Draft Documents Text Only

Draft Environmental Assessment and Individual Section 4(f) Evaluation

for the SR 0083 Section 078 Dauphin County Eisenhower Interchange Reconstruction Project

MPMS #92931

Prepared by: US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering District 8-0

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) and, as applicable: Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands; Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management; Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice; and 49 U.S.C. Section 303(c) – Section 4(f)

  • 1. Introduction

    The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), District 8-0, in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing the State Route (SR) 0083 Section 078 Dauphin County, Eisenhower Interchange Reconstruction Project (herein after referred to as SR 0083 Section 078 Eisenhower Interchange Reconstruction Project) to evaluate improvements to the existing interchange with Interstate 283 (SR 0283). See Figure 1 Project Location Map.

    1.1 Project History

    This project is one of four transportation projects identified in PennDOT’s December 2003 I-83 Master Plan. The plan identified deficiencies and prioritized multiple projects with logical termini1 and independent utility2 within the Interstate 83 corridor with the overall goal of improving traffic flow and safety around the City of Harrisburg. In other words, each project could be constructed independently and function adequately whether or not the other projects were constructed.

    What is the I-83 Master Plan? A long-range transportation planning study for the section of Interstate 83 from the junction with Interstate 81 in Dauphin County to the New Cumberland Interchange in Cumberland County.

    Background

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 is a federal law that established a national policy for the environment and requires federal agencies to consider the environmental effects of their proposals and actions. Agencies then develop their own regulations on how to implement the law. FHWA is the lead federal agency on this project and PennDOT is the project sponsor. The project must follow the federal regulations, (23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 771), as it advances through the preliminary engineering and environmental review process.

    An Environmental Assessment (EA) is a document that is required under NEPA to determine if a proposed project would have a significant impact on the environment and if an Environmental Impact Statement is necessary. An EA includes a summary of the design, public outreach and environmental studies that have been completed as part of the preliminary engineering/ NEPA decision making process. Technical data and files are not included in this document but are incorporated by reference and maintained in the technical files for the project.

    This EA is being prepared for one of the four projects that were identified in the 2003 Master Plan, East Shore Section 2, now referred to as the SR 0083 Section 078 Eisenhower Interchange Reconstruction project.

    The preliminary engineering phase along with the final design, right-of-way (ROW) acquisition, and utility phases of the project are included in the fiscally constrained Interstate Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)3. This current TIP includes $10,000,000 for preliminary engineering (PE), $18,000,000 for final design (FD), $9,000,000 for utilities and $35,000,000 for ROW. PennDOT anticipates state and potential federal funding for this project, but the extent of federal funding is unknown at this time. The 2019-2030 Twelve Year Plan (TYP) identifies additional funding for the utility ($12,000,000) and construction ($249,050,000) phases of the project. The project will be conducted as four separate construction contracts with separate Multimodal Project Management System (MPMS) numbers, as noted below:

    • MPMS 92931 (SR 0083 Sec 078 lead project)
      • Construction 2023-2026
      • Total cost $282,861,000 (PE, FD, Utilities, ROW and Construction)
    • MPMS 113378 (SR 0083 Sec B78)
      • Construction 2026-2029
      • Total cost $174,425,000 (FD, ROW and Construction)
    • MPMS 113380 (SR 0083 Sec C78)
      • Construction 2028-2031
      • Total cost $159,004,000 (FD, ROW and Construction)
    • MPMS 113381 (SR 0083 Sec D78)
      • Construction 2030-2034
      • Total cost $185,796,000 (FD, ROW and Construction)

    Funding to supplement these phases in the future will be included in the 2021-2032 TYP update and identified in the 2015-2040 Long Range Transportation Plan, which is undergoing its next update and will be adjusted as the project advances.

    1.2 Project Limits and Description

    Project Limits

    The project limits extend through Lower Paxton Township, Paxtang Borough and Swatara Township in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. The northern end of the project begins just south of the SR 3020 (Union Deposit Road) Interchange and continues south and westward along SR 0083 to the SR 3013 (29th Street) overpass, south along SR 0283 to the SR 0441 (Lindle Road) interchange and eastward along SR 0322 to just east of the Penhar Interchange. Several interchanges are within the project limits including the Eisenhower, Paxton Street and Derry Street Interchanges. Logical termini was established for this project in an Evaluation of Logical Termini4 memo that was prepared and approved by FHWA (see Appendix D Agency Correspondence) in July 2017.

    Existing Conditions

    SR 0083 and the Eisenhower Interchange: Existing SR 0083 consists of two through lanes with an additional ramp lane in each direction, divided by a four-foot median with concrete barrier. Through the Eisenhower Interchange, the roadway is reduced to one travel lane in each direction on separate alignments. SR 0083 is posted at 55 mph with both directions at a 40 mph advisory speed through the interchange. The Eisenhower Interchange connects two interstates (SR 0083 and SR 0283) and one major arterial (SR 0322).

    Paxton Street Interchange: Access for Paxton Street is provided via a split interchange. Entrance and exit ramps for SR 0083 Northbound (NB) traffic are located within the Parkway Estates neighborhood, using South 32nd Street and Wayne Street to gain access to the highway.

    An exit ramp for SR 0083 Southbound (SB) traffic provides access tying in across from the Harrisburg Mall entrance to Bass Pro Shops. There is no direct connection from Paxton Street to SR 0083 SB. Paxton Street traffic must use Eisenhower Boulevard for access to SR 0083 SB.

    Derry Street Interchange: Local access from SR 3012 (Derry Street) to SR 0083 NB is provided via ramps. Connections from Derry Street to SR 0083 SB or SR 0283 SB travel an indirect route, utilizing Eisenhower Boulevard/SR 0322 and Paxton Street (portion on the north side of SR 0083 SB). There is no direct connection from SR 0083 NB to Derry Street.

    Norfolk Southern Railroad: A main east-west connection for the Norfolk Southern Railroad passes through the project area. The existing railroad includes one bridge carrying the Norfolk Southern Railroad over existing Eisenhower Boulevard/SR 0322. The bridge was constructed in the 1950’s and currently carries three active tracks with an empty space for an additional track to the north.

    Proposed Improvements

    The major improvements proposed with this project include:

    • Widening of SR 0083 mainline to three lanes in each direction with increased shoulder widths
    • Reconfiguration and reconstruction of the Eisenhower Interchange with direct connections to SR 0283 and SR 0322 along with complete local access connections to Derry Street
    • A new interchange connecting SR 0083 to Paxton Street

    1.3 Purpose and Needs

    The purpose and needs of a project must be defined in order to develop the reasonable alternatives and are used to eventually select a preferred alternative. The purpose and needs for this project were established in an Evaluation of Purpose and Need5 memo that was prepared and approved by FHWA (see Appendix D Agency Correspondence) in July 2018 are detailed below.

    Project Purpose

    The existing SR 0083 corridor was originally designed and constructed over 50 years ago. Many of the design elements, including number of lanes, ramp radii, weave distances, and lengths of acceleration/deceleration lanes were structured for conditions at that time, including much lower traffic volumes and speeds, that no longer exist today. Secondly, the physical condition of the pavement has deteriorated over time and needs to be addressed to keep the roadway functional.

    Purpose: The purpose of the project is to improve traffic flow and safety around the City of Harrisburg by providing upgraded transportation facilities.

    Project Needs

    At the beginning of the project, four problems (needs) in the transportation network were identified.

    Need 1: Deterioration of existing pavement.

    Except for the section north of the Derry Street ramps, traffic is running on overlays covering the original pavement constructed in the 1960s within this section.

    What are Overlays? Overlays are a method of repair by adding a new layer of asphalt to the surface of the roadway without tearing up and replacing the old asphalt surface.

    Need 2: Congested conditions from high traffic volumes.

    The project Traffic Modeling Report6 included a summary of existing traffic conditions, future-year travel demand forecasts, and traffic operational analyses. Findings from this report include:

    • During 2016, average daily traffic in the project area ranged anywhere from 50,000 to over 100,000 vehicles per day.
    • Average traffic volumes in the year 2050 are forecasted to be 26% higher than in 2016.
    • By 2050, travel demand would exceed the existing available roadway capacity during the daily peak hours on almost the entire project area.
    • Compared to the off-peak speeds that exceed 60 mph, travel time records from 2016 indicate heavily congested travel speeds within the project area during the peak commuting hours. Average travel speeds for northbound travel was 51 mph during the morning peak hour and 37 mph during the afternoon peak hour. Average speeds for southbound travel were 43 mph during the morning peak hour and 34 mph during the afternoon peak hour.

    Need 3: Operational safety concerns from substandard design characteristics.

    The existing roadway system in the project area has a lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes, and a substandard number of interstate lanes and narrow shoulder widths, which present concerns and ultimately lead to congestion in the project area. The crash history for the project area from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016 was reviewed and documented in the Crash Analysis Report7. The calculated crash rates were compared to the Homogenous Report for State Road Crashes in Years 2012 to 2016. Findings include:

    • Crashes that occur on the SR 0083 mainline are spread out through the study area, with more occurring at the interchanges in both northbound and southbound directions.
    • The crash data reveals that a majority the mainline segments experience crash rates greater than the state average.
    • All segments of the ramps connecting SR 0083, SR 0283, and SR 0322 and connecting SR 0322 and SR 3001/Eisenhower Boulevard have a crash rate greater than the state average.

    Need 4: Existing local roadway network impedes north/ south mobility.

    Public outreach with project stakeholders confirmed that there are concerns with the local connections and mobility in the project area and Need 4 was added from this input. Bridge restrictions crossing SR 0083 and the railroad limit certain sized vehicles, including buses, transit and emergency vehicles access in the project area, which ultimately lead to delays in service. SR 0083 and the Eisenhower Interchange are located in a dense residential and commercial area and the limited crossings of SR 0083 cause local interruptions in traffic. The limited number of crossings leads to congestion at the existing north/south connections like City Park Drive.

  • 2. Alternatives Considered

    After the purpose and needs for the project were approved, alternatives were developed and evaluated to determine if they were able to meet the needs of the project. An Alternative Analysis Report8 was prepared to summarize the studied alternatives and concludes with the preferred alternative that meets the project’s stated purpose and needs.

    Alternatives Investigated:

    • No-Build Alternative - no improvements are made to the existing system and only maintenance activities and signal timing updates are performed

    • Non-Capacity Adding Alternatives - maximize the performance of the existing transportation system using:
      • Transportation Systems Management (TSM) – carpooling, staggered work schedules, park-n-ride, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, and other techniques to increase vehicle occupancy and reduce the number of single-occupant vehicles on the road
      • Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) - use of cameras and vehicle detection systems, variable message signs, highway advisory radio and advanced signal systems that focus on traffic control and traveler information during highway occurrences and provide warning and diversionary options, such as alternate routes
      • Transit - public transportation services
    • Build Alternative – improvements to the existing system that address the purpose and needs of the project

    No-Build Alternative

    Analysis of the no-build alternative resulted in the overall levels of service (LOS) shown in Table 1. (LOS is described in Exhibit 2.) Additionally, 39 intersections were analyzed and over half have an LOS that is unacceptable in the 2050 no-build condition. Additional no-build analysis is contained in the No-Build Addendum for Traffic Modeling Report9. The no-build alternative was dismissed because it would do nothing to improve the existing roadways and interchange and would do nothing to address the project needs. The no-build alternative is carried through this document only for comparison purposes.

    Non-Capacity Adding Alternative

    The analysis of the TSM, ITS and transit alternatives resulted in a determination that none of these measures, alone or in combination, would alleviate the need to add roadway capacity and improved ramp configurations on the SR 0083 corridor. The TSM and transit components would consolidate and distribute ridership, resulting in decreased highway demand, especially in the peak periods. Traffic is both local and regional in the project area, so implementing these components would be a slight benefit to congestion, but not address all the project needs. The current transit system is limited with fixed locations with no future long-term planned changes or initiatives to expand the system along the SR 0083 corridor. The ITS measures would increase the efficiency of the highway system by notifying, routing, and redirecting traffic. However, without additional highway capacity, these initiatives would not accommodate the anticipated high future traffic volumes. Some of these alternatives would be included in the build alternative, but on their own would not be able to address the needs of deteriorating pavement, substandard design characteristics and local connectivity. The non-capacity adding alternatives would not address the project needs and for this reason, this alternative was dismissed.

    Build Alternative

    Additional lanes on SR 0083 and its ramps are needed to address capacity concerns. Addressing the project need through a new alignment of SR 0083 is not reasonable due to its location and existing physical constraints. Relocation to the north would impact an active and historic railroad along with the Holy Cross Cemetery and dense mixed use development (residential, commercial and industrial). Relocation to the south would substantially impact dense, mostly commercial land uses. Holy Cross Cemetery also limits shifting the alignment to the west in the area where the existing SR 0083 takes a northern turn, while shifts to the east in this area would impact dense mixed use development (residential, commercial and industrial). Widening on existing alignment to the extent possible, with some shifts to improve geometry, is the best option to meet the project needs while minimizing impacts and maximizing the use of the existing roadway footprint.

    When developing and evaluating the different options, multiple factors (roadway geometry, traffic analysis, structures, traffic control, environmental and stormwater management) were considered. This included an iterative design-analyze-refine process and a comparison of build options using a variety of factors. The factors used to analyze the options are shown in the call-out box.

    Due to the complex nature of the project, including multiple roadways, the desire to maintain traffic during construction, and the need to avoid environmental resources, the design team proposed a “progressive design” approach to facilitate the design refinement process. The approach broke down the project area into smaller areas of analysis instead of developing multiple complete build options for the entire project area.

    When developing and evaluating the different options, multiple factors (roadway geometry, traffic analysis, structures, traffic control, environmental and stormwater management) were considered. This included an iterative design-analyze-refine process and a comparison of build options using a variety of factors. The factors used to analyze the options are shown in the call-out box.

    Due to the complex nature of the project, including multiple roadways, the desire to maintain traffic during construction, and the need to avoid environmental resources, the design team proposed a “progressive design” approach to facilitate the design refinement process. The approach broke down the project area into smaller areas of analysis instead of developing multiple complete build options for the entire project area.

    Design Approach:

    1. Consideration of potential environmental impacts
    2. Development of improvement options
    3. Evaluation of traffic impacts/operations

    An iterative design process was followed, repeating steps 1, 2, and 3 in smaller sections of the project area based on engineering and environmental constraints. These areas were evaluated on the analysis factors noted above and discussed with the entire design team at monthly Technical Engineering Committee Meetings for either advancement or dismissal.

    This process led to the identification of a recommended preferred alternative which was presented to public at the October 2018 public meeting.

    The preferred alternative is shown in Figure 2 Preferred Alternative.

    Analysis Factors:

    • General Engineering Pros and Cons: Advantages or disadvantages that do not fit within other factors

    • Environmental Impacts: Based on preliminary data

    • Traffic Measures of Effectiveness: travel time, intersection delay, etc.

    • Signing: ability to meet signing requirements

    • Right-of-Way: full or partial acquisitions: impact to access or traffic patterns; Norfolk Southern Railroad impacts

    • Incident Management and Emergency Services Access: impacts to routes and access; redundant access; detour options in the case of a lane closure

    • Constructability: areas that can be constructed off the existing alignment; number of construction stages and traffic shifts; temporary roadway or bridge

    • Construction Cost: the cost to construct the alternative

    • Driver Experience: number of lane changes required to make common movements

    The preferred alternative involves the reconstruction and widening of SR 0083 on or near the existing alignment, to a minimum of three through lanes plus auxiliary lanes in each direction throughout the project limits. The following section steps through the proposed improvements included in the preferred alternative. A detailed description of the improved bicycle and pedestrian accommodations is not included in this section.

    The project begins at the 29th Street overpass and proceeds eastward. The SR 0083 reconstruction and widening begins with the alignment shifting to the south to avoid permanent impacts to the Norfolk Southern Railroad.

    Moving to the east, the proposed alignment moves away from the railroad and crosses over City Park Drive in the area of the Capital Area Greenbelt, Paxtang Park, unnamed tributaries to Spring Creek, and two historic resources (Harrisburg City Parks 7 Parkway Plan and Forster-Rutherford House (Spring House)). The SR 0083 alignment in this area was set to minimize impacts to these resources.

    Improvements would be made to City Park Drive, which would be shifted in order to accommodate the required SR 0083 structure piers, stream realignment, and Capital Area Greenbelt improvements.

    Capital Area Greenbelt improvements would include re-alignment and reconstruction from the Norfolk Southern Railroad structure to the Paxton Street/32nd Street intersection.

    Access to Paxton Street from SR 0083 would be provided by a new modified trumpet style interchange with a loop ramp in the northeast quadrant and parallel style ramps in the other quadrants.

    The loop ramp would provide access from SR 0083 SB to Paxton Street.

    The ramps would tie to Paxton Street at the existing signal locations across from the Harrisburg Mall.

    SR 0083 Northbound CD Roadway

    The design includes a collector-distributor (CD) roadway10 for northbound SR 0083 traffic that runs parallel to the mainline section separated by a barrier. The purpose of a CD system is to separate through traffic from traffic merging on and off the interstate, improving safety and travel flow.

    The CD roadway begins near where SR 0083 crosses City Park Drive. All movements from SR 0083 NB to Paxton Street, SR 0283 Southbound (SB), SR 0322 Eastbound (EB), and Derry Street would utilize the CD roadway. It would also allow access from Paxton Street to SR 0083 NB, SR 0283 SB, SR 0322 EB, and Derry Street. The CD typical section would vary between three and four lanes.

    Continuing eastbound, the location of the proposed alignment is controlled by existing Paxton Street to the south. The northern edge of existing Paxton Street would be held with all widening and reconstruction occurring to the north.

    The CD roadway ends approximately three quarters of a mile from its beginning, near 40th Street, splitting into several ramps at the Eisenhower Interchange.

    Major improvements to Boyd Road, to the north of SR 0083, would provide a local connection between 40th Street to the Paxton Street Interchange and Paxton Street. Currently Boyd Road functions as an alley, but it would provide a local connection between Derry Street and Paxton Street in the future.

    At the point where the CD roadway splits, mainline SR 0083 utilizes a horizontal curve to realign and shift the alignment to the west beginning at approximately 40th Street.

    All directional connections between SR 0083, SR 0283 and SR 0322 would be reconstructed and reconfigured. The reconfiguration would provide improved geometry and design speed consistent with a system-to-system interchange11. These improvements are needed to meet traffic requirements.

    Proceeding northeast, the alignment crosses over Derry Street west of the existing mainline structure where two auxiliary ramp lanes carrying traffic from SR 0283 northbound (NB) and SR 0322 westbound (WB) join the mainline section.

    The Derry Street Interchange would be reconstructed and reconfigured into a single-point urban interchange (SPUI)12 providing local access connections for all movements. The ramp terminals and Derry Street traffic signal would be located at existing grade, under proposed SR 0083.

    A dedicated bike lane would be provided in each direction through the SPUI.

    Other improvements along the Derry Street corridor within the project limits would include pavement rehabilitation, lane reconfigurations, traffic signal alterations, and sidewalk improvements.

    Two new local connections are included to improve the local roadway network for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists (which are both shown in the above figure). Both connections would provide sidewalk for pedestrian traffic and provide minimum 6-foot wide shoulders to accommodate bicycle traffic.

    40th Street Connection

    The 40th Street improvements would connect the two segments of 40th Street currently bisected by existing SR 0083 via new structures over the Norfolk Southern Railroad, SR 0083 and Paxton Street. This would provide a direct local connection from Derry Street in the north to Chambers Hill Road in the south.

    Paxton Street Connector

    The 40th Street improvements would connect the two segments of 40th Street currently bisected by existing SR 0083 via new structures over the Norfolk Southern Railroad, SR 0083 and Paxton Street. This would provide a direct local connection from Derry Street in the north to Chambers Hill Road in the south.

    SR 0083 Northern Limit

    The proposed alignment ties back in with the existing alignment approximately 1.1 miles south of Union Deposit Road.

    From this point to the north, the widening and reconstruction follows the existing alignment.

    At the northern project limit, the mainline section ties in just south of the Union Deposit Road Interchange. The two northbound auxiliary lanes would drop at the Union Deposit Interchange becoming the off-ramp.

    SR 0283 and SR 0322

    Portions of SR 0283 and SR 0322 would be reconstructed and widened in both directions in order to have the space for required ramp geometry and lane configurations.

    SR 0322 reconstruction would end to the east of the Penhar Drive Interchange.

    SR 0283 reconstruction would end just north of the SR 0441, Lindle Road Interchange.

    Analysis of the preferred alternate resulted in LOS for the mainline sections showing an overall improvement from the no-build conditions for the 2050 design year. These results are summarized in Table 2. In addition, due to the reconfiguration of Paxton Street, Derry Street and Eisenhower Boulevard, local roadway intersections are removed or improved and all intersections within the project limits are expected to operate at an acceptable overall intersection LOS for urban roadways (LOS D or better) in the build condition.

  • 3. Environmental Impacts

    This chapter summarizes the impacts associated with the preferred alternative in comparison with the no- build alternative. An impact boundary (referred to as environmental impact footprint) was developed based on the furthest extent of known environmental impacts, which include ground disturbing activities and temporary or permanent land acquisition related to proposed construction. The analysis also determines whether the impacts are “significant” in terms of context (setting of where the impact occurs) and intensity (how severe is the impact in terms of context, which includes current health or amount of the resource in the project area).

    The preferred alternative would not impact the following resources and no further discussion is presented: coastal zones, navigable waterways, wild and scenic rivers, national natural landmarks, wildlife sanctuaries/refuges, state forest land, state game lands, unique geological features, productive agricultural resources, Section 6(f) resources, Stafford Act properties, Pennsylvania water trails, and national historic landmarks.

    Environmental resources that are would be impacted by the preferred alternative are divided into three general categories:

    • Natural – Watercourses/Streams, Wetlands, Floodplains, Wildlife and Plants
    • Social and Economic – Community Demographics, Environmental Justice/Title VI, Regional and Community Planning and Land Use, Community Cohesion, Community Facilities and Services, Displacements, Air Quality, Noise and Hazardous Wastes
    • Cultural – Historic Structures and Archaeology Resources

    For each of these resources, a summary of the analysis and investigation is included in this Environmental Assessment and typically includes:

    • Background - Why is the resource being investigated?
    • Identification - How was the presence of the resource determined?
    • Impacts - What would happen to the resource from the project being built? Impacts, also referred to as effects at times, to resources must be considered by federal agencies under NEPA
    • Mitigation - How would the impacts be avoided, reduced or repaired? Mitigation must be considered for any impacts that the project would have to improve the action to the affected resource

    To keep this document concise, detailed information can be found in the technical file for the respective resource.

    3.1. Watercourses/Streams

    Background

    Watercourse/Stream: a natural or artificial channel through which water flows.

    The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) are the federal agencies which regulate watercourses (streams) as governed by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Guidance in the Clean Water Rule (as derived from the Clean Water Act) was used to determine if a channel met the definition of a body of water that is regulated under the federal government. Watercourses have been delineated using the ordinary high water mark as defined by 33 CFR 328.3.

    The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PaDEP) is the state agency which regulates water resources under Chapter 105 of the Dam Safety and Encroachments Act, and Section 401, Water Quality Certification. Watercourses under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been delineated as per the definition of a watercourse under 25 Pennsylvania Code Section 105.1. Under this definition, a watercourse is a channel or conveyance of surface water having defined bed (bottom of stream) and banks (sides of stream), whether natural or artificial, with perennial (constant) or intermittent (not constant) flow. Streams within the project limits were characterized as ephemeral (only flows with stormwater, no groundwater), intermittent (not constant with groundwater and stormwater flow), and perennial (constant flow, mostly groundwater) based on definitions found in 25 Pennsylvania Code Section 87.1.

    A comprehensive water resources review, which included a review of historic mapping and numerous engineering plans was performed in order to determine hydrology sources, historic use, and drainage patterns of the water resources identified during investigations. This helped to further differentiate between regulated channels (watercourses/streams) vs. non-regulated channels (ditches). Refer to the I-83/I-283 Interchange Reconstruction Project Watercourses and Wetlands Historic Mapping/Plans Review and Field Observations Analysis Memorandum13.

    Identification

    The watercourses/streams identified in the project limits are depicted below in blue in an overall map which also shows wetlands (refer to next section for definition) in green. Ditches are depicted in orange. Refer to Appendix B Environmental Features/Constraints Mapping, for watercourse locations within the environmental impact footprint.

    Six unnamed tributaries (UNT) to Spring Creek and the main stem of Spring Creek were identified within the project limits. The above mapping shows an overall view of the area as well as locations of zoomed in views (Insets) of specific areas where numerous resources are located. As seen in the overall stream and wetland map (Exhibit 12), Spring Creek generally flows from the northern portion of the project limits to the southwestern portion of the project limits. One of the channels (Tributary 64524 to Spring Creek) was enclosed in piping within the project limits as seen in the lower southwest corner on the map. Spring Creek has the following designations/listings:

    • PaDEP Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards: Cold Water Fishes, Migratory Fishes (CWF, MF)
    • PaDEP stream attainment: Aquatic Life Impaired from urban runoff/storm sewers which causes flow regime/modification, habitat alterations and siltation
    • Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PaFBC): Natural Reproduction of Trout (wild trout)

    A detailed analysis of aquatic resources in the project area is contained in the I-83 East Shore Section 2, Wetlands and Watercourses Identification and Delineation Report14.

    The northern portion of Spring Creek, where it crosses SR 0083, is shown to the right on Inset 1. UNT 1 is also located in this area and drains into Spring Creek from the north. The southern crossing of Spring Creek, under SR 0083, near City Park Drive is shown below on Inset 2.

    Most of the watercourses are located in the area identified in Inset 2, which includes the main stem of Spring Creek and UNTs 3, 4 and 5 to Spring Creek. UNT 5 to Spring Creek starts at a spring house. The spring house is an historic resource discussed later in Section 3.9.1 Above Ground Historic Properties.

    Most of the streams in the project limits are impacted by the surrounding urban development as shown in the photograph to the right. Disturbances to streams in the project area from the surrounding land use include channelization (stream made straight), mowing/clearing of surrounding area, paved surfaces and potential pollution, such as nutrient, chemical and sediment pollution. See the overall stream and wetland map (Exhibit 12) for the location of UNT 2 to Spring Creek.

    Impacts

    A summary of the project impacts to watercourses and impact descriptions are included in Table 3 (found at the end of the impacts section). The total amount of stream length in the project area is 10,210 LF (linear feet) (many streams extend well outside the project area). The total amount of permanent stream impacts is approximately 5,144 LF based on current information. The approximate amount of temporary impacts is 896 LF. Temporary impacts include stream diversion impacts and other miscellaneous work required within the limit of disturbance only during construction.

    Much of the proposed impacts to streams are from culvert or bridge replacements within the project limits. Two of the existing arch culverts carrying Spring Creek would be replaced with a bridge creating an open channel. The photograph above shows the northern arch culvert, while the photograph to the left shows the southern arch culvert. Although this is accounted for as an impact to the stream, it is an improvement, as it would allow the stream to flow more naturally under the bridge and would create better stream habitat.

    Some streams would require relocation due to highway widening or other roadway construction activities. UNT 3 to Spring Creek would be relocated as a part of the project due to highway widening and proposed culverts for a ramp. Mitigation for this impact is anticipated to occur onsite (would be self-mitigating) through the stream relocation, which is expected to provide conditions as good as or better than the existing channel.

    UNT 4 to Spring Creek under the SR 0083 bridge and the culvert under City Park Drive would be relocated, and UNT 5 would be shifted slightly to match the new location of UNT 4. Mitigation for these impacts is expected to occur onsite (would be self-mitigating) through the stream relocation, which is expected to provide conditions as good as or better than the existing channels.

    Some impacts would occur due to fill slope (embankment) for roadway work such as new ramps and widening. These impacts are anticipated to require off-site mitigation within the watershed, such as improvements to Spring Creek or tributaries outside the project limits.

    The no-build alternative would have no impact on watercourses/streams.

    Mitigation

    For purposes of this document, mitigation includes avoidance, minimization and mitigation (replacement). Mitigation for stream impacts are currently under consideration. This information and impacts would be documented in future permit applications. It is anticipated that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) individual permit and a Section 404/Chapter 105 Joint Permit would be required.

    Due to the need to replace bridges and culverts for the new highway, most of the stream impacts are unavoidable. The following minimization measures have been incorporated into the design:

    • Replacement of arch culverts at two separate locations along Spring Creek with bridges minimizes the impacts to Spring Creek and improves existing conditions.
    • Retaining walls are proposed at the following locations to minimize impacts to watercourses, wetlands and floodplains:
      • Along SR 0083 near UNT 1 to Spring Creek and Wetland 13,
      • Along SR 0083 near UNT 4 to Spring Creek, and
      • Along SR 0083 near southern arch culvert carrying Spring Creek.

    See Appendix B Environmental Features/Constraints Mapping for maps showing the retaining walls.

    Antidegradation Best Available Combination of Technologies (ABACT) measures (additional stream protection measures during construction) would likely be used due to the designation of Spring Creek as a wild trout stream. Further minimization of impacts would be considered during final design and may include steepening of embankment slopes, retaining walls, certain types of wingwalls or abutments to decrease footprint, drainage modifications and other best management practices.

    Temporary stream impacts would be restored to pre-construction conditions at the end of construction to the extent possible. Post construction stormwater management controls would be designed and implemented to mitigate the increases in stormwater runoff that result from the project in post construction conditions. Permanent stream impacts that are not mitigated on-site would be mitigated off-site. Although a total of 5,144 LF of stream is impacted, most of this would be mitigated on-site through stream relocation/restoration efforts. The replacement of the arch culverts with open bridges would create improved conditions and are not anticipated to require mitigation. Based on the amount of stream impact that would be mitigated on-site, the total off-site mitigation anticipated for the project is approximately 1,000 LF.

    Preliminary stream mitigation site searches15 were performed. Additional studies would be performed to further investigate the recommended sites. Preliminary efforts identified five potential stream mitigation sites in the Spring Creek watershed, including two along Spring Creek, two along unnamed tributaries to Spring Creek and one along Slotznick Run. Agency coordination has begun and would continue as design progresses to determine final stream mitigation requirements.

    3.2. Wetlands

    Background

    Wetlands: areas where water covers the soil or is present either at or near the surface of the soil, all year or for varying periods of time during the year, including during the growing season

    The USACE and the USEPA are the federal agencies which regulate wetlands as governed by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The PaDEP is the state agency which regulates water resources under Chapter 105 of the Dam Safety and Encroachments Act, and Section 401, Water Quality Certification. The project area was investigated for wetlands using the USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual in conjunction with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0), April 2012. Identified wetlands were classified in accordance with the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, et al. 1979). Wetlands were determined to be Exceptional Value (EV) or “Other” based on the criteria listed in 25 PA Code Section 105.17. A functional assessment (to determine functions and values) of each wetland was completed using the USACE, New England District, Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement; Wetland Function and Values, A Descriptive Approach (1993).

    Identification

    A total of 16 wetlands (totaling 0.253 acres) were identified in the project limits. See Exhibit 15 for an overview of wetlands (shown and labeled in green) within the project area. Also refer to Appendix B Environmental Features/ Constraints Mapping for wetland locations within the environmental impact footprint.

    A detailed analysis of aquatic resources in the project area is contained in the I-83 East Shore Section 2, Wetlands and Watercourses Identification and Delineation Report16.

    As seen in most of the wetlands within the project limits are small floodplain wetlands located along Spring Creek or its tributaries. Spring Creek (and its tributaries) is designated as supporting natural reproduction of trout (wild trout). Therefore, the wetlands along the streams are considered exceptional value (EV) per 25 PA Code Section 105.17.

    These EV floodplain wetlands are depicted on Insets 1 and 2. One of these EV wetlands, Wetland 14, is shown in the photograph to the right.

    All other wetlands within the project area are considered “other” as they were not located along Spring Creek or its tributaries and did not meet other criteria of EV wetlands. These “other” wetlands are either located along a ditch or isolated from any water channel.

    One wetland, Wetland 7, was positioned on a hill and fed by springs/seeps (water discharging out of the ground). This wetland is also depicted on Inset 1. Because of the karst topography17 found in the project area, there are not many wetlands present.

    Wetlands were classified according to vegetation type per Cowardin Classification guidelines. All wetlands in the project limits were considered “palustrine” because they were inland freshwater (not saltwater or brackish) systems that were not lakes. Most wetlands in the project area were classified as palustrine emergent (PEM) wetlands- meaning, they were dominated by herbaceous plants such as grasses and flowering plants. Two wetlands contained mostly shrubs and were classified as palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS). One wetland contained some open water ponded areas and was classified as palustrine unconsolidated bottom (PUB) and is depicted in the picture to the right. There were also two wetlands that contained some areas with mostly trees and were classified as having some palustrine forested (PFO) areas.

    Impacts

    A summary of potential wetland impacts and impact descriptions are included in Table 4 (found at the end of the impacts discussion). Only wetlands that are proposed to be impacted are included in this table. Total anticipated impacts to eight wetlands from project activities is 0.132 acres based on current information. At this time, all impacts are considered permanent. However, once the area of disturbance is further refined, impacts may decrease, or some may become temporary.

    Most of the impacts would occur to the wetlands located along Spring Creek and its tributaries due to structure and culvert replacements and are unavoidable. See Appendix B Environmental Features/Constraints Mapping, for a depiction of the impacts for each wetland. One of the areas of concentrated impacts is the overhead bridge along SR 0083-078, above City Park Drive and the Capital Area Greenbelt as depicted in the photograph to the left (and seen in Inset 2). Wetland 3, Wetland 8 (shown in photograph to the left), UNT 4 and 5 to Spring Creek would be impacted from the bridge replacement. Work in this general vicinity also includes a culvert relocation and City Park Drive improvements which would impact UNT 4 to Spring Creek, Spring Creek, Wetland 1 and Wetland 4.

    Another area of impacts along Spring Creek is the northern arch culvert replacement. It is anticipated that Wetlands 10 and 14 would be impacted. However, impacts to Wetland 10 may be able to be minimized or may be changed to temporary. See previous photograph of Wetland 14.

    Wetlands 5, 15 and 16 would be impacted as they are adjacent to ditches that are being relocated.

    The no-build alternative would have no impact on wetlands.

    Mitigation

    If temporary wetland impacts occur, they would be restored to pre-construction conditions at the end of construction to the maximum extent possible. This would likely include re-seeding with wetland seed mix, soil segregation, wetland matting and use of sediment/silt socks. Protective fencing would be used to avoid potential additional wetland impacts during construction.

    Avoidance, minimization and mitigation (replacement) for wetland impacts are currently under consideration. This information and impacts would be documented in the NPDES individual permit and Section 404/Chapter 105 Joint Permit.

    Due to the need to replace bridges and culverts for the new highway, and the position of a majority of the wetlands along streams, the wetland impacts are unavoidable. However, the following minimization measures have been incorporated into current design. In the area near Wetland 13, a retaining wall is proposed to be used to avoid impacts to the wetland. ABACT measures (additional stream protection measures during construction) would likely be used due to the designation of some of the wetlands as EV wetlands.

    Other avoidance and minimization of impacts that may be considered include steepening of embankment slopes, retaining walls, certain types of wingwalls or abutments to decrease footprint, drainage modifications and other best management practices.

    It is anticipated that approximately 0.15 acres of wetland mitigation would be required. Preliminary wetland mitigation site searches18 were performed and identified four potential wetland mitigation sites within the Spring Creek watershed and one within the Paxton Creek watershed. Additional studies would be performed to further investigate the recommended sites. However, wetland mitigation banking (mitigation wetlands already built) may be used instead of, or in addition to, on-site mitigation to offset wetland impacts. The use of riparian forested buffers would be considered as a mitigation effort. Agency coordination has begun and would continue in order to determine final wetland mitigation requirements.

    3.3. Floodplains

    Background

    Floodplain: an area of low-lying ground adjacent to a river, formed mainly of river sediments and subject to flooding.

    Floodplains are regulated under federal and state laws. The USEPA Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 required each agency to take action to reduce flood loss. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulates floodplains under the national Flood Insurance Program. Under this program, areas along streams/watercourses are delineated and mapped according to flood risk. Floodplains are further regulated under PaDEPs 25 Pa Code Chapter 106 regulations.

    Floodways (a portion of the floodplain closest to the stream) are regulated under PaDEPs 25 Pa Code Chapter 105 regulations. Under these laws/regulations, studies are required to be performed to ensure projects do not negatively impact people and property within floodplains. These studies are Hydrologic and Hydraulic (H&H) studies which are required to follow 23 CFR Part 650.115 and 650.117.

    Identification

    Within the project area, designated FEMA floodplains and floodways exist along Spring Creek and its tributaries. See Exhibit 16 for an overview of FEMA 100-year floodplains in blue and floodway marked as a blue line. Approximately 30 acres of designated floodplain exists in the project area. Refer to Appendix B Environmental Features/Constraints Mapping, Sheets 2-6 for floodplain locations. Floodplains within the project area are concentrated in areas where streams cross under SR 0083 including the arch culvert in the northern portion of the project, the culvert carrying UNT 2 to Spring Creek and the arch culvert in the southwestern portion of the project area.

    Most of the floodplain areas have been diminished and/ or negatively affected by urban development including residences, commercial/industrial development, channelization, transportation uses and mowing and clearing activities. The floodplain area of UNT 2 to Spring Creek on the downstream side of SR 0083 shows channelization, clearing and mowing, and residential development. See photograph to the left.

    In parts of some streams throughout the project area, alterations have been so severe, that the natural floodplain has been completely lost. For instance, UNT 3 to Spring Creek has been severely channelized as seen in the picture to the right. UNT 2 to Spring Creek along the Derry Street area and Tributary 64524 to Spring Creek have been piped. Additionally, UNT 2 to Spring Creek, on the upstream side, has been completely paved in some areas.

    Preliminary coordination with Swatara Township indicated flooding issues in the area of Derry Street where UNT 2 to Spring Creek is piped underground. The township noted that the existing drainage system in this area along Derry Street is undersized. Most of this drainage system is outside of the project limits. However, the culvert carrying UNT 2 under SR 0083 would be sized to ensure no overtopping of roadway or flooding would occur. Drainage features along East Park Drive would be sized for potential future improvements proposed by the township to assist with minimizing flooding that could occur in the reconstructed areas.

    Impacts

    Impacts to the floodplains would be similar to the impacts to watercourses and mostly as a result of the same activities in those locations. Most of the impacts would occur due to structure replacements for the three locations along Spring Creek and the culvert replacements for UNT 2 to Spring Creek and UNT 4 to Spring Creek. The permanent impacts within the floodplains would result from the need to relocate streams and/or fill placed for new structures and ramps. Based on the current environmental impact footprint, the total estimated temporary floodplain impact is approximately 2.49 acres and the permanent floodplain impact is approximately 5.96 acres. Temporary impacts would be restored to near existing conditions following construction.

    The no-build alternative would have no impact on floodplains.

    Table 5 below shows impact description and approximate amount (in acres) to each floodplain area according to stream/location. Temporary impacts include stream diversion impacts as well as impacts for non- earthmoving work within the limit of disturbance during construction.

    It is anticipated that an NPDES individual permit and a Section 404/Chapter 105 Joint Permit would be required for implementation of the preferred alternative. Floodway impacts would be documented in the Chapter 105 permit for the project. Floodplain impacts under Chapter 106 regulations would also be incorporated into the Chapter 105 permit for the project.

    Mitigation

    Detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic (H&H) studies would be completed during preliminary design to demonstrate that the proposed structures and drainage features are properly sized for the design flood and analyzed to minimize impacts in accordance with 23 CFR Part 650.115 and 650.117. No significant floodplain impacts or adverse impacts on the natural and beneficial floodplain values are anticipated to occur, as the project would be designed to minimize increases in flood elevations. Additionally, avoidance and minimization measures have been evaluated and are discussed below and mitigation would be incorporated into final design activities. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR), if needed, would be coordinated with the municipality involved and submitted for FEMA compliance.

    Avoidance, minimization and mitigation for floodplain impacts are currently under consideration. Due to the need to replace bridges and culverts for the new highway, some of the floodplain impacts are unavoidable. However, the following minimization measures have been incorporated into current design. A retaining wall is proposed at the following locations to minimize impacts to watercourses, wetlands and floodplains:

    • Along SR 0083 near UNT 1 to Spring Creek and Wetland 13;
    • Along SR 0083 near UNT 4 to Spring Creek; and
    • Along SR 0083 near southern arch culvert carrying Spring Creek.

    See Appendix B Environmental Features/Constraints Mapping, Sheets 1, 2 and 6 for maps showing the retaining walls. Impacts to the floodplains where arch culverts would be replaced with bridges have been minimized due to the open structure of the bridge creating less footprint and more available floodplain area. The proposed stream relocations and new structures would be designed to minimize increases in flood elevations. Post construction stormwater management controls would be designed and implemented to mitigate the increases in stormwater runoff that result from the project in post construction conditions. Coordination would take place regarding opportunities to provide stormwater management consistent with PennDOT’s municipal separate storm sewer (MS4) permit.

    Other avoidance and minimization measures that may be considered include steepening of embankment slopes, retaining walls, certain types of wingwalls or abutments to decrease footprint, drainage modifications and other best management practices. Floodplain mitigation would likely be incorporated into stream restoration/mitigation efforts. Preliminary stream mitigation site searches were performed. Additional studies would be performed to further investigate the recommended sites. Agency coordination has begun and would continue as the project progresses to determine final floodplain mitigation requirements.

    3.4. Wildlife and Plants

    Background

    Threatened and Endangered Species: “Endangered” means that a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. “Threatened” means that a species is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.

    Threatened or endangered wildlife and plant species that are declining nationwide are protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and listed within the federal regulation 50 C.F.R. Part 17. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are the federal agencies responsible for administering the ESA in order to protect and recover imperiled terrestrial and freshwater (USFWS) and marine (NMFS) species.

    In addition, state law establishes a list of threatened or endangered species specific to Pennsylvania and includes rules on how agencies protect the state listed species. Pennsylvania’s protection of threatened or endangered species can be found within the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Code at 30 Pa.C.S. §§102, 2502, 2504, and 2506; the Game and Wildlife Code at 34 Pa.C.S. §§ 102, 925, 2164-67, and 2924; the Wild Resource Conservation Act at 32 P.S. §§ 5301-5314; and the Conservation of Pennsylvania Native Wild Plants at 17 Pa. Code § 45.1-91. The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PaFBC) is responsible for protecting reptiles, amphibians, fish, aquatic invertebrates, and freshwater mussels, the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) is responsible for protecting mammals and birds and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) is responsible for protecting plants.

    Migratory Birds

    Migratory birds are birds that migrate across state and international borders. The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 16 U.S.C. 703-712 is a law that protects birds that migrate throughout the United States and into other countries. A listing of migratory birds protected under this law can be found within 50 C.F.R. 10.13.

    The federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 16 U.S.C. 668-668c was originally passed by Congress in 1940 to protect our national symbol the bald eagle. The permit regulations associated with this law can be found in 50 C.F.R. 22. This law and regulation protects both the bald and golden eagle, even though neither are currently a federally listed threatened or endangered species. MBTA additionally provides protection for both eagles. USFWS administers the MBTA and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

    Pennsylvania established the first statewide Important Bird Area (IBA) program in the United States in 1996. Scientists have identified over 80 IBA sites as habitats important for migratory staging areas, winter roost sites, and prime breeding areas for songbirds, wading birds, and other species. Although not protected by regulations, transportation planning and design considers IBA site locations in avoidance and minimization efforts.

    Wildlife

    Transportation projects consider impacts to all wildlife because roads can divide wildlife habitats and travel corridors, which can cause safety concerns for both wildlife and the traveling public if not identified and managed properly. Over the last few decades, several guidance documents have been developed to improve transportation projects’ interaction with the wildlife community. Notable documents reviewed for this project include FHWA Eco-Logical - An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects (April 2006), FHWA Wildlife Crossing Structure Handbook (March 2011), and specific to Pennsylvania, Chapter 20 of PennDOT Publication 13M (Design Manual 2).

    Pennsylvania has identified Important Mammal Areas (IMAs) throughout the state to identify habitats critical to the survival of mammals. This program was unique to Pennsylvania when it was created in 2001. Similar to IBAs, there is no regulatory protection of IMAs, but it provides information for FHWA and PennDOT to make informed decisions during the transportation planning and design process.

    The Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program (PNHP) has identified core habitat and supporting landscape areas for species of concern in Pennsylvania through the County Natural Heritage Inventory. PNHP defines core habitat areas as essential habitat that cannot absorb significant levels of activity without substantial impact to species of concern. Supporting landscape areas are vital to the survival of the species of concern, but can absorb some types of low impact activities.

    Pollinator Species

    Due to habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation, disease, and increases in pesticide use, pollinator species populations have steadily declined, some to the point of becoming listed species. Pollinator species are animals that help a plant make fruit or seeds by moving pollen from one part of a flower to another part. Examples of pollinator species include bats, butterflies, birds, bees, moths, and beetles.

    In Pennsylvania, nearly 75% of flowering plants and crops depend on pollinators for fruit and vegetable production, which is important to the economy. The Presidential Memorandum Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and other Pollinators and the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) of 2015 both encourage state Departments of Transportation to develop habitats for pollinators through planting of highway rights-of-way. FHWA guidance “Roadside Best Management Practices that Benefit Pollinators,” the “Pennsylvania Pollinator Protection Plan”, and the “PennDOT Pollinator Habitat Plan” provides recommendations for best practices and resources to support and expand pollinator populations.

    Invasive Species

    In Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the United States, problem species have interfered with our native ecosystem. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, invasive species are species that are non- native to Pennsylvania and tend to spread to a degree that causes harm to the environment, local species, or human interests. Invasive species include both plants and wildlife. Executive Order 13751 – Safeguarding the Nation from the Impacts of Invasive Species directs federal agencies to continue to prevent and control efforts related to invasive species. PennDOT Publication 756, Invasive Species Best Management Practices, provides best management practices to prevent the spread of invasive species during transportation design, construction, and maintenance. Some noteworthy examples of invasive species in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania include multiflora rose, tree-of-heaven, Japanese knotweed, garlic mustard, poison hemlock, reed canary grass, purple loosestrife, Asian tiger mosquito, brown marmorated stinkbug, Japanese beetle, and the spotted lanternfly.

    Identification

    Threatened and Endangered Species

    In Pennsylvania, the presence of threatened or endangered species are initially investigated using the online Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) web mapping tool which searches project footprints (plus an additional buffer) for potential impacts to federal and state listed species and habitats based on the proposed project. Coordination with agencies can also be conducted through this online tool.

    According to a PNDI Environmental Review dated October 21, 2019, PGC noted that there would be potential impacts to species that are both state and federally listed; therefore, they recommend a conservation measure to coordinate with USFWS. The project is located within the range of the Indiana bat (state and federal endangered) and the northern long-eared bat (federal threatened, state endangered). In Pennsylvania, both of these bat species hibernate in caves and other openings from early fall to early spring. During the remainder of the year, the bats can be found living in trees, when not flying. USFWS determined that implementing an avoidance measure for the project would limit impacts to the listed bat species. The avoidance measure states that all tree cutting, disturbance, inundation (flooding) and prescribed burning associated with the project would be conducted from October 1st to March 31st. A signed PNDI receipt is provided in Appendix D.

    Migratory Birds

    Examples of important migratory bird habitat typical of central Pennsylvania can include areas of open water and wetlands, cliffs, forests, shrubby areas, and grasslands. The only open water resource within the project limits includes an abandoned quarry pond. All wetland areas are small in size and would not likely support large populations of migratory birds. There is no cliff habitat within the project area; however, bridges and buildings can sometimes include features suitable for raptor nesting. Past urban development has fragmented forested, shrubby, and grassy areas within the project area. Migratory birds and other small wildlife likely use the Capital Area Greenbelt and Spring Creek vegetated corridors for travel and habitat.

    Migratory birds include many types of birds such as raptors, waterfowl, and common backyard birds. According to Pennsylvania Audobon’s e-bird website19, some examples of migratory birds found in the vicinity of the project include mourning doves, white-throated sparrows, cedar waxwing, northern cardinals, turkey vultures, American robin, eastern bluebirds, American goldfinch, common grackle, Carolina wren, northern flicker, red-bellied woodpecker, and red-tailed hawk.

    Based on a review of mapping in Pennsylvania IBAs available online through Audubon Pennsylvania, there are no IBAs present in the project area. The closest mapped IBA is located northeast of the project area in the Susquehanna River near Sheets Island.

    According to the online PA Bald Eagle Nesting Site Map20, there are no bald eagle nesting sites within the project area. The closest bald eagle nest is located on Hess Island in the Susquehanna River, approximately 1.8 miles from the closest end of the project.

    Wildlife

    Based on review of secondary sources and available mapping from various agencies, no wildlife sanctuaries/ refuges or critical/unique areas are present within the project area. Typical wildlife species observed in an urban central Pennsylvania landscape such as the project area include small mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians such as opossum, raccoon, eastern gray squirrel, eastern cottontail rabbit, green frog, eastern painted turtle, eastern rat snake, and garter snake (to name a few). Similar to migratory bird species, the highest concentration of wildlife within the project area is likely to exist along the Capital Area Greenbelt and the corridor of Spring Creek.

    In Dauphin County, the Central Susquehanna Valley Important Mammal Area is located several miles north of the project area, along the Susquehanna River. There are no identified IMAs located in the vicinity of the project area. Similarly, when reviewing natural heritage core habitat and supporting landscapes, the Susquehanna River and surrounding floodplain is considered critical wildlife habitat in Harrisburg. The Susquehanna River and floodplain is not located in the project area.

    Pollinator Species

    Forested, roadside, landscaped and riparian vegetation are present within the project area as determined during field views, wetland investigations and other field studies. Pollinator friendly plant species such as bedstraw, goldenrod, violets, joe-pye weed, asters, milkweed, cowbane, smartweed, and dandelions are located throughout the project area, mainly adjacent to streams and wetlands.

    Invasive Species

    Invasive plant species such as multiflora rose, tree-of-heaven, Japanese knotweed, garlic mustard, and purple loosestrife were observed throughout the project area, as is typical of an urban landscape.

    The project is located in Dauphin County, which is in the quarantine zone for the invasive spotted lanternfly.

    Impacts

    Threatened and Endangered Species

    Indiana and northern long-eared bats roost in mature trees, snags, and tree species with loose bark during the summer months. Forested areas provide protection when bats are foraging for food. Removal of trees reduces the amount of natural roost habitats available and reduces available protected foraging areas. The project could impact Indiana and northern long-eared bats if bats currently use trees in the project area for roosting, rearing young, or foraging. Indiana and northern long-eared bats are reluctant to cross open areas. Withinthe project area, the majority of continuous tree canopy is 4 acres or less. There are two areas of continuous tree canopy larger than 5 acres in the project area, located west of SR 0083, south of the Union Deposit interchange and along the Spring Creek corridor, north of SR 0083 and east of City Park Drive. No known Indiana or northern long-eared roost trees are located within the project area. USFWS believes it is unlikely that an isolated forest stand of 10 acres or less would provide sufficient resources for an Indiana bat21. Since the project is located in a developed, urban area, the number of trees available is already limited for summer habitat roosting, rearing of young, and foraging. Due to the sparse, fragmented location of trees within the project area, it is unlikely Indiana bats or northern long-eared bats use trees within the project area for roosting, rearing young, or foraging.

    It is anticipated that the project would remove or cut approximately 70 acres of trees or less. Impacts to forestland, wetlands, floodplains, and riparian zones were minimized by keeping the preferred alternative as close to existing roadways as possible and only disturbing edges of forested tracts of land.

    Migratory Birds and Wildlife

    Minor impacts to migratory bird and wildlife habitat is anticipated to occur throughout the project limits due to clearing of trees and other vegetation for construction. Due to the urban landscape of the project area, the likely highest quality migratory bird and wildlife habitat corridors in the project area were identified along the Capital Area Greenbelt and Spring Creek. The project proposes additional crossings of Spring Creek and impacts to the Capital Area Greenbelt; however, both corridors will remain intact.

    Pollinator and Invasive Species

    Minor impacts to flowering plants (used by pollinator species), invasive plant species and other plants are anticipated to occur throughout the project limits due to clearing of trees and other vegetation for construction. Impacts will be verified as design progresses. Specific efforts to prevent further spread of invasive species during construction will be determined during final design in consultation with the PennDOT Roadside Maintenance Specialist, in accordance with PennDOT Publication 756 – Invasive Species Best Management Practices, and in accordance with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture spotted lanternfly quarantine zone permit process.

    The no-build alternative would have no additional impact on threatened or endangered species, migratory birds, wildlife, plants, pollinator species, or invasive species. The no-build alternative would not provide opportunities to support and expand habitat for migratory birds, wildlife, and pollinator species and would not provide opportunities to control invasive species or improve wildlife access along the Spring Creek corridor.

    Mitigation

    Threatened and Endangered Species

    As mentioned, it is unlikely that Indiana or northern long-eared bats are utilizing trees within the project area, due to the urban landscape and fragmentation of forested areas. In general, USFWS’s threshold is 40 acres of cutting allowed prior to considering the project as having a potential impact to state and federally listed bat species. Above that threshold requires a seasonal tree cutting restriction avoidance measure, if bat presence is unknown. In order to provide protection for state and federal listed bats which may use the project area, PennDOT would implement the USFWS avoidance measure to conduct any tree cutting, disturbance, inundation (flooding) and prescribed burning from October 1st to March 31st. This way, all vegetation removal would take place when bats are roosting and hibernating in caves or mine openings and not utilizing forested habitats. In addition, tree clearing and the project footprint will continue to be minimized during design, when possible. Due to implementing avoidance measures and minimizing the project footprint and tree removal when possible, minimal impacts are anticipated to forested bat habitat.

    Continued PNDI updates and coordination with agencies would occur throughout the life of the project to ensure no additional threatened or endangered species may be impacted by the project that require avoidance or conservation measures or other forms of mitigation.

    Migratory Birds

    Both the Spring Creek and Capital Area Greenbelt corridors would remain intact following project construction. PennDOT would investigate opportunities for native vegetation planting, providing habitat and cover for migratory birds in the project area. The project footprint of disturbance would be minimized, where possible.

    Wildlife

    PennDOT would look for opportunities throughout the Spring Creek corridor to provide safe wildlife crossings under the interstate. Currently, SR 0083 crosses Spring Creek via the use of arch culverts in two locations within the project area (please see Inset 1 and 2 in Section 3.1 Watercourses/Streams for the location of these crossings). It is anticipated that two arch culverts would be replaced with bridge crossings of Spring Creek. The two new bridge crossings are anticipated to span the stream and additional land, which wildlife could use to cross under the interstate.

    Throughout design, PennDOT would look for opportunities to reduce the project footprint and minimize impacts to wildlife habitat.

    Pollinator Species

    The PennDOT Pollinator Habitat Plan encourages the planting and protection of pollinator host and forage plants. During final design of features such as stormwater basins, landscaping of disturbed areas, wetland mitigation areas, etc., consideration would be given to how plantings that support pollinators can be incorporated. Potential measures could include pollinator gardens in and around stormwater basins, use of flowering plants around wetland areas and incorporation of no-mow plant species in re-vegetated areas. Proposed concepts would be coordinated with the PennDOT District Roadside Maintenance Specialist, the municipal separate storm sewer (MS4) Stormwater Coordinator and the County Maintenance Manager to assure that long term maintenance would occur.

    Invasive Species

    Identified invasive plant species would be handled in accordance with PennDOT Publication 756, Invasive Species Best Management Practices. Re-vegetation of disturbed areas would occur as soon as possible and would be in accordance with PennDOT Publication 408, Specifications.

    Design and construction contractors for the project would be required to have or obtain business permits to operate in the spotted lanternfly quarantine zone through the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. As part of the permit, employees are trained to limit the spread of spotted lanternfly from equipment driven outside of the quarantine zone and be able to identify and destroy spotted lanternfly found in the project area.

    3.5. Socioeconomic Analysis

    The SR 0083 Section 078 Socioeconomic Report22 was prepared to document how the preferred alternative would affect the surrounding communities and their quality of life. Data collection, coordination, and outreach activities provide a baseline assessment for the socioeconomic resources within the study area. The information collected was then used to assess the potential effect on the people and communities within the study area. Secondary source data, such as mapping, the U.S. Census, and municipal plans, along with project area visits and stakeholder public coordination provided data for the socioeconomic analysis.

    3.5.1. Community Demographics

    Background

    Demographic data refers to information on the people living in the study area. This includes:

    • population,
    • age,
    • racial and ethnic composition,
    • income and poverty,
    • ability to speak English,
    • education,
    • disability,
    • female head of household with children present,
    • commuting modes and
    • vehicle access.

    This information allowed the project team to assess impacts and aided in the development of the public outreach campaign to best engage with the local communities. More detailed information and analysis can be found in the Socioeconomic Report.

    Identification

    The project area includes all or parts of seven census tracts23, ten block groups24 and three municipalities (Figure 3). Demographic data was collected from the US Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) for these census tracts and block groups, along with other local sources in order to understand the composition of the study area community. Of particular note is demographic information related to environmental justice (EJ). These populations experience specific protection in planning and project engagement and are defined as minority and/or low-income populations. The characteristics of these communities in the project area are listed below followed by other relevant community demographics.

    Minority

    One component of identifying EJ populations is the identification of minority populations. There are six census tract block groups within the study area that have minority populations greater than the municipal average as shown in Table 6 Demographic Summary.

    Refer to Section 3.5.2 Environmental Justice/Title VI, for a complete discussion of EJ populations and potential project impacts within the study area.

    Low-Income

    The other component of identifying EJ populations is the identification of low-income populations. The median household income within the study area ranges from $36,031 to $80,625; however, the majority of block groups have a median household income in the $50,000-$60,000 range, which is in line with the county, region and state median household incomes. Approximately 9% of the study area block group’s households are living in poverty, which is slightly below the county, region and state poverty percentages. Threeblock groups have a population greater than the municipal average living in poverty as shown in Table 6 Demographic Summary. Refer to Section 3.5.2 Environmental Justice/Title VI, for a complete discussion of EJ populations and potential project impacts within the study area.

    Limited English Proficiency (LEP)

    Individuals with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) are those who have a limited ability to read, write, speak or understand the English language. For the purpose of this analysis, LEP persons include those who speak the English language “less than very well,” as classified by the Census. The ability to speak English is based upon self-reporting or upon an answer given by another member of the household.

    Eight of the census tract block groups within the project study area have LEP populations greater than the Dauphin County average (Table 6 Demographic Summary). The study area as a whole has LEP populations greater than the Dauphin County average for Spanish and Asian and Pacific Islander language groups. As a result, the project team took steps to overcome language barriers by incorporating Spanish materials in their project outreach program and making interpretation services available (for multiple languages) at the public meeting. The project team coordinated with the Bhutanese Community in Harrisburg and the Chinese Cultural & Arts Institute regarding the project.

    Age

    The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, prohibits discrimination on the basis of age (persons age 64 and over). Four census tract-block groups within the project study area have senior populations greater than the Dauphin County average as shown in Table 6 Demographic Summary. Public involvement activities were designed to include all persons (see Section 6 Public Involvement and Agency Coordination). Meetings were held in the project area and in facilities with known public transit access to ensure that all persons, including the elderly could participate.

    Disabled

    The Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Act of 1990, along with the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, prohibit discrimination on the basis of disabilities. Three of the census tract block groups within the project study area have disabled populations greater than the Dauphin County average. The proposed mobility improvements, including sidewalk and ADA ramps, would benefit these residents.

    Female Householder with Children

    While not protected under a federal law or Executive Order (EO), female householder with children present (under 18 years old) tend to have lower incomes (nearly half at or below the poverty level) and are considered in this analysis as a traditionally underserved population. Three of the census tract block groups within the project study area have female householder with children present households greater than the Dauphin County average. As stated, public involvement activities were developed to include community members and the proposed mobility and access improvements would likely improve the economic conditions of the area to the benefit of residents.

    Vehicle Access

    The majority of workers within the project area drive alone, followed by carpool, work at home, and walk. Three block groups have a population greater than the county average that walks to work as shown in Table 6 Demographic Summary. It is possible that walking to work is a choice in the reference block groups and not dictated by necessity, such as lack of access to a vehicle. Households without access to a personal vehicle, while not protected under a federal law or Executive Order, are considered in this analysis as a traditionally underserved population. Zero-vehicle households are those without direct ownership of an automobile and tend to be highly transit-dependent. In most instances, the distribution of zero-vehicle households directly mirrors the distribution of low-income persons. However, some exceptions are noted, such as where people may choose to walk. Three of the census tract block groups within the project study area have zero-vehicle households greater than the Dauphin County average. The previously discussed improvements would benefit motorists and non-motorists alike and would not result in significant impact to any one population.

    Impacts

    The preferred alternative would require residential relocations from three census tract block groups. Table 7 includes a summary of relevant demographic data related to these impacted areas.

    The project team coordinated with the Bhutanese Community in Harrisburg and the Chinese Cultural & Arts Institute regarding the project in order to reach out to the Asian and Pacific Island speaking populations. Both of these organizations indicated that based on the multiple dialects spoken in the region they would ensure that project materials would be shared with their representative populations.

    Mitigation

    The project has been coordinated with Capital Area Transit (CAT), who provides bus transit services within the study area. Additional options for bus routes would be provided as part of the project through the new connections across SR 0083 at 40th Street and the Paxton Street Connector. Overall, pedestrian and bicycle mobility would also be improved with the preferred alternative. These new and improved facilities would provide additional options for all persons, including elderly, disabled, no-vehicle households and low-income households. Additional mitigation described in Section 3.5.2 Environmental Justice/Title VI and Section 3.5.6 Displacements.

    3.5.2. Environmental Justice/Title VI

    Background

    Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires each federal agency to “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations….” The EJ analysis also considered, EO 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency. The EO is intended to improve access to federally assisted programs and activities for persons who, as a result of national origin, have LEP. Failure to ensure that LEP persons can participate in or benefit from federally assisted programs and activities may violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1987, 42 United States Code (USC) 2000d and Title VI regulations against national origin discrimination.

    Identification

    Through a comprehensive review of US census data, field observations, and community outreach, it was determined that EJ populations live within the project area. More information can be found in the Socioeconomic Report in the technical file. Figure 4 shows the locations of EJ populations based on Census data.

    Impacts

    The preferred alternative involves transportation improvements to an existing interstate facility that travels through/adjacent to several EJ communities. No project alternative could be developed that would meet the project needs, balance overall project impacts and completely avoid impacts to EJ communities. When possible, the project team minimized impacts to the community by utilizing design features and engineering practices, such as using retaining walls to minimize impacts. The preferred alternative follows the existing interstate corridor for the majority of improvements unless a shift was required to meet design criteria. This maximizes the use of the legal right-of-way and minimizes displacements and acquisitions.

    The Norfolk Southern Railroad acts as a barrier between the northern and southern portions of the study area. The railroad and issues associated with relocation or rerouting an active rail line, temporarily or permanently, limited options in expanding the highway. For example, in the area of SR 3013 (29th Street)/Wayne Street the railroad is located just to the north of SR 0083, which resulted in the need to expand SR 0083 to the south.

    In order to meet the needs of the project, in particular the need to provide a roadway design for a high speed, high volume facility that meets modern design criteria, SR 0083 should be shifted to the west in the area of 41st Street/42nd Street. The area where the mainline alignment does not follow the existing corridor (41st Street/42nd Street) is due to existing curves being too sharp for a high-speed facility or areas where a constraint, such as Holy Cross Cemetery, exists.

    The EJ analysis25 documented the following findings:

    • The project would displace 5826 residential households. It is unknown how many are utilized by minority or low-income populations, as information at the block group level is available, but not for individual households. According to the Conceptual Stage Survey Report (CSSR)27, sufficient comparable replacement housing exists to relocate these households. Refer to Section 3.5.6 Displacements for more information on the CSSR.
    • When looking at the study area as a whole, eight of the 10 census block groups were identified as EJ areas based on the census data. The two block groups that are not identified as EJ do not include residences within the footprint for the preferred alternative. Designs to avoid EJ impacts were considered, but in the majority of the study area all surrounding areas are considered EJ, so shifts to avoid EJ impacts were not possible. One area that is not considered EJ, based on census data, is likely to include some EJ residents considering it is surrounded by EJ areas and the presence of ethnic grocery stores in the area.
    • The EJ community would have improved access and mobility throughout the study area and would not be further isolated. Improved access would occur as the project provides improved sidewalks and wider shoulders for cyclists as well as new north-south pedestrian and bicyclist crossings of SR 0083 and the railroad.
    • In total, 3828 business relocations are anticipated to occur.
    • A summary of the noise analysis, along with abatement considerations are documented in Section 3.7 Noise. With noise mitigation, the project is not anticipated to have an adverse impact to EJ communities.
    • The preferred alternative was analyzed with respect to air quality at the regional and project level (see the Air Quality Technical Report29). The project is not anticipated to have negative impacts to air quality which would adversely impact EJ communities. Refer to Section 3.6 Air.

    The no-build alternative would have no impact on EJ populations.

    Mitigation

    Although block groups with EJ populations comprise a large portion of the study area, the project provides benefits to the EJ community and any impacts are anticipated to be mitigated. As such, the project would not cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations. The preferred alternative was developed to include design features and considerations that provide benefits to the local EJ communities.

    Currently 29th Street30, which is located at the western limits of the study area, and City Park Drive, located in the western section of the study area, provide the only options for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross SR 0083 within the study area. The distance between City Park Drive and 29th Street is approximately 0.6 miles. City Park Drive passes underneath SR 0083 connecting the Paxtang neighborhood to Paxton Street. The project would include improvements to City Park Drive and the Capital Area Greenbelt between the existing Norfolk Southern Railroad structure and Paxton Street. The shared-use Capital Area Greenbelt path would be re-aligned, and a sidewalk would be provided along a portion of City Park Drive from the point where it diverges from the Capital Area Greenbelt path to Paxton Street. Proposed Capital Area Greenbelt path and sidewalk improvements would continue along Parkview Lane, from City Park Drive to 32nd Street, connecting with the Parkview Estates neighborhood. The construction of 29th Street would be completed prior to construction on City Park Drive.

    Heading east, the next pedestrian/bicycle accessible crossing of the railroad and/or SR 0083 is located at 63rd Street approximately three miles from City Park Drive (Exhibit 18). Two new local connections are included in the preferred alternative to improve the local roadway network for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Both connections would provide sidewalk for pedestrian traffic and provide minimum 6 feet wide shoulders to accommodate bicycle traffic.

    • An improved local connection at 40th Street would join the two existing segments of 40th Street currently bisected by existing SR 0083 via new structures over the railroad, SR 0083, CD system, and Paxton Street. This would provide a direct local connection from Derry Street in the north (Lenker Manor neighborhood) to Chambers Hill Road in the south. This crossing is located approximately 1.6 miles from City Park Drive, cutting the distance between crossings in half (when compared to distance between City Park Drive and 63rd Street).
    • A new local connection, the Paxton Street Connector, would be provided on the east side of the Eisenhower Interchange via a new section of local roadway. It would provide a north to south connection between Derry Street and a local portion of Paxton Street, crossing over the railroad. This is located approximately 1.8 miles from 63rd Street and one mile from 40th Street.

    Proposed improvements would be made along the Derry Street corridor from approximately the Derry Street/Bonnymeade Avenue intersection to Derry Street/44th Street intersection. These would include new sections of sidewalk, curb ramps, improvements to existing sidewalk, and updated pavement markings. Within this corridor, the Derry Street Interchange would be reconstructed and reconfigured into a single-point urban interchange (SPUI). A dedicated bike lane would be provided in each direction through the SPUI to accommodate bicyclists, and a new sidewalk would be provided on the north side31. Curb ramps within the project area would be evaluated to determine if they meet current PennDOT ADA design standards. If needed, ramps would be upgraded to comply with standards as much as possible.

    These improvements would improve accessibility for local residents by providing more options for traveling north-south and for walking and bicycling.

    The project has been coordinated with Capital Area Transit (CAT), who provides bus transit services within the study area. Additional options for bus routes would be provided as part of the project through the new connections across SR 0083 at 40th Street and the Paxton Street Connector which provide more options for local EJ residents.

    The following would be implemented to offset the potential for adverse impacts:

    • During final design, complete noise analysis including identifying if noise barriers are necessary and coordinate with the residential community.
    • During preliminary and final design, evaluate engineering to further minimize or avoid impacts. Options to limit impacts by steepening slopes, consideration of retaining walls, and locations of stormwater features would be considered.
    • During preliminary and final design, continue to look for opportunities to enhance communities (potentially using areas of remnant land following construction).
    • During final design, continue to look for opportunities to include tree planting, landscaping and hardscaping in order to beautify the project area.
    • Include ADA-accessible sidewalks and shoulders to improve the safety for non-motorized travelers.
    • Implement the proposed improvements to the Capital Area Greenbelt shared use path, including anincluding an improved connection to the Parkway Estates neighborhood.
    • Coordinate with emergency services providers to ensure no impacts to service areas occur as a result of design decisions.
    • Continue to work with Swatara Township to encourage businesses and residents to relocate within the township if possible, in order to reduce the impacts on the tax base and the loss of local jobs.
    • Create two new local connections to improve the local roadway network for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists and to provide more north-south crossings options of SR 0083 and the railroad. Both connections would provide sidewalk for pedestrian traffic and provide minimum six feet wide shoulders to accommodate bicycle traffic.
    • Coordinate with CAT for improvements to transit stops impacted by the preferred alternative.
    • Assist the Chinese Cultural and Arts Institute to relocate within the area in order to continue providing Chinese language and arts classes to the Harrisburg region and beyond.
    • Consideration of multimodal traffic during construction to minimize potential impacts to mobility for all users.
    • Coordinate with local officials and emergency service providers during construction to make them aware of impacts to access in case of emergencies.
    • Coordinate with residential and business displacements to provide relocation assistance.

    Overall, the project does not have potential for significant impacts on EJ communities.

    3.5.3. Regional and Community Planning and Land Use

    Background

    Reviewing plans for the local municipalities allows the project team to understand how the municipalities function today and their future plans.

    Identification

    Local comprehensive plans and zoning maps were reviewed for project area municipalities in order to understand the plans for the communities near the project area. The comprehensive plans generally focus on transportation improvements that increase safety, bike and pedestrian access, promote transit, and, particularly in Paxtang Borough, downtown and business district growth and redevelopment. A majority of the study area is zoned for industrial uses (58%) totaling almost 500 acres. The next most prevalent zoning type is commercial comprising 282 acres or 33% of the study area. Residential zoning in the study area represents about 70 acres or 8% of the study area.

    Zoning - the process of dividing land in a municipality into zones in which certain land uses are allowed or not allowed.

    Based on Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (TCRPC) 2018 GIS Anderson land use data, the predominant land use (actual use, not zoning as discussed in the previous paragraph) type within the study area is commercial/services, comprising 37% (317 acres) of parcelswithin the study area. The second most common land use is vegetated, which constitutes approximately 25% (212 acres) of the study area. Transportation and utilities also comprise a large (21%) portion of the study area. Remaining land uses include, in descending order of prominence, residential, institutional, industrial, recreation, open water, and mixed urban or other built up land.

    Land use - refers to how the land is currently being managed. This could refer to business use, forest, residential or others.

    Impacts

    The project would have the greatest impacts on lands zoned industrial (64% of the impacted area is zoned industrial) and commercial (32% of the impacted area is zoned commercial). Properties zoned residential comprise about 4% of the impacts.

    Key land uses within the project area are vegetated (36%) and transportation/utilities (36%). The transportation/utilities land use would remain in transportation use, but there would be a conversion of approximately 123 acres of vegetated land use (some of the areas classified as vegetated are not necessarily forested, but include open areas between and adjacent to transportation uses) and 58 acres of commercial/ services land use to transportation. Approximately 19 acres of industrial land use and 12 acres of residential land use would also be impacted by the project. Some areas that are currently in transportation use would be converted to vegetated land use following construction, particularly in the area within the Eisenhower Interchange where ramps are being removed. There is sufficient available land within the project area municipalities for businesses and residences that are displaced to relocate, as discussed in Section 3.5.6 Displacements. The change in land use would not result in significant impacts to the project area because the displaced land uses would be able to remain in the area and there would be no substantial change in tax base.

    The proposed project has the potential to induce development (predominately redevelopment) activities in the project area as mobility improves32. The majority of land in the area is developed, but it is expected that induced development could occur including the redevelopment of vacant, abandoned or underutilized parcels. The municipalities in these areas have the existing infrastructure to support this growth.

    The no-build alternative would have no impact on regional and community planning and land use.

    Mitigation

    Continued coordination will take place with municipalities to ensure consistency with their plans.

    3.5.4. Community Cohesion

    Background

    Community cohesion refers to the interactions among people in a community, as shown by how much residents know and care about their neighbors and participate in community activities. Transportation and land use planning decisions can affect community cohesion by influencing the location of activities and the quality of places where people often interact, such as sidewalks, local parks and public transit33.

    Identification

    A total of five neighborhoods were identified within or partially within the project study area. These neighborhoods include the entirety of Paxtang Borough and four neighborhoods in Swatara Township, including Parkway Estates, Lenker Manor, Sunnydale, and Lawnton. See the Environmental Features/ Constraints Mapping in Appendix B and Exhibit 19.

    Paxtang

    Paxtang consists of a mix of single family residential, row homes, and commercial buildings. Within the study area are City Park Drive and Derry Street, which essentially functions as Paxtang’s main street. Paxtang includes the Capital Area Greenbelt that follows City Park Drive and Derry Street then is a separate path in the area of Park Terrace and Cameron Parkway Park. Buildings in the study area include a funeral home and duplexes, several of which have been converted into businesses.

    Parkway Estates

    Parkway Estates is a mixed use commercial and residential community. The neighborhood was established in 1916, with most of construction occurring between 1930 and 1960. Multiple properties within this neighborhood were originally residences that have been converted to commercial buildings. Field views of the neighborhood by the project team noted multiple Vietnamese businesses.

    Lenker Manor

    Lenker Manor consists of the Oakleigh and Bonnymeade developments. According to Swatara Township, this area functions as one neighborhood and not as two separate developments. The area is primarily single family residential. One ethnic restaurant, Bhojan Ghar (Nepalese), is present along Derry Street within the Lenker Manor neighborhood.

    Sunnydale

    The Sunnydale neighborhood is primarily residential. The Plan of Sunnydale was laid out in 1925 with most of development occurring between the late 1920s and 1950. In about 1965, a section of properties between South 42nd Street and South 43rd Street was purchased for the building of the Eisenhower Interchange. This resulted in the removal of approximately 15-20 residences from the Sunnydale neighborhood. The interchange bisected the neighborhood into two distinct sections, which is how it functions today. The area to the west of the interchange currently functions as a small neighborhood surrounded by businesses and the interstate, while the area to the east is connected to the Lawnton neighborhood via the local street network. Several residences along Derry Street have been converted for commercial use. The Chinese Cultural and Arts Institute is present just south of the Sunnydale neighborhood on South 41st Street.

    Lawnton

    Lawnton is primarily residential consisting of mostly single family homes. Some modern apartment complexes have been added towards the eastern side of Lawnton. Some residences, especially along Derry Street have been converted to commercial use. The South Asian Grocery Store and Kim’s Oriental Foods are both located along Derry Street outside of the study area but indicate the potential presence of an Asian population in the area of the Lawnton neighborhood. Further east along Derry Street is Kathmandu Groceries, which indicates the potential presence of a Nepalese population in the area of the Lawnton neighborhood.

    Impacts

    The preferred alternative follows the existing interstate corridor for the majority of improvements unless a shift was necessary to meet design criteria or, where possible, to avoid or minimize impacts to important community and environmental resources. This maximizes the use of the legal ROW and minimizes displacements and acquisitions. The area where the mainline alignment does not follow the existing corridor is due to existing curves being too sharp, per current design criteria, for a high speed facility. If the mainline remained in this existing location, the directional connections to SR 0283 and SR 0322 along with the interchange at Derry Street would still impact the Sunnydale neighborhood and have greater residential and commercial impacts to Lawnton, due to the need to pass more directly through the neighborhood. Shifting the widening to the north was limited by the presence of the Norfolk Southern Railroad.

    No impacts would occur in Paxtang or Lawnton34. One residential relocation is anticipated in Lenker Manor. Further information on displacements is included in Section 3.5.6.

    In total, 41 residential and seven business relocations35 are anticipated in the Sunnydale neighborhood. All buildings located between existing Eisenhower Boulevard/SR 0322, existing SR 0083, Derry Street and the railroad must be acquired as part of the project. Additionally, several residences located to the east of existing SR 0083 would be displaced as part of the project. These 48 displacements36 represent approximately 50% of the impacts associated with this project. These displacements are necessary to achieve the purpose and needs of the project, in particular the need to provide a roadway design for a high speed, high volume facility that provides modern safety characteristics. Alternatives to avoid these displacements are not reasonable because they would traverse directly through the Lenker Manor or Lawnton residential neighborhoods, resulting in a greater number of residential displacements. The ability to shift impacts to the west of Eisenhower Boulevard/ SR 0322 and the Sunnydale neighborhood is limited by the presence of Holy Cross Cemetery. Pennsylvania law states that it is unlawful to open any street, lane, alley or public road through a burial ground or cemetery (except in Philadelphia) (Act of April 5, 1849, P.L. 397, 9 P.S. §88).

    Within the Parkway Estates neighborhood, there are anticipated to be 16 residential and five business displacements37. These 21 displacements38 represent approximately 22% of the impacts associated with this project. These displacements are necessary to achieve the needs of the project, in particular the need to accommodate future traffic volumes. Additionally, proposed stormwater facilities are anticipated in this area to address stormwater discharge. As the stormwater design is further refined during final design, this area would be revisited to determine whether or not any displacements can be avoided. Alternatives to avoid these displacements are not reasonable because they would traverse directly through the Paxtang and Lenker Manor neighborhoods resulting in a greater number of residential displacements.

    The project would result in the removal of approximately one-third of the Sunnydale neighborhood and approximately one-quarter of the Parkway Estates neighborhoods. Both of these neighborhoods were previously impacted by the construction of SR 0083 and the Eisenhower Interchange. However, the neighborhoods would not be divided by the project and it is anticipated that both neighborhoods would remain.

    The proposed project would provide a benefit to community cohesion in the form of improved pedestrian and bicycle safety, as mentioned in Section 3.5.5 Community Facilities and Services. Mobility within the local communities is expected to improve as some traffic is diverted off of local streets and on to SR 0083. Additionally, the improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the study area would provide more options for movement between communities that do not require a vehicle.

    Improved mobility may result in induced changes to development and redevelopment patterns in the area which could have impacts on the surrounding communities.

    The project does not have potential for significant impacts to community cohesion.

    The no-build alternative would have no impact on community cohesion.

    Mitigation

    Mitigation for community cohesion includes similar measures as those noted under Environmental Justice:

    • During preliminary and final design, evaluate engineering to further minimize or avoid impacts. Options to limit impacts by steepening slopes, consideration of retaining walls, and locations of stormwater features would be considered.
    • During preliminary and final design, continue to look for opportunities to enhance communities (potentially using areas of remnant land following construction).
    • During final design, continue to look for opportunities to include tree planting, landscaping and hardscaping in order to beautify the project area.
    • During final design, complete noise analysis including identifying if noise barriers are necessary and coordinate with the residential community.
    • Include ADA-accessible sidewalks and shoulders to improve the safety and accessibility for non- motorized travelers.
    • Implement the proposed improvements to the Capital Area Greenbelt shared use path, including an improved connection to the Parkway Estates neighborhood.
    • Create two new local connections to improve the local roadway network for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists and to provide more north-south crossings options of SR 0083 and the railroad. Both connections would provide sidewalk for pedestrian traffic and provide minimum 6 feet wide shoulders to accommodate bicycle traffic.
    • Coordinate with CAT for improvements to transit stops impacted by the proposed project.
    • As the stormwater design is further refined during final design, revisit impacts in the Parkway Estates neighborhood to determine whether or not any displacements can be avoided.

    3.5.5. Community Facilities and Services

    Background

    Public and community facilities include schools, parks, and places of worship/cemeteries, emergency service providers, as well as other public buildings. The identification of public and community facilities was conducted to aid the project team in developing project alternatives and to evaluate how the project could potentially affect these facilities. In addition, key regional community resources were identified to determine if public access would be affected.

    Identification

    The project team identified 25 community resources within the study area and immediate vicinity. Refer to Appendix B Environmental Features/Constraints Mapping. The following sections discuss community facilities and services in the project area that would be impacted by the preferred alternative.

    Evaluated Community Resources

    • Emergency Service Providers (Emergency Management Services (EMS), fire protection, police and hospitals / healthcare facilities)
    • School Districts and Educational Facilities
    • Recreational Facilities
    • Places of Worship, including those with Cemeteries
    • Public Transportation
    • Other Institutions and Facilities (public housing, fraternal organization, etc.)

    Emergency Service Providers

    Identifying emergency service providers (including Emergency Management Services (EMS), fire protection, and police services, as well as hospitals) that serve the study area has enabled the project team to evaluate future response times for the preferred alternatives, as well as to assess project impacts. PennDOT would continue to coordinate with emergency service providers throughout final design and construction to fully understand service areas/routes and the potential for project impacts.

    Multiple fire companies serve the study area. These fire companies respond to mutual aid calls based on 911 dispatch and may be assisted by additional fire companies from throughout the region. Lower Paxton Township Police Department and Swatara Township Police Department (also serves Paxtang Borough) provide police service in the study area. Incidents that occur on SR 0083 in Dauphin County are the responsibility of the Pennsylvania State Police, with the assistance of local police departments. South Central EMS provides emergency medical services in the study area.

    School District and Educational Facilities

    The study area is served by the Central Dauphin School District (CDSD). Lawnton Elementary School is located partially within the study area. Five additional CDSD elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school serve the population within the study area but are not located within the study area. One private school is present within the study area - Saint Catherine Laboure Catholic School. Refer to Appendix B Environmental Features/Constraints Mapping, Sheets 3 and 8.

    The project team met with the transportation director for CDSD to discuss project concerns. The majority of buses do not use SR 0083 as part of regular routes; however, there was a concern with traffic detouring from SR 0083 during construction and using side streets that are used by school buses. One of the biggest challenges the district faces with transportation is crossing from north to south on both the west side (SR 0083) and east side (SR 0322) of the Eisenhower Interchange due to the limited number of existing crossings. The addition of the 40th Street Bridge over SR 0083 and the Paxton Street Connector would help with this issue.

    Recreational Facilities

    Paxtang Park is owned by the City of Harrisburg and was formerly used as a park but had been vacant for many years. In the last few years, improvements have begun to take place in the park for its use as parking for the Susquehanna Area Mountain Bike Association (SAMBA) and the Capital Area Greenbelt. The park is located adjacent to SR 0083.

    The Capital Area Greenbelt39 is the only designated bike corridor present within the study area. The Capital Area Greenbelt is comprised of a multi-use trail, located within the western boundary of the study area, and provides uninhibited walking and bicycling opportunities as part of a 20-mile loop.

    According to the Regional Bicycle Connections Study40 produced by TCRPC in 2015, Derry Street within the study area is recommended to be part of a continuous bicycle facility that would extend from Palmyra to Harrisburg.

    Places of Worship, including those with Cemeteries

    St. Catherine Laboure Catholic Church and Holy Cross Cemetery are present within the project area along Derry Street and adjacent to the existing off-ramp of SR 0083.

    Public Transportation

    Capital Area Transit (CAT) provides fixed route bus service within the project study area. CAT routes use SR 0083 and are also located along Derry Street and Paxton Street and provide access to business areas located within and near the project study area. The primary routes serving the project study area include Routes 8, 13, 14, 17, 20, 322 and AB; mapping is available on CAT’s website41.

    The project team met with CAT to discuss routes and stops within the study area and the proposed project. CAT representatives indicated that their biggest project concerns were related to pedestrian traffic, ADA accessibility, crosswalks, signal timing, and signal prioritization on cross streets. Separate corridor studies evaluating these issues have been completed on Derry Street and Paxton Street and the results of those studies are anticipated to be implemented prior to the SR 0083 Section 078 Eisenhower Interchange Reconstruction project.

    Other Institutions and Facilities

    Public housing data was provided by the Dauphin County Housing Authority (as of January 25, 2018). Two areas of Section 842 subsidized housing are present in Paxtang Borough within the study area. Three Section 8 subsidy apartment complexes are present within Swatara Township within the study area.

    The Rutherford House Senior Center is present, adjacent to existing SR 0083. Dauphin County owns the community center and it provides classes and activities for adults aged 55 and over.

    The Chinese Cultural and Arts Institute, located within the project area, is a non-profit organization with the goal of preserving, nurturing, promoting and celebrating Chinese culture and arts. The institute serves the general Harrisburg area, not just the project area, and provides classes on Chinese dances, music, art, and other cultural activities.

    Impacts

    Emergency Service Providers

    The preferred alternative would not impact emergency services buildings. The project team discussed the project at a Harrisburg Area Transportation Study (HATS) Traffic Incident Management (TIM) Coordination Meeting on July 30, 2018. This meeting included representatives from Colonial Park Fire Department, the Pennsylvania State Police, and Swatara Township Police Department. Key points discussed include:

    • The railroad bridge over Eisenhower Boulevard has a vertical clearance of 14 feet, which is a problem for some tractor trailers. This bridge would be replaced as part of the SR 0083 Section 078 Eisenhower Interchange Reconstruction Project and the vertical clearance would be increased.
    • Wider shoulders on SR 0083 are needed to accommodate emergency service providers.
    • Requested gated access points on SR 0083.
    • During construction emergency service providers need to be made aware of changes to access points/on-ramps. Construction access points should be designed to accommodate large vehicles, such as fire engines.
    • Concern for traffic diverting onto local roads during construction, possibly resulting in more incidents on local roads.
    • Include a special provision in the future construction contracts that specifies the use of text message alerts from the contractor to emergency services to notify them of changes during construction in terms of access, detours, etc.

    A future meeting would be planned during final design to update the EMS providers, once additional information is known related to construction contract sequencing and traffic control. Details for the railroad bridge are still being coordinated; however, the preferred alternative would utilize 12-foot shoulders on SR 0083 to better accommodate emergency service providers.

    While no public emergency service buildings or providers would be impacted, the following private healthcare providers would be impacted by the project and there appears to be relocation opportunities within the community for these local businesses:

    • Associates in Medical Toxicology/SMART Recovery
    • Dental Health Services
    • Murphy Eye Care
    • Randy Steven’s Footcare

    School Districts and Educational Facilities

    There would be no adverse permanent impacts to the CDSD as a result of the project. As mentioned, one of the biggest transportation challenges the district faces is crossing SR 0083 due to the limited number of existing crossings. The addition of the 40th Street Bridge over SR 0083 and the Paxton Street Connector would address this issue. The pedestrian and bicycle improvements along the Derry Street corridor (described below) would be a benefit to students accessing the Saint Catherine Laboure School. Temporary impacts to bus routes may occur during construction but would be coordinated in advance.

    Recreational Facilities

    The preferred alternative would have impacts to both Paxtang Park and the Capital Area Greenbelt. Approximately half of Paxtang Park would be acquired to accommodate the widening of the highway.

    Proposed improvements in this area would include a relocated site for parking. The proposed lot would be located along the south side of the proposed SR 0083 improvements and accessed from City Park Drive.

    The project would include improvements to City Park Drive and the Capital Area Greenbelt between the existing Norfolk Southern Railroad structure and Paxton Street. Within this section the shared use Capital Area Greenbelt path would be re-aligned to facilitate the proposed SR 0083 structure replacement. A proposed sidewalk would be provided along a portion of City Park Drive from the point where it diverges from the Capital Area Greenbelt path to Paxton Street. Proposed Capital Area Greenbelt path and sidewalk improvements would continue along Parkview Lane, from City Park Drive to 32nd Street (Exhibit 21).

    Overall, pedestrian and bicycle mobility would be improved with the preferred alternative. Improvements include the above-mentioned improvements to the Capital Area Greenbelt and Paxtang Park as well as:

    • Proposed improvements would be made along Derry Street from approximately the Derry Street/ Bonnymeade Avenue intersection to Derry Street/44th Street intersection. These would include new sections of sidewalk, curb ramps, improvements to existing sidewalk, and updated pavement markings. Within this corridor, the Derry Street Interchange would be reconstructed and reconfigured into a single- point urban interchange (SPUI). A dedicated bike lane would be provided in each direction through the SPUI to accommodate bicyclists and a new sidewalk would be provided on the north side of the interchange. These improvements would be further refined during final design. Refer to Exhibit 19 in Section 3.5.2 Environmental Justice/Title VI.
    • Two new local connections, 40th Street and the Paxton Street Connector, are included in the preferred alternative to improve the local roadway network for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists (refer to Section 3.5.2 Environmental Justice/Title VI for a description of these connections). Both connections would provide sidewalk for pedestrian traffic and provide minimum 6-foot wide shoulders to accommodate bicycle traffic.
    • Curb ramps within the project area would be evaluated to determine their degree of compliance with current PennDOT ADA design standards. If needed, ramps would be upgraded to comply with standards to the maximum extent feasible.

    Places of Worship, including those with Cemeteries

    No places of worship or cemeteries would be acquired as part of the preferred alternative. It is noted that a storage area owned by the Holy Cross Cemetery would be impacted; however, coordination has confirmed that the area is not designated as a future burial site and no impact to the actual cemetery would occur. Noise impacts would occur at the cemetery and one place of worship. Noise mitigation is not feasible at the cemetery but is feasible and reasonable at the place of worship. Further analysis and design of noise mitigation would occur during final design. See Section 3.7. Noise for more details.

    Public Transportation

    There would be no long-term disruptions or impacts to public transportation as a result of the project. Some bus routes and stop locations may need to be temporarily detoured during construction, but this would only be in effect for a short time. The addition of the 40th Street crossing of SR 0083 and the Paxton Street Connector would provide opportunities for modifications to existing routes or the addition of new routes. Currently Easton Coach is contracted with CAT to provide paratransit service and leases space at the former Stroehmann’s bakery along Paxton Street. Parking of buses and minimal repairs take place at this location. This facility would need to be relocated as part of the project. There appears to be relocation opportunities for this business within the community. The project team would continue to coordinate with CAT on potential improvements to bus stops present within the impacted areas.

    Other Institutions and Facilities

    No public housing would be impacted by the proposed project.

    The widening of SR 0083 would result in the highway being closer to the rear of the Rutherford House Senior Center. The driveway to access the Rutherford House would be realigned to accommodate the Capital Area Greenbelt improvements. The access behind the building would be repaved and a noise wall would be recommended in this area.

    The Chinese Cultural and Arts Institute would be displaced. Based on coordination with the Chinese Cultural and Arts Institute, they do have plans to eventually build their own facility in the Harrisburg area (they currently lease). There appears to be relocation opportunities within the greater Harrisburg area to either lease or build their own facility. Coordination would continue during final design to aid in relocation.

    The proposed project has the potential to induce development activities in the SR 0083 Section 078 Dauphin County corridor as mobility improves. Additional development would be beneficial for the tax base, but at the same time may put additional strain on some community facilities like the school district. Based on the commercial and industrial setting of the surrounding area, it is anticipated that development would likely be business related, which would reduce the possibility of additional burdens to community facilities, including the school district.

    The project would incorporate pedestrian and bicycle facilities including ADA compliant sidewalks and wide shoulders. The new north-south crossing of 40th Street over SR 0083 and/or Norfolk Southern Railroad and the Paxton Street Connector over the railroad would provide new and potentially faster routes for use by emergency services, CAT, and CDSD.

    Based on this discussion, the project does not have potential for significant impacts to community facilities and services.

    The no-build alternative would have no impact on community facilities and services.

    Mitigation

    School District and Educational Facilities

    The project team would coordinate with CDSD regarding construction timing and detours. The 40th Street crossing of SR 0083 would be constructed early in order to provide additional routing alternatives both during and after construction.

    Recreational Facilities

    The project team has worked with the Capital Area Greenbelt Association and Dauphin County Parks and Recreation to develop a design for improvements to the Capital Area Greenbelt and the area directly underneath the SR 0083 structure replacement in the area of City Park Drive. This would include stream improvements and the addition of a potential pull-off area for users of the Capital Area Greenbelt. The project would require removal of a wooden bridge that was funded through a DCNR Keystone Grant43. DCNR is aware of the anticipated impact to the Keystone Grant property and has concurred with the proposal to provide an equal or better improvement to the existing wooden bridge.

    Other Institutions and Facilities

    The driveway to access the Rutherford House would be realigned to accommodate the Capital Area Greenbelt improvements. The access behind the building would be repaved and a noise wall would be recommended in this area.

    3.5.6. Displacements

    Background

    Displacements refer to the need for a project to acquire full properties in order for construction to occur. Partial acquisitions refer to the need for a project to acquire part of a property. This could just be a small area adjacent to the roadway which is commonly referred to as a sliver take.

    Identification

    Businesses within the study area were identified based on field investigations conducted in 2017 and updated in 2019. A database of businesses within the project study area is maintained in the project file.

    Businesses are generally located in one of seven geographic areas:

    • Harrisburg Mall (Paxton Street between Mall Road and Friendship Road)
    • TecPort (off Paxton Street between 40th Street and Friendship Road)
    • Along Derry Street
    • To the north of SR 0083/Paxton Street
    • In the area of Chambers Hill Road/Penhar Drive
    • To the east of SR 0083 along Derry Street/East Park Drive
    • In the area of South 32nd Street (between Paxton Street and City Park Drive)

    In total, 182 businesses were identified within the study area. The largest categories of business types within or adjacent to the study area are services, offices, restaurants, and retail, followed by general construction and auto-body enterprises.

    Residential properties and neighborhoods within the study area were also identified as discussed in Section 3.5.4 Community Cohesion. Neighborhoods within or partially within the study area are Paxtang Borough, Parkway Estates, Lenker Manor, Sunnydale and Lawnton.

    As the project design was being developed, the project team identified properties that would be impacted by the project for either the widening of the mainline or the addition of new ramps and side roads.

    Impacts

    The preferred alternative would require 58 residential and 38 commercial displacements for a total of 96 displacements44.

    Potential displaced buildings are shown in Exhibit 22 and Appendix B. Table 8 summarizes the displacements by municipality and neighborhood. All displacements are located within Swatara Township.

    Thirty of the 3845 business displacements are not located within a neighborhood. The greatest number of residential displacements are located in the Sunnydale and Parkway Estates neighborhoods. In addition to the displacements, there would also be partial acquisitions throughout the project area.

    Impacts to residences and businesses have been evaluated during project development and have been avoided or minimized where possible. However due to the presence of residences and businesses adjacent to SR 0083 it is not possible to construct the project without displacements.

    The PennDOT Right-of-Way Administrator as well as a team of supporting staff were present at the October 2018 public meeting to discuss the right-of-way, appraisal, and relocation process.

    The replacement housing and commercial property analysis included in the Conceptual Stage Survey Report (CSSR) (March 2019)46 identified appropriate available residential and commercial properties that would accommodate the displaced. The analysis first identified available properties of a comparable value to those being displaced within a 25 mile radius. This was then further refined to identify properties within a five mile radius in the municipalities that are within or adjacent to the project area as identified in Exhibit 22. Table 9 shows the number of available comparable properties as of March 2019 located within the area shown in Exhibit 22. The CSSR looks at available properties on a specified date. The real estate market and available properties is subject to change.

    Minimizing business displacements and right-of-way acquisitions to taxable parcels within the study area, has been a priority of the project, in order to reduce the impacts to the local tax base and area employment. Over- all, the project is anticipated to have the following impacts:

    • 58 partial commercial acquisitions

    • 38 full commercial displacements
      • this accounts for multiple businesses located within 23 buildings
      • approximately 80% of displacements are retail/services and 20% are manufacturing
      • approximately 26 leases
    • 5 vacant commercial acquisitions

    It is likely that the impacted businesses would relocate, and the amount of available commercial replacement sites indicates that there would not be a major disruption to the municipality.

    Commercial displacements could have a temporary impact on employment and community taxes until relocation of the business is completed. This is anticipated to have the largest impact on Swatara Township. Swatara Township has previously voiced their concerns about the tax impacts of commercial relocations. However,it is anticipated that, based on the extent of land and commercial sites available in the area, that the overall impact to the local community as a result of these business relocations and tax base loss should be minimized. The actual impact cannot be determined at this time as it is up to the individual business where they choose to relocate.

    The school district (16.5672 mills of real estate tax) and county (6.876 mills of real estate tax) tax rates are the same in all three municipalities. Lower Paxton Township levies 1.95 mills, Paxtang Borough levies 11.23 mills, and Swatara Township levies 3.76388 mills of real estate tax47. The identified tax rates serve as a strong indicator of potential change in revenue generated from properties that may be acquired to accommodate the proposed project.

    Improvement in travel mobility and access throughout the study area (more options to travel north-south across SR 0083) and the improved access to Paxton Street, could induce additional development and rede- velopment. New or induced development/redevelopment would benefit the tax base and provide additional economic opportunities for community residents.

    The Chinese Cultural and Arts Institute is a community facility that would be displaced by the project. The institute serves the general Harrisburg area, not just the project area, and provides classes on Chinese dances, music, art, and other cultural activities. Based on coordination with the Chinese Cultural and Arts Institute, they do have plans to eventually build their own facility in the Harrisburg area (they currently lease). There appears to be relocation opportunities within the greater Harrisburg area to either lease or build their own facility.

    The no-build alternative would have no displacements.

    Mitigation

    PennDOT would directly contact anyone who owns a property that is required by the project during final design. Right-of-way coordination would occur over several years and would be coordinated based on the construction section.

    Property acquisitions would be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and the Pennsylvania Eminent Domain Code of 1964. Relocation assistance would be available to the displaced.

    The project team would continue to work with Swatara Township to make sure that business owners are aware of opportunities to relocate within Swatara Township.

    3.6. Air Quality

    Background

    The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require federal and state efforts to reduce airborne pollutants and improve local and regional conditions. Automobile emissions have been identified as a critical element in attaining federal National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), and ozone (O3). Highway agencies are required to consider the impacts of transportation improvement projects on air quality at both the regional and project level. The results of the Air Quality Analysis are documented in theAir Quality Technical Report48.

    Clean Air Act Maintenance & Attainment Areas

    Maintenance Area – a region of the US that recently met NAAQS standards, but must operate under a maintenance plan to ensure continued compliance before being considered in attainment.

    Attainment Area – a region of the US that meets NAAQS standards for one or more of the criteria pollutants.

    Identification

    Regional and project level air analysis was conducted for the project. Dauphin County is a maintenance area for fine particulate matter, which requires project-level analysis under the Clean Air Act. Dauphin County is currently in maintenance or attainment status for all the other noted primary criteria pollutants.

    Regional Air Quality Analysis

    Regional air quality, when located in non-attainment and maintenance areas, is assessed by ensuring that region-wide mobile emissions fall below the applicable motor vehicle emission budgets identified by the State Implementation Plan (SIP). For this project, the regional air quality conformity requirements have been satisfied and no significant regional impacts are anticipated.

    Project Level Air Quality Analysis

    A project-level air quality analysis was performed for this project to assess potential air quality impacts in accordance with PennDOT’s Project-Level Air Quality Handbook (Publication 321). The pollutants assessed for the project-level air quality analysis include carbon monoxide, fine particulate matter, mobile source air toxics, and greenhouse gases. No analysis for ozone is required.

    Impacts

    The project is not expected to cause or contribute to violations of the NAAQS, worsen existing violations, or interfere with the attainment of applicable NAAQS. The no-build alternative would have no significant impacts on air quality.

    Carbon Monoxide (CO)

    A project-level air quality analysis for CO has been conducted for the subject project and no receptor sites are anticipated to experience concentrations in excess of the current one-hour or eight-hour NAAQS. It can therefore be concluded that the project would have no significant adverse impact on air quality as a result of CO emissions.

    Particulate Matter (PM)

    Through preparation of the PennDOT PM Project-Level Conformity LEVEL 3 Screening memo49 and interagency consultation, the project was not considered to be of “air quality concern” for fine particulate matter.

    Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT)

    The qualitative analysis for the project with low potential MSAT effects concluded that while the preferred alternative may have the effect of bringing the source of MSAT emissions closer to certain areas along the corridor, it may decrease MSAT emissions in other locations, so there may be no regional change in MSATs. In general, MSATs are predicted to decline by the year 2050 through emission reduction technology even as vehicle miles traveled increases. In FHWA’s view, information is incomplete or unavailable to credibly predict the project-specific health impacts due to changes in MSAT emissions associated with a proposed set of highway alternatives.

    Greenhouse Gases (GHG)

    Project outcomes that support reduction in GHG emissions include reduced congestion, improved reliability and safety, improved neighborhood connectivity and accessibility, and reduction of maintenance impacts due to the additional lanes of travel. The project is not expected to negatively impact GHG emissions.

    Mitigation

    Mitigation measures are not warranted or proposed for the project.

    3.7. Noise

    Background

    The methodologies applied to this noise analysis are in accordance with PennDOT Publication 24, Project Level Highway Traffic Noise Handbook, May 2019. PennDOT guidelines are based on the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Aid Policy Guide 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 – Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. Additional guidance and policy interpretation applied to this analysis is based on the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidance (FHWA- HEP-10-025, December 2011). The results of the Noise Analysis can be found in the Noise Analysis Report50.

    Noise Analysis Defined

    • Decibel – Unit of measurement used on a noise scale
    • Noise Abatement – measures taken to reduce unacceptable sounds or vibrations, or to protect people from exposure to them
    • Warranted – future noise levels from project will approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria or are elevated by 10 decibels above the existing condition
    • Feasible – abatement will provide at least 5 decibels of noise reduction to noise sensitive locations and pose no safety, engineering, or access restrictions
    • Reasonable – abatement must be cost effective and maintenance, constructability, drainage and utility impacts, as well as the desires of the affected residents are considered

    Identification

    For the purposes of the noise analysis, the project study area was divided into 15 noise study areas (NSAs). NSAs are groupings of receptor sites that, by location, form distinct communities within the project area and contain receptors with common traffic noise influences. These areas are used to identify traffic noise impacts across a variety of land uses and assess if noise abatement is warranted, feasible and/or reasonable. The 15 NSAs contain 217 receptor locations, which are comprised of 20 monitoring sites and 197 “modeling-only” sites. The NSAs are shown in Appendix B Environmental Features/Constraints Mapping.

    The noise analysis began with identification of noise sensitive land uses and subsequent noise monitoring at twenty locations throughout the project corridor. This step allows for the inclusion of data within FHWA’s Traffic Noise Model (TNM) with the purpose of calibrating the noise model to observed conditions. Following initial model calibration, additional TNM models were developed to determine the existing, future no-build and future build condition sound levels at 197 locations throughout the project area. The models include a variety of features specific to the corridor including (but not limited to) existing and proposed roadway geometry, worst-case traffic volumes, travel speeds, building rows and other shielding elements, and existing/proposed grading.

    The future build predicted traffic noise levels are the basis for determining areas that “warrant” a detailed noise abatement evaluation. If noise levels are predicted to “approach” or “exceed” the FHWA/PennDOT noise abatement criteria (NAC) for the design year build scenario at a receptor, then an impact is said to occur, and a noise abatement evaluation is warranted. The NAC for the majority of land uses (categories B and C) along the corridor is 67 decibels (dBA). PennDOT defines “approach” as being within one dBA of 67 dBA; therefore, the criterion is 66 dBA or greater. Additionally, a variety of category E land uses are present and employ a criterion of 72 dBA. PennDOT defines “approach” as being within one dBA of 72 dBA; therefore, the criterion is 71 dBA or greater at those receptors. PennDOT considers noise abatement for areas that are predicted to experience a 10 dBA or greater increase over existing noise levels. Given that the project corridor features an existing interstate highway and adjacent land use is urban in nature, no traffic noise impacts have been identified due to the substantial increase criterion.

    Land Use Activity Categories

    • Category B – Single or multi-family residences or residential hotels/motels that function as apartment dwellings.
    • Category C – Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools, television studios, trails and trail crossings.
    • Category E – Commercial activities such as hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars and other developed lands.

    Impacts

    Table 10 Noise Impacts and Mitigation presents a summary of noise impacts and the preliminary mitigation analysis.

    Design year future no-build noise levels are predicted to exceed the NAC at a multitude of receptor sites within 7 of the 15 NSAs identified in the corridor (NSAs 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12 and 13).

    Design year future build noise levels are predicted to exceed the NAC at a multitude of receptor sites within 6 of the 15 NSAs identified in the corridor (NSAs 2, 3, 4, 5, 11 and 13). These NSAs warrant abatement consideration.

    Note that additional impacts would have been likely to occur in NSA 12, but this NSA is being displaced in its entirety in the future build condition under the preferred alternative.

    Mitigation

    Once traffic noise impacts were identified, the NSAs warranting abatement consideration were further evaluated to identify the feasibility and reasonableness of potential mitigation. Feasibility addresses the ability of a noise wall to perform acoustically while considering issues of constructability, safety, maintenance of vehicular and pedestrian access, and potential conflicts with utilities or drainage features. Reasonableness incorporates an analysis of cost-benefit (employing PennDOT’s allowance of 2,000 square feet of barrier per benefitted receptor) as well as additional acoustical performance requirements.

    During the preliminary engineering phase of this project, mitigation was evaluated in the form of vertical noise barriers. It is possible that earthen berms may be a mitigation option for NSA 2, but details related to future grading and potential waste balance would not be available until the final engineering phase.

    Noise barriers were developed and incorporated into the future build models where warranted. Barriers were designed to ensure feasibility relative to the constructability, safety and access requirements, and were further evaluated for acoustical performance. Mitigation was found to be feasible in NSAs 2, 4, 5 and 13. Mitigation developed for NSA 3 is not feasible due to an inability to meet acoustical performance requirements. Impacts within NSA 11 are due to local roadway influence (Derry Street) and potential mitigation is not feasible due to an inability to maintain vehicular and pedestrian access.

    Feasible mitigation alternatives in NSAs 2, 4, 5 and 13 were further evaluated to determine if those barrier designs are considered reasonable. Mitigation was found to be reasonable for NSA 2, NSA 5 and NSA 13. Impacts in NSA 4 were identified in two distinct and separate areas – east and west. Mitigation was found to be reasonable for the eastern portion of the NSA. The western portion was not found to be reasonable as it exceeded the limit of PennDOT’s allowable square foot of barrier for the two benefitted receptors located there.

    3.8. Hazardous/Residual Wastes

    Background

    A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared in accordance with PennDOT Publication 281, Waste Site Evaluation Procedures Handbook (2018). The purpose of the Phase I ESA was to identify potential areas of regulated substance release(s), referred to as findings of potential concern, associated with properties located within the project area and provide a preliminary recommendation associated with each finding of potential concern, based on impact from the proposed transportation project. The results of the Phase I ESA investigation are documented in the Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report51.

    Identification

    The Phase I ESA included review of United States Geological Survey, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) geologic, and United States Department of Agriculture soils mapping. Historic fire insurance maps, city directories, aerial photography, historical roadway plans, tax records/deeds, and additional sources listed in the Phase I ESA report. The Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PaDEP), and other environmental database records for properties located within the study area were obtained. A regulatory records file review was conducted at the PaDEP South-Central Regional Office. Field reconnaissance and interviews were conducted to identify existing conditions and land uses in the Phase I ESA project area. Details on the reviews, mapping, database searches, field reconnaissance, interviews, etc. are contained in the previously referenced report in the project technical files.

    Hazardous Waste Evaluation Defined

    • Phase I ESA – broad site information gathering survey, primarily desktop study and visual observation.
    • Phase II ESA – nonintrusive investigations or soil sampling using manually powered equipment
    • Phase III ESA – intrusive investigation of soil or groundwater, using powered equipment, to identify and characterize potential releases of regulated substances to soil and groundwater identified in Phase I and II investigations.
    • No Further Action Required – no concerns
    • No Further Action Required at This Time – potential concerns may/may not have to be addressed as scope is defined

    Impacts

    114 potential waste sites have been identified within the project area. See Appendix B Environmental Features/Constraints Mapping. Of the 114 potential waste sites identified, 56 sites require further investigation (Initiate Phase II or Phase III ESA Activities). Additionally, 34 of the sites have been identified to have findings of potential concern, but do not require additional investigation based on the proposed project (No Further Action Required at this Time). The remaining 24 sites would not be impacted and require no further investigation (No Further Action Required). See Table 11 Hazardous Waste Site Summary.

    Mitigation

    For the 56 sites requiring Phase II and/or III ESA investigations, activities may include pre-demolition waste surveys, ground penetrating radar studies, drum sampling and analysis, soil sampling and analysis, and/or groundwater sampling and analysis. Phase II and/or III ESA investigations would occur to identify waste materials that may have special handling requirements and/or identify health and safety hazards that may be encountered during construction. A waste management plan and/or contract special provisions would be prepared prior to construction.

    If a portion of a property containing an underground storage tank is to be impacted or acquired, then it is recommended that a certified tank removal contractor be utilized for removal.

    There is the potential for the presence of asbestos-containing materials and other hazardous materials within buildings and bridges located within the project area. Inspection or surveys for these materials for any buildings or bridges impacted by the proposed project would occur prior to demolition or removal.

    Used pavement and bridge materials may be used as clean fill or disposed of offsite. PennDOT’s contractor would document and inspect material for content or evidence of a spill or release of regulated substances (including asbestos, lead paint, and/or petroleum impacts) and submit environmental due diligence forms (EDD-VI and EDD-VII) to PennDOT, to ensure regulated materials are managed responsibly.

    3.9. Historic Properties

    Background

    Historic properties were evaluated in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, (36 CFR 800) and Pennsylvania State History Code (Act 70 Title 37 PA Consolidated Statutes). An historic property is a resource listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

    Categories of Historic Properties

    • Buildings (e.g., homes, barns, commercial or government buildings, etc.)
    • Structures (e.g., bridges, canals, lighthouses, etc.)
    • Sites (e.g., battlefields, shipwrecks, trails, etc.)
    • Objects (e.g., sculptures, monuments, boundary markers, etc.)
    • Districts (a concentration of sites, building, structures or objects that are unified in their history)

    3.9.1. Above Ground Historic Properties

    Identification

    The above ground historic properties investigations were conducted in compliance with applicable state and federal guidelines in accordance with the PA State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Guidelines for Architectural Investigations in Pennsylvania (2014). Above ground historic properties studies were conducted by, or under, the direct supervision of a person meeting at a minimum the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History (48 FR 44738-9).

    Above ground historic properties were identified through a study of previously available information and a reconnaissance level survey, which led to preparation of a Reconnaissance Survey Report52. All documentation related to historic resources for this project is available through PennDOT PATH53.

    Above ground historic properties were identified within the Area of Potential Effects (APE). The APE for this project extends approximately 500 feet from the preferred alternative location and encompasses the areas where the project has the potential to directly or indirectly affect historic properties. See the Determination of Effects Report54. Agency correspondence is included in Appendix D.

    PennDOT determined that properties recommended for further investigations in the survey report would be documented through full or abbreviated survey forms, at the discretion of the PennDOT Cultural Resource Professional (all forms are available at the footnoted PATH link).

    In 2018, the PA SHPO, concurred with eligibility for the following resources (see Figure 5 Historic Resources Map):

    • Harrisburg City Parks 7 Parkway Plan; Capital Area Greenbelt (Key No. 110669) (see Appendix B Environmental Features/Constraints Mapping, Sheet 6) was determined eligible for the NRHP in 1996 for its planning significance as it related to the nationwide City Beautiful Movement of the early 20th Century. The plan resulted in the construction of a park system encircling the City of Harrisburg and adjacent communities. The Capital Area Greenbelt was developed during the late twentieth century and consists of a 20-mile parkland corridor that corresponds largely with the historic Harrisburg City Parks 7 Harrisburg City Parks 7 Parkway Plan Parkway Plan. The NRHP boundary was established to include the areas historically associated with the park system developed during the early twentieth century as part of the City Beautiful Movement. The Harrisburg City Parks 7 Parkway Plan was previously disturbed by the initial construction of SR 0083; however, that disturbance pre-dated the NRHP.

    • Philadelphia and Reading Railroad (Key No. 112375) (see Appendix B Environmental Features/ Constraints Mapping, Sheets 5-10) is a NRHP eligible resource that runs east to west through the project area. The railroad was established as the Lebanon Valley Railroad, which was 53 miles in length and connected Reading to Harrisburg, passing through the City of Lebanon. On July 1, 1858, the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad incorporated the Lebanon Valley Railroad into its system as a branch line (Holton 1989: 79). The line continued as part of the Reading system until the late twentieth century when it was Philadelphia and Reading Railroad absorbed into the Consolidated Rail Corporation (CONRAIL). In 1998, Norfolk Southern Corporation and CSX Corporation acquired control of CONRAIL, including the former Reading lines. The railroad is currently owned and operated by the Norfolk Southern Railway. The Philadelphia and Reading Railroad was determined eligible for the NRHP by the PA SHPO in 1993 for its importance to the development of transportation in the area, and for its engineering significance. The NRHP boundary for the railroad was established to include the historical line of the railroad, as well as the associated structures that were vital to its execution.

    • Forster-Rutherford House (Key No. 208869) (see Appendix B Environmental Features/Constraints Mapping, Sheet 6) is located on a small 0.2 acre tract north of SR 0083 and south of the Norfolk Southern Railway, historically known as the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad, in Swatara Township. The house sits within, and is part of, the Capital Area Greenbelt. The house is individually eligible and is a contributing element of the Harrisburg City Parks 7 Parkway Plan resource. The Forster-Rutherford House is a three- bay, one-and-a-half story, rough-faced, random ashlar limestone house with a moderate roof pitch. Built c.Forster-Rutherford House 1740 over a large spring, the house is banked to the north into limestone bedrock. The Forster-Rutherford House is individually eligible for the NRHP for its association with the early settlement patterns of the area, and for its architecture. The NRHP boundary corresponds to the immediate setting of the house, and includes the house, spring, part of the stream, and the walls and fences associated with the house.

    • Saint Catherine Laboure Church and Holy Cross Cemetery (Key No. 208881) (see Appendix B Environmental Features/Constraints Mapping, Sheet 3 and 8) is located north of Derry Street and west of SR 0083 in Swatara Township. The complex consists of the Shrine of the Miraculous Medal, St. Catherine Laboure School, a rectory, convent, and the parish office center on the north side of Derry Street, while the Holy Cross Cemetery is located on a separate parcel to the south. Saint Catherine Laboure Catholic Church and Holy Cross Cemetery s eligible for the NRHP for properties that are less than fifty years in age for its architecture. The NRHP eligible boundary for the Saint Catherine Laboure Catholic Church and Holy Cross Cemetery corresponds only to the current tax parcel on the north side of Derry Street. The Shrine of the Miraculous Medal was determined to be the only historic element within the NRHP boundary. The remaining buildings of the church complex do not meet the requirements and would require reevaluation upon reaching the 50-year age mark.

    • Paxtang Municipal Building (Key No. 208877) (see Appendix B Environmental Features/Constraints Mapping, Sheet 6) is situated in a mixed-use residential and commercial area along the south side of Derry Street in Paxtang Borough. The Art Deco style municipal building was designed by Edmund G. Good and E. Milton MacMillin and built by Fred DeGroot between 1932 and 1933. The Paxtang Municipal Building is eligible for the NRHP, as the building is closely associated with the community and political history of Paxtang Borough and continues to retain integrity to represent that significance on the local level. The municipal building is also eligible for listing in the NRHP as a good example of the Art Deco style applied to a public building and retains a strong degree of integrity. The NRHP eligible boundary corresponds to the current tax parcel.

    • AMP, Inc./Aetna Building (Key No. 208859) (see Appendix B Environmental Features/Constraints Mapping, Sheet 7) is sited south of SR 0083 along Friendship Road and Tecport Drive in Swatara Township. The three-story building was constructed by AMP, Inc. in 1966 and features elements of the Brutalist style. The AMP, Inc./Aetna Building is eligible for the NRHP for its architecture. The NRHP eligible boundary corresponds to the current tax parcel.

    Impacts

    Impacts, also known as effects, upon cultural resources are evaluated with regard to the Definition of Effect [36 CFR § 800.4 (d)] and the Criteria of Adverse Effect (36 CFR § 800.5) as established by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

    An “effect” is defined as alteration to the characteristics of a historic property qualifying it for inclusion in or eligibility for the National Register. [36 CFR § 800.16(i)] An “adverse effect” is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. A summary of effects resulting from the preferred alternative is included in Table 12.

    • Harrisburg City Parks 7 Parkway Plan; Capital Area Greenbelt - The preferred alternative includes the widening of SR 0083 on both the north and south sides and the replacement of the current bridge over City Park Drive. Portions of the additional lanes would be located within the NRHP eligible boundary of the Harrisburg City Parks 7 Parkway Plan. No buildings, structures or contributing elements of the historic resource would be affected by the preferred alternative. The Capital Area Greenbelt path would be modified and realigned, but it is a modern feature within the NRHP boundary. The project would not result in alterations to the Harrisburg City Parks 7 Parkway Plan that would not be consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR 68) and applicable guidelines. The project would have no adverse effect on the Harrisburg City Parks 7 Parkway Plan.

    • Philadelphia and Reading Railroad - The proposed project would result in physical alteration to a bridge which is a contributing element of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad. The preferred alternative includes the removal and replacement of the 1953 railroad bridge over Eisenhower Boulevard as part of the reconfiguration of the Eisenhower Interchange. The project would result in alterations to elements of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad that would not be consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR 68) and applicable guidelines. The character defining elements of a contributing element (railroad bridge) of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad would be demolished as part of the preferred alternative. A new railroad bridge would be built in its place. This construction would occur within the NRHP eligible boundary of the historic resource. The project would have an adverse effect on the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad.

    • Forster-Rutherford House - The proposed project would not result in physical damage to buildings/ structures or portions of the land associated with the Forster-Rutherford House. Stream relocations may occur within the boundary but would not impact the house or the setting. The project would not result in alterations to elements of the Forster-Rutherford House that would not be consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR 68) and applicable guidelines. The project would have no adverse effect on the Forster-Rutherford House.

    • Saint Catherine Laboure Church and Holy Cross Cemetery - The construction along SR 0083 would not directly or indirectly impact the resource or the attributes that make it eligible. The proposed project would have no effect on the Saint Catherine Laboure Catholic Church and Holy Cross Cemetery.

    • Paxtang Municipal Building - The preferred alternative is located well outside the boundary of the historic resource. The proposed project would have no effect on the Paxtang Municipal Building.

    • AMP, Inc./Aetna Building - The preferred alternative is located within the viewshed of the historic resource, but well outside its NRHP eligible boundary and would not directly or indirectly impact the resource or the attributes that make it eligible. The proposed project would have no effect on the AMP, Inc./Aetna Building.

    Mitigation

    PennDOT is required to mitigate, or make up for, the adverse effects of the project on properties determined eligible for listing in, or listed in, the National Register of Historic Places. Minimization is also considered when the effect is not adverse. PennDOT and the SHPO agreed to the following minimization and mitigation efforts.

    Mitigation would include PennDOT developing informational kiosks/interpretive panels containing information and history about the Foster-Rutherford House and the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad and place them near the Forster-Rutherford house. Design details of the replacement bridge over the railroad will include incorporation of the railroad logo, and the SR 0083 bridge over Spring Creek would include details mimicking the Forster-Rutherford house design. A Programmatic Agreement (PA) was prepared and coordinated with the PA SHPO and the Section 106 Consulting Parties (identified on PATH), to further document minimization and mitigation commitments for all historic properties. The draft PA is included with the Agency Correspondence in Appendix D and will be executed after all signatures are received.

    While an adverse effect would occur to the railroad, primarily due to removal of a contributing structure, the impacts are not anticipated to be considered significant under NEPA.

    The no-build alternative would have no impact on historic properties.

    What is a Programmatic Agreement (PA)?

    A PA is a document that spells out the terms of a formal, legally binding agreement between a state Department of Transportation and other state/federal agencies. A PA establishes a process for consultation, review and compliance with one or more federal laws; most often with federal historic preservation laws.

    3.9.2. Archaeology (Below Ground Historic Properties)

    Identification

    The archaeological investigations were conducted in compliance with applicable state and federal guidelines in accordance with the PA SHPO’s Cultural Resource Management in Pennsylvania: Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations (2017). Archaeological work was conducted by, or under, the direct supervision of a person meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeologists (48 FR 44738-9).

    The first step in the process to determine if archaeological sites may be impacted by the project is to establish an Area of Potential Effects (APE). For archaeological resources, this APE includes all areas in which ground-disturbing activities are proposed and a buffer to ensure potential design options would be considered. Following the establishment of the APE, an investigation into what is known about this area is conducted. This is called a Phase IA Archaeological Assessment since it assesses whether archaeological sites could be located within the APE. This is done by conducting background research into the area including historic maps, historic aerial photography, as-built plans from early roadway projects, and files from earlier archaeological surveys. In addition, the Phase IA Archaeological Assessment includes what is called a “pedestrian reconnaissance”. Following the research portion of the assessment, archaeologists walk the APE to record the conditions of the land and make determinations about the potential for archaeological resources. The results of the background research, pedestrian reconnaissance, and the conclusions about the archaeological potential of the preliminary APE were submitted as a Phase IA Archaeological Assessment Letter Report.

    Archaeological Investigations Defined

    • Phase I – Identification
    • Phase IA – assessment of archaeological sensitivity in a project area
    • Phase IB – reconnaissance or intensive survey to identify all archaeological sites in a project area. Systematic shovel test pit sampling used to locate as many archaeological deposits as reasonably possible. If potentially significant sites are identified, a Phase II survey is generally recommended.
    • Phase II – Evaluation
    • Phase III – Mitigation and Data Recovery

    Phase IA Archaeological Assessment Letter Report

    The Phase IA Archaeological Assessment Letter Report provided mapping of areas where archaeological potential could be expected and assists in the development of archaeological excavations in the future. Although there are small, localized areas that may have moderate to high archaeological potential, the findings of the study indicates that the vast majority of the preliminary archaeological APE exhibited low archaeological potential due to previous ground disturbance associated with road construction, industrial activities, and slopes in excess of 15%. Portions of the APE to be subjected to Phase IB archaeological excavations were established based on the results of the Phase IA Archaeological Assessment Letter Report.

    The proposed testing methodology was submitted to the PA SHPO for approval via the Statewide Pre-Contact Probability Model Testing Methodology form. The approved Phase IB testing methodology included pedestrian reconnaissance, geomorphological investigation, geophysical survey, and subsurface archaeological testing, where appropriate. Due to restricted property access, archaeological investigations for the project are on hold until final design. Details regarding archaeological investigations were included in the Programmatic Agreement (PA) (included with the Agency Correspondence in Appendix D) to conduct the studies at a later time.

    Impacts and Mitigation

    The results of the Phase IB survey including the geophysical evaluation (e.g. ground-penetrating radar) would be documented in the forthcoming Phase I Archaeological Survey Report. The need for Phase II evaluation would be dependent upon the results of the geophysical evaluation and subsurface testing. Impacts to potentially eligible archaeological resources would be mitigated. PennDOT would consult with the PA SHPO to avoid or minimize any effects and mitigate if avoidance would not be possible. The previously mentioned PA includes information on additional requirements for archaeology studies in the project area.

    The no-build alternative would not impact archaeological resources.

  • 4. Draft Individual Section 4(f) Evaluation

    Background

    Section 4(f) properties for the project were investigated in accordance with Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 U.S.C. §303 as amended, implementing regulations at 23 CFR Part 774, and FHWA policies and guidance. Section 4(f) applies to publicly owned land within parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges and historic sites, whether publicly or privately owned.

    Identification

    A Draft Individual Section 4(f) Evaluation was prepared and is included in Appendix C.

    Ten Section 4(f) properties are present within the project study area.

    The recreational Section 4(f) properties are:

    • The Capital Area Greenbelt
    • Gerald H. Vanatta Park
    • Lawnton Athletic Association Tee-ball Fields
    • Paxtang Park

    The National Register of Historic Places eligible Section 4(f) properties are:

    • AMP, Inc. (Aetna Building) 3705 Paxton Street
    • Forster-Rutherford House
    • Harrisburg City Parks 7 Parkway Plan
    • Paxtang Municipal Building
    • Philadelphia & Reading Railroad, and
    • Saint Catherine Laboure Catholic Church and Holy Cross Cemetery

    Impacts

    The preferred alternative would impact six Section 4(f) properties: see Table 13

    The no-build alternative would not have any impacts on Section 4(f) properties.

    Mitigation

    During the development of the project, PennDOT coordinated with the PA SHPO and Consulting Parties. A draft Project Specific Programmatic Agreement (PA) was developed for the preferred alternative in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (refer to Attachment D Agency Correspondence for the PA). The following measures to mitigate the adverse effect on the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad were proposed and are being discussed as potential options in the draft PA:

    • Develop a context sensitive design for the bridge which would carry SR 0083 over Spring Creek. Minimally this would consist of concrete form-liners with a stone appearance that mimic the Forster- Rutherford House on the substructure elements of the structure.
    • Develop a context sensitive design for the bridge which would replace the existing Norfolk Southern Bridge. The design would include an element, or elements, which relate to its association with the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad.
    • Develop and erect a single panel kiosk near the Forster-Rutherford House which would contain information on the Forster-Rutherford House and its history.
    • Develop and erect a single panel kiosk near the Forster-Rutherford House which would contain information on the history of the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad.

    A conceptual plan for improvements to the Capital Area Greenbelt was developed (Exhibit 20). Improvements to the Capital Area Greenbelt would include:

    • Realigning the Capital Area Greenbelt trail within the project area, including eliminating a hairpin turn which was difficult for bicyclists to navigate.
    • Designing and constructing stream improvements adjacent to the Capital Area Greenbelt underneath the SR 0083 structure.
    • Providing lighting underneath the SR 0083 structure.
    • Providing a pull off area near the SR 0083 structure for Capital Area Greenbelt users.
    • Providing improvements along City Park Drive to create safer connections for pedestrians and bicycles to access the Capital Area Greenbelt.
    • Realigning and resurfacing the Capital Area Greenbelt trail within the project area.

    One or more of these options, or other options proposed, would be developed in coordination with the City of Harrisburg, DCNR, Dauphin County Parks & Recreation and CAGA as mitigation for impacts to the Capital Area Greenbelt.

    The project team would continue investigating design opportunities within Paxtang Park and continue to coordinate with the Susquehanna Area Mountain Biking Association, to replace trailhead and parking access to the Capital Area Greenbelt. The proposed parking lot would be located along the south side of the proposed SR 0083 improvements and accessed from City Park Drive. Retaining walls would be used to minimize impacts to Paxtang Park.

  • 5. Indirect and Cumulative Effects

    Assessment of indirect and cumulative effects is a requirement under NEPA and under the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA. This analysis was conducted in accordance with PennDOT, Publication 640 Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) Desk Reference.

    The no-build alternative would not have indirect nor would it contribute to cumulative effects and is not discussed in the following sections.

    5.1. Indirect Effects

    Indirect effects are defined as those that are caused by a project, but unlike direct effects, occur later in time or are farther removed in distance. These effects are often called “but for” actions, because they would not or could not occur “but for” the implementation of the project.

    Publication 640’s Chart 1, Potential for Project Related Growth, is used to help determine the potential for project related growth (indirect effects). Based on this chart, the proposed project has low to moderate potential for project-related growth due to:

    The project type:

    • Project predominantly on an existing facility.
    • Project does increase capacity through additional through lanes and auxiliary lanes.
    • The project does not substantially change accessibility (the interchange already exists, but improvements would not substantially change access).

    The project location:

    • Urban area that is predominantly developed.

    Growth/land use changes in the project area are mostly related to redevelopment of previously developed properties. Little vacant, developable land exists in the project area. There are small pockets of undeveloped land to the east and west of the existing interchange. These areas have most likely remained undeveloped due to a lack of access. The improved interchange would not provide new access into these areas. The area to the west of the existing interchange would be the new location for an improved loop ramp and would not be developable after construction. Access to the area to the east would not be substantially changed and therefore it is unlikely that the project would induce development in this area. See Figure 6 which identifies vacant land within the study area.

    The interchange area is predominately located within Swatara Township. A portion of the project area in the northwest is located within Paxtang Borough, and a portion to the north is located within Lower Paxton Township. All three municipalities have strong land use planning requirements and zoning. The immediate interchange area is zoned for limited and/or general manufacturing (Swatara Township). The portion of the project in Paxtang Borough is zoned commercial/industrial use and general industries in Lower Paxton Township. The majority of the project area already falls within these use categories and, as stated, little vacant developable land is available.

    Mobility within the local communities is expected to improve as some traffic is diverted off local streets and on to the improved SR 0083. Better access would be provided to Paxton Street from SR 0083. Additionally, the proposed improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the study area would provide more transportation options that do not require a vehicle. As stated, the majority of land in the project area is developed, but it is expected that redevelopment of vacant, abandoned or underutilized parcels could become more desirable with the proposed improvements. However, this redevelopment would not result in additional indirect impacts to project area resources; tax base benefits may be realized, but no negative indirect effects would be anticipated.

    The project is not anticipated to result in substantial project-related growth, so no substantial indirect effects are anticipated, and no further assessment of indirect effects is required.

    5.2. Cumulative Effects

    Cumulative effects include “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.”55

    Cumulative effects are only considered for resources with a direct or indirect effect from the project. The following resources would not be included in the cumulative effects analysis, as there would be no direct or indirect impact:

    • As mentioned in Section 3.6 Air Quality there would be no air quality impacts from the project.
    • Noise impacts may result from the project; however, the noise evaluation itself is a cumulative analysis of current noise levels based on past and current projects and activities within the analysis area. Further assessment of noise beyond what is in Section 3.7 Noise is not warranted.
    • The archaeology investigations are ongoing. Identified archaeology sites would likely result in removal of artifacts for cataloging and curating.
    • Hazardous/residual waste sites (Section 3.8) are evaluated in terms of “due diligence” (i.e., making sure PennDOT does not incur unanticipated and unnecessary liability due to these types of sites). As such, the project does not necessarily have an impact on these sites, but rather evaluates the potential for liability to PennDOT.

    Therefore, cumulative effects to air quality, noise, archaeology, and hazardous/residual waste have not been included in this analysis.

    This consideration of cumulative effects is for the following resources directly impacted by this project:

    • Wetland
    • Streams and floodplains
    • Socioeconomic resources
    • Historic resources
    • Vegetation and wildlife habitat

    Boundaries

    The boundary for wetlands and streams is the Spring Creek watershed boundary. Spring Creek is the major waterway in the project area. Socioeconomic resources would be assessed based on the project study area, including an evaluation of the impacts on the individual neighborhoods in the project impact area. Historic resources would be assessed on a resource by resource basis. There is no established larger historic context within the project area that encompasses multiple historic properties. The identified historic resources that are impacted by the project are individual properties and/or districts with no documented connection to one another. Historic resources impacted by the project include those with an adverse effect under Section 106 and those with right-of-way acquisition. Vegetation and wildlife habitat would be assessed for cumulative effects based on the project study area.

    Time Frame

    SR 0083 had its origins with the Harrisburg-York-Baltimore Expressway, constructed in 1951. During the early 1950s, SR 0083 was constructed from the Local Road (LR) 767/LR 139 split north to SR 0022. This section later became designated as the US 230 Bypass. In 1956, the bypass traveled south from its intersection with SR 0022 to Derry Street in Swatara Township. During the 1960s, SR 0083 began construction in several sections, starting first between Front Street, through 29th and Paxton Streets. Construction continued eastward, following parallel to the rail line, when in 1967, the Penn-Harris Interchange began construction at the confluence of SR 0322 and SR 0283. This interchange, later renamed the Eisenhower Interchange, provides the current access from SR 0083 with SR 0283 and SR 0322. The Eisenhower Interchange was completed and opened to traffic in 1971.

    The past time frame for the analysis has been set to 1956. That is approximately when SR 0083 was originally constructed. In addition, a review of historic project aerials (1937 to 1970) show that in the 1930’s the project area appeared to be predominantly agricultural. However, roadways (modern day Derry Street, SR 0322, SR 0283 and SR 0083) are present. By 1956, the current route of SR 0083 northward had been constructed, and the interchange with Derry Street is present. The area around the current interchange was also much more developed. By 1970, the current roadway alignments of SR 0083, SR 0283 and SR 0322 are present along with fully constructed and some (based on what can be seen in the aerial) under construction interchanges. The area around the interchanges is also near the current developed condition. For these reasons, 1956 appears to be the appropriate past date for the cumulative effects analysis.

    Past

    An exact account of what resources were impacted from 1956 to the present is not available nor is it easily discernible from aerial photography. However, it does appear that the stream riparian corridors (and associated floodplains) are similar from the 1956 aerial to the current (2018) aerial (see aerial photos). The extent of these streams appears to be similar in 1956 as to now. This photo shows that development has occurred, but the streams have remained in a fairly constant state. Based on aerial mapping, it is impossible to tell what extent of wetlands existed in 1956. However, the stream corridors and riparian buffers appear similar in 1956 to the present; therefore, wetland acreage would be assumed to be similar in the past as now.

    The development of residential areas and businesses has led to the removal of nearly all agricultural land from the area (see aerial photos). Based on the 1937 aerial, the study area was predominantly agricultural with residential development in the area of Paxtang and a smaller residential area along Derry Street to the northeast of what would become the Eisenhower Interchange.

    Based on the 1956 aerial, the study area, especially the areas to the north of Paxton Street, became predominantly residential. Some agricultural areas remain south of Paxton Street and adjacent to SR 0083 above the Derry Street interchange. The land use had changed based on the construction of SR 0083 from predominantly agricultural to predominantly residential and commercial (see aerial photos).

    From 1956 to 1970, the development of SR 0083 and SR 0283 and interchanges has occurred (construction is nearly complete). More development of business and apartment complexes has taken place adjacent to SR 0083 and SR 0283. The Eisenhower Interchange has bisected the Sunnydale neighborhood. Approximately 15-20 residences were displaced by these improvements. The Harrisburg Mall is now present. (see aerial photos).

    Exhibit 27 summarizes the changes to land use in the study area between 1937 and 1970. As shown in the exhibit, the majority of land use changes occurred between 1937 and 1956. Approximately 250 acres of agriculture/open land were developed between 1937 and 1956 and another 200 acres of agriculture/open land were developed from 1956 to 1970. The majority of the study area was developed by 1970.

    Some additional development can be noticed in the 2018 aerial; however, in general, the neighborhoods that make up the fabric of the area appear to be similar from 1970 until now. Industrial and commercial facilities have developed in the area bordered by SR 0283, SR 0322, Chambers Hill Road, and Penhar Drive. Business and retail facilities have also infilled the area surrounding Tecport Drive between the Harrisburg Mall complex, Paxton Street, 40th Street and Chambers Hill Road. Some changes in land use have continued to occur but are less pronounced (see aerial photos).

    The National Register eligible Philadelphia & Reading railroad corridor is present in all aerials and appears generally unchanged from 1956 until now. The line, formerly part of the Reading system, is operated by Norfolk Southern Corporation and CSX Corporation since 1998.

    What was forested in past aerial photographs generally remains forested today, although development has encroached on the edges of forested areas, such as riparian buffers surrounding Spring Creek. Some agriculture/open areas from 1970 were not developed and therefore were left unmanaged and have become forested, as can be seen in the 2018 aerial.

    Present

    One transportation project is currently under construction, as of the publication of this document, adjacent to the project area. This is the I-83 East Shore Section 1 (SR 0083 Section 043) project (Figure 7). The I-83 East Shore Section 1 project extends from the SR 0081 junction to south of the Union Deposit Interchange near Peiffers Lane. The project includes reconstruction and widening of SR 0083, with three lanes in each direction throughout the project limits, plus a fourth continuous auxiliary lane (extra lane in between on and off ramps) in each direction between interchanges. The project also includes reconstruction of the SR 0022 (Jonestown Road) Interchange, widening and resurfacing of SR 0022 between South Franklin Street and Colonial Road, and replacement of the SR 0022, Elmerton Avenue, and Union Deposit Road bridges over SR 0083.

    Future

    SR 0083 Eisenhower Interchange Reconstruction Project

    The setting of the existing project is urban with the interchange area surrounded mostly by commercial/ industrial uses. Six UNT to Spring Creek and the main stem of Spring Creek were identified within the project limits. Approximately 20 miles or 105,600 linear feet of stream exists within the watershed, based on a review of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping. Sixteen wetlands, totaling 0.253 acres, were delineated along the stream corridors in the project area itself. Based on a review of NWI mapping, approximately 15 acres of open water wetlands and two acres of vegetated wetlands exist within the Spring Creek watershed currently. Approximately 170 acres of tree canopy is located within the project study area, based on review of statewide high resolution mapping data. Construction of the project may require the removal of up to 70 acres of tree clearing or cutting.

    The Philadelphia and Reading Railroad would be adversely effected. The project would result in the removal of a bridge that is a contributing element to the resource, which is an adverse effect under Section 106 (see Section 3.9.1 Above Ground Historic Properties).

    A total of five neighborhoods were identified within or partially within the project study area. These neighborhoods include Paxtang Borough and four neighborhoods in Swatara Township, including Parkway Estates, Lenker Manor, Sunnydale, and Lawnton. The Parkway Estates and Sunnydale neighborhoods would be directly impacted and have the most displacements. Lenker Manor and Lawnton would have a few displacements.

    In total, 41 residential and seven business relocations are anticipated in the Sunnydale neighborhood. Within the Parkway Estates neighborhood, there are anticipated to be 16 residential and five business displacements. The project would result in the removal of approximately one-third of the Sunnydale neighborhood and approximately one-quarter of the Parkway Estates neighborhoods. However, the neighborhoods would not be divided, and it is anticipated that these neighborhoods would remain. Improved access and mobility to other areas would benefit both neighborhoods. Other displacements would occur throughout the project area; beyond the defined neighborhoods.

    The project would also impact two recreational facilities – Paxtang Park and the Capital Area Greenbelt. Approximately half of Paxtang Park would be acquired; however, relocation of a parking area would allow the park to remain. The shared use Capital Area Greenbelt path would be re-aligned as part of the project and other improvements such as sidewalks would be constructed to the benefit of the Capital Area Greenbelt. The Capital Area Greenbelt would remain after construction of the project.

    One community facility – the Chinese Cultural Arts Institute – would be relocated. However, relocation is anticipated within the institute’s current service area and therefore, no adverse impact is anticipated, and no cumulative effects would occur. It is the desire of the institute to remain in and support the greater Harrisburg region.

    Based on the analysis in Section 3.5 Socioeconomic Analysis, although the proposed project would result in displacements, the project does not have potential for significant socioeconomic impacts, including to EJ communities. In fact, with improved mobility, additional pedestrian facilities, and increased accessibility, the project would benefit the overall socioeconomic environment. However, displacements would occur. The project is consistent with local planning and zoning.

    Other Transportation Projects

    Other potential future projects were documented based on a review of PennDOT’s One Map, which lists upcoming PennDOT and local projects on the current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) – 2019 to 2022, and coordination with the local municipalities to identify planned developments. Anticipated impacts from other reasonably foreseeable projects were based information provided from the other project team(s) or by considering the project type (i.e., on-alignment safety and rehabilitation projects were anticipated to have minimal to no direct impacts).

    The SR 0083 East Shore Section 3 (SR 0083 Section 079) project is located west of the Eisenhower Interchange near 29th Street to the Susquehanna River. The proposed improvements include widening the mainline I-83 corridor to three mainline lanes in each direction with additional lanes providing access to upgraded interchanges via a collector-distributor roadway (Figure 7).

    SR 3012 (Derry Street) corridor safety improvements including new advisory signs, pavement markings, traffic signal upgrades at multiple intersections, potential construction of turning lanes and other safety improvements are proposed from South 14th Street to SR 3017 (61st Street) in Harrisburg City, Paxtang Borough and Swatara Township, Dauphin County. This project is not anticipated to have displacements or have negative impacts on traffic (Figure 7).

    Private Development

    There is one major private development project planned for the study area within Swatara Township. This includes the development of 165 acres into a warehouse complex located along SR 0322 (Figure 7). The development would include four buildings totaling 1,196,000 square feet. The anticipated opening date is 2021 with full build-out in 2024. According to trip generation analysis, the proposed warehouses would generate approximately 170 new weekday AM peak hour trips and 170 new weekday PM peak hour trips56. Warehouse or storage are permitted in the commercial-general zone when a conditional use permit is granted by the board of commissioners. A portion of the preferred alternative is in the commercial-general zone, and a portion of the preferred alternative is in the light manufacturing zoning district “where warehousing or storage is a use permitted by right,” according to Swatara Township57 (Figure 7). The warehousing complex is anticipated to create 400 jobs58. Approximately 165 acres of tree removal is anticipated. Based on National Wetlands Inventory59 mapping, there does not appear to be streams or wetlands present on this site. Other environmental impacts are not known at this time. The warehouse would provide tax revenue to Swatara Township.

    The Rutherford Intermodal Yard is an intermodal rail terminal facility currently owned and operated by Norfolk Southern (NS). The facility is located in Swatara Township just east of SR 0083 between Paxton Street and Derry Street and is accessed using the Penhar Drive exit of SR 0322. In 2000, NS retrofitted the yard for intermodal service and in 2014-15 expanded the facility to increase the annual lift capacity to nearly 350,000 intermodal boxes. A lift is defined as moving a cargo box from train to truck or truck to train. NS indicated that the facility is ramping up operations but would take some time to reach capacity and much depends on market demand. Based on a review of aerial mapping, it appears that approximately 13 acres of property within Rutherford Intermodal Yard were cleared for this expansion. This included tree removal, but other environmental impacts are unknown. According to the Traffic Modeling Report60, if the Rutherford Yard operates at 100% capacity (based on lift data), it could generate 1,130 truck trips per day (entering and exiting). The SR 0083 Section 078 project would provide improved access to the Rutherford Intermodal Yard through improvements to the Penhar Drive exit and along Paxton Street at the entrance to the Rutherford Intermodal Yard.

    The Harrisburg Mall (owned by St. John Properties) has three sites available for lease located within the existing parking lot at the intersection of Paxton Street and Mall Road. These sites are currently paved, and no additional environmental impacts are anticipated from this development. The SR 0083 Section 078 project would provide improvements along Paxton Street in this area and would also include a new interchange with more direct access to the Harrisburg Mall property. These improvements may make these sites as well as the mall itself more attractive for development/redevelopment opportunities. This development would provide tax revenue to Swatara Township.

    Table 14 Potential Cumulative Impacts, shows the anticipated cumulative effects of this project combined with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects/actions in the cumulative effects study area.

    Summary – Cumulative Effects

    Cumulative effects to streams and wetlands are noted in Table 14; however, as noted, these impacts would be mitigated. The proposed project would contribute to a cumulative stream and wetland impact; however, based on the amount of each resource available in the project area, the cumulative impact would not be significant. When mitigation is considered, the proposed project’s cumulative effects on wetlands or streams would be further reduced.

    The cumulative effects to vegetation from future projects total approximately 264 acres of tree removal, the majority is not located within the project study area and is coming from the private warehouse development in Swatara Township. Tree removal is important primarily due to trees’ function as wildlife habitat for threatened or endangered bats, migratory birds, pollinator species, and other wildlife. The study area is urban and nearly fully developed, however the area immediate to the east of the study area is heavily wooded, and there are numerous large wooded undeveloped areas near the study area. Forested areas within the project study area are fragmented and construction impacts are limited to the edges of continuous forested tracts of land. PennDOT would implement USFWS proposed avoidance measure of a seasonal tree removal restriction; therefore, construction of the project is not anticipated to significantly impact threatened and endangered species. PennDOT will continue to look for opportunities to minimize tree removal impacts, specifically for areas of continuous forest such as the Spring Creek corridor. Cumulative impacts to vegetation and wildlife habitat are not significant.

    Both the SR 0083 Section 078 and SR 0083 Section 079 projects would result in improvements to the Capital Area Greenbelt. As noted previously, the SR 0083 Section 078 project would include realignment and improvements to the Capital Area Greenbelt in the area of City Park Drive. The SR 0083 Section 079 project would include improvements to the Capital Area Greenbelt in the area of Front Street consisting of an improved parking area with amenities and the completion of an upper trail along Front Street.

    The Philadelphia and Reading Historic Railroad is active rail line and would continue to operate after the construction of this project and other reasonably foreseeable projects. While this project’s impact is considered an adverse effect under Section 106, removal of the bridge (which would be replaced as part of the project) would not cause the resource to no longer exist nor would it cause the interpretive nature of the resource to change. The property would remain a historic railroad corridor. The SR 0083 Section 079 project would replace four railroad bridges, but this would not affect the historic railroad. Therefore, no significant cumulative effect would result.

    The potential development of the warehousing complex along SR 0322 and the potential expansion of the Rutherford Intermodal Yard may result in increased traffic (especially trucks) using SR 0083. The improvements to SR 0083 as part of the SR 0083 Section 078 and SR 0083 Section 079 projects would be able to accommodate these traffic increases.

    Cumulative effects to displaced residences are also shown in Table 14. Combined, the SR 0083 Section 043, SR 0083 Section 078, and SR 0083 Section 079 Dauphin County projects would potentially displace 109 residential households. The Conceptual Stage Survey Report showed that suitable replacement housing is available for these displaced persons to relocate into the study area. The possible 109 residential displacements represent 0.2% percent of the total households in Lower Paxton Township (20,173), Swatara Township (9,109) and the City of Harrisburg (20,188). Overall, the number of residential displacements caused by the projects is small compared to the overall populations of the respective municipalities. Based on the small number of overall displacements, these projects are not anticipated to have a significant impact on the overall demographics of the area or on the area’s tax base.

    Combined, the SR 0083 Section 043, SR 0083 078 and SR 0083 079 Dauphin County projects would likely require the acquisition of 65 businesses. According to information obtained from the Census Business Builder, there are approximately 6,858 businesses in Dauphin County (2012 Economic Census61). The total anticipated business displacements represent approximately 0.9% of the businesses in Dauphin County. These projects represent a small impact on the overall business sector in the area. According to the Conceptual Stage Survey Report, there are sufficient commercial and industrial properties available in Dauphin County for relocation to avoid significant long-term job and tax base loss. The proposed warehousing complex and development at the Harrisburg Mall would create new jobs and contribute taxes to Swatara Township.

    The Conceptual Stage Survey Report documents that sufficient safe, sanitary and decent housing and commercial properties are available in and near the project area to relocate displaced persons and businesses resulting from both this project and other reasonably foreseeable projects. Therefore, no significant impact to municipal or school district tax bases is anticipated.

    The cumulative effect to socioeconomic resources resulting from the project are not significant. No mitigation for cumulative impacts is proposed. The impacts reflect 70 years of development and are consistent with local zoning.

  • 6. Public Comment and Agency Coordination

    6.1. Public Involvement

    PennDOT and FHWA held an Open House Public Plans Display (Open House) and a Public Officials’ Meeting on October 18, 2018 at the Harrisburg Mall in Swatara Township, Pennsylvania. PennDOT conduced the Open House and Public Officials’ Meeting to share project information on both this project (SR 0083 Section 078 Eisenhower Interchange Reconstruction project) and the adjoining but separate project to the west (SR 0083 Section 079 Dauphin County).

    The meeting was advertised through letters to public officials, postcard mailers, email blasts, newspaper advertisements, flyers, a press release, media coverage, the project website62, Facebook, notices posted at the Harrisburg Mall and informational cards at a local festival. The project website traffic increased over five times its average visit rate during the month of October 2018.

    The purpose of the meeting was to provide a project update including a comprehensive general overview video that contained visual explanations of key project data; present the recommended preferred alternative (as presented to the public; now called the preferred alternative) and gather input from the public. Approximately 414 individuals signed-in at the Open House. Approximately 18 public officials attended a meeting prior to the Open House.

    Attendees had the opportunity to complete a comment form. A total of 108 comment forms were received either at the meeting or were submitted via mail. The most common concerns expressed were overall congestion of SR 0083 and local roads, safety, and local roadway connections.

    Following the meeting, the open house materials, including the general overview video, were placed on the project website and people were notified about the availability of the meeting resources through email blasts and media coverage. A full summary of the Open House is contained in the Open House Public Plans Display, Meeting Report63.

    Additional stakeholder meetings were held for this project with a variety of interested parties, as presented in Table 15.

    Future public involvement activities are anticipated to include:

    • Public Hearing during circulation of this EA.
    • Stakeholder Meetings ongoing –Townships in project area and other stakeholder such as Capital Area Transit (CAT), state police, Emergency Medical Service (EMS) and county control, Capital Area Greenbelt Association (CAGA) and Susquehanna Area Mountain Biking Association (SAMBA), business meetings (Harrisburg Mall), bicycle and pedestrian groups, school districts
    • Project website - maintaining and expanding with project updates and additional information as needed
    • Mailing and email database maintenance and project updates sent to stakeholders as needed
    • Neighborhood meetings during final design for noise mitigation

    6.2. Agency Coordination

    An Agency Coordination Meeting (ACM) was held on September 26, 2018. The ACM information for both this project (SR 0083 Section 078 Eisenhower Interchange Reconstruction project) and the adjoining but separate SR 0083 project to the west (SR 0083, Section 079 Dauphin County). Project purpose and needs, environmental features, traffic data/analysis, and the recommended preferred alternative (now preferred alternative) were presented using a PowerPoint presentation. Representatives from the USACE, SHPO, PaFBC, PGC, PaDEP, and DCNR attended the ACM. Minutes for this meeting are contained in the project technical files. ACM presentation was well received by agencies present and very few project specific questions were asked. General comments included consideration of wildlife crossings and pollinator species as design progresses.

    Following the ACM, a smaller group of attendees completed a wetland/watercourse field view of the project area. Separate minutes for this meeting are also contained in the referenced project technical files.

  • 7. Comparison and Identification of the Preferred Alternative

    As stated, the only reasonable option available to improve SR 0083 in the project area was to improve the roadway on or near the existing alignment. The no-build alternative would not meet the need and realignments either to the north or south would have resulted in severe impacts to the densely developed residential, commercial and industrial areas. The alternative studied in this Environmental Assessment is the preferred alternative (see Figure 2 Preferred Alternative).

    7.1. Environmental Commitments and Mitigation Summary

    The mitigation measures and environmental commitments in Table 16 have been made for the preferred alternative.

    Resource: Watercourse/Streams

    Commitment/Mitigation: Avoidance and minimization efforts may include steepening of embankment slopes, retaining walls, certain types of wingwalls or abutments to decrease footprint, drainage modifications and other best management practices. Mitigation would be coordinated with resource agencies for direct impacts to streams. It is anticipated that mitigation would be a combination of onsite and offsite mitigation efforts. Onsite mitigation would be used for stream relocations (UNT 3 to Spring Creek, UNT 4 to Spring Creek). Offsite mitigation is being considered at several areas within the Spring Creek watershed. Antidegradation Best Available Combination of Technologies (ABACT) measures (additional stream protection measures during construction) would likely be used due to the designation of Spring Creek as a wild trout stream.

    Resource: Wetlands

    Commitment/Mitigation: Avoidance and minimization efforts may include steepening of embankment slopes, retaining walls, certain types of wingwalls or abutments to decrease footprint, drainage modifications and other best management practices. Antidegradation Best Available Combination of Technologies (ABACT) measures (additional stream protection measures during construction) would likely be used due to the wetland designation as EV wetlands. Mitigation would be coordinated with resource agencies for direct impacts wetlands. Wetland mitigation could be satisfied with offsite banking, but onsite mitigation may be used.

    Resource: Floodplains

    Commitment/Mitigation: Avoidance and minimization efforts may include steepening of embankment slopes, retaining walls, certain types of wingwalls or abutments to decrease footprint, drainage modifications and other best management practices. Mitigation would be coordinated with resource agencies for direct impacts to floodplains. Mitigation would be incorporated into stream mitigation efforts.

    Resource: Stormwater Runoff

    Commitment/Mitigation: Stormwater management controls would be designed and implemented to mitigate the increases in stormwater runoff that result from the project in post construction conditions. Coordination would take place regarding opportunities to provide stormwater management consistent with PennDOT’s municipal separate storm sewer (MS4) permit.

    Resource: Wildlife and Plants - Threatened and Endangered Species

    Commitment/Mitigation: USFWS avoidance measure for the project is to conduct tree cutting, disturbance, inundation (flooding) and prescribed burning from October 1 to March 31.

    Resource: Wildlife and Plants – Migratory Birds

    Commitment/Mitigation: PennDOT would investigate opportunities for native vegetation planting, providing habitat and cover for migratory birds in the project area. The project footprint of disturbance would be minimized, where possible.

    Resource: Wildlife and Plants – Pollinator Species

    Commitment/Mitigation: During final design of stormwater basins, re-vegetation areas, wetland mitigation, etc. consider incorporation of plant species that are pollinator preferred. Coordinate with the District Roadside Maintenance Specialist, the MS4 stormwater coordinator and the County Maintenance Manager to assure that long term maintenance would occur.

    Resource: Wildlife and Plants - Wildlife

    Commitment/Mitigation: PennDOT would look for opportunities throughout the Spring Creek corridor to provide safe wildlife crossings under the interstate. Throughout design, PennDOT would look for opportunities to reduce the project footprint and minimize impacts to wildlife habitat.

    Resource: Wildlife and Plants – Invasive Species

    Commitment/Mitigation: Identified invasive plant species would be handled in accordance with PennDOT Publication 756, Invasive Species Best Management Practices. Re-vegetation of disturbed areas would occur as soon as possible and would be in accordance with PennDOT Publication 408, Specifications.

    Resource: Wildlife and Plants – Invasive Wildlife Species

    Commitment/Mitigation: Design and construction contractors for the project would be required to have or obtain business permits to operate in the spotted lanternfly quarantine zone through the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. As part of the permit, employees are trained to limit the spread of spotted lanternfly from equipment driven outside of the spotted lanternfly quarantine zone and be able to identify and destroy spotted lanternfly found in the project area.

    Resource: Socioeconomic Resources - General

    Commitment/Mitigation:

    • During preliminary and final design, evaluate engineering to further minimize or avoid impacts. Consider steepening slopes, use of retaining walls, and locations of stormwater features.
    • During preliminary and final design, continue to look for opportunities to enhance communities (potentially using areas of remnant land following construction).
    • During final design, continue to look for opportunities to include tree planting, landscaping and hardscaping to beautify the project area.
    • During final design, identify if displacements are necessary or avoidable for stormwater facilities.
    • Include ADA-accessible sidewalks and shoulders to improve the safety for non-motorized travelers.
    • Continued coordination will take place with municipalities to ensure consistency with their plans.
    • Consideration of multimodal traffic during construction to minimize potential impacts to mobility for all users.
    • As the stormwater design is further refined during final design, revisit impacts in the Parkway Estates neighborhood to determine whether or not any displacements can be avoided.

    Resource: Socioeconomic Resources – Emergency Service Providers

    Commitment/Mitigation:

    • Coordinate with EMS providers as the design advances to ensure no impacts to service areas occur as a result of design decisions.
    • Coordinate with local officials and emergency service providers during construction to make them aware of impacts to access in case of emergencies.

    Resource: Socioeconomic Resources – Parks & Recreation

    Commitment/Mitigation:

    • Implement the draft improvements to the Capital Area Greenbelt shared use path, including an improved connection to the Parkway Estates neighborhood.
    • Create two new local connections to improve the local roadway network for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists and to provide more north-south crossings options of SR 0083 and the railroad. Both connections would provide sidewalk for pedestrian traffic and provide minimum 6 feet wide shoulders to accommodate bicycle traffic.

    Resource: Socioeconomic Resources – Public Transit

    Commitment/Mitigation: Coordinate with CAT for improvements to transit stops impacted by the proposed project.

    Resource: Socioeconomic Resources – School Districts and Educational Facilities

    Commitment/Mitigation: Coordinate with Central Dauphin School District regarding construction timing and detours.

    Resource: Socioeconomic Resources – Other Institutions & Facilities

    Commitment/Mitigation: Assist the Chinese Cultural and Arts Institute to relocate within the area in order to continue providing Chinese language and arts classes to the Harrisburg region and beyond.

    Resource: Socioeconomic Resources - Displacements

    Commitment/Mitigation:

    • Continue to work with Swatara Township to encourage businesses and residents to relocate within the township if possible, in order to reduce the impacts on the tax base and the loss of local jobs.
    • Coordinate with residential and business displacements to provide relocation assistance.

    Resource: Air Quality

    Commitment/Mitigation: None

    Resource: Noise

    Commitment/Mitigation: Noise mitigation was found to be feasible and reasonable for NSAs 2, 4 (east side only), 5 and 13. More detailed investigation would be completed during final design based on preliminary studies. Per state and federal noise guidance, coordination with the residential community would be conducted for the implementation of feasible and reasonable noise barriers.

    Resource: Hazardous/Residual Waste Sites

    Commitment/Mitigation:

    • Complete Phase II and Phase III investigations, as warranted. A waste management plan and/or contract special provisions would be prepared prior to construction for areas requiring remediation.
    • If a portion of a property containing a UST is to be impacted or acquired, then a certified tank removal contractor should be utilized to remove the UST.
    • Inspections for any buildings or bridges that would be impacted by the planned project would be necessary.
    • Contractors would make the clean fill determination and would submit Forms EDD-VI and EDD-VII to PennDOT to document their due diligence determinations.

    Resource: Historic Properties See Appendix D Agency Correspondence for the PA.

    Commitment/Mitigation: PennDOT would develop a context sensitive design for the bridge which would carry State Route 0083 over UNT to Spring Creek. Minimally this would consist of concrete form-liners, with a stone appearance that mimic the Forster-Rutherford house, on the substructure elements of the structure. PennDOT would consult with the SHPO and consulting parties on the design of the replacement bridge as the project progresses.

    Resource: Historic Properties

    Commitment/Mitigation:

    • PennDOT would develop a context sensitive design for the bridge which would replace the existing Norfolk Southern Bridge. The design would include an element, or elements, which relate to its association with the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad and include incorporation of the railroad logo. PennDOT would consult with the SHPO and consulting parties on the design of the replacement bridge as the project progresses.
    • PennDOT would develop and erect a single panel kiosk near the Forster-Rutherford property which would contain information and history about the Foster-Rutherford House and the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad. PennDOT would consult with the SHPO and consulting parties on the content and layout of the panel.

    Resource: Archaeology

    Commitment/Mitigation: None at this time - Phase IB to be completed in Final Design.

  • Footnotes

    1 Logical Termini - rational end points for a transportation improvement and review of the environmental impacts

    2 Independent Utility - be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made

    3 A glossary of terms and acronyms is included in Appendix I.

    4 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Memo: Evaluation of Logical Termini, SR 0083-078 MPMS# 92931 and SR 0083-079 MPMS# 97828, Dauphin County, July 26, 2017.

    5 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Memo: Evaluation of Purpose and Need, SR 0083-078 MPMS# 92931, Dauphin County, June 27, 2018

    6 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 8, I-83 East Shore Sections 2 & 3, Traffic Modeling Report, January 2018.

    7 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 8, I-83 East Shore Section, Crash Analysis Report, January 2019.

    8 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 8, SR 0083, Section 078, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania: Alternative Analysis Report, July 2019.

    9 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 8, I-83 East Shore Section 2, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania: No-Build Addendum for Traffic Modeling Report, February 2019

    100 Collector-Distributor (CD) roads move vehicle lane changing away from the high-speed traffic on the interchange and mainline. Lane changes occur on the CD roads as vehicles move from the freeway to the other side roads.

    11 A system-to-system interchange carries traffic from one freeway (SR 0083) to another (SR 0283) via a network of ramps and connectors.

    12 A single-point urban interchange (SPUI), also called a single-point interchange (SPI) or single-point diamond interchange, is a type of highway interchange. The design was created in order to help move large volumes of traffic through limited amounts of space safely and efficiently.

    13 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, I-83/I-283 Interchange Reconstruction Project Watercourses and Wetlands Historic Mapping/Plans Review and Field Observations Analysis Memorandum, August 24, 2018.

    14 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, I-83 East Shore Section 2, Wetlands and Watercourses, Identification and Delineation Report, August 2018.

    15 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, SR 0083, Section 078, Dauphin County: Stream Mitigation Site Search Report, June 2019.

    16 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, I-83 East Shore Section 2, Wetlands and Watercourses, Identification and Delineation Report, August 2018.

    17 Karst topography – landscape characterized by caves, sinkholes, and underground streams usually found in regions where bedrock consists of carbonate-rich rock, such as limestone.

    18 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, SR 0083, Section 078, Dauphin County: Wetland Mitigation Site Search Report, June 2019.

    19 https://pa.audubon.org/birds/pennsylvania-ebird

    20 https://www.fws.gov/northeast/pafo/bald_eagle_map.html

    21 United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Section 7 Technical Assistance – Summary of Indiana Bat Ecology https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/s7process/mammals/inba/INBAEcologySummary.html

    22 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, SR 0083, Section 078, Dauphin County: Socioeconomic Report, June 2019.

    23 Census tract - a small, relatively permanent statistical subdivision of a county. Census tracts generally contain about 4,000 people and 1,600 housing units and their boundaries normally follow visible features.

    24 Block group - generally defined to contain between 600 and 3,000 people and between 240 and 1,200 housing units. A block group is the smallest unit for which the Census Bureau calculates sample data.

    25 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, SR 0083, Section 078, Dauphin County: Socioeconomic Report, June 2019

    26 The number of displacements has been corrected from the number that was included in the Socioeconomic Report.

    27 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, SR 0083, Section 078, Dauphin County: Conceptual Stage Survey Report, March 2019.

    28 The number of displacements has been corrected from the number that was included in the Socioeconomic Report.

    29 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, SR 0083, Section 078, Dauphin County: Air Quality Technical Report, May 2019

    30 The design for 29th Street is included in the adjacent SR 0083 Section 079 project, but would be improved with a sidewalk, a shared-use path and shoulders that meet current design standards to improve pedestrian and bicycle movements across SR 0083.

    31 https://www.i-83beltway.com/bicycle-and-pedestrian-accommodations.php

    32 Transportation Benefit-Cost Analysis http://bca.transportationeconomics.org/benefits/economic-effects

    33 http://www.vtpi.org/cohesion.pdf

    34 The number of displacements has been corrected from the number that was included in the Socioeconomic Report.

    35 The number of displacements has been corrected from the number that was included in the Socioeconomic Report.

    36 The number of displacements has been corrected from the number that was included in the Socioeconomic Report.

    37 The number of displacements has been corrected from the number that was included in the Socioeconomic Report.

    38 The number of displacements has been corrected from the number that was included in the Socioeconomic Report.

    39 http://caga.org/the-trail/

    40https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56dc3f9cb654f9876576bab7/t/574863d2e32140c00f3c4a38/1464361944523/RegionalBicycleConnectionsStudyPt1.pdf

    41 https://www.cattransit.com/routes-and-schedules/

    42 Section 8 refers to the federal government’s housing choice voucher program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. The participant is free to choose housing that meets the requirements of the program and is not limited to units located in subsidized housing projects. https://www.hud.gov/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8.

    43 https://www.statelibrary.pa.gov/Libraries/Subsidies-and-Grants/Pages/Keystone-Recreation-Park-and-Conservation-Funds.aspx

    44 The number of displacements has been corrected from the number that was included in the Socioeconomic Report.

    45 The number of displacements has been corrected from the number that was included in the Socioeconomic Report.

    46 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, SR 0083, Section 078, Dauphin County: Conceptual Stage Survey Report, March 2019.

    47 http://www.dauphincounty.org/document_center/taxclaim/2019%20Millage%20January.pdf

    48 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 8, SR 0083 Section 078 Dauphin County Air Quality Technical Report, May 2019.

    49 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 8, SR 0083 Section 078 Dauphin County PM2.5 Project Level Air Quality Conformity Determination Level 3 Screening Support Document, March 2019.

    50 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 8, SR 0083 Section 078, Dauphin County, Preliminary Engineering Noise Analysis Report, August 2019.

    51 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 8, SR 0083, Section 078 (Eisenhower Interchange Reconstruction), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania: Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, October 2019.

    52 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, SR 0083, Section 078, Dauphin County: Reconnaissance Survey Report, ER# 2016-8478-043, April 2017.

    53 https://path.penndot.gov/ProjectDetails.aspx?ProjectID=47382

    54 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, SR 0083, Section 078, Dauphin County: Determination of Effects Report, ER# 2016-8478-043, April 2019.

    55 40 CFR § 1508.7

    56 Transportation Impact Study Scoping Meeting Application – CRG Warehouse Development (August 2019)

    57 https://www.pennlive.com/news/2019/10/swatara-commissioners-to-host-public-hearing-for-warehouse-complex-zoning-request.html

    58 https://www.abc27.com/news/local/harrisburg/proposed-warehouses-cause-resident-concerns-over-noise-air-pollution/

    59 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html

    60 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 8, I-83 East Shore Sections 2 & 3, Traffic Modeling Report, January 2018.

    61 https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/economic-census/data/tables.2012.html.html Note that business data was not readily available at the municipal level; therefore, a comparison to Dauphin County was used.

    62 http://www.i-83beltway.com/projects/east-shore-section-2.php

    63 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, East Shore Section 2 and East Shore Section 3, Open House Public Plans Display, Meeting Report, October 2018.

The following persons can be contacted for information regarding this project:

John Bachman, Senior Project Manager, PennDOT District 8, 2140 Herr Street, Harrisburg, PA 17103-1699; Telephone: (717) 783-4519; email: jobachman@pa.gov

Jonathan P. Crum, Environmental Protection Specialist, US Department of Transportation (USDOT); Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) – Pennsylvania Division, 228 Walnut Street, Room 508, Harrisburg, PA 17101-1720; Telephone: (717) 221-3735; email: jonathan.crum@dot.gov

All draft figures, tables and appendices can be found in the PDF available here.