination meeting held on August 12, 1992, for the
above referenced project, the City's Coordinator for the State's Critical
Areas Management Program, Bob Hewitt, commented on the impact of the
program on the temporary surface parking lot currently designed for the
Christopher Columbus Center. I would like to clarify and elaborate on
that impact.
The City's Planning Department, in conjunction with the Department of
Public Works, administers the Critical Areas Management Program. The
Program provides for a one hundred foot "Buffer Zone" at the water's edge
within which any use must be water dependent. However, the State has long
recognized that the unique geography of the Inner Harbor renders strict
compliance with this limitation unduly onerous. Consequently, the State
has allowed QJty to spprovfi nor, tor depem5ซi
-------
Mr. Peter Claggett
Page 2
August 18, 1992
Re: Christopher Columbus Center for
Marine Research and Exploration
The Planning Department Is enthusiastic about the excitement this project
is generating and intend to fully support the development of the Project;
in all respects. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rachel F. Edds, Acting Director
Department of Planning
RFE/RAH/tme
-------
r"
V'llliam Donald Schacfcr
Governor
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Building
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Torrey C. Brown, M.D.
Secretary
Janes W . Peck
Assistant Secretary
July 1, 1992
Mr. Jeffrey Elseroaa
EA ENGINEERING, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY
EA Eastern Division
Hunt Valley/Loveton Center
15 Loveton Circle
Sparks, MD 21152
RE: Christopher Columbus Center for Marine Research and
Exploration in Baltimore City
Dear Mr. Jeffrey Elseroad:
This is in response to your request for information regarding the
above referenced project. There are no known Federal or State
threatened or endangered plant or wildlife species present at this
project site.
JM:dec
cc: Cynthia Sibrel
Peter Bendel
Robert Hewitt
ER# 92.06.377
Telephone: (410) 974-2870
DNR TTY for the Deaf: 301-974-3683
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
DIVISION OF ECOLOGICAL SERVICES
1825 VIRGINIA STREET
ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401
June 17, 1992
RECEIVED
Mr. Jeffrey Elseroad
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology
Hunt Valley/Loveton Center
15 Loveton Circle
Sparks, MD 21152
f ea engineering, science, and technology
JUN : 0
Re: Endangered Species
Piers 5 and 6, Baltimore City, MO
Dear Mr. Elseroad:
This responds to your June 8, 1992, request for information on the presence
of species which are Federally listed or proposed for listing as endangered
or threatened within the area to be affected by construction of the
proposed Christopher Columbus Center for Marine Research in the Inner
Harbor area of Baltimore, Maryland. We have reviewed the information you
enclosed and are providing comments in accordance with Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et sea.).
Peregrine falcons fFalco perearlnusl nest on the U.S.F. & G. Building
approximately 1/2 mile west of the project area. However, we would not
expect construction at this site to have an appreciable effect on this
endangered species. No other Federally listed or proposed endangered or
threatened species are known to exist in the project impact area.
Therefore, no biological assessment or further Section 7 consultation is
required with the Fish and Wildlife Service. Should project plans change,
or if additional information on the distribution of listed or proposed
species becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered.
This response relates only to endangered species under our jurisdiction.
It does not address other Fish and Wildlife Service concerns under the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act or other legislation.
Thank you for your interest in endangered species. If you have any
questions or need further assistance, please contact Andy Moser of our
Endangered Species staff at (410) 269-5448.
Sincerely,
t J^hn P. Wolflin
Supervisor
/ Annapolis Field Office
-------
William Donald Schaefer Maryland Department of Natural Resources
G"vcn"" Water Resources Administration
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
"A Commitment to Excellence in Managing Maryland's Water Resources"
August 17, 1992
Mr. Peter Claggett
US EPA Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Re: Christopher Columbus Center
Baltimore, MD
DNR Tidal Wetlands Ref. 93-PL-0095
Dear Peter:
The Tidal Wetlands Division's questions concerning the project
referenced above were fairly well addressed in the August 12th
scoping meeting. However, earlier in the project planning process
the possibility of fill over wetlands for a cul-de-sac was
discussed. There was no mention of this project component at the
recent inter-agency meeting. We ask that your Assessment address
any project components which have been deleted from the scope of
work such as this unnecessary fill. We would like this issue put
to rest formally. If you have any questions, please call me at
410-974-3871. Thank you.
Sincerely,
'DUwl "Mi
Diana M. Reynolds
Torrey C. Brown, M.D.
Secretary
Catherine P. Stevenson
Director
Telephone: (410) 974-3871
DNR TTY for the Deaf: 301-974-3683
-------
ROUSE-COLUMBUS, INC.
August 20, 1992
Mr. Peter R. Claggett - 3ES43
Environmental Protection Agency - Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Re: Christopher Columbus Center
Energy Conservation Measures
Dear Mr. Claggett:
The design of the Christopher Columbus Center is
investigating numerous energy conservation measures ranging from
upgrades in the design of the building to waste recycling
programs that will continue for the life of the building. It is
the intent of the Christopher Columbus Center to investigate and
use all proven technologies which are financially viable to the
project.
We are working with Baltimore Gas & Electric on design
enhancements that will either save fuel through more efficient
equipment or shift electrical consumption to night hours, thus
reducing the need to build additional power generating plants. We
are working with Baltimore Thermal Corp. to determine the
effectiveness of using steam, a portion of which is generated
from the incineration of trash, to heat the facility.
Energy conservation measures being reviewed include a
thermal ice storage system which shifts a portion of the
electrical consumption to the night hours, variable speed fan and
pump drives, T-8 fluorescent lighting, special glass systems,
wall and roof insulation and methods of recovering energy from
the laboratory exhaust systems. We are also looking at the
possibility of using self closing faucets on the restrooms
throughout the facility.
Christopher Columbus Center's efforts are not confined to
the inside of the building. The specification of landscape plants
shall be sensitive to the type of plant material that can thrive
without large quantities of water irrigation.
Two Hopkins Plaza, Suite 2100 Baltimore, Maryland 21202-2902 410-547-8727 Fax 410-547-9089
A subsidiary of The Bouse Company
-------
Mr. Peter R. Claggett - 3ES4 3
August 20, 1992
Page 2
Christopher Columbus Center is looking forward to
interfacing with Region III of the Environmental Protection
Agency to identify any new design technologies that can be
incorporated into the project or used after the building is
occupied. While it is our intent to be on the leading edge of
technology, each proposal must be financially viable with a
reasonable payback.
JBB:jp
cc:A. F. Albanese
E. Bacon
R. Minutoli
O. 0. Seriki
File 2.43.14
Sincerely,
Jawfies B. Brickell
Senior Project Manager
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
August 10, 1992
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS CENTER
The Public Process - Baltimore City
I. Capital Improvement Program Review Process
Baltimore City Planning Commission
CIP Review Hearings - March, 1991; March, 1992
Board of Finance - CIP Review for Fiscal Impact
Public Meeting - March, 1991; March, 1992
Board of Estimates
May, 1991; May,>1992
City Council
Budget and Finance Committee Hearings - May, 1991; May, 1992
Full City Council - June, 1991; June, 1992
II. Budget Review for Bond Issuance
Referendum approvals of Bond Issues - November, 1990 and 1991
ballot
Presented to Baltimore City Delegation of the State General
Assembly - December, 1898 and 1990
III. Project Briefing - City Planning Commission - April, 1992
IV. Meetings with Elected Officials
City Council President, Mary Pat Clarke - April, 1992
Baltimore City Comptroller, Jacqueline McClean - April, 1992
First District City Council Representatives - April, 1992
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS CENTER MEETINGS
Meeting with Representatives of neighboring institutions such
as the National Aquarium, Scarlett Place Condominium
Association, Little Italy Community Organization - February
28, 1992
Regional Minority Business Enterprise/Women's Business
Enterprise meeting with prospective contractors, consultants,
and professionals. 2800 invites; invitee list from City,
State, counties; 250 attendees - July 8, 1992.
-------
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS CEWTZR
07 MARINE RESEARCH AMD EXPLORATION
STATE BUDGET HEARINGS - PUBLIC MEETINGS
STATE 07 MARYLAND BUDGET HEARINGS FOR FY 1991
DATE
3/90
3/90
3/90
3/90
COMMITTEE
SENATE CAPITAL
BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE
HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HEALTH AMD THE
ENVIRONMENT
SENATE BUDGET AND
TAXATION
HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS
PURPOSE
BUDGET HEARING
BUDGET HEARING
DECISION MEETING
DECISION MEETING
STATE 07 MARYLAND BUDGET BEARINGS TOR FY 1992
DATE
3/91
3/91
3/91
3/91
COMMITTEE
SENATE CAPITAL
BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE
HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
SENATE BUDGET AND
TAXATION
HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS
PURPOSE
BUDGET HEARING
BUDGET HEARING
DECISION MEETING
DECISION MEETING
-------
Christopher Columbus Center of
Marine Research and Exploration
Newspaper Articles
The Baltimore Sun, Editorial: "Marine Research Center", May
11, 1989.
The Baltimore Evening Sun, Column: "Spirit of Columbus", May
13, 1989.
The Evening Sun, Editorial: "Losing the Lead", May 19, 1989..
The Sun, Column, Personal Viewpoint: Committed to the
Columbus Center, "Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. House of Representa-
tives"
The Evening Sun, Editorial: "Treasures of the Sea", October
6, 1989.
The Evening Sun, Editorial: "Holding onto a Lead", July 26,
1990.
The Evening Sun, Editorial: "A Dream Becoming a Reality",
October 22, 1990.
The Evening Sun: "Marine Center Funds Secured", October 23,
1990.
The Sun: "UM Gene-Splicers Say They See Progress in 'Redes-
igning' Fish to Grow Faster, Bigger" , January 7, 1991.
The New York Times: "New Prospects for Gene-Altered Fish
Raise Hope", November 27, 1990.
The Evening Sun: "Farming Strategy May Help Stop Spill"
February 21, 1991.
The Evening Sun: "$1.4 Billion Capital Budget Approved for
City", March 8, 1991.
The Evening Sun: "Biotech Alley?, High-tech Hopes for
Maryland's Economic Future" May 21, 1991.
The Sun, "Senate Panel Votes $20 Million for Columbus
Center", July 12, 1991.
The Sun, Editorial: "Boost for Columbus Center", July 14,
1991.
The Evening Sun: "Columbus Center Funds Voted", July 19,
1991.
-------
The Sun: "Rouse to Oversee Development of Columbus Center",
July 28, 1991.
The Sun: "Columbus Center Aweigh" , October 13, 1991.
The Evening Sun, Editorial: "A Vision for the Future",
October 14, 1991.
The Sun: "Biotechnology's Big Sell", October 23, 1991.
The Evening Sun, Editorial: "Designs and Dreams", December
11, 1991.
The Sun, "Oscar-winning Firm Will Design the Exhibits for
Columbus Center", January 15, 1992.
The Sun: "City Approves $210.5 Million Capital Budget" ,
January 9, 1992.
The Sun: "Science on the Half-Shell Proposed for Marine
Facility", March 9, 1992.
The Evening Sun, Editorial: "Science on the Half-shell",
March 11, 1992.
-------
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS CENTER OP MARINE
RESEARCH AMD EXPLORATION
STATE BUDGET HEARINGS
August 7, 1992
Pagซ 2
o STATE OF MARYLAND BUDGET HEARINGS FOR TY 1993
DATE COMMITTEE PURPOSE
3/10/92 SENATE CAPITAL BUDGET BUDGET HEARING
SUBCOMMITTEE
3/12/92
HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
BUDGET HEARING
3/23/92
SENATE CAPITAL BUDGET
SUBCOMMITTEE
BUDGS? HEARING
3/92
SENATE BUDGET AND TAXATION DECISION MEETING
3/92
HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS
DECISION MEETING
-------
PUBLIC NOTICE
The U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) is solicit-
ing public comments on the
proposed Christopher Colum-
bus Center for Marine Re-
search and Exploration in Balti-
more. Maryland. The project
consists of a 6-story 266,000
sq. ft. building to be con-
structed on a city-owned par-
cel at Piers 5 & 6' of
Baltimore's Inner Harbor. The
Center will serve as a re-
search. educational and exhibi-
tion facility eventually employ-
ing approximately 600 people.
The project would be financed
by a mix of federal state, local
and. private funding. EPA. serv-
ing as the lead federal agency,
is preparing an Environmental
Assessment to address envi-
ronmental, as well as. social
cultural, and economic impacts
from the proposed project.
This document is being pre-
pared in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). Comments must
be submitted in writing to EPA
;by August 17, 1992 for con-
sideration in the Environmental
Assessment. Please address
any comments to:
Mr. Peter Claggett (3ES43)
EPA. Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia. PA 19107
-------
NOTICE OF FINDING OF
NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Richard V. Pepino, Chief
Environmental Assessment Branch (3ES40)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-1182
To all interested agencies, groups, and persons:
Proposed Action: Christopher Columbus Center Development, Inc., a non-profit quasi
public entity, has proposed to construct and operate a Center for Marine Biotechnology and
Exploration in Baltimore, Maryland. The Center, which has received Federal funding, would
serve as a national and international focal point for marine science research and related
academic and business activities. The Center would consist of a five-story facility with a two-
stoiy mechanical penthouse, on a city-owned lot at Piers 5 and 6 of Baltimore's Inner
Harbor. An environmental assessment has been written for the project.
Anticipated Impacts: The assessment identified the following potential adverse
environmental impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the center: (1)
construction of a facility within a 100-year flood hazard area, (2) disturbance of tidal
wetlands (waters and bottom sediments) adjacent to Piers 5 and 6 in the Baltimore Inner
Harbor, (3) temporary decrease in ambient air quality due to construction operations, (4)
minor long-term impacts to air quality from increased vehicular traffic, (5) temporary
increase in noise due to construction operations, (6) permanent loss of approximately 400
public parking spaces, (7) demolition of one historic building and reconstruction of one
historic resource, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register, and (8)
temporary impacts to water quality and aquatic ecosystems as a result of dredging.
Mitigation Measures: The assessment stipulates the project will be subject to specifically
identified mitigation measures for each potential impact. These mitigation measures are
incorporated as part of the proposed action and include, but are not limited to: (1)
conformance with Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) of 1977, the Coastal
Zone Management Act, and FEMA regulations regarding construction in floodplains, (2)
implementation of construction noise and aft emissions specifications including, but not
limited to scheduling construction operations responsible for high noise levels to coincide
with each other, fitting air powered equipment with pneumatic exhaust silencers, and wetting
exposed earth or using dust palliatives as a dust control measure, (3) conformance with the
Memorandum of Agreement between the General Services Administration and the Maryland
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) which provides for the recordation and salvage
-------
of the historic resources, and design review for new construction by the SHPO, (4)
implementation of a stormwater management plan, (5) implementation of an erosion and
sediment control plan, and (6) implementation of energy conservation, recycling, and other
pollution control measures.
Conclusion: The assessment concludes that anticipated impacts, when coupled with the
specified mitigation measures, are sufficient to warrant the conclusion that (1) a significant
environmental impact is not expected to occur, (2) the project is not environmentally
controversial, and (3) an environmental impact statement will not be required.
An environmental assessment for the proposed action has been developed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, in cooperation with the General Services Administration
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The assessment is available for
public examination at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut
Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107. Appointments for reviewing this document should be made
by calling (215) 597-0580. All interested agencies, groups, and persons not in agreement
with this decision are invited to submit written comments for consideration to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency within 30 days of this publication date. The proposed
action will not be implemented prior to this thirty-day comment period. Comments should
be directed to:
Richard V. Pepino, Chief
Environmental Assessment Branch (3ES40)
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Richard V. Pepino, Chief
------- |