Delaware Department of Transportation - Projects

Visit the Governor | General Assembly | Courts | Elected Officials | State Agencies

State Phone Directory | Help | Search Citizen Services | Business Services | Tourism Info.

Delaware Department of Transportation | Projects Mobile Web Email A Friend

HOME

About DelDOT

DelDOT Secretary

Press Releases

Divisions

FAQs

Employment

Public Workshops

Related Links

DMV

DART

EZPass

Contact Information

Office Locations

Agency Site Map

SERVICES

Online Services

INFORMATION

Live Traffic

Interactive Traffic Maps

Biking in Delaware

Community Programs 

and Services

Doing Business

Projects

Publications

Archaeology

Red Light Enforcement

Media Gallery

Projects

U.S. Route 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

● Summary of FEIS

● Cover

● Approval

● Table of Contents

● Chapter I - Purpose and Need

● Chapter II - Alternatives

● Chapter III - Environmental Resources and Consequences 

❍ Section 1 - Socioeconomic Environment; Cultural Resources; Air Quality; Noise; Hazardous Materials Sites

❍ Section 2 - Natural Environment; Traffic, Travel Patterns and Toll Diversions; Energy; Temporary Construction Impacts; 

Secondary and Cumulative Effects Analysis (SCEA); Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs); Relationship Between Local ... 

and Long-Term ... Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

● Chapter IV - Comments and Coordination 

❍ Section 1 - Public Involvement Program; Agency Coordination; Toll Diversion Coordination

❍ Section 2 - January 8, 2007 Testimony and Comments

❍ Section 3 - January 9, 2007 Testimony and Comments

❍ Section 4 - Balance of comments received

● Chapter V - List of Contributors

● Chapter VI - Distribution List

● Chapter VII - References

● Appendix A - Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study

❍ Yellow Alternative

❍ Purple Alternative

❍ Brown Alternative

❍ Green Alternative

● Appendix B - Preferred Alternative Plan Sheets 

❍ Sheet 1 - State Line to Middle Neck Road

❍ Sheet 2 - Middle Neck Road to Choptank Road

❍ Sheet 3 - Choptank Road to Pleasanton

❍ Sheet 4 - Pleasanton to North of Boyds Corner Road

❍ Sheet 5 - North of Boyds Corner Road to Hyetts Corner Road

❍ Sheet 6 - Hyetts Corner Road to SR 1

❍ Sheet 7 - Spur - Armstrong Corner Road to Churchtown Road

❍ Sheet 8 - Spur - Churchtown Road to Summit Bridge

❍ Sheet 9 - Spur - Bethel Church Road Extended

● Appendix C - Agency Correspondence

● Appendix D - List of Technical Documents

● Appendix E - Glossary

● Appendix F - Relocation Assistance Program

Project Information

● Project Home

● Project Overview

● Environmental Process

● Selected Alternative

● Preferred Alternative

● Preferred Alternative 

Announcement

● Retained Alternatives

● Public Workshops

● Public Involvement

● Press Releases

Public Feedback

US 301 Project Hotline: 

866-485-9988 (toll-free) 

Fax: (302) 739-2092 

email:

dot-public-relations 

@state.de.us

http://www.deldot.gov/information/projects/us301/pages/feis.shtml (1 of 2)7/30/2008 10:18:54 AM
Delaware Department of Transportation - Projects

● Appendix G - Farmland Conversion Impact Rating

● Appendix H - Memorandum of Agreement

● Appendix I - Public Hearing Transcript Introduction

Last Updated: Friday, 21-Dec-2007 11:34:12 Eastern Standard Time 

site map | about this site | contact us | translate | delaware.gov 

http://www.deldot.gov/information/projects/us301/pages/feis.shtml (2 of 2)7/30/2008 10:18:54 AM
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

SUMMARY S-1 

SUMMARY

A. Administrative Action 

 ( ) Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

 ( ) Section 4(f) Evaluation 

 (X) Final Environmental Impact Statement 

 ( ) Record of Decision 

B. Informational Contacts 

Project information, including an electronic version of this document, is available on DelDOT’s website, 

www.deldot.gov/information/projects/us301/. Additional information concerning this project may 

be obtained by contacting: 

Mr. Robert Kleinburd Mr. Mark Tudor 

Environmental Program Manager Project Director 

Federal Highway Administration Delaware Department of Transportation 

300 South New Street 800 Bay Road 

Dover, Delaware 19901 Dover, Delaware 

Telephone: 302-734-2966 Telephone: 302-760-2275 

8:00 AM to 4:00 PM 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM 

C. Summary Table of Contents 

Section Page

A. Administrative Action .........................................................................................S-1 

B. Informational Contacts ........................................................................................S-1 

C. Summary Table of Contents................................................................................S-1 

D. Description of Proposed Action/Purpose and Need ............................................S-2 

E. Description of Alternatives..................................................................................S-2 

F. DelDOT’s Preferred Alternative .........................................................................S-5 

G. Alternatives Not Preferred ..................................................................................S-7 

H. Alternative Options .............................................................................................S-9 

I. Summary of Potential Impacts ..........................................................................S-13 

J. Permits Required ...............................................................................................S-23 

K. Public Involvement Program.............................................................................S-23 

L. Areas of Controversy.........................................................................................S-24 

M. Next Steps in the Project Development Process................................................S-24 

N. Statutory Provisions...........................................................................................S-25 

O. Summary of Costs and Financial Analysis........................................................S-25 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

SUMMARY S-2 

D. Description of Proposed Action/Purpose and Need 

The US 301 Project Development effort proposes to construct a four-lane, fully access 

controlled, tolled highway between the Delaware/Maryland state line and State Route (SR) 1 (US 

301 mainline), with a two-lane, fully access controlled, tolled Spur Road from the US 301 

mainline in the vicinity of Armstrong Corner Road to the Summit Bridge. 

The purpose of the US 301 Project Development effort is to address existing and future 

congestion on US 301, improve safety, and better manage the heavy truck volumes through the 

project area. The project proposes to provide improved travel conditions for vehicles traveling 

north/south between US 301 at the Delaware/Maryland state line and points north of the 

Chesapeake and Delaware (C&D) Canal via SR 896 (Summit Bridge) and SR 1 in southern New 

Castle County, Delaware. Figure S-1 provides the regional context of US 301; Figure S-2

shows the project area. 

The need for the project is demonstrated by the historic growth in the volume of vehicles 

traveling north/south on US 301 in the project area, and recent and continuing growth in 

residential land use and concurrent increasing population in the area. As a result of the 

increasing conversion of farmland to residential use, the Delaware Department of Transportation 

(DelDOT) is seeking to identify and preserve an appropriate transportation corridor before 

encroaching development precludes the availability of a route for commuter and long-haul 

transportation. 

Highway safety and the high percentage of truck traffic using US 301 also demonstrate the need 

for the project. A high number of accidents (over 1,200 over the past five years) have been 

reported in the project area, with over 34 percent of the accidents involving injuries or death. A 

total of 18 fatalities occurred in the US 301/SR 896 corridor, with 11 on US 301 south of the 

C&D Canal. The US 301 corridor currently functions as a regional truck route, bypassing the 

congestion and tolls of the I-95 corridor, resulting in a high ratio of trucks, 25 to 30 percent of 

the overall traffic at the Delaware/Maryland state line, traveling on US 301. The mix of trucks 

with local traffic has affected roadway capacity, operations and safety. Approximately 95 

percent of the northbound truck traffic originating south of Middletown is destined to points 

northeast of the C&D Canal, with nearly 90 percent of that destined for places outside of 

Delaware.

E. Description of Alternatives 

Alternatives initially considered in the project development process included the No-Build 

Alternative as well as several build alternatives utilizing both on-alignment (existing US 301 and 

existing SR 896) and new locations. The initial Range of Alternatives included roadway 

alignments originally considered in the 1993 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and 

in the 2000 Major Investment Study (MIS). The Project Team also reviewed multi-modal 

improvements identified in the MIS, some which have already been implemented. 
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

project development rojectdevelopment

U.S.

US 301 Project Development

Delaware

Department of

Transportation

November 2007

É Figure

As Shown

0 5 10 15 20 25

SCALE IN MILES

S-1

REGIONAL MAP

US 301

PROJECT

AREA

US 301

CORRIDOR

US 301

CORRIDOR

95

95

95

95

301

301

301

301

301
0123

SCALE IN MILES

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

project development rojectdevelopment

U.S.

US 301 Project Development

Delaware

Department of

Transportation

November 2007

É Figure

Not to Scale

Highways, Freeways

Local / Secondary Roads

Municipal Areas

Legend

US 301 PROJECT AREA

S-2

US 301

PROJECT AREA
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

SUMMARY S-5 

The No-Build Alternative and ten build alternatives were initially developed for the project. 

Three (3) preliminary alternatives (Alternative 2 - Light Blue, Alternative 3 - Black and 

Alternative 4 - White) were dropped from consideration because they did not meet the project 

purpose and need. Based on evaluations of environmental impacts of the remaining seven build 

alternatives, their ability to meet project purpose and need, engineering considerations, resource 

agency consultation and coordination, and public input, DelDOT recommended that three 

alternatives not be retained for detailed study in the DEIS: Orange, Blue and Red.

The No-Build Alternative and four build alternatives (Yellow, Purple, Brown (North and South 

Options) and Green (North and South Options)) were carried forward for detailed evaluation in 

the DEIS (Figure S-3). All of the build alternatives provide a four-lane, limited-access tolled 

highway from the Delaware/Maryland state line to SR 1, south of the C&D Canal. Two of the 

build alternatives (Purple and Green) also provide a two-lane, limited access Spur Road from the 

new US 301 to the Summit Bridge. Details of the alternatives carried forward are summarized 

below and described in detail in Chapter II, Section B. Options considered in certain areas of 

the build alternatives are also described in detail in Chapter II, Section C.

F. DelDOT’s Preferred Alternative 

Following publication of the Draft EIS in November 2006, a Combined Location-Design Public 

Hearing was held on January 8 and 9, 2007 with the US Army Corps of Engineers. Comments 

on the DEIS were received through testimony at the hearing, written comments submitted during 

the hearing, or during the public comment period, which extended through February 3, 2007. 

Based upon the comments received from the public and resource agencies, continued 

consultation with the resource and regulatory agencies, and coordination with the public and 

individual stakeholders and property owners, the recommended Preferred Alternative was 

refined. Additional engineering was undertaken to avoid or minimize impacts, adjust 

alignments, and refine the profiles of the design. On May 16, 2007, the Delaware Secretary of 

Transportation announced that the Green Alternative, North Option, with Armstrong Corner 

Road Area Option 2A, Summit Interchange Option 3B, and Ratledge Road Area Option 4B 

Modified as its Preferred Alternative for the US 301 Project. The Preferred Alternative was 

approved by the Delaware Council on Transportation.

The Preferred (Green North) Alternative extends north from the state line west of Middletown to 

the vicinity of Armstrong Corner Road, where it continues northeast to cross existing US 301. 

The alignment continues north, crossing over SR 896, and extends east, south of the Airmont 

community, and ties into SR 1 south of the C&D Canal. In the vicinity of Armstrong Corner 

Road, a two-lane Spur Road extends north to the Summit Bridge. Access is provided via 

interchanges south of Middletown (Levels Road), in the vicinity of Armstrong Corner Road 

(existing US 301), at Jamison Corner Road north of SR 896, at SR 1 south of the C&D Canal 

crossing, and on the Spur Road at Bethel Church Road extended and south of the Summit 

Bridge. A full description of the Preferred Alternative in included in Chapter II, Section A.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

project development rojectdevelopment

U.S.

US 301 Project Development

Delaware

Department of

Transportation

November 2007

É Figure

Not to Scale S-3

ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR

DETAILED EVALUATION
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

SUMMARY S-7 

DelDOT’s preference for the Green North Alternative is based upon consideration of the 

potential for impacts to communities (property acquisition, potential relocation issues, and 

community facilities (including Summit Airport); natural resources (wetlands and other Waters 

of the US, potential bog turtle habitat, and forests); historic resources (historic buildings and 

structures, potential archaeological sites); and engineering design (ability to meet project purpose 

and need, design complexity, construction costs). The Preferred Alternative meets the project’s 

purpose and need while minimizing impacts to the environment. The preferred options were 

chosen based on their ability to minimize impacts to the natural environment and community 

resources.

G. Alternatives Not Preferred 

1. Alternatives Retained for Detailed Evaluation

The No-Build Alternative and four build alternatives, two with optional north and south 

alignments, were retained for detailed evaluation during the alternatives analysis process. Full 

descriptions of these alternatives and the reasons they are not preferred are detailed in Chapter

II, Section B.

a. No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative was carried forward for detailed evaluation as a baseline condition. 

The No-Build Alternative reflects the existing roadway conditions, with only scheduled 

maintenance and minor roadway and safety improvements. Programmed improvements included 

in the Delaware Department of Transportation Capital Transportation Plan FY 2008 – FY 2013 

(CTP) are assumed under the No-Build Alternative and all of the build alternatives, but the 

alternatives do not include any of the impacts associated with the CTP improvements. The build 

alternatives were compared to the No-Build Alternative with respect to impacts to the natural and 

built environment. 

b. Yellow Alternative 

The Yellow Alternative extends north parallel to existing US 301 from the state line to Mount 

Pleasant and then extends east-west to SR 1, parallel to SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road). Four 

interchanges provide access to service roads south of Middletown, to existing US 301 north of 

Middletown, to existing SR 896 at Mount Pleasant, and to SR 1 north of Boyds Corner Road. 

The Yellow Alternative was not preferred because of potential physical impacts to historic 

properties, the high number of potential residential (128) and business (58) displacements, and 

the high number of potential impacts to wetlands (50.5 acres in 33 wetlands) and waters of the 

US (20,708 linear feet). As shown in Table S-1, these potential impacts were the highest among 

all of the retained alternatives evaluated. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

SUMMARY S-8 

c. Purple Alternative 

The Purple Alternative extends north from the state line on a new location, west of Middletown 

and existing US 301 (commonly referred to as the ridge route or ridge alignment) to the vicinity 

of Armstrong Corner Road. From Armstrong Corner Road, the Purple Alternative extends on 

new location northeast to SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road) and then east along the SR 896 (Boyds 

Corner Road) alignment to SR 1. In the vicinity of Armstrong Corner Road, a two-lane Spur 

Road extends north along the ridge route to the Summit Bridge. Interchanges provide local 

access south of Middletown at Levels Road extended, north of Middletown in the vicinity of 

Armstrong Corner Road, north of Boyds Corner Road on Jamison Corner Road, at SR 1, and on 

the Spur Road at Bethel Church Road extended and south of the Summit Bridge. The Purple 

Alternative was not preferred because of the high number of community impacts associated with 

the portion of the alternative that parallels Boyds Corner Road. Specifically, of the 148 potential 

residential noise impacts, 45 were identified at residences and communities along Boyds Corner 

Road where mitigation would not be feasible; potential impacts to the New Covenant 

Presbyterian Church; potential farmland/approved development impacts; and potential noise 

impacts to the Cedar Lane Educational Campus. 

d. Brown Alternative, North and South Options 

The Brown Alternative extends north from the state line on the ridge route, west of Middletown, 

to south of Summit Bridge. The North Option turns east, north of Summit Bridge Farms, while 

the South Option turns east south of Summit Bridge Farms. Both options continue east and join 

SR 1 south of the C&D Canal crossing and north of the SR 1 Biddles Corner Toll Plaza. Local 

access is provided by interchanges south of Middletown at Levels Road extended, south of 

Summit Bridge, on SR 896 north of Summit Airport, and on Jamison Corner Road north of 

Boyds Corner Road and at SR 1. The Brown Alternative Options were not preferred because of 

their potential impacts to the Summit Airport and the potential high number of communities 

impacted by the options. Potential impacts to natural environmental resources were similar in 

numbers to those of the Purple and Green Alternatives; however, the Brown Alternative Options 

were opposed by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 

(DNREC) because of their potential impacts to high quality wetlands and relatively undisturbed 

natural stream systems and wildlife corridors in the area adjacent to and within the C&D Canal 

State Wildlife Area and State Natural Area. 

e. Green Alternative, South Option 

The Green Alternative extends north from the state line on the ridge route, west of Middletown, 

to the vicinity of Armstrong Corner Road, where it curves northeast crossing existing US 301, 

the Norfolk Southern Railroad, and SR 896 before curving east to join SR 1 south of Scott Run. 

In the vicinity of Armstrong Corner Road, a two-lane Spur Road extends on the ridge route to the 

Summit Bridge. The Green South Option provides local access via interchanges south of 

Middletown at Levels Road extended, north of Middletown in the vicinity of Armstrong Corner 

Road, north of Boyds Corner Road on Jamison Corner Road, at SR 1, and on the Spur Road at 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

SUMMARY S-9 

Bethel Church Road extended and south of the Summit Bridge. Although the impacts to natural 

and human environmental resources were similar between the North and South Options, the 

South Option was not preferred for its additional impacts to the sensitive Scott Run watershed, 

i.e., a longer and more skewed bridge crossing and an additional crossing over Scott Run when 

compared to the Green North Option. DNREC, the ACOE and the EPA also preferred the Green 

North Option over the South because of the South Option’s larger impacts to wetlands (28.3 

acres in 40 wetlands) and the additional crossing of Scott Run.

H. Alternative Options 

Multiple options for the four retained alternatives were evaluated at three locations – Armstrong 

Corner Road, Boyds Corner Road, and south of Summit Bridge on the Spur Road – to determine 

the most effective design with the least impacts to the socioeconomic and natural environment, 

as shown on Figure S-4. An additional set of options was evaluated in the Ratledge Road area 

for the Preferred Green North Alternative to determine the most acceptable compromise between 

saving active farms and avoiding wetlands. The following alternative options were evaluated, 

each of which is described in detail in Chapter II, Section C. 

1. Armstrong Corner Road (ACR) Area Options (Purple and Green Alternatives)

Four options for the interchange with existing US 301, north of Middletown, were considered in 

the ACR area in an effort to minimize impacts to wetlands, forest, residences, businesses and the 

Middletown Baptist Church. These options are detailed in Chapter II.C.1.

ACR Area Option 1 would provide a diamond interchange between the new US 301 and 

Armstrong Corner Road east of Choptank Road, with ramps providing local access on 

Armstrong Corner Road, west of existing US 301. Armstrong Corner Road would overpass both 

the new US 301 mainline and spur road. 

ACR Area Option 2 would provide a diamond interchange between new US 301 and a relocated 

existing US 301. Armstrong Corner Road would be realigned to overpass the Spur Road. New 

US 301 would overpass Armstrong Corner Road south of the diamond interchange. 

ACR Area Option 2A (Preferred) would provide right-on/right-off ramps between new and 

existing US 301. The entrance and exit ramps would be located on existing US 301. This 

Option is preferred because it locates the interchange on existing US 301 without requiring its 

relocation, has significantly less right of way and relocation impacts than Option 2 and avoids 

direct impacts to the Middletown Baptist Church building and parking area. The Option 

provides an acceptable level of impacts to wetlands (the majority of impacts are to medium 

quality wetlands (8.7 of 10.0 acres of impact)) and the least (9.9 acres) impacts to forests in the 

area.
?¡

)p

)h

AÝ

?¡

AØ

)h

?¡

?1

?Î

A×

AØ

)p

k

Townsend

Odessa

Middletown

B

G

BN

BS

GN GS

B Y

Y

P P P

G

Spur

Y B

P

G

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

Summit Interchange

Ratledge Road

Area Options

Ratledge Road

Area Options

Area Options

Boyds Corner Road

Area Options

Armstrong Corner Road

Area Options

G

November 2007 Figure

II-7

É

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

Alignment Options

1 in. = 1.1 mi.

US 301 Project Development

Locations of Alignment Options Considered

Delaware

Department of

Transportation S-4

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

SUMMARY S-11 

ACR Area Option 3 would provide a diamond interchange between the new US 301 and 

Armstrong Corner Road similar to Option 1 but further to the south than Option 1.

2. Boyds Corner Road (BCR) Area Options (Yellow and Purple Alternatives)

Four options were developed for the Yellow and Purple Alternatives in this area to minimize 

impacts to existing farms, the New Covenant Presbyterian Church and the proposed Bayberry 

Town Center. The BCR Area options are detailed in Chapter II.C.2. The options at Boyds 

Corner Road do not pertain to the Preferred Alternative. 

The BCR Area Option 1 would cross to the north of SR 896 just west of Cedar Lane Road and be 

less than 300 feet north of SR 896 at Jamison Corner Road, remaining on the north side of 

existing SR 896 to just east of Jamison Corner Road. The option would then cross to south of 

SR 896 and follow the south side of existing Boyds Corner Road to cross over Shallcross Lake 

Road, US 13, and SR 1 and tie into SR 1. 

The BCR Area Option 2 mainline alignment would pass over SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road) west 

of Cedar Lane Road, continue northeast and cross Jamison Corner Road approximately 2,200 

feet north SR 896 along the southern side of the Emerson Dairy Farm. Option 2 would continue 

east through the Emerson Farm, turn towards the south to cross over Milford Drive and SR 896, 

and continue on the south side and parallel to existing SR 896, crossing over US 13 and SR 1 

before tying into SR 1.

The BCR Area Option 3 mainline would pass over Boyds Corner Road west of Cedar Lane 

Road, then cross over Jamison Corner Road approximately 1,500 feet north of SR 896, traverse 

the northwest corner of the proposed Bayberry Town Center property and the southeast corner of 

the Emerson Dairy Farm, continue east through the proposed Town Center, and then turn 

towards the south to cross over Milford Drive and SR 896 and continue on the south side of and 

parallel to existing SR 896, crossing over US 13 and SR 1 before tying into SR 1.

The BCR Area Option 4 mainline would pass over Boyds Corner Road, cross over Jamison 

Corner Road approximately 750 feet north of SR 896, traverse the southwest corner of the 

proposed Bayberry Town Center, and cross over SR 896 to the south side approximately 2,400 

feet east of Jamison Corner Road. The alignment would cross over Shallcross Lake Road, US 13 

and SR 1 before tying into SR 1.

3. Summit Interchange (SI) Area Options (Yellow, Purple and Green Alternatives)

Two interchange options were considered for the Yellow Alternative at the SR 15/SR 896 

intersection at the base of Summit Bridge to address safety and traffic issues. SI Options are 

detailed in Chapter II.C.3.

SI Area Option 1 for the Yellow Alternative would provide a partial cloverleaf interchange in the 

present location of the SR 15/SR 896 intersection at the base of Summit Bridge. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

SUMMARY S-12 

SI Area Option 2 for the Yellow Alternative would include a grade-separated interchange in the 

present location of the SR 15/SR 896 intersection at the base of Summit Bridge, providing an atgrade through movement for vehicles traveling to/from SR 896 and the Summit Bridge by 

improving the existing curve. 

Five interchange options were considered for the Purple and Green Alternatives at the 

SR 15/SR 896 intersection at the base of Summit Bridge to address safety and traffic issues.

SI Area Option 1 would provide a full diamond interchange at the intersection of SR 15, SR 896, 

and the Spur Road, with free traffic flow between the Spur Road and the Summit Bridge and 

signalized ramp termini. 

SI Area Option 2 would provide a directional “Y” interchange between SR 896 and the US 301 

Spur Road, improving the sharp curve (the direct movement) on SR 896 to the desired design 

speed and providing a continuous traffic flow for the major movements on SR 896. 

SI Area Option 3 would provide a directional “Y” interchange between SR 896 and the US 301 

Spur Road, similar to SI Area Option 2, with a cul-de-sac on Bethel Church Road both east and 

west of the interchange. Access to SR 15 would be provided by a signalized intersection at the 

Spur Road and an extended Bethel Church Road. 

SI Area Option 3B (Preferred) would provide the same roadways and interchange ramps as 

Option 3, but would replace the signalized intersection at Bethel Church Road extended and the 

Spur Road with a partial cloverleaf interchange. SI Area Option 3B is preferred because it 

provides free flowing traffic on the Spur Road, does not include any signals/intersections on the 

Spur Road (thus reducing noise associated with stopping/starting), and it provides an unbroken 

median along the entire Spur Road length. 

SI Area Option 4 would provide the same directional “Y” interchange between SR 896 and the 

US 301 Spur Road as Option 3. In addition, access to the Spur Road would be provided by 

signalized intersections at Bethel Church Road extended, Churchtown Road and Old 

Schoolhouse Road.

4. Ratledge Road (RR) Area Options (Green North Alternative only)

Seven options were considered for the Green North Alternative following publication of the 

DEIS to address potential impacts to active farms in the Boyds Corner Road area between 

Ratledge Road and Jamison Corner Road while minimizing impacts to wetlands and forests, 

especially those of high quality. The RR Area Options are detailed in Chapter II.C.4. All of 

the options extend north before curving east to interchange with Jamison Corner Road. 

RR Area Option 1 alignment would follow an almost due north alignment, crossing Boyds 

Corner Road approximately 450 feet east of Ratledge Road. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

SUMMARY S-13 

RR Area Option 2 would follow an almost due north alignment, approximately 350 feet east of 

Option 1, crossing Boyds Corner Road approximately 875 feet east of Ratledge Road. 

RR Area Option 3 would follow a more northeasterly alignment, crossing Boyds Corner Road 

approximately 1,350 feet east of Ratledge Road. 

RR Area Option 4 would follow an almost due north alignment, crossing Boyds Corner Road 

approximately 2,900 feet east of Ratledge Road. 

RR Area Option 4A would follow an alignment slightly to the east of Option 3 and west of 

Option 4, crossing Boyds Corner Road approximately 1,900 feet east of Ratledge Road. 

RR Area Option 4B would follow the Delaware Power and Light (DP&L) right-of-way, crossing 

Boyds Corner Road approximately 2,140 feet east of Ratledge Road.

RR Area Option 4B Modified (Preferred) shifts the Option 4B alignment on the north side of 

Boyds Corner Road slightly eastward to minimize impacts to a higher quality wetland system 

and forest land. 

I. Summary of Potential Impacts 

The environmental impacts of the Preferred Alternative are described in Chapter III and 

summarized in Table S-1 and the following sections. A summary of the impacts considered 

during the evaluation of the four retained alternatives, including the Green North Alternative, is 

also presented below and summarized on Table S-2 following the discussion. Changes that have 

occurred in the Preferred Alternative impacts, when compared to the impacts detailed for the 

Green North Alternative in the DEIS, are also discussed in the following paragraphs. 

Three refinements of the Green North Alternative have been undertaken since its 

recommendation as Preferred Alternative in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS); 

each has contributed to an increase in some impacts for the Preferred Alternative. It is estimated 

that these refinements would have brought about a similar increase in the levels of impacts from 

all of the build alternatives if they had all been subjected to a similar level of design refinement. 

First, the design of the Preferred Alternative was refined as a result of comments received on 

the DEIS. Refinements in the engineering included alignment modifications, refined sections 

based on topography, and refined stormwater management design based on the identification 

of existing drainage areas. These refinements required that the roadway elevations be raised 

in some areas to provide adequate drainage for stormwater management, resulting in an 

increased Limit of Disturbance (LOD). Prior to refined engineering, the LOD for the Green 

North Alternative was 897 acres; the Preferred Alternative LOD encompasses 941 acres, a 

five percent increase. This increase would have been seen in all of the build alternatives, had 

they been subjected to a similar level of engineering design.
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

SUMMARY S-14 

Second, the forest layer was refined to reflect current coverage, based on more recent and 

improved aerial photography (2006) along the Preferred Alternative alignment. This resulted 

in several previously classified forested wetlands being reclassified and the inclusion of 

hedgerows not previously included. The resulting increases in forest coverage, along with 

the expanded LOD, led to an increase in the acreage of impacted forestland for the Preferred 

Alternative that would, in some areas, apply proportionally to the other build alternatives. 

Finally, improved wetland delineation for the Preferred Alternative included the separate 

delineation of streams that had previously been included within wetland systems (i.e., 

streams within a wetland corridor); ephemeral, intermittent and perennial waters of the US 

not surrounded by wetlands were also surveyed; and traditional field survey methods were 

used to precisely locate wetland boundaries previously based on GPS surveys.

Table S-1: Summary of the Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 

Resource Preferred

Alternative 

Alignment Length (mi.) 17.5 

Total Area (acres)1 941

Total Displacements (No.) 21 

Affected Properties (No.) 143 

Wetlands (acres)2 35.0 

Wetlands (No.) 63 

Tidal Wetlands (acres)3 0 

Waters of the US (lf) 17,883 

100-Year Floodplain (acres) 0.7 

Agricultural Districts (No./acres) 1/32.6 

Agricultural Easements (No./acres) 2/10.9 

Prime Farmland Soils (acres) 616 

Hydric Soils (acres) 166 

Upland Forested Land (acres) 63.7 

Residential Noise Impacts (No.) 133 

Residential Noise Impacts after Proposed Visual Berms (No.) 46 

National Register Historic Properties: Physical (No.)4 0

National Register Historic Properties: Visual or Noise (No.) 15 

Capital Cost ($M) (2006 dollars) $534-$590 

Notes: 1. Based on preferred options for Armstrong Corner Road Area, Boyds Corner Road Area, 

Summit Interchange Area and Ratledge Road Area (Preferred only). Impacts based on 

Limit of Disturbance as defined in Chapter II. 

 2. Total area of potential ACOE wetlands impacted. 

 3. DNREC tidal wetlands acres included in total wetland. 

 4. One historic archaeological site for which National Register eligibility has not been 

determined will be directly impacted by the Preferred Alternative. 

1. Socioeconomic Resources 

The impacts of the build alternatives were evaluated on socioeconomic resources, including 

residences, businesses, land use, planned development, farms, and aesthetics in the project area. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

SUMMARY S-15 

The No-Build Alternative will not impact any properties. The Preferred Alternative will impact 

a total of 143 properties, of which 26 will be full acquisitions and 117 will be partial 

acquisitions. DelDOT will obtain a permanent easement on one additional property. Occupants 

of approximately 21 residential or business properties will require relocation assistance, 

including 17 total acquisitions and four partial acquisitions, resulting in 35 separate relocation 

assignments. 

Relocation assistance will be provided to all residents and businesses as well as owners of 

properties as necessary in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Act (1970) and Amendments (1987); see Appendix F. A relocation plan for the 

project is also included in the Appendix.

As shown in Table S-2, the DEIS retained alternatives would impact between 100 and 377 

properties; of those, between 12 and 207 are total property acquisitions. The most property 

acquisitions are with the Yellow Alternative (207 total and 170 partial takings). The Purple, 

Brown and Green South would require between 12 and 30 total takings and between 88 and 124 

partial property takes (Chapter III Section A.5). 

There are many communities located within 600 feet of one or more of the proposed alternatives 

alignments. Most of the communities consist of neighborhoods of between 20 and 200 singlefamily homes within individual developments. The community of Middletown Village is the 

largest group of homeowners in the project area, with approximately 290 single family 

residences and almost 500 town homes (Chapter III Section A.6). The Town of Middletown 

will be impacted by the Yellow Alternative as it bisects the town, affecting local access and 

cross-town connectivity and impacting many existing businesses and residences that front 

existing US 301 and SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road). The Brown, Purple and Green Alternatives 

would have less impact on existing communities, however, these alternatives will create 

individual property impacts within communities. 

The No-Build Alternative would not impact communities in the project area. There are potential 

aesthetic and visual impacts to communities and individual properties within the viewshed of the 

alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative (Chapter III Section A.8). The proposed new 

roadway will be visible from numerous homes in the project area whose existing views are of 

farm fields and a rural landscape. In some areas, proposed visual screening earth berms will 

minimize the effects of this change. The Preferred Alternative will provide visual screening 

berms for the communities of Southridge, Middletown Village, Springmill, Chesapeake Meadow 

and Airmont. 

There are no impacts to community facilities from the No-Build Alternative. The Preferred 

Alternative would require acquisition of property from the Appoquinimink High School. 

Potential impacts to community facilities from the four build alternatives include the acquisition 

of property from Appoquinimink High School (Preferred, Purple, Brown and Green South 

Alternatives), access impacts to the Odessa Fire & Rescue Station 4 (Purple and Yellow), and 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

SUMMARY S-16 

impacts to Summit Airport (Brown Alternative) (Chapter III Section A.4). There are no 

impacts to parks and recreation areas. 

The No-Build would not affect land use; the Preferred Alternative will impact 941 acres of 

existing land use, converting the acreage to transportation use. Design refinements of the 

Preferred Alternative that required raising the elevation of the roadway in some areas to assure 

proper drainage and channel stormwater runoff increased the amount of land use change from 

897 acres to 941 acres. A proportional increase would likely apply to the other alternatives not 

subjected to refined design. As recorded in the DEIS, a comparison of land use changes for the 

retained alternatives indicated between 870 and 902 acres would be converted from existing uses 

to transportation use. The greatest land use change is for agricultural lands; the Preferred 

Alternative would convert 757 acres. The retained alternatives would convert between 521 and 

767 acres to transportation use (Table III-3 in Chapter III Section A.2.). Much of this land is 

already proposed for urban development. 

All of the alternatives, except the No-Build, will impact some planned development. The 

Preferred Alternative will affect areas of Westown, Pleasanton, Churchtown Manor, Scott Run 

Business Park, the Village of Scott Run, Windsor at Hyetts Corner and the Whitehall Properties. 

The Westown development area (Table III-4) would be impacted by construction of the Yellow, 

Brown, Purple and Green Alternatives. Scott Run Industrial Park will be affected by 

construction of the Green and Brown Alternatives. The Villages of Bayberry would be affected 

by the Yellow, Purple and Green South Alternatives. 

The No-Build Alternative will not affect farms or farmland in the project area. The Preferred 

Alternative, because of the larger footprint based on topography and the need to raise the 

elevation of the roadway in some sections (discussed earlier), will impact 616 acres of farmland 

soils and 28 active farm parcels (not planned for development). The Preferred Alternative will 

impact two preservation easements (10.9 acres) and one preservation district (32.6 acres). The 

retained alternatives, as shown in the DEIS, would impact between 203 and 437 acres of prime 

farmland soils and between 9 and 16 active farm parcels not currently proposed for development 

(Chapter III Section A.4). One agricultural easement and one agricultural district would be 

impacted by the Purple, Brown and Green Alternatives; and one agricultural district would be 

impacted by the Yellow Alternative. 

2. Cultural Resources

The evaluation of cultural resources within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the project 

alternatives for both standing structures and potential archaeological sites is detailed in Chapter

III Section B. Thirty-one historic buildings and structures were identified within the Area of 

Potential Effect of the project alternatives that are listed or eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places. One known archaeological resource, for which National Register 

eligibility has not been determined, lies within the LOD of the alternatives. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

SUMMARY S-17 

The No-Build Alternative will not affect historic properties within the project area. Consultation 

to apply the Criteria of Adverse Effect to all historic properties affected by the Preferred 

Alternative (22) resulted in the determination that the Preferred Alternative will have an adverse 

effect on 12 properties, will have no adverse effect on three properties, and will have no effect on 

seven properties. The Preferred Alternative will have an adverse effect on one identified 

archaeological resource. Measures to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate for adverse effects will be 

determined in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and other 

consulting parties prior to the completion of final design. The results of the assessment of 

adverse effects and stipulations for completing the treatment of affected properties are detailed in

Section III.B.2 and in the draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in Appendix H.

Among the build alternatives, initially there were potential noise and visual effects to between 16 

and 22 historic properties. After determining the National Register recommended historic 

boundaries, only the Yellow Alternative would have direct physical effects on identified historic 

properties (4). Both Brown Alternatives would physically affect one additional historic property 

(J. Biggs House, CRS No. N06320); however, assessing the property’s eligibility for the 

National Register would require constructive demolition and investigation of the building’s 

interior.

One identified archaeological resource (N05151) for which National Register eligibility has not 

been determined will be directly affected by the Purple, Brown and Green Alternatives. A 

predictive model identified areas of high, medium, low and nil sensitivity to contain 

archaeological sites. The model was partially tested and refined to further define those areas. 

Further investigation for archaeological resources will be undertaken and completed, as detailed 

in the MOA, prior to commencement of any construction activities. The MOA also details the 

disposition of any identified archaeological remains that may be found within the area of 

disturbance of the Selected Alternative as well as procedures to be followed for unexpected 

discoveries.

3. Air Quality

The project area is located within an area of non-attainment for ozone. To comply with regional 

air quality requirements, following the receipt of the Record of Decision (ROD), the US 301 

project will be included in the next applicable WILMAPCO Regional Transportation Plan

(RTP) and its component air quality conformity analysis. The RTP demonstrates conformity 

with the State of Delaware State Implementation Plan (SIP) applicable air quality budgets.

To determine local impacts, a project level emissions analysis for carbon monoxide (CO) was 

completed (see Tables III-28, 29, and 30). A relative comparison of results of this analysis 

between the No-Build and build alternatives indicated that there would be little to no difference 

in the overall emissions of CO within the project area. The air quality analysis results are 

presented in Chapter III Section C. None of the alternatives, including the Preferred 

Alternative, would cause or exacerbate any violations of applicable National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are discussed in Chapter III Section K.
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

SUMMARY S-18 

4. Noise 

As presented in the DEIS, between 63 and 108 individual residential noise impacts were 

identified for the build alternatives. Engineering refinements for the Preferred Alternative 

required the roadway to be elevated for proper drainage in the vicinity of Bunker Hill Road. 

This required a mainline alignment shift that brought the roadway closer to the community of 

Southridge in order to bring the Bunker Hill Road overpass back to grade before the Choptank 

Road intersection and avoid impacts to the historic property (Rosedale) in the northwest 

quadrant. When compared to the alignment in the DEIS, this shift caused an increase in 

individual residential noise impacts in the community of Southridge from 7 to 75, bringing the 

total noise impacts for the Preferred Alternative to 133 before adding the visual earth berms. 

This shift would have also occurred with the Brown, Purple and Green South Alternatives, were 

they subjected to similar engineering refinement. 

When the noise abatement criteria were applied to the impacted noise sensitive areas, noise 

abatement in most areas was not considered feasible and reasonable. With the implementation of 

visual screening berms, noise impacts for the Preferred Alternative are reduced to 46 residences. 

The efficacy of visual screening berms to reduce the noise impacts associated with the Preferred 

Alternative is summarized in Table III-40 in Chapter III Section D.

5. Hazardous Materials Sites

The Preferred Alternative would not impact or be impacted by any known hazardous materials 

site. A review of DNREC’s environmental databases identified the locations of known 

contaminated sites in the project area. Of 23 Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites 

with documented or suspected contamination and six Site Investigation and Restoration Sites 

identified within the project area, up to four would be potentially within the proposed right of 

way of either the Yellow, Brown or Purple Alternatives. Chapter III Section E includes details 

of the investigation. 

6. Natural Resources

The No-Build Alternative would not affect natural resources in the project area. The project 

build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, would affect project area topography, 

soils, groundwater, streams, wetlands, floodplains, forests, terrestrial and aquatic habitat, and 

wildlife. The following is a summary of the natural environmental effects of the project, which 

are discussed in detail in Chapter III, Section F.

The roadway grades of the Preferred Alternative generally follow existing landscape grades; in 

some locations, the roadway is slightly depressed below grade to minimize visual impacts or 

elevated above existing grade to assure proper drainage. Most local roads are designed to 

overpass the US 301 mainline and spur road. Only minor excavation is expected from the 

project, resulting in minor localized changes in topography. Aquifers that are located within 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

SUMMARY S-19 

geologic formations that underlie the US 301 project area will not be directly affected by any of 

the project alternatives. 

The Preferred Alternative will impact 616 acres of prime farmland soils and 166 acres of hydric 

soils within the project area. The Preferred Alternative’s larger footprint resulted in an increase 

in impacts over the 437 acres of prime farmland soils and over the 146 acres of hydric soils 

reported in the DEIS. As reported in the DEIS, the retained alternatives would impact between 

203 and 437 acres of prime farmland soils and between 115 and 158 acres of hydric soils. A 

proportional increase in the acreages of soils impacted is likely with the other alternatives, were 

they subjected to a similar level of design refinement. Much of the area of prime farmland soils 

and soils of statewide importance is slated for development. 

Bridge and/or culvert construction at stream crossings, sedimentation, removal of riparian 

vegetation and surface water diversions will result in impacts to water quality within the project 

area watersheds. The Preferred Alternative will impact a total of 45 surface waters. The impacts 

of the build alternatives evaluated in the DEIS ranged from 39 to 57 impacts to surface waters. 

Impacts to stream and wetland surface water quality may result from each of the build 

alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative. Direct impacts that result from bridge or 

roadway construction or those involving the disturbance of stream banks or channels will have 

an adverse impact on water quality by affecting stream flow rates, temperature and nutrient 

levels. The clearing and excavation of previously forested or agricultural lands may cause an 

increase in soil erosion and lead to further sedimentation of surface water features. Similarly, 

reductions in riparian forest may lead to elevated water temperatures which is directly limiting to 

cold-water fishes and decreases dissolved oxygen limiting to all aquatic life. Properly designed 

and constructed stormwater management facilities will control runoff entering surface water 

features from newly created highways and drainage ways and reduce the potential for 

sedimentation impact to receiving waters. During construction, the implementation of best 

management practices (BMPs) will reduce potential negative effects. Proper erosion and 

sediment control measures will be employed to limit the amount of erosion and the influx of 

sediment loads into adjacent surface waters. 

Each of the alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, would adversely affect waters of the 

United States, including wetlands, by displacing or filling these systems. Impacts also include 

interruption to wetland or stream hydrology. The Preferred Alternative will impact 35.0 acres of 

wetlands and 17,883 linear feet of waters of the US. These impacts are based upon (1) postDEIS surveys of the Preferred Alternative wetlands and waters of the US and (2) separate 

delineation of streams and ditches previously included within wetlands systems (see Chapter 

III.F.6.a). As previously reported in the DEIS, wetlands impacts of the retained alternatives 

ranged between 18.5 to 50.5 acres, and between 14,278 and 20,708 linear feet of impact to 

waters of the US.

In accordance with federal and state regulations, avoidance and minimization measures to reduce 

impacts to wetlands and waters will be implemented. At a minimum, the Preferred Alternative 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

SUMMARY S-20 

will include 53.4 acres of wetland replacement, including forested and emergent areas. Two 

sites are identified for this, one to the west of Levels Road and one in the Pleasanton area. An 

additional seven acres of wetland creation and 20 acres of wetland conservation will be included 

in the Scott Run watershed. The project will also mitigate impacts to streams through restoration 

of approximately 55 linear feet of stream restoration and the creation of approximately 50 acres 

of new riparian buffer. Ditch impacts will be mitigated in-kind by the creation of new ditches 

along the roadway. Evaluation of the potential sites and design of the mitigation is still under 

development and will be completed during final design.

Impacts to floodplains have not been fully evaluated because of the lack of available floodplain 

data. The Preferred Alternative will impact 0.7 acres of FEMA floodplains. A detailed survey 

of floodplain limits will be conducted during the design phase of the project, and a floodplain 

permit will be obtained from New Castle County. Each of the build alternatives described in the 

DEIS would require some encroachment into FEMA floodplains, ranging from 1.0 to 1.5 acres. 

The Preferred Alternative will impact 63.7 acres of forest, an increase from 34.1 acres reported 

in the DEIS. The increase is due to new forest and habitat delineations, including the inclusion 

of hedgerows not previously evaluated, based upon new (2006) aerial photography, and would 

likely apply proportionally to the other alternatives were they to be similarly delineated. The 

build alternatives described in the DEIS would impact between 36.8 and 51.0 acres of forested 

land. Mitigation for forest impacts will include approximately 67 acres on six selected sites. 

Refer to Chapter III.F.8.b.(2).

Historic records of the federally-threatened bog turtle exist within the project area (Chapter III 

Section F.9). Phase I surveys were completed to determine potential bog turtle habitat. Phase II 

(visual and physical search) and Phase III (trapping) surveys for bog turtles were completed in 

compliance with the requirements specified by USFWS and DNREC. No bog turtles were found 

in any surveyed area. The site of the 1972 bog turtle sighting is identified as potentially 

occupied. All of the build alternatives will impact the potentially occupied watershed which 

could result in direct bog turtle impacts and in indirect and direct bog turtle habitat impacts. 

However, the potential for impacts is minimal for all of the build alternatives, including the 

Preferred Alternative, because no bog turtles have been found in the watershed since 1972 and 

detailed Phase II/III surveys conducted in 2006 revealed no bog turtles present. A biological 

assessment of the affected area was conducted and is summarized in Chapter III Section F.9.

The result indicated that the project build alternatives “May Effect but is Unlikely to Adversely 

Affect” the bog turtle.

No other rare, threatened or endangered species are anticipated to be impacted by any of the 

build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative. There is a potential for all of the build 

alternatives to impact the state-listed queen snake, a wetland-habitat species. Minimization of 

wetland impacts and wetlands mitigation will limit impact to the queen snake. The bald eagle, 

no longer federally listed as endangered, is still protected by buffer restrictions and time-of-year 

restrictions on construction activities. No known nest sites are within the federal protective 750-
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

SUMMARY S-21 

foot buffer or within the one-quarter mile time-of-year restriction buffer of the Preferred 

Alternative. 

7. Secondary and Cumulative Effects Analysis

A secondary and cumulative effects analysis (SCEA) is included within this FEIS. The 

geographic boundary (Figure III-24) for the analysis is based on a composite overlay analysis 

that includes the extent of the project’s influence on regional traffic. The time frame used to 

fully understand regional changes and the potential future changes within the geographic 

boundary is from 1980 to 2030. 

In the DEIS, the SCEA concluded that the project’s completion most likely will not influence the 

amount or location of development and consequent land use change that would occur in the area; 

however, the completion of a build alternative, including the Preferred Alternative, may 

influence the rate that planned development may occur. Additional indirect effects could occur 

as a result of changes in travel patterns associated with the build alternatives, including traffic 

volume changes resulting from toll diversions. An interstate Toll Diversion Working Group was 

convened to address toll diversion issues in Delaware and Maryland and recommend measures to 

minimize or mitigate toll diversions (Chapter III.G.4.d). Travel pattern changes could result in 

indirect effects to communities and resources outside of the project area. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

SUMMARY

Table S-2: Summary of Impacts of the Alternatives Retained for Detailed Evaluation, as Detailed in the DEIS

 S-22 

1

Alternative No-Build Yellow Purple Brown Green 

New alignment (ridge route); new 

alignment from Summit Bridge to SR 1 

New alignment (ridge route); new 

alignment from Armstrong Corner Road 

to SR 1 (with spur) Resource Existing roadways On US 301 and SR 896 alignment 

New alignment 

(ridge route); on 

SR 896 alignment

(with spur) North Option South Option North Option South Option 

Alignment Length (mi.) 0 19.4 16.9 17.5 15.9 17.5 17.3 Total Area (acres) 0 870 902 896 894 897 876 Res. Displacements (No.) 0 128 7 2 2 4 4 Bus. Displacements (No.) 0 58 5 4 4 8 7 Affected Properties (No.) 0 377 154 100 100 132 130 Wetlands (acres)2 0 50.5 24.9 23.9 18.5 26.2 28.3 Wetlands (No.) 0 33 45 39 35 43 40 Tidal Wetlands (acres)3 0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Waters of the US (lf) 0 20,7084 16,2574 15,1584 14,2784 15,5154 16,3264100-Year Floodplain (acres) 0 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Agricultural Districts (No./acres) 0 1/14.1 1/32.6 1/32.6 1/32.6 1/32.6 1/32.6 Agricultural Easements (No./acres) 0 0 1/6.0 1/9.4 1/12.4 1/6.0 1/6.0 Prime Farmland Soils (acres) 0 203 415 412 424 437 398 Hydric Soils (acres) 0 158 147 119 115 146 145 Upland Forested Land (acres) 0 36.95 39.95 37.45 51.05 34.15 36.85Residential Noise Impacts (No.) 0 74 108 67 64 77 63 Residential Noise Impacts after Proposed Visual Berms (No.) 0 74 77 14 27 32 32 National Register Historic Properties: Physical (No.) 0 4 06 06 06 06 06National Register Historic Properties: Visual or Noise (No.) 0 19 22 177 167 21 21 Capital Cost ($M) (2006 dollars) 0 $686-$758 $616-$680 $550-$608 $499-$551 $534-$590 $526-$582 NOTES: 1. Based on preferred options for Armstrong Corner Road Area, Boyds Corner Road Area, 

and Summit Interchange Area. Impacts based on Limit of Disturbance as defined and as reported in the DEIS. 

2. Total area of potential ACOE wetlands impacted. 

 3. DNREC tidal wetlands acres included in total wetland. 

4. Does not include waters within wetlands. lf = linear feet 

5. Does not include forests in wetlands. 6. One historic archaeological site for which National Register eligibility has not been determined will 

be directly impacted by the Purple, Brown and Green Alternatives. 

7. One additional property for which National Register eligibility has not been determined would be 

affected (visual and/or noise) by the Brown Alternatives. Refer to Chapter III, Section B. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

SUMMARY S-23 

J. Permits Required 

The following permits, approvals and agreements will be completed prior to commencement of 

the construction of a build alternative: 

National Environmental Policy Act Process, including the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, Record of Decision, and Reevaluations; 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as memorialized in the 

Memorandum of Agreement among FHWA, DelDOT, the DE State Historic 

Preservation Officer, the Maryland Historic Trust (MD SHPO) and any consulting 

parties that may be identified; 

Biological Assessment and Informal Consultation with the USFWS and DNREC; 

ACOE Individual Permit for Impacts to Waters of the US, including wetlands, under 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; 

DNREC Wetlands and Subaqueous Lands Permit; 

DNREC Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act; 

DNREC Coastal Zone Management Program Federal Consistency Determination; 

Delaware Forest Conservation Act; 

Maryland Reforestation Law; 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit; 

DNREC Erosion and Sediment Certification (DelDOT is designated agency);

Floodplain determination and assessment under Federal Executive Order 11988, US 

Department of Transportation Order 5650.2, National Flood Insurance Act of 1968; 

New Castle County Floodplain Permit; and 

Joint Federal/State Permit for the Alteration of any Floodplain, Waterway, Tidal, or 

Non-Tidal Wetland in Maryland. 

K. Public Involvement Program 

The Public Involvement Program for the US 301 Project Development effort has included 

extensive interaction with members of the public through stakeholder interviews, individual and 

community meetings, public workshops, and outreach through mailings, announcements, bulletin 

boards, a project office and a project website. Close to 100 individuals were initially contacted

during stakeholder interviews. The project mailing list was initially developed from zip code 

listings and continually updated throughout the project process. Members of the Project Team 

met with individuals, business owners, and various community organizations to provide a more 

individualized interaction about project issues. Five sets of Public Workshops and a Public 

Hearing provided the community an opportunity to interact with members of the Project Team, 

view displays, hear presentations, and offer comments about the project’s purpose and need, 

alternatives and impacts. The Project Office was opened in July, 2005 to provide a “drop-in” 

opportunity for members of the public to discuss the project with Team members, and the project 

website, www.us301.org, contained updated information about all facets of the project as well as 

a link to provide comments directly to DelDOT. Information about the project can still be 

obtained on DelDOT’s website at www.deldot.gov/information/projects/us301/.
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

SUMMARY S-24 

L. Areas of Controversy 

As described throughout this FEIS, the US 301 Project Development process has included an 

extensive public involvement effort. Ongoing coordination with local, state and federal 

regulatory agencies and elected officials has addressed most controversial issues associated with 

the project. Where necessary, DelDOT has clarified facts regarding the project and discussed 

issues with interested parties. Development of alternative options, modifications to alignments, 

and other adjustments to the project scope of work have been made to address new issues as they 

were raised. 

Examples of areas of controversy that have been identified during the project and addressed in 

this FEIS include: 

Individual property acquisition of residences, businesses, and community facilities, 

including Summit Airport 

Potential impacts to the Federally-threatened bog turtle 

Origin and destination of traffic; addition of Spur Road to meet project Purpose and 

Need on the Purple and Green Alternatives. 

Substantial environmental effects of the Blue and Red Alternatives 

The potential effects of the project’s build alternatives on secondary growth 

Safety and access requirements at the proposed interchange south of Summit Bridge 

The effects of the build alternatives on travel patterns and traffic volumes (especially 

truck travel), including within Kent and Cecil Counties, Maryland from the effect of 

toll diversion 

Determination of resources eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and 

assessment of adverse effects 

Noise impacts on project area residents and means to mitigate or reduce/eliminate 

noise effects 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative 

Issues regarding the need for the Spur Road and minimization of the impacts 

associated with the Spur Road 

Impacts to two long-term family-owned and operated farms in the Ratledge Road area 

with regard to wetlands, forest, and farmland impact avoidance and minimization 

The need for connectivity between farming communities east and west of the new 

US 301 for farm machinery access and safe travel 

M. Next Steps in the Project Development Process 

Following the review of this Final Environmental Impact Statement, any comments received will 

be considered and addressed in the Record of Decision (ROD) to be completed by the Federal 

Highway Administration. The ROD will finalize the NEPA process and identify a Selected 

Alternative, and the basis for the decision, to complete the project.
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

SUMMARY S-25 

N. Statutory Provisions 

A Federal agency may publish a notice in the Federal Register, pursuant to 23 USC § 139(l), 

indicating that one or more Federal agencies have taken final action on permits, licenses, or 

approvals for a transportation project. If such notice is published, claims seeking judicial review 

of those Federal agency actions will be barred unless such claims are filed within 180 days after 

the date of publication of the notice, or within such shorter time period as specified in the Federal 

laws pursuant to which judicial review of the Federal agency action is allowed. If no notice is 

published, then the periods of time that otherwise are provided by the Federal laws governing 

such claims will apply. 

O. Summary of Costs and Financial Analysis

The US 301 project is proposed to be funded primarily through toll revenue bonds supported by 

tolls at four potential toll collection facilities along the build alternatives: 1) both directions at a 

US 301 mainline plaza located just north of the Delaware-Maryland Line; 2) north serving (to 

and from the north) interchange ramps at Levels Road; 3) north serving ramps at existing US 301 

north of Armstrong Corner Road; and 4) north serving ramps to Jamison Corner Road. 

However, preliminary projections indicate that the toll revenues may not be adequate to 

completely fund the total estimated cost of the project. State Transportation Trust Funds (TTF), 

TTF revenue Bonds, Federal funds, or Federal Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) 

Bonds could be used to provide the remaining required funds. Options involving these and other 

potential funding sources will be evaluated. 

In accordance with FHWA guidance (Federal Register; January 5, 2001), DelDOT will submit a 

final Financial Plan for the funding of the Selected Alternative concurrent with or shortly after a 

ROD is issued. The capital cost estimate for the Preferred Alternative ($534 to $590 million) is 

shown in Table S-1.



US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. PURPOSE AND NEED .....................................................................................................I-1

A. Introduction....................................................................................................................I-1 

1. Background..............................................................................................................I-1 

2. US 301 .....................................................................................................................I-2 

3. Project Area .............................................................................................................I-4

B. Project Purpose ..............................................................................................................I-4 

C. Project Need...................................................................................................................I-4 

1. Safety .......................................................................................................................I-6 

2. Traffic Growth: Existing and Future Conditions....................................................I-7 

a. US 301, Southwest of Middletown....................................................................I-9 

b. US 301/SR 896 at Summit Bridge...................................................................I-10 

c. SR 299, Middletown to Odessa .......................................................................I-10 

d. SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road) at Jamisons Corner...........................................I-10 

3. System Deficiencies...............................................................................................I-11 

4. Demographics and Land Use.................................................................................I-11 

5. Other Transportation Projects................................................................................I-11 

a. Rail Passenger Service.....................................................................................I-12 

b. Enhanced Transit Service and Transit Supportive Infrastructure....................I-12 

c. DelTRAC (ITS) Improvements .......................................................................I-12 

d. US 301 Northbound Weigh and Inspection Station.........................................I-12 

e. Bicycles, Greenways and Trails.......................................................................I-13 

f. Southern New Castle County Local Road Circulation Plan ............................I-13 

g. Westown Roadway Improvement Projects......................................................I-15 

h. Improvements in Maryland..............................................................................I-15 

D. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................I-15 

II. ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................................ II-1

A. Preferred Alternative.................................................................................................... II-1 

1. Description of the Preferred Green North Alternative........................................... II-2 

a. Mainline - State Line to Norfolk Southern Railroad ....................................... II-2 

b. Mainline - Norfolk Southern Railroad to SR 1................................................ II-3 

c. Spur Road - Armstrong Corner Road Area to Summit Bridge........................ II-3 

d. Preferred Options............................................................................................. II-3 

e. Additional Alignment Refinements for the Preferred Alternative................... II-5 

f. General Engineering Concepts ........................................................................ II-6 

B. Alternatives Retained for Detailed Evaluation ............................................................ II-8 

1. No-Build Alternative, Programmed Improvements and Multi-Modal 

Elements......................................................................................................... II-12 

a. Description of the Existing Roadway ............................................................ II-13 

b. Programmed Improvements........................................................................... II-13 

c. Multi-Modal Improvements........................................................................... II-15 

TABLE OF CONTENTS i 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

2. Yellow Alternative............................................................................................... II-16 

a. Detailed Description of the Yellow Alternative ............................................ II-16 

b. Why the Yellow Alternative is not Preferred ................................................ II-17 

3. Purple Alternative ................................................................................................ II-17 

a. Detailed Description of the Purple Alternative.............................................. II-18 

b. Why the Purple Alternative is not Preferred.................................................. II-18 

4. Brown Alternative, North and South Options...................................................... II-19 

a. Detailed Description of the Brown Alternative North and South Options .... II-19 

b. Why the Brown Alternative Options are not Preferred ................................. II-20 

5. Green Alternative South Option .......................................................................... II-20 

a. Detailed Description of the Green Alternative South Option........................ II-21 

b. Why the Green Alternative South Option is not Preferred............................ II-21 

6. Preliminary Comparison of Engineering Features............................................... II-22 

C. Alignment Options Considered.................................................................................. II-23 

1. Armstrong Corner Road (ACR) Area Options –Purple and Green 

Alternatives.................................................................................................... II-25 

a. ACR Area Option 1 ....................................................................................... II-26 

b. ACR Area Option 2 ....................................................................................... II-27 

c. ACR Area Option 2A (Preferred).................................................................. II-27 

d. ACR Area Option 3 ....................................................................................... II-28 

2. Boyds Corner Road (BCR) Area Options – Yellow and Purple Alternatives ..... II-28 

a. BCR Area Option 1........................................................................................ II-29 

b. BCR Area Option 2........................................................................................ II-29 

c. BCR Area Option 3........................................................................................ II-30 

d. BCR Area Option 4........................................................................................ II-30 

3. Summit Interchange (SI) Area Options – Yellow, Purple and Green 

Alternatives.................................................................................................... II-30 

a. SI Area Option 1 – Yellow Alternative ......................................................... II-30 

b. SI Area Option 2 – Yellow Alternative ......................................................... II-30 

c. SI Area Option 1 – Purple and Green Alternatives........................................ II-31 

d. SI Area Option 2 - Purple and Green Alternatives ........................................ II-31 

e. SI Area Option 3 – Purple and Green Alternatives........................................ II-32 

f. SI Area Option 3B - Purple and Green Alternatives (Preferred)................... II-32 

g. SI Area Option 4 – Purple and Green Alternatives........................................ II-33 

4. Ratledge Road (RR) Area Options – Preferred (Green North) Alternative......... II-34 

a. RR Area Option 1 .......................................................................................... II-34 

b. RR Area Option 2 .......................................................................................... II-36 

c. RR Area Option 3 .......................................................................................... II-36 

d. RR Area Option 4 .......................................................................................... II-36 

e. RR Area Option 4A ....................................................................................... II-36 

f. RR Area Option 4B........................................................................................ II-37 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ii 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

g. RR Area Option 4B Modified (Preferred) ..................................................... II-37 

D. Alternatives Not Carried Forward for Further Consideration.................................... II-38 

1. Toll Free Facility.................................................................................................. II-38 

2. Alignment Alternatives........................................................................................ II-38 

a. Red Alternative .............................................................................................. II-38 

b. Orange Alternative......................................................................................... II-40 

c. Blue Alternative, North and South Options................................................... II-40 

3. Purple and Green Alternatives without Spur Road.............................................. II-41 

III. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES................................ III-1

A. Socioeconomic Environment...................................................................................... III-2 

1. Regional Overview ............................................................................................... III-2 

a. Middletown-Odessa-Townsend Planning Area .............................................. III-6 

b. Transportation Network.................................................................................. III-8 

c. Project Conformity with State and Regional Plans....................................... III-10 

2. Land Use ............................................................................................................. III-11 

a. Existing Conditions....................................................................................... III-11 

b. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation .............................................. III-11 

3. Planned Development ......................................................................................... III-15 

a. Existing Conditions....................................................................................... III-15 

b. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation .............................................. III-19 

4. Farms and Farmland ........................................................................................... III-20 

a. Existing Conditions....................................................................................... III-20 

b. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation .............................................. III-23 

5. Population and Housing...................................................................................... III-26 

a. Existing Conditions....................................................................................... III-26 

b. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation .............................................. III-28 

6. Communities and Community Facilities ............................................................ III-30 

a. Existing Conditions....................................................................................... III-30 

b. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation .............................................. III-34 

7. Environmental Justice......................................................................................... III-39 

a. Existing Conditions....................................................................................... III-39 

b. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation .............................................. III-40 

8. Economic Resources........................................................................................... III-41 

a. Existing Conditions....................................................................................... III-41 

b. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation .............................................. III-44 

9. Visual and Aesthetic Characteristics .................................................................. III-45 

a. Existing Conditions....................................................................................... III-45 

b. Environmental Consequences....................................................................... III-45 

c. Mitigation...................................................................................................... III-46 

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

B. Cultural Resources.................................................................................................... III-47

1. Existing Conditions............................................................................................. III-47 

a. Architectural Resources................................................................................ III-47 

b. Archaeological Resources............................................................................. III-51 

2. Environmental Consequences............................................................................. III-52 

a. Architectural Resources................................................................................ III-52 

b. Archaeological Resources............................................................................. III-64 

3. Mitigation/Memorandum of Agreement............................................................. III-67 

C. Air Quality ................................................................................................................ III-67 

1. Relevant Pollutants ............................................................................................. III-68 

2. National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards............................................ III-70 

3. Air Quality Regulations and Status of the Project Area ..................................... III-71 

a. Monitored Air Quality .................................................................................. III-71 

b. Conformance with Air Quality Standards..................................................... III-72 

4. Project Level Emissions Analysis (Microscale Analysis) .................................. III-73 

a. Description of Impacts.................................................................................. III-74 

b. Consequences and Potential Mitigation........................................................ III-80 

5. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) .................................................................. III-80 

D. Noise ......................................................................................................................... III-80 

1. Existing Conditions............................................................................................. III-80 

a. Criteria for Determining Noise Impacts ....................................................... III-80 

b. Analysis Procedures and Methodology ........................................................ III-82 

c. Measured and Predicted Existing Noise Levels............................................ III-82 

2. Environmental Consequences............................................................................. III-91 

a. Predicted Future Noise Levels...................................................................... III-91 

b. Impact Assessment/Abatement................................................................... III-100 

c. Impact Assessment/Abatement Conclusions .............................................. III-107 

3. Construction Noise............................................................................................ III-108 

E. Hazardous Materials Sites....................................................................................... III-108 

1. Existing Conditions........................................................................................... III-108 

2. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation .................................................. III-110 

F. Natural Environment............................................................................................... III-114 

1. Topography....................................................................................................... III-115 

a. Existing Conditions..................................................................................... III-115 

b. Environmental Consequences..................................................................... III-116 

2. Geology............................................................................................................. III-116 

a. Existing Conditions..................................................................................... III-116 

b. Environmental Consequences..................................................................... III-120 

3. Soils................................................................................................................... III-120 

a. Existing Conditions..................................................................................... III-120 

b. Environmental Consequences..................................................................... III-125 

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

c. Farmland Conversion Impact Rating.......................................................... III-129 

4. Groundwater ..................................................................................................... III-129 

a. Existing Conditions..................................................................................... III-129 

b. Environmental Consequences..................................................................... III-132 

5. Surface Water and Water Quality..................................................................... III-133 

a. Surface Water.............................................................................................. III-133 

b. Water Quality.............................................................................................. III-139 

6. Waters of the United States, including Wetlands ............................................. III-142 

a. Existing Conditions..................................................................................... III-142 

b. Environmental Consequences..................................................................... III-146 

c. Mitigation.................................................................................................... III-157 

7. Floodplains........................................................................................................ III-161 

a. Existing Conditions..................................................................................... III-161 

b. Environmental Consequences..................................................................... III-164 

c. Mitigation.................................................................................................... III-165 

8. Vegetation and Wildlife.................................................................................... III-166 

a. Terrestrial Habitat and Wildlife.................................................................. III-166 

b. Aquatic Biota .............................................................................................. III-175 

9. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species....................................................... III-177 

a. Existing Conditions..................................................................................... III-177 

b. Environmental Consequences..................................................................... III-180 

10. Wild and Scenic Rivers..................................................................................... III-183 

a. Existing Conditions..................................................................................... III-183 

b. Environmental Consequences..................................................................... III-184 

11. Coastal Zone Management Area....................................................................... III-184 

a. Existing Conditions..................................................................................... III-184 

b. Environmental Consequences..................................................................... III-185 

12. Unique, Sensitive and other Natural Areas....................................................... III-185 

a. Existing Conditions..................................................................................... III-185 

b. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation ............................................ III-189 

G. Traffic, Travel Patterns and Toll Diversions .......................................................... III-189 

1. Traffic Forecasts ............................................................................................... III-190 

a. Land Use ..................................................................................................... III-191 

b. Network/Roadway Improvements .............................................................. III-191 

c. Daily Forecasts............................................................................................ III-191 

d. Peak Hour Forecasts ................................................................................... III-192 

2. Traffic Analysis ................................................................................................ III-192 

a. Methodology............................................................................................... III-192 

b. Results......................................................................................................... III-194 

3. Safety Analysis ................................................................................................. III-199 

a. Existing Roads ............................................................................................ III-199 

TABLE OF CONTENTS v 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

b. Existing Roads plus Build Alternatives ...................................................... III-200 

4. Travel Patterns .................................................................................................. III-201 

a. Existing Conditions..................................................................................... III-201 

b. Methodology for Evaluation of Impacts..................................................... III-203 

c. Results......................................................................................................... III-204 

d. Mitigation.................................................................................................... III-208 

H. Energy..................................................................................................................... III-210 

I. Temporary Construction Impacts ........................................................................... III-211 

1. Traffic Detours and Maintenance of Traffic..................................................... III-211 

2. Air Emissions.................................................................................................... III-211 

3. Construction Noise............................................................................................ III-211 

4. Construction Impacts on Natural Resources..................................................... III-212 

J. Secondary and Cumulative Effects Analysis (SCEA)............................................ III-212 

1. SCEA Scoping .................................................................................................. III-213 

a. Geographic Boundary ................................................................................. III-213 

b. SCEA Temporal Boundary (Time Frame).................................................. III-215 

c. Resources Directly Affected by the Alternatives........................................ III-216 

d. Other Projects within the SCEA Boundary ................................................ III-218 

2. Analysis Methodology...................................................................................... III-219 

a. Trend Analysis............................................................................................ III-219 

b. Interviews.................................................................................................... III-219 

c. Map Overlays.............................................................................................. III-219 

3. Land Use and Development Trends.................................................................. III-219 

a. Past Land Use: Historic Changes and Trends............................................. III-220 

b. Existing Land Uses ..................................................................................... III-220 

c. Areas of Future Development..................................................................... III-223 

d. Land Use Conclusions ................................................................................ III-225 

4. Analysis of Secondary and Cumulative Effects................................................ III-225 

a. Floodplains.................................................................................................. III-227 

b. Waters of the US including Wetlands......................................................... III-227 

c. Farmland ..................................................................................................... III-228 

d. Forests......................................................................................................... III-229 

e. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species................................................. III-229 

f. Historic Properties ...................................................................................... III-230 

g. Community and Socioeconomic Resources................................................ III-231 

5. Secondary and Cumulative Effects Analysis Conclusions ............................... III-232 

K. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) ...................................................................... III-233 

a. Information that is Unavailable or Incomplete ........................................... III-236 

b. Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to 

Evaluating the Impacts of MSATs........................................................... III-237 

TABLE OF CONTENTS vi 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

c. Relevance of Unavailable or Incomplete Information to Evaluating 

Reasonably Foreseeable Significant Adverse Impacts on the 

Environment, and Evaluation of Impacts based upon Theoretical 

Approaches or Research Methods Generally Accepted in the Scientific 

Community .............................................................................................. III-239 

L. Relationship between Local Short-Term Uses of Man’s Environment and the 

Maintenance of Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity ................................. III-241 

M. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources....................................... III-241 

IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .......................................................................IV-1

A. Public Involvement Program ......................................................................................IV-1 

1. Public Outreach.....................................................................................................IV-1 

a. Listening Tour.................................................................................................IV-1 

b. Mailing List.....................................................................................................IV-3 

c. Individual and Community Group Meetings ..................................................IV-3 

d. Project Office..................................................................................................IV-4 

e. Website ...........................................................................................................IV-5 

f. Public Workshops ...........................................................................................IV-5 

g. Combined Location-Design Public Hearings and Workshops .......................IV-9 

B. Agency Coordination................................................................................................IV-11 

1. Agency Coordination Meetings ..........................................................................IV-11 

2. Field Views and Reviews – ACOE.....................................................................IV-13 

3. Field Views and Reviews – DNREC..................................................................IV-13 

4. Field Views and Reviews – Cultural Resources Evaluation – Section 106........IV-14 

C. Toll Diversion Coordination.....................................................................................IV-15 

D. Comments Received on the DEIS.............................................................................IV-18 

1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007...................................................................IV-18 

2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007..................................................................IV-18 

3. Written Comments Received at the Workshop on January 8, 2007 ...................IV-18 

4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007...................................................................IV-18 

5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007..................................................................IV-18 

6. Written Comments Received at the Workshop on January 9, 2007 ...................IV-18 

7. Online Comment Forms Received during the Comment Period ........................IV-18 

8. Email and Written Comments Received during the Comment Period ...............IV-18 

9. Agency Comments..............................................................................................IV-18 

V. LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS .......................................................................................... V-1

VI. DISTRIBUTION LIST...................................................................................................VI-1

VII. REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. VII-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS viii 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A Alternatives 

Appendix B Preferred Alternative 

Appendix C Agency Correspondence 

Appendix D List of Technical Documents 

Appendix E Glossary 

Appendix F Relocation Assistance Program 

Appendix G Farmland Conversion Impact Rating 

Appendix H Memorandum of Agreement 

Appendix I Public Hearing Transcript Introduction. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

LIST OF TABLES 

Table I-1: Existing and Projected Daily Traffic and Level of Service for Significant 

Locations in the Project Area (No-Build) ........................................................I-9 

Table I-2: Southern New Castle County Local Road Circulation Plan ...............................I-13 

Table II-1: Comparison of Engineering Features and Costs............................................... II-22 

Table II-2: Alternatives Options Considered ...................................................................... II-25 

Table II-3: Purple and Green Alternatives Impacts Comparison of the Armstrong 

Corner Road Area Options ........................................................................... II-26 

Table II-4: Yellow and Purple Alternatives Impacts Comparison of the Boyds Corner 

Road Area Options ....................................................................................... II-28 

Table II-5: Yellow Alternative Impacts Comparison of the Summit Interchange Area 

Options ......................................................................................................... II-31 

Table II-6: Purple and Green Alternatives Impacts Comparison of the Summit 

Interchange Area Options............................................................................. II-33 

Table II-7: Comparison of Ratledge Road Area Options (Preferred Alternative).............. II-34 

Table III-1: Total Population and Household Trends in the Middletown-OdessaTownsend Planning District, 1970 to 2025 ................................................... III-6 

Table III-2: Existing Land Use in the Project Area............................................................. III-11 

Table III-3: Preferred Alternative Acres to be Converted from Current Uses.................... III-12 

Table III-4: Build Alternatives - Acres to be Converted from Current Uses ...................... III-12 

Table III-5: Planned Residential Development in the Project Area within 

Unincorporated Areas of M-O-T Planning District .................................... III-15 

Table III-6: Planned Non-Residential Development in the Project Area within 

Unincorporated Areas of M-O-T Planning District .................................... III-18 

Table III-7: Planned Residential Development in Middletown .......................................... III-18 

Table III-8: Planned Non-Residential Development in Middletown .................................. III-19 

Table III-9: LESA Model Scores for Impacted Farm Parcels............................................. III-23 

Table III-10: DEIS Impacts to Prime Farmland Soils, Active Farms, and Agricultural 

Preserves...................................................................................................... III-25 

Table III-11: Population and Housing in the Project Area.................................................... III-26 

Table III-12: Population Age Distribution in the Project Area ............................................. III-28 

Table III-13: Property Impacts of the Preferred Alternative................................................. III-28 

Table III-14: Preliminary Property Impacts by Retained Alternative................................... III-29 

Table III-15: Community Profiles and Alternatives Adjacent .............................................. III-33 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ix 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

Table III-16: Community Facilities in the Project Area........................................................ III-34 

Table III-17: Summary of Residential Community Impacts................................................. III-36 

Table III-18: Racial Distribution in the Project Area............................................................ III-39 

Table III-19: Low-Income Populations in the Project Area.................................................. III-40 

Table III-20: Occupations of the Employed Population in the Project Area ........................ III-41 

Table III-21: Industries Employing those in the Project Area .............................................. III-42 

Table III-22: Mode of Commuting........................................................................................ III-43 

Table III-23: Household Incomes in 1999, in $1000s, in the Project Area........................... III-43 

Table III-24: Per capita and Individual Earnings in the Project Area ................................... III-44 

Table III-25: Historic Properties within the Area of Potential Effect ................................... III-50 

Table III-26: Preliminary Potential Effects of the Retained Alternatives on Historic 

Properties..................................................................................................... III-53 

Table III-27: Summary of Adverse Effects of the Preferred Alternative to Historic 

Properties..................................................................................................... III-55 

Table III-28: Historic Properties Potential Future Noise Levels........................................... III-56 

Table III-29: Archaeological Potential of the Alternatives within the Limit of 

Disturbance.................................................................................................. III-65 

Table III-30: National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards......................................... III-70 

Table III-31: Air Quality Summary for the Project Corridor Delaware Air Quality 

Monitoring Sites Highest Recorded Levels During 2006 ........................... III-71 

Table III-32: Air Quality Receptor Locations....................................................................... III-73 

Table III-33: Predicted CO Concentration, 2010 .................................................................. III-77 

Table III-34: Predicted CO Concentration, 2030 .................................................................. III-78 

Table III-35: CO Concentration at Signalized Intersections (ppm) ...................................... III-79 

Table III-36: FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria/Activity Relationships............................... III-81 

Table III-37: Existing Noise Levels ...................................................................................... III-85

Table III-38: Predicted Noise Impacts of the Preferred Alternative (before Berms) ............ III-92 

Table III-39: Predicted Design Year 2030 Noise Levels for the Retained Alternatives....... III-94 

Table III-40: Preferred Alternative Abatement Cost Analysis............................................ III-101 

Table III-41: Yellow Alternative Abatement Cost Analysis............................................... III-102 

Table III-42: Purple Alternative Abatement Cost Analysis ................................................ III-103 

Table III-43: Brown Alternative North Option Abatement Cost Analysis ......................... III-104 

Table III-44: Brown Alternative South Option Abatement Cost Analysis ......................... III-105 

Table III-45: Green Alternative North Option Abatement Cost Analysis .......................... III-106 

TABLE OF CONTENTS x 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

Table III-46: Green Alternative South Option Abatement Cost Analysis .......................... III-107 

Table III-47: Summary of Noise Impact Reduction from Visual Screening Berms ........... III-108 

Table III-48: DNREC LUST Sites with Documented or Suspected Contamination ......... III-109 

Table III-49: DNREC Site Investigation and Restoration Sites.......................................... III-110 

Table III-50: Summary of Contaminated Sites by Build Alternative.................................. III-113 

Table III-51: Soil Series in Project Area ............................................................................. III-121 

Table III-52: Prime Farmland Soils Located Along Project Alternatives........................... III-124 

Table III-53: Soils of Statewide Importance Located Along Project Alternatives ............. III-124 

Table III-54: Hydric Soils Located Along Project Alternatives.......................................... III-125 

Table III-55: Soils Impacts of the Build Alternatives (Acres) ............................................ III-128 

Table III-56: Alternatives Impervious Surface Additions................................................... III-136 

Table III-57: Numbers of Potential Impacts of the Preferred Alternative to Surface 

Waters........................................................................................................ III-136 

Table III-58: Potential Impacts of the Retained Alternatives to Surface Waters................ III-137 

Table III-59: Water Quality Data for Surface Water Features within the Project Area...... III-140 

Table III-60: Potential Wetlands Impacts of the Preferred Alternative .............................. III-148 

Table III-61: Individual Wetlands Impacts of the Preferred Alternative ............................ III-148 

Table III-62: Potential ACOE and DNREC Jurisdictional Impacts (DEIS) ....................... III-151 

Table III-63: Individual Wetlands Impacts of the Build Alternatives – Revised................ III-152 

Table III-64: Floodplain and Tax Ditch Impacts................................................................. III-164 

Table III-65: Forest Stands by Association......................................................................... III-168 

Table III-66: Potential Forest Impacts (in acres)................................................................. III-172 

Table III-67: 2030 Daily Traffic Projections (ADT)........................................................... III-192 

Table III-68: Traffic Peak Hour Operational Analyses at Key Locations........................... III-194 

Table III-69: Traffic Analyses Results – Existing Intersections, Interchanges and 

Roadway Segments ................................................................................... III-197 

Table III-70: Traffic Analyses Results – New Intersections, Interchanges and Roadway 

Segments South of the Canal..................................................................... III-198 

Table III-71: 2030 Estimated Number of Traffic Accidents per Million-Vehicle Miles 

(MVM) on Existing Roads ........................................................................ III-200 

Table III-72: Existing (2003) and Estimated 2030 Accident Rates along Major Study 

Area Routes ............................................................................................... III-201 

Table III-73: Daily (2006) Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... III-203 

Table III-74: Planned Improvements in Project Area ......................................................... III-205 

TABLE OF CONTENTS xi 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

Table III-75: Development Projects within the SCEA Boundary....................................... III-218 

Table III-76: Current (2002) Land Use within the SCEA Boundary .................................. III-221 

Table III-77: Projected 2030 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) on Roadways 

North of Middletown................................................................................. III-235 

Table III-78: Summary of Projected (2030) Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)..................... III-235 

Table III-79: Sensitive Receptor Locations within the US 301 Project Area ..................... III-240 

Table IV-1: Community Meetings.........................................................................................IV-4 

Table IV-2: Agency Coordination Meetings .......................................................................IV-11 

Table IV-3: ACOE and DNREC –Coordination Meetings and Field Views ......................IV-13 

Table IV-4: US 301 Traffic Diversion Committee Meetings..............................................IV-16 

TABLE OF CONTENTS xii 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure I-1: Regional Map........................................................................................................I-3 

Figure I-2: US 301 Project Area .............................................................................................I-5

Figure I-3: Highway Fatalities in the Project Area .................................................................I-8 

Figure I-4: Southern New Castle County Local Road Circulation Plan ...............................I-14 

Figure II-1: Typical Sections for US 301............................................................................... II-7 

Figure II-2: Typical Section for US 301 Ramps .................................................................... II-9 

Figure II-3: Typical Section for Collector, Arterial and Local Roads ................................. II-10 

Figure II-4: Alternatives Retained........................................................................................ II-11

Figure II-5: CTP Programmed Improvements ..................................................................... II-14 

Figure II-6: Locations of Alignment Options Considered ................................................... II-24 

Figure II-7: Ratledge Road Area Options ............................................................................ II-35 

Figure II-8: Alternatives Dropped from Further Consideration........................................... II-39 

Figure III-1: Project Area ....................................................................................................... III-3 

Figure III-2: New Castle County Planning Districts .............................................................. III-5 

Figure III-3: Land Use .......................................................................................................... III-13 

Figure III-4: Planned Development ...................................................................................... III-16 

Figure III-5: Active Farms and Agricultural Preservation Areas ......................................... III-21 

Figure III-6: Census Tracts................................................................................................... III-27 

Figure III-7: Communities and Community Facilities ......................................................... III-31 

Figure III-8: Area of Potential Effect (APE) and Historic Properties .................................. III-48 

Figure III-9: Air Receptor Locations.................................................................................... III-75 

Figure III-10: Noise Monitoring and Noise Sensitive Areas.................................................. III-83 

Figure III-11: Possible Contamination Sites......................................................................... III-111 

Figure III-12: Geologic Map of Southern New Castle County ............................................ III-117 

Figure III-13: Generalized Geologic Cross-Section ............................................................. III-119 

Figure III-14: Prime Farmland Soils and Soils of Statewide Importance............................. III-122 

Figure III-15: Hydric Soils ................................................................................................... III-126 

Figure III-16: Aquifer Recharge Areas................................................................................. III-131 

Figure III-17: Watersheds..................................................................................................... III-134 

Figure III-18: Waters of the US including Wetlands............................................................ III-144 

Figure III-19: Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites for the Preferred Alternative.................. III-158 

Figure III-20: Floodplains.....................................................................................................III-162 

Figure III-21: Forests............................................................................................................ III-169 

Figure III-22: Unique and Sensitive Areas........................................................................... III-186 

Figure III-23: Key Roadway and Intersection Locations ..................................................... III-193 

Figure III-24: Projected Daily Traffic for Potential Toll Diversions.................................... III-206 

Figure III-25: SCEA Boundary............................................................................................. III-214 

TABLE OF CONTENTS xiii 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS xiv 

Figure III-26: Population Growth Trends in Delaware and New Castle County ................. III-216 

Figure III-27: New Castle County Residential Land Use Trends......................................... III-217 

Figure III-28: General Zoning within the SCEA Boundary ................................................. III-224 

Figure III-29: U.S. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled vs Mobile Source Air Toxics 

Emissions, 2000 – 2020.............................................................................. III-234 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

PURPOSE AND NEED I-1 

I. PURPOSE AND NEED 

This section documents the need for transportation improvements within the US 301 corridor 

between the Delaware/Maryland state line and the Chesapeake and Delaware (C&D) Canal. 

This section reviews the history of planning and project development in this corridor, describes 

the significance of the corridor, and describes the project area. The section includes a statement 

on the project’s purpose (to improve safety in the corridor, to relieve congestion and to manage 

through truck traffic), followed by a statement of the project need. The need is based on year 

2030 projected future traffic and land use. Accident history within the corridor, existing and 

projected congestion, and the high percentage of truck traffic (especially through truck traffic) 

that mixes with local traffic are evaluated. A discussion of land use and demographics is 

followed by a review of existing and planned roadway improvements in the project area. 

A. Introduction 

1. Background

In the mid-1960s, recognition of the regional significance of the US 301 corridor led the 

Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) to investigate opportunities to improve 

mobility in the corridor. While an earlier study resulted in the siting and subsequent construction 

of the existing Summit Bridge by the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) in the 1950s, the 

solution to improving mobility in southern New Castle County, Delaware, remains elusive today. 

Since that time, southern New Castle County has been transformed from a rural and largely 

agricultural area to a suburban residential area for commuters employed in Newark, Wilmington, 

Philadelphia, and throughout the I-95 corridor in Delaware, northern Maryland, southern 

Pennsylvania, and southern New Jersey. The Levels, southwest of Middletown, once known as 

Delaware’s most productive agricultural area, is currently evolving into the Westown community 

of Middletown, and job growth is expanding with a full range of commercial and professional 

employers supporting the influx of new residents in southern New Castle County. 

In recent years, DelDOT initiated two studies to address transportation needs in southern New 

Castle County and the US 301 corridor. In the early 1990s, DelDOT prepared the U.S. Route 

301 Corridor Study – Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The 1993 DEIS evaluated 

the need for and the location and design features of transportation alternatives to improve traffic 

service and operation in the US 301 corridor between the Delaware/Maryland state line and I-95. 

While the 1993 DEIS compared the environmental impacts of a variety of alternatives, it focused 

primarily on assessing alternative highway corridors in a relatively narrow study area 

encompassing the US 301/SR 896 corridor and did not address the overall transportation needs in 

southern New Castle County. 

In December 1994, following completion of the 1993 DEIS, Delaware’s Secretary of 

Transportation, Anne Canby, made two announcements concerning the US 301 corridor. First, 

to bring some closure to the 1993 DEIS process, she announced that if the implementation of a 

new north-south limited access highway was to be advanced on any of the alignments studied in 

the 1993 DEIS, the corridor for those improvements would be the Ridge Route (or Ridge 

Alignment) south of the C&D Canal and the existing SR 896 corridor north of the Canal. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

PURPOSE AND NEED I-2 

Secondly, she announced that the corridor would be the subject of a Major Investment Study 

(MIS) that would assemble a package of land use measures, transportation uses and design 

standards for both transportation and land use activities, transportation demand reduction 

strategies, financing and network management. The MIS, therefore, was designed to look at the 

needs for southern New Castle County without focus on just the US 301 corridor. 

The Greater Route 301 Major Investment Study (January 2000) recommended that, in addition to 

a full range of transit, pedestrian, bicycle, transportation demand management and local roadway 

improvements, a major increase in roadway capacity was required to meet the transportation 

needs of southern New Castle County. The MIS recommended alternatives for further study to 

address mobility in the US 301 corridor that differ substantially from the Preferred Alternative 

that emerged from the 1993 DEIS. More specifically, the MIS recommended that capacity 

improvements for the US 301 corridor be developed from the Delaware/Maryland state line to 

SR 1 south of the C&D Canal, rather than to the SR 896 corridor north of the Canal as proposed 

in the 1993 DEIS. The MIS recommended that two build alternatives be retained for detailed 

study and evaluated in a new DEIS. 

Efforts to implement the transit, pedestrian, bicycle, transportation demand management and 

local road improvement recommendations from the MIS are discussed later in this chapter. The 

current US 301 Project Development effort focuses on addressing the mobility and safety needs 

of this rapidly developing area. These needs were described in the 1993 DEIS and 2000 MIS 

and have become even more significant since the completion of the MIS only five years ago. 

The purpose and need builds upon and updates the previous purpose and need discussions 

presented in the 1993 DEIS and the 2000 MIS. 

2. US 301

US 301 extends approximately 1,100 miles from Sarasota, Florida, to New Castle County, 

Delaware. The opening of the National Interstate System greatly reduced the significance of 

US 301 as an interstate route; however, with the increase in the traffic volume and congestion on 

I-95 in northern Virginia, the Washington D.C. and Baltimore Metropolitan regions, and with the 

cost of tolls on I-95 at the Baltimore Harbor Crossings and the John F. Kennedy Highway 

northeast of Baltimore, US 301 has re-emerged as a through traffic alternative to I-95 between 

Richmond and Wilmington, particularly for truck traffic. In addition, with the influx of 

development in southern New Castle County, US 301 is growing as a commuter route to jobs in 

the region. Figure I-1 illustrates US 301 in its regional context. 

In Maryland, US 301 is a multi-lane, divided roadway. From its junction with US 50 in 

Queenstown, Maryland (approximately eight miles east of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge) to the 

Delaware/Maryland state line, a distance of 40 miles, the four-lane, divided highway has a 

limited number of at-grade intersections (none are fully signal-controlled) and only three gradeseparated interchanges (MD 213 and MD 290 in Queen Anne’s County, Maryland; MD 290/299 

in Kent County). Maryland owns sufficient right of way to convert the entire length of US 301 

from Queenstown to the state line to a limited access roadway. Conversion to access control in 

listed in Maryland’s long-term planning document, Highway Needs Inventory.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

project development rojectdevelopment

U.S.

US 301 Project Development

Delaware

Department of

Transportation

November 2007

É Figure

As Shown

0 5 10 15 20 25

SCALE IN MILES

I-1

REGIONAL MAP

US 301

PROJECT

AREA

US 301

CORRIDOR

US 301

CORRIDOR

95

95

95

95

301

301

301

301

301
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

PURPOSE AND NEED I-4 

In contrast, in Delaware, US 301 from the state line to Mount Pleasant (south of the C&D 

Canal), a distance of 7.7 miles, is the only portion of the roadway in the region that is two lanes 

and has full signal-controlled intersections. At Mount Pleasant, US 301 again becomes a fourlane, divided roadway to its terminus at US 40 in Glasgow, Delaware, a total length of 

approximately 15 miles. Throughout this 15-mile length, there are 25 at-grade intersections with 

state and county numbered roads and subdivision streets, most of which provide full directional 

access. Of the 25 intersections, eleven are signalized. There are also several driveways with 

direct access to US 301 within this 15-mile segment, mostly in the Middletown and Mount 

Pleasant areas. Additional right-of-way would have to be acquired to convert the existing US 

301 to limited access or to grade-separate any of the existing intersections. 

3. Project Area

The US 301 Project Development effort has analyzed the needs and resources of the area 

illustrated in Figure I-2, with emphasis on southern New Castle County, south of the C&D 

Canal. Figure I-2 also illustrates the context of the surrounding geographic region and the local 

transportation network. 

B. Project Purpose 

The purpose of this project is to improve and enhance highway safety, manage truck traffic, and 

address existing and projected traffic congestion in the US 301 corridor, while minimizing 

environmental impacts and accommodating existing and planned development. 

C. Project Need 

During the seven years from January 2000 to December 2006, there were 1,193 accidents 

reported in the project area south of the C&D Canal. Approximately 36 percent of the accidents 

have involved injuries or death. Of the sixteen fatalities, thirteen occurred in the US 301/ 

SR 896 corridor. Accidents on several segments of US 301, SR 299 and SR 15 have been 

occurring at rates that are higher than the statewide average. Several roadway segments on US 

301/SR 896 are listed in DelDOT’s Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). 

A traffic survey conducted in October 2004 showed that approximately sixty-five percent of all 

northbound traffic originating south of the C&D Canal is destined for the northeast to 

Wilmington, Philadelphia, New Jersey, and points beyond. Thirty-five percent of the traffic has 

destinations to the north towards Newark and Pennsylvania. However, the traffic survey, which 

asked motorists to document their actual travel routes, showed that despite the majority of 

northbound destinations being to the northeast, approximately 60% of motorists currently 

continue north on US 301/SR 896 and then east on I-95, rather than using a more direct east-west 

route south of the canal. 
0123

SCALE IN MILES

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

project development rojectdevelopment

U.S.

US 301 Project Development

Delaware

Department of

Transportation

November 2007

É Figure

Not to Scale

Highways, Freeways

Local / Secondary Roads

Municipal Areas

Legend

US 301 PROJECT AREA

I-2

US 301

PROJECT AREA
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

PURPOSE AND NEED I-6 

US 301 currently functions as a regional truck route, bypassing the congestion and tolls of the 

I-95 corridor. As a result, a high ratio of trucks, 25 to 30 percent of the overall traffic at the 

Delaware/Maryland state line, travel on US 301. The mix of trucks with local traffic has affected 

roadway capacity, operations and safety. Interviews of truckers stopped at the US 301 travel 

plaza revealed that approximately 95 percent of the northbound truck traffic originating south of 

Middletown is destined to points northeast of the C&D Canal, with nearly 90 percent of them 

leaving Delaware. 

Significant population and housing growth in the area south of the C&D Canal between the 

Delaware/Maryland line on the west and the SR 1/US 13 corridor to the east, coupled with 

increases in through and seasonal traffic, have resulted in increased traffic congestion and 

decreased safety on the existing roadway system. Projections for continued, significant growth 

forebode an ever worsening situation in one of Delaware’s most rapidly developing areas. 

Infrastructure improvements have failed to keep pace with development. 

The need for enhancements to the project area’s transportation infrastructure was welldocumented and summarized in the 2000 MIS: 

“The transportation and land use alternatives developed and analyzed in the MIS were designed 

to address the transportation needs of the Study Area’s existing and future residents and 

employees, as well as regional travel demands. From 1995 to 2020, the population of the Study 

Area is projected to grow by approximately 65 percent, and employment is projected to grow by 

104 percent. As a result of the projected growth in the Study Area population and employment, 

and continuing growth in through traffic, dramatic growth in traffic volumes is anticipated to 

increase congestion throughout the Study Area.” 

As will be discussed in more detail later in this Chapter, employment growth south of the C&D 

Canal has not yet occurred as was expected in 2000, but the population grew by over 70 percent 

from 1990 to 2000. Furthermore, the population of the study area (which represents nearly the 

entire Middletown-Odessa-Townsend (MOT) planning region in New Castle County south of the 

C&D Canal, is projected to increase by nearly 140% in the 27 years from 2003 to 2030. 

Likewise, over 9,400 additional jobs are projected in this region by 2030, an increase of 170% 

from 2003. 

The specific needs for the project – safety, traffic growth, system deficiencies, demographics and 

land use – are detailed in the following sections. 

1. Safety

Based upon accident information from the Delaware State Police, 1,193 accidents were reported 

in the seven year period between January 2000 and December 2006 in the project area, south of 

the C&D Canal. A number of roadway segments within the project area, including portions of 

US 301 and SR 299, have had annual accident rates that have exceeded the statewide averages 

for similar facilities. Accident rates such as these are based on the total number of collisions and 

are not influenced by the severity of the crash. Therefore, it is important to consider that of these 

1,193 accidents, approximately 437 resulted in injuries or fatalities. A total of 15 fatal crashes 

occurred in the project area resulting in 16 fatalities. Of these 16 fatalities, thirteen (13) occurred 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

PURPOSE AND NEED I-7 

in the US 301/SR 896 corridor (see Figure I-3). It should be noted that in March 2007, two 

more fatal crashes occurred on US 301 in Delaware near the Maryland state line, resulting in 4 

more fatalities. 

The US 301/SR 896 corridor has a history of fatal accidents. In the mid-1990s, a rash of 

fatalities resulted in DelDOT’s constructing longitudinal grooves (“centerline rumble strips”) in 

the pavement along the centerline of US 301. In the months following their construction, the 

fatalities seemed to subside, but the most recent crash information since 2000 indicates that fatal 

accidents are continuing on this roadway segment. 

The threat of accidents continues to be one of the primary concerns of residents in the project 

area. With the anticipated increase in traffic and the high volume of trucks in the traffic mix, the 

potential for serious accidents increases. To reduce the accident potential, it is necessary to 

provide a system of transportation facilities and services to accommodate the various 

components of traffic in this area. 

2. Traffic Growth: Existing and Future Conditions

To gauge the growth in traffic throughout the project area, historic, current and future traffic 

volumes were compared at four key locations. These locations were selected to highlight the 

changes in volumes that have occurred on US 301 and on three other key east-west links south of 

the C&D Canal. Table I-1 summarizes volume comparisons and associated Levels of Service 

(LOS).

Level of Service provides an evaluation of congestion by comparing the Annual Average Daily 

Traffic (AADT) to the daily traffic carrying capacity of a roadway segment. LOS is described 

on a scale of A to F, where A is free-flowing traffic and F is congested traffic. LOS D, E, and F 

are generally considered undesirable traffic conditions that warrant consideration of capacity. 

LOS is commonly used to describe the quality of travel on a roadway segment or at a junction of 

two or more roads (i.e., intersections or interchanges). 

LOS is dependant on a number of factors including the physical characteristics of the road 

(number of lanes, type of terrain, frequency of access points, ability or lack of ability for vehicles 

to pass other vehicles, etc.) and the characteristics of the traffic using the facility (volume, 

percentage of trucks, free flow speed, fluctuation of traffic volumes within the peak hour, etc.). 

LOS is not based on the volume to capacity ratio. 
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

project development rojectdevelopment

U.S.

HIGHWAY FATALITIES IN THE PROJECT AREA

US 301 Project Development

Delaware

Department of

Transportation

November 2007

É Figure

As Shown

0 123

SCALE IN MILES

Location & Number of Traffic

Fatalities in the Study Area

1/00 - 12/06

Highway Safety Improvement Program

(HSIP) Locations

2004 HSIP Location

2002 HSIP Location

2005 HSIP Location

LEGEND

X

I-3

1

1

2

12

4
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

PURPOSE AND NEED I-9 

Table I-1: Existing and Projected Daily Traffic and Level of Service for Significant 

Locations in the Project Area (No-Build) 

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) Level of Service 

(LOS) 

Significant 

Locations 1990

AADT

2005

AADT

MIS 

Predicted 

2005

AADT1

MIS 

Predicted 

2020

AADT1

2006

DelDOT

Predicted 

2030

AADT

2006 DelDOT 

Roadway 

Segment 

Capacity, 

vehicles per 

day (vpd) 4

2005 LOS 

2006

DelDOT

Predicted 

2030 LOS 

US 301, 

southwest of 

Middletown 

10,665 18,900 18,100 23,600 32,900 30,700 E F 

US 301/SR 

896 at Summit 

Bridge 

14,781 28,600 31,700 51,700 65,500 77,800 B E 

SR 299, 

Middletown to 

Odessa 

3,444 18,800 7,900 15,100 26,600 23,100 E F 

SR 896 

(Boyds Corner 

Road) at 

Jamisons 

Corner 

5,859 13,200 12,100 24,300 27,500 29,700 E E 

US 301 @ SR 299 in Middletown C C2

US 301 @ SR 896 in Mount Pleasant D D3 Intersections 

US 301/SR 896 @ SR 15 south of Summit Bridge B E 

1: Existing and Future Study Area Transportation Needs, Figures 1 and 2 (Source: November 1998 US 301 MIS 

Technical Report) 

2. The 2030 LOS at the US 301/ SR 299 intersection includes the construction of an additional through lane in each 

direction on US 301, an improvement associated with the Westown Project. 

3. The 2030 LOS at the US 301/ SR 896 intersection in Mount Pleasant includes the construction of an additional 

through lane in each direction on US 301, a programmed improvement currently under construction at this 

location. 

4. The strict definition of roadway capacity (from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual) is based on an hourly time 

frame (actually less considering peak hour factors), not daily; The capacity values shown are rough 

approximations based on the assumed hourly distribution of traffic over a day. 

a. US 301, Southwest of Middletown 

The first significant location is US 301, southwest of Middletown, immediately south of SR 299 

(Main Street). From 1990 to 2005, the traffic volume at this location grew by 77 percent (see 

Table I-1), or at an annual rate of 5.1 percent per year. Most recently, between 2000 and 2005, 

traffic on this portion of US 301 has grown at a rate of 5.0 percent per year, indicating a stable 

growth rate over the last decade or more. This rate of growth is higher than the average rate of 

growth for New Castle County, which has seen an annual growth in traffic of 3 percent per year 

between 1990 and 2000. The 5 percent per year rate of growth on US 301 is occurring within the 

context of a currently congested roadway (LOS E at this location) that carries a significant 

volume of trucks (nearly 30 percent of the daily traffic volume). The conditions in this location 

will be further compounded in the future as additional land is developed south of the C&D 

Canal, particularly the Westown Project (see Section III.A.2.a and Table III-5), which is 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

PURPOSE AND NEED I-10 

proposing 1,764 acres of development on 2,500 acres of land with 3,100 residential units and 3.5 

million square feet of commercial space. 

b. US 301/SR 896 at Summit Bridge 

The second significant location is US 301/SR 896 at the Summit Bridge over the C&D Canal. 

From 1990 to 2005, the traffic volume has grown by 93 percent, or at an annual rate of six 

percent per year, as shown in Table I-1. This growth is approximately two times the rate of 

growth for New Castle County during the same time period. The capacity of this roadway 

segment is currently adequate to carry existing traffic, but will be approaching capacity by 2030 

without any changes to the roadway system (No-Build condition). Currently, approximately 11 

percent of the daily traffic crossing the Summit Bridge is trucks. Conditions are expected to 

worsen as development continues, traffic volumes grow, and trucks continue to make up a 

significant portion of the total traffic in this location. 

c. SR 299, Middletown to Odessa 

The third significant location is the roadway segment of SR 299 from Middletown to Odessa. 

From 1990 to 2005, the traffic volume on this roadway segment has grown tremendously, more 

than quadrupling the 1990 volume, a net increase of 450 percent (see Table I-1). On an 

annualized basis, the rate of growth from 1990 to 2005 has been about 30 percent per year. This 

period of rapid traffic growth coincides with the opening of the SR 1 Turnpike from Dover to 

Churchmans Crossing. SR 1 intersects with SR 299 west of Odessa. Further, the roadway 

segment is currently operating near capacity at LOS E. The 2005 and 2020 traffic volumes 

predicted in the 2000 MIS fall considerably short of the current volume on SR 299, indicating 

higher than anticipated growth along this corridor. It is anticipated that these conditions will 

worsen as development continues (especially the Westown development which is located near 

SR 299) and as regional traffic grows to the point that SR 299 will reach LOS F by 2030. The 

level of service will not improve in this location unless capacity improvements are made to the 

roadway network south of the C&D Canal to divert traffic away from SR 299 and/or if 

significant capacity improvements are made to SR 299 itself. 

d. SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road) at Jamisons Corner 

The fourth significant location is SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road) at Jamisons Corner. From 1990 

to 2005, the traffic volume here grew by 125 percent, as shown in Table I-1, an annual rate of 

eight percent per year. As with the other locations discussed, this rate of growth is well above 

the rate for New Castle County during the same period. The roadway in this location is currently 

operating at LOS E and, by 2030, without any changes to the roadway network, the volumes are 

expected to increase almost to the road’s capacity. Currently, there are truck restrictions on 

SR 299 through Middletown, making SR 896 one of the only direct east-west connections 

available to trucks south of the C & D Canal. As a result, the percentage of trucks using SR 896 

(Boyds Corner Road) is high; approximately 25 percent of the daily traffic is trucks. The poor 

operating conditions in this location will be further compounded in the future as the Scott Run 

Business Park and the Bayberry Project, proposing 1,460 acres of development with 1,954 

residential units and 1.5 million square feet of commercial space, as well as the Whitehall 

Properties development, is constructed. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

PURPOSE AND NEED I-11 

3. System Deficiencies

As discussed above, portions of the primary roadway system south of the C & D Canal currently 

operate at a low Level of Service (LOS E or F) and have a recent history of serious accidents (13 

fatalities in a 5-year period; nearly 34 percent of all collisions resulting in injuries or death). 

Significant truck traffic on US 301 and SR 896 contributes to these congestion and safety 

problems. These roads and the intersections along them will continue to deteriorate, several to 

the point of failure, in the next 25 years, including the critical north-south and east-west arterials 

of US 301, SR 299 and SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road).

The 2000 MIS recognized these deficiencies, some of which have been exacerbated by recent 

traffic volume growth documented by 2005 traffic counts. The active housing market in 

southern New Castle County and its attendant population increase will only add to the continued 

deterioration of mobility without capacity improvements to address the system deficiencies. 

4. Demographics and Land Use

Based on US Census data, southern New Castle County (generally, the Middletown-OdessaTownsend (M-O-T) Planning District), experienced a total population growth of 60 percent from 

1990 to 2000. The countywide average growth for the same period was only 13 percent, and the 

statewide average for the same period was 18 percent. Similarly, between 1990 and 2000, the 

number of households grew by 62 percent in the M-O-T Planning district, while the number of 

households grew by only 13 percent countywide in New Castle County, mirroring the population 

growth trends. Together, these data show that southern New Castle County has experienced a 

growth in population and housing that is more than four times that of the rest of the county and 

more than three times that of the remainder of the state. This high level of growth is predicted to 

continue south of the Canal, particularly with the planned construction of two major subdivision 

developments, Westown and Bayberry. 

Employment in the project area between 1990 and 2000 did not increase at a similar rate. The 

current construction projects have provided employment for the building trades, but full-time 

professional jobs have been slow to develop in the project area. However, it is anticipated that 

service industry jobs will grow with the increase in residences in the area, and the completion of 

the Westown and Bayberry projects will boost the growth of industrial, commercial and 

professional jobs in the project area. 

5. Other Transportation Projects

With the completion of the 2000 MIS, funding was established, through DelDOT’s Capital 

Transportation Plan (CTP) process, to implement the transit, pedestrian, bicycle, intelligent 

transportation systems (ITS, or DelTRAC) and local roadway improvements recommended by 

the MIS. The efforts to date to implement the non-capacity related recommendations from the 

MIS are detailed in the following sections. The most recent approved CTP was completed for 

FY 2005-2010, and a draft is being reviewed for FY 2008-2013 (nearing approval).
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

PURPOSE AND NEED I-12 

a. Rail Passenger Service 

In 2004, DelDOT restarted the Downstate Rail Study. The study analyzed the feasibility of rail 

passenger service between Wilmington and Dover. Three proposed routes using existing railway 

alignments were studied: one from Wilmington to Newark to Dover and two from Newark to 

New Castle to Dover. All three would use the Delmarva Secondary (Norfolk Southern Railroad 

alignment) from Porter to Dover. The study determined that commuter rail service between 

Wilmington and Middletown or Dover is feasible. The study is complete; however, the project is 

not currently active. 

b. Enhanced Transit Service and Transit Supportive Infrastructure 

DelDOT, through the Delaware Transit Corporation (DTC), has implemented the following bus 

routes to support the growth in southern New Castle County:

Route 301, the former “Blue Diamond” route, now operating along SR 1 between 

Wilmington and Dover. Route 301 operates express and local service on weekdays only 

between 5:25 AM and 8:48 PM, with stops at the Odessa Park & Ride and the Boyds 

Corner Park & Ride; and 

Middletown Shuttle, bus route 304, operates daily and provides transfer connections to 

the Route 301 Express at the Odessa Park & Ride. The Shuttle operates local stop 

service from the Bethesda United Methodist Church Park & Ride along SR 299 to the 

Odessa Park & Ride. DTC is currently evaluating two proposals to expand service to 

accommodate the growth occurring at locations west of US 301. 

In addition, DTC continues to evaluate additional service to Newark and Wilmington from the 

Middletown area along SR 71, SR 72 and SR 1.

c. DelTRAC (ITS) Improvements 

DelDOT’s Phase I plan for implementing the integration of traffic signals statewide includes the 

US 301 corridor. To date, integration of the signals in the US 301 corridor into a coordinated 

system has only occurred north of US 40. Coordination of the existing signals between US 40 

and Middletown has yet to occur. 

d. US 301 Northbound Weigh and Inspection Station 

DelDOT is planning to construct a weigh and inspection station on northbound US 301 north of 

Strawberry Lane. The station will complement a similar, but not identical, weigh and inspection 

station constructed by the Maryland State Highway Administration on southbound US 301 at the 

MD 299 intersection, which opened in June 2007. DelDOT's northbound weigh and inspection 

station is scheduled for completion in 2009. The weigh and inspection station will incorporate 

state-of-the-art technology that will enable DelDOT and the Delaware State Police to detect, 

identify and weigh all vehicles approaching the station while the vehicles are still traveling at full 

highway speeds. DelDOT will also incorporate CVISN (Commercial Vehicle Information 

Systems and Networks) technology that will give participating trucks a greater probability of 

being permitted to pass the station without being required to enter (provided the truck is not 

overweight and is in good standing with the monitoring agency). 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

PURPOSE AND NEED I-13 

The weigh and inspection station has been designed to be compatible with potential future US 

301 improvements, requiring only minimal geometric modifications to the station's entry and exit 

ramps. The weigh and inspection station will be equipped with a Variable Message Sign (VMS) 

and a traffic camera that will both be linked to DelDOT's Traffic Management Center (TMC). 

e. Bicycles, Greenways and Trails 

There are two designated bicycle routes within the project area. Bicycle Route 1 is a statewide 

north/south bicycle route which traverses from Summit Bridge to Summit Bridge Road, west to 

Choptank Road, east on Bunker Hill Road and Main Street, then south on SR 71 to Green Giant 

Road, west to Wiggins Mill Road, and then south to Townsend. The C&D Canal Greenway 

provides bicycle trails paralleling the C&D Canal on both sides. DelDOT is currently 

conducting a statewide planning study to identify bicycle routes to link communities, parks, 

urban centers, tourist destinations and employment centers. 

WILMAPCO and Delaware Greenways are conducting project planning to enlarge the existing 

greenways and trails system in New Castle County and Cecil County, Maryland. Proposed trails 

public workshops were held in the spring of 2006. 

f. Southern New Castle County Local Road Circulation Plan 

Over the next few years, a series of local and arterial roadway improvements are scheduled for 

implementation. These improvements are a part of the network of roadway improvements that 

are included in the traffic model that was used to develop the 2030 traffic forecasts. The 

improvements are listed in Table I-2 and shown on Figure I-4, and include those for the 

Westown development (see section g, below). 

Table I-2: Southern New Castle County Local Road Circulation Plan 

No. Improvement Status 

1 Mount Pleasant (intersection improvements) Completed 

2 Armstrong Corner Road/US 301 (traffic signal) Completed 

3 US 301, Middleneck Road to Frogtown Crossing (lane addition) In design 

4 Levels Rd., St. Anne’s Church Road to US 301 (reconstruction) In construction 

5 Bunker Hill Road, US 301 to Choptank Road (reconstruction) In construction 

6 Choptank Road, Bunker Hill Road to Bethel Church Road (reconstruction) In construction 

7 Boyds Corner Road / US 13 (intersection improvements) In design 

8 Wiggins Mill Road, Green Giant Road to St. Anne’s Church Road (reconstruction) In design 

9 St. Anne’s Church Road, Levels Road to east of Wiggins Mill Road (reconstruction) In design 

10 Cedar Lane Road/Boyds Corner Road (intersection improvements) In design 

11 Boyds Corner Road, Cedar Lane Road to US 13 (lane addition) In design 

12 Jamison Corner Road (reconstruction) In design 

13 Route 412A (realignment) In design 

14 Lorewood Grove Road (reconstruction) In design 

15 St. Anne’s Bridge over Norfolk Southern Railroad In design 
0123

SCALE IN MILES

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

project development rojectdevelopment

U.S.

US 301 Project Development

Delaware

Department of

Transportation

November 2007

É Figure

Not to Scale

9

Planned Local Roadway

Improvements

Improvement Number - see

Table I-2 for description of

improvements

LEGEND

x

SOUTHERN NEW CASTLE COUNTY

LOCAL ROAD CIRCULATION PLAN

I-4

3

4

8

9

5

1

10

6

7 11

12

13

15

14

2
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

PURPOSE AND NEED I-15 

g. Westown Roadway Improvement Projects 

There are several transportation improvement projects included in the Westown Program 

Management project to design and construct transportation improvements in the area to support 

planned growth in the area known as Westown. These projects are provided under an agreement 

between the Westown Development Group, the Town of Middletown and DelDOT to coordinate 

the necessary improvements, including public utilities. The agreement also provides for private 

financial contributions to the transportation improvements. These improvements include: 

US 301 from Middleneck Road to Petersen Road - Reconstruct US 301 to provide 4 

travel lanes, sidewalks and drainage improvements 

Levels Road, from MOT Charter School to US 301 - Reconstruct Levels Road to provide 

12-foot lanes and 8-foot shoulders between US 301 and future Industrial Drive and 11-

foot lanes with 5-foot shoulders for the balance 

Wiggins Road, from Green Giant Road to St. Anne’s Road - Improve to include 11-foot 

lanes with 5-foot shoulders 

St. Anne’s Church Road from Levels Road to east of Wiggins Mill - Reconstruct to 

provide 11-foot lanes with 5-foot shoulders between Levels Rd and NS RR Bridge; 

includes roundabouts at Levels Rd and Wiggins Mill Rd intersections 

Bunker Hill Road, from US 301 to Choptank Road - Reconstruct to provide 11-foot 

lanes, 5-foot shoulders, and sidewalks 

h. Improvements in Maryland 

In Maryland, the Consolidated Transportation Program includes project planning by the 

Maryland State Highway Administration to develop interchange options at US 301/MD 304. 

The Maryland Transportation Authority’s Task Force on Traffic Capacity across the Chesapeake 

Bay issued a report addressing issues associated with crossing the Chesapeake Bay. 

D. Conclusion 

Forty years and numerous studies later, the need to improve mobility in southern New Castle 

County, and in particular to increase capacity and safety in the US 301 corridor, remains. 

DelDOT’s most recent study, the Greater Route 301 Major Investment Study, began with the 

premise that additional roadway capacity would only be a last resort, if all other possible 

solutions for addressing mobility in the study area failed. After a concerted effort and an 

evaluation of over 100 alternatives including land use scenarios, bus transit options, commuter 

rail options, HOV lanes, bicycle facilities and area wide pedestrian improvement plans, 

transportation demand management measures, tolls and congestion pricing, ITS Improvements 

and roadway improvements, the conclusion was that a new limited access roadway must be an 

element of the overall solution. 

DelDOT has begun to initiate the non-capacity related recommendations from the 2000 MIS. 

The focus of this US 301 Project Development effort is to determine where additional capacity 

should be developed in the US 301 corridor. This effort will attempt to improve and enhance 

safety, manage truck traffic, and address existing and projected traffic congestion in the US 301 

corridor, while accommodating existing and planned development and minimizing 

environmental impacts. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-1 

II. ALTERNATIVES

This section describes the alternatives selection process and evaluates the alternatives that have 

been considered for implementation through the US 301 Project Development process. The 

process began with prior alternatives evaluated in the 1993 DEIS and the 2000 MIS and 

continued with the addition of alternatives developed during the current effort. A broad range of 

alternatives was considered, and the No-Build Alternative and four build alternatives were 

retained for detailed evaluation. The four build alternatives were evaluated for potential impacts 

and subjected to modifications and refinements to avoid or minimize these impacts. Alignment 

and engineering modifications were made that provide a more efficient flow of projected traffic 

and avoid potential impacts to the natural and built environmental resources. 

DelDOT published the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the current effort in 

November 2006. The DEIS recommended the Green Alternative North Option (plus Spur 

Road), with Armstrong Corner Road Area Option 2A and Summit Interchange Option 3B (Green 

North), as the preferred alignment, based upon the calculated impacts at the level of engineering 

completed for the DEIS. Following the Combined Location-Design Public Hearing on January 8 

and 9, 2007, and with consideration of comments received throughout the planning process from 

the resource and regulatory agencies, stakeholders and the public, the Green North Alternative 

was subjected to more detailed planning-level engineering to refine the alignment. 

DelDOT announced its Preferred Alternative, the Green North Alignment plus Spur Road, on 

May 17, 2007. Several alignment options have been considered for the Preferred Alternative. 

Detailed engineering has refined the alignment further while attempting to avoid impacts and 

minimize those impacts that cannot be avoided. 

The Chapter begins with a presentation of the Preferred Alternative in Section A. Section B 

presents the No-Build Alternative and the build alternatives that were retained for detailed 

evaluation but are not preferred. Section C presents a discussion of the alignment options that 

were considered for the alternatives during the evaluation process. Section D briefly describes 

those alternatives in the initial range of alternatives that were eliminated from further evaluation. 

A. Preferred Alternative 

The Preferred Alternative, the Green Alternative North Option with Armstrong Corner 

Road Area Option 2A, Summit Interchange Option 3B and Ratledge Road Area Option 4B 

Modified, will be constructed on new location along the ridge route (also called the ridge 

alignment - generally follows the ridgeline or drainage divide between the Delaware River 

watershed and the Chesapeake Bay watershed) as a four-lane, limited access roadway, traveling 

generally northward from the Delaware/Maryland state line to north of Middletown near 

Armstrong Corner Road. In the vicinity of Armstrong Corner Road, the mainline alignment will 

continue northeast to cross over existing US 301, the Norfolk Southern Railroad and existing 

SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road) before tying into SR 1 north of the Biddles Corner Toll Plaza. 

Near Armstrong Corner Road, where the alignment extends to the northeast, a two-lane, limited 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-2 

access Spur Road will continue north on new location along the ridge route to intersect 

SR 15/SR 896 south of Summit Bridge and the C & D Canal.

The Preferred Alternative measures a total length of 17.5 miles including the Spur Road, and has 

six interchanges: a diamond interchange southwest of Middletown at Levels Road; righton/right-off ramps at existing US 301 in the vicinity of Armstrong Corner Road; a diamond 

interchange at Jamison Corner Road; ramps that tie into SR 1 north of the Biddles Corner Toll 

Plaza; a partial cloverleaf interchange along the Spur Road at an extended Bethel Church Road; 

and Spur Road ramps tying into existing US 301/SR 896 just south of Summit Bridge over the 

C&D Canal. The Green North Alternative is shown in Appendix A. The Preferred Alternative is 

shown in detail on Preferred Alternative, Sheets 1 through 9, in Appendix B.

The Green North Alternative is preferred by DelDOT, based on a holistic evaluation of all of the 

impacts of the alternatives on the natural, historic and socioeconomic environment. Generally, 

the Green North Alternative’s effects on the natural environment (wetlands, streams and habitat 

areas) are comparable in number to those of the Brown and Purple Alternatives, making the 

choice dependent upon other elements of the various alignments and options, such as location of 

impacts, mitigation potential, and impacts to communities. Community impacts of the Green 

Alternative North and South Options are fewer when compared to those of the Brown and Purple 

Alternatives and have the best potential for mitigation. Although the Green North and South 

Alternatives both traverse open space and farm fields north of Boyds Corner Road, this area is 

slated for future development. The Green Alternative Options best meet the project purpose and 

need based on the analysis of future traffic. The Green North’s single, less complex, shorter and 

more perpendicular crossing of Scott Run, compared with a longer and more skewed crossing of 

Scott Run required by the Green South Alternative plus the need for an additional crossing of 

Scott Run supports the choice of the Green North Option over the South. Alignment refinements 

to the North Option allowed the avoidance of the Wooleyhan and Emerson Farms as well as the 

proposed high school parcel north of Boyds Corner Road and east of Ratledge Road. 

1. Description of the Preferred Green North Alternative 

a. Mainline - State Line to Norfolk Southern Railroad 

Beginning just west of the Delaware/Maryland state line, in Maryland, the Green North 

Alternative will tie into the existing four-lane Maryland portion of US 301 prior to entering 

Delaware. Continuing north, the alignment will be located on new location on the ridge route, 

west of Middletown, between existing US 301 and Choptank Road. The Green North 

Alternative will shift from a northerly direction to a northeasterly direction in the vicinity of 

Armstrong Corner Road and will continue in a northeasterly direction, crossing over existing US 

301 approximately 3,000 feet north of Marl Pit Road. The alignment will then cross over the 

Norfolk Southern rail line. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-3 

b. Mainline - Norfolk Southern Railroad to SR 1

East of the Norfolk Southern Railroad overpass, the Green North Alternative alignment will 

continue in a northeast direction, then turns almost directly north to follow the old Delaware 

Power & Light (DP&L) right-of-way to pass over SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road). North of Boyds 

Corner Road, the North Option will continue in a northerly direction before turning almost 

directly east toward SR 1. The new US 301 alignment will interchange with a reconstructed 

Jamison Corner Road, pass south of the Airmont community, cross over Scott Run and under a 

reconstructed Hyetts Corner Road, and continue east, terminating at SR 1 north of the existing 

Biddles Corner Toll Plaza and south of the SR 1 bridge (recently named the Senator William V. 

Roth, Jr. Bridge) over the C&D Canal. Directional ramps would be provided from southbound 

SR 1 to southbound US 301 and from northbound US 301 to northbound SR 1.

c. Spur Road - Armstrong Corner Road Area to Summit Bridge

The Green North Alternative Spur Road would extend from the new US 301 mainline in the 

vicinity of Armstrong Corner Road and continue on the ridge alignment, between Choptank 

Road and existing US 301, to just south of the Summit Bridge. A potential interchange would 

replace the existing US 301/SR 896/SR 15 intersection. Old Schoolhouse Road and Churchtown 

Road would overpass the Spur Road (no access). Bethel Church Road would be extended east 

from the existing intersection of Bethel Church Road and Choptank Road, and would 

interchange with the Spur Road (providing access to and from the north only). 

d. Preferred Options 

Armstrong Corner Road (ACR) Area

Armstrong Corner Road Area Option 2A will provide right-on/right-off ramps between new and 

existing US 301. The northbound entrance and exit ramps will be located on existing US 301 

approximately 1,000 feet north of Armstrong Corner Road. The southbound entrance and exit 

ramps will be located on existing US 301, approximately 3,500 feet north of Armstrong Corner 

Road. Two new signalized intersections on existing US 301 will control exit and entry traffic. 

This option locates the interchange access on an arterial road (existing US 301) rather than on a 

local road (Armstrong Corner Road), and has a low amount of impacts to high quality wetlands 

and forests and a relatively high amount of impacts to waters of the US, when compared to other 

options. Traffic operations will be affected by the two additional signals required on existing US 

301 for the access ramps, but the signal spacing will be greater than with Option 2 (see Section

C.1 of this chapter for a discussion of the options not preferred). Option 2A will require a wider 

bridge crossing over existing US 301 to accommodate the deceleration lane for the loop ramp 

from new southbound US 301 to existing US 301, and turn lanes may have to be added on 

existing US 301 to accommodate queues accessing the ramps. Option 2A will be closer to the 

Springmill community (700 feet) than Options 1 (1,300 feet) and 2 (800 feet). Option 2A will 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-4 

not require relocation of the Middletown Baptist Church and will avoid direct impacts to the 

Middletown Baptist Church property. 

ACR Area Option 2A is preferred, because it locates the interchange on an arterial road rather 

than a local road, has significantly less right-of-way and relocation impacts than Option 2, and 

balances impacts to local community and cultural resources (Middletown Baptist Church, 

Springmill community and Armstrong-Walker House). Option 2A is also preferred because it 

has a low impact (0.8 acre) to high quality wetlands and minimal impact to forested lands (9.9 

acres).

Summit Interchange (SI) Area

SI Area Option 3B will provide a directional “Y” interchange between SR 896 and the US 301 

Spur Road. This Option will improve the sharp curve (through movement) on SR 896 to the 

desired design speed and eliminate the signalized intersection on the curve. Access from SR 15 

to SR 896 would be relocated to an east-west extension of Bethel Church Road from Choptank 

Road to the Spur Road and a grade separated/trumpet interchange would be provided at the Spur 

Road/Bethel Church Road extended, providing access to and from the north (Summit Bridge. 

Access to SR 896 from the communities to the north (Lea Eara Farms and Summit Bridge) will 

be provided at the existing signalized intersection of Old Summit Bridge Road and SR 896. 

Option 3B will improve traffic operations and safety on the Spur Road by providing interchange 

ramps to and from the north at this location rather than an intersection (Option 3). A discussion 

of the Summit Interchange Options not preferred is located in Section C.2 of this Chapter. 

SI Area Option 3B is preferred because it provides for safer, free-flowing traffic on the Spur 

Road, removes the proposed signal on the Spur Road (Options 1, 3 and 4 require signals), and 

reduces potential noise associated with the signal (braking, stopping and starting). The 

interchange at the proposed extension of Bethel Church Road and the Spur Road improves 

traffic operations and safety on the Spur Road by providing a limited access facility with a 

continuous divided median and no access points or intersections. 

Ratledge Road (RR) Area

Ratledge Road Area Option 4B is an option proposed by community members in order to avoid 

impacts to active farm properties. The modified alignment will follow the former DP&L rightof-way from northeast of the Norfolk Southern railroad alignment to north of Boyds Corner 

Road. Option 4B Modified will minimize farmland impacts and has moderate impacts to 

wetlands, waters of the US and forests. RR Area Option 4B (see Section C.4 of this Chapter for 

a discussion of other options) was modified slightly, shifting the alignment on the north side of 

Boyds Corner Road slightly eastward to minimize impacts to a higher quality wetland system 

and forest land to become Option 4B Modified. The modification reduced wetland impacts by 

one acre and forest impacts by more than 2.5 acres. This option results in adverse effects to an 

additional historic property, the T.J. Houston Farm.
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-5 

RR Area Option 4B Modified is preferred because it avoids impacts to active familyowned/operated farms (Wooleyhan and Emerson) and the associated farming community and 

has lower impacts to high quality wetlands and forest areas. It has received concurrence from 

the ACOE, EPA, USFWS, DDA and DNREC provided that sufficient protections and mitigation 

can be achieved to offset additional natural resources impacts through the creation of forested 

wetlands and the protection of existing high quality wetlands in the Scott Run watershed (see 

Chapter III, F.6.c for a discussion of mitigation and protection commitments.) 

e. Additional Alignment Refinements for the Preferred Alternative 

Since publication of the DEIS on November 17, 2007, several engineering solutions have been 

developed to address issues raised by the public and agencies prior to and during the public 

comment period following its publication.

Visual Screening Earth Berm – Middletown Veterinary Hospital

An earth berm will be included in the design of US 301 in the vicinity of the relocated Warwick 

Road, north of the state line, adjacent to the Middletown Veterinary Hospital. This six foot high, 

900 foot long berm will provide visual screening for the hospital. The berm is shown on the 

Preferred Alternative design sheets in Appendix B (Sheet 1).

Existing US 301 Connection to Strawberry Lane

A roadway connection will be provided between existing US 301 and Strawberry Lane, just 

north of the proposed truck weigh station on the east (northbound) side of new US 301. This 

connection is in response to farmers west of US 301 who frequently drive and transport farm 

machinery to a repair/sales business located on existing US 301 as well as to provide access to 

the granary in Townsend. The connection will allow easy movement for farm vehicles without 

lengthy detours or travel on new US 301. Farm vehicles are usually bulky, oversized, frequently 

loaded with farm produce, and travel at speeds lower than other vehicles; the connection is made 

to assure safe travel conditions for these vehicles. The connection is shown on the Preferred 

Alternative design sheets in Appendix B (Sheet 1).

Stormwater Management Facilities

Preliminary studies of existing topography and drainage patterns along the proposed Preferred 

Alternative alignment have been completed to determine the appropriate placement of 

stormwater management facilities (shown on the engineering drawings in Appendix B). 

Locations and capacities of the facilities have been refined in order to maximize functionality 

and minimize impacts. Capacity and number of facilities are based on current Delaware SWM 

regulations and sized to determine the maximum ROW footprint necessary to treat SWM 

conventionally. It is anticipated that Delaware SWM regulations will change prior to 

construction and these changes will not increase the size or number of facilities needed for SWM 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-6 

management. During final design, low impact development technologies and alternate facility 

types will be evaluated and utilized where possible and may include linear infiltration trenches, 

bioretention swales, and grass filter strips. It is anticipated that inclusion of low impact 

development technologies will dramatically reduce the overall number and the size of remaining 

SWM treatment facilities. 

Engineering Design Modifications

The Preferred Alternative has been refined in order to minimize or avoid impacts where possible. 

These planning-level refinements include minor alignment shifts throughout the alignment as 

well as the use of steeper side slopes, retaining walls, lowering the roadway profile, and 

otherwise minimizing footprint in sensitive areas. Retaining walls are proposed along the 

southbound ramp from SR 1 to US 301 to minimize impacts to the wetlands near Scott Run, 

which has been identified as potential bog turtle habitat. The Churchtown Road overpass of the 

Spur Road has been modified to reduce impacts to the residential properties along Churchtown 

Road and to minimize impacts and retain access to Tidewater Utilities. In addition, maintenance 

of traffic concepts have been developed that allow crossroads to remain open during construction 

of overpasses at Old Schoolhouse Road, Churchtown Road, Bohemia Mill Road, Bunker Hill 

Road, Jamison Corner Road and Hyetts Corner Road. Refinements to avoid or minimize 

community, property and natural resource impacts will continue during final design. 

f. General Engineering Concepts 

US 301 Mainline

The typical section for the mainline, for all alternatives, is developed for a 70 mile per hour 

(MPH) design speed and is shown in Figure II-1. The mainline section will be limited access 

and include two 12-foot lanes in each direction and a 66-foot median. The outside shoulders 

would be 12 feet wide (ten feet paved and two feet graded), and the inside shoulders would be 

ten feet wide (four feet paved and six feet graded). Beyond the travel lane is a 30-foot wide clear 

zone, which includes the 12-foot shoulder and 18 feet of grading at a 6:1 slope. The clear zone 

provides a recovery area for errant vehicles that is free of hazards such as trees, ditches, culverts, 

etc. The standard side slopes beyond the clear zone range from 4:1 to 2:1 depending on the 

height of the cut or fill. Drainage ditches are included along the toe of fill to manage runoff and 

carry the flow to natural drainage channels, thereby minimizing impact to adjacent properties. 

The proposed right-of-way (ROW) and limit of disturbance (LOD) are set at 25 feet beyond the 

top of cut or fill slope drainage ditch to accommodate erosion and sediment control and 

construction. Visual screening earth berms are included along the outside shoulders in some 

sensitive areas and are included in the proposed ROW and LOD. The ROW/LOD line is used 

throughout this document to estimate environmental and property impacts for the alternatives. 
24' (min.)

Ditch

10' 10' 10' 10'

Paved

Shld.

12'

Graded Shld.

12'

Graded Shld.

Paved

Shld.

Graded

Shld.

Graded

Shld.

34' (min.)

Ditch

30'

Clear Zone

4' (min.)

4'

(min.)

Paved

Shld.

4'

(min.)

Paved

Shld. 4' (min.) 4'

(min.)

66'

Depressed Median

24'

Proposed Roadway

24'

Proposed Roadway

25'

to LOD

25'

to LOD

NORTHBOUND

US 301

CUT SECTION FILL SECTION SOUTHBOUND

US 301

30'

Clear Zone

30'

Clear Zone

4' Paved

Shld.

4' Paved

Shld.

62'

Median

12'

Proposed Roadway

12'

Proposed Roadway

10'

Graded Shld.

10'

Graded Shld.

19' 19'

12'

Graded Shld.

12'

Graded Shld.

10'

Paved Shld.

10'

Paved Shld. 4' 4'

4'

Berm

NORTHBOUND

US 301

SPUR ROAD

SOUTHBOUND

US 301

SPUR ROAD

30'

Clear Zone

US 301 Project Development

Typical Sections for US 301

DelawareDepartment ofTransportation

November 2007 Figure II-1

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

projectdevelopment project development

US. .

Mainline US 301

Spur Road US 301
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-8 

US 301 Spur Road 

The typical section for the US 301 Spur Road is developed for a 70 MPH design speed and is 

shown in Figure II-1. The Spur Road will be limited access and include one 12-foot lane in 

each direction and a 62-foot median. The outside shoulders would be 12 feet wide (ten feet 

paved and two feet graded), and the inside shoulders would be ten feet wide (four feet paved and 

six feet graded). The clear zone, side slopes, and limit of disturbance proposed for the mainline 

also apply to the Spur Road.

Interchange Ramps

The interchange ramps are developed with design speeds ranging from 35 MPH for loop ramps, 

50 MPH for directional ramps, to 60 MPH for the ramps between US 301 and SR 1. The typical 

section for the interchange ramps is shown in Figure II-2. Ramps typically include one lane, 16 

feet wide on loop and directional ramps and 12 feet wide on flyover ramps. The right shoulders 

would be six feet wide (all paved) on loop and directional ramps and 12 feet wide (ten feet paved 

and two feet graded) on flyover ramps. The left shoulders would be four feet wide (all paved). 

The clear zone, side slopes, and limit of disturbance proposed for the mainline also apply to the 

interchange ramps. 

Local, Collector and Arterial Roads

The local and collector roads are developed with design speeds ranging from 35 MPH to 40 

MPH. The typical section for local and collector roads, shown in Figure II-3, consists of two 

11-foot lanes and two five-foot wide paved shoulders. The clear zone varies from 16 to 30 feet 

and includes the shoulders and grading at a 6:1 slope. A 50 MPH design speed is used for the 

arterial roads. The typical section for arterial roads, also shown in Figure II-3, consists of two 

12-foot lanes, two eight-foot wide paved shoulders, and a 30-foot clear zone. The side slopes 

and limit of disturbance proposed in the mainline also apply to the local, collector and arterial 

roads.

B. Alternatives Retained for Detailed Evaluation 

The No-Build Alternative and four build alternatives (Yellow, Purple, Brown (North and South 

Options) and Green (North and South Options)) were retained for detailed evaluation during the 

alternatives development planning process. The four build alternatives are shown on Figure II-4 

and in Appendix A. Programmed improvements included in the Delaware Department of 

Transportation Capital Transportation Program FY 2008 – FY 2013 (CTP) are assumed under 

the No-Build Alternative as well as the build alternatives, and none of the build alternatives 

would preclude the completion of any of the programmed improvements. 

The No-Build Alternative reflects the existing roadway conditions, with only scheduled 

maintenance and minor roadway and safety improvements. 
Traffic Barrier

with Beam

US 301 Ramp

6' - 10'

Paved Shld.

4'

Paved Shld.

30' Clear Zone 30' Clear Zone

12'-16'

Ramp

US 301 Project Development

Typical Sections for US 301 Ramps

Delaware

Department of

Transportation

November 2007 Figure

II-2

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

project development rojectdevelopment

U.S.
The dimensions shown are for the purpose of

determining cost estimates and environmental

impacts and are subject to change during the

final design phase.

5'

Paved

Shld.

5'

Paved

Shld.

8' Paved

Shoulder

8' Paved

Shoulder

16' - 30' Clear Zone 16' - 30' Clear Zone

22'

Roadway

24'

Roadway

Local Road / Collector Road

Arterial Road

18' - 30'

Clear Zone

18' - 30'

Clear Zone

US 301 Project Development

Typical Sections for US 301 Local Roads,

Collector Roads and Arterial Roads

Delaware

Department of

Transportation

November 2007 Figure

II-3

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

project development rojectdevelopment

U.S.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

project development rojectdevelopment

U.S.

US 301 Project Development

Delaware

Department of

Transportation

November 2007

É Figure

Not to Scale II-4

ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR

DETAILED EVALUATION
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-12 

All of the retained build alternatives would provide a four-lane (two lanes in each direction), 

divided, fully access controlled (denial of access along both sides of roadway except at 

interchange locations), tolled roadway from the Delaware/Maryland state line to SR 1, south of 

the C&D Canal. The Purple and Green Alternatives also provide a two-lane (one lane in each 

direction), divided, access controlled Spur Road from the Armstrong Corner Road area to an 

interchange with SR 15/SR 896 south of the Summit Bridge. Each of the Alternatives Retained 

for Detailed Evaluation is shown on a separate graphic in Appendix A and described in the 

following sections.

All of the build alternatives would include a mainline toll plaza north of the Delaware/Maryland 

state line prior to any local access points. The collection of tolls is proposed on all north-serving 

ramps (all on-ramps for vehicles entering the roadway traveling northbound and all off-ramps for 

vehicles traveling southbound as they exit the roadway). 

There are two toll collection options currently under consideration. The first option, traditional 

tolling, would consist of a mainline toll plaza with highway speed E-ZPassTM toll lanes and cash 

toll collection lanes (which would also accept E-ZPassTM) in each direction. North serving 

ramps would include highway speed E-ZPassTM and cash toll collection lanes (which would also 

accept E-ZPassTM). 

The second toll collection option, Open Road Tolling (ORT), would use overhead gantries with 

cameras and E-ZPassTM reading equipment. Drivers would not be required to stop under the 

Open Road Tolling option. The overhead cameras would photograph the license plate of those 

vehicles not having E-ZPassTM and an invoice would be sent to those non- E-ZPassTM users of 

the US 301 facility. 

The Department is continuing to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the two options, 

including construction and operating costs and effects on toll revenues. The impacts, 

construction and real estate costs included in this document assume the traditional toll collection 

option. ORT would reduce the area required for toll collection facilities by replacing toll plazas 

with overhead gantries, cameras and E-ZPassTM reading equipment. 

1. No-Build Alternative, Programmed Improvements and Multi-Modal Elements

The No-Build Alternative reflects the existing roadway conditions, with only scheduled 

maintenance and minor roadway and safety improvements. Programmed improvements included 

in the Delaware Department of Transportation CTP FY 2008 – FY 2013 are assumed under the 

No-Build Alternative as well as the build alternatives, but none of the alternatives, build or NBuild, would include any of the impacts associated with the CTP improvements. The build 

alternatives are compared to the No-Build Alternative with respect to impacts to the natural and 

built environment. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-13 

a. Description of the Existing Roadway 

US 301, Delaware/Maryland State Line to Chesapeake and Delaware Canal

US 301 enters Delaware from Maryland approximately eight miles south of the Chesapeake and 

Delaware (C&D) Canal. A four-lane divided highway in Maryland, US 301 narrows to two 

lanes before crossing the state line, and continues in Delaware as a two-lane undivided roadway 

with at-grade intersections through Middletown to Mount Pleasant. In Middletown, SR 71 from 

Townsend merges with US 301. The roadway alignment in this area is generally north/northeast 

through Middletown and is approximately parallel to the Norfolk Southern railroad alignment. 

North of Mount Pleasant, US 301 (Summit Bridge Road) merges with SR 896 and continues as a 

four-lane divided roadway towards the Summit Bridge crossing of the C&D Canal. South of the 

C&D Canal, US 301/SR 896 curves to the west for approximately 3,500 feet before making a 

sharp turn to the north, where the alignment merges with SR 15 (Bethel Church Road) before 

crossing the Summit Bridge. The existing intersection of SR 15 and US 301/SR 896 is a 

signalized intersection located on a 90 degree curve at the base of a steep grade descending from 

the Summit Bridge. This location has a history of serious accidents that includes 54 injuries and 

three fatalities between September 1999 and October 2004. The Summit Bridge carries two 

lanes of traffic in each direction.

US 301/SR 896, C&D Canal to I-95

Approximately 6,000 feet north of the C&D Canal, US 301/SR 896 becomes a four-lane divided 

highway extending north to US 40. SR 896 extends from US 40 to I-95 as a four-lane divided 

highway. An additional lane in each direction is provided at the SR 896/US 40 intersection to 

facilitate the flow of traffic through the intersection. The additional lanes end approximately 

2,000 feet north and south of US 40. The US 301/SR 896 alignment north of the C&D Canal is 

generally north to south, with a variable width grassed median and at-grade intersections. SR 71 

leaves the roadway before the divided highway begins, and the US 301 designation stops at 

US 40 while the roadway extends north as SR 896 to I-95.

SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road), US 301 to SR 1 

Prior to merging with US 301 at Mount Pleasant, SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road) is a two-lane 

local road that extends east to Boyds Corner, where it intersects US 13 and interchanges with 

SR 1. East of SR 1, Boyds Corner Road continues as Pole Bridge Road to Port Penn on the 

Delaware River. 

b. Programmed Improvements 

Programmed improvements in the area are included in DelDOT’s currently adopted CTP FY 

2008 – 2013. These improvements are scheduled for completion whether or not a build 

alternative is selected and constructed for the US 301 project. These projects are shown in 

Figure II-5 and include: 
0123

SCALE IN MILES

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

project development rojectdevelopment

U.S.

US 301 Project Development

Delaware

Department of

Transportation

November 2007

É Figure

Not to Scale

9

CTP Projects

Local Roadway

Improvements Area

Improvement Number - see

Section B. 2 for description

of improvements

LEGEND

x

CTP PROGRAMMED IMPROVEMENTS

II-5

6

1

7

2

2

4

3

3

5
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-15 

1 US 13, Odessa Transportation Plan Implementation – focus on SR 299 from Memorial 

Park to the Causeway: safety, streetscaping, pedestrian, bicycle improvements and safe 

crossing of US 13 (completed) 

2 US 13 and SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road) and SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road) and SR 71 

Mt. Pleasant Intersection Improvements – address traffic congestion problems at the 

intersections (SR 896/SR 71 improvements completed) 

3 Southern New Castle County Local Road Circulation Plan (including Westown) – 

recommended intersection, road and operational safety improvements to Mount Pleasant 

intersection (completed), Armstrong Corner Road/US 301 intersection (installed signal; 

completed), US 301, Levels Road, Bunker Hill Road, Choptank Road, Boyds Corner 

Road (intersection improvements and lane addition), Wiggins Mill Road, Saint Anne’s 

Church Road, Cedar Lane Road, Jamison Corner Road, Route 412A and Lorewood 

Grove Road; prioritized and phased in consideration of existing deficiencies, emerging 

development and sewer phasing; includes the infrastructure improvements necessary to 

support the Westown development 

4 SR 15, Choptank Road from Bunker Hill Road to Bethel Church Road – widen the 

existing roadway from 18 feet to 22 feet with additional five-foot pedestrian and bicycle 

shoulders, realign some sections, construct three roundabouts at Choptank Road/Bethel 

Church Road, Choptank Road/Churchtown Road, and Choptank Road/Bunker Hill Road 

(under construction) 

5 Passenger Rail Study to review the feasibility of providing passenger service on the 

Norfolk Southern Rail alignment from Wilmington through Middletown to Dover 

(completed). 

6 St. Ann’s Railroad Bridge Improvements – Replace the existing St. Ann’s Church Road 

bridge over the Norfolk Southern Railroad just south of Middletown 

7 Truck Weight Enforcement – Provide truck weigh and inspection station on northbound 

US 301 just north of the Maryland state line.

c. Multi-Modal Improvements 

The 2000 MIS looked at a wide range of multi-modal alternatives to consider within the project 

area, with the goals of reducing the percentage of trips by single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) and 

increasing the trip share of non-automotive modes of travel. Multi-modal options evaluated 

included bus and rail transit, high occupancy vehicle lanes, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, 

Transportation Demand Management Strategies (TDMS), Intelligent Transportation 

Management Systems (ITMS, or DelTrac) and major and minor roadway improvements. Many 

of these elements have been implemented and are ongoing, including bus transit service 

expansion and the construction of park and ride lots, commuter rail studies, the statewide bicycle 

study, ITMS improvements and local road improvements. Although these measures would help 

alleviate the growing and projected congestion in the corridor, the MIS also recognized the need 

for a limited access highway in the corridor. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-16 

2. Yellow Alternative

The Yellow Alternative would be constructed along the existing north/south alignment of 

US 301 from the Delaware/Maryland state line to Mount Pleasant, where the alignment would 

turn east/west and travel along existing SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road) to tie into SR 1, north of 

the SR 1/Boyds Corner Road interchange. Directional ramps from US 301 would join SR 1 

north of the Biddles Corner Toll Plaza. 

The Yellow Alternative measures a total length of 19.4 miles, including frontage roads, and has 

four interchanges: right-on/right-off ramps southwest of Middletown at Levels Road; slip ramps 

to service roads north of Middletown; directional ramps to and from SR 1 near Boyds Corner 

Road; and an interchange at the junction of SR 15/SR 896 at the base of Summit Bridge. The 

Yellow Alternative is shown in Appendix A and was shown in detail on Yellow Alternative, 

Sheets 1 through 6 in Appendix B of the DEIS.

a. Detailed Description of the Yellow Alternative 

State Line to Mount Pleasant

Beginning just west of the Delaware/Maryland state line, the Yellow Alternative would tie into 

the existing four-lane Maryland portion of US 301 prior to entering Delaware. The new 

alignment would parallel existing US 301 on the west side, minimizing impacts to a series of 

historic (listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places) properties along 

existing US 301. Arterial frontage roads located parallel to the mainline would provide access 

for properties along existing US 301 and allow for the circulation of local traffic. From Bunker 

Hill Road to Mount Pleasant, the Yellow Alternative would overpass SR 299, Bunker Hill Road, 

Main Street, SR 71, Frogtown Crossing, Armstrong Corner Road, and the Norfolk Southern rail 

line just south of Mount Pleasant. 

Mount Pleasant to SR 1

After crossing over the Norfolk Southern rail line, the Yellow Alternative extends in an east-west 

direction parallel to SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road). Existing Boyds Corner Road would continue 

to provide local access. The new US 301 would cross over Jamison Corner Road, Emerson 

Road, Shallcross Lake Road, US 13 and SR 1 and tie into SR 1, north of the SR 1/Boyds Corner 

Road interchange and south of the existing Biddles Corner Toll Plaza. Directional ramps from 

southbound SR 1 to southbound US 301 and from northbound US 301 to northbound SR 1 

would bypass the toll plaza.

SR 15/SR 896 Interchange

An interchange would replace the existing SR 15/SR 896 intersection at the base of Summit 

Bridge to address traffic and safety issues. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-17 

b. Why the Yellow Alternative is not Preferred 

The Yellow Alternative is not preferred because of having the highest impacts to communities 

(seven existing and four proposed), individual properties, and businesses that would occur with 

this alternative. An estimated 377 properties would be impacted, the highest of all the 

alternatives, including 118 residential relocations and 32 business relocations. Property 

acquisitions would result in the highest real estate costs and total costs of all of the alternatives. 

Although the Yellow Alternative would have a mid-level number of residential noise impacts (74 

residences), noise barrier mitigations would not be feasible in most locations, including 

residences in Summit Bridge Farms, Grande View Farms, and along Boyds Corner Road, 

because of the need to retain local access, additional impacts from adjacent roadways and/or the 

need for additional right-of-way to construct earth berms without additional property impacts. 

The location of the alignment adjacent to the existing US 301 and SR 896 corridors would have 

resulted in a 350 to 400 foot wide highway corridor along most of its length that would impede 

community cohesion within Middletown and the project area. One-way access roads alongside 

the roadway corridor would provide circuitous access to local business and residential properties 

along existing US 301.

The Yellow Alternative had among the lowest impacts to streams (215 linear feet), farmland, 

forest (36.9 acres) and other habitat. However, although the Yellow Alternative closely followed 

the existing US 301 and SR 296 corridors, it had the highest amount of impacts to wetlands of 

any of the alternatives (50.5 acres). Only the Yellow Alternative would physically impacted four 

known historic properties, requiring property acquisition from two and causing the destruction of 

two others. The Yellow Alternative would be the most difficult to construct and would have the 

greatest impact on the traveling public during construction. The Yellow Alternative would carry 

less traffic than the other build alternatives, thus would be less effective in fulfilling the project’s 

purpose and need. The Yellow Alternative had less public support than the other alternatives. 

3. Purple Alternative

The Purple Alternative would be constructed on new location along the ridge route, west of 

Middletown, extending north from the Delaware/Maryland state line to Armstrong Corner Road, 

where the alignment would then continue northeast to cross over existing US 301, the Norfolk 

Southern Railroad, and existing SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road), then extend parallel to existing 

Boyds Corner Road and tie into SR 1 north of the SR 1/Boyds Corner Road interchange and 

south of the Biddles Corner Toll Plaza. Near Armstrong Corner Road, a two-lane, limited access 

Spur Road would continue north on new location along the ridge route to interchange with 

SR 896, south of Summit Bridge and the C&D Canal. 

The Purple Alternative measures a total length of 16.9 miles, including the Spur Road, and has 

five interchanges: a diamond interchange southwest of Middletown at Levels Road; righton/right-off ramps at existing US 301 in the vicinity of Armstrong Corner Road; a flyover ramp 

at the terminus of the Spur Road at SR 896; flyover ramps at SR 1 near US 13 and SR 896 

(Boyds Corner Road); and a partial cloverleaf interchange along the Spur Road at an extended 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-18 

Bethel Church Road. The Purple Alternative is shown in Appendix A and was shown in detail 

on Purple Alternative, Sheets 1 through 8 in Appendix B of the DEIS.

a. Detailed Description of the Purple Alternative 

State Line to Armstrong Corner Road Area 

The Purple Alternative alignment would be identical to the Preferred Green North Alternative 

alignment in this portion of the roadway. 

Armstrong Corner Road Area to SR 1 - Mainline

After crossing to the north side of Boyds Corner Road, the Purple Alternative extends to the east, 

parallel to SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road). In this location, the Purple and Yellow Alternatives 

share a common alignment. Existing Boyds Corner Road would continue to provide local 

access. The new US 301 would cross over Jamison Corner Road, Emerson Road, Shallcross 

Lake Road, US 13 and SR 1 and tie into SR 1, north of the SR 1/Boyds Corner Road interchange 

and south of the existing Biddles Corner Toll Plaza. Directional ramps from southbound SR 1 to 

southbound US 301 and from northbound US 301 to northbound SR 1 would bypass the SR 1 

Biddles Corner Toll Plaza. 

Armstrong Corner Road Area to Summit Bridge - Spur Road

The Purple Alternative Spur Road would extend from the new US 301 mainline in the vicinity of 

Armstrong Corner Road and continue on the ridge alignment, between Choptank Road and 

existing US 301, to just south of the Summit Bridge. The existing US 301/SR 896/SR 15 

intersection would be replaced with a “Y” type interchange. Old Schoolhouse Road and 

Churchtown Road would overpass the Spur Road (no access). Bethel Church Road would be 

extended east from the existing intersection of Bethel Church Road and Choptank Road, and 

would interchange with the Spur Road (partial cloverleaf providing access to and from the 

north).

b. Why the Purple Alternative is not Preferred 

The Purple Alternative is not preferred because of greater social impacts to communities and 

community facilities along the portion of the alignment that follows SR 896 (Boyds Corner 

Road), including noise and visual impacts that could not be easily mitigated. The Purple 

Alternative had the highest number of potential residential noise impacts (148), and many (45) of 

the potential noise impacts were identified at residences and communities along Boyds Corner 

Road, where mitigation would not be feasible. There were potential impacts to the New 

Covenant Presbyterian Church, potential farmland/approved development impacts, and potential 

noise impacts to the Cedar Lane Educational Campus. The location of the alignment adjacent to 

Boyds Corner Road (which is programmed for expansion to four lanes) would have created a 

350-foot wide transportation corridor along Boyds Corner Road, disrupting community cohesion 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-19 

in the area. The Purple Alternative would require relocation of the Odessa Fire Department 

substation. Higher right-of-way costs and complex interchange and access road configurations 

led to a greater cost than the Green North Alternative. In general, the Purple Alternative has 

similar numbers of natural environmental impacts to the Green North Alternative, with slightly 

less wetlands impacts, less subaqueous lands impacts, and slightly greater waters of the US 

impacts. The Purple Alternative had the highest potential number (22) of historic properties 

indirectly affected (visual and noise effects) of all of the retained alternatives. 

4. Brown Alternative, North and South Options

The Brown Alternative would be constructed on new location along the ridge route, west of 

Middletown, from the Delaware/Maryland state line to south of Summit Bridge. It would then 

curve and extend on an easterly alignment to intersect with SR 1 north of the Biddles Corner Toll 

Plaza and south of the SR 1 bridge over the C&D Canal. The alignment of the Brown 

Alternative would be identical to the Purple Alternative from the state line to just south of 

Armstrong Corner Road, where it would continue north on the ridge alignment to north of 

Churchtown Road (similar to the Spur Road alignment for the Purple and Green Alternatives). 

At that point, the Brown Alternative provides two options for the east-west segment, the North 

Option and the South Option. 

The Brown Alternative North and South options measure a total length of 15.5 and 15.9 miles, 

respectively, and have five interchanges. Both options include a diamond interchange southwest 

of Middletown at Levels Road; directional ramps and a half diamond interchange at SR 

15/SR 896 south of Summit Bridge; a diamond interchange at Jamison Corner Road; and 

directional ramps between US 301 and SR 1 north of the Biddles Corner Toll Plaza. The North 

Option has an additional diamond interchange at SR 896 east of Summit Airpark, and the South 

Option includes a partial cloverleaf at SR 896 east of Summit Airpark. The Brown Alternative 

with North and South Options is shown in Appendix A and was shown in detail on Brown 

Alternative, Sheets 1 through 6 in Appendix B of the DEIS.

a. Detailed Description of the Brown Alternative North and South Options 

State Line to North of Churchtown Road

This portion of the Brown Alternative would be identical to the Purple Alternative until just 

south of Armstrong Corner Road, where the Brown Alternative would continue north along the 

ridge route until north of Churchtown Road. 

North of Churchtown Road to SR 1 – North Option

Just north of Churchtown Road, the Brown Alternative North Option would continue in a 

northerly direction towards the existing SR 15/SR 896 intersection south of Summit Bridge. The 

North alignment would then continue east/west on a new alignment toward SR 1, passing 

between the communities of Summit Bridge Farms and Lea Eara Farms. The North Alignment 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-20 

would cross over the Norfolk Southern rail line and under both a reconstructed Ratledge Road 

and a reconstructed Jamison Corner Road, pass south of the Airmont community, cross over 

Scott Run and under a reconstructed Hyetts Corner Road, and continue east to an interchange 

with SR 1 north of the existing Biddles Corner Toll Plaza and south of the SR 1 bridge over the 

C&D Canal. Directional ramps would be provided from southbound SR 1 to southbound US 301 

and from northbound US 301 to northbound SR 1. 

North of Churchtown Road to SR 1 – South Option

Just north of Churchtown Road, the Brown Alternative South Option alignment would turn 

northeast between the communities of Chesapeake Meadow and Summit Bridge Farms. The 

alignment would pass through the Summit Airport and cross over SR 896 and the Norfolk 

Southern Railroad. East of Ratledge Road, the alignment would then extend to SR 1 on the same 

alignment as the Brown North Option. 

b. Why the Brown Alternative Options are not Preferred 

The Brown Alternative North and South Options are not preferred primarily because of their 

impact on Summit Airport. The Brown South option would impact the existing airport runway 

and support buildings, and the Brown North option would impact the runway clear zone and 

affect expansion plans approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Impacts to the 

natural environment would be somewhat similar to the Green and Purple Alternatives, although 

the Brown Alternatives would have the greatest impacts to high quality wetlands, streams and 

habitat areas. DNREC does not support the Brown Alternatives because of their impacts to high 

quality wetlands and relatively undisturbed natural stream systems and wildlife corridors. 

The Brown Alternatives would impact one additional historic resource whose eligibility has not 

been determined, as this effort would require removal of parts of the building. Community 

impacts were also deemed high, as the North Option results in a three-level interchange between 

the communities of Summit Bridge Farms and Lea Eara Farms. Although the potential for noise 

impacts was lowest for the Brown Alternatives, some of the impacts would be difficult to 

minimize for communities adjacent to the Summit Interchange area. The Brown Alternatives 

also received consistent and considerable opposition at the public workshops and community 

meetings. 

5. Green Alternative South Option

The Green Alternative South Option would be constructed on new location along the ridge route, 

west of Middletown, from the Delaware/Maryland state line to north of Middletown near 

Armstrong Corner Road, where the mainline alignment would then continue northeast to cross 

over existing US 301, the Norfolk Southern Railroad, and existing SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road). 

The Green South Alternative would continue generally northeasterly, curving to the east to 

interchange with Jamison Corner Road, south of the proposed Scott Run Business Park. From 

Jamison Corner Road, the alignment extends generally northeasterly, then curves to the north, 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-21 

tying into SR 1 north of the Biddles Corner Toll Plaza. Near Armstrong Corner Road, a twolane, limited access Spur Road would continue north on new location along the ridge route and 

interchange with SR 15/SR 896 south of Summit Bridge and the C&D Canal. 

The Green Alternative South Option measures a total length of 17.3 miles, including the Spur 

Road, and has six interchanges: a diamond interchange southwest of Middletown at Levels Road; 

right-on/right-off ramps at existing US 301 in the vicinity of Armstrong Corner Road; a diamond 

interchange at Jamison Corner Road; directional ramps with SR 1 north of the Biddles Corner 

Toll Plaza; a partial cloverleaf interchange along the Spur Road at an extended Bethel Church 

Road; and directional ramps with SR 896, south of Summit Bridge. The Green Alternative with 

North and South Options is shown in Appendix A. The Green Alternative, South Option was 

shown in detail in the DEIS in Appendix B.

a. Detailed Description of the Green Alternative South Option 

State Line to Armstrong Corner Road Area

The alignment of the Green Alternative South Option would be identical to the Preferred Green 

Alternative North Option and Purple Alternatives for this portion of the roadway. 

Mainline - Armstrong Corner Road Area to SR 1

East of the Norfolk Southern Railroad overpass, the Green Alternative South Option alignment 

would continue in a northeasterly direction to pass over SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road). North of 

Boyds Corner Road, the South Option would continue on new location in a northeasterly 

direction toward SR 1, passing over Jamison Corner Road. The alignment would then cross over 

Scott Run and under a reconstructed Hyetts Corner Road, continuing on the same alignment as 

the North Option from east of Hyetts Corner Road. 

Armstrong Corner Road Area to Summit Bridge - Spur Road

The alignment of the Green Alternative Spur Road would be identical to the Preferred and Purple 

Alternatives Spur Road for this portion of the roadway. 

b. Why the Green Alternative South Option is not Preferred 

For the Green South Alternative, effects on the natural environment (wetlands, streams and 

habitat areas) would be generally comparable to those for the Purple, Brown and Green North 

Alternatives. When comparing the natural impacts of the two Green Alternatives, the Green 

South option had slightly greater impacts to wetlands (N = 26.2; S = 28.3 acres), waters of the 

US (N = 15,515; S = 16,326 linear feet) and forests (N = 34.1; S = 36.8 acres). For both the 

Green North and Green South Alternatives, community impacts were fewer than for the other 

alternatives retained for detailed evaluation and had the greatest potential for mitigation. The 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-22 

Green South Alternative ranked equally with the Green North Alternative in meeting the purpose 

and need for the project, based on the analysis of future traffic.

The Green Alternative South Option is not preferred because, although the impacts to resources 

are similar to those of the preferred North Option, the South Option requires two crossings of 

Scott Run while the North Option requires a single crossing. In addition, the South Option’s 

crossing of Scott Run, east of Jamison Corner Road, is longer and more skewed than the North 

Option’s crossing. The Green South Alternative would impact the family-owned and operated 

Emerson Farm and the potential future high school parcel north of Boyds Corner Road. 

Although a similar modification could have been made for Green South to avoid impacts to the 

potential school parcel and the Emerson Farm (as was made for Green North in Ratledge Road 

Area Option 4B Modified), it is likely that this would have increased the length of the second 

crossing of Scott Run, further increasing the amount of the impact to this sensitive watershed. 

Because of the additional Scott Run crossing and the greater impacts to wetlands and waters of 

the US of the South Option when compared to the North Option, DNREC preferred the Green 

North Option.

6. Preliminary Comparison of Engineering Features

Each of the Alternatives Retained for Detailed Evaluation was compared on the basis of its 

engineering features and on its ability to meet the project’s Purpose and Need. A comparison of 

the engineering and design features and estimated costs, as reported in the DEIS, is summarized 

in Table II-1.

Table II-1: Comparison of Engineering Features and Costs 

Features Yellow 

Alternative 

Purple 

Alternative 

Brown 

Alternative 

North Option 

Brown 

Alternative 

South Option 

Green 

Alternative 

North Option 

Green 

Alternative 

South Option 

Alignment 

Description 

On alignment 

US 301 plus E/W 

SR 896 

Ridge route plus on 

alignment E/W SR 

896 (with spur) 

Ridge route plus 

new northern E/W 

alignment 

Ridge route plus 

new northern E/W 

alignment 

Ridge route plus 

new E/W 

alignment 

(with spur) 

Ridge route plus 

new E/W 

alignment 

(with spur) 

Alignment 

Length, miles 19.4 16.9 17.5 15.9 17.5 17.3 

Total Area of 

LOD, acres 870 902 896 894 897 876 

Number of 

Properties 

Impacted 

301 164 114 121 142 139 

# of 

Interchanges 4 5 5 5 6 6 

Interchange 

Locations 

• Levels Road 

• 301 north of 

Middletown 

• SR1at Boyds 

Corner Rd 

• SR 15/SR 896 

• Levels Road 

• Armstrong 

Corner Rd 

• SR1at Boyds 

Corner Rd 

• Bethel Church Rd 

• SR 15/SR 896 

• Levels Road 

• SR896/Summit 

Bridge 

• SR896/Summit 

Airpark

• Jamisons Corner 

Rd

• SR1 north of Toll 

Plaza

• Levels Road 

• SR896/Summit 

Bridge 

• SR896/Summit 

Airpark

• Jamisons Corner 

Rd

• SR1 north of Toll 

Plaza

• Levels Road 

• Armstrong 

Corner Rd

• Jamisons Corner 

Rd

• SR1 north of Toll 

Plaza

• Bethel Church Rd 

• SR 15/SR 896 

• Levels Road 

• Armstrong 

Corner Rd

• Jamisons Corner 

Rd

• SR1 north of Toll 

Plaza

• Bethel Church Rd 

• SR 15/SR 896 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-23 

Table II-1: Comparison of Engineering Features and Costs 

Features Yellow 

Alternative 

Purple 

Alternative 

Brown 

Alternative 

North Option 

Brown 

Alternative 

South Option 

Green 

Alternative 

North Option 

Green 

Alternative 

South Option 

# Overpasses/ 

Underpasses 11 11 8 8 9 9 

Overpass/

Underpass 

Locations 

• Strawberry Lane 

• Middletown B&T 

Park

• Bunker Hill Rd 

• Broad Street 

• Marl Pit Rd 

• US 301 

• Norfolk Southern 

RR

• SR 896 

• Jamisons Corner 

Rd

• SR 896 

• Shallcross Lake 

Rd

• Strawberry Lane 

• Bunker Hill Rd 

• Armstrong 

Corner Rd 

• US 301 

• Norfolk Southern 

RR

• SR 896 

• Jamisons Corner 

Rd

• SR 896 

• Shallcross Lake 

Rd

• Old Schoolhouse 

Rd

• Churchtown Rd 

• Strawberry Lane 

• Bunker Hill Rd 

• Bohemia Mill Rd 

• Old Schoolhouse 

Rd

• Churchtown Rd 

• Norfolk Southern 

RR

• Ratledge Rd 

• Hyetts Corner Rd 

• Strawberry Lane 

• Bunker Hill Rd 

• Bohemia Mill Rd 

• Old Schoolhouse 

Rd

• Churchtown Rd 

• Norfolk Southern 

RR

• Ratledge Rd 

• Hyetts Corner Rd 

• Strawberry Lane 

• Bunker Hill Rd 

• Armstrong 

Corner Rd 

• US 301 

• Norfolk Southern 

RR

• SR 896 

• Hyetts Corner Rd 

• Old Schoolhouse 

Rd

• Churchtown Rd 

• Strawberry Lane 

• Bunker Hill Rd 

• Armstrong 

Corner Rd 

• US 301 

• Norfolk Southern 

RR

• SR 896 

• Hyetts Corner Rd 

• Old Schoolhouse 

Rd

• Churchtown Rd 

Preliminary 

Cost ($ 

millions) 

$686 - $758 $616 - $680 $550 - $608 $499 - $551 $534 - $590 $526 - $582 

All of the retained alternatives met the project’s Purpose and Need to varying degrees with 

respect to relieving congestion, separating through traffic from local traffic, and improving 

safety. All of the alternatives would provide comparable or improved levels of service in the 

design year (2030) as compared to the No-Build Alternative.

C. Alignment Options Considered 

Following the presentation of the Alternatives Retained for Detailed Evaluation to the 

environmental resource and regulatory agencies on November 8, 2005, the alternatives, in 

response to Agency and public comments, underwent further evaluation and options 

development to avoid or minimize potential impacts. These options were presented to the public 

at workshops in December 2005, February 2006, and April 2006. Options for the alternatives 

were developed in three major locations, as shown on Figure II-6: the Armstrong Corner Road 

Area (ACR Area); the Boyds Corner Road Area (BCR Area); and on the Spur Road at the 

intersection of SR 15/SR 896, the Summit Interchange Area (SI Area). Table II-2 lists the 

options considered for the alternatives. 
?¡

)p

)h

AÝ

?¡

AØ

)h

?¡

?1

?Î

A×

AØ

)p

k

Townsend

Odessa

Middletown

B

G

BN

BS

GN GS

B Y

Y

P P P

G

Spur

Y B

P

G

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

Summit Interchange

Ratledge Road

Area Options

Ratledge Road

Area Options

Area Options

Boyds Corner Road

Area Options

Armstrong Corner Road

Area Options

G

November 2007 Figure

II-7

É

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

Alignment Options

1 in. = 1.1 mi.

US 301 Project Development

Locations of Alignment Options Considered

Delaware

Department of

Transportation II-6

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-25 

Table II-2: Alternatives Options Considered

Options Yellow 

Alternative 

Purple 

Alternative 

Brown 

Alternative 

North

Option

Brown 

Alternative 

South

Option

Green 

Alternative 

North

Option

Green 

Alternative 

South

Option

Interchange Options in the 

Armstrong Corner Road Area 

ACR Area Options 

N/A

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 2A 

Option 3 

N/A N/A 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 2A 

Option 3

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 2A 

Option 3

Optional Alignments in the 

Boyds Corner Road Area 

BCR Area Options 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 4 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 4 

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Interchange Options and Spur 

Road access at SR 15/SR 896 

SI Area Options 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 3B 

Option 4 

N/A N/A

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 3B 

Option 4 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 3B 

Option 4 

Optional Alignments in the 

Ratledge Road Area 

RR Area Options

N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 4 

Option 4A 

Option 4B 

Option 4B 

Modified

N/A

Following publication of the DEIS, additional options were developed in the Ratledge Road Area 

(RR Area) as a result of comments received at the Public Hearings and during the public 

comment period. Figure II-6 and Table II-2 also include the RR Area Options.

A comparison of environmental impacts, advantages and disadvantages of the options is 

presented in Tables II-3 through II-7. The Preferred Alternative shown in Appendix B includes 

the preferred options for the Armstrong Corner Road area, Summit Interchange area and 

Ratledge Road area.

1. Armstrong Corner Road (ACR) Area Options –Purple and Green Alternatives

Four interchange options were considered for the Purple and Green Alternatives in the 

Armstrong Corner Road (ACR) area. In this location, the new US 301 mainline leaves the ridge 

route and travels northeast towards existing US 301 and the Norfolk Southern rail line. The Spur 

Road extends from the new US 301 mainline, in the ACR area, north along the ridge route 

towards the Summit Bridge. 

An interchange is provided in the Armstrong Corner Road area on the new US 301 mainline to 

access the areas north of Middletown. The options were developed in an attempt to minimize or 

balance impacts to community facilities and other properties located in this area.
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-26 

Each of the ACR Area options is described in the sections below, with the reasons why it was or 

was not preferred. The potential impacts associated with each option are compared in Table

II-3. The ACR Area Options were shown in detail in the DEIS Appendix C, Figures 1-4.

All of the options would impact forests, waters of the US including wetlands, prime farmland 

soils and one agricultural preservation district. All of the options will impact the Midland Farms 

community (individual properties and visual and noise impacts), and some of the options will 

cause the location of the roadway to be closer to/farther from the Springmill community, the 

Middletown Baptist Church and the historic Armstrong-Walker House. 

Table II-3: Purple and Green Alternatives 

Impacts Comparison of the Armstrong Corner Road Area Options 

Option Option 1 Option 2 Option 2A Option 3 

Total Length of Option (miles) 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9 

Total area of Limit of Construction (acres) 218 301 226 200 

Wetlands (acres)1 7.6 9.2 10.0 11.7 

 High quality (acres) 0.8 2.3 0.8 1.4 

 Medium quality (acres) 5.3 6.3 8.7 9.7 

 Low quality (acres) 1.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 

Waters of the US (lf)2 2,867 3,020 2,955 1,816 

Hydric Soils (acres)3 39 53 52 47 

DNREC Sub-Aqueous Lands (linear feet) 853 1,676 1,630 853 

Habitat Areas (Wildlife & Plant) (acres) 26.9 23.8 24.3 23.2 

Prime Farmland Soils (acres) 134 153 136 120 

Agricultural Preservation Districts (#) 1 (10.0 ac.) 1 (10.3 ac.) 1 (9.9 ac.) 1 (10.0 ac.) 

Agricultural Preservation Easements (#) 0 0 0 0 

Forested Land (acres)4 15.7 12.0 9.9 10.6 

Historic Properties5 Potential Adverse Effects 

 Physical (#) 

 Audible (A), Visual (V), Atmospheric (M) (#) 

0

1 (V,A) 

0

2 (V,A) 

0

2 (V,A) 

0

2 (V,A) 

Notes 1. Total area of ACOE wetlands impacted. 

 2. Does not include waters within wetlands. lf = linear feet 

 3. Includes hydric soils not in wetlands. 

 4. Includes deciduous, evergreen and mixed forest types not included in wetlands. Based on DE Department of Land 

Use & Planning 2002 Land Use data. 

 5. Historic Properties are defined in Chapter III.B as “resources listed in or determined eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places” 

a. ACR Area Option 1 

ACR Area Option 1 would provide a diamond interchange between the new US 301 and 

Armstrong Corner Road east of Choptank Road. Interchange ramps would provide local access 

on Armstrong Corner Road, west of existing US 301. A programmed traffic signal would be 

provided at the intersection of existing US 301 and Armstrong Corner Road. Armstrong Corner 

Road would overpass both the new US 301 mainline and spur road. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-27 

ACR Area Option 1 is not preferred because it requires the relocation of Middletown Baptist 

Church (impacting both building and parking lot), only meets minimum design standards for 

spacing between the Spur Road/US 301 interchange and the US 301/Armstrong Corner Road 

interchange, does not provide a direct connection between Armstrong Corner Road and 

Bohemia Mill Road, locates the interchange on a local road (Armstrong Corner Road) rather 

than an arterial road (existing US 301), and has the highest impacts to forested land and habitat 

areas of all of the options.

b. ACR Area Option 2 

ACR Area Option 2 would provide a diamond interchange between new US 301 and a relocated 

existing US 301. Existing US 301 would be relocated to the west, beginning at Armstrong 

Corner Road and extending to just south of Post and Rail Farms to rejoin the existing US 301 

alignment. Armstrong Corner Road would be realigned to overpass the Spur Road. New 

US 301 would overpass Armstrong Corner Road south of a diamond interchange between new 

and existing US 301. Signalized intersections with the realigned existing US 301 would provide 

ramp access. 

ACR Area Option 2 is not preferred because it requires the relocation of existing US 301 in 

order to accommodate the north-serving ramps. The relocation of existing US 301 results in 

greater right-of-way and relocation impacts with increased right-of-way, structure and roadway 

costs, and could affect traffic operations on existing US 301 with two closely spaced additional 

traffic signals. Option 2 has the highest impacts to waters of the US.

c. ACR Area Option 2A (Preferred) 

ACR Area Option 2A would provide right-on/right-off interchange ramps between new and 

existing US 301. The northbound entrance and exit ramps would be located on existing US 301 

approximately 1,000 feet north of Armstrong Corner Road. The southbound entrance and exit 

ramps would be located on existing US 301, approximately 3,500 feet north of Armstrong 

Corner Road. Two new signalized intersections on existing US 301 would control exit and entry 

traffic. 

ACR Area Option 2A is preferred, because it locates the interchange on an arterial road 

(existing US 301) rather than a local road (Armstrong Corner Road), does not require 

relocation of existing US 301, has significantly less right of way and relocation impacts and a 

lower cost than Option 2, and does not require the relocation of Middletown Baptist Church 

(avoids direct impacts to the building and parking area). The Option provides an acceptable 

level of impacts to wetlands (the majority of impacts are to medium quality wetlands (8.7 of 10.0 

acres of impact)) and the least (9.9 acres) impacts to forests in the area.
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-28 

d. ACR Area Option 3 

ACR Area Option 3 would provide a diamond interchange between the new US 301 and 

Armstrong Corner Road similar to Option 1; however, the mainline would leave the ridge 

alignment and travel to in a northeasterly direction approximately 2,200 feet south of the 

directional change for Option 1. Interchange ramps would provide local access on Armstrong 

Corner Road, west of existing US 301, and a signal would be provided on existing US 301 at 

Armstrong Corner Road. Armstrong Corner Road would overpass both the mainline and spur 

road.

ACR Area Option 3 is not preferred because it has greater wetland impacts than the other 

options (1, 2, and 2A) and impacts a previously undisturbed wetland in the area, it locates the 

interchange on a local road (Armstrong Corner Road) rather than an arterial road (existing 

US 301), and is closer to the Armstrong-Walker House (a historic resource) and the Springmill 

community than the other options. Option 3 has the lowest impacts on subaqueous lands but the 

highest impacts on wetlands.

2. Boyds Corner Road (BCR) Area Options – Yellow and Purple Alternatives

Four mainline options were considered for the Yellow and Purple Alternatives that would 

minimize or avoid impacts to community facilities located at the corner of SR 896 (Boyds 

Corner Road) and Jamison Corner Road, active farmland (Emerson Dairy Farm), and the 

planned Bayberry Town Center/Village of Bayberry. The options explored various alignments 

of the segment of new US 301 from Mount Pleasant to SR 1. 

Each of the Boyds Corner Road Area options is described in the sections below. The potential 

impacts of each option are compared in Table II-4. The BCR Area options were shown in detail 

in the DEIS Appendix C, Figures 5-8. There is no consideration of preference because these 

options do not apply to the Preferred Alternative. 

Table II-4: Yellow and Purple Alternatives 

Impacts Comparison of the Boyds Corner Road Area Options 

Option Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 

Total Length of Option Yellow Alternative 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 

(miles) Purple Alternative 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.1 

Total area of Limit of Yellow Alternative 156 159 155 143 

Construction (acres) Purple Alternative 184 173 169 163 

Yellow Alternative 9.3 8.7 11.7 12.5 Wetlands (acres)1

Purple Alternative 5.5 3.7 3.7 4.3 

Yellow Alternative 3,523 2,709 1,809 3,307 Waters of the US (lf)2

Purple Alternative 1,556 1,799 1,371 1,282 

Yellow Alternative 22 44 27 25 Hydric Soils (acres)3

Purple Alternative 23 30 26 21 

DNREC Sub-Aqueous Yellow Alternative 88 710 879 1,398 

Lands (linear feet) Purple Alternative 552 1,577 723 552 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-29 

Table II-4: Yellow and Purple Alternatives 

Impacts Comparison of the Boyds Corner Road Area Options 

Option Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 

Habitat Areas (acres) Yellow Alternative 7.9 4.2 7.3 5.7 

(Wildlife & Plant) Purple Alternative 7.8 9.7 7.4 7.5 

Prime Farmland Soils Yellow Alternative 39 44 39 35 

(acres) Purple Alternative 38 34 34 37 

Ten-year Agricultural Preservation Easements (#) 0 0 0 0 

Permanent Agricultural Preservation Easements (#) 0 0 0 0 

Yellow Alternative 4.2 6.8 3.6 4.1 Forested Land (acres)4

Purple Alternative 9.0 6.6 6.6 8.3 

Historic Properties5 Potential Adverse Effects 

Physical (P), Audible (A), Visual (V), 

Atmospheric (M) (#)

Yellow5

 –

1 (P); 3 (V,A) 

Purple – 

1 (V,A) 

Yellow5 –

1 (P); 3 (V,A) 

Purple – 

1 (V,A) 

Yellow5 –

1 (P); 3 (V,A) 

Purple – 

1 (V,A) 

Yellow5 –

1 (P); 3 (V,A) 

Purple – 

1 (V,A) 

NOTES: 1. Total area of ACOE wetlands impacted. 

 2. Does not include waters within wetlands. lf = linear feet 

 3. Includes hydric soils not in wetlands. 

 4. Includes deciduous, evergreen and mixed forest types not included in wetlands. Based on DE Department of Land 

Use & Planning 2002 Land Use data. 

 5. There would be audible and visual impacts to the remainder of Mt. Pleasant Farm, the resource directly 

physically impacted. 

 6. Historic Properties are defined in Chapter III.B as “resources listed in or determined eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places” 

a. BCR Area Option 1 

The BCR Area Option 1 mainline alignment is the most closely aligned to the existing SR 896 

(Boyds Corner Road), leaving minimal space between the mainline and existing SR 896. 

Option 1 would cross to the north of SR 896, just west of Cedar Lane Road and be less than 300 

feet north of SR 896 at Jamison Corner Road. The Option 1 alignment would remain on the 

north side of existing SR 896 to just east of Jamison Corner Road, where the alignment would 

cross over SR 896 and follow on the south side of existing Boyds Corner Road to cross over 

Shallcross Lake Road, US 13, and SR 1 and tie into SR 1. 

b. BCR Area Option 2 

The BCR Area Option 2 mainline alignment would overpass SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road) west 

of Cedar Lane Road. Option 2 would continue northeast and cross Jamison Corner Road 

approximately 2,200 feet north SR 896 along the southern side of the Emerson Dairy Farm 

parcel. Option 2 would continue east through the Emerson Farm parcel and then turn towards 

the south to cross over Milford Drive and SR 896, where it would continue on the south side and 

parallel to existing SR 896, crossing over US 13 and SR 1 before tying into SR 1.
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-30 

c. BCR Area Option 3 

The BCR Area Option 3 mainline would overpass Boyds Corner Road west of Cedar Lane Road, 

then cross over Jamison Corner Road approximately 1,500 feet north of SR 896. The Option 3 

alignment would traverse the northwest corner of the proposed Bayberry Town Center property 

and the southeast corner of the Emerson Dairy Farm, continuing east through the Bayberry Town 

Center property, and then turns south to cross over Milford Drive and SR 896, where it would 

continue on the south side of and parallel to existing SR 896, crossing over US 13 and SR 1 

before tying into SR 1.

d. BCR Area Option 4 

The BCR Area Option 4 mainline alignment would overpass Boyds Corner Road and then cross 

over Jamison Corner Road approximately 750 feet north of SR 896. The Option 4 alignment 

would traverse the southwest corner of the proposed Bayberry Town Center property prior to 

crossing over SR 896 to the south side approximately 2,400 feet east of Jamison Corner Road. 

The alignment would cross over Shallcross Lake Road, US 13 and SR 1 before tying into SR 1.

3. Summit Interchange (SI) Area Options – Yellow, Purple and Green Alternatives

Two interchange options were considered for the Yellow Alternative at the SR 15/SR 896 

intersection at the base of Summit Bridge to address safety and traffic issues. Five interchange 

options were considered for the Purple and Green Alternatives at this location to address safety 

and traffic operations. The Brown Alternative North and South Options include an interchange 

to serve traffic and address safety at this location. No additional options were considered for the 

Brown Alternative. 

The SI Area Options are described in the sections below. The potential impacts of each option 

are compared in Tables II-5 and II-6. The SI Area Options were shown in the DEIS Appendix 

C, Figures 9-17. There are no preferences expressed for the Options associated with the Yellow 

Alternative. 

a. SI Area Option 1 – Yellow Alternative 

SI Area Option 1 for the Yellow Alternative would provide a partial cloverleaf interchange in the 

present location of the SR 15/SR 896 intersection at the base of Summit Bridge. The interchange 

would include a loop ramp for traffic traveling southbound from Summit Bridge to SR 896 

eastbound. Directional ramps would provide for the balance of the movements in the 

interchange.

b. SI Area Option 2 – Yellow Alternative 

SI Area Option 2 for the Yellow Alternative would include a grade-separated interchange in the 

present location of the SR 15/SR 896 intersection at the base of Summit Bridge. The interchange 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-31 

would provide an at-grade through movement for vehicles traveling to/from SR 896 and the 

Summit Bridge by improving the existing curve. Access between SR 15 and SR 896 to/from 

Middletown would pass over the improved curve. A directional ramp would connect the Summit 

Bridge to southbound SR 15.

Table II-5: Yellow Alternative 

Impacts Comparison of the Summit Interchange Area Options 

Options Option 1 Option 2 

Total area of Limit of Construction (acres) 49 28 

Wetlands (acres)1 4.3 0.4 

Waters of the US (ditches) (lf)2 2,260 1,271 

Hydric Soils (acres)3 53 4 

DNREC Sub-Aqueous Lands (linear feet) 393 0 

Habitat Areas (Wildlife & Plant) (acres) 5.3 1.9 

Prime Farmland Soils (acres) 17 12 

Forested Land (acres)4 0.5 0.1 

Historic Properties Potential Adverse Effects 

 Physical (#) 

 Audible (A), Visual (V), Atmospheric (M) (#) 

0

0

0

0

NOTES: 1. Total area of ACOE wetlands impacted. 

 2. Does not include waters within wetlands. lf = linear feet 

 3. Includes hydric soils not in wetlands. 

 4. Includes deciduous, evergreen and mixed forest types not included in wetlands. 

Based on DE Department of Land Use & Planning 2002 Land Use data. 

 5. Historic Properties are defined in Chapter III.B as “resources listed in or 

determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places” 

c. SI Area Option 1 – Purple and Green Alternatives 

SI Area Option 1 would provide a full diamond interchange at the intersection of SR 15, SR 896, 

and the Spur Road, with free traffic flow between the Spur Road and the Summit Bridge. The 

ramp termini would be signalized. 

SI Area Option 1 is not preferred because the heaviest local traffic movements (southbound and 

northbound on SR 896) must pass through signalized intersections, with the southbound 

movement requiring double left turning movements through a traffic signal during the PM peak 

period. Other options provide better traffic operations. The option keeps SR 896 adjacent to the 

Summit Bridge Farms community. 

d. SI Area Option 2 - Purple and Green Alternatives 

SI Area Option 2 would provide a directional “Y” interchange between SR 896 and the US 301 

Spur Road. Option 2 would improve the sharp curve (the direct movement) on SR 896 to the 

desired design speed and provide a continuous traffic flow for the major movements on SR 896. 

The northbound Spur Road would pass over SR 896. SR 15 would pass over both SR 896 and 

the Spur Road to intersect with Old Summit Bridge Road, east of the interchange. Access to 

SR 896 would be provided at the existing signalized intersection of Old Summit Bridge Road 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-32 

and SR 896. A sub-option, Option 2A, would relocate the existing traffic signal at Old Summit 

Bridge Road to the entrance to Summit Bridge Farms, and Old Summit Bridge Road would be 

extended to this location. This would provide a two-directional signalized entrance for Summit 

Bridge Farms (existing entrance is right-in/right-out only).

SI Area Options 2 and 2A are not preferred due to the circuitous access for SR 15 traffic west of 

SR 896 wishing to access SR 896, results in a greater number of vehicles on Bethel Church Road 

(6,200 vpd) and Old Summit Bridge Road (6,900 vpd), an increased construction cost due to 

increased number of structures, and would be elevated adjacent to Lea Eara Farms and Summit 

Bridge Farms (additional visual impact). The “A” Option is not preferred because of 

operational issues along SR 896 associated with the proposed signalized intersection at Old 

Summit Bridge Road/Summit Bridge Farms and because of the proximity of the intersections of 

SR 896 with Summit Bridge Road and Old Summit Bridge Road/Bethel Church Road. 

e. SI Area Option 3 – Purple and Green Alternatives 

SI Area Option 3 would provide a directional “Y” interchange between SR 896 and the US 301 

Spur Road, similar to SI Area Option 2. However, Option 3 would include a cul-de-sac on 

Bethel Church Road both east and west of the interchange. Access from Choptank Road and 

Bethel Church Road to the Spur Road would be provided via a new signalized intersection 

between an extended Bethel Church Road and the Spur Road. As with SI Area Option 2, access 

to SR 896 from the communities to the north (Lea Eara Farms and Summit Bridge) would be 

provided at the existing signalized intersection of Old Summit Bridge Road and SR 896. SI Area 

Option 3A, similar to Option 2A, would relocate the existing traffic signal at Old Summit Bridge 

Road to the entrance to Summit Bridge Farms. 

SI Area Options 3 and 3A are not preferred because they provide a signalized intersection on the 

Spur Road, thus not providing free-flowing traffic, resulting in potential noise increases at the 

signal (braking, stopping and starting) and could result in a higher number of accidents than the 

preferred Option 3B.

f. SI Area Option 3B - Purple and Green Alternatives (Preferred) 

SI Area Option 3B would provide the same roadways and interchange ramps as Option 3, but 

would replace the signalized intersection between the Spur Road and Bethel Church Road 

extended with a trumpet interchange. The interchange would provide access to and from the 

north only. SI Area Option 3BA, similar to Option 2A and 3A, would relocate the existing 

traffic signal at Old Summit Bridge Road to the entrance to Summit Bridge Farms. 

SI Area Option 3B is preferred because it provides free flowing traffic on the Spur Road, does 

not include any signals/intersections on the Spur Road (thus reducing noise associated with 

stopping/starting), and it provides an unbroken median along the entire Spur Road length, 

resulting in improved safety. The “A” Option is not preferred for the reasons stated previously. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-33 

g. SI Area Option 4 – Purple and Green Alternatives 

SI Area Option 4 would provide the same interchange as Option 3; however, access to the Spur 

Road at Churchtown Road and Old Schoolhouse Road would be included. Traffic signals would 

be provided at the three intersections on the Spur Road. SI Area Sub-Option 4A, similar to 

Option 2A and 3A, would relocate the existing traffic signal at Old Summit Bridge Road to the 

entrance to Summit Bridge Farms. 

SI Area Options 4 and 4A are not preferred due to the introduction of additional access on the 

Spur Road, which would increase traffic on Choptank Road south of Old Schoolhouse Road, on 

Old Schoolhouse Road, and on Churchtown Road as a result of providing local access, and 

would prevent the free flow of traffic on the Spur Road due to the introduction of signalized 

intersections and result in increased potential for accidents. Option 4 was opposed by the public 

and New Castle County due to the potential to encourage growth in areas west of the Spur Road 

not currently proposed for development. The “A” Option is not preferred for reasons previously 

stated.

Table II-6: Purple and Green Alternatives 

Impacts Comparison of the Summit Interchange Area Options 

Option Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 3B Option 4 

Total Length of Option (miles) 2.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 

Total area of Limit of Construction (acres) 142 145 143 145 117 

Wetlands (acres)1 5.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.3 

Waters of the US (lf)2 4,396 4,374 4,106 4,130 2,511 

 Streams (lf) 260 260 260 260 0 

 Ditches (lf) 4,136 4,114 3,846 3,870 2,511 

Hydric Soils (acres)3 30 31 32 32 25 

DNREC Sub-Aqueous Lands (linear feet) 1,509 1,490 1,621 1,643 777 

Habitat Areas (Wildlife & Plant) (acres) 11.1 12.9 12.8 12.8 12.3 

Prime Farmland Soils (acres) 71 70 74 79 63 

Ten-year Agricultural Preservation Easements (#) 0 0 0 0 0 

Permanent Agricultural Preservation Easements (#) 1 (6.1 ac.) 1 (6.1 ac.) 1 (6.1 ac.) 1 (6.1 ac.) 1 (6.1 ac.) 

Forested Land (acres)4 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.9 5.0 

Historic Properties5 Potential Adverse Effects 

 Physical (#) 

 Audible (A), Visual (V), Atmospheric (M) (#) 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

NOTES: 1. Total area of ACOE wetlands impacted. 

 2. Does not include waters within wetlands. lf = linear feet 

 3. Includes hydric soils not in wetlands. 

 4. Includes deciduous, evergreen and mixed forest types not included in wetlands. Based on DE Department of Land 

Use & Planning 2002 Land Use data. 

 5. Historic Properties are defined in Chapter III.B as “resources listed in or determined eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places” 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-34 

4. Ratledge Road (RR) Area Options – Preferred (Green North) Alternative

Seven options were developed for the Preferred Alternative as a result of comments received 

from members of the public following publication of the DEIS and during the Public Hearings. 

FHWA, DelDOT and the ACOE were asked to avoid impacts to two long-term family-owned 

and operated farms in the Ratledge Road/Jamison Corner Road area. Citizens offered alternative 

alignments for consideration, and these and other options were subsequently developed and 

evaluated with the environmental resource and regulatory agencies and stakeholders with the 

goal to avoid or minimize impacts to active farmlands while minimizing impacts to wetlands, 

waters of the US and forests in the area. All of the options evaluated the proposed alignment 

from approximately 4,800 feet south of Boyds Corner Road to the proposed interchange with 

Jamison Corner Road. 

The RR Area Options are described in the sections below. The potential impacts of each option 

are compared in Table II-7. The RR Area Options are shown on Figure II-7. The preferred 

option is also shown on the Preferred Alternative drawings in Appendix B.

Table II-7: Comparison of Ratledge Road Area Options (Preferred Alternative) 

Option Option 

1

Option 

2

Option 

3

Option 

4

Option 

4A

Option 

4B 

Option 

4B Mod

Wetlands (acres) 27.4 32.2 35.4 31.2 36.1 35.2 34.2

 High Quality 10.1 14.3 12.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0

 Medium quality 13.3 13.3 13.6 13.1 20.5 19.9 19.4

 Low quality 4.1 4.6 9.8 9.8 6.6 6.3 5.6

Number of wetlands 51 53 53 50 53 49 50

Number of wetland crossings 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Number of wetlands fragmented 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Waters of the US, total (lf) 15,679 15,947 15,923 16,207 16,059 16,015 16,019

 Streams 323 534 340 517 340 415 436

 Ditches 15,356 15,413 15,583 15,690 15,720 15,600 15,582

DNREC Tidal wetlands (acres) 0. 4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

Floodplains (acres) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Agricultural districts (No.) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Agricultural Easements (No.) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Forestland (acres) 34.21 34.28 42.17 33.24 44.56 40.60 37.98

T.J. Houston Farm Potential Adverse 

Effects: Visual (V) 0 0 0 (V) 0 (V) (V)

a. RR Area Option 1 

As presented in the November, 2006 DEIS, the RR Area Option 1 alignment would follow an 

almost due north alignment, crossing Boyds Corner Road approximately 450 feet east of 

Ratledge Road. RR Area Option 1 would provide the least amount of impacts to wetlands (27.4 

acres), waters of the US (15, 679 lf) and forest (34.21 acres). Option 1 would also be least 

proximate to the Cedar Lane School campus, but would eliminate an operating farm (Wooleyhan 

Farm). 
OBSCURED

U/C

PILE

PILE

PILE

PILE

BUILDING
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-36 

Option 1 is not preferred because of impacts to the Wooleyhan Farm, an active family-owned 

and operated farm, which would result in cessation of the farming operation, and impacts to the 

surrounding community along Jamison Corner Road. 

b. RR Area Option 2 

RR Area Option 2 would follow an almost due north alignment, approximately 425 feet east of 

Option 1, crossing Boyds Corner Road approximately 875 feet east of Ratledge Road. Option 2 

would avoid impacts to the majority of farmable acreage but would increase impacts to high 

quality wetlands and waters of the US. 

Option 2 is not preferred because the regulatory and resource agencies could not support the 

greater impacts to wetlands that would occur with this option. 

c. RR Area Option 3 

RR Area Option 3 would follow a more northeasterly alignment, crossing Boyds Corner Road 

approximately 1,350 feet east of Ratledge Road, impacting a larger quantity of wetlands (35.4 

acres) and forest (42.17 acres). This alignment was originally evaluated in April, 2006 and 

eliminated from consideration in favor of RR Area Option 1. 

Option 3, like Option 2, is not preferred because the regulatory and resource agencies could not 

support the greater impacts to wetlands that would occur with this option. 

 d. RR Area Option 4 

RR Area Option 4 would follow an almost due north alignment, crossing Boyds Corner Road 

approximately 2,900 feet east of Ratledge Road, and would be closest to the Cedar Lane School 

campus. Option 4 would impact the western portion of the Emerson Dairy Farm. This 

alignment was originally evaluated in September, 2005 and was eliminated from consideration 

because of the farm impacts, impacts to a parcel being considered by New Castle County as the 

location of a new high school and proximity to the Cedar Lane school campus. Option 4 would 

have a potential adverse effect (audible and visual) on the TJ Houston Farm, an historic resource. 

Option 4 is not preferred because of its proximity to the Cedar Lane School campus, and 

because of impacts to the Emerson Dairy Farm, a long-term family-owned and operated farm 

operation and one of the last dairy farms in New Castle County. Option 4 also impacts a parcel 

north of Boyds Corner Road that is being considered for acquisition for a future high school.

e. RR Area Option 4A 

RR Area Option 4A would be the “middle ground” follow an alignment slightly to the east of 

Option 3 and west of Option 4, crossing Boyds Corner Road approximately 1,900 feet east of 

Ratledge Road.alignment from northeast of the Norfolk Southern railroad alignment to north of 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-37 

Boyds Corner Road. This option was proposed by community members in order to avoid 

impacts to the active long-term family-owned and operated farm properties (Wooleyhan and 

Emerson farms) on either side. Option 4A would have the greatest wetlands impacts (36.1 acres) 

and forest impacts (44.56 acres). 

Option 4A is not preferred because of its greater impacts to wetlands and forests. 

f. RR Area Option 4B 

RR Area Option 4B was also proposed by community members in order to avoid impacts to 

long-term family-owned and operated farm properties. RR Area Option 4B would follow the 

Delaware Power and Light (DP&L) right-of-way, crossing Boyds Corner Road approximately 

2,140 feet east of Ratledge Road. Option 4B would avoid farmland impacts and has moderate 

impacts to wetlands (35.2 acres), waters of the US (16,015 linear feet) and forests (40.60 acres). 

Option 4B would have a potential adverse effect (audible and visual) on the TJ Houston Farm, an 

historic resource. 

Option 4B is aligned to avoid high quality wetlands, but impacts to lower quality wetlands along 

the suggested corridor are high (35.2 acres) as are impacts to forests (40.6 acres). This option 

is not preferred because a slight modification to the east (as shown in Option 4B Modified) 

reduced wetland impacts by one acre and forest impacts by 2.5 acres. 

g. RR Area Option 4B Modified (Preferred) 

RR Area Option 4B was modified slightly, moving the alignment on the north side of Boyds 

Corner Road slightly eastward to minimize impacts to a wetland system and forest land to 

become Option 4B Modified. Wetland impacts were reduced by one acre; forest impacts were 

reduced by more than 2.5 acres. Option 4B Modified would have a potential adverse effect 

(audible and visual) on the T.J. Houston Farm, an historic resource. 

Option 4B Modified is preferred because it impacts a lesser amount of high quality wetlands and 

forests than Option 4B and is supported by the community. Option 4B Modified avoids impacts 

to both the Wooleyhan and Emerson Farms (long-term family-owned and operated). Option 4B 

Modified was concurred on by the resource and regulatory agencies provided a recommended 

mitigation plan be provided. The mitigation plan includes conservation of high quality wetlands, 

enhancement of wetlands and uplands within the Scott Run watershed, additional wetland 

creation (15 acres) at the proposed Levels Road mitigation site, and additional reforestation. 

The mitigation commitments are discussed in detail in Chapter III.F.
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-38 

D. Alternatives Not Carried Forward for Further Consideration 

1. Toll Free Facility

All of the retained alternatives are proposed to provide a four-lane, divided, fully access 

controlled, tolled roadway from the Delaware/Maryland state line to SR 1, south of the C&D 

Canal. Tolls would be collected at a new mainline toll plaza, located just north of the state line 

and the planned weigh and inspection station on northbound US 301. Tolls would be collected 

in both directions at the mainline toll plaza. Tolls would also be collected on all north-serving 

ramps accessing US 301 (on all ramps entering US 301 traveling northbound and on all ramps 

exiting US 301 traveling southbound).

Non-tolled options for all of the alternatives were dropped from consideration during the project 

development process because it was determined that tolls would be necessary to provide funding 

for the project. Preliminary cost estimates indicate that the total project cost would range 

between $500 and $750 million for construction. 

2. Alignment Alternatives

The Red, Orange and Blue Alternatives were eliminated from further consideration during the 

evaluation of the range of alternatives based on their inability to meet Purpose and Need, 

significant environmental impacts, resource and regulatory agency input and concurrence, and 

public input. The Red, Orange and Blue Alternatives are shown on Figure II-8. Additional 

information on these alternatives is available in US 301 Project Development: Alternatives 

Retained for Detailed Evaluation (Delaware Department of Transportation, November 2005). 

a. Red Alternative 

The Red Alternative, under early design measures, provided a new four-lane limited-access 

roadway on new location on the ridge route from the state line to south of the Summit Bridge. 

The Red Alternative modified the existing Summit Bridge to provide three lanes for northbound 

traffic, and constructed a second bridge crossing to the west of the existing bridge to carry three 

lanes of traffic southbound. North of the Canal, the Red Alternative modified existing SR 896 to 

provide a six-lane limited-access roadway, with frontage roads for local access, from the Canal 

to I-95. The Red Alternative was 17.4 miles long, with seven interchanges and ten overpass 

structures.

The Red Alternative was dropped from further consideration because it provided improvements 

in the SR 896 corridor (with 35 percent of traffic destinations) as opposed to providing a more 

direct connection to the northeast and I-95 via the SR 1 corridor (with 65 percent of traffic 

destinations). The Red Alternative does not provide direct access to SR 1. The Red Alternative 

was also eliminated from further consideration because of impacts to environmental resources. 
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

project development rojectdevelopment

U.S.

US 301 Project Development

Delaware

Department of

Transportation

November 2007

É Figure

Not to Scale II-8

ALTERNATIVES DROPPED FROM

FURTHER CONSIDERATION
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-40 

Upon preliminary analysis, the Red Alternative was found to have significant environmental 

impacts. The Red Alternative had high impacts to waters of the US (32.9 acres of wetlands, 

streams and ditches), hydric soils (123 acres), floodplains (5.3 acres) and forests (88.9 acres), 

and had the greatest number of property acquisitions (279) of all of the range of alternatives 

considered. It had potential and known impacts to historic properties as well as known and 

unavoidable Section 4(f) impacts (Iron Hill Park, Lums Pond State Park, and the C&D Canal 

Wildlife Area). The Red Alternative would also increase traffic volumes on Summit Bridge by 

over 50 percent, thus requiring construction of a new bridge over the C&D Canal and a new 

interchange with US 301/SR 896/I-95, while not taking advantage of the existing infrastructure 

capacity on SR 1 or programmed capacity improvements in the SR 1 corridor. The Red 

Alternative was the longest of the proposed alternatives (17.4 miles), required the construction of 

the most overpasses (10) and interchanges (7) and had the highest estimated cost ($789 million). 

b. Orange Alternative 

The Orange Alternative, under early design measures, provided a new four-lane limited-access 

roadway along the existing alignment of US 301 from the Delaware/Maryland state line to north 

of Mount Pleasant and on a new location east/west south of the C&D Canal to intersect with 

SR 1 north of the Biddles Corner Toll Plaza. Frontage roads provided access for properties 

along existing US 301 and allowed for the circulation of local traffic. The Orange Alternative 

was 14.2 miles long, and included four interchanges and ten overpass structures associated with 

roadways and the Norfolk Southern Railroad.

The Orange Alternative was dropped from further consideration because, on preliminary 

analysis, it was found to have significant disadvantages including various environmental 

impacts, high estimated cost and a number of community impacts. The Orange Alternative 

would have the highest impacts to wetlands (47.5 acres), would impact 1.5 acres of tidal 

wetlands and would impact 14,438 linear feet of waters of the US.

The Orange Alternative would result in potential and known impacts to four Section 4(f) 

resources. The Orange Alternative would have a high number of property impacts (300) and also 

would impact a large number of existing communities within 600 feet of the corridor (including 

Middletown Village, Springmill, The Legends, Post and Rail Farms, Summit Pond, and Airmont 

Acres). The Orange Alternative would bisect Middletown, thus separating the community in two 

and affecting east-west access through town. The Orange Alternative would impact the current 

operations and future expansion of Summit Airpark and would likely cause issues for emergency 

services access.

c. Blue Alternative, North and South Options

The Blue Alternative Options, under early design measures, provided a direct east-west 

connection between US 301 and SR 1 on a new alignment south of Middletown. The North 

Option alignment was located north of Townsend and the South Option south of Townsend. The 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-41 

Blue Alternative Options were 7.2 and 7.8 miles long, respectively, with two interchanges and 

six and eight overpasses, respectively. 

The Blue Alternative Options were dropped from further consideration because they did not 

address traffic needs to a satisfactory level; the options did not address traffic congestion, caused 

in large part by development from Middletown north to the C&D Canal, by building a roadway 

south of Middletown. The Blue Alternatives Options introduced a highway into an area not 

planned for significant development. 

The Blue Alternative Options would not significantly reduce traffic volumes on Boyds Corner 

Road, SR 299, existing US 301, or local roads. The Blue Alternative Options would not provide 

local access which would likely result in the roadway being underutilized. Strong environmental 

resource and regulatory agencies opposition, along with public opposition, was a factor in the 

decision.

The Blue Alternative would have high environmental impacts and impacts to the Townsend area 

communities. The South Option would have the second highest impacts to wetlands (46.1 

acres). The North Option would impact 3.0 acres of (then) proposed state resource conservation 

areas and 5.8 acres in the Noxontown Pond Natural Area. The Blue Alternative would have 

significant potential impacts to historic properties. The North Option would have potential 

Section 4(f) impacts to Wiggins Mill Pond. The Blue Alternative would impact agricultural 

preservation lands and has a greater potential for impacts to rare, threatened and endangered 

species than other alternatives; the South Option impacted the most environmentally sensitive 

area of all the alternatives. 

3. Purple and Green Alternatives without Spur Road

The Purple and Green Alternatives both include a two-lane (one lane in each direction) Spur 

Road that extends from the Armstrong Corner Road area to Summit Bridge, with an interchange 

at SR 15/SR 896 south of Summit Bridge. The Purple and Green Alternatives were originally 

developed without the Spur Road, which was added to the Purple and Green Alternatives 

because, without the Spur Road, they did not meet traffic or safety needs to a satisfactory level. 

The Purple and Green Alternatives without the Spur Road were evaluated prior to the publication 

of the Alternatives Retained for Detailed Evaluation in November 2005. 

The Spur Road provides a more direct, faster and safer route for motorists traveling to points 

north of Summit Bridge from south of Middletown, the Eastern Shore of Maryland, and other 

areas. Currently, 35 percent of all northbound motorists have destinations north of Summit 

Bridge. Without the Spur Road, this traffic would remain on Choptank Road or existing US 301 

to reach destinations north of the C&D Canal via Summit Bridge. The result would be a 

substantial increase in traffic volumes on these roadways in 2030. 

Testimony was received at the Public Hearing suggesting that DelDOT revisit the addition of the 

Spur Road to the Preferred Alternative, and additional traffic studies were completed to compare 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-42 

the differences between the Green (Preferred) Alternative with the Spur Road and without the 

Spur Road. Members of the community also requested that DelDOT further evaluate 

using/improving existing US 301 to serve as the “Spur” route for those wishing to travel north on 

SR 896.

Additional traffic studies showed that the Spur Road relieves traffic on alternate routes to the 

Summit Bridge. For example, without the Spur Road, Choptank Road traffic in 2030, north of 

Churchtown Road, is projected to increase to 14,500 vehicles per day (vpd) as compared to 6,200 

vpd with the Spur Road, and traffic on existing US 301 north of Boyds Corner Road is projected 

to increase to 37,200 vpd without the Spur Road compared to a projected volume of 27,900 vpd 

with the Spur Road. Although improvements to existing Choptank Road (travel lanes increased 

to 11 feet wide, with added shoulders and bicycle lanes on both sides) are currently under 

construction, this increase in the number of vehicles traveling this local, 2-lane roadway will 

increase safety concerns (see below) for those traveling on Choptank Road. Additionally, the 

increase in vehicles on existing US 301 would exacerbate the already congested conditions there. 

No improvements are included in the current Capital Transportation Program and/or Long Range 

Transportation Plan for US 301, north of Middletown.

As an alternative to simply eliminating the Spur Road, further evaluation was completed to 

determine an upgraded existing US 301 would be a feasible replacement for the Spur Road. 

US 301 would, in this scenario, require upgrading to four lanes (two in each direction) with 

added turn lanes from Peterson Road to Mount Pleasant. Even with these improvements the 

roadway would not meet the project purpose and need to manage truck traffic, especially through 

traffic on existing roadways. Upgrading existing US 301 would result in higher volumes of local 

and through traffic with a continuing mix of truck traffic with local traffic. Specifically, between 

Armstrong Corner Road and Summit Bridge, total traffic volumes in 2030 are projected to be 

approximately 33 percent higher without the Spur Road (37,200 vpd) than with the Spur Road 

(27,900), while truck volumes are projected to be nearly 70 percent higher. 

Community impacts associated with the suggested improvements to existing US 301 were 

substantial. Compared with the Spur Road, which requires no residential or business relocations, 

the upgrade to existing US 301 would require a significant number of potential relocations in 

order to avoid or minimize impacts to historic resources as required by federal regulations: nine 

homes, three businesses and the Ringold Chapel AME Church. An additional 14 businesses, 

three residential properties and two subdivisions would be partially impacted by the upgrade. 

Safety concerns were also considered in the comparison analysis between the Spur Road and an 

improved existing US 301. A widened US 301 would not separate local and through traffic, 

especially through truck traffic, on existing US 301 between the proposed interchange between 

new and existing US 301 and Summit Bridge. A widened US 301 would not reduce traffic on 

local roads, especially Choptank Road. A widened US 301 would not eliminate the many access 

points that exist on existing US 301, including signalized intersections. Existing US 301 

between Petersen Road and Summit Bridge currently has seven signalized intersections and 87 

unsignalized intersections/access points. The Spur Road, therefore, would provide a safer 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ALTERNATIVES II-43 

facility than a widened US 301 because there would be no signals, intersections or access points 

and a continuous, unbroken median. 

Since January 2000, 18 people died in crashes on existing US 301 south of the C&D Canal, 

including five on the dualized section north of Boyds Corner Road. These fatalities have 

occurred at a rate of one every 41⁄2 months. In the seven-year period between January 2000 and 

December 2006, nearly 250 crashes (a rate of over three per month) occurred on existing US 301 

south of the C&D Canal, resulting in injuries to motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. The most 

recent fatal crash occurred in July 2007 at the intersection of US 301 and Old Summit Bridge 

Road. This intersection was also identified as a Highway Safety Improvement Project (HSIP) 

site, indicating that accidents have been occurring at a rate that is higher than the statewide 

average. If the Spur Road were not built, increased volumes of traffic (30 percent more total 

vehicles including almost 70 percent more trucks) would increase the likelihood of more crashes 

on existing US 301 and other local roadways. In addition, if the Spur Road is not included, 

motorists making left turns from residential streets and driveways onto Choptank Road and 

existing US 301 would experience significant delays.

The increased traffic would also likely result in a proportional increase in the accident rates 

along Choptank Road and on existing US 301 (from the Armstrong Corner Road area to Summit 

Bridge). There are significant concerns about safety on Choptank Road, which is currently being 

reconstructed and widened to include a bicycle lane. Without the Spur, traffic volumes north of 

Churchtown Road are projected to be nearly triple the current levels of 5,400 vpd, or 14,500 vpd, 

by 2030. These increased volumes would increase the potential for crashed of all types. 

The Spur Road provides roadway capacity that accommodates projected traffic demand for year 

2030. The Spur Road removes traffic from rural two-lane roadways and shifts it to a much safer 

divided two-lane highway and provides for a better opportunity to address the sharp curve south 

of Summit Bridge. Furthermore, the Spur Road addresses regional connectivity south of the 

C&D Canal by providing another north-south route that could carry traffic in the event of a 

closure on SR 1 or US 301. For these reasons, among others, the Green North Alternative with 

the Spur Road remains the Preferred Alternative. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-1 

III. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES 

This chapter details the important features of the project area that are potentially impacted by the 

implementation of the Preferred Alternative, and reviews those impacts of the alternatives not 

preferred. The project area, as shown in Figure III-1, includes an approximately one-mile wide 

corridor surrounding the centerlines of the four retained alternatives in southern New Castle 

County. The northern boundary generally follows the C&D Canal from just west of US 301 to 

just east of SR 1. The eastern boundary of the project area parallels SR 1/US 13 to Boyds Corner 

Road before turning west to parallel SR 896, and then traverses south through Middletown. The 

southern limit of the study area includes US 301 in Warwick, Maryland. The western boundary 

of the project area parallels Choptank Road and Bethel Church Road to the C&D Canal.

In addition to the project area described above, some data were developed using a larger portion 

of southern New Castle County in order to simplify data collection and present a regional picture 

of the area in which the project is being proposed. The larger project area is the MiddletownOdessa-Townsend (M-O-T) Planning District of New Castle County (refer to Figure III-2).

A more detailed discussion of the resources, impacts and consequences of the project is 

presented in the technical reports that are listed in Appendix D and incorporated herein by 

reference.

In this chapter, Section A presents the existing socioeconomic environment, including: land use; 

population, housing, employment, and transportation; communities and community facilities; 

potential environmental justice issues; and visual and aesthetic conditions. Section A uses the 

larger M-O-T Planning District for most data collection. Section A also details the impacts of 

the project on socioeconomic resources and discusses avoidance, minimization and mitigation 

commitments to lessen the impacts of the project on these resources. 

In Section B, the evaluation of cultural resources includes a summary of the research and 

evaluation of architectural and archaeological resources to date. The section presents a list of 

known historic structures and buildings that may be affected by the project alternatives. The 

effects of the Preferred Alternative on historic structures, as detailed in the Documentation in 

Support of a Finding of Adverse Effect and Memorandum of Agreement (Draft, September 2007), 

and potential strategies to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects are summarized. Finally, 

the section provides a summary of the development of the Archaeological Predictive Model with 

regard to areas of potential archaeological sensitivity. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

between the FHWA, DelDOT, the Delaware SHPO and the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) 

outlines the steps to be taken to complete the Section 106 consultation process with regards to 

both archaeological sites and historic structures. A copy of the draft MOA is included in 

Appendix H.

Section C presents a discussion of air quality and potential impacts of the project. Section D

discusses noise sensitive receptors in the project area, potential noise impacts of the project and 

potential noise abatement. Section E presents an overview of hazardous materials sites in the 

project area that may be affected by or affect the implementation of a build alternative. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-2 

Section F presents a summary of natural environmental resources, including: topography, 

geology and soils; groundwater; surface water and water quality; floodplains; waters of the 

United States, including wetlands; vegetation and wildlife; rare, threatened and endangered 

species; coastal zone management areas; and unique and sensitive areas. Section F also details 

the impacts of the project on natural resources and discusses avoidance, minimization and 

mitigation commitments to lessen the impacts of the project on these resources. 

Traffic, energy and temporary construction impacts of the project are discussed in Sections G, H, 

and I, respectively. A secondary (indirect) and cumulative effects analysis is presented in 

Section J. The final sections of this chapter present a consideration of mobile source air toxics 

(MSATs, Section K), the relationship between local short-term uses of the human environment 

and the maintenance of enhancement of long-term productivity (Section L) and the irreversible 

and irretrievable commitment of resources (Section M).

A. Socioeconomic Environment 

This section describes the existing social and economic setting of the project area, shown in 

Figure III-1. A regional overview of southern New Castle County is presented, followed by 

descriptions of the three incorporated towns in the area. A discussion of the project’s conformity 

with local and regional plans and with state and county-wide planning documents concludes the 

regional overview. Resources inventoried and evaluated include land use, population, and 

housing; communities and community facilities; parks and recreation areas (including 

greenways); demographics and environmental justice; economic resources; and aesthetics and 

quality of life issues. The potential impacts of the alternatives on the socioeconomic resources 

are described along with efforts to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those impacts. 

1. Regional Overview

New Castle County, Delaware, is the fastest growing and most developed of Delaware’s three 

counties. The county accounts for 64 percent of Delaware’s total population, 64 percent of the 

state’s labor force, 65 percent of the total employment in the state, and 80 percent of the state’s 

total wages (New Castle County 2002 Comprehensive Development Plan Update, adopted March 

25, 2002).

The county is divided east-west by the Chesapeake and Delaware (C&D) Canal. North of the 

Canal, growth has been more intense and concentrated in the areas around Newark and 

Wilmington, spreading to new communities supported by transportation provided by I-95, 

US 40, and SR 2, as well as public transportation options including commuter rail (Southeast 

Pennsylvania Transit Authority, or SEPTA) and buses. South of the Canal, growth has 

historically occurred at a slower rate until recent decades. Since 1990, the area surrounding the 

Canal has experienced a boom in residential development (both built and planned) because of the 

availability of land and adopted zoning changes. Between 1970 and 2000, 68,231 new homes 

were built in New Castle County, with the highest rates of growth in the three planning districts 

closest to the Canal: Central Pencader and Red Lion to the north and the Middletown-OdessaTownsend (M-O-T) Planning District south of the Canal. In the M-O-T Planning District (see 

Figure III-2) alone, 3,324 new homes were constructed in the decade between 1990 and 2000. 
)p

AØ

)p

AØ

?Î

)p

Warwick

Middletown

Townsend

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

Churchtow

Old School House Rd

Bohemia Mill Rd Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Noxontown Rd

Silverlake Rd

Main St

Money Rd

Bunker Hill Rd

Middletown Warwick Rd

Middle Neck Rd

N Broad St

S Broad St

Levels Rd

Strawberry La

Grears Corner Rd

Green Giant Rd

Wiggins Mill Rd

Church Rd

Great

Bohemia

Creek

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove

Nest Branch

Noxontown

Pond

Silver

Lake

Sandy

Branch

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Middletown

Village Matapeake

Country

Acres

Wheatland

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Post and

Rail Farms

Back Meadowbrook Farms

Creek

Match

Line

B Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

G

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-1A

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

Yellow (Y)

Purple (P)

Brown North (BN)

Brown South (BS)

Green North (GN)

Green South (GS)

Y

P

BN

BS

GN

GS

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

US 301 Project Development

Project Area

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
AÝ

)p

?¡

?Î

AÝ

)p

)h

?¡

AÝ

)h

?¡

)h

AØ

)p

Middletown

Odessa

St Georges Rd

Rd

Red Lion Rd

Cox Neck Rd

Summit

Bridge

d

Summit Bridge Rd

Churchtown Rd

Old School House Rd

Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Bethel Church Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Ratledge Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Bayview Rd

Vance Neck Rd

Hyetts Corner Rd

Jamison Corner Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Main St

Old Corbit Rd

N Broad St

Lums

Pond

Chesapeake

Joy

Run

Run

Scott

Creek

Augustine

Creek

Drawyer

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove Nest Branch

River

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Boyds

Corner

Saint

Georges

Middletown

Village

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Greylag

Commodore

Estates

Lorewood

Estates

Airmont

Acres

Mount

Hope

Summit

Bridge

Farms Summit

Pond

Crystal

Run

Dickerson Farm

Farm

Chesapeake

Meadow

Post and

Rail Farms

Meadowbrook Farms

Lea Eara

Farms West Lea Eara

Farms East

Grande

View

Farms

Asbury

Chase

Bolton

Meadows

Odessa

Heights

Spring

Oaks

m

and Delaware

Canal

B

Match

Line

Summit

Airport

o

Summit

Farms

G

GN

GS

BN

BS

B Y

P

Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

G

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-1B

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

Yellow (Y)

Purple (P)

Brown North (BN)

Brown South (BS)

Green North (GN)

Green South (GS)

Y

P

BN

BS

GN

GS

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

US 301 Project Development

Project Area

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

project project development development

U.S.

US 301 Project Development

Delaware

Department of

Transportation

November 2007

É Figure

As Shown

NOT TO SCALE

1

295

2202 Piedmont

Pike

Creek

Greater

Newark

Lower Lower

Christina Christina Christina

Brandywine Brandywine Brandywine

Wilmington Wilmington Wilmington

Upper Upper

Christina Christina Christina

New

Castle

Central

Pencader Red

Lion

95

295

MiddletownOdessa-Townsend (MOT)

Source:

III-2

NEW CASTLE COUNTY

PLANNING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES

New Castle County

Planning District

Boundaries

US 301

PROJECT AREA
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-6 

a. Middletown-Odessa-Townsend Planning Area 

New Castle County’s 2002 Comprehensive Development Plan Update designates the area within 

New Castle County south of the Canal as the M-O-T Planning District. According to the 

Wilmington Area Planning Council (WILMAPCO), in the past three decades the population of 

the M-O-T district has almost tripled, from 10,077 persons in 1970 to 29,682 persons in 2000. 

The number of households has more than tripled, from 3,101 in 1970 to 9,549 in 2000. This 

growth is projected to continue to 2025, as shown in Table III-1. 

Table III-1: Total Population and Household Trends in the 

Middletown-Odessa-Townsend Planning District, 1970 to 2025 

MOT 1970 1980 % 

change 1990 % change 2000 % change 2025 % change 

Total Population 10,077 13,120 30.2% 18,634 42.0% 29,682 59.3% 48,214 62.4% 

Total 

Households 3,101 4,454 43.6% 6,225 39.8% 9,549 53.4% 18,627 95.1% 

Source: New Castle County 2002 Comprehensive Development Plan Update 

The accelerated growth in recent years continues to spur new development in the M-O-T region 

as a whole. The available stock of single family housing units doubled between 2000 and 2004, 

as noted in the 2007 New Castle County Comprehensive Plan Update (adopted July 24, 2007). 

Each of the three incorporated towns (Middletown, Odessa, and Townsend) has seen varying 

degrees of development. Middletown has been affected most by pressures of new development 

and has added more than 1,898 acres through annexation, with the most recent annexations in 

July 2007. The Town of Townsend, south of US 301, has also undergone significant 

annexations, which have increased the size of the municipality from 111 acres to 587 acres. 

Odessa, southeast of US 301, has maintained the town boundaries and seen a reverse trend in 

development within its incorporated limits, with population and households decreasing over the 

last 30 years. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Odessa’s population was 547 in 1970 and 

decreased to 286 in the year 2000. 

The M-O-T region has traditionally experienced balanced residential, educational, commercial, 

and industrial growth; however, in the last fifteen years there has been a shift to extensive 

residential growth. This growth has been heavily concentrated north of the M-O-T towns, 

around the C&D Canal bridge crossings on the St. Georges Bridge (US 13) and the Summit 

Bridge (US 301). One focus of the new comprehensive plan is to control sprawl and concentrate 

growth in southern New Castle County within an area roughly bounded by the C&D Canal, US 

301, SR 1 and the Town of Middletown. 

Business, commercial and economic growth in the M-O-T planning area has not been as active 

as residential growth. Development patterns and levels of economic growth vary between the 

three municipalities that are within the M-O-T Planning District, and are assessed below on an 

individual basis. Each has prepared a town Master Plan, which sets forth goals and objectives 

for future growth and development. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-7 

Middletown

The Town of Middletown is the traditional hub of the farming community that surrounds it. 

Incorporated in 1861, the town began at the crossroads of Main Street and Broad Street, and after 

its incorporation, was laid out in a grid pattern around those crossroads. The town grew in 

importance in the region due to the railroad (currently owned and operated by the Norfolk 

Southern Railroad), which became the chief conveyance of grain and other agricultural goods to 

markets. 

In Middletown, the majority of new construction is residential and has taken place in the areas 

immediately north, east, and west of the town center. Based on past market conditions, build-out 

of current projects would not be expected to be completed for approximately ten years. 

Approval and construction of some planned development is currently on hold until proposed 

additional sewage treatment facilities can be completed in the town of Middletown. The areas of 

Middletown designated for residential and commercial growth are Westown, Greenlawn, The 

Legends, Middletown Village, and Cricklewood. Middletown has responded to development 

pressures by annexing land to the east, west, and south of town to accommodate new growth; the 

latest annexations took place in July, 2007. Additional acres are planned for annexation in the 

next few years. 

The town has developed a separate Master Plan (a Livable Delaware Growth Plan) for the 

approximately 2,500 acres of land that was annexed west of SR 71, identified as the Westown 

growth area. The proposed land use plan for the Westown area includes: 

Residential including single-family, duplexes, and townhouses; 

Commercial including an auto mall, home improvement store, and miscellaneous retail; 

Business including office space, manufacturing, and industrial; 

Park, recreation space, and open space; and 

Educational including a primary school campus and a college campus. 

The proposed development has been approved, and roadway improvements that will support 

traffic generated by the project are under construction or in design. The proposed schedule for 

the roadway improvements is 2005 to 2010. 

The 2001 Update to the 1998 Middletown Comprehensive Plan (March 5, 2001) (Middletown 

Comprehensive Plan) identifies the “Ridge Route” from the US 301 MIS and has preserved the 

north-south right-of-way in their land use plan for the improvements to US 301. (The Ridge 

Route is incorporated in the Purple, Brown, and Green Alternatives.) The Middletown 

Comprehensive Plan recommends continued coordination with DelDOT and WILMAPCO in the 

decision making process for a US 301/Middletown interchange to allow for integration of land 

use with the town’s transportation network. The US 301 roadway corridor has been identified as 

the western boundary of development on the 2001 zoning map, and the town has preserved the 

land within the US 301 corridor for such use. The Middletown Comprehensive Plan

recommends that US 301 serve as a boundary for office and industrial uses, and transition to 

preserved agricultural land to the west. The updated Town of Middletown Comprehensive Plan 

(adopted November 2005) acknowledges the US 301 Project Development process and 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-8 

recognizes the benefits to the town of the completion of a new, limited-access highway with an 

interchange at Levels Road. 

Odessa

The Town of Odessa (area 0.4 square miles) saw a decline in population and households between 

1970 and 2000. The town is bisected north-south by US 13, which divides within the town 

limits, and SR 299 (Main Street) in an east-west direction. Odessa has a small amount of 

commercial development, which is located west of and between the northbound and southbound 

lanes of US 13. According to the 2001 Odessa Comprehensive Plan, much of the commercially 

zoned land is either vacant or underutilized. Odessa is an historic community, which aims to 

strengthen historic design guidelines and zoning ordinance amendments to discourage 

development plans and also preserve environmentally sensitive areas. The town is impacted by 

existing vehicular traffic on US 13 (although less so since the completion of SR 1) and SR 299 as 

vehicles use this roadway through town to access SR 1. Residents are concerned about noise, air 

quality, and pedestrian mobility issues caused by increased traffic in the area. 

Based on the 2006 Update to the 2001 Town of Odessa Comprehensive Plan (October 2006), 

Odessa will continue to focus on residential growth within its boundaries, with the possibility of 

annexation of a small (approximately 75 acres) amount of additional land for mixed residential 

and commercial development. 

Townsend 

Townsend is located south of Middletown, west of SR 71, and is bisected by the Norfolk 

Southern Railroad and Caldwell Corner Road (Main Street). Similar to Odessa, land use in 

Townsend is predominantly single-family residential. There are a limited number of apartment 

units. Due to a series of recent annexations there is a large portion of land on the north side of 

town which is planned for new residential development. The town has a small core of 

commercial, office, and industrial land uses concentrated around the intersection of the railroad 

and Main Street, and includes the remaining regional grain elevator and storage/shipping facility 

in southern New Castle County. Like Odessa, there are limited commercial employers and 

community service centers scattered throughout the town (the 2003 Townsend Comprehensive 

Plan). 

b. Transportation Network 

In southern New Castle County (the M-O-T Planning District), travel patterns include those 

related to employment, local travel, and intra-regional travel. Travel patterns and potential 

impacts of the project on travel patterns are discussed in this chapter in Section G. 

Roadway Network

The roadway network in southern New Castle County consists of freeway, arterial, collector and 

local roadways, as shown on Figure III-1. The county is traversed in a north-south direction by 

four major roadways and the Norfolk Southern Rail line: 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-9 

US 301 enters southern New Castle County on the west side at the Delaware/Maryland 

state line and travels through the west side of the Town of Middletown, parallel to the 

Norfolk Southern rail alignment. US 301 crosses the C&D Canal on the Summit Bridge. 

US 13 traverses the entire state from the southern border of Delaware and Maryland in 

Sussex County to the northeastern border of Delaware and Pennsylvania. 

SR 1 is a limited access tolled highway. SR 1 parallels US 13 from south of Dover to 

I-95. SR 1/US 13 delineates the eastern edge of the project area. 

Outside and to the east of the project area, SR 9 traverses the state along the Delaware 

River. 

There are two major arterial east-west routes in southern New Castle County. SR 299, which 

enters Delaware from Maryland after passing through the Town of Warwick, passes through 

Middletown (Main Street) and Odessa as it crosses the county ending at SR 9. Churchtown 

Road/Boyds Corner Road (SR 896) crosses the county north of Middletown. Both of these roads 

interchange with SR 1 at the east edge of the project area. 

Numerous local roads cross southern New Castle County and provide a transportation network 

for the area’s residents. Local roads include Choptank Road, Churchtown Road, Old 

Schoolhouse Road, Armstrong Corner Road, Bohemia Mill Road, Strawberry Lane, Levels 

Road, Marl Pit Road, Cedar Lane Road, Bunker Hill Road, Hyetts Corner Road and Lorewood 

Grove Road. Many of the local roads intersect within the Town of Middletown. SR 71 provides 

a north-south connection between Middletown and Townsend. 

Transit Service

In southern New Castle County, public transportation services are provided by the Delaware 

Transit Corporation (DTC). DTC, an operating division of the DelDOT, is the statewide 

provider of public transportation services in Delaware. In southern New Castle County, the 

existing public transit services are commuter bus service and local shuttle bus. 

Two bus routes service the project area and the Town of Middletown: 

Route 301 – Express commuter bus service along SR 1 between Wilmington and Dover. 

Route 301 operates weekdays between 5:40 AM and 8:50 PM and operates express only 

service with stops at the Boyds Corner and Odessa Park and Ride lots. 

Middletown Shuttle – Operates daily providing connections to the Route 301 Express 

route at the Odessa Park and Ride. The Middletown Shuttle operates local stop service 

from the Bethesda United Methodist Church Park and Ride along SR 299 to the Odessa 

Park and Ride. DTC is currently evaluating two proposals to expand service to 

accommodate the growth occurring at locations west of existing US 301. 

Transit facilities designed to support public transportation are located within the M-O-T area. 

These include: 

Boyds Corner Park and Ride is located in the northeast quadrant of SR 1 and Pole Bridge 

Road. It includes 216 parking spaces and is served by Route 301. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-10 

Odessa Park and Ride is located in the northwest quadrant of SR 1 and DE 299. This 

facility includes 102 parking spaces and is served by bus Route 301 and the Middletown 

Shuttle. 

Bethesda United Methodist Church Park and Ride is located near the corner of East Main 

Street and North Broad Street. It includes 20 parking spaces and is served by the 

Middletown Shuttle. 

Mid-County Operations and Maintenance Facility was opened in 2004 and is located in 

the southeast quadrant of US 13 and SR 72. This facility provides dispatch and 

maintenance of transit vehicle operations in southern New Castle County. 

c. Project Conformity with State and Regional Plans 

The US 301 Project Development effort is in conformity with the guidelines for development set 

forth in Delaware Strategies for State Policies and Spending 5 Year Update July, 2004, also 

known as Livable Delaware. In that document, guidelines indicate preferred locations, within 

designated growth areas, of limited access roadways and bypasses, as well as areas where 

preservation, rather than growth, is the objective of the planning process. During the alternatives 

development process, these policies for growth areas were reviewed and considered in the 

planning process. 

The New Castle County 2002 Comprehensive Development Plan Update discusses regional 

conformity with WILMAPCO’s Long Range Transportation Plan, and continued interaction 

with DelDOT and WILMAPCO to implement The Greater Route 301 Major Investment Study

and other major roadway projects. The US 301 Project Development effort is consistent with the 

implementation of that plan. In the 2007 New Castle County Comprehensive Plan Update, 

partnered planning for transportation with WILMAPCO and DelDOT is identified for various 

transportation projects, including the US 301 Project. 

Neither the Town of Townsend Comprehensive Plan (adopted February 2003; revised August 

2003) nor the Town of Odessa Comprehensive Plan 2001 discusses US 301 project. The 

updated Middletown Comprehensive Plan (November 2005) discusses various transportation 

improvements in southern New Castle County, including the Choptank Road improvements, the 

tri-party agreement between the developers, New Castle County and Middletown for the 

transportation improvements associated with the Westown development, and the US 301 project. 

The plan states that the town has adopted a course of action to preserve land along the ridge route 

for the new limited access roadway and to preserve a corridor for the upgrade of existing US 301 

to a four-lane roadway, should either option be selected. The town recognizes the ridge route as 

the western boundary for development and recommends that New Castle County limit 

development west of this route. In facilitating the plan, the town has taken an active role in the 

location of a Middletown interchange with the new roadway as part of US 301 Project 

Development. 

On September 27, 2006, a Memorandum of Agreement was entered into by DelDOT; the Office 

of State Planning Coordination; the Delaware Department of Agriculture; New Castle County; 

three school districts (Appoquinimink, Colonial and Smyrna); the Towns of Middletown, Odessa 

and Townsend; and WILMAPCO for collaborative and cooperative comprehensive planning of 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-11 

land development, infrastructure and services for southern New Castle County. A part of that 

agreement indicates that the alignment for US 301 is an important component of the 

transportation infrastructure in southern New Castle County. 

2. Land Use

a. Existing Conditions 

According to the Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination, the majority of land use in the 

project area as of 2002 is agricultural (64.2 percent). Residential use and forest lands make up 

the next largest portions of land in the project area. Urban land uses, including commercial, 

industrial, institutional, and transportation, are scattered throughout the project area but are 

primarily concentrated in the towns and along US 301 and the major arterials. The percentages 

of each land use category are shown in Table III-2 and on Figure III-3. 

Table III-2: Existing Land Use in the Project Area 

M-O-T Planning District Project Area Land Use 

Area (acres) Percent Area (acres) Percent 

Residential 14,149 11.6 2,869 14.6 

Agriculture 58,747 48.4 12,578 64.2 

Forest 14,192 11.7 1,346 6.9 

Recreation/Open Space 442 0.4 143 0.7 

Water 3,271 2.7 131 0.7 

Wetlands 25,261 20.8 869 4.4 

Transitional 1,374 1.1 321 1.6 

Urban/Built Up1 4,067 3.3 1,334 6.7 

Total 121,503 100% 19,591 100% 

Source: Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination, 2002; Maryland Department of Planning, 2002 

Notes: 1

Urban/Built Up includes transportation, commercial, industrial, and institutional. 

Although the existing land use in much of the project area is shown as agricultural or forest, 

much of the area included in these categories is planned and/or approved for development (see 

Section A.3). 

b. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation 

There are no direct impacts to land use with the No-Build Alternative. 

The Preferred Alternative will impact 941 acres in the project area. Based on the 2002 land use 

GIS data layer provided, the largest conversion, 757 acres, will be of land currently used for 

agriculture. Other existing land uses that will be converted are shown in Table III-3. Impacts to 

these uses and potential mitigation are discussed separately in other sections of this document, 

including the SCEA in Section III.J. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-12 

Table III-3: Preferred Alternative Acres to be Converted from Current Uses 

2002 Land Use Category Acres 2002 Land Use Category Acres 

Agricultural 757 Transportation/Utility/ Communication 31.3 

Commercial 14.8 Transitional 19.6 

Forest 43.5 Urban 4.1 

Industrial 0.0 Water 0.1 

Residential 39.6 Wetlands 27.1 

Source: 2002 Land Use – Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination 

Notes: Wetland acres are calculated based on 2002 Land Use only. 

 Overall LOD acres also include a portion in Maryland. 

Implementation of any of the build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, will result in 

the conversion of acres from present land uses to transportation land use. Changes in land use 

that would occur as a result of the build alternatives, based on the New Castle County 

Department of Planning 2002 database, are shown in Table III-4. 

Table III-4: Build Alternatives - Acres to be Converted from Current Uses 

2002 Land Use Category Yellow Purple Brown 

North 

Brown 

South 

Green 

North 

(DEIS) 

Green 

South 

Agricultural 521.1 693.3 766.5 739.9 745.9 721.0 

Commercial 66.2 11.1 8.2 8.2 9.1 9.1 

Forest 40.1 43.0 40.7 54.2 37.2 39.4 

Industrial 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 

Residential 81.8 42.6 11.5 15.9 38.2 38.0 

Transportation/Utility/ 

Communication 66.3 64.0 23.4 22.1 22.0 22.0 

Transitional 14.9 19.3 26.2 16.7 20.9 20.8 

Urban 52.5 4.4 5.4 24.4 4.1 4.1 

Water 2.3 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 

Wetlands 23.4 23.3 13.4 12.3 19.5 20.1 

Total (rounded to nearest 

whole number) 870 906 896 894 897 875 

Source: 2002 Land Use – Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination 

Notes: Wetland acres are calculated based on 2002 Land Use and 2006 field delineations, except for the Preferred 

Alternative, which is based only on 2002 Land Use. 

 Overall LOD acres also include a portion in Maryland. 

 Alternatives are as shown in Appendix A and B and include the preferred options. 
)p

AØ

)p

AØ

?Î

)p

Warwick

Middletown

Townsend

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

Churchtow

Old School House Rd

Bohemia Mill Rd Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Noxontown Rd

Silverlake Rd

Main St

Money Rd

Bunker Hill Rd

Middletown Warwick Rd

Middle Neck Rd

N Broad St

S Broad St

Levels Rd

Strawberry La

Grears Corner Rd

Green Giant Rd

Wiggins Mill Rd

Church Rd

Great

Bohemia

Creek

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove

Nest Branch

Noxontown

Pond

Silver

Lake

Sandy

Branch

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Middletown

Village Matapeake

Country

Acres

Wheatland

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Post and

Rail Farms

Back Meadowbrook Farms

Creek

Match

Line

B Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

G

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-3A

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

LANDUSE

Agriculture

Residential

Transitional 

Wetlands

Urban

Forest

Open Space

Water

Sources: Delaware Office of State

 Planning Coordination, 2002

 Maryland Department of

 Planning, 2002

US 301 Project Development

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Land Use

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
AÝ

)p

?¡

?Î

AÝ

)p

)h

?¡

AÝ

)h

?¡

)h

AØ

)p

Middletown

Odessa

St Georges Rd

Rd

Red Lion Rd

Cox Neck Rd

Summit

Bridge

d

Summit Bridge Rd

Churchtown Rd

Old School House Rd

Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Bethel Church Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Ratledge Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Bayview Rd

Vance Neck Rd

Hyetts Corner Rd

Jamison Corner Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Main St

Old Corbit Rd

N Broad St

Lums

Pond

Chesapeake

Joy

Run

Run

Scott

Creek

Augustine

Creek

Drawyer

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove Nest Branch

River

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Boyds

Corner

Saint

Georges

Middletown

Village

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Greylag

Commodore

Estates

Lorewood

Estates

Airmont

Acres

Mount

Hope

Summit

Bridge

Farms Summit

Pond

Crystal

Run

Dickerson Farm

Farm

Chesapeake

Meadow

Post and

Rail Farms

Meadowbrook Farms

Lea Eara

Farms West Lea Eara

Farms East

Grande

View

Farms

Asbury

Chase

Bolton

Meadows

Odessa

Heights

Spring

Oaks

m

and Delaware

Canal

B

Match

Line

Summit

Airport

o

Summit

Farms

G

GN

GS

BN

BS

B Y

P

Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

G

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-3B

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

LANDUSE

Agriculture

Residential

Transitional 

Wetlands

Urban

Forest

Open Space

Water

Sources: Delaware Office of State

 Planning Coordination, 2002

 Maryland Department of

 Planning, 2002

US 301 Project Development

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Land Use

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-15 

3. Planned Development

a. Existing Conditions 

There is a large amount of development, approved, pending or under construction, within the 

M-O-T Planning District. Planned development for unincorporated areas of southern New 

Castle County is listed in Table III-5 and Table III-6. Additional residential development is 

planned, built or under construction within the incorporated town limits of Middletown 

(including Westown) and Townsend, as listed on Table III-7. Figure III-4 shows planned 

development in the project area. 

Table III-5: Planned Residential Development in the Project Area 

within Unincorporated Areas of M-O-T Planning District

Development Name Type Acres # of Units Status

Cantwell Ridge Residential 129.6 187 Approved 

Bohemia Mill Pond Residential 123.7 50 Approved 

Back Creek II Residential 181.2 76 Approved 

Spring Creek Residential 112.6 142 Approved 

Lorewood Estates Residential 21.4 10 Approved 

Bishops Walk Residential 39.1 42 Approved 

Robinson Run North Residential 63.8 68 Approved 

Shannon Cove Residential 518.5 410 Approved 

Sugar Loaf Farms Residential 32.9 28 Approved 

Goldsborough Farm Residential 65.1 81 Approved 

Odessa National Residential 614.8 761 Approved 

Stonefield Residential 145.5 186 Approved 

Enclave at Odessa Residential 157.8 205 Approved 

Asbury Chase II Residential 59.3 40 Approved 

Baymont Farms Residential 217.6 157 Approved 

Bayberry North Residential 463.0 768 Approved 

Bayberry South Residential 835.7 1,186 Approved 

Cedar Lane Residential 87.3 78 Approved 

Biggs Farm Residential 30.3 20 Approved 

Country Acres II Residential 10.6 6 Approved 

Fairways at Odessa National Residential 68.5 80 Approved 

Country Club Estates Residential 246.7 116 Pending 

Canal View at Crossland (Age-Restricted) Residential 70.8 262 Pending 

Crossland Residential 139.1 170 Pending 

Rothwell Village Residential 141.8 150 Pending 

Village of Scott Run (Age-Restricted) Residential 175.3 271 Pending 

Carter Farm Residential 407.2 412 Pending 

Pleasanton East Residential 226 293 Pending 

Pleasanton Residential 435.6 564 Pending 

Windsor at Hyetts Corner Residential 150.1 143 Pending 

Penfield/Lester Property Residential 113.6 140 Pending 

Spring Oaks Residential 102 119 Pending 

Robinson Crossing Residential 121.6 81 Pending 

Total, Approved & Pending N/A 6,308 7,302 N/A 

Source: New Castle County Department of Planning and Zoning web pages. Status as of 2007. Approved development may 

be under construction. 
)p

AØ

)p

AØ

?Î

)p

Warwick

Middletown

Townsend

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

Churchtow

Old School House Rd

Bohemia Mill Rd Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Noxontown Rd

Silverlake Rd

Main St

Money Rd

Bunker Hill Rd

Middletown Warwick Rd

Middle Neck Rd

N Broad St

S Broad St

Levels Rd

Strawberry La

Grears Corner Rd

Green Giant Rd

Wiggins Mill Rd

Church Rd

Great

Bohemia

Creek

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove

Nest Branch

Noxontown

Pond

Silver

Lake

Sandy

Branch

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Match

Line

B Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

Country Club

Estates

Estates at

Ridgefield

Appoquinimink

High School

Southridge

Westown

Middletown Business

& Technical Park

Levels

Business

Park

G

Chetty Property

Willow

Grove

Mill

Pleasanton

Cedar

Lane

Churchtown

Manor

Bayberry

Town Center

Village of

Bayberry

(South)

Cedar Lane

School

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-4A

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

Parcels

Water Farm II, Spray Irrigation Fields

Other Planned Development

Approved Development

Proposed / Pending Development

Existing Residential Source: Delaware Office of State

 Planning Coordination, 2004

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

US 301 Project Development

Planned Development

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
AÝ

)p

?¡

?Î

AÝ

)p

)h

?¡

AÝ

)h

?¡

)h

AØ

)p

Middletown

Odessa

St Georges Rd

Rd

Red Lion Rd

Cox Neck Rd

Summit

Bridge

d

Summit Bridge Rd

Churchtown Rd

Old School House Rd

Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Bethel Church Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Ratledge Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Bayview Rd

Vance Neck Rd

Hyetts Corner Rd

Jamison Corner Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Main St

Old Corbit Rd

N Broad St

Lums

Pond

Chesapeake

Joy

Run

Run

Scott

Creek

Augustine

Creek

Drawyer

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove Nest Branch

River

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Boyds

Corner

Saint

Georges

Greylag

Odessa

Heights

Spring

Oaks

m

and Delaware

Canal

B

Match

Line

o

G

GN

GS

BN

BS

B Y

P

Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G Estates at

Ridgefield

Appoquinimink

High School

Southridge

B i

G

Chetty Property

Willow

Grove

Mill

Pleasanton

Cedar

Lane

Churchtown

Manor

Carter

Farm

Biggs

Farm

Rothwell

Village

Lorewood

Estates

Crossland

St. Georges

Technical HS

Whitehall

Properties

Scott Run

Business Park

Village of

Bayberry

(North)

Bayberry

Town Center

Village of

Bayberry

(South)

Hyetts

Corner

Penfield

Asbury

Chase II

Cedar Lane

School

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-4B

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

Parcels

Water Farm II, Spray Irrigation Fields

Other Planned Development

Approved Development

Proposed / Pending Development

Existing Residential Source: Delaware Office of State

 Planning Coordination, 2004

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

US 301 Project Development

Planned Development

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-18 

Table III-6: Planned Non-Residential Development in the Project Area 

within Unincorporated Areas of M-O-T Planning District 

Development Name Type Acres # of Units Status

Scott Run Business Park Light Industrial 230.9 1.7 M sq ft Approved 

Bayview Crossing Commercial 9.98 -- Approved 

Source: New Castle County Department of Planning and Zoning. Status as of 2007. Approved development may be under 

construction.

Table III-7: Planned Residential Development in Middletown 

Development Name Total Units Type 

Middletown 

Estates at St. Anne’s 465 Single family homes 

Dove Run 298 Single family homes 

Lakeside 185 Single family homes 

Legends 378 Single family homes 

Longmeadow 243 Single family homes 

Middletown Crossing 134/100 Single family homes/ Duplexes 

Parkside 492 Single family homes 

Springmill 362 Single family homes 

Spring Arbor at Southridge (Westown) 182/12/123 Single family homes/Duplexes/Triplexes 

 (age-restricted 55+) 

The Parkway at Southridge (Westown) 1/4/237 Single family homes/Duplexes/Townhomes 

Westown (Levels) 1,000/260/540 Single family homes/Duplexes/Townhomes 

Willow Grove Mill 339/248/192 Single family homes/Townhomes/Condominiums 

Highlands 172/611/220 Duplexes/Townhomes/Apartments 

Caribou Lane 22 Townhomes 

Congressional Village (Legends) 96 Condominiums 

Middletown Village 262/514/300 Single family homes/Townhomes/Condominiums 

Chetty Builders Main Street Complex 

(Mixed Use) 

312 Condominiums 

Retail, Restaurant and Day Care 

Total Dwelling Units 8,304 N/A

Source: Rae Teel, Middletown Town Manager’s Office and Tim Deschepper, Middletown Planner. Includes developments of 

10 or more dwelling units. 

As shown in Tables III-5 and III-7, there are a total of 7,302 new dwelling units planned or 

under construction in the unincorporated portion of southern New Castle County in and adjacent 

to the project area, and over 8,000 planned or under construction within the town of Middletown. 

When added together, the total number of new dwelling units in the project area (constructed 

since the 2000 Census, under construction, and approved) is over 15,000. 

There are also a number of planned non-residential developments approved, permitted, or under 

construction in Middletown and in the unincorporated portion of the project area. These are 

identified on Tables III-6 and III-8. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-19 

Table III-8: Planned Non-Residential Development in Middletown 

Middletown 

Development Type Details Total Size Comments/Status 

Office 

Cricklewood Grove Office Park 

Cricklewood Grove Medical Office 

Greenlawn Office Park 

Middletown Corporate Center 

25,000 sf 

9,900 sf 

141,704 sf 

126,300 sf 

-- 

-- 

-- 

126,300 sf proposed; 13,500 under 

construction 

Retail/Commercial 

Cricklewood Grove Office Park 

Market Place Shopping Center 

Middletown Commons 

Middletown Crossing 

Middletown Square Shopping Ctr 

Middletown Village Shopping Ctr 

Willow Grove Mill 

Pederson Property 

15,000 sf 

160,000 sf 

221,141 sf 

310,000 sf 

-- 

155,608 sf 

460,000 sf 

203,313 sf 

-- 

71,708 sf completed; 18,524 proposed 

62,140 sf completed; 164,797 proposed 

Remaining 50,900 sf under construction 

69,019 sf remain 

25,989 sf completed 

Proposed WaWa with gas pumps 

Retail/office and restaurant (19,500 sf) 

Storage Units Delaware Industries 

Sentinel Self Storage 

5-1,200 sf units 

-- 

Built or under construction 

81,525 sf completed 

Industrial Middletown Industrial Park @ 275 acres 

Middletown – Westown 

Development Type Property/Development Comments/Status 

Elementary, Middle & High 

Schools, Day Care 

Appoquinimink High School (210,000 sf; under construction); to 

Education accommodate @ 2,850 students 

Future 4-Year College Proposed; currently an agricultural preserve 

Manufacturing; 

industrial Levels Business Park 700,000 sf on 100 acres; 105,230 sf completed; 99,097 sf proposed (5 sites); 30,750 sf under construction 

Manufacturing 

Bunker Hill Center I 

Bunker Hill Center II 

214,699 sf completed; 14,000 sf under construction; 38,130 sf 

proposed 

191,243 sf completed or under construction 

Industrial Auto Mall 

Kohl Industrial Center 

Auto Mall 54 acres 

Walmart/Retail/Office – 78 acres; Office Park – 20 acres 

Westown Town Center 

Cochran Farm Property 

Westown 

Ramunno Property 

1,528,100 sf total 

Retail 1,198,000 sf approved including Westown Town Center 

Middletown Commons 250,741 sf proposed; 226,937 completed 

Commercial 

Bunker Hill Center 

Kohl Commercial Property 

Cochran Farm Property 

11,400 sf restaurant space 

621 hotel rooms 

95.96 acres - Auto Mall 

Office Various locations 550,000 sf total 

280,000 sf approved 

Town Park 100 acres under construction 

Public Facilities 

Future Recreation Area 100 acres; sports fields (currently in agricultural preservation, TDR in 

process) 

Sources: Rae Teel, Middletown Town Manager’s Office; Westown - Tim Deschepper, Middletown Town Planner 

sf = square feet 

b. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation 

There will be no impacts to planned development with the No-Build Alternative. Completion of 

any of the build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, will directly impact some 

planned developments in the project area. The Preferred Alternative will impact areas of 

Westown, Pleasanton, Churchtown Manor, Scott Run Business Park, the Village of Scott Run 

and the Whitehall Properties. Some planned developments have agreements with New Castle 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-20 

County, DelDOT and/or Middletown to accommodate a planned US 301 roadway; others may be 

willing to accommodate a planned US 301 in their development plans. DelDOT has consulted 

and will continue to consult with the owners/developers of these and other affected planned 

development areas to provide appropriate compensation for property acquisitions. Further 

information on property acquisitions is found in Section A.5 of this chapter.

Of the major developments in the project area, the proposed Westown development would be 

impacted by construction of the Yellow Alternative and minimally impacted by the construction 

of the Green, Purple, and Brown Alternatives. The development plans for Bayberry would be 

impacted by construction of the Yellow, Purple or Green South Alternatives. Scott Run 

Industrial Park would be affected by construction of the Green or Brown Alternatives. 

4. Farms and Farmland 

a. Existing Conditions 

Despite rapid residential growth in southern New Castle County, 48.4 percent of land use 

remains agricultural. Within the project area, 64.2 percent of the land use is designated 

agricultural (DE Office of State Planning, 2002 Land Use) although much of that land is planned 

or approved for development (Tables III-5, III-6, III-7 and III-8). According to the USDA 

2002 Census of Agriculture (National Agricultural Statistics Service: www.nass.usda.gov), 

approximately 26 percent of New Castle County was farmed, representing a 25 percent decrease 

compared to 1987 farm use. 

Active farms make up a significant portion of the proposed right of way for the alternatives, and 

most of the project area consists of prime farmland soils (Figure III-14). Currently, active 

farmland in the project area is located primarily north and west of Middletown between existing 

US 301, the C&D Canal and the state line. Many of these farms are located off of Choptank and 

Bohemia Mill Roads. Additional active farms are located adjacent to the project area to the 

south. Figure III-5 shows the land use areas identified as active farmlands (see below) and 

designated agricultural preservation areas in the project area. 

Five farms within the project area are designated as agricultural districts or easements. Districts 

provide a temporary agreement between the owner and state or county to continue using the land 

for agriculture for a 10-year period (renewable), while agricultural easements are farms that are 

permanently dedicated to farming. This dedication is recorded as a deed covenant and is carried 

forward to all future owners. 

Farms within the project area include dairy and equine operations and crop production (mainly 

corn, wheat, barley and soybeans) (USDA 2002 Census of Agriculture). Field surveys were 

conducted during June 2006 to identify active (with crops or livestock visible) farmlands within 

the limit of disturbance of the alternatives. Farmlands that appeared to have transitioned into 

non-agricultural uses were not included in the survey, nor were farm parcels already approved 

for development. Based on the field survey, county tax parcel maps and aerial survey mapping, 

28 active farm parcels were identified within or adjacent to the project area. 
)p

AØ

)p

AØ

?Î

)p

Warwick

Middletown

Townsend

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

Churchtow

Old School House Rd

Bohemia Mill Rd Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Noxontown Rd

Silverlake Rd

Main St

Money Rd

Bunker Hill Rd

Middletown Warwick Rd

Middle Neck Rd

N Broad St

S Broad St

Levels Rd

Strawberry La

Grears Corner Rd

Green Giant Rd

Wiggins Mill Rd

Church Rd

Great

Bohemia

Creek

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove

Nest Branch

Noxontown

Pond

Silver

Lake

Sandy

Branch

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Middletown

Village Matapeake

Country

Acres

Wheatland

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Post and

Rail Farms

Back Meadowbrook Farms

Creek

Match

Line

B Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

G

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-5A

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

Active Farm Parcels

Agricultural Preservation

Agricultural Easements

Agricultural Districts

US 301 Project Development

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Active Farm Parcels* and

Agricultural Preservation Areas

Delaware

Department of

Transportation

*Active farm parcels were estimated during 2006 windshield survey and review 

of aerial photography; excludes farm parcels pending/approved for development.
AÝ

)p

?¡

?Î

AÝ

)p

)h

?¡

AÝ

)h

?¡

)h

AØ

)p

Middletown

Odessa

St Georges Rd

Rd

Red Lion Rd

Cox Neck Rd

Summit

Bridge

d

Summit Bridge Rd

Churchtown Rd

Old School House Rd

Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Bethel Church Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Ratledge Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Bayview Rd

Vance Neck Rd

Hyetts Corner Rd

Jamison Corner Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Main St

Old Corbit Rd

N Broad St

Lums

Pond

Chesapeake

Joy

Run

Run

Scott

Creek

Augustine

Creek

Drawyer

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove Nest Branch

River

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Boyds

Corner

Saint

Georges

Middletown

Village

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Greylag

Commodore

Estates

Lorewood

Estates

Airmont

Acres

Mount

Hope

Summit

Bridge

Farms Summit

Pond

Crystal

Run

Dickerson Farm

Farm

Chesapeake

Meadow

Post and

Rail Farms

Meadowbrook Farms

Lea Eara

Farms West Lea Eara

Farms East

Grande

View

Farms

Asbury

Chase

Bolton

Meadows

Odessa

Heights

Spring

Oaks

m

and Delaware

Canal

B

Match

Line

Summit

Airport

o

Summit

Farms

G

GN

GS

BN

BS

B Y

P

Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

G

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-5B

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

Active Farm Parcels

Agricultural Preservation

Agricultural Easements

Agricultural Districts

US 301 Project Development

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Active Farm Parcels* and

Agricultural Preservation Areas

Delaware

Department of

Transportation

*Active farm parcels were estimated during 2006 windshield survey and review 

of aerial photography; excludes farm parcels pending/approved for development.
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-23 

There are businesses within the project area that are vital to or support agriculture. South of 

Middletown, Middletown Veterinary, Hoober, Inc. (Case Tractor), and Money’s Farm Market 

are located along existing US 301. North of Middletown, Logullo’s Country Market, M L 

Whiteman & Sons Landscape Contractors, Ciamaricone’s Landscaping, and Mr. Mulch are 

located adjacent to existing US 301. In addition to those businesses located adjacent to major 

roadways within the project area, the Peavey Agricultural Products processing plant and grain 

storage/shipping facility is located in Townsend and serves the needs of many of the local 

farmers in both Delaware and Maryland. 

b. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation 

Farm parcels were evaluated using the Land Evaluation Site Assessment (LESA) model, a state 

and federally approved land analysis system that rates agricultural parcels for suitability for longterm agricultural use. A higher LESA score indicates high agricultural suitability. The 300-

point rating system is based on a Land Evaluation (LE) factor (determined by using a land use 

dependent soil productivity index) and a Site Assessment (SA) factor (derived from non-soil 

factors, many of which are non-agricultural). 

For each alternative, the specific parcels impacted by the alternative were quantitatively assessed 

by multiplying the LESA score by the amount of land within the parcel that is impacted, thus 

providing an acre-weighted total score for the specific portion of land impacted. The acreweighted total scores for each of the affected parcels were then added and divided by the number 

of acres impacted by the alternative. The result is an acre-weighted score for each alternative. 

The LESA score for the Preferred Alternative is 211; 15 farms (as identified during field survey 

in 2006) were identified as impacted. The LESA score with development parcels excluded is 

219. The LESA evaluation for the retained alternatives is shown in Table III-9.

Table III-9: LESA Model Scores for Impacted Farm Parcels 

Alternative Yellow 

Alternative 

Purple

Alternative 

Brown 

Alternative 

North 

Option 

Brown 

Alternative 

South 

Option 

Green

Alternative 

North 

Option 

(DEIS) 

Green

Alternative 

South 

Option 

Farms Impacted1 9 16 13 15 15 15 

LESA Score2 192 203 198 202 210 204 

LESA Score3 212 218 202 209 218 213 

Notes: 1. Includes the total acres of specific parcels impacted by each alternative. 

 2. Indicates total impacts, regardless of existing land use. 

 3. Excludes farmland parcels with existing and planned development. 

The variance in the LESA scores for the retained alternatives is small (the range of scores is 192 

to 210), with the Yellow Alternative having the lowest LESA score (192) and the Green 

Alternative North Option having the highest LESA score (210). All of the alternatives will 

impact farm parcels that are suitable for agriculture based on their LESA score. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-24 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), as amended in 1984 and 1994, includes criteria 

defining the situations to which the FPPA applies and for which a Form AD-1006 (Form CPA106 for corridor-type projects) is required. The AD-1006 Farmland Conversation Impact Rating 

(FCIR) is used by federal agencies who wish to convert farmland to nonagricultural uses. 

Calculations on the form result in a farmland conversion impact rating which assesses the value 

of farmlands to be converted. The FCIR CPA-106 form, completed for the Preferred Alternative 

and included in Appendix G, uses a one-mile wide corridor (1/2 mile on either side of the 

centerline of the alignment) to complete the requirements of the FPPA. The form is coordinated 

through the state Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) office. Impacts to prime 

farmland soils are discussed in detail in Section F of this chapter. 

The No-Build Alternative will not impact farms or farmland. Impacts to active farm parcels are 

updated for the Preferred Alternative based on the identification of individual parcel impacts for 

the entire length of the project, recent aerial photography, and input from the farming 

community. The Preferred Alternative will impact 831 acres on 28 active farm parcels that are 

not currently proposed for development. This total includes areas outside of the LOD for the 

project that will no longer be accessible upon completion of the Preferred Alternative and areas 

proposed for wetlands mitigation. Only one farm parcel will be a total acquisition (it includes 

the primary wetland mitigation site) and the remainder will be partial acquisitions. Three of the 

farms that are impacted are under agricultural preservation protection: two are easements 

(impacting 10.9 acres) and one is an agricultural district (32.6 acres of impact). An additional 17 

parcels will be impacted that are currently being farmed and are proposed, pending or approved 

for development. These parcels will account for an additional 371 acres. Only one parcel, a 

DP&L alignment parcel, will be a total acquisition. Farm impacts are discussed in the following 

paragraphs.

The Preferred Alternative alignment LOD will impact 616 acres of prime farmland soils, an 

increase from the 437 acres reported for the Green North Alternative in the DEIS. This increase 

is due to the enlarged footprint of the roadway, more detailed stormwater management facilities 

and sites proposed for wetland mitigation. Topography was obtained for the area, allowing for 

more detailed engineering, including preliminary drainage concepts which required that the 

roadway profile be raised slightly higher than the DEIS alignment in some places (refer to the 

introduction on page III-1). It is anticipated that all of the alternatives impacts would increase 

proportionally, were they subjected to the same level of detail as the Preferred Alternative. 

Many of the calculations for land acquisitions for the Preferred Alternative also include 

“remainder” portions (portions of parcels that will be inaccessible following construction of the 

Preferred Alternative) of parcels that are impacted directly. 

The Preferred Alternative would not impact businesses associated with or essential to farming in 

the area. As part of the build alternative, a proposed connection between Strawberry Lane and 

existing US 301, south of Levels Road, will assure continued safe local access for transportation 

of large farm machinery across new US 301 and provide access to a farm machinery repair 

business.
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-25 

As described in the DEIS, the other build alternatives would impact active farm parcels and 

prime farmland soils (Table III-10). These impacts were considered during the evaluation of 

alternatives and selection of the Preferred Alternative. 

The Green Alternative South Option would impact the fewest (398) acres of prime farmland soil, 

while the Yellow Alternative would impact the lowest number of active farmland parcels (9). 

Each of the build alternatives would partially impact one or more agricultural districts or 

easements. The Yellow Alternative impacts 14.1 acres of an agricultural district that has been 

approved for development as a part of the Westown project. The Purple, Brown and Green 

Alternatives would impact 32.6 acres of an agricultural district north of Bunker Hill Road. The 

Brown Alternative will impact 9.4 to 12.4 acres of an easement north of Churchtown Road, 

while the spur road (Purple and Green Alternatives) would impact 5.3 acres of the same 

property. The Preferred Alternative also impacts 5.9 acres of a county agricultural easement in 

order to provide the Strawberry Lane connection to existing US 301. This additional impact 

would occur with all of the build alternatives, were they subjected to same level of detail in 

engineering as the Preferred Alternative. 

Table III-10: DEIS Impacts to Prime Farmland Soils, 

Active Farms, and Agricultural Preserves 

Alternative Yellow 

Alternative 

Purple

Alternative 

Brown 

Alternative 

North 

Option 

Brown 

Alternative 

South 

Option 

Green

Alternative 

North 

Option 

(DEIS) 

Green

Alternative 

South 

Option 

Prime Farmland 

Soils Impacted (acres)1 203 415 412 424 437 398 

Active Farmland 

Parcels Impacted2 9 15 16 13 15 15 

 Partial Takes 7 5 3 2 4 4 

 Total Takes 2 10 13 11 11 11 

Agricultural Districts 

Impacted 

 Number (acres) 

1

(14.1) 

1

(32.6) 

1

(32.6) 

1

(32.6) 

1

(32.6) 

1

(32.6) 

Agricultural Easements 

Impacted 

 Number (acres) 

0

(0) 

1

(6.0) 

1

(9.4) 

1

(12.4) 

1

(6.0) 

1

(6.0) 

Notes: 1 The impacts to farmland soils includes areas of proposed development. 

2 Based on field survey only and does not include parcels planned and approved for 

 development. Includes estimated total and partial takes. 

The Yellow Alternative will impact the seven businesses that are related directly or indirectly to 

agriculture. All of the alternatives will impact the Middletown Veterinary property (requiring a 

partial strip take), and the Yellow Alternative would require the relocation of Hoober, Inc. (Case 

Tractor).

None of the build alternatives completely avoid impacts to farms and farmlands. Acquisitions of 

active farm parcels have been minimized through alignment location and engineering design and 

will be further minimized, where possible, during final design. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-26 

Property owners will be contacted regarding potential acquisitions and be fairly compensated for 

the required acreage. In some cases (agricultural preservation lands), compensation will be 

determined based on the “highest and best development use of the property with no consideration 

given to the restrictions and limitations” of the preservation agreement (Delaware Code Title 3, 

Chapter 9, Subchapter IV, Section 922). Compensation will also be provided for any farmland 

that may be unsuitable or inaccessible for farming purposes as a result of the roadway 

improvements. For those businesses that are subject to relocation, owners will be provided 

relocation assistance in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Act of 1970, as amended by the Uniform Relocation Act Amendments of 1987 

(Refer to Appendix F).

5. Population and Housing

a. Existing Conditions 

Data were extracted from the US Census Bureau web site to describe population and housing 

within the project area. The Census tracts in the project area are shown on Figure III-6.

According to the 2000 Census, 18,132 persons live in the four census tracts that include the 

project area, as shown in Table III-11. Tract 166.01, located between the state line and Summit 

Bridge Road/US 301/SR 71, has the highest population of the four tracts; tract 168.01, located 

south of US 301 has the smallest population. The other two tracts, 166.02 and 166.04, are 

located to the east of Summit Bridge Road/US 301/SR 71. Census tract 166.04 includes most of 

the area of Middletown east of SR 71 and the Town of Odessa. 

Table III-11: Population and Housing in the Project Area 

Geographic Area Number of 

Persons

Number of Housing 

Units

Number of Occupied 

Housing Units 

Average Household 

Size 

166.01 5,712 1,974 1,885 3.03 

166.02 4,442 1,402 1,366 3.25 

166.04 4,995 1,995 1,842 2.71 

168.01 2,983 1,112 1,056 2.82 

Project Area 

Total 18,132 6,483 6,149 (95.1%) 

Source: US Census 2000 

There are 6,149 housing units in the project area, and 95 percent are occupied. In census tracts 

166.01, 166.02 and 168.01, most of the housing units are detached single family homes. Many 

of the homes in tracts 166.01 and 166.02 are located in more recently constructed developments. 
?¡

)p

)h

AÝ

?¡

AØ

)h

?¡

?1

?Î

A×

AØ

)p

k

Townsend

Odessa

Middletown

B

G

BN

BS

GN

GS

B Y

Y

P P

P

G

Spur

Y B

P

G

166.03

166.02

166.01

166.04

168.01

301

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

G

November 2007 Figure

III-6

É

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

Census Tracts

166.01

166.02

166.03

166.04

168.01

301

1 in. = 1.1 mi.

US 301 Project Development

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Census Tracts

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-28 

 The population is also identified by age, in order to identify those persons who are classified as 

elderly (age 65 and older). 

Table III-12: Population Age Distribution in the Project Area 

Age Distribution 

Under 25 25-44 45-64 65 and Older Geographic 

Area 

Number 

of 

Persons 

# % # % # % # % 

Median 

Age 

Delaware 783,600 269,915 34.4 236,441 30.2 175,418 22.4 101,726 13.0 36.0 

New Castle 

County 500,265 176,303 35.2 157,485 31.5 108,574 21.7 57,903 11.6 35.0 

166.01 5,712 2,183 38.2 2,077 36.4 1,104 19.3 348 6.1 33.5 

166.02 4,442 1,702 38.3 1,523 34.3 992 22.3 225 5.1 35.2 

166.04 4,995 1,979 39.6 1,646 33.0 973 19.5 397 7.9 31.5 

168.01 2,983 990 33.2 922 30.9 755 25.3 316 10.6 37.7 

Project 

Area Total 18,132 6,854 33.2 6,168 29.9 3,824 18.6 1,286 6.2 Average: 

34.5 

Source: US Census 2000 

Note: Shaded area identifies tract with highest percentage of elderly in the project area. 

As shown in Table III-12, the highest percentage of elderly persons in the project area, 10.6 

percent, are in Census tract 168.01; this tract includes the area mostly south of Middletown. The 

only concentration of elderly residents identified in the project area was in Springmill, an “active 

adult” community with an age requirement of 55 and older. 

b. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation 

Property Impacts and Relocations

There will be no impacts to existing properties from the No-Build Alternative. The Preferred 

Alternative will impact a total of 143 properties, of which 26 will be full acquisitions and 117 

will be partial acquisitions. DelDOT will obtain a permanent easement on one additional 

property. Occupants of approximately 21 residential or business properties will require 

relocation assistance, including 17 total acquisitions and four partial acquisitions, resulting in 35 

separate relocation assignments. Property acquisitions required by the Preferred Alternative are 

shown in Table III-13 by zoning classification. 

Table III-13: Property Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 

Total Acquisitions Partial Acquisitions Zoning Classification1 

Number Acres Number Acres 

Total 

Properties 

Business/General Business 0 0 6 122.20 6 

Commercial Regional 5 6 14 91.69 19 

Industrial 3 3 3 1.34 6 

Residential NC15/NC21/NC40 2 7 17 11.82 19 

Residential R1/R2 0 0 2 1.01 2 

Suburban 12 71 70 674.85 83 

Suburban Reserve 4 303 5 173.86 9 

Total Acquisitions (number) 26 390 117 1106.65 143 

Note 1: Zoning classifications for New Castle County and Town of Middletown 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-29 

Zoning classifications do not accurately reflect the use of the property, i.e., the “General 

Business” category includes the Appoquinimink High School property; several properties with 

residential or “Suburban” zoning are residential open space or owned by utility companies and 

do not reflect residential acquisitions; and the “Suburban” and “Suburban Reserve” categories 

represent mostly residential properties or farmlands, including the Whitehall Properties, the 

Middletown Baptist Church property, and properties owned by DP&L, the Appoquinimink 

School District and the University of Delaware. 

Each of the build alternatives would impact a number of properties along its alignment, as shown 

in the DEIS, with property impacts ranging from small partial takes to total parcel acquisitions 

and relocations. These impacts were considered during the evaluation of alternatives and the 

selection of the Preferred Alternative. The number of properties impacted and the numbers of 

relocation impacts associated with each of the alternatives is detailed in Table III-14. 

Table III-14: Preliminary Property Impacts by Retained Alternative 

Zoning Classification1 Yellow 

Alternative 

Purple 

Alternative 

Brown 

Alternative 

North 

Option 

Brown 

Alternative 

South 

Option 

Green 

Alternative 

North 

Option 

(DEIS) 

Green 

Alternative 

South 

Option 

Residential 

 Full 128 7 2 2 4 4

 Partial 48 23 18 25 24 24

 Relocations 118 7 2 2 3 3

Business2

 Full 58 5 4 4 8 7

 Partial 50 16 14 14 16 17

 Relocations 32 0 0 0 2 4

Other3 

 Full 21 18 6 6 12 15

 Partial 72 85 56 49 68 63

 Relocations 11 9 0 2 8 11

Full Takes Total 207 30 12 12 24 26

Partial Takes Total 170 124 88 88 108 104

Total Relocations 161 16 2 4 13 18

Total Affected 

Properties 377 154 100 100 132 130

Notes: 

1 Zoning classifications for New Castle County and Town of Middletown; if zoning is not known, property is 

included in Other category. 2 Business includes General Business, Business Park, Commercial, Industrial, Manufacturing classifications. 3 Other includes Suburban, Suburban Reserve and Open Space classifications.

The Yellow Alternative would require the greatest number (377) of property acquisitions and the 

most relocations; there would be 118 residential, 32 business and 11 other relocations with this 

alternative. The alternatives that follow the ridge route would require less property acquisitions 

and relocations, with the Brown Alternative Options impacting the fewest properties. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-30 

Relocation Plan

For properties impacted by the Preferred Alternative, each property owner will be contacted 

regarding the acreage to be acquired. For right-of-way takes where small portions will be 

acquired, owners will be compensated fairly based on assessment of property value and the size 

of the acquisition. In addition to just compensation for the assessed property value, those owners 

whose residences or business properties will be taken will be provided relocation assistance in 

accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, 

as amended by the Uniform Relocation Act Amendments of 1987 (Refer to Appendix F). 

A comparison of relocations required and the potential stock of housing and business 

opportunities that will be available within the project area (Tables III-5 and III-7) shows that a 

sufficient supply of housing units (single family residence, townhomes and apartments) should 

be available for occupancy during the estimated time of relocation. A detailed relocation plan 

for property impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative is included in Appendix F. 

6. Communities and Community Facilities

a. Existing Conditions 

Communities

The existing communities, shown on Figure III-7, were identified from an inventory of 

information from the State of Delaware and New Castle County sources. Within the Town of 

Middletown, communities include Springmill, Middletown Village, The Legends, Bunker Hill 

Center, Brick Mill Farm, downtown, and Middletown Commons. Both within and outside of 

Middletown, there are many communities represented by homeowners associations, including: 

Fox Hunter Crossing Post and Rail Farms Summit Farms 

Matapeake Springmill Midland Farms 

Grande View Farms Mount Hope Augustine Creek (east of SR 1) 

Middletown Village The Legends Chesapeake Meadow 

Airmont Dickerson Farms Crystal Run Farms 

Summit Bridge Farms Summit Pond Back Creek 

Westside Hunt Lea Eara Farms Asbury Chase 
Warwick

Middletown

Townsend

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

Churchtow

Old School House Rd

Bohemia Mill Rd

Choptank Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Noxontown Rd

Silverlake Rd

Main St

Money Rd

Bunker Hill Rd

Middletown Warwick Rd

Middle Neck Rd

N Broad St

S Broad St

Levels Rd

Strawberry La

Grears Corner Rd

Green Giant Rd

Wiggins Mill Rd

Church Rd

Great

Bohemia

Creek

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove

Nest Branch

Noxontown

Pond

Silver

Lake

Sandy

Branch

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Middletown

Village Matapeake

Country

Acres

Wheatland

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Post and

Rail Farms

Back Meadowbrook Farms

Creek

Match

Line

B Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

CEDAR

LANE

ELEMENTARY

NEW COVENANENT

PRESBYTERIAN

CEDAR

LANE

MIDDLE

MIDDLETOWN

BAPTIST

RINGOLD

AME

Area Churches

Within Project Area

------------------------------

Trinity Methodist

Grace Orthodox

Presbyterian

Forrest Presbyterian

Tree of Life Lutheran

Crossroad Baptist

Fair Haven

APPOQUINIMINK

HIGH SCHOOL

G

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-7A

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

"^ Police Station

c< Fire Station

s" Church

IA Post Office

n School

Cemetery

Sources: State of Delaware, 2005

 New Castle County, 2005

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

US 301 Project Development

Communities & Community Facilities

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
Middletown

Odessa

St Georges Rd

Rd

Red Lion Rd

Cox Neck Rd

Summit

Bridge

d

Summit Bridge Rd

Churchtown Rd

Old School House Rd

Choptank Rd

Bethel Church Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Ratledge Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Bayview Rd

Vance Neck Rd

Hyetts Corner Rd

Jamison Corner Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Main St

Old Corbit Rd

N Broad St

Lums

Pond

Chesapeake

Joy

Run

Run

Scott

Creek

Augustine

Creek

Drawyer

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove Nest Branch

River

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Boyds

Corner

Saint

Georges

Middletown

Village

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Greylag

Commodore

Estates

Lorewood

Estates

Airmont

Acres

Mount

Hope

Summit

Bridge

Farms Summit

Pond

Crystal

Run

Dickerson Farm

Farm

Chesapeake

Meadow

Post and

Rail Farms

Meadowbrook Farms

Lea Eara

Farms West

Lea Eara

Farms East

Grande

View

Farms

Asbury

Chase

Bolton

Meadows

Odessa

Heights

Spring

Oaks

m

and Delaware

Canal

B

Match

Line

Summit

Airport

o

Summit

Farms

G

GN

GS

BN

BS

B Y

P

Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

SUMMIT BRIDGE

UMC

ST GEORGE'S

TECHNICAL

HIGH SCHOOL

CEDAR

LANE

ELEMENTARY

NEW COVENANENT

PRESBYTERIAN

CEDAR

LANE

MIDDLE

MIDDLETOWN

BAPTIST

RINGOLD

AME

Area Churches

Within Project Area

------------------------------

Trinity Methodist

Grace Orthodox

Presbyterian

Forrest Presbyterian

Tree of Life Lutheran

Crossroad Baptist

Fair Haven

APPOQUINIMINK

HIGH SCHOOL

G

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-7B

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

"^ Police Station

c< Fire Station

s" Church

IA Post Office

n School

Cemetery

Sources: State of Delaware, 2005

 New Castle County, 2005

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

US 301 Project Development

Communities & Community Facilities

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-33 

Most of the communities within and surrounding the project area consist of single family homes 

or town homes. Many of the community residents are active participants in the project 

development process, have attended Public Workshops and individual community meetings, and 

have submitted comments about the proposed alternatives. Chapter IV discusses the details of 

community involvement. Table III-15 provides a profile of the communities in southern New 

Castle County that are adjacent to or within 1,500 feet of one or more of the alternatives 

alignments. 

Table III-15: Community Profiles and Alternatives Adjacent 

Within 1,500 feet of Alternative 

Name # 

Units 

Type of 

Units Yellow Purple Brown 

North 

Brown 

South 

Green 

North / 

Preferred 

Green 

South 

Airmont 117 Single family X X X 

Asbury Chase 77 Single family X X 

Grande View Farms 170 Singe Family X X 

Summit Farms 148 Singe family X 

Lea Eara Farms 132 Single family X X X X X (spur) 

Summit Bridge Farms 91 Single family X X X X X (spur) X 

Dickerson Farm 92 Singe family X 

Chesapeake Meadow 69 Single family X X X X (spur) X 

Meadowbrook Farms 65 Single family X 

Post and Rail Farms 34 Single family X X X X (spur) X 

Ratledge Road/ 

Jamison Corner Road @ 20 Single family Farming X 

Springmill 363 Singe-family X X X X X X 

The Legends 140 Single family X 

Middletown Village 291 

481 

Single 

Family 

Town houses 

X X X X X X 

Crystal Run Farms 81 Single family X X 

Matapeake 27 Single family X X X X X 

Summit Pond 67 Single family X 

Midland Farms @ 20 Single 

Family X X X X X 

Community Facilities

Community facilities, also shown on Figure III-7, are located throughout the project area. 

Community facilities include emergency services (fire, rescue and police), schools, public parks, 

recreation areas and greenways, churches, cemeteries, libraries, and post offices. Many of the 

community facilities are identified in Table III-16. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-34 

Table III-16: Community Facilities in the Project Area 

Emergency Services Municipal Facilities Airport 

Summit Airport 

Golf Courses 

Middletown Police (NCC) 

Middletown Volunteer Fire 

Company No. 27 

Southern Patrol Unit & Paramedic 

Company No. 9 

Odessa Fire & Rescue Station 4 

Middletown Post Office 

National Guard Armory 

Middletown Town Hall 

Delaware Court No. 9 

Appoquinimink Public Library 

Back Creek 

Frog Hollow 

Schools Churches Day Care Centers 

Middletown Charter School 

 Day Care 

8 additional Day Care Centers 

Parks & Recreation Areas 

Future Water Farm II 

Middletown Commons 

C&D Canal Greenway Trails 

Cemeteries 

Appoquinimink High School 

 (under construction) 

Silver Lake Elementary School 

St. Georges Technical High School 

Middletown High School 

Cedar Lane Elementary School 

Redding Middle School 

Cedar Lane Middle School 

 (under construction) 

Everett Meredith Middle School 

Cedar Lane Early Childhood Center 

Groves Adult High School 

St. Andrews School 

Middletown Charter School 

St. Annes School 

Middletown Middle School 

Brick Mill Elementary School 

Summit Bridge Methodist 

New Covenant Presbyterian 

Full Gospel Church of Deliverance 

Union Church 

Immanuel United Methodist 

Haven United Methodist 

Mount Calvary Baptist 

Trinity Methodist 

Dales Memorial Methodist 

St Josephs Catholic 

Middletown Baptist 

Grace Orthodox Presbyterian 

St. Anne’s Church 

St. Anne’s Episcopal 

Bethesda United Methodist 

Forest Presbyterian 

Ringgold Chapel AME 

Forest Cemetery 

St Anne’s Church Cemetery 

Asbury Cemetery 

In addition to the existing facilities, several public park areas are planned/approved in 

conjunction with Westown and other developments (see Section A.2.a and Tables III-7 and

III-8 in this Chapter), and Delaware Greenways has proposed the Scott Run Greenway Trail and 

a series of pathways (non-motorized, on-alignment, separated paved paths) to connect the C&D 

Canal with the public open space along Marl Pit Road (proposed water farm area). See Section 

F.12 and Figure III-22 of this Chapter for existing and proposed greenways and trails. 

b. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation 

There will be no direct impacts to communities from the No-Build Alternative. However, 

inaction will continue to compound congestion and safety concerns on roadways traveled by 

residents within these communities, affecting travel times and access for residents and 

businesses. 

The Preferred Alternative will avoid physical impacts to communities as a whole, although there 

will be impacts to individual properties (either relocations or partial takes of land) within 

communities located adjacent to the alignment. Community impacts will take the form of noise 

and visual impacts; these impacts will be avoided or minimized through the construction, where 

possible, of visual earth berms. These berms will provide visual screening from the roadway as 

well as provide a reduction of noise impacts (in some cases, eliminating the noise impacts 

altogether). Refer to Section A.9 of this Chapter for a discussion of visual effects and Section 

D.2.b for a discussion of noise abatement. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-35 

The Yellow Alternative would impact the community fabric of Middletown by bisecting the 

town, affecting local access as well as businesses and residences along existing US 301. All of 

the build alternatives avoid physical impacts to the remaining communities located throughout 

the project area, although there may be impacts to individual homes in these communities. Some 

planned residential developments with approved subdivision plans may also be impacted by one 

or more of the alternatives. 

Within some communities adjacent to one of the build alternatives, residences adjacent to the 

alignment may be acquired and the owners relocated. These impacts are on the edges of 

communities, and, therefore, do not impact the communities as a whole, and the fabric of the 

community would remain intact. Most of the impacts to communities in the project area will be 

associated with noise and visual impacts and air quality effects caused by the proximity of one of 

the build alternatives. Air quality is discussed in Section C. 

There are no impacts to community facilities from the No-Build Alternative. The Preferred 

Alternative, as well as the Purple, Brown and Green South Alternatives, would require 

acquisition of a portion of the Appoquinimink High School property, but the acquisition is not 

anticipated to affect any school activities. Odessa Fire & Rescue Station 4, located at Boyds 

Corner Road and US 13, may be impacted by the Yellow and Purple Alternatives due to the 

construction of the US 301 ramps to SR 1, and may require relocation. 

There will be no impacts to publicly owned public parks and recreation areas from the No-Build 

Alternative or from any of the build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative. All of the 

build alternatives have been engineered to include structures such as steeper slopes and retaining 

walls in order to avoid these resources. All of the build alternatives that cross the proposed Scott 

Run Greenway and associated connecting pathways (refer to Figure III-22 in Section F.12) will 

be designed to provide for full connectivity of these paths and trails. 

Visual impacts to communities from all build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, 

may be minimized by landscaping and grading to provide a buffer screening of natural 

vegetation. Landscaping would be determined during the final design phase of the project. 

Earthen berms are proposed for each of the alternatives in several locations to screen the 

highway from nearby communities (Southridge, Middletown Village, Springmill, Chesapeake 

Meadow, Summit Bridge Farms (Brown only), Lea Eara Farms (Brown only) and Airmont). 

Potential noise impacts would also be minimized or eliminated by the berms. Potential noise 

impacts are discussed in detail in Section D. 

A summary of affected communities and proposed mitigations is presented in Table III-17. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-36

Table III-17: Summary of Residential Community Impacts 

Community Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 

(DEIS - All Alternatives) 

Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 

(Green North Only - Preferred Alternative) 

Airmont 

Brown and Green Alternatives right of way would be within 360 to 

3,000 feet of the nearest homes and would be 300 feet wide. The 

roadway elevation would be below to above grade. A visual 

screening earth berm is proposed along the south side of the 

community. 

The Preferred Alternative right of way would be within 360 feet of the 

nearest homes and would be 300 feet wide. The roadway elevation would 

be at grade to below grade (west to east), following natural contours. 

Impacts include visual changes and noise increases between +5 dBA and 

+8 dBA. An earth berm is proposed to provide visual screening along the 

south side of the community where the roadway is above grade. 

Grande View Farms 

The Yellow and Purple Alternatives right of way would be within 80 

to 320 feet of the nearest homes and would be 200 to 225 feet wide. 

The roadway elevation would be above grade. An earth berm is not 

feasible due to proximity and influence of other local roadways. 

The Preferred Alternative will not impact Grande View Farms. 

Lea Eara Farms 

All of the build alternatives right of way would be within 0 and 850 

feet of the nearest homes and would be at grade, rising to above 

grade approaching Summit Bridge. Roadway width would be 

between 220 and 260 feet. An earthen berm is proposed to the south 

of Lea Eara Farms to screen visual impacts. 

The Preferred Alternative right of way would be within 100 feet of the 

nearest homes where the improvements would tie into Summit Bridge Road 

south of the Summit Bridge. Existing tree lines would shield the 

community from visual intrusions. Roadway width would be approximately 

220 feet. Noise increases would be barely perceptible (a +3 dBA increase). 

No mitigation is proposed. 

Ratledge 

Road/Jamison Corner 

Road 

Not Evaluated 

The Preferred Alternative right of way (Option 4B Modified) would be 

close to only two homes (approximately 190 feet and 300 feet) in this 

community. The roadway would be above grade at existing SR 896 (Boyds 

Corner Road) descending to grade north of SR 896. Roadway width would 

be approximately 325 feet wide. The selection of Option 4B Modified 

represents an avoidance/ minimization option designed to eliminate impacts 

to active farms and reduce noise impacts. The Option 4B Modified 

alignment is within 600 feet of Cedar Lane School complex and would 

induce a noise impact to the two closest homes. No mitigation is proposed. 

Summit Bridge Farms 

All of the build alternatives would require right of way acquisition 

from properties nearest the alignment, which would be between 0 

and 300 feet from the adjacent properties. Alignments would be at 

grade, rising to above grade approaching Summit Bridge. Roadway 

width would be between 200 and 600 feet. Visual screening berms 

are proposed except on the north side of the community (affected by 

Brown North and Yellow Alternatives), where an earth berm is not 

feasible due to proximity and influence of other local roadways. 

The Preferred Alternative right of way for the Spur Road would be 400 feet 

from the rear property line of the nearest homes on the west side of this 

community; the alignment (northbound lane only) would be at grade, rising 

to above grade to cross relocated SR 896. Improvements to SR 896 as it 

passes the north side of the community would reconstruct SR 896 farther 

from the community towards the western edge. Noise increases of between 

+1 dBA and +6 dBA are predicted. No mitigation is proposed. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-37

Table III-17: Summary of Residential Community Impacts 

Community Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 

(DEIS - All Alternatives) 

Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 

(Green North Only - Preferred Alternative) 

Chesapeake Meadow 

The Brown, Purple and Green Alternatives right of way would be 

within 130 to 160 feet of the nearest properties, and the roadway 

right of way between 260 and 310 feet wide. The roadway would be 

above-grade at this location. An earth berm is proposed adjacent to 

the roadway to mitigate visual impacts. 

The Preferred Alternative right of way for the Spur Road would be between 

150 to 175 feet from the nearest homes on the west side of the community, 

and the roadway right of way between 260 and 310 feet wide. The roadway 

would be at-grade to slightly above grade at this location. Churchtown Road 

would overpass the Spur Road (approximately 30 feet above existing 

ground) on the south side of the community. Potential impacts include 

visual and audible changes; noise increases at the first row of homes would 

be as much as +13 dBA. An earth berm is proposed adjacent to the Spur 

Road to mitigate visual impacts. The berm would also provide some noise 

benefit; noise increases will be lowered to no more than +8 dBA. No 

mitigation is proposed for the Churchtown Road overpass. 

Springmill 

The Yellow Alternative right of way would be 87 feet from the east 

side of the community, 525 feet wide and above-grade at this 

location. An earth berm is not feasible due to proximity and the 

influence of local roadways and the railroad. 

The Brown, Purple and Green Alternatives right of way would be 

between 650 and 1500 feet from the northwest corner of the 

community, between 260 and 550 feet wide and at to above grade in 

this location. An earthen berm is proposed to visually screen the 

community from these alternatives. 

The Preferred Alternative right of way would be 650 feet from the northwest 

corner of the community, between 260 and 550 feet wide and at-grade or 

above grade in this location. Impacts to the homes nearest the alignment 

could include visual and noise changes. Predicted noise impacts would raise 

the noise level between +7 and +8 dBA. Visual changes are minimal due to 

intervening tree lines. An earth berm is proposed to visually screen the 

community from the alternative; the visual berm would also provide some 

noise benefit. 

The Legends West 

The Yellow Alternative right of way would be 400 feet from the 

nearest homes on the west side of this community. The roadway 

right of way would be 400 to 550 feet wide and above grade in this 

location. An earth berm is not feasible due to proximity and the 

influence of local roadways and the railroad. 

The Preferred Alternative will not impact The Legends West. 

Midland Farms 

Not evaluated. Location and membership includes individual homes 

east and west of Choptank Road, along Bohemia Mill Road and 

Armstrong Corner Road 

The Preferred Alternative will cross over Armstrong Corner Road between 

1,250 and 1,500 feet east of Choptank Road and then stay elevated as it 

crosses over existing US 301 and the Norfok Southern Railroad. Armstrong 

Corner Road will cross over the Spur Road and return to grade east of 

Choptank Road. Some individual homes will be physically impacted, 

requiring total or partial acquisition. Visual impacts are expected, and some 

individual homes will experience noise increases; no mitigation is proposed 

as homes are widely scattered. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-38

Table III-17: Summary of Residential Community Impacts 

Community Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 

(DEIS - All Alternatives) 

Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 

(Green North Only - Preferred Alternative) 

Middletown Village 

The Yellow Alternative right of way would be 500 feet from the 

nearest residences and 200 to 400 feet wide east of the community 

and above grade. An earth berm is not feasible in this location due to 

proximity and the influence of local roadways. ROW 

The Brown, Purple and Green Alternatives right of way would be 

between 200 and 2,000 feet from homes on the west side of the 

community. The roadway would be 250 to 325 feet wide and below 

to above grade in this location. An earthen berm is proposed to 

visually screen the community from these alternatives. 

The Preferred Alternative right of way would be approximately 180 feet 

from homes on the west side of the community. The roadway would be atgrade to slightly above grade and approximately 400 feet wide due to the 

proposed earth berm in this location. Homes along the westernmost street 

of the community would experience a noise increase of +12 dBA and visual 

changes due to the roadway. An earth berm is proposed to visually screen 

the community from the alternative; the earth berm will also provide some 

noise reduction. 

Southridge 

Not evaluated. Although a noise impact was predicted, there were 

less impacts to residences before the roadway was moved closer to 

the community (and away from the Appoquinimink High School) 

during refined engineering. 

The Preferred Alternative will pass approximately 120 feet from the nearest 

homes in this development. The roadway will be slightly above existing 

grade adjacent to the community. Homes adjacent to the new US 301 

would experience an increase of up to +16 dBA over existing conditions. 

An earth berm is proposed to visually screen the community from the 

alternative; the earth berm will also provide some noise reduction to all but 

14 residences at the southern end of the community.

Matapeake 

The Brown, Purple and Green Alternatives right of way would be 

between 500 and 1,200 feet from homes on the east side of the 

community. The roadway would be 330 feet wide and would be 

below grade in this location. No mitigation is proposed at this 

location. 

The Preferred Alternative right of way would be approximately 1,200 feet 

from homes on the east side of the community. The roadway would be 350 

feet wide and would be below grade in this location. Bunker Hill Road 

would overpass the roadway to the east of the community and east of the 

new Appoquinimink High School. Visual impacts will be minimal, and no 

noise impacts are predicted. No mitigation is proposed at this location. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-39 

7. Environmental Justice

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (USC 2000d et seq.) and Executive Order 12898 

(Federal Actions to Identify and Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low Income 

Populations, February 11, 1994, commonly referred to as environmental justice), require all 

federal agencies “...to identify and address as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects ... on minority populations and low-income populations”. 

Title VI requires federal agencies to ensure that their programs, policies, and activities do not 

have the effect of excluding minority or low income populations from the benefits of the project, 

or subjecting persons or populations to discrimination. Environmental justice considerations 

require that minority populations and low-income populations are specifically included in public 

participation and outreach programs. 

a. Existing Conditions 

Racial distribution in the project area is shown in Table III-18. The percentages of minority 

populations in the project area are, for most of the Census tracts, less than for the state and 

county as a whole. Of note is the larger than average percent of Hispanic population in tract 

166.04 (4.7 percent) and the larger than average number of black/African American persons in 

tract 166.04 (23.1 percent). The latter Census tract includes the Town of Middletown east of the 

Norfolk Southern Railroad alignment and the Town of Odessa. No concentrations of minority 

populations, however, were identified in the project area. There is a growing Hispanic 

community in Middletown Village. 

Table III-18: Racial Distribution in the Project Area 

White 

Black or 

African 

American 

Native 

American 

Asian & 

Pacific 

Islander 

Other More than 

One Race Geographic Hispanic* 

Area 

Number 

of 

Persons 

# % # % # % # % # % # % # % 

Delaware 783,600 584,773 74.6 150,666 19.2 2731 0.3 16,542 2.1 15,855 2.0 13,033 1.7 37,277 4.8 

New Castle 

County 500,265 365,810 73.1 101,167 20.2 979 0.2 13,115 2.6 11,087 2.2 8,107 1.6 26,293 5.3 

166.01 5,712 5,116 89.6 426 7.5 4 0.1 60 1.0 45 0.8 62 1.1 161 2.8 

166.02 4,442 4,083 91.9 237 5.3 2 0.0 38 0.9 45 1.0 37 0.8 87 2.0 

166.04 4,995 3,635 72.8 1,152 23.1 7 0.1 40 0.8 95 1.9 66 1.3 237 4.7 

168.01 2,983 2,730 91.5 190 6.4 8 0.3 3 0.1 21 0.7 31 1.0 47 1.6 

Project 

Area Total 18,132 15,564 85.8 2005 11.1 21 0.1 141 0.8 206 1.1 196 1.1 532 2.9 

Source: US Census 2000 

*Note: Hispanic population can be of any race and is included within the various other race categories. 

Shaded areas identify tracts in the project area with the highest minority populations. 

Low-income populations are identified by the number of persons whose income is below the 

standard poverty level established by the Department of Health and Human Services. In 1999, 

that level was determined to equal an approximate annual income of $19,350 for a family of 

four. The percentage of individuals in the project area and in the state and county determined to 

be below poverty level is shown in Table III-19. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-40 

Table III-19: Low-Income Populations in the Project Area 

Geographic Area Total Population Individuals Below 

Poverty Level 

Percent Individuals 

Below Poverty Level 

Delaware 783,600 69,901 9.2 

New Castle County 500,265 40,710 8.4 

166.01 5,712 216 3.8 

166.02 4,442 43 1.0 

166.04 4,995 567 11.2 

168.01 2,983 76 2.5 

Project Area Total 18,132 902 --

Source: US Census 2000 

Shaded areas identify tracts in the project area with the largest percentage of low income population. 

Although the majority of the project area does not have a high percent of low-income 

individuals, Census tract 166.04 (which encompasses Middletown) has a higher percent of 

individuals living below poverty level (11.2 percent) than both the state (9.2 percent) and New 

Castle County (8.4 percent). Census tract 166.04, as stated above, includes eastern Middletown 

and Odessa. There are no concentrated areas of low-income populations in the project area. 

b. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation 

None of the alternatives, including the No-Build and the Preferred Alternative, will have a 

disproportionately high or adverse effect on minority or low-income communities, although the 

construction of US 301 under any of the build alternatives as a toll facility may affect the ability 

of low-income persons to use the new roadway. The continued use of non-tolled, local roadways 

will still be available with the Preferred Alternative and all build alternatives. 

Several individual residences occupied by persons of minority or low-income would be directly 

impacted (acquisitions and relocations) by the Yellow, Purple, and Green Alternatives, as well as 

the Preferred Alternative. The Middletown Village community would be directly impacted 

(acquisitions and relocations) by the Yellow Alternative. The Middletown Village community 

would also be indirectly impacted (possible noise impacts) by all of the build alternatives. 

Coordination with environmental agencies, elected officials, community organizations and 

associations, including low-income and minority representatives, and the public has been an 

important part of the process. 

All impacted persons, regardless of ethnicity or income, will be fairly compensated for property 

impacts that occur as a result of the implementation of the project and will be assisted in 

relocation. Efforts to avoid or minimize these and other property impacts will continue through 

final design. As shown in Tables III-5, III-6, III-7 and III-8, development within the project 

area is very active, and comparable replacement housing is projected to be available for any 

displaced person. Unavoidable property acquisitions and relocations of any individuals, families, 

or businesses will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Act of 1970 and Amendments. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-41 

8. Economic Resources

a. Existing Conditions 

The economy of the project area has undergone a significant change over the most recent 

decades, from a mostly rural, agrarian-based economy to a more residential, service-oriented 

economy. Future growth is planned for the project area that includes commercial, office, 

industrial, and general business opportunities. As the landscape has changed from farmland to 

developed residential communities, more people living within the project area are employed 

outside of the area and commute to jobs in Wilmington, Newark, Dover and elsewhere. 

Residents in the project area are employed in a variety of occupations, as shown in Table III-20. 

Table III-20: Occupations of the Employed Population in the Project Area 

Geographic 

Area 

Management 

Professional 

& Related 

Occupations 

Service 

Occupations 

Sales and 

Office 

Occupations 

Farming, 

Fishing & 

Forestry 

Occupations 

Construction 

Extraction & 

Maintenance 

Occupations 

Production, 

Transportati

on & 

Materials 

Moving 

Occupations 

Total 

Civilian 

Employed 

Unemployed 

(% of total population 

in labor 

force) 

Delaware 132,858 54,912 104,059 1,926 35,950 47,106 376,811 20,549 (5.2%) 

New Castle 

County 97,390 33,430 70,906 662 20,293 26,639 249,320 13,571 (5.2%) 

166.01 951 321 922 23 333 365 2,915 33 (1.1%) 

166.02 1,118 236 688 0 167 214 2,423 57 (2.3%) 

166.04 658 416 701 3 260 482 2,520 141 (5.3%) 

168.01 303 168 435 2 283 249 1,440 72 (3.2%) 

Total 3,030 1,141 2,746 28 1,043 1,310 9,298 303 (3.0%) 

Source: US Census 2000 

Professional occupations lead the numbers of employed in the project area, with sales and office 

occupations the second highest employment category. The Census data also indicate only 22 

persons in the armed forces in the project area. The occupation category in the project area with 

the fewest employees is agriculture (Farming, Fishing & Forestry), 28 persons total. It is noted 

that unemployment in the project area (3.0 percent) is below that of the state (5.2 percent) and of 

New Castle County (5.2 percent). 

Residents of the project area are employed in a number of employment sectors, as shown in 

Table III-21. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-42 

As Table III-21 illustrates, the agricultural industry employs the fewest persons in the project 

area (90), and the manufacturing industry employs the most (1,777). 

Businesses in the project area were identified through property tax records and a windshield 

survey. Of the 13,170 persons 16 years of age and over living in the project area in 2000, 9,298 

people were employed in the project area. Based on the projections from the Delaware 

Population Consortium, there has been an increase of less than 100 jobs in the area between 2000 

and 2005. Most businesses in the area are small, employing fewer than 100 people. Some of the 

businesses and commercial areas in the project area include: 

Summit Airpark Happy Harry’s Dove Run Shopping Center 

Christiana Care Ruby Tuesday Middletown Crossing Shopping Center 

Fastenal/Stone Flooring Gallery Everett Theater Middletown Shopping Center 

WaWa Ciamaricone’s Landscaping Middletown Square Shopping Center 

Bayhealth Medical Center Cooper Wilburt Vault Company Ashley Plaza 

301 Plaza (truck stop) Middletown Transcript Summit Village Shopping Center 

Rite Aid Shone Lumber Cochran Square 

J. Walker Concrete & Masonry Middletown Chevrolet Shoppes of Mount Pleasant 

The Town of Middletown and Appoquinimink School Districts are the largest employers in the 

project area. Middletown’s largest employers, excluding the school district, are listed below. 

Employer # Employees Employer # Employees

Johnson Controls, Inc. 230 DelStar Technologies, Inc. 127 

Acme (Grocery) 190 Letica Corporation 107 

Lowes Home Center 150 Food Lion (Grocery) 100 

Super G (Grocery) 140 NAPA/Quaker City 75 

Source: Town of Middletown Comprehensive Plan (November 2005) 

Table III-21: Industries Employing those in the Project Area 

Geographic 

Area 

Agriculture1 Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Transportation2

Information F.I.R.E.3 

Professional4

Education5 

Arts/Entertain6 Other Public Administration 

Delaware 4,042 27,866 49,720 10,384 43,578 18,002 7,155 43,787 34,885 73,056 28,979 15,752 19,605 

New Castle 

County 1,231 15,118 32,862 6,634 25,774 11,957 5,106 35,995 27214 49,176 18,076 10,458 9,719 

166.01 63 225 532 112 328 185 75 370 270 357 179 73 146 

166.02 12 155 440 54 257 130 72 288 282 397 168 59 109 

166.04 6 194 504 85 305 107 43 271 206 316 152 156 175 

168.01 9 191 301 59 172 155 22 111 83 137 57 59 84 

Total 90 765 1,777 310 1,062 577 212 1,040 841 1,207 556 347 514 

1 Includes agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, mining 

2 Includes transportation and Warehousing, and utilities 

3 Includes finance, insurance, real estate and rental & 

leasing 

4 Includes professional, scientific, management, administrative and waste 

management 

5 Includes education, health and social services 

6 Includes arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food 

services
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-43 

Most people in the project area, approximately 82 percent, commute to work alone in a private 

vehicle, as shown in Table III-22, and the mean travel time to work is over 30 minutes. Another 

9.5 percent of commuters travel in car or van pools to work. 

Table III-22: Mode of Commuting 

Geographic 

Area 

Drove 

Alone 

Car 

Pool 

Public 

Trans Walk Other Work at Home 

Total 

Workers 

Mean Travel 

time (minutes) 

Delaware 295,413 42,990 10,354 9,637 3,585 11,091 373,070 24.0 

New Castle 

County 193,564 26,842 9,442 6,748 2,110 6,428 245,134 31.9 

166.01 2,404 261 17 89 9 92 2,915 34.8 

166.02 2,031 192 50 0 0 128 2,423 33.4 

166.04 2,025 264 37 42 81 37 2,520 35.5 

168.01 1,114 164 12 12 13 92 1,440 31.9 

Total 7,574 881 116 165 103 349 9,298 34 minutes 

% of Total 81.5 9.5 1.3 1.6 1.0 3.8 

Source: US Census 2000 

Note: Public transportation includes commuting by taxi. 

According to the US Census Bureau 2000 Census, the mean household income in the project 

area in 1999 ranged from $41,937 to $81,083, while per capita income ranged from $18,775 to 

$26,829. Tables III-23 and III-24 provide a profile of household and individual incomes in the 

project area. 

Table III-23: Household Incomes in 1999, in $1000s, in the Project Area 

Number of Households 

Geographic 

Area Total 

Households 

Less 

than 

$10K 

$10K- 

$15K 

$15K– 

$25K 

$25K- 

$35K 

$35K- 

$50 

$50K– 

$75K 

$75K– 

$100K 

$100K- 

$150K 

$150K- 

$200K 

$200K 

or 

more 

Median 

Household 

Income ($)

Delaware 298,755 21,125 15,284 33,898 36,361 50,582 63,663 35,968 28,145 7,549 6,180 47,381 

New Castle 

County 188,947 11,944 7,785 18,761 20,440 29,904 41,058 26,272 21,873 6,088 4,849 52,419 

166.01 1,884 69 64 62 182 161 419 437 360 106 24 72,434 

166.02 1,387 20 7 59 64 125 327 402 236 108 39 81,083 

166.04 1,899 153 70 320 183 371 406 221 133 25 17 41,937 

168.01 1,058 41 31 84 81 191 338 164 86 19 23 56,118 

Source: US Census 2000
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-44 

Table III-24: Per capita and Individual Earnings in the Project Area 

Geographic Area

Population, 

16 Years & 

Older 

Employed in 

Labor Force 

Per capita

Income ($) 

Mean Earnings, 

Male, Full-Time, 

Year-Round ($) 

Mean Earnings, 

Female, Full-Time, 

Year-Round ($) 

Delaware 610,289 401,152 23,305 38,961 29,544 

New Castle County 389,036 263,440 25,413 42,541 31,829 

Tract 166.01 4,067 2,970 25,492 51,671 37,378 

Tract 166.02 3,147 2,480 26,829 51,671 36,396 

Tract 166.04 3,707 2,661 18,775 36,345 26,520 

Tract 168.01 2,249 1,512 25,302 39,583 30,873 

Tax Base

New Castle County’s budget is derived from ten sources, with the majority funding from real 

estate taxes (including Real Estate Transfer taxes), at approximately 48 percent of the approved 

Fiscal Year 2005 budget. Sewer charges and fees make up the next largest portion of revenue at 

approximately 22 percent. The remaining revenue comes from service charges and fees, 

personal property taxes, and other miscellaneous revenues. 

b. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation 

The No-Build Alternative will not directly impact economic resources in the project area. 

However, the No-Build Alternative will continue to experience increased congestion in the 

project area as the population increases due to development. This could cause the new 

development to not reach its full build-out potential, due to lack of access to major roadways and 

congestion on local roads. The local road congestion would eventually hinder access to local 

businesses and thereby discourage economic development, as well as slow the transport of goods 

and services. 

Completion of any of the build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, is anticipated to 

lower traffic congestion on local roadways, providing residents better accessibility to businesses 

located in the project area. Any of the build alternatives would allow easy access to businesses 

in the project area, which would attract more businesses to the project area. Smaller, local 

businesses could suffer if larger chain stores move into the area. However, this may also 

generate a larger employment base. The build alternatives may also decrease drive-by traffic for 

businesses along the local roadway network resulting in negative effects to existing businesses. 

Each of the build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, would impact a number of 

existing businesses (refer to Section A.5.b, Tables III-13 and III-14) along the alignment, 

requiring them to relocate. This may result in loss of income to the owners and loss of 

employment for workers in these locations. Relocation assistance will be provided to all 

businesses affected by the implementation of a build alternative. The build alternatives may also 

impact planned businesses (commercial, retail, industrial) in the project area, thus altering the 

projected number of jobs available in the future or altering the locations of these proposed future 

employment opportunities. The construction of US 301 will provide additional jobs in the area 

for the duration of construction, likely to begin in 2011 and last between 4 and 10 years. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-45 

9. Visual and Aesthetic Characteristics

a. Existing Conditions 

Within the project area, the visual landscape can be separated into distinct types. To the south 

and west of Middletown, the landscape is rural in character, consisting mostly of active 

farmlands (both cropland and horse farms), interspersed wooded areas, historic and more modern 

farm buildings clustered around farmhouses, and scattered roadside businesses along two-lane 

roads. Northward, along the ridge route, the look and feel of rural farmland persists, changing 

toward the northern portion of the project area to include a landscape of modern, single family 

housing developments intermixed with productive farming areas and open space. Housing 

developments are clustered close to the Summit Bridge and along the south side of the C&D 

Canal in the northern portion of the project area, in between existing active farmlands and open 

fields. This landscape persists along SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road). 

The heart of the project area includes the Middletown townscape. An historic district centered at 

the intersection of Main Street (SR 299) and Broad Street (SR 71) is surrounded by progressively 

modern structures and well-kept older buildings. The town’s landscape still retains a small, rural 

town feel, although the landscape is continually changing. A new Town Hall and Fire 

Department are among the latest additions. Newly constructed business and medical centers and 

small retail centers/strip malls line the main routes that access the town (US 301, SR 299, 

SR 71). The Norfolk Southern Railroad alignment parallels SR 71 through a portion of the town. 

North of Middletown, along existing US 301, the landscape is a rural/suburban mix of housing 

types, historic homes, forested land, and businesses that front the roadway. The Summit Airport 

covers a large parcel of land north of the town, south of the C&D Canal, in the midst of farms 

(corn is grown on a portion of the airport’s land) and other business enterprises. 

There is a new visual aspect and feeling in the project area that is associated with the many 

newer housing developments that proliferate. Mostly single family homes on modest-sized lots, 

these new developments have contributed new elements to the disappearing rural farm country 

that was once southern New Castle County. Two new schools are under construction: Alfred G. 

Waters Lane Middle School (in the Cedar Lane Campus) and Appoquinimink High School at the 

southern end of Choptank Road. St. Georges Technical High School on Hyetts Corner Road 

enrolled its first class in 2006, and Brick Mill Elementary School opened for classes in 2003. 

New shopping centers and service-oriented businesses have accompanied this phenomenal 

residential growth. 

b. Environmental Consequences 

The No-Build Alternative will have no effect on the visual or aesthetic quality of the project 

area. Except for the effects of increasing congestion on the roadways, the landscape will 

continue to evolve from its former rural character to a more suburban nature. 

All of the build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, would change the aesthetic view 

of the landscape and the viewsheds that surround them. The construction of a four-lane limited 

access freeway within the rural and suburban landscape will affect the visual quality of the views 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-46 

of properties immediately surrounding the new roadway as well as other views that are 

somewhat distant. Although designed to limit impacts to existing natural land cover, farmlands, 

forests, and open spaces will change in character. In many places, the views of farm fields will 

be replaced by concrete roadway and traffic, such as along the length of the spur road (Purple 

and Green Alternatives). The visual effects of the roadway cannot be quantified, but the new 

roadway will be visible from numerous homes, some of which are historic. 

New US 301 will be designed to be at-grade or below grade in many areas, but will be elevated 

up to 25 feet above existing ground at overpasses and as high as 30 feet above grade at the 

interchange with SR 1. In some locations, such as adjacent to the Grande View Farms 

development, the roadway will remain elevated for over 2,000 feet with the Yellow and Purple 

Alternatives. Earthworks, graded and landscaped, will support overpassing roadways and access 

ramps wherever possible, and stormwater management ponds will be designed with sensitive 

native and wetland plantings. Low bridge structures will cross streams and sensitive wetland 

areas. 

Additional visual impacts along US 301 will result from the installation of overhead signage and 

toll collection facilities that include a toll plaza near the Delaware/Maryland line and collection 

facilities on north-serving ramps. Highway lighting, planned for installation at toll plazas and 

ramp/interchanges, will also affect those communities and individual homes close to the 

roadway. 

c. Mitigation 

Earth berms are proposed to be constructed in several locations along US 301 under all of the 

build alternatives, including adjacent to the communities of Southridge, Middletown Village, 

Springmill, Chesapeake Meadow, Summit Bridge Farms (Brown only), Lea Eara Farms (Brown 

only) and Airmont, in order to screen these residential areas from the new roadway. The 

proposed berms would be between 1,400 feet and 2,840 feet long and would be between six feet 

and 16 feet high. Wherever possible, visual earth berms will be installed prior to roadway 

construction, to shield communities from construction impacts. In addition, visual and aesthetic 

effects to historic properties have been evaluated for the Preferred Alternative and will be 

considered for mitigation, which could be in the form of berms, privacy screens or fencing. 

Mitigation will be considered in consultation with the Delaware SHPO and affected property 

owners as detailed in the draft MOA included in Appendix H. 

The roadway design includes a wide (66 feet in most places) median with appropriate 

landscaping. Appropriate tree plantings may be included along the outside of the roadway 

during the final design, to provide some additional visual screening. Wherever possible, the 

roadway would be constructed at-grade or below, and, in most locations where overpasses are 

required, the smaller, local roadway will be elevated to cross over the larger US 301 roadway to 

lessen the visual impacts on the surrounding community. Roadway lighting, where required for 

safety considerations, would be designed to focus its effect on the roadway and lessen the visual 

impact of light on the surrounding landscape. Minimization of roadway lighting effects will be 

determined during final design. 

 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-47 

B. Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources are defined as patterned physical remains of human activity distributed over 

the landscape through time. Specifically, cultural resources are classified as architectural 

resources (buildings, structures), objects, archaeological sites, cultural landscapes, and districts, 

as defined by the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 60.4). A district is a significant 

concentration of one or more of the types of cultural resources listed above. Cultural resources 

in the project vicinity, potential effects and potential avoidance, minimization and mitigation 

strategies are discussed below. 

1. Existing Conditions

a. Architectural Resources 

DelDOT undertook background research, development of a historic context, and a windshield 

survey of the initial Area of Potential Effect (APE) to identify the known and potential historic 

resources in the APE and reported their findings in the Historic Context and Reconnaissance 

Survey Report (July 2005). The initial APE was defined as the area within 600 feet of the 

centerlines of the alternatives under review at the time (Yellow, Orange, Purple, Brown, and 

Green) without exclusions. 

An evaluation level survey was performed in July, August and September 2005 to assess 

resources for eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. DelDOT and the SHPO 

consulted regarding the scope of the evaluation level survey effort at meetings on July 28 and 

August 10, 2005, and the APE was revised to address design changes to the alternatives. A Draft 

Determination of Eligibility Report (September 2005) reported the results of the evaluation level 

survey. The APE for the alternatives retained for detailed evaluation (Yellow, Purple, Brown 

and Green Alternatives) as adjusted for potential indirect visual and audible effects, is shown in 

Figure III-8.

DelDOT, SHPO, FHWA, and New Castle County staff conducted a field tour to review and 

discuss the results of the evaluation level study of architectural resources on November 4, 2005. 

As a result of that meeting as well as additional DelDOT and SHPO comments on the draft 

eligibility report, supplemental information was prepared for several of the surveyed resources. 

A few additional resources were identified and evaluated, as alternatives were refined, and the 

APE adjusted accordingly. The evaluation of historic architectural resources was completed in 

October 2006; the results of the surveys will be reported in the Final Determination of Eligibility 

Report. A total of 31 historic properties- resources listed in or determined eligible for listing in 

the National Register of Historic Places- were identified. Table III-25 lists these 31 properties, 

along with their status (listed or eligible), and the determination of which of the retained 

alternatives are within 600 feet of each of the historic properties. 
)p

AØ

)p

AØ

?Î

)p

Warwick

Middletown

Townsend

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

Churchtow

Old School House Rd

Bohemia Mill Rd Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Noxontown Rd

Silverlake Rd

Main St

Money Rd

Bunker Hill Rd

Middle Neck Rd

N Broad St

S Broad St

Levels Rd

Strawberry La

Grears Corner Rd

Green Giant Rd

Wiggins Mill Rd

Church Rd

Great

Bohemia

Creek

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove

Nest Branch

Noxontown

Pond

Silver

Lake

Sandy

Branch

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Middletown

Village Matapeake

Country

Acres

Wheatland

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Post and

Rail Farms

Back Meadowbrook Farms

Creek

Match

Line

B Y

P

Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

G

N00106

N05148

N00107

N05146

N00425

N00121

N03930

N00109

N05242

N05131

N05132

N05153

N14318

N00427

N14388

N05225

N00112

N00118

N00113 N00117

N05221

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-8A

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

Historic Properties

Sources: Delaware State Historic Preservation Office, 2005 APE

 Maryland Historical Trust, 2005

US 301 Project Development

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Area of Potential Effects (APE)

& Historic Properties

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
AÝ

)p

?¡

?Î

AÝ

)p

)h

?¡

AÝ

)h

?¡

)h

AØ

)p

Middletown

Odessa

St Georges Rd

Rd

Red Lion Rd

Cox Neck Rd

d

Summit Bridge Rd

Churchtown Rd

Old School House Rd

Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Bethel Church Rd

Ratledge Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Bayview Rd

Vance Neck Rd

Hyetts Corner Rd

Jamison Corner Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Main St

Old Corbit Rd

N Broad St

Lums

Pond

Chesapeake

Joy

Run

Run

Scott

Creek

Augustine

Creek

Drawyer

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove Nest Branch

River

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Boyds

Corner

Saint

Georges

Middletown

Village

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Greylag

Commodore

Estates

Lorewood

Estates

Airmont

Acres

Mount

Hope

Summit

Bridge

Farms Summit

Pond

Crystal

Run

Dickerson Farm

Farm

Chesapeake

Meadow

Post and

Rail Farms

Meadowbrook Farms

Lea Eara

Farms West Lea Eara

Farms East

Grande

View

Farms

Asbury

Chase

Bolton

Meadows

Odessa

Heights

Spring

Oaks

m

and Delaware

Canal

B

Match

Line

Summit

Airport

o

Summit

Farms

G

GN

GS

BN

BS

B Y

P

Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

G

N00106

N05148

N00107

N05146

N00425

N00121

N03930

N00109

N03947

N05201

N05191

N00413

N05242

N05131

N12636

N05181

N05244

N05248

N05132

N05153

N05123

N14318

N00427

N05195

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-8B

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

Historic Properties

Sources: Delaware State Historic Preservation Office, 2005 APE

 Maryland Historical Trust, 2005

US 301 Project Development

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Area of Potential Effects (APE)

& Historic Properties

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-50 

 

Table III-25: Historic Properties1 within the Area of Potential Effect 

Cultural 

Resources 

Survey #

Resource Name

National 

Register 

Status

Within 600’ of 

Alternative(s)1

N00106 The Maples; George Derrickson House (Beers 1868) 

1023 Bunker Hill Road Listed Purple, Brown, and Green

N00107 S. Holton Farm 

2010 Choptank Rd Listed Purple, Brown and Green

N00109 Choptank 

1542 Choptank Road Listed Purple, Brown and Green2

N00112 Summerton; John Cochran House 

840 Middletown Warwick Eligible Yellow, Purple, Brown, and Green

N00113 Rumsey Farm 

841 Middletown Warwick Rd Listed Yellow, Purple, Brown, and Green

N00117 Cochran Grange; John P. Cochran House 

704 Middletown Warwick Rd Listed Yellow

N00118 Hedgelawn; Kohl House; Wm R. Cochran House 

772 Middletown Warwick Rd Listed Yellow

N00121 Weston; S. Brady Farm 

4677 Summit Bridge Rd Listed Yellow and Purple

N00413 A. Eliason House; Twin Holly Farms 

4353 Summit Bridge Farm Listed Yellow and Brown2

N00425 Middletown Historic District 

Main Street & Broad Street Listed Yellow2

N00427 Woodside; Henry Clayton House 

1358 Choptank Rd Listed Purple, Brown and Green2

N03930 Achmester 

N Side of Marl Pit Rd, One Mile E of Summit Bridge Rd Listed Yellow

N03947 Idalia Manor; Mrs. M.A. Osborne 

1870 S. Dupont Highway Listed Yellow, Purple, Brown, and Green

N05123 Governor Benjamin T. Biggs Farm 

Choptank Road Listed Purple, Brown and Green2

N05131 T.J. Houston Farm (Beers 1868) 

1309 Cedar Lane Eligible Purple and Green2

N05132 Lovett Farm/Mrs. Templeman House (Beers 1868) 

1405 Cedar Lane Rd Eligible Purple and Green

N05146 Armstrong-Walker House; J. Cox Estate 

5036 Summit Bridge Rd Listed Yellow

N05148 Rosedale; Mary Del Farm 

1143 Bunker Hill Rd Listed Purple, Brown and Green

N05153 R.G. Hayes House 

5187 Summit Bridge Rd Eligible Yellow

N05181 J.M. Vandergrift House; Elm Grange 

2424 S. Dupont Highway Listed Yellow and Purple

N05191 S. Rothwell House; Green Forest Farm 

669 Old Summit Bridge Rd Eligible Brown

N05195 J. Houston House (Beers 1868) 

1000 Jamison Corner Rd Eligible Green South

N05201 Retirement Farm 

2256 Dupont Hwy N Listed Yellow and Purple2

N05221 C. Polk House Estate 

929 Middletown Warwick Rd Eligible Yellow, Purple, Brown, and Green

N05225 B.F. Hanson House 

1102 Middletown Warwick Rd Listed Yellow, Purple, Brown, and Green

N05242 Mt. Pleasant Farm 

4564 Summit Bridge Rd Eligible Yellow
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-51 

Table III-25: Historic Properties1 within the Area of Potential Effect 

Cultural 

Resources 

Survey #

Resource Name

National 

Register 

Status

Within 600’ of 

Alternative(s)1

N05244 "Fairview"; A.H. Diehl House (Beers 1868) 

350 Hyetts Corner Rd Eligible Yellow and Purple

N05248 S.F. Shallcross House 

1049 Boyds Corner Rd Eligible Yellow and Purple

N12636 State Bridge Number 383 

Jamison’s Corner Rd Eligible Green South

N14318 Forest Cemetery 

1000 N. Broad Street Eligible Yellow

N14388 Shahan Farm, Lanape Acres 

389 Strawberry Lane Eligible Yellow, Purple, Brown, and Green 1 Architectural Resources listed in or determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places located in the Area of 

Potential Effect (APE) based on consultation with between DelDOT and the SHPO. 2

 Properties are more than 600 feet from the alternative(s), but may be affected by noise or visual impacts.

b. Archaeological Resources 

An historic context and archaeological predictive model were prepared for the initial APE, 

covering the Yellow, Orange, Purple, Brown and Green Alternatives, and documented in the 

Archaeological Predictive Model Report (A.D. Marble and Company, July 2005; revised 

September 2005). 

The model was prepared as a planning tool to assist in the development of the designs for the 

various alternatives under consideration for the project and to aid in the assessment of their 

relative potential impacts on archaeologically sensitive areas. Both prehistoric (referring to precontact Native American history) and historic archaeological potential are considered in this 

model. Characterization of the environment has been accomplished using data available in 

Geographic Information System (GIS) format, and GIS has been used to compare the relative 

significance of the criteria within the various parts of the project area. Historic and modern 

ground disturbances were modeled to qualify the areas of archaeological potential relative to 

their likely integrity. 

The results of the model are zones characterized by their probability to contain prehistoric and 

historic archaeological resources. These areas were illustrated in the September 2005 report and 

reviewed by archaeologists on staff at DelDOT and the SHPO. Illustrations of these areas are 

not provided here for the protection of the known and potential site areas. Section 304 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, 36 CFR Part 800.11 of the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation’s regulations implementing Section 106 of that same Act, and Delaware Code Title 

7, Chapter 53, § 5314 permits the restriction of access to information on the location and nature 

of archaeological resources. 

One known historic archaeological site, CRS Number N05191 was identified within the project’s 

LOD; it’s eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places has not been evaluated. 

Additional efforts to identify potential archaeological resources to date have included a limited 

testing of the predictive model for prehistoric archaeological sites. This included a partial survey 

of DelDOT-owned parcels located within areas affected by multiple alternatives along the ridge 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-52 

alignment. The additional efforts tested the hypotheses of the predictive model and mapped one 

known archaeological site. The survey, performed in June/July 2006, included plow-and-walk 

surface surveys and shovel testing, covering areas that had been identified as having high, 

medium, or low probability to contain archaeological sites. The results of this survey appear to 

support the hypotheses. The model was refined to include the retained alternatives (as shown in 

Appendix A) and the boundaries of the jurisdictional wetlands. The results of the limited testing 

and the revised model were reviewed by DelDOT and SHPO staff. 

DelDOT is committed to performing the necessary archaeological analysis to determine National 

Register eligibility for archaeological resources in the project area. At this time, a 

comprehensive Phase I archaeological assessment has not been completed. Following the 

identification of the Preferred Alternative, an MOA is being prepared to establish the process for 

identifying archaeological resources within the limits of disturbance for the Preferred Alternative 

and evaluating their eligibility for the National Register (see Appendix H). Additional efforts 

will include a more comprehensive Phase I analysis, and, as a result of this analysis, consultation 

on the need for further investigation. 

2. Environmental Consequences

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its regulations (36 CFR 800) require 

that, once historic resources in the undertaking’s APE are identified, the potential effects shall be 

assessed to determine if the undertaking will adversely affect one or more historic properties. 

Adverse effects can be direct physical impacts (examples i, ii, or iii below) or indirect (examples 

iv, v, vi and vii below). According to the regulations, examples of adverse effects include [36 

CFR 800.5(a)(2)]: 

 (i) physical destruction or damage to all or part of property 

 (ii) alteration of property not consistent with Secretary’s Standards 

 (iii) removal of a property from its historic location 

 (iv) change in character of a property’s use or of physical features within setting provided 

they contribute to its significance 

 (v) introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that diminish integrity 

 (vi) neglect of property 

 (vii) transfer, lease, or sale of property without adequate protection measures 

The potential effects of the Preferred Alternative (the undertaking) on cultural resources, to the 

degree that they can be assessed with available information, are discussed in the following 

sections. While the architectural resources in the APE have been identified, the archaeological 

resources have not been fully identified. The Section 106 regulations allow for the phased 

identification of historic properties. The draft MOA outlines the process for completing the 

identification, evaluation and assessment of effects on archaeological sites. 

a. Architectural Resources 

The No-Build Alternative would have no effect on historic properties. As detailed in the section 

on Application of the Criteria of Adverse Effects below, the Preferred Alternative will have 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-53 

adverse effects on 12 historic properties within the APE of the project, and no adverse effect on 

three additional historic properties. The effects to historic properties include changes in the 

setting or context and/or the introduction of audible or visual elements. There are no physical 

impacts to any historic properties with the Preferred Alternative. 

Preliminary Evaluation

The preliminary evaluation of potential effects determined that only the Yellow Alternative 

would directly physically affect architectural historic properties. The Yellow Alternative would 

require a total take of Summerton (N00112) and the R.G. Hayes House (N05153). The Yellow 

Alternative would also take a portion of the Armstrong-Walker House (N05146) and Mount 

Pleasant Farm (N05242), using land along each property’s existing frontage with US 301. 

Although these physical impacts to the Armstrong-Walker House and Mount Pleasant Farm 

would not physically affect any significant buildings or structures, there remained the potential 

for visual and audible effects to these two resources in addition to the physical impacts. 

The Yellow, Purple, Brown and Green Alternatives (including the Preferred Alternative) may 

audibly and visually affect architectural historic properties. Table III-26 details the preliminary 

assessment of the potential for direct (physical) and indirect (audible and visual) effects of the 

alternatives on the 31 properties within the APE. 

Table III-26: Preliminary Potential Effects of the Retained Alternatives on Historic Properties

Potential Effect 

CRS # Historic Property Name NR 

Status 

Yellow Purple Brown 

North 

Brown 

South 

Green 

North 

Green 

South 

N00106 The Maples; George Derrickson House 

(Beers 1868) Listed V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A 

N00107 S. Holton Farm Listed V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A 

N00109 Choptank Listed V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A 

N00112 Summerton Eligible P V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A 

N00113 Rumsey Farm Listed V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A 

N00117 Cochran Grange; John P. Cochran House Listed V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A 

N00118 Hedgelawn Listed V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A 

N00121 Weston; S. Brady Farm Listed V,A V,A V,A V,A 

N00413 A. Eliason House; Twin Holly Farms Listed V,A 

N00425 Middletown Historic District Listed 

N00427 Woodside; Henry Clayton House Listed V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A 

N03930 Achmester Listed V,A V,A V,A V,A 

N03947 Idalia Manor; Mrs. M.A. Osborne Listed V,A V,A V,A V,A 

N05123 Governor Benjamin T. Biggs Farm Listed V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A 

N05131 T.J. Houston Farm (Beers 1868) Eligible V,A V,A V,A 

N05132 Lovett Farm/Mrs. Templeman House 

(Beers 1868) Eligible V,A V,A V,A 

N05146 Armstrong-Walker House; J. Cox Estate Listed P,V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A 

N05148 Rosedale; Mary Del Farm Listed V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A 

N05153 R.G. Hayes House Eligible P 

N05181 J.M. Vandergrift House; Elm Grange Listed V,A V,A 

N05191 S. Rothwell House; Green Forest Farm Eligible V,A V,A V,A 

N05195 J. Houston House (Beers 1868) Eligible V V,A 

N05201 Retirement Farm Listed A A 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-54 

Table III-26: Preliminary Potential Effects of the Retained Alternatives on Historic Properties

Potential Effect 

CRS # Historic Property Name NR 

Status 

Yellow Purple Brown 

North 

Brown 

South 

Green 

North 

Green 

South 

N05221 C. Polk House Estate Eligible V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A 

N05225 B.F. Hanson House Listed V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A 

N05242 Mt. Pleasant Farm Eligible P, V,A 

N05244 Fairview (Beers 1868) Eligible V,A V,A 

N05248 S.F. Shallcross House Eligible V,A V,A 

N12636 State Bridge Number 383 Eligible V V 

N14318 Forest Cemetery Eligible V,A 

N14388 Shahan Farm, Lanape Acres Eligible V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A 

*

Architectural Resources listed on or determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places located in the APE. 

CRS = Cultural Resources Survey A = Potential audible (indirect) impacts. 

NR = National Register of Historic Properties P = Potential physical (direct) impacts. 

V = Potential visual (indirect) impacts.

The Purple Alternative may indirectly affect the most (22) historic resources. The Green 

Alternative North and South Options may each affect 21 historic resources. The Brown 

Alternative may affect the least number (North Option – 17; South Option – 16) of resources, 

and the Yellow Alternative may indirectly affect 17 historic resources (including two that will 

also have physical impacts). 

The Brown Alternative (North and South Options) would affect one additional potentially 

eligible property (not included in Table III-26), the J. Biggs House located at 939 Bethel Church 

Road (N06320). The initial survey indicated that this house may include an early structure that 

was covered by later additions. The National Register eligibility of this resource has not yet 

been evaluated, as the full investigation would require removal of parts of the building. 

Application of the Criteria of Adverse Effect

Following DelDOT’s recommendation of the Green North Alternative as preferred, DelDOT, 

FHWA and SHPO conducted field views in 2006 and 2007 to evaluate the properties affected by 

the Preferred Alternative and apply the Criteria of Adverse Effect. Those efforts are detailed in

Documentation in Support of a Finding of Adverse Effect and Memorandum of Agreement

(Draft, September 2007). The effects of the Preferred Alternative are described in the following 

paragraphs and summarized in Table III-27. 

Table III-28 shows the existing and predicted noise levels for 21 of the 22 historic properties 

assessed for adverse effects; noise analysis does not apply to State Bridge 383. Refer to Section 

D in this chapter for details of the noise analysis. Two properties will have a noise impact, as 

defined by FHWA/DelDOT criteria: S. Holton Farm and Armstrong-Walker House. The 

analysis indicates that four properties will experience a decrease over existing noise levels, 

because the Preferred Alternative will take traffic from the roadway with the most influence on 

traffic noise (existing US 301 or Choptank Road) to a roadway more distant from the property 

(new US 301). 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-55

Table III-27: Summary of Adverse Effects of the Preferred Alternative to Historic Properties 

CRS # Resource Name NRHP 

Status 

NR 

Criteria1

 Effect Type of Effect2 Comments 

N00106 The Maples Listed C Adverse Effect (iv), (v) Adverse visual; view of Rosedale will be blocked by 

the undertaking 

N00107 S. Holton Farm Listed C Adverse Effect (iv), (v) Adverse visual and audible 

N00109 Choptank Listed A,C Adverse Effect (iv), (v) Adverse visual 

N00112 Summerton Eligible C Adverse Effect (iv), (v) Adverse visual 

N00113 Rumsey Farm Listed A,C Adverse Effect (iv), (v) Adverse visual 

N00117 Cochran Grange Listed A,C No Effect Intervening distance 

N00118 Hedgelawn Listed A,C No Adverse Effect (v) Intervening landscaping and development 

N00121 Weston Listed A,C No Effect Intervening distance and landscaping 

N00427 Woodside Listed A,C No Effect Intervening distance and tree line 

N03930 Achmester Listed A,C No Effect Intervening distance and tree line 

N03947 Idalia Manor Listed A,C Adverse Effect (v) Adverse cumulative visual effect 

N05123 Governor Benjamin T. Biggs Farm Listed A,B,C Adverse Effect (iv), (v) Adverse visual 

N05131 T.J. Houston Farm Eligible C Adverse Effect (iv), (v) Adverse visual 

N05132 Lovett Farm Eligible A,C No Adverse Effect (v) Sufficient distance between farm complex and 

improvements 

N05146 Armstrong-Walker House Listed A,C Adverse Effect (iv), (v) Adverse visual 

N05148 Rosedale Listed A,C Adverse Effect (iv), (v) Adverse visual; view of The Maples will be blocked by 

undertaking 

N05195 J. Houston House Eligible C No Adverse Effect (v) Intervening distance and tree line 

N05221 C. Polk House Estate Eligible C Adverse Effect (iv), (v) Adverse visual 

N05225 B.F. Hanson House Listed C Adverse Effect (iv), (v) Adverse visual 

N05244 Fairview Eligible A,C No Effect Intervening distance and topography 

N12636 State Bridge Number 383 Eligible C No Effect Revisit if planned improvements to Jamison Corner Rd 

not undertaken 

N14388 Shahan Farm Eligible A,C No Effect Intervening distance and tree line 

1 Criterion A qualifies a resource in connection with historical events that have made a contribution to history – in this case agricultural history of New Castle County. 

Criterion B qualifies a resource based on its connection with individuals who made an important contribution to the area’s history. Criterion C qualifies a resource 

for its distinctive characteristics that are reflective of a type, period, or method of construction. 

2 (iv) Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance. 

 (v) Introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic features.
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-56

Table III-28: Historic Properties Potential Future Noise Levels 

2030 

Noise 

Sensitive 

Area 

Receptor Historic Site Name Address 

Existing 

Peak Hour 

Leq 

(dBA)

No-Build 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Preferred 

Alternative

Leq 

(dBA) 

 H-8 Rosedale 1143 Bunker Hill Rd. (46) 51 53 

 H-10 S. Holton Farm 2010 Choptank Rd. 7 46 54 59 

H-28 Choptank 1542 Choptank Road (46) 48 46 

 H-11 Armstrong-Walker House 5036 Summit Bridge Rd. 67 67 66 

H-12 Achmester North Side of Marl Pit Rd. 8 (46) (46) -- 

H-14 Weston 4677 Summit Bridge Rd. 51 52 -- 

11 H-25 The Maples North Side of Bunker Hill Rd. 56 65 60 

13 H-24 J. Houston House 1000 Jamison Corner Rd. 49 49 -- 

14 H-19 Fairview 350 Hyetts Corner Rd. 58 60 -- 

 H-13 Lovett Farm 1405 Cedar Lane Rd. (46) (46) -- 15 

H-29 T. J. Houston House 1309 Cedar Lane Rd. (46) (46) 49 

H-27 Woodside 1370 Choptank Rd 58 63 55 16 

H-31 Biggs Farm 1196 Choptank Rd 47 56 50 

17 H-18 Idalia Manor 1870 S. Dupont Highway 59 63 63 

 H-1 Shahan Farm 389 Strawberry Ln. (46) (46) -- 

 H-2 B.F. Hanson House 1102 Middletown Warwick Rd. 61 63 59 

 H-3 C. Polk House Estate 929 Middletown Warwick Rd. 56 56 56 

 H-4 Rumsey Farm 841 Middletown Warwick Rd. 52 53 52 

 H-5 Summerton 840 Middletown Warwick Rd. 62 63 61 

 H-6 Hedgelawn 772 Middletown Warwick Rd. 60 60 -- 

18 

 H-7 Cochran Grange 704 Middletown Warwick Rd. 60 59 -- 

Notes: Dark grey shading indicates an impacted receptor (66 dBA or higher). 

 Light grey shading indicates an impacted receptor (10 dBA or greater than existing noise). 

 – indicates that the receptor is not influenced by the alternative traffic (generally > 1,500 feet distant). 

 (46) indicates value was calculated using comparable receptors in the project area. 

Of the 22 historic properties within the APE of the Green North Alternative, the project will have 

no effect on seven properties: 

 N00117, Cochran Grange N05244, Fairview 

 N00121, Weston N12636, State Bridge Number 383 

 N00427, Woodside N14388, Shahan Farm 

 N03930, Achmester 

The Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect on three properties: 

 N00118, Hedgelawn N05132, Lovett Farm 

 N05195, J. Houston House 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-57

The Preferred Alternative will have adverse effects on 12 historic properties: 

 N00106, The Maples N05123, Governor Benjamin T. Biggs Farm 

 N00107, S. Holton Farm N05131, T.J. Houston Farm 

N00109, Choptank N05146, Armstrong-Walker House 

 N00112, Summerton N05148, Rosedale 

 N00113, Rumsey Farm N05221, C. Polk House Estate 

 N03947, Idalia Manor N05225, B.F. Hanson House 

These 12 historic properties where adverse effects occur will not be directly or physically altered 

by the Preferred Alternative. All of the potential project effects are indirect. Indirect effects 

include changes to the setting or context of a resource and the introduction of incompatible 

visual and/or audible elements in the vicinity of a resource. For each of the 12 properties, a brief 

description of the resource, its significant characteristics, and why the undertaking will result in 

an adverse effect on the property is provided below. 

(1) CRS No. N00106, The Maples, 1023 Bunker Hill Road 

The Maples was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1978 under Criterion C for 

its architectural significance. The property includes a circa-1850s dwelling with late Second 

Empire stylistic elements, a cowshed (currently used as an equipment shed), a milking barn with 

an attached milk house, a windmill, and a modern pool. The historic farm lane is located to the 

east of the dwelling. The 186.86-acre farm surrounding the property is planted with mature trees 

and includes cultivated fields. The National Register boundary includes an area measuring 1.66 

acres, the dwelling, and the tree-lined front yard. The significant characteristics of the property 

include the architectural features and integrity of materials, design, and workmanship of the 

dwelling, which together display an eclectic range of several nineteenth-century styles, with the 

Second Empire style predominating. Another significant characteristic is the dwelling’s 

immediate setting, including the tree-lined front yard. The setting amidst active farmlands and 

viewshed of nearby farmsteads is important to an understanding of the agricultural history of the 

resource. 

In the vicinity of the Maples, the new highway will be visible from the rear of the yard where 

there is a discontinuation of the tree line that runs along the western edge of the National 

Register boundary. The Preferred Alternative mainline LOD will be approximately 970 linear 

feet to the west of the boundary. Bunker Hill Road will be elevated approximately 23 feet above 

existing ground over US 301 to the west of The Maples, returning to grade approximately 375 

feet to the west. With the construction of the Preferred Alternative, The Maples will experience 

a 4 dBA increase in noise, from 56 dBA (existing) to 60 dBA (predicted 2030). This increase 

would be perceptible on the property, and therefore, will potentially audibly affect the Maples; 

however, it does not meet the FHWA criteria for an impact (see Chapter III.D.1.a). The new 

US 301will be visible from the southwest corner of the National Register boundary. The new 

highway will also block the view from The Maples to Rosedale, a nearby farm located on the 

opposite side of Choptank Road. The undertaking will introduce new visual elements into the 

agrarian setting of the resource and obstruct a historic viewshed. Thus, the undertaking will 

diminish the integrity of setting, feeling, and association of the farmstead, and have an adverse 

effect on The Maples. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-58

 (2) CRS No. N00107, S. Holton Farm, 2010 Choptank Road 

The S. Holton Farm (CRS No. N00107) was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 

1985 as part of the multiple property nomination Rebuilding St. George’s Hundred, New Castle 

County, 1850-1880 under Criterion A for its agricultural significance and under Criterion C for 

its architectural significance. The property includes a circa-1850 dwelling, a circa-1880 to 1900 

milk house, a modern garage, and a modern shed. The 81.80-acre parcel on which the property 

lies is planted with mature trees and includes cultivated fields. The 4.40-acre National Register 

boundary, which includes the house, grounds, and tree-lined lane leading from Choptank Road, 

follows along either side of the driveway to the north and south and includes the milk house and 

the location of former outbuildings to the east. The significant characteristics of the property 

include the architectural qualities of the dwelling, as the majority of its salient exterior features 

survive from the period of significance, and the property’s immediate setting and surrounding 

grounds, including the tree-lined lane leading from Choptank Road. The farmstead’s location in 

its larger environment of cultivated farmlands conveys the setting and feeling of a midnineteenth-century farm in central New Castle County. 

In the vicinity of the S. Holton Farm, the new highway LOD will be approximately 15 feet east 

of the National Register boundary of the resource, amidst open farm fields, resulting in a loss of 

farmlands associated with the farmstead. The mainline of the roadway will be elevated 

approximately three to nine feet above the existing ground in this location. The ramp to connect 

northbound US 301 mainline to the northbound Spur Road will overpass the southbound 

mainline lanes north of the property in an area that is currently farmland. The ramp will be 

elevated approximately 35 feet above existing ground and will be located less than 500 feet to 

the northeast; both the mainline and ramp will be visible from the farm complex. The proposed 

improvement will compromise historic views of surrounding farmlands to the east and northeast. 

In addition, with the construction of the Preferred Alternative, the property will experience a 

significant increase (+13 dBA) in the average daily noise level. The proposed improvements 

will introduce new visual and audible elements and physical features into the immediate vicinity 

and larger environment of the resource, thereby diminishing the farm’s integrity of setting, 

feeling, and association. As a result, the Preferred Alternative will have an adverse effect on the 

S. Holton Farm. 

(3) CRS No. N00109, Choptank, 1542 Choptank Road 

Choptank (CRS No. N00109) was listed in the National Register in 1985 as part of the 

Rebuilding St. Georges Hundred, New Castle County, 1850-1880 multiple property nomination 

under Criterion A for agriculture and under Criterion C for architecture. The property includes a 

circa-1835 dwelling with a circa-1850 front block and a circa-1900 cow barn and milk house. 

The dwelling features Greek Revival stylistic elements, and the extant outbuildings stand in good 

condition and contain little to no modern alterations. Mature walnut, maple, holly, and cedar 

trees are located in the vicinity of the dwelling, and cultivated fields surround the property to the 

north and south. The 14.66-acre National Register boundary includes the dwelling, the cow 

barn, the milk house, the tree-lined drive, the grounds, and sufficient agricultural lands to convey 

the property’s significance. The significant characteristics of the property include the physical 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-59

fabric of the dwelling, cow barn, and the milk house. The setting and location of the farmstead 

amidst agricultural fields is also important to an understanding of the history of the property. 

In this location, the LOD of the two-lane Spur Road will be constructed approximately 1,725 feet 

east of the National Register boundary of the resource across open farm fields. The roadway will 

be approximately two to five feet above existing ground in this location and within view of the 

Choptank farm complex. To the southeast of the resource Old School House Road will be 

reconstructed to cross over the Spur Road and will be approximately 30 feet above existing 

ground at its highest point over the Spur Road, within view of the farmstead. The improvements 

will introduce new physical features in the farm’s setting and new visual elements that may alter 

the property’s integrity of setting, feeling, and association. Therefore, the proposed 

improvements will have an adverse effect on Choptank. 

(4) CRS No. N00112, Summerton, 840 Middletown-Warwick Road 

Summerton (CRS No. N00112) was determined eligible under Criterion C of the National 

Register for its architectural significance. The dwelling is a well-preserved and typical example 

of a high style dwelling that was rebuilt by a prosperous farmer of St. Georges Hundred in the 

mid-nineteenth century. During the time of the nomination, open vistas and cultivated land 

surrounded the property, which exhibits the remains of a carefully landscaped front yard. This 

property contains a circa-1850 two-and-one-half-story, five-bay, brick dwelling with an original 

two-and-one-half-story, five-bay service ell extending east from the northeast corner of the main 

block. The eligible boundary consists of 5.65 acres, and encompasses a small area in the 

immediate vicinity of the residence that includes the outbuildings and yard. The significant 

characteristics of the property include the architectural qualities of the dwelling, which retains its 

original massing, materials, fenestration, and ornamentation. The surrounding yard space, 

including the trees in the front yard, denotes the dwelling’s status and domestic use. The setting 

amidst active farmlands and retention of the corn crib/granary are important to an understanding 

of the agricultural history of the property. The cumulative effect of integrity of design, materials, 

workmanship, location, setting, and association creates the feeling of a mid-nineteenth-century 

farm. 

In this location, the Preferred Alternative will construct an access ramp from Levels Road to a 

grade-separated interchange located approximately 4,000 linear feet north of Middle Neck Road. 

The proposed interchange north of Middle Neck Road will be located to the northwest of 

Summerton, on the opposite side of existing US 301 and approximately 1,530 feet from the 

National Register boundary of the property. An extension of Levels Road from the interchange 

will intersect with existing US 301 and relocated (as a part of the Westown transportation 

improvements) Levels Road adjacent to the north corner of the National Register boundary and a 

turning lane will be added in this location. The ramp will be within the viewshed and immediate 

setting of the farm complex associated with Summerton, resulting in a loss of integrity of setting, 

feeling, and association. Thus, the undertaking will have an adverse effect on Summerton. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-60

(5) CRS No. N00113, Rumsey Farm, 841 Middletown-Warwick Road 

The dwelling and domestic outbuildings associated with the Rumsey Farm (CRS No. N00113) 

were listed in the National Register in 1977 under Criterion A for agriculture and Criterion C for 

architecture. The buildings associated with the Rumsey Farm are located at the end of a treelined gravel drive. The domestic complex includes a prominent two-and-one-half-story 

residential dwelling and frame smoke house and privy from the mid-nineteenth century, which 

were previously listed in the National Register. In addition, several associated early-twentiethcentury agricultural outbuildings (cart shed, corncrib/granary, milk house, and barn) occupy the 

parcel and are spatially separate from the domestic area, located to the side of the dwelling along 

the gravel drive. The farm complex occupies a 400-acre parcel that is comprised of agricultural 

fields; however, the National Register boundary consists of only 2.44 acres that includes the 

house, nearby outbuildings, and the surrounding area. The significant characteristics of the 

property include the architectural qualities of the dwelling, as the majority of its exterior features 

from the period of significance remain intact, as well as the extant domestic outbuildings. The 

immediate setting, which includes the tree-lined driveway and copse of trees around the house, 

agricultural outbuildings, and the surrounding farmlands, are significant as they help convey the 

feeling of a farm. The corn crib/granary, the equipment shed/corn crib, and the surrounding 

farmlands are also important as they convey the setting and feeling of and association with a 

mid-nineteenth- to early-twentieth-century farmstead. 

In the vicinity of the Rumsey Farm, the Preferred Alternative will include the construction of a 

grade-separated interchange to the northwest, and an access road that will extend from the 

interchange to intersect with existing US 301 at Levels Road. The interchange will be located 

approximately 740 feet to the northwest of the farm complex, across open farm fields. The 

proposed access road to Levels Road will be approximately 150 feet to the northeast of the 

National Register boundary. The interchange and access road will be clearly visible from the 

farm complex and will introduce new physical features in the present-day location of farmlands. 

These changes will result in a loss of integrity of setting, feeling, and association of the Rumsey 

Farm. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative will have an adverse effect on Rumsey Farm. 

(6) CRS No. N03947, Idalia Manor, 1870 South DuPont Highway 

Idalia Manor (CRS No. N03947) was listed in the National Register in 1985 as part of the 

Rebuilding St. George’s Hundred multiple property nomination under Criterion A for agriculture 

and Criterion C for architecture. The property includes a side-gabled, brick, Federal-style 

residence, a granary/crib barn, a late-twentieth-century wagon/cart shed, another modern shed, 

and a modern decorative well, surrounded by farmland. Contributing features located within the 

11.44-acre National Register boundary include the dwelling, the granary/crib barn, and sufficient 

acreage and setting to convey the architectural and agricultural significance of the resource. The 

significant characteristics of the property include the physical fabric of the dwelling and 

outbuildings, the retention of surrounding agricultural crop lands, and landscape features such as 

the tree lines that flank the driveway and separate the farmstead from the agricultural fields. The 

rural setting, although somewhat compromised by the introduction of SR 1 to the west and north, 

is also significant as it helps convey the feeling of a nineteenth-century farm. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-61

The Preferred Alternative will introduce additional visual elements to the west that may diminish 

the integrity of the historic property. The Preferred Alternative in the vicinity of Idalia Manor 

will include the tie-in of the new US 301 to SR 1 north of the Biddles Corner Toll Plaza and 

south of the Senator Roth Bridge over the C&D Canal. Directional ramps will be provided from 

southbound SR 1 to southbound US 301 and from northbound US 301 to northbound SR 1. The 

northbound flyover ramp (approximately 30 feet above existing SR 1) will be within view of the 

dwelling and farm complex associated with Idalia Manor. The viewshed from Idalia Manor to 

the north and west has already been compromised by the existing roadways (SR 1 and US 13) 

and bridge over the C&D Canal. The construction of additional physical elements to the north 

and west of the farm complex will introduce addition visual elements that will result in further 

loss of integrity of setting, feeling, and association. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative will 

have an adverse effect on Idalia Manor. 

(7) CRS No. N05123, Governor Benjamin T. Biggs Farm, 1196 Choptank Road 

The Governor Benjamin T. Biggs Farm (CRS No. N05123) was listed in the National Register in 

1987 under Criterion A for association with the rebuilding trend, under Criterion B for its 

association with Governor Benjamin T. Biggs, and under Criterion C for architecture. The 

property includes an 1846 brick dwelling, a smokehouse, three implement sheds, a small barn, a 

shop, and a dairy. The 3.97-acre National Register boundary, which also serves as the current 

tax parcel, includes the dwelling, the outbuildings, and immediate setting to convey its 

significance under Criteria A, B, and C. The significant characteristics of the property include 

the physical fabric of the dwelling and outbuildings, the retention of agricultural crop lands, and 

landscape features such as the mature trees in the front yard and the fence lines that delineate the 

dwelling and yard space from the surrounding fields. The rural setting of this property is 

significant as it conveys the association and feeling of a nineteenth-century farm. 

In this location, the two-lane Spur Road LOD will be located approximately 1,015 feet east of 

the National Register boundary, clearly visible from the rear of the property across a vista of 

open farm fields and gentle slopes. A partial cloverleaf interchange and ramp to an extended 

Bethel Church Road will be located to the northeast. The interchange and ramp will be partially 

visible from the farm complex. The undertaking will introduce new physical features and visual 

elements in the vicinity of the resource in the location of former farmlands. As a result the 

property will experience a loss of integrity of setting, feeling, and association. Thus, the 

undertaking will have an adverse effect on the Governor Benjamin T. Biggs Farm. 

(8) CRS No. N05131, T.J. Houston Farm, 1306 Cedar Lane Road 

The T.J. Houston Farm (CRS No. N05131) was determined eligible for listing in the National 

Register under Criterion C for architecture. The circa-1860 front block of the dwelling 

embodies a combination of the Federal and Greek Revival architectural styles and retains 

integrity from its secondary period of construction. The property also includes a circa-1940 to 

1960 milk house, a circa-1940 to 1960 shed, and a well cap. A tree-lined gravel drive provides 

access to the set-back dwelling and the secondary outbuildings. The property is minimally 

landscaped and is surrounded by active agricultural lands. The 2.76-acre National Register 

boundary includes the dwelling and the tree-lined gravel drive, providing sufficient setting for 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-62

the architecturally significant dwelling. The significant characteristics of the property include 

the physical fabric of the dwelling and landscape features such as the trees lining the side of the 

driveway. The setting of this property amidst active farmlands is also significant as it conveys 

the historic agricultural association of the dwelling with a former dairying complex that is now 

largely demolished except for an extant milk house, silo, and shed. 

The Preferred Alternative mainline LOD will be visible from the rear of the T.J. Houston Farm 

property. The mainline roadway will be located approximately 1,445 feet to the west of the 

National Register boundary of the resource and 1,455 feet from the dwelling, clearly visible 

across open farm fields. As the undertaking will introduce new visual elements within the 

viewshed and physical features into the agrarian setting of the resource, integrity of setting, 

feeling, and association will be compromised. Thus, the undertaking will have an adverse effect 

on the T. J. Houston Farm. 

(9) CRS No. N05146, Armstrong-Walker House, 5036 Summit Bridge Road 

The Armstrong-Walker House (CRS No. N05146) was listed in the National Register as part of 

the multiple property nomination Rebuilding St. Georges Hundred, New Castle County, 1850-

1880 under Criterion A for its agricultural significance and under Criterion C for its architectural 

significance. The property includes a brick dwelling, a barn, and a shed (all constructed ca. 

1870), and a circa-1940 equipment shed. The property is sparsely landscaped with a few mature 

trees and is surrounded by agricultural land. The 5.00-acre National Register boundary includes 

the dwelling, the outbuildings, and sufficient setting to convey its significance. The significant 

characteristics of the property include the physical fabric of the dwelling, barn, and outbuildings 

as well as landscape features such as the placement of trees to denote the yard space. The setting 

of this property amidst active farmlands is also significant as it conveys association with 

agriculture and the feeling of a nineteenth-century mixed farm that was converted to dairying 

operations in the late-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. 

In the vicinity of the Armstrong-Walker House, the proposed four-lane divided highway will be 

elevated approximately 24 feet above existing ground to pass over Armstrong Corner Road and 

the LOD will be located approximately 805 feet northwest of the National Register boundary. 

There is an existing noise impact (67 dBA), and the resource will not experience a perceptible 

change in noise level due to the expected reduction of traffic on existing US 301 with the 

construction of the Preferred Alternative. Despite some limited intervening tree lines, the 

highway will be visible across farm fields from the northwestern corner of the farm and from the 

rear of the farm complex. Due to the introduction of physical features within the surrounding 

agrarian setting and the obstruction of viewsheds, the Preferred Alternative has the potential to 

detract from the integrity of setting, feeling, and association of the resource. Therefore, the 

undertaking will have an adverse effect on the Armstrong Walker-House. 

(10) CRS No. N05148, Rosedale, 1143 Bunker Hill Road 

Rosedale (CRS No. N05148) was listed in the National Register as part of the multiple property 

nomination Rebuilding St. Georges Hundred, New Castle County, 1850-1880 under Criterion A 

for its agricultural significance and under Criterion C for its architectural significance. The 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-63

property consists of a circa-1790 dwelling, a circa-1880 horse barn with an attached training 

stable and office, a circa-1950s brood mare stable, a circa-1950s tenant house, and a circa-1940 

to 1960 loading chute. The dwelling features Georgian stylistic elements, and the historic farm 

lane provides access from Bunker Hill Road to the agricultural buildings located north of the 

dwelling. The National Register boundary includes the dwelling, associated outbuildings, and 

19.6 acres planted with mature trees and active pastures. The dwelling is significant as an 

embodiment of the Georgian architectural style; therefore, retention of integrity of design, 

materials, and workmanship are critical to the eligibility of the resource. The farmstead is also 

significant as an example of the rebuilding that occurred in the local area during the nineteenth 

century. The salient characteristics of the property include the physical fabric of the house, barn, 

and outbuildings, as well as the surrounding pasture land. The setting of this property amidst and 

within view of other active farms and associated farmlands, including the Maples (CRS No. 

N00106) to the east, conveys the feeling of and association with a rural landscape. 

In this location, the Preferred Alternative mainline will be clearly visible from the farm complex, 

as the LOD will be located approximately 485 feet to the southeast of the National Register 

boundary. The intervening space includes open yard, Choptank Road, and farmlands. Potential 

stormwater management facilities may be located in close proximity to the highway on the west 

side of the proposed alignment. Additionally, improvements to Bunker Hill Road to provide an 

overpass of the new US 301 will be visible from the southeast corner of the property’s historic 

boundary. At its highest elevation (approximately 23 feet above existing ground), Bunker Hill 

Road will be approximately 750 feet from the historic boundary. As a result of the undertaking, 

the view from Rosedale to the Maples will be obstructed. The undertaking will also introduce 

new physical features within the surrounding agrarian setting. As the undertaking will diminish 

the setting, feeling, and association of the resource, it will have an adverse effect on Rosedale. 

(11) CRS No. N05221, C. Polk House Estate, 929 Middletown-Warwick Road 

The C. Polk House Estate (CRS No. N05221) was determined eligible for listing in the National 

Register under Criterion C for its architectural significance. The C. Polk House is a typical 

example of a rural dwelling that was rebuilt by a prosperous farmer in St. Georges Hundred in 

the mid-nineteenth century. The property currently contains the original farmhouse and barn. 

The rest of the original buildings were razed, and a number of modern storage structures are 

located on the property, west of the dwelling. The National Register Boundary encompasses 

2.04 acres. The significant characteristics of the property include the physical fabric and 

integrity of design, materials, and workmanship of the dwelling, and landscape features such as 

the remnants of the allee of trees that lead from Middletown-Warwick Road to the dwelling. The 

setting of this property amidst active farmlands is also significant as it conveys the association 

with and feeling of a former nineteenth-century farmstead. 

The Preferred Alternative will introduce visual elements that may diminish the integrity of 

setting of the historic property. The Preferred Alternative mainline, located approximately 425 

feet from the National Register boundary, will be visible from the rear of the C. Polk House 

Estate dwelling. Approximately 2,800 feet to the north, a grade-separated diamond interchange 

will be constructed to provide a connection to existing US 301 (Levels Road interchange). The 

highway and interchange will be clearly visible across open farm fields. A toll plaza is proposed 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-64

to be located approximately 1,800 feet to the southwest, south of Middle Neck Road, within view 

of the C. Polk House Estate. As the undertaking will introduce new visual elements into the 

viewshed of the C. Polk House Estate and new physical features into the agrarian setting, the 

integrity of the resource will be diminished. Thus, the Preferred Alternative will have an adverse 

effect on the C. Polk House Estate. 

 (12) CRS No. N05225, B.F. Hanson House, 1102 Middletown-Warwick Road 

The B.F. Hanson House (CRS No. N05225) was listed in the National Register in 1980 under 

Criterion C for its architectural significance as one of the best-preserved examples of Greek 

Revival architecture in Delaware. The 25.00-acre parcel that the dwelling occupies includes the 

1843 house, a circa-1850 horse barn complex, a circa-1910 shed at the north end, and a modern 

equipment retail facility at the south end. The front lawn of the house is planted with some 

mature trees and the property is flanked by cultivated fields to the north and east. The National 

Register boundary includes 5.30 acres and consists of the dwelling, yard space, and outbuildings. 

The most significant aspects of the property include the integrity of design, materials, and 

workmanship of the dwelling. Notable features of the dwelling typical of the Greek Revival 

style include columned porch spanning a portion of the façade, low-pitched roof, heavy cornice 

with unadorned frieze, emphasis on entrance in the form of transom and sidelights, and corner 

pilasters. Significant architectural features include the dwelling form. The outbuildings, 

associated 5.30-acre parcel, and the surrounding farmlands contribute to the setting of the 

resource, helping the property to retain integrity of association with and convey the feeling of a 

former nineteenth-century farmstead. 

Improvements in the immediate vicinity of the B.F. Hanson House will include the construction 

of a four-lane, divided, limited access roadway west of and parallel to existing US 301. The 

LOD of the new roadway will be located approximately 305 feet from the B.F. Hanson House 

and approximately 75 feet from the National Register boundary. To the northwest of the 

property, stormwater management facilities may be constructed on both sides of new US 301, 

and a toll plaza may be constructed approximately 2,000 feet to the north (south of Middle Neck 

Road). The B.F. Hanson House will experience an imperceptible decrease (- 2 dBA) in noise 

level following the completion of the Preferred Alternative (see Table III-37 in Chapter III.D.1.c) 

which can be attributed to the relocation of the main roadway (new US 301, which is expected to 

carry more traffic than existing US 301) further from the property. Although located across 

existing U.S. 301, the new roadway will be clearly visible across existing US 301 from the front 

yard of the dwelling and will introduce a new visual element to the landscape and detract from 

the agricultural setting of the resource. The undertaking will detract from the integrity of setting, 

feeling, and association of the B.F. Hanson House, resulting in a finding of adverse effect. 

b. Archaeological Resources 

In order to evaluate the potential consequences of the retained alternatives and the Preferred 

Alternative, DelDOT overlaid the archaeological predictive model on the proposed limit of 

disturbance of each of the alternatives and determined the areas of each sensitivity level affected 

by the alternatives. The evaluation includes areas that may be affected by potential stormwater 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-65

management facilities as proposed for the project in the DEIS and identified wetland mitigation 

sites. 

The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on historic or prehistoric archaeological 

resources. The Preferred Alternative will impact one known historic archaeological resource, 

CRS Number N05191. The site’s eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places 

will be determined prior to construction, and, if determined eligible, a treatment plan will be 

developed for the resource in accordance with stipulations in the draft MOA. 

The Preferred Alternative (including two potential mitigation sites) will impact a low percentage 

of acres within the high sensitivity zones for both prehistoric (96 acres; 8.2%) and historic (41 

acres; 3.5%) sites. The percentages of the Preferred Alternative LOD with moderate (363 acres; 

30.8%), low (452 acres; 38.4%) or nil (266 acres; 22.5%) sensitivity to prehistoric sites are 

similar. The majority of the LOD for the Preferred Alternative (929 acres; 78.9%) is predicted to 

have a low sensitivity zones for historic sites. The remainder (207 acres; 17.6%) is considered to 

have a moderate sensitivity to contain historic era sites. 

The results of the evaluation of the four build alternatives are shown in Table III-29. These 

results were taken into consideration during the evaluation of the retained alternatives and 

selection of the Preferred Alternative. This evaluation did not include identified wetland 

mitigation sites. 

Table III-29: Archaeological Potential of the Alternatives within the Limit of 

Disturbance

Archaeological 

Potential 

Yellow 

acres 

%1

Purple 

acres 

%1

Brown 

North 

acres 

%1

Brown 

South 

acres 

%1

Green 

North 

(DEIS) 

acres 

%1 

Green 

South 

acres 

%1

Prehistoric-Era Archaeological Predictive Model

Area in High 

Sensitivity Zone 

16 

1.8% 

24 

2.7% 

26 

2.9% 

28 

3.0% 

26 

2.8% 

28 

3.1% 

Area in Moderate 

Sensitivity Zone 

106 

12.1% 

212 

23.1% 

287 

31.5% 

272 

29.9% 

238 

26.1% 

292 

32.8% 

Area in Low 

Sensitivity Zone 

528 

60.3% 

552 

60.3% 

496 

54.4% 

483 

53.1% 

558 

61.3% 

482 

54.1% 

Area in Nil 

Sensitivity Zone 

225 

25.7% 

128 

14.0% 

101 

11.1% 

127 

14.0% 

89 

9.7% 

88 

9.9% 

Historic-Era Archaeological Predictive Model2

Area in High 

Sensitivity Zone 

91 

10.4% 

35 

3.8% 

30 

3.3% 

31 

3.4% 

34 

3.7% 

32 

3.6% 

Area in Moderate 

Sensitivity Zone 

272 

31.0% 

187 

20.4% 

186 

20.4% 

182 

20.0% 

177 

19.4% 

177 

19.8% 

Area in Low 

Sensitivity Zone 

513 

58.6% 

694 

75.7% 

694 

76.3% 

696 

76.5% 

700 

76.8% 

682 

76.6% 

1 Indicates percent of total acres within the limit of disturbance; does not include mitigation sites. 

2 The historic-era model does not have a nil sensitivity zone. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-66

When considering the differences between the Preferred Alternative and the Green North 

Alternative presented in the DEIS and in Table III-29, the percentages of the LOD likely to 

contain high, moderate or low sensitivity to historic sites is fairly comparable. Differences in 

areas of high, moderate, low and nil sensitivity to prehistoric sites may be due to the increased 

footprint of the LOD following engineering changes for drainage, minor changes in the 

alignment, and or the addition of the mitigation sites’ area to the evaluation. The results of the 

archaeological sensitivity modeling will be used as a tool when evaluating the LOD for potential 

archaeological sites prior to construction. 

When the prehistoric sensitivity zones of the Yellow, Purple, Brown and Green Alternatives 

were compared, between 64 and 86 percent of the area of each alternative is within the nil and 

low probability zones; therefore, large areas of each alternative are not very likely to contain 

prehistoric sites. The range of variation in the probability of prehistoric sites among the 

alternatives indicates that the Yellow Alternative is the least likely (13.9 percent high to 

moderate sensitivity) to affect prehistoric sites. The Purple, Brown and Green Alternatives, 

while still having a relatively low probability (between 25.7 and 36.0 percent in the high and 

moderate sensitivity range), are the most likely to affect prehistoric sites. This conclusion is 

consistent with the characteristics of the alternatives and the nature of the location of prehistoric 

sites. 

The Yellow Alternative, which generally follows existing roadways, would have been located in 

an area where ground disturbance over the years has reduced the potential for intact subsurface 

resources from the prehistoric period. Conversely, the Purple, Brown and Green Alternatives, 

which cross relatively undeveloped areas, would be more likely to encounter undisturbed 

resources. It is anticipated that the Purple, Brown, and Green Alternatives, including the 

Preferred Alternative, would have the greatest possibility of destroying or burying prehistoric 

archaeological sites. 

When the alternatives are compared to the historic sensitivity zones, between 58.6 and 76.8 

percent of the area of each alternative is within the low probability zones. (The historic 

component of the model does not include a nil probability zone.) The range of variation in the 

probability of historic archaeological sites among the alternatives indicates that the Purple, 

Brown and Green Alternatives (including the Preferred Alternative) would be the least likely 

(under 25 percent probability for high and moderate sensitivity) to affect historic sites; and the 

Yellow Alternative, with 41.1 percent within the high or moderate sensitivity zones, would be 

the most likely to affect historic archaeological sites. Again, this conclusion is consistent with the 

characteristics of the alternatives and the nature of the location of historic sites. 

Historic sites are more likely to be located relatively near historic-period and current roadways; 

thus, the Yellow Alternative, which would follow existing roadways, had a higher potential to 

encounter such sites. The Yellow Alternative would have had the greatest possibility of 

adversely affecting historic archaeological sites by destroying or burying them. Conversely, the 

Purple, Brown, and Green Alternatives (including the Preferred Alternative), which cross 

historically undeveloped areas, would be less likely to encounter such resources. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-67

3. Mitigation/Memorandum of Agreement

DelDOT is continuing to consult with FHWA, the SHPO and New Castle County regarding the 

appropriate steps to further identify archaeological resources and the potential effects of the 

project on those resources. As is discussed in the draft MOA included in Appendix H, DelDOT 

will conduct appropriate Phase I and/or Phase II testing to identify archaeological resources 

along the Preferred Alternative alignment. If resources are discovered which are determined 

eligible for the National Register, DelDOT and FHWA will consult with the SHPO to determine 

if the sites will be adversely affected, and if so, will look for ways to avoid impacts or minimize 

effects. If the effects cannot be avoided, various means of mitigation will be employed, 

including, but not limited to, excavations to recover significant data.or alternative mitigation 

strategies as specified in the MOA. 

 

The MOA outlines the process for determining how effects on architectural resources will be 

mitigated, including consultation with property owners. Potential treatments may include, but 

are not necessarily limited to, landscaping, plantings, potential visual berms or fencing 

appropriate to the historic setting of the property affected. 

DelDOT will continue to consult with the Maryland SHPO (Maryland Historical Trust (MHT)) 

on potential effects to cultural resources within the Maryland portion of the project area. The 

MHT will also be consulted on potential secondary and cumulative effects that may result from 

traffic and truck diversions (see Chapter III, Section G). 

C. Air Quality 

The purpose of this air quality section is to describe the regulatory framework for air quality 

considerations, the pollutants of concern, ambient air quality standards, existing conditions in the 

project area, predicted changes in air quality that may result from implementation of the project, 

and possible mitigation efforts where adverse effects are projected. 

Transportation projects involving highway systems improvements are typically subject to two 

types of air quality analyses. These are referred to as transportation conformity analysis 

(mesoscale analysis) and project level emissions analysis (microscale analysis). 

Transportation conformity refers to the extent to which highway and transit expansion projects 

add to or subtract from regional emission levels. These analyses typically are performed at the 

system level, which means the particular improvement or sets of improvements are included in a 

regional travel demand model from which the total emissions for a county are estimated. The 

product of these analyses is an estimate referring to the total emissions generated from highway 

and transit systems, and a determination of whether those estimates, at the regional level, follow 

mandated Federal reductions in regional emissions as reported in State Implementation Plans 

(SIPs). 

Project level emissions analyses refer to the extent to which highway and transit expansion 

projects add or subtract to project area emission levels. These studies are typically performed 

within the area directly adjacent to a proposed improvement, and are often within several 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-68

hundred feet of those projects. These studies do not consider regional air quality levels, but are 

concerned with what affect proposed projects may have on air quality levels adjacent to or in the 

immediate vicinity of a particular area. 

1. Relevant Pollutants

“Air Pollution” is a general term that refers to one or more chemical substances that degrade the 

quality of the atmosphere. Individual air pollutants degrade the atmosphere by reducing 

visibility, damaging property, reducing the productivity or vigor of crops or natural vegetation, 

or by adversely affecting human or animal health. 

Eight air pollutants have been identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as 

being of concern nationwide: carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), hydrocarbons (HC), 

nitrogen oxides (NOx), ozone (O3), lead (Pb), particulate matter with a size of 10 microns or less 

(PM10), and particulate matter with a size of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5). These pollutants, with 

the exception of HC, are collectively referred to as “criteria” pollutants. 

The sources of these pollutants, their effects on human health and the nation's welfare, and their 

final deposition in the atmosphere vary considerably. In the project corridor, ambient 

concentrations of CO, O3 and Pb are primarily influenced by motor vehicle activity. Emissions 

of sulfur oxides are associated mainly with various stationary sources such as power plants and 

refineries. Emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter come from both mobile and 

stationary sources. 

Carbon monoxide is a colorless and odorless gas, which in the urban environment is associated 

primarily with the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in motor vehicles. CO combines with 

hemoglobin in the bloodstream and reduces the amount of oxygen that can be circulated through 

the body. High CO concentrations can lead to headaches, aggravation of cardiovascular disease 

and impairment of central nervous system functions. CO concentrations can vary greatly over 

comparatively short distances. Relatively high concentrations are typically found near crowded 

intersections and along heavily used roadways carrying slow-moving traffic. Even under the 

most severe meteorological and traffic conditions, high concentrations of carbon monoxide are 

limited to locations within a relatively short distance, 300 to 600 feet, of heavily traveled 

roadways. Consequently, it is appropriate to evaluate concentrations of CO on a regional and on 

a localized or microscale basis. In general, CO emissions have been decreasing as a result of the 

State and Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program, which has mandated increasingly lower 

emission levels for vehicles manufactured since 1973. 

Sulfur oxides (SOx) constitute a class of compounds of which sulfur dioxide (SO2) and sulfur 

trioxide (SO3) are of great importance. The health effects of SOx include respiratory illness, 

damage to the respiratory tract, and bronchioconstriction. Relatively little SOx is emitted from 

motor vehicles. 

Hydrocarbons (HC) include a wide variety of volatile organic compounds (VOC) emitted 

principally from the storage, handling and use of fossil fuels. Though hydrocarbons can cause 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-69

eye irritation and breathing difficulty, their principal health affects are related to their role in the 

formation of O3. 

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are of concern because of their role as precursors in the formation of O3. 

Most of the NOx emitted by motor vehicles or construction combustion equipment is in the form 

of nitric oxide (NO), which is not directly harmful to human health. Only a small percentage is 

emitted as nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which can cause lung irritation and decrease the capacity of 

lungs. High levels of NO2 have been shown to increase the risk of asthma in children living near 

freeways. Once emitted, NO reacts slowly in the presence of sunlight with O3 to form NO2. 

Since the reactions are slow and occur as the pollutants are diffusing downwind, elevated NO2

and O3 levels are often found many miles from their sources. For that reason, the affects of 

hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide emissions are generally examined on a regional basis, and not 

at a localized level. 

Ozone is the principal component of photochemical smog. O3 is a principal cause of lung and 

eye irritation in the urban environment. It is formed in the atmosphere through a series of 

reactions involving hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight. High O3

concentrations normally occur only in the summer, when insulation is greatest and temperatures 

are high. 

Particulate matter includes both liquid and solid particles of a wide range of sizes and 

composition. Of particular concern are those particles that are smaller than or equal to 10 

microns or 2.5 microns in size (PM10 and PM2.5, respectively). The data collected through 

several nationwide studies indicate that most PM10 is the product of fugitive dust, wind erosion 

and agricultural and forestry sources, while a small portion is the product of fuel combustion 

processes. Conversely, the combustion of fossil fuels accounts for a significant portion of PM2.5. 

The main health effects of air-borne particulate matter are on the respiratory system. 

Lead is a stable compound, which persists and accumulates both in the environment and in 

animals. In people it affects the blood-forming (hematopoietic) system, the nervous system and 

the renal system. In addition, lead has been shown to affect the normal functions of the 

reproductive, endocrine, hepatic, cardiovascular, immunologic and gastrointestinal systems. 

There is significant individual variability in response to lead exposure. The lead used in gasoline 

anti-knock additives historically represented a major source of lead emissions to the atmosphere. 

However, lead emissions have significantly decreased due to the mandated elimination of leaded 

gasoline, and the replacement of vehicles that burn leaded gasoline with those that cannot. In 

general, an analysis of lead is only performed for projects that emit significant quantities of the 

pollutant (e.g., lead smelters) or are near such projects. 

In conclusion, of the eight criteria pollutants identified by the EPA as being of nationwide 

concern, CO is the only pollutant whose localized effects currently require a detailed, microscale 

mobile source impact evaluation for roadway projects at the EIS level. The regional effects of 

the project on O3 levels are considered in the regional CO, NOx and HC emissions analysis 

performed by the Wilmington Area Planning Council (WILMAPCO) as part of the 

Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) for the region. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-70

In accordance with the recent (Federal Register, Volume 71, Number 47, March 10, 2006) 

regulations, the referenced final rule requires a qualitative PM2.5 hot-spot analysis only for 

projects of air quality concern, i.e., those that involve significant levels of diesel vehicle traffic. 

Although the 2030 percentage of total truck traffic (including diesel trucks) on new US 301 is 

projected to exceed the eight percent guidance maximum (7-9 percent on most segments of the 

roadway; 20 percent at the state line), the average vehicles per day is less than half the maximum 

125,000 AADT recommended for the analysis (the highest ADT is projected at 56,700). 

Because the new US 301 does not encourage new diesel truck traffic, but merely shifts the diesel 

truck traffic from existing US 301 to the new roadway, it does not represent a significant 

increase in diesel truck traffic. Therefore, a PM2.5 analysis is not included for the project. 

2. National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards

As required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 (P.L. 91-064, December 31, 1970) and 

the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1977 (P.L. 95-95, August 7, 1977), the EPA has established 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the following air pollutants: O3, CO, 

NO2, SOx, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb. Delaware has also promulgated ambient air quality standards 

for the same pollutants. Applicable state and federal standards are shown in Table III-30. 

Table III-30: National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards 

National and State Standards Pollutant Averaging 

Period Primary Secondary 

1 Hour a 0.12 ppm (235 g/m3

) Ozone (O3) 

8 Hour b 0.08 ppm (157 g/m3

) Same as Primary Standard 

1 Hour c 35 ppm (40 mg/m3

) --- Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

8 Hour c 9 ppm (10 mg/m3

) --- 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual Average 0.053 ppm (100 g/m3

) Same as Primary Standard 

Annual Average 0.03 ppm (80 g/m3

) --- 

24 Hour c 0.14 ppm (365 g/m3 Sulfur Dioxide (SO ) --- 2) 

3 Hour c --- 0.5 ppm (1300 g/m3

)

Annual Arithmetic Mean 50 g/m3

Suspended Particle Matter Same as Primary Standard 

(PM10) 24 Hour d 150 g/m3 Same as Primary Standard 

Annual Arithmetic Mean 15 g/m3

Suspended Fine Particle Same as Primary Standard 

Matter (PM2.5) 24 Houre 65 g/m3 Same as Primary Standard 

Lead (Pb) Calendar Quarter 1.5 g/m3 Same as Primary Standard 

Annual Geometric Mean 75 g/m3

 60 g/m3Total Suspended Particle 

(TSP) 24-Hourc 260 g/m3

 150 g/m3

Source: Delaware Air Quality Management Section, Division of Air and Waste Management, Department of Natural Resources 

and Environmental Control, “Delaware Annual Air Quality Report 2003”Delaware Air Quality Management Section, “Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (Regulation 3.)” 

Notes: a. Based on a 3-year average of annual averages 

 b. 3-year average of the 4th highest 8-hour concentration may not exceed 0.08 ppm 

 c. Not to be exceeded more than once a year 

 d. Based on a 3-year average of annual 99th percentile values 

 e. Based on a 3-year average of annual 98th percentile values 

 ppm: parts per million; g/m3: micrograms per cubic meter; mg/m3: milligrams per cubic meter
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-71

The Primary Standards have been established to protect the public health with an adequate 

margin of safety. The Secondary Standards are intended to protect the nation's welfare and 

account for air-pollutant affects on soil, water, visibility, vegetation and other aspects of the 

general welfare. 

3. Air Quality Regulations and Status of the Project Area

Air quality is regulated at the federal level under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s Final 

Conformity Rule (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93). Section 107 of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendment 

requires the EPA to publish a list of all geographic areas in compliance with the NAAQS, as well 

as those not attaining the NAAQS. Areas not in compliance with NAAQS are deemed nonattainment areas. Areas which were previously deemed non-attainment areas, but which recently 

achieved compliance with the NAAQS, are deemed maintenance areas. The designation of an 

area is based on the data collected by the state-monitoring network on a pollutant-by-pollutant 

basis. 

a. Monitored Air Quality 

Air pollutant levels throughout Delaware are monitored by a network of sampling stations 

operated under the supervision of DNREC’s Division of Air and Waste Management. 

The closest monitoring stations to the project corridor are located in New Castle County at the 

Brandywine (O3), Bellefonte (PM2.5), Wilmington (CO, NO2, PM10, O3, SO2, PM2.5), Summit 

Bridge (O3, SO2, PM2.5), and Delaware City (CO, SO2,) Monitoring Sites. The monitoring of 

PM2.5 began in 1999 at the Bellefonte, Wilmington, and Summit Bridge monitoring sites and at a 

new monitoring site in Newark. However, the results of the PM2.5 monitoring are in the process 

of being validated. 

The highest levels reported for the Brandywine, Wilmington, Summit Bridge and Delaware City 

stations in 2006 are reported in Table III–31. The levels do not exceed the S/NAAQS for all 

pollutants monitored, with the exception of O3, which exceeded the 8-hour standard at the 

Brandywine, Wilmington and Summit Bridge sites. There is no data for the monitoring of lead 

or TSP in Delaware. 

Table III-31: Air Quality Summary for the Project Corridor 

Delaware Air Quality Monitoring Sites Highest Recorded Levels During 2006

Pollutant Brandywine Wilmington Summit Bridge Delaware City

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

1-Hour Maximum --- 3.0 ppm --- 1.5 ppm 

Concentrations > 35 ppm --- 0 --- 0 

8-Hour Maximum --- 2.2 ppm --- 1.2 ppm 

Concentrations > 9 ppm --- 0 --- 0 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 

Annual Arithmetic Mean --- 0.018 ppm --- --- 

Annual Mean > 0.05 ppm --- 0 --- --- 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-72

Table III-31: Air Quality Summary for the Project Corridor 

Delaware Air Quality Monitoring Sites Highest Recorded Levels During 2006

Pollutant Brandywine Wilmington Summit Bridge Delaware City

Particulate Matter < 10 micrometers (PM10) 

24-Hour Average --- 81 g /m3 --- --- 

Concentrations > 150 g/m3 --- 0 --- --- 

Annual Arithmetic Mean --- 23 g /m3 --- --- 

Annual Mean > 50 g /m3 --- 0 --- --- 

Ozone (O3) 

1-Hour Maximum 0.105 ppm 0.101 ppm 0.113 ppm --- 

Concentrations > 0.12 ppm 0 0 0 --- 

8-Hour Maximum 0.093 ppm 0.085 ppm 0.095 ppm --- 

Concentrations > 0.08 ppm 2 1 2 --- 

3-Year Average of 4th Daily Maximum 

Eight-Hour Average 0.082 ppm 0.081 ppm 0.078 ppm 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 

24-Hour Maximum --- 0.016 ppm 0.015 ppm 0.063 ppm 

Concentrations > 0.14 ppm --- 0 0 0 

3-Hour Maximum --- 0.039 ppm 0.046 ppm 0.158 ppm 

Concentrations > 0.50 ppm --- 0 0 0 

Annual Arithmetic Mean --- 0.005 ppm 0.003 ppm 0.007 ppm 

Annual Mean > 0.03 ppm --- 0 0 0 

Source: EPA AIRS Data Website: http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html 

The project corridor is located in southern New Castle County, Delaware. The County is 

designated as in-attainment for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), lead (Pb) and particulate matter (PM10). However, New Castle County is designated as a 

non-attainment area for ozone (O3) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Since the project area is 

designated non-attainment for ozone, the region is subject to transportation control measures 

such as the Vehicle Emissions Inspections Program. 

b. Conformance with Air Quality Standards

Under the requirements of the CAA, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 

1991 (ISTEA), and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 

(SAFETEA-LU), proposed transportation projects must be derived from a Constrained Long 

Range Transportation Plan (CLRP) that conforms with a state’s air quality plans as outlined in a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP sets forth an area’s strategies for achieving and 

maintaining air quality standards. 

The most recent air quality analysis applicable for the US 301 project was completed as part of 

the WILMAPCO Regional Transportation Plan 2030 Update (2030 RTP) and its component air 

quality conformity analysis, as adopted by WILMAPCO’s Council on March 22, 2007. A list of 

improvements within the US 301 corridor (programmed improvements to the local roadways and 

improvements associated with the Westown project) was included in and assumed to be in-
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-73

service for the RTP’s planning horizon years of 2010, 2020, and 2030. The conformity analysis 

does not yet include the US 301 Project in-service. 

The WILMAPCO 2030 RTP demonstrated continued conformity with the State of Delaware 

2005 State Implementation Plan (SIP) air quality budgets that were applicable at the time the 

RTP was adopted. (The most recent SIP was submitted to the US Environmental Protection 

Agency in June 2007.) These applicable budgets and the WILMAPCO RTP conformity analysis 

of March 2003 were developed and completed under the so-called “one-hour air quality 

standards” using EPA’s MOBILE 5b emissions model. Note that the applicable budgets have 

since been updated under the “eight-hour air quality standards” using EPA’s MOBILE 6.2 

emissions model; subsequent air quality conformity analyses conducted in the Spring of 2005 for 

WILMAPCO’s short range Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) indicated total emissions 

for New Castle County still conform to the Delaware SIP. 

DelDOT is currently working with DNREC, WILMAPCO, FHWA, Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA), and EPA to address broader regional air quality issues for both ozone 

precursors and PM2.5. WILMAPCO adopted its most recent TIP conformity analyses for FY 

2008-2011 on March 22, 2007. Following the Record of Decision, the project will be included 

in the conformity analysis, and programming of any funds for design, right-of-way or 

construction will be based on the results of that analysis. 

In order for this project to conform to the SIP on a localized (or microscale) basis, an air quality 

analysis must be conducted that demonstrates that the project will not cause or exacerbate 

localized violations of the NAAQS. As stated previously, CO is the only criteria pollutant whose 

localized effects require a detailed impact evaluation. 

4. Project Level Emissions Analysis (Microscale Analysis)

A detailed microscale air quality analysis has been performed to determine the local CO impact 

of the proposed project, as indicated in Section III.C.1. The analysis considered the impact of 

the No-Build, Yellow, Purple, Brown (North and South) and Green (North and South) 

Alternatives at 25 air quality receptors located throughout the project area and at two signalized 

intersections, each having 20 air quality receptors. The locations of air quality sensitive 

receptors used in the analysis are shown on Figure III-9 and listed in Table III-32. The results 

of the CO concentration analysis are summarized in the following sections. 

Table III-32: Air Quality Receptor Locations 

Receptor Address/Location 

R1 323 Jessica Drive 

R2 318 John Randal Drive 

R3 236 Oak Drive 

R4 108 Laks Drive 

R5 117 Delaware Canal Court East 

R6 26 Meadow Lane 

R7 523 Creek Lane East 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-74

Table III-32: Air Quality Receptor Locations 

Receptor Address/Location 

R8 Victoria Drive Entrance 

R9 1000 Jamison Corner Road 

R10 864 Bullen Drive 

R11 203 Milford Drive 

R12 West of 404 Emerson Road 

R13 Boyds Corner Road at Cedar Lane Road 

R14 562 Boyds Corner Road 

R15 US 301at Boyds Corner Road 

R16 US 301at Old School House Road 

R17 116 Saddle Drive 

R18 Across from 830 Old School House Road 

R19 US 301at Marl Pit Road 

R20 US 301at Spring Mill 

R21 US 301at Middletown Village 

R22 828 Woodline Drive 

R23 Across from 1106 Bunker Hill Road 

R24 South of 1022 Bunker Hill Road 

R25 1963 Middle Neck Road 

299-1 thru 299-20 US 301at SR 299 Intersection 

896-1 thru 896-20 US 301at SR 896 (Mount Pleasant) Intersection 

a. Description of Impacts 

The air quality analysis indicates that the carbon monoxide impact from the No-Build 

Alternative results in no violations of the State/National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(S/NAAQS) 1-hour concentration or the 8-hour concentration at any air quality receptor location 

in any analysis year. The air quality analysis also indicates that carbon monoxide impacts 

resulting from the implementation of any of the build alternatives, including the Preferred 

Alternative, would not result in a violation of the 1-hour concentration or the 8-hour 

concentration, at any air quality receptor location, in any analysis year. The results for the 

Preferred Alternative do not differ from those for the Green North Alternative. 

The results of the analyses are presented in Tables III-33, III-34, and III-35. The results shown 

in Table III-35 represent the worst-case build scenarios for the two intersections: the Purple 

Alternative for the SR 299 intersection and the Yellow Alternative for the SR 896 intersection. 
$

$

$

$ $

$

$

$ $

$

$

$

)p

AØ

)p

AØ

?Î

)p

Warwick

Middletown

Townsend

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

Churchtow

Old School House Rd

Bohemia Mill Rd Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Noxontown Rd

Silverlake Rd

Main St

Money Rd

Bunker Hill Rd

Middletown Warwick Rd

Middle Neck Rd

N Broad St

S Broad St

Levels Rd

Strawberry La

Grears Corner Rd

Green Giant Rd

Wiggins Mill Rd

Church Rd

Great

Bohemia

Creek

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove

Nest Branch

Noxontown

Pond

Silver

Lake

Sandy

Branch

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Middletown

Village Matapeake

Country

Acres

Wheatland

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Post and

Rail Farms

Back Meadowbrook Farms

Creek

Match

Line

B

Y

P

Y P

B

G

P

Spur

G

20 Receptors at

US 301 / SR 299

Intersection

G

25

24

23

22 21

20

19

18

17

16

13

12

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-9A

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

$ Air Receptors

Source: RK&K / Wilson T. Ballard, 2005

US 301 Project Development

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Air Receptor Locations

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
$ $

$ $ $

$

$ $

$ $

$ $

$

$ $

$

$ $

$

$

$ $

$

$

AÝ

)p

?¡

?Î

AÝ

)p

)h

?¡

AÝ

)h

?¡

)h

AØ

)p

Middletown

Odessa

St Georges Rd

Rd

Red Lion Rd

Cox Neck Rd

Summit

Bridge

d

Summit Bridge Rd

Churchtown Rd

Old School House Rd

Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Bethel Church Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Ratledge Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Bayview Rd

Vance Neck Rd

Hyetts Corner Rd

Jamison Corner Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Main St

Old Corbit Rd

N Broad St

Lums

Pond

Chesapeake

Joy

Run

Run

Scott

Creek

Augustine

Creek

Drawyer

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove Nest Branch

River

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Boyds

Corner

Saint

Georges

Middletown

Village

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Greylag

Commodore

Estates

Lorewood

Estates

Airmont

Acres

Mount

Hope

Summit

Bridge

Farms

Summit

Pond

Crystal

Run

Farm Dickerson

Chesapeake Farm

Meadow

Post and

Rail Farms

Meadowbrook Farms

Lea Eara

Farms West Lea Eara

Farms East

Grande

View

Farms

Asbury

Chase

Bolton

Meadows

Odessa

Heights

Spring

Oaks

m

and Delaware

Canal

B

Match

Line

Summit

Airport

o

Summit

Farms

G

GN

GS

BN

BS

B

Y

P

Y

P

P Y

B

G

P

Spur

G

20 Receptors at

US 301 / SR 896

Intersection

G

9

7

6

5

4 3

1

24

23

22 21

20

19

18

17

16

14

13

12 11

10

8

2

15

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-9B

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

$ Air Receptors

Source: RK&K / Wilson T. Ballard, 2005

US 301 Project Development

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Air Receptor Locations

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-77

Table III-33: Predicted CO Concentration, 2010 

Brown Green 

No-Build Yellow Purple North South North 

(Preferred) South Receptor 

Number 

1-hr. 8-hr. 1-hr. 8-hr. 1-hr. 8-hr. 1-hr. 8-hr. 1-hr. 8-hr. 1-hr. 8-hr. 1-hr. 8-hr.

R1 3.2 1.9 2.9 1.8 3.2 1.8 3.2 1.8 3.2 1.8 3.0 1.8 3.0 1.8 

R2 2.3 1.5 2.3 1.4 2.2 1.4 2.4 1.5 2.3 1.5 2.2 1.4 2.2 1.4 

R3 2.0 1.3 2.0 1.3 2.0 1.3 2.4 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.5 1.6 2.2 1.4 

R4 3.1 1.9 2.9 1.8 3.0 1.9 3.1 1.9 3.0 1.9 3.0 1.8 3.0 1.8 

R5 2.6 1.7 2.4 1.6 2.6 1.7 2.9 1.8 2.7 1.7 2.5 1.6 2.5 1.6 

R6 2.2 1.4 2.1 1.4 2.2 1.4 2.8 1.7 2.8 1.7 2.1 1.4 2.1 1.4 

R7 2.3 1.5 2.2 1.4 2.3 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.2 1.4 2.2 1.4 

R8 3.6 2.0 3.7 2.1 3.2 1.9 3.2 1.9 3.2 1.9 3.1 1.9 3.1 1.9 

R9 2.0 1.3 2.0 1.3 2.2 1.3 2.1 1.3 2.1 1.3 2.2 1.4 2.3 1.5 

R10 4.8 2.7 4.5 2.4 4.5 2.4 4.4 2.4 4.4 2.4 4.4 2.4 4.4 2.4 

R11 2.6 1.6 2.4 1.6 2.4 1.5 2.4 1.6 2.4 1.6 2.3 1.5 2.3 1.5 

R12 2.6 1.6 3.2 1.9 3.4 2.0 2.4 1.6 2.4 1.6 2.4 1.5 2.4 1.5 

R13 3.3 1.9 3.3 1.9 3.0 1.9 3.0 1.7 3.0 1.7 2.8 1.7 2.8 1.7 

R14 2.9 1.7 3.5 2.1 2.6 1.6 2.5 1.5 2.5 1.5 2.7 1.6 2.6 1.6 

R15 4.6 2.7 5.1 2.9 4.6 2.7 4.7 2.7 4.7 2.7 4.4 2.5 4.4 2.5 

R16 3.7 2.1 3.9 2.2 2.8 1.8 2.7 1.7 2.7 1.7 2.7 1.7 2.7 1.7 

R17 2.0 1.3 2.1 1.3 3.3 1.9 2.7 1.6 2.7 1.6 3.4 1.9 3.4 1.9 

R18 2.0 1.3 2.0 1.3 2.3 1.4 2.3 1.5 2.3 1.5 2.3 1.5 2.3 1.5 

R19 2.5 1.6 2.6 1.6 2.3 1.5 2.2 1.5 2.2 1.5 2.3 1.5 2.3 1.5 

R20 2.3 1.5 2.3 1.5 2.1 1.3 2.2 1.4 2.2 1.4 2.1 1.3 2.1 1.3 

R21 3.3 1.9 2.9 1.7 2.3 1.5 2.3 1.5 2.3 1.5 2.3 1.5 2.3 1.5 

R22 2.0 1.3 1.9 1.3 2.9 1.7 3.0 1.7 3.0 1.7 2.9 1.8 2.9 1.8 

R23 1.9 1.3 1.9 1.3 6.1 3.3 6.3 3.4 6.3 3.4 6.3 3.5 6.3 3.5 

R24 2.9 1.8 2.7 1.7 2.3 1.5 2.3 1.5 2.3 1.5 2.3 1.5 2.3 1.5 

R25 2.5 1.6 2.5 1.6 2.6 1.7 2.7 1.7 2.7 1.7 2.7 1.7 2.7 1.7 

Notes: Maximum 1-hr. CO concentrations include 1.7 ppm background level. Worst-case (AM orPM) shown. 

 Maximum 8-hr. CO concentrations include 1.2 ppm background level. 

 The S/NAAQS for the maximum 1-hr. CO concentration is 35.0 ppm. 

 The S/NAAQS for the maximum 8-hr. average CO concentration is 9.0 ppm.

Indicated background levels (1.7 ppm and 1.2 ppm for 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations, 

respectively) represent those levels listed on the EPA AIRS website that are closest and most 

representative of ambient conditions for the project area and were derived from the Delaware 

City monitoring site. 

The CO analysis incorporates the effect of changes/improvements in vehicle emission control 

system technologies as well as emissions regulations and standards that will be in place in 2030. 

The result is that vehicles are anticipated to be cleaner in 2030 when compared to 2010, thus 

reducing the effect on CO. Thus, many of the levels predicted for 2030 will be lower than those 

predicted for 2010. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-78

Table III-34: Predicted CO Concentration, 2030 

Brown Green 

No-Build Yellow Purple North South North 

(Preferred) South Receptor 

Number 

1-hr. 8-hr. 1-hr. 8-hr. 1-hr. 8-hr. 1-hr. 8-hr. 1-hr. 8-hr. 1-hr. 8-hr. 1-hr. 8-hr. 

R1 2.7 1.7 2.5 1.6 2.7 1.6 2.7 1.7 2.7 1.6 2.5 1.6 2.5 1.6 

R2 2.1 1.4 2.1 1.4 2.1 1.4 2.2 1.4 2.1 1.4 2.1 1.4 2.1 1.4 

R3 2.0 1.3 1.9 1.3 1.9 1.3 2.3 1.4 2.3 1.4 2.4 1.5 2.1 1.3 

R4 2.7 1.7 2.6 1.6 2.6 1.7 2.7 1.7 2.6 1.7 2.6 1.6 2.6 1.6 

R5 2.3 1.5 2.2 1.5 2.3 1.5 2.4 1.6 2.3 1.5 2.2 1.5 2.2 1.5 

R6 2.1 1.4 2.0 1.3 2.1 1.4 2.6 1.6 2.6 1.5 2.0 1.3 2.0 1.3 

R7 2.2 1.4 2.1 1.4 2.2 1.4 2.2 1.4 2.3 1.4 2.1 1.4 2.1 1.4 

R8 3.1 1.8 3.1 1.8 2.9 1.7 2.9 1.7 2.9 1.7 2.7 1.7 2.7 1.7 

R9 2.0 1.3 1.9 1.3 1.9 1.3 2.0 1.3 2.0 1.3 2.0 1.3 2.2 1.4 

R10 4.0 2.3 3.7 2.1 3.7 2.1 3.7 2.1 3.7 2.1 3.6 2.1 3.6 2.1 

R11 2.3 1.5 2.2 1.5 2.2 1.4 2.3 1.5 2.3 1.5 2.2 1.5 2.2 1.5 

R12 2.4 1.5 2.9 1.8 2.9 1.8 2.4 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.1 1.4 2.1 1.4 

R13 2.9 1.7 2.9 1.7 2.8 1.7 2.7 1.6 2.7 1.6 2.6 1.5 2.6 1.5 

R14 2.5 1.6 3.0 1.9 2.3 1.5 2.2 1.5 2.2 1.5 2.3 1.5 2.3 1.5 

R15 3.8 2.3 4.2 2.5 3.8 2.3 3.9 2.3 3.9 2.3 3.7 2.2 3.7 2.2 

R16 3.0 1.8 3.2 2.0 2.5 1.6 2.5 1.6 2.5 1.6 2.5 1.6 2.5 1.6 

R17 1.9 1.3 1.9 1.3 2.7 1.7 2.4 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.8 1.7 2.8 1.7 

R18 1.8 1.3 1.8 1.3 2.1 1.4 2.1 1.4 2.1 1.4 2.1 1.4 2.1 1.4 

R19 2.3 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.2 1.4 2.1 1.4 2.1 1.4 2.2 1.4 2.2 1.4 

R20 2.1 1.4 2.0 1.4 1.9 1.3 2.0 1.3 2.0 1.3 2.0 1.3 2.0 1.3 

R21 2.6 1.7 2.5 1.5 2.2 1.4 2.2 1.4 2.2 1.4 2.1 1.4 2.1 1.4 

R22 1.8 1.2 1.8 1.2 2.4 1.6 2.5 1.6 2.5 1.6 2.5 1.6 2.5 1.6 

R23 1.9 1.2 1.8 1.2 5.0 2.8 5.2 2.9 5.2 2.9 5.2 2.9 5.2 2.9 

R24 2.6 1.7 2.4 1.6 2.1 1.4 2.1 1.4 2.1 1.4 2.1 1.4 2.1 1.4 

R25 2.5 1.5 2.2 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.4 1.6 2.4 1.6 

Maximum 1-hr. CO concentrations include 1.7 ppm background level. Worst-case (AM orPM) shown. 

Maximum 8-hr. CO concentrations include 1.2 ppm background level. 

The S/NAAQS for the maximum 1-hr. CO concentration is 35.0 ppm. 

The S/NAAQS for the maximum 8-hr. average CO concentration is 9.0 ppm.
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-79 

Table III-35: CO Concentration at Signalized Intersections (ppm) 

US 301 at SR 299 US 301 at SR 896 

2010 2030 2010 2030 

Receptor Number No-Build Build No-Build Build No-Build Build No-Build Build 

1-hr. 8-hr. 1-hr. 8-hr. 1-hr. 8-hr. 1-hr. 8-hr.

Receptor Number 

1-hr. 8-hr. 1-hr. 8-hr. 1-hr. 8-hr. 1-hr. 8-hr.

299-1 4.8 3.1 3.5 2.4 4.1 2.6 3.0 2.0 896-1 4.8 2.7 4.2 2.4 3.9 2.3 3.4 2.1 

299-2 5.1 3.1 3.5 2.1 4.2 2.6 3.0 1.9 896-2 4.8 2.8 4.2 2.5 3.9 2.3 3.5 2.1 

299-3 5.1 3.2 3.9 2.5 4.1 2.7 3.3 2.1 896-3 5.4 3.0 5.0 2.5 4.3 2.6 4.1 2.2 

299-4 5.0 3.2 4.0 2.6 4.2 2.7 3.5 2.2 896-4 5.2 3.0 4.6 2.6 4.3 2.6 3.8 2.2 

299-5 4.5 2.8 3.0 1.9 3.8 2.4 2.9 1.7 896-5 5.5 3.1 5.1 2.6 4.4 2.6 4.1 2.2 

299-6 4.6 2.9 3.3 2.1 3.9 2.5 2.9 1.8 896-6 5.3 3.1 4.8 2.6 4.4 2.6 4.0 2.3 

299-7 3.7 2.2 2.8 1.7 3.1 2.0 2.5 1.6 896-7 4.8 2.8 4.4 2.5 4.0 2.4 3.7 2.1 

299-8 3.6 2.3 2.9 1.8 3.1 2.0 2.5 1.7 896-8 5.3 2.9 4.6 2.6 4.2 2.5 3.8 2.2 

299-9 4.1 2.4 3.0 1.8 3.4 2.0 2.7 1.6 896-9 5.1 2.7 4.6 2.2 4.1 2.3 3.8 1.9 

299-10 4.4 2.7 3.3 2.1 3.5 2.3 2.9 1.9 896-10 4.7 2.5 4.1 2.0 4.0 2.2 3.6 1.8 

299-11 4.2 2.9 3.5 2.1 3.5 2.4 2.9 1.9 896-11 4.8 2.6 4.2 2.1 3.9 2.2 3.5 1.8 

299-12 4.0 2.5 3.1 1.9 3.4 2.1 2.8 1.7 896-12 5.1 2.8 4.6 2.3 4.0 2.3 3.7 1.9 

299-13 3.8 2.6 3.1 2.0 3.3 2.2 2.7 1.8 896-13 4.6 2.8 4.2 2.4 3.8 2.3 3.5 2.1 

299-14 4.4 2.7 3.4 2.1 3.8 2.3 2.9 1.8 896-14 4.4 2.7 4.0 2.4 3.7 2.3 3.3 2.1 

299-15 4.5 2.9 3.6 2.3 3.7 2.5 3.1 2.0 896-15 4.8 2.8 4.4 2.6 4.1 2.5 3.7 2.2 

299-16 4.3 2.9 3.4 2.3 3.6 2.5 3.0 1.9 896-16 5.1 2.9 4.6 2.6 4.2 2.5 3.7 2.2 

299-17 5.0 3.0 3.8 2.2 4.2 2.6 3.4 2.0 896-17 4.7 2.6 4.2 2.2 3.9 2.2 3.6 1.9 

299-18 4.0 2.4 2.9 1.8 3.4 2.1 2.6 1.7 896-18 4.6 2.5 3.9 2.1 3.8 2.2 3.3 1.9 

299-19 4.9 2.8 3.0 1.9 3.8 2.4 2.7 1.7 896-19 4.5 2.6 4.1 2.2 3.7 2.3 3.5 1.9 

299-20 4.9 2.9 3.2 2.0 4.2 2.5 2.9 1.8 896-20 4.4 2.5 3.9 2.1 3.8 2.2 3.3 1.8 

The worst-case (AM or PM) Build scenario is shown. 

Maximum 1-hr. CO concentrations include 1.7 ppm background level. 

Maximum 8-hr. CO concentrations include 1.2 ppm background level. 

The S/NAAQS for the maximum 1-hr. CO concentration is 35.0 ppm. 

The S/NAAQS for the maximum 8-hr. average CO concentration is 9.0 ppm.
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-80

b. Consequences and Potential Mitigation 

The slight increases or decreases in relative CO concentrations under the Preferred Alternative 

are not considered an impact at any location analyzed. Therefore, no mitigation is required. A 

relative comparison of the No-Build Alternative to the build alternatives shows that CO 

concentrations generally remain the same. There are slight increases or decreases in CO 

concentrations that can be attributed to shifts in the roadway alignments and altered traffic 

patterns on existing and proposed roadways. Increases are typically seen at receptors that are 

located near a proposed alignment that are currently located away from major roadways. 

Differences in CO concentrations at receptors range from 0 to 4.4 ppm. Reductions in CO 

concentration are typically seen at receptors adjacent to existing roadways that are projected to 

facilitate less traffic volume when the proposed alignment is constructed. Reductions typically 

range from 0 to 1.9 ppm. 

5. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs)

In accordance with the USDOT FHWA Memorandum INFORMATION: Interim Guidance on 

Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents (February 3, 2006), this document also considers the 

potential increases of Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) within the project area as a result of a 

build alternative, when compared to the No-Build Alternative. A qualitative discussion of 

localized MSAT impacts is provided in Chapter III.K.

D. Noise 

This section details the evaluation of potential noise impacts caused by the US 301 project. 

Following a discussion of noise/activity relationships, a summary is presented of existing noise 

conditions and development of projected noise that may result upon implementation of a build 

alternative. Impacts to noise sensitive receptors are identified, and potential mitigation for 

impacts is discussed. 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has issued guidelines for noise evaluation as 

established in Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, Procedures for 

Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. Highway traffic noise studies, 

noise abatement procedures, coordination requirements and design noise levels in CFR Part 772 

constitute the noise standards mandated by 23 U.S.C. 109(i). Design noise levels for various 

types of activity (land use) categories are summarized in the following section. 

1. Existing Conditions

a. Criteria for Determining Noise Impacts 

To describe noise environments and to assess impact on noise sensitive areas, a frequency 

weighting measure that simulates human subjective response to noise is customarily selected. 

A-weighted ratings of noise sources which reflect the human ear's reduced sensitivity to low 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-81

frequencies have been found to correlate strongly with human perceptions of the annoying 

aspects of noise, particularly from traffic noise sources. Consequently A-weighted noise levels, 

described in decibels-A (dBA), are the values cited by FHWA in its noise criteria indicated in 

Table III-36.

Most environmental noise fluctuates from moment to moment. To correlate noise environments 

with community annoyance, a single-number noise descriptor called the equivalent sound level 

(Leq), which characterizes the fluctuating sound, is commonly used. The Leq is the value or level 

of a steady, non-fluctuating sound that represents the same amount of acoustical energy over the 

same period of time. For traffic noise assessment, Leq is typically evaluated over a one-hour 

period, Leq(h).

The design noise levels indicated in Table III-36 have been used to determine highway traffic 

noise impacts and the need for considering abatement measures associated with different land 

uses or activities in existence at the time of project design. Noise-sensitive land uses potentially 

affected by the proposed improvements are in activity categories B and C. The following Noise 

Abatement Criteria (NAC) are applicable: Leq equals 67 dBA (exterior) for residential areas, 

churches, schools etc. where outdoor activity is present, and Leq equals 72 dBA (exterior) for 

industrial areas. When the predicted design-year build alternative noise levels in the project area 

approach or exceed the NAC, noise impact occurs, and consideration of traffic noise reduction 

measures is necessary. 

Table III-36: FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria/Activity Relationships 

Activity 

Category

Design Noise Level 

Leq(h) Description of Activity Category 

A 57 dBA 

(Exterior) 

Land on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an 

important public need, and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the 

area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. 

B

67 dBA 

(Exterior) 

Residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, picnic areas, 

recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, and parks. 

C 72 dBA 

(Exterior) Developed lands, properties or activities not included in categories A and B above. 

D -- Undeveloped lands. 

E

52 dBA 

(Interior)

Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals 

and auditoriums. 

In December 1993, the FHWA issued a memorandum to provide guidance on interpreting the 

word “approach” in section 772.5(g) of 23 CFR. The FHWA defined noise levels that 

“approach” the noise abatement criteria to be 1 dBA less than the Noise Abatement Criteria. 

Criteria adopted by DelDOT for the determination of an impacted receptor under the State Noise 

Abatement Policy are summarized as follows: 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-82

Loudest hour Leq A-weighted noise levels. 

Design year noise levels approach or exceed the NAC levels. 

Design year noise levels substantially exceed existing noise levels (10 dBA or more). 

b. Analysis Procedures and Methodology 

This analysis was conducted in accordance with standard FHWA guidelines and current DelDOT 

procedures and policies. The analysis began with the determination of existing noise levels 

along the project corridor in order to assess the traffic noise contributions on the neighboring 

noise sensitive areas. Future proposed design year 2030 alternatives noise calculations and 

predictions were performed using FHWA-approved methods. The noise predictions were 

performed with the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM) version 2.5 (FHWA-PD-96-009). The 

model incorporates vehicle noise emission levels, updated for modern vehicle classification, 

traffic speed and traffic volume, sound propagation factors from atmospheric absorption, 

divergence, intervening ground, intervening barriers, and intervening rows of buildings and areas 

of heavy vegetation. 

c. Measured and Predicted Existing Noise Levels 

In order to determine the existing noise characteristics within the project corridor, ambient noise 

measurements were recorded in the field during July and August 2005. Short-term ambient 

noise measurements of 15 minutes were conducted at each noise sensitive area as shown in 

Figure III-10 and on the Preferred Alternative mapping in Appendix B.

A Noise Sensitive Area (NSA) represents a community of properties (receptors) that could be 

impacted by traffic noise resulting from the proposed roadway alignments. The NSA could 

consist of residences, historic properties, schools, churches and other facilities with common 

outdoor use areas (refer to Table III-36, Activity Category B). Several noise monitors were 

placed in each NSA for a specific period of time, including peak and non-peak periods, in order 

to establish an accurate representation of the noise environment. 

Where appropriate, monitors were positioned in an array configuration to provide a 

representation of noise levels perpendicular to the mainline traffic source. This allows the ability 

to interpolate noise levels between receptor sites. Additionally, this array configuration provides 

sufficient noise information to allow the projection of noise levels along the mainline corridor 

(where terrain features are similar) to represent other properties within the NSA. 

Table III-37 shows measured ambient and predicted peak noise data in one-hour equivalent 

sound levels (Leq). Predicted noise levels were calculated to 0.1 dBA and then rounded to the 

nearest whole integer. 
)p

AØ

)p

AØ

?Î

)p

Warwick

Middletown

Townsend

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

Old School House Rd

Bohemia Mill Rd

Choptank Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Noxontown Rd

Silverlake Rd

Main St

Money Rd

Bunker Hill Rd

S Broad St

Levels Rd

Strawberry La

Grears Corner Rd

Green Giant Rd

Wiggins Mill Rd

Church Rd

Great

Bohemia

Creek

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove

Nest Branch

Noxontown

Pond

Silver

Lake

Sandy

Branch

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Matapeake

Country

Acres

Wheatland

Springmill

The

Legends Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Post and

Rail Farms

Back Meadowbrook Farms

Creek

Match

Line

B Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

13

15

16

8

7

11 10

18

G

H-30

H-29

H-28

H-27

JC-4

CL-6

MV-11

SO-1 A-1

MA-1

OS-1

BH-1

SM-5

SM-4

SM-3

SM-2 LG-1

SA-1

9

S-2

S-1

S-3 S-5S-6

C-4

H-4

H-9

H-3

H-7

H-5

C-3 C-5

H-2

H-8

H-1

H-6

C-1 C-2

M-1

H-11

H-13

H-12

H-25

JC-1

H-10

H-14

H-15

CL-2

CL-5

CL-3

CL-4

SR-2

PR-2

SR-3

PR-5 PR-1

SR-4 SR-5

PR-4

PR-3

SR-1

MV-2

MV-3

MV-5

MV-9

MV-8

MV-6

MV-7

MV-4

SM-1

CM-1

MM-6

MM-3

MM-4

MM-5

MV-10

S-4

MV-1

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-10A

Source: RK&K, 2005

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

US 301 Project Development

Noise Monitor Locations

and Noise Sensitive Areas

Delaware

Department of

Transportation

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

NSA Retained Area

Noise Monitoring Site

Receptor - Modeled Only
AÝ

)p

?¡

?Î

AÝ

)p

)h

?¡

AÝ

)h

?¡

)h

AØ

)p

Middletown

Odessa

St Georges Rd

Rd

Red Lion Rd

Cox Neck Rd

Summit

Bridge

d

Summit Bridge Rd

Old School House Rd

Choptank Rd

Bethel Church Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Ratledge Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Bayview Rd

Vance Neck Rd

Hyetts Corner Rd

Jamison Corner Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Main St

Old Corbit Rd

Lums

Pond

Chesapeake

Joy

Run

Run

Scott

Creek

Augustine

Creek

Drawyer

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove Nest Branch

River

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Boyds

Corner

Saint

Georges

Springmill

The

Legends Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Greylag

Commodore

Estates

Lorewood

Estates

Airmont

Acres

Mount

Hope

Summit

Pond

Dickerson

Farm

Post and

Rail Farms

Meadowbrook Farms

Grande

View

Farms

Asbury

Chase

Bolton

Meadows

Odessa

Heights

Spring

Oaks

m

and Delaware

Canal

B

Match

Line

Summit

Airport

o

Summit

Farms

G

GN

GS

BN

BS

B Y

P

Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

17

13 14

12

15

4 5

1 2

3

16

6

8

7

11 10

G

RA-1

SG-1

H-31

H-30

H-29

H-28

H-27

JC-4

CL-6

MV-11

SO-1 A-1

MA-1

OS-1

BH-1

SM-5

SM-4

SM-3

SM-2 LG-1

H-26

BC-1

SA-1

9

C-4

H-9

C-3 C-5

H-8

C-1 C-2

M-1

H-11

LE-1 SF-3

LE-2

SF-4

PF-1

SF-2

PF-2

LE-4

LE-5

SF-1

LE-3

PF-3

SF-5

H-20

H-13

H-22

H-12

JC-3

H-21

JC-2

H-24

H-16

H-25

JC-1

H-10

H-19

H-18

H-14

H-15

CL-1

CL-2

CL-5

CL-3

CL-4

SP-3

SP-1

SP-2

SB-2

SR-2

PR-2

SR-3

PR-5 PR-1

SR-4

SB-5

SR-5

SB-3

PR-4

SB-4

SB-1

PR-3

SR-1

GV-4

GV-2

GV-6

GV-1

GV-5

CR-1

CR-2

MV-2

MV-3

MV-5

MV-9

MV-8

MV-6

MV-7

MV-4

SM-1

AM-3

CM-1

CM-5

AM-1 AM-2

AM-5

AM-4

MM-1

MM-2

MM-6

MM-3

MM-5

MV-10

GV-3

MV-1

CM-2

CM-4

CM-3

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-10B

Source: RK&K, 2005

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

US 301 Project Development

Noise Monitor Locations

and Noise Sensitive Areas

Delaware

Department of

Transportation

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

NSA Retained Area

Noise Monitoring Site

Receptor - Modeled Only
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

NOTES: Shading indicates existing receptor is impacted (66 dBA or higher). 

 -- indicates receptor level is peak calculated-only. 

 (46) Indicates value was calculated using comparable receptors in the area. 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-85

Table III-37: Existing Noise Levels 

Noise 

Sensitive 

Area 

Receptor Community or Historic Name Address Location Notes 

Measured 

Ambient 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Existing 

Peak 

Hour Leq 

(dBA) 

LE-1 Lea Eara Farms 323 Jessica Dr. 57 58 

LE-2 Lea Eara Farms 106 W. Cedarwood Dr. 49 49 

LE-3 Lea Eara Farms 669 Old Summit Bridge Rd. 57 55 

LE-4 Lea Eara Farms 421 Maplewood Dr. 45 44 

1 

LE-5 Lea Eara Farms 121 E. Cedarwood Dr. 45 46 

SF-1 Summit Farms Lorewood Grove Rd. Across from 1520 Lorewood Grove Rd. 56 56 

SF-2 Summit Farms 318 John Randal Dr. 46 46 

SF-3 Summit Farms 1370 Lorewood Grove Rd. 47 47 

SF-4 Summit Farms 210 Sheats Ln. 50 50 

SF-5 Summit Farms 224 Sheats Ln. 48 46 

2 

H-26 S. Rothwell House 669 Old Summit Bridge Rd. -- 58 

SB-1 Summit Bridge Farms 117 Delaware Canal Ct. E 50 59

SB-2 Summit Bridge Farms 108 Laks Dr. 48 52

SB-3 Summit Bridge Farms 133 Delaware Canal Ct. E 45 48

SB-4 Summit Bridge Farms 120 Laks Dr. 41 45

3 

SB-5 Summit Bridge Farms 138 Delaware Canal Ct. E 43 44

SP-1 Summit Pond Victoria Dr. Entrance 72 72 

SP-2 Summit Pond 911 Waterlilly Ln. 50 52 

SP-3 Summit Pond 720 Victoria Dr. 46 50 

4 

H-16 A. Eliason House 4353 Summit Bridge Rd -- 70 

BC-1 Boyds Corner at US 301 -- 68 

CR-1 Crystal Run Farm 226 Waterford Dr. 47 47 

CR-2 Crystal Run Farm 135 Crystal Run Dr. 39 38 

5 

RA-1 Ratledge Road 450 Ratledge Road -- (46) 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

NOTES: Shading indicates existing receptor is impacted (66 dBA or higher). 

 -- indicates receptor level is peak calculated-only. 

 (46) Indicates value was calculated using comparable receptors in the area. 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-86

Table III-37: Existing Noise Levels 

Noise 

Sensitive 

Area 

Receptor Community or Historic Name Address Location Notes 

Measured 

Ambient 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Existing 

Peak 

Hour Leq 

(dBA) 

CM-1 Chesapeake Meadow 208 Deerfield Dr. 47 47 

CM-2 Dickerson Farm 600 Schoonover Ln. 51 51 

CM-3 Chesapeake Meadow 26 Meadow Ln. -- (47) 

CM-4 Dickerson Farm 313 W. Dickerson Lane 51 51 

6 

CM-5 Dickerson Farm 523 E. Creek Ln. 49 49 

BH-1 Bohemia Mill Road West 1203 Sharp Ln. -- 60 

MA-1 Matapeake 100 Sassafras Dr. -- 43 

PR-1 Post and Rail Farms 1542 Choptank Rd. 58 58 

PR-2 Post and Rail Farms 1620 Choptank Rd. 54 54 

PR-3 Post and Rail Farms 830 Old School House Rd. 52 52 

PR-4 Post and Rail Farms 102 Saddle Dr. 51 51 

PR-5 Post and Rail Farms 116 Saddle Dr. 47 47 

H-8 Rosedale 1143 Bunker Hill Rd -- (46) 

H-10 S. Holton Farm 2010 Choptank Rd -- 46 

7 

H-28 Choptank 1542 Choptank Rd. -- (46) 

C-1 n/a 416 Armstrong Corner Rd. 54 54 

C-2 n/a 5036 Summit Bridge Rd. 62 62 

C-3 n/a 5036 Summit Bridge Rd. 64 69 

C-4 n/a 617 Marl Pit Rd. 59 59 

C-5 n/a 617 Marl Pit Rd. -- 43 

LG-1 The Legends West 10 Couples Ct. -- 53 

OS-1 Old Schoolhouse Rd. at US 301 626 Old Schoolhouse Rd. -- 48 

SM-1 Springmill Carter Dr. Open space around 201 Carter Dr. 57 57 

8 

SM-2 Springmill Windmill Lane -- 62 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

NOTES: Shading indicates existing receptor is impacted (66 dBA or higher). 

 -- indicates receptor level is peak calculated-only. 

 (46) Indicates value was calculated using comparable receptors in the area. 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-87

Table III-37: Existing Noise Levels 

Noise 

Sensitive 

Area 

Receptor Community or Historic Name Address Location Notes 

Measured 

Ambient 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Existing 

Peak 

Hour Leq 

(dBA) 

SM-3 Springmill Whispering Trail -- 55 

SM-4 Springmill Daylily Way -- 41 

SM-5 Springmill Springmill Drive -- 35 

H-9 R.G. Hayes House 5187 Summit Bridge Rd. -- 66 

H-11 Armstrong-Walker House 5036 Summit Bridge Rd. -- 67 

H-12 Achmester North Side of Marl Pit Rd. One mile east of Summit Bridge Rd. -- (46) 

H-14 Weston; S. Brady Farm 4677 Summit Bridge Rd. -- 51 

8 

H-15 Mt. Pleasant Farm 4564 Summit Bridge Rd. -- 48 

MV-1 Middletown Village Liborio Dr. Next to 203 Liborio Dr. -- 47 

MV-2 Middletown Village 112 Sandhill Rd. 58 58 

MV-3 Middletown Village 110 Sleepy Hollow Dr. 50 50 

MV-4 Middletown Village 766 Marian Dr. 62 62 

MV-5 Middletown Village Peterson Rd. Across from 333 Liborio Dr. 55 55 

MV-6 Middletown Village 1106 Bunker Hill Rd. 50 50 

MV-7 Middletown Village Ash Blvd. Across from 324 Vincent Circle. 51 51 

MV-8 Middletown Village 828 Woodline Dr. 45 45 

MV-9 Middletown Village Ash Blvd. Open space behind Dove Nest Ct. -- 44 

MV-10 Middletown Village 334 E. Harvest Ln. 56 56 

9 

MV-11 Middletown Village 125 Foxtail Ln. -- 57 

10 M-1 Middletown 691 Broad St. 54 54 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

NOTES: Shading indicates existing receptor is impacted (66 dBA or higher). 

 -- indicates receptor level is peak calculated-only. 

 (46) Indicates value was calculated using comparable receptors in the area. 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-88

Table III-37: Existing Noise Levels 

Noise 

Sensitive 

Area 

Receptor Community or Historic Name Address Location Notes 

Measured 

Ambient 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Existing 

Peak 

Hour Leq 

(dBA) 

A-1 Appoquinimink High School 1080 Bunker Hill Road -- 46 

SO-1 Southridge 15 Palisade Circle -- 46 

SR-1 n/a Bunker Hill Rd. Across from 1106 Bunker Hill Rd. -- 40 

SR-2 n/a 1106 Bunker Hill Rd. 64 64 

SR-3 n/a Bunker Hill Rd. Across from 441 Toftrees Dr. 61 61 

SR-4 n/a Bunker Hill Rd. Across from 122 Sandhill Dr. 62 62 

SR-5 n/a Bunker Hill Rd. South of 1022 Bunker Hill Rd. 61 68 

11 

H-25 The Maples North Side of Bunker Hill Rd. 0.6 miles NW of Middletown Warwick Rd. -- 56 

AM-1 Airmont Acres 502 Davis Ct. 52 52 

AM-2 Airmont Acres 236 Oak Dr. 51 51 

AM-3 n/a Lorewood Grove / Ratledge Across from 1166 Lorewood Grove Rd. 48 48 

AM-4 Airmont Acres 784 Lorewood Grove Rd. 66 66 

AM-5 n/a Lorewood Grove Rd. Across from 1871 S. Dupont Hwy. 68 68 

12 

SG-1 St. Georges Technical High School 555 Hyetts Corner Rd. -- 51 

JC-1 n/a Boyds Corner Rd. Across from 1131 Jamison Corner Rd. 51 51 

JC-2 n/a 1000 Jamison Corner Rd. 49 49 

JC-3 n/a Jamison Corner Rd. Across from 100 Scott Run Blvd. 51 51 

JC-4 1075 Jamison Corner Rd. -- 43 

H-22 S.F. Shallcross House 1049 Boyds Corner Rd. -- 55 

13 

H-24 J. Houston House 1000 Jamison Corner Rd. -- 49 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

NOTES: Shading indicates existing receptor is impacted (66 dBA or higher). 

 -- indicates receptor level is peak calculated-only. 

 (46) Indicates value was calculated using comparable receptors in the area. 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-89

Table III-37: Existing Noise Levels 

Noise 

Sensitive 

Area 

Receptor Community or Historic Name Address Location Notes 

Measured 

Ambient 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Existing 

Peak 

Hour Leq 

(dBA) 

GV-1 Grande View Farms 203 Milford Dr. 57 57 

GV-2 Grande View Farms 258 Milford Dr. 55 55 

GV-3 Grande View Farms 203 Red Fox Ct. 47 47 

GV-4 Grande View Farms 149 Jane Ct. 56 56 

GV-5 Grande View Farms 320 Hyetts Corner Rd. 52 52 

GV-6 Grande View Farms 864 Bullen Dr. 62 62 

14 

H-19 Fairview 350 Hyetts Corner Rd. -- 58 

CL-1 n/a 562 Boyds Corner Rd. 69 69 

CL-2 Cedar Lane Elementary and Middle Schools 1259 Cedar Lane Rd. 68 68 

CL-3 n/a Emerson Rd. West of 404 Emerson Rd. 57 57 

CL-4 Chestnut Grove 201 Chestnut Way 51 51 

CL-5 n/a 617 Marl Pit 65 65 

CL-6 Cedar Lane Elementary and Middle Schools 1235 Cedar Lane -- 60 

H-13 Lovett Farm 1405 Cedar Lane Rd. -- (46) 

H-29 T. J. Houston House 1309 Cedar Lane Rd. -- (46) 

15 

SA-1 Cedar Lane Elementary School 1235 Cedar Lane Rd. -- 64 

MM-1 Biggs Farm Bethel Church Rd. North of 1151 Choptank Rd. -- 57 

MM-2 Biggs Farm Bethel Church Rd. North of 1151 Choptank Rd. -- 42 

MM-3 Back Creek 105 Joshua Ct. -- 49 

MM-4 Back Creek 103 Saint Andrews Ct. -- 38 

MM-5 Fox Hunter Crossing 116 Senator Dr. -- 62 

MM-6 Fox Hunter Crossing 116 Colonel Clayton Dr. -- 44 

H-27 Woodside 1370 Choptank Rd. -- 58 

16 

H-31 Gov. Benjamin Biggs Farm 1196 Choptank Rd. -- 47 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

NOTES: Shading indicates existing receptor is impacted (66 dBA or higher). 

 -- indicates receptor level is peak calculated-only. 

 (46) Indicates value was calculated using comparable receptors in the area. 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-90

Table III-37: Existing Noise Levels 

Noise 

Sensitive 

Area 

Receptor Community or Historic Name Address Location Notes 

Measured 

Ambient 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Existing 

Peak 

Hour Leq 

(dBA) 

PF-1 Penfield Farms 2106 S. Dupont Hwy. N 61 61 

PF-2 Penfield Farms S. Dupont Hwy. N East of 336 Port Penn Rd. 57 57 

PF-3 Penfield Farms 381 Port Penn Road 62 62 

H-18 Idalia Manor; 1870 S. Dupont Highway -- 59 

H-20 Retirement Farm 2256 Dupont Hwy N -- 49 

17 

H-21 Elm Grange 2424 S. Dupont Highway -- 64 

S-1 n/a 1963 Middle Neck Rd. 58 58 

S-2 n/a 1963 Middle Neck Rd. 50 50 

S-3 n/a 1963 Middle Neck Rd. 60 60 

S-4 n/a 1963 Middle Neck Rd. -- 54 

S-5 n/a 1963 Middle Neck Rd. 57 59 

S-6 n/a 1963 Middle Neck Rd. -- 68 

H-1 Shahan Farm 389 Strawberry Ln. -- (46) 

H-2 B.F. Hanson House 1102 Middletown Warwick Rd. -- 61 

H-3 C. Polk House Estate 929 Middletown Warwick Rd. -- 56 

H-4 Rumsey Farm 841 Middletown Warwick Rd. -- 52 

H-5 Summerton 840 Middletown Warwick Rd. -- 62 

H-6 Hedgelawn 772 Middletown Warwick Rd. -- 60 

18 

H-7 Cochran Grange 704 Middletown Warwick Rd. -- 60 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-91

2. Environmental Consequences

a. Predicted Future Noise Levels 

FHWA requires noise to be analyzed in the “loudest noise hour” of the day. As noted 

previously, ambient measurements may not reflect the loudest hour of the day. The loudest noise 

hour traffic condition represents a combination of vehicle volume, classification mix and speed 

to produce the worst traffic noise condition that would be experienced along the project corridor. 

For existing conditions within the project area, the loudest noise hour typically occurs during the 

highest traffic volume conditions along existing US 301. 

Future noise levels were predicted at receptor locations within influence of traffic noise for each 

retained alternative. Peak traffic volumes for the alternatives were predicted for the design year 

2030. These volumes consist of peak AM or PM traffic flow, whichever is greater, and do not 

exceed LOS E. Volumes in excess of LOS E result in an inconsistent noise level, with excessive 

periods of low speed combined with stop and go movement. For any area where traffic volumes 

could exceed LOS E, volumes would be capped to create the loudest noise condition. 

Predicted existing and future noise levels for the No-Build and the Preferred Alternatives are 

shown in Table III-38. The predicted existing and future noise levels for the retained 

alternatives, as shown in the DEIS, including the No-Build Alternative are shown in Table 

III-39. Predicted noise levels were calculated to 0.1 dBA and then rounded to the nearest whole 

integer. The noise levels of the retained alternatives, as shown Table III-39, were considered 

during the evaluation and selection of a Preferred Alternative. 

Impacted receptors in the tables are shaded. An impact occurs if a receptor has a design-year 

predicted noise level of 66 dBA or greater (dark grey shading) or if a receptor experiences an 

increase of 10 dBA or greater than existing noise levels (light grey shading). For example, a 

receptor with an existing noise level of 47 dBA that would experience a design-year predicted 

noise level of 57 dBA or greater would be considered impacted. 

Total impacts for each alternative, as shown on Tables III-38 and III-39, are not determined by 

the number of impacted receptors, rather by the number of impacted residences that are 

represented by those receptors. 

Noise impacts were reanalyzed for the Preferred Alternative alignment (Green North) following 

engineering design refinements described in Chapter II. The results shown in Table III-38 for 

the Preferred Alternative reflect those changes. The Preferred Alternative will have a total of 

133 residential noise impacts. Adjacent to the Southridge community, the alignment was shifted 

closer to the community and away from the Appoquinimink High School, so that the number of 

impacted residences at NSA 11 (which represents the Southridge community) increased from 7, 

as reported in the DEIS, to 75. As stated later in this section (see Table III-47), most of these 

impacts would be mitigated by a proposed visual earth berm. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-92

Table III-38: Predicted Noise Impacts of the Preferred Alternative (before Berms) 

2030 

Noise 

Sensitive 

Area 

Receptor Community Address 

Existing 

Peak Hour 

Leq 

(dBA) 

No-Build 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Preferred 

Alternative

Leq 

(dBA) 

 LE-1 Lea Eara Farms 323 Jessica Dr. 58 61 61 

 LE-2 Lea Eara Farms 106 W. Cedarwood Dr. 49 52 52 

 LE-3 Lea Eara Farms 669 Old Summit Bridge Rd. 55 58 58 

 LE-4 Lea Eara Farms 421 Maplewood Dr. 44 46 47 

1 

 LE-5 Lea Eara Farms 121 E. Cedarwood Dr. 46 49 49 

 SB-1 Summit Bridge Farms 117 Delaware Canal Ct. E 59 62 59 

 SB-2 Summit Bridge Farms 108 Laks Dr. 52 55 53 

 SB-3 Summit Bridge Farms 133 Delaware Canal Ct. E 48 51 49 

 SB-4 Summit Bridge Farms 120 Laks Dr. 45 48 51 

3 

 SB-5 Summit Bridge Farms 138 Delaware Canal Ct. E 44 48 46 

 CM-1 Chesapeake Meadow 208 Deerfield Dr. 47 47 53 

 CM-2 Dickerson Farm 600 Schoonover Ln. 51 51 43 

 CM-3 Chesapeake Meadow 26 Meadow Ln. 47 47 60 

6 

 CM-4 Dickerson Farm 313 W. Dickerson Lane 51 51 43 

BH-1 Bohemia Mill Road West 1203 Sharp Ln. 60 68 58 

MA-1 Matapeake 100 Sassafrass Dr. 43 51 48 

 PR-1 Fox Hunter Crossing 1542 Choptank Rd. 58 58 60 

 PR-2 n/a 1620 Choptank Rd. 54 54 45 

 PR-4 Post and Rail Farms 102 Saddle Dr. 51 51 44 

 PR-5 Post and Rail Farms 116 Saddle Dr. 47 47 45 

 H-8 Rosedale; Mary Del Farm 1143 Bunker Hill Rd. (46) 51 53 

 H-10 S. Holton Farm 2010 Choptank Rd. 46 54 59 

7 

H-28 Choptank; J. Clayton Farm 1542 Choptank Road (46) 48 46 

 C-1 n/a 416 Armstrong Corner Rd. 54 54 58 

 C-2 n/a 5036 Summit Bridge Rd. 62 62 67 

 C-3 n/a 5036 Summit Bridge Rd. 69 69 67 

SM-4 Springmill Daylily Way (46) (46) 53 

SM-5 Springmill Springmill Dr. 35 35 43 

 H-11 Armstrong-Walker House 5036 Summit Bridge Rd. 67 67 66 

H-12 Achmester North side of Marl Pit Rd. (46) (46) -- 

8 

H-14 Weston 4677 Summit Bridge Road 51 52 -- 

 MV-6 Middletown Village 1106 Bunker Hill Rd. 50 50 46 

9 MV-8 Middletown Village 828 Woodline Dr. 45 45 57 

 MV-9 Middletown Village Ash Blvd. 41 43 46 

A-1 Appoquinimink High School 1080 Bunker Hill Rd. (46) (46) 59 

SO-1 Southridge 15 Palisade Circle (46) (46) 62 

 SR-2 n/a 1106 Bunker Hill Rd. 64 64 67 

11 

 H-25 The Maples North Side of Bunker Hill Rd. 56 65 60 

 AM-1 Airmont Acres 502 Davis Ct. 52 52 57 

12 AM-2 Airmont Acres 236 Oak Dr. 51 51 59 

SG-1 St. Georges Technical High School 555 Hyetts Corner Rd. 51 51 60 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-93

Table III-38: Predicted Noise Impacts of the Preferred Alternative (before Berms) 

2030 

Noise 

Sensitive 

Area 

Receptor Community Address 

Existing 

Peak Hour 

Leq 

(dBA) 

No-Build 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Preferred 

Alternative

Leq 

(dBA) 

 JC-3 n/a Jamison Corner Rd. 51 51 57 13 

 H-24 J. Houston House 1000 Jamison Corner Rd. 49 49 -- 

14 H-19 Fairview 350 Hyetts Corner Rd. 58 60 -- 

 H-13 Lovett Farm 1405 Cedar Lane Rd. (46) (46) -- 

15 H-29 T. J. Houston House 1309 Cedar Lane Rd. (46) (46) 49 

SA-1 Cedar Lane Elementary School 1235 Cedar Lane Rd. 64 64 65 

 MM-1 Biggs Farm Bethel Church Rd. 57 64 54 

 MM-2 Biggs Farm Bethel Church Rd. 42 50 45 

 MM-3 Back Creek 105 Joshua Ct. 49 56 47 

 MM-4 Back Creek 103 Saint Andrews Ct. 38 46 40 

 MM-5 Fox Hunter Crossing 116 Senator Dr. 62 69 59 

 MM-6 Fox Hunter Crossing 116 Colonel Clayton Dr. 44 52 44 

H-27 Woodside 1370 Choptank Rd 58 63 55 

16 

H-31 Biggs Farm 1196 Choptank Rd 47 56 50 

 PF-1 Penfield Farms 2106 S. Dupont Hwy. N 61 61 68 

17 PF-2 Penfield Farms S. Dupont Hwy. N 57 57 54 

 H-18 Idalia Manor 1870 S. Dupont Highway 59 63 63 

 S-1 n/a 1963 Middle Neck Rd. 58 58 54 

 S-2 n/a 1963 Middle Neck Rd. 50 50 57 

 S-3 n/a 1963 Middle Neck Rd. 60 60 62 

 S-6 n/a 1963 Middle Neck Rd. 68 69 67 

 H-1 Shahan Farm 389 Strawberry Ln. (46) (46) -- 

 H-2 B.F. Hanson House 1102 Middletown Warwick Rd. 61 63 59 

 H-3 C. Polk House Estate 929 Middletown Warwick Rd. 56 56 56 

 H-4 Rumsey Farm 841 Middletown Warwick Rd. 52 53 52 

 H-5 Summerton 840 Middletown Warwick Rd. 62 63 61 

 H-6 Hedgelawn 772 Middletown Warwick Rd. 60 60 -- 

18 

 H-7 Cochran Grange 704 Middletown Warwick Rd. 60 59 -- 

 TOTAL Number of Residential Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 133 

NOTES: Dark grey shading indicates impacted receptor (66 dBA or higher). 

 Light grey shading indicates impacted receptor (10 dBA or greater than existing). 

 -- indicates receptor is not influenced by the alternative traffic noise (> 1,500 feet distant). 

 (46) indicates value was calculated using comparable receptors in the project area.

Table III-39 includes the noise impacts modeled for all of the historic properties that were 

assessed for adverse effects (refer to Chapter III.B), even though they might not fall within the 

1,500-foot distance where there is no influence from traffic on the Preferred Alternative. Noise 

impacts to historic properties are further discussed in Chapter III.B. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

NOTES: 

Dark grey shading indicates impacted receptor (66 dBA or higher). 

Light grey shading indicates impacted receptor (10 dBA or greater than existing). 

-- indicates receptor is not influenced by the alternative traffic noise (> 1,500 feet distant). 

(46) indicates value was calculated using comparable receptors in the project area. 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-94

Table III-39: Predicted Design Year 2030 Noise Levels for the Retained Alternatives

Design Year 2030 Noise 

Sensitive 

Area 

Receptor Community or Historic Site Name Address 

Existing 

Peak Hour

Leq 

(dBA) 

No-Build 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Yellow 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Purple 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Brown-N

Leq 

(dBA) 

Brown-S

Leq 

(dBA) 

Green-N 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Green-S 

Leq 

(dBA) 

 LE-1 Lea Eara Farms 323 Jessica Dr. 58 61 -- 61 62 61 61 61 

 LE-2 Lea Eara Farms 106 W. Cedarwood Dr. 49 52 -- 52 60 51 52 52 

 LE-3 Lea Eara Farms 669 Old Summit Bridge Rd. 55 58 -- 58 68 57 58 58 

 LE-4 Lea Eara Farms 421 Maplewood Dr. 44 46 -- 47 50 46 47 47 

1 

 LE-5 Lea Eara Farms 121 E. Cedarwood Dr. 46 49 -- 49 54 49 49 49 

 SF-1 Summit Farms Lorewood Grove Rd. 56 56 -- -- 53 46 -- -- 

 SF-2 Summit Farms 318 John Randal Dr. 46 46 -- -- 52 47 -- -- 

 SF-3 Summit Farms 1370 Lorewood Grove Rd. 47 47 -- -- 48 45 -- -- 

 SF-4 Summit Farms 210 Sheats Ln. 50 50 -- -- 48 43 -- -- 

 SF-5 Summit Farms 224 Sheats Ln. 46 46 -- -- 45 42 -- -- 

2 

H-26 S. Rothwell House 669 Old Summit Bridge Rd. 58 61 -- -- 62 -- -- -- 

 SB-1 Summit Bridge Farms 117 Delaware Canal Ct. E 59 62 62 59 59 61 59 59 

 SB-2 Summit Bridge Farms 108 Laks Dr. 52 55 55 52 58 55 52 52 

 SB-3 Summit Bridge Farms 133 Delaware Canal Ct. E 48 51 51 49 53 52 49 49 

 SB-4 Summit Bridge Farms 120 Laks Dr. 45 48 48 49 54 51 49 49 

3 

 SB-5 Summit Bridge Farms 138 Delaware Canal Ct. E 44 48 47 47 50 54 47 47 

 SP-1 Summit Pond Victoria Dr. Entrance 72 75 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

 SP-2 Summit Pond 911 Waterlily Ln. 52 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

 SP-3 Summit Pond 720 Victoria Dr. 50 53 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

4 

 H-16 A. Eliason House 4353 Summit Bridge Rd. 70 73 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

BC-1 Boyds Corner at US 301 475 Boyds Corner Road 68 70 70 -- -- -- -- -- 

 CR-1 Crystal Run Farm 226 Waterford Dr. 47 43 43 -- -- -- -- -- 

 CR-2 Crystal Run Farm 135 Crystal Run Dr. 38 40 40 -- -- -- -- -- 

5 

RA-1 Ratledge Road 450 Ratledge Road (46) 46 -- -- -- -- 62 -- 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

NOTES: 

Dark grey shading indicates impacted receptor (66 dBA or higher). 

Light grey shading indicates impacted receptor (10 dBA or greater than existing). 

-- indicates receptor is not influenced by the alternative traffic noise (> 1,500 feet distant). 

(46) indicates value was calculated using comparable receptors in the project area. 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-95

Table III-39: Predicted Design Year 2030 Noise Levels for the Retained Alternatives

Design Year 2030 Noise 

Sensitive 

Area 

Receptor Community or Historic Site Name Address 

Existing 

Peak Hour

Leq 

(dBA) 

No-Build 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Yellow 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Purple 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Brown-N

Leq 

(dBA) 

Brown-S

Leq 

(dBA) 

Green-N 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Green-S 

Leq 

(dBA) 

 CM-1 Chesapeake Meadow 208 Deerfield Dr. 47 47 -- 52 57 55 52 52 

 CM-2 Dickerson Farm 600 Schoonover Ln. 51 51 -- 43 47 45 43 43 

 CM-3 Chesapeake Meadow 26 Meadow Ln. 47 47 -- 60 63 59 60 60 

 CM-4 Dickerson Farm 313 W. Dickerson Lane 51 51 -- 43 47 46 43 43 

6 

 CM-5 Dickerson Farm 523 E. Creek Ln. 49 49 -- -- 45 47 -- -- 

BH-1 Bohemia Mill Road West 1203 Sharp Ln. 60 68 61 58 58 58 58 58 

MA-1 Matapeake 100 Sassafrass Dr. 43 51 -- 47 47 47 47 47 

 PR-1 Fox Hunter Crossing 1542 Choptank Rd. 58 58 -- 60 67 67 60 60 

 PR-2 n/a 1620 Choptank Rd. 54 54 -- 45 49 49 45 45 

 PR-3 n/a 830 Old School House Rd. 52 52 -- n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

 PR-4 Post and Rail Farms 102 Saddle Dr. 51 51 -- 44 48 48 44 44 

 PR-5 Post and Rail Farms 116 Saddle Dr. 47 47 -- 45 49 49 45 45 

 H-8 Rosedale 1143 Bunker Hill Rd. (46) 51 -- 52 52 52 52 52 

 H-10 S. Holton Farm 2010 Choptank Rd. 46 54 -- 60 58 58 60 60 

7 

H-28 Choptank 1542 Choptank Road (46) 48 -- 46 48 48 44 44 

 C-1 n/a 416 Armstrong Corner Rd. 54 54 -- 58 52 52 58 58 

 C-2 n/a 5036 Summit Bridge Rd. 62 62 51 67 -- -- 67 67 

 C-3 n/a 5036 Summit Bridge Rd. 69 69 67 67 -- -- 67 67 

 C-4 n/a 617 Marl Pit Rd. 59 59 55 -- -- -- -- -- 

 C-5 n/a 617 Marl Pit Rd. 43 44 47 -- -- -- -- -- 

LG-1 The Legends West 10 Couples Ct. 53 53 58 -- -- -- -- -- 

8 

OS-1 Old Schoolhouse Rd. at US 301 626 Old Schoolhouse Rd. 48 48 52 -- -- -- -- -- 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

NOTES: 

Dark grey shading indicates impacted receptor (66 dBA or higher). 

Light grey shading indicates impacted receptor (10 dBA or greater than existing). 

-- indicates receptor is not influenced by the alternative traffic noise (> 1,500 feet distant). 

(46) indicates value was calculated using comparable receptors in the project area. 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-96

Table III-39: Predicted Design Year 2030 Noise Levels for the Retained Alternatives

Design Year 2030 Noise 

Sensitive 

Area 

Receptor Community or Historic Site Name Address 

Existing 

Peak Hour

Leq 

(dBA) 

No-Build 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Yellow 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Purple 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Brown-N

Leq 

(dBA) 

Brown-S

Leq 

(dBA) 

Green-N 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Green-S 

Leq 

(dBA) 

 SM-1 Springmill Carter Dr. 57 56 55 -- -- -- -- -- 

SM-2 Springmill Windmill Lane 62 62 63 -- -- -- -- -- 

SM-3 Springmill Whispering Trail 55 55 63 -- -- -- -- -- 

SM-4 Springmill Daylily Way (46) (46) -- 53 53 53 53 53 

SM-5 Springmill Springmill Dr. 35 35 -- 43 43 43 43 43 

 H-9 R.G. Hayes House 5187 Summit Bridge Rd. 66 66 (take) -- -- -- -- -- 

 H-11 Armstrong-Walker House 5036 Summit Bridge Rd. 67 67 65 66 66 66 66 66 

 H-12 Achmester North Side of Marl Pit Rd. (46) (46) 48 -- -- -- -- -- 

 H-14 Weston; S. Brady Farm 4677 Summit Bridge Rd. 51 52 54 -- -- -- -- -- 

8 

 H-15 Mt. Pleasant Farm 4564 Summit Bridge Rd. 48 48 52 -- -- -- -- -- 

 MV-1 Middletown Village Liborio Dr. 47 48 54 -- -- -- -- -- 

 MV-2 Middletown Village 112 Sandhill Rd. 58 58 59 -- -- -- -- -- 

 MV-3 Middletown Village 110 Sleepy Hollow Dr. 50 50 50 -- -- -- -- -- 

 MV-4 Middletown Village 766 Marian Dr. 62 62 52 -- -- -- -- -- 

 MV-5 Middletown Village Peterson Rd. 55 55 57 -- -- -- -- -- 

 MV-6 Middletown Village 1106 Bunker Hill Rd. 50 50 -- 46 46 46 46 46 

 MV-7 Middletown Village Ash Blvd. 51 51 52 -- -- -- -- -- 

 MV-8 Middletown Village 828 Woodline Dr. 45 45 -- 57 57 57 57 57 

 MV-9 Middletown Village Ash Blvd. 41 43 47 44 44 44 44 44 

 MV-10 Middletown Village 334 E. Harvest Ln. 56 56 53 -- -- -- -- -- 

9 

MV-11 Middletown Village 125 Foxtail Ln. 57 58 67 -- -- -- -- -- 

10 M-1 Middletown 691 Broad St. 54 54 50 -- -- -- -- -- 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

NOTES: 

Dark grey shading indicates impacted receptor (66 dBA or higher). 

Light grey shading indicates impacted receptor (10 dBA or greater than existing). 

-- indicates receptor is not influenced by the alternative traffic noise (> 1,500 feet distant). 

(46) indicates value was calculated using comparable receptors in the project area. 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-97

Table III-39: Predicted Design Year 2030 Noise Levels for the Retained Alternatives

Design Year 2030 Noise 

Sensitive 

Area 

Receptor Community or Historic Site Name Address 

Existing 

Peak Hour

Leq 

(dBA) 

No-Build 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Yellow 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Purple 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Brown-N

Leq 

(dBA) 

Brown-S

Leq 

(dBA) 

Green-N 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Green-S 

Leq 

(dBA) 

A-1 Appoquinimink High School 1080 Bunker Hill Rd. (46) (46) -- 53 53 53 53 53 

SO-1 Southridge 15 Palisade Circle (46) (46) -- 58 58 58 58 58 

 SR-1 n/a Bunker Hill Rd. 40 41 -- n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

 SR-2 n/a 1106 Bunker Hill Rd. 64 64 -- 67 67 67 67 67 

 SR-3 n/a Bunker Hill Rd. 61 61 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

 SR-4 n/a Bunker Hill Rd. 62 62 69 -- -- -- -- -- 

 SR-5 n/a Bunker Hill Rd. 68 69 65 -- -- -- -- -- 

11 

 H-25 The Maples North Side of Bunker Hill Rd. 56 65 -- 58 58 58 58 58 

 AM-1 Airmont Acres 502 Davis Ct. 52 52 -- -- 57 56 56 -- 

 AM-2 Airmont Acres 236 Oak Dr. 51 51 -- -- 59 58 59 -- 

 AM-3 n/a Lorewood Grove / Ratledge 48 48 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

 AM-4 Airmont Acres 784 Lorewood Grove Rd. 66 66 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

 AM-5 n/a Lorewood Grove Rd. 68 68 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

12 

SG-1 St. Georges Technical High School 555 Hyetts Corner Rd. 51 51 -- -- 58 58 58 -- 

 JC-1 n/a Boyds Corner Rd. 51 51 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

 JC-2 n/a 1000 Jamison Corner Rd. 49 49 -- -- -- -- -- 51 

 JC-3 n/a Jamison Corner Rd. 51 51 -- -- 56 56 57 -- 

JC-4 1075 Jamison Corner Rd. 43 43 50 50 -- -- -- 50 

 H-22 S.F. Shallcross House 1049 Boyds Corner Rd. 55 56 61 61 -- -- -- -- 

13 

 H-24 J. Houston House 1000 Jamison Corner Rd. 49 49 -- -- -- -- -- 58 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

NOTES: 

Dark grey shading indicates impacted receptor (66 dBA or higher). 

Light grey shading indicates impacted receptor (10 dBA or greater than existing). 

-- indicates receptor is not influenced by the alternative traffic noise (> 1,500 feet distant). 

(46) indicates value was calculated using comparable receptors in the project area. 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-98

Table III-39: Predicted Design Year 2030 Noise Levels for the Retained Alternatives

Design Year 2030 Noise 

Sensitive 

Area 

Receptor Community or Historic Site Name Address 

Existing 

Peak Hour

Leq 

(dBA) 

No-Build 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Yellow 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Purple 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Brown-N

Leq 

(dBA) 

Brown-S

Leq 

(dBA) 

Green-N 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Green-S 

Leq 

(dBA) 

 GV-1 Grande View Farms 203 Milford Dr. 57 57 63 63 -- -- -- -- 

 GV-2 Grande View Farms 258 Milford Dr. 55 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

 GV-3 Asbury Chase 203 Red Fox Ct. 47 47 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

 GV-4 Grande View Farms 149 Jane Ct. 56 56 62 62 -- -- -- -- 

 GV-5 Grande View Farms 320 Hyetts Corner Rd. 52 52 57 57 -- -- -- -- 

 GV-6 Asbury Chase 864 Bullen Dr. 62 62 66 66 -- -- -- -- 

14 

 H-19 Fairview 350 Hyetts Corner Rd. 58 60 64 63 -- -- -- -- 

 CL-1 n/a 562 Boyds Corner Road 69 69 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

 CL-2 Cedar Lane Elementary & Middle Sch. 1259 Cedar Lane 68 68 70 70 -- -- -- -- 

 CL-3 n/a Emerson Rd. 57 57 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

 CL-4 Chestnut Grove 201 Chestnut Way 51 51 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

 CL-5 n/a 617 Marl Pit 65 65 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CL-6 Cedar Lane Elementary & Middle Sch. 1235 Cedar Land Rd. 60 61 63 63 -- -- -- -- 

 H-13 Lovett Farm 1405 Cedar Lane Rd. (46) (46) -- -- -- -- -- -- 

H-29 T. J. Houston House 1309 Cedar Lane Rd. (46) (46) -- -- -- -- -- 45 

15 

SA-1 Cedar Lane Elementary School 1235 Cedar Lane Rd. 64 64 65 65 -- -- -- 65 

 MM-1 Biggs Farm Bethel Church Rd. 57 64 57 54 55 55 54 54 

 MM-2 Biggs Farm Bethel Church Rd. 42 50 44 45 49 49 45 45 

 MM-3 Back Creek 105 Joshua Ct. 49 56 50 47 48 48 47 47 

 MM-4 Back Creek 103 Saint Andrews Ct. 38 46 40 40 43 43 40 40 

 MM-5 Fox Hunter Crossing 116 Senator Dr. 62 69 63 59 60 60 59 59 

 MM-6 Fox Hunter Crossing 116 Colonel Clayton Dr. 44 52 46 44 46 46 44 44 

H-27 Woodside 1370 Choptank Rd 58 63 -- 55 55 55 55 55 

16 

H-31 Biggs Farm 1196 Choptank Rd 47 56 -- 49 54 53 49 49 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

NOTES: 

Dark grey shading indicates impacted receptor (66 dBA or higher). 

Light grey shading indicates impacted receptor (10 dBA or greater than existing). 

-- indicates receptor is not influenced by the alternative traffic noise (> 1,500 feet distant). 

(46) indicates value was calculated using comparable receptors in the project area. 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-99

Table III-39: Predicted Design Year 2030 Noise Levels for the Retained Alternatives

Design Year 2030 Noise 

Sensitive 

Area 

Receptor Community or Historic Site Name Address 

Existing 

Peak Hour

Leq 

(dBA) 

No-Build 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Yellow 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Purple 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Brown-N

Leq 

(dBA) 

Brown-S

Leq 

(dBA) 

Green-N 

Leq 

(dBA) 

Green-S 

Leq 

(dBA) 

 PF-1 Penfield Farms 2106 S. Dupont Hwy. N 61 61 -- -- 68 68 68 68 

 PF-2 Penfield Farms S. Dupont Hwy. N 57 57 -- -- 55 54 54 54 

 PF-3 Penfield Farms 381 Port Penn Road 62 62 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

 H-18 Idalia Manor 1870 S. Dupont Highway 59 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 

 H-20 Retirement Farm 2256 Dupont Hwy N 49 53 55 55 -- -- -- -- 

17 

 H-21 Elm Grange 2424 S. Dupont Highway 64 68 68 68 -- -- -- -- 

 S-1 n/a 1963 Middle Neck Rd. 58 58 47 54 54 54 54 54 

 S-2 n/a 1963 Middle Neck Rd. 50 50 49 57 57 57 57 57 

 S-3 n/a 1963 Middle Neck Rd. 60 60 51 62 62 62 62 62 

 S-4 n/a 1963 Middle Neck Rd. 54 54 54 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

 S-5 n/a 1963 Middle Neck Rd. 59 60 57 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

 S-6 n/a 1963 Middle Neck Rd. 68 69 63 67 67 67 67 67 

 H-1 Shahan Farm 389 Strawberry Ln. (46) (46) -- -- -- -- -- -- 

 H-2 B.F. Hanson House 1102 Middletown Warwick Rd. 61 63 58 59 59 59 59 59 

 H-3 C. Polk House Estate 929 Middletown Warwick Rd. 56 56 53 56 56 56 56 56 

 H-4 Rumsey Farm 841 Middletown Warwick Rd. 52 53 53 52 52 52 52 52 

 H-5 Summerton 840 Middletown Warwick Rd. 62 63 (take) 61 61 61 61 61 

 H-6 Hedgelawn. 772 Middletown Warwick Rd. 60 60 60 -- -- -- -- -- 

18 

 H-7 Cochran Grange. 704 Middletown Warwick Rd. 60 59 60 -- -- -- -- -- 

 TOTAL Number of Residential Impacts per Alternative 

Yellow 

74 

Purple 

108 

Brown N

67 

Brown S

64 

Green N 

77 

Green S 

63 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-100 

As shown in Table III-39, for the Yellow Alternative, NSA 14 (Grande View Farms/Asbury 

Chase) would have the greatest number of residential impacts. For the Purple Alternative, most 

impacts would be located at NSA 14, NSA 9 (Middletown Village) and NSA 3 (Summit Bridge 

Farms). For both Brown and Green Alternatives, NSA 3, NSA 6 (Chesapeake Meadow) and 

NSA 9 would have the greatest number of noise impacts. Although no other alternatives besides 

the Preferred Alternative were reanalyzed, the shift at the Southridge community would have 

applied to the Purple, Brown and Green South Alternatives as well, were they subjected to more 

detailed engineering. 

b. Impact Assessment/Abatement 

Noise Abatement Criteria

Traffic noise impacts were assessed, and the potential for introducing mitigating measures, such 

as noise walls or berms, was evaluated. Consideration for mitigation is based on the size of the 

impacted area, the predominant activity within the area, visual impact, construction practicality, 

feasibility and reasonableness. The factors considered when determining whether the mitigation 

would be considered, as outlined in DelDOT’s Transportation Noise Policy, are: 

A reasonable and feasible noise mitigation method is available. DelDOT will identify 

and evaluate impacts that noise abatement measures will have on the social, economic 

and natural environments when determining the feasibility and reasonableness of a noise 

barrier project. An attempt will be made to provide noticeable and effective noise 

reductions of at least 5 dBA at impacted receptors. This reduction is known as Insertion 

Loss. 

Noise mitigation is cost-effective – not to exceed $20,000 per benefited residence. 

Noise mitigation is acceptable to the majority of people affected.

When determining the cost-effectiveness of mitigation, all impacted receptors that receive a 

5 dBA or more reduction in noise levels are considered to benefit by a noise wall or berm 

construction. For the purposes of cost evaluation, a total cost of $25.00 per square foot has been 

used to estimate the noise wall cost and $10.00 per cubic yard of berm. These cost figures are 

based upon current experience and reflect the cost of constructing an earth berm or ground 

mounted noise wall system. 

Impacts and Mitigation Feasibility

Impacts associated with the proposed alternatives and the feasibility of mitigation are shown for 

each alternative in the following tables. The most frequent mitigation is in the form of a noise 

barrier or berm. Barrier and berm mitigation are discussed in the following paragraphs and 

summarized in the accompanying tables. 

The Preferred Alternative would impact a total of 133 residences adjacent to the alignment 

(Table III-40). In most cases, barrier or berm mitigation was determined to be not reasonable 

(exceeded the $20,000 cost per benefited residence criterion). However, with the construction of 

proposed visual earth berms, all but 46 of the 133 impacts will be avoided (Table III-47). 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-101 

Table III-40 shows that barrier mitigation of projected noise impacts with the Preferred 

Alternative is feasible for NSAs 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11, but is not reasonable due to all costs 

exceeding $20K per benefited residence except at Southridge. Berm mitigation is not feasible 

for NSAs 3, 7 and 8 due to lack of right-of-way, and is not cost effective for NSAs 6 and 9 where 

berms are feasible. The number of impacted residences at Southridge increased with a shift in the 

alignment of the Preferred Alternative. 

Table III-40: Preferred Alternative Abatement Cost Analysis 

NSA/Community 

Number 

of 

Impacts 

Barrier 

/Berm 

Height 

(ft) 

Barrier 

/Berm 

Length 

(ft) 

Insertion 

Loss 

(first row) 

(dBA) 

Barrier 

/Berm Cost 

Benefited 

Residences 

Cost per 

Benefited 

Residence 

Comment 

Barrier Analysis 

3 Summit Bridge Farms 12 10 1,900 5 $475,000 12 $39,583 Barrier along N side only 

6 Chesapeake Meadow 11 11 2,190 6 $602,250 9 $66,917 2 northernmost impacts 

can not be benefited 

7 Mid Farms 4 8 2,410 8 $482,000 4 $120,500 

4 flag-lot props being 

developed on Old School 

House 

7 Midland Farms West 4 13 3,880 8 $1,261,000 4 $315,250 

1868/1888/1902 

Choptank Rd and 2010 

Choptank Rd (historic, 

not Midland Farms). 

8 Midland Farms East 6 13 2,950 5 $958,750 6 $159,792 

3 Armstrong Corner Rd & 

3 Bohemia Mill Rd. 

impacts. 

9 Middletown Village 15 16 2,000 6 $800,000 15 $53,333 

11 Southridge 75 15 970 5 $363,750 65 $5,963 Can not provide -5dBA to 

10 impacts 

Totals $4,942,750 115 

Berm Analysis 

3 Summit Bridge Farms 12 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

6 Chesapeake Meadow 11 11 2,190 6 $281,050 9 $31,228 2 northernmost impacts 

can not be benefited 

7 Mid Farms 4 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

7 Midland Farms West 4 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

8 Midland Farms East 6 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

9 Middletown Village 15 16 2,000 6 $521,481 15 $34,765 

11 Southridge 75 15 970 5 $223,639 61 $16,822 

Can not provide -5dBA to 

14 impacts – all others 

mitigated 

Totals $1,026,170 85 

The analysis of impacts and abatement feasibility for the retained alternatives is presented in the 

following tables (Tables III-41 to III-46). Noise abatement for most locations was deemed not 

feasible or not reasonable in most NSAs. The abatement potential for the retained alternatives 

was considered during the evaluation to select the Preferred Alternative. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-102 

As shown in Table III-41, barrier mitigation of projected noise impacts with the Yellow 

Alternative is feasible but not reasonable for NSAs 3, 9 and 14 (Grande View Farms/Asbury 

Chase I and II) due to cost effectiveness criteria (must be no more than $20K per benefited 

residence). Noise mitigation for NSAs 5, 14 (south of Boyds Corner, near US 13) and 17 is not 

feasible due to extraneous traffic noise from other nearby roadways. Berm construction is not 

feasible in the space provided between the roadway and those impacted NSAs where barrier 

mitigation is otherwise feasible. 

Table III-41: Yellow Alternative Abatement Cost Analysis 

NSA/Community 

Number 

of 

Impacts 

Barrier 

/Berm 

Height 

(ft) 

Barrier 

/Berm 

Length 

(ft) 

Insertion 

Loss 

(first row) 

(dBA) 

Barrier 

/Berm 

Cost 

Benefited 

Residences 

Cost per 

Benefited 

Residence 

Comment 

BARRIER ANALYSIS 

3 Summit Bridge Farms 12 10 1,900 5 $475,000 12 $39,583 Barrier along N side only 

5 Boyds Corner at US301 11 SR896 traffic negates US301 noise mitigation Mitigation not feasible 

9 Middletown Village 6 11 650 5 $178,750 6 $29,792 

14 Grande View Farms/ 

Asbury Chase (GV/AC) 35 9 7,890 5 $1,775,250 38 $46,717 Barrier along GV/AC 

perimeter 

14 S of Boyds Corner, near 

US13 3 SR896 traffic negates US301 noise mitigation Mitigation not feasible 

17 East of US13, near GV/AC 7 SR1 & US13 traffic negates noise mitigation Mitigation not feasible 

Totals $2,429,000 56 

BERM ANALYSIS 

3 Summit Bridge Farms 12 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

5 Boyds Corner at US301 11 SR896 traffic negates US301 noise mitigation Mitigation not feasible 

9 Middletown Village 6 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

14 Grande View Farms/ 

Asbury Chase 35 No room for berm between US13 / SR896 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

14 S of Boyds Corner, near 

US13 3 SR896 traffic negates US301 noise mitigation Mitigation not feasible 

17 East of US13, near 

GV/AC 7 SR1 & US13 traffic negates noise mitigation Mitigation not feasible 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-103 

As shown in Table III-42, barrier mitigation of projected noise impacts for the Purple 

Alternative is feasible for all NSAs with the exception of NSAs 14 (S. Boyds Corner, near U.S. 

13) and 17. Extraneous traffic noise from other nearby roadways would render mitigation 

ineffective at these locations. Barrier mitigation is not reasonable for any NSA due to costs per 

benefited residence exceeding $20K. Berm mitigation is not feasible for NSAs 3, 7, 8 and 14 

(Grandview Farms/Asbury Chase I & II) due to lack of right-of-way. Berm mitigation is not cost 

effective for NSAs 6, 9 and 11 where berms are feasible. 

Table III-42: Purple Alternative Abatement Cost Analysis 

NSA/Community 

Number 

of 

Impacts 

Barrier 

/Berm 

Height 

(ft) 

Barrier 

/Berm 

Length 

(ft) 

Insertion 

Loss 

(first row) 

(dBA) 

Barrier 

/Berm Cost 

Benefited 

Residences 

Cost per 

Benefited 

Residence 

Comment 

Barrier Analysis 

3 Summit Bridge Farms 12 10 1,900 5 $475,000 12 $39,583 Barrier along N side only 

6 Chesapeake Meadow 11 11 2,190 6 $602,250 9 $66,917 2 northernmost impacts 

cannot be benefited 

7 Mid Farms 4 8 2,410 8 $482,000 4 $120,500 

4 flag-lot props being 

developed on Old School 

House 

7 Midland Farms West 4 13 3,880 8 $1,261,000 4 $315,250 

1868/1888/1902 & 2010 

(historic, not MF) 

Choptank Rd. 

8 Midland Farms East 6 13 2,950 5 $958,750 6 $159,792 

3 Armstrong Corner Rd 

& 3 Bohemia Mill Rd. 

impacts. 

9 Middletown Village 15 16 2,000 6 $800,000 15 $53,333 

11 Southridge 7 15 970 5 $363,750 3 $121,250 Can not provide -5dBA 

to 4 impacts 

14 Grande View Farms/ 

Asbury Chase 35 9 7,890 5 $1,775,250 38 $46,717 Barrier along GV/AC 

perimeter 

14 S of Boyds Corner, 

near US13 3 SR896 traffic negates US301 noise mitigation Mitigation not feasible 

17 East of US13, near 

GV/AC 7 SR1 & US13 traffic negates noise mitigation Mitigation not feasible 

Totals $6,718,000 91 

Berm Analysis 

3 Summit Bridge Farms 12 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

6 Chesapeake Meadow 11 11 2,190 6 $281,050 9 $31,228 2 northernmost impacts 

can not be benefited 

7 Mid Farms 4 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

7 Midland Farms West 4 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

8 Midland Farms East 6 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

9 Middletown Village 15 16 2,000 6 $521,481 15 $34,765 

11 Southridge 7 15 970 5 $223,639 3 $74,546 Can not provide -5dBA 

to 4 impacts 

14 Grande View Farms/ 

Asbury Chase 35 No room for berm between US13 / SR896 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

14 S of Boyds Corner, 

near US13 3 SR896 traffic negates US301 noise mitigation Mitigation not feasible 

17 East of US13, near 

GV/AC 7 SR1 & US13 traffic negates noise mitigation Mitigation not feasible 

Totals $1,026,170 27 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-104 

As shown in Table III-43, barrier mitigation of projected noise impacts with the Brown North 

Alternative is feasible for NSAs 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11, but is not reasonable due to all costs 

exceeding $20K per benefited residence. Berm mitigation is not feasible for NSAs 7 and 8 due 

to lack of right-of-way, and is not cost effective for the NSAs 1, 6, 9 and 11 where berms are 

feasible. 

Table III-43: Brown Alternative North Option Abatement Cost Analysis 

NSA/Community 

Number 

of 

Impacts 

Barrier 

/Berm 

Height 

(ft) 

Barrier 

/Berm 

Length 

(ft) 

Insertion 

Loss 

(first row) 

(dBA) 

Barrier 

/Berm Cost 

Benefited 

Residences 

Cost per 

Benefited 

Residence 

Comment 

Barrier Analysis 

1 Lea Eara Farms 16 20 2,890 5 $1,445,000 4 $361,250 Can only benefit 4 

residences 

6 Chesapeake Meadow 15 15 2,160 8 $810,000 15 $54,000 

2 benefits = nonimpacted, 2 impacts can 

not be benefited 

7 Mid Farms 4 14 2,610 8 $913,500 4 $228,375 

4 flag-lot props being 

developed on Old School 

House 

7 Midland Farms West 4 15 3,940 8 $1,477,500 4 $369,375 

1868/1888/1902 

Choptank Rd and 2010 

Choptank Rd (historic, 

not Midland Farms). 

8 Midland Farms East 3 15 1,800 5 $675,000 3 $225,000 3 Bohemia Mill Rd 

impacts. 

9 Middletown Village 15 16 2,000 6 $800,000 15 $53,333 

11 Southridge 7 15 970 5 $363,750 3 $121,250 Can not provide -5dBA to 

4 impacts 

Totals $6,484,750 48 

Berm Analysis 

1 Lea Eara Farms 16 20 2,890 5 $1,156,000 4 $289,000 Can only benefit 4 

residences 

6 Chesapeake Meadow 15 15 2,160 8 $498,000 15 $33,200 

2 benefits = nonimpacted, 2 impacts can 

not be benefited 

7 Mid Farms 4 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

7 Midland Farms West 4 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

8 Midland Farms East 3 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

9 Middletown Village 15 16 2,000 6 $521,481 15 $34,765 

11 Southridge 7 15 970 5 $223,639 3 $74,546 Can not provide -5dBA to 

4 impacts 

Totals $2,399,120 37 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-105 

As shown in Table III-44, barrier mitigation of projected noise impacts with the Brown South 

Alternative is feasible for NSAs 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11, but is not reasonable due to all costs 

exceeding $20K per benefited residence. Berm mitigation is not feasible for NSAs 7 and 8 due 

to lack of right-of-way, and is not cost effective for the NSAs 3, 6, 9 and 11 where berms are 

feasible. 

Table III-44: Brown Alternative South Option Abatement Cost Analysis 

NSA/Community 

Number 

of 

Impacts 

Barrier 

/Berm 

Height 

(ft) 

Barrier 

/Berm 

Length 

(ft) 

Insertion 

Loss 

(first row) 

(dBA) 

Barrier 

/Berm Cost 

Benefited 

Residences 

Cost per 

Benefited 

Residence 

Comment 

Barrier Analysis 

3 Summit Bridge Farms 18 12 3,700 5 $1,110,000 18 $61,667 10' North wall plus 15' SE 

wall 

6 Chesapeake Meadow 11 14 2,470 6 $864,500 9 $96,056 2 impacts can not be 

benefited 

7 Mid Farms 4 14 2,610 8 $913,500 4 $228,375 

4 flag-lot props being 

developed on Old School 

House 

7 Midland Farms West 4 15 3,940 8 $1,477,500 4 $369,375 

1868/1888/1902 

Choptank Rd and 2010 

Choptank Rd (historic, 

not Midland Farms). 

8 Midland Farms East 3 15 1,800 5 $675,000 3 $225,000 3 Bohemia Mill Rd 

impacts. 

9 Middletown Village 15 16 2,000 6 $800,000 15 $53,333 

11 Southridge 7 15 970 5 $363,750 3 $121,250 Can not provide -5dBA to 

4 impacts 

Totals $6,204,250 56 

Berm Analysis 

3 Summit Bridge Farms 18 15 1,800 5 $415,000 6 $69,167 Berm feasible on SE side 

only 

6 Chesapeake Meadow 11 14 1,893 6 $382,807 9 $42,534 2 impacts can not be 

benefited 

7 Mid Farms 4 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

7 Midland Farms West 4 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

8 Midland Farms East 3 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

9 Middletown Village 15 16 2,000 6 $521,481 15 $34,765 

11 Southridge 7 15 970 5 $223,639 3 $74,546 Can not provide -5dBA to 

4 impacts 

Totals $1,542,927 33 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-106 

As shown in Table III-45, barrier mitigation of projected noise impacts with the Green North 

Alternative is feasible for NSAs 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11, but is not reasonable due to all costs 

exceeding $20K per benefited residence. Berm mitigation is not feasible for NSAs 3, 7 and 8 

due to lack of right-of-way, and is not cost effective for the NSAs 5, 6, 9 and 11 where berms are 

feasible. 

Table III-45: Green Alternative North Option Abatement Cost Analysis 

NSA/Community 

Number 

of 

Impacts 

Barrier 

/Berm 

Height 

(ft) 

Barrier 

/Berm 

Length 

(ft) 

Insertion 

Loss 

(first row) 

(dBA) 

Barrier 

/Berm Cost 

Benefited 

Residences 

Cost per 

Benefited 

Residence 

Comment 

Barrier Analysis 

3 Summit Bridge Farms 12 10 1,900 5 $475,000 12 $39,583 Barrier along N side only 

5 Ratledge Road 14 10 2,280 5 $570,000 6 $95,000 

6 Chesapeake Meadow 11 11 2,190 6 $602,250 9 $66,917 2 northernmost impacts 

can not be benefited 

7 Mid Farms 4 8 2,410 8 $482,000 4 $120,500 

4 flag-lot props being 

developed on Old School 

House 

7 Midland Farms West 4 13 3,880 8 $1,261,000 4 $315,250 

1868/1888/1902 

Choptank Rd and 2010 

Choptank Rd (historic, 

not Midland Farms). 

8 Midland Farms East 6 13 2,950 5 $958,750 6 $159,792 

3 Armstrong Corner Rd & 

3 Bohemia Mill Rd. 

impacts. 

9 Middletown Village 15 16 2,000 6 $800,000 15 $53,333 

11 Southridge 7 15 970 5 $363,750 3 $121,250 Can not provide -5dBA to 

4 impacts 

Totals $5,512,750 58 $95,047 

Berm Analysis 

3 Summit Bridge Farms 12 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

5 Ratledge Road 14 10 2,280 5 $244,889 6 $40,815 

6 Chesapeake Meadow 11 11 2,190 6 $281,050 9 $31,228 2 northernmost impacts 

can not be benefited 

7 Mid Farms 4 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

7 Midland Farms West 4 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

8 Midland Farms East 6 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

9 Middletown Village 15 16 2,000 6 $521,481 15 $34,765 

11 Southridge 7 15 970 5 $223,639 3 $74,546 Can not provide -5dBA to 

4 impacts 

Totals $1,542,927 33 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-107 

As shown in Table III-46, barrier mitigation of projected noise impacts with the Green South 

Alternative is feasible for NSAs 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11, but is not reasonable due to all costs 

exceeding $20K per benefited residence. Berm mitigation is not feasible for NSAs 3, 7 and 8 

due to lack of right-of-way, and is not cost effective for the NSAs 6, 9 and 11 where berms are 

feasible. 

Table III-46: Green Alternative South Option Abatement Cost Analysis 

NSA/Community 

Number 

of 

Impacts 

Barrier 

/Berm 

Height 

(ft) 

Barrier 

/Berm 

Length 

(ft) 

Insertion 

Loss 

(first row) 

(dBA) 

Barrier 

/Berm Cost 

Benefited 

Residences 

Cost per 

Benefited 

Residence 

Comment 

Barrier Analysis 

3 Summit Bridge Farms 12 10 1,900 5 $475,000 12 $39,583 Barrier along N side only 

6 Chesapeake Meadow 11 11 2,190 6 $602,250 9 $66,917 2 northernmost impacts 

can not be benefited 

7 Mid Farms 4 8 2,410 8 $482,000 4 $120,500 

4 flag-lot props being 

developed on Old School 

House 

7 Midland Farms West 4 13 3,880 8 $1,261,000 4 $315,250 

1868/1888/1902 

Choptank Rd and 2010 

Choptank Rd (historic, 

not Midland Farms). 

8 Midland Farms East 6 13 2,950 5 $958,750 6 $159,792 

3 Armstrong Corner Rd & 

3 Bohemia Mill Rd. 

impacts. 

9 Middletown Village 15 16 2,000 6 $800,000 15 $53,333 

11 Southridge 7 15 970 5 $363,750 3 $121,250 Can not provide -5dBA to 

4 impacts 

Totals $4,942,750 53 

Berm Analysis 

3 Summit Bridge Farms 12 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

6 Chesapeake Meadow 11 11 2,190 6 $281,050 9 $31,228 2 northernmost impacts 

can not be benefited 

7 Mid Farms 4 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

7 Midland Farms West 4 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

8 Midland Farms East 6 No room for berm between US301 and 1st-Row impacted properties Mitigation not feasible 

9 Middletown Village 15 16 2,000 6 $521,481 15 $34,765 

11 Southridge 7 15 970 5 $223,639 3 $74,546 Can not provide -5dBA to 

4 impacts 

Totals $1,026,170 27 

c. Impact Assessment/Abatement Conclusions 

For the Preferred Alternative, many of the noise impacts have been avoided with the construction 

of visual screening earth berms to be included in the design for many of the communities 

adjacent to the proposed roadway. Table III-47 provides a summary of the noise impact 

reduction that will occur with the visual screening berms in place. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-108 

Table III-47: Summary of Noise Impact Reduction from Visual Screening Berms 

Number of Noise Impacts 

Community Preferred Alternative 

without Berms with Visual Berms 

Aesthetic Berm Description 

Airmont 0 0 6' x 1670' aesthetic berm 

Boyds Corner @ US 301 2 2 None - aesthetic berm not feasible 

Chesapeake Meadow 11 0 11' x 1600' berm reduces all increases to 

8 dBA or less. 

Midland Farms 9 9 None - aesthetic berm not feasible 

Middletown Village 15 0 16' x 2000' berm reduces all noise 

increases 

Southridge 75 14 10’ x 2,840 berm prevents impacts to all 

but 14 residences at southern end 

Springmill 0 0 6' x 2200' aesthetic berm 

Summit Bridge Farms 12 12 None - berm not feasible on North side 

Additional Individual 

Residences 9 9 None 

TOTAL IMPACTS 133 46 

Noise mitigation for the remaining impacted residences/communities was found to not meet 

DelDOT’s criteria for cost-effectiveness, which is no more than $20,000 per benefited residence, 

or was found to be not feasible due to either lack of right-of-way (if an earthen berm) or traffic 

noise influence from nearby or surrounding roadways. 

3. Construction Noise

Temporary noise impacts may occur from construction activity. Areas around the construction 

zone will experience varied periods and degrees of noise that differ from that of surrounding 

ambient community noise levels. Temporary Construction noise impacts are discussed in 

Section III.I.3. 

E. Hazardous Materials Sites 

1. Existing Conditions

Two environmental databases maintained by DNREC, the Site Investigation and Restoration 

Branch Environmental Navigator and the Tank Management Branch Environmental Information 

System, were reviewed in order to identify known contaminated sites that are located adjacent to 

or within the vicinity of the project area. The DNREC databases include coverage of sites with 

contaminant releases that have been listed by EPA under CERCLA and RCRA. The potential 

risk of subsurface contamination to the project area was evaluated based upon information 

derived from the database review. 

Sites identified as sources of contamination consisted of a combination of commercial, railroad 

and state-owned properties. Property uses in the vicinity of the project area included gasoline 

stations; industrial, commercial, and retail facilities; an airport; auto and farm equipment repair 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-109 

shops; and railroad support operations. Leaking underground petroleum storage tanks (LUSTs) 

accounted for most of the documented contamination. DNREC has issued rulings of No Further 

Action for most of these sites; however, residual levels of localized petroleum contamination 

probably remain. Sites identified as potential sources of contamination to the project area are 

identified in Table III-48 and Table III-49 and shown on Figure III-11. 

Table III-48: 

DNREC LUST Sites with Documented or Suspected Contamination 

Site 

Map # Site of Concern Property Use Potential Type of Contamination 

Contaminant of 

Concern 

1 

King General Store, Formerly Shore Stop 

#260, 4296 DuPont Highway, Townsend, 

DE 19734

Gas Station Soil Petroleum 

2 Shore Stop #227, 4235 South DuPont 

Parkway, Townsend, DE 19734 Gas Station Soil Petroleum 

4 Bell Atlantic Cell Site, 3925 South DuPont 

Highway, Townsend, DE 19734

Cell Tower 

Generator Soil Petroleum 

6 DELDOT ROW, Al’s Place, 3783 

DuPont Highway, Townsend, DE 19734 Former Gas Station Soil Petroleum 

7 Fieldsboro Amoco, 3622 South DuPont 

Highway, Townsend, DE 19734 Gas Station Soil Petroleum 

8 Former Blue Star Texaco – US 301 

South of Strawberry Lane, Middletown 

Former Gasoline 

Station Soil Petroleum 

SIRB File 

9 Valero Gasoline Station – 137 

Strawberry Lane, Middletown, 19709 Gasoline Station Soil Petroleum 

10 StarDel, Inc., Former Harris Property 

1330 Warwick Road, Middletown. Gasoline Station Soil Petroleum 

SIRB File 

11 Coastal Mart – 1228 Middletown 

Warwick Road, Middletown Gasoline Station Soil Petroleum 

12 

Hoober, Inc., Former Whiteman & Sons 

Property – 1130 Middletown Warwick 

Rd, Middletown, DE 19709 

Farm Equipment 

Dealer Soil Petroleum 

13A 301 Truck Plaza – 921 Middletown 

Warwick Rd, Middletown 

Truck Stop/ 

Gasoline Station Soil Petroleum 

13B Shore Stop #235, 400 W. Main Street, 

Middletown, DE 19709 Gas Station Soil Petroleum 

13C Shore Stop #263, 308 W. Main Street, 

Middletown, DE 19709 Gas Station Soil Petroleum 

14 Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc. 

700 North Broad Street, Middletown 

Battery 

Manufacturing 

Facility 

Soil Petroleum 

15 Southern States – 900 N. Broad Street, 

Middletown 

Former Fuel 

Distributor Soil Petroleum 

16 

Nucar Middletown Chevrolet, Formerly 

Shallcross Chevrolet – 5221 Summit 

Bridge Road, Middletown 

Auto Dealer Soil Petroleum 

17 MaryDel Farm – 1542 Choptank Road, 

Middletown Farm Soil Petroleum 

18 Summit Bridge Shopping Center – 4466 

Summit Bridge Road, Middletown Shopping Center Soil Petroleum 

21 Summit Airport Aircraft Fueling/ 

Maintenance Soil Petroleum, Solvents

22 Huber’s Nursery – 2424 S. DuPont 

Highway N., Boyd’s Corner Nursery Soil Petroleum 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-110 

Table III-48: 

DNREC LUST Sites with Documented or Suspected Contamination 

Site 

Map # Site of Concern Property Use Potential Type of Contamination 

Contaminant of 

Concern 

23 Meyer Property – Pole Bridge Rd. East 

of SR 1, Biddles Corner 

Current DELDOT 

Property Soil Petroleum 

24 

DELDOT ROW, Former Harvey 

Newton Texaco – DuPont Hwy at Port 

Penn Road 

Former Gasoline 

Station Soil Petroleum 

25 DELDOT ROW, Former M. Madic, 

Inc. – 2085 S. DuPont Parkway 

Former Vehicle 

Repair Shop Soil Petroleum 

Table III-49: DNREC Site Investigation and Restoration Sites 

Site 

Map # Site of Concern Property Use Potential Type of Contamination 

Contaminant of 

Concern 

3 Drake Auto Salvage Yard, 4195 DuPont 

Parkway, Townsend, DE 19734 Auto Salvage Soil 

None Confirmed. 

(No further action 

recommended) 

5 Pine Tree Auto Salvage Yard, 352 Pine 

Tree Rd, Townsend, DE 19734 Auto Salvage Soil None Confirmed. 

14 Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc. 

700 North Broad Street, Middletown 

Battery 

Manufacturing 

Facility 

Soil 

Lead (RCRA) 

(No Further Action 

Required) 

19 Sea Land Mt. Pleasant Facility – 

SR 896 at Norfolk Southern Railroad

Former Waste Oil 

Recycling Facility 

Soil & 

Groundwater 

Petroleum, PAHs, 

Toxic Metals – 

Former CERCLA, 

current SIRB site 

20 Mt. Pleasant Railroad Dump – East of 

Norfolk Southern Railroad, North of SR 896

Debris Disposal 

Area Soil Rail Ties, Tires, Trash, Inert Debris 

26 DELDOT Borrow Pit – West of 

SR 1/US 13, south of Scott Run 

Borrow, Debris 

Disposal Soil Recycled 

Contaminated Soil 

2. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation

Upon review of the DNREC regulatory database, a variety of properties with minor 

contamination problems were located in the project area. The proposed build alternatives, except 

for the Preferred Alternative and the Green South Alternative, cross several properties where 

limited areas of subsurface contamination may be present within the proposed right-of-way. 

Table III-50 summarizes the results of the database search by alternative. The Preferred 

Alternative will not cross any known hazardous waste site. 
)p

AØ

)p

AØ

?Î

)p

Warwick

Middletown

Townsend

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

Churchtow

Old School House Rd

Bohemia Mill Rd Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Noxontown Rd

Silverlake Rd

Main St

Money Rd

Bunker Hill Rd

Middle Neck Rd

N Broad St

S Broad St

Levels Rd

Strawberry La

Grears Corner Rd

Green Giant Rd

Wiggins Mill Rd

Church Rd

Great

Bohemia

Creek

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove

Nest Branch

Noxontown

Pond

Silver

Lake

Sandy

Branch

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Middletown

Village Matapeake

Country

Acres

Wheatland

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Post and

Rail Farms

Back Meadowbrook Farms

Creek

Match

Line

B Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

G

17

12

14

13A

15

10

8

19

16

11

13C

9

13B

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-11A

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

Possible Contamination Sites Source: DNREC, 2005

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

US 301 Project Development

Potential Contamination Sites

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
AÝ

)p

?¡

?Î

AÝ

)p

)h

?¡

AÝ

)h

?¡

)h

AØ

)p

Middletown

Odessa

St Georges Rd

Rd

Red Lion Rd

Cox Neck Rd

Summit

Bridge

d

Summit Bridge Rd

Churchtown Rd

Old School House Rd

Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Bethel Church Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Ratledge Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Bayview Rd

Vance Neck Rd

Hyetts Corner Rd

Jamison Corner Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Main St

Old Corbit Rd

N Broad St

Lums

Pond

Chesapeake

Joy

Run

Run

Scott

Creek

Augustine

Creek

Drawyer

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove Nest Branch

River

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Boyds

Corner

Saint

Georges

Middletown

Village

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Greylag

Commodore

Estates

Lorewood

Estates

Airmont

Acres

Mount

Hope

Summit

Bridge

Farms Summit

Pond

Crystal

Run

Dickerson Farm

Farm

Chesapeake

Meadow

Post and

Rail Farms

Meadowbrook Farms

Lea Eara

Farms West Lea Eara

Farms East

Grande

View

Farms

Asbury

Chase

Bolton

Meadows

Odessa

Heights

Spring

Oaks

m

and Delaware

Canal

B

Match

Line

Summit

Airport

o

Summit

Farms

G

GN

GS

BN

BS

B Y

P

Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

25

G

21

17

26

22

14

20

18

15

23

19

24

16

13B 13C

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-11B

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

Possible Contamination Sites Source: DNREC, 2005

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

US 301 Project Development

Potential Contamination Sites

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-113 

Table III-50: Summary of Contaminated Sites by Build Alternative 

Alternative Contaminated Sites within 

Proposed Right-Of-Way 

Additional Site Investigations 

Recommended 

No-Build 0 0 

Yellow 4 4 

Purple 3 3 

Brown 1 1 

Green 0 0 

The Yellow and Purple Alternatives will cross properties with documented releases from 

petroleum USTs, including three current or former gasoline stations. The Brown Alternative will 

cross a property with documented releases of petroleum and paint solvents in localized areas. 

The subsurface contamination on these properties is likely of limited extent, but even minor 

levels of contamination will require appropriate management of contaminated materials if 

encountered during construction. The Green Alternatives will not cross any documented 

hazardous materials sites. 

The most significant incidence of subsurface contamination within the project area is the Sea 

Land site, which is located along the Norfolk Southern right-of-way north of SR 896 and east of 

US 301. The abandoned waste oil recycling facility at this site was the subject of an emergency 

cleanup by EPA in 1984. Residual contamination by petroleum products, polynuclear aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs), creosote, and toxic metals remains beneath the soil cap. DNREC 

continues to require groundwater monitoring for PAHs and nickel in the drinking water aquifer. 

Immediately north of the Sea Land site is the Mt. Pleasant Railroad Dump site, where Norfolk 

Southern cleaned up a debris dump under DNREC supervision. This site presents no significant 

risk of contamination for the proposed construction. A slight risk of contamination may result 

from other railroad activities within the Norfolk Southern right-of-way. Railcars are used for the 

transportation of many types of hazardous chemical products and waste materials. Soil and 

groundwater contamination has been documented along other rail corridors as a result of 

hazardous materials spills as well as small, incremental releases of fuel, lubricants, and cargo 

products. 

The Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc. property, located between US 301 and Broad Street in 

Middletown, was the site of RCRA corrective action administered by EPA and DNREC. In 

1984, a rupture in the air pollution control baghouse released an estimated 75 pounds of lead and 

arsenic with resulting contamination of the facility roof and surface soils on-site and off-site. 

Subsequent remedial efforts included structure cleanup, soil removal, and risk assessment. EPA 

issued a Statement of Basis recommending no further action, dated July 2005. Considering the 

low level of off-site contamination, the site does not appear to present a significant risk of 

contamination to the proposed construction. 

Although severe contamination is not anticipated, the proposed construction will need to 

accommodate appropriate management and disposal of contaminated soil or groundwater that 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-114 

may be encountered during construction. Only the Sea Land site, which is located within 

approximately 500 feet of portions of the Yellow Alternative, contains significant contamination 

levels. The documented contamination is unlikely to impact the proposed construction unless the 

proposed alignment is moved to cross over or very near the contaminated site. 

Additional site investigation efforts are warranted at five sites before property acquisition. The 

level of investigation may range from review of regulatory documents to formal Phase I 

Environmental Site Assessments or Phase II Site Investigations, depending on site conditions 

and the likelihood of property purchase. Changes to the alternative alignments will change the 

need for site specific investigations. 

The types of contaminants that may be encountered include petroleum contamination in soil and 

groundwater, toxic metals, PAHs, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs, typically solvents). 

These contaminants may occur both as soil contaminants and as dissolved groundwater 

contaminants. If the proposed construction encounters any of these contaminants of concern, 

appropriate excavation and disposal of contaminated materials in accordance with all applicable 

state and local regulations would be required. 

F. Natural Environment

This section discusses natural resources in the project area, including topography; geology; soils; 

groundwater; surface water and water quality; waters of the United States, including wetlands; 

floodplains; vegetation and wildlife; rare, threatened and endangered species; wild and scenic 

rivers; coastal zone management areas; and unique, sensitive and other natural areas. Impacts to 

these resources were previously detailed in the DEIS for the four retained alternatives (Yellow, 

Purple, Brown and Green) and are summarized herein. 

Since the recommendation of the Green North Alternative as the Preferred Alternative was 

published in the DEIS, four refinements have been undertaken that have contributed to an 

increase in some resource impacts for the Preferred Alternative shown on the plan sheets in 

Appendix B. It is estimated that these refinements would have brought about a similar increase 

in the levels of impacts for all of the build alternatives if they had all been subjected to a similar 

level of design refinement. 

 

Alignment Changes: The design of the Preferred Alternative was refined as a result of 

comments received on the DEIS and during the Public Hearings (refer to Chapter IV

Sections A.1.g and D) to include Ratledge Road Area Option 4B Modified and a local 

connection between Strawberry Lane and existing US 301. 

Refinements in planning-level engineering included additional alignment modifications, 

refined sections based on topography, and refined stormwater management design based on 

the identification of existing drainage patterns. This combination of refinements resulted in 

the elevation of the roadway being raised in some areas to provide adequate drainage, 

resulting in an expanded Limit of Disturbance (LOD). Prior to refined engineering, the LOD 

for the Green North Alternative was 897 acres; the Preferred Alternative LOD encompasses 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-114 

may be encountered during construction. Only the Sea Land site, which is located within 

approximately 500 feet of portions of the Yellow Alternative, contains significant contamination 

levels. The documented contamination is unlikely to impact the proposed construction unless the 

proposed alignment is moved to cross over or very near the contaminated site. 

Additional site investigation efforts are warranted at five sites before property acquisition. The 

level of investigation may range from review of regulatory documents to formal Phase I 

Environmental Site Assessments or Phase II Site Investigations, depending on site conditions 

and the likelihood of property purchase. Changes to the alternative alignments will change the 

need for site specific investigations. 

The types of contaminants that may be encountered include petroleum contamination in soil and 

groundwater, toxic metals, PAHs, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs, typically solvents). 

These contaminants may occur both as soil contaminants and as dissolved groundwater 

contaminants. If the proposed construction encounters any of these contaminants of concern, 

appropriate excavation and disposal of contaminated materials in accordance with all applicable 

state and local regulations would be required. 

F. Natural Environment

This section discusses natural resources in the project area, including topography; geology; soils; 

groundwater; surface water and water quality; waters of the United States, including wetlands; 

floodplains; vegetation and wildlife; rare, threatened and endangered species; wild and scenic 

rivers; coastal zone management areas; and unique, sensitive and other natural areas. Impacts to 

these resources were previously detailed in the DEIS for the four retained alternatives (Yellow, 

Purple, Brown and Green) and are summarized herein. 

Since the recommendation of the Green North Alternative as the Preferred Alternative was 

published in the DEIS, four refinements have been undertaken that have contributed to an 

increase in some resource impacts for the Preferred Alternative shown on the plan sheets in 

Appendix B. It is estimated that these refinements would have brought about a similar increase 

in the levels of impacts for all of the build alternatives if they had all been subjected to a similar 

level of design refinement. 

 

Alignment Changes: The design of the Preferred Alternative was refined as a result of 

comments received on the DEIS and during the Public Hearings (refer to Chapter IV

Sections A.1.g and D) to include Ratledge Road Area Option 4B Modified and a local 

connection between Strawberry Lane and existing US 301. 

Refinements in planning-level engineering included additional alignment modifications, 

refined sections based on topography, and refined stormwater management design based on 

the identification of existing drainage patterns. This combination of refinements resulted in 

the elevation of the roadway being raised in some areas to provide adequate drainage, 

resulting in an expanded Limit of Disturbance (LOD). Prior to refined engineering, the LOD 

for the Green North Alternative was 897 acres; the Preferred Alternative LOD encompasses 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-115 

941 acres, a five percent increase. This increase would have been seen in all of the build 

alternatives, were they subjected to a similar level of engineering design. 

The identification and definition of forest areas was refined to reflect current coverage, based 

on more recent and improved aerial photography (2006) along the Preferred Alternative 

alignment. This resulted in several previously classified forested wetlands being reclassified 

and the inclusion of hedgerows not previously identified. The resulting increases in forest 

coverage, along with the expanded LOD, led to an increase in the acreage of impacted 

forestland for the Preferred Alternative that would, in some areas, apply proportionally to the 

other build alternatives. Refer to Section 8 of this chapter for details. 

Finally, improved wetland delineation for the Preferred Alternative included the separate 

delineation of streams that had previously been included within wetland systems (i.e., 

streams within a wetland corridor); ephemeral, intermittent and perennial waters of the US 

not surrounded by wetlands were surveyed; and traditional field survey methods were used to 

precisely locate wetland boundaries previously based on GPS surveys. This level of 

delineation resulted in the identification of additional wetlands within the LOD of the 

Preferred Alternative as well as some changes in impacted acreages of impacted wetlands. In 

addition, alignment changes in the Ratledge Road area (refer to Chapter II Section C.4) 

resulted in an increase in impacted wetlands in this area. 

1. Topography

a. Existing Conditions 

Topography data were obtained through TopoZone.com, which provides interactive maps based 

upon the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping for the country. 

TopoZone.com provides elevations above mean sea level (MSL) throughout the project area that 

may be altered by the proposed alternatives. 

The project area is located in New Castle County in northern Delaware entirely within the 

Atlantic Coastal Plain. Topography in the project area ranges from sea level to approximately 80 

feet above mean sea level (MSL). The landscape throughout the project area is generally flat, 

with a few low, wide ridges and narrow, steep-sided stream valleys. A total of five different 

drainage areas are located within the project area. These watersheds include the C&D Canal 

East, C&D Canal West, Bohemia Creek Watershed, Sassafras River Watershed, and 

Appoquinimink River Watershed. Elevations along these low-lying drainages range from sea 

level to approximately 40 feet above MSL. 

The Brown, Purple and Green Alternatives south of the C&D Canal are oriented predominately 

north-south and are on the drainage divide between the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay 

drainages. These alternatives follow the same alignment west of existing US 301 and 

Middletown along what is commonly referred to as the ridge route. The topography in this area 

is very flat because it lies at the drainage divide where there is very little erosion or stream valley 

development. The southern portion of the Yellow Alternative is located east of the ridge 

alignment and crosses several streams that flow into the Delaware Bay. It is also located in flat 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-116 

topography, except where the alignment crosses steep-sided stream valleys and wetlands. The 

east-west portions of all of the build alternatives generally follow the shallow grade of the 

watersheds. 

b. Environmental Consequences 

The No-Build Alternative would have no effect on the topography of the project area. The 

Preferred Alternative (Green North) and the other build alternatives (Yellow, Brown North, 

Brown South, Purple, and Green South) would result in no appreciable gross changes to project 

area topography. For the most part, the grades of the alternatives would follow the existing 

grades of the landscape. Minor elevation changes would be made to the terrain to facilitate road 

drainage as well as interchange/overpass construction and wetland mitigation site creation.

2. Geology

a. Existing Conditions 

Geological data were obtained through maps from the Delaware Geological Survey and the 

University of Delaware. Information obtained includes geologic formations exposed at ground 

surface and encountered in representative well logs throughout New Castle County. The geology 

of the project area is shown on Figure III-12. 

The project area occurs entirely within the Delmarva Coastal Plain physiographic province. The 

Coastal Plain is typified by sedimentary deposits that dip gently and increase in thickness toward 

the southeast. The geologic formation that occurs at ground surface across most of the project 

area is the Pleistocene-age Columbia formation. This formation consists primarily of sands and 

gravels originating from glacial outwash and extends to depths of 10 to over 100 feet below 

ground surface. This relatively recent formation covers the eroded surfaces of the older, dipping, 

Coastal Plain strata. 

Limited exposures of the older strata within and near the project area, such as the upper 

Cretaceous-age Mt. Laurel formation, occur in the C&D Canal and some stream valleys draining 

into the C&D Canal (see Figure III-13). However, the older, dipping strata beneath the 

Columbia formation underlie extensive areas and form an important series of groundwater 

aquifers. Even though the Cretaceous and Tertiary-age strata covered by the Columbia 

formation do not daylight within the project area, groundwater percolating downward through 

the Columbia likely recharges the deeper aquifers through the truncated surfaces of the dipping 

strata. 
01 2 3 3 5

SCALE IN MILES

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

project project development development

U.S.

US 301 Project Development

Delaware

Department of

Transportation

November 2007

É Figure

Not to Scale

Source:

Modified from

Delaware Geologic Survey

Geologic Map of New Castle County,

Delaware, 2005,

GEOLOGIC MAP OF PROJECT AREA

III-12A

US 301

PROJECT AREA
DESCRIPTIONS OF GEOLOGIC MAP UNITS

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

project project development development

U.S.

US 301 Project Development

Delaware

Department of

Transportation

November 2007 Figure

DESCRIPTIONS OF GEOLOGIC MAP UNITS

III-12B
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-119 

Figure III-13: Generalized Geologic Cross-Section 

Source: Geologic Map of New Castle County, Delaware, Delaware Geologic Survey. 2005

Based on the Geologic Map of New Castle County, obtained from the Delaware Geologic 

Survey, the sedimentary deposits that underlie the near-surface Columbia formation consist of 

the following significant strata beneath the project area. They are listed from youngest and 

nearest the surface to oldest and deepest. 

Rancocas Aquifer – Formed by the glauconitic, fine sands of the Eocene-age Manasquan 

and Paleocene-age Vincentown Formations. 

Hornerstown Formation, Paleocene and upper Cretaceous – dark, greenish-gray glauconite 

sand with a calcareous silt and clay matrix. This formation forms part of the confining bed 

below the Rancocas aquifer. 

Navesink Formation, upper Cretaceous – Glauconite silt with clay and very fine sand. 

Also forms part of the confining bed below the Rancocas aquifer. 

Mount Laurel Formation, upper Cretaceous – Includes the Mount Laurel aquifer, which is 

typified by gray to greenish red-brown, glauconitic, fine to medium quartz sand with some 

silt. 

Marshalltown Formation, upper Cretaceous – dark greenish gray, massive, highly 

glauconitic, very silty fine sand. Confining bed above the Englishtown Formation. 

Englishtown Formation, upper Cretaceous – light gray and rust brown, well sorted 

micaceous, sparingly glauconitic, often “fluffy”, fine sand with thin interbedded layers of 

dark gray silty sand. Forms a minor aquifer. 

Merchantville Formation, upper Cretaceous – dark gray to dark blue, micaceous, 

glauconitic sandy silt and silty fine sand; very sticky when wet. Forms a confining bed 

above the Magothy aquifer. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-120 

Magothy Formation, upper Cretaceous – Dark gray to gray silty clay to clayey silt grading 

downward into sand. The Magothy aquifer occurs within the lower part of the formation, 

characterized by discontinuous fine sands thought to represent deposits in channels incised 

into the underlying Potomac formation. 

Potomac Formation, lower Cretaceous-age – Dark red, white, pink and gray clay 

interlayered with sand and gravel beds ranging in thickness from 20 feet updip to over 

1,600 feet in southeast New Castle County. The Potomac aquifers occur within the sand 

and gravel strata of the Potomac formation. 

The aquifers described above form important ground water supplies for individual, public, and 

industrial water users. High quality ground water is an important natural resource in Delaware 

and much of the Atlantic Coastal Plain. The coarse material deposits of the Columbia formation 

that are good shallow aquifers are also a useful source of exploitable sand and gravel, which are 

important natural resources in northern Delaware. Greensand (glauconite) from various upper 

Cretaceous and Tertiary-age formations has been used in the past as fertilizer because it is a 

source of potash. In New Jersey, glauconite is used in water softening. 

The C&D Canal is one of the most prolific fossil locations in the Atlantic Coastal Plain because 

it cuts through and exposes many of these prehistoric sedimentary layers. Most of the outcrops 

on the beaches below the riprap are fossiliferous but exposed only at low tide. 

b. Environmental Consequences 

The No-Build Alternative would have no effect on project area geology. Furthermore, due to the 

relative flatness of the project area, all build alternatives (including the Preferred Alternative) 

would require only minor excavation with minimal impacts to the local near-surface geologic 

deposits. The major aquifers are located in the Columbia Formation. The potential impacts to 

aquifers are discussed further in Section F.4 of this Chapter. Because the exploitable sand and 

gravel deposits are at or near the surface, any roadway construction on these resources would 

make them unavailable for exploitation. 

3. Soils

a. Existing Conditions 

Information on soils in the project area was obtained from the US Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS), the Soil Survey for New Castle County and GIS soil layers. The 

soil survey supplied information on soil series and units in the project area. Data pertaining to 

soil texture, drainage characteristics, erodability, prime farmland and significant soils, and hydric 

soils are discussed below. 

A soil association is a landscape that has a distinctive proportional pattern of soils and normally 

consists of one or more major soils and at least one minor soil. All project alternatives fall 

within the Matapeake-Sassafras Association. This association is characterized by nearly level to 

steep, well-drained soils on uplands. The Matapeake soils have a silt loam surface layer and silty 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-121 

clay loam subsoil. Sassafras soils have a sandy loam surface layer and sandy loam and sandy 

clay loam subsoil. 

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) NRCS has mapped the soil types that 

occur within these associations for New Castle County. Thirty-four (34) soil map units occur 

within the project area representing twelve soil series (Table III-51). 

The Delaware NRCS local office was contacted to obtain information regarding prime farmland 

soils and farmland soils of statewide importance in New Castle County. Seventeen (17) of the 

soil map units are classified as prime farmland soils, nine are considered soils of statewide 

importance, and nine are hydric soil units. The NRCS maintains a list of soil survey map units 

that contain hydric soils for New Castle County. Prime farmland soils and soils of statewide 

importance are shown on Figure III-14. 

Table III-51: Soil Series in Project Area 

Soil Series - Map Units USDA Soil Textures Drainage Characteristics 

Butlertown – BuA,BuB2,BuC2 Silt loam Moderately well drained 

Collington – CsC3,CsD3 Fine sandy loam Well drained 

Elkton – EIA,EmA Sandy loam, silt loam Poorly drained 

Fallsington – Fa,Fs Sandy loam, loam Poorly drained 

Johnston – Jo Loam Very poorly drained 

Keyport – KeA,KeB2 Silt loam Moderately well drained 

Made Land - Ma Varies Varies 

Matapeake -MeA,MeB2,MeC2,MeC3,MeD2, 

MeD3,MkA,MkB2,MkC2 

Silt loam Well drained 

Mattapex – MtA Silt loam Moderately well drained 

Mixed alluvial Land - Mv Sand to loam Poorly drained 

Othello – Ot Silt loam Poorly drained 

Pocomoke – Po Loam Very poorly drained 

Sassafras SaA,SaB2,SaC2,SaC3,SaD2,SaD3 Sandy loam Well drained 

Sassafras and Matapeake - SmE Sandy loam, silt loam Well drained 

Tidal Marsh - Tm Sand to clay Very poorly drained 

Woodstown – WoA,WoB2,WsA,WsB2 Sandy loam, loam Moderately well drained 
)p

AØ

)p

AØ

?Î

)p

Warwick

Middletown

Townsend

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

Churchtow

Old School House Rd

Bohemia Mill Rd Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Noxontown Rd

Silverlake Rd

Main St

Money Rd

Bunker Hill Rd

Middletown Warwick Rd

Middle Neck Rd

N Broad St

S Broad St

Levels Rd

Strawberry La

Grears Corner Rd

Green Giant Rd

Wiggins Mill Rd

Church Rd

Great

Bohemia

Creek

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove

Nest Branch

Noxontown

Pond

Silver

Lake

Sandy

Branch

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Middletown

Village Matapeake

Country

Acres

Wheatland

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Post and

Rail Farms

Back Meadowbrook Farms

Creek

Match

Line

B Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

G

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-14A

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

Soils of Statewide Importance

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Prime Farmland Soils Natural Resource Conservation

 Service, 2000

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

US 301 Project Development

Delaware

Department of

Transportation

Prime Farmland Soils &

Soils of Statewide Importance

US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-124 

 Prime farmland soils, listed in Table III-52, are soils that have the best combination of physical 

and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and are 

also available for these uses. Prime farmland soils typically have an adequate and dependable 

water supply, a favorable temperature and growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, 

acceptable salt content, and few or no rocks. They are permeable to water and air, not 

excessively erodable or saturated with water for a long period of time, and do not flood 

frequently or are protected from flooding. Soils of statewide importance, listed in Table III-53, 

are those soils that fail to meet one or more of the requirements of prime farmland, but are 

important for the production of food, feed, fiber or forage crops. They include those soils that 

are nearly prime farmland and that economically produce high yields of crops when treated or 

managed according to acceptable farming methods. Some may produce as high a yield as prime 

farmland soils if conditions are favorable. 

Table III-52: Prime Farmland Soils Located Along Project Alternatives 

Map Unit Yellow Purple Brown South Brown North Green North Green South 

BuA      

BuB2       

Fa       

Fs       

MeA       

MeB2       

MkA       

MkB2       

MtA       

Ot       

Po     

SaA       

SaB2       

WoA       

WoB2       

WsA       

WsB2       

Table III-53: Soils of Statewide Importance Located Along Project Alternatives

Map Unit Yellow Purple Brown South Brown North Green North Green South 

BuC2     

EIA       

EmA       

Jo       

KeA     

KeB2     

MeC2       

MkC2     

SaC2       

Hydric soils are soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long 

enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Identifying 

hydric soils is important for land-use planning, conservation planning, and assessment of 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-125 

potential wildlife habitat. Hydric soils in the project area are identified in Table III-54 and 

shown on Figure III-15. 

Table III-54: Hydric Soils Located Along Project Alternatives

Map Unit Yellow Purple Brown South Brown North Green North Green South 

EIA       

EmA       

Fa       

Fs       

Jo       

Mv       

Ot       

Po     

Tm     

Soils encountered along the alternatives have been evaluated for roadway constructability. All 

soils along the alignment have some limitations for use as a roadway. Limitations include slope, 

large stones, frost action, wetness, flooding, low strength, depth to bedrock, and shrink-swell. 

Soils are also rated for their use as a source of roadfill for embankments generally less than six 

feet high. Along the alignments within the project area, soils received good or fair ratings with 

the exception of Elkton, Johnston, and Keyport series which received poor ratings. 

b. Environmental Consequences 

Impacts to three classes of soils are of concern to the project: prime farmland soils, soils of 

statewide importance and hydric soils. The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on 

project area soils. 

The Preferred Alternative will impact 616 acres of prime farmland soils, 3 acres of soils of 

statewide importance and 166 acres of hydric soils. The Preferred Alternative impacts include 

two potential wetland mitigation sites (Chapter III.F.6). 

 

As reported in the DEIS, each of the build alternatives will affect the three classes of soils to 

varying degrees, as shown in Table III-55. These impacts were considered during the evaluation 

of alternatives and the selection of a Preferred Alternative. 
)p

AØ

)p

AØ

?Î

)p

Warwick

Middletown

Townsend

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

Churchtow

Old School House Rd

Bohemia Mill Rd Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Noxontown Rd

Silverlake Rd

Main St

Money Rd

Bunker Hill Rd

Middletown Warwick Rd

Middle Neck Rd

N Broad St

S Broad St

Levels Rd

Strawberry La

Grears Corner Rd

Green Giant Rd

Wiggins Mill Rd

Church Rd

Great

Bohemia

Creek

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove

Nest Branch

Noxontown

Pond

Silver

Lake

Sandy

Branch

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Middletown

Village Matapeake

Country

Acres

Wheatland

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Post and

Rail Farms

Back Meadowbrook Farms

Creek

Match

Line

B Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

G

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-15A

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

Hydric Soils Source: U.S. Dept of Agriculture, Natural Resource

 Conservation Service, 2000

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

US 301 Project Development

Hydric Soils

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
AÝ

)p

?¡

?Î

AÝ

)p

)h

?¡

AÝ

)h

?¡

)h

AØ

)p

Middletown

Odessa

St Georges Rd

Rd

Red Lion Rd

Cox Neck Rd

Summit

Bridge

d

Summit Bridge Rd

Churchtown Rd

Old School House Rd

Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Bethel Church Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Ratledge Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Bayview Rd

Vance Neck Rd

Hyetts Corner Rd

Jamison Corner Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Main St

Old Corbit Rd

N Broad St

Lums

Pond

Chesapeake

Joy

Run

Run

Scott

Creek

Augustine

Creek

Drawyer

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove Nest Branch

River

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Boyds

Corner

Saint

Georges

Middletown

Village

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Greylag

Commodore

Estates

Lorewood

Estates

Airmont

Acres

Mount

Hope

Summit

Bridge

Farms Summit

Pond

Crystal

Run

Dickerson Farm

Farm

Chesapeake

Meadow

Post and

Rail Farms

Meadowbrook Farms

Lea Eara

Farms West Lea Eara

Farms East

Grande

View

Farms

Asbury

Chase

Bolton

Meadows

Odessa

Heights

Spring

Oaks

m

and Delaware

Canal

B

Match

Line

Summit

Airport

o

Summit

Farms

G

GN

GS

BN

BS

B Y

P

Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

G

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-15B

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

Hydric Soils Source: U.S. Dept of Agriculture, Natural Resource

 Conservation Service, 2000

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

US 301 Project Development

Hydric Soils

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-128 

Table III-55: Soils Impacts of the Build Alternatives (Acres) 

Soils No-Build Yellow Purple Brown 

North 

Brown 

South 

Green 

North 

(DEIS) 

Green 

South 

Prime Farmland 

Soils 0 203 415 412 424 437 398 

Soils of Statewide 

Importance 0 2 3 4 3 3 3 

Hydric Soils 0 158 147 119 115 146 145 

Note: Acreage rounded up to nearest whole acre. 

Direct impacts to soils related to all build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, would 

result from construction activities such as paving, grading, excavation for stormwater 

management facilities, and compaction of soils from construction. Grading operations necessary 

to meet existing roadway grades would result in either the direct removal of soils or their burial 

under fill. Excavation for stormwater management facilities within the project area would 

likewise result in the removal or burial of existing soils. Compaction of soils during construction 

activities could alter soil properties without their removal or burial, and is likely to occur in areas 

throughout the limit of disturbance. 

Additional impacts to the soils from the build alternatives would primarily be a result of soil 

compaction associated with heavy equipment over non-paved areas used during construction and 

maintenance. Effects of soil compaction could include reduced infiltration rates causing 

additional surface water runoff or ponding in depressional areas. Both reduced infiltration rates 

and ponded water could result in changes to the composition of the vegetation community. 

Ponded water could modify the soil characteristics and result in changes to vegetation from a 

more upland community to a wetland-species-dominated system. Reduced infiltration rates, 

combined with more rapid surface water runoff, could also result in a shift in the plant 

community to species that are more adapted to dry conditions due to the reduction in available 

moisture (wetland to upland). Other impacts could include root zone impacts, resulting in the 

mortality of woody vegetation and a shift in animal species relying on pre-construction habitat 

conditions. In addition, chemicals leaching into soils from general maintenance or accidental 

spills could impact soil chemistry and vegetation growth. These potential indirect impacts apply 

to all build alternatives. 

Impacts to soil resources could be minimized through design and construction techniques. Best 

management practices during construction (such as the implementation of DNREC-approved 

erosion and sediment control guidelines, the development of comprehensive grading plans, and 

the use of sediment and soil stabilization techniques) could greatly minimize soil impacts. A 

comprehensive replanting effort will be implemented during construction to quickly reestablish 

vegetative cover for erosion control, and immediately after construction to provide long-term 

tree and shrub revegetation. While the creation of stormwater management facilities would 

directly impact some soil resources during construction, they would decrease uncontrolled runoff 

and widespread erosion on adjacent lands, and would provide protection to surface water 

resources. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-129 

c. Farmland Conversion Impact Rating 

The submission of Form CPA-106 in compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act 

(FPPA), as amended in 1984 and 1994, is discussed in Section A.4 of this Chapter. [NOTE: 

Correspondence with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is ongoing. An initial 

Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (FCIR) Form was submitted to the NRCS on July 12, 2007, 

and was returned for completion on August 28, 2007, in accordance with the procedure. The 

NRCS applied a relative value of 90.7 (on a scale of 0-100 points) to the farmland to be 

converted (Land Evaluation Criterion Relative value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted). 

A copy of the completed form (returned to NRCS) is included in Appendix G. The criteria 

assessment resulted in a final score of 196 out of a maximum possible score of 260 points. 

4. Groundwater

a. Existing Conditions 

Groundwater is an important resource and commodity for the State of Delaware, especially south 

of the C&D Canal where public surface water supply systems are absent and groundwater is used 

for both domestic supply and farm irrigation. In addition to domestic and farm water supply, 

wetland dependant wildlife relies on groundwater to create wetland seep habitat. On average, 

Delaware receives 40 to 44 inches of local rainfall per year, but not all of this water is available 

for use. From this yearly rainfall supply, approximately 20 inches evaporate, 3 inches are 

transpired by plants, and 4 to 5 inches are lost to surface runoff. The remaining 13 to 15 inches 

of rainfall are absorbed into the ground and naturally stored in a system of groundwater aquifers 

that underlie most of the state. 

The Columbia Formation, a relatively thin layer of predominantly sands and gravels that 

unconformably overlies the older dipping coastal plain sediments presumed to have originated 

from streams created in the last ice age by melted flowing waters, covers almost all of the 

Coastal Plain of the state. The Columbia Formation is a groundwater source for water yields 

ranging from less than 10 gallons per minute (gpm) to excellent water yields greater than 500 

gpm where sufficient formation thickness and saturation rates exist. The water yields typically 

increase in quantity in a general north to south direction, which correlates to formation 

thickening. This formation also serves a source of recharge for the underlying aquifers. 

The Rancocas Group consists of the Vincentown and Hornerstown Formations. These minor 

aquifers produce well yields adequate for domestic use, but are of little value for large scale 

water production. The Mount Laurel and the Englishtown Formations, likewise, are capable of 

producing enough water for domestic use, but are not generally considered to have consistent 

water supply potential. The Magothy Formation consists of clean sand and it underlies the more 

recent deposits described above. This aquifer is a major aquifer, but in some areas the depth 

makes the cost to drill wells prohibitive. 

The Potomac Formation is used for water supply in northern Delaware, but not in southern 

Delaware due to the depth of the aquifer and the groundwater being brackish in nature. Other 

major aquifer systems that overlie the Potomac Formation are also commonly used. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-130 

In the project area, groundwater depths are unusually deeper than what is normal for the 

Columbia Formation. Vertical recharge is slow even though surface recharge areas cover most 

of the region; Figure III-16 shows the aquifer recharge areas. There is little to no fluctuation in 

water levels throughout the year which is most likely due to the presence of the C&D Canal and 

the surrounding creeks and rivers, particularly Drawyers Creek and its tributaries, located north 

of Odessa, and the Appoquinimink River and its tributaries, located south of Odessa. These 

streams and rivers act as natural drains for the water table which dampen any groundwater 

fluctuation. The following is a summary of existing groundwater conditions along each of the 

build alternatives alignments: 

Green (Preferred) Alternative

In the southwest segment from the state line to about Sandy branch, the depth to groundwater 

ranges from 40 to 60 feet. 

In the mid-section segment, groundwater is present at depths of approximately 40 to 60 feet; 

south of Bohemia Mill Road the depth to groundwater becomes as deep as 60 feet. 

In the northeast segment from the crossing with Drawyers Creek to the merge with US 301 

the depth to groundwater becomes shallower ranging from 40 to 20 feet, respectively. 

Approximately 40 percent of the alignment crosses groundwater recharge zones. 

Yellow Alternative

In the west segment from the state line to about Levels Road, groundwater is present at 

depths approximately 60 feet or greater becoming as shallow as about 50 feet near Bunker 

Hill Road and then becoming as deep as 60 feet near Armstrong Corner Road. 

In the mid-section segment, groundwater is present at depths of approximately 40 feet. 

In the east segment from the intersection with SR 896 to the merge with SR 1, groundwater is 

present at depths ranging from approximately 20 to 40 feet. 

At the Augustine Creek crossing, groundwater is present at depths less than approximately 20 

feet below the existing ground surface. 

Approximately 50 percent of the alignment crosses groundwater recharge zones. 

Purple Alternative

In the south end segment from the state line to the merge with SR 896, groundwater is 

present at depths of approximately 40 to 60 feet. 

At the Sandy Branch crossing, groundwater is present approximately 40 feet or less in depth. 

More than 75 percent of the alignment crosses groundwater recharge zones. 
?¡

)p

)h

AÝ

?¡

AØ

)h

?¡

?1

?Î

A×

AØ

)p

k

Townsend

Odessa

Middletown

B

G

BN

BS

GN GS

B Y

Y

P P

P

G

Spur

Y B

P

G

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

G

November 2007 Figure

III-16

É

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

Recharge Areas

1 in. = 1.1 mi.

US 301 Project Development

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Aquifer Recharge Areas

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-132 

 

Brown Alternative

In the south end segment from the state line to Sandy Branch, groundwater is present at 

depths of approximately 40 to 60 feet. Minor tributaries for Back Creek are located in this 

segment. 

In the mid-section segment, groundwater is present at depths of approximately 40 feet. 

From the Scott Run crossing to the merge with US 301, groundwater is present at depths less 

than approximately 20 feet below the existing ground surface. 

Approximately 50 percent of the alignment crosses groundwater recharge zones. 

b. Environmental Consequences 

The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on project area aquifers. However, as an 

unconfined aquifer, the Columbia Formation is vulnerable to contamination from the ground 

surface. Construction activities involving excavation that result from construction of any of the 

build alternatives (including the Preferred Alternative) may encounter and/or affect areas with 

shallow groundwater depths, especially those located near proposed crossings at bodies of 

surface water. Any excavations that encounter the groundwater may increase the potential for 

contamination being introduced into the ground water system. All of the proposed alternatives 

contain water crossings. 

The ground surface areas that have been characterized as recharge zones for the aquifer may also 

allow for introduction of pollutants into the groundwater through permeation during 

construction. This is an important concern, considering that a high percentage of the proposed 

alternative routes are located within the recharge zones. The Green (Preferred) Alternative has 

the least amount of roadway area located within recharge zones; the Purple Alternative has the 

highest percentage of potential roadway located on recharge zones, followed by the Yellow and 

Brown Alternatives. 

Introducing impervious surface into groundwater recharge zones may also affect recharge rates 

and percentage of water infiltration. Decreased infiltration may affect the size and quality of 

groundwater-created wetland seeps that create habitat for some wetland dependent species. 

Once construction of the roadways is complete, it is expected that runoff conditions will develop, 

possibly causing erosive conditions. Runoff conditions can also introduce undesirable materials, 

including solid particles and chemicals, into the water table by way of infiltration. Stormwater 

management facilities and drainage ditches assist in catching much of this runoff; they will be 

properly designed to prevent groundwater contamination in shallow aquifers. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-133 

5. Surface Water and Water Quality 

a. Surface Water 

(1) Existing Conditions - Watersheds

Five different watersheds are located within the project area, including the C&D Canal East 

Watershed, C&D Canal West Watershed, Bohemia Creek Watershed, Sassafras River 

Watershed, and the Appoquinimink River Watershed (Figure III-17). Land use within these 

watersheds includes agricultural, forest, wetland, urban/residential, shrubland, and other 

undefined land uses. According to DNREC, primary watershed concerns include the presence of 

pathogens, nutrient loading, physical habitat condition, and protection of water supply. 

The Chesapeake & Delaware (C&D) Canal East and West Watersheds 

The Chesapeake and Delaware Canal is a man-made navigation channel connecting the 

Delaware River to the Chesapeake Bay. The C&D Canal East and West Watersheds have a 

combined drainage area of approximately 41,000 acres. The C&D Canal East Watershed drains 

into the Delaware Bay Basin, while the C&D Canal West Watershed drains into the Chesapeake 

Bay Basin. 

The C&D Canal East Watershed extends south from the SR 40/Porter Road area to 

approximately SR 896 and from an area outside the project area on the east to approximately US 

301 on the west. The C&D Canal West Watershed extends from SR 40/Porter Road on the north 

to approximately one mile south of Back Creek, and from the vicinity of US 301 on the east, out 

of the project area into the State of Maryland to the west. 

Major surface water bodies in the C&D Canal East Watershed include the C&D Canal and its 

unnamed tributaries, Crystal Run, Joy Run, Scott Run and its unnamed tributaries and Augustine 

Creek. Major surface water bodies in the C&D Canal West Watershed include the Chesapeake 

and Delaware Canal and its unnamed tributaries and Back Creek and its unnamed tributaries. 

Lands adjacent to both watersheds consist of federal reservation land currently designated as a 

wildlife area. Land use within these watersheds is comprised of 56 percent agricultural, 

14 percent forest, 10 percent wetland, 9 percent brushland, 4 percent urban/residential and 

7 percent other. 

Appoquinimink River Watershed 

The Appoquinimink River Watershed drains approximately 30,000 acres within the Delaware 

Bay Basin in southern New Castle County, Delaware. The Appoquinimink River Watershed 

extends from the C&D Canal East Watershed on the north to approximately one-half mile south 

of Wiggins Mill Pond on the south, and from an area outside of the project area on the east to an 

area slightly east of SR 15 on the west. 
?¡

)p

)h

AÝ

?¡

AØ

)h

?¡

?1

?Î

A×

AØ

)p

k

Townsend

Odessa

Middletown

B

G

BN

BS

GN

GS

B Y

Y

P P

P

G

Spur

Y B

P

G

C & D

Canal East

C & D

Canal West

Bohemia

Creek

Appoquinimink

River

Sassafras

River

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

G

November 2007 Figure

III-17

É

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

WATERSHED

Appoquinimink River

Bohemia Creek

C & D Canal East

C & D Canal West

Sassafras River

1 in. = 1.1 mi.

Watersheds

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

US 301 Project Development

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-135 

Major water bodies within the Appoquinimink River Watershed include the main stem of the 

Appoquinimink River, Drawyers Creek and its unnamed tributaries, Spring Mill Branch and 

Dove Nest Branch. Man-made ponds and lakes include Shallcross Lake, Noxontown Lake, 

Silver Lake and Wiggins Mill Pond. 

The major land use category in this watershed is agricultural (69 percent) with the remainder 

consisting of wetland (12 percent), forest (11 percent), urban/residential (3 percent) and other 

(5 percent). The area is experiencing significant residential growth near its three 

residential/urban centers, Middletown, Odessa, and Townsend. 

Bohemia Creek Watershed 

The Bohemia Creek Watershed drains approximately 12,000 acres of western New Castle 

County, Delaware and eastern Cecil County, Maryland into the Chesapeake Bay Basin. The 

Bohemia Creek Watershed is bordered by the C&D Canal West Watershed on the north and 

extends southward to the Sassafras River Watershed approximately one-half mile south of an 

unnamed tributary of Sandy Branch. The watershed’s eastern boundary is located slightly east of 

SR 15 and extends to the west, outside of the project area, into the State of Maryland. Major 

surface water bodies within this watershed include Great Bohemia Creek and its unnamed 

tributaries and Sandy Branch and its unnamed tributaries. 

The major land use category in this watershed is agricultural land with forests, wetlands, and 

residential areas making up the remaining land uses. Pathogens, nutrient loading, physical 

habitat condition, and water supply are the primary watershed concerns. 

Sassafras River Watershed 

The Sassafras River watershed drains approximately 48,300 acres within western New Castle 

County, Delaware and eastern Cecil County, Maryland. The watershed is bordered by the 

Bohemia Creek Watershed to the north and extends south, outside of the project area. The 

watershed’s eastern boundary roughly parallels SR 15 and extends westward out of the project 

area into the State of Maryland. 

Major surface water bodies within the Sassafras River Watershed include the Sassafras River and 

several of its unnamed tributaries. 

The major land use categories within the watershed include agricultural (68 percent), forest 

(26 percent), residential (4 percent) and wetlands (2 percent). Pathogens, nutrient loading, 

physical habitat condition, and water supply are the primary watershed concerns. 

(2) Environmental Consequences

The No-Build Alternative would result in no impacts to watersheds within the project area. 

Impacts to surface water features could potentially result from construction and operation of any 

of the build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative. These impacts include: bridge 

and/or culvert construction at stream crossings, accidental spills of hazardous materials, 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-136 

sedimentation, bridge shading, removal of riparian vegetation, surface water diversions, potential 

dewatering, lack of surface water recharge along stream headwaters, and from construction of 

this project’s roadways. 

The greatest impact to watersheds from the build alternatives would be from the increase in 

impervious surfaces created during the construction and expansion of new roadways. The 

Preferred Alternative would create an additional 238 acres of additional impervious surface area. 

A substantial increase in the amount of imperviousness would greatly affect hydrologic 

conditions, including the frequency, intensity and quantity of surface water runoff within the 

watershed. Increases in impervious surface area also facilitate the introduction of hazardous 

materials, sediment and eroded soils into the watershed through increased surface runoff. Table 

III-56 shows the amounts of new impervious surface that would be added with each of the build 

alternatives, as detailed in the DEIS. 

Table III-56: Alternatives Impervious Surface Additions 

Yellow Purple Brown 

North 

Brown 

South 

Green 

North 

(DEIS) 

Green 

South 

Acres of Additional Impervious 

Surface 246 226 217 222 216 220 

Potential impacts to surface waters (stream and ditch crossings) could result in potential impacts 

as discussed in the following paragraphs. The No-Build Alternative would not impact surface 

waters in the project area. The Preferred Alternative would have 46 impacts to streams and 

ditches in the project area in the five watersheds impacted by the project (see Table III-57). 

Table III-57: Numbers of Potential Impacts of the Preferred Alternative to Surface 

Waters 

Watershed Impacts Watershed Impacts 

Ditches 2 Ditches 5 C&D Canal East Streams 3 Bohemia Creek Streams 2 

Ditches 11 Ditches 8 C&D Canal West Streams 3 Sassafras River Streams 3 

Ditches 5 Ditches 31 Appoquinimink River Streams 4 Total Impacts (46) Streams 15 

The numbers of impacts of the four build alternatives to streams and ditches, as shown in Table 

III-58, were considered during the evaluation of alternatives and selection of a Preferred 

Alternative. Potential numbers of impacts to surface waters ranged between 57 for the Yellow 

Alternative and 39 for the Brown South Alternative. These impacts reflect an update over those 

shown in the DEIS, because the data were reported for a more preliminary level of engineering 

detail than was completed for the DEIS. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-137 

Table III-58: Potential Impacts of the Retained Alternatives to Surface Waters

Alternative Yellow Purple Brown 

North 

Brown 

South 

Green 

North 

(DEIS) 

Green 

South 

Ditches 16 12 6 5 4 3 C&D Canal East Streams 2 2 10 7 3 4 

Ditches 5 9 10 6 9 9 C&D Canal West Streams 0 5 4 4 5 5 

Ditches 14 1 1 1 4 4 Appoquinimink River Streams 1 0 0 0 3 4 

Ditches 6 2 2 2 2 2 Bohemia Creek Streams 3 4 4 4 4 4 

Ditches 8 8 8 8 8 8 Sassafras River Streams 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Total Surface Water Ditches 49 35 27 22 27 26 

Feature Impacts Streams 8 16 20 17 17 19 

Total Impacts 57 51 47 39 44 45 

NOTE: Ditches and Streams are waters of the US not included in wetlands 

Construction of bridges or culverts over stream crossings resulting from any of the build 

alternatives could affect surface water features by altering stream morphology and stream bank 

stability. Spills of hazardous materials on roadways during and after construction may directly 

enter surface waters. Sediment from construction activities and improper erosion controls after 

construction may lead to grade changes, and increased erosion in surface waters. Bridge shading 

and riparian vegetation removal can result in a change to the amount and type of riparian habitat 

cover and affect water temperature potentially leading to a change in the thermal chemistry of 

the stream. Surface water diversions could potentially affect stream base flow and increase the 

possibility of flash flood storm events. Impacts along headwater streams may result in a loss of 

surface water recharge to a stream system or potential dewatering of headwaters. The 

construction of new roadways and the expansion of existing road surfaces along surface water 

features could potentially decrease the amount of vegetated riparian buffer and increase the 

amount of impervious surface. 

Additional impacts to surface water features may occur as a result of activities related to each of 

the build alternatives including: increased stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces, greater 

influx of pollutants including sediment into surface water features, temporary disturbance 

resulting from construction activities, and increased stream velocities and bank erosion rates. 

The construction of new road surfaces will increase the amount of impervious surface area 

within the watershed and also the amount and intensity of stormwater runoff entering surface 

water features within the project area. The increased traffic on these new roadways may lead to 

a greater amount of water pollution. Pollutants such as oil, grease, heavy metals, sediment, 

organics, and nutrients transported from road surfaces via stormwater runoff can be released into 

nearby streams. During construction activities related to the project, temporary impacts may 

result due to the disturbance of adjacent land areas and in-stream activities. The disturbance of 

stream banks and an increase in the amount of runoff can result in a dramatic increase in stream 

velocities, stream discharge rates, erosion potential and other hydrologic stream functions. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-138 

(3) Mitigation

Mitigation options for watersheds that will be used include the construction of stormwater 

management facilities to handle the increased stormwater runoff that will occur due to more 

impervious surface areas. These stormwater management facilities manage the flow and 

discharge of stormwater into the streams and rivers located in the project area and reduce the 

possibility and effects of increased pollution, erosion, and morphological stream changes. In 

order to meet the stormwater management requirements for the project, a combination 

of structural and non-structural stormwater management facilities will be utilized. To the extent 

practicable, the project will incorporate the use of “Green Technology” Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) in fulfilling the stormwater management requirements for the project. Green 

Technology practices include filter strips, biofiltration swales, bioretention, and infiltration 

trenches. More traditional facilities such as wet and dry ponds will be utilized where the use of 

Green Technologies is not feasible to meet the stormwater management requirements. Due to 

right-of-way, utility or environmental constraints, the use of underground stormwater treatment 

structures, such as filtration structures, hydraulic separators and catch basin inserts may be 

utilized. 

In order to prevent stream degradation, water quality impairment, and flooding associated with 

construction projects, Delaware’s Sediment and Stormwater Regulations require that stormwater 

management measures (BMPs) be implemented. DNREC has delegated approval authority for 

stormwater management to DelDOT for DelDOT projects. South of the C&D Canal, runoff 

must be limited to predevelopment levels for the 2-year and 10-year design storms to prevent 

flooding and channel erosion, referred to as quantity management. To address water quality

impacts of construction, the runoff from the lesser of the one-year, 24-hour design storm, or one 

inch, must be treated in BMPs to reduce sediment, nutrient, and toxics loadings to waterways. 

Stormwater management BMPs require additional right-of-way and may sometimes need to be 

located within wetland or other sensitive areas. Therefore, the build alternatives were assessed to 

determine stormwater management requirements for each, and identify the size and location of 

potential stormwater management sites, and resulting effects on the project limits of disturbance. 

The US 301 roadway typical section includes 4-foot wide side ditches, which, along with the 

proposed 4:1 side slopes and available safety grading, provide an adequate section for water 

quality treatment using non-structural BMPs such as bioswales, in keeping with the DNREC 

preference for ‘green design’ type BMPs. Additional structural BMPs are required for quantity 

management. Potential SWM pond locations were identified based on topography and proposed 

roadway horizontal and vertical alignments. Wherever possible, wetlands and historic properties 

were avoided. Using an adaptation of the methods recommended in Maryland SHA Highway 

Hydraulic’s Division April 2003 Stormwater Management Concept Report Guidelines, the 

required stormwater pond sizes were estimated as described below: 

Runoff volumes were estimated for the 2-year and 10-year storm events, assuming a 

Runoff Curve Number of 90 within the roadway cut/fill limits 

Storage volume was estimated for each storm, using 50 percent of the runoff volume for 

the 2-year event, and 40 percent of the runoff volume for the 10-year event, both with a 

safety factor of 1.3. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-139 

Surface area requirements were computed for each storm, assuming 2 feet of depth for 

the 2-year volume, and 3 feet of depth for the 10-year volume 

The required pond/structural BMP area was estimated as the larger of the 2-year and 

10-year computed surface area, times 1.25 

Preliminary stormwater management facility locations shown in the DEIS have been refined and 

modified for the Preferred Alternative. These locations, based on hydrology studies during 

detailed engineering, are shown on the plan sheets in Appendix B, along with the project limits 

of disturbance. Using the method outlined above, the approximate area required for stormwater 

management facilities would be 7 percent of proposed area for each alternative. 

By constructing bridges over surface water features, the impact is minimized to a more narrow 

area. By constructing bridges over sensitive features, the amount of impact to adjacent resources 

can be avoided completely or greatly decreased. 

During construction activities, the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) such as 

limiting the period allowed for instream construction work can reduce potential impacts to 

streams and watersheds. 

Additional mitigation would include riparian buffer restoration and enhancement. Riparian 

buffers protect surface waters by reducing thermal impact and attenuating surface runoff. 

Riparian vegetation would be planted along stream corridors to create new riparian buffers or 

planted adjacent to existing vegetation to enlarge existing undersized buffers. 

b. Water Quality 

 (1) Existing Conditions

The Delaware Water Quality Standards Program has defined “designated uses” for each water 

body as specified in the water quality standards. Designated use standards require that potential 

uses of water are protected, even if they are not currently being attained. There are currently 

nine designated uses of water in the State of Delaware as follows: 

Public Water Supply 

Primary Contact Recreation (Swimming) 

Secondary Contact Recreation (Wading) 

Agricultural Water Supply 

Industrial Water Supply 

Fish Aquatic Life and Wildlife 

ERESE Waters (Waters of Exceptional Recreational and Ecological Significance) 

Cold Water Fish 

Harvestable Shellfish Waters 

DNREC has obtained water quality data for several of the surface water features located within 

the project area (Table III-59). Water bodies in this area are routinely monitored for typical 

water quality parameters (i.e., pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), etc.). Water quality data 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-140 

for the Sassafras River and Great Bohemia River were not collected by DNREC. DNREC has 

also conducted habitat and biological assessments of surface water features in the project area. 

Based upon these assessments, the water quality of these surface water features has been 

determined to range from severely degraded to excellent. 

Table III-59: Water Quality Data for Surface Water Features within the Project Area

Test Parameters 

DO pH Temp 

Watershed Segment Name Average 

DO 

(mg/L) 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Average 

Total N 

(mg/L) 

Average 

Total P 

(mg/L) 

C&D Canal 

(East/West) 

C&D Canal from 

Maryland Line to 

Delaware River 

7.9 11.2 1.9 7.7 6.2 27.0 6.0 2.02 0.157 

Appoquinimink 

River

Lower 

Appoquinimink 

River

6.9 10.4 3.6 7.6 6.0 26.0 3.0 1.91 0.304 

Appoquinimink 

River

Upper 

Appoquinimink 

River

7.0 9.8 4.0 7.8 6.1 28.0 1.0 2.01 0.204 

Appoquinimink 

River 

Drawyers Creek 

and Tributaries 8.4 11.4 5.0 7.3 6.0 25.0 5.5 2.40 0.266 

Appoquinimink 

River Shallcross Lake 8.9 11.6 7.6 8.1 5.2 24.0 6.0 3.33 0.051 

Appoquinimink 

River Silver Lake 9.8 11.9 6.6 8.5 6.2 14.0 5.5 5.15 0.097 

Surface water quality data reveal that the leading causes of diminished aquatic life in Delaware 

waters are increased nutrient influx, low dissolved oxygen levels, and biological and habitat 

degradation. The main sources of the degradation of biological quality and aquatic habitat are 

the result of non-point source pollution from agricultural and urban runoff. 

Although pathogenic indicators are the most widespread contaminant source found throughout 

the state, nutrients and toxics pose the most serious threat to surface water quality, aquatic 

habitat, and human health. Toxic contaminants are released into surface water features as the 

result of pollution from urban and industrial areas. Non-point sources, primarily runoff from 

agricultural and urban land, and municipal and industrial point sources remain the primary 

contributors of both nutrients and toxics to surface water features. 

Surface waters located in the Appoquinimink River Watershed and C&D Canal East and West 

Watersheds have shown moderately to severely degraded water quality as a result of pollution 

from ongoing urban and industrial runoff and prior contamination. Surface water features 

located in more rural areas, including the Bohemia Creek and Sassafras River Watersheds, 

exhibit more stable water quality compared to other watersheds in the project area and have 

water quality impacts primarily from agricultural use. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-141 

DNREC, in response to surface water quality degradation, has established fish consumption 

advisories to the general public for portions of the Appoquinimink River, Drawyers Creek and its 

tributaries, and the C&D Canal. 

(2) Environmental Consequences

Impacts to surface water quality may result from each of the build alternatives, including the 

Preferred Alternative. Only the No-Build Alternative would result in no impacts to surface water 

quality. Direct impacts that result from bridge or roadway construction or those involving the 

disturbance of stream banks or channels will have an adverse impact on water quality by 

affecting stream flow rates, temperature and nutrient levels. Elevated levels of pollutants such as 

oil and grease, deicers, heavy metals, organics, sediment and nutrients will accompany increased 

stormwater runoff from vehicle traffic using these routes. 

An increase in impervious surface area will provide a direct means for the introduction of 

increased levels of hazardous materials, sediment and excess nutrients into surface water bodies. 

New impervious areas introduced into each watershed will also inhibit the dilution of pollutants 

and sediment loads by surface and subsurface soils which otherwise could reduce the negative 

affects of pollutants and sediment loads on water quality. 

The construction of roadways and associated infrastructure will include the introduction of 

additional discharge outlets (i.e., pipes and culverts) for the transmission of polluted runoff from 

both point and non-point sources. The increased number of discharge points will have as adverse 

effect on the overall surface water quality within the project area. 

Construction activities that occur adjacent to or within the vicinity of surface water features may 

have effects on surface water features. The construction of new roads, drainage ways, and other 

impervious surfaces will increase the amount of stormwater runoff entering nearby rivers, 

streams and lakes. The construction of new transportation routes may result in further land 

development and promote additional land use changes throughout the project area to address 

demand for more commercial and residential properties. The clearing and excavation of 

previously forested or agricultural lands may cause an increase in soil erosion and lead to further 

sedimentation of surface water features. Similarly, reductions in riparian forest may lead to 

elevated water temperatures which is directly limiting to cold-water fish, and decreases dissolved 

oxygen which is limiting to all aquatic life. 

(3) Mitigation

The Preferred Alternative will include properly designed and constructed stormwater 

management facilities that will control the release and amount of runoff entering natural surface 

water features from newly created highways and drainage ways and reduce the potential for 

sedimentation impact to receiving waters. In order to obtain proper avoidance and minimization 

of impacts to surface water quality, the design and construction of each stormwater management 

facility will be in conformance with the requirements established by DNREC. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-142 

During construction activities, the implementation of BMPs will reduce potential negative effects 

by providing a standard control method that meets the highest degree of pollution reduction 

possible. The design and construction of routes to limit direct impacts to surface water features 

will reduce the level of impact to the natural system. In areas of temporary disturbance owing to 

construction, soil and vegetative cover will be reestablished to return disturbed areas to their 

natural appearance and function. 

Proper erosion and sediment control measures will be employed as a BMP to limit the amount of 

erosion and the influx of sediment loads into adjacent surface waters. The implementation of 

these practices during roadway construction will further provide for the protection of water 

quality within the project area. To ensure proper construction and maintenance, erosion and 

sediment control measures will be installed in adherence with the requirements of DNREC and 

be subjected to the examination and authority of DNREC inspectors. 

Additional mitigation associated with the Preferred Alternative will include riparian buffer 

restoration and enhancement. Riparian buffers protect water quality by reducing thermal impact 

and attenuating surface runoff. Riparian vegetation would be planted along stream corridors to 

create new riparian buffers or planted to enlarge existing undersized vegetated buffers. 

6. Waters of the United States, including Wetlands

a. Existing Conditions 

This section includes two areas of study: the wetland investigation area and the project area. 

The wetland investigation area is based on a buffer around the potential impact areas of the 

retained build alternatives. The project area includes a larger area extending beyond the limit of 

disturbance (LOD) and wetland investigation area for the purpose of more generalized analysis 

of other natural features. A thorough evaluation of the wetland investigation area can be found 

in the US 301 Project Development: Investigation for Wetlands and Waters of the United States 

and Phase 1 Bog Turtle Habitat Assessment, 2005 (draft, November 2005). 

Delaware Office of State Planning and Coordination 2002 GIS Land Use and Land Cover 

wetlands data were used, in conjunction with Delaware 2002 aerial photography, to initially 

determine the presence of wetlands greater than one-quarter acre within the wetland investigation 

area. In addition, three previous wetland delineations were referenced: one for the Whitehall 

Properties development project carried out in 1998 and provided by Whitehall Joint Venture, the 

February 2000 delineation for the Village of Bayberry development and a recent delineation for 

the Pleasanton development. Information on hydric soils was compiled from NRCS and DDA 

mapping files; detailed soils information can be found in Section F.3 of this Chapter. 

Some wetlands assessed during field investigations contain water features within the wetland 

boundary, such as streams within a wetland corridor or a drainage ditches within forested 

wetland tracts. Initially these water features were not identified separately from the surrounding 

wetlands. This method of grouping as one wetland feature, approved by USACE, DNREC, and 

EPA, was done to streamline the original alternative assessment. Following the identification of 

the Preferred Alternative these water features were delineated and surveyed as separate resources 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-143 

for the Preferred Alternative only, and are included in the impacts listed for the Preferred 

Alternative. Ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial waters of the US not surrounded by wetlands 

were also surveyed. Information on feature hydrologic class, feature description, average width 

and depth, bottom substrate, and vegetation was collected during the field investigation. 

The detailed investigation was conducted according to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands 

Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) using the routine on-site method and 

supplemental guidance issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The ACOE manual 

outlines a three parameter approach to delineating wetlands. All three parameters (hydrophytic 

vegetation, hydrologic indicators, and hydric soils) must be evident for an area to be considered a 

wetland, unless the site has been disturbed or is considered a problem area. The wetlands 

identified during the investigation are shown in general on Figure III-18 and in detail in 

Appendix B. Hydric soils are shown on Figure III-15 (Section III.F.3). 

Each identified wetland was given a quality rating of high, medium, or low. The quality rating 

was based on the individual wetland delineator’s best professional judgment. The following 

functions and values were considered when determining wetland quality: groundwater recharge 

and discharge, flood flow alteration, fish and shellfish habitat, sediment toxicant retention, 

nutrient removal, production export, sediment and shoreline stabilization, wildlife habitat, 

recreation, education and scientific value, uniqueness and heritage, visual quality and aesthetics, 

endangered species habitat and size. The various wetland functional parameters were identified 

through the joint effort of the project team as the DEIS was being developed. As such, these 

parameters are expected to address a broad range of functional values. All of the wetland quality 

ratings developed in response to this effort have not been reviewed by the regulatory and 

environmental resource agencies; however, several wetlands and their quality ratings were 

reviewed in the field with the ACOE and DNREC. These included wetlands in the Ratledge 

Road vicinity and wetlands along the Yellow Alternative. 

Twelve field reviews with the ACOE (June 15, June 23, July 12, July 19, August 9, August 19, 

September 8, November 9, November 16, and December 21, 2005; January 5 and January 10, 

2006) were completed for all wetland and waters boundaries for the four build alternatives prior 

to the publication of the DEIS. DNREC representatives attended many of these meetings as well 

(see Chapter IV B.2 and 3). These field reviews consisted of the wetland delineation team 

visiting delineated resources with a representative of ACOE and adjusting wetland boundaries if 

necessary. Each reviewed wetland boundary was then surveyed using mapping-grade Global 

Positioning System (GPS) receivers. 

Following the publication of the DEIS, additional field surveys were completed for the Preferred 

Alternative between January and March, 2007. Figure III-18 has been updated for the Preferred 

Alternative only to show the results of these surveys. A detailed conventional survey of these 

final wetland boundaries was completed in spring 2007 for the purpose of receiving an eventual 

Jurisdictional Determination (JD) from ACOE. The detailed survey resulted in some minor 

refinements to wetland boundaries from those mapped in 2005, as well as the addition of several 

wetland systems, especially low-quality farmed wetlands not visible during the 2005 survey. It 

is anticipated that the same increase in mapped wetlands would have occurred along the other 

build alternatives had they undergone the same JD-level survey as the Preferred Alternative. 
)p

AØ

)p

AØ

?Î

)p

Warwick

Middletown

Townsend

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

Churchtow

Old School House Rd

Bohemia Mill Rd Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Noxontown Rd

Silverlake Rd

Main St

Money Rd

Bunker Hill Rd

Middletown Warwick Rd

Middle Neck Rd

N Broad St

S Broad St

Levels Rd

Strawberry La

Grears Corner Rd

Green Giant Rd

Wiggins Mill Rd

Church Rd

Great

Bohemia

Creek

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove

Nest Branch

Noxontown

Pond

Silver

Lake

Sandy

Branch

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Middletown

Village Matapeake

Country

Acres

Wheatland

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Post and

Rail Farms

Back Meadowbrook Farms

Creek

Match

Line

B Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

G

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-18A

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

2005 Unrefined Wetlands

2007 Refined Wetlands

Streams & Ditches

DNREC Subaqueous Lands

SWM Ponds

DNREC Tidal Wetlands

Other Waters of the US

Sources: Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination, 2002

 Field Delineation, 2005

US 301 Project Development

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Waters of the US including Wetlands

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
AÝ

)p

?¡

?Î

AÝ

)p

)h

?¡

AÝ

)h

?¡

)h

AØ

)p

Middletown

Odessa

St Georges Rd

Rd

Red Lion Rd

Cox Neck Rd

Summit

Bridge

d

Summit Bridge Rd

Churchtown Rd

Old School House Rd

Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Bethel Church Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Ratledge Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Bayview Rd

Vance Neck Rd

Hyetts Corner Rd

Jamison Corner Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Main St

Old Corbit Rd

N Broad St

Lums

Pond

Chesapeake

Joy

Run

Run

Scott

Creek

Augustine

Creek

Drawyer

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove Nest Branch

River

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Boyds

Corner

Saint

Georges

Middletown

Village

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Greylag

Commodore

Estates

Lorewood

Estates

Airmont

Acres

Mount

Hope

Summit

Bridge

Farms Summit

Pond

Crystal

Run

Dickerson Farm

Farm

Chesapeake

Meadow

Post and

Rail Farms

Meadowbrook Farms

Lea Eara

Farms West Lea Eara

Farms East

Grande

View

Farms

Asbury

Chase

Bolton

Meadows

Odessa

Heights

Spring

Oaks

m

and Delaware

Canal

B

Match

Line

Summit

Airport

o

Summit

Farms

G

GN

GS

BN

BS

B Y

P

Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

G

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-18B

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

2005 Unrefined Wetlands

2007 Refined Wetlands

Streams & Ditches

DNREC Subaqueous Lands

SWM Ponds

DNREC Tidal Wetlands

Other Waters of the US

Sources: Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination, 2002

 Field Delineation, 2005

US 301 Project Development

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Waters of the US including Wetlands

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-146 

Wetlands within the wetland investigation area are mostly linear riparian systems associated with 

stream drainage, or irregular shaped depressions where the water table is close to the surface or 

surface drainage is poor. The portion of the project area south of Summit Airport and Boyds 

Corner, including the Yellow, Purple, Brown, and Green alternatives, is situated along the 

Chesapeake Bay/Delaware River drainage divide and thus in the upper reaches of the 

watersheds. In these areas, the streams are generally small, with little development of 

floodplains or stream valleys. There are two types of wetlands in these areas: large, forested 

wetlands surrounded by agricultural fields or narrow wetlands along ditched or small, 

straightened streams. 

 

The investigated area north and east of the Summit Airport and Boyds Corner, including portions 

of the Yellow, Purple, Green, and Brown alternatives, intersects large, well-developed floodplain 

and wetland corridors along Scott Run and Joy Run. There are also a few flat, forested wetlands 

immediately east of Boyds Corner. 

Tax Ditches

Under Delaware Code Chapter 14, tax ditch organizations are legal entities and subsidiary units 

of state government, with taxation powers, established by Superior Court order to provide for 

ownership, construction, and maintenance of tax ditches. Tax ditches are man-made channels, 

constructed for the purposes of flood control and agricultural drainage. A tax ditch organization 

is comprised of all landowners (referred to as taxables) of a particular watershed or subwatershed, and overseen by managers and a secretary/treasurer, elected annually from among the 

taxables. DNREC’s Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Drainage Section, provides 

technical assistance to the organizations in the review of any proposed changes to ditch flow 

patterns or drainage boundaries. The organizations have the authority to prevent additional lands 

and waters from draining into tax ditches. DelDOT is required to maintain highway 

drainageways to prevent sediment from obstructing tax ditches to the extent possible and to 

remove obstructing sediment and silt from tax ditches near highways. Tax ditches are also 

subject to regulation as waters of the US, when so delineated, and as non-delineated floodplains, 

when shown on the appropriate Soil Survey or USGS quadrangle maps. 

b. Environmental Consequences

The No-Build Alternative would not affect any wetlands or other waters of the US. Potential 

impacts to wetlands and waters resulting from the Preferred Alternative and the other build 

alternatives were calculated based on LOD defined for each alternative. In areas where grading 

changes are significant, the LOD is located 25 feet beyond the proposed toe of slopes. Where a 

bridge spans an environmental resource, the LOD was defined as the footprint of the bridge (i.e., 

the “shaded” area). 

Wetland impacts include the displacement, dredging, filling or shading of an entire wetland or a 

portion of a wetland. Impacts may also include an interruption to wetland hydrology or 

interruption to the hydrology of a stream. Additional impacts can result from roadway runoff, 

sedimentation, alteration of hydrology and shadows cast by bridge structures. Some of these 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-147 

impacts could lead to degradation or a decrease in an available wetland and waterway habitat 

within the project area and, ultimately, a decrease in plant and animal species inhabiting these 

areas. These impacts are regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA) Sections 404 and 401, and 

associated DNREC and Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) requirements. 

The Preferred Alternative would affect wetlands and other waters of the US to varying degrees 

described below and in Tables III-60 and III-61. Public interest factors and community issues 

raised during the public hearings resulted in some design shifts of the Preferred Alternative in the 

Ratledge Road area. Factors raised by the public are discussed in Chapter IV. All comments 

received during the DEIS public comment period are printed in Chapter IV along with DelDOT 

responses.

The Preferred Alternative includes Ratledge Road Area Option 4B Modified, as described in 

Chapter II Section D.4. The Ratledge Road Area design shifts have caused an increase in 

wetlands impacts for the Preferred Alternative; however, these impact increases are mainly to 

medium quality wetlands and the amount of impact to high quality wetlands has decreased. Both 

the ACOE and DNREC support this option provided a package of additional mitigation measures 

is included (Section c. Mitigation). The refinement of the wetland delineation for the Preferred 

Alternative, as described previously (refer to Chapter III.F.6.a.), has resulted in minor changes 

to projected impacts to streams and ditches. The coordinated review of this project by the 

regulatory agencies will continue through final design, which may further reduce these projected 

impacts. All of the impact changes for the Preferred Alternative are reflected in Tables III-60

and III-61. 

In addition, there is an increased footprint for the Preferred Alternative that resulted from 

detailed engineering that accounted for topography and required that the roadway be raised 

above existing ground along portions of the alignment to assure proper drainage. See Chapter II 

Section A.1.f, General Engineering Design Concepts and the introduction to Chapter III.

As shown in Table III-60, although the total acres of wetlands impacts for the Preferred 

Alternative increased to 35.0 acres from 26.2 acres described for the Green North Alternative in 

the DEIS (refer to Table III-62), the number of high quality wetlands impacts decreased from 

9.0 acres to 5.7 acres. The number of wetland systems impacted decreased from 43 reported in 

the DEIS to 33 as a result of the detailed surveys completed in early 2007, and the number of 

wetland crossings and fragmented wetlands decreased. As indicated, delineating the streams and 

ditches previously included within wetland systems separately has increased the linear feet of 

streams to 5,199 from 327 and decreased the linear feet of ditch impacts from 15,188 to 12,684. 

Following Table III-60 and Table III-61, Table III-62 and Table III-63 summarize the potential 

impacts of the four build alternatives. These potential impacts were considered during the 

evaluation of the build alternatives and during the selection of a Preferred Alternative. The 

results in Table III-63 below have been corrected from those numbers reported in the DEIS, as 

the areas of the wetlands were actually reported in square meters, not square feet as shown in the 

column header. The numbers have been converted to report square feet.
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-148 

Table III-60: Potential Wetlands Impacts of the Preferred 

Alternative 

Resource Impact 

Total Potential ACOE Wetlands Impacts1 (acres) 35.0 

 High Quality Wetlands 5.7 

 Medium Quality Wetlands 20.5 

 Low Quality Wetlands 8.7 

Number of Wetlands Impacted2 33 

Number of Wetland Crossings 7 

Number of wetlands with complete fragmentation 5 

ACOE other waters of the US, Streams,1,3 (linear feet) 5,199 

ACOE other waters of the US, Ditches (linear feet) 12,684 

ACOE other waters of the US, Open Waters (ponds, SWM) (acres) 5.0 

DNREC Tidal Wetlands4 (acres) 0 

DNREC Subaqueous Lands5 (linear feet) 8,323 

1. Wetlands are based on field delineations and have been verified by ACOE. Delineated 

boundaries were initially surveyed by GPS, and confirmed with traditional survey 

methods. 

2. Numbers of wetlands reflect systems, not individual wetland segments within the 

systems. Therefore, the individual wetland segments identified on Table III-54 reflect a 

larger number than reported above. 

3. Includes field delineated streams including stream segments within wetlands. 

4. Tidal wetlands are based on DNREC's Delaware Tidal Wetland Delineation Maps. 

5. Subaqueous Lands based on Streams shown on USGS quad maps and on New Castle 

County Soil Survey 

Table III-61: Individual Wetlands Impacts of the 

Preferred Alternative 

Impacted Wetlands Preferred

Alternative 

Code Type Class Quality Square 

Feet Acres

16B PFO Palustrine

Forested High 1,309 0.03 

16C PFO Palustrine

Forested High 342 0.01 

17AA PEM Palustrine

Emergent Medium 360,480 8.28 

18D PFO Palustrine

Forested Medium 71 <0.01 

1F PFO Palustrine

Forested High 45,415 1.04 

1H PFO Palustrine

Forested High 517 0.01 

1L PFO Palustrine

Forested High 1,356 0.03 

1M PFO Palustrine

Forested High 6,096 0.14 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-149 

Table III-61: Individual Wetlands Impacts of the 

Preferred Alternative 

Impacted Wetlands Preferred 

Alternative 

Code Type Class Quality Square 

Feet Acres 

1R PEM/PSS Palustrine 

Mixed Medium 11,318 0.26 

1S PEM/PSS Palustrine 

Mixed Medium 11,092 0.25 

1T PEM/PSS/

PFO 

Palustrine 

Mixed High 13,643 0.31 

1U PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Medium 12,689 0.29 

21B PEM Palustrine 

Emergent High 15,925 0.43 

21C PFO/PEM Palustrine 

Mixed Medium 1,925 0.04 

21F PFO/PEM Palustrine 

Mixed Medium 687 0.02 

22B PFO Palustrine 

Forested High 29,091 0.67 

23E PFO Palustrine 

Forested Low 13,871 0.32 

23F PFO Palustrine 

Forested Medium 14,084 0.32 

23G PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 10,648 0.24 

23S PFO Palustrine 

Forested Medium 77,913 1.79 

23T PFO Palustrine 

Forested Low 47,537 1.09 

23U PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 18,012 0.41 

23V PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 75,775 1.74 

28A PFO Palustrine 

Forested High 21,441 0.49 

28B PEM/PFO Palustrine 

Mixed Medium 22,882 0.53 

29D PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Medium 4,584 0.11 

29E PEM/PFO/

PSS 

Palustrine 

Mixed High 16,805 0.39 

2C PEM/PSS Palustrine 

Mixed High 6,123 0.14 

2E PEM Palustrine 

Emergent High 44,272 1.02 

30C PFO Palustrine 

Forested Medium 112,028 2.57 

37A PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Medium 47,868 1.10 

37C PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Medium 21,087 0.48 

37W PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 375 0.01 

38A PFO Palustrine 

Forested Medium 27,327 0.63 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-150 

Table III-61: Individual Wetlands Impacts of the 

Preferred Alternative 

Impacted Wetlands Preferred 

Alternative 

Code Type Class Quality Square 

Feet Acres 

38Z PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Medium 4,958 0.11 

4H PFO Palustrine 

Forested High 16,689 0.38 

4J PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Medium 22,929 0.53 

4K PFO Palustrine 

Forested High 14,186 0.33 

53A PFO Palustrine 

Forested High 15,013 0.34 

7R PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 4,879 0.11 

8B PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Medium 21 <0.01 

11C1 PEM/PFO Palustrine 

Mixed Medium 103,781 2.38 

11CC1 PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 44,948 1.03 

16D1 PFO Palustrine 

Forested High 105 <0.01 

17G1 PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 114 <0.01 

17OO1 PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 9,518 0.22 

18AA1 PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 13 0.00 

22H1 PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 114 <0.01 

2A1 PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 501 0.01 

2W1 PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 8,589 0.20 

30CC1 PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 40,889 0.94 

30X1 PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 19,707 0.45 

30Y1 PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 1,126 0.03 

32A1 PEM/PFO Palustrine 

Mixed Low 87,728 2.01 

40E1 PFO Palustrine 

Forested Medium 14,155 0.32 

40F1 PFO Palustrine 

Forested Medium 22,942 0.53 

53J1 PFO Palustrine 

Forested Medium 158 <0.01 

75W1 PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 4,226 0.10 

1. Additional wetlands delineated since the 2006 DEIS based on detailed 

survey. See Section F.6.a, Existing Conditions. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-151 

Table III-62: Potential ACOE and DNREC Jurisdictional Impacts (DEIS) 

Resource No-Build Yellow Purple Brown 

North 

Brown 

South 

Green 

North 

(DEIS) 

Green 

South 

Total Potential ACOE Wetlands Impacts1 (acres) 0 50.5 24.9 23.9 18.5 26.2 28.3 

 High Quality Wetlands 0 8.6 7.6 11.5 9.9 9.0 9.6 

 Medium Quality Wetlands 0 30.6 13.2 4.2 7.3 13.2 13.6 

 Low Quality Wetlands 0 11.2 4.2 8.2 1.3 4.0 5.1 

Number of Wetlands Impacted2 0 33 45 39 35 43 40 

Number of Wetland Crossings 0 4 9 10 8 8 8 

Number of wetlands with complete fragmentation 0 7 6 3 4 6 7 

ACOE other waters of the US, Streams3 (linear feet) 0 215 260 921 1,895 327 521 

ACOE other waters of the US, Ditches (linear feet) 0 20,492 15,997 14,237 12,383 15,188 15,805 

ACOE other waters of the US, Open Waters (ponds, 

SWM) (acres) 0 3.4 3.2 3.2 5.8 3.2 3.2 

DNREC Tidal Wetlands4 (acres) 0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 

DNREC Subaqueous Lands5 (linear feet) 0 7,167 6,461 7,885 8,232 8,162 8,481 

1. Wetlands are based on field delineations and have been verified by ACOE. Delineated boundaries were surveyed by GPS. 

2. Numbers of wetlands reflect systems, not individual wetland segments within the systems. Therefore, the individual wetland segments identified on 

Table III-57 reflect, in most cases, a larger number than reported above. 

3. Includes field delineated streams and does not include stream segments within wetlands. The boundaries were surveyed by GPS. 

4. Tidal wetlands are based on DNREC's Delaware Tidal Wetland Delineation Maps. 

5. Subaqueous Lands based on streams shown on USGS quad maps and on New Castle County Soil Survey. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-152 

Table III-63: Individual Wetlands Impacts of the Build Alternatives – Revised 

Impacted Wetlands Yellow 

Alternative 

Purple 

Alternative 

Brown North 

Alternative 

Brown South 

Alternative 

Green North 

Alternative 

Green South 

Alternative 

Code Type Class Quality Square 

Feet Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres 

11B PEM/PFO Palustrine 

Mixed Medium 125,453 2.88 

14F PFO Palustrine 

Forested High 2,178 0.05 2,178 0.05 

14I PEM/PSS Palustrine 

Mixed Medium 2,178 0.05 2,178 0.05 

14L PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 17,424 0.40 16,988 0.39 

16B PFO Palustrine 

Forested High 2,614 0.06 2,614 0.06 2,614 0.06 2,614 0.06 2,614 0.06 

16C PFO Palustrine 

Forested High 436 0.01 436 0.01 436 0.01 436 0.01 436 0.01 

17AA PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Medium 235,224 5.40 235,224 5.40 235,224 5.40 

18D PFO Palustrine 

Forested Medium 436 0.01 436 0.01 436 0.01 

19B PFO Palustrine 

Forested Medium 3,485 0.08 

19C PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 17,860 0.41 

1B PEM/PFO Palustrine 

Mixed Medium 20,038 0.46 20,038 0.46 20,038 0.46 20,038 0.46 20,038 0.46 20,038 0.46 

1F PFO Palustrine 

Forested High 45,302 1.04 45,302 1.04 45,302 1.04 45,302 1.04 45,302 1.04 45,302 1.04 

1H PFO Palustrine 

Forested High 4,792 0.11 4,792 0.11 4,792 0.11 4,792 0.11 4,792 0.11 4,792 0.11 

1L PFO Palustrine 

Forested High 1,307 0.03 1,307 0.03 1,307 0.03 1,307 0.03 1,307 0.03 1,307 0.03 

1M PFO Palustrine 

Forested High 2,178 0.05 2,178 0.05 2,178 0.05 2,178 0.05 2,178 0.05 2,178 0.05 

1R PEM/PSS Palustrine 

Mixed Medium 7,841 0.18 7,841 0.18 7,841 0.18 7,841 0.18 7,841 0.18 7,841 0.18 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-153 

Table III-63: Individual Wetlands Impacts of the Build Alternatives – Revised 

Impacted Wetlands Yellow 

Alternative 

Purple 

Alternative 

Brown North 

Alternative 

Brown South 

Alternative 

Green North 

Alternative 

Green South 

Alternative 

Code Type Class Quality Square 

Feet Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres 

1S PEM/PSS Palustrine 

Mixed Medium 6,098 0.14 6,098 0.14 6,098 0.14 6,098 0.14 6,098 0.14 6,098 0.14 

1T PEM/PSS/

PFO 

Palustrine 

Mixed High 13,068 0.30 13,068 0.30 13,068 0.30 13,068 0.30 13,068 0.30 13,068 0.30 

1U PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Medium 11,326 0.26 11,326 0.26 11,326 0.26 11,326 0.26 11,326 0.26 11,326 0.26 

20O PEM Palustrine 

Emergent High 61,855 1.42 

20Q PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 87,991 2.02 

20S PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Medium 871 0.02 

21B PEM Palustrine 

Emergent High 80,586 1.85 57,935 1.33 74,488 1.71 80,586 1.85 80,586 1.85 

21C PFO/PEM Palustrine 

Mixed Medium 5,227 0.12 5,227 0.12 5,227 0.12 5,227 0.12 5,227 0.12 

21F PFO/PEM Palustrine 

Mixed Medium 4,792 0.11 4,792 0.11 4,792 0.11 4,792 0.11 4,792 0.11 

22B PFO Palustrine 

Forested High 32,234 0.74 59,242 1.36 57,064 1.31 32,234 0.74 32,234 0.74 

22C PFO Palustrine 

Forested Medium 50,965 1.17 

23E PFO Palustrine 

Forested Low 5,227 0.12 10,454 0.24 11,761 0.27 9,148 0.21 10,454 0.24 10,454 0.24 

23F PFO Palustrine 

Forested Medium 17,424 0.40 1,307 0.03 

23G PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 6,970 0.16 32,670 0.75 14,810 0.34 6,970 0.16 6,970 0.16 

23H PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 27,443 0.63 9,148 0.21 

23S PFO Palustrine 

Forested Medium 22,216 0.51 92,347 2.12 38,333 0.88 5,227 0.12 92,347 2.12 92,347 2.12 

23T PFO Palustrine 

Forested Low 16,553 0.38 46,609 1.07 26,572 0.61 22,216 0.51 46,609 1.07 46,609 1.07 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-154 

Table III-63: Individual Wetlands Impacts of the Build Alternatives – Revised 

Impacted Wetlands Yellow 

Alternative 

Purple 

Alternative 

Brown North 

Alternative 

Brown South 

Alternative 

Green North 

Alternative 

Green South 

Alternative 

Code Type Class Quality Square 

Feet Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres 

23U PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 13,939 0.32 18,731 0.43 13,939 0.32 13,939 0.32 

23V PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 57,064 1.31 10,454 0.24 57,064 1.31 57,064 1.31 

23W PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 3,920 0.09 229,997 5.28 3,920 0.09 3,920 0.09 

24D PFO Palustrine 

Forested High 27,443 0.63 3,049 0.07 

25A PEM Palustrine 

Emergent High 57,935 1.33 

26B PEM Palustrine 

Emergent High 30,056 0.69 

28A PFO Palustrine 

Forested High 42,689 0.98 42,253 0.97 39,204 0.90 16,553 0.38 

28B PEM/PFO Palustrine 

Mixed Medium 21,780 0.50 21,780 0.50 21,780 0.50 21,780 0.50 

29D PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Medium 7,405 0.17 6,970 0.16 9,148 0.21 9,148 0.21 9,148 0.21 9,148 0.21 

29E PEM/PFO/

PSS 

Palustrine 

Mixed High 22,651 0.52 22,216 0.51 43,560 1.00 43,560 1.00 42,253 0.97 42,253 0.97 

2C PEM/PSS Palustrine 

Mixed High 23,087 0.53 1,742 0.04 2,178 0.05 2,178 0.05 1,742 0.04 1,742 0.04 

2D PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 2,614 0.06 

2E PEM Palustrine 

Emergent High 69,260 1.59 45,302 1.04 44,867 1.03 44,867 1.03 45,302 1.04 45,302 1.04 

30A PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 9,583 0.22 

30C PFO Palustrine 

Forested Medium 297,950 6.84 

31B PEM/PFO Palustrine 

Mixed High 52,272 1.20 

31E PEM/PFO Palustrine 

Mixed Medium 27,878 0.64 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-155 

Table III-63: Individual Wetlands Impacts of the Build Alternatives – Revised 

Impacted Wetlands Yellow 

Alternative 

Purple 

Alternative 

Brown North 

Alternative 

Brown South 

Alternative 

Green North 

Alternative 

Green South 

Alternative 

Code Type Class Quality Square 

Feet Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres 

33A PFO Palustrine 

Forested High 37,897 0.87 

33C PEM/PFO Palustrine 

Mixed High 8,276 0.19 

35A PFO Palustrine 

Forested Medium 109,336 2.51 

35 

Airport1 PFO Palustrine 

Forested Medium 25,265 0.58 

35 

Goodwin2 PFO Palustrine 

Forested High 44,867 0.40 

37A PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Medium 871 0.02 42,689 0.98 42,689 0.98 42,689 0.98 

37C PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Medium 15,682 0.36 15,682 0.36 15,682 0.36 

37W PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 1,742 0.04 1,742 0.04 1,742 0.04 

38A PFO Palustrine 

Forested Medium 47,045 1.08 47,045 1.08 47,045 1.08 

38Z PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Medium 5,227 0.12 5,227 0.12 5,227 0.12 

39H PFO Palustrine 

Forested High 3,049 0.07 3,049 0.07 3,049 0.07 3,049 0.07 3,049 0.07 3,049 0.07 

4H PFO Palustrine 

Forested High 26,136 0.60 25,700 0.59 25,700 0.59 26,136 0.60 26,136 0.60 

4I PEM/PFO Palustrine 

Mixed High 10,019 0.23 10,019 0.23 10,019 0.23 10,019 0.23 10,019 0.23 

4J PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Medium 13,939 0.32 13,939 0.32 13,939 0.32 13,939 0.32 13,939 0.32 

4K PFO Palustrine 

Forested High 10,890 0.25 10,890 0.25 10,890 0.25 10,890 0.25 10,890 0.25 

53A PFO Palustrine 

Forested High 30,492 0.70 30,491 0.70 29,185 0.67 

53G PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 436 0.01 75,359 1.73 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-156 

Table III-63: Individual Wetlands Impacts of the Build Alternatives – Revised 

Impacted Wetlands Yellow 

Alternative 

Purple 

Alternative 

Brown North 

Alternative 

Brown South 

Alternative 

Green North 

Alternative 

Green South 

Alternative 

Code Type Class Quality Square 

Feet Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres 

6A PFO/PEM Palustrine 

Mixed Medium 123,275 2.83 

7A PFO/PEM/

PSS 

Palustrine 

Mixed Low 225,641 5.18 

7D PEM/PFO Palustrine 

Mixed Medium 145,055 3.33 

7H PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 3,485 0.08 

7I PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 119,354 2.74 

7J PEM/PSS Palustrine 

Mixed Medium 15,246 0.35 

7L PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 1,307 0.03 

7R PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Low 4,792 0.11 4,356 0.10 4,356 0.10 4,356 0.10 

8A PEM/PSS Palustrine 

Mixed Medium 20,909 0.48 

8B PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Medium 39,640 0.91 436 0.01 436 0.01 436 0.01 

8E PEM Palustrine 

Emergent Medium 5,227 0.12 

9A1 PFO Palustrine 

Forested Medium 388,555 8.92 

9A2 PEM/PSS Palustrine 

Mixed High 129,373 2.97 

9A3 PFO Palustrine 

Forested Medium 67,518 1.55 

DPWX PSS/PFO Palustrine 

Mixed Medium 27,443 0.63 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-157 

c. Mitigation

The large number of surface water and wetland features within the wetland investigation area 

makes complete avoidance of resources impractical for any of the build alternatives, including 

the Preferred Alternative. However, a variety of alternatives have been generated in an effort to 

minimize and avoid impacts to these resources. Alignment changes and retaining walls will be 

evaluated where even the steepest slopes (2:1) will cause severe resource impacts. In addition, 

stormwater management ponds will be located to avoid wetland resources. In accordance with 

federal and state regulations, avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to 

wetlands and waters would continue to be implemented for all phases of the project and will 

continue through final design. 

Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse 

impacts to wetlands as well as perennial and intermittent waters. Compensatory mitigation is 

being evaluated in accordance with state and federal regulations and guidance. Compensatory 

mitigation focuses on the replacement of the functions and values provided by an aquatic 

resource or wetland in addition to the acreage affected. Traditionally, mitigation requirements 

under Section 404 have been determined by the ratio of wetland acres replaced to wetland acres 

lost. Emergent wetlands are typically mitigated on a 1:1 replacement basis, while forested and 

scrub-shrub wetlands are mitigated on a 2:1 replacement basis. Other waters of the US, streams 

and ditches, are typically mitigated with a 1:1 replacement ratio when removed or dewatered; 

however, when impacts result in minor function and value reductions, mitigation focuses on 

function and value replacement. 

Based on the ratios described above, the Preferred Alternative’s impacts, and coordination with 

the regulatory agencies, the following mitigation requirements are anticipated. The Preferred 

Alternative will include a minimum of 53.4 acres of wetland, including forested and emergent 

areas, some of which must be permanently saturated and some of which must be seasonally 

saturated. Figure III-19 shows the areas selected for mitigation of wetlands impacts. To 

compensate for function and value losses in the Ratledge Road Area, the Preferred Alternative 

will include seven acres of wetland enhancement and 20 acres of wetland conservation in the 

Scott Run watershed. The project shall mitigate impacts to other waters of the US (streams) 

through the restoration of approximately 55 linear feet of stream restoration and creation of 

approximately 50 acres of new riparian buffer. The project shall provide mitigation for impacts 

to other waters of the US (ditches) through the creation of new ditches along the roadway. 

The wetland mitigation site selection process focused on locating areas with the highest potential 

for wetland creation and stream restoration with emphasis on “in-kind” replacement within the 

watersheds potentially affected by the project. The mitigation site search and agency 

coordination meetings resulted in the identification of two wetland creation sites, one wetland 

enhancement location, one wetland preservation location and one stream restoration location. 

Using these sites, the project plans to create approximately 88 acres of wetlands, enhance 

approximately seven acres of wetlands, preserve approximately 20 acres of high quality 

wetlands, and restore approximately 55 feet linear feet of stream. 
)p

AØ

)p

AØ

?Î

)p

Warwick

Middletown

Townsend

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

Churchtow

Bohemia Mill Rd Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Noxontown Rd

Silverlake Rd

Main St

Money Rd

Bunker Hill Rd

Middletown Warwick Rd

Middle Neck Rd

N Broad St

S Broad St

Levels Rd

Strawberry La

Grears Corner Rd

Green Giant Rd

Wiggins Mill Rd

Church Rd

Great

Bohemia

Creek

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove

Nest Branch

Noxontown

Pond

Silver

Lake

Sandy

Branch

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Middletown

Village Matapeake

Country

Acres

Wheatland

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Post and

Rail Farms

Back Meadowbrook Farms

Creek

Match

Line

B Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

G

Ratle

Area E

Preser

Pleasanton Wetland

Mitigation Site

Potential Riparian Buffer

Enhancement Site

Levels Road

Wetland Mitigation Site

Potential Riparian Buffer

Enhancement Site

Potential Riparian Buffer

Enhancement Site

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-19A

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

2005 Unrefined Wetlands

2007 Refined Wetlands

Streams & Ditches

DNREC Subaqueous Lands

SWM Ponds

DNREC Tidal Wetlands

Other Waters of the US

Sources: Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination, 2002

 Field Delineation, 2005

US 301 Project Development

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Potential US301 Mitigation Sites

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
AÝ

)p

?¡

?Î

AÝ

)p

)h

?¡

AÝ

)h

?¡

)h

AØ

)p

Middletown

Odessa

St Georges Rd

Rd

Red Lion Rd

Cox Neck Rd

Summit

Bridge

d

Summit Bridge Rd

Churchtown Rd

Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Bethel Church Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Ratledge Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Bayview Rd

Vance Neck Rd

Hyetts Corner Rd

Jamison Corner Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Main St

Old Corbit Rd

N Broad St

Lums

Pond

Chesapeake

Joy

Run

Run

Scott

Creek

Augustine

Creek

Drawyer

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove Nest Branch

River

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Boyds

Corner

Saint

Georges

Middletown

Village

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Greylag

Commodore

Estates

Lorewood

Estates

Airmont

Acres

Mount

Hope

Summit

Bridge

Farms Summit

Pond

Crystal

Run

Dickerson Farm

Farm

Chesapeake

Meadow

Post and

Rail Farms

Meadowbrook Farms

Lea Eara

Farms West Lea Eara

Farms East

Grande

View

Farms

Asbury

Chase

Bolton

Meadows

Odessa

Heights

Spring

Oaks

m

and Delaware

Canal

B

Match

Line

Summit

Airport

o

Summit

Farms

G

GN

GS

BN

BS

B Y

P

Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

G

Scott Run Stream

Restoration Site

Ratledge Road

Area Enhancement 

Preservation Sites

Pleasanton Wetland

Mitigation Site

Potential Riparian Buffer

Enhancement Site

Levels Road

Wetland Mitigation Site

Potential Riparian Buffer

Enhancement Site

Potential Riparian Buffer

Enhancement Site

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-19B

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

2005 Unrefined Wetlands

2007 Refined Wetlands

Streams & Ditches

DNREC Subaqueous Lands

SWM Ponds

DNREC Tidal Wetlands

Other Waters of the US

Sources: Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination, 2002

 Field Delineation, 2005

US 301 Project Development

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Potential US301 Mitigation Sites

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-160 

 As noted, the wetland compensation and mitigation plan is preliminary at this time since 

additional data must be collected. Following the ROD and data collection, mitigation concept 

plans will be developed for the wetland creation and stream restoration sites. The concept plans 

shall include site specific water budgets and hydrogeomorphic modeling along with clear goals 

and success criteria. It is expected that there will be permit conditions in addition to the 

commitments in this FEIS that will require continued agency coordination through the 

development of concepts and final design process to assure the approval of final plans. The 

mitigation opportunities described below also distribute the potential stream and wetland 

mitigation throughout the various watersheds within the project area. The mitigation 

opportunities are described in detail below. 

The largest wetland creation mitigation site is located to the west of the new Levels Road 

interchange with new US 301. The 90-acre site is located in a farm field situated between two 

tributaries of Sandy Branch. The site will require up to 14 feet of excavation and is expected to 

yield approximately 80 acres of wetland creation. The site will be designed primarily as a 

permanently saturated forested wetland; however open water channels and emergent areas may 

be incorporated in the final design. Hydrology will be a combination of ground water, direct 

precipitation, and treated storm water. The site will outlet to both the north and south tributaries 

of Sandy Branch through wide low saddle structures with incorporated Clemson Beaver Pond 

Levelers to prohibit hydrology disruption. While the minimum required acreage of mitigation 

could be compensated for at this site, a second site was selected to achieve full function and 

value replacement of the impacted wetlands. 

The smaller wetland creation mitigation site is located northwest of new US 301, east of the 

Norfolk Southern Railroad, and south of a northern tributary to Drawyers Creek on a severed 

portion of the current Pleasanton Development parcel. The 29-acre site is a gently sloping, well 

drained farm field with some hydric soils. The site will not require any excavation, but will 

require drainage alteration through ditch plugging and low berm placement. The site is expected 

to yield between 8 and 16 acres of wetland following drainage alteration. The site will be 

designed as a seasonally saturated forested wetland. Standing water and emergent areas may be 

incorporated in the final design. Hydrology will be supplied by direct precipitation over the 

29-acre site. The site will outlet to the north into the northern tributary to Drawyers Creek. 

The Preferred Alternative will include enhancement to approximately seven acres of wetland in 

the Scott Run watershed. The enhancement site or sites will be located near the Ratledge Road 

Area. Enhancement shall be achieved by converting a low quality farmed wetland into a forested 

wetland through tree planting and invasive species control efforts. The site or sites will be 

chosen based on property availability, size and quality of adjacent forested wetlands and agency 

preferences. 

The Preferred Alternative will include conservation of approximately 20 acres of high quality 

forested wetlands located in the Scott Run watershed near the Ratledge Road Area. The 

conservation site or sites will be selected based on property availability, quality of wetlands, and 

agency preference. These wetlands shall be conserved through conservation easement deed 

restrictions. The details of the conservation easement restrictions shall be coordinated and 

approved by the ACOE and DNREC. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-161 

The Preferred Alternative will include restoration 55 linear feet of Scott Run where Hyetts 

Corner Road crosses Scott Run. Currently Scott Run flows through a set of culverts under 

Hyetts Corner Road. These culverts impede flow causing a backwater effect upstream, and 

concentrate flow causing a scour condition downstream. The culvert and road also act as a 

barrier to wildlife and, to a lesser extent, aquatic organisms by impeding movement along the 

stream corridor. To restore this section of stream, Hyetts Corner Road will be elevated and 

placed on structure over Scott Run and a natural stream channel will be created under the 

structure with a combination of hard and soft engineering techniques. 

The Preferred Alternative will include creation of approximately 50 acres of new riparian buffer. 

The new buffer areas will be located along the northern and southern tributaries to Drawyers 

Creek, east of the Norfolk Southern Railroad. These buffer areas will be planted with tree and 

shrub species and invasive species will be controlled. In addition, the project will create new 

stormwater management drainage ditches to compensate for impacts to the existing drainage 

ditch network. 

7. Floodplains

a. Existing Conditions 

Floodplains have been identified using Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Q3 

GIS data, a digital depiction of Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) mapping. Figure III-20 

shows the FEMA 100-year floodplains in the project area. The project area is bisected by 

numerous low-gradient streams and their associated floodplains. Natural floodplains in New 

Castle County are typically forested and relatively wide, with extensive wetlands. The project 

area is roughly centered on the drainage divide between the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay. 

Streams west of the divide drain westward to the Chesapeake Bay; while streams east of the 

divide drain eastward to the tidal Delaware River. A few streams drain northward, directly into 

the C&D Canal. West of the divide, FEMA regulatory floodplains in the project area include 

Back Creek, Great Bohemia Creek, and Sandy Branch. East of the divide, FEMA regulatory 

floodplains in the project area include Scott Run, Augustine Creek, and Drawyers Creek 

(alternatively Drawer’s Creek or Drawyer’s Branch) and its tributaries, including Dove Nest 

Branch. In addition, a floodplain is delineated for the C&D Canal, accounting for the effects of 

storm surges originating in the Chesapeake Bay or Delaware River. 

Federal, state, and local regulations govern fill and construction in floodplains. These 

regulations include Federal Executive Order 11988; US Department of Transportation Order 

5650.2; the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968; and the New Castle County Unified 

Development Code, Section 40. 
)p

AØ

)p

AØ

?Î

)p

Warwick

Middletown

Townsend

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

Churchtow

Old School House Rd

Bohemia Mill Rd Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Noxontown Rd

Silverlake Rd

Main St

Money Rd

Bunker Hill Rd

Middletown Warwick Rd

Middle Neck Rd

N Broad St

S Broad St

Levels Rd

Strawberry La

Grears Corner Rd

Green Giant Rd

Wiggins Mill Rd

Church Rd

Great

Bohemia

Creek

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove

Nest Branch

Noxontown

Pond

Silver

Lake

Sandy

Branch

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Middletown

Village Matapeake

Country

Acres

Wheatland

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Post and

Rail Farms

Back Meadowbrook Farms

Creek

Match

Line

B Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

G

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-20A

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

100 Year Floodplain Source: FEMA, 1997

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

US 301 Project Development

100-Year Floodplains

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
AÝ

)p

?¡

?Î

AÝ

)p

)h

?¡

AÝ

)h

?¡

)h

AØ

)p

Middletown

Odessa

St Georges Rd

Rd

Red Lion Rd

Cox Neck Rd

Summit

Bridge

d

Summit Bridge Rd

Churchtown Rd

Old School House Rd

Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Bethel Church Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Ratledge Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Bayview Rd

Vance Neck Rd

Hyetts Corner Rd

Jamison Corner Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Main St

Old Corbit Rd

N Broad St

Lums

Pond

Chesapeake

Joy

Run

Run

Scott

Creek

Augustine

Creek

Drawyer

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove Nest Branch

River

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Boyds

Corner

Saint

Georges

Middletown

Village

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Greylag

Commodore

Estates

Lorewood

Estates

Airmont

Acres

Mount

Hope

Summit

Bridge

Farms Summit

Pond

Crystal

Run

Dickerson Farm

Farm

Chesapeake

Meadow

Post and

Rail Farms

Meadowbrook Farms

Lea Eara

Farms West Lea Eara

Farms East

Grande

View

Farms

Asbury

Chase

Bolton

Meadows

Odessa

Heights

Spring

Oaks

m

and Delaware

Canal

B

Match

Line

Summit

Airport

o

Summit

Farms

G

GN

GS

BN

BS

B Y

P

Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

G

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-20B

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

100 Year Floodplain Source: FEMA, 1997

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

US 301 Project Development

100-Year Floodplains

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-164 

 b. Environmental Consequences 

The significance of floodplain encroachment was evaluated with respect to the criteria in 

Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) and DOT Order 5650.2. Floodplain 

encroachments were also analyzed according to the Federal Aid Highway Program Manual, 

which recommends that longitudinal encroachment (encroachment that parallels the stream 

channel) be avoided whenever possible. Project alternatives are not configured in such a manner 

that major longitudinal floodplain encroachments will occur. The majority of floodplain 

encroachments will be from transverse crossings for each of the alternatives (encroachment from 

roadway development that crosses the valley widths of floodplains). 

Floodplain impacts are estimated fill areas associated with the construction of the US 301 

project. Final impacts to the 100-year floodplain will be determined based on hydrologic and 

hydraulic modeling, when the design of each structure is complete. Encroachments of nondelineated floodplains cannot be determined without such detailed studies; however, the number 

of such encroachments is assumed based on the number of streams crossed, as identified by blue 

lines on USGS maps within New Castle County. 

The No-Build Alternative will not impact any floodplains or tax ditches within the project area. 

The Preferred Alternative will impact 0.7 acres of FEMA-designated floodplains and will result 

in 11 crossings of non-delineated floodplains. The only delineated floodplain crossing for the 

Preferred Alternative is located at the SR 1 tie-in over Scott Run, where detailed engineering of 

the structured crossing over Scott Run has enabled a lowering of impacts. The Preferred 

Alternative will cross or cause the relocation of 1,603 linear feet of tax ditches within the 

Drawyers Branch tax ditch system, representing an impact to 67 acres within the watershed 

served by the impacted tax ditches. 

Table III-64 presents the potential encroachment into FEMA-designated 100-year floodplains 

for each of the build alternatives, as shown in the DEIS. These impacts were evaluated and 

compared during the evaluation of the build alternatives and the selection of a Preferred 

Alternative. 

Table III-64: Floodplain and Tax Ditch Impacts 

Alternative Yellow Purple Brown 

North 

Brown 

South 

Green North 

(DEIS) 

Green 

South 

Floodplain Impact

Area of FEMA (Q3) Floodplain 

 (acres) 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

Non-Delineated Floodplain 

(Number of Crossings) 5 12 11 10 11 14 

Tax Ditch Impact

Tax Ditches Crossed or Relocated 

(linear feet) 81 1,455 0 192 624 1,455 

Tax Ditch Watershed Area 

(acres) 12 67 28 56 67 67 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-165 

FEMA floodplain impacts identified in the DEIS for the build alternatives ranged from 1.0 acres 

for the Brown and Green Alternatives to 1.5 acres for the Yellow and Purple Alternatives. Nondelineated floodplain impacts range from 5 crossings for the Yellow Alternative to 14 crossings 

for the Green South Alternative. Tax ditch impacts range from zero for the Brown North 

Alternative to 1,603 linear feet for the Green North Alternatives. Finally, tax ditch watershed 

impacts range from 12 acres for the Yellow Alternative, to 67 acres for the Purple and Green 

Alternatives. 

Project impacts to two tax ditch systems include direct crossings of the ditches, and contribution 

of runoff that ultimately drains to a tax ditch. The crossings/relocations for the Purple and Green 

Alternatives have been re-evaluated with regard to the Drawyers Creek tax ditch system, 

accounting for the increases in those impacts. One project stream crossing, common to all 

alignments, is located in Maryland, on an unnamed blue-line stream without a FEMA floodplain. 

At this location, an existing culvert may be extended or upgraded to accommodate highway 

widening and lane transitions. No new stream crossing is proposed within Maryland. 

Efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to 100-year floodplains are ongoing, and will continue 

throughout the planning and engineering process. Longitudinal crossings have been avoided 

because they would result in more floodplain fill, reducing conveyance and floodplain storage. 

Where permitted by the surrounding topography and environment, proposed bridge lengths are 

well in excess of the minimum hydraulic opening required to pass the design flood flows, thus 

preserving sensitive wetlands and floodplains. The studied alignments also minimize floodplain 

impacts by their location near the Chesapeake-Delaware drainage divide, where stream and 

floodplain crossings tend to be narrower than further downstream. 

Techniques to further minimize or avoid impacts during final design may include additional 

bridging of floodplains to further reduce encroachment and allow for unrestricted passage of 

floodwaters, and minimization of embankment footprint via retaining walls and soil stabilization. 

Through compliance with local design requirements to convey the 100-year flood discharge 

unimpeded, offsite floodplain impacts will be minimized. Hydrologic and hydraulic studies will 

be conducted to determine the bridge or culvert opening sizes for the various alternatives. 

c. Mitigation 

All construction resulting from the Preferred Alternative or other build alternatives that occurs 

within the FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain and New Castle County non-delineated 

floodplains will comply with FEMA-approved local floodplain construction requirements, 

including the prohibition on fill in the floodway and passage of the 100-year flood without 

increasing water surface elevations. Any increases would require easement purchase. If 

required by New Castle County, compensatory storage may be excavated from floodplains to 

mitigate the effects of embankment fill. Affected tax ditches will be relocated along the toe of 

the highway embankment, or passed beneath the proposed highway in culverts, in order to 

maintain present ditch flow patterns. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-166 

8. Vegetation and Wildlife

a. Terrestrial Habitat and Wildlife 

(1) Existing Conditions

Terrestrial habitat types were classified according to aerial mapping as well as field observations. 

Forested areas were characterized during field investigations. Forest data were then analyzed 

and classified according to associations described in the Society of American Foresters Forest 

Cover Types of the United States and Canada (Eyre (ed.), 1980). Several different habitat types 

occur throughout the project area. An overview of each habitat type, as well as the general type 

of wildlife each supports, is included below. 

Developed Habitat 

Developed habitat includes commercial, residential, industrial and park areas. This comprises 

the majority of the habitat found within the project area along existing US 301. Wildlife found 

in developed habitat includes species adapted to “edge habitats” created when developed habitat 

is adjacent to agriculture or forest. These species include: white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

virginianus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis 

virginiana), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), mice (Mus sp.), as well as birds such as European 

starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), house finch (Carpodacus 

mexicanus), and eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis). 

Vegetation in developed habitat includes both native and invasive exotic plants. Common native 

trees include yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), white oak (Quercus alba), sweetgum 

(Liquidambar styraciflua), Willow oak (Quercus phellos), Pin oak (Quercus palustris), Loblolly 

pine (Pinus taeda), black willow (Salix nigra), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), and smooth 

alder (Alnus serrulata). Common native shrubs include silky dogwood (Cornus ammonum), 

witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), inkberry (Ilex glabra), winterberry (Ilex verticillata), 

Virginia sweetspire (Itea virginica), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), 

northern bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica), black chokeberry (Photinia melanocarpa), beach plum 

(Prunus maritima), staghorn sumac (Rhus hirta), common elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), 

steeplebush (Spiraea tomentosa), and arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum). Common native 

herbaceous plants include Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), sweet fern (Comptonia

peregrina), panic grass (Dichanthelium commutatum), Virginia wild rye (Elymus virginicus), 

switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), little bluestem (Andropogon scoparius), common milkweed 

(Asclepias syriaca), nodding beggar-ticks (Bidens cernua), golden aster (Chrysopsis mariana), 

gayfeather (Liatris spicata), phlox (Phlox maculata), and black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta). 

Common invasive exotic trees include Bradford pear (Pyrus calleryana Bradford), Norway 

maple (Acer platanoides), princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), tree of heaven (Ailanthus 

altissima), and silk tree (Albizia julibrissin). Common invasive shrubs and vines include 

honeysuckle shrub and vine (Lonicera spp.), Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii), multiflora 

rose (Rosa multiflora), porcelain berry (Ampelopsis brevipedunculata), wisteria vines (Wisteria 

spp.), creeping euonymus (Euonymus fortunei), bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), English ivy 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-167 

(Hedera helix), and winged burningbush (Euonymus alata). Common invasive exotic 

herbaceous plants include garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium 

vimineum), lesser celandine (Rununculus ficaria), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), Canada 

thistle (Cirsium arvense), common daylily (Hemerocallis fulva), common reed (Phragmites 

australis), kudzu (Pueraria montana), and kile-a-minute (Polygonum perfoliatum). 

Agricultural Land 

Agricultural land comprises the majority of habitat found within the project area. Agricultural 

land is comprised of crop fields, hayfields, and pasture land. Large areas of agricultural land are 

found south of the C&D Canal and are often separated by narrow tree rows, roadways, stream 

valleys, residential or commercial areas. Wildlife which typically dwell or feed in agricultural 

land includes white-tailed deer, red fox, raccoon, various rodent species, and upland game birds. 

Meadow Habitat 

Meadow habitat is mostly comprised of former agricultural land abandoned for several years. 

These areas are classified as early successional upland habitat or herbaceous upland habitat. 

Vegetation in these areas consists of pioneering grasses and forbs, including panic grass, 

Virginia wild rye, switchgrass, little bluestem, common milkweed, nodding beggar-ticks, golden 

aster, gayfeather, phlox, and black-eyed Susan. Wildlife species found in meadow habitat 

include woodchuck (Marmota monax), kildeer (Charadrius vociferous), and in areas where the 

rodent population is abundant, various birds of prey such as red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicencis) 

and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). Reptiles such as the eastern garter snake (Thamnophis 

sirtalis) may also inhabit meadows. 

Forest Habitat 

Forest habitat occurs sporadically throughout the project area and consists mainly of small 

fragmented forest stands or narrow tree rows between agricultural fields. Linear forests occur in 

the stream valleys of several streams, including Scott Run, Joy Run, Crystal Run, Back Creek, 

Sandy Branch, Dove Nest Branch, and Drawyers Creek. Large tracts of forest are located 

southeast of the intersection of US 301 and Boyds Corner Road, west of US 301 north of the 

town of Middletown. Forests within the project area are generally characterized as early- to midsuccessional. Forests were characterized during field investigations and were classified by 

associations based on the Society of American Foresters Forest Cover Types of the United States 

and Canada (Eyre, 1980). Table III-65 lists the number of stands identified in each association. 

Forest cover in the project area has been updated for the Preferred Alternative only as a result of 

more recent (2006) aerial photography which more accurately delineates forest boundaries. 

Forest cover is shown on Figure III-21. 

The dominant association found throughout the project area is the Red Maple Association. Other 

associations in order of occurrence include: Yellow Poplar, White Oak, Sweetgum-Willow Oak, 

Pin Oak-Sweetgum, Loblolly Pine, Black Willow, and Black Locust. Stands which could not be 

classified as a single association are described as “Mixed.” The Society of American Foresters 

Forest Cover Types description for each association is listed below. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-168 

Table III-65: Forest Stands by Association

Association Number of Forest Stands Identified in 

Project Area 

Red Maple 41 

Yellow Poplar 9 

White Oak 7 

Sweetgum-Willow Oak 4 

Pin Oak-Sweetgum 3 

Loblolly Pine 1 

Black Willow 1 

Black Locust 1 

Mixed 7 

Total Number of Stands Identified 74 

The Red Maple Association, while dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), is associated with 

other tree species including white pine (Pinus strobus), black cherry (Prunus serotina), northern 

red oak (Quercus rubra) and sweetgum. This association can be found on sites ranging from 

extremely wet to dry because of the adaptable nature of the red maple tree. Soils range from 

poorly drained bottomland soils to well drained upland soils. Since the red maple is a relatively 

short-lived tree, this association is generally considered an early- to mid-successional forest type 

(Powell & Erdmann; in Eyre, 1980). This association occupies an extensive numbers of forests 

throughout the project area. 

The Yellow Poplar Association is dominated by the yellow poplar and often occurs in large, 

uninterrupted stands. Other tree species associated with yellow poplar include American beech 

(Fagus grandifolia), northern red oak, blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica) and hickories (Carya ovata). 

Soils in this association are derived primarily from sandstones or shales and tend to be 

moderately deep to deep, moist, well-drained, and medium to fine in texture. This association is 

more responsive to site quality than other northeastern hardwoods and is typically found on 

higher quality sites (Tryon; in Eyre, 1980). The Yellow Poplar Association is found in several 

areas along Joy Run and an unnamed tributary to the C&D Canal east of Joy Run, as well as 

along Spring Mill Branch north of Marl Pit Road. 

The White Oak Association often occurs in pure stands. Other trees associated with white oak 

include northern red oak, scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), blackgum, yellow poplar, and white 

pine. This association is found on a wide variety of sites ranging from dry to moderately wet, 

and is sometimes found on poorly drained bottomland soils with high clay content (Sander; in 

Eyre, 1980). The White Oak Association is found along Spring Mill Branch north of Marl Pit 

Road and in several areas east of SR 15 north of the town of Middletown. 

The Sweetgum-Willow Oak Association includes sweetgum and willow oak as the key species. 

Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and American elm (Ulmus americana) are also associated 

with this association. This association is common on relatively poorly drained bottom ridges, 

terrace flats, and transitional sites (Johnson; in Eyre, 1980). The Sweetgum-Willow Oak 

Association is found east and west of existing US 301, north of Marl Pit Road. 
)p

AØ

)p

AØ

?Î

)p

Warwick

Middletown

Townsend

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

Churchtow

Old School House Rd

Bohemia Mill Rd Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Noxontown Rd

Silverlake Rd

Main St

Money Rd

Bunker Hill Rd

Middletown Warwick Rd

Middle Neck Rd

N Broad St

S Broad St

Levels Rd

Strawberry La

Grears Corner Rd

Green Giant Rd

Wiggins Mill Rd

Church Rd

Great

Bohemia

Creek

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove

Nest Branch

Noxontown

Pond

Silver

Lake

Sandy

Branch

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Middletown

Village Matapeake

Country

Acres

Wheatland

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Post and

Rail Farms

Back Meadowbrook Farms

Creek

Match

Line

B Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

G

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-21A

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

2002 Aerial Upland Forest

2007 Refined Upland Forest

Source: Delaware Office of State

 Planning Coordination, 2004

Wetland forests shown as

part of wetlands in Figure III-18.

US 301 Project Development

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Upland Forest Stands

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
AÝ

)p

?¡

?Î

AÝ

)p

)h

?¡

AÝ

)h

?¡

)h

AØ

)p

Middletown

Odessa

St Georges Rd

Rd

Red Lion Rd

Cox Neck Rd

Summit

Bridge

d

Summit Bridge Rd

Churchtown Rd

Old School House Rd

Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Bethel Church Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Ratledge Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Bayview Rd

Vance Neck Rd

Hyetts Corner Rd

Jamison Corner Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Main St

Old Corbit Rd

N Broad St

Lums

Pond

Chesapeake

Joy

Run

Run

Scott

Creek

Augustine

Creek

Drawyer

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove Nest Branch

River

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Boyds

Corner

Saint

Georges

Middletown

Village

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Greylag

Commodore

Estates

Lorewood

Estates

Airmont

Acres

Mount

Hope

Summit

Bridge

Farms Summit

Pond

Crystal

Run

Dickerson Farm

Farm

Chesapeake

Meadow

Post and

Rail Farms

Meadowbrook Farms

Lea Eara

Farms West Lea Eara

Farms East

Grande

View

Farms

Asbury

Chase

Bolton

Meadows

Odessa

Heights

Spring

Oaks

m

and Delaware

Canal

B

Match

Line

Summit

Airport

o

Summit

Farms

G

GN

GS

BN

BS

B Y

P

Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

G

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-21B

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

2002 Aerial Upland Forest

2007 Refined Upland Forest

Source: Delaware Office of State

 Planning Coordination, 2004

Wetland forests shown as

part of wetlands in Figure III-18.

US 301 Project Development

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Upland Forest Stands

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-171 

The Pin Oak-Sweetgum Association, dominated by pin oak and sweetgum, is associated with 

other trees including red maple, American elm and willow oak. This association is typically an 

early-successional forest type in the regrowth of bottomland forests and is found in broad stream 

valleys and poorly-drained depressional areas (Weaver; in Eyre, 1980). The Pin Oak-Sweetgum 

Association is found along existing US 301 north of the town of Middletown and along Scott 

Run near Jamison Corner Road. 

The Loblolly Pine Association is typically characterized by pure stands of loblolly pine or forests 

stands where loblolly pine dominates. Sweetgum is associated with this association. This 

association occurs on soils ranging from somewhat poorly drained to well-drained uplands 

(Crow; in Eyre, 1980). The Loblolly Pine Association is found near US 301 at the 

Delaware/Maryland state line as a narrow hedgerow feature. 

The Black Willow Association, dominated by black willow and other species of willow, is a 

rapid growing pioneer tree species. Trees associated with this association include green ash, 

sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and red maple. In the Eastern US, it is most commonly found 

in swamps, along newly formed sandbars and along river margins (Krinard; in Eyre, 1980). The 

Black Willow Association is found along Scott Run near Hyetts Corner Road. 

The Black Locust Association, dominated by the black locust, is a pioneer forest type. It is 

typically found in disturbed areas along roadways and in medians (Roach; in Eyre, 1980). The 

Black Locust Association is found along existing US 301 just south of the C&D Canal. 

Mixed forested areas cannot be classified as a specific association since they are generally 

comprised of combinations of the species listed above. Mixed associations are found throughout 

the project area. 

(2) Environmental Consequences

The No-Build Alternative will not cause any impacts to forests. The build alternatives, including 

the Preferred Alternative, will cause destruction of vegetation in non-forested habitat from the 

construction of paved road surfaces. Impacts to wildlife will be indirect through habitat loss or 

modification. Other habitat impacts could include the introduction of exotic and invasive species 

to areas of increased human disturbance. Three of the largest uninterrupted tracts of upland 

forest in the project area, at Mount Pleasant (150+ acres), south of Post and Rail Farms (80+ 

acres) and just north of Middletown Village (100+ acres) are not directly impacted by any 

alternative. 

No impacts to forested habitat will occur as part of the No-Build Alternative. Based upon the 

2006 aerial photography, the Preferred Alternative will impact 63.7 acres of forest, an increase 

over the impacts reported for the Green North Alternative in the DEIS (34 acres). Of these 63.7 

acres, 56.7 acres are deciduous forest and 7.0 acres are mixed forest. Reasons for the increased 

impacts are three-fold: 

18.5 acres of additional impact can be attributed to refinement of the forest layer to 

reflect current forest coverage. This increase resulted from a change in classification for 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-172 

several forested wetlands to forest and inclusion of hedgerows not previously 

incorporated in the DEIS. 

Refinements to the profile and limits of disturbance as well as accurate placement of 

stormwater management ponds added 6.5 acres of forest impacts. 

Lastly, modifications to the alignment in the Ratledge Road Area account for an increase 

of about 5 acres. 

Impacts of the build alternatives, as reported in the DEIS, are summarized on Table III-66. The 

differences in impacts to forests were factored into the evaluation of the alternatives and the 

selection of a Preferred Alternative. 

The greatest numbers of impacts to non-forested habitat and wildlife will occur as part of the offalignment alternatives, namely the Purple, Brown, and Green Alternatives, since these 

alternatives will have the highest amounts of habitat reduction and/or fragmentation. Impacts to 

non-forested habitat resulting from the Yellow Alternative would be less because most 

construction will occur adjacent to existing US 301. 

Table III-66: Potential Forest Impacts (in acres)

Forest Type No-Build Yellow Purple Brown 

North 

Brown 

South 

Green 

North 

(DEIS) 

Green 

South 

Deciduous Forest 0 21.4 39.2 35.8 46.6 33.4 36.1 

Evergreen Forest 0 9.2 0 1.0 3.7 0 0 

Mixed Forest 0 6.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 

Total 0 36.9 39.9 37.5 51 34.0 36.8 

With the additional 30 acres of impact, the Preferred Alternative appears to have the greatest 

impact on forests when compared to the results reported in the DEIS. However, based on the 

refinements in the delineation of forest cover, an additional 22 acres of impact would be 

expected on all alternatives: 

15.5 acres of additional impact occur in two areas common to all alternatives at the 

southern end of the project near the Delaware-Maryland state line and at the northern end 

near the Summit Bridge. 

An additional 6.5 acres of increase are attributable to profile refinement and accurate 

stormwater management pond placement, which would be expected for all alternatives. 

The remaining eight acres of increase are due to the addition of hedgerows (1 acre), forest area

refinements in areas specific to the Preferred Alternative (2 acres), and alignment modifications 

in the Ratledge Road Area (5 acres). Some forest area increases could also be expected for the 

other retained alternatives due to the addition of hedgerows and other forest area layer 

refinements: however, this quantity is not estimated. Therefore, the forest impacts of the 

Preferred Alternative are still comparable to those of the non-preferred alternatives. 

Direct and indirect impacts of the build alternatives (including the Preferred Alternative) on 

fauna include habitat loss and alteration, changes in animal populations and communities, and 

mortality from wildlife-vehicular collisions. The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-173 

fauna. The greatest impact to fauna resulting from the build alternatives would be habitat loss. 

Alteration of existing habitat rendering fauna unsuited to their original faunal assemblages is also 

considered loss of habitat. Construction activities will result in actual acreage losses of habitats 

and habitat alterations. 

Habitat fragmentation or compartmentalization, especially in relation to large woodland tracts, is 

a consequence of transportation corridor projects since new roadways cross habitat and form 

barriers for wildlife travel. Since much of the landscape in the project area is a mosaic of open 

fields, hedgerows, scattered forests commonly connected to wetlands, and scattered residential 

areas, fragmentation resulting from any of the alternatives would be minor. Most of the wetland 

crossings associated with the build alternatives will be bridged which will help maintain corridor 

passage for fauna. There are a few instances where wetlands will be filled and wildlife corridors 

will be interrupted. In such instances the roadway, acting as a barrier, will likely result in 

increased roadkills, especially for smaller animals. The severity of such impacts cannot be 

quantified without extensive study of existing and post-construction animal movement patterns. 

Increased barrier width of roadways and habitat fragmentation would cause larger animals, such 

as deer, to travel parallel to the roadways until bridges or crossing points are found. This may be 

particularly problematic at the few roadways where forested wetlands are filled and a bridge is 

not provided. However, cutting off or blocking of travel access for terrestrial wildlife would not 

impact common regional wildlife populations because, despite the increased difficulty, many 

animals would still cross successfully and many suitable crossing areas would remain. 

(3) Mitigation

Forest impacts in Delaware are regulated by the Delaware Forest Conservation Act (Delaware 

State Senate Bill #324). Mitigation requirements as outlined by the Delaware Forest 

Conservation Act are: 

1-10 trees removed = 1:1 tree replacement ratio; 

11-49 trees removed = 2:1 tree replacement ratio; 

50 or more trees removed = acre for acre forest area replacement ratio. 

Mitigation for impacts to forest areas will be determined during the design phase of the project 

following detailed delineation of forest stands. Impacts to forest areas have been divided among 

upland and wetland forests. Wetland forest data are described in Section F.6 of this chapter and 

are not included as part of the forest impact data provided in this section. 

The large number of terrestrial habitat areas within the project area makes complete avoidance of 

resources impractical for all build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative. However, a 

number of design options have been and will be used to avoid and/or minimize impacts, 

including alignment changes, use of steeper slopes and retaining walls. In some locations where 

wildlife passage may be problematic, further evaluation will occur during final design to 

determine whether wildlife passageways can be improved. Appropriate fencing to deter animals 

entering the highway will also be included in the final design. Stormwater management pond 

locations have been refined to avoid forest resources where possible, and final design may 

replace many of the ponds with alternative “green technology” BMPs. Avoidance and 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-174 

minimization measures to reduce impacts to upland forest will continue to be implemented for all 

phases of the project through final design. 

Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse 

impacts to forest. Compensatory mitigation is being evaluated in accordance with state 

regulations and guidance. Because more than 50 trees will be removed for the road 

improvement, an acre for acre forest replacement mitigation plan will be implemented. 

Following this requirement, the project should create a minimum of 64 acres of new forest. 

The mitigation site selection process focused on locating severed, unforested parcels along the 

Preferred Alternative alignment. Preferred sites also buffer a stream or existing community or 

enlarge a contiguous forest tract. The mitigation site search and community and resource agency 

commitments resulted in the identification of six forest creation sites, together providing 67.22 

acres. These sites will be reforested with deciduous hardwood and climax tree species such as 

oak, hickory and maple. 

The project will impact 2.6 acres of forest in Maryland. Under the Maryland Reforestation Law 

and Roadside Tree Law, a 1:1 replacement of forest will be required for any forest areas 

removed by implementation of the Preferred Alternative. There are no severed parcels along the 

alternative in Maryland, making on-site mitigation in this location unlikely. Coordination with 

Maryland state agencies will determine the solution to compensate for the impacted forest. 

A desktop search using GIS mapping of existing features identified 25 unforested parcels along 

the alternative for potential mitigation. Together, these 25 parcels provide 373.74 acres of 

potential forest mitigation. The sites were prioritized based on community and resource agency 

commitments. Six (6) sites were chosen that provide approximately 67 acres for reforestation 

mitigation. 

Site 1 is 5.30 acres of an agricultural field located just north of Bunker Hill Road between 

existing US 301 and Choptank Road, east of the Preferred Alternative alignment and west 

of Middletown Village. This parcel buffers the community as well as enlarges a 

continuous tract of forest surrounding wetlands and streams and buffers the Dove Nest 

Branch stream system at its headwaters. 

Sites 2, 3, and 4, totaling approximately 24 acres, are located in the Ratledge Road Area. 

The selection of Option 4B Modified in this area created an additional 4.7 acres of forest 

impacts. These sites meet DNREC’s request that mitigation occur in the vicinity and 

within the Scott Run watershed. They enlarge a continuous forest tract and provide a 

buffer to the stream headwaters and surrounding wetlands. 

Site 5 is 21.73 acres of an agricultural field located north of the Preferred Alternative just 

south of Hyetts Corner Road near Jamison Corner Road. Reforestation at this site would 

benefit the Airmont community of single family homes located just to the north as well as 

provide some protection to the Scott Run watershed. 

Site 6 is 15.85 acres of agricultural fields located east of the Spur Road, south of the 

existing US 301/SR 15 intersection. Forest mitigation at this site would provide a buffer 

for the Summit Bridge Farms community. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-175 

b. Aquatic Biota 

Aquatic biota within the project area have been historically affected through population growth, 

industrial and urban development, and harvesting of natural resources beginning in the 19th

century. In recent years, a resurgence of beaver have modified forested wetland corridors and 

affected aquatic biota because of flooding, directly destroying trees, and threatening 

infrastructure. Beaver populations were noted throughout the project area. Aquatic biota 

commonly observed in the project area includes fish, reptiles, mammals, birds and amphibians 

that live in and around these freshwater systems. 

(1) Existing Conditions

Fish 

Common types of fish found in New Castle County, Delaware consist of warm-water species 

typically observed in the Coastal Plain Province of the Mid-Atlantic United States. Fish 

populations consist of both native and non-native species. Common freshwater species 

identified in the Delaware include American eel (Anguilla rostrata), brown bullhead (Ictalurus 

nebulosus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbous), bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus), blacknosed dace (Rhinichthys atratulus), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), white perch 

(Morone Americana), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and tessellated darter 

(Etheostoma olmstedi). Common non-native species found in the project area surface waters 

include the common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and the grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella). 

Data inventories of fish and other aquatic life and aquatic habitats within project area surface 

water features were limited. Fish species most commonly observed during field investigations 

included minnow species (Cyprinidae sp.) and largemouth bass in the larger perennial streams. 

Dominant populations of minnows and sunfishes species were also observed in smaller, lowgradient streams and eutrophic ponds where floating emergent vegetation was prominent. 

No federally listed endangered fish species are found in the project area. The shortnose sturgeon 

(Acipenser brevirostrum) is the only federally listed endangered species in the state and is found 

only occasionally in Delaware tidal waters. 

No state listed endangered fish species were found in the project area. The blackbanded sunfish 

(Enneacanthus chaetodon) is the only state listed endangered species that may potentially be 

found within the project area. 

No Essential Fish Habitat is found in the project area. Essential Fish Habitat has been identified 

in Delaware Bay and in the Delaware Inland Bays, both of which lie outside the project area.

Benthic Macroinvertebrates 

DNREC’s Division of Water Resources monitors the health of non-tidal streams throughout the 

state through an ecological assessment of the benthic macroinvertebrate community and physical 

habitat evaluation. Habitat evaluation is determined by assigning a rating to stream conditions 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-176 

such as habitat depletion, stream alteration, bank erosion, and the presence/lack of vegetation. 

The condition of biological communities is assessed according to such factors as habitat, 

pollution impact, and the occurrence of extreme hydrologic events. DNREC uses the results of 

these monitoring events to gauge future stream and habitat restoration projects and to assess 

future water quality monitoring efforts. 

Through DNREC assessment, scores from 0-20 are assigned for each habitat parameter to derive 

a Habitat Comparison Index (HCI). Sites are then classified on a range from severely degraded 

to excellent based on their HCI score. Benthic macroinvertebrates are collected to complete a 

biological assessment of the stream community. A total of five measurement parameters are 

compared to regional reference values to determine a Biotic Comparison Index (BCI). Sites are 

then classified from severely degraded to excellent based on their BCI score. 

As part of their statewide ecological assessment, DNREC’s Division of Water Resources has 

conducted macroinvertebrate sampling of a number of streams located within the project area 

including: Dove Nest Branch, Spring Mill Branch, Crystal Run, Joy Run, Scott Run, Great 

Bohemia Creek and tributaries of Back Creek and Sassafras River. Sandy Branch, a tributary to 

the Great Bohemia Creek in the Chesapeake watershed was not sampled. Macroinvertebrate 

data, collected by DNREC, shows that benthic populations consist of a diverse range of sensitive 

to tolerant species in these streams. Dove Nest Branch was listed as moderately degraded, and 

one station on the Sassafras River was listed in good condition. An additional station on the 

Sassafras River, along with Spring Mill Branch, Crystal Run, Joy Run, Scott Run, Back Creek, 

and Great Bohemia Creek were listed as severely degraded. 

Habitat assessments conducted by DNREC showed that streams located in the project area were 

classified from good condition to severely degraded. Spring Mill Branch and one station on the 

Sassafras River were classified as severely degraded. A different station on the Sassafras River 

was classified in good condition. Dove Nest Brach, Crystal Run, Joy Run, Scott Run, Back 

Creek and Great Bohemia Creek were classified as moderately degraded. The moderate to 

severely degraded status of many of these streams indicates ongoing anthropogenic impacts 

including habitat loss, pollution and increased development and urbanization. 

Aquatic Plants 

A variety of aquatic vegetation can be found throughout the freshwater streams, lakes and ponds 

located in the project area. Wetland vegetation is consistent with that found in freshwater 

marshes, swamps and bogs of wetlands in the Coastal Plain of the Mid-Atlantic United States. 

The invasion of natural plant habitats from non-native plants is the most common problem facing 

Delaware’s native aquatic plant species. Exotic vegetation, often fueled by nutrient enrichment, 

out-competes beneficial native vegetation and can clog waterways, diminish fishing, and degrade 

water quality. The most harmful exotic aquatic invaders include filamentous algae and two 

species of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV): hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) and cabomba or 

Carolina fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana). Control methods including the use of aquatic 

herbicides and mechanical harvesting, have been shown to be the best way to mitigate the 

impacts of these exotic aquatic plants. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-177 

(2) Environmental Consequences

Impacts to aquatic biota may result from each of the build alternatives, including the Preferred 

Alternative. Only the No-Build Alternative would result in no impacts to aquatic biota. Direct 

impacts that result from bridge or roadway construction, land development or other related 

activities may cause the direct loss of aquatic plants and animals located within the project area. 

The extent of impacts from construction activities related to this project will depend on the type 

of construction activity and individual tolerance and pollutant sensitivity of fish, 

macroinvertebrates and other aquatic life. 

Additional impacts that may occur as a result of the build alternatives include increased 

stormwater runoff and pollution resulting from an increase in impervious surfaces along with car 

and truck traffic. This can affect overall water quality for project area surface waters, in turn 

affecting the food sources of fish and other aquatic life. A population decrease of one species 

integral to the food chain can affect other species along with the success of the aquatic 

community. 

(3) Mitigation

Minimizing impacts to aquatic biota can help ensure that native plant and animal species found 

in the project area can be maintained. Design modifications to the Preferred Alternative will be 

investigated in sensitive areas and appropriate mitigation would be implemented when impacts 

cannot be avoided. BMPs would be implemented before, during and after construction to reduce 

impacts to aquatic biota. Proper steps will be taken to eliminate or reduce non-native species. A 

program to remove non-native plants and reestablish native populations would be implemented 

to mitigate those areas where native species have been removed due to construction activities. 

9. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species

The following section identifies the federal and state listed rare, threatened and endangered 

(RTE) species potentially occurring within the project area and potential impacts to RTE species 

resulting from the project alternatives. Rare, threatened or endangered species and unique or 

critical habitat is regulated at the federal level through Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

(1973; 50CFR17) and at the state level through Title 7 of the Delaware Code (7 Del.C. §§ 601 – 

605). 

a. Existing Conditions 

Information on rare, threatened or endangered species and critical habitat within the project area 

was obtained through agency coordination. Response letters were received from US Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control (DNREC), DNREC Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (DNHP), 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and DNR Environmental Review Unit 

(ERU). Information on rare, threatened, or endangered species within the project area was also 

acquired through field observations. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-178 

Letters requesting information on rare, threatened or endangered species, and critical habitat 

were sent on May 13, 2005 to USFWS and DNHP. Agency correspondence is attached in 

Appendix C. 

USFWS indicated, in a response dated August 17, 2005, that the federally threatened bog turtle 

(Clemmys muhlenbergii) may be present within the project area. According to the USFWS 

response, bog turtles “...primarily inhabit palustrine wetlands comprised of a muddy bottom or 

shallow water, and tussocks of vegetation.” The response suggested that a survey evaluating bog 

turtles and their habitat may be appropriate. USFWS also noted the presence of a federally 

threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucophalus) nest within the vicinity of the project area, 

located along Scott Run approximately 1 mile east of US 301. A second bald eagle nest was 

discovered by a DNREC representative on January 22, 2007 southwest of Middletown and 

approximately one mile east of existing US 301 near the proposed Levels Road interchange. 

DNHP indicated in a letter dated July 25, 2005 that several rare, threatened or endangered 

species are known to occur within or adjacent to the project area. DNHP indicated that the 

project area contains State Wildlife Area Lands which are managed by DNREC’s Division of 

Fish and Wildlife. DNHP recommended consultation with the State’s Regional Wildlife 

Biologist to minimize impacts to State Wildlife Area Lands. 

Letters requesting information on rare, threatened or endangered species were sent to the 

Maryland DNR Environmental Review Unit and Wildlife & Heritage Division on October 20, 

2005. DNR indicated in a letter dated December 7, 2005 that there were no records of state or 

federal species within the portion of the project located in Maryland. 

There has been ongoing consultation with both USFWS and DNREC as part of several Agency 

Review Meetings (April 14, May 23, July 12, August 23, November 8, and December 8, 2005 

and January 17, March 21, June 8 and August 15, 2006) and field views (August 8, August 12, 

September 8 and September 22, 2005 and February 23 and May 11, 2006). Rare, threatened, and 

endangered species coordination for this project will continue throughout the project 

development process. 

Additional information was requested and received from DNREC concerning the potential 

presence of a bald eagle nesting site along Scott Run near SR 1 and/or the presence of bald 

eagles at the headwaters of Shallcross Lake adjacent to existing US 301. 

On June 28, 2007 the US government officially removed the bald eagle from the federal list of 

threatened and endangered species. While this action signifies that the bald eagle is no longer 

protected under the Endangered Species Act, other laws such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

and the USFWS Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act still protect this animal. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-179 

Bald Eagles and Other State-Listed Species

While bald eagles were not observed during field investigations, nests were discovered near SR 1 

at Scott Run and near the proposed Levels Road interchange proposed under the Preferred 

Alternative. Other active nest locations identified by DNHP are located outside the project area. 

Most of the species identified by DNREC as having been observed in the project area (four-toed 

salamander, great purple hairstreak, Mitchell’s sedge, alewife floater, marsh marigold, hairy 

woodrush, abruptly bent backed flatsedge) were also not observed within the project area during 

field investigations. While a few field investigations on select wetlands were conducted with 

DNREC to identify state rare species or likely habitat, it should be noted that most field 

investigations were not conducted specifically to identify rare species and most of the field 

investigators were not trained to identify rare species. However, the state listed queen snake was 

identified during Phase II and Phase III bog turtle surveys (described below) on Scott Run, Back 

Creek, Crystal Run, and Joy Run. In addition, cattail sedge (Carex typhina), a state rare plant not 

identified in correspondence with DNREC, was identified in the project area near Mount 

Pleasant. 

 

Bog Turtle Survey and Biological Assessment

To comply with the recommendations of DNHP regarding bog turtles, a Phase I Bog Turtle 

Survey was completed in Fall 2005 and Winter 2006. USFWS Bog Turtle Habitat Evaluation 

Forms were completed for each delineated wetland in the project area. The survey evaluates 

those areas identified as potential bog turtle habitat during wetland field investigations. The 

project area for the Phase I assessment includes areas up to one-half mile from the proposed 

Yellow, Purple, Brown and Green alignments. Assessment protocols were field reviewed with 

DNHP on August 8, 2005. Phase I results were reviewed with DNHP during a meeting 

conducted on December 8, 2005. 

The Phase I Survey completed forms and final report are included in Investigation for Wetlands 

and Waters of the United States and Phase I Bog Turtle Habitat Assessment (DelDOT, 2006). 

The survey was conducted according to methods outlined by DNHP in Bog Turtle Survey 

Procedures - Delaware (Revised January 2005) and by USFWS in Guidelines for Bog Turtle 

Surveys (Revised April 2006). Potential habitat was assessed by a state-approved bog turtle 

surveyor. Twenty-seven areas in approximately ten wetland systems were identified by DelDOT 

as potential bog turtle habitat. Most of these areas were reviewed in the field with DNHP on 

February 23, 2006 to ascertain that all potential habitat had been identified. Potential bog turtle 

habitat was identified in the following areas: 

In the eastern section of the project study area along Scott Run near SR 1, 

Along Crystal Run, Joy Run and another tributary of the C&D Canal east of Joy Run 

(north and south of Lorewood Grove Road), 

Along Back Creek and its tributaries near Choptank Road in the northwestern section of 

the project study area, 

Several areas adjacent to existing US 301 (north of the town of Middletown and south of 

Boyds Corner Road), 

Along Sandy Branch and its tributaries. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-180 

Based on these findings, Phase II and Phase III Bog Turtle Surveys were completed by stateapproved bog turtle surveyors for the 27 areas of potential habitat. The survey was conducted 

between April 15 and June 15, in compliance with the requirements specified by USFWS and 

DNREC. At select areas of potential habitat, Phase III (trapping) surveys were conducted by 

DNREC and USFWS-approved surveyors. 

No bog turtles were discovered during any of the Phase II or Phase III surveys within one-half 

mile of the proposed alternatives. Details of the Phase II/III survey locations, methods, and 

results are included in Phase II/III Bog Turtle Surveys for US 301 Corridor Improvement Project

(DelDOT, August 2006). However, bog turtles were identified in 1972 at one location within 

one of the watersheds potentially affected by the alternatives. The historical record location and 

the specific watershed will not be identified in this document in compliance with the Endangered 

Species Act. Bog turtles are directly threatened by poaching activities and disclosing the 

location of the historical population may constitute a threat to that population. Based on the 

historic occupation and the bog turtle life span, the entire watershed is evaluated as a “potentially 

occupied” bog turtle area. Impacts to the watershed resulting from the build alternatives are 

evaluated below. 

b. Environmental Consequences 

Bog Turtles

A biological assessment for the US 301 Project (Delaware US 301 Project Biological 

Assessment, DRAFT, May 2007) details whether the roadway improvement may affect any of 

the threatened, endangered, proposed or sensitive species in the vicinity of the project area. 

Because no bog turtles were found during the intensive searches, but the Scott Run watershed 

has an historic record of bog turtles, the impacts expected from the construction of the Preferred 

Alternative are minimal. 

The No-Build Alternative will not impact the potentially occupied watershed and have no 

impacts to bog turtles or bog turtle habitat. 

All of the build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, will impact the potentially 

occupied watershed which could result in direct bog turtle impacts and in indirect and direct bog 

turtle habitat impacts. Based on the 1972 historical record, and the results of the 2006 Phase 

II/III survey, bog turtles may or may not be present in the potentially occupied area. If they are 

present, population levels are likely low. Therefore, the potential for impacts to the bog turtle 

may be minimal. As a result of findings of the Biological Assessment, the project “May Affect 

but is Unlikely to Adversely Affect” the bog turtle. Potential direct bog turtle impacts could 

include road mortality and construction related mortality. Direct bog turtle habitat impacts 

include filling of wetlands. Indirect bog turtle habitat impacts include wetland hydrology 

alteration and introduction of invasive plant species. Each type of potential impact to bog turtles 

and bog turtle habitat is described below. 

Road Mortality 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-181 

All of the build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, have the potential to cause turtle 

road mortality because each alternative crosses the potentially occupied watershed where turtles 

could, if they exist, climb up onto the road. The Yellow and Purple alternatives have the fewest 

crossings and the lowest potential for road mortality. Green South has most crossings and the 

highest potential for road mortality. Brown North, Brown South and Green North each have an 

intermediate number of crossings and moderate potential for road mortality. Road mortality 

should be limited since all the crossings will consist of elevated bridges over the wetlands. 

These crossings could be designed to allow unrestricted turtle movement under the road and 

maintain travel corridors for any future turtle movements. 

Other measures such as fencing or solid barriers could be placed along the new roadway to 

ensure that turtles cannot cross the road. 

Mortality During Construction 

All of the build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, have the potential for 

construction-related mortality when work is being conducted within wetlands in the potentially 

occupied watershed. The Yellow and Purple alternatives have the smallest limit of disturbance 

and the lowest potential for construction mortality. Green South has the largest limit of 

disturbance and the highest potential for construction mortality. Brown North, Brown South and 

Green North have an intermediate sized limit of disturbance and moderate potential for 

construction mortality. Disturbance to wetlands along the potentially occupied watershed and 

potential construction mortality has been minimized by spanning the wetlands with bridges and 

limiting the placement of fill in wetlands along the potentially occupied watershed. 

Other measures to ensure minimal mortality during construction include installing silt fencing 

around the construction area within the potentially occupied watershed’s wetlands and having a 

qualified bog turtle surveyor present to conduct a pre-construction survey of the construction 

area for turtles. This exclusionary fence and the construction area could also be monitored by a 

qualified bog turtle surveyor for the duration of the construction.

Hydrologic Changes 

All of the build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, have the potential to cause 

hydrologic changes because they cross the potentially occupied watershed and introduce 

impervious surface within the potentially occupied watershed. As reported in the DEIS, the 

Yellow and Purple alternatives would introduce the smallest additional impervious area and 

would have the lowest potential for hydrologic changes. Green South had the largest additional 

impervious area and the highest potential for hydrologic changes, while the Brown North, Brown 

South and Green North had an intermediate amount of additional impervious area and 

intermediate potential for hydrologic changes. It is important to note that beavers are very active 

within the potentially occupied watershed (and all project area watersheds) and are continually 

altering hydrology within the wetlands by alternately flooding and drying up wetlands as dams 

are created and breached. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-182 

Stormwater management is a key component of this project and would be included in all build 

alternatives. Stormwater management facilities would be designed to manage both water 

quantity and quality. Stormwater runoff would be directed to these facilities prior to entering the 

wetlands along the potentially occupied watershed and the facilities would be designed to 

maintain the existing water regime with the incorporation of infiltration and discharge facilities. 

Maintenance of the existing water regime would help to maintain the groundwater levels and 

recharge necessary to continue to supply these groundwater-fed seeps within the wetlands along 

the potentially occupied watershed. All road-related runoff would be directed into stormwater 

management facilities. 

Any hazardous materials in the stormwater runoff would also be captured in the stormwater 

management facilities and allowed to settle out prior to the water reentering the nearby wetland 

systems. In case of an accidental hazardous materials spill from trucks, spills could be contained 

with the stormwater management facilities until emergency response cleanup is completed. 

Introduction of Invasive Plant Species 

All of the build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, have the potential to introduce 

invasive plant species into the potentially occupied watershed. Invasive plants can be introduced 

by seeds in foreign soils used as fill material, through seed transport along road corridors, and 

through soil disturbance permitting invasive species to establish before native species. Invasive 

species encroachment on bog turtle habitat can negatively change the plant composition resulting 

in habitat that is undesirable or unusable to bog turtles. It is important to note, however, that 

many of the wetlands along the potentially occupied watershed already have invasive species 

within the wetland. Invasive plant species introductions would be minimized by limiting 

disturbance to wetlands along the potentially occupied watershed and limiting the amount of fill 

placed in wetlands along the potentially occupied watershed. 

Bald Eagle and Other Species

The build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, would not impact the bald eagle nest 

site which is known to occur along Scott Run. The nest along Scott Run would be located 

outside of the area of potential impact for these alternatives, and would be outside of the buffer 

requirements. USFWS normally recommends that a year-round buffer of 750 feet remain 

undisturbed around bald eagle nests to avoid direct impacts (a “take”). In addition, a time-ofyear restriction on construction activities within a quarter mile of an eagle nest has been 

established from December 15 through June 15 to avoid disturbance to nesting eagles and ensure 

successful incubation and rearing of young. Disturbances to the nest and surrounding area will 

be avoided. 

The bald eagle nest discovered near Levels Road is within the tier 2 impact zone of the Preferred 

Alternative. Tier 2 protection extends a buffer around the nest of 1,320 feet. The end of the 

Levels Road interchange LOD was within 1,296 feet of the nest. To avoid and minimize impact 

to this nest, the roadway design was modified to shorten the Levels Road interchange in that area 

so the LOD no longer extends into the nest buffer. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-183 

Because of the locations of bald eagle nest sites in proximity to the Preferred Alternative, a yearround buffer of 750 feet will be maintained during all construction activities, and time-of-year 

restrictions on construction activities (from December 15 through June 15) within a quarter mile 

of an eagle nest will be observed. 

The build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, are located within the area identified 

by DNHP where several rare, threatened, or endangered species have been previously identified. 

There are no anticipated impacts to the following state listed species: four-toed salamander, great 

purple hairstreak, Mitchell’s sedge, alewife floater, marsh marigold, hairy woodrush, and 

abruptly bent backed flatsedge; these species were not incidentally observed within the project 

area during field investigations. These field investigations were not focused on rare species and 

were conducted by biologists not specifically trained to identify rare species. All of the retained 

alternatives have the potential to impact the queen snake; the Brown North Alternative would 

impact all the wetlands in which the queen snake was identified. The Yellow Alternative would 

impact the queen snake along Scott Run while the rest of the alternatives would impact the queen 

snake along Scott Run and Back Creek. The queen snake is a wetland dependant species and 

avoidance, spanning, and minimization of impacts to wetlands along with compensatory wetland 

mitigation would limit impacts to the queen snake. The Yellow Alternative would impact cattail 

sedge, a state rare species identified during field investigations. 

10. Wild and Scenic Rivers

a. Existing Conditions 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System information is maintained by the National Parks 

Service (NPS) and categorized by state. Furthermore, the NPS manages the Nationwide Rivers 

Inventory (NRI) which lists more than 3,400 free-flowing river segments in the United States. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers of the United States, along with their immediate environments, possess 

outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, and cultural 

values. They are to be preserved in a free-flowing state, and they and their immediate 

environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. 

The Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) lists river segments in the United States that are 

believed to possess one or more "outstandingly remarkable" natural or cultural values judged to 

be of more than local or regional significance. Under a 1979 Presidential directive, and related 

Council on Environmental Quality guidance, all federal agencies must seek to avoid or mitigate 

actions that would adversely affect one or more NRI segments. 

White Clay Creek has received the Federal Wild and Scenic River designation. The White Clay 

Creek Wild and Scenic Rivers System Act designated approximately 190 miles of segments and 

tributaries of the White Clay Creek as components of the national system. This includes 

virtually the entire watershed, a first time occurrence in the national system. The White Clay 

Creek watershed comprises approximately 70,000 acres or 100 square miles in Pennsylvania and 

Delaware. White Clay Creek joins the Christina River near Newport, Delaware, which in turn 

flows into the Delaware River near Wilmington. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-184 

Nineteen miles of the Sassafras River, from its headwaters in Kent and Cecil Counties, Maryland 

and New Castle County, Delaware, to its confluence with the Chesapeake Bay, were listed in 

1982 on the NRI and considered to have outstandingly remarkable recreational, fish, wildlife, 

and other values. The watershed drains approximately 48,326 acres within a portion of western 

New Castle County. The watershed’s eastern boundary roughly parallels SR 15 and extends 

westward out of the project area into the State of Maryland. 

b. Environmental Consequences 

White Clay Creek and its entire watershed is located north and east of the project area and will 

not be impacted by the US 301 project. The watershed for the Sassafras River, listed on the NRI, 

lies within the project area boundaries. Headwaters would be impacted by the southern portion 

of all build alternatives. 

There would be no direct impacts to the Sassafras River or its tributaries resulting from any of 

the build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative. Impacts to the Sassafras River 

watershed could result from roadway runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to hydrology. These 

impacts could potentially contribute to a decrease in scenic value, recreational use, and plant and 

animal species that inhabit these areas. 

 

11. Coastal Zone Management Area

a. Existing Conditions 

As mandated by Section 307 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, 

each coastal state must develop a federally approved Coastal Zone Management Program 

(CZMP). Any federal action which is reasonably likely to affect any land or water use, or 

natural resource of a state’s coastal zone, must be conducted in a manner that is consistent with 

the state’s federally approved CZMP. Activities are reviewed by the appropriate agency to 

ensure consistency with the state’s CZMP as part of the Federal Consistency process. In 

Delaware, the consistency review is initiated through submittal of a separate application to the 

Delaware Coastal Management Program (DCMP). A representative of the Delaware CZMP has 

participated in the US 301 Project Development effort and has been involved in the development 

and review of this FEIS. In Maryland, the consistency process is initiated through application 

for a federal permit. 

The limits of the Coastal Zone in Delaware are defined as the entire state for the purposes of the 

federally approved coastal management program (DCMP, 2004). In Maryland, the Coastal Zone 

includes Cecil County, and therefore the area where existing US 301 is located (MDE, 2004). 

Because the entire project area lies within the Coastal Zones of Maryland and Delaware, all 

activities will be subject to the Federal Consistency Process. The review process will analyze the 

proposed activity for consistency with existing land uses and impacts to coastal resources. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-185 

b. Environmental Consequences 

No impacts to the Coastal Zone are anticipated as a result of the No-Build Alternative. A small 

portion of the Yellow, Purple, Brown, and Green (Preferred) Alternatives is located within the 

Coastal Zone of Maryland. The remainder of these alternatives is located entirely within the 

Coastal Zone of Delaware. 

Because impacts to federally regulated wetlands are anticipated as part of this Preferred 

Alternative, a Coastal Zone Consistency Statement will need to be obtained before any federal 

permit activities could occur as part of any alternative. In Delaware, a Consistency Statement 

will need to be applied for separately from any application for a permit for wetland impacts. The 

Consistency Statement application will be submitted in Delaware when the final ACOE permit is 

submitted. In Maryland, this process will occur as part of the application for a federal permit. 

The Preferred Alternative would be designed and constructed in a manner that remains consistent 

with the policies of both Delaware’s and Maryland’s Coastal Zone Management Programs. 

12. Unique, Sensitive and other Natural Areas

a. Existing Conditions 

Unique and Sensitive Areas include areas with special environmental qualities or historical 

uniqueness and sensitivities. Some of these areas may be represented in other sections of the 

DEIS. Unique and Sensitive Areas need special attention during the planning, design and 

management phases of the project to avoid or minimize impacts wherever possible in order to 

maintain their remarkable character. A variety of areas are included in this section including 

state resource areas, state wildlife area lands, greenways and trails, sensitive wildlife habitat, and 

designated natural areas. Figure III-22 shows the unique and sensitive areas in or adjacent to 

the project area. 

Delaware’s State Strategies for Policies and Spending (1999, updated 2004), also known as 

Livable Delaware, directs the focus of state development and land use programs to those areas 

most suitable. “Green Infrastructure”, defined in Executive Order #61, defines those areas that 

focus on croplands, forestlands and natural resources and recreation lands by mapping, and uses 

that mapping to develop goals and strategies for preservation of natural resource areas, 

recreational lands and working lands. 

A variety of resources were used to develop the Unique, Sensitive and Other Natural Areas 

section. The GIS database for New Castle County and Delaware provided designated 

environmental features and boundaries within the project area. DNREC and Maryland DNR 

websites provided details on the unique and sensitive areas. Unique and Sensitive Areas are 

described below by category. 
)p

AØ

)p

AØ

?Î

)p

Warwick

Middletown

Townsend

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

Churchtow

Old School House Rd

Bohemia Mill Rd Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Noxontown Rd

Silverlake Rd

Main St

Money Rd

Bunker Hill Rd

Middletown Warwick Rd

Middle Neck Rd

N Broad St

S Broad St

Levels Rd

Strawberry La

Grears Corner Rd

Green Giant Rd

Wiggins Mill Rd

Church Rd

Great

Bohemia

Creek

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove

Nest Branch

Noxontown

Pond

Silver

Lake

Sandy

Branch

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Middletown

Village Matapeake

Country

Acres

Wheatland

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Post and

Rail Farms

Back Meadowbrook Farms

Creek

Match

Line

B Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

G

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-22A

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

Greenways & Trails

Existing Bike Path

Existing Greenways

Planned Greenways

Parks

Public

Water Farm

State Resource Areas

Natural Area Inventory

Sources: New Castle County, 2005

 DNREC, 2005

US 301 Project Development

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Unique and Sensitive Areas

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
AÝ

)p

?¡

?Î

AÝ

)p

)h

?¡

AÝ

)h

?¡

)h

AØ

)p

Middletown

Odessa

St Georges Rd

Rd

Red Lion Rd

Cox Neck Rd

Summit

Bridge

d

Summit Bridge Rd

Churchtown Rd

Old School House Rd

Armstrong

Corner Rd

Choptank Rd

Bethel Church Rd

Boyds Corner Rd

Ratledge Rd

Cedar Lane Rd

Marl Pit Rd

Shallcross Lake Rd

Bayview Rd

Vance Neck Rd

Hyetts Corner Rd

Jamison Corner Rd

Main St

Brick Mill Rd

Main St

Old Corbit Rd

N Broad St

Lums

Pond

Chesapeake

Joy

Run

Run

Scott

Creek

Augustine

Creek

Drawyer

Shallcross

Lake

Spring

Mill

Branch

Dove Nest Branch

River

Norfolk Southern

Mt Pleasant

Boyds

Corner

Saint

Georges

Middletown

Village

Springmill

The

Legends

Southridge

Brick

Mill

Farm

Woodlawn

Estates

Drawyers

Creek

Estates

Chestnut

Grove

Greylag

Commodore

Estates

Lorewood

Estates

Airmont

Acres

Mount

Hope

Summit

Bridge

Farms Summit

Pond

Crystal

Run

Dickerson Farm

Farm

Chesapeake

Meadow

Post and

Rail Farms

Meadowbrook Farms

Lea Eara

Farms West Lea Eara

Farms East

Grande

View

Farms

Asbury

Chase

Bolton

Meadows

Odessa

Heights

Spring

Oaks

m

and Delaware

Canal

B

Match

Line

Summit

Airport

o

Summit

Farms

G

GN

GS

BN

BS

B Y

P

Y

P

Y

P

B

G

P

Spur

G

G

É1 inch = .8 mile

B

A

November 2007 Figure

III-22B

Project Area

Municipal Boundaries

Alternatives

Greenways & Trails

Existing Bike Path

Existing Greenways

Planned Greenways

Parks

Public

Water Farm

State Resource Areas

Natural Area Inventory

Sources: New Castle County, 2005

 DNREC, 2005

US 301 Project Development

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Unique and Sensitive Areas

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-188 

 State Resource Areas

The development of State Resource Area (SRA) maps was authorized in 1990 by the Delaware 

Land Protection Act (7 Del Code, Chapter 75). The maps are used to guide local land use 

planning in the protection of unique ecological functions and for guiding acquisition of property 

or rights in real property through the Open Space Program. SRAs include existing protected 

state, federal, local and private conservation organization lands. SRA maps were updated in 

2006, and include some of the finest examples of Delaware’s diverse natural and cultural 

heritage, unspoiled wetlands, mature forests, rare plant and animal habitats, geological and 

archaeological sites, open space for recreation and greenway connectors. The updated SRAs in 

the project area are shown on Figure III-22. 

Noxontown Pond is a 493-acre designated State Resource Area located south of the project area. 

The C&D Canal State Resource Area includes 1,760 acres of freshwater marshes (Dragon Run 

and Thousand Acre Marsh), 20.3 miles of shoreline, significant geological features, three state 

Natural Areas, and approximately 1,500 acres of forestland. The alternatives cross the C&D 

Canal SRA at the base of Summit Bridge, and the Green and Brown Alternatives cross Scott Run 

within the C&D Canal SRA. 

Lums Pond State Park is a 1,790 acre state park located north of the C&D Canal, outside of the 

project area. This park encompasses the largest freshwater pond in Delaware and features a 

variety of recreational sports facilities and hiking trails. Lums Pond is a management unit within 

the C&D Canal SRA. 

Natural Areas

In 1978, the State of Delaware enacted the Natural Areas Preservation System (7 Del. Code, 

Chapter 73) to establish an inventory of natural areas statewide and a system of nature preserves. 

A natural area is defined as an “area of land or water, or of both land and water, whether in 

public or private ownership, which either retains or has reestablished its natural character, or has 

unusual flora or fauna, or has biotic, geological, scenic or archaeological features of scientific or 

educational value.” Nature preserves are those natural areas that have been formally dedicated 

or transferred to DNREC for and on behalf of the State. 

Augustine Creek is a Natural Area. The Yellow and Purple Alternatives cross Augustine Creek 

at their tie-in with SR 1. 

Noxontown Pond is a Natural Area and is described above under State Resource Areas. 

State Wildlife Area Lands

State Wildlife Area Lands were designated for a number of reasons to serve the public and 

manage wildlife. These lands provide management and refuge areas for upland animals, provide 

biological diversity through the maintenance of varied ecosystem habitats, and provide hunting 

grounds. The project area contains State Wildlife Area Lands, managed by the DNREC Division 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-189 

of Fish and Wildlife (Natural Heritage and Endangered Species (DNREC), personal 

communication, July 25, 2005). 

The C&D Canal is a designated State Wildlife Area. The canal connects the Delaware River, 

south of Delaware City, to the Chesapeake Bay. The north and south banks of the canal include 

more than 5,100 acres of protected lands, managed by both the Divisions of Fish and Wildlife 

and Parks and Recreation. The C&D Canal Wildlife Area has been divided into specified areas 

used for wildlife refuge, waterfowl hunting, deer hunting, and dog training. 

Greenways and Trails

Delaware Greenways identifies publicly-owned corridors for the protection of open space. 

These areas often contain water features, are managed for conservation and recreation, and often 

link parks, cultural or historic sites with populated areas. Greenways usually contain trails for 

walking and biking. 

Twelve miles of greenway trails are located on both the north and south banks of the C&D 

Canal. These greenways are managed by the Divisions of Fish and Wildlife and Parks and 

Recreation. 

b. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation 

Based on information received from DNREC to date, impacts to unique and sensitive areas 

would occur with all of the build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative. All of the 

alternatives could impact the C&D Canal SRA near the Summit Bridge. Both the Brown 

Alternative and the Green (Preferred Alternative) could impact Scott Run within the C&D Canal 

SRA. The Yellow and Purple Alternatives would impact the Augustine Creek State Natural 

Area near SR 1. Other impacts could include those associated with shade, noise and bridge 

runoff. There are no impacts to “green infrastructure” areas under any of the retained 

alternatives. 

There are no standard mitigation requirements for State Resource Areas and State Natural Areas 

(E. Butler (DNREC), personal communication, August 17, 2006). Mitigation for impacts to 

State Resource Areas, Natural Areas, State Wildlife Area Lands, and Greenways and Trails have 

been addressed under other resources including community facilities, waters of the US, forested 

lands, surface waters and habitat resources. Coordination with DNREC to further avoid, 

minimize or mitigate impacts will continue during the Preferred Alternative development and 

design process. 

G. Traffic, Travel Patterns and Toll Diversions 

A summary of existing and anticipated traffic is included in Chapter I, Purpose and Need. The 

following section details the traffic analysis performed for the project. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-190 

1. Traffic Forecasts

Year 2030 traffic forecasts were developed for all of the alternatives using Delaware’s state-ofthe-art regional transportation model, which is maintained by DelDOT. DelDOT’s regional 

transportation model, commonly referred to as the Peninsula Model because it encompasses the 

entire Delmarva Peninsula, is based upon the latest approved land use projections available for 

the region (which at the time the US 301 forecasts were approved by WILMAPCO in 2003) and 

includes all roadway improvement projects listed in the state’s Capital Improvements Program 

FY 2005-2010 Final. For the US 301 analysis, the state’s “B model” was used, which is still the 

most up-to-date version of the Peninsula Model. DelDOT conducted a large scale origindestination study throughout the US 301 project area in November 2004; the results of that study 

were used to help calibrate the Peninsula Model to reflect observed traffic patterns on the roads 

being studied. 

When the US 301 DEIS was published in November 2006, the Project Team described the 

intention to develop updated traffic forecasts prior to the publication of this FEIS. The new 

forecasts would have used the latest updated land use data and the latest version of the regional 

transportation model. However, as of the publication of this document, the new version of the 

regional transportation model is still undergoing a process of development, refinement and 

calibration by DelDOT and is not yet available for official use. Therefore, the latest available 

travel forecasting model for the project remains the state’s B model, which was used for traffic 

forecasting for the DEIS. 

A comparison was made of the land use assumptions in the current B model (which were 

approved by WILMAPCO in 2003) with more recent land use projections as of June 2005. This 

comparison was made to assess the magnitude of change that might be expected in the travel 

forecasts by using more recent development assumptions, even if they have not been officially 

adopted in the state’s regional travel demand model. The comparison focused on the traffic 

analysis zones (TAZs) in the M-O-T Planning District. Results of the comparison showed that 

the new 2005 land use assumptions resulted in a net 13 percent increase in housing, but a 2 

percent decrease in the total number of employees. Generally, these new land use assumptions 

indicate the potential for slightly higher overall volumes throughout the project area than the 

current 2030 traffic forecasts developed for this study, indicating an even greater need to address 

and relieve congestion, and better manage truck traffic on US 301 throughout the project area. 

For the study of travel patterns and traffic diversions, DelDOT’s Peninsula Model was further 

calibrated based on output from a larger, multi-state transportation model, which included the 

I-95 and US 301/US 50 corridors as far south as Washington, D.C. The multi-state 

transportation model was based on a similar model that was developed previously for the 

Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) for their study of the potential shifts in traffic 

between I-95 and US 301. The multi-state model also provided additional detail by explicitly 

modeling the behavior of heavy truck traffic under tolling, a feature not currently available in the 

Peninsula Model. The multi-state model was reviewed by an independent consulting firm at the 

request of the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA). The independent 

consultant indicated that the process used to develop, calibrate and post-process the model was 

reasonable. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-191 

a. Land Use 

The approved land use projections that are used in the regional transportation model are provided 

by WILMAPCO, the regional transportation planning agency (Metropolitan Planning 

Organization) for Cecil County, Maryland and New Castle County, Delaware. For this analysis, 

DelDOT carefully reviewed the approved land use projections with the most recent list of 

individual proposed and approved developments south of the C&D Canal (Section A.3). The 

data matched well, with one exception: the Westown Project, a large, mixed use project in 

Middletown including approximately 2,400 residential units and educational, retail, commercial 

and industrial uses. Considering the magnitude of this approved development, DelDOT 

recognized that the regional model needed to be adjusted to include the proposed Westown 

development in order to develop more realistic traffic forecasts. It should be noted that more 

recently, after the traffic forecasts were developed for this document, WILMAPCO did update 

their approved land use projections to reflect development in the Westown area. 

b. Network/Roadway Improvements 

In July 2005, the Delaware State Senate passed Senate Bill No. 190, which amended Chapter 14 

of the Delaware Code to allow tolls to be collected on US 301 between Maryland and the tolled 

portion of SR 1 (see 2 Del. C. §1403(6)). Accordingly, the Peninsula Model was also adjusted to 

include tolls on US 301 at the state line and on all of the north-serving ramps at each of the 

interchanges south of the C&D Canal along the future access-controlled US 301. US 301 is 

assumed to be a toll facility for all of the alternatives evaluated (Chapter II). 

c. Daily Forecasts 

Daily traffic forecasts were developed using the output from the Peninsula Model applying the 

adopted traffic forecasting methodologies outlined in NCHRP 255 – Highway Traffic Data for 

Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design (Transportation Research Board). These 

procedures are recognized as the accepted practice for developing future traffic volumes for 

planning and design purposes. These procedures refine the raw traffic forecasts from the 

regional transportation model based on recent existing traffic count data. For the US 301 

Project, an extensive data collection effort was undertaken, obtaining 2005 traffic data at over 30 

intersections (peak hour data) and on more than 100 roadway links (daily traffic data). The large 

database of current traffic data enabled a determination of specific traffic flow characteristics 

(truck percentages, peak hour factors, directional distributions, and the percentage of daily traffic 

that is present in the AM and PM peak hours) on individual roadway links. The Peninsula Model 

also provides sufficient level of detail to allow the projection of the future (2030) percentage of 

trucks on each roadway link. Table III-67 provides a comparison of 2030 daily traffic volume 

projections at numerous locations throughout the project area for each of the retained 

alternatives. Figure III-23 shows the locations of these key roadway segments. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-192 

Table III-67: 2030 Daily Traffic Projections (ADT)1

2030 Projections Roadway Segment 2003 

Existing No-Build Yellow Purple Brown Green 

1 US 301 at DE/MD State Line 10,300 14,800 15,200 16,500 16,800 16,800 

2a Existing US 301, North of SR 299 18,300 38,900 32,900 23,100 24,000 21,300 

2b New US 301, North of Middletown 2 37,600 53,700 56,000 56,700 

3a Boyds Corner Road, West of Cedar Lane 12,100 27,500 20,900 20,400 18,900 18,100 

3b New US 301, West of Cedar Lane 2 33,400 31,200 34,000 42,200 

4 Cedar Lane, South of SR 896 4,500 9,700 6,100 5,600 5,500 4,500 

5 Choptank Road, South of Churchtown Rd 3,100 15,200 12,800 5,300 5,100 5,100 

6 SR 299, West of SR 1 17,300 26,600 16,700 15,900 15,600 13,600 

7 Summit Bridge 26,300 65,500 58,100 64,000 64,000 59,500 

8 SR 896, North of Porter Road 30,400 59,200 52,400 55,800 55,900 52,700 

9 SR 896, South of Old Baltimore Pike 35,200 54,500 49,100 50,200 49,500 48,900 

10 I-95, East of SR 896 117,500 166,800 164,400 165,600 165,000 164,500 

11 I-95, East of SR 72 117,500 188,600 185,700 186,200 186,300 184,800 

12 SR 1, South of SR 896 38,900 63,000 54,600 53,000 53,100 51,300 

13 US 13, South of SR 896 24,500 42,600 39,400 39,400 39,200 37,700 

14 SR 1 Bridge 55,200 89,500 100,500 98,000 96,900 104,300 

15 St. Georges Bridge (US 13) 10,500 21,600 21,500 21,500 20,800 19,600 

16 SR 1, South of SR 72 62,000 99,000 108,200 107,000 107,300 111,400 

17 SR 1, South of US 40 47,300 84,100 93,600 92,200 92,100 96,000 

18 SR 1, South of SR 273 65,800 104,200 110,300 108,900 108,900 111,800 

1. Projections are forecast with Westown development added and with ramp and mainline tolls. 

2. Roadway segment is located on build alternative; existing and No-Build are not applicable. 

d. Peak Hour Forecasts 

Year 2030 peak hour forecasts were developed for numerous intersections and roadway links for 

each of the project alternatives and used as the basis for conducting traffic capacity analyses. 

The peak hour volumes were generated by factoring the daily traffic projections based on the 

detailed existing traffic data collected (truck percentages, peak hour factors, turning movement 

volumes, directional distributions, and the percentage of daily traffic that is present in the AM 

and PM peak hours). 

2. Traffic Analysis 

a. Methodology 

Traffic congestion for this project was quantified using the capacity analysis procedures 

contained in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board), the 

state and national standard for evaluating traffic operations. Capacity analyses were performed 

for all key roadway links and all key intersections south of the C&D Canal, as well as at select 

locations on or near SR 896 and SR 1 north of the Canal. Capacity computations were 

performed for all mainline roadway sections (freeways, multilane highways and two-lane
2a

1

2b

3a

3b

4

5

C

B

A

6

US 301 Bypass

Alternatives

9

F

11

7

8

10

G

E

D

Future

Newtown Road

Future

SR 72 / I-95

Interchange

18

17

16

14

15

I

12

13 H

I-1

DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE COUNTY

AND US 301

project project development development

U.S.

US 301 Project Development

Delaware

Department of

Transportation

É Figure

As Shown III-23

KEY ROADWAY AND

INTERSECTION LOCATIONS

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

November 2007
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-194 

 highways), and for all freeway ramp and weaving sections using the Highway Capacity 

Software (HCS), version 4.1d (© 2003 by the McTrans Center, University of Florida). This 

traffic analysis software, which is based on the HCM procedures, is used extensively by public 

and private agencies, including DelDOT. All signalized and unsignalized intersections were 

analyzed using Synchro version 6.0, Build 612 (© 1993-2003 by Trafficware). Like the HCS, 

Synchro is also based on HCM procedures and is widely used and accepted by public and private 

agencies, including DelDOT. 

All traffic analysis results for this project are reported in terms of Level of Service (LOS). Level 

of Service is a measure of the efficiency of traffic flow through an intersection or along a 

roadway segment. LOS is represented by letter grades ranging from A (best) through F (worst). 

Factors influencing LOS include traffic characteristics (e.g., volumes, direction distribution, and 

vehicle type) and roadway characteristics (e.g., number and width of lanes, terrain, design speeds 

and passing zones). 

b. Results 

A total of 26 intersections, ten roadway segments and one interchange were analyzed south of 

the C&D Canal. Table III-68 and Figure III-23 summarize the capacity analysis results for key 

locations south of the C&D Canal for all of the alternatives. 

Table III-68: Traffic Peak Hour Operational Analyses at Key Locations

2030 Projections LOS Location Time 

Period 

2003 

Existing No-Build Yellow Purple Brown Green 

AM E A A A A A 1 US 301 at DE/MD State 

Line1

PM E A A A A A 

AM C C C B B B A US 301/SR 2992

PM C C C B B B 

AM E E E E E E 2a US 301, North of 

Middletown PM E E E E E E 

AM B C C C 2b Bypass, North of 

Middletown PM B C C C 

AM D D C C C B B US 301/SR 896 (Boyds 

Corner Road) 3 PM D E D C C C 

AM B E C C US 301/SR 896/SR 154

PM A B D 

AM E E E E E E 3a Boyds Corner Road, West 

of Cedar Lane PM E E E E E E 

AM B B B B 3b Bypass, West of Cedar Lane PM B B B B 

AM C E D D D C 4 Cedar Lane, South of SR 

896 PM C E D D C C 

AM C E E C C C 5 Choptank Road, North of 

Middletown PM C E E D D D 

AM E E E E E E 6 SR 299, West of SR 1 PM E E E E E E 

AM B E D D D D 7 Summit Bridge5 

PM B D D D D D 

D SR 896/Porter Road AM E F F F F F 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-195 

Table III-68: Traffic Peak Hour Operational Analyses at Key Locations

2030 Projections LOS Location Time 

Period 

2003 

Existing No-Build Yellow Purple Brown Green 

PM E F F F F F 

AM B D D D D D 8 SR 896, North of Porter 

Road PM B C C C C C 

AM C E D D D D 9 SR 896, South of Old 

Baltimore Pike6 PM B C C C C C 

AM F F F F F F E SR 896/Old Baltimore 

Pike PM E F E E E E 

NB SR 896 to 

NB I-95 merge AM C C C C C C 

SB I-95 to SB 

SR 896 diverge PM B C C C C C 

AM E D D D D D 

F SR 896/ 

I-956,7

SB SR 896 over 

I-95 weave PM F E E E E E 

AM C D D D D D 10 I-95, East of SR 8966 

PM C C C C C C 

SR 72 to NB 

I-95 merge AM C C C C C 

G I-95/ 

SR 72 SB I-95 to 

SR 72 diverge PM D D D D D 

AM C D D D D D 11 I-95, East of SR 72 PM B D D D D D 

AM B B A A A A H SR 1/SR 2998

PM B B A A A A 

AM B D C C C C 12 SR 1, South of SR 896 PM B C C C C C 

AM B D D D D C 13 US 13, South of SR 896 PM B C C C C C 

AM F F F F F F I SR 896/US 139

PM C F E E D E 

AM B D D D D D 14 SR 1 Bridge PM B C D C C D 

AM A C C C C C 15 St. Georges Bridge (US 13) PM A B B B B B 

AM C D E E E E 16 SR 1, South of SR 72 PM B C D D D D 

AM C C D C C D 17 SR 1, South of US 40 PM B C C C C C 

AM D D E E E E 18 SR 1, South of SR 273 PM D D D D D D 

Refer to Figure III-22

 Projections are forecast with Westown development added and with ramp and mainline tolls. 

1. 2030 projections based on 4 lanes 

2. 2030 includes 301 widening to 4 lanes due to Westown. 

3. 2030 based on intersection improvements (2nd through land NB/SB). 

4. Intersection is replaced with interchange for these alternatives. 

5. All analyses based on 4-lane bridge. 

6. 2030 affected due to Newtown Road and SR 72 interchange. 

7. All analyses based on existing interchange. 

8. Worst LOS of the diamond intersection. 

9. Analyses assume no improvements.
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-196 

Capacity analyses were also performed at locations north of the C&D Canal on the SR 896, I-95 

and SR 1 corridors; seven intersections, eight roadway segments and one interchange were 

analyzed. Table III-68 and Figure III-23 also summarize the capacity analysis results for key 

locations north of the C&D Canal for all of the alternatives. 

A comprehensive description of the traffic forecasting and analysis methodology and complete 

documentation of all results are included in US 301 Project Development Draft Travel Analysis 

Technical Report (DelDOT, November 2006). 

While Table III-68 summarizes the operational analysis results for key locations, Table III-69

and Table III-70 compare the operational analysis results for all of the intersections, 

interchanges and roadway sections that were analyzed for this project. Table III-69 summarizes 

the operation of existing intersections and roadway segments under each of the alternatives, and 

Table III-70 summarizes the operation of newly created intersections and roadway segments as a 

result of each alternative. The analysis results are grouped into three categories: 

Locations with LOS between A and D in both peak hours (representing locations with 

traffic conditions that are generally considered “acceptable” by state and federal agencies); 

Locations projected to operate at LOS E in at least one of the peak hours, representing 

locations that are approaching capacity, but have not yet reached LOS F; and 

Locations projected to operate at LOS F in at least one of the peak hours, where volumes 

exceed capacity and operational failure has occurred. 

No-Build Alternative

Currently, of the 53 key intersections, interchanges and roadway segments that were analyzed for 

this study, 40 (75 percent) operate between LOS A and D in the peak hours; eight (15 percent) 

are approaching capacity, reaching LOS E in at least one of the peak hours; and the remaining 

five locations (10 percent) are currently failing (LOS F). 

By 2030, the No-Build Alternative results in more than twice as many locations either 

approaching or exceeding capacity when compared to existing conditions. Specifically, 25 

percent of the analysis locations will fail (LOS F) in at least one peak hour, while 21 percent of 

the analysis locations will approach capacity (LOS E) in at least one peak hour. Only 54 percent 

of the locations will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. The primary reason for 

this degradation in operational performance is the lack of mainline capacity on US 301, and the 

corresponding increase in traffic on many of the local roads throughout the project area south of 

the C&D Canal. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-197 

Table III-69: Traffic Analyses Results – Existing Intersections, Interchanges and Roadway Segments 

North of C&D Canal South of C&D Canal 

# of Intersections 

Analyzed 1

# of Roadway 

Segments Analyzed 

# of Interchanges 

Analyzed 2

# of Intersections 

Analyzed 3

# of Roadway 

Segments Analyzed 

# of Interchanges 

Analyzed 

LOS 

A-D (%) LOS 

A-D (%) LOS 

A-D (%) LOS 

A-D (%) LOS 

A-D (%) LOS 

A-D (%) 

LOS E (%) LOS E (%) LOS E (%) LOS E (%) LOS E (%) LOS E (%) Total 

LOS F (%) 

Total 

LOS F (%) 

Total 

LOS F (%) 

Total 

LOS F (%) 

Total 

LOS F (%) 

Total 

LOS F (%) 

4 57% 8 100% -- -- 21 80% 6 60% 1 100% 

2 29% -- -- -- -- 2 8% 4 40% -- -- Existing 

(2003) 7 

1 14% 

8 

-- -- 

1 

1 100% 

26 

3 12% 

10 

-- --

1 

-- -- 

3 50% 6 75% 1 50% 13 50% 5 50% 1 100%

-- -- 2 25% 1 50% 3 12% 5 50% -- -- NoBuild 6 

3 50% 

8 

-- -- 

2 

-- -- 

26

10 38% 

10 

-- --

1 

-- -- 

3 50% 6 75% 1 50% 18 78% 6 60% 1 100%

Yellow 6 -- -- 2 25% 1 50% 1 4% 4 40% -- --

3 50% 

8 

-- -- 

2 

-- -- 

23

4 18% 

10 

-- --

1

-- -- 

3 50% 6 75% 1 50% 19 76% 7 70% 1 100%

Purple 6 -- -- 2 25% 1 50% 3 12% 3 30% -- --

3 50% 

8 

-- -- 

2 

-- -- 

25

3 12% 

10 

-- --

1 

-- -- 

3 50% 6 75% 1 50% 21 84% 7 70% 1 100%

Green 1 17% 2 25% 1 50% 1 4% 3 30% -- -- 4 6 

2 33% 

8 

-- -- 

2 

-- -- 

25

3 12% 

10 

-- --

1 

-- -- 

2 33% 6 75% 1 50% 21 84% 7 70% 1 100%

1 17% 2 25% 1 50% 1 4% 3 30% -- --

2030 

Brown4 6 

3 50% 

8 

-- -- 

2 

-- -- 

25

3 12% 

10 

-- --

1 

-- -- 

1. US 40 and SR 896 is currently a signalized intersection. In the future it is an interchange. 

2. The SR 72 interchange does not exist currently. In the future it is an interchange. 

3. Bethel Church Road @ US 301/SR 896 becomes an interchange with Purple, Green and Brown. 

4. North and South Options for the Green and Brown Alternatives yield similar conditions. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-198 

Table III-70: Traffic Analyses Results – New Intersections, Interchanges and 

Roadway Segments South of the Canal*

# of Intersections 

Analyzed 

# of Roadway Segments 

Analyzed 

# of Interchanges Analyzed 

LOS 

A-D (%) LOS 

A-D (%) LOS 

A-D (%) 

LOS E (%) LOS E (%) LOS E (%) 

Alternative 

(2030) Total 

LOS F (%) 

Total 

LOS F (%) 

Total 

LOS F (%) 

No-Build 0 N/A -- 0 N/A -- 0 N/A -- 

8 100% 3 100% 3 100% 

Yellow 8 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

-- -- 

3 

-- -- 

3 

-- -- 

6 100% 2 66% 5 100% 

Purple 6 -- -- 1 33% -- -- 

-- -- 

3 

-- -- 

5 

-- -- 

8 100% 3 75% 6 100% 

Green -- -- 1 25% -- -- 1 8

-- -- 

4 

-- -- 

6 

-- -- 

8 100% 5 100% 5 100% 

Brown -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 8

-- -- 

5 

-- -- 

5 

-- -- 

* New ramp intersections at the proposed interchanges along the new US 301 alignment. 

1. North and South Options for the Green and Brown Alternatives yield similar conditions. 

Build Alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative

The Green (Preferred), Purple, and Brown Alternatives, which all provide a new north-south 

connection to the west of Middletown and a new east-west roadway connection between existing 

US 301 and SR 1, are projected to result in similar operational characteristics. Compared to the 

No-Build Alternative, all three of these build alternatives result in substantially improved 

operational conditions at a number of key locations throughout the project area. 

By 2030, the Green (Preferred) Alternative and the Brown Alternative result in 12 percent of the 

analysis locations failing (LOS F) in at least one peak hour, while 15 percent of the analysis 

locations will approach capacity (LOS E) in at least one peak hour. The remaining 73 percent of 

the locations will continue to operate at an acceptable LOS. 

By 2030, the Purple Alternative results in 12 percent of the analysis locations failing (LOS F) in 

at least one peak hour, while 17 percent of the analysis locations will approach capacity (LOS E) 

in at least one peak hour. The remaining 71 percent of the locations will continue to operate at 

an acceptable LOS. 

When compared to the No-Build Alternative, all three of these build alternatives provide a 

similar level of reduction in east-west traffic on local roads south of the C&D Canal, and all 

provide a similar level of reduction in north-south traffic volumes on existing US 301 and other 

north-south local roads. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-199 

The Yellow Alternative, which provides additional roadway capacity parallel to US 301 northsouth and parallel to SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road) east-west between existing US 301 and SR 1, 

results in improved operational conditions at a number of key locations throughout the project 

area. By 2030, the Yellow Alternative results in 8 percent of the analysis locations failing (LOS 

F) in at least one peak hour, while 16 percent of the analysis locations will approach capacity 

(LOS E) in at least one peak hour. The remaining 70 percent of the locations will continue to 

operate at an acceptable LOS. 

While these operational results project better conditions than the No-Build Alternative, the 

Yellow Alternative does less to reduce north-south traffic volumes on existing US 301 or other 

north-south local roads, when compared to the Purple, Brown or Green Alternatives. The 

Yellow Alternative provides a similar level of reduction in east-west traffic on local roads south 

of the Canal when compared to the other three build alternatives. 

3. Safety Analysis

To determine the potential safety implications of constructing each alternative, a formula was 

developed for estimating the future number of accidents expected within the project area based 

on existing accident rates. Accident statistics were obtained from DelDOT for the base year of 

2003. For this part of the study, five roadways were analyzed, including: 

US 301 – from the Maryland state line to Red Lion Road (SR 71) just north of Summit 

Bridge 

Boyds Corner Road (SR 896) – from US 301 to SR 1 

SR 299 – from US 301 to SR 1 

Choptank Road (SR 15) – from Bunker Hill Road to US 301 

MD 213 – from the Kent County Line to US 40 

a. Existing Roads 

A total of 283 reported accidents occurred along these five roadways in the year 2003. Using the 

accident data, the roadway lengths, and the 2003 average daily traffic (ADT) values, accident 

rates for each roadway segment were generated in terms of accidents per million-vehicle-miles 

(MVM). These existing accident rates were then used in conjunction with the year 2030 forecast 

ADT volumes to estimate the number of accidents expected in the year 2030 on these four 

existing roads. The results are shown in Table III-71. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-200 

Table III-71: 2030 Estimated Number of Traffic Accidents 

per Million-Vehicle Miles (MVM) on Existing Roads 

Alternative 

Roadway 

No-Build Yellow Purple Brown Green 

US 301 221 218 200 204 195 

SR 896 34 26 25 23 22 

SR 299 85 53 51 50 43 

SR 15 83 70 29 28 28 

MD 213 118 114 103 102 100 

Total 540 482 408 407 388 

Reduction vs. 

No-Build N/A -58 (-11%) 

-132 

(-24%) 

-133 

(-25%) 

-152 

(-28%) 

Note: North and South Options for the Green and Brown Alternatives yield similar conditions. 

The estimates provided in Table III-71 are approximations that are based on several 

assumptions. Perhaps the most significant of the assumptions is that the existing accident rates 

would remain the same for each roadway over the next 25-plus years, despite the likelihood that 

the surrounding land use will change and the existing number of access points to/from the 

roadways is also likely to increase. Despite these shortcomings, the future collision estimates are 

presented as a planning-level tool to help compare the possible safety benefits of each 

alternative. 

The results indicate that each of the build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, would 

be expected to reduce the number of accidents on existing routes, as compared to the No-Build 

Alternative. The Green (Preferred) Alternative results in the fewest accidents on each of the 

roadways, with a total accident reduction of approximately 28 percent versus the No-Build for 

the roadways studied. The Purple and Brown Alternatives are also expected to significantly 

reduce the number of accidents, with an overall reduction of approximately 25 percent each 

versus the No-Build. Similar benefits would be expected on other roadways in the project area 

where traffic volumes would be reduced due to the presence of a US 301 bypass. 

b. Existing Roads plus Build Alternatives 

The number of accidents expected on the proposed build alternative segments was also 

approximated for each alternative using the current statewide average accident rates for similar 

facilities. These values were combined with the values presented in Table III-71 to determine an 

overall accident rate (including existing and proposed routes) for each alternative. The Preferred 

Alternative is anticipated to achieve an accident rate of 1.13 accidents per million-vehicle-miles 

(MVM) when compared to the No-Build Alternative (1.31 MVM). 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-201 

Table III-72 lists the accident rates for existing conditions and the projected accident rates for 

the No-Build Alternative and each of the four build alternatives. The results indicate that each of 

the build alternatives is expected to result in a lower overall accident rate compared to existing 

conditions and the No-Build Alternative. The Brown Alternative is anticipated to achieve the 

lowest projected accident rate per MVM. 

Table III-72: Existing (2003) and Estimated 2030 Accident Rates along 

Major Study Area Routes 

Alternative Existing 

(2003) No-Build Yellow Purple Brown Green 

Accidents 

per MVM 1.31 1.31 1.18 1.15 1.12 1.13 

The values presented in Table III-71 and Table III-72 account for all reported accidents, 

including property damage accidents, personal injury accidents, and fatal accidents. Accident 

estimates specifically regarding injuries and fatalities are more difficult to quantify. However, it 

is anticipated that the number of serious accidents would be reduced proportionally as the overall 

number of accidents is reduced. Furthermore, because each of the build alternatives separates 

truck traffic from local traffic and the severity of an accident generally increases when a heavy 

vehicle collides with a smaller vehicle, having a reduced percentage of heavy vehicles in the 

traffic stream should further reduce the likelihood of injury and fatal accidents under the build 

alternatives. 

4. Travel Patterns

The introduction of a new 4-lane, tolled limited access US 301 from the state line to SR 1 as part 

of the Preferred Alternative and other build alternatives would alter both local traffic patterns 

within the project area as well as long-distance regional travel patterns by shifting traffic 

between I-95 and US 301. 

A study of existing travel patterns and analysis of projected future travel patterns was performed 

to determine what changes would occur with the Preferred Alternative or any build alternative 

(toll road) and the potential for regional toll diversion issues. To evaluate these potential 

changes, the project team utilized both the existing DelDOT Peninsula Model and a larger, multistate transportation model, which included the I-95 and US 301/US 50 corridors as far south as 

Washington, D.C. The multi-state transportation model was based on a similar model that was 

developed previously for the Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) for their study of the 

potential shifts in traffic between I-95 and US 301. The study included potential mitigation 

measures to minimize the impacts on potential diversion routes. 

a. Existing Conditions 

Within the project area there are four main routes for north-south travel: US 301, SR 71, US 13 

and SR 1 listed below. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-202 

US 301 enters southern New Castle County on the west side at the Delaware/Maryland 

state line and travels through the west side of the Town of Middletown, parallel to the 

Norfolk Southern rail alignment. US 301 crosses the C&D Canal on the Summit Bridge. 

Approximately 5 miles north of the Canal, US 301 joins US 40 and continues east, 

terminating at US 13. 

SR 71 traverses New Castle County from its beginning at US 13 south of Townsend, 

passes through Middletown and across the C&D Canal on the US 301 alignment, and 

terminates at US 13 at Tybouts Corner. 

US 13 traverses the entire state from the southern border of Delaware and Maryland in 

Sussex County to the northeastern border of Delaware and Pennsylvania. US 13 crosses 

the Canal on the St. Georges Bridge approximately 4.5 miles east of the Summit Bridge 

(US 301). 

SR 1 is a limited access tolled highway. SR 1 parallels US 13 from south of Dover to 

Churchmans Crossing at I-95, a distance of 51 miles. SR 1 crosses the Canal on a tolled 

bridge (Roth Bridge) just west of the St. Georges Bridge. 

An additional important north-south travel route that is affected by regional traffic patterns is 

MD 213, which extends along Maryland’s Eastern Shore through Queen Anne’s, Kent and Cecil 

Counties. 

East-west travel through the project area primarily takes place on two-lane local roads. SR 299, 

which enters Delaware from Kent and Cecil Counties in Maryland, joins US 301 to Middletown, 

where it turns east-west to continue through Middletown (as Main Street) to interchange with 

SR 1 before entering Odessa. Churchtown Road and Boyds Corner Road (SR 896) cross the area 

north of Middletown, approximately three miles south of the Canal, interchange with SR 1 on the 

east, and terminate at SR 9. At the Delaware/Maryland state line, Churchtown Road is 

designated as MD 310 (Cayots Corner Road), and terminates at MD 213. 

Between the state line and Boyds Corner Road, US 301 is a two-lane road, with no access 

control and numerous driveways. North of Boyds Corner Road, US 301 is a four-lane road with 

no access control. There are five traffic signals along existing US 301 south of the C&D Canal 

and four north of the Canal before US 40. There are currently no tolls on any part of US 301 in 

Delaware. 

Existing traffic volumes were evaluated at the I-95 Newark Toll Plaza, US 301 at the state line, 

and at various alternate routes to existing US 301. Table III-73 shows the estimated daily 

volume of cars and trucks on each route. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-203 

Table III-73: Daily (2006) Traffic Volumes 

Route Autos Trucks Total 

I-95 Toll Plaza 66,735 10,040 13% 76,775 

US 301 at state line 7,485 2,770 27% 10,255 

MD 213 (north of Cecilton) 4,485 955 18% 5,440 

MD 282 at state line 2,185 190 8% 2,375 

MD 330 1,105 285 20% 1,390 

Existing traffic in the study area was evaluated to determine the percentage of truck versus 

automobile traffic. Data collected on US 301 at the state line shows that automobiles account for 

73 percent of traffic and trucks 27 percent. At the I-95 Toll Plaza, automobiles account for 87 

percent of traffic and trucks 13 percent. 

b. Methodology for Evaluation of Impacts 

Data Collection

To adequately evaluate the potential for changes in travel patterns due to the US 301 project, a 

significant data collection effort was undertaken. Existing traffic volumes were collected on 

numerous routes throughout the study area. Travel time data was collected on both local and 

regional competing routes for use in estimating the utility of these routes. A postcard OriginDestination (O-D) Survey was conducted on US 13, at the toll-free ramps south of the C&D 

Canal, in July 2006. This O-D survey was used to help establish the tolling characteristics of 

drivers in the study area, and found that local auto trips are much more likely to divert around 

tolls than regional or long-distance trips. 

Visual surveys were conducted on potential diversion routes. Existing speed limits, truck 

restrictions, and important geometric characteristics were among the data collected on these 

visual surveys. These surveys were used to ensure that these facilities were modeled 

appropriately during the forecasting process. 

Travel Forecasting

The travel forecasting process for evaluating the effects of US 301 on travel patterns involved 

the use of two forecasting models: the DelDOT Peninsula Model, which is the basis for all the 

US 301 projections in this DEIS but which does not explicitly model autos and trucks separately; 

and an “Expanded” Peninsula Model, developed by the US 301 Project Team, which 

incorporates a set of proprietary toll elasticity equations, and which extends the modeling 

coverage area to Washington, D.C. to capture the primary decision point between I-95 and 

US 301 for long-distance trips, which also separately models auto and truck traffic. The output 

from the multi-state model was used to estimate the expected shift in traffic from I-95 to US 301, 

as well as the truck diversion patterns in the project area. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-204 

Projected 2030 traffic volumes were developed for the project area to evaluate the alternative 

alignments. Additionally, 2030 traffic volumes were projected for a series of local routes in 

Maryland that were identified as potential diversion routes during the modeling process. The 

projected traffic volumes for these routes are summarized in Figure III-24.

c. Results 

No-Build Alternative

By not addressing the Purpose and Need of congestion relief, the No-Build Alternative would 

affect travel patterns. Traffic volumes on existing US 301 are projected to increase significantly 

(over 90 percent) by 2030, resulting in increased congestion in the Middletown area. This 

congestion is likely to encourage drivers to seek alternate routes around the congested areas, 

resulting in increased traffic on other routes. For example, the congestion on US 301, combined 

with the growth in housing and population in southwestern Cecil County and northwestern Kent 

County in Maryland, results in a significant increase in traffic from existing levels on MD 213 in 

Maryland. 

Build Alternatives

All of the proposed build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, will result in changes 

in travel patterns within the project area. The new US 301 will be a limited access road with a 

mainline toll plaza near the Delaware/Maryland state line and toll plazas on the north-serving 

ramps at all the interchanges. The construction of a new major thoroughfare will provide 

significant additional traffic carrying capacity and will provide a new alternative route for 

motorists using many existing roads (existing US 301, SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road), SR 299, 

plus a number of smaller two-lane local roads). Proposed US 301 will also provide improved 

connectivity between existing US 301 in Maryland and SR 1/I-95 via a limited access facility, 

making it a more attractive route for longer distance (regional) travel. However, the introduction 

of interchange ramp tolls will have the opposite effect; discouraging some motorists from using 

the new facility. Similarly, the implementation of mainline tolls on US 301 will also create the 

potential for travel diversion to alternate routes. A comparison of data in Table III-67 between 

the existing, no-build, and build conditions demonstrates this change in travel patterns. 

Additional information is provided below. 

Toll Facilities 

The introduction of a toll on new US 301 has the potential to divert traffic to alternate routes, 

particularly trucks, which generally pay higher tolls than autos and which are, therefore, more 

likely to divert around a toll barrier. Accordingly, early in the project development process, the 

US 301 Project Team identified several local roads in Delaware that should have truck 

restrictions to discourage trucks from leaving US 301 to avoid paying a toll. A preliminary 

assessment indicated that the highest potential for auto diversions is on local routes, particularly 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-205 

Sassafras Road and MD 282 (Warwick Road), close to the mainline US 301 toll plaza; while the 

highest potential for truck diversions (given the network of assumed truck restrictions on nearby 

local roads) appears to be on MD 213, which connects to US 40 and MD 330, which connects to 

SR 6 and eventually US 13 in Delaware. The magnitude of these diversions is summarized in 

Figure III-24. 

Improved Connectivity for Through Traffic 

The new tolled US 301 under the Preferred Alternative, with controlled access, would provide 

enhanced freeway connectivity from the Maryland/Delaware state line to SR 1, just south of the 

C&D Canal. SR 1 is also a freeway facility, which ties directly into I-95, the primary northsouth corridor on the east coast. By providing a bypass of the congested segment of existing US 

301 and a direct connection to SR 1, the new facility has the potential to attract long-distance 

traffic away from I-95, which is heavily utilized and prone to periods of congestion in the 

metropolitan areas of Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, Maryland. Currently, travel time is 

approximately 5 to 15 minutes faster using I-95 rather than US 301 from Washington, D.C. to 

Wilmington, Delaware. With the implementation of a US 301 build alternative, this difference is 

expected to decrease. Additionally, a number of improvements to SR 1 and I-95 are planned that 

would further improve the travel time for through traffic entering Delaware on US 301 regardless 

of the alternative selected for the US 301 project. These planned improvements are listed in 

Table III-74.

Table III-74: Planned Improvements in Project Area 

Location Planned Improvement Schedule 

SR 1 Widened from the US 13/SR 1 split to I-95 2010-2030 

I-95/SR 1 Interchange Reconstructed 2009-2011 

I-95 from SR 1 to I-495 Widened with an additional lane in each direction 2007-2008 

Source: WILMAPCO Regional Transportation Plan 2030 (March 22, 2007) 

This improved connectivity could be offset somewhat by the inclusion of a toll on new US 301 

in Delaware. However, based on the existing toll rates structures on US 301 and I-95 (currently, 

it is $5 to $7.50 cheaper for autos to travel on US 301 and $18 to $28 cheaper for trucks, 

depending on the direction of travel), it is expected that the total tolls on new US 301 would still 

be considerably lower than those on I-95. The travel forecasting results indicate a 4 percent 

increase in daily traffic in 2030 crossing the William Preston Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge on US 

50/US 301 with a US 301 build alternative when compared to the No-Build Alternative, and a 

corresponding 3 percent decrease in daily traffic crossing the Susquehanna River on I-95 in 

Maryland with a US 301 build alternative when compared to the No-Build alternative. This shift 

in traffic from I-95 to US 301 is most likely the result of the travel time savings that would result 

on the US 301 corridor due to the proposed improvements. A study of the sensitivity of this shift 

to the toll rate on US 301 found a low elasticity, with only a 1 percent decrease in traffic on the 

Bay Bridge across the entire range of tolls studied. 
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

project project development development

U.S.

US 301 Project Development

Delaware

Department of

Transportation

November 2007

É Figure

As Shown

SCALE IN MILES

01 5678 234

1

2

3

4

1

2

Scenario Total Volume Trucks Autos

Existing 10,252 2,768 7,484

2030 No-Build 18,700 3,200 15,500

2030 Toll 18,800 - 19,700 3,600 - 3,900 15,200 - 15,800

US 301 (@ MD / DE Stateline)

Scenario Total Volume Trucks Autos

Existing 2,375 190 2,185

2030 No-Build 1,650 * 1,650

2030 Toll 5,200 - 6,000 * 5,200 - 6,000

MD 282 (Cecilton-Warwick Rd) in Warwick

4

3 Scenario Total Volume Trucks Autos

Existing 5,440 957 4,483

2030 No-Build 8,700 1,400 7,200

2030 Toll 5,600 - 5,900 1,400 - 1,600 4,200 - 4,300

MD 213 (North of Cecilton & South of MD 310)

Scenario Total Volume Trucks Autos

Existing 1,388 283 1,105

2030 No-Build 2,900 800 2,100

2030 Toll 2,600 - 2,800 1,100 - 1,200 1,500 - 1,600

MD 330, Between Massey and MD / DE Stateline

III-24

PROJECTED DAILY TRAFFIC

FOR POTENTIAL TOLL DIVERSIONS

* Heavy trucks (>3 axles) would be restricted

on MD 282, per the recommendation from the

Toll Diversion Working Group
AÝ

?£ ?§

!"`$ !"`$ AÝ

AÖ

?¡

)l

)l

)p ?Ï )h

?¡

AÝ

)p

)h

AÝ

?¡

AØ

)p

)h

)h

?¡

?1

?1

?Î

?1

A×

AÐ Ai A÷

AÐ

A÷

Aÿ

AÐ

)p

AÐ

Ae Aå A¤

Af

?3⁄4

?Ü

?a

AØ

)p

AÐ Ai A÷

AÐ

A÷

Aÿ

AÐ

AÐ

Ae Aå A¤

Af

?¿

Ak

Townsend

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

Smyrna

Odessa

Middletown

Newark

Elkton

Galena

Delaware

River

Elk

River

River

Bohemia

River Sassafras

CECIL

COUNTY

KENT

COUNTY

KENT

COUNTY

NEW

CASTLE

COUNTY

Warwick

NORFOLK SOUTHERN

C&D Canal

Chesapeake

City

Cecilton

November 2007 Figure

III-25

É

1 in. = 3 mi.

SCEA Boundary

Project Area

US 301 Project Development

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Secondary and Cumulative Effects 

Analysis Boundary

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-207 

Auto Diversions 

MD 282 (Warwick Road) is the facility which is projected to have the most significant increase 

in auto traffic due to the construction of the Preferred Alternative or other build alternative. 

Traffic is projected to increase from 1,650 under the No-Build Alternative to 6,000 with a new 

US 301. Approximately 15 percent of the projected 2030 traffic on MD 282 in the Warwick, 

Maryland area would be from US 301, which would divert onto Sassafras Road to avoid the toll 

plaza. The remaining traffic is local traffic from the southern Cecil County and northern Kent 

County areas. Under the No-Build Alternative, this traffic tends to avoid the US 301 corridor 

and uses MD 213 instead for north-south travel to avoid congestion in the Middletown region. 

With the US 301 improvement; a portion of this local traffic would shift back to US 301, 

accessed via MD 282, resulting in a significant increase in traffic projected for MD 282. 

Correspondingly, upon completion of a US 301 build alternative, a significant reduction in auto 

traffic is projected for the MD 213 corridor north of MD 282 when compared to the No-Build 

Alternative. 

Truck Diversions 

MD 213 and MD 330 are the two primary truck diversion routes identified during the modeling 

process. MD 213 and MD 330 are two-lane roads which tie into alternate toll-free routes 

through Delaware. As noted previously, during the modeling process, a series of new axle-based 

truck restrictions were assumed in the model on a number of the local roads in Delaware around 

the proposed mainline US 301 toll plaza; this truck restriction plan was developed based on a 

structural evaluation of pavement cores that showed these local roads could not physically carry 

any significant truck volumes. These proposed truck restrictions have been adopted as part of 

the diversion mitigation plan. 

Truck traffic is projected to increase by up to 200 vehicles per day on MD 213, from 1,400 

vehicles per day under the No-Build Alternative and up to 1,600 vehicles per day under any of 

the build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative. Likewise, truck traffic is projected to 

increase by up to 400 vehicles per day on MD 330, from 800 vehicles per day under the NoBuild Alternative to up to 1,200 vehicles per day under the build alternatives. Conversely, auto 

traffic is projected to decrease on both of these roads, by up to 3,000 vehicles per day on MD 

213 and by up to 600 vehicles per day on MD 330. 

While these MD 213 and MD 330 present an alternative travel route to US 301, several 

characteristics of these facilities serve as disincentives for their use by trucks including: lower 

prevailing speeds than on existing (and especially an improved) US 301; seven traffic signals on 

MD 213; the Sassafrass River Drawbridge (opens on demand approximately 3,800 times per 

year); and lack of access control on MD 213 and MD 330, with numerous driveways and 

intersections. A more detailed discussion of the truck diversion study can be found in Chapter 4 

of the US 301 Project Development Draft Travel Analysis Technical Report (DelDOT, 

November 2006). 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-208 

d. Mitigation 

DelDOT’s goal is to keep as much traffic as possible on the new US 301 facility proposed under 

the Preferred Alternative or other build alternative. To facilitate this, a number of key design 

features, including median separation and open road tolling (ORT), are being considered to 

enhance the attractiveness of the build alternatives for through traffic. Additionally, the planned 

improvements to SR 1 and I-95, while not part of the US 301 project, would help to create a 

high-speed freeway system from where US 301 enters Delaware to I-95. This contrasts with the 

existing uncontrolled access US 301 from the state line to US 40. While these features are likely 

to attract and keep traffic on US 301, there remains the potential for traffic diversions due to the 

toll facility. 

A Toll Diversion Working Group, including local elected officials from Maryland, residents, and 

Maryland transportation agencies, was formed to address the potential traffic diversion issues 

identified during this evaluation (see Chapter IV, Section C). Maryland SHA conducted an 

independent review of the toll diversion forecasts and the forecasting process. A more detailed 

discussion of SHA’s independent technical review can be found in Section 4.B.1 of the US 301 

Draft Travel Analysis Technical Report (DelDOT, November 2006). As the Working Group 

progressed through its efforts and the traffic forecasts showed relatively minor differences in 

truck and auto volumes on most of the roads in Maryland (when comparing future NoBuild/Non-Toll forecasts with future Build/Toll forecasts), the focus shifted from potential toll 

diversions due to the US 301 build alternatives to a more immediate concern related to truck 

traffic diversions to avoid a pair of truck weigh and inspection stations on US 301. Maryland 

opened a weigh station on southbound US 301 at the US 301/MD 299 intersection in May 2007. 

Delaware plans to open a weigh and inspection station on northbound US 301, just north of the 

state line, in 2008. Therefore, the series of recommendations developed by the Working Group 

to be incorporated into the US 301 project focus on the weigh and inspection stations; however, 

these same recommendations should be useful in mitigating future toll diversions associated with 

the US 301 build alternatives and the Preferred Alternative. The recommendations of the 

Working Group include: 

Traffic Monitoring Program

A traffic count program is recommended to collect data (vehicle types, volumes, and speeds) 

before and after the opening of each of the US 301 weigh and inspection stations, the virtual 

weigh stations (see below), and US 301 toll plaza proposed under the build alternatives. 

Truck Restriction Signage

The evaluation and implementation of additional truck restrictions on local roads in both 

Maryland and Delaware which may qualify for axle-based restrictions are recommended. 

Coordination will be required for county roads. These routes include: 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-209 

Bunker Hill Road Green Giant Road 

Middle Neck Road Caldwell Corner Road 

Warwick Road Ebenezer Church Road 

Strawberry Lane Lloyd Guessford Road 

Levels Road Chesapeake City Road 

Consideration should be given to posting truck length restrictions on MD 213. There should be 

ongoing communication between the Maryland State Highway Administration, DelDOT, Cecil 

and Kent counties, and the municipalities on the issues raised and discussed by the Working 

Group. 

Excessive Speeds on MD 282

Consideration should be given to various engineering measures along MD 282 from Cecilton to 

Warwick to address excessive traffic speeds. 

Virtual Weigh Stations

The construction and operation of a reasonable number of virtual weigh stations (VWS) (1-3 

sites northbound & southbound corresponding with the mainline weigh stations) on those routes 

identified through the Traffic Monitoring Program as having significant truck diversions due to 

the opening of the US 301 weigh and inspection stations, either in Maryland or Delaware. At a 

minimum, VWSs should be installed in both directions on MD 213 south of Cecilton. 

Enhanced Truck Restriction Enforcement Efforts

Delaware should provide additional staffing and extended hours of operation at the northbound 

US 301 Weigh and Inspection Station to better match the proposed staffing level and shifting 

hours of operation at Maryland’s southbound Weigh and Inspection Station. 

Both Maryland and Delaware should provide sufficient dedicated enforcement (officers) to 

adequately monitor and enforce the Virtual Weigh Stations (VWS) and the truck restrictions on 

local roads, thereby discouraging diversion. 

The Working Group encourages Maryland to explore ways to make funding available for 

additional local law enforcement staffing (new hiring) and equipment to support the Maryland 

State Police (MSP) in enhanced truck enforcement efforts. 

The Working Group encourages DelDOT to seek additional funding for truck diversion 

enforcement. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-210 

Sassafras Road/US 301 Median Closures

The full median closure at the junction of Sassafras Road and US 301 and the full closure of 

Sassafras Road just west of US 301, including the implementation of U-turns on US 301 north 

and south of MD 299 (the US 301/MD 290 intersection may provide an alternate location for 

U-turns on southbound US 301) and including the provision for right turns to/from Sassafras 

Road via the truck weigh and inspection station ramps. Emergency vehicle access should be 

carefully considered. 

Potential Truck Length Restrictions on MD 213

The Working Group recommended that consideration be given to restricting over-length trucks 

on MD 213. 

Continued Coordination

The Working Group recommended ongoing inter-jurisdictional communication between SHA, 

DelDOT, Cecil and Kent Counties, and the municipalities, on issues raised by the Working 

Group. 

The full list of Working Group recommendations were presented to and approved by the 

Delaware Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the Maryland State Highway 

Administration. 

In accordance with these recommendations, the US 301 project team initiated the first phase of a 

traffic monitoring program at 14 key locations in both Delaware and Maryland in November/ 

December 2006. The results from the first phase were distributed to the members of the 

Working Group in May, 2007. The second phase of the traffic monitoring program was 

conducted in late June/early July 2007, after the May 2007 opening of the southbound US 301 

weigh and inspection station. The results have not yet been compiled and distributed. 

H. Energy 

Initially, the No-Build Alternative would require the least amount of energy expended compared 

to the considerable energy consumed during construction of the Preferred Alternative or other 

build alternative. In the long term, however, the energy expended due to projected traffic 

congestion in the design year due to the No-Build Alternative is likely to exceed the energy 

expended with one of the build alternatives in place, and may exceed the initial energy expended 

for construction. There would be no noticeable difference in energy consumption among any of 

the build alternatives. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-211 

I. Temporary Construction Impacts 

There would be no temporary construction impacts from the No-Build Alternative. Each of the 

build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, would have temporary impacts on 

resources, residences, businesses and travelers within the immediate vicinity of the project due to 

construction activities. These impacts would include traffic detours, potential air and fugitive 

dust emissions, increased noise levels, impacts to socioeconomic and natural resources, and 

impacts to visual quality. 

1. Traffic Detours and Maintenance of Traffic

Traffic detours and road closures during construction of any build alternative (including the 

Preferred Alternative), would create temporary inconveniences for residents, business owners 

and travelers. Maintenance of traffic plans will be developed during final design of a build 

alternative to mitigate access impacts and minimize traffic delays throughout the construction 

zones. These plans would include appropriate signs, pavement markings, worker safety barriers, 

and media announcements. Access to all businesses and residences would be maintained 

throughout the scheduled construction periods. 

2. Air Emissions

The operation of heavy equipment would have minor, temporary impacts on air quality during 

the construction of the Preferred Alternative or other build alternative. The primary impact 

would be windblown soil and dust in active construction zones, and the second source of air 

emissions would be from increased levels of machinery exhaust pollutants. 

Measures would be taken to reduce levels of fugitive dust and windblown soil generated during 

construction by wetting disturbed soils, staging soil disturbing activities, and prompt revegetation of disturbed areas. The contractors, in accordance with state and federal regulations, 

would control emissions from construction equipment. 

3. Construction Noise 

Temporary noise impacts would occur in the project area during construction of the Preferred 

Alternative or other build alternative. Sources of noise would include earth-moving equipment, 

vibratory rollers, pavers, trucks, pile-drivers, jackhammers, and compressors. 

In most cases, the effect of increased noise levels associated with construction equipment is 

limited to within 300 feet of the source. To limit the effects, construction activities would 

typically be limited to weekday daylight hours in accordance with local ordinances. Some 

mitigation measures that may be employed to minimize the temporary construction noise include 

adjustments to equipment, provision of temporary noise barriers, distribution of noise events, 

good communication with the public, and monetary incentives to contractors. These measures 

could be examined during final design to minimize annoyances from temporary noise impacts. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-212 

4. Construction Impacts on Natural Resources

Temporary construction-related impacts to soils, wetlands, and surface waters would be 

anticipated to occur as a result of the implementation of any build alternative including the 

Preferred Alternative. Temporary and permanent impacts to natural resources have been 

addressed throughout this section. 

Temporary impacts to soils could include increased erosion potential in areas cleared of 

vegetation for construction activities. Standard erosion and sediment controls measures would 

be implemented in accordance with state and local regulations to minimize adverse effects. Soil 

compaction could also occur in areas set aside as contractor staging areas. Temporary staging 

areas would be restored to their previous condition upon completion of the project. 

Temporary construction impacts to wetlands could occur indirectly as a result of increased 

sedimentation, any construction work in-stream or within wetlands related to construction of 

abutments or bridges, and temporary construction crossings. The use of surface mats, clean rock 

fills and other measures would be determined during final design to minimize temporary impact 

areas. Native vegetation would be reestablished upon completion of the construction. 

Temporary impacts to surface waters would be anticipated due to construction-related activities. 

Temporary impacts would result from temporary stream crossings, dikes and cofferdams, 

temporary channel relocations, and increases in suspended solids from increased soil erosion, 

and sedimentation. Runoff from disturbed areas could contain high sediment loads, which could 

affect the numbers and diversity of organisms in the aquatic environment. Physical impacts such 

as temporary crossings and installed cofferdams would disrupt the natural stream flow and could 

affect fish migrations through the areas, could eliminate benthic macro-invertebrates during the 

construction period and for a short time thereafter while the areas are naturally repopulated. 

Changes in channel widths as a result of coffer dam installations may result in excessive 

scouring and generate sediment impacts downstream from the disturbance location. 

During final design, efforts to avoid these impacts would include design of structures to limit the 

amount of work needed to be performed in streams. Erosion and sediment control measures 

would limit the amount of runoff from disturbed areas. Restoration and mitigation of temporary 

impacts to surface waters following completion of construction activities would be completed in 

accordance with the requirements of the Section 404 permit. 

J. Secondary and Cumulative Effects Analysis (SCEA) 

Secondary (or indirect) impacts are described in the CEQ regulation (40 CFR § 1508.8(b)) as 

those effects “...caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but 

are still reasonably foreseeable.” 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-213 

The CEQ regulations define cumulative effects as “...the impact on the environment which 

results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonable foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal, or non-Federal) or 

person undertakes such actions.” (40 CFR 1508.7 and Federal Highway Administration January 

2003 Memo) 

A secondary and cumulative effects analysis (SCEA) was conducted to evaluate these effects on 

the environment which may result from the US 301 project and other past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable actions. Guidance for this analysis was obtained from the following 

publications: 

o Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR Sections 1500-1508) 

implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sections 4321 et seq.) 

o Council on Environmental Quality 1997 guidelines, Considering Cumulative Effects 

Under the National Environmental Policy Act.

o Federal Highway Administration Position Paper: Secondary and Cumulative Impact 

Assessment in the Highway Project Development Process, April 1992. 

1. SCEA Scoping

Scoping for secondary and cumulative effects consisted of identifying the geographic area 

(geographic boundary) and the time frame (temporal boundary) for which the analysis is to be 

conducted. Environmental resources impacted directly or secondarily by the project form the 

basis for resources that are examined in the SCEA, including natural and human resources. An 

investigation was also conducted to identify other projects and “reasonably foreseeable future 

actions” that could have an influence on the resources within the SCEA boundary to assess 

potential cumulative effects. 

a. Geographic Boundary 

The geographic boundary for the SCEA (referred to as the SCEA Boundary), or the area in 

which secondary and cumulative effects were analyzed, is a synthesis of resource boundaries. 

The SCEA boundary, shown in Figure III-25, is based on overlays of multiple sub-boundaries, 

including the 2000 Census tract boundaries, planning district boundaries the region’s watershed 

and sub-watersheds, and the area of traffic influence. Each sub-boundary represents a group of 

resources that could be secondarily or cumulatively affected by the project. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-215 

Planning district, census tract, and state, county and municipal boundaries were overlaid and 

incorporated in the SCEA boundary to capture the extent of the socioeconomic and cultural 

resources potentially affected by the US 301 project. The watersheds and sub-watershed 

boundaries represent the natural environmental resources potentially affected by the project. 

Lastly, the area of traffic influence (ATI) is based on potential changes in traffic volumes by 

Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs). The ATI is incorporated in the SCEA boundary to represent the 

area in which vehicular traffic could be affected by the build alternatives. The ATI is the most 

important sub-boundary because resources located beyond the ATI will not be affected by the 

project, and, in general, no other sub boundaries extend beyond the ATI. 

The synthesis of the overlaid information results in a SCEA boundary appropriate for the 

analysis of cumulative effects and possible secondary effects from the US 301 project. The 

SCEA boundary encompasses 172,952 acres (270 square miles) and includes the entire US 301 

project area. 

b. SCEA Temporal Boundary (Time Frame) 

The time frame for the SCEA considers the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions (40 CFR 1508.7). A review of historic population, employment and land use trends was 

undertaken to define the temporal boundary of the SCEA. 

The past time frame was established based on historic data that were readily available. Historical 

population data were collected for Delaware and New Castle County to determine gross changes 

in population. Figure III-26 shows the trend in population change increases in New Castle 

County compared to state trends and identifies the decade between 1970 and 1980 as the 

beginning of an upward trend in the relative population increases. In 1997, New Castle County 

adopted its Unified Development Code along with, in December of that year, comprehensive 

rezoning of land below the C&D Canal from a “holding” category to Suburban and Suburban 

Reserve development categories that has enabled further expansion of development. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-216 

Percent Population Change

0

10

20

30

40

50

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

Year/Decade

% Change

Delaware

New Castle County

Figure III-26: Population Growth Trends in Delaware and New Castle County 

As the data do not identify a specific decade or event that influenced growth in the project area, 

an historical past temporal boundary of 1980 is suggested. This date was selected based on 

population changes and trends in New Castle County and on gross land use changes that have 

been mapped since early 1980 (Gross Land Use Changes in Delaware 1992 to 1997, Delaware 

Office of State Planning Coordination, August 1999) and the present. These land use changes 

are shown on Figure III-27. 

For the purpose of this analysis, the present time frame covers between 2000 and 2006. Census 

data for the entire SCEA area is from 2000. The most recent land use data from Delaware Office 

of State Planning Coordination is from 2002. County development permit data bases and 

community Master Plans (all developed post 2001) were accessed to obtain planned development 

occurring within the SCEA boundary. 

The future temporal boundary is identified as the design year for the project, 2030. Therefore, 

SCEA evaluates a 50-year time span (1980 – 2030) to understand past trends in the project area 

and provide an analysis of the potential secondary and cumulative effects from the project. 

c. Resources Directly Affected by the Alternatives 

Resources impacted directly or secondarily by the build alternatives form the basis for resources 

that are examined in the SCEA. The SCEA analyzed the potential for secondary and cumulative 

effects to land use and how those effects may impact socioeconomic, cultural, and natural 

resources. 
!"`$

?¡

)l

)p )h

?¡ )p

)h

?¡

)h

?¡

)p

Ak

Townsend

Odessa

Middletown

Newark

NEW

CASTLE

COUNTY

!"`$

?¡

)l

)p )h

?¡ )p

)h

?¡

)h

?¡

)p

Ak

Townsend

Odessa

Middletown

Newark

NEW

CASTLE

COUNTY

!"`$

?¡

)l

)p )h

?¡ )p

)h

?¡

)h

?¡

)p

Ak

Townsend

Odessa

Middletown

Newark

NEW

CASTLE

COUNTY

!"`$

?¡

)l

)p )h

?¡ )p

)h

?¡

)h

?¡

)p

Ak

Townsend

Odessa

Middletown

Newark

NEW

CASTLE

COUNTY

1984 1992 1997 2004

Residential Land Use

Municipal Boundary

Project Area É

1 in. = 3 mi. November 2007 Figure

III-27 Sources: Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination, 1984, 1992, 1997 & 2002

New Castle County, 2005

US 301 Project Development

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

New Castle County:

Residential Land Use Trends

Delaware

Department of

Transportation
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-218 

Resources directly impacted by the implementation of any of the build alternatives and the 

Preferred Alternative are summarized in the Executive Summary in Tables S-1 and S-2. Natural 

resources affected by the project include waters of the US and wetlands, farmland, forests, 

habitat areas, State Resource and State-Designated Natural Areas, and floodplains. Affected 

resources of the built environment include historic properties and individual homes and 

businesses, neighborhoods and communities. 

d. Other Projects within the SCEA Boundary 

Planned or programmed projects that are located within the SCEA boundary have been identified 

for their consideration in the secondary and cumulative effects on resources. 

Development Projects

Residential and non-residential development projects, both proposed and approved, were 

identified based on information from the departments of land use and planning of New Castle 

County, Delaware, and Cecil and Kent Counties, Maryland, and through the offices of the 

various incorporated towns and cities within the SCEA boundary. A summary of these projects 

is presented in Table III-75; additional information on planned development is located in the 

socioeconomic effects section of this FEIS, in Chapter III, Section A. Although there are some 

planned developments that will be affected by the project that will incorporate the new US 301 

roadway in their plans, there are currently no developments proposed or in any stage of review 

by New Castle, Cecil, or Kent Counties that require the construction of the US 301 project to 

allow the development to occur. Thus, there are no development projects that would cause 

secondary effects related to the US 301 project to environmental resources. 

Table III-75: Development Projects within the SCEA Boundary 

Location Residential Development Non-Residential 

Development 

New Castle County 19,700 units 11.7 million square feet 

Cecil County, Maryland 135 units None Identified 

Kent County, Maryland None Identified None Identified 

Note: Based on available information provided by relevant county planning 

departments in 2006 for areas within the SCEA boundary only. 

 

Programmed Transportation Improvements

Planned roadway and other transportation improvements within and adjacent to the project area 

are described in Chapter II, Section B.1.b. Additional projects that are programmed within the 

SCEA boundary were identified in the Delaware Capital Transportation Plan FY 2008-2013.

There were no incomplete projects identified in the Maryland Department of Transportation 

Consolidated Transportation Program FY 2007-2012 (CTP) within the SCEA boundary. The 

projects listed below may contribute to the cumulative effects upon community and natural 

resources within the SCEA boundary if constructed. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-219 

SR 72 from McCoy Road to SR 71, Red Lion Road – Sidewalk construction 

I-95/SR 1 Interchange Improvements – Includes construction of SR 1 to I-95 directional 

ramps 

US 40, Maryland State Line to US 13 – Corridor Improvements 

Roadway improvements on School Bell Road from SR 7 to US 40 

SR 7 and US 40 Area Improvements to address planned growth 

Howell School Road from SR 896 to SR 1 – Realign and widen, some intersection 

improvements 

2. Analysis Methodology

A combination of analysis methodologies were employed to fully assess and quantify secondary 

and cumulative effects. The analyses were based on readily available data and are described 

below. 

a. Trend Analysis 

Trend analysis was used to identify effects over time and to determine likely future secondary 

and cumulative effects. Historic data were collected and compiled to understand past effects and 

the rates at which these effects occurred; these rates, or trends, were then used to project future 

effects. 

b. Interviews 

Interviews were conducted with agency representatives, planning officials and others to gather 

data not readily available through traditional sources (publications, internet sources, and library 

references, etc.). This additional information was useful in determining the possible effects of 

growth and change within the SCEA boundary. 

c. Map Overlays 

Map overlays as part of a Geographic Information System (GIS) were used to combine land use 

projections with land use controls such as zoning, development ordinances, critical areas and 

natural environmental constraints, to create a reasonable and foreseeable future scenario to 

analyze. 

3. Land Use and Development Trends

Understanding the relationship between land use and transportation, and how one influences the 

timing and location of the other, is based on understanding the land use changes of the past and 

current uses and applying those trends to forecast future land use. Projections of future 

population and employment growth were used to estimate development potential for housing and 

employment space. Land available for development was estimated, based on current uses and 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-220 

zoning, potentially available acreage already zoned for future development, and land protected 

from development under various constraints. 

a. Past Land Use: Historic Changes and Trends 

Historic land uses and the changes and trends in land uses within the SCEA boundary were 

viewed within the regional context of New Castle County, Delaware, and Cecil and Kent 

Counties, Maryland. A qualitative overview of changes in New Castle County and within the 

SCEA boundary shows that there has been substantial residential development in the areas north 

and south of the C&D Canal between 1984 and 2004 (Figure III-27). Some of this development 

may be the result of increased transportation opportunities afforded by the completion of SR 1 in 

2003 and facilitated by the changes in zoning that came about following the adoption of the 

Unified Development Code in 1997. In December 1997, following the adoption of the Code, 

much of the land that was formerly held from development was rezoned to either Suburban 

(allowed development density of one unit per acre) or Suburban Reserve (allowed density of one 

unit per five acres). 

In Cecil County, Maryland, development within the SCEA boundary south of the C&D Canal 

has been concentrated in the towns of Chesapeake City and Cecilton and several small suburban 

developments in rural areas near the Delaware/Maryland state line. In Kent County, Maryland, 

resource conservation and the Maryland Smart Growth Regulations have focused and 

encouraged development elsewhere in the county than in the area within the SCEA boundary. 

Similarly, the more developed areas of Kent County include the town of Galena, the village of 

Georgetown, and the hamlet of Sassafras. The trend in land development in these counties has 

been preservation of existing agriculture and forest uses. 

b. Existing Land Uses 

Existing land uses can be described by identifying the land use, committed acreage, protected 

acreage, and potentially available land within the SCEA boundary. Understanding the existing 

pattern of land use is important for determining what resources may be affected by secondary 

and cumulative effects and where those effects might occur. 

Land Use

Existing land use within the SCEA boundary reflects the transitional nature of land use in the 

New Castle County portion of the SCEA to developed uses and the large portion of generally 

undeveloped land (in either agricultural use or forested land) in the Cecil County/Kent County 

portion. Table III-76 identifies the existing land use within the SCEA boundary. 

In the Delaware portion of the SCEA, agriculture (42 percent) and forest (13 percent) makes up 

55 percent of the total land use. Approximately 90 percent of the land use in the Maryland 

portion of the SCEA is agriculture (68 percent) or forest (22 percent). Residential land use in the 

Delaware portion of the SCEA covers almost ten times the acreage as in the Maryland portion. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-221 

In the Maryland portion, residential, commercial, industrial and institutional uses include only 

about five percent of the land within the SCEA boundary, while in the Delaware portion, 

developed uses include 27 percent of the land area. 

Table III-76: Current (2002) Land Use within the SCEA Boundary 

Land Use DE Acres MD Acres Total Acres Percent

Agriculture 52,791 31,719 84,510 48.9

Barren Land 136 136 0.1

Commercial 2,046 93 2,139 1.2

Forest 16,474 10,182 26,657 15.4

Industrial 2,248 7 2,255 1.3

Institutional 727 38 766 0.4

Open Space 852 122 974 0.6

Residential 21,921 2,207 24,128 14.0

Transitional 2,600 2,600 1.5

Transportation/Utilities/Communication 2,688 2,688 1.6

Urban – Built Up 2,152 2,152 1.2

Water 4,769 1,918 6,687 3.9

Wetlands 16,742 357 17,100 9.9

Total 172,794 100.0

Source: Delaware Office of State Planning and Coordination, 2002 and Maryland Department of Planning 

GIS Land Use Layers 2002. 

 

Committed Acreage

Committed land includes land that is already developed. Land uses include residential (24,128 

acres), commercial (2,139 acres), industrial (2,255 acres), infrastructure (2,688 acres), urban and 

transitional (4,752) and institutional (766 acres). The total committed land within the SCEA 

boundary is 36,728 acres. 

Protected Acreage

Protected acreage includes the land uses that are under some resource protection level, such as 

wetlands, agricultural preserves, resource protection district zoning, critical area zones, natural 

areas, and others. However, impacts to these resources can in some cases, (wetlands for 

example), be permitted and mitigated. 

Delaware/New Castle County 

In Delaware, the adoption of the Unified Development Code in 1997 established resource 

protection levels for a variety of environmental features, such as wetlands, water courses, 

riparian buffers, floodplains, steep slopes, critical natural areas and forested lands. The most 

sensitive areas, floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes and erosion hazard areas, critical aquifer 

recharge areas, critical natural areas and riparian buffers, are “100% protected” under the UDC. 

Disturbance within these areas is strictly limited. Within some of the less sensitive areas, such as 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-222 

forests, drainageways, steep slopes with less erosion potential, disturbed lands and old fields, 

partial protection means that some disturbance is permitted in these areas on a limited basis and 

mitigation is often required. As of the 2002 Comprehensive Development Plan Update, 67,000 

acres in New Castle County were designated as fully protected and 118,000 acres were partially 

protected. 

In 2004, the Governor of Delaware signed Executive Order #59, approving the Delaware 

Strategies for State Policies and Spending, which identifies land uses within the state which are 

designated for various levels of development. Levels 1, 2, 3 and 4 identify areas where growth is 

favored at varying levels of intensity and density (in Level 1, state policies encourage 

development and reinvestment; in Level 4, retention of rural landscapes and preservation of open 

space is favored). “Out of play” areas, i.e., publicly-owned lands, or lands with legal constraints 

to development or forms of permanent open space protection, or land identified in the UDC as 

“100% constrained”, are not available for development. A large portion of the area within the 

SCEA boundary is designated as “out of play” or Level 4. 

Additional protections reinforce the state and county-wide levels of protection identified in the 

UDC, Comprehensive Plan, and Executive Order #59. These include farmland preservation 

programs at state and county levels and resource protection areas (such as natural areas, habitat 

areas, water recharge areas, state resource areas, forests) identified through DNREC. 

Maryland/Cecil County and Kent County 

In Maryland, most of the land in Cecil County within the SCEA boundary is designated as 

Resource Protection District (RPD) and another large portion of the land is designated Rural 

Conservation District (RCD). These designations are described in the Cecil County 2005 Land 

Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan, adopted May 2005, and Cecil County, Maryland 

Comprehensive Plan, December 1990 and updates. The primary purpose of the RPD is to 

encourage retention of agricultural land and activities related to agriculture; the primary purpose 

of the RCD is to maintain the rural character of the area by encouraging forestry and agriculture 

uses. Within the SCEA boundary in Kent County, protected lands include Agricultural Priority 

Areas, Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) districts and easements, 

and Maryland Environmental Trust (MET) easements. Locally-designated Habitat Protection 

Areas and areas of state-listed species habitat protection (Kent County Comprehensive Plan 

Update, adopted May 2, 2006) are also within the SCEA boundary. 

In addition to those protections afforded the various land use categories through the 

Comprehensive Plans, Maryland’s Smart Growth policies provide for the direction of growth 

within areas identified as Priority Funding Areas (PFAs), or areas where growth is encouraged 

and permitted, thus enforcing and enhancing the restraints of preservation areas. Kent County’s 

Comprehensive Plan includes those principles that guide growth to occur in and around existing 

towns and villages to preserve the rural character of the surrounding countryside. Maryland’s 

Department of Natural Resources and SHPO also provide similar state and national protection 

programs for natural and cultural resources. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-223 

Potentially Available Land

Land potentially available for future development includes all land that is undeveloped but 

planned or zoned for development as well as land that is partially developed, including areas 

available for infill developments. Generalized zoning for areas within the SCEA boundary are 

shown on Figure III-28. 

As detailed in the New Castle County 2002 Comprehensive Plan Update, there is an adequate 

acreage of land zoned to accommodate projected residential and employment growth through 

2030. As of the time of the adoption of the plan, there were approximately 30,640 acres zoned 

for nonresidential uses and roughly 42 percent of that acreage (12,770 acres) was yet to be 

developed; most of the existing developed nonresidential properties remained underdeveloped. 

For residential uses, the plan identified approximately 200,000 acres of residentially zoned land 

with roughly 140,000 acres undeveloped. Of these acres, approximately 30 percent must be 

allotted to open space and environmental resources with 100 percent protection levels, allowing 

the remaining acres (under specified density constraints) to accommodate approximately 61,690 

households. 

Kent County’s comprehensive plan draft also indicates that the number of existing undeveloped 

lots zoned for residential and commercial use in the county could satisfy projected population 

growth for more than the next 30 years. Cecil County, Maryland is undergoing an update of its 

comprehensive plan, in which land availability will recognize the adequacy of land for projected 

growth. 

c. Areas of Future Development 

Development within the SCEA boundary should continue to occur within those areas zoned for 

residential, commercial and industrial uses. Within the Maryland portions of the SCEA 

boundary, development is planned and directed to occur within the town districts surrounding 

Chesapeake City and Cecilton, as well as in the Village of Warwick and several smaller areas 

near the Delaware/Maryland state line that are zoned Rural Residential (RR). 

In the areas within the SCEA boundary in Delaware, continued residential development will 

occur in the available zoned areas north and south of the Canal (Figure III-28). The 2007 New 

Castle County Comprehensive Plan Update identifies the area north of Middletown, bounded by 

the Town of Middletown on the south, SR 1 on the east, the C&D Canal on the north and 

existing US 301 to the west, as a “New Community Development Area” in which to focus 

growth. The SR 1 corridor, north of the Canal, may also experience further development and 

infill in areas already being developed. 
AÝ

?£ ?§

!"`$ !"`$ AÝ

AÖ

?¡

)l

)l

)p ?Ï )h

?¡

AÝ

)p

)h

AÝ

?¡

AØ

)p

)h

)h

?¡

?1

?1

?Î

?1

A×

AÐ Ai A÷

AÐ

A÷

Aÿ

AÐ

)p

AÐ

Ae Aå A¤

Af

?3⁄4

?Ü

?a

AØ

)p

AÐ Ai A÷

AÐ

A÷

Aÿ

AÐ

AÐ

Ae Aå A¤

Af

?¿

Ak

Townsend

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

Smyrna

Odessa

Middletown

Newark

Elkton

Galena

Delaware

River

Elk

River

River

Bohemia

River Sassafras

CECIL

COUNTY

KENT

COUNTY

KENT

COUNTY

NEW

CASTLE

COUNTY

Warwick

NORFOLK SOUTHERN

C&D Canal

Chesapeake

City

Cecilton

November 2007 Figure

III-28

É

1 in. = 3 mi.

SCEA Boundary

Project Area

Generalized Zoning

Commercial

Industrial

Low Density Residential

Medium Density Residential

Moderately Protective

Most Protective

Municipality

Mixed Use

Other

US 301 Project Development

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

General Zoning

within the SCEA Boundary

Delaware

Department of

Transportation

Source: MDP, 2004

New Castle County

Dept of Land Use, 2002
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-225 

 d. Land Use Conclusions 

Substantial land use changes have occurred or will occur within the SCEA boundary over the 50-

year time frame considered in this analysis as land within the SCEA boundary is converted from 

agriculture and woodland to residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial land. The land 

use changes are associated with the development in the area and are a consequence of the 

population increases the area has experienced. The development in the area will continue into 

the 2030 future time frame. However, given the projected growth in population and 

development, it is anticipated that the pace and extent of the future land use change will likely be 

less than that experienced during the past 25 years. 

There are numerous planned developments within the SCEA boundary that are expected to occur 

regardless of whether improvements are made to US 301. In general, land use change could 

result from many factors, including available roadway capacity, available sewer capacity, 

zoning, population change, employment availability, and property values. While it is clear that 

the rate of household and job growth would be influenced by increased capacity on regional 

roadways, there are no indications that the pattern of development would be influenced by 

changes to roadway capacity. The land use trends that are currently occurring within the SCEA 

boundary have been occurring since at least 1980 and are generally expected to continue for the 

foreseeable future. 

New Castle, Cecil, and Kent Counties have current zoning plans, which regulate the location and 

type of development that can and will occur within the SCEA boundary as well as the rest of the 

counties. Changes to existing zoning could be proposed at any time, and may be granted on a 

case-by-case basis by county Departments of Planning. The annexation of lands by 

municipalities, such as the Town of Middletown, while guided by the comprehensive planning 

process, may also result in changes in zoning that would affect the locations and types of 

development that could occur within the SCEA boundary. 

4. Analysis of Secondary and Cumulative Effects

This section discusses the potential secondary and cumulative effects to environmental resources 

within the SCEA boundary and associated with the US 301 project. Secondary effects are 

caused by the action (construction of any build alternative, including the Preferred Alternative, 

for the US 301 project), and are later in time or farther removed from the immediate study area, 

but still reasonably foreseeable. Secondary effects could include growth-inducing effects and 

changes in land use, zoning, population, or growth rate. In other words, secondary effects focus 

on known development proposals or land use changes that can only occur if the Preferred 

Alternative or other build alternative is constructed, or if the project changes the rate of the 

development. Coordination with New Castle, Cecil, and Kent County planning agencies has 

determined that there are no transportation, residential or commercial development projects 

dependent upon any of the US 301 alternatives. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-226 

The extent, pace, and location of development within the SCEA boundary will primarily be 

influenced by state, county, and local land use regulations. Growth is expected to occur 

regardless of the alternative chosen for the project. Therefore, the US 301 project would not 

induce secondary development from dependent projects, land use changes, or zoning changes. 

However, the US 301 build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, could potentially 

increase the rate of current private development, within the framework of the existing pattern of 

land use. This would occur because less congestion and ease of travel would encourage people 

and businesses to move to designated growth areas within the project area. Thus, the US 301 

project may induce secondary effects caused by changes to the rate of development. 

In general, these secondary effects caused by a change in development rate are expected to be 

minimal for several reasons: 

1) The build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, would only affect the rate of 

development within areas currently designated for growth by state and local planning 

authorities; 

2) Improvements to US 301 would not influence the pattern of development, and there are 

no known development projects dependent upon improvements to US 301; 

3) The final completion date for the US 301 project would potentially occur after most of 

the areas currently designated for growth have been built out. Therefore, the developable 

area that would be present within the SCEA boundary at the design year would be much 

less than today and be similar among the No-Build and build alternatives; and 

4) Secondary effects to natural, socioeconomic, and cultural resources would be avoided, 

minimized and mitigated by owners through applicable regulations. 

Another type of secondary/indirect effect could be caused by a change in travel patterns and 

traffic volumes on the regional roadway network. These changes could result in indirect effects 

to communities and historic resources even though there would be no physical impact to those 

resources. The area around Warwick, Maryland near the southern portion of the SCEA 

Boundary could experience an increase in automobile traffic from travelers avoiding the US 301 

northbound toll plaza. This change in travel patterns could be the result of any of the build 

alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative. 

Cumulative effects include impacts on the environmental resources which will result from 

incremental impacts of the construction of the Preferred Alternative or other build alternative 

when added with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable actions. Cumulative impacts 

would result from any public or private development that may or may not be associated with the 

US 301 project. If the US 301 project directly or secondarily affects the resource, then 

cumulative effects would occur if another development affects the same resource. 

In the following sections the potential secondary and cumulative effects of the project are 

assessed for those resources affected by the construction of one of the alternatives. These 

resources include floodplains, waters of the US including wetlands, agricultural districts and 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-227 

preservation easements, prime farmland soils, forests, proposed State Resource Areas, Natural 

Areas, property (residences and businesses) and historic properties. 

a. Floodplains 

In both states included within the SCEA boundary, federal and local regulations restrict 

development within the floodplain, and any proposed encroachment in the floodplain would have 

to be permitted by the local jurisdiction. The direct impacts of the project’s Preferred Alternative 

is 0.7 acre of floodplain impacted, which will contribute a small incremental area to cumulative 

impacts caused by other development within the SCEA boundary. The introduction of 

stormwater management facilities, including ponds, ditches and linear runoff retention areas 

would minimize the effects of storm events on the holding capacity or areal extent of the 

floodplain. 

There are no planned development projects in the SCEA boundary that are dependent on 

improvements to US 301 for completion; therefore, there would be no secondary effects to 

floodplains as a result of a change in land use pattern. However, the build alternatives, including 

the Preferred Alternative, could induce an increased rate of development within planned growth 

areas, which could result in secondary effects to floodplains. Most floodplain areas are protected 

from development through zoning and land use regulations; however, there may be some 

floodplains that incur secondary effects as a result of a change in development rate in adjacent 

planned growth areas and subsequent disturbance to hydrologic function. 

Cumulative effects to floodplains are possible from the build alternatives combined with other 

transportation and development projects. Disturbance to floodplain vegetation and landscapes 

may cause loss of hydrologic function. This loss of function can cause increased flooding, 

excess erosion and sedimentation, and damage to downstream channel morphology. Future 

development will have minimal impact to 100-year floodplains due to existing Federal and State 

legislation and review by ACOE, DNREC and Maryland Department of the Environment 

(MDE). Permits requiring avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation to individual floodplains 

would offset most floodplain disturbances caused by cumulative effects. 

b. Waters of the US including Wetlands 

The conversion of open space and farmed or forested areas to impervious areas as a result of the 

implementation of one of the build alternatives or the Preferred Alternative would be anticipated 

to increase surface runoff and peak storm flow and introduce pollutants and sediment into 

waterways. These effects would be mitigated by required compliance with regulations for 

stormwater management quality and quantity treatments in the form of stormwater management 

facilities included in the design of the Preferred Alternative and by the use of erosion and 

sediment control plans. Stormwater flow regulations are administered in Delaware through 

DNREC and in Maryland through the MDE and county-specific regulations. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-228 

The build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, could cause secondary effects to 

wetlands through an increased rate of development within areas already planned for 

development. This rate change could result in faster conversion of wetlands to uplands than 

would occur under the No-Build Alternative. Given current land use regulations, wetlands in 

areas that are not designated for growth would not incur secondary effects. Thus, the overall 

area of wetlands potentially affected by development would be the same whether the project is 

completed or not. In addition, because there are no projects dependent upon improvements to 

US 301 for completion, there will be no secondary effects to wetlands as a result of a change in 

the pattern of development. 

The build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative would have minimal cumulative 

effects on wetlands, as all wetlands impacts will be mitigated through the creation of new 

wetlands and enhancement of additional wetlands within the area. Cumulative effects would 

occur through planned or other future development within the SCEA boundary. In most cases, 

cumulative effects would occur in areas designated for growth or where there is potential for 

build-out. Both secondary and cumulative wetland impacts that occur as a result of public or 

private development would require review by the USACE, DNREC and/or the MDE. 

c. Farmland 

The number of farms within the SCEA boundary and the states of Delaware and Maryland have 

been on the decline since prior to 1980. According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, the state 

of Delaware lost 17.6 percent of its farmland and Maryland lost 18.8 percent of its farmland 

between 1982 and 2002. The loss in farmland within the SCEA boundary is due to the increase 

in primarily residential and commercial growth that resulted from an increase in population and 

subsequent sprawl during this time frame. Continued losses are occurring and will occur in areas 

zoned for development. 

Secondary effects to farmlands within the SCEA boundary could occur as a result of any build 

alternative, including the Preferred Alternative. The rate of development for areas zoned for 

residential use could increase as a result of improved access and capacity to US 301. The result 

would be a faster conversion of the land already designated for residential development. Areas 

that are not designated for residential use or that are under an agricultural preservation easement 

would not sustain secondary effects. The rate of farmland loss associated with secondary effects 

of the Preferred Alternative and other build alternatives is not expected to be greater than the 

historic rate of farmland loss. As there are no projects dependent upon improvements to US 301 

for completion, there will be no secondary effects to farmlands as a result of a change in the 

pattern of farmland conversion. 

Cumulative effects to farmlands would occur as a result of any public or private land 

development within the SCEA boundary that would convert farmland to urban land. Cumulative 

effects are most likely to occur in existing farmland areas that are designated for development. 

Given the current land use and pattern of land use development, the farmland areas most likely to 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-229 

incur cumulative effects are located in the northern portion of the SCEA boundary, between 

Boyds Corner Road and the C&D Canal. 

d. Forests 

Forested lands account for approximately 15.4 percent of the land area within the SCEA 

boundary. Most of the forest occurs as small remnant forest tracts surrounded by agriculture or 

urban development. 

Secondary effects to forests could occur as a result of the build alternatives, including the 

Preferred Alternative. Because there are no development projects dependent upon the 

completion of the US 301 project, secondary effects to forests would not occur as a result of a 

change in the land use pattern. However, compared to the No-Build Alternative, the rate of 

development for areas zoned for residential use could increase as a result of improved mobility 

resulting after the completion of any of the build alternatives. This could create a faster 

conversion of forests to residential and commercial uses in areas designated for growth. A 

change in the rate of development would adversely affect forest species by changing the time 

that habitat is available for wildlife population establishment and dispersal into other habitats. 

Cumulative effects to forests and habitat would occur with completion of the build alternatives, 

including the Preferred Alternative, combined with other transportation and development 

projects. Cumulative effects would most likely occur in existing woodland areas which are 

designated for development. Wildlife species would be impacted from continued loss and 

fragmentation of habitat. 

The cumulative effects on woodland habitat would result in cumulative effects on woodland 

species. Some species have threshold population levels below which reproductive capacity and 

immigration are not able to overcome stresses from adverse environmental effects. Cumulative 

fragmentation of woodland habitat and increased woodland edge habitat can result in changes to 

animal movement patterns, predation and decreased reproductive success of woodland species. 

In Delaware, secondary and cumulative impacts to forests will be minimized and mitigated for 

under the Delaware Forest Conservation Act. Impacts to woodlands will be minimized and 

mitigated for in Maryland under the Maryland Reforestation Law and Maryland Forest 

Conservation Act of 1991. 

e. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species 

Each of the build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, has the potential to affect 

potential habitat areas suitable for the endangered bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii). The build 

alternatives could also affect habitat for the queen snake, a Delaware state-listed species. 

Secondary effects to rare, threatened and endangered species could occur as a result of changes 

to the rate of development located near their habitat. Cumulative effects could include the 

increased pressure for potential development to occur in additional areas of potential habitat or in 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-230 

areas identified as supporting the growth of other RTE species. Passage of the Endangered 

Species Act in 1973 requires consideration and avoidance of known occurrences of listed 

species, thus lessening the recent cumulative effects. 

f. Historic Properties 

There are no direct physical impacts to historic properties (architectural resources) with the 

Purple Brown or Green (Preferred) Alternatives. Other effects to historic properties, such as 

changes in viewshed or noise, are discussed in Section B of this chapter. Direct impacts of the 

implementation of the Yellow Alternative would result in the loss of two historic properties 

within the SCEA boundary and incremental loss of some of the land associated with two others. 

The Brown Alternatives will have a direct effect on one historic property, the J. Biggs House 

(N06320), for which eligibility has not yet been determined. The Purple, Brown and Green 

(Preferred) Alternatives will directly affect one archaeological site for which eligibility has not 

yet been determined. 

Implementation of either the Brown Alternative or Green (Preferred) Alternative will include the 

provision of an interchange with existing Jamison Corner Road, north of State Bridge Number 

383, an historic structure eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. This 

proposed access will service the proposed communities and developments of Bayberry and 

Whitehall, north of Boyds Corner Road. The increased traffic from these developments may 

bring about the need to replace the two-lane bridge to accommodate traffic; however, this need 

would occur regardless of whether or not build alternatives from the US 301 project are 

implemented. Roadway improvements to Jamison Corner Road, Lorewood Grove Road and 

Road 412A in this area are currently in the design phase. 

Because there are no development projects dependent on the US 301 project, there will be no 

secondary effect to historic resources caused by land use changes due to secondary development. 

However, the build alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, may cause secondary effects 

to historic resources by increasing the rate at which potential build-out areas are developed. 

Known and unknown cultural resources in areas that are not designated for growth would not 

incur secondary effects. Thus, the extent of historic resources potentially affected by 

development would be the same regardless of the alternative. 

The area within the SCEA boundary has not been thoroughly surveyed for historic resources that 

may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. There may be 

additional historic resources that have not been identified. As the population within the SCEA 

boundary increases and commercial and residential development pressures rise, there may be 

cumulative effects to these unrecorded resources. 

In general, cumulative effects to historic resources caused by development within the SCEA 

boundary, or from traffic and truck diversions in towns such as Warwick, are likely under any of 

the build alternatives. The potential for cumulative effects to historic resources arise from the 

effects of the US 301 project together with additional, unrelated development within the SCEA 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-231 

boundary. Effects to historic resources could also occur where adjacent zoning allows for 

development that is incompatible with the historic settings of the resources. 

Cumulative effects that occur to any known or unknown sites would be regulated through 

existing laws that facilitate the protection of historic resources, such as the provisions of county 

historic preservation ordinances. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires 

federal and state agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties. Section 

4(f) of the 1966 Department of Transportation Act prohibits the use of significant historic 

resources, including archaeological resources, for federal transportation projects unless there is a 

thorough alternatives analysis to avoid and minimize harm. Although both Section 106 and 

Section 4(f) protections will protect historic resources from federally funded, permitted, 

authorized or otherwise approved projects (and specifically FHWA transportation projects in the 

case of Section 4(f)), most of the approved or proposed development projects within the SCEA 

boundary do not fall into this category, nor would these laws protect historic resources from 

increased future development projects that could be encouraged by the completion of the US 301 

project. In addition, county preservation ordinances may not be effective if resources are 

annexed into municipalities where the preservation ordinances may be less effective. 

g. Community and Socioeconomic Resources 

Within the SCEA boundary, secondary and cumulative impacts as a result of the implementation 

of a build alternative, such as changes in accessibility and changes in the greater community 

structure (cohesion, interactivity, changes in locations of some businesses) are not anticipated to 

occur outside of the immediate area of direct impacts. Within the SCEA boundary, cumulative 

changes in community structure or potential unplanned development that could result in 

additional stresses on community infrastructure (water, sewer) and facilities (recreational areas, 

libraries, emergency response capacity). 

Secondary impacts to communities may be experienced as a result of the diversion of traffic 

from the new US 301 tolled road onto alternate, untolled routes under any of the build 

alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative. Traffic analyses have demonstrated (see the 

discussion in Section G of this Chapter) that there is likely to be less diversion of truck traffic 

than automobile traffic upon completion of a build alternative. This additional traffic on 

secondary routes, such as Maryland Routes 213 and 282, and in towns such as Warwick, could 

have secondary effects on the communities, on roadway infrastructure, on air quality, and on 

traffic noise. Changes in the number of vehicles passing each day may produce visual and 

aesthetic changes. Although measures to lower the amount of diverted traffic have been 

recommended by the Toll Diversion Working Group (a joint effort between Maryland and 

Delaware to address these issues), the implementation and effectiveness of these measures will 

have to be monitored. A description of recommended measures to address potential diversion 

issues is located in Section G.4 of this chapter. 

Traffic analyses have also shown that there would, in some cases, be less future traffic on some 

roadways within the SCEA boundary, such as other portions of MD 213, with the completion of 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-232 

a build alternative (including the Preferred Alternative) compared to the No-Build Alternative. 

This would result in a beneficial indirect effect for those local roadways and the communities 

through which they pass. 

5. Secondary and Cumulative Effects Analysis Conclusions 

In general, the construction of the Preferred Alternative or other build alternative will not 

directly influence the amount or location of development anticipated to occur within the SCEA 

boundary. The transportation and traffic benefits forecast as a result of the implementation of 

any build alternative would provide adequate public roadway capacity for permitting purposes, 

thus allowing approval of development that may have been disallowed under existing or NoBuild conditions. The improved transportation facility may result in future zoning change 

requests for higher density developments in areas not currently zoned for such development. 

Among the effects of this project, therefore, is the potential for secondary development that 

would not occur without the construction of a new four-lane limited access roadway to relieve 

existing and future traffic volumes on existing roads, especially in areas easily served by access 

ramps. 

In Kent County, Maryland, there will be continued pressure for development in those areas 

where improved access to a direct commuting route to Philadelphia and employment areas in 

New Castle County may be seen to encourage the development of housing. With the completion 

of the existing plans for growth of employment development in Middletown and unincorporated 

areas of southern New Castle County, these stresses may become more evident as employees 

seek housing convenient to these locations. The resulting improvements in the transportation 

network as a result of the implementation of a build alternative for US 301 may exacerbate those 

stresses that are already identified, as noted in the Kent County Comprehensive Plan Update 

(Adopted May 2, 2006): 

“...improvements to U.S. Route 301 in Delaware may make Kent County a more attractive 

location for people working in New Castle County. However, the County’s priority is to not view 

Route 301 as a housing corridor. We remain cognizant of the potential effects of transportation 

improvements in neighboring areas on growth in Kent County.” 

In Cecil County, Maryland, the county’s general framework for land use is designed to 

encourage intensive development within designated districts, such to relieve the pressure to 

develop in rural, protected districts (Cecil County 2005 Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation 

Plan, adopted May 2005) that make up the majority of the SCEA portion within the county. 

“...it is widely known that land prices are rising with the development pressure from Baltimore 

and Harford Counties and also from the Newark/Wilmington areas. This pressure is being partly 

relieved ... by the ability to develop in the RPD and the RCD [which] in turn, has made it harder 

for landowners to choose preservation over development... 

“Cecil County is at an important crossroads: Before 2010, the County’s population is projected to 

top 100,000 ... Cecil County is no longer a small, rural County. The rate of growth and 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-233 

development is projected to continue, putting pressure on farmland protection efforts and on 

resource land...” 

In New Castle County, Delaware, adequate land zoned for development, protection strategies 

included in the UDC and the State Strategies for Policies and Spending ordinance will continue 

to provide some protection from development pressures in areas not designated for growth that 

may be felt as a result of the completion of a build alternative. 

K. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) 

In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS), EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-made 

sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area 

sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries. 

Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air 

Act. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment. 

Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or 

passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion 

of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or 

from impurities in oil or gasoline. 

The EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain 

responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA has issued two MSAT Rules 

under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. In these rules, EPA examined the impacts of existing 

and newly promulgated mobile source control programs, including its reformulated gasoline 

(RFG) program, its national low emission vehicle (NLEV) standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle 

emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control requirements, and its proposed heavy duty 

engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements. Between 

2000 and 2020, FHWA projects that even with a 64 percent increase in VMT, these programs 

will reduce on-highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 

57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce on-highway diesel PM emissions by 87 percent, as 

shown in Figure III-29.

EPA has made some changes regarding vehicle emissions and fuel standards, which will 

continue the significant reduction of vehicle emissions as outlined in the MSAT Rule released 

February 26, 2007 (FR8428). 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-234 

Figure III-29: U.S. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled vs. 

Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, 2000 – 2020 

1. Level of Project Specific MSAT Impact Analysis

The US 301 improvements will provide a new controlled-access, grade separated freeway that 

will carry a projected design year traffic volume of approximately 57,000 vehicles per day at the 

location with the highest projected volume (north of the Levels Road interchange, prior to the 

Spur Road split). This volume is considerably lower than FHWA’s Level 3 threshold of 140,000 

to 150,000 vehicles per day. Furthermore, the primary impact of the US 301 improvements will 

be to shift traffic, especially large, diesel trucks, away from existing local roads and onto a new 

roadway of higher functional class. This shift will reduce traffic volumes on roads with lower 

travel speeds, that are often congested in the peak periods, and which have traffic control devices 

(signals and stop signs) resulting in the need to accelerate and decelerate, and will place those 

vehicles on a higher speed facility with consistent travel speeds. 

Table III-77 below provides a comparison of projected 2030 Average Annual Daily Traffic 

(AADT) volumes for a cross section (screenline) of roadways north of Middletown, Delaware 

for all of the Alternatives. 

U.S. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) vs.

Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, 2000-2020

0

3

6

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

-

100,000

200,000

VMT 

(trillions/year)

Emissions 

(tons/year)

Benzene (-57%)

 DPM+DEOG (-87%)

Formaldehyde (-65%)

Acetaldehyde (-62%)

1,3-Butadiene (-60%)

Acrolein (-63%)

VMT (+64%)

Notes: For on-road mobile sources. Emissions factors were generated using MOBILE6.2. MTBE proportion of market for 

oxygenates is held constant, at 50%. Gasoline RVP and oxygenate content are held constant. VMT: Highway Statistics 2000 ,

Table VM-2 for 2000, analysis assumes annual growth rate of 2.5%. "DPM + DEOG" is based on MOBILE6.2-generated factors 

for elemental carbon, organic carbon and SO4 from diesel-powered vehicles, with the particle size cutoff set at 10.0 microns.
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-235 

Table III-77: Projected 2030 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) on Roadways North 

of Middletown 

Screenline – North of Middletown No-Build Yellow Purple Brown Green

Choptank Road 15,200 12,800 5,300 5,100 5,100

Existing US 301 38,900 32,900 23,100 24,000 21,300

Cedar Lane Road 9,700 6,100 5,600 5,500 4,500

SR 1 63,000 54,600 53,000 53,100 51,300

US 13 42,600 39,400 39,400 39,200 37,700

New US 301 37,600 53,700 56,000 56,700

TOTAL 169,400 183,400 180,100 182,900 176,600

% Increase from No-Build 8% 6% 8% 4%

Similarly, the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) was calculated for 48 miles of existing key 

roadways throughout the US 301 project area for each of the alternatives, as well as the complete 

length of the new US 301 alignments. A summary of the VMT is provided in Table III-78.

Table III-78: Summary of Projected (2030) Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 

No-Build Yellow Purple Brown Green

2030 VMT on Existing Roads 1,359,000 1,132,000 1,030,000 1,006,000 978,000

2030 VMT on New US 301 428,000 516,000 570,000 523,000

Total 1,359,000 1,560,000 1,546,000 1,576,000 1,501,000

Total Change in VMT 0% 15% 14% 16% 10%

Reduction in VMT on Existing Roads -17% -24% -26% -28%

While the Build Alternatives are all projected to result in a small increase in total VMT (10% to 

16%), those increases would be at least partially mitigated by the shift in total VMT away from 

existing, often congested roads, and onto an uncongested higher speed roadway with consistent 

travel speeds. 

The preceding data indicates that there would only be minimal differences in the regional MSAT 

emissions for the US 301 Project Alternatives. Therefore, in accordance with FHWA Interim

Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents (February 3, 2006), the US 301 project is 

one “... that serve[s] to improve operations of highway...without adding substantial new 

capacity or creating a facility that is likely to meaningfully increase emissions.” and the project 

would be considered a “Project with Low Potential MSAT Effects” and subject to a qualitative 

discussion of localized MSAT impacts. 

2. Unavailable Information for Project Specific MSAT Impact Analysis

This FEIS includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this project. 

However, available technical tools do not enable us to predict the project-specific health impacts 

of the emission changes associated with the alternatives in this FEIS. Due to these limitations, 

the following discussion is included in accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.22(b)) 

regarding incomplete or unavailable information. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-236 

a. Information that is Unavailable or Incomplete 

Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from MSATs on a proposed highway project 

would involve several key elements, including emissions modeling, dispersion modeling in order 

to estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, exposure modeling in 

order to estimate human exposure to the estimated concentrations, and then final determination 

of health impacts based on the estimated exposure. Each of these steps is encumbered by 

technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete determination of the 

MSAT health impacts of this project. 

Emissions: The EPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are not 

sensitive to key variables determining emissions of MSATs in the context of highway 

projects. While MOBILE 6.2 is used to predict emissions at a regional level, it has limited 

applicability at the project level. MOBILE 6.2 is a trip-based model - emission factors are 

projected based on a typical trip of 7.5 miles, and on average speeds for this typical trip. 

This means that MOBILE 6.2 does not have the ability to predict emission factors for a 

specific vehicle operating condition at a specific location at a specific time. Because of this 

limitation, MOBILE 6.2 can only approximate the operating speeds and levels of congestion 

likely to be present on the largest-scale projects and cannot adequately capture emissions 

effects of smaller projects. For particulate matter the model results are not sensitive to 

average trip speed, although the other MSAT emission rates do change with changes in trip 

speed. Also, the emissions rates used MOBILE 6.2 for both particulate matter and MSATs 

are based on a limited number of tests of mostly older-technology vehicles. Lastly, in its 

discussions of PM under the conformity rule, EPA has identified problems with MOBILE 6.2 

as an obstacle to quantitative analysis. 

These deficiencies compromise the capability of MOBILE 6.2 to estimate MSAT emissions. 

MOBILE 6.2 is an adequate tool for projecting emissions trends, and performing relative 

analyses between alternatives for very large projects, but it is not sensitive enough to capture 

the effects of travel changes tied to smaller projects or to predict emissions near specific 

roadside locations. 

Dispersion. The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited. The EPA's 

current regulatory models, CALINE3 and CAL3QHC, were developed and validated 

more than a decade ago for the purpose of predicting episodic concentrations of carbon 

monoxide to determine compliance with the NAAQS. The performance of dispersion 

models is more accurate for predicting maximum concentrations that can occur at some 

time at some location within a geographic area. This limitation makes it difficult to 

predict accurate exposure patterns at specific times at specific highway project locations 

across an urban area to assess potential health risk. Along with these general limitations 

of dispersion models, FHWA is also faced with a lack of monitoring data in most areas 

for use in establishing project-specific MSAT background concentrations. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-237 

Exposure Levels and Health Effects. Finally, even if emission levels and concentrations 

of MSATs could be accurately predicted, shortcomings in current techniques for 

exposure assessment and risk analysis preclude us from reaching meaningful conclusions 

about project-specific health impacts. Exposure assessments are difficult because it is 

difficult to accurately calculate annual concentrations of MSATs near roadways, and to 

determine the portion of a year that people are actually exposed to those concentrations at 

a specific location. These difficulties are magnified for 70-year cancer assessments, 

particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding 

changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over a 

70-year period. There are also considerable uncertainties associated with the existing 

estimates of toxicity of the various MSATs, because of factors such as low-dose 

extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to the general population. 

Because of these shortcomings, any calculated difference in health impacts between 

alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties associated with calculating 

the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be useful to 

decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against other project impacts 

that are better suited for quantitative analysis. 

b. Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to Evaluating the Impacts 

of MSATs 

Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For different emission types, there are a 

variety of studies that show that some either are statistically associated with adverse health 

outcomes through epidemiological studies (frequently based on emissions levels found in 

occupational settings) or that animals demonstrate adverse health outcomes when exposed to 

large doses. 

Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of EPA efforts. Most notably, the agency 

conducted the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) in 1996 to evaluate modeled estimates 

of human exposure applicable to the county level. While not intended for use as a measure of or 

benchmark for local exposure, the modeled estimates in the NATA database best illustrate the 

levels of various toxics when aggregated to a national or State level. 

The EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these pollutants. 

The EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of human health effects that 

may result from exposure to various substances found in the environment. The IRIS database is 

located at http://www.epa.gov/iris. The following toxicity information for the six prioritized 

MSATs was taken from the IRIS database Weight of Evidence Characterization summaries. 

This information is taken verbatim from EPA's IRIS database and represents the Agency's most 

current evaluations of the potential hazards and toxicology of these chemicals or mixtures. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-238 

Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen. 

The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the existing data 

are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential for either the oral or 

inhalation route of exposure.

Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans, 

and sufficient evidence in animals. 

1,3-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation. 

Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of nasal 

tumors in male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female hamsters after 

inhalation exposure.

Diesel exhaust (DE) is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from 

environmental exposures. Diesel exhaust as reviewed in this document is the 

combination of diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases.

Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary 

noncancer hazard from MSATs. Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary function 

and could produce symptoms, such as cough, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. Exposure 

relationships have not been developed from these studies. 

There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts in proximity to roadways. The 

Health Effects Institute, a non-profit organization funded by EPA, FHWA, and industry, has 

undertaken a major series of studies to research near-roadway MSAT hot spots, the health 

implications of the entire mix of mobile source pollutants, and other topics. The final summary 

of the series is not expected for several years. 

Some recent studies have reported that proximity to roadways is related to adverse health 

outcomes - particularly respiratory problems1. Much of this research is not specific to MSATs, 

instead surveying the full spectrum of both criteria and other pollutants. The FHWA cannot 

evaluate the validity of these studies, but more importantly, they do not provide information that 

would be useful to alleviate the uncertainties listed above and enable us to perform a more 

comprehensive evaluation of the health impacts specific to this project. 

c. Relevance of Unavailable or Incomplete Information to Evaluating Reasonably 

Foreseeable Significant Adverse Impacts on the Environment, and Evaluation of 

Impacts based upon Theoretical Approaches or Research Methods Generally Accepted 

in the Scientific Community 

Because of the uncertainties outlined above, a quantitative assessment of the effects of air toxic 

emissions impacts on human health cannot be made at the project level. While available tools do 

allow us to reasonably predict relative emissions changes between alternatives for larger 

projects, the amount of MSAT emissions from each of the project alternatives and MSAT 

1

 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Multiple Air Toxic Exposure Study-II (2000); Highway Health 

Hazards, The Sierra Club (2004) summarizing 24 Studies on the relationship between health and air quality); 

NEPA's Uncertainty in the Federal Legal Scheme Controlling Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles, Environmental 

Law Institute, 35 ELR 10273 (2005) with health studies cited therein. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-239 

concentrations or exposures created by each of the project alternatives cannot be predicted with 

enough accuracy to be useful in estimating health impacts. (As noted above, the current 

emissions model is not capable of serving as a meaningful emissions analysis tool for smaller 

projects.) Therefore, the relevance of the unavailable or incomplete information is that it is not 

possible to make a determination of whether any of the alternatives would have "significant 

adverse impacts on the human environment." 

In this document, DelDOT has provided a qualitative analysis of MSAT emissions relative to the 

various alternatives, and has acknowledged that all of the project alternatives may result in 

increased exposure to MSAT emissions in certain locations, although the concentrations and 

duration of exposures are uncertain, and because of this uncertainty, the health effects from these 

emissions cannot be estimated. 

3. Project Specific MSAT Information

As discussed above, technical shortcomings of emissions and dispersion models and uncertain 

science with respect to health effects prevent meaningful or reliable estimates of MSAT 

emissions and effects of this project. However, even though reliable methods do not exist to 

accurately estimate the health impacts of MSATs at the project level, it is possible to 

qualitatively assess the levels of future MSAT emissions under the project. Although a 

qualitative analysis cannot identify and measure health impacts from MSATs, it can give a basis 

for identifying and comparing the potential differences among MSAT emissions, if any, from the 

various alternatives. The qualitative assessment presented below is derived in part from a study 

conducted by the FHWA entitled A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic 

Emissions among Transportation Project Alternatives, found at:

www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/airtoxic/msatcompare/msatemissions.htm

For each alternative in this FEIS, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the 

vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for 

each alternative. While the Build Alternatives are all projected to result in a small increase in 

total VMT relative to the No-Build throughout the project area (10 percent to 16 percent increase 

in VMT), those increases would be at least partially mitigated by the shift in total VMT away 

from existing, often congested roads, and onto an uncongested higher speed roadway with 

consistent travel speeds (17 percent to 28 percent decrease in VMT), shown previously in Table

III-78.

In addition, because the estimated VMT under each of the Build Alternatives are nearly the 

same, varying by less than five percent, it is expected there would be no appreciable difference in 

overall MSAT emissions among the various alternatives. Regardless of the alternative chosen, 

emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national 

control programs that are projected to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent from 2000 to 

2020. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and 

turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-240 

projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in 

the study area are likely to be lower in the future in virtually all locations. 

Because of the specific characteristics of the project alternatives (i.e. new connector roadways), 

there may be localized areas under each alternative where VMT would increase, and other areas 

where VMT would decrease. Therefore, it is possible that localized increases and decreases in 

MSAT emissions may occur. The localized increases in MSAT emissions would likely be most 

pronounced along the new US 301 alignments. However, even if these increases do occur, they 

too will be substantially reduced in the future due to implementation of EPA's vehicle and fuel 

regulations. Furthermore, MSAT emissions should be reduced, compared to the No-build, on 

several existing roads in the project area which are closer in proximity to numerous homes, 

businesses and schools than the proposed US 301 alignments. 

Sensitive receptors include those facilities most likely to contain large concentrations of the more 

sensitive population. These include hospitals, schools, licensed day cares, and elder care 

facilities. Dispersion studies have shown that the “roadway” air toxics start to drop off at about 

100 meters (328 feet). By 300 meters (984 feet), most studies have found it very difficult to 

distinguish the roadway from background toxic concentrations in any given area. There are three 

(3) sensitive receptors within 100 meters of the proposed US 301 Preferred Alignment, and there 

are also three (3) sensitive receptors within 300 meters of the road. These sensitive receptors are 

listed in Table III-79. However, as noted previously, MSAT emissions should be reduced, 

compared to the No-Build Alternative, on many of the existing roads in the project area, 

including Cedar Lane Road, Bunker Hill Road, Summit Bridge Road (existing US 301) and 

Hyetts Corner Road, which are immediately adjacent to these sensitive receptors. 

Table III-79: Sensitive Receptor Locations 

within the US 301 Project Area 

Within 100 Meters of Preferred Alternative 

1. Appoquinimink High School - Opening 2008 (Bunker Hill Road) 

2. Children at Work Day Care (4922 Summit Bridge Road) 

3. St. George’s Technical High School (Hyetts Corner Road) 

Within 300 Meters of the Preferred Alternative 

1. Cedar Lane Early Childhood Center (1221 Cedar Lane Road) 

2. Cedar Lane Elementary School (1259 Cedar Lane Road) 

3. Alfred G. Waters Middle School (1259 Cedar Lane Road) 

In sum, under all build alternatives in the design year it is expected there would be only minor 

increases in MSAT emissions in the immediate area of the project, relative to the No-Build 

Alternative, due to the reduced VMT on the existing, congested roadway network, which helps 

to offset the increase in VMT associated with the build alternatives. Any potential increase in 

MSAT emissions associated with the build alternatives would be further reduced by the 2030 

design year due to EPA's MSAT reduction programs. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES III-241 

On a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, will over 

time cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region-wide MSAT levels 

due to motor vehicles to be significantly lower than today. 

L. Relationship between Local Short-Term Uses of Man’s Environment and the 

Maintenance of Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 

The expected short-term impacts, due to construction of the Preferred Alternative or other build 

alternatives, include localized noise and air pollution during construction and temporary traffic 

delays. With the implementation of proper controls, these short-term impacts would not have a 

lasting effect on the environment. 

The long-term benefits of the build alternatives would include increased safety, decreased 

congestion, and improved mobility. The project would be completed in accordance with the 

goals and objectives in the New Castle County 2002 Comprehensive Development Plan Update,

which considers the need for present and future traffic demand within the context of existing and 

future land use and development. The local short-term impacts and use of resources by the 

implementation of the proposed action are consistent with the long term goals and objectives of 

the plan for future continued mobility, productivity and economic growth. 

M. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 

The construction of the Preferred Alternative or other build alternative would require the 

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of natural, human and fiscal resources. The build 

alternatives would require the commitment of land for the construction of the highway, which is 

considered an irreversible commitment during the time period the land is used for a highway 

facility. If a greater need for the land should arise, or the highway no longer be needed, the land 

could be converted to another use; however, this scenario is not anticipated. 

Fossil fuels, labor, highway construction materials, and natural resources will be expended 

during the construction of a build alternative. The materials used in highway construction are 

irretrievable; however, these materials are not in short supply and their use should not have long 

term impacts on continued availability of these materials. The build alternatives would require 

an irretrievable use of federal and state funds for the purchase of right of way, construction 

materials, and construction labor. Upon completion, funds would be required for routine 

maintenance. The commitment of these resources is based on the benefits that would be 

conferred upon the local and regional residents, commuters, travelers and businesses as a result 

of the proposed improvements. The benefits, which outweigh the burdens of expenditure and 

loss of these resources, would include safety, increased mobility, accident reduction, separation 

of through traffic, management of truck traffic, and improvements in traffic flow. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION IV-1 

IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 

This section details the coordination efforts employed during the planning process for the 

US 301 Project Development project, including a description of the public involvement process, 

coordination with federal and state resource and regulatory agencies, and a compilation of 

comments (with responses where appropriate) received throughout the project development 

process.

A. Public Involvement Program 

The public involvement program for this project includes extensive interaction with members of 

the public, including stakeholder interviews, individual and community meetings, public 

workshops, and an extensive program of public outreach through mailings, public 

announcements, bulletin boards, a project office and a project website.

1. Public Outreach

An initial identification of the affected and interested population was provided through a zip 

code mailing and general public announcements. An initial set of Public Workshops was held in 

June, 2005 to present the current development effort to the public and evoke their responses and 

comments. Additional individuals (and business owners), as identified during the public 

workshops period, were included in the subsequent public mailings. Members of the project 

team met with various community groups upon their request as well as during the outreach 

effort. A project office was opened on Broad Street in Middletown, and staffed three days a 

week to respond to individuals who visited. An interactive website was provided for individuals 

to review the project development process, review alternatives and impacts, and forward their 

comments to the Project Team. Notices of Public Workshops were published in local 

newspapers and statewide publications as well as posted in various locations in the project area. 

a. Listening Tour 

Public outreach for the project began in January 2005 with a Listening Tour of interviews with 

elected officials, agency representatives, business owners, property owners, farmers and 

community organizations. The purpose of the Listening Tour was to establish a dialogue with 

key stakeholders by informing them of the upcoming project development effort and offering 

them the opportunity to provide information and comments. Among those interviewed were: 

Name Title/Representing

Charles Baker, John Janowski, George Haggerty and 

Dale Culver 

New Castle County (NCC) Department of Land 

Use

Dale Ervin NCC Economic Development Council 

The Hon. Steven Amick State Senator 

The Hon. Patty Powell NCC Councilperson, 6th District 

The Hon. Bill Bell NCC Councilperson, 12th District 

The Hon. Kenneth Branner Mayor of Middletown 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION IV-2 

Name Title/Representing

Morris Deputy Middletown Town Manager 

Michael Scuse, Mark Davis Delaware Department of Agriculture 

The Hon. Bethany Hall-Long State Representative 

The Hon. Rebecca Tulloch Former Mayor of Odessa 

Ken Getty Odessa Fire Chief 

Frank Bailey, Matt Borsari Middletown Volunteer Fire Company 

Matthew Jamison Captain, NCC Police Dept – Middletown Barracks 

Nate McQueen, Alice Bailey Delaware State Police, Troop 9 

John Tulloch Odessa Citizen 

Richard Janney Citizen 

Robert Emerson Citizen 

David and Teri Beste Owners, Beste Veterinary 

The Hon. James Vaughn State Senator 

The Hon Richard Cathcart State Representative 

The Hon Stephanie Ulbrich State Representative 

The Hon. David Raughley Mayor of Townsend 

Andy Lubin, Robert McCoy, Brian DeSabatino, Gene 

Julian 

Whitehall/Welfare Foundation 

Caroline duPont Prickett, Finn Neilsen Summit Aviation 

Members Middletown Chamber of Commerce 

Joyce Powell Business Owner (Allstate Insurance) 

Townsend Town Council (Over 400 townspeople attended this event) 

The Hon. Dorinda Connor State Senator 

The Hon. David McBride State Senator 

The Hon. Valerie Longhurst State Representative 

The. Hon. Vincent Lofink State Representative 

Herb Inden Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination 

John Hughes DNREC 

Kevin Coyle, AICP Principal Planner, Office of the Secretary 

Susan Moerschel Delaware Division of Parks & Recreation 

David Carter, Charles Mulholland and Board of 

Directors

Southern NCC Alliance 

Linda Bailey 7 & 40 Alliance 

Grace Webb Owings, Eric Sennstrom Delaware Department of Planning and Zoning 

Christopher A Coons NCC County Executive 

David Singleton NCC Chief Administrative Officer 

Lynn Howard NCC Deputy Chief Administrative Officer 

Dr. Tony Marcio, Bob Hershey Appoquinimink School District 

Paul Ignudo NCC Vo-Tech 

Mark Nordquist, Kevin Lucas EIDS 

Tigist Zegeye WILMAPCO 

Chuck Ott Airmont Civic Association 

Rusty Reber, Scott Kirchner, Chris Garrod Chesapeake Meadow Maintenance Corporation 

Marty Gimbus Dickerson Farm Maintenance Corporation 

Leann Ferguson Drawyer’s Creek Maintenance Corporation 

Chip Irons, Christine Irons, Faye Fields, Cathy Moretto Fox Hunter Crossing 

Terrence Dickerson Grande View Farms Civic Association 

John Marino Lea Eara Farms Maintenance Corporation 

Ed Colaprete The Legends 

Ray Perez, Susan Love Middletown Village Civic Association 

Tom McCarthy Post and Rail Farms 

Dick Smith Springmill 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION IV-3 

Name Title/Representing

Peggy Thomas Summit Bridge Farms Civic Association 

Eric Carr Summit Bridge Farms Maintenance Corporation 

David Baker, Robert Baker Baker Farms 

Robert Baker, The Hon. Wally Caulk, C. Fred Stites, Jr. Delaware State Farm Bureau 

John Filasky, Jr. Young Farmers 

Rich Woodin Woodin, Wentling & Associates 

Dan Taylor Artesian Water Company 

b. Mailing List 

The project mailing list, initially developed from zip code listings of all residents and businesses 

in the project area, has been continually updated and includes over 1,900 listings. This extensive 

mailing list encompasses a wide range of individuals including homeowners, elected officials, 

business leaders, community groups, government offices, and resource agencies. The mailing 

list is used to provide project development updates and notify interested parties of upcoming 

events, such as public workshops.

c. Individual and Community Group Meetings 

Members of the Project Team met with individuals, business owners, and various community 

organizations. These meetings were scheduled throughout the project development process to 

provide interested parties a more individualized review of project specifics and provide an 

opportunity for individual interaction with the Project Team. Community meetings were held 

with:

Fox Hunter Crossing Post and Rail Farms Summit Farms 

Matapeake Springmill Midland Farms 

Grande View Farms Mount Hope Augustine Creek 

Middletown Village The Legends Chesapeake Meadow 

Airmont Dickerson Farms Jamison Corner Road 

Summit Bridge Farms Summit Pond Back Creek 

Westside Hunt Lea Eara Farms Cecilton 

Galena Ratledge Road 

The formats of these community meetings generally included an introductory overview of 

project process, status and schedule followed by a presentation on the alternatives under 

consideration. Question and answer sessions were a significant part of each meeting. 

Members of the Project Team also met with members of the Middletown Baptist Church, 

members of the New Covenant Church, officials of Summit Airport, the developers of several 

planned communities, and several of the towns in Maryland. 

Members of the Project Team were invited to join the Townsend Town Council meeting on 

September 7, 2005. Over 400 citizens attended to hear and comment on the range of 

alternatives, particularly the Blue Alternative Options that were introduced after the initial June 

2005 public workshops. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION IV-4 

Numerous meetings were held during the DEIS review and comment period between members 

of the Project Team and various communities in the project area to review with members of the 

public the contents of the DEIS, the recommended Preferred Alternative, and potential impacts 

to the communities that would occur with the implementation of the project. Table IV-1 lists the 

community meetings held following the publication of the DEIS. 

Table IV-1: Community Meetings

Date Community 

November 21, 2006 Westside Hunt 

November 28, 2006 Matapeake 

November 29, 2006 Ratledge Road/Crystal Run Farms 

November 29, 2006 Middletown Baptist Church 

December 4, 2006 Springmill 

December 5, 2006 Back Creek 

December 5, 2006 Airmont 

December 11, 2006 Chesapeake Meadow 

December 12, 2006 Middletown Village 

December 14, 2006 Post & Rail Farms 

December 20, 2006 Ratledge Road/Jamison Corner Road 

January 4, 2007 Midland Farms 

The typical meeting format began with a presentation of the status of the project, with an 

emphasis on the purpose of the Public Workshop/Combined Location/Design Public Hearings. 

A summary of the recommended Preferred Alternative was then followed by a question and 

answer session. At the end of each meeting, attendees were encouraged to submit their concerns 

as a part of the formal public record either at the Public Hearings or by submitting comments online or by mail. 

Many other meetings were held both before and after the DEIS Public Hearings with individual 

property owners, groups, and organizations to further clarify the information found in the DEIS 

and/or discuss potential refinements to the alignment of the Recommended Preferred Alternative 

(Green North). Among those were the Middletown Corridor Coalition; Hoobers, Inc. and area 

farmers; individuals and groups from the Ratledge Road area; Tidewater Utilities; and others. 

d. Project Office 

The Project Office opened on July 7, 2005, at 723 North Broad Street in the Middletown Square 

Shopping Center. The office provides displays of the project, maps of the alternatives, impacts 

matrices and comment forms available for visitors. The office hours are Monday from 10:00 

AM to 2:00 PM, Thursday from 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM and Saturday from 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM to 

allow an opportunity for walk-in review and direct input and discussion with project team 

members. Following the last Public Workshops in April, 2006, the office was closed due to a 

drop in visitor frequency. The Project Office remained available by appointment throughout the 

summer and fall of 2007, and re-opened two days per week during the DEIS review and 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION IV-5 

comment period. The Project Office closed on February 5, 2007, following the close of the 

DEIS comment period on February 3, 2007. Over 700 individuals visited the Project Office.

e. Website 

A project website was established at www.us301.org. The website includes comprehensive 

information about the project with interactive maps, and has been continually updated to present 

the latest information about alternatives, impacts, meetings and other scheduled events. The 

website includes a page inviting individual comments on the project. There have been over 1.5 

million hits on the project website since its inception. The website continues to provide 

information about the project progress. 

f. Public Workshops 

Five sets of Public Workshops have been held throughout the project development process. 

Notices of the project workshops were advertised in the Delaware News Journal and the 

Middletown Transcript and posted at more than 40 locations throughout the project area, 

including a park and ride facility, banks, post offices, police and fire stations, and numerous local 

businesses. Individuals were notified using the project mailing list. The purpose of these 

workshops was to present the project to the community, as well as to encourage and receive 

feedback on the project’s purpose and need, goals and objectives, potential alternatives, and 

impacts to the natural and built environment. 

June 20 and 21, 2005 Public Workshops

Almost 800 people attended the first two workshops, held on June 20, 2005 at the Middletown 

Volunteer Fire Hall and on June 21, 2005 at the Brick Mill Elementary School. Attendees were 

provided an array of displays which identified the various elements of the project and a comment 

form. During the workshops, DelDOT provided a PowerPoint presenting the project and the 

workshop. A set of table maps depicting the preliminary alignments of each of the alternatives 

in the proposed Range of Alternatives was provided for individuals to review with members of 

the Project Team. 

Over 350 comment forms were returned during the workshops; many more were received during 

the 30-day comment period that followed. Over 100 comments were received via the project 

website. In summary, the comments received indicated agreement with the transportation needs 

being addressed, i.e., traffic, congestion, safety and management of truck traffic. The comments 

received showed support for the Purple and Green Alternatives, indicated a lack of support for 

the Yellow, Orange, Brown and Red Alternatives, and several comments requested DelDOT 

evaluate a direct route south of Middletown from the state line to SR 1 (which became the Blue 

Alternatives). 

Comments regarding the Yellow Alternative included negative comments about the impacts on 

existing properties and businesses, the lack of separation of through and local traffic, impacts on 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION IV-6 

traffic during construction, and the impacts of placing a major freeway in a populated area. 

Positive comments cited the apparent lower cost, approved of utilizing the existing US 301 and 

Boyds Corner Road corridors, and noted that there would be fewer impacts to neighborhoods. 

A majority of the comments regarding the Brown Alternative were in favor of dropping the 

alternative, noting that it would create a new roadway in an undeveloped area, bringing with it 

associated noise, light and air pollution and altering the integrity and tranquility of the area. 

Others believed it would be the longest and most costly, affect the most established communities, 

and impact the Summit Airport. Brown Alternative supporters noted that it would impact the 

fewest properties and existing businesses during construction.

A majority of those commenting on the Purple Alternative supported it, noting that it would 

impact fewer existing homes, would encourage truckers to use the SR 1 Bridge, that it bypassed 

Middletown, and that it would be the shortest, least expensive and most direct route. Those who 

did not support the Purple Alternative noted that a portion of it would create a new roadway in an 

undeveloped area, bringing with it associated noise, light and air pollution, thus altering the 

integrity and tranquility of the area. 

A majority of the comments regarding the Green Alternative were supportive. Those who did 

not support the Green Alternative cited its impacts on Scott Run and the effects of locating a new 

roadway in an undeveloped area. Positive comments noted its direct route and bypass of 

Middletown, lack of impacts on existing communities, and low/mid-level environmental 

impacts. 

Comments received regarding the Orange Alternative, later dropped from further consideration, 

were similar to those about the Yellow Alternative, noting its use of existing corridors and high 

amount of property impacts, and similar to those about the Brown Alternative’s impacts on 

neighborhoods. Those commenting on the Red Alternative noted the need for a new bridge at 

Summit and the high cost, and asked for a comparison of SR 896 versus SR 1 access to I-95. 

September 12, 13 and 19, 2005 Public Workshops

The second Public Workshops were held on September 12 and 13, 2005 at the Middletown 

Volunteer Fire Hall and on September 19, 2005 at the Townsend Fire Station. Almost 1,100 

persons attended the three workshops, which presented an updated evaluation of the range of 

alternatives and the impacts of those alternatives. Displays, presentations, table maps and 

impacts matrices similar to those provided at the June 2005 workshops were available. 

Attendees were asked to comment on the alternatives that they support (to be retained for further 

evaluation) or oppose (to be dropped from further consideration) and why.

Over 2,400 comment forms were handed out, and comments were received from 371 of the 

attendees along with a petition signed by 54 people. During the extended comment period 

(through October 14, 2005), an additional 685 comments and 1,813 petition signatures were 

received. Generally, the comments supported retaining the Purple and Green Alternatives for 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION IV-7 

detailed evaluation and dropping the Yellow, Orange, Brown and Blue Alternatives. The 

comments were split in opinion on the Red Alternative. 

The largest number of comments discussed the Green Alternative, with the majority of 

comments supporting retaining it for further study. Supporters cited similar reasons as at the 

workshops held in June, 2005, and a large number asked that an adjustment be made where the 

alternative crosses existing US 301 north of Middletown (move it northward). A majority of 

comments also supported retaining the Purple Alternative, also citing similar reasons to those 

received in June, 2005: lower property and environmental impacts; the directness of the route; 

and a good balance among the issues. 

The Yellow and Brown Alternatives received less support. Supporters of the Yellow Alternative 

continued to cite its use of existing roadway corridors and lower impacts on property values, 

while those who recommended it be dropped from further consideration cited community 

impacts (divides Middletown), negative environmental impacts and business impacts. 

Supporters of the Brown Alternative believed it would impact fewer homes and resolve the 

dangerous curve at the base of Summit Bridge. Those opposing the Brown Alternative noted its 

negative impacts on Summit Airport, farmlands, and property values. 

The Red Alternative received an almost equal number of supporting and opposing comments. 

The Blue and Orange Alternatives received the least support. The Blue Alternative, which had 

not been presented at the June, 2005 workshops, received the strongest opposition, citing its 

location, high environmental impacts and lack of ability to solve Middletown’s congestion 

problems. 

December 5, 6, and 7, 2005 Public Workshops

The third set of Public Workshops was held on December 5 and 6, 2005 at the Middletown 

Volunteer Fire Hall, and on December 7, 2005 at the Townsend Fire Station. The four retained 

build alternatives (Yellow, Purple, Brown, and Green Alternatives) were presented at these 

workshops. The Purple and Green Alternatives were displayed for the first time with the added 

Spur Roads to the Summit Bridge. The proposed elimination of the toll-free ramps was proposed 

and two alignment options were presented for the crossing/interchange at existing US 301. 

Comment forms were distributed that requested the respondent’s likes and dislikes for each 

alternative, their alternative preference (if any), and the reasoning for such preference. 

More than 525 persons attended the three workshops, and over 500 comments were received at 

the workshops and through the extended comment period. In addition, seven petitions 

containing over 4,900 signatures were submitted expressing support for or opposition to specific 

alternatives. 

In expressing a preference for one of the alternatives, more people expressed an interest in the 

Yellow and Green Alternatives than the Purple and Brown Alternatives. More comments 

opposed the Purple and Brown Alternatives than supported them. There were a greater number 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION IV-8 

of people in support of the Green Alternative than opposed. Preferences for and in opposition to 

the Yellow Alternative were nearly equal. Five of the seven petitions opposed or supported an 

alternative on a community-oriented basis, opposing the alternative(s) that would pass closest to 

the respective communities or residences. Petitions were also received from those concerned 

about impacts to the Middletown Baptist Church (on Armstrong Corner Road) and the New 

Covenant Church (Jamison Corner Road at SR 896). 

Some general and alternative-related themes were repeated with recognizable frequency, such as 

the need to do something, concern about the amount and pace of development in the project area, 

and a need to have a timely alternative decision. Alternative-related themes included concerns 

with changing alignments (mainly addition of the Spur Road to Summit Bridge for the Green and 

Purple Alternatives), impacts to natural resources, and impacts to communities and community 

resources.

Specific issues that elicited multiple comments included: the potential closure of the toll-free 

ramps to the St. George’s Bridge over the C&D Canal; impacts to the Middletown Baptist and 

New Covenant Churches; and the spur roads (need, purpose, nature). The input from the public 

received at these December workshops led to the Project Team’s February, 2006, Issues-Focused 

Workshops.

February 22 and 23, 2006 Issues-Focused Public Workshops

Two Issues-Focused Public Workshops were held on February 22, 2006 at the Middletown Fire 

Hall and on February 23 at the Cedar Lane Elementary School. These informal workshops 

presented the issues raised at the December Workshops and the Project Team’s evaluation and 

response to those issues. These issues included: 

Retention of the toll-free ramps at the SR 1 bridge over the C&D Canal 

Purpose and need for the spur road on the Purple and Green Alternatives 

Potential avoidance or minimization of the impacts to the Middletown Baptist Church 

and the New Covenant Presbyterian Church 

Potential reduction of the impacts of the proposed interchange to the curve south of 

Summit Bridge 

Potential minimization of effects on adjacent communities and resources. 

An overview presentation of the project status and the issues and potential solutions was given 

four times during each of the extended (7 hours, from 1:00 PM to 8:00 PM) workshops. 

Attendees also viewed displays of the project’s alternatives and options and were invited to visit 

workstations where each of the issues was presented in detail. 

Nearly 400 people attended the workshops, and fifty people offered written comments either at 

the workshops or during the comment period. A tally and review of responses led to the belief 

that there were an insufficient number of comments to provide support or opposition to the 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION IV-9 

alternatives or options presented, although in many cases, the reasons offered for preferring or 

opposing an alternative or option were property or community oriented. 

April 10 and 11, 2006 Public Workshops

Two additional Public Workshops were held on April 10 and 11, 2006, at the Middletown Fire 

Hall to present refined alternatives for review and comment. Notices of the meeting were 

extended to residents outside of the project area in Maryland because of concerns about potential 

toll diversions and the impacts on Maryland’s roads and resources. The refinements were 

developed by the Project Team in response to comments received from the Agencies and 

throughout the public involvement process. Attendees were invited to view displays, attend a 

presentation, and review each of the refinements with members of the project team at large table 

maps showing each alternative and option. 

Approximately 350 people attended these workshops, and 132 comments were received. One 

reason given for the seemingly low attendance is that the Project Team met with over 700 people 

at informal community meetings in the months following the February Workshops and prior to 

the April Workshops. In addition to comments, four petitions with a total of 876 signatures were 

received from people in support or opposition to one or more of the alternatives. 

The comment form asked people to indicate their preference for one or more of the alternatives 

and/or options proposed. People were also asked to indicate which of the proposed options they 

preferred. Of those indicating a preference, twice as many expressed support for the Green 

Alternative than for the Yellow or Purple Alternatives. Those indicating a preference for one or 

more of the options provided some indication of public opinion, but were too insufficient in 

number to draw conclusions. Petitions received requested the Green and Purple Alternatives be 

returned to their original alignment and the Spur Road removed, expressed opposition to the 

Yellow and Purple Alternatives, and expressed support for the Green Alternative with Armstrong 

Corner Road Area Option 2A. 

g. Combined Location-Design Public Hearings and Workshops 

A final Public Workshop/Combined Location-Design Public Hearing was held on January 8 and 

9, 2007, following DelDOT’s announcement of their recommended Preferred Alternative and the 

publication of the DEIS on November 17, 2006. The hearing was jointly-sponsored by the 

FHWA, DelDOT and the ACOE. Four hundred fifty-four people attended the two sessions, 20 

people provided public testimony, 25 people provided oral testimony privately to a stenographer, 

55 written comments were received at the hearings and an additional 65 comments were received 

via mail or electronic submission. Copies of all of the comments received during the DEIS 

comment period, either in writing, from written or oral testimony at the Public Hearings, or from 

the US 301 website, and their responses are included at the end of this Chapter. 

Several comments (44) expressed support for DelDOT’s Recommended Preferred Alternative - 

Green North with Armstrong Corner Road Option 2A and Spur Option 3B.
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION IV-10 

Several major issues were identified: 

Residents of Chesapeake Meadow supported the Green North Alternative but without 

the spur road or the Churchtown Road overpass because of concerns regarding noise 

increases, potential decrease in home values, safety of children in playground and park 

adjacent to berm, potential toll diversions onto Choptank and Churchtown Roads, the 

potential bottleneck on Summit Bridge, local use of the spur road (access/tolls), utilities 

and stormwater management facilities relocations, and effect of the closure of 

Churchtown Road during overpass construction on emergency access and response time. 

Residents of Airmont supported the Green North Alternative with requests for the berm 

constructed the full length of the road, the roadway below grade where possible, and 

some traffic control for Jamison Corner Road/Lorewood Grove Road/Road 412A traffic. 

Their concerns included noise, traffic, and safety on the local roadways within and 

around their community. 

Residents and supporters of the Ratledge Road Community supported the Green North 

Alternative but asked that the alignment through their neighborhood be adjusted to save 

their farmlands (Wolleyhan and Emerson Farms) and homes and presented options for 

this realignment. Their concerns included the inability to replace farmland, health 

stresses placed on the residents whose homes/farms/livelihoods were jeopardized, and 

the ability to replace wetlands. 

Residents of Midland Farms expressed concern about individual noise impacts, property 

impacts, and a decrease in property values with the construction of the roadway in their 

neighborhood.

Residents of the Middletown Village and Springmill communities expressed concerns 

about the open space/forested areas on the west side of their communities, the wildlife 

that these areas support, existing treelines, landscaping of the visual berms, light 

pollution, potential drainage impacts. 

The Middletown Corridor Coalition was formed to persuade DelDOT to eliminate the 

Spur Road and use the land already owned by DelDOT for open space, recreation, and a 

greenway trail. 

Farmers to the west of the new US 301 and the owners of Hoobers, Inc., a company that 

sells and services large farm machinery, expressed concern about accessibility for farm 

equipment south of Middletown, and requested that a direct connection be provided 

between Strawberry Lane and existing US 301. 

The majority of other comments received on the DEIS and/or recommended Preferred 

Alternative expresses individuals’ concerns about property impacts, tolls, noise, fairness and 

timing of property acquisitions, and project costs. Two individuals expressed a concern over the 

timing of the addition of the Spur Road to the Green Alternative; two individuals suggested 

delaying construction of the Spur Road until completion of the mainline; and one person 

expressed opposition to the Green North Alternative. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION IV-11 

B. Agency Coordination 

To facilitate the project development schedule, DelDOT and the environmental resource and 

regulatory agencies agreed to hold monthly Agency Coordination Meetings for the US 301 

project. These US 301 meetings were separate from the usual quarterly DelDOT/Resource 

Agency Joint Permit Review (JPR) meetings. Representatives of the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), US Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources (DNREC) and Delaware Department of Agriculture 

(DDA) participated in these meetings throughout the project development process. The National 

Marine Fisheries (NMF) did not participate in the meetings but was provided all the project 

information and data provided to all other agencies. 

1. Agency Coordination Meetings

The project initiation meeting was held with the agencies on April 14, 2005. At this first 

meeting, the Project Team was introduced and historical background, scoping, an initial 

environmental inventory and a draft Purpose and Need were presented. Additional meetings 

were held on May 23, July 12, August 23, November 8, and December 8, 2005. In 2006, 

coordination continued with meetings held on January 17, March 30, June 8, and August 15, 

2006. Two joint agency field tours/views were held on May 23, 2005 and July 12, 2005. 

Table IV-2 summarizes the schedule of formal agency meetings held to date and outlines the 

topics discussed.

Table IV-2: Agency Coordination Meetings 

Date Topics Discussed 

April 14, 2005 Project Initiation – Introduce the Project Team, provide historical background, begin scoping 

and Purpose and Need dialog and draft, provide initial environmental inventory. 

May 23, 2005 Project Briefing and Field View – Present and discuss a revised schedule, update action 

items from 4/14/05 meeting, present and discuss the potential range of alternatives, and 

conduct a field view. 

July 12, 2005 Project Update and Range of Alternatives – Provide updates on action items since the field 

view (5/23/05); update cultural and natural resources investigations and coordination; review 

content and comments from June 20 and 21, 2005 Public Workshops; discuss range of 

alternatives and potential alternatives retained; and discuss next steps. A field view 

followed the meeting. 

August 23, 2005 Project Update, Range of Alternatives, and Potential Alternatives Retained for Detailed 

Evaluation – Provide updates since 7/12/05 meeting; provide traffic analysis and toll option 

updates; present public outreach update; present and discuss alternatives (recommended 

dropped from range of alternatives, recommended range of alternatives, potential 

alternatives retained for detailed evaluation or to be dropped from further consideration; 

discuss next steps. 

November 8, 2005 Final Alternatives Retained for Detailed Evaluation – Provide updates since the 8/23/05 

meeting on all aspects of the project; present and discuss traffic updates and rationale for 

including spur concepts with Green and Purple; discuss and obtain verbal concurrence on 

alternatives to be dropped from further consideration. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION IV-12 

Table IV-2: Agency Coordination Meetings 

Date Topics Discussed 

December 8, 2005 Project Update, Review of December Workshops, Working Draft EIS Preview – Provide 

updates since the 11/8/05 meeting on all aspects of the project, present the contents of the 

workshops, present and discuss Phase II bog turtle survey and impact to project schedule, 

preview the Working Draft EIS. The Agency Review Draft EIS was provided to all 

agencies. 

January 17, 2006 Project Update, December Workshop Follow-Up, Working Draft EIS Comments – Provide 

project update since 12/8/05 meeting including cultural and natural resources, finalize bog 

turtle Phase II survey program details, finalize items from December Workshops, continue 

to evaluate retained alternatives, and receive agency comments on the Working Draft EIS 

March 30, 2006 Project Update, February Workshops Results, Working Draft EIS Comments, Preliminary 

Section 4(f) Avoidance Analysis – Provide updates on Cultural and Natural Resources and 

noise analysis, discuss February Workshops results and April Workshop plans, discuss DEIS 

and comments to date, discuss Section 4(f) Avoidance Analysis, Discuss scope of Bog 

Turtle Survey (Phase II and III) effort, teams and schedule 

June 8, 2006 Project Updates, Bog Turtle Survey Status, Results of April Public Workshops, Noise 

Analysis Results, Working Draft EIS Comments – Provide updates since 3/30/06 meeting on 

resources, provide status of Bog Turtle Survey (in progress), provide noise mitigation 

analysis and earth berms, provide status on next draft of DEIS and potential schedule for 

path forward 

August 15, 2006 Project Updates, Report on Bog Turtle Results, Discussion of Preferred Alternative – 

Provide project updates since 6/8/06 meeting, provide results of Bog Turtle Surveys, provide 

updates on traffic modeling and potential toll diversions (Toll Diversion Working Group), 

provide impacts of all alternatives and facilitate discussion of DelDOT recommendation on a 

Preferred Alternative. 

September 14, 2006 Agency Field View of potential wetland mitigation sites 

December 14, 2007 Public Hearing Preview – Provided copies of all hearing materials, including: room layout, 

joint Public Notice, comment form and information packet, impacts matrix, color copies of 

the display boards, hearing introductory text, press briefing materials, speakers’ registration 

forms, right-of-way brochures, DelDOT’s November 13, 2006 Press Release announcing the 

Preferred Alternative, Delaware News Journal article and editorial following the 

announcement. Also provided an overview of the hearings’ schedule provided an 

opportunity to comment on the materials. 

January 30, 2007 Agency Field View of the Ratledge Road Area – Viewed and evaluated the area of concern. 

Also attended by DE News Journal. Identified and evaluated quality of wetlands in the area. 

February 8, 2007 Field View Follow-Up Meeting – Recapped comments received at the hearings. Reviewed 

options for Ratledge Road area alignment. 

Individual field views and reviews were also held on a regular basis with agency representatives. 

The ACOE representative met regularly with project scientists and other agency representatives 

in the field to review wetland delineations (June 15, June 23, July 12, July 19, August 9, August 

19, September 8, November 9, November 16, and December 21, 2005; January 5, January 10, 

and November 17, 2006; January 24 through March 28, 2007). Coordination with DNREC has 

included field reviews of bog turtle habitat, RTE species, wetlands and coastal zone consistency 

on August 8, August 31, September 8, September 22, November 18, 2005, and February 23 and 

May 11, 2006. Coordination with the SHPO has also proceeded with a series of meetings and 

field reviews, including those held on July 12, July 28, August 10, August 17, September 13, 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION IV-13 

November 4 and November 9, 2005, and on April 21, May 16, and July 18, 2006; February 5, 

February 24, June 6 and July 18, 2007.

2. Field Views and Reviews – ACOE

In addition to the regular monthly meetings, members of the ACOE met regularly with the field 

teams during the wetlands delineation effort. The ACOE and DELDOT committed to early 

planning and coordination efforts to assure that the wetland information generated would be 

accurate and reliable. ACOE worked closely with DNREC and the Project Team to verify 

wetland delineations in the field as well as to determine the quality of each wetland surveyed. 

Table IV-3 lists the dates of ACOE field views and meetings. 

Table IV-3: ACOE and DNREC –Coordination Meetings and Field Views 

June 15, 2005 Natural Resources 

June 23, 2005 Natural Resources 

July 12, 2005 Agency Field Review (General) 

July 19, 2005 Natural Resources 

August 8, 2005 DNREC Natural Heritage 

August 9, 2005 Natural Resources 

August 19, 2005 Natural Resources 

September 8, 2005 Agency Field Review – Blue Alternative Alignments 

September 22, 2005 DNREC Natural Heritage 

November 8, 2005 Natural Resources 

November 9, 2005 Natural Resources 

November 16, 2005 Natural Resources 

November 18, 2005 DNREC Natural Heritage 

November 30, 2005 Natural Resources 

January 5, 2006 Natural Resources 

January 10, 2006 Natural Resources 

February 23, 2006 DNREC Natural Heritage 

May 11, 2006 DNREC Wetlands and Coastal Zone Consistency 

July 21, 2006 Bog Turtle Coordination Meeting 

October 31, 2006 Mitigation Site Tour (all agencies) 

November 17, 2006 ACOE, DNREC and EPA Bridge crossings field tour 

January 30, 2007 Ratledge Road Area Natural Resources (all agencies) 

3. Field Views and Reviews – DNREC

Information on rare, threatened and endangered (RTE) species was requested from DNREC and 

the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on May 13, 2005. Responses were received on July 25, 

2005 from DNREC’s Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (DNHP) and on August 

17, 2005 from FWS (see Appendix C). The responses indicated the presence of federally 

endangered bog turtles and bald eagles within the project area as well as several state-listed 

species of concern. 

A small portion of the project area is located in the State of Maryland. Letters requesting 

information on RTE species were sent to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION IV-14 

Environmental Review Unit (ERU) and Wildlife & Heritage Division on October 20, 2005. 

Responses were received on December 7, 2005 and indicate that no Maryland state listed species 

were present in the project area. 

Due to the high probability of the presence of rare, threatened and endangered species and or 

potential habitat for those species within the project area (especially bog turtle), members of the 

Project Team committed to coordinate with members of DNREC through all the phases of bog 

turtle survey. Coordination and demonstrations of Phase I methodology for potential bog turtle 

habitat were conducted on August 8, 2005. Field reviews of Phase I habitat areas were 

conducted on February 23, 2006, and a Phase II/III survey site visit was conducted on May 11, 

2006. The results of the Phase I habitat surveys are included in US 301 Project Development: 

Investigation for Wetlands and Waters of the United States and Phase I Bog Turtle Habitat 

Assessment, 2005 (draft November 2005), and the results of the Phase II and Phase III surveys 

are reported in Phase II/III Bog Turtle Surveys for US 301 Corridor Improvement Project, 

August 2006.

4. Field Views and Reviews – Cultural Resources Evaluation – Section 106

There is a high probability of cultural resources, both architectural and archaeological, being 

present within the project area. Continuing coordination with the Delaware SHPO office has 

included meetings and field reviews to determine the presence of cultural resources, the potential 

for archaeological resources within the alternatives’ limits of disturbance, and the eligibility of 

newly-identified resources for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Coordination 

meetings between DelDOT and the SHPO took place on July 28, August 10 and 17, September 

13, and November 4 and 19, 2005. Additional meetings were held on February 24, April 21, 

May 16, and July 18, 2006 to discuss additional newly surveyed resources that may be eligible 

for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, visual effects, noise impacts to historic 

resources, a plan to test the hypotheses of the Archaeological Predictive Model, and to begin the 

field evaluation of potential visual and noise effects. An additional field evaluation of properties 

affected by the Preferred Alternative was held on February 5, 2007. Members of the Project 

Team met with the SHPO to complete the provisions of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

on June 6 and July 18, 2007. The office of the Maryland SHPO, the Maryland Historical Trust 

(MHT), was also consulted, and, although MHT did not participate in meetings, they agreed to 

be a signatory to the MOA and participated in its review. Consultation will continue according 

to the provisions of Section 106 throughout the completion of the project.

The final US 301 Project Development Determination of Eligibility Report, describing 

architectural resources in the project area, was submitted to the SHPO for concurrence in 

December 2006. The SHPO and DelDOT have, through consultation, achieved concurrence on 

boundaries and determinations of eligibility for all surveyed resources. The Archaeological

Predictive Model – US 301 Project Development, which describes the probability of 

archaeological sites along the alternatives’ alignments, was also submitted in September 2005. 

The hypotheses presented in this predictive model were tested during June/July 2006 during a 

Phase I Archaeological Survey conducted on selected locations within DelDOT-owned parcels 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION IV-15 

along the ridge alignment. Following the Phase I Survey, the predictive model was updated and 

resubmitted in August, 2006. Treatment of potential archaeological sites that may be affected by 

the Selected Alternative is detailed in the MOA. 

The Draft Document in Support of a Finding of Adverse Effect and Memorandum of Agreement

(September 2007) (Effects Report) details the application of the Criteria of Adverse Effect to 

properties impacted by the Preferred Alternative. The Effects Report was received by the SHPO 

on September 11, 2007 for 30-day review and comment. The report describes future steps and 

consultation to be undertaken to mitigate unavoidable indirect impacts to historic properties. A 

copy of the MOA, developed in consultation with the SHPO, is included in Appendix H.

C. Toll Diversion Coordination 

As the traffic projections were being developed for the US 301 project, a significant emphasis 

was placed on establishing a clear understanding of toll diversions related to the proposed toll 

plaza near the Delaware/Maryland state line. A thorough understanding of the routes that 

motorists were likely to use, as well as the magnitude of traffic anticipated on those roads, were 

evaluated. With that determination, a comprehensive set of mitigation measures intended to 

minimize diversions, while minimizing impacts to the surrounding communities was developed.

In the summer of 2005, a Traffic Diversion Committee began studying the potential impacts 

associated with a toll on US 301, and subsequently began developing mitigation strategies. Over 

50 people were invited to participate in a series of four working meetings focused on toll 

diversions. While the meetings generally consisted of approximately 20 participants, all meeting 

materials were distributed to the entire distribution list of invitees. Members of the US 301 

Traffic Diversion Committee included: 

Name Representing

Mark Tudor Delaware Department of Transportation 

Mike DuRoss Delaware Department of Transportation 

Bruce Allen Delaware Department of Transportation 

PJ Wilkins Delaware Department of Transportation 

Don Weber Delaware Department of Transportation 

Pam Steinebach Delaware Department of Transportation 

Ralph Reeb Delaware Department of Transportation 

Darrel Cole Delaware Department of Transportation 

Drew Boyce Delaware Department of Transportation 

Darren O’Neill Delaware Department of Transportation 

Terry Fulmer Delaware Department of Transportation 

Gary Laing Delaware Department of Transportation 

Tom Meyer Delaware Department of Transportation 

Erika Rush Urban Engineers 

Lt. Mark Collender Delaware State Police 

Dennis N. Simpson Maryland Transportation Authority 

Melissa Williams Maryland Transportation Authority 

Mike Nixon Maryland Department of Transportation 

Jim Dooley Maryland State Highway Administration 

James Thompson Maryland State Highway Administration 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION IV-16 

Name Representing

Terry Wright Maryland State Highway Administration – District 2 

H. Karl Stoecker Maryland State Highway Administration – District 2 

Robert S. Kiel Maryland State Highway Administration – District 2 

Michael Lewis Maryland State Highway Administration – District 2 

John Janowski New Castle County, DE 

Owen Robatino New Castle County, DE 

Tony DiGiacomo Cecil County, MD 

Gail Owings Kent County, MD 

John Bunnell Mayor – Town of Cecilton 

Shelley McDonald Town Administrator - Cecilton 

Heather Dunigan WILMAPCO 

Bill Swiatek WILMAPCO 

Dan Blevins WILMAPCO 

Tigist Zegeye WILMAPCO 

Greg Carey Goldman Sachs 

Mark Florian Goldman Sachs 

Art Goldburg URS Corporation 

David Schellinger URS Corporation 

Matt Scott PBConsult 

David Earley PBConsult 

Bob Kramer Kramer Associates 

Andrew Bing Kramer Associates 

Ed Thomas Kramer Associates 

Bill Hellmann Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP 

Marcel Klik Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP 

Jim Burnett Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP 

Joe Wutka Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP 

Matt Snare Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP 

Carey Webb Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP 

Ray Harbeson Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP 

Jeff Kuttesch Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP 

The US 301 Traffic Diversion Committee met four times to discuss traffic projections, analysis 

results and potential traffic diversion issues, and recommend actions to be taken. Table IV-4

summarizes the topics discussed at the meetings. Among the actions taken was an independent 

evaluation by the Maryland SHA of the modeling efforts; their comments will be considered in 

the next round of modeling. 

Table IV-4: US 301 Traffic Diversion Committee Meetings 

August 25, 2005 Organizational meeting. Reviewed background data and analysis. 

Suggested additional analyses 

October 6, 2005 Discussed ideas, developed potential mitigation measures 

December 1, 2005 Discussed ideas, developed potential mitigation measures 

March 2, 2006 Finalized potential mitigation measures 

Following the March 2, 2006 Traffic Diversion Committee meeting, the elected officials from 

the town of Cecilton, Maryland requested a presentation to their citizens focusing on the 

potential toll diversion issues. Accordingly, on March 27, 2006, a meeting was held with the 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION IV-17 

Cecilton Town Council, focusing on the potential toll diversion impacts on MD 213 and on the 

local roads in and near Cecilton, MD. 

As noted previously, Public Workshops were held on April 10 and 11, 2006, at the Middletown 

Fire Hall to present refined alternatives for review and comment. Notices of the meeting were 

extended to residents in Maryland because of concerns about potential toll diversions and the 

impacts on Maryland’s roads and resources. Following the April 10 and 11 Public Workshops, a 

meeting was held on May 8, 2006 with the town of Galena, Maryland to discuss potential toll 

diversion issues.

In light of the concerns expressed about potential toll diversions in Maryland resulting from the 

US 301 project, a Toll Diversion Working Group was formed to further examine issues 

pertaining to potential toll diversions, particularly on roads in Maryland. Members of the Toll 

Diversion Working Group included: 

Mark Tudor 

US 301 Project Director 

DelDOT 

Bill Kiessling, Mayor 

Town of Chesapeake City 

Dennis Simpson 

Deputy Director, Capital Planning 

Maryland Transportation Authority 

John Bunnell, Mayor 

Town of Cecilton 

Doug Simmons, Deputy Administrator 

Maryland State Highway Administration (MSHA) 

Michael Cooper, President 

Cecilton Volunteer Fire Company 

Richard Lindsay, District Engineer 

MSHA 

Bonny Anderson 

Warwick Area 

Captain Bill Dofflemeyer, Commander 

Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Division 

Maryland State Police 

William Manlove 

Cecil County Commissioner 

Harry Pisapia, Mayor 

Town of Galena 

Sheriff Barry Janney 

Cecil County 

Chris Powell, Chief 

Galena Volunteer Fire Company 

The Toll Diversion Working Group met three times, on July 11, July 25 and August 9, 2006, to 

discuss traffic analysis results, potential traffic diversion issues, and recommend actions to be 

taken. The final recommendations of the Toll Diversion Working Group are detailed in 

Chapter III Section G.4.d.

Further coordination is ongoing and will continue throughout the project’s completion to assure 

that treatment of issues arising from potential toll diversions is accomplished. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION IV-18 

D. Comments Received on the DEIS 

The following sections contain all of the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement, published on November 8, 2007. The public was provided opportunity to comment 

from the date the document was published through the end of the comment period on February 3, 

2007, and at the Combined Location-Design Public Hearing, held on January 8 and 9, 2007. 

Both hearings provided identical formats for commenting either through traditional public 

testimony, by testifying to a stenographer, or by providing written comments. Agencies were 

provided a two-week extension to submit their comments. 

1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007

2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007

3. Written Comments Received at the Workshop on January 8, 2007

4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007

5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007

6. Written Comments Received at the Workshop on January 9, 2007

7. Online Comment Forms Received during the Comment Period

8. Email and Written Comments Received during the Comment Period

9. Agency Comments
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

List of Persons Providing TestimonCharles Weymouth Andye Daley Pastor Lasko Wanda James Thomas Russell NOTE: Pages 2-40 of the “Public Hearing in re: Uhas not been reproduced in this section, as introduction to the project and no oral testof the hearing transcript is included in App
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

Response to Charles Weymouth: Thank you for your statement. The Red Alternative, which followed the ridC&D Canal on the Summit Bridge, was evabut was not retained for detailed evaluation. Alternative included: • it does not accommodate the 65% of traf

points to the northeast 

• it would require additional lanes on the S

increased traffic volumes 

• it did not provide direct access to SR 1 • it would have required major improveme

and tie-in to Old Baltimore Pike 

• it had identified impacts to Section 4(f) r• it would have been the costliest to constr• required the most difficult maintenance o

travelers during construction. 

The full explanation for nor retaining the ReSection II.B.2.a. Although some of the improvements you meoutside of the scope of the US 301 Project. to others who could evaluate their feasibility(continued on next page)
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(continued from previous page) The US 301 project will be funded by a varicollection, federal funds, and other traditionfunding. (continued on next page)
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(continued from previous page) DelDOT and the Corps are continuing to cooinvolved in this project to complete the best roadway. Response to Andye Daley:(Please see also response to Andye Daley emPages 9 ff) Thank you for your statement. Response to comment 1, beginning on line Noise analysis for the US 301 project followFHWA and the DelDOT Noise Policy, and u67dBA (Activity Category B) for sensitive project area, as listed below. (The handout/January 8 and 9, 2007 Public Hearing, which the Hearing, provided information regarding policies.) (continued on next page)
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(continued from previous page) The FHWA Design Noise Levels are as folloTable III-31): • Activity Category A: Design Noise Leve

which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary public need, and where the preservation of thocontinue to serve its intended purpose. 

• Activity Category B: Design Noise Level 6

motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, ho

playgrounds, active sports areas, and parks. 

• Activity Category C: Design Noise Level 7

lands, properties or activities not included in c

• Activity Category D: (no level assigned) Und• Activity Category E: Design Noise Level 5

motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools

auditoriums.

DelDOT considers noise mitigation when eisatisfied: • predicted design-year noise levels exceed 

greater, regardless of overall noise level o

• predicted design-year noise levels approa

Abatement Criteria Design Noise Levels DelDOT consider a noise impact to occur year noise level would be 66 dBA or grea

In the noise analysis, Chesapeake Meadow wland use (NSA) under Activity Category B oCriteria (NAC). Existing noise levels were mprimary Chesapeake Meadow receptors CM(26 Meadow Lane). Existing noise levels aCourt/Churchtown Road (102 Fox Den CouCurrent community noise levels are influencDesign year noise level predictions for 2030 dBA above existing noise levels in the west Receptor CM-3 is in the rear yards of the procommunity, and shows the greatest predicteare measured and predicted without accountberm.  (continued on next page)
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

This page intentionally left blank 

(continued from previous page) These noise levels were assessed according levels along the west row of residences, withexceed federal guidelines at eleven propertiethe south row of residences (Fox Den Court)would not exceed federal guidelines, with thover existing noise levels, and no increase wBuild. Noise mitigation options were analyzed, but effective, as defined under DelDOT’s noise Although the criteria for the construction of location are not met, DelDOT has committeearth berm (11 feet high by 1,600 feet long) Spur Road (including not only the affected rextending to the southern end of the commulimited on the south by Tidewater Utilities aThe presence of this visual berm would also with regard to noise, reducing noise increaseDrive location and 5 dBA at Meadow Lane The relationship between decibel increases acomplicated one. The ability of the human elimited. A 3 dBA increase is generally “barincrease is considered “recognizable” or “noincrease is a 10-fold increase in power, it is volume to the human ear. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(continued from previous page) Response to comment 2, beginning on line 

The proposed berm would be 11 feet high in fencing will also be installed on both sides opedestrian access to the highway. 

Response to comment 3, beginning on line With the Green Alternative plus the Spur Rovehicles projected to use Choptank Road no5,400, approximately 57% less in 2030 than (14,500). Additionally, the average daily traprojected to be 1/4 less with the Green plus the No Spur Road condition (37,200). Throughout the US 301 Project Developmenaware of the potential effects of toll diversioworked to mitigate these potential effects. Twhich included members from DelDOT, comlocal elected officials, and other technical stthe Maryland State Highway Administrationprocess. These working groups were primartruck diversions, and developed a series of rthese diversions through a combination of trtargeted enforcement efforts. The working groups also examined the potearound the toll facilities. Based on the toll rtypes of diversions were not projected to be the area of Warwick Road (near the MD/DE are being considered for this area to address These efforts are detailed in the FEIS, ChaptWith regard to traffic using SR 15 (Choptanavoid the US 301 tolls, it is in the best intereuse the toll facility; more traffic on the toll ra more financially sound project. To that endtolling structure and toll rates which attempt routes (including Choptank Road), while optoll facility. Clearly, it would not be in the bdesign features on this new facility that discpotential toll revenues.  (continued on next page)
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

This page intentionally left blank 

(continued from previous page) Response to comment 4, beginning on line The recommended Spur Road includes a “YBridge, which has been developed in accordstandards. The interchange has been analyzsatisfactory level of service in design year 2Bridge, in Design Year 2030, is projected to new US 301 and the Spur Road, while the prBridge is 53,900 vehicles per day with new a difference of less than 10%. Traffic projecalternative, including the Middletown CorridNorth without the preferred Spur Road, therdemand to use Summit Bridge. The volume of traffic projected to use the Suthe Green Alternative with the Spur Road is condition the volume is 53,900 and under thGreen Alternative with the Spur Road is protraffic on Summit Bridge in 2030. While bosignificant increase over existing daily volum(LOS) on Summit Bridge is projected to be LGreen with the Spur Road, which is still conThe ability to provide capacity improvemendesigned into the dualization of US 301/SR 1990s. Should capacity be needed north of texisting right-of-way from the bridge to US right-of-way between US 40 and I-95. In thwould indeed be the bottleneck. Response to comment 5, beginning on preThe purpose of the Spur Road is to better manage Newark and points north (approximately 1/3 of thnear the Maryland line) that is continuing on US Middletown (and the Westown area). The Spur was existing US 301 and Choptank Road, thus redu
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(continued from previous page) Surveys of current traffic show that 65% of northnortheast (SR 1), 35% of northbound US 301 trafof the long distance or inter-state trucks are going (2030) support the need for a new 4-lane US 301 traffic projected to use the Spur Road includes 57interchange (southern Middletown area, includin4% is from other locations. The Spur Road significantly reduces traffic on Ch6,200 vehicles per day) and on existing US 301 (to non-spur options, in year 2030. The Spur Roaundivided roads (Choptank Road and US 301) an– divided roadways typically have lower accidenadditional opportunities in addressing the sharp cSummit Bridge. The Spur Road will also provide carry traffic in the event of a major incident (closThe Project Team presented a Spur Road option tintersections with major local cross roads (Old ScRoad). However, comments were received from opposing this option, due to concerns that the addproposed development in the area or result in new the Spur Road that are not projected for developmDelDOT considers the cost of the Spur Road appthrough traffic (especially truck traffic) that will 

vehicular traffic and increase safety on local roadThe Spur Road will also serve southern Middletofuture improvements to Choptank Road and existResponse to comment 6, beginning on line 7:In the process that was used for the US 301 Projeevolve over time. Alternatives are proposed and and alternatives change (the addition of the spur tbased on continued analysis and public and agenc

(continued on next page)
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

This page intentionally left blank 

(continued from previous page) The public was informed of the Range of AlternaRecommended Preferred Alternative and the PrefAlternative (including a north and south option) hbeginning of the process and the Green + Spur opsince December 2005 when the Retained Alternathe Spur Road presented to the public at the Dece

presented in considerable detail at the February 2Purpose and Need, benefits, etc., and again at the Green North + Spur was the Recommended PrefeDelDOT in November 2006, as noted in the DEISJanuary 2007 Combined Location-Design Public 

workshop/hearing, the Project Team mailed extenleaders including those from Chesapeake Meadowcommunity’s “no spur” position as a result of the 

during the workshops’ comment periods, includinMeadow and others. The Spur Road was added because: (1) it balances the available capacities of the SumGeorges Bridge crossings of the C&D Canal; (2) its addition provided flexibility in addressing of Summit Bridge at the intersection of SR 896, U(3) it will accommodate the 35% of through traffDestination Survey, and confirmed by traffic projdirectly north, while the US 301 mainline will acwishing to access I-95 and points to the northeastResponse to comment 7, beginning on line 15 oThis comment suggests improving US 301 from Pleasant and eliminating the Spur Road. Howevewiden existing US 301 from Peterson Road to Mdeleted. Improvements would include adding ona continuous left turn lane and a raised median or Widening would occur primarily along the west sapproximately 55 feet of additional right-of-way corridor. On the east side, approximately 20 feet In locations of existing Section 4(f) historic resouN05153; Armstrong-Walker House, CRS N0514N05242), the roadway would be shifted to avoid shifts would require additional ROW from the ophas considered this option and believes it is not thtotal cost of this option is approximately $67-$83 preferred Spur Road cost of approximately $105-the project purpose and need: 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(continued from previous page) o Results in more traffic on local roads (e.g. C

among others) 

o Results in higher accident rates/actual accid

type roads, signalized/unsignalized intersect

o Results in mixing through truck traffic with 

Corner Road to Summit Bridge (reference tw4 fatalities – (both involved 18-wheelers) anUS 310/SR 896 and Old Summit Bridge Ro

o Results in reduced traffic at the toll plaza ju

revenues to fund new US 301 and the Spur Rtraffic to local roads in DE and MD. 

o Results in significant property impacts along 

to the need to widen existing US 301 from PPartial Impacts to Businesses: Burger King, 

Nu-Car Connection, Middletown Medical P

Landscaping, Tri State Materials, Cooper WGuardian Fence Company, Rollins Metal WCycle, Shops of Mt. Pleasant 

 Total Takes of Businesses: Ringold Chapel 

Madic, Inc., KO’s Cleaning 

 Partial Impacts to Homes: 3 plus impacts to 

 Total Takes of Homes: 9 

 Plus impacts to additional vacant or farmed 

The Recommended Spur Road does not require 

relocations.Response to comment 8, beginning on line 18: DelDOT will continue to consider the feasibility the east side of the Spur Road. Changes to the tyan adjustment of the width of the median or redu

provide some additional outside width and includway without additional property acquisition. Response to comment 9, beginning on line 24: DelDOT would like to note the following with revicinity of the Chesapeake Meadow community. proposed between the Spur Road and Chesapeake feet of additional open space would remain betwe(community side) and the nearest property line at open space results from the proposed US 301 Spupasses Chesapeake Meadow, such that the propothe DelDOT-owned right-of-way. This was done berm, as well as to shift the roadway as far from 

(continued on next page)
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(continued from previous page) reasonably possible. The strip of property directlowned by DelDOT, is approximately 2,200 feet ion the south end to 350 feet on the north end. As needs to acquire an additional strip of property adapproximately 2,220 feet long and 200 feet wide. Suggestions have been received from impacted pSpur Road, requesting DelDOT look at moving thproperty. The requests from those in Chesapeake to the west have been countered by the owners of Road, whose desire is to have the road moved furvicinity of Chesapeake Meadow. Clearly, both sroadway has already been shifted further from thprovide the distance needed to construct a visual both sides of the roadway, additional shifts in the this time. However, we will review the alignmenand evaluate the potential to shift the alignment asection, which could potentially lower impacts on Response to comment 10, beginning on line 6: Under the current design and based upon the leveChurchtown Road would not be closed during coover the Spur Road. The new Churchtown Road north of the existing roadway, with retaining walto remain open in both directions during construcbe intermittent lane closures to allow for construcas is typical with any roadway construction. Accmaintained and they will not be acquired for the pDuring construction of the overpass, it may be neChurchtown Road while a section of retaining waof new Churchtown Road. During this period, thcontinuous access could be maintained. It is curr

maintained continuously on Churchtown Road dudiverted as noted in the MCC comment above. Finally, the highest elevation on the Churchtown elevation 77. The elevation of the backyards of 1approximately elevation 55 and 53.5, respectivelywill be approximately 22 feet above the elevation and located approximately 1,200 feet from the ovstructure will be approximately 23.5 feet above thDen Court and located approximately 1,000 feet (continued on next page)
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

This page left intentionally blank 

(continued from previous page) to 102 Fox Den Court, new Churchtown Road wielevation. Adjacent to 104 Fox Den Court, new Capproximately 6 feet closer and approximately 2 Churchtown Road. Based on the level of information we have at this Churchtown Road improvements. Along the noranticipated impacts involve only the community’anticipate being able to avoid any individual resid

side of Churchtown Road, we have significantly and 858 Churchtown Road. However, temporary parcels will likely be needed. In addition, some pRoad will need to be acquired to tie existing ChuRoad. Access to all four properties will be contin

The Project Team has also relocated the previouspond from the 858 Churchtown Road property to side of Churchtown Road. Finally, the alignmenSpur Road, has been shifted slightly to the north, the south of Churchtown Road and the Zapata prResponse to comment 11, beginning on line 15 oThe current design does not impact the Chesapeaponds. Response to comment 12, beginning on line 23 A landscaping plan will be prepared during the premoval of the existing berm and trees adjacent tPotential partial property acquisitions are noted in relocations; however, only potential relocations aSpecifically, as a result of their attendance at a mcommunity on the US 301 Project Development Den Court were provided information on the poteoverpass will not result in a taking of any propertproperty owners at 104 Fox Den Court have not bslightly more than 0.1 acre from their property. open space do not impact the community stormwMany of these partial property acquisitions noted eliminated. As noted previously, design and min

eliminated any individual property acquisitions apartial property impacts on the south side of Chu(continued on next page) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(continued from previous page) The entryway will not be affected by the overpasChurchtown Road will begin west of the entranceResponse to comment 13, beginning on line 8: The current daily volume of traffic on Churchtowvehicles per day (vpd). Under the Green North anare predicted to increase from 50 dBA (existing, North + Spur Road, daily traffic volumes on Chuthan Green North and No-Spur (4,200 vpd), but dbe the same at 54 dBA. The noise contribution fractually reduced slightly as a result of the propertChurchtown Road being slightly reduced. At the minor increase in the design-year noise level, wh102 Fox Den Court being the same, with or witho102 Fox Den Court is located at the extreme soutwould not be impacted by traffic noise from the Sresult in a projected increase of 10dBA or a noise primary traffic noise influence to 102 Fox Den Cborders, and not the Spur Road, since the distancapproximately 850 feet at its western-most point With no southern exposure to the Spur Road, due Den is only minimally affected by traffic noise frnoise levels were modeled accounting for all conproperty, including the Spur Road, Churchtown Rnoise source.  (continued on next page)
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(continued from previous page) Response to comment 14, beginning on line 16 See the response to comment 10 Response to comment 15, beginning on line 5: The Project Team has met with Tidewater Utilitielatest concept for the Churchtown Road overpass suggested method for providing access to Tidewawill be provided, for the most part, along existing to the north and pass under the Churchtown Road Response to comment 16, beginning on line 10Neither DelDOT nor FHWA can be responsible fbecause of the proximity of a roadway project, anfor such changes in property values. On the othecompensation for FHWA or DelDOT for potentiaoccur because of a highway project. Response to comment 17, beginning on line 12It is anticipated that none of the construction will 

Chesapeake Meadow to cause a vibration that woin the comment. Summary response: A refined Preferred Alternative is presented in thregarding minimization and mitigation of impactDecision which is anticipated to be signed followsubsequent review period. Final engineering and by those commitments, as will construction. Durwill meet with those directly and indirectly affect
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(continued from previous page) Response to Pastor Lasko: Thank you for your statement (see next page)
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

Thank you for your comments. We are pleathe church community to develop an option community. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(this page intentional
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

Response to Wanda James: Thank you for your statement. (begins on next page)
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(continued from previous page) The rationale and justification for the selectirecommended preferred alternative are well-V). The recommendation was based on a bacomparison of the impacts to the natural envthe US, potential bog turtle habitat and fores(property acquisition, relocations, communitcultural resources (physical, noise and visuarestraints of the engineering design (ability tdesign complexity, construction costs) of vaWhen compared to the Green South Alternaenvironmental impacts were that the Green Nand stream impacts and has less potential to dependent wildlife. Green North also has a perpendicular crossing of Scott Run than GrDNREC did not support the Green South AlAlternative represents, in the opinion of the the best solution to the existing need. (continued on next page)
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(continued from previous page) During final design, the elevation of the roadevaluated further in a effort to keep the profiA visual earthen berm is proposed between tminimize visual and noise impacts. During the final design phase, DelDOT will constructing the berm prior to construction oinitial phase in the sequence of constructionDelDOT will continue to evaluate the feasibfinal design. The berm is currently not propobelow-grade. DelDOT is currently in the design phase of (Jamison Corner Road reconstruction, Route Grove Road reconstruction) that are include(refer to DEIS, Chapter I, Section C.5.g.). 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

Response to Thomas Russell: Thank you for your statement. DelDOT did consider and evaluate, during twiden the Summit Bridge to accommodate aroute from US 301 to I-95 and points north aretained for detailed evaluation). The constrcrossing is outside of the scope of this study
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(this page intentional
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(this page intentional
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(this page intentional
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 1. Public Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(this page intentional
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

List of Persons Providing TestimSteven Augusiewicz Jerry Emerson Wayne Usilton Paula Marsilii Karen Wood Gene Alderson Arnold Cohen Martha Denison Stephen Powell 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

Response to Steven Augusiewicz:Thank you for your statement. We will consider your request to move tto your property. We may not be able to requests, because alignments often repreproperties on either side. We will evaluothers of a similar nature, during the finResponse to Jerry EmersonThank you for your statement. (continued) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

Response to Jerry Emerson (continueDelDOT received the map proposing Option during the Public Hearing. [Option 4B is a htraverse the distance between Boyds Corner approximately 1,500 feet east of the alignmeon this map as Option 1)]. DelDOT is commenvironmental resource agencies, the Army farmers, owners and neighbors in the Ratledalignment for this portion of the Green Nortthe greatest extent possible, impacts to activto the wetland area. To this end, representatives from the Ratledgneighborhood, Corps of Engineers, FHWA, News Journal and the Project Team met in threview the existing environment in the vicinup meetings have been held to discuss ongoialignment that would preserve the affected fminimizing impacts to wetlands in the area. As a result of the community’s concerns and proposing the Option 4B Modified alignmenUS 301 in this area. Option 4B Modified escorridor from south of the Cedar Lane SchooWhitehall properties, where it then curves to Road. DelDOT is also proposing a minimizwill compensate for the increased impacts thand forest, in coordination with the resource commitments in the mitigation package are i
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

This page intentional
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

This page intentional
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

Response to Wayne Usilton:Thank you for your statement. Generally, right-of-way acquisition is anticipfollowing receipt of the Record of Decision the Selected Alternative. In the case of hardacquisition will be accomplished following arequest by the Department on a case-by-case We appreciate your preference for the Browhave for preferring it over the Green North ADelDOT’s recommendation of Green North reasons why Brown was not recommended, the DEIS, in the public workshops and publiand in Chapter II of the FEIS. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

Response to Wayne Usilton (continued):Sections of the Preferred Alternative do go twetlands and streams are protected by federof 1972. The Corps of Engineers (ACOE) hwetlands and streams under the Clean Water waters and wetlands. DelDOT must obtain ACOE; their regulations only allow permittidamaging practicable alternative. Their permrigorous review of efforts to first avoid wetlimpact on wetlands; and finally, after makinminimize wetland impacts, provide an accepand compensate for unavoidable impacts. In cooperation with all of the agencies that hProject Development process, the design teawetlands (and other environmental resourcewetlands are impacted, mitigation (usually rprovided Although no bog turtles were found during tsummer of June 2006, some of the areas are occupied and are protected under the federal 

A biological assessment of potential bog turof the project is scheduled for completion by proposed Green North alignment will cross areas on structure. Improvements are programmed to relieve cointerchange, which include the construction SR 1 in both directions, separating through timprovements are scheduled for completion FY 2013 Capital Transportation Program. Tdependant on the availability of state and fedwas designed to relieve existing congestion volumes. The potential diversion of US 301 during the design of the new interchange imon I-95 from SR 1 to SR 141 is currently un(continued on next page) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(continued from previous page) The volume of traffic projected to use the Suthe Green Alternative with the Spur Road is condition the volume is 65,000. Therefore, Road is projected to provide some relief to tWhile both of these projections represent a sdaily volume of 26,300, the level of service projected to be LOS D during peak hours wiwhich is still considered acceptable. We appreciate your concern and your requesimpacts to your property. We may not be abrequests, because alignments often represent on either side. We will evaluate your requesnature, during the next phase of design. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

Response to Paula Marsilii:Thank you for your statement. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

Response to Paula Marsilii (continued):Generally, right-of-way acquisition is anticipfollowing the receipt of the Record of Decisof the Selected Alternative. In the case of h

acquisition will be accomplished following arequest by the Department on a case-by-case DelDOT’s Real Estate group will be workinproperty owners to achieve a fair and equitayour property and to provide relocation assisWe anticipate completion of the FEIS in the issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD), eway acquisition is estimated to take up to foconstruction following, beginning in 2012. to 10 years to complete depending on fundin
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

This page intentional
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(continued from previous page)DelDOT is reviewing the impacts to your nepotential to minimize the impacts of the new property does not meet the criteria for noise berm, which would provide a measure of noconsidered for your property because of righelevation and/or cost constraints. Changes in drainage designs/stormwater maduring final design may affect the property benvisioned. DelDOT will continue to coordfinal design process. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

Response to Karen Wood:Thank you for your statement. Studies on the reduction of noise from the mconstruction have shown that the decrease in range that is not discernable by the human esuch approaches as raised concrete aggregatpavement wear and voids fill and the initial screening, either living or constructed, is boteffective in addressing noise and will be impalternative. Other roadway construction elements that mstrips, may be installed for safety purposes atoll facilities, should traditional toll collectio
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

Response to Karen Wood (continued):DelDOT prefers the Green North Alternativyour property or the Augustine Creek Natur
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(this page intentional
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(continued from previous)Response to Karen Wood (continued):Following the completion of the FEIS, recei(ROD) from FHWA and the announcement project, the DelDOT will proceed with rightengineering, which will likely take up to foubegin in 2011, and last 4-5 years under ideal Construction may take up to 10 years if limiconstruction. DelDOT will continue to interact with propethroughout the balance of the planning proceway. The preferred roadway material is concrete, life. Although concrete is the material of chbe feasible throughout the length of the projmaterial. Other materials, such as asphalt, mshown that asphalt roadways do not generate of asphalt paving is not considered when evaOther roadway construction elements, such safety purposes and in conjunction with toll collection facilities be provided. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

Response to Gene Alderson:Thank you for your statement. DelDOT will evaluate the feasibility of exteengineering. The berm is currently not propobelow-grade. Landscaping will be determined during final visual earth berms will be landscaped. Response to Arnold Cohen: Thank you for your statement. The improvements you suggest are outside t
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

This page intentional
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

Response to Martha Denison:Thank you for your statement. The Red Alternative, which followed the ridC&D Canal on the Summit Bridge, was evabut was not retained for detailed evaluation. Alternative included: • it does not accommodate the 65% of traf

points to the northeast 

• it would require additional lanes on the S

increased traffic volumes 

• it did not provide direct access to SR 1 • it would have required major improveme

and tie-in to Old Baltimore Pike 

• it had identified impacts to Section 4(f) r• it would have been the costliest to constr• required the most difficult maintenance o

travelers during construction. 

The full explanation for nor retaining the ReSection II.B.2.a. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

Response to Martha Denison (continued):DelDOT is providing a limited-access roadwprovide increased safety by taking many of tthrough developments. By routing much of the through traffic from eliminated the need for improvements to the I-95/SR 1 interchange improvements should 301 is completed. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

Response to Stephen Powell:Please see the response to Andye Daley, PubThank you for your statement. Response to comment 1, beginning on line The purpose of the Spur Road is to better managWestown area destined for Glasgow, Newark and traffic currently on existing US 301 near the Mtraffic on local roads such as existing US 30congestion and improving safety. Surveys of current traffic show that 65% of northeast (SR 1), 35% of northbound US 301 trof the long distance or interstate trucks are going (2030) support the need for a new 4-lane US 30traffic projected to use the Spur Road includinterchange (southern Middletown area, includin4% is from other locations The Spur Road significantly reduces traffic on 6,200 vehicles per day) and on existing US 301 to non-spur options, in year 2030. The Spuundivided roads (Choptank Road and US 301) an– divided roadways typically have lower accideadditional opportunities in addressing the sharp cSummit Bridge. The Spur Road will also provicarry traffic in the event of a major incident (closThe Project Team presented a Spur Road osignalized intersections with major local croSchoolhouse Road and Churchtown Road). Ho

the public and New Castle County opposing additional local access would accelerate proposenew development in areas to the west of the development. DelDOT considers the cost of the Spur Road appthrough traffic (especially truck traffic) that will vehicular traffic and increase safety on local roadThe Spur Road will also serve southern Middletofuture improvements to Choptank Road and exist(continued on next page) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(continued from previous page) Response to comment 2, beginning on line 20 oThe current design does not impact the Chesapeaponds. Response to comment 3, line 2: The highest elevation on the Churchtown Road oelevation 77. The elevation of the backyards of 1approximately elevation 55 and 53.5, respectivelywill be approximately 22 feet above the elevation and located approximately 1,200 feet from the ovstructure will be approximately 23.5 feet above thDen Court and located approximately 1,000 feet to 102 Fox Den Court, new Churchtown Road wielevation. Adjacent to 104 Fox Den Court, new Capproximately 6 feet closer and approximately 2 Churchtown Road. Potential partial property acquisitions are noted in relocations; however, only potential relocations aSpecifically, as a result of their attendance at a mcommunity on the US 301 Project Development Den Court were provided information on the poteoverpass will not result in a taking of any propertproperty owners at 104 Fox Den Court have not bslightly more than 0.1 acre from their property. The potential takings of community open space dstormwater management ponds located there. Mnoted in the DEIS that were required for the overDesign and minimization efforts since the DEIS hproperty acquisitions along Fox Den Court, and rsouth side of Churchtown Road. The entryway will not be affected by the overpasChurchtown Road will begin west of the entranceBased on the level of information we have at this Churchtown Road improvements. Along the noranticipated impacts involve the community’s combeing able to avoid any individual residential proChurchtown Road, we have significantly reduced Churchtown Road. However, temporary construlikely be needed. In addition, some property from (continued on next page) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

This page intentionally left blank 

(continued from previous page) need to be acquired to tie existing Churchtown RAccess to all four properties will be continuously Response to comment 4, beginning on line 7, pThe Project Team has met with Tidewater Utilitielatest concept for the Churchtown Road overpass suggested method for providing access to Tidewawill be provided, for the most part, along existing to the north and pass under the Churchtown Road Response to comment 5, beginning on line 12, This comment suggests improving US 301 from Pleasant and eliminating the Spur Road. Howevewiden existing US 301 from Peterson Road to Mdeleted. Improvements would include adding ona continuous left turn lane and a raised median or Widening would occur primarily along the west sapproximately 55 feet of additional right-of-way corridor. On the east side, approximately 20 feet In locations of existing Section 4(f) historic resouN05153; Armstrong-Walker House, CRS N0514N05242), the roadway would be shifted to avoid shifts would require additional ROW from the ophas considered this option and believes it is not thtotal cost of this option is approximately $67-$83 preferred Spur Road cost of approximately $105-the project purpose and need: o Results in more traffic on local roads (e.g. C

among others) 

o Results in higher accident rates/actual accid

type roads, signalized/unsignalized intersect

o Results in mixing through truck traffic with 

Corner Road to Summit Bridge (reference tw4 fatalities – (both involved 18-wheelers) anUS 310/SR 896 and Old Summit Bridge Ro

o Results in reduced traffic at the toll plaza ju

revenues to fund new US 301 and the Spur Rtraffic to local roads in DE and MD. 

o Results in significant property impacts along 

to the need to widen existing US 301 from P

Partial Impacts to Businesses: Burger King, 

Nu-Car Connection, Middletown Medical P

Landscaping, Tri State Materials, Cooper W
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(continued from previous page) 

Guardian Fence Company, Rollins Metal WCycle, Shops of Mt. Pleasant 

 Total Takes of Businesses: Ringold Chapel 

Madic, Inc., KO’s Cleaning 

 Partial Impacts to Homes: 3 plus impacts to 

 Total Takes of Homes: 9 

 Plus impacts to additional vacant or farmed 

The Recommended Spur Road does not require 

relocations.

Response to comment 6, beginning on line 7: DelDOT will continue to consider the feasibility 

the east side of the Spur Road. Changes to the tyan adjustment of the width of the median or reduprovide some additional outside width and includway without additional property acquisition. 

Response to comment 7, beginning on line Under the current design and based upon the leveChurchtown Road would not be closed during coover the Spur Road. The new Churchtown Road north of the existing roadway, with retaining walto remain open in both directions during construcbe intermittent lane closures to allow for construcas is typical with any roadway construction. Accmaintained and they will not be acquired for the pDuring construction of the overpass, it may be neChurchtown Road while a section of retaining waof new Churchtown Road. During this period, thcontinuous access could be maintained. It is curr

maintained continuously on Churchtown Road dudiverted as noted in the comment above. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 

(Continued from previous page)Response to comment 8, beginning on line 9: The recommended Spur Road includes a “Y” typwhich has been developed in accordance with cinterchange has been analyzed and is projecteservice in design year 2030. Daily traffic on Suprojected to be 59,500 vehicles per day with new projected volume on the Summit Bridge is 53,9but without the Spur Road, a difference of less thregardless of the alternative, including the MiddGreen North without the preferred Spur Road, thto use Summit Bridge. The volume of traffic projected to use the SummiAlternative with the Spur Road is 59,500; under tis 53,900 and under the No-Build, 65,000. ThereSpur Road is projected to provide some relief to tWhile both of these projections represent a signifvolume of 26,300, the level of service (LOS) on SD during peak hours with the Green with the Spuacceptable. The ability to provide capacity improvements northe dualization of US 301/SR 896 that was compneeded north of the bridge, it can be built within bridge to US 40 and with the acquisition of right-that scenario, the Summit Bridge would indeed b
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 2. Private Testimony – January 8, 2007 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response to Pastor Edward Lasko:Thank you for your comment; we acknowledge the r

herein). 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

(this page intentionally 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response to Pam Sowden:Thank you for your comment.
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response to Helen Tyler:Thank you for your comment. We appreciate your preference for the Blue Alternatpreferring it over the Green North Alternative. The recommendation of Green North as the preferred altother alternatives were not recommended, are documthe public workshops and public hearings displays athe FEIS. The reasons for not retaining the Blue AltUS 301 Project Development: Alternatives Retained November 2005), which received concurrence from available for review upon request. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response to Julia:Thank you for your comment. We have worked with the community and the resourdevelop an option (4B Modified) that will avoid the 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response:The elevation of the Purple Alternative is required wnear Armstrong Corner Road, crossing the Norfolk-Boyds Corner Road (two places) and at the ramps to from both an engineering standpoint and a maintenathe existing facilities. The implementation of an alternative, other than the decrease in drive-by traffic for businesses along exisresulting in negative effects to existing businesses. IAlternative would result in increased congestion whlocal businesses. A limited access highway, regardless of the alternatithinking process by drivers of through traffic regardbusinesses. However, while some business losses franticipated, the increased ability for local trips to ac

the growth in the area is anticipated to actually provbusinesses. With the decreased congestion that resutraffic from the local roadways, it is expected that buaccess roadway would be negligible and that some bby the improved local access and reduced congestion
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response to Jim Young:Thank you for your comment. We will consider your request to move the alignmenWe may not be able to accommodate all of these reqrepresent a trade-off of impacts to properties on eithrequest, as well as others of a similar nature, during project. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response to Jack Holaman:Thank you for your comment.
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response to Grey Matthews:Thank you for your comment.
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response:Thank you for your comment.
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response to Catherine L. and J. Michael Short:Thank you for your comment.
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response to Benj. Pleasanton:Thank you for your comment.
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response to Ron Czajkowski:Thank you for your comment; a copy of the map waJanuary 8, 2007 meeting.
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Typed for readability: Living in MD and doing most of my shopping in MiLocal 301 without having to pay a toll. Hopefully with EZ Pass it would be possible to deduinterchange. Response to Russell Brown:Access to local US 301 will still be available using eWarwick Road, Strawberry Lane and the Levels Roa
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response:Thank you for your comment. We appreciate your preference for the Brown Alternpreferring it over the Green North Alternative. The recommendation of Green North as the preferred altother alternatives were not recommended, are documthe public workshops and public hearings displays athe FEIS. DelDOT’s reasons for not preferring the Brown Alte• Major impact to Summit Airport • Greatest impact to communities at the base of Su

3-level interchange 

• Greatest impacts to high quality wetlands • Considerable opposition from those expressing a

community meetings 

The Green Alternative crosses both Armstrong Corn
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response to Don Wilt:Thank you for your comment. We appreciate your preference for the Yellow Alternpreferring it over the Green North Alternative. The recommendation of Green North as the preferred altother alternatives were not recommended, are documthe public workshops and public hearings displays athe FEIS. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Typed for readability: “I agree with the green alternative North plans as the seems to have the lease [sic] impact on housing and Response:Thank you for your comment.
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response to Jessica Reagle:Thank you for your comment.
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response:Thank you for your comment.
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response:Thank you for your comment.
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Responseto Scott Burkley:Thank you for your comment.
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response to Wanda James:(See also Section D Public Testimony – January 8, 2Thank you for your comment. The rationale and justification for the selection of Grecommended preferred alternative are well-documerecommendation was based on a balanced overview the impacts to the natural environment (wetlands and turtle habitat and forests), social and economic imparelocations, community and community facilities), cand visual effects) and the feasibility and restraints omeet project purpose and need, design complexity, celements of the roadway. When compared to the Gdifferences in environmental impacts were that the Gforest and stream impacts and has less potential to ddependent wildlife. Green North also has a single, scrossing of Scott Run than Green South. The Green additional crossing of Scott Run. For these reasons, South Alternative. The Green North Alternative represource and regulatory agencies, the best solution to During final design, the elevation of the roadway in further in a effort to keep the profile as low as reasonberm is proposed between the community and new Unoise impacts. During the final design phase, DelDOT will evaluate berm prior to construction of the roadway or as a pasequence of construction. DelDOT will continue to evaluate the feasibility of edesign. The berm is currently not proposed where th
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response to Dana Adlesic:Thank you for your comment.
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response to Jeffrey Smith:Thank you for your comment. We have worked with the community and the resourdevelop an option (4B Modified) that will avoid the 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response to Emily Smith:Thank you for your comment. We have worked with the community and the resourdevelop an option (4B Modified) that will avoid the 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Typed comment for readability: Is there serious consideration being given to the road 

due to expansion strips and rumble strips? This noise, if there, can carry great distances. Response to Gregory Gaden:Thank you for your comment. The preferred roadway material is concrete, based uAlthough concrete is the material of choice, concrete throughout the length of the project due to increasinmaterials, such as asphalt, may be used. Although sroadways do not generate as much noise as concreteconsidered when evaluating noise abatement. Other roadway construction elements, such as rumbpurposes and in conjunction with toll facilities, shoufacilities be provided. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response to Stephen Powell:See also the response to Stephen Powell – Private TestimoThank you for your comment. Response to comment 1: Noise analysis for the US 301 project follows the national DelDOT Noise Policy, and use the Design Noise Level of 

sensitive receptors such as those in the project area, as listAnalysis Display from the January 8 and 9, 2007 Public Hattendees at the Hearing, provided information regarding FThe FHWA Design Noise Levels are as follows (refer to D

• Activity Category A: Design Noise Level 57 dBA Leq

and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is purpose. 

• Activity Category B: Design Noise Level 67 dBA Leq

hotels, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, picnic ar

active sports areas, and parks. 

• Activity Category C: Design Noise Level 72 dBA Leq

properties or activities not included in categories A and 

• Activity Category D: (no level assigned) Undeveloped • Activity Category E: Design Noise Level 52 dBA Leq

hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, librar

DelDOT considers noise mitigation when either of the fol

• predicted design-year noise levels exceed existing nois

regardless of overall noise level or 

• predicted design-year noise levels approach or exceed 

Design Noise Levels listed above; i.e. FHWA and Del

for Category B when the design-year noise level would 

In the noise analysis, Chesapeake Meadow was identified 

under Activity Category B of the FHWA Noise Abatemenwere measured at 47 dBA for both primary Chesapeake MCourt) and CM-3 (26 Meadow Lane). Existing noise leveCourt/Churchtown Road (102 Fox Den Court) were projecnoise levels are influenced mainly by local activity. Desigshow an increase from 5 to 13 dBA above existing noise lMeadow. Receptor CM-3 is in the rear yards of the prope(continued on next page) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

(continued from previous page) community, and shows the greatest predicted noise increases. These increases are measured and predicted without accounting for the proposed visual earth berm. These noise levels were assessed according to FHWA NAC. Year 2030 noise levels along the west row of residences, within Chesapeake Meadow, would exceed federal guidelines at eleven properties. Year 2030 noise levels along the south row of residences (Fox Den Court), within Chesapeake Meadow, would not exceed federal guidelines, with the anticipated increase of 4dBA over existing noise levels, and no increase when compared to year 2030 No-Build. Noise mitigation options were analyzed, but none was found to be cost-effective, as defined under 

DelDOT’s noise policy (approved by FHWA). Although the criteria for the construction of a noise barrier or berm in this location are not met, DelDOT has committed to constructing a visual screening earth berm (11 feet high by 1,600 feet long) between the community and the Spur Road 

(including not only the affected residences along Meadow Lane, but extending beyond to the southern end of the community). The length of the berm is limited on the south by Tidewater Utilities and on the north by Back Creek. The presence of this visual berm would also be beneficial to the community with regard to noise, reducing noise increases to only 1 dBA at the Deerfield Drive location and a 5 dBA increase at meadow Lane. The relationship between decibel increases and the actual volume of noise is a complicated one. The ability of the human ear to perceive a change in noise is limited. A 3 dBA increase is generally 

“barely perceptible” and a 5 dBA increase is considered “recognizable” or “noticeable”. Also, while a 10 dBA increase is a 10-fold increase in power, it is only a perceived doubling of the volume to the human ear. Response to comment 2 (previous page) 

Neither DelDOT nor FHWA can be responsible for any decrease in property values because of the proximity of a roadway project, and there is no compensation available for such changes in property values. On the other hand, there is equally no compensation for FHWA or DelDOT for potential increases in property values that may occur because of a highway project. Response to comment 3 (previous page) The proposed berm would be 11 feet high in this location; continuous safety fencing will also be installed on both sides of the Spur Road to prevent pedestrian access to the highway. Response to comment 4 (previous page) With the Green Alternative plus the Spur Road, the average number of daily vehicles projected to use Choptank Road north of Churchtown Road would be 5,400, approximately 57% less in 2030 than with the No Spur Road condition (14,500). Additionally, the average daily traffic on existing US 301/SR 896 is projected to be 1/4 less with the Green plus Spur Alternative (27,900) than with the No Spur Road condition (37,200). (continued on next page)

(continued from previous page) Throughout the US 301 Project Development effort, the ppotential effects of toll diversions on local communities anpotential effects. Two different working groups, which in

community leaders, law enforcement, local elected officiarepresentatives from the Maryland State Highway Adminiprocess. These working groups were primarily focused on and developed a series of recommendations to help managcombination of truck restrictions on local roads and targetThe working groups also examined the potential for passefacilities. Based on the toll rates assumed in our analysesprojected to be significant, with the exception of the area ostate line). Additional measures are being considered for traffic diversions. These efforts are detailed in the FEIS, CWith regard to traffic using SR 15 (Choptank Road/Bethtolls, it is in the best interests of DelDOT to entice traffic the toll road will result in more revenue and a more fDelDOT will work to establish a tolling structure and diversions to alternate routes (including Choptank Road), new toll facility. Clearly, it would not be in the best i

features on this new facility that discouraged its use and re

Response to comment 5 (next page) The recommended Spur Road includes a “Y” type interchas been developed in accordance with current DelDOT 

been analyzed and is projected to operate at a satisfactorDaily traffic on Summit Bridge, in Design Year 2030, is with new US 301 and the Spur Road, while the projec53,900 vehicles per day with new US 301, but without t10%. Traffic projections show that regardless of the Corridor Coalition’s suggested Green North without consistently high traffic demand to use Summit Bridge. The volume of traffic projected to use the Summit Bridge Alternative with the Spur Road is 59,500; under the No Sp53,900 and under the No-Build, 65,000. Therefore, the Gprojected to provide some relief to traffic on Summit Bridprojections represent a significant increase over existing dservice (LOS) on Summit Bridge is projected to be LOS D with the Spur Road, which is still considered acceptable. The ability to provide capacity improvements north of Sum(continued on next page) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

(continued from previous page) dualization of US 301/SR 896 that was completed in the 1of the bridge, it can be built within the existing right-of-wthe acquisition of right-of-way between US 40 and I-95. Iwould indeed be the bottleneck. Response to comment 6 The purpose of the Spur Road is to better manage traffic area destined for Glasgow, Newark and points north (apon existing US 301 near the Maryland line). The Spur was existing US 301 and Choptank Road, thus reducing conSurveys of current traffic show that 65% of northbound U35% of northbound US 301 traffic is going north (SR inter-state trucks are going northeast (SR 1). Traffic projections (2030) support the need for a new 4Northbound traffic projected to use the Spur Road inclinterchange (southern Middletown area, including Westofrom other locations The Spur Road significantly reduces traffic on Choptavehicles per day) and on existing US 301 (by 25% - 37options, in year 2030. The Spur Road draws traffic awaRoad and US 301) and places it on a divided roadway (Slower accident rates. And, the Spur Road provides addsharp curve and traffic signal at the base of the Summit Banother north-south route that could carry traffic in the evor US 301, or evacuation). The Project Team presented a Spur Road option that provmajor local cross roads (Old School House Road and Chwere received from the public and New Castle County opthe additional local access would accelerate proposed de

development in areas to the west of the Spur Road that are DelDOT considers the cost of the Spur Road appropriate ttraffic (especially truck traffic) that will separate this traffincrease safety on local roadways, thus benefiting local resouthern Middletown, as well as decrease the need for futuand existing US 301. (continued on next page) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

(continued from previous page) Response to proposed solution one: This comment suggests improving US 301 from Armstrong Corner Road to Mount Pleasant and eliminating the Spur Road. However, traffic analysis suggests the need to widen existing US 301 from Peterson Road to Mount Pleasant, should the Spur Road be deleted. Improvements would 

include adding one additional lane in each direction plus a continuous left turn lane and a raised median or additional left turn lane as necessary. Widening would occur primarily along the west side of the roadway, and would require approximately 55 feet of additional right-of-way (ROW) along the west side of the corridor. On the east side, approximately 20 feet of additional ROW 

would be required. In locations of existing Section 4(f) historic resources (RG Hayes House, CRS 

Number N05153; ArmstrongWalker House, CRS N05146, and Mt. Pleasant Farm, CRS N05242), 

the roadway would be shifted to avoid impact to these properties. These shifts would require additional ROW from the opposite sides of the roadway. DelDOT has considered this option and believes it is not the most prudent approach. While the total cost of this option is approximately $67-$83 million, less than the estimated preferred Spur Road cost of approximately $105-$120 million, it does NOT fully meet the project purpose and need: 

o Results in more traffic on local roads (e.g. Choptank Road and existing US 301, among others)o Results in higher accident rates/actual accidents, because of more traffic on lower type roads, 

signalized/unsignalized intersections and numerous access points 

o Results in mixing through truck traffic with local traffic from north of Armstrong Corner Road 

to Summit Bridge (reference two recent accidents near DE/MD line – 4 fatalities – (both involved 18-wheelers) and the most recent accident/fatality at US 310/SR 896 and Old Summit Bridge Road.. 

o Results in reduced traffic at the toll plaza just north of the state line – less toll revenues to fund 

new US 301 and the Spur Road and results in diversion of truck traffic to local roads in DE and MD. 

o Results in significant property impacts along existing US 301, as noted below, due to the need 

to widen existing US 301 from Peterson Road to Mount Pleasant. Partial Impacts to Businesses: Burger King, Summit Plaza, Middletown Chevy, Nu-Car 

Connection, Middletown Medical Professional Bldg, Ciamaricone’s Landscaping, Tri State Materials, Cooper Wilbert Vault Company, Mr. Mulch, Guardian Fence Company, Rollins Metal Works, Keenan Auto Body Shop , 301 Cycle, Shops of Mt. Pleasant 

 Total Takes of Businesses: Ringold Chapel AME, Logullo’s Country Market, M. Madic, Inc., 

KO’s Cleaning 

 Partial Impacts to Homes: 3 plus impacts to Middletown Village and Springmill 

 Total Takes of Homes: 9 

 Plus impacts to additional vacant or farmed residential/commercial properties 

The Recommended Spur Road does not require taking any residential homes or businesses.

DelDOT will continue to consider the feasibility of adding a greenway trail adjacent to the east side of the Spur Road. Changes to the typical section of the Spur Road, such as an adjustment of the width of the median or reduced clearances could be evaluated to provide some additional outside width and include the proposed trail within the right-of-way without additional property acquisition.Response to proposed solution two: DelDOT would like to note the following with respect to the proposed Spur Road in the vicinity (continued on next page) 

(continued from previous page) of the Chesapeake Meadow community. An 11’x 1,600’ lthe Spur Road and Chesapeake Meadow. Approximately would remain between the bottom of the earth berm (comline at Chesapeake Meadow. This additional open space 

Road being shifted to the west as it passes Chesapeake Melanes actually fall outside of the DelDOT-owned right-of-room for an earth berm, as well as to shift the roadway as reasonably possible. The strip of property directly to the wby DelDOT, is approximately 2,200 feet in length and varto 350 feet on the north end. As a result of this westerly sadditional strip of property adjacent to the DelDOT-owneand 200 feet wide. Suggestions have been received from impacted property o

requesting DelDOT look at moving the alignment to avoid from those in Chesapeake Meadow to move the corridor fby the owners of the farms west of the proposed Spur Roamoved further to the east and closer to the vicinity of Checannot be accommodated, and the roadway has already beMeadow community to provide the distance needed to concommunity. For those on both sides of the roadway, additbeing considered at this time. However, we will review thfinal design and evaluate the potential to shift the alignmesection, which could potentially lower impacts on both sid

With regard to the overpass of Churchtown Road: (1) Under the current design and based upon the level of iChurchtown Road would not be closed during constructioSpur Road. The new Churchtown Road overpass would bexisting roadway, with retaining walls to allow existing Cboth directions during construction. There however most to allow for construction adjacent to the existing roadway construction. Access to Tidewater Utilities will be maintathe project. During construction of the overpass, it may be necessary twhile a section of retaining wall is constructed along the sDuring this period, the contractors would use flaggers so tmaintained. It is currently anticipated that traffic will be mChurchtown Road during construction and will not be divFinally, the highest elevation on the Churchtown Road ov77. The elevation of the backyards of 102 and 104 Fox D (continued on next page) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

(continued from previous page) 55 and 53.5, respectively. As a result, the overpass structu

the elevation of the backyard of 102 Fox Den Court and lothe overpass high point. The overpass structure will be apelevation of the backyard of 104 Fox Den Court and locatoverpass high point. Adjacent to 102 Fox Den Court, new existing location and elevation. Adjacent to 104 Fox Den located approximately 6 feet closer and approximately 2 fRoad. Based on the level of information we have at this time, no Churchtown Road improvements. Along the north side of anticipated impacts involve only the community’s commoable to avoid any individual residential property takings. we have significantly reduced the impact on 838, 842, 852 However, temporary construction easement along these paaddition, some property from 852 and 858 Churchtown Rexisting Churchtown Road into New Churchtown Road. Acontinuously maintained. The Project Team has also relocated the previously propothe 858 Churchtown Road property to DelDOT property lRoad. Finally, the alignment of New Churchtown Road, eslightly to the north, to minimize impacts on the wetlands the Zapata property. (2) The current design does not impact the Chesapeake M(3) A landscaping plan will be prepared during the projec

of the existing berm and trees adjacent to the new US 301Potential partial property acquisitions are noted in the DEIhowever, only potential relocations are specifically identifattendance at a meeting of the Chesapeake Meadow comm

Development effort, the property owners at 102 Fox Den the potential impact on their property. The overpass will nfrom 100 Fox Den Court. The property owners at 104 Fothe potential taking of slightly more than 0.1 acre from thecommunity open space do not impact the community stormthere. Many of these partial property acquisitions noted in eliminated. As noted previously, design and minimization 

eliminated any individual property acquisitions along Fox property impacts on the south side of Churchtown Road.  (continued on following page)
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

(continued from previous page) The entryway will not be affected by the overpass since thwill begin west of the entrance.  (4) 102 Fox Den Court is located at the extreme southern 

would not be impacted by traffic noise from the Spur Roaa projected increase of 10dBA or a noise level that approainfluence to 102 Fox Den Court is Churchtown Road, whisince the distance to the Spur road ranges from approximato 1,200 feet at the east property line. With no southern exraised Churchtown Road, 102 Fox Den is only minimally Road. Thus, although noise levels were modeled accountisources to the property, including the Spur Road, Churchtrelevant noise source. The current daily volume of traffic on Churchtown Road i(vpd). Under the Green North and No-Spur Road scenariofrom 50 dBA (existing, modeled) to 54 dBA. Under Greevolumes on Churchtown Road are less (3,700 vpd) than Gbut design-year noise levels are predicted to be the same aChurchtown Road being raised is actually reduced slightly to east-bound traffic on Churchtown Road being slightly rRoad results in a minor increase in the design-year noise llevel at 102 Fox Den Court being the same, with or withou(5) See response to number 1 (6) The Project Team has met with Tidewater Utilities, wlatest concept for the Churchtown Road overpass of the Spmethod for providing access to Tidewater’s facility and opthe most part, along existing Churchtown Road, which wiChurchtown Road overpass bridge. (7) Neither DelDOT nor FHWA can be responsible for anof the proximity of a roadway project, and there is no comproperty values. On the other hand, there is equally no copotential increases in property values that may occur beca(8) It is anticipated that none of the construction will be cMeadow to cause a vibration that would cause a problem 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response to Susan Squire:Thank you for you comment.
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response to Scott Kirchner:Thank you for your comment. For additional informStephen Powell, pages 30 to 36 of this section. (1) In the process that was used for the US 301 Project Deover time. Alternatives are proposed and eliminated (like change (the addition of the spur to the Purple and Green Aanalysis and public and agency input. The public was informed of the Range of Alternatives, the Recommended Preferred Alternative and the Preferred Al(including a north and south option) has been under considprocess and the Green + Spur option has been under consithe Retained Alternatives were announced. The addition opublic at the December 2005 public workshops, was preseFebruary 2006 “Issues” workshop, including its Purpose aApril 2006 public workshops. The Green North + Spur wAlternative announced by DelDOT in November 2006, as as such at the January 2007 Combined Location-Design Pevery workshop/hearing, the Project Team mailed extensileaders including those from Chesapeake Meadow. DelD“no spur” position as a result of the comments and petitioncomment periods, including those from residents in ChesaThe Spur Road was added because: (1) it balances the available capacities of the Summit Bridcrossings of the C&D Canal; (2) its addition provided flexibility in addressing the sharp 

Summit Bridge at the intersection of SR 896, US 301, and (3) it will accommodate the 35% of through traffic that waDestination Survey, and confirmed by traffic projections, north, while the US 301 mainline will accommodate the 6I-95 and points to the northeast. 

(2) Potential partial property acquisitions are noted in the 

however, only potential relocations are specifically identifattendance at a meeting of the Chesapeake Meadow comm

Development effort, the property owners at 102 Fox Den the potential impact on their property. The overpass will nfrom 100 Fox Den Court. The property owners at 104 Fothe potential taking of slightly more than 0.1 acre from thecommunity open space do not impact the community stormthere. Many of these partial property acquisitions noted in eliminated. As noted previously, design and minimization 

(continued on next page) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

(continued from previous page) eliminated any individual property acquisitions along Fox Den Court, and reduced partial property 

impacts on the south side of Churchtown Road. (3) Noise analysis for the US 301 project follows the national requirements of the FHWA and the DelDOT Noise Policy, and use the Design Noise Level of 67dBA (Activity Category B) for 

sensitive receptors such as those in the project area, as listed below. (The handout/Noise Analysis Display from the January 8 and 9, 2007 Public Hearing, which were handed to all attendees at the Hearing, provided information regarding FHWA and DelDOT noise policies.) The FHWA Design Noise Levels are as follows (refer to DEIS, page III-65, Table III-31): • Activity Category A: Design Noise Level 57 dBA Leq(h) (exterior) Land on which serenity and 

quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need, and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose.

• Activity Category B: Design Noise Level 67 dBA Leq(h) (exterior) Residences, motels, hotels, 

schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports 

areas, and parks. 

• Activity Category C: Design Noise Level 72 dBA Leq(h) (exterior) Developed lands, properties 

or activities not included in categories A and B above. 

• Activity Category D: (no level assigned) Undeveloped lands. • Activity Category E: Design Noise Level 52 dBA Leq(h) (interior) Residences, motels, hotels, 

public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals and auditoriums. 

DelDOT considers noise mitigation when either of the following conditions is satisfied: 

• predicted design-year noise levels exceed existing noise levels by 10 dBA or greater, regardless 

of overall noise level or 

• predicted design-year noise levels approach or exceed the FHWA’s Noise Abatement Criteria 

Design Noise Levels listed above; i.e. FHWA and DelDOT consider a noise impact to occur for Category B when the design-year noise level would be 66 dBA or greater. 

In the noise analysis, Chesapeake Meadow was identified as a noise-sensitive land use (NSA) under Activity Category B of the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). Existing noise levels were measured at 47 dBA for both primary Chesapeake Meadow receptors CM-1 (208 Deerfield Court) and CM-3 (26 Meadow Lane). Existing noise levels at the property lines along Fox Den Court/Churchtown Road (102 Fox Den Court) were projected at 50 dBA. Current community noise levels are influenced mainly by local activity. Design year noise level predictions for 2030 show an 

increase from 5 to 13 dBA above existing noise levels in the west portion of Chesapeake Meadow. Receptor CM-3 is in the rear yards of the properties on the west side of the community, and shows the greatest predicted noise increases. These increases are measured and predicted without accounting for the proposed visual earth berm. These noise levels were assessed according to FHWA NAC. Year 2030 noise levels along the west row of residences, within Chesapeake Meadow, would exceed federal guidelines at 11 properties. Year 2030 noise levels along the south row of residences (Fox Den Court), within Chesapeake 

Meadow, would not exceed federal guidelines, with the anticipated increase of 4dBA over existing (continued on next page)

(continued from previous page) noise levels, and no increase when compared to year 2030 The current daily volume of traffic on Churchtown Road i(vpd). Under the Green North and No-Spur Road scenariofrom 50 dBA (existing, modeled) to 54 dBA. Under Greevolumes on Churchtown Road are less (3,700 vpd) than Gbut design-year noise levels are predicted to be the same aChurchtown Road being raised is actually reduced slightly to east-bound traffic on Churchtown Road being slightly rRoad results in a minor increase in the design-year noise llevel at 102 Fox Den Court being the same, with or withou102 Fox Den Court is located at the extreme southern end not be impacted by traffic noise from the Spur Road, i.e. t

projected increase of 10dBA or a noise level that approach

influence to 102 Fox Den Court is Churchtown Road, whisince the distance to the Spur road ranges from approximato 1,200 feet at the east property line. With no southern exraised Churchtown Road, 102 Fox Den is only minimally Road. Thus, although noise levels were modeled accountisources to the property, including the Spur Road, Churchtrelevant noise source. (4) The recommended Spur Road includes a “Y” type intewhich has been developed in accordance with current Delinterchange has been analyzed and is projected to operate 

design year 2030. Daily traffic on Summit Bridge, in Des59,500 vehicles per day with new US 301 and the Spur Ro

Summit Bridge is 53,900 vehicles per day with new US 30difference of less than 10%. Traffic projections show that the Middletown Corridor Coalition’s suggested Green Nothere is a consistently high traffic demand to use Summit B

The volume of traffic projected to use the Summit Bridge Alternative with the Spur Road is 59,500; under the No Sp53,900 and under the No-Build, 65,000. Therefore, the Gprojected to provide some relief to traffic on Summit Bridprojections represent a significant increase over existing dservice (LOS) on Summit Bridge is projected to be LOS D with the Spur Road, which is still considered acceptable. The ability to provide capacity improvements north of Sumdualization of US 301/SR 896 that was completed in the 1of the bridge, it can be built within the existing right-of-wthe acquisition of right-of-way between US 40 and I-95. Iwould indeed be the bottleneck.
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response to Christine Burnett:Pease see the previous responses to Stephen Powell, Scott Kirchner, pages 37 and 38 of this section. Thank you for your comment. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

This page intentionally 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response to Charles Weymouth:Thank you for submitting the written text of your or8, 2007 in the public testimony forum. Responses to that section, Section 1, pages 2-4).
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 3. Comments received at the Public Hearing January 8, 2007 

Response to Horace and Lois Houston:Thank you for your comments. (1): Earthen berms of appropriate size are proposed Chesapeake Meadow, Middletown Village, Springmvisual screening from the new US 301; these berms attenuation for residents of those communities. Durdevelopment of the roadway profile, efforts will condepressing the roadway wherever the soils and drainfacilitate this, taking local roads over the new US 30development of the alternatives.  (2): We acknowledge the potential noise, visual and on existing homes. However, traffic studies show thincreased traffic on US 301/SR 896 between ArmstrBridge would require roadway improvements such alanes south of Mount Pleasant. The studies also shoChoptank Road would be almost tripled from existinwhich could lead to the necessity of further wideninTherefore, if the Spur is not built, there is a potentiabusinesses on Choptank Road and existing US 301/Sproposed as a limited access, two-lane roadway with along the lines of a parkway rather than a major high(3): There are no potential impacts to the New CoveAlternative, which is preferred. Options are also evaavoid the potential impacts associated with the Yello
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 1 of 65 

List of Persons providing Testimony: 

Richard Wooleyhan 

Jennifer Goff 

Edith Carroll 

Anna Wooleyhan 

Dave Goff 

Mark Carroll 

Steve Carroll 

Chuck Ott 

Janice Biddle 

Loraine Green 

Representative Cathcart 

Senator Amick 

Wayne Usilton 

Susan Love 

Jorge Velasquez 

NOTE 1: 

Pages 2-37 of “In re: US 301 Project Development Public Hearing” 

text has not been reproduced in this section, as it contains only the 

spoken introduction to the project and no oral testimony. The full 

text of this portion of the hearing transcript is included in 

Appendix I.

NOTE 2: Exhibits follow the final page of the petition. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 2 of 65 

Response to Richard Wooleyhan:

Thank you for your statement. 

DelDOT received the map proposing Option 4B, with signatures as noted, during 

the Public Hearing. [Option 4B is a hand-drawn alignment that would traverse the 

distance between Boyds Corner Road and Jamison Corner Road approximately 

1,500 feet east of the alignment presented in the DEIS (shown on this map as 

Option 1)]. DelDOT is committed to working with the environmental resource 

agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers and the farmers, owners and neighbors in 

the Ratledge Road community to develop an alignment for this portion of the Green 

North Alternative that will minimize, to the greatest extent possible, impacts to 

active farmlands and minimize impacts to the wetland area. 

To this end, representatives from the Ratledge Road/Jamison Corner neighborhood, 

Corps of Engineers, FHWA, DelDOT, DNREC, the Delaware News Journal and 

the Project Team met in the field on January 30, 2007, to review the existing 

environment in the vicinity of the proposed options. Follow up meetings have been 

held to discuss ongoing concerns and design an alignment that would preserve the 

affected farm properties and homes while minimizing impacts to wetlands in the 

area. 

As a result of the community’s concerns and ongoing consultation, DelDOT is 

proposing the Option 4B Modified alignment as the preferred alignment of new US 

301 in this area. Option 4B Modified essentially is aligned on the DP&L corridor 

from south of the Cedar Lane School complex to the boundary of the Whitehall 

properties, where it then curves to the east toward Jamison Corner Road. DelDOT 

is also proposing a minimization and mitigation package that will compensate for 

the increased impacts this alignment will cause to wetlands and forest, in 

coordination with the resource agencies. The option and commitments in the 

mitigation package are included in the FEIS and ROD. 

(continued on next page)
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 3 of 65 

This page intentionally left blank 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 4 of 65 

Response to Jennifer Goff:

Thank you for your statement. 

Please see the previous response to Richard Wooleyhan. 

DelDOT received the map proposing Option 4B, with signatures as noted, during 

the Public Hearing. [Option 4B is a hand-drawn alignment that would traverse the 

distance between Boyds Corner Road and Jamison Corner Road approximately 

1,500 feet east of the alignment presented in the DEIS (shown on this map as 

Option 1)]. DelDOT is committed to working with the environmental resource 

agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers and the farmers, owners and neighbors in 

the Ratledge Road community to develop an alignment for this portion of the Green 

North Alternative that will minimize, to the greatest extent possible, impacts to 

active farmlands and minimize impacts to the wetland area. 

To this end, representatives from the Ratledge Road/Jamison Corner neighborhood, 

Corps of Engineers, FHWA, DelDOT, DNREC, the Delaware News Journal and 

the Project Team met in the field on January 30, 2007, to review the existing 

environment in the vicinity of the proposed options. Follow up meetings have been 

held to discuss ongoing concerns and design an alignment that would preserve the 

affected farm properties and homes while minimizing impacts to wetlands in the 

area. 

As a result of the community’s concerns and ongoing consultation, DelDOT is 

proposing the Option 4B Modified alignment as the preferred alignment of new US 

301 in this area. Option 4B Modified essentially is aligned on the DP&L corridor 

from south of the Cedar Lane School complex to the boundary of the Whitehall 

properties, where it then curves to the east toward Jamison Corner Road. DelDOT 

is also proposing a minimization and mitigation package that will compensate for 

the increased impacts this alignment will cause to wetlands and forest, in 

coordination with the resource agencies. The option and commitments in the 

mitigation package are included in the FEIS and ROD. 

Your reasons for the request are noted. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 5 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 6 of 65 

Response to Edith Carroll: 

Thank you for your statement. 

(begins on next page) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 7 of 65 

(continued from previous page) 

We acknowledge receipt of the petition bearing 285 signatures. The petition is 

included at the end of this section. 

Please see the previous response to Richard Wooleyhan. 

DelDOT received the map proposing Option 4B, with signatures as noted, during 

the Public Hearing. [Option 4B is a hand-drawn alignment that would traverse the 

distance between Boyds Corner Road and Jamison Corner Road approximately 

1,500 feet east of the alignment presented in the DEIS (shown on this map as 

Option 1)]. DelDOT is committed to working with the environmental resource 

agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers and the farmers, owners and neighbors in 

the Ratledge Road community to develop an alignment for this portion of the Green 

North Alternative that will minimize, to the greatest extent possible, impacts to 

active farmlands and minimize impacts to the wetland area. 

To this end, representatives from the Ratledge Road/Jamison Corner neighborhood, 

Corps of Engineers, FHWA, DelDOT, DNREC, the Delaware News Journal and 

the Project Team met in the field on January 30, 2007, to review the existing 

environment in the vicinity of the proposed options. Follow up meetings have been 

held to discuss ongoing concerns and design an alignment that would preserve the 

affected farm properties and homes while minimizing impacts to wetlands in the 

area. 

As a result of the community’s concerns and ongoing consultation, DelDOT is 

proposing the Option 4B Modified alignment as the preferred alignment of new US 

301 in this area. Option 4B Modified essentially is aligned on the DP&L corridor 

from south of the Cedar Lane School complex to the boundary of the Whitehall 

properties, where it then curves to the east toward Jamison Corner Road. DelDOT 

is also proposing a minimization and mitigation package that will compensate for 

the increased impacts this alignment will cause to wetlands and forest, in 

coordination with the resource agencies. The option and commitments in the 

mitigation package are included in the FEIS and ROD. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 8 of 65 

This page intentionally left blank 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 9 of 65 

Response To Anna Wooleyhan: 

Thank you for your statement. 

Please see the previous response to Richard Wooleyhan. 

DelDOT received the map proposing Option 4B, with signatures as noted, during 

the Public Hearing. [Option 4B is a hand-drawn alignment that would traverse the 

distance between Boyds Corner Road and Jamison Corner Road approximately 

1,500 feet east of the alignment presented in the DEIS (shown on this map as 

Option 1)]. DelDOT is committed to working with the environmental resource 

agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers and the farmers, owners and neighbors in 

the Ratledge Road community to develop an alignment for this portion of the Green 

North Alternative that will minimize, to the greatest extent possible, impacts to 

active farmlands and minimize impacts to the wetland area. 

To this end, representatives from the Ratledge Road/Jamison Corner neighborhood, 

Corps of Engineers, FHWA, DelDOT, DNREC, the Delaware News Journal and 

the Project Team met in the field on January 30, 2007, to review the existing 

environment in the vicinity of the proposed options. Follow up meetings have been 

held to discuss ongoing concerns and design an alignment that would preserve the 

affected farm properties and homes while minimizing impacts to wetlands in the 

area. 

As a result of the community’s concerns and ongoing consultation, DelDOT is 

proposing the Option 4B Modified alignment as the preferred alignment of new US 

301 in this area. Option 4B Modified essentially is aligned on the DP&L corridor 

from south of the Cedar Lane School complex to the boundary of the Whitehall 

properties, where it then curves to the east toward Jamison Corner Road. DelDOT 

is also proposing a minimization and mitigation package that will compensate for 

the increased impacts this alignment will cause to wetlands and forest, in 

coordination with the resource agencies. The option and commitments in the 

mitigation package are included in the FEIS and ROD. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 10 of 65 

Response to Dave Goff: 

We acknowledge receipt of the journal articles (listed on page 80 of the transcript 

document). 

Please see the previous response to Richard Wooleyhan. 

DelDOT received the map proposing Option 4B, with signatures as noted, during 

the Public Hearing. [Option 4B is a hand-drawn alignment that would traverse the 

distance between Boyds Corner Road and Jamison Corner Road approximately 

1,500 feet east of the alignment presented in the DEIS (shown on this map as 

Option 1)]. DelDOT is committed to working with the environmental resource 

agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers and the farmers, owners and neighbors in 

the Ratledge Road community to develop an alignment for this portion of the Green 

North Alternative that will minimize, to the greatest extent possible, impacts to 

active farmlands and minimize impacts to the wetland area. 

To this end, representatives from the Ratledge Road/Jamison Corner neighborhood, 

Corps of Engineers, FHWA, DelDOT, DNREC, the Delaware News Journal and 

the Project Team met in the field on January 30, 2007, to review the existing 

environment in the vicinity of the proposed options. Follow up meetings have been 

held to discuss ongoing concerns and design an alignment that would preserve the 

affected farm properties and homes while minimizing impacts to wetlands in the 

area. 

As a result of the community’s concerns and ongoing consultation, DelDOT is 

proposing the Option 4B Modified alignment as the preferred alignment of new US 

301 in this area. Option 4B Modified essentially is aligned on the DP&L corridor 

from south of the Cedar Lane School complex to the boundary of the Whitehall 

properties, where it then curves to the east toward Jamison Corner Road. DelDOT 

is also proposing a minimization and mitigation package that will compensate for 

the increased impacts this alignment will cause to wetlands and forest, in 

coordination with the resource agencies. The option and commitments in the 

mitigation package are included in the FEIS and ROD. 

Your testimony as a physician to the stress relocation causes and to the effects of 

Tako-Tsubo syndrome are noted. Your assessment of the effects of vibration on 

those whose awareness of their surroundings is dependent upon sensing vibrations 

is also noted. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 11 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 12 of 65 

This page intentionally left blank 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 13 of 65 

Response to Mark Carroll: 

Thank you for your statement. 

Please see the previous response to Richard Wooleyhan. 

DelDOT received the map proposing Option 4B, with signatures as noted, during 

the Public Hearing. [Option 4B is a hand-drawn alignment that would traverse the 

distance between Boyds Corner Road and Jamison Corner Road approximately 

1,500 feet east of the alignment presented in the DEIS (shown on this map as 

Option 1)]. DelDOT is committed to working with the environmental resource 

agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers and the farmers, owners and neighbors in 

the Ratledge Road community to develop an alignment for this portion of the Green 

North Alternative that will minimize, to the greatest extent possible, impacts to 

active farmlands and minimize impacts to the wetland area. 

To this end, representatives from the Ratledge Road/Jamison Corner neighborhood, 

Corps of Engineers, FHWA, DelDOT, DNREC, the Delaware News Journal and 

the Project Team met in the field on January 30, 2007, to review the existing 

environment in the vicinity of the proposed options. Follow up meetings have been 

held to discuss ongoing concerns and design an alignment that would preserve the 

affected farm properties and homes while minimizing impacts to wetlands in the 

area. 

As a result of the community’s concerns and ongoing consultation, DelDOT is 

proposing the Option 4B Modified alignment as the preferred alignment of new US 

301 in this area. Option 4B Modified essentially is aligned on the DP&L corridor 

from south of the Cedar Lane School complex to the boundary of the Whitehall 

properties, where it then curves to the east toward Jamison Corner Road. DelDOT 

is also proposing a minimization and mitigation package that will compensate for 

the increased impacts this alignment will cause to wetlands and forest, in 

coordination with the resource agencies. The option and commitments in the 

mitigation package are included in the FEIS and ROD. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 14 of 65 

Response to Steve Carroll: 

Thank you for your statement. 

Please see the previous response to Richard Wooleyhan. 

DelDOT received the map proposing Option 4B, with signatures as noted, during 

the Public Hearing. [Option 4B is a hand-drawn alignment that would traverse the 

distance between Boyds Corner Road and Jamison Corner Road approximately 

1,500 feet east of the alignment presented in the DEIS (shown on this map as 

Option 1)]. DelDOT is committed to working with the environmental resource 

agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers and the farmers, owners and neighbors in 

the Ratledge Road community to develop an alignment for this portion of the Green 

North Alternative that will minimize, to the greatest extent possible, impacts to 

active farmlands and minimize impacts to the wetland area. 

To this end, representatives from the Ratledge Road/Jamison Corner neighborhood, 

Corps of Engineers, FHWA, DelDOT, DNREC, the Delaware News Journal and 

the Project Team met in the field on January 30, 2007, to review the existing 

environment in the vicinity of the proposed options. Follow up meetings have been 

held to discuss ongoing concerns and design an alignment that would preserve the 

affected farm properties and homes while minimizing impacts to wetlands in the 

area. 

As a result of the community’s concerns and ongoing consultation, DelDOT is 

proposing the Option 4B Modified alignment as the preferred alignment of new US 

301 in this area. Option 4B Modified essentially is aligned on the DP&L corridor 

from south of the Cedar Lane School complex to the boundary of the Whitehall 

properties, where it then curves to the east toward Jamison Corner Road. DelDOT 

is also proposing a minimization and mitigation package that will compensate for 

the increased impacts this alignment will cause to wetlands and forest, in 

coordination with the resource agencies. The option and commitments in the 

mitigation package are included in the FEIS and ROD. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 15 of 65 

This page intentionally left blank 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 16 of 65 

RESPONSE TO CHUCK OTT:

Thank you for your statement. 

The rationale and justification for the selection of Green North as DelDOT’s 

recommended preferred alternative are well-documented in the DEIS (Chapter V). 

The recommendation was based on a balanced overview which included a 

comparison of the impacts to the natural environment (wetlands and waters of the 

US, potential bog turtle habitat and forests), social and economic impacts (property 

acquisition, relocations, community and community facilities), cultural resources 

(physical, noise and visual effects) and the feasibility and restraints of the 

engineering design (ability to meet project purpose and need, design complexity, 

construction costs) of various elements of the roadway. When compared to the 

Green South Alternative, the differences in environmental impacts were that the 

Green North has lower wetlands, forest and stream impacts and has less potential to 

disrupt the habitats of wetland dependent wildlife. Green North also has a single, 

shorter and more perpendicular crossing of Scott Run than Green South. For these 

reasons, DNREC did not support the Green South Alternative. The Green North 

Alternative represents, in the opinion of the resource and regulatory agencies, the 

best solution to the existing need. 

 (continued on next page) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 17 of 65 

This page intentionally left blank 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 18 of 65 

(continued from previous page) 

Please see the previous response to Richard Wooleyhan. 

DelDOT is proposing the Option 4B Modified alignment as the preferred alignment 

of new US 301 in this area. Option 4B Modified essentially is aligned on the 

DP&L corridor from south of the Cedar Lane School complex to the boundary of 

the Whitehall properties, where it then curves to the east toward Jamison Corner 

Road. DelDOT is also proposing a minimization and mitigation package that will 

compensate for the increased impacts this alignment will cause to wetlands and 

forest, in coordination with the resource agencies. The option and commitments in 

the mitigation package are included in the FEIS and ROD. 

During final design, the elevation of the roadway in this location will be evaluated 

further in a effort to keep the profile as low as reasonably possible. A visual 

earthen berm is proposed between the community and new US 301 to minimize 

visual and noise impacts. 

(continued on next page)
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 19 of 65 

(continued from previous page) 

During the final design phase, DelDOT will evaluate the practicality of constructing 

the berm prior to construction of the roadway or as a part of the initial phase in the 

sequence of construction. 

DelDOT will continue to evaluate the feasibility of extending the berm during final 

design. The berm is currently not proposed where the roadway will be below-grade. 

DelDOT is currently in the design phase of planned improvements in this area 

(Jamison Corner Road reconstruction, Route 412A realignment, Lorewood Grove 

Road reconstruction) that are included in the Capital Transportation Plan (refer to 

DEIS, Chapter I, Section C.5.g.). 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 20 of 65 

Response To Janice Biddle:

Thank you for your statement. 

Please see the previous response to Richard Wooleyhan. 

DelDOT received the map proposing Option 4B, with signatures as noted, during 

the Public Hearing. [Option 4B is a hand-drawn alignment that would traverse the 

distance between Boyds Corner Road and Jamison Corner Road approximately 

1,500 feet east of the alignment presented in the DEIS (shown on this map as 

Option 1)]. DelDOT is committed to working with the environmental resource 

agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers and the farmers, owners and neighbors in 

the Ratledge Road community to develop an alignment for this portion of the Green 

North Alternative that will minimize, to the greatest extent possible, impacts to 

active farmlands and minimize impacts to the wetland area. 

To this end, representatives from the Ratledge Road/Jamison Corner neighborhood, 

Corps of Engineers, FHWA, DelDOT, DNREC, the Delaware News Journal and 

the Project Team met in the field on January 30, 2007, to review the existing 

environment in the vicinity of the proposed options. Follow up meetings have been 

held to discuss ongoing concerns and design an alignment that would preserve the 

affected farm properties and homes while minimizing impacts to wetlands in the 

area. 

As a result of the community’s concerns and ongoing consultation, DelDOT is 

proposing the Option 4B Modified alignment as the preferred alignment of new US 

301 in this area. Option 4B Modified essentially is aligned on the DP&L corridor 

from south of the Cedar Lane School complex to the boundary of the Whitehall 

properties, where it then curves to the east toward Jamison Corner Road. DelDOT 

is also proposing a minimization and mitigation package that will compensate for 

the increased impacts this alignment will cause to wetlands and forest, in 

coordination with the resource agencies. The option and commitments in the 

mitigation package are included in the FEIS and ROD. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 21 of 65 

Response to Loraine Green:

Thank you for your statement. 

Please see the previous response to Richard Wooleyhan. 

DelDOT received the map proposing Option 4B, with signatures as noted, during 

the Public Hearing. [Option 4B is a hand-drawn alignment that would traverse the 

distance between Boyds Corner Road and Jamison Corner Road approximately 

1,500 feet east of the alignment presented in the DEIS (shown on this map as 

Option 1)]. DelDOT is committed to working with the environmental resource 

agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers and the farmers, owners and neighbors in 

the Ratledge Road community to develop an alignment for this portion of the Green 

North Alternative that will minimize, to the greatest extent possible, impacts to 

active farmlands and minimize impacts to the wetland area. 

To this end, representatives from the Ratledge Road/Jamison Corner neighborhood, 

Corps of Engineers, FHWA, DelDOT, DNREC, the Delaware News Journal and 

the Project Team met in the field on January 30, 2007, to review the existing 

environment in the vicinity of the proposed options. Follow up meetings have been 

held to discuss ongoing concerns and design an alignment that would preserve the 

affected farm properties and homes while minimizing impacts to wetlands in the 

area. 

As a result of the community’s concerns and ongoing consultation, DelDOT is 

proposing the Option 4B Modified alignment as the preferred alignment of new US 

301 in this area. Option 4B Modified essentially is aligned on the DP&L corridor 

from south of the Cedar Lane School complex to the boundary of the Whitehall 

properties, where it then curves to the east toward Jamison Corner Road. DelDOT 

is also proposing a minimization and mitigation package that will compensate for 

the increased impacts this alignment will cause to wetlands and forest, in 

coordination with the resource agencies. The option and commitments in the 

mitigation package are included in the FEIS and ROD. 

Option 4B Modified does not impact either the Wooleyhan or Emerson farms. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 22 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 23 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 24 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 25 of 65 

This page intentionally left blank 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 26 of 65 

Response To Representative Cathcart:

Thank you for your statement. 

DelDOT has been proactive in seeking to inform and get feedback from the 

communities and public, in general, and specifically with those who are potentially 

affected by all of the alternatives, throughout the life of this study. In addition, 

DelDOT has maintained a dialogue with the elected officials whose constituents 

will be impacted by this project, and, in turn, we appreciate your involvement and 

support for your constituents and the citizens of Delaware. 

We have listened and will continue to listen and respond to the comments we have 

received. We will continue work together with the communities of Chesapeake 

Meadow, Airmont, Ratledge Road and others, as well as with individual property 

owners, many of whom we have heard from during public testimony, to develop a 

final preferred alternative that will include the best efforts to minimize impacts to 

all while considering environmental resources. 

We look forward to continuing to work with you, on behalf of those people whom 

we have heard here tonight, to provide the best solution for all concerned. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 27 of 65 

This page intentionally left blank 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 28 of 65 

Response to Senator Steve Amick:

Thank you for your statement. 

DelDOT has been proactive in seeking to inform and get feedback from the 

communities and public, in general, and specifically with those who are potentially 

affected by all of the alternatives, throughout the life of this study. In addition, 

DelDOT has maintained a dialogue with the elected officials whose constituents 

will be impacted by this project, and, in turn, we appreciate your involvement and 

support for your constituents and the citizens of Delaware. 

We have listened and will continue to listen and respond to the comments we have 

received. We will continue work together with the communities of Chesapeake 

Meadow, Airmont, Ratledge Road and others, as well as with individual property 

owners, many of whom we have heard from during public testimony, to develop a 

final preferred alternative that will include the best efforts to minimize impacts to 

all while considering environmental resources. 

We look forward to continuing to work with you, on behalf of those people whom 

we have heard here tonight, to provide the best solution for all concerned. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 29 of 65 nally left blank 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 30 of 65 

Response to Wayne Usilton:

Thank you for your statement. 

The volume of traffic projected to use the Summit Bridge daily in 2030 with the 

Green Alternative with the Spur Road is 59,500; under the No-Build condition the 

volume is 65,000. Therefore, the Green Alternative with the Spur Road is projected 

to provide some relief to traffic on Summit Bridge in 2030. While both of these 

projections represent a significant increase over existing daily volume of 26,300, 

the level of service (LOS) on Summit Bridge is projected to be LOS D during peak 

hours with the Green with the Spur Road, which is still considered acceptable. 

(continued on next page) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 31 of 65 

(continued from previous page) 

Improvements are programmed to relieve congestion at the I-95/SR 1 interchange, 

which include the construction of direct ramps between I-95 and SR 1 in both 

directions, separating through traffic from local traffic. These improvements are 

scheduled for construction beginning in the fall 2009, with completion anticipated 

by the end of 2012, well in advance of the projected completion of US 301 

(2015/2016). The new interchange was designed to relieve existing congestion and 

accommodate future traffic volumes. The connection of US 301 to SR 1 was 

considered in developing the design concept for the new interchange 

improvements. An additional lane (5th lane in each direction) is currently under 

construction on I-95 from SR 1 to SR 141. 

The Red Alternative, which followed the ridge route and SR 896, crossing the C&D 

Canal on the Summit Bridge, was evaluated during the planning process but was 

not retained for detailed evaluation. Reasons for not retaining the Red Alternative 

included: 

it does not accommodate the 65% of traffic on US 301 that is destined for points 

to the northeast 

it would require additional lanes on the Summit Bridge to accommodate 

increased traffic volumes 

it did not provide direct access to SR 1 

it would have required major improvements to the SR 896/I-95 interchange and 

tie-in to Old Baltimore Pike 

it had identified impacts to Section 4(f) resources 

it would have been the costliest to construct 

required the most difficult maintenance of traffic and inconvenience to travelers 

during construction. 

The full explanation for nor retaining the Red Alternative are in the DEIS, Section 

II.B.2.a. 

The interchange at Armstrong Corner Road is designed to allow local access to 

businesses and residences on the north side of Middletown. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 32 of 65 

This page intentionally left blank 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 33 of 65 

Response to Susan Love: 

Thank you for your statement. 

DelDOT does not recommend an on-alignment alternative for the project. 

(continued on next page) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 34 of 65 

(continued from previous page) 

A visual earth berm is proposed between Middletown Village and the new US 301 

roadway. The berm will provide visual screening for the community, as well as 

provide a measure of noise abatement. The proposed earth berm is 2,000 feet long 

and 16 feet high. Final dimensions of the berm will be determined during final 

design with the goal being to minimize the visual impacts to the neighborhood. 

Construction of the earth berm will also eliminate noise impacts for western 

Middletown Village. 

All project landscaping will be developed during the final design of the project. 

Reforestation locations will be chosen to optimize the future regrowth of forest 

lands and in accordance with guidance provided by the Delaware Code, Title 17, 

Sections 201-211 (Landscaping and Reforestation Act). DelDOT plans to conduct 

reforestation on the isolated triangle to which you refer as part of its required 

reforestation package. DelDOT will consider your request to plant this reforestation 

area in advance of construction. We will do all that is possible to protect the trees 

along Woodline Drive. 

(continued on next page) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 35 of 65 

(continued from previous page) 

The noise analysis shows that for most locations in Middletown Village, there 

would be no measured impacts from the new US 301. Specifically, the current 

daily volume of traffic on Bunker Hill Road is 4,000 vehicles. The projected 2030 

daily traffic for Bunker Hill Road under the Green North Alternative is 6,900, 

which represents a 58 percent decrease from the daily traffic projected to use 

Bunker Hill Road under the No-Build Alternative. Due to the relatively low 

volumes projected to utilize Bunker Hill Road and the distance (more than 1,600 

feet from the nearest property in Middletown Village), there were no predicted 

noise impacts from the Bunker Hill Road overpass. 

Stormwater management facilities will be designed and constructed to manage 

roadway runoff and hydrology altered by the construction of the berm. During final 

design, more specifics regarding the potential stormwater management facilities 

and drainage features will be developed to ensure the proposed roadway will not 

increase the potential for flooding in the area. 

DelDOT is proposing lighting of the highway only at interchanges and toll plazas; 

additional lighting will be installed if safety concerns warrant. The final decisions 

on lighting will take place during final design. In addition, highway lighting would 

be shielded from residential areas. 

A refined Preferred Alternative is presented in the Final EIS, and commitments 

regarding minimization and mitigation of impacts will be memorialized in the 

Record of Decision which is anticipated to be signed following the availability of 

the FEIS and a subsequent review period. Final engineering and design of the 

roadway will be guided by those commitments, as will construction. At various 

stages in the final design process, DelDOT will meet with those directly and 

indirectly affected by the project to review the design plans and secure their input. 

 (continued on next page) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 36 of 65 

(continued from previous page) 

New signals will be placed as traffic warrants their installation. 

If traffic warrants are met, the signal for Doc Levinson Drive at US 301 will be 

installed as a part of the improvements on US 301 from Middleneck Road to 

Peterson Road (refer to State Contract 25-128-04). There is no active study or 

design for a signal at US 301/Ash Boulevard, and past studies showed it did not 

meet warrants. Hopefully, the signal at Doc Levinson Drive will divert some traffic 

there.

RESPONSE TO JORGE VELASQUEZ:

DelDOT will make every effort to protect the line of trees along Woodline Drive. 

There is no anticipated impact to the existing stormwater pond; additional 

stormwater management facilities will also be constructed to manage roadway 

runoff and hydrology altered by the construction of the berm. 

(continued on next page) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 37 of 65 

This page intentionally left blank 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 38 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 39 of 65 

This petition copied in the following pages was referenced during Public Testimony 

on January 9, 2007 as a part of Edith Carroll’s testimony. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 40 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 41 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 42 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 43 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 44 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 45 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 46 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 47 of 65 

This section contains the exhibits presented by

Richard Wooleyhan (Exhibit 1) and 

Dave Goff (Exhibits 2-9) 

Exhibit 1 (BACK) is included opposite. 

Exhibits 2 – 9 are on the following pages. 

Exhibit 1 (FRONT) is included following Exhibits 2-9. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 48 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 49 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 50 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 51 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 52 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 53 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 54 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 55 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 56 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 57 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 58 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 59 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 60 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 61 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 62 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 63 of 65 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 4. Public Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 64 of 65 

US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 1 of 23

List of Persons Providing Testimony 

Donald Cooke 

Robert McCoy 

Paul Lower 

Sandra Reddy 

Mark Lasko 

Betty Baker 

Tom Young 

Tom Young, Jr. 

Cindy Marando 

Linda Bonet 

Chip Irons 

Peggy Thomas 

Nancy Leonard 

Landon Carroll 

John McTaggart 

Brad Barrie 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 2 of 23

Response to Donald Cooke 

Thank you for your statement. 

The alignment of the Spur Road was shifted to the west to accommodate the 

construction of the visual screening berm. The toe of the berm will be at least 100 feet 

from any property lines at the southern end of Chesapeake Meadow, where it will be the 

closest.

The proposed berm would be 11 feet high in this location; continuous safety fencing 

will also be installed on both sides of the Spur Road to prevent pedestrian access to the 

highway. 

Response to Robert McCoy

Thank you for your statement. 

We appreciate the support of the Welfare Foundation and Whitehall Delaware, LLC, for 

the farmers in the Ratledge Road area. DelDOT has worked with the environmental 

resource agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers and the farmers, owners and neighbors 

in the Ratledge Road community to develop an alignment for this portion of the 

Preferred Alternative that will avoid and/or minimize, to the greatest extent possible, 

impacts to active farmlands and minimize impacts to the wetland area. 

DelDOT received the map proposing Option 4B, with signatures as noted, during the 

Public Hearing. [Option 4B is a hand-drawn alignment that would traverse the distance 

between Boyds Corner Road and Jamison Corner Road approximately 1,500 feet east of 

the alignment presented in the DEIS (shown on this map as Option 1)]. DelDOT is 

committed to working with the environmental resource agencies, the Army Corps of 

Engineers and the farmers, owners and neighbors in the Ratledge Road community to 

develop an alignment for this portion of the Green North Alternative that will minimize, 

to the greatest extent possible, impacts to active farmlands and minimize impacts to the 

wetland area. 

To this end, representatives from the Ratledge Road/Jamison Corner neighborhood, 

Corps of Engineers, FHWA, DelDOT, DNREC, the Delaware 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 3 of 23

News Journal and the Project Team met in the field on January 30, 2007, to review the 

existing environment in the vicinity of the proposed options. Follow up meetings have 

been held to discuss ongoing concerns and design an alignment that would preserve the 

affected farm properties and homes while minimizing impacts to wetlands in the area. 

As a result of the community’s concerns and ongoing consultation, DelDOT is 

proposing the Option 4B Modified alignment as the preferred alignment of new US 301 

in this area. Option 4B Modified essentially is aligned on the DP&L corridor from 

south of the Cedar Lane School complex to the boundary of the Whitehall properties, 

where it then curves to the east toward Jamison Corner Road. DelDOT is also 

proposing a minimization and mitigation package that will compensate for the increased 

impacts this alignment will cause to wetlands and forest, in coordination with the 

resource agencies. The option and commitments in the mitigation package are included 

in the FEIS and ROD. 

Response to Paul Lower 

Thank you for your statement. 

We anticipate completion of the FEIS in the fall of 2007. Following FHWA’s issuance 

of the Record of Decision (ROD), engineering design and right-of-way acquisition is 

estimated to take up to four years (2008-2011), with construction following, beginning 

in 2012. Construction could take from four to 10 years to complete depending on 

funding. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 4 of 23

Response to Sandra Reddy 

Thank you for your statement. 

DelDOT recognizes that the new roadway on its new alignment will have an adverse 

effect on some members of the community, including your neighbors. We appreciate 

your concern and your request to move the alignment to avoid impacts to properties in 

your neighborhood. We may not be able to accommodate all of these requests, but we 

will evaluate your request, as well as others of a similar nature, during the next phase of 

design for the project. The loss of active farmland and open space is an issue of 

concern to DelDOT as well. During the design phase, we will continue to work to 

minimize the impact of the roadway on the community, farmlands, and the natural 

environment. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 5 of 23

Response to Sandra Reddy (continued):

Planning for US 301 has continued off and on for many years, and, with the Spur Road, 

the western portion of US 301 does follow the originally-recommended route for the 

new alignment near Midland Farms. 

DelDOT will be considering wildlife passages in the design of new US 301 to 

accommodate the movement of wildlife; the locations of these passages will be finalized 

during final design. 

Finally, DelDOT obtained sufficient right-of-way when it purchased the property along 

the ridge route to accommodate a pedestrian/bicycle pathway. Based on comments 

received from members of the community, we will consider the accommodation of a 

combined pedestrian/bicycle path in the design of the Spur Road. Additionally, during 

final design, stormwater management facilities may include swales and roadside 

ditches, rather than ponds, thereby lessening the associated impacts. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 6 of 23

Response to Mark Lasko

Thank you for your statement 

Response to Betty Baker

Thank you for your statement. 

DelDOT received the map proposing Option 4B, with signatures as noted, during the 

Public Hearing. [Option 4B is a hand-drawn alignment that would traverse the distance 

between Boyds Corner Road and Jamison Corner Road approximately 1,500 feet east of 

the alignment presented in the DEIS (shown on this map as Option 1)]. DelDOT is 

committed to working with the environmental resource agencies, the Army Corps of 

Engineers and the farmers, owners and neighbors in the Ratledge Road community to 

develop an alignment for this portion of the Green North Alternative that will minimize, 

to the greatest extent possible, impacts to active farmlands and minimize impacts to the 

wetland area. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 7 of 23

Response to Betty Baker (continued):

To this end, representatives from the Ratledge Road/Jamison Corner neighborhood, 

Corps of Engineers, FHWA, DelDOT, DNREC, the Delaware News Journal and the 

Project Team met in the field on January 30, 2007, to review the existing environment 

in the vicinity of the proposed options. Follow up meetings have been held to discuss 

ongoing concerns and design an alignment that would preserve the affected farm 

properties and homes while minimizing impacts to wetlands in the area. 

As a result of the community’s concerns and ongoing consultation, DelDOT is 

proposing the Option 4B Modified alignment as the preferred alignment of new US 301 

in this area. Option 4B Modified essentially is aligned on the DP&L corridor from 

south of the Cedar Lane School complex to the boundary of the Whitehall properties, 

where it then curves to the east toward Jamison Corner Road. DelDOT is also 

proposing a minimization and mitigation package that will compensate for the increased 

impacts this alignment will cause to wetlands and forest, in coordination with the 

resource agencies. The option and commitments in the mitigation package are included 

in the FEIS and ROD. 

Response to Tom Young: 

Thank you for your statement. 

The ability to collect tolls on new US 301 in the vicinity of the Maryland/ Delaware 

state line is integral to the overall tolling concept for the new US 301. Rather than 

passing vehicles through two toll plazas, the Green North Alternative brings traffic into 

SR 1 north of the Biddles Corner Toll Plaza. Another option under consideration at this 

time is the collection of tolls through Open Road Tolling (ORT), where collection is 

accomplished by reading an in-vehicle transponder (EZ-Pass) or by photographing 

license plates. In either case, the collection of tolls would not result in the creation of a 

new branch in DelDOT since toll collection is already consolidated within its own unit 

in DelDOT. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 8 of 23

Response to Tom Young (continued): 

We appreciate your preference for the Purple Alternative and the reasons you have for 

preferring it over the Green North Alternative. The reasons for DelDOT’s 

recommendation of Green North as the preferred alternative, and the reasons why the 

other alternatives were not recommended, are documented in Chapter V of the DEIS, in 

the public workshops and public hearings displays and handouts, and in Chapter II of 

the FEIS. 

DelDOT does not intend to collect tolls twice on US 301 from vehicles using the 

facility. Bypassing the existing SR toll plaza has always been included in the project. 

DelDOT continues to explore funding options, in light of the shortfall in funding for 

transportation projects. 

DelDOT has considered the locations of existing and planned communities in the 

planning of the alignments of all of the alternatives. We agree that existing 

communities and the potential impacts to them are more important than those still in the 

planning stages. Consideration is also given to existing natural resources. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 9 of 23

This page intentionally left blank 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 10 of 23

Response to Tom Young, Jr:

Thank you for your statement. 

The new US 301 is proposed as a toll facility; i.e., those who use the facility will pay for 

the facility. Tolls are also collected as a means to contribute to the funding of the 

roadway; i.e. used to pay off revenue bonds sold to fund the project. 

Local roadway connections will still be available, toll free, for local trips. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 11 of 23

Response to Cindy Marando:

Thank you for your statement. 

Generally, right-of-way acquisition is anticipated to begin in fiscal year 2008, following 

the receipt of the Record of Decision (ROD) and the announcement of the Selected 

Alternative. In the case of hardship or protective buying, early acquisition will be 

accomplished following application and review of the request by the Department on a 

case-by-case basis. 

Future changes in property values along the new US 301 corridor cannot be predicted 

nor can the values associated with such changes be determined, because other factors 

along with the highway will influence those changes. DelDOT will design the new US 

301 to avoid or minimize the effects of the new highway on property values to the best 

extent possible. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 12 of 23

This page intentionally left blank 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 13 of 23

Response to Linda Bonet: 

Thank you for your statement. 

The construction of an additional lane on existing US 301, between Peterson Road and 

Mount Pleasant, has been evaluated by the Project Team. The alignment would have to 

be designed to avoid three historic properties along the existing alignment, and potential 

impacts to businesses and residences would be extraordinary. 

The installation of a toll collection facility on the existing US 301 roadway, with its 

many access points, would not provide a reliable method of collection. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 14 of 23

Response to Linda Bonet (continued) 

The area to the west of Middletown Village is not anticipated to be disturbed for the 

construction of the US 301 project. 

Visual and noise impacts for the residents of Middletown Village will be mitigated with 

the provision of a visual earthen berm between Middletown Village and the new US 301 

roadway. The berm will provide visual screening for the community, as well as provide 

a measure of noise reduction. The proposed earth berm is 2,000 feet long and 16 feet 

high. Final dimensions of the berm will be determined during the final design. 

Construction of the earth berm will also eliminate noise impacts for western 

Middletown Village. 

Landscaping will be determined during final design for the project, as will project 

lighting. Currently, lighting is only proposed for the roadway at interchanges and toll 

plazas.

DelDOT will meet with those directly and indirectly affected by the project to review 

the design plans and secure their imput. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 15 of 23

Response to Chip Irons:

See also the responses to Andye Daley’s public testimony, January 8, 2007, in Section 

1, pages 4-15. 

Thank you for your statement. 

We appreciate your preference for the different options in the Armstrong Corner Road 

area and the reasons you have for preferring them for the Green North Alternative. The 

reasons for DelDOT’s preference is documented in Chapter V of the DEIS and in 

Chapter II of the FEIS. 

Local access to the Spur Road is not proposed in order to discourage increased 

development west of US 301. Local traffic in southern Middletown is projected to use 

the spur, having only to pay the ramp toll (a small percentage of the overall toll) for 

access to and from the spur. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 16 of 23

This page intentionally left blank 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 17 of 23

Response to Peggy Thomas: 

Thank you for your statement. 

DelDOT will continue to include directly or indirectly affected communities and the 

public during the final design process. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 18 of 23

Response to Nancy Leonard: 

Thank you for your statement. 

DelDOT will continue to include directly or indirectly affected communities and the 

public during the final design process. 

Response to Landon Carroll: 

Thank you for your statement. 

DelDOT received the map proposing Option 4B, with signatures as noted, during the 

Public Hearing. [Option 4B is a hand-drawn alignment that would traverse the distance 

between Boyds Corner Road and Jamison Corner Road approximately 1,500 feet east of 

the alignment presented in the DEIS (shown on this map as Option 1)]. DelDOT is 

committed to working with the environmental resource agencies, the Army Corps of 

Engineers and the farmers, owners and neighbors in the Ratledge Road community to 

develop an alignment for this portion of the Green North Alternative that will minimize, 

to the greatest extent possible, impacts to active farmlands and minimize impacts to the 

wetland area. 

To this end, representatives from the Ratledge Road/Jamison Corner neighborhood, 

Corps of Engineers, FHWA, DelDOT, DNREC, the Delaware News Journal and the 

Project Team met in the field on January 30, 2007, to review the existing environment 

in the vicinity of the proposed options. Follow up meetings have been held to discuss 

ongoing concerns and design an alignment that would preserve the affected farm 

properties and homes while minimizing impacts to wetlands in the area. 

As a result of the community’s concerns and ongoing consultation, DelDOT is 

proposing the Option 4B Modified alignment as the preferred alignment of new US 301 

in this area. Option 4B Modified essentially is aligned on the DP&L corridor from 

south of the Cedar Lane School complex to the boundary of the . 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 19 of 23

Whitehall properties, where it then curves to the east toward Jamison Corner Road. 

DelDOT is also proposing a minimization and mitigation package that will compensate 

for the increased impacts this alignment will cause to wetlands and forest, in 

coordination with the resource agencies. The option and commitments in the mitigation 

package are included in the FEIS and ROD. 

Response to John McTaggart: 

See also the response to Andye Daley in Section 1: Public Testimony – January 8, 2007, 

pages 4-15. 

Thank you for your statement. 

In the process that was used for the US 301 Project Development effort, alternatives evolve over 

time. Alternatives are proposed and eliminated (like the Blue Alternatives) and alternatives 

change (the addition of the spur to the Purple and Green Alternatives), based on continued 

analysis and public and agency input. 

The public was informed of the Range of Alternatives, the Retained Alternatives, the 

Recommended Preferred Alternative and the Preferred Alternative. The Green Alternative 

(including a north and south option) has been under consideration from the beginning of the 

process and the Green + Spur option has been under consideration since December 2005 when the 

Retained Alternatives were announced. The addition of the Spur Road presented to the public at 

the December 2005 public workshops, was presented in considerable detail at the February 2006 

“Issues” workshop, including its Purpose and Need, benefits, etc., and again at the April 2006 

public workshops. The Green North + Spur was the Recommended Preferred Alternative 

announced by DelDOT in November 2006, as noted in the DEIS, and was presented as such at the 

January 2007 Combined Location-Design Public Hearings. Additionally, after every 

workshop/hearing, the Project Team mailed extensive documentation to community leaders 

including those from Chesapeake Meadow. DelDOT has been aware of the community’s “no 

spur” position as a result of the comments and petitions received during the workshops’ comment 

periods, including those from residents in Chesapeake Meadow and others. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 20 of 23

Response to John McTaggart (continued) 

The Spur Road was added because: 

(1) it balances the available capacities of the Summit Bridge, SR 1 bridge and St. Georges Bridge 

crossings of the C&D Canal; 

(2) its addition provided flexibility in addressing the sharp curve and signal at the base of Summit 

Bridge at the intersection of SR 896, US 301, and SR 15; and 

(3) it will accommodate the 35% of through traffic that was identified in the Origin & Destination 

Survey, and confirmed by traffic projections, as desiring to access points directly north, while the 

US 301 mainline will accommodate the 65% of through traffic wishing to access I-95 and points 

to the northeast. 

DelDOT will continue to consider the feasibility of adding a greenway trail adjacent to the east 

side of the Spur Road. Changes to the typical section of the Spur Road, such as an adjustment 

of the width of the median or reduced clearances could be evaluated to provide some additional 

outside width and include the proposed trail within the right-of-way without additional property 

acquisition.
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 21 of 23
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 22 of 23

Response to Brad Barrie:

Thank you for your statement. 

Please see the responses to Susan Love’s Public Testimony, January 9, 2007. 

DelDOT has committed to minimizing impacts to resident surrounding the proposed US 

301 through the installation of visual screening berms that will also provide a measure 

of noise reduction. The berms are anticipated to be landscaped. Landscaping will be 

determined during final design, as will lighting, which is proposed in areas of safety 

concern and for interchange and toll areas only. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Section 5. Private Testimony – January 9, 2007 Page 23 of 23
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 1 of 28

Response to Clarence Johnson:

Thank you for your comment. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 2 of 28

Response to Molly Smith:

Thank you for your comments. 

We will consider your request based on the guidelines for roadway design. 

All properties within noise-sensitive areas were analyzed for noise impacts. 

Mitigation was evaluated according to DelDOT’s Transportation Noise Policy, 

which is detailed in the DEIS on page III-82 (Section III.D.2.b). Unfortunately, 

your property does not meet the criteria for noise abatement. A visual screening 

berm, which would provide a measure of noise impact relief, was not considered 

for your property because of right-of-way constraints, highway elevation and/or 

cost constraints. 

Changes in drainage designs/stormwater management that will be detailed during 

final design may affect your property beyond that which is currently envisioned. 

DelDOT will continue to coordinate with you during the final design process. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 3 of 28

Response to John Bentley:

Thank you for your comments. 

DelDOT received the map proposing Option 4B, with signatures as noted, during 

the Public Hearing. [Option 4B is a hand-drawn alignment that would traverse the 

distance between Boyds Corner Road and Jamison Corner Road approximately 

1,500 feet east of the alignment presented in the DEIS (shown on this map as 

Option 1)]. DelDOT is committed to working with the environmental resource 

agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers and the farmers, owners and neighbors in 

the Ratledge Road community to develop an alignment for this portion of the Green 

North Alternative that will minimize, to the greatest extent possible, impacts to 

active farmlands and minimize impacts to the wetland area. 

To this end, representatives from the Ratledge Road/Jamison Corner neighborhood, 

Corps of Engineers, FHWA, DelDOT, DNREC, the Delaware News Journal and 

the Project Team met in the field on January 30, 2007, to review the existing 

environment in the vicinity of the proposed options. Follow up meetings have been 

held to discuss ongoing concerns and design an alignment that would preserve the 

affected farm properties and homes while minimizing impacts to wetlands in the 

area. 

As a result of the community’s concerns and ongoing consultation, DelDOT is 

proposing the Option 4B Modified alignment as the preferred alignment of new US 

301 in this area. Option 4B Modified essentially is aligned on the DP&L corridor 

from south of the Cedar Lane School complex to the boundary of the Whitehall 

properties, where it then curves to the east toward Jamison Corner Road. DelDOT 

is also proposing a minimization and mitigation package that will compensate for 

the increased impacts this alignment will cause to wetlands and forest, in 

coordination with the resource agencies. The option and commitments in the 

mitigation package are included in the FEIS and ROD. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 4 of 28

Response To Kamal Daltano:

Thank you for your comment. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 5 of 28

Comment of Edith Chas (copied for legibility): 

I have attended several meetings and it seems that DelDOT has recommended the 

Green Route where I am located at the end of the lane on the Rausch Farm. My 

husband built our home and I have been here 54 years. He passed away 6 years 

ago. I would think that if the route was moved a little further east towards Boyds 

Corner it would not involve the Rausch Farm House my home and it could 

crossover Boyds Corner Road go through a wooded area and not disturb the 

Wooleyhan property. This route would save the state a considerable amount of 

money and not have to give up valuable farm land which we so desperately need. 

Response to Edith Chas:

DelDOT received the map proposing Option 4B, with signatures as noted, during 

the Public Hearing. [Option 4B is a hand-drawn alignment that would traverse the 

distance between Boyds Corner Road and Jamison Corner Road approximately 

1,500 feet east of the alignment presented in the DEIS (shown on this map as 

Option 1)]. DelDOT is committed to working with the environmental resource 

agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers and the farmers, owners and neighbors in 

the Ratledge Road community to develop an alignment for this portion of the Green 

North Alternative that will minimize, to the greatest extent possible, impacts to 

active farmlands and minimize impacts to the wetland area. 

To this end, representatives from the Ratledge Road/Jamison Corner neighborhood, 

Corps of Engineers, FHWA, DelDOT, DNREC, the Delaware News Journal and 

the Project Team met in the field on January 30, 2007, to review the existing 

environment in the vicinity of the proposed options. Follow up meetings have been 

held to discuss ongoing concerns and design an alignment that would preserve the 

affected farm properties and homes while minimizing impacts to wetlands in the 

area. 

As a result of the community’s concerns and ongoing consultation, DelDOT is 

proposing the Option 4B Modified alignment as the preferred alignment of new US 

301 in this area. Option 4B Modified essentially is aligned on the DP&L corridor 

from south of the Cedar Lane School complex to the boundary of the Whitehall 

properties, where it then curves to the east toward Jamison Corner Road. DelDOT 

is also proposing a minimization and mitigation package that will compensate for 

the increased impacts this alignment will cause to wetlands and forest, in 

coordination with the resource agencies. The option and commitments in the 

mitigation package are included in the FEIS and ROD. 

The alignment of Option 4B Modified will not take your home. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 6 of 28

Response to Joan and Pete Lisinski:

Thank you for your comment. 

We anticipate completion of the FEIS in the fall of 2007. Following FHWA’s 

issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD), engineering design and right-of-way 

acquisition is estimated to take up to four years (2008-2011), with construction 

following, beginning in 2012. Construction could take from four to 10 years to 

complete depending on funding. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 7 of 28

Response to Eric Spencer:

Thank you for your comment. 

DelDOT is currently in the design phase of planned improvements in this area 

(Jamison Corner Road reconstruction, Route 412A realignment, Lorewood Grove 

Road reconstruction) that are included in the Capital Transportation Plan (refer to 

DEIS, Chapter I, Section C.5.g.). These plans may include widening the roadway 

to two 12-foot lanes with 8 foot shoulders and a multi-use path. 

Suggestions have also been made by several of Airmont’s residents to improve the 

intersection of Hyetts Corner Road, Jameson Corner Road, and Lorewood Grove 

Road.
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 8 of 28

Response To Mark Washington:

Thank you for your comment. 

We anticipate completion of the FEIS in the fall of 2007. Following FHWA’s 

issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD), engineering design and right-of-way 

acquisition is estimated to take up to four years (2008-2011), with construction 

following, beginning in 2012. Construction could take from four to 10 years to 

complete depending on funding. 

Whether new US 301 is constructed in segments or in its entirety, the sequence of 

construction and the schedule for construction will be determined as the availability 

of funding is firmed up. As the design phase proceeds, DelDOT will maintain as 

many options as possible for the construction. Once funding issues are resolved, 

the Department will announce the approach to building new US 301. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 9 of 28

Response to Robert Welch:

Thank you for your comment. 

Suggestions have been received from impacted property owners on both sides of 

new US 301, requesting DelDOT look at moving the alignment to avoid their 

specific property. Clearly, both sides cannot be accommodated. The roadway has 

been shifted from the Middletown Village community to provide the distance 

needed to construct a visual berm for the community. During final design, 

DelDOT will review the alignment in this location and evaluate the potential to 

further lower impacts to Middletown Village. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 10 of 28

Response to Betty Baker:

Thank you for your comment. 

DelDOT received the map proposing Option 4B, with signatures as noted, during the Public 

Hearing. [Option 4B is a hand-drawn alignment that would traverse the distance between 

Boyds Corner Road and Jamison Corner Road approximately 1,500 feet east of the 

alignment presented in the DEIS (shown on this map as Option 1)]. DelDOT is committed 

to working with the environmental resource agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers and the 

farmers, owners and neighbors in the Ratledge Road community to develop an alignment for 

this portion of the Green North Alternative that will minimize, to the greatest extent possible, 

impacts to active farmlands and minimize impacts to the wetland area. 

To this end, representatives from the Ratledge Road/Jamison Corner neighborhood, Corps of 

Engineers, FHWA, DelDOT, DNREC, the Delaware News Journal and the Project Team 

met in the field on January 30, 2007, to review the existing environment in the vicinity of the 

proposed options. Follow up meetings have been held to discuss ongoing concerns and 

design an alignment that would preserve the affected farm properties and homes while 

minimizing impacts to wetlands in the area. 

As a result of the community’s concerns and ongoing consultation, DelDOT is proposing the 

Option 4B Modified alignment as the preferred alignment of new US 301 in this area. 

Option 4B Modified essentially is aligned on the DP&L corridor from south of the Cedar 

Lane School complex to the boundary of the Whitehall properties, where it then curves to the 

east toward Jamison Corner Road. DelDOT is also proposing a minimization and mitigation 

package that will compensate for the increased impacts this alignment will cause to wetlands 

and forest, in coordination with the resource agencies. The option and commitments in the 

mitigation package are included in the FEIS and ROD. 

The need for the Spur Road has been demonstrated by the traffic projections, which indicate 

more than twice as much traffic (14,500 vehicles per day (vpd) versus 6,200 vpd) on SR 15 

(Choptank Road, north of Churchtown Road) and more than 30% more traffic (37,200 vpd 

versus 27,900 vpd) on US 301/SR 896 without the Spur Road. The option to improve US 

301/SR 896 from the Armstrong Corner Road Interchange to Summit Bridge and using this 

improved facility as the “spur” was evaluated briefly by the project team during the 

alternatives development process but was not presented at a public workshop. This option 

was not presented because of its inability to reduce traffic congestion, improve safety and 

manage truck traffic when compared to the Spur Road on the ridge alignment. This 

alternative was evaluated in greater detail as a result of continuing coordination efforts with 

the Middletown Corridor Coalition. However, the additional effort has led to the same 

conclusion, i.e., the Green North plus the Spur Road is still preferred over the Green North 

Alternative without the Spur but with improvements to existing US 301. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 11 of 28

Response to Bertha Hobson:

Thank you for your comment. 

DelDOT received the map proposing Option 4B, with signatures as noted, during 

the Public Hearing. [Option 4B is a hand-drawn alignment that would traverse the 

distance between Boyds Corner Road and Jamison Corner Road approximately 

1,500 feet east of the alignment presented in the DEIS (shown on this map as 

Option 1)]. DelDOT is committed to working with the environmental resource 

agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers and the farmers, owners and neighbors in 

the Ratledge Road community to develop an alignment for this portion of the Green 

North Alternative that will minimize, to the greatest extent possible, impacts to 

active farmlands and minimize impacts to the wetland area. 

To this end, representatives from the Ratledge Road/Jamison Corner neighborhood, 

Corps of Engineers, FHWA, DelDOT, DNREC, the Delaware News Journal and 

the Project Team met in the field on January 30, 2007, to review the existing 

environment in the vicinity of the proposed options. Follow up meetings have been 

held to discuss ongoing concerns and design an alignment that would preserve the 

affected farm properties and homes while minimizing impacts to wetlands in the 

area. 

As a result of the community’s concerns and ongoing consultation, DelDOT is 

proposing the Option 4B Modified alignment as the preferred alignment of new US 

301 in this area. Option 4B Modified essentially is aligned on the DP&L corridor 

from south of the Cedar Lane School complex to the boundary of the Whitehall 

properties, where it then curves to the east toward Jamison Corner Road. DelDOT 

is also proposing a minimization and mitigation package that will compensate for 

the increased impacts this alignment will cause to wetlands and forest, in 

coordination with the resource agencies. The option and commitments in the 

mitigation package are included in the FEIS and ROD. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 12 of 28

Response:

Thank you for your comment. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 13 of 28

Response to Nick Tramonti-Bonet:

Thank you for your comment. 

(See also the responses to Susan Love, Public Testimony, January 9, 2007.) 

The reasons for DelDOT’s recommendation of Green North as the preferred 

alternative, and the reasons why the other alternatives were not recommended, are 

documented in Chapter V of the DEIS, in the public workshops and public hearings 

displays and handouts, and in Chapter II of the FEIS. 

We have two recorded sightings of bald eagle nesting sites in the project area. 

Although the bald eagle was recently removed from the federal endangered species 

list, both of these sites remain protected under federal regulations such as the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the USFWS Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 

The US 301 project will provide buffers and potentially time-of-year restrictions to 

protect nesting eagles. . 

A 16-foot by 2,000-foot visual earth berm is proposed to screen the residences 

adjacent to US 301 from the roadway; this should shield residences from vehicle 

headlights. There will also be a benefit in noise reduction from the visual berm. 

Existing noise levels are 45 dBA, measured at a location at 828 Woodline Drive in 

your community; noise levels are predicted to be elevated to 57 dBA upon 

construction for the Green Alternative. The visual berm may provide up to 5 dBA 

reduction in noise. 

The highway is not proposed to be fully lighted; lighting is proposed only at 

interchanges and toll plazas and in areas of safety concern. Highway lighting can 

also be shielded from nearby residences. Lighting will be determined during final 

design. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 14 of 28

Response to Dave and Donna Singleton:

Thank you for your comment. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 15 of 28

Response to Michael Brico:

Thank you for your comment. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 16 of 28

Response to comment:

Improvements are programmed to relieve congestion at the I-95/SR 1 interchange, 

which include the construction of direct ramps between I-95 and SR 1 in both 

directions, separating through traffic from local traffic. These improvements are 

scheduled for completion in 2013, based on the FY2008 – FY 2013 Capital 

Transportation Program. This completion schedule is dependant on the availability 

of state and federal funding. The new interchange was designed to relieve existing 

congestion and accommodate future traffic volumes. The potential diversion of US 

301 traffic to SR 1 was considered during the design of the new interchange 

improvements. Additional capacity on I-95 from SR 1 to SR 141 is currently under 

construction as well. 

DelDOT received the map proposing Option 4B, with signatures as noted, during 

the Public Hearing. [Option 4B is a hand-drawn alignment that would traverse the 

distance between Boyds Corner Road and Jamison Corner Road approximately 

1,500 feet east of the alignment presented in the DEIS (shown on this map as 

Option 1)]. DelDOT is committed to working with the environmental resource 

agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers and the farmers, owners and neighbors in 

the Ratledge Road community to develop an alignment for this portion of the Green 

North Alternative that will minimize, to the greatest extent possible, impacts to 

active farmlands and minimize impacts to the wetland area. 

To this end, representatives from the Ratledge Road/Jamison Corner neighborhood, 

Corps of Engineers, FHWA, DelDOT, DNREC, the Delaware News Journal and 

the Project Team met in the field on January 30, 2007, to review the existing 

environment in the vicinity of the proposed options. Follow up meetings have been 

held to discuss ongoing concerns and design an alignment that would preserve the 

affected farm properties and homes while minimizing impacts to wetlands in the 

area. 

As a result of the community’s concerns and ongoing consultation, DelDOT is 

proposing the Option 4B Modified alignment as the preferred alignment of new US 

301 in this area. Option 4B Modified essentially is aligned on the DP&L corridor 

from south of the Cedar Lane School complex to the boundary of the Whitehall 

properties, where it then curves to the east toward Jamison Corner Road. DelDOT 

is also proposing a minimization and mitigation package that will compensate for 

the increased impacts this alignment will cause to wetlands and forest, in 

coordination with the resource agencies. The option and commitments in the 

mitigation package are included in the FEIS and ROD. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 17 of 28

Response to Richard Wooleyhan:

Thank you for your comment. 

(See also Section 4, Public Testimony, January 9, 2007). 

DelDOT received the map proposing Option 4B, with signatures as noted, during 

the Public Hearing. [Option 4B is a hand-drawn alignment that would traverse the 

distance between Boyds Corner Road and Jamison Corner Road approximately 

1,500 feet east of the alignment presented in the DEIS (shown on this map as 

Option 1)]. DelDOT is committed to working with the environmental resource 

agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers and the farmers, owners and neighbors in 

the Ratledge Road community to develop an alignment for this portion of the Green 

North Alternative that will minimize, to the greatest extent possible, impacts to 

active farmlands and minimize impacts to the wetland area. 

To this end, representatives from the Ratledge Road/Jamison Corner neighborhood, 

Corps of Engineers, FHWA, DelDOT, DNREC, the Delaware News Journal and 

the Project Team met in the field on January 30, 2007, to review the existing 

environment in the vicinity of the proposed options. Follow up meetings have been 

held to discuss ongoing concerns and design an alignment that would preserve the 

affected farm properties and homes while minimizing impacts to wetlands in the 

area. 

As a result of the community’s concerns and ongoing consultation, DelDOT is 

proposing the Option 4B Modified alignment as the preferred alignment of new US 

301 in this area. Option 4B Modified essentially is aligned on the DP&L corridor 

from south of the Cedar Lane School complex to the boundary of the Whitehall 

properties, where it then curves to the east toward Jamison Corner Road. DelDOT 

is also proposing a minimization and mitigation package that will compensate for 

the increased impacts this alignment will cause to wetlands and forest, in 

coordination with the resource agencies. The option and commitments in the 

mitigation package are included in the FEIS and ROD. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 18 of 28

Response to Jeff Seemans:

Thank you for your comment. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 19 of 28

Response to Carol Geiger:

Thank you for your comment. 

We anticipate completion of the FEIS in the fall of 2007. Following FHWA’s 

issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD), engineering design and right-of-way 

acquisition is estimated to take up to four years (2008-2011), with construction 

following, beginning in 2012. Construction could take from four to 10 years to 

complete depending on funding. 

Whether new US 301 is constructed in segments or in its entirety, the sequence of 

construction and the schedule for construction will be determined as the availability 

of funding is firmed up. As the design phase proceeds, DelDOT will maintain as 

many options as possible for the construction. Once funding issues are resolved, 

the Department will announce the approach to building new US 301. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 20 of 28

Response to comment:

Thank you for your comment. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 21 of 28

Comment of James Young (copied for legibility): 

I am not directly affected by your preferred route so I am now at the stage of 

feeling DelDOT is now in a condition of “overkill” on this project. Meeting costs 

etc. far overshadow additional knowledge and benefit you gain. What has to be 

kept in mind is the money situation which is almost illusionary now. To talk about 

a more/less expensive alternative 20 yrs. In the future makes no sense and 

hopefully is not the only basis for final choice. 

I think it is time to retire some of the choices and move to a final choice and then 

concentrate on figuring how to raise revenues. 

Response to James Young:

Thank you for your comment. 

DelDOT is proceeding toward final project development for US 301, based on the 

Preferred Alternative. Funding is, and will remain, a real concern for the 

Department. Traditional funding (Transportation Trust Fund, federal grants) is 

being explored in addition to the collection of tolls to offset the cost. Public 

involvement is only one important aspect of the project development process, and 

DelDOT will continue to involve the public in the project as we move forward. 

We anticipate completion of the FEIS in the fall of 2007. Following FHWA’s 

issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD), engineering design and right-of-way 

acquisition is estimated to take up to four years (2008-2011), with construction 

following, beginning in 2012. Construction could take from four to 10 years to 

complete depending on funding. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 22 of 28

Response to Lee Eldredge:

Thank you for your comment. 

A comprehensive public involvement program is required throughout the planning 

process. Making an informed decision without significant public input on a major 

complex project such as US 301 is simply poor public policy and not consistent 

with federal and state policy. 

To date, approximately $7.5 million has been spent on the project development 

phase of this project, including, among other things, the workshops, engineering, 

environmental analysis, and preparation of environmental documentation. This 

figure represents slightly more than one percent of the overall project cost. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 23 of 28

Response to Doris Wooleyhan:

Thank you for your comment. 

(begins on next page) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 24 of 28

Response to Doris Wooleyhan:

Thank you for your comment. 

DelDOT received the map proposing Option 4B, with signatures as noted, during 

the Public Hearing. [Option 4B is a hand-drawn alignment that would traverse the 

distance between Boyds Corner Road and Jamison Corner Road approximately 

1,500 feet east of the alignment presented in the DEIS (shown on this map as 

Option 1)]. DelDOT is committed to working with the environmental resource 

agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers and the farmers, owners and neighbors in 

the Ratledge Road community to develop an alignment for this portion of the Green 

North Alternative that will minimize, to the greatest extent possible, impacts to 

active farmlands and minimize impacts to the wetland area. 

To this end, representatives from the Ratledge Road/Jamison Corner neighborhood, 

Corps of Engineers, FHWA, DelDOT, DNREC, the Delaware News Journal and 

the Project Team met in the field on January 30, 2007, to review the existing 

environment in the vicinity of the proposed options. Follow up meetings have been 

held to discuss ongoing concerns and design an alignment that would preserve the 

affected farm properties and homes while minimizing impacts to wetlands in the 

area. 

As a result of the community’s concerns and ongoing consultation, DelDOT is 

proposing the Option 4B Modified alignment as the preferred alignment of new US 

301 in this area. Option 4B Modified essentially is aligned on the DP&L corridor 

from south of the Cedar Lane School complex to the boundary of the Whitehall 

properties, where it then curves to the east toward Jamison Corner Road. DelDOT 

is also proposing a minimization and mitigation package that will compensate for 

the increased impacts this alignment will cause to wetlands and forest, in 

coordination with the resource agencies. The option and commitments in the 

mitigation package are included in the FEIS and ROD. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 25 of 28
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 26 of 28

Response to David Guinnup:

(begins on following page) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 27 of 28

Response to David Guinnup:

Thank you for your comment. 

We look forward to receiving your formal statement. Some right-of-way 

acquisition is being handled through an advanced acquisition process and funding 

for right-of-way and design will be allocated during the fiscal year, after 

completion of the FEIS and ROD. 

We anticipate completion of the FEIS in the fall of 2007. Following FHWA’s 

issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD), engineering design and right-of-way 

acquisition is estimated to take up to four years (2008-2011), with construction 

following, beginning in 2012. Construction could take from four to 10 years to 

complete depending on funding. 

(Mr. Guinnup included an informational brochure with his comment that is 

reproduced on the following pages.) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section 6. Written Comments received at the Public Hearing – January 9, 2007 Page 28 of 28
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

Response to Rebecca and Duane Brown: Thank you for your comment. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

Response to John Stuart:Thank you for your comment. We will consider your request to move thyour property. We may not be able to accbecause alignments often represent a tradeeither side. We will evaluate your requesnature, during the final design phase of thYou will be compensated fairly for the pobe acquired for the construction of the ChAs a result of refinements in engineering, anticipated to be taken from residents of C
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

Response to Dwayne and Jeannette Burns:Thank you for your comment. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

Response to Chuck Ott:Thank you for your comment. 1) The rationale and justification for the selectrecommended preferred alternative are well-dV). The recommendation was based on a balacomparison of the impacts to the natural envirUS, potential bog turtle habitat and forests), so(property acquisition, relocations, community resources (physical, noise and visual effects) athe engineering design (ability to meet project complexity, construction costs) of various elemcompared to the Green South Alternative, the impacts were that the Green North has lower wand has less potential to disrupt the habitats of North also has a single, shorter and more perpthan Green South. In addition, the Green Soucrossing of Scott Run. For these reasons, DNSouth Alternative. The Green North Alternatresource and regulatory agencies, the best solu2a) During final design, the elevation of the roevaluated further in a effort to keep the profile visual earthen berm is proposed between the cminimize visual and noise impacts. 2b) During the final design phase, DelDOT wconstructing the berm prior to construction of initial phase in the sequence of construction. 2c) DelDOT will continue to evaluate the feasfinal design. The berm is currently not proposbelow-grade. 2d) DelDOT is currently in the design phase area (Jamison Corner Road reconstruction, RoGrove Road reconstruction) that are included (refer to DEIS, Chapter I, Section C.5.g.). 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

Response to Kirk Beshore:Thank you for your comment. The toll-free ramps between SR 1 and US 13, continue to be available to the traveling public
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

Response to Bill and Fran Resto:Thank you for your comment. The rationale and justification for the selection recommended preferred alternative are well-dV). The recommendation was based on a balacomparison of the impacts to the natural envirUS, potential bog turtle habitat and forests), so(property acquisition, relocations, community resources (physical, noise and visual effects) athe engineering design (ability to meet project complexity, construction costs) of various elemcompared to the Green South Alternative, the impacts were that the Green North has lower wand has less potential to disrupt the habitats of North also has a single, shorter and more perpthan Green South. In addition, the Green Soucrossing of Scott Run. For these reasons, DN

South Alternative. The Green North Alternatresource and regulatory agencies, the best soluDuring final design, the elevation of the roadwevaluated further in a effort to keep the profile visual earthen berm is proposed between the cminimize visual and noise impacts. During the final design phase, DelDOT will econstructing the berm prior to construction of initial phase in the sequence of construction. DelDOT will continue to evaluate the feasibilfinal design. The berm is currently not proposbelow-grade. DelDOT is currently in the design phase of p(Jamison Corner Road reconstruction, Route 4Road reconstruction) that are included in the CDEIS, Chapter I, Section C.5.g.). 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

Response to Donald Fischer:Thank you for your comment. 1) DelDOT is working with DNREC to develothat will be constructed as part of the roadway safety fencing on either side to prevent larger entering the highway right-of-way. DelDOT agencies to develop mitigation for wetlands anwill be impacted. 2) We are aware of the attraction of local servDrivers wishing to continue to stop in Middlethe new US 301 either at the Levels Road inteArmstrong Corner Road/existing US 301. 3) DelDOT is considering the collection of to(ORT), where collection is accomplished by r(EZ-Pass) or by photographing license plates. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

Response to Irene Pulgini:Thank you for your comment. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

Response to Andye Daley:Thank you for your comment. Please see also the rfrom Andye Daley on January 8, 2007. Response to comment 1 on page 1 of 4:  Noise analysis for the US 301 project follows the nthe DelDOT Noise Policy, and use the Design NoisB) for sensitive receptors such as those in the projehandout/Noise Analysis Display from the January 8 were handed to all attendees at the Hearing, provid

DelDOT noise policies.) The FHWA Design Noise Levels are as follows (re

• Activity Category A: Design Noise Level 57 dB

serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significaand where the preservation of those qualities is serve its intended purpose. 

• Activity Category B: Design Noise Level 67 dB

hotels, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, pi

playgrounds, active sports areas, and parks. 

• Activity Category C: Design Noise Level 72 dB

properties or activities not included in categorie

• Activity Category D: (no level assigned) Undev• Activity Category E: Design Noise Level 52 dB

hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches

DelDOT considers noise mitigation when either of 

• predicted design-year noise levels exceed existi

regardless of overall noise level or 

• predicted design-year noise levels approach or e

Criteria Design Noise Levels listed above; i.e. Fimpact to occur for Category B when the designgreater. 

In the noise analysis, Chesapeake Meadow was ide(NSA) under Activity Category B of the FHWA NExisting noise levels were measured at 47 dBA for receptors CM-1 (208 Deerfield Court) and CM-3 (2levels at the property lines along Fox Den Court/Chwere projected at 50 dBA. Current community noiactivity. Design year noise level predictions for 20above existing noise levels in the west portion of C(continued on next page)
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

(continued from previous page) in the rear yards of the properties on the west side ogreatest predicted noise increases. These increases accounting for the proposed visual earth berm. These noise levels were assessed according to FHWthe west row of residences, within Chesapeake Meat eleven properties. Year 2030 noise levels along Court), within Chesapeake Meadow, would not excanticipated increase of 4dBA over existing noise leyear 2030 No-Build. Noise mitigation options were analyzed, but none w

defined under DelDOT’s noise policy (approved by construction of a noise barrier or berm in this locatto constructing a visual screening earth berm (11 fecommunity and the Spur Road (including not only Lane, but extending to the southern end of the comlimited on the south by Tidewater Utilities and on tof this visual berm would also be beneficial to the creducing noise increases to only 1 dBA at the DeerMeadow Lane on the north. The relationship between decibel increases and the one. The ability of the human ear to perceive a chaincrease is generally “barely perceptible” and a 5 d“recognizable” or “noticeable”. Also, while a 10 dpower, it is only a perceived doubling of the volumResponse to comment 2 on page 1 of 4 The proposed berm would be 11 feet high in this lo

also be installed on both sides of the Spur Road to highway. Response to comment 3 on page 1 of 4 With the Green Alternative plus the Spur Road, the projected to use Choptank Road north of Churchtow57% less in 2030 than with the No Spur Road condaverage daily traffic on existing US 301/SR 896 is plus Spur Alternative (27,900) than with the No SpThroughout the US 301 Project Development efforpotential effects of toll diversions on local communpotential effects. Two different working groups, w(continued on next page) 

7 

8 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

(continued from previous page) community leaders, law enforcement, local elected (including representatives from the Maryland State 

established during the process. These working groof heavy truck diversions, and developed a series othese diversions through a combination of truck resenforcement efforts. The working groups also examined the potential fofacilities. Based on the toll rates assumed in our annot projected to be significant, with the exception oMD/DE state line). Additional measures are being potential for traffic diversions. These efforts are deand Chapter IV.C. With regard to traffic using SR 15 (Choptank Roa301 tolls, it is in the best interests of DelDOT to etraffic on the toll road will result in more revenue athat end, DelDOT will work to establish a tolling minimize diversions to alternate routes (including revenues from the new toll facility. Clearly, it DelDOT to include design features on this new reduced the potential toll revenues. Response to comment 4 on page 1 of 4The recommended Spur Road includes a “Y” typwhich has been developed in accordance with c

interchange has been analyzed and is projected to in design year 2030. Daily traffic on Summit Bridbe 59,500 vehicles per day with new US 301 avolume on the Summit Bridge is 53,900 vehicles p

Spur Road, a difference of less than 10%. Traffic alternative, including the Middletown Corridor Cothe preferred Spur Road, there is a consistently hig

The volume of traffic projected to use the Summit Alternative with the Spur Road is 59,500; under the 53,900 and under the No-Build, 65,000. ThereforeRoad is projected to provide some relief to traffic oof these projections represent a significant increase the level of service (LOS) on Summit Bridge is prowith the Green with the Spur Road, which is still co(continued on next page)
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

(continued from previous pages) The ability to provide capacity improvements north the dualization of US 301/SR 896 that was completneeded north of the bridge, it can be built within thto US 40 and with the acquisition of right-of-way bscenario, the Summit Bridge would indeed be the bResponse to comment 5 on page 2 of 4:The purpose of the Spur Road is to better manage tWestown area destined for Glasgow, Newark and ptraffic currently on existing US 301 near the Maryltraffic on local roads such as existing US 301 and Ccongestion and improving safety. Surveys of current traffic show that 65% of northbo(SR 1), 35% of northbound US 301 traffic is going distance or inter-state trucks are going northeast (STraffic projections (2030) support the need for a neNorthbound traffic projected to use the Spur Road Road interchange (southern Middletown area, incluand 4% is from other locations The Spur Road significantly reduces traffic on Chovehicles per day) and on existing US 301 (by 25% spur options, in year 2030. The Spur Road draws t(Choptank Road and US 301) and places it on a divroadways typically have lower accident rates. Andopportunities in addressing the sharp curve and trafBridge. The Spur Road will also provide another nin the event of a major incident (closure of SR 1 or The Project Team presented a Spur Road option thwith major local cross roads (Old School House Rcomments were received from the public and New 

to concerns that the additional local access would area or result in new development in areas to thprojected for development. 

(continued on following pages)
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website (continued from previous page)DelDOT considers the cost of the Spur Road appropriate to provide a through route for through traffic (especially truck traffic) that will separate this traffic from local vehicular traffic and increase safety on local roadways, thus benefiting local residents. The Spur Road will also serve southern Middletown, as well as decrease the need for future improvements to Choptank Road and existing US 301. Response to comment 6 on page 2 of 5:In the process that was used for the US 301 Project Development effort, alternatives evolve over time. Alternatives are proposed and eliminated (like the Blue Alternatives) and alternatives change (the addition of the spur to the Purple and Green Alternatives), based on continued analysis and public and agency input. The public was informed of the Range of Alternatives, the Retained Alternatives, the Recommended Preferred Alternative and the Preferred Alternative. The Green Alternative (including a north and south option) has been under consideration from the beginning of the process and the Green + Spur option has been under consideration since December 2005 when the Retained Alternatives were announced. The addition of the Spur Road presented to the public at the December 2005 public workshops, was presented in considerable detail at the February 2006 “Issues” workshop, including its Purpose and Need, benefits, etc., and again at the April 2006 public workshops. The Green North + Spur was the Recommended Preferred Alternative announced by DelDOT in November 2006, as noted in the DEIS, and was presented as such at the January 2007 Combined Location-Design Public Hearings. Additionally, after every workshop/hearing, the Project Team mailed extensive documentation to community leaders including 

those from Chesapeake Meadow. DelDOT has been aware of the community’s “no spur” position as a result of the comments and petitions received during the workshops’ comment periods, including those from residents in Chesapeake Meadow and others. The Spur Road was added because: (1) it balances the available capacities of the Summit Bridge, SR 1 bridge and St. Georges Bridge crossings of the C&D Canal; (2) its addition provided flexibility in addressing the sharp curve and signal at the base of Summit Bridge 

at the intersection of SR 896, US 301, and SR 15; and (3) it will accommodate the 35% of through traffic that was identified in the Origin & Destination Survey, and confirmed by traffic projections, as desiring to access points directly north, while the US 301 mainline will accommodate the 65% of through traffic wishing to access I-95 and points to the northeast. Response to comment 7 on page 2 of 4:This comment suggests improving US 301 from Armstrong Corner Road to Mount Pleasant and eliminating the Spur Road. However, traffic analysis suggests the need to widen existing US 301 from Peterson Road to Mount Pleasant, should the Spur Road be deleted. Improvements would include adding 

one additional lane in each direction plus a continuous left turn lane and a raised median or (continued on next page)

(continued from previous page)additional left turn lane as necessary. Widening woof the roadway, and would require approximately 5(ROW) along the west side of the corridor. On the additional ROW would be required. In locations of (RG Hayes House, CRS Number N05153; ArmstroMt. Pleasant Farm, CRS N05242), the roadway woproperties. These shifts would require additional Rroadway. DelDOT has considered this option and approach. While the total cost of this option is appthe estimated preferred Spur Road cost of approximfully meet the project purpose and need: 

o Results in more traffic on local roads (e.g. Ch

among others) 

o Results in higher accident rates/actual acciden

type roads, signalized/unsignalized intersectio

o Results in mixing through truck traffic with lo

Corner Road to Summit Bridge (reference two fatalities – (both involved 18-wheelers) and th310/SR 896 and Old Summit Bridge Road.. 

o Results in reduced traffic at the toll plaza just 

revenues to fund new US 301 and the Spur Rotraffic to local roads in DE and MD. 

o Results in significant property impacts along e

the need to widen existing US 301 from PeterImpacts to Businesses: Burger King, Summit 

Connection, Middletown Medical ProfessionaState Materials, Cooper Wilbert Vault CompaCompany, Rollins Metal Works, Keenan Auto Pleasant 

 Total Takes of Businesses: Ringold Chapel AM

Madic, Inc., KO’s Cleaning 

 Partial Impacts to Homes: 3 plus impacts to M

 Total Takes of Homes: 9 

 Plus impacts to additional vacant or farmed re

The Recommended Spur Road does not require anDelDOT will continue to consider the feasibility of 

east side of the Spur Road. Changes to the typical adjustment of the width of the median or reduced csome additional outside width and include the propwithout additional property acquisition. 

(continued on following pages) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website (continued from previous page)Response to comment 8 on page 2 of 4:DelDOT would like to note the following with respect to the proposed Spur Road in the vicinity of the Chesapeake Meadow community. An 11’x 1,600’ long earth berm is proposed between the Spur Road and Chesapeake Meadow. Approximately 150-175 feet of additional open space would remain between the bottom of the earth berm (community side) and the nearest property line at Chesapeake Meadow. This additional open space results from the proposed US 301 Spur Road being shifted to the west as it passes Chesapeake Meadow, such that the proposed travel lanes actually fall outside of the DelDOTowned right-of-way. This was done to ensure ample room for an earth berm, as well as to shift the 

roadway as far from Chesapeake Meadow as reasonably possible. The strip of property directly to the west of Chesapeake Meadow, owned by DelDOT, is approximately 2,200 feet in length and varies in 

width from 250 on the south end to 350 feet on the north end. As a result of this westerly shift, DelDOT needs to acquire an additional strip of property adjacent to the DelDOT-owned parcel approximately 2,220 feet long and 200 feet wide. Suggestions have been received from impacted property owners on both sides of the Spur Road, 

requesting DelDOT look at moving the alignment to avoid their specific property. The requests from those in Chesapeake Meadow to move the corridor further to the west have been countered by the owners of the farms west of the proposed Spur Road, whose desire is to have the road moved further to the east and closer to the vicinity of Chesapeake Meadow. Clearly, both sides cannot be accommodated, and the roadway has already been shifted further from the Chesapeake Meadow community to provide the distance needed to construct a visual berm for the community. For those on both sides of the roadway, additional shifts in the alignment are not being considered at this time. However, we will review the alignment in this location during final design and evaluate the potential to shift the alignment and/or narrow the proposed cross-section, which could potentially lower impacts on both sides. Responses to comments regarding the Churchtown Road overpass Response to comment 1 on page 3 of 4:Under the current design and based upon the level of information available at this time, Churchtown Road 

would not be closed during construction of new Churchtown Road over the Spur Road. The new Churchtown Road overpass would be located just to the north of the existing roadway, with retaining walls to allow existing Churchtown Road to remain open in both directions during construction. There however most likely will be intermittent lane closures to allow for construction adjacent to the existing roadway as is typical with any roadway construction. Access to Tidewater Utilities will be maintained and they will not be acquired for the project. During construction of the overpass, it may be necessary to close one lane of Churchtown Road while a section of retaining wall is constructed along the south edge of new Churchtown Road. During this period, the contractors would use flaggers so that continuous access could be maintained. It is currently anticipated that traffic will be maintained continuously on Churchtown Road during construction and will 

not be diverted as noted in the MCC comment above. (continued on next page) 

(continued from previous page)Finally, the highest elevation on the Churchtown Relevation 77. The elevation of the backyards of 10approximately elevation 55 and 53.5, respectively. be approximately 22 feet above the elevation of the located approximately 1,200 feet from the overpass be approximately 23.5 feet above the elevation of tlocated approximately 1,000 feet from the overpass Court, new Churchtown Road will remain at the exto 104 Fox Den Court, new Churchtown Road will 

and approximately 2 feet higher than existing ChurBased on the level of information we have at this tiChurchtown Road improvements. Along the north anticipated impacts involve only the community’s being able to avoid any individual residential propeChurchtown Road, we have significantly reduced tChurchtown Road. However, temporary constructilikely be needed. In addition, some property from need to be acquired to tie existing Churchtown Roato all four properties will be continuously maintainThe Project Team has also relocated the previously pond from the 858 Churchtown Road property to Dside of Churchtown Road. Finally, the alignment oSpur Road, has been shifted slightly to the north, to the south of Churchtown Road and the Zapata propResponse to comment 2 on page 3 of 4:The current design does not impact the Chesapeake Response to comment 3 on page 3 of 4:A landscaping plan will be prepared during the proremoval of the existing berm and trees adjacent to tPotential partial property acquisitions are noted in thowever, only potential relocations are specifically their attendance at a meeting of the Chesapeake MeProject Development effort, the property owners at information on the potential impact on their propertaking of any property from 100 Fox Den Court. TCourt have not been notified of the potential taking their property. The potential takings of communit(continued on following pages) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website (continued from previous page)community stormwater management ponds located there. Many of these partial property acquisitions 

noted in the DEIS have been reduced or eliminated. As noted previously, design and minimization 

efforts since the DEIS have eliminated any individual property acquisitions along Fox Den Court, and reduced partial property impacts on the south side of Churchtown Road. The entryway will not be affected by the overpass since the modifications to Churchtown Road will begin 

west of the entrance. Response to comment 4 on page 3 of 4:102 Fox Den Court is located at the extreme southern end of Chesapeake Meadow, and would not be impacted by traffic noise from the Spur Road, i.e. the Spur Road does not result in a projected increase of 10dBA or a noise level that approaches 67dBA. The primary traffic noise influence to 102 Fox Den Court is Churchtown Road, which it borders, and not the Spur Road, since the distance to the Spur road ranges from approximately 850 feet at its western-most point to 1,200 feet at the east property line. With 

no southern exposure to the Spur Road, due to a raised Churchtown Road, 102 Fox Den is only minimally affected by traffic noise from the Spur Road. Thus, although noise levels were modeled accounting for all contributing traffic noise sources to the property, including the Spur Road, Churchtown Road was found to be the most relevant noise source. The current daily volume of traffic on Churchtown Road is approximately 2,700 vehicles per day (vpd). Under the Green North and No-Spur Road scenario, noise levels are predicted to increase from 50 dBA (existing, modeled) to 54 dBA. Under Green North + Spur Road, daily traffic volumes on Churchtown Road are less (3,700 vpd) than Green North and No-Spur (4,200 vpd), but design-year noise levels are predicted to be the same at 54 dBA. The noise contribution from Churchtown Road being raised is actually reduced slightly as a result of the property’s exposure to east-bound traffic on Churchtown Road being slightly reduced. At the same time, the Spur Road results in a minor increase in the design-year noise level, which results in the overall noise level at 102 Fox Den Court being the same, with or without the Spur Road. Response to comment 5 on page 3 of 4:See the response to comment 1 on page 3 of 4. Response to comment 6 on page 3 of 4:The Project Team has met with Tidewater Utilities, who have generally concurred in the latest concept for the Churchtown Road overpass of the Spur Road, including the suggested method for providing access to Tidewater’s facility and operations. Access will be provided, for the most part, along existing 

Churchtown Road, which will curve to the north and pass under the Churchtown Road overpass bridge. (continued on next page) 

(continued from previous page)Response to comment 7 on page 3 of 4:

Neither DelDOT nor FHWA can be responsible for 

because of the proximity of a roadway project, and such changes in property values. On the other handFHWA or DelDOT for potential increases in propehighway project. Response to comment 8 on page 3 of 4: It is anticipated that none of the construction will b

Meadow to cause a vibration that would cause a prcomment. Response to summary statement on page 3 of 4:A refined Preferred Alternative is presented in the Fminimization and mitigation of impacts will be mewhich is anticipated to be signed following the ava

review period. Final engineering and design of the commitments, as will construction. During the finawith those directly and indirectly affected to secure 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

Response to John CooperThank you for your comment. 1) DelDOT appreciates your concerns about plife issues associated with the construction of continue to pursue various mitigation efforts troadway on adjacent communities, such as lowgrade where soils and drainage allow, visual sFuture changes in property values along the npredicted nor can the values associated with suother factors along with the highway will influimpossible to determine to what extent each favalues. Compensation for a decrease in propewill design the new US 301 to avoid or minimon property values to the best extent possible; properties that would be adjacent to the new Uestimated, nor can that change in value be mit2) The Spur Road is designed as a limited-acc

to be provided will be at the proposed Bethel (directional ramps), providing access to and frthe Spur Road will be acquired as part of the ra denial of access will be imposed along the eDelDOT is designing the Spur Road as a throuespecially truck traffic, in order to separate thitraffic and increase safety on local roadways. continue to use the local roadways would not project with respect to increasing safety throulocal from through traffic, especially truck tra3) We respect your opinion regarding the curBridge; however, the accident statistics do not 

6 1⁄2 year study period evaluated in the DEIS, at this location. (continued on next page) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

(continued from previous page) 4) We understand home sellers in Delaware a

disclosure form noting impacts to the sale proThe US 301 project is not adjacent to nor will 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

Response to Donald BauerThank you for your comment. The rationale and justification for the selection recommended preferred alternative are well-dV). The recommendation was based on a balacomparison of the impacts to the natural envirUS, potential bog turtle habitat and forests), so(property acquisition, relocations, community resources (physical, noise and visual effects) athe engineering design (ability to meet project complexity, construction costs) of various elemcompared to the Green South Alternative, the impacts were that the Green North has lower wand has less potential to disrupt the habitats of North also has a single, shorter and more perpthan Green South. In addition, the Green Souof Scott Run. For these reasons, DNREC did Alternative. The Green North Alternative represource and regulatory agencies, the best soluDelDOT is aware of the proximity of the St. GAppoquinimink High School to the proposed 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

Response to Susan TokashThank you for your comment. We appreciate your preference for the Yellow have for preferring it over the Green North AlDelDOT’s recommendation of Green North areasons why the other alternatives were not reChapter V of the DEIS, in the public workshohandouts, and in Chapter II of the FEIS. In addition, we have worked with several farmminimize impacts to their farms and the farmi
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

(comments addressed on previous page) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

Response to Patrick Daley Thank you for your comment. Please also see the comment form and responsof this section. DelDOT would be willing to investigate the dfacility with adjacent communities, property opotential greenway could be located on the Spwould seem that locating the greenway on the more appropriate. A suggested greenway is nAlternative. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

(comments addressed on 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

Response to Allen Rubinow Thank you for your comment. While we appreciate your concern, please notlane local road, will be elevated over the new the design for the Spur Road is to provide locapossible, thus decreasing the impact of the ovespeeds than on the Spur Road, therefore, less n

required right-of-way to construct the relativeSpur Road to overpass local roads would causcommunities. DelDOT did consider a southern route (develothe project planning process. That alternative as a result of strong opposition from the souththe surrounding area) and from the resource anot address the traffic problems effectively. We appreciate your preference for the Blue Afor preferring it over the Green North Alternarecommendation of Green North as the preferthe other alternatives were not recommended, DEIS, in the public workshops and public heaChapter II of the FEIS. The reasons for not realso detailed in US 301 Project Development: Evaluation (DelDOT, November 2005), which agencies. This document is available for revie
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

(comments addressed on 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

Response to Susan Laskos Thank you for your comment. DelDOT did consider a southern route (develothe project planning process. That alternative as a result of strong opposition from the souththe surrounding area) and from the resource aWe appreciate your preference for the Blue Afor preferring it over the Green North Alternarecommendation of Green North as the preferthe other alternatives were not recommended, DEIS, in the public workshops and public heaChapter II of the FEIS. The reasons for not realso detailed in US 301 Project Development: 

Evaluation (DelDOT, November 2005), which agencies. This document is available for revie
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

Response to George and Carolyn Schafer Thank you for your comment. Regarding the Armstrong Corner Road area: did cross north of the Middletown Baptist Chuwetlands and forest and close to the Post & Raalignment was revised to the south at the requto minimize impacts to wetlands. The alignment in the Ratledge Road area has balignment to preserve working farms in the arwetlands. DelDOT received the map proposing Option 4the Public Hearing. [Option 4B is a hand-drawthe distance between Boyds Corner Road and approximately 1,500 feet east of the alignmenthis map as Option 1)]. DelDOT is committed resource agencies, the Army Corps of Engineeneighbors in the Ratledge Road community to portion of the Green North Alternative that wipossible, impacts to active farmlands and minTo this end, representatives from the Ratledge neighborhood, Corps of Engineers, FHWA, DNews Journal and the Project Team met in the review the existing environment in the vicinity up meetings have been held to discuss ongointhat would preserve the affected farm propertiimpacts to wetlands in the area. As a result of the community’s concerns and oproposing the Option 4B Modified alignment US 301 in this area. Option 4B Modified essecorridor from south of the Cedar Lane School Whitehall properties, where it then curves to tRoad. DelDOT is also proposing a minimizatcompensate for the increased impacts this aligforest, in coordination with the resource agencin the mitigation package are included in the F
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

Response to Matt CraccoThank you for your comment. The need for the Spur Road has been demonstwhich indicate more than twice as much traffiversus 6,200 vpd) on SR 15 (Choptank Road, more than 30% more traffic (37,200 vpd versuwithout the Spur Road. The option to improvArmstrong Corner Road Interchange to Summfacility as the “spur” was evaluated very briefalternatives development process but was not This option was not presented because of its inimprove safety and manage truck traffic when ridge alignment. This alternative was evaluatcontinuing coordination efforts with the MiddHowever, the additional effort has led to the sNorth plus the Spur Road is still preferred ovewithout the Spur and with improvements to exAlthough some of the improvements you menthe scope of the US 301 Project. Some of the other future roadway projects. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

Response to Mark Wiggins, Sr. Thank you for your comments. DelDOT is currently constructing improvemeimprovements are designed to improve safety a local roadway and not add capacity. The neon the Choptank Road alignment because of th

properties, including two that are eligible for iHistoric Places, that would occur with the conlimited-access roadway. The spur alignment pproperty, and an interchange in the Middletowthe US 301 improvements for many years. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

Response to George Keegan and Heather CThank you for your comment. The new interchange south of Summit Bridge currently located on the sharp curve south of t

SR 896 from Lea Eara Farms will be provided Access to SR 15 from Lea Eara Farms will be Road to SR 896 to Churchtown Road to SR 15On northbound US 13, the existing on ramp (msouthbound US 13 and access SR 1) to SR 1 napproximately 1,000 feet to the south, and the will be extended and physically separated from vehicles. The crossover ramp would continue northbound US 301 to SR 1, and merge into nmerges onto northbound US 301. The noise receptors you identify are labeled PFigure III-10 in Chapter III), and are listed in SR 1 and US 301. The analysis showed that nexisting or No-Build levels at PF-2; therefore, will be perceptible at distances comparable to feet from SR 1 and 1,200 feet from US 13. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

(comments addressed on 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

Response to Nicole RhoadesThank you for your comment. The construction of the Spur Road will facilitabetween the state line/Westown area and SR 8wishing to access points north and west of the north and west of Summit Bridge traveling soMaryland. The current reconstruction of Chopadd capacity to this roadway; however, withouChoptank Road north of Churchtown Road widay (vpd) versus 6,200 vpd with the Spur Roaexisting). Old Schoolhouse Road will remain Road; there are no plans to extend this road beraise it to overpasds the Spur Road. Additiondirect impact of the overpass. While the impacts of the Old Schoolhouse Ronot inconsequential, they could be minimized slopes for the overpass approaches. Impacts trestricting their access to the Spur Road by fenminimized by the provision of visual earth berRoad and a number of adjacent communities tStormwater runoff will be treated for both quamanagement facilities currently designed (in caccording to projections, not exceed national s
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

Response to Mark Wiggins, Sr.: The Department appreciates your presentation this “futuristic” roadway design would have, bwould not consider a totally elevated highway impacts that this would bring to the surroundinhigher costs, and the greater impacts associatean elevated roadway. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

Response to Melissa DelRossoThank you for your comment. The need for the Spur Road has been demonstwhich indicate more than twice as much traffiversus 6,200 vpd) on SR 15 (Choptank Road, more than 30% more traffic (37,200 vpd versuwithout the Spur Road. The option to improvArmstrong Corner Road Interchange to Summfacility as the “spur” was evaluated very briefalternatives development process but was not This option was not presented because of its inimprove safety and manage truck traffic when ridge alignment. This alternative was evaluatcontinuing coordination efforts with the MiddHowever, the additional effort has led to the sNorth plus the Spur Road is still preferred ovewithout the Spur but with improvements to exDelDOT will consider the potential to add a reRoad during the final design process; howevethe limit of disturbance for the roadway and inresources. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 7: Comment Forms Received through the Website 

Response to Kathy OlingerThank you for your comment. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response Thank you for your comment. We will accommodate your request should alignment change and impact your property
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response Thank you for your comment. During final design, the elevation of the roadway in further in a effort to keep the profile as low as reasoberm is proposed between the community and new noise impacts. During the final design phase, DelDOT will evaluatthe berm prior to construction of the roadway or as sequence of construction. DelDOT will continue to evaluate the feasibility of design. The berm is currently not proposed where th
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response Thank you for your comment. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

This page intentionally left blank 

Additional response to Mr, MarchioWe have considered your concerns regarding the prthe Cedar Lane Complex. The project team, togethEngineers, DNREC, the US EPA and FHWA, has ralignment between Armstrong Corner Road and Jamrecommended alignment Option 4B Modified in thieliminate impacts to the school district’s planned exapproximately 400 feet to the west of the educationalignment shown in the DEIS). This option will eliowned and operated farms (Wooleyhan and Emersolow/medium quality wetlands. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Bill Cockerham: Thank you for your comment. DelDOT received the map proposing Option 4B, wiPublic Hearing. [Option 4B is a hand-drawn alignmdistance between Boyds Corner Road and Jamison 

feet east of the alignment presented in the DEIS (shDelDOT is committed to working with the environmCorps of Engineers and the farmers, owners and neicommunity to develop an alignment for this portion that will minimize, to the greatest extent possible, imminimize impacts to the wetland area. To this end, representatives from the Ratledge RoadCorps of Engineers, FHWA, DelDOT, DNREC, the Project Team met in the field on January 30, 2007, in the vicinity of the proposed options. Follow up mongoing concerns and design an alignment that wouproperties and homes while minimizing impacts to As a result of the community’s concerns and ongoinproposing the Option 4B Modified alignment as the 301 in this area. Option 4B Modified essentially is south of the Cedar Lane School complex to the bouwhere it then curves to the east toward Jamison Corproposing a minimization and mitigation package thincreased impacts this alignment will cause to wetlawith the resource agencies. The option and commitincluded in the FEIS and ROD. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Robert Funk, Jr. Thank you for your comment. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Duane, Rebecca, and Megan Brown Thank you for your comment. Please also see the rcomment form found in Section D.7 of this Chaptertopic. DelDOT continues to consider the Spur Road an inOne of the objectives of the design for the Spur Roawherever possible, thus decreasing the impact of thspeeds than on the Spur Road, therefore, less noise way to construct the relatively smaller overpass). Aroads would cause a greater impact to nearby commRegarding the noise impacts along Churchtown RoChurchtown Road is approximately 2,700. The proNorth Alternative (with Spur) is 3,700, which repreprojected daily volume under the No-Spur Road conoise is based upon the volune of vehicles using the Alternative with Spur Road would provide a lower the projected lower volume using Churchtown Roacondition. Based on the analysis of noise at receptors located iFarms, and the location of your property, you woultraffic on the Spur Road or on Churchtown Road ovThe ability of the human ear to perceive a change in generally “barely perceptible” and a 5 dBA increas

“noticeable”. Also, while a 10 dBA increase is a 1perceived doubling of the volume to the human earDelDOT has committed to constructing a visual scr1,600 feet long) between the community and the prbeneficial to the community with regard to noise, reincrease at the Deerfield Drive location and a 5 dBA 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response Thank you for your comment. We anticipate completion of the FEIS in the faissuance of the Record of Decision (ROD), enacquisition is estimated to take up to four yearfollowing, beginning in 2012. Construction cocomplete depending on funding. The Red Alternative, which followed the ridge Canal on the Summit Bridge, was evaluated duretained for detailed evaluation. Reasons for nincluded: • it does not accommodate the 65% of traffic 

to the northeast 

• it would require additional lanes on the Sum

increased traffic volumes 

• it did not provide direct access to SR 1 • it would have required major improvement

tie-in to Old Baltimore Pike 

• it had identified impacts to Section 4(f) res• it would have been the costliest to construc• required the most difficult maintenance of 

during construction. 

The full explanation for nor retaining the Red II.B.2.a. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Eric Spencer Thank you for your comment. We anticipate completion of the FEIS in the fall issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD), engiacquisition is estimated to take up to four years following, beginning in 2012. Construction coucomplete depending on funding. The rationale and justification for the selection orecommended preferred alternative are well-docThe recommendation was based on a balanced oof the impacts to the natural environment (wetlabog turtle habitat and forests), social and economrelocations, community and community facilitieand visual effects) and the feasibility and restraito meet project purpose and need, design compleelements of the roadway. When compared to thdifferences in environmental impacts were that tforest and stream impacts and has less potential dependent wildlife. Green North also has a singcrossing of Scott Run than Green South. Green of Scott Run. For these reasons, DNREC did noThe Green North Alternative represents, in the oagencies, the best solution to the existing need. During final design, the elevation of the roadwafurther in a effort to keep the profile as low as reberm is proposed between the community and nnoise impacts. During the final design phase, DelDOT will evaluberm prior to construction of the roadway or as a part construction. DelDOT will continue to evaluate the feasibility of exberm is currently not proposed where the roadway wiDelDOT is currently in the design phase of planned iRoad reconstruction, Route 412A realignment, Lorewincluded in the Capital Transportation Plan (refer to D
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Al Evans Thank you for your comment. We appreciate your concern regarding the immediaccommodate existing traffic. Following the publiRecord of Decision and the Army Corps of Engine2007, final engineering and corridor preservation/ take approximately 4 years (2008-2011). Constru4-5 years under ideal conditions and if full funding up to 10 years if limited funding requires phasing 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Edith Carroll Thank you for your comment. The interchange at Armstrong Corner Road is provMiddletown and points north of Middletown. Basthat the spur road will be limited access, the Spur two-lane roadway to carry the anticipated traffic. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to David Klinger: Thank you for your comment. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Nan & Ray Eddy: Thank you for your comment. The elevation of the visual earth berm will be fuHowever, as the new US 301 mainline passes thdevelopment, it will begin its elevation to overpanorth of Springmill. Typically, at this distance, reducing noise from the roadway is minimal (a ranticipated).  In addition, the air quality analysis showed that National Ambient Air Quality Standards will be this one).  (continued on next page) 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

(continued from previous page) 

We appreciate your concern and your request to to your property. We may not be able to accommalignments often represent a trade-off of impacts evaluate several options in the vicinity of Armstrpreferred option (ACR Area Option 2A) best repinterests. We will continue to evaluate minimizaphase of the project. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Delaware Nature Society Thank you for your comment. We appreciate your concerns about the impacts ospecifically water and water quality, forests, agriState Resource Areas. Similar concerns about imstreams, and forest impacts have been expressed agencies reviewing the project and are noted in tA full environmental mitigation package includienhancement, reforestation and stormwater manAdditional commitments will include the protectarea, protection of bog turtle habitat, minimizatioResource Area of Scott Run, and realignment of north of Boyds Corner Road. Refer to FEIS, Cha
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

This page intentiona
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response Thank you for your comment. We appreciate your concern regarding the immeFollowing the publication of the FEIS and its revArmy Corps of Engineers provisional permit in tcorridor preservation/ acquisition will begin and (2008-2011). Construction is likely to begin in 2conditions and if full funding is available. Conslimited funding requires phasing the construction
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response Thank you for your comment. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response Thank you for your comment. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response Thank you for your comment. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

This page intentionally left blank 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Don Snyder: Thank you for your comment. The reconstruction and widening project for Chothe roadway will remain two lanes wide with plaThe option to improve existing US 301/SR 896 finterchange to Summit Bridge and using this impevaluated by the project team during the alternatnot presented at a public workshop. This option option, the projected daily traffic on Choptank R(vpd) north of Churchtown Road) was projected volume on this roadway, and did not represent aprojected No-Build conditions as would be provSpur Road (6,200 vpd north of Churchtown Roaprovide as much relief in the projected 2030 dail(37,200 vpd, north of Boyds Corner Road) compdid the Green Alternative with the Spur (27,900 amount of traffic on the local road system, the “Goption also would not have the same traffic congexpected from the Green Alternative with the SpImprovements are programmed to relieve congewhich include the construction of direct ramps bdirections, separating through traffic from local scheduled for construction beginning in the fall 2the end of 2012, well in advance of the projected The new interchange was designed to relieve exifuture traffic volumes. The connection of US 30developing the design concept for the new interclane (5th lane in each direction) is currently unde

SR 141. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Kenneth Warner Thank you for your comment. Following the publication of the FEIS and its revArmy Corps of Engineers provisional permit in tcorridor preservation/ acquisition will begin and (2008-2011). Construction is likely to begin in 2conditions and if full funding is available. Conslimited funding requires phasing the construction
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response: Thank you for your comment. The need for the Spur Road has been demonstratindicate more than twice as much traffic (14,500 vpd) on SR 15 (Choptank Road, north of Churchtraffic (37,200 vpd versus 27,900 vpd) on US 30option to improve US 301/SR 896 from the ArmSummit Bridge and using this improved facility briefly by the project team during the alternativepresented at a public workshop. This option was to reduce traffic congestion, improve safety and to the Spur Road on the ridge alignment. This adetail as a result of continuing coordination efforCoalition. However, the additional effort has led Green North plus the Spur Road is still preferred without the Spur but with improvements to exist
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Juan & Cheryl Zapata: Thank you for your comment. We will consider your request to move the alignproperty. We may not be able to accommodate aalignments often represent a trade-off of impacts evaluate your request, as well as others of a simiduring the final design phase of the project. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

This page intentional
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Tidewater Utilities: Thank you for your comment. During a meeting on April 16, 2007 between DeDelDOT presented an improvement concept for overpass that minimized impacts and retained acfacilities on Churchtown Road. This concept wiof the roadway. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

This page intentional
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Jim Gasparovic: Thank you for your comment The FEIS addresses the preferred alternative and refined engineering in order to minimize the effeeffects include lowering the roadway where poss

appropriate landscaping (to be included during fdesigned, however, to remove through traffic, esand while it might be perceived as serving transicommuters, it will in fact benefit local traffic by percentage of trucks on the local roads, thereby rsafety. As to location, alternative locations have been didevelopment process, beginning with the 1993 DThe reasons for not selecting the Blue Alternativthe DEIS, Chapter II, Section B. The Blue Alterpurpose and need; it was objected to by state and regulatory agencies; and it was strongly opposed Green North Alternative (Preferred) fully meets generally supported by the public and the state aregulatory agencies. Typically, a new signal is put on “Flashing Yellobefore activation. When activated, a Variable Mapproximately two weeks to one month to warn traffic signal at Marl Pit/Armstrong Corner Road posted to alert drivers. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

This page intentiona
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Ronald and Virginia Steele: Thank you for your comment We will consider your request to move the alignproperty. We may not be able to accommodate aalignments often represent a trade-off of impacts evaluate your request, as well as others of a simiphase of the project. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Delaware Institute for Planning & Thank you for your comment We appreciate your preference for the Brown Alpreferring it over the Green North Alternative. Trecommendation of Green North as the preferred other alternatives were not recommended, are doin the public workshops and public hearings dispof the FEIS. DelDOT’s reasons for not preferring the Brown • Major impact to Summit Airport • Greatest impact to communities at the base o

3-level interchange 

• Greatest impacts to high quality wetlands • Considerable opposition from those expressin

community meetings 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Theresa Carbone: Thank you for your comment. Please see the responsSection D.7. of this Chapter for more information on tThis comment suggests improving US 301 from Armseliminating the Spur Road. However, traffic analysis 301 from Peterson Road to Mount Pleasant, should thwould include adding one additional lane in each direraised median or additional left turn lane as necessarythe west side of the roadway, and would require approway (ROW) along the west side of the corridor. On th

additional ROW would be required. In locations of exHayes House, CRS Number N05153; Armstrong-WalFarm, CRS N05242), the roadway would be shifted to 

shifts would require additional ROW from the opposiconsidered this option and believes it is not the most pthis option is approximately $67-$83 million, less thaof approximately $105-$120 million , it does NOT fulo Results in more traffic on local roads (e.g. Chopt

others) 

o Results in higher accident rates/actual accidents, 

roads, signalized/unsignalized intersections and n

o Results in mixing through truck traffic with local 

Road to Summit Bridge (reference two recent ac(both involved 18-wheelers) and the most recent Old Summit Bridge Road.. 

o Results in reduced traffic at the toll plaza just no

fund new US 301 and the Spur Road and results in DE and MD. 

o Results in significant property impacts along exi

need to widen existing US 301 from Peterson Ro

 Partial Impacts to Businesses: Burger King, Sum

Connection, Middletown Medical Professional BMaterials, Cooper Wilbert Vault Company, Mr. MMetal Works, Keenan Auto Body Shop , 301 Cy

 Total Takes of Businesses: Ringold Chapel AME

Inc., KO’s Cleaning 

 Partial Impacts to Homes: 3 plus impacts to Mid

 Total Takes of Homes: 9 

 Plus impacts to additional vacant or farmed resid

The Recommended Spur Road does not require takinDelDOT will continue to consider the feasibility of adside of the Spur Road. Changes to the typical section the width of the median or reduced clearances could boutside width and include the proposed trail within thacquisition.
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Donna Price: Thank you for your comment Your suggestion to construct a toll booth on exishowever, the multitude of bypass options to avoihas no limitations of access was not considered a 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Mark Wiggins, Sr.: Thank you for your comment. DelDOT would not consider a totally elevated hivisual impact that this would bring to the surrounhigher costs, and the greater impacts associated welevated highway. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

This page intentiona
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Daniel Rhoades: Thank you for your comment We will consider your request to move the alignproperty. We may not be able to accommodate aalignments often represent a trade-off of impacts evaluate your request, as well as others of a simiphase of the project. The need for the Spur Road has been demonstratindicate more than twice as much traffic (14,500 vpd) on SR 15 (Choptank Road, north of Churchtraffic (37,200 vpd versus 27,900 vpd) on US 30option to improve US 301/SR 896 from the ArmSummit Bridge and using this improved facility the project team during the alternatives developmpublic workshop. This option was not presented traffic congestion, improve safety and manage trRoad on the ridge alignment. This alternative wresult of continuing coordination efforts with the However, the additional effort has led to the samplus the Spur Road is still preferred over the Grebut with improvements to existing US 301.
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Gerald & Patricia Steskal: Thank you for your comment and for presenting along with all public input, has been considered process. The need for the Spur Road has been demonstratindicate more than twice as much traffic (14,500 vpd) on SR 15 (Choptank Road, north of Churchtraffic (37,200 vpd versus 27,900 vpd) on US 30option to improve US 301/SR 896 from the ArmSummit Bridge and using this improved facility the project team during the alternatives developmpublic workshop. This option was not presented traffic congestion, improve safety and manage trRoad on the ridge alignment. This alternative wresult of continuing coordination efforts with the However, the additional effort has led to the samplus the Spur Road is still preferred over the Grebut with improvements to existing US 301. DelDOT has included the construction of an aesand 2,200 feet long) that will minimize the visuascreening berm will also provide measure of noinoise impacts (by FHWA definition) anticipated Your suggestion to move the Spur Road north anChurch was looked at inconsiderable detail early Area Option 1 in the DEIS, Section II.D.1.a-d angreater impacts to wetlands and the severance of among other things, this alignment option was dplanned, Armstrong Corner Road will pass over 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

This page intentiona
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Scott Hoober: Thank you for your comment. DelDOT has consulted with the farmers and resorequest. An extension of Strawberry Lane will bto provide a direct connection to existing US 30
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Thomas Dill: Thank you for your comment. DelDOT has consulted with the farmers and resorequest. An extension of Strawberry Lane will bto provide a direct connection to existing US 30
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Tom & Christine Laphan Thank you for your comment. We anticipate completion of the FEIS in the fall issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD), enginacquisition is estimated to take up to four years (following, beginning in 2012. Construction coucomplete depending on funding. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response Thank you for your comment. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response Thank you for your comment. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Betty Shepherd: Thank you for your comment DelDOT received the map proposing Option 4BPublic Hearing. [Option 4B is a hand-drawn aligdistance between Boyds Corner Road and Jamis

feet east of the alignment presented in the DEIS DelDOT is committed to working with the envirCorps of Engineers and the farmers, owners and community to develop an alignment for this portthat will minimize, to the greatest extent possibleminimize impacts to the wetland area. To this end, representatives from the Ratledge RCorps of Engineers, FHWA, DelDOT, DNREC, Project Team met in the field on January 30, 200in the vicinity of the proposed options. Follow uongoing concerns and design an alignment that wproperties and homes while minimizing impacts As a result of the community’s concerns and ongproposing the Option 4B Modified alignment as 301 in this area. Option 4B Modified essentially from south of the Cedar Lane School complex to properties, where it then curves to the east towaralso proposing a minimization and mitigation paincreased impacts this alignment will cause to wwith the resource agencies. The option and comare included in the FEIS and ROD. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact StatementSection 8. Written Comments Received During the Comment Period 

Response to Jay Sonecha: Thank you for your comment DelDOT received the map proposing Option 4BPublic Hearing. [Option 4B is a hand-drawn aligdistance between Boyds Corner Road and Jamis

feet east of the alignment presented in the DEIS DelDOT is committed to working with the envirCorps of Engineers and the farmers, owners and community to develop an alignment for this portthat will minimize, to the greatest extent possibleminimize impacts to the wetland area. To this end, representatives from the Ratledge RCorps of Engineers, FHWA, DelDOT, DNREC, Project Team met in the field on January 30, 200in the vicinity of the proposed options. Follow uongoing concerns and design an alignment that wproperties and homes while minimizing impacts As a result of the community’s concerns and ongproposing the Option 4B Modified alignment as 301 in this area. Option 4B Modified essentially from south of the Cedar Lane School complex to properties, where it then curves to the east towaralso proposing a minimization and mitigation paincreased impacts this alignment will cause to wwith the resource agencies. The option and comare included in the FEIS and ROD. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

Response to Maryland State Highway AdminisThank you for your comments on the US 301 ProjEnvironmental Impact Statement and the recommAlternative as DelDOT’s Preferred Alternative. Each comment is numbered in your letter, correspfollow: Response 1 – DelDOT is also concerned about diimplementation of a toll facility. See the discussioIII-171 to III-179) on travel and toll diversions anenforcement of truck restrictions on potential toll the progress on the recommendations of the Toll Dby the Maryland SHA and DelDOT Secretary. Response 2 – More detail is available in the DEIS Sheets, on each alternative’s sheet 1 and, with resp23 on Page III-174. The engineering figures in thadditional detail regarding the LOD in Maryland. Response 3 – I-95 is properly identified as the “JoHighway” in the FEIS. Response 4 – The paragraph, as corrected in the F

Alternative has the least impacts to Prime Farmlanhydric soils. Response 5 – (See next page for comment) A statthe FEIS. Response 6 – (See next page for comment) The bfigures in the FEIS. Response 7 – (See next page for comment) The cthroughout the FEIS. 

1 

2 

3 4 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

(Continued from Page 1) Response 8 – The correct value is 25%, which rep

falling within FHWA vehicle classes 5 through 13used consistently throughout the FEIS document athe toll diversion studies performed in 2006. The corresponded to the percentage of vehicles falling through 13. All references to the truck percentage in the FEIS to show the correct value of 25% truckResponse 9 – The FEIS includes a statement that 

in the traffic model. Response 10 – The correct title, Consolidated TraFEIS, as is the current status of the US310/MD30Response 11 – The eight feet shown on the Mainlthe clear zone, which is 30 feet and includes the 1and text have been edited for inclusion in the FEISResponse 12 – The Red Alternative was eliminatethe early stages of project planning. In these early extending north of the C&D Canal along the SR 8Alternatives Retained for Detailed Evaluation prothe C&D Canal was not pursued further. The DEIretained and the impacts associated with them. Response 13 – The Spur Road includes a 12-foot is paved and two additional feet are unpaved and gThe text and figure are revised in the FEIS. Response 14 – Coordination with the Office of Stthroughout the US 301 project development effortcoordinated with other agencies including MiddleResponse 15 – The FEIS is consistent when discu

5 6 7 8 9 

10 

11 12 

13 14 

15 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

(Continued from Page 2) Response 16 - We acknowledge the suggestion. Wroadways in Maryland, including US 301 and MD section on Travel Patterns (III.G.4), as part of the study. That study was undertaken to assess the poon numerous roads in Maryland and Delaware as Response 17 – Agreed. The table is updated in thclearly indicates that the data represents the total nthe table has been expanded to include MD 213 anIII-61 into Table III-60 to present the safety data mmore understandable manner. Response18 – The values in Table III-61 are area

weighted average of the accident rate and traffic vthe project area. While the accident rates on each existing (2003) and 2030 No-Build, there are shifttraffic using these roads. Therefore, the 2030 No-Barea is different than the 2003 accident rate for the 

Response 19 – When the US 301 DEIS was publiProject Team described the intention to develop u

publication of this FEIS. However, as of the publthe regional transportation model is still undergoincalibration by DelDOT and is not yet available for available travel forecasting model for the project rwhich was used for traffic forecasting for the DEI

A comparison was made of the land use assumptiowere approved by WILMAPCO in 2003) with moJune 2005, to assess the magnitude of change thaforecasts by using more recent development assumofficially adopted in the state’s regional travel demfocused on the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) in thshowed that the new 2005 land use assumptions rehousing, but a 2% decrease in the total number of indicates the potential for slightly higher overall vthan the current 2030 traffic forecasts developed fgreater need to address and relieve congestion, an301 throughout the project area. 

21 20 19 18 17 

16 

25 24 23 

22 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

(Continued from Page 3) Response 20 – To clarify, the US 301 study did nInstead, a new multi-state model was developed foof the same regional network framework that was Accordingly, the use of the MdTA model as the bis identified in the FEIS. Response 21 – The text has been changed to refleResponse 22 - We agree. The volumes for US 30(now Table III-64) have been adjusted downward conditions at this location. Response 23 – (See previous page for comment) Ttoll diversion estimates between US 301 and I-95 III.G.4.C, Improved Connectivity for Through Tra

estimates between I-95 and US 301 were based on for this project, which included a proprietary toll eability to model toll diversions for autos and truckperiods throughout the day. 

Response 24 – (See previous page for comment) W

name of the bridge, and have included this text in 

Response 25 – (See previous page for comment) Testimated truck diversions to MD 213 and MD 33an improved, tolled US 301. A sentence discussinUS 301 compared to the numerous disincentives ttrucks is also added. Additionally, a reference in Chapter 4 of the US 301 Draft Travel Analysis Tewhich includes a detailed study of the potential traother nearby roads. This technical report is availResponse 26 – A mention of SHA’s independent diversion forecasts has been added to the FEIS. Athat directs the reader to Section 4.B.1 of the US 3Technical Report, dated November 2006, which in

of SHA’s involvement in the toll diversion study atraffic diversion forecasts for this study. 

29 28 27 

26 30 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

This page intentionally left blank 

Response 27 – The locations of the weigh stationand northbound US 301 north of the state line) anopened May 2007; DE – to open early 2009) are iResponse 28 – We note that the working group reNeil Pedersen and Carolann Wicks and also detail implementation of the working group’s recommenResponse 29 – (See previous page for comment) Tof the Toll Diversion Working Group’s recommenrecommendation for ongoing communication betwKent Counties, and the municipalities, regarding tGroup. All ongoing coordination occurring since detailed in the FEIS. Response 30 – (See previous page for comment) P

previous page. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

Response to Delaware State Historic PreservatThank you for your comments on the US 301 ProjEnvironmental Impact Statement and the recommNorth Option as DelDOT’s Preferred Alternative. Each comment is numbered in your letter, correspfollow: Response 1 – Regarding the discrepancy between that may be affected, the information in the SummSections B and C, is incorrect. The information pS-13, and in the text on page III-48 and on Table Iis updated based on the results of the application opresented with consistency in the FEIS. 

1 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

(Continued from Page 5) Response 2 – Consultation between SHPO, FHWthroughout the remaining stages of the project. Response 3 – Documentation detailing the ongoineffects of the preferred alternative on historic propElements of the consultation that are documented 

• copies of correspondence with the Delaware N

Muncee Community, ACHP, and the Marylan

• a detailed summary of the findings of the app

effect (FEIS Chapter III) from the report, “ DFinding of Adverse Effect”; 

• a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that ou

consultation that will occur as the project movAdverse Effects report and the FEIS). 

Response 4 – As we have moved forward, applied determined which properties will be adversely affDelaware Nation and the Stockbridge-Muncee CoMHT to participate in the consultation (see Respominimize or mitigate adverse effects will continue with property owners as the project moves forwarconsultation and the identification of those measuMOA. Response 5 – The MOA (draft will be Appendix H to be taken in the consultation for the identificatioeligibility, and treatment of eligible archaeologicaproject. All areas of disturbance for the project, instormwater management facilities sites, and tempoincluded. Response 6 – A discussion of highway lighting preffects, including effects on historic properties, is Aesthetic Characteristics (III.A.9). 

5 4 3 

2 6 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

(Continued from Page 6) Response 7 –Some changes in general air quality construction and use of a new highway. The projeWILMAPCO regional air quality conformity analthe Record of Decision. The microscale analysis pa slight rise in CO levels at the receptor located at alternatives using the ridge alignment. The predicthe S-NAAQS 1-hour or 8-hour standard for CO anot considered an impact (DEIS, III.C). Response 8 – Predicted changes in noise levels at the Preferred Alternative are evaluated under the caudible effects that would diminish the integrity o

as applicable. Where the audible impacts are adveconsideration in the mitigation measures included reasons for noise increases/decreases is included fin the FEIS – see also responses to technical commResponse 9 – DelDOT has designed new US 301 limited access highway, thus, limiting access to ardevelopment. The FEIS also discusses the cumuladd to those caused by the already planned and aparea that will likely be completed before roadway Development adjacent to the new roadway access planned and/or approved, and future development county and municipal zoning. Response 10 (see next page for comment) – DelDfor the Green North Alternative and considers the roadway project. While we appreciate your conceadditional historic resources are within the area of Choptank (CRS No. N00109) and Governor BenjaDuring the consultation to apply the Criteria of Adthere is an adverse effect on both resources based Mitigation to lessen the effect will be determined in the MOA. 

8 

7 9 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

(Continued from Page 7) Regarding the purpose and need for the Spur Road

- a significant (57%) reduction of future traffic 

reduction on existing US 301; the Spur Road approximately 22,500 vehicles per day 

- anticipated improvements to safety as a result 

(Spur) roadway 

- improves the sharp curve at the base of Summ- provides a direct route for the 35% of traffic b

and northwest of Summit Bridge 

- provides an additional north-south route for in

Conversely, without the addition of the Spur Road

- Choptank Road is projected to carry approxim

day 

- existing US 301 is projected to carry between 

vehicles per day 

- a higher (by 20%) accident rate is predicted f

299, Choptank Road, and SR 896) 

- the roundabout at Churchtown Road/Choptan

the PM peak 

- the US 301/Broad Street signalized intersectio- there would be significant queues on existing 

unsignalized access points would fail, eventu(i.e., at Old Schoolhouse Road) 

- the existing two-lane portion of US 301 woul- the historic properties along existing US 301, 

Armstrong Corner Road, and along Choptank stress from additional traffic forced to use exi

Further, as a response to comments received throuDelDOT has reevaluated the design and alignmenfurther minimize impacts on both sides of the limiResponse 11 – We appreciate your concerns regaconsidered input from all sources (SHPO, DNRECbefore making its announcement. We feel that the what we consider the best solution to meet purposoverall environmental impacts. (continued on page 9) 

10 11 

12 

13 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

(Continued from Page 8) Based upon the application of the Criteria of AdveDocumentation in Support of a Finding of AdversAgreement (Preliminary Draft August 2007) and s

preferred option’s adverse visual and audible effeccould be minimized/mitigated through landscape potentially, extension of the berm at Springmill; imcommunity resources could not so easily be mitigResponse 12 – Regarding the Ratledge Road OptiOption 4B Modified is supported by all of the natuDNREC, DDA) with regard to direct impacts to cand forestlands. Option 4B Modified does, in fact, result in an advHouse (previously, with Option 1, our determinatieffect). We are more concerned with the effects oLovett Farm and T.J. Houston House properties thexpecting that the residential development will subefore we begin roadway construction. The effecconsidered adverse today, may simply be cumulatto consult with your office as the final recommenddeveloped. With regard to areas of higher archaeological poteidentification, determination of eligibility, and trewithin the entire area of disturbance of the projectResponse 13 (see prior page for comment) – As ykeep your office informed of our continuing consuHistorical Trust. We have determined that there aarea of potential effect in Maryland and have requfinding. Further, the MHT has been asked if they 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

Responses to the State Historic Preservation OEach comment is numbered in your letter, correspfollow: Response 1 – The description of historic resourceand structures, potential archaeological sites)” in tResponse 2 – A table summarizing the impacts in changes, as appropriate. The numbers in the tablehave the numbers in Table S-1, so that they agree The text in Chapter V regarding the alternatives nreflect the correct numbers in the FEIS. Response 3 – The text of this section has been edsuggestions. Response 4 – The following text has been includeresource (N05191) has been identified; a predict

medium, low and nil sensitivity to contain arch

partially tested and refined to further define tho

archaeological resources will be completed, as dethe FEIS, prior to commencement of any construcdetail the disposition of any identified archaeolwithin the area of disturbance of the Selected AlteResponse 5 – The referenced paragraphs have beeyour suggestions. Response 6 – (See comment on next page.) The rthat the Yellow Alternative has the least impacts tgreatest impacts to hydric soils. Response 7 – (See comment on next page.) Your considered for the FEIS. The MOA, which stipulidentification, determination of eligibility, and tresites, is included as an appendix to the FEIS. The also completed and summarized in the FEIS. 

4 3 2 

1 

5 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

(Continued from Page 10) Response 8 - The ACHP was notified via a June 1have an adverse effect on historic properties, as reinvited to participate as a signatory on the MOA. Response 9 - We are continuing our consultation (Maryland Historical Trust (MHT)). A letter was 2007 requesting their concurrence on a finding of Maryland, and inviting their participation as a signResponse 10 – As noted, the decision to conduct tResponse 11 – Level of Service (LOS) is a commto describe the quality of travel on a roadway segmroads (i.e., intersections or interchanges). LOS is dincluding the physical characteristics of the road (frequency of access points, ability or lack of abilit

vehicles, etc) and the characteristics of the traffic percentage of trucks, free flow speed, fluctuation hour, etc). LOS is not based on the volume to capincluded in the FEIS. For the specific example noted, both US 301 southJamison Corner Road are two-lane facilities, with and traffic characteristics. Accordingly, the capacand with similar projected volumes, also have simUS 301 at the Summit Bridge is a four-lane road wcomposition (11% trucks on the Summit Bridge c301 south of Middletown and SR 896 near JamisoResponse 12 – We have considered your suggesticompleting the FEIS. Archaeological potential is tables, nor is the “degree of effect”. The tables haof historic properties with potential adverse effect“audible, visual, atmospheric”. Table II-4 refers only to the differences in impacts 

options, regardless of the other impacts of the Yel

impact to Mt. Pleasant Farm is due to the Alternatis not included in the Table. 

7 

6 11 10 

12 8 9 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

(Continued from Page 11) Response 13 – The description of Section B in the the content of Section B. Response 14 – The decision to include communit

based on the widespread community interest in thcitizen involvement and workshops attendance, threceived at each of the public workshops, and the 

which the project team interacted. The distance fobased on actual potential noise and visual effects amodeling or field verification. In the FEIS, only tthe Green North Alternative are assessed for impaResponse 15 – Summit Airport was considered as in the DEIS, not as a community facility. Response 16 – The identification and evaluation o

included in the DEIS, because it was not complete

Wetland mitigation sites are discussed in the FEIS potential adverse effects to historic resources and archaeological sites). Response 17 – The figure shows sites that are listtime of circulation; J. Biggs house is not includedto the preferred Green North Alternative, nor is theligible resource, as would be shown on the figureResponse 18 – A discussion of the application of 

included in the FEIS. Response 19 –Your suggestion is applied in the w

FEIS. Response 20 – Your suggestion is applied in the wFEIS. 

13 14 15 16 19 18 17 

20 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

(Continued from Page 12) Response 21 – We acknowledge your suggestions that resource will not be affected by the Preferred The discussion of the Brown Alternative and the rexpanded in the FEIS. Response 22 – The footnotes to Table III-23 are rResponse 23 – Your suggested changes are reflec

addresses the identification of archaeological siteseligibility, and potential mitigation of adverse effearchaeological sites. Response 24 – Table III-29: The CO analysis inco

/improvements in vehicle emission control system and standards that will be in place in 2030 (informresult will be “cleaner” vehicles in 2030 compared effect on CO concentrations. The numbers in Tabbuild scenarios: Purple for the SR 299 intersection SR 896 intersection (right column. This is clarifieResponse 25 – We are not aware of any such studResponse 26 – The explanation below is included effects report. 

The Maples (H-25). With the final Green North Aexperience a 4 dBA increase in the average daily n60 dBA). This is greater than the previously repordBA associated with the preliminary Green North variations in the preliminary vs. final version Greeincrease would be perceptible on the property. Ththe potential to audibly affect The Maples. Noise Alternative would still less than the predicted No-the reduction of traffic on Bunker Hill Road. 

23 27 29 28 22 21 

26 24 25 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

This page intentionally left balnk 

(continued from previous page) 

Woodside (H-27). With the construction of the Prwould experience a reduction of 3 dBA since existhe west would be diverted onto the proposed Spufurther distance to the east. No audible impact on proposed undertaking. B.F. Hanson House (H-2). Based on noise recepto

the property, 370 feet from the Preferred AlternatiWarwick Road, the Preferred Alternative is expecnoise levels at the B.F. Hanson House by 2 dBA tattributed to the relocation of the main roadway frthe location of the receptor on the property. Rumsey Farm (H-4). Since the proposed roadway including heavy truck traffic, off existing US 301 away from the receptor, the noise increase associa301 would be negated, yielding future noise levels existing levels (52 dBA). Armstrong Walker House (H-11). Noise receptor daily noise level of 67 dBA, which exceeds the NoTherefore, the property is currently experiencing a the Preferred Alternative would result in a decreas66 dBA, due to the reduction of traffic on existing no audible effect on the Armstrong-Walker House still be impacted. 

Response 27 – Further consultation to mitigate nowill be undertaken; the process and consultation to mitigation of adverse effects due to noise is summthe MOA. Response 28 – The discussion of mitigation of imthose impacts that may be caused by the project, i

stormwater management facilities, riparian buffer cleared land. The referenced text has been edited troadways and associated infrastructure will includis associated with this project.Response 29 – See Response 16. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

(Continued from Page 13) Response 30 – We have included some discussion by municipalities (primarily by Middletown) and protections within the municipalities in the FEIS. Response 31 – A review of the changes in land usand development that occurred was as much a resurezoning as the completion of SR 1. The rezoning for development could have been a secondary effeResponse 32– We regret the omission of DelDOTUS 301 in the list of programmed improvements. Response 33 – Your suggested text change is inclthe effectiveness of Section 106 historic protection not federally funded is discussed in SCEA concluResponse 34 – Your suggestion is acknowledgedresidence or business, whether displaced by a fedesimply relocated for business reasons, is not regulFederal relocation and assistance program, but by at the time of the proposed displacement. The selfor the relocation of the trucking company (within resource) was unfortunate; however, it may have bforeseeable given the appropriate zoning that is avAppropriate text is included in the FEIS. Response 35 – See the response to Comment 2 on 

updated summary table of impacts is included in tResponse 36 – We acknowledge the omission of effects to archaeological sites in this paragraph. 

32 

31 

37 

36 

35 

30 

33 

34 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

(Continued from Page 14) Response 37 (see prior page for comment) – As th4(f) impacts, we do not refer to potential Section 14(f) analysis as a “discussion” in the FEIS. A moeffects of the Green Alternatives is included in the Response 38 – The communities’ objections to thdiscussed in the FEIS. Response 39 – The effects of the Armstrong Corn

Armstrong-Walker House and S. Holton Farm weregarded as a factor in the preference of one optiothe options would have somewhat similar non-phyThe major decision factors included functionality direct impacts to properties and community facilitBaptist Church), wetland and forest impacts, desigUS 301. Also, at the time, the effects had not yet adverse effect. Response 40 – Woodside is shown on all mappinResponse 41 – The weigh station is designated as 

mapping for the FEIS. 

41 40 

39 38 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

Response to Delaware Department of Natural RControl: Thank you for your comments on the US 301 ProjEnvironmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and the r

Alternative North Option as DelDOT’s Preferred input throughout the project development processEach comment is numbered in your letter, correspfollow: 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

(Continued from Page 1) Response 1 – We acknowledge your preference fonatural resources perspective, lack of support for tAlternatives, and preference of the Green North AAlternative from a natural resources perspective. Purple Alternative is an environmentally preferabissues. We appreciate your position on the Green preferred route. Response 2 – The evaluation of the impacts assocRoad Area Options is focused mainly on the commfarms, and the community associated with these faimpacted by the Green Alternative North Option aDEIS (Option 1), while engineering an alignment impacts to wetlands, streams and forests in the areof the Ratledge Road Area Options is included in DelDOT prefers Option 4B Modified, as discusseRatledge Road Area Options has made the compaOptions and the Purple difficult. The Green North impacts, slightly greater stream impacts and greatNorth Alternative presented in the DEIS. HowevePurple Alternative are significant enough that DelNorth (specifically Green North with Option 4B Malternative. 

1 2 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

(Continued from Page 1) 

Response 3 – DelDOT remains committed to provmitigation package which is detailed in the FEIS aRecord of Decision for the project, and will continother agencies during the permitting phase of the pincluded in this package will be in addition to the measures described in the DEIS. Ensuring the confunctions of the high quality wetlands and forest iacres of high quality forested wetland and upland easement through deed restrictions such that the ain perpetuity. To mitigate locally for lost functionquality farmed wetland will be enhanced through invasive species, and conserved through deed restacreage of wetlands impacted, an additional 15 acincluded in the mitigation site located near the LevDelDOT will pursue potential agricultural district Road/Ratledge Road area and additional conservaarea. Response 4 – DelDOT is committed to the limited 

as it is described in the DEIS and FEIS. As descriprovide access at only 6 locations: Levels Road, eRoad, at SR 1, Bethel Church Road extended, and 

Summit Bridge. No additional access points will access rights from adjacent properties to the new rof-way acquisition process for the new roadway. 

4 3 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

(Continued from Page 1) Response 5 – A wildlife passage corridor is propo

the southern tributary to Scott Run just north of Bwill be approximately 10 feet high by 10 feet widesouthern branch of Scott Run. The corridor shoulhigh quality wetlands and forests placed under conportions of Scott Run. 

5 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

Response to DNREC Technical Committee RevAlternative (ATTACHMENT 1):Response 1 – Thank you for through review and con the Alternatives. To clarify: The Green and Paddition of a two-lane spur road (one lane in each Summit Bridge; the Brown Alternatives’ four-lane for traffic wishing to access the Summit Bridge. Npast the C&D Canal to the north. Response 2 – Thank you for your summary evaluretained alternatives; DelDOT respects DNREC’s retained alternatives. 

2 

1 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

There are no responses on 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

There are no responses on 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

(continued from prior page) Response 3 – DelDOT is committed to providing package for the natural environmental impacts ass

Alternative that includes wetland replacement, weconservation, reforestation, riparian buffer restoradescribed fully in the FEIS and will be memorialithe project. Response 4 – DelDOT is committed to the limited 

as it is described in the DEIS and FEIS. As descriprovide access at only 6 locations: Levels Road, eRoad, at SR 1, Bethel Church Road extended, and Summit Bridge. No additional access points will access rights from adjacent properties to the new rof-way acquisition process for the new roadway. Response 5 – DelDOT is committed to minimal indemonstrated by our design to bridge significant w

will be improving waterway habitat connectivity bHyetts Corner Road at Scott Run and restoring the crossing. Response 6 - The FEIS includes a summary of the that are anticipated to be employed for the project and ditches, and other efforts to protect surface wauntreated roadway runoff. Hydraulic studies have for the Preferred Alternative in the FEIS, identifyitreatments for roadway runoff; the FEIS will incluavailable in the DEIS. This effort to maximize thimpacts will continue during final design. 

3 4 5 

6 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

(continued from page 8) Response 7 – A wildlife passage corridor is propo

the southern tributary to Scott Run just north of Bwill be approximately 10 feet high by 10 feet widesouthern branch of Scott Run. The corridor shoulhigh quality wetlands and forests placed under conportions of Scott Run. (See also responses 5 and 

Response 8 – DelDOT has created a diverse mitighabitat creation and emphasizes habitat connectivhabitat creation will be included for all created areitems follow: 

• Upland forest buffers will be included aroun

enhancement has been included as a specific package. Impacts to stream buffers have beepossible at each stream crossing. 

• To the extent possible DelDOT has avoided 

Forested wetland mitigation in the Levels Ro90 acre forest block between two tributaries wetland mitigation and riparian buffer enhancontiguous 80 acre forested block along a triBoyds Corner/Ratledge Road area, enhancemwill be targeted at increasing the size of cont

• DelDOT’s wetland compensation package g

Section 404 requirements of approximately 5of shrub and forested wetlands and a 1:1 repDelDOT will be creating approximately 92 aenhancing seven acres of wetlands, and conswetlands. 

• DelDOT will avoid negative effects on grou

creation, however these effects can not be elsome ground water will be required to maintmitigation site hydrology. The wetland will the tributaries to Sandy Branch at the upstrea

• DelDOT will continue to consult with DNRE

compensation design process. 

7 8 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

• DelDOT is committed to monitoring the 

reforestation areas. Specific success critedetermined in consultation with DNREC Conceptual Mitigation Package as a requminimum DelDOT anticipates monitorinhydrology for five years. Additional monmonitoring periods will likely be includePackage. 

• DelDOT will explore monitoring and inv

areas placed under conservation easemen

• DelDOT recognizes that portions of the p

Bay Drainage and may be subject to TMto treating runoff in accordance with DelControl and Stormwater Management (E

“green technologies” whenever possible. 

• DelDOT will pursue a potential agricultu

Road/Ratledge Road Area. 

• The Biological Assessment will be addre

from USFWS on the conclusions of the Bobtained. 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

Response to DNREC Technical Committee Rev(ATTACHMENT 2):

There are no responses on 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

(continued from page 11) Response 9– Thank you for the evaluation summanoted here and discussed earlier, DNREC recogniimpacts in selecting an alternative that minimizes attempting to balance those impacts. Option 4B MOption. 

9 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

(continued from page 12) 

Response 10 – DelDOT remains committed to promitigation package and will continue to coordinatduring the permitting phase of the project. The mpackage will be in addition to the compensatory wdescribed in the DEIS. Ensuring the conservation high quality wetlands and forest in this area, DelDquality forested wetland and upland habitat under deed restrictions such that the area shall remain in mitigate locally for lost functions and values, sevewetland will be enhanced through the planting of and conserved through deed restrictions. As mitigimpacted, an additional 15 acres of wetland creatimitigation site located near the Levels Road intercpursue potential agricultural district in the Boyds and additional conservation easements in the Scot

Response 11 (see comment on following page) –clarifies the differences in impacts of the six Ratlerespect to wetlands, streams and ditches, forests, aresources. This matrix will also appear in the FEI

 Option 

Resource 1 2 3 Wetlands (acres) 27.4 32.2 35.4  High Quality 10.1 14.3 12.0  Medium quality 13.3 13.3 13.6  Low quality 4.1 4.6 9.8 Number of wetlands 51 53 53 No. wetland crossings 4 4 4 No. wetlands fragmented 7 7 7 Waters of the US, total (lf) 15,679 15,947 15,923  Streams 323 534 340  Ditches 15,356 15,413 15,583 DNREC Tidal wetlands (acres) 0. 4 0.4 0.4 Floodplains (acres) 1.0 1.0 1.0 Agricultural districts (No.) 1 1 1 Agricultural Easements (No.) 1 1 1 Forestland (acres) 34.21 34.28 42.17 

10 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

(continued from page 13) As detailed in Response 10, DelDOT will provide package for the greater impacts of Option 4B Mod

Response 12 

• DelDOT is committed to working with D

protection language to conserve the wetlaRoad area and looks forward to designing that meets DNREC’s approval. 

• DelDOT is committed to monitoring suc

reforestation sites. 

• DelDOT is committed to pursuing additi

Scott Run Watershed through conservatiohowever, DelDOT can not guarantee sucindividual property owners willingness to able to condemn properties through emin

• The wildlife passage corridor will be app

wide, and is located adjacent to the southnorth of Boyds Corner Road. The corridbetween high quality wetlands and forestthe downstream portions of Scott Run. 

• DelDOT is committed to using “green te

management design which includes bioswhas avoided siting stormwater managemevegetation whenever possible; however, impacts to mature native vegetation. Stomust be located near low points along the points occur in areas of mature vegetatiowetlands. To move these low points sufffacilities out of mature vegetation would significantly, which in turn, would increaadjacent native vegetation due to wider rmanagement facilities must be located neand frequently these low points occur in stream corridors and wetlands. To move keep stormwater facilities out of mature vroadway profile significantly, which in tuwetlands and adjacent native vegetation dembankments. 

11 

12 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

(continued from previous page) 

• DelDOT, working with DNREC and othe

attempted to locate mitigation such that istream buffer protection. 

• DelDOT recognizes the reforestation pro

populations and will employ deer fencingprotection to ensure the success of it refosites. 

• DelDOT has taken a whole landscape vie

Corner/Ratledge Road conservation areaareas where they might provide the great

• DelDOT is committed to working with D

design process. 

• DelDOT is committed to pursuing an agr

Corner/Ratledge Road area, however sucindividual property owners. 

DelDOT remains committed to providing the proppackage as detailed in the FEIS and memorialized 

project, and will continue to coordinate with DNRpermitting phase of the project. The mitigation mwill be in addition to the compensatory wetland mDEIS. Ensuring the conservation of the habitat anwetlands and forest in this area, DelDOT will placwetland and upland habitat under conservation easuch that the area shall remain in it’s natural state for lost functions and values 7 acres of low quality through the planting of trees, control of invasive srestrictions. The mitigation for the acreage of wetacres of wetland creation will be included in the mLevels Road interchange. In addition, DelDOT wdistrict and additional conservation easements in tRoad area. See also Response 3 to DNREC’s lette
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

Response to the US Environmental Protection AThank you for your comments on the US 301 ProjEnvironmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and the r

Alternative North Option as DelDOT’s Preferred Each comment is numbered in your letter, correspfollow: Response 1 – We understand and accept your rati

EPA’s EIS evaluation system, and, based on contithose areas of concern which you identified in the mitigation plan and Ratledge Road Area resolutio

1 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

(continued from page 16) Response 2 – Item 1 – The FEIS includes a summefforts that may be employed for the project – incditches, and other efforts to protect surface and gr

roadway runoff. Hydraulic studies have been inclPreferred Alternative in the FEIS, identifying apptreatments for roadway runoff and including additDEIS. This effort to maximize the protections and continue during final design. Item 2 – Possible noise mitigation measures durinproject commitment in the FEIS, and include timerestrictions and equipment maintenance. See ChaConstruction Impacts”. Item 3 –These recommendations will be forwardebut will not be included as requirements. Many cotime would be practical, and some already use low 

2 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

This page intentionally 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments 

This page intentionally 
US 301 Project Development 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 9: Agency Comments (copied from an email sent to Mark Tudor, DelDOT’s project director) >>> <Bob_Zepp@fws.gov> 3/2/2007 2:45 PM >>> Mark: Spoke w/ Erica earlier this week and she suggested that I send you this email. She was inquiring as to the comments I have on the 301 EIS. Generally, I don't have or plan to submit comments since from my standpoint the process that we used worked well and problems were resolved. There is one exception and that is the mitigation package. I will (and am) ask Ed to condition any permit he issues to have a condition that requires DelDOT to develop a mitigation plan and submit it to the agencies for review and comment prior to the start of construction. Hope this is helpful BZ 

Response to the US Fish and Wildlife Service:Thank you for your comments on the US 301 ProjEnvironmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and the r

Alternative North Option as DelDOT’s Preferred Thank you for your participation in this very impoand for the appreciation you have expressed about process we employed throughout to distribute infoWe are developing a compensatory mitigation plaAlternative that will include compensation for weprotection, enhancement and preservation of existstormwater runoff impacts, among other items. Tdetailed in the FEIS and will be carried out as part project. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS V-1 

V. LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS 

Delaware Department of Transportation 

 

Mark Tudor, P.E. 

Project Director 

Therese Fulmer 

Manager Environmental Studies 

Michael Hahn, A.I.C.P. 

Project Manager 

Section 106 Coordination 

Tom Nickel 

Assistant Chief Real Estate North District 

Drew Boyce, P.E. 

Assistant Director of Transportation Solutions 

for North District 

Paul Meleri 

Real Estate and Property Acquisition 

 

Federal Highway Administration Urban Engineers

Robert Kleinburd 

Environmental Program Manager 

Erika Rush, A.I.C.P. 

Project Manager 

 

Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP 

Bill Hellmann, P.E. 

Partner 

Project Manager 

Jim Burnett, P.E., P.T.O.E. 

Traffic Engineer 

Traffic Forecasting and Analysis 

Joe Wutka 

Project Manager 

Purpose & Need; Document Review 

Jeff Kuttesch 

Transportation Engineer 

Traffic Forecasting and Analysis 

Ray Harbeson, P.E. 

Associate 

Matthew Snare, P.E. 

Traffic Engineer 

Traffic and Safety Analysis 

Henry Bankard, Jr. 

Associate 

Graphics 

Helen German, A.I.C.P. 

Environmental Planner 

NEPA Coordination; Document Preparation 

Sara D. Finnerin, P.E. 

Project Engineer 

Design Alternatives and Document Preparation 

B. Eric Almquist, A.I.C.P., P.W.S. 

Project Planner 

NEPA Coordination, Document Review 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS V-2 

Katry Harris 

Environmental Planner 

Section 106 Coordination 

George W. Tye 

Acoustic Engineer 

Noise Analysis and Document Preparation 

Maggie M. Sunderland 

Environmental Planner 

Document Preparation and Review 

Joseph A. Rauseo 

Acoustic Engineer 

Noise Analysis 

Ryan Sless 

CADD/Graphics Coordinator 

Brian Bollas 

Project Analyst 

Geographic Information Systems 

Justin T. Reel 

Project Scientist 

Natural Resources 

Kevin P. Hughes 

Senior Engineer 

Noise Analysis and Review 

William Morgante 

Environmental Scientist 

Soils and Waters/Wetlands 

Richard W. Maddox 

Natural Resources Group Manager 

Natural Resources Coordination 

Brian M. Derenick 

Environmental Scientist 

Surface Water & Water Quality 

Michael Schening 

Environmental Scientist 

Natural Resources Technical Review 

Danielle A. Lange 

Environmental Scientist 

EIS Preparation and Review 

Gene K. Bosley II, P.E. 

Senior Hydraulic Engineer 

Floodplains 

Eric M. Klein, P.E. 

Geotechnical Engineer 

Groundwater Evaluation 

Greg Siegner, P.G. 

Project Geologist 

Environmental Screening Analysis 

Stephen Roberts 

Project Engineer 

Design Alternatives 

Ian M. Craig 

Environmental Planner/GIS Coordinator 

Geographic Information Systems 

Lisa C. Jones 

Environmental Scientist 

Natural Resources 

Dan Neal 

Geographic Information Systems Analyst 

Figures 

 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS V-3 

Wilson T. Ballard Company 

 

Tom Dopkin 

Design Engineer 

EIS Preparation (Air Quality) 

Michael Kelly, P.E. 

Acoustical Engineer 

Air Quality Analysis 

 

Kramer & Associates 

Bob Kramer 

Public Involvement 

Community Outreach 

Ed Thomas 

Public Involvement 

Community Outreach 

Andrew Bing 

Public Involvement 

Community Outreach 

 

A. D. Marble and Company 

Jessica Morrow Klinefelter 

Certified Bog Turtle Surveyor 

Bog Turtle studies 

Richard Baublitz 

Archaeologist 

Predictive Model Development 

Barbara Frederick 

Senior Architectural Historian 

Section 106 Coordination 

Catherine Dluzak 

Architectural Historian 

Section 106 Coordination 

 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

DISTRIBUTION LIST VI-1 

VI. DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A. Federal Agencies 

Mr. Willie Taylor, Director (5 copies + 11 CDs) 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

US Department of the Interior 

Main Interior Building, MS 2340 

18th and C Streets, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20240 

Mr. Robert Herbert 

US Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 

District of Columbia Office 

Union Center Plaza 

820 First Street, N.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20002-4255 

Mr. Andrew Moser/Mr. Bob Zepp 

US Department of the Interior 

Fish & Wildlife Service 

Chesapeake Bay Field Office 

177 Admiral Cochrane Drive 

Annapolis MD 21401 

Ms. Karen Greene 

Fisheries Biologist 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Habitat and Protected Resources 

James J Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory 

74 Magruder Road 

Highlands, NJ 07732 

Mr. Kevin Magerr (5 copies) 

3EA30 

Office of Environmental Programs 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

Region III 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

Mr. Donald Klima, Chief 

Office of Planning and Review 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

The Old Post Office Building 

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Suite 809 

Washington, DC 20004 

US Environmental Protection Agency (5 copies) 

Office of Federal Activities 

EIS Filing Section 

Mail Code 2252-A, Room 7241 

Ariel Rios Building (South Oval Lobby) 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Mr. Conrad Lautenbacher, Director 

NOAA/CS/EX/Room 5128 

Department of Commerce 

14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20230 

Mr. Timothy J. Rooney 

Project Manager – C&D Canal 

US Army Corps of Engineers 

Philadelphia District 

The Wannamaker Building 

100 Penn Square East 

Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390 

Mr. Frank J. Cianfrani 

Chief, Regulatory Branch 

US Army Corps of Engineers 

Philadelphia District 

The Wannamaker Building 

100 Penn Square East 

Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

DISTRIBUTION LIST VI-2 

Mr. Jon F. Hall 

State Conservationist - Delaware 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

US Department of Agriculture 

1221 College Park Drive, Suite 100 

Dover, Delaware 19904-8724 

Mr. Paul Wettlaufer 

Transportation Program Manager 

US Army Corps of Engineers 

Baltimore District (CENAB-OP-R) 

P.O. Box 1715 

10 S. Howard Street 

Baltimore, MD 21201 

Mr. Gene Gruber 

Regional Environmental Officer 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Region III 

615 Chestnut Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19106 

Mr. Daniel Johnson 

Environmental Programs 

Federal Highway Administration 

DelMar Division 

City Crescent Building 

Suite 2450 

10 South Howard Street 

Baltimore MD 21201 

Mr. Robert Kleinburd (3 copies) 

Federal Highway Administration 

DelMar Division 

300 South New Street 

Room 2101 

Dover DE 19901 

Dan Montag 

Debarment and Suspensions 

Federal Highway Administration 

DelMar Division 

300 South New Street 

Room 2101 

Dover DE 19901 

Mr. Mike Culp 

Environmental Specialist 

Federal Highway Administration 

HEP, Room 3212 

400 Seventh Street NW 

Washington, DC 20590 

Mr. Jim Fels 

Harrisburg Airports District Office 

Federal Aviation Administration 

3905 Hartsdale Drive, # 508 

Camp Hill PA 17011 

B. State Agencies 

Mr. John Hughes (plus 8 CDs) 

Secretary 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control 

89 Kings Highway 

Dover, DE 19901 

Mr. Timothy Slavin 

Director 

Division of Historical & Cultural Affairs 

Delaware State Historic Preservation Office 

15 The Green, Suite A 

Dover DE 19901 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

DISTRIBUTION LIST VI-3 

Mr. Michael Scuse, Secretary 

Delaware Department of Agriculture 

2320 South DuPont Highway 

Dover, DE 19901 

Mr. John R. Griffin, Secretary 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

Tawes State Office Building, E-2 

580 Taylor Avenue 

Annapolis MD 21401 

Ms. Constance Holland, A.I.C.P. 

State Planning Director 

Office of State Planning Coordination 

122 William Penn Street 

Haslet Armory, Third Floor 

Dover DE 19901 

Shari T. Wilson, Secretary of the Environment 

Maryland Department of the Environment 

Montgomery Park Business Center 

1800 Washington Boulevard 

Baltimore, MD 21230 

Mr. John D. Porcari 

Secretary 

Maryland Department of Transportation 

7201 Corporate Center Drive 

Hanover, MD 21076 

Ms. Elizabeth Cole 

Maryland Department of Housing and 

Community Development 

Maryland Historical Trust 

100 Community Place 

Crownsville MD 21032-2023 

Attention Mr. Tim Tamburrino 

Mr. Neil Pedersen (plus 5 CDs) 

Administrator 

Maryland State Highway Administrator 

707 N. Calvert Street, Mail Stop C-411 

Baltimore, MD 21202 

Ms. Tigist Zegeye (plus 2 CDs) 

Executive Director 

Wilmington Area Planning Council 

850 Library Avenue 

Suite 100 

Newark DE 19711 

Mr. Ronald L. Freeland (plus 2 CDs) 

Executive Secretary 

Maryland Transportation Authority 

2310 Broening Highway 

Baltimore, MD 21224 

C. Delaware Department of Transportation 

Ms. Carolann Wicks 

Secretary of Transportation 

Delaware Department of Transportation 

800 Bay Road 

Dover DE 19903 

Mr. Mark Tudor (12 copies) 

US 301 Project Director 

Delaware Department of Transportation 

800 Bay Road 

Dover DE 19903 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

DISTRIBUTION LIST VI-4 

Mr. Mike Hahn 

Division of Cultural Resources 

Delaware Department of Transportation 

800 Bay Road 

Dover DE 19903 

Ms. Therese Fulmer 

Manager, Environmental Studies 

Delaware Department of Transportation 

800 Bay Road 

Dover DE 19903 

Mr. Ralph Reeb 

Director of Planning 

Delaware Department of Transportation 

800 Bay Road 

Dover, DE 19903 

Mr. Robert Taylor 

Chief Engineer 

Delaware Department of Transportation 

800 Bay Road 

Dover DE 19903 

D. County/Local Agencies 

Mr. Christopher Coons (plus 3 CDs) 

Chief Executive 

New Castle County 

87 Reads Way 

Corporate Commons 

New Castle, DE 19720 

Dr. Tony Marcio 

Superintendent 

Appoquinimink School District 

118 South Sixth Street 

PO Box 4010 

Odessa DE 19730-4010 

Mr. William C. Manlove, President 

Board of County Commissioners of Cecil 

County 

2006 County Administration Building 

107 North Street 

Elkton, MD 21921 

County Commissioners of Kent County 

Government Center 

400 High Street 

Chestertown MD 21620 

E. Public Display 

Appoquinimink Public Library 

651 N. Broad Street 

Middletown DE 19709 

Delaware Department of Transportation 

800 Bay Road 

Dover DE 19901 

Delaware Department of Transportation 

250 Bear-Christiana Road 

Bear, DE 19701 

Federal Highway Administration 

300 South New Street 

Room 2101 

Dover DE 19901 

Web Site: 

www.deldot.gov/information/projects/us301/
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

DISTRIBUTION LIST VI-5 

F. Interested Parties 

Municipalities

Town of Middletown 

c/o The Honorable Kenneth L. Branner, Jr., 

Mayor 

216 N. Broad Street 

Middletown, DE 19709 

Town of Townsend 

c/o The Honorable David Raughley, Mayor, 

305 Main Street 

PO Box 223 

Townsend, DE 19734 

Town of Odessa 

c/o The Honorable Kathleen Harvey, Mayor 

315 N. Main Street 

PO Box 111 

Odessa, DE 19730 

Town of Galena 

c/o The Honorable Harry Pisapia, Mayor 

Galena Town Office 

101 S. Main Street 

Galena, MD 21635 

Town of Cecilton 

c/o The Honorable John Bunnell, Mayor 

Cecilton Town Hall 

117 West Main Street 

Cecilton, MD 21913 

Town of Chesapeake City 

c/o The Honorable Bill Kiessling, Mayor 

108 Bohemia Avenue 

Chespeake City, MD 21915 

Those Who Made Substantial Comments on the DEIS

Whitehall Properties Trust 

Mr. Andrew M. Lubin 

Delaware Financial Group 

110 S. Poplar Street, Suite 101 

Wilmington, DE 19801 

Mrs. Andye Daley 

Chesapeake Meadow Maintenance Corporation 

Middletown Corridor Coalition 

103 Fox Den Court 

Middletown DE 19709 

Pastor Ed Lasko 

Middletown Baptist Cjurch 

812 South Scott Street 

Middletown DE 19709 

Ms. Wanda James 

Airmont Community Association 

234 Oak Drive 

Middletown DE 19709 

Mr. Jerry Emerson 

Emerson Farms Dairy 

1017 Jamison Corner Road 

Middletown DE 19709 

Ms. Susan Love 

Middletown Village Civic Association 

174 Vincent Circle 

Middletown DE 19709 

Ms. Edith Carroll 

449 Ratledge Road 

Middletown DE 19709 

Mr. Stephen M. Powell 

17 Meadow Drive 

Middletown DE 19709 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

DISTRIBUTION LIST VI-6 

Mr. Richard Wooleyhan 

Ms. Doris Wooleyhan 

Wooleyhan Farm 

427 Ratledge Road 

Middletown DE 19709 

Mr. Jay M. Sonecha 

Blenheim Bayberry, LLC 

220 Continental Drive 

Suite 410 

Newark, DE 19713 

Mr. Scott Kirchner 

Ms. Christine Burnett 

102 Fox Den Court 

Middletown DE 19709 

Mr. Chuck Ott 

Airmont Civic Association 

109 Airmont Drive 

Middletown DE 19709 

Ms. Anna Wooleyhan 

420 Ratledge Road 

Middletown DE 19709 

Mr. Scott Hoober 

Hoobers, Inc. 

1130 Middletown-Warwick Road 

Middletown DE 19709 

Ms. Sandra Reddy 

Midland Farms Association 

1888 Choptank Road 

Middletown DE 19709 

Mr. David R. Guinnup 

Delaware Institute for Planning & Design 

5 Vandover Avenue 

Wilmington DE 19802 

Pleasanton Development Company 

Mr. Charles Owensby 

1 Great Barn Lane 

Wilmington DE 19807 

Dr. & Mrs. David Beste (CD only) 

Beste Veterinary 

370 Warwick Road 

Middletown DE 19709 

Mr. Brad Killian 

Director of Projects and Planning 

Delaware Greenways 

100 W. 10th Street, Suite 1001 

PO Box 2095 

Wilmington, DE 19899 

Westown Development Corporation 

Mr. Richard C. Woodin 

Woodin & Associates, LLC 

5179 W. Woodmill Drive 

Suite 6 

Wilmington DE 19808 

Mr. & Mrs. Michael & Cindy Marando 

430 Armstrong Corner Road 

Middletown DE 19709 

Mr. & Mrs. Paul & Paula Marsilii 

426 Armstrong Corner Road 

Middletown DE 19709 

Mr. & Mrs. Blair & Molly Smith 

422 Armstrong Corner Road 

Middletown DE 19709 

 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

REFERENCES VII-1 

VII. REFERENCES 

ADC Map, New Castle County, Delaware 13th Edition. Copyright ADC No. 20504115. 

Bartoldus, Candy C., E.W. Garbisch, and M.L. Kraus. (1994). Evaluation for Planned Wetlands 

(EPW). Environmental Concern Inc., St. Michaels, Maryland. 

Brown, Melvin L. and R.G. Brown. (1984). Herbaceous Plants of Maryland. Port City Press, 

Inc. Baltimore, Maryland. 

Brown, Melvin L. and R.G. Brown. (1999). Woody Plants of Maryland. Port City Press, Inc. 

Baltimore, Maryland. 

Butler, E., (DNREC). (August 17, 2006). Personal Communication. 

Carter, V., et al. (1979). Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report. FSW/OBS-79/31. 

Cecil County, Maryland. (2005) Cecil County 2005 Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation 

Plan. Adopted May 2005. 

Cecil County, Maryland. (1990). Cecil County, Maryland Comprehensive Plan. December 1990 

and Updates 

Code of Federal Regulations. (Revised October 2000). Code of Federal Regulations, 44 CFR 

Part 60- Criteria for Land Management Use. Emergency Management and Assistance. 

Code of Federal Regulations. (2003). Code of Federal Regulations, 50 CFR 17- Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Wildlife and Fisheries. 

Code of Federal Regulations. (Revised April 2004). Code of Federal Regulations, 23 CFR Part 

650- Bridges, Structures, and Hydraulics. Highways. 

Code of Federal Regulations. Code of Federal Regulations, 23 CFR Part 772- Procedures for 

Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. 

Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR). (1997). Code of Maryland Regulations, Title 26, Part 

1, Vol. XXIII. 

Delaware Administrative Code. (1992, as-amended March 11, 1993 & April 11, 2005). Title 7 

Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 5101 Sediment and Stormwater 

Regulations. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

REFERENCES VII-2 

Delaware Coastal Management Program (DCMP). (2004). Delaware Coastal Management 

Program Comprehensive Update and Routine Program Implementation. 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). Brandywine 

Conservancy. (1997). Conservation Design for Stormwater Management, a design 

approach to reduce stormwater impacts from land development and achieve multiple 

objectives related to land use. 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). Delaware 

State Parks. (http://www.destateparks.com). 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). Delaware 

State Wildlife Areas. (http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/fw/wildlifemaps.htm). 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). Division of 

Fish & Wildlife - Natural Heritage Program. (2006). Delaware's Rare Animal Species of 

Conservation Concern (http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/fw/animal.htm). 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). Division of 

Fish & Wildlife - Natural Heritage Program. Non-Native Plants of Delaware. 

(http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/nhp/). 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). Division of 

Water Resources. (2004). Ecological Assessment of the macroinvertabrate community 

and physical habitat evaluation of freshwater streams in the State of Delaware. Dover, 

Delaware. 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). Division of 

Water Resources. (2002). State of Delaware 2002 Watershed Assessment Report (305 

(b)) Individual Watershed Reports. 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). Division of 

Water Resources. (1998). State of Delaware 1998 Watershed Assessment Report (305 

(b)) Individual Watershed Reports. 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). Division of 

Water Resources. (2004). State of Delaware Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program, 

FY 2004. 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). Division of 

Water Resources. (2004). State of Delaware 2004 Combined Watershed Assessment 

Report (305 (b)) and Determination for the Clean Water Act Section 303 (d) List of 

Waters Needing TMDL’s. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

REFERENCES VII-3 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). Greenways 

and Trails. (http://www.destateparks.com/greenways/trallist.htm). 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). Site 

Investigation and Restoration Branch Environmental Navigator. 

 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). (Amended 

2004). State of Delaware Surface Water Quality Standards. 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). (1993-2004). 

Summary data from the ecological assessment of the macroinvertebrate community and 

physical habitat evaluation of freshwater streams in the State of Delaware. 

Environmental Laboratory, Dover, Delaware. 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). Tank 

Management Branch Environmental Information System. 

Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT). (1993). DelDOT Transportation Noise 

Policy. 

Delaware Geological Survey. (1970). Geology of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Area, 

Delaware. University of Delaware, Newark. 

Delaware Geologic Survey. (1971). Geology of the Middletown-Odessa Area, Delaware. 

Delaware Geological Survey. (1976). Generalized Geologic Map of Delaware. University of 

Delaware, Newark. 

Delaware Geologic Survey. (2005). Geologic Map of New Castle County, Delaware. 

Delaware Office of State Planning and Coordination. (1999). Gross Land Use Changes in 

Delaware 1992 to 1997. 

Delaware Office of State Planning and Coordination. (2002). 2002 Land Use and Land Cover 

Data Set, based on the 1997 land-use data of the state and 2002 false color infrared 

digital orthophotography at a scale of 1:2400. 

Eaton, John, et al. (1994). Recent Wetland Status and Trends in the Chesapeake Watershed

(1982-1989). Technical Report. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Hadley, Massachusetts. 

Eyre, F.H. ed. (1980). Forest Cover Types of the United States and Canada. Society of American 

Foresters. Washington D.C. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

REFERENCES VII-4 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2002). Federal Insurance and Mitigation 

Administration. Program Description: National Flood Insurance Program. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2004). National Flood Insurance Act of 

1968. (http://www.fema.gov/fhm/dl_acts.shtm). 

Governor’s Transportation Development and Funding Options Task Force. (November 2005). 

Report to Governor Ruth Ann Minner and Members of the 143rd General Assembly 

James, R.W., R.H. Simmons, and B.F. Strain. (1983). Water Resources Data, Maryland and 

Delaware-Water Year 1983. U.S. Geological Survey. Baltimore, Maryland. 

Kent County, Maryland. Comprehensive Plan Kent County, Maryland (May 2006) 

Lucas, William C. (2004). Integrated Land Management, Inc., DURMM: The Delaware Urban 

Runoff Management Model, a user’s manual for designing green technology BMPs to 

minimize stormwater impacts from land development. Prepared for: Delaware 

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Division of Soil and Water 

Conservation. 

Lucas, William C. (2004). Integrated Land Management, Inc., Green Technology: The Delaware 

Urban Runoff Management Approach, a technical manual for designing nonstructural 

BMPs to minimize stormwater impacts from land development. Prepared for: Delaware 

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Division of Soil and Water 

Conservation. 

Macbeth, Gretag. (2000). Munsell Soil Color Charts. GretagMacbeth. New Windsor, New York. 

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). (2004). A Guide to Maryland’s Coastal Zone 

Management Program Federal Consistency Process. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Delmarva Bays – Natural Enigmas. 

(http://www.dnr.state.md.us/publiclands/eastern/millington.html) 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrates.

(http://www.dnr.state.md.us./streams/pubs/freshwater.html). 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. (1999). Guide to using 1995-1997 Maryland 

Biological Stream Survey Data. (http://www.mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/mbss). 

Maryland State Highway Administration. (2003). Highway Hydraulics Division. Stormwater 

Management Concept Report Guidelines. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

REFERENCES VII-5 

National Audubon Society. (1999). Field Guide to the Mid-Atlantic States. Chanticleer Press, 

Inc. New York. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center. (2005). 

Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.)

(http://www.csc.noaa.gov/opis/html/summary/czma_2.htm). 

National Park Service: National Rivers Inventory. Maryland Segments - Rivers, Trails and 

Conservation Assistance. (http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/states/md.html). 

National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2004). Plant Invaders of Mid-Atlantic 

Natural Areas. 

National Park Service: National Wild and Scenic Rivers. (2005). Rivers, Trails and Conservation 

Assistance. (http://www.nps.gov/rivers). 

National Park Service. (2005). Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance. National Rivers 

Inventory. (http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/states/md.html). 

National Park Service. (2005). Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance. Wild and Scenic 

Rivers. (http://www.nps.gov/rivers). 

National Wildlife Federation. (2005). Wildlife Guide for Northern Delaware. 

 (http://www.enature.com/fieldguides). 

The Nature Conservancy. Blackbird Millington Conservation Corridor Plan. 

(http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/delaware/preserves/art12413.h

tml). 

New Castle County. (2002). Comprehensive Development Plan Update, adopted March 25, 

2002. 

New Castle County. 2007 New Castle County Comprehensive Plan Update, adopted July 24, 

2007. 

New Castle County Department of Land Use. New Castle County Unified Development Code. 

New Castle County Code, Chapter 40. 

(http://www.co.new-castle.de.us/CZO/nccportal.asp). 

Paradisco, J.L. (1969). Mammals of Maryland. United States Fish and Wildlife Service North 

American Fauna #66. Washington D.C. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

REFERENCES VII-6 

Reed, Porter B., Jr. (1988). National list of plant species that grow in wetlands: Northeast 

(Region 1). US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.1). US Department of 

the Interior. Washington D.C. 

Reshetiloff, K., et al. (2002). Plant Invaders of Mid-Atlantic Natural Areas. National Park 

Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. 

Smith, R.L. (1990). Ecology and Field Biology, 4th Edition. Harper Collins Publishing, New 

 York. 

State of Delaware. The Wetlands Act. Title 7, Conservation, Part VII Natural Resources, Chapter 

66. 

State of Delaware. 2005 State Implementation Plan

Westown Project. Westown Master Plan. (http://www.westownproject.com). 

Wilmington Area Planning Council. WILMAPCO Regional Transportation Plan 2030 Update

Town of Middletown. (March 5, 2001). 2001 Update to the 1998 Middletown Comprehensive 

Plan. 

Town of Odessa. (April 2, 2001). Comprehensive Plan. 

Town of Townsend. (2003). Town of Townsend Comprehensive Plan, adopted and certified 

February 2003; revised August 6, 2003. 

Transportation Research Board. (1982). National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

Report 255: Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design. 

National Research Council. Washington, D.C. 

Transportation Research Board. (2000). Highway Capacity Manual. National Research Council. 

Washington, D.C 

United States Army Corps of Engineers. (1987). Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report.

Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers- New England Division. (1995). The Highway 

Methodology Workbook Supplement: Wetland Functions and Values-A Descriptive 

Approach. Publication NEDEP-360-1-30a. 

United States Climatology Network. (http://www.cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ndps/ushcn/ushcn.html). 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

REFERENCES VII-7 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1977). Executive Order 11988, 

Floodplain Management (42 Ref. Reg. 26951, Issued 5/24/1997). 

(http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/regs/eo11988.html). 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2006). Benthic Macroinvertebrates in 

Our Waters. (http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators/html/benthosclean.html). 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Soil Conservation Service, Farmland 

Protection Policy Act (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/fppa/). 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (1970). Soil Conservation Service. Soil 

Survey of New Castle County, Delaware. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (1973). Soil Conservation Service. Soil 

Survey of Cecil County, Maryland. 

United States Department of the Environment. (2005). Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. (http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.htm)l. 

United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). (1979). Order 5650.2 - Floodplain 

Management and Protection. 

United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). (1995). Office of Environment and 

Planning. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement, Policy and Guidance. 

United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). (1998). Office of Environment and 

Planning. FHWA Traffic Noise Model Users Guide. Final Report: FHWA-PD-96-

009. DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-98-1. 

United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). (1998). Office of Environment and 

Planning. FHWA Traffic Noise Model Technical Manual Final Report: FHWA-PD-96-

010. DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-98-2. 

United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). (2005). FHWA Section 4(f) Policy Paper. 

Office of Planning, Environmental and Realty, Project Development and Environmental 

Review. 

United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). (February 3, 2006). Federal Highway 

Administration. INFORMATION: Interim Guidance on Air Toxics Analysis in NEPA 

Documents 

United States Geological Survey. (1999). Topographic Maps. Maps a la carte, Inc. 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

REFERENCES VII-8 

University of Maryland. Soil and Water Geospatial Analysis Lab (SAWGAL) 

(http://www.sawgla.umd.edu). 

The White Clay Watershed Association. Wild and Scenic River Program. 

(http://mercury.ccil.org/~wcwa/index.html). 
Appendix A

Alternatives

US 301 Project Development 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

Delaware Department 

Of Transportation 
















Appendix C

Agency Correspondence

US 301 Project Development 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

Delaware Department 

Of Transportation 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

List of Agency Correspondence 

From Date To Topic of Letter DelDOT 7/18/05 DE SHPO Transmitting the Phase I architectural baseline & historic context study DNREC 07/25/05 RK&K Information regarding presence of RTE species in project area (bog turtle & bald eagle) RK&K 10/20/05 MD DNR Requesting information on RTE species in Maryland portion of project RK&K 10/20/05 USFWS – MD Office Requesting information on RTE species in Maryland portion of project RK&K 10/20/05 DNREC – F&WL Division Requesting information on RTE species for additional area RK&K 10/20/05 MD DNR W&H Division Requesting information on RTE species in Maryland portion of project DNREC 11/21/05 RK&K Information regarding presence of RTE species for Red Alternative, north of Canal USFWS 08/17/05 RK&K Information regarding presence of RTE species in project area (bog turtle & bald eagle) USFWS 12/7/05 RK&K Information regarding presence of RTE species in for Red Alternative, north of Canal USFWS 12/8/05 RK&K Information regarding presence of RTE species in project area, additional information MDNR 12/7/05 RK&K Natural resources environmental review of MD portion of project DelDOT 9/20/05 DE SHPO Forwarding drAppendix C 

aft Determination of Eligibility report 

DE SHPO 10/7/05 FHWA Historic resources and potential effects DE SHPO 10/14/05 DelDOT Comments on architectural evaluation survey report DE SHPO 01/6/06 FHWA Draft architectural evaluation survey report, supplemental materials, determinations of 

eligibility and report content 

DelDOT 1/20/05 DE SHPO Sending additional information on eligibility determinations DelDOT 01/20/06 DE SHPO Regarding eligibility determinations and anticipated concurrence DE SHPO 01/27/06 FHWA Concurrence on eligibility and need for further evaluations FAA 04/10/06 DelDOT Importance of Summit Airport FAA 08/28/06 DelDOT Brown Alternatives will impact Summit Airport and proposed expansion plans DE SHPO 8/11/06 DelDOT, et al Email stating eligibility determinations process is completed DelDOT 7/11/06 DE SHPO Additional eligibility determinations materials DelDOT 10/24/05 MHT Investigation of known historical resources in MD portion of project DelDOT 12/8/06 DE SHPO Transmitting Final Determination of Eligibility Report and Historic Context RK&K 1/16/07 DNREC - DCMP Request for DCMP consistency review and certification DNREC 3/22/07 RK&K Extending review period for DCMP review DelDOT 04/17/07 MHT Requesting opinion and concurrence – no adverse effects on historic properties within 

Maryland 

MHT 06/29/07 DelDOT Requesting participation and as signatory to MOA DelDOT 05/24/07 Stockbridge-Muncee Community Asking their desire to be a signatory to the MOA 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

List of Agency Correspondence 

DelDOT 05/24/07 The Delaware Nation Asking their desire to be a signatory to the MOA DelDOT 06/18/07 ACHP Declaring that thAppendix C 

e project will have adverse effects 

DelDOT 9/4/07 DE SHPO Submitting Draft Adverse Effects Document DDA 03/14/07 DelDOT Ratledge Road Area Option 4B Modified is most suitable for agriculture DNREC 9/14/07 RK&K Conditional concurrence with DCMP consistency ACHP 8/30/07 DelDOT Received Notice of Adverse Effects; declines invitation to sign MOA DE SHPO 10/12/07 FHWA, et al Email stating that they will provide formal concurrence on adverse effects DelDOT 9/17/07 USACOE Regarding Individual Section 404 permit application 



















































U.S. Department Harrisburg Airports District Office 

of Transportation 3905 Hartzdale Drive, Ste. 508 

 Camp Hill, PA 17011

Federal Aviation (717) 730-2830 phone

Administration (717) 730-2838 FAX

April 10, 2006 

Mark Tudor, P.E. 

Group Engineer, Project Development 

State of Delaware 

Department of Transportation 

800 Bay Road 

Dover, DE 19903 

Re: Route 301 DEIS Alternatives 

Dear Mr. Tudor: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the four alternatives retained in the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Route 301 project. We have reviewed the drawings and the letter you 

provided from Mr. Finn Nielsen, President, Summit Aviation Incorporated. We generally concur with the 

comments made by Summit Aviation. 

Summit Airport is an important airport in the National Air Transportation System. The airport’s proximity 

to Wilmington, Delaware and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania provides important airport coverage in the 

Federal Aviation Administration’s National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Summit Airport 

is a reliever airport to the congested and delayed Philadelphia International Airport (PHL). As such, 

Summit Airport provides general aviation access to the National Air Transportation that cannot be readily 

accommodated at PHL without causing further delays. 

Summit Airport’s current Airport Layout Plan (ALP), as approved by the FAA, includes an extension of 

the primary Runway 17/35. Summit Airport has filed plans with the FAA to extend Runway 17/35 to the 

north by 335 feet, and to the south by 498 feet. Accordingly, we have considered the potential effects of 

the four alternatives on the planned runway extension, as well as to the existing airport facilities. Based on 

our preliminary review of the alternatives, it appears that the Brown Alternative may be the only alternative 

that will adversely affect the Summit Airport. As indicated in your letter of March 2, the Brown 

Alternative has two options – Brown North and Brown South. 
Brown North

As indicated in Summit Aviation’s letter of February 16, the Brown North option may adversely impact 

both the existing Runway 17-35, and proposed extended Runway 17-35. 

Vehicles using the Brown North option may penetrate the existing and/or proposed extended Runway 17 

34:1 Approach Surface, 40:1 Instrument Departure Surface, and 20:1 Threshold Sitting Surface. 

Depending on several factors, such as the ability to mitigate a potential hazard, the penetrations may 

degrade the utility of the existing runway by increasing visibility minimums to possibly restricting use of 

Runway 17 for daytime operations only. 

We did not determine the actual impacts that the Brown North Alternative may have on the current and/or 

proposed approaches at Summit Airport. Such an analysis will require the Delaware Department of 

Transportation to file an FAA Form 7460 with the FAA pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) 

Part 77. Upon receipt of the FAA Form 7460, the FAA will conduct an airspace evaluation and issue a 

determination. Each FAA line of business, including, Airports, Flight Procedures, and Air Traffic, among 

other offices, will review the proposed alternatives and comment. 

Pursuant to FAR Part 77, the Delaware Department of Transportation will be required to file an FAA Form 

7460 prior to constructing either the Brown North or Brown South options due to their close proximity to 

the airport. In addition, any other alternative selected as the preferred alternative in the DEIS will need to 

be evaluated using the surfaces identified in FAR Part 77 prior to construction to determine if a Form 7460 

is necessary. That said, we highly recommend that a Form 7460 be filed for each of the four alternatives as 

required by FAR Part 77, including different options under each alternative, prior to completion of the 

DEIS. 

The Brown North option will traverse the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) of the existing and planned 

Runway 17 end. We strongly encourage airport owners to acquire sufficient interest in property within the 

RPZ in order to prohibit incompatible land use. 

Finally, the Brown North option will cause a penetration to the Runway Object Free Area of the proposed 

Runway 17/35 extension, thereby precluding the construction of the full length of the extension currently 

proposed by Summit Aviation. This impact may be avoidable if the existing pavement was used for the 

Summit Bridge Farms access Spur and the Right of Way line adjusted accordingly. The Brown North 

option also impacts the existing Runway 17 by not allowing any space between the Object Free Area and 

the proposed Summit Bridge Farms access Spur. The space would allow an internal airport vehicle service 

road and was a condition of the last (2/8/06) Airport Layout Plan approval letter. The condition was 

imposed in order to address FAA’s emphasis on prevention of Aircraft-Vehicle incursions. 

Brown South

As indicated in your letter of March 2, the Brown South option will physically impact Summit Airport’s 

runways. Specifically, it appears that the crosswind Runway 11/29 would become too short to allow any 

aircraft landings or takeoffs and would need to be closed. In addition, the primary Runway 17/35 would 

need to be shortened by more than 250 feet, assuming the presence of 25-foot light poles and/or highway 

signs along the proposed Brown South option in the vicinity of the airport. Therefore, it appears that the 

Brown South option will significantly degrade the utility of the existing airport. 

Summit Airport has received Federal grant assistance under the FAA’s Airport Improvement Program. In 

exchange for this assistance, Summit Aviation has agreed to several Federal obligations in the form of 
grant assurances as required by Federal law. Among other things, Summit Aviation has agreed that it will 

not sell, lease, encumber, or otherwise transfer any interest in the airport property without the written 

approval of the FAA. In addition, Summit Aviation has agreed to operate the airport in a safe and 

serviceable condition at all time in accordance with its currently approved Airport Layout Plan. Given the 

apparent significant adverse impacts that the Brown South option may have on the Summit Airport, it is not 

likely that the FAA will approve the sale of any interest in the airport property for the Brown South option. 

If you have any questions regarding our comments please contact Mr. Jim Fels of my office at (717) 730-

2833. In addition, Jim Fels is available to assist your office in completing the necessary FAA Form 7460 

to obtain a complete airspace determination from the FAA. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Sincerely, 

Original Signed by: 

Sue McDonald, Acting Manager for 

Wayne T. Heibeck 

Manager 

cc: by eMail only: 

Michael Kirkpatrick Del DOT Aviation Planner 

Finn Neilson, Summit Aviation @ EVY 

S:\airports\DE\Summit\GeneralCorr\Route 301 Waynes comments FINAL.doc 



Helen German 

From: "Davis Gwen (DOS)" <Gwen.Davis@State.De.US>

To: "Carpenter Patrick (DelDOT)" <Patrick.Carpenter@state.de.us>; "Bodo Robin (DOS)" 

<Robin.Bodo@State.De.US>

Cc: "'Eric Almquist' (E-mail)" <balmquist@rkkengineers.com>; "Kleinburd Robert (FHWA)" 

<Robert.Kleinburd@fhwa.dot.gov>; "Helen' 'German (E-mail)" <Hgerman@rkkengineers.com>; "Bill Hellmann" 

<whellmann@rkkengineers.com>; "Hahn Michael (DelDOT)" <MichaelC.Hahn@state.de.us>; "Fulmer Terry 

(DelDOT)" <Terry.Fulmer@state.de.us>

Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 2:25 PM

Attach: US301_archit_final_supplem_GDavis_comments.doc

Subject: RE: Kane Farm/Swyka House-US 301 Supplemental Submission

Page 1 of 2

10/26/2007

Patrick and Mike, 

Thank you for your comments. I have discussed these evaluations with Robin, and she agrees that the Swyka and 

Kane properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 

Attached please find my comments on the Swyka and Kane evaluations, as well as the written comments I had 

prepared for the evaluations on Asbury Cemetery, Forest Cemetery, the African American Rural Community, and 

the Rural Historic District. Robin may have other comments, and I noted a few points where I suggest that AD 

Marble consult with Robin before finalizing the report. 

You will recall that our office previously provided our concurrence with the findings on Asbury Cemetery, Forest 

Cemetery, and the African American Rural Community, in an e-mail dated June 30, 2006. After further review, we

also concurred with DelDOT’s conclusion regarding the Rural Historic District, in an e-mail dated July 5, 2006. 

With these findings and concurrences, the architectural survey should be complete for the US 301 project, at least 

as the undertaking and the APE are currently defined. As the project planning and the Section 106 consultation 

progresses, the APE may need to be adjusted, and thereby additional, architectural identification or evaluation 

survey may be required. 

Thank you. 

-- Gwen 

<<US301_archit_final_supplem_GDavis_comments.doc>> 

_____________________________________________ 

From: Carpenter Patrick (DelDOT) 

Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 3:42 PM 

To: Davis Gwen (DOS); Bodo Robin (DOS) 

Cc: ''Eric Almquist' (E-mail)'; Kleinburd Robert (FHWA); 'Helen' 'German (E-mail)'; 'Bill Hellmann'; Hahn Michael (DelDOT); 

Fulmer Terry (DelDOT); Carpenter Patrick (DelDOT) 

Subject: Kane Farm/Swyka House-US 301 Supplemental Submission

Gwen and Robin,

We have completed our review of the Swyka House and Kane Farm properties, and concur with the non-eligible 

determinations. 

We do have a few comments on the evaluations listed below.

Swyka House

 -- Photograph of dwelling does not depict those alterations most affecting its integrity
 -- From photograph-house appears to have bungalow massing- a leftover design for a 50's era house?

Kane Farm

 --Clarify dates of construction for the dwelling in the description section. In the first paragraph, sounds as if there are two 

dwellings, and in the second paragraph both the front block and rear ell are listed as circa 1860. 

Please let us know if you have any questions or need any more information before your review is complete. 

Thanks, 

Patrick

Page 2 of 2

10/26/2007







































 – 2 – September 14, 2007 

Subaqueous Lands Section. Mitigation plans must be submitted to the DCMP and 

approved in writing prior to construction. 

3. DelDOT will pursue agricultural conservation agreements in the Boyds 

Corner/Ratledge Road area and will submit documentation of conservation 

easements to the DCMP prior to construction. The original Green North 

Alternative was modified significantly to avoid impacts to longstanding farming 

operations. The Option 4B Modified alignment chosen by DelDOT, while preserving 

agricultural areas, resulted in increased natural resource impacts. The DCMP seeks 

assurances that agricultural uses of the area will be preserved in perpetuity through 

conservation easements as part of the justification for increased natural resource 

impacts. If such easements prove unobtainable, the DCMP reserves the right to 

reconsider approval of the Option 4B Modified alignment. 

4. DelDOT shall seek opportunities to purchase portions of forests/wetlands to keep 

large habitat blocks intact within the Scott Run Watershed and shall seek 

permanent protection of environmentally sensitive lands wherever outright 

purchase is not feasible. Documentation of these efforts must be submitted to 

the DCMP. The DCMP understands that landowners must be willing participants in 

fee simple purchase and conservation easements; therefore the outcome of this 

condition is not predictable. DelDOT shall provide the DCMP with information 

outlining efforts made to acquire forest and wetland blocks and solicitations for 

conservation easements prior to construction. 

5. Management plans for lands purchased or placed in conservation easements as a 

part of this project shall be developed and submitted to the DCMP for approval. 

Lands placed in conservation easements shall be actively managed to control invasive 

species and improve wildlife habitat. A management plan for lands placed under 

conservation easements will outline acceptable uses of these areas. The plan should 

provide monitoring and eradication strategies for invasive species, identify tactics to 

address heavy deer browse if applicable, and outline means to control unwanted 

public uses such as illegal hunting or ATV usage. The plan(s) must be submitted to 

DCMP and approved in writing prior to construction. 

6. Preliminary and final design plans for the wildlife passageway proposed in the 

Ratledge Road area must be submitted to DCMP for comment and approval. 

The Ratledge Road area contains a large area of forested and wetland habitat that will 

be impacted by Option 4B Modified. In order to protect populations of breeding 

amphibians and reptiles, a wildlife corridor has been proposed, but plans have not yet 

been finalized. The proposed corridor is a currently a 10’ x 10’ passageway adjacent 

to the southern tributary of Scott Run, north of Boyds Corner Road. Additional 

wildlife corridors, including oversized culverts, should be considered in the design 

process. Plans for wildlife passageways must be submitted the DCMP and approved 

in writing prior to construction. 


Helen German 

From: "Davis Gwen (DOS)" <Gwen.Davis@State.De.US>

To: "Kleinburd Robert (FHWA)" <Robert.Kleinburd@fhwa.dot.gov>

Cc: "Tudor Mark (DelDOT)" <Mark.Tudor@state.de.us>; "Fulmer Terry (DelDOT)" <Terry.Fulmer@state.de.us>; 

"Hahn Michael (DelDOT)" <MichaelC.Hahn@state.de.us>; "Clarke David S. (DelDOT)" 

<David.Clarke@state.de.us>; "Cunningham Kevin (DelDOT)" <Kevin.Cunningham@state.de.us>; "Helen 

German" <hgerman@rkkengineers.com>

Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 12:25 PM

Attach: US301_draftAEdoc_800.11(e) checklist.rtf

Subject: US 301 draft effects document

Page 1 of 2

10/26/2007

Mr. Bob Kleinburd, 

I discussed the US 301 draft Adverse Effects documentation with DelDOT’s Environmental Studies staff at our 

regular coordination meeting on October 10. As agreed to at that meeting, I have completed my review of the draft 

documentation, and would like to offer the comments. 

The draft documentation is relatively complete, containing the type of information stipulated in the Section 106 

documentation requirements (36 CFR Part 800.11(e)). The description of which historic properties will be affected 

by the project, and how those properties will be affected. For the most part, the documentation is consistent with 

the consultation between our agencies to date. However, one important exception is an apparent new limitation on 

how consultation on mitigation for audible effects to historic properties will be carried out (pages 72-Table 5, 110, 

112), which I find to be inconsistent with the language and intent of the draft MOA. 

I have several other substantive concerns about some aspects of the content of the documentation, as follows: 

- The description of the APE is not entirely consistent with how (as I recall) it was derived; illustration of the 

APE is not consistent with that presented in the draft FEIS. (pp. 5-6, Figures 1 & 2 in the AE document; Figure III8 in the FEIS) 

- Sections 1 and 6 of the document include representations of the DE SHPO views on the Preferred Alternative 

that are not wholly accurate (pp. 7, 114) 

- Incomplete characterization of consulting parties. (page 8) 

- Inconsistencies with the intent of stipulations in the draft MOA in regard to: identification of additional 

consulting parties (page 8), identification of archaeological sites (page 12), future consultation on the effects on 

Idalia Manor (Sections 4 and 5), project plan review and consultation on changes to the project (page 113). 

- Definitive statements as to how the archaeological predictive models would be used for future survey, which 

are inconsistent with recent conversations between DelDOT and DE SHPO archaeologists. (page 12) 

- Inappropriate characterizations of the alternatives’ relative effects on historic properties, and the reasons for 

selecting the Preferred Alternative. (page 111) 

More specific comments on these issues are included in the enclosed technical/editorial comments on the draft 

documentation. I ask that these issues be addressed in the final documentation, and that any concomitant 

information that may be contained in the draft FEIS be similarly addressed before its publication. I also plan to 

send some further comments on the draft FEIS, shortly. 

My office will provide its formal concurrence with the finding of Adverse Effect in writing, likely next week. But 

you may consider this email as sufficient agreement with DelDOT’s findings to proceed toward finalizing the FEIS,

with the understanding that the above-referenced substantive issues will be addressed to the satisfaction of our 

respective agencies. 

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you have any questions at this time, please do not hesitate 
to contact me. 

-- Gwenyth A. Davis, Archaeologist, State Historic Preservation Office 

 Delaware Division of Historical & Cultural Affairs 

 21 The Green, Dover, DE 19901 

 (302) 736- 7410 direct line 

 (302) 736- 7400 main desk 

 (302) 739-5660 fax 

 gwen.davis@state.de.us

 

<<US301_draftAEdoc_800.11(e) checklist.rtf>> 

Page 2 of 2

10/26/2007


Appendix D

List of Technical Documents

US 301 Project Development 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

Delaware Department 

Of Transportation 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

LIST OF TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS 

LIST OF TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS APPENDIX F-1 

US 301 Project Development: Alternatives Retained for Detailed Evaluation (Delaware 

Department of Transportation, November 2005) 

Historic Context and Reconnaissance Survey Report (A.D. Marble and Company, July 2005) 

Determination of Eligibility Report (Draft, A.D. Marble and Company, September 2005) 

Archeological Predictive Model Report (A.D. Marble and Company, July 2005; revised 

September 2005; revised July 2006) 

Documentation in Support of a Finding of Adverse Effect and Memorandum of Agreement 

(Draft, A.D. Marble and Company, September 2007) 

US 301 Project New Castle County, Delaware Air Quality Technical Report (The Wilson T. 

Ballard Company, December 2005) 

US 301 Noise Technical Report (draft, December 2005) 

US 301 Project Development Hazardous Materials Technical Memorandum (November 21, 

2005) 

US 301 Project Development Natural Resources Technical Report (November 14, 2005) 

US 301 Project Development: Investigation for Wetlands and Waters of the United States and 

Phase 1 Bog Turtle Habitat Assessment, 2005 (draft, November 2005) 

Phase II/III Bog Turtle Surveys for US 301 Corridor Improvement Project (Delaware 

Department of Transportation, August 2006) 
Appendix E

Glossary

US 301 Project Development 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

Delaware Department 

Of Transportation 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

GLOSSARY 

GLOSSARY APPENDIX E-1 

AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic 

ACOE United States Army Corps of Engineers 

ACR Area Armstrong Corner Road Area 

ADT Average Daily Traffic 

APE Area of Potential Effect 

ATI Area of Traffic Influence 

ATR Automatic Traffic Recorders 

BCI Biotic Comparison Index 

BCR Area Boyds Corner Road Area 

BMPs Best Management Practices 

C&D Canal Chesapeake and Delaware Canal 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CLRP Constrained Long Range Transportation Plan 

CTP Consolidated Transportation Plan 

CWA Clean Water Act of 1972 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 

CZMP Coastal Zone Management Program 

dBA Decibels A-weighted. A measure of noise that reflect the human ear’s sensitivity 

DCMP Delaware Coastal Management Plan 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DelDOT Delaware Department of Transportation 

DelTRAC Delaware’s Intelligent Transportation System 

DNHP Delaware Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program 

DNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

DNR ERU Maryland Department of Natural Resources Environmental Review Unit 

DNR WHS Maryland Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Heritage Division 

DNREC Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 

DOT Department of Transportation 

DTC Delaware Transit Corporation 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPA AIRS Environmental Protection Agency Aerometric Information Retrieval System 

EPA MOBILE EPA emissions model for analysis of air quality 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

GLOSSARY 

GLOSSARY APPENDIX E-2 

ERESE waters Waters of Exceptional Recreational and Ecological Significance 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FCIR Farmland Conversion Impact Rating 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map 

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act 

FTA Federal Transit Administration 

GARVEE Grant Anticipated Revenue Vehicle 

GIS Geographic Information System 

gpm gallons per minute 

HCM Highway Capacity Manual 

HOV High Occupancy Vehicle (Two or more occupants) 

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program 

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 

ITMS Intelligent Traffic Management System 

ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems 

JPR Joint Permit Review 

LE Land Evaluation 

Leq Equivalent Sound Level 

LESA Land Evaluation Site Assessment 

LOD Limit of Disturbance 

LOS Level of Service 

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank 

MALPF Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation 

MDE Maryland Department of the Environment 

MdTA Maryland Transportation Authority 

MET Maryland Environmental Trust 

MIS Major Investment Study 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

GLOSSARY 

GLOSSARY APPENDIX E-3 

MOT Maintenance of Traffic 

M-O-T Middletown-Odessa-Townsend 

MSL Mean Sea Level 

MVM Million Vehicle Miles 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAC Noise Abatement Criteria 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NMF National Marine Fisheries 

NPS National Park Service 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NRI National River Inventory 

NSA Noise Sensitive Area 

NWI National Wetlands Inventory 

O-D Origin-Destination 

ORT Open Road Tolling 

PA Programmatic Agreement 

PAHs Polynuclear Aromatic Compounds 

PFA Priority Funding Area 

PM Particulate Matter 

RCD Rural Conservation District (Maryland) 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 

Ridge Route An alignment route that follows the drainage divide between the Delaware River 

watershed and the Chesapeake Bay watershed 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROW Right of Way 

RPD Resource Protection District (Maryland) 

RR Rural Residential 

RTE Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species 

RTP Regional Transportation Plan 

S/NAAQS State/National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

SA Site Assessment 

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 
US 301 Project Development

Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2007

GLOSSARY 

GLOSSARY APPENDIX E-4 

SCEA Secondary and Cumulative Effects Analysis 

SEPTA Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority 

SHA Maryland State Highway Administration 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SI Area Summit Interchange Area 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SIRB Site Investigation and Restoration Branch 

SOV Single Occupancy Vehicle 

SR State Road 

TAZ Transportation Analysis Zones 

TDMS Transportation Demand Management System 

TIP Transportation Improvement Plan 

TNM Traffic Noise Model 

TSP Total Suspended Particle 

UDC Unified Development Code 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

VMS Variable Message Sign 

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds 

VWS Virtual Weigh Station 

WILMAPCO Wilmington Area Planning Commission 

WIMS Weigh-In-Motion Scales 
Appendix F

Relocation Assistance Program

US 301 Project Development 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

Delaware Department 

Of Transportation 




DELDOT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN SUMMARY

Summary of the Relocation Assistance Program of the Delaware 

Department of Transportation

All Delaware Department of Transportation projects utilizing Federal funds must comply 

with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 

1970 (42 USC 4601) as amended by Title IV of the Surface Transportation and Uniform 

Relocation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-17), Public Law 105-117 in 1997, and Title 49 

CFR Part 24 in 2005. State-funded projects must also comply with the provisions of the 

Delaware Code Title 29, Chapter 93, Uniform Relocation Assistance. 

In the above referenced Federal and State laws, the Delaware Department of 

Transportation is required to provide relocation services and payments to eligible persons 

who are displaced by a public project. Only citizens or non-citizen nationals in the United 

States of America may be considered eligible and will be assigned a Relocation 

Counselor upon verification of eligibility. Those persons that qualify as a displaced 

person maybe entitled to a replacement housing payment, moving costs and related 

expenses as well as relocation advisory services. Additionally displaced residential 

persons may be eligible for reimbursement for certain miscellaneous expenses incurred in 

moving as provided for solely under the Delaware relocation assistance statute . The 

Delaware Department of Transportation will determine all maximum payments amounts. 

The Delaware Department of Transportation’s, Division of Planning, Real Estate 

Services Section administers the Relocation Assistance Program. 

Residential Displacements 

Residential occupants who are required to move must be provided the ability to relocate 

to a comparable replacement dwelling that is decent, safe, and sanitary, and functionally 

equivalent to present dwelling. Replacement housing payments are made to both owner 

occupants and tenant occupants. An owner occupant may receive payments for a 

purchase supplement, incidental expenses and mortgage interest differential, rental 

assistance or downpayment assistance. 

There are three basic length-of-occupancy requirements which determine the type of 

replacement housing payment a displaced person is entitled to, and they are: owner 

occupants of 180 days or more, and owner occupants of 90 to 179 days and tenants of 90 

days or more. Length-of-occupancy in most instances, is defined as the number of days of 

residence in the dwelling before the initiation of negotiations by the Delaware 

Department of Transportation for the purchase of the property. 

Purchase Supplement 

Owners who were in occupancy 180 days or more prior to the initiation of negotiations 

may be eligible for a purchase supplement payment of up to $22,500 in addition to the 

fair market value of property acquired. 

The purchase supplement is the amount by which the cost of a replacement dwelling 

exceeds the acquisition cost of the replacement dwelling. 
DELDOT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN SUMMARY

Incidental Expenses 

180-day owner occupants are also eligible for reimbursement of incidental expenses such 

as, but are not limited to, costs incurred for a title search, recording fees, and other 

closing costs (excluding real estate taxes and property insurance). 

Mortgage Interest Differential 

180-day owners occupants may also be reimbursed for the increased mortgage interest 

costs if the interest on the new mortgage exceeds that of the previous mortgage. 

Rental Assistance 

Owners who have been in occupancy from 90 to 179 days, or tenants of 90 days prior to 

the initiation of negotiations are eligible for a rental assistance payment of up to $5,250. 

This payment is designed to enable the displaced person to rent a comparable, decent, 

safe and sanitary dwelling for a 42 month period. 

Persons who are in occupancy at the initiation of negotiations, but less than 90 days prior 

to that date are still considered a displaced person entitled to relocation assistance 

advisory services and moving payments, and may also be entitled to a rental assistance 

payment if comparable replacement rental housing is not available within there financial 

means. Under this circumstance a displaced person’s rental assistance payment would be 

an amount that exceeds the base monthly rent for the displacement dwelling to rent a 

replacement dwelling as determined by the Department of Transportation. Such rental 

assistance would be paid under the provisions of replacement housing of last resort 

Downpayment 

Like rental assistance, owners who have been in occupancy from 90 to 179 days, or 

tenants of 90 days prior to the initiation of negotiations are eligible for a rental assistance 

payment or a downpayment of up to $5,250. However, the payment for a displaced owner 

cannot exceed the amount of the payment that would be received by a 180-day owner 

occupant for the same property. Owners and tenants may also be eligible for 

reimbursement of incidental expenses such as costs incurred for a title search, recording 

fees, and other closing costs (excluding real estate taxes and property insurance). 

Residential Moving Cost Reimbursement 

Displaced individuals and families may choose to be paid on the basis of actual 

reasonable moving and related expenses, or according to a fixed moving cost schedule. 

For actual reasonable moving costs, displaced persons can choose to utilize a professional 

mover or move themselves, but reimbursement is limited to a 50 mile distance. Other 

related moving expenses include packing and unpacking, temporary storage, 

transportation, and moving insurance. All expenses must be considered necessary and 
DELDOT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN SUMMARY

reasonable by the Delaware Department of Transportation and be documented by paid 

receipts, or other evidence of expenses incurred. 

Owners and tenants of the State of Delaware displaced from a residential dwelling by a 

program or project can be eligible to receive reimbursement for miscellaneous expenses 

incurred within thirty days of moving from the displaced dwelling if not otherwise 

authorized under the State of Delaware relocation assistance statute. In no event shall 

payment from the Delaware Department of Transportation exceed 1% of the appraised 

residential value of the residence acquired. 

Fair Housing 

The Fair Housing Law (actually Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VIII of 

the Civil Rights act of 1968) sets forth the policy of the United States of America to 

provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing throughout the United States of 

America. These acts and Executive Order 11063 make discriminatory practices in the 

purchase and rental of most residential units illegal based on race, color, religion, sex, or 

national origin. 

Whenever possible, minority persons shall be given reasonable opportunities to relocate 

to decent, safe, and sanitary replacement dwellings, not located in an area of minority 

concentration, that are within their financial means. This policy, however, does not 

require the Delaware Department of Transportation to provide a displaced person with a 

larger payment than is necessary to enable a person to relocate to a comparable 

replacement dwelling outside of an area of minority concentration. 

Nonresidential Displacements 

Nonresidential displacements, business, farm or nonprofit organization, may be eligible 

for the reimbursement of moving expenses, loss of tangible personal property, searching 

expenses or a fixed payment in lieu of actual moving expenses. A small business as 

defined may be eligible for reimbursement for certain reestablishment expenses not to 

exceed $22,500.00 

Nonresidential Moving Cost Reimbursement 

Displaced businesses, farms, or nonprofit organizations are also entitled to reasonable 

moving expenses. Like residential displacements there are two types of payment; 

businesses, farms, or nonprofit organizations between two payment types. The types of 

payments available are actual reasonable moving costs or a fixed payment in lieu of 

moving costs. 

Actual Reasonable Moving Costs 

Actual reasonable moving costs can be paid if moved by a professional mover or if 

nonresidential displaced person elects to move on their own. Related expenses can also 

be covered which include direct loss of tangible property that occurred as a result of the 
DELDOT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN SUMMARY

move or discontinuation of the operation, reestablishment expenses, and expenses 

incurred while searching for a replacement property (not to exceed $2,500.00). 

Under the actual reasonable moving costs, a small business, farm or nonprofit 

organization may be eligible for a payment, not to exceed $22,500 for expenses actually 

incurred in relocating and reestablishing the enterprise at a replacement site. To qualify, 

the business, farm or nonprofit organization must not have more than 500 employees 

working at the site being acquired or displaced by the Delaware Department of 

Transportation, and is a site of economic activity. Sites solely occupied by outdoor 

advertising signs, displays, or devices do not qualify as a small business. 

Fixed Payment in Lieu of Actual Moving Costs 

The non-residential displaced person may also be eligible for a fixed payment in lieu of 

actual moving and other related expenses. The fixed payment is based upon the average 

annual net earnings of the operation for the two taxable years immediately preceding the 

taxable year in which it was displaced, or within a two year period deemed more 

representative by the Delaware Department of Transportation. 

The fixed payment may not be less than $1,000 or more than $20,000, and several criteria 

must be met to be eligible for this type of payment. Any business that is solely engaged in 

the rental of space for residential or business purposes is not eligible for this type of 

payment. 

Housing of Last Resort 

Federal and State law require that the Delaware Department of Transportation shall not 

proceed with any phase of the project which will cause relocation of any persons, or 

proceed with any construction project, until it has furnished satisfactory assurances that 

the above payment will be provided, and that all displaced persons will be satisfactorily 

relocated to comparable decent, safe and sanitary housing within their financial means, or 

that such housing is in place and has been made available to the displaced persons. 

On most projects, an adequate supply of housing will be available for sale or rent, and the 

benefits provided will be sufficient to enable displaced persons to relocate to comparable 

replacement housing. However, there may be projects in certain locations where the 

supply of available housing is insufficient to provide the necessary housing for those 

persons being displaced. When a housing shortage occurs, the Delaware Department of 

Transportation will implement the administrative process called Housing of Last Resort 

by providing additional or alternative assistance required to assure that all residential 

occupants displaced have the ability to move to comparable, decent, safe and sanitary 

housing. 
Appendix G

Farmland Conversion Impact Rating

US 301 Project Development 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

Delaware Department 

Of Transportation 


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service

PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)

1. Name of Project

2. Type of Project

PART II (To be completed by NRCS)

3. Date of Land Evaluation Request

5. Federal Agency Involved

6. County and State

1. Date Request Received by NRCS

YES NO 

4. Sheet 1 of

NRCS-CPA-106

(Rev. 1-91)

2. Person Completing Form

4. Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size

7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA

Acres: %

FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING

FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS

6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction

Acres: %

3. Does the corridor contain prime, unique statewide or local important farmland?

 (If no, the FPPA does not apply - Do not complete additional parts of this form).

5. Major Crop(s)

8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS

Alternative Corridor For Segment

Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D

PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)

A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly

B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive Services

C. Total Acres In Corridor

PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information

 A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland

B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland

C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted

D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value

PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information Criterion Relative 

value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted (Scale of 0 - 100 Points)

PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor

Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c))

1. Area in Nonurban Use

2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use

3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed

4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government

5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average

6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland

Maximum

Points

15

10

20

20

10

25

7. Availablility Of Farm Support Services 5

8. On-Farm Investments

9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services

10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use

20

25

10

TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160

PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)

Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100

Total Corridor Assessment (From Part VI above or a local site

assessment) 160

TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260

1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be

 Converted by Project:

5. Reason For Selection:

Signature of Person Completing this Part:

3. Date Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used?

YES NO

DATE

NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor


STATE OF DELAWARE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA TION

800 BAY ROAD

P.O. Box 778

DOVER, DELAWARE 19903

CAROLANN WICKS, P.E.

SECRETARY

October 25, 2007

Mr. Paul Petrichenko, Assistant State Conservationist

Natural Resources Conservation Service

1203 College Park Drive

Suite 101

Dover, DE 19904

Subject: US 301 Project Development

From DE/MD state line to SR 1

Transmittal of Form NRCS-CPA-106 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form

Completed

Dear Mr. Petrichenko:

The Delaware Department of Transportation (DeIDOT) is submitting, on behalf of the

Federal Highway Administration, the completed Form NRCS-CPA-106, Farmland

Conversion Impact Rating Form for Corridor Type Projects. In accordance with the US

Department of Agriculture Stepsfor Processing the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating

Form, we have now completed Parts VI and VII. We are including a narrative discussing,

in some detail, how we arrived at each of the scores for the 10 corridor assessment criteria.

We have assessed a score of 104 for the Total Corridor Assessment Points, bringing the

Total Points for the US 301 project to 196.

Attached please find three copies of the completed form.

Since the Secretary of Transportation's announcement of the Green Alternative North

Option as the Preferred Alternative on May 17, 2007, we have continued the planning

process for the US 301 project. Refinements in design, more intensive wetlands

delineation, more detailed forest lands delineation, and the completion of the assessment of

adverse effects on historic properties are some of the elements that have contributed to our

evaluation of the Preferred Alternative that will be presented in the Final Environmental

Impact Statement that we anticipate publishing this November.

ADeIOOT
Delaware State Office -Natural Resource Conservation Service

US 301 Project Development

Page 2 of2

Thank you again for your assistance in completing this form. If you should have any

questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Helen German (410-462-

9341) or myself at 302-760-2280.

~~-t&-

Therese M. Fulmer

Manager, Environmental Studies

Attachments

CC: Mark Tudor, DelDOT

Robert Kleinburd, FHWA

William K Hellmann, RK&K

Milton Melendez, DDA

Helen German, RK&K

US 301 Project Development 

FCIR Form CPA106 

Corridor Assessment Scoring 

(1) How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1.0 mile from where the 

project is intended? 

More than 90 percent 15 points 

90 to 20 percent 14 to 1 point(s) 

Less than 20 percent 0 points 

The centerline of the Preferred Alternative was plotted on a map of area parcels. The map was 

compared visually with aerial photography of the project area and parcels that are in nonurban 

use (farm uses) were identified. Using GIS, the area considered nonurban and urban were 

compiled and calculated. The result of this method indicates that approximately 41% of the area 

can be considered urban; the remaining 59% can be considered nonurban. Of the nonurban 

land, most is located north of Boyds Corner Road and west of Middletown. Nonurban uses 

include cropland, equestrian farms and dairy farms. Score = 8 points

(2) How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use? 

More than 90 percent 10 points 

90 to 20 percent 9 to 1 point(s) 

less than 20 percent 0 points 

A majority of the perimeter of the project borders on farmland and suburban residential 

developments. Again, using GIS and the aerial mapping produced for Question 1, it was 

determined that approximately 67 % of the perimeter of the Preferred Alternative LOD is in 

nonurban or farm-type use. Uses that could be considered urban include existing highways, 

town of Middletown, and in the vicinity of existing US 301 and the NS railroad, north of 

Middletown. The balance of land use is suburban residential development and nonurban 

(equestrian, dairy farming and cropland). Score = 7 points

(3) How much of the site has been farmed (managed for a scheduled harvest or timber 

activity) more than five of the last 10 years? 

More than 90 percent 20 points 

90 to 20 percent 19 to 1 point(s) 

Less than 20 percent 0 points 

Many of the impacted parcels have been farmed for more than 5 of the last 10 years. Many of the 

parcels slated for development (approved or pending), as well as the DelDOT-owned land 

previously purchased for the US 301 project, has been farmed regularly. Visually estimating 

farmed parcels that are impacted by the project, it is estimated that 50% of the land to be used 

by the project and in the adjacent 1-mile corridor has been farmed. Score = 10 points
US 301 Project Development 

FCIR Form CPA106 

Corridor Assessment Scoring 

(4) Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect 

farmland or covered by private programs to protect farmland? 

Site is protected 20 points 

Site is not protected 0 points 

Both New Castle County and the State of Delaware have agricultural preservation programs 

within the project area. Two of the farmland parcels impacted by the project are protected as 

agricultural easements – permanent deed restrictions – and one parcel is a 10-year preservation 

district. Score = 20 points

(5) Is the farm unit(s) containing the site (before the project) as large as the averagesize farming unit in the County? 

As large or larger 10 points 

Below average deduct 1 point for each 5 percent 

below the average, down to 0 points if 50 percent or 

more below average 

9 to 0 points 

The average farm size in Delaware is 226 acres (in 2006). The average size of farms adjacent to 

the project is 174 acres, or 77% as large as the average farm size. Score = 6 points 

(6) If the site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will 

become non-farmable because of interference with land patterns? 

Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres 

directly converted by the project 25 points 

Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the 

acres directly converted by the project 1 to 24 point(s) 

Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres 

directly converted by the project 0 points 

The project will acquire some additional farmland that will, because of the alignment of the 

roadway, become inaccessible for continued farming. The project LOD was presented as 1,108 

acres, and the project will acquire an additional 462 acres (remainders of impacted parcels), of 

which an estimated 320 acres is from farmed parcels, or 29% of the total acres to be converted 

directly. Score = 25 points
US 301 Project Development 

FCIR Form CPA106 

Corridor Assessment Scoring 

(7) Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, 

i.e., farm suppliers, equipment dealers, processing and storage facilities and 

farmer’s markets? 

All required services are available 5 points 

Some required services are available 4 to 1 point(s) 

No required services are available 0 points 

There is a sufficient amount of farm services in the vicinity of the project, and the project will not 

cause the cessation of any available services. An additional connection between Strawberry 

Lane and existing US 301 is being added (at the request of area farmers) to provide a safer 

access to existing farm services for farm vehicles. Score = 5 points

(8) Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as 

barns, other storage building, fruit trees and vines, field terraces, drainage, 

irrigation, waterways, or other soil and water conservation measures? 

High amount of on-farm investment 20 points 

Moderate amount of on-farm investment 19 to 1 point(s) 

No on-farm investment 0 points 

A few of the farmed parcels are substantially invested in barns and other storage buildings. 

Many of the farm fields, especially north of Boyds Corner Road (and including the parcels west 

of Middletown that are owned by DelDOT), are rental fields with no discernable on-farm 

investments. These fields are leased until development is approved. The project will cross the 

Drawyers Creek tax ditch system, which provides for irrigation and drainage of farm fields. 

Score = 14 points

(9) Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use, 

reduce the demand for farm support services so as to jeopardize the continued 

existence of these support services and thus, the viability of the farms remaining in 

the area? 

Substantial reduction in demand for support services 

if the site is converted 25 points 

Some reduction in demand for support services if the 

site is converted 1 to 24 point(s) 

No significant reduction in demand for support 

services if the site is converted 0 points 

As the area becomes more and more developed, the need for agricultural support services 

continues to lessen. The project will not influence this need as much as the continued conversion 

of farmland to residential uses. The project supports the demand for farm support services 

through the addition of the Strawberry Lane connection to existing US 301. Score = 8 points
US 301 Project Development 

FCIR Form CPA106 

Corridor Assessment Scoring 

(10) Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible 

with agriculture that it is likely to contribute to the eventual conversion of 

surrounding farmland to nonagricultural use? 

Proposed project is incompatible to existing agricultural 

use of surrounding farmland 10 points 

Proposed project is tolerable to existing agricultural use 

of surrounding farmland 9 to 1 point(s) 

Proposed project is fully compatible with existing 

agricultural use of surrounding farmland 0 points 

It is not incompatible to have farm fields adjacent to roadways and highways. As such, the 

project is not incompatible with farm uses and will in itself not likely cause the cessation of 

farming adjacent to the roadway upon its completion. None of the development in the area is 

dependent upon the US 301 project to be completed. A secondary and cumulative effects 

analysis concluded that the project could affect the rate at which the planned development is 

completed, but would not affect the amount. The continuance of long-term family owned farms 

was a strong issue in the determining the alignment of the new roadway north of Boyds Corner 

Road. Score = 2 points

Scoring Totals: 

Question Score 

1 8 

2 7 

3 10 

4 20 

5 6 

6 25 

7 5 

8 14 

9 8 

10 2 

Total 105 
Appendix H

Memorandum of Agreement

US 301 Project Development 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

Delaware Department 

Of Transportation 
 DRAFT 

 

 

 1

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 

AMONG THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, THE DELAWARE STATE 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE, THE DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION, AND THE MARYLAND STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

OFFICE 

REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE U.S. 301 PROJECT FROM THE DELAWAREMARYLAND STATE LINE TO S.R. 1, ST. GEORGE’S HUNDRED AND PENCADER 

HUNDRED NEW CASTLE COUNTY, DELAWARE

WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) with the Delaware Department of 

Transportation (DelDOT) propose to make the following improvements to U. S. 301 in St. 

George’s Hundred and Pencader Hundred in New Castle County, Delaware: construct a fourlane, controlled access roadway and associated facilities (Exhibit A) from the DelawareMaryland State Line to S.R. 1; and 

WHEREAS, FHWA has selected the Green North Alternative plus a two lane spur road 

connecting to the southern terminus of Summit Bridge (Project) as the preferred alternative for 

the Project (see Exhibit A); and 

WHEREAS, FHWA in consultation with the Delaware State Historic Preservation Office (DE 

SHPO) and DelDOT has established an initial Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Project, as 

defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(d) (Exhibit B); and 

WHEREAS, FHWA has elected to phase the identification and evaluation of historic properties 

as provided in 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2) as stipulated under this agreement; and 

WHEREAS, FHWA pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.4(a)(2), has determined that within the APE in 

the State of Delaware the following properties are listed in the National Register of Historic 

Places: 

The Maples, Cultural Resource Survey (CRS) No. N-106; 

S. Holton Farm, CRS No. N-107; 

Choptank, CRS No. N-109; 

Rumsey Farm, CRS No. N-113; 

Cochran Grange, CRS No. N-117; 

Hedgelawn, CRS No. N-118; 

Weston, CRS No. N-121; 
 DRAFT 

 

 

 2

Woodside, CRS No. N-427; 

Achmester, CRS No. N-3930; 

Idalia Manor, CRS No. N-3947; 

Governor Benjamin T. Biggs Farm, CRS No. N-5123; 

Armstrong-Walker House, CRS No. N-5146; 

Rosedale, CRS No. N-5148; and 

B.F Hanson House, CRS No. N-5225; and 

WHEREAS, FHWA pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.4(c), has determined that within the APE in 

the State of Delaware the following properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places: 

Summerton, CRS No. N-112; 

T.J. Houston Farm, CRS No. N-5131; 

Lovett Farm, CRS No. N-5132; 

J. Houston House, CRS No. N-5195; 

C. Polk House Estate, CRS No. N-5221; 

Fairview, CRS No. N-5244; 

State Bridge Number 383, CRS No. N-12636; and 

Shahan Farm, CRS No. N-14388; and 

WHEREAS, to date no historic properties have yet been identified in the APE in the State of 

Maryland; and 

WHEREAS, FHWA in consultation with the DE SHPO has applied the criteria of adverse effect 

to historic properties; and 

WHEREAS, FHWA has determined that the Project will have no effect on: 

Cochran Grange, CRS No. N-117; 

Weston, CRS No. N-121; 

Woodside, CRS No. N-427; 

Achmester, CRS No. N-3930; 

Fairview, CRS No. CRS No. N-5244; 

State Bridge Number 383, CRS No. N-12636; and 

Shahan Farm, CRS No. N-14388; and 
 DRAFT 

 

 

 3

WHEREAS, FHWA has determined that the Project will have no adverse effect on: 

Hedgelawn, CRS No. N-118; 

Lovett Farm, CRS No. N-5132; and 

J. Houston House, CRS No. N-5195; and 

WHEREAS, FHWA has determined that the Project will have an adverse effect on: 

The Maples, CRS No. N-106; 

S. Holton Farm, CRS No. N-107; 

Choptank, CRS No. N-109; 

Rumsey Farm, CRS No. N-113; 

Summerton, CRS No. N-112; 

Idalia Manor, CRS No. N-3947; 

Governor Benjamin T. Biggs Farm, CRS No. N-5123 

T.J. Houston Farm, N-5131; 

Armstrong-Walker House, CRS No. N-5146; 

Rosedale, CRS No. N-5148; 

C. Polk House, CRS No. N-5221; and 

B.F. Hanson House, CRS No. N-5225; and 

WHEREAS, FHWA has determined that the Project may also affect as yet unidentified historic 

properties in areas that have not been subject to prior cultural resource investigations, such as 

areas that are associated with proposed alignment modifications or other Project-related ancillary 

activities including, but not limited to, stormwater management facilities, wetland mitigation 

sites, staging, stockpiling and access areas, and disposal sites, and 

WHEREAS, DelDOT participated in the consultation, has responsibilities for implementing 

stipulations under this MOA, and pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(c)(2) has been invited to be a 

signatory to this MOA, and 

WHEREAS, FHWA and DelDOT have consulted with the DE SHPO and the Maryland State 

Historic Preservation Office (MD SHPO) in accordance with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act; 16 U.S.C. 470 (NHPA), and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 

Part 800) to resolve the effects of the Project on historic properties; and 

WHEREAS, FHWA and DelDOT have notified the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(Council) of the Project’s adverse effect on historic properties and it declined to participate in the 

consultation, and 
 DRAFT 

 

 

 4

WHEREAS, FHWA has contacted the Delaware Nation, and the Stockbridge-Muncee 

Community; to date, neither Tribe has indicated its intent to participate in the consultation. 

However, FHWA will advise these Tribes of Native American archaeological sites, 

investigations, and treatments as provided for under the stipulations of this agreement, and 

WHEREAS, FHWA has afforded the public an opportunity to comment on the effects of the 

Project on historic properties through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as 

amended; and through DelDOT’s Public Involvement Procedures. 

NOW, THEREFORE, FHWA, DelDOT, DE SHPO, and MD SHPO agree that the Project shall 

be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into account the 

effects of the undertaking on historic properties: 

Stipulations 

FHWA shall ensure that the following actions will be carried out: 

I. Archaeological Resources 

A. Identification/Evaluation 

DelDOT in consultation with the DE SHPO and MD SHPO shall conduct identification (Phase I) 

archaeological surveys within the APE for the project, and will determine if identified sites will 

require a Phase II level archaeological survey to evaluate their National Register of Historic 

Places eligibility. Evaluation Studies (Phase II) may require additional background research 

and/or additional field excavations. 

DelDOT shall prepare reports on findings of the archaeological identification/evaluation surveys 

and shall submit the reports to the DE SHPO and MD SHPO, as appropriate, for their review and 

concurrence. Upon receipt of the document, the review period will be thirty (30) days. FHWA 

and DelDOT will take into account comments and will recommend any next steps. 

During the Evaluation Studies (Phase II), FHWA and DelDOT shall apply the National Register 

criteria (36 CFR 60.4) in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4 (c), taking into account applicable 

historic contexts and management plans developed for Delaware or Maryland’s historic and 

prehistoric archaeological resources. 

If FHWA and DelDOT determine that any of the National Register criteria are met, and the DE 

SHPO and/or the MD SHPO agrees, as applicable, the archaeological site(s) shall be considered 

eligible for the National Register. 
 DRAFT 

 

 

 5

If FHWA and DelDOT determine that the National Register criteria are not met, and the DE 

SHPO and/or the MD SHPO agrees, as applicable, the archaeological site(s) shall be considered 

not eligible for the National Register. 

Based on the Evaluation Studies (Phase II), should a signatory to this agreement not agree on the 

eligibility determination of an archaeological site(s), the DelDOT or FHWA shall obtain a 

determination from the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(c)(2), 36 CFR 63.2(c) 

and 63.3(d).

B. Effect Determination/Mitigation 

If eligible archaeological sites are identified and affected within the APE, DelDOT will make a 

reasonable effort to avoid these sites or to minimize impacts to them. If the eligible sites cannot 

be avoided, DelDOT will apply the Criteria of Adverse Effect in accordance with 36 CFR Part 

800.5. 

If the project will have an adverse effect on archaeological sites, DelDOT in consultation with 

the DE SHPO and/or MD SHPO, shall develop a treatment plan. The treatment plan may 

include elements of data recovery or an alternative mitigation plan. 

DelDOT shall submit the treatment plan to the relevant SHPO and other consulting parties that 

may be identified, including Indian Tribes as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(m), for their review and 

comment. Upon receipt of the document, the review period will be thirty (30) days. Following 

30 days, DelDOT will take into account any comments, and will recommend any next steps. 

Should data recovery investigations be warranted, DelDOT shall ensure that a data recovery plan 

is developed in consultation with the relevant SHPO. The plan shall specify, at a minimum: 

• the property, properties, or portions of properties where data recovery is to be 

carried out, and any property that will or may be destroyed without data recovery; 

• research questions to be addressed through data recovery, with an explanation of 

their relevance and importance; 

• the research methods to be used, with an explanation of their relevance to the 

research questions; 

• the methods to be used in analysis, data management, and data dissemination, 

including a schedule; 

• a provision for assessing materials that may be in need of conservation 

• proposed disposition of recovered materials and records; 

• proposed methods for involving the interested public in the data recovery, and for 

disseminating the results of the work to the interested public; 
 DRAFT 

 

 

 6

• a proposed schedule for the submission of progress reports to the relevant SHPO; 

and 

• provisions to meet on-site in order to evaluate the success of the initial fieldwork 

phase of any data recovery program, and near the end of the fieldwork efforts to 

validate substantial completion. 

When and/or if an alternative mitigation strategy is chosen and approved by the DE SHPO, MD 

SHPO, FHWA, and DelDOT, it may include but is not limited to: analysis and synthesis of past 

data accumulated through either SHPO, FHWA, and DelDOT projects, updating the relevant 

SHPO and DelDOT archaeological websites and GIS databases, development of historic and 

prehistoric contexts and preservation priorities, statewide predictive models, development of 

travel or informational displays with the cultural resource work for this Project, and improved 

archaeological data management and access for both SHPO and DelDOT. 

DelDOT will complete all necessary data recovery field work prior to commencing construction 

in the site areas, alternative mitigation may or may not be completed prior to commencing 

construction in the site areas. 

DelDOT shall provide all draft and final archaeological reports and public information materials 

to the appropriate SHPO for review and comment. All final reports shall meet the Secretary of 

the Interior's standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation (48 FR 44734-37), 

while also satisfying the necessary SHPO's guidelines for archaeological surveys or 

investigations. 

C. Public Outreach

If mitigation is necessary, DelDOT will prepare a public participation plan and public 

information materials. DelDOT shall submit the plan and materials to the FHWA, DE SHPO, 

MD SHPO, and other consulting parties that may be identified for their review and comment. 

Upon receipt of the materials, the review period will be thirty (30) days. Following 30 days, 

DelDOT will take into account any comments received, and will recommend any next steps. 

The public participation plan may include, but is not limited to archaeological site tours for the 

public and educational groups. The specific public outreach materials produced will be 

determined individually for each site for which mitigation is necessary and may include, but are 

not limited to pamphlets, videos, historical markers, brochures, exhibits, displays for public 

buildings booklets on the history or prehistory of the project area, lectures and or presentations at 

academic conferences, and/or public institutions such as schools and historical societies. 

DelDOT shall distribute the public information materials to consulting parties, local schools, 

historical societies, libraries, museums and/or other venues and individuals deemed pertinent in 

consultation with the DE SHPO, MD SHPO, and FHWA. 
 DRAFT 

 

 

 7

 

D. Discovery of and Treatment of Human Remains and Burials

In the State of Delaware, DelDOT shall immediately notify the DE SHPO of the discovery of 

any human remains encountered during the archaeological investigations or the project 

construction. DelDOT shall cease all activities that may disturb or damage the remains, and 

comply with the Delaware Unmarked Human Remains Act (7DE code Chapter 54). 

In the State of Maryland, DelDOT shall follow the Maryland State burial law: Title 10 Subtitle 4 

§§ 10-401 through 10-404 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. Upon discovery, DelDOT shall 

cease all activities that may disturb or damage the remains. 

If the human remains are of Native American affiliation, then FHWA will determine an 

appropriate course of action, in accordance with 36 CFR 800, and the above cited state laws. 

The FHWA will include the DE SHPO and/or MD SHPO in such consultation. The DE SHPO 

or MD SHPO will comply with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 

1990 (PL 101-601) with regard to disposition of the remains and/or associated funerary objects, 

as applicable. 

E. Curation 

DelDOT shall ensure that all records and materials resulting from the archaeological 

investigations conducted for this undertaking in the State of Delaware are processed, prepared 

for, and curated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 79 and the Division of Historical & Cultural 

Affairs’ (the Division) “Guidelines and Standards for the Curation of Archaeological 

Collections” (2001). 

These records and materials shall be curated at the Division, or its designee, following the 

policies of the institution, except as may be provided for under the following paragraph. 

As part of the Public Outreach efforts outlined in Stipulation I.C. of this Agreement, the FHWA, 

DelDOT and DE SHPO will consult to determine if any archaeological materials may be loaned 

to a public museum or other public institution for the purposes of exhibit or research, following 

the Division’s loan policy and procedures. Such loans and exhibits may occur only after the 

curatorial procedures, referenced in the first paragraph in this stipulation, have been completed. 

All materials and records resulting from cultural resources investigations conducted in the State 

of Maryland for the Project will be processed in accordance with the MD SHPO’s Revised 

Technical Update No. 1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Investigations in 

Maryland – Collections and Conservation Standards (2005) and curated in accordance with 36 

CFR 79 at the Maryland Archeological Conservation Laboratory, unless clear title or Deed of 

Gift to the collection cannot be obtained. 
 DRAFT 

 

 

 8

II. Historic Structures, Buildings, and Districts 

The Project will adversely affect the following historic properties by introducing visual and/or 

audible elements that may produce a change in setting or feeling associated with the property: 

The Maples, CRS No. N-106; 

S. Holton Farm, CRS No. N-107; 

Choptank, CRS No. N-109; 

Rumsey Farm, CRS No. N-113; 

Summerton, CRS No. N-112; 

Idalia Manor, CRS No. N-3947; 

Governor Benjamin T. Biggs Farm, CRS No. N-5123 

T.J. Houston Farm, N-5131; 

Armstrong-Walker House, CRS No. N-5146; 

Rosedale, CRS No. N-5148; 

C. Polk House, CRS No. N-5221; and 

B.F. Hanson House, CRS No. N-5225; and 

Should DelDOT, in consultation with the DE SHPO and MD SHPO, redefine the Area of 

Potential Effect beyond the areas depicted in Exhibit B of this MOA, DelDOT shall consult with 

the DE SHPO and MD SHPO to identify and evaluate historic buildings, structures, and/or 

districts in the newly affected areas, and assess the effects of the project thereon, following the 

process outlined for Archaeological Resources in Stipulations I.A. and I.B of this agreement, as 

applicable. 

DelDOT shall seek ways to avoid or minimize adverse affects in the design of the Project, such 

as, but not limited to decreasing grades, creating cuts, or otherwise manipulating the elevation of 

the roadway and ramps, where deemed appropriate. 

When adverse effects can not be avoided in the design, DelDOT shall develop in consultation 

with the FHWA, DE SHPO, and applicable properties owners, and other consulting parties as 

appropriate, mitigation for the adverse visual, audible, and setting impacts of the Project. This 

may include, but is not limited to, screening, earth berming, landscaping, fencing, or other 

appropriate barriers. Whenever practicable all screening or landscaping elements will be 

installed prior to actual construction activities. 

To the degree practicable, FHWA and DelDOT will ensure that any mitigation elements installed 

are complementary to the surrounding environment and/or natural vegetation, without 

introducing additional visual effects that may be considered cumulative in nature. 

In addition, as part of the public outreach efforts, DelDOT shall disseminate information on 

Delaware’s architectural history in relationship to the Project and APE. These efforts may 

include, but are not limited to, pamphlets, guides, or other media that provide historical 
 DRAFT 

 

 

 9

information in the Project Area or describe National Register listed or eligible historic properties 

identified for the Project. 

III. Disposal of Project Related Materials 

DelDOT shall consult with the DE SHPO or the MD SHPO concerning the location for disposal 

of materials produced by any demolition, construction, excavation, and/or dredging. Upon the 

provision of adequate information, the DE SHPO or MD SHPO will have 30 days to review all 

such locations to ensure the disposal will not adversely affect historic properties. DelDOT shall 

not use any such locations if the DE SHPO or MD SHPO objects to proposed disposal sites. 

IV. Review of Project Related Plans 

DelDOT shall provide relevant sections of preliminary, semi-final, and final project plans to the 

DE SHPO, MD SHPO, and any other party deemed appropriate for review and comment. Upon 

circulation and assurance that relevant sections have been distributed, the DE SHPO, MD SHPO, 

and any other reviewing party will have 30 days to provide comments. DelDOT shall take into 

account any comments. 

V. Subsequent Changes to the Project 

A. If subsequent to the implementation of Stipulation IV, if DelDOT proposes any 

significant changes to the Project affecting location, design, methods of construction, materials, 

or relative footprint of the Project, DelDOT shall provide FHWA, DE SHPO, MD SHPO, and 

any other party deemed appropriate with information concerning the proposed changes. The DE 

SHPO, the MD SHPO, and any other party deemed appropriate will have 30 days from the 

receipt of this information to comment on the proposed changes. DelDOT shall take into 

account any comments, prior to implementing such changes. 

VI. Administrative Stipulations 

A. Personnel Qualifications 

All cultural resource work carried out pursuant to this agreement will be by or under the direct 

supervision of a person or persons meeting at a minimum the “Secretary of the Interior's 

Standards and Guidelines” (http://www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/Arch_Standards.htm), formerly 61 

CFR Appendix A. 
 DRAFT 

 

 

 10

DelDOT’s Environmental Studies personnel will have direct authority to choose and authorize 

any qualified cultural resource management firms or subconsultant to carry out this work on an 

as-needed basis throughout the duration of the Project. 

B. Survey and Data Recovery Standards 

DelDOT shall ensure that all cultural resource surveys and data recovery plans conducted 

pursuant to this Agreement are done in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

and Guidelines for Identification and Evaluation, and for Archaeological Documentation, and in 

accordance with the DE SHPO’s Guidelines for Architectural and Archaeological Surveys in 

Delaware (1993) or the MD SHPO’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Investigations 

in Maryland (Shaffer and Cole 1994), as applicable. 

Survey proposals and data recovery plans shall include a research design that stipulates: 

objectives, methods, and expected results; production of draft and final reports; and preparation 

of materials for curation in accordance with Stipulation I.E., including budgeting for initial 

conservation assessments and treatment. Additional requirements for data recovery plans are 

found in Stipulation I.B. of this Agreement.

All data recovery plans shall also take into account the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation’s guidance Recommended Approach for Consultation on Recovery of Significant 

Information from Archaeological Sites, and reports will meet professional standards set forth by 

the Department of the Interior’s “Format Standards for Final Reports of Data Recovery 

Program” (42 FR 5377-79). 

All data recovery plans, public outreach, or future consultation shall also follow and/or consider 

any supplemental guidance and provisions provided by, but not limited to, the American 

Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, FHWA, Transportation Research Boards, 

National Park Service, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation or recognized academic 

journals or professional organizations as identified by DelDOT and/or the SHPOs. 

DelDOT shall ensure that all draft and final cultural resource reports are provided to the FHWA 

and appropriate SHPO within two (2) years of the completion of fieldwork. 

C. Late Discoveries 

If any unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources are encountered during the implementation 

of this undertaking, DelDOT shall immediately suspend work in the area of the discovery, and 

FHWA shall comply with 36 CFR Part 800.13 by consulting with the DE SHPO or MD SHPO. 

The FHWA will notify the DE SHPO or MD SHPO within one working day of the discovery. 

The FHWA, DelDOT, and the DE SHPO or MD SHPO will meet at the location of the discovery 
 DRAFT 

 

 

 11

within forty-eight (48) hours of the initial notification to determine appropriate treatment of the 

discovery prior to resumption of construction activities within the area of discovery. 

D. Amendments 

Any party to this MOA may propose to FHWA that it be amended, whereupon FHWA shall 

consult with the other parties to this MOA to consider such an amendment. 36 CFR Part 

800.6(c)(7) shall govern the execution of any such amendment. 

E. Resolving Objections 

1. Should any party to this MOA object in writing to FHWA regarding any action carried 

out or proposed with respect to the Project or implementation of this MOA, FHWA shall consult 

with the objecting party to resolve the objection. If after initiating such consultation FHWA 

determines that the objection cannot be resolved through consultation, FHWA shall forward all 

documentation relevant to the objection to the Council, including FHWA’s proposed response to 

the objection. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the Council 

shall exercise one of the following options: 

a. Advise FHWA that the Council concurs in FHWA’s proposed response to the 

objection, whereupon FHWA shall respond to the objection accordingly; 

b. Provide FHWA with recommendations, which FHWA shall take into account in 

reaching a final decision regarding its response to the objection; or

c. Notify FHWA that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR 800.7(a) and proceed to 

comment. Any Council comment provided in response to such a request will be taken 

into account by FHWA in accordance with 36 CFR 800.7(c)(4). 

Should the Council not exercise one of the above options within thirty (30) days after receipt of 

all pertinent documentation, FHWA may assume the Council’s concurrence in its proposed 

response to the objection. 

FHWA shall take into account any Council recommendation or comment provided in accordance 

with this stipulation with reference only to the subject of the objection; FHWA’s responsibility to 

carry out all actions under this MOA that are not the subjects of the objection shall remain 

unchanged. 

F. Resolution of Objections by the Public 
 DRAFT 

 

 

 12

At any time during implementation of the measures stipulated in this MOA, should any objection 

pertaining to any such measure or its manner of implementation be raised by a member of the 

public, FHWA shall notify the parties of this MOA and take the objection into account 

consulting with the objector and, should the objector so request, with any of the parties to this 

MOA to resolve the objection. 

G. Review of Implementation 

FHWA, DelDOT, DE SHPO and MD SHPO shall review the project annually, to monitor 

progress of the implementation of the terms of this MOA. This review should occur in January of 

each year following execution of the MOA. 

H. Duration of the Agreement

This MOA shall be null and void if its terms are not carried out within six (6) years from the date 

of its execution. Within six months of the end of this period, the FHWA may request in writing 

that the signatories consider an extension of this MOA. Should all parties deem an extension to 

this MOA necessary, such extension shall be treated as an amendment under Stipulation VI.D. 

above. No extension or amendment will be effective unless all signatories to the MOA have 

agreed to it in writing. 

I. Termination 

1. If FHWA determines that it cannot implement the terms of this MOA, or the DE SHPO, 

or the MD SHPO determines that the MOA is not being properly implemented, FHWA, 

DelDOT, the DE SHPO, or the MD SHPO may propose to the other parties that this MOA be 

terminated. 

2. The party proposing to terminate this MOA shall so notify all parties to this MOA, 

explaining the reasons for termination and affording them at least thirty (30) days to consult and 

seek alternatives to termination. The parties shall then consult. 

3. Should such consultation fail, FHWA, DelDOT, DE SHPO, or the MD SHPO may 

terminate the MOA by so notifying all parties in writing. 

4. Should this MOA be terminated, FHWA shall either: 

a. Consult in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.6(a)(1) to develop a new MOA; or 
 DRAFT 

 

 

 13

b. Request the comments of the Council pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.7(a)(1). The 

Council shall have forty-five (45) days to respond with comments. 

5. FHWA and the Council may conclude the Section 106 process with an MOA between 

them if the DE SHPO and/or the MD SHPO terminates consultation in accordance with 36 CFR 

Part 800.7(a)(2). 

Execution of this MOA by FHWA, DE SHPO, MD SHPO and DelDOT and the implementation 

of its terms, evidence that FHWA has taken into account the effects of the Project on historic 

properties. 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION 

By: Date: ________________ 

Robert Kleinburd 

DELAWARE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER 

By: Date: _________________ 

Timothy Slavin 

MARYLAND STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER 

By: Date: _________________ 

J. Rodney Little 

DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

By: Date: _________________ 

Robert Taylor 
Appendix I

Public Hearing Transcript Introduction

US 301 Project Development 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

Delaware Department 

Of Transportation 
 1 

 STATE OF DELAWARE 

 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 PUBLIC HEARING 

 IN RE: US 301 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 

 Middletown Fire Hall 

 27 West Green Street 

 Middletown, Delaware 

 Monday, January 8, 2007 

 4:11 p.m. 

 BEFORE: 

 ANDREW BING, Facilitator 

 KRAMER & ASSOCIATES 

 MARK C. TUDOR, P.E. 

 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 Group Engineer - Project Development 

 ERIC ALMQUIST, Environmental Planner 

 RUMMEL, KLEPPER & KAHL 

 CAROLYN O'DONOGHUE, Real Estate 

 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 WILCOX & FETZER 

 1330 King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801 

 (302) 655-0477 

 www.wilfet.com 
 2 

 1 MR. BING: Good afternoon, ladies and 

 2 gentlemen. My name is Andrew Bing. I work for Kramer 

 3 & Associates. As part of the Project Team, we have 

 4 provided public outreach services from the beginning 

 5 of DelDOT's US 301 Project. I will be the facilitator 

 6 for today's hearing. 

 7 Today's hearing is being jointly held by 

 8 the Delaware Department of Transportation, the Federal 

 9 Highway Administration, and the United States Army 

 10 Corps of Engineers. On behalf of the agencies and the 

 11 US 301 Project Team, I would like to welcome you to 

 12 the sixth round of public workshops, which involves a 

 13 combined location-design public hearing. 

 14 The purpose of this combined 

 15 workshop/hearing is to aquaint you with the project 

 16 and to provide an opportunity for all interested 

 17 persons to present their views regarding the retained 

 18 alternatives, and the natural environmental, social 

 19 and cultural impacts associated with each. A 

 20 transcript of the public hearings will be provided to 

 21 the Federal Highway Administration and the United 

 22 States Army Corps of Engineers for their 

 23 administrative records. 

 24 This hearing is also an opportunity to 
 3 

 1 comment on issues related to permits and approvals 

 2 that will be required in conjunction with the 

 3 selection of a Build Alternative. 

 4 I would like to direct your attention to 

 5 the handouts available at this hearing, including the 

 6 joint public notice; an information brochure and 

 7 comment form; matrices comparing the natural 

 8 environmental and cultural impacts, along with 

 9 engineering features, traffic, noise, and community 

 10 impacts for each of the four build alternatives and 

 11 associated alignment and interchange options; 11-by-17 

 12 copies of each of the display boards; a summary of the 

 13 noise analysis results; two handouts, "Your Property 

 14 and the Right-of-Way," and "Transportation and the 

 15 Right-of-Way, A Guide for Property Owners"; and 

 16 finally, a copy of these introductory remarks. 

 17 Copies of all these handouts are available 

 18 at the sign-in table when you first enter the fire 

 19 station. 

 20 Representatives of the Delaware Department 

 21 of Transportation, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the 

 22 Federal Highway Administration, and other 

 23 environmental resource and regulatory agencies are in 

 24 attendance to listen to your public testimony. 
 4 

 1 I want to emphasize that the agency 

 2 officials are here to listen to your comments and 

 3 questions. They are not here to respond at today's 

 4 hearing. However, all questions raised during this 

 5 hearing will be responded to in the Final 

 6 Environmental Impact Statement. Project Team members 

 7 are also here and will discuss issues with you and 

 8 respond to your questions. 

 9 At this time, I would like to invite any 

 10 elected officials to stand for recognition. 

 11 I would like to thank many of the elected 

 12 officials in the area for their participation in the 

 13 public process for this project. 

 14 Under the National Environmental Policy 

 15 Act, commonly known as NEPA, the Federal Highway 

 16 Administration has the responsibility, as the lead 

 17 federal agency for this project, to consider public 

 18 comments as well as those of other federal, state and 

 19 local government agencies to reach a decision on a 

 20 preferred alternative for this project. 

 21 DelDOT has prepared a Draft Environmental 

 22 Impact Statement, which is also required as part of 

 23 NEPA. After Federal Highway review, as well as review 

 24 by other federal, state and local agencies, Federal 
 5 

 1 Highway approved the Draft Environmental Impact 

 2 Statement on October 20, 2006 for public review and 

 3 comment. Notice of the availability of the document 

 4 was published in the Federal Register on November 

 5 17th, 2006, and the document is available at the 

 6 following locations for public review and comment: 

 7 Appoquinimink Public Library, Delaware Department of 

 8 Transportation, the Dover and Bear offices, New Castle 

 9 County Government Offices, the Federal Highway 

 10 Administration, WILMAPCO, US Army Corps of Engineers, 

 11 US 301 Project Office. In addition, it is located 

 12 here at these hearings. 

 13 The address of each location is noted in 

 14 the information brochure, which is in this evening's 

 15 handout packet. The DEIS is also available on the 

 16 project's Web site at www.us301.org. 

 17 The comment period will extend until 

 18 February 3rd, 2007. 

 19 Following these hearings and after 

 20 considering all of the comments by the public and 

 21 resource agencies, a Final Environmental Impact 

 22 Statement, known as an FEIS, will be prepared, 

 23 including DelDOT's preferred alternative. The Final 

 24 Environmental Impact Statement will be available for 
 6 

 1 public review and comment for a period of at least 30 

 2 days. 

 3 Following the FEIS public comment period 

 4 and after considering all public and agency comments, 

 5 the Federal Highway Administration will issue a Record 

 6 Decision for this project that will be published in 

 7 the Federal Register. 

 8 Let me emphasize that all comments 

 9 provided during the comment period for this project, 

 10 which extends to February 3rd, 2007, whether submitted 

 11 in writing to the Federal Highway Administration, the 

 12 US Army Corps of Engineers, or the Delaware Department 

 13 of Transportation, via the project Web site or as 

 14 testimony at these public hearings, will be considered 

 15 in this project's decision-making process. Comments 

 16 should be submitted as indicated in the project 

 17 information brochure and on the comment form. 

 18 The Delaware Department of Transportation, 

 19 through consultation with the US Army Corps of 

 20 Engineers, has identified waters of the United States, 

 21 including jurisdictional wetlands, which are regulated 

 22 by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This public 

 23 hearing provides the public with an opportunity to 

 24 present views, opinions and information, which will be 
 7 

 1 considered by the Corps in evaluating a Department of 

 2 the Army permit. All comments received will become 

 3 part of the formal project record. Copies of any 

 4 written statements expressing concern for aquatic 

 5 resources may be submitted to Mr. Frank Cianfrani, 

 6 Chief of the Regulatory Branch, 

 7 CENAP-OP-R-2006-6071-1, US Army Corps of Engineers, 

 8 Philadelphia District, Wanamaker Building, 100 Penn 

 9 Square East, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107-3390, 

 10 until February 3, 2007. This address is provided in 

 11 the project information brochure. 

 12 The Corps's decision to issue or deny a 

 13 Section 404 permit will be based on an evaluation of 

 14 the probable impacts including the direct, secondary 

 15 and cumulative impacts of the proposed project on the 

 16 public interest. The benefits which may reasonably be 

 17 expected to accrue from the proposed project must be 

 18 balanced against its reasonably foreseeable 

 19 detriments. All factors which are relevant to the 

 20 proposed project will be considered, including 

 21 cumulative effects. 

 22 Among these factors are conservation, 

 23 economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, 

 24 wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, 
 8 

 1 flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, shoreline 

 2 erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and 

 3 conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, 

 4 threatened and endangered species, parklands, 

 5 community and business impacts, and in general, the 

 6 needs and welfare of the people. 

 7 In addition to a Department of the Army 

 8 permit, DelDOT must subsequently certify that the 

 9 proposed activity complies with and will be conducted 

 10 in a manner consistent with the Delaware Coastal 

 11 Management Program, and obtain water quality 

 12 certification and wetlands and subaqueous lands 

 13 permits from DNREC in accordance with Section 401 of 

 14 the Clean Water Act and with Delaware Code Title 7, 

 15 Sections 6607 and 7212. DelDOT must also obtain other 

 16 state or local government authorizations that may be 

 17 required. 

 18 I will now turn the presentation over to 

 19 Mark Tudor, DelDOT's Project Director for the US 301 

 20 Project of project development effort, who will 

 21 describe the project development process, the purpose 

 22 of the project, and the alternatives under 

 23 consideration. Mark. 

 24 MR. TUDOR: Thank you. The Delaware 
 9 

 1 Department of Transportation's highway development 

 2 process consists of four distinct phases: the Project 

 3 Planning Phase, the Engineering or Design Phase, the 

 4 Right-of-Way Acquisition Phase, and the Construction 

 5 Phase. 

 6 The US 301 project is currently in the 

 7 detailed evaluation stage of the project planning 

 8 phase. During project planning, the location and 

 9 general design features of the Build Alternatives 

 10 along with their environmental impacts are identified. 

 11 Current activities include engineering and 

 12 environmental studies, coordination with other state 

 13 and federal agencies and public involvement. The 

 14 results of these activities are documented in the 

 15 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. It will be 

 16 summarized for you today. 

 17 The proposed US 301 improvements are 

 18 intended to improve mobility and safety in the 

 19 Middletown-Odessa-Townsend region. Currently, US 301 

 20 is a four-lane, limited access divided highway in 

 21 Maryland that narrows near the Delaware/Maryland state 

 22 line into a two-lane undivided roadway with numerous 

 23 access points and traffic signals as it traverses 

 24 portions of southern New Castle County. 
 10 

 1 US 301 carries a significant volume of 

 2 trucks. Studies have shown that trucks are primarily 

 3 traveling long distances with origins and destinations 

 4 outside of Delaware. Traffic projections indicate 

 5 that without improvements, congestion on US 301 in 

 6 Delaware will continue to worsen, with traffic 

 7 spilling onto other nearby and connector roads as 

 8 motorists seek less congested alternatives to US 301. 

 9 The purpose of the US 301 project 

 10 development effort is to identify and evaluate 

 11 alternatives that address transportation needs in the 

 12 US 301 area, including: 

 13 Reduce existing and projected roadway 

 14 congestion in the project area. 

 15 Improve safety of the project area, where 

 16 between October 1999 and September 2004, there were 20 

 17 fatalities and over 1,200 reportable crashes within 

 18 the project area. More recently, between September 

 19 2004 and July 2005, three more fatalities have 

 20 occurred on US 301 south of the canal. 

 21 Manage traffic by separating US 301 through 

 22 traffic, particularly through truck traffic, from 

 23 local traffic. 

 24 This project has had a substantial amount 
 11 

 1 of public participation to date. 

 2 The first phase of the study began in 

 3 January 2005 with a series of Listening Tour 

 4 interviews with elected officials, agency 

 5 representatives, business owners, property owners, 

 6 farmers and community organizations. 

 7 Nearly 800 people attended the first 

 8 public workshops on June 20th, and 21st, 2005. 

 9 Displays and a PowerPoint presentation identified the 

 10 various elements of the project. The potential range 

 11 of alternatives, involving eight potential preliminary 

 12 alternatives, as well as various options, was provided 

 13 for review. Over 500 comments were received in 

 14 writing and via the project Web site. 

 15 After considering input from agency 

 16 representatives and the public, the Project Team 

 17 completed its preliminary analysis and determined two 

 18 of the eight potential alternatives, as well as 

 19 various options, did not satisfy the purpose and need, 

 20 or were otherwise not reasonable. An additional 

 21 alternative was added, based on comments received, 

 22 resulting in a range of alternatives that included 

 23 Yellow, Orange, Purple, Brown North and South, Green 

 24 North and South, Blue, and Red. 
 12 

 1 The second round of public workshops was 

 2 held on September 12th, 13th and 19th, 2005. Nearly 

 3 1,100 person attended these workshops. The seven 

 4 alternatives contained in the range of alternatives 

 5 and the various options, along with the impacts of 

 6 those alternatives, and a recommendation of 

 7 alternatives to be retained for detailed evaluation 

 8 were presented. Over 1,000 comments were received, 

 9 along with petitions signed by 1,813 people. 

 10 The third round of public workshops was 

 11 held on December 5, 6, and 7, 2005. Four retained 

 12 build alternatives, i.e. the Yellow, Purple, Brown and 

 13 Green alternatives were presented. The Purple and 

 14 Green alternatives were displayed for the first time 

 15 with an added spur road, a two-lane roadway from the 

 16 vicinity of Armstrong Corner Road to the Summit 

 17 Bridge. More than 525 persons attended the workshops, 

 18 and over 500 comments were provided, along with seven 

 19 petitions containing 4,900 signatures expressing 

 20 support for or opposition to specific alternatives. 

 21 The fourth round of public workshops was 

 22 held on February 22nd and 23rd, 2006. These 

 23 informational workshops presented specific issues 

 24 raised at the December workshops and the Project 
 13 

 1 Team's evaluation and response to those issues. 

 2 Finally, the fifth round of public 

 3 workshops was held on April 10 and 11, 2006 to present 

 4 the refined retained alternatives. Notices of these 

 5 workshops were extended to residents outside of the 

 6 project area, in Maryland, because of concerns about 

 7 potential toll diversions and the impacts on 

 8 Maryland's roads and resources. Approximately 350 

 9 people attended these workshops, and 132 comments were 

 10 received. 

 11 The documentation regarding each of the 

 12 five public workshops is available for viewing at 

 13 DelDOT or at the project office. 

 14 DelDOT and the environmental resource and 

 15 regulatory agencies have continued to meet throughout 

 16 the project development process. Representatives of 

 17 the Federal Highway Administration, US Army Corps of 

 18 Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Fish 

 19 & Wildlife Service, State Historic Preservation 

 20 Office, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and 

 21 Environmental Control, and the Delaware Department of 

 22 Agriculture participated in these meetings. The 

 23 National Marine Fisheries Service was provided with 

 24 all of the project information and data that were 
 14 

 1 provided to all other agencies. 

 2 I will now describe each alternative under 

 3 consideration. 

 4 No-Action Alternative, commonly referred 

 5 to as the "No-Build Alternative," (as identified in 

 6 the DEIS) must be studied per the National 

 7 Environmental Policy Act to form a basis of comparison 

 8 for the build alternatives. The no-build alternative 

 9 includes all improvements noted in WILMAPCO's 

 10 constrained long-range transportation plan for 2030. 

 11 The projects in the long-range plan 

 12 represent a significant investment in transportation 

 13 improvements, yet would not satisfy the project 

 14 purpose and need. 

 15 Also included in the no-build alternative 

 16 are minor intersection, interchange, and roadway 

 17 improvements to address localized problems; routine 

 18 maintenance projects; and measures to reduce travel 

 19 demand, such as enhanced transit and carpool 

 20 incentives. The improvements included in the no-build 

 21 alternative are assumed to be in place by 2030, 

 22 regardless of the US 301 alternatives being 

 23 considered. 

 24 I will now describe the US 301 build 
 15 

 1 alternatives. 

 2 The four build alternatives under 

 3 consideration take somewhat similar routes through 

 4 much of the area and share similar design 

 5 characteristics. 

 6 The basic design elements of the build 

 7 alternatives are based on transportation needs and 

 8 travel demands, context-sensitive design principles, 

 9 highway safety and functionality, environmental 

 10 stewardship and visual character. 

 11 Efforts have been made to integrate the 

 12 proposed alternatives with the existing topography, 

 13 and to minimize impacts to resources such as 

 14 communities, forest lands, natural resources and 

 15 cultural resources, to name but a few. 

 16 Basic design elements of all the build 

 17 alternatives include: a limited access, four-lane 

 18 (two lanes in each direction) US 301 with interchanges 

 19 spaced along the facility, plus a two-lane spur road 

 20 for two of the alternatives (Green and Purple). 

 21 Guardrails, retaining walls, and other roadside 

 22 treatments have been considered to avoid or minimize 

 23 impacts. 

 24 The roadway profile, and in particular 
 16 

 1 building portions of the road lower than existing 

 2 ground level, was considered where practicable to 

 3 reduce visual and noise impacts to adjacent 

 4 communities. Bridges have been proposed at major 

 5 stream crossings, and efforts have been made to avoid 

 6 alignments parallel and adjacent to streams. 

 7 Designs will comply with state stormwater 

 8 management regulations and utilize advanced water 

 9 quality treatment. Visual earth berms and landscaping 

 10 are proposed to screen communities from the new 

 11 roadway, where practicable. 

 12 Roadway alignments have been shifted and 

 13 refined, where possible, to avoid or minimize impacts, 

 14 when avoidance is not possible to communities and 

 15 environmental resources. 

 16 Tolls would be used to generate revenue to 

 17 help pay for the construction and operating costs of 

 18 the new US 301. Tolls would be collected on US 301 

 19 just north of the Maryland/Delaware line and on 

 20 interchange ramps to and from the north. Tolls will 

 21 not be collected at the north-serving ramps on the 

 22 spur road interchange south of Summit Bridge. A 

 23 motorist would only pay a toll once. Those vehicles 

 24 using US 301 would not pay a toll at SR 1. The toll 
 17 

 1 rates would be determined after financial studies are 

 2 completed. 

 3 I will now address each build alternative 

 4 individually. 

 5 The Yellow Alternative. The Yellow 

 6 Alternative would extend along existing US 301 from 

 7 the Maryland/Delaware line, state line, to the 

 8 Mt. Pleasant area, where the roadway would turn east 

 9 and parallel existing Boyds Corner Road, and 

 10 interchange with SR 1 just north of the SR 1/Pole 

 11 Bridge Road interchange, east of Boyds Corner. 

 12 Interchanges would be provided at Levels 

 13 Road and via slip ramps to and from US 301 and service 

 14 roads in the Armstrong Corner Road area. Service 

 15 roads provided between Bunker Hill Road and Churchtown 

 16 Road would provide local access. 

 17 The Purple Plus Spur Alternative. The 

 18 Purple Plus Spur Alternative would extend north, on a 

 19 new location, west of Middletown, from the 

 20 Delaware/Maryland state line to south of Armstrong 

 21 Corner Road. The Purple alignment would then curve 

 22 and extend northeast to SR 896 (Boyds Corner Road), 

 23 west of Jamison Corner Road, where the alignment would 

 24 again curve and extend east parallel to existing Boyds 
 18 

 1 Corner Road and interchange with SR 1 just north of 

 2 the SR 1/Pole Bridge Road interchange, east of Boyds 

 3 Corner. 

 4 Interchanges would be provided at Levels 

 5 Road and in the US 301/Armstrong Corner Road area. 

 6 A two-lane, limited access spur roadway 

 7 would extend from south of Armstrong Corner Road to 

 8 just south of the Summit Bridge. 

 9 The Brown Alternative. The Brown 

 10 Alternative would extend north, on a new location, 

 11 west of Middletown, from the Delaware/Maryland state 

 12 line to south of Summit Bridge. It will then curve 

 13 and extend east, south of the C&D Canal, interchanging 

 14 with SR 1 between Biddles Corner Road Toll Plaza and 

 15 the C&D Canal. 

 16 The Brown Alternative North Option extends 

 17 north to SR 15/SR 896 and then curves east on existing 

 18 SR 896 towards SR 1. 

 19 The Brown Alternative South Option extends 

 20 north of Churchtown Road and then curves northeast 

 21 between Summit Bridge Farms and Dickerson Farms, 

 22 passing through the northern portion of Summit 

 23 Airport, before curving east toward SR 1. 

 24 Interchanges with Levels Road, SR 896/SR 
 19 

 1 15 (south of Summit Bridge) and Jamison Corner Road 

 2 are proposed with either option. 

 3 The Green Plus Spur Alternative. The 

 4 Green Plus Spur Alternative will extend north, on a 

 5 new location, west of Middletown, from the 

 6 Delaware/Maryland state line to north of Armstrong 

 7 Corner Road, and then curve and extend northeast, 

 8 interchanging with SR 1 north of the Biddles Corner 

 9 Toll Plaza and south of the C&D Canal. 

 10 The Green Alternative North Option extends 

 11 northeast, passing over Boyds Corner Road about 550 

 12 feet east of the intersection of Boyds Corner Road and 

 13 Ratledge Road and continues north-northeast before 

 14 curving east, south of the Airmont community and 

 15 interchanging with SR 1. 

 16 The Green Alternative South Option extends 

 17 in a northeasterly direction 600 feet to the west of 

 18 the Cedar Lane schools, then passes over Boyds Corner 

 19 Road, extends between the proposed Village of Bayberry 

 20 and Scott Run Business Park at Whitehall before 

 21 interchanging with SR 1. 

 22 Interchanges would be provided at Levels 

 23 Road, in the existing US 301/Armstrong Corner Road 

 24 area and at Jamison Corner Road for either option. 
 20 

 1 A two-lane, limited access spur roadway 

 2 would extend from south of Armstrong Corner Road to 

 3 just south of the Summit Bridge. 

 4 Alignment and interchange options have 

 5 been developed to determine the best solutions for 

 6 certain areas. This involves the difficult challenge 

 7 of attempting to strike a balance between the 

 8 potential impacts to community, natural and cultural 

 9 resources. 

 10 After evaluating public comments from the 

 11 December, February and April workshops, performing 

 12 additional detailed analysis and refinement of 

 13 alternatives by the Project Team, and receiving input 

 14 from the federal and state environmental resource and 

 15 regulatory agencies, including the Federal Highway 

 16 Administration, DelDOT recommends the Green North Plus 

 17 Spur Road as the preferred alternative. 

 18 The recommended preferred alternative also 

 19 includes Interchange Option 2a in the Armstrong Corner 

 20 Road area and Spur Road Option 3B. The reasons and 

 21 supporting data for these recommendations are 

 22 contained in the DEIS, the workshop handouts, and are 

 23 on display at today's hearing. The public is 

 24 encouraged to provide comments giving reasons for 
 21 

 1 support of or opposition to the alternatives retained 

 2 for detailed evaluation, including DelDOT's 

 3 recommended preferred alternative and options. 

 4 After the public comment period for the 

 5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the following 

 6 steps will be completed to identify the selected 

 7 alternative. 

 8 In the spring of 2007, DelDOT will: 

 9 prepare Design Study Report addressing all substantive 

 10 comments; prepare Final Environmental Impact 

 11 Statements (FEIS), including comment responses; 

 12 receive Council on Transportation approval of 

 13 preferred alternatives. 

 14 In the summer of 2007, DelDOT will: 

 15 submit the FDIS to FHWA; announce public availability 

 16 of the FEIS; and receive FHWA approval and record of 

 17 decision; and receive Corps issuance of provisional 

 18 Section 404 permits. 

 19 The next portion of the presentation will 

 20 discuss how each alternative would affect 

 21 transportation in the study area. 

 22 Traffic forecasts for the US 301 Project 

 23 were developed using DelDOT's Regional Transportation 

 24 Planning Model. This statewide transportation model, 
 22 

 1 which was recently updated and expanded to cover the 

 2 entire Delmarva Peninsula, allows transportation 

 3 planners to predict and study future changes in travel 

 4 patterns. The model incorporates the latest approved 

 5 lane use and population forecasts that the regional 

 6 Metropolitan Planning Organization, Wilmington Area 

 7 Planning Council, also known as WILMAPCO, has adopted. 

 8 High levels of regional and study area 

 9 population employment growth would significantly 

 10 increase traffic volumes. The Travel Demand Analysis 

 11 indicates that even with all of the planned 

 12 improvements included in the No-Build Alternative, 

 13 travel conditions would still significantly worsen by 

 14 2030. 

 15 With the No-Build Alternative congestion 

 16 on local roads and intersections would increase 

 17 considerably, resulting in increased delay, 

 18 particularly at signalized intersections. Congestion 

 19 and delay throughout the study area would be 

 20 compounded by growth in truck volumes. From a safety 

 21 perspective, even if the accident rates stay at their 

 22 current level, the growth in traffic is expected to 

 23 significantly increase the number of accidents on 

 24 roads in the study area. 
 23 

 1 By reducing congestion on existing travel 

 2 routes, particularly through Middletown, all of the 

 3 build alternatives would reduce travel times and 

 4 improve travel time reliability for through and local 

 5 traffic. 

 6 The traffic analyses indicate that all of 

 7 the build alternatives would provide congestion 

 8 relief, and in turn, would potentially reduce the 

 9 number of accidents on most of the roadways in the 

 10 project area. 

 11 As mentioned previously, all of the future 

 12 traffic projection and analyses assume that tolls will 

 13 be collected on US 301 near the Delaware/Maryland 

 14 state line and on the proposed north-serving 

 15 interchange ramps. 

 16 Two different groups were formed to study 

 17 the impacts of these proposed tolls on local and 

 18 regional roadway networks. In response to the issues 

 19 raised by these two groups, studies conducted by the 

 20 US 301 Project Team found that regionally, minimal 

 21 shifts in traffic are anticipated between I-95 and an 

 22 improved and tolled US 301 because the travel time 

 23 savings resulting from the improvements to US 301 are 

 24 offset by the cost of the proposed toll. 
 24 

 1 Locally, there would be several potential 

 2 diversion routes available to motorists wishing to 

 3 avoid paying the mainline toll on US 301. 

 4 Understanding that no solution will totally eliminate 

 5 diversions, a series of recommendations was developed 

 6 by the working groups, with the goal of minimizing 

 7 truck and auto diversions. Most heavy trucks would 

 8 likely remain on US 301 due to the distance and time 

 9 required to bypass all restricted roads. 

 10 This concludes the alternatives 

 11 description and the effects of the project on future 

 12 traffic. I will now summarize the Department's Title 

 13 VI Program, including the significance of Title VI and 

 14 Executive Order 12898, the Environmental Justice Act, 

 15 as they relate to this joint public hearing. 

 16 Title VI is an amendment to the Civil 

 17 Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on 

 18 the grounds of race, color or national origin in any 

 19 program receiving federal financial assistance. 

 20 Supplemental legislation also prohibits discrimination 

 21 on the basis of sex, age, and physical and/or mental 

 22 handicap. 

 23 To assure compliance with this important 

 24 mandate, DelDOT established a Title VI Unit. It is 
 25 

 1 the Title VI Unit's responsibility to make sure that 

 2 all phases of the US 301 Project are completed in a 

 3 nondiscriminatory manner from the initial planning 

 4 stages through the actual construction of the project. 

 5 The purpose of the Environmental Justice 

 6 Executive Order is to identify and address 

 7 disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

 8 environmental effects on minority populations or 

 9 low-income populations. An important objective of 

 10 this order is to ensure full and fair participation by 

 11 all communities, including low income and minority 

 12 populations in the transportation decision-making 

 13 process. 

 14 I request your participation in assisting 

 15 us with our compliance efforts to ensure that all 

 16 phases of the transportation process are carried out 

 17 successfully. If you feel that you have been the 

 18 recipient of any type of discriminatory treatment, you 

 19 may address your concerns in writing to: Mr. John 

 20 Eustis, Acting Civil Rights Coordinator, Delaware 

 21 Department of Transportation, 800 Bay Road, Dover, 

 22 Delaware, 19903. 

 23 Mr. Eric Almquist will now present the 

 24 environmental overview of the project. 
 26 

 1 MR. ALMQUIST: Thank you, Mark. 

 2 My name is Eric Almquist, and I work for 

 3 Rummel, Klepper & Kahl as an environmental planner for 

 4 the Project Team. 

 5 The environmental impacts associated with 

 6 each alternative are included in the Matrices of 

 7 Impacts, a handout available at today's hearing. A 

 8 thorough review of all environmental conditions and 

 9 impacts is included in the DEIS. 

 10 Communities in the US 301 study area would 

 11 experience both benefits and adverse impacts. 

 12 Although the No-Build Alternative would not cause 

 13 impacts such as property acquisition or changes in the 

 14 visual environment, it would result in increased 

 15 traffic congestion and decreased mobility, 

 16 accessibility and safety. 

 17 Under all four build alternatives, 

 18 community impacts as a result of noise, right-of-way 

 19 impacts and visual changes would occur. The range of 

 20 residential and business right-of-way impacts would 

 21 vary depending on the alternatives and options 

 22 selected. The build alternatives would result in two 

 23 to 128 residential displacements and four to 58 

 24 business displacements. Details on these impacts are 
 27 

 1 included in the handouts and in the DEIS. The build 

 2 alternatives would improve community mobility, 

 3 accessibility and safety, as well as provide regional 

 4 and local economic benefits. 

 5 An Environmental Justice Analysis provided 

 6 in the DEIS indicates that under all of the presented 

 7 alternatives, no low income or minority populations 

 8 within the study area would experience 

 9 disproportionately high or adverse effects. 

 10 A Secondary and Cumulative Effects 

 11 Analysis, or SCEA, was completed for the new US 301. 

 12 The SCEA is a comprehensive, long-term look at how the 

 13 construction of a new US 301, combined with past, 

 14 present and future planned development and other 

 15 transportation projects, might result in additional 

 16 resource impacts or contribute to the culmination of 

 17 impacts that might affect a larger study area. 

 18 Generally, the analysis concluded that US 301 would 

 19 likely influence the rate of growth of residential and 

 20 business development in the region, but that 

 21 development would continue under any of the 

 22 alternatives evaluated in the DEIS, including the 

 23 No-Build Alternative. Completion of any of the build 

 24 alternatives would not likely increase the amount of 
 28 

 1 development, but could influence the rate of that 

 2 development occurring. 

 3 Potential impacts to historic resources is 

 4 an important part of our analysis. Four historic 

 5 properties would be directly impacted by the Yellow 

 6 alternative. The Yellow alternative is the only 

 7 alternative that would directly impact historic 

 8 properties. The Delaware Department of 

 9 Transportation, in consultation with the Delaware 

 10 State Historic Preservation Office, has determined 

 11 that there are potential indirect (noise and visual) 

 12 effects to between 16 and 22 of the 31 identified 

 13 historic properties that are listed on or eligible for 

 14 the National Register of Historic Places, depending 

 15 upon the build alternatives. 

 16 Although a National Register status has 

 17 not been determined for archeological resources, it is 

 18 already known that one historic archeological site 

 19 will be directly impacted by the Green, Purple and 

 20 Brown alternatives. Additional identification and 

 21 analysis of potential archeological resources will be 

 22 conducted prior to construction of a build 

 23 alternative. 

 24 Following the hearing, a Draft Memorandum 
 29 

 1 of Agreement will be finalized to guide future efforts 

 2 in order to avoid, minimize and mitigate effects to 

 3 historic properties. In accordance with the Section 

 4 106 procedures of the National Historic Preservation 

 5 Act, these public hearings provide the opportunity for 

 6 public input regarding historic resources. Public 

 7 views on the resolution of adverse effects on historic 

 8 resources are being sought. 

 9 Section 4(f) of the Department of 

 10 Transportation Act of 1966 is a federal law enacted to 

 11 help preserve park and recreation lands, wildlife and 

 12 waterfowl refuges and historic sites. Only the Yellow 

 13 alternative would directly impact historic sites in 

 14 the study area. No public parks would be affected by 

 15 the four retained build alternatives. 

 16 Under preliminary Section 4(f) 

 17 consideration, the Purple, Brown and Green 

 18 alternatives were found to provide prudent and 

 19 feasible alternatives for avoiding impacts to Section 

 20 4(f) resources that are impacted by the Yellow 

 21 alternative. 

 22 I will now discuss the potential impacts 

 23 to the natural environment. 

 24 Direct impacts to the study area stream 
 30 

 1 channels would result from the placement of culverts 

 2 or other structures at drainage crossings. Most of 

 3 the larger stream crossings for the build alternatives 

 4 would be bridge structures, which minimize direct 

 5 impacts to streams. The range of stream impacts for 

 6 each alternative is from 14,278 linear feet to 20,708 

 7 linear feet. Details are provided in the impact 

 8 matrices handout, the information brochure, and the 

 9 DEIS. 

 10 Potential effects to surface and 

 11 groundwater quality would be mitigated by erosion and 

 12 sediment control measures during construction as well 

 13 as state-of-the-art stormwater management techniques 

 14 to treat runoff over the long term. 

 15 All of the build alternatives would add 

 16 new impervious surfaces in the affected watersheds. 

 17 Stormwater management facilities are proposed to treat 

 18 roadway runoff from storm events before it reaches any 

 19 surface water body and to provide for collection and 

 20 filtration of sediment and toxics from the roadway 

 21 before the water reaches the groundwater supply. 

 22 Stormwater management facilities will be designed to 

 23 satisfy quality and quantity management requirements 

 24 of Delaware's sediment and stormwater regulations. 
 31 

 1 Wetland impacts for the build alternatives 

 2 range between 19 and 50 acres, depending upon the 

 3 alternative and options selected. Surface water and 

 4 wetland impacts will be mitigated. New wetlands would 

 5 be created, which will replace the impacted wetland 

 6 functions and values, and satisfy the United States 

 7 Army Corps of Engineers' policy of "no net loss." An 

 8 individual permit will be required by the US Army 

 9 Corps of Engineers. 

 10 Forest impacts are expected to range 

 11 between 34 and 51 acres, depending on the build 

 12 alternative and options chosen. Consistent with the 

 13 State Reforestation Law, reforestation at a 1-to-1 

 14 ratio will be provided within the project limits, or 

 15 offsite within the same watershed. 

 16 Only one federally listed threatened 

 17 species, the bog turtle, has been observed in the 

 18 project area and may potentially be affected by the 

 19 project. However, preliminary studies indicate that 

 20 the proposed work would not likely affect this 

 21 threatened species. A biological assessment of the 

 22 project's potential effects will be conducted by 

 23 DelDOT to document the potential effects. The US Fish 

 24 & Wildlife Service must review and approve the 
 32 

 1 biological assessment prior to construction of the 

 2 project. 

 3 Ten state-listed rare animal and plant 

 4 species have been observed in the project area. Per 

 5 Title 7 of the Annotated Code of Delaware, adverse 

 6 impacts to these species are discouraged. DelDOT 

 7 plans to do everything reasonably possible to avoid 

 8 impacting these species. 

 9 The federal noise criteria were exceeded 

 10 at 63 to 108 noise sensitive areas, depending on the 

 11 alternative, thus resulting in noise impacts to these 

 12 areas. Several communities are impacted under Federal 

 13 Highway noise regulations and DelDOT's noise policy. 

 14 See the noise analysis handout available at today's 

 15 hearing. 

 16 Noise mitigation was considered and the 

 17 Project Team continues to evaluate measures to 

 18 minimize noise impacts, such as roadway profile. 

 19 DelDOT has committed to provide a number of earth 

 20 berms, where determined practicable, to provide visual 

 21 screening between adjacent communities and new 

 22 roadways. Additionally, visual earth berms can 

 23 provide a measure of relief from noise impacts. 

 24 Furthermore, analysis has shown that noise 
 33 

 1 mitigation is not feasible, nor cost effective, for a 

 2 number of communities. This has been taken into 

 3 consideration by DelDOT in recommending a preferred 

 4 alternative. Details on the noise analysis are shown 

 5 in the handouts and on the large display maps in the 

 6 workshop area. 

 7 A micro scale air quality analysis was 

 8 conducted for the US 301 study area in accordance with 

 9 state and federal guidelines. Carbon monoxide 

 10 concentrations at all study area receptor locations 

 11 are predicted to be below the state and National 

 12 Ambient Air Quality Standards for the one-hour and 

 13 eight-hour analysis of 35 parts per million and nine 

 14 parts per million, respectively. 

 15 This concludes the environmental overview. 

 16 Please refer to today's handouts for any additional 

 17 information. 

 18 I would now like to turn the presentation 

 19 over to Ms. Carolyn O'Donoghue of DelDOT's Real Estate 

 20 Section, who will discuss the state's right-of-way 

 21 acquisition and relocation program. 

 22 MS. O'DONOGHUE: Thank you. Property 

 23 acquisition would be managed by the North District 

 24 Office, which is located at 250 Bear-Christiana Road, 
 34 

 1 Bear, Delaware, 19701. 

 2 DelDOT procedures for acquiring 

 3 right-of-way differ from normal real estate 

 4 transactions between individuals. 

 5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can't hear you. 

 6 MS. O'DONOGHUE: DelDOT must offer 

 7 affected property owners the fair market value for the 

 8 property interests it requires. DelDOT will determine 

 9 this fair market value either through an in-house 

 10 valuation process or through an independent fee 

 11 appraisal. DelDOT is required to secure at least one 

 12 independent fee appraisal on each affected property 

 13 whose valuation is estimated to be over $10,000. Each 

 14 property owner would be provided an opportunity to 

 15 accompany the appraiser when he or she inspects the 

 16 property. After just compensation is established, a 

 17 right-of-way agent would meet with each property owner 

 18 to discuss the acquisition and describe how the 

 19 construction would affect the property. At that time 

 20 the agent would also answer any questions and explain 

 21 the offer. 

 22 Most negotiations are resolved following 

 23 this procedure; however, if the state and the property 

 24 owner cannot reach an agreement, the rights of the 
 35 

 1 property owner would be protected by acquiring the 

 2 property rights through the eminent domain process. 

 3 This process provides means for the property owner's 

 4 point of view to be heard and permits the amount of 

 5 just compensation to be established by a three-member 

 6 commission, selected from the 11 proposed and partial 

 7 commissioners, nominated by the Superior Court, based 

 8 on testimony given on behalf of both the property 

 9 owner and the state. 

 10 In addition to the amount paid for the 

 11 property, the state's Relocation Assistance Program 

 12 would provide advisory assistance and may provide 

 13 certain monetary payments to tenants, homeowners and 

 14 businesses who meet the eligibility requirements and 

 15 must relocate. 

 16 Copies of the two handouts entitled "Your 

 17 Property and the Right-of-Way" and "Transportation and 

 18 the Right-of-Way, a Guide For Property Owners," have 

 19 been placed at the sign-in table. The handouts 

 20 explain the procedures used by DelDOT for acquiring 

 21 right-of-way. 

 22 Staff is available to answer any specific 

 23 questions that you may have regarding the proposed 

 24 acquisition of properties for this particular project. 
 36 

 1 See display No. 7 in the workshop area. If, at a 

 2 later date, questions arise, please feel free to 

 3 contact me in our Bear office. The address and phone 

 4 number may be found in the handout. 

 5 I will now turn the hearing back to Andrew 

 6 Bing. 

 7 MR. BING: Thank you. This concludes our 

 8 formal presentation. Let me review briefly with you 

 9 the hearing agenda. 

 10 Starting at 4:00 until the conclusion, 

 11 workshops/displays. An informational workshop for the 

 12 informal review of maps, displaying the alternatives 

 13 and options, and information summarizing the results 

 14 of the project development effort to date is being 

 15 conducted during the hearings. The Project Team 

 16 members are available to answer any questions. 

 17 From 4:00 p.m. to conclusion, testimony to 

 18 a stenographer. Testimony may be given to a 

 19 stenographer from 4:00 p.m. until the hearing's 

 20 conclusion. The stenographer is located upstairs and 

 21 can be reached by the elevator. Staff at the sign-in 

 22 table can direct you to the elevator where a Project 

 23 Team member will assist you. 

 24 At the conclusion, in about one minute, 
 37 

 1 and also at 5:30 and 6:30 p.m., there will be 

 2 presentations of the alternatives and effects, a brief 

 3 presentation and description of the project 

 4 alternatives and a summary of their impacts will be 

 5 provided. 

 6 7 p.m. to the conclusion, traditional 

 7 style public testimony. Individuals will provide 

 8 verbal comments in a public setting. Common forms are 

 9 available at the sign-in table and must be returned by 

 10 February 3rd, 2007. Comments can also be provided 

 11 through the project Web site, www.us301.org. 

 12 Thank you very much. 

 13 (Recess from 4:55 p.m. to 7:12 p.m.) 

 14 MR. BING: Okay, we're going to begin. 

 15 People in the back, there's plenty of seats up towards 

 16 the front, so why don't you take this time to come on 

 17 up right now. Even if you're sitting down, you still 

 18 can get up and leave, so don't feel you have to stay 

 19 in the back. 

 20 Good evening and welcome to the public 

 21 testimony part of our combined location-design public 

 22 hearing. My name is Andrew Bing, and I work for 

 23 Kramer & Associates. As part of the Project Team we 

 24 have provided public outreach services from the 
Appendix B

Preferred Alternative

US 301 Project Development 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

Delaware Department 

Of Transportation