Appendix a - MARC Maintenance Facility Site Selection Report

8/10/2019 Appendix a - MARC Maintenance Facility Site Selection Report

1/121

APPENDIX A

MARC Maintenance Facility Site Selection Report


2/121

MARC Maintenance Facility

SITE SELECTION REPORT

February 2012FINAL


3/121

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MARC Maintenance FacilitySite Selection Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ i

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................. .................. ................... ................... ................... .................. ................. .. 1

2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA .................. ................. .................. .................. ................. ................ ........... 12.1 RAILROAD FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS .................. ................. ................. .................. ...... 12.2 RAILROAD SYSTEMS CRITERIA ............................................................................................ 22.3 AMTRAK CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS........................ ..................... .................... .......... 3

3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ............... .................. .................. .................. ................. ................ 4

4.0 SITE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION ................. .................. ................. ................. ................. ........ 7

4.1 PERRYVILLE B (SOUTH OF AMTRAK) SITE, PERRYVILLE, MARYLAND ................. ... 84.1.1 Railroad Suitability ................ .................. ................. ................. ................. .................. ..... 94.1.2 Environmental/Contamination Concerns (HAZMATS) ................. ................. ................. . 134.1.3 Natural Resources ................ .................. .................. .................. ................... ................ ..... 144.1.4 Cultural Resources ............... ................. ................ ................. ................. ................. .......... 164.1.5 Potential Noise Impacts ................. ................. ................. ................. ................ ................. 174.1.6 Socioeconomic Profile of Adjacent Neighborhoods ............... ............... ................ ........... 174.1.7 Stormwater Management ................ .................. ................. ................. ................. .............. 184.1.8 Property Impacts (Acquisition).............. ................. ................ ................. ................ .......... 184.1.9 Site Pros and Cons ................ ................. .................. .................. ................. .................. ..... 18

4.2 PERRYVILLE A (FARM) SITE, PERRYVILLE, MARYLAND.................... ................... ........ 194.2.1 Railroad Suitability ................ .................. ................. ................. ................. .................. ..... 194.2.2 Environmental/Contamination Concerns (HAZMATS) .................. .................. ................ 224.2.3 Natural Resources ................ .................. .................. .................. ................... ................ ..... 234.2.4 Cultural Resources ............... ................. ................ ................. ................. ................. .......... 254.2.5 Potential Noise Impacts ................. ................. ................. ................. ................ ................. 264.2.6 Socioeconomic Profile of Adjacent Neighborhoods ............... ............... ................ ........... 26

4.2.7 Stormwater Management ................ .................. ................. ................. ................. .............. 264.2.8 Property Impacts (Acquisition).............................. ................. ................. ................ .......... 274.2.9 Site Pros and Cons ................ ................. .................. .................. ................. .................. ..... 27

4.3 OPUS SITE, PERRYMAN, MARYLAND ............... .................. .................. ................. .............. 284.3.1 Railroad Suitability ................ .................. ................. ................. ................. .................. ..... 284.3.2 Environmental/Contamination Concerns (HAZMATS) ................. ................. ................. . 304.3.3 Natural Resources ................ .................. .................. .................. ................... ................ ..... 344.3.4 Cultural Resources ............... ................. ................ ................. ................. ................. .......... 354.3.5 Potential Noise Impacts ................ ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. 364.3.6 Socioeconomic Profile of Adjacent Neighborhoods ............... ............... ................ ........... 364.3.7 Stormwater Management ................ .................. ................. ................. ................. .............. 364.3.8 Property Impacts (Acquisition).............. ................. ................ ................. ................ .......... 36

4.3.9 Site Pros and Cons ................ ................. .................. .................. ................. .................. ..... 374.4 ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (APG) EDGEWOOD, MARYLAND ................ ................ 37

4.4.1 Railroad Suitability ................ .................. ................. ................. ................. .................. ..... 374.4.2 Environmental/Contamination Concerns (HAZMATS) ................. ................. ................. . 404.4.3 Natural Resources ................ .................. .................. .................. ................... ................ ..... 424.4.4 Cultural Resources ............... ................. ................ ................. ................. ................. .......... 444.4.5 Potential Noise Impacts ................. ................. ................. ................. ................ ................. 454.4.6 Socioeconomic Profile of Adjacent Neighborhoods ............... ............... ................ ........... 454.4.7 Stormwater Management ................ .................. ................. ................. ................. .............. 45


4/121

TABLE OF CONTENTS


4.4.8 Property Impacts (Acquisition)............... ................ ................. ................ ................. ......... 464.4.9 Site Pros and Cons ................ ................. .................. .................. ................. .................. ..... 46

4.5 PROLOGIS SITE, EDGEWOOD, MARYLAND...................... .................. .................. .............. 464.5.1 Railroad Suitability ................ .................. ................. ................. ................. .................. ..... 474.5.2 Environmental/Contamination Concerns (HAZMATS) ................. ................. ................. . 494.5.3 Natural Resources ................ .................. .................. .................. ................... ................ ..... 514.5.4 Cultural Resources ............... ................ ................. ................. ................. ................. .......... 534.5.5 Potential Noise Impacts ................. ................. ................. ................. ................ ................. 534.5.6 Socioeconomic Profile of Adjacent Neighborhoods ............... ............... ................ ........... 534.5.7 Stormwater Management ................ .................. ................. ................. ................. .............. 534.5.8 Property Impacts (Acquisition).............. ................. ................ ................. ................ .......... 544.5.9 Site Pros and Cons ................ ................. .................. .................. ................. .................. ..... 54

5.0 CAPITAL COSTS EVALUATION ................ ................. .................. .................. ................. ................. 555.1 COST ELEMENTS .................. .................. .................. ................... .................. .................. ......... 55

5.1.1 Preliminary Elements ................. ................. ................. ................. ................ .................. .. 555.1.2 Site Work Elements ................. .................. ................. ................. ................. ................... .. 555.1.3 Track Elements ................ ................. ................. .................. ................. ................. ............ 565.1.4 New Facilities ............... ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................ 575.1.5 Amtrak Connection...................... ................. ................. ................. ................. .................. 585.1.6 Bridge Construction ............... ................. .................. ................. ................. .................. ..... 585.1.7 Contingencies and Escalation ................. ................ ................. ................ ................. ......... 585.1.8 Professional Services ............... ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ..... 58

5.2 CAPITAL COST RESULTS .................. .................. ................... ................... .................. ............ 58

6.0 CONCLUSIONS ................ .................. ................. .................. .................. ................. ................. ........... 59

FIGURESFIGURE 1 Site Location Map ............................................................................................................. 8a

FIGURE 2 Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site-Environmental Constraints Map .............. ............... 9aFIGURE 3 Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site-Yard and Shop Layout ........................ ................. ... 9bFIGURE 4 Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site-Property Impacts and Zoning Map .............. ............ 9cFIGURE 5 Perryville A (Farm) Site-Environmental Constraints Map................................................ 19aFIGURE 6 Perryville A (Farm) Site- Yard and Shop Layout ............................................................. 19bFIGURE 7 Perryville A (Farm) Site-Property Impacts and Zoning Map ............... ................. ............ 19cFIGURE 8 Opus Site-Environmental Constraints Map ............... ................. ................ ................. ...... 28aFIGURE 9 Opus Site-Yard and Shop Layout ...................................................................................... 28bFIGURE 10 Opus Site-Property Impacts and Zoning Map ............... ................. ................. ................ 28cFIGURE 11 APG Edgewood Site-Environmental Constraints Map ............... ................. .................. . 37aFIGURE 12 APG Edgewood Site-Yard and Shop Layout .................................................................. 37bFIGURE 13 APG Edgewood Site-Property Impacts and Zoning Map .......................... ................. .... 37c

FIGURE 14 Prologis Site-Environmental Constraints Map ................. ................. ................. ............. 47aFIGURE 15 Prologis Site-Yard and Shop Layout ................. ................. .................. ................. .......... 47bFIGURE 16 Prologis Site-Property Impacts and Zoning Map ................. ................ ................. .......... 47c

TABLESTABLE 1 MARC Alternatives Analysis-Site Selection Matrix ................ ................ ................ .......... 4aTABLE 2 MARC Alternatives Analysis-Major Costs ........................................................................ 4bTABLE 3 MARC Maintenance Facility-Site Selection Decision Factors ................. ................. ......... 4c


5/121

TABLE OF CONTENTS


APPENDIX A Systems Evaluation Drawings APPENDIX B CorrespondenceAPPENDIX C Detailed Cost Estimates


6/121


i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) is proposing to construct a MARC locomotive and passenger car maintenance facility and train storage yard connected to Amtraks Northeast

Corridor (NEC). A new MARC Maintenance Facility is required to support existing MARCoperations, accommodate ridership growth and system expansion, and relocate primaryequipment maintenance functions to an MTA-controlled facility. The proposed MARCMaintenance Facility would significantly reduce MARCs d ependence on Amtrak for inspection,maintenance and repair work on its locomotives and passenger cars, and would eliminate itscurrent situation of storing and servicing trainsets at Pennsylvania Station in Baltimore whichoffers limited track capacity and work spaces exposed to the weather.

The proposed MARC Maintenance Facility would initially be capable of supporting the existingeight trainsets currently operating on the Penn Line and would be expandable to ultimatelysupport a Year 2035 MARC Penn Line operating fleet of 25 electric locomotives, 181 multi-

level coaches, and one diesel switcher locomotive. Additionally, the facility will also includecapacity to support performance of a limited amount of unscheduled minor repair activities oncoaches that are to be operated on the Brunswick and Camden Lines, primarily during mid-daylayovers. Separate tracks will be provided for trainset storage, trainset inspection, repaired carstorage, bad order car storage, train washing and protect power.

Based on input from MARC, certain criteria necessary to accommodate the proposed MARCMaintenance Facility at any site were developed. Criteria included site requirements such as aminimum area of 30 acres; storage yard requirements including minimum storage capacity toaccommodate current Penn Line trains; shop facility requirements including inspection pit,sanding facility and train washer; and Amtrak connection requirements including minimum

length for lead tracks and two points of connection.

The following five sites are evaluated in this report: Perryville B (South of Amtrak), Perryville A(Farm), Opus, APG Edgewood and Prologis. The sites are presented in geographic order startingwith Perryville B (South of Amtrak) in Perryville, Maryland to the southwest to Prologis, inEdgewood, Maryland. Each site has significant costs and/or obstacles associated with thedevelopment of the site. The most significant costs/obstacles for each site are included below:

Perryville B Site Relocation of the Amtrak Maintenance of Way (MOW) BasePerryville A Site Private farm onsite is likely cultural resource that may preventdevelopment during Section 4(f) NEPA processOpus Site Property located in an area that is designated the Perryman Wellfield

Protection District which may create zoning/development issues; coordination issues withAmtraks NEC Master Plan II for location of interlockings in high speed territoryAPG Site Property would be developed as an EUL; Federal land under military usewith known hazardous waste contamination on the property will likely makedevelopment difficult with additional liability concerns; significant quantity of importedfill material requiredPrologis Site Requires several full/partial commercial acquisitions, eight partialresidential acquisitions and the relocation of an existing stormwater management facility


7/121


1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) is proposing to construct a MARC locomotive and passenger car maintenance facility and train storage yard (he rein referenced as MARCMaintenance Facility) connected to Amtraks Northeast Corridor (NEC). The MARC

Maintenance Facility is required to support existing MARC operations, accommodate ridershipgrowth and system expansion, and relocate primary equipment maintenance functions to anMTA-controlled facility. The MARC Maintenance Facility would significantly reduce MARCsdependence on Amtrak and CSXT for inspection, maintenance and repair work on itslocomotives and passenger cars, and would eliminate its current situation of storing and servicingtrainsets at Pennsylvania Station in Baltimore which offers limited track capacity and workspaces exposed to the weather.

The MARC Maintenance Facility would accommodate the existing eight trainsets currentlyoperating on the Penn Line and would be expandable to support a Year 2035 MARC Penn Lineoperating fleet of 25 electric locomotives, 181 multi-level coaches, and one diesel switcher

locomotive. Additionally, the facility will include capacity to support performance of a limitedamount of unscheduled minor repair activities on coaches that are to be operated on theBrunswick and Camden Lines, primarily during mid-day layovers. Separate tracks will be

provided for trainset storage, trainset inspection, repaired car storage, bad order car storage, trainwashing and protect power.

2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Based on input from MARC, certain criteria necessary to accommodate the proposed MARCMaintenance Facility at any site were developed. These site requirements and criteria include

overall space and systems requirements for the railroad facilities, Amtrak connectionrequirements, environmental requirements, and zoning requirements.

2.1 RAILROAD FACILITIES REQUIREMENTSThe railroad site, storage yard, and shop facility requirements for any candidate site

include:

General SiteSite must be a minimum of 30 acres to accommodate the necessary yard and shopsin such a way that they can be positioned on the site to provide efficient exchange ofvehicles between the two. Location of the site immediately adjacent to Amtraks

Northeast Corridor is preferred.Access to roads that will accommodate truck trafficParking lot space for employees and visitors expandable to accommodate future

personnelSpace for an electrical substation for 60 Hz powerSpace for a traction power substation for 25 Hz powerSpace for stormwater management facilities


8/121


2

Sufficient space for a passenger car repair shop and locomotive shop that could beexpanded to accommodate growing fleet size

Storage YardMinimum train storage capacity must accommodate current Penn Line trains: two 6-

car trainsets, three 7-car trainsets, two 8-car trainsets, and one 9-car trainset; preferred that each track accommodate a 10-car trainset to avoid future tracklengtheningMust be expandable for up to a total of 17 trainsets of ten cars each plus alocomotiveDoubled-ended facility preferred20-foot track centers with paving between; with 30-foot track centers every fourthtrack, maximum, to allow for placement of catenary polesAll turnouts to be No. 8, minimum, except larger at Amtrak connectionTrain crew, dispatcher and car cleaner facilities for approximately 40 people at 100ft2 per person overall size; needs to be expandable to accommodate future personnel

Shop FacilityA minimum of one inspection pit track with a minimum 1,000-foot pit lengthOne locomotive inspection pit with a pantograph inspection platform required whereeach electric locomotive can be inspected every dayLocomotive sanding facilityDiesel locomotive fueling facility with 70,000-gallon storage tank capacityTrain washerShop building must have sufficient space to handle the normal maintenance andinspection cycles for the anticipated locomotive and car fleets, space for unscheduledrepairs, plus space for offices and locker roomsWheel truing machine (in separate building preferred)Storeroom buildingMaintenance, Operations, and Administrative Offices and Support Spaces; ultimatesquare footage and staffing levels TBDParking for staff, crews, and visitors, with road access for delivery trucks, etc.

2.2 RAILROAD SYSTEMS CRITERIAThe proposed facility is for the storage and maintenance of electric locomotives and

electric (and diesel) locomotive powered passenger trains, and it must in terface with Amtrakselectrified and signaled Northeast Corridor. To be fully integrated into this corridor the proposedfacility must be capable of being equipped with NEC-compatible systems including Catenary,Electric Traction Substations and Railroad Communications and Signals. Except for the electrictraction substations, these systems requirements have little impact on the space requirements ofeach site, but the costs of the systems components required to make each site interface properlywith the NEC are a major component in the site evaluation process. The criteria used to applythe various systems disciplines to each site include:


9/121


3

Catenary SystemAll catenary related work is assumed to follow Amtrak ET Standard requirements ofAED-1 and AED-2, as well as require review/approval by Amtrak. These AmtrakStandards, as well as the design teams previous experience working with Amtrak ET

have been considered in developing the evaluation of the five proposed sites.

Electric Traction SubstationsAll electric traction facility improvements are assumed to follow Amtrak ET Standardrequirements per CE 500, CE 501, and CE 502 specifications, and will also requirereview/approval by the Electric Traction Design Group of Amtrak. These AmtrakStandard s, as well as the design teams previous experience working with Amtrak EThave been considered in developing the evaluation of the five proposed sites. With anysignificant modification to Amtraks power system, a power study would be required toevaluate the loading at any of the proposed yard locations.

Railroad Communications and Signals (C&S)All Communications & Signals (C&S) facility improvements and/or modifications toAmtraks mainline tracks will be guided and reviewed by the C&S Design Group ofAmtrak. Each site will require a method to remote control and power the yard switches,switch heaters, and blue flag indicators for the train storage tracks and shop facilities.

Maintenance Facility Yard Control SystemInstall power operated, remote controlled switch machines, with rail heaters throughoutmaintenance facility yard. Install and program Yard Control Center located within yardsOperations Center. Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV) will be installedthroughout the yard. Conventional track circuit or wheel counter technology shall beutilized to insure switch locking integrity. The following are part of the MaintenanceFacility Yard Control System:

Power Operated Switch Machines - Control of switch machines will be either relaycontrolled or radio based and power derails with blue flag protection shall be

provided as required.Operations Center - A Yard Control Center with CCTV monitors will be locatedwithin Operations Center. The Yard Control Center will be capable of controllingand indicating all elements of yard operations.Closed Circuit Television Cameras - CCTV cameras with the ability to remotelyzoom and pan will be installed on light towers and buildings to maximize coverage of

the entire yard.Power - 480VAC, 25Hz power will be distributed throughout yard for switch heaters.Switch heaters will be controlled from switch heater cases via SCADA network fromthe Yard Control Center.

2.3 AMTRAK CONNECTION REQUIREMENTSThe following are required for Amtrak connections:


10/121


4

Two points of connection to Amtraks Northeast Corridor Turnouts for connection to Amtrak tracks must be No. 15, minimumLead tracks connecting Amtrak Northeast Corridor with yard must, at a minimum, belong enough to hold a 10-car trainset and locomotive without fouling Amtrak or otherMARC tracks

3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Several tables were produced to aid in the site selection process. Table 1 titled MARC Alternatives Analysis-Site Selection Matrix presents the comparative results of the evaluation process. Each site was summarized with regards to site characteristics (e.g., area requirements,acquisitions, zoning, land use, etc.), property impacts (i.e., full and partial residential and

business/commercial acquisitions), natural resources (e.g., potential forest impacts, floodplains,Chesapeake Bay Critical Area, etc.), hazardous materials, cultural resources (i.e., onsite andoffsite historic sites), and potential permanent noise impacts to residential and historic properties.Table 2 titled MARC Alternatives Analysis-Major Costs presents the comparative costs related toeach site with regards to the railroad construction for the yard and shop, site work, connection toAmtrak, and total construction costs. Table 3 titled MARC Maintenance Facility-Site Selection

Decision Factors presents the decision making criteria including the concerns and the positiveaspects of each site that will likely drive the decision to choose the best site on which to developthe MARC Maintenance Facility.

With regards to hazardous wastes, Whitman, Requardt and Associates, LLP (WR&A) reviewed preliminary map reports for each of the sites from Environmental Data Resources (EDR) thatdepict Federal and State regulatory agency databases for the site and surrounding vicinity. EDRsearched the following databases at the noted search distances:

FEDERAL DATABASES SEARCHED BY EDR

DATABASE DESCRIPTION SEARCHDISTANCE

NPL

National Priorities List (Superfund). Hazardous waste sites targeted forpossible long-term remedial action under the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, C ompensation, and Liability Information System(CERCLIS).

1 mile

Proposed NPL Proposed National Priority List Sites. 1 mile

Delisted NPLNational Priority List Deletions. The National Oil and Hazardous SubstancesPollution C ontingency Plan (NCP) establish the criteria that EPA uses todelete sites from the NPL.

1 mile

NPL LIENS Federal Superfund Liens. TargetProperty

CERCLISComprehensive Environmental Response, C ompensation, and LiabilityInformation System (C ERCLIS). Sites that a re p roposed for or on the NPL, orin the screening or assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL.

mile

CERC-NFRAP

Archived C ERCLIS sites with a status of No Further Remedial Action Planned(NFRAP), denoting sites where, following an initial investiga tion, either nocontamination was found, contamination was removed quickly withoutneed for the site to be placed on the NPL, or the contamination was notserious enough to require Federal Superfund action or NPL consideration.

The NFRAP status does not necessarily indica te that no environmental

mile


11/121

Site Characteristics Perryville B Perryville A Opus APG PrologisProgram Area Requirements (acres)* 76.61 * 54.04 56.90 74.05 55.67

Full Property Acquisitions (acres) 15.28 113.95 0.0 0.0 63.88Partial Property Acquisitions (acres) 45.58 6.77 0.0 0.0 3.69

Area to be Leased For Project (acres) 0.0 0.0 48.0* 58.92* 0.0Temporary Construction Easements on Amtrak Right-of-Way (acres) 15.75 0 8.89 1.94 5.25 *Track Lease on Amtrak Right-of-Way (Track-Feet) 20,420 220 11,519 3,308 7,667

Total Site Area (acres) 76.61 120.72 56.90 74.05 72.82

Zoning(Town of Perryville-76.6total acres) L2-Industrial

(Cecil Co.-116.6 total acres)RM-High Density Residential& EMU-Employment Mixed

Use; (Town of Perryville-3.24total acres) L2-Industrial

(Harford Co.-56.1 totala cr es) LI- Li ght In du st ri al Mi li ta ry

GI (Harford Co.-72.8 totalacres)-General Industrial;

R2-Urban Residential

Zoning Restrictions None

Project does not comply withzoning on residential and

employment mixed useparcels

zoning; however, letterdated 8/30/11 from Harfod

County Executive, DavidCraig indicatesthat Countywill work with developersand MTA in development

process to protectwellheads None

Project does not comply

with zoning on r esidentialparcels

Current Land UseMOW Base-Industrial; Ikea-

Agricultural

ou on-Agricultural/Residential;

White Land Co.-Industrial;Neff-Commercial Agricultural Federal

Commercial Parcels-Ag/Forest/Industrial;

Residential

Adjacent Land Use Issues Cecil Land Trust to East NoneResidential and Historic

District to South NoneResidential 300' to east;

APG to south

NOTES: *does not include areas required for wetland and forest mitigation

*44-MTA improvements,27.5-Relocation of AmtrakMOW base; Amtrak costs

are 11.2% of the totalproject cost

*Pearce, Elizabeth; et alproperty to be leased

rea ava a e ordevelopment under

Enhanced Use Lease (EUL)with APG for this site is

237.7; 74.05 acres include-MARC Facility=58.92

Relocated BGEEasement=15.13

* 0.06 acres is TCE fromDeutsche Bank Trust

Co./BGE Co.

Property Impacts Perryville B Perryville A Opus APG Prologis R esidential-Full Acquisitions (acres) 0 Coudon (113.95) 0 0 0

Residential-Partial Aquistions (acres) 0 0 0 0

Merritt (0.65), Delcostello(1.17), Myers (0.40), Bon

(0.08), Orellana (0.09),Meadows (0.05), Sills (0.08),

McDougall (0.11)

Other Business/Commercial - Full Acquisitions (acres)National RR Passenger Co.

(Amtrak) (15.28) 0 0 0 Prologis Exchange (63.88)

Other Business/Commercial - Partial Aquistions (acres)

(Unimproved) IKEA

Property, Inc. (45.58)

Community Fire Company ofPerryman (2.1), French Land

Co. (1.18), IKEA (0.83),Howard J. & Beverlee C. Neff

(2.66) 0 0 Oldcastle Precast (1.06)

NOTES:

Coudon (113.95)-PotentialHistoric Farmstead-Potential

4(f) Evaluation

Natural Resources Perryville B Perryville A Opus APG Prologis

Potential Stream Crossings or Impacts (No.) 0 2 0 3 2

Potential Wetland Impacts (Acres) None None None 3.3* 4.8

Mitigation N/A N/A N/A Offsite** Offsite*

NOTES:

3.3 acres of wetlands (notfield delineated) **ECP

Report states, "...it isunlikely that the

reestablishment of wetlandsand

forests can be done on otherAPG property."

*Forested wetlands can notbe enhanced. Offsite

wetland mitigationrequired.

Potential Forest Impacts (Acres) 2.3 12.2 3.4 25.1 8.2

Estimated Reforestation/Afforestation Requirements (acres) 13.6 29.9 12.0 25.4 16.5

Mitigation Offsite* Onsite* Onsite* Offsite* Onsite and offsite*

NOTES:

*Additional acreage could

possibly be aquired fromthe Ikea parcel

*Parcel is mostly

undeveloped, so there isabundant space to plant

*Parcel is mostly

undeveloped, so there isabundant space to plant

unlikely that thereestablishment of wetlands

andforests can be done on other

APG property." and "Nomonetary payment for

loss of forested areas will be

allowed or accepted byAPG."

*Site will onlyaccommodate 11.8 acres of

planting, remaining must beoffsite or fee-in-lieu

FEMA 100-year floodplain (Acres) None 2.0* None 1.8* 4.45*

Potential Forest Interior Dwelling Species Habitat (Acres) None None None 13.4 None

MDNR Sensitive Species Project Review Areas (Acres) 1.7 0.4 None None None

Potential Hazardous Material On-Site Impacts

2-Ikea property-potentialsoil contamination; MOW

Base potential soilcontamination fromhistorical land use

1-Ikea property to south-potential soil contamination None APG is a SUPERFUND Site None-Upgradient from APG

Potential Hazardous Material Off-Site Impacts1-Ikea property-potential

soil contamination

1-Ikea property to south-potential soil contamination;

MOW Base potential soilcontamination fromhistorical land use

APG-SUPERFUND Siteadjacently southeast APG is a SUPERFUND Site

APG-SUPERFUND Siteadjacently south

Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (Acres) 1.0 None None None None

Parkland (State/County/Local) None None None None None

NOTES:Cultural Resources Perryville B Perryville A Opus APG Prologis

Historic Sites - onsite (No.) 0 1* 0 unknown* 0

Historic Sites - offsite (No.)

2-Circa 1850 f armproperty approximately200' north*; MarylandInventory of Historic

Properties (MIHP) potentialarcheaological resource

"Shipley Point Farm" (CE-538) 200' to south

1-National Register ofHistoric Places (NRHP)"Woodlands" located

approximately 1,000 feetnorth of parcel (CE-145) ; 2-MIHP within 1,000 feet ofsite: "Mill Creek/Coudon

House" (CE-1471) and"Lindenwood" (CE-700).

Closest is 400' to southwest.

2 -MIHP: SHA Bridge 12058(HA-1978) and "Mitchell

Farm Complex", ruins (HA-1588). *Closest is 400'

northeast.

Meeting House" 1,000 feetsouth (HA-357); 11 -MIHP:

"Building E5695", warehouse(HA-1851), "U.S. Army

Assembly Plant" (HA-2049),"Edgewood Arsenal

Industrial Survey" (HA-2069),"Rollins House" (HA-1612),"Magnolia Store and PostOffice" (HA-188), 32 FortHoyle Road (HA-1684), 30

Fort Hoyle (HA-1683),"Brown-Fletcher House (HA-

1570), 25 Fort Hoyle (HA-1684), "Magnolia Methodist

Church" (HA-187), and 23Fort Hoyle (HA-1681).

*Closest site (HA-1684) is400' southwest.

13 -MIHP: "Rollins House"(HA-1612), "Magnolia Store

and Post Office" (HA-188),32 Fort Hoyle Road (HA-

1684), 30 Fort Hoyle (HA-1683), "Brown-Fletcher

House (HA-1570), 25 FortHoyle (HA-1684), "Magnolia

Methodist Church" (HA-187), 23 Fort Hoyle (HA-

1681), 10 Fort Hoyle (HA-1680), 8 Fort Hoyle (HA-1679), 7 Fort Hoyle (HA-1678), 4 Fort Hoyle (HA-

1677), and "Arthur PowellHouse" (HA-186). *Closestsite is 100' to southwest.

NOTES:

*Will require Section 4(f)for Constructive Use ifdetermined eligible for

listing on NRHP

*Currently not evaluated andCirca 1850 farm - If

determined Eligible forlisting in the NRHP Section

4(f) evaluation required

*ECP Report states thatapproximately 40 acres of

the total EUL is classified asHigh Potential for

ArchaeologicResources. Approximately50% of the project area falls

within this classification.

Potential Permanent Noise Impacts Perryville B Perryville A Opus APG Prologis

Residential Properties (No.) 0 7 0 17 14

Historic Properties (No.)1-Farm property

approximately 200' north 0 0 0 0

NOTES: Asterisk (*) = Note

All potential noise impacts will need further investigation to determine whether an actual impact exists. Feasiblity of mitigation would beevaluated by cost/benefit analysis.

Table 1. MARC Alternatives Analysis - Site Selection Matrix

*Impacts to Floodplain will require engineering analysis and permitting from MDE and County Planning/Zoning


12/121

Table 2. MARC Alternatives Analysis - Major Costs

Railroad Construction For Yard & Shop (Major Items) Perryville B Perryville A Opus APG Edgewood Prologis

Remove Track (Ft.) 21,920 0 0 1,300 0

MARC = $428,000

Amtrak = $0

Remove Turnouts (No.) 19 0 0 4 0

MARC = $163,000

Amtrak = $0

Construct Ballasted Track (Ft.) 66,000 44,000 43,000 42,400 44,500

MARC = $8.3 M

Amtrak = $4.2 M

Construct Yard Turnouts (No.) 53 40 40 44 40MARC = $4.4 M

Amtrak = $2.3 M

Systems Work (All MARC):

Catenary* $26.3 M $26.8 M $26.5 M $26.8 M $26.5 M

Communications and Signals $5.9 M $5.9 M $5.9 M $5.9 M $5.9 M

Traction Power Substation* $2.5 M $2.5 M $3.9 M $11.5 M $11.5 M * These costs are removed if MARC decides toeliminate electric locomotives

Site Work (Major Items) Perryville B Perryville A Opus APG Edgewood Prologis

Drainage (Ac.) 77 54 57 74 56

MARC = $7.2 M

Amtrak = $4.4 M

Site Grading for Tracks (Total CY) 665,000 440,000 270,000 1,121,000 280,000

MARC = $10.7 M

Amtrak = $3.3 M

Paving (SY) 89,400 64,000 75,000 75,900 55,000

MARC = $2.6 M

Amtrak = $1.9 M

Building Demolition $409,000 $550,000 $0 $350,000 $0

New Buildings

MARC = $86.5 M

Amtrak = $4.8 M

Overhead Highway Bridge Reconstruction $500,000 $1.6 M $0 $80,000 $380,000

Relocate Existing Utilities $0 $0 $0 $2.0 M $0Connection to Amtrak NEC Perryville B Perryville A Opus APG Edgewood Prologis

Overall Cost $6.8 M $6.8 M $8.6 M $6.8 M $7.2 MTotal Construction Costs Perryville B Perryville A Opus APG Edgewood Prologis

MARC = $330.3 M

Amtrak = $57.2 MMARC = $452.5 M

Amtrak = $78.3 M

$0 $25,400 $0

$24.5 M $8.2 M$6.0 M

$8.6 M $14.8 M $14.0 M

$0 $0

$5.0 M $5.5 M $5.0 M

$34,200 $0

$8.5 M$8.1

$3.8 $3.6M $2.7 M

$386.0 $352.8 M$325.6

$86.5 $86.5 $86.5

$446.1 $528.9 $483.3 M

Total Cost

Total Cost

Total Cost

Total Cost

$328.0 M

$9.1 M

$0

Neat Construction

Total Cost $86.5

$8.1 M$8.4 M

$3.2 M

Total Project Cost

Total Cost

Total Cost

Total Cost

$5.0 M

$449.6 M

$8.1 M


13/121

MARC Maintenance FacilitySite Selection Decision Factors

February 2012

Perryville A Amtrak Position/Conflicts

o Amtrak is supportive of this location

Natural Resource/Hazmat Impacts and NEPA Considerationso Located on po tential Section 4(f) property (Coudon f arm site)o Proximity to residential developmentProperty Acquisitiono Requires acquisition/relocation of residence of active farmo Owners willingness to sell unknown, Cecil County Planning suggests this would be a lesser

concernTotal Estimated Cost: $449.6 Million

Perryville B

Amtrak Posi tion/Confl ic tso Relocation of Amtrak MOW Base Coordination and Schedule Delayso Potential conflicts w ith Amtrak high speed intercity trainso Potential conflicts with proposed new Susquehanna River crossing and approacheso Amtrak i s not supportive of thi s locationNatural Resource/Hazmat Impacts and NEPA Considerationso Possible Section 4(f) (viewshed)Property Acquisitiono Possible unwilling seller (Amtrak)Requires complete relocation of Amtrak MOW facility prior to constructing MARC facilityo Additional expense ($58.1 Million)o Schedule impactsTotal Estimated Cost: $530.9 Million

OPUS (Mitchell Property) Amtrak Position/Conflicts

o Potential Impacts to Amtrak high speed intercity trains. Amtrak may require construction ofnew station tracks at Aberdeen to avoid operations conflicts.

o Requires construction of two new NEC interlocking where none exist today. MTA would besolely responsible for cost of maintenance.

o Amtrak is not supportive of this location

Natural Resource/Hazmat Impacts and NEPA Considerationso Likely fewest impacts to on-site natural resourceso Located with in Perryman Wellfield Protection Zone, source of about 25% of Harford

County municipal water supp lyo Earlier (summer 2010) coordination with Harford County Planning & Zoning and

Department of Public Works ind icates that Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility is notcompatible with wellfield zoning restrictions

Property Acquisitiono Site available through lease, as proposed in Clark Constructions unsolicited proposal


14/121

MARC Maintenance FacilitySite Selection Decision Factors

February 2012

o Payments would be considered a capital leaseTotal Estimated Cost: $446.1 Million** assumes traditional MTA Design-Bid-Build approach, exclusive of ROW costs

APG Edgewood Amtrak Position/Conflicts

o Amtrak is supportive of this locationNatural Resource/Hazmat Impacts and NEPA Considerationso Superfund Siteo Impacts to wetlands, streams, and forests (no on-site mitigation for wetlands and/or forests)o Proximity to residential developmentProperty Acquisitiono Project would be developed in coordination with APG and the Army Corps of Engineers as

an Enhanced Use Lease (EUL).o Payments would be considered a capital lease

As tenant to EUL developer on a Superfund site, MTA would be considered an operator underCERCLA and therefore potentially subject to liability concernsLiability concerns regarding right of entry and site acce ss will affect MTAs ability toperform site work related to Planning, NEPA Documentation, and Development ofConstruction Specso Schedule Impactso Could affect MTA control of design specifications and constructionTotal Estimated Cost: $528.9 Million** assumes traditional MTA Design-Bid-Build approach, exclusive of ROW costs

ProLogis Amtrak Position/Conflicts

o Amtrak supportive of this locationNatural Resourceo Impacts to wetlands, floodplain, and forests

Property Acquisitiono ProLogis expressed interest in MTA proposal during prior assessment of siteo Requires partial acquisition of undeveloped portion of commercial propertyo Possible impacts to adjacent residential properties (partial acquisition or construction

easement)Total Estimated Cost: $483.3 Million


15/121


5


DATABASE DESCRIPTION SEARCHDISTANCEconcerns are p resent.

LIENS 2

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Ac t(CERCLA) Lien information. A Federal CERCLA (Superfund) lien can existby operation of law a t any site or property at which EPA has spentSuperfund monies.

TargetProperty

CORRAC TS Hazardous waste handlers with Resource Conservation and Recovery Ac t(RCRA) correc tive action activity. 1 mile

RCRA-TSDF Resource Conservation and Rec overy Information System (RCRIS), Treatment, Storage , and Disposal (TSD) fac ilities. Hazardous waste handlers. mile

RCRA-LQGRCRIS sites that are large-quantity generators (LQG) of hazardous waste.LQGs generate over 1,000 kg of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of acutelyhazardous waste per month.

0.25 mile

RCRA-SQGRCRIS sites that are small-quantity generators (SQG) of hazardous waste.SQGs generate between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste permonth.

0.25 mile

RCRA-CESQGRCRA-C onditiona lly Exempt Small Quantity Generators. CESQGs generateless than 100 kg of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous

waste per month.

0.25 mile

RCRA-NonGen RCRA-Non Generators. Non-Generators do not presently generatehazardous waste. 0.25 mile

ERNS Emergency Response Notifica tion System. Releases of oil and hazardoussubstances. TargetProperty

HMIRSHazardous Ma terials Information System Databa se. A list of relea se incidentinformation reported to the Department of Transportation by carriers ofhazardous materials.

TargetProperty

US ENGCONTROLS

Engineering C ontrols Sites List. A list of sites with engineering c ontrols inplace including various forms of c aps, building foundations, liners, andtreatment methods.

mile

US INSTCONTROL

Sites with Institutiona l Controls. A listing of sites with institutional controls inplace, including administrative measures, such as groundwater userestrictions, construction restrictions, property use restrictions, and postremediation care requirements.

mile

DODDepartment of Defense Sites. Data set of federally owned or administeredlands having area equal to or greater than 640 acres of the US, Puerto Rico,and the US Virgin Islands.

1 mile

FUDS Formerly used Defense properties where USACE will take nec essary cleanupactions. 1 mile

USBROWNFIELDS A listing of Brownfield sites. mile

CONSENT Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees. Ma jor lega l settlements thatestablish responsibility and standard for c leanup a t NPL (Superfund) sites. 1 mile

RODRec ords of Decision. ROD documents manda te a permanent cleanup atan NPL (Superfund) site c ontaining tec hnical a nd health information to aidin the cleanup.

1 mile

UMTRA Uranium Mill Tailings Sites. (Mined by private c ompanies for federalgovernment use in national defense programs.) mile

DEBRIS REGIO N9

Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations. A listing of illega ldump sites located on the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation located ineastern Riverside and northern Imperial C ounty, California.

mile

ODI Open Dump Inventory: Disposal fac ility that does not comply with one ormore of CFR Part 257 or Part 258 Subtitle D C riteria. mile

TRIS Toxic C hemical Release Inventory System. TRIS identifies fac ilities, whichrelease toxic c hemicals into the air, water, and land in reportablequantities.

TargetProperty


16/121


6


DATABASE DESCRIPTION SEARCHDISTANCE

TSC A Toxic Substance C ontrol Act. An inventory, which includes loca tions andchemical production of more than 700 processors and manufac turers ofchemicals.

TargetProperty

FTTSNational Compliance Database tracking administrative cases andpesticide enforcement actions and compliance a ctivities related to FIFRA,

TSC A, and EPCRA. TargetProperty

HIST FTTSFIFRA/TSC A Trac king System Administrative Case Listing. Information wasobtained from the National Compliance Database. May include data notin newer FTTS database.

TargetProperty

SSTS Section 7 Tracking Systems of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, andRodenticide Ac t. TargetProperty

ICIS

Integrated C ompliance Information System supports information needs ofthe national enforcement and compliance program as well as the uniqueneeds of the National Po llutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)program.

TargetProperty

US CDL Clandestine Drug Labs Database. Locations listed by the U.S. Depa rtmentof J ustice. TargetProperty

LUCIS Land Use C ontrol Information System. Contains rec ords of land use controlinformation pertaining to the former Navy Base Realignment and C losureproperties.

mile

RADINFO Radiation Information Database. EPA regulated facilities for rad iation andradioactivity. TargetProperty

DOT OPS Incident and Accident Data from the Department of Transportation, Officeof Pipeline Safety Incident and Accident data. TargetProperty

PADS PCB Activity Database System. The PADS da tabase stores informationabout facilities that handle polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). TargetProperty

MLTS Material License Trac king System. MLTS contains information on siteslicensed by the NRC to handle radioactive materials. TargetProperty

MINES Mines Ma ster Index File containing a ll mine identification numbers issued formines active or opened since 1971. 0.25 mile

FINDSFacility Index System. An inventory of all facilities that a re regulated ortracked by EPA.

TargetProperty

RAATS

RCRA Administrative Tracking System. RAATS conta ins rec ords based onenforcement ac tions issued under RCRA pertaining to major violations andincludes administrative and civil ac tions brought by the EPA LOC AL(VIRGINIA)

TargetProperty

SCRDDRYCLEANERS State Coa lition for Remediation of Dryclea ners listing mile

TRIBAL DATABASES SEARCHED BY EDRDATABASE DESCRIPTION DATABASE

INDIANRESERV

Indian administered lands of the US having area equal to or greater than 640acres. 1 mile

INDIAN LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land. mileINDIAN UST Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land. 0.25 mile

INDIAN VC P Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing mile

EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDSDATABASE DESCRIPTION DATABASE

ManufacturedGas Plants

Database inc luding rec ords of coa l gas plants used in the US from the 1800sto 1950s. 1 mile

EDR HistoricalAuto Stations Database from business directories of potential ga s stations/service stations. 0.25 mile


17/121


7

EDR HistoricalCleaners Database from business directories of potential dry cleaning establishments. 0.25 mile

LOCAL (MARYLAND) DATABASES SEARCHED BY EDR

DATABASE DESCRIPTION SEARCHDISTANCESHWS Notice of Potential Hazardous Waste Sites 1 mile

SWF/LF Permitted Solid Waste Disposal Fac ilities mileSWRCY Recycling Direc tory mile

OCPC ASES Oil Control Program Cases mileHIST LUST Recovery Sites mile

UST Registered Underground Storage Tank List 0.25 mileHistorical UST Historical UST Registered Databa se 0.25 mile

AST Permitted Aboveground Storage Tanks 0.25 mileINST CONTROL Voluntary Cleanup Program Applicants/Participants mile

VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program Applicants/Participants mileDRYCLEANERS Registered Drycleaning Fac ilities 0.25 mileBROWNFIELDS Eligible Brownfields Properties mile

AIRS Permit and Fac ility Information Listing Target Property

LEAD Lead Inspection Database Target PropertyNPDES Wastewater Permit Listing Target Property

4.0 SITE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION

WR&A produced a document titled MARC Maintenance Layover Facility, Site Alternatives Evaluation for MTA and dated October 2008 that evaluated six sites including Norfolk SouthernRailways Chrysler Facility Support Yard in Newark, Delaware; Perryville A (Farm) Site inPerryville, Maryland; Aberdeen Yard (A&B) Sites, Maryland; Perryman A (Cannery) Site inPerryman, Maryland; Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) in Edgewood, Maryland; and Biddle

Street Site in the City of Baltimore, Maryland. It was subsequently determined that the NorfolkSouthern Chrysler Facility Support Yard and the Aberdeen Yard (A&B) Sites were not practicalfor development. The other four sites and three additional sites (Prologis Site in Aberdeen,Maryland; Opus Site in Perryman, Maryland; and Perryville B [South of Amtrak] Site inPerryville, Maryland) were subsequently evaluated in subsequent Site Alternatives Evaluationdocuments. The following five sites are evaluated in this report: Perryville B (South of Amtrak),Perryville A (Farm), Opus, APG Edgewood and Prologis. The sites are presented in geographicorder starting with Perryville B (South of Amtrak) in Perryville, Maryland, and proceedingsouthwest to Prologis, in Edgewood, Maryland. The remaining two sites were dropped from theevaluation process for the following reasons:

The Biddle Street Site is 23 acres in area and was eliminated from the site evaluation

process because it did not meet the site requirement of 30 acres and because it could not be configured with two connection points to Amtraks NEC per the MARC Maintenanceand Train Storage Facility Site Assessment Criteria.Perryman A (Cannery) Site was eliminated from the site evaluation process due to itsrelatively small size (37 acres), potential impacts to cultural resources, possible noiseimpacts to nearby residences, and the major work that would be required to provide twoconnection points to Amtraks NEC .


18/121


8

The locations of the five sites are included in Figure 1 - Site Location Map .

4.1 PERRYVILLE B (SOUTH OF AMTRAK) SITE, PERRYVILLE, MARYLANDThe Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site is located on the south side of the NEC,

northeast of Mill Creek, and northwest of Furnace Bay in Perryville, Maryland . The proposed project site is approximately 6,500 feet long, and ranges from approximately 30 feet wide alongthe railroad tracks to 1,400 feet wide. Adjacently south of the railroad tracks on the proposedsite is the existing Amtrak Maintenance of Way (MOW) Base. The Amtrak MOW Base is afacility operated by Amtrak for the purpose of providing a strategically located base ofoperations for the personnel and equipment that maintain the NEC from Wilmington toBaltimore. This base of operations includes space for stockpiles of materials as well assupervisory offices, equipment maintenance facilities, training facilities, and locker roomfacilities for the crews. The Perryville MOW Base is responsible for maintenance of the track,structures, catenary, signals, communications and emergency response to infrastructure damageon the NEC from Wilmington to Baltimore. The storage tracks provide a staging area away from

the high-speed mainline tracks for the work trains and track-mounted machines and vehicles that provide the normal maintenance on the line. These include trains of materials such as crosstiesand ballast, and specialized production maintenance units such as tie units, surfacing units,switch exchangers, welded rail units, and wire trains. At least two of the tracks need to be atleast 2,000 feet long to provide storage for welded rail trains.

The program area requirements for this project are approximately 76.6 acres, whichincludes 15.75 acres of temporary construction easements, 45.58 acres of partial acquisitions ofthe Ikea property, and 15.28 acres of full property acquisition of the MOW Base owned by the

National Railroad Passenger Corp. The portion of the site that would be occupied by MTAsimprovements would be approximately 44 acres. The area occupied by the improvementsassociated with the relocated MOW Base would be approximately 27.5 acres. The site would

provide adequate acreage for current and future train storage and equipment maintenancerequirements. According to the Town of Perryville website(http://www.perryvillemd.org/planning_zoning.html ), the Ikea property is zoned L2 by the Townof Perryville which is the light industrial district. According to the Town of Perryville ZoningOrdinance, the purpose of the light industrial district is to provide for a wide variety of lightmanufacturing, fabricating, processing, wholesale distributing and warehousing usesappropriately located for access by major thoroughfares or railroads. New residentialdevelopment is excluded . According to Ms. Mary Ann Skilling, Town of Perryville Planningand Zoning, the entire Ikea parcel is located within the Town of Perryville and is zoned L2.There is no heavy industrial zoning designation within the Town of Perryville ZoningOrdinance. According to Mr. Cliff Houston, Zoning Administrator with Cecil County Planningand Zoning, the Amtrak property which houses the MOW Base was previously zoned in CecilCounty, but has recently been annexed into the Town of Perryville. The Amtrak property wouldtherefore also be zoned as L2 by the Town of Perryville. According to Mr. Houston, the CecilCounty Zoning Ordinance was recently changed effective May 1, 2011. Adjacently north of thesite, there is the NEC and the Perryville A (Farm) Site which consists of two parcels zoned RM-high density residential district. Land use at the Perryville B Site is designated as Agriculturalon the undeveloped Ikea property and Industrial on the Amtrak MOW Base property. There is a


19/121

A P G E d g e w o o

d & P r o

l o g

i s

S i t e

A m t r a

k N o r t

h e a s t

C o r r i

d o r

P e r r y v

i l l e A & B

S i t e

O p u s

S i t e

M A R Y L A N D T R A N S I T A D M I N I S T R A T I O N

M A R C M a i n t e n a n

c e F a c i

l i t y

S i t e

L o c a t i o n

M a p

S C

A L E :

N . T . S .

D A T E :

F I G U R E :

F e

b r u a r y 2

0 1 2

1


20/121


9

golf course to the northeast and agricultural land followed by Furnace Bay and Mill Creeklocated to the south. The Ikea distribution warehouse is located adjacently west of the site andresidential properties are located to the northwest of the site. Figure 2 presents theenvironmental constraints associated with the site. Figure 3 presents the proposed yard and shoplayout. Figure 4 presents the property impacts and zoning associated with the site.

4.1.1 Railroad SuitabilitySite The Perryville B Site is suitable for a double-end yard, but to achieve a workable

site layout would require the relocation of the existing Amtrak MOW Base. However, the site is bounded on the west by the large Ikea warehouse and on the east by a private golf course, both ofwhich limit the length of the site. Space for a relocated Amtrak MOW Base appears to beavailable immediately south of its existing location in what is currently a farm field owned byIkea. It is relatively level and at an elevation similar to that of the Amtrak MOW Base tracks.

Amtrak Connection There are two existing lead tracks connecting the Amtrak MOWBase to the NEC on the north and south ends of the site. The existing north lead track is longer

and is connected to NEC Track 2 at PRINCE Interlocking. This connection appears to requireno modification to serve as the north lead track for the proposed MARC facility and, with theinstallation of one additional turnout in the lead track, it could serve as the north lead track and

NEC connection for the relocated Amtrak MOW Base. The south lead track is shorter and isconnected to NEC Track 1. It would be necessary to construct a longer lead track on the southend with a new turnout off Track 1 in order to get sufficient holding length for a 10-car MARCtrainset. Lengthening of the existing south lead track may require demolition of all or part of anabandoned overhead road bridge (Coudons Road South). The installation of one additionalturnout in this longer lead track would allow it to serve as the south lead track and NECconnection for the relocated Amtrak MOW Base. At PERRY Interlocking south of the site, threeadditional crossovers will need to be installed to permit southbound train movements from theyard to reach the Perryville MARC Station on NEC Track 4. As an alternative NEC Track 1could be shortened so that its connection to Track 2 would be moved north, and the new leadtrack turnout would be connected directly to Track 2, thereby eliminating the cost and need for athird crossover.

Track Relocation of the Amtrak MOW Base would require the removal andreconstruction of approximately 22,000 feet of existing track and at least 19 turnouts. TheMARC facilities, including the yard and shop and lead tracks, would require the construction ofapproximately 48,600feet of track and 35 turnouts.

Catenary System At the present time the existing MOW Base yard facility is notwired for electric train storage. The nearest Amtrak traction power substation is Perryville(Substation 16), and is located approximately one mile from the proposed yard. At this site, it isenvisioned that insulated overlaps with disconnect switches would be installed in the yard leadcatenary, with approximately 61,000 feet of two-wire catenary required for this new yard facility.Three preliminary layout drawings have been developed to help plan the Catenary and ETconcepts for this location (See Drawings ET-4, ET-5 and ET-6 in Appendix A ).

Advantages from a Catenary Perspective:


21/121


22/121


23/121


24/121


10

1. Two new 12kV feeders and supporting hardware can be installed on existingcatenary structures from the existing Amtrak Perryville Substation to the proposedPerryville facility.

2. Space appears to be available to accommodate 12kV feeder breakers and anassociated gantry structure with bus and motor operated disconnect switches tosectionalize catenary power within the yard. Drawing ET-5 in Appendix A indicates possible locations to place ET equipment for this purpose.

Disadvantages from a Catenary Perspective:

1. The existing 12 kV phase breaks are located in all four main track catenariesabout 1200 feet south of the existing south lead track of the proposed yardfacility. This will require a more complex control and protection scheme tointegrate the yard into the existing power supply configuration.

2. The proposed 1,500 foot south yard lead would join Main Track 4 within the12kV phase break overlaps. Assuming that at least 1,500 feet is desired for thesouth lead, the proposed lead track must be extended several hundred feet to clearthe phase break overlaps. A phase break indicator rosette should be installed onthe overhead bridge (assumed to be 58.34) above the south lead track, and phase

break indicators should be installed where the north lead track meets the NEC.Phase break status could also be integrated in to the C&S modifications to controloperations on the south yard lead.

3. The placement of the new MARC layover facility and new Amtrak MOW Baseimmediately adjacent will prove operationally challenging under normalconditions. Under certain emergency conditions, such as with open 12 kV phase

breaks, severe impacts on both Amtrak and MARC traffic could occur.

4. Structural analysis would be required for all of the structures supporting the new12kV feeders, which may lead to additional cost to replace or guy overloadedstructures.

If standby power for equipment is to be available separate from the locomotive, anindependent utility 60 HZ supply will be required. The utility supply for the various other yardfacilities should include this capability.

Electric Traction Substations The nearest Amtrak traction power substation isPerryville (Substation 16), and is located approximately one mile south of the proposed yard.

Advantages from an ET Substation Perspective:

1. Amtraks Substation 16 has more than ample capacity to s upply all required12kV, 25Hz envisioned load at this yard location, including track switch heaters.(The existing substation capacity is 22.5MVA.)


25/121


11

2. Substation 16 has recently undergone extensive renovations, such as replacementof all five 4.5MVA traction power transformers, breakers, power cables andSCADA RTU.

3. Substation 16 has ample space within its confines to allow easy expansion for

new circuit breaker bays to provide 12kV feeders to the proposed yard.4. Existing catenary structures can be modified to support new 12kV feeders to the

yard facility.

5. A 12 kV switching structure is envisioned to receive the incoming feeders fromPerryville Substation. As noted in the Catenary section, space appears available at

both the east and west ends of the yard for this equipment as shown on DrawingET-2. Two breakers will be required, as well as several motor operateddisconnect switches for yard sectionalizing.

6. Amtrak maintenance employees are headquartered at Substation 16.Disadvantages from an ET Substation Perspective:

1. The presence of the 12kV phase breaks near this yard location must beconsidered so a proper protection scheme is developed to allow for transfer trip.

2. The only alternate source of 25Hz catenary power to feed this location, in theevent the feeder system is lost, would be via taps from the trolley network.

Communications and Signals The Perryville B site would be located at MP 58.7 in

Perryville, Maryland. The required lead track lengths shown on the drawings are from clearance point of the last yard switch to the Interlocking signal governing the entrance to the mainline.For discussion purposes we will assume that the northern yard lead switch will be in the existinglimits of PRINCE and the southern yard lead switch will be within the existing limits of PERRY.

PRINCE Interlocking Signal Changes:

1. New 91 Switch (northern yard lead) and new Signal 9N.

2. Relocate existing Signal 1N southward to accommodate 91 Switch.

3. Additional interlocking track circuits for detector locking and parallel movementswith Switch 02 (Amtrak MOW Base).

4. Replace all-relay controlled interlocking with microprocessor(s) due to majorsignal modifications.

5. Positive Train Control (PTC) and CETC modifications.


26/121


12

PERRY Interlocking Signal Changes:

1. New 19 Switch (southern yard lead) and new Signal 9S.

2. Relocate existing Signal 1S and 21 Switch northward.

3. Add new 32 Switch to allow access from the proposed maintenance facility to alltracks.

4. Additional interlocking track circuits for detector locking.

5. Replace all-relay controlled interlocking with microprocessors due to major signalmodifications.

6. PTC and CETC modifications.

Railroad-Related Issues Issues at this site include high cost, delayed completion of theMARC facility and a significant amount of coordination with Amtrak. Since the existingAmtrak MOW Base would have to be relocated, MTA would likely have to bear the cost ofconstructing two storage yards. Construction of the new Amtrak facility and acceptance byAmtrak would be required prior to MTA receiving construction access for demolition of theexisting MOW Base. This process would represent a delay of approximately two years to MTA

being able to have its MARC facility placed in service. Coordination with Amtrak would also besignificant for thi s site during both design and construction. Amtraks design review processcould slow design time by several months, and coordination of construction activities with theexisting MOW base, and later with its relocated MOW base are likely to have an undeterminedimpact on the construction schedule of the MARC facility. It will also be necessary to

coordinate with Amtrak to be sure that the new MARC facility does not interfere with Amtraks proposed future tracks. While consideration has been given on the conceptual track plan towhere these tracks could be located, no final determination of their alignment or configurationwas available from Amtrak to use as a basis for the conceptual layout. In comments datedSeptember 20, 2010, Amtrak indicated its concerns about this site:

The Amtrak MOW base is likely to become busier in the future, and the MARCfacility would restrict future expansionPossible competition for main line and lead track space between Amtrak work trainsand MARC trainsLonger deadhead times for MARC trains in the crowded NECAmtrak is not prepared to accept the curved track layout necessary to fit the relocated

MOW Base into the available spaceA planned relocation of the existing MOW Base would make interim capitalinvestments by Amtrak hard to justifyComplicated construction staging issuesLoss of ground storage capacity for Amtrak materialsImpacts to future track realignments to Perry and Prince InterlockingsComplications to potential Susquehanna Bridge replacementComplications for potential third track between Elkton and Perryville.


27/121


13

4.1.2 Environmental/Contamination Concerns (HAZMATS) WR&A reviewed a preliminary map report from EDR for the Perryville B (South of

Amtrak) Site and surrounding vicinity. The EDR report did not identify the project site as a siteof known environmental concern or regulation. There were three sites of regulatory concern in

the surrounding vicinity. The site location in relation to the project site, its regulatory status, andother applicable information are listed in the table below.

EDR IDENTIFIED REGULATORY SITES ON PROJECT SITE AND IN SURROUNDING REGION

LOCATION DATABASE INFORMATIONDISTANCE/DIRECTION

FROM PROJECT SITE

Ikea Industrial Park PropertyRoute 7 and Woodland FarmLanePerryville, Maryland

VCPINST CONTROL + 100 feet west

Coastal Unilube Inc.950 Principio Furnace RoadPerryville, Md 21903

OCPCASESOCP Case #: 04-0704CE

Facility Status: ClosedDate Open: 10/15/2003Date Closed: 7/28/2004Release: YesCleanup: YesFacility Code: Not Reported

OCP Case #: 94-1662CEFacility Status: ClosedDate Open: 12/10/1993Date Closed: 1/5/1994Release: Not ReportedCleanup: Not ReportedFacility Code: Not Reported

FINDS

+ 400 feet northwest

Firestone Perryville PlantFirestone Road/Route 7Perryville, Md 21903

SHWS + 1,200 feet northwest

As shown in the table above, the Ikea Industrial Park property located adjacently west ofthe project site is a potential site of regulatory concern or regulation within approximately 100feet of the project site. According to information available from the MDE website

(http://websrvr.mde.md.gov/assets/document/brownfields/Ikea.pdf ), the Ikea Industrial Park property was entered into the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) in 2001 due to elevated levelsof metals (thallium and mercury) found during subsurface investigations of the site. Previousland use at the site was agricultural. No groundwater contaminants were identified.Groundwater beneath the site reportedly flows towards the southwest, generally away from thePerryville B (South of Amtrak) Site. Although no obvious sources of hazardous materials appearto be located within approximately 400 feet of the project site, it is possible that metals such asthallium and mercury may have been introduced into the area possibly from historical


28/121


14

agricultural land use practices on the property. In addition, industrial land use at the MOW Basehas the potential to affect the onsite soils from possible spills/leaks from vehicles and storage ofmaterials onsite. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) may be recommended priorto selection of the site in order to adequately determine whether subsurface contamination may

be reasonably expected to be encountered during construction activities.

4.1.3 Natural ResourcesWetlands The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and Maryland Department of

Natural Resources (DNR) maps were examined for wetlands in the vicinity of the Perryville B(South of Amtrak) Site. Wetlands are generally associated with the forested areas adjacent toMill Creek to the southwest of the project site and along Furnace Bay to the south and east of the

project site. Aerial photography provided by GoogleMaps and www.bing.com/maps wasexamined in the vicinity of the Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site. Mill Creek is observedflowing to the south-southeast under the NEC approximately 2,000 feet west of the western

portion of the project site and discharges into Furnace Bay to the south. No wetlands or streamsappear to be located on the Perryville B site.

Prior to development of the site, a formal wetland delineation will be required. Waters ofthe U.S., including wetlands, on and around the site will be delineated, flagged in the field, andsurveyed in accordance with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland

Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0) , November 2010 .Plans showing the areas of impact to the streams, wetlands, and 25-foot wetland buffers will beincluded in a Joint Permit Application (JPA) submitted to the Maryland Department of theEnvironment (MDE) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) that details the avoidance,minimization and mitigation required as a result of impacts on the project site. If mitigation isdetermined to be required, it may be accounted for by purchase of wetland credits at a wetland

bank within the watershed, payment to the Maryland Wetlands Compensation Fund, on-sitemitigation, or off-site mitigation.

Floodplains The 100-year floodplain is located roughly in the same location as thewetlands depicted by NWI and DNR mapping, as mentioned in the previous Wetlands section.The Perryville B site is not located within the 100-year or 500-year floodplains. The closestfloodplains to the site are associated with Furnace Bay, located approximately 500 feet southeastof the northeastern portion of the project site, and Mill Creek located approximately 1,400 feet tothe southwest of the site.

Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (CBCA) According to the Cecil County GIS(www.ccgov.org) and the Maryland Environmental Resource & Land Information Network(MERLIN) database ( www.mdmerlin.net ), the northeastern portion of the Perryville B (South ofAmtrak) Site along the railroad tracks is located within the Critical Area designated as ResourceConservation Area. According to the DNR website, the Maryland General Assembly enacted theChesapeake Bay Protection Act in 1984 to reverse the deterioration of the Bay. The Act requiredthat the 16 counties, Baltimore City, and 44 municipalities surrounding the Chesapeake andAtlantic Coastal Bays implement land use and resource management programs designed tomitigate the damaging effects of water pollution and loss of natural habitat. The Act designatedall lands within 1,000 feet of tidal waters or adjacent tidal wetlands as Critical Areas.


29/121


15

Development proposals within the Critical Area would be submitted for review and approval bythe Critical Area Commission.

Maryland Forest Conservation Act (MFCA) The purpose of the MFCA (NaturalResources Article Sections 5-1601 through 5-1613) was to minimize the loss of Marylands

forest resources during land developmental activities by requiring that forests and other sensitiveareas be part of the site planning process. Any activity with land disturbance of 40,000 squarefeet (nearly one acre) or greater is subject to the MFCA and will require a Forest StandDelineation (FSD) of the site and a Forest Conservation Plan (FCP). The FSD identifies theexisting forest cover and the environmental features of the project site. The FCP describes thelimits of disturbance of the proposed project and how the existing forest and sensitive areas will

be protected during and after development. Existing forested areas affected as part of the sitedevelopment may require reforestation (planting of trees to replace forests that have beencleared) or afforestation (planting of trees where forests have not recently been located). ThePerryville B (South of Amtrak) Site is comprised of agricultural fields, tree rows, and a forestedarea in the eastern portion of the project site. Development of the site will result in impacts to

forest communities. In accordance with the MFCA, an FSD and FCP will be required. Ifreforestation/afforestation cannot be accomplished onsite, offsite areas may be identified, creditsmay be purchased from a reforestation bank, or lastly MTA may pay into the ForestCompensation Fund. Fee-in-lieu payment into the Forest Compensation Fund is only accepted

by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) if it can be proven that onsite oroffsite planting is not feasible.

Preliminary calculations for existing forest coverage and reforestation requirements weredetermined by studying aerial photographs of the site. Any area with tree cover was counted asforest. Field verification required for the FSD will further define the actual boundaries of theforest. It is possible that areas that appear as forest on aerial photographs may not meet thedefinition of forest as stated in the State Forest Conservation manual. The Perryville B sitecontains approximately 2.3 acres of forest cover. Based on the State Forest Conservation manualworksheet calculations, approximately 13.6 acres of reforestation will be required for this site.Very limited space is available to plant onsite, and therefore offsite may be the best option.Additional undeveloped acreage could possibly be acquired from the adjacent IKEA property forthe plantings.

Threatened & Endangered Species Areas potentially containing threatened &endangered species are designated in MERLIN as Sensitive Species Project Review Areas.These areas primarily contain habitat for rare, threatened, and endangered species and rarenatural community types and it generally includes, but does not specifically delineate, suchregulated areas as Natural Heritage Areas, Wetlands of Special State Concern, ColonialWaterbird Colonies, and Habitat Protection Areas. According to the MERLIN database, there isa Sensitive Species Project Review Area depicted in the Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site inthe easternmost portion of the project site. If the Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site is proposedto be developed, correspondence will be sent to DNR and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service toconfirm the presence/absence of threatened & endangered State and Federal species,respectively. If threatened & endangered species are suspected on the site, DNR/U.S. Fish and


30/121


16

Wildlife Service may require additional species/habitat surveys, time of year constructionrestrictions, and/or avoidance of particular areas on the site.

Forest Interior Dwelling Species According to DNR, animals referred to as ForestInterior Dwelling Species (FIDS) require habitat in the interior of large forests for optimal

reproduction and survival. The most researched and best known FIDS are a group of birds thatinclude the scarlet tanager ( Piranga rubra ), American redstart ( Setophaga ruticilla ), hoodedwarbler ( Wilsonia citrina ), and barred owl ( Strix varia ), among others. FIDS Habitat is provided

protection under the Critical Areas Law in Maryland. It has been defined as a forest tract thatmeets either of the following conditions:

a. Greater than 50 acres in size and containing at least ten acres of forest interior habitat(forest greater than 300 feet from the nearest forest edge); or

b. Riparian forests that are, on average, at least 300 feet in total width and greater than 50acres in total forest area. The stream within the riparian forest must be perennial, as indicated onthe most recent U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographic maps or as determined by a site

visit.The DNR GIS data for FIDS habitat areas was reviewed for the Perryville B (South of

Amtrak) Site. The GIS data product contains only the results of a model depicting where potential FIDS habitat might occur based on certain defined criteria. These polygons have not been field tested or field verified for actual FIDS presence. FIDS habitat is located adjacent tothe far northeast portion of the Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site. Conservation of FIDShabitat is strongly encouraged by DNR. DNR provides guidelines to help minimize projectimpacts on FIDS and other native forest plants and wildlife.

4.1.4 Cultural ResourcesThe MERLIN database was searched for the existence of cultural resources in the vicinity

of the Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site. The MERLIN database presents informationregarding Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties, Maryland Historic Trust Easements, and

properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). There is one historic property listed on the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties listed as Shipley Point Farm(CE-538) located approximately 300 feet south of the eastern portion of the site. According toMr. Tim Tamburrino, Preservation Officer for the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT), theMaryland State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO), he observed aerial photos of the ShipleyPoint Farm on the www.bing.com/maps website and it appears as though the structuresassociated with the Shipley Point Farm are gone. Therefore, there are no architectural culturalresources located there. However, it is possible that there are still archaeological resources stillthere.

In addition, a farmstead is located approximately 150 feet north of the NEC to the northof the Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site and located on the Perryville A (Farm) Site.According to Mr. Tamburrino, the property located on the Perryville A (Farm) Site is notincluded in the MHT GIS database and the farm at this location has not been evaluated. Mr.Tamburrino observed aerial photos of the farm on the www.bing.com/maps website and statedthat it appears as though the property is a potential cultural resource judging from the age andcondition of the structures on the site. The farm has a mansion and several outbuildings that


31/121


17

appear to be over 50 years old. According to the Maryland Department of Assessments andTaxation, the property is identified as Map 34, Grid, 11, Parcel 43 and the primary structure onthe property is listed as being built in 1850. Prior to development of the site, correspondencewith MHT would be required to determine whether there would be effects of the project on theexisting historical properties, as well as the potential cultural resource on the Perryville A (Farm)

Site.If it is determined that this farm is eligible to be listed on the NRHP, a Section 4(f)

evaluation would be required for the Perryville B site. A Section 4(f) evaluation must beconducted for Federally funded (in part or all) projects in concurrence with the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Section 4(f) stipulates that the use of a historic siteas part of a project must be avoided unless no feasible and prudent alterative exists.Development of the Perryville B site may be co nsidered a constructive use of the historicresource. Constructive use occurs when the transportation projects proximity impacts are sosevere that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for protectionunder Section 4(f) are substantially impaired or diminished. A constructive use occurs when the

projected noise level increase attributable to the project substantially interferes with the use andenjoyment of a noise-sensitive facility of a resource protected by Section 4(f), such as enjoymentof a historic site where a quiet setting is a generally recognized feature or attribute of the sitessignificance. Constructive use determination is rare and impacts can often be mitigated.

4.1.5 Potential Noise ImpactsIn accordance with Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006 (FTA-

VA-90-1003-06), screening distances were applied to the Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site toidentify potential noise impacts. As previously mentioned in the Cultural Resources section,there is a historic property listed on the Maryland Historic Property Site listed as Shipley PointFarm (CE-538) which is located approximately 300 feet south of the site. Because the structuresof this historic resource have been removed and only below-ground archaeological resourcesmay remain, this site is not considered noise sensitive. The farm located adjacently north on thePerryville A site, however, is located within the screening distance and is considered noisesensitive. In the event that Perryville B (South of Amtrak) Site is selected for development, ageneral noise analysis, in accordance with FTA guidelines, may be required to determine noiseimpacts to this farm and explore mitigation options if impacts occur.

4.1.6 Socioeconomic Profile of Adjacent NeighborhoodsAccording to the 2000 U.S. Census, the neighborhoods adjacent to this site correspond to

the census tract 312.02. The total population was 4,628 people with 2,367 males and 2,261females. 79% of the population above 25 years of age had a high school diploma, whereasapproximately 11% had at least a bachelors degree. The median income was relatively higher at$44,531 with a low rate of unemployment at 2.0%. Less than 6% of families were reported to be

below the poverty level. The community was dominated by whites who constitutedapproximately 90% of the population, with less than 7% African-Americans. Hispanics (of anyrace) accounted for approximately 2% of the entire population in the tract. Census tract datafrom the 2010 U.S. Census was not available at the time this report was written.


32/121


18

4.1.7 Stormwater ManagementLocated on terrain similar to the Perryville A site, the existing land uses within the

proposed project limits include an Amtrak facility in addition to agricultural use. Relocation ofthe existing Amtrak MOW Base may result in a net decrease of impervious area afterconstruction of the proposed MARC project. The underlying soil composition is HSG Type D

on the northern half and HSG Type B on the southern half of the site. Runoff from this sitedischarges directly to a tributary to Mill Creek, which directly discharges to the Chesapeake Bay.The Perryville B site is located outside of the 100-yr floodplain, but the northeast portion alongthe NEC is located within the Critical Area boundary. In addition, the existing Amtrak sitewould have to be relocated adjacent to the proposed MARC facility as part of this work.

It is envisioned that stormwater management at this site would be comprised ofEnvironmental Site Design (ESD) elements where applicable, such as grass swales, green roofsand micro-bioretention facilities. Use of pervious pavement on the southern half of the facilitymay be an option with regards to soil type, although proximity of groundwater may restrict itsuse. Tests to confirm groundwater levels and infiltration rates should be made in the future.

Despite efforts to achieve ESD, the significant increase in impervious area is expected to requireconstruction of a stormwater management

Appendix a - MARC Maintenance Facility Site Selection Report

Documents