Section 4f

The following is an example of a current Maryland project in which the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) had to balance impacts between natural resources and Section 4(f) cultural resources. Regulatory agencies required the SHA to develop project alternatives that minimize impacts to a local stream and its floodplain, and to two Section 4(f) cultural resources on either side of the existing alignment.

OVERVIEW
The Buckeystown Pike is a stretch of Maryland 85 that runs between English Muffin Way and Grove Road in central Frederick County. The Maryland 85 project involves a section of this highway that crosses Ballenger Creek and is flanked by two Section 4(f) cultural resources—the Arcadia property to the west and the Markell property to the east.

The Arcadia property consists of an archeologically distinct 45-room Georgian mansion and several outbuildings overlooking the Monocacy Battlefield of the Civil War. Wounded soldiers from the Confederate Army were taken to Arcadia during the battle. The property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Markell property is a farmstead consisting of a neoclassically Main dwelling on Markell farmstead property inspired 1851 brick dwelling that is surrounded by an eclectic mix of outbuildings dating from the Civil War to the present. The property also includes several barns, a cook house, a guest house and an outhouse, among other stuctures.

Research has yet to conclusively link the Markell Farmstead property with specific Civil War activity beyond the movement of troops across the property. The property is eligible for listing on the NRHP for its architecture and structural integrity.

PURPOSE & NEED
The project purpose and need is to improve safety conditions and traffic operations for vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle traffic along the MD 85 roadway where it bisects these two cultural resources and crosses Ballenger Creek.

CHALLENGE
The first alternative that SHA presented to the coordinating agencies was a Section 4(f) avoidance option, which generally follows the existing center line of MD 85, with a minor shift to the east of Arcadia and to the west of Markell.

While this alternative would completely avoid both of the historic sites, it presents several problems, including the need for a new creek crossing in the same location as the existing crossing, and the use of several Frederick County roads that could serve as detour routes during construction. The detour would be approximately three miles and require costly interim improvements to the Frederick County roads, including an upgrade of the local roadway network to accommodate the additional traffic from MD 85.

Other concerns were raised regarding heavy trucks that travel to the commercial distribution facilities along MD 85. With the closing of the Ballenger Creek crossing, these vehicles would be forced to use the local roadway network, which was not designed to handle a large volume of heavy trucks. Moreover, many of these roads traverse residential areas and could therefore pose additional safety concerns.

In addition to the various issues regarding construction, traffic volume and safety, the Section 4(f) Avoidance option presented serious environmental concerns among the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). Specifically, agency officials raised questions about the level of impacts to Ballenger Creek and its floodplain. While everyone agreed that there is no practical way to avoid stream and floodplain impacts entirely, there was a general consensus that impacts resulting from this option would be substantial.

In response to these concerns, the SHA developed two more options—a stream minimization alternative, which focuses on minimizing impacts to Ballenger Creek and its floodplain, and a balancing alternative, which focuses on minimizing impacts to the two historic sites, as well as the creek and its floodplain.

SOLUTION
The project is ongoing and no alternative has been selected yet. Mitigation measures for the historic sites will be developed through coordination with the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT). Coordination with the MHT and other agencies will continue through project planning and design phases to ensure that the proposed action will maintain the existing character of the historic resources. The balancing of impacts to the affected resources will ultimately be the result of ongoing coordination with various agencies and input from the public.