Federal Railroad Administration

Howard Street Tunnel Project

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

June 2021

Prepared Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(c)

By the

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

and

Maryland Department of Transportation 

Maryland Port Administration
i | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Table of Contents

1. Introduction...............................................................................................................................1

2. Study Area .................................................................................................................................2

2.1. Maryland....................................................................................................................................... 4

2.2. Delaware ....................................................................................................................................... 4

2.3. Pennsylvania ................................................................................................................................. 4

3. Purpose and Need Statement .....................................................................................................5

3.1. Purpose of the Project .................................................................................................................. 6

3.2. Need for the Project...................................................................................................................... 6

4. Alternatives ...............................................................................................................................7

4.1. No-Build Alternative...................................................................................................................... 7

4.2. Build Alternative ........................................................................................................................... 7

5. Selected Alternative ...................................................................................................................9

6. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences..........................................................10

7. Commitments and Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................13

8. Coordination and Consultation ................................................................................................. 14

8.1. Stakeholder Involvement............................................................................................................14

8.2. Public Involvement and Participation.........................................................................................14

8.3. Agency Coordination...................................................................................................................15

9. Determinations and Findings Regarding Other Laws..................................................................16

9.1. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ..................................................16

9.2. Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966...........................................16

10. Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................17

Appendix A: Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Received on the EA............................. A-1

Appendix B: Errata to the EA .......................................................................................................... B-1

Appendix C: Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement.................................................................... C-1

Appendix D: Supplemental Environmental Justice Analysis............................................................. D-1

Appendix E: General Conformity Applicability Analysis .................................................................... E-1

References.........................................................................................................................................1
1 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

1. Introduction

The United States Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in

cooperation with the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) Maryland Port Administration

(MPA), prepared an Environmental Assessment

1

(EA) for the Howard Street Tunnel (HST) Project 

(Project) to evaluate potential impacts to the human and natural environment from construction and

operation of the Project. The EA was developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA), FHWA/FTA/FRA joint regulations implementing NEPA, and related laws and requirements. 

The Project proposes to improve clearance at the HST in Baltimore City and 22 other obstruction 

locations in three states along the existing CSX Transportation (CSX) Interstate 95 (I-95) Rail Corridor 

between Baltimore, Maryland and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The proposed improvements will remove 

all obstructions that restrict passage of modern double-stack intermodal trains along the corridor and 

will add resiliency to CSX’s rail network. 

Funding for the Project is being provided by 

USDOT through its Infrastructure for 

Rebuilding American (INFRA) grant program, 

MDOT, the Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation, and CSX. FRA is the lead 

federal agency under NEPA for the EA. MDOT 

MPA is the recipient of the INFRA grant

funding; CSX is the rail owner and operator and is responsible for managing and designing the HST

Project, including carrying out the preliminary engineering, final design and construction, and

coordinating with MDOT MPA and FRA for the Project. 

This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been prepared to comply with NEPA, as amended, 42

United States Code (U.S.C.) §§ 4321 et seq. and its implementing regulations, 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508; FHWA/FTA/FRA joint regulations implementing NEPA's (23 CFR 

Part 771); Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act (49 USC §303) and 

FHWA/FTA/FRA joint implementing regulations (23 CFR Part 774); and related laws. FRA has made this 

FONSI based on information included in the EA. This FONSI incorporates the EA by reference. The EA 

was made available to the public for review and comment from March 1 through April 13, 2021. 

1 FRA and MPA. 2021. Environmental Assessment for the Howard Street Tunnel Project. Signed February 26, 2021.

The proposed action is a double-stack rail clearance 

and resiliency project along the existing CSX 

Transportation (CSX) I-95 Rail Corridor between 

Baltimore and Philadelphia. 
2 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

2. Study Area

The Project, which consists of tunnel modifications, bridge replacement/modification, and track 

lowering, will be constructed primarily within existing rail corridor rights-of-way. The Study Area 

includes the HST, 11 bridge locations in Baltimore City, Maryland; 2 bridge locations in Wilmington, 

Delaware; and 1 tunnel and 8 bridge locations in Pennsylvania (Figure 1). Additional Project location 

mapping is included in Appendix A of the EA. 
3 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Figure 1: CSX HST Project Overview
4 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Work site access locations and other additional staging areas are to be determined, with the goal of 

prioritizing the use of CSX owned land for staging areas and accessing work areas via existing roads and 

access points along existing CSX right of way. Determination of any additional staging areas and/or 

access points will be made once final engineering is complete. . The locations and proposed actions 

(Project Sites) that comprise the HST Project are listed below: 

2.1. Maryland

• HST – Tunnel Modification – Baltimore City, MD

• Mount Royal Avenue – Track Lowering – Baltimore City, MD

• MTA Bridge – Track Lowering – Baltimore City, MD

• North Avenue Bridge – Bridge Modification – Baltimore City, MD

• Sisson Street – Track Lowering – Baltimore City, MD

• Huntington Avenue – Track Lowering – Baltimore City, MD

• Charles Street – Track Lowering – Baltimore City, MD

• St. Paul/Calvert Street – Track Lowering – Baltimore City, MD

• Guilford Avenue – Bridge Replacement – Baltimore City, MD

• Barclay Street – Track Lowering – Baltimore City, MD

• Greenmount Avenue – Track Lowering – Baltimore City, MD

• Harford Road – Bridge Replacement – Baltimore City, MD

2.2. Delaware

• Lancaster Avenue – Track Lowering – Wilmington, New Castle County, DE

• 4th Street – Track Lowering – Wilmington, New Castle County, DE

2.3. Pennsylvania

• Chichester Avenue – Track Lowering – Boothwyn, Delaware County, PA

• Crum Lynne Road – Track Lowering – Ridley Park, Delaware County, PA

• Clifton Avenue – Track Lowering – Sharon Hill, Delaware County, PA

• Boone Tunnel – Tunnel Modification – Sharon Hill, Delaware County, PA

• 68th Street – Track Lowering – Philadelphia, PA

• 65th Street – Track Lowering – Philadelphia, PA

• Cemetery Avenue – Track Lowering – Philadelphia, PA

• 61st Street – Track Lowering – Philadelphia, PA

• Woodland Avenue – Track Lowering – Philadelphia, PA
5 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

3. Purpose and Need Statement

The purpose of the HST Project is to complete clearance improvements to allow for double-stack train 

(DST) service on CSX’s I-95 Rail Corridor between Baltimore and Philadelphia (Figure 2). The primary 

needs of the HST Project are double-stack connectivity, freight operation efficiency, and rail system 

resiliency.

Figure 2: CSX Key Intermodal Network
6 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

3.1. Purpose of the Project

The purpose of the HST Project is to remove the numerous clearance obstructions along CSX’s I-95 Rail 

Corridor between Baltimore, Maryland, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, thereby providing double-stack 

connectivity, ensuring this portion of CSX’s I-95 Rail Corridor continues to serve as a critical link 

connecting CSX’s local, regional, and national rail transportation network. Additionally, the Project 

purpose is to add efficiency and resiliency to this important corridor in CSX’s intermodal rail network.

3.2. Need for the Project

The CSX I-95 Rail Corridor serves a critical role in moving freight in the Mid-Atlantic region and the 

United States. The CSX I-95 Rail Corridor currently contains insufficient clearance to accommodate 

double-stack freight in multiple locations including the HST. CSX offers single-stack intermodal service on 

the I-95 Rail Corridor and runs DSTs on other routes within the CSX network. Because of the clearance 

constraints at the HST and to the north in Philadelphia, CSX cannot supply the most competitive, direct 

double-stack service to connect the markets on the Eastern Seaboard to the Midwest United States. 

The HST Project will also provide needed operational efficiency and rail system resiliency. Efficiency and 

resiliency of a rail network are the ability to provide operational flexibility and reliability for train 

services during normal operations, as well as during periods of higher demand and/or unexpected 

operating conditions at a competitive cost. The lack of clearance to accommodate double-stack freight 

along this portion of the CSX I-95 Rail Corridor reduces the overall resiliency of the regional and national 

freight network, leaving more circuitous routes for transporting double-stack freight. The double-stack 

clearance constraints also reduce network redundancy and provide fewer opportunities for alternate 

routes to maintain operations in the case of high demand or unexpected conditions. The proposed 

improvements will improve the long-term reliability and efficiency of CSX’s national multimodal freight 

network and the national rail network as well.
7 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

4. Alternatives

As described in Section 2.1 of the EA, several options for improving freight handling along the CSX I-95 

Rail Corridor were previously considered in a number of studies conducted over the past two decades. 

These options include a full reconstruction of the HST, rerouting freight to use the Amtrak’s Northeast 

Corridor passenger tunnel, and constructing new alignments, which would reroute rail freight through 

or around Baltimore. However, certain alignment options were not advanced due to complications

associated with the need to acquire new property for railroad right-of-way and easements along 

proposed new alignment, extensive disruption to communities and the environment, and other 

variables that could increase challenges, costs, and impacts both during construction and subsequent 

rail operations. 

Advancements in tunnel construction methodologies in recent years have made it possible to achieve 

double-stack clearance heights through the existing HST at a significantly reduced cost and with fewer 

impacts to the surrounding community and environment. Modifications to and continued use of the 

existing HST would provide a comprehensive, cost-effective solution, creating double-stack connectivity 

while improving freight operation efficiency, network reliability and resiliency with far fewer 

environmental impacts and community disruptions. This new less impactful approach is discussed below 

as the Build Alternative, which was evaluated in the EA.

4.1. No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative assumes continuation of current operations on existing rail infrastructure; 

therefore, no action would occur to create a double-stack rail network to and from the Port of Baltimore 

and north along CSX’s I-95 Rail Corridor. The existing single-stack capable railway section would remain 

operational without improving the double-stack connectivity constraint in the national freight rail 

network.

The No-Build Alternative was considered in the EA and analyzes what would happen if there are no 

further improvements on the corridor in comparison to the Build Alternative. The No-Build Alternative is 

evaluated as part of the NEPA process to provide a baseline comparison to Build Alternatives. The NoBuild Alternative was not selected because it would not meet the HST Project’s Purpose and Need for

double-stack intermodal service along CSX’s I-95 Rail Corridor. The No-Build Alternative prevents CSX 

from running double-stack intermodal traffic through Baltimore on the current rail network and from 

offering competitive double-stack service to current rail customers along this route.

4.2. Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative was studied and presented in the EA, and consists of tunnel modification, bridge 

replacement/modification, and track lowering at HST and 22 other obstructions that currently restrict 

passage of modern double-stack intermodal trains along the current CSX right-of-way. Removal of the 

obstructions will allow for a 21-foot clearance along the noted stretch of the rail corridor between 

Baltimore and Philadelphia (refer to Figure 2). The necessary clearance at each location will be achieved 

in one of four ways – track lowering, bridge modification, bridge replacement and track lowering, and 

tunnel arch and/or invert modification. The justification for the selected approach at each location is 

described more fully in Section 2.3 of the EA and Section 5 below.
8 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Section 2.3.4 of the EA evaluated two construction methodologies for the HST: the conventional method 

and the non-conventional method. The conventional method includes a combination of track lowering 

and modification to the tunnel arch and/or invert. The non-conventional method involves the use of a 

tunnel enlargement system (TES) to gain clearance along 75 percent of the tunnel’s approximate 8,700-

foot length. The advantage of the TES over the conventional option is that it would enable train traffic to 

flow through the work zone during active construction while resulting in a new tunnel structure along its 

length upon completion. However, this approach would require removing the top of approximately 

1,140 feet of the tunnel and reconstructing it. The use of the TES would also result in significantly 

greater disruption to vehicular traffic and commercial and community activity along the Howard Street 

Corridor. An organization representing businesses along Howard Street provided comments on the EA 

that strongly oppose using the TES, due to anticipated community and commercial disruptions. 

CSX completed a feasibility study in parallel with the EA evaluating the use of the TES at the HST. Based 

on the feasibility study, comments received from several parties during the EA public comment period 

and the greater impacts caused by the TES, CSX recommended and FRA agreed to CSX’s use of the 

conventional construction approach at the HST, which will result in less impacts to the surrounding 

environment and community. 
9 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

5. Selected Alternative

The Selected Alternative for the HST Project is the Build Alternative, as described above, and in further 

detail in Section 2.3 of the EA. The Selected Alternative consists of modifications to and continued use of 

the existing HST using the conventional construction method, a combination of track lowering, and 

tunnel arch and/or invert modification. The Build Alternative additionally includes two bridge 

replacements (Guilford Avenue and Harford Road) without track lowering, one bridge modification 

without track lowering (North Avenue), and one other tunnel modification involving track lowering and 

arch modification (Boone Tunnel). 

The methods for removing obstructions along the railroad corridor depend on location-specific 

conditions at each Project Site, and consist of:

1. Track Lowering – Where no utilities or other obstacles are present for both tunnel and bridge 

locations.

2. Bridge Modification – Bridge (arch/invert) modification where an obstacle is present and track 

lowering is not feasible. Bridge modification will not require removal of the existing bridge 

structure.

3. Bridge Replacement – Removal and replacement of bridge structure where obstacle or utilities 

are present, and track lowering or bridge modification is not feasible.

4. Track Lowering and Tunnel Arch and/or Invert Modification – For tunnel locations where 

utilities or other obstacles are present.

As shown on Figure 1, the Selected Alternative consists of:

• 18 track lowering locations,

• 1 bridge modification without track lowering,

• 2 bridge replacements without track lowering,

• 2 tunnel locations with track lowering and arch and/or invert modification, and

• 1 relocation of an existing interlocking to facilitate the track lowering proposed at the Woodland 

Avenue site in Philadelphia.

In addition, staging and storage activities are proposed at CSX’s Bayview Rail Yard in Baltimore to 

support the HST Project. Work site access locations and other additional staging areas are to be 

determined, with the goal of prioritizing the use of CSX owned land for staging areas and accessing work 

areas via existing roads and access points along existing CSX right of way. Determination of any 

additional staging areas and/or access points will be made once final engineering is complete. 

The Selected Alternative will provide a comprehensive, cost-effective solution, creating double-stack 

connectivity while improving freight operation efficiency, network reliability, and resiliency. The 

Selected Alternative also will be constructed primarily within existing rail corridor rights-of-way, creating 

a double-stack rail network to and from the Port of Baltimore through the HST and north along CSX’s I95 Rail Corridor while having no significant impacts to the environment and surrounding community.
10 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

6. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Based upon the EA, FRA has concluded the Selected Alternative will have no foreseeable significant 

impact on the quality of the natural and human environment. FRA finds the Selected Alternative is best 

able to achieve the HST Project Purpose and Need without significant environmental impacts.

This FONSI focuses only on those resources that have a reasonable likelihood to be adversely impacted

by the HST Project. 

Impacts to the following are not anticipated within the Project sites or will otherwise not be significantly 

adversely impacted by the HST Project, and are therefore, not addressed in this FONSI: solid waste 

disposal, ecological systems, coastal zone management, use of other natural resources, public health, 

and recreational opportunities. 

FRA’s environmental review for the HST Project included an analysis of potential impacts to resources 

protected under Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966. The only Section 4(f) resources in the HST 

Project Area are historic properties; no parks, recreation areas, or wildlife/waterfowl refuges are 

present. See Section 9.2 of this FONSI for more information.

The following resources were analyzed in the EA:

• Air Quality,

• Water Quality,

• Noise and Vibration,

• Wetland Areas,

• Floodplains,

• Endangered Species or Wildlife,

• Use of Energy Resources,

• Aesthetic and Design Quality,

• Land Use and Community Facilities,

• Socioeconomic Environment,

• Environmental Justice,

• Hazardous Materials, and

• Cultural Resources.

The potential of the HST Project to result in an environmental impact is provided in Section 4.0 of the 

EA. Table 1 summarizes potential impacts to physical, biological, and human resources that have a 

possibility to be affected by the Project, as evaluated in the EA.
11 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Table 1. The HST Project Summary of Environmental Resources Evaluated by the EA

Environmental 

Resource Potential Impact of Selected Alternative Mitigation Measures

Air Quality

Minor and temporary impacts due to 

construction activities.

Long-term net benefit due to decrease of vehicle 

emissions from freight volume transferring from 

highways to rail system.

Implement appropriate 

construction Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) to control dust 

during construction

Water Quality Minor and temporary impacts due to 

construction activities may occur.

Implement appropriate 

construction BMPs to control 

runoff during construction. 

Noise and 

Vibration

Minor and temporary impacts due to 

construction activities may occur. Impacts will

be determined once means and methods of 

construction are final. 

Prepare and implement a 

Noise and Vibration Control 

Strategy as needed. 

Wetland Areas Potential temporary and minor impacts

to waterways during construction. 

Comply with all requirements 

and regulations related to 

construction best management 

practices (BMPs) determined 

by applicable permitting 

agencies if required. 

Floodplains None None 

Endangered 

Species or 

Wildlife

None None 

Use of Energy 

Resources Minor impacts due to construction activities. None

Aesthetic and 

Design Quality

Minor impacts due to modifications and 

replacements of railroad infrastructure. None 

Land Use and 

Community 

Facilities

None.As a result of feedback received from the 

public during public outreach efforts and on the 

EA, the Project is no longer considering the 

potential minor and temporary use of the

planned 26th Street Park at the Guilford Avenue 

Project Area for a laydown area. Therefore, the 

planned 26th Street Park will not be adversely 

impacted. 

None 
12 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Environmental 

Resource Potential Impact of Selected Alternative Mitigation Measures

Socioeconomic 

Environment

Minor and temporary impacts due to vehicular 

traffic disruption associated with bridge 

replacement activities.

Short-term positive impacts to employment and 

income from construction activity.

Fuel and cost savings related to freight shipping.

Reduced truck vehicle miles traveled and reduced 

vehicle fatalities.

Roadway detour plans to be 

developed for Guilford Avenue. 

Phased vehicular traffic 

maintenance is proposed at 

Harford Road and North 

Avenue.

Environmental 

Justice

Temporary and minor impacts associated with 

vehicular traffic disruptions during construction.

Short-term positive impacts to employment and 

income from construction activity.

Roadway detour plans to be 

developed for Guilford Avenue. 

Phased vehicular traffic 

maintenance is proposed at 

Harford Road and North 

Avenue.

Hazardous 

Materials None anticipated. 

None anticipated. CSX will have 

an environmental screening 

process in place during 

construction for the 

management of any impacted 

materials that are unexpectedly 

encountered. CSX will follow 

established protocols to comply 

with applicable state, local, and 

federal laws and regulations for 

management of excess 

materials generated during 

construction (e.g., soils, 

construction demolition debris).

Cultural 

Resources

No impacts are anticipated to archaeological 

resources. 

The Build Alternative would adversely impact 

seven architectural historic properties (south to 

north): HST and Power House ), Baltimore and 

Ohio (B&O) Railroad Baltimore Belt Line, Cannon 

Shoe Company, North Avenue Bridge, Guilford 

Avenue Bridge, Harford Road Bridge , and Boone 

Tunnel.

Commitments are included in 

the Section 106 Memorandum 

of Agreement (MOA), executed 

on May 25, 2021, among FRA, 

MPA, CSX, Maryland SHPO, and 

Pennsylvania SHPO (see 

Appendix C). 
13 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

7. Commitments and Mitigation Measures

CSX is required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local permitting requirements 

during the implementation of the Selected Alternative, which will include:

• Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 U.S.C. § 1251-1376;

• Section 404/401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344;

• Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 54 U.S.C. § 306108;

• Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 42 FR 26961, 3 CFR, 1977; and

• Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C § 12101.

FRA, in coordination with MDOT MPA and CSX, identified the following commitments and 

mitigation measures to address and further reduce the potential impacts of the HST Project. The 

environmental commitments are arranged by resource area. CSX including its construction 

contractors will implement the following commitments and mitigation measures:

• Environmental Permitting – Comply with federal, state, and local permit conditions and local

ordinances.

• Traffic Control – Provide notice of and implement traffic control measures and roadway detours

where required during construction activities. A detour will be implemented at the Guilford

Avenue Bridge, and phased maintenance of traffic will be implemented at Harford Road Bridge

and North Avenue Bridge during construction.

• Hazardous Materials – Comply with federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding the

handling, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials used or encountered during

construction.

• Noise/Vibration Control – Prepare and implement a Noise and Vibration Control Strategy as

needed.

• Air Quality –Water Quality, Wetlands - Implement BMPs to manage dust, runoff, and other 

impacts generated during construction.

• Cultural Resources – Comply with commitments included in the Section 106 MOA, Appendix C.
14 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

8. Coordination and Consultation

MDOT MPA and CSX conducted meetings and outreach efforts to potentially affected communities and 

interested parties starting in September 2019. These efforts took place with local committees, 

community groups, elected officials, and local government entities to provide details on the Project and 

to discuss impacts to and concerns of the community. Section 5.0 of the EA summarizes public and 

agency coordination efforts conducted for the Project. 

8.1. Stakeholder Involvement 

Community stakeholders were identified by determining where potential impacts would occur as a 

result of the HST Project, with particular consideration given to construction-period impacts. Community 

stakeholders involved with the Project include the Charles Village Civic Association, the Dredged 

Material Management Plan Citizens Advisory Committee and Harbor Team, the Charles Village 

Community Benefits District, the Greater Baltimore Committee, the Baltimore Port Alliance, the Friends 

of 26th Street Green, Midtown Benefits District, and Residents of the 300 block of E. 26th Street. 

Meetings were held with each of these stakeholders, where a Project overview was presented. 

The EA was made available for public and agency review and comment between March 1, 2021 and 

April 13, 2021, and was posted both the FRA and MDOT MPA websites. 

8.2. Public Involvement and Participation

As described above, public outreach efforts for the Project led by MDOT MPA included meetings with 

and presentations to local committees, community groups, elected officials, and local government 

entities. Appendix B provides a summary of all stakeholder meetings that took place in addition to those 

provided in Section 5.1 of the EA. 

MDOT MPA also developed a HST Project page within its existing website (www.marylandports.com) 

that contains general project background, a project description, and project mapping along with the EA

for public review. 

In lieu of an in-person public meeting, a YouTube video presentation was provided on the MDOT MPA 

Project webpage. The presentation summarized the Project Purpose and Need, Project overview, the 

NEPA process, and the EA findings; outlined the Project schedule; and provided contact information for 

questions and comments on the project or the EA. During the comment period (March 1 - April 13, 

2021), the public outreach video was viewed 696 times.

As part of the public outreach effort, MDOT MPA released a press release on March 1, 2021, which 

announced the availability of the EA, provided the link to the MDOT MPA webpage, and encouraged the 

public to review and comment on the EA. The press release was sent directly to contacts including local 

news media, elected officials and community groups in Maryland, Delaware and Pennsylvania. In 

addition to the press release on March 1, 2021, MDOT MPA announced the availability of the EA on its 

social media channels. Additionally, the HST Project was featured on local news outlets, through both 

television, newspaper and online. 

During the EA public comment period, 19 comments were received with 1 comment accepted after the 

comment period closed for a total of 20 comments received. These comments are included in Appendix 
15 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

A of this FONSI. No revisions to the EA document were made as a result of comments submitted during 

the public comment period; however, additional information requested and responses to comments are 

provided in Appendix A of this FONSI. 

8.3. Agency Coordination

Coordination for the HST Project has occurred and is ongoing with several federal, state, and local 

agencies. Section 106 consultation regarding potential impacts to historic properties as described in 

Section 3.2.13 of the EA occurred with the Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania State Historic 

Preservation Officers (SHPO). As summarized in Section 3.2.6 of the EA, consultation regarding potential 

impacts to endangered species and wildlife and habitat occurred with the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the Delaware Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control, the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, and the Pennsylvania Game Commission. 

The EA was made available to the public on March 1, 2021. EPA provided comments and 

recommendations on the EA on April 3, 2021. MDP also submitted a comment on April 20, 2021 shortly 

after the comment period closed. Comments provided on the EA during the public review period and 

responses to comments received are included in Appendix A of this FONSI. 
16 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

9. Determinations and Findings Regarding Other Laws

9.1. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

FRA completed consultation in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966 and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800), which requires federal agencies to consider 

the impacts of their undertakings on historic properties. Section 106 regulations require that FRA 

identify historic properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) within the Project's Area of Potential Effects (APE); assess effects to historic properties; avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects; and consult with the State Historic Preservation Officers 

(SHPO) and other consulting parties throughout the Section 106 process.

FRA determined, in consultation with MD SHPO, DE SHPO, PA SHPO, and the other Consulting Parties, 

that the Project will have an adverse effect on the following seven architectural historic properties: 

Howard Street Tunnel & Power House (B-79) (Power House element is no longer extant) in Maryland, 

due to physical destruction and alteration of character-defining features of the tunnel; Baltimore and 

Ohio (B&O) Railroad Baltimore Belt Line (B-5287) in Maryland, due to extensive alterations or complete 

replacement of multiple contributing elements; Cannon Shoe Company (B-5332) in Maryland, due to 

construction vibration; North Avenue Bridge (BC1208) (B-4521) in Maryland, due to physical destruction 

to a character-defining portion of the resource; Guilford Avenue Bridge (BC8029) (B-4526) in Maryland, 

due to complete physical destruction of the resource; Harford Road Bridge (BC8026) (B-4523) in 

Maryland, due to complete physical destruction of the resource; and Boone Tunnel (1997RE00650 

[previously 106212]) in Pennsylvania, due to physical destruction and alteration of character-defining 

features of the tunnel. FRA, MD SHPO, PA SHPO, CSX, MDOT MPA, and other Concurring Parties entered 

into a Section 106 MOA (Appendix C) to resolve the adverse effects of the HST Project to these historic 

properties.

9.2. Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966

Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act (USDOT Act) of 1966 protects 

publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and/or waterfowl refuges, and significant historic sites, 

whether publicly or privately owned. FRA recently joined the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regulations implementing Section 4(f) at 23 CFR Part 774, and 

follows associated guidance. Section 4(f) requirements apply to all transportation projects funded or 

approved by USDOT. As a USDOT agency, FRA must comply with Section 4(f). FRA cannot approve a 

Project that would use a Section 4(f) resource unless it determines there is no other feasible and 

prudent alternative and the project incorporates all possible planning to minimize harm, or FRA 

determines the impact to the resource is de minimis. Use of a Section 4(f) property occurs: (1) when land 

is permanently incorporated into a transportation project; (2) when there is a temporary occupancy of 

land that is adverse in terms of the statute's preservation purpose; or (3) when there is a constructive 

use (a project's proximity impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes of a 

property are substantially impaired). Appendix B of the EA contains information about Section 4(f) 

resources in the HST Project area. All impacts of the HST Project to Section 4(f) resources qualify as 

exceptions to Section 4(f) use under the Section 4(f) regulations at 23 CFR 774.13 (a)(2), except for one 

at the NRHP-eligible Clifton Park Junior High School, because the affected resources are historic 

transportation facilities. FRA has determined that the Selected Alternative would result in a de minimis

impact to the Clifton Park Junior High School property due to temporary roadwork activities associated 

with the Harford Road bridge replacement. 
17 | P a g e 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Howard Street Tunnel Project 

June 2021 

10. Conclusion

FRA has carefully considered the Project record, including the EA and associated technical reports and 

analysis; the Section 4(f) evaluation; the mitigation measures required including commitments made in 

the Section 106 MOA; and the written and oral comments offered by agencies, stakeholders, and the 

public on this record. Based on this consideration, FRA has determined the HST Project as presented and 

assessed in the attached EA satisfies the requirements of NEPA (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.), Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and FHWA/FTA/FRA joint regulations 

implementing NEPA (23 CFR Part 771), and the Selected Alternative would have no foreseeable 

significant impact on the quality of the human or natural environment provided it is implemented in 

accordance with the commitments identified in this FONSI. FRA has also satisfied requirements under 

Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act. The EA provides sufficient evidence and analysis for FRA to determine that 

an environmental impact statement is not required for the HST Project as presented. 

Jamie Rennert 

Director, Office of Infrastructure Investment 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development Date 

Federal Railroad Administration 

FRA’s Office of Railroad Policy and Development, with assistance from FRA’s Office of Chief Counsel, 

prepared this document in June 2021 in accordance with USDOT’s NEPA regulations. For further 

information regarding this FONSI contact: 

Brandon Bratcher 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone (202) 493-0844 

The following organization(s) assisted FRA’s Office of Railroad Policy and Development in the 

preparation of the associated EA: 

Maryland Department of Transportation - Maryland Port Administration 

CSX Transportation 

JAMIE P. RENNERT Digitally signed by JAMIE P.

RENNERT 

Date: 2021.06.17 10:49:31 -04'00'
A-1 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Appendix A: Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Received on the EA 
A-2 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Lee Connor, 

John S. Connor, 

Inc., 3/1/2021

1a I enjoyed watching the video on this project which covered the 

basic details of the project and focused on the various 

environmental impacts. I thought it was very interesting and very 

well done.

One comment I have is that the film makes a point of the project 

goal to clear obstructions on CSX tracks between Baltimore and 

Philadelphia and how important it is to have double stack rail 

service to/from the port of Baltimore. I don't believe I heard any 

comments about the project allowing double stack service to occur 

to many major markets west of Baltimore and Philadelphia 

including Midwest markets. I know this will be the major benefit 

for the Port but wonder if the uneducated viewer will be left with 

the question, "Why do we need double stack rail service to 

Wilmington and Philadelphia?"

Just an observation I wanted to share as constructive feedback and 

maybe I missed something.

Thank you; comment acknowledged. The scope of the HST 

Project is to complete clearance improvements to allow for 

double-stack train service on CSX’s I-95 Rail Corridor between 

Baltimore, MD and Philadelphia, PA to address the need of 

double-stack connectivity, freight operation efficiency and 

system resiliency. The remaining portions of the CSX network 

are already double-stack capable.
A-3 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Rick Steininger, 

Construction 

Polymer 

Technologies, 

3/4/2021

2a Could you tell me if there is any consideration being given to noise 

and vibration mitigation relative to the Howard Street Tunnel 

rehabilitation project.

It appears as though CSX did not address noise and vibration 

mitigation when designing and building the Virginia Ave Tunnel 

Project in D.C., which has proved to be unwise.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/a

ttachments/2018-01-23_VAT_VibrationReport_FINAL.pdf

This following in blue is from the report in the above link:

There are no statutory or regulatory limits established for vibration 

impacts due to freight train operations. Therefore, the EIS used 

guidelines developed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

for transit projects to assess potential vibration impacts of this 

freight rail project. The EIS concluded that vibration from train 

operations would increase with trains operating in the new tunnel, 

but would not exceed the human annoyance criteria established by 

CSX in the EIS.

While “There are no statutory or regulatory limits established for 

vibration impacts due to freight train operations”, it seems 

prudent to ;look into mitigation methods before the track is 

rebuilt.

Our firm specializes in track structures designed to significantly 

reduce noise and vibration, particularly in tunnel applications.

A noise and vibration assessment was conducted as part of the 

HST Project Environmental Assessment ("EA"), the full report of 

which can be found at Appendix E of the EA. The report 

concluded that there are no noise or vibration impact concerns 

as a result of future train operations. The assessment further 

concluded that only potential limited impacts could occur at 

certain locations during construction. For these identified areas, 

a Noise and Vibration Control Strategy (NVCS) will be 

implemented by CSX during the completion of the design 

process and the confirmation of final construction methodology 

details. If potential impacts are identified in this phase, CSX will 

work with the engineering team to avoid or minimize the 

potential impacts. The Project will comply with all federal, State 

and local noise requirements. CSX did address noise and 

vibration concerns in the Virginia Avenue Tunnel Project, which 

was a significantly more impactful construction project than the 

work planned for the HST Project. 

Spike Y Jones, 

(organization 

unknown), 

3/5/2021

3a I applaud the innovative thinking behind the Howard Street Tunnel 

project, and I support this project.

Thank you; comment acknowledged. 
A-4 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

George W 

Banville, 

(organization 

unknown), 

3/6/2021

4a I support the reconstruction of the Howard Street Tunnel in 

Baltimore and all associated work as proposed. I hope work starts 

real soon.

Thank you; comment acknowledged. 

Kathryn A. 

Hendley, WSP 

USA, 3/9/2021

5a As a resident of the Reservoir Hill community in Baltimore, I am 

writing to voice my support for the Howard Street Tunnel project. 

This project will provide much-needed efficiency improvements to 

shipping from the Port of Baltimore and will contribute to 

significant economic development improvements in the Baltimore 

region. With today’s tunneling technology, I am confident that the 

project will result in a safe, efficient and structurally-sound 

tunneling process and I look forward to following its progress!

Thank you; comment acknowledged. 

Solomon 

Essumang, 

Patriot 

Shotcrete LLC, 

3/11/2021

6a How are you doing ? We would like to follow up on the project 

above. Have you made any decisions on our proposal ? If so, let me 

know if we are in consideration or not.

Thank you; comment acknowledged. A response to this inquiry 

is beyond the scope of the Project EA.
A-5 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Tyler Lane, 

CHMM, 

(organization 

unknown), 

3/12/2021

7a The EA report has no discussion of the tripropylene and 

hydrochloric acid release associated with the Howard Street 

Tunnel accident and resultant fire and flooding in 2001. While the 

follow-up NTSB report did not find evidence of remaining 

chemicals in the vicinity of the immediate Howard Street Tunnel, 

subsurface investigations downgradient of the release area 

identified free product tripropylene in monitoring wells associated 

with the Red Line as recently as 2017.

The origin of this tripropylene was believed to be the Howard 

Street release that was washed into the filter pack surrounding 

sewer piping and moved toward outfalls located on the Inner 

Harbor. These tripropylene pockets were likely mobilized due to 

subsurface construction work near the monitoring well on Light 

Street. Major construction work in and around the tunnel will need 

to monitor for potential mobilization of tripropylene downgradient 

from the construction site.

Subsequent to the 2001 derailment, CSX Transportation worked 

closely with US Coast Guard, USEPA and other regulatory 

entities to complete the required remedial actions and post 

response monitoring. Based on current CSX records for this rail 

corridor, no known active hazardous waste sites or hazardous 

materials are present at any of the Project Areas. During the 

modification work at the Howard Street Tunnel, CSX 

Transportation and contractors involved in the work will 

monitor site conditions and any spoils generated from the 

work. 
A-6 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Carly J. Bales, Le 

Mondo, 

3/18/2021

8a I urge you to employ the conventional method of tunnel 

construction during this renovation period of the Howard Street 

Tunnel. The proposed "Option Two" would be incredibly 

detrimental to LeMondo, our small business and arts space on the 

400 block of Howard Street, especially coming out of year-long 

shutdowns due to the pandemic.

As a small business and arts venue that opened only months 

before the shut-downs of 2020, we have a significant enough 

challenge this next year in rebuilding and increasing patronage to 

the Howard Street area. Street shutdowns of any significance 

would add undue burden to our operations and deter patrons from 

our business. I speak not only for myself but all the artists who 

work in our space, as well as all the neighboring small businesses 

that are poised to open on our block in the coming months. With 

all the efforts to revitalize the Howard Street corridor with new 

activity and investment, it would be a huge misstep to compromise 

that work by shutting down portions of the corridor. It would also 

create unjust conditions for the small businesses that have 

invested themselves within the area.

CSX conducted an engineering feasibility study evaluating both 

the conventional and Tunnel Enlargement System (TES) 

construction methods for the Howard Street Tunnel portion of 

the Project. Based on the results of the feasibility study, public 

comments indicating a preference for the conventional 

approach and the EA conclusion that the use of the TES would 

be more disruptive to the Howard Street corridor and 

community coherence, CSX recommended and FRA agreed to 

CSX’s use of the conventional construction method at the HST 
A-7 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Jackson GilmanForlini, 

Resident, 

3/30/2021

9a I am a resident and property owner within close proximity to the 

Howard Street Tunnel Project. By way of this email, I am 

transmitting my formal public comment on the proposed project. 

Specifically, I am concerned with the adverse effects on historic 

properties in my neighborhood that would be caused as a result of 

this undertaking.

Based on my review of the project documents, I find that 

insufficient planning has been done to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

adverse effects to architecturally significant historic properties 

within the project area. Specifically, I am concerned about a loss of 

historic integrity to the North Avenue Bridge and the Guilford 

Avenue Bridge, both of which are located within a mile of my 

residence. The loss of historic integrity to these properties will 

result in a loss of the historic character of the neighborhood, and 

therefore will result in a decline in property value and quality of 

life for me and my neighbors.

The FRA is in compliance with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its 

implementing regulations at 36 CFR Part 800 (“Section 106”). 

The FRA consulted with the Maryland State Historic 

Preservation Officer (“SHPO”) and additional consulting parties 

regarding the Project’s effects to historic properties in 

Maryland. The FRA identified the North Avenue Bridge and the 

Guilford Avenue Bridge as eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places and found that the Project would 

have an adverse effect to both historic properties. The 

Maryland SHPO concurred with this finding. Consistent with 

Section 106 regulations, the FRA continued consultation with 

the Maryland SHPO, as well as the Pennsylvania and Delaware 

SHPOs, and additional consulting parties to resolve the Project’s 

adverse effects to these two bridges, and to other historic 

properties. Mitigation measures are outlined in the MOA that 

was available for public comment with the EA. Mitigation 

measures to address the adverse effects include updated 

documentation of the historic bridges prior to project 

construction, which will be publicly available through Maryland 

Inventory of Historic Properties and Historic American 

Engineering Record documentation, and on the Maryland Port 

Administration project website through project completion. 
A-8 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 9b Replacement of a load bearing masonry historic bridge with a 

shallow steel girder bridge is inadequate to mitigate adverse 

effects and is not in keeping with the Secretary of the Interior's 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Property. I request that the 

undertaking agency study the option of replacement in-kind with 

another masonry arched bridge with a higher clearance than the 

existing in order to preserve the historic integrity of the bridges' 

character while also meeting the functional needs of the doublestacked cars.

Please advise as to how the undertaking agency will address my 

concerns. I look forward to your timely response.

The FRA is in compliance with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its 

implementing regulations at 36 CFR Part 800 ("Section 106"). 

FRA consulted with the Maryland State Historic Preservation 

Officer ("SHPO") and additional consulting parties regarding the 

Project’s effects to historic properties in Maryland. The Project 

includes complete replacement of the Guilford Avenue Bridge 

and partial replacement of the North Avenue Bridge, which are 

both currently load bearing masonry bridges identified as 

historic properties during the Section 106 review process. 

Engineering feasibility studies found that in-kind replacement 

of these structures is not feasible, as such construction would 

require a higher roadway elevation leading to a raised bridge, 

and a larger area of impact along the roadways to gain the 

necessary clearance. Due to the higher elevation and expanded 

footprint, an in-kind replacement of the bridges would also be 

more impactful to a greater area surrounding the project site, 

including area utilities and additional residential parcels, such 

as those adjacent to the Guilford Avenue Bridge that are 

contributing elements to the Charles Village/Abell Historic 

District (B-3736). 
A-9 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Carrie Traver, 

U.S. 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency, Region 

3, 4/2/2021

10a Alternatives for Construction in the HST Clearance through Howard 

Street Tunnel will be achieved using either a conventional or a 

non-conventional approach. As detailed in the EA, the nonconventional alternative would use a tunnel enlargement system 

(TES) to gain clearance along 75 percent of the tunnel’s 

approximate 8,700-foot length. The advantage of the TES is that it 

would enable train traffic through the work zone during 

construction. However, construction with the non-conventional 

alternative would likely cause additional impacts that are not 

expected with the conventional approach, including noise, traffic 

and transportation impacts, and vibration impacts to buildings, 

including a building eligible for listing in the National Register of

Historic Places. If the TES is used, a section of Howard Street would 

likely experience temporary closures, rerouting of traffic, and 

potential disruptions to MDOT light rail service. These disruptions 

would impact public transportation options that may be relied on 

by residents in Environmental Justice areas.

The EA indicates that a feasibility study evaluating the use of the 

TES is currently in progress by CSX. We recommend that the 

decision on the construction approach for the HST carefully weigh 

the impacts to the community and historic resources. If the 

nonconventional option is pursued, EPA recommends and supports 

developing plans that minimize these impacts.

CSX conducted an engineering feasibility study evaluating both 

the conventional and Tunnel Enlargement System (TES) 

construction methods for the Howard Street Tunnel portion of 

the project. Based on the results of the feasibility study, public 

comments indicating a preference for the conventional 

approach and the EA conclusion that the use of the TES would 

be more disruptive to the Howard Street corridor and 

community coherence, CSX recommended and FRA agreed to 

CSX's use of the conventional construction method at the HST 
A-10 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 10b Environmental Justice (EJ)

The EA identified minority and low-income populations that may 

be EJ communities by census tract at a number of study areas, 

including the Baltimore Project site Study Areas; at Clifton Avenue, 

Boone Tunnel, 68th Street, 65th Street, Cemetery Street, 61st 

Street, Woodland Avenue, 58th Street, and Eastwick Interlocking in 

Pennsylvania; and Lancaster Avenue and 4th Street Study Areas in 

Delaware. EPA recommends using the census block group for the 

assessment of potential EJ communities as it is the most refined 

geographical unit for which the Census Bureau publishes data.

The US Census Bureau block group data from the American 

Community Survey (ACS) was reviewed as requested. The 

results of the analysis of the ACS data is provided in Appendix D 

of the FONSI. The use of tract-level data provides the most 

conservative approach to identifying the proximity of EJ 

communities to the Project when compared to the block group 

data

Ibid. 10c Section 4.11.2 states that the residents in the EJ areas would 

benefit from the job opportunities and income generated by the 

Project’s construction and operation. To support this, we suggest 

that the EA indicate specific initiatives or programs that would 

bring opportunities to these areas, including those that may recruit 

or train local workers, local businesses that would benefit from 

contracts, or other efforts. 

As noted in Section 4.10 and Appendix G of the EA, the 

economic benefits of the Project will be significant with over 

6,800 jobs generated from direct and indirect construction 

related activity. There are currently no specific job initiatives or 

programs contemplated.
A-11 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 10d We recommend that the final EA specifically address construction 

noise and vibration impacts to EJ communities and identify the 

likely duration of traffic, noise, and other disruptions.

As described in Appendix F and Appendix G of the EA, it is 

anticipated that limited disruption to traffic and vehicle access 

in the areas surrounding North Avenue, Guilford Avenue, and 

Harford Road in Baltimore, Maryland will occur during 

construction of the Project. Traffic disruption is not expected to 

occur at the remaining sites in Baltimore or at the sites in 

Delaware and Pennsylvania. Construction for the HST Project is 

estimated to last from early 2022 through late 2025. See also 

answer 2(a) regarding the noise and vibration assessment 

conducted as part of the EA, Appendix E. As discussed in 

Section 4.3.3 of the EA, potential risks and the development of 

mitigation strategies will be evaluated and developed as 

necessary to maintain compliance with local ordinances and 

guidance established in the FTA manual, ensuring no 

disproportionate effect of noise and vibration on EJ 

communities. It is not expected that the Project will result in 

either operational or construction noise and vibration concerns.

Ibid. 10e We also recommend tailoring outreach to potentially impacted 

communities to receive feedback and minimize the impacts during 

construction. While there are excellent outreach materials and a 

number of meetings have been held, it is not clear that these have 

been effective at reaching the EJ communities for meaningful 

engagement. Please consider referring to “Promising Practices for 

EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews”: 

https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustic/ej-iwg-promisingpractices-ej-methodologies-nepa-reviews.

MPA and CSX have provided early outreach and will continue to 

provide outreach to those communities identified as being 

potentially impacted as a result of construction activities, which 

includes areas identified as EJ communities. Presentations in 

person as well as remote meetings as noted in Section 5.0 of 

the EA and additional meetings summarized in the Errata sheet 

of the FONSI encouraged involvement and input from these 

communities. CSX and MPA will continue coordination with the 

public as construction timeframes are finalized, and 

notifications will be provided, including by outreach to 

community leaders, organizations and by mail. 
A-12 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 10f Construction Noise and Vibration

A general assessment of construction noise was conducted. The 

assessment identified several sites (MTA Bridge, Guilford Avenue, 

Harford Road, and HST with the non-conventional alternative) that 

have potential noise and vibration impacts. Potential construction 

vibration impacts were also identified at the Lancaster Avenue, 

Boone Tunnel, and Cemetery Avenue sites. As more detail on 

means and methods for the Project become available, the EA 

indicates that a more accurate evaluation of potential risk will be 

performed and a Noise and Vibration Control Strategy (NVCS) will 

be implemented. The NVCS is an important component of the 

Project, and we suggest including as much detail as possible 

regarding mitigation strategies in the final EA.

Section 6.5 of Appendix E of the EA, “Howard Street Tunnel 

Project Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment” describes the 

approach to developing a “Noise and Vibration Control 

Strategy” (NVCS) for the Project if potential noise and vibration 

risks are confirmed. Specific mitigation efforts to address 

confirmed risks will be detailed in the NVCS and could include 

strategies such as monitoring, scheduling specific construction 

activity during less impactful times, compliance verification and 

other measures to offset the potential impacts. 

Ibid. 10g Stream Impacts

We recommend that an estimate of potential watercourse impacts 

be included in the final EA.

Potential impacts to wetlands and waterways as a result of the 

Project were identified in the EA, Section 3.1.4 and Section 4.4. 

An estimate of impacts will be determined once final design 

and engineering for the Project is completed. Any impacts to 

wetlands or waterways as a result of the Project will be 

coordinated and permitted with the appropriate federal, state 

and/or local regulatory agencies. 
A-13 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 10h Section 3.3 PROVISIONAL AGENCY DETERMINATION of the 

Wetland Delineation Report states that Streams S1 and S2, located 

at the Huntington Avenue and Sisson Street Project areas, were 

provisionally determined as jurisdictional resources. A site visit 

with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Maryland 

Department of the Environment (MDE) confirmed streams S1 and 

S2 as jurisdictional resources as presented in the 2017 delineation. 

The report then states that previously delineated streams from the 

2017 assessments do not appear to be naturally occurring streams 

or relocated waterways, but rather man-made stormwater 

conveyances which would not be considered jurisdictional per the 

Navigable Waters Protection Rule (effective June 22, 2020.) As 

stated in the Summary section, potential jurisdictional boundaries 

and determinations are considered preliminary and are subject to 

USACE review, verification, and approval. As stated in the EA, 

additional coordination with USACE is necessary to determine the 

federal jurisdictional status of the intermittent watercourses.

See response to Comment 10g related to wetlands and 

waterways. Potential impacts to wetlands and waterways as a 

result of the Project were identified in the EA, Section 3.1.4 and 

Section 4.4. An estimate of impacts will be determined once 

final design and engineering for the Project is completed. Any 

impacts to wetlands or waterways as a result of the Project will 

be coordinated and permitted with the appropriate federal, 

state and/or local regulatory agencies.

Ibid. 10i Discharges during construction to conveyances that are 

determined to not be jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act by the USACE may still be regulated under other 

sections of the Clean Water Act and may be regulated by the MDE, 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, or 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control. Care should be taken to minimize disturbances and 

discharges to the maximum extent practicable as ephemeral 

stormwater conveyances can still contribute pollutants to 

jurisdictional waters if not managed appropriately.

Potential impacts to wetlands and waterways as a result of the 

Project were identified in the EA, Section 3.1.4 and Section 4.4. 

An estimate of impacts will be determined once final design 

and engineering for the Project is completed. Any impacts to 

wetlands or waterways as a result of the Project will be 

coordinated and permitted with the appropriate federal, state 

and/or local regulatory agencies.
A-14 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 10k We recommend that the EA address activities that may impact or 

enhance water quality including stormwater management or 

drainage improvements. We also suggest upgrading stormwater 

management facilities where feasible.

The EA considers this issue (See Sections 3.1.2 and 4.2.2 of the 

EA), and the Project does include stormwater management 

improvements. During construction, the Project will comply 

with all state and local sediment and erosion control and 

stormwater management requirements. 

Ibid. 10l General Conformity

Please see the following comments regarding General Conformity 

from EPA’s Air and Radiation Division:

Section 3.1 - Affected Environment - Air Quality (starts on Page 3-2, 

Page 29 of the EA PDF)

EPA recommends that "Table 3-1. National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS)" include the years for each individual standard; 

some of these are referenced in the footnotes, but not all. 

Including the NAAQS year is important to distinguish the stringency 

of the standard.

Please see the updated Table 3-1 of the EA in the Errata Sheet 

of this FONSI, Appendix B.

Ibid. 10m We recommend putting the bulleted list of attainment 

classifications on Page 3-4 (Page 31 of the EA PDF) into a table and 

referencing the attainment status of these areas relative to 

different years attainment/maintenance status of these different 

rules could have implications for the 20-year maintenance 

timelines and resulting General Conformity and Transportation 

Conformity requirements. Having this information in table format 

would also make it easier to read.

Please see the updated list of attainment classifications in table 

format in the Errata Sheet of this FONSI, Appendix B.
A-15 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 10n For "Table 3-2. Regional Background Air Quality Concentrations, 

2017-2019", we recommend moving the columns so that the 

NAAQS value and measured ambient air quality value are adjacent 

to one another for easier comparison.

Please see the updated Table 3-2 of the Environmental 

Assessment in the Errata Sheet of this FONSI, Appendix B.

Ibid. 10o Section 4.1 - Environmental Consequences - Air Quality (starts on 

Page 4-2, Page 51 of EA PDF),Section 4.1.2 Build Alternative

We recommend providing citations to support the statement that 

"transporting freight by railroad, especially in a double-stacked 

intermodal container configuration, produces significantly fewer 

emissions than if the same quantity of freight were moved by 

truck" on Page 4-3 (Page 52 of the EA PDF). While moving longhaul freight by rail is generally acknowledged to be more efficient 

than moving it by truck, it would be helpful to have documentation 

cited in this section.

Based on the March 2021 report, “Freight Railroads and 

Climate Change” prepared by the Association of American 

Railroads, railroads are significantly more efficient and generate 

substantially less greenhouse gas emissions than trucks. CSX 

trains can move 1 ton of freight 492 miles on a single gallon of 

fuel. This is at least 3-4 times more efficient than transportation 

by truck. Railroads also produce 75% less greenhouse gas 

emissions in moving freight vs trucks. While railroads account 

for approximately 40% of long-haul US freight transportation, 

they only account for 2.1% of transportation related 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

The March 2021 AAR “Freight Railroads and Climate Change” 

study may be found at the following link:

https://www.aar.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/AARClimate-Change-Report.pdf

The AAR Freight Railroads and Climate Change Fact sheet may 

be found at the following link: https://www.aar.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/02/AAR-Freight-Rail-Climate-ChangeFact-Sheet.pdf
A-16 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 10p This section asserts that "the Build Alternative would not cause or 

contribute to any new violation of any NAAQS or increase the 

frequency or severity of any existing violation of any NAAQS in the 

region and does not require a General Conformity determination" 

on Page 4-3 (Page 52 of the EA PDF). We recommend providing 

supporting evidence, analysis, or documentation that satisfies 

general conformity requirements; the qualitative analysis 

referenced in this section and described in Appendix C does not 

sufficiently address this requirement.

A quantitative analysis to address this comment and the 

general conformity requirements was conducted and is 

provided as Appendix E of the FONSI. The calculated estimated 

Project anticipated construction emissions in federally 

designated nonattainment or maintenance areas are well 

below the corresponding general conformity applicability 

thresholds. Therefore, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 93.153(c)(1), 

General Conformity requirements do not apply to the Project 

and a General Conformity Determination is not required.
A-17 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 10q Appendix C - Air Quality Report

Section 2.2.3 - Regional Assessment of the Build Alternative (Page 

11 of the Appendix C PDF)

This section states that double-stacking container cars will increase 

shipping capacity without the need to run additional trains or 

locomotives, and thus operational emissions of the Build 

Alternative will be unchanged (Table 5, Page 11). We recommend a 

comparison of projected emissions between double-stacked and 

single-stacked trains. While it is logical that double-stacked cars 

would not require additional trains or locomotives, it would be 

helpful to address fuel use in trains running double-stacked cars as 

compared to trains running single-stacked cars. Would fuel use 

increase as trains with double-stacked cars are moving more mass?

Double-stacking containers will result in increased fuel 

efficiency over current train operations. The fuel savings results 

from the fact that the same number of containers can be 

transported on substantially fewer rail cars. This results in less 

rolling resistance due to the overall lower tare weight of the 

train. CSX estimates that due to the fewer number of rail cars 

needed to carry the double-stacked containers, fuel 

consumption will be reduced by approximately 7.5%. The fuel 

efficiency improves with increases in freight tonnage as there is 

less rolling resistance per ton of freight for double-stack 

compared to single-stack container trains. An exhibit has been 

provided in Appendix B of the FONSI (Errata Sheet), for further 

clarification.

Table 5 in Appendix C to the EA represents the average of all 

trains (Bulk materials / merchandise and Intermodal) moving 

along the corridor. The intent of the project is not to change 

the current mix nor volume of freight being transported along 

the corridor. Instead, it will enable the same amount of freight 

currently being carried on intermodal trains to be moved in a 

more efficient manner using fewer cars, which allows for more 

efficient freight movement. Clarification of Table 5 has been 

provided in Appendix B of the FONSI (Errata Sheet), Appendix B. 
A-18 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 10r Section 2.2.4 - Localized Impacts from the Build Alternative (Page 

12 of the Appendix C PDF)

This section states that "the Project and the operational condition 

of the Build Alternative will not cause any additional increase in 

local concentrations of air pollutants over the No-Build Alternative 

given that the volume of locomotives will remain unchanged on 

the Corridor (see Table 5). The distance between emissions sources 

and receptors will remain unchanged since it is primarily only the 

vertical alignment of the railway that is shifting. Based on the 

volumes provided in Table 5, the amount of locomotive air 

pollutant emissions that would be dispersed to a local receptor 

along the railroad on an hourly, daily, or annual basis is anticipated 

to be negligible and the condition of air quality will remain 

unchanged between the Build and No-Build Alternative [sic]."As 

indicated above, an analysis or data sources should be provided to 

support the assertion that emissions will be unchanged. At a 

minimum, we recommend citing documentation that 

demonstrates that fuel use or emissions will not increase for trains 

running double-stacked cars.

Double-stacking containers will result in increased fuel 

efficiency over current train operations. The fuel savings results 

from the fact that the same number of containers can be 

transported on substantially fewer rail cars. 

This results in less rolling resistance due to the overall lower 

tare weight of the train. CSX estimates that due to the fewer 

number of rail cars needed to carry the double-stacked 

containers, fuel consumption will be reduced by approximately 

7.5%. The fuel efficiency improves with increases in freight 

tonnage as there is less rolling resistance per ton of freight for 

double-stack compared to single stack container trains. 

An exhibit has been provided in Appendix B of the FONSI 

(Errata Sheet), for further clarification.
A-19 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 10s Section 2.3.1 - Construction Phase Impacts from the Build 

Alternative (Page 13 of the Appendix C PDF)

This section states that "the proposed construction of the HST 

Project compared to the quantitative analysis of construction 

emissions for the Virginia Avenue Tunnel Reconstruction Project 

shows that the extent and duration of construction of the HST 

project would be exceedingly less to the extent that quantitative 

analysis is not required."

This comparison is not sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed 

action is under de minimis thresholds. If using a larger and more 

impactful project to demonstrate that the latter is exempt from 

conformity requirements, the EA should include the relevant 

information from both projects that supports this conclusion to 

allow for a true side-by-side comparison.

See response to Comment 10p related to NAAQS General 

Conformity. A quantitative analysis to address this comment 

and the general conformity requirements was conducted and is 

provided in Appendix E of the FONSI. The calculated-estimated 

Project anticipated construction emissions in federally 

designated nonattainment or maintenance areas are well 

below the corresponding general conformity applicability 

thresholds. Therefore, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 93.153(c)(1), 

General Conformity requirements do not apply to the Project 

and a General Conformity Determination is not required.

Ibid. 10t Cultural Resources

Potential impacts to the Rombro Building, the Cannon Shoe 

Company Building, and six other historic resources were identified. 

We support continued consultation with Maryland Historical Trust, 

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission and other 

consulting parties to resolve and/or mitigate the potential adverse 

effects on historic properties.

Thank you for providing us with notice to provide comments for 

your consideration in the development of the Study. Please let me 

know if you would like to discuss any of these comments. I would 

like to request a copy of the final EA by email when it is available.

In compliance with Section 106, the FRA continued to consult 

with the Maryland, Delaware and Pennsylvania SHPOs, and 

other consulting parties to resolve adverse effects to historic 

properties within the Area of Potential Effects. The resulting 

minimization efforts and the mitigation measures have been 

documented in an executed Section 106 MOA, which is 

attached as Appendix C to the FONSI. The final NEPA document 

is the FONSI which incorporates all changes to the EA. 
A-20 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Kristen Mitchell, 

Market Center 

Merchants 

Association, 

04/08/2021

11a Thank you for the opportunity to review the CSX Howard Street 

Tunnel (HST) Project Environmental Assessment (EA). The Market 

Center Merchants Association (MCMA) represents 280+ ground 

floor business establishments in 27 blocks on the west side of 

downtown Baltimore, and the Howard Street Tunnel runs directly 

through Market Center. MCMA would like to be included on all 

community outreach related to the project. We are particularly 

interested in participating in discussions regarding the two options 

(conventional and non-conventional) identified for the HST 

segment between Camden Yards and Mount Royal Stations, as 

articulated in Section 2.3.4 of the EA.

Thank you; comment acknowledged. CSX will proceed with the 

conventional approach for improvements to the Howard Street 

Tunnel.

Ibid. 11b In addition, we have the following comments and concerns related 

to the project and EA:

1. Section 3.6.4, Land Use and Community Facilities – The report 

states that there are four master plans applicable to the Maryland 

Project Areas. They neglected to mention the Market Center Urban 

Renewal Plan, which the Baltimore City Council adopted in 1977 

and amended as recently as 2018. This plan remains in effect, and 

we ask that it be acknowledged in the EA.

The Market Center Urban Renewal Plan has been 

acknowledged and has been added to the EA Errata sheet in 

Appendix B of the FONSI.
A-21 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 11c 2. Section 4.10.2.3, Socioeconomic Environment, Traffic and MTA 

Light Rail Impacts and Mitigation

– We have significant concerns about the impacts to public transit 

and vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic that will occur if the 

non-conventional construction method is used. As noted in this 

section, the non-conventional method would require temporary 

closures of Howard Street and disruption of light rail service. The 

people who live, work, and own businesses and property in this 

area experienced similar disruptions in the summer of 2019, when 

a water main break and sinkhole on Howard Street between 

Baltimore and Pratt Streets massively disrupted light rail, buses, 

and vehicular traffic and created extra headaches for bicyclists and 

pedestrians. People had trouble getting to and from work and 

going about their daily business; others who could avoid the area 

altogether did so, causing additional economic pain to the

businesses.

CSX will use the conventional construction method for the HST 

improvements. Therefore, no closures of Howard Street or light 

rail disruption will be required.

Ibid. 11d 3. Section 4.11.2, Environmental Justice, Build Alternative – If the 

non-conventional construction method is used, there will be 

disruptions to light rail service and rerouting of bus lines. As many 

Baltimoreans rely on public transit, these disruptions, while 

temporary, will hurt the people who can least afford it. It will also 

dampen business activity. 

CSX will use the conventional construction method for the HST 

improvements. Therefore, no disruption to light rail disruption 

will occur.
A-22 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 11e 4. Table 4-2, Cultural Resources – The report concludes that the 

project will not have an adverse impact on the Market Center 

Retail Historic District. We certainly hope this will be true, but the 

reality is that the project involves subterranean work on old 

infrastructure, awfully close to older buildings (as close at 10’ at 

grade level, and possibly closer below ground). It is possible that 

there will be unforeseen impacts on the adjacent buildings and 

their inhabitants. We want to register our concern and ask that 

CSX provide adjacent property owners and tenants with the name 

and contact information of the project manager, who can be 

reached in case of emergencies. We also recommend that CSX set 

aside funds for things like emergency stabilization and 

maintenance of operations in buildings that might experience 

unforeseen adverse impacts.

CSX will develop a plan to inform interested property owners 

when construction on the HST Project begins, and will provide a 

contact for questions, concerns or emergencies. 

Ibid. 11f 5. Finally, we note that there is a fiber optic cable network 

underground along Howard Street. Whatever construction method 

is selected, the contractor must not dislodge, tamper with or 

damage any of the fiber optics cables in, around or above the 

tunnel.

As noted in Section 2.3 of the EA, CSX conducted an evaluation 

of each of the locations where double-stack clearance was not 

adequate to determine the appropriate means of achieving the 

requisite clearance. The evaluation included the identification 

of utility locations, including fiber optic cables, using noninvasive means. The results of this evaluation informed the 

decision regarding the appropriate clearance method to be 

used at each site. Utility mark outs and location will be further 

evaluated during the design and construction processes in 

order to avoid or minimize any impact to known utility 

locations. 

Fritz Meyer, EA 

Engineering, 

Science and 

Technology, 

4/12/2021

12a 1. Please consider mitigation of impacts to trees along the 

alignment. Dewatering and root disturbance due to construction 

activities could damage these established trees.

CSX will comply with applicable state and local tree removal, 

conservation and preservation ordinances and requirements.
A-23 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 12b 2. Please consider mitigation of impacts to the Firebird sculpture 

across from the Meyerhoff/Baltimore Symphony Orchestra 

building. The alignment appears to be close enough that 

settlement of soil due to construction activities could occur and 

affect this large sculpture.

It is not anticipated construction activities associated with the 

HST will result in settlement of soil adjacent to the tunnel. The 

construction methodology for gaining clearance in the section 

of the tunnel in this area consists of track lowering only, which 

will not cause soil disturbance outside of the existing tunnel 

structure. Therefore, it is not anticipated that construction 

activities associated with the HST obstruction will result in 

impacts to the statue. 

Miller Roberts III 

and Sandy 

Sparks, Charles 

Village 

Community 

Association, 

4/10/2021 and 

4/12/2021

13a With community input, the Charles Village Community Association 

(CVCA) offers this response to the Howard Street Tunnel Project 

Environmental Impact Study, posted on the Maryland Port 

Administration website. The quality of life in Charles Village, a 

densely-populated section of the original 1895 railway corridor 

along East 26th Street (see attached map) will be severely 

impacted by years of construction and future CSX 24/7 operations.

We request extensive consideration of these environmental and 

construction issues between Howard Street and Greenmount 

Avenue in the final assessment of the Howard Street Tunnel 

Project Environmental Impact Study:

• Reduce undue burden during the projected 5 years of 

construction on surrounding residential and commercial blocks 

throughout the corridor as parking and traffic patterns.

Environmental and cultural issues have been considered as part 

of the EA completed for the HST Project. Section 4.0 of the EA 

discusses potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and 

identifies proposed mitigation for the Project’s environmental 

effects, where required. FRA has determined that an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) level of study is not 

necessary by FRA for the Project based on the level of 

anticipated impact. FRA is preparing a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) based on the analysis in the EA. CSX will 

continue to make efforts to coordinate with the public as 

construction timeframes are finalized, and notifications will be 

provided, including outreach to community leaders, 

organizations and by mail. 

Ibid. 13b • Do not use the designated 26th Street Green community space 

between Guilford Avenue and Hunter Street being build-out by 

Baltimore City DOT, as a staging area during Guilford Avenue 

Bridge construction.

The planned 26th Street Park will not be used for Project 

staging or laydown areas. 

Ibid. 13c • Plan to landscape the railway corridor slopes throughout the 

corridor to soften the 24/7 train noise that reverberates blocks 

away.

Landscaping and grading is part of the Project to maintain 

corridor stability for the purpose of rail traffic. 
A-24 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 13d • Plan to reduce chronic and unhealthy storm water issues along 

the railway tracks.

As discussed in Section 4.2.2 of the EA, as part of the Build 

Alternative, the completion of this Project will result in drainage 

improvements at all of the Project areas. 

Ibid. 13e • Consider the use of UHCP concrete to flatten the profile of the 

reconstructed Guilford Avenue bridge for parking.

Thank you for taking all of these community concerns into full 

consideration as the CSX corridor is reconstructed.

CVCA looks forward to working in cooperation with the individual 

project sites in the corridor.

Thank you for your comment. In consultation with Baltimore 

City DOT, CSX will endeavor to minimize impacts to parking 

during final design and construction. As a result of the Project, 

there will be a minor change in Guilford Avenue bridge profile; 

however, no changes to the amount of parking is currently 

proposed. All existing parking areas will be replaced similar to 

existing conditions. 
A-25 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Laura Amlie, 

Residents 

Against The 

Tunnel (RATT), 

4/12/2021

14a This comment is submitted by Residents Against the Tunnels 

(RATT).1 RATT is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization in 

Baltimore, Maryland, comprised of residents from the six 

Baltimore neighborhoods that the Baltimore and Potomac Tunnel 

Project will most adversely affect: Bridgeview/Greenlawn, 

Midtown-Edmonson, Penn North, Penrose/Fayette, Reservoir Hill, 

and Sandtown-Winchester. These six neighborhoods, out of the 30 

communities affected, have areas among them where Baltimore’s 

poorest and most afflicted live, raising Environmental Justice 

concerns along with concerns for the decimation of architectural 

and social structures, adverse financial impacts, health hazards, 

and dangers to human life. RATT’s concerns go beyond these 

neighborhoods to include the safety and livability of all of 

Baltimore City. These are real citizen lives, real concerns, and our 

real homes that are threatened.

RATT would like to take the opportunity to commend the U.S. 

Department of Transportation’s (DOT) recent efforts to address 

Environmental Justice concerns, as demonstrated by the Federal 

Highway Administration’s (FHWA) intervention in the Texas I-45 

highway project.2 After Texas community organizations and 

Representative Sheila Jackson Lee sent letters regarding the 

environmental justice concerns and disparate impacts to 

communities of color projected by the proposed construction of 

Texas I-45, the FHWA boldly stepped in and put a halt to the 

project, until environmental justice concerns can be more 

thoroughly analyzed.3 Additionally, Secretary of Transportation 

Pete Buttigieg has gone on the record as saying “There is racism 

physically built into some of our highways...” While RATT 

appreciates the recent efforts made by the U.S. DOT concerning 

environmental justice in regards to highway projects, 

environmental justice concerns in railroad projects have not been 

given enough attention. Reports of studies on a host of cities in the 

U.S., have discovered that railroads play a major role in racially 

segregating communities.4 RATT strongly urges the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) to get onboard with the DOT’s 

Thank you; comment acknowledged. 

As noted in Section 4.10 and Appendix G of the EA, the 

economic benefits of the Project will be significant with over 

6,800 jobs generated as a result of direct and indirect 

construction related activity. 

As described in Appendix F and Appendix G of the EA, it is 

anticipated that limited disruption to traffic and vehicle access 

in the areas surrounding North Avenue, Guilford Avenue, and 

Harford Road in Baltimore, Maryland will occur during 

construction of the Project. Traffic disruption is not expected to 

occur at the remaining sites in Baltimore or at the sites in 

Delaware and Pennsylvania.

As discussed in Section 4.3.3 of the EA, potential risks and the 

development of mitigation strategies will be evaluated and 

developed as necessary to maintain compliance with local 

ordinances and guidance established in the FTA manual, 

ensuring no disproportionate effect of noise and vibration on EJ 

communities.

CSX has provided early outreach and will continue to provide 

outreach to those communities identified as being potentially 

impacted as a result of construction activities, which includes 

areas identified as EJ communities. Presentations in person as 

well as remote meetings as noted in Section 5.0 of the EA and 

additional meetings summarized in the Errata sheet of the 

FONSI encouraged involvement and input from these 

communities. CSX will continue coordination with the public as 

construction timeframes are finalized, and notifications will be 

provided, including by outreach to community leaders, 

organizations and by mail.
A-26 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

revived environmental justice mission, by promulgating an 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Howard Street Tunnel 

Project, with a lens specifically geared towards environmental 

justice concerns.
A-27 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Ibid. 14b RATT takes issue with the FRA’s decision to merely prepare and 

Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Howard Street Tunnel 

Project (HST Project). Specifically, RATT believes the EA

for the HST Project: (1) fails to adequately assess the impacts of a 

reasonably foreseeable increase in freight traffic along the I-95 

corridor; and (2) lacks an analysis of the full scope and

degree of the risks associated with hazardous materials 

transportation or train derailments. The FRA’s inadequate impact 

analysis in the HST Project EA will have disproportionate impacts 

on environmental justice communities in Baltimore MD, 

Wilmington DE and Philadelphia PA.

The risks of freight rail transportation were thrust into the minds of 

Baltimore residents, including RATT members, on July 18, 2001, 

when a CSX freight train derailed in the Howard

Street Tunnel and closed Downtown Baltimore for days.5 Congress 

responded to the incident by mandating the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) conduct two comprehensive studies of the 

Baltimore region’s rail system.6 The analyses contained in those 

FRA studies form the foundation of the proposed CSX Howard 

Street Tunnel Project (HST Project).

Despite acknowledging the high risks and significant impacts of 

freight rail transportation in the 2001 CSX derailment, the FRA has 

now, in 2021, decided to simply prepare an environmental 

assessment (EA) for the HST Project rather than an environmental 

impact statement (EIS). The proposed HST Project includes 23 sites 

in Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania currently preventing 

double stack freight transportation along the I-95 Corridor. The 

only other obstruction to double stack freight along the I-95 

Corridor—the Virginia Avenue Tunnel—was rebuilt in 2018. 

Indeed, even in the Virginia Avenue Tunnel project, the FRA 

completed an EIS, rather than merely an EA.7 For a project as 

expansive and critical as the HST Project, FRA is obligated to inform 

itself and the public of the HST Project’s risks and impacts. RATT 

has not forgotten the significant effects that freight transportation 

As the lead federal agency for the Project, the FRA is 

responsible for complying with the requirements of NEPA, 

including determining the appropriate type of action to meet 

this obligation. After considering the scope and activity planned 

for the Project as well as similar undertakings, the FRA 

determined that an EA was the appropriate scale of review. 

Preparation of an EA is consistent with the NEPA review 

conducted for Phase I of the National Gateway Project, an 

undertaking similar in scope and scale to the Howard Street 

Tunnel Project. Both Phase I of the National Gateway Initiative 

and the Howard Street Tunnel involved a variety of measures, 

including modifications to existing tunnels, to achieve the 

requisite clearance for double-stack trains along CSX’s freight 

line. Phase I of the National Gateway Initiative involved the 

removal of clearance restrictions at 40 locations. The clearance 

required for both the National Gateway and HST Project was 

and will be achieved by primarily staying within the existing rail 

right-of-way. The Virginia Avenue Tunnel, by contrast, was a 

significantly more complex and impactful construction project 

and involved the replacement of an existing single-track 

structure with two new double-stack tunnels. 

The EA prepared for the HST Project evaluated potential 

impacts to the human and natural environment. Each resource 

with a potential to be affected, either temporarily during 

construction or permanently as a result. Construction and 

operation of the completed Project was evaluated, including air 

quality, water quality, noise and vibration, wetland areas, 

floodplains, endangered species and wildlife, use of energy 

resources, aesthetic and design quality, land use and 

community facilities, socioeconomic environment, 

environmental justice, hazardous materials and cultural 

resources. As a result of this evaluation, no unmitigated

potential significant direct or indirect impacts were identified.
A-28 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

can have on a metropolitan area and urges FRA to prepare an EIS 

fully analyzing the HST Project.

The scope of much of the proposed work for the HST Project

would normally fall under categorical exclusions, but the FRA 

determined an EA was appropriate to evaluate certain impacts, 

and specifically to provide a means of seeking 

public/community input. FRA has determined this Project has 

no significant environmental impact, and is therefore, 

preparing a FONSI to document that decision. 
A-29 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

14c I. Legal Standards

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires agencies 

undertaking any major federal action to take a “hard look” at its 

environmental impacts.

When planning a major federal action, the sponsoring agency must 

determine the appropriate level of NEPA review. Sponsoring 

agencies may prepare an EA when a proposed project is unlikely to 

result in significant environmental impacts or when the 

significance of a project’s environmental impacts is unknown.8 If, 

either at the project’s outset, or after preparing an EA, the 

sponsoring agency determines that a project will have reasonably 

foreseeable significant environmental impacts, the sponsoring 

agency must prepare an EIS.9 In determining whether a project’s 

impacts are significant, agencies must consider the affected area in 

conjunction with the degree of the impacts, including “[b]oth 

short- and long-term effects,” “beneficial and adverse effects,” and 

“[e]effects on public health and safety.”10 An impact is reasonably 

foreseeable if it is “sufficiently likely to occur such that a person of 

ordinary prudence would take it into account in reaching a 

decision.”11

See response to Comment 14b related to NEPA review.
A-30 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 14d II. FRA Should Prepare an EIS for the Howard Street Tunnel 

Project Because the Project Will Have Significant Environmental 

Impacts In the HST Project, the FRA should have foreseen that a 

major freight rail infrastructure project spanning three states and 

involving at least two major metropolitan areas “[i]s likely to have 

significant effects, and is therefore appropriate for an 

environmental impact statement.”12 The FRA recognizes that the 

HST Project will resolve the last major impediment to a double 

stack freight network along the I-95 Corridor which stretches from 

Florida to Boston. EA at 1-1.

However, the HST Project is not merely about updating just the 

Howard Street Tunnel in Baltimore; rather, the project includes 23 

clearance adjustments between Baltimore and Philadelphia, which 

will permit the I-95 corridor to vastly expand double stack freight 

rail operations throughout the region. A project with such a broad 

scope, risking such significant

impacts, demands preparation of an EIS.

In Western North Carolina Alliance v. North Carolina Department 

of Transportation, the court held that the North Carolina 

Department of Transportation (NCDOT) acted arbitrarily and

capriciously by issuing an EA for a highway project, when it was 

clear that an EIS was warranted. The court held that an EIS was 

required because NCDOT failed to assess the full

scope and degree of the entire highway corridor by preparing an 

EA for a major segment of the highway. The court found that 

NCDOT’s failure to prepare an EIS that assessed or even

acknowledged the potential for adverse impacts from the 

additional projects along the same highway corridor was arbitrary 

and capricious and a violation of NEPA. Similar to the Western

North Carolina Alliance case, here the FRA inadequately assessed 

the full degree and scope of the entire HST project by improperly 

assuming freight traffic will not increase, and failing to

address the risks associated with hazardous materials 

transportation.

Please see response to Comment 14b related to the NEPA 

review. 

Based on its current volumes and anticipated growth, Freight 

volumes along this corridor are projected to grow at 3% per 

year through 2053. This projected increase in freight volume is 

anticipated regardless of whether the HST Project is completed 

or not. As such, the HST Project is not intended to change either 

the amount or type of freight that is currently being shipped 

through this corridor. By completing the HST Project and 

clearing the double-stack obstructions, CSX will be able to 

accommodate its share of the projected growth in a more 

efficient manner (i.e., with fewer intermodal trains). 

The scope of the HST Project is to complete clearance 

improvements to allow for double-stack train service on CSX’s I95 Rail Corridor between Baltimore, MD and Philadelphia, PA to 

address the need of double-stack connectivity, freight 

operation efficiency and system resiliency. Studies relating to 

the transportation of hazardous materials generally are outside 

the scope of this analysis.
A-31 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Ibid. 14e A. The HST Project EA Improperly Assumes Freight Traffic Will Not 

Increase upon Completing the HST Project 

The HST Project EA is fundamentally flawed because the EA 

assumes that, upon the HST Project’s completion, freight traffic 

through the affected area will not increase. In particular, the FRA 

states, “The existing rail operational condition will remain 

unchanged between the Build and No Build Alternatives and the 

proposed HST Project would not cause an increase in

locomotive traffic.”13 This assumption has caused the FRA to 

overlook reasonably foreseeable significant impacts that must be 

fully analyzed in an EIS.

However, in other sections of the same EA, the FRA makes 

statements that would lead a person of ordinary prudence to 

conclude that an increase in freight traffic through the Howard 

Street Tunnel is reasonably foreseeable and must be taken into 

account for purposes of decision making. On the very first page of 

the EA, the FRA justifies the HST Project’s Purpose and Need by 

stating, “Recent State Freight Plans in Maryland, Delaware, and 

Pennsylvania all point to increased freight tonnage of at least 58 

percent between 2012 and 2040.”14 Without projects like the HST 

Project, FRA continues, “the national transportation network is at 

risk of delays and inefficiencies that will impact mobility of both 

passengers and cargo. The HST Project is specifically designed to 

address these concerns.”15 The Delmarva Freight Plan, cited by 

FRA in the HST Project EA, states that in response to economic and 

population growth in the coming years, “freight and passenger 

transportation demands are projected to increase by two and a 

half times by 2050.”16 The plan further states that because of the 

forecasted growth of international trade, “ports in Wilmington, 

Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Hampton Roads will be even more 

critical” to meeting the region's demands and potential.17 The 

state freight plans cited in the HST Project EA forecast a significant 

increase in freight rail transportation demand in the coming years. 

However, these forecasted increases in demand do not 

contemplate how the HST Project’s double stack freight rail 

Please see response to Comment 14d related to freight traffic. 

The scope of the HST Project is to complete clearance 

improvements to allow for double-stack train service on CSX’s I95 Rail Corridor between Baltimore, MD and Philadelphia, PA to 

address the need of double-stack connectivity, freight 

operation efficiency and system resiliency. Studies relating to 

general trends of freight increases are not related to the Project 

and are outside the scope of this analysis.
A-32 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

corridor will trigger industry growth at an even higher rate than 

already anticipated.18

The notion that the HST Project will trigger increased freight rail 

transportation demand is not novel to FRA. In justifying the HST 

Project Purpose and Need, FRA notes that due to current

height restrictions between Baltimore and Philadelphia, “CSX 

cannot supply the most competitive, direct double-stack service to 

connect the markets of the North, South, and Midwest United 

States.”19 Not only will the HST Project remove the final 

impediment to CSX’s double stack rail network and connect 

massive regional markets,20 the FRA also hopes the HST Project 

will breathe new life into the Port of Baltimore: “The lack of 

double-stack connectivity through the HST and CSX I-95 Corridor 

prevents the Port of Baltimore from capitalizing on its strategic 

geographic location as the furthest inland location of all the MidAtlantic ports.”21 The HST Project will allow the Port of Baltimore 

to compete with other Mid-Atlantic ports with double stack rail 

capabilities. This increased competitiveness will have the added 

benefit of providing “permanent economic impacts” for the 

Baltimore region, including “an estimated 7,872 net new jobs in 

the transportation sector, which are linked to over 60,000 jobs that 

are supported among port users in the Baltimore Region.”22
A-33 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Ibid. Despite the many economic benefits proffered by the FRA in the 

HST Project EA, the FRA assumes that the HST Project will not 

increase freight traffic or cause any significant environmental 

impacts. When analyzing the HST Project’s construction impacts, 

the “EA considers environmental impacts conservatively by 

assuming that the construction method with the most impacts is 

selected[.]”23 When analyzing operational impacts, however, FRA 

takes the least conservative approach by assuming that freight 

traffic through the completed HST Project will remain unchanged. 

FRA supports the HST Project Purpose and Need by touting 

remarkable economic growth benefits and possibilities, but 

forecloses those same benefits and possibilities when analyzing 

environmental impacts just a few pages later.

The FRA is obligated under NEPA to analyze the reasonably 

foreseeable increase in freight rail transportation demand caused 

by the HST Project and to incorporate the conclusions of that 

analysis into every environmental impact analysis. The 

assumption that freight traffic will not increase through the 

completed HST Project is unsubstantiated by sufficient evidence.24 When justifying the HST Project’s Purpose and Need, FRA cites to 

reliable data forecasting a significant increase of freight 

transportation demand in coming decades. When asserting in the 

Environmental Consequences section of the EA that freight traffic 

will not increase, the FRA cites to no data justifying its assumption.

The flawed freight traffic assumption has seeped into each and 

every environmental impact discussion contained in the HST 

Project EA. The HST Air Quality Report concludes that the HST 

Project will not result in any significant air quality impacts because 

freight traffic through the completed Tunnel will not increase.25 

Similarly, the FRA concludes that the HST Project will not result in 

any significant operational noise or vibration impacts, without 

considering an increase in noise and vibration events caused by the 

reasonably foreseeable increase in freight traffic.26 All of the 

adverse impacts caused by the faulty assumption that freight 

traffic will not increase, fall hardest on environmental justice 
A-34 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

communities. Adverse impacts from increased freight traffic, 

including air pollution, and increased noise and vibration are 

primarily felt by the low income and minority communities that 

surround the Howard Street Tunnel and I-95 corridor in general. 

The environmental justice report found in Appendix G of the HST 

EA, reveals that a majority of census tracts in Baltimore and 

Philadelphia are environmental justice communities.27 Despite 

this reality, the environmental justice report states “The impact of 

the actions in the Build Alternative would be neither adverse nor 

disproportionate in relation to the overall social, economic, health, 

and environmental characteristics of minority and low income 

populations in the Study Area.”28 RATT strongly urges the FRA to 

undergo a more accurate analysis in the form of an EIS for the HST 

Project, specifically assessing the impacts of a reasonably 

foreseeable increase in freight traffic on environmental justice 

communities. The FRA’s reliance on the assumption that freight 

traffic will not increase upon completion of the HST Project 

violates the fundamental purpose of an EA. Without assessing 

environmental impacts caused by the reasonably foreseeable 

increase in freight traffic, FRA cannot justify with sufficient 

evidence and analysis a decision to issue a FONSI. Even more 

importantly, the faulty freight traffic assumption robs citizens, like 

those comprising RATT, of the opportunity to be informed of how 

exactly the HST Project will affect them. FRA cannot highlight the 

HST Project's benefits while hiding its risks. To do so is to violate 

the very essence of NEPA. The only justifiable decision following 

the HST Project EA is for FRA to prepare an EIS.
A-35 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Ibid. 14f B. The HST Project EA Fails to Identify and Analyze the Full Scope 

and Degree of Train Derailments or Hazardous Materials Rail 

Transportation Risks

The HST Project EA insufficiently analyzes the full scope and degree 

of the risks associated with train derailments or hazardous 

materials transportation by rail.29 In the HST Project EA, the FRA 

failed to acknowledge any risk at all pertaining to train derailments 

or hazardous material spills, despite CSX having a checkered 

history of both derailments and hazmat spills in Baltimore and 

throughout the I-95 corridor.30 Notably, in other CSX/ FRA 

environmental documents for previous projects along the I-95 

corridor, like the Virginia Avenue Tunnel,31 the FRA discusses train 

derailments and hazardous material spills. However, in the HST EA, 

the FRA fails to acknowledge the risks associated with train 

derailments and hazardous material spills.

The FRA’s analysis of hazardous materials does not properly assess 

the scope of the potentially affected environment and degree of 

the effects as required under CEQ regulations. In the HST Project 

EA, the FRA’s analysis of hazardous materials merely discusses 

what will occur if hazardous materials are discovered during the 

construction process. There is no discussion of hazardous materials 

transportation along the I-95 corridor, nor is there mention of the 

proper response protocol to derailments and hazardous material 

spills. The FRA’s absence of any mention of hazardous materials 

transportation in the HST EA is unjustified, especially when 

compared to the FRA’s treatment of similar projects along the I-95 

freight corridor. In the Virginia Avenue Tunnel Project, FRA 

released an EIS because the agency properly reasoned the project 

would cause significant impacts. The FRA’s Virginia Avenue Tunnel 

EIS included a discussion on the proper protocol to follow if a train 

derailment and hazardous material spill occurred.32 The HST EA 

does not even acknowledge that train derailments can occur, 

despite the fact that CSX owns the track rights for the I-95 corridor 

which runs through both the Howard Street Tunnel and the 

Virginia Avenue Tunnel. There is no other explanation for FRA’s 

The CSX rail network will continue to transport materials in 

accordance with safety and security laws and regulations as per 

the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), The Federal 

Railroad Administration ("FRA"), the Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration ("PHMSA"), and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation ("USDOT"). As a result of the 

Project, no increase or change in type or volume of hazardous 

materials through this corridor are planned or expected. 

The objective of the HST Project is to provide double-stack 

clearance along the CSX I-95 Corridor. CSX has protocols in 

place regarding hazardous materials transport and will continue 

to move those materials in a safe and compliant manner as 

required by applicable laws and regulations. Certain aspects of 

the Project will further enhance safe operations (e.g. drainage 

improvements, replacement of track structure and profiles, 

retaining walls, etc.).

Safety remains a top priority at CSX, and the Company is 

committed to the overall safety of its employees, customers, 

and communities in which the Company operates. CSX is an 

industry leader in safety, with both personal injury and train 

accident rates decreasing to a record low in 2020. 

As previously indicated, the scope of the HST Project is to 

complete clearance improvements to allow for double-stack 

train service on CSX’s I-95 Rail Corridor between Baltimore, MD 

and Philadelphia, PA to address the need of double-stack 

connectivity, freight operation efficiency and system resiliency. 

Studies relating generally to the transportation of hazardous 

materials are outside the scope of this analysis.
A-36 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

failure to discuss train derailments and hazardous material spills, 

aside from FRA’s desire to minimize the scope of potential impacts. 

By failing to address the scope and degree of the effects of train 

derailments or hazardous material spills, FRA did not fulfill their 

NEPA obligations with the HST Project EA, and therefore an EIS 

must be prepared.

The FRA and CSX should know that train derailments and 

hazardous material spills are not uncommon and can have 

devastating impacts. In 2001, a CSX freight train derailed in the 

Howard Street Tunnel, causing hazardous material spills and a 

massive fire.33 The 2001 Howard Street Tunnel derailment still 

lingers in the minds of Baltimore residents, including those 

comprising RATT. In between major train derailments like the 2001 

incident, smaller, more frequent hazardous materials spills occur, 

but often go unnoticed by the general public. As recently as April 

21, 2019, for example, CSX reported a hazardous materials spill in 

Baltimore, of relatively smaller, yet still worrisome proportions. A 

CSX train traveling between Baltimore and Cumberland, Maryland 

spilled 100 gallons of combustible fuel oil while in transit through 

Baltimore’s Mt. Winans Yard.34 The April 2019 spill demonstrates 

the need for an adequate hazardous materials analysis. Events like 

this will only become more frequent as CSX is able to send more 

freight through the Howard Street Tunnel. The HST Project’s 

double stack capabilities will allow CSX to at least double the 

freight tonnage passing through the Howard Street Tunnel. 

Affected citizens, such as the members of RATT, should be assured 

that, at the very least, FRA and CSX understand the hazardous 

materials risks associated with the HST Project and have a plan to 

address hazardous materials incidents. The HST Project EA contains 

no such risk analysis or plan. FRA must prepare an EIS for the HST 

Project to analyze these impacts in accordance with the letter and 

spirit of NEPA.
A-37 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 14g III. Conclusion

RATT does understand the need for freight movement to the Port 

of Baltimore. However, we see the lack of adequate study – and 

the flaws within the EA on the HST project - show a blatant 

disregard for the true impact on the safety and future of Baltimore 

citizens. We can see how the EA serves the Freight Companies, 

what we do not see is how it reflects true concern about the 

people who live here. We strongly believe that Citizen safety 

should be prioritized. We believe there is a need for a thorough 

and honest Environmental Impact Study, and urge the U.S. DOT to 

complete such a study and make the results public.

Comment acknowledged. Please see response to Comment 14b 

related to FRA’s decision as to why an EA was completed. 

Arthur Cohen, 

b'more mobile, 

4/13/2021

15a I. INTRODUCTION: This comment on the Howard Street Tunnel

Environmental Assessment is being submitted Art Cohen, 

Convenor - b'more mobile.

A preliminary note on abbreviations used below: EA refers to 

Environmental Assessment; HST refers to the Howard Street 

Tunnel. As stated at the beginning of the EA, it is being prepared in 

order “...to evaluate and assess the potential environmental 

impacts of the [Howard Street Tunnel] Project....” [EA - page 1-1]

Thank you; comment acknowledged. 
A-38 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 15b The very second paragraph on this first page of the EA states the 

following: “Recent State Freight Plans in Maryland1, Delaware2, 

and Pennsylvania3 all point to increased freight tonnage of at least 

58 percent between 2012 and 2040.

Without comprehensive, cost-effective solutions across freight 

modes, the national transportation network is at risk of delays and 

inefficiencies that will impact mobility for both passengers and 

cargo. The HST Project is specifically designed to address these 

concerns.“ It is difficult to argue with the logic of this opening 

paragraph – about the “risk of delays and inefficiencies.” What is 

conspicuously absent from this statement, however, is any 

mention of THE POTENTIAL RISKS TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND 

SECURITY with such a forecasted increase in freight tonnage. And, 

in particular, there is also absent is any reference to the special 

further type of safety and security risk represented by the rail 

freight transportation of HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.

The CSX rail network will continue to transport materials in 

accordance with safety and security laws and regulations as per 

the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), The Federal 

Railroad Administration ("FRA"), the Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration ("PHMSA"), and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation ("USDOT"). As a result of the 

Project, no increase or change in type or volume of hazardous 

materials through this corridor are planned or expected. 

The objective of the HST Project is to provide double-stack 

clearance along the CSX I-95 Corridor. CSX has protocols in 

place regarding hazardous materials transport and will continue 

to move those materials in a safe and compliant manner as 

required by applicable laws and regulations. Certain aspects of 

the Project will further enhance safe operations (e.g. drainage 

improvements, replacement of track structure and profiles, 

retaining walls, etc.).

Safety remains a top priority at CSX, and the Company is 

committed to the overall safety of its employees, customers, 

and communities in which the Company operates. CSX is an 

industry leader in safety, with both personal injury and train 

accident rates decreasing to a record low in 2020. 

As previously indicated, the scope of the HST Project is to 

complete clearance improvements to allow for double-stack 

train service on CSX’s I-95 Rail Corridor between Baltimore, MD 

and Philadelphia, PA to address the need of double-stack 

connectivity, freight operation efficiency and system resiliency. 

Studies relating generally to the transportation of hazardous 

materials are outside the scope of this analysis.
A-39 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 15c In the seventy pages of the EA, and the almost 1,200 pages of the 

eleven appendices to the EA, the only references to “hazardous” 

have to do merely with the risk of hazards encountered in the 

construction of the “build” alternative for the HST. Not a thing is 

said about the rail freight transportation of hazardous materials. 

Before we proceed with the discussion of hazardous rail freight, 

let's dispose of the EA's few references to the term “hazardous.” 

The word “hazardous” appears in the EA's text at eight locations, 

but it is only used in the context of environmental hazards caused 

by or resulting from the construction of the proposed tunnel 

improvements. [See pages v, vi-vii, 3-1, 3-18, 4-2, 4-14, 4-15, and 4-

19.] There is no reference to risks either to public safety or security 

in Baltimore resulting from the rail transportation of hazardous 

materials (HAZMAT) through the Howard Street Tunnel.

Furthermore, in the 1,178 pages of the eleven appendices to the 

EA, the word “hazardous” appears exactly two times: once in 

Appendix I (Section 106 Architectural Report), and once in 

Appendix J (Draft Memorandum of Agreement). Like the text of 

the EA described in the paragraph directly above, both references 

are to “hazardous” only in the context of “...[a]lteration of a 

property, including...hazardous material remediation” (Appendix I 

– page 82) and “[s]hould an emergency situation occur during 

construction that ... creates a hazardous condition....” (Appendix J 

– page 15).

Baltimore City and its immediate populated environs represent a 

highly-urban place which is equally highly vulnerable to dangerous 

accidents involving rail freight, especially with cargo of hazardous 

materials.

Please see response to Comment 15b related to hazardous 

materials and safety. 
A-40 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Ibid. 15d II. THE HIGHLY-URBAN NATURE OF BALTIMORE CITY: The issue of 

hazardous rail freight is especially germane and threatening to the 

public health and environment of human populations 

concentrated in urban areas. Baltimore City certainly qualifies as 

such an urban area. The various locations of the CSX Rail Lines 

through the HST are most surely urban in nature.

This was well-stated at pages 3 and 5 of the 2002 USDOT postaccident report which is discussed below:

Howard Street, and the Howard Street Tunnel, are located in the 

heart of Baltimore City’s business and cultural districts, and are 

adjacent to the core of the City’s tourist and sports attractions and 

the Inner Harbor. The south end of Howard Street is near Oriole 

Park at Camden Yards and the Baltimore Ravens’ football stadium. 

The south end is also close to the Inner Harbor and the National 

Aquarium, the heart of Baltimore’s tourist area. The north end of 

Howard Street, near the Mount Royal light rail station, is located 

close to the Maryland State Government office complex and the 

City’s art district (Meyerhoff Symphony Hall and the Lyric Opera 

House). The street runs through the downtown business and 

entertainment districts and passes directly by or near some of the 

City’s major museums, concert halls, and cultural attractions. 

Figure 3 shows the locations of both Howard Street and the 

Howard Street Tunnel within the City of Baltimore. Please note

that as well as on many of the major streets that intersect Howard 

Street and cross over the tunnel. The MTA’s subway system, the 

Metro, passes below Howard Street and the Howard Street tunnel. 

The MARC rail system’s Camden Line uses the CSX track between

Baltimore and Washington, and the MARC track within the City is 

adjacent to the Howard Street Tunnel.

And this description does not even include the residential areas 

located nearby or in connected parts of the City also served by the 

CSX freight rails. The top map on page 2-5 in the main text of the 

EA, and most of the maps included in several of the eleven 

Appendices (totaling 1,178 pages) show HST's location to be 

Thank you; comment acknowledged. Please see response to 

Comment 15b related to hazardous materials and safety. 
A-41 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

central to downtown commercial and central city residential 

Baltimore City (see, for example, the many maps in seven of the 

eleven Appendices). [1] (see the End Notes below) In fact, 

Baltimore is also one of the 46 metropolitan areas listed as a “highthreat urban area” in 49 CFR Part 1580 - “FREIGHT RAIL 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY”. See especially Appendix A to Part 

1580 which lists Baltimore as follows: “MD - Baltimore Area - 

Baltimore and a 10-mile buffer extending from the city border – 

Baltimore, MD”. 
A-42 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 15e III. THE OFFICIAL HST REPORTS ON 2001: Rail freight accidents have 

been frequent in the US & Canada in recent years. [2 ] (see the End 

Notes below) The HST itself was host to such an accident on July 

18, 2001. Two official reports were issued about it (the U.S. Fire 

Administration in FEMA/DHS also issued a report which will not be 

discussed here):

1) Effects of Catastrophic Events on Transportation System 

Management and Operations: Baltimore, Maryland – Howard 

Street Tunnel Fire – July 18, 2001 (July 2002, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, ITS Office) – 50 pages. This is downloadable from: 

https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/4096

2) Railroad Accident Brief – National Transportation Safety Board – 

Accident Number DCA-01-MR-004, Baltimore, Maryland, July 18, 

2001, Derailment & Fire, CSX Transportation (Adopted December 

16, 2004) - 28 pages. [NTSB/RAB-04/08] This is downloadable 

from: 

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAB

0408.pdf. 

However, this 2001 accident was mentioned only one single time 

in the entire text of the EA (70 pages of test and 1,178 pages of 

Appendices), and then only in passing with no comment (see page 

2-1 of the EA), and without any reference to either of the two 

above official reports.

Thank you; comment acknowledged. 
A-43 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 15f IV. THE THRESHOLD QUESTIONS

The presence of these two reports on the 2001 derailment and fire 

raises a threshold question: Does the recommended “build 

alternative” for the HST specifically and adequately address the 

safety and security risks of rail freight transportation along CSXowned tracks, especially the transportation of HAZMATs? Both the 

2002 and the 2004 reports about the 2001 HST derailment and fire 

make frequent reference to the issue of risks surrounding rail 

transportation of hazardous materials. Are these risks increased or 

decreased by the proposed new construction of the HST, and if so 

how? Furthermore, how can these risks be prevented in the future 

for rail freight proceeding through the new HST? Any thorough and 

legally sufficient environmental review under NEPA should 

certainly include a consideration of and answers for these 

questions.

Please see response to Comment 15b related to hazardous 

materials and safety. The Project will achieve numerous 

improvements to the existing CSX I-95 Rail Corridor, including 

improved rail profiles, rail bed geometry, drainage and slope 

stability. All of these features enhance the overall function and 

safety of the network.

Ibid. 15g V. DISCUSSION

For Baltimore City with the Howard Street Tunnel, whether we go 

forward in time from 2021 on with a tunnel that is double-stacked 

or single-stacked, there remains a serious problem of fragmented, 

limited or absent accountability for safety – both for the 

prevention and for the remediation of death, injury, property 

destruction, and disruption of orderly urban life which can result 

from a rail freight accident in the Howard Street Tunnel.

The CSX network will continue to transport materials in 

accordance with safety and security laws and regulations as per 

the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), The Federal 

Railroad Administration ("FRA"), the Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration ("PHMSA"), and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation ("USDOT"). As a result of the 

Project, no increase or change in type or volume of hazardous 

materials through this corridor are planned or expected. Also, 

certain aspects of the Project will further enhance safe 

operations (e.g. drainage improvements, replacement of track 

structure and profiles, retaining walls, etc.).

Safety remains a top priority at CSX, and the Company is 

committed to the overall safety of its employees, customers, 

and communities in which the Company operates. CSX is an 

industry leader in safety, with both personal injury and train 

accident rates decreasing to a record low in 2020. 
A-44 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 15h A) Fragmented Accountability:

1) In the United States, most rail freight tunnels are privately 

owned and operated (see Attachment to Concurring Opinion of 

[NTSB] Member [Deborah A.P.] Hersman – page 26). [PLEASE 

NOTE: For purposes of clarity, all direct quotations below will be 

placed in italics.] However, as Member Hersman cogently points 

out in her comment: “In many cases, what occurs on a private 

right-of-way may have significant consequences to the general 

public.” The Howard Street Tunnel is privately owned and 

operated by CSX Transportation.

Thank you; comment acknowledged. 

Ibid. 15i 2) The federal public agency charged with regulating the safety of 

rail freight in the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), 

generally. However, within USDOT, freight SAFETY regulation is 

split between the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and the 

Pipeline and Materials Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA). Primary responsibility appears to rest with the “Safety 

Management Teams (SMT)” at FRA. The transporting of hazardous 

materials by rail is regulated by the provisions of 49 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 100-110, 130, 171-172, 174, and 

179.

To the FRA, Member Hersman urges the following (at page 24): 

“Work with tunnel owners to assess the safety of major railroad 

tunnels and provide guidance to tunnel owners and users 

regarding inspections, maintenance intervals and documentation.”

Thank you; comment acknowledged. The scope of the HST 

Project is to complete clearance improvements to allow for 

double-stack train service on CSX’s I-95 Rail Corridor between 

Baltimore and Philadelphia to address the need of double-stack 

connectivity and freight operation efficiency and system 

resiliency. Studies relating generally to safety regulations and

publications are outside the scope of this analysis. Please see 

response to Comment 15b related to hazardous materials and 

safety
A-45 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 15j 3) On the other hand, freight SECURITY regulation is handled by 

the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Federal 

regulations can be found at 49 CFR Part 1580 – Freight Rail 

Transportation Security.

To both USDOT and DHS, Member Hersman urges the following (at 

page 26): “Complete ongoing studies and rulemaking efforts to 

address the transportation of hazardous materials and coordinate 

future activities. Highlighting the risks associated with the 

transport of hazardous materials through tunnels, the Howard 

Street Tunnel accident raises several important safety issues. First, 

is the need to develop a more comprehensive risk analysis system 

to assess the dangers associated with the transport of specific 

materials. Second, is the implementation of detailed emergency 

preparedness plans and appropriate training for rail employees 

and emergency responders. Third, is the implementation of 

standardized regulations for governing the transport of dangerous 

goods.”

In fact, Member Hersman concludes her comments with the 

following suggestion (NTSB Report - page 28): “I would urge the 

DOT and DHS to conclude their ongoing efforts as soon as possible 

and coordinate their future activities to address safety AND 

security.”

Thank you; comment acknowledged. 

The scope of the HST Project is to complete clearance 

improvements to allow for double-stack train service on CSX’s I95 Rail Corridor between Baltimore, MD and Philadelphia, PA to 

address the need of double-stack connectivity, freight 

operation efficiency and system resiliency. Studies relating 

generally to regulations and prior reports are outside the scope 

of this analysis.
A-46 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 15k So the question remains today – in 2021 – just how concerned and 

equipped are USDOT and DHS to cope with the growing problem 

of rail freight transportation of hazardous materials? To meed its 

requirements, this Environmental Assessment must address and 

answer this question! In its present form, it has failed to do so.

This problem of fragmentation was also addressed in the 2002 

USDOT Report by four “Conclusions” found on pages 27-29:

1) Transportation of Hazardous Materials – Determining the 

balance between the public’s “need to know” and the potential for 

compromising security.

2) The need for redundant systems. 

3) The need for improved planning and communications.

4) The Need to Identify All Available Resources – Public and 

Private.

The scope of the HST Project is to complete clearance 

improvements to allow for double-stack train service on CSX’s I95 Rail Corridor between Baltimore, MD and Philadelphia, PA to 

address the need of double-stack connectivity, freight 

operation efficiency and system resiliency. Studies relating 

generally to the transportation of hazardous materials are 

outside the scope of this analysis. Please see response to 

Comment 15b related to hazardous materials and safety. 
A-47 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Ibid. 15l B) Limited or Absent Accountability:

Safety Management Team No. 9 is the team for CSX 

Transportation. [accessible online at: 

https://railroads.dot.gov/divisions/regional-offices/safetymanagementteams. It would serve the tracks and tunnels in 

Baltimore City, along with the other 20,000 miles of CSX track, 

quite a tall order indeed! There are only a total of nearly 400 

federal safety inspectors at USDOT to cover all nine national 

railroads (freight and passenger). Furthermore, as added by 

Member Hersman at page 23 of the 2004 NTSB Report, “...there 

are general concerns, as there are in any accident investigation, 

about the resources available to [our own NTSB] staff. We have 

only 13 rail investigators at the Safety Board, working freight rail, 

passenger rail, and transit accidents.”

The official “Hazardous Materials Compliance Manual” issued by 

the FRA's Office of Railroad Safety appears not to have been 

updated since February 2017. It is 113 pages long, with seven 

appendices totaling another 48 pages. It is not clear how 

thoroughgoing and adequate this manual is when it comes to 

HAZMAT. For instance, its Appedix E “Glossary and Acronyms” lists 

“HTUA” at page 3 and describes it as referring to a “high-threat 

urban area”. However, this appears to be an “orphan” or sham 

reference, because it is not used anywhere else in the Compliance 

Manual. In fact, the Manual does not include a single reference to 

the word “urban” - which raises serious questions about its 

usefulness as policy in dealing with hazardous materials being 

shipped by rail into, out of, and through urban areas – a highly 

common occurrence. Further research reveals that the term “highthreat urban area” is used primarily by the DHS in its policy 

contained in 49 CFR section 1580. This curious situation points 

toward a lack of coordination between USDOT/FRA's “safety 

mission” and DHR's “security mission.” Such a lack of coordination 

does not bode well for the regulation of rail freight transportation 

of HAZMATs.

Thank you; comment acknowledged. 

The scope of the HST Project is to complete clearance 

improvements to allow for double-stack train service on CSX’s I95 Rail Corridor between Baltimore and Philadelphia to address 

the need of double-stack connectivity and freight operation 

efficiency and system resiliency. Studies relating generally to 

safety regulations and publications are outside the scope of this 

analysis. Please see response to Comment 15b related to 

hazardous materials and safety. 
A-48 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 15m C) The General Lack of Rail Freight Tunnel Standards in the U.S.: 

According to NTSB Member Hersman at page 24 in the 2004 HST 

Railroad Accident Brief , “After conducting preliminary searches, 

including requests to the FRA and AAR [Association of American 

Railroads] ,for the date on the number, age, condition, 

maintenance, and inspection of rail tunnels, it appears that this 

information is not easily accessible or even available.” Note that 

she is referring here to freight tunnels. By contrast, according to 

Hersman, USDOT has developed such information for rail transit 

and road tunnels (see the NTSB Report, page 25).

The FRA published its last study on tunnel safety “Tunnel Safety 

Analysis” in 1990 [USDOT-FRA-Office of Safety – 340 pages]. Now it 

may well be that such standards have indeed been developed 

since the 2004 date seventeen years ago when the last of two 

NTSB Reports was issued about the Howard Street Tunnel. But if 

that is the case, then this EA should make some reference to it. It 

does not. There was explicit concern in the country at large about 

the rail transportation of hazardous materials. This was the subject 

of an official statement made by the then-head FRA Administrator, 

Joseph H. Boardman in June of 2006 to the Subcommittee on 

Railroads of the House Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure [USDOT – 13 pages].

This was soon followed in August of 2007 by an extensive report by 

the Government Accounting Office (GAO) at the request of 

Congress on “RAILROAD BRIDGES AND TUNNELS – Federal Role in 

Providing Safety Oversight and Freight Infrastructure Investment 

Could Be Better Targeted.” However, this report focused on the 

safety of tunnels and especially bridges, and was not at all 

concerned about hazardous materials in rail freight.

In 2008, USDOT issued a Final Interim Rule for 49 CFR Parts 172 

and 174: Hazardous Materials: Enhancing Rail Transportation 

Safety and Security for Hazardous Materials Shipments.

Thank you; comment acknowledged. 

The scope of the HST Project is to complete clearance 

improvements to allow for double-stack train service on CSX’s I95 Rail Corridor between Baltimore and Philadelphia to address 

the need of double-stack connectivity and freight operation 

efficiency and system resiliency. Studies relating generally to 

safety regulations and publications are outside the scope of this 

analysis. Please see response to Comment 15b related to

hazardous materials and safety. 
A-49 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

15n D) The CSX Railroad Safety Record

Since CSX presently owns and operates the HST, and presumably 

plans to continue doing so in the future, it would have been 

helpful for this EA to look at CSX's safety record over recent 

years. This information is readily and publicly available on the FRA 

website. Any plans to build a double-stack-capable HST would do 

well to speak to the implications of this safety record for any such 

future expansion. A Look at CSX's Safety Record in Maryland 

reveals the following information about the past twenty-one years 

(Source: Summary - by Year in Maryland - of Train Accidents with 

Reportable Damage, Casualties, and Major Causes: Federal 

Railroad Administration – Office of Safety Analysis):

[CSX RAILROAD ACCIDENTS IN MARYLAND table]

It is clear from the above record of CSX Railroad in Maryland 

during the first years of the 21st Century that substantial risk exists 

on an ongoing basis that there will continue to be rail freight 

accidents involving CSX. In a very real sense, such accidents “go 

with the territory” of operating a major freight railroad. In that 

context, then, it is necessary for CSX to have in place here in

Maryland a plan and a process for preventing and coping with rail 

freight accidents, especially in tunnels, and especially involving 

the transportation of hazardous materials. Any environmental 

assessment worthy of the name must address this necessity.

The CSX has and will continue to transport materials along its 

rail network in accordance with safety and security laws and 

regulations as per the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

("DHS"), The Federal Railroad Administration ("FRA"), the 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

("PHMSA"), and the U.S. Department of Transportation 

("USDOT"). As required under these regulations, CSX has plans 

and resources in place to respond to an incident at any location 

along its network. As previously mentioned, certain aspects of 

the Project (e.g. drainage improvements, replacement of track 

structure and profiles, retaining walls, etc.). will also further 

enhance the safe operation of trains throughout its’ network, 

including this corridor. 

Safety remains a top priority at CSX, and the Company is 

committed to the overall safety of its employees, customers, 

and communities in which the Company operates. CSX is an 

industry leader in safety, with both personal injury and train 

accident rates decreasing to a record low in 2020.

The objective of the HST Project is to provide double-stack 

clearance along the CSX I-95 Corridor between Baltimore, MD 

and Philadelphia, PA to address the need of double-stack 

connectivity, freight operation efficiency and system resiliency. 

Studies generally relating to the transportation of hazardous 

materials are outside the scope of the analysis.
A-50 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 15o VI. REQUESTED ACTION:

It is requested that this Environment Assessment on the HST not 

be officially accepted or approved in its current form. In light of the 

failure of this HST EA to address the issues raised and discussed 

above about insufficient federal regulatory accountability - for 

either safety or security going forward now in the proposed 

expansion of the HST for the rail transportation of freight, 

especially hazardous materials - it is requested that the FRA issue 

either a revised EA or a full EIS to cover these issues.

The CSX has and will continue to transport materials along its 

rail network in accordance with safety and security laws and 

regulations as per the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

("DHS"), The Federal Railroad Administration ("FRA"), the 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

("PHMSA"), and the U.S. Department of Transportation 

("USDOT"). As required under these regulations, CSX has plans 

and resources in place to respond to an incident at any location 

along its network. As previously mentioned, certain aspects of 

the Project (e.g. drainage improvements, replacement of track 

structure and profiles, retaining walls, etc.). will also further 

enhance the safe operation of trains throughout its’ network, 

including this corridor. 

Safety remains a top priority at CSX, and the Company is 

committed to the overall safety of its employees, customers, 

and communities in which the Company operates. CSX is an 

industry leader in safety, with both personal injury and train 

accident rates decreasing to a record low in 2020. Please see 

response to Comment 15n for more information on the 

transportation of hazardous materials.
A-51 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Meghan Ames, 

Friends of 26th 

Street Corridor 

and Bikemore, 

4/13/2021

16a We represent residents along Baltimore’s 26th St. corridor and 

members of groups representing the community who will be 

directly affected by the Howard Street Tunnel Project.

We do not dispute the merits of the Howard Street Tunnel Project 

nor the replacement of the Guilford Avenue bridge. Rather, we call 

to attention the ongoing negative impacts of CSX

railway activity along the 26th Street Charles Village rail corridor 

(Barclay, Guilford, Charles, Huntington, and Sisson Streets). We ask 

that CSX remedy this undue burden by taking the following actions.

1. Provide a multi-modal (wheelchair, pedestrian, and bike) path 

along the Guilford Avenue Bridge for resident use during 

construction:

• Wheelchair. Federal ADA regulations indicate the need for 

wheelchair access.

• Pedestrian and bike. The Baltimore City Complete Streets manual 

Page 183 indicates that during construction, DOT is required to 

"apply modal hierarchy to maintenance of traffic plan" during the 

construction phase of "bridge construction/reconstruction" 

projects. This bridge is part of a designated Bike Boulevard and is a 

low-stress pedestrian and wheelchair path leading to Margaret 

Brent Elementary/Middle School.

The Guilford Avenue Bridge will be closed to pedestrian traffic 

during construction. CSX will work with the Baltimore City DOT 

to obtain an approved detour plan, which will include ADA 

accessible pedestrian and bike access.
A-52 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 16b 2. Remove the 26th Street Park as a possible staging area for 

construction equipment (as proposed in Section 4.9.2 of the CSX 

Environmental Assessment):

• Undue burden. Residents have already sustained months of 

displacement and construction following the 2014 and 2018 wall 

collapses. Community leaders organized around the second street 

collapse to advocate for the creation of a park in alignment with a 

community vision for the 26th Street Corridor.

• Park as public good. Residents have diligently worked with 

Baltimore City DOT and others to secure funding and support for 

the space and request that the project not be delayed or otherwise 

impacted by the Guilford Bridge replacement project.

• Misrepresented intentions. At a Charles Village Civic Association 

on May 27, 2020, CSX representative Brian Hammock explicitly 

stated that the 26th Street Park would not be used as a staging 

area for this project.

Comment acknowledged. The future planned 26th Street Park 

will not be used for Project staging or laydown areas. 
A-53 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 16c 3. Reduce undue burden on residents by ensuring environmental 

and space impacts be minimized along the 26th Street Charles 

Village rail corridor (Barclay, Guilford, Charles, Huntington, and 

Sisson Streets):

• Minimize air pollutants. As outlined in Section 4.1.2 of the 

Environmental Assessment, we insist that all CSX workers and 

contractors remain in “compliance with all applicable laws and 

regulations would reduce the minor impacts of the pollutant 

emissions resulting from construction activity. To mitigate these 

emissions, construction activities will be performed in accordance 

with construction-level best management practices.”

• Restrict evening noise. As during the emergency re-construction 

of the 200 E 26th Street retaining wall, we request that 

construction activities be limited to 8am-5pm. Furthermore, we 

request that train horns do not sound in the evening. 

• Consolidate staging. We request that any public space that is 

used for staging or use of construction equipment be restricted to 

50 feet within either end of the Guilford Street Bridge to preserve 

neighborhood parking and reduce impact of other environmental 

consequences. Additionally, we request that staging and road 

closure duration be limited to the time absolutely necessary and 

the space only be used for construction happening in the 

immediate surrounding area.

CSX will attempt to minimize impacts during construction to 

areas owned and/or controlled by the Company. CSX will also 

work to limit community disruption and coordinate with the 

neighboring communities both before and during construction

as needed. Construction work associated with the HST Project 

will be performed in accordance with applicable air quality laws 

and regulations. With respect to night-time work, CSX will make 

diligent efforts to avoid nighttime work, but may need to 

conduct work during nighttime hours. CSX will follow applicable 

local noise ordinances. 
A-54 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 16d 4. Improve space that is disturbed during construction to a state 

that is better serves the community:

• Southeast corner of 26th St. and Guilford. Community members 

have leveraged local funding and volunteer efforts to green and 

beautify the space in the southeast corner and request that any 

damage to grass or trees be repaired when construction is 

completed.

• Standing water. Standing water in and around the railroad tracks 

at Guilford Avenue continues to be a source of problematic 

mosquito breeding. We request the source of this standing water 

be eliminated following the completion of construction.

• Fencing and landscaping. Following completion of the new 

bridge, we request that existing fencing be replaced and 

landscaping be improved.

As discussed in Section 4.2.2 of the EA, as part of the Build 

Alternative, the completion of this construction project will 

result in drainage improvements at all of the Project Areas. 

Portions of the existing fencing will be replaced at the Guilford 

Avenue Bridge location. CSX provided the Charles Village 

Community Benefits District, by way of the Central Baltimore 

Partnership, a grant to fund the rehabilitation and reinstallation of the original 1880s B&O railway fence in the 

community to create an attractive public green space. This 

project will include installation of a park bench, landscaping and 

paving to create a restful shaded community greenspace. 

Ibid. 16e 5. Engage in regular communication with the Friends of 26th Street 

Corridor about the status of the project and any community 

concerns:

• Monthly updates: We request a monthly written update sent via 

email to Meghan Ames, President Friends of 26th Street Corridor 

at Friendsof26thSt@gmail.com

• Available liaison: We request a point-person be identified to 

respond to any time-sensitive community concerns within 72 

hours. We thank you for the opportunity to provide comment and 

look forward to your response on the matter.

CSX will continue to work with Baltimore City representatives, 

the Baltimore City DOT, and community leaders to identify 

representatives to disseminate information regarding the 

Project both before and during construction. Additionally, 

information regarding construction start dates and timeframes 

will be provided via mailings to adjacent landowners, and 

signage posted at the Project area sites. CSX will provide 

contact information on informational project materials for the 

public to utilize if there are questions or concerns that arise 

during construction of the Project. 
A-55 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Kevin King, 

Resident, 

4/13/2021

17a Thank you for having the call today; I'm glad you all are thinking 

about this project conscientiously and being so patient in collecting 

feedback. I live on the 300 block of 26th and I share the concerns 

of most of the letter I signed. Especially the note about standing 

water. The mosquitos make being outside intolerable during the 

summer. I can't get to my car at the curb without getting bitten; I 

can't spend any time outdoors on my own block. It's really very 

bad and I hope you take a look at better drainage around the track 

bed during this process.

The largest way I differ from the request letter is that I don't 

support the "Friends of the 26th St Corridor" project as zealously 

as some and would rather that area be used for staging than my 

parking. That project is run by a lot of Guilford residents and their 

goals don't always align with the interests of 26th St residents. So I 

wanted to make sure the voices I heard during the call about 

"don't take any parking but also don't use our mini-park" aren't the 

only feedback you get. I use that space sometimes for skating and 

such, but if it's that or parking, I choose to have parking.

To summarize my feedback, I live on 26th and would rather you 

use the "26th St Green" for staging than make my parking 

miserable like it was during the wall repair. Also please do 

something about the mosquitos.

Comment acknowledged. The planned 26th Street Park will not 

be used for Project staging or laydown areas. 

As discussed in Section 4.2.2 of the EA, as part of the Build 

Alternative, the completion of this construction project will 

result in drainage improvements at all of the Project Areas.
A-56 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Catie Kennedy, 

Resident, 

4/13/2021

18a I am a resident of the 300 block of East 26th Street. I just attended 

the online meeting with representatives from the Friends of 26th 

Street group, Councilman Robert Stokes, and representatives from 

the DOT and CSX. While communication between CSX/DOT and 

residents was touched upon in the meeting, I want to emphasize 

the importance of communication by way of physical signage 

and/or leaflets , in clear, understandable language. Many residents 

on our block are not well connected online, and are unlikely to see 

information distributed by the Friends of the 26th Street group on 

their email list serve or on their website. However, all residents 

need this information, regardless of whether or not they are 

online, or whether or not they participate in community groups. 

Postcards/leaflets, as well as printed signs posted around the work 

sites, will be critical in ensuring that all residents are kept updated 

on changes in the neighborhood.

Thank you for your comment. CSX will continue to work with 

Baltimore City representatives, the Baltimore City DOT, and 

community leaders to identify representatives to disseminate 

information regarding the Project both before and during 

construction. Additionally, information regarding construction 

start dates and timeframes will be provided via mailings to 

adjacent landowners or signage posted at the Project Area 

sites. CSX will provide contact information on informational 

project materials for the public to utilize if there are questions 

or concerns that arise during construction of the Project.

Meredith 

McHugh, 

Resident, 

4/13/2021

19a We represent residents along the 300 block of E 26th Street, 

Baltimore, MD, 21218, who will be

directly affected by the Howard Street Tunnel Project.

We call to attention the ongoing and prospective negative impacts

of CSX railway activity along

the 26th Street Charles Village rail corridor (Barclay, Guilford, 

Charles, Huntington, and Sisson

Streets). We ask that CSX remedy this undue burden by taking the 

following actions.

Thank you for your comment.
A-57 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Ibid. 19b 1. Reduce undue burden on residents by ensuring environmental 

and space impacts be

minimized along the 26th Street Charles Village rail corridor 

(Barclay, Guilford, Charles,

Huntington, and Sisson Streets):

• Minimize air pollutants: As outlined in Section 4.1.2 of the 

Environmental Assessment, we insist that all CSX workers and 

contractors remain in “compliance with all applicable laws and 

regulations would reduce the minor impacts of the pollutant 

emissions resulting from construction activity. To mitigate these 

emissions, construction activities will be performed in accordance 

with construction-level best management practices.”

• Restrict evening noise: As during the emergency re-construction 

of the 200 E 26th Street retaining wall, we request that 

construction activities be limited to 8am-5pm. Furthermore, we 

request that train horns do not sound in the evening.

• Consolidate staging: We request that no equipment be staged on 

the 300 block of E 26th St. We further request that any public 

space that is used for staging or use of construction equipment be 

restricted to 50 feet within either end of the Guilford Street Bridge, 

to preserve neighborhood parking and reduce impact of other 

environmental consequences. Additionally, we request that staging 

and road closure duration be limited to the time absolutely 

necessary and the space only be used for construction happening 

in the immediate surrounding area.

• Ensure access to the 300 block of E 26th St from Guilford Ave. 

We request that any equipment staging or other construction 

related activities do not result in blocking access to the 300 block 

of E 26th St from Guilford Ave.

• Alternative parking for CSX workers. We request that CSX work 

with the City and Department of Transport to provide parking for 

Comment acknowledged. The future planned 26th Street Park 

will not be used for Project staging or laydown areas. Please see 

responses to comments 16c and 16e related to minimization of 

impacts to surrounding communities during construction of the 

HST Project, and ongoing public outreach efforts. 
A-58 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

CSX project workers so that they are not competing with residents 

for parking spaces on Guilford Ave and E 26th St.

Ibid. 19c 2. Provide a multi-modal (wheelchair, pedestrian, and bike) path 

along the Guilford Avenue Bridge for resident use during 

construction:

• Wheelchair: Federal ADA regulations indicate the need for 

wheelchair access.

• Pedestrian and bike: The Baltimore City Complete Streets manual 

Page 183 indicates that during construction, DOT is required to 

"apply modal hierarchy to maintenance of traffic plan" during the 

construction phase of "bridge construction/reconstruction" 

projects. This bridge is part of a designated Bike Boulevard and is a 

low-stress pedestrian and wheelchair path leading to Margaret

Brent Elementary/Middle School.

The Guilford Avenue Bridge will be closed to pedestrian traffic 

during construction. CSX will work with Baltimore City DOT to 

obtain an approved detour plan, which will include ADA 

accessible pedestrian and bike access.
A-59 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 19d 3. Remove the 26th Street Park as a possible staging area for 

construction equipment (as proposed in Section 4.9.2 of the CSX 

Environmental Assessment).

• Undue burden: Residents have already sustained months of 

displacement and construction following the 2014 and 2018 wall 

collapses. Community leaders organized around the second street 

collapse to advocate for the creation of a park in alignment with a 

community vision for the 26th Street Corridor.

• Park as public good: Residents have diligently worked with 

Baltimore City DOT and others to secure funding and support for 

the space and request that the project not be delayed or otherwise 

impacted by the Guilford Bridge replacement project.

• Misrepresented intentions: At a Charles Village Civic Association 

on May 27, 2020, CSX representative Brian Hammock explicitly 

stated that the 26th Street Park would not be used as a staging 

area for this project.

Comment acknowledged. The planned 26th Street Park will not 

be used for Project staging or laydown areas. 

CSX will attempt to minimize impacts during construction to 

areas owned and/or controlled by the Company. CSX will also 

work to limit community disruption and coordinate with the 

neighboring communities both before and during construction

as needed. Construction work associated with the HST Project 

will be performed in accordance with applicable air quality laws 

and regulations. With respect to night-time work, CSX will make 

diligent efforts to avoid nighttime work, but may need to 

conduct work during nighttime hours. CSX will follow applicable 

local noise ordinances.
A-60 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 19e 4. Improve space that is disturbed during construction to a state 

that is better serves the community:

• Southeast corner of 26th St. and Guilford. Community members 

have leveraged local funding and volunteer efforts to green and 

beautify the space in the southeast corner and request that any 

damage to grass or trees be repaired when construction is 

completed.

• Standing water. Standing water in and around the railroad tracks 

at Guilford Avenue continues to be a source of problematic 

mosquito breeding. We request the source of this standing water 

be eliminated following the completion of construction.

• Fencing and landscaping. Following completion of the new 

bridge, we request that existing fencing be replaced and 

landscaping be improved.

If the project disturbs the vegetated area at the southeast 

corner of 26th St. and Guilford, the project will revegetate the 

area to a like condition prior to the disturbance as possible 

based on the final project design and consistent with City DOT 

requirements. 

The EA did consider the issue of storm water management and 

drainage (See Sections 3.1.2 and 4.2.2 of the EA) and drainage 

improvements are planned in this area as part of the project. 
A-61 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 19f 5. Engage in regular communication with the 300 of E 26th 

residents about the status of the project and any community 

concerns.

• Monthly updates: We request a monthly written update sent via 

email to Meredith McHugh: meredeth.mchugh@gmail.com who 

will further update all other 300 block residents. 

• Available Liason: We request a point-person be identified to 

respond to any time-sensitive community concerns within 72 

hours. 

CSX intends to provide relevant updates to the communities 

within the Project Area. CSX will continue to work with City 

representatives, the City DOT, and community leaders to 

identify representatives to disseminate information regarding 

the Project both before and during construction. Additionally, 

information regarding construction start dates and timeframes 

will be provided via mailings to adjacent landowners, and 

signage posted at the Project Area sites. CSX will provide 

contact information on informational project materials for the 

public to utilize if there are questions or concerns that arise 

during construction of the HST Project.
A-62 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Maryland 

Department of 

Planning, 

4/20/2021

20a In accordance with Presidential Executive Order 12372 and Code of 

Maryland Regulation 34.02.01.04-.06, the State Clearinghouse has 

coordinated the intergovernmental review of the referenced 

project. This letter constitutes the State process review and 

recommendation. This recommendation is valid for a period of 

three years from the date of this letter.

Review comments were requested from the Maryland 

Department(s) of Natural Resources, the Environment; Baltimore 

City; and the Maryland Department of Planning, including the 

Maryland Historical Trust. The Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources did not have comments.

Baltimore City and the Maryland Department of Planning found 

this project to be consistent with their plans, programs, and 

objectives. 

The Maryland Department of Planning stated that the Howard 

Street Tunnel Project (the Project) is a major capital project as 

defined in §2-103.1(a)(4) and will be funded partially by the State 

of Maryland; therefore, the Project is subject to the compliance 

review under with the Priority Funding Areas (PFA) Law, codified in 

§5– 7B of the State Finance and Procurement Article of the 

Annotated Code of Maryland. Since the Maryland portion of the 

Project is located inside PFAs, the Project complies with the PFA 

Law. The Howard Street Tunnel Project is also subject to the 

consistency review under the State Economic Growth, Resource 

Protection, and Planning Policy (the State Planning Policy), also 

known as Maryland’s Twelve Planning Visions, codified in §5–7A of 

the State Finance and Procurement Article. The Maryland 

Department of Planning views this Project consistent with the 

State Planning Policy since the project will result in transportation, 

economic, and environmental benefits to the Baltimore region and 

the State. 

[additional project summary not included]

Thank you for your response. Comment acknowledged. 
A-63 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 20b The Local Assistance and Training Division of the Maryland 

Department of Planning (Planning) supports the review and 

findings of the Infrastructure and Development Division of 

Planning.

The Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) found this 

project to be generally consistent with their plans, programs, and 

objectives, but included certain qualifying comments summarized 

below:

1. If the applicant suspects that asbestos is present in any portion 

of the structure that will be renovated/demolished, then the 

applicant should contact the Community Environmental Services 

Program at (410) 537-3215 to learn about the State's 

requirements.

Comment acknowledged.

All work will be conducted in accordance with applicable 

federal, state and local laws and regulations. 

Ibid. 20c 2. Construction, renovation and/or demolition of buildings and 

roadways must be performed in conformance with State 

regulations pertaining to "Particulate Matter from Materials 

Handling and Construction" requiring that during any construction 

and/or demolition work, reasonable precaution must be taken to 

prevent particulate matter, such as fugitive dust, from becoming 

airborne.

Comment acknowledged. 

All work will be conducted in accordance with applicable 

federal, state and local laws and regulations.
A-64 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 20d 3. If a project receives federal funding, approvals and/or permits, 

and will be located in a nonattainment area or maintenance area 

for ozone or carbon monoxide, the applicant needs to determine 

whether emissions from the project will exceed the thresholds 

identified in the federal rule on general conformity. If the project 

emissions will be greater than 25 tons per year, contact Brian Hug 

at (410) 537-4125 for further information regarding threshold 

limits. During the duration of the project, soil 

excavation/grading/site work will be performed; there is a 

potential for encountering soil contamination. If soil contamination 

is present, a permit for soil remediation is required from MDE. 

Please contact the New Source Permits Division at (410) 537-3230 

to learn about the State's requirements.

Comment acknowledged. 

A quantitative analysis to satisfy the general conformity 

requirements was conducted and is provided in Appendix E to 

the FONSI. The calculated-estimated Project construction 

emissions in federally designated nonattainment or 

maintenance areas are well below the corresponding general 

conformity applicability thresholds. Therefore, pursuant to 40 

CFR Part 93.153(c)(1), General Conformity requirements do not

apply to the Project and a General Conformity Determination is 

not required.

All work will be conducted in accordance with applicable 

federal, state and local laws and regulations.

Ibid. 20e 4. Any solid waste including construction, demolition and land 

clearing debris, generated from the subject project, must be 

properly disposed of at a permitted solid waste acceptance facility, 

or recycled if possible. Contact the Solid Waste Program at (410) 

537-3315 for additional information regarding solid waste activities 

and contact the Waste Diversion and Utilization Program at (410) 

537-3314 for additional information regarding recycling activities.

Comment acknowledged. 

All work will be conducted in accordance with applicable 

federal, state and local laws and regulations.

Ibid. 20f 5. The Waste Diversion and Utilization Program should be 

contacted directly at (410) 537-3314 by those facilities which 

generate or propose to generate or handle hazardous wastes to 

ensure these activities are being conducted in compliance with 

applicable State and federal laws and regulations. The Program 

should also be contacted prior to construction activities to ensure 

that the treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous wastes and 

low-level radioactive wastes at the facility will be conducted in 

compliance with applicable State and federal laws and regulations.

Comment acknowledged. 

All work will be conducted in accordance with applicable 

federal, state and local laws and regulations.
A-65 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Commenter No. Comment Response

Ibid. 20g 6. The proposed project may involve rehabilitation, 

redevelopment, revitalization, or property acquisition of 

commercial, industrial property. For specific information about 

these programs and eligibility, please contact the Land Restoration 

Program at (410) 537-3437.

Comment acknowledged. 

All work will be conducted in accordance with applicable 

federal, state and local laws and regulations.

Ibid. 20h 7. Borrow areas used to provide clean earth back fill material may 

require a surface mine permit. Disposal of excess cut material at a 

surface mine may requires site approval. Contact the Mining 

Program at (410) 537-3557 for further details.

Comment acknowledged. 

All work will be conducted in accordance with applicable 

federal, state and local laws and regulations.
B-1 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Appendix B: Errata to the EA 
B-2 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Appendix B- Errata to the EA

This Errata contains additions or changes to the Draft EA to revise, clarify, or make corrections to the 

text based on updated Project information. These changes are a result of public comments or changes 

to the Project design, and are provided below with reference to the page numbers of the original text in 

the Draft EA. Deleted text is identified with strikethrough (strikethrough) and new or revised text 

appears in red italics (italics). Where applicable, the entire paragraph from the Draft EA has been 

included to provide context for the changes.

There are four five master plans applicable to the Project Areas in Maryland. 2 These plans are Live, Earn, 

Play, Learn (adopted 2006, revised 2009), 3 South Baltimore Gateway Master Plan (2015),4 and Urban 

Renewal Plan: Charles/25th (2002),

5

and the Market Center Urban Renewal Plan.6

2 Includes plans developed since 2000. 3 Baltimore City Planning Department. 2009. Live, Earn, Play, Learn: City of Baltimore Comprehensive Master Plan 

2007-2012. https://planning.baltimorecity.gov/planning-master-plan. Accessed July 3, 2020. 4 Baltimore City Department of Planning Department. October 29, 2015. South Baltimore Gateway Master Plan. 

https://planning.baltimorecity.gov/planning-plans/neighborhood. Accessed July 3, 2020. 5 Baltimore City Department of Planning Department. 2002. Urban Renewal Plan: Charles/25th. 

https://planning.baltimorecity.gov/planning-plans/neighborhood. Accessed July 3, 2020. 6 Baltimore City Department of Planning Department. November 16, 1977. Market Center. 

https://planning.baltimorecity.gov/sites/default/files/Market%20Center%20URP.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2021. 

1. General Comment: applies to entirety of the EA: CSX has determined the conventional 

construction method will be used for the HST improvements. The non-conventional method 

(option two) is no longer being considered. 

2. 3.1.9 – Land Use and Community Facilities, EA Page 3-14.
B-3 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Affected Environment Resources* Anticipated Direct Impacts – Build Alternative

Air Quality Minor and temporary impacts due to construction activities.

Long-term net benefit due to decrease of vehicle emissions from 

freight volume transferring from highways to rail system. 

Water Quality None; minor and temporary impacts due to construction 

activities may occur. 

Noise and Vibration Operational: None

Construction: Minor and temporary impacts due to construction 

activities may occur. Impacts are to be determined once means 

and methods of construction are final.

Wetland Areas Potential temporary and minor impact to waterway during

construction.

Floodplains None

Endangered Species or Wildlife None / “No Effect”

Use of Energy Resources Minor impacts due to construction activities.

Aesthetic and Design Quality 

Impacts

Minor impacts due to structure modifications and replacements. 

Land Use and Community Facilities Potential temporary and minor impact to the proposed/future 

26th Street Park at the Guilford Avenue Project Area. None 

Socioeconomic Environment Short-term positive impacts to employment and income from 

construction activity.

Fuel and cost savings related to freight shipping.

Reduced truck vehicle miles traveled and reduced vehicle 

fatalities.

Minor and temporary impacts due to traffic disruption 

associated with bridge replacement activities and potential HST 

non-conventional construction method.

3. 4.0 Environmental Consequences, EA Page 4-1. The proposed 26th Street Park in Baltimore will 

not be used for staging, stockpiling or laydown of construction equipment during the 

construction of the Project Table 4-1. Anticipated Direct Impacts to Affected Environment 

Resources for the Build Alternative
B-4 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Minor changes to land use within the CSX ROW will occur at three two Project Areas as summarized 

below. 

• The Bayview Rail Yard in Baltimore is proposed for the staging and storage of Project materials; 

however, no improvements to the rail yard are proposed for the Project.

• The 58th Street interlocking site in Pennsylvania will be relocated to an area between Lindbergh 

Boulevard and the Schuylkill River within the existing rail corridor. No change to land use will 

occur.

• The property that the community supports for use as 26th Street Park in Baltimore will be 

required for the staging, stockpiling, and laydown of construction equipment during the 

replacement of the Guilford Avenue Bridge. MDOT MPA and CSX have coordinated with the 

Baltimore City Department of Transportation (BCDOT) regarding the timing for park development 

and temporary construction-period impacts to the property. No permanent impacts would occur 

at the site, and the temporary construction activities would not interfere with any potential future 

park improvements.

• March 12, 2021

o Stakeholder: Baltimore City Council President Nick Mosby

o Topics Covered: Project overview, EA findings, public comment period, next steps

• March 24, 2021

o Stakeholder: Dredged Material Management Plan Management Committee

o Topics Covered: Project overview, EA findings, public comment period, next steps

• March 26, 2021

o Stakeholder: Maryland Transit Administration

o Topics Covered: EA public comment period, HST construction options, future 

coordination

• April 7, 2021

o Stakeholder: Maryland District 40 Elected Officials

o Topics Covered: Project overview, EA findings, public comment period, next steps

• April 12, 2021

4. Section 4.9.2 – Build Alternative, EA Page 4-10. The proposed 26th Street Park in Baltimore will 

not be used for staging, stockpiling or laydown of construction equipment during the 

construction of the Project:

5. Additional stakeholder outreach meetings held since the EA was made available for public 

review. Section 5.1 - Public and Agency Coordination, EA Page 5-2.
B-5 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

o Stakeholder: Midtown Community Benefits District, Baltimore City Councilman Robert 

Stokes, Sr.

o Topics Covered: Project overview, EA findings, public comment period, next steps

• April 13, 2021

o Stakeholder: Charles Village Civic Association, Friends of 26th Street Corridor, 

Baltimore City Department of Transportation, Baltimore City Councilman Robert Stokes, 

Sr.

o Topics Covered: EA public comment period, future 26th Street Park, potential 

construction impacts, future coordination, next steps

6. Updated text in response to comment made by the Environmental Protection Agency on 

4/2/2021: Section 3.1 - Affected Environment - Air Quality (starts on Page 3-2, Page 29 of the 

EA PDF) EPA recommends that "Table 3-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)" 

include the years for each individual standard; some of these are referenced in the footnotes, 

but not all. Including the NAAQS year is important to distinguish the stringency of the standard.
B-6 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Table 3-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

Pollutant Primary/Secondary Averaging Time Level

Carbon Monoxide 

(CO)a

Primary (1971) 8-hour 9 ppm

[76 FR 54294

Aug 31, 2011]

Primary (1971) 1-hour 35 ppm

Lead (Pb)b

[81 FR 71906

Oct 18, 2016]

Primary and Secondary

(2008)

Rolling 3-month 

average

0.15 μg/m3

Nitrogen Dioxide 

(NO2)

c

Primary (2010) 1-hour 100 ppb

[83 FR 17226

April 18, 2018]

Primary and Secondary

(1971)

Annual 53 ppbd

Ozone (O3)

e

[80 FR 65292

Oct 26, 2015]

Primary and Secondary

(2015)

8-hour 0.070 ppmf

PM2.5g

[78 FR 3085 

Jan 15, 2013]

Primary (2012) Annual 12 μg/m3

Secondary (2012) Annual 15 μg/m3

Primary and Secondary

(2006)

24-hour 35 μg/m3

PM10

h

[78 FR 3085 

Jan 15, 2013]

Primary and Secondary

(1987)

24-hour 150 μg/m3

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

i

[84 FR 9866 March 18, 

2019]

Primary (2010) 1-hour 75 ppbj

Secondary (1971) 3-hour 0.5 ppm

Source: EPA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 2020, http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. 

Notes: ppb = parts per billion, ppm = parts per million, and μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter of air. a CO 1-hour and 8-hour standard not to be exceeded more than once per year.

b Lead rolling 3-month average standard not to be exceeded. Final rule signed October 15, 2008. The 1978 lead 

standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 

standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978, the 1978 standard remains in effect until 

implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.

c NO2 1-hour standard represents the 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over three 

years.

d The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm, equal to 53 ppb, which is presented for the purpose of 

clearer comparison to the 1-hour standard. e Ozone 8-hour standard represents the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hr concentration, averaged over 3 

years.
B-7 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

f Final rule signed October 1, 2015, and effective December 28, 2015. The previous (2008) O3 standards additionally 

remain in effect in some areas. Revocation of the previous (2008) O3 standards and transitioning to the current (2015) 

standards will be addressed in the implementation rule for the current standards.

g PM2.5 annual standards represent annual mean, averaged over three years. PM2.5 24-hour standard represents 98th 

percentile, averaged over three years. h PM10 24-hour standard not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over three years. i SO2 1-hour standard represents 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over three years. 

SO2 3-hour standard not to be exceeded more than once per year.

j The previous SO2 standards (0.14 ppm 24-hour and 0.03 ppm annual) will additionally remain in effect in certain 

areas: (1) any area for which it is not yet 1 year since the effective date of designation under the current (2010) 

standards, and (2)any area for which an implementation plan providing for attainment of the current (2010) standard 

has not been submitted and approved and which is designated nonattainment under the previous SO2 standards or is 

not meeting the requirements of a SIP call under the previous SO2 standards (40 CFR 50.4(3)).

The CAA requires states to develop a general plan to attain and/or maintain the primary and 

secondary NAAQS in all areas of the country and to develop a specific plan to attain the standards 

for each area designated nonattainment for a NAAQS. The attainment classifications for each of the 

EPA-designated areas7 in the Study Area 8 are provided in Table 3-1a:

7 EPA, Green Book, https://www.epa.gov/green-book. 

8 The state of dispersion science and health effects of GHG emissions have not sufficiently advanced to accurately 

consider the microscale level of mobile sources. For this reason, this analysis does not determine a Local Study 

Area for GHG emissions for mobile sources and only considered them on a regional scale. GHG emissions from the 

Project would be due to fossil fuel combustion of vehicles, diesel trains, potential change in GHG emissions from 

implementation of the project is calculated for the same sources and categories as identified for the analysis of 

local operational emissions.

7. Updated text in response to comment made by the Environmental Protection Agency on 

4/2/2021: We recommend putting the bulleted list of attainment classifications on Page 3-4 

(Page 31 of the EA PDF) into a table and referencing the attainment status of these areas relative 

to different years attainment/maintenance status of these different rules could have 

implications for the 20-yearmaintenance timelines and resulting General Conformity and 

Transportation Conformity requirements. Having this information in table format would also 

make it easier to read.
B-8 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Table 3-1a. Attainment Classifications

Air Quality Region County Nonattainment 

Pollutant Maintenance Pollutant

Baltimore, MD Baltimore City, MD

2015 Ozone –

Marginal 

Nonattainment

1971 CO – Partial Maintenance

1997 PM-2.5 – Maintenancea

PhiladelphiaWilmington-Atlantic 

City, PA-NJ-MD-DE

New Castle, MD

2015 Ozone – 

Marginal 

Nonattainment

2006 PM-2.5 - Maintenance

Delaware, PA 2006 and 2012 PM-2.5 – Maintenance

Philadelphia, PA 2006 PM-2.5 - Maintenance

Notes: 

a 1997 PM-2.5 standard was revoked, and transportation conformity requirements no longer apply. 

(https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-10/documents/420b16072.pdf)

8. Updated text in response to comment made by the Environmental Protection Agency on 

4/2/2021: For "Table 3-2. Regional Background Air Quality Concentrations, 2017-2019", we 

recommend moving the columns so that the NAAQS value and measured ambient air quality 

value are adjacent to one another for easier comparison. 

9. Updated text in response to comment made by the Environmental Protection Agency on 

4/2/2021: Section 2.2.3 - Regional Assessment of the Build Alternative (Page 11 of the 

Appendix C PDF) This section states that double-stacking container cars will increase shipping 

capacity without the need to run additional trains or locomotives, and thus operational 

emissions of the Build Alternative will be unchanged (Table 5, Page 11). We recommend a 

comparison of projected emissions between double-stacked and single-stacked trains. While it 

is logical that double-stacked cars would not require additional trains or locomotives, it would 

be helpful to address fuel use in trains running double-stacked cars as compared to trains 

running single-stacked cars. Would fuel use increase as trains with double-stacked cars are 

moving more mass?
B-9 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Table 3-2. Regional Background Air Quality Concentrations, 2017-2019 

Pollutant Units Averaging 

Period NAAQS Background Concentration

Monitoring 

Location

CO ppm 8-hour 9 2 Essex, MD

CO ppm 1-hour 35 2.7 Essex, MD

Pb μ/m3 3-month 0.15 0.025 Wilmington, DE

NO2 ppb 1-hour 100 47.8 Old Town, MD

NO2 ppb Annual 53 15.65 Old Town, MD

O3 ppm 8-hour 0.070

0.076

(exceeds 

NAAQS)

Farley, MD

PM2.5 μ/m3 Annual 12 8.76 Old Town, MD

PM2.5 μ/m3 24-hour 35 19.66 Old Town, MD

PM10 μ/m3 24-hour 150 53 Old Town, MD

SO2 ppb 1-hour 75 12.01 Essex, MD

Source: US Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality System Data Mart [internet database] available via 

https://www.epa.gov/airdata. Accessed June 23, 2020.

Note: (ppm) – parts per million; (ppb) parts per billion; (μ/m3

) micrograms per meter cubed

The intent of the Project is not to change the current mix nor volume of freight being transported along 

the corridor. Instead, it will enable the same amount of freight currently being carried on intermodal 

trains to be moved in a more efficient manner using fewer cars, which allows for more efficient freight 

movement.

Table 5: Existing and Future Predicted Train Volumes

Direction

Existing Future Predicted

Total 

Traffic Per 

Day

Typical Train Make Up Total 

Traffic Per 

Day

Typical Train Make Up

Locomotives Cars Locomotives Cars

Northbound 9.2 3 65.5 9.2 3 65.5

Southbound 9.5 3 65.5 9.5 3 65.5

Notes:

a This table represents average of all trains (Bulk materials/merchandise and Intermodal) moving along the corridor. b It is not the intent of the Project to accommodate additional freight, but the same amount of freight in a more efficient manner by 

transporting the freight on fewer cars which allows for more efficient train movement. 

Source: CSX, Dir Performance Measurements

Double-stacking containers will result in increased fuel efficiency over current train operations. The fuel 

savings results from the fact that the same number of containers can be transported on substantially 
B-10 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

fewer rail cars. This results in less rolling resistance due to the overall lower tare weight of the train. CSX 

estimates that due to the fewer number of rail cars needed to carry the double-stacked containers, fuel 

consumption will be reduced by approximately 7.5% (see figure below). The fuel efficiency improves with 

increases in freight tonnage as there is less rolling resistance per ton of freight for double-stack 

compared to single stack container trains.

10. Supplemental Environmental Justice Analysis has been provided (See Appendix D) in response 

to comment made by the Environmental Protection Agency on 4/2/2021: Environmental 

Justice (EJ) - The EA identified minority and low-income populations that may be EJ

communities by census tract at a number of study areas, including the Baltimore Project site 

Study Areas; at Clifton Avenue, Boone Tunnel, 68th Street, 65th Street, Cemetery Street, 61st 

Street, Woodland Avenue, 58th Street, and Eastwick Interlocking in Pennsylvania; and 

Lancaster Avenue and 4th Street Study Areas in Delaware. EPA recommends using the census 

block group for the assessment of potential EJ communities as it is the most refined 

geographical unit for which the Census Bureau publishes data.
B-11 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

11. Supplemental General Conformity Applicability Analysis has been provided (See Appendix E) 

in response to comment made by the Environmental Protection Agency on 4/2/2021: This 

section asserts that "the Build Alternative would not cause or contribute to any new violation 

of any NAAQS or increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any NAAQS in 

the region and does not require a General Conformity determination" on Page 4-3 (Page 52 of 

the EA PDF). We recommend providing supporting evidence, analysis, or documentation that 

satisfies general conformity requirements; the qualitative analysis referenced in this section 

and described in Appendix C does not sufficiently address this requirement. 
C-1 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Appendix C: Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 1 of 31 

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

Among the 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, 

MARYLAND STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, 

PENNSYLVANIA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, 

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PORT ADMINISTRATION, 

and

CSX TRANSPORTATION

Regarding the 

HOWARD STREET TUNNEL PROJECT

BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND

and

DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

WHEREAS, the Howard Street Tunnel Project (HST Project) consists of the rehabilitation 

or replacement of six existing railroad tunnels and bridges along the CSX Transportation (CSX) 

I-95 Rail Corridor between Baltimore City, Maryland, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which is 

the last major intermodal rail-freight corridor on the CSX network that does not provide modern 

double-stack service due to various height-clearance obstructions located in Maryland, Delaware, 

and Pennsylvania (Exhibit 1: HST Project Location Map and Area of Potential Effects Maps); and

WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) selected the Maryland 

Department of Transportation Maryland Port Administration (MDOT MPA) to receive a grant 

under its Fiscal Year 2019 Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) program for final 

design and construction of the HST Project, for which additional funding sources will also be used; 

and

WHEREAS, CSX is the Project Sponsor and is carrying out the HST Project, and the 

USDOT’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is administering the INFRA grant; and

WHEREAS CSX owns and operates the I-95 Rail Corridor, including its tunnels, bridges, 

culverts, other infrastructure, and the right-of-way associated with the rail corridor, and is 

responsible for managing and designing the HST Project, including carrying out the preliminary 

engineering, final design, and construction; and 

WHEREAS, the HST Project is an “Undertaking” pursuant to Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (54 USC Part 306108) (NHPA), as amended, and its 

implementing regulations at 36 CFR Part 800 (hereinafter collectively referred to as Section 106); 

and

WHEREAS, FRA is the federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 for 

the Undertaking; and 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 2 of 31 

WHEREAS, FRA is the lead federal agency for the HST Project under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC § 4321 et seq.) and is preparing an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) to satisfy its NEPA obligations. Pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.8, FRA has 

coordinated Section 106 compliance with the NEPA process; and 

WHEREAS, based on the level of HST Project design provided by CSX as of the date of 

execution of this MOA, FRA determined a number of project activities are exempt from Section 

106 review under the Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties 

Within Rail Rights-of-Way issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (the ACHP)

on August 17, 2018 (83 FR 42920, August 24, 2018, and amended 84 FR 31075, June 28, 2019); 

and

WHEREAS, in letters dated April 24, 2020, FRA initiated consultation with the Maryland 

Historical Trust (MHT), the Delaware Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs (DHCA), and 

the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC), which respectively serve as the 

State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) for their respective states (MD SHPO, DE SHPO, 

and PA SHPO), pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.3(c) and established the preliminary discontiguous Area 

of Potential Effects (APE) for historic architecture and archaeology (36 CFR § 800.4(a)(1)), which 

was expanded in November 2020 to include additional locations (Exhibit 1: HST Project Location 

Map and Area of Potential Effects Maps); and

WHEREAS, proposed construction activities at the Howard Street Tunnel location 

involve a combination of track lowering and modification to the tunnel arch and/or invert; and

WHEREAS, proposed construction activities at the Boone Tunnel location involve a 

combination of track lowering and arch modification; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.3(f)(2), in a letter dated June 4, 2020, FRA invited 

the following federally recognized Indian tribes (herein collectively referred to as “Tribes”) to 

participate in the Section 106 process as Consulting Parties: 1) the Catawba Indian Nation, 2) the 

Delaware Nation, 3) the Delaware Tribe of Indians, 4) the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, 

and 5) the Seneca-Cayuga Nation; and

WHEREAS, three Tribes responded with the following: 1) on July 7, 2020, the Catawba 

Indian Nation indicated they have no immediate concerns with regard to traditional cultural 

properties, sacred sites, or Native American archaeological sites within the boundaries of the 

proposed project areas, however, they requested to be notified if Native American artifacts and/or 

human remains are discovered during the HST Project’s ground disturbing activities; 2) on June 

23, 2020, the Delaware Nation accepted the invitation to participate in consultation; and 3) on June 

8, 2020, the Delaware Tribe of Indians accepted the invitation to participate in consultation with a 

request for locational information about exempted activities where ground disturbing activities are 

expected; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.3(f)(1), in a letter dated June 4, 2020, FRA invited 

1) the B&O Railroad Museum; 2) the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Historical Society; 3) the 

Baltimore City, Maryland, Commission for Historical and Architectural Preservation; 4) Baltimore 

Heritage; 5) the Baltimore Heritage Area Association; 6) the City of Wilmington, Delaware 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 3 of 31 

Department of Planning and Development; 7) the Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Historical 

Society; 8) the Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Planning Department, Heritage Commission; 9) 

the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT); 10) the Maryland Institute College of Art; 

11) the New Castle County, Delaware, Department of Land Use, Development and Planning; 12) 

the New Castle, Delaware, Historical Society; 13) the Preservation Alliance for Greater 

Philadelphia; 14) Preservation Delaware; 15) Preservation Maryland; 16) Preservation 

Pennsylvania; 17) the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania; and 18) the U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service (NPS), Northeast Region to consult in the Section 106 process 

regarding the effects of the HST Project on historic properties, and has afforded the public-at-large 

an opportunity to comment through the concurrent NEPA public involvement process; and 

WHEREAS, per comments received from DE SHPO, FRA invited, in a letter dated 

January 14, 2021, two state-recognized Indian tribes as Consulting Parties, the Lenape Indian Tribe 

of Delaware and the Nanticoke Indian Tribe; and re-invited DelDOT and the City of Wilmington, 

Delaware Department of Planning and Development, who had not responded to FRA’s initial 

invitation; and

WHEREAS, the following parties accepted the invitation to be a Consulting Party: 1) 

Preservation Maryland accepted on June 5, 2020; 2) Baltimore Heritage accepted on June 8, 2020; 

3) the Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Planning Department accepted on June 8, 2020; 4) the City 

of Wilmington, Delaware Department of Planning and Development accepted on January 14, 

2021; and 5) DelDOT accepted on February 9, 2021; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.4 and 800.5, CSX consultants, who meet the 

relevant standards outlined in the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI’s) Professional Qualifications 

Standards for Archeology and Historic Preservation (36 CFR Part 61), conducted identification 

and effects assessment technical studies for both historic architecture and archaeology within the 

HST Project area, which included a revised APE to reflect design changes, and are documented in 

Howard Street Tunnel Project: Architectural Historic Properties Identification and Effects 

Assessment Technical Report (January 2021) and Howard Street Tunnel Project: Phase IA

Archaeological Assessment Technical Report (January 2021); and

WHEREAS, based on the information in the reports, FRA identified a total of twenty-two

architectural historic properties in the APE that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and all located in Maryland and Pennsylvania; and 

WHEREAS, FRA determined, in consultation with MD SHPO, DE SHPO, PA SHPO and 

the other Consulting Parties, that the HST Project will have an adverse effect on the following 

seven architectural historic properties, listed in order from south to north: 

• Howard Street Tunnel & Power House (B-79) (Power House element is no longer extant) 

in Maryland, due to physical destruction and alteration of character-defining features of the 

tunnel 

• Baltimore and Ohio (B&O) Railroad Baltimore Belt Line (B-5287) in Maryland, due to 

extensive alterations or complete replacement of multiple contributing elements

• Cannon Shoe Company (B-5332) in Maryland, due to construction vibration 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 4 of 31 

• North Avenue Bridge (BC1208) (B-4521) in Maryland, due to physical destruction to a 

character-defining portion of the resource 

• Guilford Avenue Bridge (BC8029) (B-4526) in Maryland, due to complete physical 

destruction of the resource 

• Harford Road Bridge (BC8026) (B-4523) in Maryland, due to complete physical 

destruction of the resource 

• Boone Tunnel (1997RE00650 [previously 106212]) in Pennsylvania, due to physical 

destruction and alteration of character-defining features of the tunnel; and 

WHEREAS, the Howard Street Tunnel Project: Architectural Historic Properties 

Identification and Effects Assessment Technical Report (January 2021) used the Draft Howard 

Street Tunnel Noise and Vibration Assessment Technical Report (Yuan 2020), which was based 

on worst-case scenarios, and determined that the Build Alternative may have an adverse effect on 

one historic property, the Cannon Shoe Company (B-5332), due to construction vibration; and

WHEREAS, based on investigations of the archaeological APE conducted by CSX’s SOIqualified cultural resources consultants, and documented in the Howard Street Tunnel Project, 

Phase IA Archaeological Assessment Technical Report, City of Baltimore, Maryland; Wilmington, 

Delaware; and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (January 2021), FRA has concluded that the 

HST Project has limited potential to affect significant pre-contact or historic archaeological 

properties, therefore no additional archaeological investigations are recommended; and 

WHEREAS, MD SHPO and PA SHPO concurred with FRA’s identification of historic 

properties and effects findings in letters dated December 2, 2020 and February 18, 2021; and 

December 7, 2020, February 9, 2021, and February 12, 2021, respectively; and

WHEREAS, DE SHPO stated no objection to FRA’s finding that the one architectural 

resource evaluated in Delaware within the APE is not eligible for NRHP listing, and concurred 

that there is little potential for intact archaeological resources and no further archaeological work 

is needed in Delaware if construction, staging, stockpiling, and access to the project locations in 

the state will be confined to the existing railroad right-of-way, in a letter dated January 6, 2021; 

and

WHEREAS, in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.10(c), FRA notified NPS that the Project 

would have no adverse effect on the one National Historic Landmark identified within the APE, 

namely the Mount Royal Station, by letter dated March 31, 2021, and NPS, by email dated April 

21, 2021, concurred with FRA’s finding and did not indicate an intent to participate in consultation; 

and

WHEREAS, FRA determined that a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), prepared in 

accordance with the Section 106 regulations (36 CFR § 800.6(c)), is appropriate to resolve the 

potential adverse effects on historic properties that may occur from the implementation of the HST 

Project because the nature and extent of effects to historic properties are known at this stage of 

HST Project design, except for certain potential construction noise and vibration effects. CSX has 

minimized adverse effects to the Howard Street Tunnel in Maryland and the Boone Tunnel in 

Pennsylvania by selecting less impactful construction methods at those locations; and
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 5 of 31 

WHEREAS, MD SHPO and PA SHPO are Signatories to this MOA because the HST 

Project will have adverse effects in Maryland and Pennsylvania; and 

WHEREAS, DE SHPO is not a Signatory to this MOA because the HST Project will not 

affect historic properties in the Delaware portion of the APE; and 

WHEREAS, FRA has invited CSX, as the HST Project Sponsor, designer, owner, and 

operator of the I-95 Rail Corridor, to participate in this MOA as an Invited Signatory with 

responsibilities under this MOA, and CSX has accepted; and

WHEREAS, FRA has invited MDOT MPA, as the grantee, to participate in this MOA as 

an Invited Signatory with responsibilities under this MOA, and MDOT MPA has accepted; and

WHEREAS, FRA has invited all other Consulting Parties, including DE SHPO, to be 

Concurring Parties under this MOA, and these Consulting Parties may accept the invitation to 

become a Concurring Party by signing this MOA; and

WHEREAS, fulfillment of this MOA satisfies the responsibilities of any Maryland state 

agency under the requirements of the Maryland Historical Trust Act of 1985, as amended, State 

Finance and Procurement Article §§ 5A-325 and 5A-326 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, for 

any components of the Project that require licensing, permitting, and/or funding actions from 

Maryland state agencies; and

WHEREAS, fulfillment of this MOA satisfies the responsibilities of any Pennsylvania 

state agency under the requirements of the Pennsylvania History Code, as amended, for any 

components of the HST Project within the APE that require licensing, permitting, and/or funding 

actions from Pennsylvania state agencies; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.6(a)(1), FRA has notified the ACHP of its 

adverse effect finding and intention to enter into an MOA with specified documentation by letter 

dated April 2, 2021, and the ACHP, by letter dated April 9, 2021, declined to participate in 

consultation, pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.6(a)(1)(iii); and 

NOW, THEREFORE, FRA, MD SHPO and PA SHPO as Signatories, and CSX and 

MDOT MPA as Invited Signatories (together the Signatories) agree the HST Project will be 

implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into account the effects 

of this undertaking on historic properties. 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 6 of 31 

STIPULATIONS

I. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

A. FRA

1. FRA, as a Signatory and the lead federal agency for the HST Project, has 

authority to execute, amend, and/or terminate this MOA. 

2. FRA has the primary responsibility to ensure the provisions of this MOA are 

carried out. 

3. FRA is responsible for all government-to-government consultation with Tribes.

B. MD SHPO and PA SHPO

1. MD SHPO and PA SHPO, as Signatories with responsibility for regulatory review 

and compliance under Section 106, have authority to execute, amend, and/or 

terminate this MOA. 

2. MD SHPO and PA SHPO will review, provide comment, and approve submittals, 

as specified in this MOA. 

C. CSX

1. CSX, as an Invited Signatory, has the same rights with regard to seeking 

amendment and/or termination of this MOA as other Signatories and will ensure 

that specified stipulations and procedures, for which it has assumed responsibility, 

are carried out in accordance with the terms stipulated in this MOA.

2. CSX, as the Project Sponsor, is responsible for implementation and funding of the 

stipulations of this MOA, consistent with paragraph D.2 below. 

3. As authorized by FRA, CSX will continue to coordinate and prepare any 

necessary analyses, documentation, and recommendations on its behalf, but FRA 

remains legally responsible for all findings and determinations, including 

determinations of eligibility and effects of the HST Project, as well as resolution 

of objections or dispute resolution. 

D. MDOT MPA

1. MDOT MPA, as an Invited Signatory, has the same rights with regard to seeking 

amendment and/or termination of this MOA as other Signatories and will ensure 

that specified stipulations and procedures, for which it has assumed responsibility, 

are carried out in accordance with the terms stipulated in this MOA. 

2. MDOT MPA will carry out certain responsibilities as indicated in Stipulation 

IV.D. of this MOA.
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 7 of 31 

E. Consulting Parties 

1. Consulting Parties include Tribes, local governments and/or organizations with a 

demonstrated interest in the HST Project who have participated in the 

development of this MOA, or who may later join in as Consulting Parties in the 

Section 106 process due to the nature of their legal or economic relationship to the 

HST Project or affected properties, or their interest in the HST Project’s effects on 

historic properties. 

2. Consulting Parties may participate in ongoing consultation, as stipulated by this 

MOA. 

F. Concurring Parties 

Concurring Parties may participate in ongoing consultation, as stipulated 

by this MOA, and in review of the mitigation products specified in Section 

IV of this MOA.

II. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AND DOCUMENTATION STANDARDS

A. CSX will ensure that all work carried out pursuant to this MOA will be done by or 

under the direct supervision of qualified professionals in the disciplines of 

Archaeology, Architectural History, and/or History who meet the relevant 

standards outlined in the SOI’s Professional Qualifications Standards for 

Archeology and Historic Preservation (36 CFR Part 61) 

(http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_9.htm).

B. All documentation prepared or performed pursuant to this MOA will be consistent 

with all pertinent federal and state standards and guidelines, including, but not 

limited to, those developed by NPS, the ACHP, MD SHPO, and PA SHPO

(Exhibit 2: List of Relevant Standards and Guidelines). 

III. TIMEFRAMES, COMMUNICATION AND DOCUMENT REVIEW

A. CSX will provide all documentation prepared pursuant to this MOA to FRA for 

review and approval before CSX submits to the other Signatories, Concurring 

Parties, and Consulting Parties. Concurrent review between parties and FRA is 

acceptable for subsequent drafts, at FRA’s discretion, and FRA approval is 

required prior to finalization.

B. All time designations are in calendar days. If a review period ends on a Saturday, 

Sunday or federal holiday, the review period will be extended until the next 

business day. 

C. All review periods start on the day the documents are provided to the relevant 

parties, which constitutes notification, unless otherwise stipulated in this MOA.
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 8 of 31 

D. CSX, in coordination with FRA, will send all notifications required by this MOA

by email and/or other electronic means, unless a mailed notification is requested 

by a recipient.

E. For purposes of communication pursuant to this MOA, contact information for 

each of the Signatories, and the Consulting and Concurring Parties, including the 

Tribes, is provided in Exhibit 3: List of Contacts. Names and contact information 

therein may be updated, as needed, without an amendment to this MOA. It is the 

responsibility of each Signatory, and Consulting and Concurring Party to inform 

FRA and CSX of any change in contact information in a timely manner. 

F. Unless otherwise stated elsewhere in this MOA, MD SHPO, PA SHPO, MDOT 

MPA, and the Consulting or Concurring Parties, as appropriate, will provide 

comments on documents prepared pursuant to this MOA to CSX with a copy to 

FRA.

G. Except as provided in Stipulation III.H. below, MD SHPO, PA SHPO, MDOT 

MPA, and the Consulting or Concurring Parties will have up to thirty (30) days 

from the date of delivery of any documents prepared pursuant to this MOA to 

review and provide written comments to CSX and FRA. 

H. At FRA’s discretion, FRA may grant written requests from the Signatories or 

Consulting or Concurring Parties to extend the review period in Stipulation III.G. 

or may determine that an additional round of review of draft documents is 

necessary. All such written requests must be received by FRA in a timely manner 

and provide adequate justification to extend a review period. FRA will notify MD 

SHPO, PA SHPO, MDOT MPA, and the Consulting or Concurring Parties of its 

decision in writing, including specifying review timeframes.

I. If a Consulting or Concurring Party does not provide written comments within the 

timeframes specified in this MOA, CSX will proceed to the next step in the 

review process, following approval by FRA, and MD SHPO and PA SHPO. 

J. If the Signatories and/or Consulting or Concurring Parties object to or recommend 

extensive revisions to submissions stipulated in this MOA, CSX, in coordination 

with FRA, will work to respond to the recommendations and resolve disputes in a 

timely manner and at the lowest appropriate staff level. 

K. If FRA, in coordination with CSX, cannot resolve a dispute within thirty (30) 

days, FRA may elect to follow the dispute resolution process identified in 

Stipulation XI to resolve any such dispute. 

L. In exigent circumstances (e.g., concerns over construction suspensions or delays), 

all parties will expedite their respective document review and/or dispute 

resolution obligations within seven (7) days. 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 9 of 31 

IV. TREATMENT MEASURES FOR ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIC PROPERTIES

A. CSX, in consultation with the Signatories and Concurring Parties, as directed by 

and under the authority of FRA, will mitigate the adverse effects of the HST 

Project on the seven architectural historic properties described in the Recitals 

above, according to the stipulations and procedures outlined herein. CSX will 

fulfill the stipulations herein in accordance with the HST Project schedule and the 

deadlines described below. 

B. Information used to develop content pursuant to this MOA will be utilized and 

shared amongst all documentation efforts stipulated so as to avoid duplication of 

research and writing efforts. As appropriate, the written documentation will draw 

upon original building, tunnel, and bridge construction documents; historic 

photographs; and interviews with local residents or individuals possessing special 

knowledge. Potential repositories to consult for information on individual 

buildings, structures, and railroad resources include, but are not limited to, the 

CSX archive, National Archives, Maryland State Archives, Maryland Historical 

Society, Pennsylvania State Archives, Baltimore City Archives, and Enoch Pratt 

Free Library.

C. Update Historic Property Survey Files 

1. CSX will investigate the history, development, use, and evolution of the 

architectural historic properties listed below for the purposes of updating older 

historic property survey files of NRHP-listed and eligible historic properties, and 

for the purposes of establishing historic contexts: 

a. Howard Street Tunnel & Power House (B-79) – updated MIHP Form

b. North Avenue Bridge (BC1208) (B-4521) – updated MIHP Form

c. Guilford Avenue Bridge (BC8029) (B-4526) – updated MIHP Form

d. Harford Road Bridge (BC8026) (B-4523) – updated MIHP Form

e. Boone Tunnel (1997RE00650) – updated evaluation-level documentation 

into PA-SHARE

2. In Maryland, updates will be made to each property’s Maryland Inventory of 

Historic Properties (MIHP) Form, which documents the property’s physical 

integrity and place in Maryland history. Updates will not be made to the 

properties’ Determination of Eligibility Forms. In Pennsylvania, updates will be 

made to the existing Historic Resource Survey Form (HRSF) in the form of 

evaluation-level documentation entered into PA-SHARE. Updated photographs, 

taken prior to the start of construction of the HST Project, will be included in the 

documentation. CSX’s investigations will focus specific attention on the railroads 

that historically utilized these properties. 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 10 of 31 

3. CSX will submit drafts of the survey files to the Signatories and Concurring 

Parties for review and comment, following the steps described in Stipulation III. 

The final documents will be filed with MD SHPO and/or PA SHPO, as 

appropriate. 

D. Electronic Informational Platforms

1. CSX will develop content to be posted on MDOT MPA’s website that provides a 

platform for the electronic storage and public dissemination of information and 

documents resulting from implementation of the stipulations in this MOA for 

each of the seven architectural historic properties adversely affected by the HST 

Project. Content may include: Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) 

documentation (as outlined in Stipulation IV.E), photographs, the Howard Street 

Tunnel Project: Architectural Historic Properties Identification and Effects 

Assessment Technical Report (January 2021), and related material and other data, 

as appropriate. 

2. CSX will coordinate with the Signatories and Concurring Parties on the final 

scope and format of the website content, including opportunities to partner with, 

and hyperlink to, other relevant preservation/history-based organizations or to 

utilize other forms of electronic communication. 

3. CSX will implement this stipulation prior to initiation of construction of the HST 

Project and work with MDOT MPA to maintain and update the website content, 

as needed, for a period of one year after completion of the HST Project 

construction. After the conclusion of one year, neither CSX nor MDOT MPA 

shall have further obligation under this MOA to maintain or update the website 

content, and will use reasonable efforts to offer the website content to the 

Consulting Parties and other repositories. 

E. Historic American Engineering Record Documentation 

1. CSX will prepare a HAER written and photographic documentation for the 

Baltimore and Ohio (B&O) Railroad Baltimore Belt Line (B-5287) segment 

within the APE, to include the four individual contributing elements that will be

adversely affected by the HST Project: Howard Street Tunnel & Power House (B79), the North Avenue Bridge (BC1208) (B-4521), the Guilford Avenue Bridge 

(BC8029) (B-4526), and the Harford Road Bridge (BC8026) (B-4523) 

contributing elements of. Written documentation will include the history of the 

B&O Railroad’s Baltimore Belt Line, including the tunnel and bridges, and the 

story behind the final location, design, engineering, and method of construction 

used for building the railroad alignment, including the tunnel and bridges. 

Photographic documentation for the tunnel will record significant elements of the 

tunnel structure, including the portals and representative views of the interior. The 

documentation will be deposited with the Library of Congress (LOC) (via NPS), 

and the MD SHPO library. 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 11 of 31 

2. CSX will contact staff at the NPS Northeast Regional Office for HABS/HAER 

guidance on the final scope, content, format, and disposition of each recordation 

effort. The photographic documentation will be prepared using digital images 

consistent with Level II HABS/HAER photography guidelines. 

3. Unless otherwise agreed to by FRA, NPS, and MD SHPO, CSX will ensure that 

all HAER recordation is completed and accepted prior to the commencement of 

construction or demolition that will affect historic properties, in order to advance 

the HST Project toward and/or through construction CSX will leave each of the 

identified historic properties’ structure and its associated parcel of land in an 

unaltered appearance until the photographic documentation phase is completed. 

4. Unless otherwise agreed to by FRA, NPS, and MD SHPO, CSX will provide final 

copies of each recordation document to the NPS (to be housed at the LOC) and 

MD SHPO, and offer electronic copies to other Consulting Parties and 

repositories, as appropriate.

F. Interpretive Display

1. CSX will endeavor to develop, fabricate, and install an interpretive sign and/or 

display and place it at an appropriate mutually agreeable location for the Boone 

Tunnel (1997RE00650). 

2. Possible interpretive themes for the displays include, but are not limited to, the 

history and construction of the Boone Tunnel and the B&O Railroad’s 

Philadelphia Branch. 

3. CSX, in coordination with FRA, will endeavor to identify a historic preservation 

group, community organization, or county facility willing and capable of 

assuming ownership and ongoing maintenance of the interpretive sign and/or 

display. 

4. Should CSX not identify an interested and willing party within six (6) months of 

the last signature on this MOA, CSX will coordinate with and receive FRA 

approval prior to changing the type of treatment measure and notifying the 

Signatories and Concurring Parties. Instead of following the steps outlined in 

Stipulation IV.F. 5 and 6 below, CSX will complete HAER recordation following 

the steps outlined in Stipulation IV.E. of this MOA, as mitigation for the adverse 

effect to Boone Tunnel. 

5. Should CSX develop an interpretive sign and/or display, CSX will submit draft 

and final outlines, text copy, exhibition scripts, and/or design documents to the 

Signatories and Concurring Parties for review and comment following the steps 

described in Stipulation III. The final form, location, content, and design-life of 

the interpretive displays will be decided in consultation among the Signatories. 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 12 of 31 

6. Should CSX develop an interpretive sign and/or display, CSX will develop, 

fabricate, and install the interpretive display within one (1) year of HST Project 

construction completion. Immediately following installation, CSX will transfer

permanent ownership of the display to the identified party, who will maintain the 

display for at least three (3) years following completion of the HST project 

construction. CSX may document an ownership and maintenance agreement with 

the identified party, as appropriate.

V. CONSTRUCTION-RELATED NOISE AND VIBRATION CONSIDERATIONS

A. In addition to the previously identified Cannon Shoe Company (B-5332) in 

Baltimore, Maryland, CSX will identify any additional historic properties that 

could also potentially be affected by construction-related noise or vibration, 

following the development and FRA review of the final engineering design and 

construction methodology(ies) for the HST Project. 

B. FRA, in coordination with CSX, will determine whether the Cannon Shoe 

Company (B-5332) and any additional historic properties will be adversely

affected by construction-related noise or vibration. Steps to make this 

determination will be to revise the APE, identify historic properties, assess the

effects to historic properties, and develop treatment measures to resolve any 

adverse effects.

C. FRA and CSX, in consultation with the appropriate SHPO and the Consulting 

Parties, will attempt to identify measures or otherwise modify engineering design 

and construction methods to avoid or minimize any adverse effect to additional 

historic properties. 

D. Should FRA determine, in consultation with DE SHPO, MD SHPO, PA SHPO, 

and Consulting Parties, as applicable, that the HST Project will have an adverse 

effect on historic properties, CSX will prepare and implement a Historic 

Properties Construction Protection Plan (Protection Plan) to avoid, minimize, 

and/or mitigate for any construction-related noise or vibration effects for those 

properties identified during the steps outlined in Stipulation V.B. Measures 

outlined in the Protection Plan will be consistent with the SOI’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties, and will be overseen by a qualified professional 

as contained in Stipulation II.A s. 

E. CSX will develop and distribute the draft Protection Plan prior to construction to 

the Signatories and Consulting Parties for review and comment following the 

steps described in Stipulation III. CSX will implement the approved Protection 

Plan, in accordance with the schedule included in the Protection Plan. 

F. The Protection Plan will address measures to achieve compliance with local 

construction-related noise ordinances during HST Project construction and to 

avoid and/or mitigate the construction-related vibration effects to a potentially 

affected historic property, including identifying baseline conditions of the historic 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 13 of 31 

property prior to the commencement of construction activities; the type of 

monitoring equipment that will be used; the frequency with which such

equipment will be used; and a description of how CSX will evaluate and repair 

any vibration damage that may result from the construction of the HST Project to 

historic properties. Should unavoidable construction-related vibration effects to 

historic properties be identified during advanced design or construction, the 

Protection Plan will include a commitment to proceed with Section 106 

consultation for the affected historic properties pursuant to the processes outlined 

in Stipulations VII and VIII. 

VI. PROJECT CHANGES

CSX will notify FRA within 15 days of any proposed modifications to the HST 

Project that may result in additional or new effects on historic properties. Before 

CSX takes any action that may result in additional or new effects on historic 

properties, FRA, CSX, the SHPO, and Consulting Parties as appropriate, will 

consult to determine the appropriate course of action. This may include revision 

to the APE, identification of historic properties, assessment of effects to historic 

properties, and development of treatment measures to resolve adverse effects. If 

FRA determines that an amendment to the MOA is required, it will proceed in 

accordance with Stipulation XII. 

VII. UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERIES

A. Pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.13, CSX will develop an Unanticipated Discoveries 

Plan (UDP) to be included in construction and bidding documents for 

contractor/team use if a previously undiscovered archaeological or historic 

architectural resource that is or could reasonably be a historic property is 

encountered during construction, or a previously known historic property will be 

affected in an unanticipated manner. 

B. The UDP will include a procedure for interacting with Consulting Parties and the 

public, as appropriate, the media, a chain of contact, and notification 

requirements, stop-work requirements, and other appropriate provisions, as 

needed. CSX will submit the draft UDP to FRA, who will then distribute to MD 

SHPO and PA SHPO for concurrent review and comment, in accordance with 

Stipulation III. 

C. If it is necessary to develop treatment measures, CSX will carry out the approach 

and treatment measures after approval by FRA.

VIII. TREATMENT OF HUMAN REMAINS

A. If human remains are encountered during construction of the HST Project, CSX 

will immediately halt disturbance within a 25-foot radius of the discovery and 

immediately secure and protect the human remains and any associated funerary 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 14 of 31 

objects in place in such a way that minimizes further exposure or damage to the 

remains from the elements, looting, and/or vandalism. 

B. CSX will immediately notify the appropriate law enforcement agency and/or 

reviewing agency with jurisdiction to determine if the discovery is subject to a 

criminal investigation by law enforcement and notify the Signatories within 

twenty-four (24) hours of the initial discovery. Appropriate authorities, per SHPO 

guidance included in Exhibit 2, are as follows: 

1. In Delaware, the Director of the Delaware Division of Historical and Cultural 

Affairs and the Chief Medical Examiner, Department of Health and Social 

Services must be notified.

2. In Maryland, the Maryland State Police, the State’s Attorney of the county, and 

MD SHPO must be notified. 

3. In Pennsylvania, PA SHPO and the coroner should be notified. 

C. If a criminal investigation is not appropriate, CSX will apply and implement all 

relevant laws, procedures, policies, and guidelines contained in Stipulation II.B. 

concerning the treatment and repatriation of burial sites, human remains, and 

funerary objects.

D. In the event the human remains encountered could be of Native American origin, 

whether prehistoric or historic, FRA will immediately notify the appropriate 

Tribe(s) and consult with them, MD SHPO, and/or PA SHPO, as appropriate, to 

determine the treatment plan for the Native American human remains and any 

associated funerary objects. Once the treatment plan has been agreed upon by 

FRA and the relevant SHPO(s), CSX will implement the plan.

E. If the remains are not of Native American origin, CSX will, as appropriate, 

develop a research design/treatment plan for the appropriate treatment of the 

remains and any associated artifacts, consistent with procedures and guidelines 

contained in Stipulation II.B. and submit the plan for review and comment by the 

Signatories and other Consulting Parties following the steps described in 

Stipulation III. Once the research design/treatment plan has been agreed upon by 

FRA and the relevant SHPO(s), CSX will implement the plan.

F. CSX will ensure its contractor does not proceed with work in the affected area 

until FRA, in consultation with MD SHPO, PA SHPO, Tribe(s), and other 

Consulting Parties, as appropriate, determines the development and 

implementation of an appropriate research design/treatment plan or other 

recommended mitigation measures are completed. However, work outside the 

area of discovery may continue. 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 15 of 31 

IX. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS

A. Should an emergency situation occur during construction of the HST Project that 

represents an imminent threat to public health or safety or creates a hazardous 

condition and in either case has the potential to affect historic properties, CSX 

will contact the appropriate emergency response agency with jurisdiction as soon 

as possible. CSX will notify the Signatories and other Consulting Parties within 

twenty-four (24) hours of the condition which created the emergency, the 

immediate action taken in response to the emergency, the effects of the response 

to historic properties, and, where appropriate, further plans to address the 

emergency. This will include any further proposals to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate potential adverse effects to historic properties.

B. The Signatories and other Consulting Parties will have seven (7) days to review 

and comment on the plan(s) for further action. If FRA, MD SHPO, PA SHPO, 

and other Consulting Parties, as appropriate, do not object to the plan within the 

review period, then CSX will implement the proposed plan(s). 

C. Where possible, CSX will ensure that emergency responses allow for future 

preservation or restoration of historic properties, take into account the SOI’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and include on-site 

monitoring by the appropriate qualified professional as contained in Stipulation 

II.A. 

D. Immediate rescue and salvage operations conducted to preserve life, property, 

and/or public health are exempt from these and all other provisions of this MOA. 

X. ANTI-DEFICIENCY ACT

FRA’s obligations under this MOA are subject to the availability of appropriated 

funds, and the stipulations of this MOA are subject to the provisions of the AntiDeficiency Act (31 USC Part 1341). FRA will make reasonable and good faith 

efforts to secure the necessary funds to implement this MOA in its entirety. If 

compliance with the Anti-Deficiency Act alters or impairs FRA’s ability to 

implement the stipulations of this agreement, or if another federal agency does not 

assume responsibility as lead federal agency, Signatories will consult in 

accordance with the amendment or termination procedures found in Stipulations 

XII and XIII, respectively. 

XI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

A. In the event any Signatory and/or Consulting Party to this MOA objects in writing 

to any actions proposed or the manner in which the terms of this MOA are 

implemented, FRA will first consult with the objecting party and other Signatories

and Consulting Parties, as appropriate, within fifteen (15) days in an attempt to 

resolve the objection. If FRA determines that such objection cannot be resolved, 

FRA will proceed as set forth herein. 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 16 of 31 

B. FRA will forward all documentation relevant to the dispute, including FRA’s 

proposed resolution, to the ACHP within fifteen (15) days of the determination 

that an unresolved dispute exists and request that the ACHP provide FRA with its 

advice on the resolution of the objection within thirty (30) days of receiving the 

documentation. Concurrently, FRA will also provide the Signatories and 

Consulting Parties with the same documentation for review and comment 

following the steps described in Stipulation III. FRA will prepare a written 

response to the objection, which will constitute FRA’s decision regarding the 

objection, that takes into account any timely advice or comments regarding the 

dispute from the ACHP, Signatories and other Consulting Parties, and provide 

them with a copy of the written response. FRA will then proceed according to its 

decision. 

C. If the ACHP does not provide its advice regarding the dispute within the thirty 

(30) day time period, FRA may make a decision on the dispute and proceed 

accordingly. FRA will document this decision in a written response to the 

objection that takes into account any timely comments regarding the dispute from 

the Signatories and other Consulting Parties and provide the ACHP, Signatories 

and other Consulting Parties with a copy of such written response. 

D. Should disputes arise under exigent circumstances (e.g., concerns over 

construction suspensions or delays), all parties agree to expedite their respective 

document review and dispute resolution obligations. 

E. The Signatories remain responsible for carrying out all other actions subject to the 

terms of this MOA that are not the subject of the dispute. 

XII. AMENDMENTS

Any Signatory to this MOA may request that it be amended, whereupon that party 

will immediately consult with the other Signatories within thirty (30) days (or 

another time period agreed to by all Signatories) to consider such an amendment. 

FRA will be responsible for developing and distributing the resulting amendment 

among the Signatories in the same manner as the original MOA. The amendment 

will be effective on the date of the final amendment signature. FRA will file a 

copy signed by all Signatories with the ACHP.

XIII. TERMINATION AND WITHDRAWAL 

A. If any Signatory to this MOA determines its terms will not or cannot be carried 

out, that party will immediately notify the other Signatories in writing and consult 

with them to seek resolution, or amendment per Stipulation XII. If, within sixty 

(60) days (or another time period agreed to by all Signatories), a resolution or an 

amendment cannot be reached, any Signatory may terminate the MOA upon 

written notification to the other Signatories. A Consulting Party does not have the 

ability to terminate the MOA.
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 17 of 31 

B. If the MOA is terminated, then, prior to work continuing the HST Project, FRA 

must either, 1) execute a new MOA or Programmatic Agreement (36 CFR § 

800.6(c) or 800.14(b)) or 2) request, take into account, and respond to the 

comments of the ACHP under 36 CFR § 800.7. FRA will notify the Signatories 

and other Consulting Parties as to the course of action it will pursue. 

XIV. MONITORING AND REPORTING

A. Each year, following the effective date of this MOA until it expires or is 

terminated, CSX will provide the Signatories and other Consulting Parties a 

written report summarizing work undertaken and any tasks completed related to 

adversely affected historic properties, pursuant to the terms of this MOA. Such a 

report will include any scheduling changes proposed, problems encountered, and 

disputes and their resolution in the Signatories’ efforts to carry out the terms of 

this MOA. 

B. CSX will submit the summary report to the other Signatories, Consulting Parties, 

and Tribes annually commencing one (1) year from the date of the last signature 

on this MOA. 

XV. DURATION, EFFECTIVE DATE, AND EFFECT OF EXECUTION

A. Duration 

This MOA will expire when all its stipulations have been completed or in 

five (5) years from the effective date, whichever comes first, unless the 

Signatories agree in writing to an extension through an amendment 

pursuant to Stipulation XII. 

B. Effective Date

This MOA will go into effect on the date FRA signs the MOA, which will 

be the final signature among all the Signatories. 

C. Effect of Execution

Execution of this MOA by the Signatories, its subsequent filing with the 

ACHP, and implementation of its terms demonstrate FRA has taken into 

account the effect of the HST Project on historic properties and afforded 

the ACHP an opportunity to comment, and satisfied its responsibilities 

under Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations. 

XVI. LIMITATION ON LIABILITY

This Agreement is between FRA, MD SHPO, PA SHPO, MDOT MPA, and CSX 

and does not confer or create any right, benefit, or trust responsibility, substantive 

or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any third person or party (public or 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 18 of 31 

private) against FRA, MD SHPO, PA SHPO, CSX, or against their officers or 

employees or any other person. All parties are responsible for the acts and/or 

omissions of their own employees and/or agents. 

SIGNATORIES

Federal Railroad Administration

Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer 

Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer 

INVITED SIGNATORIES

CSX Transportation 

Maryland Department of Transportation, Port Administration 

OTHER CONSULTING PARTIES (INVITED TO BE CONCURRING PARTIES) 

Delaware Nation (federally recognized Indian tribe)

Delaware Tribe of Indians (federally recognized Indian tribe)

Baltimore Heritage

City of Wilmington, Delaware Department of Planning and Development 

Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Planning Department, Heritage Commission 

Delaware Department of Transportation

Delaware State Historic Preservation Officer

Preservation Maryland 
Memorandum of Agreement 

Howard Street Tunnel Project 

Page 19 of 31 

SIGNATORY 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

By: ________________________________________ Date: _____________________ May 25, 2021 

Laura Shick 

Supervisory EPS, Environment and Project Engineering Division 
 

 

 

Memorandum of Agreement 

Howard Street Tunnel Project 

Page 20 of 31 

SIGNATORY 

MARYLAND STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER 

By: ________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

5-19-2021

Elizabeth Hughes 

Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer 
Memorandum of Agreement 

Howard Street Tunnel Project 

Page 21 of 31 

SIGNATORY 

PENNSYLVANIA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER 

By: ________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 5/25/2021

Andrea MacDonald 

Deputy Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer 


Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 24 of 31 

CONCURRING PARTY

DELAWARE NATION (FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBE)

By: ________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

Deborah Dotson

President
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 25 of 31 

CONCURRING PARTY

DELAWARE TRIBE OF INDIANS (FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBE)

By: ________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

Dr. Brice Obermeyer

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 26 of 31 

CONCURRING PARTY

BALTIMORE HERITAGE

By: ________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

Johns Hopkins 

Executive Director
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 27 of 31 

CONCURRING PARTY

CITY OF WILMINGTON, DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND 

DEVELOPMENT

By: ________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

Debra Martin

Historic Preservation Planner

Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 29 of 31 

CONCURRING PARTY

DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

By: ________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

Alexandra Tarantino

Architectural Historian
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 30 of 31 

CONCURRING PARTY

DELAWARE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER

By: ________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

Gwenyth A. Davis 

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Page 31 of 31 

CONCURRING PARTY

PRESERVATION MARYLAND

By: ________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

Nicholas Redding 

Executive Director
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1: HST Project Location Map and Area of Potential Effects Maps

Exhibit 2: List of Relevant Standards and Guidelines

Exhibit 3: List of Contacts
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Exhibit 1, Page 1 

Exhibit 1: HST Project Location Map and Area of Potential Effects Maps
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Exhibit 1, Page 2 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Exhibit 1, Page 3 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Exhibit 1, Page 4 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Exhibit 1, Page 5 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Exhibit 1, Page 6 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Exhibit 1, Page 7 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Exhibit 1, Page 8 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Exhibit 1, Page 9 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Exhibit 1, Page 10
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Exhibit 2, Page 1 

Exhibit 2: List of Relevant Standards and Guidelines

Per Stipulation II.B. of this MOA, all documentation prepared or performed pursuant to this MOA 

will be consistent with all pertinent federal and state standards and guidelines, including, but not 

limited to, the following list. Implementation of the stipulations pursuant to this MOA will utilize, 

as appropriate, the following regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines, or any subsequent 

replacements of or revisions to same: 

• Section 106, NHPA, as amended, and its implementing regulations (36 CFR § 800) 

• The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings

(National Park Service, 1995) 

• Historic American Buildings Survey Guide to Field Documentation (National Park Service,

May 16, 2011) 

• Historic American Buildings Survey Guidelines for Historical Reports (National Park Service, 

2007) 

• Heritage Documentation Programs, HABS/HAER/HALS Photography Guidelines (National 

Park Service, November 2011, updated June 2015) 

• Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Historical Investigations in Maryland

(Maryland Historical Trust, 2019) 

• Guidelines for Compliance-Generated Determinations of Eligibility (DOEs) (Maryland 

Historical Trust, 2002)

• Guidelines for Architectural Investigations in Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Historical and 

Museum Commission, 2014)

• The Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office’s Researchers Guide for Documenting 

and Evaluating Railroads (Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 2015)

• Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania State Historic 

Preservation Office, 2017)

• Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey Files Site Identification Criteria (Pennsylvania State 

Historic Preservation Office, 2017)

• Archeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines 

(48 FR 44716) 

• Section 106 Archaeology Guidance (ACHP, 2009) 

• Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Investigations in Maryland (Maryland Historical 

Trust, 1994) 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Exhibit 2, Page 2 

• Collections and Conservation Standards, Technical Update No. 1 of the Standards and 

Guidelines for Archeological Investigations in Maryland (Maryland Historical Trust, Revised 

2005) 

• Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archeological Collections (36 CFR § 79) 

• Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (43 CFR § 10, as amended) 

• Maryland Burial Law (Title 10 Subtitle 4 §§ 10-401 through 10-404 of the Annotated Code of 

Maryland) 

• Policy Statement Regarding Treatment of Burial Sites, Human Remains and Funerary Objects

(ACHP, February 23, 2007) 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Exhibit 3, Page 1 

Exhibit 3: List of Contacts

Signatories 

Laura Shick

Supervisory Environmental Protection Specialist

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Laura.Shick@dot.gov

Tim Tamburrino

Preservation Officer

Maryland Historical Trust

100 Community Place, 3rd Floor 

Crownsville, MD 21032 

tim.tamburrino@maryland.gov

Emma Diehl

Historic Preservation Specialist 

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission 

State Historic Preservation Office 

400 North Street, 2nd Floor 

Harrisburg, PA 17120 

emdiehl@pa.gov

Invited Signatories

William Parry, PG, CGWP

Senior Manager of Environmental Remediation

CSX Transportation 

One Bell Crossings 

Selkirk, NY 12158 

William_Parry@csx.com 

Bradley M. Smith

General Manager, Strategic Initiatives

Maryland Port Administration

401 East Pratt Street, Suite 1900 

Baltimore, MD 21202 

Bsmith9@marylandports.com 
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Exhibit 3, Page 2 

Additional Consulting Parties and Concurring Parties

Erin Paden 

Director of Historic Preservation 

Delaware Nation (federally recognized Indian tribe)

31064 State Highway 281 

Anadarko, OK 73005 

epaden@delawarenation-nsn.gov

Susan Bachor 

Archaeologist 

Delaware Tribe of Indians (federally recognized Indian tribe) 

126 University Circle 

Stroud Hall, Room 437 

East Stroudsburg, PA 18301 

sbachor@delawaretribe.org

Johns W. Hopkins 

Executive Director 

Baltimore Heritage 

100 N. Charles Street, Suite P101 

Baltimore, MD 21201 

hopkins@baltimoreheritage.org

Debra Martin

Historic Preservation Planner

City of Wilmington, Delaware Department of Planning and Development 

Louis L. Redding City/County Building, 7th Floor 

800 N. French Street 

Wilmington, DE 19801 

dmartin@wilmingtonde.gov

Beverlee Barnes

Historic Preservation Planning Manager 

Delaware County Planning Department 

1055 E. Baltimore Pike, 1st Floor 

Media, PA 19063 

BarnesB@co.delaware.pa.us

Alexandra Tarantino

Architectural Historian

Delaware Department of Transportation

P.O. Box 778 

Dover, DE 19903 

Alexandra.Tarantino@delaware.gov
Memorandum of Agreement

Howard Street Tunnel Project

Exhibit 3, Page 3 

Gwenyth A. Davis 

Delaware Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer

Delaware Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs

21 The Green 

Dover, DE 19901 

gwen.davis@delaware.gov

Nicholas Redding 

Executive Director 

Preservation Maryland 

3600 Clipper Mill Road, Suite 248 

Baltimore, MD 21211 

nredding@presmd.org
D-1 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Appendix D: Supplemental Environmental Justice Analysis 

 
D-2 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Supplemental Environmental Justice Analysis

US Census Bureau block group data from the American Community Survey (ACS) was reviewed to 

provide additional Environmental Justice data for smaller geography levels. The results of the analysis 

are presented in the tables that follow. These tables are intended to supplement the Environmental 

Justice discussion in the EA and Appendix G. Cells highlighted in grey indicate block groups that differ 

from the larger tract-level identification as a potential Environmental Justice area.

1.0 Project Sites in Maryland

Table 1-1a Low-Income and Minority Populations, Howard Street Tunnel, West Portal (MD) Project 

Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic)

Low-income 

Population EJ Area?

State of Maryland 49.5% 9.0% N/A

City of Baltimore, MD 72.2% 18.9% N/A

Tract 2101 71.4% 17.1% Yes

 Block Group 1 60.7% 12.1% Yes

Tract 2201 33.6% 10.4% No

 Block Group 1 42.0% 12.1% No

 Block Group 2 31.4% 11.7% No

 Block Group 4 26.1% 6.1% No

Tract 2301 36.1% 15.9% No

 Block Group 2 60.4% 20.3% Yes

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 American Community Survey (ACS).

Table 1-1b Low-Income and Minority Populations, HST Mined Tunnel Segment (MD) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic)

Low-income 

Population EJ Area?

State of Maryland 49.5% 9.0% N/A

City of Baltimore, MD 72.2% 18.9% N/A

Tract 401 51.5% 19.8% Yes

 Block Group 1 35.3% 25.8% Yes

 Block Group 2 75.0% 14.0% Yes

Tract 402 60.2% 21.2% Yes

 Block Group 1 60.2% 21.2% Yes

Tract 1001 98.3% 49.1% Yes

 Block Group 2 98.5% 80.9% Yes

Tract 10031 85.2% N/A N/A

 Block Group 1 85.2% N/A N/A

Tract 1101 45.8% 13.0% No

 Block Group 1 41.7% 12.8% No

 Block Group 2 50.8% 13.3% Yes
D-3 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic)

Low-income 

Population EJ Area?

Tract 1102 39.6% 19.5% No

 Block Group 1 44.8% 16.6% No

 Block Group 2 38.7% 18.5% No

 Block Group 3 34.0% 23.8% No

Tract 1205 66.4% 21.6% Yes

 Block Group 1 70.8% 13.9% Yes

 Block Group 2 63.1% 27.1% Yes

Tract 1401 51.1% 20.7% Yes

 Block Group 1 33.7% 17.0% No

 Block Group 2 51.6% 30.3% Yes

 Block Group 3 74.5% 40.9% Yes

 Block Group 4 47.6% 4.9% No

Tract 1402 95.3% 43.8% Yes

 Block Group 1 92.6% 51.0% Yes

 Block Group 2 95.5% 37.5% Yes

Tract 1702 93.6% 52.1% Yes

 Block Group 1 97.2% 50.5% Yes

 Block Group 2 92.8% 51.8% Yes

 Block Group 3 81.5% 58.3% Yes

Tract 1703 98.4% 35.6% Yes

 Block Group 1 100.0% 40.3% Yes

 Block Group 2 96.7% 30.6% Yes

Tract 2101 71.4% 17.1% Yes

 Block Group 1 60.7% 9.8% No

 Block Group 2 76.4% 20.6% No

Tract 2201 33.6% 10.4% No

 Block Group 1 42.0% 12.1% No

 Block Group 2 31.4% 11.7% No

 Block Group 3 46.0% 8.0% No

Tract 2805 95.1% 58.4% Yes

 Block Group 1 98.2% 61.3% Yes

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.

1

The population of Tract 1003 are inmates in the Baltimore Correctional Complex.
D-4 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Table 1-1c Low-Income and Minority Populations, Howard Street Tunnel, East Portal (MD) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic)

Low-income 

Population EJ Area?

State of Maryland 49.5% 9.0% N/A

City of Baltimore, MD 72.2% 18.9% N/A

Tract 1102 39.6% 19.5% No

 Block Group 1 44.8% 16.6% No

Tract 1401 51.1% 20.7% Yes

 Block Group 1 33.7% 17.0% No

 Block Group 4 47.6% 4.9% No

Tract 1702 93.6% 52.1% Yes

 Block Group 3 81.5% 58.3% Yes

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.

Table 1-2 Low-Income and Minority Populations, Mount Royal Avenue (MD) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic)

Low-income 

Population EJ Area?

State of Maryland 49.5% 9.0% N/A

City of Baltimore, MD 72.2% 18.9% N/A

Tract 1102 39.6% 19.5% No

 Block Group 1 44.8% 16.6% No

Tract 1401 51.1% 20.7% Yes

 Block Group 1 33.7% 17.0% No

 Block Group 4 47.6% 4.9% No

Tract 1702 93.6% 52.1% Yes

 Block Group 3 81.5% 58.3% Yes

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.

Table 1-3 Low-Income and Minority Populations, MTA Bridge (MD) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic)

Low-income 

Population EJ Area?

State of Maryland 49.5% 9.0% N/A

City of Baltimore, MD 72.2% 18.9% N/A

Tract 1102 39.6% 19.5% No

 Block Group 1 44.8% 16.6% No

Tract 1205 66.4% 21.6% Yes

 Block Group 1 70.8% 13.9% No

Tract 1206 64.0% 34.9% Yes

 Block Group 3 77.8% 50.5% Yes

Tract 1207 32.6% 8.1% No

 Block Group 3 33.0% 3.6% No

Tract 1401 51.1% 20.7% Yes

 Block Group 1 33.7% 17.0% No

 Block Group 2 51.6% 30.3% Yes

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.
D-5 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Table 1-4 Low-Income and Minority Populations, North Avenue (MD) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic)

Low-income 

Population EJ Area?

State of Maryland 49.5% 9.0% N/A

City of Baltimore, MD 72.2% 18.9% N/A

Tract 1102 39.6% 19.5% No

 Block Group 1 44.8% 12.8% No

Tract 1204 77.1% 36.1% Yes

 Block Group 1 81.6% 36.0% Yes

 Block Group 2 72.9% 36.3% Yes

Tract 1205 66.4% 21.6% Yes

 Block Group 1 70.8% 36.3% Yes

 Block Group 2 63.1% 13.9% Yes

Tract 1206 64.0% 34.9% Yes

 Block Group 2 64.0% 33.3% Yes

 Block Group 3 77.8% 50.5% Yes

Tract 1207 32.6% 8.1% No

 Block Group 3 33.0% 3.6% No

Tract 1302 84.8% 17.9% Yes

 Block Group 1 64.2% 33.4% Yes

 Block Group 2 100.0% 18.4% Yes

Tract 1401 51.1% 20.7% Yes

 Block Group 1 33.7% 17.0% No

 Block Group 2 51.6% 30.3% Yes

 Block Group 4 47.6% 4.9% No

Tract 1702 93.6% 52.1% Yes

 Block Group 3 81.5% 58.3% Yes

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.
D-6 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Table 1-5 Low-Income and Minority Populations, Sisson Street (MD) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic)

Low-income 

Population EJ Area?

State of Maryland 49.5% 9.0% N/A

City of Baltimore, MD 72.2% 18.9% N/A

Tract 1206 64.0% 34.9% Yes

 Block Group 2 64.0% 33.3% Yes

Tract 1207 32.6% 8.1% No

 Block Group 2 44.2% 11.0% No

 Block Group 3 33.0% 3.6% No

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.

Table 1-6 Low-Income and Minority Populations, Huntington Avenue (MD) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic)

Low-income 

Population EJ Area?

State of Maryland 49.5% 9.0% N/A

City of Baltimore, MD 72.2% 18.9% N/A

Tract 1206 64.0% 34.9% Yes

 Block Group 1 77.8% 21.6% Yes

 Block Group 2 64.0% 33.3% Yes

Tract 1207 32.6% 8.1% No

 Block Group 2 44.2% 11.0% No

 Block Group 3 33.0% 3.6% No

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.

Table 1-8 Low-Income and Minority Populations, St. Paul/Calvert Street (MD) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic)

Low-income 

Population EJ Area?

State of Maryland 49.5% 9.0% N/A

City of Baltimore, MD 72.2% 18.9% N/A

Tract 1203 65.1% 26.1% Yes

 Block Group 2 63.6% 8.2% Yes

 Block Group 3 60.3% 17.6% Yes

 Block Group 4 77.5% 50.9% Yes

Tract 1206 64.0% 34.9% Yes

 Block Group 1 77.8% 21.6% Yes

 Block Group 2 64.0% 33.3% Yes

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.
D-7 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Table 1-9 Low-Income and Minority Populations, Guilford Avenue (MD) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic) Low-income Population EJ Area?

State of Maryland 49.5% 9.0% N/A

City of Baltimore, MD 72.2% 18.9% N/A

Tract 904 80.8% 37.8% Yes

 Block Group 1 91.9% 25.5% Yes

 Block Group 2 98.5% 55.6% Yes

Tract 905 94.6% 18.9% Yes

 Block Group 1 100.0% 19.6% Yes

 Block Group 2 73.1% 18.6% Yes

Tract 908 98.2% 32.3% Yes

 Block Group 1 97.1% 44.2% Yes

 Block Group 3 95.4% 36.2% Yes

 Block Group 4 98.5% 26.2% Yes

Tract 1202.01 30.9% 15.6% Yes

 Block Group 2 28.7% 12.1% No

Tract 1202.02 49.7% 35.6% Yes

 Block Group 1 48.6% N/A N/A

 Block Group 4 42.9% 35.5% Yes

 Block Group 5 61.0% 32.2% Yes

Tract 1203 65.1% 26.1% Yes

 Block Group 1 55.6% 16.9% Yes

 Block Group 2 63.6% 8.2% Yes

 Block Group 3 60.3% 17.6% Yes

 Block Group 4 77.5% 50.9% Yes

Tract 1204 77.1% 36.1% Yes

 Block Group 1 81.6% 36.0% Yes

 Block Group 2 72.9% 36.3% Yes

Tract 1206 64.0% 34.9% Yes

 Block Group 1 77.8% 21.6% Yes

 Block Group 2 64.0% 33.3% Yes

 Block Group 3 77.8% 50.5% Yes

Tract 1207 32.6% 8.1% No

 Block Group 1 18.4% 11.0% No

 Block Group 2 44.2% 11.0% No

 Block Group 3 33.0% 3.6% No

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.
D-8 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Table 1-10 Low-Income and Minority Populations, Barclay Street (MD) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic) Low-income Population EJ Area?

State of Maryland 49.5% 9.0% N/A

City of Baltimore, MD 72.2% 18.9% N/A

Tract 904 80.8% 37.8% Yes

 Block Group 1 91.9% 25.5% Yes

 Block Group 2 98.5% 55.6% Yes

Tract 908 98.2% 32.3% Yes

 Block Group 1 97.1% 44.2% Yes

 Block Group 3 95.4% 36.2% Yes

Tract 1203 65.1% 26.1% Yes

 Block Group 2 63.6% 8.2% Yes

 Block Group 3 60.3% 17.6% Yes

 Block Group 4 77.5% 50.9% Yes

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.

Table 1-11 Low-Income and Minority Populations, Greenmount Street (MD) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic) Low-income Population EJ Area?

State of Maryland 49.5% 9.0% N/A

City of Baltimore, MD 72.2% 18.9% N/A

Tract 904 80.8% 37.8% Yes

 Block Group 2 98.5% 55.6% Yes

Tract 908 98.2% 32.3% Yes

 Block Group 3 95.4% 36.2% Yes

Tract 1203 65.1% 26.1% Yes

 Block Group 1 55.6% 16.9% Yes

 Block Group 2 63.6% 8.2% Yes

 Block Group 3 60.3% 17.6% Yes

 Block Group 4 77.5% 50.9% Yes

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.
D-9 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Table 1-12 Low-Income and Minority Populations, Harford Road (MD) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic) Low-income Population EJ Area?

State of Maryland 49.5% 9.0% N/A

City of Baltimore, MD 72.2% 18.9% N/A

Tract 801.01 68.5% 13.4% Yes

 Block Group 1 93.1% 1.9% Yes

Tract 802 95.5% 26.0% Yes

 Block Group 3 90.4% 20.5% Yes

Tract 805 99.0% 29.3% Yes

 Block Group 1 99.1% 32.3% Yes

 Block Group 2 100.0% 11.4% Yes

 Block Group 3 73.1% 34.8% Yes

Tract 806 91.8% 33.9% Yes

 Block Group 1 88.4% 44.7% Yes

 Block Group 3 100.0% 14.7% Yes

 Block Group 4 88.6% 22.7% Yes

Tract 905 94.6% 18.9% Yes

 Block Group 1 100.0% 19.6% Yes

Tract 906 90.4% 25.7% Yes

 Block Group 2 93.5% 0.0% Yes

Tract 907 99.6% 33.0% Yes

 Block Group 1 100.0% 34.2% Yes

 Block Group 2 100.0% 22.7% Yes

 Block Group 3 98.5% 34.9% Yes

 Block Group 4 100.0% 37.2% Yes

Tract 908 98.2% 32.3% Yes

 Block Group 1 97.1% 44.2% Yes

 Block Group 2 100.0% 27.0% Yes

 Block Group 4 98.5% 26.2% Yes

Tract 909 94.4% 18.6% Yes

 Block Group 1 92.3% 12.5% Yes

 Block Group 4 92.6% 27.3% Yes

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.
D-10 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Table 3.1-11 Low-Income and Minority Populations, Bayview Rail Yard (MD) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic) Low-income Population EJ Area?

State of Maryland 49.5% 9.0% N/A

City of Baltimore, MD 72.2% 18.9% N/A

Tract 2604.01 51.8% 24.5% Yes

 Block Group 2 52.3% 22.0% Yes

 Block Group 3 53.1% 7.5% Yes

Tract 2604.04 76.7% 25.9% Yes

 Block Group 1 N/A N/A N/A

 Block Group 2 62.5% 13.2% Yes

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS. 

2.0 Project Sites in Delaware

Table 2-1 Low-Income and Minority Populations, Lancaster Avenue (DE) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic)

Low-income 

Population EJ Area?

State of Delaware 37.3% 11.9% N/A

New Castle County, DE 43.2% 11.4% N/A

City of Wilmington, DE 70.8% 25.1% N/A

Tract 24 57.8% 23.0% Yes

 Block Group 2 58.8% 34.8% Yes

 Block Group 3 75.5% 20.1% Yes

 Block Group 4 23.5% 20.5% Yes

Tract 122 48.0% 17.0% No

 Block Group 1 25.6% 10.9% No

Table 3.2-2 Low-Income and Minority Populations, 4th Street (DE) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic)

Low-income 

Population EJ Area?

State of Delaware 37.3% 11.9% N/A

New Castle County, DE 43.2% 11.4% N/A

City of Wilmington, DE 70.8% 25.1% N/A

Tract 13 9.8% 2.7% No

 Block Group 3 4.5% 0.0% No

Tract 24 57.8% 23.0% Yes

 Block Group 1 86.7% 12.3% Yes

 Block Group 2 58.8% 34.8% Yes

 Block Group 3 75.5% 20.1% Yes

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.
D-11 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

3.0 Project Sites in Pennsylvania

Table 3-1 Low-Income and Minority Populations, Chichester Road (PA) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic)

Low-income 

Population EJ Area?

State of Pennsylvania 23.9% 12.2% N/A

Delaware County, PA 33.7% 8.8% N/A

Boothwyn, PA 8.8% 3.2% N/A

Tract 4068.01 16.1% 12.5% No

 Block Group 2 15.7% 9.3% No

Tract 4068.02 13.8% 8.7% No

 Block Group 4 3.5% 4.5% No

Tract 4068.03 14.5% 4.9% No

 Block Group 2 18.8% 4.4% No

 Block Group 3 6.3% 5.2% No

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.

Table 3-2 Low-Income and Minority Populations, Crum Lynne Road (PA) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic)

Low-income 

Population EJ Area?

State of Pennsylvania 23.9% 12.2% N/A

Delaware County, PA 33.7% 8.8% N/A

Ridley Park, PA 8.2% 5.4% N/A

Tract 4039.02 5.2% 4.2% No

 Block Group 3 5.6% 1.4% No

Tract 4041.02 26.8% 11.9% No

 Block Group 2 4.2% 2.0% No

 Block Group 4 63.9% 22.9% Yes

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.
D-12 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Table 3-3 Low-Income and Minority Populations, Clifton Avenue (PA) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic)

Low-income 

Population EJ Area?

State of Pennsylvania 23.9% 12.2% N/A

Delaware County, PA 33.7% 8.8% N/A

Sharon Hill, PA 77.1% 11.1% N/A

Tract 4028 77.1% 11.1% Yes

 Block Group 4 72.5% 3.4% Yes

 Block Group 5 71.7% 10.6% Yes

Tract 4031.01 51.4% 15.2% Yes

 Block Group 1 61.1% 12.6% Yes

Tract 4031.04 69.5% 30.2% Yes

 Block Group 2 66.0% 24.3% Yes

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.

Table 3-4 Low-Income and Minority Populations, Boone Tunnel (PA) Project Sites

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic)

Low-income 

Population EJ Area?

State of Pennsylvania 23.9% 12.2% N/A

Delaware County, PA 33.7% 8.8% N/A

Sharon Hill, PA 77.1% 11.1% N/A

Tract 4024 92.1% 40.0% Yes

 Block Group 2 95.1% 41.7% Yes

 Block Group 3 81.6% 42.2% Yes

Tract 4025 95.3% 30.8% Yes

 Block Group 1 100.0% 35.4% Yes

Tract 4026 74.2% 13.9% Yes

 Block Group 2 73.5% 5.2% Yes

Tract 4027 85.1% 15.1% Yes

 Block Group 2 82.9% 8.7% Yes

Tract 4028 77.1% 11.1% Yes

 Block Group 1 85.0% 8.2% Yes

 Block Group 2 85.7% 37.8% Yes

 Block Group 3 72.7% 8.6% Yes

 Block Group 4 72.5% 3.4% Yes

Tract 4031.03 50.5% 19.0% Yes

 Block Group 1 47.7% 9.2% Yes

 Block Group 2 55.6% 15.0% Yes

Tract 4031.04 69.5% 30.2% Yes

 Block Group 1 74.7% 38.9% Yes

 Block Group 2 66.0% 24.3% Yes

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.
D-13 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Table 3-5 Low-Income and Minority Populations, 68th Street (PA) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic)

Low-income 

Population EJ Area?

State of Pennsylvania 23.9% 12.2% N/A

Philadelphia City/County, PA 65.4% 24.9% N/A

Tract 63 96.6% 42.1% Yes

 Block Group 2 100.0% 49.4% Yes

 Block Group 3 95.6% 50.1% Yes

 Block Group 4 95.3% 31.9% Yes

Tract 64 92.8% 33.3% Yes

 Block Group 2 91.3% 40.2% Yes

 Block Group 3 91.3% 28.2% Yes

Delaware County, PA 33.7% 8.8% N/A

Tract 4023 98.1% 6.5% Yes

 Block Group 1 97.3% 1.8% Yes

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.

Table 3-6 Low-Income and Minority Populations, 65th Street (PA) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic)

Low-income 

Population EJ Area?

State of Pennsylvania 23.9% 12.2% N/A

Philadelphia City/County, PA 65.4% 24.9% N/A

Tract 63 96.6% 42.1% Yes

 Block Group 1 100.0% 50.4% Yes

 Block Group 2 100.0% 49.4% Yes

Tract 64 92.8% 33.3% Yes

 Block Group 1 97.7% 34.0% Yes

 Block Group 2 91.3% 40.2% Yes

 Block Group 3 91.3% 28.2% Yes

Tract 65 98.4% 32.0% Yes

 Block Group 2 96.4% 29.6% Yes

Tract 66 97.3% 42.5% Yes

 Block Group 3 91.4% 29.2% Yes

 Block Group 4 100.0% 53.7% Yes

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.
D-14 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Table 3-7 Low-Income and Minority Populations, Cemetery Avenue (PA) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic)

Low-income 

Population EJ Area?

State of Pennsylvania 23.9% 12.2% N/A

Philadelphia City/County, PA 65.4% 24.9% N/A

Tract 63 96.6% 42.1% Yes

 Block Group 1 100.0% 50.4% Yes

Tract 64 92.8% 33.3% Yes

 Block Group 1 97.7% 34.0% Yes

Tract 65 98.4% 32.0% Yes

 Block Group 2 96.4% 29.6% Yes

Tract 66 97.3% 42.5% Yes

 Block Group 3 91.4% 29.2% Yes

 Block Group 4 100.0% 53.7% Yes

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.

Table 3-8 Low-Income and Minority Populations, 61st Street (PA) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic)

Low-income 

Population EJ Area?

State of Pennsylvania 23.9% 12.2% N/A

Philadelphia City/County, PA 65.4% 24.9% N/A

Tract 65 98.4% 32.0% Yes

 Block Group 1 100.0% 49.4% Yes

 Block Group 2 96.4% 29.6% Yes

Tract 66 97.3% 42.5% Yes

 Block Group 1 98.8% 37.9% Yes

 Block Group 2 100.0% 29.2% Yes

 Block Group 3 91.4% 53.7% Yes

 Block Group 4 100.0% 42.6% Yes

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.

Table 3-9 Low-Income and Minority Populations, Woodland Avenue (PA) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic)

Low-income 

Population EJ Area?

State of Pennsylvania 23.9% 12.2% N/A

Philadelphia City/County, PA 65.4% 24.9% N/A

Tract 66 97.3% 42.5% Yes

 Block Group 1 98.8% 37.9% Yes

 Block Group 2 100.0% 29.2% Yes

 Block Group 3 91.4% 53.7% Yes

 Block Group 4 100.0% 42.6% Yes

Tract 67 92.8% 33.4% Yes

 Block Group 7 82.4% 39.2% Yes

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.
D-15 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Table 3-10 Low-Income and Minority Populations, 58th Street (PA) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic)

Low-income 

Population EJ Area?

State of Pennsylvania 23.9% 12.2% N/A

Philadelphia City/County, PA 65.4% 24.9% N/A

Tract 66 97.3% 42.5% Yes

 Block Group 1 98.8% 37.9% Yes

Tract 67 92.8% 33.4% Yes

 Block Group 7 82.4% 39.2% Yes

Tract 69 97.1% 52.5% Yes

 Block Group 2 100.0% 52.5% Yes

 Block Group 3 95.7% 27.3% Yes

Tract 70 97.7% 17.6% Yes

 Block Group 3 94.6% 35.6% Yes

 Block Group 4 100.0% 6.9% Yes

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.

Table 3-11 Low-Income and Minority Populations, Eastwick Interlocking (PA) Project Site

Location Minority Population (nonwhite and/or Hispanic)

Low-income 

Population EJ Area?

State of Pennsylvania 23.9% 12.2% N/A

Philadelphia City/County, PA 65.4% 24.9% N/A

Tract 69 97.1% 52.5% Yes

 Block Group 1 97.1% 67.1% Yes

Tract 9809 N/A N/A N/A

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 - 2018 ACS.
E-1 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Appendix E: General Conformity Applicability Analysis 
E-2 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

General Conformity Applicability Analysis

1.1 Regulatory Background

The Howard Street Tunnel Project (Project) proposes improvements to address clearance 

restrictions along CSX’s Interstate 95 (I-95) Rail Corridor between Baltimore, Maryland and 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This is the last major intermodal rail-freight corridor on the CSX 

network unable to provide modern double-stack service due to various height-clearance 

obstructions located in Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania. The primary obstacle to doublestack service along this corridor has been the Howard Street Tunnel (HST), a 1.7-mile-long 

railroad passage under the heart of Baltimore that was originally constructed in 1895. With 

current vertical clearances less than the 21 feet necessary to achieve double-stack clearance, the 

HST and 22 other clearance locations currently restrict the ability to move railcars with doublestacked containers between Baltimore and Philadelphia, on the CSX I-95 Rail Corridor. 

Recent State Freight Plans in Maryland9, Delaware 10, and Pennsylvania 11 all point to increased 

freight tonnage of at least 58 percent between 2012 and 2040. Without comprehensive, costeffective solutions across freight modes, the national transportation network is at risk of delays 

and inefficiencies that will impact mobility for both passengers and cargo. The HST Project is 

specifically designed to address these concerns. 

The Project would remove the numerous clearance obstructions along CSX’s I-95 Rail Corridor, 

thereby providing double-stack connectivity and adding efficiency and resiliency to an important 

corridor in CSX’s intermodal rail network. The United States Department of Transportation 

(USDOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in cooperation with the Maryland Department 

of Transportation’s (MDOT) Maryland Port Administration (MPA) is preparing an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate and assess the potential environmental impacts of 

the Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA).

9 Maryland Department of Transportation, Maryland Strategic Goods Movement Plan, 2017.

https://www.mdot.maryland.gov/OPCP/Strategic_Goods_Movement_Plan_2017.pdf 10 Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP, Delmarva Freight Plan Final Report, May 2015.

https://deldot.gov/Publications/reports/freight_plan/pdfs/2015/Delmarva_Freight_Plan_Final_Report.pdf?cache=

1588727368738

11 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Pennsylvania’s Long Range Transportation & Comprehensive 

Freight Movement Plan, 2016

https://www.penndot.gov/ProjectAndPrograms/Planning/Documents/PennDOT-CFMP%20-

%20FINAL%20August%202016.pdf
E-3 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Pursuant to NEPA, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and CSX prepared an EA to 

analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. On DATE, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted comments to FRA on the EA, requesting 

“supporting evidence, analysis, or documentation that satisfies general conformity 

requirements.” In response to EPA’s comment, CSX prepared this General Conformity 

Applicability Analysis. The analysis shows that emissions associated with the construction of the 

Project will be below de minimis levels specified in 40 CFR §93.153(b). Therefore, a General 

Conformity Determination is not required. 

1.1.1 Air Quality Standards and General Conformity

Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in 1990, the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six major

air pollutants, referred to as “criteria pollutants:” carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2), ozone, respirable Particulate Matter (PM) (both PM2.5 and PM10), sulfur dioxide (SO2),

and lead.

TheCAA defines a nonattainment area (NAA) as a geographic region that the EPA designated as not

meeting one or more of the NAAQS. When the EPA designates an NAA, states are required to 

develop and implement a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP outlines how the state will 

achieve air quality that meets the NAAQS under the deadlines established by the CAA, followed 

by a plan for maintaining attainment status once the area has achieved attainment (and is then 

classified as a “maintenance area”). The SIP also compiles the state’s air quality control plans 

and rules that are approved by EPA. Section 176(c) of the CAA provides that federal agencies 

cannot engage, support, or provide financial assistance for licensing, permitting, or approving 

any project unless the project conforms to the applicable SIP. 

The CAA General Conformity regulations prohibit federal entitiesfrom taking actionsthat do not

conform to the SIPs for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The FRA is the lead agency

for the Project, which is subject to the General Conformity requirements, pursuant to 40 CFR

51.850-51.860. A General Conformity Applicability Analysis is needed for each pollutant of

concern in the nonattainment or maintenance area affected by a federal action to determine if 

a General Conformity Determination is required. Actions with emissions of pollutants of

concern less than established (de minimis) screening criteria emissions rates are deemed in 

conformance with the SIPs. Conforming actions do not: 

• Cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area;

• Interfere with provisions in the applicable SIP for maintenance of any standard; 
E-4 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

• Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any

area; or

• Delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission

reductions or other milestones in any area.

A General Conformity Analysis is only required for federal actions located in nonattainment or 

maintenance areas. A General Conformity Applicability Analysis determines whether emissions 

from a federal action will exceed certain thresholds and be subject to General Conformity 

requirements. If General Conformity applies, then a separate analysis, referred to as a 

Conformity Determination is required to document that the federal action conforms to the 

applicable SIP for the nonattainment or maintenance area.

As part of the General Conformity Applicability Analysis, the total of direct and indirect 

emissions of nonattainment pollutants or designated precursors from a proposed federal action is 

calculated and compared to annual general conformity applicability emissions thresholds in 

§93.153. The general conformity applicability thresholds are listed in 40 CFR §93.153(b)(1) for 

nonattainment areas and 40 CFR §93.153(b)(2) for maintenance areas. If emissions are below the 

applicability thresholds, then the emissions are considered de minimis, General Conformity 

requirements do not apply, and a General Conformity Determination is not required. The 

regulations provide that if emissions from a Federal action occur in more than one nonattainment 

or maintenance area, then each area is evaluated separately. Emissions from separate 

nonattainment or maintenance areas are treated as if they result from separate actions.

In summary, the General Conformity Rule of the federal CAA prohibits federal agencies (such as 

FRA) from permitting or funding projects that do not conform to an applicable SIP. The General 

Conformity Rule applies only to areas that are in nonattainment or within a maintenance status. 

Under the Rule, project-related emissions of the applicable nonattainment/maintenance 

pollutants are compared to de-minimis level thresholds. If the emissions exceed the thresholds, a 

formal Conformity Determination is required to demonstrate that the action conforms to the 

applicable SIP. Conversely, if project-related emissions are below the de-minimis levels the 

Project is assumed to conform to the SIP. The proposed Project is funded by, and would require 

approval by, the FRA and it is located in a nonattainment/maintenance area; therefore, the 

General Conformity requirements of the CAA are applicable. 

1.1.2 Project Location and General Conformity Thresholds

The Project activities will occur throughout 4 counties located in Maryland, Delaware and 

Pennsylvania. All of the Project components are located in air quality regions that are designated 

as non-attainment for Ozone. Consequently, a general conformity applicability analysis is 

required to determine if a conformity determination is required. 
E-5 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

The CAA requires states to develop SIPs to attain and/or maintain the NAAQS in their 

jurisdiction and develop a specific plan to attain the standards for each nonattainment or 

maintenance area. The attainment classifications for each of the EPA-designated areas 12 in the 

Project area are provided in Table 1. 

Table 1. Attainment Classifications

Air Quality 

Region

County Nonattainment 

Pollutant

Maintenance Pollutant

Baltimore, 

MD

Baltimore City, MD 2015 OzoneMarginal 

Nonattainment

1971 CO – Partial Maintenance

1997 PM – 2.5 Maintenance a 

PhiladelphiaWilmingtonAtlantic City, 

PA-NJ-MDDE

New Castle, MD 2015 OzoneMarginal 

Nonattainment

2006 PM-2.5 - Maintenance

Delaware, PA 2006 and 2012 PM-2.5 -

Maintenance

Philadelphia, PA 2006 PM-2.5 - Maintenance

a

 1997 PM-2.5 standard was revoked, and general conformity requirements no longer apply per U.S. EPA, 

“Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan 

Requirements.” 81 Fed. Reg. 58,010 (Aug. 24, 2016). Available at: 

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-08-24/pdf/2016-18768.pdf#page=1. 

For the Project area, the applicable General Conformity de minimis emission thresholds are 

presented in Table 2. 

12 EPA, Green Book, https://www.epa.gov/green-book. 
E-6 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Table 2: General Conformity De-Minimis Thresholds

Pollutant Primary/ Secondary (tons per year)

Ozone (NOx) 100

Ozone (VOC) 50

PM2.5 (Direct Emissions) 100

PM2.5 (SO2) 100

PM2.5 (NOx) 100

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100

Note: Ozone thresholds are for locations inside an Ozone Transport Region (OTR).

Source: EPA, De-Minimis Levels, http://www.epa.gov/oar/genconform/deminimis.html. 

NOx and VOC are the designated precursor pollutants for ozone, and the general conformity 

applicability thresholds in nonattainment areas are 50 tons per year (TPY) for VOC and 100 TPY 

for NOx. Emissions from all Project sources must be considered when assessing the applicability 

of general conformity with respect to ozone. 

Emissions of all Project sources within the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MDDE air quality region must potentially be considered when assessing the applicability of general 

conformity with respect to PM2.5 because the area is considered a maintenance area for PM2.5. 

The threshold for direct PM2.5 emissions in these maintenance areas is 100 TPY. SO2 is 

designated as a precursor for PM2.5 and has an applicability threshold of 100 TPY. In addition, 

NOx is also identified as a precursor for PM2.5. The applicability threshold for NOx is 100 TPY. 

For general conformity applicability purposes, Project emissions were separated by County and 

aggregated across air quality control regions for comparison to the general conformity 

applicability thresholds. 

1.2 Emission Calculation Methodology

Air pollutant emissions from construction of the Project includes emissions from diesel and

gasoline-powered construction equipment, diesel-powered generators, diesel trucks, and heavy 

duty trucks transporting excavated material and delivering construction materials. The Project

equipment usage factors, sizes, types, and number of construction equipment were estimated 

based on preliminary construction activity plans developed by CSX. Emission factorsfor NOx, VOC,

CO, SO2, and PM2.5 from on-site construction engines were developed using EPA’s

NONROAD Emission Model. With respect to on-road heavy duty truck engines, emissionsrates

for NOx, VOC, CO, SO2, and PM2.5 were developed using EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission

Simulator (MOVES) model. 
E-7 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

Total emissions within the nonattainment area and maintenance areas were calculated based on

the methodology described above for on-site and on-road emissions. The calculated Project 

construction emissions are designed to be conservative estimates and likely overestimate the 

expected emissions for several reasons, including the following: 

• Emission factors for nonroad engines made use of underlying default 

distributions in the NONROAD model and do not account for the greater 

availability of newer and lower emitting construction equipment in the Project 

area; and

• Assumptions that likely overestimate the area that is under active construction at 

any time based on the preliminary status of the construction activity plans. These 

assumptions included types and amount of construction equipment, average 

daily utilization dates, and construction activity durations. 

1.3 Results and Conclusion

The resulting summary of Project construction emissions for each construction year is 

summarized in Table 3. The corresponding General Conformity de minimis thresholds are also 

listed for comparison. 

The calculated Project construction emissions in federally designated nonattainment or 

maintenance areas are well below the corresponding general conformity applicability thresholds. 

Therefore, pursuant to 40 CFR §93.153(c)(1), General Conformity requirements do not apply to 

the Project and a General Conformity Determination is not required. 

Table 3: General Conformity Applicability Analysis

Year

Baltimore, MD Air Quality Control 

Region Emissions (tons/year) 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PANJ-MD-DE Air Quality Control Region 

Emissions (tons/year) 

CO NOx PM2.5 SO2 VOC CO NOx PM2.5 SO2 VOC

2022 8.27 17.45 0.97 0.02 1.68 2.29 4.73 0.27 0.01 0.46 

2023 6.99 15.15 0.84 0.02 1.44 3.17 6.81 0.38 0.01 0.64 

2024 5.50 12.20 0.67 0.02 1.16 2.29 4.73 0.27 0.01 0.46 

2025 3.36 6.82 0.37 0.01 0.62 0.48 0.47 0.04 0.0004 0.06 

General 

Conformity 

De Minimis

Thresholds 

(tons/year)

100 100 NA NA 50 NA 100 100 100 50 
1 | Page

Finding of No Significant Impact

Howard Street Tunnel Project

June 2021

References 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2021. Environmental Assessment for the Howard Street Tunnel 

Project. May.

https://mpa.maryland.gov/Pages/hst.aspx#:~:text=The%20Howard%20Street%20Tunnel%20(HST,%2C%

20Maryland%20and%20Philadelphia%2C%20Pennsylvania.