Sharpsburg Water Intake Upgrade Environmental Assessment/Assessment of Effect, March 2012

You are invited to review the "Sharpsburg Water Intake Upgrade Environmental Assessment/Assessment of Effect March 2012."

Washington County, Maryland operates a raw water intake station at Mile 74.3 of the Park. The County currently has a single six inch water line that is located within an 805 foot easement. This pipe has reached the end of its lifespan and has developed recurring leaks. This line is part of the Sharpsburg, Maryland drinking water system.

The proposed work would remove the existing pipe and replace it with another six inch line. A second six inch line would also be installed for future use. An electric duct bank would replace existing underground utility lines. Additionally, a new access route is to be established which will eliminate the need for County Public Work staff to use one mile of the park towpath to access the intake for routine operations and maintenance and emergency repairs.

We are only accepting written comments, which can be submitted either through this website or via postal letter. Comments will only be accepted during a 30 day public review period – MARCH 21, 2012 through APRIL19, 2012. Comments must be submitted or be postmarked by midnight on APRIL 19, 2012 to be considered. Please reference this project by name on all hardcopy correspondence. Mail hardcopy correspondence to Superintendent, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal NHP, 1850 Dual Highway, Suite 100, Hagerstown, MD 21740, Attention: Sharpsburg Water Intake Upgrades EA.

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment – including your personal identifying information – may be made publicly available at any time. Although you can ask us in your correspondence to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Topic Questions Instructions:

Ideally, comments on an environment assessment assess the adequacy of the document in disclosing and evaluating a project's effect on the environment. Comments are most useful if they are as specific as possible. Comments are generally considered substantive if the commenter raises an issue or question (with reasonable basis) regarding new information, suggests feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, or provides important new information related to: • A law or regulation • Agency procedure or performance • Compliance with stated objectives • Validity and adequacy of impact (environmental) analysis • Matters of practical or procedural importance Non-substantive comments include: • Factual information with no bearing on determination of significant impact • Information not related to the issues or impact analysis • Corrections that have no bearing on the analysis • Editorial changes; format suggestions • Information outside the scope of the document (i.e. criticism on existing policies, laws, guidelines outside the scope of the plan) • Information on other projects not related to the document • Opinions, personal judgments, grievances, complaints about the project or other projects • Support or lack of support for a project; votes (for or against the project) While both substantive and non-substantive comments are considered in the review of the EA and the preparation of the decision document, generally substantive comments are more helpful to decision makers.

Topic Questions:

1. Do you have any comments regarding a particular plan element or alternative?

2. Is all information complete and correct? Please identify any incomplete or incorrect information.

3. Do you foresee any reason a particular alternative or plan element would not work?

4. Is there a reasonable new alternative or plan element that could meet the stated goals that has not been considered?

5. Are there any discrepancies between legal mandates and the proposal?

6. Are there any deficiencies in the analysis of the environmental consequences?

7. Will the preferred alternative affect how you use the park? Please elaborate

Document Content:

Project Summary, TOC, Chapters 1-4, Supplimental Information   (3.4 MB, PDF file) Appendix A - Public Scoping   (3.7 MB, PDF file) Appendix B - Wetland Report   (2.9 MB, PDF file) Appendix C - Forest Stand Delination   (362.0 KB, PDF file) Appendix D - Agency Letters   (944.8 KB, PDF file) Appendix E - Easement   (729.1 KB, PDF file) Disclaimer: Links within the above document(s) were valid as of the date published. Note: Some of the files may be in PDF format and can be viewed using the Adobe Acrobat Reader software. You may download a free copy of from Adobe Systems.