The Chesapeake Bay Oyster Alliance, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among others, may also be required to evaluate potential aquatic resource impacts.ĬARGO SHIP: Finally free! Container ship Ever Forward stuck in Chesapeake Bay gets moving againĪ timeline for the Tier 2 study has yet to be announced as it is expected to cost around $30 million, according to The Baltimore Sun. Fish and Wildlife Service would be required for any potential effects on listed endangered or threatened species in accordance with the Endangered Species Act. Under Tier 2 regulations, coordination with the U.S. The next phase is for the selected location to undergo a Tier 2 study, with a completion date not yet released. "Much of the land adjacent to the existing US 50/301 roadway is developed, so utilizing this infrastructure potentially minimizes overall impacts to on-land natural resources," the report stated. The chosen location also presents less impact to existing communities' cohesion and local traffic. Proposed, and ultimately rejected, options further north and south would have been longer routes with more invasive impacts on the bay and Eastern Shore farmland. Yet in comparison, aquatic resources associated with open water - such as essential fish habitat, tidal wetlands, and oyster resources - are more prevalent in Pasadena to Centreville option or Crofton to Easton option. Some minimal impact was identified to affect open water of the bay and other major waterways. SEAFOOD: Maryland shrimp? Warming waters could bring seafood bonanza to Eastern Shore The two rejected locations would have required longer crossings and more roadway infrastructure, likely resulting in greater impact to sensitive environmental resources in and around the Chesapeake Bay.ĬHESAPEAKE BAY: Dolphins' playful social habits could also be what’s killing them, researchers say The selected route would potentially "have lower overall environmental impacts" due to the shorter length of the crossing the report noted. The location decision comes on the heels of the combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision being released to the public.Īccording to the final Tier 1 report, one of the considerations in moving forward with the selected location was the overall length of a proposed span. How will this impact the Chesapeake Bay environment? They could also lead to substantial pressure for new residential development, with corresponding negative impacts to farmland. Other findings include the rejected locations would also likely cause substantially "more indirect effects from new connectivity between rural lands on the Eastern Shore and employment centers" such as Baltimore and Washington, D.C. In comparison, the report stipulates, additional capacity in the selected corridor would result in greater peak-hour congestion relief on the Bay Bridge lanes. YOUR DRIVE: What happens if Chesapeake Bay Bridge doesn't add another crossing The other two potential options included Corridor 6 (on Route 100 to Route 301 between Pasadena and Centreville) and Corridor 8 (on Route 50/301 between Crofton and Easton). "Additional capacity in the selected corridor would divert substantially more traffic away from the Bay Bridge lanes in terms of total vehicles per day on both summer weekends and non-summer weekdays," the report stated. The selected location runs along the existing Bay Bridge corridor on Route 50/301 to Route 50 between Crofton and Queenstown.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |