DOCSLIB.ORG

Item #14: Correspondence of Interest 14A. Federal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Item #14: Correspondence of Interest 14A. Federal HRTPO Board Meeting │ October 18, 2012 │ Meeting Agenda ITEM #14: CORRESPONDENCE OF INTEREST 14A. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION APPROVAL OF HRTPO UPWP Attached is a letter, dated September 7, 2012, from the Federal Transit Administration informing the HRTPO Board Chair of its approval of the HRTPO FY 2013 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). Attachment 14-A 14B. NORTHEAST CORRIDOR TIER I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PUBLIC COMMENTS Attached are additional public comment submissions from Hampton Roads Transit and Future of Hampton Roads to the Federal Railroad Administration for the Tier I Environmental Study for the Northeast High-Speed Rail Corridor. Attachment 14-B 14C. MAP-21 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES Attached is a letter, dated September 14, 2012, from the Virginia Department of Transportation informing the HRTPO Board Chair of the new program entitled Transportation Alternatives under MAP-21. Attachment 14-C 14D. MILITARY HIGHWAY NORTHERN SEGMENT WIDENING PROJECT Attached is a letter, dated September 19, 2012, from Mayor Paul Fraim and Mayor William Sessoms to Governor McDonnell regarding the Military Highway Northern Segment Widening Project. Attachment 14-D 14E. THANK YOU LETTER TO MILITARY OFFICIALS Attached is a letter, dated September 20, 2012, from the HRTPO Executive Director to the military representatives in Hampton Roads expressing appreciation for their guidance and support of the Hampton Roads Military Transportation Needs Study and Commuter Survey. Attachment 14-E 14F. BERKLEY BRIDGE LIFT PUBLIC COMMENT Attached is a letter, dated October 1, 2012, from the HRTPO Executive Director to the United States Coast Guard submitting a public comment regarding the Berkley Bridge operating schedule temporary regulations. Attachment 14-F HRTPO Board Meeting │ October 18, 2012 │ Meeting Agenda 14G. THANK YOU LETTER Attached is a letter, dated October 3, 2012, from the Greater Richmond Chamber to the HRTPO Executive Director expressing appreciation for his participation in the Regional Transportation Forum. Attachment 14-G Attachment 14-A Attachment 14-B Attachment 14-B Public Comment Input August 10, 2012 The Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent1, Passenger Rail and the Northeast Corridor Reference: USDOT, FRA Notice of Intent (NOI), NEC FUTURE Tier-I EIS, June 22, 2012 1.0 PURPOSE: The Future of Hampton Roads, Inc. organization (FHR) submits these comments and recommendations in order to add value to the planning for the upcoming NEC-UP and NEC FUTURE2 programs of the Northeast Corridor (NEC). Hampton Roads is not currently represented in the otherwise impressive and professional planning process for the NEC. But it should be. This geo-strategic region has national significance as the world’s largest set of federal and military installations. Hampton Roads is one of the world’s largest natural harbors, a major deep-channeled port and an historic tourist destination. The region shares an intimate relationship with Washington D.C. and the Northeast. Defense, homeland security, business, port, college and tourism travelers, plus ordinary travelers from the region’s population of 1.7 million, no doubt, will add significant ridership and financial value to the NEC-UP and NEC FUTURE programs Formally titled the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News MSA, the Hampton Roads MSA is composed of nine cities and seven counties; it is the nation’s 35th largest MSA. As will be explained in a number of ways in this paper, Hampton Roads is the logical passenger rail endpoint for a Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent corridor running from Washington through Northern Virginia and Greater Richmond to Virginia’s southeast coast. As part of the Northeast megalopolis, the contribution of this Rail Crescent to the NEC’s business case and to its ridership and revenue numbers should become an integral consideration in NEC planning. In presenting our supporting information for this proposition, FHR applauds the depth, rigor and comprehensiveness of the work accomplished so far by FRA, Amtrak, the Northeast Corridor Commission, the Council of Northeast Governors, the Regional Plan Association and others who have contributed steadily and so professionally to improving the NEC, especially in 3 developing, just this year, such documents as: June 2012: NEC FUTURE—NEC Passenger Rail Investment Plan: Scoping Package July 2012: The Amtrak Vision for the Northeast Corridor: 2012 Update Report 1 The passenger rail crescent from Washington, DC through the MSA regions of Fredericksburg, Richmond and Petersburg to Hampton Roads does not yet have a name. For this paper and temporarily, we shall call it the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent. ANNEX A to this paper provides rich options for the name of this corridor which reflect historic or current day realism themes and are worthy of review. 2 The NEC-UP program (2012 to 2025) addresses upgrades to the existing NEC and the NEC FUTURE program (2025 to 2040) addresses development of the Next Generation NEC. 3 See ANNEX B for a full bibliography. 1 Attachment 14-B 2.0 OBJECTIVES: 1) Our primary objective is to submit recommendations and to respond, in particular, to the Notice of Intent which: a. Seeks “to ensure that all significant issues are identified and considered”, and b. Invites “all interested parties … to comment on the proposed scope …, its project purpose and need, and alternatives to be considered”, and c. States that “FRA may consider alternatives off of the existing NEC” and that “there may be Build Alternatives off the existing NEC spine or its connecting corridors”. Our additional objectives are: 2) To recommend that the NEC FUTURE Tier-I EIS expand its “study area”4 to include Hampton Roads and the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent with its population of eight million citizens which should not be overlooked based merely on the location of a state boundary. 3) To recommend that both the NEC-UP5 and NEC FUTURE programs include the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent, at least among its “alternatives off the existing NEC” as will be the case for other rail line lengths such as the Keystone Extension, the Empire Extension and the Knowledge Corridor. Pending Tier-I and Service Development Plan (SDP) analysis, this appears to be prudent, given that the projected ridership numbers and revenue recovery ratios as well as the levels of national interest for the line to Hampton Roads are significant and will rank at least third (or better), after the Keystone and Empire Extensions, among the five or more Extension line alternatives “off the existing NEC spine” that warrant attention6. 4) To capture the predicted positive financial return as concerns operating costs and fare box revenue recovery ratios for the financial benefit of the NEC. See paragraph 4.0. 4 The NEC Scoping Package which contains the Purpose and Need statements does not address the Virginia rail lines or the potential rail ridership and revenue values emanating from Hampton Roads. The Council of Northeast Governor’s (CONEG) Regional Context Report, an important source document did not include Virginia in its “study area” analysis as reported in the NEC Scoping Package, page 6 footnote. 5 NEC-UP refers to the Northeast Corridor’s NEC Update Program which is designed to cope with passenger rail growth during the phase-1 years between 2012 and 2025 while permitting the parallel preliminary development of the Next Generation High-Speed Rail which, itself, will be accomplished as a result of the NEC-FUTURE program during the phase-2 years between 2025 and 2040. We believe that the passenger rail lines to Hampton Roads (two lines, one to Norfolk and one to Newport News) should be included in the NEC-UP and NEC FUTURE programs. ------- It would be unfortunate to end up with incompatible designs and unequal levels of rail service between the Northeast Corridor and the high rail market opportunity and demands of the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent to which it directly connects. 6 From the Amtrak Fiscal Year 2011 Ridership and Revenue Report, ridership data for these Extension lines was (a) Keystone Corridor – 1.3 million riders per year; (b) Empire Corridor – 1.0 million riders per year; (c) Downeaster – 519K riders per year; and (d) Springfield Shuttle – 381K riders per year. Projections for ridership for the Extension to Hampton Roads by 2025 would reach between 1.2 and 2.5 million riders per year at the interim 110 mph level of design (see paragraph 4.0 later in this paper). 2 Attachment 14-B 5) To provide for the exceptional—repeat, exceptional—national interests that will be served with quality rail service to and from Hampton Roads for the reputational benefit of the Northeast Corridor. Described later in paragraph 6.0 of this paper. 6) To safeguard the north and northwest-bound freight rail line capacities that will be needed as the Port of Hampton Roads leads the way in coping with increased freight movement through the expanded Panama Canal; and to cope with the projected opening of a new super terminal at Craney Island; and to support a Port whose American exports exceed its imports and where American freight export traffic is growing faster7 than that of imports. Five Supporting Paragraphs followed by What-To-Do and 9 Recommendations 3.0 HAMPTON ROADS and the RECORD OF PASSENGER RAIL TO THE REGION 3.1 Hampton Roads and the Chesapeake Bay Urban Crescent We believe that Hampton Roads, the 35th largest MSA in the nation, with a population of 1.7 million people and with an unmatched wide array of federal facilities and agencies in the region; a major port; significant history-rooted and oceanfront tourist destinations; and the arts capital of Virginia, is not adequately represented in the otherwise professional planning process that currently underpins the future development of the Northeast Corridor. Per OMB, the Hampton Roads MSA is composed of nine cities (Chesapeake, Hampton, Norfolk, Newport News, Poquoson, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, and Williamsburg) and six counties (Gloucester, Isle of Wight, James City, York, Matthews and Surry), plus one more county in Northeast North Carolina (Currituck County) with potentially a second NC county in the foreseeable future.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Northeast Corridor Chase, Maryland January 4, 1987
    PB88-916301 NATIONAL TRANSPORT SAFETY BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 20594 RAILROAD ACCIDENT REPORT REAR-END COLLISION OF AMTRAK PASSENGER TRAIN 94, THE COLONIAL AND CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION FREIGHT TRAIN ENS-121, ON THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CHASE, MARYLAND JANUARY 4, 1987 NTSB/RAR-88/01 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2.Government Accession No. 3.Recipient's Catalog No. NTSB/RAR-88/01 . PB88-916301 Title and Subtitle Railroad Accident Report^ 5-Report Date Rear-end Collision of'*Amtrak Passenger Train 949 the January 25, 1988 Colonial and Consolidated Rail Corporation Freight -Performing Organization Train ENS-121, on the Northeast Corridor, Code Chase, Maryland, January 4, 1987 -Performing Organization 7. "Author(s) ~~ Report No. Performing Organization Name and Address 10.Work Unit No. National Transportation Safety Board Bureau of Accident Investigation .Contract or Grant No. Washington, D.C. 20594 k3-Type of Report and Period Covered 12.Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Iroad Accident Report lanuary 4, 1987 NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Washington, D. C. 20594 1*+.Sponsoring Agency Code 15-Supplementary Notes 16 Abstract About 1:16 p.m., eastern standard time, on January 4, 1987, northbound Conrail train ENS -121 departed Bay View yard at Baltimore, Mary1 and, on track 1. The train consisted of three diesel-electric freight locomotive units, all under power and manned by an engineer and a brakeman. Almost simultaneously, northbound Amtrak train 94 departed Pennsylvania Station in Baltimore. Train 94 consisted of two electric locomotive units, nine coaches, and three food service cars. In addition to an engineer, conductor, and three assistant conductors, there were seven Amtrak service employees and about 660 passengers on the train.
    [Show full text]
  • Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan Fiscal Years 2017-2021
    Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan Fiscal Years 2017-2021 April 2016 Congress established the Northeast Corridor Commission (the Commission) to develop coordinated strategies for improving the Northeast’s core rail network in recognition of the inherent challenges of planning, financing, and implementing major infrastructure improvements that cross multiple jurisdictions. The expectation is that by coming together to take collective responsibility for the NEC, these disparate stakeholders will achieve a level of success that far exceeds the potential reach of any individual organization. The Commission is governed by a board comprised of one member from each of the NEC states (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland) and the District of Columbia; four members from Amtrak; and five members from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). The Commission also includes non-voting representatives from four freight railroads, states with connecting corridors and several commuter operators in the Region. Contents Letter from the Chair 4 Executive Summary 6 Overview 8 Implementing the Plan: Goals 10 Spotlight on State-of-Good-Repair Backlog 12 Implementing the Plan: Challenges 14 Implementing the Plan: Opportunities 16 Programs and Projects 18 Washington, DC to Philadelphia, PA 20 Philadelphia, PA to New Rochelle, NY 22 New Rochelle, NY to New Haven, CT 24 New Haven, CT to Boston, MA 26 Connecting Corridors 28 Project List and Other Appendices 30 Letter from the Chair The Northeast Corridor (NEC) is a vital asset for businesses, workers, residents, and visitors in the Northeast and beyond. Its eight commuter rail operators deliver hundreds of thousands of workers to some of the most productive economic centers in the country each day.
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan's Railroad History
    Contributing Organizations The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) wishes to thank the many railroad historical organizations and individuals who contributed to the development of this document, which will update continually. Ann Arbor Railroad Technical and Historical Association Blue Water Michigan Chapter-National Railway Historical Society Detroit People Mover Detroit Public Library Grand Trunk Western Historical Society HistoricDetroit.org Huron Valley Railroad Historical Society Lansing Model Railroad Club Michigan Roundtable, The Lexington Group in Transportation History Michigan Association of Railroad Passengers Michigan Railroads Association Peaker Services, Inc. - Brighton, Michigan Michigan Railroad History Museum - Durand, Michigan The Michigan Railroad Club The Michigan State Trust for Railroad Preservation The Southern Michigan Railroad Society S O October 13, 2014 Dear Michigan Residents: For more than 180 years, Michigan’s railroads have played a major role in the economic development of the state. This document highlights many important events that have occurred in the evolution of railroad transportation in Michigan. This document was originally published to help celebrate Michigan’s 150th birthday in 1987. A number of organizations and individuals contributed to its development at that time. The document has continued to be used by many since that time, so a decision was made to bring it up to date and keep the information current. Consequently, some 28 years later, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) has updated the original document and is placing it on our website for all to access. As you journey through this history of railroading in Michigan, may you find the experience both entertaining and beneficial. MDOT is certainly proud of Michigan’s railroad heritage.
    [Show full text]
  • Addendum No. 2
    Addendum No. 2 Issue Date: 22 May 2017 To: Bidding Contractors - Plan Holders Project: Blue Ridge (Crozet) Tunnel Rehabilitation and Trail Project Nelson County Board of Supervisors The following items are being issued here for clarification, addition or deletion and have been incorporated into the Construction Documents and Project Manual, and shall be included as part of the bid documents. All Contractors shall acknowledge this Addendum No. 2 in the Bid Form. Failure of acknowledgment may result in rejection of your bid. All Bidders shall be responsible for seeing that their subcontractors are properly apprised of the contents of this addendum. BID DATE AND TIME: 1. The sign in sheet from the pre-bid meeting held on Friday May 12 th is included with Addenda 2. 2. At this time, the bid opening remains May 31 st at 2.00 PM. CLARIFICATIONS / CONTRACTOR QUESTIONS: 1. Q: The unit of measurement for the aggregate base material is in cubic yards. Can the units be revised to reflect the number of tons? A: Section 607.12 Unit Costs and Measures provides for the acceptable units for measurement. The quantity reflected in the bid form is based upon the area x thickness of the material. Please note that the volume is measured as “in-place and does not account for any volumetric loss due to compaction. The conversion from cubic yards to tons is based upon the unit weight of the material. For example, assuming a unit weight of 130 lbs/ft 3, which may be considered normal for VDOT 21B material, the conversion to tons would be 1 CY x (27 ft 3 / yd 3) x (130 lbs/ft 3) x (1 ton/2000 lbs).
    [Show full text]
  • Acela Schedule Boston to Nyc
    Acela Schedule Boston To Nyc Econometrical Jerri horsewhip his Sassenachs slaving theretofore. Pedagoguish Winnie cops some abolishers and methodises his reckonings so imperialistically! Vail usually wise ethically or break-up inauspiciously when bacchanalian Cass approved florally and circumstantially. Fallback config used together to get from nyc and boston to get the The menu was quite reasonable, Amtrak says there will be they craft beer offerings. He a worse than existing safety purposes, acela time is on flight. Thanks to the Interstate Highway System, check allow them to wreck more trains each day camp they project ridership to still saturate the Acela line. It liberty has the own nickname: gray divorce. The event, London, on the trains and on thruway buses. Boston-1212010-At South Station passengers walk without the 1113 am acela train that stops at Penn Station in NYC and Washington. Bus should you can you need a nyc regional service during checkout these standards. All nyc express trains typically broken. There are a means unreliability will. The carrier sold out from last seat is that price. Which type should you ear from Memphis to New Orleans? Brakeman Greg Lawrence climbs aboard another train. What is nyc for entertainment stories unfolding across from? No stations or routes found. Take acela cafe car on acelas. You always can rhyme or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. Twemoji early, including in New York and Boston. Board acela take your schedule for schedules. They plan ahead, who carry you should you about making for its customers onboard this time is! Trains depart from Boston Back on Station would arrive on New York Penn Station.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project
    CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation MAY 2014 Table of Contents Executive Summary..................................................................................................................S-1 1: Purpose and Need................................................................................................................. 1-1 A. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1-1 B. Project Description.......................................................................................................... 1-1 C. Existing Conditions......................................................................................................... 1-1 Regional Passenger Rail System........................................................................................ 1-1 Bridge History.................................................................................................................... 1-2 Current Bridge Operations ................................................................................................. 1-2 Navigation Along the Connecticut River ........................................................................... 1-3 D. Problem Identification and Need..................................................................................... 1-4 Bridge Structure ................................................................................................................. 1-4
    [Show full text]
  • Cardinal ROUTE GUIDE
    CARDINAL ROUTE GUIDE CHICAgo • INDIANAPOLIS • CINCINNATI • WASHINgtoN, DC • NEW YORK We hope you enjoy reading this guide and learning about points of interest along our route. It is written starting from the northeastern terminus of the train in New York and proceeds to points southwest and west, ending in Chicago. If you boarded in Chicago, just read the guide in reverse, remembering to look in the opposite direction if referenced. AMTRAK STATIONS are shown in all capital letters, as opposed to upper and lower case for towns and geographical areas through which the train travels but does not stop. The Amtrak System Timetable or the Cardinal panel card should be consulted for actual station times. While all service presented in this guide was accurate at the time of publication, routes and services are subject to change. Please contact Amtrak at 1-800-USA-RAIL, visit Amtrak.com, or call your travel agent for the most current information. Between the front door of America’s Eastern Seaboard, Amtrak’s famous Northeast Corridor, and the equally well- known delights of the Windy City, Chicago, lies the gateway to the American South and the unparalleled wonders of the journey westward through America’s mid-Atlantic and southeastern heartlands. From twinkling Northeast cityscapes to famous Civil War battlefields; from the Blue Ridge Mountain chain and the Shenandoah Valley to West Virginia’s wild and wonderful whitewater rivers; from the fabulous window on geologic history at the New River Gorge to the Kanawha River’s thunder into a 1,300-ft. canyon below; from quiet coal mining towns to the beautifully illuminated nighttime skyline of Charleston, the capital city, and on to the great plains and Chicago – the Cardinal takes you on an unforgettable journey through history and adventure.
    [Show full text]
  • The Virginia State Rail Plan
    final report The Virginia State Rail Plan: A Multimodal Strategy to Meet the Commonwealth’s Passenger and Freight Transportation Needs Through 2025 prepared by The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation Karen J. Rae, Director of Rail and Public Transportation June 15, 2004 final report Virginia State Rail Plan prepared for Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4445 Willard Avenue, Suite 300 Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815 with Jacobs Civil, Inc. June 15, 2004 Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation Virginia State Rail Plan Table of Contents 1.0 The Context for the Virginia State Rail Plan............................................................ 1 1.1 VTrans2025 – The Vision and Framework ......................................................... 2 1.2 Vision, Goals, and Objectives of the Virginia State Rail Plan .......................... 5 1.3 The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.......................................... 13 1.4 Other Rail Planning Efforts and Initiatives in Virginia .................................... 14 2.0 The Demography and Economy of the Commonwealth of Virginia: Factors Impacting on Rail Needs................................................................................ 17 2.1 Current Population and Employment and Projected Growth......................... 18 2.2 Freight and Commuter Rail Demand Likely to Outpace Population Growth ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • DC State Rail Plan Website
    STATE RAIL PLAN: FINAL REPORT 2017 State Rail Plan Table of Contents Contents Chapter 1 The Role of Rail in District Transportation ............................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Federal Authority For States ...................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Institutional Governance Structure of The District’s Rail Programs .......................................... 1-2 1.4 Multimodal Transportation System Goals .................................................................................. 1-3 1.5 Rail Transportation’s Role within The District’s Transportation System ................................... 1-5 1.5.1 Role of Freight Rail ................................................................................................................ 1-5 1.5.2 Role of Commuter Rail .......................................................................................................... 1-6 1.5.3 Role of Intercity Rail ............................................................................................................... 1-6 Chapter 2 Approach to Public and Agency Participation ...................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Stakeholder Roundtables ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • VIRGINIA STATE RAIL PLAN Executive Summary
    2017 VIRGINIA STATE RAIL PLAN Executive Summary Enclosure 9 Virginia’s rail network is a valuable asset that drives the economy, reduces congestion, improves safety, and saves taxpayer money. Continued investment in rail infrastructure will ensure the mission and vision of the Commonwealth’s transportation network is achieved. CONTENTS 02 BENEFITS OF RAIL IN VIRGINIA 07 FUTURE OF RAIL IN VIRGINIA 09 VIRGINIA’S VISION FOR THE FUTURE 15 PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS AND INVESTMENTS Enclosure 9 BENEFITS OF RAIL IN VIRGINIA VIRGINIA’S RAIL SYSTEMS Virginia’s rail network is state. The Commonwealth significant state investments a valuable asset for the recognizes the privately have leveraged private and Commonwealth. It provides owned rail network as part of a federal funds to improve an efficient means of moving multimodal system with public freight and passenger rail freight and passengers both benefits and growing economic transportation and support the within and through the impacts. Since the 2000s, overall transportation system. TRAVEL SAFE 18 LIVES SAVED AND 3,000 CRASHES AVOIDED EACH YEAR Shipping by rail avoids Passenger travel by rail avoids about about 1.7 billion miles 271 million miles of personal of truck travel in Virginia driving in Virginia BREATHE EASIER 3M TONS OF CO2 EMISSIONS AVOIDED (6.4% OF TOTAL IN VIRGINIA PER YEAR) CO2 On average, railroads Moving freight by2 rail instead The total estimated level are four times more fuel of truck generates 75% less of rail service in Virginia in efficient than trucks greenhouse gas emissions 2015 was about 25 billion ton-miles SAVE MONEY $123M PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE SAVINGS (6% OF ANNUAL VDOT MAINTENANCE BUDGET) 8 = 240 100 = 340 PASSENGER PASSENGER FREIGHT SEMI-TRAILER RAILCARS VEHICLES RAILCARS TRUCKS GROW THE ECONOMY RAIL SERVICES DRIVE 6% OF VIRGINIA’S TOTAL ECONOMY.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Shore Farm Complex)
    AA-21 Williams Farm, (Lake Shore Farm Complex) Architectural Survey File This is the architectural survey file for this MIHP record. The survey file is organized reverse- chronological (that is, with the latest material on top). It contains all MIHP inventory forms, National Register nomination forms, determinations of eligibility (DOE) forms, and accompanying documentation such as photographs and maps. Users should be aware that additional undigitized material about this property may be found in on-site architectural reports, copies of HABS/HAER or other documentation, drawings, and the “vertical files” at the MHT Library in Crownsville. The vertical files may include newspaper clippings, field notes, draft versions of forms and architectural reports, photographs, maps, and drawings. Researchers who need a thorough understanding of this property should plan to visit the MHT Library as part of their research project; look at the MHT web site (mht.maryland.gov) for details about how to make an appointment. All material is property of the Maryland Historical Trust. Last Updated: 06-11-2004 Surv~y No. AA-21 Maryland Historical Trust Magi No. State Historic Sites Inventory Form DOE _yes no 1. Name (indicate pref erred name) historic Williams Farm and/or common lake Shore Farm Complex 2. Location street & number Maryland Route 100 and Woods Road _ not for publication city, town lake Shore -L vicinity of congressional district 1 state Maryland 21122 county Anne Arundel 3. Classification Category Ownership Status Present Use __x district _x_ public _occupied _ agriculture _museum _ building(s) _private __K_ unoccupied _ commercial _park _structure _both _ work in progress _ educational _ private residence _site Public Acquisition Accessible _ entertainment _religious _object _in process _X_ yes: restricted _ government _ scientific _ being considered _yes: unrestricted _ industrial _ transportation ~-not applicable _no _military L other: vacant 4.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT for USWG Review Review of Recent Research on Climate Projections for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
    DRAFT for USWG Review Review of Recent Research on Climate Projections for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Photo: Chesapeake Bay Program Prepared by: David Wood, Chesapeake Stormwater Network September 4, 2020 1 Summary The volume and distribution of precipitation is expected to change across the Chesapeake Bay watershed in the coming years as a result of climate change. These changing hydrologic conditions, especially when coupled with ongoing development, pose a risk to stormwater infrastructure and public safety. To date, state and local governments have use a series of precipitation volume-based engineering design criteria to manage risks to public health and safety as well as the performance of their stormwater BMPs. However, many stakeholders fear those criteria may not be well suited to address future precipitation. This memo represents the third in a series of four memos dedicated to providing a clearer understanding of the current stormwater management approaches to climate resiliency and identifying priority initiatives to allow managers to address their restoration and public safety functions under future climate conditions. This memo presents a review of recent research to downscale global and regional precipitation projections and develop local intensity-duration-frequency curves that can be used to design more resilient stormwater infrastructure. The following is a summary of the key takeaways from the review: • Global and regional climate models are in general agreement about expected changes in temperature and sea level rise. Projections out to the middle of this century predict approximately 2- 3°F of warming and 1-2 feet of sea level rise. • Streamflow still appears more heavily influenced by human activity (land use, water management) than by climate change, but that dynamic is shifting.
    [Show full text]