PARKROAD R ! D R O FHWA-P4-930229-F O C DA arm Neu 1930229 BERKS COUNTY JUL - 8 1993 OLIITT To Allentown 222 61 (183 -WARREN STREET BYPASS BYPASS OUTER READING NN 4220 -WEST SHORE BYPASS BERKS COUNTY LANCASTER COUNTY 22 223 To Phila To Harrisburg (176/ 76 PA TPK. Finals Environmental Impact Statement IBRARY 1993 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. FHWA-PA-EIS-92-04-F TINGUT PARK ROAD LOCATION STUDY S.R. 3040 BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 3 5556 030 783716 MAY 2 1993 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUBMITTED PURSUANT to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) AND 49 U.S.C. 303 BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN COORDINATION WITH THE COUNTY OF BERKS, PENNSYLVANIA 4/19/93 Date of Approval 5-26-93 Date of Approval Walter E Botue For Pennsylvania Department of Transportation hedules zez For Federal Highway Administration information The following persons may may be contacted for additional concerning this document: Manuel A. Marks Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration 228 Walnut Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 Telephone: (717) 782-3461 Walter Bortree, P.E. District Engineer Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering District 5-0 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18103 Telephone: (215) 798-4110 or Robert J. Keller Project Development Manager (215) 791-6000 The proposed project consists of a four-lane, limited-access highway located west of the City of Reading in Berks County, Pennsylvania. The proposed facility would connect the West Shore Bypass (U.S. 4227222) and the Warren Street Bypass to the Outer Bypass (SR 3055). A No-Build and four build alternatives have been evaluated with respect to impacts upon natural, socioeconomic and cultural resources. Based on the results of these studies and a comprehensive review of the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Alternative A has been designated as the selected for 'final design and construction. TRANSPORTATION LIBRARY 1993 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 1 | . | 1 1 1 . I 1 1 PREFACE 1 1 This report is a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Park Road project. The proposed project consists of a four-lane, limited-access highway located west of the City of Reading in Berks County, Pennsylvania. The proposed facility would connect the West Shore Bypass (U.S. 422/222) and the Warren Street Bypass to the Outer Bypass (SR 3055). A No-Build and four build alternatives have been evaluated with respect to impacts upon natural, socioeconomic and cultural resources. Based on the results of these studies and a comprehensive review of the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Alternative A has been selected for final design and construction. This report has been prepared by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration to fulfill the requirements set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This report also complies with the regulations established by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500-1508), the U.S. Department of Transportation Act (DOT Order 5610.1C), the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Environmental Impact and Related Procedures (23 CFR 771), and FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A. The FEIS reflects considerable condensing of technical information. In accordance with recommendations set forth by the President's Council on Environmental Quality, data summarized in the FEIS is provided in detail in the technical basis reports prepared for this project. The following reports have been prepared. Project Need Documentation and Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Historic Structures Survey Historic Resources Determination of Eligibility Report Phase I Archaeological Survey Phase II Archaeological Survey Archaeological Resources Determination of Effects Report and Phase III Data Recovery Work Plan Act 100 and Farmland Assessment Report Draft Environmental Impact Statement Copies of these reports and associated project plans and information are available for the public's review during office hours at the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation District 5-0 Office in Allentown, Pennsylvania and at the Federal Highway Administration's Offices in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. In addition, a series of technical files have been compiled on topics including i [ f socioeconomic resources, natural resources, traffic noise, air quality, preliminary engineering and traffic. These technical files will also be kept at the PennDOT District 5-0 Office in Allentown. This FEIS is a summary of the technical information found in these files and reports. Readers desiring more information about the data and the methodologies employed are encouraged to review these files and documents. 1 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared for this project documents the results of the detailed studies for the No-Build and the four Build Alternatives. The DEIS was made available for public and agency comment in June of 1992. Copies of the DEIS were made available for review at the following locations. 1 1 1 1 Spring Township Office 2800 Shillington Road Cornwall Terrace Reading, Pennsylvania 19608 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering District 5-0 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18103 1 Wyomissing Borough Office 22 Reading Boulevard Wyomissing, Pennsylvania 19610 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Region 3, Pennsylvania Division Federal Building 228 Walnut Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 Berks County Planning Commission Berks County Services Center 14th Floor, 633 Court Street Reading, Pennsylvania 19601 1 I In addition, the public hearing for this project was held on July 29, 1992 at the Berks County Agricultural Center. The purpose of the public hearing was to obtain formal verbal and written comments on the project and on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. A total of 58 people signed in at the hearing which began at 6:00 p.m. with an informational open house. Beginning at 7:00 p.m. formal testimony was recorded by a stenographer for inclusion in a formal hearing transcript. A copy of this hearing transcript along with the formal responses to each comment raised can be found in Appendix G of this report. During the hearing, a total of two public officials and eleven members of the general public gave verbal testimony. In summary, nine of the thirteen oral testimonies supported or endorsed Alternative A. a I I Detailed descriptions of the comments received on the DEIS and during the Public Hearing can be found in Section V of this report. ii SUMMARY A. Description of the Proposed Action The proposed project is a four-lane, limited-access highway 1.5 miles in length west of the City of Reading in Berks County, Pennsylvania (Figure S-1). The proposed project will provide an important link in the regional transportation system. U.S. 222, an important north-south link between U.S. 30 in Lancaster and 1-78 in Allentown, currently passes through downtown Reading. Completion of the proposed Park Road project together with the existing Outer Bypass and the completion of the extension of the Warren Street Bypass and the reconstruction of U.S. 222 (south of Reading), will enable motorists travelling through the study area to bypass the Reading downtown area. SCHUYLKILL COUNTY Allentown 78 LEHIGH COUNTY 222 309 Outer Bypass LEBANON COUNTY Park Road Corridor Reading West Shore Bypass BERKS COUNTY 422 MONTGOMERY Proposed Extension on the Warren Street Bypass 422 9 176 Proposed Reconstuction of U.S.222 CHESTER COUNTY 222 76 LANCASTER COUNTY Lancaster 30 Scale:1"= 10 miles Regional Context Figure: S-1 iii 1 The proposed highway would connect the West Shore Bypass (U.S. 422/222) and the Warren Street Bypass to the Outer Bypass (SR 3055). The new highway would complete a missing link in the regional highway network, reduce the use of local congested roadways, and improve local access to and within this rapidly developing area of Berks County. The eastern project terminus is at the West Shore Bypass, approximately 1,800 feet east of North Wyomissing Boulevard, in Wyomissing Borough. The western project terminus is at the Outer Bypass in the vicinity of Tulpehocken Creek, in Spring Township. 1 1 1 1 B. Major Actions Proposed by Governmental Agencies in the Same Geographic Area The Pennsylvan :: Department of Transportation in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration, currently preparing an Environmental Impact Statement and Design Location Study for the extension of the Warren Street Bypass and the upgrading of a section of U.S. 222 located just south of Reading. It also involves a new intersection and improvements to a section of the Warren Street Bypass. The project consists of a proposed four-lane highway facility and extends from the existing Warren Street Bypass to the existing four-lane section of U.S. 222 just north of the Berks-Lancaster County line. This project is located approximately 1.6 miles west of the Park Road project. 1 1 1 1 1 C. Alternatives Considered Five alternatives were considered in this FEIS: the No-Build Alternative, and Build Alternatives A, F, G and H. The four build alternatives are represented in Figure S-2. Based on the results of these studies and a comprehensive review of the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Alternative A has been selected for final design and construction. The following is a brief description of the five alternatives which were considered a in this FEIS. 1. No-Build Alternative 1 1 1 1 1 The No-Build Alternative would entail no improvements to the existing highway system other than routine maintenance. iy Tanks Sswage Disposal READING MUNICIPAL AIRPORT General Carl A Spaatź 335 Outer Bypass (S.R.3055) SCHENYL ALL RNER ! Readil Municipal al Cari A. Spatz 183 Field B N KREEK Reason TULPEHOCKENCE 239/ Sta CREEK Man Min LOWER HEIDELBERO CREEK Penn State Berks Campus ALTERNATIVE A MIL Radio Towers Radio Towers CAO Paper Mill Rd. CACOOSING 222 REE Van Reed Rd. ALTERNATIVE As ngen Meridian Corporate Center ALTERNATIVE F & G 400- LAN S P R I NRG SITINOOL Colony Park Park Rd. Broadcasting Rd. oo Borough Spring Township Wyomissing Bypass ALTERNATIVE BM West Shore State Hm Rd STATE 80 Blvd. 422 222 wyomissing Street Berkshire Blvd. 300 Berkshire Heights Bypass Woodland. Rd. Berkshire Mall 140 Warren ROAD 1422 VF FACTORY OUTLET COMPLEX Alternatives Studied in Detail New or Upgraded Interchange PARKROAD Scale: 1" = 2000' о OR RID С R Source. USGS Reading Quadrangle revised 1983 micCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc 0 1000 2000 4000 Siaure. S2 1 2. Alternative A (Selected Alternative) Alternative A (Figure S-2) would provide a new alignment extending northwest from the U.S. 422 interchange with the West Shore Bypass (U.S. 422/222) connecting with the Outer Bypass (S.R. 3055) south of Tulpehocken Creek. The proposed facility is a four-lane divided highway with a 64 foot median. Three grade-separated diamond interchanges are proposed to provide access to North Wyomissing Boulevard, Broadcasting Road, and Paper Mill Road. A partial cloverleaf interchange is proposed to connect the new alignment with the Warren Street Bypass (U.S. 422) and the West Shore Bypass (U.S. 422/222). The existing at-grade intersection between Park Road and the Warren Street Bypass will be eliminated. The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis indicated that Alternative A best meets the project needs. In addition, the public has identified Alternative A as the preferred alternative. 3. Alternative F Alternative F (Figure S-2) would widen and improve Paper Mill Road from its existing interchange with U.S. 422 to the Outer Bypass south of Tulpehocken Creek. The proposed facility is a four-lane roadway with a center turn lane providing access to existing residential and commercial developments along Paper Mill Road. Three at-grade intersections are proposed to be widened with additional turn lanes at Woodland Road, Berkshire Boulevard, and Broadcasting Road. Improvements include the addition of double left turn lanes and right turn lanes at all four approaches at Woodland Road and at three approaches at Berkshire Boulevard. At Broadcasting Road, an additional travel lane in each direction would be provided along Paper Mill Road. A diamond interchange is proposed to provide access to the Outer Bypass and Van Reed Road at the northern limit of the alignment. A portion of Van Reed Road would be relocated eastward to connect with the diamond interchange. The existing interchange of Paper Mill Road and U.S. 422 would continue to provide access to U.S. 422 and the West Shore Bypass (U.S. 422/222). 4. Alternative G Alternative G (Figure S-2) is similar to Alternative F, but with the inclusion of an improved interchange at the junction of Paper Mill Road and U.S. 422. The proposed diamond interchange would provide a ramp to access U.S. 422 east from Paper Mill Road, relieving Woodland Road of this turning movement. Improvements to the existing at-grade intersection of Park Road and U.S. 422 would be implemented to accommodate the traffic volumes. Where feasible, additional left turn and/or right turn lanes would be added at Park Road and U.S. 422 approaches. vii 5. Alternative H Alternative H (Figure S-2) is a hybrid of Alternative A and Alternative F which would provide a four-lane, limited-access connection between U.S. 422/222 and the Outer Bypass. It includes the proposed interchanges for Alternative A at North Wyomissing Boulevard and the Warren Street/West Shore Bypass. It then turns west to join Paper Mill Road at the Broadcasting Road intersection. A diamond interchange is provided at Broadcasting Road and at the Outer Bypass. Local access to developments along Paper Mill Road west of Broadcasting Road would be maintained by a relocated Paper Mill Road. The proposed relocation would extend directly west of Colony Park crossing Broadcasting Road 650 feet west of the existing Paper Mill Road intersection. The roadway would parallel the proposed limited-access alignment of Alternative H from Broadcasting Road to the Outer Bypass. Total length of Paper Mill Road relocation is approximately 1.1 miles. As with Alternative A, the existing at-grade intersection between Park Road and U.S. 422 would be eliminated. D. Summary of Impacts A complete summary of impacts as a result of the project alternatives is presented in Table S-1. E. Basis for Selection Alternative A was selected based on a comprehensive evaluation of the identified needs of the area, along with the social, economic, cultural and environmental consequences of each alternative. This evaluation also included an extensive review of each alternative's operational characteristics, engineering feasibility, and traffic and transportation factors, as well as and an overall cost/benefit analysis of each alternative. Public and agency input received throughout the study period also was taken into account. Alternative A was identified as the selected alternative after the formal hearing was held, the Draft EIS circulated, and all agency and public comments fully considered. The following paragraphs explains why Alternative A was selected for final design and construction and why the No-Build Alternative and Alternatives F, G and H were dismissed. viii TABLE S-1 Park Road Corridor Preliminary Summary of Impacts ALTERNATIVES F CRITERIA A NO-BUILD н G A. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS 35 mph 55 mph 40 mph 40 mph 55 mph 0 4 1 2 4 3. Number of New or Improved Intersections 0 3 6 6 3 4. Estimated Construction Cost $0 $55,550,000 $16,500,000 $22,000,000 $53,500,000 B. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 1. Estimated Operating Speed 2. Number of New or Improved Interchanges 1. Regional Traffic Increased traffic congestion along local streets Provides an efficient and direct connection between the Outer Bypass and U.S. 422/222 Provides an inefficient and indirect connection between the Outer Bypass and U.S. 422/222 Provides an inefficient and indirect connection between the Outer Bypass and U.S. 422/222 Provides an efficient and direct connection between the Outer Bypass and U.S. 422/222 Complete mixing of regional and local traffic Increased traffic congestion along local streets Complete mixing of regional and local traffic 2. Local Traffic Separates regional and local traffic Removes regional traffic from local roadways Separates regional and local traffic Removes regional traffic from local roadways ir - TABLE S-1 Preliminary Summary of Impacts (Cont'd) ALTERNATIVES CRITERIA F A NO-BUILD G H 3. Access Increased traffic congestion would cause difficult in accessing properties along local streets No signalized intersections along alignment. Access provided by interchanges. Alignment is limited access meaning no driveways or curb cuts. 5 signalized intersections along alignment which impede traffic flow and cause congestion. Alignment is free access meaning it includes driveways and curb cuts which reduce travel speed. 5 signalized intersections along alignment which impede traffic flow and cause congestion. Alignment is free access meaning it includes driveways and curb cuts which reduce travel speed. No signalized intersections along alignment. Access provided by interchanges. Alignment is limited access meaning no driveways or curb cuts. C. SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES . 1. Land Use No effect Acquisition of agricultural land zoned for commercial development Acquisition of land for proposed Country Meadows expansion Acquisition of a 90 acre parcel for proposed office/business complex Acquisition of agricultural land zoned for commercial development Acquisition of property from Stone Hill Farms and the Meridian Corporate Center Acquisition of agricultural land zoned for commercial development Acquisition of property from Stone Hill Farms and the Meridian Corporate Center Acquisition of agricultural land zoned for commercial development Acquisition of land for proposed Country Meadows expansion Acquisition of property from the Meridian Corporate Center Acquisition of property from the Treeview Corporate and Professional Center 2. Population and Housing No effect Acquisition of three residences Acquisition of up to nine residences for construction of a noise wall. Acquisition of up to nine residences for construction of a noise wall. Acquisition of three residences X TABLE S-1 Preliminary Summary of Impacts (Cont'd) ALTERNATIVES F CRITERIA G A NO-BUILD H Economy and Employment No effect Acquisition of one business Acquisition of four businesses Acquisition of four businesses Acquisition of three businesses Municipal Finances No effect . Loss of $24,384 (0.10%) of real estate revenue for Berks County Loss of $4,371 (0.29%) of real estate revenue for Spring Township Loss of $7,153 (0.92%) of real estate revenue for Wyomissing Borough Loss of $93,203 (1.47%) of real estate revenue for Wilson School District Loss of $8,606 (0.03%) of real estate revenue for Berks County Loss of $1,935 (0.13%) of real estate revenue for Spring Township Loss of $1,739 (0.22%) of real estate revenue for Wyomissing Borough Loss of $32,895 (0.52%) of real estate revenue for Wilson School District Loss of $8,894 (0.03%) of real estate revenue for Berks County Loss of $2,000 (0.13%) of real estate revenue for Spring Township Loss of $1,797 (0.23%) of real estate revenue for Wyomissing Borough Loss of $33,992 (0.54%) of real estate revenue for Wilson School District Loss of $27,827 (0.11%) of real estate revenue for Berks County Loss of $4,988 (0.33%) of real estate revenue for Spring Township Loss of $8,163 (1.05 %) of real estate revenue for Wyomissing Borough Loss of $106,361 (1.68%) of real estate revenue for Wilson School District . Community Facilities and Services Completes a regional link which facilitates access to community services Facilitates access to community services to a lesser extent than A and H Facilitates access to community services to a lesser extent than A and H Completes a regional link which facilitates access to community services Access to facilities and services of the surrounding community and the study area will not improve xi 3. 5. 4. TABLE S-1 Preliminary Summary of Impacts (Cont'd) ALTERNATIVES NO-BUILD CRITERIA A F G H 6. Community Cohesion No effect Creates a physical barrier dividing the north and south portions of the study area Creates a physical barrier dividing the north and south portions of the study Creates a physical barrier dividing the north and south portions of the study Creates a physical barrier dividing the north and south portions of the study area area area 7. Visual Resources No effect . Would obstruct views in the vicinity of the proposed interchange with Warren Street Bypass. Would alter views along Paper Mill Road by increasing pavement width Would alter views along Paper Mill Road by increasing pavement width Would obstruct views from residences from Paper Mill Road and Berkshire Boulevard Would obstruct views in the vicinity of the proposed interchange with Warren Street Bypass Relocation of Paper Mill Road would alter the visual setting of Township Ballfield D. NATURAL RESOURCES Geology and Groundwater No effect Potential to expose sinkholes and solution channels No effects on public or private water supplies Potential to expose sinkholes and solution channels No effects on public or private water supplies Potential to expose sinkholes and solution channels No effects on public or private water supplies Potential to expose sinkholes and solution channels No effects on public or private water supplies . xii TABLE S-1 Preliminary Summary of Impacts (Contid) ALTERNATIVES A CRITERIA NO-BUILD F G H No effect . Surface Water Hydrology and Flooding 11.8 acres of encroachment on 100 year floodplain of intermittent channels 1.5 acres of longitudinal encroachment on 100 year floodplain of the Schuylkill River 0.14 acre of encroachment on 100 year floodplain of intermittent channels No encroachment on 100 year floodplain of the Schuylkill River 0.14 acre of encroachment on 100 year floodplain of intermittent channels No encroachment on 100 year floodplain of the Schuylkill River 11.2 acres of encroachment on 100 year floodplain of intermittent channels 1.5 acres of longitudinal encroachment on 100 year floodplain of the Schuylkill River 3. No effect Water Quality and Aquatic Biota Short-term increases in sedimentation of Tulpehocken and Cacoosing Creeks and to the Schuylkill River Short-term increases in sedimentation of Tulpehocken and Cacoosing Creeks and to the Schuylkill River Short-term increases in sedimentation of Tulpehocken and Cacoosing Creeks and to the Schuylkill River Short-term increases in sedimentation of Tulpehocken and Cacoosing Creeks and to the Schuylkill River 4. Soils and Erosion No effect . • 184 acres of soil disturbed for excavation 85 acres of these soils are of high erosion potential 47 acres of soil disturbed for excavation 7 acres of these soils are of high erosion potential 48 acres of soil disturbed for excavation 9 acres of these soils are of high erosion potential 206 acres of soil disturbed for excavation 93 acres of these soils are of high erosion potential 5. Vegetation and Wildlife 107.2 acres of vegetation converted to highway use 26 acres of vegetation converted to highway use 26 acres of vegetation converted to highway use 109.5 acres of vegetation converted to highway use Current land cover is rapidly being converted to commercial and residential use 6. Endangered Species No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect xili - TABLE S-1 Preliminary Summary of Impacts (Cont'd) ALTERNATIVES CRITERIA NO-BUILD F A G H 7. Wetlands No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect 8. Waterways of the United States No effect One crossing of a regulated waterway draining to Cacoosing Creek One crossing of a regulated waterway draining to Cacoosing Creek Five crossings of a regulated waterway draining to Tulpehocken Creek One crossing of a regulated waterway draining to Cacoosing Creek Five crossings of a regulated waterway draining to Tulpehocken Creek One crossing of a regulated waterway draining to Cacoosing Creek 9. Farmlands . All existing farmland and farmland soils are zoned for commercial and residential land 95.3 acres of Prime Farmland Soil and 19.8 acres of state and locally important soil converted to highway use 65 acres of active farmland converted to highway use use 26.0 acres of Prime Farmland Soil and 7.1 acres of state and locally important soil converted to highway use 23 acres of active farmland converted to highway use 30.0 acres of Prime Farmland Soil and 7.1 acres of state and locally important soil converted to highway 109.4 acres of Prime Farmland Soil and 23.7 acres of state and locally important soil converted to highway use 68 acres of active farmland converted to highway use use . . 23 acres of active farmland converted to highway use 10. Wild and Scenic River No effect Potential short-term erosion and sedimentation of nominated waters: Tulpehocken and Cacoosing Creeks and the Schuylkill River Potential short-term erosion and sedimentation of nominated waters: Tulpehocken and Cacoosing Creeks and the Schuylkill River Potential short-term erosion and sedimentation of nominated waters: Tulpehocken and Cacoosing Creeks and the Schuylkill River Potential short-term erosion and sedimentation of nominated waters: Tulpehocken and Cacoosing Creeks and the Schuylkill River XIV 1 TABLE S-1 Preliminary Summary of Impacts (Cont'd) ALTERNATIVES CRITERIA NO-BUILD A F G H No effect No effect No effect Potential disturbance of 0.78 acre including small rubbish disposal sites and construction fill material Potential disturbance of 0.78 acre including small rubbish disposal sites and construction fill material 11. Waste Sites 12. Noise No effect 7 sites approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria as a direct result of this alternative 2 sites approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria as a direct result of this alternative 3 sites approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria as a direct result of this alterative 8 sites approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria as a direct result of this alternative 13. Air Quality No effect Predicted carbon monoxide concentrations within National Ambient Air Quality Standards Predicted carbon monoxide concentrations within National Ambient Air Quality Standards Predicted carbon monoxide concentrations within National Ambient Air Quality Standards Predicted carbon monoxide concentrations within National Ambient Air Quality Standards E. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Historic Resources . No effect to six National Register Eligible properties No effect to six National Register Eligible properties No effect to six National Register Eligible properties No effect to five National Register eligible properties No Adverse Effect to one National Register eligible property No effect to five National Register eligible properties No Adverse Effect to one National Register eligible property 2. Archaeological Resources No effect Disturbance to one 2.2 No effect No effect Disturbance to one 2.2 acre site acre site F. SECTION 4(1) RESOURCES No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect XV - However where appropriate, the reader is directed to the section of the FEIS that presents the detailed results for various topics. 1. Why The No-Build Alternative Was Not Selected The following are the principal reasons why the No-Build Alternative was not selected. The No-Build Alternative would not meet the project needs and objectives as stated in the Project Need Documentation and Preliminary Alternatives Report prepared for this project. The No-Build Alternative would not complete the missing link in the regional, limited access highway system. The No-Build Alternative would not provide an efficient north-south connection between the Outer Bypass and U.S. 422/222. The use of Paper Mill Road fails to reduce traffic congestion on the local roadway network since this alternative would not separate local and regional traffic. • The No-Build does not provide for the existing or project increase in local and regional traffic. Therefore, traffic congestion would worsen and cause difficulty in accessing properties throughout the study area. The No-Build Alternative would not provide any opportunities to improve and provide for access to existing and planned developments. The No-Build Alternative would result in continued undesirable traffic noise, air quality and safety effects primarily caused by high traffic volumes, trucks and congestion along Paper Mill Road. The detailed results of the noise and air quality studies can be found in Sections IV-B.12 and IV-B.3 of this report. Paper Mill Road is bordered by the residential communities of Colony Park and Stone Hill Farms along with the Spring Township ballfield. In summary, the No-Build Alternative would result in traffic continuing on Paper Mill Road. The No-Build would not substantially deter natural environmental impacts, because it is anticipated that the project study area will undergo development, without the project. O The No-Build would result in continued traffic congestion which would cause difficulty in accessing community facilities and services within the communities surrounding the project study area. The detailed results of the traffic analysis can be found in Section IV-D of this report. χνί The No-Build Alternative was not supported by any of the three local governmental entities: Spring Township, Wyomissing Borough and Berks County. • The No-Build Alternative did not receive support from the public throughout the public participation phase of the project. Detailed descriptions of the public participation activities can be found in Sections V-D and V-E of this report. 2. Why Alternatives A And H Are Preferred Over Alternatives F And G This section presents the principal reasons why Alternatives A and H are preferred over Alternatives F and G. These reasons primarily deal with how each of these alternatives meet the identified project needs, along with the operating characteristics and the traffic and transportation factors and community concerns with each alternative. This section pairs Alternative A with H and F with G since these alternatives function exactly the same when considering these factors. Alternatives A and H would more effectively satisfy the identified project needs and objectives then Alternatives F and G. Detailed descriptions of the project needs are presented in the Project Need Documentation and Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report prepared for this project. The project needs are summarized in Section I-D of this FEIS. Alternatives A and H would complete the missing link in the regional, limited access highway system by directly and efficiently connecting the Outer Bypass with U.S. 222 and U.S. 422. Although Alternatives F and G would provide an improved connection from existing conditions they would not provide the limited access link needed to efficiently accommodate the projected traffic volumes. O 1 Since Alternatives A and H would result in the construction of a new highway, separate facilities would be available to accommodate both local and regional traffic. These alternatives would reduce the regional and/or through traffic volumes on the areas' local roadways, primarily Paper Mill Road. Lowering traffic volumes would improve the quality of life in these areas by reducing traffic congestion, improving safety and reducing unwanted noise and air pollution. The detailed results of the noise and air quality studies are presented in Sections IV - B.12 and IV - B.13. The residents of the communities along Paper Mill Road, including Colony Park and Stone Hill Farms, have overwhelmingly raised these concerns throughout the public participation phase of this project. Detailed descriptions of the public concerns can be found in Sections V-D and V-E of this report. xvii [ By providing an additional highway link and by reducing traffic volumes on local roadways Alternatives A and H would maximize the opportunities to improve and provide for access to existing and planned developments. Although traffic noise levels with Alternatives A and H are predicted to exceed the abatement criteria at more sensitive receptor areas than with Alternatives F and G there is a better opportunity to abate noise. Preliminary noise abatement studies indicate that noise abatement appears feasible for most of the areas which would be affected with Alternatives A and H without requiring any relocations. Although noise abatement also appears feasible for most of the areas which would be affected with Alternatives F and G up to nine residences would be required. 1 Although Alternatives A and H would require the acquisition of more farmland and farmland soil than Alternatives F and G, all of the land which would be required for Alternatives A or H is proposed for development. This information was presented to the Pennsylvania Agricultural Lands Condemnation Board (ALCAB) at a hearing which was held on March 15, 1993. As a result of this hearing ALCAB approved the selection of Alternative A. Comments from the resource agencies can be found in Section V. and Appendix A of this report. Although Alternatives A and H would require the acquisition of more vegetation and wildlife habitat and floodplain area than Alternatives F and G, all of the land which would be required for Alternatives A or H is proposed for development. Comments received on the DEIS from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Pa Game Commission, the PA Fish and Boat Commission, and the PADER Natural Diversity Inventory present no objections to the project. Copies of these letters can be found in Appendix G of this report. Alternatives F and G were not supported by any of the three local governmental entities: Spring Township, Wyomissing Borough and Berks County. I Alternatives F and G did not receive support from the public throughout the public participation phase of the project. Detailed descriptions of the public participation activities can be found in Sections V-D and V-E of this report. 1 1 3. Why Alternative A Is Better Than Alternative H Alternative H was not selected for the following reasons: Alternative H would not be consistent with the proposed development plans in the corridor. Specifically, Alternative H would require the acquisition of property from six proposed or existing developments along Paper Mill Road. This involves three xviii existing developments including Spring Ridge (Fish Hook Parcel), the Treeview Corporate Center, and the Meridian Corporate Center. Alternative H would also involve three properties which are owned by Spring Ridge, Inc. and are proposed for development. These three properties are located on either side of Paper Mill Road and adjacent to the Outer Bypass. Detailed descriptions of the recent, proposed and conceptual developments can be found in Section I-D of this report. In addition, these developments are shown on Plate 6 which can be found in the Plates section of this report. Alternative H was not supported by any of the three local governmental entities: Spring Township, Wyomissing Borough and Berks County. Alternative H received little support throughout the public participation phase of the project. Detailed descriptions of the public participation activities can be found in Sections V-D and V-E of this report. 4. Why Alternative A Was Selected Overall, Alternative A would provide the best opportunity to balance the natural environmental impacts with community impacts while improving local access and satisfying regional traffic demands. Alternative A was endorsed by all three of the local governmental entities: Spring Township, Wyomissing Borough, and Berks County. Alternative A overwhelmingly received the most support throughout the public participation phase of this project. Detailed descriptions of the public participation activities can be found in Sections V-D and V-E of this report. The results of the extensive public and agency coordination effort for this project indicated that Alternative A would be the best compromise in balancing the natural environment impact concerns of the agencies and the community impacts of the residential communities along Paper Mill Road. A detailed description of the public and agency coordination effort for this project can be found in Section V of the FEIS. xir F. Areas of Controversy The following issues and concerns were raised during the Park Road Location Study process. Incompatibility of Alternatives F, G and H with proposed development. Public perceptions that environmental agencies were not sensitive to local planning and traffic needs by requiring detailed study of alternatives other than A. Potential adverse impacts of Alternatives F and G to residential communities such as Colony Park and Stone Hill Farms. G. Major Unresolved Issues with Agencies 1 There are no major unresolved issues with agencies for this project. H. Other Federal Agency Actions Required for the Proposed Actions Department of the Army Section 404 Permit will be required for authorizing structures and work in or affecting navigable waters of the United States. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approval will be required for involvement with encroachment on the floodplains of the Schuylkill River (Alternative A and H) or unnamed tributaries to Tulpehocken Creek (all alternatives). . XX PARK ROAD LOCATION STUDY BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page . PREFACE SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF PLATES LIST OF TABLES. LIST OF FIGURES i iii xxi xxiv XXV xxvii . I. . . . . . PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION A. Project Description and Existing Conditions B. Study Area C. Project History D. Project Need 1. Regional System Linkage 2. Land Use and Zoning 3. Local Access 4. Traffic Capacity and Safety 5. Public Acceptability 1-1 I-1 1-5 1-5 1-6 1-10 1-17 1-18 1-26 I-29 . . O . O . . . . II. ALTERNATIVES A. Alternatives Considered and Dismissed 1. Alternative B 2. Alternative C 3. Alternative D 4. Alternative E 5. Transportation Systems Management B. Alternatives Considered in Detail . 1. No Build Alternative . 2. Alternative F 3. Alternative G 4. Alternative H C. The Selected Alternative 1. Description of Alternative A 2. Basis for Selection 3. Why the No-Build Was Not Selected 4. Why Alternatives A and Are Preferred Over Alternatives F and G 5. Why Alternative A is Better Than Alternative H 6. Why Alternative A Was Selected II-1 II-1 II-2 II-2 II-2 II-5 II-5 II-6 II-6 II-9 II-9 II-10 II-10 II-10 II-12 II-13 II-14 II-15 II-16 . . . . . . . . xxi Page . - . . III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT A. The Social Environment 1. Land Use ... 2. Population and Housing 3. Economy and Employment 4. Municipal Finances 5. Community Facilities and Services 6. Community Cohesion 7. Visual Resources III-1 III-1 III-1 III-3 III-7 . III-10 . III-12 .. III-17 . . III-18 . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. The Natural Environment 1. Geology and Groundwater 2. Surface Water Hydrology and Floodplains 3. Water Quality and Aquatic Biota 4. Soils and Erosion Analysis 5. Vegetation and Wildlife 6. Endangered Species 7. Wetlands 8. Waterways of the United States 9. Farmlands 10. Wild and Scenic Rivers. 11. Waste Site Clearance 12. Traffic Noise 13. Air Quality C. Cultural Resources 1. Historic Resources 2. Archaeological Resources D. Traffic Studies 1. Traffic Volumes 2. Level of Service Analysis . . III-19 . . III-19 .. III-23 . III-25 . . III-27 . . III-28 . III-30 . . III-33 . . III-34 III-34 . . III-36 . . III-36 III-41 . . III-46 . . III-46 III-46 . III-51 . . III-53 III-53 . III-54 . . . . . . . 1 . . . . IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES A. The Social Environment 1. Land Use . 2. Population and Housing 3. Economy and Employment 4. Municipal Finances . 5. Community Facilities and Services 6. Community Cohesion 7. Visual Resources B. The Natural Environment 1. Geology and Groundwater 2. Surface Water Hydrology and Floodplains 3. Water Quality and Aquatic Biota 4. Soils and Erosion Analysis 5. Vegetation and Wildlife 6. Endangered Species 7. Wetlands IV-1 IV-1 IV-1 .. IV-3 IV-4 IV-6 IV-7 IV-10 . IV-11 . . IV-14 .. IV-14 .IV-18 . . IV-20 . . IV-21 . . IV-27 .. IV-28 . . IV-28 . . 1 . . 1 . . xxii Page . . . . O . . . 8. Waterways of the United States 9. Farmlands 10. Wild and Scenic Rivers 11. Waste Site Clearance 12. Traffic Noise 13. Air Quality 14. Construction Impacts C. Cultural Resources 1. Historic Resources 2. Archaeological Resources D. Traffic .. 1. Traffic Volumes 2. Levels of Service E. Summary of Impacts F. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Use of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity G. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources IV-29 IV-30 IV-32 IV-33 IV-35 IV-46 IV-49 .IV-53 . IV-53 IV-53 IV-55 . IV-55 IV-58 . IV-65 . . . . . IV-65 IV-75 . . . - . O . . . V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION A. Agency Correspondence 1. Plan of Study 2. Engineering and Environmental Studies - Agency Contacts 3. Local Government Coordination B. Section 106 Coordination C. Meeting Summaries 1. Special Purpose Meetings 2. Task Force .. 3. Landowner and Developer Meetings 4. Public Officials Meetings and Resolutions D. Public Coordination 1. Newsletters, Public Questionnaires and Public Meeting Reports 2. Public Comment Letters 3. Petitions E. Public Hearing and Comments on DEIS 1. Public Hearing. 2. Comments on DEIS V-1 V-1 V-1 V-5 V-6 V-8 V-9 V-9 V-10 V-10 V-11 V-11 V-11 V-12 V-14 V-15 V-15 V-15 . . . . . . . . VI. LIST OF PREPARERS VI-1 - REFERENCES APPENDICES A - Agency Correspondence B - Section 106 Coordination C - Meeting Summaries D - Public Coordination E - Wetland Survey Report F - Waste Disposal Information G - Draft EIS and Public Hearing Comments and Responses . . A-1 B-1 C-1 D-1 E-1 F-1 G-1 . . xxiii LIST OF PLATES Plate 1: Plate 2: Plate 3: Plate 4: Plate 5: Plate 6: Plate 7: Plate 8: Plate 9: Plate 10: Plate ll: Plate 12: Plate 13: Plate 14: Plate 15: Plate 16: Plate 17: Plate 18: Plate 19: Plate 20: Plate 21: Plate 22: Plate 23: Plate 24: Plate 25: Plate 26: Plate 27: Plate 28: Plate 29: Plate 30: Plate 31: Plate 32: Plate 33: Plate 34: Plate 35: Alternative A Alternative F Alternative G Alternative H Zoning Recent, Proposed and Conceptual Development Area Employers Community Facilities/Services and Section 4(f) Properties Residential Communities and Neighborhoods Area Geology Surface Water and Floodplains Soils Land Use and Cover Types Noise and Air Study Sites Historic Research 1990 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Existing 1990 AM Peak Hour Volumes Existing 1990 PM Peak Hour Volumes Existing Level of Service 1990 PM Peak Hour Traffic 2015 Average Daily Traffic Volumes No Build Alternative 2015 No Build Alternative PM Peak Hour Traffic 2015 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Alternative A 2015 Alternative A PM Peak Hour Volumes 2015 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Alternative F 2015 PM Peak Hour Alternative F 2015 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Alternative G 2015 Alternative G PM Peak Hour 2015 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Alternative H 2015 Alternative H PM Peak Hour No Build Level of Service 2015 PM Peak Hour Traffic Alternative A Level of Service 2015 PM Peak Hour Traffic Alternative A Overall Level of Service Summary 2015 PM Peak Hour Traffic Alternative F Level of Service 2015 PM Peak Hour Traffic Alternative G Level of Service 2015 PM Peak Hour Traffic Alternative H Level of Service 2015 PM Peak Hour Traffic 1 1 1 1 I I All plates can be found in a separate section at the end of this document. xxiv LIST OF TABLES Page . . . . . . . . ix 1-25 III-2 III-3 III-4 III-4 III-5 III-6 III-8 III-9 III-9 III-10 III-11 III-11 III-13 III-14 III-15 III-15 III-17 III-24 III-26 III-29 III-31 III-38 III-42 III-45 . . . . . Table S-1: Summary of Impacts Table 1: Recent, Proposed and Conceptual Development July 1991 Table 2: Zoning Table 3: General Population Characteristics Table 4: Selected Age and Minority Population Characteristics 1990 Table 5: General Education Characteristics 1990 Table 6: General Income Level Characteristics 1990 Table 7: General Housing Characteristics 1990 Table 8: Percent Employment By Industry, 1980/1990 Table 9: Civilian Labor Force Characteristics 1980/1990 Table 10: Percent Employment by Occupation 1980/1990 Table 11: Area Employers. Table 12: Municipal Tax Rates 1989 Table 13: Municipal Tax Revenues 1989 Table 14: Community Facilities and Services within the Project Area Table 15: Health Care, Police and Fire Protection Table 16: Educational Facilities Table 17: Existing Recreation Lands and Facilities, 1980 Table 18: Residential Communities and Neighborhoods Table 19: Chemical Constituents for Groundwater Table 20: Existing Stormwater Management Facilities Table 21: Engineering Soils Properties Table 22: Land Use and Cover Types Table 23: Waste Disposal Sites Table 24: Noise and Air Quality Receptor Sites . Table 25: Summary of Existing Noise Levels Table 26: CALINE 3 Existing Year 1990 Worst-Case Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Table 27: Levels of Service for Signalized Intersections Table 28: Levels of Service for Unsignalized Intersections Table 29: Losses of Tax Revenue Table 30: Bedrock Engineering Characteristics Table 31: Floodplain Encroachments Table 32: Acres of Potential Soil Disturbance Table 33: Impacts to Erosion Sensitive Soils Table 34: Impacts to Vegetation Table 35: Acres of Farmlands Soil to be Converted to Highway Use Table 36: Waste Disposal Sites Affected by Alternatives A and H Table 37: FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Table 38: Summary of Noise Impacts Table 39: Summary of Noise Barrier Analysis for Build Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . III-47 III-55 III-56 IV-7 IV-15 IV-19 IV-22 IV-23 .IV-27 IV-30 IV-34 IV-36 IV-38 IV-42 . . . . . . . . χαν LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd) Page . . . Table 40: Table 41: Table 42: Table 43: Table 44: Table 45: Table 46: . . IV-43 . . IV-44 IV-45 IV-47 . . IV-67 V-16 . Summary of Noise Barrier Analysis for Build Alternative B Summary of Noise Barrier Analysis for Build Alternative G Summary of Noise Barrier Analysis for Build Alternative H Summary of Worst-Case Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Park Road Corridor Summary of Impacts Summary of Public Hearing-Oral Testimony Summary of Public Hearing-Written Documentation Submitted with Oral Testimony Summary of Written Testimony Forms/Letters Submitted at or Following the Public Hearing Park Road Draft EIS Review Summary . . V-17 Table 47: . . . .. V-17 V-18 Table 48: . . J I xxvi 1 LIST OF FIGURES Page V . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . O . . . Figure S-1: Regional Context iii Figure S-2: Alternatives Studied in Detail Figure 1: Regional Context 1-1 Figure 2: Project Location I-2 Figure 3: Study Area . I-3 Figure 4: Recommended Corridor Locations 1969, 1984 Transportation Studies I-7 Figure 5: Park Road Study Process 1-9 Figure 6: Photograph of Outer Bypass Terminus 1-11 Figure 7: Photograph of Outer Bypass Terminus 1-11 Figure 8: Index to Photographs 1-13 Figure 9: Photograph of Trucks Using Van Reed Road & PA 724 1-15 Figure 10: Photograph of Trucks Using Van Reed Road & PA 724 1-15 Figure 11: Zoning I-19 Figure 12: Photograph of Recent Development 1-21 Figure 13: Photograph of Recent Development I-21 Figure 14: Area Development 1-23 Figure 15: Local Access Routes 1-27 Figure 16: Photograph of Park Road and Warren Street Bypass Intersection 1-30 Figure 17: Preliminary Alternatives . II-3 Figure 18: Alternatives Studied in Detail II-7 Figure 19: Typical Paper Mill Road section of Alternatives F and G II-11 Figure 20: Typical Section of Alternatives A and H which would be on new Alignment II-11 Figure 21: Photograph of New Location Corridor III-20 Figure 22: Photograph of New Location Corridor III-20 Figure 23: Photograph of New Location Corridor III-21 Figure 24: Photograph of New Location Corridor III-21 Figure 25: Waste Disposal Sites . III-39 Figure 26: Artist's Rendering of Proposed Interchange with Warren Street and West Shore Bypass: Alternatives A and H Figure 27: PennDOT Abatement Criteria Activity Category B . . IV-37 Figure 28: Change in Travel Patterns .. IV-58 Figure 29: No-Build Alternative Year 2015 Level of Service Analysis . IV-60 Figure 30: Alternative A Year 2015 Level of Service Analysis . IV-62 Figure 31: Alternative F Year 2015 Level of Service Analysis .IV-63 Figure 32: Alternative G Year 2015 Level of Service Analysis IV-64 Figure 33: Alternative H Year 2015 Level of Service Analysis IV-66 . 0 . . . . . . . IV-13 . . . xxvii 1 1 i 1. Purpose and Need C = = = = E E 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION I. A. Project Description and Existing Conditions The proposed project involves the construction of 1.5 miles of four-lane, limited-access highway west of the City of Reading in Berks County, Pennsylvania (Figure 1). The proposed project will provide an important link in the regional transportation system. U.S. Route 222, an important north-south link between U.S. 30 in Lancaster and I-78 in Allentown, currently passes through downtown Reading. Completion of the proposed Park Road project together with the existing Outer Bypass and the completion of the extension of the Warren Street Bypass and the reconstruction of U.S. 222 (south of Reading), will enable motorists travelling through the study area to bypass the Reading downtown area. SCHUYLKILL COUNTY Allentown 78 LEHIGH COUNTY 222 309 LEBANON COUNTY Outer Bypass Park Road Corridor Reading West Shore Bypass BERKS COUNTY NTGOMERY 422 HINNOI Now Proposed Extension of the Warren Street Bypass 422 9 176 CHESTER COUNTY Proposed Reconstuction of U.S.222 222 76 LANCASTER COUNTY Lancaster 30 Scale: 1"= 10 miles Regional Context Figure 1 1-1 The West Shore Bypass (U.S. 422/222), which carries north-south regional traffic along the western border of the City of Reading, terminates at the Warren Street Bypass (Figure 2). Traffic with destinations to points further north must travel the Warren Street Bypass to access local north- south roadways such as PA 183 and PA 61. The Warren Street Bypass is the primary east-west highway serving Reading and the adjacent municipalities of Wyomissing Borough and Spring Township. Portions of Warren Street in the project vicinity include a section of uncontrolled- access roadway and a major signalized intersection with Park Road near the West Shore Bypass interchange (Figure 3). 61 183 Bypass 222 Outer STUDY AREA Warren Street Bypass PROPOSED PROJECT Reading A 2221 (422 422 West Shore Bypass Proposed Extension of the Warren Street Bypass 422 222 BERKS COUNTY LANCASTER COUNTY 176 Proposed Reconstruction of U.S.222 个 ​Scale: 1"= 2.4 miles Project Location Figure:2 1-2 Study Area Boundary 183 Quter Bypass (S.R. 3055) ; : , ܂ ܂ ܃ ; TULPEHOCKEN SCHUYLKILL RIVER . Van Rens .. CREEK Leiri PSANG CREEK Radlo Towers Tulpehocken Road CACOOSI Penn State Berks Campus Meridian Corporate Center Paper Mill Road Chion ch 2224 Van Reed Road 1 FON Bypass $ PK 3409 Reading Broadcasting Road Road Parkko Wes 222 Colony Park Borough Spring Township Wyomissing Blvd State HDL Road Berkshire Blvd. icons mons yoIRM Woodland Shore Miyoplast Berkshire Mall Berkshire Hotghts Bypass 422 Born Road VF Factory Outlet Complex 的​。 Project Study Area PARKROAD Source: USGS Reading Quad Revised 1983 R D o Scale:1" =2000' o R 0 R R. С McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inu 0 1000 2000 4000 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Figure:3 I 1 1 B. Study Area The study area for the Park Road Location Study was defined by the Outer Bypass to the north, North Wyomissing Boulevard to the south, State Hill Road to the west, and Tulpehocken Creek to the east (Figure 3). This included portions of both Spring Township and the Borough of Wyomissing. C. Project History Several feasibility and location studies for construction of a highway link between the West Shore Bypass (U.S. 422/222) and the Outer Bypass (S.R. 3055) were conducted over the past 20 years. A design location study for a spur route between the West Shore/Warren Street Bypass interchange and the southern terminus of the Outer Bypass was conducted in 1969 (Gannett-Fleming, Corddry & Carpenter, Inc.). This early design location study was performed as a result of the 1965 Reading Area Transportation Study (RATS), which advocated construction of an expressway spur route between the Outer Bypass and the West Shore Bypass in the corridor between Paper Mill Road and Tulpehocken Creek (Figure 4). Preliminary alignments were developed and evaluated for engineering feasibility and costs and the results of the study were presented at a public hearing. Following the public hearing, future project development activities were halted pending an evaluation of PennDOT's Statewide fiscal plan. Transportation studies in this area were resumed in 1984 with the Reading Area Highway Assessment Study (Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.) conducted for Berks County. The purpose of this study was to re-evaluate the transportation network and prioritize needed highway improvement projects in the Reading area. The 1984 study recommended as the highest priority highway improvement project in Berks County an extension of the Warren Street Bypass southward from its present terminus at Penn Avenue to U.S. 222 and the reconstruction of U.S. 222, to the existing U.S. 222 expressway terminus at the Berks County/Lancaster County line. Separate environmental impact and preliminary engineering studies have been initiated for the Warren Street Extension and U.S. 222 reconstruction project, which would provide an expressway route between U.S. 222 in Lancaster County and U.S. 422 (Warren Street Bypass) in Wyomissing Borough. The 1984 study also identified the Park Road Corridor between Warren Street and the Outer Bypass south of Tulpehocken Creek as the second highest priority highway improvement project. The corridor recommended was essentially the same as the corridor identified in the 1969 feasibility and location study (Figure 4). This extension would serve to complete the regional highway link between U.S. 222 and the Outer Bypass and between U.S. 422 and the Outer Bypass. 1-5 Subsequently, The Park Road Corridor Study was conducted in 1987 to evaluate the type of highway facility required in the project area which would accommodate future traffic volumes and local and regional land development plans. The study, completed by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., recommended that an expressway with access solely limited to key intersections was needed in the Park Road Corridor. Coordination between Berks County officials, local land owners and developers was recommended to achieve a feasible plan for implementing a restricted or limited access facility in the corridor. In 1989, the Berks County Board of Commissioners, in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, retained the consulting firm of McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. to complete the Park Road Design Location Study and Environmental Impact Statement. The purpose of this study was to re-evaluate the findings of the Barton-Aschman study and to identify an alignment for construction. Figure 5 is a flow chart, detailing the steps in the Park Road Study process. 1 This study was prompted by the rapid development of large tracts of land within and adjacent to the previously identified Park Road Corridor. Berks County and the municipalities of Spring Township and the Borough of Wyomissing have proposed a transportation partnership agreement with PennDOT and the Federal Highway Administration to identify a preferred alignment for the Park Road Corridor project. The purpose of this study is to identify the transportation needs of the project area to determine the location and alignment of the preferred corridor and to assess the environmental impacts of the alternatives. > As a result of the studies completed for this project, four build alternatives including Alternatives A, F, , G and H and a No-Build Alternative, were selected for detailed study. The results of these detailed studies were documented in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) which a was made available for agency and public review and comment on May 19, 1992. Comments received by September 1, 1992 were incorporated into this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). In addition, a Public Hearing was held on July 29, 1992 to obtain verbal and written comments on the DEIS. These comments have also been incorporated into the FEIS. D. Project Need The need for the Park Road Corridor Project is primarily derived from regional and local access needs of the study area. The project is to complete the missing link in the regional network with an efficient north-south connection between the Warren Street and West Shore Bypass and the Outer Bypass. This connection would also serve to complete the Outer Bypass by linking the existing incomplete highway facility effectively into the regional access network (Figures 6 and 7). M Additionally, Figure 8 presents an index to all photographs shown in this report, including Figures 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 21, 22, 23, and 24. 1-6 I Sex READING MUNICIPAL AIRPORT General Can Spaatz Held 183 Outer Bypass (SR 3055) Reading Municipal General Cart A Spatz Field B B N SCHUYLKILL VEEK TULPEHOCKEY RIVER CREEK PN HUYO Van Ree Mill M29 VA Recommended Corridor LOWER HEIDELBERG CREEK ONISOO LATER Tulpehocken Road Penn State Berks Campus Radio Towers CACO Reading pger, Union Ch Paper Mill Road )2220 Van Reed Road Meridian Corporate Center S PRIN NDANT 6 ON DE Broadcasting Road West Colony Park 2221 Street Bypass (422 .. Blvd. STATE Berkshire Blvd. State Hill Road 300 Bypass )4221 Berkshire Heights 111 Berkshire Mall Bern Road VE FACTORY OUTLET COMPLEX Recommended Corridor Location PARKROAD RR ID O SOURCE: Berks County Planning Commission R co Scale: 1" = 2000' McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 0 1000 2000 4000 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Figure: 4 U 们 ​1 1 1 1 | 日 ​u u U Steps in the Process Begin Study Process Develop Initial Alternatives Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Agency Review Detailed Engineering Environmental Studies Draft EIS/4(0) Final EIS FHWA Approval Public Coordination Public Meeting Public Hearing Public Meeting #2 November 1, 1989 Public Meeting #3 September 19, 1990 Public Meeting #4 July 26, 1991 May 17, 1989 July 29, 1992 Alternatives 1. Alternative A 2. Alternative B 3. Alternative C 4. Alternative 5. Alternative E 6. Alternative F 7. TSM Alternative 8. No-Bulld 1. Alternative A 2 Alternative F 3. Paper Mill Hybrid 4. TSM Alternative 5. No-Bulld 1. Alternative A 2. Alternative F 2. Alternative G 4. Alternative H 5. No-Bulld Alt. 1990 1991 1992 1989 1993 Park Road Study Process Figure: 5 61 N The proposed project would also provide a needed regional/local access transportation interface in a rapidly developing area. Current development trends in the study area are rapidly altering the existing agricultural land use to medium-density residential and commercial land use. This development will require improved access between the surrounding regional access facilities and the study area. An improved connection between the Outer Bypass and U.S. 422/222 in the vicinity of this development would provide effective access to the developing area. The need for implementing a Park Road Corridor was evaluated using five criteria in a Project Need Documentation and Preliminary Alternatives Analysis report (Pennsylvania Department of Transportation; January 1990). These criteria were used to establish the existing transportation and development conditions of the study area and to pinpoint where improvements are needed. These criteria included: Regional System Linkage Land Use and Zoning Local Access Traffic Capacity and Safety Public Acceptability A discussion of the project need under each of these criteria is presented as follows. 1. Regional System Linkage The project area is serviced primarily by three regional highway facilities: the West Shore Bypass, the Warren Street Bypass and the Outer Bypass (Figure 2). The West Shore Bypass (U.S. 422/222) carries north-south traffic along U.S. 422. It currently terminates at the Warren Street Bypass. Traffic desiring access to points further north must use the Warren Street Bypass to access local distribution roadways. The Warren Street Bypass (U.S. 422) is the major east-west highway facility serving Reading and adjacent municipalities. In the vicinity of the West Shore Bypass interchange, an average of 40,000 vehicles per day travel the Warren Street Bypass. In addition, portions of Warren Street adjacent to the West Shore interchange consist of non-limited access and signalized, at-grade intersections. The Outer Bypass is an incomplete east-west highway located outside the Reading urban area. The Outer Bypass was originally intended to provide an outer loop around the Reading area which would provide regional access to U.S. 222 and U.S. 422. The highway was never completed. Under existing conditions, regional traffic and trucks flow from the Outer Bypass onto Van Reed Road, a two-lane, rural state route. This regional traffic continues to use this local route to access U.S. 422 west of Reading. Trucks from the Outer Bypass also use Van Reed Road and PA 724 to access U.S. 222 and Lancaster County (Figures 9 and 10). The Outer Bypass is referred to as the "Road to Nowhere" by local and regional residents. 1 1-10 0 I 1 Figure 6: Existing Outer Bypass terminus at Van Reed Road looking southwest. Traffic currently follows Van Reed Road for several miles to U.S. 422. 1 Figure 7: The Outer Bypass looking northeast from Paper Mill Road bridge. The new Park Road corridor would approach from the right of photo and tie into the Outer Bypass to make use of existing bridges over Tulpehocken Creek. 1-11 . ย READ MO info AME 183 Outer Bypass S.R. 3055 Municipal erera Cari A. Spatz Ed B E ki VREEK CREEK TULPEHOCKEN CHUYI KILL, RIVER DE PEITOURER Vand Figure 21 Figure 7 ITALOT BEIDELBERGI Figure 22 CREEK نا: 5 CREEK Pos Figure 6 ( MILA Radio Towers Tülpehocken Road Ponn State Berks Campus CACOOSING 7,0.2004 Figure 12 Kissing ninn th 222 Van Reed Road Meridian Corporate Center Paper Mill Road Figure 13 n Road Figure 24 Bypass S P R I NAG BOUNDARY Reading room Figure 23 Broadcasting Colony Park Park Aoad WastiShore asing 1 BNC Berkshire Blvd. Varre Stre STATE BORO State. HiH Road 422 222 Woodland- Road Berkshire Holghts 22 3404 422 Figures 9 & 10 1.3 millor Bypass Borkshire Mall VF Factory Outlet Complex Bern Road Index to Photographs PARKROAD Direction of Photographs R. D R O O Scale: 1"= 2000' с McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 0 1000 2000 4000 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Figure 8 A SA 273 os 1 1 Figure 9: Van Reed Road looking northeast from U.S. 422 intersection in Sinking Spring. Note queue of vehicles stacked along residential area while truck negotiates difficult turn onto U.S. 422 and PA 724. 1 1 1 1 IST, Figure 10: Van Reed Road looking northeast from U.S. 422 intersection. Note high percentage of trucks using this two-lane residential street. 1-15 As a result of the deficiencies in the existing highway network, there is a missing link in the regional highway system (Figure 2). A north-south link between the West Shore and Outer Bypass is required to complete the highway system in the Reading urban area. Completion of this link would provide an efficient north-south route between U.S. 422 and U.S. 222, and effectively link the Outer Bypass loop to the regional highway network. North-south regional traffic would no longer be required to use Warren Street for a connection between the West Shore and Outer Bypasses, resulting in reduced traffic volumes on the Warren Street Bypass. Project objectives identified by addressing regional system linkage in the study area include: Provide regional missing link Provide an efficient connection between the Outer Bypass and the West Shore Bypass 2. Land Use and Zoning 9 From the time of the initial location study (1969) to the initiation of this Design Location Study for the Park Road Corridor, intense commercial and residential development pressures have been influencing land use within Spring Township and the Borough of Wyomissing. The land use and zoning of the existing agricultural and vacant lands in the corridor between the Outer Bypass and U.S. 422 went through significant changes in both Spring Township and the Borough of Wyomissing in 1987 and 1988. Much of the developable land in the study corridor is now serviced with sewer and water infrastructure and is zoned for commercial and high density residential development (Figure 11). A number of parcels in the corridor support new development or are currently under construction (Figures 12 and 13). In addition, proposed development plans for a large portion of the corridor have been submitted to the municipalities for review and approval. Development plans for the corridor include 1.5 million square feet of office space, 700,000 square feet of retail/commercial space, 940 residential units, a 120 bed nursing home facility and a 400 bed dormitory. The location and nature of this development is illustrated and described on Figure 14 and in Table 1. As a result of the rapid development in the Park Road Corridor, the identification of a recommended alignment in the corridor is urgently needed. Land availability has become a pressing factor in solving the regional transportation needs of the area. In addition, the pending and existing development will increase traffic volumes on existing roads in the corridor, exacerbating the need for an effective regional/local transportation facility. In recognition of the need to preserve a transportation corridor in this area, Berks County, Spring Township and the Borough of Wyomissing identified conceptual alignments for a new highway in the Park Road Corridor in their respective master plans. However, the municipalities cannot prevent the purchase and development of land. Coordination between landholders and developers in the area and the municipal planning and zoning boards have led to some agreement and cooperation towards implementing a future facility. Potential highway 1-17 corridor locations have been identifi. ! on conceptual development plans for portions of the study area. In response to the development pressures in the area, Berks County and the municipalities of Spring Township and the Borough of Wyomissing are pursuing corridor preservation for the future construction of a regional highway link. The new facility would improve regional access in the area and accommodate increased traffic volumes in the area resulting from the approved and planned commercial and residential development. Project objectives identified in consideration of land use and zoning include: • Consistency with County Master Plan • Consistency with municipal land use plans Consistency with proposed development plans 3. Local Access An important objective of the proposed project is to provide an efficient interface between local and regional transportation facilities to relieve local roadways of regional traffic and improve access between the surrounding limited access network and the study area. Existing local access roadways generally consist of two-lane facilities with signalized and unsignalized intersections. Local roads provide access to residential and commercial areas within this project area including: Berkshire Mall, Colony Park, Penn State Berks Campus, Meridian Corporate Center, restaurants, hotels and office complexes. Local access roadways are shown on Figure 15 and include: State Hill/Bern Road Paper Mill Road • Tulpehocken Road PA 183 Van Reed Road • Broadcasting Road Berkshire Boulevard Park Road 1-18 LEGEND READING MU Gene Outer Bypass (S.R.3055) 183 C-2 Retail / Commercial 1-1 Office/ Research Park LDS Low Density Suburban 0/B Planned Office Business R-3 Medium Density Residential R-4 Retirement Community RC Recreational SS Suburban/ Semi-Urban B N 20. WEES TULPEHOCKEN CREEK ON 239 UPEH. RC VaR vs Mill : CANAL PO/B 1018 ER HEIDELBERG CREEK RC Tulpehocken TRTERY 105 Mila Penn State Borks Qempus Radlo Towers CACOOŞIN. Road Road PO/B Cora, hissimon Un' R-3 R-4 Meridian Corporate Center 222 310 WOO Paper. Mun JANE PO/B PRI Broadcasting SS 1-1) READING Van Reed Road BRIADCASTING C-2 Colony Park ha Boroughly Berkshire Boulevard BORO 326 West Shor ...... . Bypage £ Road LDS Road Bhd Woodland Bypass STATE 222 (422 State Hill Road B44 MILE C- Berkshire Hotghts 300 C-2 C2 AH 422 34 Bern Road VF FACTORY OUTLET COMPLEX Berkshire Mau 13 Zoning Source: Wyomissing Boro Zoning Map 1987 Source: Spring Township Zoning Map 1988 PARKROAD R I D Scale:1"= 2000' " R о Berks County o С McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc Philadelphia Pennsylvania 0 1000 2000 4000 Fiaure 11 1 1 11 Meridian String Ridge Figure 12: The Meridian Center at Spring Ridge is a major corporate office complex along Paper Mill Road at the Outer Bypass. Although the first to break ground in 1990, it is now only one of several major developments in the corridor. kulti 288 Figure 13: Seven Oaks multi-family housing development along Berkshire Boulevard is typical of the new residential growth in the Park Road Corridor. 1-21 LEGEND Tank READING MI bereid 183 Outer Bypass (S.R. 3055) В: N 1. Country Meadows 2. Berkshire Corporate Center 3. Berkshire Crossing 4A. Stone Hill Farms 4B. Wyomissing Professional Office Center 4C. Seven Oaks 5A. Meridian Corporate Center 5B. Spring Ridge, Inc. 5C. Spring Ridge, Inc. 5D. Spring Ridge, Inc. Offices 5E. Spring Ridge, Inc. (Fish Hook Parcel) 6. Penn State Berks Campus 7. Treeview Corporate Center 8. Fox Theatres CREEK TULPEHOCKEN TULPEHOLAE Van Reeds Vilt 5D CANA ACO. LOELBERG CREEK 5C REEK Penn State Berks Campus Radio Towers Tulpehocken Road 6 tacool Paper Mill Road 5B 5E Kissinger nien 222 7 340 Van Reed Road REED 4C 5A Meridian Corporate S PRI Center Bypass 4B 4A 8 Broadcasting Road VAA 200- 2 3 Colony Park 2 2005 Warren Street West Shore Berkshire Boulevard Road BORO Park Road Blvd. 422 222 State Hill Road 944 1422 dvomissing Berkshire Heights 300 .:ON Bypass ROAD Berkshire Mall Bern Road VF Factory Outlet Complex Proposed & Existing Area Development PARKROAD Scale: 1"= 2000' D RR ' O O С R McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Figure 14 0 4000 1000 2000 TABLE 1 Recent, Proposed and Conceptual Development July 1991 (Corresponds with Plate 6) Development Use Size Status 1. Country Meadows at Wyomissing Assisted Living and Nursing Home Complexes Four assisted buildings at 40 Units/Building One nursing home building at 120 beds Under construction (two structures recently completed) Berkshire Corporate Center 75% Completed Retail/Office/Light Manufacturing 3. Berkshire Crossings Retail Space and Restaurant Proposed 150,000 sq. ft. Retail Space and 8,000 sq. ft. Restaurant Space Townhouses 130 Units Recently Completed 4A. Stone Hill Farms (Carlino Properties) 200,000-225,000 sq. ft. 50% Completed 4B. Wyomissing Professional Office Center (Carlino Properties) Professional Office Space 4C. Seven Oaks Townhouses 90 Units Recently Completed Office Space 5A. Spring Ridge, Inc. SA Properties Meridian Corporate Center 400,000 sq. ft., possible expansion to 850,000 sq. ft. 50 additional acres Recently Completed Conceptual 5B. Spring Ridge, Inc. Residential Townhouses Single Family 252 Units 181 Units Proposed 200 Units Spring 1992 5C. Spring Ridge, Inc. Mixed Use 41.4 Acres Conceptual Office/Business 90 Acres Proposed 5D. Spring Ridge, Inc. Includes: J.C. Ehrlich Parcel Office/Business Under Construction Lot: 16 Acres Building: 77,956 sq. ft. Mixed Use 18 Acres Conceptual SE. Spring Ridge, Inc. (Fish Hook Parcel) 6. Penn State Berks Campus 400 beds 50% Completed Student Dormitory and Administration Building 7. Office Treeview Corporate and Professional Center 70,650 sq. ft. Completed 8. Fox Theater 525,000 sq. ft. Multiscreen theater complex Approved Conceptual Plan 1-25 Under existing conditions, State Hill Road, Van Reed Road and PA 183 serve as connecting routes for north-south regional traffic between U.S. 422 and U.S. 422/222, (the West Shore and Warren Street Bypasses), and the Outer Bypass. Paper Mill Road indirectly provides a connection to the Outer Bypass by its access to Van Reed Road while Park Road serves as the connection between the Warren Street Bypass and the Vanity Fair Factory Outlet Complex and Central Reading via Penn Avenue through the Borough of West Reading. The mix of regional and local traffic on local roadways is anticipated to increase as the area develops. Primary access routes to proposed and approved developments include Broadcasting Road, Berkshire Boulevard and Paper Mill Road. Regional access is not adequately achieved under the existing transportation system by Van Reed Road, State Hill/Bern Road and Paper Mill Road. Construction of the Park Road Corridor would provide a local/regional access interface in the developing area. The new facili:y would provide direct access to the regional highway facilities and would also provide new access to the developing areas. By implementing this corridor, local access roadways would be relieved of 1) north-south regional traffic; and 2) regional access demands of traffic generated from existing and proposed residential areas and commercial areas. Project objectives identified in consideration of local access needs include: Access to and from U.S. 422 (Warren Street Bypass) and the study area Access to and from U.S. 422/222 (West Shore Bypass) and the study area Access to and from the Outer Bypass and the study area 4. Traffic Capacity and Safety To implement responsible planning and transportation mar gement in the study corridor, Berks County, Spring Township and the Borough of Wyomissin; have identified the need to provide a new highway facility to accommodate projected increases in traffic traveling between the developing area and the surrounding regional highway system. A potential positive impact of this proposed project would be to reduce future traffic volumes on the existing local roadway network. Local roadways in the study area are generally two-lane facilities with signalized and unsignalized intersections which provide access to single-family and multi-family residential areas and commercial areas. Regional roadways in the area which carry high volumes of traffic include the Warren Street Bypass, Paper Mill Road and State Hill Road. Each of these roadways possess at-grade intersections which limit capacity and result in congestion. In addition, Paper Mill Road and State Hill Road provide access to residential developments and commercial areas. 1-26 Study Area Boundary 183 Quter Bypass (S.R. 3055) og TULPEHOCKEN SCHUYLKILL RIVER CREEK OSING CREEK Radio Towers Tulpehocken Road Penn State Berks Campus Meridian Corporate Center Paper Mill Road 222 Van Reed Road Bypass Reading Broadcasting Road Road West 422 Park Road WA Colony Park Blvd. Spring Township State HNL Road Warren Street Berkshire Blvd. Woodland RESIJOOKMA Shore wyomissing Borough Berkshire Mall Berkshire Heights 1422 No. Bypass Bern Road VF Factory Outlet Complex ܫܕܰܕܫܫܢܳܐ Local Access Route PARKROAD Source: USGS Reading Quad Revised 1983 D AR Scale: 1" = 2000' 0 с McCormick, Tayior & Associates in 0 1020 2000 4000 Dhiladelhi Devon Figure. 15 Public concerns expressed at the first public meeting for this project included potential impacts of traffic volumes and congestion on vehicular and pedestrian access to residences and commercial and recreational facilities in the project area. Future traffic projections for Build and No Build conditions were developed by PennDOT and are discussed in the traffic section of this report. Approximately 25,000 vehicles per day are projected to use a Park Road Corridor between the Warren Street/West Shore interchange and the Outer Bypass for design year 2015. Implementation of a Park Road Corridor would also reduce volumes along Paper Mill Road and State Hill Road. a Within the study area, the single largest capacity deficiency at an existing signalized intersection occurs at Park Road and Warren Street (Figure 10). A level of service analysis was conducted for the intersection of Park Road and Warren Street Bypass for the 2015 No-Build scenario. This indicates that the projected 2015 volume is several times that of the current capacity. The number of left turn movements from Warren Street onto Park Road and from Park Road to Warren Street significantly limit the capacity of this roadway. This in turn results in extreme congestion, lengthy back-ups on all approaches and a general breakdown in the operation of the intersection. Accident statistics from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for 1986 to 1989 in the vicinity of Park Road, Warren Street Bypass and the West Shore Bypass ramps show a total of 140 accidents, including 3 fatalities and 6 major injuries for this area. Highway improvements to this portion of the roadway network could reduce traffic volumes and improve the at-grade intersection with Park Road and thereby, would serve to improve the capacity and safety of the roadway network. Potential project benefits to traffic capacity and safety include: A reduction in regional traffic volumes using local roadways Avoidance of impacts to residential and community facilities 5. Public Acceptability An important aspect in evaluating the project need is determining the public perceptions and concerns about the project. Due to the presence of residential developments, municipal and county parklands, and the Berkshire Mall in the project area, strong public interest in completing this study has been demonstrated. Public input was solicited at two public meetings conducted during the preliminary studies. Opinion surveys and comment forms completed at these meetings were summarized and tabulated to identify a measure of public acceptance and public concern regarding the project. I 1-29 P: Figure 16: The existing at-grade intersection at Park Road and the Warren Street Bypass represents a major traffic capacity and safety concern with the regional highway network. 1-30 Responses to the public opinion surveys and comment forms indicate strong public support for completion of the regional highway system in the project area. A foremost concern is the potential impact to local roadways from increased traffic volumes associated with proposed development. The public supports construction of a new roadway to serve the regional traffic connection between the West Shore and Outer Bypass and to accommodate increased traffic volumes desiring access between new and proposed developments and the surrounding limited access facilities. Measures of public concern and acceptability include: A public opinion survey Public meeting comments The proposed facility would alleviate existing and future traffic volumes and congestion on local roadways and provide improved access to the developing areas within the corridor. Also, the Park Road Corridor would provide a highway link between the two limited access facilities which terminate at either side of the Park Road Corridor, thereby meeting the goal of the initial Reading Area Transportation Study. The proposed project would provide a regional north-south highway between the Warren Street and West Shore Bypass and the Outer Bypass, completing a needed link in the regional highway network. This completed network will more efficiently serve regional traffic movements in Berks County, as well as local traffic needs in Spring Township and the Borough of Wyomissing. 1-31 1 1 1-32 1 II. Alternatives II. ALTERNATIVES A. Alternatives Considered and Dismissed As part of this project, a preliminary alternatives analysis was completed in January 1990 to identify feasible project alternatives for detailed study. The analysis involved an evaluation of six preliminary corridor alternatives using a specific list of evaluation criteria which included transportation needs and objectives, engineering aspects and environmental impacts. Preliminary alternatives addressed included four alternatives on new alignment (Alternatives A, B, C and D) extending between U.S. 422 and the Outer Bypass, and two corridors consisting of improvements to existing local roadways oriented north-south between U.S. 422 and the Outer Bypass, specifically PA Route 183 (Alternative E) and Paper Mill Road (Alternative F). The locations of these preliminary alternatives are depicted on Figure 17. As a result of the preliminary alternatives analysis only one of the six build alternatives, Alternative A, was recommended for detailed study. These results were then formally documented in the Project Need Documentation and Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report. Copies of the Project Need Documentation and Preliminary Alternatives Analysis report were sent to the local, state and federal agencies for review and comment on April 19, 1990. The results and conclusions of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis were then presented to representatives of these agencies on May 30, 1990 at PennDOT's Transportation Project Development Interagency Coordination Meeting (TPDICM). Agency responses to this report were later discussed during the TPDICM held on October 4, 1990. Copies of the meeting reports from these meetings can be found in Appendix C. In response to the comments provided by the regulatory agencies, specifically the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Pennsylvania Game Commission, three build alternatives in addition to Alternative A were developed for detailed analysis. These additional alternatives included Alternative F, which was originally studied during the preliminary alternatives analysis, and two new alternatives entitled Alternatives G and H. The following are descriptions of the alternatives considered and dismissed after the preliminary alternatives analysis. 11-1 1. Alternative B (Dismissed After Preliminary Alternatives Analysis) Alternative B follows the alignment of Alternative A from the Outer Bypass to a point approximately 2000 feet south of Broadcasting Road. From this point, Alternative B curves further south tying into the existing Paper Mill Road/Warren Street Bypass interchange. Alternative B provides a missing link in the regional highway system, but requires the use of local roads to make the connection between the Outer Bypass and U.S. 422/222. This alternative is somewhat consistent with proposed development plans, but is not consistent with the County Master Plan or municipal land use plans. Traffic volumes on local roads would not be reduced with Alternative B, regional and local traffic would remain intermingled. The public did not support Alternative B because of its effects on existing local roadways and access to residential areas. For these reasons, Alternative B was determined not to meet the project needs and was dismissed from further consideration. 2. Alternative C (Dismissed After Preliminary Alternatives Analysis) Alternative C begins at the existing southern terminus of the Outer Bypass and extends south to Bern Road. The alignment follows Bern Road to the Bern Road/Warren Street Bypass interchange. Although Alternative C provides a missing link in the regional highway system, it still requires regional traffic to use a local road, Bern Road, to make certain connections. This alternative is not consistent with the County Master Plan, municipal land use plans, or proposed development plans. Alternative C does not meet the local access needs of the project area and does not reduce regional traffic volumes on the local roads. The public did not support this alternative because of its adverse impacts to local traffic on Bern Road/State Hill Road, and because of its location outside of the developing area. Th U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development expressed concern over the effects on coinmunity cohesion and residential displacements associated with this alternative. DER expressed concern over potential impacts on Cacoosing Creek, which is being studied for scenic river designation. For these reasons Alternative C was determined not to meet the project needs and was dismissed from further consideration. 3. Alternative D (Dismissed After Preliminary Alternatives Analysis) Alternative D extends northwest from the existing Warren Street/West Shore Bypass interchange along the northern side of Tulpehocken Creek tying into the Outer Bypass west of the existing PA 183/Outer Bypass interchange. This alternative requires a new structure over Tulpehocken Creek immediately north of the Warren Street/West Shore Bypass. 11-2 183 Quter Bypass (S.R. 3055) eaching Man ALTERN.EE KILL AIVER I Tulpehocken TULPBHOCKEN ALTERNATIVE D I ALTERNATIVE A 'SING CREEK CREEK Road CACOOS ALTERNATIVE F Paper Mill Road AND G 222 Van Reed Road ALTERNATIVE C ALTERNATIVE Broadcasting Road West 8 4221 222) 21 Borough Berkshire Blvd. Spring Township Wyomissing State Hill Road Street Bypass Blyd. Shoro Woodland Rd. Park Road 422 901 ON Bypass Bern Road Warren VF FACTORY OUTLET COMPLEX Preliminary Alternatives PARKROAD Source: USGS Reading Quadrangle revised 1983 RP D Scale: 1'= 2000' O С R 0 1000 2000 4000 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Figure: 17 1 Alternative D meets the needs of providing a missing link in the regional highway network and by providing a direct connection between the Outer Bypass and U.S. 422/222. This alternative is not consistent with the County Master Plan, municipal land use plans, or proposed development plans. Because it is east of Tulpehocken Creek, Alternative D does not meet the local access needs of the study area. Traffic desiring to access the study area would be required to use local roads. Alternative D directly impacts the residential areas of Bern Township east of Tulpehocken Creek and would have direct effects on Tulpehocken Creek; the public did not support Alternative D because of these impacts. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development expressed concern over the potential effects on community cohesion and residential displacements associated with this alternative. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission and DER expressed concern over the potential impacts to Tulpehocken Creek which is under consideration for scenic river designation. For these reasons Alternative D was determined not to meet the needs of the project and was dismissed from further consideration. 4. Alternative E (Dismissed After Preliminary Alternatives Analysis) Alternative E follows the existing alignment of PA 183, and involves construction of additional through lanes and upgrading of existing interchanges. This alternative would not provide a direct or an efficient link in the regional highway system. Regional traffic would encounter signalized and unsignalized intersections. Alternative E is not consistent with the County Master Plan, municipal land use plans or proposed development plans. Because it is located east of Tulpehocken Creek, Alternative E does not meet the local access needs of the study area. Traffic desiring to access the study area would be required to travel local roads. Access to residences, community facilities and commercial developments presently bordering PA 183 would be affected. The public did not support this alternative. For the reasons mentioned above, Alternative E was determined not to meet the needs of the project and was dismissed from further consideration. 5. Transportation Systems Management (Dismissed After Preliminary Alternatives Analysis) In addition to the six preliminary build alternatives, a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative was considered. TSM alternatives involve the implementation of low cost transportation and engineering measures to improve an existing transportation facility without substantial roadway construction/reconstruction. Measures considered in a TSM Alternative could include: signal timing; signing; new roadway striping; addition of turning lanes, and increased availability and encouraged use of mass transit systems. Based on the findings of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis, a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative along Paper Mill Road was initially recommended for detailed analysis in the Environmental Impact Statement. Subsequent detailed traffic studies (reference 1 11-5 Sections III.D and IV.D.) however, indicate that the TSM Alternative would not adequately address the transportation problems of the study area. Even with improved signal timing, signing, roadway striping, turn lanes, and use of mass transit, traffic volumes on Paper Mill Road would continue to rise. The development planned along Paper Mill Road would add to congestion in the area, and the roadway would operate at an unacceptable level of service. This alternative was therefore dismissed from study in the EIS. B. Alternatives Considered in Detail The following are descriptions of each of the alternatives which were developed and considered equally in the technical studies for the EIS. The locations of the proposed build alternatives are depicted on Figure 18. The preliminary engineering designs for four build alternatives, including Alternatives A, F, G, and H which would be studied in detail, were discussed during the October 4, 1990 TPDICM and during subsequent meetings held throughout the study. As a result of these meetings, Alternatives F and G were to be studied as non-limited access alternatives. This decision was made after various limited access versions of Alternative F were discussed. It was concluded that if Alternative F was to be designed as a limited access highway it would result in significant property acquisitions and community cohesion impacts for the Colony Park and Stone Hill Farms residential areas located along Paper Mill Road. Since these impacts would be so severe that it would be obvious that Alternative F could never be chosen as the selected alternative, the decision was made to design a more practical Alternative F. Therefore, the non-limited access version of Alternative F was designed for detailed study. In addition, a new alternative entitled Alternative G was developed. Alternative G is exactly the same as Alternative F except for Alternative G includes an improved Warren Street Bypass/Paper Mill Road interchange. In summary, it w: decided by the study team and resource agencies th. Alternatives A and H would be designe as four lane, ivided, limited access highways with interchanges while Alternatives F and G would be d: igned as multi-line highways with no access controls and at-grade intersections. Although all four alternatives would be at different locations and have different designs features, each would, in various degrees, meet the needs of the areas. 1. No-Build Alternative (Dismissed After Draft EIS) [ The No-Build Alternative entails no improvements to the existing highway system. Existing traffic conditions would continue and additional traffic volumes generated by new commercial and residential development in the area would utilize existing facilities. A new highway link between the West Shore Bypass and Outer Bypass will not be provided under this alternative. 11-6 DA Senioren Sweat 1 Outer Bypass (S.R.3055) 770ZXSHOS 1. nepal HUW!! À Snat: 183 Field N TULPEHOCKEN KEUP CREEK be an AMI HEIDELBERG Penn State Berks Campus CRE ALTERNATIVE A Radio Towers Paper Mill Rd. CACOOSH 222 REE Van Reed Rd. Meridian Corporate Center ALTERNATIVE Hncesjon ALTERNATIVE F & G LAVE PRIN BOUNDĀRY Colony Park Broadcasting Rd. او في Park Rd. Bypass LTERNATIVE GAZ West Shore State Hin Ra. ST Spring Township Wyomissing L yomissing Street Blvd. 422 222 344 Berkshire Blvd. Å Bypass Woodland Rd. Berkshire Heights Berkshire Mall Warren 1422 VF FACTORY OUTLET COMPLEX Alternatives Studied In Detail New or Upgraded Interchange PARKROAD Source. USGS Reading Quadrangle revised 1983 Scale: 1" = 2000' в и то R D O O C McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc 0 1000 2000 4000 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Figure: 1 [ C [ Based on the results of the detailed studies and a comprehensive review of the comments received during the public hearing and on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, this alternative was not selected. The specific details of why this alternative was not selected can be found in the next section, C. The Selected Alternative, of this chapter. 2. Alternative F (Dismissed After Draft EIS) Alternative F consists of widening and improvements to existing Paper Mill Road from the existing interchange with U.S. 422 to the vicinity of the Outer Bypass south of Tulpehocken Creek (Plate 2). The proposed facility is a four-lane roadway with a center turn lane providing access to existing residential and commercial developments along Paper Mill Road. Travel lanes are 12 feet wide with an 8 foot outside shoulder. A typical section of Alternative F is shown in Figure 19. Three at-grade intersections are proposed to be widened with additional turn lanes at Woodland Road, Berkshire Boulevard and Broadcasting Road. Improvements include addition of double left turn lanes and right turn lanes at all four approaches at Woodland Road and at three approaches at Berkshire Boulevard. At Broadcasting Road, an additional travel lane in each direction would be provided along Paper Mill Road. A diamond interchange is proposed to provide access to the Outer Bypass and Van Reed Road at the northern limit of the alignment. A portion of Van Reed Road would be relocated eastward to connect with the diamond interchange. The existing interchange of Paper Mill Road at U.S. 422 will provide access to U.S. 422 and the West Shore Bypass (U.S. 422/222). The construction cost is estimated to be $16,500,000. Based on the results of the detailed studies and a comprehensive review of the comments received during the public hearing and on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, this alternative was not selected. The specific details of why this alternative was not selected can be found in the next section, C. The Selected Alternative, of this chapter. 3. Alternative G (Dismissed After Draft EIS) Alternative G is similar to that alignment described under Alternative F with the inclusion of an improved interchange at the junction of Paper Mill Road and U.S. 422 (Plate 3). The proposed diamond interchange will provide a ramp to access U.S. 422 east from Paper Mill Road, relieving Woodland Road of this turn movement. Improvements to the existing at-grade intersection of Park Road and U.S. 422 would be implemented to accommodate the traffic volumes. Where feasible, additional left turn and/or right turn lanes will be added at Park Road and U.S. 422 approaches. A typical section of Alternative G is shown in Figure 19. The construction cost of Alternative G is estimated to be $22,000,000. 11-9 Based on the results of the detailed studies and a comprehensive review of the comments received during the public hearing and on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, this alternative was not selected. The specific details of why this alternative was not selected can be found in the next section, C. The Selected Alternative, of this chapter. 4. Alternative H (Dismissed After Draft EIS) Alternative H is a hybrid alignment between Alternative A and Alternative F which provides a four-lane, limited access connection between U.S. 422/222 and the Outer Bypass. A typical section of Alternative H is shown in Figure 20. It includes the proposed interchanges for Alternative A at North Wyomissing Boulevard and Warren Street/West Shore Bypass, then turns west to join Paper Mill Road at the Broadcasting Road intersection (Plate 4). A diamond interchange is provided at Broadcasting Road and at the Outer Bypass. Local access to developments along Paper Mill Road west of Broadcasting Road would be maintained by a relocated Paper Mill Road. The proposed relocation would extend directly west from the Colony Park residential area to cross Broadcasting Road 650 feet west of the existing Paper Mill Road intersection. The roadway would parallel the proposed limited access alignment of Alternative H from Broadcasting Road to the Outer Bypass. The total length of relocation would be approximately 1.1 miles. As with Alternative A, the existing at-grade intersection between Park Road and U.S. 422 would be eliminated. Berkshire Boulevard would be elevated to cross over the proposed mainline and a portion of Van Reed Road would be relocated eastward to connect with the proposed diamond interchange at Paper Mill Road and the Outer Bypass. The construction cost of Alternative H is estimated to be $53,500,000. Based on the results of the detailed studies and a comprehensive review of the comments received during the public hearing and on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, this alternative was not selected. The specific details of why this alternative was not selected can be found in the next section, C. The Selected Alternative, of this chapter. C. The Selected Alternative 1. Description of Alternative A The conclusions of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis indicated that Alternative A, a new alignment extending between the Warren Street/West Shore Bypass interchange and the terminus of the Outer Bypass, was considered to best meet the project need. This alternative provided an efficient regional link in the highway system, was consistent with planned and existing land 11-10 f 64 13 Lane 12 Lane 14 Center Turn Lane 12 Lane 13 Lane TTTTT Concrete Curt Typical Paper Mill Road section of Alternatives F & G Figure 19 64 -Graded Shouder 8 18 12 18 Graded Shouder 161. 12 | 12 | 12 Graded Lane Lane Shouder 10 Paved 48 Median 12 12 12 Lane Lane Graded Shouder 10 Paved Cui Section Fill Section Typical Section of Alternatives A and H which would be on new alignment Figure 20 Typical Sections Not To Scale PARKROAD R 1 D R O O R С II-11 McCormick. Taylor & Associates. Inc Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1 use, and provided an effective interface between existing and local and regional transportation facilities. In addition, Alternative A was identified by the public as the preferred alternative from results of four public meetings due to its reduction of regional traffic volumes on local access roadways and its avoidance of impacts to residential areas and community facilities. Alternative A consists of a new alignment extending northwest from the U.S. 422 interchange with the West Shore Bypass (U.S. 422/222) to connect with the Outer Bypass (S.R. 3055) south of Tulpehocken Creek (Plate 1). The proposed facility is a four lane divided highway with a 64 foot median. Travel lanes are 12 feet wide with a 12 foot outside shoulder. A typical section of Alternative A is shown in Figure 20. Three grade-separated diamond interchanges are proposed to provide access to North Wyomissing Boulevard, Broadcasting Road, and Paper Mill Road respectively. A partial clover-leaf interchange is proposed to connect the new alignment with Warren Street Bypass (U.S. 422) and the West Shore Bypass (U.S. 422/222). The existing at-grade intersection between Park Road and the Warren Street Bypass will be eliminated. The existing alignments of Paper Mill Road, Broadcasting Road, and Berkshire Boulevard would be maintained. Berkshire Boulevard would be elevated approximately 10 feet to cross over the proposed mainline. In addition, a portion of Van Reed Road would be relocated eastward to connect with the diamond interchange at Paper Mill Road. The existing portion of Van Reed Road connecting Paper Mill Road to the Outer Bypass will be abandoned in addition to the southernmost extension of the Outer Bypass. The construction cost is estimated to be $55,500,000. 2. Basis for Selection Alternative A was selected based on a comprehensive evaluation of the identified needs of the area, along with the social, economic, cultural and environmental consequences of each alternative. This evaluation also included an extensive review of each alternative's operational characteristics, engineering feasibility, and traffic and transportation factors, as well as and an overall cost/benefit analysis of each alternative. Public and agency input received throughout the study period also was taken into account. Alternative A was identified as the selected alternative after the formal hearing was held, the Draft EIS circulated, and all agency and public comments fully considered. The following paragraphs explains why Alternative A was selected for final design and construction and why the No-Build Alternative and Alternatives F, G and H were dismissed. However where appropriate, the reader is directed to the section of the FEIS that presents the detailed results for various topics. II-12 3. Why The No-Build Alternative Was Not Selected The following are the principal reasons why the No-Build Alternative was not selected. The No-Build Alternative would not meet the project needs and objectives as stated in the Project Need Documentation and Preliminary Alternatives Report prepared for this project. The No-Build Alternative would not complete the missing link in the regional, limited access highway system. The No-Build Alternative would not provide an efficient north-south connection between the Outer Bypass and U.S. 422/222. The use of Paper Mill Road fails to reduce traffic congestion on the local roadway network since this alternative would not separate local and regional traffic. The No-Build does not provide for the existing or project increase in local and regional traffic. Therefore, traffic congestion would worsen and cause difficulty in accessing properties throughout the study area. The No-Build Alternative would not provide any opportunities to improve and provide for access to existing and planned developments. The No-Build Alternative would result in continued undesirable traffic noise, air quality and safety effects primarily caused by high traffic volumes, trucks and congestion along Paper Mill Road. The detailed results of the noise and air quality studies can be found in Sections IV-B.12 and IV-B.3 of this report. Paper Mill Road is bordered by the residential communities of Colony Park and Stone Hill Farms along with the Spring Township ballfield. In summary, the No-Build Alternative would result in traffic - continuing on Paper Mill Road. The No-Build would not substantially deter natural environmental impacts, because it is anticipated that the project study area will undergo development, without the project. The No-Build would result in continued traffic congestion which would cause difficulty in accessing community facilities and services within the communities surrounding the project study area. The detailed results of the traffic analysis can be found in Section IV-D of this report. The No-Build Alternative was not supported by any of the three local governmental entities: Spring Township, Wyomissing Borough and Berks County. II-13 The No-Build Alternative did not receive support from the public throughout the public participation phase of the project. Detailed descriptions of the public participation activities can be found in Sections V-D and V-E of this report. 4. Why Alternatives A And H Are Preferred Over Alternatives F And G This section presents the principal reasons why Alternatives A and H are preferred over Alternatives F and G. These reasons primarily deal with how each of these alternatives meet the identified project needs, along with the operating characteristics and the traffic and transportation factors and community concerns with each alternative. This section pairs Alternative A with H and F with G since these alternatives function exactly the same when considering these factors. Alternatives A and H would more effectively satisfy the identified project needs and objectives then Alternatives F and G. Detailed descriptions of the project needs are presented in the Project Need Documentation and Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report prepared for this project. The project needs are summarized in Section I-D of this FEIS. O Alternatives A and H would complete the missing link in the regional, limited access highway system by directly and efficiently connecting the Outer Bypass with U.S. 222 and U.S. 422. Although Alternatives F and G would provide an improved connection from existing conditions they would not provide the limited access link needed to efficiently accommodate the projected traffic volumes. O Since Alternatives A and H would result in the construction of a new highway, separate facilities would be available to accommodate both local and regional traffic. These alternatives would reduce the regional and/or through traffic volumes on the areas’ local roadways, primarily Paper Mill Road. Lowering traffic volumes would improve the quality of life in these areas by reducing traffic congestion, improving safety and reducing unwanted noise and air pollution. The detailed results of the noise and air quality studies are presented in Sections IV - B.12 and IV - B.13. The residents of the communities along Paper Mill Road, including Colony Park and Stone Hill Farms, have overwhelmingly raised these concerns throughout the public participation phase of this project. Detailed descriptions of the public concerns can be found in Sections V-D and V-E of this report. . O • By providing an additional highway link and by reducing traffic volumes on local roadways Alternatives A and H would maximize the opportunities to improve and provide for access to existing and planned developments. • Although traffic noise levels with Alternatives A and H are predicted to exceed the abatement criteria at more sensitive receptor areas than with Alternatives F and G there 11-14 is a better opportunity to abate noise. Preliminary noise abatement studies indicate that noise abatement appears feasible for most of the areas which would be affected with Alternatives A and H without requiring any relocations. Although noise abatement also appears feasible for most of the areas which would be affected with Alternatives F and G up to nine residences would be required. • Although Alternatives A and H would require the acquisition of more farmland and farmland soil than Alternatives F and G, all of the land which would be required for Alternatives A or H is proposed for development. This information was presented to the Pennsylvania Agricultural Lands Condemnation Board (ALCAB) at a hearing which was held on March 15, 1993. As a result of this hearing ALCAB approved the selection of Alternative A. Comments from the resource agencies can be found in Section V. and Appendix A of this report. • Although Alternatives A and H would require the acquisition of more vegetation and wildlife habitat and floodplain area than Alternatives F and G, all of the land which would be required for Alternatives A or H is proposed for development. Comments received on the DEIS from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the PA Game Commission, the PA Fish and Boat Commission, and the PADER Natural Diversity Inventory present no objections to the project. Copies of these letters can be found in Appendix G of this report. Alternatives F and G were not supported by any of the three local governmental entities: Spring Township, Wyomissing Borough and Berks County. Alternatives F and G did not receive support from the public throughout the public participation phase of the project. Detailed descriptions of the public participation activities can be found in Sections V-D and V-E of this report. 5. Why Alternative A Is Better Than Alternative H Alternative H was not selected for the following reasons: Alternative H would not be consistent with the proposed development plans in the corridor. Specifically, Alternative H would require the acquisition of property from six proposed or existing developments along Paper Mill Road. This involves three existing developments including Spring Ridge (Fish Hook Parcel), the Treeview Corporate Center, and the Meridian Corporate Center. Alternative H would also involve three properties which are owned by Spring Ridge, Inc. and are proposed for development. These three properties are located on either side of Paper Mill Road and adjacent to the Outer Bypass. Detailed descriptions of the recent, proposed and conceptual developments can be found in Section I-D of this report. In addition, these developments are shown on Plate 6 which can be found in the Plates section of this report. Il-15 1 1 Alternative H was not supported by any of the three local governmental entities: Spring Township, Wyomissing Borough and Berks County. Alternative H received little support throughout the public participation phase of the project. Detailed descriptions of the public participation activities can be found in Sections V-D and V-E of this report. 6. Why Alternative A Was Selected Overall, Alternative A would provide the best opportunity to balance the natural environmental impacts with community impacts while improving local access and satisfying regional traffic demands. O Alternative A was endorsed by all three of the local governmental entities: Spring Township, Wyomissing Borough, and Berks County. O Alternative A overwhelmingly received the most support throughout the public participation phase of this project. Detailed descriptions of the public participation activities can be found in Sections V-D and V-E of this report. The results of the extensive public and agency coordination effort for this project indicated that Alternative A would be the best compromise in balancing the natural environment impact concerns of the agencies and the community impacts of the residential communities along Paper Mill Road. A detailed description of the public and agency coordination effort for this project can be found in Section V of the FEIS. II-16 III. Affected Environment 1 III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT A. The Social Environment 1. Land Use This discussion addresses existing and proposed land use at both the county wide and local levels. Information was obtained through a variety of sources including: Berks County Comprehensive Plan Revision, Berks County Recreation Plan Revision, Spring Township Comprehensive Plan, and Comprehensive Plan of Wyomissing Borough. Additional information was obtained through field views, aerial photographs, maps, and through direct consultation with the Berks County, Spring Township, and Wyomissing Borough Planning Commissions. Two municipalities are represented in the study area, Spring Township and Wyomissing Borough. Like the rest of the County, land use varies throughout the study area. Agricultural and open lands are the most common, however, residential, commercial and industrial lands are present. Agricultural land is the most prevalent land use type throughout Spring Township, comprising 74 percent of the total land area. The relatively flat area north of State Hill Road and South of Old Fritztown Road is the primary agricultural area in Spring Township. Agricultural land uses include: farmland and woodland, as well as vacant land. Residential land occupies approximately two-thirds (67 percent) of the developed land area in Spring Township. Sixty-one percent of the structures are single family detached homes. The most populated section of Spring Township occurs near U.S. Route 422. Public, semi-public uses and recreation areas comprise 22 percent of the developed land in Spring Township. Major public uses include: the Wilson Central and South Junior High Schools and Wilson Senior High School, the Pennsylvania State University Berks Campus, the Township-owned sewage treatment plant, three fire stations, and several churches. Recreation areas include: the 18-hole Manor Golf Course, Grings Mill Recreation Area (County Park), and State Gamelands (number 274). Nine percent of the developed land throughout Spring Township is in the form of industrial uses. Industrial uses appear in the form of quarries, landfills and petroleum storage facilities. Commercial land comprises approximately two percent of the developed land in Spring Township. Commercial land use is primarily in the form of "highway-oriented establishments" and small shopping centers. Additional businesses are located on various roads throughout the Township. III-1 Most of the study area is zoned for future development. These tracts of land however, are presently vacant, or in some cases farmed. Zoning codes throughout the study area are listed on Table 2 and are illustrated on Plate 5. TABLE 2 Zoning (Corresponds with Plate 5) Wyomissing Borough Zoning Codes Low Density Residential District R-1 R-2 Suburban Residential District R-3 Medium Residential District R-4 Retirement Community District Neighborhood Commercial District C-1 C-2 Retail Commercial District I-1 Office/Research Park 1-2 Light Industrial District Spring Township Zoning Codes Low Density Suburban LDS 1 SS Suburban/Semi-Urban PO/B Planned Office/Business Source: Wyomissing Borough Zoning Map, August 1988 Spring Township Zoning Map, April 1987 1 The study area is experiencing rapid development and growth (Plate ). Development is occurring in various forms including residential communities, commercial centers and office parks. The status of this development varies. Table 1 provides a complete list of the proposed development in the area, as well as those developments which are under construction and those which have been recently completed. 1 1 III-2 2. Population and Housing a. Population Characteristics Various population characteristics and trends are examined in this section. This information was gathered by reviewing the 1980 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census' General Population Characteristics, additional 1990 U.S. Census Data, as well as data from the Berks County, Spring Township, and Wyomissing Borough Planning Commissions. General population characteristics for 1980 and 1990 for Berks County, Spring Township and Wyomissing Borough are given on Table 3. TABLE 3 General Population Characteristics April 1980 (Census) Percent Change April 1990 1970-1980 (Census) Percent Change 1980-1990 Berks County 312,509 5.4 336,523 7.7 9.9 Spring Township 17,193 23.8 18,899 Wyomissing Borough 6,551 -8.2 7,332 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census (1980 and 1990). 11.9 Selected age and minority population characteristics for 1980 and 1990 for Berks County, Spring Township and Wyomissing Borough are given on Table 4. III-3 TABLE4 Selected Age and Minority Population Characteristics 1990 Percent Percent Population 18 yrs and Younger Median Age 65 yrs Percent Black Persons Percent Persons of Spanish Origin and Over Berks County 35.4 23.3 15.6 3.0 5.1 1.0 0.9 Spring Township 37.5 24.2 15.0 Wyomissing Borough 44.5 20.2 25.9 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census (1990). 0.4 1.1 General education characteristics for 1990 for Berks County, Spring Township and Wyomissing Borough are given on Table 5. TABLE 5 General Education Characteristics 1990 Persons 25 Yrs Old and Over Percent High School Graduates Or Higher Percent Bachelors Degree Or Higher Berks County 224,754 70.0 15.1 27.5 Spring Township 13,089 84.4 Wyomissing Borough 84.0 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census (1990) 5,426 39.4 III-4 General income level characteristics for Berks County, Spring Township and Wyomissing Borough are summarized in Table 6. TABLE 6 General Income Level Characteristics 1990 Total Families Median Annual Family Income Per Capita Income Percent Families/Persons Below Poverty Level Berks County 91,268 $37,755 $14,604 5.278.0 Spring Township 5,510 $46,272 $18,326 1.8/2.6 Wyomissing Borough 2,124 $54,106 $28,801 1.4/2.6 Families (2 persons) $8,509 Individual $6,652 Poverty Threshold 1990 Source: U.S Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census (1990). b. Housing Composition General housing characteristics are summarized in Table 7. III-5 TABLE 7 General Housing Characteristics 1990 Total Percent Housing Change Units 1990 1980-1990 Total Occupied Housing 1990 Total Units Median Total Units Owner Value Renter | Occupied Occupied Occupied 1990 1990 1990 Median Contract Rent 1990 Vacancy Rate Owner 1990 Vacancy Rate Rental 1990 134,442 $81,800 +10.8% 94,336 1.4% 127,649 6.1% Berks County 33,313 $342/mo 7,181 $101,800 5.2% + 16.7% 1,629 7,437 5,552 $455/mo 1.5% Spring Township 3,074 Wyomissing Borough + 15.1% 2,198 876 3,196 $144,300 $575/mo 1.6% 4.4% Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census (1980 and 1990). III-6 - 3. Economy and Employment a. Economic Base Economic conditions relevant to Berks County and the study area are examined in this section. This information was obtained from the 1980 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census' General Social and Economic Characteristics, additional 1990 U.S. Census data, as well as data from the Berks County, Spring Township, and Wyomissing Borough Planning Commissions. Historically, the steel and the textile industries dominated the economy of Berks County. However, the manufacturing of food products was also an important component of the economic base in Berks County. Dairy farming was the major type of farming in the County, generating the majority of the farm income. However, the finishing of beef cattle for market and the raising of hogs, sheep, lambs, chickens and turkeys was also important to the farm economy. More recently, manufacturing was the major industry throughout Berks County. As of 1980 and 1990, manufacturing accounted for 37.9 percent and 28.4 percent, respectively of the total employment in Berks County. The next most prevalent industry was professional and related services, which accounted for 18.0 percent and 20.3 percent of Berks County's total 1980 and 1990 employment, respectively. The economic base of the two municipalities represented in the study area followed patterns similar to that of Berks County as a whole in the year 1980. Manufacturing was the major industry in both municipalities accounting for 32.3 and 32.0 percent of the total employment in Spring Township, and Wyomissing Borough, respectively. However, by 1990 professional and related services were the most prevalent industries in both municipalities, accounting for 23.7 and 27.4 percent of the total employment in Spring Township, and Wyomissing Borough, respectively. The economic trend in the Park Road study area seems to be similar to recent trends in the County and in Spring Township and Wyomissing Borough as a whole. The recent influx of corporate parks in the study area seems to indicate a trend in increased professional and related services in the area. a General economic characteristics, based on employment by industry, for Berks County, Spring Township and Wyomissing Borough are summarized in Table 8. b. Employment The employment discussion in this report addresses the employment characteristics of Berks County and the study area, as well as area employers. This information was obtained from the III-7 TABLE 8 Percent Employment by Industry 1980/1990* Berks County 1980/1990 Spring Township 1980/1990 Wyomissing Borough 1980/1990 Industry Manufacturing 37.9/28.4 32.3/22.5 32.0/21.0 Professional and Related Services ** 18.0/20.3 21.2/23.7 28.5/27.4 Retail Trade 15.1/17.4 18.1/18.1 12.9/18.6 5.5/5.5 6.4/6.0 3.4/3.9 Transportation Communication and Other Public Utilities Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 4.8./6.2 4.9/10.7 4.9/12.2 Wholesale Trade 3.5/4.4 3.7/4.1 4.6/3.9 Construction 4.3/5.8 2.6/4.0 3.3/4.2 2.6/4.7 3.4/3.8 Business and Repair Services 3.1/4.3 Personal, Entertainment and Recreational Services 2.7/3.0 Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2.4/2.4 2.3/3.1 3.9/0.9 1.0/1/3 0.1/1.1 Public Administration 2.1/1.9 1.8/1.8 2.9/1.7 Mining 0.2/0.3 0.2/0.1 0/0.3 All numbers shown are percentages. Data may not total exactly 100 percent due to rounding. Includes Health, Educational, and Other Professional and Related Services. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1980 and 1990) Compiled by McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. 1980 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census' General Social and Economic Characteristics, additional 1990 U.S. Census data, as well as data from the Berks County, Spring Township, and Wyomissing Borough Planning Commissions. Civilian labor force characteristics for 1980 and 1990 for Berks County, Spring Township and Wyomissing Borough area presented on Table 9. III-8 TABLE 9 Civilian Labor Force Characteristics 1980/1990 Berks County Spring Township 13,059/14,998 Wyomissing Borough Persons 16 Years Old and Over 244,724/266,721 5,367/6,003 Civilian Labor Force 154,261/174,191 8,963/9,848 3,046/3,287 Employed Persons 145,975/166,292 8,609/9,590 2,906/3,165 Unemployed Persons 8,286/7,899 354/258 140/122 Percent Unemployment 5.4/4.5 3.9/2.6 4.6/3.7 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1980 and 1990) General employment characteristics, based on employment by occupation, for Berks County, Spring Township and Wyomissing Borough are summarized in Table 10. TABLE 10 Percent Employment by Occupation 1980/1990* Berks Spring Wyomissing Occupation County Township Borough Operators, Fabricators, and Laborers 27.5/21.5 17.9/11.6 10.979.6 Technical, Sales, and Administrative Support Occupations 26.9/29.7 32.7/35.3 28.7/34.0 Managerial and Professional Specialty Occupations 17.5/21.8 26.8/33.7 42.4/45.1 Precision Production, Craft and Repair Occupations 14.0/13.1 12.3/8.4 8.4/7.0 Service Occupations** 11.9/11.8 9.4/9.8 9.4/3.5 Farming, Forestry, and Fishing Occupations 2.2/2.1 0.8/1.2 0.1/0.8 All numbers shown are percentages. Data may not total exactly 100 percent due to rounding. ** Includes all service occupations, including private household and protective service occupations. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1980 and 1990. Compiled by McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. III-9 According to discussions with local officials and research for this study there are several major employers located throughout the study area (Plate 7). Most of these employers are located in Wyomissing Borough and are associated with the retail outlets which abound there. Table 11 provides an index list of these businesses indicated on Plate 7. TABLE 11 Area Employers (Corresponds with Plate 7) O 1. Wyomissing Hair Concepts - Hair Stylist 19. Service Merchandising 2. Spotts Stevens and McCoy, Inc. - Engineers 20. Wellesely Inn 3. The Store Room - Self Serve Storage 21. Levitz/Silo 4. Greater Reading Board of Realtors 122. Red Lobster Restaurant 5. Pennsylvania National Bank 23. Sheraton Inn 6. Texaco Gas Station 24. Denny's Restaurant 7. Nurse Finders 25. Berkshire Mall 8. Berkshire Heights Fire Company 126. Hampton Inn 9. Atlantic Gas Station 27. Inn at Reading 10. The 833 Building - Doctors and Professional 28. Loomis Corporation Offices 29. Econo Lodge 11. Beard and Company - Accountants 30. Park Road Office Center 12. Park Plaza Commerce Center 31. Country Meadows Nursing Home Facility 13. The 845 Building - Stock Brokers and Investment32. Penn State, Berks Campus Offices 33. Meridian Corporate Center 14. Donnelly Directory 34. Interior Environments 15. Bank of Pennsylvania Building - may also be 35. Spring Ridge, Inc. Office called 850 Park Road Bldg. 36. Treeview Corporate and Professional Center 16. Exxon Gas Station 37. Wyomissing Professional Center 17. ARA 38. Berkshire Corporate Center 18. VF Corporation Executive Headquarters C 4. Municipal Finances The tax structure and a financial analysis of Berks County and the various municipalities within the study area are examined in this section. Information was gathered through consultation with the Berks County Tax Assessment Office, as well as the Wilson School District. Municipalities within Berks County receive much of their revenue from real estate taxes which are levied against a proportion of fair market value. Residents of the two municipalities within the study area are subject to three real estate taxes as shown on Table 12. III-10 TABLE 12 Municipal Tax Rates 1989 County Tax Rate (mills) Municipal Tax Rate (mills) School Tax Rate (mills) County Valuation as Percent of Fair Market Value Municipality Spring Township Wyomissing Borough 33.75 11 129 8.5 33.75 22 129 8.5 Table 13 represents the revenues generated by these tax rates in both of the municipalities in the study area. TABLE 13 Municipal Tax Revenues 1989 Percent Total Assessed County Municipal School Municipality Valuation Taxes Taxes Taxes Spring Township 3,814,502 (8.5) | $128,739 ( $41,959 $492,070 Wyomissing Borough 1,995,030 (8.5) | $ 67,332 $43,890 $257,358 The total assessed real estate value of Berks County for 1988 equalled $25,510,179. In addition, the Berks County Tax Assessment Office recorded total realizable real estate revenues for Spring Township and Wyomissing Borough at $1,514,595 and $777,872, respectively. The Wilson School District serves Spring Township and the area of Wyomissing Borough that is in the study area. Total tax revenue collected for the Wilson School District between July 1, 1988 and June 30, 1989 was $6,343,797. III-11 5. Community Facilities and Services Community facilities and services provided for the study area are discussed in this section. The location of the facilities which are in the general vicinity of the proposed project are shown on Plate 8. Table 14 provides an index which corresponds with Plate 8. a. Health and Safety Information on health and safety services of the study area was obtained through the Berks County, Spring Township, and Wyomissing Borough Planning Commissions. Additional information was provided through direct consultation with the various facilities which are discussed in this section. Table 15 lists health and safety services which are available to, and serve, the residents of Spring Township and Wyomissing Borough. b. Educational Facilities Information on educational facilities of the study area was obtained through direct consultation with the Wilson School District. Additional information was obtained through coordination with individual schools. Spring Township is in the Wilson School District as is the area of Wyomissing Borough that is in the study area. In addition to primary and secondary educational opportunities, the Pennsylvania State University Berks County Campus provides the opportunity for higher education in the study area. Table 16 lists educational facilities in the study area. C. Parks and Recreation Facilities Data on parks and recreational facilities was obtained through the Berks County Open Space and Recreation Plan Revision, Berks County Planning Commission, August 1980. Additional information was obtained through direct consultation with personnel from parks and recreational facilities in the study area, as well as through field investigations. Most of the public land and recreational facilities in the study area are located along Tulpehocken Creek in Spring Township. The majority of the school recreational facilities are . located in Wyomissing Borough. Recreational facilities located near the study area include the Spring Township Ballfield adjacent to Paper Mill Road and Tulpehocken Creek Valley Park adjacent to Tulpehocken Road. There were 14,863.5 acres of municipally owned, school owned, and privately owned parkland, recreational facilities and open space in Berks County in 1980. The amount and type of park and recreational land within Berks County and each municipality is listed on Table 17. III-12 TABLE 14 Community Facilities and Services within the Project Area (Corresponds with Plate 8) Health Care 1. Community General Hospital Saint Joseph's Hospital 2. 3. Reading Hospital Emergency Service 1. Western Berks Ambulance Service 2. Wyomissing Borough Police Department 3. West Lawn Fire Company 4. 5. West Wyomissing Fire Company Wyomissing Fire Company Berkshire Heights Fire Company 6. Education Facilities 1. Berkshire Heights Elementary School 2. Wilson Senior High School 3. Penn State-Berks Campus 4. Wyomissing Hills Elementary School Section 4() Properties Spring Township Ballfield (recreational property) 2. Tulpehocken Creek Park (including Grings Mill Park) 3. Stonecliff Park (recreational property) 4. Wyomissing Borough Ballfield (recreational property) 5. Kissinger's Union Church Complex (historic site) 6. Marshall House (historic site) 7. Mary Van Reed House (historic site) 8. John Van Reed House (historic site) 9. Van Reed Paper Mill (historic site) 10. Janssen Historic District (historic site) Transportation and Utilities 1. Reading Regional Airport 2. Citizens Utility Water Company 3. Water Pumping Station 4. Water Pumping Station 5. Sewerage Pumping Station (Spring Township) Sewerage Pumping Station Wyomissing Borough) Section 40) Properties within the study area include public recreational properties which are open to the general public and historic sites determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. III-13 TABLE 15 Health Care, Police and Fire Protection Full Service Health Care Facilities Ambulance Service Police Protection Fire Protection Spring Township None in Township O Western Berks Ambulance Service Spring Township Police Department Vinemont Fire Company (volunteer) Nearest; Community General and St. Joseph's in Reading and Reading Hospital in W. Reading Shillington Ambulance Service Lincoln Park Fire Company (volunteer) West Wyomissing Fire Company (volunteer) West Lawn Fire Company (volunteer) Gouglerville Fire Company (volunteer) Wyomissing Borough None in Borough Western Berks Ambulance Service Wyomissing Borough Police Department Wyomissing Fire Company (paid) Nearest; in Reading and W. Reading Berkshire Heights Fire Company (paid) Two retirement communities; Country Meadows Highland at Wyomissing 111-14 TABLE 16 Educational Facilities Wilson School District Enrollment (1989) Grades Berkshire Heights Elementary 165 K-6 Cornwall Terrace Elementary 498 K-6 158 K-6 Lincoln Park Elementary Lower Heidelberg Elementary 143 K-6 Sinking Spring Elementary 568 K-6 584 K-6 Whitfield Elementary West Wyomissing Elementary 143 K-6 Central Junior High 345 7-9 Southern Junior High 461 7-9 Wilson Senior High 867 10-12 TABLE 17 Existing Recreation Lands and Facilities Existing Existing School Municipal Acreage Recreation Acreage Private Recreation Facility Acreage Berks County 1,119.3 796.2 12,868 Not Available Not Available Spring Township 28.7 54.5 Wyomissing Borough 154.0 5.5 Source: Berks County Open Space and Recreation Plan Revision Confirmed, Berks County Planning Commission, 1992. III-15 d. Transportation Information on transportation systems in the study area was gathered through direct consultation with personnel of the various transportation systems which are discussed. The air transportation hub of Berks County is the Reading Regional Airport, located in Bern Township. This airport facility provides regularly scheduled service daily. Also, available are charter flights, air freight, and flight instruction. In addition to the Reading Regional Airport, there are public and private use airports located throughout Berks County. No passenger rail service is provided in Berks County. The Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) provides freight transportation to many municipalities throughout Berks County and beyond. Intercity bus transportation is available from Reading. Capitol Trailways provides national service to all major U.S. cities. The Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority (BARTA) provides intracity bus service in Reading and to surrounding suburbs. In the study area, BARTA currently serves the Berkshire Mall, Berkshire Heights, and the Meridian Corporate Center. BARTA provides specialized transportation for the handicapped and elderly who can not use regular fixed-line service. In addition there are several private bus companies who provide charter and rental services. e. Utilities Information on utilities in the study area was gathered through direct consultation with each utility company, as well as the Berks County, Spring Township and Wyomissing Borough Planning Commissions. Three companies provide water service to the municipalities within the study area. Two companies, the Citizen's Utility Water Company and the Shillington Water Company provide Spring Township with water service. Water service to Wyomissing Borough is provided by the Western Berks Water Authority. In Spring Township, public sewers exist in all the urbanized areas, while the rural areas rely on-lot sewage disposal systems. The Joint Municipal Authority of Wyomissing Valley provides sewage collection and treatment throughout Wyomissing Borough. The Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (PP&L) provides electric service to the study area. For gas service, portions of the study area are served by United Gas International (UGI). Those areas that are not served by UGI rely on propane gas. Telephone service is provided by the Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania throughout the study area. III-16 6. Community Cohesion Information on communities in the study area was gathered through discussions with local officials and private citizens, as well as thorough field investigations that were conducted throughout the study. Two cohesive neighborhoods exist within the study area. One residential development and one residential area comprise the cohesive community that is located southeast of the Warren Street Bypass, while four residential developments comprise the cohesive community that is located northwest of the Warren Street Bypass (Plate 9). Table 18 provides an index which corresponds with Plate 9. TABLE 18 Residential Communities and Neighborhoods (Corresponds with Plate 9) Southeast of the Warren Street Bypass 1. Wynnewood at Wyomissing Apartments North Wyomissing Residential Area 2. Northwest of the Warren Street Bypass 3. Seven Oaks Residential Development 4. Stone Hill Farms Residential Development 5. Colony Park Residential Development Country Meadows of Wyomissing 6. a. Southeast of the Warren Street Bypass The Wynnewood at Wyomissing Apartments are located in Wyomissing Borough and are comprised of 299 apartments located in 29 apartment buildings. Wynnewood at Wyomissing is bounded to the south by Park Road, to the east by a neighborhood of single family detached homes, to the north by the West Shore Bypass and to the west by the Warren Street Bypass. Located east of the Wynnewood at Wyomissing Apartments, on the east and west sides of North Wyomissing Boulevard is a neighborhood of single family detached homes commonly referred III-17 to as Berkshire Heights. This neighborhood extends to the south to the Warren Street Bypass, to the east to the Vanity Fair Factory Outlet Complex, to the north to the West Shore Bypass and to the west to the Wynnewood at Wyomissing Apartments. b. Northwest of the Warren Street Bypass The original residential development in the study area is the Colony Park development. This development is located in Spring Township and is comprised of approximately 335 single family units. Colony Park is still growing and the number of units is expected to increase by 25 or 30 sometime in the future. Colony Park is bounded to the north by Paper Mill Road, to the south by State Hill Road, to the east by several developments in Wyomissing Borough, and to the west by an open field zoned for residential development. Located directly across Paper Mill Road from the Colony Park residential development is the Stone Hill Farms residential development. This development is located in Spring Township and is comprised of 130 townhouse units. Stone Hill Farms is bounded to the south by Paper Mill Road, to the east by the Berkshire Corporate Center and Wyomissing Professional Center and to the north and west by a large parcel of agricultural land and zoned for commercial development. The Seven Oaks residential development is located in Wyomissing Borough and is comprised of 90 townhouse units. Seven Oaks is bounded to the south by the Wyomissing Professional Center, to the east by Berkshire Boulevard and to the north and west by a large parcel of agricultural land and zoned for commercial development. Located along Tulpehocken Road near the Berkshire Boulevard intersection is Country Meadows of Wyomissing. Country Meadows is a personnel care home which includes two buildings known as Unit 1 and Unit 2. Unit 1 was built in 1988 and house approximately 70 residents and Unit 2 was built in 1991 and houses approximately 60 residents. 7. Visual Resources Important and prominent visual resources within the project area were identified during field investigations, from aerial photographs and from ground photographs. Visual resources in the study area range from an urban setting to the east within the Borough of Wyomissing and the City of Reading to a rural setting in the west within Spring Township. In the eastern portion of the study area, commercial developments dominate the near and distant views. Along Woodland Road, the viewshed is dominated by the Berkshire Mall, Berkshire Mall West, Sheraton Inn, Wellesely Inn and the Warren Street Bypass. From Berkshire Boulevard west to the Spring Township line, multi-story corporate buildings and office/business parks comprise the visual resources of the area. 111-18 West of the Spring Township line to Broadcasting Road, medium density residential development consisting of single family homes and townhouses occurs along Paper Mill Road. Views to the north from these residential areas include tracts of cultivated land bordered in the distance by buildings and forested areas associated with Penn State, Berks Campus. The western portion of the study area is primarily agricultural in setting, bordered in the distance by low rolling hills. To the south of Paper Mill Road however, recent construction of a large corporate center has altered the generally rural setting. In addition, earth moving operations to the north of Paper Mill Road for construction of a Township Road and an office/business park have been initiated, interrupting the distant western view of rolling agricultural land. Photographs of typical views in the study area are presented in Figure 21 through 24. B. The Natural Environment 1. Geology and Groundwater Existing published and unpublished geological and groundwater information was reviewed. Existing well water and groundwater data were supplemented by a limited number of on-site interviews, and through site reconnaissance for soil and geologic evaluations performed for preliminary engineering. Geologic and groundwater features within the study area are identified on Plate 10. a. Geology The project is located within the Great Valley Section of the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province. The topography throughout most of the area consists of gently rolling fields and low hills, becoming steeper along the Tulpehocken Creek. The majority of the study area is underlain by the Cambrian age Allentown Formation. The Allentown Formation is composed of laminated medium grey dolomite and impure limestone with dark grey chert beds and nodules. It is moderately resistant and weathered to a shallow depth, where it has decomposed into blocky fragments and pinnacles of bedrock. The overlying mantle is thin in most places. III-19 Figure 21: View from Outer Bypass area looking southeast toward the City of Reading. The northwestern portion of the study corridor is presently open and agricultural with distant views interrupted by the WEEU radio towers. Figure 22: View across the Park Road Corridor looking northeast toward the Reading Regional Airport. Note construction activity and equipment behind hedge-row. 111-20 Figure 23: View of Paper Mill Road Corridor looking northwest. Note Stone Hill Farms in right background and Meridian Center in left background. All Figure 24: View across the Park Road Corridor looking west along Berkshire Boulevard. The proposed Park Road extension (Alternative A and H) would cross through the foreground. NII-21 The Stonehenge Formation is a medium to dark grey, finely crystalline or laminated limestone, containing beds of flat pebble conglomerate and shale. It is moderately resistant and weathered to a shallow depth, where it has decomposed into small to medium sized flat, rectangular fragments. The overlying mantle varies in thickness and can be over 80 feet thick. The Rickenbach Formation is a grey crystalline, laminated dolomite with irregular chert beds and nodules, and some thin sandstone beds. It weathers to blocky fragments of variable size. The mantle varies in depth, usually more than five feet. The Epler Formation is composed of grey, finely crystalline, interbedded limestone and dolomite. It weathers to flat, rectangular fragments and bedrock pinnacles. Its mantle varies in thickness, with a maximum thickness of 80 feet. The Ontelaunee Formation is a grey crystalline dolomite, interbedded with dark grey nodular chert. It weathers to blocky fragments and pinnacles. The overlying mantle thickness is variable, usually over five feet. C Surficial deposits of Quaternary Alluvium are found along Cacoosing Creek, located at the northwestern terminus of the study area. These are composed of unconsolidated cobbles, sand, silt, and clay. b. Groundwater . The Allentown Formation has low permeability, but solution channels produce a moderate to high secondary porosity. The aquifer can be easily contaminated. Turbidity is a common quality problem of water tapped from this formation. The Stonehenge Formation has good subsurface drainage through sinkholes and closed depressions on the surface. It is highly permeable, and joint and solution channel openings provide a low to moderate secondary porosity. Highest well yields are obtained from fractures and solution cavities. The water from this aquifer is relatively hard. The Rickenbach Formation is highly permeable with joints and solution channels providing a low to moderate secondary porosity. In the Epler Formation, sinkholes and caves are characteristic. The rock has low permeability, but joints and solution channels provide a low to medium secondary porosity. The Ontelaunee Formation is generally highly permeable. Joints and solution channel openings provide moderate to high secondary porosity. All formations within the study area have good subsurface drainage with little or minor surface drainage. The controlling factor for well yields in the study area is the presence of subsurface openings, or secondary porosity. Those wells which intersect fractured zones or solution channels generally have good yields. Those wells which do not generally have low yields. III-22 General water quality information is available for the geologic formations located in the project area. All aquifers are calcium bicarbonate in type. Groundwater in the project area is generally very good, but very hard. Table 19 presents median concentrations of various chemical constituents for aquifers within the study area. Results of analyses for the Stonehenge aquifer are for one well located near the study area along Broadcasting Road. Water quality analysis of this well indicates high levels of bicarbonate and nitrate levels near the EPA limit of 10 mg/l. Long-term over-fertilization of crop producing fields in the study area is the likely cause of these elevated nitrate levels. Iron levels in several wells in the Epler aquifer are also highly elevated, resulting in an increased average value for this constituent. Other values indicate very good water quality for the given aquifers. The major public water supplier serving the project area is the Citizens Utilities Water Company. Citizens Utilities Water Company operates a deep well in the project vicinity. The location of their 12-inch-diameter supply well is shown on Plate 10. Several homes along Tulpehocken Creek rely on private supply wells. These wells, located along Tulpehocken Road are a minimum of 1500 feet north of the proposed build alternatives. All other areas in the study area are served by public water. 2. Surface Water Hydrology and Floodplains Existing topographic mapping was used to identify major watersheds and define watercourses in the project area. Existing Flood Insurance Studies prepared for the study area communities were obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to identify regulatory floodplains. Field reconnaissance surveys were performed to identify existing stormwater drainage structures and controls and stormwater flooding problem areas. The Tulpehocken Creek and Schuylkill River in the Borough of Wyomissing have been studied in detail in a Flood Insurance Study dated April 18, 1983. Two intermittent channels feeding into Tulpehocken Creek were studied by FEMA using approximate methods in a Flood Insurance Study for Spring Township, also dated April 18, 1983. The surface waters and floodplain limits within the project area are shown on Plate 11. The two channels which feed into Tulpehocken Creek are approximately 3 to 4 feet deep and 12 to 15 feet in width. The channels appear to remain dry except at times of high water when Tulpehocken Creek backs up from the Schuylkill River and floods these channels. The floodplains can be described as relatively uniform in character with widths averaging between 120 and 150 feet. Their drainage areas, although primarily contained in agricultural land, are being rapidly modified by residential and commercial development. III-23 mar TABLE 19 Chemical Constituents for Groundwater (All units mg/l unless otherwise noted) ) Formation/Aquifer Allentown Ontelaunee Epler Stonehenge Constituent Temperature (°C) 12 Silica 9.6 9.3 7.8 8.7 Total Iron 40 48 190 10 Total Manganese 10 12 10 0 Calcium 51 76 78 71 Magnesium 22 21 22 35 Sodium 9.3 6.1 6.7 4.7 Potassium 4.3 6.5 4.1 9.4 Bicarbonate 220 249 277 351 Sulfate 39 51 32 25 Chloride 10 14 14 14 Fluoride 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 Nitrate 3.2 3.0 5.8 9 Orthophosphate 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dissolved Solids 293 311 309 377 Hardness (CaMg) 235 275 288 321 pH (Units) 7.0 7.2 7.2 6.9 Number of Samples 9 5 5 1 Source: Geo-Technical Services, Inc., received by MTA, March 20, 1990. 111-24 Tulpehocken Creek flows southeast along Tulpehocken Road in Spring Township and U.S. Route 422/222 within the Borough of Wyomissing. The floodplain can be characterized as sparsely developed, low rolling rural terrain in the upper reaches with increased residential and commercial development in the lower reaches along U.S. Route 422. Tulpehocken Creek confluences with the Schuylkill River. Floodplains in this area can be characterized as low rolling terrain encroached upon by residential and commercial development. The floodplains of both the Tulpehocken and Schuylkill are basically contained by Tulpehocken Road and U.S. Route 422/222, respectively, with only sparse and intermittent overtopping occurring. Field review of surface water hydrologic structures within the study area was performed. Existing facilities generally consist of concrete and corrugated metal culverts, drainage swales, and storm drains. Table 20 summarizes the existing stormwater management facilities located within the study area. 3. Water Quality and Aquatic Biota Water quality and aquatic biota information for the surface waters in the vicinity of the study area was obtained from the Berks County office of the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Water Quality Management, Chapter 93: Water Quality Standards and field surveys. The study area lies in the drainage area of a portion of three riverine systems: Cacoosing Creek, Tulpehocken Creek and the Schuylkill River. Cacoosing Creek flows north into Tulpehocken Creek at a point approximately 1000 feet west of the southern terminus of the Outer Bypass. Tulpehocken Creek flows generally southeast along the northern limit of the study area to its confluence with the Schuylkill River. Three intermittent stormwater drainage channels cross the study area from Paper Mill Road to Tulpehocken Creek and carry surface run-off during storm events. A fourth intermittent drainageway carries surface runoff west to Cacoosing Creek from an agricultural area south of Paper Mill Road (Plate 11). A water quality retrieval from the STORET system identified two water quality sampling stations in the project vicinity, one on Cacoosing Creek and one on Tulpehocken Creek. The Cacoosing Creek sampling station is located at the Paper Mill Road Bridge over Cacoosing Creek near the northwestern project limit. The Tulpehocken Creek sampling station is downstream of Cacoosing Creek at the covered bridge over Tulpehocken Creek. The sampling station locations are shown on Plate 11. The water quality information discussed in the subsequent paragraphs was obtained from the STORET retrieval. III-25 9 TABLE 20 Existing Stormwater Management Facilities Source Structure Location Drainage Swale 36" Concrete Pipe |1630 feet east of Outer Bypass, at Tulpehocken Road 100 feet east of PSU Tulpehocken Creek Intermittent Channel B Storm Inlet parking facility Berks Campus PSU Storm Drainage 20" Concrete Pipe Detention Basin Berks Campus PSU Tulpehocken Creek Intermittent Channel A Dual Pipes: 46" Circular Concrete Along Paper Mill Road, 500 feet east of 3'x5' Dual Concrete Broadcasting Road 16" CMP Tulpehocken Creek Intermittent Channel B 1500 feet south of Tulpehocken Road, 1800 feet east of Broadcasting Road 16" CMP Tulpehocken Creek Intermittent Channel B Along west side of Broadcasting Road, 1400 feet north of Paper Mill Road 36" CMP and Concrete Tulpehocken Creek Intermittent Channel A West of Berkshire Boulevard, 1700 feet north of Paper Mill Road 10'x4' Concrete Box Tulpehocken Creek Intermittent Channel A 150 feet south of confluence with Tulpehocken Creek Service Merchandise 124" CMP 450 feet west of Warren Street Bypass at Service Merchandise 24" CMP w/12" CMP Service Merchandise Parking Lot Northeast corner of Riser Service Merchandise parking lot, 250 feet west of Warren Street Bypass III-26 Cacoosing Creek has a protected, designated water use for trout stocking. However, water quality has been declining since 1982 due to excessive levels of ammonia. Trout stocking was discontinued by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission in 1978 due in part to the declining water quality and the large amount of posted private land bordering Cacoosing Creek. Fecal coliform levels tend to exceed water quality criteria in Cacoosing Creek during the swim season. Hardness is generally on the high side due to the calcium carbonate bedrock found in the area. Other water quality parameters generally fall within criteria limits. Cacoosing Creek plays an important role in maintaining the trout population of Tulpehocken Creek because of its cooler water temperature. According to the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Cacoosing Creek supports a native population of wild brown trout. Other native species include common shiner, spot-tailed shiner, minnows, blunt-nosed and long-nosed dace, rock bass, blue gill, darters and slimy sculpin. Tulpehocken Creek has a protected, designated water use for trout stocking. Water quality in this creek is generally good. With the exceptions of fecal coliforms and hardness, the water quality parameters are within the criteria. Coliform levels tend to exceed water quality criteria during the swim season. Hardness tends to be on the high side due to the calcium carbonate bedrock found in the area. Tulpehocken Creek maintains long-term populations of stocked rainbow trout and brown trout, and is a popular fishery. Summer water temperatures do not remain cool enough to support year-round or reproducing populations of rainbow and brown trout. Individuals survive the warm season by seeking refuge in the cooler waters of Cacoosing Creek. Tulpehocken Creek supports native populations of small-mouth bass, rock bass, sunfish, blunt-nosed and long-nosed dace, darters, banded killfish, carp, and shiners. Occasional species include large-mouth bass, bluegill sunfish, channel catfish, walleye pike, white crappie and black crappie. The Creek also is an important nursery for American eel. The Schuylkill River at the confluence of Tulpehocken Creek is a popular sport fishing location. The water quality at this section ranges from fairly good to excellent. The Schuylkill River has a protected, designated water use for warm water fish maintenance and propagation and migratory fish passage maintenance and propagation. An additional parameter limits copper content to 0.1 mg/l. The Schuylkill River at the confluence of Tulpehocken Creek supports native populations of white suckers, channel catfish, walleye, muskellunge, sunfish, carp, American eеl and brown bullhead. This section of the river is stocked with tiger muskellunge and will eventually be stocked with shad. 4. Soils and Erosion Analysis A literature search consisting of review of published and unpublished geologic and soils information for the project corridor was performed. Field reconnaissance surveys and aerial photographic reviews were performed to locate and/or verify erosive soil features and conditions. III-27 MO The study area is underlain entirely by the Duffield-Washington soils association. This association of soils characteristically consists of deep, well drained soils formed in material weathered from limestone in limestone valleys. Within the study area, residually derived, well drained soils predominantly consist of the Duffield and Hagerstown soil series. Duffield and Hagerstown soils are the major soil types covering the study area. Wiltshire and Lindside soils cover a very small portion of the study area, less than five percent. Soils present within the study area are described as follows: 1 I Duffield: (D) deep, well drained, nearly level to steep soils formed in material weathered from impure limestone. Main limitations are sinkholes and caverns, the areas of which are subject to collapse or subsidence. Soils are moderately erodible. Edgemont: (Ec, Ed) deep, well drained, gently sloping to steep soils formed in material weathered from hard sandstone, quartzite granitic gneiss, and other igneous or metamorphic rocks. Hagerstown: (Ha) deep, well drained, strongly sloping to gently rolling soils formed in material weathered from relatively pure limestone. Surface runoff is slow to rapid dependent upon slope and causes slight to moderate hazard of erosion. Lindside: (Lt) deep, moderately well drained soils on floodplains along streams and formed in sediment that washed from uplands underlain by limestone. May contain inclusions of hydric soils and well drained soils. Seasonal high water table occurs at a depth of approximately 27 inches. Wiltshire: (Ws) deep, nearly level, moderately well drained soils formed in material from limestone and calcareous shale and located in depressions, broad flat drainageways, and other nearly level areas. Seasonal high water table occurs at a depth of approximately 20 inches. May contain inclusions of hydric soils. Engineering properties and soil factors affecting highway location and construction are presented in Table 21. Soils within the project area are depicted on Plate 12. 5. Vegetation and Wildlife Vegetation for the entire study area was classified and mapped with the use of aerial photographs taken in August 1990 and thorough field investigations conducted in April 1989 and 111-28 TABLE 21 Engineering Soils Properties (Corresponds with Plate 12) Soil Corrosion Potential for Uncoated Depth to Seasonal High Optimum Soil Series and Map Water Table Bedrock Moisture Symbols (Feet) (Feet) (%) Shrink Swell Potential Features Affecting Highway and Road Location Erosion Hazard (K) Steel Concrete low to moderate; .23-.32 Duffield Df 0-15% 3+ 3.5-8.0 15-20 moderate moderate moderate few rock outcrops, solution chambers Duffield-Hagerstown Dh 8-30% moderate to high; .32-.37 shallow depth to bedrock 3+ 3.5-5.0 15-20 moderate moderate moderate Edgemont Ec, Ed 8-25% moderate; .32 3+ 3.5-7.0 10-15 low low high stoniness in places Hagerstown HA 3-15% moderate; .32 3+ 3.5-6.0 15-20 moderate moderate low limestone ledges seasonal high water table low; .28 Lindside Lt 0-3% 1.5-3 3.5-6.0 12-15 moderate moderate low low to moderate; .28-.32 seasonal high water table; funstable frost action Wiltshire Ws 0-8% 1.5 3.5-8.0 10-18 moderate moderate moderate Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey, Berks County, PA. III-29 January 1991. All land use and land cover was classified according to "A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data" (U.S. Geological Survey Paper 964, 1978). These cover types and uses are shown on Plate 13 and listed in Table 22. In addition to the land cover study, a search of existing species listings was conducted to identify the wildlife which may potentially occur in the study area. Undeveloped land in the study area is dominated by agricultural use. West of Berkshire Boulevard the vegetative cover is mainly agricultural fields of corn and alfalfa, with scattered deciduous forestland. A tract of mixed deciduous and evergreen forest land occurs near Van Reed Road south of Paper Mill Road. East of Berkshire Boulevard, vegetation consists of small patches of mixed deciduous and evergreen forest land interrupted by recent earth-moving activity and transitional land. Residential, commercial and service land uses occupy about 50 percent of the study area. Approximately 70 percent of the natural land within the study area is zoned and approved for residential and commercial development. Essentially, the only land not threatened by pending and current conversion is that owned by Penn State and the parklands along Tulpehocken Creek. Common wildlife species which spend a portion or all of their life-cycles within the habitat types currently found in the study area include: white-tailed deer, ring-necked pheasant, red fox, eastern cottontail, various small rodents, eastern grey squirrel, muskrat, woodchuck, striped skunk, raccoon, Virginia opossum, eastern box turtle, and many song birds. Species which were positively identified during the field view include white-tailed deer, red fox, eastern cottontail, eastern grey squirrel, striped skunk, eastern box turtle, woodchuck and muskrat. 6. Endangered Species Existing data records of threatened or endangered plants and animals the correspondence on this issue known or possibly occurring within the study area were investigated. Copies of the correspondence on this issue can be found in Appendix A, Pages A-21, A-30, A-35, and A-36. The Section 7 endangered species consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) states that the small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), an endangered plant, presently exists or has been known to occur in 16 eastern states and Canada. It is most often found in mixed second growth hardwoods with a relatively open canopy and little shrub or herbaceous cover. It has been found, however, in a broad spectrum of conifer/hardwood habitat types and, in fact, may be found almost anywhere in the eastern United States. There are many as yet unanswered questions about its growth, reproduction and other life requirements. a 111-30 TABLE 22 Land Use and Cover Types (Corresponds with Plate 13) Anderson Land Use Classification Number Cover Type 11 Residential 12 Commercial and Services 13 Industrial 14 17 Transportation, Communications and Utilities Urban or Other Built-Up Land Cropland and Pasture 21 31 Herbaceous rangeland, old field stage 32 Shrub and brush rangeland 41 Deciduous forest 43 Mixed evergreen/deciduous forest; mature stage; shrub layer moderate Riverine Upper Perennial 66 76 Transitional areas 111-31 There are presently 49 known existing populations (approximately 600 individuals) of this plant in the eastern U.S. and Canada. Although additional populations could occur almost anywhere, the chances of occurrence at any particular site are extremely remote. The Pennsylvania locations of historical populations are: Berks County (Reading), Chester County (West Chester), Green County (Rogersville), Monroe County (East Stroudsburg), Montgomery County (Willow Grove) and Philadelphia County (Philadelphia). The only known existing populations in Pennsylvania are located in Centre County near the town of Port Matilda, and in Cranberry Township, Venango County. To reduce the chance of disturbance by plant collectors, exact locations of plants are not released. The USFWS has no information to confirm the presence of these plants within the project area. [ Except for occasional transient species, no other federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species under our jurisdiction are known to exist in the project impact area. Therefore, no Biological Assessment or further Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is required with the Fish and Wildlife Service. Neither the Pennsylvania Fish Commission nor the Natural Diversity Inventory identified any endangered or threatened mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles or plants of concern within the study area. Eight species of concern were identified from the Pennsylvania Game Commission, Fish and Wildlife Data Base as potential inhabitants of the study area. These species are: osprey (Pandion halieatus), short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), Henslow's sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii), Bewick's wren (Thryomanes bewickii), small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii), bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) and eastern wood rat (Neotoma floridana). Osprey are endangered in Pennsylvania. They no longer nest in Berks County but are seen regularly in transit during Spring and Fall along waterways with adequate fishing opportunities. Preferred habitats include crop, pasture and all forest lands and open water. The short-eared owl is known to inhabit open lands (cropland and palustrine emergent wetlands) and winters throughout Pennsylvania. Localized nesting sites may occur in southeastern Pennsylvania, specifically near the Philadelphia Airport. The owl is endangered due to lack of nesting habitat remaining in the state. Because these owls hunt during daylight hours, they are more noticeable than most other owls. The owl is known to breed mainly in marshlands and meadows. Upland sandpipers are threatened in Pennsylvania and are found nesting in many counties of Pennsylvania, including Berks. They are found in pastureland and grassy areas, rarely near water. III-32 Henslow's sparrow is another threatened bird in Pennsylvania. The species is known to breed in several western and some eastern counties of Pennsylvania, not including Berks. The sparrow nests in open weedy fields or grassland. Found breeding only in southwestern Pennsylvania, Bewick's wren is a threatened species in Pennsylvania. The wren migrates through Pennsylvania on a regular basis, preferring open woodlands, and is occasionally seen around residential areas. The smallest bat in Pennsylvania, the small-footed myotis is threatened due to recent decline of historic populations. The myotis hibernates in caves. The known hibernation sites are in two central Pennsylvania counties. A threatened species, the eastern wood rat prefers secluded areas, nesting on rock ledges, caves and rocky mountaintops. Its range has diminished to only a few mountainous counties in southwestern Pennsylvania. The eastern wood rat is found occasionally in its preferred habitat throughout Pennsylvania. The bog turtle is an endangered species on the verge of extinction in Pennsylvania. The turtle is found in freshwater bogs and wetlands usually with slow-moving streams or spring runs. One location in Berks County not near the study area contains a known population of bog turtles. A review of the habitat requirements, historical siting data within Berks County, and field survey results suggest that the short-eared owl, upland sandpiper, Henslow's sparrow, Bewick's wren, small-footed myotis, eastern wood rat and bog turtle are unlikely to occur within the project study area. The osprey may be an occasional migrant through this area due to the proximity of food sources in the Tulpehocken Creek and the Schuylkill River. The short-eared owl may occasionally winter in the project vicinity. 7. Wetlands Prior to conducting a field investigation for wetlands, the Soil Survey of Berks County and the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps were reviewed. The soil survey did not reveal any hydric soil series within the study area limits. Two soil series known to contain inclusions of hydric soil were identified within the study limits, Lindside silt loam (Lt) and Wiltshire silt loam, 5-8% slopes (WsB2). Plate 12 depicts the soils within the study area. No palustrine wetlands were identified on the NWI maps within the study limits. Cacoosing Creek is shown as a riverine, unknown perennial, open water, permanent (R50WH) wetland. Tulpehocken Creek and the Schuylkill River are shown as riverine, lower perennial, open water, permanent (R2OWH) wetlands. The NWI map identified a few palustrine wetlands outside of the study limits along the eastern bank of Tulpehocken Creek. 111-33 A wetland field survey and investigation was conducted to delineate all wetlands within the study area. The wetland investigation was conducted in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, 1989. Surface waters were classified in accordance with A Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979). 1 1 A Wetlands Survey Report was prepared in July 1989 to document the results of the wetland investigation. The wetland study revealed that no vegetated wetlands exist within the study area. Two intermittent channels and two stormwater channels were identified. A copy of the Wetland Survey Report is included in Appendir E. The Wetlands Survey Report was submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers (COE); a field view and jurisdictional determination of the study area was conducted on September 12, 1989. The COE concurred that there are no vegetated wetlands in the study area; the two stormwater channels were determined to be waters of the U.S. (October 18, 1989 COE Letter, Appendix A, Page A-29). As of August 17, 1991, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began using the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual for all jurisdictional determinations. Review of the wetlands using both manuals determined that the wetland boundaries would not differ substantially with use of the 1987 manual. 8. Waterways of the United States As a result of the wetland studies, two intermittent channels and two stormwater channels were identified. The locations of the two stormwater channels are indicated on Plate 11. The channel located west of Warren Street Bypass, is classified as a riverine, intermittent channel with a bedrock bottom (R4RB1). The second channel, located just east of Van Reed Road, is classified as a riverine intermittent channel with an unconsolidated sand bottom (R4UB2). Other waters of the U.S. in the project vicinity include: Cacoosing Creek, Tulpehocken Creek and the Schuylkill River. The two intermittent channels indicated on Plate 11 were determined by the COE representative during the field view not to be regulated waterways. The channels flood because of backwater from Tulpehocken Creek rather than from overland runoff. The 3 to 4 foot deep by 12 to 15 foot wide channels are dry except during substantial flood events. The drainage basins of the intermittent channels are rapidly being altered by development. 9. Farmlands No agricultural lands within the project area are protected by State Acts 515, 43 or 319. 111-34 The Soil Conservation Service Agricultural Center was consulted to identify soils within the project area which are classified as Prime Farmland, Farmland Soils of Statewide Importance, and Farmland Soils of Local Importance. Roughly 80 percent of the land in the project area is composed of soils that have been designated by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service as Prime Farmland, Soils of State Importance or Soils of Local Importance. The Prime Farmland Soils contained within the project area include Duffield silt loam, 3-8 percent slopes; Hagerstown silt loam, 3-8 percent slopes, Lindside silt loam; and Wiltshire silt loam 3-8 percent slopes. The only soil of Statewide or Local Importance found on site is the Duffield silt loam, 8-15 percent slope. Two of the soil types within the study area, the Duffield silt loam and the Hagerstown silt loam, are considered to be the most productive agricultural soils in Berks County. A description of all the soils located within the project area can be found in the Soils and Erosion Analysis chapter of this document. Plate 12 depicts the soils in the project area. All Prime Farmland Soils and Soils of State and Local Importance in the project are located in zones designated or proposed for office, industrial and residential use. 2 As Plate 13 indicates, all of the project area east of Berkshire Boulevard is forested or has been developed. As a result, all of the active farmlands within the project area are located west of Berkshire Boulevard. All of the active farmland east of Broadcasting Road is owned by Tulpehocken, Ltd. All of the farmland west of Broadcasting Road is owned by Spring Ridge, , Inc. except for the WEEU property and a field directly west of Penn State Berks Campus which is owned by the University. All of these properties are rented to tenant farmers. The Tulpehocken, Ltd. property was rented to Dallas Lutz until 1993 when he retired. Mr. Lutz grew corn and soybeans and his replacement has not been named. All of the Spring Ridge, Inc. property and the WEEU property are farmed by Roy Christman. Mr. Christman grows corn and soybeans on the Spring Ridge property and hay on the WEEU property. Because the WEEU property contains underground cables, it cannot be plowed and so is limited to hay production. The eastern part of the Penn State Berks Campus property is farmed by Reading-Bone Agway, an agricultural supply business. Agway operates test plots on this property, growing a variety of crops. The western part of the Penn State Berks Campus property is farmed by Roy Christman who grows corn and soybeans. Farmland in the project area is rapidly being converted to commercial and residential uses. As Plate 5 indicates, all of the active farmland within the project area is zoned for development. As Plate 6 indicates, much of active farmland within the project area is proposed for development. The major active farmland owners, Spring Ridge, Inc. and Tulpehocken, Ltd., are both development companies. In addition, readers desiring more information about the farmland studies are encouraged to review the Act 100 and Farmland Assessment Technical Basis Report prepared for this project. Copies of this report are available for the public's review during office hours at the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, District 5-0 Office in Allentown. III-35 10. Wild and Scenic Rivers Information on rivers in the project area which are listed or determined eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System or the Pennsylvania Scenic Rivers System was obtained from the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (U.S. Department of Interior, 1981) and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Scenic Rivers Program. Tulpehocken Creek from its confluence with the Schuylkill River north to Blue Marsh Lake, has been determined eligible for nomination in the State Scenic Rivers Program. Additionally, a 1.5 mile section of Cacoosing Creek, from its confluence with Tulpehocken Creek west to the vicinity of State Hill Road, has been determined eligible for nomination. These waterways have been classified as priority A-1 streams, having been determined to be streams of statewide significance which urgently require protection. Studies have been completed on these waterways, and nomination is pending. Important characteristics include: fishery value, recreational value, and historical and cultural significance. Refer to the December 31, 1991 letter from DER located in Appendix A, Page A-32. The Schuylkill River, flowing south in the vicinity of the proposed North Wyomissing Boulevard Interchange, is classified as a Pennsylvania Scenic River. This designation is assigned to maintain the water quality of the Schuylkill River and its importance as a fishery resource and recreational facility. 11. Waste Site Clearance An inventory and assessment was made of municipal and industrial waste facilities and potential hazardous waste disposal sites within the project study area using PennDOT Letter 430-85-103 as a framework for action. A review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) for Pennsylvania was made. No waste sites are indicated on this listing as being present within the study area. Review of Pennsylvania DER - Bureau of Solid Waste Management's list of closed or inactive municipal and industrial solid waste disposal sites within the project study area does not indicate the presence of potential municipal or industrial landfill sites. No hazardous waste sites within the study area are listed on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources listings. Preliminary field reconnaissance of the project study area was performed in February 1989 and March 1990. III-36 During these field views, any disturbed area showing any type of waste debris was noted. The results of the field views identified eight waste disposal areas which are described in Table 23 and shown on Figure 25, These sites were also described and shown in the Draft EIS for this project. As part of the effort to continually update the technical studies a reevaluation of these sites was conducted following the circulation of the Draft EIS. As part of this reevaluation, a field view was conducted on September 2, 1992 with representatives of PennDOT District 5-0, PaDER Waste Management Program and McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. A copy of the field report from this meeting can be found in Appendir F of this report. The following are the results of this field view and the reevaluation of the sites identified in the Draft EIS. Site 1 - Located on the northern side of the West Shore (U.S. 222 and 422) near the intersection of the Tulpehocken Creek and the Schuylkill River, this contained the same types of waste material identified in Table 23. It was agreed by all present at the field view that this site was a surface collection of various municipal waste materials and that no additional testing was required. Site 2 - Located on the northern side of the West Shore Bypass near the Warren Street Bypass overpass this site contained the same type of waste material identified in Table 23. It was agreed by all present at the field view that this site was a surface collection of various municipal waste materials and that no additional testing was required. Site 3 - Located just west of the Park Road/Warren Street Bypass intersection, this site contained by same types of waste material identified in Table 23. It was agreed by all present at the field view that this site was a surface collection of various municipal waste materials and that no additional testing was required. Site 4 - Located along Woodland Road, this site primarily contained a surface collection of concrete blocks. It was agreed by all present at the field view that this site was a surface collection of various municipal waste materials and that no additional testing was required. Sites 5, 6, 7 and 8 - Originally located along Berkshire Boulevard during March 1990, these sites primarily consisted of soil fill materials and boulders. However, as a result of this field view, none of these sites were found to still exist. What was found in this area was silt fencing associated with either the local roadway improvements currently underway along Berkshire Boulevard or from the recently completed Seven Oaks residential development. It was speculated by all present that the soil fill material and boulders originally identified were probably removed as part of the grading activities associated with one or both of these projects. Therefore, it was agreed by all present at the field view that no additional testing would be required at these sites. III-37 TABLE 23 Waste Disposal Sites (Corresponds With Figure 25) Approximate** Total Area Status** (Acres) of Sites Site Location Waste Material scattered used appliances, * furniture, car parts, grass clippings, brush, litter 0.86 Wyomissing Interchange area 1 between 422/222 and Tulpehocken Creek Confirmed 0.46 Confirmed South bank of scattered used appliances,* body shop Tulpehocken Creek, parts, household wastes 2 least of Warren Street Bypass Two sites between appliances/building* material, household Warren Street and wastes 3 tributary to Tulpehocken Creek 0.01 Confirmed building rubble* primarily concrete blocks 0.04 200 feet west of Warren Street, 100 4 feet north of IWoodland Road Confirmed 0.26 Removed 5 100 feet east of boulder/soil pile Kissinger Cemetery 100 feet east of scattered used appliances body shop parts, Berkshire Boulevard, household wastes 6 adjacent to Kissinger Cemetery 0.06 Removed boulder, soil fill, tires 0.52 7 100 feet east of Berkshire Boulevard Removed 1.00 Removed 150 feet west of 8 Berkshire Boulevard, boulder, soil fill adjacent to Seven Oaks Townhouses Waste material identified on the surface during a field view on September 2, 1992. Approximate area is based on surface inspection only. Status of site as of September 2, 1992 field view. 111-38 Reading RIVER -West Shores vass- ark Roaa TERNATIVE anity Fait Factor Outlet Complex ALTERNATIVE A HE Conrall ALTERNATIVE . Berkshire Boulevard Road Berkshire Flight Paper Mill Road ALTERNATIVES F & G Warren Street Bypass Benksmine Mall glony Pay A22 HIMA Bern Road Waste Disposal Sites PARKROAD 1 Aerial Photography Aug. 1990 A R 1 0 O Scale:1"= 1000 ' 0 С McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 0 500 100 2000 Figure: 25 . 3 [ j As a result of this field view, it was determined that the four sites, Sites 1, 2, 3 and 4 which still remain were surface collections of various residual waste materials and that no additional testing or research would be required. A letter from PaDER concurring with these findings can be found in Appendix F of this report. 12. Traffic Noise a. Noise Monitoring Existing noise levels were monitored at 25 sensitive receptor sites within the study area. The receptor sites are described in Table 24 and the location of these sites are shown in Plate 14. Eighteen of the receptor sites were located west of the Warren Street Bypass and the remaining seven (7) sites were located east of the Bypass. The monitored areas predominantly were residential developments located along the existing and proposed roadway corridors, but also included two hotel properties, the Penn State University Berks Campus, a cemetery, two recreational areas, and a church property. On-site monitoring revealed a diverse range of ambient noise levels. The guidelines set forth by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Manual FHWA-DP-45-1R Sound Procedures for Measuring Highway Noise: Final Report were followed. Monitoring was conducted on weekdays (Monday through Friday) during the peak hour traffic periods on days with favorable meteorological conditions. The noise environment of the study area was monitored during the months of August 1989, and February, March and April of 1991, along existing and proposed roadway corridors. The existing monitored noise levels are presented in Table 25. The data provides a basis for predicting future noise levels and evaluating the impacts of each alternative. a To establish a relationship between the traffic volumes and noise levels, traffic information, including traffic volumes, speed and composition data, was collected during noise monitoring to facilitate comparison of monitored noise levels with modeled noise levels for existing conditions. b. Predictive Modeling The STAMINA 2.0 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model was used to analyze future noise levels at the 25 selected sites. These results were then compared to the FHWA and PennDOT noise abatement criteria in order to determine the mitigation requirements of each alternative. The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was run for each site using traffic data and roadway geometry for each alternative as input. The predicted existing noise levels and monitored existing levels were then compared. - 111-41 TABLE 24 Noise and Air Quality Receptor Sites (Corresponds with Plate 14) Number of Properties/ Units Represented Main Highway Noise Source(s) Distance from Main Highway Noise Source(s)* Site Location Description 1 Residential Property 4 Located along the northern side of Paper Mill Road between the Outer Bypass and Tulpehocken Road. Paper Mill Road Outer Bypass 100 ft. 460 ft. 2 Residential Property 2 Tulpehocken Road 100 ft. Located along the southern side of Tulpehocken Road 2,000 feet east of Outer Bypass. 3 Residential Property 4 Located along the southern side of Tulpehocken Road. Tulpehocken Road 80 ft. 4 Residential Property 1 Located along the western side of Broadcasting Road. Broadcasting Road Tulpehocken Road 400 ft. 300 ft. 5 School Property 3 Tulpehocken Road 120 ft. Located along the southern side of Tulpehocken Road 400 feet east of the Broadcasting Road intersection. 6 School Property 2 Broadcasting Road 1,150 ft. Located at the Penn State University Berks Campus classroom building. 7 School Property 1 Broadcasting Road 1,730 ft. Located at the Penn State University Berks Campus classroom building. 8 School Property 3 Tulpehocken Road 400 ft. . Located at the Penn State University Berks Campus Dormitories. 9 Residential Property 6 Paper Mill Road 520 ft. Located near the southwest corner of the intersection of Paper Mill Road and Broadcasting Road. 10 Residential Property 9 Paper Mill Road 50 ft. Located along the southern side of Paper Mill Road between Broadcasting Road and Berkshire Boulevard. 111-42 TABLE 24 (Cont'd) Noise and Air Quality Receptor Sites Number of Properties/ Units Represented Main Highway Noise Source(s) Distance from Main Highway Noise Source(s)* Site Location Description 11 Residential Property 35 Paper Mill Road 980 ft. Stone Hill Farms residential development located along the northern side of Paper Mill Road between Broadcasting Road and Berkshire Boulevard. 12 Residential Property 15 Paper Mill Road 70 ft. Stone Hill Farms residential development located along the northern side of Paper Mill Road between Broadcasting Road and Berkshire Boulevard. 13 Hotel Property 1 Sheraton Inn located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Berkshire Boulevard and Paper Mill Road. Berkshire Boulevard Paper Mill Road 210 ft. 270 ft. 14 Residential Property 6 80 ft. Located along the southern side of the Warren Street Bypass adjacent to the Paper Mill Road Interchange. Warren St. Bypass Off-Ramp Warren St. Bypass On-Ramp Warren St. Bypass 160 ft. 310 ft. 15 Residential Property 15 Berkshire Blvd 150 ft. Seven Oaks Residential Development located along the western side of Berkshire Blvd. Cemetery 1 Berkshire Blvd 50 ft. 16 Kissinger Union Cemetery located along the eastern side of Berkshire Boulevard 700 feet south of the intersection of Tulpehocken Road. 17 Church 1 Berkshire Blvd 30 ft. Kissinger Union Church located along the western side of Berkshire Boulevard 250 feet south of the intersection of Tulpehocken Road. 18 Residential Property 1 Park Road Tulpehocken Road 600 ft. 500 ft. Country Meadows Retirement Home located along the southern side of Tulpehocken Road 500 feet east of Berkshire Boulevard. III-43 1 TABLE 24 (Cont'd) Noise and Air Quality Receptor Sites Number of Properties/ Units Represented Main Highway Noise Source(s) Distance from Main Highway Noise Source(s)* Site Location Description 19 Recreation Property 1 Tulpehocken Road 60 ft. Located along the northern side of Tulpehocken Road east of Berkshire Boulevard. 20 Hotel Property Warren St. Bypass 220 ft. The Inn at Reading located along the eastern side of the Warren Street Bypass between Park Road and Paper Mill Road. 21 Recreation Area Wyomissing Borough Ballfield located along the eastern side of Spring Street. Spring Street Warren St. Bypass 100 ft. 750 ft. 22 Residential Property 11 Park Road 50 ft. Location along the northern side of Park Road between North Wyomissing Boulevard and the Warren Street Bypass. 23 Residential Property 30 West Shore Bypass 120 ft. Located along the southern side of the West Shore Bypass 150 feet east of the Warren Street Bypass. 24 Residential Property 27 50 ft. N. Wyomissing Blvd Located along the eastern side of North Wyomissing Boulevard between the West Shore Bypass and Park Road 25 Residential Property 2 200 ft. Located along the southern side of the West Shore Bypass 100 feet east of North Wyomissing Boulevard. West Shore Bypass N. Wyomissing Blvd 100 ft. * Measured from Receptor Site to Centerline of Roadway. 111-44 TABLE 25 Summary of Existing Noise Levels (Corresponds with Plate 14) Monitored Noise Level Leg) Site Description 1 Residential 63 2 Residential 58 3 Residential 60 4 Residential 52 5 School Property 57 6 School Property 48 7 School Property 50 8 School Property 55 9 Residential 58 10 Residential 66 11 Residential 62 12 Residential 68 13 Hotel 59 14 Residential 64 15 Residential 55 16 Cemetery 64 17 Church 62 18 Residential 54 19 Recreational 55 20 Hotel 74 21 Recreational 54 22 Residential 63 23 Residential 77 24 Residential 57 25 Residential 59 111-45 ។ 13. Air Quality This section of the report describes the procedures used to characterize air quality within the study area. The CALINE 3 microscale line-source dispersion computer model, was used to characterize the existing and future carbon monoxide levels within the study area. The CALINE 3 computer model was used as described in FHWA report number FHWA/CA/TL-79/23, "CALINE 3 - A Versatile Dispersion Model for Predicting Air Pollutant Levels Near Highway and Arterial Streets." Emission rates were developed using MOBILE 4 computer model. MOBILE 4 computes emissions from highway motor vehicles utilizing the most recent emissions factors and calculating methodologies developed by the U.S. EPA. A total of 25 sites within the Park Road study area were used to model existing conditions and predict air quality impacts. The sites were selected based on their proximity to the existing and proposed project alternatives with emphasis on "hot spots" where concentrations could be higher. Receptor sites were located near projected traffic concentration areas and where the general public is likely to be exposed during peak traffic periods. The locations of the air quality study sites are presented on Plate 14 and a description of each is presented in Table 24. Once the study sites were selected, the CALINE 3 computer model was used to predict existing year 1990 and design year 2015 one-hour carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations at each of the study sites. In order to estimate background levels of CO in the vicinity of the project area, data from the 1989 Air Quality Report prepared by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources was reviewed. The closest and most comparable CO monitoring station to the project area is located in the Reading Air Basin south of the Schuylkill River which is approximately 3 miles south east of the study area. Data for 1989 at this monitoring station indicates an annual average one-hour background CO concentration of 6.2 ppm and an average eight-hour background CO concentration of 3.7 ppm. Table 26 indicates the worst-case one-hour and eight-hour carbon monoxide concentrations at all 25 receptor sites. Most of the variation between sites is based on variations in distances between the roadway and the air prediction site. C. Cultural Resources 1. Historic Resources An Historic Structures Survey Report was completed for the study area in December 1989. The field and office research for the survey was conducted in June and August of 1989. A total of thirty (30) locations, containing more than forty buildings or structures were considered. Six (6) properties were found which appear to meet the criterion for listing on the National Register 111-46 TABLE 26 CALINE 3 Existing Year 1990 Worst-Case Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) Year 1990 Existing Conditions Year 1990 Existing Conditions 1 Hour Site 8 Hour** Site 1 Hour 8 Hour** 1 6.9 4.1 14 8.2 4.8 2 6.6 3.9 15 6.9 4.1 3 6.4 3.8 16 7.1 4.2 4 6.4 3.8 17 7.0 4.1 5 7.1 4.2 18 6.8 4.0 6 6.5 3.9 19 7.2 4.2 7 6.6 3.9 20 8.3 4.8 8 6.7 3.9 21 8.7 5.1 9 6.8 4.0 22 8.8 5.1 10 8.1 4.7 23 9.1 5.3 11 6.6 3.9 24 7.6 4.5 12 7.3 4.3 25 9.0 5.2 13 7.2 4.2 Includes a background CO concentration of 6.2 ppm determined from the 1989 Air Quality report by PaDER. Includes a background CO concentration of 3.7 ppm determined from the 1989 Air Quality report by PaDER. of Historic Places: Kissinger's Union Church Complex, Janssen Historic District, Mary Van Reed House, John Van Reed House, Federal Paper Board Company Mill (Van Reed Paper Mill) and the Marshall House. The locations and boundaries of these properties are indicated on Plate 15. III-47 The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC), in correspondence dated April 11, 1990, determined that the above mentioned properties, excluding the Kissinger Union Church Complex, were eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (Appendix B, Page B-1). The PHMC also determined (April 11, 1990 letter) that an additional property, the A. Gaul District, was eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Based on a reevaluation of the Kissinger Union Church Complex, the PHMC determined that this property was eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (reference letter dated May 22, 1990, contained in Appendir B, Page B-3). On January 15, 1991, the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places concurred with the eligibility of these sites (reference letter contained in Appendix B, Pages B-7 to B-13). Subsequent to these determinations, additional historic research was conducted for the A. Gaul District property as part of the Phase II Archaeological Investigation in the winter and spring 1991. This additional research suggests that the A. Gaul District is not associated with the Union Canal and therefore the build: gs in the District were determined by PHMC not to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (reference letter dated A st 30, 1991, contained in Appendix B, Page B-14). In addition, notification of this change was also sent to the National Park Service, Keeper of the National Register. A letter from the National Park Service which documents that the A. Gaul District is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places is contained in Appendix B, Page B-19 of this report. > In the course of conducting the Phase I Archaeological Investigation for Alternative H, an additional historic property known as the John Withers House was also assessed for eligibility. However, this site was determined by PHMC not to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (reference letters dated August 30, 1991 and March 23, 1992, contained in Appendix B, Pages B-14, B-15 and B-16). A brief description of each of the historic sites determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places is given below. The locations of the properties are shown on Plate 15. Further information is contained in the report, "Historic Structures Survey, Park Road Corridor," December 1989 (Cultural Heritage Research Services). a. Kissinger's Union Church Complex This property is a nineteenth century complex made up of two separate historic boundary areas, making it a discontinuous historic district. One parcel consists of a church building, and a school associated with the church, while the other includes the cemetery associated with the church. Both parcels are located on either side of Kissinger's Lane (Berkshire Boulevard), north of Paper Mill Road in Wyomissing Borough. Kissinger's Church retains all of its nineteenth century integrity and character and has not been altered. It is a significant example of a rural church constructed and added-to with a high degree of quality and architectural expertise. The site is unchanged and retains all of its integrity. The nineteenth century church school stands in good condition to the north of the church and is still 111-48 in use. In addition, Kissinger's Cemetery, located to the southeast of the church, across the road, is also in good condition and currently in use. All of these elements contribute to the significance of the site, supporting its eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places for its architectural merit (Criterion C). b. Janssen Historic District This property is located at the intersection of Broadcasting Road and Tulpehocken Road in Spring Township. This varied complex of buildings is composed of three dwellings, one barn converted into a conference center, and an agricultural grouping. All of these structures were owned by the Henry Janssen Corporation from the early twentieth century through the 1970s. The historic district has a total of ten structures which range from early nineteenth century stone farmhouses to early twentieth century agricultural structures. The district is significant as an example of a continual spectrum of agricultural practice over 175 years, and for its association with Henry Janssen, one of the most prominent men in the history of Berks County after 1890. The Janssen Historic District appears to meet two of the criteria of eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The District is significant architecturally (Criterion C), and also is significant for its association with Henry Janssen, one of the most prominent and progressive industrialists in Berks County (Criterion B). Janssen left a lasting imprint on the landscape ranging from the buildings formerly of Wyomissing Industries, the Borough of Wyomissing, and a complex of farmsteads which were the headquarters of his Tulpehocken Farms scientific farming operations. c. Mary Van Reed House This nineteenth century stone dwelling is located on the south side of Tulpehocken Road approximately 1400 feet east of Paper Mill Road. The house is significant for its association with the Van Reed family, one of the most important families in Berks County during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This house was built and used by Henry Van Reed, who was the second generation Van Reed to run the paper milling operations in this location. John Van Reed, Henry's father, was a miller, and was the first of the Van Reeds to make paper in this location. This house appears to meet two of the criteria of eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The house meets Criterion C because of its architectural merit. It also meets Criterion B because of its association with the Van Reed family. The house was constructed in 1820 according to the date stone. Henry Van Reed built a paper mill in Lower Heidelberg Township but died prior to seeing its operation (1826). Henry purchased a grist and saw mill and plantation of 178 acres in 1820, and he converted it to paper making, operating it until his death. 了 ​1 II1-49 d. John Van Reed House This eighteenth century frame house is situated at the intersection of Paper Mill Road and Tulpehocken Road in Spring Township. This house was originally built in 1776 by John Van Reed, and renovated in 1940 by Henry Janssen. This house appears to meet two of the criteria of eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, specifically meeting Criteria B and C. The building is significant under Criterion B for its association with John Van Reed, the progenator of the Van Reed family's milling operations in the region. John Van Reed was born on the family homestead in Amity Township in 1747. Van Reed purchased a mill and 170 acres; he operated this mill as a grist and saw mill while farming the land. The John Van Reed house is also significant for its architectural merit (Criterion C). The house is one of the earliest in the area and one in the highest state of preservation and integrity. The house is an excellent example of a Georgian house with all of its elements intact. The roof, fenestration, exterior materials, windows, and porches all appear to date to the erection of the house. Few eighteenth century houses remain in this section of Berks County with as much integrity and in such good condition. In addition, the house's context remains, resting on a slight rise overlooking what once was the family paper mill, with farmland stretching out to the east of the house. These elements contribute to the significant of the house. e. Van Reed Paper Mill This structure is a large brick paper-mill, located at the intersection of Tulpehocken and Cacoosing Creeks, historically utilizing Cacoosing Creek for its power source. The main section of the building sits on Van Reed Road. This mill was constructed in the late 1880's on the site of an earlier paper mill operated since the early nineteenth century by the Van Reed family. As a location of paper making since the mid-nineteenth century to the present, this site appears to meet the criteria of eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, specifically meeting Criterion A for its association with the history of paper making in Berks County and Pennsylvania. f. Marshall House This two and one-half story stone dwelling is situated on the south side of Tulpehocken Creek, on Tulpehocken Road and about 1,000 feet northwest of U.S. Route 422 in Wyomissing Borough. This house appears to date to the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century, and is one of the oldest buildings in the area with good integrity and in good condition. The house is a significant historic resource, one of the few farmhouses from this period which has not been substantially altered. The house appears to meet the criteria of eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, specifically meeting Criterion B for its association with the Gring family, and Criterion C: architectural significance. III-50 The Gring family was one of the most prominent and largest landowners in Spring Township in the nineteenth century. By 1876, the Grings owned at least six farmsteads and one grist-mill along Tulpehocken Creek. The Grings most likely rented the Marshall House to a tenant who farmed the land in this area. The Marshall House is an excellent example of circa 1800 construction with all of its elements intact. The house is a roughly laid stone dwelling in early Georgian form. 2. Archaeological Resources A Phase I Archaeological Survey report was prepared for the study area in May 1990. The field and office research for the survey was conducted in early Fall 1989 and late Spring 1990. Three (3) prehistoric sites (designated 36Bk616, 36Bk617, and 36Bk621) and one (1) historic archaeological site (designated 36Bk622) were found within the boundaries of the study area. Sites 36Bk616 and 36Bk617 are located at the northwestern end of the project area. Site 36Bk616 is adjacent to the Outer Bypass between Paper Mill Road and Tulpehocken Creek. Site 36Bk617 occurs just east of Site 36Bk616 on a flat area adjacent to a drainage swale. Sites 36Bk621 and 36Bk622 are located at the southeastern end of the project area. Site 36Bk621 occurs on a terrace adjacent to the west side of the Schuylkill River. Site 36Bk622 is located on the south side of North Wyomissing Road just west of the Schuylkill River and Site 36Bk621. The Phase I survey recommended that Phase II testing be done at each of the sites to determine site boundaries, site integrity and the ability of the available data to provide information important to the study of regional history and prehistory. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) in correspondence dated November 20, 1990, determined that the Phase I studies for the project are complete. Minor revisions were recommended by the PHMC to the proposed Phase II Work Plan for Sites 36Bk616, 36Bk617, and 36Bk621 (Appendix B, Page B-19). Subsequent to completion of the Phase II survey, Alternative H (Hybrid Alternative) was developed. This necessitated additional Phase I studies as Alternative H entails areas of new alignment which were not previously investigated for archaeological resources. The subject areas of new alignment are between Broadcasting Road and the Warren Street Bypass, as well as areas proposed for the relocated Paper Mill Road. It was determined that this additional Phase I work would be completed in conjunction with the Phase II studies recommended pursuant to the initial Phase I survey. The results of the Phase II Archaeological Survey for the sites previously described and the results of the Phase I Archaeological Survey for Alternative H were documented in a report issued in May 1991. The field office research for these studies were done in the winter and early spring 1991. III-51 1 Two prehistoric sites (Sites 36Bk632 and 36Bk633) for were discovered by the additional Phase I archaeological field investigation Alternative H. Site 36Bk632 is located south of Paper Mill Road and west of Broadcasting Road. Site 36Bk633 occurs south of Paper Mill Road and east of the Outer Bypass. The small number of artifacts present, their limited distribution, and the lack of diagnostic material suggest that little additional site specific or regional information would be gained through further research. These lithic scatters are unlikely to produce information significant to our knowledge of regional prehistory. The sites were not considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. No additional work was recommended at these locations. The PHMC concurred that Sites 36Bk632 and 633 are not eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. This is documented in the October 31, 1991 letter from PHMC which is included in Appendix B, Page B-21. The results of the Phase II studies indicated that three (3) of the study sites (36Bk616, 36Bk617 and 36Bk622) do not meet the criteria of eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. No additional work was recommended at these sites. The PHMC concurred that Sites 36Bk617 and 622 are ineligible to the National Register of Historic Places (October 31, 1991 letter). The PHMC requested additional information regarding the analysis of fill at Site 36Bk616. At Site 36Bk621, approximately 2,200 artifacts were recovered. These artifacts demonstrated that the site was multicomponent, including material from the Late Archaic and the Late Woodland. Site 36Bk621 is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The site meets Criterion D, because it contains information important in prehistory. Phase II testing demonstrated that 1) the site is intact beneath fills; 2) subsurface features are present; 3) differential density of artifacts is present; 4) differential distribution of lithic types is present; 5) differential distribution of temporal/cultural components is present; and 6) differing activity zones can be identified. The site can be readily compared to regional models, as well as local upland sites. Thus, the data is likely to provide information important to the study of regional prehistory. Should the proposed project be unable to avoid this site, data recovery investigations are recommended. The PHMC concurred that Site 36Bk621 is eligible to the National Register of Historic Places and that a recovery plan should be implemented if the site is affected. This is documented in the October 31, 1991 letter from PHMC which is included in Appendix B, Page B-21 of this report. Since that date, letters dated June 10, 1992 and January 28, 1993 from PHMC were received on the topic of preparing a Final Phase I/Phase II Archaeological Report. Copies of these letters can be found in Appendir B, Pages B-23 and B-25. III-52 D. Traffic Studies 1. Traffic Volumes Pertinent traffic studies conducted within the project area were consulted for information regarding existing traffic volumes. These sources include: Turning movement, classification, and automatic traffic recorder (ATR) counts from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) for 1987 through 1990 and the Berks County Planning Commission. Updated Traffic Analysis, Meridian Meridian Operations Center prepared by Orth-Rodgers-Thompson and Associates Inc. (October 5, 1987). The most recent traffic counts (those conducted in 1990) were used to establish the existing peak hour traffic volumes at the major intersections within the study area. All count data prior to 1990 was adjusted to reflect 1990 traffic according to site specific information about development in the study area. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the existing network were developed from existing 1990 ATR counts conducted at various locations throughout the study area for 24 hour time periods. These counts were used to determine the percent of daily traffic occurring during the peak hour (k-factor). The peak hour intersection counts were then factored into daily volumes with the use of the k-factor for the given peak hours considered. The 1990 existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes are shown in Plate 16, and the 1990 existing morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Plates 17 and 18, respectively. Volumes on Paper Mill Road range from 7,200 vehicles per day (vpd) near the Outer Bypass to 8,400 vpd approaching the Warren Street Bypass, while daily volumes on the Warren Street Bypass range from 22,000 vpd south of Paper Mill Road to 70,000 vpd north of the West Shore Bypass. The West Shore Bypass carries an average of 51,200 vpd through this area. Existing volumes on Park Road average 21,100 vpd near the Warren Street Bypass, where combined approach volumes at this location reach as much as 4,790 vehicles during the afternoon peak hour. The southbound left turns from Warren Street to Park Road and the right turns on both east and west approaches of Park Road are heavy during the peak hours. There are 290 left turns from southbound Warren Street onto Park Road during the afternoon peak hour. There are 665 right turns from westbound Park Road onto the Warren Street Bypass and 590 right turns from the eastbound Park Road approach onto the Warren Street Bypass. 111-53 2. Level of Service Analysis While traffic volumes provide a measure of activity on the area roadway system, it is also important to evaluate how well that system can accommodate those volumes, that is a comparison of the peak traffic volumes with available roadway capacity. Intersections are usually the critical points in any roadway network since it is at such points that conflicts between through, crossing, and turning traffic exists and where congestion is most likely to occur. Factors which affect the various approach capacities at signalized intersections include width of approach, number of lanes, signal green time, turning volumes, truck percentages, etc. The level of service for each of the six major intersections was determined using the methodology of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board Special Report 209. The methodology for analyzing signalized intersections addresses the capacity and level of service of intersection approaches and the level of service of the intersection as a whole. Capacity is evaluated in terms of the ratio of demand flow to capacity (v/c ratio) while level of service is evaluated on the basis of average stopped delay per vehicle (sec/veh). The relationship between level of service and delay is presented in Table 27. At unsignalized intersections (i.e., two-way STOP or YIELD controlled intersections), the analysis addresses only a relative level of service for traffic on the minor street and left-turns from the major street. It is based on the use of gaps in the major street traffic stream by vehicles crossing or turning through that stream. The level of service and the related expected delay is based on the reserve or unused capacity of the lane or approach, as shown in Table 28. There is no relationship between the levels of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections. As discussed in Section IV.D., it was determined that the afternoon peak hour controlled the design process; therefore, only the afternoon peak hour levels of service are presented and discussed here. Plate 19 depicts the existing afternoon peak hour levels of service and associated lane configuration for the six key intersections in the study area. All intersections, except the Paper Mill Road/Berkshire Boulevard and Park Road/Spring Street intersections, are signalized. Of the signalized intersections, all operate at LOS D or better with the exception of Park Road and the Warren Street Bypass, which operate at LOS F during the afternoon peak hour. The average delay at the Park Road/Warren Street Bypass intersection is over 100 seconds, while delays at the other intersections range from 10 to 33 seconds. At the unsignalized intersections, the through movement and left turn movement on the minor streets (i.e., Berkshire Boulevard and Spring Street) operate at level of service E or F. The minor street right turn and major street left turns operate at level of service A or B, with the exception of the westbound left turn on Park Road, which operates at level of service D. The analysis procedure assumes that the through movement and right turn on the major street are unimpeded. III-54 TABLE 27 Levels of Service for Signalized Intersections DELAY (sec./veh.) LOS DESCRIPTION А 0.0 - 5.0 B | 5.1 - 15.0 - С 15.1 - 25.0 - Delays are very low, i.e., less than 5.0 seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. The range for LOS B delay generally occurs with good progression or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher average delays. These higher delays may result from fair progression or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. At LOS D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume/capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume/capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently. These delays are considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur with volume/capacity ratios close to 1.0. Most cycles will fail. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing causes. D 25.1 - 40.0 E 40.1 - 60.0 F > 60.0 Source: National Research Council, Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209). Washington: Transportation Research Board, 1985. 111-55 TABLE 28 Levels of Service for Unsignalized Intersections Reserve Capacity (pass. cars / hour) Expected Delay to Minor Street Traffic LOS 400 А 300 - 399 O B 200 - 299 С Little or no delay Short delays Average delays Long delays Very long delays 100 - 199 D 0 - 99 E F When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered. Long queues may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. NOTE: The levels of service shown for unsignalized intersections are not associated with the delay values for unsignalized intersections. Source: National Research Council, Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209). Washington: Transportation Research Board, 1985. III-56 IV. Environmental Consequences IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES > This chapter presents the results of the impacts and mitigation analysis which was conducted for the No-Build and Alternatives A, F, G and H. The results documented in this FEIS are primarily for Alternative A, which has been identified as the selected alternative. Detailed descriptions of the impacts and mitigation measures for Alternatives F, G and H are presented in the DEIS. For information in where to locate the DEIS see the Preface of this report. A. The Social Environment 1. Land Use Although this project would connect two roads which primarily carry regional traffic, there would be little change to regional development patterns as a result of any of the project build alternatives. Alternatives A and H would alter local development to an extent, but would have little effect on regional development patterns. Alternatives F and G would have little effect on regional or local development patterns. East of the Warren Street Bypass, development patterns are well established and commercial and residential development is most common. Upon completion of the proposed project, the highway structure which would link the West Shore Bypass and the Warren Street Bypass with the Outer Bypass would traverse this area. Existing structures in the right-of-way of the proposed alignment, and not otherwise protected, would be acquired. Although all of the project build alternatives would require the acquisition of some land that is planned for future development, according to the Berks County Comprehensive Plan Revision, ".... scattered and sprawl development along with an incomplete highway network, have severely overburdened certain rural and suburban roads." Alternative A was determined to be the most consistent with the plan in addressing these problems since it effectively separates local and regional traffic. While there are conflicts over the use of some of the land due to the various build alternatives, much development is under construction, or in planning, which would benefit from an improved transportation system in the area (Table 1/Plate 6). No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative would not complete the regional highway link between the West Shore and Warren Street Bypasses and the Outer Bypass, would not provide relief to local vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and would not accommodate increased traffic demands associated with the rapid development which is occurring in the study area. ! 3 IV-1 Alternative A Alternative A would primarily require the acquisition of 45.8 acres of agricultural land which is currently zoned for commercial use. In addition, one residence located on Resh Avenue and two residences located on North Wyomissing Boulevard would be acquired as a result of this alternative. Alternative A would also require the acquisition of one business. This business, the Greater Reading Board of Realtors is located on North Wyomissing Boulevard. Alternative A would also require the acquisition of approximately 14 acres of the 27 acre property owned by Country Meadows, a nursing home facility. This 14 acres is currently made up of vacant land which is planned for the extension of Country Meadows. In addition, Alternative A would require the acquisition of approximately 23 acres of a 103 acre parcel proposed by Spring Ridge, Inc., for office/business development. In total, Alternative A would require the acquisition of approximately 183 acres of land for highway use. Alternatives F and G - In total, Alternatives F and G would require the acquisition of approximately 47 and 48 acres of land each for highway use. In addition, Denny's Restaurant, and an Elby's Restaurant, located at the intersection of Paper Mill and Woodland Roads, would be required as a result of intersection improvements associated with Alternatives F and G. In addition, Interior Environments, a business located at the intersection of Paper Mill and Broadcasting Roads and the Spring Ridge, Inc. office located on the south side of Paper Mill Road, west of Broadcasting Road would be acquired as a result of Alternatives F and G. Up to nine residences located in the Colony Park development adjacent to Paper Mill Road would be displaced as a result of the construction of a noise wall. The final determination of the a number of residences to be taken will be made following detailed noise analysis during final project design. Alternatives F and G would affect the recently completed Stone Hill Farms and Meridian Corporate Center, as well as three separate parcels owned by Spring Ridge, Inc. by limiting access to these parcels along Paper Mill Road, which is their only source of access. Alternative H - In total, Alternative H would require the acquisition of approximately 206 acres of land for highway use. In addition, the same three residences as Alternative A and three businesses including the Greater Reading Board of Realtors located on North Wyomissing Avenue and two business located along Paper Mill Road including Interior Environments and the Spring Ridge, Inc. Office would be acquired as a result of Alternative H. Alternative H would affect Country Meadows at Wyomissing, a nursing home facility, the Meridian Corporate Center, the Treeview Corporate Center, and three separate parcels owned by Spring Ridge, Inc., which are presently in agricultural land, but proposed for residential, mixed use and office/business development. IV-2 Mitigation Coordination with local officials of Berks County, Spring Township, and Wyomissing Borough will be conducted throughout the project development and construction process to minimize adverse land use impacts. PennDOT will work closely with these local officials to ensure consistency with local land use goals and with proposed and conceptual developments. 2. Population and Housing No-Build Alternative - No property acquisition or displacement of residents would be required with the No-Build Alternative. - Alternative A Construction of the Alternative A would require the acquisition of three residences. These residences are single family, detached dwellings. One is located on Resh Avenue and the other two are located on North Wyomissing Boulevard. Ramps from the proposed interchange with the Warren Street Bypass would require the acquisition of the property along Resh Avenue while the two properties along North Wyomissing Boulevard would be acquired due to the proposed diamond interchange between North Wyomissing Boulevard and the West Shore Bypass. In addition, Alternative A would require the acquisition of approximately 14 acres of the 27 acre property owned by Country Meadows, a nursing home facility. This 14 acres is currently made up of vacant land, therefore, there would be no impacts to the existing population and housing at this facility. Alternatives F and G Alternatives For G could require the acquisition of up to nine residences from the Colony Park development due to the construction of a noise wall along Paper Mill Road. The final determination of the number of residences to be taken will be made following detailed noise analysis during the final design phase of this project. Alternative H - Alternative H would require the acquisition of the same three residences as Alternative A and the vacant land owned by Country Meadows. None of the project alternatives would have an adverse effect on any ethnic or racial groups in the area. However, Alternatives A and H would limit expansion of the Country Meadows nursing home facility. Although this limitation would have no effect on the area's overall existing elderly population, it would somewhat limit an increase of the elderly population in the study area. Mitigation The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation provides comprehensive relocation assistance to all displaced persons who must relocate because of a highway construction project. Property to be acquired is compensated for at current fair market value, supplemental housing payments are provided, and some costs associated with property closing, household moving, professional IV-3 services and other items are covered. Authority for this program is contained in the Eminent Domain Code Act of June 22, 1964 (Public Law 84) as amended, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as amended, and the Nondiscriminatory Relocation Act as amended. Policies and procedures have been implemented to assure that every displaced person will have or will be offered, a comparable decent, safe and sanitary replacement dwelling. The Department will provide a current list of suitable housing for sale or rent, and will provide available information regarding financing, mortgages, interest rates and terms, leases, taxes and related matters. The recent influx of new housing construction within the study area is anticipated to provide ample opportunity for the relocation of residents. 3. Economy and Employment - No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative would not require the acquisition of property from any businesses. However, this alternative would allow the traffic condition to deteriorate, causing negative repercussions for all business within and surrounding the project area. Increased congestion would slow the delivery of goods and lengthen delays for potential customers as they travel to these businesses. Alternative A - Alternative A would require the acquisition of one business. This business, the Greater Reading Board of Realtors, is located where North Wyomissing Boulevard meets the West Shore Bypass (422/222). In addition, due to the engineering complexity of this area, the need to acquire the Self Storage facility which is located adjacent to the Greater Reading Board of Realtors will be determined during the final design phase of the project. During final design, a decision will be made on the engineering feasibility of providing access to the property. If access cannot be provided, this property will be acquired. Existing businesses may benefit as a result of Alternatives A and H, particularly in the vicinity of the Warren Street Bypass and the West Shore Bypass. Traffic is often congested in this area due to the existing mix of regional and local traffic and the at grade signalized intersection at Park Road. Alternatives A and H would eliminate the at grade intersection at Park Road and would separate regional from local traffic in the area. Access to existing businesses would be maintained. Alternatives F and G Alternatives F and G would each require the acquisition of four businesses including a Denny's Restaurant, Interior Environments, the Spring Ridge, Inc. Office and an Elby's Restaurant. In addition, Alternatives F and G would disrupt access to the Sheraton Inn, Wellesely Inn, Silo and Levitz to provide the additional turning lanes required for these alternatives. 1 I 1 IV-4 Alternatives F and G would require regional traffic to use local access roadways in the study area. This mix of regional and local traffic would cause traffic delays, particularly in the areas of the Warren Street and West Shore Bypasses, Berkshire Boulevard and Woodland Road that may be disruptive to area businesses. - Alternative H - Alternative H would result in the acquisition of three businesses including the Greater Reading Board of Realtors, Interior Environments and the Spring Ridge, Inc. Office. Alternative H would also require the acquisition of land used for approximately 60 percent of the parking area from the recently completed Treeview Corporate and Professional Center. As with Alternative A, Alternative H may require the acquisition of the Self Storage facility located where North Wyomissing Boulevard meets the West Shore Bypass (422/222). Due to the engineering complexity of this area, the need to acquire the Self Storage facility which is located adjacent to the Greater Reading Board of Realtors will be determined during the final design phase of the project. During final design, a decision will be made on the engineering feasibility of providing access to the property. If access cannot be provided, this property will be acquired. All of the build alternatives would cause short term impacts on the economy of the study area during the construction of the proposed project. There would be an increased number of jobs in the construction industry, and also a need to acquire construction materials and related services. In addition, a portion of the income of those persons employed to construct the project would be spent in the study area which would, to some extent, stimulate its economy. Most materials needed for construction would most likely come from outside the study area, however, some may be obtained within the study area. . None of the project alternatives would affect the overall economic conditions of Berks County. However, an important regional highway link would be completed as a result of the project and would therefore facilitate the shipment of goods and services as well as serve regional commuters more efficiently than the existing highway network. As a result of the project needs and traffic studies, it was determined that Alternative A would be the most efficient in providing this link since it would totally separate regional and local traffic. The negative economic impact associated with the construction of any of the build alternatives would be the relocation of businesses. This impact would be mitigated by providing for the relocation of these businesses to nearby comparable locations. These impacts are not anticipated to have a significant effect on the area economy or employment (Table 11/Plate 7). ] Mitigation Relocation assistance would be provided to all displaced businesses and institutions by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Property to be acquired is compensated for at fair market value and some costs associated with business dislocation damages, personal property IV-5 27 loss, moving costs, professional fees and the like are covered. Authority for this program is contained in the Eminent Domain Code Act of June 22, 1964 (Public Law 84) as amended, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as amended, and the Nondiscriminatory Relocation Act as amended. Where feasible, adverse impacts to business access will be alleviated through channelizing traffic with mountable barriers and signing. 4. Municipal Finances To determine the effects of each project alternative on real estate tax revenues, properties which would be removed from the local tax base were identified. All lands within the rights-of-way owned by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) or by local governments, including streets and highways, were considered to be tax exempt. The remaining real estate was considered to be taxable. Losses of real estate tax revenues are based on these taxable properties. Some remnant parcels of properties acquired by PennDOT which are not required for construction of the project may be returned to private ownership for future development. Tax revenues generated by these parcels will off-set some tax revenue losses of the project. No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative would not require any property acquisition and therefore would not reduce real estate tax revenues. - Alternative A - Alternative A would require approximately 140 acres of land for new highway right-of-way. Approximately 55 percent of this acreage would be acquired from Spring Township and approximately 45 percent would be acquired from Wyomissing Borough. The cost associated with this right-of-way acquisition was estimated by PennDOT in 1989 to be approximately $8.5 million. These 140 acres include residential and commercial properties as well as residential and commercially zoned farmland, all of which are currently taxable lands. The total real estate revenue lost as a result of Alternative A and the percent of the total tax revenue lost by all of the taxing entities are presented on Table 29. . Alternatives F. G and H - The total real estate revenue lost as a result of Alternatives F, G and H and the percent of the total tax revenue lost by all of the taxing entities are presented on Table 29. Due to the relative sizes of the taxing entities, it has been determined that the losses incurred would not have long-term adverse effects to the respective tax bases. In addition, new construction which is occurring throughout the study area would more than offset any of these losses. IV-6 TABLE 29 Losses of Tax Revenue Alternatives A F G H Loss of Tax Revenue % of Total Loss of Tax Revenue % of Total Loss of Tax Revenue % of Total Loss of Tax Revenue % of Total Taxing Entity Berks County $24,384 (0.10) $8,606 (0.03) $8,893 (0.03) $27,827 (0.11) Spring Township $ 4,371 (0.29) $1,935 (0.13) $2,000 (0.13) $ 4,988 (0.33) Wyomissing Borough $ 7,153 (0.92) $1,739 (0.22) $1,797 (0.23) $ 8,163 (1.05) Wilson School District $93,203 (1.47) $32,895 (0.52) $33,992 (0.54) $106,361 (1.68) 5. Community Facilities and Services The community facilities which are located within the study area are listed in Table 14 and depicted on Plate 8. a. Health and Safety No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative would result in continued traffic congestion and delays for emergency service vehicles such as ambulance, police and fire vehicles. Alternatives A and H - The Country Meadows Nursing Home Facility would be directly affected as a result of Alternatives A and H. Expansion of Country Meadows, located off of Tulpehocken Road would be limited as a result of Alternatives A and H. A portion of the land proposed for future development of the facility would be acquired for construction of either Alternative A or H. There are no major medical facilities in the study area therefore, there would be no direct impacts as a result of the alternatives. The nearest major medical facilities are in Reading and West Reading, and would be indirectly affected in a positive way. By completing an important regional highway link, Alternatives A and H would facilitate travel to and from the study area and these health care facilities. IV-7 Ambulance service, as well as fire and police protection throughout the study area, is not limited by corporate boundaries. Alternatives A and H would provide a direct, positive impact by providing improved access between municipalities. By providing a direct regional highway connection between U.S. 422 and the Outer Bypass, response time to the residents of Spring Township and Wyomissing Borough would be improved. The City of Reading and other neighboring municipalities, where additional services are provided, would be more efficiently accessed as a result of Alternatives A and H. S Alternatives F and G - Alternatives F and G would not separate regional and local traffic and would not alleviate regional traffic use of local roadways. This would create an indirect negative impact. Therefore, Alternatives F and G may not facilitate travel to and from the study area and the major medical facilities in Reading and West Reading. Alternatives F and G do provide improved access between municipalities and the regional highway network, therefore, they would not improve response time to the residents they serve. Local peak hour traffic conditions may cause congestion and decrease access and response time of emergency vehicles to the study area. Ambulance service, as well as fire and police protection would be indirectly affected and would not benefit as a result of these alternatives. b. Educational Facilities No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative would result in continued delays for students on school buses which travel along Paper Mill Road. This condition would worsen as traffic volumes build and traffic congestion increases. Alternatives A and H - No schools would be acquired as a result of Alternatives A and H, only minor right-of-way takes would be necessary from Penn State, Berks Campus. However, construction of these Alternatives would improve school bus service in the area and provide an indirect, positive impact. In addition, by removing regional traffic, local roads would become less congested with traffic and ultimately safer for local traffic including school buses. Alternatives F and G - Although neither Alternatives F nor G require the acquisition of any schools, they do not improve school bus service in the area. Buses from the Wilson School District which serve the study area would have to mix with regional traffic while picking up and delivering students. This mix of regional and local traffic could create a potentially dangerous situation for school students in the study area. c. Parks and Recreation Facilities No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative would have no direct impact on any parks or recreation facilities in the study area. Alternatives A and H - Alternatives A and H would have no direct impacts on any parks or recreational facilities in the study area. IV-8 Alternatives F and G - Alternatives F and G would indirectly impact existing access to the Spring Township Ballfield. Motorists traveling westbound on Paper Mill Road will be restricted from making left turns off of Paper Mill Road, into the ballfield parking area due to a raised median along Paper Mill Road associated with these alternatives. Parking on the grass area at the ballfield would not be restricted or reduced as a result of this alternative. d, Transportation The Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority (BARTA) operates the Spring Township Bus which travels from 5th and Penn Streets in Reading to Paper Mill and Woodland Roads in Spring Township. - No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative would result in increased traffic congestion along area roadways which would lend to longer bus trips which may eventually discourage passengers. Alternatives A and H - Alternatives A and H would facilitate local passenger pick-ups and drop-offs by separating local and regional traffic. Both of these alternatives would provide a direct regional link between the West Shore and Warren Street Bypasses and the Outer Bypass and therefore, would allow Paper Mill Road to remain solely a local roadway. Alternatives F and G - Alternatives F and G do not separate local and regional traffic and therefore, do not facilitate local passenger pick-ups and drop-offs. Additionally, both of these alternatives would be constructed with a raised median barrier along Paper Mill Road, which would further complicate local bus routes. e. Utilities No-Build Alternative - The implementation of the No-Build Alternative would not alter any utility service within the project study area. O Alternatives A and H - Alternatives A and H would affect sewerage service in Wyomissing Borough due to the relocation of the Resh Avenue pumping station located near the interchange of the West Shore and Warren Street Bypasses. In addition, the relocation of lines approaching and departing from this station, would further affect service to Wyomissing Borough. Alternatives F and G - Alternatives F and G would require frontage from the Spring Township Sewage Pumping Station, but would not affect its operations. Mitigation During the final design phase of this project, detailed utilities investigations will be completed in compliance with PA Act 172. These studies will involve locating all underground and above IV-9 ground utilities within the project area. At that time, measures to avoid these utilities will be investigated and if necessary, utility relocation plans will be developed. 6. Community Cohesion The cohesive communities which exist in the study area are depicted on Plate 9 and are listed on Table 18. a. Northwest of the Warren Street Bypass - No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative would result in a continued physical barrier to the north and south of Paper Mill Road. Traffic traveling on Paper Mill Road would continue to generate safety, noise and air quality concerns for the residence of Colony Park and Stone Hill Farms. O Alternative A - Alternative A would not create any physical barriers between the communities described in Section III - A.6 and shown on Plate 9. The two communities of Country Meadows and Penn State Berks Campus would both be located to the north of Alternative A. They are both separate communities which are not part of the cohesive residential communities which would be located to the south of Alternative A. These communities include Seven Oaks, Stone Hill Farms and Colony Park. - Alternatives F and G - Alternatives F and G would follow existing Paper Mill Road, but, would require improvements to the existing road, including an interchange connection with the Outer Bypass. These alternatives would cause a physical barrier between developments to the north and south of Paper Mill Road. This barrier could affect the cohesiveness of the study area by affecting the commuting patterns of its residents to and from each others homes, places of employment, shopping centers and places of recreation. West of the Colony Park residential development, in an open field owned by Tulpehocken Limited and zoned for residential development, Paper Mill Road would have to be relocated to provide local access, as a result of Alternative H. The course that this alternative would follow would cause a physical barrier between the Country Meadows Nursing Home Facility and Penn State, Berks Campus to the north and the remainder of the study area to the south. b. Southeast of the Warren Street Bypass No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative would result in continued traffic congestion which would affect motorists and pedestrians alike. - Alternatives A and H - None of the project alternatives would affect the cohesiveness which exist in the areas southeast of the Warren Street Bypass known as the North Wyomissing IV-10 Residential Area and the Wynnewood at Wyomissing Apartments. Alternatives A and H would occur to the west of these communities and would therefore have no effect on the existing cohesiveness which exists. Alternatives F and G - Alternatives F and G occur well to the south of the communities and would also not affect the existing cohesiveness of these communities. Mitigation Throughout the final design and construction phases, there will be a continual effort to inform property owners of the most recent project developments. There will also be one-on-one meetings with affected property owners and communities during the right-of-way acquisition phase and during the detailed noise barrier studies. 1. Visual Resources Although views of and from the project area would be altered as a result of each build alternative, changes in visual resources are also anticipated under the No-Build Alternative. Construction has been approved and scheduled for completion by 1992 for office/business and commercial developments and a Spring Township road on the agricultural lands north of Paper Mill Road and west of Broadcasting Road. These developments will be visible from a large portion of the study area west of Berkshire Boulevard. The resulting changes in the visual resources west of Broadcasting Road would be from a rural/agricultural setting to a commercial setting. a Due to the proximity of Alternatives A, F, G and H, the extent of the viewshed from each build alternative is similar. A description of the views of and from each alternative are provided below in relation to three partitions of the study area: 1) the Outer Bypass to Broadcasting Road; 2) Broadcasting Road to Berkshire Boulevard; and 3) Berkshire Boulevard to the Warren Street Bypass. No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on the visual character of the study area. Alternative A Between the Outer Bypass and Broadcasting Road, Alternative A would primarily be constructed on fill, bridging the planned Township Road and Broadcasting Road. From this raised vantage point, motorists would be provided with a view of agricultural lands, Penn State University-Berks Campus lands and portions of the County Park lands along Tulpehocken Creek to the north. To the south, the viewshed would include forested areas along Van Reed Road, the WEEU Radio towers and Meridian Corporate Center. Views from the study area would be altered by construction of this alternative. Fill slopes and structures would obstruct distant views to the north of Paper Mill Road. In closer proximity to IV-11 pad Paper Mill Road, visual resources would be composed of recent commercial development and the WEEU Radio towers. In the portion of the study area between Broadcasting Road and Berkshire Boulevard, the majority of the proposed alignment would be at-grade with the exception of the ramps and grade-separated structure at Broadcasting Road. Views from this alignment to the north would consist of the buildings, landscaped areas and forest parcels of Penn State University - Berks Campus. To the south, agricultural lands bordered in the distance by residential and commercial development would comprise the view. To the east, Berkshire Boulevard would be elevated to cross over the proposed mainline. This roadway structure and fill slopes of the proposed access ramps to and from the Warren Street Bypass, would command the view from Alternative A and the surrounding area in this portion of the study area. Views to the north from the residential and commercial areas along Paper Mill Road and Berkshire Boulevard would be altered. The proposed alignment would be visible from Broadcasting Road, Paper Mill Road and Berkshire Boulevard. Views to the south from Penn State University - Berks Campus would also be altered by the presence of the roadway. With the proposed elevation of Berkshire Boulevard and construction of the interchange ramps to connect with Warren Street Bypass, views of and from areas adjacent to Berkshire Boulevard would be obstructed by roadway fill slopes. In particular, the northern view from the recently constructed Seven Oaks townhouses and the southern view from Country Meadows, a recently constructed nursing home facility, would include highway fill slopes (Figure 26). The viewshed between Berkshire Boulevard and Warren Street Bypass would also be altered by the construction of interchange ramps. Views from the proposed roadway would be enhanced from the elevated ramps and would include views of Tulpehocken Creek and the County parklands. Views from this area would be dominated by the proposed facility. Alternative F - With the exception of the relocated section of Van Reed Road and the additional turning lanes at the intersection of Broadcasting Road, Berkshire Boulevard and Woodland Road, the viewshed of and from Alternative F would not be altered from that of the No-Build condition. Alternative G - Alternative G is similar to that of Alternative F with the addition of a a reconstructed interchange at the Warren Street Bypass and Paper Mill Road. The visual setting of the residences immediately east of the interchange with Paper Mill Road and the Warren Street Bypass would be somewhat obstructed to the west by fill slopes associated with the proposed interchange ramps. Alternative H - Between the Outer Bypass and Broadcasting Road, Alternative H would follow the existing alignment of Paper Mill Road, but would be constructed primarily on fill, bridging the planned Township Road at two places and bridging Broadcasting Road. IV-12 Kissinger Union Church Country Meadows of Wyomissing Kissinger Union Cemetery ནངོ་༼བ་ I'Sast Hit April promo WESTSHORE BYPASS . WARREN ST. BYPASS – PARK ROAD kollade 6 OD Inn at Reading L BERKSHIRE BLVDS US-422 N NOT TO SCALE. Build Alternative A & H Interchange with Warren Street and West Shore Bypass Figure 26 IV-13 Views from the residential areas along Paper Mill Road and Berkshire Boulevard would be altered. The relocation of Paper Mill Road from just west of Colony Park residential area to Broadcasting Road would be visible from residences and the Township ballfield in Colony Park. In the area between Berkshire Boulevard and the Warren Street Bypass, the proposed interchange between Alternative H and the Warren Street Bypass and its affects on the area viewshed are similar to that described for Alternative A. The viewshed is represented in Figure 26. Mitigation To minimize impacts to the viewshed of the project area, embankments could be contoured to provide vegetative screens of the new roadway facility, particularly for the area between Berkshire Boulevard and the Warren Street Bypass with Alternatives A and H. Establishment of vegetative screens is also recommended for all build alternatives in the vicinity of the proposed connection with the Outer Bypass. B. The Natural Environment 1. Geology and Groundwater a. Geology The Carbonate Formations present in the study area are difficult to excavate. The unweathered rock can provide good foundation stability, but solution cavities and even large caverns are known to occur in these formations. The limestone and dolomite are a good source of construction materials, suitable for road material, fill, riprap, and embankment facing. Bedrock engineering characteristics for those limestone formations encountered in the study area are presented in Table 30 and shown on Plate 10. The alluvial deposits are variable in composition and will have to be dealt with as encountered. Generally, alluvium should be removed down to solid bedrock at structure footings. The major geologic hazard in the study area is sinkholes. Roadway construction near solution channels, sinkholes, rock fractures, and shallow soils can provide a means of access to the groundwater system for highway generated and other pollutants. In addition, some surface materials and soils may be unsuitable due to their high clay content. IV-14 Table 30 BEDROCK ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS (Corresponds with Plate 10) Drainage Good surface drainage, minor surface drainage. Sinkholes and caves are characteristic. Degree and Depth; Moderately resistant, slightly weathered to a shallow depth. Rock Weathering Shape of Debris; Small to large size, flat rectangular to blocky fragments. Depth to Solid, Firm Bedrock; Highly variable, from surface exposure to over 80 feet depth. Over 5 feet in most places. Bedrock surface is pinnacled. Effective Type; Joints and solution channels Porosity and Permeability Quantity; Variable, low to high secondary porosity, low to high permeability Difficult. Bedrock pinnacles are a special problem. Numerous sandstone beds and chert Ease of lenses are harder than surrounding limestone and dolomite. Blasting may be required. Excavation Drilling rate is variable, fast to slow. Generally good. Vertical cuts stable in minimally fractured rock, only fair in fractured Cut Slope rock. Local structure (orientation of bedding, joints, fractures, cleavage, weathered Stability zones, solution features, etc.) should be taken into account. Foundation Good, but should be excavated to sound bedrock and thoroughly investigated for Stability sinkholes and solution cavities. Hazardous Subsurface voids and sinkholes. Steep cuts may fail if rock is highly fractured or if Conditions bedding/joint intersections or planes dip into cut. Significant sinkhole involvement during final design and construction is anticipated in the following areas: O 200 feet east of the Outer Bypass to Broadcasting Road 1600 to 2400 feet east of Broadcasting Road 150 to 650 feet west of Berkshire Boulevard Berkshire Boulevard from Kissinger Cemetery to Wyomissing Professional Center O Specific sinkholes and closed depressions verified in the field and located in proximity to the proposed alignment include the following which are indicated on Plate 10: Vicinity of West Shore and Warren Street Interchange: 400 feet south of Tulpehocken Creek, 600 feet west of Warren Street Bypass. Two small sinkholes occur approximately 20 feet apart. One is 5 feet in diameter and 2-1/2 feet deep. The other is 4 x 15 feet, 2 to 3 feet deep, with an open throat in boulders in the bottom. Interchange ramps of Alternatives A and H may be affected. IV-15 150 feet west of Berkshire Boulevard at proposed mainline of Alternatives A and H underpass: Two small sinkholes in recent fill in bottom of drainage, each 2 to 3 feet in diameter, 2 feet deep. Alternative A and H mainline may be affected. 330 feet west of Berkshire Boulevard, 110 feet south of proposed mainline of Alternatives A and H: A large sinkhole, 15 x 30 feet and five to six feet deep in recent fill in bottom of drainage. This sinkhole has recently been active and may be affected by Alternative A and H. 1500 feet east of Broadcasting Road, 100 feet south of Penn State: Closed depression in area of hummocky ground, three feet by five feet wide. Fill slopes of Alternative A may affect their area. 1600 feet east of Outer Bypass, line of small sinkholes up to two feet deep, three feet wide north of WEEU property, along edge of a wooded patch containing a boulder pile. These boulders could be fill in a large sinkhole. This feature is located at the intersection of a geologic contact and a fracture lineament. Alternative A may effect this a area. 150 feet north of Paper Mill Road, 650 east of Outer Bypass: Large closed depression 100 feet in diameter and approximately two feet deep. The proposed connection of Alternatives A, F, G and H to the Outer Bypass may affect this area. Sinkhole activity may be expected to increase in severity near geologic contacts. These contacts are shown on Plate 10. All contacts cross the build alternatives at near right angles. The area between Epler and Rickenbach Formations is of particular concern because of the intersection of a geologic contact and fracture lineament, and known sinkhole activity at this location. No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative will have no impact on geologic features nor will it create any geologic hazards within the study area. Alternatives A and H - Areas of shallow depth to bedrock can be expected in the following general areas: the vicinity of the proposed North Wyomissing Boulevard Interchange, along the existing West Shore Bypass east of the Warren Street Bypass, and west of the Warren Street Bypass in the proposed interchange area of Alternatives A and H. These exact locations are shown on Plate 10. Other areas of shallow depth to bedrock include several locations east of Broadcasting Road just south of Penn State Berks Campus, two isolated areas just west of Broadcasting Road near the proposed mainline of Alternatives A and H, and two areas just east of the Outer Bypass near the proposed Van Reed Road realignment. Alternatives F and G - - Alternatives F and G will have no impact on geologic features nor will they create any geologic hazards within the study area. IV-16 b. Groundwater Major rock cuts are not anticipated for construction of Alternatives A, F, G or H. Interception of the groundwater table and impacts on well yields are therefore not expected. The potential for adverse qualitative effects from highway generated runoff pollutants entering the groundwater is not anticipated to be significant. Proposed improvements are generally located in good yielding aquifers where adequate quantities of dilutional flows occur. The portion of the study area between the Outer Bypass and Broadcasting Road is within a recharge zone. However, homes with wells are located on the periphery of the aquifer along the Cacoosing and Tulpehocken Creeks. The major source of water for these wells are these major drainage features and significant long-term qualitative impacts are not expected. Temporary impacts related to increased turbidity may be experienced by those downgradient wells along Tulpehocken Road from construction of the proposed roadway cut section for the interchange with the Outer Bypass. Normal highway maintenance includes the use of deicing salts (usually sodium chloride) during winter months to maintain roadways for safe travel. Sodium is generally adsorbed by local soils. However, chlorides pass through the soil profile into the local groundwater. Adequate groundwater quantities and flows should provide sufficient flushing of these constituents to nearby surface drainages. Highway runoff contaminants and potential hazardous spill materials do not pose a serious threat to the local carbonate aquifer, provided that adequate precautions are taken. - No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative will have no impact on the groundwater - resources of the study area. Mitigation a. Geology Construction of the proposed Paper Mill Road/Outer Bypass interchange will require a maximum cut depth of approximately 30 feet. Geophysical/electromagnetic surveys are recommended within the areas of shallow depth to bedrock, as a precursor to structure placement in final design. Sinkholes and solution channels where found should be cleaned, excavated to sound bedrock material, backfilled with large riprap grading to crushed aggregate, and capped with concrete or alternatively bridged. Foundations should be placed on solution free, clean, fresh bedrock, and adequately drained. Material in the alluvial deposits should be investigated to determine suitability for its ability to provide foundation stability. IV-17 b. Groundwater The following measures should be incorporated into the final design of the selected alternative to provide a measure of protection and allow for adequate management and cleanup of potential hazardous material spills. Roadway shoulders should be paved. Where runoff is conveyed to open section vegetated drainageways, a minimum of one (1) foot of topsoil placed over one foot of compacted clay in all bedrock cut sections should be provided. Closed drainage systems (inlets, pipes) should be constructed of watertight pressure pipe or concrete pipe utilizing "0" ring joints. Closed drainage systems should convey stormwater flows to lined basins where required and/or surface drainage systems inside of the proposed right-of-way. Basin lining should be accomplished with compacted clays, bentonite, or by use of a synthetic liner. In general, all drainage facilities should, to the greatest extent practical, be located approximately 100 feet away from open sinkholes, undrained depressions, fracture lineaments, and faults. Where such features are encountered within the required right-of-way, remedial measures should be undertaken during construction. 2. Surface Water Hydrology and Floodplains Impacts to floodplains may take three forms: (a) direct encroachment of the project on the floodplain area; (b) changes in stormwater runoff patterns and (c) indirect induction of development, either within the floodplain or in such a manner as to affect runoff patterns. To the extent feasible, each alternative has been developed with the intent of utilizing terrain above the floodplain. However, physical constraints and design considerations leave no practical recourse to some floodplain encroachments within generally undeveloped areas. Table 31 provides a summary of the flooding source, encroachment type and impacts to the area within the 100 year floodplain for each alternative. The 100-year flood limits are shown on Plate 11. Each community in the project area is currently enrolled in the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Program. These communities have floodplain ordinances which preclude development within established floodways and in some cases, the 100-year floodplain. The Borough of Wyomissing and Spring Township are currently experiencing growth and development pressure, however, stormwater management ordinances are in place in each municipality to control and limit increased runoff from development. This project primarily provides improvement to existing high volume traffic on local roadways, therefore, induction of development and secondary impacts on floodplains from direct development and affected runoff patterns is not anticipated to occur. No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative would result in no impacts to surface water hydrology and floodplains. IV-18 TABLE 31 Floodplain Encroachments (Corresponds with Plate 11) Alternatives (acres) Encroachment Type F A G Flooding Source H I Schuylkill River Longitudinal 1.5 1.5 Transverse 8.9 0.14 0.14 8.9 Intermittent Channel A Longitudinal 3.7 Intermittent Channel B Transverse 1.4 0.83 -- TOTAL ALL TYPES 11.8 0.14 0.14 14.93 Alternatives A and H - The proposed North Wyomissing Boulevard interchange ramps with Alternatives A and H would involve a longitudinal encroachment of the Schuylkill River. This encroachment would not involve any impacts to the Schuylkill River floodway however, approximately 0.7 acre of flood fringe area would be affected along with 1.5 acres of the 100 year floodplain. The transverse stream and drainage crossings due to Alternatives A and H would occur primarily at new floodplain crossings where established crossings do not exist. These crossings would be constructed of concrete culverts that will be sized to a capacity to not increase the established 100-year water surface elevation on the two unnamed tributaries at the crossings. There would also be two transverse crossings on the lower reaches of Intermittent Channel A to Tulpehocken Creek and the constructed drainage channel (R4RB1) located west of Warren Street by Alternatives A and H. These crossings would be constructed of concrete box culverts, also sized to preclude upstream increases in the 100-year water surface elevation. The proposed mainline of Alternatives A and H would also involve a transverse crossing of Intermittent Channel B. These crossings would be constructed of concrete culverts sized to a capacity designed to not increase the established 100-year water surface elevation. Alternative A would cross the floodplain immediately south of the Penn State - Berks Campus property while Alternative H would cross the floodplain at the upper reach of the channel, just north of Paper Mill Road. IV-19 Alternatives F and G - Alternatives F and G would result in the acquisition of 0.14 acre of the 100-year floodplain of Intermittent Channel A. Mitigation During final design, more detailed documentation will be provided in the required Hydrologic and Hydraulic Report, and coordination and consultation will continue with FEMA and local officials to assure that the proposed action is consistent with all watershed and floodplain management programs. No substantial problems are anticipated in meeting local and federal floodplain requirements. The overall impact to floodplains from the construction of each proposed build alternative is considered to be minimal. The following steps, however, should be included to ensure that all feasible environmental objectives are accomplished. The roadway drainage design will take into account existing runoff patterns, stages of construction, and the temporary and permanent stabilization of flow. This will be done in conjunction with the erosion and sedimentation control plan for final design. In general, stormwater runoff will be collected and conveyed to the Tulpehocken Creek via natural water courses and ditches stabilized for erosion protection with vegetative cover or flexible linings. Retention ponds will be used to minimize the contribution of additional runoff by reducing peak flows. During the final design and prior to construction, permitting procedures will be instituted in accordance with Chapter 105, "Dam Safety and Waterway Management Obstruction Permit," of the Rules and Regulations administered by the PA Department of Environmental Resources and the Section 404 Permit concerning the discharge of dredged and fill material administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. All actions taken with respect to construction within floodplains will conform to Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management). 3. Water Quality and Aquatic Biota No-Build Alternative - No temporary or permanent impacts to surface waters within the study area or surface waters fed by waters within the study area, would occur with the No-Build Alternative. However, the impending planned development may affect surface waters. - Alternative A - Alternative A does not cross any permanent surface waters. Potential long-term impacts from the construction and operation of Alternative A would not affect the water quality or aquatic biota of Cacoosing Creek, Tulpehocken Creek, or the Schuylkill River. Alternative A would cross Intermittent Channel B to Tulpehocken Creek. IV-20 Short-term sedimentation impacts to Tulpehocken Creek and the Schuylkill River would occur during construction of Alternative A. The proposed interchange with Warren Street and the mainline of Alternative A is located in the vicinity of two intermittent drainageways to Tulpehocken Creek. Short-term sedimentation impacts to the Schuylkill River may also occur during construction of the proposed North Wyomissing interchange with the West Shore Bypass. Alternative H - Alternative H parallels the floodplain of unnamed Tributary A to Tulpehocken Creek for approximately 2000 feet. Earthmoving and construction activities associated with these alternatives may result in erosion of soils and sedimentation impacts to these intermittent channels and Tulpehocken Creek. O Alternatives F and G - Alternatives F and G would cross the floodplain and drainageway of Intermittent Channels A and B in the vicinity of Paper Mill Road. Temporary off-site sedimentation impacts may occur to Tulpehocken Creek during construction. Alternatives A, F, G and H would affect the intermittent drainageway to Cacoosing Creek located east of Van Reed Road (R4UB2). During construction, short-term sedimentation impacts to Cacoosing Creek may occur. All four proposed alternatives propose a crossing of the drainage channel by the proposed relocation of Van Reed Road. Mitigation In order to minimize the temporary erosion and sedimentation impacts to the water quality and aquatic biota of Cacoosing Creek, Tulpehocken Creek and the Schuylkill River, standard erosion control methods will be practiced during construction. Measures such as silt fencing and sand bags will be used to stabilize exposed soil surfaces and decrease the potential for off-site sedimentation impacts. A detailed list of erosion control measures is presented in IV.B.4. of this report. In addition, pollution removal measures for highway runoff such as detention ponds and vegetated drainage swales will be incorporated into the final design of Alternative A as applicable. 4. Soils and Erosion Analysis 了 ​No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative would result in no impacts to soils within the study area. Alternatives A, F, G and H - Potential acreage of each soil type disturbed by Alternatives A, F, G and H are listed on Table 32. Soils within the project area are depicted on Plate 12. IV-21 TABLE 32 Acres of Potential Soil Disturbance (Corresponds with Plate 12) Alternatives Soil Series A F G H Df; Duffield 0-15% slopes 72.16 33.94 33.09 89.68 Dh; Duffield Hagerstown 8-30% slopes 68.42 5.66 7.67 69.66 Ha; Hagerstown 3-15% slopes 16.28 6.43 6.43 16.28 Lt; Lindside 0-3% slopes 10.03 0.00 0.00 10.03 Ws; Wiltshire 0-8% slopes 16.64 0.64 0.64 20.09 TOTAL 183.53 46.67 47.83 205.74 * Descriptions of soil properties can be found on Table 21 in Section III.B.4. Construction on steep and in highly erodible soils presents a hazard of soil erosion and water pollution during construction. The extent and permanence of these problems are highly dependent on the measures used for sedimentation and erosion control. The degree of long-term soil erosion depends on the alteration of slopes, soil types, ground cover, and control of runoff. Field reconnaissance surveys were performed to identify areas of existing accelerated erosion and steep slopes. Minor surficial erosion channels were noted within the proposed Warren Street Interchange area of Alternatives A and H. An additional erosion channel is located within the wooded area south of Paper Mill Road at the proposed relocated Van Reed Road for Alternatives A, F, G and H. Most of the steep slopes occur along the Tulpehocken Creek and along the proposed Van Reed Road relocation. Alluvial soils occur on the flat, lowland areas occurring as thin deposits along the Schuylkill River, Tulpehocken Creek, and an intermittent channel to the Tulpehocken Creek, located between Berkshire Boulevard and Warren Street, and are part of the natural erosional and depositional sequence. Construction and development activities can, if not properly controlled, accelerate this process. Alternatives A and H both would involve new roadway construction in the vicinity of the Schuylkill River alluvial deposits and the intermittent channel to the Tulpehocken Creek. Alternatives F, G and No-Build would not involve construction in these areas. IV-22 Additional considerations which must be accounted for are the proximity of the proposed construction activities to downstream sensitive features. Erosion sensitive features include streams, wetlands, stormwater management facilities and structures, and water supply facilities. Potentially sensitive features include: Intermittent channel to Tulpehocken Creek: between Woodland Road and Warren Street. Intermittent channel to Tulpehocken Creek: crossing Berkshire Boulevard approximately 1200 feet south of Tulpehocken Road. Detention Pond - Berks Campus, Pennsylvania State University, approximately 200 feet east of parking area. The Tulpehocken Creek is a stockable cold water trout fishery, hence is sensitive to construction impacts resulting from erosion. Proposed construction of the new Warren Street Bypass interchange of Alternatives A and H in, along, and across contributing drainageways may, if not properly controlled, result in increased sediment yields during periods of runoff events. Construction of Alternatives F and G in and across tributary drainageways to Tulpehocken Creek may also result in increased sediment yields during periods of run-off. Table 33 summarizes the relative potential for soil erosion impacts for each of the proposed alternatives. The No-Build Alternative would require no excavation or grading of erosion sensitive soils in the study corridor. TABLE 33 Impacts to Erosion Sensitive Soils (Acres) Alternative A Alternative F Alternative G Alternative H 85.18 6.64 8.65 92.69 IV-23 Mitigation Chapter 102 of the Department of Environmental Resources' rules and regulations prohibits the discharge of sediments into the Commonwealth's waters. To meet the requirements of Chapter 102, an Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Plan must be developed in accordance with DER's "Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program Manual" and submitted to the County Soil Conservation Office for approval. If a project will involve disturbance of soils on greater than 25 acres, an Earth Disturbance Permit is required. An approved Earth Disturbance Permit is needed prior to the issuance of a joint Chapter 105/Section 404 permit. The project is anticipated to require an Earth Disturbance Permit. Substantial impacts related to soil erosion and sedimentation are not anticipated, provided that a suitable Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control plan is designed, executed, and maintained during construction operations. An Earth Disturbance Permit will be acquired prior to earth-moving activities. Measures to minimize construction-related effects of erosion and sedimentation on the streams and abutting lands will follow the guidelines established by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources and the Berks County Soil and Water Conservation District. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Design Manual details erosion control measures and procedures to be included on construction plans and specifications. Final construction plans for the project would be reviewed by the Berks County Soil Conservation District, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. DER and the Corps must approve the final plans and issue a joint permit before earthmoving or adjacent stream disturbance activities may begin. Chapter 16 of the Department's Design Manual includes erosion control provisions for varying situations. Final design plans would incorporate and specify details for appropriate measures to be used for this project. Generally, these measures would: Control erosion at the source; Keep the water flowing across the right-of-way under control at all times; Control of off-site water flowing across the right-of-way prior to or concurrent with clearing operations; Keep water originating outside the site and water originating within the site separated at all times; Keep exposed area to that specified in the Earth Disturbance Permit IV-24 Ensure that erosion and sedimentation control devices would not be located so as to interfere with normal construction activities. Sufficient right-of-way or temporary easements should be acquired to accomplish this; Ensure that graded areas have ground cover re-established as soon as possible; Ensure that dikes, berms, protective ground cover, and plantings are used effectively. Most sedimentation control devices would be temporary since most of the soil erosion would occur during construction. However, in sensitive areas, consideration should be given to the use of permanent devices. Specific measures often included in highway construction and likely to be incorporated in the project's final design are: Seeding and soil supplements to speed establishment of turf; Straw mulch should be specified on all topsoiled areas and hay mulch for untopsoiled areas; Appropriate plantings will be used where positive and quick establishment of cover is essential and where successful seeding is questionable; Erosion protection matting such as jute matting, netting, soil retention blankets, or cellulose fiber blankets should be used where a concentration of flow is anticipated during vegetation establishment; Sod should be used where vegetative cover must be established rapidly; . Diversion ditches and channels should be constructed and stabilized prior to the start of clearing operations. Velocity in channels and ditches should be carefully controlled and suitable lining should be provided, including matting, grass, sod, concrete, or rock cover; Temporary slope drains should be constructed at locations where accumulated water could flow over incomplete cut or fill slopes. Their purpose is to convey runoff to sedimentation basins temporarily until final ditches, swales, pipes, and inlets are constructed; Energy dissipaters should be located at culvert outlets where extremely high velocities are anticipated; Baled straw and brush or filter fabric should be used as erosion barriers where only minor sedimentation control measures are needed; IV-25 Rock barriers should be used in ditches and swales to filter the runoff and allow for some ponding; Silt fence barriers may be used during clearing operations, where they are appropriate, to trap sediments in low areas or on long flat slopes; Sedimentation basins should be designed to pond and allow sediment to settle. Inlet and outlet structures should be designed to pass a flow based on a 5-year storm frequency and a 5-minute duration for temporary facilities and a 10-year, 5-minute storm for permanent facilities; а Construction operations should be planned and scheduled so as to minimize erosion potential, extent and duration of exposed earth, and probability of flood event while constructing in and along the Schuylkill River and tributaries to the Tulpehocken Creek; Properly sized riprap should be used for slope walls, channel linings, or channel deflectors where necessary. It is specifically suggested that filter fabric silt fence be used at the base of disturbed and created slopes. These silt fences must be checked and maintained frequently by the contractor to function properly. Vegetation would be established immediately following construction activities on slope areas subject to erosive flows. Overland flow runoff from adjacent upgradient locations would be diverted away from erosion sensitive soils, where possible. Permanent outlet works for proposed stormwater culverts would be designed as energy dissipater/level spreaders to minimize erosive velocities and concentration of stormwater flows. Silt fences would be installed to protect sensitive features and flood plain areas adjacent to and downgradient from proposed construction activities. Runoff should be directed to sedimentation basins installed prior to excavation. Outlets of sedimentation basins and downstream berms should be constructed of properly sized filter material designed as level spreaders. Final design plans and specifications which incorporate the above items are subject to review by the Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. This project will also require an Earth Disturbance Permit in accordance with DER's Chapter 102 regulations. This permit application will be reviewed by DER and the County Soil Conservation District. During construction, Department field engineers and inspectors will ensure the successful implementation of erosion control specifications. I [ IV-26 5. 5. Vegetation and Wildlife No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative would involve no direct or indirect impact to wildlife species or vegetative cover within the study area as a result of highway construction. Alternatives A, F, G, and H - Acres of vegetative cover types affected by each build alternative are summarized in Table 34. Vegetative cover types are mapped on Plate 13. TABLE 34 Impacts to Vegetation (Acres) (Corresponds with Plate 13) Alternatives Cover Type A F G H Mixed Forest (43) 29.2 10.3 10.3 30.9 Deciduous Forest (41) 7.3 -- 7.3 Shrub/Brush Rangeland (32) -- Herbaceous Rangeland (31) 7.3 7.3 Cropland (21) 45.8 13.0 13.0 50.6 Transitional Land (76) 17.6 2.7 2.7 13.4 TOTAL 107.2 26.0 26.0 109.5 Wildlife species typical of the study area can readily exploit various habitat types, and therefore are anticipated to adjust to the presence of the new roadway and remain within the study area. Typical species include eastern cottontail rabbit, eastern grey squirrel, muskrat, woodchuck, striped skunk, Virginia opossum, eastern box turtle, small rodents and various songbirds. Game and raptor species which may utilize the agricultural fields for foraging and forest land for cover may be displaced by the loss of these cover types for each build alternative and exploit the corridors along Cacoosing and Tulpehocken Creeks. The agricultural fields along these creeks will continue to provide a food source for raccoon, red fox, white-tailed deer, ring-necked pheasant, and raptors. Forest land surrounding both creeks affords shelter and a corridor to water sources for wildlife species. IV-27 No streams which support aquatic life will be directly affected by the project alternatives. Tulpehocken Creek may be subject to increased turbidity on a temporary basis. This impact will be minimized by proper implementation of soil erosion and sedimentation control during construction. Mitigation a Approximately 1000 to 1200 feet of the Outer Bypass would be abandoned under each build alternative from the relocation of Van Reed Road and implementation of a diamond interchange to connect the proposed mainline to the Outer Bypass. This would offer approximately three acres of highway land near Cacoosing Creek which could be converted to mixed forestland or another appropriate wildlife habitat type. Mixed forest is suggested due to the proximity of other mixed forest land both east and west of the site. This mitigated land and current land cover found surrounding the area would create a continuous wildlife travel corridor from upland forest to wetland to the stream. The decision of whether or not to use this area as a mitigation area for wildlife habitat will be determined during Final Design. It was determined that a detailed PAMHEP study to determine project impacts and mitigational requirements for vegetation and wildlife was not required for this project. The applicability of using the PAMHEP method was discussed during the June 28, 1989 PennDOT Transportation Project Development Interagency Coordination Meeting which included representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the PA Game Commission, the PA Fish Commission, EPA, PHMC, and FHWA. A copy of this meeting report can be found in Appendix C. As a result of this meeting, it was determined that a PAMHEP study was not required for this project since habitat mitigation along the proposed build alternatives was not considered prudent due to the discontinuity of habitat within the remainder of the study area. It would not be beneficial to encourage wildlife to inhabit the land south of the proposed alternatives as the facility would effectively isolate these animals and encourage an unsafe travel corridor to Tulpehocken Creek. a 6. Endangered Species - No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on threatened or endangered species of plants and animals. Alternatives A, F, G, and H - No impacts to endangered or threatened species or their habitats will result from any of the build alternatives. 7. Wetlands No vegetative wetlands were identified within the project impact area. IV-28 8. Waterways of the United States Regulated waterways within the project impact area include a drainage channel parallel to and west of the Warren Street Bypass, and a drainage channel perpendicular to Van Reed Road at the southwestern project limit. Three additional regulated waterways, Tulpehocken Creek, the Schuylkill River and Cacoosing Creek, occur adjacent to the project area. Tulpehocken Creek and the Schuylkill River occur at the northeastern project limit. Cacoosing Creek is at the southwestern project limit. The regulated waterways within the project impact area are depicted on Plate 11. No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative involves no impacts to wetlands or waters of the United States. Alternatives A and H - With Alternatives A and H, the proposed mainline interchange with the West Shore and Warren Street Bypasses would result in direct impacts to the drainage channel which flows from Paper Mill Road to Tulpehocken Creek. This drainage channel is located along the western side of the Warren Street Bypass. The mainline and four interchange ramps would be constructed on fill in this area. Indirect impacts to this drainage channel would occur with the placement of the box culverts for Alternatives A and H. Work within the channel will be necessary when the roadway fill and culverts are placed. Tulpehocken Creek and the Schuylkill River may experience temporary erosion and sedimentation impacts during construction activities. In addition, Alternatives A and H would cross the drainage channel located to the west of Van Reed Road. This drainage channel flows into Cacoosing Creek. The proposed relocation of this section of Van Reed Road would require the placement of a pipe culvert. Earthwork associated with construction and culvert placement may result in temporary erosion and sedimentation impacts to Cacoosing Creek. - Alternatives F and G - As previously discussed with Alternatives A and H, Alternatives F and G would also cross the drainage channel located to the west of Van Reed Road. This drainage channel flows into Cacoosing Creek. The proposed relocation of this section of Van Reed Road would require the placement of a pipe culvert. Earthwork associated with construction and culvert placement may result in temporary erosion and sedimentation impacts to Cacoosing Creek. Mitigation Measures to minimize construction-related effects of on-site erosion and off-site sedimentation to the drainage channels, Tulpehocken Creek, Cacoosing Creek and the Schuylkill River will follow the guidelines established by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the Berks County Soil Conservation District and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. An Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Plan will be developed and implemented in accordance with Chapter 13, Part 2 of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Design Manual. An IV-29 Earth Disturbance Permit will be obtained prior to construction. Erosion and sedimentation control devices will be installed both on and off-site prior to construction to minimize potential adverse impacts to project area waterways. Details of these measures are given in Section IV. B.4. of this report. Chapter 105 of the Dam Safety and Waterways Management Act regulates encroachments in waterways of the state and is administered by PaDER. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates all dredging and filling activities in waterways of the United States and is administered by the Army Corps of Engineers. During the final design stage of this project, a Joint Chapter 105/Section 404 permit will be completed for the proposed culverts with Alternative A. This permit will be submitted to PaDER once completed. 9. Farmlands The acreages of Prime, Statewide or Locally Important Farmland soil types affected by each of the proposed build alternatives are presented in Table 35. Plate 12 shows the soils in the project area. TABLE 35 Acres of Farmland Soil to be Converted to Highway Use (Corresponds with Plate 12) Alternatives Soil Type A F G H 52.32 21.68 25.68 63.00 Duffield Silt Loam* 3-8 Percent Slope, Moderately Eroded Hagerstown Silt Loam* 3-8 Percent Slope, Moderately Eroded 16.28 3.68 3.68 16.28 Lindside Silt Loam* 10.03 0.00 0.00 10.03 Wiltshire Silt Loam* 3-8 Percent Slope, Moderately Eroded 16.64 0.64 0.64 20.09 Duffield Silt Loam** 8-15 Percent Slope, Moderately Eroded 19.84 7.07 7.07 23.74 TOTAL 115.11 33.07 37.07 133.14 Prime Farmland Soil ** Statewide or Locally Important Farmland Soil Soil Classification Source: USDA Soil Conservation Service, Agricultural Center, Leesport, PA 1989. IV-30 No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on farmlands or farmland soils within the study area. - Alternative A - Alternative A would require the conversion of 95.27 acres of prime farmland soils and 19.84 acres of state and locally important farmland soil to highway use. Alternative F would require the conversion of 26.0 acres of prime farmland soils and 7.07 acres of state and locally important farmland soil to highway use. Alternative G would require conversion of 30.0 acres of prime farmland soils and 7.07 acres of state and locally important farmland soil to highway use. Alternative H would require the conversion of 109.4 acres of prime farmland soils and 23.74 acres of state and locally important farmland soil to highway use. The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 applies to all federally funded highway projects which require the acquisition of farmland for right-of-way purposes. In order to comply with the FPPA, the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form AD-1006 was completed. This form and the information used for its completion is presented on Pages A-79 to A-84 of Appendix A. As a result of the completion of Part VI of Form AD-1006, the total site assessment points for all alternatives was less than 60, and so the form did not need to be forwarded to the Berks County SCD, and compliance with the FPPA was fulfilled. As Plate 13 indicates all of the farmlands within the project area are located west of Berkshire Boulevard. Farmland in the project area is rapidly being converted to commercial and residential uses. As Plate 5 indicates, all of the active farmland within the project area is zoned for development. As Plate 6 indicates, much of active farmland within the project area is proposed for development. The major active farmland owners, Spring Ridge, Inc. and Tulpehocken, Ltd. are both development companies. Alternative A would require the acquisition of approximately 65 acres of active farmland for right-of-way. Alternative A would also create six parcels which would be outside the right-of-way but which would be rendered unfarmable because of size, shape or elimination of uses. These parcels cover a total of 35 acres. Mitigation may be possible for some or all of these 35 acres. Alternatives F and G - Alternatives F and G will have identical farmland impacts because both designs are identical west of Berkshire Boulevard. Alternatives F and G would require the acquisition of approximately 23 acres of active farmland for right-of-way. These alternatives would create no unfarmable parcels outside the right-of-way. Alternative H - Alternative H would require the acquisition of approximately 68 acres of active farmland for right-of-way. Alternative H would also create one parcel which would be outside the right-of-way but would be rendered unfarmable because of size, shape, or elimination of access. These parcels cover a total of three acres. Mitigation may be possible for some or all of these three acres. IV-31 1 No farmlands within the project area are protected under PA Acts 515, 43 or 319. Because the project involves the acquisition of active farmland along new alignment, the project is protected under Pennsylvania Act 100. In order to comply with this act, PennDOT petitioned the Pennsylvania Agricultural Lands Condemnation Approval Board (ALCAB) to receive approval to condemn active farmland properties impacted by the construction of the Preferred Alternative which is Alternative A. The ALCAB conducted a hearing to review the project on March 15, 1993. Information regarding project development, farmland owners and operators, expected impacts and potential mitigation and minimization was presented at the hearing. After conducting the hearing, the ALCAB approved the Preferred Alternative. The correspondence from the Department of Agriculture is presented on Page A-86 of Appendix A. As a result, the project is in compliance with PA Act 100. Mitigation Aside from compliance with farmland protection regulations, there will be no means to replace acquired active farmland. It may be possible to grow hay on some of the small outparcels created by the project. These parcels currently grow corn and soybeans. Converting these parcels to hay would make them produce a less valuable crop, however, they would retain their agricultural use. It should be emphasized, however, that most of the project study is zoned for residential or commercial development, and much of the currently farmed property within the project study area has been proposed for development. As a result, farm operations affected by this project may be impacted by development, regardless of this project. 10. Wild and Scenic Rivers No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative would not affect the existing and proposed Scenic River corridors in the vicinity of the project area. Alternatives A and H As the proposed scenic river corridor for the Tulpehocken Creek includes the Kissinger Union Church and cemetery along Berkshire Boulevard, construction of the Warren Street/West Shore Bypass Interchange associated with Build Alternatives A and H would occur in close proximity to the proposed scenic corridor. However, no direct impact to the proposed scenic river corridor is anticipated. IV-32 Construction of the proposed North Wyomissing Boulevard interchange associated with Build Alternatives A and H would occur in close proximity to the Schuylkill River, but this involves no direct impact to the designated Scenic River corridor. Construction of this interchange would occur on existing roadway fill embankments. Short-term construction related impacts of any of the proposed Build Alternatives may result in erosion and off-site sedimentation of the waterways surrounding the project area. Soil stabilization, soil erosion and sedimentation control measures would be implemented to control erosion at its source and minimize sedimentation impacts. None of the build alternatives would have direct or long term impacts to the Scenic River resources of the project area. No construction associated with any alternative is proposed to occur within the designated and proposed scenic river corridors of Tulpehocken Creek, Cacoosing Creek, or the Schuylkill River (December 31, 1991 letter from DER, Appendix A, Page A-32). Mitigation To ensure that off-site sedimentation from the proposed construction areas would not adversely affect Cacoosing Creek, Tulpehocken Creek or the Schuylkill River, standard erosion and sedimentation control practices will be implemented during and after construction until exposed soil has been revegetated. 11. Waste Site Clearance No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative would result in no impacts to any waste site areas within the study area. 9 Alternatives A and H - All rubble and waste disposal sites identified in the study area occur on vacant lands in the Borough of Wyomissing. These areas are within the proposed right-of-way for Alternatives A and H. Descriptions of the areas which would be affected by Alternatives A and H are presented in Table 36. The locations of the sites are depicted on Figure 25 in Section III-B.11 of this report. IV-33 TABLE 36 Waste Disposal Sites Approximate** Total Area (Acres) Acres Within Right-of-Way of Alternatives A and H Location Waste Material* 1. Wyomissing Interchange scattered used appliances, area between 422/222 and furniture, car parts, grass Tulpehocken Creek clippings, brush, litter 0.86 0.52 0.46 0.23 2. South bank of Tulpehocken scattered used appliances, body Creek,east of Warren shop parts, household wastes Street Bypass 3. Two sites between Warren appliances/building material, Street and tributary to household wastes Tulpehocken Creek 4. 200 feet west of Warren building rubble primarily concrete Street, 100 feet north of blocks Woodland Road 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.02 Waste material identified on the surface during a field view on September 2, 1992. Approximate area is based on surface inspection only. Alternatives F and G - Alternatives F and G would not encounter any known rubble or waste disposal sites in the project area. Mitigation If any non-parent material is encountered during excavation for the proposed roadway, an additional study will be conducted to determine its composition and its potential for containing hazardous substances. If hazardous material is identified during construction, work in the vicinity would be discontinued and PaDER will be contacted. All subsequent investigations and analysis of the foreign material would be conducted in accordance with PaDER regulations. If required, clean-up, removal and disposal of the material will be conducted in coordination with PaDER. IV-34 Debris accumulations encountered within the right-of-way of the selected alternative would be removed from the right-of-way areas and disposed of at an approved landfill. These unsuitable materials will not become part of any proposed roadway fill embankments. 12. Noise Using the traffic data collected during monitoring, traffic data collected as part of the traffic studies, and the traffic projections done by McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc., the FHWA STAMINA 2.0 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model was applied to each site to predict existing and future noise levels. Future noise levels were corrected in accordance with PennDOT Noise Guidelines (Design Manual Part 12 Chapter 8). The criteria used in the evaluation of traffic noise impacts in this study are based upon the Noise Abatement Criteria for specific land use activities, as found in the FHWA's Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and which are shown in Table 37, and in the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Design Manual Part 1A Chapter 8 which is shown in Figure 27. The abatement criterion associated with all of the receptor sites in this study is 67 dBA. To determine noise impacts and any requirement for noise abatement, predicted noise levels are compared to existing noise levels as well as the appropriate FHWA and PaDOT criteria. Whenever a predicted noise level approaches or exceeds the abatement criterion, or represents a substantial increase over existing levels, noise abatement consideration is warranted. The predicted noise levels for the No-Build and the four build alternatives are presented in Table 38. The following presents the results of the noise analysis by reviewing each of the 25 receptor sites and comparing the effects of each of the build alternatives. The locations of the receptor sites are indicated on Plate 14. O No-Build Alternative With the No-Build Alternative, predicted Year 2015 noise levels approach or exceed the abatement criteria at seven (7) sites, which are Sites 1, 10, 12, 14, 16, 20 and 23. Alternative A - Of the 25 receptor sites studied and described in Table 24, 10 sites (Sites 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 20 and 23) were predicted to have noise levels that approached or exceeded the abatement criteria for the year 2015. Four of these 10 sites had monitored existing noise levels that either approaches or exceeds the abatement criteria. IV-35 TABLE 37 FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level -Decibels (dBA) Activity Category Leq (h) Description of Activity Category A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of (Exterior) extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active (Exterior) sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. С 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not (Exterior) included in Categories A or B above. D -- Undeveloped lands. E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, (Interior) schools, churches, libraries, hospitals and auditoriums. Source: FHWA Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772. IV-36 PENNDOT ABATEMENT CRITERIA ACTIVITY CATEGORY B 70 67 NOTE: THE LEVELS REPRESENTED BY THIS LINE SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO...BE.COALS FOR ABATEMENT... PURPOSES. ABATEMENT GOALS MUST BE SET ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS WITH A MINIMUM NOISE ABATEMENT OF S dBA DESIRABLE. 65 60 1 67 1 55 65 ABATEMENT CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED EXISTING NOISE LEVEL IN dBA 63 50 61 NO, ABATEMENT CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED 59 45 571 40 NOTES: ALL NOISE LEVELS ARE Leq TOTAL NOISE LEVELS IN 57 35 0 2 4 6 8 4 10 12 14 16 . 18 18 20 22 24 INCREASE ABOVE EXISTING NOISE LEVEL IN DBA Figure 27 IV-37 TABLE 38 Summary of Noise Impacts (Unabated Noise Levels - Leq. dBA) (Corresponds with Plate 14) O Year 2015** FHWA Activity Category Year 1991 and Monitored | Abatement Noise Level Criteria* Modeled No-Build Alternative Site Modeled Build Modeled Build Modeled Build Modeled Build Alternative A | Alternative F Alternative G Alternative H 1 63 67 68*** 63 60 60 60 2. 58 67 60 60 61 61 61 3 60 67 62 60 62 62 59 4 52 67 53 58 53 53 57 5 57 67 58 60 58 58 61 6 48 67 50 (A)71*** 50 50 (A)61*** 7 50 67 52 (A)79*** 52 52 (A)68*** 8 55 67 57 (A)74*** 57 57 (A)69*** 9 58 67 62 59 62 62 (A)66*** 10 66*** 67 69*** (NW)66*** (A)69*** (A)69*** 66 11 62 67 65 (A)67*** 65 65 (A)78*** 12 68*** 67 71*** (NW)67*** (A)71*** (A)71*** (NW)67*** 13 59 67 62 60 62 62 60 14 64 67 67*** (NW)66*** (NW)67*** (A)66*** (NW)66*** 15 55 67 57 59 57 57 60 16 64 67 67*** (NR)68*** (NW)67*** (NW)67*** (NR)68*** 17 62 67 64 65 64 64 65 18 54 67 56 63 56 56 64 19 55 67 56 57 56 56 57 20 74*** 67 77*** (NR)72*** (NW77*** NW) 77*** (NR)72*** 21 54 67 59 59 59 58 59 22 63 67 65 63 65 65 63 23 77*** 67 78*** (A)78*** (NW)78*** (NW)78*** (A)78*** 24 57 67 58 65 58 58 65 25 59 67 60 62 60 60 62 本 ​*** (A) (NR) Determined as Land Use Category B in FHWA's Title 23 CFR Part 772. Future noise levels were corrected in accordance with PennDOT Noise Guidelines (Design Manual, Part 1A Chapter 8). Noise level approaches or exceeds the identified noise abatement criteria. Noise abatement warranted and appears feasible and therefore, abatement measures were considered at this site. Noise abatement warranted and appears feasible, but determined not reasonable, and therefore, no abatement measures were considered at this site. Noise abatement warranted, however no work is proposed in this area nor are the traffic volumes on the roadways in this area predicted to increase as a result of this alternative and therefore, no abatement measures were considered at these site. (NW) IV-38 The predicted noise levels for year 2015 at Sites 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, ranged from 58 to 63 dBA, thereby not approaching or exceeding the abatement criteria of 67 dBA. The noise levels at Sites 1, 2 and 3 are expected to either decrease or remain the same when compared with the year 2015 noise levels for the No-Build Alternative. Sites 4 and 5 however, are predicted to have a 5 and 2 dBA level increase when compared to the No-Build Alternative. These increases however, do not represent a substantial increase over existing noise levels in accordance with PennDOT's Abatement Criteria for Activity Category B and therefore, no abatement measures were warranted or considered for Sites 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Noise levels at receptor Sites 6, 7 and 8 all exceed the abatement criteria for the predicted year 2015. In addition, these levels represent a substantial increase over the monitored levels. Therefore, abatement measures were considered at all three of these sites. Noise levels at Sites 9, 10, 12 and 13 are predicted to increase by either 1 dBA or remain the same when compared with the monitored existing noise levels. Although Sites 10 and 12 have existing and future predicted levels above the abatement criteria due to their close proximity to Paper Mill Road, no work is proposed on Paper Mill Road as a result of Alternative A. Site 11, had a monitored existing noise level of 62 dBA and a predicted noise level of 67 dBA for Alternative A. Since the predicted year 2015 noise level at Site 11 exceeds the abatement criteria of 67 dBA, abatement measures were considered. Sites 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are within 1000 feet of the Alternative A alignment and the proposed interchange with the Warren Street/West Shore Bypass. When compared to the No-Build Alternative, Site 16 has a predicted noise level increase of only 1 dBA with Alternative A. However, the predicted noise level of 68 dBA at Site 16 would exceed the identified abatement criteria of 67 dBA and therefore abatement measures were considered. Sites 15, 17, 18 and 19 are predicted to increase 4, 3, 9 and 2 dBA, respectively when compared to existing noise levels. However, the predicted noise levels of these sites do not approach or exceed the abatement criteria of 67 dBA. Therefore, no abatement measures were considered for these sites. Noise levels at Sites 21, 22, 24 and 25, for the year 2015 for Alternative A were predicted as 59, 63, 65 and 62 dBA, respectively, while the monitored existing levels were 54, 63, 57 and 59 dBA, respectively. All but one site (Receptor 22), had increases in predicted year 2015 noise levels. When compared with the No-Build Alternative, Site 22 will result in a decrease of 2 dBA. However, noise levels at Sites 21, 22, 24 and 25 are not predicted to approach or exceed abatement criteria of 67 dBA. Therefore, no abatement measures were considered for Sites 21, 22, 24 and 25. The predicted year 2015 noise levels for Sites 14, 20 and 23, are predicted to approach or exceed the abatement criteria of 67 dBA. Site 14, had an existing monitored noise level of 64 dBA and a predicted year 2015 noise level of 66 dBA with Alternative A. The location of this site, however, is not within the limits of work proposed for Alternative A and therefore, will IV-39 not be directly affected by Alternative A. The predicted noise level increase is due to the projected traffic increases thus, abatement measures were not considered. Site 20 had an existing monitored noise level of 74 dBA and a predicted noise level of 72 dBA with Build Alternative A. Since the predicted noise level is above the abatement criteria of 67 dBA, abatement measures were considered at this site. Site 23, had an existing monitored noise level of 77 dBA and a predicted year 2015 noise level at 78 dBA. Therefore, abatement measures were considered since the predicted noise level would exceed the abatement criteria of 67 dBA. O Alternative F - With Build Alternative F, predicted year 2015 noise levels approach or exceed the abatement criteria at two (2) sites, Sites 10 and 12. Although the noise levels at Sites 14, 16, 20 and 23 are predicted to approach or exceed the abatement criteria, no work is proposed in these areas nor are the traffic volumes on the roadways in these areas predicted to increase as a result of Alternative F and therefore, no abatement measures were considered at these sites. - Alternative G - With Build Alternative G, predicted year 2015 noise levels approach or exceed the abatement criteria at three (3) sites, which are Sites 10, 12 and 14. Although noise levels at Sites 16, 20 and 23 also were predicted to approach or exceed the abatement criteria, no work is proposed to these areas nor are the traffic volumes on the roadways in these areas predicted to increase as a result of Alternative G and therefore, no abatement measures were considered at these sites. Alternative H - With Build Alternative H, predicted year 2015 noise levels approach or exceed the abatement criteria at eight (8) sites, including Sites 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 20 and 23. Although the noise levels at Sites 12 and 14 are also predicted to approach or exceed the abatement criteria, no work is proposed in these areas nor are the traffic volumes on the roadways in these areas predicted to increase as a result of Alternative H and therefore, no abatement measures were considered at these sites. At Sites 16 and 20, which exceed the abatement criteria as a result of Build Alternative H, noise barriers were warranted and feasible, however, for the reasons previously discussed with Alternative A, they were determined not reasonable. Mitigation I The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is committed to the construction of feasible noise abatement measures at the noise impacted locations identified in Plate 14, contingent upon the following conditions: Detailed noise analyses during the final design process; 1 Cost-effectiveness analyses; 1 IV-40 1 Community input regarding desires, types, heights, and locations; Preferences regarding compatibility with adjacent land uses, particularly as addressed by officials having jurisdiction over such land uses; and Safety and engineering aspects as related to the roadway user and the adjacent property owner. It is likely that the noise abatement measures for the identified noise impacted areas will be constructed if found to be feasible based on the contingencies listed above. However, if upon evaluation during the Final Design Phase of the contingency conditions listed above, it is determined that noise abatement is not feasible at the noise impacted sites, such determinations shall be made prior to granting approval of the project's plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E). Commitments regarding the exact abatement measure locations, heights, and types (or approved alternatives) shall be made before the PS&E is approved. Of the 25 sites studies for each of the build alternatives, seven sites with Alternative A, two sites with Alternative F, three sites with Alternative G and eight sites with Alternative H have predicted year 2015 noise levels which are directly attributed to the construction of that alternative and which approach or exceed the FHWA abatement criteria of 67 dBA or, represent a substantial increase over existing noise levels in accordance with PennDOT's Abatement Criteria for Activity Category B. As a result, abatement measures were considered and reviewed for these sites. Where abatement appears to be feasible and reasonable, concrete barriers were evaluated. The insertion loss, which refers to the amount of noise which is reduced by a barrier, was then calculated. The amount of insertion loss from a noise barrier is mainly attributed to the height and length of the barrier, topography and land use between the barrier and receptor site and the distance between the barrier and the receptor site. Typically, insertion loss is greater as the barrier height and length increases. Additionally, the greater the distance between the barrier and receptor site, the lower the insertion loss which can usually be achieved. For the following analysis, barrier heights were investigated until either the barrier provided an insertion loss which would lower the receptor site to below the abatement criteria or until the insertion loss from a barrier leveled off. The following section discusses the noise barrier analysis by reviewing each site and comparing the effects of each of the build alternatives. Alternative A - With Build Alternative A, predicted year 2015 noise levels approach or exceed the abatement criteria of 67 dBA at seven (7) sites, including Sites 6, 7, 8, 11, 16, 20 and 23. Although the noise levels at Sites 10, 12 and 14 also are predicted to approach or exceed the abatement criteria of 67 dBA, no work is proposed in these areas nor are the traffic volumes on the roadways in these areas predicted to increase as a result of Alternative A; therefore, no abatement measures were considered at these sites. At Sites 16 and 20, which exceed the IV-41 abater..ent criteria as a result of Build Alternative A, noise barriers were warranted and feasible, however, they were determined not reasonable for the following reasons. Site 16 is located at the Kissinger Union Cemetery approximately 50 feet east of Berkshire Boulevard and 200 feet north of Build Alternative A. The cemetery is at capacity, therefore, no funeral services are expected to be held at the site. Additionally, visits to this cemetery are projected to be on an occasional and sporadic basis which is unlikely to coincide with the peak traffic periods which were identified as weekdays 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Site 20 is located at the Inn at Reading approximately 220 feet east of the existing Warren Street Bypass. The Inn is a contained modern facility with air conditioning and heating units, negating the need to open windows or doors, which allow noise to enter. Additionally, the commercial use of this site contributed to the existing noise level of 74 dBA. This commercial use is projected to continue at this site. The projected noise level for Alternative A is 72 dBA which is 5 dBA lower than the No-Build Alternative. At Sites 6, 7, 8, 11 and 23, nine (9) different barrier heights were evaluated. The results of these analyses are shown in Table 39 and the potential noise barrier locations are shown on Plate 14. TABLE 39 Summary of Noise Barrier Analysis for Build Alternative A (Noise Levels in dBA, Leq.) Year 2015 Insertion Loss** With Various Barrier Heights Year 2015 Unabated Noise Level 10 ft Site 6 71 3 12 91 14 ft 16 ft 18 ft 20 ft 22 ft 24 ft 26 fit 4 4 44 11 12 3 3 4 4 7 79 6 7 8 9 9 10 11 8 74 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 9 9 11 67 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 23 78 6 7 8 10 10 11 12 12 12 Corresponds to Plate 14 Insertion loss refers to the amount of noise which is reduced by the barrier. ** IV-42 At Sites 6, 7 and 8, a 3,200 foot long concrete barrier was evaluated along the north side of Build Alternative A. At Site 11, a 2,500 foot long barrier was evaluated on the south side of Build Alternative A. At Site 23, a 1,250 foot long concrete barrier on the south side of the West Shore Bypass was evaluated. - Alternative F - At Sites 10 and 12, six (6) different barrier heights were evaluated for Site 12 and four (4) for Site 10. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 40 and the potential noise barrier location is shown on Plate 14. At Site 10, four (4) barrier segments were investigated adjacent to Paper Mill Road. In order to maintain access by secondary roads into the subdivision, four separate barrier segments were studied, rather than one continuous barrier. The construction of these four barrier segments may require the acquisition of nine residences along Paper Mill Road. However, the final decision as to the number of residences and property required for noise walls will be made during the final design phase if this alternative is selected. As a result of the barrier evaluation, noise reduction at Site 10 would range from 10 dBA with a 10 foot concrete barrier to 12 dBA with a 14 foot barrier. At Site 12 a 1,050 foot long concrete barrier was evaluated along the northern side of the proposed widening of Paper Mill Road. Noise reduction at Site 12 would range from 6 dBA with a 10 foot high barrier to 10 dBA with a 20 foot high barrier. TABLE 40 Summary of Noise Barrier Analysis for Build Alternative F (Noise Levels in dBA, Leq.) Year 2015 Insertion Loss** with Various Barrier Heights Year 2015 Unabated Site Noise Level 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft 18 ft 20 ft 10 69 10 11 12 12 71 6 8 9 9 9 10 Corresponds to Plate 14. ** Insertion loss refers to the amount of noise which is reduced by the barrier. IV-43 - Alternative G - At Sites 10, 12 and 14, six (6) different barrier heights were evaluated for Sites 12 and 14 and four (4) barrier heights were evaluated for Site 10. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 41 and the potential noise barrier locations are shown on Plate 14. At Sites 10 and 12, the noise barriers and discussions are the same as previously described for Alternative F since both Alternatives F and G have the same proposed road widening and projected traffic volumes in the area of Sites 10 and 12. At Site 14, a 1,200 foot long concrete barrier was evaluated along the eastern side of the proposed on-ramp to the Warren Street Bypass. The results of the preliminary noise barrier investigations indicate that noise reduction would range from 1 dBA with a 10 foot high barrier to 2 dBA with a 20 foot high barrier. Alternative H - At Sites 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 23, nine (9) different barrier heights were evaluated. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 42 and the potential noise barrier locations are shown on Plate 14. > At Sites 6, 7 and 8, a 3,600 foot long concrete barrier was evaluated along the northern side of proposed Alternative H. At Site 9, an 800 foot long concrete barrier was evaluated along the southern and eastern side of the proposed roadway. At Site 11, a 3,300 foot long concrete barrier was evaluated along the southern side of Alternative H. As previously discussed, noise barriers were determined not be reasonable at Site 16 however, the mainline of Alternative H adjacent to Site 16 would be in a cut section approximately 30 feet lower than Site 16. Within this cut section, a retaining wall is proposed along the northern side of the mainline. This 30 foot high retaining wall in effect functions as a noise barrier along this section of Alternative H. TABLE 41 Summary of Noise Barrier Analysis for Build Alternative G (Noise Levels in dBA, Leq.) 1 Year 2015 Insertion Loss** with Various Barrier Heights Year 2015 Unabated Site* Noise Level 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft 18 ft 20 ft 1 10 69 10 11 12 12 71 6 8 9 9 9 10 14 66 1 1 1 1 2 2 * Corresponds to Plate 14. ** Insertion loss refers to the amount of noise which is reduced by the barrier. I 1 IV-44 1 TABLE 42 Summary of Noise Barrier Analysis for Build Alternative H (Noise Levels in dBA, Leq.) Year 2015 Insertion Loss** With Various Barrier Heights Year 2015 Unabated Site* Noise Level 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 16 ft 18 ft 2 20 ft 22 ft 24 fe 26 6 61 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 68 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 8 69 1 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 9 66 6 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 11 78 6 7 8 9 10 11 11 12 12 23 78 6 7 8 10 10 11 12 12 12 Corresponds to Plate 14. ** Insertion loss refers to the amount of noise which is reduced by the barrier. At Site 23, a 1,300 feet long concrete barrier was evaluated along the southern side of the West Shore Bypass. Construction Noise A temporary noise level increase will occur as the result of construction of any of the build alternatives. The magnitude of construction noise impacts depends on the specific types of equipment used, the construction methods and the scheduling of work. These items are typically left to the individual contractor to provide flexibility in utilizing equipment and personnel. Most mobile construction equipment operates in a cyclical fashion with periods of full power alternating with relatively quiet idling. It is anticipated, however, that Build Alternatives A and H will result in a higher magnitude, and a longer duration of construction noise than Alternatives F and G. This is due to the construction of a new highway alignment and new interchanges associated with Alternatives A and H as opposed to primarily existing road widenings and existing intersection improvements with Alternatives F and G. IV-45 Mitigation Temporary impacts due to construction noise can be minimized by using properly maintained and muffled equipment. Construction activities should be limited to daytime hours consistent with local ordinances. Scheduling activities to provide quiet periods could reduce impacts. Scheduling several noisy operations simultaneously will not increase noise levels substantially, but will reduce the duration of high noise levels. Incorporation of these, or similar, measures will minimize the temporary impact due to construction noise. 13. Air Quality The results of the CALINE 3 model for each of the Project Alternatives are presented in Table 43. Overall, there is not a notable difference among the 25 receptor sites or each alternative. None of the CO concentrations predicted for any of the 25 receptor sites for the year 2015 Build Alternative would exceed either the one-hour or eight-hour NAAQS of 35.0 ppm or 9.0 ppm, respectively. The following describes the predicted one-hour CO concentrations at each of the 25 receptor sites for each of the Build Alternatives. The locations of the receptor sites are indicated on Plate 14. No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative would maintain the existing distribution of traffic and traffic related air quality effects within the study area. Table 43 indicates the worst case one-hour and eight-hour carbon monoxide concentrations at all 25 receptor sites for the year 2015. Alternative A - For the year 2015, one-hour CO concentrations with Build Alternative A at Sites 2 through 5, range from a low of 6.3 ppm at Site 3 to a high of 6.8 ppm at Site 5. Future CO levels at these sites, when compared with No-Build levels, are expected to decrease by 0.1 ppm at Site 3, increase by 0.1 ppm at Sites 2 and 4 and remain constant at Site 5. One-hour CO concentrations at Site 1, are predicted to decrease by 0.1 ppm when compared with the No-Build Alternative. Sites 6, 7 and 8, have predicted year 2015 one-hour CO concentrations of 6.8, 8.7 and 6.7 ppm, respectively. When compared with the No-Build Alternative, predicted CO levels with Alternative A are expected to increase by 0.4, 2.3 and 0.1 for Sites 6, 7, 8, respectively. Predicted one-hour CO concentrations at Sites 9 through 13, range from 6.8 ppm at Site 9 to 7.4 ppm at Site 10. Of the five sites, Sites 9 and 11 are the only ones predicted to increase when compared with the No Build Alternative. With predicted increase of 0.1 ppm, Sites 9 and 11 are not noticeably affected by the Alternative. When compared with the No-Build Alternative, one-hour CO concentrations at Sites 10, 12 and 13 are predicted to decrease by 0.6, 0.3 and 0.2 ppm, respectively. IV-46 TABLE 43 CALINE 3 Summary of Worst Case Carbon Monoxide Concentrations*(ppm) (NAAQS = 35 PPM) (Corresponds with Plate 14) = Year 2015 Year 1990 Existing Conditions No-Build Build Alternative A Build Alternative F Build Alternative G Build Alternative H Site | 1 hr* | 8 hr** | 1 hr*8 hr** 1 hr* 8 hr** 1 hr* 8 hr** 1 hr* 8 hr** 1 hr* 8 hr** 1 6.9 4.1 6.7 3.9 6.6 3.9 7.5 3.9 7.5 4.4 7.3 4.3 2 6.6 3.9 3.9 3.9 6.5 3.9 6.6 3.9 6.5 3.9 6.6 3.9 3 6.4 3.8 6.4 3.8 6.3 3.8 6.4 3.8 6.4 3.8 6.4 3.8 4 6.4 3.8 6.3 3.8 6.4 3.8 6.6 3.9 6.6 3.9 6.5 3.9 5 7.1 4.2 6.8 4.0 6.8 4.0 6.8 4.0 6.8 4.0 6.8 4.0 6 6.5 3.9 6.4 3.8 6.8 4.0 6.5 3.9 6.5 3.9 6.9 4.1 7 6.6 3.9 6.4 3.8 8.7 5.1 6.5 3.9 6.5 3.9 7.7 4.5 8 6.7 3.9 6.6 3.9 6.7 3.9 6.6 3.9 6.6 3.9 6.9 4.1 9 6.8 4.0 6.7 3.9 6.8 4.0 6.9 4.1 6.9 4.1 6.8 4.0 10 8.1 4.7 8.0 4.7 7.4 4.3 8.5 4.9 8.5 4.9 7.4 4.3 11 6.6 3.9 6.6 3.9 6.7 3.9 6.7 3.9 6.7 3.9 6.8 4.0 12 7.3 4.3 7.3 4.3 7.0 4.1 7.3 4.3 7.3 4.3 7.0 4.1 13 7.2 4.2 7.1 4.1 6.9 4.3 7.4 4.3 7.4 4.3 6.9 4.1 14 8.2 4.8 8.5 4.9 8.4 4.9 8.5 4.9 8.4 4.9 8.4 4.9 15 6.9 4.1 6.8 4.0 7.1 4.2 7.3 4.3 7.3 4.3 7.1 4.2 16 7.1 4.2 6.9 4.1 7.1 4.2 6.6 3.9 6.6 3.9 7.3 4.3 17 7.0 4.1 6.7 3.9 7.0 4.1 6.8 4.0 6.8 4.0 7.0 4.1 18 6.8 4.0 6.6 3.9 6.9 4.1 6.7 3.9 6.7 3.9 6.9 4.1 19 7.2 4.2 6.8 4.0 6.8 4.0 6.8 4.0 6.8 4.0 6.7 3.9 20 8.3 4.8 7.9 4.6 7.3 4.3 7.9 4.6 7.9 4.6 7.3 4.3 21 8.7 5.1 8.7 5.1 8.2 4.8 8.8 5.1 7.5 4.4 8.2 4.8 22 8.8 5.1 8.1 4.7 7.6 4.5 8.1 4.7 8.1 4.7 7.6 4.5 23 9.1 5.3 8.4 4.9 8.7 5.1 8.4 4.9 8.4 4.9 8.7 5.1 24 7.6 4.5 7.3 4.3 8.3 4.8 7.3 4.3 7.3 4.3 8.3 4.8 25 9.0 5.2 7.9 4.6 8.6 5.0 7.9 4.6 7.9 4.6 8.6 5.0 k* Includes a background CO concentration of 6.2 ppm determined from the 1989 Air Quality report by PaDER. Includes a background CO concentration of 3.7 ppm determined from the 1989 Air Quality report by PaDER. IV-47 > Sites 15 through 19, have predicted year 2015 one-hour CO concentrations of 7.1, 7.1, 7.0, 6.9 and 6.8, respectively. When compared to the No-Build Alternative, predicted levels remained the same at Site 19, and increased 0.2 ppm at Site 16, and 0.3 ppm at Sites 15, 17 and 18. Predicted year 2015 one-hour CO concentrations at Sites 14 and 20 through 25, range from 7.3 ppm at Site 20 to 8.7 ppm at Site 23. When compared with the No-Build Alternative, Sites 14, 20, 21 and 22 are predicted to decrease by 0.1, 0.6, 0.5 and 0.5 ppm, respectively. When compared with the No Build Alternative, one-hour CO concentrations at Sites 23, 24 and 25 are predicted to increase by 0.3, 1.0 and 0.7 ppm, respectively. Alternatives F and G - Alternatives F and G would each maintain the distribution of traffic and traffic related air quality effects as they currently exist within the study area with a few exceptions. Alternative G is similar to Alternative F with the exception of an improvements at the existing Paper Mill Road/Warren Street Bypass interchange, whereas with Alternative F, the existing interchange will remain unimproved. The predicted CO concentrations at each of the 25 sites, with the exception of Sites 14 and 21, are analogous. Table 43 indicate the worst-case one-hour and eight-hour carbon monoxide concentrations with all 25 receptor sites for the year 2015 with the Build Alternatives F and G. Alternative H - As with Alternative A, Alternative H would change the distribution of traffic and traffic related air quality effects within the project study area. Table 43 indicates the worst case one-hour and eight-hour carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations at all 25 receptor sites for the year 2015 with Alternative H. Mitigation Since none of the CO concentrations predicted at any of the 25 receptor sites for the year 2015 with Build Alternatives A, F, G or H exceed either the one-hour or eight-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards, no mitigation measures are required. Conformity Statement The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA) requires that all Federal projects and projects which require Federal action be part of a conforming plan and program which leads to a regional decrease in emissions. On September 24, 1992, the Reading Area Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) adopted the FFY 1992 Transportation Improvement Program/Annual Element (TIP/AE) and a Conformity Resolution in which the region's program of projects, including this project, leads to the reduction of ozone forming emissions. On February 1, 1993 the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal Highway Administration IV-48 issued a favorable conformity determination for the Reading MPO. On March 9, 1993, the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal Highway Administration Administration approve the Pennsylvania FFY 1993 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The STIP included the transportation projects for the Reading region, specifically included was the Park Road Project. Therefore, this project conforms with Phase One of the Interim Period of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. 14. Construction Impacts Project construction activities will have the potential to result in localized, short-term and minor impacts to various resources in the study area. These impacts will occur primarily in the form of dust, soil erosion, noise and visual quality and will, for the most part, be limited to the immediate construction area. Construction-related impacts are discussed under the following headings in Section IV, Environmental Consequences: • Economy and Employment Community Facilities and Services Visual Resources Groundwater Water Quality and Aquatic Biota Soils and Erosion Analysis Wild and Scenic Rivers Noise Air Quality An overview of construction-related impacts of the proposed project follows. Economy and Employment All of the build alternatives would result in short-term, beneficial impacts to the local economy. Project construction would likely cause an increase in construction industry jobs, and some of these jobs may be filled by persons residing in the study area and/or vicinity. Also, a portion of the income of those persons employed in project construction would be spent on goods and services provided by businesses in the study area. There would also likely be construction materials and related services, such as surveying, drilling, etc., purchased from businesses in the study area. Community Facilities and Services No road closures are anticipated to be necessary for construction of any of the proposed build alternatives. Construction activities may, however, result in minor, short-term traffic delays with regards to Alternatives A, F, G and H. These alternatives will entail roadway construction IV-49 on existing routes for all (i.e. Alternatives F and G) or a part (i.e. Alternatives A and H) of their alignments. Alternatives A and H will require new construction on about 4,000 feet of the existing West Shore Bypass and about 3,500 feet of the existing Warren Street Bypass. Alternatives F will require construction on virtually the entire length of existing Paper Mill Road between the Outer Bypass and the Warren Street Bypass as well as short segments of Broadcasting Road, Berkshire Boulevard and Woodland Road. Alternative G will require construction on the entire length of existing Paper Mill Road as well as about one mile of the existing Warren Street Bypass. Movement of traffic will be facilitated on Paper Mill Road by keeping at least one lane open to traffic at all times. Under Alternatives A and H, movement of traffic for construction of the improvements to Park Road interchange will be facilitated by staging construction. The North Wyomissing Boulevard interchange will be constructed and in operation prior to commencement of work on the existing Park Road intersection area. Short-term traffic delays expected during the construction phase will cause minor inconveniences to the traveling public and will result in decreased access and increased response times of emergency vehicles during peak-hour traffic periods. Construction activities will temporarily affect sewerage service in Wyomissing Borough under Alternative A and H. Implementation of these alternatives will require relocation of the Resh Avenue pumping station, and approaching and departing lines, located near the interchange of the West Shore and Warren Street Bypasses. The number of connections that will be affected by the relocation is not known at this time. The anticipated loss of sewerage service is on the order of one to several days maximum. Visual Resources Temporary degradation of the visual quality of the study area will occur during the construction phase of all of the build alternatives. This visual degradation will occur in the form of equipment and materials yarding areas, temporary construction barriers and traffic control devices, and land clearing and grubbing operations. Groundwater > Under Alternatives A, F, G and H, the construction of the proposed Outer Bypass interchange will necessitate a roadway cut section. This area is a recharge zone for private water supply wells serving residences along Tulpehocken Road. Temporary impacts, in the form of turbidity, may be experienced in these wells, which are downgradient of the Outer Bypass construction area. Water Quality and Aquatic Biota 1 Clearing of vegetation and soil fisturbance will be required for all of the build alternatives. Exposed soils will result in thi tential for soil erosion and resultant sedimentation to occur. IV-50 1 1 This potential is expected to be minimal as: • Appropriate measures to minimize soil erosion and sedimentation will be implemented as part of an approved Soil Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Plan, and an Earth Disturbance Permit will be obtained. The expected time duration between soil disturbance and soil stabilization, with either vegetative and/or structural methods, will be relatively short. Construction activities will be planned to minimize the extent and duration of exposed soils. Under extreme storm events, short-term sedimentation effects to surface waters may occur. Construction of Alternatives A and H will potentially impact water quality of Tulpehocken Creek and the Schuylkill River. The proposed Warren Street interchange and the mainline of these alternatives are located in the vicinity of Intermittent Channels A and B, and a small drainage channel to Tulpehocken Creek. Alternative A will cross one of these drainageways and Alternative H will parallel one of these drainageways for about 2,000 feet (corresponds with Plate 11). Alternatives F and G would cross the floodplain and drainageway of Intermittent Channels A and B in the vicinity of Paper Mill Road. Alternatives A, F, G and H would affect the drainage channel to Cacoosing Creek located east of Van Reed Road. All four alternatives propose a crossing of the drainage channel by the proposed relocation of Van Reed Road. Cacoosing Creek, if affected, would be affected secondarily by erosion and sedimentation of the drainage channel. Soils and Erosion Analysis Clearing of vegetation, grubbing and grading will disturb presently stable soils, resulting in the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation. Other construction activities which will disturb stable soils include placement of culverts, construction of stormwater detention ponds, construction of diversion ditches and channels, movement of construction vehicles and machinery, placement of headwalls and stormwater collection inlets, materials and excavated overburden stockpiling, and placement of fill. As discussed under Construction Impacts to Water Quality and Aquatic Biota, soil erosion and sedimentation impacts are expected to be generally minor, short-term and localized. Construction on steep and in highly erodible soils will present a hazard of soil erosion and water pollution during construction. The extent and permanence of these problems are highly dependent on the measures used for sedimentation and erosion control. The degree of long-term soil erosion depends on the alteration of slopes, soil types, ground cover, and control of runoff. Minor surficial erosion channels were noted within the proposed Warren Street Interchange area IV-51 of Alternatives A and H. An additional erosion channel is located within the wooded area south of Paper Mill Road at the proposed relocated Van Reed Road for Alternatives A, F, G and H. Most of the steep slopes occur along the Tulpehocken Creek and along the proposed Van Reed Road relocation. Alluvial soils occur on the flat, lowland areas occurring as thin deposits along the Schuylkill River, Tulpehocken Creek, and Intermittent Channel A to the Tulpehocken Creek, located between Berkshire Boulevard and Warren Street, and are part of the natural erosional and depositional sequence. Construction and development activities can, if not properly controlled, accelerate this process. Alternatives A and H both would involve new roadway construction in the vicinity of the Schuylkill River alluvial deposits and Intermittent Channel A to the Tulpehocken Creek. Alternatives F, G and No-Build would not involve construction in these areas. Wild and Scenic Rivers Short-term construction related impacts of any of the proposed build alternatives may result in erosion and off-site sedimentation of the waterways surrounding the project area. Soil stabilization, soil erosion and sedimentation control measures would be implemented to control erosion at its source and minimize sedimentation impacts. Air Quality Air quality in the area would be temporarily degraded during construction due to the operation of heavy equipment and dispersion of particulates in engine exhaust. Wind blown soil and dust may also increase temporarily during and after earthmoving until vegetation is re-established on exposed soil surfaces. Compliance with soil erosion plans and rapid ground cover replacement would serve to minimize these effects. During particularly dry and windy conditions, wind blown dust may be controlled by regular application of dust depressants such as water. Noise During construction, sensitive receptors adjacent to the highway right-of-way will realize a temporary increase in noise levels. These noise levels will be equal to or slightly greater than the levels anticipated for the build alternatives in the design year. Construction noise impacts will generally be limited to the weekday daylight hours between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Sources of construction noise will include paving equipment, bulldozers, dump trucks, graders, and utility vehicles. IV-52 C. Cultural Resources 1. Historic Resources A total of thirty loci containing more than forty buildings or structures was evaluated for listing on the National Register of Historic Places during a 1989 historic structures survey (Tabachnick 1989). Of these thirty, six were determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. These properties include: the Kissinger Union Church District, the Janssen Historic District, the Mary Van Reed House, the John Van Reed House, the Van Reed Paper Mill, and the Marshall House. No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative would result in no impacts to the identified historic resources. > Alternatives A, F, G, and H - The impacts of Alternatives A, F, G, and H to these six National Register eligible structures were discussed in detail in this section of the DEIS. Application of the Criteria of Effect was applied for each of the six resources. It was determined by the PHMC that Alternatives A, F, G, and H would have No Effect on the Janssen Historic District, the Mary Van Reed House, the John Van Reed House, the Van Reed Paper Mill, and the Marshall House. In addition, Alternatives F and G would have No Effect on the Kissinger Union Church District while Alternatives A and H would have No Adverse Effect. The determination of effects letter from PHMC can be found in Appendix B, Page B-24 of this report. Mitigation Since Alternative A would result in No Effect or No Adverse Effect to the identified historic sites, no mitigation measures are required. 2. Archaeological Resources As documented in the October 31, 1991 letter (Appendix B, Page B-21) from the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC), only one (1) archaeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places was found within the study area based on the findings of the Phase I and Phase II Archaeological surveys. This site (36Bk621) is located on a terrace adjacent to the Schuylkill River. The site is generally bounded by the West Shore Bypass to the west and lower elevations along the River. - No-Build and Alternatives F and G - The No-Build Alternative and Alternatives F and G would result in no impacts to the identified archaeological resources. IV-53 - Alternatives A and H - Site 36Bk621 would be directly impacted by implementation of either Alternative A or H. Construction of the grade separated diamond interchange at North Wyomissing Boulevard under either of these Alternatives would necessitate disturbance of the majority of this approximately 2.2 acre site. Therefore, since Alternative A has been identified as the selected alternative, a Determination of Effects Report and Phase III Recovery Plan has been prepared and submitted to the PHMC. This site will not represent a Section 4(f) involvement once the Phase III recovery plan has been executed. The PHMC comments regarding the Determination of Effects Report and Phase III Recovery Plan can be found in Appendix B, Page B-20 of this report. In this correspondence, PHMC noted that the project would have no adverse effect on Site 36Bk621 if two revisions suggested by PHMC were incorporated into the data recovery plan. These suggested revisions are addressed in the March 5, 1993 response the PHMC letter. The March 5, 1993 response can be found in Appendir B, Page B-35. > Mitigation The destruction of Site 36Bk621 would constitute an adverse effect. However, Site 36Bk621 is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places because it can contribute significant information regarding prehistory of the region. Recovery of data in an appropriate manner as outlined in the Phase III Recovery Plan will preserve its significance and mitigate the adverse effects of the undertaking as stated in 36CFR800.9: (c) Effects of an undertaking that would otherwise found to be adverse may be considered as being not adverse for the purpose of these regulations. (1) When the historic property is of value only for its potential contribution to archaeological, historical, or architectural research, and when such value can be substantially preserved through the conduct of appropriate research in accordance with applicable professional standards and guidelines; Current archaeological techniques for recovering data will ensure the preservation of the significant information contained at the site. Analysis of the data will contribute to relevant research issues concerning prehistoric development in the Schuylkill River Valley. In addition, any unknown archaeological sites discovered during construction of Alternative A will be brought to the attention of the State Historic Preservation Office. IV-54 D. Traffic 1. Traffic Volumes The 2015 design year traffic volumes for the various alternatives were developed from projected average daily traffic volumes prepared by PennDOT and presented in the form of link volumes and quadrant turning moves. Link volumes represent two-way traffic volumes at particular roadway segments. Quadrant turning moves are represented as the sum of movements occurring between two particular approaches (i.e. the right turn movement from the east approach to the north approach plus the left turn movement from the north approach to the east approach would equal the north/east quadrant turning move). The projected 2015 daily traffic volumes provided by PennDOT were based on the anticipated growth in the Berks County study area as well as that growth which is outside the study area. The percent of daily traffic occurring during the peak hour (k-factor) and the peak hour directional splits observed in the existing count data were used to estimate the projected morning and afternoon peak hour turning movement volumes in 2015 for the various alternatives. (For a given peak hour, a 60/40 directional split would mean that 60 percent of the total traffic passing through a particular roadway segment is travelling in one direction while 40 percent of the total traffic is travelling in the other direction.) In preparing the traffic volume projections, PennDOT considered the traffic volume to be generated by the development of the Spring Ridge North property. However, specific access points were not included. Therefore, the turning movements into and out of the Spring Ridge North development identified in the Spring Ridge North Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Orth-Rodgers & Associates, Inc. (March, 1990) were used for all alternatives. The traffic volumes provided by PennDOT for the Park Road and Warren Street Bypass intersection were in the form of quadrant turning moves for the existing geometry. For 2015 conditions under Alternatives A and H this intersection would be eliminated. Therefore, manual adjustments were made in this area to account for the new traffic patterns resulting from the elimination of this intersection. The adjustments were based on turning movement counts taken in 1990 which identified the desired routes travelled by vehicles in this area during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. The traffic volumes provided by PennDOT for the 2015 Alternative A and H conditions included an interchange at Berkshire Boulevard. However, this interchange was eliminated during the study. The traffic volumes in that area were adjusted to reflect this change. The adjustments were made to include traffic diversions to/from the interchange at Broadcasting Road as well as the improved interchange at the junction of the West Shore and Warren Street Bypasses. " IV-55 For 2015 Alternative F and G conditions traffic volumes along Paper Mill Road would increase by about 5,000 vpd, when compared to the No-Build Alternative. The increase of 5,000 vpd on Paper Mill Road consists of a shift of traffic from parallel corridors, such as PA Route 183, based on a comparison of the No-Build Alternative to Alternative A volumes. This is due to the improvements that have been made to Paper Mill Road (addition of through lanes, turn lanes where necessary, synchronization of signals, etc.), including the new interchange at Paper Mill Road and the Outer Bypass, and the resultant increase in attractiveness of Paper Mill Road as a regional connection. - No-Build Alternative - The 2015 No-Build ADT and afternoon peak hour volumes are shown in Plates 20 and 21. The daily traffic on Paper Mill Road would range from 19,000 vpd north of Broadcasting Road to 30,600 vpd near the Warren Street Bypass, representing an average increase in traffic of 215 percent over existing conditions. Traffic on the Warren Street Bypass would range from over 40,000 vpd south of Paper Mill Road to as much as 95,600 vpd north of the West Shore Bypass. Through this area, the West Shore Bypass would carry 62,000 vpd. Park Road volumes would average over 30,000 vpd, while the combined approach volumes during the afternoon peak hour at the intersection of Park Road with the Warren Street Bypass would reach 9,000 vehicles per hour (vph), an increase of nearly 90 percent over existing traffic. Alternative A - The 2015 ADT volumes for Alternative A are shown in Plate 22. Along Paper Mill Road, daily volumes would range from 8,300 vpd north of Broadcasting Road to 20,000 vpd approaching the Warren Street Bypass. The new section of highway would carry 19,600 vpd west of the diamond interchange at Broadcasting Road, and 26,000 vpd between this interchange and the improved interchange at the junctions of the West Shore and the Warren Street Bypasses. As a result, daily volumes on Paper Mill Road would be reduced by 35 percent to as much as 70 percent when compared to No-Build traffic volumes. Under this alternative, the intersection of Park Road with the Warren Street Bypass would be eliminated. To account for some of the lost movements, a new interchange would be constructed at the West Shore Bypass and North Wyomissing Boulevard. This interchange would maintain access to the area east of the Warren Street Bypass and south of the West Shore Bypass (i.e. the area which would be directly affected by the elimination of the Park Road/Warren Street Bypass intersection) resulting in significant changes to the traffic patterns along Park Road and North Wyomissing Boulevard. Daily volumes along Park Road would range from 26,700 vpd east of North Wyomissing Boulevard (with a 50/50 directional split) to 19,000 vpd west of North Wyomissing Boulevard (with a 65% westbound directional split). The dominant movement at the intersection of Spring Street and Park Road would become the northbound right and westbound left turning movements during the peak hours. At the Park Road/North Wyomissing Boulevard intersection, those movements affected most significantly by the new interchanges would be the southbound left and right turns and westbound right turns. IV-56 On the Warren Street Bypass, daily volumes north of the West Shore Bypass would be reduced from 95,600 vpd under the No-Build Alternative to 88,000 vpd under Alternative A. The West Shore Bypass, with a direct connection to the Outer Bypass, would carry an average of 80,900 vpd between the new diamond interchange at North Wyomissing Boulevard and the Warren Street Bypass, an increase of 18,900 vpd. Plate 23 depicts the projected 2015 afternoon peak hour volumes for Alternative A. Alternative F - The 2015 ADT volumes for Alternative F are shown in Plate 24. Daily volumes on Paper Mill Road would range from 24,000 vpd west of Broadcasting Road to 34,500 vpd approaching the Warren Street Bypass. Traffic on the Warren Street Bypass would range from over 43,000 vpd to as much as 95,600 vpd north of the West Shore Bypass. Similar to the No-Build Alternative, Park Road would average 31,500 vpd, and the combined approach volumes at the Park Road/the Warren Street Bypass intersection would reach 9,000 vph during the afternoon peak hour. As discussed in a previous section, traffic volumes along Paper Mill Road would increase by approximately 5,000 vpd when compared to the No-Build Alternative. The increased attractiveness of Paper Mill Road as a regional connection would draw this additional traffic from parallel corridors, such as PA 183. On the remaining portions of the roadway network (i.e. the Warren Street Bypass - north of Paper Mill Road, and the West Shore Bypass), traffic volumes would be essentially unchanged from the No-Build Alternative. Plate 25 depicts the projected 2015 afternoon peak hour volumes for Alternative F. Alternative G - The 2015 ADT and afternoon peak hour volumes for Alternative G are shown in Plate 26 and 27, respectively. Traffic volumes for this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative F. The new diamond interchange for the Warren Street Bypass and Paper Mill Road connection would change traffic patterns in that immediate area affecting operations at the Paper Mill Road/Woodland Road intersection. This new interchange configuration would reduce the eastbound left turn volume at the intersection by loading the northbound Warren Street Bypass traffic on the new ramp. Figure 28 depicts the change in travel patterns for the area directly affected by the new interchange. Alternative H - The 2015 ADT and afternoon peak hour volumes for Alternative H are shown in Plates 28 and 29, respectively. As discussed earlier, the major difference between Alternative H and Alternative A is the relocation of Paper Mill Road due to the proximity of the Broadcasting Road interchange. Therefore, the traffic volumes for Alternative H are the same as Alternative A. IV-57 Alternative F Alternative G SIRETT SPRI PARX PARK ROAD ROAD 1901 DERY SHIRE BOULEVARD WOODLAND 22,5VOAM N POAD WOOOL ANO BUMIVARD BERKSHIRE BOULEVARD N WYOMISSING HOULEVARD WARREN Sipil YDASS 142:1: STREET eiss SR 177 SR 422 From Paper Mill Road to NB Warren Street Bypass From NB Warren Street to Paper Mill Road Change in Travel Patterns Figure 28 2. Level of Service Analysis a. Methodology Level of service (LOS) analyses were performed at key intersections in the study area. The key or "critical" intersections were determined by evaluating the impacts that each alternative, including the No-Build Alternative, would have on the study area. Based on the specific needs and objectives of the project, six intersections within the study area were identified as "critical": • Paper Mill Road and Broadcasting Road Paper Mill Road and Berkshire Boulevard • Paper Mill Road and Woodland Road • Park Road and Warren Street Bypass • Park Road and Spring Street • Park Road and North Wyomissing Boulevard IV-58 The level of service analyses were performed for both the morning and afternoon peak hours, however, the figures and discussions that follow relate only to the afternoon peak hour traffic. Although some particular movements at a given intersection may have been larger during the morning peak hour, the critical movements of the overall intersection were much larger during the afternoon peak hour in all cases. Therefore, it was the afternoon peak hour volumes that controlled the intersection design. Before completing level of service analyses on the various Alternatives, the future conditions were evaluated and some basic assumptions were made. The intersection of Paper Mill Road and Berkshire Boulevard is currently unsignalized, however, it is proposed to become signalized in the near future and was analyzed according to the conditions proposed in the signal permit plan obtained from Wyomissing Borough. The intersection of Park Road and Spring Street is also currently unsignalized, however, traffic volumes indicate that by 2015 a traffic signal would most likely be warranted. Consequently, the intersection was analyzed as a signalized intersection and included left turn lanes on the east and west approaches of Park Road (where a center turn lane currently exists). b. Results No-Build Alternative - Plate 30 depicts the existing afternoon peak hour levels of service for the six key intersections in the study area, and includes the lane geometry of each intersection for the given level of service shown. Figure 29 is a bar graph depicting the approach delays of each intersection. All intersections would operate at an overall LOS F with delays ranging from 125 seconds to 157 seconds. All but one approach would operate at LOS F; the north approach of the Park Road/North Wyomissing Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS E during the afternoon peak hour. In addition to poor levels of service and long delays, the available stacking distance at two of the intersections on Paper Mill Road would be inadequate. At the intersection of Paper Mill Road and Berkshire Boulevard, the available stacking distance on the east approach would be insufficient (required = 790 feet; available = 200 feet), and thereby cause traffic to back-up into the intersection of Paper Mill Road and Woodland Road. At the Paper Mill Road and Woodland Road intersection, the available stacking distance on both the east and west approaches would be inadequate. The required stacking distance for left turns on the east approach would be over 1000 feet compared to 400 feet, which would be available. The lack of stacking distance would cause traffic to back-up onto the Warren Street Bypass and create a serious safety problem. On the west approach, approximately 2000 feet would be required for the through movement while only 870 feet exists between the Berkshire Boulevard and Woodland Road intersection. These problems with stacking distances would result in major congestion and serious safety problems to the Paper Mill Road corridor. IV-59 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE YEAR 2015 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS 260 240 F 220 F 200 F F 180 F F ZD 160 F s 140 FF DELAY (seconds) 120 100 80 60 40 20 o 2 3 5 6 INTERSECTION LEGEND 1. Paper Mill Road and Broadcasting Rood NORTH APPROACH 2. Paper Mill Rood and Berkshire Boulevard EAST APPROACH SOUTH APPROACH 3. Paper Mill Road and Woodland Road 4. Polk Road and Warren Street Bypass 5. Park Road and Spring Street 6. Pork Rood and North Wyomissing Boule.co WEST APPROACH OVERALL INTERSECTION Figure 29 IV-60 Alternative A - Plate 31 depicts the 2015 Alternative A afternoon peak hour levels of service for the six key intersections in the study area, and includes the lane geometry of each intersection for the given level of service shown. Figure 30 is a bar graph depicting the approach delays of each of these six intersections. Under this alternative, minor construction improvements would be made to the intersections on Paper Mill Road, as well as improvements within existing curblines at the Park Road and North Wyomissing Boulevard intersection. Minor construction improvements would also be made to the intersection of Park Road and Spring Street These improvements would consist of adding turn lanes to the north and south approaches (Spring Street). The Park Road/Warren Street Bypass intersection would be eliminated. The Paper Mill Road/Berkshire Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS D with an average delay of 38 seconds, while the Paper Mill Road/Woodland Road intersection would operate at LOS C with an average delay of 16 seconds of delay during the afternoon peak hour. The remaining intersections would operate at LOS C or better with delays ranging from 14 second to 24 seconds. In addition, afternoon peak hour levels of service for various intersections surrounding Alternative A along with various weave areas are depicted on Plate 32. Alternative F - Plate 33 depicts the 2015 Alternative F afternoon peak hour levels of service for the six key intersections in the study area, and includes the lane geometry of each intersection for the given level of service shown. Figure 31 is a bar graph depicting the approach delays of each intersection. Under this alternative, the Paper Mill Road intersections would be greatly improved compared to the No-Build Alternative operating at LOS E or better with delays ranging from 26 seconds to 42 seconds at Broadcasting Road and Woodland Road, respectively. However those intersections on Park Road, particularly the Park Road/Warren Street Bypass intersection, would continue to operate at LOS F with overall delays ranging from 108 seconds to 147 seconds. Alternative G - Plate 34 depicts the 2015 Alternative G afternoon peak hour levels of service for the six key intersections in the study area, and includes the lane geometry of each intersection for the given level of service shown. Figure 32 is a bar graph depicting the approach delays of each intersection. This alternative differs from Alternative F in that a new diamond interchange would be constructed at the Warren Street Bypass and Paper Mill Road. As a result, traffic patterns in that area would change. The major change in travel patterns would occur to the intersection of Paper Mill Road and Woodland Road, as well as to the Park Road/Warren Street Bypass and Park Road/Spring Street intersections (Figure 31 depicts these changes). IV-61 TIRE ALTERNATIVE A YEAR 2015 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 DELAY IN SECONDS Z 120 Intersection replaced with Interchange 100 80 E 60 E 40 E 20 ס ס CD CC BB 3 B 0 1 3 4 5 6 N North Approach East Approach South Approach Intersections 1. Paper Mill Road & Broadcasting Road 2. Paper Mill Road & Berkshire Boulevard 3. Paper Mill Road & Woodland Road 4. Park road & Warren Street Bypass 5. Park Road & Spring Street 6. Park Road & North Wyomissing Boulevard West Approach Overall Approach Figure 30 IV-62 ALTERNATIVE F YEAR 2015 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS 260 240 u 220 200 180 ד 160 5 140 F DELAY (seconds) 120 100 8 80 60 D D 40 D 0+0+0+ DE*** DE+ 20 0 2 3 5 INTERSECTION LEGEND NORTH APPROACH EAST APPROACH 1. Paper Mill Rood and Broadcasting Rooo 2. Paper Mill Road and Berkshire Boulevard 3. Paper Mill Road and Woodland Rood 4. Park Road and Warren Street Bypass 5. Park Road and Spring Street 6. Park Road and North Wyomissing Boulevard SOUTH APPROACH WEST APPROACH OVERALL INTERSECTION Figure 31 IV-63 ALTERNATIVE G YEAR 2015 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ¿' 240 1 220 T 200 T MUZZA 180 1 160 140 T DELAY (seconds) 120 T 100 1 80 60 E+ D DE+D DD 40 20 0 2 3 5 5 INTERSECTION LEGEND NORTH APPROACH 1. Paper Mill Road and Broadcasting Rooo 2. Paper Mill. Rood and Berkshire Boulevard 3. Paper Mill Rood and Woodland Road EAST APPROACH SOUTH APPROACH 4. Park Road and Warren Street Bypass WEST APPROACH 5. Pork Road and Spring Street Park Road and North Wyomissing Boule.ro OVERALL INTERSECTION 6. Figure 32 IV-64 The major impact of this alternative, compared to Alternative F, is that a comparable level of service (level of service E or better) can be obtained at the intersection of Paper Mill Road and Woodland Road with fewer additional lanes on the south and west approaches. The level of service at the other intersections would be essentially the same as for Alternative F. Alternative H - The major difference between Alternative A and Alternative H is the relocation of Paper Mill Road. This would have no effect on the travel patterns in the study area, and therefore the traffic volumes for the two alternatives would be identical. It follows then that the resulting levels of service for Alternative H would be the same as those described for Alternative A. Plate 35 presents the 2015 afternoon level of service analyses of the six key intersections for Alternative H. The levels of service shown in Figure 33 for Alternative A, as well as the discussions, would also apply to Alternative H. E. Summary of Impacts A complete summary of impacts as a result of the build alternatives and the No-Build Alternative is presented on Table 44. F. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity This evaluation outlines the immediate environmental benefits derived from the proposed construction as compared to the future environmental losses caused by the proposed action. The following section describes both the short-term gains and losses and the long-term gains and losses in relation to each of the Build Alternatives. 1. Short Term Gains Implementation of the proposed construction will immediately create a demand on the local job market. The increased need for workers will precipitate an influx of people into the area. Because of construction of a project of this magnitude, positive benefits will be experienced by the real estate and housing industry, commercial and retail sales. Increases in sales taxes will also be derived from the purchase of construction materials. IV-65 ALTERNATIVE H YEAR 2015 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 Intersection replaced with Interchange DELAY IN SECONDS I Z 120 100 80 E 60 40 E o D D CC BB 20 8 со 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 North Approach East Approach South Approach Intersections 1. Paper Mill Road & Broadcasting Road 2. Paper Mill Road & Berkshire Boulevard 3. Paper Mill Road & Woodland Road 4. Park road & Warren Street Bypass 5. Park Road & Spring Street 6. Park Road & North Wyomissing Boulevard West Approach Overall Approach Figure 33 IV-66 IV-67 TABLE 44 Park Road Corridor Preliminary Summary of Impacts ALTERNATIVES NO-BUILD A F G H 35 mph 55 mph 40 mph 40 mph 55 mph 4 1 2 4 0 3 6 6 3 $0 $55,550,000 $16,500,000 $22,000,000 $53,500,000 CRITERIA A. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS 1. Estimated Operating Speed 2. Number of New or Improved Interchanges 3. Number of New or Improved Intersections 4. Estimated Construction Cost B. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 1. Regional Traffic Increased traffic congestion along local streets Provides an efficient and direct connection between the Outer Bypass and U.S. 422/222 Provides an inefficient and indirect connection between the Outer Bypass and U.S. 422/222 Provides an inefficient and indirect connection between the Outer Bypass and U.S. 422/222 Provides an efficient and direct connection between the Outer Bypass and U.S. 422/222 Increased traffic congestion along local streets Complete mixing of regional and local traffic Complete mixing of regional and local traffic 2. Local Traffic Separates regional and local traffic Removes regional traffic from local roadways Separates regional and local traffic Removes regional traffic from local roadways TABLE 44 Preliminary Summary of Impacts (Cont'd) ALTERNATIVES CRITERIA NO-BUILD A F G H . 3. Access Increased traffic congestion would cause difficult in accessing properties along local streets No signalized intersections along alignment. Access provided by interchanges. Alignment is limited access meaning no driveways or curb cuts. 5 signalized intersections along alignment which impede traffic flow and cause congestion. Alignment is free access meaning it includes driveways and curb cuts which reduce travel speed. 5 signalized intersections along alignment which impede traffic flow and cause congestion. Alignment is free access meaning it includes driveways and curb cuts which reduce travel speed. No signalized intersections along alignment. Access provided by interchanges. Alignment is limited access meaning no driveways or curb cuts. C. SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES 1. Land Use No effect Acquisition of agricultural land zoned for commercial development Acquisition of land for proposed Country Meadows expansion Acquisition of a 90 acre parcel for proposed office/business complex Acquisition of agricultural land zoned for commercial development Acquisition of property from Stone Hill Farms and the Meridian Corporate Center . Acquisition of agricultural land zoned for commercial development Acquisition of property from Stone Hill Farms and the Meridian Corporate Center Acquisition of agricultural land zoned for commercial development Acquisition of land for proposed Country Meadows expansion Acquisition of property from the Meridian Corporate Center Acquisition of property from the Treeview Corporate and Professional Center . 2. Population and Housing No effect Acquisition of three residences Acquisition of up to nine residences for construction of a noise wall. Acquisition of up to nine residences for construction of a noise wall. Acquisition of three residences I IV-68 IV-69 TABLE 44 Preliminary Summary of Impacts (Cont'd) ALTERNATIVES CRITERIA NO-BUILD А F G H 3. Economy and Employment No effect Acquisition of one business Acquisition of four businesses Acquisition of four businesses Acquisition of three businesses 4. Municipal Finances No effect Loss of $24,384 (0.10%) of real estate revenue for Berks County Loss of $4,371 (0.29%) of real estate revenue for Spring Township Loss of $7,153 (0.92%) of real estate revenue for Wyomissing Borough Loss of $93,203 (1.47%) of real estate revenue for Wilson School District Loss of $8,606 (0.03%) of real estate revenue for Berks County Loss of $1,935 (0.13%) of real estate revenue for Spring Township Loss of $1,739 (0.22%) of real estate revenue for Wyomissing Borough Loss of $32,895 (0.52%) of real estate revenue for Wilson School District Loss of $8,894 (0.03%) of real estate revenue for Berks County Loss of $2,000 (0.13%) of real estate revenue for Spring Township Loss of $1,797 (0.23%) of real estate revenue for Wyomissing Borough Loss of $33,992 (0.54%) of real estate revenue for Wilson School District Loss of $27,827 (0.11%) of real estate revenue for Berks County Loss of $4,988 (0.33%) of real estate revenue for Spring Township Loss of $8,163 (1.05%) of real estate revenue for Wyomissing Borough Loss of $106,361 (1.68%) of real estate revenue for Wilson School District 5. Community Facilities and Services Access to facilities and services of the surrounding community and the study area will not improve Completes a regional link which facilitates access to community services Facilitates access to community services to a lesser extent than A and H Facilitates access to community services to a lesser extent than A and H Completes a regional link which facilitates access to community services TABLE 44 Preliminary Summary of Impacts (Cont'd) ALTERNATIVES A F G H Creates a physical barrier dividing the north and south portions of the study area Creates a physical barrier dividing the north and south portions of the study Creates a physical barrier dividing the north and south portions of the study Creates a physical barrier dividing the north and south portions of the study area area area Would obstruct views in the vicinity of the proposed interchange with Warren Street Bypass. Would alter views along Paper Mill Road by increasing pavement width Would alter views along Paper Mill Road by increasing pavement width Would obstruct views from residences from Paper Mill Road and Berkshire Boulevard Would obstruct views in the vicinity of the proposed interchange with Warren Street Bypass Relocation of Paper Mill Road would alter the visual setting of Township Ballfield CRITERIA - NO-BUILD 6. Community Cohesion No effect 7. Visual Resources No effect D. NATURAL RESOURCES 1. Geology and Groundwater No effect Potential to expose sinkholes and solution channels No effects on public or private water supplies Potential to expose sinkholes and solution channels No effects on public or private water supplies Potential to expose sinkholes and solution channels No effects on public or private water supplies Potential to expose sinkholes and solution channels No effects on public or private water supplies IV-70 IV-71 TABLE 44 Preliminary Summary of Impacts (Cont'd) ALTERNATIVES CRITERIA NO-BUILD А F G H No effect 2. Surface Water Hydrology and Flooding 11.8 acres of encroachment on 100 year floodplain of intermittent channels 1.5 acres of longitudinal encroachment on 100 year floodplain of the Schuylkill River 0.14 acre of encroachment on 100 year floodplain of intermittent channels No encroachment on 100 year floodplain of the Schuylkill River 0.14 acre of encroachment on 100 year floodplain of intermittent channels No encroachment on 100 year floodplain of the Schuylkill River 11.2 acres of encroachment on 100 year floodplain of intermittent channels 1.5 acres of longitudinal encroachment on 100 year floodplain of the Schuylkill River 3. No effect Water Quality and Aquatic Biota Short-term increases in sedimentation of Tulpehocken and Cacoosing Creeks and to the Schuylkill River Short-term increases in sedimentation of Tulpehocken and Cacoosing Creeks and to the Schuylkill River Short-term increases in sedimentation of Tulpehocken and Cacoosing Creeks and to the Schuylkill River Short-term increases in sedimentation of Tulpehocken and Cacoosing Creeks and to the Schuylkill River . 4. Soils and Erosion No effect 184 acres of soil disturbed for excavation 85 acres of these soils are of high erosion potential 47 acres of soil disturbed for excavation 7 acres of these soils are of high erosion potential 48 acres of soil disturbed for excavation 9 acres of these soils are of high erosion potential 206 acres of soil disturbed for excavation 93 acres of these soils are of high erosion potential . 5. Vegetation and Wildlife 107.2 acres of vegetation converted to highway use 26 acres of vegetation converted to highway use 26 acres of vegetation converted to highway use 109.5 acres of vegetation converted to highway use Current land cover is rapidly being converted to commercial and residential use 6. Endangered Species No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect TABLE 44 Preliminary Summary of Impacts (Cont'd) ALTERNATIVES NO-BUILD F A CRITERIA G 1 H 7. Wetlands No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect 8. Waterways of the United States No effect One crossing of a regulated waterway draining to Cacoosing Creek One crossing of a regulated waterway draining to Cacoosing Creek Five crossings of a regulated waterway draining to Tulpehocken Creek One crossing of a regulated waterway draining to Cacoosing Creek Five crossings of a regulated waterway draining to Tulpehocken Creek One crossing of a regulated waterway draining to Cacoosing Creek . . All existing farmland and farmland soils are zoned for commercial and residential land use 95.3 acres of Prime Farmland Soil and 19.8 acres of state and locally important soil converted to highway use 65 acres of active farmland converted to highway use 26.0 acres of Prime Farmland Soil and 7.1 acres of state and locally important soil converted to highway use 23 acres of active farmland converted to highway use 30.0 acres of Prime Farmland Soil and 7.1 acres of state and locally important soil converted to highway use 23 acres of active farmland converted to highway use 109.4 acres of Prime Farmland Soil and 23.7 acres of state and locally important soil converted to highway use 68 acres of active farmland converted to highway use . 9. Farmlands 10. Wild and Scenic River No effect Potential short-term erosion and sedimentation of nominated waters: Tulpehocken and Cacoosing Creeks and the Schuylkill River Potential short-term erosion and sedimentation of nominated waters: Tulpehocken and Cacoosing Creeks and the Schuylkill River Potential short-term erosion and sedimentation of nominated waters: Tulpehocken and Cacoosing Creeks and the Schuylkill River Potential short-term erosion and sedimentation of nominated waters: Tulpehocken and Cacoosing Creeks and the Schuylkill River HH IV-72 IV-73 TABLE 44 Preliminary Summary of Impacts (Cont'd) ALTERNATIVES A F G H No effect No effect Potential disturbance of 0.78 acre including small rubbish disposal sites and construction fill material Potential disturbance of 0.78 acre including small rubbish disposal sites and construction fill material NO-BUILD CRITERIA 11. Waste Sites No effect 12. Noise No effect 7 sites approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria as a direct result of this alternative 2 sites approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria as a direct result of this alternative 3 sites approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria as a direct result of this alternative 8 sites approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria as a direct result of this alternative 13. Air Quality No effect Predicted carbon monoxide concentrations within National Ambient Air Quality Standards Predicted carbon monoxide concentrations within National Ambient Air Quality Standards Predicted carbon monoxide concentrations within National Ambient Air Quality Standards Predicted carbon monoxide concentrations within National Ambient Air Quality Standards E. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Historic Resources No effect to six National Register Eligible properties No effect to six National Register Eligible properties No effect to six National Register Eligible properties No effect to five National Register eligible properties No Adverse Effect to one National Register eligible property No effect to five National Register eligible properties No Adverse Effect to one National Register eligible property 2. Archaeological Resources No effect Disturbance to one 2.2 acre site No effect No effect Disturbance to one 2.2 acre site F. SECTION 4(0) RESOURCES No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect 2. Short Term Losses As the proposed construction nears completion, most of the non-local construction workers will move on to other projects. The possibility exists that some workers will remain in the area and become permanent residents. The labor market may not be able to absorb the additional personnel and the result would be increased unemployment. HHHH The construction may necessitate local- and through-traffic to be detoured around the project, thus consuming above-average quantities of fossil fuels. Disruption of travel habits by local citizens would lead to more circuitous patterns and traffic congestion which would use additional fuels. Some of the land which would be required for the mainline ramps and interchanges is currently in commercial and resident: 21 land use. Real estate taxes paid for these properties would be lost. In some instances, the dis icement of commercial buildings would result in the loss of jobs. Details of the economic ar employment impacts can be found in Section IV. Construction of any of the build alternatives also would require the removal of existing vegetation in some areas. Inherent in all construction is the temporary erosion problem along with increased air and noise pollution. 3. Long Term Gains Long range benefits attributable in part to the completion of any of the Build Alternatives will begin to accrue immediately. Fuel economy from elimination of stop and go driving along with higher average speeds will increase the efficiency of today's internal combustion engines. Decreased travel time will benefit local drivers and commercial haulers. Throughout the construction area of each of the Build Alternatives floodwater run off controls will be installed to reduce potential damage from heavy rainfalls. Aesthetic reestablishment of compatible vegetation and trees will surpass the existing natural scrubby and deteriorating trees. The existence of the highway itself will create more jobs in the highway maintenance field. Even though the roadway is new, periodic and seasonal upkeep is necessary, one such activity being snow plowing. 4. Long Term Losses The physical occupancy of the land by a highway facility generally removes the possibility of the land contributing to the real estate taxing basis base. Multiple use development on the land could provide tax revenues through another medium such as personal property taxes. Construction activity will use up petroleum based fuels and oils in the heavy equipment needed to build the project. In conclusion, the short-term impacts and use of resources by any of the IV-74 Build Alternatives is consistent with the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity for the local area, state and county. G. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Implementation of any of the proposed Build Alternatives involves a commitment of a range of natural, physical, human and fiscal resources. Land used in the construction of any of the proposed facilities is considered an irreversible commitment during the time period that the land is used for a highway facility. However, if a greater need arises for use of the land or if the highway facility is no longer needed, the land can be converted to another use. At present, there is no reason to believe such a conversion will ever be necessary or desirable. Overall, Alternative A would convert 107.2 acres of land to highway use and Alternatives F and G would convert 26.0 acres of land to highway use. Alternative H would convert 109.5 acres of land to highway use. Considerable amounts of fossil fuels, labor, and highway construction materials such as cement, aggregate and bituminous material would be expended for the construction of any of the Build Alternatives. Additionally, large amounts of labor and natural resources are used in the fabrication and preparation of construction materials. These materials are generally not retrievable. However, they are not in short supply and their use will not have an adverse effect upon continued availability of these resources. Any construction will also require a substantial one-time expenditure of local, State and Federal funds which are not retrievable. The commitment of these resources is based on the concept that residents in the immediate area, State and region will benefit by the improved quality of the transportation system. These benefits will consist of improved accessibility and safety, savings in time, and greater availability of quality services which are anticipated to outweigh the commitment of these resources. Another consideration is the loss of real estate which would result in the loss of tax revenue to Berks County, Spring Township, Wyomissing Borough and the Wilson School District. Alternative A would require the acquisition of 140 acres of right-of-way including three residences and one business. Alternatives F and G would require the acquisition of 33 and 35 acres of right-of-way including four businesses. Alternative H would require the acquisition of 160 acres of right-of-way including three residences and three businesses. Even though the structures which are required for the construction of each alternative may be replaced with equal or better structures in other locations, the tax revenues received from the original structures and properties would be lost. The estimate loss of real estate tax revenues which would be lost due to the construction of each of the Build Alternatives is $129,110 for Alternative A, $30,171 for Alternative F, $31,999 for Alternative G, and $147,556 for Alternative H. IV-75 However, due to the relative sizes of the taxing entities, it has been determined that the losses incurred would not have long-term adverse effects to the respective tax bases. The properties surrounding the proposed roadway will increase in value and will remain taxable land. The taxes collected from these properties will more than off-set the taxes lost as a result of the Build Alternatives. Further details on both property impacts and tax revenue can be found in Section IV.A of this report. IHHHHH IV-76 V. Comments and Coordination V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION A. Agency Correspondence 1. Plan of Study A Plan of Study was developed which described the scope of the environmental studies to be undertaken. The document described the project and its importance, outlined prior project alternatives and discussed the various environmental issues that would be studied. Also included were graphics showing the regional location and study area of the project. Copies of the Plan of Study were forwarded in February of 1989 to various local, state and federal agencies and organizations for review and comment. A list of the recipients is as follows: AGENCY RESPONSE SUBMITTED Federal U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service U.S. Department of the Army Environmental Resources Branch U.S. Department of Energy NEPA Affairs Division U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Environmental Affairs U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Geological Survey U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Urban Mass Transportation Administration U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Planning and Analysis Section Wetlands and Marine Policy Section U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency V-1 AGENCY RESPONSE SUBMITTED State Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Planning Research and Economic Development Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs Policy Planning Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Rivers and Wetland Conservation Secretary's Office of Policy Pennsylvania Fish Commission Pennsylvania Game Commission Pennsylvania Governor's Energy Council Governor's Office on Policy Development Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Public Utilities Commission * * * * * Local * * Berks County Borough of Wyomissing Bern Township City of Reading Lower Heidelberg Township Spring Township * Written and verbal responses to this plan of study were received from 13 entities. A summary of the responses and comments on the plan of Study for the Park Road Corridor Study are presented below. The agency response letters are included in Appendix A, Pages A-1 through A-20. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service The Plan of Study indicates that the primary concerns of the Soil Conservation Service will be addressed. The agency wishes to receive any further documents developed in the implementation of the project. V-2 U.S. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Three of the proposed alternatives would cross two unnamed tributaries to Tulpehocken Creek. The Corps of Engineers' review of the project indicate that same would involve discharge of fill material into the waters of the United States and their adjacent wetlands. "We suggest that the wetlands be delineated with the approved but presently unreleased Federal Wetlands Manual, which is expected to be released soon. In the interim, we recommend that delineations be conducted with the Environmental Protection Agency's Wetland Delineation Manual. Should an individual Army Corps Permit become required, we recommend that the Corps be designated as a cooperating agency. We are interested in attending an agency field view of the project." Contact person - Ms. Barbara Conlin. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development At present, the Department has no funded activities or proposals under review which may be affected by the alternatives under consideration. Concern was expressed over the potential impacts to community cohesion and residential displacement of Alternatives C and D. The Department wishes to attend the scoping field view. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service The Plan of Study adequately covers the issues of concern. The Service believes wildlife-related impacts may be evaluated without conducting a PAM-HEP through evaluation of acreage and vegetative cover types affected in conjunction with state and federal species lists. The Service wishes to review the Alternatives Analysis Report and the Natural Resources Technical Basis Reports once completed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis will identify the best alternatives for further study in the EIS. Note that an alternative should not be eliminated from further study unless it is either unfeasible or inferior to another alternative with regard to all of the project objectives, including environmental, engineering, and transportation objectives. The rationale for the elimination of any alternative, including the option of upgrading existing roads, should be given in the EIS." "Please include the EPA on any field review of the study area. We would also like to participate in the formation of wetland mitigation plans for those wetlands that cannot be avoided by the project. It is recommended that potential mitigation sites be identified in the EIS." Contact person - Lynn Rothman. V-3 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Rivers and Wetlands Conservation HHH Expressed concern over impacts to Tulpehocken Creek and Cacoosing Creek, currently nominated for Scenic River status under the Pennsylvania Wild and Scenic Rivers Program. The agency wishes to be kept informed and coordinate throughout the Environmental Impact Statement process. The agency expressed concern over Alternatives C and D for their potential impacts to scenic river resources in the project area. Invitation to the agency scoping field view is requested. Secretary's Office of Policy The activities addressed by the project may be subject to regulation by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. Questions should be directed to the DER regional office in Norristown, and the DER office in Harrisburg. Pennsylvania Fish Commission a The Commission requests that improvements to PA Route 183 and Paper Mill Road be treated as viable alternatives for future study. They question whether the roadway would be a limited access facility. Suggests that Alternative D be dismissed from further study due to its encroachment on Tulpehocken Creek. Pennsylvania Game Commission The Commission agrees that the appropriate project alternatives are being considered. The Commission wishes to participate in the agency scoping field view and would like to receive a copy of the EIS. Contact person - Roland Bergner. Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs The Department has provided financial assistance to Berks County from the Federal Land and Water Conservation fund, and State funding in the acquisition and development of the County's Tulpehocken Creek Parkway. Various alternatives, especially Alternative D, may have an impact on their parkland. Please coordinate closely with Berks County Parks Department and this Department. Berks County Planning Commission All project concerns are adequately addressed in Plan of Study. V-4 Borough of Wyomissing Appropriate alternatives are being considered and the proposed scope of the analyses appears to be correct. Lower Heidelberg Township Township does not support Alternative C. Believes Alternative D is the "best choice" with Alternative A as a "close second." 2. Engineering and Environmental Studies - Agency Contacts Throughout the study process, various federal, state and local agencies were contacted for information and input. Technical reports were distributed to the resource agencies for review and comment. These reports included the Project Need Document and Preliminary Alternatives Analysis, and a Wetland Survey Report. A summary of the agency responses and comments received are presented below. The agency response letters are contained in Appendix A, Pages A-21 through A-45 of this report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, one endangered plant, the small whorled pogonia, is recorded from the Reading area. Except for occasional transient species, no other federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species under U.S. Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction are known in the project impact area. The report was reviewed, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred that Alternative A and the No-Build Alternative should be considered as alternatives for further study. Environmental Protection Agency, NEPA Compliance Section The report was reviewed and the EPA stated that the criteria used as a basis to eliminate alternatives was too restrictive and that the analysis appeared to be based toward the selection of the preferred alternative. The EPA suggested that additional alternatives should be included in the NEPA document. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers In July of 1989, a Wetland Survey Report was submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers as a preliminary jurisdictional determination on the Park Road Corridor. In October of 1989, the Army Corps provided comments on the study, and comments on the Army Corps site visit of September 12, 1989. The Army Corps noted that based on the preliminary review of the V-5 corridor, there did not appear to be any wetlands, although the corridor did contain waters of the United States. Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory According to the PNDI data base, there are no species of special concern occurring within the project study area. HU DER. Bureau of Water Resources Management According to DER's evaluation of the information sent to them regarding the proposed project, Alternatives A and H appear not to have any impact on the Scenic River corridors of the Schuylkill River or Tulpehocken Creek. Maps were enclosed depicting the Scenic River corridor of the Schuylkill River and the proposed corridor of Tulpehocken Creek. DER would like to be kept informed through final project design. Pennsylvania Fish Commission According to the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, none of the fishes, amphibians or reptiles listed by the Commission as endangered or threatened are known to occur at, or in the immediate vicinity of the study area. Pennsylvania Game Commission The report was reviewed and the Commission suggested that Alternatives C, E and F be treated as viable alternatives. According to the Pennsylvania Game Commission, eight species of concern are potential inhabitants of the project study area. The species are osprey, short-eared owl, upland sandpiper, Henslow's sparrow, Barwick's wren, small footed myotis, bog turtle and eastern wood rat. 3. Local Government Coordination In response to the Pennsylvania Game Commission review comments of May 1990 and the EPA review comments of June 1990 regarding the Documentation of Needs and Preliminary Alternatives Analysis, four local government entities formally expressed their respective positions regarding this document, in letters sent to the EPA. Summaries of these letters and summaries of the EPA response are presented below. Copies of these letters are included in Appendix A, Pages A-46 through A-62. V-6 Township of Spring The Township noted that Alternative A should be regarded as the preferred alternative primarily because it provides a traffic link between the Outer Bypass and the Warren Street Bypass. The Township also noted that the community has been waiting 25 years for such a traffic improvement and that the other alternative would have negative impacts on the community. Borough of Wyomissing The Borough noted that the Documentation of Need and Preliminary Alternatives Analysis report gave full consideration to every federal and state prerequisite and that Alternative A was the obvious choice as the preferred alternative. Berks County The County noted its support of the conclusions of the Documentation of Needs and Preliminary Alternatives Analysis report and suggested that Corridor A has the greatest community support, while the Paper Mill Road Alternative would require the destruction of a recently upgraded roadway. Berks County Planning Commission The Commission suggested that Corridor A best meets the community development needs of the area. The Commission also suggested that the failure of the EPA to visit the project area demonstrated a lack of concern with the project. Environmental Protection Agency - Response The EPA noted that it is concerned with all aspects of the project, and the EPA stated the opinion that studying Alternatives A, F and the hybrid (Alternative H) will facilitate the most informed decision regarding the project. Local governments have been active in the project through issuing official resolutions and statements regarding the project. On February 15, 1990, Berks County, Wyomissing Borough and Spring Township joined with PennDOT and Governor Casey in issuing a Statement of Intent resolving that the municipalities would cooperate with the state in development of a corridor in the Park Road area. On July 9, 1991, the Borough of Wyomissing passed a resolution, supporting the selection of Alternative A as the preferred alternative, and opposing Alternatives F, G and H. On July 22, 1991, the Township of Spring passed Resolution #91-11, supporting the selection of Alternative A as the preferred alternative and opposing Alternatives F, G and H. On July 25, 1991, the Bern Township, Township Manager stated that all the alternatives would pose critical problems for Bern Township, but that Alternative A should be considered the most preferred. On December 11, 1991, Senator Brightbill sent a letter on behalf of the V-7 1 Colony Park Civic Association and the Berks County community in support of Alternative A. Copies of these letters are contained in Appendix A. B. Section 106 Coordination THII Throughout the study process, coordination has been conducted with the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC). Copies of the Historic Survey Report, the Phase I Archaeological Report and the Phase II/Phase I Archaeological Report were submitted to the PHMC for review. Determinations regarding the eligibility of historic sites and archaeological sites for the National Register of Historic Places were requested. The following is a summary of the correspondence received regarding cultural resources within the project area. Copies of these letters are included in Appendix B of this report. PHMC - April 11, 1990 The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) determined the following properties eligible for the National Register: A. Gaul District, Marshall House, Van Reed Paper Mill, Janssen Historic District, Mary Van Reed House and John Van Reed House. The following properties were determined not to be eligible: Deppen/Shirk Farm, Conrail Railroad Bridge, Bridge Pier, Kissinger Barn, Union Canal Section Bridge Pier, Gring House, Farmhouse, Kissinger Church District, and Wertz property. PHMC - May 22, 1990 Based on a site visit and subsequent reevaluations, the PHMC determined that the Kissinger Church District is eligible for the National Register, and that the A. Gaul District is not eligible for the National Register. PHMC - May 29, 1990 O PHMC concurs that Alternative A has the least detrimental effects to historic resources. However, archaeological resources have yet to be identified. PHMC is concerned with potential secondary effects to historic and prehistoric resources. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act and Executive Order 11593, the National Park Service determined that the following properties are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places: Van Reed Paper Mill, John Van Reed House, Mary Van Reed House, Kissinger Church District, Marshall House and A. Gaul District. V-8 PHMC - August 30, 1991 The SHPO has determined that the John Withers House and the A. Gaul District are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. PHMC - November 20, 1990 PHMC concurs that the Phase I Archaeological Survey for the project is complete. PHMC also concurs that Phase II should be conducted for Sites 36Bk616, 36Bk617, 36Bk620 and 36BK621. Some modifications to the Phase II workplans were recommended. PHMC - October 31, 1991 PHMC provided comments on the Phase II Archaeological Survey and Phase I Archaeological Survey on New Alignment report. PHMC concurs that Phase I should be conducted on Section K as soon as possible. Concurrence was received that Sites 36Bk632, 36Bk633, 36Bk617 and 36Bk622 are ineligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Site 36Bk621 was determined eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Additional information regarding the analysis of feature fill from Site 36Bk616 was requested. PHMC will make an eligibility determination on Site 36Bk616 upon receipt of the requested information. PHMC - June 10, 1992 PHMC provided comments on the revised Phase II Archaeological Survey and Phase I Archaeological Survey on New Alignment report. Additional information regarding the analysis of fill samples from features at Site 36BK616 was requested. PHMC will make an eligibility determination on 36BK616 upon receipt of the requested information. In addition, the Archaeological Determination of Effects Report and Data Recovery Plan for Site 36BK621 will not be commented on until additional soil information is provided. C. Meeting Summaries 1. Special Purpose Meetings Several formal meetings with federal and state resource agencies were held early in the study process to introduce the project and to solicit comments and concerns from the agencies. This included attending three Transportation Project Development Interagency Coordination Meetings (TPDICM) and other interagency meetings. Copies of the meeting reports for these meetings are contained in Appendir C. The first interagency meeting was held on June 28, 1989 and was attended by the Army Corps of Engineers, PA Game Commission, PA Fish Commission, EPA, PA Historical and Museum Commission, FHWA and PennDOT, Bureau of Environmental Quality. The purpose of the V-9 meeting was to determine the necessity of conducting a PAMHEP analysis for this project. The consensus was that PAMHEP would not be necessary for this project. A meeting was to be arranged between local officials and developers and the regulatory agencies to discuss habitat mitigation. A field view with the COE was proposed for mid summer 1989 to verify the absence of wetlands in the project area. 1 The first TPDICM presentation was held on November 29, 1989. The purpose of this meeting was to present the results of the preliminary alternatives analysis. The project need and transportation issues were outlined as the predominant issue in the selection of Corridor A for further design studies. 1 The second TPDICM presentation was held on May 30, 1990. The purpose of this meeting was to receive comments and request concurrence from the regulatory agencies regarding the Park Road Project Need Statement and Preliminary Alternatives Analysis. After a review of the current status of the project the TPDICM Committee concluded that the Paper Mill Road Alternative (Alternative F), Alternative A, the TSM, and the No-Build Alternative should all be included in the EIS. 1 The third TPDICM presentation was held on October 4, 1990. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the regulatory agency comments received on the Documentation of Need and Preliminary Alternatives Analysis. The major topic of discussion of this meeting was the merits of continued study of the Paper Mill Road Alternative. It was concluded that Alternative A, the Paper Mill Road Alternative (Alternative F), the hybrid alternative (Alternative H), and the No-Build Alternative should be carried through the detailed studies in the EIS. 2. Task Force Early in the project study process, a task force was formed including representatives of the government, the business community, development interests, and citizens of the project study area. Task force meetings have been held on a monthly basis since July 18, 1988, and have continued throughout the study. The task force has been active in setting schedules and monitoring the consultant progress. The task force also has acted as a liaison between various entities and individuals involved with or impacted by the project. A list of the task force members is contained in Appendix C. 3. Landowner and Developer Meetings Because the project study area contains a number of properties for which developments have been proposed, coordination meetings with developers and landowners were initiated for the study. On February 8, 1989, a meeting was held with non-residential landowners in the project study area. Anticipated operational dates, traffic volumes and access points were discussed and V-10 separate conferences with representatives of each land owner were held. Developers were requested to supply a copy of their conceptual or approved site plans for use in evaluating environmental impacts. On October 10, 1989, a Landowner Coordination meeting was held at the request of Tulpehocken, Ltd. to discuss the progress of the design studies and the potential impacts to private landholdings in the study area. Also on that date, a similar meeting was held with Spring Ridge, Inc. On November 10, 1989, a meeting was conducted with Orth-Rodgers and Associates regarding the design plans for the proposed Fox Theater property. On November 15, 1989, a meeting was held to give property owners an opportunity to comment on the proposed design and offer suggestions for possible interchange modifications. Meeting reports from meetings with landowners and developers are contained in Appendix C. > 4. Public Officials Meetings and Resolutions 9 Meetings with PennDOT and representatives of local municipalities and the Berks County Planning Commission occurred throughout the study process. On February 8, 1989 a meeting was held with local government officials and area developers to coordinate with non-residential land owners in the area. On August 3, 1989, a meeting was conducted to present local government officials with the design schemes for Preliminary Alternatives A and B. On August 15, 1989 a meeting was held with the local government officials to review all interchange alternatives and obtain comments on the best schemes for detailed analysis. Copies of the meeting reports for these meetings are contained in Appendix C. D. Public Coordination 1. Newsletters, Public Questionnaires and Public Meeting Reports To date, four public meetings have been held to discuss the project and to solicit comments. Information brochures and comment forms were distributed at the public meetings to facilitate public response. Block advertisements in the local newspapers were used to inform the public of the meetings. A mailing list of concerned parties and citizens was generated. A meeting notice was sent to each address on the mailing list prior to each public meeting. The first public meeting was held May 17, 1989 at the Berks Campus of Penn State University. The purpose of the first public meeting was to describe the scope of engineering and environmental studies and obtain comments on the preliminary corridor under study. Over 50 people signed in at the meeting, however, an estimated 75 persons were present. In response to a questionnaire distributed at the public meeting, it was found that 88% of the respondents V-11 expressing a preference, chose Corridor A as the preferred alternative. respondents said that local roadway improvements will not address the regional Many survey transportation needs. Copies of the public meeting report, the questionnaire, the summary report and a public opinion survey are contained in Appendix D. > The second public meeting was held on November 1, 1989 at Wilson Senior High School. The purpose of the second public meeting was to present the results of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis. Public concerns raised at the meeting included traffic, safety, access and residential impacts. There also was a suggestion that the Warren Street Bypass Extension (U.S. 222) be completed before the Park Road Corridor project. A summary of the comments received from the public at this meeting is included in Appendir D. The third public meeting was held on September 19, 1990 at the Berks Campus of Penn State University. The purpose of this meeting was to present the results of the state and federal agency reviews of the Documentation of Project Needs and Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, and to outline the next phases of the study. During this meeting, public comment forms were distributed, of which 39 were returned. The issues mentioned most frequently on these forms were safety and the opposition to any Paper Mill Road Alternative. A summary of the issues discussed at this meeting is included in Appendix D. The fourth public meeting was held on July 24, 1991 at the Berks County Agricultural Center. This purpose of the fourth public meeting was to present the preliminary designs for each roadway alternative along with the results of the detailed environmental, traffic, and engineering study. During this meeting, public comment forms were distributed, of which 57 were returned. Of the questionnaire returned, 56 chose Alternative A as the one alternative which best fits the needs of the area. A copy of the questionnaire and a copy of the meeting report are contained in Appendir D. To date, four newsletters have been distributed to interested parties and persons on the mailing list. The purpose of these newsletters has been to provide updates on project status, project goals and to announce upcoming public meetings. Copies of the four newsletters are contained in Appendir D. 2. Public Comment Letters Throughout the study process, written comments were received from citizens, businesses and other special interests. Copies of these comment letters are contained in Appendix D and are summarized in the section below. G. Michael Leader. George M. Leader Family, Corp. (February 16, 1989): Noted that his firm owned 27 acres of property near Park Road including the recently constructed Country V-12 Meadows, a retirement living facility. Expressed concern over the impacts the project might have on the facility and suggested a field visit the facility. David F. Rick, Tulpehocken, Ltd. (May 30, 1989): Noted that his firm owned property within the study area. Suggested that an outer bypass to Routes 222 and 422 would better suit regional needs. Requested that the evaluation of alternatives minimize impact to the firms holdings. Joel P. Knoblauch, Knoblauch, Inc. Realtors (November 2, 1989): Suggested that the study area be expanded, that the study should take a more long term perspective and that construction impacts could have a serious negative impact on the region. Raymond C. Schlegel, Roland & Schlegel (November 20, 1989): Expressed dissatisfaction that his client, Fox Theaters was not able to make a presentation at the November 15th Task Force Meeting, despite being on the agenda. Joseph E. DeSantis. Park Road Task Force (November 21, 1989): Commented that Fox Theaters was given ample opportunity to make presentation at two public hearings. Noted that Fox Theaters has been put in contact with the Task Force consultants so as to provide suggestions. Anonymous Letter From "A Sincere Berks Countian." (July 12, 1990): Noted that he/she is an older citizen who was shown indian artifacts in the study area as a child. Expressed concern that the project will degrade the historic value of the study area. Donald A. Wojton, Colony Park Resident (September 26, 1990): Expressed support for Corridor A and suggested that the EPA and PaDER are mistaken in their assessment of the project. Anna Gring. Wyomissing Resident (September 26, 1990): Expressed appreciation for the information sent to her regarding her property. Noted that the drive on the south and west of her home is not private. Brian Gallagher, Berks County Chamber of Commerce (October 3, 1990): Expressed support for Corridor A and opposition to plans which would use any portion of Paper Mill Road. David F. Rick, Tulpehocken, Ltd. (October 18, 1990): Noted that the EPA suggested that the Park Road Corridor use the existing roadbed south of Paper Mill Road. Expressed opposition to this corridor. Peter M. Carlino, Peter Carlino Company (November 5, 1990): Noted that there has been discussion of rerouting the Park Road Corridor so that it would come close to the Stone Hill Farms community. Expressed opposition to this corridor. V-13 Philip D. Rowe, Jr., Reading Regional Port Authority (June 21, 1991): Noted the need for a Park Road Corridor. Expresses support for the Paper Mill Road Hybrid Corridor. William S. Flippin, WEEU Broadcasting Company (July 25, 1991): Expressed support for Alternative A and opposition to Alternatives F, G and H. Noted that as part of the Emergency Broadcasting System, WEEU must have twenty-four hour access to its broadcasting towers. HHHH Samuel A. McCullough, Meridian Bancorp, Inc. (July 25, 1991): Expressed support for Alternative A and opposition to Alternatives F, G and H. Noted that his firm recently completed major construction at Spring Ridge which could be impacted by Alternatives F, G and H. David F. Rick, Tulpehocken, Ltd., (July 25, 1991): We oppose Alternatives F and G and strongly oppose Alternative H. Strongly endorse Alternative A. Peter M. Carlino. Peter Carlino Company (July 29, 1991): Expressed opposition to all the alternatives, but noted that Alternative A would have the least impact. Noted that bisecting the residential communities of Colony Park and Stone Hill Farms would impact a large number of residents. J.F. Horrigan, Jr., Horrigan American, Inc. (July 31, 1991): Noted that his firm is the owner of the Hampton Inn-Reading. Expressed support for Alternative A and opposition to Alternatives F, G and H. 3. Petitions Two separate petitions have been received regarding the proposed Park Road project. Copies of these two petitions are included in Appendix D. A petition was sent to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) by concerned citizens and descendants of the Stoltzfus Family (October 10, 1991). The petition requests that everything possible be done to preserve the historic Nicholas Stoltzfus home. This house was determined eligible to the National Register of Historic Places by the PHMC (April 10, 1991 letter). It is referred to as the Marshall House in PHMC's letter. The petition was signed by 204 people. A petition was sent to the District Engineer from the president of the Colony Park Civic Association (November 18, 1991). The petition, signed by 225 residents, indicates strong support for Alternative A. The citizens signing the petition are totally opposed to any alternative other than Alternative A. V-14 E. Public Hearing and Comments on the DEIS 1. Public Hearing The public hearing for this project was held on July 29, 1992 at the Berks County Agricultural Center. The purpose of the public hearing was to obtain formal verbal and written comments on the project and on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. A total of 58 people signed in at the hearing which began at 6:00 p.m. with an informational open house. Beginning at 7:00 p.m. formal testimony was recorded by a stenographer for inclusion in a formal hearing transcript. A copy of this hearing transcript along with the formal responses to each comment raised can be found in Appendix G of this report. During the hearing, a total of two public officials and eleven members of the general public gave verbal testimony. The names of the people who gave formal testimony along with their major concern are summarized in Table 45. In summary, nine of the thirteen oral testimonies supported or endorsed Alternative A. In addition, formal written testimony was submitted by 14 groups or private citizens either with oral testimony or following the public hearing. Copies of these 14 letters along with the formal response to each comment raised can be found in Appendix G of this report. Eight of the 14 written testimony comments received were simply a written version of what was recorded verbally at the hearing, while eight written testimony letters were from other groups or private citizens. The names of all who gave written testimony along with their major concerns are summarized in Tables 46 and 47. In summary, eleven of the fourteen written testimony letters supported or endorsed Alternative A. 2. Comments on DEIS Beginning on June 19, 1992, the Park Road DEIS was made available for public review and comment at the following locations: Spring Township Office Wyomissing Borough Office Berks County Planning Commission PennDOT District 5-0 FHWA Offices A notice of availability for the DEIS was placed in the Reading Eagle Times on Sunday, June 21, 1992 and on Sunday July 19, 1992. In addition, copies of the DEIS were sent to 10 federal agencies, 15 state agencies, 6 local agencies, and 11 members of the Park Road Task Force. The names of all who received a DEIS along with their response are summarized in Table 48. In addition, copies of the letters which provide comments on the DEIS along with the formal responses to each comment raised can be found in Appendix G of this report. V-15 TABLE 45 Park Road Draft EIS Review Summary Public Hearing - Oral Testimony Hearing Date: JULY 29, 1992 Agency And/Or Person Comment Mr. Anthony J. Carabello Berks County Board of County Commissioners Endorses Alternative A Endorses Alternative A Mr. Paul Edelman Borough of Wyomissing Council President Brian Boland (for Mr. and Mrs. Philip Rowe) Austin Boland Connor & Giorgi Endorses Alternative H. Wants sound barrier along entire northerly boundary of the road project. Concern for parking on A and H on North Wyomissing Boulevard. Roy Walton Recommends Alternative A. Dave Wolf Colony Park Civic Association Berks County Task Force Supports Alternative A. Nancy Sharp Berks County Chamber of Commerce John A. Ulrich Concern for loss of taxable land. James Mason Supports Alternative A. James R. Huber Supports Alternative A. Paula Michalski Supports Alternative A. Feels amount of money being paid for acquired properties is too high. Doug Culp Stone Hill Farms Homeowners Supports Alternative A. William G. Yeich Supports extension of Warren Street Bypass. Lenore Svetec Supports Alternative A. V-16 TABLE 46 Park Road Draft EIS Review Summary Public Hearing - Written Documentation Submitted With Oral Testimony Hearing Date: July 29, 1992 Agency And/Or Person Major Comment Berks County Planning Commission Endorses Alternative A. Borough of Wyomissing Prefers Alternative A. Austin, Boland, Connor & Giorgi for Mr. and Mrs.Phillip D. Rowe David A. Wolf, Colony Park Civic Association Endorses Alternative H. Has concern about noise impacts to areas along corridor. Recommends Alternative A. James L. and Patricia A.Mason Supports Alternative A. TABLE 47 Park Road Draft EIS Review Summary Public Hearing - Written Testimony Form/Letters Submitted at or Following Public Hearing O Agency And/Or Person Comment James R. Huber Endorses Alternative A. Dr. Andrea Dillaway-Huber Endorses Alternative A. Douglas N. Culp Endorses Alternative A. Bob Schaeffer Endorses Alternative A. Requests sound barriers. Jody L. Gerhart Questions effect on property values. Paula Michalski James and Patricia Mason Concern for emergency vehicle access to the north side of Warren Street Bypass. Would like to see wildlife study. Strongly supports Alternative A. Reluctantly chooses Alternative A. Is concerned that road will not relieve congestion on other area roads. Endorse Alternative A. Supports sound barriers. Stephen Gresdo Mildred and Fred Gane V-17 TABLE 48 Park Road Draft EIS Review Summary Agency and Public Comments Received During the Draft EIS Circulation Period Federal Agency Comment U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, Region III Minimal impacts Concern for two HUD assisted developments U.S. DOT, Federal Transit Administration No significant mass transit issues National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA must be informed if any geodetic monuments are affected U.S. Department of Energy No comment U.S. Department of Health and Human Services No comment U.S. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers No comment U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Concern for control of erosion and sediment during construction, concern for loss of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Minimal adverse environmental impacts U.S. Dept. of the Interior Office of the Secretary Office of Environmental Affairs Supports Alternative F or G as having least overall impacts to the environment. U.S. EPA, Region III Minimal adverse environmental impacts. State Agency Comment PA Department of Aging PA Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of Farmland Protection No negative impact Recommend PA's Prime Agricultural Land Policy be implemented and mitigation sought against conversion of prime agricultural land during construction. No comment PA Department of Commerce/PA Economic Development Partnership No comment Pa Department of Community Affairs PA Senator David J. Brightbill, Representing Berks County Endorses Alternative A PA Energy Office No comment PA Department of Environmental Resources No comment PaDER, PA Natural Diversity Inventory No natural resources of special concern V-18 TABLE 48 (Cont'd) Park Road Draft EIS Review Summary Agency and Public Comments Received During the Draft EIS Circulation Period PA Fish Commission No objections. Are concerned about water quality impacts to Cacoosing and Tulpehocken Creeks. PA Game Commission No adverse impact to wildlife and associated habitat PA Department of Community Affairs No comment PA Historical and Museum Commission No comment Bureau of Affirmative Action, Human Relation Commission No comment No comment Governor's Office of Policy and Planning PA Housing Finance Agency Local Agencies No comment Comment Borough of Wyomissing Prefers Alternative A Endorses Alternative A Township of Spring Lower Heidelberg Township No comment Berks County Endorses Alternative A Bern Township Board of Supervisors Concern for impact of new traffic pattern on S.R. 3055 and S.R. 183 interchange Berks County Planning Commission Endorses Alternative A Park Road Corridor Task Force Comment Endorses Alternative A Glenn B. Reber Berks County Commissioners Anthony J. Carabello Berks County Planning Commission Endorses Alternative A No comment Ernie Miller Berks County Commissioners Joseph E. De Santis Strongly supports Alternative A William B. Myers No comment Endorses Alternative A Paul H. Edelman Borough of Wyomissing Council President No comment John Hanosek PennDOT District 5-0 V-19 TABLE 48 (Cont'd) Park Road Draft EIS Review Summary Agency and Public Comments Received During the Draft EIS Circulation Period Park Road Corridor Task Force (Cont'd) Comment Michael Martin No comment David Wolf Recommends Alternative A James Sterganos No comment James Arey No comment Public Comment Max and Pat Keever Endorses Alternative A Tulpehocken, LTD. Strongly endorses Alternative A Strongly endorses Alternative A Mr. and Mrs. Michael Schmidt Martha W. Aynardi Endorses Alternative A Dennis M. McCish for Colony Park Residents Endorse Alternative A Howard and Susan Lincoln Endorse Alternative A V-20 I VI. List of Preparers VI. LIST OF PREPARERS McCORMICK, TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES, INC. Thomas A. Caramanico, P.E. Education: President Villanova University M.S. Civil Engineering 18 Years Principal-in-Charge Professional Experience: Responsibility: L. Bert Cossaboon, AICP Education: Vice President/Planning University of Pennsylvania M.S. Regional Planning 13 Years Project Manager Professional Experience: Responsibility: Stephen F. Nieman, AICP Education: Senior Planner University of Pennsylvania M.S. Regional Planning 10 Years Report Review Professional Experience: Responsibility: Maureen E. FitzGerald Education: Ecologist University of Connecticut M.S. Ecology 6 Years Natural Resources, Report Preparation Professional Experience: Responsibility: Dennis K. Burgeson Education: Professional Experience: Responsibility: Syracuse University B.S. Forestry 12 Years Report Preparation VI - 1 Jill O. Kulig Education: Resource Environmental Scientist Penn State University B.S. Environmental Management 3 Years Natural Resources Professional Experience: Responsibility: Gary J. Bellotti Education: Senior Design Engineer Drexel University B.S. Civil Engineering 27 Years Preliminary Design Professional Experience: Responsibility: Jayne E. McColl Education: Environmental Scientist Colorado State University B.S. Forest Management 5 Years Air and Noise Studies Professional Experience: Responsibility: Richard A. Butala Education: Technical Group Coordinator Penn State University B.S. Environmental Resource Management Minor in Wildlife Science 5 Years Report Coordination, Air and Noise Studies Professional Experience: Responsibility: Jake Michael Education: Professional Experience: Responsibility: Environmental Scientist B.A. Geology, Macalester College 3 Years Natural Resources Theodore M. Foglietta, Jr. Education: Urban Planner California State (Pennsylvania) B.A. Urban Planning 4 Years Socioeconomic Resources Professional Experience: Responsibility: VI - 2 Diane M. Mayka Education: Environmental Scientist Penn State University B.S. Biology Minor in Marine Science 5 Years Report Coordination/Editing, Natural Resources Professional Experience: Responsibility: Joanne C. Reider Education: Manager/Graphics Group Philadelphia College of Art Bachelor of Fine Arts 8 Years Graphics and Report Production Professional Experience: Responsibility: Thomas M. Kosko Education: Graphic Designer Art Institute of Philadelphia Visual Communications 2 Years Graphics and Report Production Professional Experience: Responsibility: Susan L. Best, P.E. Education: Professional Experience: Responsibility: Senior Transportation Engineer M.S. Civil Engineering 15 Years Traffic and Transportation Analysis Paul G. Archibald: Education: Professional Experience: Responsibility: Traffic Engineer B.S. Civil Engineering 3 Years Traffic and Transportation Analysis GEO-TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. James Diaz, R.E.G. Education: BS, 1953, Geology, Susquehanna University 35 years Professional Experience: Responsibility: Administration and Review VI O - 3 Stephen J. McBride, P.E. Education: Professional Experience: Responsibility: Registered Professional Engineer 26 years HH Document Review Thomas A. Graupensperger Education: BS, 1978, Environmental Resource Management, Pennsylvania State University 13 years Professional Experience: Responsibility: Research, Report Writing, and DocumentReview Joseph N. Nardella Education: BA, 1981, Geo-Environmental Sciences, Shippensburg State University 10 years Professional Experience: Responsibility: Research and Report Writing Sean M. Sherlock Education: BS/MS, 1984/1986, Geology, University of Pittsburgh and Northern Arizona University 5 years Research and Report Writing Professional Experience: Responsibility: CULTURAL HERITAGE RESEARCH SERVICES, INC. President/Principal Investigator M.A. Anthropology Kenneth J. Basalik Education: Professional Experience: Responsibility: 10 years Principal Investigator Historical Preservationist M.S. Historic Preservation Alan D. Tabachnick Education: Professional Experience: Responsibility: 2 years Historian VI - 4 OTHER GROUPS INVOLVED WITH THE EIS PREPARATION Federal Highway Administration Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Design Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, District 5-0 Berks County Planning Commission VI - 5 HHHHHHHI VI - 6 References / Appendices REFERENCES NATURAL RESOURCES 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangles: Reading and Temple Quadrangles, Pennsylvania: U.S. Geologic Survey 1:24000. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. 1980. Part 19, Natural Building Stones. Soil and Rock: American Society for Testing Materials. Berg, T. M. and Dodge, C. 1981. Atlas of Preliminary Geologic Quadrangle Maps of Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Topographic and Geologic Survey. Citizens Utilities Water Company, 4 Wellington Boulevard, Wyomissing, Pennsylvania: Personal Communication, February, 1989. City of Reading, Bureau of Water Engineering, Kutztown Road, Reading, Pennsylvania: Personal Communication, February, 1989. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Design Manual, Chapter 16. Flood Insurance Study, Borough of Wyomissing, Berks County, Pennsylvania Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., April 1983. Flood Insurance Study, Township of Spring, Berks County, Pennsylvania: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., October 1982. Geologic Map of Pennsylvania, 1980: Map 1, Pennsylvania Topographic and Geologic Survey. Geyer, A. R. and Wilshusen, J. P. 1982. Engineering Characteristics of the Rocks of Pennsylvania: Environmental Geology Report 1, Pennsylvania Topographic and Geologic Survey. Kochanov, W. E. 1988. Inventory of Sinkholes and Karst Related Features of Berks County, Pennsylvania, Unpublished: PA Geological Survey. MacLachlan, D. B. 1983. Geology and Mineral Resources of the Reading and Birdsboro Quadrangles, Berks County, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Topographic and Geologic Survey, Atlas 187 cd. Pazuniak, B. L., NTH Consultants, 1989. Subsurface Investigation Response to Sinkhole Activity at an Eastern Pennsylvania Site: Abstract, 3rd Multi-Disciplinary Conference on Sinkholes. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 1987. Bureau of Solid Waste Management: Closed or Inactive Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Sites. Soil Survey of Berks County, Pennsylvania, 1970: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soils Conservation Service, Penn State Department of Agriculture, and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, State Conservation Commission. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, October 1987. HHHHHHH Water Well Data System and Inventory Maps: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Pennsylvania Topographic and Geologic Survey. Western Berks Water Authority, 400 Water Road, State Hill, Pennsylvania: Personal Communication. Wood, C. R. and MacLachlan, D. B. 1978. Geology and Groundwater Resources of Northern Berks County, Pennsylvania: Water Resource Report 44, Pennsylvania Topographic and Geologic Survey. SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangles: Reading and Temple Quadrangles, Pennsylvania: U.S. Geologic Survey 1:24000. Berks County Planning Commission. Berks County Open Space and Recreation Plan Revision. August 1980. Berks County Planning Commission. Berks County Comprehensive Plan Revision. December 1991. Bern Township Planning Commission. Bern Township Comprehensive Plan Revision. April 4, 1988. Citizens Utilities Water Company, 4 Wellington Boulevard, Wyomissing, Pennsylvania: Personal Communication, February 1989. City of Reading, Bureau of Water Engineering, Kutztown Road, Reading, Pennsylvania: Personal Communication, February 1989. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Design Manual, Chapter 16. Spring Township Planning Commission. Spring Township Comprehensive Plan. April 27, 1987. Spring Township Planning Commission. Spring Township Zoning Ordinance. April 27, 1987. United States Department of Agriculture. Total Farm Revenue, Pennsylvania. 1987. United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. General Housing Characteristics. 1980. United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. General Population Characteristics. 1980. United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. General Social and Economic Characteristics. 1980. United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Northeast Population and 1985 Per Capita Income Estimates for Counties and Incorporated Places. March 1988. Wyomissing Borough Planning Commission. Comprehensive Plan Borough of Wyomissing. August 1988. NOISE Barry, T.M. and J.A. Reagan, 1978. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. Report No. FHWA-RD-77-108. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration: Washington, D.C. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, September 1987. Design Manual Park 1A, Environmental Impact Assessment and Related Procedures Chapter 8: Noise. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, December 1991 Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. June 1982. Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure STAMINA 2.0/OPTIMA: Program Maintenance Manual. Report No. FHWA-DP-58-2. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1981. South Procedures for Measuring Highway Noise: Final Report. Report No. FHWA-DP-45-1R. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. AIR QUALITY American Society for Testing and Materials, 1990. Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel, November 1990. Report Designation D 4814-90a. ASTM, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Benson, Paul. E. 1979, "CALINE 3 - A Versatile Dispersion Model for Predicting Air Pollutant Levels Near Highways and Arterial Streets." Report No. FHWA/CA TL-79/23. Office of Transportation Laboratory, California Department of Transportation: Sacramento, California. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Highway Services, Environmental Quality Division, May 1982. "Development of Eight Hour Carbon Monoxide Adjustment Factors." Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Highway Services. HHHHHH U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Procedures for Emissions Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Source, Chapter 4: Emissions from Highway Vehicles. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. APPENDICES 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS TO THE APPENDICES Page APPENDIX A: AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE A-1 A-1 A. Responses to the plan of Study B. Engineering and Environmental Studies Agency Contracts C. Local Government Coordination D. Farmlands Coordination A-21 A-46 A-63 APPENDIX B: SECTION 106 COORDINATION B-1 APPENDIX C: MEETING SUMMARIES C-1 A. Special Purpose Meetings B. Task Force C. Landowner and Developer Meetings D. Public Officials Meetings C-1 C-10 C-11 C-19 APPENDIX D: PUBLIC COORDINATION D-1 D-1 A. Newsletters, Public Questionnaires and Public Meeting Reports B. Public Comment Letters C. Petitions D-45 D-75 APPENDIX E. WETLAND SURVEY REPORT E-1 APPENDIX F: WASTE DISPOSAL INFORMATION D F-1 APPENDIX G: DRAFT EIS AND PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES G-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TO THE APPENDICES Page APPENDIX A: AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE A. Responses to the plan of Study USDA Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers..... U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.. Environmental Protection Agency. DER, Bureau of Water Resources Management. DER, Secretary's Office of Policy... Pennsylvania Fish Commission.. Pennsylvania Game Commission.. Department of Community Affairs Berks County.. Borough of Wyomissing. Lower Heidelburg Township. A-1 A-2 A-4 A-7 A-9 A-11 A-13 A-14 A-15 A-16 A-17 A-18 A-20 B. Engineering and Environmental Studies Agency Contacts U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.... U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service... Environmental Protection Agency... U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. DER, Bureau of Forestry, PNDI. DER, Bureau of Water Resources Management... Pennsylvania Fish Commission.. Pennsylvania Game Commission.. Pennsylvania Game Commission.. A-21 A-24 A-25 A-29 A-30 A-32 A-35 A-36 A-38 C. Local Government Coordination Township of Spring.. Borough of Wyomissing... Berks County, Office of Commissioners Berks County, Planning Commission. U.S. EPA Response.... Borough of Wyomissing Resolution.... Township of Spring, Resolution #91-11... Bern Township..... Senator Brightbill... A-46 A-49 A-52 A-54 A-56 A-58 A-59 A-60 A-62 Page APPENDIX A: AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE (Cont'd) D. Farmland Coordination Clyde Myers, Penn State Extension... David Rick, Tulpehocken, Ltd.. Barbara Kelly, Spring Ridge, Inc. Tom Stapelton, Penn State Berks Campus Dallas Lutz, Farmer.. Skip Shigo, Reading Bone Agway. Roy Christman, Farmer. Berks County Soils Conservation District. FPPA Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form and Supporting Data.. PA Department of Agriculture, March 26, 1993. A-63 A-64 A-65 A-66 A-68 A-69 A-70 A-71 A-79 A-86 APPENDIX B: SECTION 106 COORDINATION A. Historic Resources B-1 B-3 B-4 Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) April 11, 1990...... PHMC, May 22, 1990. PHMC, May 29, 1990.... U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service February 6, 1990..... PHMC, August 30, 1991... PHMC, March 23, 1992.. PHMC, January 29, 1993... U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service January 21, 1993... PHMC, March 22, 1993.. PHMC, April 1, 1993.... B-7 B-14 B-16 B-17 B-19 B-20 B-22 B. Archaeological Resources PHMC, November 20, 1990....... PHMC, October 31, 1991... PHMC, June 10, 1992...... PHMC, January 28, 1993... B-25 B-27 B-29 B-31 APPENDIX C: MEETING SUMMARIES A. Special Purpose Meetings Interagency meeting regarding PAMHEP, June 28, 1989..... TPDICM, November 29, 1989... TPDICM, May 30, 1990.. TPDICM, October 4, 1990.. C-1 C-3 C-5 C-7 Page B. Task Force List of Members. C-10 C. Landowner and Developer Meetings Tulpehocken, Ltd. October 10, 1989.... Spring Ridge, October 10, 1989.. Orth-Rodgers & Associates, November 10, 1989... Property Owners/Developers Meeting, November 15, 1989.. C-11 C-13 C-16 C-17 APPENDIX C: MEETING SUMMARIES (Cont'd) D. Public Officials Meetings February 8, 1989. August 3, 1989.... August 15, 1989..... C-19 C-25 C-29 APPENDIX D: PUBLIC COORDINATION A. Newsletters, Public Questionnaires and Public Meeting Reports Meeting Report, Public Meeting #1, May 17, 1989.. Questionnaire, Public Meeting #1, Questionnaire Summary Report, Public Meeting #1.. Public Opinion Survey, Public Meeting #1... Newsletter #1, May 1989... D-1 D-4 D-5 D-10 D-13 D-17 D-23 Summary of Public Comments, Public Meeting #2, November 1, 1989..... Newsletter #2, October 1989..... Summary of Issues, Public Meeting #3, September 19, 1990... Newsletter #3, September 1990. Questionnaire, Public Meeting #4.. Meeting Report, Public Meeting #4, July 24, 1991.. Newsletter #4, July 1991.... D-27 D-28 D-32 D-34 D-40 B. Public Comment Letters D-45 D-47 George M. Leader Family Corp., February 16, 1989.. Tulpehocken LTD, May 30, 1989... Murray & Sidney Knoblauch, Inc., Realtors, November 2, 1989..... Roland & Schlegel, November 20, 1989.. D-48 D-52 Page B. Public Comment Letters (Cont'd) D-55 D-56 D-57 D-58 D-59 O . De Santis, Schmehl and DeSantis, November 21, 1989... Berks Countian, July 12, 1990. Donald Wojton, September 26, 1990. Anna Gring, September 26, 1990. Berks County Chamber of Commerce, October 3, 1990. DeSantis, Schmehl and De Santis, and Essig October 24, 1990... David Rick, October 18, 1990.. Peter Carlino Company, November 5, 1990. Phillip D. Rowe, Jr., June 21, 1991.. WEEU 85 AM Stereo, July 25, 1991.... Meridian, July 25, 1991..... Tulpehocken LTD, July 25, 1991..... Peter Carlino Company, July 29, 1991.. Horrigan American, Inc., July 31, 1991. D-60 D-61 D-62 D-63 D-65 D-67 D-69 D-71 D-73 APPENDIX D: PUBLIC COORDINATION C. Petitions Concerned Citizens and Stoltzfus descendants to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. D-75 Residents of Colony Park/Colony Springs to the District Engineer.... D-101 APPENDIX E: WETLAND SURVEY REPORT APPENDIX F: WASTE DISPOSAL INFORMATION Field View Report .. PaDER Letter, December 4, 1992... F-1 F-11 APPENDIX G: DRAFT EIS AND PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES A. Summary of Draft EIS and Public Hearing Comments G-2 G-5 GB Agency and Public Comments Received During The Draft EIS Circulation Period.... Public Hearing - Oral Testimony...... Public Hearing - Written Documentation Submitted With Oral Testimony..... Public Hearing Written Testimony Form/Letters Submitted during the Commenting Period....... G-6 G-6 Page B. Comments and Responses on the Draft EIS G-7 Letters from Federal and State Agencies Requiring No Response.... Letters from Citizens, Elected Officials and Corporations Requiring No Response. Letters from Governmental Agencies and Corporations Requiring Responses to Comments. HHHHH G-17 G-25 G-47 C. Public Hearing Comments and Responses Oral Testimony... Written Testimony Submitted During Commenting Period Requiring No Response. Written Testimony Submitted During Commenting Period Requiring Responses to Comments. G-101 G-108 APPENDIX A AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE A. RESPONSES TO THE PLAN OF STUDY I ... United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 228 Walnut Street, Room 850 Box 985 Federal Square Station Harrisburg, PA 17108-0985 March 29, 1989 RECEIVED Ms. Maureen E. FitzGerald Environmental Specialist McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. 16 17 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 APR. 3 1989 McCORMICK, TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Dear Ms. FitzGerald: We have received and reviewed the Plan of Study for the Park Road Corridor, Berks County, Pennsylvania. Our primary concerns regarding the project are centered around the impacts to prime and statewide important farmlands, erosion and sediment control, wetlands, and farmland assessments under the Farmlands Protection Act of 1981, resulting from project installation. The Plan of Study indicated these concerns will be addressed in the environmental assessment. We would appreciate the opportunity to review any further documents developed in the implementation of this project action. Sincerely, G g. Mays RODNEY J. YS Assistant State Conservationist for Natural Resources cc: Duane E. Pysher, District Conservationist, SCS, Leesport, PA The Sow Conservaiion Service is an agency of the Department of Agricullure A-1 OF IMENT DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS CUSTOM HOUSE-2 O & CHESTNUT STREETS PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19106-2991 MAR 9 1389 VIATIVO AMIMICA RECEIVED REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Environmental Resources Branch MAR 1? 1989 McCORMICK, TAYLOR ASSOCIATES, INC. Ms. Maureen E. FitzGerald Environmental Specialist McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103–2007 IIIIIIIIIII Dear Ms. FitzGerald: As requested in your letter of February 15, 1989, we are submitting comments for your consideration. Thank you for the opportunity to conment on your Plan of Study (POS) for the Park Road Corridor Study, Design Location Study and Environmental Impact statement, Berks County, Pennsylvania. Our review is limited to our jurisdiction by law and special expertise as defined in 40 CFR 1508.15 and 1508.26. Under Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act, the Corps has regulatory authority over all construction activities in navigable waters, including adjacent wetlands, shoreward to the mean high water line. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps has regulatory authority over the discharge of dredged and fill material in other waters of the United States such as non-tidal waterways, adjacent wetlands, isolated wetlands, forested wetlands and lakes. Three of the 4 build alternatives would cross 2 unnamed tributaries of Tulpehocken Creek (Alternatives A, B, and D). Since these tributaries are nonnavigable waterways, our review of the project would be limited to the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States and their adjacent wetlands. We concur with the investigative procedures outlined in the section under "Environmental Studies" in the POS; however, we suggest that the wetlands be delineated with the approved but presently unreleased Federal Wetlands Manual. This manual is expected to be released soon. In the interim, we recommend that any preliminary delineations be done with the Environmental Protection Agency Wetland Delineation Manual. Should a Department of the Army Individual Permit be required for your project, we recommend, in the preparation of your Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), that our office be designated as a Cooperating Agency under the provisions of 40 CFR 1501.6. The DEIS to be prepared for the project A-2 010 should include the results of the Wetland Delineation Report mentioned on page 14 of the POS and the locations and volumes of dredged and fill material in waters of the United States for all build alteratives. Two copies of the Wetlands Delineation Report should be forwarded to this office as soon as they become available. In addition, if the Corps is indeed designated as a Cooperating Agency, we request that you contact this office as soon as possible to coordinate our involvement in the preparation of your EIS. We would be interested in participating in the agency field view of your project. Please contact Ms. Barbara Conlin (215-597-6800) of my staff to coordinate the meeting. Should you have questions of a regulatory nature, please contact Mr. Richard Hassel (215-597-4723), Chief, Applications Section in our Regulatory Branch. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on your POS. Sincerely, for John A Bumer B Robert L. Callegari Chief, Planning Division A-3 OS 600 (285) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATE 24 March 1989 Allentown, PA 18103 IH SUBJECT Berks County Park Road Project Notice of Intent TO Robert J. Keller District Environmental Manager RECEIVED MAR 27 1989 Inh John Porter Desigh Liaison Engineer Engineering District 5-0 McCORMICK, TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FROM: I received a call from Bill Skwersky from Housing Urban Development (HUD) 215-597-2667. His response letter for subject project has a typing error. Should read ...NO FUNDED... 050/JJP/1mk cc: > P. T. Barilar, P.E. J. F. Hanosek, P.E.R. L. Jones, P.E. S. L. Caruano, P.E. J. J. Porter McCormick, Taylor & Associates 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Suite 1234 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attn: Mr. Fitzgerald A- 4 "PennDOT .. We Are Making A Difference" 10 AFFINCY RESPONSE, TO ..!! EARLY COORDINATION FORM 3/24 syn. S. Daparemont a fiausios & Urban Developmen Response io w the forly Cooro inov ion form for Highway Project Development USDH . هر امر مرار) JEJECTE TO: (NOM) I. Peter Barilar, P.F. Diserici Engineer Pennsylvonio Depor imeni ol Tronsperiorion Engineer ing Districi S-O Tagor 083)_1713 Lehigh Street, Allentown, PA 18103, ATTN: John J. Porter, P.E. FROM! ! Norme! Kenneth I. Finleyson, Regional Administrator / Regional Housing Commissioner (Agoncy) V. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( Agor 683) 105 S. 7th Street Tolopnono 1215 1 597-2560 Philadelphia, PA 19106-3392 S.R. 3019 Secrion Net Provided ouniy Berks Fevero, Aio Project Number Nar Provided .M. S. Number Not provided Park Road Corridor Study pojeci Common Name Ne have reviewed the Early Coordinarion Form and we have the following response: We have no comment. We agree not the appropriore projeci oliernosives ore being cons idered ono ine proposed scope or ine onolysis oppears to be correci. We do no: agree ings the appropriote project olvernosives ore De ing considered as we have exploined on ine or roched shee il sl. o We do not agree that the proposed scope of the analysis oppeer 1o de correci os we have explained on the arrocheo cheerlsl. We would like to be consacred ro oitend o scoping field view. We have some questions regarding the project and request inos we be contacted to discuss them. Contact Margaret A. Krengel, Regional Environmental officer, (215) 597-1829. We would like to seceive o copy of the Environmental assessment. At present, we have funded activities or proposals under review that might be impacted by alternatyves under consideration. We do have concerns about the potential community cohesion, and displacement: impacts of alternatives C and D. C . 기 ​«Erren conectanley Wanyiaperetin, USDHU Dienviennental Compliance Specialist 3:24.94 MARS 1999 signo ture Dore Kenneth J. FITayson Regional Administretor/ Beqional Housing Comissioner SOT A-5 HACE MAR 27 000 1989 AGENCY RESPONSE ΤΟ EARLY COORDINATION FORM Laennsyl lie se Department of Housing & Urban Developmen Response obsTES. the Early Coordination Form for Hignwoy Project Development McCORRIC:1, TAYLOR HHH SUEJECTI TO: I Nomo) I. Peter Barilar, P.F. Oiserici Engineer Pennsylvanio Depor oment of Tronsperrosion Engineer ing Oiserici 5-O ( Ador 188)_1713 Lehigh Street, Allentown, PA 18103, ATTN: John J. Porter, P.E. FROM: I Nomo) Kenneth J. Finlayson, Regional Administrator/Regional Housing Commissioner ( Agency) U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( Addr oss) 105 S. 7th Street To topnone 1215 597-2560 Philadelphia, PA 19106-3392 County Berks S.R. Section Not Provided 3019 P. M. S. Number Not Provided Federal Aid Projeci Number Nat Provided Project Common Name Park Road Corridor Study },"");"CO We have reviewed the Early Coordination Form and we have the following response: We have no comment. We agree that the appropriore projeci alternarives are being cons idered and ine proposed scope of the analysis appears to be correci. We do not agree inor the appropriore project oliernosives ore de ing considered as we have explained on ine arrached shee il s). o We do not agree thor the proposed scope of the analysis oppeer to de correci os we have explained on the orrached sheeris). X We would like to be con soc red ro oitend o scop ing field view. We have some questions regarding the project and request that we be contacted to discuss them Contact Margaret A. Krengel, Regional Environmental Officer, (215) 597–1829. We would like to receive a copy of the Environmental assessment. At present, we have funded activities or proposals under review that might be impacted by alternatives under consideration. We do have concerns about the potential community cohesion and displacement impacts of Alternatives C and D. Taucist idealy Dore 3123187 Signorure' Regional Administrator/Reçional Houston Commissioner · A-6 CC: Mr. Alan Pinoy Or IM OLBALIMEN, United States Department of the Interior Muchy 40 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Suite 322 315 South Allen Street State College, Pennsylvania 16801 RECEIVED March 8, 1989 MAR 10 1989 Ms. Maureen E. FitzGerald McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103-2087 ACCORMICK, TAYLOR AND ASSCCIATES, INC. Dear Ms. FitzGerald: We have reviewed the Plan of Study relating to the proposed Park Road Corridor near Reading in Berks County. The document arrived with your letter of February 15, 1989. The Plan of Study adequately covers the issues that may be of concern to us, but we have some reservations about the need for use of PAM HEP. I think a decision on the matter can be deferred until completion of the proposed mapping of vegetative cover types and acreage computations. By comparing that information with the wildlife use data that you propose to gather from existing sources, it should be possible to adequately evaluate wildlife- related impacts of the alternatives without PAM HEP. In any event, it is likely that our agency could participate in PAM HEP only in an overview role. We would appreciate an opportunity to review the Alternatives Analysis Report and the Technical Basis Report on Natural Resources as soon as these documents are completed. The Agency Response Form requested in your letter is enclosed. Sincerely, Philip H. Edmunds Philip H. Edmunds Acting Supervisor Enclosure A-7 Pose .. AGENCY RESPONSE TO EARLY COORDINATION FORM ! Agency) Fish and Wildlife Service Response to the Eorly coordination Form for Highway Project Development SUBJECT: IIIII TO: (Nama) ( Acar oss) inoma, T. Peter Barilar District Engineer Pennsylvania Depor iment of Transportation Engineer ing Districo 5-0 1713 Lehigh Sty Allentown, PA 18103 Charles J. Kulp sh and Wildlife Service ( Adar oss) 315 S Allen Street Telephone 1814, 234-4090 State College PA FROM: (Name) (Agency) County Berks P.M. S. Number Project Common Name S.R. 3019 Section Federal Aid Projeci Number Park Road Corridor Study i We have reviewed the Early Coordinarion Form and we have the following response: We have no comment. 1 因​口​口 ​We agree that the appropriate projeci alternarives are being considered and the proposed scope of the analysis appears to be correct. We do not agree that the appropriate project alrernorives ore being considered as we have explained on one or tached shee ri sl. We do not agree that the proposed scope of the analysis appear to be correct as we have explained on the artached sheerlis). We would like to be con Tac red ro ostend o scop ing field view. We have some questions regarding the project and request that we be contacted to discuss them * We would like to receive a copy of the Environmental Assessment. Philip 21. Edmunds 8 March 1989 / Signa ture Dare for Charles J. Kulp A-8 FOyun AGENCY RESPONSE TO EARLY COORDINATION FORM Environmental Protectior. Agency Response to the Early Coordination Form for Highway Projeci Deve top men i SUEJECT: Agency TO: (Nama) T. Peter Barilar, P.E. Cisir ici Engineer Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 5-0 Engineer ing District ( Address) 1713 Lehigh Street, Allentown, PA 18103 Attention: Robert J. Keller, Environmental Manager FROM: (Name) (Agency) Jeffrey M. Alper, Chief, NEPA Compliance Section (3E541) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 841 Chestnut Building Telepnone I 2151 597-9302 Philadelphia, PA 19107 ( Address) County Berks P. M. S. Number Project Common Name S.R. 3019 Section Federal Aid Projeci Number Park Road Corridor Study А C E We have reviewed the Early Coordinarion Form and we have following response: We have no comment. N С Y T O We agree that the appropriate project alternorives are being considered and the proposed scope of the analysis appears to be correci. We do not agree thar the appropriate project alternatives are being considered as we have explained on ine arrached shee il s). We do not agree thar the proposed scope of the analysis oppeer to be correct as we have explained on the arrached sheeris). We would like to be contacted to orrend a scoping field view. We have some questions regarding the project and request that we be contacted to discuss them Impact Statement. x? We would like ro receive a copy of the Environmental Assessment.-- C 0 M ס X We have attached comments for your consideraiion in the Environmental Impact Statement. L LE Signature kin N from 3:7; -87 را T Date E A-9 II Park Road Corridor Study Berks County, Pennsylvania Early Coordination (89-02-277) Alternatives Analysis The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis will identify the best alternatives for further study in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Note that an alternative should not be eliminated from further study unless it is either infea- sible or inferior to another alternative with regard to all of the project objectives (including environmental, engineer- ing and transportation objectives). The rationale for the elimination of any alternative, including the option of upgrading existing roads, should be given in the EIS. Air Quality If you have any questions, or require information regarding air quality analysis, feel free to contact Larry Budney, Air Program Planning Section, at 215-597-0545. Wetlands Please include EPA in any wetland field reviews of the study area. We would also like to participate in the forma- tion of wetland mitigation plans for those wetlands that cannot be avoided by the project. In addition, it is recom- mended that potential wetland mitigation sites be identified in the EIS. Thank you for including EPA in the early coordination of this project. Should you require further assistance, our contact person for this study is Lynn Rothman (215-597- 7336). CC: Maureen E. FitzGerald, McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. A-10 GOTT pose. RECEIVED APR 3 1989 AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SUBJECT: ! Aceneve the Early Coordination Form for Hignway Project Developmeni AGENCY RESPONSE TO McCORMICK, TAYLORE ARLY COORDINATION FORM Departements et autres ens fortalesponse to I kde Barilow, té , District Engineer T. Peter TO: I Noma) Pennsylvanio Deporiment of Transporporion 5-o Engineering Oiserici ( Address)_123 street / FROM: (Name) Ledish Allentoux fa. 18103 Merise Heubacak, Stud Coordinator ) (Agency Biuroend hetlerds Leservation 1 Peptidénu. Tesneres . caccrossi, Bortk1_Secciskuse 72 ( 1962 Harrisburg hinnad TATO Telepnone 12171787-6816 County Berks. S.R. Secrion P. M. S. Number Federal Aid Projecr Number Project Common Name Park Road Copriclor A C E We have reviewed ine Early coordinarion Form and we have ine following response: N We have no comment. С Y T O С We agree that the appropriate project al rernarives are being considered and ine proposed scope of the analysis appears to be correci. We do not agree thar the appropriate projece olrernorives ore being considered as we have exploined on ine arrached shee il si. We do not agree that the proposed scope of the analysis appear to be correci as we have explained on the arrached sheerlis). We would like to be consacred ro orrend o scoping field view. We have some questions regarding the project and request inai we be contacted to discuss them. We would like to receive a copy of the Environmental Assessmen r. 0 Janic fan ♡ Becaches of potential inpact on the Corridors of the Trilpebreken 1 Creells- request Coordiner. The more of passeng Coordination og the yt detailed! Ready, Signature Kal-febe 3/21/29 M P L Casesing porocess propesid Jerse tirar யா Date 3224 taitelna Tire T E A-11 E PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Post Office Box 1467 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 March 24, 1989 PER Bureau of Water Resources Management IIIIH Ms. Maureen E. FitzGerald Environmental Specialist McCormick Taylor and Associates, Inc. 1817 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103-2087 Dear Ms. FitzGerald: I have reviewed the Park Road Corridor Plan of Study, Berks County, for Pennsylvania Scenic River concerns. As I had indicated to you when we spoke, the Tulpehocken Creek and two associated tributaries have been studied for Scenic River designation. The study of the Tulpehocken Creek and segments of the Cacoosing Creek and Mill Creek (the Mill Creek is out of your project area) have been completed. Except for a small segment of the Tulpehocken Creek upstream of your project, segments of these creeks have been determined eligible for Scenic River designation. At the present time, we are in the process of completing the Final Study Document and preparing a legislative package to allow area legislators to enact the Tulpehocken Creek legislation making both it and its tributaries components of the Pennsylvania Scenic Rivers System. Page 16 of your Plan of Study correctly indicates that Tulpehocken Creek is listed as a Priority 1-A river candidate. However, it should also be noted that both the Tulpehocken Creek and a segment of the Cacoosing Creek tributaries are eligible for Scenic River designation. One other note which you should be aware of is the fact that the Berks County Conservancy (not the Schuylkill River Greenway Association) gathered study information and participated as the local support organization throughout the Tulpehocken Creek Study process. Because of the map scale enclosed in the Plan of Study, it is difficult to assess the impact of alternative D on the Tulpehocken Creek. However, it is likely that Alternative D would be the worst case alternative because it could cause a direct impact on the proposed corridor defined for the Tulpehocken Creek. Alternative C near the Cacoosing Creek would not appear to directly involve the proposed river corridor, however, a project of this magnitude would certainly impact the character of the area adjacent to the Cacoosing Creek. As indicated on the Agency Response Form, we wish to be involved throughout the process for this project. I want to be kept apprised of the alternatives selected for further assessment, especially if either Alternative D or C are chosen. I have enclosed a copy of the proposed Tulpehocken Creek Scenic River corridor for your information. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Sincerely, Marion Arubovrat Marian Hrubovcak Study Coordinator Division of Rivers and Wetlands Conservation Enclosure A-12 PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Post Office Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 717-783-1566 PER Secretary's Office of Policy February 23, 1989 RECEIVE) FER 27 1989 Maureen B. FitzGerald Environmental Specialist McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103-2087 McCORMICK, TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Dear Ms. FitzGerald: We have reviewed the plan of Study for the Park Road Corridor Study, Berks County, Pennsylvania. Activities addressed by this project may be subject to regulation by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. Any questions regarding DER requirements should be directed to the DER Regional Office in Norristown at telephone number 215-270-1900. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. Sinceral rederick G. Carlson Dicector A-13 Stjil Bob Keller R 3 luni 3) 14:2 - اذا لم ل لنا..! plo desh, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA FISH COMMISSION Division of Environmental Services 450 Robinson Lane Bellefonte. PA 16823-9616 814-359-5147 February 28, 1989 HO Department of Transportation Matthew F. Mazza, District Engineer Engineering District 5-0 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, PA 18103 Re: Berks County Park Road Corridor Plan of Study Dear Mr. Mazza: The Pennsylvania Fish Commission has reviewed the subject study and has the following comments: 1) We feel that Route 183 and the Paper Mill Road could be improved to meet project objectives. Therefore, we request these alignments be treated as viable alternatives for future studies. 2) It was not mentioned within the study whether the four lane proposal would be a limited access facility or not. This is an important criteria to consider because we do not favor approving a bypass to the bypass etc. concept. 3) Alternative D should be dismissed from future analysis because it appears to encroach upon Tulpehocken Creek a number of times. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to comment and please keep us informed as this project develops. Sincerely, Decind e dopusta David Spotts, Fisheries Biologist Division of Environmental Services DES: dms cc: - FWS Kulp PGC Sitlinger DER - Counsil DOT - Kober Ho copus RESOURCE FIRST PROTECT · CONSERVE • ENHANCE A-14 05. ☺ : AGENCY RESPONSE TO EARLY COORDINATION FORM i Agency Peans flanvidovi Gami Cammission Response to the Eor ly coordination Form for Highway Project Development SUBJECT: 1 TO: ( (Nama) MATTHETE F. MAZZA Districe Engineer Pennsylvanio Depor imens of Transportation Engineering Districi 5-0 ( Address) 113 LEHIGH STREET, ALLÊNTANNY PA 13103 ATTEN: ROLAND BERGVER FROM: (Name) JACOB I. SittiGER, DIREC75R, BUREAU GELAND MANAGEMENT, (Agency) PENNSYLVANIA Game ANIA GAME COMMISSION ( Address) 200İ ELMERTON Ausnue Telepnone 17171783-4 19 HARRISBURG, PA 17110-9797 County_Beris P. M. S. Number Project Common Name PARK ROAD S.R. 3019 Section Federal Aid Projecr Number ز ✓ í We have reviewed the Early Coordinarion Form and we have the following response: We have no comment. we agree that the appropriate project alternarives are being cons idered and the proposed scope of the analysis appears to be correci. We do not agree that the appropriate project alternorives are being considered as we have explainea' on ine artached shee ti s). We do not agree that the proposed scope of the analysis appear to be correct as we have explained on the arrached sheeri's.. We would like to be contacted to orrend o scoping field view. We have some questions regarding the project and request that we be contacted to discuss them. We would like to receive a copy of the Environmental Assessment. 区​口 ​) : Polank Bergen Signature 3-3-89 Dare T W A-15 AGENCY RESPONSE TO EARLY COORDINATION FORM SUBJECT: ! Agency Dept. of Community Affairs Response to the Early Coordination Form for Highway Project Development TO: ( Namə) Thomas Barilar District Engineer Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 5 Engineer ing Disipico ( ACCross) 1713-41 Lehigh Street, Allentonw, PA 18103 FROM: ( Name) Raymond S. Angeli, Regional Driector DCA 100 Lackawanna Avenue Room 360 (Agency) ( Address) Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone 717, 963-4571 Berks County P.M. S. Number Project Common Name 3019 S.R. Secrion Federal Aid Projecr Number Park Road Corridor Study A G E N C We have reviewed the Early Coordinarion Form and we have the following response: We have no comment. We agree that the appropriate project al rernarives are being cons idered and the proposed scope of the analysis appears ro be correci. Y T O с 0 We do not agree that the appropriate project alternarives are being considered as we have explained on the attached shee ri s). We do not agree that the proposed scope of the analysis appear to be correct as we have explained on the arrached sheeris). We would like to be consacred to orrend o scoping field view. We have some questions regarding the project and request thar we be contacted to discuss them. We would like to receive a copy of the Environmental Assessment. The Dept. has provided financial assistance to Berks Co. from the Federal Land & Water Conservation Fund and State funding in the acquisition and development of the County's Tulpehocken Creek Parkway. Various alternatives, especially Alt. D, may have an impact on their parkland. Please coordinate closely with Berks County Parks Dept, & u Signa rure Date M P L E T La M مش E A-16 PC9c AGENCY RESPONSE TO EARLY COORDINATION FORM ! Agency Berks County Response to the Early Coordinarion Form for Highway Project Development SUBJECT: I Noma) P. Thomas Barilar, P.E. TO: Districi Engineer Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 5-0 Engineer ing District (Address) 1713 Lehigh Street, Allentown, PA 18103 Attn: Robert J. Keller, Environmental Manager Berks County Board of Commissioners FROM: (Name) (Agency) ( Address) 33 N. Sixth Street Telepnone 1215, 378-8066 Reading, PA 19601 Berks County S. R. 3019 Section P. M. S. Number 051C029 Federal Aid Project Number Project Common Name Park Road Corridor A C E N с Y т We have reviewed the Early Coordination Form and we have the following response: We have no comment. . X We agree that the appropriate project alternarives are being considered and the proposed scope of the analysis appears to be correci. o We do not agree that the appropriate project alternarives are being considered as we have explained' on me artached shee rl s). We do not agree thar the proposed scope of the analysis appear To be correct as we have explained on the arrached sheeri's). We would like to be contacred to arrend o scoping field view. We have some questions regarding the project and request rnor we be contacted to discuss them Impact. Statement We would like to receive a copy of the Environmental XPECTS80x 0 с 0 M a L. Anthony J. Carabello, Chairman E Carchetto Metal Dou Then ten ज Dare 4 balea T Michae} F. Feeney, Comissioner I. ul A-17 tech tonin Daha BOROUGH OF WYOMISSING PENNS VANIA BOROUGH HALL:22 READING BLVD. WYOMISSING, PA 19610 IIL (215) 376-7481 March 13, 1989 RECEIVED i MAR 15 1989 MCCORMICKY, TAYLOR AND ASSOCTATES, INC. Maureen E. FitzGerald Environmental Specialist McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, Pa. 19103-2087 H Re: Park Road Corridor Study Dear Maureen: Enclosed herewith is the completed "Agency Response Form" for the Borough of Wyomissing indicating that we feel appropriate alternatives are being considered and the proposed scope of the analysis appears to be correct. Very truly yours Mynayant tay Alfred Dhayoviten , Jr. Borough Manager secretary ded AD, JR.: jeh enclosure . A-18 . Pose.go AGENCY RESPONSE TO EARLY COORDINATION FORM ! Agency) Borough of Wyomissing Response to the Early Coordinarion Form for Highway Project Development SUBJECT: (Nama) TO: P. Thomas Barilar, PE District Engineer Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering District 5-0 ( Aadress) 1713 Lehigh Street, Allentown, PA 18103 FROM: ( Name) (Agancy) Alfred Drayovitch, Jr., Manager/Secretary Borough of Wyomissing 22 Reading Boulevard Telephone Wyomissing, PA 19610 ( Aadress) (215) 376.-7481 County Berks P. M. S. Number Project Common Name S.R. Secrion Federal Aid Projec: Number Park Road Corridor Study A We have reviewed the Early Coordinarion Form and we have following response: We have no comment. Xi We agree that the appropriate project alternarives are being considered and the proposed scope of the analysis appears to be correct. We do not agree thar the appropriate project alternarives are being considered as we have explained on me artached shee ri sl. o We do not agree that the proposed scope of the analysis appear to be correct as we have explained on the arrached sheer's). We would like to be consacred ro arrend o scoping field view. We have some questions regarding the project and request that we be contacted to discuss them. ) We would like ro receive a copy of the Environmental Assessmen r. putih la myndish. Bantuan see --Beco Marlsse Date March 13, 1989 Signature A-19 i BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Lower Heidelberg Township RE HECEIVED MAR 2 1980 R. D. 5, BOX 185-C • SINKING SPRING, PA 19608 McCORMICK, TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES, INO March 14, 1989 Ms. Maureen E. FitzGerald McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1234 Philadelphia, Penna. 19103 Dear Ms. FitzGerald: We have reviewed the Park Road Plan of Study booklet which you sent to our attention. We feel alternative D is the best choice with alternative A a close second. Alterna- tive C is absurd and should not even be considered. Please keep us informed of all information as it becomes available as well as all meetings where information will be gathered and/or disseminated. Best Regards, Conill W. Juurmar I fee) Donald W. Wurmser Chairman CC: Mr. Alan Piper Berks County Planning Commission T. Peter Barilar, P.E. PennDOT DWW/sll A-20 B. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AGENCY CONTACTS OF THE .. United States Department of the Interior March 1919 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Suite 322 315 South Allen Street State College, Pennsylvania 16801 February 13, 1989 RECEIVEL FEB 15 1989 Ms. Maureen E. FitzGerald McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103-2087 MCCORMICK, TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Dear Ms. FitzGerald: This responds to your letter of February 3, 1989 requesting information concerning the presence of federally listed or proposed endangered and threatened species within the area affected by the proposed Park Road Corridor Extension Project located in Berks County, Pennsylvania. 9 The small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), an endangered plant, presently exists or has been known to occur in 16 eastern states and Canada. It is most often found in mixed second growth hardwoods with a relatively open canopy and little shrub or herbaceous cover. It has been found, however, in a broad spectrum of conifer/hardwood habitat types and, in fact, may be found almost anywhere in the eastern United States. There are many as yet unanswered questions about its growth, reproduction and other life requirements. There are presently 49 known existing populations (approximately 600 individuals) of this plant in the eastern U.S. and Canada. Although additional populations could occur almost anywhere, the chances of occurrence at any particular site are extremely remote. The Pennsylvania locations of historical populations are: Berks County (Reading), Chester County (West Chester), Green County (Rogersville), Monroe County (East Stroudsburg), Montgomery County (Willow Grove) and Philadelphia County (Philadelphia). The only known existing populations in Pennsylvania are located in Centre County near the town of Port Matilda, and in Cranberry Township, Yenango County. Το reduce the chance of disturbance by plant collectors, exact locations of plants are not released. We have no information to confirm the presence of these plants within the project area. Except for occasional transient species, no other federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species under our jurisdiction are known to exist in the project impact area. Therefore, no Biological Assessment or further Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is required with the Fish and Wildlife Service. Should project plans change, or if additional information on listed or proposed species becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. A compilation of federally listed endangered and threatened species in Pennsylvania is enclosed for your information. Requests for information regarding State-listed endangered or threatened species should be directed to the Pennsylvania Game Commission (wildlife), the Pennsylvania Fish Commission (fish, reptiles and amphibians) and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (plants). A-21 This response relates only to endangered or threatened species under our jurisdiction, based on an office review of the proposed project's location. No field inspection of the project area has been conducted by this office. Consequently, this letter is not to be construed as addressing other Service concerns under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act or other legislation. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us. Sincerely, chalsgafe Charles J. Kulp Supervisor Enclosure A-22 FEDERALLY LISTED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES IN PENNSYLVANLA COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS DISTRIBUTION FISHES: Sturgeon, shortnase* Acipenser brevicostrum E Delarace River and other Atlantic Coastal waters REPTILES: NE BIRDS: Eagle, bald Falon, American peregrine Haliaeetus laro halus Falco peregcinus anatum E E Entire State Entire State re-establishment to former breeding range in progress O Falony Artic Faloo peregrins andris E Entire State migcatory - no nesting MAMALS: Bato Indiana laugae, Eastern Motis sodalis Felis concolor capar E E Entire State entire State - probably entinct MOTIIEKS: NE PAIS: Pogonia, small wacled Isotria medzaloides B Beds, dentre, Chester, Greene, Moncoe, Montgomery, Philadelphia & Venengo Canties + Principal responsibility for this species is vested with the National M. Bisheries Service. Region 5 6/3/85-18 A-23 OF PARIMENT MONILLION United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Mach) Suite 322 315 South Allen Street State College, Pennsylvania 16801 May 21, 1990 RECEIVED Ms. Maureen E. FitzGerald Environmental Specialist McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. Mellon Independence Center, Suite 6000 701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 MAY 24 1990 MCCORMICK, TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Dear Ms. FitzGerald: This is in response to your April 19, 1990, letter requesting our review and comment on the proposed Park Road Corridor project in Bucks County. We have reviewed the information provided and concur with Alternative A and the No Build Alternative as alternatives for further study. Sincerely, Charles Augen Charles J. Kulp Supervisor A-24 کار Creteo. V STATES. UNITED UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 111 ARENCY Dame NTALY 841 Chestnut Building Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 JUN 04 1930 P. Thomas Barilar District Engineer Pennsylvania Department of Transportation District 5-0 1713-41 Lehigh Street Allentown, PA 18103 RE: Park Road Corridor Berks, County Project Need Documentation Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Dear Mr. Barilar: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, Section 404 of the clean Water Act and Section 309 of the clean Air Act, EPA has reviewed the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis (PAA) for the above-referenced project. We have provided the following comments for your consideration in the NEPA document. Alternative Analysis Based on our review of the PAA, EPA believes that the criteria used as a basis to eliminate alternatives were too restrictive. The analysis appears to be biased towards the selection of the preferred alternative. As stated in the Council on Environmenta! Quality NEPA Implementing Regulations (40 CFR 1502.14) the alternative analysis is the heart of is the heart of the environmental review process. This analysis should rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives. We believe that additional alternatives should be included in the NEPA document. As stated at the May 30, 1990 Transportation Project Development Interagency Coordination Meeting (TPDICM), EPA recommends that five alternatives be evaluated in the NEPA document: Alternative A, a combination of A and F, A-25 Alternative F, the No-Build, and the Transportation System Management alternative. We prefer the upgrade of existing roadways to the construction of new highways where it is feasible. We believe that a combination of the upgrade of Paper Mill Road and a new highway connection with Routes 422/222 may be an environmentally sensitive alternative to Alternative A (see attached). IIIIIII The aerial photographs contained in the PAA indicate Paper Mill Road is relatively undeveloped at this time. There appears to be only a few uncontrolled access points. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation should consider the feasibility of limiting access along Paper Mill Road to interchanges with cross roads. The cost of obtaining the access rights of of the existing developments as well as the potential environmental impacts of frontage roads should be investigated. Wetland Delineation We note reference to a Philadelphia Corps of Engineers determination that the study corridor contained no wetlands. A copy of the jurisdictional determination letter and any supporting documents were not included in the document. No documentation of the presence/absence of hydric soils was made; the maps provided do not clearly show the location of two drainage swales which the Corps did determine to be waters of the United States. Because Alternative A may impact up to 4 acres of floodplain (which often contain soils with hydric inclusions and associated floodplain wetlands) we request that a full analysis be conducted as suggested by the March 9, 1989 Corps Planning Section letter. Farmland/ Terrestrial Impacts The PAA indicates that the impacts to farmland and woodland are not considered significant because the area is planned for development. The environmental document should objectively evaluate the impacts to environmental resources. Proposed development or planned development which is not presently under construction does not diminish the value of the resources being impacted. Therefore, the NEPA document should thoroughly and objectively evaluate the potential impacts of the project. Acceptable methods for quantifying the potential impacts should be used as the basis to determine the significance of the impacts. Maps The aerial photos are oriented with north facing the bottom righthand corner of the page, which is very confusing, as other maps in the document are oriented with north facing the top of the page. A-26 Thank-you for the opportunity to comment on this document. Should you have any question regarding our comments, please feel free to call me at (215) 597-7336. Laury zicari is also available ((215) 597-2940) to answer any questions you may have regarding the above comments. Sincerely, Denise M. Regney Denise M. Rigney Environmental Scientist NEPA/309 Review Section ATTACHMENT CC: COE: Winkler USFWS: McCoy PFC: Arway PGC: Grabowitz PADER: Smith A-27 183 Quter Bypass (S.R. 3055) ALTERNATIVE E F CHUYLKULL AIVER TULPEHO ALTERNATIVE D CKEN HEIDELBERG HOT I ALTERNATIVES SING CREEK CREEK CACOOS ALTERNATIVE F Papor MIH Road 1222 vo Van Rood Road REED ALTERNATIVEÇ ALTERNATIVE .... Broadcasting Role ....... A22 222 Stato HIM Boad Borough Berkshina Blvd. Søring Township Wyomissing LUDOS SUPE and Rd. Road 200 Bom Rom . 111 Preliminary Alternatives PARKROAD Source:USGS Reading Quadrangle revised 1983 D R AP O Scale: 1"=2000' = O C R McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Philadelphia Pennsylvania. 0 2000 500 1000 A-28 OF comparirnar ALIMENT DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS CUSTOM HOUSE-2 0 & CHESTNUT STREETS PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19106-2991 nit Sall' REPLY TO ATTENTION OF OCT 1 8 1989 Regulatory Branch SUBJECT: CENAP-OP-R-89-1526-16 (JD) RECEIVED OCT 2 3 1989 Ms. Maureen E. FitzGerald Environmental Specialist McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. Mellon Independence Center, Suite 6000 701 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 MCCORMICK, TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Dear Ms. FitzGerald: This is in regard to your request for a review of the Wetland Survey Report prepared as a preliminary jurisdictional determination on the Park Road Corridor, Berks County, Pennsylvania. The area which was examined was bounded by Paper Mill Road, S.R. 3055 (the outer bypass), Tulpehocken Road, and U.S. 422 (the Warren Street Bypass). Under current Federal regulations a Department of the Army permit is required for work or structures in navigable waters of the United States and the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including their adjacent wetlands. Based on the site inspection of September 12, 1989, we have determined that the site contains waters of the United States within the two stormwater channels discussed in your Wetland Survey Report. Based on the preliminary review of the corridor, at this time it does not appear that the study area contains any wetlands. This level of determination is adequate to conduct the alternative analysis for the Design Location Study. However, if the alternative that is chosen would impact any waters of the United States including wetlands, this office would require a detailed jurisdictional determination of the proposed Right of Way. Should you have any questions regarding this matter please contact Ms. Barbara Beall of this office at (215) 597-4723 between the hours of 1:00 and 3:30 p.m. Sincerely, ola Richard A. Hassel Assistant Chief, Regulatory Branch A-29 Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory Bureau of Forestry – Forest Advisor Seniles PNDI Coordinator PO Box 1467. Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-7873411 WESTERN PA CONSERVANCY PADI-Mestern Onice 316 Fourth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 152?? 112-288-2277 RECEIVED The Nature Conservancy PNDI Eastern Ottice 34 Airport Drive Middletown, PA 17057 717-783-1712 MAR 3 1089 McCORMICK, TAYLOR AND ASSCCIATES, INC. 27 February 1989 Ms. Maureen E. FitzGerald Environmental Specialist McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103-2087 Re: Park Road Corridor Extension Project Spring Township and Borough of Wyomissing Berks County Dear Ms. FitzGerald: A review of the files of the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) for the proposed project involving the construction of a four-lane highway in Spring Township and the Borough of Wyomissing located in Berks County, Pennsylvania indicates that we have no records of species of special concern occurring in the project area. As you know, the Inventory is a cumulative process through which information is continuously updated and refined. old records are checked in the field, new areas are surveyed, known sites are monitored, and new changes in land conservation status are recorded. As a result, the assessment of Pennsylvania's ecological resources is current and increasingly accurate, Consequently, information given to you now may be out of date in the near future. 1 1 The Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory has compiled data on Pennsylvania's rare, endangered, or otherwise significant plant and animal species, plant communities, and other natural features. While this information is available for preparation and review of environmental assessments, it is not a substitute for on-site surveys. The quantity and quality of data collected by the Inventory are dependent on the research and observations of many individuals and organizations. In most cases, information on environmental elements is not the result of comprehensive field surveys. For this reason, the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence, absence, or degree of health of environmental | A-30 elements in any part of Pennsylvania. The Inventory welcomes coordination with individuals or organizations proposing environmental alteration, and/or conducting environmental assessments; however, the information, or lack thereof, provided by the Inventory should never be regarded as a complete statement on the elements being considered. If data provided by the Pennsylvania Natural diversity Inventory are to be published in any form, the Inventory should be informed at the outset and credited as the source. Please take note that the Pennsylvania Game Commission has statutory authority for birds and mammals, and the Pennsylvania Fish Commission has statutory authority for herptiles, fishes, and aquatic organisms. These agencies should be notified to insure a complete review of the project area. Thank you for using PNDI as part of your environmental review procedure. Partial support for PNDI is derived from the wild Resource conservation Fund, which accumulates from the Pennsylvania State Income Tax check-off and from direct donations. Enclosed is a flyer which explains the procedure whereby a donation can be made to the fund, should your firm wish to contribute. If construction on this project has not been initiated one year from now, we suggest that you contact us again so that we may update our response. It is requested that any future correspondence regarding environmental reviews be sent directly to the Bureau of Forestry, Forestry Advisory Service, P.O. Box 1467, Harrisburg, PA 17120. Sincerely, Eugenie B. Drayton Eugénie B. Drayton Data Manager PNDI-E, The Nature Conservancy ENCL: CC: Statutory Authority and as stated Dan Devlin, Bureau of Forestry John Arway, Pa Fish Commission Jake sitlinger, Pa Game Commission A-31 Stewardship Twenty years of and COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES PENNSYLVANIA DER Service Post Office Box 8761 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105-8761 December 31,199 1971.1991 717-541-7803 Bureau of Water Resources Management HHHHHH JAN 0 3 1992 AYLOR , : به ، و END ASSOCIATES, INC. Richard A. Butala, Coordinator Environmental Studies Group McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. Mellon Independence Center, Suite 6000 701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Dear Mr. Butala: We have evaluated the information which you sent us regarding the Schuylkill Scenic River corridor boundaries as they relate to the Park Road Corridor Location Study and EIS, Berks County, Pennsylvania. In evaluating the proposed alternatives, you indicated that Alternatives A and H, those which would be closest to the Schuylkill River, would be located approximately 200 feet away from the banks of that river. It would appear that this project would not create a situation that would impact greenway implementation along the Schuylkill River in this vicinity. However, be advised that the Schuylkill River and Tulpehocken Creek are also involved in a Heritage Park project at this time. I have at your request enclosed two maps which detail the Scenic River corridor along the Schuylkill River. I have also included a copy of the Tulpehocken Creek proposed Scenic River corridor for your information. What I envision as the next steps required, will depend largely on whether this project would impact either the Schuylkill River or Tulpehocken Creek corridors. At this stage, it does not appear to be likely that a negative impact would occur, but I would appreciate being kept informed in order that the proposed highway design information could be evaluated as well. Thank you for the information. Should you have any additional questions regarding this letter or information just submitted, do not hesitate to contact me at the above number. Sincerely, Mario Aleburak . Marian Hrubovcak, Chief Scenic Rivers Section Division of Rivers and Wetlands Conservation Enclosures An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer A-32 Recycled Paper ACCTCLING WORKS 7, } Sehylk:11 Szencies Tived Corridor 速 ​世 ​ARCHIN An.I House Google 2 NE 古 ​日 ​中 ​BE M2 10 和​RN 动​; EUCERIMO 13 到​12 925 CLIP Lon 靈藥 ​C'! OF NION 型​21) CT 增 ​了 ​IRITTA80 - u 103 Silt Readis Municipal 0 OM Basin 236 61 Hyde Park!! 300 E R N N 300 CONRAIL M proposed Tulpehockex Creek Saric River Correder green SECONRA! sia se YLKÍLL Munjo al Stadiun CANAL Toast Guard Training Base Berkshire Copntry Slub 300- Fle CREEK. PY 30 Ho Towers TWEEUX RON 280 222 11:12 Charles Gyans Kissinger Union Cemetery of nepherd 310 ASTING LANE Northwest High sch BOUNDARY ... .کو:.. 422 Bae Park Does ........ ...... inde ............ 326 ROADA 11!? NANTI o Schiry ! 0. BORO KISSINGER CONRAIL au roN006 THAT ROAD ECOND INT NA pissing Hills Wyomissing HODOLAND CONRAR Playground Khota J6 posal Playgrooto. 180 4 LANE See Gasto Park FO ligth Wyomissing -200. Radio Tower JWAUM) Thomas H Ford Scha Hinh Sich Schlegel Park EVUE 300 A-346 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA FISH COMMISSION Division of Fisheries Management 450 Robinson Lane Bellefonte. PA 16823-9616 February 13, 1989 RECEIVED FEB 16 1989 McCORMICK, TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES, INC. McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Maureen E. FitzGerald, Environmental Specialist 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103-2087 Dear Ms. FitzGerald: I have examined the map accompanying your recent correspondence which shows the location of the proposed studies for a Design Location Study and Environmental Impact Statement for the Park Road Corridor Extension Project in Spring Township and Borough of Wyomissing in Berks County, Pennsylvania. Presently, none of the fishes, amphibians, or reptiles we list as endangered or threatened are known to occur at or in the immediate vicinity of the study area. Enclosed is some information concerning endangered and threatened species under our jurisdiction and that of the Game Commission. Sincerely, Clark 1. Shiffer Clark N. Shiffer, Coordinator Herpetology and Endangered Species mam Encl. cc: R. Snyder PEITIVAM $15 COLUISSION RESOURCE © FIRST PROTECT CONSERVE · ENHANCE . A-35 B. Kelle, Two COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYWANIA nuoma ADNANISTRATIVE AUTOMOTME NO PROCUREMENT OMSON LICENSE OMSON PERSONNEL DIVISION WILOUFE WANDEMENT INFORMATOR A EDUCATION W ENFORCEMENT UNO MANAGEMENT. REAL ESTUTE OIVISION GEMENT INFORMAron SYSTEMS PENNSYLVANIA GAME COMMISSION 1.4 17:47 2746 ni ins 2001 ELMERTON AVENUE HARRISBURG, PA 171109797 May 4, 1990 con cs TTT Mr. P. Thomas Barilar, P.E. District Engineer, District 5-0 Pennsylvanie Department of Transportation 2460 Parkwood Dr. Allentown, PA 18103 In se: Park Road Corridor Study Spring Township / Wyomissing Borough Becks County Dear Mr. Bacilar: We have received the project Need Documentation and Preliminary Alternatives Analysis report and cover letter requesting our review and coNAGR88 to the above ceferenced project. The report appears to idequately describe the environmental effects of the project. However, we have concera. A regard to alternatives Decouuended for analysis in the Environmental Document. We feel that Alternativas C, 8, nad should also be treated a viablo alternatives tot future studies. . la canlyelag the report, 16 seeas that one of the 1910 objectives for uilding the road 10 to provide access to approved and planned commercial and residential developaeat. I this is the case, then Alteractive, which involves laproveseats to existing Paper M111 Road, should retisfy the nood. 18 the objective is to link two lluited accurs facilities, then Alternatives Cor Ecould be a feasible solution. 1 Please keep us informed of any further progress on this project. Also, please provide us with a copy of the Design Location Study / Environnencal Document. We wish the opportunity to review and comaent on the findinge of this ceport. An lover ROGEN Party a motorer A-36 - Me. P. Thomas Barilar, P.E. -2- May 4, 1990 If you have any questions, plens. contact Gregory Grabowice of Roland Bergner of my staff at (717) 783-4919. very truly yours, vir jainen Jacod I. Sitling, Director Bureau Oe Land Repasescat ل. A-37 ADMINISTRATIVE BUREAUS .787-5670 VANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNS, PENNSYLVANIA GAME COMMISSION ADMINISTRATION AUTOMOTIVE AND PROCUREMENT DIVISION.. LICENSE DIVISION.. PERSONNEL DIVISION WILDUFE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION & EDUCATION LAW ENFORCEMENT LAND MANAGEMENT REAL ESTATE DIVISION. MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS .787-6594 .787-2084 .787-7836 .787-5529 .787-6286 .787-5470 .787-8818 .787-6588 KOCAME OY 1 .787-4076 2001 ELMERTON AVENUE HARRISBURG, PA 17110-9797 RECEIVED April 4, 1989 APR 6 1989 MC CRACK, TAYLOR DISSOCIATES, INC. . : Inc. Ms. Maureen E. Fitzgerald McCormick, Taylor and Associates, 1617 J.F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103-2087 Dear Ms. Fitzgerald: In response to your request for information services, we are providing the enclosed printout from the Pennsylvania Fish and Wildlife Data Base. This information was provided for an analysis of species present in the vicinity of the Park Road Corridor Extension project in Spring Township and Wyomissing Borough, Berks County, Pennsylvania. The bill for this service is as follows: $ Staff Time Computer Use Telephone Costs Data Storage Mailing cost 15.00 3.63 11.50 1.75 1.87 TOTAL $ 33.75 If you have апу questions or require assistance interpreting this this printout, please contact Ms. Santoni Santoni at (717) 787-1570. Very truly yours, Jacob Esitlingeke Director Bureau of Land Management An Equal Opportunity Employer A-38 FISH FISH MAMMALS MAMMALS MAMMALS MAMMALS MAMMALS MAMMALS REPTILES REPTILES REPTILES REPTILES SUCKER, WHITE TROUT, BROWN MINK MOLE, STAR-NOSED MOUSE, MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE, WOODLAND JUMPING MUSKRAT RAT, NORWAY SNAKE, NORTHERN WATER SNAKE, QUEEN TURTLE, MIDLAND PAINTED TURTLE, WOOD CATOSTOMUS COMMERSONI SALMO TRUTTA MUSTELA VISON CONDY WRA CRISTAT A ZAPUS HUDSONIUS NAPAEOZAPUS INSIGNIS ONDATRA ZIBETHICUS RATTUS NORVEGICUS NERODIA SIPEDON SIPEDON REGINA SEPTEMVITTATA CHRYSEMYS PICTA MARGINATA CLEMMYS INSCULPTA . NUMBER OF RECORDS REPORTED: 54 COMPLETED. COMMAND? RECORDS FROM DAT ASET : PA DATE: 89/04/03 TIME: 10:23:17 SETNAME: B A-39 GROUP COMMON-NAME STATUS BIRDS BIRDS BIRDS BIRDS BIRDS MAMMALS MAMMALS REPTILES OSPREY OWL, SHORT - EARED SANDPIPER, UPLAND SPARROW, HENSLOW'S WREN, BEWICK'S MYOTIS, SMALL-FOOTED RAT, EASTERN WOOD+ TURTLE, BOG NON-CONSUMP-REC, SENSITIVE, SEE COMMENTS, S-E NON-CONSUMP-REC, SEE COMMENTS, S-E NON-CONSUMP-REC, SEE COMMENTS, S-T NON-CONSUMP-REC, SEE COMMENTS, S-T NON-CONSUMP-REC, SEE COMMENTS, S-E SEE COMMENTS, S-T SEE COMMENTS, S-T S-E, SEE COMMENTS NUMBER OF RECORDS REPORTED: 8 . COMPLETED. COMMAND? ENTER LIST OF DESIRED FIELDNAMES, SEPARATED BY COMMAS NEXT LINE? (IF FINISHED, TYPE: %) RECORDS FROM DAT ASET : PA DATE: 89/04/03 TIME: 10:23:26 SETNAME: B BIRDS OSPREY PANDION HALIAETUS NON-CONSUMP-REC, SENSITIVE, SEE COMMENTS, S-E ALL FOREST LAND, DECIDUOUS, EVERGREEN MIXED *ESTUARINE, SUBTIDAL, OPEN WATER, * RIVERINE, LOWER PERENNIAL, OPEN WATER, *LACU STRINE, LIMNETIC, OPEN WATER, * LACUSTRINE, LITTORAL, OPEN WATER, *PALUSTRINE, OPEN WATER, *PALUSTRINE, FORESTED *****DISTRIBUTION BY COUNTY (DISTRIB-ABUNDANCE-)***** REGULAR MIGRANT SPRING AND FALL. BREEDING IN BEAVER, BUCKS, CLARION, DELAWARE, AND WYOMING COUNTIES. CASUAL IN SUMMER IN OTHER COUNTIES. CASUAL IN WINTER. *06* *****DISTRIBUTION BY SAF FOREST COVER TYPES (FTYPE)***** WILL NEST IN LARGE TREES AT EDGE OF FOREST NEAR WATER. *01* *****HOME RANGE SIZE (TERRITORY-DISPERSION-ACRES-SQMILE) ***** WILL DEFEND NEST AND YOUNG AGAINST OTHER BIRDS OF PREY AND CROWS. WILL NEST COLONIALLY. *01* *****GENERAL HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS (HABITAT)***** LIVES IN VICINITY OF WATER. *01* *****HABITAT: AGRICULTURE LAND CLASSES (AGRICULTURE) ***** WILL LIVE IN OPEN FARMLAND COUNTRY NEAR WATER. *01* *****NATIONAL WET LAND INVENTORY SYSTEM (MWI-SYSTEM) ***** LIVES IN VICINITY OF LAKES, PONDS, RIVERS, AND CREERS. CATCHES FISH IN OPEN WATER. *01,06* NON-CONSUMP-REC, SEE COMMENTS, S-E BIRDS OWL, SHORT-EARED ASIO FLAMMEUS UNKNOWN CROPLAND-PASTURE REGULAR MIGRANT. *06* A-40 UNKNOWN CROPLAND-PASTURE UNKNOWN *PALUSTRINE, EMERGENT I HHHHHU . 1 l - REGULAR MIGRANT. *06* · *****DISTRIBUTION BY COUNTY (DISTRIB-ABUNDANCE-)***** REGULAR MIGRANT SPRING AND FALL, CASUAL BREEDER AT PHILADELPHIA AIRPORT. WINTERS IN THE STATE. *06* AN IRREGULAR, USUALLY RATHER RARE, TRANSIENT AND WINTER VISITANT. A FEW NESTS HAVE BEEN FOUND IN WIDELY SEPARATED AREAS OF THE STATE. *05* *****PERIODICITY DESCRIPTORS (PERIODICITY) ***** SOMETIMES ACTIVE DURING DAY. *03* *****NATIONAL WET LAND INVENTORY SYSTEM (NWI-SYSTEM) ***** HUNTS OVER MARSHES, *03* . . BIRDS SANDPIPER, UPLAND BART RAMIA LONGICAUDA PROTECTED. CANNOT BE LEGALLY HUNTED OR SOLD. *04* OTHER URBAN LAND CROPLAND-PASTURE UNKNOWN REGULAR MIGRANT *06* ***** DISTRIBUTION BY COUNTY (DISTRIB-ABUNDANCE-) ***** REGULAR MIGRANT SPRING AND FALL. BREEDS IN PA.; IN 1964-77, NESTED IN BERKS, BUTLER, CENTRE, CRAWFORD, GREENE, INDIANA, MERCER, MONTGOMERY, WARREN, WASHINGTON, AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES. *06* *****PERIODICITY DESCRIPTORS (PERIODICITY) ***** MIGRATE MAINLY AT NIGHT. *01* *****HABITAT: AGRICULTURE LAND CLASSES (AGRICULTURE) ***** OCCUR IN PASTURE LANDS AND OCCASIONALLY IN CULTIVATED FIELDS. *01,03* *****HABITAT: URBAN LAND CLASSES (URBAN)***** SOMET IMES OCCUR IN FIELDS AROUND AIRPORTS AND ON GOLF COURSES. *03* *****NATIONAL WET LAND INVENTORY SYSTEM (MWI-SYSTEM) ***** SELDOM NEAR WATER- OCCASIONALLY IN MOIST MEADOWS. *01* AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII BIRDS SPARROW, HENSLOR'S NON-CONSUMP-REC, SEE COMMENTS,S-T PROTECTED IN PENNSYLVANIA. *04* UNKNOWN CROPLAND-PASTURE UNKNOWN FALL, SPRING MIGRANT; BREEDS IN STATE. *09* *****DISTRIBUTION BY COUNTY (DISTRIB-| ABUNDANCE- )***** BREEDING RECORDS FOR ARMSTRONG, BUTLER, CENTRE, CLARION, CRAWFORD, ERIE, FAYETTE, HUNTINGDON, INDIANA, JEFFERSON, MERCER, MIFFLIN, NORTHAMPTON, SOMERSET, WARREN, WASHINGTON, WESTMORELAND AND WYOMING COUNTIES. *01,07,08* *****DISTRIBUTION BY SAF FOREST COVER TYPES (FTYPE)***** FOUND IN OPEN FIELDS, GRASSLAND. *08* *****DISTRIBUTION BY FOREST SIZE CLASSES (FSIZE)***** OLD WEEDY FIELDS WITH LOW SHRUBS, BUSHES. *02* *****PERIODICITY DESCRIPTORS (PERIODICITY) ***** MAY SING ALL NIGHT. *O2* *****HABITAT: RANGELAND CLASSES (RANGELAND) ***** OLD FIELDS WITH LOW SHRU BS. *02* *****HABITAT: AGRICULTURE LAND CLASSES (AGRICULTURE) ***** FIELDS, MEADOWS . *08* *****HABITAT: FOREST LAND CLASSES (FOREST)***** OPEN FIELDS, GRASSLAND. *02* A-42 NON-CONSUMP-REC, SEE COMMENTS, S-E BIRDS VRIN, INICK'S THRYOMANES BEWICKII RESIDENTIAL ORCHARDS -VINEYARDS-NURSERIES, OTHER AGRICULTURE LAND ALL FOREST LAND, DECIDUOUS , EVERGREEN ,MIXED REGULAR MIGRANT. *08* ***** DISTRIBUTION BY COUNTY (DISTRIB-ABUNDANCE-)***** REGULAR MIGRANT SPRING AND FALL. BREEDS CHIEFLY IN SOUTHWESTERN COUNTIES. CASUAL IN WINTER (1974 AT BLOOMSBURG). *08* BREEDS MAINLY IN 1111111 THHH I THE RIDGE AND VALLEY SECTION, BUT SEEMS TO BE EXTENDING ITS RANGE NORTHWARD. *07* ***** DISTRIBUTION BY SAF FOREST COVER TYPES (FTYPE)***** MIGRATES THROUGH OR BREEDS IN OPEN WOODLANDS. *02* *****HABITAT: AGRICULTURE LAND CLASSES (AGRICULTURE) ***** BREEDS AROUND FARMSTEADS AND IN ORCHARDS. *02* *****HABITAT: URBAN LAND CLASSES (URBAN)***** OCCURS AROUND RURAL AND SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL HOUSES. *02,04* SEE COMMENTS, S-T MAMMALS NORIS, SMALL-FOOTED MYOTIS LEIBII ALL FOREST LAND, DECIDUOUS, EVERGREEN ,MIXED RAREST OF EASTERN CAVE BATS; PENNSYLVANIA'S SMALLEST BAT. *03* ***** DISTRIBUTION BY COUNTY (DISTRIB-ABUNDANCE- )***** SPECIMENS TAKEN FROM CAVES IN CENTRE AND MIFFLIN COUNTIES. CENTRAL PA. IS AREA OF GREATEST ABUNDANCE*03* -43 SEE COMMENTS, S-T MAMMALS RA, BASTERN WOOD+ NEOTOMA FLORIDANA ALL FOREST LAND, DECIDUOUS, EVERGREEN ,MIXED FOUND IN SUITABLE HABITAT THROUGHOUT PA.*02* *****DISTRIBUTION BY COUNTY (DISTRIB-ABUNDANCE-)***** FOUND LOCALLY AT CLIFFS, CAVES, TALUS SLOPES, ROCK SLIDES, IN CREVICES AND UNDERGROUND GALLERIES OF MOUNTAINOUS SECTIONS*030405060708* S-E, SEE COMMENTS REPTILES TURILE, BOG CLEMMYS MUHLENBERGII ACTIVELY THREAT ENED WITH EXTINCTION IN STATE. SURVIVAL UNLI KELY WITHOUT SPECIAL PROTECTION*09* KURBAN-T> CROPLAND-PASTURE *PALUSTRINE,UNCONSOLIDATED BOTTOM ,MUD, NONTIDAL, PERMANENT , FRESH, *PALUSTRINE,MOSS/LICHEN ,MOSS,NONTIDAL, PERMANENT , FRESH, *PALUSTRINE, SCRUB/SHRUB, BROAD-LEAVED DECIDUOUS , NONTIDAL, PERMANENT , FRESH MORE BOG TURTLES IN PENNSYLVANIA THAN ANY OTHER STATE*07* *****DISTRIBUTION BY COUNTY (DISTRIB-ABUNDANCE-)***** BERKS-ESHBACH; CHESTER-LUDWIGS CORNERS, BERYN, KENNETT SQUARE; CRAWFO RD-HART STOWN; DELAWARE-BROOMALL, GLEN MILLS, NEWTOWN SQUARE; FRANKLIN- GREEN TWP.; LANCASTER-HOPELAND, BRICKERVILLE, NEW PROVIDENCE; LEBANON- LEBANON, CAMPBELLTOWN, MT. GRETNA, COLEBROOK, PENNRYN STATION; MERCER- STONEBORO; MONTGOMERY-SCHWENKSVILLE, SUMNEYTOWN; YORK-WRIGHT SVILLE. CR AWFORD AND MERCER COUNTIES MAY HAVE ONLY A FEW RELIC POPULATIONS. *****DISTRIBUTION BY LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE (LAT LON)***** NOTE TWO DISJUNCT POPULATIONS IN STATE. *****DISTRIBUTION BY OWDC HYDROLOGIC UNITS (HYDROUNIT)***** POPULATIONS MAY NOT REMAIN IN ALL OWDC UNITS NOTED ABOVE. *****DISTRIBUTION BY SAF FOREST COVER TYPES (FTYPE)***** PROBABLY OCCURS IN OTHER FOREST COVER TYPES AS WELL. *****DISTRIBUTION BY LAND OWNERSHIP (OWNERSHIP)***** FROM GENERAL RANGE MAPS*02,03,07,10,11* *****POPULATION DYNAMICS: PAST FIVE YEARS (PAST)***** 08*06,08* *****POPULATION POTENTIAL: FUTURE FIVE YEARS (FUTURE)***** HABITAT IMPROVEMENT AND REINTRODUCTION OF INDIVIDUALS MIGHT INC REASE POPULATION SLIGHTLY*11* *****HOME RANGE SIZE (TERRITORY-DISPERSION-ACRES-SQMI LE) ***** SPECIES OCCURS IN DISJUNCT COLONIES OF 13 0-300 INDIVIDUALS; A MEAN HOME RANGE OF 19 INDIVIDUALS WAS 3.16 ACRES (1.28 HECTARES ) *05* *****PERIODICITY DESCRIPTORS (PERIODICITY) ***** MAY REQUIRE MORE HEAT TO INITIATE AND SUPPORT ACTIVITY THAN DO OTHER TURTLES*02*MOST ACTIVE IN APRIL, MAY, JUNE, AND SEPTEMBER*06* *****GENERAL HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS (HABITAT ) ***** CONSTANT LOW-VOWME WAT ER FLOW OVER SOFT SUBSTRATE*06 A-44 * *****HABITAT: AGRICULTURE LAND CLASSES (AGRICULTURE) ***** SOGGY PASTU RES UTILIZED 1 1 ! *****HABITAT: URBAN LAND CLASSES (URBAN)* DOES NOT INHABIT URBAN LAND 8 NUMBER OF RECORDS REPORTED: 1174:> A-45 1 14 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION 1 _ TOWNSHIP OF SPRING TOWNS:01 OF SPRING NG BERKS COUNTY, PA. 2800 SHILLINGTON RD. CORNWALL TERRACE READING, PENNA. 19608 Tel. 678-5393 UND 13) d S Address all Communications to SHARON E, WEISS - Township Secretary 3 uc и September 28, 1990 . United States Environmental Protection Agency Region III 841 Chestnut Building Philadelphia, PA 19107 Re: Park Road Corridor Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Attn: Denise M. Rigney Environmental Scientist NEPA/309 Review Section Dear Ms. Rigney: We reviewed, with interest, your letter dated June 4, 1990 to P. Thomas Barilar, District Engineer, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, regarding the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis (PAA) for the Park Road Corridor. We also reviewed the response of the Pennsylvania Game Comission dated May 4; 1990 regarding the same document. The Township of Spring takes exception to a number of both your connents and those of the Game Commission. We have waited for more than 25 years for a connection between the outer by-pass and the Warren Street By-pass. This missing link in the highway system of Berks County is essential to complete a regional connection between the Lehigh Valley and the Lancaster area and to relieve congestion on local streets caused by the high volume of through traffic. This factor alone is the primary reason why Alternative A should be the preferred alternative and that any other possible alternative should be eliminated from further consideration. Alternative F should be eliminated from consideration because of the nature of existing Paper Mill Road. The existing residential development of Colony Park fronts on Paper Mill Road as does the residential development of Stone Hill Farms which is currently under construction. Ever since the completion of the outer by-pass, traffic from that route has been funneled through the residential developments of Wilshire and Whitfield within the Township. Residents in those areas have suffered too long with regional traffic passing by their A-48 Page 2 September 28, 1990 front doors. The use of Alternative F will simply transfer that hardship from Wilshire and Whitfield to Colony Park and Stone Hill Farms. In addition, the use of Alternative F would necessitate construction of an interchange with the Warren Street By-pass on lands that are already developed and would be extremely costly to obtain. While we would all prefer to be able to accommodate existing and proposed traffic flows on the current highway system the use of Paper Mill Road as a regional connector between the two bypasses borders on the ridiculous. While you are correct that the proposed or planned development which is not presently under construction does not diminish the value of any resources being impacted, you may not be aware of the development status of the properties in the Township. First, Spring Ridge, Inc. is the owner of the proposed corridor within Alternative A between the outer bypass and Broadcasting Road. Spring Ridge has already submitted plans to the Township in one stage or another for that entire corridor. One of their subdivided lots has already been sold, and the corporate office and regional service center of a major company will be constructed on that tract. Second, the corridor within Alternative A between Broadcasting Road and the boundary of the Borough of Wyomissing is owned by Tulpehocken Limited. Although the owner has not submitted any plans to the Township for development, they have reserved sanitary sewage transportation and treatment capacity within the City of Reading system for development of their entire holdings. While these factors do not diminish the value of resources, they simply point to the loss of those resources with or without Alternative A. Alternative E would require a connection between the two bypasses on existing PA 183. Although this connection would remove the traffic hardships experienced by Whitfield and Wilshire, it would simply transfer those hardships to other residential areas in Bern Township. Existing PA 183 would be hopelessly inadequate to handle the regional traffic generated by this connection. Lands required to rebuild Rt. 183 to an acceptable level of service would undoubtedly be cost prohibitive. Use of Alternative C would transfer traffic from the outer bypass to the Warren Street Bypass over State Hill/Bern Road, which is located in the Township and portions of the Boroughs of Wyomissing and Wyomissing Hills, Again, regional traffic would be funneled through residential areas. In addition, this very high volume of traffic would be directed into an area that is already congested and inadequate to handle existing flows. It is likely that the lands required for construction of Alternative C would be more expensive than those required for any of the other alternatives. F A-47 Page 3 September 28, 1990 If you have not already conducted an actual site inspection of the proposed alternatives, such a visit might be extremely enlightening. Like you, we are concerned about any impact which the proposed highway might have on the environment. However, we must also be concerned about the welfare of our taxpayers and their safety, especially on their own residential properties. Spring Township has suffered long enough without this connection between the two bypasses. It is imperative that construction begin along a new alignment, minimizing the impact on residential properties. Very truly yours, Walter H. QO Qe Walter H. Diehm, Chairman Damen William B. Myers, Vice Charman Kevin G. Bitz, Suretvisor Keri Dat lu L. Lah , Cais J. Lutz. " John E. Leber, Supervisor Lut Craig J. Lutz, Supervisor A-48 SSING BOROUGH OF WYOMISSING PENNS BOROUGH HALL -22 READING BLVD. WYOMISSING, PA 19610 3 KVANIE (215) 376-7481 ce October 2, 1990 Ms. Denise Rigney Environmental Scientist, NEPA/309 Review Section U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NEPA Compliance Section, Region III 841 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 Re: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Berks Park Road Corridor Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Dear Ms. Rigney: I have been asked to express the views of the Borough of Wyomissing with respect to your letter of 6/4/90 and the 5/4/90 letter of the Pennsylvania Game Commission, both addressed to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of Transportion regarding the above, which "Corridor" when constructed will be situate partly in the Borough of Wyomissing, partly in the Township of Spring, and wholly in the County of Berks. In your letters your Agency and the Commission recommended that the Paper Mill Road alternative be revisited and re-evaluated as a possible site for the construction of the Corridor. I refer you to the letters of the County Commissioners of Berks County under date of October 2, 1990 and the Township of Spring under date of September 28, 1990. I will avoid repeating the facts, which are so ably presented and contained in those two letters. I commend them to your attention and your earnest consideration. The problem faced by our County and its constituent municipalities is well described in the Spring Township letter. Two highways, never connected, one suspended grotesquely in limbo like some great preying mantis, and the other aptly called, "the Road to Nowhere," have over time led to intolerable intra-county traffic congestion, retarded the economic growth of the County and have been the cause of a major transportation bottleneck in eastern Pennsylvania. The solution to this absurd situation was finally reached in 1989 when the three Partners, the County of Berks, the Borough of Wyomissing, and the Township of Spring, with the blessing of our Governor, presented the Pennsylvania Department of Highways with approximately Nine Million Dollars ($9,000,000) for the purpose of getting on with this long overdue construction and giving it top priority. A-49 Ms. Denise Rigney Environmental Scientist NEPA/309 Review Section U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY October 2, 1990 Page Two. The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis has now been completed at a horrendous to the taxpayers and delivered to whomever was concerned, including your Agency. This document has been carefully and professionally prepared giving full consideration to every federal and state prerequisite. The Recommended Alternative Alignment (Alternative A) was the obvious choice. The land is open; relatively flat; unimproved and free of all environmental problems, including those created by man, real or imagined. The other suggested alternatives are clearly unacceptable for reasons given and adequately described in all of the documentation which has already been presented to your Agency. We have spent nearly one million dollars getting to this point, Ms. Rigney, and now it would seem you are suggesting that we do it all over again, at least insofar as the Paper Mill Road alternative is concerned. We must assume that your motives are pristine and that your position considers the interests of all the people, the various governmental bodies, and the land over which the Corridor must be constructed. It would seem, however, to we the simple unsophisticated people of this rural community, that anyone remotely familiar with the facts, conversant with the need, interested in promoting the Governor's program of economic expansion in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and who has visited the site, could not possibly have suggested that we revisit Paper Mill Road. To do what you suggest is a waste of money, time and energy; suggests a repetition of effort which will not alter the original conclusion; postpones the construction of this necessary Corridor; impedes the Governor's program; is contrary to the facts voluably described in all of the documentation, and, raises the specter too horrible to contemplate, that your persistence in this regard, presently only concerned with revisiting Paper Mill Road, might conceivably prevent the construction of the Corridor. If you would please thoroughly review the situation in all of its many aspects, you will be irresistably drawn to the very obvious conculsion; that there is simply not enough money available to acquire the land; all of the improvements; rearrange a partially destroyed infrastructure serving a residential and commercial community; and then design and build the Corridor on the Paper Mill Road alignment. We of the Borough of Wyomissing join with the Commissioners of the County of Berks, the Supervisors of the Township of Spring, the Pennsylvania Department of A-50 Ms. Denise Rigney Environmental Scientist NEPA/309 Review Section U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY October 3, 1990 Page Three. Transportation, and the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the presentation of our collective position. Your Agency's prompt withdrawal of the revisiting Paper Mill Road directive is urgently requested by all concerned. Very truly yours, Saul Paul 1. Edelmar, Member of the Council of the Borough of Wyomissing and Member of the County Commissioners' Task Force to Design and Construct the Park Road Corridor PHE:dsk 1 1 | 1 1 A-51 3 INDEPE See ·LIBER) OFFICE OF COMMISSIONERS OF BERKS COUNTY, PA. 33 NORTH SIXTH STREET READING, PENNSYLVANIA 19601-3584 SIDE BIRKSO COUNTY Glenn B. Reber, Chairman Michael F. Feeney.Commissioner Anthony J. Carabello, Commissioner Ronald R. Seaman, Chief Clerk Jeffrey L. Schmehl, Solicitor October 2, 1990 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ms. Denise Rigney NEPA Compliance Section, Region III 841 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 RE: Park Road Corridor, Berks County Dear Ms. Rigney: On June 4, 1990 you provided comments to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation regarding the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis for the Park Road Corridor, located in Spring Township and Wyomissing Borough, Berks County. Included in these comments was the recommendation that Paper Mill Road be evaluated as an altemative. As full partners with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation in both the funding and design of the proposed Park Road Corridor, we are writing to express our opposition to the further consideration of Paper Mill Road as the regional connector and to request that you reconsider your directive to evaluate this highway as a viable alternative. This route was examined and dismissed in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis as not effectively meeting the project's primary need of completing the regional highway system. We support this conclusion. Construction of a limited-access regional connector along this alignment would split a community, requiring the condemnation of homes and businesses. It would also require the destruction of the existing Paper Mill Road which was recently upgraded at a cost exceeding $2 million. In addition to this and as evidenced at public meetings for both the Paper Mill Road and Park Road Corridor project, there is strong community opposition to the use of this corridor to solve the regional problem. The County and the municipal comprehensive planning processes call for the coordinated development of land use and transportation improvements in an effective and efficient manner. This is best accomplished through separating local and regional traffic to the greatest extent possible. In this area, Paper Mill Road best serves local needs and Corridor A would best provide for regional needs. A-52 U.S. E.P.A. Denise Rigney Page 2 While we support the underlying intent of the NEPA regulations requiring the examination of all viable alternatives, we feel that there is a point where alternatives which do not meet the project need should be dropped. We are convinced that this threshold has been reached on Paper Mill Road and, in light of the facts presented, feel that further pursuit of this corridor represents an unwarranted expenditure of taxpayer's dollars and creates unnecessary delays in solving this regional problem. Sincerely, Berks County Board of Commissioners Glenn B. Reber, Chairman Mant Deber Anthony Carabello am Anthony J. Cafabellos; Commissioner Michael F. Feeney, Commissioner c: H. Yerusalim, PennDOT P.T. Barilar, PennDOT P. Edelman, Wyomissing Borough W. Diehm, Spring Township J. Sidinger, PA Game Commission A. Piper, Berks County Planning Commission A-53 Ср пEF ③ FILE 2 BERKS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (215) 378-8703 Exide Building 645 Penn Street, Suite 203 Reading, PA 19601-3509 Jospa E Des cortis, Chais Pamela E Muaro, Vice Chais Josept E Williams Secremy Elaine M Berisha Looc Gallagher Josepte E. Kuzminbi William A. Moore Harry S. Selsoe Prilip D. Rowe, Jr. Glean R Roodlach, Executive Director Heidi B. Macaso. Solicilor RECEIVET October 16, 1990 OCT 17 1990 MCCORMICK, TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES, INC. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III Ms. Denise Rigney NEPA Compliance Section 841 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 I Re: SR 3040, Park Road Corridor Berks County, Pennsylvania Dear Ms. Rigney: Having had the opportunity to review your comments of June 4, 1990 regarding the above mentioned project and heard the results of a meeting with your agency and the Pennsylvania Game Commission held on October 4, 1990, we are writing to express our total disagreement with your continued efforts to require the evaluation of additional alternative routes beyond that which has been recommended in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis. The Berks County Planning Commission, the County Commissioners, the local municipalities, and the Park Road Corridor Task Force have concluded that this route is the only logical solution for the proposed closure of this missing link in the regional highway system and neither our studies nor your comments alter this fact As indicated to you in letters from the Township of Spring, Borough of Wyomissing, and the Berks County Board of Commissioners, this area is undergoing an extremely high rate of growth. This growth will occur with or without the proposed highway. As the local agency responsible for directing regional growth, we encourage this development here where infrastructure is accessible as opposed to expansion farther into the rural areas of the County. We are further dedicated to providing the best highway system possible to meet the needs of all citizens, not just those in this area. We feel that Corridor A meets this need. It provides for the mobility needs and minimizes the impact on present and future development in this area. Your proposal for a "hybrid" corridor, while providing for the regional movement of traffic, shows little a no concem for the ability to develop the balance of this area in an efficient manner. Where Corridor A parallels existing property lines and reduces the impacts on development, j'our hybrid corridor bisects properties leaving no viable use to portions of the remnants. Not only does this limit development but also significandy increases the cost of damages which must be paid to the property owner with taxpayers dollars. In addition, you suggest that the use of a portion of existing Paper Mill Road will limit the amount of land needed for highways. This is not true. Paper Mill Road provides local access. In constructing a regional, limited-access highway in its place you eliminate this local access and are required to replace it in a new location. Where is the benefit in destroying an existing facility which was just reconstructed only to rebuild it in a new location? There is no net loss in the amount of land used and depending on the location, may actually involve more land. In addition, you are again showing a complete disregard for the use of public expenditures. A-54 U.S. EPA Ms. Denise Rigney October 16, 1990 Page 2 Your refusal to actually visit the area in question and view firsthand the changes which are taking place and to speak with both the citizens of this community and those charged with directing the project demonstrates a lack of concern for the parties you are charged with “protecting". We repeat the previous requests made for you to visit this area, possibly through your attendance at a meeting of the Park Road Corridor Task Force, and explain your continued stand for more studies. For the good of this community, this project must be allowed to continue without further delays. Sincerely, Jauh Delos Joseph E. De Santis. Chairman Berks County Planning Commission oc: U.S. EPA Administrator, Region II Representative Gus Yatron Senator John Heinz M Senator Arlen Spector Sec. Howard Yerusalim Berks County Commissioners Borough of Wyomissing Township of Spring McCormick, Taylor & Assoc. A-55 STATES UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RECEIVED CHATEO AGENCY REGION III 841 Chestnut Building Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 ENTAL NOV 1 1990 Precione Haming Comitibbico Joseph E. DeSantis, Chairman Berks County Planning Commission Exide Building 645 Penn Street, Suite 203 Reading, Pennsylvania 19601-3509 OCT 29 1990 AND ASSOCIATES, INC. MCCORMICK, TAYLOR NOV 05 1990 RECEIVED Re: SR 3040, Park Road Corridor Berks County, Pennsylvania Dear Mr. DeSantis: Thank you for providing EPA with your views regarding the range of alternatives for the Park Road Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). EPA is concerned about all aspects of the project including the concerns of the county officials and the general public. EPA has the responsibility under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the clean Air Act to review and publicly comment on projects which utilize Federal funding or require a major Federal Action (such as a clean Water Act Section 404 permit). These responsibilities include evaluating the adequacy of the DEIS with respect to the requirements outlined in the Council Environmental Quality (CEQ) ( NEPA Implementing Regulations (40 CFR 1500). We are providing a copy of the regulations for you reference. on The CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1500.2(e)) require that responsible agencies use the NEPA process to identify and assess all reasonable alternatives to the proposed action which will avoid or minimize adverse impacts on the environment. The NEPA process is intended to help.public officials make decisions that are based on the understanding of environmental consequences and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment (40 CFR 1500.1(c)). are It is entirely possible that the corridor A Alternative may be the most suitable option when all factors considered. However, to make an informed decision regarding the Park Road Corridor alignment, EPA believes the environmental impacts (natural resource and socioeconomic) and proposed mitigation concepts of Alternatives A, F, and the Hybrid (A/F) should be provided in a comparative form to sharply define the merits of each alternative. EPA's primary concern is the compliance with the requirements of NEPA to ensure the most environmentally sound, practicable alternative is identified. A-56 Section 1502.14 of the CEQ Regulations requires agencies to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives. EPA believes that the hybrid alternative is reasonable alternative which would serve both regional and local traffic. Since the section of Paper Mill Road west of Broadcasting Road is relatively undeveloped with only three existing access points, we believe that local access may be provided from the through an interchange at Broadcasting Road. The western end of Paper Mill Road may not have to be relocated to provide local access. Since this alternative appears to be a viable solution which may avoid adverse impacts to the natural environment, we believe it warrants a thorough evaluation in the DEIS. Although NEPA requires an analysis of all reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, the proposed action, it does not require the selection of any particular alternative. NEPA procedures are designed to insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and actions taken. EPA's request for the analysis of additional alternatives should not be construed as support for those alternatives. Until additional information is provided, we do not prefer any particular alternative. It is unfortunate that EPA was unable to arrange a visit of the study area. We believe that site visits provide a great deal of information on a study area which cannot be obtained from written documents. However, scheduling conflicts and travel restrictions, imposed as a result of the federal budget impass, a , forced EPA and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to schedule the October 4, 1990 meeting in Philadelphia. EPA is willing to schedule a meeting and site visit for this project after the travel restrictions are rescinded. Thank you for providing EPA with comments. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact me at (215) 597-7336. , Diance Esher Diana Esher, Chief Environmental Planning Section CC: Robert Keller, PennDot District 5.0 Representative Gus Yatron Senator John Heinz III Senator Arlen Spector Borough of Wyomissing Township of Spring A-57 BOROUGH OF WYOMISSING - BOROUGH HALL - 22 READING BLVD. WYOMISSING, PA 19610-2083 TELEPHONE (215) 376-7481 FAX (215) 376-8470 PENNS ZVANIA RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is currently preparing Preliminary Engineering and an Environmental Impact Statement for a new highway, commonly referred to as the "Park Road Corridor", which will link the Warren Street and West Shore Bypasses (S.R. 222/S.R. 422) to S.R. 3055 ("Road-to-Nowhere") through the Township of Spring and the Borough of Wyomissing, Berks County; and WHEREAS, these studies include the evaluation of four Alternative Alignments (A, F, G, and H); and WHEREAS, Alignments F, G, and H include, to varying degrees, the use of relocation of Paper Mill/Van Reed Road (S.R. 3021) while Alternative A, which is proposed for a new alignment, has no impact on S.R. 3021; and WHEREAS, S.R. 3021 serves as a primary access to local residential and commercial developments in both the Township and the Borough; and WHEREAS, the introduction of regional traffic onto S.R. 3021 and the construction of highway facilities capable of handling this traffic would combine to have severe negative impacts on the ability to maintain safety and the quality of life for existing development and to encourage new development to locate within this corridor; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the Borough of Wyomissing hereby records its opposition to Alternatives F, G, and H, for those reasons noted above, and offers its support to Alternative A. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution adopted at a meeting of the Borough Council of the Borough of Wyomissing held July 9, 1991. In witness thereof I have hereunto signed my name and affixed the Seal of said Borough this July 9, 1991. and amputihl A-58 porou Secretary RESOLUTION #91-11 1 WHEREAS, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is currently preparing Preliminary Engineering and an Environmental Impact Statement for a new highway, commonly referred to as the "Park Road Corridor", which will link the Warren Street and West Shore Bypasses (S.R. 222/S.R. 422) to S.R. 3055 ("Road-to-Nowhere") through the Township of Spring and the Borough of Wyomissing, Berks County; and WHEREAS, these studies include the evaluation of four Alternative Alignments (A,F,G, and H); and WHEREAS, Alignments F,G, and H include, to varying degrees, the use or relocation of Paper Mill/Van Reed Road (S.R. 3021) while Alternative A, which is proposed for a new alignment, has no impact on Paper Mill/Van Reed Road (S.R. 3021); and WHEREAS, Paper Mill/Van Reed Road (S.R. 3021) serves as a primary access to local residential and commercial developments in both the Township and the Borough; and WHEREAS, the introduction of regional traffic onto Paper Mill/Van Reed Road (S.R. 3021) and the construction of highway facilities capable of handling this traffic would combine to have severe negative impacts on the ability to maintain safety and the quality of life for existing development and to encourage new development to locate within this corridor; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the Township of Spring hereby records its opposition to Alternatives F,G, and H, for those reasons noted above, and lends it's support to within limitation Alternative A as herein described TOWNSHIP OF SPRING BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. Jahn E. Schen antes de Term A Bit ATTEST: Kersi Date: July 22, 1991 Secretary A-59 RAB Bern Township Cc:LBC Board of Supervisors Moots First Monday & Third Tuesday 8:00 P.M. • 215-926-2267 July 25, 1991 1 RECEIVED Mr. Thomas A. Caramanico McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Mellon Independence Center, Suite 6000 701 Market Street Philadelphia, Pa. 19106 MCCORMICK, TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 1 Dear Mr. Caramanico: Last evening's public meeting concerning the Park Road corridor was very informative and well presented. Naturally, some concern has been raised on behalf of Bern Township. While it seems that Alternative A is the most preferred, all the alternatives pose a critical problem for Bern Township. . When Park Road is complete it will add substantially more traffic to the outer bypass (S.R. 3055) (S.R. 3055) that will continue north bound along S.R. 183. The problem is the traffic merging onto S.R. 183 north bound is required to cross over south bound traffic. Also, the ramp from S.R. 3055 to S.R. 183 is of limited length and the volume of traffic may result in vehicles backed up onto S.R. 3055 waiting to enter S.R. 183. While I would agree that commuter traffic would be reduced along S.R. 183 between the outer bypass and the City of Reading as Park Road is used, there will be substantial traffic flow that uses S.R. 183 to access the Warren Street Bypass, the City of Reading, the Reading Regional Airport and the industrial/commercial establishments along S.R. 183. The intersection of the two state roads will become an increased hazard with the traffic expected to navigate through the existing roadway configuration. Moreover, with the close proximity of the existing ramp to the Van Reed Road intersection, the proposed expansion of the runway at Reading Regional Airport and relocation of Van Reed Road, and the left turn lane for north bound S.R. 183 traffic to enter west bound S.R. 3055. the improvement to the intersection becomes a greater necessity. RD 9276 Reading, PA 19605 • Bern Municipal Building at Leinbachs • Old Bernville Road Born in Borks is Beautifull A-60 " مم :: ri ,-; ܕ,: Fi 21. time ' :-. : -t : of this project I would strongly urge that FennDOT, the Federal Highway Administration. Berks Count;' and Pern TON..!! 10:? together to remedy this future problem. The need to Procram improvements for the intersectior cf S.P. 183 and S.P. 2255 CO100ide !! itt the completing of park Picas IS Critica). Thark ? from you. For You! cooperation. I look forward to hearing Yours sincerely, vitev John L. L. COX Township lanager CC: Jack Porter. Penn DOT Dan Johnson, Federal Highway Administration Alan Piper, Berks County Planning JA A-01 Majority Policy Chairman COMMITTEES DAVID J. BRIGHTBILL 337 MAIN CAPITOL BUILDING HARRISBURG, PA 17120-0030 717.787-5708 40TH DISTRICT LEBANON, NORTHERN BERKS AND NORTHERN LEHIGH COUNTIES ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN JUDICIARY. VICE CHAIRMAN APPROPRIATIONS GAME AND FISHERIES PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE RULES AND EXECUTIVE NOMINATIONS Senate of Pennsylvania December 11, 1991 P. Thomas Barilar District Engineer PA Department of Transportation 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, PA 18103 Dear Mr. Barilar: The Colony Park Civic Association has contacted my office concerning the Park Road Corridor Project. They, along with most of the Berks County Community, support Alternative A. This specific variation allows local traffic to use the existing roadway system, yet allows construction of a new highway for non-local traffic. When you visit this area, you will notice the large neighborhood along State Hill Road and Paper Mill Road. These residents deserve a chance to enter and exit their homes on a road other than a major expressway. The business community, through the Berks County Chamber of Commerce has also expressed their support of Corridor A. They, too, belleve that using an existing roadway is unacceptable for use in the Park Road Corridor Project. We have presented a united front and support the Park Road Corridor Project Alternative A. We hope that you will work with us to help alleviate our traffic congestion problems. Very truly yours, Cluss David J. Brightbill DJB:zjh A-62 D. FARMLAND COORDINATION Job No.: From: To: McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. Telephone Conversation Memorandum Project: _Park Road 143344 Date/Time: 9-15-92 JSM Clyda Myers Position: _Linservatoimist Penn State Extention Representing: MTA Representing: Blerken Gezinta sts : Telephone: Telephone: 378 - 1322) Position: Information Obtained/Transmitted: Nuthiar spring or any Wyonissing tups have egruultura siswrity zmus . И Thu form in Barks County is 134 ac, cucurding to the Annual Report of the PA Agricultura Statistics Service His advang ib: Banks 6o. Agricultura Canter 16 to P.O. Box 520 Lessput, PA 19533 fila Original To: Copies To: By: _ JSM Page: I of : A-63 McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. Telephone Conversation Memorandum Project: _Park Roud Job No.: unit Date/Time: 9-15-42 JSM To: David Rick From: Position: Position: Representing: MTA Representing: Tulpe kockuLtd 678 -2465 Telephone: C Telephone: LUI Information Obtained/Transmitted: The two properties at the north east und southeast corners of the Paper Mill Rd / Rosul intersection are owned by Tulpehockan, Ad, and formed by Dallas Le Lutz. Brindusting Original To: Copies To: By: Page: of A-64 McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. Telephone Conversation Memorandum Project: Park Rooid Barbra Kully Job No.: 24334 Date/Time: 9-15-92 From: To: JSM Position: Position: Representing : Spring Ridga Ime : Inc. Representing: _MITA 90-0112 Telephone: Telephone: Information Obtained/Transmitted: - All of the Spring Ridge Property in formed by Rey Chistman Original To: Copies To: By: Page: of A-65 TOM STAPLETON 1c15374177; 9-21-92 10:09 PENN STATE/BERKS CAMPUS FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET DATE: 9/4/92 JAKE MICHAEL ATTENTION: FAX NUMBER: 1-215-592-0682 IIINI TOTAL PAGES: 2 w/ cover 2 FROM: Tom STAPLETON PAX NUMBER: 1-215-374 -4127 psu FARM LANO LEATED B4 psu SUBJECT: COMMENTS: AREA I IS FARM By Roy CARISTMAN AREA 2 IS ARMED BY READING BONE-Abests AREA 3 IS LAWN AREA + ORIUEurty AROUND BulbolNGS AREAS ARE APPROXIMATE. TOM STAPLETON A-66 9-21-92 10:09 TOM STAPLETON 12153744177; # 2/ 2 4166oom E PLEASANT VALLEY 5.3 MI. Silt Lasin TL Murlopet M.SI (10) E Readport G UNIDA. III Van Reed Min M 384 sund Dunia Berkshire Denty stub HELDUR GE WE SPRANK RIDGE ico BEL engt Union EN heph 400 Illum S- TULPEHOOKM VIONS NOT Firesti It 216 Wyomisso RUS bre * porn BOSTIKORT . 然 ​gott ok? We u bio tom AM Des zona McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. Telephone Conversation Memorandum Park Reid it 3 34 Project: Job No.: Date/Time: (11242 From: ام راک To: Dan Lutz Firmian. Position: Position: Representing: MT Representing: Telephone: Telephone: 1 او را تو را ا : لما ورد في الي از دا و را المنا ان الله 3 ، 47 15 5 674-5632 Information Obtained/Transmitted: te benin ng tinatawad sendo remedier M.1 Part 105 cm imento in linn turmush the fox 4 4119 2. Love crup 3. Gra w to finding someopatra Forum hu tujin cepatan no formula family sunset 4 bathur's primary operators. Doan out estre equipment in sit 6. G Account this site in Mil & Brundunt jocul brikuus amil annual fund. Not registerul! with any programs Ho plan but is 100 No till May ratire if Eunomic condition do not imporre , Furm 250 Cupprox) $ also 1,400 build of hug Capprox Papan . z ♡ CA Han 10. not muling money !! acres ? ing regions + Original To: Copies To: By: Page: of A-88 McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. Telephone Conversation Memorandum Park Rd. Project: Job No.: 432, it Date/Time: 9/24192 / From: JAM To: Position: Slip Shugo Position: _Cpuwesto no Larger Operation Menugar Representing: Ezmelny Bory Aquin Representing: MTA Telephone: Telephone: 325-H454 Information Obtained/Transmitted: 3. Primary it it puuple it : ا وانا ادراک i Field finnst hr î years ?. Crin nimi () carn , aluci wliquet of a foola: ita dunutatun Fuvent for these products tinaw . Agnity opruation in retail furm inlys. 6 en una dedicurta! full time: Gravu lesel Turnure inlp out fun time to time 5 to reuptment is stored on sita 11. broadcasting road used to gut to sita Produca bolus in nut Guld ent sild, it in cucked for yould suid vaselina to locul furmurs for fond gival f. lit registul with any programu Don't know if they have an sutuwe wsiteul plien Lize formed in 10 to 20 awes. pines to form av hany was force allows. Plans long . 14 ? ا ا 5. 9. ? 10. au un Vincent 1 Original To: File Copies To: By: JSM Page: of A-69 i Project: Park Rd McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. Telephone Conversation Memorandum it 3 741 Date/Time: _42.91442 고 ​: Rin Chorrostrien Farmer Job No.: 1 From: JSM To: Position: Position: Representing: _MTA Representing: Telephone: Telephone: 국 ​in 一 ​it 3 5 farinda 114,4 -1172 Information Obtained/Transmitted: Fue furama Bovey Relax Piulite 916 wa ne unit | sviral state for tour year 고 ​Einn an herre and inn Lumag is primating cente partes climapato. . 3 implorun for Pepin Mill Rd any spawitan May fork seruptment for forudes on site, no structures Brond wasting Rose mil Papper Mit Accron Sites M. Product in hold to varung loval preking or individuals through 11 PA . farm uut rayistaru! untuu kily program Dette bou en bol hul web sit bertuss place Fluring to form as long Land in duenlabeled Estimuutuns heu furms 200 ourde in Hiu Papin Mill Red Arra- . Furmin approx. in region , also operates Duury Farm Chavlusuilla 6. Unirin . 7 ,ا $. ) . an 1 6. 415 li 1:2 2000 uc Tu Original To: Copies To: By: Page: of A-70 CICC TELEPHONE CONVERSATION MEMORANDUM PROJECT: همان JOB NO: _H340 DATE: _9-29-92 TIME: PARK ROAD Diane thayka FROM: 10: _Beck's County Ses TO: TELEPHONE: TELEPHONE:_ (315) 372-4655 ITEM(S) DISCUSSED: _ube ý his bike Wilpitalit {Absnbank te v Sails INFORMATION OBTAINED/TRANSMITTED. : as inique i Akud tutto bucks Courty lists uy seals Achild billy putant. Lives heel Heat thi Luty lines but alusuguntas told body wwgue of Lassilyupnast ad له كاهيل farmland soils. REQUIRED ACTION Isa fila 8v: Diane muuka DISTRIBUTION: Central File MCCORMICK. TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES, ANC: Original Mayka TITLE: Enilureausental Sucentest PAGE 고 ​To those receiving coples, please advise in writing of any error or omission within one week L OF Rev. 11/86 A-71 McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. Telephone Conversation Memorandum II Park Rd. Project: From: JSM To: Position: Job No.: 4334 Date/Time: 1-12-92 Harb Wetzel Agant Representing: Pann st. Extmtun Telephone: (215) 378-1327 Position: Representing: MTA Telephone: : Information Obtained/Transmitted: property Regarding, when a pmputy beureuse warmebls. 1. It depands in crops in Mr. Watzai's spinus muest farmers in the Park Rd arua would not farm properties. They might farm 4-5 if acurny was good. 2. 2-3 acre m И Original To: fola Copies To : By: Jm Page: 1 of 1 A-72 McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. Telephone Conversation Memorandum Park Rd Project: Date/Time: 1-12-92 From: JSM To: Position: Job No.: 4334 Wayne Gruber Position: Soil Conservationist Representing: Bur. of Fermland Protection (717) 783-3167 Representing: MTA : Telephone: Telephone: Information Obtained/Transmitted: Regarding when a property beurmes unfurmeble. . 1. It is a case by case deusision 2. Pemnder and the local wronty soul Servich Shoreld be ustacted for quduvise Original To: file Copies To : By: даа. Page: 1 of! A-73 McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. Telephone Conversation Memorandum Park Rd Project: From: JSM : Position: Job No.: _4334 Date/Time: 1-12-22 To: David Yonker Position: Conservatim Teckniin Representing: Berks Co.CSD Telephone: (215) 372 -4655 IIIIIII Representing: MTA Telephone: Information Obtained/Transmitted: Regarding when a a property is unfarmable 1. it is in a rush by case basis. on 2. In gamsoval 3 acres is unlikely to be profitable to farm in Barks to. 3. If a small property is next to another fruled it may 'romun profitable. Quality of furmlandsffrets bewe, largs a plot can profitably be farmat 4. fila Original To: Copies To: By: fm Page: of A-74 McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. Telephone Conversation Memorandum Job No.: 4334 Date/Time: 3-3-93 Project: Park Rd From: Dick Schnipp JSM To: प LEEU Raclio Telephone: 376-7335 Telephone: Information Obtained/Transmitted: Ween Radio tower property has underground lings and cannot be plowed. - Only grass is ground not hay this is cut by Roy Chnstman, who is not paid but usus the clippings for animal bidding Original To: Copies To: By: Page: of A-75 McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. Telephone Conversation Memorandum Park Rd Job No.: 4334 Date/Time: JSM To: David Rick Project: 3-3-93 From: Position: Position: Representing: MIA Representing: Tulpt heckim, Ltd 678-2426 Telephone: Telephone: Information Obtained/Transmitted: no 19533 has an Dallas Lutz is longur farming the Paper Mill Romel Road Arsa Properties Michael Braucher, RPL - Box 80, Lebport PA ' unsigned contract to form the property. Mr. Rick assumes the untract will be finalized would be Mr. Rick suggested that Mr. Branchar the too u familar with the property to provide any u information. som. # valuable Original To: Copies To: By: Page: of 1 A-76 McCORMICK TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES, INC. FARM OWNER/OPERATOR SURVEY : Interviewer Project: Park Road JSM Date: 3-8-93 Site Identification: (-1,2,3,445 Tax Parcel Number: Zoning: PO/B Roy Chritman Address School House Rd. Sharles villa PA Phone: 488-1172 Location of farm property North South of Paper Paper Mill Rd. Interviewee Name Owner: Operator: 4 1. How many years have you farmed at this location 2. Is the farm family owned? 144 3. Is the farm owner or tenant operated? Owner Tenant 1 Tenant Name Phone Address 4. 5. 6. 7. What type of farm is it? 8. 9. 9. Where is your base of operation? What is the total acreage of the property? 301 5. How many acres do you actively farm? all How many acres are in crops386 pasture 15 other corn & soybeans How big is your overall farm operation, including livestock? 2,500 aly 600 cattle Shartalsville Hamburg Enlu How many additional full or part-time employees do you employ? 7 Where do you store your farm equipment and vehicles? Hamburg you access the fields? Paper Mill Brreldesting Rd. Where do you sell your produco? All over PA, westly Lancaster Co. 10. Is this your full-time or part-time occupation 11. 12. 13. How do 14. + 15. Y or Is any of the property protected by the following: PA Act 319, PA Farmland and Forest Assessment Act PA Act 43, PA Agricultural Area Security Law PA Act 515 Y Or Y or a BOB 16. Are you currently registered with the ASCS in any wheat, feed grain, or wool incentive programs? 17 Are you currently using approved soil conservation practices? No Not a registwad plan How long do you plan to continue farming the property? As ling 18. as lossible 19. Are there any plans to develop this property? 20. loss ? How would the love of some or all of this property affect your busines? Sme impact - Christman could adjust. He has expected the awen would be developed. A McCORMICK TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES, INC. FARM OWNER/OPERATOR SURVEY Project: Dark Roud Site Identification: R-1 Interviewer JSM Tax Parcel Number: Date: 3-9-93 Zoning: 2013 Operator: V 375-4454 Interviewee Name Adrian Rubinson 4 Rrediwy - Beran Aymany % Rrading - Address off 176 , Reading PA Location of farm property Neon Broadcasting Road: Near . Owner: Phone: 1. a few How many years have you farmed at this location Is the farm family owned? No 2. 3. Is the farm owner or tenant operated? Owner Tenant Tenant Name Phone Address 4. 5 6. pasture other 7. 8. 9. What is the total acreage of the property? 40 S. How many acres do you actively farm? all How many acres are in crops/00% What type of farm is it? Demonstratim Farm - corn, tripper - Whent canola alta How big is your overall farm operation, including livestock? 40 av at RAL 25 ac in R-L 25 ac in Hershey Where is your base of operation? Redding for R-1 R1 Is this your full-time or part-time occupation No full time tima umployers How many additional full or part-time employees do you employ? Z people 2 in terms of man heurs Where do you store your farm equipment and vehicles? Vavons placery off site Broadcast Rd your produce? Gun an or sell thrung AGWAY 10. 11. 12. 13. How do you access the fields? 14. Where do you sell away 15. Is any of the property protected by the following: PA Act 319, PA Farmland and Forest Assessment Act PA Act 43, PA Agricultural Area Security Law PA Act 515 Y or Y Y or or 16. Are you currently registered with the ASCS in any wheat, feed grain, or wool incentive programs? 17 18. No Are you currently using approved soil conservation practices? No How long do you plan to continue farming the property? No plans to move NA Not much. . 19. Are there any plans to develop this property? 20. How would the loss of some or all of this property affect your business? A-78 U.S. Department of Agriculture FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING Date Of Land Evaluation Request PART Į (To be completed by Federal Agency) Name Of Project Federal Agency Involved Park Road Proposed Land Use County And State Transportation Berks County, PA Date Request Received By SCS PART II (To be completed by SCS) Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size (If no, the FPPA does not apply – do not complete additional parts of this form). Major Cropls) Farmable Land in Govt. Jurisdiction Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA Acres % Acres: % Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned By SCS Site A 115.1 6.9 183.53 Alternative Site Rating Site B Site C 33.07 37.07 0 0 46.67 47.83 Site D 133. 14 3.0 205.74 PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly C. Total Acres In Site PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points) Maximum Points Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative A F G Н. 10 10 10 10 8 3 3 7 11 4 4. 5 0 0 0 0 PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5/6) 1. Area In Nonurban Use 2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area 6. Distance To Urban Support Services 7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 9. Availability Of Farm Support Services 10. On-Farm Investments 11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 15 10 20 20 N/A N/A 10 25 5 20 25 10 ||||의 ​10 10 5 0 0 3 10 0 5 0 0 3 10 0 5 0 0 3 10 0 5 0 0 3 160 57 35 35 40 PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) 100 Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part VI Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local site assessment) TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 160 57 35 35 40 260 Site Selected: Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Yes o No o Date Of Selection Reason For Selection: ISA!natriceinns non roversi sirdi! zo Forin AD-1006 (10-83! I. ASSUMPTIONS MADE IN COMPLETING THE AD-1006 FORM: The "site" for each alternative was defined as the area directly affected by each alternative. Under Part III. A. Total Acres to be Converted Directly - this acreage equals the acreage of prime farmland and statewide important farmland soils within the right- of-way. Prime farmland soil areas already in urban use have been excluded. Under Part III. B. Total Acres to be Converted Indirectly - this acreage includes any areas rendered inefficient to farm and any areas left inaccessible to the farmer. Under Part III. C. Total Acres in Site - this equals the total acreage affected by each project alternative. II. ASSIGNMENT OF RANKINGS The following describes the rationale used in assigning rankings to each of the criteria in Part VI of the AD-1006 form. Information used in this procedure was obtained from field investigations, aerial photographs, farmer interviews and correspondence with the Berks County Conservation District. In cases where detailed information was not available, a "worst case" scenario was assumed. 1. Land in non-urban use Rating: 3 > 90% 90-20% < 20% = 15 points = 14-1 point(s) O points A review of recent aerial photographs and land use maps for the study area indicated that land use within a one-mile radius of each of the alternatives is basically the same. Approximately 65 percent of the area within a one-mile radius of each of the alternatives is in non-urban use. The eastem half of the study area is highly developed; the western half is dominated by farmland. A rating of 10 points was assigned to each alternative. 9 ២ A-80 2. Perimeter in non-urban use. Rating: > 90% 90-20% < 20% = 10 points 9-1 points = 0 points O = = This criteria also was determined from aerial photographs and land use maps. Approximately 79, 38, 38 and 68 percent of the perimeters of Alternatives A, F, G, and H respectively, border land in non-urban use. Corresponding ratings of 8, 3, 3, and 7 were assigned. 3. Percent of site being farmed. Rating: > 90% 90-20% < 20% 20 points = 19-1 point(s) = 0 points Recent aerial photographs and field verified mapping of areas in active agricultural use were used in determining this parameter. Approximately 57, 31, 31 and 36 percent of Alternatives A, F, G and H respectively, have been actively farmed in more than five of the last ten years. Corresponding ratings of 11, 4, 4, and 5 were assigned. > 4. State or local government protection. Rating: site protected site not protected = 20 points O points Ratings of 0 were assigned to each alternative since none of the farmland within the sites is protected by state or local government policies or programs. 5. Proximity to urban area This criteria is not applicable to corridor-type projects, and therefore, was not used. 6. Proximity to facilities and services This criteria also is not applicable to corridor-type projects. A-81 7. Size of farm unit(s) compared to average Rating: Average or above average (> 134 acres) = 10 points Below average = deduct 1 point for each 5 percent below 134 acres, down to 0 points if 50% or more below average (68 acres or less). There are three farm operators within the study area. Acreages are as follows: Operator Christman Reading Bone Agway Lutz Farm Acreage 301 acres 40 acres 213 acres On average-size farming unit for each site was calculated by summing the total acreage of each farm operation affected (to any degree) and dividing by the number of farm operations affected. The results were compared to the average size of a farm operation in Berks County, namely 134 acres. Alternative A affects: Christman Reading-Bone Agway Formerly Lutz Total 301 acres 40 acres 213 acres 554 acres - Average size Rating = 554 : 3 = 184.7 acres = 10 points Alternatives F and G affect: Christman Formerly Lutz Total 301 acres 213 acres 514 acres Average size Rating = • 514 + 2 = 257 acres = 10 points Alternative H affects: Christman Formerly Lutz Total 301 acres 213 acres 514 acres Average size Rating = 514 : 2 = 257 acres = 10 points A-82 8. Creation of non-farmable land Rating: S > 25% 25-5% < 5% = 25 points = 24-1 point(s) = 0 points Under this criterion consideration is given to farmland areas which would become nonfarmable due to interruption of access or because of size or shape considerations. Farmland Taken by Direct Conversion (acres) Farmland Left Non-farmable (acres) Alternative Total Impacted Farmland Percent* Rank A 65 35 100 54 10 F 23 0 23 0 0 G 23 0 23 0 0 H 68 3 71 4 0 * Percent The percent that the acreage left non-farmable represents when compared to the acreage directly taken (acreage left non-farmable divided by the acreage taken by direct conversion). 9. Availability of farm support services/markets Rating: All required services available Some required services available No required services available = 5 points = 4-1 point(s) = 0 points Information on farm equipment dealers, suppliers, processing facilities, storage facilities and farm markets in the project vicinity was collected through field investigation and communication with the Soil Conservation Service. All of the alternatives were assigned ratings of 5 points, since farm support services and markets required are available in the project vicinity. A-83 10. Extent of on-farm investments. Rating: Substantial amount of on-farm investments Moderate amount of on-farm investments No on-farm investments 20 points = 19-1 point(s) = 0 points The agricultural land in the study area is farmed on a tenant basis. The farmers transport equipment to these areas as needed. No on-farm investments are therefore maintained on-site. Ratings of 0 were assigned to this criteria for all alternatives. 11. Effects of farmland conversion on support services Rating: Substantial demand reduction Some reduction in demand No reduction in demand = 25 points = 24-1 point(s) = 0 points All of the alternatives were assigned ratings of 0 points. There are other farm operations in the area surrounding the project area; these operations would continue to support the services and markets in the area. 12. Compatibility of project with surrounding agricultural use Rating: Incompatible Somewhat compatible/tolerable Totally compatible = 10 points = 9-1 point(s) = 0 points The presence of the proposed highway adjacent to the existing agricultural areas would not prevent the continued use of those areas as farmlands. In this respect the project is totally compatible with agricultural use. Construction of a new limited access road could prompt some economic development in the area. Consequently, the project could contribute to the eventual conversion of some farmland areas to non-agricultural uses. The proposed project area is experiencing rapid residential and commercial development and growth. Conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use may occur regardless of the proposed highway construction. For these reasons the project was considered somewhat compatible to totally compatible with surrounding agricultural use and a rating of 3 was assigned to each alternative. A-84 PARK ROAD CORRIDOR LOCATION STUDY AND EIS BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ALCAB HEARING March 15, 1993 AGENDA I. Introduction - PennDOT Project Background Project History Project Needs Public Agency Participation I. Berks County Comprehensive Planning - Alan Piper Comprehensive Planning Farmlands Programs Local Issues W. Alternative Evaluation - MTA Environmental Constraints Reasons for Selection O IV. Farmlands Specifics - MTA Locations/Boundaries Owners/Operators Types of Farms V. Selected Alternative - MTA Property Acquisition Access VI. Mitigation Commitments - PennDOT VII. Authorization for Condemnation (if required) - PennDOT ALCAB.AGN/PR2 A-85 , م . . Commonwealth of Pennsylvania att to postu Luottes 137 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MAR 22035 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY BOYD E. WOLFF SECRETARY'S OFFICE March 26, 1993 The Honorable Howard Yerusalim Secretary, Department of Transportation 1200 Transportation & Safety Building Harrisburg PA 17120 Dear Secretary Yerusalim: At its meeting on March 23, 1993, the Agricultural Land Condemnation Approval Board approved the recommended alignment for the Park Road Corridor in Berks County. This alignment is depicted in Figure 4 of the Act 100 and Farmlands Assessment Report. A written order will be prepared and sent to you shortly. Sincerely, lulll BOYD E. WOLFF --v ; ܕ : APR 1 9 1993 IVICU UNIVIUN, TAYLOR ANIN nnnn 2301 NORTH CAMERON ST. HARRISBURG. PA 17110-9408 717-772-2853 FAX 717.772-2780 PENNSYLVANIA AGRICULTURE Qualny From Our More To Youn. A-86 APPENDIX B SECTION 106 COORDINATION A. Historic Resources าาาา COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION BUREAU FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOX 1026 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLUNLA 17108-1025 April 11, 1990 Fred W. Bowser, Director Bureau of Design Department of Transportation 1118 Transportation & Safety Bldg. Harrisburg, PA 17120 iv.:F53 Re: ER 87-0354-011-0 Berks County S.R. 3019, Section 001 Park Road Corridor Study Determinations of Eligibility Dear Mr. Bowser: The above named project has been reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation (the State Historic Preservation Office) in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980, and the regulations (36 CFR Part 800) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. These requirements include consideration of the project's potential effect upon both historic and archaeological resources. It is the opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer that the following properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places: 1. Gaul, A. District, North Wyomissing Blvd., Wyomissing: this property meets Criteria A and C as an example of a early 19th century residential property associated with the Union Canal. 2. Marshall House, westside of Tulpehochen Rd., Wyomissing: an intact late 18th century house possessing good integrity, it meets Criterion C. 3. Van Reed Paper Mill, Van Reed Road, Spring Twp.: this property meets Criterion A and C, as an intact example of a rare industrial complex. 4. Janessen Historic District, between Tulpehocken & Papermill Rds., Spring Twp.: This property meets both Criteria B and C, as a well preserved example of a 19th century farm and for its association with Henry Janssen, a local progressive farmer of the 19th century. 5. Van Reed, Mary House, Tulpehochen Rd., Spring Twp.: this property meets Criterion C as a well preserved example of a vernacular Georgian style farmhouse and 19th century farmstead. 6. Van Reed, John House, Van Reed & Tulpehocken Rds., Spring Twp.: this farmhouse meets Criteria C as a good example of a 19th century vernacular, Georgian style farmhouse. C B-1 Page 2 F. Bowser April 11, 1990 It is the opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer that the following properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places: • 7. Deppen/Shirk Farm, Broadcasting & Papermill Rds., Spring Twp.: already determined not eligible on 7/20/88. 8. Conrail Railroad Bridge, northeastern end of North Wyomissing Blvd., Wyomissing: historical/architectural significance not proven. 9. Bridge Pier, near intersection of Van Reed & Tulpehocken Rds. , Bern Twp.: loss of integrity, historical/architectural significance not proven. 10. Kissinger Barn, Tulpehocken Rd., Spring Twp.: loss of integrity of feeling and association, historical/architectural significance not proven. 11. Union Canal section, Bridge Pier, southwest bank of Tulpehocken Creek, Wyomissing: Toss of integrity of design, materials, feeling and association. 12. Gring House, 283 Tulpehocken Rd., Spring Twp.: loss of integrity of design, materials and workmanship, historical/architectural significance not proven. 13. Farmhouse, 276 Tulpehocken Rd., Spring Twp.: loss of integrity of materials and design, historical/architectural significance not proven. 14. Kissinger Church District, Kissinger Lane, Spring Twp.: loss of integrity of materials and design. 15. Wertz Property, Tulpehocken Rd., Spring Twp.: historical/architectural significance not proven. 9 9 Because your request on the 15 properties along North Wyomissing Blvd. do not include sufficient information, we are unable to proceed with our review. In our opinion there is an eligible National Register Historic District in Wyomissing although the district boundaries have not been identified. We cannot complete our review until a district boundary visit has been made. If you wish to accompany us on the site visit please contact Susan Zacher. If you need further information in this matter please consult Susan M. Zacher at (717) 783-9920. Sincerely, Pent Brenda Barrett Director cc: D. Bachman, PDOT, Bur. of Design BB/smz B-2 NSVL COMMONWEALTH OP PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION BURLAU POR HISTORIC PROSETION BOX 1024 HANRISBURG, PENSYLLINA 17104 1033 May 22, 1990 RECEIVED Fred W. Bowser, Director Bureau of Design Department of trasportation 1118 Transportation & Safety Bldg. Harrisburg, PA 17120 JUN 2 5 1990 MCCORMICK, TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES, INC. RE: ER 87-0354-011-F Berks County S.R. 3019, Section 001 Park Road Corridor Study Determinations of Eligibility following May 10, 1990 Site Visit Dear Mr. Bowser: on May 10, 1990 the Bureau for Historic Preservation conducted a site visit to several of the properties identified in the above highway project. Based on the site visit the Bureau has re-evaluated the eligibility of one property and evaluated the potential historic district alang North Wyomissing Boulevard. It is the opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer that the following property is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places: Kissinger Church District, Rissinger Lane, Spring Township. This complex of church, school and cemetery meets Criteria C as a well-preserved example of a 19th century religious complex. It is the opinion of the State Alstoric Preservation Officer that the following properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Ristoric Places: properties along North Wyomissing Boulevard from the boro line to and including 431 N, Wyomissing Blvd., Wyomissing. These structures do not possess historical or architectural significance and many have experiences a loss of integrity. If you need further information in this matter please consult Susan M. Zacher at (717) 783-9920. Sincerely, Ziar r Brenda Barrett Director cc: D. Suciu, PDOT, Bur. of Design BB/ SmZ B-3 RECEIVED COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION BUREAU FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOX 1026 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-1026 May 29, 1990 JUN 11 1990 Maureen E. FitzGerald MCCORMICK, TAYLOR McCormich, Taylor & Assoicates, Inc. AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Mellon Independence Center, Suite 6000 701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 111 > و ... Re: ER 87-0354-011-F Berks County Park Road Corridor Project Need Documentation and Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Dear Ms. FitzGerald: The above named project has been reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation (the State Historic Preservation Office) in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980, and the regulations (36 CFR Part 800) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. These requirements include consideration of the project's potential effect upon both historic and archaeological resources. The alternative selected as the preferred, Alternative A, does appear to have the least direct effect upon historic resources. Since the Phase I archaeological investigations have not yet been completed we cannot comment on the project's affect on prehistoric resources. However, we are concerned about the secondary, long-term affects of this new road on both historic and prehistoric resources. The existing development trends, illustrated in Plate 5, strongly sugest that a new road will simply increase the loss of historic and prehistoric sites through the associated development. If you need further information in this matter please consult Susan M. Zacher at (717) 783-9920. Sincerely Manta.com Kurt W. Carr, Chief Division of Archaeology and Protection cc: Fred Bowser, PDOT, Bur. of Design D. Suciu, PDOT, Bur. of Design D. Bachman, PDOT, Bur. of Design KC/ smz B-4 February 14, 1991 . Berks County S.R. 3019, Section 001 Park Road corridor Study Eligibility of 7 Properties Mr. P. Thomas Barilar, P.E., District Engineer Engineering District 5-0 Allentown, PA Fred W. Bowser, P.E. Director Bureau of Design On September 27, 1990 we requested the Federal Highway Administration to forward the Determination of Eligibility Report for this project to the Keeper of the National Register. By the attached correspondence, the Keeper has concurred that the following seven properties identified in the report are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places: Van Reed Paper Mill John Van Reed House Mary Van Reed House Janssen Historic District Kissinger Church District Marshall House A. Gaul Historic District Appropriate Determination of Effect documentation and consultation should proceed. ! Attachment 4320/AHB/tim CEIVE CC: G.E. Balbach, P.E., 1109 MAR 14 1991 J.J. Porter, District 5-0 W.W. Kober, 1113 D.V. Gangadhar, 1113 A.H. Breneman, P.E., 1113 MCCORMICK, TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES, INC. . ] B- 5 قرر Leita Region 3 Ponnsvivania Division U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Counhouse and Federal Building 228 Walnut Strool PO Box 1086 Harrisourg. Ponnsvivania :7102.1086 FEB 0 6 1991 IN REPLY REFER TO: HR-PA.3 FPN 10-306-002 Berks County, SR 3019-001 Park Road Corridor Determination of Eligibility Mr. William R. Moyer, P. E. Chief Engineer, Highway Administration Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Attention: Mr. Fred Bowser Dear Mr. Moyer: Enclosed for your project files are copies of concurrence from the Nationai Park Service that ihe following properties are eligible for the National Register uf Historic Places: Van Reed Paper Mill John Van Reed House Mary Van Reed House Janssen Historic District Kissinger Church District Marshall House A. Gaul Historic District Appropriate Determination of Effect documentation and consultation should proceed. Sincerely yours, for Manuel A. Marks Division Administrator Enclosures B-6 . E SOTO TAI United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE P. O. BOX 37127 WASHINGTON, DC 20013.;1:7 IN REPLY REILI TO 413 HINJIANIE To: ܝܬܐ Mr. Manuel A. Marks Division Adminiserator Region 3, Pennsylvania 0:07:510n federa: lighway Adminisi:10:on CS Departmen: o: Transport23:0.. The 5irector of the National Park service is pleased to inform you of our determination pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Aco, as amended, and Executive Order 11393 in response to your request for a determination oi di.92bii::! :or:nclusion :.. care Naziona: Register of fiscoris places. Cur cetem...at::.. appears on come anc!used lacer:a!. As ?cu know, your reques: :: jus processiona: judgment constitutes i par: of the Federi. p.ann...9 280cess. We use that this in:ormation be 1.1.egrated 1.200 ne at:ona. EnvironmencaPoiss? ic: analysis and the analysis recu::25 oder jeccion ii: ji ne cepars.nene si 1:ansportation Àc:, :: chis :S 3 1:1...sportacoon projec:,, to bring abou: che best possible program dec:sions. This determinacion does 100 serve .. any manner is a vecs to 'ses of proper, iwlch or wierous Federal par::c:paeson or assistance. The responsibi:1:7 for program planning concerning properties eligibie for the National Register lies iweth che agency or block grant recipient after the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has had an opportunity to comment. We are pleased to be of assistance in the consideration of histor:c resources in the planning process. desachment B-7 Eat 1593 DETERMINATION OF EUGIBIUTY NOTIFICATION National Register of Historic Places National Park Service Name of property: Van Reed Pape: Mir! Location: Berks ca. State: ? Request submitted by: Powd, Mar.uel A. Marks Dato rocoivod: 10/10/90 Additional information pocoivod: Opinion of the State Historic Preservation Ollicor: Eligible CNor Eligible No Response Comments: The Secretary of the Interior has dotermined that this property is: Eligible Applicable criteria: O Nor Eligible 3 Comments: The Van Reed Paper Mill is eligible for the acional degister for for its association with the historically important local paper mill industry. Built in the 1880s and modified over time, the Van Reed Paper Mill building is a rare surviving example of a property associated with this important industry in Berks County. Documentation insufficient (Please see accompanying shoot oxplaining additional materials required) Patrick Andres Koopor of the National Register WASO:20 B-8 islan Dato: Eat1593 DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBIUTY MOTIFICATION National Register of Historic Places National Park Service Name of property: Van Reed, Jons, House Location: Berks Co. Stalo: ܪܕ Roquest submitted by: SHWA, Manuel A. Marks Dato received: ܕܘ ܕ، ،:܀ Additional information recoivod: Opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer: Eligible CNot Eligible No Response Comments: The Secretary of the Interior has determined that this property is: : Eligible Applicable criteria: C Nor Eligible Comments: The John Van Reed House is eligible for the National Register for its architectural significance. Built in 1776, and one of the oldest extant houses in the region, the John Van Reed House is an excellent example of a vernacular 18th century Ceorgian style residence. Documentarion insufficioni (Please see accompanying shoot explaining additional materials required) Patrick Andum for Keeper of the National Register WASO-20 ملعب :وه B-9 11 E011593 EO DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY NOTIFICATION National Register of Historic Places National Park Service Name of property: Van Reed, Mary, House Location: Berks Co. State: 29 Roquest submitted by: =9WA, Manuel . Marks Date rocoivod: :0.10/90 Additional information received: Opinion of the State Historic Preservation Olticos: Eligible Nor Eligible JNo Response Comments: The Secretary of the Interior has dotermined that this property is: Eligible Applicable criteria: 3. C O Nor Eligible Commonts: : The Vary Van Reed House is eligible for the 'ational Register for its architectural significance and for its association in the 19th century with members of the Reed family, important paper mill onners. Built in the early 19th century, the Mary Van Reed House is a good example of a vernacular Georgian style residence. Documentation insufficient (Please see accompanying shoot explaining additional materials required) Patrick Andue farl Kooper of the National Register WASO-20 B-10 Dato: 1/15/91 Eat1593 DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILTY NOTIFICATION National Register of Historic Places National Park Service Name of property: Kissinger Church biseric: Location: Berks Co. State: P3 Roquest submitted by: :HWA, Manuel A. Marks Dato received: 10/10, 90 Additional information recoivod: Opinion of the State Historie Prosorvation Ollicor: Eligible CNor Eligible No Rosponso Comments: The Secretary of the Interior has dotormined that this property is: Eligible Applicable critoria: Not Eligible с Comments: The Kissinger Church District is eligible for the National Register for its architectural significance as a good intact example of a roral religious complex. Consisting of a mid-19th century vernacular church building, and its associated 19th century school building and cemetery, the district retains a high degree of integrity. O Documentation insufficient (Please see accompanying shoot explaining additional materials required) letruck Andrus for Kooper of the National Register WASO-20 Dato: B-11 ولعل Eat1593 DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBIUTY NOTIFICATION National Register of Historic Placas National Park Service Name of property: Marshall House Location: Berks Co. State: P: Request submitted by: F4WA/Manuel A. Marks Dato received: 10/10/90 Additional information recoivod: Opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer: fra Eligible Nor Eligible No Rosponse Comments: The Secretary of the Interior has determined that this property is: Eligible Applicable criteria: с O Nor Eligible Comments: The Marshall House is eligible for the acional Register for its architectural significance. Built in the late 13ch/early 19th century the Marshall House is a good example of vernacular Georgian style architecture with a high degree of integrity. 1 O Documentation insufficient (Please see accompanying shoot explaining additional materials required) Perinke Andung 1 fol Kooper of the National Register WASO-20 B-12 Dato: 15/01 D Eo 1593 DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBIUTY NOTIFICATION National Registor of Historic Placas National Park Service Name of property: Jasse. Histszi: ist:: Location: Berks Co. Stato: PA Roquest submitted by: SHWA/angel . Marks Dato received: 10/10/90 Additional information received: Opinion of the State Historie Prosorvation Officer: Eligible Nor Eligible ONO Rusponse Comments: The Secretary of the interior has determined that this property is: 3 Eligible Applicable critorio: B,C Not Eligible Comments: The Jar.ssen Historic District is eligible for the racional register 50: its architectural significance and for its historical associacion wica the locally important progressive agriculturalist and industrialist Henry Janssen. The district consists of ter agriculouzal buildings constructed in the 19th century and updated by Janssen in the early 20th century with colonial Revival style decailing. Documentation insultisioni (Please se accompanying shear explaining odditional materialo required) Patuck Andun for Keeper of the Narional Rogister Patrick WASO-25 B-13 Dato: _1115191 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION BUREAU FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOX 1026 HARRISBURG. PENNSYLVANIA 17108-1026 August 30, 1991 Fred W. Bowser, Director Bureau of Design Department of Transportation 1118 Transportation & Safety Bldg. Harrisburg, PA 17120 :? HIIT ! DEFENCE... たこ ​Re: ER 87-0354-011-I Berks County S.R. 3019, Sec. 001 Park Road Corridor Eligibility of Withers House & Re- evaluation of A. Gaul District Dear Mr. Bowser: The above named project has been reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation (the State Historic Preservation Office) in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980, and the regulations (36 CFR Part 800) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. These requirements include consideration of the project's potential effect upon both historic and archaeological resources. It is the opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer that the following properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places: HHH 1. John Withers House, Bet. Rt. 422 & Park Road, Wyomissing: Assocation with the Janssen significance is not strong enough for eligibility under Criterion B, the setting is too altered for elibility under Criterion A for agricultural significance. 2. A. Gaul District, N. Wyomissing Blvd., Wyomissing: Re- evaluation of the property clarifies that the structures have no historical connection to the canal therefore it does not possess significance under criterion A. B-14 Page 2 F. Bowser Aug. 30, 1991 If you need further information in this matter please consult Susan M. Zacher at (717) 783-8946 or 783-8947. Sincerely, and. R. Ý Brenda Barrett Director CC: D. Suciu, PDOT, Bur. of Design BB/smz B-15 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION BUREAU FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOX 1026 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-1026 50. EST ATR I 1992 nji!!: March 23, 1992 Fred W. Bowser, Director Bureau of Design Department of Transportation 1118 Transportation & Safety Bldg. Harrisburg, PA 17120 : و نیت ن؟ .::: د نزا نتنا 132 aris? Re: ER 87-0354-011-I Berks County S.R. 3019, Sec. 001 Park Road Corridor clarification on Eligibility of A. Gaul District HHHHHHH Dear Mr. Bowser: The above named project has been reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation (the State Historic Preservation Office) in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980, and the regulations (36 CFR Part 800) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. These requirements include consideration of the project's potential effect upon both historic and archaeological resources. It is the opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer that the following property is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places: A. Gaul District, N. Wyomissing Blvd., Wyomissing: Re-evaluation of the property clarifies that the structures have no historical connection to the canal therefore they do not meet National Register under either Criteria A or C. If you need further information in this matter please consult Susan M. Zacher at (717) 783-8946 or 783-8947. Sincerely, H Brenda Barrett Director cc: D. Suciu, PDOT, Bur. of Design BB/smz B-16 02/02/93 10:34 87175406049 MCCORMICK, TAYLOR +++ MT&A: PHIL 001/004 To: RAB Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Coi Burzao for Historic Preservation Post Office Box 1026 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-1026 From.JEK January 29, 1993 Fred W. Bowser, Director Bureau of Design Department of Transportation 1118 Transportation & Safety Bldg. Harrisburg, PA 17120 TO EXPEDITE REVIEW USE BHP REFERENCE NUMBER Re: ER 87-0354-011-9 Berks County S.R. 3019, Sec. 001 Park Road Corridor: Delineation of Boundaries and Evaluation of Effect for Kissinger Church District, Spring Township Dear Mr. Bowser: The above named project has been reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation (the State Historic Preservation Office) in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980, and the regulations (36 CFR Part 800) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. These requirements include consideration of the project's potential effect upon both historic and archaeological resources. The Draft EIS proposed boundaries for the Kissinger Church Historic District a property determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places on May 22, 1990. The Bureau does not agree with the selected boundaries. Please supply information explaining how these boundaries were drawn. Are these boundaries the current Tax Parcel/Deed boundary for this resource(s)? We are unable to agree with the finding of no effect for the Kissinger Church Historic District. Please submit a more detailed plans showing the proposed highway design near the cemetery. B-17 Page 2 02/02/93 10:35 87175406049 MCCORMICK, TAYLOR +++ MT&A: PHIL 002/004 F. Bowser Jan. 29, 1993 If you need further information in this matter please consult Susan M. Zacher at (717) 783-8946 or 783-8947. Sincerely, Khuut as con Can Kurt Carr, Chief Division of Archaeology & Protection cc: Federal Highway Administration D. Suciu Smith, PDOT, Bureau of Environmental Quality Bob Keller, Dept. of Transporation, District 5-9, 1713 Lehigh Street, Allentown, PA 18103 KC/ smz HHHHHHHHHH B-18 1 E.o. 11593 DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY NOTIFICATION National Register of Historic Places National Park Service Name of Property: Gaul, A., Historic District Location: Berks County State: PENNSYLVANIA Request submitted by: FHWA/Manuel A. Marks Date received: 11/27/92 Additional information received: Opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer: _Eligible X_Not Eligible _No Response Need More Information Comments: The Secretary of the Interior has determined that this property is: _Eligible Applicable criteria: X Not Eligible Comments: The new information reveals no evidence of a specific relationship between the "A. Gaul District" resources and the historic l’nion Canal. The buildings, therefore, represent only a heavily altered 19th-century farmstead, which despite its age has suffered a severe loss of integrity. The resources possess no significance under Criterion A and due to the loss of integrity no signiiicance under Criterion C. The district is not eligible for listing in the VRHP. _Documentation insufficient (Please see accompanying sheet explaining additional materials required) More Patrick And Keeper of the National Register Date: Ha1193 WASO-20 B-19 PA DEPT. OF TRANS. TEL:215-791-6032 Mar 11 93 20:10 NO.Qu2 P.05 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Bureau for Historie henervation Post Office Box 1026 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-1026 2/17/93 Fred W. Bowser, Director Bureau of Design Department of Transporlation Team 1.109 1118 T & S Building Harrisburg, Pa. 17120 :::::::::::::::::: :: انا RO: 87-0354-011-R Revised Data Recovery Plan, site 35 B4 621, Park Road, SR 3040, Spring Twp., Wyomissing Borough, Berks Cty., Pa. HHH . Dear Mr. Bowser: The above named document has been reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation (the State Historic Preservation office) in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980, and the regulations (36 CFR Part 800) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Our comments are summarized below. 1) This proposal for data recovery, with some revisions, can probably address our concerns regarding the stratigraphy at this site. If the following revisions are incorporated into the data recovery plan, the project will have no adverse effect on site 36 BK 621. Please note that the page numbers in the following references refer to the FAX page numbers on the copy filed with our office. 2) See page 16, mechanical excavations following auger probes. We agree that backhoe trenches should be excavated in the oito arca to help define the stratigraphy at the site. According to the revised Phase II report for this project, approximately 6967 square meters, or about 1.75 acres, of this site lies within the project area. consequently, the riumber of deep stratigraphic test units necessary to investigate this site at even the Phase I level would be seven, rather than the three proposed (see Pennsylvania State Guidelines). Following the mechanical excavation of seven test units, and their examination by a qualified geomorphologist, a Imxlm test unit should be hand excavated on the margin of each backhoc trench found to contain accretional rather than residual deposits. The soil should be screened by natural or arbitrary levels, and the excavations should continue to Pleistocene levels or to B-20 PA DEPT. OF TRANS. TEL: 215-791-6032. Mar 11 93 20:11 NO.UU2 P.UO contexts unsuitable for the preservation of archacological deposits. 3! See page 17, block excavations following cxcavation of 30 1mx1m units. Our office should be included in the consultation process for deciding the size and location of block excavations. Please note that a total of 210 square meters of block excavation for a site area of 1.75 acres is a sample of approximately .03% of the site area. It is impossible, given our current understanding of the site stratigraphy or horizontal and vertical boundaries, to provide you with a realistic figure for adequate block excavation, but it is at least a possibility that up to 10% of the site area should be subjected to data recovery. consequently, all decisions on the scope and nature of block excavations for the final stage of data recovery at this site should await the results of the preceding stages and slivuld we teaclicu in consullaliun will. vui uffice. 4) If you cannot concur with these suggested changes to the data recovery proposal, a Memorandum of Agreement should be negotiated to guarantee suitable treatment for this property If you need further information in this matter please contact Joe Baker at (717) 783-9900. sincerely, shuntir. Can Kurt W. Carr, Chief Division of Archacology & Protection CC: FHWA D. Suciu-Smith, PDOT KWC/jab B-21 in FLAIVI COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION BUREAU FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOX 1026 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-1026 APR 1 2 1993 tipi diwin, TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES, INC. . March 22, 1993 Fred W. Bowser, Director Dept. of Transportation Bureau of Design 1118 Transportation & Safety Bldg. Harrisburg, PA 17120 TO EXPEDITE REVIEW USE BHP REFERENCE NUMBER Re: ER 87-0354-011-S Berks County S.R. 3019, Section 001 Delineation of Boundaries and Evaluation for Kissinger Church Historic District Spring Township Dear Mr. Bowser: The above named project has been reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation (the State Historic Preservation office) in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980, and the regulations (36 CFR Part 800) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. These requirements include consideration of consideration of the project's potential effect upon both historic and archaeological resources. Tae Bureau cannot agree with the boundaries selected for the National Register eligible Kissinger Church Historic District. We re:commend that the two separate boundaries be drawnd making this a discontiguous historic district. The Bureau for Historic Preservation has reviewed the plans for tne above referenced project. In our opinion this project will have no adverse effect upon the National Register listed or eligible resource referenced below. Kissinger Church Historic District The regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR Part 800) require that you submit Documentation for Determination of No Adverse Effect, including the comment of the State Historic State Historic Preservation Office Preservation Office (Bureau for Historic. Preservation) to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004. 2 APR 5 1993 B-22 9001? Page 2 F. Bowser March 22, 1993 If you need further information in this matter please consult Susan M. Zacher at (717) 783-8946 or 783-8947. sincerely, Tarta.com Kurt W. Carr, Chief Division of Archaeology and Protection : cc: Federal Highway Administration D. Suciu Smith, PDOT, Bur. of Environmental Quality R. Keller, PDOT, District 5-0– KC/smz ! B-23 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION BUREAU FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOX 1026 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-1026 N RECEIV. APR 1 2 1993 MU TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES, INC. April 1, 19 Fred W. Bowser, Director Bureau of Design Department of Transportation 1118 Transportation & Safety Bldg. Harrisburg, PA 17120 TO EXPEDITE REVIEW USE BHP REFERENCE NUMBER Re: ER 87-0354-011-T Berks County S.R. 3040, Park Road Corridor Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Bowser: The above named project has been reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation (the State Historic Preservation Office) in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980, and the regulations (36 CFR Part 800) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. These requirements include consideration of the project's potential effect upon both historic and archaeological resources. The Bureau for Historic Preservation has reviewed the plans for the above referenced project. In our opinion this project will have no adverse effect upon the National Register listed or eligible resource referenced below. Kissinger Church District The properties listed below, listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, are located near the project area. However, due to the nature of the activity, it is our opinion that there will be no effect on these properties. Should the applicant become aware, from any source, that unidentified historic or archaeological properties are located at the project site, or that the project activities will have an effect on these properties, the Bureau for Historic Preservation should be contacted immediately. Janssen Historic District March Van Reed House John Van Reed House Van Reed Paper Mill Marshall House APR 5 1923 B-24 D Page 2 F. Bowser April 1, 1993 If you need further information in this matter please consult Susan M. Zacher at (717) 783-8946 or 783-8947. Sincerely, Whentar con Kurt Carr, Chief Division of Archaeology & Protection CC: Federal Highway Administration D. Suciu Smith, PDOT, Bureau of Environmental Quality Bob Keller, Dept. of Transporation, District 5-0 KC/ smz B-25 1 B. Archaeological Resources ! COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLWNIA PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION BURLAU POR HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOX 1025 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLWIA 17106-1093 11/20/90 Fred W. Bowser, Director Bureau of Design Department of Transportation 1118 T & S Bldg. Harrisburg, Pa. 17120 Re: 87-0354-011-G Phase I Archaeological Survey, Park Road Extension, SR 3019, Sec 001, Spring Twp. and Wyomissing Borough, Berks Cty. Dear Mr. Bowser: The above named report has been reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation (the State Historic Preservation orlice) in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980, and the regulations (36 CFR 800) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Our Comments are summarized below. 1) See pages 42-49, recommendations. In our opinion, Phase I survey for this project is now complete. We concur with your consultant's recomaendation that the following sites should be subjected to Phası II site assessment testing to determine their National Register eligibility; sites 36 Bk 616, 36 Bk 617, 36 Bk 620, and 36 BK 621. 2) Se Phase II workplans, sites 36 Bk 616 and 36 BK 617. In general, we concur with your consultant', recommendations, but we suggest the following nodilications to the workplans. Wo believe you should consult with our oflice after the controlled surtace Collections and the excavations of the ia X la units have been conducted. We also feel that even 16 features are encountered during the excavation of these initial test units, . sample of each sit. should be subjected to mechanical stripping of plowzone soils, with the underlying subsoil being cleaned and inspected for the presence of features. Exactly what percentage of each site should be mechanically stripped can be decided in consultation with our office following the initial stages of Phase II testing. B-26 Page 2 We concur with 3) See Phase II workplan, tit. 36 BK 620. the workplan proposed for this site. 4) See Phase II workplan, site 36 Bk 621. In general, we concur with your consultant's approach to Phase II testing at this site. Please estimate the percentage of this site which lies within the project right-of-way. when you provide us with this information, we will be able to provide you with final Comments on this Phase II workplan. Il you have any questions or comments regarding our review of prehistoric resources for this project, please contact Joe Baker at (717) 783-9900. Il you have any questions or comments regarding our review of historic resources for this project, please contact Susan Zacher at (717) 783-9920. sincerely, Meuth.Can Kurt W. Cars, Chiel Division of Archaeology and Protection CC: FHWA B-27 EL COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA so PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION BUREAU FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOX 1026 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-1026 10/31/91 :;:;!99 Fred Bowser. Director Bureau of Design Dept. of Transportation 1118 T & S Bldg. Harrisburg, Pa. 17120 را is Re: 87-0354-011-J Phase II Archaeological Survey and Phase I Archaeological Survey on New Alignment, Park Road Corridor, Berks Cty. Dear Mr. Bowser: The above named report has been reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation (the State Historic Preservation Office) in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980, and the regulations 136 CFR 800) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Our comments are summarized below. Please note that all BHP comments, concurrences, determinations of eligibility, and findings of effect are conditional on our receipt of a final report for this project which addresses the following comments. Comments: Phase I Testing 1) See pages 20-23. Please state the surface area of each testing area in the descriptions. 2) Please use the PASS numbers for sites discussed in the text. 3) We concur that sites 36 BK 632 and 633 are ineligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Both sites are extremely thin upland prehistoric lithic scatters, with very few artifacts and no diagnostic artifacts. Their potential to yield new or important information is negligible. NO further work is warranted at either site. 4) We concur that Section K should be subjected to Phase I survey as soon as access to the area can be obtained. Comments: Phase II Testing 1) Please estimate the site surface area within the B-28 Page 2 project right-of-way for each site subjected to Phase II testing. 2) We concur that sites 36 Bk 617 and 622 are ineligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Site 36 Bk 617 is badly out of context and appears to be the result of fill containing prehistoric artifacts being transported to this location. Site 36 Bk 622 contained only 20th Century material within the project right-of way. No further work is warranted at either site. 3) See page 31. Was feature fill from site 36 Bk 616 subjected to floatation analysis? Were macrobotanical remains, microdebitage, ceramics, or carbon recovered from the fill? We will comment on the National Register eligibility of this site when you have addressed our comment. 4) See page 70. We concur that site 36 Bk 621 is eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D. The site is a stratified, multicomponent prehistoric site containing numerous artifacts, some prehistoric features, and intact activity areas. If this site is to be affected by the proposed project, a data recovery plan should be prepared and submitted for our review. If you have any questions or comments regarding our review of this report, please contact Joe Baker at 1717) 783- 9900. Sincerely, Brenda Barrett, Director Bureau for Historic Preservation CC: D. Bachman, PDOT FHWA B-29 :: 5'19:38 FE11* E- زل Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Historical and Museuon Commission Bureau for Historic Preservation Post Otrice Box 1026 Harriscurg, Pennsylvania 17108-1026 22:22 Yeni “ SW Fred Bowser. Director Bureau of Design Department of Transportation 1118 T & S Building llarrisbury, Pa. 17108 87-0354-011-M&N Phase II Archaeological Survey & Phase I Archaeological Survey on New Alignment, Determination of Effect Report & Data Recovery Plan, Park Road Corridor, Berks Cty. Dear Mr. Bowser: The above named reports have been reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation (the state Historic Preservation Office) in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980, and the regulations 136 CFR 800) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. our comments are summarized below. Phase II and Additional Phase I Report Phas 1) See Plate 1A. What is the intervening area between area G and areas H, I, and J called? Was Phase I testing conducted in this area, and if so, what were the results? 2) See page 20, testing of section H. Why was construction authorized at this location prior to the completion of Phase I survey? . 3) See page 23, Phase I conclusions and summary. We concur that sites 36 BK 632 and 36 BK 633 in areas j and N are ineligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Both sites contain extremely thin distributions of artifacts, and they are both very smali. 4). See page 24. Bk:6167 What is the mapped soil type at site 36 5) See page 26. How much (approximate surface area) of site:36 BX 616 was subjected to surface collection during the Phase II survey? : 61 See pages 26 and 31. Were fill samples from features B-30 Dage 2 Juli 2'5 '32 07:32 FELICOT S-] ? ? ? and 5 collected for floatation analysis? the results of that analysis? If so, what were 7) Sec page 33. We will comment on the National Register eligibility of site 36 BK 626 when the preceding comments have been addressed. 8) See page 35. We concur that sice 36 Bk 617 is ineligible to the National Register of Historic Places. It is evident that the artifacts and soil at this location are redeposited as a result of fil: being placed at this location. 9) See pages 35 and 41. What is the mapped soil type at site 36 BK 6217 How much (approximate surface area) of this site lies within the project area? Please submit the professional qualifications of the project geomorphologist. Please integrate the results of the geomorphological analysis in Appendix D into the discussion of Phase II results at the site. Why was a bucket auger employed in these test units after a single sterile layer was encountered? 10) See page 70. We concur that site 36 Bk 621 is eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D. The site appears to be a relatively large and dense stratified prehistoric site with intact features and activity areas. 11) See page 90. We concur that site 36 BK 622 is ineligible to the National Register of Historic Places. All of the artifacts encountered are probably less than 50 years old, and there is no demonstrable patterning to the distribution of the artifacts. Determination of Effects Report and Data Recovery Plan, Site 36 BK 621 We cannot comment on this document until comment 9 is addressed. If you have any questions or comments regarding our review of this project, please contact Joe Baker at (717) 783-9900. Sincerely for Brenda Barrett, Director Bureau for Historic Preservation CC: D. Bachman PDOT FHWA B-31 02/02/93 10:35 87175406049 MCCORMICK, TAYLOR +++ MT&A: PHIL 2003 004 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Burug for Historic Preservados Post Office Box 1026 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17106-1026 1/23/93 Fred Bowser, Director Bureau of Design Department of Transportation 1118 T & S Building Harrisburg, Pa. 17120 Re: ER# 87-0354-011-P Revised Phase II Archaeological Survey & Phase I Archaeological Survey on New Alignment, Finding of Effect Report and Data Recovery Workplan, Park Road corridor, Berks County Dear Mr. Bowser: The above named reports have been reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation (the State Historic Preservation Office) in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980, and the regulations (36 CFR Part 800) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. These requirements include consideration of the project's potential effect upon both historic and archaeological resources. Phase II and Additional Phase I Report 1) Thank you for addressing our comments of 6/10/92 in this revised document. with the exception of site stratigraphy, you have addressed all of our concerns with the first draft of this document. 2) See Phase II results, site 36 Bk 621. It is still unclear if this site is located on residual (Hagerstown/Duffield) or stratified (see soil profiles) soils. This is the critical information needed for a complete review of the data recovery plan and finding of effect. The geomorphologist used for this project does not have an advanced degree or any archaeological experience beyond this project, and does not meet the basic qualifications for conducting research in Pennsylvania (see State Guidelines). Revisions to the text of the report were not terribly helpful in resolving this issue ("The mapped soil type at this locale is erroneously designated as the Duffield and Hagerstown series which bears no semblance to the actual landform devoid of obfuscatory historic related fill materials."). Specifically, what we must have to complete our review is a a B-32 clear explanation of the origin, structure, age, and archaeological potential of the site soils. If the site is situated in an alluvial context, we must be certain that all soil strata with archaeological potential have been investigated, or at least will be investigated during data recovery. A qualified geomorphologist should examine the site stratigraphy and submit a summary report addressing our concerns. When we have an opportunity to review this information we will provide you with detailed comments on the finding of effect report and data recovery workplan (dated 2/92) on file in our office. If you have further questions or comments about this pro- ject, please contact Joe Baker at (717) 783-9900. Sincerely, Mutulan Kurt W. Carr, Chief Division of Archaeology & Protection CC: FHWA D. Suciu-Smith KWC/jab F B-33 ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HISTORICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. P.O. Box 182, Centre Hall. Pennsylvania 1652:- (814) 361-2135 March 5, 1993 Mr. Rich Butala McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Mellon Independence Center, Suite 6000 701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 RECEIVED MAR 2 2 1993 Reference: Archaeological Data Recovery, Site 36Bk621 Final Design of S.R. 3040 (Park Road) Spring Township and Borough of Wyomissing Berks County, Pennsylvania ER # 87-0354-011 1:0 Wiivivil, TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Dear Mr. Butala: Enclosed please find the current vitae of Gary Peterson and Jonathan Pollack, of Geo-Decisions, Inc., which we are providing in response to the District's request. In response to the PHMC review of our Phase III data recovery proposal for the above-referenced project, and discussion from the review meeting, we propose the following: 1) The site area within the proposed right-of-way is currently defined as 2,400 m (0.6 acres), instead of the 6967 m (1.75 acres) first suggested in the Phase II report. This revised estimate is based on more recent information, including current right-of-way location, core borings, and detailed visual inspection of the project area, which indicated that the steeply sloping terrain immediately west of Phase II Test Units 3-6 is a natural landform of bedrock covered by shallow residual soils, unlikely to contain prehistoric archaeological resources. The prehistoric site was encountered on the area of relatively level terrace to the east and south of this landform, only a small part of which lies within the proposed project area. Given a site area of 0.6 acres and an average of four trenches per acre as indicated in the current Guidelines, the three proposed backhoe trenches would provide an adequate sample of the soils and stratigraphy of the site area. Given the relatively small area of potentially intact archaeological site within the proposed right-of-way, we are concerned that the excavation of seven backhoe trenches would cause excessive disturbance to this resource. 2) Results of the geomorphological investigation will be sent to the District, Central Office, and PHMC for concurrent review. B-34 H 3) A Im x 1 m (39" x 39") test unit will be hand excavated at the edge of each backhoe trench. Excavation methods for these test units will be the same as those outlined for other hand-excavated units, including excavation by arbitrary levels within natural strata, screening of soil through 1/4" mesh, and appropriate processing of any artifacts or features encountered. 4) The PHMC will be consulted, in addition to Department personnel, for the placement of block excavations. Although the 210 m of proposed block excavation would represent only 3% of the site area within the right-of-way as defined in the Phase II report, it would represent 8.75% of the site area as currently defined. Together with the 30 test units excavated prior to block excavations and the 3 test units excavated in backhoe trenches, this would represent the hand excavation of over 10% of the site area within the right- of-way. 5) If any revisions to the data recovery plan are necessary based on information gained during the site investigations, the PHMC and FHWA will be consulted through field views and review of concurrent data analysis, in addition to Department personnel. 6) The initial testing to detect the presence of blood residue on prehistoric lithic tools will be performed by A&HC during data analysis, using the, chemstrip test method on unwashed artifacts, as recommended by Custer et al. Any artifacts on which blood residues are found to be present will be sent to an appropriate laboratory for identification. I hope these additions meet with your approval. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours, hoki tano Melissa Diamanti, Ph.D. Principal Investigator MD Enclosures A&HC Project No. 2958 'J.F. Custer, J. Ilgenfritz, and K.R. Doms, "Application of Blood Residue Analysis Techniques in the Middle Atlantic Region," Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology, 4:99-104 (1988). B-35 APPENDIX C MEETING SUMMARIES E A. SPECIAL PURPOSE MEETINGS McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. , PARK ROAD CORRIDOR DESIGN LOCATION STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PennDOT Inter-Agency Meeting Applicability of PAMHEP for Wildlife Impact Assessment PLACE: PennDOT District 8-0 DATE: June 28, 1989 ATTENDEES REPRESENTING Jackie Winkler Roland Bergner Dave Spotts Denise Rigney Kurt Carr Dan Johnson Wayne Kober Stuart Kehler L. Bert Cossaboon Maureen FitzGerald Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District Pennsylvania Game Commission Pennsylvania Fish Commission Environmental Protection Agency Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Federal Highway Administration PennDOT, Bureau of Environmental Quality PennDOT, Bureau of Environmental Quality McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. The purpose of this presentation to the environmental review agencies was to determine whether a PAMHEP is necessary for determining project impacts to vegetation and wildlife in the study area. The need for this evaluation procedure was questioned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in a letter of response to the plan of Study. PennDOT requested that McCormick Taylor prepare a land use/cover type map illustrating the amount and diversity of vegetative habitats in the study area to present to the wildlife regulatory agencies for review. A tabulation of the maximum acres of each habitat type affected by the proposed project was also prepared and presented. The following is a summary of the comments received and decisions reached at this meeting. 1. The Game Commission agreed with the Fish and Wildlife Service about the applicability of PAMHEP. In view of rapid development in the area, the Game Commission did not think such an assessment would be worthwhile in determining project impacts. 2. The Fish Commission suggested PennDOT acquire land along Tulpehocken Creek and allow it to support natural vegetation. PennDOT questioned how the number of acres to be mitigated will be determined if PAMHEP is not used as a quantitative assessment. C-1 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 3. The Game Commission suggested vegetating the highway embankments and right-of-way to replace habitat losses. The Game Commission did not support the idea of acquiring developable land in the area for mitigating upland vegetation and habitat losses, due to the probability that future development would destroy these non-protected areas. 4. The Army Corps of Engineers suggested that the induced impacts of the proposed roadway be addressed in the EIS. It was stated that highway projects very often do not address impacts associated with resulting development in the area. The Game Commission noted that there is no regulation preventing private development from occurring on upland vegetation sites. 5. The Game Commission suggested that mitigating upland vegetation could be accomplished in the site planning of future developments in the study area. It was noted that stormwater detention basins could be vegetated to provide habitat replacement. The Department asked if such voluntary mitigation would satisfy the vegetation and habitat loss of the Park Road Corridor project. The Fish and Game Commissions responded favorably. Both agencies recommended that PAMHEP not be conducted for this study. 6. PennDOT suggested the possibility of arranging a meeting between local officials and developers and the regulatory agencies to discuss habitat mitigation. The agencies expressed interest in such a meeting. PennDOT decided to raise the issue with the project Task Force members. 1. 1 7. The Army Corps of Engineers requested a copy of the plan of Study and a possible field view to confirm the absence of wetland in the study area. | McCormick Taylor will forward a copy of the plan of Study, along with a wetland survey report to the Corps. A field view date will be arranged with the Corps by the end of July, if convenient. 1 Reported by: 1 MCCORMICK, TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES, INC. . 1 I PA Maureen E. FitzGerald Environmental Specialist 1 1 25971 C-2 두 ​f McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Park Road Corridor Berks County, Pennsylvania Presentation to Interagency Review Committee Meeting Report Date: Location: November 29, 1989 PA Turnpike Building, Highspire 2:00 P.M. Time: Attendees: Representing: Laury Zigati Pat Strong Roland Bergner Dave Spotts Tom Noppenberger Joe Baker Kurt Carr Wayne Kober Stu Kheler Ted Fredericci Bob Keller Jack Porter Art Breneman Dhassa Gangahdar Thomas Caramanico Maureen FitzGerald U.S. EPA U.S. Army Corps of Engineers PA Game Commission PA Fish Commission Federal Highway Administration PHMC, Bureau of Historic Preservation PHMC, Bureau of Historic Preservation PennDOT, Environmental Quality Division PennDOT, Environmental Quality Division PennDOT, Environmental Quality Division PennDot, District 5-0 PennDOT, District 5-0 PennDOT, Bureau of Design PennDOT, Bureau of Design McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. The purpose of this meeting was to present the results of the preliminary alternatives analysis to Central Office and environmental regulatory agencies for concurrence and comment. The following is a summary of the presentation and comments: 1. McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc., explained the process and the decision-driving issues of the alternatives analysis with a slide presentation. The project need and transportation issues were outlined as the predominant issues in the selection of Corridor A for further design studies. - 2. Wayne Kober stated that PennDOT Central Office and the FHWA would review the document and then circulate the preliminary Alternatives Analysis to the regulatory agencies for comments and concurrence. C-3 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 3. District 5-0 distributed five (5) copies of the preliminary Analysis to Central Office following the presentation. Reported by: Zlon Janne Zasald E Maureen E. FitzGerald MEF:mta:0990a CC: L. Bert Cossaboon Robert J. Keller Alan D. Piper C-4 or ۔ ko (un McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. PARK ROAD CORRIDOR PROJECT BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Presentation to the Transportation Project Development Inter-Agency Coordination Meeting May 30, 1990 MEETING SUMMARY Attendees: Representing: Wayne Kober PennDOT, Environmental Quality Division Stu Kehler PennDOT, Environmental Quality Division Ted Fridirici PennDOT, Environmental Quality Division Tom Noppenberger Federal Highway Administration Khervin Smith Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Division of Rivers and Wetland Conservation Diane Wilson Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Division of Rivers and Wetland Conservation Jack Krauter Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Division of Rivers and Wetland Conservation Roland Bergner Pennsylvania Game Commission Bob Kulp Pennsylvania Game Commission Dave Spotts Pennsylvania Fish Commission Jackie Winkler U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Laurie Zaccari U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Denise Rigney U.S. Environmental Protection Ag су Susan Zacher Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission Jack Porter PennDOT, District 5-0 Bob Keller PennDOT, District 5-0 Alan Piper Berks County Planning Commission L. Bert Cossaboon McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Maureen E. FitzGerald McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. The purpose of the presentation to the T.P.D.I.C.M. was to receive comments and request concurrence from the regulatory agencies regarding the Park Road Project Need Statement and Preliminary Alternatives Analysis: A summary of the project needs and the results of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis was presented by McCormick, Taylor and Associates. Agency comments were requested. The following is a brief summary of the issues raised during the ensuing discussion. 1. -- The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission reviewed the changes in their initial eligibility determination, noting that the Kissinger Church was to be considered eligible for inclusion on the National Register and that a historic district would not be identified along North Wyomissing Boulevard. The Commission agreed with the conclusions of the Alternatives Analysis which identify Alternative Corridor A as the recommended alternative for detailed study in the EIS. C-5 2. The U.S. EPA objected to the conclusions of the Alternatives Analysis, stating that additional alternatives should be considered in the EIS besides Alternative A. The agency identified project need evaluation criteria as biased towards the preferred alternative: 1) that Corridor A is currently on the Master Plan, and 2) that the proposed roadway is described as providing limited access. These two criteria preclude other alternatives, specifically Paper Mill Road, from being considered in further detail because of failure to meet the defined project need. The EPA does not agree that enough information or investigation has been conducted to discard the Paper Mill Road Alternative from further analysis in the EIS. 3. Tom Noppenberger (FHWA) noted that the proposed roadway would link two existing limited access facilities and therefore limited access should be provided along the corridor. 4. EPA is not convinced that the preliminary Alternatives Analysis has disproved Paper Mill Road as a viable and feasible alternative. 5. The Pennsylvania Game Commission also disagreed with the conclusions of the Alternatives Analysis, identifying State Hill Road and PA Route 183 (Alternatives C and E) as feasible alternatives to the project. The Game Commission also recommended the inclusion of Paper Mill Road as a viable alternative. Project needs identified for Paper Mill Road in the March 1989 Environmental Assessment were referred to as argument that the existing roadway could meet the Park Road project needs. The committee held a caucus to discuss their concerns and recommendations regarding further study of the Park Road Corridor project. The conclusions of the caucus were to include Paper Mill Road (upgraded), Alternative F, in the EIS along with Alternative A, TSM and a No-Build Alternative. Prepared by: Z HAM 616140 2 Z Salt Maureen E. FitzGerard McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 36851 C-6 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. PARK ROAD CORRIDOR PROJECT BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERAGENCY COORDINATION MEETING OCTOBER 4, 1990 MEETING SUMMARY ATTENDEES: REPRESENTING: Denise Rigney Laury Zicari Phoebe Robb Diana Esher NEPA Wetlands NEPA - Roland Bergner Alan Piper John Hanosek Bob Keller Jack Porter Thomas Kotay Thomas Caramanico Bert Cossaboon Maureen FitzGerald U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Planning Pennsylvania Game Commission Berks County Planning Commission PennDOT District 5-0 PennDOT District 5-0 PennDOT District 5-0 PennDOT, Program Center McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the regulatory agency comments received on the project need documentation and preliminary alternatives analysis report. Alternatives recommended by the agencies for further detailed analysis in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) were reviewed and clarified. Arguments to reduce the number of alternatives considered to be reasonable or feasible alternatives by the agencies were presented by the County and PennDOT. The U.S. EPA and PA Game Commission presented their reasons for requesting an increase in the number of alternatives studied in the EIS. The major issues of discussion are listed below: O Definition of the Project Need O Evaluation of all feasible alternatives to be in compliance with the "spirit of NEPA." o Preliminary alternatives analysis is not a substitute for comprehensive environmental analysis. C-7 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 0 Evaluation criteria should be consistently applied to all alternatives in the analysis. 0 Impacts of alternatives should be documented to demonstrate which actions were considered and dismissed, and the reasons for dismissal. A brief presentation of the project history, development and status of the environmental studies was made to the agencies. County transportation planning objectives were explained in conjunction with the nature and rate of development in the project area. Public opposition to the use of Paper Mill Road as the Park Road Corridor connection was described. A summary of the issues raised and the decisions reached are reported below. 1. The issue of strong public opposition to studying Paper Mill Road as a project alternative was addressed. PennDOT explained that the public opinion is on record from the Paper Mill Road Improvement Project. Existing and planned development along Paper Mill Road was described with recent aerial photography. 2. The EPA stated that the NEPA process also addresses the social aspect of the project and that Paper Mill Road should be considered a reasonable alternative. The public needs to understand that Paper Mill Road must be considered to ensure compliance with the spirit of the NEPA process. It was noted that the preliminary Alternatives Analysis did consider Paper Mill Road as part of the first phase of the EIS studies. The County and local officials feel that the preliminary analysis meets the regulatory requirements of NEPA and that Paper Mill Road was considered and dismissed as an alternative. 3. 4. The EPA explained that the preliminary Alternatives Analysis is a PennDOT document and not a NEPA document. Although it is helpful in communicating the needs and direction of the project, it is not considered a decision. Preliminary analyses should be carried into the thorough analysis of the NEPA document. The analysis requires more information so that alternatives can be rigorously and objectively explored. 5. It was noted that agency comments and input on the preliminary Alternatives Analysis were given upon PennDOT's request. The objections raised by the agencies were communicated in the spirit of early coordination in the attempt to avoid time-consuming delays and objections during review of the Environmental Impact Statement. C-8 1 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 6. Aspects of the project need and criteria developed for elimination of preliminary alternatives were discussed. The EPA stated that the description of the need and the resulting evaluation criteria developed from the need appeared to be too restrictive. Application of evaluation criteria . should be consistent for all feasible alternatives. Results of the evaluation should be thoroughly explained in the document to ensure understanding of impacts. 7. A discussion of the alternatives recommended for inclusion in the EIS concluded the meeting. It was recommended that Paper Mill Road be evaluated as an up-graded roadway to meet traffic needs. Final design of the alternative is not necessary to conduct the evaluation. Paper Mill Road should be evaluated as an upgrade without improvements to the existing interchange with U.S. 422 and with the interchange improvements. 8. It was noted that evaluation of EIS alternatives should be conducted in a comparable manner. Therefore air, noise, traffic, archaeology, natural and socio-economic investigations etc., will be necessary on all alternatives. 9. A limited access highway along Paper Mill Road alignment will not be included as a reasonable alternative. However, the hybrid alternative suggested by EPA should be included in the EIS. 10. Level of detailed investigation of impacts should be equal across the board in the analysis of alternatives. Reported by: Maureen E. FitzGerald MEF:mta: 1980a CC: John Hanosek Jack Porter Bob Keller Thomas Kotay Alan Piper C-9 B. TASK FORCE PARK ROAD CORRIDOR TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP Commissioner Michael F. Feeney Berks County Cannissioner Anthony J. Carabello Becks County Cammissioner Glenn B. Reber Berks County Joseph E. DeSantis Berks County Planning Connission Thanas A. Kotay Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation, Central Office, Harrisburg John F. Hanosek Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation, District 5-0, Allentown William B. Myers Spring Township Supervisors Paul H. Edelman Wyomissing Borough Council David A. Wolf Colony Park Civic Association (Study Area Citizens) Stephen W. Price Spring Ridge Inc. (Study Area Developers) Harold D. Mckemy V.F. Corporation (Study Area Businesses) James P. Sterganos Penn State Berks Campus ; C-10 C. LANDOWNER AND DEVELOPER MEETINGS Frie Tury 1 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. PARK ROAD CORRIDOR DESIGN LOCATION STUDY/EIS BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Landowner Coordination Meeting Meeting Report DATE: October 10, 1989 PLACE: Tulpehocken, Ltd. Westview Drive Attendees: Dave Rick Alan Piper Thomas Caramanico Gary Bellotti Maureen FitzGerald Representing: Tulpehocken, Ltd. Berks County Planning Commission Mcconick, Taylor & Associates McConnick, Taylor & Associates McCornick, Taylor & Associates This meeting was conducted at the request of Tulpehocken, Ltd. to discuss the progress of the design studies for the Park Road Corridor project and the potential impacts to private landholdings in the study area. А preliminary 200' scale design was presented for discussion. The following is a summary of concerns and points discussed. 1. Impacts to the property off Tulpehocken Road, immediately north of the West Shore loop ramp to Warren Street were discussed. The proposed alignment would not take the property, but would discontinue access to Tulpehocken Road from the West Shore Bypass ramp. Mr. Rick approved of the avoidance of the property and indicated that preliminary plans to make the building a convenience store would need to be reconsidered. 2. Mr. Rick supported the diamond interchange scheme at Broadcasting Road and the efficient access it would ultimately provide for any development of Tulpehocken, Ltd. properties in the area. Efforts to keep the alignment as close to the Penn State property lines as possible were also supported. 3. Tulpehocken, Ltd. expressed no concern about the potential diamond interchange with Paper M111 Road and the Outer Bypass as it does not affect access to their land holdings. 4. Question was raised as to the potential impacts of Carlino's development plans to the success of the proposed roadway. C-11 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 5. Some discussion as to the regional versus local benefits of the project followed. It was noted that the likelihood of the project to receive local funding is directly related to the local benefits of improved access and traffic conditions. It was not considered reasonable that land owners in Spring Township and the Borough of Wyomissing be required to fund the project. 6. The issue of possibly plowing the fields in the project area to conduct the archaeological investigation was discussed. Mr. Rick proposed to contact the farmer to determine the harvest schedule and will contact McCormick Taylor with arrangements to plow. 1. Mr. Rick requested notification concerning any changes in the proposed alignment which would affect the use or access to Tulpehocken, Ltd. property holdings. HHH Reported by: That Fall Maureen E. FitzGerald McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. - 29441 C-12 C McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. PARK ROAD CORRIDOR DESIGN LOCATION STUDY / EIS BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Spring Ridge Coordination Meeting Meeting Report DATE: October 10, 1989 PLACE: Spring Ridge Office Paper Mill Road Attendees: Steve Price Roy Christman Alan Piper Jeff Green Charlie Jones Thomas Caramanico Gary Bellotti Maureen FitzGerald Representing: Spring Ridge, Inc. Berks County Berks County Spring Ridge, Inc. Spring Township McCormick, Taylor & Associates McCormick, Taylor & Associates McCormick, Taylor & Associates The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the status of the project and preliminary design and discuss concerns and potential development plans with representatives of Spring Ridge. The area of concern was the proposed diamond interchange and alignment in the vicinity of the WEEU radio towers. The following is a summary of the points discussed. 1. Spring Ridge concerns include access to the parcel north of Broadcasting Road and access to the proposed roadway. Two development interests are in consultation with Spring Ridge now concerning option parcel north of Broadcasting Road. clients wish to present plans to the Township in 60 days and initiate construction in the Spring. The proposed and approved loop road depicted on Spring Ridge's approved PRD plan should be finalized in 60 days. Spring Ridge wishes to coordinate with the Park Road design prior to finalizing the alignment of the loop road. 2. Spring Ridge's proposed diamond interchange with Paper Mill Road was discussed. This location is preferred by the developers as it minimizes indirect take of property between the proposed alignment and existing Paper Mill Road. The Spring Ridge design precludes the development of a diamond interchange at Broadcasting Road. Concern was expressed about potential impacts to Paper Mill Road if no access is provided at Broadcasting Road. Spring Ridge believes most of traffic will be destined for Meridian and Spring Ridge property anyway and therefore would not affect the southern end of Paper Mill Road. 3. 29441 C-13 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 4. It was proposed that Orth Rodgers would re-evaluate traffic numbers in this area to determine if lack of access at Broadcasting Road would load Paper Mill Road. 5. I Spring Ridge explained that placement of the diamond interchange in their design schemes resulted from trying to avoid the curve off the Outer Bypass, avoid an at-grade intersection with Paper Mill Road, and being sensitive to Penn State's concerns about an interchange at Broadcasting Road. Spring Ridge consented that, if given no other option, an interchange at Broadcasting Road would be sufficient access for their developments in addition to the proposed loop road. 6 Berks County stated that both Van Reed Road and Paper Mill Road are state roads and access to and from them must be provided. 7. Spring Township expressed support for elimination of westbound traffic along Van Reed Road to 422 through Whitfield. The Township would rather see truck traffic restricted to the new limited access facility. 8. It was noted that if the proposed diamond interchange is shifted north of WEEU and not at Broadcasting Road, existing and future developments south of Broadcasting Road would probably access the corridor via Paper Mill Road, causing increased traffic along this route. 9. It was mentioned that Penn State may not realize that access to Broadcasting Road would not be provided by the existing Tulpehocken Road/Warren Street connection with the proposed roadway. If an interchange is not provided off Park Road Corridor to Broadcasting Road, access to Penn State must use Paper Mill Road. 10. A decision was reached to analyze traffic impacts of only one diamond interchange north of Broadcasting Road, with no access provided at Broadcasting Road. Analysis will include impacts of providing and denying access to Van Reed Road westbound from proposed corridor. McCormick Taylor will conduct this analysis and coordinate with Jeff Green. 11. Alan Piper will meet with Penn State and discuss impacts to access at Broadcasting Road. 12. A discussion of what information would be presented at the second public meeting proposed for November 1, 1989 followed. It was concluded that no specific alignment or interchange schemes and locations could be presented since no definitive solutions would have been reached by that time. A general corridor alignment would be presented with possible interchange locations indicated. Issues of access would be generated and discussed at this time. 13. Spring Township voiced concern over maintaining the project as a partnership between just Spring Township and the Borough of Wyomissing and the feasibility of a 50-50 split with PennDOT. 1 29441 C-14 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 14. It was recommended that McCormick Taylor still address access to Van Reed Road from Paper M111 Road either through the proposed Spring Ridge loop or ramp from proposed Park Road Corridor. Jeff Green will be sent a copy of the profiles in the vicinity of the loop road scheme of Spring Ridge to investigate profile requirements of loop road. A copy of the underground antennae system of WEEU in the vicinity of the proposed roadway will also be provided to Spring Ridge. 15. The possibility of getting the right-of-way plowed and disked to aid in the archaeological survey was discussed. Roy Christman indicated that erosion may be a problem. McCormick Taylor will coordinate with Spring Ridge to confirm if the area can be plowed. Reported by: Than EFAN ~ -- Maureen E. FitzGerald McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 29441 C-16 Park Road Corridor Project Developer Meeting November 10, 1989 ATTENDEES: David Roy Gary Bellotti Maureen E. FitzGerald Orth-Rodgers & Associates McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. The purpose of this meeting was to review design plans for the proposed Warren Street/Park Road Extension interchange in aelatron to the proposed development plans for the Fox Theatre property north of Warren Street. Alternative engineering design criteria were discussed in attempts to determine how the required right-of-way could be reduced in the interchange area. The following points were noted: 0 Phase I development has been approved for the building envelope. Fox is anticipating breaking ground next week. Scheme B (ASSHTO) requires approximately one half of the proposed eastern parking lot. O If bridge over Tulpchocken Creek widened to accommodate taper length, can reduce westward extent of loop and ramps. 0 Point was made that even with decreased taper, design may still have to incorporate more structure and retaining walls to preserve Fox parking area. Cost of these structures may be comparable to the cost of acquiring Fox's property for right-of-way. O An additional point was raised that widening of the existing bridge over Tulpchocken Creek will involve regulatory agencies in the alternatives analysis and design location study which have not to the point been required. The potential 4f) and Scenic River involvement would require investigation of product and feasible alternatives. The proposed design scheme, in the absence of the theater, is the product alternative. o It was noted that the design scheme Orth Rodgers developed was based upon a 50-55 mph design speed for Warren Street and the Park Road Extension. Therefore, required taper was approximately 300 feet less than ASSHTO. O MTA expressed doubt over possibility of getting FHWA to approve a 50-55 mph design speed. O At this point in time, MTA does not recommend widening of Tulpchocken Creek bridge due to 4(f) and Scenic River impacts. 0947a E C-16 f McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. PARK ROAD LOCATION STUDY BERKS COUNTY AREA PROPERTY OWNERS/DEVELOPERS COORDINATION MEETING SUMMARY DATE: November 15, 1989 LOCATION: Berks County Agricultural Center ATTENDEES: Park Road Task Force Berks County Representatives Area Developers PennDOT McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. The purpose of this meeting was to give the property owners in the vicinity of the project an opportunity to comment on the proposed design and the offer suggestions for possible interchange modifications. This meeting took place after the regular Task Force meeting at the request of the Task Force chairman. A. Inn at Reading Mr. Richard Hunter, representing the Inn at Reading, expressed their concern about the possible loss of access at Park Road and Warren Street. He presented a ramp design sketch which maintained a ramp connection between Warren Street and Park Road. . The loss of Park Road access to Warren Street would require their customers to use the Paper Mill Road interchange and local streets which are inadequate to handle the traffic. 2. Reduction of the Warren Street westbound, off-ramp radius and design speed from that currently proposed would be appropriate given lower traffic volumes on Warren Street east of the interchange. 3. Traffic impacts from the new diamond at N. Wyomissing Boulevard should be carefully evaluated. A subsequent letter from Mr. Hunter providing more detail is attached. B. Fox Theater Dave Roy from Orth Rodgers presented several interchange sketches on acetate overlays and raised three issues related to modifying the interchange designs at Warren Street and the West Shore Bypass. These are summarized on the following page. C-17 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 1. Design Criteria (AASHTO Vs. PennDOT standards) The longer deceleration lane required by the PennDOT design has a greater impact on the Fox parcel proposed for development. THE AASHTO design would be considerably more desirable to Fox. McCormick Taylor pointed out that they are trying to get this issue resolved with the PennDOT Bureau of Design. 2. Warren Street Bridge Widening Because McCormick Taylor assumed the bridge over the Tulpehocken could not be widened, the western end of the bridge was used as a central point for the deceleration lane. Fox would prefer the bridge be widened in order to begin the deceleration lane further east on Warren Street and reduce property impacts. McCormick Taylor and PennDOT pointed out that widening the bridge could result in a Section 4(f) impact because of the County Park lands below it. 3. Design Speed (55 mph vs. 70 mph) Currently Warren Street east of the interchange has a posted speed limit of 45. This would place the minimum acceptable design speed at 55 which would reduce the impact on the Fox property. McCormick Taylor pointed out that the classification of the roadway was used to obtain the 70 mph design. It was also pointed out by McCormick Taylor that design speeds are minimum and that the use of higher design speeds result in safer designs. In addition, the "running speed" of Warren Street may have to be used to calculate design speeds, despite the posted speed limit of 45 mph. A letter from Orth-Rodgers was which summarized their analysis is attached. Reported by: LBC L. Bert Cossaboon, AICP 1001a C-18 D. PUBLIC OFFICIALS MEETINGS Zile 8 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Park Road Corridor Study Berks County Planning Commission Berks County, Pennsylvania Coordination Meeting with Commercial Landowners and Developers MEETING REPORT DATE: February 8, 1989 LOCATION: Borough Hall 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. Spring Township Building 1:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. ATTENDEES: Alan D. Piper Ken Fulmer Al Drayovitch Charles Jones Sharon Weiss L. Bert Cossaboon Mike J. Hearn Maureen FitzGerald Area Landowners and Developers Berks County Planning Commission Borough of Wyomissing Borough of Wyomissing Spring Township Spring Township McCormick, Taylor & Associates McCormick, Taylor & Associates McCormick, Taylor & Associates The purpose of these meeting was to initiate coordination with the non-residential land owners in the project area. Information was solicited in order to evaluate project impacts to approved and future land use developments in the study area. Separate conferences with representatives of each landowner were held. The scope of studies and proposed schedule for the Environmental Impact Statement and Design Location Study was discussed with each landowner and developer. Concerns and comments were solicited for each proposed alternative corridor being considered for this project. Anticipated operational dates, traffic volumes, and access points were discussed. Developers were requested to supply a copy of their conceptual or approved site plans for use in evaluating environmental impacts. -- The following report provides a summary of the issues and concerns raised at the coordination meetings and the information provided. C-19 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 1. Fox Theatre Developments : [John Rahenkamp Consultants, Inc. and Jacobson and Connor Architects, Inc.; Borough Hall, 10:00 a.m.) . The proposed development includes a 12 screen theatre complex with parking for approximately 1300 vehicles, located between Tulpehocken Road and Berkshire Boulevard, north of the Service Merchandise building. Develcpment plans are in a conceptual phase only and no site plans have been submitted to the Borough of Wyomissing. A concept plan was provided which indicated the location of feasible parking areas and building sites. Developers indicated that additional site amenities were being considered for the property including small commercial establishments and a skating rink. Developers expressed interest in the timing of the project and the date at which required right-of-way would be known. Alan Piper informed them that the earliest this information could be determined is by mid-summer 1989. Theatre developers expressed concern about the existing drainage swales and floodplains occurring on the Fox Theatre site. Site designers suggested possible coordination with highway design in development of stormwater retention ponds. Architectural design of the site has been initiated and a site survey of environmental features has been conducted. Access points to the site are from Woodland Road, Tulpehocken Road and Berkshire Boulevard. Developers commented that Alternative A would directly affect the Fox Theatre parcel. Concerns were raised about possible loss of available parking area. 2. Hough/Loew Associates, Inc.: (10:30 a.m., Borough Hall.) The proposed development includes a retail mall and office development extending from Bern Road to 800 feet north of Paper Mill Road just east of the Borough of Wyomissing line. Implementation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Berkshire Boulevard and Paper Mill Road is included in this development. In addition, Bern Road would be widened to accommodate 5 lanes along the width of the development property. Assuming no delays in obtaining required Borough of Wyomissing approval, construction is anticipated to begin in Summer 1989 and full build out is predicted by 1992. Traffic studies performed for this proposed development were submitted to the Borough of Wyomissing. Maximum build-out projections were used in conducting the traffic analysis. The distribution network utilized did not contain the proposed Park Road Corridor. 0395a C-20 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Developers commented that selection of Alternative B would directly impact the proposed development site located north of Paper Mill Road by splitting that parcel in half. Support was expressed for Alternative Corridor A with an interchange at Berkshire Boulevard. Berkshire Boulevard is identified as the primary access to the development site. 3. Murray Goodman (landowner) (represented by Bob Dolan, R.W. Dolan Consultants, Inc.; 11:30 a.m. Borough Hall.) Goodman landholdings within the project area include: Sheraton Inn; a parcel located to the east of Berkshire Boulevard and south of Valeria Hoffert's property; and a vacant parcel south of Service Merchandise located between Woodland Road and Berkshire Boulevard. The vacant parcel has been conceptually identified as the site for a proposed strip mall of 150,000 ft.2 to 200,000 ft.2 area. Mr. Dolan expressed concern about the potential impacts of the northern branch of Alternative B to the development viability of the property south of Service Merchandise. The conceptual plan of the strip mall includes a proposed extension of relocated Van Reed Road west' to Berkshire Boulevard. Such an extension was agreed to by the Borough of Wyomissing. Access to the mall would be from this proposed extension. The northern branch of Alternative B would eliminate this extension. Support was expressed for Alternative A. Concerns about the impacts to the available parking area for the Sheraton Inn were also expressed. The southern branch of Alternative B may encroach upon this area. Barton-Aschmann traffic projections are thought to have assumed full build-out of the Sheraton Inn property. No traffic projections for the two parcels were determined. 4. Peter Carlino (Stone Hill Farms, Wyomissing Professional Center, Seven Oaks; 12:00 p.m., Borough Hall.] Landholdings and proposed developments within the project study area were identified as: 130 unit Stone Hill Farms, 90 unit Seven Oaks, and 224,000 ft? Wyomissing Professional Center. In addition, Mr. Carlino discussed his intention to submit plans for another 130 unit residential development for the vacant parcel west of Berkshire Boulevard and south of the Penn State property. The local municipalities have approved the development plans for Stone Hill Farms and Seven Oaks. Wyomissing Professional Center plans have been submitted but are pending approval. Mr. Carlino indicated that master plans for the vacant parcel adjacent to Penn State would be prepared quickly and submitted to the Borough for approval. He is not inclined to postpone development of this parcel. 0395a C-21 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. All four parcels will be under construction or operational by 1995. Full build-out traffic volumes should be incorporated into the Park Road Corridor network. The developer expressed opposition to both Alternative A and B as they would directly impact existing and future development plans for his land parcels. Mr. Carlino suggested the consideration of Paper Mill Road as a more viable alternative. 1 Ken Fulmer stated that Paper Mill Road would not be a viable alternative as it currently functions as a local collector and would not adequately serve regional traffic. 1 Mr. Carlino expressed the concern that potential condemnation of land in the selected corridor would be difficult to mitigate or replace. The high development potential and potential profit of land in the study would be difficult to compensate. 5. Tulpehocken Limited (Dave Rick and Eugene Stapleton, 1:30 p.m. Spring Township Building.) Landholdings in the project area were identified as the parcel extending between State Hill and Paper Mill Roads, bounded by Broadcasting Road and Colony Park; the Spring Ridge option parcel north of Paper Mill Road, and the remainder of the property north of Paper Mill Road extending to Penn State. A section of the Broadcasting Road parcel is under option to the Wilson School District until 1992. No development plans are under consideration for the remainder of the Tulpehocken Limited holdings. Alternatives B and C were identified as having direct impacts to the development plans and interest of Tulpehocken Ltd. No concern was raised over Alternatives A or D. The alignment of Alternative C was questioned as to why it did not follow the existing roadways of State Hill and Van Reed Roads to the Outer Bypass. Alan Piper explained that this alignment would not provide a separate regional access to the Outer Bypass. Connections between Paper Mill Road and the Park Road Corridor and Broadcasting Road and the Park Road Corridor were suggested by the landholders. 6. Spring Ridge, Inc. (Tom Balderston, K.S. Sweet Associates, 2:00 p.m. Spring Township Building. ] - Spring Ridge land holdings and development plans were identified and discussed. The Meridian Operations Center is currently under construction and will begin operation at the end of 1989. Anticipated build-out of the development, including 433 residential units and the office/retail option parcel, is projected for approximately 2000. 0395a C-22 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Traffic analyses conducted for the Spring Ridge project have been submitted to the municipalities and incorporated into the network projections. Alternative C was identified as adversely affecting the proposed residential development north of State Hill Road. Implementation of Alternative 0 was not supported by Spring Ridge as it does not promote access to the site or appear to improve local or regional traffic in the area. Alternative A and B affect Spring Ridge developments equally and as yet do not interfere with proposed development of the office/retail option parcel north of Paper Mill Road. Spring Ridge has included a conceptual right-of-way corridor for this parcel into their concept plans. Concern about the economic feasibility of a limited access highway was expressed due to the cost of the interchanges. Spring Ridge supports the findings of the Orth-Rodgers-Thompson traffic analysis which identified the need for improving local collectors and arterials and accessing these local routes to a new regional highway link. Spring Ridge supports the development of at-grade, intersections along Alternative A with an access between Paper Mill Road and the Park Road Corridor. A suggestion was made to eliminate use of Paper Mill Road north of the Outer Bypass once a connection to the Park Road Corridor is constructed which will provide access to the Outer Bypass. 7. Arrow International/Security of America: [Marlin Miller and Robert Stackhouse; 3:00 p.m., Spring Township Building.) The development property was identified by the owners as a 125 acre parcel south of Route 183 in Bern Township. Arrow International has acquired two (2) parcels from the Security of America property. No conceptual plans were presented. Proposed development concepts were described by each owner. Arrow International plans to develop a corporate headquarters and administration area, a research and development facility, and a manufacturing plant with approximately 130,000 ft2 capacity. Construction is planned for Summer 1989 and occupancy is anticipated by December 1990 for a work force of approximately 400 people. Arrow International perceives the Park Road Corridor link as a relief for traffic along Route 183. Concern was expressed on the impacts of Alternative D to the proposed development. 0395a C-23 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Security of America has initiated a master plan for development of 100 acres of the parcel for office space. No plans have been submitted for Township approval to date. A concern expressed over Alternative D was the large environmental impacts involved and the impacts to the planned development of the parcel. Alternative D was not perceived as meeting the project need for facilitating increased local and regional traffic volumes on roadways south of Tulpehocken Creek. H Reported by: Ian 2 ZK bund { Maureen E. FitzGerald -- 0395a C-24 0 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. PARK ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Coordination Meeting Spring Township and Borough of Wyomissing MEETING REPORT DATE: August 3, 1989 PLACE: Spring Township . ATTENDEES Jack Porter, P.E. Alan Piper Ken Fulmer, P.E. A1 Drayovitch Chief Dave Bausher Charlie Jones, P.E. Thomas Caramanico, P.E. Gary Bellotti, P.E. Maureen E. FitzGerald REPRESENTING PennDOT, District 5-0 Berks County Borough of Wyomissing Borough of Wyomissing Borough of Wyomissing, Police Department Spring Township McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Purpose This meeting was conducted to present design schemes for preliminary Alternatives A and B to Berks County, Spring Township and Borough of Wyomissing officials for their review and comment. Five schemes for the Warren Street/West Shore interchange were presented, in addition to five interchange schemes for the connection to the Outer Bypass. Each design was reviewed to determine its ability to meet the regional and local needs of the project and its impacts to existing local traffic movements. The intent of this review was to eliminate from further study alternative schemes which did not meet the needs of the county and local transportation plans. The following is a summary of the comments received on the alternative schemes and the decisions reached. Outer Bypass Connections O Primary concerns with this interchange included the amount of property take required from the Spring Ridge option parcel, the control of access to Paper Mill Road from the Outer Bypass, and the discontinuance of the existing connection to Paper Mill Road- via Van Reed Road. C-25 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. O Spring Township requested that Paper Mill Road remain functional to the west of the Outer Bypass, and that through and regional traffic be discouraged from using Paper Mill Road in place of the new facility. Outer Bypass Schemes 3, 4 and 5 were not supported by the township due to their potential impacts to Paper Mill Road and the Spring Ridge parcel. Access between the new facility and developments proposed for this parcel was supported. O Scheme 1 was noted as not providing access to the new roadway from northbound traffic on the Outer Bypass. O A northbound ramp from Van Reed Road to the new highway was requested. 0 Design Scheme 2 was selected as the most desirable interchange with the Outer Bypass for the following reasons: impacts to the Spring Ridge parcel are minimized; through traffic movements are not encouraged along Paper Mill Road and; local development access can be accommodated along a portion of the 'loop ramp,' thereby minimizing traffic volumes on the western end of Paper Mill Road. 0 An at-grade signalized intersection at Broadcasting Road was not supported by Township and County representatives due to the interruption of regional traffic flow along the new facility. A diamond interchange was proposed for design. Impacts to Penn State property were of concern. West Shore/Warren Street Connections 0 Primary concerns expressed over the design of this interchange were the provision of a direct connection between the West Shore and Outer Bypass, minimizing and alleviating through traffic volumes on local access roadways, and improvement of local access to commercial districts in the Borough of Wyomissing. Scheme #1 O Schemes 1 and 5 were identified as similar alignments with the exception that Scheme 5 minimizes longitudinal encroachment of floodplain areas and impacts to new construction along Berkshire Boulevard. Scheme #2 O Scheme 2 caused concern with local and county representatives due to its use of local roadways to accommodate expressway movements. It was noted that the eastern end of Paper Mill Road and Woodland Road accommodate the majority of traffic between the Berkshire Mall and the Warren Street Bypass. Additional loading of through traffic on this network was not regraded as a viable or safe alternative. 27331 C-26 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. o Eastbound traffic on the proposed highway would merge with local traffic at Berkshire Boulevard. If right turns are maintained off Berkshire to Paper Mill Road to allow access to Warren Street, heavy merging of local access and regional access traffic volumes would occur at this location in Scheme 2. O Scheme 2 employs Woodland Road as the connector to eastbound Warren Street Bypass. This access route is also utilized by vehicles exiting Berkshire Mall. The resulting traffic loading of this roadway was considered to be unacceptable, potentially causing severe congestion and safety problems at the intersection of Woodland Road and Paper Mill Road. Signalization of the Paper Mill Road intersections with woodland Road and Berkshire Boulevard would interrupt regional traffic flow and was considered to limit the effectiveness of the proposed corridor in accommodating through traffic. O It was noted that the alignment of Scheme 2 would in effect isolate existing and proposed developments along Berkshire Boulevard and Woodland Road from the remainder of the Borough of Wyomissing with highway alignments to the south and east, and Tulpehocken Creek to the north. Scheme #3 Scheme 3, with its eastern terminus at the intersection of woodland and relocated Van Reed Roads, received adverse comments from local and county transportation planners. This alignment was noted to cut off access to Warren Street Bypass from eastbound Woodland Road, thereby interrupting the primary egress route from the Berkshire Mall. With the removal of local access from Woodland Road to eastbound Warren Street and Spring Street and the removal of left turns onto Park Road from Warren Street, Scheme 3 denies access to Park Road from the westbound lanes of West Shore and Warren Street Bypasses. This decrease in local access to and from commercial areas_in Wyomissing was not viewed as a desirable condition. O It was noted that Scheme 3 bisects two large commercial tracts in the Borough, with potential adverse impacts to property acquisition and right-of-way costs. Borough representatives also noted that Scheme 3 would serve to cut the Borough in two by restricting local access between areas north and south of Warren Street Bypass. An additional adverse traffic impact of Scheme 3 is the proposed widening and merging of local and through traffic on Warren Street in the vicinity of the Paper Mill Road interchange. This condition was not advocated by the Borough or County representatives. O 27331 C-27 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Scheme #4 1 O Scheme 4 received negative comments due to its proposed use of local access roadways for regional traffic movement. O Scheme 4 was not supported as a regional connector due to the lack of access between southbound traffic from the Outer Bypass to southbound West Shore Bypass. This connection is provided via local roads only, involving relocated Van Reed Road to eastbound Spring Street to northbound Park Road to eastbound Warren Street and the interchange with West Shore Bypass. The resultant loading of traffic on these local roadways was not supported. O Scheme 4 was also noted to load regional traffic onto the Woodland Road/Paper Mill Road intersection. Regional traffic movement would be interrupted with local access roadways and signalized intersections. O Local access via Woodland Road to developments east of the proposed new alignment would be restricted. Scheme 4 would require loading of regional traffic onto Woodland Road, affecting its capacity to carry local traffic to commercial areas. In addition, it was noted that merging and weaving of local access traffic versus through traffic would occur on a short stretch of Warren Street Bypass between the West Shore Bypass and the Paper Mill interchange, potentially resulting in congestion and traffic safety impacts. Scheme #5 Scheme 5 received the most favorable support by municipal and county representatives due to its direct connection between the outer and West Shore Bypass and its non-dependency on local access roadways to make this connection. 0 It was noted that no direct access between northbound West Shore traffic and southbound Park Road is provided by Scheme 5. - 0 A suggestion to accommodate access to Park Road from the West Shore Bypass and relieve existing local connections of this traffic was to utilize the North Wyomissing Boulevard intersection with West Shore Bypass. It was suggested that McCormick Taylor investigate design costs for providing a diamond interchange in this vicinity. o MTA noted that current 200' scale mapping does not extend south to North Wyomissing Boulevard. O Question was raised as to the cost of replacing the overpass bridge and the reconstruction of the Conrail Bridge for this interchange. It was suggested that an additional loop north of Warren Street be studied to connect West Shore traffic with Park Road. 27331 C-28 1 o MER McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. > FICE PARK ROAD CORRIDOR LOCATION STUDY BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING REPORT DATE: August 15, 1989 PLACE: Berks County Planning Commission ATTENDEES: Alan Piper Charlie Jones, P.E. Ken Fulmer, P.E. Joseph De Santis Paul Edelman Tom Balderston Jeff Green Gary Bellotti Thomas A. Caramanico L. Bert Cossaboon Berks County P.C. Spring Township Wyomissing Borough Task Force Task Force Spring Ridge Spring Ridge McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. PURPOSE and The purpose of this meeting was to review all interchange alternatives developed to date Ht obtain comments on the best scheme(s) for detailed analysis. Three schemes for the Paper Mill Road interchange were presented, Twelve schemes for the West Shore Bypass interchange were presented and two schemes for the Outer Bypass connection were presented. A summary of issues and agreements follows; Paper Mill Road Interchange Alternates (Corridor B) The 3 alternates were briefly discussed and reasons for their rejection were discussed. Primarily they do not provide the level of regional access needed between the West Shore bypass and the Outer Bypass. In addition, they create significant capacity problems at the Paper Mill Road Interchange and they disrupt important access to the Berkshire Mall and adjacent commercial areas. Outer Bypass Interchange Alternates (Corridor A or B) -- Because of the local access demand and the benefits of maintaining limited access on this new regional connection, everyone agreed that a diamond interchange should be provided at Broadcasting Road. There was considerable discussion of the Van Reed/Paper Mill Road connection at the northern end of the project. Spring Ridge Inc. C-29 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. O It was noted that Scheme 5, without provision of the North Wyomissing diamond interchange, or the Park Road loop, was only the L.R. 1035 Spur project and would not accommodate local access and area businesses. Concern was raised as to the participation in local funding if the project did not provide better local access to the commercial section of Wyomissing. O Comment was made that regional access was emphasized by the concerned public at the first public meeting. o A concern with use of North Wyomissing Boulevard as the local access route to Park Road from West Shore Bypass is that one block is residential. Impacts of increased traffic volumes on this area will be of public concern and will require study in the Environmental Impact Statement. There is no residential representation for the Borough on the project Task Force. Decisions Reached A meeting will be arranged with PennDOT Bureau of Design and FHWA to discuss alternative selection and project needs with Berks County, District 5-0, and MTA. 0 A presentation of the design schemes and project development will be conducted for the Task Force, Borough Council and Town Council to solicit comments, answer questions and bring the public representatives up-to-date on the project design. McCormick Taylor will design at 500' scale the diamond ramp interchange at North Wyomissing and the Park Road loop to improve local access of Scheme 5. O Alan Piper and Ken Fulmer will meet with executive members of the Task Force to discuss a Task Force workshop and design presentation. Presentation to the Task Force was tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, August 15. McCormick Taylor will not begin 200 scale design of Scheme 5 until Task Force gives approval. issue of additional mapping will be raised once decision on alignment is reached. Reported by: MCCORMICK, TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES, INC. Ilan tied Maureen E. FitzGerald Environmental Specialist 27331 C-30 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. expressed concerns about Right-of-Way impacts and the possible loss of access at this location. It was agreed that a diamond interchange would work best by providing at-grade access to Paper Mill, maintaining limited access on the new regional highway and the most flexibility for a loop road in the Spring Ridge parcel. Warren Street Connection (Corridor A) The twelve alternates were reviewed with regard to their access and traffic movements through the use of a dot matrix. Preliminary costs were discussed to balance the advantages and disadvantages of various alternatives. It was generally agreed that the best approach would be to provide all the regional connections at West Shore/Warren Street interchange (Alternate 8, modified) while providing the local access needs at a new diamond interchange at N. Wyomissing Blvd. on the West Shore Bypass. This would greatly enhance access to the VF area without complicating the new interchange on Warren Street. Costs were discussed :o be approximately $27.5 million without the new section from Berkshire Blvd. north to the Outer Bypass. McCormick, Taylor will examine the acceptability of providing the right turn in from Warren Street Bypass and the right turn out of Park Road. It was pointed out that the adjacent section of Warren Street was similar in operation (non-limited access). At the conclusion of the meeting other issues discussed were; Possible jurisdictional wetlands near Fox property. O Archaeological study and need to plow corridor early in Fall. Design speed at Outer Bypass connection may dictate severe property impacts at WEEU site. Reported by: .. L. Bert Cossaboon, AICP 0752a C-31 APPENDIX D PUBLIC COORDINATION A. NEWSLETTERS, PUBLIC QUESTIONNAIRES AND PUBLIC MEETING REPORTS McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Park Road Location Study Berks County Pennsylvania Design Location Study and Environmental Impact Statement Meeting Report Public Meeting #1 DATE: May 17, 1989 LOCATION: Penn State University Berks Campus Spring Township, Pennsylvania ATTENDEES: Representatives of PennDOT District 5-0 Representatives of Berks County Representatives of The Borough of Wyomissing Representatives of Spring Township Representatives of the Project Task Force Representatives of McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. The purpose of the Public Meeting was to present information to the public on the Design Location Study and Environmental Impact Statement of the Park Road Corridor and to solicit public concerns and opinions about the project. Four potential corridor alternatives to be studied in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis were displayed during the Open House. To accomplish this, a questionnaire and comment form were distributed and an informal question/answer session was held after the formal presentation. Summaries of the questionnaire and comment form responses are attached. A total of 55 people signed in for the public meeting. Notice of the meeting was published on May 14 and 16 in the Reading Eagle/Times newspaper (attached). O The meeting began at 6:00 p.m. with an Open House featuring a display of aerial photos and maps of the project area. Citizens presented their names and addresses on the sign-in sheet which placed them on the project mailing list. Attendees were asked to place a pin to locate their place of residence. Boards included in the display were; Sensitive Issues, Regional Location, Study Area, Alternative Corridors, Study Team and Schedule and Areas to be Studied. O The Open House was conducted from 6:00 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. during which time PennDOT officials and representatives from McCormick Taylor were available to address questions and concerns. O The Open House ended at 7:30 p.m. when the formal presentation began. Tom Caramanico of McCormick Taylor gave a brief project description and a slide presentation to describe the project need and factors which will be studied. D-1 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. o Mr. Caramanico then led an informal question/answer session answering questions which citizens posed about the Park Road Corridor project and studies. After the question/answer session, attendees were again allowed to look at the Open House display and voice concerns one-to-one with PennDOT and McCormick Taylor representatives. o 0 Many individuals raised specific concerns both during the Open House and the formal presentation. The main concerns were as follows: 1. The Outer Bypass narrowing down to Van Reed Road is inadequate for the traffic needs and growing development along Van Reed Road. The Outer Bypass needs to be completed (12). 2. The regional traffic needs are not being addressed adequately (9). 3. State Hill Road is in need of improvements including left turn lanes, shoulders and the intersection with Van Reed Road (3). 4. The Warren Street Bypass needs to be completed (2). 5. Paper Mill Road still looks like a possible corridor alternative (4). 6. No one wants to have 5 lanes on Paper Mill Road (2). 7. If Park Road is completed before the Warren Street Bypass is completed, consideration of the impacts to Wyomissing and West Lawn communities must be assessed (1). 8. A No-Build alternative will negatively impact Paper Mill Road and Van Reed Road because of all the development occurring (1). 9. This new corridor needs to be a limited access roadway (1). 10. Will there be an intersection at Broadcasting Road (1)? 11. If this corridor is built, drivers will use it to get to the Warren St. Bypass drawing more traffic into an area that cannot handle it (1). 12. Should build an interchange at 422/222 instead of at the existing Park Road intersection (1). 13. PennDOT has done nothing to help Berks County traffic problems (1). 0574a D- 2 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 14. Alternatives C & D will not solve the regional problem (1). 15. Alternative C will solve the local need (1). 16. The traffic problems around here have been "studied to death" (1). 17. Kissinger's Lane is a traffic hazard, many people use it as a shortcut (1). 18. The proposed project would accommodate truck traffic between Route 222 and S.R. 3055. Improved local roads should provide access to development (1). 0574a D- 3 Public Meeting #1 PARKROAD MAY, 10 1989 R R O PARK ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY PUBLIC QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Where do you live? (municipality, town or city) 2. Do you think there is a need for a new roadway in the study area connecting Warren Street Bypass with the Outer Bypass (Road-to-Nowhere)? (Yes) (NO) 3. Would you use a new or upgraded route between Warren Street and Outer Bypass in the study area? (Yes) (NO) A. For what purpose would you use this roadway if constructed? work recreation facilities other (Please explain) shopping . 5. In addition to alternatives which would upgrade existing roadways in the study area (a requirement of this study), 4 corridor alternatives will be evaluated for roadways on new alignment. Please comment on these corridors below. Alternative Corridor A Alternative Corridor B Alternative Corridor C Alternative Corridor D Existing Road Improvements Only 6. (Please include additional comments and concerns on the reverse side.) D- 4 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Park Road Location Study Berks County Design Location Study and Environmental Impact Statement PUBLIC MEETING #1 Questionnaire Summary Report DATE: May 17, 1989 LOCATION: Pennsylvania State University Berks Campus Auditorium The purpose of this Open House and Formal Presentation was to present information on the environmental and engineering design studies being conducted for the Park Road Corridor Project. Public comment was solicited to identify concerns and issues within the study area and to obtain feedback on the preliminary alternatives under study. Four corridor schemes on new alignment were presented in addition to a No Build alternative and improvements to existing roadways in the project area as alternatives for study. The identified corridors include: Corridor A Extending from Park Road and West Shore intersections with Warren Street to the Outer Bypass south of Tulpehocken Creek. Corridor B Extending from Paper Mill Road interchange with Warren Street to the Outer Bypass south of Tulpehocken Creek. Corridor C Extending from the Bern Road interchange with Warren Street to the existing terminus of the Outer Bypass. Corridor D Extending from the West Shore Bypass terminus northwest over Tulpehocken Creek to the Outer Bypass south of Route 183. D- 5 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. A total of 25 completed Questionnaire forms were submitted following the public meeting. Responses to the questions are summarized below. 1. Where do you live? (4) (1) (9) (1) (2) Colony Park Spring Township Wyomissing Muhlenburg West Lawn (2) Shillington Sinking Spring Bern Township Ruscombmanor Twp. Reading (2) (1) (1) (1) 2. Do you think there is a need for a new roadway in the study area connecting Warren Street Bypass with the Outer Bypass (Road-to-Nowhere)? (24) Yes (1) NO 3. Would you use a new or upgraded route between Warren Street and the Outer Bypass in the study area? (25) Yes (0) NO 1086D D- 6 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 4. For what purpose would you use this roadway if constructed? work 14 14 17 recreation facilities travel/commute shopping 의 ​ㅖ ​11. 5. In addition to alternatives which would upgrade existing roadways in the study area (a requirement of this study), 4 corridor alternatives will be evaluated for roadways on new alignment. Please comment on these corridors below. Alternative Corridor A (10) Most preferred corridor (5) Preferred with a direct connection to West Shore Bypass. (1) Serves local traffic needs (1) Second-most preferred Alternative Corridor B (2) Second-most preferred alternative (2) Connection to Paper Mill Road ramp not feasible (2) Puts too much traffic in residential area (1) Causes congestion on Warren Street (1) Causes congestion at Paper Mill Road end of corridor (1) Serves local traffic needs (1) Primarily serves Paper Mill Road traffic (1) Less costly 10860 D-7 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Alternative Corridor C (5) Traffic impacts on highly congested area (3) Impacts to existing and proposed residences (2) Safety issues (2) Not an acceptable solution (1) Cost (1) Doesn't meet needs of the project (1) Improvements to intersection of State Hill and Van Reed Road necessary Alternative Corridor D (5) Doesn't meet needs of the project (2) Impacts to park lands (2) Impacts to large developments (2) Preferred Existing Road Improvements Only (6) Improvements needed, but is an inadequate solution to need (3) Safety issue of existing and future congestion (2) Will serve only as an interim measure (1) Construct a ramp from Paper Mill Road to northbound Outer Bypass (1) Improve connection to Route 183 from Warren Street (1) Cannot and should not be considered 10860 D- 8 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 6. Please include additional comments and concerns. (5) Proposed project should serve regional traffic needs (3) Completion of proposed Warren Street Bypass Extension (3) Existing truck traffic and vibration on Van Reed Road (3) Completion of Road-to-Nowhere to US 422 (2) Safety impacts along Van Reed Road (2) Proposed corridor should directly tie into the West Shore and Warren Street Bypasses (1) Existing traffic along Bern Road and Lancaster Avenue (1) Impacts to WEEU Radio Towers (1) To be successful, corridor should extend to Penn Avenue (1) Paper Mill Road cannot support additional traffic (1) Area development will result in increased congestion (1) Proposed project should not be separated from overall highway improvement plans for the Reading area (1) Need a ramp connecting Paper Mill Road to Outer Bypass 1086D D- 9 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Park Road Location Study Berks County Design Location Study and Environmental Impact Statement PUBLIC MEETING #1 Public Opinion Summary 1 A public meeting was held at the Berks County Campus of Penn State University on May 17, 1989 from 6:00 - 9:30 p.m. The meeting was held to present information on the environmental and engineering design studies being conducted for the Park Road Project. During the meeting, an informal question/answer session was held and a public questionnaire distributed to solicit public concerns and responses to the studies involved with the project. The Meeting Report summarizes the concerns voiced during the question/answer period of the meeting. The Questionnaire Summary Report provides a tabulation of the answers to the six (6) questions on the Questionnaire. The following is a brief summary of the public sentiment expressed as a result of this first meeting. All attendees who expressed a concern agree that a new roadway connecting the Warren Street Bypass with the Outer Bypass is needed. However, general sentiment was that the Park Road Project should address regional traffic needs in the area. Citizens expressed concern over the current use of local roadways to accommodate regional traffic due to the incomplete nature of the regional highway network. Future implementation of the Outer Bypass Extension project to U.S. 422 and the Warren Street Extension project to U.S. 222 in Lancaster County was expressed as an important need. 12 Several complaints were made about the inadequacies of the existing local roadways including Van Reed Road, State Hill Road, Bern Road, Kissinger's li 1 1086D D- 10 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Lane and Lancaster Avenue. Opinions state that these roads are carrying high traffic volumes, due to the presence of through traffic on local roadways. Citizens who filled out questionnaire forms were asked to comment both positively and negatively on the 4 new corridor alternatives presented during the Open House portion of the meeting. Alternative Corridor A, connecting the existing Park Road and West Shore intersections with Warren Street to the Outer Bypass south of Tulpehocken Creek, was the most preferred alternative. A suggested modification to this alternative was to provide the connection directly to the West Shore Bypass at Warren Street. Alternative Corridor B, extending from Paper Mill Road interchange with Warren Street to the terminus of the Outer Bypass, is felt to serve the local traffic needs, but citizens are concerned with the congestion it may create on Paper Mill Road and Warren Street. Reasons for concern are that this area is highly developed and currently has a high volume of traffic. Congestion in the vicinity of the Paper Mill Road access to the Warren Street Bypass was a concern. Alternative Corridor C, which extends from the Bern Road interchange with Warren Street to the terminus of the Outer Bypass, is not considered by the public to be an acceptable solution to the project need. In addition, there is great concern for the residential nature of the corridor and the existing high traffic volumes along State Hill and Bern Roads. Alternative Corridor D, extending from the West Shore Bypass terminus northwest over Tulpehocken Creek to the Outer Bypass south of Route 183, is generally viewed by the public as an ineffective solution to the project need. Also, the potential impacts to residential areas and parklands are of concern. Two respondents did prefer this alternative. 10860 D- 11 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Other comments indicate that improvements are needed to existing roadways and interchanges in addition to the construction of the Park Road Corridor. Public opinion indicated that these improvements alone will not provide the long-range solution that a new corridor alignment will provide. 1086D D- 12 PARKROAD R. R R Berks County, Pennsylvania INTRODUCTION PROJECT NEED The County of Berks and the Federal Highway Administration, in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) is holding this public meeting to inform area officials and residents about the Park Road Corridor studies which have been initiated. Berks County, in cooperation with PennDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will be conducting engineering and environmental studies on alternatives for a major collector route from the Warren Street Bypass (U.$.422) in Wyomissing Borough to the Outer Bypass in Spring Township. This route is being proposed to accommodate traffic volumes from existing and proposed residential and commercial development in the area. This newsletter is intended to provide a brief overview of the proposed project studies. The Park Road Corridor is proposed to accommodate existing and projected traffic demands within the rapidly developing commercial and residential areas of Wyomissing Borough and Spring Township. This area, bounded by State Hill Road, U.S. Route 422 and Tulpchocken Creek, has been zoned for commercial and residential development and is undergoing rapid changes in land use. Existing routes to and from this area are limited in their capacity to provide safe and efficient access while maintaining current traffic volumes. According to previous traffic and feasibility studies, additional traffic volumes and new traffic patterns anticipated to result from pending from pending development will require a new four lane roadway within the developing area. The proposed Park Road Corridor will carry traffic between the major regional highways; (Warren Street/West Shore Bypasses and the Outer Bypass), and the developing area. 100 Study Area Construction of a new highway to service the area will relieve congestion on existing regional and local roadways, and improve the access patterns to pending development and existing commercial areas near U.S. Route 422. This phase of planning for the Park Road Corridor, (Design Location Study and Environmental Impact Statement) will provide the necessary preliminary traffic; engineering and environmental documentation to develop an efficient and environmentally sensitive alignment which meets the transportation needs of both regional and local traffic. Reading 400 1914 o encote D- 13 Preliminary Corridor Alternatives (183 Outer Bypass (S.R. 3055) 171XTINHOS גרגורו KILL RIVER TULPEHOCKEN ALTERNATIVE D ING CREEK ALTERNATIVE A CREEK HHH ALTERNATIVE B CACOOS 222 Van Rood Road Paper Mill Road H West 14221 222 Street Bypass State Hill Road TERNATIVEC Park Road Shore 14221 Bypass Warren Reading PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Το ensure the proposed studies are sensitive to public needs and concerns, public participation will be encouraged throughout the study process. A series of public meetings will be conducted during the major phases of the study. Results of the engineering and environmental investigations will be displayed for review and comment. Comments and concerns regarding the project alternatives will be solicited by the study team at these meetings. Newsletters will be circulated to familiarize the public with the progress and findings of the study. Your participation is important. D- 14 PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: The first phase of this study includes a Preliminary Alternatives Analysis. This analysis will evaluate a range of potential corridor alternatives for the proposed highway link as shown on the accompanying map. The purpose of this analysis is to identify and document the most feasible corridor alternatives for detailed study in the Design Location Study and Environmental Impact Statement. Alternatives will include new alignments (controlled access as well well as iimited access), improvements to existing roadways and a No Build Alternative.. This analysis will be conducted at a level of detail sufficient to substantiate the selection of a preferred corridor alternative and to meet federal and state regulations. Criteria for evaluating the potential alternatives will include: project need, engineering constraints, environmental impacts, public acceptability and project cost. The results of this analysis will determine the preferred alternative(s) for detailed study in the Environmental Impact Statement. This analysis will be documented in a Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report. . AREAS OF STUDY Preliminary Engineering Numerous federal and state guidelines have been enacted which mandate detailed studies. A partial list of community and environmental resources to be studied includes the following: During this part of the studies, project alternatives will be investigated on a cursory basis. This includes alignment studies on large scale maps and aerial photographs of the project area. Detailed studies of preferred alignments will then be completed on detailed topographic maps of the area. These alternatives will then be further refined in the Environmental Impact Statement and Design Location Study stages of the project. Population and Housing Land Use Economy and Employment Parks and Public Facilities Wetlands Floodplains Endangered Species Farmlands Historic Sites Traffic Noise Air Quality Traffic O O Traffic studies are being conducted concurrently with the preliminary engineering work. These studies are performed to project future traffic volumes and transportation needs within the study area. From this information, the needed capacity, type of facility and intersection or interchange locations can be determined. Information from these analyses will become the groundwork for more detailed design studies. Inventory and mapping of wetlands, floodplains, agricultural lands and historic sites will assist in the avoidance of sensitive environmental resources. In addition, existing and proposed land use, as well as residential neighborhoods, will be studied to identify potential impacts to the social social and economic environment of the study area. Community and Environmental Studies Investigation of natural, cultural and socio-economic resources is a critical component of any new highway project. . D- 15 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION County of Berks clo Berks County Planning Commission Suite 203, Exide Building 645 Penn Street Reading, Pennsylvania 19601 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation District 5-0 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18103 McCormick, Taylor & Associates 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 ATTENTION: Mr. L. Bert Cossaboon 569-2400 ATTENTION: Mr. Alan Piper 378-8703 ATTENTION : Jack Porter, P.E. 821-4150 or Bob Keller 791-6021 SCHEDULE TIIIIHHHHII The following schedule is anticipated for the study. Project Need/Alternatives Report Summer 1989 Initiate Detailed Studies Summer 1989 Fall 1989 Winter 1989-90 Next Public Meeting Design Location Study Draft Environmental Impact Statement Public Hearing Final Environmental Impact Statement Spring 1990 Spring 1990 Summer 1990 1 Please mail this coupon to: 1 County of Berks clo Berks County Planning Commission Suite 203, Exide Building 645 Penn Street Reading, Pennsylvania 19601 Please include my name on your mailing list Name Address City_ State Zip 1 D- 16 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. PARK ROAD CORRIDOR PROJECT BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC MEETING #2 November 1, 1989 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS A public meeting for the Park Road Corridor project was conducted on Wednesday, November 1, 1989 at the Wilson Senior High School auditorium. The meeting consisted of an informal open house conducted from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. followed by a formal presentation and question and answer period. Approximately 70 people attended the meeting. The results of the preliminary alternatives analysis were presented on display boards, including text, data matrices and maps, for the open house presentation. Representative of Berks County, PennDOT and the consultant, McCormick Taylor were available to answer questions and record comments and concerns of the public. The formal presentation opened with introductory comments by a representative of the Berks County Board of Commissioners. A recently drafted resolution by the Commissioners to aid in the funding and completion of the proposed project was read. A copy of this draft resolution is attached to this report. The formal presentation consisted of a slide presentation of the status of the environmental and engineering studies, and the recommendation of Corridor A for further analysis. A question and answer period was held following the presentation. Questions raised by the attendees during the question and answer period are listed below. COMMENTS AND CONCERNS RESPONSE 1. Will the proposed diamond inter- changes include traffic signals? There is a major through traffic there. How would access on and off the Park Road Corridor be controlled? Access would be controlled at interchanges along the Corridor. If warranted, traffic signals will be placed at ramps to diamond interchanges on Broad- casting and Paper Mill Roads. D- 17 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. COMMENTS AND CONCERNS (Cont'd) RESPONSE 2. will new Park Road connection cause increased traffic from Vanity Fair outlets onto Van Reed Road? Access to Vanity Fair outlets would be accommodated by North Wyomissing Boulevard via a new interchange with West Shore Bypass. A connection between Van . Reed Road and the proposed Park Road Corridor will be investigated in the detailed studies. 3. No direct connection from Van Reed Road. Disconnect Van Reed Road from limited access highway system. The proposed design scheme does not include a direct connection between Van Reed Road and the Outer Bypass. The need and impacts of providing access between Van Reed Road and the Park Road Corridor will be investigated in detailed design studies. 4. Pleased with progress. Work on design to allow maximum movement of regional traffic. Can traffic patterns be improved now and during the interim prior to completion of Park Road Corridor. PennDOT, Berks County and local municipalities are currently involved with a number of regional and local highway improvement projects in the Park Road Corridor vicinity. HHHHHHHHHHHH 5. Is Park Road and Wyomissing Boule-The proposed West Shore Bypass vard accessible to north and interchange with North Wyomiss- southbound traffic? Can the public ing would accommodate both comment on these designs as they are northbound and southbound developed (such as interchanges)? traffic at a diamond interchanc Public meetings and monthly Ta Force meetings are open for put ic attendance and comment on the project as it develops. Further information can be obtained by contacting the Berks County Planning Commission. 6. What will happen to existing traffic during construction? Traffic and transportation management during construction will be investigated as part of the detailed design studies. 7. Will this project occur before Completion of the Park Road and Warren Street Extension projects will depend upon availability of appropriate funding. The Park Road Corridor project is being designed to accommodate the Warren Street Extension. or after Warren Street Bypass Extension? 29991 D- 18 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. COMMENTS AND CONCERNS (Cont'd) RESPONSE 8. Would Paper Mill Road Bridge across Outer Bypass remain? Would it be part of the new interchange? An interchange connection bet- ween Park Road Corridor and Paper Mill Road is not being considered in this area. Therefore, the existing bridge would probably not be incorporated into the Park Road Corridor design scheme. 9. Tulpehocken Road residents will have impaired access. Will be required to go 2.0 miles out of the way to access Warren Street. Why not an intersection at Berkshire Boulevard? The Park Road Corridor studies address local access in the project area. Safety impacts were evaluated and weighed in the decision to discontinue direct access to Tulpehocken Road from a major regional highway interchange. Due to the topography and the constraints of the study area, an interchange at Berkshire Boulevard could not be constructed if an interchange at Warren Street/West Shore Bypass is constructed. 10. Impact to access to Berks Campus and special events at the Grings Mill Park should be considered. Up to 10,000 people may attend an event. How would access be accommodated? Need access to Tulpehocken Road. Access to Penn State Berks Campus, the Tulpechocken Creek park system and Tulpechocken Road would be accommodated from Broadcasting Road. 11. Will traffic increase on North Wyomissing Boulevard and thus cause a bottleneck? How will the proposed interchange at North Wyomissing Boulevard affect the residential community that already exists there? Need to coordinate with local residents. Proposed access to No. Wyomissing may also attract vehicles desiring access to Berkshire Mall, creating additional traffic problems. Potential impacts of the proposed interchange at West Shore Bypass and North Wyomissing Boulevard will be evaluated in terms of air quality, noise impacts, transportation and safety and local access. Measures to min- imize and avoid adverse impacts will be investigated. 12. What will happen to Railroad underpass on No. Wyomissing? Reconstruction of the North Wyomissing Boulevard interchange with the West Shore Bypass would require replacement of the existing railroad bridge over North Wyomissing Boulevard. 29991 D- 19 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. COMMENTS AND CONCERNS (Cont'd) RESPONSE 13. How is there room for 4 lanes on North Wyomissing Boulevard inter- change? Previously told there was no room. Reconstruction of approach ramps and the interchange would be designed to accommodate the required number of travel lanes. Additional concerns expressed during the open house focussed on the need for completion of the Warren Street Extension project and issues of access. An issue of great concern to the local public is the truck traffic on Van Reed Road between the Outer Bypass and Route 422 and how the Park Road Corridor will affect that traffic. Concerns expressed during the open house portion of the meeting and in public comment forms received following the meeting are summarized below. 14. Van Reed Road: A primary concern expressed involved the existing truck traffic on Van Reed Road between 422 and the Outer Bypass. Attendees expressed strong opinions against allowing this route to remain a "short cut" between 422 and the Outer Bypass. Some attendees supported the disconnection of Van Reed Road from the outer Bypass once the Park Road Corridor is completed; thereby removing the existing truck route. Other attendees supported maintain- ing access between the Outer Bypass and Van Reed Road to accommodate commuters and residents from greater Whitfield, Sinking Spring and areas west. Questions about the fate of the proposed extension of the 'Road-to-Nowhere' to 422 in Sinking Spring were raised. The level of connection between Van Reed Road and the Outer Bypass required for efficient operation of the regional and local transportation network is being investigated in the de- tailed design studies. The extension of the "Road-to-Nowhere" to Route 422 is not on PennDOT'S 12 year plan and no proposals to study this extension have been initiated. Impacts of the Park Road Corridor on traffic volumes along Van Reed Road will be evaluated in the detailed design studies. 29991 D- 20 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. COMMENTS AND CONCERNS (Cont'd) RESPONSE 15. North Wyomissing Blvd Interchange: Attendees expressed concern over Detailed engineering and the potential traffic impacts to environmental studies will be North Wyomissing Boulevard from conducted on the proposed North the proposed diamond interchange Wyomissing interchange to deter- with the West Shore Bypass. mine impacts to the residential Primary concerns included noise area along North Wyomissing impacts, pedestrian safety, the Boulevard and to the traffic and lack of existing off-street parking, transportation network. Traffic and the general impacts to the resi- analysis will be conducted at dential area which currently borders major intersections including Park a dead-end road. Attendees quest- Road and North Wyomissing Blvd. ioned whether providing access to to determine the levels of service the Vanity Fair Outlets from the West provided under the proposed build Shore Bypass via North Wyomissing condition. Boulevard would move the existing congestion of Warren Street and Park Road down to North Wyomissing Boulevard. Concern was also expressed over traffic and pedes- trian safety along roads providing alternative access to Park Road from Warren Street (i.e. Spring Street). 16. . Access to Tulpehocken Road: Local residents expressed their concern over the proposed elimina- tion of access to Tulpehocken Road from the Warren Street/West Shore Bypass interchange. Attendees expressed concern over the increased travel time and inconvenience of the proposed Broad- casting Road access point. Concerns included the loss of direct business access, school bus access and emergency response access. Additional concerns were expressed over the loss of direct access to Grings Mill County Park along Tulpehocken Creek. Evaluation of the impacts of discontining direct access to Tulpehocken Road from the Warren Street/West Shore interchange includes weighing transportation and safety benefits against loss of direct local access. Main- taining access to a local roadway directly off a highway interchange poses safety and design problems for the highway connection. Access is being maintained via Broadcasting Road. 29991 D- 21 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. COMMENTS AND CONCERNS (Cont'd) RESPONSE 17. Interchanges An additional comment was sub- mitted concerning the design of the proposed interchanges along the Park Road Corridor. It was suggested that access to and from the new corridor should not involve traffic signals and should be evaluated with use of 'clover-leaf' interchanges versus diamond interchanges. Interchange designs along the proposed corridor are being evaluated for controlled and limited access schemes. "Clover-leaf" and diamond interchange designs were evaluated. 18. Visual Resources IIHII An area resident expressed concern over the impact of the proposed roadway on the aesthetics of the existing area and view of Penn State Berks Campus. Impacts of the proposed Park Road Corridor on visual resources and aesthetics will be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement. Measures to minimize these impacts will be evaluated. 19. Traffic Impacts Concern over increased traffic The Park Road Corridor project is volumes on Route 422 west of the being designed under the Warren Street Bypass was expressed. assumption that the Warren Street Westbound regional traffic would be Extension is completed first. The directed along this 2 lane section Warren Street Extension remains of 422 if the Warren Street Extension Berks County number one priority is not completed prior to the Park highway project. Impacts to Route Road Corridor. 222 in the absence of the completed Warren Street Extension will be addressed in the Environ- mental Impact Statement. III Reported by: Maureen E. FitzGerald 29991 D- 22 PARKROAD R. R O O $ Berks County, Pennsylvania Newsletter No. 2 October 1989 SECOND PUBLIC MEETING TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 1, 1989 Results of the First Public Meeting The second public meeting for the Park Road corridor study will be held on November 1, 1989 at 6:00 p... at the Wilson Senior High School on Grandview Boulevard in West Lawn. The purpose of the meeting is to present the results of the preliminary alternatives analysis, describe upcoming events and obtain public input. At the first public meeting held on May 17, 1989 at the Berks Campus of Penn State University, important information was received from those attending. Over 50 people signed in at the meeting however, an estimated 75 persons were present. The purpose of the first meeting was to describe the scope of the engineering and environmental studies and obtain comments on the preliminary corridors under study. Comments and concerns expressed at the meeting are summarized below; An open house will begin at 6:00 p.m. with maps and exhibits on display for review. Study Team personnel will be on hand to answer questions and listen to concerns. A formal presentation will begin at 7:00 p... with a question and answer session immediately following. Study Team representatives will be available after the presentation to continue informal discussions. "The regional transportation network needs to be improved by completing the Outer Bypass." "Warren Street Bypass (U.S. 222) must be completed before the Park Road extension." "The No-Build Alternative will adversely affect Paper Mill Road as development in the area continues to generate new traffic." (190 Study Area "Corridor Alternatives C and D will not resolve the regional access need." "What degree of local access will be provided?" "Traffic problems in the in the area have been studied to death, now its time for action." Reading Survey Results des : In response to a questionnaire distributed at the public meeting. some strong opinions were identified. Of those respondents expressing a preference, 88% preferred Corridor A as best alternative to satisfy transportation needs of the area. Many survey respondents said that local roadway improvements will not address the regional transportation needs. D- 23 Results of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis The preliminary alternatives analysis is now complete. The draft report is being finalized for availability to the public; however, the preliminary findings are presented here. Preliminary Corridor Alternatives 183 Outor Bypas (S.R. 3055) VLKILL AIVER The purpose of the Alternative Analysis is to reduce the number of potential project alternatives to be considered in detailed analysis in the Environmental Impact Statement and Design Location Study. The goal of the analysis is the selection of a limited number of alternatives which have been determined to be the most feasible solutions for the project based on comparative analysis analysis of potential impacts and satisfaction of project needs and objectives. TULPE HOCKEN ALTERNATIVE D ING CREEK ALTERNATIVE A CREEK ALTERNATIVE B CACOOS 7222 The Alternatives Analysis was conducted in 2 stages. Van Rood Road peper MM Road Stroa Bypass ALTERNATIVE C Stato HM Road Park Road Shoro 220 wypus Warren Reading Stage One Stage One evaluated the ability of each alternative to satisfy the project needs and objectives. Alternatives which did not meet the project needs and objectives criteria, or which were detenined to be infeasible less desirable than other alternatives in meeting the criteria, were dismissed from further analysis. As a result of the Stage One analysis, three corridor alternatives were dismissed from further consideration. These are corridors C and D and the Route 183 Upgrade Alternative. The specific criteria for dismissal of these alternatives are presented below in the Stage One dot matrix. or PAPER CRITERIA A B C D MILL ROAD PA 183 ООО ООО ООО olo ICICI lolo LOCAL ACCESS Developing Areas From West Shore Bypass From Outer Bypass REGIONAL ACCESS Between West Shore and Outer Bypass 0 Reduces Warren Street Traffic ΟΤΟ SAFETY / COMMUNITY Reduces Congestion Preserves Community Cohesion ΠΟΙΟ LAND USE Local Plans County Plans Development Plans ΟΤΟ PUBLIC ACCEPTABILITY Public Meeting Comments OTOTO Previous Coordination ΝΑΙ ΝΑΙ ΝΑΙ ΝΑ blo lolo 8 응 ​8 OOC ololol ololo O Doos not most criteria O Partially mosts criteria 8 NA Moots criteria STAGE ONE: Project Nood and Objectives D- 24 Stage Two This alternative promotes use of existing local roadways and adversely affects local access patterns along Paper Mill Road, Woodland Road and Berkshire Boulevard. Stage Tvo evaluated the alternatives which were determined to best meet the project needs and objectives in Stage One. Stage Two of the alternatives analysis evaluated the performance of each alternative in meeting specific engineering design, environmental, and transportation planning issues. Alternatives which were less successful in avoiding or minimizing impacts to environmental resources, or in meeting engineering and transportation planning criteria, are not being recommended for detailed analysis in the Environmental Impact Statement and Design Location Study. Upgraded Paper Mill Road does not provide direct access between the West Shore Bypass and the developing area or the West Shore Bypass and the Outer Bypass. It also requires through traffic to utilize a portion of Warren Street and Paper Mill Road to make the north-south connection, thereby combining local traffic with regional traffic movements. This would adversely affect local access patterns along Woodland Road, Paper Mill Road and Berkshire Boulevard and interrupt access Berkshire Mall. This alternative has a high potential for disruption of existing residential and commercial areas along the roadway and is inconsistent with local and County land use plans. to As a result of the Stage Two analysis, two corridor alternatives were dismissed from further consideration. These are Corridor B and the Paper Mill Road Upgrade Alternative. Corridor B does not provide a direct connection between the Outer and West Shore Bypass. North-South traffic is directed along a portion of Warren Street and Paper Mill Road to make the through connection and gain access to the developing area from the West Shore Bypass. Engineering and environmental data from the Stage Two analysis is presented in the Stage Two graphic summary tables. 74 65 120 5 Paper Mill Road 2.45 3 12.5 2 2 2 0.86 2 Criteria A B Total Length 4.85 3.9 (miles) Interchange Length 2.27 1.53 (miles) Local Roadway Use 0 0.47 (miles) Traffic Signals 0 3 New Structures 6 3 Total R-O-W (acres) 140 100 1.70 1.5 6 A B PMR Acres of Farmland 0 100 0 A B PUR лвРМА A B PMR A B PUR Acres of Acres of Stream Residential Business Floodplain Crossings Displacements Displacements 0 50 STAGE TWO: Environmental Features STAGE TWO: Engineering Features Next Steps O 7" • 200" SCALE DESIGN CONTROLLED VS. LIMITED ACCESS ALTERNATES DETAILED ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES COST ESTIMATES AGENCY COORDINATION PUBLIC MEETING #3 D-25 Balancing Local and Regional Access Needs Local Access Several traffic studies conducted for the Reading area throughout the 1980's have Identified the need for completing the regional transportation network. The two highest priorities have been the completion of Warren Street Bypass (U.S. 222) and the Park Road extension to the Outer Bypass or Road-to-Nowhere. While these needs remain strong as ever, needs for new local access will continue to grow as the region develops. Local Access Several new interchanges or intersections would provide maximum local access to the existing developed areas (south of Warren Street) as well as the newly developing areas (north of Warren Street). The adjacent diagram of the Corridor A Alternative design scheme indicates new local access provisions at North Wyomissing Boulevard and the West Shore Bypass. In addition, local access would be provided from the Park Road extension to Broadcasting Road or a local road near Broadcasting Road. The exact type and location of intersections or interchanges are yet to be developed. The Park Road Corridor Location Study is currently considering both local and regional access needs. Traffic and engineering studies are now focusing on the best solutions to both needs while at the same time minimizing potential impacts on the existing and proposed developments and natural environment. Preliminary engineering studies for the Corridor A Alternative have identified several design schemes to address local and regional access. READING MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Gonoral Cart A. Spaotz Flold Outor Bypeus (S.R. 3055) 183 SCHUN KUL KILL BERN TOWNSHE Regional Access AIVEA MAPEHOCKEN PROJECT LOCATION CREEK Regional Access • A new interchange at the existing interchange of Warren Street Bypass and West Shore Bypass will accommodate most of the regional traffic movements to and from the new highway and existing limited access highway network. The regional access matrix identifies the important traffic movements associated with the Preliminary Design Schemes for Corridor A. Broadcasting Rd. CREEK Paper Mill Road 2221 SPROG TOWNSHIP IH REGIONAL ACCESS MOVEMENTS Вура READING Van Rood Road DESTINATION Marten Street (Westhound) Marten Street (fasthound) Mest Shore Bypass Warren Strook WYOMISSING BOROUGH Part Road Extension LPARK 422 222 ORIGIN Stato Hell Road Marron St. (westbound) Marrom St. (aastbound) Most Shoro Byouss Park Road Extension KIA N/A Yes Yos N/A WA Yes Ho Yes Yes NIA Yes Yes Yes Yes NA 422 Potential O Born Rond Wyo. Bundy Lshoro STAMP County of Berks C/O Berks County Planning Commission Suite 203, Exide Building 645 Penn Street Reading, Pennsylvania 19601 D- 26 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. PARK ROAD CORRIDOR PUBLIC MEETING #3 SEPTEMBER 19, 1990 SUMMARY OF ISSUES 1. The Wilson School District has begun Environmental Assessment studies for a school to be constructed at Broadcasting and Paper Mill Roads. - issues of access and safety. 2. 2. Concern with Alternate F and the Colony Park playground along Paper Mill Road. 3. Residents along Paper Mill Road especially in Colony Park concerned about safety and access. 4. Bad congestion at the intersection of Paper Mill Road and 422 (Berkshire). 5. It was said long ago that Park Road would handle the through traffic, while Paper Mill Road would handle local traffic. 6. Concern with Alternate A in regard to Kissinger Church, if Berkshire Boulevard is interrupted by the Park Road Corridor, the access to the church will be inhibited because Tulpehocken Road will also be cut off at U.S. 422. 7. Concern at Country Meadows about loss of access with Alternate A at Berkshire Boulevard. The safety of residents and increased travel time for emergency services. 8. Improvements to Berkshire Boulevard may be necessary since it is so narrow. 9. Local residents feel they can make little impact on the decision to be made. 10. Residents asked for assurance that Paper Mill Road would not become the Park Road corridor solution. 11. Agencies have more weight than public in making decisions. 12. Residents want to get involved and be heard. 13. Colony Park is planning to construct 400 additional residential units. If Alternate F is used for Park Road Corridor, it will attract too much traffic. 14. Why is an interchange at North Wyomissing necessary? 40171 D- 27 NEWSLETTER NO. 3 SEPTEMBER 19 PARKROAD R 1 D R C Berks County, Pennsylvania PROJECT ADVANCES TO NEXT PHASE Public Meeting To Be Held WEDSNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1990 Penn State University Berks Campus Auditorium 6:30 – 7:30 PM Open House 7:30 PM Presentation Results of the Second Public Meeting At the second public meeting held on November 1, 1989 at Wilson Senior High School, West Lawn, findings of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis were presented. The analysis evaluated six (6) corridor alternatives to determine the most feasible solution(s) to the project needs and objectives which satisfy engineering design, environmental and transpor- tation planning issues. The purpose of this meeting is to present the results of state and federal agency reviews of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis and to outline the next phase of the study. Representatives from PennDOT will be available to discuss the project and answer questions. Results of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis recommended Corridor Alternative A for further detailed study in the Environ- mental Impact Statement. Frequent comments and concerns expressed at the meeting are summarized below. Public Concerns 100 • Traffic impacts to Van Reed should be addressed by the Alternative. Road Build Study Area • How will access to Park Road Corridor be controlled? • Safety and residential impacts to North Wyomissing Boulevard associated with the proposed North Wyomissing interchange. Roading • Continued access to Tulpehocken Road, including Berks Campus and the County Park should be maintained. wer • Warren Street Bypass Extension (US-222) must be completed before the Park Road Corridor project. on Regional Location Map • Impacts of project of project construction traffic patterns in the area. D- 28 READING MUNICIPAL AIRPORT General Carl A. Speatz Flold Outer Bypass (S.R. 3055) 183 State and Federal Review of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis In order to provide a detailed and comprehensive explanation of the need for the Park Road Corridor project, a Project Needs Document and Preliminary Alternative Analysis was prepared. The document identified Corridor A as the alternative which best meets the identified project needs and recommended this alternative for future detailed study in the Environmental Impact Statement. Other preliminary alternatives evaluated were dismissed from further study due to their to inability to meet the project needs. . The document was approved by PennDOT PennDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in May, 1990. SCHUNKUL RIVER TULPE BERN TOWNSHP STUDY CORRIDOR HOCKEN CREEN Broadcasting Rd. AcOOSI CREEK Paper 2221 SPRING TOMISHE ng bypasy Van Rood Road READING In compliance with the Natural Environmental Policy Act and Pennsylvania Act 120, which require detailed evaluation of alternatives to a proposed federal action, the document was submitted to ten (10) federal and state regulatory agencies for review. The following concerns were expressed by the reviewing agencies: pinig wawan WYOMISSING BOROUGH 422 State Hill Road Berkshiro ROAD Bern Road 422 wyo Blvd. Agency Concern/Comments • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - EPA National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance Section The preliminary analysis does not adequately dismiss the Paper Mill Road alternative from further study. In ad- dition, a "hybrid" alternative which includes aspects of the Paper Mill Road and Corridor A Alternatives should be address- ed. • Pennsylvania Game Commission • Alternative F (Paper Mill Road) Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (Division of Rivers and Wetlands) Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Federal Highway Administration should be treated as a viable alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement. Additional alternatives should be included in the Environmental Impact Statement. • Agreed with the conclusions of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis. • Agreed with the conclusions of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis. D- 29 Additional Studies Requested TUPE HOCX The results of the federal and state regula- tory agency reviews of the Alternatives Analysis requested that additional studies be incorporated into the Environmental Impact Statement for the Park Road Corridor project. The agencies generally conclude that other alternatives besides Corridor A besides Corridor A can be and should be regarded as feasible project alternatives. CREEK Broadcnting Rd. CAFEK Paper Mill houd 2221 SPANG TOWNS PREADING To satisfy agency concerns, detailed engineering design and environmental studies on the following alternatives may be required: Van Rood Road WYOMISSING BOROUGH 422 222 • Corridor A State Hill Rond Warren Stred' 'Byousy Berkshire Blvd BRAK ROAD Byposo 1 4221 • Paper Mill Road (Corridor F] (Requested by Review Agencies) Woor shor Born Rond M Wya Bhd Corridor A • Paper Mill Road "Hybrid" Alignment (Requested by EPA) This alternative combines design features of Corridor A and Paper Mill Road. TUPES HOCK Coordination between the Berks County Commiss- ioners, PennDOT and the state and federal regulatory agencies is being pursued to resolve this issue of additional alternatives. Broadcntin, Ad. CREEK Paper Mill Road 2221 SPANG TOMS Bypang READING Van Rood Rond Anticipated Schedule of Events IIII WYOMISSING BOROUGH Waron Street 422 222 Stato Hall Rood Berkshire Blvd. ARK ROAD Fall 1990 Regulatory Agency Coordination Resolution of Requested Studies Bypass 422 sous le Barn lond Bind Winter 1990-91 :r- Detailed traffic and engi ing. design studies Corridor F Paper Mill Road (Requested by Agencies) Fall 1991 Draft Environmental Statement Impact MASHOCK Fall 1991 Public Hearing Agency Comment and Approval Rd. Winter 1991 Impact Final Environmental Statement Broadca CAEEK SPANG Tomiso Mill Road Vi bronay 2225 READING Van Rood Road Warren Street, WYOMISSING BOROUGH 422 222 State Hill hond Borkshire Blvd. PARK RONU Bypass HOOMI Short 422 born food 1. Wyo Blvd. Paper Mill Road Hybrid Corridor (Requested by EPA) D- 30 For Additional Information, Please Call: OR Berks County Planning Commission Exide Building, Suite 203 645 Penn Street Reading, Pennsylvania 19601 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Mellon Independence Center, Suite 6000 701 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 Alan Piper (215) 378-8712 Maureen E. FitzGerald (215) 592-4200 THA PARK ROAD R. O D R DO R СО Berks County, Pennsylvania STAMP County of Berks C/O Berks County Planning Commission Suite 203. Exide Building 645 Penn Street Reading, Pennsylvania 19601 D- 31 PARKROAD R D R O O C 2 Public Questionnaire July 1991 Public Meeting #4 (Please Return By August 24, 1991) 1. Where do you live? (Municipality, Town or City) 2. Which one of the alternatives do you feel best meets the needs of the area? (Please Check) IEITTHHHHHHHEE Tutochockan 183) Tugchocken 183 222 Road Rosa Tulpehocken Creek Tulpenocken Creek Popor Will Road Cacoosing Warren Sipas Cacoosing mond Ward 2 S West Short Bypar Wont Shona Spass Park Ad. Van Rood Road But Van Rood Road 123 Park Rd. Broadcasting Rd. Berkshire Blvd. Woodland Ad. Broadcasting Rd. Wyomissing Borkahko Blvd. Blvd. Woodland Rd. Blvd. N. Wyomlasing Sista Hit Rood State In Rood Bern Road Bern Rosa ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE F Paper Mill Road 183) Tuochocken 183) Road 222 222 Tulpenockon Creek Road Paper Mill Rond Paper min ros: Cacoosing JOM By op Cacoosing Bon Croek. Wost Shorobypar pot Shotspot Van Rood Road Spring $1. Van Rood Road Spring Pork Ad. Park RA Broadcasting Ra. Barkahk. Blvd. Woodland Ad Broadcasting Rd. N. Wyomissing Borkenk. Blvd. Woodland Ad. N. Wyomlasing Blvd. State M Road State Hiu Road Bern Rood Born Rosa ALTERNATIVE G Paper Mill Road with Warren Street Intersection Improvements AUERNATIVE H Paper Mill Road Hybrid Now or Upgraded Interchange D- 32 3. Do you feel that you have been given adec,jate opportunities to express your concerns about this project: 4. Please list any additional comments or concerns you may have about the study. PARKROAD R D R O C STAMP County of Berks C/O Berks County Planning Commission Suite 203. Exide Building 645 Penn Street Reading, Pennsylvania 19601 P- 33 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. PARK ROAD LOCATION STUDY S.R. 3040 BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MEETING REPORT PUBLIC MEETING #4 DATE: July 24, 1991 LOCATION: Berks County Agricultural Center Bern Township, Pennsylvania III11111 TIME: 6:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. Open House Formal Presentation The purpose of the fourth public meeting was to present the preliminary designs for each roadway alternative along with the results of the detailed environmental, traffic and engineering study. Notice of the meeting was published in the Reading Eagle Times newspapers. Information boards and maps were presented depicting Alternative F - Paper Mill Road, Alternative H - Paper Mill Road Hybrid, Alternative G - Paper Mill Road with Improvements at Warren Street, Peak Hour Volumes, Results of the Cultural Resource Studies, Project Schedule, the Project Study Process, Levels of Service, Summary of Impacts and Noise and Air Studies. A total of 64 people signed the attendance sheet at the meeting. Following the formal presentation by Bob Keller, PennDOT District 5-0 and Tom Caramanico, MTA, there was a question and answer period. During this period, members of the public were invited to ask questions. Answers to these questions were then given by the PennDOT and MTA representatives. In addition to the verbal comments received at the meeting, comments were also received from the comment forms distributed at the meeting. As of August 24, 1991, a total of 69 comment forms had been received. The responses were broken down as follows: 1. Where do you live (Municipality, Town or City)? 28 14 12 4 2 1 1 1 1 Colony Park Spring Township Wyomissing Reading West Lawn Breaknock Township Sinking Spring Lower Heidelburg Whitfield D- 34 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 2. Which one of the alternatives do you feel best meets the needs of the area? 68 0 1 0 Alternative A Alternative F Alternative G Alternative H 3. Do you feel that you have been given adequate opportunities to express your concerns about this project? 57 2 Yes No 4. Please list any additional comments or concerns you may have about the study (Responses have been summarized). . Alternative A is best for family housing, playground and children, as well as school traffic. Alternatives F and G have safety problems at State Hill Road and traffic problem at Paper Mill. How will this affect my property value? Should be left turn on Warren Street. Bypass to go to 422 North. Worried about value of property, noise fumes and about safely getting in and out of Colony Park and Paper Mill Road. There should be provisions for future traffic from Park Road Corridor to turn North on Warren Street Bypass. Route 183 is very congested now. Business/residential population will increase quickly in a couple years. We favor adding a loop to permit Park Road Eastbound traffic to go north on Warren Street Bypass. Get it done. Let's go! Do it. . 44101 D- 35 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Responses (Cont'd) Alternative F or G lower property value. Opposed high sound barrier wall. Concerned about getting the truck/bus traffic under railroad on North Wyomissing Boulevard. Worried about building Warren Street Extension while upgrading Route 222 at the same time. Eastbound traffic on the new road should have direct access to Northbound Warren Street (Should not use Paper Mill Road or 183). All truck traffic should not use Paper Mill Road. Traffic on Paper Mill Road will be devastating on the quality of life for residents. Full Speed Ahead! On A! Plans should be given to Reading Times, and Sunday Eagle for Alternatives so public is informed. 422 has to be completed also. Stone Hill Farms Residents are not aware of what's going on. I need a way to make a left turn from Berlesh Boulevard onto Paper Mill Road (VNA nurse). Will there be any relief of traffic on State Hill Road. It is already bad. Access should be provided between Country Meadows and Kissinger Church. Paper Mill Road should not be used. Concerned about safety for children at playground. Hard already to get out of Colony Park. Safety for residents on Paper Mill Road and Colony Park? Everyone's opinion counts. 44101 D- 38 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Responses (Cont'd) Keep up the progressive work, the bypass is needed. Just build Alternative A. You have had 20 years. You have four lane traffic leading to Berks County which dump into two lane road. Go with Alternative A! Get it done. - Alternative G would take less farmland and will cost less. There is a The Park Road Corridor will be unsafe for children. playground there. The Paper Mill Road Alternative will devalue homes, be unsafe, increase noise. Alternative A is the perfect solution. Alternative A is the best. Plan A is great. Remember the school being constructed by Colony Park. If Alternative A is chosen, will there be easy access to Kissinger Lutheran Church? Many early residents from County Meadows need access to the church. Harvey and Anna Gring, "want a pavement to connect with the pavement of the other side of RR Calvert ir. Berks Heights," and, "hopes my husband and I are both dead before sitting in a traffic diamond," and "if my 78 year old husband has a heart attack or nervous breakdown, I will blame the Berks County Planning Commission." (Mrs. Gring wrote a letter to Maureen FitzGerald dated September 26, 1990 which was very pleasant in demeanor. This recent comment indicates a rather dramatic shift in attitude toward the project). I don't think the state really cares. People living along Paper Mill Road should be the first priority. In summary, most respondents supported Alternative A, and many questioned why this was not already the chosen alternative. There seemed to be an approval of the fairness of the meetings and project process, however many respondents felt the process was too long and complicated. 44101 D- 37 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. William §. Flippin, Vice President WEEU Broadcasting Company WEEU Broadcasting Company strongly endorse Alternative A and is strongly opposed to Alternatives F, G And H. David F. Rick, General Manager, Tulpehocken. Ltd. Tulpehocken, Ltd. strongly endorses Alternative A and is strongly opposed to Alternatives F, G and H. Following the fourth public meeting, written comments were also received from the following municipalities: Bern Township. John L. Cox, Township Manager Mr. Cox noted that all of the alternatives pose some critical problems for Bern Township. Suggested that improvements to the intersection of S.R. 183 and S.R 3055 coincide with the completion of Park Road. Borough of Wyomissing. Borough Council. Resolution The borough council resolved to support Alternative A and oppose Alternatives F, G and H. Township of Spring. Board of Supervisors. Resolution #91-11 The Township Board of Supervisors resolved to support Alternative A and oppose Alternatives F, G and H. Following the fourth Public Meeting, five letters were received commenting on the project. These letters are suminarized below. I.F. Harrigan, Jr. Chairinan and_CEO. Horrigan American, Inc. As a representative of ARE Wyomissing Partners, owner of the Hampton Inn-Reading, Mr. Horrigan noted a strong objection to Alternative G or H. Samuel A. McCollough, Chairman and CEO, Meridian_Bancorp, Inc. Strongly opposed Alternative F and G and endorsed Alternative A. 44101 D- 38 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Peter M. Carlino. President, Peter Carlino Company Stated that although his company is opposed to any major highway development in the Park Road Corridor, his company considered alternative A the least offensive. Suggested extending the "Road to Nowhere" through Sinking Spring over to Route 222. Prepared by: take Michael for Richard A. Butala Environmental Resource Analyst 44101 D- 39 PARKROAD R R e an Extension of S.R. 3055 Berks County, Pennsylvania July 1991 Newsletter #4 Public Meeting Being Held Alternatives Considered WEDNESDAY JULY 24, 1991. As part of this project, a Preliminary Alternatives Analysis was Berks County Agricultural Center completed in January, 1990 to identify the most feasible project alternatives for detailed study. The analysis involved an 6:00-7:00 PM Open House evaluation of six preliminary alternatives against a specific list 7:00 PM Presentation of evaluation criteria which included transportation needs and objectives, engineering aspects and environmental impacts. Preliminary alternatives addressed included four on new alignment extending between U.S. 422 and the Outer Bypass, This Public Meeting is the fourth in a series of public meetings and two corridors consisting of improvements to existing local being held on this project. The purpose of this Public Open roadways oriented porth-south between U.S. 422 and the Outer House Meeting is to present the preliminary engineering designs Bypass, specifically PA Route 183 and Paper Mill Road. for each of the roadway alternatives, along with the results of the detailed environmental, traffic and engineering studies. The conclusions of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis indicated that Alternative A, a new alignment extending between Results of the Last Public Meeting the Warren Street/West Shore Bypass interchange and the terminus of the Outer Bypass, was considered to meet the The project involves the construction of a highway facility project Deed by providing an efficient regional missing link in between the West Shore Bypass and the Outer Bypass the highway system, being consistent with planned and existing (Road-to-Nowhere) in order to improve both local and regional land use and providing an effective interface between existing and local and regional transportation facilities. In addition, Alternative A was identified by the public as the preferred The third Public Meeting was held on September 19, 1990 at alternative as a result of two public meetings which addressed the Berks Campus of the Pennsylvania State University. The project alternatives, due to its reduction of regional traffic purpose of this meeting was to present the results of the State volumes using local access roadways and its avoidance of and Federal agency reviews of the Project Needs and impacts to residential areas and community facilities. Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, to outline the next phases of the study and to obtain public input. The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report was submitted to ten state and federal regulatory agencies for review. In During this meeting, Public Comment Forms were distributed response to comments provided by the regulatory agencies, in to all present. A total of 39 comment forms were retumed. Of particular the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the all the issues raised on these comment forms, the five issues Pennsylvania Game Commission, three additional build most frequently discussed included: alternatives were recommended for detailed analysis by the Department. Opposition to any alternative which uses Paper Mill Road These alternatives are to include: Alternative F · Paper Mill Road Upgrade; Alternative G - Paper Mill Road Upgrade with Safety at the Colony Park playground an improved diamond interchange with U.S. 422; and Alternative H - a Hybrid Alternative combining the West Safety and access concerns for residents who live Shore/Warren Street Interchange developed for Alternative A along Paper Mill Road with Upgraded Paper Mill Road. access. 0 Alternative A is necessary and the best solution These alternatives have been evaluated in recent technical studies and will be presented in the EIS in addition to the No-Build Alterative. Descriptions of each of the alternatives are as follows: O Access and safety concems at the site of the planned elementary school 'D- 40 Tulpehocker 183 Tulpehocken 183 227 -222 Road Tuiperbincken Creek Road Tuipelocken Creek Paper Mill Road Paper Mi Roda Cacoosing Warren Street Bypass Cacoosing Breet West Shone Lespass West Shore Bypass Van Roed Road ujio Spring St. Van Rood Road 122. Park Rd Park Rd. Broadcasting Rd. Berkshire Blvd. Woodland Rd. Broadcasting Rd. N. Wyomirning Borkshire Blvd. Blvd. Woodland Rd. Blvd. N. Wyomissing State Hill Road State Hill Road Bem Road Bern Road ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE F Paper Mill Road Tulochocken 183) Tulpehocken Roach 183) 2222 222 Road Tulpehocken Creek quipehocken Creek Paper MHI Road Cacoosing Paper MINI RON Warren Street Bypass Cacoosing reet West Shore Bypass West Shore Bypass Van Rood Road wpia Bujids Van Rood Road 422 Park Rd. Broadcasting Ad. Park Rd. Borkshire Blvd. Woodland Ad. Broadcasting Rd. N. Wyomlasing Blvd. Berkshire Blvd. Woodland Rd. Blvd. N. Wyomissing State HIII Road Bern Road State HIII Road Bern Road ALTERNATIVE G ALTERNATIVE H Paper Mill Road Hybrid Paper Mill Road with Warren Street Intersection Improvements O New or Upgraded Interchange Alternative A Alternative A consists of a new alignment extending northwest from the U.S. 422 interchange with the West Shore Bypass (U.S. 422/222) to connect with the Outer Bypass (S.R. 3055) south of Tulpehocken Creek. The proposed facility is a four lane divided highway with a 65 foot median. The existing alignments of Paper Mill Road, Broadcasting Road, and Berkshire Boulevard would be maintained. Berkshire Boulevard would be elevated approximately 10 feet to cross over the proposed mainline. In addition, a portion of Van Reed Road would be relocated eastward to connect with the diamond interchange with Alterative A. The existing portion of Van Reed Road connecting Paper Mill Road to the Outer Bypass will be abandoned in addition to the southemmost extension of the Outer Bypass. Three grade-separated diamond interchanges are proposed to provide access to North Wyomissing Boulevard, Broadcasting Road, and relocated Van Reed Road, respectively. A partial clover-leaf interchange is proposed to connect the new alignment with Warren Street Bypass (U.S. 422) and the West Shore Bypass (U.S. 422/222). The existing at-grade intersection between Park Road and the Warren Street Bypass will be eliminated. D- 41 Alternative F Alternative F consists of widening and improvements to existing Paper Mill Road from the existing interchange with U.S. 422 to the vicinity of the Outer Bypass south of Tulpehocken Creek. The proposed facility is a four-lane roadway with a center tum lane providing access to existing residential and commercial developments along Paper Mill Road. No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alterative entails no improvements to the existing highway system. Existing traffic conditions would continue and additional traffic volumes generated by new commercial and residential development in the area would utilize existing facilities. A new highway link between the West Shore Bypass and Outer Bypass will not be provided under this alternative. Three at-grade intersections are proposed to be widened with additional turo lapes at Woodland Road, Berkshire Boulevard and Broadcasting Road. Improvements include addition of double left tum lanes and right tum lanes at all four approaches at Woodland Road and at three approaches at Berkshire Boulevard. At Broadcasting Road, an additional travel lane in each direction would be provided along Paper Mill Road. A diamond interchange is proposed to provide access to the Outer Bypass and Van Reed Road at the northern limit of the alignment. A portion of Van Reed Road would be relocated eastward to connect with the diamond interchange. The existing interchange of Paper Mill. Road at U.S. 422 will provide access to U.S. 422 and the West Shore Bypass (U.S. 422/222). Summary of Impacts The following paragraphs briefly present a summary of impacts for each of the build alternatives under consideration. Described in these paragraphs are the results of only five of the many detailed environmental, traffic and engineering studies being completed for the Park Road Corridor Project. Detailed results of all of the studies will be documented in the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement. - Alternative G Traffic - Identified as one of the primary project needs, the ability of each alternative to accommodate the area's projected traffic volumes was the main focus of the traffic studies. In summary, the results of the detailed traffic analysis indicated that Alternative A best accommodates the projected traffic volumes. Alternative G is similar to that alignment described under Alternative F with the inclusion of an improved interchange at the junction of Paper Mill Road and U.S. 422. The proposed diamond interchange will provide a ramp to access U.S. 422 east from Paper Mill Road, relieving Woodland Road of this tum movement. Improvements to the existing at-grade intersection of Park Road and U.S. 422 would be implemented to accommodate the traffic volumes. Where feasible, additional left tum and/or right turn lanes will be added at Park Road and U.S. 422 approaches. With Alternative A, some minor improvements will be made to two intersections on Park Road to accommodate the changes in the traffic pattern. Additionally, with Alternative A traffic volumes will be greatly reduced on Paper Mill Road; however, some deficiencies will remain. These have been identified as separate projects to be completed as needed. Alternative H Alternative H is a hybrid alignment between Alternative A and Alternative F which provides a four-lane, limited access connection between U.S. 422/222 and the Outer Bypass. It includes the proposed interchanges for Alternative A at North Wyomissing Boulevard and Warren Street/West Shore Bypass, then turns west to join Paper Mill Road at the Broadcasting Road intersection. A diamond interchange is provided at Broadcasting Road and at the Outer Bypass. Noise - A total of 25 sensitive receptor sites primarily located at residential properties and community facilities within the project area were analyzed as part of the detailed noise studies. To determine noise impacts and any requirements for noise abatement, predicted future noise levels were compared to existing monitored noise levels as well as to PennDOT and FHWA noise criteria. The results of these studies indicate that seven sites with Alternative A, two sites with Alternative F, three sites with Alternative G and eight sites with Alternative H approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria, as a direct result of that alternative. Local access to developments along Paper Mill Road west of Broadcasting Road would be maintained by a relocated Paper Mill Road. The proposed relocation would extend directly west from the Colony Park residential area to cross Broadcasting Road 650 feet west of the existing Paper Mill Road intersection. The roadway would parallel the proposed limited access alignment of Alternative H from Broadcasting Road to the Outer Bypass. Total length of relocation is approximately 1.1 miles. Air Quality - A total of 25 sensitive receptor sites primarily located at residential properties and community facilities within the project area were studied as part of the detailed air quality studies. This analysis was based on the prediction of one-hour and eight-hour carbon monoxide concentrations which were then compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The results of this analysis were that none of the carbon monoxide concentrations at any of the 25 receptor receptor sites for any of the alternatives exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. As with Alternative A, the existing at-grade intersection between Park Road and U.S. 422 would be eliminated. Berkshire Boulevard would be elevated to cross over the proposed mainline and a portion of Van Reed Road would be relocated eastward to connect with the proposed diamond interchange at Paper Mill Road and the Outer Bypass. D- 42 Veretation and Wildlife - Aliernative A would convert 107.2 acres of vegetative cover to highway use by acquiring 29.2 acres of mixed forest, 7.3 acres of deciduous forest, 7.3 acres of herbaceous rangeland and 63.4 acres of cropland. Alternatives F and G would each convert 26.0 acres of vegetative cover to highway use by acquiring 10.3 acres of mixed forest and 15.7 acres of cropland. Next Steps The environmental, traffic and engineering studies currently underway are expected to be completed during the Summer of 1991. The Draft EIS will be submitted to PennDOT and the Federal Highway Administration for review and approval. After the Draft EIS is approved, it will be released for public and agency review. A public hearing will be held at that time to formally record all comments on the Draft EIS. After careful review of these comments, a preferred alterative will be selected and the Final EIS will be prepared. The project will then proceed to final design. Alternative H would convert 109.5 acres of vegetative cover to highway use by acquiring 30.9 acres of mixed forest, 7.3 acres of deciduous forest, 7.3 acres of herbaceous rangeland and 64.0 acres of cropland. The following is the anticipated schedule of events for the project: Typical wildlife species occurring within the proposed disturbance area of any of the build alternatives are anticipated to exploit adjacent undisturbed areas or adapt to new residential and commercial land uses resulting from pending development of the project area. Fall 1991 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Winter 1991/92 Public Hearing and Agency Comments and Approval Wetlands - No jurisdictional wetland areas were identified within the project area. Two intermittent stormwater channels were identified. One carries run-off to Tulpehocken Creek and the other drains under Van Reed Road to Cacoosing Creek. Alternatives A and H would affect the intermittent tributary to Tulpebocken Creek. Five concrete box culverts are proposed to cross this stream in the vicinity of the proposed Warren Street Bypass interchange ramps. Spring 1991 Final Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives A, F, G and H would also affect the intermittent tributary to Cacoosing Creek by the proposed relocation of Van Reed Road. Each build alternative would require a culvert for this tributary crossing. Project Team The project team includes: the Berks County Planning Commission, PennDOT, the Federal Highway Administration and McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. The Berks County Planning Commission is responsible for the overall management of the project. If you have any questions or comments about the project, please contact the following Project Team members. By Mail: Housing and Employment - The results of the preliminary engineering studies indicate that Alternative A would require the acquisition of one single family residence and one business/ commercial structure while Alternatives F and G would each require the acquisition of four business/commercial structures. Alternative H would require the acquisition of one single family residence and three business/commercial structures. It is important to note that these potential property acquisitions are based on preliminary engineering studies and are subject to change during final design of the preferred alternative. Berks County Planning Commission Exide Building, Suite 203 645 Penn Street Reading, Pennsylvania 19601 By Telephone: (215) 378-8703 Ask For: Alan Piper By Mail: McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Mellon Independence Center, Suite 6000 701 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 By Telephone: (215) 592-4200 Ask For: Richard Butala D-43 B. PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS 11 GEORGE M. LEADER FAMILY CORP. 30 CHERRY DRIVE HERSHEY, PENNSYLVANIA 17033 717-533-2474 RECEIVED FEB 21 1989 February 16, 1989 McCORMICK, TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Mr. Bert Cossaboon McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. 1617 J. F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103-2087 RE: Park Road Extension/ Wyomissing Dear Mr. Cassaboon: Please accept my apologies for not responding to your invitation to meet with you in Wyomissing last Wednesday. I was already scheduled to attend a board of directors meeting in Harrisburg that afternoon and did not realize that Mr. Piper had made an appointment for me to visit with you for the same day. Our situation is fairly easy to describe. We own 27 acres of land generally bounded by Park Road extended, Tulpehocken Road and Kissinger Lane. The land has been zoned by Wyomissing Borough for development of continuing care retirement facilities. The first of five buildings in our development opened last November. That facility, licensed for assisted retirement living, and known as Country Meadows of Wyomissing, is located on Tulpehocken Road across the street from the Berks Leisure Area of the county park. Our development plan calls for beginning construction of a retirement living facility later this year, a skilled nursing facility in 1990 and two more retirement assisted living facilities in 1991 and 1992. The first building has been open just three months but has reached 82% occupancy with over 90% of its units reserved or occupied. We have received a very good response to the rental concept of continuing care retirement, and therefore, we do not anticipate any delays in pursuing the next phase of development. Locations of all buildings at Country Meadows are shown on the Final Site Development Plan, a copy of which is enclosed. Obviously, the location of the Park Road Extension could have a major impact on our retirement community. We are located in a D- 45 Bert Cossaboon February 16, 1989 Page 2 -1 very tranquil setting across the street from an historic stream and a beautiful county park. Construction of a multi-lane expressway through or near Country Meadows would create noise and traffic that would make the area less desirable for a retirement residence or nursing home for the elderly. At the time we applied for a zoning change for this community, Wyomissing Borough did not have a zoning district for a life care or continuing care retirement community. This district provides for the continuing care of elderly persons from independent or congregate living arrangements to skilled nursing care all at the same location. Continuing care permits people who need short-term rehabilitative care in a nursing home to get that care in the same community where they live without leaving to go to a long-term care facility or rehabilitation hospital. To deprive citizens of Wyomissing and surrounding communities of this beautiful environment for retirement living as well as the opportunity for development of the full range of continuing care facilities would be a step backward. 111111 If you would like to visit Country Meadows I would be glad to make arrangements. I can be reached at (717) 533-2474, and look forward to speaking with you. Very /truly yours, Michail Llade G. Michael Leader President GML: jsd CC: George M. Leader Alan D. Piper Enclosure D- 46 TULPEHOCKEN. LTD. 2650 WESTVIEW DRIVE WYOMISSING, PA 19610 (215) 678-2 426 May 30, 1989 JUN 1 1989 County of Berks c/o Berks County Planning Commission Suite 203, Exide Building 645 Penn Street Reading, PA 19601 ... دندن palaa Berki Douuty Attention: : Mr. Alan Piper Re: Park Road Corridor Study Gentlemen: We believe that the Park Road Corridor Study should focus on both local and regional needs. Regional needs might be better served with the completion of the outer bypass (Road to Nowhere) to Routes 222 and 422, as originally planned, but this does not appear to be financially feasible. Tulpehocken, 'Ltd. owns property in the area where corridor alternatives are being considered for the connection between the Warren Street Bypass and the Road to Nowhere. With regard to our property, we desire that the consultant's evaluation of alternatives: Allows us to retain the most usable portion of our property for future development. Places any corridor recommendation involving our property along the borders of our property rather than through the center. Considers alternative A over alternative B to the extent that the above desires are met. Yours truly hilo Ruck David F. Rick General Manager R:k D-47 MURRY & SIONEY NOBLAUCH, INC. 215 376.4821 REALTORS 619 Walnut Street · P. O. Box 1699 • Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 November 2, 1989 REL LIVEC NOV 6 Mr. Alan Piper c/o Berks County Planning Commission Suite 203, Exide Building 645 Penn Street Reading, PA 19601 1989 Praulisy Connubion Beto Cavalli Re: Park Road Corridor Study Dear Mr. Piper: I attended the November 1, 1989 Park Road Corridor public meeting and commend the participants for their efforts to-date. I also have the following observations and comments to make after hearing a portion of the discussion and seeing the existing proposals. I believe it is very much the responsibility of the County to expand the "study area" in three ways: A. Geographically. If the Park Road Corridor is to function as a connector road for regional traffic, it seems both the regional and local traffic patterns and flows must be thoroughly considered. It appears that, at this time, the traffic impact analysis really is focused too narrowly on the "study area." I note the following points in this regard: (1) Closing westbound Van Reed Road at or near Paper Mill Road as Van Reed Road comes off the Road to Nowhere will have the effect of redirecting regional north to south traffic onto the Park Road Corridor. Under the present Alternative A, which appears the most reasonable of those under-cons 10- eration, traffic exiting the Park Road Corridor can encounter three major problems : j (a) Inner regional Berks County northbound Rt. 222 traffic must enter the Rt. 222 (Warren Street) 7 ? By-Pass from the Park Road Corridor through what appears to be a maze of local roads surrounding the region's busiest retail district near Berkshire Mall. What a nightmare this could become for local traffic and for regional transport distributing goods or services in the county after traversing what should be the region's primary arterial system. I na Greater Reading Board of Rolltore Fennsylvania Realtors Association National Association of Reei Estate Boards e international Council of Shopping Centers D- 48 Mr. Alan Piper November 2, 1989 Page TWO If we want the local by-pass system to serve as an efficient distributor and attract highspeed, through-traffic away from the local roads, thereby unburdening them, the Park Road Corridor must provide direct limited-access connections to at least Route 222 north and south and to Route 422 east and westbound. Curile it (b) Southbound Rt. 222 traffic traveling from the Road to Nowhere will now all be funneled onto Rt. 422 westbound in back of Berkshire Mall. Where will it go? clearly, the Rt. 222 Warren Street extension to Lancaster Avenue will be that much more important to complete once the pa Park Road Corridor is in place, and especially if Van Reed Road is closed to through traffic (southbound Rt. 222 traffic from the Road to Palopeta Nowhere can now proceed along Van Reed Rd. to the intersection with Rt. 724 in Sinking Spring and then along Rt. 724 to Lancaster Avenue). Para od one with it cavit (c) Westbound Rt. 422 traffic traveling from the Road to Nowhere will now all be funneled onto Rt. 422 Westbound in back of Berkshire Mall. It will exit the by-pass onto Rt. 422 business ? ? in the 2000 block of Penn Avenue, near Victor's Cafe. How can we contemplate adding to Penn Avenue traffic in the area between the 2000 block of Penn Avenue and the sinking Spring Borough Hall? Perhaps the old plan of another link to connect the Road to Nowhere with Rt. 422 west of Sinking Spring needs to be considered. This by-pass could be located north of the existing Van Reed Road in the direction of the Cacoosing Creek, or as a spur off the extended Warren Street By-Pass. I envision the spur passing through Spring Township, from perhaps Gouglersville into South Heidelberg Township, to intersect Rt. 422 in the vicinity of Wernersville or Robesonia. Time horizons. build or rebuild the central traffic distribution Berks County is studying how to panne i point in its region. A long-term planning view No se (cloring bone ) B. 11.,' D- 49 Mr. Alan Piper November 2, 1989 Page Three must be taken. I, personally, think whatever new traffic hub is designed should be expandable to meet traffic demand projected over the next 20 to 40 years. The roads for 2010 and 2030 need not be built today, but it would be wise to reserve rights of way and easements for them. In this regard, the County must: Tappet (1) Locate the new hub at a spot where expansion is possible. I am afraid that the existing intersection at Park Road and Warren Street really does not allow enough room for future growth in traffic and roadways. Isn't there vacant and available land north of the current Rt. 222/422/Park Road intersection on which to locate a cloverleaf? ،، . ، . / ای alia t, 1. * به ، و ..) بر ۲۷۹م :: ropané 1 Sii, avand • (2) Look at increasing the cost of the project in order to secure satisfactory future development It would be unfortunate to duplicate (ul.kino darbams rights. ,,nud! riamo vivace port the kind of mistakes made with Rt. 22 near ܝܪ ind rf...! ! in cours ri Allentown and with the Route 422/202 inter- section by not designing now to accommodate traffic growth. slim Disruption to Berks County_traffic during construction. Can you imagine the nightmare which would be caused by tearing up the existing intersection at Rt. 422 and Park Road? Remember the problem encountered when they did minor and short-lived repairs there to add a strmo turning lane and relocate the ramp. Magnify those problems by 1) an extended duration for doing repairs, 2) more road relocation than was done previously, and 3) increased vehicular traffic counts between 1988 and 1995. :'. Digging up that intersection seems vaguely like taking the heart out of an individual. The patient (Berks County) might survive for a short while, but only with major emergency procedures to keep the blood (or traffic) flowing through alternative arteries. How long would Berks County be without a functioning central redistribution point for traffic? D- 50 Mr. Alan Piper November 2, 1989 Page Four It is 자 ​Isn't there a nice open field north of the current Rt. 422/Park Road intersection on which a new and spacious interchange could be built with less disrup- tion to the traffic and life of Berks Countians? Thank you. Sincerely, Jul Joel P. Knoblauch JPK/jev cc: Joseph E. DeSantis, Esq. D- 51 LAW OFFICES ROLAND & SCHLEGEL RONALD C STANKO COUNSEL A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOYERTOWN 627 NORTH FOURTH STREET 367 4384 PO BOX 902 TELEFAX 372-5957 DAVID H ROLAND RAYMOND C SCHLECEL JOHN W ROLAND CRECORY C HARTMAN MARY M BERTOLET. DAVID S DICKEY EDWIN L STOCK JEFFREY F DORKO ANTHONY R DISTASIO FRANCIS P FITZSIMMONS EDWARD M COLLINS, 11••• READING, PENNSYLVANIA 19603.0902 (215) 372.5588 TELEX 847033 PRO AM •ALSO MEMBER FLORIDA BAR . ALSO MEMIER EV YORK BA •••ALSO MEMBER NEW JERSEY November 20, 1989 Joseph E. DeSantis, Esquire 708 Centre Avenue P.O. Box 14926 Reading, PA 19612-4926 Re: Park Road Corridor Fox Theatres Dear Joe: Our client was very much disturbed by the fact that while being listed on the Agenda for the November 15th meeting of the Park Road Corridor Task Force, he was not able to have his presentation made during the course of the meeting. Nonetheless, many of the members and representatives of the Task Force remained after the meeting, listened to the presenta- tion and indicated that they would explore the alternatives sug- gested by Fox in reference to shifting the interchange at Warren Street to the east. Since we expect a further report on this matter at the December 20th meeting of the Task Force, we are again requesting that we be placed on the Agenda for that meeting. In addition, we are asking and expect that Mr. Fox and his representatives will be able to make a presentation to the Task Force during the course of its meeting on that evening. Very truly yours, ROLAND & SCHLEGEL, P.C. Jan Raymond c. $chlegel RCS.cp/L37 CC: Donald Fox, President . Melvyn B. Jacobson, R.A. Robert B. Ludgate, P.E. David J. Roy, P.E. D-52 LAW OFFICES ROLAND & SCHLEGEL RONALD C STANKO COUNSEL A PROFESSIONAL CONSOMATION BOYERTOWN 367.4384 627 NORTH FOURTH STREET P.O. BOX 902 TELEFAX 372-5957 DAVID H ROLAND RAYMOND C SCHLECEL JOHN V ROLAND CRECORY C. HARTMAN MARY M. BERTOLET•• DAVID S DICKEY EDWIN L. STOCK JEFFREY F. DORKO ANTHONY R. DISTASIO FRANCIS P. FITZSIMMONS EDWARD M. COLLINS, 11••• READING, PENNSYLVANIA 19603-0902 (215) 372-5588 TELEX 8A7033 PRO AM •ALSO MEMIER FLORIDA JA •ALSO MEMBER NEW YORK w . ALSO MEMIER NEVJERSEY me November 20, 1989 Secretary of Transportation Department of Transportation Transportation and Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Re: Fox Theatres Gentlemen: We are attorneys for Donald M. Fox and Fox Theatres. Donald M. Fox is the owner of a property in the Borough of Wyomissing, Berks County, Pennsylvania which may be impacted by the Warren Street interchange of the proposed Park Road Corridor. on This letter is to place on the record the request of our clients to the Department of Transportation that a public hearing be held in reference to the Park Road Corridor at which our clients would have an opportunity to present evidence and argu- ment relating to the adverse impact that the proposed Warren Street interchange of the corridor might might have the Fox property. We understand from information that we obtained from the Park Road Corridor Task Force that such a public hearing is to be scheduled. Nevertheless we want by this letter to register the request of our clients that such a hearing be held at which they will have an opportunity to present evidence and argument in reference to the corridor Project and particularly the Warren Street interchange. We assume that this letter will be sufficient to assure that such a hearing will be held. If, however, anything further is required on the part of our clients in order to be absolutely certain that it will have an opportunity to present evidence and argument relating to this matter, I assume that you will advise me, D- 53 II Secretary of Transportation Department of Transportation November 20, 1989 Page 2 I would appreciate your acknowledging receipt of this letter and confirming that a hearing will in fact be held and that I will receive appropriate notice of the same. I Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, ROLAND SCHLEGEL, P.C. Senand mand. Sellegal Raymond d. Schlegel RCS.cp/L37 cc: Joseph E. DeSantis, Esquire Chairman of Park Road Corridor Task Force Donald Fox, President Melvyn B. Jacobson, R.A. Robert B. Ludgate, P.E. David J. Roy, P.E. D-54 LAW OFFICES De Santis, Schmehl & De Santis JOSEPH E DOSANTIS PETER W SCHMEHE BLAINE J DESANTIS 708 CENTRE AVENUE P. O. BOX 14926 Reading, Pennsylvania 19612.4926 LAWRENCE J. VALERIANO JA JAMES W. BENTZ THOMAS S. MELON November 21, 1989 TEL: 215-376-7252 FAX: 215-375-2076 IN REPLY REFER Howard Yerusalim, Secretary of Transportation Department of Transportation 1200 Transportation & Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Dear Sir: I received a copy of a letter addressed to you by Raymond C. Schlegel, Esq., on behalf of Fox Theatres. In response to that letter, I wish to advise, as you undoubtedly know, that the Task Force has had two public hearings, at which time the public was invited to attend. At neither hearing did the Fox people appear. They have been given every opportunity to present whatever they wished at the public hearings. They were fully aware of the public hearings, because their representative attended each of the Task Force meetings. They requested an opportunity to appear before the Task Force and did appear at the last meeting of the Task Force and they and their consultant were turned over to the Task Force consultant and have been permitted to present their suggestions to the consultant. The consultant will report to the Task Force on December 20. They have asked to appear before the meeting of the 20th of December and they will be given an opportunity to present whatever they wish at that time. Fox is not the only person impacted by the suggested align- ment. There are two other property owners, both of whom are in the process of trying to develop their properties. The importance of a quick resolution, obviously, is self-evident. As chairman of the Task Force, I want to thank you, on behalf of the residents of Berks County, for the courtesies extended to us at the last meeting and I sincerely hope that the Department will find some way that the rights-of-way may be acquired before construction commences. Sincerely, Joseph E. DeSantis JED/ sd CC: Park Road Corridor Task Force D-55 RECETEO PESA, CERT. CA TRA!!S. JUL 1 3 1990 SECRETARY'S OFFICE July 12, 1990 Wyomissing, Pa. fil EK:20 Pehhsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Box 1026 Harrisburg, Pa. 17108 Dear Exective Director, I am writing to you as an older citizen of Berks County 'to express my deep concern about the preservation of an important historicalarea here in our beautiful and historical county. As a young lady I walked with my grandfather and listened to his wordsalomg the banks of the Tulpehocken and Cacoosing Creeks. He told me what his father told him where and Indian village used to be near where the Tully and schuykill River come togheter. He helped me gind Indian arrowheads and caves whre the Indians hid things. Now the State is building one new road--Paper Mill--throught the land and wants to spend millions more to run aoother called Park Road corridor alng side it. This will ruin not only the land but the beautiful countba park and the historical land and breaks. I am old now and live in Wyomissing for years. I am even afraid to sign my name as the local boro and county politicians are pushing this great injustice and will be angry ith people who oppose them. Please do something for coming generations. They will have one new road--how many do they need thourgh one piece of lanc Don't let them destroy our heritage plus spend many millions that can do alot of good in better needed ares of our great county and state. A sincere Berks Countian. Thank you. copy to Pa. Sec. of Highwaya Gov. Casey US Dept. of Transportation D- 56 Sept. 26, 1990 Mr. Alan Piper Berks County Planning Comm. Exide Bldg., Suite 203 645 Penn St. Reading, Pa. 19601 3 uc Dear Mr. Piper: Please be advised, that after attending the last open meeting regarding the Park Road Corridor, I am strongly opposed to the Hybrid Corridor and Corridor F. I am in favor however, of Corridor A. I am a resident of Colony Park and we have been locked in with the State Hill Road traffic jams and the added traffic on Paper Mill Road due to the additional commercial buildings that have been constructed in the area during the past 10 years. Where was EPA, Penna. Game Comm. and the Penna. DER when all this land was being sold in such huge quantities to commercial ventures and thus disturbing the beautiful country side and habitats, etc.? Now, with their suggestions regarding the above proposals, I feel, they are way out of line, with the human element involved. I am referring to the residents of Colony Springs, ColonyPark, Stone Hills and Spring Township in general. Why is it the above named agencies are disregarding the sug- gestions of Penn DOT, County Commissioners, Vanity Fair Corp., Spring Ridge officials, Penn State officials and the Park Road Corridor Task Force? Is this another hopeless effort on the part of all those involved parties? Another point I would like to make, is the fact that there is a playground that is used very frequently near Paper Mill by all residents of Spring Township and a proposed elementary school being planned near Paper Mill Road also. With this in mind I do hope these agencies would reconsider. Where do we go from here? Sincerely, Donald A. 2. alitan Donald A. Wojton cc: Sen. David J. Brightbill Rep. John Davies Berks County Commissioners Spring Twp. Manager D- 57 Я . wite Wefan cering 2O /۶ . yomederity Aped St; 1201061, . I Jau Cung Sept 26, 1940 1357. Neyoncusu Wagomering Po Hyuncusing Dear Manteen, Thank you son much for all the in i format son sent 다 ​to see regarding oun nome and the Zeučeni hitme inskred in beny the no, Wyrmurring Br. Interchange. considerate to all during the iljen & Ce peen fronte o meeting Pepet af Penn state arad We leie hare 22 years it i litee living the country . Try hershax montré v lish love weet home forniture, thedonecpcorn des botigurien it comes to cleaning too Corner to drittores grikoa Put übrate the throngat of ficuratirea arc.--Ekeri domne and most Iarse 74 aud prong On page The bottom para-graph states private dint drive " there is a (moase.) have To ssa an ۔ nere tyre on the South & Weat four komi This is not a private erine We have a map of Rurke. Ngan; Boxo toote before it gomoving . Ngts Berke Nyti cite Welone This wereld be a né a liton tip tref it has never been wpisteria cicznes officially; Scalle de wizu8 10 t the Bette Dace ca to years ago Br avec Awil aafeccé if They to la sit. I verinotti с due to pay the academy who use led it. I knora ) Kapre 11e Arte the continud v'den the cm Ceritöil couli, Cereticie 2nd St quite often te tereer trieches. beint Where we have two4.--pi: con we gefuncted and pretty bas I call the Bore Stall and they tliten stons on or octope t Thank you aquin for - bering me nice te keo tud muslitusiy all the sixto Te both strage it all Suice اور اس کا انکار کر دی تان را کنار * ۶(.. acesta Harvey of the papers csa mätoke and . Going D- 58 3 rec BERKS COUNTY October 3, 1990 OF COMMERCE Mr. Alan Piper Berks County Planning Commission Exide Building, Suite 203 645 Penn Street Reading, PA 19601 OCT? 1990 Dear Mr. Piper: We support the construction of a limited access highway to connect the Road to Nowhere directly into the West Shore Bypass with an interchange on the Warren Street Bypass. This road is essential to the completion of a regional network of highways in and around the Reading area. This road will ease traffic congestion and improve safety for residential areas that are adversely affected by a daily invasion of through traffic. Corridor A is the only option that meets the needs for the community and the region. Paper Mill Road should remain available to carry local traffic in an area of rapid development. Corridor F is out of the question because of noise, pollution, safety hazards, and accessibility problems it would cause for residents of Colony Park. Also, Corridor F does not meet the need to get traffic off the Warren Street Bypass 'since travelers would have to use it to get to the West Shore Bypass. We understand the concerns of the agencies for preservation of undeveloped land. This parcel has been part of the Tulpehocken Farm for decades and everyone in the area could enjoy the beauty of rolling hills in a pastoral setting. But that is not the case anymore. That property is now available for private or public development. It is a prime location for a variety of uses and development will happen quickly. This is our last opportunity to build a highway that is sorely needed. We do not want to waste any more time and money studying alternatives that are not acceptable. Corridor F and any hybrid plans that use portions of Paper Mill Road are not acceptable and do not warrant further study in our opinion. Sincerely, Arun W. tilbplus Anthony Guinn Plane Brian W. Gallagher Chairman, Tranportation mmittee Anthony F. Grimm, Pres. Berks County Chamber of Commerce John W. Roland Chairman of the Board State Legislators representing Berks County ACCREDITED CMANOER OF COMMERCE D-59 PO BOX 1698 READING PA 19603.1698 OFFICE 645 PENN ST PHONE 215.376.6 porten LAW OFFICES De Santis, Schmehl. De Santis & Essig 708 CENTRE AVENUE PO BOX 14926 Reading, Pennsylvania 19619.4926 JOSEPH E DE SANTIS PETER W SCHMEHL BLAINE J DeSANTIS PAUL T ESSIG LAWRENCE I VALERIANO, JR JAMES W BENTZ THOMAS S MELLON TEL 215-376-7252 FAX 215-375-2076 Cctober 24, 1990 IN REPLY REFER COL VED OCT 31 1990 John Hanosek, P.E. Assistant District Engineer Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering District 5-0 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, PA 18103 MCCORMICK, TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Dear John: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter I received from Mr. Rick. Sincerely, days Joseph E. DeSantis JED/ sd Enc. 3 D-60 TULPEHOCKEN LTD 2650 WESTVIEW DRIVE Julia WYOMISSING PA 19610 OCT 1990 | 12151 678.2426 NOCORTI AND ASSCÚnic, NO 5: October 18, 1990 Joseph E. De Santis, Esq., Chairman Park Road Corridor Task Force 708 Centre Avenue Reading, PA 19601 Dear Mr. DeSailtis: We understand the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has suggested that the Park Road Corridor utilize the existing roadbed of Paper Mill Road as the main connector. However, we are aware of the proposed course of this road which does not follow Paper Mill Road east of Broadcasting Road, but instead winds across the middle of our property. This will adversely affect the value of our remaining property, and interfere with our future plans. Apparently the E. P. A. contends their plan would have less impact on the environment. We do not believe this will be the case, when all necessary access roads are built to reach various sections of the remaining property. We are very much opposed to this alternate Park Road Corridor route. Sincerely, Mounted fok Rick David F. Rick General Manager R:k D- 61 Peter Carlino Company November 5, 1990 Joseph E. DeSantis, Esquire Chairman Park Road Corridor Task Force 708 Centre Avenue Reading, PA 19601 Re: Park Road Corridor Dear Mr. De Santis: I understand in conversation with Dave Rick of Tulpehocken Ltd. that there is some talk of re-routing the Park Road Corridor along a line that would bring it close to the rear of our Stone Hill Farms community in Spring Township. As you know, I am most unhappy about the taking of our Seven Oaks property in Wyomissing. But I took some solace in the awareness that the road would run along the Penn State property line and be as far removed from our two residential projects (Stone Hill Farms and Seven Oaks) as possible. While I am still convinced that the Park Road Corridor as conceived is unnecessary, if it must traverse the general area selected by the Park Road Task Force, it belongs as far away from existing residential development as possible. I can assure you that the hundreds of people who have purchased our properties in Spring Township and in Wyomissing will heartily support my position. Would you please do whatever you can to discourage any notion of moving the Park Road Corridor southward? Sincerely, the Canna Peter M. Carlino President PMC/cmw no Con Street P. O. BOX 957. Reading, P.1 1960; ! 151307800 D-62 Ic clina C RECEIVE Philip D. Rowe, Ir. VEL HY o AUG 1 2 1991 موتی مگر MCCORMICK, TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES, ENC RECÉ I V E B PEMA. DEPT. OF TRANS.- EIVE JUN 2 4 1991 June 21, 1991 SECRETARY'S OFFICE T-1/9 9 Honorable Howard Yerusalim Secretary of Transportation, Pennsylvania 1200 Transportation & Safety Building Harrisburg PA 17120 Dear Mr. Secretary: As Chairman of the Reading Regional Airport Authority, I wish to thank you and your Department for your recent funding approval for our four projects 117-91-1-1 thru 4-1, totaling, $1,140,000.00. Our entire Reading region sincerely appreciates the support we continually receive for transportation projects from your's and the Governor's office, both aviation and otherwise. I also write to you on my own behalf and, as a current member of the Berks Planning Commission and former Chairman of the Berks County Park and Recreation Board, to encourage your good offices in the pressing need for construction of the Park Road Corridor and the Warren Street, Route 222, South, connection. I do hope, however, that you and your staff continue to study the Paper Mill Road Hybrid Corridor requested by the United States EPA as a viable option (copy enclosed) for the Park Road Corridor. As you may know, I live on a working sheep farm on Tulpehocken Road by the Tulpehocken Creek, adjacent to Berks County's major park preservation area, the Berks Campus of Penn State and in the impacted study area. To encroach on this area with the plan suggested by the Review Agencies (Corridor "A", copy enclosed) would create a second major road within a few hundred feet of the recently upgraded, newly constructed Paper Mill Road. In addition, Corridor "A" would traverse the open area abutting the Berks County Tulpehocken Creek park area and entail an enormous additional and unnecessary money cost. The U. S. EPA "hybrid" alternative addresses all of these issues by using upgraded Paper Mill Road to Broadcasting Road and then veers northeast to the intersection of the U. S. Route 422, Warren Street By-Pass. The "Hybrid Corridor" would also move the road noise and air pollution further away from the Tulpehocken Creek park area and the beautiful Penn State Campus. The reduction in environmental damage and cost savings by using the EPA "hybrid" corridor would be substantial. P.O. Box 6387. 906 Penn Aveniie Winmiecina on inconnnnn D- 63 Honorable Howard Yerusalim Page Two June 21, 1991 Why build another parallel roadway that will create more drainage of salt, dirt, etc. into one of the finest regulated trout streams and public park areas in Pennsylvania? Noise would be substantially mitigated by using the "hybrid" corridor, " particularly at the Penn State academic area and the Park area where many outdoor concerts and events are held. Present park users and bird watchers could continue to enjoy the peace and quiet with which they are so accustomed. Residential impact by the "hybrid" corridor is at a minimum. Once again, Mr. Secretary, I respectfully request the Department's on-going review and support of the Paper Mill Road "hybrid" corridor as the most realistic and environmentally sound connector route for the Park Road Corridor construction. Best wishes! Cordially, Phil home Philip D. Rowe, Jr. PDR/kla enclosures 1. 屋 ​D-84 . WEEU 85AM STEREO பராகம் -1111 READING BERKS SOMEPLACE SPECIAL July 25, 1991 Mr. P. Thomas Barilar P.E. District Engineer Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown PA 18103 Dear Mr. Barilar, WEEU Broadcasting Company is in its 60th year of operation as a locally owned company serving Berks County. The WEEU broadcasting towers and transmitter are located on a 50 acre parcel of land immediately adjacent to the proposed Park Road corridor. As an operating broadcasting business and land owner we wish to make the following points regarding the various Park Road corridor alternatives: WEEU Broadcasting Company strongly endorses Alternative A. This alternative has the least negative impact on our property and our ability to service our equipment and to conduct our business. WEEU Broadcasting Company is strongly opposed to Alternative F since this alternative presents serious obstacles to our ability to service our equipment and therefore operate our business. The prospect of high volumes of traffic, much of it regional in nature, passing the only point of access to our transmitter is not acceptable. When grade signalized intersections which we understand will have very low levels of service are added to this condition, we can envision a situation in which emergency and repair vehicles would not be able to enter our property in a timely way. WEEU Broadcasting Company is part of the Emergency Broadcast System. As such and in the interest of our FCC mandated service requirements, it is imperative that we have uninterrupted access, twenty four hours a day, to our broadcasting facilities so that in the event of an emergency such as a lightning strike, mechanical or electrical failure, we can make necessary repairs and return to the air as soon as possible. 9 WEEU, 34 N. Fourth St., Reading, PA 19601-3996, (215) 376-7335 FAX (215) 376-7756 We are strongly opposed to Alternative G since we fail to see how this alternative would improve the situation described above enough to lessen our concerns. We very strongly oppose Alternative H since it deprives us of all access to our property and would, in effect, require WEEU to cease broadcasting. Perhaps this was an oversight in the design of alternative H but it seems to us that any plan for other access would be disruptive to our equipment on site and therefore our operations. I trust that our concerns will be given appropriate consideration and that WEEU Broadcasting Company can continue to serve Berks County as an important information source and employer. Your consideration is appreciated. Sincerely, William H Flemmin H William S. Flippin Vice President CC: Mr. Allen Piper Transportation Planner III Berks County Planning Commission Mr. Thomas Caramanico President McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. D-68 Meridian Bancorp, Inc. Meridian ازي نه .،،،،،...، م ،باا... به July 25, 1991 1 + Mr. P. Thomas Barilar P.E. District Engineer Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, PA 18103 Dear Mr. Barilar: I am writing to you as Chairman and CEO of Meridian Bancorp, Inc., an $11 billion asset bank holding company headquartered in Reading, Pennsylvania. As you may know, in May, 1990, we complet- ed construction of our Spring Ridge operations and data processing facility, a 400,000 sq. ft. office complex costing approximately $65 million. The total property owned by Meridian at Spring Ridge comprises 80 acres with approximately 1,000 feet of frontage on Paper Mill Road, which provides our primary access via the inter- section of Paper Mill Road and Meridian Boulevard. The planned Park Road Corridor is of great interest to us due to its proximity to our property. This important regional highway link, which has been in the planning stages for many years, will be a key contributor to the future development of the Spring Ridge complex and adjoining parcels. We understand that a public hearing was held yesterday to consider alternative alignments for the Park Road Corridor. We strongly endorse Alternative A as this will have the least nega- tive impact on our property and our ability to conduct business. We are strongly opposed to Alternative F since this alterna- tive presents serious obstacles to our ability to operate our business and to the safety of our employees and customers. The prospect of high volumes of traffic, much of it regional in nature, intersecting with Meridian Blvd, without the major recon- struction and signalization of that intersection raises access and safety issues not adequately addressed by this alternative. D- 67 Mr. P. Thomas Barilar, P.E. District Engineer Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 2 July 25, 1991 We are further concerned with the level of service which is projected for all of the intersections with Paper Mill Road. It is very important to our company's operations that employees are able to move about the area of the Meridian Center in a timely fashion. We are also strongly opposed to Alternative G since we fail to see how this alternative would improve the situation described above enough to lessen our concerns. We find Alternative H also not acceptable. While this alternative resolves the concerns which arise with Alternatives F and G, it does so in a manner far less preferable than Alternative A. Access to our property under this alternative would be less straightforward, and our ability to expand the Meridian Center would be compromised as substantial amounts of our land would be taken or rendered undevelopable. We would appreciate your taking into consideration our strong endorsement of Alternative A during your deliberations concerning the review of the alternatives presented. If you would like to discuss our position in greater detail, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Hanurl a. Iu Callenge a In- SAM/ cas Cc: A. Piper T. Caramanico D- 68 TULPEHOCKEN. LTD. 2650 WESTVIEW DRIVE WYOMISSING. PA 19610 (215) 678-2426 July 25, 1991 Mr. P. Thomas Barilar P. E. District Engineer Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, PA 18103 Dear Mr. Barilar: We have extensive land holdings in the Park Road Corridor area which are currently in agricultural use. However, various public plans describe alternative ultimate uses as follows: The Berks County Comprehensive Plan 2010 states: "Medium to high density growth should be encouraged in these areas to reduce the amount of land necessary to accommodate future growth." Current Spring Township zoning designates the majority of this property as "Planned Office Business. The relatively high density of planned development reflected in these public documents, both County and Township, has been recommended to conform with development goals in the Reading metro-urban core, as well as for preservation of the rural nature of the larger community. The reaction of Tulpehocken, Ltd. to the proposed alternatives reflects the above assumptions, as well as a desire to see these goals accomplished with a minimum of adverse taking of property. Therefore, Tulpehocken, Ltd. strongly endorses Alternative A. This alternative provides a regional highway connection while minimizing the taking of developable property by following the existing property boundary with Pennsylvania State University. We oppose Alternatives F and G. Based upon the proximity of existing uncontrolled access along Paper Mill Road, similar access must be assumed for the Tulpehocken, Ltd. property. Given the projected high volumes of traffic for a regional highway facility, there is a conflict between published plans for this area and the ability to safely access these two alternatives in conformance with those plans. Tulpehocken, Ltd. strongly opposes Alternative H. The relocation of Paper Mill Road, combined with the expressway development, appear to require more land for highway development than Alternative A. At the same time, the combined projects bisect the Tulpehocken, Ltd. property both north and south of the Paper Mill D-09 Mr. P. Thomas Barilar P. E. Page Two July 25, 1991 Road Interchange. This alternative provides no discernible advantages compared to Alternative A, while imposing substantially higher land use burdens. Tulpehocken, Ltd. strongly opposes any highway project proposal which requires such onerous land consumption, regardless of current or future land use. Yours fruly, David F. Rick General Manager R:k cc: Mr. Allen Piper Berks County Planning Commission Mr. Thomas Caramanico, President McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Joseph E. De Santis, Esq., Chairman Park Road Corridor Task Force D- 70 官 ​Peter Carlino Company July 29, 1991 P. Thomas Barilar, P.E. District Engineer PA Dept. of Transportation 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, PA 18103 Re: Park Road Corridor Dear Mr. Barilar: Our company has been involved with extensive development in both the Borough of Wyomissing and in Spring Township in the area of the proposed "Park Road Corridor". Though we have long been opposed to the development of any major highway construction in that area, having looked at the various alternatives it is clear that the original plan, i.e. "Alternative A" which brings the roadway along the property boundary between Tulpehocken Ltd. and Penn State is the least offensive routing. Any plan that would bring traffic closer to either our Stone Hill Farms development in Spring Township or our Seven Oaks community in the Borough of Wyomissing would be highly offensive in every respect to the many people who own homes there. The noise and resultant pollution would dramatically decrease home values. The same can be said about any notion of bisecting the residential communities of Colony Park and Stone Hill Farms along the existing Paper Mill Road. Again, this type of routing is clearly not in the best interest of the many existing residents of that area. You can assume that we would able to organize "wild" opposition to any effort to move the proposed roadway location nearer to any one of these communities. In this regard you can be assured that I am writing on behalf of both the Seven Oaks and Stone Hill Farms Homeowners' Associations for whom we are managing agent. Each group asked us to address this matter at their annual meetings. In summary, I would prefer no roadway at all that would connect the Road to Nowhere with the Warren Street By-pass at this location. My personal preference would be an extension of the Road to Nowhere through Sinking Spring over to Route 222 at a point well south of the city. But if a connection must be made in the proposed area it is clear to virtually everyone that I have spoken with that "Alternative A" places the road location where it will harm the fewest number of people. a 500 Court Street. P.O. Box 957. Reading, PA 19603 (215) 376-1807 D- 71 I trust that you will take our comments under consideration since we are expressing these views on behalf of more than 250 homeowners in our existing communities and the growing number of office users in our Wyomissing Professional Center as well. . I would be happy to speak with you further if that would be helpful or appear at any public meeting to clarify our position if requested. Sincerely, The Cashing Peter M. Carlino President PMC/cmw cc: Allen Piper, Transportation Planner III, Berks County Planning Commission Thomas Caramanico, President, McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Joseph E. DeSantis, Chairman, Park Road Corridor Task Force D- 72 Horrigan American, Inc Flying Hills Corporale Center #6 • PO Box:13428 • Reading, Pennsylvania 196 12-3428 • 215-775-5199 July 31, 1991 Mr. P. Thomas Barilar P.E. District Engineer Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, PA 18103 Dear Mr. Barilar: ARE Wyomissing Partners is the owner of the Hampton Inn-Reading, located at 1800 Papermill Road in Wyomissing. American Real Estate Investment and Development Company, a subsidiary of Horrigan American, Inc., is managing general partner of ARE Wyomissing Partners and another subsidiary, American Hotel Management, is operator of the hotel. The purpose of this letter is to express our endorsement of Alternate A for the proposed Park Road Corridor. In particular, we would like to note a very strong objection to either Alternate G or H, both of which would reroute all regional traffic onto the local street (Papermill Road) on which the Hampton is located. While convenient access is important to our hotel, the traffic congestion and safety issues will make doing business on Papermill Road much less attractive, and indeed, inconsistent with the regional plan in place at the time we had chosen to locate the Hampton on the corner of Papermill Road and Berkshire Boulevard. As we understand the issue, the purpose of the proposed Park Road Corridor is to move regional traffic through the Reading and Wyomissing areas. Using Papermill Road to move this regional traffic would not appear to address the issue. With the amount of development taking place in the area of the Berkshire Mall, Berkshire Blvd., and Spring Ridge, any solution other than Alternate A would be unacceptable. We trust that as you go through your planning process and evaluate the available options, it will become apparent that Alternate A is the only solution which will address the traffic needs of this area. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Vanja KF. Horrigan, jos Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer cc: A. Piper T. Caramanico AMERICAN EQUIPMENT LEASING • AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORP. • AMERICAN LEGAL FUNDING • AMERICAN MUNICIPAL FUNDING • AEL HOLDINGS, INC. AMERICAN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CO • AMERICAN HOTEL MANAGEMENT, INC. • HORRIGAN AMERICAN SECURITIES, INC • BUSINESS OUTLET D- 73 C. PETITIONS pro Amos y 200 il OS 600 (339) KATHERFX oricilar Ritter v Porter e Please udwene MIA. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATE: Harrisburg, PA 17120 November 13, 1991 Berks County S.R. 3019, Section 001 Petition to Save the Stoltzfus House SUBJECT: TO: Mr. P. Thomas Barilar, P.E., District Engineer Engineering District 5-0 Allentown, PA For DEPT. C, 1: .ت یہ راہ Fred W. Bowser, P.E., Director delſ llogaritet Gazete FROM: Bureau وا We are enclosing a copy of an October 18, 1991 letter from the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission ( PHMC) concerning the Stoltzfus House. The Stoltz fus House is identified as the Marshall House in the Determination of Effect Report and by PHMC letter dated April 11, 1990 was determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The October 18, 1991 PHMC letter concerns a petition from the descendants of the Stoltzfus family to preserve the Stoltzfus House. The petition should be considered in the decision of a preferred alternative for the subject project. Please proceed accordingly. Enclosure CECO 1991 4320/GCF(7-3511) / seg cc: Ma Linizi Anco MES W. W. Rober, 1113 J. Porter, District 5-0 R. J. Keller, District 5-0 G. C. Fawver, P.E., 1113 D-75 Making It Happen COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION BUREAU FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOX 1026 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-1026 October 18, 1991 Fred W. Bowser, Director Bureau of Design Department of Transportation 1118 Transportation & Safety Bldg. Harrisburg, PA 17120 .4.ing P.::M8w Es Number Re: ER 87-0354-011-K Berks County S.R. 3019, Sec. 001 Park Road Corridor Extension: Petition to Save the Stoltzfus House Dear Mr. Bowser: The Bureau for Historic Preservation has recently received a petition from the descendants of the Stoltzfus family. We have been requested to pass this document on to your office for action. The property in question was reviewed by the Bureau as part of the Park Road Corridor project and was listed as the Marshall House in our April 11, 1990 letter. The Bureau determined the structure eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Please keep us informed of any action on this property. ITIIII If you need further information in this matter please consult Susan M. Zacher at (717) 783-8946 or 783-8947. Sincerely, Theutur.can Kurt Carr, Chief Division of Archaeology & Protection cc: D. Suciu, PDOT, Bur. of Design KC/ smz D-76 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION BUREAU POR HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOX 1026 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17106-1020 April 11, 1990 Fred W. Bowser, Director Bureau of Design Department of Transportation 1118 Transportation & Safety Bldg. Harrisburg, PA 17120 ivi VF53 Re: ER 87-0354-011-0 Berks County S.R. 3019, Section 001 Park Road Corridor Study Determinations of Eligibility Dear Mr. Bowser: The above named project has been reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation (the State Historic Preservation Office) in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980, and the regulations (36 CFR Part 800) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. These requirements include consideration of the project's potential effect upon both historic and archaeological resources. It is the opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer that the following properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places: 1. Gaul, A. District, North Wyomissing Blvd., Wyomissing: this property meets Criteria A and C as an example of a early 19th century residential property associated with the Union Canal. 2. Marshall House, westside of Tulpehochen Rd., Wyomissing: an intact late 18th century house possessing good integrity, it meets Criterion C. 3. Van Reed Paper Mill, Van Reed Road, Spring Twp.: this property meets Criterion A and C, as an intact example of a rare industrial complex. 4. Janessen Historic District, between Tulpehocken & Papermill RUS., Spring Twp.: This property meets both Criteria B and C, as a well preserved example of a 19th century farm and for its association with Henry Janssen, a local progressive farmer of the 19th century. 5. Van Reed, Mary House, Tulpehochen Rd., Spring Twp.: this property meets Criterion C as a well preserved example of a vernacular Georgian style farmhouse and 19th century farmstead. 6. Van Reed, John House, Van Reed & Tulpehocken Rds., Spring Twp.: this farmhouse meets Criteria C as a good example of a 19th century vernacular, Georgian style farmhouse. D- 77 II Page 2 F. Bowser April 11, 1990 . It is the opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer that the following properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places: IIII 7. Deppen/Shirk Farm, Broadcasting & Papermill Rds., Spring Twp.: already determined not eligible on 7/20/88. 8. Conrail Railroad Bridge, northeastern end of North Wyomissing Blvd., Wyomissing: historical/architectural significance not proven. 9. Bridge Pier, near intersection of Van Reed & Tulpehocken Rds., Bern Twp.: loss of integrity, historical/architectural significance not proven. 10. Kissinger Barn, Tulpehocken Rd., Spring Twp.: loss of integrity of feeling and association, historical/architectural significance not proven. 11. Union Canal section, Bridge Pier, southwest bank of Tulpehocken Creek, Wyomissing: Toss of integrity of design, materials, feeling and association. 12. Gring House, 283 Tulpehocken Rd., Spring Twp.: loss of integrity of design, materials and workmanship, historical/architectural significance not proven. 13. Farmhouse, 276 Tulpehocken Rd., Spring Twp.: loss of integrity of materials and design, historical/architectural significance not proven. 14. Kissinger Church District, Kissinger Lane, Spring Twp.: loss of integrity of materials and design. 15. Wertz Property, Tulpehocken Rd., Spring Twp.: historical/architectural significance not proven. Because your request on the 15 properties along North Wyomissing Blvd. do not include sufficient information, we are unable to proceed with our review. In our opinion there is an eligible National Register Historic District in Wyomissing although the district boundaries have not been identified. We cannot complete our review until a district boundary visit has been made. If you wish to accompany us on the site visit please contact Susan Zacher. If you need further information in this matter please consult Susan M. Zacher at (717) 783-9920. Sincerely, ter Brenda Barrett Director cc: D. Bachman, PDOT, Bur. of Design BB/smz D-78 " سے ھے 1. Local survey organization BERKS COUNTY CONSERVANCY 9. tax parcel number/other number [118] [ 4 118 4.50 U.T.M. asting PETÍNSYLVANIA HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY FORM BUREAU FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION Box 1026 PA HISTORICAL & MUSEUM COMMISSION Harrisburg, PA 171 20 8. property owners name and address Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Schlegel, Tenant Tulpehocken Road Wyomissing, PA 19610 1 County 5. picoont namo 10. Zond 11. status (other surveys, listo rec.) 4,4,6,71120 Berks northing usgs sheet: Reading 19. original use 12. classification sito ( ) Structura ( ) Object ( ) building X) district ( 13. date(s) (now determined) c. 1790 14. period 1750-99 15. stylo, design or folk type Colonial German Ag 20. presont uso Res 16. architect or onginoor 17. contractor or builder 18. primary building mat./construc. 21. condition Stone 22. integrity B B. 23. sito plan with north arrow DegKoad Taipehocken creek 2. municipality 6. other name historic namo Il onyt Wyomissing Sith . wypanjant. . 24. photo notation EB 51: 26 25. filo/location ВСС 26. brief detription (noto unusual feature, integrity, environment, thron and InociOES. DUTICINO) 18th Century stone house along Tulpehocken Creek at By-Pass intersection. Three bay house with asymetrical window spacing and tiny upstairs windows, end chimneys, paneled shutters, whitewashed rough stone walls. (continue on back if necessary) 27. history, significanco ond/or background Property was patented to Anthony Morris in 1744. In the mid-1800's, it was owned by the Kissingers and was along the Union Canal. This appears to be the oldest house in the vicinity. More research needed. Tulpehocken Road 3 stroot address or spocilic location 28. source of information (continue on back If necessary) 29. prepared by: P. Hopkins Berks County Atlas 4. Survey codo (Continue on DACH !! nocossary) Computer Coding (BHP Survey Grantow Must Completo) rovision() 30. do 1987 31. county O 32. stylo :) 02 01 32. construction material 34. root 04 35. design type 36. historic function 0_2 0 2 01_: 37. construction fostura 200 02 ; 38. ext. walls 39. plan 02 10. tocado widen 3 11. root material 27 011-WY-56 - 42. storio D 43. depth 100. 200. 300 400 M. ext. design as. int. design D-79 Berks من مناشدت س , CONSERVANCY • 360 OLO MILL ROAD OCT 17 1991 HISTORIC PRESERVATION SING PENNA 19610 - PHONE (215) 372:992 10-10-9/ Susan facher, hetica 2 Enclosed Pinad petitions and information about the Stollyfus House Cooperation between appar izanitaire and Pennbat to have the house will be apprenated. Perhaps You ment and copies of this ar Esenda linformation to the Thank you, Louise Emery HELPING TO PROTECT OUR OPEN SPACES, FORESTS, WATERWAYS, FARMLAND. AND HISTORIC SITES C THE STOLTZFUS PriviLY Welce! 11.15 COOK would not be complete withoui mentioning some oline background Oline Stollztus ancestors As we look over the index we lind inere are more Stollztus names inan any other names. As far as we can learn, all the people having the Sioliztus name in the United States, are descendants of Nicholas Stolztus, who came from Zweibrucken. Ptaliz, Germany, on the ship Charming Polly, controlled by Captain Roben Poner boarded with 181 passengers, and landed at Philadelphia on Oct. 18, 1766 He located with his family near Sinking Springs in Muhlenberg Twp.. Berks Co., Pa., where he occupied a large tract of land later known as King's Tract, and was divided into four large farms Tradition handed down from a granddaughter Catherine, who was married to Jacob Steinman, says that on the day of her grandfather's luneral, they carried him on a bier to a quiet resting place on his larm. They all proceeded on fooi a distance of about two miles along the south bank of the Schuylkill River. They lorded the river at a shallow point known as Cross Keys. A 1. Nicholas Stoltzius, son of Christopher Gottleib Stoltzius. d Nov. 10, 1774. m Katharina Bermann, d June 11, 1781. Children: Christiana Dec. 23, 1736, Aug. 24. 1745; Catherine b Aug. 24. 1745, Elizabeth b Aug. 1747. Christian (A2). Barbara (A 104). Daniel 6 July 28, 1753: Nicholas b Sept. 9. 1755; Magdalena b Oct. 10. 1757. A2 Christian Stoltzius (A1) 6 Aug. 10. 1749, d 1832, farmer, m May 4. 1774. Catherine Garber, 6 Jan. 28, 1749. d May 18, 1783. OOA, Bishop. 1800. Children: John (A3). Jacob (A45). Christian (A59): m2 1785, Elizabeth (King) widow of Samuel Lanız (dau of Samuel King. pioneer immigrant of the King family). Children: Anna (A95). Barbara (A 101). Abraham (9056). David (7800). Fanny (5636). Catherine m Jacob Steinman; Elizabeth m Andrew Miller, Solomon dy; Magdalena dy. Elizabeth's first husband was Samuel Lanız, son of Hans and Anna Maria Lanız ol Berks Co. They had two children: John b Jan. 15, 1779. m to Madeline Steeley, who died leaving no children. John m2 10 Anna Glick of Allensville. To them were born ten children. Anna died and is buried near Allensville, Pa. He then moved to Juniata Co., where he died in 1862, and is buried in the Amish cemetery near Thompsontown. The second child of Elizabeth and Samuel was Samuel Lanız, who married Magdalena Fisher, dau of Christian Fisher (1). After ine second marriage of Christian Stoltzius, he moved with his family to Lancaster Co., on the farm south of Bareville where John L. Stoltzius now lives. There he served as Bishop of the Amish churches of that locality. He died in 1832 and is buried in Myers cemetery. A3 John Stolizlus, Sr. (A2) Bareville, PA, 6 Feb. 1776, July 28, 1857. m Veronica King. d 1827 (sister to his father's second wife, dau of Samuel King. pioneer iminigrant) OOA, Minister 1805, succeeded his father as Bishop. 1808, in which office he labored until his death in 1857. For about the last seven years of his life he was unable to walk, but still took part in the church sermons. Children: Christian (A4). Anna (A 13). Elizabeth (A23). John (A33). Samuel (A40). Leah (A44); m2 Catharine Unsechar (maiden name unknown; came to this couniry with her one child, Catherine, who married John Petersheim) d 1866. (Most of the children of this family were born on the farm nonn of Intercourse where Jonas King now lives. From there they moved to the farm owned by Omar Beiler, the former Christian Blank farm, near Bareville). A4 Christian Stoliztus (A3) Intercourse, PA. Aug. 2. 1797. d July 19. 1873, farmer, m Mary Summers (Peter and Sarah Yoder Summers). Children: John S. (A5). Samuel (A9). Mary (A10). Fannie (A 11). Catherine (A12): m2 to a Widow Blank. AS John S. Stoltzius (A4) Concord, TN. 6 Feb. 14. 1825, a Sept. 18, 1902, larmer, m Nov. 1849, Elizabeth Stoltzius (A50) b Aug. 24, 1828. d Feb. 24. 1899, AM. (John S. Stoltzius migrated on Mar. 5. 1899, from Lancaster Co., Pa., to Knox Co, Tenn. John and Elizabeth were the first couple by the name of Stoltzius to be married together.) Children: Levi (A6). Christian M. 6 Oct. 6. 1855, Catharine (A7). Jonas S. d Dec. 2, 1897; Mary 6 June 17, 1859, Elizabeth Nov. 3. A& Levi Stoliztus (A5) Concord, TN, 6 June 11. 1852. farmer, m Mar. 31, 1893. Barbara Wenger (Noah and Sarah Wenger) AM. Children: Clarence Milford b Jan. & 1894; Dora Mae b Oct. 11, 1896; Ephraim Levi b April 3, 1898; Frederick Walter b June 7, 1899. A7. Catharine Stoltzius (A5) Concord, TN. O Nov. 23, 1857. m Feb. 1. 1877. Levi B. Hertzler, 6 April 13, 1850. d Dec. 14, 1927 (Isaac and Mary Kanagy Henzler) U.S. mail carrier. Children: Mary Elizabeth m Tobias Hershey, Ida Edith b Jan. 11, 1879, Isaac Truman b Sept. 14, 1880, John Eugene b Mar. 8. 1884, Melvin Levi (A8). Millord Roy b June 15, 1897. A& Melvin L. Hertzler (A7) 6 Mar. 21, 1894. m Dec. 10, 1924, Susanna Shenk, 6 Oct. 16, 1898, d May 5, 1935 (Daniel and Matilda Shenk) Menn. Children: Daniel Levi o Oct. 19, 1925; Katherine Ann b Apr. 22, 1928: Truman Ray (2466). Paul Melvin 0 Sept. 8. 1931: Mnha Carol b Dec. 15, 1933. A9 Samuel Stollztus (A4) d 1866, m Mary Esh. Children: Rachel (4536). Katie U. (4538). Amos E. (4608). Leah m to a Fritz. A 10 Mary Stoliztus (A4) 6 Sept. 28, 1834. d May 10, 1925, m Dec. 10, 1863, Jacob Riehl. 6 Mar. 20, 1836. d Nov. 10, 1869 (John and Esther Esh Riehl). Children: John mi Lydia Stauffer, m2 Emma Knopp: Levi (5844), Jacob b June &. 1869. A 11. Fannie Stoliztus (A4) m Doc. 25. 1861. John Riehl 6 Apr. 5. 1838, d Mar. 22, 1929 (John and Esther Esh Riehi). Children: Christian (9644), Jonas m Laura Weaver. A 12 Catherine Stollztus (A4) m Peter Esh, from Germany. Children: John; Christian: Mary (607). A13 Anna Stoliztus (A3) b 1799, d 1870, m Christian Petersheim 6 1797, o 1831 (George and Christina Nissley Petersheim, pioneer emigrant of this family) Amish. Children: John (A 14). Christian, cripple, 6 Nov. 4. 1826. Feb. 3. 1892, Samuel (A 17). Leah (A 18): Abraham (A 22). A 14. John Petersheim (A 13) Mascot, PA, 6 July 24, 1823. d Sept. 12, 1893. m Catharine Unscchar, b 1821. O 1901 (only dau of immigrant Catharine Unsechar who married second to John Stolizlus, A3). Children: Nancy (8668). Christian (A 15). A 15. Christian Petersheim (A14) Mascot. PA, 6 Feb. 13, 1854. d Nov. 4. 1929. farmer, m Dec. 7. 1875. Sarah Diener, 6 Dec. 11. 1850, d April 2. 1905 (Andrew and Fannie King Dianer) OOA. Children: Katie D. (7886). Andrew o Dec. 1. 1877. d Mar. 26, 1895; Fronica b June 18, 1879. O June 17, 1941; Mattie (7648). John D. (A 16). Christian D. (7892). Sarah (8497). Annab Aug. 4. 1887. d Dec. 28, 1887. Eli (9273). Rebecca (6101). Malinda (2534). A 16. John D. Petersheim (A 15) Lancaster, PA. O Mar. 2. 1882. d Oct. 8. 1938. farmer, m Susie A. Weinhold. 6 June 2. 1884. d Jan. 19. 1961 (George Weinhold) OOA. Children:Katie b July 6, 1906, d June 15, 1970. Mary (7958). Annie (2534). Sarah o Mar. 28, 1911: Christian U. (1322). Rachel (4787). Fannie (1870). Benjamin (1359). Malinda b Nov. 10, 1921. d Feb. 21. 1922: Susie (1927). Emmab Aug. 6. 1924: Susie m2 Nov 11. 1947. John B. Lapp (1291). A 17. Samuel Petersheim (A 13) Bird-in-Hand, PA, O Mar. 26, 1828 d Aug. 19. 1915. Tarmer, m Dec. 12, 1850, Barbara Lapp (A46) 6 April 27, 1837, 0 Oct. 3. 1900, OOA. Children: Michael b Dec. 20, 1851, Feb. 3. 1859. Nancy (8906). Rebecca b Nov. 16, 1856, d Mar. 3. 1862: Barbara (9028). Samuel (1631). Christian L. (6460). A 18 David Schmucker (A 106) Gordonville, PA, 1 Aug. 10, 1831. d 1898, larmer, m Lean Petersheim (A 13) Gordonville, PA. b Nov. 24. 1829. O Aug. 5. 1883. OOA. Children: Christian (A 19). Eli (8541). Nancy (A20). Rebecca (267). Barbara P. (A21). Lean b 1867, Nov. 28, 1952: David P (3004). Samuel P. (1615). A 19. Christian Schmucker (A 18) Lancaster, PA, 6 May 27. 1853. d Aug. 10. 1896. m Jan. 9. 1877. Lydia Riehl, 6 Dec. 23, 1852, d Sept. 30. 1940 (David and Barbara Diener Riehi) OOA. Children: Annie R. Nov. 24. 1878, O Jan. 20, 1963; Barbara R. (7380). A20 Samuel H. Beller, son of John and Lydia Herizler Beiler, 6 June 12, 1857. o June 3. 1917. m Nancy Smucker (A 18) b Aug. 31. 1859. O Aug. 26, 1896, OOA. Children: Mary S. (8756). Leah S. 6 Jan. 3. 1883; Daniel S. (3963). Annie S. (7946). Drusilla S. (7958): m2 Dec. 22. 1903. 385 D- 81 25 Midway Road Bethel 19507.97 1/19/91 by Dear Louise : d reluctant ll Enclosed find Petitions to save the Nicholas Soltyfur House. I have 204 signitures: Howard Stoltzfur still has Petitions and will be giving them directly to you. Also Edward Stoltyfus in tellingeove has not returned any yet. Although I spoke to Edward this past week and he doesn't have very many signers The Amish in that area are very to sign any petitions . Edward has asked me to try me to try and set up a meeting with you a myself to discus new approached to saving the house. Will you please call me and we will , try and work something out. Edward will be in this area on Lat Feb 9, 1991 if that date is ok with you may be he won't have to make a special trip to the area. It would have to be late afternoon on evening. Have there been any developments from Hanrisbung? ? will be waiting for your Inicely Sandra Kauffman u cael. P.S. note my new address above! D-82 Now, ic, ii 76 î c Dear Louise nuar that une I'm writing this letter to you because I heard that the stwithfus family himester in Reading is being torn down, of think and hope that they should preseme it. After all isn't it a piece o of Berks County history, Å know that if ald homestead I'd really my feel sad! I hope for the Stoltyfuses sake that they ? will preseive it instead of tearing it down! Fencerening Shriley Begect RO # Zleetwood, fags ' 195 I D- 83 EDUARD A. STOLT-E15 F=015 VOEMSER 9, 1997 R.D. 130 X 208 } SELINSGROVE,Pa. 17870 LOUISE EMERY MEMBER: BERKS COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY BERKS COUNTY CONSERVANCY PINE GROVE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 1649 GARFIELD AVE. VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS WYOMISSING, PA. 19610 AMERICAN LEGION SONS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION DEAR MADAM, I HAVE RECIEVED A COMMUNICATION RELATING TO THE HISTORICAL NICHOLUS STOLTZFUS HOMESTEAD IN THE READING AREA , AND WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRIBU A FEW ITEMS WHICH MAY HOPEFULLY SHED SOME LIGHT ON THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS ANCESTRAL HOMESTEAD, WHICH I UNDERSTANDABLY FEEL TO BE WORTHY OF PRESERVATION YOU WILL NOTE THE ENCLOSURE ABOUT CHRISTIAN STOLTZFUS IN THE AMERICAN REVOLI ION AS BEING POSSIBLY UNUSUAL FOR THE STOLTZFUS NAME AND THE TYPICAL TRADITIONS THAT HAVE BECOME ASSOCIATED WITH IT FOR A LONG TIME. THERE ARE HOWEVER ALWAYS EXCE TIONS TO TRADITIONS THAT HAVE BY WHATEVER MEANS BECOME OBSCURE T* ONES VIEW. THE MATTER OF CHRISTIAN STOLTZFUS HAPPENS TO BE ONE OF THOSE EXCEPT 5.IF I MAY EXPI IN. RECENT INTENSE STUDIES INDICATE THAT THE RAMIFICATIONS OF" RIOT DUTY"WERE NOT SO SHARPLY DEFINED AS ONE MIGHT BE LED TO BELIEVE, BY SOME R · ORIC THAT HAS BECOME CUSTOMARY IN SOME CIRCLES. ANYONE WHO MADE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CAUSE IN ? REVOLUTION BECAME ELIGIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION AS A PATRIOT.SUPPLYING HORSES AND WAGONS, FOOD OR MEDICAL AID, OR ANY OTHER LOGISTICAL SUPPORT, MADE THE PERSON ELIGII FOR THE STATUS OF "PATRIOT". IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO HAVE BEEN A SOLDIER OR COMBA'. ANT, ONLY TO HAVE BEEN A SUPPORTER OF THE CAUSE. THIS GENEROUS INTERPRETATION STILI PREVAILS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE MEMBERSHIP QUALIFICATIONS OF THE S.A.R. ANI THE D.A.R. BOTH OF WHICH ARE HIGHLY REGARDED FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS , FUNCTIONING WITHIN MANY LOCAL CHAPTERS THROUGHOUT THE STATES. THIS WOULD BE ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE HOMESTEAD SHOULD BE PRESERVED, HAVING BEEN ALSO THE HOME OF AN AMERICAN PATRIOT; "CHRISTIAN STOLTZFUS", SON OF NICHOLUS STOLTZFUS THE 1766 IMMIGRANT. IT WILL BE NOTED THAT ON PAGE NINE OF THE PHOTO COPIES OF "REVEALED LIFE OF NICHOLUS STOLTZFUS" THAT THE RESEARCHER(ISAAC MAST) STATES THAT THERE ARE NO TAX LISTS OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS FOUND OF NICHOLUS STOLTZFUS FROM 1766 TILL 1770. THI: MAY BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY AN OLD LEGEND WHICH TELLS THAT THEY FIRST SETTLED IN BERI COUNTY IN 1766 (MOST LIKELY ON RENTED LAND) AND LATER MOVED TO LANCASTER COUNTY, BI IN 1770 RETURNED TO BERKS COUNTY AGAIN, WHICH IS DOCUMENTED BY THE ISAAC MAST RES. EARCH ON PAGE ELEVEN OF THE PHOTO COPIES WHERE THEY ARE SHOWN (FATHER & SON) AS BI OF LEACOCK TWP.WHICH IS IN LANCASTER COUNTY, PA. SLIGHT DIFFERENCES IN THE SPELLING OF THE NAME MAY BE OBSERVED THROUGHTOUT DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED. IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORICAL PRACTISE OF THE TIMES, THESE SHOULD CONSIDERED INCONSEQUENTIAL AND MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO MATTERS OF LITERACY BY ANY O: THE PERSONS CONCERNED; THE IMMIGRANT , CLERKS AND OFFICERS OF THE COLONIAL SYSTEM AI THE ALWAYS PRESENT DIFFERENCES OF LANGUAGE AND CULTURE, BY WHICH A SPOKEN WORD WA: NOT ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD IN THE SAME WAY. I TRUST THIS MAY BE HELPFUL, IN PRESENTING TO THE PENNA.HISTORICAL AND MUSEUI COMMISSION A PERSUASIVE PRESENTATION OF THE REASONS WHY THIS HISTORICAL HOUSE SHOULD BE FOUND WORTHY OF THEIR BEST CONSIDERATION IN BEING PRESERVED FOR THE BENEFIT OF POSTERITY. IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE THAT I CAN DO, PLEASE ADVISE. . MOST SINCERELY, EDWARD A. STOLTZFUS Ecklicia Edua Startseite D- 84 PE T I TI ON We, the undersigned, feel strongly that everything possible should be done to save the home of our immigrant ancestor Nicholas Stoltzfus. We believe that it is historically important to preserve this home located in present-day Spring Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania, for future generations. Knowing and preserving our heritage is important to our future. 1: سے ھے furt W Slothfus 2605 Main ST MOKGANTOWN , PA 19543 1755 let viste se totiztus 2374 bouquieu Du 10 wana FA 12393 Stephen & osh 2655 Valley Law Norganito e , ft. 2394 Bergpriew Ar lassen #17539 Jesse & Stoishun Jancest. Suitfres 31 Kennlig Red Conestoga, rit 17516 s Stult Animal Antitrous is 5_pluswity Au New Holland 24 5 plumestay AJ a the 15 Kimalay Adam Lake 15 Buidway Ate Mbultetland Three Siteyteen rar R 4, Box 314 Honey Srok fff 19344 Residth 2- RDy Honey Breck pot 14344 2.64 Bar 34 Horey Burk, PA 19344 2825 best food, Morgantown Pa, 19943 Khoda most R885 Best och longestun, felgy} 2825 Koio Putersten R21 Bursa Morgantan 19543 De Nor Halland PA 17557 1955 Kri Hans Stultifile Hubert & mast 21 D- 86 7 Ρ Ε Τ Ι Τ Ι Ο Ν We, the undersigned, feel strongly that everything possible should be done to save the home of our immigrant ancestor Nicholas Stoltzfus. We believe that it is historically important to preserve this home located in present-day Spring Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania, for future generations. Knowing and preserving our heritage is important to our future. باد کہا جا Chail Se Martin Jacob Is Beila , John in Berlu : و" بن" مهند PA, م، مم بر 3 / متر ( Christian B. Rake siphineine Pf. Kurye PA 19535) Interamere PA 17534 tintiverense Eaunie Yeter 34 Lezen té feresusce PA 1753 familie free 3140 million-service Andrea K Hesetbegyen 31419 brisktan ka societat 115 odd Learnehled, Garlanelle of Sodis Stoltsfus Isaac L Salinfos از # / 175 195 نننننن نی i: trit! David 2. Stelty 2 د بی کے مہ و انا ومره نه و 77 Lena سلطفل می . در مهم / الجاف : م . في ا 88 م PETITION We, the undersigned, feel strongly that everything possible should be done to save the home of our immigrant ancestor Nicholas Stoltzfus. We believe that it is historically important to preserve this home located in present-day Spring Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania, for future generations. Knowing and preserving our heritage is important to our future. زر نيك معضلا '766 Mye storam 17067 Pa. 170 Richey were , , Rad*, BoxTHE, Bethel, la 19507 Hinnale B feste 8709 bollege & Mysten ta 17007 by the sea quae 72001. Collegio dt. 23, perbinte, 370 King st. nye Julia K. Left valecame Pejza Prof Tapp 1346 Rautrice Hill, Magestaan lio east Kaistview ko Stephen & Ch 297 1. College lite myentown Pa 17067 Rachel L. Esh 792 7. College St. Mayerstown Pe.1706 Coul Etilshomor 530 S. Roihool St. Mfustanpa 11067 trei 3. šolitikas 42.žt; R.D. Mayerstius. Oz!. Iran y Kapp face Salam E. Thi & Thity for futh £ Imiker z Lý z % Ramona Rd. Myestern sie ון 在​」 Zane I sitt tidens kis I Stiltzen و کا 11 حالا D- 87 P E T I TI O N. IIIIII We, the undersigned, feel strongly that everything possible should be done to save the home of our immigrant ancestor Nicholas Stoltzfus. We believe that it is historically important to preserve this home located in present-day Spring Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania, for future generations. Knowing and preserving our heritage is important to our future. Samut is shit for 3/84 A mur Tane incinta Pal7521 Jonathan & Smucky 5138 Old Ediletake things on Jannis. Visher 34743.00 Phila.ph Gordonville PH 17524 Oon B Stutt B Samuel of Brules Emanuel K Reiter 5645 Umbele town Hd, Gee PA 1957 Aloha I Esch 3120 Irishtown load Gard P41750 Amir & Zook amus & Ticker Amos F Stoltzfus Gord Papilio chiar Fault Elan SSE th I 31 5. Posle head Ruske farias! Joieck m Kuffin 78 Vin Veneto Chula Vista C#.920141 Teachine Feind vist i krig 1416, Diger 6.294, Ye. 1 764 / Tiporu Ex negeril CH. Ć دی / D- 88 PE T I T I ON We, the undersigned, feel strongly that everything possible should be done to save the home of our immigrant ancestor Nicholas Stoltzfus. We believe that it is historically important to preserve this home located in present-day Spring Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania, for future generations. Knowing and preserving our heritage is important to our future. Po losis 19362 Wengler Lens K Wenger Road For this H. Bet 7 sich to hel Amos F Stile 457 Meltingham tel Settingsala 19362 Amos a Slottstus 455 Mallinglismated Wheating has martin m Vingliz 75. trefftale od Lesla 19540 Š David im Wenger 75 5. Iroffdale Rd. Leola 1954 K W David Petersheim Bird in Hand Pan (2005 Jacol B Goch 741 Haatman ftatur dan ce Eruma S. Zaak 741 Hartman Str. Rd. Lanc. Pa, . . 141 Hartman Str.Rd Lancaster Jonas Szook 729 Hartman Stapd fano pa 17661 Abram . ky 2191 Horseshoe Rd, Lanc, Pal7601 darah & ishen 94-8. Groffdole Rd. oferla Pairs . :. Rebecca t. Gook the in the Bethel fa 19. Christ &. Esh 870 n College St. Cillige St. Migustan Lena zook x لا n D- 89 Ρ Ε Τ Ι Τ Ι Ο Ν We, the undersigned, feel strongly that everything possible should be done to save the home of our immigrant ancestor Nicholas Stoltzfus. We believe that it is historically important to preserve this home located in present-day Spring Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania, for future generations. Knowing and preserving our heritage is important to our future. *, Sandia R Kampfman RO*/ Box 1146, Beties, la 19567 Pa tem A Koultron 19 + 1 Bet 1146 Beeld f. 195.7 Box Eman Most Rexlll Ellerson Pa. 19520 Kors Linn Mast, P.C. Bekiti, Cherson, PA 19520 , Box Marta Wrenhet Box 85 Eliers P4 1952u Malin & stutt ju 77 & Main st. Feel مت بك كل ماقلتلمسند پسندی کا امیر / : 173 Emri feu Esily fus ef. S. sedlideles kod Technik fire foto alrni 7 Beiler 176 N. Hollander Rd Marchreakts da 23 S. RONKS RO, RONKS, FA/?5 72 di E Piker 169€ Bard Laws ad Poniki Anna L Fisher 2018 Bachmantour Rb Ronies Durick Kauff RL son 11 Bethel, AA 1150 fotin Kauffman II RIDE, 261146 Bethel, PA dalay bo Base Brown Roo Bunk st Rutland for 17001 Va مرع * شل 50) D-90 Ρ Ε Τ Ι Τ Ι Ο Ν We, the undersigned, feel strongly that everything possible should be done to save the home of our immigrant ancestor Nicholas Stoltzfus. We believe that it is historically important to preserve this home located in present-day Spring Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania, for future generations. Knowing and preserving our heritage is important to our future. Sirabell a Kreden ADYB*4710, Fleetwood, PA 19522 NGTH , pe, 19604 ۔ undy Hilfut IS15 N 9TH ST Reading it. Put Hallinen 120 w. with joy fucking A iqoce ܠܐ W. 19606 کا the il ر ہیر را ازد» ام 7 / در Sahin Emsiez si 3 5o. 14 ST. READING PA 19612 So . Limet #EX 2333 cietiszt F 55-22 2 2 ?? نل و ۲۰ و در G321 nimin 1: CE2: R stepun ikuta posley de Pellefiate live. Shisüsinglen 1969 le Lay Gambar Se spuiglls Blenda, Pa 19510 la jetter 6-1 willow way Reading Pt 19646 v 12 de spuig cares ) PA Margie Oakes 640 Main St Blandan Pa 19510 caui GSBURG * Jue belerek 1242 TALLURKS GwroSouro P4 1796/ balcoch Tehren seidler 633 11. 12" St. Reading a. 19604 Pearl bhandling Best 123 Panel i Barcelle 219506 that Luned tid Borwile Aluelle ilo Show Bhofile piques Panellets دلع D-91 PETITION Ρ Ν We, the undersigned, feel strongly that everything possible should be done to save the home of our immigrant ancestor Nicholas Stoltzfus. We believe that it is historically important to preserve this home located in present-day Spring Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania, for future generations. Knowing and preserving our heritage is important to our future. اگر به lii, m Ech 2 Bulan Goi Memerschella elital Stieben Kleich 209 Cedar Ba Leda tee 12540 Dr. Pa Christ Speicher 72 h. Graffaele Rid Leola, Pai 1954 , Josh 245 zettenelle Rd East Carl Pa 1750 Henry F. Look 2056 ilsner Rd Kingers PA. 17535 Lui & Fish 924 Esenleger Rd Strostany Pu. 17574 Reuben & Lape 903- A Vintage to Christiana Pa Bomoal Ring 3.5420. Nechort Pod. Rondes Pe. . Christ Litio & 21 Balzac Jussilf A Cristawili pa ramel vipens in Talsus Umes & Stoltefua Rt Cachreszeite Amass RX L L'avis I sathe Eadmill R 17527 Spasses Bauell Hosdossille, pe pa /!, صمت طلال Paradise pa 19529 ܐܐ م ن وتحت 12540 El tifoss Section and Resta D- 92 P E TI TI O N. We, the undersigned, feel strongly that everything possible should be done to save the home of our immigrant ancestor Nicholas Stoltzfus. We believe that it is historically important to preserve this home located in present-day Spring, Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania, for future generations. Knowing and preserving our heritage is important to our future. . 2 Komisio wao Ann Rantz Jean Pleqer Polent I flege Samuel B. Pleger Thous! burdina gh. Cha ht Pharriz Peilua Hennam Brubakur Wherg slich hyllis Brandenburg KAT Bollina D. nulla ای یار یار یار مهربية Phimp J. Guhaul D- 93 Ρ Ε Τ Ι Τ Ι Ο Ν We, the undersigned, feel strongly that everything possible should be done to save the home of our immigrant ancestor Nicholas Stoltzfus. We believe that it is historically important to preserve this home located in present-day Spring Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania, for future generations. Knowing and preserving our heritage is important to our future. اصة Andrew & stills 2. Dorttia nf Hostellers Lillian Staltifun Dale R. Hastate Mancy zah isie a scott tarwen 3 تم نے Stottelen Juhen in hotel Daid meet fo Elin Satzte Ethel Stiefen Shende Hang Villetter James mest Proin st Shirt D-94 Ρ Ε Τ Ι Τ Ι Ο Ν We, the undersigned, feel strongly that everything possible should be done to save the home of our immigrant ancestor Nicholas Stoltzfus. We believe that it is historically important to preserve this home located in present-day Spring Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania, for future generations. Knowing and preserving our heritage is important to our future. Glass Stoltz fürs Elam Mattie مطور و D PETITION We, the undersigned, feel strongly that everything possible should be done to save the home of our immigrant ancestor Nicholas Stoltzfus. We believe that it is historically important to preserve this home located in present-day Spring Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania, for future generations. Knowing and preserving our heritage is important to our future. Lloyd zeager Darel Å smuntar frais sur Carolyn Hanger E D- 98 PET I TION We, the undersigned, feel strongly that everything possible should be done to save the home of our immigrant ancestor Nicholas Stoltzfus. We believe that it is historically important to preserve this home located in present-day Spring Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania, for future generations. Knowing and preserving our heritage is important to our future. Gideon L Fisher Christan E. Eaby محطمهشقمه melville, napiger Haral I Moro Miltonw.boyer Sache Zeller Bomult ring Stuphin & ste Stolten Tiina Tissar Et D- 97 PETITION Ν We, the undersigned, feel strongly that everything possible should be done to save the home of our immigrant ancestor Nicholas Stoltzfus. We believe that it is historically important to preserve this home located in present-day Spring Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania, for future generations. Knowing and preserving our heritage is important to our future. போட்ட Benjamin K Beilen auch H bila Tresna Peturhem Mineon B. Statut Gideon L Fisher Beruel o Stalitsee Assere E Bikes Jaunt Hasher e Ech Christ H Stolff Mis Jonas fu Samuel S. Zapp Lem m. Johna. Stolzhou m . Good D- 98 PETITION We, the undersigned, feel strongly that everything possible should be done to save the home of our immigrant ancestor Nicholas Stoltzfus. We believe that it is historically important to preserve this home located in present-day Spring Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania, for future generations. Knowing and preserving our heritage is important to our future. Melin S. Kauffu Hong Buod ante pa. Allen Lilla Bx 375 exter! LA_19363 gry Menter I N. Saulslary Of Sop Pu. 17527 Barl May ല ray 204 Banda'd honey Book, PA 19344 Bor 42-0 Erkunt in my RD4, Bo 400 Honeybroos, P. 19344 pe 21 diri, a محمشكلتنا Pa D-99 Ρ Ε Τ Ι Τ Ι Ο Ν We, the undersigned, feel strongly that everything possible should be done to save the home of our immigrant ancestor Nicholas Stoltzfus. We believe that it is historically important to preserve this home located in present-day Spring Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania, for future generations. Knowing and preserving our heritage is important to our future. Reking im John S. Beiler و fin of. & talkfocs ( . 2. .مل . . . . ( یا : ما که اسلام را در هم . . ہند کیے ۔ نبود .2 م - 1 2,۰۰ لنشت : / ,، راب نام ناصح دكات اس Benjamin K Smakes Grd Trafflebord Lechita 1752 3 Beiter 34001 old phila nito. Gordoncière h953A 53A Pequeg Valley Rd Kinzers AA 1535 Danna Riehe 3731 & Wewport Rd Gordonville PA 11529 Switzt loss anotfalen id Leola ra Barbara B Laufe 97 férffter Red. Leta Wilmer D=100 November 18, 1991 P. Thomas Barilar P. E. District Engineer Penn DOT, District 5 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, Pa. 18103 LOR Cola Dear Mr. Barilar: After many months of interaction with our residents, attendance at all the public meetings and many discussions at our nonthly meetings, the Board of Directors of the Colony Civic Association unanimously passed a notion at our September meeting to circulate a petition to the residents in our area concerning the Paper Mill Road Corridor Project. We decided that the attached petition is the most effective way to express our opinion. The purpose of the petition is to show our overwhelming support for the Paper Mill Road Corridor Alternative "A" concept as outlined in the attached Newsletter 14 dated July 1991. WE ARE TOTALLY OPPOSED TO THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES STUDIED. The Colony Park residential area borders, Paper Mill Road to the east, the Wyomissing Borough Line to the south, and State Hill Road to the west. Even though our residents will be the most directly impacted by this road project, we fully support the need for this corridor. Alternative "A" offers the only solution that meets the needs of our community and still provides the safest means of travel with the least impact on the environment. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to express our views on this vital and much needed road project. sincerely yours, David A. Wolf David A. Wolf President, Colony Park civic Association CC: U. S. Senator Spector U. S. Senator Wofford U. S. Rep. Yatron Pa. Senator Brightbill Pa. Rep. Davies D-101 PETITION FOR PARK ROAD CORRIDOR BY RESIDENTS OF COLONY_PARK . We the undersigned as residents of the Colony Park/Colony Springs residential area have read the attached Newsletter 14 dated July 1991 concerning the Park Road Corridor. We recognize the need to construct this highway to complete one of the nissing links to our transportation system. We fully support Alternative A and totally oppose the other alternatives. Alternative A offers the only solution that meets the needs of our community and provides the safest means of travel with the least inpact on the environment. NAME ADDRESS Laureathing 19410 1731 Colony Du Du wyoung ایک نار Carole C. Hepner Jaut Ym Maurer Manganoon 1751 D 35 1755 1755 the Daunys 1731 Colony for Nomizing Stuben & min 17/3 Colony Dr. Wes. Pa 1960 1949 Colony sw. Wyomussizg, LA 19610 het Maurer m. . [151 Colozy.. apni fo_1960 Colo P. 19610 1955 Colony Colony a Wyo PA 1960 Glony Drive Lange. Pe 19610 Cynd K. Harley 1159 Calem ha un PA 1960 JIM HARDING 1759 1759. Colony De Wyo , PA 19670 . Dia Ouring 1754 Colony Dr. Uso. ft 19610. [ Ram Owens . 1884 tolony D. Wp Pt 19610 Lola Rolain wro PA. 19610 Sathy fatinn 1742 Colmy Dr. Wyo PA 1910 Robins Colony on A 19660 Karar Arecekele 1734 Celowy Be, Nye Pe 1960 ' 1730 Corony PR, Wro, Pa 19610 Roseram adamde 1730 Jestemte 1736/dom Se Up la 19610 Eltvand & konal Celemy Sale Deye BC 19610 1736 Colay di huo. Pa 19410 COLONY A 1742 COLONY DR ) 1738 20- 1126 Colony Pa Donna M. Howat D-102 PETITION POR PARK ROAD CORRIDOR BY RESIDENTS OF COLONY PARK We the undersigned as residents of the Colony Park/Colony Springs residential area have read the attached Newsletter 14 dated July 1991 concerning the Park Road Corridor. Ne recognize the need to construct this highway to complete one of the aissing links to our transportation system. We fully support Alternative A and totally oppose the other alternatives. Alternative A offers the only solution that neets the needs of our community and provides the safest neans of travel with the least impact on the environment. NAME ADDRESS 1727 tolony Al sana 고 ​litry 1701 inmoran 1200 Din . A 16610 Dr Dating flation 19610 1735 uyo. Peter Marabella. 1787 Colony De Wyo Pa 19410 DR . Gathen Manabella Pa 19610 lahy Lammin 4 We h iglio Taidence Cúmmarowd na Darance ( Aldin fare Wy usa 1723 (omy sy Wo IA 19610 Wy 1722 Coloy pr woo DA ISGO 1722 Celoni & kiye 1735 hezo Colony Dr. hex 14610 Bat huchel Colony Dr 1 739 Cotorey De Way IGEC hth Sticks 1739 Colony de COLONY DE Wyomussate 19616 a sballon 15 Caly. R. Wgones in 15610 Zucniet helal 1719 (clong De Runsil . Wag mong Rount Brown 1707 Calony Women 19610 Jamed BROCK 1633 Colony a Thane Kent 1617 COLONY DC Wyomissia 9610 ALAN REDKINS 1617 Colony De Wyomissalg una Colin Wymising 19410 1915 Colors the 19615 n's Colin Wal Missing د ben 400 & / و با هر 2 Pa ᎠᎴ . kr PETITION POR PARK_ROAD CORRIDOR BY RESIDENTS OF COLONY PARK 1 . We the undersigned as residents of the Colony Park/Colony Springs residential area have read the attached Newsletter 14 dated July 1991 concerning the Park Road Corridor. We recognize the need to construct this highway to complete one of the aissing links to our transportation system. We fully support Alternative A and totally oppose the other alternatives. Alternative A offers the only solution that meets the needs of our community and provides the safest Reans of travel vith the least impact on the environment. NAME ADDRESS Joht Wyonering 1500 que se Par Dokat findes Isus Concora R Wyomisen Pa Le 1508 Concord Rd Pa But ontmob 150v Conand Rd Wynmissing he Rogen an den 15uy Concours ar An 1 Wyomissins fa Wine Hali Vokie Isco Concord Rd Womessing pa Beves A Hall 1500 Concouru Wyoming ft Beliau mener 1574 Cotary for an Wegprising PA Eugene I Noll 1504 Colony Dr 아 ​Kert B. golu 8. 152/ Conoro RD Dollssevo OPA Day 1516 Concord a Flanneth leigl 1520 Concord Re Gameshy Pa The , ( tal & R 1520 Concord Rd. Hyomisny, pa I . Tietolooget 1508 Concord 2d. Whemising and Pa 1528 Concord Rd Wyomisin . ,22 1536 CONCORD RD Wyomiss, 66 PA Greri hleane 1536 Concord Rd Rejonissing A. William F. Conner 1501 CONCORD TD. Barbara. n. Comer 1541 Concord Rd. Wyo. Pa- Carrera L. Maar Plan 1601 CONCORD RD. Re iste. Ta Come care cei cu pa وا) She Deace Se Wyo, PR w 5 c . Barbara Ghlesond ar a de. D-10 PETITION FOR PARK ROAD_CORRIDOR BY RESIDENTS OF COLONY PARK . We the undersigned as residents of the Colony Park/Colony Springs residential area have read the attached Newsletter 14 dated July 1991 concerning the Park Road Corridor. We recognize the need to construct this highway to complete one of the pissing links to our transportation system. We fully support Alternative A and totally oppose the other alternatives. Alternative A offers the only solution that neets the needs of our community and provides the safest neans of travel with the least impact on the environment. NIME ADDRESS 1/32 11 ir - PA Rorman Wolffel Concord Rel. pomirting Oa. 19670 Weitet Mar Ayat 1512 Conceded Wyamsin Pt 19610 Martha Waynardi 1872 Concord Rod Wyomasing PA 19610 Dinne um Payne 1516 Concord Rd Wyrmissing PA 19610 " . Thailag poum 160 cama Nya, da disperat! theft, fou puçon 1600 Ceme copd Pd wife a 16ce Comoord Rd Pa. Jh R Eithe 1604 Concord Rd Wy. Pia 16404 Concord Rd vyo PAN wi delal w 110 8 Concoud ld wo PA . Cursun AD pery 1608 conena hd Were Elizabeth Malinn 1612 Concord sd., Wyd. PA 19616 yL. Shaman 1616 (mourd Rd byming, PA 19610 Betty & Sharman 1616 Concord Rd wyou'rring, PA. 146 Richail Meri 1624 Concors no wyorussing, PA, 1940 . Gretiles funt Aunty teze con cord ld (Hyoníssing Le. Pull & ut CONCURS RO w llomis suun Pu 1960 , Da allo wa Roy et 19610 1628 ܢܐ it 32 سا Rebestti.51 1632 Concord Rul weyen Mae PETITION FOR PARK ROAD CORRIDOR BY RESIDENTS OF COLONY PARK HHHH We the undersigned as residents of the Colony Park/Colony Springs residential area have read the attached Newsletter 14 dated July 1991 concerning the Park Road Corridor. We recognize the need to construct this highway to complete one of the aissing links to our transportation system. We fully support Alternative A and totally oppose the other alternatives. Alternative A offers the only solution that meets the needs of our community and provides the safest Reans of travel with the least impact on the environment. NAME ADDRESS 9 la یکی مت ' inh C 702 ten /१८ 19466 1961 Westwood . 1419610 196,16 22. Mrs. Can Heim 1701 liistud Rd Readin More Mon Doradat Zurdhout 1717 Westius Restay L.?? 2 years 233 Lecturica 1737 westward hd Rady P4 14 Drills land 1741 listed bet kopumza 1900 in Pre the imay Gillingen 4245 listed belo k coding 1714 maut in Klang tap terpent 1749 Waitis Paliparan si mai mes " 1749 letturid Kit Weisseny M4 16 Zildred I Hohmow 1753 Westwood Rd Mayamanning 2 Qal lato 1621 Westwood 26 LYON Aire Ella 1621 Westwood BA Eoznacked 1629 Westwood Rd wy. in the 200 m Cam-1433 kota tanong pics R 19610 Hii nder the 1641 est abood Rod ayo Pa 19610 hale tudi Westward Rd, wofera 19610 The _Mrs Mas Mask ha dak 11:17 westered to wipo Pa 19610 21 - ging hellean Pelore 1609 testoss Codony Richard Helfen 1603 Westhurnal Kd, WYO, PA 19610 Frys wilo GEIC Pe 19616 la 19610 1 صال کا علم گم مي سالم الاعسمطمینملستم طلالطالعة ما2 ج1 Mr. Mrs Kerr lestwand Red RA CA PETITION FOR SE PARK ROAD CORRIDOR BY RESIDENTS OF COLONY PARK We the undersigned as residents of the Colony Park/Colony Springs residential area have read the attached Newsletter 14 dated July 1991 concerning the Park Road Corridor. We recognize the need to construct this highway to complete one of the aissing links to our transportation system. We fully support Alternative A and totally oppose the other alternatives. Alternative A offers the only solution that meets the needs of our community and provides the safest means of travel with the least impact on the environment. 1530 Will 1522 i eu 1510 Singer Rd wwyuminis NAME DAI Steinmetz ADDRESS 1534 Singer Rd Love Ang Rel y 15:30 Svoerend. ' Moott 1526 Super Pal Luson Sugu You 1522 Singh Rd som en Singh Rd ayomissing : ld 1514 Sinzen Ro Wyomissing Maria Walukonez 1514 Singer Rd yo Kullimpe Gruppesen pepper 1500 Senger ke Wyrmissing 1500 Senge the Wymissing 150 SINGEN NO WHomissin Tynn 7 Campbell 1501 Singer Rd Wyomissing Echenote Laiu no wyounissuto Ki Диало 1511 R2 Simr Ri. Wyominin B x D Prasad Rao 1513 SiNđER Rd. 1513 SINGER Rd. Wyomissing Helen ebensko lensko 15,7 Singer Rd 1517 Singer Rd Wyomisoen 1517 Singe kd Wyomiss my Tirant enthanho 1521 Sises PN Wyomissing Singer RN 1529 Singer Rd Wysmessing Erodet bare ♡ TO M. non fiesters Para D-107 PETITION FOR PARK ROAD CORRIDOR BY RESIDENTS OF COLONY PARK HHH We the undersigned as residents of the Colony Park/Colony Springs residential area have read the attached Newsletter 14 dated July 1991 concerning the Park Road Corridor. We recognize the need to construct this highway to complete one of the aissing links to our transportation system. We fully support Alternative A and totally oppose the other alternatives. Alternative A offers the only solution that meets the needs of our connunity and provides the safest neans of travel with the least inpact on the environnent. Ra 1532 VA.192 Lolly Home Ingen kd اور اگر مه که , Pa 1961 15 نام الامارات لللمتمرك اكا 1557 Singer Rd hey mistry . , Wyrussing PÅ 1960 19616 NAME Candi Stermet 2 Address 1534 Singer Rd lwymissins ken, ssc 1740 Boge 1532 1532 Singh Al wynurzy (1 19104 Chris Tucker 154 ist Singer Rd Wyoming PA 1961 154 Man 1 Tucka A same as above Chews Eichmau 1549 Singer Rd genouissleg fra 190 ? . Klo RHAT 'o Partio Elum Schorner 1561 Singer Rd In sham 1561 Singer kd PA Danie Reases 1601 Senger Rd Wys vd fessis Luer desgined Susan J. Caputo 1409 Singer Rd Nym Pa 19610 Puchandicaputo (1609 vidund wo po 12010 Palle Cathy Hunt 1554 SingeiRd. Len fre 19410 Tekla TT 1554 Singer Rd. lego ty. Cols for nella Setman 1540 design en hy to 19610 Chupelle Sanaa 1542 Suigung Susan Antanach 1588 Singer Rd. Wyomisting PA 17660 , PA 1960 ld alva رسا نور ہو ملکی مسلم و Po 19610 la Rd rd Wyo Pa 19610 Michael P. Antononih 1538 Sinse Rd Winomissing f 4 14616 PETITION FOR PARK ROAD CORRIDOR BY RESIDENTS_OF COLONY_PARK We the undersigned as residents of the Colony Park/Colony Springs residential area have read the attached Newsletter 14 dated July 1991 concerning the Park Road Corridor. Ne recognize the need to construct this highway to complete one of the nissing links to our transportation system. We fully support Alternative A and totally oppose the other alternatives. Alternative A offers the only solution that meets the needs of our community and provides the safest neans of travel with the least impact on the environment. NAME ADDRESS ܠܥ PA Stephen Sunda 1616 Sherwore he v 7624 1621 Sheweespl kolye moeten Wys mursery Dewalk Bugil Allah Sberwbed W Gal Gado 1620 Sherwood Rd wydomsary Pe. 1620 Sheword Rd Wyomising Pa Lenore Svete Erned Svetee Beatrice Mille 1612 Shwood ki. Wyomusung, ha Chas o. Snille Delonegu melen peravo 1604 SHER wood to Wronsousta may Jang # Nassaut 1522 Mhesh Was Boa. 19610 Henry P. Hmaschah 1524 Sherwood Rd. Wyomissire Pa 1960 Lo que moltes non Ahokke Wamma ft 176.13 1601 Patarina Miller A FEDET HELL Auper Ibas Skeemoo Re. Wyomussama, Ret 1960 R4 1608 Sherwood and wyomissing on 19610 ReizorialChelyen les flerend le Wyprising, 2419610 nality. Cuir 1625 Skemond RA Weinnotline Free 1649 Westwoo Rd Wýmums PA 19610 you RA 1 Ashvin Chudgar the yoona The RA 19660 my 1657 Shund ka Timula 19610 D-109 in PETITION POR PARK ROAD CORRIDOR BY RESIDENTS_OF COLONY PARK . We the undersigned as residents of the Colony Park/Colony Springs residential area have read the attached Newsletter 14 dated July 1991 concerning the Park Road Corridor. Ne recognize the need to construct this highway to complete one of the missing links to our transportation system. We fully support Alternative A and totally oppose the other alternatives. Alternative A offers the only solution that neets the needs of our connunity and provides the safest means of travel with the least inpact on the environment. NAME OS ADDRESS Kim d. Anyon واک Pa Pa 1613 Shenwood . 16 13 Shenwood pa 19600 Brilliam Emky 1657 Shermoral fa unyonessung-pt 99 660 1649 Shermoval Rd Wys. La 19610 Planu 1649 Slenwoon to Ligi P 1910 W.C ghatanan 1645 SHERWOOD RD Wyn PA 19610 Camily Mekan 1695 Skiwood Wijonssingle 19.10 Cd Sharos smetypes 1645 Sherunnel Road. Wypoisaing, Pa. 12610 Robert H. Levan 1629 Sherwood Pared Bymisting PA, 1 %10 19610 Caselas Renew 1429 kuud fel Diemises, P.12610 Sherwand а. Michael P. Sull Red Wybmissing, Bei 19670 R&c wyomissing 1. 32 Sherwood Rd Wyomising LA 1940 . Darul Sheey 1632 Sleutel Re Wyomney PA 19610 Mum Baci 1673 Sherund how mums la 19410 Joan]. Kline 1633 Shesused Rd, Wyomissing fan 19610 32 24 1633 Sherwood Rd wyomissing Pt 19610 Home Dikasan Bazz desnod Rd, Nyerinin 14419618 Lemmod A. mare Storlin It Apold 1636 Sherwood Read Colar Pust inut de Yakhil Dyrmising wt 19600 Betty then LA19410 Ratina 1644 Therwand Kel Turizem Pil area wa 2 PETITION FOR PARK_ROAD_CORRIDOR BY RESIDENTS OF COLONY PARK le We the undersigned as residents of the Colony Park/Colony Springs residential area have read the attached Newsletter 14 dated July 1991 concerning the Park Road Corridor. We recognize the need to construct this highway to complete one of the aissing links to our transportation system. We fully support Alternative A and totally oppose the other alternatives. Alternative A offers the only solution that neets the needs of our community and provides the safest neans of travel with the least impact on the environment. NAME ADDRESS Gudy 2 کو Llymouth wiresa wo 1816 Colony PA Brasian & Plymouth Circle E brisan Brendo lail 5 Plynath Circle Grey Dalto Farhale 5 Plugnautte luele Lider Hodgson 6 Plymouth Circle de. Erursul. 6 Plymorth Cercle Enerji . Florence Hoy Dowl lonna M S ase 1825 Colony I yoursing Ruhul on 1825 Calong the uppe 0 0 for nyomning Elux stigle Roby Lullyrt fe Al ili Prunil Ushunted 1820' Colony De. Wyprussmate W brak Irazen 1829 Clémy sa Wyonsuusta Dr Jeregh Ms. & mr. David Fisher 18/2 Colony me dr Sr. Wyomissins. R. Tangona č. Jared Hippieth Cerite your PA 1964 I Humouth Joe Zafferano 1832 colony this mus. y v. Murty 1554 Singer Rd. My omissing, Pal? PA " Lugust 19610 19614 D-111 PETITION POR PARK ROAD CORRIDOR BY RESIDENTS OF COLONY_PARK . We the undersigned as residents of the Colony Park/Colony Springs residential area have read the attached Newsletter 14 dated July 1991 concerning the Park Road Corridor. Ne recognize the need to construct this highway to complete one of the aissing links to our transportation system. We fully support Alternative A and totally oppose the other alternatives. Alternative A offers the only solution that meets the needs of our community and provides the safest neans of travel with the least inpact on the environment. NAME ADDRESS 1633 CHORD RD WYO PA. 19610 pa 19410 . لا ) لومينا / بنا / 537لسنكملمان سليم Wyo PA 19610 Mary . . Slapp- X. Esenlant 168 § concoral Rd. w 1960 torem. Esenhart 16 33 Concond Rol. MARVIN H. OSEN HART Flumb Casputra 1625 Concraka Wynesans Flaul Geppetten /625 Comend Wge the 19610 Jan antho 160s concern u'yo, PA. Fibre Michael Rabla 1537 Concord Rd. Wyo.PH 19610 ( Phides 1533 Concord R Who PA 19610 // . not ? Rhods 1533 Concord Rd. Wyo Pi Karna Kawiglus 524 Cacado Liyo pa Donna . Johnw Keoples 1529 Concord Rd. wtyn Pa 19610 hivi Hasson 15.25 Conard Rd, li yo. Pit 19610 Doud Hosson 525 Cornend & lyomap Pa (4610 1685 Rain Spies 7517 Cmisel Red muinairy ba 1961 Spano Geslaca il lus) 1509 Coured kel Lyamunting.la 100 / Pa 19610 Ronald C Then 1509 Concord Rd wYO PA 19610 wyem. PA TER 1550 SINGER RD to PG 1012 7222 19610 14616 Pa . 人​、 If tly : D-112 PETITION FOR PARK ROAD CORRIDOR BY RESIDENTS OF COLONY PARK We the undersigned as residents of the Colony Park/Colony Springs residential area have read the attached Newsletter 14 dated July 1991 concerning the Park Road Corridor. We recognize the need to construct this highway to complete one of the nissing links to our transportation system. We fully support Alternative A and totally oppose the other alternatives. Alternative A offers the only solution that meets the needs of our community and provides the safest neans of travel with the least impact on the environment. NAME ADDRESS Lan Hu ܝܝܚܐ ان کا کام کرتا ر su PA 19660 1625 < 1 16.33 1729 alden Lane fu. 19610 Les Duelony a land Lindu keed Canit that Crangasen Jeu 1723 Colony Dr Wyomissing PA 19610 fura Wyonis Amal Solmu 1737 Alden lave Wyomissing PA , 19610 Alden lane Wyomissing. Pa , PA The Shtench hiti Helenarit 1741 ANDEN NAME WYOMISSING PA 19610 Alana Schwarkant 1952 Alden hane Wyomissing qatelidelusikast 1972 al duchun ufonul 4 19940 l'ct Alan 1 Deduc le beloun Daime Whit may 1960 Dutnich Hollenbach 1637 Calley Drive Dissing fr. 19610 Dear Schmidt 1948. Westinnad read Wydessing PA 19610 Patterne Exy s5e kugeuza depunerea de 19640 Alegg Solomon 1737 1940 PA 19610 1241 ALDEN LANE Wyomisjoni fa 19410 De. 1530 D-113 PETITION POR PARK ROAD CORRIDOR BY RESIDENTS OF_COLONY PARK HH We the undersigned as residents of the Colony Park/Colony Springs residential area have read the attached Newsletter 14 dated July 1991 concerning the Park Road Corridor. Ne recognize the need to construct this highway to complete one of the aissing links to our transportation system. We fully support Alternative A and totally oppose the other alternatives. Alternative A offers the only solution that meets the needs of our community and provides the safest neans of travel with the least inpact on the environment. NAME ADDRESS / ( Keflautet m+ Mos Gw Deck 1608 elsłucol (Rd - Wyomissing PA M Mis sulph andy 1600 Westwood Rd to Tresin در محور كلات ، ز 2 است/ سال به بالا متولدینگک( د / ال 28 27یاط ها، عوام سے 2 + لا يب از _ با استقبال التلمست سط اما اذا ما لا تعمل ها به / 7 ار انا 7 PA 19670 لوک سب PA له لا 17 C ponunt Zelleiter Gatis Chun 16H0 Westwood Road nex Westwood Ro Wydani, Palyan WESTWOOD Paulith Christensen 1708 WESTWOOD Ro Loyoussuc. Parsbio and Mrs Rd. Marami dios he Roy A Christman 1908 luest wool Re Kryemissing Titian pvm Richard Lamiach inao Westwood Rd. Wyomissing Lubonen Fauch 1736 Wealitney Hl. Jyunin, 17dd Marin & Loesch 1736 Westwood R. W Housing PA 160 E romessing Foster had nhw Awant bilhanes 1152 testwood Rool. Colony tula Hing Mistwood Rd. Ayonneasing Pt 196 6) و ۱۹ ما را به ما أنداد / 4 7/ لامع لار / بك با صدا و سیما wood طے سه وال / 0-114 PARKROAD R. R I D R O O R C an Extension of S.R. 3055 Berks County, Pennsylvania July 1991 Newsletter 84 Public Mooting Boing Hold WEDNESDAY JULY 24, 1991 Berks County Agricultural Center 6:00-7:00 PM Open House 7:00 PM Presentation Alternativos Considorod As part of this project, a Preliminary Alternatives Analysis was completed in January, 1990 to identify the most feasible project alternatives for detailed study. The analysis involved an evaluation of six preliminary alternatives against a specific list of evaluation criteria which included transportation needs and objectives, cagineering aspects and environmental impacts. Preliminary alternatives addressed included four on new alignmeat attending betweco U.S. 422 and the Outer Bypass, and two corridors consisting of improvements to existing local roadways oricated north-south betwoca U.S. 422 and the Outer Bypass, specifically PA Route 183 and Paper Mill Road. This Public Meeting is the fourth in a series of public meetings being beld on this project. The purpose of this Public Open House Meeting is to present the preliminary engineering designs for each of the roadway alternatives, along with the results of the detailed environmental, traffic and engineering studies. Rosults of the Last Public Mooting The project involves the construction of a highway facility between the West Shore Bypass and the Outer Bypass (Road-to-Nowbere) in order to improve both local and regional access. The third Public Meeting was held on September 19, 1990 at the Berks Campus of the Pennsylvania State University. The purpose of this meeting was to present the results of the State and Federal agency reviews of the Project Needs and Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, to outline the next phases of the study and to obtain public input. The conclusions of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis indicated that Alternative A, a new alignment extending between the Warren Street/West Shore Bypass interchange and the terminus of the Outer Bypass, was considered to meet the project seed by providing an efficient regional missing link in the highway system, being consistent with planned and existing land use and providing an effective interface between existing and local and regional transportation facilities. In addition, Alternative A was identified by the public as the preferred alternative as a result of two public meetings which addressed project alternatives, due to its reduction of regional traffic volumes using local access roadways and its avoidance of impacts to residential areas and community facilities. The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report was submitted to teo state and federal regulatory agencies for review. In response to comments provided by the regulatory agencies, in particular the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Pennsylvania Game Commission, Saree additional build alternatives were recommended for detailed analysis by the Department. During this meeting, Public Comment Forms were distributed to all present. A total of 39 comment forms were returned. Of all the issues raised on these comment forms, the five issues most frequently discussed included: Opposition to any alternative which uses Paper Mill Road • Safety at the Colony Park playground These alternatives are to include: Alternative F. Paper Mill Road Upgrade; Alternative G • Paper Mill Road Upgrade with un improved diamond interchange with U.S. 422; and Alternative H. Hybrid Alternative combining the West Shore/ Warren Street Interchange developed for Alternative A with Upgraded Paper Mill Road. Safety and access concerns for residents who live along Paper Mill Road Alternative A is necessary and the best solution Access and safety concerns at the site of the planned elementary school These alternatives bave been evaluated in recent technical studies and will be presented in the EIS in addition to the No-Build Alternative. Descriptions of each of the alternatives ur as follows: D-115 183 183 222 222 hond Dapur Mill Road Tulp hocken Creek Tulpenockon Crook Cacoosing Brion BUISÓB por med schon Bypass West Show Lipos West Short SYPOT. Van Rood Road Spring 122 Von Rood Rood Broadcasting Ad. Porte A. Park Ra Berhent. Blud. Woodland Rd. Broodcooling Ad. Wyomissing Borhahko Bhd. Wooden na. PMB Bhd. W. Wyomissing State Hill Rosa State HW nowo Born Road tom Rosa ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE F Paper Mill Road Ìutpohodken Road 183) Tupes 183 222 222 Tulpenocken Crook Road Tulpehocken Creek Paper Mill Road vapor mit ROSU Cacoosing Warren Stroot Bypass Buisbond WO219 West Shoro Bypass wost Shopa Van Rood Road Van Rood Road Spring 123 Park Rd. Park Rd. Broadcasting Ad. Borkshire Blvd. Woodland Rd. Broadcasting Rd. N. Wyomissing Berkshire Blvd. Blvd. Woodland Rd. "РNo . Wyomissing State Mi Rosd Bom Roud State Hill Rood Born Rosa ALTERNATIVE H ALTERNATIVE G Paper Mill Road with Warren Street Intersection Improvements Paper Mill Road Hybrid O Now or Upgraded Interchange Alternativo A Alternative A consists of a new alignment extending northwest from the U.S. 422 interchange with the West Shore Bypass (U.S. 422/222) to connect with the Outer Bypass (S.R. 3055) south of Tulpebocken Creek. The proposed facility is a four lane divided highway with a 65 foot median. The existing alignments of Paper Mill Road, Broadcasting Road, and Berkshire Boulevard would be maintained. Berkshire Boulevard would be elevated approximately 10 feet to cross over the proposed mainline. In addition, a portion of Van Reed Road would be relocated aastward to connect with the diamond interchange with Alternative A. The existing portion of Van Reed Road connecting Paper Mill Road to the Outer Bypass will be abandoned in addition to the southernmost extension of the Outer Bypass. Three grade-separated diamond interchanges are proposed to provide access to North Wyomissing Boulevard, Broadcasting Road, and relocated Van Reed Road, respectively. A partial clover-leaf interchange is proposed to connect the new alignment with Warren Street Bypass (U.S. 422) and the West Sbore Bypass (U.S. 422/222). The existing at-grade intersection between Park Road and the Warreo Street Bypass will be eliminated. D-116 Alternativo F Alternative F consists of widening and improvements to existing Paper Mill Road from the existing interchange with U.S. 422 to the vicinity of the Outer Bypass south of Tulpebockea Creek. The proposed facility is a four-lane roadway with a center turn lane providing access to existing residential and commercial developments along Paper Mill Road. No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative entails no improvements to the cxisting highway system. Existing traffic conditions would continue and additional traffic volumes generated by new commercial and residential development in the area would utilize existing facilities. A new highway link between the West Sbore Bypass and Outer Bypass will not be provided under this Uternative. Three utoprade intersections are proposed to be widened with additional awo lanes u Woodland Road, Berkstaire Boulevard and Broadcasting Road. Improvements include addition of double left wuro lapes and right our lanes at all fou approaches a Woodland Road and a three approaches at Berkshire Boulevard. At Broadcasting Road, an additional travel lane in each directioo would be provided aloog Paper Mill Road. A diamond interchange is proposed to provide access to the Outer Bypass and Van Reed Road at the northern limit of the alignmeat. A portion of Vao Read Road would be relocated castward to connect with the diamond interchange. The existing interchange of Paper Mill Road at U.S. 422 will provide access to U.S. 422 and the West Shore Bypass (U.S. 422/222). Summary of Impacts The following paragraphs briefly present a summary of impacts for each of the build alternatives under consideration. Described in these paragraphs are the results of only five of the many detailed environmental, traffic and engineering studies being completed for the Park Road Corridor Project. Detailed results of all of the studies will be documented in the Draft and Final Environmeatal Impact Statement. Tritic · Ideatified as one of the primary project needs, the ability of each alternative to accommodate the area's projected traffic volumes was the main focus of the traffic studies. lo summary, the results of the detailed traffic analysis indicated that Alternative A best accommodates the projected traffic volumes. Alternativo G Alternative G is similar to that alignment described under Alternative F with the inclusion of an improved interchange at the junction of Paper Mill Road and U.S. 422. The propused diamond interchange will provide a ramp to access U.S. 422 cast from Paper Mill Road, relieving Woodland Road of this duro movemeat. Improvements to the existing at-grade intersection of Park Road and U.S. 422 would be implemented to accommodate the traffic volumes. Wbere feasible, additional left tum und/or right turn lanes will be added at Park Road and U.S. 422 approaches. With Alternative A, some minor improvements will be made to two intersections on Park Road to accommodate the changes in the traffic patter. Additionally, with Alternative A traffic volumes will be greatly reduced on Paper Mill Road; however, some deficiencies will remain. These bave been identified as reparate projects to be completed as needed. O Alternativo H Alternative H is a bybrid alignmeat between Alternative A and Alternative F which provides a four-lane, limited access connection between U.S. 422/222 and the Outer Bypass. It includes the proposed interchanges for Alternative A at North Wyomissing Boulevard and Warren Street West Shore Bypass, then turns west to join Paper Mill Road at the Broadcasting Road intersection. A diamond interchange is provided at Broadcasting Road and at the Outer Bypass. Noise - A total of 25 sensitive receptor sites primarily located a resideatial properties and community facilities within the project area were analyzed as part of the detailed noise studies. To determine poise impacts and my requirements for noise abaterneat, predicted future noise levels were compared to existing monitored poise levels as well as to PeanDOT and FHWA poise criteria. Tbe results of these studies indicate that Sven gites with Alternative A, nuo sites with Alternative F, three sites with Alternative G and eight sites with Alternative H approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria, as a direct result of that alternative. Local access to developments along Paper Mill Road west of Broadcasting Road would be maintained by a relocated Paper Mill Road. The proposed relocation would exteod directly west from the Colony Park residential area to cross Broadcasting Rond 650 foot west of the existing Paper Mill Road intersection. The roadway would parallel the proposed limited access alignment of Alternative H from Broadcasting Road to the Outer Bypass. Total length of relocation is approximately 1.1 miles. Air Quality - A total of 25 sensitive receptor sites primarily located at resideatial properties and community facilities within the project area were studied as part of the detailed air quality studies. This analysis was based on the prediction of one-hour und eight-hour carbon monoxide concentrations which were then compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The results of this analysis were that none of the carbon monoxide concentrations u any of the 25 receptor receptor sites for any of the alternatives exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, As with Alternative A, the existing u-grade intersection between Park Road and U.S. 422 would be eliminated. Berkshire Boulevard would be elevated to cross over the proposed mainline and a portion of Van Reed Rond would be relocated castward to connect with the proposed diamond interchange a Paper Mill Road and the Outer Bypass. D-117 Vrestation and Wildlife - Alternative A would convert 107.2 acres of vegetative cover to highway use by acquiring 29.2 acres of mixed forest, 7.3 acres of deciduous forest, 7.3 acres of herbaceous rangeland and 63.4 acres of cropland. Alternatives F und G would each convert 26.0 acres of vegetative cover to highway use by acquiring 10.3 acres of mixed forest and 15.7 acres of cropland. Next Stops The environmental, traffic and engineering studies currently underway are expected to be completed during the Summer of 1991. The Draft EIS will be submitted to PennDOT and the Federal Highway Administration for review and approval. After the Draft EIS is approved, it will be released for public and agency review. A public hearing will be held at that time to formally record all comments on the Draft EIS. After careful review of these commeats, a preferred altemative will be selected and the Final EIS will be prepared. The project will then proceed to final design. Aliernative H would convent 109.5 acres of vegetative cover to higbway use by acquiring 30.9 acres of mixed forest, 7.3 acres of deciduous forest, 7.3 acres of herbaceous rangeland and 64.0 acres of cropland. The following is the anticipated schedule of events for the project: Typical wildlife species occurring within the proposed disturbance area of any of the build alternatives are anticipated to exploit adjacent updisturbed areas or adapt to new residential and commercial land uses resulting from pending development of the project area. Fall 1991 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Winter 1991/92 Public Hearing and Agency Comments and Approval Spring 1991 Wetlands - No jurisdictional wetland wreas were identified within the project area. Two intermittent stormwater channels were identified. One carries run-off to Tulpehocken Creek and the other drains under Van Reed Road to Cacoosing Creek. Alternatives A and H would affect the intermittent tributary to Tulpehocken Creek. Five concrete box culverts are proposed to cross this stream in the vicinity of the proposed Warren Street Bypass interchange ramps. Final Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives A, F, G und H would also affect the intermittent tribulary to Cacoosing Creek by the proposed relocation of Van Reed Road. Each build alternative would require a culvert for this tributary crossing. Project Toam The project team includes: the Berks County Planning Commission, PennDOT, the Federal Highway Administration and McCormick, Taylor & Associates, loc. The Berks County Planning Commission is responsible for the overall management of the project. If you have any questions or comments about the project, please contact the following Project Team members. By Mail: Housing and Employment - The results of the preliminary engineering studies indicate that Alternative A would require the acquisition of one single family residence and one business/ commercial structure while Alternatives F und G would each require the acquisition of four business/commercial structures. Alternative H would require the acquisition of one single family residence and three business/commercial structures. It is important to note that these potential property acquisitions are based on preliminary engineering studies and are subject to change during final design of the preferred alternative. Berks County Planning Commission Exide Building, Suite 203 645 Penn Street Reading, Pennsylvania 19601 By Telephone: (215) 378-8703 Ask For: Alan Piper By Mail: McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Mellon Independence Center, Suite 6000 701 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 By Telephone: (215) 592-4200 Ask For: Richard Butala D-118 APPENDIX E WETLAND SURVEY REPORT WETLANDS SURVEY REPORT Design Location Study & Environmental Impact Statement PARKROAD R D R OR С R an Extension of S.R. 3055 Berks County, Pennsylvania JULY 1989 PARK ROAD CORRIDOR DESIGN LOCATION STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WETLAND SURVEY REPORT JULY, 1989 Introduction A wetland investigation and field survey was conducted on April 26, 1989 for the Park Road Corridor Project. The survey area is located in the Township of Spring and the Borough of Wyomissing, Berks County, Pennsylvania. The purpose of this survey was to identify and delineate any wetland areas within the study area bounded by Paper Mill Road, S.R. 3055 (the Outer Bypass), Tulpehocken Road and U.S. 422 (the Warren Street Bypass) (Plate 1). This report presents the results of the field survey and data analysis. No wetland areas were identified within the project study area. Methods Existing data was collected from the Soil Survey of Berks County, U.S.G.S. topographic mapping (Reading Quadrangle), and recent aerial photography of the project area. The data was reviewed to identify potential wetland locations in the study area based upon soil characteristics, vegetative features, and topography. National Wetland Inventory mapping was consulted for the presence of wetlands. No wetland areas were indicated on the NWI mapping. Potential wetland areas identified from the existing data consisted of level or nearly level sites possessing soils which are subject to seasonally high water tables. In addition, two natural drainage swales and two stormwater channels were identified from existing map sources. 1 E-1 Study Area Boundary 183 Outer Bypass (S.R. 3055) SCHUY R!! TULPEHOCKEN CREEK CREEK ONISC Radio Towers Tulpenockon Road Penn State Berks Campus CAC Meridian Corporate Center Paper Mill Road 222 Van Reed Road Bypafa Reading Broadcasting Road Road Putno December 423 Colony Park Missing Boroug in Straat Bling Stato HÁL Road Sprin Township Berkshire Blva. Woodland Shore olering Berkshiro Mall Bantahiro Houghts 1422 Bypass Barn Road VF Factory Outlet Complet Project Study Area PARKROAI Source: USGS Reading Quad Revised 1983 D R O Scale: 1" =2000" O C 0 1000 2000 4000 McCormick. Taylor & Associates, Inc Philadelphia Pennsylvania Plate 1 E-2 The location of these potential wetland areas were noted for investigation during field survey. A field survey was conducted to determine the presence of wetlands in the study area. The survey consisted of identification and classification of land use and cover types, an inventory of vegetative species, and limited soil testing to determine the presence of hydric soil conditions. Drainageways were investigated for the presence of bottom dwelling macro-invertebrates, aquatic and hydrophytic vegetation and water sorted bottom sediments indicative of intermittent or permanent streamflow. A 3000 foot wide corridor was surveyed between Paper Mill Road and Tulpehocken Creek from US 422 to the Outer Bypass. The wetland survey was conducted using the methods outlined in the U.S. EPA Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (April, 1988). A. Vegetation and Land Use Land use within the project area is largely agricultural, with over 70 percent of the vegetated area consisting of cropland. This land has recently been zoned for high density residential and commercial development. Isolated areas of mixed hardwood and evergreen forest occur in the western portion of the study area. The eastern end of the study area contains large parcels of secondary hardwood forest. Predominant canopy species include: black cherry, black locust, walnut, tree-of-heaven and white ash. Herbaceous rangeland and shrub rangeland occupy old fields in this area. Predominant shrub species include: black cherry, sumac and Canadian honeysuckle. Herbaceous areas support fescue grasses, chicory, goldenrod, asters and dogbane. Species meeting the criteria for classification as wetland vegetation were not observed within the study area. Low-lying areas were investigated during the field survey and were found to contain upland species associated with old field successional stages. 0661a 3 E-3 B. Soils Soils in the study area are of the Duffield-Washington Association, dominated by Duffield silt loam and Hagarstown silt loam.. These soils are considered prime farmland in Berks County and are characterized as deep, well-drained soils formed from weathered limestone material. Typically, the surface layer of these soils has been moderately to severely eroded. Two associated soil types occurring in the study area are Wiltshire silt loam, 3-8 percent slope, and Lindside silt loam. These soils occur in low-lying areas and depressions and are subject to seasonal high water tables. Wiltshire silt loam, 3-8 percent slope and Lindside silt loam are also listed as prime farmland soils for Berks County. The Wiltshire silt loam is characterized as a deep, moderately well drained soil occupying depressions and broad, flat drainageways where water flows over the surface after heavy precipitation. This soil is subject to a seasonal high water table due to the presence of a fragipan between 40 and 60 inches below the soil surface. Lindside silt loam is characterized as a deep, moderately well-drained floodplain soil occurring along streams. This soil is susceptible to flooding and seasonal high water tables. A heavy silt horizon typically occurs at 18 to 30 inches depth, impeding percolation of soil water. The location of this soil in the study area is not associated with a stream or floodplain. However, it occurs downslope of a broad drainageway occupied by eroded soils. HH Neither the Wiltshire nor Lindside silt loam is classified as a hydric soil according to the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS). A limited number of soil test pits were established in the Wiltshire and Lindside soils to determine the presence of hydric soil conditions. The location of these test pits are indicated on Plate 2. The soil profiles are described below. 0661a 4 E-4 PARKROAD R. R R O O Berks County. Pennsylvania С R 422 VE FIGURE FIGUR Park Road Wetland Survey McCormick, Taylor & Associates Inc. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 422 222 Scale: 1" = 500' 0 250 500 1000 Plate: 2 - 1 B. Soils Soils in the study area are of the Duffield-Washington Association, dominated by Duffield silt loam and Hagarstown silt loam.. These soils are considered prime farmland in Berks County and are characterized as deep, well-drained soils formed from weathered limestone material. Typically, the surface layer of these soils has been moderately to severely eroded. i 1 Two associated soil types occurring in the study area are Wiltshire silt loam, 3-8 percent slope, and Lindside silt loam. These soils occur in low-lying areas and depressions and are subject to seasonal high water tables. Wiltshire silt loam, 3-8 percent slope and Lindside silt loam are also listed as prime farmland soils for Berks County. 1 1 The Wiltshire silt loam is characterized as a deep, moderately well drained soil occupying depressions and broad, flat drainageways where water flows over the surface after heavy precipitation. This soil is subject to a seasonal high water table due to the presence of a fragipan between 40 and 60 inches below the soil surface. Lindside silt loam is characterized as a deep, moderately well-drained floodplain soil occurring along streams. This soil is susceptible to flooding and seasonal high water tables. A heavy silt horizon typically occurs at 18 to 30 inches depth, impeding percolation of soil water. The location of this soil in the study area is not associated with a stream or floodplain. However, it occurs downslope of a broad drainageway occupied by eroded soils. Neither the Wiltshire nor Lindside silt loam is classified as a hydric soil according to the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS). A limited number of soil test pits were established in the Wiltshire and Lindside soils to determine the presence of hydric soil conditions. The location of these test pits are indicated on Plate 2. The soil profiles are described below. 0661a 4 E-4 PARKROAD We R RI R O Berks County, Pennsylvania R СО 422 VE FIGURE FIGUE Park Road Wetland Survey Mc Taylor & Associates the nnsylvanie 422 222 PARKROAD Pap RID R Berks County, Pennsylvania С R Broadcasting Road PENN STATE BERKS CAMPUS Wetland Survey McCormick, Taylor & Associates Inc. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Scale: 1"=500 0 250 500 1000 Plate: 3 HHHHHHH. Soil Pit #1 Soil classification: Lindside silt loam Profile: 0-10" 10YR 4/3 10-24" 10YR 4/4 brown, silt loam, plow horizon brown, silt loam Soil Pit #2 Soil classification: Lindside silt loam Profile: 0-4" 10YR 3/3 12-20" 10YR 4/3 brown, silt loam brown, clayey silt loam Soil Pit #3 Soil Classification: Wiltshire silt loam Profile: 0-12" 10YR 4/3 12-20" 10YR 4/3 brown, silt loam brown, clayey silt loam Hydric soil conditions were not identified from the soil profiles. Soil testing indicated the presence of well-drained aerobic conditions. No evidence of soil saturation or fluctuating water tables was observad. C. Hydrology The study area lies in the drainage basin of Tulpehocken Creek, which borders the north of the study area. Drainage is in a northeasterly direction and consists of surface run-off from agricultural lands, and stormwater run-off from a residential community and shopping mall located south of Paper Mill Road. No surface water occurs within the study area. Review of the USGS topographic map of the project area indicated the presence of two intermittent streams flowing northeasterly through the eastern portion of the study area. Field investigation of these areas determined the presence of natural swales (Plate 2) which support grassland vegetation. No evidence of scour or sediment deposits was observed. Headwater areas of the swales consist of stormwater pipes from Broadcasting Road and Paper Mill Road (Figure 1). No evidence of macro-invertebrate populations was observed in the drainageway. 0661a 7 E-7 FIGURE: 1 HHHHHHH Natural swale draining northeast through farmlands to Tulpehocken Creek. View from source at Broadcasting Road. 8 E-8 The swales exhibit no defined channel bed or banks. Soil testing determined no sorting of sediments or evidence of fluctuating water levels. The soil occupying these swales is Wiltshire silt loam, which characteristically occupies drainageways carrying surface run-off. Due to the characteristics of these swales and the nature and source of the surface water they carry, these areas were not determined to meet the criteria for classification as intermittent streams. Two additional stormwater channels occur in the study area (Plate 2). These drainageways carry stormwater run-off from residential and commercial developments located south of Paper Mill Road to Tulpehocken Creek. Surface water was not observed in these channels during the field survey. Channel banks are well-defined and evidence flashy run-off. The source of the run-off water for both channels originates from stormwater pipes discharging from Paper Mill Road. Bottom sediments consist of sand and silt loam. No wetland vegetation was observed in the channel bottom or along the banks (Figures 2 and 3). A limited survey of bottom sediments indicated the absence of macro-invertebrates in these channels. These channels were not determined to meet the criteria for stream classification. Conclusion Based upon the results of this wetland survey, no wetlands or regulated waterways were determined to occur in the study area. The Park Road Corridor project will involve no impact to wetlands. 0661a 9 E-9 H FIGURE: 2 HHH Stormwater channel east of Berkshire Boulevard. Southern view towards Paper Mill Road. Warren Street at Left, recent development fill at right. 10 E-10 FIGURE: 3 Stormwater channel east of Berkshire Boulevard. Northern view towards West Shore/Warren Street interchange. 11 E-11 APPENDIX F WASTE DISPOSAL SITE FIELD VIEW REPORT 1 I McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. PARK ROAD CORRIDOR Berks County, Pennsylvania Waste Disposal Site Field View Report Date: September 2, 1992 Location: Park Road Corridor Berks County, Pennsylvania Attendees: Representing: Bob Keller Michael G. Maiolie Richard A. Butala PennDOT PaDER, Waste Management McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. 1. PURPOSE: The purpose of this field view was to confirm the waste disposal sites identified within the Park Road Corridor and to determine the next steps required in order to better understand these sites. II. DESCRIPTION OF WASTE DISPOSAL SITES During the fall of 1990 representatives of McCormick Taylor conducted the waste site studies for the Park Road Corridor. As part of these studies, a review of known sites listed with PaDER and the U.S. EPA was conducted, along with interviews with local and county representatives. The results of these studies indicated that no known waste disposal sites were identified within the Park Road Corridor study area. In addition, a waste disposal site field view was conducted by representatives of McCormick Taylor. During this field view any disturbed area showing any type of waste debris was noted. The results of the field view conducted during the fall of 1990, identified eight waste disposal areas which are described in Table 1 and shown on Plate 1. The following is a description of the reevaluation of these sites conducted on September 2, 1992. F-1 Total Area (Acres) Location HHHHHUI .86 1. Wyomissing Interchange area between 422/222 and Tulpehocken Creek .46 2. South bank of Tulpehocken Creek, east of Warren Street Bypass .01 3. Two sites between Warren Street and tributary to Tulpehocken Creek 4. .04 200 feet west of Warren Street, 100 feet north of Woodland Road 5. .26 100 feet east of Kissinger Cemetery 6. .06 100 feet east of Berkshire Boulevard, adjacent to Kissinger Cemetery .52 7. 100 feet east of Table 1 WASTE DISPOSAL SITES Waste Material scattered used appliances, furniture, car parts, grass clippings, brush, litter scattered used appliances, body shop parts, household wastes appliances/building material building rubble boulder/soil pile scattered used appliances body shop parts, household wastes Berkshire Boulevard boulder, soil fill, tires boulder, soil fill 1.00 8. 150 feet west of Berkshire Boulevard, adjacent to Seven Oaks Townhouses TOTAL 3.21 F-2 COLLI Read 311311 RIVER JLPE West Shores vassr Park Road le ERILAT Vanity Fair Factor Outlet Complex ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE A 1 Berkshire Boulevard Berkshire Heights Paper Mill Road ALTERNATIVES F & G Warren Street Bypass Benshee Mall Jony Pat Bern Road M Waste Disposal Sites PARKROAD Aerial Photography Aug. 1990 0 RR O O Scale:1"= 1000' с R McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Philadelphia Pennsylvania 0 500 1000 2000 Plate: 1 McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. III. FIELD VIEW RESULTS On September 2, 1992, Bob Keller, PennDOT District 5-0, Michael G. Maiolie, PaDER Field Operations Supervisor for the Waste Management Program and Richard A. Butala, McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. conducted a reevaluation of the waste disposal sites previously identified. The following are the result of this field view. - Site 1 - Located on the northern side of the West Shore Bypass (U.S. 222 and 422) near the intersection of the Tulpehocken Creek and the Schuylkill River this site contained the same types of waste material identified in Table 1. This waste material is shown in Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4. It was agreed by all present that this site was a surface collection of various municipal waste materials and that no additional testing was required at this site. Site 2 - Located on the northern side of the West Shore Bypass near the Warren Street Bypass overpass this site contained the same type of waste material identified in Table 1. This waste material is shown in Figure 5. It was agreed by all present that this site was a surface collection of various municipal waste materials and that no additional testing was required at this site. Site 3 - Located just west of the Park Road/Warren Street Bypass intersection this site contained the same types of waste materials identified in Table 1. This waste material is shown in Figures 6 and 7. It was agreed by all present that this site was a surface collection of various municipal waste materials and that no additional testing was required at this site. Site 4 - Located along Woodland Road this site primarily contained a surface collection of concrete blocks, which is shown in Figures 8 and 9. It was agreed by all present that this site was a surface collection of waste materials and that no additional testing was required at this site. Sites 5, 6, 7 and 8 - Originally located along Berkshire Boulevard during the fall of 1990, these sites primarily consisted of soil fill materials and boulders. However, as a result of this field view none of these sites were found to still exist. What was found in this area was silt fencing associated with either the local roadway improvements currently underway along Berkshire Boulevard or from the recently completed Seven Oaks residential development. It was speculated by all present that the soil fill material and boulders originally identified were probably removed as part of the grading activities associated with one or both of these projects. Therefore, it was agreed by all present that no additional testing would be required at these sites. F-4 1 | | | | | | 1 | | McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. IV. CONCLUSIONS As a result of this field view, it was agreed by all present that the four sites, Sites 1, 2, 3 and 4 which still remain were surface collections of various residual waste materials and that no additional testing or research would be required. V. NEXT STEPS Copies of this field view report will be sent to Mike Maiolie, PaDER; Gary Fawver and Doug Zimmerman, PennDOT Central Office; Renee Sigel, FHWA; Alan Piper, Berks County and Bob Keller and Jack Porter, PennDOT District 5-0. In addition, a letter will be sent to Mike Maiolie of PaDER asking for a formal response from PaDER on the findings stated in this report. In addition, the Hazardous Site Clearance section of the Final EIS for the Park Road project will be updated to include this new information. Also, the formal response letter received from PaDER will be placed in the Appendix of the Final EIS. Reported By: McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Rich Butula Rich Butala Coordinator, Environmental Group pc: PaDER Michael G. Maiolie PennDOT Central Office Doug Zimmerman FHWA Renee Sigel Berks County Alan Piper PennDOT District 5-0 Jack Porter Bob Keller F-5 HHHHHHH McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. FIGURES 11 Figure 1: Site 1 located along the northern side of the West Shore Bypass (U.S. 222 and 422). Photo showing bedding matressess. Figure 2: Photo of automobile tires found at Site 1. F-6 HHH Figure 3: Photo of canvass covering found at Site 1. Figure 4: Photo of various household waste material found at Site 1. F-7 Figure 5: Site 2 located along the northern side of the West Shore Bypass near the Warren Street Overpass. Photo of various household waste found at Site 2. F-8 HHHHHHI Figure 6: Site 3 located just west of the Park Road/Warren Street Bypass. Photo of various waste material inculding cast iron household radiator, and tar paper roofing material found at Site 3. Figure 7: Photo of various household appliances and a bathtub found at Site 3. F-9 1 | 1 1 1 U | | | | 1 1 1 i 1 Figure 8: Site 4 located along Woodland Road. Photo of concrete block found at Site 4. Figure 9: Photo of concrete block found at Site 4. F-10 stewardship of Years and Twenty PENNSYLVANIA Service PER 1971•1991 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Waste Management Program Southcentral Region (Harrisburg) Reading District Office 625 Cherry Street Reading, Pennsylvania 19602 215-378-4175 December 4, 1992 Mr. Robert J. Keller District Environmental Manager Department of Transportation 2460 Parkwood Drive Allentown, PA 18103 Re: Park Road, Berks County Waste Disposal Site Field Visit September 2, 1992 Dear Mr. Keller: This letter is in response to your letter of September 10, 1992, regarding the field visit to several waste disposal sites in the Park Road area on September 2, 1992. During this walkover of the 8 areas where debris was pre- viously noted, waste was viewed at sites 1, 2, 3, and 4. In each of these sites it was agreed upon by all present that the site appeared to be a surface collec- tion of assorted waste materials that would not require further testing or soil sampling in order to be adequately remediated. In addition, sites 5, 6, 7, and 8 were also viewed on September 2. At these locations no waste material was identified and it was agreed upon by all present that no additional actions would be required. In conclusion, the Department concurs that the waste materials identified at sites 1, 2, 3, and 4 could be adequately cleaned up by the physical removal of the waste present and that no additional testing would be required. If you have any additional questions with regard to this letter, please contact me at 215-378-4175. Sincerely, Rachel failed Michael Maiolie Field Operations Supervisor cc: Southcentral Regional File Re30 MM335.1 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Emplover RECYCLING Recycled Paperworks APPENDIX G DRAFT EIS AND PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES A. SUMMARY OF DRAFT EIS AND PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS The following pages contain summaries of the major comments received as a result of the circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the testimony given at the Public Hearing. The comments are grouped under four headings: Agency and Public Comments Received During the Draft EIS Circulation Period Public Hearing / Oral Testimony . Public Hearing Written Documentation Submitted with Oral Testimony Public Hearing Written Testimony Form/Letter G- 1 PARK ROAD DRAFT EIS REVIEW SUMMARY AGENCY AND PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE EIS CIRCULATION PERIOD Federal Agency Comment U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, Region III Minimal impacts Concern for two HUD assisted developments U.S. DOT, Federal Transit Administration No significant mass transit issues National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA must be informed if any geodetic monuments are affected U.S. Department of Energy No comment U.S. Department of Health and Human Services No comment U.S. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers No comment U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Concern for control of erosion and sediment during construction, concern for loss of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Minimal adverse environmental impacts U.S. Dept. of the Interior Office of the Secretary Office of Environmental Affairs Supports Alternative F or G as having least overall impacts to the environment. U.S. EPA, Region III Minimal adverse environmental impacts. State Agency Comment PA Department of Aging PA Dept. of Agriculture Bureau of Farmland Protection No negative impact Recommend PA's Prime Agricultural Land Policy be implemented and mitigation sought against conversion of prime agricultural land during construction. PA Department of Commerce/PA Economic Development No comment Partnership Pa Department of Community Affairs No comment PA Senator David J. Brightbill, Representing Berks County Endorses Alternative A PA Energy Office No comment PA Department of Environmental Resources No comment PaDER, PA Natural Diversity Inventory No natural resources of special concern G-2 PARK ROAD DRAFT EIS REVIEW SUMMARY AGENCY AND PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE EIS CIRCULATION PERIOD PA Fish Commission No objections. Are concerned about water quality impacts to Cacoosing and Tulpehocken Creeks. PA Game Commission No adverse impact to wildlife and associated habitat PA Department of Community Affairs No comment PA Historical and Museum Commission No comment Bureau of Affirmative Action, Human Relation Commission No comment Governor's Office of Policy and Planning No comment No comment PA Housing Finance Agency Local Agencies Comment Borough of Wyomissing Prefers Alternative A Endorses Alternative A Township of Spring Lower Heidelberg Township No comment Berks County Endorses Alternative A Bern Township Board of Supervisors Concern for impact of new traffic pattern on S.R. 3055 and S.R. 183 interchange Berks County Planning Commission Endorses Alternative A Park Road Corridor Task Force Comment Endorses Alternative A Glenn B. Reber Berks County Commissioners Endorses Alternative A Anthony J. Carabello Berks County Planning Commission No comment Ernie Miller Berks County Commissioners Joseph E. DeSantis Strongly supports Alternative A William B. Myers No comment Endorses Alternative A Paul H. Edelman Borough of Wyomissing Council President No comment John Hanosek PennDOT District 5-0 G- 3 PARK ROAD DRAFT EIS REVIEW SUMMARY AGENCY AND PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE EIS CIRCULATION PERIOD Michael Martin No comment David Wolf Recommends Alternative A James Sterganos No comment James Arey No comment Public Comment Max and Pat Keever Endorses Alternative A Tulpehocken, LTD. Strongly endorses Alternative A Mr. and Mrs. Michael Schmidt Strongly endorses Alternative A Martha W. Aynardi Endorses Alternative A Dennis M. McCish for Colony Park Residents Endorse Alternative A Howard and Susan Lincoln Endorse Alternative A G-4 PARK ROAD DRAFT EIS REVIEW SUMMARY PUBLIC HEARING - WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED WITH ORAL TESTIMONY HEARING DATE: JULY 29, 1992 Agency And/Or Person Major Comment Berks County Planning Commission Endorses Alternative A. Borough of Wyomissing Prefers Alternative A. Austin, Boland, Connor & Giorgi for Mr. and Mrs.Phillip D. Rowe Endorses Alternative H. Has concern about noise impacts to areas along corridor. David A. Wolf, Colony Park Civic Association Recommends Alternative A. James L. and Patricia A.Mason Supports Alternative A. PARK ROAD DRAFT EIS REVIEW SUMMARY PUBLIC HEARING - WRITTEN TESTIMONY FORM/LETTERS SUBMITTED AT OR FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARING Agency And/Or Person Comment James R. Huber Endorses Alternative A. Dr. Andrea Dillaway-Huber Endorses Alternative A. Douglas N. Culp Endorses Alternative A. Bob Schaeffer Jody L. Gerhart Paula Michalski Endorses Alternative A. Requests sound barriers. Questions effect on property values. Concern for emergency vehicle access to the north side of Warren Street Bypass. Would like to see wildlife study. Strongly supports Alternative A. Reluctantly chooses Alternative A. Is concerned that road will not relieve congestion on other area roads. James and Patricia Mason Stephen Gresdo Mildred and Fred Gane Endorse Alternative A. Supports sound barriers. G- 5 PARK ROAD DRAFT EIS REVIEW SUMMARY PUBLIC HEARING - ORAL TESTIMONY HEARING DATE: JULY 29, 1992 Agency And/Or Person Comment Mr. Anthony J. Carabello Berks County Board of County Commissioners Endorses Alternative A Endorses Alternative A Mr. Paul Edelman Borough of Wyomissing Council President Brian Boland (for Mr. and Mrs. Philip Rowe) Austin, Boland, Connor & Giorgi Endorses Alternative H. Wants sound barrier along entire northerly boundary of the road project. Concern for parking on A and H on North Wyomissing Boulevard. Roy Walton Recommends Alternative A. Dave Wolf Colony Park Civic Association Berks County Task Force Supports Alternative A. Nancy Sharp Berks County Chamber of Commerce John A. Ulrich Concern for loss of taxable land. James Mason Supports Alternative A. James R. Huber Paula Michalski Supports Alternative A. Supports Alternative A. Feels amount of money being paid for acquired properties is too high. Supports Alternative A. Doug Culp Stone Hill Farms Homeowners William G. Yeich Supports extension of Warren Street Bypass. Supports Alternative A. Lenore Svetec G- 6 B. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT EIS LETTERS FROM FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES REQUIRING NO RESPONSE A number of letters were received from governmental agencies as the result of the circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The letters contained no comments requiring responses. A summary of the principal comments in each letter follows with a copy of each of these letters. A. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1. Department of Environmental Resources (Bureau of Forestry) Comment: A review of the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) information system did not reveal any natural resources of special concern within the project area. 2. Pennsylvania Game Commission Comment: Because the project primarily impacts agricultural lands and not vegetated wetlands, the project will not adversely impact wildlife or associated habitat. 3. Department of Aging Comment: The project was found to have no negative impacts. B. United States Government 1. Department of Transportation (Federal Transit Administration) . Comment: There are no significant mass transit issues with the proposed project. 2. Department of The Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service) Comment: The project will cause minimal adverse environmental impacts. concurrence is given to the upland wildlife mitigation plan. 3. Environmental Protection Agency (Region III) Comment: The agency concurs with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency that some agricultural land and terrestrial habitat will be impacted because the area is zoned for commercial use and is currently adjacent to commercial areas, the adverse impacts should be minimal. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Comment: The agency wants to be given at least 90 days notice if any geodetic control monuments are disturbed or destroyed. G- 7 7th News nig to part PENNSYLVANIA DER ke COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Bureau of Forestry Forest Advisory Services P.0. Box 8552 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8552 717/787-3444 June 29, 1992 41151/10 267 RECEVED DEPT Úri MON Walter E. Bortree, P.E. District Engineer Engineering District 5-0 PennDOT 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, PA 18103 JULIJGZ DISTIOT 5-0 DESIGN DIV. Dear Mr. Bortree: Re: PNDI Review of the Proposed Park Road Project Site, Spring Township, Borough of Wyomissing, Berks County, Pennsylvania. Your request of June 10 to review a location within Reading Quadrangle for the presence of natural resources of special concern was processed by using the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) information system. A review of PNDI in comparison with the project site did not reveal any natural resources of special concern. Be advised that legal authority for Pennsylvania's biological resources resides with three administrative agencies. The enclosure titled, PNDI Species List, outlines which species groups are managed by these agencies. Although PNDI functions solely as an information system for natural resources of concern, the Pennsylvania Game Commission maintains the Fish and Wildlife Data Base which can provide data descriptive of all mammals and birds common to Pennsylvania. PNDI is a site specific information system which describes significant natural resources of Pennsylvania. PNDI includes data descriptive of plant and animal species of special concern, exemplary natural communities and unique geological features. The information system is a cooperative project of the Department of Environmental Resources, The Nature Conservancy and the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. This response represents the most up- to-date summary of the PNDI data files. However, the data is not intended to be a conclusive compilation of the special concern resources at the project site. Only on-site biological surveys can provide a total assessment of the natural resources present in any specific area. An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer Recycled Paper has ACYCLING NOTS 1 1 Walter E. Bortree, P.E. - 2 - . June 26, 1992 The PNDI project is funded largely through contributions to the Wild Resource Conservation Fund. This fund was established in 1982 by the Pennsylvania Legislature to provide support for the research and conservation of significant natural resources within the Commonwealth. 1 1 Please phone this office if you should have questions pertinent to this response, PNDI or the Department of Environmental Resources plant program. 1 Sincerely, Eluwed. 1 dy 1 Edward T. Dix, Botantist Div. of Forest Advisory Services Bureau of Forestry Dept. of Environmental Resources 1 Enclosures 1 CC: Anthony Wilkinson, PNDI-East 1 1 1 1 1 1 G- 8 $ PENNSYLVANIA NATURAL DIVERSITY INVENTORY SPECIES LISTS The statutory authority for Pennsylvania's animals and plants resides with three separate agencies. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources has the responsibility for management of the Commonwealth's native wild plants. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission is responsible for management of fish, reptiles, amphibians and aquatic organisms within the Commonwealth. The Pennsylvania Game Commission has the responsibility for managing the state's wild birds and mammals. For information on current official status for a species, please consult the appropriate agency. Requests for information snouig be directed to: PLANTS and PNDI general Plant Program Manager Pa. Department of Environmental Resources Bureau of Forestry Forest Advisory Services P. 0. Box 8552 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8552 (717)787-3444 FISH, REPTILES, AMPHIBIANS, AQUATIC ORGANISMS . Endangered Species & Herpetology Coordinator Pennsylvania Fish Commission Bureau of Fisheries and Engineering 450 Robinson Lane Bellefonte, PA 16823 (814) 359-5113 BIRDS and MAMMALS Pennsylvania Game Commission Bureau of Wildlife Management 2001 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17110-9797 (717) 787-5529 Invertebrate species are recommended for inclusion in PNDI by the Pennsylvania Biological Survey. For information concerning invertebrates with federal status contact: Endangered Species Specialist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service One Gateway Center, Suite 700 Newton Corner, MA 02158 (617)965-5100 Feel free to contact PNDI if we Thank you for your request. can be of further assistance. G- 9 ADMINISTRATIVE BUREAUS: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 787 5670 VANIA SHED PENNSYLVANIA GAME COMMISSION ADMINISTRATION AUTOMOTIVE AND PROCUREMENT DIVISION LICENSE DIVISION PERSONNEL DIVISION WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION & EDUCATION LAW ENFORCEMENT LAND MANAGEMENT REAL ESTATE DIVISION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS 787-6594 787-2084 787 7836 787-5529 787-6286 787-5740 787-6818 787-6568 1895 CO GAME ON 2001 ELMERTON AVENUE HARRISBURG. PA 17110-9797 787-4076 August 24, 1992 3 SEP Mr. Walter E. Bortree, P.E. District Engineer PennDOT, Engineering District 5-0 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, PA 18103 Alvi - JULIATES, INC. 8 1992 In re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Park Road, S.R. 3040 Spring Township, and Wyomissing Borough Berks County GA AYLOR Dear Mr. Bortree: This is in reply to your letter of June 10, 1992 requesting our review and comments as related to the above referenced project. The report appears to adequately address all of the environmental issues associated with the proposed project. The project will primarily impact agricultural land, much of which is zoned for development. In addition, no vegetative wetlands will be impacted. Therefore, we feel that the proposed project will not adversely impact wildlife and associated habitat. Please keep us informed of any further progress on this project. If you have any questions, please contact Roland Bergner of my staff at (717) 783-4919. Very truly yours, sam daca Denver A. McDowell, Chief Division of Environmental Planning and Habitat Protection Bureau of Land Management RECEIVED DEPT. OF TARKSPORTATON AUG 26 :992 RECEIVED AUG 25 1992 G-10 DISTRICT 60 DESIGN DN. An Foral nortunity Emolover Et COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF AGING Harrisburg, Pa. 17101-1195 Dm E Porter Klin 19.11.2010 JUNE 23, 1992 117118, LO ГТ О. (1741FOEN ZEGU G7 Walter E. Bortree, P.E. District Engineer PA Department of Transportation District 5-0 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, PA 18108 MED rainTION JUTC 1032 CCTCT 5-0 DEJIUN DIV. RE: Berks County Park Road project Dear Mr. Bortree: This in response to your request for us to review your Environmental Impact Statement concerning the Park Road corridor construction. Upon review of your project evaluation and discussions with our Area Agency on Aging located in Berks County, we have found no negative impact concerning this project. Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on tne Park Road coccidor Construction project. Sincerely, Glen Dunbar Director Bureau of Policy, Planning and Research G-11 1 US Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Southeastern Area Region 111 Pennsylvania, D.C. Delaware, Maryland. West Virginia, Virginia 1760 Market Street Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-656-6900 25 JUL I in 1992 Mr. Walter E. Bortree, P.E. District Engineer Engineering District 5-0 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18103 Re: DEIS Park Road Location Study Dear Mr. Bortree: We are in receipt of your letter of June 10, 1992 requesting our review of the enclosed Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Park Road Location Study. Based upon our review we find there are no significant mass transit issues and we have no comment on the proposed project. Alfred Lebeau is available should additional assistance be needed. Sincerely, مرد به رده دوم یا یہ Sheldon A. Kinbar Regional Administrator 3 111 JUN 24 1992 121110 co G- 12 Dob Keller OF IN United States Department of the Interior U.S. DES THE INTE INTERIOR MARCH 3. 1849 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Suite 322 315 South Allen Street State College, Pennsylvania 16801 July 15, 1992 Mr. Walter E. Bortree, P.E. District Engineer Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, PA 18103 Dear Mr. Bortree: This responds to your June 10, 1992 letter requesting our review and comments on the Park Road Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Spring Township, Berks County. These comments provide technical assistance only and do not represent the review comments of the Department of the Interior on this statement. The proposed project will primarily impact agricultural land and some forest habitat. No wetlands will be impacted and only a few intermittent streams will be crossed. Therefore, we agree this project will cause minimal adverse environmental impacts. We also concur with the recommended upland wildlife mitigation plan described on page IV-28 of the statement. Thank you for the early review of this document. If you have any questions, please call Richard McCoy of this office at 814-234-4090. Sincerely, Edwardle Edward W. Perry Acting Supervisor Tata Door Hi KATION JUL 31332 JUL 11 1992 DLT59 DISSLICI. RECEIVED G-13 STATUS .LOWTED D UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION MI 841 Chestnut Building Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 OPARENTAL Keller / Portal Horection SEYEN1392 9 SEP 1 8 1992 Mr. Walter E. Bortree, P.E. District Engineer Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, PA 18103 دن اور رانا .., MLUN SOCIATES, INC . RE: Park Road Corridor, Berks County, PA, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Dear Mr. Bortree: In accordance with with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the clean Air Act, we have reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the above referenced project. We concur with USFWS that some agricultural land and some terrestrial habitat will be impacted and fragmented. As much of the area subject to impacts is already zoned for "planned office/business" and adjacent to commercial areas, the adverse environmental impacts should be minimal. If you have specific questions or if we can be of further assistance, please call Denise Rigney of my staff at (215) 597- 7336. Sincerely, 1 Diana Esher, Chief Environmental Planning Section Diamci Esher shan and Assessment RECEIVED DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION SEP 9 1992 SEP 8 1992 ECEIVED DISTFICT 5-0 DESIGN DIV. G-14 DEPARTMENT COMMERCE UNITED DA AMERICA STATES UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of the Chief Scientist Washington, D.C. 20230 August 13, 1992 BE Mr. Walter E. Bortree, P.E. District Engineer Department of Transportation Engineering District 5-0 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18103 Dear Mr. Bortree: Enclosed are comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Park Road Project, Berks County, Pennsylvania. We hope our comments will assist you. Thank you for giving us an opportunity to review the document. Sincerely, David Göttingham David Cottingham Director Ecology and Conservation office Enclosure FECTIVED DEPT. OOF FW.. ;TION ATMOSWERK ANO ANIC NOAA AUG21992 MATIONAL DAANGSTRATION G- 15 Elimited USD COMMERCE MATHEM 0 OF COMMERCE DEPARTMENT UNITED AMERICA UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE Coast and Geodetic Survey Rockville, Maryland 20852 ' STATES of MEMORANDUM FOR: och tunt FROM: David Cottingham Ecology and Environmental Conservation Office Office of the chief scientist Hverger Rear Admiral J. Austin Yeager, NOAA Director, coast and geodetic Survey DEIS 9206.06 - Park Road Project, Berks County, , Pennsylvania SUBJECT: The subject statement has been reviewed within the areas of Coast and Geodetic Survey's (C&GS) responsibility and expertise and in terms of the impact of the proposed actions on C&GS activities and projects. All available information about geodetic control points in the vicinity of the project is provided on the computer diskette(s) accompanying this memorandum. Geodetic control information for Berks County is provided on the diskette(s). This information should be reviewed for identifying the location and designation of any geodetic control monuments that may be affected by the proposed project. If there are any planned activities which will disturb or destroy these monuments, C&GS requires not less than 90 days' notification in advance of such activities in order to plan for their relocation. C&GS recommends that funding for this project include the cost of any relocation required for C&GS monuments. For further information about these monuments, please contact the National Geodetic Information Branch, N/CG174, Rockwall Building, Room 24, National Geodetic Survey Division, NOAA, Rockville, Maryland 20852, telephone 301-443-8631. Attachment CC: N/CG1x32 R. Cohen N/CG17 - J. - J. Spencer LA MO ATMOSA NOAA 8-12-92 Meron G- 16 COMME EC LETTERS FROM CITIZENS, ELECTED OFFICIALS AND CORPORATIONS REQUIRING NO RESPONSE Written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement were received from private citizens, elected officials and corporations. The following letters were written in support of Alternative A. Because the letters contained no other substantive comments, no responses are made to the comments. Letters were received from the following: . Martha Aynardi Mr. and Mrs. Michael Schmidt Max and Pat Keever Honorable David Brightbill, Senate of PA Tulpehocken, Ltd. Howard and Susan Lincoln Dennis Meclish Copies of these letters are as follows, Dr. & Mrs, J. Marc Aynardi 1512 Concord Rd. Wyomissing, PA 19610-1106 (215)670-2290 August 13, 1992 Walter E. Bortree, P.E. District Engineer 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, PA 18103 RE: Park Road Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Bortree, As a resident of Colony Park and as a member of the Executive Board of the Colony Park Civic Association, I have been actively involved with the Park Road Corridor Project for the past 3 years. As is true for most of our residents, my husband and I have a vested interest in the outcome of this project. It is true that there is a great need for this project there has been for many years. There are several reasons why we feel that the best alternative for construction would be Alternative "A". I am sure that you are well aware of our various concerns already so I will not take the time to review them. What I would like to emphasize is that we hope you will continue to investigate the feasibility of Alternative "A" as the main project choice because we feel that it will best solve the transportation problems in this area and because it is apparent that this alternative is not likely to create a major environmental upheaval. Most sincerely yours, ladthar W limoni Martha W. Aynardi 1 G-17 7:17 AUS 11 1992 1 1 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Schmidt 1748 Westwood Rd. Wyomissing, PA 19610-1134 1 August 17, 1992 1 Walter E. Bortree, P.E. District Engineer 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, PA 18103 1 I RE: Park Road Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 1 Dec. Mr. Bortree: We are residents of Colony Park. As members of the Colony Park Civic Association, we have been following the Park Road Corridor project since it's inception approximately 3 years ago. We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and we have analyzed the benefits and consequences of the project. We are in full agreement for the need and purposes of the project. After careful consideration of all the alternatives presented and evaluated, we strongly support Alternative A. We believe that this alternative best meets the needs of the area. The other alternatives use all or part of Paper Mill Road for connecting traffic between the Warren Street Bypass, US422/222 and the Road to Nowhere (Outer Bypass State Route 3055). Although this alternative is more costly, it is the only one that solves the transportation problems of the area. The added environmental impact of this alternative is minimal compared to the benefits received in solving our traffic needs. Our reasons for supporting Alternative A are as follows: 1. Safety of residents who live in Colony Park and Stone Hill Farms is our major concern. 2. A playground is located along Paper Mill Road in Colony Park, and using one of the other alternatives poses a safety hazard for our children using the facilities. 3. . If Paper Mill road is utilized as a four lane highway, residents of the two subdivisions will either not have access to Paper Mill Road and if they do, safety is again the major concern. State Hill Road can not handled the increased traffic if all Colony Park residents Vexit onto State Hill Road. It is already very dirt exit Colony Park onto State Hill Road. videos 01 2661 81 91265 G-18 ani MNG 4. Traffic noise would make living in the residential area unbearable and would affect peoples hearing, because of constant exposure to high speed traffic noise. Resale value of homes would plummet. No one will buy a home in the suburbs next to a four lane highway. Even though some of the other alternatives may appear to have less of an impact on the environment, we do not support them. They do not solve the transportation and safety issues of the area. Το select one of the other alternatives will be taking a step backward, and we will be paying the consequences of the decision for many years to come. In conclusion, we fully support and recommend that the Alternative "A" limited access highway be built. We do not support any of the other alternatives evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Sincerely, Michael Schmal Scarf Schmidt MF: Mt. & Mrs. Michael Schmidt G- 19 Feuers 1530 Sirger id kd. Sys fa 19610 , ! July 30, 1992 ... LLIOLL? 9!! 101 (JAPDIY TITT 2661 IE MC ' ere too Halter & Bortree, P.E. District Enginer 1713 Lugh St. -Gullertour, pa 18103 171 1872 be Park Road Corridor "Daye Erwinmurtal Impact hand Stult Dear me portree, the are in full Youlle . the fort Road Corrida. There agreement with the need and Yengeits ge mary and children that Jue a highway Meghuny type" road as faper Mill Rd was yourposed to le is extremely dangerous ynail to have the heavy traffic you through using faper mul kol. Sebagsién uree and recomendbe that the va metid ..Keciso ceńcyet, Citerratié A le fowe uicted These the caly wewville . Literratie ya Agrity of the many residents & Gusinesses in the area, * Sn may add fat Beeyen Bedents z Claytek milies and Hamiled . much too close to with C the health and Gift 1 - G-20 Majority Polic Chairman COMMITTEES DAVID J. BRIGHTBILL 337 MAIN CAPITOL BUILDING HARRISBURG, PA 17120.0030 717.787-5708 48TH DISTRICT LEBANON, NORTHERN BERKS AND NORTHERN LEHIGH COUNTIES ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN JUDICIARY VICE CHAIRMAN APPROPRIATIONS GAME AND FISHERIES PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE RULES AND EXECUTIVE NOMINATIONS Senate of Pennsylvania ? July 28, 1992 TVED AUG 1 0 1992 Honorable Howard Yerusalim Secretary of Transportation PA Department of Transportation 1200 Transportation & Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 , TAYLOR SOCIATES, INC Dear Secretary Yerusalim: Berks County is in the process of updating its road network. This is a very important step since this will be a basic component of Berks County's transportation system as we move into the next century. I am writing to endorse Alternative "A" of the Park Road Project. This is the corridor which has the support of the Berks County Community. This includes, but is not limited to, such organizations and governments as the Spring Township Supervisors, Wyomissing Borough Council, Berks County Commissioners and the Chamber of Commerce. 구름 ​It is important that all of Berks County isted and supportive of Alternative "A". Other areas of begcommonwealth have lost highway improvement projects because the lack of vision by community leaders. This is not the case in Berks County. We come before you We as a united front to move Berks County into the 21st Century. come before you in support of the Park Road Corridor Alternative "A" Project. Thank you for your continued support of Berks County's highway needs. Very tra] yours, David J. Blightbill DJB:zjh G-21 TULPEHOCKEN. LTD. 2650 WESTVIEW DRIVE WYOMISSING. PA 19610 (215) 678-2 426 July 22, 1992 Mr. Robert J. Keller Project Development Manager Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, PA 18103 Dear Mr. Keller: We have reviewed the draft of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Park Road Corridor as approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation on April 17, 1992. With extensive land holdings in the Park Road Corridor area, we have a strong interest in which alternative route is selected. Tulpehocken, Ltd. continues to strongly endorse Alternative "A". This alternative provides a regional highway connection while minimizing the taking of developable property by following our existing property boundary with Penn State University. We oppose Alternatives "F" and "G", which provide for a complete mixing of regional and local traffic. I Tulpehocken, Ltd. strongly opposes Alternative "H". The relocation of Paper Mill Road, combined with the expressway development, requires more land for highway development than Alternative "A". At the same time, At the same time, the combined projects bisect the Tulpehocken, Ltd. property, both north and south of the Paper Mill Road Interchange. This alternative provides no discernible advantages compared to Alternative "A", while imposing substantially higher land use burdens. Yours truly ütt frik David F. Rick General Manager R:k OJAIDOT Cc: Mr. Alan D. Piper Berks County Planning Commission 2661 17 IOC Joseph E. De Santis, Esq., Chairman Park Road Corridor Task Force G-22 August 19, 1992 SEP 3 1992 Walter E. Bortree, P.E. District Engineer 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, PA 18103 RECEIVED RE: Park Road Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Bortree: We are residents of Colony Park who have been actively involved with the Park Road Corridor Project from it's inception approximately 3 years ago. Since we reside on Paper Mill Rd., we have a vested interest in this construction. We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and we have analyzed the benefits and consequences of the project. We are in full agreement for the need and purposes of the project. After careful consideration of all the alternatives presented and evaluated, we recommend that the limited access concept of Alternative "A" be constructed. Although this alternative is more costly, it is the only one that solves the transportation problems of the area. The added environmental impact of this alternative is minimal compared to the benefits received in solving our traffic needs. TO Even though some of the other alternatives may appear to have less of an impact on the environment, we do not support them. They do not solve the transportation and safety issues of the area. select one of the other alternatives will be taking a step backward, and we will be paying the consequences of the decision for many years to come. a / In conclusion, we fully support and recommend that the alternative "A" limited access highway be built. We do not support any of the other alternatives evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Sincerely, Mae'fimov, Indy jugan Zenesta جو dret G-23 August 19, 1992 Walter E. Bortree, P.E. District Engineer 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, PA 18103 RE: Park Road Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Bortree: We are residents of Colony Park who have been actively involved with the Fark Road Corridor Project from it's inception approximately 3 years ago. Since we reside on Paper Mill Rd., We have a vested interest in this construction. We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and we have analyzed the benefits and consequences of the project. We are in full agreement for the need and purposes of the project. After careful consideration of all the alternatives presented and evaluated, we recommend that the limited access concept of Alternative "A" be constructed. Although this alternative is more costly, it is the only one that solves the transportation problems of the area. The added environmental impact of this alternative is minimal compared to the benefits received in solving our traffic needs. Even though some of the other alternatives may appear to have less of an impact on the environment, we do not support them. They do not solve the transportation and safety issues of the area. To select one of the other alternatives will be taking a step backward, and we will be paying the consequences of the decision for many years to come. In conclusion, we fully support and recommend that the alternative "A" limited access highway be built. We do not support any of the other alternatives evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Sincetely, , denne uueluh Mccusthal CAUTREDE 2:14 Downes. Ma Davis M Mecush 2468 PAPER Mise Red Wyomissing PA, 19660 " 31 AUG 195? G-24 lahthor F. Berotice OD. LETTERS FROM GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES AND CORPORATIONS REQUIRING RESPONSES TO COMMENTS As a result of the circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact, comments were received from various sources which contained substantive comments. These comments required the preparation of specific responses. The responses are contained on the page facing the following letters. Letters requiring responses were received from the following: Bern Township, Board of Supervisors U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development PA Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Farmland Protection PA Fish Commission . . Copies of these letters are as follows: RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: BERN TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Response to Comment 1) PennDOT does acknowledge this point, however logical termini for the Park Road Project were determined at the onset of this study in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration and Berks County. Although there may be other traffic congestion problems identified throughout the area these areas will need to be programmed for study as separate projects. This specific concern at the SR 3055 and SR 183 interchange will need to be first initiated through the area's Transportation Improvements Program and then into PennDOT's 12 year program. I G-25 Bern Township Board of Supervisors Moots First Monday & Third Tuesday 8:00 P.M. • 215-926-2267 24 August 1992 } Robert J. Keller Project Development Manager Pennsylvania Department of Transportation District 5-0 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, PA 18103 SEL 2 McC AND ASSU. Re: Park Road Corridor EIS Dear Mr. Keller, I would like to present the concerns of Bern Township regarding the Park Road Corridor as the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared. While Alternative "A" will greatly improve the transportation network in the Reading metropolitan area the Township's concern is the impact the new traffic pattern will have at the SR 3055 and SR 183 interchange. The Route 183 Traffic Study, completed by McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. in 1989, indicated the Park Road Corridor would increase the PM Peak Hour flow exiting eastbound SR 3055 and turning left at SR 183 from 185 vehicles to 345. The figures were based on a 1995 construction of Park Road. Since this is an at-grade crossing the likelihood of increased motor vehicle accidents is apparent considering the continuous flow of traffic along SR 183. The Level of Service at the intersection will be adversely affected with the advent of Park Road. I have enclosed a chart of the projected peak traffic flows along with diagrams of Projected Traffic Volumes prepared by McCormick, Taylor and Associates. Furthermore, traffic attempting to turn left from northbound SR 183 onto the westbound SR 3055 will increase from 105 to 120 during the AM Peak Hour with the Park Road Corridor. Bern Township's contention is that since this interchange is in such close proximity to the Park Road Corridor, and the effects tend to be extremely detrimental to the safety of thru traffic, the 1 Final EIS should acknowledge the problem and incorporate this area into the study. Alternatives to mitigate the problem should be offered and programmed into PennDOT's short-term road improvement program. RD 9276 Reading, PA 19605 • Bern Municipal Building at Leinbachs • Old Bernville Road Born in Berks is Beautifull G-26 Letter to Robert J. Keller Page Two On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, thank you for your cooperation and consideration. Yours sincerely, u X. CX John L. Cox Township Manager Enclosures: Route 183 Traffic Study Chart 1995 Projected Traffic Volumes (w/o Park Rd Extension) 1995 Projected Traffic Volumes (with Park Rd Extension) 2015 Projected Traffic Volumes (with Park Rd Extension) G-27 ROUTE 183 TRAFFIC STUDY LOCATION EB SR 3055 RAMP TURNING LEFT ON SR 183 NB SR 183 NORTH OF VAN REED ROAD PEAK HOUR PM PM 1995 1995 W/O WITH PARK RD PARK RD 185 345 1,495 1,355 2015 420 2,515 WB SR 3055 RAMP FROM SB SR 183 SB SR 183 AT SR 3055 WB RAMPS AM AM 140 1,415 325 1,230 400 1,955 215 LEFT TURN FROM NB SR 183 TO WB SR 3055 LEFT TURN FROM NB SR 183 TO WB SR 3055 AM PM 105 375 120 400 680 Source: Route 183 Traffic Study, prepared by McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc, 1989. G-28 PROPOSED AIRPORT EXT 1 | ARPORT ENTRANCE JLI -232 177/700) 1000) 570/10) -100(379) oos 1 LOWER MACARTHER RO. idus) UPPER WACARTHER RD. 25(45) o() 25(75) 75(80) 140S/1555) ASCO) 200 180). 1405700). LO) -145290 -24(400) sos(1405) - 1.300(1545) -100(20) 15(70 JILI 30(150) L180(70) 1050(1525) SR 010 245105) 64g12) no(200) sys 120g 010) 215(295) JL Jes) 1220(1230) 85(15) חור 50(30) 1159/1370) SSCO JL Toosi (sojou 887 TIT 90/15) 900(1625) 45(35 1200(1000) PA 100 103(35). 1280(1205). OUTEN BYPASS 1032 PROPOSUD NOROW DRIVEWAY i YALJER OU Bonus LEGEND McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. PA 183 Traffic Study 1995 Projected Traffic Volumes (Without Park Road Extension) : Date: 12-4-89 Plate: 4 00(00) AM (PM) PEAK HOUR VOLUMES. II OG PROPOSED AIRPORT EXOT AIRPORT ENTRANCE JL -5018 095 LOWER MACMIHER RO. 0(35) UPPER MACARTHER RO. (s.sz go) 25/75) .75(80) 13191.180) SSCO) 1205(1370) -100(20) 15170 301150 -180(70) -905/1350) SR 0183 (soubor US) 235(155) sog 1275) 200(255) Sou1 err JL SO(30) 955(1270) 55(0) 1023(1155) AS(15), חור ooo or 00)s (0) 1065 9/15) S(15) 90/15) J00(1450) L110/400) 920 1407270) 200100) 1200/100). -2400) 525 1365) 316 10259) S $(35) 100s(nas) PA 10 OUTEN BYPASS 165(35) 100S(1105) 8 PROPOSUD MRROW DRIVEWAY WA RED BRIDGE RO. McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. PA 183 Traffic Study LEGEND 1995 Projected Traffic Volumes (With Park Road Extension) 00(00) AM (PM) PEAK HOUR VOLUMES. Date: 12-4-891 Plcte: 5 1230_025 (205) G- 30 Dolgo) (5) DEW Hann Nerns Z PROPOSED AIRPORT EAT 210(305) 503(520) AIRPORT ENTRANCE JL 958/2256) -215(686) 560 LOIKR MACARTIER RO 3201 X300) 344220) 220s(ism) L225(670) 10(15) UPPER MACARTHER RD. (so)s (O)O- -400(880). -970/2015) --55(150) 146(150) -2123(2835) 2B0(80) -2090(3135) -100/20) 354170) 15(195) -205(85) 1865(2975) - 15(265) SR 0183 Last 200(120) 525(480) 920/2585) 05(675) Sosrons 57005 1720 1280) 375 (580) 1895(2120) 8S(15) 95(50) 1545(2225) 315(65) 15(80) 1065 115(15) 1853(3170) 135(525) -- OS(370) - -100 -(sez) PA 18 () OUTER BYPASS 280(735 2201030 50(45) 1795(1905) 15(300) 193(40 1870(2005) 110(130) L10(315) 3385) 85/678) (470) PROPOSUD ARROW DRIVEWAY YAN RED RO RED BRIDGE RO. McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. PA 183 Traffic Study LEGEND 00(00) AM (PM) PEAK HOUR VOLUMES. ODC00) AM (PMPE 2015 Projected Traffic Volumes (With Park Road Extension) Date: 12-4-59Plate: 7 sion) 1955(1290) HOO(320) G-31 RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE Response to Comment 1) PennDOT would like to reassure you that the project will adhere to Chapter 102 rules and will follow the Joint 105/Section 404 permit process. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be formulated and reviewed by the Berks County Soil Conservation District. 2) PennDOT would like to inform you that, in response to your comments, the Farmlands section of the DEIS (Section IV, Item 8) has been substantially revised for the Final EIS. to comply with the Federal Farmland Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA), Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form was completed for each of the project alternatives. All of the alternatives received less than 60 points for Part IV of Form AD-1006 and so the project is in compliance with FPPA. In addition, PennDOT petitioned the Pennsylvania Agricultural Lands Condemnation Approval Board (ALCAB) to receive approval to condemn active farmland properties impacted by the construction of the Preferred Alternative which is Alternative A. The ALCAB conducted a hearing to review the project on March 15, 1993. Information regarding project development, farmland owners and operators, expected impacts and potential mitigation and minimization was presented at the hearing. After conducting the hearing, the ALCAB approved the Preferred Alternative. The correspondence from the Department of Agriculture is presented on Page A-86 of Appendix A. As a result, the project is in compliance with PA Act 100. G-32 United States Department of Agriculture Soll Conservation Service Suite 340 One Credit Union Place Harrisburg, PA 17110-2993 22. RECEIVED SEP 1 I 1992 August 27, 1992 MCwir Un AYLOR AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Mr. Walter E. Bortree, P.E. District Engineer 5-0 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18103 RECTIVED DEPT. OF IFPUHTATION AUG 28 1992 AUG 31 1992 RECEIVED Dear Mr. Bortree: DISTIOT 50 DESIGN DIV. We have received and reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Park Road project, S.R. 3040, Spring Township and Borough of Wyomissing, Berks County, Pennsylvania. Our primary concerns regarding the project are centered around the impacts to Prime and Statewide Important Farmlands, erosion and sediment control, wetlands, and farmland assessments under the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, resulting from from project installation. We We appreciate the thorough job of presenting the soil, erosion and sedimentation analysis concerning the project activities. With the Tulpehocken Creek being a stockable, cold water trout fishery, the control of erosion and sediment during construction is essential to protect this vital sensitive resource. do encourage the adherence to the Chapter 102 rules and regulations of the 1 Department of Environmental Resources concerning the development of an Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Plan and Earth Disturbance Permit prior to issuance of the joint Chapter 105/Section 404 permit process. The cooperation with the Berks County Soil Conservation District in reviewing the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is essential during the final construction plan phase for the project. 30, The DEIS, Section IV, Item 8 Farmlands, third paragraph, page IV- states the project is is exempt from the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981. This is based upon the premise that the Prime Farmland soils and soils of Statewide or Local Importance 2 have been zoned for residential and commercial use (Plate 5). This assumption, however, is not all inclusive of the wording in Section 658.2(a) of the FPPA Rule. The wording in Section 658.2(a) FPPA Rule states further further that: "Prime Farmland 'committed to urban development or water storage' includes all such land that has been designated for commercial or industrial use or residential use that o The Soil Conservation Service is an agency of the Department of Agriculture G-33 Mr. Walter E. Bortree, P.E. 2 a is not intended at the same time to protect farmland in a (1) zoning code or ordinance adopted by a local government or (2) a a comprehensive land use plan which has expressly been either adopted or reviewed in its entirety by the unit of local government in whose jurisdiction it it is operative within 10 years preceding implementation of the particular federal project." The exemption of Prime Farmland in areas with zoning extends only to zoning which does not allow agriculture as a permitted use. In this particular project, data from Spring Township indicates that the planned Office/Business (PO/B) zoning code allows agriculture as a permitted use. Active farming is being conducted by a conservation farmer, formerly a conservation district director, who leases the agricultural land east of Broadcasting Road from the owners of Tulpehocken, Ltd. This enterprise is not included on Table 1, page I-23, as a development company. Other areas being actively farmed west of Broadcasting Road also include Prime Farmland soils and Statewide or Locally Important Farmland soils. These areas include Spring Ridge, Inc. land currently in development or proposed development for construction of office space, residential units, or commercial uses. See Table 1, page I-23, for description of activities by development companies or businesses. It should also be noted that Section 658.2(a) exemptions apply only to Prime Farmland and not to Unique Farmland, or Statewide or of Local Importance. 2 Compliance with the FPPA regulations is essential to evaluate the potential conversion of active agricultural land and the irreversible conversion of Prime Farmland soils to other highway uses. Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form, should be initiated for the determination of the impacts to the agricultural land and important farmlands by alternative actions. The local USDA, Soil Conservation Service office at Leesport, (215) 372-4655, should be contacted for assistance in the rating process. Discussion of secondary or indirect impacts of conversion of farmland to other uses resulting from the project should be discussed in the EIS. The irreversible and irretrievable losses of conversion of of agricultural land of Prime, Unique, or Statewide or of Local Importance should be identified by the proposed Built Alternatives for short-term and long-term losses. The FPPA process should be used to identify the extent of the loss by conversion of important farmlands and mitigate against these losses during the selection of the final preferred alternative for construction. The Draft EIS presents new Alternative A as the proposed action that best meets the project needs. This alternative commits 95.27 acres of Prime Farmland and 19.84 acres of Farmland of Statewide or of Local Importance to planned highway G-34 Mr. Walter E. Bortree, P.E. 3 use. The new alternative will require acquisition of 45.8 acres of agricultural land presently being leased for active agricultural use. Over 115 acres of Prime Farmland soils and 68 acres of Statewide or Local Important Farmland soils will be potentially disturbed for highway construction. With this heavy commitment of active agricultural land of important farmland soils with Alternative A, it becomes imperative to evaluate all proposed alternatives in order to mitigate either fewer acres of farmland or other farmland that has a lower relative value determined by the a FPPA rating process. new We would like to point out that the application of Pennsylvania's Prime Agricultural Land Policy (Title 4, Chapter 7, Subchapter W) be addressed in light of the extensive active farmland and important farmland soils being proposed for conversion to irreversible highway use. We would appreciate the opportunity to review any further documents developed in the implementation of this project action. Sincerely, , Skilliam Hunt WILLIAM HUNT Acting Assistant State Conservationist for Natural Resources CC: Randy J. McCormack, District Conservationist, scs, Leesport, PA Jack W. Schonely, District Manager, Berks County Conservation District, Leesport, PA G-35 RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Response to Comment 1) This comment has been addressed and incorporated into the text in Section IV-C.2. of the FEIS. 2) Alternative A has been identified as the selected alternative based on a comprehensive evaluation of social, economic, cultural and environmental consequences of each alternative and on public involvement and agency input. The selection of Alternative A was made after a formal hearing was held, the Draft EIS circulated, and all agency and public comments fully considered. Detailed descriptions of why Alternative A was selected and why Alternatives F, G and H were not can be found in Section II-C.2 of the FEIS. 3) This comment is acknowledged and will be taken into account when preparing the required permits for the construction of Alternative A. 4) See prior response #2. 6. G-36 ECEIVED SEP 1 I 1992 AYLOR AND ASSOCIATES. 07 United States Department of the Interior OTTIE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Omco of Environmental Aftain Custom House, Room 217 200 Chotaut Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-2904 September 1, 1992 ER-92/695 Howard Yerusalin, Sacretary Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 1200 Transportation and Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Dear Mr. Yerusalim: The Department of the Interior has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact statement (DEIS) for the Park Road Relocation study (S.R. 3040), Bucks County, Pennsylvania and has the following comments. donoral Connonto The doounent adequately addresses nost environmental lupaatı expected to occur from the project as currantly planned. spesiflo Connonts Cultural Resource 1 with regard to cultural resources, consultation and coordination with the State Historic Preservation officer (BHPO) continued and documented in the final document by that agency's concurrence with the project plans. Although the DEIS doounents several archaeological sita, one eligible for listing on the National Register for Historic Placas, there ghould bo requirenant that discovery of any unknown sites would be brought to tha attantion of the SHPO and an opportunity provided for his exanination. Fish and wildlife Resources The subject document thoroughly addresses vetlands and other fish 2 and wildlife habitats. Wa favor Alternative For C because either G would have less serious advarse impacts on wildlife habitat than Alternative A Or A (pr.torred). 1 G-37 200 MST:10 26-10-60 2 The DEIS indicates that section 404 pornits from the 0.8. Army Corps of Engineers may be needed prior to project construction. In reviewing the application(s) for such 1 pornit(s) unless i the activities tall under general or nationwide porniti, the Fish and wildlife Service (TW8) may concur, with or without stipulations or object to the proposed work, depending on project effacts on fish and wildlife resources which may be identified and evident at that 3 time. Based on information in the DZIS, the FWs review of other documents pertaining to this project and knowledge of the project area, it does not appear that the project, as proposed, would adversely impact fish and wilalit. resources. However, PWS vould likely recommend that the U.8. Army Corps of Engineers, when issuing a pornit, require features to reduce turbidity and sedimentation during project construction to avoid adverse impact to aquatic resources located downstream. Endangered Species Except for occasional transient species, no federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species under our jurisdiction are known to exist in the project inpact area. Therefore, no Biological Assessment or further Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et sag.) is required with the FWs. Should project plans change, or it additional information on listed or proposed species becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. Recreational Resources We art in agreement with the document that the projeat will have 11ttle or no impact on recreational resources, However, should Alternatives F or @ be selected, and should any land be taken from Spring Township Ballfield, replacement and/or compensation (escrowed in a park account) should be pursued. Lands replaced should be of equivalent park and recreation utility and location. Also consideration should be given to landscape restoration and aitigation of visual and audibi. lapаcts. Summary comments The Department of the Interior supports the selection of Alternative for Gas having the least overall impacto to the 4 environnant. We have no objections to Section 4(1) approval of the proposad alignmenta provided the conditions and measures mentioned above are either included and/or documented in the final statement, . G-38 દ04 WDST:10 26-10-60 ... 1 The National Park Service is willing to cooperate and coordinate on a technial basis pertaining to recreation and cultural resources. For such matters contact the Regional Director, National Park Service, 142 South Third straat, Philadelphia, PA 19106 (Talephone 215/597-7013). Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. sincerely, Don Henne Don Hanna Regional Environmental orlicer N 1 . G- 39 100 NAST:10 26-10-60 I RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (REGION III) Response to Comment 1) After studying the locations of these two developments in relation to Alternative A, it was determined that the construction of Alternative A would not result in any direct or indirect impacts to either of these developments. G-40 MOUS U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Philadelphia Regional Office, Region III Liberty Square Building 105 South Seventh Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-3392 LOPU AUG 3 1262 མ་ DOTT. crimini AUG 002 Mr. Walter E. Bortree, P.E. Engineering District 5-0 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 1713 Lehigh Avenue Allentown, PA 18103 0:37.77CT 5-0 DESIGN DIV. Dear Mr. Bortree: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Park Road Project in Spring Township and Wyomissing Borough in Berks County, Pennsylvania. on Our primary concerns with a proposal such as this one are with social impacts, impacts on residential areas, loss of public facilities, and with displacement. In this project it appears that impacts residential, commercial public facilities, and industrial uses, including displacement, are minimal regardless of the alternative chosen. However, we note that there are two HUD assisted developments in Park Road study area. They are Wilson 1 Townhouses I and II. These developments are located at 2815 Wyoming Drive in Sinking Spring. If it appears that these developments might be impacted by the alternative recommended in the final Statement please contact Mr. William Skwersky, Environmental Protection Specialist, at (215) 597-2667. Very sincerely yours, Hargautakayol no Margaret A. Krengel Regional Environmental Officer RECEIVED AUG 1 0 1992 iCw viivitu, TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES, INC. RECEIV AUG 5 1992 AN G-41 RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Response to Comment 1) PennDOT would like to reassure you that the project will adhere to Chapter 102 rules and will follow the Joint 105/Section 404 permit process. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be formulated and reviewed by the Berks County Soil Conservation District. 2) PennDOT would like to inform you that, in response to your comments, the Farmlands section of the DEIS (Section IV, Item 8) has been substantially revised for the Final EIS. to comply with the Federal Farmland Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA), Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form was completed for each of the project alternatives. All of the alternatives received less than 60 points for Part IV of Form AD-1006 and so the project is in compliance with FPPA. In addition, PennDOT petitioned the Pennsylvania Agricultural Lands Condemnation Approval Board (ALCAB) to receive approval to condemn active farmland properties impacted by the construction of the preferred Alternative which is Alternative A. The ALCAB conducted a hearing to review the project on March 15, 1993. Information regarding project development, farmland owners and operators, expected impacts and potential mitigation and minimization was presented at the hearing. After conducting the hearing, the ALCAB approved the Preferred Alternative. The correspondence from the Department of Agriculture is presented on Page A-86 of Appendix A. As a result, the project is in compliance with PA Act 100. Co G-42 (: RECIELIWA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BUREAU OF FARMLAND PROTECTION SEP 1 1 1992 August 24, 1992 Mucii RUK, TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SERVED PTCH PORTAT. AUG 31 1992 ! Mr. Walter E. Bortree, P.E. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation District 5-0 Engineer 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, PA 18103 ANIF 27 1032 DIST MCT 5-0 DESIGN DIV. I Dear Mr. Bortree: We have received and reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Park Road project, S.R. 3040, Spring Township and Borough of Wyomissing, Berks County, Pennsylvania. The primary concern of the Bureau of Farmland Protection regarding highway development projects is the potential impacts on farming and farmland converted to other uses. The Pennsylvania Prime Agricultural Land Policy (Executive Order 1982-3) states the Commonwealth is to protect against irreversible conversion of prime agricultural land to other uses when feasible alternatives are available. The Commonwealth's policy requires 1 consideration of all active agricultural land as well as all land considered Prime, Unique or of State and Local Importance by the USDA, Soil Conservation Service. The conversion of prime agricultural farmland soils results in the loss of environmental or essential food production resources. According to the DEIS, Section IV, Item 8 Farmlands, pages IV-30 and IV-31, all of the proposed alternatives involve the conversion of Prime Farmland soils and Statewide or Locally Important Farmland soils. The DEIS indicates that the new location for Alternative A best meets the project needs and is identified by the public as the preferred alternative. New Alternative A, as displayed in Table 34, page IV-31, irreversibly converts more Prime Farmland (95.27 acres) to other uses than Alternatives F and G. In addition, this alternative commits 19.84 acres of Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance to planned highway uses. The new Alternative A will require the acquisition of 45.8 acres of agricultural land (Table 33, page IV-27) which is presently being leased for active agricultural use. Table PENNSYLVANIA PRIDE 2301 NORTH CAMERON ST. HARRISBURG, PA 17110-9408 717-783-3167 Quality ... From Our Home To Yours. G-43 -2- 31 indicates that Alternative A would potentially disturb 115.23 acres of Prime Farmland soils and 68.42 acres of Statewide or Local Important Farmland soils for construction activities. These soils include Duffield, Hagerstown, Lindside and Wiltshire which are among the most agriculturally productive soils in the State. These soils are highly productive agricultural limestone soils with hazardous geological conditions involving solution channels, sinkholes and rock fractures affecting design and highway construction, as stated in Table 29 and on page IV-16. Table 32 shows that Alternative A will impact 85.18 acres of erosion sensitive soils with excavation or grading. Overall, new Alternative A impacts heavily on active agricultural land of Prime Farmiand soils and Statewide or Local Important Farmland soils. of the four proposed alternatives, only Alternative H impacts a larger acreage of agricultural land of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance. The other alternatives (F and G) will impact about 60 percent less active agricultural land acreage and Prime and Statewide Important Farmland soils converted or committed to highway use. We therefore, recommend that the intent of Pennsylvania's Prime Agricultural Land Policy (Title 4, Chapter 7, Subchapter W) be implemented and mitigation sought against the conversion of prime agricultural land 1 during the final selection of the preferred alternative for construction. We recommend this procedure in view of the considerable extent of active prime agricultural land planned for conversion to irreversible highway use. The discussion on Pages IV-31 and IV-32 of the draft EIS concerning adherence to provisions of Act 100 of 1979 applies to all productive agricultural farmland acquisitions for highway purposes under condemnation proceedings. The acquisition of productive farmland by condemnation for highway purposes must be reviewed and approved by the 2 Agricultural Lands Condemnation Approval Board (ALCAB) to determine that there is no reasonable and prudent alternative to the utilization of such lands for the project. The ALCAB shall review the acquisition of prime agricultural land for highway purposes in full support of the prime agricultural land policy for Pennsylvania. If you have any further questions or comments, please contact me at (717) 787-1079. 000 Sincerely, Wayne a Grube Wayne R. Grube Soil Conservationist G- 44 RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PA FISH COMMISSION Response to Comment 1) This comment has been addressed and incorporated into the text in Section IV-B.3 of the FEIS to ensure that these measures be incorporated into the final design plans where applicable. G- 45 AP Bir COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA FISH COMMISSION Division of Environmental Services 450 Robinson Lane Bellefonte. PA 16823-9616 814-359-5147 August 30, 1992 Walter E. Bortree, P.E. District Engineer Engineering District 5-0 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, PA 18103 Re: Berks County Park Road Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Bortree: 1 The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission has received and reviewed the subject document. We have no objections towards the project since the preferred alignment (Alternative A) will not require any impacts to perennial streams or wetland habitat. We are however concerned with water quality impacts to Cacoosing and Tulpehocken Creeks from pollutants generated from the new highway. We strongly recommend therefore that the Department incorporate pollutant removal measures (ie detention ponds, vegetative drainage swales) to treat highway runoff prior to entering the waterways. A good source of information on how to design these measures can be found within Publication No. FHWA/RD-87/056 titled Retention, Detention, and Overland Flow for Pollutant Removal from Highway Stormwater Runoff. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to comment and please keep us informed as the Park Road project progresses. Sincerely, Danila Spalt ç David E. Spotts, Fisheries Biologist Division of Environmental Services DES:srh cc: - PFBC PFBC Kaufmann Ziegenfus 76617, din RECEIVED PERISTI VABA $15 COLISSION RESOURCE FIRST PROTECT CONSERVE ENHANCE G- 46 C. PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ORAL TESTIMONY The following is a transcript of the testimony given at the Park Road Public Hearing. The Hearing was held on June 29, 1992. A total of 14 individuals registered to give formal testimony at the Public Hearing. The following individuals gave testimony in support of the recommended alternative. No response to their testimony will be given. . . . Anthony J. Carabello (Berks County Board of Commissioners) Paul Edelman (Council of the Borough of Wyomissing) Dave Wolf (Colony Park Civic Association) Nancy Sharp (Berks County Chamber of Commerce) James Mason James R. Huber Doug Culp Lenore Svetec . . . Testimony was also received from individuals which contained comments requiring response. Those individuals were: . Brian Boland (Representing Phillip and Mary Rowe) Roy Walton John A. Ulrich Paula Michalski William G. Yeich . One individual declined to opportunity to testify. 1 1 Anna Gring The following is a copy of the official hearing transcript and the responses to those individuals which commented on the project. ] I G- 47 1 1 1 PARK ROAD CORRIDOR LOCATION STUDY AND EIS BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC HEARING TIME: 7:00 pm DATE: Wednesday, July 29, 1992 PLACE: Berks County Agricultural Center Leesport, Pennsylvania MODERATORS: ROBERT F. KELLER, District Environmental Manager JACK PORTER, Project Manager ] 7 COMPUTERIZED REPORTING SERVICES, INC. By: M. Ellen Guinther, RPR 25 Stevens Avenue Suite 5 West Lawn, PA 19609 Phone: 215-678-6652 ORIGINAL G-48 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS PAGE 3 4 5 6 MS. Mr. Keller Mr. Carabello Mr. Edelman Mr. Boland Mr. Walton Mr. Wolf Sharp Mr. Ulrich Mr. Mason Mr. Huber Ms. Michalski Mr. Culp Mr. Yeich Ms. Gring Ms. Svetec 3 16 19 23 25 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 33 34 34 7 8 WWWWWWNN 9 10 11 EXHIBITS 12 NUMBER PAGE 13 1 Resolution Number .649-92 19 14 2 Resolution 23 15 3 Typewritten Statement 25 16 4 Typewritten Statement 27 17 5 Typewritten Statement 30 18 19 20. 21 22 23 24 25 G- 49 2 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 MR. KELLER: Just for the record, this is the 3 public hearing for the Park Road Project in Berks County, 4 4 Pennsylvania It is approximately 7:00. We will get 5 started with the hearing right now. 6 Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I am 7 pleased to welcome you to this public hearing on behalf of 8 Governor Casey; and Secretary of Transportation, Howard 9 Yerusalim; and District Engineer, Walter Bortree. I am 10 Bob Keller. I am with District 5-0, a PennDOT 11 Environmental Manager. Tonight I will be the hearing 12 officer. 13 The purpose of the hearing is for the 14 Department of Transportation to collect written and verbal 15 testimony on the Park Road Draft Environmental Impact 16 Statement. This will be done in compliance with the Act 17 120 of May 6, 1970 establishing the Pennsylvania 18 Department of Transportation and Title 23, United States 19 code, Section 128, Policy Procedure Memorandum, 20-8, 20 Federal Highway Administration, United States Department 21 of Transportation. 司 ​22 This is a combined corridor design and public 23 hearing which is defined as a hearing held, Number 1, 24 before the highway location is approved by the Federal 25 Highway Administration and before the State Department of 3 G-50 1 Transportation is committed to a specific design proposal; 2 Number 2, to ensure an opportunity is afforded for 3 effective participation by interested persons in the 4 process of determining the specific location and major 5 design features of the new highway; and Number 3, to 6 provide a public forum for full opportunity for presenting 7 views on major design features, including social, 8 economic, environmental, and any other effects of 9 alternate designs. 10 Following these introductory remarks, I will 11 briefly describe the project history, alternatives, and 12 studies as well as tentative schedules for right-of-way 13 acquisition and construction. 14 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement has 15 been prepared for the Federal Highway Administration and 16 the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to fulfill 17 the requirements set forth in the National Environmental 18 Policy Act of 1969. 19 This report also complies with the 20 regulations established by the Council on Environmental 21 Quality (40 CFR 1500-1508), the United States Department 22 of Transportation Act (DOT Order 5610.10), and the Federal 23 Highway Environmental Impact and Related Procedures 24 (23 CFR 771). 25 Copies of the Draft Environmental Impact 4 G-51 1 Statement were made available for public review and 2 comment on May 19, 1992 and will remain available for 3 review at the following locations: The Spring Township 4 Office, the Wyomissing Borough Office, the Berks County 5 Planning Commission, and at our PennDOT District 5 Office 6 in Allentown. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement 7 documents the Department's opinion of environmental 8 effects of alternatives considered and presented in this 9 document. 10 After this initial presentation, those 11 persons present who have registered to give testimony will 12 be called upon. In addition, those people who are not on 13 the list who desire to give testimony will be afforded the 14 opportunity to come up here and speak. 15 In addition, written testimony may also be 16 supplemented may also be submitted to supplement your 17 private testimony tonight. Also, those people desiring to 18 present testimony in private, arrangements will be made at 19 the conclusion of the hearing. 20 There will be no cross examination, no 21 questions, no responses to any witness, either from the floor or from the chair. Rather the procedure will be for 22 23 the witness to testify directly, setting forth for the 24 record their opinion regarding the effect of the proposed 25 highway alternatives. G-52 5 1 The following is a summary of the hearing r 2 procedures and rules. Speakers will be called in order as 3 signed in, and public officials will be given first 4 4 preference. Individuals will be called to the auditorium 5 by the hearing officer. Testimony initially will be 6 limited to five minutes in order to be fair to everyone 7 present. 8 After we have done the initial presentation 9 and those people who want to make additional comments, 10 they will be given the opportunity. But initially we will 11 limit the testimony to five minutes in fairness to all 12 those who are present. 13 Please make statements only. There will be 14 no responses to questions during the testimony. I want to 15 repeat that statement. There will be no responses to 16 questions raised tonight during this testimony. Questins 3 17 will be answered by PennDOT after the hearing and after we 18 have time to analyze the transcript. Please be courteous 19 by refraining from commenting during the testimony of 20 others whether you agree or disagree with the person's 21 testimony. Additionally, please refrain from repeating 22 issues. 23 The purpose of getting your comments is to 24 give us the opportunity to address any issues which have 25 not already been addressed and will present all facts to G-53 6 1 the Federal Highway Administration. So if anyone has 5 2 already gotten up and addressed an issue you were prepared 3 to speak on, please be brief in repeating it. All issues 4 raised at this hearing will be addressed in the final 5 Environmental Impact Statement. At any time after this 6 hearing, and prior to design approval, all information 7 developed as part of this study and generated at this 8 hearing will be available upon request at our office in 9 Allentown. You can come up there for public review and 10 copy at your pleasure. 11 Also, anyone may submit testimony concerning 12 the location of this highway to the District Office prior 13 to September 1st, 1992. All testimony received up to that 14 date will be incorporated into the official public record 15 for this project. I am going to repeat that. The public 16 commenting period for this hearing and for the Draft 17 Environmental Impact Statement is open until September 18 1st, 1992. That testimony or written comment is to be 19 submitted to the District Office in Allentown. 20 All property necessary for this project will 21 be acquired in accordance with PennDOT's Relocation 22 Assistance Program which conforms to the policies and 23 procedures established by the Federal Highway 24 Administration. 25 The portion of the testimony now will present G-54 7 1 project history, needs, alternatives, and a brief summary r 2 of the results of the technical studies. The proposed 3 project is a four-lane, limited access highway, 1.5 miles -, 4 in length west of the City of Reading in Berks County, 5 Pennsylvania. The proposed project will provide an 6 important link in regional traffic. U.S. 222 is an important north/south link between U.S. 30 in Lancaster 7 8 and 1-78 in Allentown. It currently passes through 9 downtown Reading. 10 Completion of the proposed Park Road Project, 11 together with the existing Outer Bypass and the completion 12 of the Warren Street extension and the reconstruction of 13 Route 222 south of Reading will enable motorists traveling 14 through the study area to circumvent the Reading area. 15 The need for the Park Road Project s primarily derived 16 from regional access needs and local access needs of the 17 study area. 18 The project is to complete the missing link 1 19 in the regional network with an efficient north/south 20 connection between Warren Street and the West Shore 21 Bypass. This connection would also serve to complete the 22 Outer Bypass by linking the existing incomplete highway 23 facilities effectively into the regional network. The 24 proposed project would also provide needed regional/local 25 access transportation interface in a rapidly developing 8 G-55 1 area. 2 Current development trends in the study area 3 are rapidly altering the existing agricultural land use to 4 medium density residential and commercial land use. This 5 development will require improved access between the 6 surrounding regional access facilities and the study area. 7 An improved connection between the Outer Bypass and the 8 U.S. 422/222 highway in the vicinity of the development 9 would provide effective access to the developing areas. 10 The need for implementing a Park Road 11 Corridor was first evaluated using five criteria in a 12 I 1 Project Need Documentation and Preliminary Alternatives Analysis report. These criteria were used to establish 13 14 the existing transportation and development conditions of 15 the study area and to pinpoint where improvements are 16 needed. These criteria included regional system linkage, 17 land use and zoning, local access, traffic capacity and 18 safety and public acceptability. ] 19 This document was approved by Penn DOT and the 20 Federal Highway Administration in May of 1990 and was 21 distributed to federal and state regulatory agencies for 22 their review and approval. In addition, a summary of 23 project need has also been included in the Draft 1 ] 1 1 24 Environmental Impact Statement. . 25 A total of five alternatives were studied in G-56 1 1 detail in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. These 7 2 included a no-build alternative and a for build 3 alternatives identified as A, F, G, and H. A 4 Alternative A would include all new alignment 4 4 5 between the Warren Street and Outer Bypass and also would 6 include improvements to the West Shore Bypass south to the 7 North Wyomissing Boulevard. 8 Alternative F and G would consist of 9 improvements to existing roadways. 10 Alternative H would include both new 11 alignment and improvements to existing roadways. 12 All build alternatives under consideration 13 would include the construction of a full-service 14 interchange at the North Wyomissing Boulevard area. 15 The results of the detailed engineering 16 studies including traffic, historic, archaeological, and 17 natural and socioeconomic resourcs are documented in the 18 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The following is a a 19 brief description of a few of the anticipated impacts. 20 Residential relocations: Implementation of 21 Alternative A and H would require the acquisition of three 22 residences. Alternative F and G would require the 23 acquisition of up to nine residences from Colony Park due 24 to construction of the noise barrier. The final decision 25 on the number of residences to be acquired will be made 10 G-57 1 during final design. 2. Business relocations: Alternative A and F -- 3 A and H would require the acquisition of one and three 4 businesses respectively. Alternative F and G would require the acquisition of four businesses. The Greater 5 6 Board of Realtor Building would be acquired by Alternate A 7 and H. H would also require the acquisition of Interior 8 Environments and the Spring Ridge Office. Alternatives F 9 and G would take Interior Environments, the Spring Ridge 10 office, the Denny's Restaurant, and a vacant commercial 11 building, formerly an Elby's. 12 Regional access: All the build alternatives 13 would improve regional access over the no-build conditions. However, only Alternatives A and H would , 14 15 provide direct limited access conditions. Alternative A 16 would complete the missing link on the regional, limited 17 access highway system by connecting the Oụter Bypass with 18 U.S. 222 and 422. Alternative H would also complete the 19 missing link but would do so in a less effective 20 alignment. 21 Alternative F and Gwould use portions of the 22 existing Paper Mill Road and, therefore, would not 23 complete the missing link in the regional limited access 24 highway system. 25 Local Access: : Alternatives A and H would G-58 11 1 separate local and regional traffic, reducing congestion r 2 and improving access to local residences and businesses. 3 Alternative A would maximize the opportunity to increase 4 access for existing and planned development in the 5 corridor. Alternative H would provide some increase in 6 access, but would not be consistent with the proposed 7 development plans in the corridor. Alternative F and G 8 would provide little increase in access to existing and 9 proposed developments. Alternative F and G would 10 interfere with access to the Wellesley Inn, the Silo 11 Stores, the Sheraton Inn, Stone Hill Farms, and the 12 Meridian Corporate Center. 13 Land Use: The majority of the undeveloped 14 land that would be converted to highway use for the 15 proposed project is currently forest and/or agricultural 16 land. 17 Alternatives A and H would convert 107.2 and 18 109.5 acres, respectively, of undeveloped land to highway 19 use. Alternative F and Gwould each convert 26 acres of 20 undeveloped land to highway use. Alternative A would take 21 property from Country Meadows. Alternative H would reduce 22 parking at the Treeview Corporate and Professional Center 23 and would take property from Country Meadows and the 24 Meridian Corporate Center. Alternatives F and G would 25 require property from Stone Hill Farms and the Meridian 12 G-59 1 Corporate Center. 2 Farmlands: Alternative A, F, G, and H would 3 convert 95.3, 26.0, 30, and 109.4 acres of farmland 4 respectively. 5 Surface Water Hydrology and Flooding: 6 Alternative A would encroach upon 11.8 acres of 100-year 7 floodplain. Alternative H would encroach on 11.2 acres of 8 100-year floodplain. Alternative F and G would have 9 100-year floodplain encroachment of 0.14 acres. 10 Wetlands: None of the build alternatives 11 would affect vegetated wetlands. Wetlands affected would 12 be limited to crossing of intermittent riverine channels. 13 soils and Erosion: Alternative A would 14 result in 180 acres of soil disturbance. Alternative H 5 15 would disturb 206 acres of soil. For Alternative A and H 16 95 85 and 95 acres, respectively, of soils of high 17 erosion potential would be disturbed. 18 Noise: For Alternative A, F, G, and H, the 19 predicted year 2015 noise levels approach or exceed the 20 Federal Highway abatement criteria at seven, two, three 21 and eight sites respectively. 22 Preliminary noise barrier investigation has 23 indicated that it is feasible to abate noise levels with 24 barriers at three, two, two, and six sites with 25 Alternative A, F, G, and H respectively. G-60 13 1 Air Quality: None of the carbon monoxide I 2 concentrations predicted at any of the 25 receptor sites 3 for the year 2015 with any of the build alternatives would 4 exceed either the one-hour or eight-hour National Ambient 5 Air Quality Standards. In addition, it was determined 6 that the project conforms with Phase One of the Interim 7 Period of the 1990 Clear Air Act Amendments. 8 Archaeological Resources: Implementation of 9 the North Wyomissing Boulevard interchange under 10 Alternative A and H would disturbo prehistoric 11 archaeological site which is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 12 13 That basically concludes the summary of the 14 Environmental Impact Statement for the project. 15 Following the public hearing, all recorded 16 testimony, written and oral, received by September 1st, 17 1992, will be reviewed and addressed and incorporated into 18 the final Environmental Impact Statement. 19 After addressing and analyzing all the 20 concerns of the project, PennDOT will make a 21 recommendation for a preferred alternative to the Federal 22 Highway Administration. It will not be approved it 23 will not it is not until ap oved by the Federal 24 Highway Administration that the 'roject will be able to go 25 forth in the final design and inplementation. 14 G-61 1 Finally, o preferred alternative will not be 2 announced at this public hearing by PennDOT. It is 3 anticipated that the preferred alternative will be 4 announced by early October 1992. This announcement will 5 be placed in the Reading Times. 6 This will conclude our testimony on the Park 7 Road Project. Now, just before we open the podium for 8 testimony, I want to re-emphasize that there is basically 9 three ways to give testimony here tonight; you can give 10 testimony at the podium; you can submit us written 11 testimony and that can be put back in that black box on 12 that table; or if anyone desires, we can make arrangements 13 after the meeting to have testimony give on a one-to-one 14 format, private testimony. 15 And just the other rule, until we see how 16 many people we are going to have testimony, is we ask that 17 the initial presentation be limited to five minutes. And 18 we remind you that there will be no question and answer 19 period. 20 The first official who signed in to speak is 21 Anthony Carabello. When you come up to the podium, one 22 other rule, please address pronounce your name for the 23 Reporter, spell your last name, and identify any , 24 organization you're representing or who you're 25 5 representing. 15 G-62 1 MR. CARABELLO : Good evening. My name is r 2. Anthony J. Carabello, C-o-r-a-b-e-l-1-0, and I am a member 3 of the Berks County Board of County Commissioners and a 4 member of the Park Road corridor Task Force. 5 I am just here briefly to enter into the 6 record probably what you already have, Resolution Number 7 649 of 1992, which was adopted by the Board of county 8 Commissioners on July 23rd of this year. For purposes of 9 definition, I will simply read the resolved part. 10 Therefore, be it resolved that the Berks 11 County Board of Commissioners does hereby endorse the 12 construction of a new highway in the, quote, Park Road 13 Corridor, which provides for a limited access connection 14 between the Warren Street and West Shore Bypasses, U.S. 15 222 and U.S. 422 and SR 3055 in the Borough of Wyomissing 16 and the Township of Spring. I believe 3055 is the, quote, 17 Road to Nowhere. 18 MR. KELLER: Yes. 19 MR. CARABELLO: I guess we are trying to get 20 away from that nickname, and hopefully this is the first 21 step. 22 Be it further resolved that the Board of 23 County Commissioners does hereby endorse Alternatives A as 24 detailed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement which 25 best conforms to the county's goals for the improvement of 16 G-63 6 1 its highway system. 2 This was adopted unanimously by Ernie Miller, 3 Chairman, who is present; Glenn Reber, commissioner; and 4 myself. If I may articulate for the record a couple 5 points; all of you may or may not be aware that this 6 effort has been ongoing for sometime. It has really been 7 made possible through the overall efforts of the citizens 8 and the local government representatives on the task 9 force, certainly also by the Pennsylvania Department of 10 Transportation as well as the Pennsylvania Transportation 11 Commission, one of whose members is Roy Christman who is 12 also here and is a resident of Berks County. Their 13 efforts have been significant in bringing this project to 14 the point where it is. 15 But most significant, in my view, is the fact 16 that the Board of Commissioners, through the taxpayers of 17 Berks County, have made a commitment of seven and a half 18 million dollars initially and now another seven and a half 19 million dollars to complete and take this connection from 20 the Warren Street Bypass over to the Lancaster County 21 line. 22 I can assure that this is unprecedented, 23 certainly in Berks County. And as the current past 24 president of the State Association of County 25 Commissioners, I think PennDOT will attest to this, there G-64 17 1 is nowhere else in Pennsylvania that County Commissioners, .. 2. through their own property tax dollar, have seen fit to 3 make this kind of commitment. 4 We believe that this is very important to our 1 5 community. We all are aware of numerous highways that 6 have been constructed, going back 30 years, as a result of 1 7 the need being addressed after the corridor was purchased. 8 I can remember when Warren Street stopped at Fifth Street 9 and ten years later houses had to be bought to extend it 10 over to the pricetown Road. 11 So we are pleased with the commitment from 12 the Secretary of Transportation, the Governor, staff and 요 ​13 everybody else involved. We hope that the citizens of the 14 county, and particularly those who are affected by the 15 proposed corridor, will see fit to give their approval as 16 well. And hopefully this will enable Berks County to be 17 tied into the interstate system both to the north around 18 the Allentown area and to the south and west of us through 19 Lancaster. 20 so having said all that, we do appreciate the I , 21 work here, the effort, and hope that PennDOT particularly 22 will take note that we put our money in the pot; 23 acquisitions are already in process; and we hope that this 24 will speed up the process and that PennDOT itself will ANT 25 move a lot faster than they have currently. Thank you. G-65 18 1 (Whereupon, the Reporter marked Exhibit 2 Number 1 for identification, Resolution Number 649-92.) 3 MR. KELLER: Mr. Edelman? 4 MR. EDELMAN: My name is Paul Edelman, 5 spelled E-d-e-1-m-a-n. I am the President of the Council 6 of the Borough of Wyomissing, and I am the Vice Chairman 7 of the Task Force which was appointed by the County 8 Commissioners several years ago for the purpose of 9 procuring the design and the Environmental Impact Study 10 for, first of all, the Park Road corridor which you are 11 here today to review; secondly, the project which is 12 referred to as the Warren Street Bypass Extension. You 13 are all familiar with that incomplete project. And lastly 14 what is referred to by PennDOT as the Route 222 15 reconstruction which, in essence, would bring this highway 5 16 across through Berks County and meet the four-lane highway 17 coming in from Lancaster County. 18 The Council of the Borough of Wyomissing and 19 the County Commissioners' Task Force unequivocally and 20 enthusiastically support the conclusions and 21 recommendations contained in the Environmental Impact 22 Study which is described for you on the these various 23 presentations on both sides of the room, which has been 24 summarized for you this evening. 25 We are particularly enthused with the very G-66 19 1 obvious and compelling selection of Alternative A as the 7 2 preferred alignment. And we would expect that PennDOT and 3 its staff will proceed to the conclusion of the final 4 design, the selection of the professional people to 5 perform those services already underway, and based upon 6 the work that we have done with PennDOT and with the 7 cooperation of the Governor and the Secretary, the 8 construction of this particular part of the three phases 9 is designed to commence sometime during 1994. 10 It is important that the record show certain 11 additional facts. First of all, for almost two decades 12 the intra and interstate highway system, which the Berks 13 County Planning Commission and the County Commissioners 14 have been describing in their various publications, has 15 remained incomplete. Everyone is familiar with the Road 7 16 to Nowhere. And in Lincoln Park there is that piece of 17 concrete that hangs just kind of overlooking that part of 18 the county. 19 The short- and long-term economic health and 20 development of Berks County and Reading is dependent and 21 materially in part upon the completion of this highway 22 system. Jobs and businesses and communities in general 23 thrive when there is an adequate transportation system. 24 And we are about to get it, hopefully before the members +998 25 of the Task Force pass onto the great beyond. 20 G- 67 1 In approximately 1988, at the initiative of 2 the County Commissioners, Berks County finally got its act 3 together. With the enthusiastic help of all of our 4 elected officials in Harrisburg, the Mayor of the City of 5 Reading, the several representatives of the private 6 sector, the Chamber of Commence, the Manufacturers' 7 Association and a number of boroughs and townships all 8 convened in the caucus room of the Senate in Harrisburg 9 and met with Secretary Yerusalim and his staff, and we 10 persuaded them that the people in Berks County had finally 11 made up their mind and were standing together for the 12 purpose of completing this long overdue highway project, 13 which for PennDOT's purposes is divided up into three 14 parts. 15 From that point on things started happening. 16 But there is one additional ingredient; and that 17 additional ingredient was very important, and it is one 18 simple little word, money. The County Commissioners and 19 the Borough of Wyomissing and the Township of Spring, the 20 county putting up the lion's share, developed a fund of 21 eight and a half million dollars and went to Harrisburg 22 and dumped it on the table and said to the Secretary and 23 PennDOT, Now here is our money where our mouth is; we want 24 you to upgrade these projects from nowhere because the 25 projects were on no on no PennDOT roster whatsoever. . G-68 21 1 And as a consequence of that effort which 1 그 ​2 I suspect may have shocked them a bit because mostly 3 people come to Harrisburg with their hands out, and we 4 4. came there with a sack of money. Well, we pretty well got 5 what we wanted. And with the help of these gentlemen 6 sitting to my left, the Secretary and the Governor, who 7 entered into an Agreement of Intent with the county about 8 two years ago at the opening of the Meridian Operations 9 Center, we have been moving ahead. . 10 Tonight you see the completion of the design 11 phase of the first of the City of Reading three highway 12 projects. We expect that this one will commence 13 construction in 1994, and the other two projects are very 14 close behind. 15 There was a gentleman here who expressed 16 great concern a it the completion of the one project 17 without the others. Every effort is being made by the 18 Gounty Commissioners, the Task Force, and the PennDOT 19 people to see to it that these three projects get into the 20 construction phase and are at least started and completed 21 with some degree of concurrence so that there will be a 22 minimum of disruption. 23 We hope that the people in Berks County 24 appreciate all the County Commissioners and all the people 25 involved in this project have been doing because it is now 22 G-69 RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT PAGE 23 Brian Boland (Representing Phillip and Mary Rowe) Response to Comment 1) Alternative A has been identified as the selected alternative based on a comprehensive evaluation of social, economic, cultural and environmental consequences of each alternative and on public involvement and agency input. The selection of Alternative A as made after a formal hearing was held, the Draft EIS circulated, and all agency and public comments fully considered. Detailed descriptions of why Alternative A was selected and why Alternatives F, G and H were not can be found in Section II-C.2 of the FEIS. 2) The FHWA and PennDOT have established noise abatement criteria for specific land use activities. Detailed descriptions of these criteria can be found in Section IV-B.11 of the FEIS. In examining the specific area identified in this comment, it can be noted that Site 2 was chosen to represent this area. Site 2 would be approximately located 1500 feet from Alternative A. However, after detailed noise analysis it was determined that the area represented by Site 2 would not approach or exceed the abatement criteria and therefore, noise abatement measured were not warranted or considered for this area. 1 ] ] ] 3 司 ​G-70 1 our turn to get our highway system so that we can get some 2. of the benefits that have been accruing to people 3 elsewhere in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 4 I have the resolution of the Borough Council 5 of Wyomissing to enter into the record, and I thank you. 6 (Whereupon, the Reporter marked Exhibit 7 Number 2 for identification, Resolution.) 8 MR. KELLER: Eugene I can't read this last 9 name. Pardon me? 10 MR. BOLAND: Lamanna. 11 MR. KELLER: Okay. 12 MR. BOLAND: My name is Brian Boland, and I am here tonight along with Mr. Gene Lamanna for Phillip 13 14 and Mary Rowe. Our statement this evening in regard to 15 the corridor is that they my clients strongly recommend 16 1 the adoption of Alternative H for three reasons. First, 17 they believe it to be the less costly route of the two 18 post viable options. Number 2, it utilizes the area with 19 an existing cartway of Paper Mill Road. Number 3, they 20 believe it is further removed from the residential 21 properties, the county park land, the Penn State Campus, . 22 all of which are along the Tulpehocken Road. 23 Second, they are strongly in favor of the 24 erection of a 25 foot high solid sound barrier along the 2 25 entire northerly boundary of the road project. We believe Hi, G-71 23 RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT PAGE 24 Brian Boland (Representing Phillip and Mary Rowe) Response to Comment 3) FHWA, PennDOT and Berks County have followed all applicable existing laws and regulations in hiring the design and environmental consultants for this project. 1 1 ] ៗ 1 ] ) I ปี 1 G-72 1 that pursuant to 23 CFR, Section 771.105 D, that the 7 2. project should incorporate all the measures which are 3 } necessary to mitigate any social and environmental effects including sounds barriers, all of which would be eligible 4 5 for federal funding in the event that they are erected. 6 We believe that the noise abatement that is 2 7 required under the Federal Code, preferably the use of 8 solid sound barriers where the predicted traffic flows 9 would approach the necessary noise levels or exceed the 10 federal criteria, and that they would be used along the 11 entire northerly border, not just the particularly 12 designated areas that have currently been pointed out. 13 Second or excuse me, third, my clients 14 wish to express their hope that all the applicable 15 environmental laws, executive orders, and case law have 16 been complied with and, in particular, in connection with 17 3 the initial engagement of the design and environmental 18 consultants. Their concern is that all existing lows, 19 regulations have been followed in connection both with the 20 initial hiring as well as the continued engagement. 21 Because the proposed road project is designed 22 or is classified as a Class 1 EIS project, we believe that 23 certain specific selection processes of the consultant 24 must be followed, both now and during the engagement later 25 on, and we would hope that they are complied with. G-73 24 RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT PAGE 25 Brian Boland (Representing Phillip and Mary Rowe) Response to Comment 1) As with the Draft EIS, copies of the Final EIS will be made available for public review. In addition, as requested, a copy of the FEIS will be sent to Phillip and Mary Rowe. 1 RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT PAGE 25 Roy Walton Response to Comment ។ ] 1) Because of the complexity of this urbanized area, parking in and around the Park Road/North Wyomissing Boulevard will be studied in further detail during the final design phase of this project. j :] G-74 1 Finally, my clients and perhaps others would 2 both request not only the availability of the draft 3 documents, the draft EIS documents, but also the final EIS . 1 4 documents be made available in copied form to them. And 5 we believe that that, too, is required under the Federal 6 Code at no cost to the people who would require or request 7 them. 8 Finally, we, too, would request to admit two 9 documents into the record. We will do so in accordance 10 with your original instructions. Thank you for your time. 11 MR. KELLER: Brian, are you going to leave 12 the documents with us? Leave them up here with the 13 Stenographer, please. 14 (Whereupon, the Reporter marked Exhibit 15 Number 3 for identification, Typewritten Statement.) 16 MR. KELLER: Roy Walton? . 17 MR. WALTON: Roy Walton, W-0-1-t-o-n. I'm 18 concerned about the parking on A and H on North Wyomissing 1 19 Boulevard. Thank you. 20 MR. KELLER: Anna Gring? 21 MS. GRING: I prefer to give my testimony 22 later. 23 MR. KELLER: You're going to give your 24 testimony in private? 25 MS. GRING: Yes. G-75 25 1 MR. KELLER: : Okay. Dave Wolf? 2 MR. WOLF: My name is Dave Wolf, W-0-1-f, 3 President of the Colony Park Civic Association and member 4 of the Berks County Task Force. 5 We of the Executive Board of the colony Park 6 Civic Association have been actively involved with this 7 Park Road Corridor project from its inception 8 approximately three years ago. Since our residents are 9 significantly impacted by this project, we have o vested a 10 interest in this construction. 11 We have reviewed the Draft Environmental 12 Impact Statement, and we have analyzed the benefits and 13 consequences of this project. We are in full agreement 14 for the need and the purposes of the project. After 15 careful consideration of all the alternatives presented 16 and evaluated, we recommend that the limited access 17 concept of Alternative A be constructed. 18 Although this alternative is more costly, it 11 19 is the only one that solves the transportation problems of 20 the area. The added environmental impact of the 21 alternative is minimal compared to the benefits received 22 in solving our traffic needs. 23 Even though some of the other alternatives 24 may appear to have less of an impact on the environment, 25 we do not support them. They do not solve the 1 G-76 26 1 transportation and safety issues of the area. To select one of the other alternatives will be taking a step 2 3 backward, and we will be paying the consequences of the . 4 decision for many years to come. 5 In conclusion, we fully support and recommend 6 that that the Alternative A limited access highway be 7 built, and we do not support any of the other alternatives 8 evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 9 Thank you. 10 (Whereupon, the Reporter marked Exhibit 11 Number 4 for identification, Typewritten Statement.) 12 MR. KELLER: Nancy Sharp? ? 13 MS. SHARP: My name is Nancy Sharp, 14 S-h-a-r-p, with the Berks County Chamber of Commerce. Snp, , 15 The Berks County Chamber of Commerce supports 16 efforts to upgrade the county's highway system through new 17 construction and reconstruction of existing roadways. 18 When highways are improved, Berks countians and those 19 coming through the area are able to use highways that save 20 time, lives, and energy while helping to stimulate our 21 economy. 22 The Chamber is in favor of the Park Road 23 Corridor in general and, in particular, in particular, supports 24 Alternative A, the route recommended by the Berks County 25 Planning Commission, the Berks County Board of G- 77 27 RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT PAGE 28 John A. Ulrich Response to Comment 1) PennDOT does acknowledge this point however, although the completion of this project will not relieve all of the area's transportation problems it will meet the extensive list of the area's needs described in detail in Section I-D of the FEIS. Other area projects will have to be specifically identified and programmed onto the local, state and federal programs. 1 ៗ G-78 1 1 Commissioners, and the Task Force. . r? 2 MR. KELLER: John Ulrich? 3 MR. ULRICH: My name is John A. Ulrich, 4 U-1-p-i-c-n. I am o resident of the City of Reading. I 5 live on Schuylkill Avenue, which is Route 183. . 6 I think it would behoove the county 7 Commissioners and Penn DOT to take care of existing 8 problems which we have, upgrade our existing highways 9 which we have, instead of leaving situations in limbo 10 1 where we have very serious traffic conditions right now; 11 i.e., 183 north and south, Route 61 north and south, State 12 Hill Road north and south, 222 north and south. These are 13 the things that I think we should address first before we 14 construct some more highways. 15 We are taking prime land, prime taxable land 16 off of the rolls which will be off of the tax rolls 17 forever when there are roads that we should take care of 18 and we are not doing anything about them right now. 19 I don't think we should use taxpayers' money 20 to support the highway system. That's what our gasoline 21 taxes are for; that's to support the highway system. And 22 we are being left holding the bag here in Berks County. . 23 I think we have long been denied proper 24 highway systems in Berks County. I am very much for 25 progress, but this isn't doing that much for the people, 23 G-79 1 the motoring public. They should take a survey of the 2 drivers, the people who use the highways, and see where we 3 need the roads. I think the motoring public also has a 4. right to determine where these highways are to be built. . 5 I don't think we should take as much taxable 6 property from our rolls because we are in dire straits 7 financially. We need all the tax dollars that we can get. 8 8 Let's not take more taxable property from our rolls by 9 doing something like this. Thank you very much. 10 MR. KELLER: James Mason? 11 MR. MASON: My name is James Mason, 12 M-9-5-0-n. My wife and I are residents of Colony Park. 13 We live about one block from Paper Mill Road. We have 14 attended every one of these public hearings since they 15 began in 1988. 16 After considering all the options and 17 listening to all the comments and evaluating all the 18 alternatives, we strongly support Alternative A and 19 believe this best meets the needs of the area. 司 ​. 2 20 The other alternatives, F, G and H, use all 21 or part of paper Mill Road for connecting traffic between 22 the Warren Street Bypass, U.S. 422, 222, and the 222, and the Road to 23 Nowhere or the Outer Bypass, State Route 3055. Our 24 reasons for supporting Alternative A are as follows: ปี 25 First and foremost is our concern for the G-80 29 1 safety of residents who live in Colony Park, Colony r 2 Springs, and Stone Hill Farms. If Paper Mill Road is 3 utilized as a four-lane highway, residents of the three 4 4 subdivisions will either not have access to Paper Mill 5 Road; and if they do, safe entrance and exit is a major 6 concern. Also State Hill or Bern Road cannot handle the 7 increased traffic if all Colony Park and Colony Springs 8 residents must exit onto State Hill or Bern Road. 9 Second, traffic noise would make living in 10 the residential area unbearable and could affect people's 11 health because of constant exposure to high speed traffic 12 noise. The property values of homes will plummet. No one 13 will buy a home in the suburbs next to a four-lane 14 highway. 15 Third, the Wilson School District plans to 16 build a school bounded by Paper Mill Road and Broadcast 17 Road. Alternatives F, G, and H would all present a safety 18 problem to the school children because of the high level 19 of traffic so close to the school. 20 Fourth, traffic congestion is already a major 21 problem. Unless Alternative A is selected, this will only 22 get worse. Thank you for taking into consideration our 23 comments and concerns as residents of the area. 24 (Whereupon, the Reporter marked Exhibit , 25 Number 5 for identification, Typewritten Statement.) . G-81 30 1 MR. KELLER: James Huber? 2 MR. HUBER: My name is James R. Huber, 3 H-u-b-e-r. This is my daughter Katie. And my ten-month 4 old son Steven is back on the floor. Many of you have 5 heard their testimony for the last hour or so. 6 I am here to give them some voice. They are 7 not attorneys or politicians or even highway 1 8 professionals. It is our feeling, as residents of Colony 9 Park, that these kids and the other kids who live in 10 Colony Park now do not want to wake up to the sound of 10 11 traffic noises and 18 wheelers, do not want to play at the 12 playground breathing carbon monoxide poisoning, do not 13 want to run the risk of chasing a ball into traffic or hit a a home run over some 80 foot sound barrier. 14 15 I hope you consider the human factors 16 involved and the children that grow up in Colony Park and 17 support the only real solution to the traffic problem, the 18 major link between Allentown and Lancaster, Alternative A. 19 The other alternatives I am afraid, while 20 they have merits, including not being as expensive and ) 1 ] 1 1 1 ] 21 less environmental impact, may leave us with a second Road a 22 to Nowhere. We have already got one, we don't need 23 another. My concern is that if we don't go with 24 Alternative A, Katie and her peers will be here at a 25 public hearing to try to solve this problem again when . 31 G-82 | 1 1 1 1 | RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT PAGE 32 Paula Michalski Response to Comment 1) Due to the high growth and development potential of the study area, the need has arisen for the state to advance right-of-way protection through acquisition. This high growth potential is apparent since almost every vacant parcel of land within the study area has been proposed for development. Therefore, a few of these areas had to be conserved by PennDOT through protective buying procedures in order to preserve the option to construct Alternatives A or H. The areas which already have been purchased by PennDOT are located between Berkshire Boulevard and the Warren Street Bypass and between the Outer Bypass and Broadcasting Road. In addition, all property necessary for this project will be acquired in accordance with PennDOT's Relocation Assistance Program which conforms to the policies and procedures established by the Federal Highway Administration. A more detailed description of those policies and procedures can be found in PennDOT publications: Bulletin 47 entitled, "Relocation Assistance Information," and Publication 83, "When Your Land is Needed for Highway Use." Both of these publications are free and available to the public at all PennDOT offices. 1 ] 1 ] I ] ] 3 1 G-83 1 they are my age. It will be more expensive then. 7 2 Thanks for the public hearing and a chance to 3 speak. 4 MR. KELLER: Paula Michalski? Did I say that I 5 right? 6 MS. MICHALSKI: close enough. My name is 7 Paulo Michalski, M-i-c-n-0-1-5-k-i. I live along 8 Tulpehocken Road on Resh Avenue. I'm all for the Park 9 Road corridor to go through. What upsets me is the ste 10 of taxpayers' money. When these people that own the sand 1 11 that the state is buying, when they bought their land, 12 they knew that the state was coming through with the Park 13 Road corridor. They bought their land at 15,000 an acre 14 and we're paying them five times that back, and it is not 15 fair to us as taxpayers. 16 I want to know why we have to pay them such 17 an exhorbitant amount of money when they knew that their 18 land was going to be taken. That's why they weren't 19 allowed to build on it, and they knew it. And I W..nt that 20 question asked. 21 As I said, I am all for the road going 22 through I think it is a good idea. I like Alternative 23 A. It does run close to my house, but I think it is a 24 good thing to finish some of the roads that we have down 25 here. We do need alternate roads. . But I can't see US G- 84 32 RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT PAGE 33 William Yeich Response to Comment 1) PennDOT is currently completing a separate Design Location Study and EIS for the extension of the Warren Street Bypass and the reconstruction of U.S. 222 project. This project is expected to be completed shortly following the Park Road project. As part of the Warren Street Bypass project, a detailed traffic analysis will be completed to estimate the traffic flow throughout the area. 1 ] ] ) 3 ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ) G-85 1 1 wasting all the taxpayers taxpayers' money just money just to make the rich get 2 richer Thank you. 3 MR. KELLER: There are no other speakers 4 signed up to give testimony publicly. Does anyone else 5 want to come up and give any testimony before we close? 6 MR. CULP: My name is Doug Culp, C-u-l-p. 1 I 7 live at Stone Hill Farms. And we discussed this last 8 night at our annual homeowners homeowners' meeting, and we like Plan 9 A. We are awfully close to the other two alternatives. 10 That's it. 11 MR. KELLER: Is there anyone else who would 12 like to give testimony? 13 MR. YEICH: My name is William G. Yeich. I 14 live 1818 Squire court, Wyomissing, Pennsylvania. 15 I dug out from my history file a 1970 report 16 on highway planning in Berks County. I came to the 17 conclusion that the planner should have spent more time at 18 the Ag Center before they planned, then they would know 19 that the horse goes in front of the cart. 20 This highway, without the extension of the 21 Warren Street Bypass, will not relieve the problems that 22 are being solved or trying to be solved with it. The 23 1 truck traffic will not stay out of Spring Township with 24 this road. They are not going to use 222 from Lancaster 25 Avenue to 724. They are not going to use 422 from the G-86 33 1 bypass to 724. They are going to continue the road 2 they're taking until the Warren Street Bypass is 3 completed. 4 I am sorry that the County Commissioners put 5 their money in the wagon instead of on the horse. Thank 6 you. 7 MR. KELLER: Is there any other individual 8 who wants to testify? 9 (No response.) 10 MR. KELLER: Let the record show that no 11 other one had any desire to give any more public 12 testimony. 13 Mrs. Gring wants to give some private 14 testimony. That will conclude the hearing. Thank you. 15 MS. GRING: I don't want to give any more . 16 testimony. I found out what I wanted to know before the 17 meeting started. 18 MS. SVETEC: Lenore Svetec, S-v-e-t-e-c, an 11 19 I live in Colony Park. And I am a very concerned resident 20 of considering any of the alternatives to this road other . ] 21 than Alternative A. All the others seem to have problems. 22 We live in a residential greg across from Stone Hill Farms 23 and Spring well, there are many residential properties 24 in this area. . And I can see no other advantage in going 25 so close to all these already existing structures than to D G-87 34 1 possibly cause harm to the residents with the pollution 2 and all the things that go wrong with it. That's my 3 statement. 4 (Whereupon, the hearing concluded at 7:55 p.m.) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 G-88 35 2 1 CERTIFICATE 3 I hereby certify that the proceedings and 4 evidence are contained fully and accurately to the best of 5 my ability in the notes taken by me during the hearing of 6 the foregoing cause, and that this copy is a correct 7 7 transcript of the same. 8 9 10 al llen 11 Sunter M. Ellen Guinther, RPR 12 COMPUTERIZED REPORTING SERVICES, INC. .. 13 Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 14 15 My Commission expires October 4, 1993. 16 17 18 1 ] ) ] ] ] ] ] ] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 G-89 I RESOLUTION NO. 649.92 . WHEREAS, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration, is conducting a Public Hearing to receive testimony relative to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed “Park Road Corridor" in the Borough of Wyomissing and Township of Spring, Berks County, Pennsylvania; and WHEREAS, the proposed project involves the construction of a new highway linking the West Shore and Warren Street Bypasses (U.S. 222/U.S. 422) to S.R. 3055; and WHEREAS, these highways and the proposed connection serve as important components to the highway system which provides mobility and economic vitality to both the County and the region; and WHEREAS, the Berks County Board of Commissioners desires to promote the establishment of a coordinated regional highway system which provides opportunities for both current and future economic development; and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement considered a No-Build and four separate Build Alternatives one of which (Alternative A) involves construction of a limited access highway on a new location, two of which (Alternatives F&G) involve upgrading of existing Paper Mill Road to a multi-lane highway, and one of which (Alternative H) consists of a limited access highway on both existing and new alignments; and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement does not make a recommendation of one corridor over any of the other corridors; and WHEREAS, the construction of a new highway in this corridor is consistent with the 1991 Berks County Comprehensive Plan Revision which calls for the completion of gaps in the existing expressway system to maximize the investment in these facilities and remove traffic and congestion from inappropriate corridors; and WHEREAS, only Alternatives A and H, which call for the construction of limited access highways, meet this criteria; and WHEREAS, while Alternatives A and H prove equally acceptable in their ability to accommodate traffic, Alternative H has a greater adverse impact on both existing developments and that natural environment and EXHIBIT G-90 16G 7/29/9 WHEREAS, municipal and public reaction to the alternative corridors, as expressed through four public meetings and direct correspondence has been strongly in favor of Alternative A; and WHEREAS, the Berks County Planning Commission has endorsed Alternative A, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Berks County Board of Commissioners does hereby endorse the construction of a new highway in the “Park Road Corridor” which provides for a limited-access connection between the Warren Street and West Shore Bypasses (U.S. 222/U.S. 422) and S.R. 3055 in the Borough of Wyomissing and the Township of Spring; and a BE F FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board of County Commissioners does hereby endorse Alternatives A and detailed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement which best conforms to the County's goals for the improvement of its highway system ADOPTED THIS 23-'DA DAY OF JULY, 1992. COUNTY OF BERKS Cine Ernie Miller, Chairman 1 1 1 Chris Maller G Gober Marabello Glenn B. Reber, Commissioner Anthony J. Carabello, Commissioners ATTEST: រ 1 ( reler from TEKST Ronald R. Seaman, Chief Clerk G-91 AN BOROUGH OF WYOMISSING PENNS BOROUGH HALL : 22 READING BLVD. WYOMISSING, PA 196102083 TELEPHONE (215) 376-7481 FAX (215) 376-8470 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation has prepared Preliminary Engineering and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a new highway, commonly referred to as the "Park Road Corridor", which will link the Warren Street and West Shore Bypasses (S.R. 222/S.R. 422) to S.R. 3055 ("Road-to-Nowhere") through the Township of Spring and the Borough of Wyomissing, Berks County; and WHEREAS, Alternative A has been identified by the public and the Borough of Wyomissing as the preferred Alternative. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the Borough of Wyomissing hereby records its support for the preferred alternative - Alternative A. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution adopted at a meeting of the Borough Council of the Borough of Wyomissing held July 14, 1992. In witness thereof I have hereunto signed my name and affixed the Seal of said Borough this July 14, 1992. lund my nutitel Borough Secretary EXHIBIT G-92 2 2/2017 1'11; 1 1 LAW OFFICES AUSTIN, BOLAND, CONNOR & GIORGI P. O. BOX 8521 38-44 NORTH SIXTH STREET READING, PENNSYLVANIA 19603 C. WILSON AUSTIN 1937-1990 ROBERT K. BOLAND 1951-1984 TERRENCE E. CONNOR FREDERICK J. GIORGI ADAM B. KRAFCZEK CLIFFORD B LEPACE JR. JOHN M. STOTT EUCENE C. LAMANNA LAURENCE M. DELVECCHIO BRIAN F. BOLAND GARY R. SWAVELY JR. THOMAS N. BOLAND JOHN V. BOLAND 1941-1969 July 17, 1992 1 ] PHONE (215) 374-8211 FAX (215) 372-2361 Federal Highway Administration 228 Walnut Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Re: Park Road Corridor Project (Berks County, Pa.) Dear Sir: I have been asked by Philip D. Rowe, Jr. and Mary Lee Rowe, his wife, to write this letter to direct your attention to their concerns regarding the PennDot and Federal Highway Administration Project, known as the Park Road Corridor which links the West Shore and Warren Street Bypasses (US222/US422) to S.R. 3055 (Road To Nowhere). The proposed project will have a major impact upon: 1) 2) 3) 4) Penn State, Berks Campus Berks County Parkland - Grings Mill Park Residents located along Tulpehocken Road, Berks County Sheep farm operation of Mary Lee Rowe which farm is the only actively operated farm operation remaining in the area after the sale of 500+ acres of farmland to Spring Ridge Development Co. for development. 1 1 1 ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 7 ) The Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS) indicates that the predicted noise levels using design year 2015 approach or exceed abatement criteria at many locations along each of the proposed alternative routes; with the highest noise levels for alternative A and H (the preferred locations of the Berks County Planning Commission). The DEIS further indicates that noise abatement is feasible at: certain locations along the alternative routes. However, the DEIS does not even recommend noise abatement at every location where such is indicated using the criteria established in 23 CFR Part 772 - Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. EXHIBIT I 7/29/92 G-93 Alta 3 Federal Highway Administration Page Two July 17, 1992 Section 772.11 Noise Abatement states: "(d) When noise abatement measures are being considered, every reasonable effort shall be made to obtain substantial noise reductions." "(f) The views of the impacted residents will be a major consideration in reaching a decision on the reasonableness of abatement measures to be provided." "(g) The plans and specifications will not be approved by FHWA unless those noise abatement measures which are reasonable are incorporated into the plans and specifications to reduce or eliminate the noise impact..." Section 772.13 Federal Participation states: "(a) Federal funds may be used for noise abatement measures where: (1) A traffic noise impact has been identified; (2) The noise abatement measures will reduce the traffic noise impact; and (3) The overall noise abatement benefits are determined to outweigh the overall adverse social, economic and environmental effects and the costs of the noise abatement measure." Recommended Noise Abatement measures at Section 772.13(c)(4) include "noise barriers". G-94 Federal Highway Administration Page Three July 17, 1992 In summary, the proposed location of the Park Road Corridor Project will have substantial adverse social, economic and environmental impact upon the properties along Tulpehocken Road and Tulpehocken Creek, Berks County, as follows: 1 1) 2) Penn State Berks Campus: Noise will adversely impact educational process and residential experience of the students. Grings Mills Park: Parkland owned and maintained by County Of Berks. This Park is heavily used by the public on a daily basis; major adverse impact upon the activities at this location, including, but not limited to: (a) Outdoor concerts and special events (şee attached newspaper article) I 1 (b) Use and enjoyment of The Gruber Wagon Works, a historically significant site. (c) The use and enjoyment of the park, which is adjacent to the City of Reading, where, in said park, serenity and quiet are significant attributes. (23 CFR 771.135 Section 4(f) (49 USCA 303) I 1 . Grings Mill Park is a part of a County wide park system in which federal funds and Department of Community Affairs money has been used to acquire, construct and maintain park land. 3) Many residents enjoy peace and quiet along Tulpehocken Road. The proximity to Grings Mill Park and the Tulpehocken Creek provides serenity and peace to its residents. The construction of a major, limited access and sometimes elevated highway in close proximity to these homes will create a major adverse impact to the social, economic and environmental condition. The sight of an elevated highway and the noise generated therefrom will severely impact the residential properties. 目 ​員 ​] G-95 I 1 Federal Highway Administration Page Four July 17, 1992 1 1 1 4) Disruption and disturbance to animals involved in the sheep farm operation of Mary Lee Rowe. est In conclusion, Mr. and Mrs. Philip D. Rowe, Jr. respectfully that all due regard be given by the Commonwealth to the following: 1 1) Choosing of Alternative "H": (a) not significantly different from Alternative "A" in its impact upon the community. (b) projected cost savings over Alternative "A": $2,000,000 1 2) 1 Construction of twenty-five (25) feet high solid noise barrier along the entire northern exterior of the Project; this will afford the maximum reasonable noise abatement measure. 1 The undersigned intends to appear at the DEIS Public Hearing scheduled for July 29, 1992 at 6:00 P.M. A copy of this letter shall be submitted as part of the record at that time. 1 Thank you for your consideration in these most important matters. 1 Very truly yours, I EUGENE C. LAMANNA ECL:clt 1 1 1 1 1 1 G-96 1 Pete C magic will er Fine e Sunda Fine Arts Day set for Sunday at Gring's Mill From our news staff non-profit living museum dedi- Fine Arts Day at Gring's Mill, cated to the remembrance of sponsored by the Berks County Army Air Force personnel serving Parks and Recreation Depart- in World War II, will be sharing ment, will be held Sunday from 11 personal experiences of the war am. to 8 p.m. and displaying artifacts they have Parking donation is $1 and collected over the years. shuttle bus service will be avail- Winner and entries in the Sen- able from the Penn State Berks ior Art Photography Contest will Campus lots. be displayed in the barn along Musical entertainment is with winners of the playground planned throughout the day. The children's poster contest. Glenn Eckert Trio will stroll the Other performances through- park from 1 to 3 p.m. Basic'ly out the day include Duke and the Brass will perform from 2 to 4 Briar Patch Puppets, Joel Gori p.m. and the Ringgold Band will and Peter Geist, a visual come- perform from 4 to 6 p.m. dian and magician. The evening concert by the Artisans and craftsmen from Reading Pops Orchestra will Berks County and surrounding begin at 6:30 p.m. and will feature areas will be on hand to display music of the 1940s in recognition of and sell their wares. our nation's 50th anniversary of Access to Tulpehocken Road World War II. Dr. Frank Seiko from Route 422 and Park Road is mann will be conducting, along closed but there are signs pointing with guest conductor Henry Gass. out the detour. For easy access to the performance will also feature Gring's Mill, follow Paper Mill vocal soloists Kay and Craig Road to Broadcasting Road. Turn Kay and Craig Weidner will solo with the Reading Pops Weidner, the Berks Gymnastics down Broadcasting Road toward Team and dancers from the Fred Penn State Berks Campus and fol- Astaire Dance Studio. low Broadcasting Road to Tul. In the event of rain, the concert pechocken Road. turn right on will be held at Penn State Berks Tulpehocken; Gring's Mill is Campus gymnasium. approximately % mile ahead on The first Composit group, a the left. Reading Eagle Tunnies July 19, 1992 ۱ G-97 Colony Park Civic Association 1550 Singer Rd. Wyomissing, PA 19610 July 29, 1992 Walter E. Bortree, P.E. District Engineer 1713 Lehigh Street Allentown, PA 18103 HIIHII RE: Park Road Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Bortree: We of the Executive Board of the Colony Park Civic Association, have been actively involved with the Park Road Corridor Project from it's inception approximately 3 years ago. Since our residents are significantly impacted by this project, we have a vested interest in this construction. we We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and we have analyzed the benefits and consequences of the project. We are in full agreement for the need and purposes of the project. After careful consideration of all the alternatives presented and evaluated, recommend that the limited access concept of Alternative "A" be constructed. Although this alternative is more costly, it is the only one that solves the transportation problems of the area. The added environmental impact of this alternative is minimal compared to the benefits received in solving our traffic needs. Even though some of the other alternatives may appear to have less of an impact on the environment, we do not support them. They do not solve the transportation and safety issues of the area. To select of the the other alternatives will be taking a step backward, and we will be paying the consequences of the decision for many years to come. one In conclusion, we fully support and recommend that the alternative "A" limited access highway be built. We do not support any of the other alternatives evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Sincerely, Dovil 6.4.14 Dave Wolf, President Colony Park Civic Association EXHIBIT y G-98 7/28/14 AEG 1 July 29, 1992 Mr. Joseph E. De Santis Chairman Park Road Corridor/US 220 Task Force c/o Berks Planning Commission Exide Building, Suite 203 645 Penn Street Reading, PA 19601 1 3 ] ] ១ ] ] ១ ] ] We are residents of Colony Park and live about one block from Paper Mill Road. We have attended every Public Meeting that discussed the Paper Mill Road Reconstruction, as it was first called, but which is now referred to as the Park Road Corridor. These meetings were were held on May 4, 1988, November 1, 1989, September 19, 1990 and July 14, 1991. We strongly support Alternative A and believe this best meets the needs of the area. The other Alternatives (F, G and H) use all or part of Paper Mill Road for connecting traffic between the Warren Street Bypass, US422/222 and the Road to Nowhere (Outer Bypass State Route 3055). Our reasons for supporting Alternative A are as follows: 1. Safety of residents who live in Colony Park, Colony Springs, and Stone Hill Farms is the major concern. 2. If Paper Mill road is utilized as a four lane highway, residents of the three subdivisions will either not have access to Paper Mill Road and if they do, safety is again the major concern. State Hill/Bern Road can not handle the increased traffic if all colony Park and colony Springs residents must exit onto State Hill/Bern Road. 3. Traffic noise would make living in the residential area unbearable and would affect peoples hearing, because of constant exposure to high speed traffic noise. Resale value of homes would plummet. No one will buy a home in the suburbs next to a four lane highway. I EXHIBIT G-99 5 LIEG 8/20/02 4. wilson plans to build a school next to Paper Mill Road and Broadcast Road. Alternatives F, G and H present a safety problem to the school children. 5 Traffic congestion is already a major problem. Unless Alternative A is selected, this will only get worse. Thank you for taking into consideration our comments and concerns as residents of the area. Very truly yours, دی اره نیکی ism a wanan James L. and Patricia A. Mason Patra G-100 1 WRITTEN TESTIMONY SUBMITTED DURING COMMENTING PERIOD REQUIRING NO RESPONSE The following sections contain the Public Hearing Written Testimony Forms which were distributed at the Public Hearing on July 29, 1992. These forms allowed for written comments to be submitted either at the hearing or subsequent to the hearing. For written comments to be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, they had to be reviewed by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation on or before September 1, 1992. Four Public Hearing Written Testimony Forms and one letter were received in support of Alternate A. No responses are required to comments contained on these forms received from the following: I I James R. Huber Dr. Andrea Dillaway-Huber Douglas N. Culp • Stephen Gresdo James L. and Patricia A. Mason Copies of these letters are as follows: I I I I J I I I G-101 I Public Hearing ( Written Testimony Form PARK ROAD July 29, 1992 . D R R R С Return By: 9/1/92 For inclusion in formal record 7/29/22 Dear Sir, а. This is a brief but sincere request to implement Alternative A for the Park Road torridore As a resident of colony park, I I strongly urge you to consider the negative impact of Alternatives Hitro on the quality of life in our neighborhood, in contrast, Alternative A would provide an efficient link between 222/422 und Road to New.here and enhance ccnimüter flow to From: PSWS Na Berns Campus while Alternative A costs more the advantages of higher speed limit, fewer traffic lights, and increased traffic volune capacity will prove worth while in the long run. The other options would require additional money in 5 years to correct traffic flow problems I'm sure would develop. Thank you! sincerely Jaires R. Huber 1609 Coriceid Read wyanessing PA 2660 I 1 I ) 1 Use additional sheets if necessary G-102 Public Hearing Written Testimony Form PARK ROAD 19 July 29, 1992 RR D O De Return By: 9/1/92 For inclusion in formal record Dear Sir, the After reviewing the extensive study Gummaris a concerning proposed Fanc Road corridor gehiens at the OPEN HEARING on dily 29, 1992 it would appcor that. ALTERNATIVE A B the only workable plan. is for a variety of reasons. Trafic congestion, noise pollution and carbon monoxide poisoning for Colony Poned Stone Hill Farms, residents will change the Climate of these communitus to a un disireahle and unacceptable Tiving arrangement. To choose any other option than ALTERNATIVE will 0. witte o serious judgement error Any ophone garden of cost that hase sucha profound impact on so many utizens of Berlus county should be avoided' at. all cost, Sinuicly regardless Choose ALTERNATIVE , CONCERNED CITIZEN A TAXPAYER TR: ANDREA Diuaway-HUBER 1609 CONCORD RD wyomissiNS, PA 1960 678-9234 G-103 Use additional sheets if necessary Public Hearing | Written Testimony Form PARKROAD July 29, 1992 R D. R o o С R | Return By: 9/1/92 For inclusion in formal record Dear Sir, 1 - PLANA IS BEST I ZVERAT STONE HILOFARM DougLAS A CULP 2 poba 6628 215 324 2259 W.ADMISS lng, the 1960 G-Use additional sheets if necessary - 104 Public Hearing Written Testimony Form PARKROAD July 29, 1992 D R R R O R С Return By: 9/1/92 For inclusion in formal record Deur Sir, In reviewing these erjedt etternatives it appears the nc-build no atteinafive 'has already been discarded, From observation my this corridor provides little benefit to the local 'psputa for the following reasons. First the Road to Nówhare is lightly travelled at present and the proposed access will be from heavily travelled inferioz' mado tie it is netan outer bypass. Secondly the Warren Street Bypass and west Shire Bypass' are already congested . . But have no prospect of being expanded due to and physical traink Zinally conecting the corridor with these two roads at one physteal location engineering wonder but a travelers a nightmare due to its complexity and to what purpose how will it benefit Josul community? local TE Willut reduce fraffic on Vani Reed Lead through West Lawn unless connectors to pte 222 south are first implemented and even then why bring this traffic through this bottleneck area. Therefore I would reluctantly choose Alkuunte 'A' as having minimun im pret de ana residents, leading however has and will continue to have a need for a will designed bypass system and feeder roads but will have squandered needed highway funds on Bll-con deived project. Stephen Greido 12 20 Sherwan d'Red Wyomissing Pa19614 7 G-105 * Use additional sheets if necessary U TESTIMONY ? 29192 FOR PARN Pullo HEARIN FORD CORRIOUR F July 29, 1992 Mr. Joseph E. De Santis Chairman Park Road Corridor/US 220 Task Force c/o Berks Planning Commission Exide Building, Suite 203 645 Penn Street Reading, PA 19601 1 ] 1 1 1 I ] J We are residents of Colony Park and live about one block from Paper Mill Road. We have attended every Public Meeting that discussed the Paper Mill Road Reconstruction, as it was first called, but which is now referred to as the Park Road Corridor. These meetings meetings were held on May 4, 1988, November 1, 1989, September 19, 1990 and July 14, 1991. We strongly support Alternative A and believe this best meets the needs of the area. The other Alternatives (F, G and H) use all or part of Paper Mill Road for connecting traffic between the Warren Street Bypass, US422/222 and the Road to Nowhere (Outer Bypass - State Route 3055). Our reasons for supporting Alternative A are as follows: 1. Safety of residents who live in Colony Park, Colony Springs, and Stone Hill Farms is the major concern. 2. I If Paper Mill road is utilized as a four lane highway, residents of the three subdivisions will either not have access to Paper Mill Road and if they do, safety is again the major concern. State Hill/Bern Road can not handle the increased traffic if all colony Park and Colony Springs residents must exit onto State Hill/Bern Road. 3. Traffic noise would make living in the residential area unbearable and would affect peoples hearing, because of constant exposure to high speed traffic noise. Resale value of homes would plummet. No one will buy a home in the suburbs next to a four lane highway. G-106 1 4. Wilson plans to build a school next to Paper Mill Road and Broadcast Road. Alternatives F, G and H present a safety problem to the school children. 5. Traffic congestion is already a major problem. Unless Alternative A is selected, this will only get worse. our comments and Thank you for taking into consideration concerns as residents of the area. Very truly yours, aticia a. mana James L. and Patricia A. Mason G-107 I 1 WRITTEN TESTIMONY SUBMITTED DURING COMMENTING PERIOD REQUIRING RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Five Public Hearing Written Testimony Forms were received during the commenting period which contained testimony containing substantive comments. This section contains the forms along with the responses to each comment. Testimony was received from the following: . . I ) ] ] Mildred R. and Fred L. Gane Paula Michalski Bob Schaeffer Jody L. Gerhart . Copies of these forms and the responses to the comments received are as follows: ] I I I G-108 1 RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: PUBLIC HEARING WRITTEN TESTIMONY FORM Mildred R. and Fred L. Gane Response to Comment 1) As documented in Section IV-B.11, various noise barrier locations have been identified with Alternative A. These locations include along along the Penn State Berks Campus and along the West Shore Bypass between Warren Street and the proposed Wyomissing Boulevard interchange. However, additional detailed noise analyses will be conducted during the final design phase of this project. G-109 . Public Hearing Written Testimony Form PARKROAD ķ R July 29, 1992 D R с Return By: 9/1/92 For inclusion in formal record Dear Sir, bETELNDER SIGNED FOR THE BENEFIT OF RESCENCE Close To The pagesep Dark Road Cabine Woreitos WOULD Choose "ALTERMATIJE Roete At HAT16 tassidy TO BUILD THE ROAD is chose to tHE PEAN STATE Campus A3 POSSIBLE, ALSO, THAT Sound Barres AJE A Must FOR THE HIGHWAY PROJECT 1 Treldres R Gamis Fec L Gauce the Primer LANE - GOALSSING PA وهل 19He STONE HILLFARME G-110 Use additional sheets if necessary RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: PUBLIC HEARING WRITTEN TESTIMONY FORM Paula Michalski Response to Comment 1) Access to the residential areas including Colony Park, Stone Hill Farms and Seven Oaks would be improved with the construction of Alternative A. Emergency vehicles could either use the new roadway or the less congested local roadways to get to and from their destinations. 2) As part of the EIS studies, a detailed wildlife study was completed. The results of this study can be found in Section III - B.5 and IV - 8.5 of the Final EIS. 3) As part of Alternative A, interchanges are proposed with the Outer Bypass, Broadcasting Road, the West Shore/Warren Street Bypass and at North Wyomissing Boulevard. These interchanges would be approximately .75 mile apart to provide for easy access throughout the study area. G-111 - 1 Public Hearing | Written Testimony Form PARKROAD | R July 29, 1992 D R O R C Return By: 9/1/92 For inclusion in formal record | Dear Sir, the مهدیس 1 به یک سریال سهمهمه لمنظمة المافيهلكهلفر الله لللهله شريك له له اندا ، ما مل 1. by Pas 2 mobilje Lyotarily goes the facrisye feel anima 3 We also nea M Alm you for luya زن off / haid Jones المقص نیست G-412 Use additional sheets if necessary RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: PUBLIC HEARING WRITTEN TESTIMONY FORM Bob Schaeffer Response to Comment 1) As documented in Section IV-B.11, various noise barrier locations have been identified with Alternative A. These locations include along along the Penn State Berks Campus and along the West Shore Bypass between Warren Street and the proposed Wyomissing Boulevard interchange. However, additional detailed noise analyses will be conducted during the final design phase of this project. G-113 | Public Hearing Written Testimony Form PARKROAD R July 29, 1992 R D R Return By: 9/1/92 For inclusion in formal record Dear Sir, name is لا dan rey Anuch an Bot Schepper and Alive at 119 Liment have (stine Hill Fairs than A to the fuld A 1 Chad hi t Bauer be built t shiel Stre till rums they wriders from Magkay koffie serial tally reques int anythy is Z Alan Light ih A to the last month affect to the A perputy Angsut sunees Pletet عماد طاك Use additional sheets if necessary G-114 RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: PUBLIC HEARING WRITTEN TESTIMONY FORM Jody Gerhart Response to Comment 1) Although PennDOT has already purchased a few areas through protective buying procedures, many properties will still need to be purchased. However, in order to purchase any property, PennDOT must first complete right-of-way plans based on the final design of Alternative A. Therefore, the remainder of the right-of-way plans will not be completed until the final design phase of the project. Additional information on this issue can be found in the PennDOT publications: Bulletin 47, entitled, "Relocation Assistance Information," and Publication 83, "When Your Land is Needed for Highway Use." Both of these publications are free and available to the public at all PennDOT offices. G-115 Public Hearing Written Testimony Form PARK ROAD R July 29, 1992 D R R С. Return By: 9/1/92 For inclusion in formal record Dear Sir, last meeting my prame sa Slobodan Herbant panel il fizie cost mu 329 Todd Myrnusan Slud, Wisemaning to 9010. at the Out dia bebint was Luby24.19914 left உழயாம் a seguito in the bounseling en het thioned tullele to the 1 arabi of the operties in North filsonissy Blade og this date I have not rente a letter, phone callous person. Joelson net primarymi inwebech till thepirat. At the momenting die beiddiol boutine quiline blare om memes edellis Tonil phai munken didiel this find il amptellurity வட்டியிட்ட Os of the Jeroen feel the whole thing is dan garameed doen om tematycering Aescentmeescuiela notie faith my met them if ollocher liikeaw alia m Largot espera de elected the song Qualine Bossessed lekt Lax thone 215-322.720/ G-116 Use additional sheets necessary 10 1 1 Plates 160 PARKROAD R I D R O OF R с C Alternative A Vanity Fair Factory Outle Complex Outer B Heignts ass 422 Aerial Photography Aug. 1990 Scale: 1"=1000' O 500 1000 2000 Plate: 1 HET 131 PARKROAD ] R R I Do D O ] C Alternative F Vanity Fair Factory Outlet complex Dut Heights ass, 422 Aerial Photography Aug. 1990 Scale:1"= 1000' 0 500 1000 2000 Plate: 2 HHHHHHHHHittttt 11712 PARKROẠI R R R. D. O O С Blvd Alternative G Vanity Fair Factory Outlet Complex Outer Byass Heights treet Bypass 422 Aerial Photography Aug. 1990 Scale:1"= 1000' 0 500 1000 2000 Plate: 3 HHHHHttttt PARKROAD R O 0 R R. C Alternative H Blvd. Vanity Fair Factory outic Complex vurart pire Here hts Bypass Aerial Photography Aug. 1990 Scale:1"= 1000' R o 2000 500 1000 Plate: 4 HHHHHH 1532 PARKROAD R D R O o R C 10 Blvd Zoning (Roadway Centerline Shown) Vanity Fair Factory Outlet Complex kshre Heights Outer Bypass CI Street Bypass For Legend Refer to Table #2 22 Aerial Photography Aug. 1990 Source: Wyomissing Borough Zoning Map Aug. 1988 Spring Township Zoning Map Apr. 1987 Scale: 1" 1000' o 500 1000 2000 Plate: 5 TUTU THE 1738 PARKROAD R D R. O O‘R R с RIVE 1 Recent, Proposed and Conceptual Development (Roadway Centerline Shown) LEGEND: Vanity Fair Factory Outle rolex ver B te Heights 1. Country Meadows at Wyomissing 2. Berkshire Corporate Center 3. Berkshire Crossings 4A. Stone Hill Farms 4B. Wyomissing Professional Office Center 4C. Seven Oaks 5A. Spring Ridge, Inc. Properties Meridian Corporate Center 5B. Spring Ridge, Inc. 5C. Spring Ridge, Inc. 5D. Spring Ridge, Inc. Includes: J.C. Ehrlich Parcel 5E. Spring Ridge, Inc. (Fish Hook Parcel) 6. Penn State Berks Campus 7. Treeview Corporate & Professional Center 8. Fox Theatres 5D warren Street Aerial Photography Aug. 1990 Source: Berks County Planning Commission 1991 Scale:1"= 1000' 0 500 1000 2000 Date: 6 1 1 已 ​ 3719 ដើរ PARKROAD O o RR R С RIVE Area Employers (Roadway Centerline Shown) Vanity Fair Factory Outle Complex ssing Outer Bypas Bypass For List of Employers Refer to Table # 11 Aerial Photography Aug. 1990 Source: Berks County Planning Commission Field Verified Feb. 1990 Scale:1"= 1000' 9 o 500 1000 2000 Plate: 7 H ) B R TIVOS 1 PARKROAD CHOCKEN R I D D R O O Berks County, Pennsylvania R С 1 181 Community Facilities / Services and Section 4(f) Properties 1960 I Health Care 400 Emergency Services 320 Educational Facilities Res 1 am Section 4(f) Properties 335 300 Care High Sch o Transportation & Utilities 109 300 BENIN ELEM STEER OM SK 00 BORO es For Discriptions Refer to Tables # 14,15 16,and 17 Solar 1 Golf Course Sinking Spring . Cem Scale:1"= 2000' Neversink 0 1000 2000 4000 Plate: 8 1 1 1 了 ​ PARKROAD R ID R o O C с R LLLILE Residential Communities and Neighborhoods (Roadway Centerline Shown) Anity Fair Facton Outlet Complex SOUTHEAST OF THE WARREN STREET BYPASS 1. Wynnewood at Wyomissing Apartments 2. North Wyomissing Residential Area Ouer Bipass NORTHWEST OF THE WARREN STREET BYPASS 3. Seven Oaks Residential Development 4. Stone Hill Farms Residential Development 5. Colony Park Residential Development Its Warren Street sy 6. Country Meadows of Wyomissing Approximate Boundary of Community Refer to Table # 18. Aerial Photography Aug. 1990 Scale:1"= 1000' 0 500 1000 2000 Plate: 9 PARKROAD R. RI D R o of С R RIVER Area Geology (Roadway Centerline Shown) BIY Vanity Fair Factory Comple Sinkhole/Closed Depression Outcrop/Shallow Bedrock Geologic Contact O Well nrait GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS ksfare Heights BB poter Bypass SR 3055) Oo- Ontelaunce Oe- Epler Ori- Rickenbach Os- Stonehenge Cal- Allentown Oo d reet Bypass Refer to Table #30 Aerial Photography Aug. 1990 Source: U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute series topographic quadrangle: Reading Um Scale:1"= 1000 O 2000 500 1000 THE CEO 2 1 17111 PARKROAD HIZO R I Do R D 1 с co R vd Surface Water and Floodplains (Roadway Centerline Shown) Nanity Fair Factory Out Complex Floodplain Limits (100 Year) shire Heights Outer Bypass (SR 3055) ypass 42 Sampling Station Location 03 Refer to Table #31 Aerial Photography Aug. 1990 Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency CACOOSING CREE Scale:1"= 1000 0 500 1000 2000 Plate:11 PARKROAD C R. 1 D R O O R Blvd. Soils (Centerline Shown) PRIME FARMLAND SOILS DfB2 Duffield Silt Loam Shale HaB2 Hagerstown Silt Loam Lt Lindside Silt Loam . WsB2 Wiltshire Silt Loam outer I FARMLAND SOILS OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE DfC2 Duffield Silt Loam DfB2 DhC3 (SR 3055) pica ypass WeC2 DFB2 Refer to Tables #21,32 and 35. SOURCE: USCA-SDS Soil Survey of Berks County Sept. 1970 BeB2 Scale:1"= 1000 0 500 1000 2000 Plate: 12 Il PARKROAD 16 R R D D O o R с VA2 12. Land Use and Cover types (Roadway Centerline Shown) Nanity Fa Factory Outle Complex 11 Residential 12 Commercial and Services 13 Industrial 14 Transportation, Com- munications and Utilities 17 Urban or Other Built-Up Land 21 Cropland and Pasture 31 Herbaceous Rangeland, Old Field Stage 32 Shrub and Brush Rangeland 41 Deciduous Forest 43 Mixed Evergreen/Deciduous Forest Mature Stage Shrub Layer Moderate 66 Riverine Upper Perennial 76 Transitional Areas kshire Heights Outer Bass 76 21 (SR 3055) 1 21 Refer to Tables #22 and 34. Aerial Photography Aug. 1990 Source: Anderson Land-Use Classification System Scale: 1"= 1000' 0 500 1000 2000 Dlate. 311702 PARKROAT TD D o C OR R Noise and Air Study Sites (Roadway Centerline Shown) anity Fair Factory Outlet Complex Park Roa • Noise and Air Study Sites Potential Noise Barrier Locations Sonrail eights. ater bypas ren Street Bypass For Site Descriptions and Effects Refer to Tables # 24, 25, 38, 38, 40, 41, and 42. Aerial Photography Aug. 1990 Scale:1"= 1000' R 0 500 1000 2000 Plate: 14 111 PARKROAD 13 D O o RR R hore B Historic Resources (Roadway Centerline Shown) Vanity Fair Factory Outle Complex 1. Marshall House 2. Kissinger's Union Church Complex 3. Janssen Historic District 4. Mary Van Reed House 5. John Van Reed House 6. Van Reed Paper Mill rkshire GE Historic Resource Boundary outer Bypass Vi Bypass Aerial Photography Aug. 1990 2 Scale: 1"= 1000' 0 2000 500 1000 1 1 [ 1 1 1 1 J 1 . 35000 35000 1 -25600 1790 7700 25600 750 10000 STREET SPRING 750 - 10550 68 10550 10650 PARK 10650— ROAD OUTER BYPASS 3450 S.R. 3055 1550 18600 ROLAND 17000 3450 1550 9700 9700 N.WYOMISSING BOULEVARD -7900 3750 10500 -7950 1200 1250- 10300 WARREN STREET BYPASS 11900- 10000 - 1400 SR 422 1400 10000 McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. PARK ROAD R RI D 7300 O O C Berta County Penneyhanta R 1990 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXISTING CONDITIONS Plate:16 1 I ] 690 2300 1 2165 50 TREET SPRING I E Ons Cog 影 ​î 90 還 ​398 Ti ۱l ROAD -35 510 20- 510 cung 20 -30 PARK Me 665 50- S.R. 3055 OUTER BYPASS 1640 N.WYOMISSING BOULEVARD 930 970 to 88 550 170 305 .240 -120 1470 BOS 185 140- ORO 1635 WARREN STREET BYPASS 745 SR 422 45- 15 -10 -140 ☺ - 15 -700 745 - 150 слол prmick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. 115 40- -160 -850 PARK ROAD 415 O R RI 0 Burton County Penneyvanla O R 1010 EXISTING VOLUMES 1990 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VAN ROAD Plate:17 Me 2680 2875 1 1470 1000 2470 2170 900 STREET SPRING IN TNM 795 340 71 -86500 90 170 -20 117 ul 30 360 90 990 -45 20- 1000 60 PARK 117 ROAD oud 165 590 Oo Mmo S.R. 3055 OUTER BYPASS 1870 ODLAND 1445 -60 1060 25 965 395 N.WYOMISSING BOULEVARD 1920 530 30 705 140 240 325 1165 125 225 hane 480- 160 135 1040 WARREN STREET BYPASS 1390 SR 422 30. 85 15 -550 505 McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. 390- 175 55 -575 PARK ROAD R R 1 D O 790 - Berta County Pennsylvania R EXISTING VOLUMES 1990 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Plate:18 1 1 I I . 1 STREET SPRING གག -O ITE zo of mon B- hir UU B Ā PARK or ROAD གགས་ B ས 217 TE mno 3 S.R. 3055 OUTER BYPASS G WOODLAND N.WYOMISSING BOULEVARD ww B पर ar WARREN STREET BYPASS SR 422 McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. PARK ROAD O R RID Berta County Penneyhanta O G EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE 1990 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Plate:19 47800 1 12000 30000 18000 32000 1000 14000 STREET SPRING 1000 900 15750 15750 15500 15500 OUTER BYPASS 7200 2150 PARK ROAD S.R. 3055 31650 7900 32950 2150 - N.WYOMISSING BOULEVARD 16200 16200 15200 22950 -15200 3000 3000 WARREN STREET 20750 BYPASS 19450 17600 - 18300 1000 11000 SR 422 1 McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. PARK ROAD R RI D O O 11500 - 11500 Berta County Pennaytvania 2015 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE ROA Plate:20 j 4925 !] 1960 3005 1045 3520 1540 STREET SPRING 20 -1170 665 DOO NO 105 -1115 DIY 14 JTC 35 -1560 -75 20- 1305 75 355 10 % CoðT the 112 170 sir OUTER BYPASS PARK ROAD ONO S.R. 3055 3450 3255 75 1 2030 1340 -50 -55 885 630 1430 N.WYOMISSING BOULEVARD 1 1tr ۱ -1555 145 70 1950 1370 -125 565 -680 1700 2080 355 370 ۱l( 1 2055 2450 WARREN STREET BYPASS 45 120 SR 422 20 1 660 " 85- 1105 - 30 69. 195 1050 086 McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. ว 115 980 PARK ROAD R R I D 1300 - O O 1095 G Berton County Parnohanla NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE VOLUMES 2015 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ROA Plate:21 1 1 5150 1200 15000 37750 11900 36800 1600 450 STREET SPRING 12700 + 11850 450 6750 - 6450 OUTER 12050 - 13300PARK 13400 ROAD 2150 5800 BYPASS S.R. 3055 2150 6600 Lod 19800 18250 N. WYOMISSING BOULEVARD 19360 8000 12050 2050 3750 - 3650 12050 30150 WARREN STREET -21650 BYPASS 2050 - 18050 SR 422 900 900 McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. 13050 — PARK ROAD R RI 0 Berta County Penneyhania D O O G R VAN REED ROAD 2015 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ALTERNATIVE A Plate: 22 535 135 1960 3580 3045 -1620 1150 2350 3500 180 1000 -55 55 1 WO Unou -90 955 50 oll III )1( 一 ​465 -675 75 160 680- 15- 40 35- -775 30- 16 )1( CGOZ PARK OUTER BYPASS S.R. 3055 100 STREET 20 SPRING ROAD 725 515 " 2190 1960 $35 375- 1065- N. WYOMISSING BOULEVARD 125 70 -1580 స్టం 2275 oor -60 340 2750 0125 On9 345 -0661 ۱l( -520 1180 2380 3095 WARREN STREET BYPASS Out SR 422 1175 1080- 2250 識 ​小於 ​og lll McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. 1335 PARK ROAD 1235 R RIO O O с Berks County, Pennsylvania VAN REED RU ALTERNATIVE A VOLUMES 2015 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Plate:23 47800 47800 18000 30000 12000 32000 1000 STREET SPRING 14000 18000 PARK 15750 000d 1000 ROAD 5750 15500 15500 2150 7200 S.R. 3055 OUTER BYPASS WOODLAND 31850- 7900 - 8 2150 - 33150 N. WYOMISSING BOULEVARD 15400 15400 - 11200 23150 - 4140 18700 17250 18700 WARREN STREET 21890 BYPASS 50- 18150 21890 SR 422 12050 18850 12050 00 McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. 1000 1000 PARK ROAD R RI O O G 11500 - Berta County Pameranta 2015 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ALTERNATIVE F Plate:24 5075 - 5925 3005 1960 1045 35 3520 1980 1540 STREET SPRING 1170 PARK NO -665 -111568 145 185 dll 35 090 111 ROAD 20 1305 -1560 75 70 ۱ir OUTER BYPASS woo ONO S.R. 3055 WOODLAND 3450 3255 -50 1940 1690 BA 80 -860 660 1505 N. WYOMISSING BOULEVARD sir 1600 1610 25 120 210- 125 -2000 780 1655 325 赞 ​695 0781 510 11? 880 425 485 WARREN STREET BYPASS -1980 23502 ME SR 422 60- 990 sabit 990 260 McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. 55 PARK ROAD lo O R RI D Berta County Penneyhuonio O R 1335 ALTERNATIVE F VOLUMES 2015 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Plate:25 47800 47800 18000 30000 - 12000 32000- 1000 STREET SPRING 18000 00011 1000 PARK ROAD 15150 15150 -15500 15500 7200 2150 S.R. 3055 OUTER BYPASS 01 AND 31850– 5400 - 35650 2150 - N.WYOMISSING BOULEVARD 17900 11200 20650 4140- 250 18700 4140 18700 18150 18850 - WARREN STREET -21890 BYPASS SR 422 20590 12050 12050 541 McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. 1000 1000 PARK ROAD O R RI 0 Bertoo County Penneyhania O 11500- R 2015 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ALTERNATIVE G Plate:26 11 5075 4925 -960 3005 -1045 3520 1540 STREE SPRING OOO 1170 665 10 PARK PROAD ta 1115 e I! 20 1305 75 35 -1560 -75 ya ۱lr woo ONO S.R. 3055 OUTER BYPASS - 1690 AND 3450 - 3515 1940 un 30 -55 760 N.WYOMISSING BOULEVARD 1860 otr 150 1610 265 -910 -760 Onun 辦 ​11840 1655 325 510 155 1150 ONO pena ou 485 WARREN STREET 1980 BYPASS SR 422 100 235 2350 990 60 130 1325 990- 260- McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. 55- PARK ROAD 109 10 1195 O R RID Burton County Parnestonia O C 1335 ALTERNATIVE G VOLUMES 2015 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Plate:27 11 44000 5150 1200 22750 37750 - 15000 11900 43100 1600 9400 11850 12700 450 6750 - 6450 13300 PARK ROAD 13400 12050 STREET -5800 SPRING 2150 S.R. 3055 OUTER BYPASS 50 6600 2150 - N. WYOMISSING BOULEVARD -18250 198004 19350 12800 -17150 3750 3650 12050 17850 -21650 19850 18050 WARREN STREET BYPASS SR 422 20. 12050 2050 McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. PARK ROAD 900 900 13050 O R R I D Berta County Pomerania O C 13050 2015 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ALTERNATIVE H Plate:28 --- し ​L . 3555 - 535 135 1000 3580 1150 T620 2360 3500- 180 V1000 -55 50- 1 wo croir -90 -955 400 90 815 2508 I 2 ۱lr 888 str. 160- 680. 30. -465 -675 75 15 40 35 bir OUTER BYPASS PARK ROAD 725 S.R. 305. STREET SPRING BED 190 1825 BO 1535 375 1005 N. WYOMISSING BOULEVARD ie 125 70 1275 100 2750 - 1740 340 840 110 130 3095 2380 WARREN STREET BYPASS -50 -365 SR 422 50 1175- McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. ಸe po -175 -100 -110 dll PARK ROAD 20 50 10 717 ۱lr -10 1110 -115 O R RID Burton County Purmestnania 个 ​VAN ALTERNATIVE H VOLUMES 1335 12 2015 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Plate:29 1 ) . 5 STREET +18 SPRING 443 بابا 6 -B F . Lo ។ གག B- F 217 WS gr ΠΩ OUTER BYPASS PARK ROAD S.R. 3055 N.WYOMISSING BOULEVARD WARREN STREET BYPASS 3 SR 422 McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. PARK ROAD R R 1 0 O O VAN REED Berta County Pennsytania R NO BUILD LEVEL OF SERVICE 2015 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Plate:30 . 5 6 00W 116 nur بالياه نن ir wo PARK ليالياليا S.R. OUTER BYPASS ROAD STREET SPRING N. WYOMISSING 1 BOULEVARD 041 WARREN STREET BYPASS 3 SR 422 McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. PARK ROAD O R RI D Berton County Pumayhania O C VAN REED ROAL ALTERNATIVE A LEVEL OF SERVICE 2015 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Plate:31 -- FREEWAY - C DIVERGE = D WEAVE = E NON WEAVE= D WEAVE = D NON WEAVE-C -LOS "B" -LOS "CO PARK S.R. OUTER BYPASS ROAD STREET SPRING N. WYOMISSING BOULEVARD -LOS "D" WEAVE • D NON WEAVEO D FREEWAY= B MERGE с O WEAVE D NON WEAVE: D WARREN STREET BYPASS SR 422 FREEWAY= B DIVERGE =D LO: McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. PARK ROAD R R I D Borton County Penneyhania O VAN REED ROAL ATERNATIVE A OVERALL LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY 2015 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Plate:32 1 1 1 1 5 STREETE 1 SPRING F 2 اليابا གགའ F PARK ROAD THE LIN OF DIL hi nr 220 רס דוד بابا 4 OUTER BYPASS S.R. 3055 6 ROAD WOODLAND N. WYOMISSING BOULEVARD ində B SD or WARREN STREET BYPASS Mo 3 SR 422 ale J00 2 McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. PARK ROAD O R RID Berta County Penneyhanla O R ALTERNATIVE F LEVEL OF SERVICE 2015 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Plate:33 STREETF SPRING 5 -F ևս PARK ROAD । AU عام Isr רס بابايا LL S.R. 3055 OUTER BYPASS ROAD WOODLAND 6 N.WYOMISSING BOULEVARD -B mm in > laug WARREN STREET BYPASS Timo A 3 SR 422 2 McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. PARK ROAD O R 1 Berta County Penneyhanla O C R ALTERNATIVE GLEVEL OF SERVICE 2015 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Plate:34 5 Nana الباهه ༩ 16 nir DT 6 C wo بياليا ليالياليا PARK ROAD S.R. 3055 OUTER BYPASS STREET SPRING N. WYOMISSING BOULEVARD ов ott WARREN STREET BYPASS 3 SR 422 McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc. PARK ROAD R RI D O O C Berta County Penneyhania VAN REED ALTERNATIVEH LEVEL OF SERWCE 2015 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Plate:35 1 ܢ