Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

Environmental Assessment

and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation

March 2017


TOC-1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................. S-1

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need...................................................................................................1-1

A. Introduction......................................................................................................................1-1

B. Existing Conditions..........................................................................................................1-1

Project Setting .....................................................................................................................1-2

Bridge Characteristics.........................................................................................................1-2

C. Project Purpose and Need ................................................................................................1-3

Project Purpose....................................................................................................................1-3

Problems with Existing Bridge............................................................................................1-3

Navigable Waters................................................................................................................1-6

D. Master Plan Considerations..............................................................................................1-7

High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program.....................................................1-7

Northeast Corridor...............................................................................................................1-7

State of Maryland................................................................................................................1-8

Amtrak.................................................................................................................................1-9

Freight Rail..........................................................................................................................1-9

Chapter 2: Project Alternatives................................................................................................2-1

A. Introduction......................................................................................................................2-1

B. Alternatives Development and Screening........................................................................2-1

Development of Alignment Alternatives ............................................................................2-1

Alignment Alternatives Screening Process.........................................................................2-5

Bridge Type Alternatives....................................................................................................2-7

C. No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................2-9

D. Build Alternatives ............................................................................................................2-9

Alternative 9A.....................................................................................................................2-9

Alternative 9B...................................................................................................................2-12

Additional Project Elements..............................................................................................2-12

E. Required Approvals .......................................................................................................2-13

F. Preferred Alternative......................................................................................................2-15

Chapter 3: Transportation........................................................................................................3-1

A. Introduction and Methodology.........................................................................................3-1

B. Affected Environment......................................................................................................3-1

Intercity Rail........................................................................................................................3-1

Freight Service ....................................................................................................................3-2

Public Transportation ..........................................................................................................3-3

Navigable Waters................................................................................................................3-3

Regional Highway System..................................................................................................3-5
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

TOC-2

Local Roadways.................................................................................................................. 3-5

C. No Action Alternative...................................................................................................... 3-6

D. Potential Impacts of the Build Alternatives..................................................................... 3-7

Intercity Rail ....................................................................................................................... 3-7

Freight Service.................................................................................................................... 3-8

Public Transportation.......................................................................................................... 3-8

Navigable Waters................................................................................................................ 3-9

Regional Highway System................................................................................................ 3-10

Local Roadways................................................................................................................ 3-10

Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Facilities.................................................................... 4-1

A. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4-1

B. Regulatory Context and Methodology............................................................................. 4-1

Regulatory Context............................................................................................................. 4-1

Methodology and Background............................................................................................ 4-1

State of Maryland................................................................................................................ 4-2

Harford County................................................................................................................... 4-2

City of Havre de Grace ....................................................................................................... 4-3

Cecil County ....................................................................................................................... 4-4

Town of Perryville.............................................................................................................. 4-4

Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway............................................................................ 4-5

C. Affected Environment ..................................................................................................... 4-5

Land Use............................................................................................................................. 4-5

Zoning................................................................................................................................. 4-6

Community Facilities.......................................................................................................... 4-6

D. No Action Alternative...................................................................................................... 4-8

City of Havre de Grace ....................................................................................................... 4-8

Town of Perryville.............................................................................................................. 4-9

E. Potential Impacts of the Build Alternatives..................................................................... 4-9

Property Acquisitions and Displacements........................................................................ 4-10

Land Use........................................................................................................................... 4-12

Zoning............................................................................................................................... 4-12

Public Policy..................................................................................................................... 4-13

Community Facilities........................................................................................................ 4-13

F. Minimization and Mitigation of Impacts....................................................................... 4-13

Property Acquisitions and Displacements........................................................................ 4-13

Land Use, Zoning, Public Policy, and Community Facilities........................................... 4-14

Chapter 5: Socioeconomic Conditions and Environmental Justice ...................................... 5-1

A. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 5-1

B. Regulatory Context and Methodology............................................................................. 5-1

Socioeconomic Conditions................................................................................................. 5-1

Environmental Justice......................................................................................................... 5-2

C. Affected Environment ..................................................................................................... 5-5

Population........................................................................................................................... 5-5

Employment Characteristics............................................................................................... 5-6

Age and Gender Distribution.............................................................................................. 5-6

Racial and Ethnic Characteristics ....................................................................................... 5-7
Table of Contents

TOC-3

Income...............................................................................................................................5-10

D. No Action Alternative ....................................................................................................5-11

E. Potential Impacts of the Build Alternatives ...................................................................5-11

Socioeconomic Conditions................................................................................................5-11

Minority and Low-Income Populations ............................................................................5-12

F. Minimization and Mitigation of Impacts .......................................................................5-14

Socioeconomic Conditions................................................................................................5-14

Minority and Low-Income Populations ............................................................................5-14

G. Public Participation ........................................................................................................5-14

Chapter 6: Parks Trails and Recreational Resources ............................................................6-1

A. Introduction......................................................................................................................6-1

B. Regulatory Context and Methodology .............................................................................6-1

Regulatory Context .............................................................................................................6-1

Methodology and Background ............................................................................................6-1

C. Affected Environment......................................................................................................6-2

Existing Parks and Recreational Areas ...............................................................................6-2

Trails and Greenways..........................................................................................................6-5

D. No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................6-6

City of Havre de Grace........................................................................................................6-6

Town of Perryville ..............................................................................................................6-7

Trails and Greenways..........................................................................................................6-7

Havre de Grace Middle School/High School......................................................................6-7

E. Potential Impacts of the Build Alternatives .....................................................................6-8

Build Alternatives ...............................................................................................................6-8

F. Minimization and Mitigation of Impacts .........................................................................6-9

Chapter 7: Visual and Aesthetic Conditions ...........................................................................7-1

A. Introduction......................................................................................................................7-1

B. Regulatory Context and Methodology .............................................................................7-1

C. Affected Environment......................................................................................................7-1

Existing Visual Character....................................................................................................7-1

Visually Sensitive Resources within the Lower Susquehanna Heritage 

Greenway (LSHG) ..............................................................................................................7-2

Viewer Groups and View Durations...................................................................................7-3

D. No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................7-5

E. Potential Impacts of the Build Alternatives .....................................................................7-5

Overall Visual Character.....................................................................................................7-6

Site-Specific Effects............................................................................................................7-7

F. Minimization and Mitigation of Impacts .........................................................................7-7

Overall Visual Character.....................................................................................................7-7

Site-Specific Effects............................................................................................................7-8

Chapter 8: Cultural Resources.................................................................................................8-1

A. Introduction......................................................................................................................8-1

Regulatory Authority...........................................................................................................8-1

Methodology .......................................................................................................................8-1

B. Affected Environment......................................................................................................8-3
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

TOC-4

Archaeological Resources................................................................................................... 8-3

Architectural Resources...................................................................................................... 8-5

C. No Action Alternative.................................................................................................... 8-11

D. Potential Impacts of the Build Alternatives................................................................... 8-12

Archaeological Resources................................................................................................. 8-12

Architectural Resources.................................................................................................... 8-15

E. Mitigation Measures...................................................................................................... 8-27

Archaeological Resources................................................................................................. 8-27

Architectural Resources.................................................................................................... 8-27

Chapter 9: Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation ................................................................................ 9-1

A. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 9-1

B. Regulatory Context and Methodology............................................................................. 9-1

C. Potential Impacts of the Build Alternatives..................................................................... 9-3

Alternative 9A..................................................................................................................... 9-3

Alternative 9B..................................................................................................................... 9-7

D. Avoidance Analysis......................................................................................................... 9-8

No Action Alternative......................................................................................................... 9-8

Rehabilitation Alternatives................................................................................................. 9-9

E. Measures to Minimize Harm ......................................................................................... 9-10

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and Overpasses.............................................................. 9-10

Perryville Railroad Station................................................................................................ 9-11

Havre de Grace Historic District....................................................................................... 9-11

Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park......................................................................................... 9-12

Havre de Grace Middle /High School Athletic Fields...................................................... 9-12

Rodgers Tavern................................................................................................................. 9-13

F. Least Overall Harm Analysis......................................................................................... 9-13

Alternative 9A................................................................................................................... 9-14

Alternative 9B................................................................................................................... 9-14

Evaluation of Least Overall Harm.................................................................................... 9-14

G. Coordination .................................................................................................................. 9-16

H. Section 4(f) Review Process.......................................................................................... 9-17

Chapter 10: Section 6(f) Evaluation ...................................................................................... 10-1

A. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 10-1

B. Regulatory Context and Methodology........................................................................... 10-1

Regulatory Context........................................................................................................... 10-1

Prerequisites of Conversion .............................................................................................. 10-2

Methodology..................................................................................................................... 10-2

C. Applicability of Section 6(f) to the Project.................................................................... 10-3

D. No Action Alternative.................................................................................................... 10-4

E. Potential Impacts of the Build Alternatives................................................................... 10-4

Alternative 9A................................................................................................................... 10-4

Alternative 9B................................................................................................................... 10-6

F. Minimization and Mitigation of Impacts....................................................................... 10-6

G. Potential Section 6(f) Replacement Land ...................................................................... 10-7

Potential Property Considerations..................................................................................... 10-7
Table of Contents

TOC-5

Chapter 11: Natural Resources ..............................................................................................11-1

A. Introduction....................................................................................................................11-1

B. Regulatory Context and Methodology ...........................................................................11-1

Topography, Geology, and Soils.......................................................................................11-1

Floodplains and Wetlands/Waters of the U.S. ..................................................................11-1

Terrestrial Resources.........................................................................................................11-3

Aquatic Resources.............................................................................................................11-3

Chesapeake Bay Critical Area...........................................................................................11-3

Coastal Zone Management................................................................................................11-4

Unique and Sensitive Areas ..............................................................................................11-4

C. Affected Environment....................................................................................................11-4

Topography, Geology, and Soils.......................................................................................11-4

Floodplains and Wetlands/Waters of the U.S. ..................................................................11-5

Terrestrial Resources.........................................................................................................11-8

Aquatic Resources...........................................................................................................11-11

Chesapeake Bay Critical Area.........................................................................................11-17

Coastal Zone Management..............................................................................................11-18

Unique and Sensitive Areas ............................................................................................11-18

D. No Action Alternative ..................................................................................................11-19

E. Potential Impacts of the Build Alternatives .................................................................11-20

Topography, Geology, and Soils.....................................................................................11-20

Floodplains and Wetlands/Waters of the U.S. ................................................................11-21

Terrestrial Resources.......................................................................................................11-23

Aquatic Resources...........................................................................................................11-25

Chesapeake Bay Critical Area.........................................................................................11-29

Coastal Zone Management..............................................................................................11-29

Unique and Sensitive Areas ............................................................................................11-30

F. Minimization and Mitigation of Impacts .....................................................................11-30

Topography, Geology, and Soils.....................................................................................11-30

Floodplains and Wetlands/Waters of the U.S. ................................................................11-30

Forest Resources .............................................................................................................11-34

Aquatic Resources...........................................................................................................11-34

Chesapeake Bay Critical Area.........................................................................................11-35

Coastal Zone Management..............................................................................................11-35

Unique and Sensitive Areas ............................................................................................11-35

G. References....................................................................................................................11-35

Chapter 12: Air Quality ..........................................................................................................12-1

A. Introduction....................................................................................................................12-1

B. Regulatory Context and Methodology ...........................................................................12-1

C. Affected Environment....................................................................................................12-1

D. No Action Alternative ....................................................................................................12-2

Regional (Mesoscale) Analysis.........................................................................................12-2

Local (Microscale) Analysis .............................................................................................12-2

E. Potential Impacts of the Build Alternatives ...................................................................12-4

Regional (Mesoscale) Analysis.........................................................................................12-4

Local (Microscale) Analysis .............................................................................................12-5

F. Minimization and Mitigation of Impacts .......................................................................12-6
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

TOC-6

Chapter 13: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change ........................................... 13-1

A. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 13-1

B. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Use ................................................................. 13-2

Policy, Regulations, Standards, and Benchmarks............................................................. 13-2

Methodology..................................................................................................................... 13-3

Potential Impacts of the Build Alternatives...................................................................... 13-3

Elements That Would Reduce Ghg Emissions................................................................. 13-4

C. Climate Change Resilience............................................................................................ 13-5

Development of Policy to Improve Climate Change Resilience ...................................... 13-5

Projected Changes in Climate in the Study Area.............................................................. 13-6

Resilience of the Proposed Project to Climate Change..................................................... 13-6

Chapter 14: Noise and Vibration ........................................................................................... 14-1

A. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 14-1

B. Noise Fundamentals, Standards, and Impact Criteria.................................................... 14-1

Airborne Noise Fundamentals.......................................................................................... 14-1

Vibration Fundamentals.................................................................................................... 14-3

Noise Standards and Criteria ............................................................................................ 14-5

Vibration Standards and Criteria ...................................................................................... 14-6

C. Methodology.................................................................................................................. 14-7

Airborne Noise Analysis Methodology ............................................................................ 14-7

Analysis Procedure ........................................................................................................... 14-8

Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Methodology ........................................................... 14-9

D. Affected Environment ................................................................................................. 14-10

Airborne Noise................................................................................................................ 14-10

Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise................................................................................ 14-13

E. Potential Effects of the Project Alternatives................................................................ 14-13

Airborne Noise................................................................................................................ 14-13

Vibration......................................................................................................................... 14-20

Chapter 15: Contaminated and Hazardous Materials......................................................... 15-1

A. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 15-1

Potential Contaminants..................................................................................................... 15-1

B. Methodology.................................................................................................................. 15-2

Regulatory Context........................................................................................................... 15-2

Regulatory Records Search............................................................................................... 15-2

C. Affected Environment ................................................................................................... 15-3

D. No Action Alternative.................................................................................................... 15-5

E. Potential Impacts of the Build Alternatives................................................................... 15-5

Chapter 16: Public Health, Safety, and Security.................................................................. 16-1

A. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 16-1

B. Regulatory Context and Methodology........................................................................... 16-1

C. Affected Environment ................................................................................................... 16-1

Public Health .................................................................................................................... 16-1

Safety and Security ........................................................................................................... 16-1

D. No Action Alternative.................................................................................................... 16-3

E. Potential Impacts of the Build Alternatives................................................................... 16-4
Table of Contents

TOC-7

Public Health.....................................................................................................................16-4

Safety and Security............................................................................................................16-5

F. Minimization and Mitigation of Impacts .......................................................................16-6

Chapter 17: Construction........................................................................................................17-1

A. Introduction....................................................................................................................17-1

B. Construction Schedule and Sequence ............................................................................17-1

Construction Schedule.......................................................................................................17-1

Construction Sequence......................................................................................................17-2

C. Construction of Key Elements.......................................................................................17-2

Substructure.......................................................................................................................17-2

Superstructure....................................................................................................................17-4

Demolition of the Existing Structure.................................................................................17-4

Additional Structures and Systems....................................................................................17-4

Construction Access and Staging......................................................................................17-5

Solid Waste Disposal ........................................................................................................17-5

D. Social, Economic, and Environmental Impacts .............................................................17-6

Transportation ...................................................................................................................17-6

Land Acquisition, Displacement, and Relocation .............................................................17-7

Parks and Recreational Resources.....................................................................................17-7

Socioeconomic Conditions................................................................................................17-7

Visual and Aesthetic Conditions.......................................................................................17-7

Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................17-8

Air Quality.........................................................................................................................17-8

Noise and Vibration ........................................................................................................17-10

Natural Resources and Permitting...................................................................................17-15

Contaminated and Hazardous Materials..........................................................................17-15

Infrastructure and Utilities...............................................................................................17-16

Chapter 18: Indirect and Cumulative Effects.......................................................................18-1

A. Introduction....................................................................................................................18-1

B. Methodology ..................................................................................................................18-1

C. Environmental Resources of Interest .............................................................................18-1

D. Geographic Boundary ....................................................................................................18-2

E. Temporal Boundary .......................................................................................................18-3

F. Reasonably Foreseeable Actions....................................................................................18-3

G. Indirect Effects Analysis................................................................................................18-5

H. Cumulative Effects Analysis..........................................................................................18-6

Transportation ...................................................................................................................18-8

Land Use and Community Facilities...............................................................................18-10

Socioeconomic Conditions and Environmental Justice ..................................................18-10

Parks, Trails, and Recreational Resources ......................................................................18-11

Visual and Aesthetic Conditions.....................................................................................18-11

Cultural Resources ..........................................................................................................18-11

Natural Resources ...........................................................................................................18-12

Public Health, Safety, and Security.................................................................................18-13

Summary .........................................................................................................................18-14
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

TOC-8

Chapter 19: Commitment of Resources ................................................................................ 19-1

A. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources.............................................. 19-1

B. Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and 

Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity........................................................................19-1

Short-Term Uses............................................................................................................... 19-1

Long-Term Productivity ................................................................................................... 19-2

Short-Term Uses Versus Long-Term Productivity........................................................... 19-2

Chapter 20: Coordination and Consultation ........................................................................ 20-1

A. Introduction ...................................................................................................................20-1

Agency Coordination and Public Involvement Plan.........................................................20-1

Early Coordination............................................................................................................20-2

Early Coordination Meetings............................................................................................20-3

Informational Materials ....................................................................................................20-3

B. Public Involvement........................................................................................................20-4

Public Outreach Information Sessions..............................................................................20-4

Coordination with Local Officials....................................................................................20-7

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project Advisory Board .................................................20-7

Bicycle-Pedestrian Stakeholders.......................................................................................20-8

U.S. Coast Guard and Mariners........................................................................................20-9

Freight Railroads...............................................................................................................20-9

MARC...............................................................................................................................20-9

Section 106 Consultation..................................................................................................20-9

C. Agency Coordination...................................................................................................20-11

Interagency Review Meetings ........................................................................................20-11

Other Agency Coordination............................................................................................20-13

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Alternatives Screening Report and Bridge Types

Appendix B: Engineering Alignments

Appendix C: Visual and Aesthetic Conditions

Appendix D: Cultural Resources 

Appendix E: Natural Environmental Technical Report (NETR)

Appendix F: Air Quality, Noise, and Vibration

Appendix G: Contaminated Materials Technical Report

Appendix H: Public Involvement and Agency Correspondence
Table of Contents

TOC-9

List of Tables

ES-1 Effects on Natural Resources and Floodplains........................................................... ES-7

1-1 Existing Weekday Volumes Across the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge ..................... 1-5

2-1 Description of 18 Conceptual Alternatives.....................................................................2-3

2-2 Description of Additional Alternatives...........................................................................2-5

2-3 Fatal Flaw Screening of Conceptual Alternatives...........................................................2-6

2-4 Summary of Affected Existing Infrastructure...............................................................2-11

2-5 List of Potential Federal, State, and Local Permits and Approvals ..............................2-14

3-1 Existing Volumes Across the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge (Average Weekday) .....3-2

3-2 Susquehanna River Bridges South of the Conowingo Dam ...........................................3-4

3-3 Projected 2040 Volumes Across the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge without 

the Proposed Project (Average Weekday) ......................................................................3-7

3-4 Projected 2040 Volumes Across the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge with the 

Proposed Project and Enhancements Along the NEC (Average Weekday) ...................3-8

4-1 Zoning Designations within the Study Area.................................................................. 4-6

4-2 Community Facilities within the Study Area..................................................................4-7

4-3 Potential Land Acquisitions by Build Alternative ....................................................... 4-10

5-1 Study Area Census Block Groups.................................................................................. 5-2

5-2 Population Trends.......................................................................................................... 5-5

5-3 Household & Housing Unit Trends ............................................................................... 5-6

5-4 Major Employers ........................................................................................................... 5-7

5-5 Population, Race, and Ethnicity..................................................................................... 5-8

5-6 Median Household Income and Individuals below Poverty Level .............................. 5-10

6-1 Havre de Grace Parks and Recreational Resources within 1,000-Foot Study Area .......6-3

6-2 Perryville Parks and Recreational Resources within 1,000-Foot Study Area.................6-5

8-1 Historic Architectural Resources within the APE...........................................................8-6

8-2 Distance to Contributing Structures..............................................................................8-20

8-3 Adverse Effects on Historic Architectural Resources...................................................8-28

10-1 Potential Replacement Land .........................................................................................10-7

11-1 Regulatory Context Summary Table ........................................................................... 11-2

11-2 Soil Characteristics...................................................................................................... 11-5

11-3 Mapped and Delineated Wetlands and Waters of the U.S........................................... 11-7

11-4 Critical Area within the Study Area........................................................................... 11-18
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

TOC-10

11-5 Effects to Prime Farmland Soils & Soils of Statewide Importance ...........................11-20

11-6 Potential Effects on Natural Resources from the Susquehanna River Rail 

Bridge Project.............................................................................................................11-21

11-7 Wetland and Stream Impacts and Estimated Minimum Required Mitigation............11-32

12-1 Representative Monitored Ambient Air Quality Data.................................................. 12-2

12-2 Maximum Projected Concentrations—No Action Alternative (μg/m3)....................... 12-3

12-3 Predicted Increases in Regional Annual Emissions ..................................................... 12-4

12-4 Maximum Projected Concentrations............................................................................ 12-5

14-1 Common Noise Levels.................................................................................................14-2

14-2 Typical Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration .................................................................14-4

14-3 FTA’s Land Use Category and Metrics for Transit Noise Impact Criteria ..................14-5

14-4 Ground-Borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impact Criteria 

for General Assessment................................................................................................14-7

14-5 Noise Receptor Sites ..................................................................................................14-12

14-6 Existing Noise Levels (in dBA) .................................................................................14-13

14-7 No Action Alternative Noise Levels (in dBA)...........................................................14-14

14-8 Alternative 9A Noise Levels (in dBA).......................................................................14-15

14-9 Alternative 9B Noise Levels (in dBA).......................................................................14-18

14-10 Vibration Impact Evaluation ......................................................................................14-20

14-11 Ground-Borne Noise Impact Evaluation....................................................................14-20

15-1 Sites of Potential Concern ............................................................................................ 15-4

17-1 Construction Sequence and Duration ........................................................................... 17-2

17-2 Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels....................................................... 17-12

17-3 Construction Noise Levels in dBA............................................................................. 17-13

17-4 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ............................................... 17-14

17-5 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria.................................................................... 17-14

18-1 Geographic Boundary Synthesis ..................................................................................18-2

18-2 Reasonably Foreseeable Actions..................................................................................18-3

18-3 Overall Cumulative Impacts Summary ........................................................................18-7

20-1 All Meetings Held to Date............................................................................................ 20-5

20-2 Section 106 Correspondence Summary...................................................................... 20-10

20-3 Natural Resources Correspondence Summary ........................................................... 20-14

20-4 Other Correspondence................................................................................................ 20-14
Table of Contents

TOC-11

List of Figures

following page

Figure ES-1 Project Location..............................................................................................ES-2

Figure 1-1 Project Location.................................................................................................1-2

Figure 1-2 Existing Susquehanna River Bridge ..................................................................1-2

Figure 1-3 Existing Susquehanna River Swing Span..........................................................1-2

Figure 1-4 Project Site.........................................................................................................1-2

Figure 1-5 Existing Susquehanna River Bridge Plan and Elevation ...................................1-2

Figure 2-1 Conceptual Alternatives Development ..............................................................2-4

Figure 2-2 Detailed Alternatives Comparison Matrix.........................................................2-8

Figure 3-1 Undergrade and Overhead Bridges..................................................................3-10

Figure 4-1 Existing Land Use..............................................................................................4-2

Figure 4-2 Priority Funding Areas.......................................................................................4-2

Figure 4-3 Potential Property Impacts from Alternatives 9A and 9B ...............................4-10

Figure 5-1 Census Block Groups.........................................................................................5-2

Figure 6-1 Parks and Recreational Resources.....................................................................6-2

Figure 8-1 Archaeological and Architectural APE..............................................................8-2

Figure 8-2 Havre de Grace Architectural Resources Photo Map and Key..........................8-6

Figure 8-3 Perryville and Cecil County Architectural Resources Photo Map and Key ......8-6

Figure 8-4 Resources Contributing to the Havre de Grace Historic District.......................8-8

Figure 8-5 Architectural Resources Photographs................................................................8-8

Figure 8-6 Architectural Resources Photographs................................................................8-8

Figure 8-7 Architectural Resources Photographs................................................................8-8

Figure 8-8 Architectural Resources Photographs................................................................8-8

Figure 8-9 Architectural Resources Photographs................................................................8-8

Figure 8-10 Architectural Resources Photographs................................................................8-8

Figure 8-11 Architectural Resources Photographs................................................................8-8

Figure 8-12 Architectural Resources Photographs................................................................8-8

Figure 8-13 Architectural Resources Photographs................................................................8-8

Figure 8-14 Architectural Resources Photographs..............................................................8-10

Figure 8-15 Architectural Resources Photographs..............................................................8-10

Figure 8-16 Architectural Resources Photographs..............................................................8-10

Figure 8-17 Architectural Resources Photographs..............................................................8-10
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

TOC-12

Figure 8-18 Architectural Resources Photographs ............................................................. 8-10

Figure 8-19 Architectural Resources Photographs ............................................................. 8-12

Figure 8-20 Architectural Resources Photographs ............................................................. 8-12

Figure 8-21 Architectural Resources Photographs ............................................................. 8-16

Figure 8-22 Architectural Resources Photographs ............................................................. 8-16

Figure 8-23 Architectural Resources Photographs ............................................................. 8-16

Figure 8-24 Architectural Resources Photographs ............................................................. 8-16

Figure 9-1 Evaluated Section 4(f) Properties...................................................................... 9-4

Figure 10-1 Havre de Grace Middle School/High School Athletic Complex..................... 10-4

Figure 10-2 Development History of Havre de Grace Middle/High School Athletic 

Complex .......................................................................................................... 10-4

Figure 10-3 Build Alternatives Impacts to Section 6(f) Resources .................................... 10-6

Figure 10-4 Potential Replacement Sites............................................................................ 10-8

Figure 12-1 Areas of Potential Exceedance of the 1-Hour NO2 Standard .......................... 12-4

Figure 14-1 FTA Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects.............................................. 14-6

Figure 14-2 Noise Receptor Locations ............................................................................. 14-10

Figure 17-1 Proposed Finger Piers...................................................................................... 17-2

Figure 17-2 Proposed Abutments........................................................................................ 17-4
Table of Contents

TOC-13

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ACM Asbestos-Containing Materials

ACS American Community Survey

Amtrak National Railroad Passenger Corporation

APE Area of Potential Effects

AQCR Air Quality Control Region

ARDS Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study

AREMA American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association

BMC Baltimore Metropolitan Council

BMPs Best Management Practices

BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes

CAA Clean Air Act

CARB California Air Resources Board

CDP Carbon Disclosure Project

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability 

Information System

CETC Centralized Electrification and Traffic Control

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CHASP Construction Health and Safety Plan

COMAR Code of Maryland Regulations

CPP Construction Protection Plan

CREATE Chicago Rail Efficiency and Transportation Efficiency

CZARA Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments

CZMA Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

DFE Design Flood Elevation

DLLR Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation

DNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources

DOE Determination of Eligibility

DOTs State Departments of Transportation

DPF Diesel Particulate Filters

DPS Distinct Population Segment

DRO Diesel Range Organics

EA Environmental Assessment

ECG East Coast Greenway

EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

ERNS Emergency Response Notification System

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESD Environmental Site Design

FAQs Frequently Asked Questions

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FIDS Forest Interior Dwelling Species

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

TOC-14

FPPA Farmland Policy Protection Act

FR Federal Register

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FSD Forest Stand Delineation

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GGRA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GIS Geographic information System

HAER Historic American Engineering Record

HCPS Harford County Public Schools

HEAT Higher Education Applied Technology

HSIPR High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail

HSR High Speed Rail

HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

IBI Index of Biotic Integrity

ICE Indirect and Cumulative Effects

IDA Intensely Developed Areas

IRMs Interagency Review Meetings

JPA Joint Permit Application

LDA Limited Development Areas

LEP Limited English Proficiency

LOD Limit of Disturbance

LSHG Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Funding

MARA Maryland Amphibian and Reptile Atlas

MARC Maryland Area Regional Commuter

MDE Maryland Department of the Environment

MDOT Maryland Department of Transportation

MDP Maryland Department of Planning

MdTA Maryland Transportation Authority

MERLIN Maryland Environmental Resources and Land Information Network

MGP Manufactured Gas Plant

MGS Maryland Geological Survey

MHT Maryland Historical Trust

MHW Mean High Water

MIHP Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties

MLW Mean Low Water

MMAP Maryland Maritime Archeology Program

MP Milepost

MPOs Metropolitan Planning Organizations

MTA Maryland Transit Administration

MY Model Year

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEC Northeast Corridor

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NESHAPS National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NETR Natural Environmental Technical Report
Table of Contents

TOC-15

NFRAP No Further Remedial Action Planned

NHD National Hydrography Dataset

NHL National Historic Landmarks

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NLEB Northern Long-Eared Bat

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPL National Priority List

NPS National Parks Service

NR National Register of Historic Places

NS Norfolk Southern Railway

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

OCP Oil Control Program

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OTN Open Transport Network

PA Programmatic Agreement

PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls

PCE Tetrachloroethene

PFA Priority Funding Areas

PIA Public Information Act

POS Program Open Space

PTC Positive Train Control

PVC Polyvinyl Chloride

PW&B Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad

RCA Resource Conservation Areas

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

ROD Record of Decision

ROW Right-of-Way

RTE Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species

SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

SCORP Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan

SEPTA Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

SHA State Highway Administration

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SHWS State Hazardous Waste Site

SIPs State Implementation Plans

SOI Secretary of Interior

SRRBP Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

SSPRA Sensitive Species Project Review Areas

SVOCs Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds

TCA Trichloroethane

TCE Trichloroethene

TCR The Climate Registry
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

TOC-16

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TOD Transit-Oriented Development

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

TSD Treatment, Storage and Disposal

TSS Total Suspended Solids

UG Undergrade

ULSD Ultra-low sulfur diesel

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USCG United States Coast Guard

USDHHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

USDOE U.S. Department of Energy

USDOI U.S. Department of the Interior

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

VA Veterans Administration

VC Vinyl Chloride

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds

WHPA Wellhead Protection Areas

WHS Wildlife and Heritage Service

WSSC Wetland of Special State Concern
 ES-1 

 Executive Summary 

A. INTRODUCTION 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Maryland Department of Transportation 

(MDOT) are preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential 

environmental impacts for the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project (“the Proposed Project”). 

MDOT, the project sponsor, is proposing to improve rail connectivity along the Northeast 

Corridor (NEC) by replacing or improving the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge between the City 

of Havre de Grace in Harford County, Maryland and the Town of Perryville in Cecil County, 

Maryland (see Figure ES-1). FRA is the lead federal agency and the National Railroad 

Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), as the bridge owner and operator, is providing conceptual and 

preliminary engineering designs and is acting in coordination with MDOT and FRA. 

The existing two-track Susquehanna River Rail Bridge is located on Amtrak’s NEC at Milepost 

(MP) 60. It is 110 years old, which is beyond the 100-year design lifespan typical for steel 

railroad bridges. This rail bridge is a critical link along one of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation’s (USDOT) designated high-speed rail corridors. Amtrak, the Maryland Area 

Regional Commuter (MARC), and Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) use the bridge to carry 

intercity, commuter, and freight trains across the Susquehanna River. The existing two-track 

bridge creates a capacity and speed bottleneck along this segment of the NEC, resulting in 

conflicts between Amtrak’s passenger service, MARC trains, and freight trains operated by NS. 

This EA examines two Build Alternatives (Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B) and the No 

Action Alternative. FRA selected Alternative 9A as the Preferred Alternative. 

B. PURPOSE AND NEED 

The age of the bridge, its structural condition, and its two tracks curtail speeds and capacity on 

the bridge. This situation inhibits the rail operators’ goals to provide reliable service, MDOT’s 

plans to increase MARC commuter rail service, and Amtrak’s plans to increase high-speed 

passenger rail service on the NEC. The bridge’s functionally-obsolete design and age require 

increasing major rehabilitation and repairs, which result in increasing maintenance costs 

and conflicts with the need to maintain continuous rail operations. The primary purpose of 

the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project is to provide continued rail connectivity along 

the NEC. The goals of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project include: 

 Improve rail service reliability and safety; 

 Improve operational flexibility and accommodate reduced trip times; 

 Optimize existing and planned infrastructure and accommodate future freight, commuter, 

intercity, and high-speed rail operations; and 

 Maintain adequate navigation and improve safety along the Susquehanna River.
Wilmington

Baltimore

Washington D.C.

Philadelphia

Maryland

Pennsylvania

Delaware

New Jersey

Virginia

81

76

83

70

95

97

495

295

295

476

1.17.17

SCALE

0 10 25 MILES

N

Project Location

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project Figure ES-1

Susquehanna River Bridge

Northeast Corridor
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 ES-2 

C. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

The Build Alternatives were identified through a rigorous alternatives development and 

screening process. This process considered both alignment alternatives as well as bridge type 

alternatives. The Project Team prepared a detailed report describing the development of 

alternatives; input solicited from the public, agencies, and other stakeholders; and the 

methodology used to screen alternatives and selected those retained for detailed study (see 

Appendix A, “Alternatives Screening Report and Bridge Types”). 

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The No Action Alternative assumes the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge would remain in service 

as-is, with no intervention besides minimal repairs and continuation of the current maintenance 

regime. Service over the bridge would worsen in the future under the No Action Alternative. The 

bridge would continue to age, problems would occur more frequently, and the bridge would 

remain as a bottleneck. Major planned transportation projects within the study area—Amtrak’s 

State of Good Repair and Service Improvements and MARC Fleet Plan—are expected to be 

completed by 2025, the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project build year. 

BUILD ALTERNATIVES 

Based on the alternatives development and screening process, Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B 

were retained for detailed study. Alternative 9A, selected as the Preferred Alternative, would 

construct a new two-track 90 mph bridge to the west of the existing bridge and a second new 

two-track 160 mph bridge on the existing bridge alignment. The bridge to the west of the 

existing bridge would be constructed first, including the river spans, approach structures, 

railroad systems, and embankment. The use of conventional ballasted track is anticipated for the 

fixed bridge portion of this project. Under normal operations, this bridge would be used 

primarily by MARC commuter rail and NS freight rail service. 

Once the new bridge to the west is completed, the existing bridge would be taken out of service, 

demolished, and replaced. A new high-speed passenger bridge would be built in the center of the 

right-of-way of the existing bridge alignment. Alternative 9A design would allow for 160 mph 

speeds. Since the west bridge will be built first, freight, MARC and Amtrak operations can be 

maintained throughout construction of both bridges. 

Like Alternative 9A, Alternative 9B would result in a new two-track 90 mph bridge west of the 

existing bridge and a second new two-track bridge replacing the existing bridge. The difference 

between Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B occurs in Havre de Grace along the east side of the 

corridor from Lewis Lane to the Susquehanna River and the curve in Havre de Grace, which 

limits the speed to a maximum of 150 mph with Alternative 9B. This lower speed, as compared 

to Alternative 9A, reduces the amount of property acquisitions required, including the avoidance 

of the Havre de Grace Middle/High School athletic fields. 

D. TRANSPORTATION 

The Proposed Project would eliminate bridge malfunctions resulting from the opening of the 

existing movable span. This would improve the reliability of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge 

and increase speed and capacity over the river. The Proposed Project would remove the 

bottleneck caused by the existing bridge and would reduce unscheduled train delays. No adverse 

impacts to intercity rail, freight, or MARC operations will result from the Proposed Project. 
Executive Summary 

 ES-3 

There will be no adverse impacts to the local street network upon which bus service or 

paratransit service relies. The Proposed Project will not affect any bus depots, bus stations, or 

any depots where paratransit vehicles are stored or maintained. Under both Alternative 9A and 

Alternative 9B, the Proposed Project will provide a 60-foot vertical clearance over mean high 

water and, at minimum, a 230-foot horizontal clearance. This will improve safety by reducing 

the potential for conflicts between the rail and marine traffic. The Proposed Project would also 

eliminate the need for bridge openings and closings by replacing the Susquehanna River Rail 

Bridge as two high-level fixed bridges. This would constitute an improvement to navigation 

along this segment of the Susquehanna River. 

The Proposed Project will reduce future vehicle miles traveled (VMT) regionally when 

compared with the No Action Alternative, which would constitute a benefit to regional highways 

by lowering congestion levels and resulting in less wear and tear on road surfaces. No adverse 

impacts to regional highways would result from the Proposed Project. 

Alternative 9A would require a slight realignment of Warren Street between N. Adams Street 

and N. Stokes Street in Havre de Grace. In Perryville, a slight realignment of Avenue A may be 

necessary under both Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B to accommodate the enlarged bridge 

abutment. These minor roadway realignments will not have any adverse impacts on local 

roadway traffic. With Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B, seven local roadway crossings beneath 

the NEC would require modification. Extension of these crossings would not have any negative 

impacts on local roadway traffic. 

The Project Team designed the Proposed Project to accommodate traffic improvements and 

provide for a more open gateway to the downtown Havre de Grace commercial district, as 

requested at public meetings. The Proposed Project under both Alternative 9A and Alternative 

9B would not result in a significant adverse impact on transportation. Together with other 

planned projects along the NEC, the Proposed Project would result in transportation benefits, 

including state of good repair, better performance, and reliability. Overall, the Proposed Project 

would not result in significant adverse impacts to Transportation. 

E. LAND USE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES 

Either Build Alternative would require the acquisition of all or a portion of several properties 

located immediately adjacent to the existing right-of-way. Where full property acquisition is 

required, the owners of properties will be fully compensated for the land acquired and businesses 

will be provided relocation assistance to facilitate their reestablishment elsewhere, should this be 

necessary. The total anticipated property acquisition is 2.84 acres for Alternative 9A and 0.35 

acres for Alternative 9B. 

The Build Alternatives would be located on or just beyond the existing right-of-way. Therefore, 

the Proposed Project will not substantially change current land uses within the study area and 

would not result in a significant adverse impact to land use. 

MDOT and Amtrak are not subject to local zoning regulations and no zoning designations are 

mapped on the existing rail right-of-way through the study area. The properties that would be 

acquired for each of the Build Alternatives have designated zoning under the City of Havre de 

Grace or the Town of Perryville that would be removed from the affected portions of the 

property where the land acquisitions are required. This would not result in a significant adverse 

impact on zoning on the project site or in the study area. Alternative 9A would require the 

acquisition of a narrow strip of the Havre de Grace Middle/High School athletic fields. Measures 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 ES-4 

to minimize the impact to this community facility have been identified, in cooperation with the 

Harford County Public Schools (HCPS). The Proposed Project would be compatible and 

consistent with current policies that govern the project site and study area. Overall, there would 

be no long-term significant adverse impacts to land use, zoning, public policy, or community 

facilities from the Proposed Project. 

F. SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

JUSTICE 

The socioeconomic conditions analysis uses the guidance set forth in the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR §§ 1500-1508). 

Alternative 9A would require the full acquisition of one commercial use associated with the 

National Tire & Glass Sales Inc., in Havre de Grace. The owners of this property would be fully 

compensated and the business would be provided relocation assistance to facilitate their 

reestablishment elsewhere. Since the business would be relocated, it is not expected that any jobs 

will be lost as a result of Alternative 9A. Based on the design to date, no other commercial or 

residential properties will be fully displaced within the study area by either Alternative 9A or 

Alternative 9B. The Build Alternatives would not affect the population or housing supply of the 

area and would not spur rapid development. Overall, the Proposed Project would not adversely 

affect socioeconomic conditions, employment, or community cohesion. 

The environmental justice analysis for the Proposed Project follows the guidance and 

methodologies recommended in the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Final Order on 

Environmental Justice (updated May 2, 2012), Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Circular 

4703.1 Environmental Justice Policy Guidance For Federal Transit Administration Recipients, 

and principles set forth in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). Existing 

population, employment, age, gender, income, and racial and ethnic characteristics were 

compiled for Harford and Cecil counties as a whole, as well as within the City of Havre de 

Grace and Town of Perryville limits. The predominant race within Harford County, Cecil 

County, the City of Havre de Grace, the Town of Perryville, and the project study area is White. 

The study area is 75.3 percent White and 24.8 percent minority, of which the largest portion is 

Black or African American (17.4 percent).The study area median household income is $63,790, 

which is similar to the median household income of Cecil County, the City of Havre de Grace, 

and the Town of Perryville, but lower than the State of Maryland and Harford County. Based on 

the analysis described in Chapter 5, “Socioeconomic Conditions and Environmental Justice”, the 

Proposed Project would not result in any disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority 

or low-income populations. 

G. PARKS, TRAILS, AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES 

Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B both require the permanent use of the entire 0.26-acre, 

Amtrak-owned portion of Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park as well as the acquisition of 0.01 acre 

of the City-owned portion of the park. Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B will both construct a 

new bridge that will cross above the park on an elevated structure that will require the 

modification of the existing lease agreement and the modification of the park infrastructure. This 

will prohibit public access within the Amtrak right-of-way and require the taking of the boat 

ramp area and a portion of the pier located at Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park. 
Executive Summary 

 ES-5 

Alternative 9A requires the acquisition of 1.5 acres of the Havre de Grace Middle/High School 

athletic fields immediately adjacent to the existing rail right-of-way. Alternative 9A will result in 

minor reconfigurations of the existing and proposed ballfields on the Harford County School 

property. Alternative 9A will also result in permanent changes to the athletic track just behind 

the starting block and require that the high jump facility and associated equipment shed be 

relocated on the site. The project includes provisions for measures minimizing the effects on the 

Havre de Grace Middle/High School. 

Several local bicycle and pedestrian trails exist within the study area. The Proposed Project 

would not alter or adversely affect the trail routes. Several historic trails highlighting sites of 

historic importance are also within the study area, including the Maryland Civil War Trail, the 

Mason Dixon Trail, the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, WashingtonRochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail, and the Star-Spangled Banner 

National Historic Trail. Measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse impacts to historic 

and archaeological resources important to the themes of these trails have been identified and will 

be further developed in coordination with the Maryland Historical Trust and Section 106 

consulting parties. The Proposed Project would not affect public use, enjoyment, or educational 

value of the trails within the study area. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to trails or 

greenways would result from the Proposed Project. Overall, the Proposed Project would not 

have a significant adverse impact on parks, trails, or recreational resources. 

H. VISUAL RESOURCES 

The proposed design for the two new bridges will be traditional in character to allow greater 

views under the bridge and to minimize or avoid the adverse visual effect on resources. To 

further minimize visual adverse effects, any new physical structures that could adversely affect 

views of concern would be designed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties. In addition, to minimize the visual adverse effects due 

to the alterations to eight historic undergrade bridges, including four bridges within the Havre de 

Grace Historic District, any bridge extensions would be designed using a form liner that 

emulates stone and is stained to be compatible with the color of the existing stone. To minimize 

the visual adverse effect to the historic Rodgers Tavern from the widening of the bridge 

approach and the need to construct a retaining wall to run along the embankment, the Project 

Team will work with the community to determine the appropriate aesthetically-pleasing 

treatment. With the proposed measures to minimize adverse effects, there would be no potential 

for significant adverse impacts on visual resources with the Proposed Project, under Alternative 

9A or Alternative 9B. 

I. CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Current and previous studies identified 13 historic resources within the Area of Potential Effect 

(APE), including three historic districts containing numerous contributing resources. The Build 

Alternatives (both Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B) would result in an adverse effect on: 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and bridge overpasses; Havre de Grace Historic District; Rogers 

Tavern; and Perryville Railroad Station. Measures were developed to avoid, minimize, and 

mitigate these adverse effects. A Phase IA Archaeological Study for the Proposed Project has 

identified archaeologically sensitive areas in the APE. Additional archaeological studies will be 

conducted to identify and evaluate archaeological resources that may be affected by the 

Proposed Project. Measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate effects on any significant 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 ES-6 

archaeological resources will be developed in accordance with the draft Programmatic 

Agreement (PA) (see Appendix D, “Cultural Resources”). With these measures in place, there 

would be no potential for a significant adverse impact on cultural resources with the Proposed 

Project, under Alternative 9A or Alternative 9B. 

J. DRAFT SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION 

A draft Section 4(f) Evaluation is included in this EA, pursuant to the requirements of Section 

4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966.1

 Based on this Evaluation, 

there are no feasible and prudent alternatives that would avoid use of all Section 4(f) properties. 

Therefore, the Evaluation includes a determination of which of the alternatives using a Section 

4(f) property will result in the least overall harm in light of the statute’s preservation purposes, 

and identifies appropriate measures to minimize harm. Alternative 9A and 9B would result in the 

“use” of the following three Section 4(f) properties: 

 The removal of the existing NR-eligible Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and alteration of 

eight of its nine associated rail undergrade bridges; 

 The removal of the Perry Interlocking Tower and the alteration of the Access Road 

Undergrade Bridge 59.39 (also known as the Perryville Train Station Undergrade Bridge), 

which are contributing elements of the NR-eligible Perryville Railroad Station; 

 The acquisition of a small amount of property within the NR-listed Havre de Grace Historic 

District and visual and aesthetic effects on the Historic District; 

In addition, FRA intends to determine that Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B would result in the 

de minimis use of Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park (acquisition of a narrow strip of the park 

owned by City of Havre de Grace). For Alternative 9A only, the Proposed Project would require 

the acquisition of a part of the Havre de Grace Middle/High School athletic fields. FRA intends 

to determine that the uses would be de minimis, based on coordination with property owners. 

FRA will base the final de minimis impact determinations after providing an opportunity for 

public review. Measures to minimize harm will be implemented. 

K. SECTION 6(F) 

Harford County Department of Parks and Recreation has confirmed that the Havre de Grace 

Middle School and Havre de Grace High School received Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(LWCF) monies for development, thereby making them Section 6(f) resources. Properties that 

received LWCF Act funding, referred to as Section 6(f) resources, are evaluated within a 1,000-

foot buffer study area surrounding the existing rail right-of-way, with the Proposed Project. This 

Evaluation prepared as part of this EA satisfies the requirements of the LWCF Act (16 U.S.C. 

4601–4 through 11), which prescribe the conditions that must be satisfied for the use or transfer 

of parklands or open spaces that have been improved with funds received through the LWCF. 

Alternative 9A would require the permanent acquisition of a small portion of the school’s 

athletic fields— approximately 1.6 acres of fee simple right-of-way. Alternative 9A would also 

require a 30-foot-wide maintenance easement for the Harford County Department of Public 

Works. Ten feet of that maintenance easement will be within the proposed acquisition. The 

 

1

 In 1983, Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act was codified as 49 USC §303(c), but this law is still commonly 

referred to as Section 4(f). 
Executive Summary

ES-7

remaining 20 feet of the needed maintenance easement (1.13 acres) will be within the school 

property. The precise boundaries of Section 6(f) resources within the Havre de Grace Middle 

School-High School complex are the subject of ongoing discussions between National Parks 

Service (NPS), DNR, and Harford County. Through coordination with NPS and DNR, a draft 

LWCF boundary has been established for this EA. Based on this draft boundary, Alternative 9A 

would require approximately 0.55 acre of land for which LWCF monies were used. FRA and 

MDOT will continue to coordinate with HCPS to submit an application for land conversion to 

the NPS Regional Administrator through DNR. A suitable replacement property will be 

identified, in consultation with NPS, DNR and HCPS, once the project transitions into detailed 

design and as construction funds become available. For this Environmental Assessment, the 

Project Team identified three potential replacement sites. FRA and the MDOT have worked with 

HCPS to minimize and mitigate the impacts that would result from Alternative 9A. Alternative 

9B does not extend beyond the existing right-of-way at the Harford County School property, and 

therefore would not affect this Section 6(f) resource.

With measures to minimize and mitigate the impacts to the school property and with suitable 

replacement land for the Section 6(f) area (to be further evaluated in the future), the Proposed 

Project would not result in a significant adverse impact on Section 6(f) resources.

L. NATURAL RESOURCES

Table ES-1 summarizes the total potential effects on natural resources from the Susquehanna 

River Rail Bridge Project.

Table ES-1

Effects on Natural Resources and Floodplains

Resource Type Resource Category

Alternative 

9A

Alternative 

9B

FEMA

Floodplain (acres)

100-Year 2.72 2.15

500-Year 4.83 4.24

Wetlands (acres) Tidal 0.06 0.06

Nontidal 0.83 0.71

Streams (linear feet) Relatively Permanent Waterways 3,190 2,943

Ephemeral 19 19

Wetland Buffers (acres) Tidal 0.27 0.27

Nontidal 2.16 1.72

Forest Resources (acres) ---- 2.92 2.08

Chesapeake Bay Critical Area

(acres) ---- 6.4 6.1

Susquehanna Riverbed /

Aquatic Biota (acres)

Permanent Impacts 0.37 0.37

Construction (Temporary Impacts, 

including finger piers) 0.23 0.23

Submerged Aquatic

Vegetation – SAV (acres) Permanent Impacts 0.61 0.61
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 ES-8 

TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS 

Both Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B would affect Prime Farmland Soils and Soils of 

Statewide Importance. However, on February 8, 2016, the NRCS, using the Farmland 

Conversion Impact Rating Form (NRCS-CPA-106) for corridor type projects pursuant to FPPA, 

determined that the Proposed Project is not subject to the provisions of the Policy Act and 

therefore exempt. 

FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS/WATERS OF THE U.S. 

Based on the current design of the two Build Alternatives and current guidelines, an increase in 

the base flood elevation (greater than one foot) in the two regulated floodways is not anticipated. 

The two Build Alternatives would have relatively minor effects on wetlands and somewhat 

greater effects on streams. Impacts to wetlands, wetland buffers, and streams for each of the 

Build Alternatives are summarized in Table ES-1. Mitigation for floodplain impacts would be 

addressed in final project design and mitigation for wetlands/waterways impacts would be 

completed in accordance with United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Maryland 

Department of the Environment (MDE) recommendations. 

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES 

Neither of the Build Alternatives would affect areas known to support terrestrial state-listed 

threatened or endangered species or areas that are designated as a Wetland of Special State 

Concern (WSSC). Because the permanent impacts to forests would be relatively small and the 

absence of documented northern long-eared bat (NLEB) within the area, neither alternative 

would likely adversely affect the species. Other than transient species, no other federally 

proposed or listed threatened or endangered species are known to occur within the project area. 

No construction-related, short-term impacts to terrestrial federally or state-listed endangered or 

threatened species are anticipated. 

The two Build Alternatives would have minor permanent impacts to forest resources, primarily 

to narrow forest strips immediately adjacent to the existing tracks and over a mile east of the 

largest, contiguous forest area (summarized in Table ES-1). Mitigation would include 

reforestation and afforestation in accordance with a Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) approved by 

the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 

Few wildlife impacts are anticipated, as both alternatives would be constructed immediately 

adjacent to the existing tracks and would only replace relatively thin and disturbed forest that 

likely only supports common resident species. These birds, small mammals and a few reptiles 

and amphibians would be displaced or minimally affected. 

The Proposed Project would cross a known historic waterfowl staging area within the 

Susquehanna River along the Cecil County side. Waterfowl would not be permanently affected 

by either Build Alternative, but may be temporarily displaced from the active construction area. 

AQUATIC RESOURCES 

The two Build Alternatives would not affect groundwater and would only minimally change the 

hydrology through a shift in the arrangement of piers. Potential short-term and long-term 

impacts to water quality from construction would be minimized through strict adherence to an 

effective Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and implementation of stormwater best 

management practices (BMPs). Construction of the proposed temporary finger piers would 
Executive Summary 

 ES-9 

eliminate the need for dredging and its resulting disturbance to river sediments. Impacts to 

aquatic resources for each of the Build Alternatives are summarized in Table ES-1. 

Both bridges would have a height-to-width ratio large enough to preclude significant shading 

effects. Shading from the relatively narrow temporary finger piers would also not have the 

potential to result in significant adverse effects to benthic organisms, but would result in adverse 

effects to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) of approximately 0.61 acre. Mitigation for this 

temporal loss of SAV would include replanting the area at a 3:1 ratio. 

Following demolition of the existing bridge and remnant piers, the river bottom would return to 

benthic habitat, thereby more than offsetting losses from the construction of the replacement 

bridges, and resulting in a potential net gain of populations of benthic organisms and their 

predators. 

Fish would likely avoid the area of activity during the drilling of the large-diameter piles for the 

replacement bridges piers. Should pile installation cause any fish to temporarily avoid the 

portion of the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the activity, the extent of the area that would 

be affected at any one time would be negligible relative to the amount of suitable habitat that 

would remain available nearby, and no significant adverse effects to these individuals would be 

expected to occur. 

Impact pile driving for the finger piers would be attenuated by the use of wooden cushion blocks 

to levels where they are likely to be discountable according to the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) assessment protocol. Potential impacts of possible demolition activities to 

remove existing bridge piers on the threatened and endangered Atlantic and short-nosed sturgeon 

would be minimized by implementing the protective measures such as bubble curtains. Any 

blasting activities would be scheduled to occur within a work window that corresponds to the 

time period of the year when sturgeon are least likely to occur in the project area. 

Threatened and endangered sea turtles and the freshwater logperch are not expected to occur in 

the project area, and no impacts are anticipated. DNR Wildlife and Heritage Service may require 

restrictions on construction projects in order to protect map turtles known to occur within the 

project area, including nesting surveys, in-stream time-of-year restrictions, and/or removal of 

turtles from the work zone. 

CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL AREA 

Alternative 9A involves approximately 6.4 acres of the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area, defined 

by state statute as “all land within 1,000 feet of Maryland’s tidal waters and tidal wetlands.” 

Alternative 9B affects approximately 6.1 acres of Critical Area. 

Permanent impacts to the Critical Area are expected to result from earth disturbance, removal of 

vegetation, placement of fill, and increased impervious area. Coordination with the Critical Area 

Commission would continue during the design phase of the Proposed Project. 

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT 

The Susquehanna Rail Bridge is located in the state-designated Coastal Zone, but the Proposed 

Project will be designed in a manner consistent with the Maryland Coastal Zone Plan. 

Consistency review commences after the submittal of the MDE Joint Permit Application (JPA). 

The MDE permit authorization, received at subsequent phases of the Proposed Project, would 

constitute the federal consistency decision. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 ES-10 

Overall, with the mitigation measures that will be implemented as part of the Proposed Project, 

there would be no potential for a significant adverse impact on natural resources. 

M. AIR QUALITY 

Regulations under the Clean Air Act (“conformity regulations”) require that federal agencies, 

when taking action to assist, fund, permit, or approve projects in areas with a non-attainment or 

maintenance status regarding any of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 

ensure that the projects conform to the applicable State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for 

attaining those standards, so as not to interfere with the state’s ability to attain and maintain the 

NAAQS. Cecil County and Harford County are within a nonattainment area for ozone. In 

addition, Harford County is within a maintenance area for PM2.5. The total projected emissions 

in each Air Quality Control Region represent a small fraction of the de minimis levels defined in 

the conformity regulations. This demonstrates that the operation of the Build Alternatives 

(Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B) would not require a conformity determination and would 

not interfere with SIPs for attainment of the ozone NAAQS or maintenance of the PM2.5 Overall, 

the Proposed Project would not substantially affect regional air quality. Emissions would 

increase as a result of increase in rail traffic and during construction. The Proposed Project 

would also reduce vehicle miles traveled (from cars and tracks) by improving passenger rail 

service and freight operations. The Proposed Project (both Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B) 

would not interfere with SIPs for attainment of the ozone or maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

At the local level, the maximum projected PM2.5 (24-hour and annual average), PM10 (24-hour 

average), and annual average NO2 concentrations with the No Action Alternative and with both 

Build Alternatives would be lower than the respective NAAQS. With the Build Alternatives 

local 1-hour average NO2 concentrations could increase up to 8.6 percent near the proposed 

bridge. This increase may occur in areas where concentrations exceeding the NAAQS are also 

predicted to occur with the No Action Alternative. Overall, air quality with and without the 

Proposed Project is likely to be very similar. Considering the low probability of NAAQS 

exceedance, the small potential increment, and the limited area potentially affected, these 

conditions do not represent a significant adverse impact on air quality. 

N. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE 

The Proposed Project would be consistent with state, regional, and federal policies for 

greenhouse gas emissions reduction. The Proposed Project would be designed to accommodate 

any reasonably foreseeable potential future changes in climate and sea levels, and would, 

therefore, be consistent with state and federal policies requiring climate change resiliency. 

Amtrak service is 33 percent more energy efficient per passenger-mile than average highway 

travel (nationwide), and is likely more efficient than that along the NEC where ridership is high. 

The Build Alternatives are a component of the larger sustained effort to enhance passenger rail 

and freight rail for the long term, benefitting air quality and reducing pollutant emissions overall. 

O. NOISE AND VIBRATION 

Based on the general noise analysis, conducted according to FTA and FRA guidance, there 

would be the potential for a moderate noise impact at five of the sensitive receptors analyzed. 

Incremental noise level changes would range from imperceptible to readily noticeable. However, 

considering the total noise levels with the Build Alternatives (which were in the range that is 
Executive Summary 

 ES-11 

typically considered acceptable for residential or open spaces use and comparable to existing 

levels in the area), the Project Team estimates low likelihood for these receptors to experience 

significant adverse impacts. 

The Build Alternatives would not have the potential to result in significant adverse impacts 

relating to airborne noise, vibration, or ground-borne noise at any of the analyzed receptor sites. 

These receptor sites represent the sites closest to the railway having the greatest potential to 

experience noise and vibration impacts as a result of the Build Alternatives. Therefore, the Build 

Alternatives would not result in significant adverse impacts related to noise or vibration.

P. CONTAMINATED AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Construction of the Proposed Project (both Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B) would involve 

demolition, relocation or other disturbance of existing structures and excavation, relocation and 

potentially off-site disposal of some existing soil. The exact extent of disturbance associated 

with the Proposed Project will not be determined until final engineering The Proposed Project 

would include appropriate health and safety and investigative/remedial measures. The need for 

additional investigation/remediation will be determined, in consultation with MDE, once the 

exact extent of disturbance is identified. 

The Proposed Project documents and construction specifications will address procedures for 

stockpiling, testing, loading, transporting (including truck routes), and properly disposing of all 

excavated materials requiring off-site disposal. Excavated materials will be characterized to 

classify the materials. Where dewatering is required, it is possible that the water will require 

treatment prior to its discharge to surface water or existing sewers. Prior to any such discharge, 

the water will be tested. 

With the implementation of these measures, no significant adverse impacts related to hazardous 

materials will result from the demolition and construction activities associated with the Proposed 

Project. 

In terms of daily operation with the proposed new bridge structures, the threat of hazardous 

material impacts and accidents diminishes with better designed infrastructure. Since the current 

bridge is functionally-obsolete and prone to maintenance issues, a new structure would 

significantly reduce the risk of mishandling contaminated and/or hazardous materials. 

Q. PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND SECURITY 

The Build Alternatives will not result in a significant adverse impact on air quality, noise, or 

hazardous materials and will not cause a significant adverse impact on public health. The 

Proposed Project would improve the reliability of traveling across the Susquehanna River and 

increase the safety of passengers and freight users traveling along the NEC. Due to the highly 

developed nature of the study area, many residences, schools, public parks, and other publiclyaccessible venues are located near the rail right-of-way. FRA data show that 96 percent of railrelated fatalities, most of which are preventable, are the result of incidents at railway-highway 

crossings (locations where railroad tracks intersect with a roadway at the same elevation ) and by 

trespassers.1

 There are no at-grade crossings within the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project’s 

study area. Amtrak is a leader in the installation of Positive Train Control (PTC), a safety 

 

1

 https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L17371. Accessed December 2, 2016. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 ES-12 

technology designed to match train speed to track conditions for improved safety.1 PTC provides 

an added layer of safety on top of the cab signal and Automatic Train Control safety systems 

already in place. In December 2015, Amtrak activated PTC on track between New York and 

Washington, DC, completing installation on most Amtrak-owned infrastructure on the NEC 

spine. The Proposed Project would improve the structural and operational reliability, increasing 

the safety of employees who work on and travel over the bridge. The Proposed Project would 

eliminate bridge malfunctions resulting from the opening of the existing movable span. Overall, 

the Proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse impact on public health, safety, or 

security. 

R. INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The Proposed Project would contribute both positively and negatively to the overall cumulative 

effects of past and future actions on each of the resources considered. While the Build 

Alternatives may result in minor amounts of conversion of land use and potential displacement 

of some commercial uses, existing land use policies and development regulations support the 

Proposed Project, which would provide a substantial improvement to an established, 

overburdened rail transportation corridor. The Proposed Project is anticipated to have an overall 

positive impact on the regional economy by improving railroad mobility and connectivity. 

Further positive cumulative effects include improvements to regional air quality and a reduction 

in highway and airport congestion and VMT due to improved rail service. Overall, the Proposed 

Project would not significantly contribute to significant adverse cumulative effects or result in 

significant adverse indirect effects. 

S. COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION 

The Project Team has undertaken public and community outreach efforts for the Proposed 

Project, along with federal, state, and local agency coordination. Numerous meetings informed 

the public, stakeholders and agencies about the Proposed Project milestones and sought public 

and agency input. The Project Team created a website for the Proposed Project: 

www.susrailbridge.com. Postcards, email blasts, press releases, and public meeting 

announcements have been sent prior to public outreach information sessions. 

 

1

 https://www.amtrak.com/national-facts. Accessed December 2, 2016. 
 1-1 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 

A. INTRODUCTION 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Maryland Department of Transportation 

(MDOT) are preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential 

environmental impacts for the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project (also referred to herein as 

“the Proposed Project”). The EA is prepared in accordance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) (42 United States Code [USC] §4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 

1500–1508), and FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 Federal 

Register [FR] 28545 [May 26, 1999] and 78 FR 2713 [January 14, 2013]). The EA also 

documents compliance with other applicable Federal environmental laws and regulations, 

including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA) (54 USC § 

306108) and the Clean Air Act (42 USC § 7401 et seq.). 

MDOT, project sponsor, is proposing to improve the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge between 

the City of Havre de Grace in Harford County, Maryland and the Town of Perryville in Cecil 

County, Maryland to provide continued rail connectivity along the Northeast Corridor (NEC). In 

2011, FRA selected MDOT for a grant award of $22 million in federal funding available through 

the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program and the parties entered into a 

cooperative agreement for the NEPA and preliminary engineering phases of the Proposed 

Project. FRA and MDOT are the joint lead agencies and the National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation (Amtrak), the bridge owner and operator, is providing conceptual and preliminary 

engineering designs and is acting in coordination with MDOT and FRA. 

B. EXISTING CONDITIONS 

The existing two-track Susquehanna River Rail Bridge is located on Amtrak’s NEC at Milepost (MP) 

60 (see Figure 1-1). This rail bridge is a critical link along the NEC, one of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation’s (USDOT) designated high-speed rail corridors. The NEC is the most heavily used 

passenger rail line in North America, both in terms of ridership and service frequency, and one of the 

most heavily traveled rail corridors in the world.1,2 The existing bridge is roughly 0.75 mile in length 

and is the longest bridge with a movable span on the NEC. It is a swing-span type bridge; the movable 

span opens by rotating horizontally using a center pivot mounted on a pier in the river (see Figure 1-2

and Figure 1-3). The existing bridge allows for a 52-foot vertical clearance for marine traffic. The 

swing span must be opened to allow for taller marine traffic, which disrupts rail operations. Amtrak, 

 

1

 https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/998/601/Amtrak-National-Fact-Sheet-FY2015.pdf, accessed April 22, 

2016. 

2

 Source: BGL Rail Associates, for the Amtrak Reform Council, “A Recommended Approach to 

Funding the Estimated Capital Investment Needs of the Northeast Corridor Rail 

Infrastructure,” April 2002.
Wilmington

Baltimore

Washington D.C.

Philadelphia

Maryland

Pennsylvania

Delaware

New Jersey

Virginia

81

76

83

70

95

97

495

295

295

476

11.30.16

SCALE

0 10 25 MILES

N

Project Location

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project Figure 1-1

Susquehanna River Bridge

Northeast Corridor
3.26.14

Existing Susquehanna River Bridge

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project Figure 1-2
12.1.16

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project Figure 1-3

Existing Susquehanna River Swing Span

Opening swing span to accommodate marine traffic 2

Amtrak crew manually opening the movable bridge span to accommodate marine traffic 1
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

 1-2 

the Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC), and Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) use the bridge 

to carry intercity, commuter, and freight trains across the Susquehanna River. 

PROJECT SETTING 

The approaches to the existing rail bridge and the NEC right-of-way extend through the City of 

Havre de Grace and the Town of Perryville. The Proposed Project is located between the “Oak” 

Interlocking at MP 63.5 south of Havre de Grace and the “Prince” Interlocking at MP 57.3 north 

of Perryville (see Figure 1-4). 

The existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge is located within Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay 

watershed near the mouth of the Susquehanna River. The adjacent communities of Havre de 

Grace and Perryville are dominated by a mixture of dense, water-oriented residential and 

commercial zoning, including historic districts and recreational facilities. Additional railroad 

infrastructure also supports industrial properties in the vicinity. 

BRIDGE CHARACTERISTICS 

The Pennsylvania Railroad built the bridge in 1906 to replace an original 1860s parallel structure 

to the south. The remnant piers of the original 1860s bridge remain visible in the Susquehanna 

River above the water line. Several of these remnant piers were subject to extensive scour that 

have exposed the footings and piles. The remaining remnant piers show signs of steel plates, 

masonry, and concrete deterioration. Congress conveyed the existing bridge to Amtrak in 1976 

along with other NEC infrastructure elements. 

The existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge is approximately 4,154 feet long from abutment to 

abutment and comprises 18 spans, which are numbered from north to south. The movable swing span 

(Span No. 10) is approximately 280 feet long; see Figure 1-5 for visualization. The existing 110-yearold Susquehanna River Rail Bridge, despite major rehabilitation and repairs, continues to deteriorate, 

as evidenced by rust, ineffective bearings, cracks in steel members, and wear at pins and eyebars. 
AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

NORFOLK SOUTHERN PORT ROAD

CSX TRANSPORTATION

Oak Interlocking

MP 63.5

HARTFORD COUNTY

CECIL COUNTY

Prince Interlocking

MP 57.3

HAVRE DE

GRACE

PORT

DEPOSIT

PERRYVILLE

Happy

Valley

Branch

Gasheys Creek

Mill Creek

Herring

Run

Swan Creek

Rock Run

Chesapeake Bay

Susquehanna River

40

40

95

95

SCALE

0 1 2 MILES

N

Project Site

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project Figure 1-4

11.30.16

Perryville MARC

Station

Grace Interlocking MP 61.5

Millard E. Tydings 

Memorial Bridge

CSX Susquehanna 

River Bridge

Thomas J. Hatem 

Memorial Bridge

Amtrak Susquehanna 

River Bridge
11.30.16

N

Existing Susquehanna River Bridge Plan and Elevation

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project Figure 1-5
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 

 1-3 

C. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 

PROJECT PURPOSE 

The increasing age of the bridge, its structural condition, and its two tracks curtail speeds and 

capacity on the bridge. This inhibits the rail operators’ goals to provide reliable service, MDOT’s 

plans to increase MARC commuter rail service, and Amtrak’s plans to increase high-speed 

passenger rail service on the NEC. 

The bridge’s functionally obsolete design and age require major rehabilitation and repairs, 

which result in increasing maintenance costs and conflicts with the need to maintain 

continuous rail operations. The primary purpose of the Proposed Project is to provide 

continued rail connectivity along the NEC. The Proposed Project goals include: 

 Improving rail service reliability and safety; 

 Improving operational flexibility and accommodating reduced trip times; 

 Optimizing existing and planned infrastructure and accommodating future intercity 

passenger, high-speed rail, freight, and commuter rail; and 

 Maintaining adequate navigation3

 and improving safety along the Susquehanna River. 

PROBLEMS WITH EXISTING BRIDGE 

Demand for rail service along the NEC is at record levels. This growth is due to population and 

employment growth in urban centers along the NEC, increasing delays in highway and air travel, 

and the growing convenience of intercity and local rail travel.4

 The NEC, however, cannot 

continue to accommodate rising demand with aging infrastructure that is highly constrained and 

in need of repair. The Proposed Project is critical to MDOT, Amtrak, and other NEC users.

OBSOLETE DESIGN AND AGING INFRASTRUCTURE 

The existing bridge is 110 years old, beyond the 100-year design lifespan typical for steel 

railroad bridges. While it has undergone major rehabilitation and repairs (1960s, 1985, 1991, and 

most recently 1998), the bridge structure continues to deteriorate from age and use. Amtrak’s 

most recent bridge inspection in the summer of 2013 indicated that the bridge superstructure is 

in poor to fair structural condition. The 2013 inspection also determined that many of the 

structural bridge components are below the load ratings required by American Railway 

Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) and Amtrak criteria. 

The structural condition, coupled with the movable-span design, requires extensive effort to 

open the bridge for marine traffic. Each opening of the swing span requires approximately an 

hour and a crew of more than 30 workers which is far more labor-intensive and expensive than a 

modern day movable bridge. While the existing bridge is safe for current and near term 

operations, it is wearing out and approaching the end of its service life. Replacing aging movable 

 

3

 Adequate navigation can be maintained by increasing navigational clearances, as discussed in 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Reconstruction and Expansion Project Navigation Study, dated 

January 21, 2014, HNTB Corporation. 

4

 http://www.nec-commission.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/necc_cin_20130123.pdf, 

accessed April 22, 2016.
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

 1-4 

bridges such as the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge is one of Amtrak’s central strategies to 

improve the reliability and travel times on the NEC. 

SPEED AND CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS 

The existing two-track bridge creates service conflicts between Amtrak’s passenger service, 

MARC trains, and freight trains operated by NS. It also poses a capacity constraint on planned 

increases in service frequency by all three railroads. The segment of the NEC south of the bridge 

comprises three tracks and the segment north comprises four. The existing two-track bridge 

reduces the on-time performance for Amtrak, MARC trains, and NS traffic. The open deck 

construction limits the maximum authorized speed to 90 mph. Amtrak passenger trains can 

travel up to 135 mph on the adjacent NEC segments and have to slow down to cross the bridge. 

Freight trains crossing the bridge must travel at 30 mph or slower. 

The limited number of tracks across the bridge, combined with the variety of trains utilizing the 

bridge and the need for continual maintenance, results in tightly managed and restrictive 

operations, little flexibility in scheduling, and train delays. The existing bridge requires that the 

slow freight trains and the MARC commuter trains share track with higher-speed Amtrak trains, 

creating congestion conflicts. Because of the geometry of the freight alignment in the Perryville 

station area, both freight and commuter trains approach and leave the NEC at just 15 mph. 

NS attempts to operate its trains at night to minimize conflicts with passenger rail service, 

although daytime freight service is increasing as marine and refinery operators reduce terminal 

times for high-value cargo. When the southbound NEC track is in use by an intercity or 

commuter train approaching the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge (in either direction), NS freight 

trains coming from the west must stop and wait for an appropriate window to enter the NEC. 

Similarly, NS trains coming from the south must wait their turn to cross the bridge occupying 

one of the main tracks. The resulting delays have impacts to the Port of Wilmington, the Port of 

Baltimore, and rail service destined for the Delmarva Peninsula. These delays create ripple 

effects in cargo shipments throughout the region and the nation. 

MAINTENANCE DIFFICULTIES 

Because of the frequency of train service on the bridge, few repairs and/or inspections can be 

made without disrupting rail operations. The bridge will require more scheduled and 

unscheduled maintenance as it continues to age. 

CONFLICTS WITH MARITIME USES 

Opening the existing bridge’s movable swing span for marine traffic causes train delays and 

takes large crews to operate. Each bridge opening introduces risks of significant train delays if a 

breakdown of the operating mechanisms were to occur. Amtrak performed a Navigation Study 

in 20135

 and found that the existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge opens approximately ten 

times per year to accommodate marine traffic. The Navigation Study concluded that the existing 

navigation channel (both height and width) addresses the needs of most mariners and vessels, 

but, while the existing horizontal clearance is sufficient, further widening of the horizontal 

clearance could increase sight distance, reduce vessel congestion, and aid tug boat and barge 

 

5

 Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Reconstruction and Expansion Project Navigation Study, dated 

January 21, 2014, HNTB Corporation. 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 

 1-5 

navigation through the bridge opening, increasing safety and resilience against potential bridge 

and fender system strikes. 

EXISTING RAIL TRAFFIC 

As shown in Table 1-1, the existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge is used by Amtrak trains 

(approximately 89 trains per weekday), MARC commuter service (18 trains per weekday), and 

NS freight rail traffic (approximately eight trains per day, mostly at night). Amtrak routes 

utilizing the bridge include the Acela, Northeast Regional, and long-distance trains. 

REGIONAL PASSENGER RAIL 

Amtrak’s NEC is the busiest rail line in North America.6,7 It includes a 457-mile rail 

transportation system extending from Boston's South Station to Washington D.C.'s Union 

Station. In 2011, USDOT designated the NEC as a high-speed rail corridor. Amtrak owns and 

operates over much the NEC, running regional service, long distance service, and high-speed 

Acela Express service along the line. In Fiscal Year 2013, Amtrak carried a record 11.4 million 

passengers on the NEC between Washington-New York-Boston. 

Table 1-1

Existing Weekday Volumes Across the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge

Types of Service Daily Peak* 

Amtrak 

Northeast Regional and Long 

Distance 57 7 

Acela 32 2 

High-Speed Rail 0 0 

MARC Commuter 18 3 

NS Freight 8 4 

TOTAL 116 

Notes: *“Peak” is defined as the weekday hour with the maximum train volume. For Amtrak, 

the daily peak occurs between 4:10 and 5:10 PM. For MARC the daily peak occurs 

5:40-6:40 AM . For freight, the timing of the peak hour varies but it generally occurs at 

night. 

Based on 2016 data, considered to be representative of the existing condition. 

Sources: Service volumes provided by Amtrak.

Amtrak currently operates approximately 89 trains over the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge each 

weekday and nine trains during the peak hour period (4:10 PM to 5:10 PM weekdays). 

Approximately 17,900 Amtrak passengers travel over the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge each 

weekday. This volume has grown by 26 percent since 2003. 

 

6

 https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/998/601/Amtrak-National-Fact-Sheet-FY2015.pdf, accessed 

April 22, 2016. 

7

 Source: BGL Rail Associates, for the Amtrak Reform Council, “A Recommended Approach to 

Funding the Estimated Capital Investment Needs of the Northeast Corridor Rail 

Infrastructure,” April 2002. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

 1-6 

COMMUTER RAIL 

MARC is a 202-mile, 42-station, commuter rail system operating among multiple stations in 

Maryland, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. MARC is managed by the Maryland 

Transit Administration (MTA), an agency within MDOT. The MARC Penn Line has the greatest 

ridership and runs from Union Station in Washington D.C., over the Susquehanna River Rail 

Bridge, to Perryville. MARC currently operates 18 trains over the bridge each weekday and 

three trains during the peak hour (5:40-6:40 AM weekdays). Limited weekend service is also 

provided. In 2015, the Penn Line averaged 23,430 riders daily.8

 

FREIGHT RAIL 

Norfolk Southern operates between Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Baltimore, Maryland, using 

its “Port Road” route along the Susquehanna River to Perryville, and using trackage rights along 

the NEC between Perryville and Baltimore. The NS freight connection from the Port Road is 

critical to servicing the Port of Baltimore and is located within the existing bridge approach 

limits. 

The Port of Baltimore is the closest Atlantic port to major Midwestern population and 

manufacturing centers.9

 During 2014, the port handled 29.5 million tons of foreign commerce 

(imports and exports), valued at $52.5 billion. 10 

The Port of Wilmington is becoming an increasingly major port and distribution center for liquid 

bulk petroleum products. Approximately eight trains per day cross the bridge moving between 

the Port Road and the Port of Baltimore. Commodities transported by these trains include coal, 

grain, autos, and intermodal container cargo.11 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

The Susquehanna River stretches for 444 miles from upstate New York through Pennsylvania to 

Maryland, where it drains into the Chesapeake Bay. In the vicinity of the project site, the river is 

technically navigable as far up as the Conowingo Hydroelectric Dam at approximately River 

Mile 9.9; however, parts of the river south of the dam are too shallow to navigate with larger 

vessels. 

The existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge is located at Susquehanna River Mile 1.0. The 

movable swing span provides a 52-foot vertical clearance above mean high water (MHW) in the 

closed position and a 127-foot vertical clearance in the open position (limited by overhead 

electric transmission lines). The horizontal clearance for navigation consists of two 100-footwide channels. 

Three fixed-height Susquehanna River crossings are located to the north of the Susquehanna 

River Rail Bridge, between the bridge and the Conowingo Dam: 

 

8

 Maryland Open Data Portal, https://data.maryland.gov/Transportation/MTA-AverageWeekday-Ridership-by-Month/ub96-xxqw/data, accessed October 27, 2016.

9

 http://mpa.maryland.gov/content/port-information.php, accessed April 22, 2016. 

10 http://mpa.maryland.gov/misc/2014ForeignCommerceStatReport.pdf, accessed April 22, 2016. 

11 Rail Projects Impacting the Delmarva, Presentation to the Delmarva Freight Summit, June 20, 

2012, Nicole Katsikides, Director, MDOT Office of Freight and Multimodalism. 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 

 1-7 

 The Thomas J. Hatem Memorial Bridge, carrying U.S. Route 40, approximately 0.5 mile 

north of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge. That bridge provides an 87-foot vertical 

clearance and a 320-foot horizontal clearance in the navigation channel. 

 The CSX Susquehanna River Rail Bridge, approximately 0.9 mile north of the Susquehanna 

River Rail Bridge. The CSX Bridge, which carries rail freight, provides an 85-foot vertical 

clearance and a 500-foot horizontal clearance. 

 The Millard E. Tydings Memorial Bridge, carrying Interstate 95, is located approximately 2 

miles north of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and provides a 90-foot vertical clearance 

and a horizontal clearance between 119 and 245 feet through its spans. 

D. MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS 

A number of recent programs and planning studies outline and support the need for an upgraded 

and expanded railroad crossing over the Susquehanna River Rail.

HIGH-SPEED INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL (HSIPR) PROGRAM 

FRA’s High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan (April 2009)12 documented the administration’s vision 

for establishing high-speed rail. Through this program, USDOT awarded a $22 million grant to 

the State of Maryland for preliminary engineering and environmental studies (of which this EA 

is a part) for the Proposed Project. 

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR 

The NEC, the most heavily traveled rail corridor in North America,13,14 is vital to the sustained 

economic growth of the region, which includes the economic and political centers of the United 

States. 

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN 

The Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan (May 2010)15 identified a baseline of 

infrastructure improvements needed to provide expanded service and reliability to accommodate 

forecasted demand. It focused on increasing NEC capacity and reliability, including bridges with 

additional tracks and replacement of movable bridges with high-level fixed structures, where 

feasible, to eliminate the delays. This plan identifies the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge 

expansion as a critical priority. 

 

12 https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02833, accessed April 22, 2016. 

13 https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/998/601/Amtrak-National-Fact-Sheet-FY2015.pdf, accessed 

April 22, 2016. 

14 Source: BGL Rail Associates, for the Amtrak Reform Council, “A Recommended Approach to 

Funding the Estimated Capital Investment Needs of the Northeast Corridor Rail 

Infrastructure,” April 2002. 

15http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&p=123760

834501 8&cid=1241245669222, accessed April 22, 2016. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

 1-8 

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS ADVISORY 

COMMISSION 

The Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission (the NEC 

Commission) , in its January 2013 report, Critical Infrastructure Needs on the Northeast 

Corridor identified 32 specific critical needs along the NEC to reduce delays, achieve a state of 

good repair, and build capacity for growth on the corridor.16 The report names the Susquehanna 

River Rail Bridge replacement as one of those critical needs. 

NEC FUTURE 

NEC FUTURE is a comprehensive planning effort to define, evaluate, and prioritize future 

investments in the 457-mile NEC from Union Station in Washington, D.C. to South Station in 

Boston.17 NEC FUTURE represents a long-term vision and investment program for the NEC, as 

reflected in the Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement (Tier 1 FEIS) and Service 

Development Plan. The Proposed Project is within the NEC FUTURE study area and is 

consistent with the service goals considered in the NEC FUTURE Tier 1 FEIS along this section 

of the NEC, so that it does not preclude improvements proposed as part of the NEC FUTURE 

Preferred Alternative. 

STATE OF MARYLAND 

The State of Maryland has identified the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project as one of its 

most critical rail infrastructure projects. It is critical not only to improving MARC commuter 

service, but also to optimizing freight and intercity passenger rail service and helping the broader 

Maryland economy. 

MARC GROWTH AND INVESTMENT PLAN 

The MARC Growth and Investment Plan discusses challenges to future MARC growth and the 

agency’s desired ability to expand service currently constrained by infrastructure and other 

operators.18The plan’s long-term timeframe (2020-2029) includes construction of a new station 

at Elkton, MD; an upgrade at the Perryville Station to handle northbound trains; new stations in 

Baltimore; and a focus on improved service to/from Washington D.C. The plan’s future 

timeframe (2030-2050) discusses a new and expanded Susquehanna River crossing and 

mentions the addition of a fourth track between Baltimore’s Penn Station and Perryville as a key 

component to meet and anticipate demand. 

MARYLAND STATEWIDE FREIGHT PLAN 

The State of Maryland’s Freight Plan (2009) states that output among Maryland’s freightintensive industries, is expected to grow by 120 percent statewide between 2000 and 2030. As a 

result, the tonnage of freight transported through Maryland is estimated to increase by 

 

16 http://www.nec-commission.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/necc_cin_20130123.pdf, 

accessed on April 22, 2016.

17 http://www.necfuture.com/, accessed on April 22, 2016. 

18 http://mta.maryland.gov/sites/default/files/mgip_update_2013-09-13.pdf, accessed April 22, 

2016. 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 

 1-9 

approximately 105 percent by 2035, as compared with the 2006 tonnage.19 The plan identifies 

the replacement of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge as a high-priority freight improvement 

project. In addition, the plan states that the State of Maryland must prepare for the expansion of 

East Coast ports (including the Port of Baltimore) as motivated by the expansion of the Panama 

Canal, which is being widened to allow for larger container ships. 

AMTRAK 

AMTRAK’S STATE OF GOOD REPAIR 

On April 15, 2009, Amtrak issued the Northeast Corridor State of Good Repair Spend Plan.20

Amtrak’s planned state of good repair projects include replacement of infrastructure elements 

such as: track, bridges, tunnels, overhead catenary wire, power supply systems, cable, 

transformers and converters, signals, communications and dispatching systems, stations, and 

facilities. This report references the need to repair the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and notes 

the need to expand two-track structures to accommodate projected growth. 

AMTRAK’S 2012 UPDATE REPORT 

Amtrak’s summary document, The Amtrak Vision for the Northeast Corridor, 2012 Update 

Report21 reaffirmed the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge as one of the critical components for 

improving NEC operations from Washington D.C. to Boston. The plan noted that the approach 

of the NEC Capital Investment Program going forward will be to integrate suites of state of good 

repair projects—designed to repair the network and increase reliability—with capacity 

enhancements that will allow next-generation initiatives such as high-speed rail service. 

FREIGHT RAIL 

Freight traffic volume is steady or gradually increasing for most commodities. NS’s only 

practical access to the Ports of Baltimore and Wilmington, as well as to the entire Delmarva 

Peninsula, is via its Port Road route to Perryville, Maryland, and then along the NEC. For Class 

I railroads, like NS, the boom in petroleum bulk shipping is replacing shrinking commodity 

markets such as coal. 

The Proposed Project is consistent with FRA, State of Maryland and Amtrak plans and highspeed rail program criteria. Elements to accommodate improved freight service and MARC 

commuter service are integral, and the Proposed Project could also improve the navigation 

channel for marine users. The Proposed Project is intended to maintain connectivity along the 

NEC and to provide future improvements to capacity, trip time, and safety for commuter, 

freight, and intercity passenger rail services on the NEC consistent with FRA, State, and Amtrak 

plans. 

 

19http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/Office_of_Planning_and_Capital_Programming/Freight_Planning/D

ocuments/ Freight_Plan_Final.pdf, accessed April 22, 2016.

20http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&p=1237608345

018& cid=1241245669222, accessed April 22, 2016. 

21 http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/453/325/Amtrak-Vision-for-the-Northeast-Corridor.pdf, 

accessed on April 22, 2016.
 2-1 

Chapter 2: Project Alternatives 

A. INTRODUCTION 

This chapter reviews the alternatives development and screening process, describes the No 

Action Alternative and the Build Alternatives retained for detailed study, and identifies the 

Preferred Alternative. The estimated project costs and a list of potential permits and approvals 

required to build the Proposed Project are also provided. 

The Proposed Project is located between Philadelphia and Washington D.C. along the National 

Railroad Passenger Corporation’s (Amtrak) Northeast Corridor (NEC). The direction on the rail 

line from Philadelphia to Washington D.C. is south. Therefore, unless otherwise noted in this 

Environmental Assessment (EA), north is towards Philadelphia, south is towards Washington 

D.C., east is downstream or towards the Chesapeake Bay, and west is upstream or towards the 

Conowingo Dam. Proposed Project construction is scheduled to commence in 2020. Year 2025 

is analyzed as the Proposed Project build year (the year when the Proposed Project elements are 

scheduled to be fully connected to the NEC). For long-term planning this EA also considers a 

2040 analysis year. This EA is based on conceptual engineering alignments. The disclosure of 

effects is based on the design information available at the time of conceptual design completion. 

The engineering design has since progressed and further refinements and changes will continue 

to be made. While the Project Team assessed reasonable worst-case effects that are anticipated 

for the Proposed Project based on the conceptual design, it is possible that future design changes 

could lead to adverse effects that are not known at this time. If as a result of design changes the 

Project Team identifies the potential for additional or greater adverse effects in the future, the 

Project Team will prepare a follow up targeted environmental review. 

B. ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING 

The Project Team developed a rigorous alternatives development and screening process for the 

Proposed Project. This process considered both alignment alternatives as well as bridge type 

alternatives. Appendix A, “Alternatives Screening Report and Bridge Types,” includes a 

detailed report describing alternatives development; input solicited from the public, agencies, 

and other stakeholders; and the methodology used to screen alternatives and selected those 

retained for detailed study. The section below presents a summary of that process. 

DEVELOPMENT OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES 

The Project Team (including FRA and MDOT) identified design factors to be incorporated into 

the conceptual alternatives. These design factors, which were considered independently and 

collectively: 

 Geometry—any feasible conceptual alternative must consider the existing geometry of the 

NEC. Existing alignments of commuter and freight facilities were also considered including 

use of Norfolk Southern Railway’s (NS) Port Road route and service to/from the Perryville 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 2-2 

Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC) Station. Furthermore, Amtrak has standard 

plans and specifications that provide detailed geometry requirements for tracks carrying 

Amtrak passenger service. These standards are required to meet federal regulations, assure 

passenger comfort, and provide a safe, maintainable design. 

 Design Speed—A critical element of the project’s Purpose and Need is to reduce trip times 

and optimize infrastructure to accommodate future high-speed rail operations along the 

NEC. This approach is consistent with the congressional mandate placed on Amtrak to 

reduce travel times along the NEC and the desire to identify 160 miles per hour (mph) as the 

maximum authorized speed, wherever feasible. Feasible conceptual alternatives must 

provide at least two tracks for high-speed rail service, and at least one track primarily for 

freight and commuter rail service (supporting speeds of up to 90 mph). 

 Bridge Spacing—Maintaining continuous rail service during construction cannot preclude 

navigation for extended periods of time. Increasing the distance between bridges more than 

necessary would result in greater property acquisitions. For those conceptual alternatives 

involving two bridges across the Susquehanna River, a phased construction of the bridges 

will generally be required to maintain continuous rail traffic across the river (i.e. two bridges 

will not be built simultaneously nor could the existing bridge be removed from service until 

a replacement bridge has been constructed). 

 Navigational Clearances—A temporary winter closure of the existing movable span may be 

necessary during the construction period. This closure will temporarily restrict navigation of 

high-mast vessels during the winter months, which is the time of the year with the least 

navigation activity. A navigation study1

 for the project determined that a vertical clearance 

of 60 feet above the mean high water (MHW) elevation for any new river span is the optimal 

balance between the needs of mariners and of the passenger and freight rail providers. The 

navigation study also determined that while the existing horizontal clearance (two 100-footwide channels) is sufficient, further widening of the horizontal clearance could increase sight 

distance, reduce vessel congestion, and aid tug boat and barge navigation through the bridge 

opening, increasing safety and resilience against potential bridge and fender system strikes. 

 Grades—Amtrak's standards generally permit up to a 1.5 percent compensated grade on 

mainline tracks. This grade is consistent with industry standards for maximum grades on 

freight and passenger mainline track. However, the existing grades on NS's Port Road and 

Amtrak's NEC are less than this maximum, ranging from 0.14 percent to 0.24 percent for the 

NS Port Road route and between 0.3 percent and 0.68 percent north and south of the bridge. 

The conceptual designs considered the existing maximum effective or ruling grade for the 

route. In coordination with NS, the Project Team determined that, for this project with 

current and anticipated freight train usage, a 0.65 percent maximum grade is appropriate for 

tracks primarily dedicated to freight operation. 

 Relationships to Other Projects—The Project Team designed all conceptual alternatives so 

as not to preclude adjacent and related planned transportation projects. Such projects include 

freight rail improvements (e.g., the Chesapeake Connector Project), Maryland Transit 

Administration’s (MTA) MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility and Penn Line extension, 

the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) NEC FUTURE, regional bicycle and 

pedestrian trails, and others. 

 

1

 Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Reconstruction and Expansion Project Navigation Study, dated 

January 21, 2014, HNTB Corporation. 
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives 

 2-3 

Using the design factors described above, the Project Team identified 18 conceptual alternatives. 

The approximate locations of each of the 18 conceptual alternatives are shown in Figure 2-1. A 

brief description of each of the conceptual alternatives is detailed in Table 2-1. 

Table 2-1

Description of 18 Conceptual Alternatives

Alternative Alternative Description* 

1A 

 New high-speed 2-track bridge to east of existing bridge; second bridge in 

place of existing bridge 

 Up to 4 tracks total; max speed of 140 mph 

1B 

 Similar to 1A but closer to existing bridge, requiring temporary closure of 

swing span 

 Up to 4 tracks total; max speed of 140 mph 

2A 

 New high-speed 2-track bridge to the west of existing bridge; second bridge in 

place of existing bridge 

 Flyover structure in Perryville 

 Up to four tracks total; max speed of 135 mph 

2B 

 Similar to 2A but closer to existing bridge; requiring temporary closure of 

swing span 

 Up to 4 tracks total; max speed of 135 mph 

3A 

 New curved high-speed 2-track bridge to east of existing bridge; second bridge 

in place of existing bridge 

 Up to 4 tracks total; max speed of 160 mph 

3B 

 Similar to 3A but closer to existing bridge, requiring temporary closure of 

swing span 

 Up to four tracks total; max speed of 160 mph 

4A 

 New high-speed 2-track bridge to east of existing bridge; second bridge in 

place of existing bridge 

 Requires reconstruction of Lewis Lane overpass 

 Up to 4 tracks total; max speed of 160 mph 

4B 

 Similar to 4A but closer to existing bridge, requiring temporary closure of 

swing span 

 Up to four tracks total; max speed of 160 mph 

4C  Similar to 4B but with reduced speed 

 Up to 4 tracks total; max speed of 135 mph 

4D 

 New high-speed 3-track bridge to the east of existing bridge 

 Requires reconstruction of Lewis Lane overpass and temporary closure of 

swing span 

 3 tracks total; max speed of 160 mph 

4E 

 Similar to 4D but with reduced speed 

 Requires temporary closure of swing span 

 3 tracks total; max speed of 135 mph 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 2-4 

Table 2-1 (cont’d)

Description of 18 Conceptual Alternatives

Alternative Alternative Description* 

5 

 New high-speed 2-track bridge to east of existing bridge; second bridge in 

place of existing bridge 

 Substantial curve to avoid right-of-way impacts 

 Up to 4 tracks total; max speed of 130 mph 

6 

 New high-speed 2-track bridge to east of existing bridge; second bridge in 

place of existing bridge 

 Elevated through Havre de Grace; extensive, complicated double decker 

structure 

 Requires temporary closure of swing span during winter season 

 Up to 4 tracks total; max speed of 160 mph 

7 

 New high-speed 2-track bridge to east of existing bridge; second bridge in 

place of existing bridge 

 Significant curvature to avoid Perryville substation 

 Up to 4 tracks total; max speed of 160 mph 

8A  Similar to 1B but with reduced speed; requires temporary closure of swing span

 Up to 4 tracks total; max speed of 120 mph 

8B 

 New high-speed 3-track bridge to the east of existing bridge 

 Requires temporary closure of swing span 

 3 tracks total; max speed of 120 mph 

9A 

 New 90-mph bridge to the west of existing bridge; high-speed 2-track bridge in 

place of existing bridge 

 Requires reconstruction of Lewis Lane Bridge and temporary closure of swing 

span 

 4 tracks total; max speed of 160 mph 

9B 

 New 90-mph bridge to the west of existing bridge; high-speed 2-track bridge in 

place of existing bridge 

 Requires reconstruction temporary closure of swing span 

 4 tracks total; max speed of 150 mph 

The Project Team also considered: 

 Rehabilitating the existing bridge without modifying the track alignments; 

 Converting the swing bridge into a lift bridge during rehabilitation; and 

 Rehabilitating the existing bridge for non-rail use. 

After the Project Team developed the 18 conceptual alternatives and the Rehabilitation 

Alternative (“Rehab”), it identified three additional conceptual alternatives (“CE”) and 

considered two alternatives suggested by the public (“P”) and a value engineering alternative 

(“VE”). These additional alternatives are described in Table 2-2. 
£¤40

7

763

222

155

Ontario Street

Ohio

Street

Philadelphia Rd

Otsego Street

Avenue D

Green Street

South

Juniata

Street

Superior Street

South

Stokes

Street

Pulaski Highway

Locust St

Pennington Avenue

North

Adams

Street

Broad St

Elm St

Avenue

B

Cherry St

Fountain Street

Girard Street

Ostego St

Evans S

E

t

rie Street

Avenue

C

Hatem Bridge

1st St

Front St

South

Adams

Street

North

Juniata

Street

Pearl Street Market Street

Park Drive

4th St

Arch St

5th St

Owens Landing Ct

Pointe Way

Franklin Street

Ellis

Ct

Aleta Ln

Hartford

St

Legion

Drive

Garfield Road

North

Stokes

Street

Dalley

McLhin

n

ey

St

Saint J

oh

n

Street

Congress Avenue

Bourbon Street

Warren Street

Locust Road

Honicker St

3rd St

2nd St

North

Freedom

Lane

Susquehanna Ave

North

Union

Avenue

River Rd

Frenchtown

Road

Avenue A

Alley

A

Aiken

Avenue

Water Street

Concord Dr

1 0 530 1,060

Feet

Susquehanna River

Rail Bridge Project

Figure 2-1

Conceptual Alternatives

Development

Legend

Alignment - 1A

Alignment - 1B

Alignment - 2A

Alignment - 2B

Alignment - 3A

Alignment - 3B

Alignment - 4A

Alignment - 4B

Alignment - 4C

Alignment - 4D

Alignment - 4E

Alignment - 5

Alignment - 6

Alignment - 7

Alignment - 8A

Alignment - 8B

Alignment - 9A

Alignment - 9B

1,000 ft Study Area

Susquehanna River

Havre de Grace

Perryville
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives 

 2-5 

Table 2-2

Description of Additional Alternatives

Alternative Alternative Description 

CE1 

 Construction of two 1-track bridges on either side of the existing 

bridge 

 A third bridge replacing the existing bridge 

CE2  Utilization of an abandoned grade-separated crossing, located north 

of the existing bridge 

CE3  Construction of a 3-track high speed bridge, located west of the 

existing bridge 

P1  Construction of an underground tunnel for high speed rail 

 Alternative suggested by a member of the public 

P2 

 Rerouting the NEC to join the existing CSX bridge, located to the 

north of the existing Amtrak bridge 

 Alternative suggested by a member of the public 

VE  Two 2-track bridges on either side of the existing bridge 

 Developed during the value engineering study 

In all, the Project Team developed 25 alternatives throughout the course of the alternatives 

development process.

ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS 

As detailed in Appendix A, the Project Team used a two-step screening process to evaluate 

these 25 alternatives. The first step entailed a “fatal flaw screening” and the second step entailed 

a “detailed screening.” Throughout the screening process, the Project Team considered input 

provided through public outreach efforts, coordination with local officials, Section 106 

consulting party meetings, interagency review meetings, and other stakeholder meetings. 

The fatal flaw screening evaluated the 25 alternatives based on their ability to satisfy the 

following criteria. These criteria were developed from the Project’s Purpose and Need Statement 

and through coordination at Interagency Review Meetings (IRM). 

 Rail connectivity; 

 Navigational requirements; 

 Logical termini; 

 Feasibility and constructability; and 

 Avoidance of critical property impacts. 

As shown in Table 2-3 (and discussed further in Appendix A), the fatal flaw screening 

eliminated the Rehab alternative and nine of the 18 conceptual alternatives. Of the six other 

alternatives (CE, P, and VE), the VE conceptual alternative passed the fatal flaw screening. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 2-6 

Table 2-3

Fatal Flaw Screening of Conceptual Alternatives

Alt # 

Build 

Scenario

Fatal Flaw Screening Criteria 

Rail 

Connectivity 

Navigational 

Requirements

Logical 

Termini

Feasibility and 

Constructability 

Avoids 

Critical 

Property 

Impacts 

Pass 

or 

Fail

1A 1 No Yes Yes Yes No Fail

1B 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pass

2A 2 No Yes Yes No No Fail

2B 2 No Yes Yes No No Fail

3A 1 No Yes Yes Yes No Fail

3B 1 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Fail

4A 1 No Yes Yes Yes No Fail

4B 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pass

4C 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pass

4D 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pass

4E 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pass

5 1 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Fail

6 1 No Yes Yes No Yes Fail

7 1 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Fail

8A 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pass

8B 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pass

9A 4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pass

9B 4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pass

Rehab N/A Yes No Yes No Yes Fail

CE1 N/A No Yes Yes No Yes Fail

CE2 N/A No Yes No Yes No Fail

CE3 N/A Yes Yes Yes No Yes Fail

P1 N/A No Yes No No Yes Fail

P2 N/A No Yes No No No Fail

VE N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pass

The Project Team based the second step of the screening process on a more detailed evaluation 

of each of the 10 remaining alternatives. The detailed screening considered each alternative’s 

impacts to environmental resources – human and natural – as well as each alternative’s ability to 

meet the project’s operational and engineering goals. Concurrent to conceptual engineering, the 

Project Team inventoried environmental resources in the study area, and factored that 

information into the detailed screening. Property impacts were further evaluated beyond the 

critical property assessment used in the fatal flaw screening, as discussed in Appendix A. The 

Project Team considered input received during public and agency meetings during the screening 

process. Each conceptual alternative’s ability to meet the following goals and objectives of the 

Proposed Project were compared and contrasted: 

 Improve rail service reliability and safety; 

- Ability to eliminate operational disruptions and delays; 
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives 

 2-7 

- Ability to connect to NS wye and provide grades acceptable for freight operations; 

- Ability to provide adequate number of bridge structures; 

 Improve operational flexibility and accommodate reduced trip times; 

- Ability to reduce operational conflicts; 

- Ability to eliminate or reduce speed restrictions for intercity trains; 

- Ability to provide flexibility for operational and maintenance work windows; 

 Optimize existing and planned infrastructure and accommodate future freight, commuter, 

intercity, and high-speed rail operations; 

- Ability to eliminate two-track section in this portion of the NEC; 

- Ability to not preclude future high-speed rail; 

- Ability to minimize impacts to Perry Electrical Substation; 

- Ability to allow for potential shared corridor with bike/pedestrian path; 

 Maintain adequate navigation and improve safety along the Susquehanna River; 

- Ability to provide suitable vertical and horizontal clearance; 

- Construction-period effects to navigation (i.e. whether the alternative requires temporary 

winter closure of movable span). 

As described above, a total of 10 conceptual alternatives proceeded to detailed screening: 

Alternatives 1B, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, 8A, 8B, 9A, 9B, and VE. All required decommissioning and 

removing the existing bridge. Among the 10 remaining conceptual alternatives, the maximum 

achievable speed ranges from a low of 120 mph (which does not meet the design criterion) to a 

high of 160 mph (which meets the design criterion). Every option includes either three or four 

tracks. A detailed Alternatives Comparison Matrix evaluating all human environmental 

considerations, natural environmental considerations, and operational and engineering 

considerations for each of the 10 conceptual alternatives is presented in Figure 2-2. 

Based on the detailed screening, the Project Team retained Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B 

for detailed study in the EA. The primary reasons for selecting Alternatives 9A and 9B for 

detailed study included: maximum authorized speed, potential property impacts, and the total 

number of tracks across the river. Based on current operational information, the Project Team 

deemed a four-track river crossing (or a three-track river crossing with the potential for the 

addition of a fourth track) superior to a three-track river crossing. Additionally, a maximum 

authorized speed of 160 mph is needed to optimize the NEC as a high-speed rail corridor. The 

Project Team determined that Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B best meet the goals and 

objectives of the project, while minimizing environmental and property impacts. The rationale 

for eliminating each of the other alternatives, as well as the interagency and public consultation 

process used during the alternatives screening process is detailed in Appendix A. 

BRIDGE TYPE ALTERNATIVES 

Independent of the alignment alternative screening process and selection of alternatives for 

detailed study, the Project Team reviewed four bridge types for the project. The bridge types are 

independent from the two-step screening process, since any of the bridge types could be feasible 

with the alternative alignments under consideration. 
EVALUATION CRITERIA Units Alternative 1B Alternative 4B Alternative 4C Alternative 4D Alternative 4E Alterna

Eliminates operational disruptions/delays Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

Connects to NS wye and provides grades 

acceptable for freight operations Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

Number of bridge structures # 2 2 2 1 1 2 

Reduces operational conflicts Excellent Excellent Excellent Fair Fair Exce

Eliminates or reduces existing speed 

restrictions for intercity trains Eliminates Eliminates Eliminates Eliminates Eliminates Redu

Provides flexibility for operational and 

maintenance work windows Very Good Very Good Very Good Good Good Very G

Ability to provide for NS/MARC Operations 

during Construction Good Good Good Good Good Go

Eliminates two-track section in this portion 

of NEC and meets corridor wide 

improvement needs along NEC

# of tracks 

provided by 

alternative

4 tracks 4 tracks 4 tracks 3 tracks 3 tracks 4 tra

Meets future planned 160 mph corridorwide improvement without future speed 

restrictions for intercity trains

Y/N - Maximum 

allowable speed 

(mph)

No - 140 mph Yes - 160 mph No - 135 mph Yes - 160 mph No - 135 mph No - 12

Impacts to Perry Electrical Substation Level of impact Major Major Major Major Major Maj

Allows shared corridor with Bike/Ped path 

(feasibility evaluation in progress)

Whether 

alternative

precludes

Does not preclude Does not preclude Does not preclude Does not preclude Does not preclude Does not 

Provides suitable vertical clearance (at least 

60') Yes - 60' Yes - 60' Yes - 60' Yes - 60' Yes - 60' Yes - 

Maintains or widens horizontal clearance (at 

least 200') Yes - 200' + Yes - 200' + Yes - 200' + Yes - 200' + Yes - 200' + Yes - 2

Requires temporary winter closure of 

movable span? Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

Retained for further evaluation No No No No No N

Elimination Rationale

Lower maximum 

allowable speed 

than 9B with 

comparable 

environmental 

impacts

Impact to Lafayette 

Senior Housing 

Facility

Impact to Lafayette 

Senior Housing 

Facility and low 

maximum 

authorized speed

Impact to Lafayette 

Senior Housing 

Facility; provides 

three tracks only

Impact to Lafayette 

Senior Housing 

Facility; offers low 

maximum 

authorized speed 

and three tracks 

only

Undes

maxim

authorize

Alternatives Comparison Matrix - Operational and Engin

Improve rail service reliability and safety

Y/N

Y/N - Clearance 

provided (feet)

Optimize existing and planned infrastructure

Maintain adequate navigation and improve safety along the Susquehanna R

Improve operational flexibility and accommodate reduced trip times

Level at which 

alterntaive meets 

criteria

First Tier of Impacts Second Tier of Impacts Third Tier of Impacts
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 2-8 

GIRDER APPROACH / ARCH MAIN SPAN 

Under this bridge design type, the proposed east bridge would have a total of 19 in-water piers. 

The proposed west bridge also would have 19 in-water piers. Sixteen piers would be removed 

from the existing bridge and 11 remnant piers (from the prior 1860s bridge) would be removed 

for a net gain of 11 piers. The girder approach / arch main span bridge design is based on typical 

170-foot approach spans. As part of the ongoing design effort, longer spans are under 

consideration. 

DELTA FRAME APPROACH / ARCH MAIN SPAN 

This bridge design type consists of a network tied arch over the navigable channel with delta 

frames for the approach spans. Under this bridge design type, the proposed east bridge would 

have a total of 13 in-water piers. The proposed west bridge would have 13 in-water piers. 

Sixteen piers would be removed from the existing bridge and 11 remnant piers would be 

removed for a net reduction of one pier. The delta frame approach / arch main span bridge 

design is generally based on 200-foot approach spans. Approach spans ranging from 230 to 260 

feet were also considered. 

TRUSS APPROACH / TRUSS MAIN SPAN 

Under this bridge design type, the proposed east bridge would have a total of 13 in-water piers. 

The proposed west bridge would have 13 in-water piers. Sixteen piers would be removed from 

the existing bridge and 11 remnant piers would be removed for a net reduction of one pier. The 

truss approach / truss main span bridge design is generally based on 260-foot approach spans. 

GIRDER APPROACH / TRUSS MAIN SPAN 

Under this bridge design type, the proposed east bridge would have a total of 19 in-water piers. 

The proposed west bridge would have 19 in-water piers. Sixteen piers would be removed from 

the existing bridge and 11 remnant piers would be removed for a net gain of 11 piers. The girder 

approach / truss main span bridge design is based on typical 170-foot approach spans. 

SELECTED BRIDGE TYPE 

FRA and MDOT have selected the girder approach / arch main span bridge type for the 

Proposed Project. The Project Team based this selection on an array of factors, including: 

environmental resources considerations; engineering and operational factors; agency feedback; 

and public and mariner input. At various public outreach information sessions, the girder 

approach / arch main span bridge design received the most support. The top factors of public 

preference, based on input received, are the overall look, cost minimization, and opening up 

views to the Susquehanna River. The bridge design types also were presented to various federal 

and state agencies, and evaluated for their potential to affect various environmental resources—

including surface water, submerged aquatic vegetation, and historic resources. Overall, the 

girder approach / arch main span bridge design is more favorable than the other bridge design 

types with respect to environmental resources. From an engineering and operations perspective, 

the girder approach / arch main span bridge design is superior in terms of ease of maintenance 

for approach spans, structural redundancy for approach space, ease of construction, trespasser 

resistance from water and land, side-span navigation clearance, and estimated cost. For a 

detailed discussion of the bridge type screening process, see “Bridge Design Selection Memo” in 

Appendix A. 
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives 

 2-9 

C. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The No Action Alternative assumes the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge would remain in service 

as-is, with no intervention besides minimal repairs and continuation of the current maintenance 

regime. The No Action Alternative will not include any changes to the existing track 

configuration. Service over the bridge would worsen in the future under the No Action 

Alternative. The bridge would continue to age, problems would occur more frequently, and the 

bridge would remain as a bottleneck. The No Action Alternative is used as a baseline scenario 

against which potential project impacts are measured. The No Action Alternative includes major 

planned transportation projects within the study area that are expected to be completed by 2025, 

which is the Proposed Project build year. Such projects include the following: 

 Amtrak State of Good Repair and Service Improvements: The No Action Alternative 

would include elements of Amtrak’s State of Good Repair program, which involves 

investments along the NEC to maintain a state of good repair, address deferred maintenance 

projects, and replace infrastructure that has reached the end of its useful life. 

 MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility: The MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility 

would entail construction of a new operation, maintenance, and storage facility located on a 

115-acre site in Perryville, adjacent to the NEC. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to conclude the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) review but MTA lacks funding for final design, right of way acquisition 

or construction. For the analysis of the Proposed Project, it was assumed that by the MARC 

Northeast Maintenance Facility would be constructed and operational by 2040, the Proposed 

Project long-term analysis year. 

D. BUILD ALTERNATIVES 

Based on the detailed screening, the Project Team retained Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B 

for detailed study. Both would improve rail service and reliability, improve operational 

flexibility, accommodate reduced trip times, optimize existing and planned infrastructure, 

maintain adequate navigation, and improve safety along the Susquehanna River. These Build 

Alternatives vary slightly by alignment and by maximum achievable speed. The Build 

Alternatives would construct two new high-level fixed bridges. These Build Alternatives could 

accommodate a four-track scenario or a three-track scenario with an option of a future fourth 

track expansion. For purposes of a conservative environmental review, the EA analyzes the 

potential environmental impacts of a full four-track river crossing. 

ALTERNATIVE 9A 

Alternative 9A would construct a new two-track 90 mph bridge2

 to the west of the existing 

bridge and a second new two-track 160 mph bridge on the existing bridge alignment (see 

Appendix B, “Engineering Alignments”). The bridge to the west of the existing bridge would be 

constructed first. Under normal operations, this bridge would be used primarily by MARC 

commuter rail and NS freight rail service. 

 

2

 Accommodating speeds of up to 100 mph on this bridge is under consideration as part of the 

ongoing design effort. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 2-10 

Once the new bridge to the west is completed, the existing bridge would be taken out of service, 

demolished, and replaced. A new high-speed passenger rail bridge would be built in the center of 

the right-of-way of the existing bridge alignment. The Alternative 9A design would lessen the 

curve in Havre de Grace, allow for 160 mph speeds, and require property acquisitions (see 

Chapter 4, “Land Use and Community Facilities”). Since the west bridge will be built first, 

freight, MARC and Amtrak operations can be maintained throughout construction of both 

bridges. As shown in Appendix B, “Engineering Alignments” the south wye track (connecting 

the NS Port Road to the NEC in Perryville) would be realigned to accommodate the revised 

configuration of Perry Interlocking. Although this alternative is based on a four track scenario, it 

could accommodate a three-track scenario with an option of a future fourth track expansion. 

Alternative 9A would modify Perry Electrical Substation but a substantial reconfiguration is not 

required. This alternative would also demolish the remnants of the former Havre de Grace train 

station and require shifting of the Perry Interlocking Tower. The Proposed Project would extend 

the Havre de Grace abutment south towards Freedom Lane. A summary of all affected existing 

infrastructure is provided in Table 2-4. Alternative 9A has an estimated 5-year construction 

period and an estimated construction cost of $930 million (2015 dollars), based on the 

construction of the girder approach / arch main span bridge type. 

PROFILE CHANGES 

For Alternative 9A the rail bridge structures would extend across the Susquehanna River and 

Union Avenue in Havre de Grace and Avenue A in Perryville. In Havre de Grace, the track 

would be supported on an embankment with a retaining wall. On the east side, a retaining wall 

would extend from Union Avenue to a point between Juniata Street and Lewis Lane. On the 

west side, the retaining wall would extend from Union Avenue to Juniata Street. South of the 

Havre de Grace Middle/High School athletic fields to Oak Interlocking, the track would remain 

in its existing roadbed at grade, except near Lewis Run to maintain an existing Amtrak access 

road west of the tracks. In Perryville, the track would be supported by an embankment with a 

retaining wall, extending roughly from Avenue A to Mill Creek on the east side and from 

Avenue A to the existing south access road on the west side. North of these limits to Prince 

Interlocking, the track would remain in its existing roadbed at grade. The track would also 

remain at grade along the south wye track. 

The proposed profile will raise the elevation of the tracks between Perryville Station and Adams 

Street in Havre de Grace. The approximate limits of the raises in elevation (i.e., the increase in 

track height from existing elevation to proposed) are as follows: 

 Access Road Undergrade (UG) 59.52 in Perryville - 1 foot 

 North Abutment, Susquehanna River Rail Bridge in Perryville - 2.5 feet 

 Navigation Channel of the Susquehanna River - 14 feet 

 South Abutment in Havre de Grace - 6 feet 

 Stokes Street in Havre de Grace - 3 feet 

 Adams Street in Havre de Grace - 2 feet 

Alternative 9A provides a vertical clearance of 60 feet above MHW at the channel span. Both the east 

and west bridges would be approximately 38 feet wide with a top-of-rail elevation of 72 feet above 

MHW. The top of the proposed arch structure spanning the navigation channel would be approximately 

152 feet above MHW. The top of the transmission lines would be 190 feet above MHW. 
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives 

 2-11 

APPROACH STRUCTURES 

There are three existing undergrade structures (located below the railroad) located on the 

Perryville approach that will require modification to accommodate the proposed track 

alignments. There are seven undergrade structures and one overhead structure between the 

Susquehanna River and Grace Interlocking in Havre de Grace that will require modifications to 

accommodate the proposed track alignments (including reconstruction of the Lewis Lane 

Bridge). The improvements to Grace Interlocking require Track 4 to shift six feet west, resulting 

in permanent disturbances extending 35 feet from the existing Track 4. This will require 

extending the culvert at the Lily and Lewis Run crossings. The required modifications to these 

structures are shown in Table 2-4. Alternative 9A requires long sections of track to be built 

away from the existing corridor on fill. Retaining walls are recommended in order to minimize 

right-of-way acquisition. 

Table 2-4

Summary of Affected Existing Infrastructure

West Side of Corridor 

Replace ballast deck bridge 59.52, over Access Road in Perryville 

Retaining wall in Perryville to support the west-bridge tracks 

New permanent higher-level UG Bridges in Havre de Grace for new western Tracks 

60.51 Freedom Lane - extend existing arch 

60.56 Stokes Street - new span 

60.61 Centennial Lane - extend existing arch 

60.62 Adams Street - new span 

60.77 Juniata Street - new span 

East Side of Corridor 

Relocate C&S/third-party utility duct bank 

Extend existing masonry arch culvert 59.01, Mill Creek UG Bridge in Perryville 

Relocate signal bungalow "59.0" in Perryville 

Extend ballast deck bridge 59.39, over Access Road in Perryville 

Relocate Perry Interlocking signal equipment 

Relocate or demolish Perry Tower in Perryville 

Replace ballast deck bridge 59.52, over Access Road in Perryville 

Construct retaining wall and viaduct support structures in Perryville 

Modify Perry Electrical Substation in Perryville 

New permanent higher-level UG Bridges in Havre de Grace for new eastern tracks 

60.51 Freedom Lane - extend existing arch 

60.56 Stokes Street - replace existing span 

60.61 Centennial Lane - extend existing arch 

60.62 Adams Street - new span 

60.77 Juniata Street - new span 

60.85 Stream (Lily Run) - extend existing culvert 

61.72 Lewis Run (also referred to as Unnamed tributary to Lily Run) – extend culvert 

Reconstruct Lewis Lane Bridge 61.35 to accommodate track shift (Alternative 9A only) 

Source: HNTB. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 2-12 

ALTERNATIVE 9B 

The main difference between Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B occurs in Havre de Grace along 

the east side of the corridor from Lewis Lane to the Susquehanna River. Alternative 9B lessens 

the curve in Havre de Grace and would limit the speed to a maximum of 150 mph. This lower 

speed, as compared to Alternative 9A, reduces the amount of property acquisitions required, 

including at the T&D Enterprise parcels and the avoidance of the Havre de Grace Middle/High 

School athletic fields (see Chapter 4, “Land Use and Community Facilities”, Chapter 9, “Draft 

Section 4(f) Evaluation”, and Chapter 10, “Section 6(f) Evaluation”). Reconstruction of the 

Lewis Lane Bridge would not be required. Alternative 9B has an estimated 5-year construction 

period and an estimated construction cost of $890 million (2015 dollars) based on the 

construction of the girder approach / arch main span bridge type. 

Alternative 9B is very similar to Alternative 9A. Like Alternative 9A, Alternative 9B would 

result in a new two-track 90 mph bridge west of the existing bridge and a second new two-track 

bridge replacing the existing bridge. Alternative 9B would also realign the south wye track and 

modify Perry Electrical Substation, while maintaining freight, MARC, and Amtrak operations 

throughout construction. Alternative 9B would result in identical profile changes to the rail 

bridge structures as Alternative 9A, including a vertical clearance of 60 feet above MHW at the 

channel span. In addition, all impacts to the approach structures located in Perryville are the 

same for Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B. A summary of all affected existing infrastructure is 

provided in Table 2-4. 

ADDITIONAL PROJECT ELEMENTS 

In addition to the new bridges and their approaches, the Proposed Project would require 

modifications to various railroad components—including communication systems, signal 

systems, traction power, catenary, and rail interlockings. While this type of work would be the 

same for either Alternative 9A or Alternative 9B, a brief description is provided below. 

RAIL SYSTEMS 

Communications System 

Continuity of the Open Transport Network (OTN) system must be maintained during all phases 

of construction. It is a communication system that can connect the stations, the control centers, 

trackside equipment, signal boxes, and other rail infrastructure. New signal houses and block 

points will be interfaced via local fiber cable and connected to the OTN for communications to 

Centralized Electrification and Traffic Control (CETC). 

Signal System 

The signal system design will be based on the new track configuration. New Grace Interlocking 

will be constructed to extend the length of the interlocking south. A new signal system will be 

installed at Grace, Perry and Prince Interlockings. New signal houses will be installed at Grace 

Interlocking between Perry and Prince Interlockings. 

Traction Power 

Amtrak’s Perry Electrical Substation is located adjacent to the existing right-of-way. Alternative 

9A and Alternative 9B would require minimal modifications to Perry Electrical Substation, 

within the existing substation footprint. Retaining wall construction immediately adjacent to the 
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives 

 2-13 

transmission tower on the west side of the tracks is under consideration to potentially avoid the 

relocation of the transmission tower. 

Overhead Contact System 

Tracks 2 and 3 within the project’s limits will be upgraded to an auto-tensioned style catenary. 

The proposed auto-tensioned catenary will be designed to support the new track speeds in 

accordance with Amtrak and American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way 

Association (AREMA) standards. New catenary structures, wires and power sectionalization 

configurations will be proposed for Grace, Perry and Prince Interlockings based on the track 

options and staging plans. 

IMPACTS TO INTERLOCKINGS 

Prince Interlocking 

Prince Interlocking is located at MP 57.3, north of the existing bridge. The limits of Prince 

Interlocking will not change with Alternative 9A or Alternative 9B. Within Prince Interlocking, 

an existing 45 mph track switch will be removed and replaced with an 80 mph track switch. A 

second 45 mph track switch will be removed from service. 

Perry Interlocking 

Perry Interlocking is located at MP 59.5, south of Prince Interlocking, but north of the existing 

bridge. Both Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B require raising the grade of the tracks at Perry 

Interlocking. In addition, they require a reconfigured layout to support the bridge alignments and 

operational requirements. The portion of Perry Interlocking that leads to the NS Port Road 

Branch will have the north and south track switches upgraded from 40 mph to 45 mph. 

Grace Interlocking 

Grace Interlocking is located at MP 61.5, south of the existing bridge and south of the curve in 

Havre de Grace. Modifications to the curve in Havre de Grace are required to support speed 

improvements. The spirals of the curve in Havre de Grace extend into the existing turnouts at 

Grace Interlocking. Grace Interlocking will be substantially modified with either Alternative 9A 

or Alternative 9B. The southern limits will be extended and the three existing 80 mph track 

switches will be removed and replaced with seven 80 mph track switches. Changes to Grace 

Interlocking will require extending the culvert at the Lily and Lewis Run crossings. 

Oak Interlocking 

Oak Interlocking is currently located at MP 63.5. No changes to Oak Interlocking are anticipated 

with either Alternative 9A or Alternative 9B. 

E. REQUIRED APPROVALS 

Both Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B would potentially require a number of federal, state, and 

local permits and approvals (see Table 2-5). In addition to these permits, the project must 

comply with numerous laws, including those regarding worker and public safety, use of parkland 

and historic resources, and endangered and protected species. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 2-14 

Table 2-5

List of Potential Federal, State, and Local Permits and Approvals

Permits/Approval Responsible Agency Activity 

Section 106 

Federal Railroad Administration, 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, Maryland Historical 

Trust 

Consultation pursuant to National 

Historic Preservation Act 

Section 7 

Consultation 

National Marine Fisheries 

Service/US Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

Impacts to federally-listed rare, 

threatened, or endangered species 

Section 4(f) 

U.S. Department of Interior 

(USDOI) (potentially including 

concurrence from local entities) 

Consultation for Section 4(f) Evaluation

Section 6(f) USDOI 

Consultation for Section 6(f) Evaluation 

for impacts to properties purchased or 

developed with Land and Water 

Conservation Funding (LWCF) 

Section 404 Permit United States Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) 

Discharge of dredged or fill material 

into the waters of the U.S. 

Section 10 Permit USACE Construction of structures in navigable 

waters 

Section 9 Permit United States Coast Guard (USCG) Construction/modification of a bridge 

over navigable waters 

Hazards to Navigation 

Assessment USCG Obstructions in navigable waters 

Nontidal Wetlands and 

Waterways Permit, 

Water Quality 

Certification, 

Construction within a 

100-year floodplain 

Maryland Department of the 

Environment (MDE) 

Discharge of dredged or fill material 

into waters of the U.S., wetlands, and 

100-year floodplains 

Water Appropriations 

Permit MDE Dewatering of surface and groundwater during construction 

Tidal Wetland License MDE/Board of Public Works 

Filling of open water and vegetated 

wetlands and construction of piers and 

associated structures 

Maryland 

Reforestation 

Law/Forest 

Conservation Act 

compliance 

Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources (DNR) Impacts to forested areas 
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives 

 2-15 

Table 2-5 (cont’d)

List of Potential Federal, State, and Local Permits and Approvals

Permits/Approval Responsible Agency Activity 

State-Listed Rare, 

Threatened, and 

Endangered Species 

DNR Impacts to rare, threatened, or 

endangered species 

Stormwater 

Management 

Approval 

MDE 

Inclusion of appropriate drainage 

structures and/or Environmental Site 

Design (ESD) techniques to manage 

stormwater runoff 

Erosion & Sediment 

Control Approval MDE Applicable erosion and sediment control practices during construction 

Maryland Critical 

Area Commission 

Approval 

Critical Area Commission for the 

Chesapeake Bay 

Impacts within the Critical Areas 

resulting from earth disturbance, 

removal of vegetation, placement of fill, 

and impervious area 

Maryland Heritage 

Areas Authority, 

Lower Susquehanna 

Heritage Greenway 

Maryland Department of Planning, 

Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) 

Coordination on the protection and 

enhancement of natural resources and 

sites, structures, districts, or landscapes 

which are deemed to be of historic, 

archeological, or architectural 

significance. 

Note: Other permits may be required. 

F. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

In selecting the Preferred Alternative, FRA and MDOT compared the two Build Alternatives and 

the No Action Alternative for the ability of each alternative to meet the project’s purpose and 

need and goals and objectives. Since the Build Alternatives were developed in consideration of 

these goals and objectives, there are few differences among the Build Alternatives; however, a 

key operational consideration is the Proposed Project’s ability to optimize existing and planned 

infrastructure by providing for a maximum authorized train speed of 160 mph, while taking both 

benefits and potential impacts into consideration. As described above, Amtrak developed the 

NEC Master Plan with planned speed increases up to a maximum authorized speed of 160 mph 

for this location along the NEC. Amtrak’s NEC Master Plan is consistent with the congressional 

mandate placed on Amtrak to reduce travel times along the NEC. In addition, USDOT has 

developed a way to value time travel saving, based on minutes saved per passenger by value of 

travel time savings per hour. 

As discussed above, Alternative 9A would allow for a maximum speed of 160 mph, while 

Alternative 9B would limit the speed to a maximum of 150 mph. Therefore, Alternative 9A is 

consistent with operational goals and with broader plans along the NEC. In addition, Alternative 

9A would reduce travel times, which would in turn lead to associated cost savings. Although 

Alternative 9A would result in a minimal increase in impacts (e.g., a commercial displacement, 

Havre de Grace Middle/High School impact and floodplain, streams, wetland, forest, and 

Chesapeake Bay Critical Area impacts) as compared to Alternative 9B, these additional impacts 

can be mitigated and potentially reduced during final design. Additionally, one of the anticipated 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 2-16 

benefits of a reliable high-speed passenger rail system would be a reduction in greenhouse gas 

emissions associated with vehicular travel and roadway congestion. FRA has therefore selected 

Alternative 9A as the Preferred Alternative. 
 3-1 

Chapter 3: Transportation 

A. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY 

This chapter assesses the potential benefits and impacts of the Proposed Project on transportation 

conditions in the project area compared with the No Action Alternative. This transportation 

analysis also includes a discussion of the current and future regional transportation 

infrastructure, including intercity rail (Northeast Regional, long distance, Acela, and future highspeed rail), commuter rail, bus service, freight service, navigable waters, and the roadway 

system. For planning purposes and in anticipation of future increased capacity along the NEC, 

the passenger rail analysis (including intercity and commuter rail) assumes implementation of 

the Preferred Alternative from the NEC FUTURE Tier I Final EIS in the 2040 Build condition.1

The Proposed Project would be consistent with the service goals considered in the NEC 

FUTURE Tier 1 FEIS Preferred Alternative along this section of the NEC. It is important to note 

that the analysis is based on rail traffic volumes that would not result solely from the Proposed 

Project, but represent the sum of proposed enhancements all along the Northeast Corridor (NEC) 

that enable the service levels assumed by NEC FUTURE. The Federal Railroad Administration’s 

(FRA) Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 Federal Register [FR] 28545 

[May 26, 1999]) states that a transportation assessment should consider all modes of 

transportation, including bicycle and pedestrian modes. The non-motorized transportation 

network in the study area, consisting of trails and greenways, is discussed in Chapter 6, “Parks 

and Recreational Resources.” Construction period impacts to transportation in the project area 

and overall region are documented in Chapter 19, “Construction Effects.” As discussed in 

Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” this Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates two Build 

Alternatives: Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B. Alternative 9A was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative. 

B. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

INTERCITY RAIL 

The NEC is the most heavily used passenger rail line in North America, both in terms of ridership 

and service frequency, and one of the most frequently traveled rail corridors in the world.2,3 The 

NEC is a 457-mile rail transportation system extending from Boston's South Station to 

 

1

 FRA, NEC FUTURE Tier I Final EIS, December 2016. NEC FUTURE is not an approved 

project as of this writing. 

2

 https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/998/601/Amtrak-National-Fact-Sheet-FY2015.pdf, accessed 

April 22, 2016. 

3

 Source: BGL Rail Associates, for the Amtrak Reform Council, “A Recommended Approach to 

Funding the Estimated Capital Investment Needs of the Northeast Corridor Rail 

Infrastructure,” April 2002. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 3-2 

Washington D.C.'s Union Station. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) 

designated the NEC as a high-speed rail corridor. 

As stated in Chapter 1, “Purpose and Need,” the NEC is a key component of the Northeast 

region's transportation system. It is vital to the sustained economic growth of the region, which 

includes the economic and political centers of the United States—Boston, New York, 

Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C.—all of which are connected by the NEC. 

Increasing congestion and capacity constraints on the region’s interstate highways affect 

commuters, intercity travelers, and the delivery of goods to and from the region, resulting in the 

growing popularity of rail as an attractive mode of passenger and freight transportation. 

Table 3-1 presents existing train traffic over the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge. 

Table 3-1 

Existing Volumes Across the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge (Average 

Weekday) 

Types of Service 

Current Utilization (2015) 

Daily Peak* 

Amtrak Intercity Northeast Regional and Long Distance 57 7 

Acela 32 2 

MARC Commuter 18 3 

NS Freight 8 2 

TOTAL 116 

Notes: * “Peak” is defined as 4:10-5:10 PM weekdays for Amtrak, and 5:40-6:40 

AM and 6:20-7:20 PM weekdays for MARC. For freight, the timing of the 

peak hour varies but it generally occurs at night. 

Based on 2016 data, considered to be representative of the existing condition. 

Source: Service volumes provided by Amtrak. 

FREIGHT SERVICE 

Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) operates freight service throughout the eastern United States 

and has rights to run freight trains along the NEC in the study area, including over the 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge. NS operates approximately eight trains per day across the 

bridge moving between the NS Port Road Branch4

 and the Port of Baltimore. Approximately six 

NS trains per day do not cross bridge, instead traveling north between the NS Port Road Branch 

and the Port of Wilmington. In addition, CSX Corporation (CSX) operates freight service on a 

separate structure, the CSX Susquehanna River Rail Bridge, approximately 0.9 mile northwest 

of the Amtrak Susquehanna River Rail Bridge. CSX has rights to use the Amtrak Susquehanna 

River Rail Bridge in the event of failure or closure of its own structure. See Figure 1-4 for a map 

of rail and other transportation routes in the project area. Freight operations across the Amtrak 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge are currently limited to 30 miles per hour (mph). 

 

4

 The NS Port Road Branch connects with the Amtrak NEC via a “WYE” connection at Perry 

interlocking, just north of the Susquehanna River Bridge. This connection allows freight to 

move between the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania area and locations north and south of Perryville. 
Chapter 3: Transportation 

 3-3 

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 

COMMUTER RAIL SERVICE 

As stated in Chapter 1, “Purpose and Need,” Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC) is a 

202-mile, 42-station commuter rail system. MARC rail service connects Cecil County, MD; 

Baltimore, MD; Washington D.C.; Brunswick, MD; Frederick, MD; and Martinsburg, WV. The 

Penn Line has the greatest ridership of MARC’s three lines (average weekday ridership of 

23,430 in 2015)5

 and runs from Washington Union Station over the Susquehanna River Rail 

Bridge to Perryville, MD. MARC currently operates 18 trains over the bridge each weekday, 

including three trains during the peak hour. There is currently no weekend service to Perryville. 

MARC tickets are honored on certain Amtrak trains; however, only one daily Amtrak train 

services Perryville MARC Station. 

BUS SERVICE 

Bus service in the study area consists of local transit services provided by Harford County, MD 

and Cecil County and a commuter bus line to Baltimore provided by the Maryland Transit 

Administration (MTA). Harford County Transit provides service to and within Havre de Grace 

and serves Perryville.6

 Cecil County provides a “Perryville Connection” bus which provides 

service within Perryville and connects to the nearby towns of North East and Elkton. There is 

also a countywide door-to-door transit service, the C.T. Cruiser, which is available to all 

residents and must be scheduled in advance.7

 Commuter bus service from Havre de Grace into 

Downtown Baltimore is provided by MTA via its Route 420.8

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED 

FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts require that an environmental 

analysis assess impacts on transportation and general mobility of the elderly and disabled. In the 

study area, transportation options for the disabled are provided by Harford and Cecil Counties.1,2

Both counties provide curb-to-curb paratransit services by appointment. Additionally, the 

“Perryville Connection” bus, discussed above, will deviate up to 0.75 mile for functionally 

disabled passengers.2

 The Perryville MARC Station is equipped with a wheelchair lift to ensure 

accessibility by disabled passengers. MARC and Amtrak trains are designed to accommodate 

most wheeled mobility devices in use today, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

The existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge is located at Susquehanna River Mile 1.0. The 

movable swing span is located over the twin navigation channels and provides a 52-foot vertical 

clearance above mean high water (MHW) in the closed position and a 127-foot vertical 

 

5

 Maryland Open Data Portal, https://data.maryland.gov/Transportation/MTA-AverageWeekday-Ridership-by-Month/ub96-xxqw/data, accessed 10/27/2016.

6

 Harford County Transit. http://www.harfordcountymd.gov/services/transportation/, accessed 

12/22/2014. 

7

 Cecil County Community Transit. http://www.ccgov.org/dept_aging/communitytransit.cfm, 

accessed 12/22/2014. 

8

 MTA Commuter Bus. http://mta.maryland.gov/commuter-bus, accessed 12/22/2014. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 3-4 

clearance in the open position, limited by overhead electric transmission lines. The horizontal 

clearance is 100 feet in each of the two navigation channels. 

In the vicinity of the project site, the Susquehanna River is technically navigable up to the 

Conowingo Hydroelectric Dam, at approximately River Mile 9.9; however, parts of the river 

south of the dam are too shallow to navigate with larger vessels, with depths of less than 10 feet 

north of Port Deposit (approximately River Mile 5.0).9 Table 3-2 lists those bridges that cross 

the navigable portion of the Susquehanna River. The Susquehanna River Rail Bridge typically 

opens fewer than 10 times per year to accommodate marine traffic requiring vertical clearance 

greater than 52 feet.

Table 3-2

Susquehanna River Bridges South of the Conowingo Dam

Bridge Name 

Location 

(Miles from 

Mouth of 

River) Bridge Type 

Vertical Clearance 

Horizontal 

Clearance 

(ft) 

Open*

(ft) 

Closed

(ft) 

Susquehanna River 

Rail Bridge 1.0 Swing Rail Bridge 127 52 100 

Thomas J. Hatem 

Memorial Bridge 1.5 

Fixed Auto 

Bridge 

(Rt. 40) 

87 320 

CSX Susquehanna 

River Rail Bridge 1.9 Fixed Rail Bridge 85 500 

Millard E. Tydings 

Memorial Bridge 3.2 

Fixed Auto 

Bridge 

(I-95) 

90 119-245 

Sources: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Chart 12274: Head 

of Chesapeake Bay [map]. “Office of Coast Survey.” Last updated November 

2014. http://www.charts.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/12274.shtml (accessed 

February 4, 2015). 

 HNTB Corporation. Susquehanna River Bridge Reconstruction and Expansion 

Project Navigation Study, dated January 21, 2014. 

To assess current navigation conditions in this stretch of the Susquehanna River, Amtrak 

conducted a Navigation Study in 2013.10 The study focused on vessels greater than 50 feet in 

height. The required vertical clearance for a marine vessel depends upon the size and weight of 

the vessel and the tide conditions. Commercial vessels typically require the most vertical 

clearance when traveling empty at high tide, and the least vertical clearance when traveling fully 

loaded at low tide. Currently, in accordance with federal law (33 CFR 117.575), Amtrak opens 

the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge on signal if notice is provided at least 24 hours in advance. 

 

9

 NOAA Office of Coast Survey, Navigational Chart 12274. 

http://www.charts.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/12274.shtml, accessed 3/8/2016. 

10 Susquehanna River Bridge Reconstruction and Expansion Project Navigation Study, dated 

January 21, 2014, HNTB Corporation.
Chapter 3: Transportation 

 3-5 

In practice, local marinas and commercial users provide up to several days’ notice to Amtrak 

when the need arises for a navigation span opening. 

Coordination with U.S. Coast Guard, as a Cooperating Agency, has been ongoing, as detailed in 

Chapter 20, “Coordination and Consultation” and in Appendix H, “Public Involvement and 

Agency Correspondence.” The Coast Guard has been involved in the approval of every project 

milestone, and has provided input for the Navigation Study. The Navigation Study determined 

that many of the bridge openings are related to transporting barge cranes for rehabilitation of the 

existing upstream structures. Some of the bridge openings are for recreational boating. Most tall 

vessels (greater than 50 feet in height) in the study area are docked at downstream marinas 

during the boating season. Many of the upstream marine facilities are not limited by the existing 

bridge’s vertical clearance since they: (1) are winter storage facilities that request a group bridge 

opening once per season; (2) do not store boats taller than can be accommodated by the existing 

vertical clearance; or (3) are exclusively boat launches and are limited by upland road and bridge 

clearances. The Navigation Study identified one vessel, the skipjack Martha Lewis, which is 

currently undergoing a restoration and is expected to be 65 feet in height upon completion; 

however, this vessel rarely travels upstream. The Navigation Study concluded that the existing 

navigation channels (both height and width) address the needs of most mariners and vessels. 

REGIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM 

As shown in Table 3-2, two regional highways cross over the Susquehanna River in the vicinity 

of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge. The Pulaski Highway (U.S. Route 40) traverses the 

recently renovated Thomas J. Hatem Memorial Bridge, located 0.5 miles from the Susquehanna 

River Rail Bridge. The John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway (I-95) utilizes the Millard E. 

Tydings Memorial Bridge, located 2.0 miles north of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge. The 

two highways run roughly parallel to each other and to the Chesapeake Bay shoreline between 

Baltimore and Wilmington, with I-95 providing limited-access highway service, and U.S. Route 

40 providing local service to towns along the corridor. See Figure 1-4 for a map of regional 

highways and other transportation routes in the project area. 

LOCAL ROADWAYS 

Several existing local roads cross the NEC within the study area, representing a mix of 

ownership between the State Highway Administration (SHA), the counties, the municipalities, 

and other public owners (see Figure 3-1 for a map of these road crossings). In Havre de Grace, 

Lewis Lane (local/Harford County) and Post Road/Revolution Street (SHA) pass over the NEC, 

while N. Juniata Street, N. Adams Street, Centennial Lane, N. Stokes Street, N. Freedom Lane 

(all local/Harford County roads), and N. Union Avenue (SHA) cross underneath the NEC. In 

Perryville, Avenue A11 (part of the Perry Point Veterans Administration [VA] Medical Center) 

and two Amtrak access roads cross beneath the NEC.12 Broad Street (SHA) crosses below the 

north and south wye tracks, which connect the NEC to the NS Port Road Branch. Ikea Road 

(SHA) crosses over the NEC in Perryville, as do several roadways which are not publicly 

accessible, including the three Amtrak-owned former Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore 

 

11 Avenue A becomes Broad Street/Route 7 directly beneath the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge 

overpass. 

12 Final Feasibility Report: Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project. Prepared by HNTB 

Corporation for Amtrak, January 30, 2015. 
1

4

5

6 7

8

9

11

12

10

2

15

3

13

14

Coudon Cree k

LewisRun

Mill Creek

Unnamed Tributar y to Susquehanna River

Lilly Run

1 0 1,300 2,600

Feet

Susquehanna River

Rail Bridge Project

Data Sources

Figure 3-1

Undergrade and Overhead

Bridges in the Project Area

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Overpasses

Susquehanna River

1. Lewis Run Undergrade Culvert 61.72

2. Lewis Lane Overhead Bridge 61.35

3. Lily Run Undergrade Culvert 60.85

4. North Juniata Street Undergrade Bridge 60.77

5. North Adams Street Undergrade Bridge 60.69

11. Perryville Train Station Overpass

(Amtrak Access Road Undergrade 59.39)

12. Mill Creek Undergrade Bridge 59.00

13. Coudon Road South Overhead Bridge 58.34

14. Coudon Road North Overhead Bridge 57.85

15. Chesapeake View Road Overhead Bridge 57.60

6. Centennial Lane Undergrade Culvert 60.61

7. North Stokes Street Undergrade Bridge 60.56

8. North Freedom Lane Undergrade Culvert 60.51

9. Amtrak access road Undergrade 59.52

10. Broad Street Undergrade Bridge -

South Wye Track

Legend

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap,

INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China

(Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia,

NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS

User Community
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 3-6 

Railroad (PW&B) overpasses. One of the PW&B bridges (at Chesapeake View Road) is used by 

golf carts on the Furnace Bay Golf Course, while the other two (at Coudon Road North and 

Coudon Road South) are disused.13

C. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” the No Action Alternative assumes the 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge will remain in service as-is, with no intervention besides 

minimal repairs and continuation of the current maintenance regime. Service over the bridge is 

already speed-restricted to 90 mph due to the age and deteriorated condition of the bridge, and 

would continue to worsen in the future under the No Action Alternative, potentially requiring 

stricter speed and weight restrictions that will further impact the movement of passengers and 

freight. Cost associated with bridge maintenance would continue to increase over time. The 

bridge would continue to age, problems would occur more frequently, and the bridge would 

remain as a bottleneck; it would eventually need to be taken out of service. Without the bridge, 

local, regional and national rail networks would be disrupted with resultant detrimental effects 

on the economic activity. 

A number of transportation projects are planned within the study area and would be developed 

by 2040 under the No Action Alternative. These projects are described in Chapter 2, “Project 

Alternatives,” and they include Amtrak’s ongoing state of good repair work and service 

improvements; components of MTA’s MARC Growth and Investment Plan; and MTA’s MARC 

Northeast Maintenance Facility. The MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility would entail 

construction of a new operation, maintenance, and storage facility located on a 115-acre site in 

Perryville, adjacent to the NEC. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued a Finding of 

No Significant Impact to conclude the NEPA review for this project, but MTA currently lacks 

funding for final design, right of way acquisition or construction. This EA nevertheless assumes 

that the project would be completed by 2040. Projects that would be developed after 2040 are 

discussed in Chapter 18, “Indirect and Cumulative Effects.” Table 3-3 summarizes the expected 

train traffic across the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge in 2040.

In 2040 with the No Action Alternative, a new high-speed rail category replaces today’s Acela 

service, filling a similar role but with faster speeds and various other enhancements. MARC 

plans to phase out electric locomotives and move to an all-diesel fleet. Currently, 10 out of 18 

daily MARC trains across the bridge are electric. The overall number of MARC trains crossing 

the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge with the No Action Alternative is projected to decrease to 14 

by 2040, assuming the implementation of the MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility. The 

Maintenance Facility project will eliminate the need to run deadhead trains north over the bridge 

in the morning and south over the bridge in the evening. 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) assumes that freight rail traffic across the Susquehanna 

River Rail Bridge will increase modestly as a result of additional rail traffic to and from several 

regional refineries that are expanding their operations. NS does not have any plans in place to 

increase traffic; rather, the expectation of increased traffic is an assumption based on a generally 

accepted 1.5 percent annual rate of typical growth in freight rail. Approximately 10 freight trains 

 

13 “National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation for MARC Maintenance and 

Layover Facility, Perryville, Cecil County, Maryland Cultural Resources Management Report: 

Above-Ground Historic Properties.” Prepared by URS Corporation for MTA, February 2014.
Chapter 3: Transportation 

 3-7 

per day will cross the bridge en route to Baltimore. The EA further assumes that traffic on local 

and regional roadways and highways, as well as bus and paratransit ridership will increase 

naturally due to growth in the regional population. Under the No Action Alternative, 

navigational traffic near the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge is expected to remain steady. 

Table 3-3

Projected 2040 Volumes Across the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge

Without the Proposed Project (Average Weekday)

Types of Service 

Projected Utilization (2040)

Daily Peak* 

Amtrak Intercity Northeast Regional and Long Distance 58 4 

High-Speed Rail 44 4 

MARC Commuter 14 3 

NS Freight 10 2 

TOTAL 126 

Notes: * “Peak” is defined as 4:10-5:10 PM weekdays for Amtrak, and 5:40-6:40 

AM and 6:20-7:20 PM weekdays for MARC. For freight, the timing of the 

peak hour varies but it generally occurs at night.

Source: Service volumes provided by Amtrak, MDOT and FRA, November 2015. 

D. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVES 

This section discusses the potential impacts to transportation from the Proposed Project. The 

Proposed Project would enhance the reliability of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and 

thereby provide benefits to Amtrak service, MARC service, freight operations and marine 

traffic. Table 3-4 summarizes the expected train traffic across the Susquehanna River Rail 

Bridge in 2040. As noted earlier in this chapter, rail traffic volumes presented here do not result 

solely from the Proposed Project, but represent the sum of proposed enhancements all along the 

NEC which enable the service levels assumed by the NEC FUTURE Preferred Alternative. 14 

INTERCITY RAIL 

The Proposed Project will cause no adverse impacts to intercity rail operations, and, in fact, 

could offer benefits to rail passengers. The Proposed Project involves construction of two fixed 

(non-movable) replacement bridges that would be used for rail service. Design speeds over the 

new bridges would be 90 mph on the new west bridge (Alternatives 9A and Alternative 9B), and 

either up to 160 mph (Alternative 9A) or 150 mph (Alternative 9B) on the new high-speed 

bridge, which would be built on the approximate alignment of the existing bridge. As design 

progresses, speeds up to 100 mph could be provided on the new west bridge. The Proposed 

Project would eliminate bridge malfunctions resulting from the opening of the existing movable 

span. This would improve the reliability of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and increase 

speed and capacity over the river. The Proposed Project would remove the bottleneck caused by 

the existing bridge and would reduce unscheduled train delays, thereby improving service. FRA 

 

14 NEC FUTURE forecasts are being used as a reasonable assumption but do not represent an 

approved project, nor are these numbers included in the No Action Alternative. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 3-8 

expects traffic across the river to increase by 2040, including the addition of high-speed rail and 

a new metropolitan service (envisioned as an intermediate-level service between high-speed rail 

and existing Northeast Regional service), as shown in Table 3-4. Projections indicate more than 

double the total number of peak period trips over the No Action Alternative, from 102 trips 

without the Proposed Project, to 222 trips with the Proposed Project. 

Table 3-4 

Projected 2040 Volumes Across the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge

With the Proposed Project and Enhancements 

Along the NEC (Average Weekday) 

Types of Service 

Projected Utilization (2040) 

Daily Peak* 

Amtrak Intercity 

Northeast Regional and Long Distance 48 4 

High-Speed Rail 82 8 

Metropolitan Service 92 8 

MARC Commuter 44 3 

NS Freight 12 2 

TOTAL 278 

Notes: * “Peak” is defined as 4:10-5:10 PM weekdays for Amtrak. For MARC the 

daily peak occurs 5:40-6:40 AM. For freight, the timing of the peak hour 

varies but it generally occurs at night.

Source: Service volumes provided by Amtrak, MDOT and FRA, November 2015. 

FREIGHT SERVICE 

Improved reliability, speed, and capacity afforded by the Proposed Project would result in an 

overall benefit to freight service, with no adverse impacts projected. Future projections with the 

Proposed Project indicate an approximate daily increase of two freight trains over the No Action 

Alternative; both additional trains would traverse the bridge moving between the NS Port Road 

Branch and Baltimore. The Proposed Project would eliminate bridge malfunctions resulting 

from the opening of the existing movable span. This would improve the reliability of the bridge 

and increase speed and capacity, resulting in a long-term benefit to freight rail service. 

Connections between the NEC and NS Port Road Branch would remain via the wye track, which 

would be slightly realigned. 

The Proposed Project has been designed so as not to preclude construction of the proposed 

Chesapeake Connector project on the eastern edge of the project limits, which would alleviate a 

freight rail bottleneck by adding a third track between Perryville and North East, MD. 

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 

COMMUTER RAIL SERVICE 

No adverse impacts to commuter rail operations would result from the Proposed Project. The 

Proposed Project would improve the reliability of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and 

increase speed and capacity, thereby improving the reliability of MARC service to Perryville. 

MARC is studying the extension of service northward beyond Perryville for eventual 
Chapter 3: Transportation 

 3-9 

connections to Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) service, 

presumably at the current SEPTA terminus in Newark, Delaware.15 This EA assumes that such 

extensions would not occur until after the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project. With the 

extension in place, service would likely increase to 44 daily MARC trains across the river by 

2040. The Project Team will coordinate the final design and construction of the Proposed Project 

with the MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility project, located on the eastern edge of the 

project limits. 

BUS SERVICE 

As described below under “Local Roadways,” there would be no adverse impacts to the local 

street network upon which bus service relies. Additionally, the Proposed Project would not 

affect any bus depots or stations. Therefore, no impacts to bus service would result from 

operation of the Proposed Project.

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED 

No impacts to paratransit service would result from operation of the Proposed Project. As 

described below under “Local Roadways,” there would be no adverse impacts to the local street 

network upon which paratransit service relies. Additionally, the Proposed Project would not 

affect any depots where paratransit vehicles are stored or maintained.

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

No significant adverse impacts to navigation would result from the Proposed Project. Under 

either Alternative 9A or Alternative 9B, the Proposed Project would provide a 60-foot vertical 

clearance and, at minimum, a 230-foot horizontal clearance. This would provide sufficient 

vertical clearance while widening the horizontal clearance. A wider horizontal clearance would 

improve safety by reducing the potential for conflicts between the rail bridge and marine traffic. 

The Proposed Project would also eliminate the need for bridge openings and closings by 

replacing the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge as two high-level fixed bridges. This would 

constitute an improvement to navigation along this segment of the Susquehanna River. 

The Navigation Study described earlier in this chapter recommended that bridge design consider 

a 60-foot vertical clearance. While a 60-foot clearance may limit taller vessels, such as the 

aforementioned skipjack Martha Lewis (expected to be 65 feet in height upon completion), from 

traveling upstream of the bridge, it would allow for the bridge to be designed at a lower grade 

that would not affect freight rail operations, since heavy freight trains typically require lower 

grades. Furthermore, conceptual design has indicated that a 60-foot clearance would help reduce 

the need for right-of-way acquisitions and other potential community impacts as compared with 

bridge designs providing a higher vertical clearance. 

The Navigation Study also determined that, while the existing horizontal clearance is sufficient, 

further widening of the horizontal clearance could increase sight distance, reduce vessel 

congestion, and aid tug boat and barge navigation through the bridge opening, increasing safety 

and resilience against potential bridge and fender system strikes by boats. The conditions of the 

USCG bridge permit, when received, will finalize the legal navigation clearances for a new or 

reconstructed bridge. 

 

15 “MARC Growth and Investment Plan Update 2013-2050”, dated September 9, 2013, MTA. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 3-10 

REGIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM 

Impacts to the regional highway system from the Proposed Project would be largely beneficial, 

with no adverse impacts projected. The Proposed Project has the potential to reduce future 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) regionally when compared with the No Action Alternative. This is 

described further in Chapter 18, “Indirect and Cumulative Effects.” This VMT reduction would 

constitute a benefit to regional highways, which would experience lower congestion levels as a 

result of reduced VMT, as well as less wear and tear on road surfaces. 

LOCAL ROADWAYS 

TRAFFIC 

While the Proposed Project does not include any additional service to or from Perryville station, 

FRA and MDOT anticipate there being additional MARC service to Perryville as a result of a 

number of proposed enhancements along the NEC. The combined effect of these various 

improvements would be to more than triple service from 14 daily trains under the No Action 

Alternative to 44 daily trains in the 2040 Build Condition. The potential for additional MARC 

service is further discussed in Chapter 18, “Indirect and Cumulative Effects.” While on a 

regional level, VMT would decrease as a result of the Proposed Project as described in the 

previous paragraph, the increased MARC service would likely result in additional traffic on 

local roadways in Perryville due to the presence of additional MARC commuters traveling to 

and from the station. A future environmental review for the extension of MARC service 

northward beyond Perryville would analyze any such traffic increases.

DIRECT ROADWAY IMPACTS 

Alternative 9A would require a slight realignment of Warren Street between N. Adams Street 

and N. Stokes Street in Havre de Grace. In Perryville, a slight realignment of Avenue A may be 

necessary under Alternatives 9A and Alternative 9B to accommodate the enlarged bridge 

abutment. These minor roadway realignments would not have any permanent adverse impacts on 

local roadway traffic. As described in Chapter 17, “Construction Effects,” a construction access 

plan would be put in place to ensure that there would be no adverse impacts to local roadways 

during construction. 

With Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B, seven bridges where local roadways cross beneath the 

NEC would require modification (see Figure 3-1). The existing crossings at N. Juniata Street, N. 

Adams Street, Centennial Lane, N. Stokes Street, and Freedom Lane in Havre de Grace, and the 

Amtrak access roads in Perryville would each need extending to accommodate the final track 

alignments. Extension of these crossings would not have any negative impacts on local roadway 

traffic. 

Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B could require changes to the PW&B overhead bridge at 

Chesapeake View Road and the unused PW&B overhead bridges at Coudon Road North and 

Coudon Road South to accommodate the new track profile and train clearance. For Alternative 

9A, the Lewis Lane overhead bridge will require significant reconstruction with a temporary 

detour during a portion of the project, similar to what was done during its last reconstruction. 
Chapter 3: Transportation 

 3-11 

LOCALLY SPONSORED ROADWAY PLANS 

As discussed in Chapter 21, “Public Participation and Agency Coordination,” the City of Havre 

de Grace has developed plans to redesign the downtown gateway area at the intersection of 

Otsego Street and N. Union Avenue, adjacent to the existing bridge abutment. The City has 

requested that the new Susquehanna River Rail Bridge abutment be located as far to the south as 

possible in order to accommodate these improvements and provide for a more open gateway to 

the downtown Havre de Grace commercial district. The Project Team designed the Proposed 

Project to accommodate these improvements, and the City of Havre de Grace will undertake any 

necessary traffic studies as part of the intersection improvement project. 
 4-1 

Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Facilities 

A. INTRODUCTION 

This chapter inventories existing and future land uses within the study area and discusses 

potential long-term environmental impacts that could result from the implementation of the 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project as compared with the No Action Alternative. The 

Proposed Project is located primarily in the City of Havre de Grace in Harford County, 

Maryland and the Town of Perryville in Cecil County, Maryland. Resources were identified 

within the 1,000-foot buffer study area surrounding the current rail right-of-way, as depicted on 

Figure 4-1. As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” this Environmental Assessment 

(EA) evaluates two Build Alternatives: Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B. FRA selected 

Alternative 9A as the Preferred Alternative. 

B. REGULATORY CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY 

REGULATORY CONTEXT 

Transportation projects often require property acquisition and relocation. A federally funded 

project must adhere to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition 

Policies Act of 1970, as amended, as codified in Title 42, Section 4601 et seq. of the United 

States Code, and the applicable implementing regulations set forth in Title 49, Part 24 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (collectively, “the Uniform Act”) with regard to relocation services, 

moving payments, replacement housing payments, and other allowable payments related to 

commercial and residential moving costs and displacement. The Uniform Act protects the rights 

of owners and tenants of real property acquired to implement a project; the Act provides for fair 

uniform and equitable treatment of persons displaced from their homes, businesses, or farms by 

federal and federally assisted programs. It also recognizes that displacement of businesses often 

results in their closure, and aims to minimize the adverse impact of displacement to maintain the 

economic and social well-being of communities. The Uniform Act is designed to ensure that 

individuals do not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of programs and projects designed 

for the benefit of the public as a whole, and to minimize the hardship of displacement on such 

persons. 

In Maryland, project-required displacements and relocation must adhere to the Real Property 

Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, Title 2, Section 2-112 and Titles 12, Subtitle 2, 

Sections 12-201 to 12-212, which govern relocation and assistance for displacements associated 

with state actions. 

METHODOLOGY AND BACKGROUND 

The Project Team identified land uses and community facilities within the study area using 

available planning documents, Geographic Information System mapping layers, Maryland 
£¤40

132

Spruce St

Williams Dr

Branch Rd

Oak St

Chestnut St

North Post Road

Pulaski Highway

Wa nl ut Rd

Blenheim Farm Ln

Robinhood Rd

Blenhiem

Ln

Oakington Road

Oakington Rd

Mullins Rd

Swan

Harbor Farm

1

0 250 500

Feet

Susquehanna River

Rail Bridge Project

Data Sources

Figure 4-1

Existing Land Use Mapping

Land Use:

Maryland Department of Planning, 2010;

MD SDAT, 2014

Parks:

Harford County Government, 2013;

MD SDAT, 2014

Legend

1,000 ft Study Area

Parks

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

Institutional

Open Urban Land

Agriculture

Forest

Wetlands

Transportation

Page 1 of 5
£¤40

7

Old Bay Lane

Pulaski Highway

Lew si Ln

Bloomsbury Ave

Seneca Ave

Village Dr

Revolution Street

Old Post Rd

Harbour Ct

South Juniata Street

Anderson Ave

Fairway Ct

Heather Way

Wilson St

Anchor Ct

Pusey

St

Parkway Ave

Hinton St

Old Post Road

Clark Rd

Deaver St

Webb Ln

Hall Ct

Tidewater Dr

Bay Blvd

Peace Chance Dr

Spinnaker Way

Keewee Rd

Whitney

Ct

Battery Dr

Way

Battery

Village

Park

1

0 250 500

Feet

Susquehanna River

Rail Bridge Project

Data Sources

Figure 4-1

Existing Land Use Mapping

Land Use:

Maryland Department of Planning, 2010;

MD SDAT, 2014

Parks:

Harford County Government, 2013;

MD SDAT, 2014

Legend

1,000 ft Study Area

Parks

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

Institutional

Open Urban Land

Agriculture

Forest

Wetlands

Transportation

Page 2 of 5
Susquehanna

River

£¤40

155

7

Anderson Ave

Green Street

Lewis Ln

SuperiorStreet

Park Drive

Ontario Street

Pennington Avenue

North

Adams Street

South

Adams Street

Camilla Street

Erie Street

Otsego Street

South

Union Avenue

Pulaski Highway

Ohio

Street

South

Juniata Street North

Juniata Street

Pearl Street

Pointe Way

Franklin Street

Fountain Street

South

Stokes Street

Legion Drive

North

Stokes Street

North

Washington Street

Bourbon Street

Saint John Street

Congress Avenue

Warren Street

Chapel Hgts Dr

Locust Road

South

Freedom

Lane North

Freedom

Lane

North

Union Avenue

Seneca Way

Water Street

Chapel Ter

Jean S. Roberts

Memorial Park

David

Somerset Craig Park

Manor

1 0 250 500

Feet

Susquehanna River

Rail Bridge Project

Data Sources

Figure 4-1

Existing Land Use Mapping

Land Use:

Maryland Department of Planning, 2010;

MD SDAT, 2014

Parks:

Harford County Government, 2013;

MD SDAT, 2014

Legend

1,000 ft Study Area

Parks

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

Institutional

Open Urban Land

Agriculture

Forest

Wetlands

Transportation

Page 3 of 5
222

327

7

Philadelphia Rd

Avenue D

Locust St

Susquehanna Ave

Broad St

Elm St

Avenue B

Cherry St

Ostego St

Evans St

Maywood Ave

Avenue C

Cecil Ave

1st St

Otsego St

Front St

Maryland Ave

4th St

Arch St

Owens Landing Ct

Ellis Ct

Hartford St

Dalley

McLhinney

St

Mill Creek Ave

Philadelphia Road

3rd St

N

Woodlands

Farm

Ln

2nd St

Aiken Avenue

Ikea Way

Frenchtown Road

Avenue A

Alley

A

River Rd

Concord Dr

Coudon

Boulevard

Lower

Ferry

Park

Perryville

Community

Park

Trego Field

1 0 250 500

Feet

Susquehanna River

Rail Bridge Project

Data Sources

Figure 4-1

Existing Land Use Mapping

Land Use:

Maryland Department of Planning, 2010;

MD SDAT, 2014

Parks:

Harford County Government, 2013;

MD SDAT, 2014

Legend

1,000 ft Study Area

Parks

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

Institutional

Open Urban Land

Agriculture

Forest

Wetlands

Transportation

Page 4 of 5
7

Philadelphia Road

Cook Ln

Millcreek Rd

Chesapeake V ei w

Principio Station Rd

1 0 250 500

Feet

Susquehanna River

Rail Bridge Project

Data Sources

Figure 4-1

Existing Land Use Mapping

Land Use:

Maryland Department of Planning, 2010;

MD SDAT, 2014

Parks:

Harford County Government, 2013;

MD SDAT, 2014

Legend

1,000 ft Study Area

Parks

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

Institutional

Open Urban Land

Agriculture

Forest

Wetlands

Transportation

Page 5 of 5
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 4-2 

Department of Planning (MDP) land use mapping, site visits and coordination with the local 

jurisdictions. These are the reports used in the development of this chapter: 

 MDP Smart Growth http://www.mdp.state.md.us/OurWork/smartgrowth.shtml) 

 Harford County 2012 Master Plan and Land Use Element Plan

 City of Havre de Grace Comprehensive Plan, March 2004 (and Municipal Growth Element 

and Water Resources Amendments, 2010)

 Cecil County 2010 Comprehensive Plan

 Town of Perryville 2010 Comprehensive Plan

 Town of Perryville 2012 Transit-Oriented Development Plan

 Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway (LSHG) 2000 Management Plan

STATE OF MARYLAND 

SMART GROWTH INITIATIVE 

MDP emphasizes the importance of smart growth throughout the State. Smart growth has four 

overarching goals: (1) supporting development in areas where infrastructure already exists, (2) 

protecting valuable natural resources, (3) avoiding the high costs associated with building new 

infrastructure, and (4) providing a high quality of life. The 2009 Smart, Green, and Growing 

Legislation established 12 planning visions for sustainable growth in the State of Maryland. 

Through these goals and visions, MDP promotes high-density, mixed-use developments in areas 

that already have existing infrastructure to avoid urban sprawl into rural areas. Priority Funding 

Areas emphasize state funding for future growth in locations with existing infrastructure. The 

project study area is almost entirely within Priority Funding Areas (see Figure 4-2). MDP’s 

Smart Growth Initiative serves as guiding principles for local comprehensive plans. 

HARFORD COUNTY 

2012 MASTER PLAN AND LAND USE ELEMENT PLAN 

The Harford County 2012 Master Plan includes the Land Use Element Plan and a series of 

functional element plans. The Land Use Element Plan is the core of the document, since it 

provides primary direction for achieving its goal and guiding principles. The Land Use Element 

Plan stresses the importance of maintaining rural areas, while concentrating development within 

its designated growth areas, which is consistent with the State of Maryland’s Smart Growth

Initiative. These designated growth areas generally contain the MD Route 24/924 corridors west 

to MD Route 23, U.S. 1 west of Bel Air, and the areas east of I-95 as well as designated rural 

villages, the Higher Education Conference Center at Higher Education Applied Technology 

(HEAT), Harford Community College and the municipalities of Bel Air, Aberdeen, and Havre 

de Grace. The master plan also incorporates Harford County’s “Visions,” which emphasize 

growth management, preservation, and sustainability. 

A component Transportation Element Plan details the relationship between land use and 

transportation decisions. The primary objective of this plan is to provide for the safe, efficient, 

and fiscally responsible movement of people and goods through a variety of travel choices that 

support environmental sustainability. The plan emphasizes establishing a multi-modal 

transportation system that will help improve the level of service on existing roadways and 
Havre de Grace

Perryville

132

824

155

222

7

£¤40

£¤40 7

1

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Susquehanna River

Rail Bridge Project

Data Sources

Figure 4-2

Priority Funding Areas

Priority Funding Areas:

MD Dept. of Planning, 2006

Legend

1,000 ft Study Area Priority Funding Areas
Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Facilities 

 4-3 

emphasizes increasing transit, rail, and non-motorized transportation options. Pertaining to 

transit and commuter rail, the Transportation Element Plan aims to provide efficient and 

convenient transit and rail services that address local and regional needs. This includes the need 

to expand MARC services and facilities, and support the development of land use patterns that 

facilitate transit and rail use. 

HARFORDNEXT: A MASTER PLAN FOR THE NEXT GENERATION—DRAFT MAY 3, 2016 

The Department of Planning and Zoning has recently drafted HarfordNEXT: A Master Plan for 

the Next Generation to update and streamline the various elements of the 2012 Master Plan and 

Land Use Element Plan into one cohesive document. One of the key concepts that HarfordNEXT

emphasizes is the importance of holistic transportation planning through promoting an efficient, 

multi-modal transportation system sensitive to community character. HarfordNEXT is 

supportive of investment in transit, rail, and freight facilities in order to remain competitive in 

the regional economy. Some of HarfordNEXT’s relevant goals for improving mobility and 

connectivity include reducing congestion on roadways, allowing for the efficient movement of 

freight and agriculture equipment, incorporating multimodal options and connectivity into new 

projects, and expanding commuter train and bus service along the Northeast Corridor (NEC) to 

help meet the demand projected by the MARC Growth and Investment Plan. 

CITY OF HAVRE DE GRACE 

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE CITY OF HAVRE DE GRACE, MARCH 2004 (AND 

MUNICIPAL GROWTH ELEMENT AND WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENTS, 2010) 

The City of Havre de Grace 2004 Comprehensive Plan (including 2010 updates) emphasizes the 

need to retain the municipality’s historic and small-town feel, while maintaining 

interconnections between older and newer areas. Key revitalization areas noted in the plan 

include older neighborhoods, the downtown and waterfront, properties along U.S. 40 within the 

City limits, major street corridors within the City, and industrial areas. Revitalization of the 

waterfront includes plans to improve the connection of waterfront with the downtown area as 

well as the construction of a signature sidewalk along the waterfront connecting public 

attractions between Tydings Park and North Park. 

The transportation section of the comprehensive plan emphasizes the need to plan for safe, 

efficient, and convenient multi-modal transportation for existing and future needs of the 

community, while supporting compatible land uses within Havre de Grace. The transportation 

section discusses the existing street system, rail service (including the National Railroad 

Passenger Corporation [Amtrak], MARC, and Norfolk Southern), bus service, bicycle/pedestrian 

facilities, aviation facilities, and water transport, and lists recommendations for each of these 

areas. 

Rail service recommendations include coordinating with MTA to publicize the availability of 

MARC commuter train service at the Aberdeen station, supporting the City of Aberdeen in 

strengthening the Aberdeen station as an Amtrak and MARC transit hub, and encouraging the 

use of multi-modal mass transit as opposed to commuting in individual automobiles. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 4-4 

CECIL COUNTY 

2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 

The Cecil County 2010 Comprehensive Plan highlights key growth and development issues that 

the county must address in the future, such as incentivizing high-density, mixed-use 

development within growth areas, while reducing pressures on rural areas; retaining the county’s 

rural character and supporting agricultural industry; promoting job creation, economic 

development, and tourism; and providing public services and facilities to support current and 

future community needs. In Cecil County, growth areas are generally in the center of the county, 

located along I-95 and U.S. 40, adjacent to the towns of Elkton, North East, and Perryville. In 

addition, the comprehensive plan also establishes goals to protect environmentally sensitive 

resources and encourage a multi-modal public transportation system that will create options for 

commuters and residents within the area. 

TOWN OF PERRYVILLE 

2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 

The Town of Perryville 2010 Comprehensive Plan promotes the consideration of Perryville as a 

growth center for Cecil County, the creation of an attractive and healthy community, and the 

protection of the natural environment. In addition, the comprehensive plan incorporates goals 

that include the preservation of land use character and environment with an increasing 

population, and the maintenance of transportation facilities as well as the promotion of all modes 

of transportation. The plan stresses the importance of promoting economic development, 

improving tourism, and revitalizing a downtown area inspired by its railroad history. Perryville 

contains four key revitalization areas: Rodgers Tavern–waterfront area; MARC station and 

trailer park area (an adjacent neighborhood of mobile structures); Town Hall and municipal area; 

and U.S. 40 corridor area. Three of the four revitalization areas are within the study area. The 

Rodgers Tavern waterfront area revitalization efforts propose connecting the Susquehanna 

River, historic Rodgers Tavern, a new open space park, and the old Muller-Thym Milk Plant 

with each other and the town. Plans near the MARC station and trailer park include converting 

the former adjacent trailer park into a mixed-use area that would provide housing and 

commercial areas. Plans near the Town Hall and the municipal area include demolishing the old 

town hall and replacing it with a new police and public safety building and Town Hall 

Community Center. The U.S. 40 corridor revitalization area is outside of the study area. 

2012 TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 

The Town of Perryville 2012 Transit-Oriented Development Plan highlights the importance of 

transit-oriented development (TOD) in order to enhance the community character of the Town of 

Perryville, while promoting transit redevelopment. The TOD Plan focuses on three areas within 

the Town of Perryville: the downtown/Town Hall area, the Amtrak/MARC train station area, 

and the waterfront. Although there is no specific time frame for the implementation of the TOD 

Plan, several elements of the plan are currently being implemented, including the Elm Street 

Road and Storm Drain Reconstruction Project; improvement of a Cecil and Harford county bus 

link. 
Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Facilities 

 4-5 

LOWER SUSQUEHANNA HERITAGE GREENWAY 

LOWER SUSQUEHANNA HERITAGE GREENWAY MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway Management Plan is a blueprint for expansion of 

heritage tourism and greenway development. The Management Plan also provides an inventory 

of key heritage resources, including historical, architectural, cultural, archaeological, natural, and 

recreation resources. The key heritage resources within the Proposed Project study area are 

discussed throughout this Environmental Assessment. According to the Management Plan, rail 

connections in Perryville are a key to furthering the LSHG’s ability to attract hiking and 

bicycling visitors and other outdoor enthusiasts.1

 MARC and Amtrak rail service are also listed 

as important “physical linkages” that support the growth of heritage tourism. 

C. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

LAND USE 

CITY OF HAVRE DE GRACE AND PORTIONS OF HARFORD COUNTY 

The southern half of the study area is located within the City of Havre de Grace and Harford 

County, at the mouth of the Susquehanna River on the Chesapeake Bay. The study area within 

the City of Havre de Grace and Harford County contains revitalization areas, newer developing 

areas, and growth areas. Within the revitalization areas of City of Havre de Grace, the waterfront 

area consists of approximately three and a half miles of shoreline with land uses including parks 

and recreational areas, marinas, historic buildings, businesses, and residential uses. South of the 

City’s shoreline and waterfront, and within the study area, is the downtown business district, 

which is the central hub of Havre de Grace. Land use in this downtown area consists 

predominately of commercial/retail shops, restaurants, financial institutions, and mixed-use 

residential/commercial properties. The Old Town portion of the City, which partially overlaps 

with the downtown business district, is where the majority of historic residences of the City are 

located. This area consists mostly of residential homes blended with commercial and 

institutional uses and community facilities. The newer portions of the study area within Havre de 

Grace are generally located at the southernmost limits, and include many recent residential areas 

and planned communities, as well as forested areas, parks, industrial, and commercial uses. 

TOWN OF PERRYVILLE AND PORTIONS OF CECIL COUNTY 

The study area south of the Susquehanna River includes the Town of Perryville and portions of 

Cecil County. Perryville city limits within the study area include areas along the shoreline of the 

Susquehanna and portions of the “downtown” or town center area. Within the study area, 

waterfront areas along the Susquehanna River include the historic Rodgers Tavern, open space 

uses (e.g., Lower Ferry Park and Pier), residential uses, and institutional uses. The town center 

of Perryville includes a mix of existing residential, commercial, parkland, and public facility 

uses. Other land uses on the outskirts of downtown include open space, industrial, and 

agricultural uses. Areas within the northernmost portion of the study area outside of the Town of 

 

1

 Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway Management Plan, 2000, 

http://www.hitourtrails.com/PDF/LSHG_ManagementPlan_2009.pdf 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 4-6 

Perryville in Cecil County are largely agricultural, open space, and forested areas interspersed 

with some industrial use. 

ZONING 

While Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) and Amtrak are exempt from local 

regulations, including zoning, each locality in the study area maintains and enforces zoning 

codes and designations. More restrictive zoning protects agricultural, forested and environmental 

sensitive lands in the area. Study area zoning designations are listed in Table 4-1. 

Table 4-1

Zoning Designations within the Study Area

City of Havre de Grace/Harford County 

RO –Residential Office District R – Residential District 

RB – Residential Business District R2 - Residential District 

C – Commercial District 

Town of Perryville/Cecil County 

I – Industrial R1 – Single Family Residential 

TC – Town Center Mixed Use R2 – Single Family Residential 

RM – Residential Marine R3 – Multi-Family Residential 

COMMUNITY FACILITIES 

Table 4-2 lists community facilities found within the study area boundary. Note that parks and 

recreational resources, as well as impacts to these resources, are discussed separately in Chapter 

6, “Parks, Trails, and Recreational Resources.”
Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Facilities 

 4-7 

Table 4-2

Community Facilities within the Study Area

Community Facilities 

City of Havre de Grace/Harford County 

Schools Havre de Grace Middle School 

Havre de Grace High School 

Roye-Williams Elementary School 

Religious Institutions Christ the King Church 

Room at The Cross Mission Church 

Havre de Grace Presbyterian Church 

St. James African Methodist Episcopal Church 

Restore Church 

New Beginnings Christian Church 

Lutheran Mission Society Compassion Center 

Zion Temple Church 

Study Area Emergency Service 

Providers Harford County Department of Emergency Services 

Community Recreation Centers Havre de Grace Activity Center (includes Boys & Girls Club of Havre 

de Grace) 

Joseph L Davis American Legion Post #47 

Havre de Grace Elks Lodge 

Health Care Facilities N/A 

Government Buildings Havre de Grace City Hall 

Havre de Grace Housing Authority 

Havre de Grace Police Department 

Havre de Grace Post Office 

Susquehanna Hose Company Division 1 

Havre de Grace Water Treatment Plant 

Town of Perryville/Cecil County 

Schools High Road School of Perryville 

Religious Institutions Perryville United Methodist Church 

Perryville Presbyterian Church 

Study Area Emergency Service 

Providers Cecil County Department of Emergency Services 

Community Recreation Centers N/A 

Health Care Facilities Perry Point Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center 

Government Buildings Perryville Community Fire Company 

Perryville Town Hall 

Perryville Post Office 

Perryville Police Department 

Historic Rodgers Tavern 

Perryville Train Station 

Perryville Wastewater Treatment Plant 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 4-8 

D. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The No Action Alternative assumes the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge would remain in service 

as in existing conditions, with no intervention besides minimal repairs and continuation of the 

current maintenance regime. The No Action Alternative will not include any changes to the 

existing track configuration. Service over the bridge would bridge is already speed-restricted to 

90 mph due to the age and deteriorated condition of the bridge, and would continue to worsen in 

the future and the bridge would continue to age, potentially requiring stricter speed and weight 

restrictions that will further impact the movement of passengers and freight. Cost associated with 

bridge maintenance would continue to increase over time. Maintenance problems would occur 

more frequently, and the bridge would remain as a bottleneck; it would eventually need to be 

taken out of service. Without the bridge, local, regional and national rail networks would be 

disrupted with resultant detrimental effects on the economic activity, including those in Havre de 

Grace and Perryville to some extent. The analysis measures the potential project impacts against 

the No Action Alternative, which is used as a baseline scenario. The following projects are 

expected to be completed by the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project build year of 2025, and 

are therefore included in the No Action Alternative. 

CITY OF HAVRE DE GRACE 

 Proposed Havre de Grace Middle School/High School Replacement Project—Located 

immediately east of the Amtrak right-of-way on Lewis Lane, this planned project intends to 

replace the aging schools with a new facility that will serve grades six through 12. Harford 

County Board of Education has approved an architectural and engineering contract, 

initiating the design phases of the project.2

 

 Proposed Waterfront Heritage Park—Havre de Grace has approved the purchase of 3.2 acres 

of property along Water Street, located approximately 150 feet from the closest Build 

Alternative right-of-way, as part of a proposed plan to develop a new park along the 

waterfront (see Figure 6-2).3

 Conceptual artist renderings show that plans for Waterfront 

Heritage Park include a plaza, kayak and boat launch, gateway to the Captain John Smith 

Chesapeake National Historic Trail,4

 restrooms, amphitheater, lawn, benches, promenade, 

and fishing pier.5

 Residential Infill Projects—Various residential infill projects are being developed in Havre 

de Grace, including Otsego Street townhouses that are currently under construction and Ivy 

Hills townhouse development. Located along Legion Drive, Ivy Hills is expected to include 

approximately 43 townhomes once complete. 6

 

 Bulle Rock—Bulle Rock is a large planned residential community within the City of Havre 

de Grace that is roughly located east of I-95 and west of the historic downtown of the City of 

Havre de Grace. The community also features a limited amount of commercial and retail as 

 

2

 Consultation letter from Department of Planning City of Havre de Grace, June 20, 2014. 

3

 “Havre de Grace Voters Approve Spending $1.1 Million to Buy Water Street Properties,” The 

Aegis, December 28, 2016, accessed December 28, 2016. 

4

 See Appendix D, “Cultural Resources,” for an analysis of the trail resources with respect to the 

Proposed Project. 

5

 Consultation letter from Department of Planning City of Havre de Grace, June 20, 2014. 

6

 Ibid. 
Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Facilities 

 4-9 

well as a golf course built in 1998, which has hosted LPGA events in the past. 1,000 homes 

currently exist at Bulle Rock with plans for the development of 1,000 more homes.7

TOWN OF PERRYVILLE 

 MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility—The MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility would 

entail construction of a new operation, maintenance, and storage facility located on a 115-

acre site in Perryville, adjacent to the NEC. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

issued a Finding of No Significant Impact to conclude the NEPA review for this project, but 

MTA currently lacks funding for final design, right-of-way acquisition or construction. This 

EA nevertheless assumes that the project would be completed by 2040. 

 Perryville Municipal Complex—Located behind the current Town Hall at 515 Broad Street, 

Perryville, plans for a new development will occur in three separate phases. Phase I is 

currently being designed and includes the construction of a new police department. Phase II 

will include the construction of a new town hall, while Phase III consists of the construction 

of a new little league baseball field. Overall, the development will result in a new police 

department, town hall, mini-park, and little league field along with parking and improved 

pedestrian access.8

 Lower Ferry Park and Pier—Located at Broad Street and Roundhouse Drive, Perryville, the 

plans for the park include the construction of a comfort station, a band shell, playground 

equipment, walking paths, landscaping, bio-retention areas, and some supportive parking.9

 

 631 Broad Street—This mixed-use residential building with commercial uses below, has 

conceptual plans for improvements that have been partially funded by the town’s 

Revitalization and Façade Grants. These improvements include the replacement of the roof, 

the installation of new lighting, the expansion of the outdoor dining area, and the potential to 

expand the surrounding pedestrian area.10 

 950 Principio Furnace Road—Located at the intersection of Principio Furnace Road and 

IKEA Way, plans have been submitted for the construction of a new warehouse.11

 Town of Perryville Transit-Oriented Development—Several elements of the plan are being 

implemented, including the Elm Street Road and Storm Drain Reconstruction Project; 

improvement of the Teal Line Bus linking Cecil and Harford Counties; and new warning 

devices, crosswalks, and lighting projects. 

E. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVES 

As described in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” this EA evaluates two Build Alternatives: 

Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B. 

 

7

 “Bulle Rock,” http://www.lennar.com/New-Homes/Maryland/Baltimore/Havre-DeGrace/Bulle-Rock, accessed October 24, 2014. 

8

 Consultation letter from Town Commissioners of Perryville, June 30, 2014. 

9

 Consultation letter from Town Commissioners of Perryville, June 30, 2014. 

10 Ibid. 

11 Ibid.
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 4-10 

PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS AND DISPLACEMENTS 

Either Build Alternative would require the acquisition of all or a portion of several properties 

located immediately adjacent to the existing right-of-way. Property acquisitions and 

displacements do not include properties that are encroaching upon Amtrak’s existing right-ofway. 

POSSIBLE PROPERTY AQUISITION 

The properties that may need to be acquired for the construction of the Build Alternatives are 

listed in Table 4-3 and shown in Figure 4-3. Property acquisitions and displacements have been 

determined based on conceptual engineering (see Appendix A, “Alternatives Screening Report 

and Bridge Types”). As shown in the table and the figure, most of the acquisition required would 

constitute only a small portion of each affected property. Alternative 9A would require an 

acquisition of 2.84 acres, and Alternative 9B an acquisition of 0.35 acre. These acquisitions 

include the area required for embankments, retaining walls, and a 10-foot extension of the rightof-way beyond the face of retaining wall (and beyond toe-of-slope). As project designs move 

forward, additional properties may need to be acquired. Such additional acquisitions would need 

to be considered in future environmental review. The Project Team will coordinate with the 

potentially affected property owners to ensure that the schedule for land acquisition is consistent 

with the overall project schedule. 

Table 4-3

Potential Land Acquisitions by Build Alternative

Property Name / 

Owner Map-Grid-Parcel 

Lot 

Number Use 

Property 

Size 

(Acres) 

Acreage to be 

Acquired by 

Build 

Alternative 

9A 9B 

Properties in City of Havre de Grace 

Board of Education 

Harford County 0602-0000-0792 80/80A Track and Athletic Fields 57.64 1.50 — 

T&D Enterprises, 

LLC 0601-0000-0591-635-1A 82 Private Commercial Driveway 0.50 0.50 0.24 

T&D Enterprises, 

LLC 0601-0000-0990-635-1 83 Commercial Use 0.64 0.64 0.06 

Lafayette Limited 

Partnership 0601-0000-1580 91 Undeveloped Land—Residential 0.40 0.05 — 

Mayor and City 

Council 0601-0000-0473 95 Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park 0.61 0.01 0.01 

Warren Street Public ROW N/A 0.10 — 

Otsego Street Public ROW N/A 0.004 0.004 

Properties in Town of Perryville 

Private Residence 0801-0020-0157 226 Residential 0.15 0.008 0.008 

Broad Street Public ROW N/A 0.03 0.03 

Total Potential Property Acquisition 2.84 0.35 

Note: See Figure 4-3. 
not to scale

Figure 4-3

Potential Property Impacts 

from Alternatives 9A and 9B

py p
not to scale

Figure 4-3

Potential Property Impacts 

from Alternatives 9A and 9B

PotenƟ al Property Impacts from Retained AlternaƟ ves
Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Facilities 

 4-11 

Alternative 9A 

The 2.84 acres needed under Alternative 9A includes portions of public school parcels, one 

private commercial driveway, one commercial parcel, one undeveloped parcel (zoned 

residential), one city park parcel, right-of-way of public streets in Havre de Grace, one 

residential parcel, and one public street right-of-way in Perryville. 

Alternative 9A would require the acquisition of a portion (1.50 acres or 2.6 percent) of the Havre 

de Grace Middle/High School athletic fields located along the eastern side of the right-of-way, 

south of Juniata Street. At its widest point, the proposed acquisition extends 35 feet outside 

Amtrak’s right-of-way. This width includes allowance for the track bed, overhead contact 

system structures, and a retaining wall. Alternative 9A may require an additional temporary 

construction easement to build the retaining wall. Alternative 9A would also require a 30-footwide maintenance easement for the Harford County Department of Public Works. Ten feet of 

that maintenance easement will be within the proposed acquisition. The remaining 20 feet of the 

needed maintenance easement (1.13 acres) will be within the school property. 

Alternative 9A would require the full acquisition of the private commercial driveway associated 

with the National Tire & Glass Sales Inc. (T&D Enterprises, LLC), in Havre de Grace as well as 

a portion of the commercial parcel itself. Since alternate access due to the loss of the driveway 

cannot be provided to the business, the acquisition would affect the business’s ability to function 

as it currently does; therefore, displacement of the entire commercial parcel would be required 

(0.50 acre associated with the commercial driveway and 0.64 acre associated with the 

commercial use). A narrow strip (0.05 acre or 12.6 percent) of undeveloped land along Warren 

Street in Havre de Grace that is zoned residential would need to be acquired. 

Approximately 0.26 acre of Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park is owned by Amtrak and leased to 

the City of Have de Grace. The remainder of the park (0.61 acre) is owned by the City. Because 

Alternative 9A would construct a new bridge on an elevated structure above Jean S. Roberts 

Memorial Park, the existing lease agreement of the Amtrak-owned parcel and modification of 

the park infrastructure would likely need to be modified. Alternative 9A would require the 

acquisition of a narrow strip (0.01 acre or 2.26 percent) of the City-owned portion of Jean S. 

Roberts Memorial Park, which would no longer be publicly accessible. 

A small portion (0.10 acre) of the public street right-of-way associated with Warren Street would 

also need to be acquired. To address the City’s request to realign the intersection located at 

Otsego, Union, and Water Streets, the Proposed Project would extend the Havre de Grace 

abutment south towards Freedom Lane, which would require the acquisition of an additional 

portion of a public-street right-of-way along Otsego Street (0.004 acre). 

A small portion (0.008 acre or 5.2 percent) of a private residential property in Perryville would 

need to be acquired. This residential acquisition would result in permanent impacts to the 

vegetated embankment; it would not require demolition or full acquisition of the residence. A 

portion of Broad Street in Perryville would also need to be acquired (0.03 acre). 

In Perryville, the waterfront land at the existing bridge is owned by Amtrak, but leased to the 

Federal Government as part of the Veteran’s Administration (VA) hospital access road. 

Modifications to the existing easement would be required for the new Access Road in Perryville. 

Alternative 9B 

Alternative 9B would require the acquisition of approximately 0.35 acre, which include portions 

of one private commercial driveway, one commercial parcel, one city park parcel, one public 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 4-12 

street right-of-way in Havre de Grace, one residential parcel, and one public street right-of-way 

in Perryville. 

Alternative 9B would require the acquisition of a portion (0.24 acre or 47.76 percent) of the 

private commercial driveway and 0.06 acre of the commercial use associated with the National 

Tire & Glass Sales Inc. (T&D Enterprises, LLC) in Havre de Grace; the private commercial 

driveway would be maintained and full acquisition of the property is not required. 

As with Alternative 9A, Alternative 9B would construct a new bridge above Jean S. Roberts 

Memorial Park on an elevated structure, which would likely require the modification of the 

existing lease agreement on the Amtrak-owned parcel and modification of the park 

infrastructure. Alternative 9B would construct a new bridge west of the existing bridge, 

requiring modifications to the existing easement for the new west bridge in Perryville and a 

retaining wall. Alternative 9B would require the acquisition of a narrow strip (0.01 acre) of the 

City-owned portion Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park, which would no longer be accessible to the 

public. 

To address the City’s request to realign the intersection located at Otsego, Union, and Water 

Streets, the Proposed Project would extend the Havre de Grace abutment south towards Freedom 

Lane, which would require the acquisition of an additional portion of a public-street right-of-way 

along Otsego Street (0.004 acre). 

A narrow strip (0.008 acre) of a private residential property adjacent to the railroad right-of-way 

along Broad Street in Perryville would need to be acquired. This acquisition would result in 

permanent impacts to the vegetated embankment; it would not require demolition or full 

acquisition of the residence. A small portion (0.03 acre) of the Broad Street public-street rightof-way would need to be acquired. 

Alternative 9B may require a temporary construction easement at the Havre de Grace 

Middle/High School athletic fields to build a retaining wall. However, the Project Team will 

determine the need for this easement as project design develops. 

LAND USE 

Overall, the Build Alternatives would continue to use the NEC for transportation use. They 

would also require some widening of the right-of-way and construction of new bridges and other 

rail infrastructure. The land acquired for the Build Alternatives would be converted to 

transportation use, which would remain a compatible land use with the surrounding area. With 

the exception of the commercial property discussed above under Alternative 9A, any property 

acquisition that is required for either Build Alternative would not adversely affect the ability of 

remaining existing land uses to continue in their current use. Overall, the Build Alternatives 

would be located on or just beyond the existing right-of-way; therefore, the Build Alternatives 

are not expected to substantially change current land uses within the study area. 

ZONING 

As noted earlier, MDOT and Amtrak are not subject to local zoning regulations and no zoning 

designations are mapped on the existing rail right-of-way through the study area. The properties 

that would be acquired for each of the Build Alternatives have designated zoning under the City 

of Havre de Grace or the Town of Perryville that would be removed from the affected portions 

of the property where the land acquisitions are required. 
Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Facilities 

 4-13 

PUBLIC POLICY 

The Build Alternatives would be consistent with local, regional, and statewide planning. The 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge is generally consistent with Maryland’s Smart Growth Initiative, 

as the Proposed Project would improve mobility and minimize adverse land use impacts. As 

discussed above, the vast majority of the study area is within Priority Funding Areas (PFA). 

However, any proposed project with greater than five percent located outside of the PFA 

boundary requires a project exception from MDP. The Project Team met with the Smart Growth 

and Neighborhood Conservation Coordinating Committee on March 9, 2016. Based on this 

meeting, the Committee voted to approve this exception to the PFA requirements due to it being 

a growth-related project involving a commercial or industrial activity, which, due to its 

operational or physical characteristic, must be located away from development (per §5-7B06(a)(iii)3.). 

The Build Alternatives are also generally consistent with the Harford County 2012 Master Plan 

and Land Use Element Plan, the City of Havre de Grace 2004 Comprehensive Plan, the Cecil 

County 2010 Comprehensive Plan, the Town of Perryville 2010 Comprehensive Plan, the Town 

of Perryville 2012 Transit-Oriented Development Plan, and the 2000 Lower Susquehanna 

Heritage Greenway Management Plan through promoting environmental sustainability and 

providing a safe and efficient transportation system that will improve mobility for freight rail 

users, commuter rail users, and marine navigation as well as provide for future travel demand. 

Therefore, the Proposed Project would be compatible and consistent with current policies that 

govern the project site and study area. 

COMMUNITY FACILITIES 

ALTERNATIVE 9A 

Alternative 9A would require the acquisition of a narrow strip of the Havre de Grace 

Middle/High School athletic fields. The Havre de Grace Middle/High School athletic fields are a 

part of a larger community facility complex, including the Havre de Grace Middle School, High 

School, track and athletic fields, and activity center. Impacts to this location are discussed in 

Chapter 6, “Parks, Trails, and Recreational Resources.” 

ALTERNATIVE 9B 

Alternative 9B would not require the acquisition of the Havre de Grace Middle/High School 

athletic fields and would not result in adverse effects on community facilities. 

F. MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION OF IMPACTS 

PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS AND DISPLACEMENTS 

The Project Team has begun outreach to affected owners and businesses and will continue to 

coordinate with the affected property owners and tenants to avoid or minimize property 

acquisitions and displacements. The public, including property owners, has been provided 

opportunities to offer input on alignment of the Proposed Project through the Project’s extensive 

public involvement program. This participation led to the elimination of certain alignment 

alternatives that required greater property acquisition. Property acquisitions and displacements 

will adhere with the Uniform Act and all applicable Maryland State laws. Where full property 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 4-14 

acquisition is required, Amtrak and MDOT will fairly compensate the owners of properties for 

the land acquired and will provide relocation assistance to businesses to facilitate their 

reestablishment elsewhere, should this be necessary. 

LAND USE, ZONING, PUBLIC POLICY, AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES 

The Project Team worked throughout the alternatives development process to address public 

input by refining the alignment alternatives. Alternatives 9A and Alternative 9B incorporate 

measures to minimize impacts to land use, zoning, public policy, and community facilities and 

generally follow the existing transportation corridor, thereby avoiding any substantial changes to 

existing land use. The Project Team will continue to ensure the Proposed Project’s compatibility 

with other planned developments and continue to coordinate with the communities and 

stakeholders to avoid or minimize negative land use effects. 

Overall, no long-term significant adverse impacts to land use, zoning, public policy, or 

community facilities are expected from the Proposed Project. 
 5-1 

Chapter 5: Socioeconomic Conditions and Environmental Justice 

A. INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes existing socioeconomic conditions within the study area for the Proposed 

Project and discusses potential environmental impacts that could result from the implementation 

of the Proposed Project as compared with the No Action Alternative. This chapter also includes 

an environmental justice analysis to identify and address any disproportionate and adverse 

impacts on minority or low-income populations that could result from the Proposed Project. As 

discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” this Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates 

two Build Alternatives: Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B. FRA selected Alternative 9A as the 

Preferred Alternative. 

B. REGULATORY CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY 

SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

REGULATORY CONTEXT 

Following the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) procedures,1

 environmental reviews 

consider a proposed project’s potential to impact the socioeconomic environment—including 

available jobs, community disruption or cohesion, demographic shifts, and the need for and 

availability of relocation housing. An environmental review also considers the potential impacts 

on existing businesses and local government services and revenues. 

METHODOLOGY 

This analysis uses the guidance set forth in the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR §§ 1500-1508). The Project Team collected 

socioeconomic data for Harford and Cecil counties as a whole, as well as within the City of 

Havre de Grace and Town of Perryville limits. More specific data for the analysis were collected 

within the project study area and census block group boundaries (see Figure 5-1). In addition to 

the master plans and comprehensive plans referenced in Chapter 4, “Land Use and Community 

Facilities,” the following data sources provided useful information in understanding existing 

conditions and likely trends: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey (ACS) Data; 

Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation; and site visits. 

U.S. Census block group data (2010) were used. As outlined in Table 5-1, census block groups 

within or intersecting the 1,000 feet boundary on either side of the current rail right-of-way were 

included in this analysis. The census block groups that encompass the study area are listed in 

 

1

 FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 Federal Register [FR] 28545 [May 26, 

1999]). http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L02561, accessed September 2014. 
Havre de Grace

Perryville

HARFORD

COUNTY

CECIL

COUNTY

132

824

155

222

7

£¤40

£¤40 7

Study Area

Block Group 12

(240150312022)

Study Area

Block Group 13

(240150312023)

Study Area

Block Group 13

(240150312023)

Study Area

Block Group 1

(240253061001)

Study Area

Block Group 2

(240253061002)

Study Area

Block Group 3

(240253061003)

Study Area

Block Group 4

(240253061004)

Study Area

Block Group 5

(240253062002)

Study Area

Block Group 6

(240253062003)

Study Area

Block Group 7

(240253063001)

Study Area

Block Group 9

(240253063003)

Study Area

Block Group 10

(240253064002)

Study Area

Block Group 11

(240253064004)

Study Area

Block Group 8

(240253063002)

1

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Susquehanna River

Rail Bridge Project

Data Sources

Figure 5-1

Census Block Groups

Census Block Groups:

U.S. Census Bureau, TIGER Line Shapefiles, 2010

Town Boundaries:

Maryland Department of Planning, 2006

Legend

1,000 ft Study Area Census Block Groups City/Town Boundaries County Boundary
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 5-2 

Table 5-1 and depicted on Figure 5-1. These census block groups have been renamed with 

“Block Group” and a number for easier reference. 

Table 5-1 

Study Area Census Block Groups 

2010 Census Block Group 

Designation Study Area Reference Name 

Harford County Census Block Groups 

240253061001 Block Group 1 

240253061002 Block Group 2 

240253061003 Block Group 3 

240253061004 Block Group 4 

240253062002 Block Group 5 

240253062003 Block Group 6 

240253063001 Block Group 7 

240253063002 Block Group 8 

240253063003 Block Group 9 

240253064002 Block Group 10 

240253064004 Block Group 11 

Cecil County Census Block Groups 

240150312022 Block Group 12 

240150312023 Block Group 13 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

REGULATORY CONTEXT 

In accordance with Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (February 11, 1994), this environmental 

justice analysis identifies and addresses any disproportionate and adverse impacts on minority or 

low-income populations that lie within the study area for the Proposed Project. Executive Order 

12898 also requires federal agencies to work to ensure greater public participation in the 

decision-making process. 

The environmental justice analysis for the Proposed Project follows the guidance and 

methodologies recommended in the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Final Order on 

Environmental Justice (updated May 2, 2012), Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Circular 

4703.1 Environmental Justice Policy Guidance For Federal Transit Administration Recipients, 

and principles set forth in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). For context, CEQ’s 

Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act (December 1997) 

is described below. However, because FTA is a cooperating agency for the Proposed Project and 

FTA’s circular is more inclusive, this analysis of environmental justice has been prepared in 

accordance with FTA’s Circular 4703.1. 

USDOT’S Final Order on Environmental Justice 

USDOT Order 5610.2(a) Final Order on Environmental Justice (May 2, 2012) establishes the 

procedures for USDOT to use in complying with Executive Order 12898. The order applies to 
Chapter 5: Socioeconomic Conditions and Environmental Justice 

 5-3 

all of USDOT’s operating administrations, including FRA. Following the procedures set forth in 

Executive Order 12898, the consideration of environmental justice begins with a determination 

of whether the project will have an adverse impact on minority and low-income populations and 

whether that adverse impact will be disproportionately high. Disproportionately high and 

adverse effects on minority and low-income populations are adverse effects that are 

predominantly borne by a minority population and/or low-income population or that are 

appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effects that will be suffered by 

the non-minority or non-low-income population. In making determinations regarding 

disproportionately high and adverse effects, the federal agency may take into account the 

mitigation and enhancement measures that it will implement and all offsetting benefits to the 

affected minority and low-income populations, as well as the design, comparative impacts, and 

relevant number of similar existing system elements in non-minority and non-low-income areas. 

Federal agencies must ensure that they only carry out a project having a disproportionately high 

and adverse effect on minority populations or low-income populations if (1) further mitigation 

measures or alternatives that will avoid or reduce the disproportionate effect are not practicable; 

and (2) a substantial need for the program, policy, or activity exists, based on the overall public 

interest, and alternatives that will have fewer adverse effects will either have other impacts that 

will be more severe, or will involve increased costs of extraordinary magnitude. 

CEQ Guidance 

CEQ, which has oversight of the federal government’s compliance with Executive Order 12898 

and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), developed guidance to assist federal 

agencies with their NEPA procedures so that environmental justice concerns are effectively 

identified and addressed. Federal agencies are permitted to supplement this guidance with more 

specific procedures tailored to their particular programs or activities, as USDOT has done. 

CEQ guidance establishes the following thresholds in identifying low-income and minority 

populations. Low-income populations in an affected area should be identified with the annual 

statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of the Census' Current Population Reports, Series 

P-60 on Income and Poverty. Minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the 

minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population 

percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage 

in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. Therefore, CEQ 

guidance limits the analysis of environmental justice to census blocks that exceed these 

thresholds. 

FTA Circular 4703.1 

On August 15, 2012, FTA released guidance in compliance with Executive 12898 and USDOT 

Order 5610.2(a) on how to fully engage environmental justice populations in the public 

transportation decision-making process; how to determine whether environmental justice 

populations would be subjected to disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects as a result of a transportation plan, project, or activity; and how to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate these effects. 

Following FTA guidance, the consideration of environmental justice begins with obtaining an 

understanding of the socioeconomic conditions of the surrounding community and developing a 

public engagement plan that promotes meaningful public involvement with environmental 

justice populations throughout the NEPA process. Determinations of disproportionately high and 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 5-4 

adverse effects include taking into consideration mitigation and enhancement measures that will 

be incorporated into the project. 

FTA guidance does not set thresholds to limit the analysis to populations that exceed a certain 

proportion. Instead, this guidance states, “Disproportionately high and adverse effects, not 

population size, are the bases for environmental justice. A very small minority or low-income 

population in the project, study, or planning area does not eliminate the possibility of a 

disproportionately high and adverse effect on these populations.” Overall, under NEPA, the 

potential for disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and/or low-income 

populations should be one of the factors the federal agency considers in making its finding on a 

project and issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or a Record of Decision (ROD). 

METHODOLOGY 

As discussed above and shown in Table 5-1, the environmental justice analysis used the same 

study area as the socioeconomic analysis. Therefore, U.S. Census block groups within or 

intersecting the 1,000 feet boundary on either side of the current rail right-of-way were included 

in the environmental justice analysis. Using U.S. Census Bureau and ACS data, minority and 

low-income populations were identified for each census block group within the study area. 

The FTA guidance defines minority population as persons who are American Indian and Alaska 

Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, and Native Hawaiian and other 

Pacific Islander. 

FTA guidance defines “low income” as a person (of any race) whose household income (or in 

the case of a community or group, whose median household income) is at or below the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) poverty guidelines. The 2016 USDHHS 

poverty threshold is $24,300 for a family of four. FTA also encourages the use of local poverty 

threshold or a percentage of median income for the area, provided that the threshold is at least as 

inclusive as the USDHHS poverty guidelines. Because USDHHS data is not available below the 

state level, this analysis uses instead the information on individuals in households below the 

poverty level as defined by the U.S. Census. The Project Team used the poverty rate in each 

census block group, as estimated in the 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year 

Estimates, to identify low-income populations. 

The Project Team examined the demographic information to determine how potential impacts 

and benefits to the total population would affect the environmental justice populations. Finally, 

the Project Team made a determination whether or not the project would have disproportionately 

high and adverse impacts on these populations in the study area. Based on FTA guidance, 

questions to consider when determining if disproportionately high and adverse impacts would 

occur include whether: 

 Adverse effects on environmental justice populations exceed those borne by nonenvironmental justice populations. 

 Cumulative or indirect effects would adversely affect an environmental justice population. 

 Mitigation and enhancement measures will be taken for environmental justice and nonenvironmental justice populations. 

 Off-setting benefits exist for environmental justice populations compared to nonenvironmental justice populations. 
Chapter 5: Socioeconomic Conditions and Environmental Justice 

 5-5 

C. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

POPULATION 

The Project Team analyzed population statistics for Harford County, Cecil County, the City of 

Havre de Grace, and the Town of Perryville. Table 5-2 shows current and projected population 

statistics. All four localities experienced an increase in population from 2000 to 2010. Based on 

U.S. Census data from 2000 and 2010, the populations of Harford County and Cecil County 

increased by 12 percent and 17.6 percent, respectively. In the same period, the population of the 

City of Havre de Grace and the Town of Perryville increased by 14.3 percent and 18.8 percent, 

respectively. The Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) anticipates that these localities will 

increase in population from 2010 through 2020. As of January 2015, MDP predicts that between 

2010 and 2020, the population of Harford County will increase by 5.6 percent and the population 

of Cecil County will increase 7.4 percent.2

Table 5-2

Population Trends

Location 

Population 

in 2000 

Population in 

2010 

Change from 

2000 to 2010

(in percent) 

Projected 

Population in 

2020 

Predicted 

change from 

2010 to 2020 

(in percent) 

Harford County 218,590 244,826 12.0 258,650 5.6 

Cecil County 85,951 101,108 17.6 108,600 7.4 

City of Havre de Grace 11,331 12,952 14.3 *N/A *N/A 

Town of Perryville 3,672 4,361 18.8 *N/A *N/A 

Sources: 2000 Census Profile; 2010 Census Profile; MDP Maryland State Data Center. 

*N/A = data not available 

Table 5-3 shows the data gathered for households and housing units in Harford County, Cecil 

County, the City of Havre de Grace and the Town of Perryville. The number of total households 

increased between 2000 to 2010 by 13.2 percent in Harford County, 18.1 percent in Cecil 

County, 15.4 percent in the City of Havre de Grace and 22.1 percent in the Town of Perryville. 

Housing units also increased between 2000 to 2010, at a rate of 14.9 percent in Harford County, 

19.3 percent in Cecil County, 19.8 percent in the City of Havre de Grace and 30.0 percent in the 

Town of Perryville. 

 

2

 MDP Maryland State Data Center, http://www.mdp.state.md.us/msdc/, accessed October 2016.
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 5-6 

Table 5-3

Household & Housing Unit Trends

Location 

Households 

in 2000 

Households 

in 2010 

Percent 

Change 

from 2000 

to 2010 

Housing 

Units in 

2000 

Housing 

Units in 

2010 

Percent 

Change 

from 2000 

to 2010 

Harford County 79,667 90,218 13.2 83,146 95,554 14.9 

Cecil County 31,223 36,867 18.1 34,461 41,103 19.3 

City of Havre de Grace 4,557 5,258 15.4 4,904 5,875 19.8 

Town of Perryville 1,443 1,762 22.1 1,507 1,959 30.0 

Sources: 2000 Census Profile; 2010 Census Profile. 

EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS 

According to 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, the national 

unemployment rate is 8.3 percent, while the State of Maryland is 7.4 percent. The 

unemployment rate for Harford County is below the national and State unemployment rates at 

6.4 percent. The unemployment rate in Cecil County (7.5 percent) is higher than the State 

unemployment rate, but lower than the national unemployment rate. The unemployment rate in 

Havre de Grace (9.8 percent) is above the national and State unemployment rates. The Town of 

Perryville, at 13.0 percent, has the highest unemployment rate of the four localities and is also 

above the national and State unemployment rates. 

Based on 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, primary occupations of 

residents in Harford County, Cecil County, City of Havre de Grace, and Perryville include 

educational services, healthcare and social assistance; retail trade; professional, scientific, 

management, and administrative and waste management services; manufacturing, construction; 

arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services; and public 

administration. Educational services, health care and social assistance have the highest 

percentage of employees in the four localities. Major employers for Harford County and Cecil 

County are listed in Table 5-4. 

AGE AND GENDER DISTRIBUTION 

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the percentage of the population over the age of 65 is 12.5 

percent in Harford County, 11.7 percent in Cecil County, 13.9 percent in the City of Havre de 

Grace, and 12.5 percent in the Town of Perryville. The study area totals for the 0 to 19, 20 to 44, 

and 45 to 64 age groups are very similar to the totals for the localities, however, the percentage 

for persons over the age of 65 (14.5 percent) is higher in the study area than in the four localities. 

According to 2010 U.S. Census data, the largest age group for Harford County and Cecil County 

is 20 to 44, while the largest age group for both the City of Havre de Grace and the Town of 

Perryville is 45 to 64. Males and females are fairly evenly distributed throughout the localities 

(Harford County, Cecil County, City of Havre de Grace and the Town of Perryville) and the 

study area. 
Chapter 5: Socioeconomic Conditions and Environmental Justice 

 5-7 

Table 5-4

Major Employers

Harford County Cecil County 

Kohl’s Union Hospital 

Rite Aid W.L. Gore and Associates 

Upper Chesapeake Health Systems Walmart 

Jacob’s Technology Ikea Distribution Services 

Shoprite – Klein’s Tower Plaza Terumo Medical Corporation 

Sources: Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (DLLR); Hartford County 

Office of Business and Economic Development; Maryland Department of Business 

and Economic Development. 

RACIAL AND ETHNIC CHARACTERISTICS 

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, and outlined in Table 5-5, the predominant race within 

Harford County, Cecil County, the City of Havre de Grace, the Town of Perryville, and the study 

area is White. Harford County is 81.2 percent White and 18.8 percent minority. Of the minorities 

in Harford County, the largest portion of the population is Black or African American (12.7 

percent). Cecil County is 89.2 percent White, and 10.8 percent minority. Of the minorities in 

Cecil County, the largest portion of the population is Black or African American (6.2 percent). 

The City of Havre de Grace is 75.7 percent White, and 24.4 percent minority. Of the minorities 

within the City of Havre de Grace, the largest portion is Black or African American (16.8 

percent). The Town of Perryville is 84.6 percent White, and 15.4 percent minority. Of the 

minorities in the Town of Perryville, the largest portion is Black or African American (9.6 

percent). The study area is 75.3 percent White, and 24.8 percent minority, of which the largest 

portion is Black or African American (17.4 percent). 

Populations of Hispanic origin are outlined in Table 5-5. Harford County has a population of 

Hispanic origin of 8,613 persons or 3.5 percent. Cecil County has a population of Hispanic 

origin of 3,407 persons or 3.4 percent. The City of Havre de Grace has a population of Hispanic 

origin of 608 persons or 4.7 percent. The Town of Perryville has a population of Hispanic origin 

of 181 persons or 4.2 percent. The study area has a population of 608 persons of Hispanic Origin 

or 4.5 percent. 

Table 5-5 also outlines racial and ethnic characteristics for the census block groups. Most census 

block groups follow the same trend and racial distribution as the localities listed above. Two 

census block groups have a total minority population greater than 50 percent. Block Group 1 in 

Harford County has a total minority population of 55.6 percent and Block Group 4, also in 

Harford County, has a total minority population of 55.3 percent. Of the minorities in these two 

census block groups, Black or African American populations are the largest at 45.5 percent for 

Block Group 1 and 43.2 percent for Block Group 4. Block Group 4 is predominately contained 

within the study area boundaries, whereas Block Group 1 only has a small portion of population 

located within the boundaries, as highlighted on Figure 5-1. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 5-8 

Popula

Location/ 

Census Block Groups Total 

White 

Alone* 

Black or 

African 

American 

Alone* 

American 

Indian and 

Alaska Native 

Alone* 

Asian 

Alone*

Native 

Hawaiian and 

Other Pacific 

Islander 

Alone* 

Some 

Other 

Race 

Alone* 

Two 

Mo

Rac

State of Maryland 5,773,552 

3,359,284 1,700,298 20,420 318,853 3,157 206,832 164,7

58.2% 29.4% 0.4% 5.5% 0.1% 3.6% 2.9

Harford County 

Maryland 244,826 

198,763 31,058 614 5,826 199 2,318 6,04

81.2% 12.7% 0.3% 2.4% 0.1% 0.9% 2.5

Cecil County 

Maryland 101,108 

90,189 6,284 294 1,097 48 1,019 2,17

89.2% 6.2% 0.3% 1.1% 0.0% 1.0% 2.2

City of Havre de Grace 

Maryland 12,952 

9,809 2,170 36 310 14 137 47

75.7% 16.8% 0.3% 2.4% 0.1% 1.1% 3.7

Town of Perryville 

Maryland 4,361 

3,689 420 19 57 6 43 12

84.6% 9.6% 0.4% 1.3% 0.1% 1.0% 2.9

Block Group 1 

Harford County 640 

284 291 3 11 0 5 46 

44.4% 45.5% 0.5% 1.7% 0.0% 0.8% 7.2

Block Group 2 

Harford County 749 

568 135 0 11 0 8 27 

75.8% 18.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 1.1% 3.6

Block Group 3 

Harford County 2,046 

1,625 290 2 22 2 28 77 

79.4% 14.2% 0.1% 1.1% 0.1% 1.4% 3.8

Block Group 4 

Harford County 590 

264 255 0 1 0 24 46 

44.7% 43.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 4.1% 7.8

Block Group 5 

Harford County 638 

533 65 0 7 0 8 25 

83.5% 10.2% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 1.3% 3.9

Block Group 6 

Harford County 550 

467 49 3 7 0 6 18 

84.9% 8.9% 0.5% 1.3% 0.0% 1.1% 3.3

Block Group 7 

Harford County 650 

516 70 1 28 0 10 25 

79.4% 10.8% 0.2% 4.3% 0.0% 1.5% 3.8
Chapter 5: Socioeconomic Conditions and 

 5-9 

Populati

Location/ 

Census Block 

Groups Total

White 

Alone*

Black or 

African 

American 

Alone*

American 

Indian and 

Alaska Native 

Alone*

Asian 

Alone*

Native 

Hawaiian and 

Other Pacific 

Islander 

Alone*

Some 

Other 

Race 

Alone*

Two or 

More 

Races*

Block Group 8 

Harford County 400 

300 66 10 4 0 0 20 

75.0% 16.5% 2.5% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 

Block Group 9 

Harford County 1323 

965 249 0 51 2 13 43 

72.9% 18.8% 0.0% 3.9% 0.2% 1.0% 3.3% 

Block Group 10 

Harford County 1,065 

781 198 3 34 3 11 35 

73.3% 18.6% 0.3% 3.2% 0.3% 1.0% 3.3% 

Block Group 11 

Harford County 1,608 

1,229 257 5 46 5 7 59 

76.4% 16.0% 0.3% 2.9% 0.3% 0.4% 3.7% 

Block Group 12 

Cecil County 1154 

962 112 7 26 5 9 33 

83.4% 9.7% 0.6% 2.3% 0.4% 0.8% 2.9% 

Block Group 13 

Cecil County 2,232 

1,768 338 17 17 4 31 57 

79.2% 15.1% 0.8% 0.8% 0.2% 1.4% 2.6% 

STUDY AREA 

TOTALS 13,645 

10,272 2,377 51 265 21 160 512 

75.3% 17.4% 0.4% 1.9% 0.2% 1.2% 3.7% 

Notes: *Racial categories were defined in accordance with the U.S. Census Bureau. Data includes Hispanic and non-HiSources: 2010 Census Profile. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 5-10 

INCOME 

Based on 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, the median household 

income of Harford County is greater than the State of Maryland’s median household income of 

$74,551, while Cecil County, the City of Havre de Grace and the Town of Perryville had lower 

median household incomes than the State (see Table 5-6). The study area median household 

income is $64,919, which is similar to the median household income of Cecil County, the City 

of Havre de Grace, and the Town of Perryville, but lower than the State of Maryland and 

Harford County. The study area census block groups have high and low outliers for median 

household income. Block Groups 7, 9, and 10 have median household incomes higher than 

$90,000, while Block Groups 3, 5, 8, and 12 all have median household incomes lower than 

$50,000. 

Table 5-6 

Median Household Income and Individuals Below Poverty Level 

Location/Census Block Group 

Median Household 

Income 

Individuals Below 

Poverty Level (%) 

State of Maryland $74,551 10.0% 

Harford County $80,456 8.0% 

Cecil County $66,396 10.1% 

City of Havre de Grace $67,813 11.1% 

Town of Perryville $62,963 7.3% 

Block Group 1, Harford County $65,2081 36.3% 

Block Group 2, Harford County $52,452 21.7% 

Block Group 3, Harford County $45,197 20.2% 

Block Group 4, Harford County $68,696 29.1% 

Block Group 5, Harford County $34,183 14.6% 

Block Group 6, Harford County $75,625 13.4% 

Block Group 7, Harford County $101,000 0.0% 

Block Group 8, Harford County $34,500 16.6% 

Block Group 9, Harford County $114,750 0.9% 

Block Group 10, Harford County $92,273 0.0% 

Block Group 11, Harford County $61,797 0.0% 

Block Group 12, Cecil County $43,892 9.4% 

Block Group 13, Cecil County $54,375 12.3% 

Study Area $64,919 13.4% 

Notes: 1 All information presented in this table is from the 2011-2015 

American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; however, the 

median household income for Block Group 1 was not available in 

this dataset and instead the 2010-2014 American Community 5-

Year Estimates was used. 

Sources: 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; 2010-

2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Chapter 5: Socioeconomic Conditions 

 5-11 

Based on 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, the poverty rate for each 

census block group has been identified (see Table 5-6). Harford County and the Town of 

Perryville have a lower poverty rate compared to the State of Maryland, while Cecil County, the 

City of Havre de Grace have higher poverty rates than the State. All census block groups have a 

poverty rate below 50 percent. Block Groups 7, 10, and 11 do not have individuals below the 

poverty rate. Block Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 have the highest poverty rates at 36.3 percent, 21.7 

percent, 20.2 percent, and 29.1 percent, respectively. The Lafayette Senior Housing Facility is 

located at 515 Warren Street in Block Group 3. The Lafayette Senior Housing Facility contains 

15 units of affordable housing to the elderly and accepts Section 8 vouchers, which are part of a 

federal government program to assist very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to 

afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing. 

D. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The No Action Alternative assumes the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge would remain in service 

as in existing conditions, with no intervention besides minimal repairs and continuation of the 

current maintenance regime. The No Action Alternative will not include any changes to the 

existing track configuration. Service over the bridge would bridge is already speed-restricted to 

90 mph due to the age and deteriorated condition of the bridge, and would continue to worsen in 

the future and the bridge would continue to age, potentially requiring stricter speed and weight 

restrictions that will further impact the movement of passengers and freight. Cost associated with 

bridge maintenance would continue to increase over time. Maintenance problems would occur 

more frequently, and the bridge would remain as a bottleneck; it would eventually need to be 

taken out of service. Without the bridge, local, regional and national rail networks would be 

disrupted with resultant detrimental effects on the economic activity, including those in Havre de 

Grace and Perryville to some extent. Developments expected to be completed regardless of the 

Proposed Project, as described in Chapter 4, “Land Use and Community Facilities,” could 

possibly affect population, economic characteristics, age and gender distribution, racial and 

ethnic characteristics, and income of the surrounding area. 

E. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVES 

The Proposed Project would ensure continued rail connectivity along the NEC, and would 

provide benefits to local and regional commuter and freight operations in terms of improved 

operational mobility and safety. 

SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

Alternative 9A would require the full acquisition of one commercial use associated with the 

National Tire & Glass Sales Inc., in Havre de Grace. The owners of this property would be fully 

compensated and the business would be provided relocation assistance to facilitate their 

reestablishment in another appropriate location. Since the business would be relocated, it is not 

expected that any jobs would be lost as a result of Alternative 9A. The Project Team will obtain 

additional information about this business as the project proceeds. Acquisition of any properties 

for the Build Alternatives would remove these property taxes from the tax roll. These 

acquisitions could affect the property taxes paid at each parcel, although since the amount of 

acquisition necessary would be small, this effect would not be substantial. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 5-12 

No other commercial or residential properties would be fully displaced within the study area by 

either Alternative 9A or Alternative 9B. Alternative 9B would require the acquisition of a 

portion of the private commercial driveway and of the commercial use associated with the 

National Tire & Glass Sales Inc. in Havre de Grace; however, the private commercial driveway 

would be maintained and full acquisition of the property is not required. The Build Alternatives 

would not affect the population or housing supply of the area and would not spur rapid 

population growth or development. There is no anticipated project-related effect on long-term 

population or workforce characteristics in Harford or Cecil County. Thus, the Proposed Project 

would not alter the demographic profile described above. Overall, the Proposed Project would 

improve conditions in the surrounding communities by ensuring improved mobility across the 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge for freight rail, passenger rail, and marine users. Therefore, the 

Proposed Project would not adversely affect socioeconomic conditions, employment, or 

community cohesion. 

MINORITY AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS 

As described in each respective chapter, no adverse impact would result from the Proposed 

Project with regards to transportation; parks, trails, and recreational resources; air quality; 

greenhouse gases; noise and vibration; public health; indirect and cumulative effects; and 

commitment of resources, and therefore would not have the potential to result in 

disproportionately high and adverse effects on environmental justice populations. The remaining 

areas have the potential to result in an adverse effect and therefore have the potential to result in 

disproportionately high and adverse effects on environmental justice populations within the 

study area. These technical areas have been described in more detail below. 

As described in Chapter 4, “Land Use and Community Facilities,” while the Proposed Project 

would not result in significant adverse impacts to land use, zoning and public policy, the 

Proposed Project would require property acquisitions associated with up to nine properties. The 

parks and public street right-of-ways that would be acquired by the Proposed Project are utilized 

by a broad spectrum of the study area population, regardless of race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic 

status and therefore these acquisitions would not disproportionately impact low-income and 

minority populations. As described above, Alternative 9A would require the full acquisition of 

one commercial use associated with the National Tire & Glass Sales Inc., in Havre de Grace. 

The owners of this property would be fully compensated and the business would be provided 

relocation assistance to facilitate their reestablishment in another appropriate location. 

Alternative 9B would require the acquisition of a portion of the private commercial driveway 

and of the commercial use associated with the National Tire & Glass Sales Inc. in Havre de 

Grace; the private commercial driveway would be maintained and full acquisition of the 

property is not required. Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B would require the acquisition of a 

narrow strip of private residential property. All property acquisitions and displacements will 

adhere with the Uniform Act and all applicable Maryland State laws. Where full property 

acquisition is required, Amtrak and MDOT will fairly compensate the owners of properties for 

the land acquired and will provide relocation assistance to businesses to facilitate their 

reestablishment elsewhere, should this be necessary. As part of the project sponsors’ efforts to 

minimize impacts, the Project Team eliminated those alternatives that would require acquisition 

of the Lafayette Senior Housing Facility. Overall, property acquisitions associated with the 

Proposed Project would not disproportionately impact low-income and minority populations. 

As described in Chapter 7, “Visual Resources,” there is the potential for effects on the overall 

visual and aesthetic qualities of the study area depending on the viewer’s location. In addition, 
Chapter 5: Socioeconomic Conditions 

 5-13 

the Project Team identified site specific visual effects for views from waterfront open space 

areas, the Havre de Grace Historic District, Rodgers Tavern, views of the Perryville Railroad 

Complex for rail passengers, and the undergrade bridges. However, the chapter describes several 

ways to avoid or minimize these effects. Since the potential for visual adverse effects are 

dispersed throughout the study area and some minimization or mitigation measures are possible, 

the visual effects associated with the Proposed Project would not disproportionately impact lowincome and minority population. 

The Proposed Project has the potential to result in an adverse effect on four historic architectural 

resources—the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and Overpasses, the Havre de Grace Historic 

District, Rodgers Tavern, and Perryville Railroad Station; however, as detailed in Chapter 8, 

“Historic Resources,” there are ways to avoid or minimize some of these effects. Because certain 

adverse effects cannot be totally avoided, FRA/MDOT has sought suggestions from the 

consulting parties and the public on potential ways to mitigate the adverse effects and these 

mitigation measures are detailed in the chapter. Overall, in addition to the consideration of 

possible minimization or mitigation measures, since these historic architectural resources do not 

primarily serve environmental justice populations (nor are they concentrated in low-income or 

minority neighborhoods), the historic effects associated with the Proposed Project would not 

disproportionately impact low-income and minority population. 

As described in Chapter 9, “Section 4(f) Resources,” the Proposed Project would result in the 

use of several Section 4(f) resources. Considering the measures to minimize harm and that these 

resources are utilized by a broad spectrum of the study area population, regardless of race, 

ethnicity, or socioeconomic status, the use of these Section 4(f) resources would not 

disproportionately impact low-income and minority populations. 

Similarly, as described in Chapter 10, “Section 6(f) Resources,” the Proposed Project would 

result in the use of a Section 6(f) resource—the Havre de Grave High School and Middle School 

Athletic Fields. Taking into account the measures to minimize harm and that this resource is 

utilized by a broad spectrum of the study area population, regardless of race, ethnicity, or 

socioeconomic status, the use of this Section 6(f) resource would not disproportionately impact 

low-income and minority populations. 

As described in more detail in Chapter 11, “Natural Resources,” the Proposed Project has the 

potential to result in impacts to floodplains, wetlands, streams, forest resources, Chesapeake Bay 

Critical Area, aquatic biota, and submerged aquatic vegetation. Overall, impacts to these natural 

resources are dispersed throughout the study area and Amtrak and MDOT will undertake 

appropriate mitigation and minimization measures. Therefore, the natural resource impacts 

associated with the Proposed Project would not disproportionately impact low-income and 

minority population. 

As described in Chapter 15, “Contaminated and Hazardous Materials,” construction of the 

Proposed Project would involve demolition, relocation or other disturbance of existing structures 

and excavation, relocation and potentially off-site disposal of some existing soil. The presence of 

contaminated materials only presents a threat to human health if exposure to these materials 

occurs. To prevent such exposure pathways and doses during construction, the Proposed Project 

would include appropriate health and safety and investigative/remedial measures. With the 

implementation of these measures, no significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials 

would result either during the demolition and construction activities associated with the 

Proposed Project or during operation of the Proposed Project and therefore the Proposed Project 

would not disproportionately impact low-income and minority population. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 5-14 

As described in Chapter 17, “Construction,” construction of the Proposed Project may have 

effects on bus service, mariners, adjacent historic resources, and air quality. However, the effects 

on bus service and mariners would be temporary. In addition, efforts would be made to 

undertake a large portion of the required construction activities outside of the recreational 

boating season, during the winter months, which would further reduce impacts to navigation. In 

order to avoid accidental damage to adjacent historic resources as a result of construction 

activities associated with the Proposed Project, a Construction Protection Plan (CPP) would be 

developed in consultation with SHPO for all historic properties that may be subject to 

inadvertent damage resulting from construction activities. The potential for adverse air quality 

impacts during construction of the Build Alternatives would be reduced to the extent practicable 

using the strategies listed in the chapter that would be specified in construction contracts. 

Therefore, construction effects would be temporary and have been minimized to the extent 

practicable. In addition, construction would occur along the entire study area corridor and the 

adverse effects on environmental justice populations would not exceed those borne by nonenvironmental justice populations. 

Overall, the Proposed Project would not result in any disproportionately high and adverse effects 

on minority or low-income populations. 

F. MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION OF IMPACTS 

SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

The Project Team has worked diligently to avoid and minimize property acquisition and 

displacement throughout the environmental review process. The Project Team eliminated 

conceptual alternatives requiring greater property acquisitions during the alternatives screening 

process, as discussed in Appendix A, “Alternatives Screening Report and Bridge Types.” 

MINORITY AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS 

As explained above, the Proposed Project would not result in any disproportionately high and 

adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. Therefore, no mitigation for 

environmental justice impacts is required. 

G. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies to work to ensure greater public participation in 

the decision-making process. FTA guidance suggests that public engagement should be designed 

to eliminate barriers to meaningful participation by all members of the community. Similarly, 

the USDOT’s Final Order on Environmental Justice indicates that project sponsors should seek 

public involvement opportunities, including soliciting input from affected minority and lowincome populations in considering alternatives. 

The Project Team has engaged in a robust public and community outreach effort as part of the 

Proposed Project. As described in Chapter 20, “Coordination and Consultation,” FRA and 

MDOT prepared an Agency Coordination and Public Involvement Plan during the early phases 

of the Proposed Project. Numerous public meetings have been held throughout the 

environmental process at project milestones. Throughout the alternatives decision-making 

process and environmental review process, the Project Team encouraged environmental justice 

communities to attend and participate in public outreach information sessions. The Project Team 
Chapter 5: Socioeconomic Conditions 

 5-15 

made concerted efforts to engage potential minority and low-income populations, including 

performing targeted outreach and posting of information regarding public meetings in local 

businesses and community centers. To solicit participation from minority populations, the 

Project Team posted extra invitations to these public meetings in community facilities within 

census blocks of concern (in addition to direct mailings and email blasts). Public meeting 

invitations were partially translated into Spanish and translation services were offered. 
 6-1 

Chapter 6: Parks, Trails, and Recreational Resources 

A. INTRODUCTION 

This chapter inventories existing and recreational areas within or intersecting a 1,000-foot 

boundary on any side of the current rail right-of-way, as depicted on Figure 6-1, and discusses 

proposed parks, trails, and recreational spaces in the area and analyzes potential environmental 

impacts that could result from the implementation of the Proposed Project as compared with the 

No Action Alternative. As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” this Environmental 

Assessment (EA) evaluates two Build Alternatives: Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B. FRA has 

selected Alternative 9A as the Preferred Alternative. 

B. REGULATORY CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY 

REGULATORY CONTEXT 

Publicly owned parks and recreational facilities may be subject to Section 4(f) of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966 (23 United States Code [USC] § 138 and 

49 USC § 303), which requires that the proposed use of land from a publicly owned public park, 

recreation area, wildlife and/or waterfowl refuge, or any significant historic or archaeological 

site, as part of a federally funded or approved transportation project, is permissible only if: (1) 

there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use and (2) the project includes all planning to 

minimize harm; or (3) if the use is a de minimis. The full Section 4(f) evaluation is in Chapter 9, 

“Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation.” 

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (16 USC § 460) requires that the 

Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) approve any conversion of lands 

purchased or developed with assistance under this Act to a use other than public, outdoor 

recreation use. Any park or recreational resource that received grants from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF) is considered a Section 6(f) resource. Furthermore, some parks and 

recreational facilities have been funded through the Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

(DNR) Program Open Space (POS). Additional information regarding LWCF and POS can be 

found in Chapter 10, “Section 6(f) Evaluation.” 

METHODOLOGY AND BACKGROUND 

The Project Team obtained information regarding parks, recreational areas, greenways, and trails 

from the following sources: 

 Geographic information System (GIS) data

 Field visits

 Harford County 2012 Master Plan and Land Use Element Plan

 Harford County 2013 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
Proposed Waterfont

Heritage Park

132

824

155

222

7

£¤40

£¤40 7

Battery

Village

Park

David

Craig Park

Havre de

Grace MS/HS

Athletic Field

Jean S. Roberts

Memorial Park

Swan

Harbor

Farm

Roye-Williams

Elementary

School

Havre de

Grace High

School

Lower Ferry

Park and Pier

Perryville

Community

Park

Trego Field/

Perryville

Mini-Park

Somerset

Manor

1

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Susquehanna River

Rail Bridge Project

Data Sources

Figure 6-1

Parks and

Recreational Resources

Parks:

Harford County Government, 2013;

MD SDAT, 2014

Legend

1,000 ft Study Area Parks/Recreation* Existing Track

* Only public parks and recreational resources within the study area are shown
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 6-2 

 City of Havre de Grace Comprehensive Plan, March 2004 (and Municipal Growth Element 

and Water Resources Amendments, 2010)

 Harford County 2013 Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan

 Cecil County 2010 Comprehensive Plan

 Cecil County Bicycle Master Plan (2012) 

 Cecil County 2005 Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan

 Cecil County 2011 Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan

 Town of Perryville 2010 Comprehensive Plan

 Town of Perryville Annual Report for 2013

 Perryville Greenway Plan (2012) 

 National Parks Service (http://www.nps.gov/) 

 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (http://www.dnr.state.md.us/) 

 Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway (http://www.hitourtrails.com/) 

 Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway Management Plan (2000), 

(http://www.hitourtrails.com/PDF/LSHG_ManagementPlan_2009.pdf) 

 Coordination with local governments, non-profit organizations, and other stakeholders. 

For each park affected by the Proposed Project, the Project Team calculated the acreage of 

potential impact and considered the type and extent of recreational activities impacted. 

C. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

In addition to the parks and other recreational resources described in this section, the 

Susquehanna River is also used as a recreational resource. Several private marinas and municipal 

boat ramps (such as the Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park and Havre de Grace Marina) are located 

near the existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge, and recreational boaters navigate around and 

through the study area. 

EXISTING PARKS AND RECREATIONAL AREAS 

Each locality (Harford County, the City of Havre de Grace, Cecil County, and the Town of 

Perryville) offers extensive recreational programs within the study area through its respective 

parks and recreation departments. Programs range from youth sports programs such as soccer, 

tennis, basketball, lacrosse, youth football, dance, gymnastics, to adult aerobics and activities for 

seniors. 

CITY OF HAVRE DE GRACE AND HARFORD COUNTY 

Seven publicly accessible outdoor parks and recreational resources exist within the 1,000-foot 

study area in Havre de Grace (see Table 6-1 and Figure 6-1). The approximately 0.87-acre Jean 

S. Roberts Memorial Park lies to the west of the existing railroad right-of-way, off Otsego Street 

and along the Susquehanna River. The park comprises a parking lot a fishing pier, a picnicking 

area, a kayak launch, and a boat launch. Havre de Grace owns approximately 0.61 acre and the 

National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) owns 0.26 acre, which Amtrak leases to the 

City of Havre de Grace. Somerset Manor, a residential development located at 101 Stansbury 

Court, approximately 100 feet from the closest Build Alternative right-of-way, includes a 1.0-
Chapter 6: Parks, Trails, and Recreational Resources 

 6-3 

acre of recreational space with a playground and basketball court. This space is also owned by 

the City of Havre de Grace. 

Table 6-1

Havre de Grace Parks and Recreational Resources within 1,000-Foot Study Area

Park Location Acres Ownership Amenities 

LWCF/POS 

Funding 

Battery Village 

Park 

(Bradford Green) 

Village Dr. 2.0 Havre de Grace

Parking on street, 

basketball court, 

playground 

N/A 

David Craig Park 

Union Ave. 

btwn Otsego St. 

and Warren St. 

1.5 Havre de Grace Parking and waterfront 

views POS 

Havre De Grace 

Middle/High 

School Athletic 

Fields2

401 Lewis Ln./ 

700 Congress 

Ave. 

57.6 

Board of 

Education 

Harford 

County 

Harris Stadium, Multi-use 

fields, baseball/softball 

diamonds, and tennis 

courts 

LWCF 

Jean S. Roberts 

Memorial Park1

Otsego St. and 

Water St. 0.87 Amtrak / Havre de Grace 

Picnicking, parking, 

fishing pier, kayak and 

boat launch 

N/A 

Roye-Williams 

Elementary 

School 

201 Oakington 

Rd. 28.0 

Board of 

Education 

Harford 

County 

Ball fields, activity fields, 

and playgrounds N/A 

Somerset Manor 101 Stansbury 

Ct. 1.0 Havre de Grace Parking, playground, 

basketball court N/A 

Swan Harbor Farm 401 Oakington 

Rd. 531 Harford County 

Mansion house, meadow 

areas, farm fields, fishing, 

vineyards, field for radio 

controlled aircraft, and 

exhibit area for agricultural 

education 

POS 

Notes: N/A = No LWCF or POS funding identified for subject parkland. 

1. Deed is not available for Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park. 

2. According to consultation with the Havre de Grace High School, the athletic fields are 

open to the public outside of school hours, unless reserved for a special event. 

Sources: City of Havre de Grace Comprehensive Plan, March 2004 (and Municipal Growth Element 

and Water Resources Amendments, 2010); Harford County 2013 Land Preservation, Parks, 

and Recreation Plan; Harford County Government Parks and Recreation website; 

Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation, Real Property Search website. 

David Craig Park is located east of the existing Northeast Corridor (NEC). This park is owned 

by the City of Havre de Grace and provides 1.5 acres of open space with waterfront views. 

According to property deeds, the City of Havre de Grace received funding from Maryland’s POS 

for David Craig Park. 

The Havre de Grace Middle/High School athletic fields, owned by the Board of Education, offer 

more than 57.6 acres of recreational space with multi-use fields, baseball and softball diamonds, 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 6-4 

and tennis courts.1 Improvements to the Havre de Grace Middle/High School athletic fields were 

undertaken utilizing Section 6(f) Land and Water Conservation Act funds (see Chapter 10, 

“Section 6(f) Evaluation”). 

Battery Village Park, owned by the City of Havre de Grace, is part of the Battery 

Village/Bradford Green low-income housing community, and offers basketball courts and a 

playground. 

The largest recreational resource partially within the study area, Swan Harbor Farm, is owned by 

Harford County and offers more than 500 acres of recreational space with farm fields, vineyards, 

fishing, and educational exhibits. Harford County received POS monies in 1994 to purchase 

Swan Harbor Farm.2

 

Another recreational space in Harford County is the Roye-Williams Elementary School, a 

portion of which is within the study area, and which is owned by the Harford County Board of 

Education. The school features approximately 28 acres of recreational space, including activity 

fields and playgrounds, when school is not in session. 

In addition to these publicly accessible outdoor park and recreational resources identified in 

Table 6-1, the Havre de Grace Activity Center provides 5.8 acres of indoor recreational space 

including an indoor gymnasium, basketball court, and bocce court. 

Finally, Stancil Field Park, a private recreational resource owned by Have de Grace Little 

League Inc. and approximately 50 feet from the closest Build Alternative right-of-way, 

comprises 15 acres with baseball and softball fields. 

TOWN OF PERRYVILLE AND CECIL COUNTY 

Several parks and recreational resources exist within the 1,000-foot study area in the Town of 

Perryville (see Table 6-2 and Figure 6-1). All parks within this portion of the study area are 

owned by the Town of Perryville. These include Trego Field/Perryville Mini-Park, which is 

located off of Broad Street west of the existing NEC and adjacent to the NS Port Road. Trego 

Field/Perryville Mini-Park provides approximately 3.8 acres of recreational space with amenities 

such as a baseball field, basketball courts, playground, pavilion, and picnic area. 

A portion of the Perryville Community Park is also located within the study area, east of the 

existing NEC. Perryville Community Park offers 168.5 acres of recreational space with baseball 

fields, soccer fields, lacrosse fields, tennis courts, a playground, fishing pier, and a kayak 

launch.3

 The portion of Perryville Community Park located within the study area comprises open 

space and the access road to the main park. 

Lower Ferry Park and Pier consists of the area on Broad Street and Roundhouse Drive, and 

provides approximately 1.84 acres of open space.4

 The Town of Perryville received funding 

from DNR, Maryland’s POS, and Maryland Heritage Areas grants for Lower Ferry Park.5

 

1

 According to consultation with the Havre de Grace High School, the athletic fields are open to 

the public outside of school hours, unless reserved for a special event. 

2

 http://www.swanharborfarm.org/History.html, accessed September 23, 2014. 

3

 Consultation letter from Town Commissioners of Perryville, June 25, 2015. 

4

 Consultation letter from Town Commissioners of Perryville, June 25, 2015 indicated Lower 

Ferry Park consists of Town Map 801, 0834 Lots 1, 3, 5, and 7. 

5

 Consultation letter from Town Commissioners of Perryville, June 25, 2015 
Chapter 6: Parks, Trails, and Recreational Resources 

 6-5 

Table 6-2

Perryville Parks and Recreational Resources within 1,000-Foot Study Area

Park Location Acres Ownership Amenities 

LWCF/POS 

Funding 

Lower Ferry Park 

and Pier 

Broad St. and 

Roundhouse Dr. 1.84* Perryville Waterfront views, pier, and 

benches POS 

Perryville 

Community Park 

100 Marion Tapp 

Pkwy 168.5* Perryville 

Preserved lands in addition 

to baseball fields, pavilion, 

restrooms, playing courts, 

fields, fishing pier, kayak 

launch, playground N/A 

Trego Field/ 

Perryville MiniPark 

Behind Town 

Hall off Broad St. 3.8 Perryville 

Little league baseball field, 

basketball courts, 

playground equipment, and 

pavilion and picnic area N/A 

Notes: N/A = No LWCF or POS funding identified for subject parkland. 

 * Based on consultation letter from Town Commissioners of Perryville, June 25, 2015. 

Sources: Perryville 2010 Comprehensive Plan; Town of Perryville Annual Report for 2013; Cecil 

County 2005 Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan; Cecil County 2011 Land 

Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan; Maryland Department of Assessments and 

Taxation, Real Property Search website. 

TRAILS AND GREENWAYS 

Several local bicycle and pedestrian trails exist within the study area. These include the Old 

Town Loop, Old Town/New Town Trail, and the waterfront walkway in Havre de Grace. Old 

Town Loop crosses the NEC twice in Havre de Grace at N. Union Avenue and N. Juniata Street. 

The Old Town/New Town Trail in Havre de Grace is collocated with the East Coast Greenway 

from Juniata Street to MD 155. The waterfront walkway connects North Park to the Tyding’s 

Park and Promenade in Havre de Grace. The waterfront walkway is a part of the Heritage 

Corridor Plan, which has been implemented for the past 20 years. The walkway is bisected by 

the NEC at N. Union Avenue.6

 

The Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway (LSHG) passes through the City of Havre de Grace 

and the Town of Perryville as well as other riverfront areas of Harford and Cecil Counties. The 

non-profit organization aims to stimulate local economic activity by developing a link between 

natural, historic, and cultural resources within the Lower Susquehanna Region. The LSHG is 

part of a statewide system of heritage areas; it is planned to eventually comprise a 40-mile 

network of trails along both shores of the Susquehanna River below from the Conowingo Dam 

to the river’s mouth. Approximately two-thirds of the network is complete. The LSHG crosses 

the NEC twice in Havre de Grace, via N. Union Avenue and at N. Juniata Street. The LSHG also 

crosses the NEC in Perryville, via Broad Street. 

The East Coast Greenway (ECG) is a planned 3,000-mile, continuous cyclist and pedestrian trail 

that would stretch from Maine to Florida and connect 25 major cities along the East Coast. The 

ECG is being planned and promoted by the East Coast Greenway Alliance, a non-profit 

 

6

 Consultation letter from Department of Planning City of Havre de Grace, June 20, 2014. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 6-6 

organization with individual state chapters. Overall, 27 percent of the ECG is complete on trails 

with 73 percent on interim on-road sections. In Maryland, the ECG runs for 166 miles, 32 

percent of which are completed off-road trails.7

 Currently, a gap area exists within the ECG trail 

network between the Baltimore area and Newark, Delaware. Within the study area, the ECG 

suggests an on-road route, which crosses the NEC twice in Havre de Grace at N. Union Avenue 

and Lewis Lane. As of July 1, 2016 cyclists are permitted to use the U.S. 40 Hatem Bridge to 

provide connectivity between Havre de Grace and Perryville. 

Several historic trails highlighting sites of historic importance also exist within the study area; 

however, public easements or rights-of-way do not exist for these trails. Nonetheless, it is 

important to note that the Maryland Civil War Trail, the Mason Dixon Trail, the Captain John 

Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route 

National Historic Trail, and the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail each run through 

portions of the study area, by way of water or auto-routes, and highlight important historic sites, 

including Rodgers Tavern on Broad Street in Perryville.8

 

D. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The No Action Alternative assumes the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge will remain in service 

as-is, with no intervention beside minimal repairs and continuation of the current maintenance 

regime. Service over the bridge would continue to worsen in the future under the No Action 

Alternative. The No Action Alternative as a baseline scenario against which potential impacts of 

the Proposed Project are measured. The following parks and recreational projects are expected to 

be completed within the study area before the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project build year, 

and are therefore included in the No Action Alternative. 

CITY OF HAVRE DE GRACE 

Havre de Grace plans to complete their Waterfront Heritage Park along the Susquehanna River, 

west of the existing NEC by 2020.9

 Havre de Grace recently approved the purchase of four 

properties, totaling 3.2 acres, as part of a proposed plan to develop the park along the water.10

Conceptual artist renderings show plans for a plaza, kayak and boat launch, the gateway to the 

Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, an amphitheater, lawn, benches, 

promenade, and fishing pier. 

The City of Havre de Grace also intends to improve David Craig Park by adding a fishing pier 

and pavilion along its waterfront by 2018.11 

 

7

 “Maryland.” East Coast Greenway. http://www.greenway.org/explore-by-state/md. 

8

 See Appendix D, “Cultural Resources,” for an analysis of the trail resources with respect to the 

Proposed Project and the draft Programmatic Agreement, which includes a commitment to 

further consider National Historic Trails in the future. 

9

 Consultation letter from Department of Planning City of Havre de Grace, June 20, 2014. 

10 “Havre de Grace Voters Approve Spending $1.1 Million to Buy Water Street Properties,” The 

Aegis, December 28, 2016, accessed December 28, 2016. 

11 Harford County 2013 Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan.
Chapter 6: Parks, Trails, and Recreational Resources 

 6-7 

TOWN OF PERRYVILLE 

The Town of Perryville plans to improve Lower Ferry Park to host town events. Future plans for 

Lower Ferry Park include the construction of a comfort station, a band shell, picnic area, 

playground equipment, walking paths, landscaping, bio-retention areas, paths lined with 

vegetation, and some supportive parking. The comfort station at Lower Ferry Park was awarded 

a Maryland Heritage Areas Grant. 

Perryville also plans to create a new Municipal Complex at 515 Broad Street, located to the 

north of the north wye track. The approximately 5.5-acre complex will include a police station, a 

new Town Hall, a new little league baseball field and improved pedestrian access.12

TRAILS AND GREENWAYS 

Traversing both Harford and Cecil Counties, the September 11th Memorial Trail is a planned 

1,100-mile cyclist and pedestrian trail proposed by the September 11th Trail Alliance. The trail 

would link the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Washington D.C., and the 

Flight 93 Memorial in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The exact route of the trail and its year of 

completion are yet to be determined; however, within the study area, the trail is expected to 

overlap with the East Coast Greenway.13

Development of the waterfront walkway in Havre de Grace, ECG, LSHG, and September 11 

Memorial Trail are expected, with additional trail segments being identified and developed. The 

waterfront walkway in Havre de Grace is intended to be continuously developed as new projects 

and public park improvements occur. Trail development is constrained in the study area by the 

lack of access points across the Susquehanna River, as the only river crossing on the lower 

Susquehanna that permits bicycle or pedestrian access is at the Conowingo Dam Route 1 

crossing. The Thomas J. Hatem Memorial Bridge was recently open to bicyclists in the Summer 

of 2016, although some safety concerns remain because the bridge does not have shoulders. This 

bridge does not permit pedestrians.14 There are no other known planned improvements to 

pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the Proposed Project study area by the analysis year. 

HAVRE DE GRACE MIDDLE SCHOOL/HIGH SCHOOL 

Harford County Public Schools (HCPS) is replacing the Havre de Grace Middle School and 

High School (see Figure 6-1). The proposed facility is currently in the final design phase. 

HCPS’s proposed designs require modifications to the existing ball fields. The proposed HCPS 

enhancements will not require any modifications to the existing track and field facility. 

According to school representatives, HCPS is currently awaiting construction funding from the 

Harford County School Board to move forward with the project. 

 

12 Consultation letter from Town Commissioners of Perryville, June 30, 2014. 

13 September 11th National Memorial Trail Alliance. http://911memorialtrail.org/?page_id=5, 

accessed September 2014. 

14 Maryland Transportation Authority, “Hatem Bridge (US 40) Bicycle Access.” 

http://www.mdta.maryland.gov/Toll_Facilities/Hatem_Bike_Access.html#FAQ13, accessed 

January 2017. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 6-8 

E. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVES 

BUILD ALTERNATIVES 

The Proposed Project would be designed so as not to preclude a future bicycle and pedestrian 

crossing over the river. The Proposed Project would not alter or adversely affect the trail routes. 

Each National Historic Trail includes important historic resources within the study area that 

FRA and MDOT evaluated as part of Chapter 7, “Visual and Aesthetic Conditions” and Chapter 

8, “Cultural Resources.” Measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse impacts to 

historic and archaeological resources have been identified and will be further developed in 

coordination with the Maryland Historical Trust and Section 106 consulting parties. The 

Proposed Project would not affect public use, enjoyment, or educational value of the trails within 

the study area. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to trails or greenways would result 

from the Proposed Project. 

ALTERNATIVE 9A 

Alternative 9A would require expansion of the existing rail right-of-way. This would involve the 

acquisition and conversion of narrow areas of park and recreational resources. Alternative 9A 

would require the permanent acquisition of small portions of two recreational resources (Jean S. 

Roberts Memorial Park and the Havre de Grace Middle/High School athletic fields) immediately 

adjacent to the existing right-of-way (see Table 4-3). Short-term effects on any park and 

recreational resources are discussed in Chapter 17, “Construction Effects.” Long-term effects on 

specific parks and recreational resources would be as follows: 

 Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park: Alternative 9A would require the permanent use of the 

entire 0.26-acre, Amtrak-owned portion of Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park as well as the 

acquisition of 0.01 acre of the City-owned portion of the park. Alternative 9A constructs a 

new bridge that would cross above the park on an elevated structure that would require the 

modification of the existing lease agreement and the modification of park infrastructure. 

This would prohibit public access within the Amtrak right-of-way and would require the 

taking of the boat ramp area and a portion of the pier located at the park. According to public 

records, Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park has not received funding from the LWCF and is 

therefore not a Section 6(f) resource. The part of Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park beyond 

Amtrak’s existing right-of-way is considered a Section 4(f) resource and is discussed in 

Chapter 9, “Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation.” 

 Havre de Grace Middle School/High School Track and Athletic Fields: Alternative 9A 

would require the acquisition of a strip of the Havre de Grace Middle/High School athletic 

fields immediately adjacent to the existing rail right-of-way. This acquisition would total 

approximately 1.5 acres. Since improvements to the Havre de Grace Middle/High School 

athletic fields were undertaken utilizing Section 6(f) LWCA funds, Section 6(f) applicability 

is discussed in Chapter 10, “Section 6(f) Evaluation.” Section 4(f) applicability is discussed 

in Chapter 9, “Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation.” Alternative 9A has the potential to result in 

minor reconfigurations of the existing and proposed ballfields on the Harford County School 

property. Alternative 9A would also result in permanent impacts to the existing pole 

vault/high jump, long jump and 110-meter hurdle runout area at the existing track and field 

facility. A storage shed would also be impacted. Overall, Alternative 9A would physically 

impact this recreational resource and would require mitigation.
Chapter 6: Parks, Trails, and Recreational Resources 

 6-9 

ALTERNATIVE 9B 

Alternative 9B would also require expansion of the existing rail right-of-way. This would 

involve the acquisition and conversion of a narrow area of park. As with Alternative 9A, 

Alternative 9B would require the same permanent acquisition of a narrow strip of land 

associated with Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park immediately adjacent to the existing right-ofway. Alternative 9B would not impact or require any modifications to the Havre de Grace 

Middle School/High School athletic fields. 

F. MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION OF IMPACTS 

The Project Team made efforts to minimize the impacts to parks, recreational lands, and open 

space resources and to this end have eliminated several alignments based on greater impacts to 

parks and recreational resources (see Appendix A, “Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study 

and Bridge Types”). The Project Team is currently coordinating with agencies that have 

jurisdiction over any affected parks (HCPS and City of Havre de Grace) to develop appropriate 

minimization and mitigation strategies. 

As described in Chapter 9, “Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation,” FRA proposes to determine that the 

use of the City-owned portion of Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park is de minimis. FRA and MDOT 

will work with the City of Havre de Grace to identify appropriate mitigation measures and to 

ensure that a replacement for the Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park boat ramp is provided in a 

suitable location. 

In addition, as described in more detail in Chapter 9, “Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation,” based on 

the analysis of the potential impacts to the Havre de Grace Middle/High School Athletic Fields 

and collaboration with the school board, minimization and mitigation include: 

 Amtrak would build the railroad on an elevated structure over the 110-meter hurdle runout 

area. During construction the runout would be reduced to 8.5 meters but after construction 

would be rebuilt to its current 11.5-meter length. 

 Relocate pole vault, high jump, long jump and storage shed. 

 The Project would reimburse Harford County Public Schools for the agreed upon additional 

design cost. 

 To the extent practical, construction would be scheduled to minimize disruption to the track 

and field facilities. 

 The baseball field would be redesigned by shifting home plate three feet away from the 

railroad and rotating the field 2.5 degrees counter clockwise. 

 Design consultant working on the baseball fields would redesign the field to provide 

adequate clear area around Amtrak’s proposed retaining wall. 

 The Project would reimburse Harford County Public Schools for the agreed upon additional 

design cost of the baseball fields. 

 Amtrak would provide conduit and embedded inserts for installation of a future score board 

by Harford County Public Schools. 

 Amtrak would install a protective netting to shield the railroad from foul balls. 

 The water main would be relocated in a casing, allowing future replacement to be done 

without affecting the athletic facilities. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 6-10 

Based on the analysis of the potential impacts to the Havre de Grace Middle/High School 

Athletic Fields and the minimization and mitigation measures, FRA proposes to make a de 

minimis finding for the use of the facility. Coordination is ongoing. 
 7-1 

Chapter 7: Visual and Aesthetic Conditions 

A. INTRODUCTION 

This chapter assesses the potential effects of the Proposed Project on the visual character and 

aesthetic conditions of the surrounding area as compared with the No Action Alternative. This 

chapter serves as a summary of the more detailed analysis presented in Appendix C, “Visual 

and Aesthetic Conditions.” The study area for visual resources extends approximately 600 feet 

north and south of the project site along an approximately six-mile length of the Northeast 

Corridor (NEC) (see Figure 1 of Appendix C). In addition, to account for more distant views of 

the project site along the Harford and Cecil County waterfronts, the study area extends 

approximately one half-mile north and south near the waterfront, utilizing the Thomas J. Hatem 

Memorial Bridge that carries the Pulaski Highway (Route 40) over the Susquehanna River as the 

northern boundary (see Figure 2, Photo Key and Figure 3, Photo 1 of Appendix C). As 

discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” this Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates 

two Build Alternatives: Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B. Alternative 9A was selected as the 

Preferred Alternative. 

B. REGULATORY CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY 

This assessment has been prepared in accordance with Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) guidelines for visual analyses, including Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment 

of Highway Projects Documents (2013), Environmental Impact Statement Visual Impact 

Discussion (undated), and Guidance Material on the Preparation of Visual Impact Assessments

(1986). 

To prepare this analysis and determine potential effects, the Project Team collected information 

through field visits and identified visually sensitive locations, viewer groups, and duration of 

views. In addition, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)/Maryland Department of 

Transportation (MDOT) requested input through public outreach information sessions and 

dedicated meetings of Section 106 consulting parties. The information received at those 

meetings as well as any written comments received have been taken into consideration in this 

aesthetics analysis as well as in the Proposed Project’s design process. 

C. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER 

The project site consists of a portion of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation’s (Amtrak) 

NEC, a two-track rail line oriented roughly northeast-southwest1

 across the Susquehanna River. 

 

1

 Unlike Chapter 2, which refers to locations in the study area according to “railroad north” and 

“railroad south,” this analysis uses compass north and south when referring to direction. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 7-2 

The tracks run at-grade and on an embankment in Havre de Grace and Perryville and cross the 

Susquehanna River on the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge. Prominent visual features in the 

study area include the City of Havre de Grace and the Town of Perryville, the Susquehanna 

River, the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge, the Thomas J. Hatem Memorial Bridge, the mouth of 

the Chesapeake Bay, and the southern tip of Garrett Island, which is part of the Blackwater 

National Wildlife Refuge, as well as historic resources within Cecil and Harford Counties. 

The study area is characterized by a mix of relatively rural agricultural areas; low-rise, mediumdensity waterfront areas; some suburban development; and light industrial, hotel, and 

commercial uses along major transportation corridors. The portion of the study area northwest of 

the NEC in Perryville is characterized by low-rise, urban development consisting of residential, 

commercial, institutional, and park uses. Development located directly on the Perryville 

waterfront in this area consists mainly of low-rise condominiums with private marinas on the 

river. 

The Perry Point Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center, evaluated as eligible for listing 

on the National Register of Historic Places (NR), is located south of the NEC along the 

waterfront in Cecil County, and consists of large open spaces and residences of primarily two- to 

two-and-a-half stories in the study area. At the southern end of the complex is the NR-listed 

Perry Point Mansion House and Mill. The portion of the study area in Havre de Grace consists 

mainly of low-rise, medium-density urban development including residential, commercial, 

institutional, and park uses. Development located directly on the waterfront consists primarily of 

commercial and light industrial uses, marinas, undeveloped lots, and parks. Portions of Havre de 

Grace further west include athletic fields, such as Stancil Field Park located at the southwest 

corner of Old Post Road and Old Bay Lane, and some suburban development. 

The entire visual resources study area is within the Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway 

(LSHG), which was designated by the Maryland Heritage Areas Authority as a Certified 

Heritage Area in 1997 through its Maryland Heritage Preservation and Tourism Areas 

Development Program. As identified in the Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway 

Management Plan (May 2000), the visual character of the LSHG includes natural resources such 

as parks and waterfront areas; the Susquehanna River, Chesapeake Bay, and Garrett Island; rail 

infrastructure and multiple bridges crossing the Susquehanna River; open space; numerous 

pedestrian, bicycle, and historic trails; and man-made or cultural resources, including historic 

structures, districts, and archaeological sites. 

VISUALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES WITHIN THE LOWER SUSQUEHANNA 

HERITAGE GREENWAY (LSHG) 

FHWA’s Guidance Material on the Preparation of Visual Impact Assessments defines visual 

resources as those physical features that make up the visible landscape, including land, water, 

vegetation, and man-made elements to which viewers attach visual value. Visually sensitive 

resources may include historic buildings, open spaces such as parks and landscaped plazas, and 

views to natural resources such as water features and natural vegetation. The LSHG includes 

natural resources and open space, trails, and man-made resources, each of which is listed below 

and described in more detail in Appendix C. 

NATURAL RESOURCES/OPEN SPACE 

The most prominent natural resource features in the study area are the water-related resources, 

including the Susquehanna River, the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, and the southern tip of 
Chapter 7: Visual and Aesthetic Conditions 

 7-3 

Garrett Island, which is part of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. These features are of 

extremely high value in terms of the area’s visual and aesthetic qualities. In addition, there are 

several public parks and areas of open space located along the waterfront in the visual study area 

(see Chapter 6, “Parks, Trails, and Recreational Resources” for a more detailed description of 

parks in the study area). These areas are important for facilitating views to the river and its 

natural features. Prominent waterfront parks include: Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park; David R. 

Craig Park; McLhinney Park; and Frank J. Hutchins Memorial Park. 

Additional parks and areas of open space are located within the study area, but are far enough 

removed from the river that they do not contain important views to the river and its natural 

features. These open space areas include the Roye-Williams Elementary School, the Havre de 

Grace Middle/High School Athletic Fields, Battery Village Park, Swan Harbor Farm, and 

Somerset Manor, and in Perryville Trego Field/Perryville Mini-Park and Perryville Community 

Park. 

TRAILS 

The LSHG contains a portion of or all of the following trails, which serve to thematically link 

historic sites and/or open space areas, or provide recreational paths: the East Coast Greenway; 

Mason-Dixon Trail; Maryland Civil War Western Shore Baltimore Trail; Captain John Smith 

Chesapeake National Historic Trail; Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route; StarSpangled Banner National Historic Trail; Old Town Loop; Old Town/New Town Trail; and the 

Havre de Grace Waterfront Walkway.2

MAN-MADE ELEMENTS 

Historic resources in the study area, which are further described in Chapter 8, “Cultural 

Resources,” are the existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and nine related undergrade 

bridges; the Havre de Grace Historic District; the Southern Terminus, Susquehanna and 

Tidewater Canal—South Lock #1 and Toll House; Rodgers Tavern; the Perry Point Mansion 

House and Mill; the Perryville Railroad Station complex; the Perry Point Veterans 

Administration Medical Center Historic District; the Perryville United Methodist Church; and 

the Perryville Presbyterian Church. In addition to these formally identified historic resources, 

there is another man-made feature of visual prominence: the Thomas J. Hatem Memorial Bridge. 

VIEWER GROUPS AND VIEW DURATIONS 

Viewer groups are groups of people who are visually affected by a project in a similar way. 

Viewer groups in the area consist of pedestrians/bicyclists, motorists, rail passengers, and 

boaters. These viewer groups may be divided into two categories: those that have views of 

visually sensitive resources and those that have views from those resources. Pedestrians and 

bicyclists generally have longer view durations than motorists and rail passengers as they are not 

traveling at high speeds. 

 

2 See Appendix D, “Cultural Resources” for an analysis of the Captain John Smith Chesapeake 

National Historic Trail resources with respect to the Proposed Project and the draft 

Programmatic Agreement, which includes a commitment to further consider National Historic 

Trails in the future. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 7-4 

PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS 

The majority of the pedestrian and bicyclist traffic in the study area occurs in the streets and 

waterfront parks in the Havre de Grace Historic District, as well as the waterfront areas near 

Rodgers Tavern in Perryville, and the Perry Point VA Medical Center (including the Perry Point 

Mansion and Mill) in Cecil County. View of pedestrians and bicyclists in the four waterfront 

parks in the Havre de Grace Historic District can be characterized as long, clear views of 

visually contributing elements of the LSHG, including waterfront areas in Perryville and Cecil 

County, the Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay, Garrett Island, the Susquehanna River 

Rail Bridge, and the Thomas J. Hatem Memorial Bridge. 

MOTORISTS 

Motorists travel on multiple roadways that pass through the study area. Major roads in the study 

area include the Pulaski Highway (Route 40) and Route 7. A dense network of secondary and 

tertiary roads is located in the Havre de Grace portion of the study area. The network of roads in 

Perryville is less dense, and roads in the Cecil County portion of the study area south of the 

project site are primarily tertiary roads. Motorists traveling on Route 40 have a view of the 

Susquehanna River, Garrett Island, and the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge as they cross the 

Susquehanna River on the Thomas J. Hatem Memorial Bridge; however, the speed of traffic on 

this bridge limits the amount of time motorists have for observation. In other areas, like the 

Perry Point VA Medical Center, motorists travel more slowly along tertiary roads and enjoy 

longer views of river-related features of the LSHG. In other areas, for example along Broad 

Street in Perryville, motorists have views of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and other 

historic sites. Views are somewhat obstructed north of the project site in Perryville and in Havre 

de Grace. Views of river-related visually contributing elements of the LSHG are possible in 

Havre de Grace at Water Street north of the project site, North Union Avenue south of the 

project site, and east from North Adams and Otsego Streets in the study area north of the project 

site. In addition, the bridge abutment, four of the undergrade bridges, and the Havre de Grace 

Historic District are visible to motorists in Havre de Grace driving along the tertiary streets in 

close proximity to the bridge. Specific views are described in more detail in Appendix C. 

RAIL PASSENGERS 

Amtrak and Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC) rail passengers traveling on the NEC 

through the study area are afforded brief but clear views of some of the elements that contribute 

to the visual character of the LSHG, including buildings within the Havre de Grace Historic 

District. As passengers travel on the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge, they have expansive views 

south towards the Susquehanna River, Chesapeake Bay, and the Havre de Grace and Cecil 

County waterfronts. To the north, rail passengers have clear views of the Susquehanna River, 

Garrett Island, the Thomas J. Hatem Memorial Bridge, and waterfront areas in Havre de Grace 

and Perryville. Rail passengers are afforded a brief view of Rodgers Tavern. Because the 

Perryville Railroad Station is a MARC station, the passengers have longer views of the station 

when the train stops to drop off and pick up commuters, as well as a limited side view of the 

Perry Interlocking Tower. Similarly, MARC rail passengers using the station to board or exit a 

train are afforded views of all sides of the station, a historic structure constructed of brick and 

exhibiting Colonial Revival features such as its large round-arched windows. 
Chapter 7: Visual and Aesthetic Conditions 

 7-5 

BOATERS 

The Susquehanna River is used by commercial boats, as well as by recreational vessels. Marinas 

and boat launches are located in waterfront locations and provide long, clear views of the riverrelated features of the LSHG, including waterfront areas in Perryville and Cecil County, the 

Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay, Southern Terminus, Susquehanna and Tidewater 

Canal—South Lock #1 and Toll House, Garrett Island, the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge, and 

the Thomas J. Hatem Memorial Bridge. 

Boaters traveling on the Susquehanna River in the study area have long, expansive views of the 

LSHG, including the river itself, the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge, buildings on the waterfront 

in the Havre de Grace Historic District, and waterfront areas in Perryville and Cecil County. The 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge’s large triangular truss components and large stone piers are 

prominent visual features for boaters traveling under the bridge. Boaters can see Rodgers 

Tavern, although views are somewhat obscured by intervening vegetation. Other historic 

structures located further inland are not visible to boaters on the Susquehanna River in the study 

area. 

D. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

As described in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” under the No Action Alternative, the existing 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge will remain in service, with continued frequent maintenance 

issues and minimal repairs. The planned development projects discussed in the Chapter 4, “Land 

Use and Community Facilities,” consist primarily of residential and mixed-use infill projects in 

Havre de Grace and Perryville. Other projects include a proposed Waterfront Heritage Park in 

Havre de Grace along Water Street, the Havre de Grace Middle School/High School 

Replacement Project, and the Lower Ferry Park in Perryville at Broad Street and Roundhouse 

Drive. Additionally, MARC has planned a Northeast Maintenance Facility3

 in the study area, for 

maintenance and storage on a 115-acre site in Perryville adjacent to the NEC. 

The residential infill projects in the Havre de Grace Historic District require review and approval 

from the Havre de Grace Historic Preservation Commission; therefore, it is anticipated that these 

projects would be in keeping with the overall visual and aesthetic character of the district. It is 

also anticipated that the creation of the Waterfront Heritage Park in Havre de Grace and the 

Lower Ferry Park in Perryville would create publicly accessible open spaces with views of the 

study area. The projects in the No Action Alternative are not anticipated to result in substantial 

changes to visually sensitive resources. 

E. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVES 

The Proposed Project’s visual effects on the LSHG were evaluated from two perspectives: 

 Overall “big picture” effects, looking at the area as a whole, both in close proximity to the 

bridge and further removed; and 

 Site-specific effects, relating to a view to/from a visually sensitive resource. 

 

3

 http://mta.maryland.gov/marc-maintenance-facility, accessed December 31, 2015. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 7-6 

OVERALL VISUAL CHARACTER 

The three main factors considered in assessing the Proposed Project’s visual effects on the 

overall visual character were proximity of the viewer to the bridge, the proposed change from 

one bridge to two bridges, and the proposed new bridge design, including style, materials, pier 

design, and height. From locations in close proximity to the bridge, defined as either beneath the 

bridge or within 600 feet of the bridge, there would be an adverse visual effect on the overall 

viewshed, especially due to the change from one bridge to two bridges. From locations further 

north and south of the bridge, the visual effect would be minimized by the fact that the two 

bridges would be adjacent to each other in an area that visually consists of numerous bridge 

crossings. Looking from many locations within the LSHG, the two adjacent bridges would be 

consistent with the area’s current overall visual character. 

The proposed bridge design incorporates a central arch, a girder deck, and “keyhole” arch piers, 

all elements that would have been found in traditional bridge design, and would therefore be 

compatible with the area’s overall visual character. Although the pier material will change from 

the existing stone to concrete, this element will be counterbalanced by the fact that the approach 

spans, which are the portions of the bridge on either side of the bridge’s central feature, and the 

bridge piers will be more streamlined and attenuated than the existing bridge deck and stone 

piers; therefore, it is anticipated that views through and under the proposed bridge would be 

more readily available. In addition, the proposed height of the new bridges, which would be a 

maximum increase of 14 feet at the river’s navigational channel, would not have an adverse 

effect on the area’s visual character when looking at the overall area, which contains several 

other bridges that are higher in elevation. 

Pedestrians/bicyclists would have the longest duration of views and there would be an adverse 

visual effect on their views from either underneath the bridge or in close proximity to the bridge, 

due to the increased mass from one bridge to two bridges. From points further removed from the 

Proposed Project, the overall character of the LSHG would not be adversely affected as long as 

the two new bridges use a design for the bridges and piers that is traditional and allows greater 

views under the bridges. 

The views to visual resources that motorists experience are generally of short duration, due to 

the relatively high speeds at which they tend to travel through the study area. There would be an 

adverse visual effect on motorists’ views from either underneath the bridge or in close proximity 

to the bridge. However, motorists traveling on Route 40 across the Thomas J. Hatem Memorial 

Bridge currently experience brief but expansive views of the LSHG. When looking south from 

the bridge, the existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge is a visible but relatively distant element 

of the LSHG view corridor. Because the alignment, height, and dimensions of the bridges 

proposed in either Build Alternative would not differ substantially from the existing 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge, views to the LSHG would not substantially change, and the 

change in design of the new bridges, including the use of concrete for the new bridge piers, 

would be minimally perceptible. 

Rail passengers traveling on the NEC would not be able to see both of the proposed bridges at 

the same time; however, views of the LSHG would be altered by the introduction of the 

additional bridge. This change would be a significant change, but would not be adverse because 

the view would be compatible with the area’s multiple bridge crossings. This assessment is 

conditioned on the two new bridges using a traditional design for the bridges and piers. 
Chapter 7: Visual and Aesthetic Conditions 

 7-7 

Commercial and recreational boaters on the Susquehanna River have long, expansive views of 

the LSHG. The replacement of the existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge with the two bridges 

proposed with Alternatives 9A and/or Alternative 9B would somewhat alter views from the 

boaters’ perspective. However, because the alignment, height, and dimensions of the bridges 

proposed in either Build Alternative would not differ substantially from the existing bridge, the 

Proposed Project would not block views of the LSHG; expansive views north and south of the 

Susquehanna River, Chesapeake Bay, and the Havre de Grace and Cecil County waterfronts 

would still be afforded from the boaters’ perspective. 

Thus, for all user groups, the effects on the overall visual and aesthetic qualities of the study area 

depend greatly on the viewer’s location, with a visual adverse effect being from underneath the 

bridge or in close proximity to it. The fact that the proposed design for the two new bridges 

would be traditional in character and would allow greater views under the bridge would serve to 

minimize the adverse visual effect on resources within close proximity to the bridges and avoid 

an adverse effect from resources further removed. 

SITE-SPECIFIC EFFECTS 

The list below contains discussion of specific sites assessed to have significant visual impacts: 

 Pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorist views from waterfront open space areas (i.e., McLhinney 

Park and Frank J. Hutchins Memorial Park in the Havre de Grace Historic District, viewing 

areas behind Rodgers Tavern, and waterfront areas along the Perry Point VA Medical Center 

Historic District) would be altered by the change from one bridge to two bridges as well as 

the change in the design and materials of the new bridges. 

 Havre de Grace Historic District. There would be adverse visual effects from the proposed 

widening that would result in the NEC and the requisite retaining walls being closer to 

structures within the Havre de Grace Historic District; the altered views of the Susquehanna 

River from resources in close proximity to the bridges, including Jean S. Roberts Memorial 

Park and David R. Craig Park; and alterations to the Historic District’s four undergrade 

bridges. 

 Rodgers Tavern. The views from the front of Rodgers Tavern would be adversely affected 

by the widening of the bridge approach and a retaining wall running along the embankment. 

In addition, there would be a clear view of one of the bridge piers that would be placed in 

close proximity to the Broad Street underpass. 

 Views of the Perryville Railroad Station Complex for rail passengers would be altered by the 

proposed retaining walls and the relocation of the Perry Interlocking Tower. 

 Undergrade Bridges. The Proposed Project would result in visual adverse effects to eight of 

the nine undergrade bridges (excluding the Lily Run undergrade bridge). 

F. MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION OF IMPACTS 

OVERALL VISUAL CHARACTER 

As described above, for all user groups, the effects on the overall visual and aesthetic qualities of 

the study area depend greatly on the viewer’s location, with a visual adverse effect from 

underneath the bridge or in close proximity to it. The fact that the proposed design for the two 

new bridges would be traditional in character and allow greater views under the bridge would 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 7-8 

serve to minimize the adverse visual effect on resources within close proximity to the bridges 

and avoid an adverse effect from resources further removed. 

SITE-SPECIFIC EFFECTS 

In terms of site-specific effects within the LSHG, several potential visual adverse effects can be 

avoided or minimized through the following: 

 Pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorist views from waterfront: 

- Traditional bridge design 

- Greater views under the bridge 

- Proposed design for the two new bridges would be traditional in character and would 

allow greater views under the bridge. This would minimize the adverse visual effect on 

resources within close proximity to the bridges and avoid an adverse effect from 

resources further removed 

 Havre de Grace Historic District: 

- Traditional bridge design 

- Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI) 

Standards 

- Larger pier openings with greater view 

- See below for undergrade bridge discussion 

 Rodgers Tavern:

- Architecturally pleasing treatment and/or mural for retaining wall (per Town of 

Perryville’s recommendation) 

- Architecturally pleasing materials for retaining wall 

- Traditional design 

- Larger pier openings with greater view 

 Perryville Railroad Station Complex: 

- Ensuring historic compatibility (materials, features, size, scale, proportion), to the extent 

possible 

- SOI Standards 

- Shifting Perry Interlocking Tower rather than demolishing 

 Undergrade Bridges: 

- Form lining (emulating stone, appropriately stained) 

- Appropriate staining 

- SOI Standards 


 8-1 

Chapter 8: Cultural Resources 

A. INTRODUCTION 

REGULATORY AUTHORITY 

This chapter identifies cultural resources (including architectural and archaeological resources) 

in the area of potential effects (APE) for the Proposed Project, probable impacts on those 

resources, any avoidance and minimization measures, and coordination with appropriate 

agencies and stakeholders. Project alternatives are described in detail in Chapter 2, “Project 

Alternatives.” Potential in-ground disturbances of the Project site may result from construction 

of two bridges over the Susquehanna River to replace the existing Susquehanna River Rail 

Bridge. In addition, modifications and/or additions to existing railroad tracks and other railroad 

infrastructure could occur throughout the Project site. 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Maryland Department of Transportation 

(MDOT) prepared this analysis in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act, and Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, and associated implementing 

regulations in 36 C.F.R. 800. Per Subpart A, Sections 800.2(a)(3) and 800.2(c)(4) of 36 C.F.R., 

FRA authorized MDOT as the Project sponsor and applicant for federal approvals, to prepare 

information, analyses, and recommendations regarding Section 106 consultation for the 

Proposed Project. 

METHODOLOGY 

Section 106 of the NHPA mandates that federal agencies consider the effects of their actions on 

any properties listed on or determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places (NR). The lead federal agency, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO) and consulting parties, must determine whether a proposed action would have any 

adverse effects on cultural resources within the APE. Section 106 requires consultation with the 

SHPO, federally recognized Indian tribes that might attach religious and cultural significance to 

historic properties affected by the Proposed Project, and additional consulting parties with a 

demonstrated interest in the Proposed Project based on a legal or economic relation to affected 

properties, or an interest in the Proposed Project’s effects on cultural resources. 

Section 101(d)(6)(B) of the NHPA requires the lead federal agency to consult with any Indian 

tribe that attaches religious and cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected 

by the undertaking. The lead federal agency shall ensure that consultation in the Section 106 

process provides the Indian tribe a reasonable opportunity to identify its concerns about historic 

properties; advise on the identification and evaluation of properties, including those of 

traditional religious and cultural importance, articulate its views on the undertaking’s effects on 

such properties; and participate in the resolution of adverse effects. In the event of adverse 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 8-2 

effect, the federal agency must afford the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. 

APE DELINEATION 

To assess the potential effects of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project on cultural 

resources, FRA/MDOT identified an APE for the Proposed Project in consultation with the 

Maryland Historical Trust (MHT), Maryland’s SHPO. On June 16, 2014, the MHT approved the 

APE as described below and illustrated on Figure 8-1. 

The APE has been delineated to take into account the potential for direct and indirect effects of 

all of the Build Alternatives on significant cultural resources. To facilitate the analysis of effects, 

the APE has been subdivided into two components: the area in which the Proposed Project could 

cause potential direct effects, including ground disturbance; and an expanded area in which the 

Project could cause indirect effects. Unless otherwise specified, references to the APE refer to 

the entire APE, both the direct Project site as well as the area with the potential for indirect 

effects. 

The APE for archaeological resources includes all areas that could experience direct impacts, 

including ground disturbance or any disturbance to an archaeological site, under the Build 

Alternatives. This area includes all property within and adjacent to the National Railroad 

Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) right-of-way, extending along the right-of-way for 5,200 feet 

west of the Susquehanna River shoreline in Havre de Grace, 3,400 feet of the Susquehanna 

River itself, and 5,700 feet east of the Susquehanna River shoreline in Perryville. 

Potential effects to architectural resources can include both direct physical effects (e.g., 

demolition, alteration, or damage from construction on nearby sites) and indirect effects, such as 

the isolation of a property from its surrounding environment, or the introduction of visual, 

audible, or atmospheric elements that may alter the characteristics of the historic property that 

qualify it for inclusion on the NR in a manner that would diminish the property’s historic 

integrity. To incorporate areas with the potential for indirect effects, the APE for historic 

architectural resources extends beyond the area for direct effects. First, for the majority of the 

length of the Proposed Project along the rail line, the APE boundary runs parallel to the tracks 

approximately 600 feet to the north and south. In close proximity to the river, the APE boundary 

proceeds on a diagonal line to intersect with the river approximately one-quarter of a mile north 

and south of the Project site. This widening is to account for more distant views of the Project 

site along the Harford and Cecil County waterfronts. 

IDENTIFICATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE APE 

Once the APE was determined, FRA/MDOT identified historic architectural resources that had 

been previously evaluated as historically significant, including properties or districts listed on 

the NR and properties determined eligible for such listing as part of other cultural reviews, 

National Historic Landmarks (NHL), and archaeological sites on file at the MHT. In addition, 

FRA/MDOT compiled a list of potential architectural resources (i.e., properties that may be 

eligible for listing on the NR) within the architectural APE based on field surveys, documentary 

research, and review of the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP): 

https://mht.maryland.gov/research_mihp.shtml. 

In consultation with the MHT, the Project Team determined which properties warranted 

evaluation for NR eligibility and then prepared “Determination of Eligibility” (DOE) forms for 
Chesapeake

Bay

Susquehanna 

River

Perryville

Havre

d e

Grace

Pulaski Hwy

I-95 S

Avenue AAvenue A

Superior StSuperior St

Level Rd

Avenue DAvenue D

Broad St

Principio Furnace Rd

Revolution StRevolution St

Aiken Ave

Giles St N Juniata St

Ohio St

Perryville RdPerryville Rd

Lewis Ln

S Union Ave

Coudon BlvdCoudon Blvd

N Union Ave

1st St

Old Post Rd

10th St

Pulaski Hwy

11.30.16

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

0 1 MILES

SCALE

Figure 8-1

Archaeological and Architectural APE

Project Site Archaeological APE

Architectural APE
Chapter 8: Cultural Resources 

 8-3 

the properties that appeared to be potentially significant and short forms for properties that 

appeared to not be NR-eligible. Based on the fieldwork and research, FRA/MDOT submitted to 

MHT on February 12, 2015 a DOE Report for the Perryville Historic District, Perryville United 

Methodist Church, Perryville Presbyterian Church, a grouping of eight houses at 400-413 Webb 

Lane, and the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Overpasses, and 71 short forms. On April 22, 

2015, the MHT responded that the following resources are eligible for listing on the NR: 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and nine affiliated bridges (collectively known as the 

“Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Overpasses,”) the Perryville United Methodist Church, and the 

Perryville Presbyterian Church. In addition, the MHT indicated that the Perryville Historic 

District, 400-413 Webb Lane, and the 71 resources represented on the short forms are not 

eligible for listing on the NR. As part of the current assessment, the Susquehanna River Rail 

Bridge and the four undergrade bridges located within the Havre de Grace Historic District have 

been evaluated as contributing to the historic district, although the MHT has not issued a formal 

opinion on these evaluations. 

In order to assess the sensitivity of the archaeological APE, the Project Team coordinated an 

archaeological documentary study (Phase IA Study) using documentary sources to identify areas 

with potential for archaeological deposits. For each area where prehistoric or historic-period 

activities may have yielded deposits, the Project Team evaluated construction activities and 

other recent ground disturbances to identify locations where any archaeological resources, if 

originally present, may have survived. 

EVALUATION OF PROJECT EFFECTS 

The Project Team assessed the effects of the Proposed Project on identified resources in the APE 

as compared to the No Action Alternative. Section 106 also requires consideration of reasonably 

foreseeable and cumulative effects that may occur later or further away from the project. As 

discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” this EA evaluates two Build Alternatives: 

Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B. Alternative 9A was selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

B. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

As noted above, a Phase IA Study evaluated the overall level of disturbance within the 

archaeological APE and identified areas with potential for archaeological resources. The Project 

Team achieved this goal through a twofold process: 

 Reviewing historical documentation and field observations to determine the potential 

integrity of soil deposits and: 

 Evaluating whether conditions are sufficient for the potential preservation of cultural 

deposits. 

BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 

The review of historic maps revealed two distinct patterns of settlement and development for the 

Havre de Grace and Perryville sides of the Susquehanna River. By the eighteenth century, Havre 

de Grace had taken its place as an established point of trade and commerce within the upper 

Chesapeake Bay, containing a busy commercial and industrial waterfront. Despite this early 

settlement, however, historic maps revealed that the street grid pattern has remained relatively 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 8-4 

unchanged since the nineteenth century. This continuity of settlement typically suggests greater 

potential for preserved archaeological resources compared to other more densely settled and 

urbanized areas, which experience repeated disturbance through development. In contrast, the 

APE on the Perryville side of the river was initially more agrarian. The current village of 

Perryville does not appear to have developed until the advent of railroad service through the area 

during the mid-nineteenth century. During the first quarter of the twentieth century, Perry Point 

in particular was selected for industrial and residential development by the federal government 

as part of its WWI efforts. 

Due to the location of the Proposed Project across a major river terrace overlooking the mouth of 

the Chesapeake Bay estuary, areas within the current APE would have been an extremely 

attractive place of settlement to Native Americans prior to contact with Europeans. However, 

due to the intensity of the railroad activities within the APE, the potential for intact precontact 

deposits is low. Particularly, within Havre de Grace, intact precontact contexts would most likely 

have to have been deeply buried in order to have avoided disturbance. Given the lower density 

of settlement during the historic period on the eastern shore of the river (Perryville), this portion 

of the APE has a higher probability for intact precontact period sites. Several known sites with 

precontact components have already been identified within the vicinity of Perryville. 

With respect to archaeological resources located within or immediately adjacent to the current 

APE, the most significant previously identified resource located within the limits of the APE is 

the archaeological component of the extant Rodgers Tavern (18CE15). The tavern itself, listed 

on the NR in 1972, is a two-story stone structure located on the north side of Broad Street in 

Perryville. According to MHT files, the boundaries for the archaeological component of this 

resource are located across Broad Street from the standing tavern structure within a small lot 

located between the southern edge of Broad Street and the embankment for the railroad corridor. 

Archaeological investigations conducted in 2004 prior to the rehabilitation of the structure 

yielded a wide variety of eighteenth and early nineteenth century domestic refuse and 

architectural debris. However, the NR eligibility of the subsurface deposits has not been 

formally evaluated. 

Another previously identified archaeological site, 18HE266, is located within the Susquehanna 

River within the vicinity of the APE. Located to the north of the existing bridge structure 

approximately 700 feet (213 meters) to the east of the Havre de Grace shoreline, 18HE266 has 

been identified as the wreckage from a twentieth century barge. This resource has not been 

formally evaluated regarding its eligibility for the NR. 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL OF APE 

The APE for the Proposed Project encompasses all of the various Build Alternatives for the 

Proposed Project. The majority of each design alternative lies within the existing disturbed 

Amtrak right-of-way (ROW). For the purposes of this study, the portions of the APE outside of 

the current ROW were divided into six discrete Study Areas. 

Study Area 1: Havre de Grace Athletic Field Complex 

This area demonstrates heavily modified and disturbed soil profiles. Disturbance is associated 

with the reconfiguration of the natural landform as part of the construction of the school’s ball 

fields. Because of this disturbance, the Phase IA Study concluded that there is little to no 

potential for this area to contain intact archaeological deposits. 
Chapter 8: Cultural Resources 

 8-5 

Study Area 2: North Juniata Street to North Union Avenue, Havre de Grace 

Although large portions of this area have been previously disturbed by construction activities 

associated with the Northeast Corridor (NEC), potentially undisturbed areas are present south of 

Warren Street and north of the existing rail line, including at the site of the former Havre de 

Grace Railroad Station and in the yard spaces of existing late nineteenth and early twentieth 

century houses. 

Study Area 3: Havre de Grace Waterfront 

Two city parks: Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park and David Craig Park appear to be humanconstructed landforms, based on a review of historic mapping. Research indicates this fill was 

placed along the waterfront sometime during the mid- to late-nineteenth century. Though 

artificial, these landforms have the potential to contain cultural deposits associated with 

waterfront-related commercial or industrial enterprises, as well as structural remnants from the 

nineteenth century rail line that preceded the existing Northeast Corridor. 

Study Area 4: Perryville Waterfront 

While large portions of this area along the Susquehanna River have been subjected to previous 

archaeological survey or disturbed by various past construction efforts, sections of Study Area 4 

have the potential to contain intact precontact or historic period archaeological deposits. 

Specifically, intact deposits may exist south of the railway corridor within the strip of land 

between the electrical substation and the Susquehanna River shoreline, in which a remnant of the 

earlier nineteenth century bridge abutment is present, and north of the railway corridor, within 

the vicinity of the extant Rodgers Tavern (18CE15). 

Study Area 5: Perry Point VA Medical Center and MARC station area 

This area encompasses the northern extremity of the Perry Point VA Medical Center and areas 

surrounding the MARC station, just north of the existing Amtrak rail corridor at its intersection 

with the Norfolk Southern Port Road spur line. As with the previous study area, large sections of 

Study Area 5 have been previously disturbed through various past construction efforts or 

subjected to archaeological survey. Outside of these sections, the yard areas associated with a 

group of single and multi-family residences that line the southern edge of Broad Street in 

Perryville may have the potential to contain intact archaeological resources. 

Study Area 6: Susquehanna Submerged Cultural Resources 

The Phase IA Study evaluated the potential for submerged cultural resources to exist in the 

Susquehanna River within the APE. Previous underwater remote sensing efforts in the lower 

Susquehanna River have identified multiple anomalies related to the original ferry and 

subsequent bridge across the Susquehanna River, coal wharves, and submerged wreckage within 

the current Proposed Project APE. 

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES 

KNOWN RESOURCES 

Architectural resources located in the APE include properties listed on or determined eligible for 

the NR. Eleven previously designated (NR-listed or eligible) architectural resources were 

identified in the APE. As part of this Proposed Project, two additional resources were identified 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 8-6 

within the APE as potential architectural resources (the Perryville United Methodist Church and 

the Perryville Presbyterian Church). 

A series of undergrade bridges historically associated with the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge 

were identified as NR-eligible components of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge historic 

property. The undergrade bridges at MP 60.51, 60.56, 60.61, and 60.69 contribute to the Havre 

de Grace Historic District; the undergrade bridge at MP 59.39 contributes to the Perryville 

Railroad Station complex. MHT concurred that the two churches and the undergrade bridges are 

eligible for listing on the NR. The architectural resources in the APE are listed in Table 8-1, and 

mapped on Figures 8-2 and 8-3, and described in the following summary. More complete 

information on the historic architectural resources is included in the project’s Effects Assessment 

for Historic Architectural Resources (see Appendix D, “Cultural Resources”). 

Table 8-1

Historic Architectural Resources within the APE

No. Name/Type Location 

Eligibility 

Criteria

NRListed NREligible MIHP 

1 Havre de Grace Historic District Havre de Grace A & C X HA-1617

2 

Southern Terminus, Susquehanna and 

Tidewater Canal – South lock #1 and 

Toll House1

Havre de Grace A & C X HA-112; 

HA-113 

3 Martha Lewis (skipjack) Havre de Grace A & C X HA-2189

4 Rodgers Tavern1 Perryville A & C X CE-129 

5 Principio Furnace (Principio Iron 

Works) Cecil County A & D X CE-112 

6 Perry Point Mansion House and Mill1 Perryville A & C X CE-146; 

CE-244 

7 Perryville Railroad Station Perryville A & C X CE-1442

8 Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and 

Overpasses2

Harford and 

Cecil Counties A & C X HA-1712

9 

Perry Point Veterans Administration 

(VA) Medical Center Historic 

District1

Cecil County A & C X CE-1544

10 Crothers House (Furnace Bay Golf 

Course Clubhouse) Cecil County C X CE-1566

11 Woodlands Farm Historic District3 Cecil County A & C X CE-145 

12 Perryville United Methodist Church Perryville A & C X CE-1573

13 Perryville Presbyterian Church Perryville A & C X CE-1574

Notes: 

1. Notes resource is also a MHT easement property. 

2. The undergrade bridges at mile post (MP) 60.51, 60.56, 60.61, and 60.69 contribute to the Havre 

de Grace Historic District; the undergrade bridge at MP 59.39 contributes to the Perryville 

Railroad Station complex. See Figure 3-1 in Chapter 3, “Transportation” for the location of all 

undergrade bridges discussed in this chapter. 

3. This is an expansion of a boundary for the NR-listed Woodlands Farm. 

MIHP: Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties. 

Sources: MHT Online Resources. 
St

Revolution St

Giles St

N Juniata St

Ohio St

Lewis Ln

S Union Ave

N Union Ave

1

3

2

8

8

8

8

8

12.1.16

N

Havre de Grace Architectural Resources

Photo Map and Key

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project Figure 8-2

0

SCALE

0.25 MILES

1 Architectural Resource

Project Site Boundary

Architectural APE

No. Name/Type MIHP

1 Havre de Grace Historic District HA-1125

2 Southern Terminus, Susquehanna and 

Tidewater Canal - South Lock #1 and 

Toll House

HA-112;

HA-113

3 Martha Lewis (skipjack) HA-2189

8 Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and 

Overpasses

HA-1712

Key to Architectural Resources
Avenue A

Avenue D

Broad St

Principio Furnace Rd

Aiken Ave

Perryville

Rd

Coudon Blvd

1st St

10th St

Pulaski Hwy

Principio

Furnace

8

8

8

8

9

4

7

5

10

11

12

13

6

11.30.16

N

Perryville and Cecil County Architectural Resources

Photo Map and Key

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project Figure 8-3

SCALE

0 0.5 MILES

Architectural Resource

Project Site Boundary

Architectural APE

1

No. Name/Type MIHP

4 Rodgers Tavern CE-129

5 Principio Furnace CE-112

6 Perry Point Mansion House and Mill CE-146; CE244

7 Perryville Railroad Station CE-1442

8 Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and 

Overpasses

HA-1712

9 Perry Point VA Medical Center 

Historic District

CE-1544

10 Crothers House

(Furnace Bay Golf Course Clubhouse)

CE-1566

11 Woodlands Farm Historic District CE-145

12 Perryville United Methodist Church CE-1573

13 Perryville Presbyterian Church CE-1574

Key to Architectural Resources
Chapter 8: Cultural Resources 

 8-7 

Havre de Grace Historic District (HA-1617) 

The Project site and APE pass through the northern portion of the Havre de Grace Historic 

District, which consists of a large part of the City of Havre de Grace. According to the NR 

nomination, the historic district is important under NR Criteria A and C for its architecture, 

transportation/commerce, and community planning. Each of these themes is examined below, 

with special focus on how the area of the historic district in close proximity to the Project site 

contributes to these themes. 

Architecturally, the district contains a mix of nineteenth and early twentieth century residential, 

commercial, religious, and industrial buildings, representing a range of styles from Federal, 

Greek Revival, Gothic Revival, Italianate, Queen Anne, and Classical Revival, to variations of 

the Arts and Crafts movement, such as the Shingle and Bungalow styles. 

As part of the current study, the Project Team coordinated an evaluation for structures adjacent 

to the Project site, which have the greatest potential to be affected either physically or visually. 

The evaluation assessed whether structures contribute to the significance of the historic district, 

using an approximate 1930 end date for the district’s period of significance. This date was used 

because the National Register nomination for the Havre de Grace Historic District was based on 

a cultural resources survey of all buildings within the district that pre-date the 1930s. 

Based on the analysis, the Project Team evaluated that the following historic resources adjacent to 

the project site contribute to the Havre de Grace Historic District (see Figures 8-4 through 8-9): 

 501 St. John Street, American Legion Building (former Lafayette Hotel) 

 511 Warren Street, early nineteenth century house 

 552 Warren Street, multi-family residential structure 

 429 N. Stokes Street, Room at the Cross Mission Church (former St. Patrick’s Catholic 

Church) 

 Warren Street, cluster of early twentieth century bungalows 

 Otsego Street, vernacular mid-nineteenth century houses 

 518 N. Stokes Street, mid-nineteenth century Gothic Revival house 

 Otsego / N. Stokes Streets, vernacular mid-nineteenth century houses 

 571 Otsego Street, altered mid-nineteenth century French Second Empire house 

 Otsego / Water Streets, late nineteenth / early twentieth century houses 

Historically, the district is significant for two themes related to its physical location along the 

Susquehanna River: as a major commercial and transportation center in northern Maryland and 

for its community planning. 

Transportation was important throughout Havre de Grace’s history, starting as early as William 

Claibourne’s trading post established on Garrett Island in 1637, continuing with John Rodgers’ 

eighteenth century ferry with a tavern on each side of the river, and throughout the nineteenth 

century with the establishment of the rail line crossing through Havre de Grace. The Proposed 

Project’s APE is integral to the historic theme of transportation because it contains the existing 

1906 Pennsylvania Railroad bridge and the raised bridge approach as well as four of the 

undergrade bridges (see Figures 8-10 and 8-11, Photos 11-14) constructed at the same time as 

the bridge across the river (the North Freedom Lane Undergrade Bridge at MP 60.51; the North 

Stokes Street Undergrade Bridge at MP 60.56; the Centennial Lane Undergrade Bridge at MP 
Resources Contributing to the Havre de 

Grace Historic District

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

Perryville / Havre de Grace, Maryland

Figure 8-4

F

D

H

E

C

A. 501 St. John Street: American Legion 

Building 

B. 511 Warren Street: early nineteenth 

century house

C. 552 Warren Street: multi-family residential 

structure

D. 429 N. Stokes Street: Room at the Cross 

Mission Church

E. Warren Street: cluster of early twentieth century 

bungalows

F. Otsego Street: vernacular mid-nineteenth century 

houses

G. 518 N. Stokes Street: mid-nineteenth century Gothic 

Revival house

H. Otsego / N. Stokes Streets: vernacular midnineteenth century houses

I. 571 Otsego Street: altered mid-nineteenth century 

French Second Empire house

J. Otsego / Water Streets: late nineteenth / early 

twentieth century houses

J
Architectural Resources

Photographs

Figure 8-5

501 St. John Street: American Legion Building (former Lafayette Hotel); 

looking east.

511 Warren Street: early nineteenth century house, possibly moved 

from original location; looking northeast.
3

4

552 Warren Street: multi-family residential structure; looking southeast.

429 N. Stokes Street: Room at the Cross Mission Church (former St. 

Patrick’s Catholic Church); looking southeast.

Architectural Resources

Photographs

Figure 8-6
5

6

Warren Street: cluster of early twentieth century bungalows; looking 

northeast.

Architectural Resources

Photographs

Figure 8-7

Otsego Street: vernacular mid-nineteenth century houses; looking southwest.
8

Architectural Resources

Photographs

Figure 8-8

518 N. Stokes Street: mid-nineteenth century Gothic Revival 

house; looking southwest.

Otsego / N. Stokes Streets: vernacular mid-nineteenth century houses; looking 

southeast.
9

10

Architectural Resources

Photographs

Figure 8-9

571 Otsego Street: altered mid-nineteenth century French Second 

Empire house; looking north. 

Otsego / Water Streets: late nineteenth / early twentieth century houses; looking east.
11

12

Architectural Resources

Photographs

Figure 8-10

North Freedom Lane Undergrade Bridge (MP 60.51): view of the railroad east side, 

which will be altered via removing the existing stone-arch culvert and replacing 

it with a precast concrete culvert; looking north. 

North Stokes Street Undergrade Bridge (MP 60.56): view of the railroad west side, 

which will be altered via removing a portion of the existing stone masonry 

abutment and building a new concrete abutment; looking south.
13

14

Centennial Lane Undergrade Bridge (MP 60.61): view of the railroad east side, 

which will be altered via construction of a through plate girder bridge on a 

concrete abutment; looking north. 

Architectural Resources

Photographs

Figure 8-11

North Adams Street Undergrade Bridge (MP 60.69): view of the railroad east 

side, which will be altered via construction of a new concrete abutment; 

looking north.
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 8-8 

60.61; and the North Adams Street Undergrade Bridge at MP 60.69). These rail structures relate 

to Havre de Grace’s history as a major commercial and transportation center and are therefore 

considered contributing features of the historic district. In addition, the current Proposed 

Project’s APE includes the extant piers of the 1866 railroad bridge, the canal and locktender’s 

house, and the site of the eighteenth century ferry crossing. 

In terms of community planning, the historic district nomination discusses the importance of the 

views to/from the water, as well as the town’s system of alternating streets and alleys. Within the 

APE, the properties in close proximity to the river have a direct view of the water, although there 

some large facilities, including marinas and large housing complexes, that block some of the 

views. Immediately adjacent to the rail line, the main view towards the river is dominated by the 

bridge and its approaches. The city’s layout of streets and alleys is in close proximity to the 

tracks, with both Freedom Lane and Centennial Lane crossing under the rail line via small stone 

arch bridges. 

Southern Terminus, Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal - South Lock #1 and Toll House (HA112; HA-113) 

The Southern Terminus, Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal - South Lock #1 and Toll House (see 

Figure 8-12, Photos 15-16) is located north of Erie Street and east of Park Drive on the western 

bank of the Susquehanna River (approximately one quarter-mile north of the Project site) in 

Havre de Grace. The canal was part of a waterway system for shipping goods up the Chesapeake 

Bay to New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. Thus, Havre de Grace, 

at the southernmost terminus of the canal, became an important shipping point for goods 

traveling north by the early 19th century. The site contains the Lock Master’s house, the 

foundation of a bulkhead wharf along the river, and the outlet lock of the canal. 

The Canal and Toll House are listed on the NR under Criterion A based on their association with 

a larger canal system that served five states and facilitated the development of Havre de Grace as 

a major transportation and economic center in the nineteenth century and Criterion C for its 

engineering significance. The MHT holds a preservation easement on this property, which 

requires that the MHT be provided an opportunity to review any proposed alterations. 

Martha Lewis (Skipjack [HA-2189])

The Skipjack Martha Lewis (NR-listed) is one of the 35 surviving traditional Chesapeake Bay 

skipjacks, which were sailboats built specifically for the purposes of oyster dredging.1

 The boat 

is currently undergoing restoration at Frank J. Hutchins Memorial Park, located approximately 

one half-mile south of the Project site, but has a permanent docking place at Millard Tydings 

Memorial Park, which is located over a mile south of the Project site. The Skipjack Martha 

Lewis is listed on the NR under Criterion A for its association with historic events and under 

Criterion C for embodying a method of construction that represents the work of a master. 

Rodgers Tavern (CE-129) 

Rodgers Tavern (see Figure 8-13, Photo 17) is located on the north side of Broad Street in 

Perryville, approximately 100 feet north of the Project site. It was a popular stop for travelers 

waiting for the ferry service to Havre de Grace. 

 

1

 No photo was available at the time of writing as the ship was not on public display in Hutchins 

Park during the field visit in February 2014. 
15

Toll House: View of the northeast and northwest elevations; looking south. 16

South Lock #1 and Toll House: Susquehanna Terminus, Susquehanna and Tidewater 

Canal; looking southeast. 

Architectural Resources

Photographs

Figure 8-12
17

18

Rodgers Tavern: View of the front façade; looking north.

Principio Furnace Office Building; looking south. 

Architectural Resources

Photographs

Figure 8-13
Chapter 8: Cultural Resources 

 8-9 

Rodgers Tavern, constructed circa 1771, is listed on the NR under Criterion A based on its 

association with prominent national figures such as George and Martha Washington, Marquis de 

Lafayette, and Lieutenant General Rochambeau. The tavern is also listed under NR Criterion C 

as an example of eighteenth century building construction and materials. 

The MHT holds a preservation easement on this property, which requires that the MHT be 

provided an opportunity to review any proposed alterations to the tavern interior, exterior, and 

associated land.

Principio Furnace (Principio Iron Works [CE-112]) 

The Principio Iron Works (see Figure 8-13, Photo 18) is located at 1723 Principio Furnace 

Road. Although the buildings associated with the historic resource are located approximately 

one-half mile north of the Project site, the southwest corner of the property (containing only a 

wooded area) is located in the study area. The Principio Furnace was the first iron furnace in 

Maryland and one of the first in the United States. 

The Principio Iron Works is listed on the NR under Criterion A based on its association with the 

country’s early industrial development and under Criterion D for its archaeological potential. 

Perry Point Mansion House and Mill (CE-146; CE-244) 

The Perry Point Mansion House and Mill are located south of the Perry Point Veterans 

Administration Medical Center on the Susquehanna River at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, 

approximately one-half mile south of the Project site. This mid- to late-eighteenth century, twoand-a-half-story Georgian mansion (see Figure 8-14, Photo 19) was home to the Stump family 

until 1918 when the house and approximately 516-acre farm were sold to the federal government 

for $150,000. During the Civil War, John Stump turned his farm over to the Union Army for the 

training of army mules and quartered soldiers in his house. A stone gristmill (see Figure 8-14, 

Photo 20) is located approximately 450 feet south of the mansion on the Susquehanna River. 

The Perry Point Mansion House and Mill is listed on the NR under Criterion A because of its 

significance as a large nineteenth century farm owned and operated by a prominent local family 

and because of its association with housing Union Army soldiers during the Civil War, and 

under Criterion C for architectural significance. 

Perryville Railroad Station (CE-1442) 

The Perryville Station (see Figure 8-15, Photo 21), located at 650 Broad Street within and 

adjacent to the Project site, was determined eligible for listing on the NR under Criteria A and C 

due to its association with the larger pattern of system-wide upgrades during the railroad 

industry’s golden age and as an example of an early twentieth century Colonial Revival style 

train station. The Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington (PB&W) Railroad Company 

constructed the station circa 1905. 

Two railroad-related structures are in close proximity to the Perryville Station and contribute to 

its historic significance: Perry Interlocking Tower (see Figure 8-15, Photo 22), and the ashlar 
19

20

Perry Point Mansion House: view of the north façade; 

looking south.

Architectural Resources

Photographs

Figure 8-14

Perry Point Mill: view of the east façade; looking west.
21

22

Perryville Railroad Station: view of the south elevation; looking north.

Perry Interlocking Tower: view of the north and east elevations; looking southwest.

Architectural Resources

Photographs

Figure 8-15
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 8-10 

stone-arch Perryville Railroad Station Undergrade Bridge at MP 59.392

 (see Figure 8-16, Photo

23). 

Amtrak Railroad or Perryville Road Bridge over the Susquehanna River and Overpasses (HA1712) 

The Pennsylvania Railroad constructed the Amtrak Railroad or Perryville Road Bridge (also 

known as the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge) in 1906. The bridge, set on stone piers, is a swing 

bridge with a movable span that rotates horizontally to open (using a center pivot mounted on a 

pier in the river) and allow boats to pass (see Figure 8-16, Photo 24). 

The Amtrak Railroad or Perryville Road Bridge (the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge) was 

determined eligible for listing on the NR under Criteria A and C as an example of an early 

twentieth century railroad bridge built by an important American railroad company and as an 

example of engineering that acknowledges two different modes of transportation. 

The Project Team determined nine bridges (see Figures 8-17 and 8-18, Photo 25-27) 

historically associated with the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge eligible for the NR (also under 

NR Criteria A and C), and modified the existing NR eligibility determination for the 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge to include these bridges. These nine bridges were constructed as 

part of the 1904-1906 building campaign that included the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge. The 

nine bridges include: 

 Mill Creek, MP 59.00 

 Perryville RR Station, MP 59.39 (also contributes to the Perryville Railroad Station 

complex) 

 Station Access Road, MP 59.52 

 North Freedom Lane, MP 60.51 

 North Stokes Street, MP 60.56 

 Centennial Lane, MP 60.61 

 North Adams Street, MP 60.69 

 North Juniata Street, MP 60.77 

 Lily Run, MP 60.85 

In addition, due to the importance of transportation to the history of the Havre de Grace Historic 

District, the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and the four bridges within Havre de Grace Historic 

District (at MP 60.51, 60.56, 60.61, and 60.69) contribute to the historic district’s significance. 

Perry Point Veterans Administration Medical Center Historic District (CE-1544) 

The Veterans Administration (VA) developed the Medical Center at Perry Point (see Figure 8-18,

Photo 28) primarily in the 1920s through the 1940s as a neuro-psychiatric treatment facility for 

military veterans. The Colonial Revival architectural style and site layout reflect design principles 

developed by the VA during this period, which focused on siting buildings to maximize views of 

the existing landscape. 

 

2

 A passenger shelter identified in the eligibility determination as contributing to the resource’s 

significance was recently demolished. It was located south of the tracks across from the train 

station. 
23

24

Perryville Railroad Station Undergrade Bridge (MP 59.39): View of the ashlar 

stone tunnel located east of the Perryville Railroad Station; looking south.

Architectural Resources

Photographs

Figure 8-16

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge: View from the Perryville waterfront; looking 

southwest. 
26

25

Architectural Resources

Photographs

Figure 8-17

Mill Creek Undergrade Bridge (MP 59.00): View of the east side, which 

will be extended with a precast concrete culvert; looking northwest. 

Perryville Railroad Station Undergrade Bridge (MP 59.39): view of the 

east side, which will be extended with a precast concrete culvert.
27

28

Architectural Resources

Photographs

Figure 8-18

Access Road Undergrade Bridge (MP 59.52): View of the east side, which will be 

altered via replacing the existing concrete encased stringer and superstructure 

and will be extended with a concrete abutment; looking northwest. 

Perry Point Veterans Administration Medical Center: view of residences 

along Avenue D from 2nd Street; looking southeast.
Chapter 8: Cultural Resources 

 8-11 

The VA Medical Center at Perry Point is eligible for listing on the NR under Criterion A for its 

association with the growth of the federal government’s provision of neuro-psychiatric treatment 

for military veterans and under Criterion C as a cohesive collection of buildings. 

Crothers House (Furnace Bay Golf Clubhouse [CE-1566]) 

The Crothers House (see Figure 8-19, Photo 29), which is currently used as the clubhouse for 

the Furnace Bay Golf Course, was built in 1936 as a residence for Omar and Margaret Crothers, 

both of whom would serve in the Maryland State Senate in the 1950s. 

The Crothers House was determined eligible for listing on the NR under Criterion C for its 

architectural significance as an example of a Colonial Revival house associated with early 

twentieth century estates for the wealthy and for its notable architectural features. 

Woodlands Farm Historic District (CE-145) 

The Woodlands Farm Historic District is an extension of the boundary of the NR-listed 

Woodlands property north of Maryland Route 7 to include the Woodlands Farm South Complex. 

The NR-listed Woodlands property consists of a main house and several outbuildings set on 69 

acres. 

The Woodlands Farm South Complex is eligible for listing on the NR under Criteria A and C 

due to its association with the evolution of the agricultural industry in Cecil County from the 

early nineteenth to late twentieth centuries, and as representing a cohesive collection of mostly 

intact agricultural buildings dating to the nineteenth century. 

Perryville United Methodist Church (CE-1573) 

As part of the Proposed Project, the Project Team – in concert with SHPO – determined the 

Perryville United Methodist Church eligible for the NR. The congregation of the Perryville 

United Methodist Church (see Figure 8-19, Photo 30) constructed the structure in 1896, 30 

years after the church formed. The church added an addition to the south façade between 1923 

and 1943; a Queen Anne-style Parsonage north of the Church circa 1905; and a Church House 

immediately south and west of the Church in 1928. 

The Church, Parsonage, and Church House are eligible for the NR under Criterion A for their 

role in the history of the local development of the Methodist Church and under Criterion C as 

examples of Gothic Revival-style ecclesiastical architecture. 

Perryville Presbyterian Church (CE-1574) 

As part of the Proposed Project, the Perryville Presbyterian Church was determined to be NR 

eligible. The Perryville Presbyterian Church (see Figure 8-20, Photo 31) was constructed circa 

1892, four years after the founding of the congregation. 

The church is eligible for the NR under Criterion A for its role in the local history of the 

Presbyterian Church and under Criterion C as a fine example of a Gothic board-and-batten 

church. 

C. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

As described in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” under the No Action Alternative, the existing 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge will remain in service, with continued increased maintenance 

and minimal repairs. The planned development projects discussed in Chapter 4, “Land Use and 
29

Architectural Resources

Photographs

Figure 8-19

Perryville United Methodist Church: view of the east elevation; looking west. 30

Crothers House (Furnace Bay Golf Clubhouse): View of the west 

(front) and south elevations; looking northeast. 
31

Architectural Resources

Photographs

Figure 8-20

Perryville Presbyterian Church: view of the side (east) and front (north) 

elevations of the church at 710 Broad Street in Perryville; looking southwest. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 8-12 

Community Facilities,” consist primarily of residential and mixed-use infill projects in Havre de 

Grace and Perryville. Other proposed projects include a Waterfront Heritage Park in Havre de 

Grace along Water Street, the Lower Ferry Park and Pier in Perryville at Broad Street and 

Roundhouse Drive, as well as a 115-acre MARC maintenance facility adjacent to the NEC. 

Architectural resources that are listed on the NR or that have been found eligible for listing are 

given a measure of protection from the effects of federally sponsored or assisted projects under 

Section 106 of the NHPA. Although the Act does not mandate preservation, federal agencies 

must attempt to avoid adverse impacts on such resources through a notice, review, and 

construction process.

The residential infill projects in the Havre de Grace Historic District require review and approval 

from the Havre de Grace Historic Preservation Commission; therefore, it is anticipated that these 

projects would be in keeping with the overall character of the Historic District. 

D. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVES 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Since Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B overlap, their potential effects on archaeological 

resources will be jointly discussed for each of the five study areas identified in the Phase IA 

Archaeological Assessment, moving from west to east. 

STUDY AREA 1: HAVRE DE GRACE ATHLETIC FIELD COMPLEX 

Within Study Area 1 there is little to no archaeological sensitivity within the APE for Alternative 

9A and Alternative 9B; therefore, no additional archaeological investigation is recommended for 

this section of the Project area. 

STUDY AREA 2: NORTH JUNIATA STREET TO NORTH UNION AVENUE 

Within Study Area 2, the area of archaeological sensitivity is located within the northwest corner 

of the intersection of Warren Street and N. Adams Street between the existing railroad and 

Warren Street. Approximately 100 feet (30 meters) west of Adams Street, a building was 

observed to extend under the railroad tracks. This appears to be the location of the former Havre 

de Grace Train Station with the extant remains of the building observed on both the west and 

east sides of the tracks. It is possible that intact cultural deposits associated with this structure 

are present within the APE. Both Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B propose ground disturbance 

within this portion of the APE with Alternative 9A having a negligible, but slightly larger area of 

ground disturbance. Within this portion of the APE, a Phase IB/II Archaeological Survey is 

recommended to confirm the presence of and determine the extent and significance of 

archaeological resources. 

STUDY AREA 3: HAVRE DE GRACE WATERFRONT 

Within Study Area 3, the area of archaeological sensitivity is located east of N. Union Street and 

Water Street along the Havre de Grace Waterfront. Although this portion of the APE is largely 

man-made as a result of filling activities along the waterfront, the area does have archaeological 

potential for information pertaining to the development of the waterfront, including the original 

Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington (PW&B) rail alignment, warehouses, wharves, or other 
Chapter 8: Cultural Resources 

 8-13 

industrial activities. The MHT’s records identify the entire waterfront as a potential resource as 

well as the approximate location of a coal wharf. 

Along the waterfront, two parks straddle the railroad tracks: the David Craig Park to the south 

and Jean S. Roberts Park to the north. Both parks were identified as having archaeological 

potential, with a larger area of sensitivity identified within David Craig Park. 

Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B both propose small-scale ground disturbance adjacent to the 

David Craig Park and a larger area of ground disturbance in the Jean S. Roberts Park, with 

Alternative 9B having a slightly larger disturbance area where the MHT Quad File #10 is 

located. While Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B would disturb a larger area within Jean S. 

Roberts Park, the area of archaeological sensitivity in this location is smaller. For either 

Alternative 9A or Alternative 9B, a Phase IB Archaeological Survey is recommended to confirm 

the presence or absence of potentially significant archaeological deposits. 

STUDY AREA 4: PERRYVILLE WATERFRONT 

Within Study Area 4, the area of archaeological sensitivity is located at the northern bridge 

approach over the Susquehanna River known as Perry Point between the river and Avenue A on 

both sides of the existing railroad corridor. Portions of this area are Amtrak property, but are 

leased to the federal government for the VA facility. There have been previous archaeological 

investigations in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Project APE; however, these 

investigations did not include all areas that may be impacted by the Proposed Project. The 

previously recorded and potentially eligible Rodger's Tavern site (18CE15) is located on the 

north side of the existing railroad and north of Broad Street. The archaeological component of 

Rodgers Tavern is depicted on MHT mapping as being located on the south side of Broad Street 

directly adjacent to one of the stone abutments supporting the current Susquehanna River Rail 

Bridge. Given the significance of this resource and the lack of systematic archaeological survey 

in this area, Phase IB/II investigations are recommended for all areas of ground disturbance 

associated with the Proposed Project west of Broad Street/Avenue A. These investigations 

would seek to verify the current extent of 18CE15 as well as to identify additional unrecorded 

cultural deposits associated with Rodgers Tavern in the vicinity. 

Portions of the APE within the construction, staging, and access areas on the east side of the 

railroad should be considered archaeologically sensitive for both precontact and historic 

resources and may require Phase IB archaeological survey. This side of the river may contain the 

Perryville side of a ferry crossing. 

Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B (which are identical in this section of the APE) would result 

in ground disturbance within the archaeologically sensitive areas west of the railroad and 

adjacent to the Rodgers Tavern site, which has a high potential for significant archaeological 

resources. Phase IB/II archaeological testing is recommended regardless of alternative selected, 

given what is known of the archaeological potential on both sides of the railroad and the location 

of the Rodgers Tavern site. 

STUDY AREA 5: PERRY POINT VA MEDICAL CENTER AND MARC STATION AREA 

The majority of Study Area 5 has been previously disturbed by the construction of the 

intersection of the Northeast Corridor with the Norfolk Southern Port Road spur line and its 

associated parking lots, supply yards, and other support facilities. However, west of this railroad 

intersection, a group of nineteenth and early twentieth century single and multifamily residences 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 8-14 

line the southern edge of Broad Street. Each of these properties includes a small yard directly 

adjacent to the rail corridor. These areas have the potential to contain intact yard features such as 

wells, privies, trash middens or other cultural deposits. 

Both Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B (which are identical in this section of the APE) change 

the alignment of the Wye Track and encroach into the archaeologically sensitive areas. Phase IB 

archaeological testing is recommended for archaeologically sensitive areas that would be 

disturbed under either alternative. 

STUDY AREA 6: SUSQUEHANNA SUBMERGED CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Past archival research efforts and remote sensing surveys have indicated the potential for 

submerged historic shipwrecks or other vessels as well as potential structural remains associated 

with the evolution of the Havre de Grace Waterfront. These surveys have resulted in the 

identification of several targets that are located within the archaeological APE for the Proposed 

Project. 

According to MHT’s records for Havre de Grace, six resources have been identified within the 

archaeological APE. 

 Location of the first railroad bridge across the Susquehanna, identified by the existing 

PW&B railroad bridge pilings. 

 Location of a nineteenth century ferry across the Susquehanna River as identified on historic 

mapping. 

 Location of the historic Havre de Grace Waterfront. 

 Location of a coal wharf. 

 Location, just south of the existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge, of a submerged anomaly 

recorded during the 2002 Lower Susquehanna River survey by Maryland Maritime 

Archeology Program (MMAP). This anomaly is approximately 400 feet (122 meters) west 

of the Perryville shoreline. 

 Location of another submerged anomaly recorded during the 2002 Lower Susquehanna 

River, marked on MHT mapping as running the entire length of the existing Amtrak railroad 

bridge structure. 

No additional information is given for these resources. 

In addition to the MHT Quad Files, one previously identified archaeological site, 18HE266, is 

located within the Susquehanna River within the vicinity of the APE. Located to the north of the 

existing bridge structure approximately 700 feet (213 meters) to the east of the Havre de Grace 

shoreline, 18HE266 has been identified as the wreckage from a twentieth century barge. This 

resource has never been formally evaluated for eligibility to the NR. 

Due to the imprecise nature of the information available, additional information on the 

submerged archaeological features would be necessary to determine the potential impacts of the 

Build Alternatives. Resources identified within the vicinity of the APE should be surveyed and 

precisely located, to reconfirm their boundaries and verify whether they lie outside of the APE. 

Submerged cultural resources are subject to the natural effects of the environment. In particular, 

natural river phenomenon is known to have pushed sites out of the main channels and closer to 

shore. It appears that Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B may impact the location of the 

nineteenth century ferry and may be close to the location of the coal wharf. Given the lack of 
Chapter 8: Cultural Resources 

 8-15 

certainty regarding the location and integrity of underwater archaeological resources within the 

river portion of the APE, additional Phase I underwater archaeological studies are recommended 

for areas that may be impacted by the Proposed Project. 

SUMMARY 

Both Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B have the potential to impact archaeologically sensitive 

areas within Study Areas 2 to 5 and within the Susquehanna River. Both Alternative 9A and 

Alternative 9B would have the potential to impact the area surrounding the former Havre de 

Grace Train Station (Study Area 2). Although the proposed areas of ground disturbance in Study 

Area 2 are not identical under Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B, the differences are slight. 

Within the Havre de Grace Waterfront (Study Area 3), both Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B 

would disturb archaeologically sensitive areas. At Perryville Waterfront (Study Area 4), both 

Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B would cause disturbance within archaeologically sensitive 

areas with high potential for archaeological resources pertaining to Rodgers Tavern as well as 

precontact resources. Adjacent to the South Wye Track (Study Area 5), the archaeologically 

sensitive backyards of the houses to the west of the track may be impacted by both Alternative 

9A and Alternative 9B. As discussed above, additional information regarding the potential 

underwater archaeological resources within the Susquehanna River is required to determine 

potential impacts to these historic resources. 

Phase IB testing is recommended for all identified archaeologically sensitive areas that would be 

impacted by the Proposed Project. Additionally, a Phase I underwater archaeological survey is 

recommended for the portion of the APE within the Susquehanna River to confirm the location 

of potential submerged archaeological resources that could be affected by the undertaking. If 

Phase IB testing in any of the Study Areas identifies potentially significant (NR-eligible) 

archaeological resources that could be affected by the Proposed Project, Phase II archaeological 

testing would be undertaken in these areas to determine the significance and the boundaries of 

the archaeological deposits. If significant archaeological resources are identified in the APE that 

would be unavoidably adversely affected by the Proposed Project, appropriate measures to 

minimize and/or mitigate any such effects would be devised and implemented. A draft 

Programmatic Agreement (PA) was developed with all appropriate agencies and consulting 

parties, which includes stipulations for any necessary additional archaeological investigations, as 

recommended above (see Appendix D, “Cultural Resources”). 

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES 

The Project Team assessed Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B for their potential to adversely 

affect the 13 historic architectural resources within the APE that are either listed on or eligible 

for listing on the NR. Based on the assessment, the Proposed Project would adversely affect the 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge, eight of the nine undergrade rail bridges, the Havre de Grace 

Historic District, the Perryville Railroad Station complex, and Rodgers Tavern. 

A draft Programmatic Agreement includes measures to minimize and mitigate adverse effects to 

architectural resources (see Appendix D, “Cultural Resources”). This document will be 

implemented in coordination with ACHP, MHT, and involved consulting parties. 

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER RAILROAD BRIDGE AND OVERPASSES 

The Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and nine undergrade bridges, which were all constructed 

during the same 1904-1906 building campaign by the Pennsylvania Railroad, are eligible for 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 8-16 

listing on the NR under Criteria A and C. Because all ten bridges will be impacted by the Build 

Alternatives, the effect of the Proposed Project on the bridges was evaluated in accordance with 

the criteria for adverse effect. 

Section 106 regulations define “Physical destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the 

property” as an adverse effect; therefore, demolition of the NR-eligible Susquehanna River Rail 

Bridge would constitute an adverse effect. FRA/MDOT considered whether rehabilitating the 

existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge could meet project Purpose and Need and program 

goals. Based on studies conducted in 2013-2014 (see Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives” for 

further discussion), FRA/MDOT determined that the rehabilitation alternative is not suitable for 

either continued freight and/or passenger rail or non-rail use. This conclusion stems from the 

bridge’s current condition and the infeasibility of reconstructing it to a state of good repair 

without significant rail disruptions and prohibitive costs. 

Although the adverse effect of demolishing the bridge cannot be avoided, FRA/MDOT 

considered minimizing the adverse effect by designing the two new bridges and their piers to be 

compatible with the character defining features of the historic bridge. The character defining 

features of the existing bridge include its traditional railroad architecture, especially its metal 

trusses, its central projecting section, and its use of Alleghany Mountain sandstone and Port 

Deposit granite. Amtrak is considering four alternative bridge designs and four pier designs for 

the proposed new bridges. The bridge designs, and the extent to which they would minimize the 

adverse effects, are listed below (in descending order of the degree to which the new design 

helps to minimize the adverse effect of the removal of the historic bridge): 

The bridge alternative in Figure 8-21, Photo 32 combines deck truss approach spans with a 

through truss main span and is therefore closest to the original bridge in design. Overall, this 

design rates high in terms of its ability to minimize the adverse effect of demolishing the historic 

bridge. 

The bridge alternative in Figure 8-21, Photo 33 maintains a through truss center span, yet 

replaces the deck truss construction with a girder deck. Although this is a change from the 

existing bridge, a girder is a traditional rail design and therefore appropriate for the replacement 

of a historic bridge. Overall, this design rates medium in terms of its ability to minimize the 

adverse effect of demolishing the historic bridge. 

The bridge alternative in Figure 8-22, Photo 34 replaces the through truss of the center span 

with an arch and the deck truss construction with a girder deck. Although this is a change from 

the existing bridge, both arch construction and deck girders are traditional rail design and 

therefore appropriate for the replacement of a historic bridge. Overall, this design rates medium 

in terms of its ability to minimize the adverse effect of demolishing the historic bridge. 

The bridge alternative in Figure 8-22, Photo 35 replaces the through truss of the center span 

with an arch and the deck truss construction with a girder deck. The use of arch construction is 

traditional rail design; however, the remaining design elements, especially the delta piers (see 

Figure 8-23, Photo 36) are not compatible with a historic bridge. Overall, this design rates low 

in terms of its ability to minimize the adverse effect. 

Three of the proposed pier designs, arched “keyhole” (see Figure 8-23, Photo 37), fluted (see 

Figure 8-24, Photo 38), or wall (see Figure 8-21, Photos 32-33) are traditional designs and 

would therefore help to minimize the adverse effect of demolishing the bridge. These piers could 

be constructed with any of the three truss or girder bridge alternatives shown in Figures 8-21 

and 8-22, Photos 32-34. The delta piers (shown in Figures 8-22 and 8-23, Photos 35-36) have 
32

Architectural Resources

Photographs

Figure 8-21

Rendering of a proposed replacement bridge with a truss approach and a truss main span; 

looking northeast from Havre de Grace.

Rendering of a proposed replacement bridge with a girder approach and a truss main span; 33

looking northeast from Havre de Grace.
34

Architectural Resources

Photographs

Figure 8-22

Rendering of a proposed replacement bridge with a girder approach and arch main span; 

looking northeast from Havre de Grace.

Rendering of a proposed replacement bridge with a Delta frame approach and arch main span; 35

looking northeast from Havre de Grace.
36

Architectural Resources

Photographs

Figure 8-23

Rendering of the piers for the Delta frame approach; looking east from Havre de Grace.

Rendering of possible arched piers to be used with the girder approach; looking east from Havre de Grace. 37
38

Architectural Resources

Photographs

Figure 8-24

Rendering of possible fluted piers to be used with the girder approach; 

looking east from Havre de Grace.
Chapter 8: Cultural Resources 

 8-17 

a modern appearance and would not help to minimize the adverse effect of demolishing the 

historic bridge. 

The four bridge design options have been shown to consulting parties and the general public at 

several meetings, including on December 10, 2014, November 10, 2015, and April 14, 2016. The 

design alternative that received the strongest support was the one with a deck girder and central 

arch (shown in Figure 8-22, Photo 34), primarily due to the more open look of this design. 

The Susquehanna River Rail Bridge’s stone is an important character-defining feature, especially 

because of the use of Port Deposit granite from a local quarry. The adverse effect of the bridge’s 

demolition could be minimized by incorporating stone into the two new bridges. However, the 

Project Team has determined that using stone in the new bridge is not feasible as it would not 

meet current engineering design standards. In addition, as indicated above, public comment 

favors a more open pier design (see further discussion on the importance of viewsheds in 

conjunction with the Havre de Grace Historic District.) 

In addition to affecting the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge itself, the Proposed Project would 

result in a permanent impact to the nine associated masonry rail undergrade bridges that carry 

the NEC, listed from north to south: 

 Mill Creek Undergrade Bridge, milepost (MP) 59.00: a stone-arch bridge with stone 

abutments resting on spread footings. The bridge appears to remain largely intact, although 

an I-beam that runs along the edge of the deck is anchored on either end with concrete that 

appears to be a later repair. The Proposed Project calls for the construction of a precast 

concrete culvert extension on the east side of the tracks. 

 Perryville Railroad Station Undergrade Bridge, MP 59.39: a stone-arch masonry structure 

with stone abutments on spread footings. The Proposed Project calls for the construction of a 

precast concrete culvert extension on the east side of the tracks. 

 Access Road Undergrade Bridge, MP 59.52: a two-span concrete-encased steel-stringer 

bridge that sits on stone abutments and a central steel pier, both founded on spread footings. 

The bridge’s masonry abutments, steel pier, and steel deck do not appear to have been 

substantially altered. The Proposed Project calls for the current structure to be replaced 

with a precast concrete culvert and the existing abutments to be partially demolished and 

buried in fill. In addition, the new bridge will extend beyond the limits of the current 

structure to the east and the west. 

 North Freedom Lane Undergrade Bridge, MP 60.51: a stone-arch bridge that consists of a 

masonry arch and abutments (or wing walls) on spread footings that retain the embankment 

on which the Northeast Corridor runs in the area. The bridge appears to be in good condition 

and does not appear to have been visibly altered since its construction as part of the 1904-

1906 building campaign. The Proposed Project calls for the construction of a precast 

concrete culvert extension on the east and west sides of the tracks. 

 North Stokes Street Undergrade Bridge, MP 60.56: a bridge comprised of stone abutments 

(or wing walls) on spread footings supporting steel plate girders. The deck appears to be 

constructed of reinforced concrete. The masonry abutments and steel plate girders appear to 

date to the original 1906 construction of the bridge. The Proposed Project calls for removal 

of a portion of the existing stone masonry abutment on the west side of the tracks and 

construction of new concrete abutments on both sides of the tracks. 

 Centennial Lane Undergrade Bridge, MP 60.61: a stone-arch bridge that consists of a 

masonry arch and abutments on spread footings. The bridge appears to be in good condition 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 8-18 

and does not appear to have been visibly altered since it was built as part of the 1906 

construction of the Susquehanna River Railroad Bridge. The Proposed Project calls for the 

construction of a through plate girder bridge on a concrete abutment on the east side of the 

tracks for Alternative 9A and a precast concrete culvert extension on both sides of the tracks 

for Alternative 9B. 

 North Adams Street Undergrade Bridge, MP 60.69: The bridge consists of two single-track 

steel plate girder decks atop stone masonry abutments on spread footings. The masonry 

abutments and steel plate girders appear to date to the original construction of the 1904-1906 

bridge. Some repairs to the upper portions of the masonry abutments are evident. The 

concrete deck appears to have been replaced and the deck platform appears to have been 

extended with a metal plate supported by metal brackets affixed to outer sides of the 

concrete decking. The Proposed Project calls for construction of a new concrete abutment on 

the east side of the tracks and a concrete abutment extension on the west side. 

 North Juniata Street Undergrade Bridge, MP 60.77: The bridge consists of four single-track 

plate-girder decks atop stone abutments with spread footings. The masonry abutments and 

steel plate girders appear to date to the original construction of the 1906 Susquehanna River 

Railroad Bridge. The concrete deck appears to have been replaced and the deck platform 

appears to have been extended with a metal plate supported by metal brackets affixed to 

outer sides of the concrete decking. The Proposed Project calls for construction of a new 

concrete abutment on the east side of the tracks. 

 Lily Run Undergrade Bridge, MP 60.85: The bridge is a stone-arch culvert comprised of 

stone abutments on a spread footing. The Proposed Project calls for spanning over the flood 

plain with a multi-girder bridge, thereby avoiding the need to extend the culvert. 

Project plans to span over and therefore avoid altering the Lily Run Undergrade Bridge (MP 

60.85) would result in no adverse effect on that bridge. However, the Proposed Project will have 

an adverse effect on the other eight historic bridges due to the proposed extension of the bridges 

with concrete abutments. The adverse effect could be minimized or avoided by using stone in the 

construction of the new bridge extensions; however, FRA/MDOT have determined that using 

stone is not feasible as it would not meet current engineering design standards. Therefore, the 

adverse effect could be minimized by using a form liner that emulates stone and is stained to be 

compatible with the color of the existing stone. In addition, to ensure that the new retaining walls 

in close proximity to the bridges do not adversely affect the historic resources, the design of the 

new walls should be in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties, so that the walls are compatible with the bridges’ historic 

materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing. 

The Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project Advisory Board and the Town of Perryville have 

recommended that the north face and wing walls of the underpass at MP 59.52 “should be 

restored to its original architectural appearance,” and that “the entire north entrance of this 

underpass should be thoroughly cleaned and well landscaped along the adjacent embankments 

and out to Broad Street.” In addition, the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project Advisory 

Board and the Town of Perryville have also recommended that the “low tunnel-like underpass 

[at MP 59.39] that divides the two MARC Station parking lots should be abandoned by sealing it 

off from the north side. The south side may be left open for historical purposes, provided it is 

made secure from trespassers.” The abandonment and sealing off of the underpass are not part of 

the Proposed Project and, if added, would constitute an adverse effect under Section 106. 
Chapter 8: Cultural Resources 

 8-19 

The following components of the Proposed Project will have no direct physical effects and only 

limited visual effects on the nine historic undergrade bridges: the new communications, 

overhead contact, and signal systems; minor modifications to the Perry Electrical Substation; the 

modification or relocation of the transmission tower on the west side of the track; and 

modifications to the interlockings. Therefore, because these components will not alter a 

characteristic that makes the undergrade bridges eligible for inclusion in the NR, they will have 

no effect as defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16.

HAVRE DE GRACE HISTORIC DISTRICT 

To assess the Proposed Project’s effects on the Havre de Grace Historic District, the following 

were reviewed: 

 Demolition of the existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge. As the bridge is a contributing 

feature IN the Havre de Grace Historic District, the proposed demolition of the bridge will 

have an adverse effect on the historic district. 

 Visual effects associated with the proposed replacement of the Susquehanna River Rail 

Bridge, including the change from one to two bridges, the massing and height of the new 

bridges and their piers and approaches, and the construction of new retaining walls. 

 Alterations to the undergrade bridges within the historic district. 

 Physical taking of property within the historic district. 

 Damage to historic buildings. 

 The proposed installation of new communications, overhead contact, and signal systems. 

Demolition of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge 

Because the bridge is a contributing feature of the Havre de Grace Historic District, the proposed 

demolition of the bridge will have an adverse effect on the district due to the “physical 

destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the property.” This adverse effect can be 

minimized by ensuring that the two new bridges over the river use a traditional design for the 

bridges and piers as discussed earlier in this section. 

Visual Effects 

The Proposed Project’s potential visual effects on the Havre de Grace Historic District were 

evaluated according to three considerations: the extent to which the Proposed Project would 

either block or open up views to/from the historic district; the extent to which the view looking 

at the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge from the historic district would be altered; and the extent 

to which the views from structures within the historic district would be altered due to the 

Proposed Project coming in closer proximity to the structures. 

The NR nomination for the Havre de Grace Historic District states that views or “vistas” to and 

from the water are important: “Another aspect of Havre de Grace’s vistas that should not be 

forgotten relates not only to how the water is seen from in town but to the image which the town 

projects to the river and Bay. Considering that it has a history of three centuries as a river 

settlement, it is only in very recent times that the waterway has ceased to be the principal 

transportation route to Havre de Grace.” The fact that the Proposed Project calls for the 

replacement of one bridge with two will result in greater mass that would potentially block 

views to/from the historic district. However, this effect on views will to a great extent be 

counterbalanced by the fact that the bridges will be 14 feet higher in elevation at the navigation 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 8-20 

channel of the river, thereby opening up views under the bridges. In addition, a girder bridge, 

versus the existing heavy construction truss bridge, will be shallower and therefore result in 

more open views. 

In terms of vistas from the historic district to the bridge, the most important character defining 

feature, whether in close proximity to the bridge or further removed is the bridge’s long linear 

nature with a traditional central feature, currently a truss. All four proposed bridge designs will 

retain this characteristic. 

In summary, the Proposed Project will have an effect, but not an adverse effect, on the Havre de 

Grace Historic District’s character-defining feature of views to/from the water and to the bridge. 

The extent to which the Proposed Project would have a visual effect on individual structures 

within the Havre de Grace Historic District was also assessed. In order to accommodate the new 

tracks, the elevated tracks going through the historic district will need to be expanded in width 

and height, with new retaining walls added. In terms of height, the approach to the bridge in 

Havre de Grace will be six feet higher at the south abutment, three feet higher at Stokes Street, 

and two feet higher at Adams Street near the southern end of the historic district. In terms of 

width, Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B will result in placing the tracks closer to contributing 

structures within the historic district as shown in Table 8-2. 

Table 8-2

Distance to Contributing Structures

Building/Cluster Alternative 9A Alternative 9B 

511 Warren Street Shifted 30 feet east Shifted 13 feet east

Cross Mission Church, 429 N. Stokes Street Shifted 44 feet east Shifted 19 feet east

Bungalows at the intersection of Adams and 

Warren Streets (west side) Shifted 4 to 5 feet west 

518 N. Stokes Street Shifted 26 to 28 feet west 

Mid-nineteenth century houses on southeast 

corner of N. Stokes Street and 560-566 Otsego 

Street 

Shifted 30 to 37 feet west 

513 Otsego Street Shifted 46 feet west 

509 Otsego Street Shifted 47 feet west 

600 Water Street Shifted 48 feet west 

The proposed changes, especially the widening that will bring the tracks in much closer 

proximity to some of the contributing structures within the historic district, will result in “the 

isolation of the property from or alteration of the character of the property’s setting when that 

character contributes to the property’s qualification for the NR,” constituting an adverse effect. 

The areas where the greatest changes would occur would be: 

 West side of the tracks: 

- Structures at the intersection of Otsego and Water Streets 

- Vernacular Victorian-period residence at 518 N. Stokes Street 

These structures would be impacted by the effect of the widening and the new retaining walls for 

both Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B. The tracks would be 46 to 48 feet closer to the 
Chapter 8: Cultural Resources 

 8-21 

structures at the intersection of Otsego and Water Streets and 26 to 28 feet closer to 518 N. 

Stokes Street. 

 East side of the tracks: 

- Nineteenth century structure at 511 Warren Street 

The tracks would be 40 feet closer in Alternative A, and only 13 feet closer in Alternative B. 

Several factors were taken into consideration in assessing the adverse effect on the structures on 

the west side of the tracks. First, the visual effects of the widening of the bridge approach near 

the intersection of Otsego and Water Streets will be minimized by the fact that the stone bridge 

abutment and wingwall across from the houses on Otsego Street will be removed and the new 

abutment will be placed further south near Freedom Lane. In addition, the retaining wall 

proposed to be built south of Freedom Lane will help to separate the tracks from the adjoining 

structures, with the tracks placed 16 feet within the retaining walls. The adverse effect from the 

widening of the bridge approach can be further minimized by ensuring that the retaining wall is 

designed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties, in order to ensure compatibility with the historic district. The Advisory 

Board has recommended that the bridge abutments, underpasses, and retaining walls have a 

consistent architectural design and appearance. 

Physical Taking of Property within the Historic District 

For Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B, most of the required taking of property beyond the 

existing Amtrak right-of-way is south of North Adams Street and therefore outside of the 

boundaries of the historic district. Within the historic district, there are two areas of takings: 

 Alternative 9A requires a taking of a small amount of property outside of the existing 

Amtrak right-of-way including a 0.1-acre tapered area between Adams Street and Stokes 

Street and a 0.05-acre area between Stokes Street and Freedom Alley. The affected property 

is undeveloped open space. Due to the small size of the affected land as well as the 

undeveloped nature, the effect of this taking is minor and therefore not adverse. 

 Both Alternatives require the taking of a 0.01-acre area from the Jean S. Roberts Memorial 

Park on the west side of the bridge. Due to the small size of the affected land, the effect of 

this taking is minor and therefore not adverse. 

Alterations to Overpass Bridges within the Historic District 

The four undergrade bridges that contribute to the historic significance of the Susquehanna River 

Rail Bridge and the Havre de Grace Historic District will need to be modified as part of the 

Proposed Project. FRA/MDOT evaluated that the Proposed Project will have an adverse effect 

on these four historic bridges due to the proposed extensions to the bridges, which will alter the 

bridges’ design and materials. This adverse effect could be avoided by using stone in the 

construction of the new bridge extensions; however, FRA/MDOT have determined that using 

stone is not feasible as it would not meet current engineering design standards. Therefore, it is 

recommended that the adverse effect be minimized by using a form liner that emulates stone and 

is stained to be compatible with the color of the existing stone. In addition, to ensure that the 

new retaining walls in close proximity to the bridges do not adversely affect the historic 

resources, the design of the new walls should be in accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, so that the walls are compatible 

with the bridges’ historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 8-22 

Two of the undergrade bridges (at Freedom Lane and Centennial Lane) carry the NEC over 

alleys, which are described in the Havre de Grace Historic District NR nomination as important 

features within the historic district. Because the Proposed Project proposes to keep the alleys 

open for passage, the Proposed Project will not have an adverse effect on the alleys. Closing up 

either alley would constitute an additional adverse effect under Section 106. 

Damage to Historic Buildings 

Because the Proposed Project will come in close proximity to some of the contributing resources 

within the Havre de Grace Historic District, the potential for inadvertent construction-period 

impacts to adjacent structures has been assessed. Construction would occur in close proximity to 

several resources including 511 Warren Street on the east side of the tracks if Alternative 9A is 

selected, and the effects on the structures at 509, 513, 560, and 566 Otsego Street and 518 N. 

Stokes Street, on the west side of the tracks related to either Alternative 9A or Alternative 9B. 

To ensure that there is no construction-related damage, the Proposed Project PA will include 

development of a Construction Protection Plan (CPP). The CPP, which will be prepared in 

consultation with the MHT, ACHP (as appropriate), consulting parties, and the property owners, 

will identify all architectural resources to be included in the plan and will set forth the specific 

measures to be used and specifications that will be applied to protect these architectural 

resources from damage during the construction period. 

FRA/MDOT assessed the potential for the Proposed Project to cause long-term operational 

damage to adjacent structures and determined that the Proposed Project in its operational 

condition would not have the potential to result in vibration at a level that could cause damage to 

nearby historic structures. As described in Chapter 14, "Noise and Vibration," vibration 

produced by the Proposed Project would not exceed the significant impact thresholds specified 

in the FTA guidance document's general assessment methodology. These impact thresholds are 

designed to avoid human annoyance and disruptions to human activity, and as such are 

substantially lower than those that could potentially result in building damage, even for historic 

structures. Because the impact thresholds are based on the more stringent criterion of human 

annoyance, damage to adjacent buildings is not specifically addressed in the FTA's general 

assessment methodology. However, since operational vibration resulting from the Proposed 

Project would not result in exceedances of the vibration impact criteria, it would not have the 

potential to result in vibration levels that could damage historic resources. 

New communications, overhead contact, and signal systems 

The following components of the Proposed Project will have only limited visual effects on the 

Havre de Grace Historic District: the new communications overhead contact, and signal 

systems. Therefore, because these components will not alter a characteristic that makes the 

Historic District eligible for inclusion in the NR, they will have no adverse effect as defined in 

36 CFR Part 800.16. 

Summary 

The proposed demolition of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and the alterations to the four 

related undergrade bridges will adversely affect the Havre de Grace Historic District. In 

addition, the widening that will bring the tracks in much closer proximity to some of the 

contributing structures within the historic district will constitute an adverse effect. 
Chapter 8: Cultural Resources 

 8-23 

SOUTHERN TERMINUS, SUSQUEHANNA AND TIDEWATER CANAL - SOUTH LOCK #1 

AND TOLL HOUSE 

The Southern Terminus, Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal - South Lock #1 and Toll House

(NR-listed) is located north of Erie Street and east of Park Drive at the north end of Havre de 

Grace on the western bank of the Susquehanna River (approximately one quarter-mile north of 

the Project site). The existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge is distantly visible from this 

property. The replacement of the bridge would not substantially change the setting of the 

structure nor would it diminish the integrity of its historic features. The existing bridge does not 

relate to or contribute to the characteristics that qualify the resource for inclusion in the NR. The 

Proposed Project would have no adverse effect on this historic resource. 

MARTHA LEWIS (SKIPJACK) 

The Skipjack Martha Lewis (NR-listed), built in 1955 in Wingate, Maryland, is one of the 35 

surviving traditional Chesapeake Bay skipjacks built specifically for the purposes of oyster 

harvesting. It was moved to Havre de Grace in 1993 and continues to carry passengers and 

dredge for oysters under sail power. It is permanently docked at Millard Tydings Memorial Park, 

located south of the APE in Havre de Grace; however, it is currently undergoing restoration at 

Frank J. Hutchins Memorial Park, located approximately one half mile south of the Project site 

within the APE. When operating, the vessel typically dredges for oysters south of its docking 

place in the Chesapeake Bay, but occasionally sails north up the Susquehanna River, navigating 

through the open swing span of the existing Susquehanna River Bridge. In the future with the 

Proposed Project, under both Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B, the vertical clearance of the 

proposed bridges would be 60 feet as compared to the 52-foot vertical clearance of the existing 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge when in closed position; however, the proposed bridges would 

be fixed rather than moveable-span structures. The mast of the Martha Lewis is currently being 

replaced and it is anticipated that it will have a height of 65 feet when complete. Therefore, the 

Martha Lewis may be unable to navigate the Susquehanna River north of new bridges in the 

future with the Proposed Project. Although this could restrict the movement of the Martha Lewis

to some extent, it would not prevent the vessel from accessing its traditional oyster dredging 

grounds in the Chesapeake Bay. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not isolate the resource 

from important aspects of its setting nor alter the characteristics of the resource that qualify it for 

inclusion in the NR. Furthermore, the removal of the existing Susquehanna Bridge and its 

replacement with new bridges would somewhat alter the current setting of the Martha Lewis. 

However, the Martha Lewis permanently docks south of the APE in a location relatively far 

removed from the existing and proposed bridges. The bridges would not be visible from the 

Martha Lewis in its permanent docking location in Millard Tydings Memorial Park. 

Furthermore, the Skipjack was originally constructed in Wingate, Maryland; therefore, the 

presence of the Susquehanna River Bridge goes not relate or contribute to its historic setting. 

Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no adverse effect on the Martha Lewis. 

RODGERS TAVERN 

Rodgers Tavern (NR-listed) is located on the north side of West Main Street in Perryville, 

approximately 300 feet east of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge. Under both Alternative 9A 

and Alternative 9B, there would be no direct effect on the tavern; however, there would be an 

indirect visual effect due to the need to expand and elevate the bridge approach in front of the 

tavern. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 8-24 

Across Broad Street from the tavern there is currently a 30-foot-high railroad embankment, 

catenary support structures and lines, and a transmission tower. Both Alternative 9A and 

Alternative 9B would require widening the bridge approach and bringing it approximately 44 

feet closer to the tavern. As a result, the distance between the tavern and the tracks would be 

significantly reduced, from about 102 feet to 57 feet. The proposed difference in elevation would 

be minor; the current embankment is 30 feet high and the new embankment would be 33 feet 

high. However, there will be a visual effect due to the need to construct a retaining wall to run 

along the embankment. 

The proposed changes in front of the tavern, especially the need to bring the tracks closer to the 

tavern and the need to construct a retaining wall, will result in “the isolation of the property from 

or alteration of the character of the property’s setting when that character contributes to the 

property’s qualification for the NR,” thus constituting an adverse effect. In order to minimize the 

adverse effect, MDOT is working with MHT, FRA, Amtrak, and the consulting parties to 

identify an aesthetic treatment that will allow the wall to better complement the historic tavern. 

The Proposed Project’s PA will include selecting an appropriate treatment, e.g., use of a form 

liner for so that the wall imitates the look of stone and better blends with the tavern’s 

architecture, use of landscaping to screen the wall if there is adequate space, and/or development 

of an appropriate mural. 

As described above in conjunction with the Havre de Grace Historic District, the PA sets forth a 

process for identifying potential Project construction-related damage to adjacent historic 

resources. To ensure that there is no damage to the Rodgers Tavern, the Proposed Project’s CPP 

will include measures to protect the Rodgers Tavern during the construction period. As 

discussed for the Havre de Grace Historic District, the Proposed Project would not have the 

potential to result in vibration at a level that could cause damage to nearby historic structures 

during operation. 

In terms of views from the tavern to the bridge, the view from the front of the structure is 

primarily blocked by vegetation. There is a much more extensive view from the walkway at the 

rear of the tavern. Similar to some of the views from the base of the bridge in Havre de Grace, 

the view consists mainly of a long linear view of the bridge, punctuated by the projecting central 

section of the bridge. As described in the Havre de Grace Historic District analysis, these 

features will be retained, with all of the bridge designs considered incorporating a traditional 

central span of either an arch or a truss. 

The following components of the Proposed Project will have no direct physical effects and only 

limited visual effects on the Rodgers Tavern: the new communications, overhead contact, and 

signal systems; minor modifications to the Perry Electrical Substation; and the modification or 

relocation of the transmission tower just railroad north of the Tavern. Therefore, because these 

components will not alter characteristics that make the Rodgers Tavern eligible for inclusion in 

the NR, they will have no adverse effect as defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16. 

PRINCIPIO FURNACE (PRINCIPIO IRON WORKS) 

The Principio Iron Works (NR-listed) is located at 1723 Principio Furnace Road. Although the 

buildings associated with the historic resource are located approximately one-half mile north of 

the Project site, the southwest corner of the property (containing only a wooded area) is located 

in the APE. The existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge is not visible from this property. The 

replacement of the bridge would not change the setting of the structure nor would it diminish the 

integrity of its historic features. The existing bridge does not relate to or contribute to the 
Chapter 8: Cultural Resources 

 8-25 

characteristics that qualify the Principio Iron Works for inclusion in the NR. The Proposed 

Project would have no adverse effects on this historic resource. 

PERRY POINT MANSION HOUSE AND MILL 

The Perry Point Mansion House and Mill (NR-listed) is located south of the Perry Point 

Veterans Administration Medical Center on the Susquehanna River at the mouth of the 

Chesapeake Bay, approximately one-half mile south of the Project site. The existing 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge is distantly visible from this property. The replacement of the 

bridge would not substantially change the setting of the structure nor would it diminish the 

integrity of its historic features. The existing bridge does not relate to or contribute to the 

characteristics that qualify the Perry Point Mansion House and Mill for inclusion in the NR. The 

Proposed Project would have no adverse effect on this historic resource. 

PERRYVILLE RAILROAD STATION 

The Perryville Railroad Station (NR-eligible), 650 Broad Street, is within the Project site. In 

addition to the two-story brick Colonial Revival-style station building, two ancillary structures 

were identified as contributing resources to the historic Station complex: the Perry Interlocking 

Tower (a two-story circa 1905 brick control tower southwest of the of the station) and an ashlar 

stone-arch undergrade bridge constructed in the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries under 

the platform for Amtrak vehicular use. 

The Proposed Project initially planned to demolish the interlocking tower to accommodate both 

Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B. The Town of Perryville, a consulting party, recommended 

that, if possible, the tower be left in place. Therefore, the Project Team proposes to shift the 

tower in order to avoid the adverse effect of demolishing it. The change in location is minor and 

will not adversely affect the relationship between the interlocking tower and the Perryville 

Station, thus resulting in a no adverse effect. 

The undergrade bridge (MP 59.39) that is considered contributing to the NR-eligible station 

complex will be altered with the construction of a precast concrete culvert extension on the east 

side of the tracks. As previously discussed, this action will result in an adverse effect. The 

adverse effect could be avoided or minimized by using stone in the design of the new bridge 

extensions; however, FRA/MDOT have determined that using stone is not feasible as it would 

not meet current engineering design standards. Therefore, as set forth in the PA, measures to 

minimize the adverse effect by identifying a contextually appropriate design treatment (such as 

the use of a form liner that emulates stone and is stained to match the color of the existing stone) 

will be identified and implemented in consultation with SHPO and consulting parties. To ensure 

that the new retaining walls in close proximity to the bridge and station do not adversely affect 

the historic resources, the design of the new walls should be in accordance with the Secretary of 

the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, so that the walls are 

compatible with the station’s and bridge’s historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, 

and massing. The Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project Advisory Board and the Town of 

Perryville have recommended that this underpass “should be abandoned by sealing it off from 

the north side. The south side may be left open for historical purposes, provided it is made 

secure from trespassers.” The abandonment and sealing off of the underpass are not part of the 

Proposed Project and, if added, would constitute an adverse effect under Section 106. 

The bridge carrying the south leg of the wye track over Broad Street, although not formally 

identified as contributing to the Perryville Station complex, is within the viewshed of the station 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 8-26 

complex. Therefore, changes to that bridge could have a visual effect on the NR-eligible 

Perryville Station. As currently planned, this bridge will not need to be altered, therefore not 

constituting an effect. However, if the plans change and the bridge needs to be altered, Amtrak 

will ensure that plans are developed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties, so that the bridge continues to be compatible with the 

station complex’s historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing. 

The following components of the Proposed Project will have only limited visual effects on the 

NR-eligible station complex: the new communications, overhead contact, and signal systems; 

minor modifications to the Perry Electrical Substation; the modification or relocation of the 

transmission tower on the west side of the tracks; and modifications to Perry Interlocking at MP 

59.4. Therefore, because these components will not alter a characteristic that makes the station 

complex eligible for inclusion in the NR, they will have no adverse effect as defined in 36 CFR 

Part 800.16. 

The station building itself would not be physically altered. However, the alteration of 

contributing components of the complex would constitute an adverse effect on the Perryville 

Station complex. 

Perry Point Veterans Administration Medical Center Historic District 

The VA Medical Center at Perry Point (NR-eligible) was developed primarily in the 1920s through 

the 1940s as a neuro-psychiatric treatment facility for military veterans. It is located approximately 

400 feet south of the Project site. The existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge, bridge abutments, and 

tracks are visible from portions of this large property. Even in locations where the tracks pass the 

historic district, the distance to the historic buildings and the intervening landscaping minimize the 

view of the tracks. There is an open vista to the Perry Electrical Substation; however, minor 

modifications to the Substation will not constitute an effect on the NR-eligible Medical Center 

Historic District. In parts of the property closer to the bridge, there are close views of the abutments; 

in parts of the property further south and east, views of the bridge and abutments are distant. 

Although the replacement of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge with new bridges under both Build 

Alternatives would somewhat alter the setting of the Perry Point Veterans Administration Center 

Historic District, this change would not constitute an adverse effect on the Historic District. The 

existing bridge does not relate to or contribute to the characteristics that qualify the Historic District 

for inclusion in the NR. The removal of the existing bridge and construction of two new bridges 

would not change the significant aspects of the setting of the Historic District nor would it diminish 

the integrity of its historic features. The Proposed Project would have no adverse effect on the Perry 

Point Veterans Administration Center Historic District. 

Crothers House (Furnace Bay Golf Clubhouse) 

The Crothers House (NR-eligible) is a two-and-a-half story Colonial Revival residence built in 

1936 and now used as the clubhouse for the Furnace Bay Golf Course. It is located 

approximately 1,000 feet north of the Project site. The existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge 

is not visible from this property. The replacement of the bridge would not change the setting of 

the structure nor would it diminish the integrity of its historic features. The existing bridge does 

not relate to or contribute to the characteristics that qualify the Crothers House for inclusion in 

the NR. The Proposed Project would have no adverse effects on this historic resource. 
Chapter 8: Cultural Resources 

 8-27 

Woodlands Farm Historic District 

The Woodlands Farm Historic District (NR-eligible) is an extension of the boundary of the NRlisted Woodlands property north of Maryland Route 7 to include the Woodlands Farm South 

Complex. The NR-listed Woodlands property consists of a circa 1810-1820 main house and 

several outbuildings set on 69 acres. The Woodlands Farm South Complex is located to the 

south across Maryland Route 7 and consists of a 347-acre farm containing numerous 19th 

century buildings. The Susquehanna River Rail Bridge is not visible from this property. The 

replacement of the bridge would not change the setting of the Historic District nor would it 

diminish the integrity of its historic features. The existing bridge does not relate to or contribute 

to the characteristics that qualify the Woodlands Farm Historic District for inclusion in the NR. 

The Proposed Project would have no adverse effects on this resource. 

Perryville United Methodist Church 

The Perryville United Methodist Church, constructed in 1896 in the Gothic Revival style, was 

identified as an NR-eligible resource as part of the Proposed Project. The property is located 

across Broad Street from the Northeast Corridor in Perryville. From the church, the rail line can 

only be partially seen; the bridge cannot be seen at all. Due to the distance and the limited view, 

the Proposed Project would have no adverse effect on this resource. 

Perryville Presbyterian Church 

The Perryville Presbyterian Church, constructed in 1892 in the Gothic Revival style, was 

identified as an NR-eligible resource as part of the Proposed Project. The property is located on 

the track side of Broad Street, but is screened from the tracks by extensive landscaping. Neither 

the rail line nor the bridge can be seen at all. Due to the distance and the obstructed views, the 

Proposed Project would have no adverse effect on this resource.

E. MITIGATION MEASURES 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Both Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B have the potential to impact archaeologically sensitive 

areas within Study Areas 2 to 5 and within the Susquehanna River. Phase IB archaeological 

investigations will be undertaken to determine the presence or absence of archaeological resources 

in these areas. If Phase IB testing identifies potentially significant (NR-eligible) archaeological 

resources in any of the Study Areas that could be affected by the Proposed Project, Phase II 

archaeological testing would be undertaken to determine the significance and the boundaries of the 

archaeological deposits. If significant archaeological resources are identified in the archaeological 

APE that would be unavoidably adversely affected by the Proposed Project, appropriate measures 

to minimize and/or mitigate any such effects would be devised and implemented. As described in 

the draft PA, ongoing consultation with MHT and consulting parties would be undertaken to 

identify and implement specific measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate any effects to NR-eligible 

resources that may occur as a result of the Proposed Project. 

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES 

FRA/MDOT assessed the Proposed Project’s effects on historic architectural resources in 

accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, and determined that Alternative 9A and 

Alternative 9B would not adversely affect the following significant historic architectural 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 8-28 

resources: Southern Terminus, Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal – South Lock #1 and Toll 

House, Martha Lewis (Skipjack), Principio Furnace (Principio Iron Works), Perry Point 

Mansion House and Mill, Perry Point Veterans Administration Medical Center Historic District, 

Crothers House (Furnace Bay Golf Clubhouse), Woodlands Farm Historic District, Perryville 

United Methodist Church, Perryville Presbyterian Church; and the Lily Run Undergrade Bridge 

(MP 60.85). There would be, however, an adverse effect on the following significant historic 

architectural resources: the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge (including eight of the nine related 

undergrade rail bridges), the Havre de Grace Historic District, Rodgers Tavern, and the 

Perryville Railroad Station, as shown in Table 8-3. 

Table 8-3

Adverse Effects on Historic Architectural Resources

Known 

Architectural 

Resources in 

the APE 

Adverse 

Effect? Action 

Actions Under Consideration to avoid 

or minimize adverse effects 

Susquehanna 

River Rail 

Bridge Yes Demolition 

Avoidance of demolition not feasible 

Minimize through use of traditional 

design features in the two new bridges 

Nine overpass 

rail bridges 

Yes 

(all except 

MP 

60.85) 

Bridge replacement or 

concrete extensions 

Minimize or avoid through use of stone 

not feasible 

Minimize by using a form liner that 

emulates stone and is stained to be 

compatible with the color of the 

existing stone 

Possible 

Construction of adjacent 

retaining walls 

Avoid additional adverse effect by 

ensuring design of the new walls is in 

accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment 

of Historic Properties

Havre de 

Grace Historic 

District 

Yes 

Demolition of Susquehanna 

River Rail Bridge, a 

contributing feature to the 

historic district 

Avoidance of demolition not feasible 

(see above for steps to partially 

mitigate) 

Yes 

Visual adverse effects from 

widening of bridge 

approaches 

Minimize visual adverse effects by 

locating bridge abutment further south, 

constructing retaining walls, and 

ensuring retaining walls are developed 

in accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment 

of Historic Properties

Yes 

Extensions to four 

undergrade bridges, 

contributing features to the 

historic district 

Avoidance by using stone not feasible 

due to engineering concerns. 

Minimize by using a form liner that 

emulates stone and is stained to be compatible with the color of the existing stone 

Possible 

Construction-related damage 

to contributing structures 

Avoid adverse effect via a Construction 

Protection Plan (CPP) 
Chapter 8: Cultural Resources 

 8-29 

Table 8-3 (cont’d)

Adverse Effects on Historic Architectural Resources

Known 

Architectural 

Resources in 

the APE 

Adverse 

Effect? Action 

Actions Under Consideration to avoid 

or minimize adverse effects 

Rodgers 

Tavern 

Yes 

Visual adverse effect from 

the widening of the bridge 

approach 

Minimize visual adverse effect through 

development of an aesthetic treatment 

for the retaining wall and landscaping in 

front of wall, if possible 

Possible Construction-related damage Avoid adverse effect via a CPP 

Perryville 

Railroad 

Station 

Possible 

Demolition of Perry 

Interlocking Tower 

Avoid adverse effect by shifting the 

Interlocking Tower slightly within 

Amtrak ROW 

Yes 

Extension to undergrade 

bridge at MP 59.39, a 

contributing feature to the 

station complex 

Avoidance by using stone not feasible 

due to engineering concerns 

Minimize by using a form liner that 

emulates stone and is stained to be 

compatible with the color of the 

existing stone 

Yes 

Construction of retaining 

walls adjacent to station 

complex 

Avoid additional adverse effect by 

ensuring design of the new walls should 

be in accordance with the Secretary of 

the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties

Because certain adverse effects cannot be totally avoided, FRA/MDOT has sought suggestions from 

the consulting parties and the public on potential ways to mitigate the adverse effects. Based on a 

review of the Proposed Project plans and comments received from the public and the Section 106 

consulting parties, FRA/MDOT propose the following mitigation measures be considered in 

development of the Project’s PA, which will be finalized in conjunction with the consulting parties: 

 Continued review by MHT of design plans to ensure that to the extent possible the plans are 

compatible with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 

Of particular concern is the design of the new bridge, the alterations to eight of nine undergrade 

bridges associated with the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge, and the new retaining walls. 

 Preparation of Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) documentation of the 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and the nine associated undergrade bridges on the NEC. 

- HAER documentation would include narratives that (1) interpret its history, focusing 

on its construction by the Pennsylvania Railroad; and (2) describe in detail the physical 

characteristics of the bridge (including its engineering and functional aspects). Primary 

and secondary resources would be used in the research effort, including historic 

engineering literature, railroad company archives, newspapers and periodicals, and the 

collections of libraries, historical societies, and other repositories. The compiled 

information, which could include historic plans, photographs, and other documents, will 

be duplicated to appropriate archival standards as part of the recordation document. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 8-30 

- The HAER recordation would also include photographic documentation of the 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge that would meet appropriate HAER archival standards. 

- In addition, it may be appropriate to produce detailed measured drawings of the existing 

conditions of Susquehanna River Rail Bridge. Typically, detailed measured drawings of 

large engineered structures such as the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge are achieved 

through the use of three-dimensional laser scanning technology.

 Preparation of HAER documentation of the Perry Interlocking Tower, including any 

interior features. 

 Development of an interpretive exhibit in a park, greenway, or public space that would present 

the history of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge with a focus on the history of the bridge as an 

early twentieth century product of the Pennsylvania Railroad and the engineering aspects of the 

bridge, such as its swing span mechanism. To the extent possible and practical, key features of 

the 1906 Pennsylvania Railroad bridge should be incorporated into the display, with the overall 

goal of conveying the advancement of this type of bridge engineering by the beginning of the 

twentieth century and to explain how certain rail ridge components functioned in that era. The 

location, format, and specific content of the exhibit would be identified by the Project sponsor in 

consultation with MHT and consulting parties. 

 Development of an educational document such as a lesson plan that could be incorporated into an 

engineering course curriculum. This lesson plan could focus on the specific engineering aspects of 

the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and/or movable bridge types constructed in the early twentieth 

century by the Pennsylvania Railroad. In addition, it should utilize research knowledge obtained 

from the archaeological investigations and incorporate the history of all of the area’s transportation 

related historic resources, including the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and the affiliated nine 

undergrade bridges; the piers from the 1866 railroad bridge; the eighteenth century ferry crossing; 

the Southern Terminus, Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal - South Lock #1 and Toll House; the 

Havre de Grace Historic District; Rodgers Tavern; and Perryville Railroad Station. 

 Production of a short film that documents the character-defining historical and 

engineering aspects of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge. The film could include 

footage of the bridge in operation and address the engineering and design of the swing-span 

bridge, and its historical context as a twentieth century Pennsylvania Railroad bridge. 

The film could be made available online and/or be provided to railroad organizations and 

local libraries and historical societies. 

 Salvage of elements of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge, such as truss components, pier 

materials, tracks, etc. The Project sponsor would develop a list of potentially salvageable 

items for review and comment by MHT. The Project sponsor would also develop a 

marketing plan for review by MHT and consulting parties. 

 Completion of all archaeological investigations as recommended in the Phase IA 

Archaeological Assessment. 

 Preservation of the abutments from the original (1866) bridge, with consideration given to 

restoring them to their original appearance and function. 

 Development of an interpretative exhibit to be incorporated into the town of Perryville’s 

Railroad Museum located at the Perryville Station. 
 9-1 

Chapter 9: Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

A. INTRODUCTION 

This chapter has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Section 4(f) of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966. Based on this Draft Section 4(f) 

Evaluation (Evaluation), FRA has determined that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives 

that would avoid use of all Section 4(f) properties. Therefore, this Evaluation includes a 

determination of which of the alternatives using a Section 4(f) property will result in the least 

overall harm in light of the statute’s preservation purposes, and identifies appropriate measures 

to minimize harm. 

B. REGULATORY CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY 

Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 (49 USC § 303) prohibits the Secretary of 

Transportation from approving any program or project that requires the “use” of (1) any publicly 

owned parkland, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local 

significance; or (2) any land from a historic site of national, state, or local significance 

(collectively, “Section 4(f) properties”), unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the 

use of such land and such program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to 

the park, recreation area, wildlife refuge, or historic site. A historic site is considered to be a 

property that is listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places (“NRlisted” and “NR-eligible”). 

A “use” of Section 4(f) resources occurs: 

 When land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility; 

 When there is a temporary occupancy of land that is adverse in terms of the statute’s 

preservation purpose; or 

 When there is a constructive use of land, which occurs “when the transportation project does 

not incorporate land from a Section 4(f) property, but the proximity impacts are so severe 

that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify property for protection under 

Section 4(f) are substantially impaired.” 

In some cases, even if there is a use of a Section 4(f) property, Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) may determine that a use is de minimis. FRA may make a de minimis determination on a 

historic site only if, pursuant to the Section 106 consultation process: 

 The transportation program or project will have no adverse effect on the historic site, or 

there will be no historic properties affected by the transportation program or project; and 

 FRA’s finding has received written concurrence from the applicable State historic 

preservation officer; and 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 9-2 

 FRA has developed its finding in consultation with parties consulting as part of the Section 

106 consultation process. 

With respect to parks, recreation areas, or wildlife or waterfowl refuges, FRA may make a 

finding of de minimis impact only if: 

 After public notice and opportunity for public review and comment, FRA finds that the 

transportation program or project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and 

attributes of the park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge eligible for protection 

under this section; and 

 The finding has received concurrence from the officials with jurisdiction over the park, 

recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge. 

If FRA determines that there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative, then FRA may 

approve from among the alternatives that use Section 4(f) properties only the alternative that 

causes the least overall harm in light of the statute’s preservation purpose.1

 A feasible and 

prudent avoidance alternative would avoid using Section 4(f) property and does not cause other 

severe problems of a magnitude that substantially outweighs the importance of protecting the 

Section 4(f) property. 

An alternative is not feasible if it cannot be built as a matter of sound engineering judgment. An 

alternative is not prudent if: 

1) It compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project in 

light of its stated purpose and need; 

2) It results in unacceptable safety or operational problems; 

3) After reasonable mitigation, it still causes severe social, economic, or environmental 

impacts; severe disruption to established communities; severe disproportionate impacts to 

minority or low income populations; or severe impacts to environmental resources protected 

under other Federal statutes; 

4) It results in additional construction, maintenance, or operational costs of an extraordinary 

magnitude; 

5) It causes other unique problems or unusual factors; or 

6) It involves multiple factors of the above, that while individually minor, cumulatively cause 

unique problems or impacts of extraordinary magnitude. 

If there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative, FRA may approve only the alternative 

that causes the least overall harm in light of Section 4(f)’s preservation purpose. “Least overall 

harm” is determined by balancing the following list of factors:

1) The ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each Section 4(f) property (including any 

measures that result in benefits to the property); 

2) The relative severity of the remaining harm, after mitigation, to the protected activities, 

attributes, or features that qualify each Section 4(f) property for protection; 

 

1

 FHWA regulations are not binding on FRA; however, in the absence of applicable FRA regulations, 

FRA has chosen to use 23 CFR Part 774 for reference and guidance in this Final Section 4(f) Evaluation.
 Chapter 9: Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

 9-3 

3) The relative significance of each Section 4(f) property; 

4) The views of the official(s) with jurisdiction over each Section 4(f) property; 

5) The degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need for the project; 

6) After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources not protected 

by Section 4(f); and 

7) Substantial differences in costs among the alternatives. 

C. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVES 

The Project Team identified all properties within the study area eligible for protection pursuant 

to Section 4(f). Section 4(f) properties that were identified within the study area include 

properties that would not be adversely affected by the Proposed Project. Some of these Section 

4(f) properties include publicly owned parks such as Trego Field/Perryville Mini-Park, Lower 

Ferry Park and Pier, Perryville Community Park, David Craig Park, Battery Village Park, and 

Swan Harbor Farm. See Chapter 6, “Parks, Trails, and Recreational Resources” for a description 

of each of these parks. Other Section 4(f) properties include historic resources, such as Southern 

Terminus, Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal—South Lock #1, Martha Lewis (skipjack), 

Principio Furnace, Perry Point Mansion House and Mill, Perry Point Veterans Administration 

Medical Historic District, Crothers House, Woodlands Farm Historic District, Perryville United 

Methodist Church, and Perryville Presbyterian Church, See Chapter 8, “Cultural Resources” for 

a description of each of these historic resources. As the Proposed Project would not adversely 

affect these properties, the project would not constitute a Section 4(f) use of these properties and 

no further analysis is necessary.

Section 4(f) regulations apply to archaeological sites (including those discovered during 

construction) if their value derives from their preservation in place. As described in Chapter 8, 

“Cultural Resources,” studies to identify the potential for significant historic resources within the 

project area included a Phase IA archaeological investigation and reconnaissance and historic 

architectural sites surveys. There is the possibility that archaeological resources are present in 

the City of Havre de Grace, the Town of Perryville, and the lower Susquehanna River. These 

potential archaeological resources, if present, would most likely be important for the information 

they might yield and not for preservation in place. Therefore, at this time, FRA and Maryland 

Department of Transportation (MDOT) do not consider these potential archaeological resources 

as Section 4(f) properties. If, however, based on further study and consultation with Maryland 

Historical Trust (MHT), FRA and MDOT determine that any archaeological resources present 

within the project site derive their value from preservation in place, FRA and MDOT will 

supplement this Evaluation to address these properties. The draft Programmatic Agreement (PA) 

includes specific commitments regarding archaeology (see Appendix D, “Cultural Resources”).

The following text discusses the effect of Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B on each of the 

properties shown in Figure 9-1 and evaluates whether the effect constitutes a “use”, a de 

minimis use, or documents why the effect does not rise to the level of a 4(f) “use”. 

ALTERNATIVE 9A 

Alternative 9A would result in the “use” of the following three Section 4(f) properties: 
n¤

e

e e

e

e

e e

Havre de Grace

Perryville

North Juniata

Street UG

Bridge

North Adams

Street UG

Bridge

North Stokes

Street

UG Bridge

Amtrak

access road

UG Bridge

Mill Creek

UG Bridge

Centennial

Lane UG

Culvert

North Freedom

Lane UG

Culvert

Perryville

Train

Station

(MARC)

1

0 1,000 2,000

Feet

Susquehanna River

Rail Bridge Project Data Sources

Figure 9-1

Evalu atedSec tion4(f)Prop erties

Historic District and Rodgers Tavern:

MarylandHis toric alTru s t

Legend

HavredeGrac eMiddle/HighSc hoolAthletic Fields1

HavredeGrac eHis toric Dis tric t

JeanS.Roberts Mem orialPark1

Rodgers Tavern2

PerryInterloc kingTower

Undergrade(UG)Bridges

Alternative9ALOD

Alternative9BLOD

n¤ PerryvileTrainStation

Su squ ehannaRiver RailBridge

1,000ftStu dyArea

Access Road

UG Bridge

Perry

Interlocking

Tower

n¤

Perryville

Train Station

(MARC)

1

0 100 200

Feet

Susquehanna River

Havre de Grace

Middle/High School

Athletic Fields

Jean S. Roberts

Memorial Park Susquehanna

River Rail Bridge

Rodgers Tavern

Havre de Grace

Historic District

Access Road

UG Bridge

Perry

Interlocking

Tower

1De minimis u se.2Wou ldnotrisetolevelof“u se”u nder Sec tion4(f).
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 9-4 

 The removal of the existing NR-eligible Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and alteration of 

eight of its nine associated rail undergrade bridges; 

 The removal of the Perry Interlocking Tower and the alteration of the Access Road 

Undergrade Bridge 59.39 (also known as the Perryville Train Station Undergrade Bridge), 

which are contributing elements of the NR-eligible Perryville Railroad Station; 

 The acquisition of a small amount of property within the NR-listed Havre de Grace Historic 

District and visual and aesthetic effects on the Historic District; 

In addition, FRA intends to determine that Alternative 9A would result in the de minimis use of 

the following properties. 

 The acquisition of a narrow strip of the city-owned portion of Jean S. Roberts Memorial 

Park (Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B); and 

 The acquisition of a portion of the Havre de Grace Middle/High School athletic fields. 

FRA will base the final de minimis impact determination after providing an opportunity for 

public review. 

In addition, Alternative 9A would have an adverse effect on the NR-listed Rodgers Tavern in the 

context of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The Project Team 

considered the effect on Rodgers Tavern in this Evaluation because of the Proposed Project’s 

proximity to this Section 4(f) property and documented the evaluation in this chapter. As 

discussed in more detail in the following text, the Project Team determined that with the 

implementation of mitigation measures, the proximity issues would not cause a substantial 

impairment to the resource and the adverse effect in the context of Section 106 would not rise to 

the level of “use” under Section 4(f). 

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER RAIL BRIDGE AND OVERPASSES 

As discussed in Chapter 8, “Cultural Resources,” the existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge 

(also known as the Amtrak Railroad or Perryville Road Bridge), and nine undergrade bridges 

were all constructed during the same 1904-1906 building campaign by the Pennsylvania 

Railroad and are NR-eligible. The Susquehanna River Rail Bridge, which is owned by Amtrak, 

was determined eligible for listing on the NR under National Register Criterion A as an example 

of an early 20th century railroad bridge built by an important American railroad company and 

under National Register Criterion C as an example of engineering that acknowledges two 

different modes of transportation (rail and marine) and allows each to operate without much 

interference from the other. 

With Alternative 9A, the existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge would be taken out of service 

and demolished, and two new fixed bridges, which would have 60 feet of vertical clearance, 

would be constructed. In addition, eight of the nine undergrade bridges associated with the 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge would be directly impacted with Alternative 9A. The removal of 

the existing NR-eligible Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and alteration of these eight rail 

undergrade bridges would constitute a use of this Section 4(f) property. The Lily Run 

undergrade bridge at MP 60.85 would be spanned over; therefore, it will not be adversely 

affected. 
 Chapter 9: Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

 9-5 

PERRYVILLE RAILROAD STATION 

As discussed in Chapter 8, “Cultural Resources,” the Perryville Railroad Station, located at 650 

Broad Street, is NR-eligible under National Register Criterion A for its role in transportation 

history, and under National Register Criterion C as an excellent example of the Colonial Revival 

style of architecture. Constructed circa 1905 by the Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington 

(PB&W) Railroad Company, the station is currently owned by Amtrak. There are two railroadrelated structures that are located in close proximity to the Perryville Station, were constructed 

around the same time as the station, and contribute to its historic significance: the Perry 

Interlocking Tower, a two-story brick control tower southwest of the station; and the ashlar stone 

Access Road Undergrade Bridge 59.39 (also known as the Perryville Train Station Undergrade 

Bridge).2

Alternative 9A would require the demolition or removal of the Perry Interlocking Tower and the 

alteration of the Access Road Undergrade Bridge 59.39, which are contributing structures within 

the NR-eligible Perryville Railroad Station complex, constituting the use of this Section 4(f) 

property. 

HAVRE DE GRACE HISTORIC DISTRICT 

As described in Chapter 8, “Cultural Resources,” the existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge 

and NEC pass through the Havre de Grace Historic District (NR-listed). The Historic District is 

listed on the National Register of Historic Places under National Register Criterion A related to 

the town’s role as a major commercial and transportation center in northern Maryland and for its 

community planning; and under National Register Criterion C for its architectural mix of 

nineteenth and early twentieth century structures and its many examples of locally quarried Port 

Deposit granite. It is estimated that approximately 800 of the 1,100 buildings within the Historic 

District contribute to the historic district. 

Alternative 9A would result in adverse effects to the NR-listed Havre de Grace Historic District, 

including the demolition of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and the alternation of the 

undergrade bridges, which are contributing features of the Historic District and other effects 

described in Chapter 8. Additionally, due to the Proposed Project’s close proximity to some of 

the contributing elements within the Historic District, there is the potential for an adverse effect 

due to construction-related damage. The demolition of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and 

the alternation of the undergrade bridges constitute the use of the Historic District as a Section 

4(f) resource. 

JEAN S. ROBERTS MEMORIAL PARK 

As described in Chapter 6, “Parks, Trails, and Recreational Resources,” Jean S. Roberts 

Memorial Park is a waterfront park in Havre de Grace, located west of the existing railroad 

right-of-way at Otsego Street and Water Street. A portion of the property is owned by Amtrak 

and a portion is owned by the City of Havre de Grace. The park offers approximately 0.87 acre 

(0.61 acre owned by the City and 0.26 acre owned by Amtrak and leased to the City) with 

amenities such as picnicking area, parking, fishing pier, kayak and boat launch. 

 

2

 A passenger shelter identified in the eligibility determination as contributing to the resource’s 

significance was recently demolished. It was located east of the tracks across from the train station. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 9-6 

Alternative 9A would require the use of the entire Amtrak-owned portion of Jean S. Roberts 

Memorial Park, and therefore this portion would no longer be leased to the City of Havre de 

Grace. The portion owned by Amtrak is not considered a Section 4(f) property according to 23 

CFR 774.11 (h), which states, “When a property formally reserved for a future transportation 

facility temporarily functions for park, recreation, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge purposes in 

the interim, the interim activity, regardless of duration, will not subject the property to Section 

4(f).” Alternative 9A also requires the acquisition of a narrow strip (0.01 acre or 2.26 percent) of 

the City-owned portion of Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park beyond the Amtrak right-of-way. 

FRA proposed to determine that the use of the City-owned portion of Jean S. Roberts Memorial 

Park is de minimis. The Mayor of the City of Havre de Grace concurred that the Section 4(f) use 

of the City-owned portion of Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park for the Proposed Project would not 

adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes qualify this property for protection under 

Section 4(f). The Mayor was authorized to do so by City Resolution 2016-10 passed by the 

Mayor and City Council on July 5, 2016. The City of Havre de Grace concurs with the proposed 

de minimis impact finding after taking into account mitigation measures, as discussed in letters 

from Havre de Grace, included in Appendix H, “Public Involvement and Agency 

Correspondence.” FRA will make a final de minimis determination following public review. 

HAVRE DE GRACE MIDDLE/HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELDS 

The Havre de Grace Middle/High School athletic fields are school fields owned by the Board of 

Education of Harford County, as detailed in Chapter 6, “Parks, Trails, and Recreational 

Resources.” Located at 401 Lewis Lane/700 Congress Ave, east of the existing Amtrak right-ofway in Havre de Grace, the school fields offer approximately 57.6 acres with amenities such as 

the Harris Stadium (a track and field venue), multi-use fields, baseball/softball diamonds, and 

tennis courts. As described in further detail in Chapter 10, “Section 6(f) Evaluation,” the Havre 

de Grace High School received Land and Water Conservation Funds to construct three tennis 

courts and one multi-purpose court at the high school in 1966.3

 When the high school was 

expanded in 1978, the original tennis courts were relocated on the school site. In 1970, the Havre 

de Grace Middle School received additional Land and Water Conservation Funds to construct 

one multi-purpose court, four baseball fields, and a cinder running track. 

Alternative 9A would result in the acquisition of 1.5 acres of the 57.6 acres used for the Havre 

de Grace Middle/High School athletic fields. Alternative 9A would require the reconfiguration 

and reconstruction of the track and football field on the school property. 

Based on the analysis of the potential impacts to the Havre de Grace Middle/High School 

Athletic Fields and the minimization and mitigation measures, FRA proposes to make a de 

minimis finding for the use of the facility. Harford County Public Schools concurred that the 

Section 4(f) use of the Havre de Grace Middle/High School Athletic Fields for the Proposed 

Project would not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes qualify this property for 

protection under Section 4(f), assuming mitigation and terms discussed in correspondence with 

the Assistant Superintendent for Operations, Superintendent of Schools, and Board of Education 

President, included in Appendix H, “Public Involvement and Agency Correspondence.” FRA 

will make a final de minimis determination following public review. 

 

3

 Consultation letter from Harford County Director of Parks and Recreation, dated June 25, 2015. 
 Chapter 9: Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

 9-7 

RODGERS TAVERN 

As described in Chapter 8, “Cultural Resources,” Rodgers Tavern (NR-listed) is located 

approximately 100 feet north4

 of the existing Amtrak right-of-way near Roundhouse Drive and 

Broad Street. The two-and-a-half-story coursed-stone structure dates to the mid-18th century. 

Rodgers Tavern is NR-listed under National Register Criterion A for its association with 

prominent national figures such as George and Martha Washington, Marquis de Lafayette, and 

Lieutenant General Rochambeau; and under National Register Criterion C as an example of 18th 

century building construction and materials. In accordance with an easement that the Society for 

the Preservation of Maryland Antiquities (“grantor”) deeded to the Maryland Historical Trust 

(“grantee”) in 1976 and amended in 1986, a preservation easement exists on the interior and 

exterior of the tavern as well as the associated land. As a result of the covenant, the grantor has 

agreed to keep and maintain the property and to allow the grantee an opportunity to review any 

proposed alterations. 

Alternative 9A would have no direct effects on Rodgers Tavern. However, as discussed in 

Chapter 7 “Visual and Aesthetic Conditions,” there will be an adverse visual effect due to the 

need to widen the bridge approach in front of the tavern and to construct a retaining wall along 

the embankment. The proposed changes in front of the tavern, especially the need to bring the 

tracks closer to the tavern and the need to construct a retaining wall, will result in “the isolation 

of the property from or alteration of the character of the property’s setting when that character 

contributes to the property’s qualification for the NR,” thus constituting an adverse effect in the 

context of Section 106, as discussed in Chapter 8, “Cultural Resources.” 

No land that is part of Rodgers Tavern property will be permanently incorporated into the 

Proposed Project and no temporary occupancy of the property is planned. As stated above, 

Rodgers Tavern is listed on the NR under Criterion A based on its association with prominent 

national figures and under NR Criterion C as an example of eighteenth century building 

construction and materials. The indirect adverse visual effects would not affect the building’s 

history or the structure itself. With the mitigation measures identified in Section E, “Measures to 

Minimize Harm,” the Proposed Project would not result in a proximity impact that is so severe 

that the attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f) will be substantially 

impaired. The adverse effect would therefore not rise to the level of a 4(f) “use”. Specifically, 

the Proposed Project would not affect the tavern’s association with prominent national figures, 

nor would it affect the character of the property’s setting to a degree that it would no longer 

serve as an example of eighteenth century building construction and materials. Therefore, as the 

Proposed Project would not permanently incorporate land that is part of Rodgers Tavern, 

temporarily occupy land that is part of Rodgers Tavern, or result in a “constructive use” of 

Rodgers Tavern, the Proposed Project would not result in the use of this Section 4(f) property. 

ALTERNATIVE 9B 

Alternative 9B would result in the same use of the following three properties as Alternative 9A: 

 Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and Overpasses 

 Perryville Railroad Station complex 

 

4

 For consistency with the “Cultural Resources” chapter, true geographic directions were used, not railroad 

directions. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 9-8 

 Havre de Grace Historic District 

Alternative 9B would result in the same de minimis use of Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park as 

Alternative 9A. Alternative 9B would not require the use of the Havre de Grace Middle/High 

School athletic fields. Alternative 9B would result in the same effect on Rodgers Tavern as 

Alternative 9A and would not result in a “constructive use” of this Section 4(f) property. 

D. AVOIDANCE ANALYSIS 

The two alternatives (Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B) retained for detailed study in this EA 

would result in the use of Section 4(f) properties. An “avoidance alternative” is an alternative 

that avoids use of all 4(f) properties. Therefore this section analyzes alternatives that avoid all of 

the resources described in the previous section, consistent with 23 CFR 774.17 and FHWA 

Section 4(f) policy.5

 FRA identified two avoidance alternatives—the No Action Alternative and 

a Rehabilitation Alternative. Several Rehabilitation Alternatives were considered in the 

alternatives screening process but not selected for detailed study in this EA (see Appendix A, 

“Alternatives Screening Report and Bridge Design Types”). Other alternatives considered 

included alternatives that would avoid some, but not all of Section 4(f) properties, such as 

Rehabilitation of the Existing Bridge with Conversion to Lift Bridge; Build New Bridges on 

New Alignments and Leave Existing Bridge in Place; Double Decker Structure, Build on 

Existing Alignment, and others. As none of these alternatives avoid the use of all Section 4(f) 

properties, they are not considered Avoidance Alternatives in this Evaluation. 

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the No Action Alternative, the existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge would not be 

removed and would remain in service as is, with no intervention besides minimal repairs and 

continuation of the current maintenance regime. 

Although the No Action Alternative would allow the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and 

associated undergrade bridges to remain and would not require any use of Section 4(f) 

properties, it would not meet the Project’s Purpose and Need. The primary purpose of the 

Proposed Project is to provide continued rail connectivity along the NEC. Under the No Action 

Alternative, the bridge would continue to deteriorate and problems would occur more frequently 

as the bridge is approaching the end of its useful life. The bridge would remain as a bottleneck. It 

would continue to cause operational problems and constraints, including navigation. Continued 

deterioration could also present safety hazards. The maintenance and repair costs would continue 

to rise and the bridge would eventually need to be taken out of service to rail traffic. Allowing 

the bridge to continue to deteriorate to the point of closure would require inefficient rerouting of 

trains, resulting in further delays. This would create major impacts along the NEC, severely 

disrupting rail commuters and transport of freight along the corridor. Bringing the bridge to a 

state of good repair without severe disruptions to rail traffic would be costly and inefficient and 

would not resolve constraints to projected passenger and freight movement and navigation. 

Overall, the No Action Alternative would be feasible, but it would not be prudent, based on the 

consideration of factors #1, #2, and #4 regarding prudence listed in Section B, “Regulatory 

Context and Methodology.”

 

5

 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Section 4(f) Policy Paper, July 

2012 https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/4f/4fpolicy.asp, accessed September 2016. 
 Chapter 9: Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

 9-9 

REHABILITATION ALTERNATIVES 

Rehabilitation Alternatives would include improvements to the existing Susquehanna River Rail 

Bridge and associated undergrade bridges to remove structural and seismic deficiencies. Three 

types of rehabilitation alternatives were evaluated, including rehabilitation of the existing bridge 

without modifying the track alignments, rehabilitation of existing bridge in conjunction with a 

new bridge, and rehabilitation with the conversion of the swing bridge to a lift bridge. Only the 

rehabilitation of the existing bridge without modifying the track alignments would potentially 

avoid the use of all Section 4(f) properties. As discussed below, it is possible that even with the 

rehabilitation of the existing bridge without modifying the track alignments the required repairs 

would be so extensive that they would compromise the historic integrity of the bridge. It is 

possible that those repairs would amount to a Section 4(f) use of the bridge, in which case the 

alternative could not be considered an avoidance alternative. 

Amtrak conducted its most recent engineering inspection of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge 

in 2013 (with a supplemental specialty pin testing program in 2014), which indicated that the 

bridge superstructure is in poor to fair structural condition. The inspection revealed deficiencies 

requiring repair; the recommended repairs have been enumerated and prioritized into short, 

medium, and long-term time horizons. Short-term structural repairs involve addressing 

numerous cracked members and the installation of retrofits in an attempt to restrain movement 

and prevent cracking. The cracks and worn pin joints allowing movement are so extensive in the 

pin-connected trusses and represent such a major portion of the overall bridge system that it is 

not deemed economical, prudent, or feasible to continue on this course of ongoing repair. 

Piecemeal repairs of fatigue cracks due to corrosion and section loss and out-of-plane bending, 

replacement of missing fasteners and patching holes in primary support members will not restore 

bridge members to their original condition as the fatigue damage has already been done. 

 The recommended repairs in the inspection report address specific deficiencies but would 

not upgrade the bridge to a state of good repair. A state of good repair assumes bridge 

management practices that minimize asset life-cycle costs and avoid service disruption and 

load restrictions as well as providing a reliable factor of safety. These goals cannot be 

achieved with a more than 100-year-old bridge that contains thousands of fractured critical 

members whose remaining life cannot be precisely determined. The engineering report 

concluded that the only practical way to restore this bridge to a state of good repair would be 

to replace the fatigue-damaged pin-connected deck truss spans with truss spans of modern 

design. This effort would entail removing the existing trusses, erecting new trusses, and 

installing the track and rail systems to restore service, which would compromise the historic 

integrity of the bridge. 

 Even after repair, the bridge would remain as a bottleneck and would not provide the needed 

connectivity along the NEC. The Rehabilitation Alternative would continue to subject 

intercity, commuter, and freight trains to the delays and problems associated with the design 

and age of the existing bridge and would be cost-inefficient. It would also not improve 

navigational traffic. The Rehabilitation Alternative would compromise the project to a 

degree that it would be unreasonable to proceed with it in light of the stated Purpose and 

Need. Replacing the existing trusses without a new adjacent two-track bridge already in 

service would result in prolonged and unacceptable shutdowns of rail operations and would 

significantly and adversely impact Amtrak, MARC and NS. 

Overall, the Rehabilitation Alternative would be feasible, but it would not be prudent, based on 

the consideration of factors #1, #2, and #4 regarding prudence listed in Section B, “Regulatory 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 9-10 

Context and Methodology.” It is also possible that none of the Rehabilitation Alternatives would 

completely avoid the use of all Section 4(f) properties. 

E. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM 

For the reasons discussed above, the No Action and Rehabilitation Alternatives are not 

considered prudent and feasible. As required by Section 106 of NHPA, FRA and MDOT are 

participating in an ongoing consultation process with the MHT and consulting parties regarding 

the potential effects on archaeological and historic architectural resources. Through consultation 

with MHT, FRA and MDOT have developed measures to minimize or mitigate the adverse 

effect on the properties protected under Section 4(f). For NR-listed or eligible properties the 

development of mitigation measures is set forth in the draft PA, to be executed by MHT, FRA, 

Amtrak and MDOT. The draft PA is included in Appendix D, “Cultural Resources.” The draft 

PA lists the historic resources that may be affected by the project and also describes the 

continuing consultation process that will be conducted as project designs evolve. The draft PA 

also describes the measures to be implemented during the project’s design process, to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects of the project on historic resources. Coordination with the 

City of Havre de Grace and Harford County Public Schools will continue as the planning and 

implementation of the Proposed Project progresses to ensure that appropriate minimization and 

mitigation measures are implemented for the Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park and for Alternative 

9A, Havre de Grace Middle/High School. Mitigation measures under consideration for each 

resource are described below. 

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER RAIL BRIDGE AND OVERPASSES 

Measures to minimize adverse effects of the project on the NR-eligible Susquehanna River Rail 

Bridge and nine undergrade bridges could include: 

 For the two new bridges, use a more traditional design (either the truss approach/truss main 

span, girder approach/arch main span, or the girder approach/truss main span) as well as a 

more traditional pier design (either the arched keyhole, fluted, or wall); 

 For the proposed extensions or replacements of the eight historic undergrade bridges, use a 

form liner that emulates stone and is stained to be compatible with the color of the existing 

stone. In addition, new retaining walls in close proximity to the bridges should be designed 

in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties; 

 Prepare documentation of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and the eight undergrade 

bridges following Historic American Engineer Record (HAER) standards; 

 Develop educational materials interpreting the history and significance of the bridge for use 

by local libraries, historical societies, and educational institutions; 

 Produce a short film that documents the character-defining historical and engineering 

aspects of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge; 

 Salvage elements of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge; and/ or 

 Develop an interpretive exhibit in a park, greenway, or public space. 
 Chapter 9: Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

 9-11 

PERRYVILLE RAILROAD STATION 

To avoid demolishing the structure and creating an adverse effect on the Perry Interlocking 

Tower, Amtrak is evaluating the possibility of shifting the tower approximately 25 feet within 

the Amtrak right-of-way. The change in location would be minor and would not adversely affect 

the relationship between the Perry Interlocking Tower and the Perryville Station. This step 

would avoid one of several possible adverse effects to the historic station complex. 

In addition, as described above, through consultation with MHT and Section 106 consulting 

parties, FRA and MDOT have developed measures to mitigate the adverse effect on the NReligible Perryville Railroad Station complex. Development of these mitigation measures is set 

forth in the draft PA, to be executed by MHT, FRA, Amtrak and MDOT. The draft PA is 

included in Appendix D. The draft PA lists the historic resources that may be affected by the 

project and also describes the continuing consultation process that will be conducted as project 

designs evolve. The draft PA also describes the measures to be implemented during the project’s 

design process, to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects of the project on historic 

resources. Such measures could include:

 For the proposed extension to the Access Road Undergrade Bridge 59.39, use a form liner 

that emulates stone and is stained to be compatible with the color of the existing stone. In 

addition, new retaining walls in close proximity to the bridge and station should be designed 

in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties; 

 Prepare HAER recordation to document the two contributing resources that would be altered 

and/or removed; and 

 Develop and install signage interpreting the history of the Perryville Railroad Station. 

HAVRE DE GRACE HISTORIC DISTRICT 

As detailed in the Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study (see Appendix A, “Alternatives 

Screening Report and Bridge Design Types”), the alternatives screening process minimized 

direct impacts to contributing resources of the Havre de Grace Historic District. In accordance 

with the draft PA, the Proposed Project’s Construction Protection Plan (CPP) will include 

consideration of all significant structures within close proximity to the Project in order to protect 

these architectural resources from damage during the construction period. 

Additional steps to minimize or mitigate adverse effects to the Havre de Grace Historic District 

could include: 

 Ensure that the two new bridges over the river use a traditional design for the bridges and 

piers; 

 Ensure that any new physical structures such as the retaining walls are designed in 

accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties; and 

 For the proposed extensions to the four historic undergrade bridges within the Historic 

District, use a form liner that emulates stone and is stained to be compatible with the color of 

the existing stone. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 9-12 

JEAN S. ROBERTS MEMORIAL PARK 

In order to limit the impact to Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park, the Project Team reduced 

construction clearances and future inspection and maintenance clearances to the practical 

minimum distances. FRA and MDOT will work with the City of Havre de Grace to identify 

additional appropriate mitigation measures and to ensure that a replacement for the Jean S. 

Roberts Memorial Park boat ramp is provided in a suitable location. 

HAVRE DE GRACE MIDDLE /HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELDS 

Measures to minimize harm to Havre de Grace Middle/High School have been developed in 

collaboration with the school board. These measures are described below. 

EXISTING TRACK AND FIELD FACILITIES 

The proposed retaining wall requires modification or relocation of the existing pole vault/high 

jump, long jump and 110-meter hurdle runout area at the existing track and field facility. A 

storage shed would also be impacted. Minimization and Mitigation for impacts to these facilities 

include: 

 Amtrak would build the railroad on an elevated structure over the 110-meter hurdle runout 

area. During construction the runout would be reduced to 8.5 meters but after construction 

would be rebuilt to its current 11.5-meter length. 

 Relocate pole vault, high jump, long jump and storage shed. 

 The Project would reimburse Harford County Public Schools for the agreed upon additional 

design cost. 

 To the extent practical, construction would be scheduled to minimize disruption to these 

facilities. 

PLANNED BASEBALL FIELD CONSTRUCTION 

The Project Team has reviewed plans for a new baseball field proposed as part of the High 

School/Middle School development. Although this field has not yet been constructed, Harford 

County Public Schools is in the process of designing the facility. As such, FRA and MDOT have 

taken the future baseball field into account in their assessment of the impacts to the property. It 

is recommended that baseball fields should be built with a 60-foot clear area behind the foul line. 

As currently designed, the proposed retaining wall for Alternative 9A would encroach within 

this clear area by up to 20 feet. To address this impact, MDOT has worked with Harford County 

Public Schools to develop the following minimization and mitigation measures: 

 The baseball field would be redesigned by shifting home plate three feet away from the 

railroad and rotating the field 2.5 degrees counter clockwise. 

 Design consultant working on the baseball fields would redesign the field to provide 

adequate clear area around Amtrak’s proposed retaining wall. 

 The Project would reimburse Harford County Public Schools for the agreed upon additional 

design cost. 

 Amtrak would provide conduit and embedded inserts for installation of a future score board 

by Harford County Public Schools. 

 Amtrak would install a protective netting to shield the railroad from foul balls. 
 Chapter 9: Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

 9-13 

EXISTING 20-INCH WATER MAIN 

An existing 20-inch water main is located adjacent to Amtrak right of way, approximately 15 

feet inside the Athletic Field property and would require relocation due to the proposed retaining 

wall. Minimization and mitigation for impacts to the water main include: 

 The water main would be relocated in a casing, allowing future replacement to be done 

without affecting the athletic facilities. 

Construction would be scheduled around use of the facilities. 

RODGERS TAVERN 

Through consultation with MHT and Section 106 consulting parties, FRA and MDOT have 

developed measures to minimize the adverse effect on the NR-listed Rodgers Tavern. 

Development of these measures, as set forth in the draft PA, could include: 

 Ensure that the retaining wall in front of the tavern receives an aesthetic treatment, such as 

through use of a form-liner so that the wall imitates the look of stone and is compatible with 

the tavern’s architecture; 

 Use landscaping to screen the wall if there is adequate space; 

 Develop an appropriate mural for the retaining wall; and 

 As stipulated in the draft PA, to ensure that there is no construction-related damage to 

structures within close proximity to the Proposed Project, the project PA will include 

development of a CPP. The CPP will identify all architectural resources to be included in the 

plan and will set forth the specific measures to be used and specifications that will be 

applied to protect these architectural resources from damage during the construction period. 

F. LEAST OVERALL HARM ANALYSIS 

If there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative, FRA may only approve the alternative 

that results in the least overall harm in light of Section 4(f)’s preservation purpose. FRA 

conducts the least overall harm analysis by considering the following factors6

: 

 The ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each Section 4(f) property (including any 

measures that result in benefits to the property); 

 The relative severity of the remaining harm, after mitigation, to the protected activities, 

attributes, or features that qualify each Section 4(f) property for protection; 

 The relative significance of each Section 4(f) property; 

 The views of the official(s) with jurisdiction over each Section 4(f) property; 

 The degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need for the project; 

 After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources not protected 

by Section 4(f); and 

 Substantial differences in costs among the alternatives. 

 

6

 23 CFR 774.3(c) (See Section 3.3.3.2, Alternative with Least Overall Harm) 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 9-14 

FRA has evaluated numerous alternatives throughout the NEPA process and determined that 

there are no feasible and prudent alternatives that completely avoid the use of Section 4(f) 

properties. Therefore, since all alternatives use Section 4(f) properties, FRA has undertaken a 

least harm analysis to determine the alternative with the least overall harm. Alternative 9A and 

Alternative 9B, which were selected for detailed evaluation in this EA, are considered. 

Based on the thorough screening, Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B were retained for detailed 

study in the EA. The Project Team determined that Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B best meet 

the goals and objectives of the project, while minimizing environmental and property impacts. 

ALTERNATIVE 9A 

As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” Alternative 9A would construct a new twotrack 90 mph bridge to the west of the existing bridge and a second new two-track 160 mph 

bridge on the existing bridge alignment. Alternative 9A has an estimated 5-year construction 

period and an estimated cost of $930 million, based on the construction of the girder approach / 

arch main span bridge type. Alternative 9A will result in a Section 4(f) use of three historic 

resources, including the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and Overpasses, Perryville Railroad 

Station complex, and Havre de Grace Historic District. In addition, FRA intends to determine 

that Alternative 9A will result in a de minimis use of Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park and a de 

minimis use of the Havre de Grace Middle/High School athletic fields. Portions of the publiclyowned athletic fields are protected under Section 6(f) and may require replacement. As discussed 

in Chapter 10, “Section 6(f) Evaluation,” Section 6(f) prescribes the conditions that must be 

satisfied for the use or transfer of parklands or open spaces that have been improved with funds 

received through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). 

ALTERNATIVE 9B 

Alternative 9B is very similar to Alternative 9A. Like Alternative 9A, Alternative 9B would 

result in a new two-track 90 mph bridge west of the existing bridge and a second new two-track 

bridge replacing the existing bridge. The difference between Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B 

occurs in Havre de Grace along the east side of the corridor from Lewis Lane to the 

Susquehanna River. Alternative 9B lessen the curve in Havre de Grace and would limit the 

speed to a maximum of 150 mph. This lower speed, as compared to Alternative 9A, reduces the 

amount of property acquisitions required, including the avoidance of the Havre de Grace 

Middle/High School athletic fields. Alternative 9B has an estimated 5-year construction period 

and an estimated cost of $890 million based on the construction of the girder approach / arch 

main span bridge type. In terms of Section 4(f), Alternative 9B will result in the same use of the 

three historic resources as Alternative 9A (Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and Overpasses, 

Perryville Railroad Station complex, and Havre de Grace Historic District). In addition, as with 

Alternative 9A, FRA intends to determine that Alternative 9B will result in a de minimis use of 

Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park. In terms of Section 4(f), the difference between Alternative 9B 

and Alternative 9A is that Alternative 9B will not require the de minimis use and replacement of 

the Havre de Grace Middle/High School fields. 

EVALUATION OF LEAST OVERALL HARM 

Below is a summary of FRA’s consideration with respect to each factor considered in least 

overall harm analysis. 
 Chapter 9: Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

 9-15 

ABILITY TO MITIGATE ADVERSE IMPACTS TO EACH SECTION 4(F) PROPERTY 

The impact to the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and Overpasses, Perryville Railroad Station 

complex, Havre de Grace Historic District, and Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park will be the same 

with Alternative 9A and with Alternative 9B. The ability to mitigate the adverse impacts will be 

the same with both alternatives. Adverse impacts to the Havre de Grace Middle/High School 

athletic fields with Alternative 9A are able to be mitigated sufficiently to result in an impact that 

FRA proposes to determine will constitute a de minimis use. 

RELATIVE SEVERITY OF THE REMAINING HARM, AFTER MITIGATION, TO THE 

PROTECTED ACTIVITIES, ATTRIBUTES, OR FEATURES THAT QUALIFY EACH SECTION 

4(F) PROPERTY FOR PROTECTION 

The severity of the remaining harm, after mitigation, to the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and 

Overpasses, Perryville Railroad Station complex, Havre de Grace Historic District, and Jean S. 

Roberts Memorial Park will be the same with Alternative 9A and with Alternative 9B. FRA 

intends to determine that harm to the Havre de Grace Middle/High School athletic fields after 

mitigation is de minimis. The difference between the de minimis harm with Alternative 9A and 

no harm to the school property with Alternative 9B is negligible and therefore not a significant 

differentiating factor between the Build Alternatives. 

THE RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE OF EACH SECTION 4(F) PROPERTY 

The relative significance of the resources affected by both Build Alternatives is not essential to 

determine, as the effect of the two Build Alternatives on those resources would be the same. The 

significance of the Havre de Grace Middle/High School athletic fields, which would be 

minimally affected under Alternative 9A only, is considered to be less than the significance of 

the historic resources that would be affected with both Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B. 

THE VIEWS OF THE OFFICIAL(S) WITH JURISDICTION OVER EACH SECTION 4(F) 

PROPERTY 

In a letter dated August 24, 2016 (see Appendix H, “Public Involvement and Agency 

Coordination”), MHT agreed with the findings presented in the Effects Assessment for Historic 

Architectural Resources (see Appendix D, “Cultural Resources”). In support of FRA’s proposed 

de minimis determination, the City of Havre de Grace concurred that the Section 4(f) use of the 

City-owned portion of Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park under both Build Alternatives, with 

mitigation, would not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes qualifying this 

property for protection under Section 4(f). In support of FRA’s proposed de minimis 

determination, Harford County Public Schools concurred that the use of the Havre de Grace 

Middle/High School athletic fields under Alternative 9A, with mitigation, would not adversely 

affect the activities, features, or attributes qualifying this property for protection under Section 

4(f). Consistent with federal guidance, the de minimis use of the Havre de Grace Middle/High 

School athletic fields is not considered to be a significant differentiating factor between the 

Build Alternatives because the net harm resulting from the de minimis impact is negligible. 

THE DEGREE TO WHICH EACH ALTERNATIVE MEETS THE PURPOSE AND NEED FOR 

THE PROJECT 

As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” the two Build Alternatives were compared for 

their ability to meet the Purpose and Need for the project, considering the project goals and 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 9-16 

objectives. Since the Build Alternatives were developed in consideration of these goals and 

objectives, there are few differences among the Build Alternatives. However, a key operational 

consideration is the project’s ability to optimize existing and planned infrastructure by providing 

for a maximum authorized train speed of 160 mph, while taking both benefits and potential 

impacts into consideration. Amtrak developed the NEC Master Plan with planned speed 

increases up to a maximum authorized speed of 160 mph for this location along the NEC. 

Amtrak’s NEC Master Plan is consistent with the congressional mandate placed on Amtrak to 

reduce travel times along the NEC. 

As discussed above, Alternative 9A would allow for a maximum speed of 160 mph, while 

Alternative 9B would limit the speed to a maximum of 150 mph. Therefore, Alternative 9A is 

consistent with operational goals and with broader plans along the NEC. Overall, Alternative 9A 

better meets the Purpose and Need for the project and the broader goals for the NEC, and was 

therefore selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

AFTER REASONABLE MITIGATION, THE MAGNITUDE OF ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS TO 

RESOURCES NOT PROTECTED BY SECTION 4(F) 

Alternative 9A would result in slightly greater impacts to resources not protected by Section 4(f) 

(e.g., a commercial displacement, as discussed in Chapter 4, “Land Use and Community 

Facilities;” and floodplains, streams, wetland, forest, and Chesapeake Bay Critical Area impacts, 

as discussed in Chapter 11, “Natural Resources”) as compared to Alternative 9B. However, these 

additional impacts can be mitigated for and potentially reduced during final design. 

SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCES IN COSTS AMONG THE ALTERNATIVES 

The construction cost of Alternative 9A is greater slightly greater than the construction cost of 

Alternative 9B (less than five percent of the overall project cost). Considering the greater longterm societal benefits and travel time cost savings associated with Alternative 9A, the greater 

construction cost is not a significant distinguishing factor between the Build Alternatives. 

G. COORDINATION 

The Project Team has undertaken extensive public and community outreach efforts as part of the 

Proposed Project, along with federal, state, and local agency coordination (see Chapter 20, 

“Coordination and Consultation”). Numerous public meetings have been held throughout the 

environmental process at project milestones. In addition to public outreach information sessions, 

the Project Team has held numerous Interagency Review Meetings and key stakeholder 

meetings, including meetings with local officials, the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

Advisory Board, bicycle-pedestrian stakeholders, and Harford County Public Schools. As 

documented in Appendix H, “Public Involvement and Agency Coordination,” Harford County 

Public Schools and the City of Havre de Grace concurred that the Proposed Project would “not 

adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes qualifying” Havre de Grace Middle/High 

School Athletic Fields and Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park for protection under Section 4(f). 

The Section 106 consultation process for the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge began in April 

2014. Section 106 consulting parties were invited to public outreach information sessions held 

on August 13, 2014, December 10, 2014, November 10, 2015, and April 14, 2016. Dedicated 

Section 106 meetings were held on March 9, 2015, August 18, 2015, and October 11, 2016. The 

Project Team has coordinated with MHT throughout the environmental review process. 
 Chapter 9: Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

 9-17 

Coordination included efforts to: determine the Area of Potential Effects (APE), identify historic 

properties within the APE, determine effects to historic properties, develop minimization and 

mitigation measures and develop the PA. Consultation between the Project Team and MHT is 

ongoing.

Public review of this Evaluation is being held concurrently with public review of the EA.

Through consultation with Section 106 consulting parties and MHT, FRA and MDOT have 

developed measures to minimize harm on the Section 4(f) properties to be used for 

implementation of the project, as described above and provided in the draft PA contained in 

Appendix D, “Cultural Resources.” 

H. SECTION 4(F) REVIEW PROCESS 

The draft Section 4(f) evaluation will be made available for a minimum 30-day public review, in 

tandem with public review of the EA. After public comments on this draft Evaluation are 

received, a final Section 4(f) evaluation will be prepared. The final Section 4(f) evaluation will 

contain the conclusions of the Section 4(f) evaluation, encompassing: 

 A description of the basis for concluding that there are no prudent and feasible alternatives 

to the use of the Section 4(f) property, including a demonstration that there are unique 

problems or unusual factors involved in the use of alternatives that avoid these properties, or 

that the cost, social, economic, and environmental impacts or community disruption 

resulting from the alternatives reach extraordinary magnitudes; 

 A description of the basis for concluding that the Proposed Project includes all possible 

planning to minimize harm; and 

 A summary of appropriate formal coordination with the U.S. Department of the Interior 

(USDOI). 

FRA, acting as the lead federal agency, will make its final Section 4(f) finding, including the 

final de minimis determination, when it issues its findings on the EA. 
 10-1 

Chapter 10: Section 6(f) Evaluation 

A. INTRODUCTION 

This Section 6(f) Evaluation assesses all properties within the study area that received Land and 

Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act funding, referred to herein as “Section 6(f) resources”. 

The study area for this Evaluation includes a 1,000-foot buffer surrounding the Proposed Project 

site. This Evaluation satisfies the requirements of the LWCF Act (16 USC § 4601-4 through 11, 

commonly known as Section 6(f)), which prescribes the conditions that must be satisfied for the 

use or transfer of parklands or open spaces that have been improved with funds received through 

the LWCF. As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” this Environmental Assessment 

(EA) evaluates two Build Alternatives: Alternative 9A (the Preferred Alternative) and 

Alternative 9B. The Preferred Alternative would potentially require use of one Section 6(f) 

resource—portions of the publicly owned athletic fields at the Havre de Grace Middle SchoolHigh School complex. 

B. REGULATORY CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY 

REGULATORY CONTEXT 

The LWCF Act established the LWCF State Assistance Program, a nationwide program for 

funding the acquisition and development of public outdoor recreation resources. The U.S. 

Department of the Interior (USDOI), through the National Parks Service (NPS), provides 

funding under the LWCF for state and local efforts to plan, acquire, or develop land to advance 

outdoor recreational activities (16 USC § 4601-4). The Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources (DNR) Office of Land Acquisition and Planning serves as the state delegate/state 

liaison officer that administers LWCF Act funding received by Maryland from USDOI. 

Under Section 6(f) of the LWCF Act, land purchased with LWCF monies cannot be converted to 

a non-recreational use without coordination with and approval from USDOI, acting through the 

NPS, at the request of the state delegate/state liaison officer. If any portion of a Section 6(f) 

resource is proposed to be converted to a non-recreational use, replacement of the land used is 

required. NPS must approve the conversion and replacement of Section 6(f) resources and any 

NPS approval must be based on a determination that the conversion meets the conditions under 

Section 6(f) described in more detail below (16 USC § 4601-8[f][3]) and 36 CFR Part 59. 

In Maryland, some parks and recreational facilities have been funded through DNR Program 

Open Space (POS), established in 1969. Although POS is not part of the LWCF, the two 

programs work in parallel to protect the recreational areas they fund, and the two carry similar 

requirements for conversions of use. The conversion of land acquired or developed using POS 

funding requires the written approval of the Secretary of DNR, the Secretary of the Department 

of Budget and Management, and the Secretary of the Department of Planning. Funding for POS 

is made available to local communities through the Outdoor Recreation Land Loan of 1969 and 

through the LWCF of the USDOI. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 10-2 

PREREQUISITES OF CONVERSION 

Under the LWCF Act and applicable USDOI regulations (36 CFR Part 59), conversion of 

Section 6(f) resources may be approved only if NPS finds that the following nine criteria have 

been met: 

1) All practical alternatives to the proposed conversion have been evaluated and rejected; 

2) The fair market value of the park property to be converted has been established and that the 

property proposed for substitution is of at least equal fair market value, as established by an 

approved appraisal in accordance with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land 

Acquisition, excluding the value of structures or facilities that will not serve recreational 

purposes; 

3) The proposed replacement property is of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location as 

the converted property; 

4) The property proposed for substitution meets the eligibility requirements for LWCF-assisted 

acquisition; 

5) For properties that are proposed to be partially rather than wholly converted, the impact of 

the converted portion on the remainder must be considered and the unconverted area must 

remain recreationally viable, or be replaced as well; 

6) All necessary coordination with other federal agencies has been satisfactorily accomplished, 

including compliance with Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966; 

7) The guidelines for environmental evaluation have been satisfactorily completed and 

considered by the NPS during its review of the conversion proposal; 

8) If the proposed conversion constitutes a significant change to the original LWCF project, 

State intergovernmental clearinghouse review procedures have been adhered to; and 

9) The proposed conversion is in accordance with the applicable Statewide Comprehensive 

Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) and/or equivalent recreational plans. 

According to the NPS 2008 LWCF State Assistance Program Manual, a small conversion is a 

conversion that will affect no more than 10 percent of the Section 6(f) protected area or five 

acres, whichever is less, and meets the following criteria: 1) results in minor or no environment 

impacts due to removal from Section 6(f) protection/replacement of 6(f) property; 2) is not 

controversial; and 3) replacement property is contiguous to the original Section 6(f) protected 

area or another existing park or recreation area. A small conversion may simplify the NPS 

review and decision-making process. The Project Team will determine the appropriate level of 

conversion for the Proposed Project after selecting the most appropriate replacement property, in 

cooperation with Harford County Public Schools, DNR, and NPS. 

METHODOLOGY 

Generally, if a transportation project may impact parkland or recreational facilities that were 

acquired or developed using LWCF and/or POS funds, the project sponsor should obtain the 

following information and take the following actions: 

 Identify parkland or recreational areas that were purchased or developed with LWCF or POS 

funds; 
Chapter 10: Section 6(f) Evaluation 

 10-3 

 Identify public parkland or recreational area right-of-way needs, in fee and/or temporary 

easements; 

 Contact the official or agency with jurisdiction over the property to inform them of the 

proposed project/impact and request information on potential replacement properties; 

 Prepare mapping showing potential replacement sites and develop an estimate of acquisition 

cost; 

 Continue coordination with the official or agency with jurisdiction over the property to agree 

on mutually acceptable replacement site; 

 Continue coordination with official/agency with jurisdiction through meetings, letters, and 

minutes of meetings during conversion process; 

 Meet the requirements of Section 4(f) (described in Chapter 9, “Draft Section 4(f) 

Evaluation”); 

 Identify a replacement site of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent 

recreational value, usefulness, and location as the impacted area; 

 Complete appropriate appraisals when plans are developed, as required by law for POS or 

Section 6(f) property conversions; and 

 Forward appraisals for impacted property and the selected replacement site to the 

official/agency with jurisdiction over the property. 

The Project Team obtained information regarding Section 6(f) and POS resources within the 

study area using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data, field visits, online LWCF project 

reports, and information from the Harford County Department of Parks and Recreation and 

DNR. The Project Team identified properties within the study area that were either partially or 

wholly bought or developed using LWCF monies, thereby triggering an Evaluation. For each 

property affected by the Proposed Project that contains a Section 6(f) resource, the Project Team 

calculated the acreage of potential impact (i.e., conversion of potential 6(f) land), and the type 

and extent of impacts to recreational facilities. The Project Team is continuing to coordinate 

with DNR and NPS. 

C. APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 6(F) TO THE PROJECT 

Harford County Department of Parks and Recreation has confirmed that portions of the Havre de 

Grace Middle School-High School complex received LWCF monies for development, (see 

Figure 10-1 and response letter from the Harford County Department of Parks and Recreation 

regarding the use of LWCF monies at the Havre de Grace Middle and High Schools in 

Appendix H, “Public Involvement and Agency Correspondence.”) 

In 1966, NPS granted $7,070.00 to the high school for the construction of three tennis courts and 

one multi-purpose court (Project 24-00008). In 1970, the middle school was granted $16,143.00 

for the construction of one multi-purpose court, four little-league baseball fields, and a cinder 

running track (Project 19-00139-13-012). Records from 1978 indicate that the tennis courts 

originally constructed under LWCF project 24-00008 were relocated on the school site as part of 

a Havre de Grace High School expansion project. In addition, the athletic facilities constructed 

under LWCF project 19-00139-13-012 have undergone several reconfigurations including the 

relocation of the original cinder running track and original ball field (see Figure 10-2). The 

precise boundaries of Section 6(f) resources within the Havre de Grace Middle School-High 

School complex are the subject of ongoing discussions between NPS, DNR, and Harford 
5555 55 5555555555

555555 55

555555 55

555 5555555555555

55555555555555555555

5555555

55

55555555

55 5555555555555555555555

5555555

555555 555 55

555

555 55 55 55 555 5555555555555555

55

5555555555555555555 55 555 5555 5

55

5555555555555555555

55

5555555555555555555555555555555555555

555555555555555555555555555555

55

55

5555 55 55

555 5555 555555555555555

5555555555555555555555555555

5

55555 55555 5555 5555 555555 555

55 5555555 5555 5555 55 55 5 5555

55555555555555555555555555555555

55 55

5555

55555 5

5

555555555555555555555 5555

5555555 5

555 55 55 55 55 55 55

555555555555555555555555555555555555555

55 55 55

555555555 55 555555555555555 555555555555555555555555555555555555

55 55555555

5 5

5

5

55

55555

55555 55

5555 

555555555555555555555 555

555555 5

5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555

55

55555 55

5555555 55555 55555 55555 5555555555

55

55555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555

555555

5555 55555 5555555 555555 5555 555555555555555555

55555555

555 55 5555555555555 55555

55

55555

5

555 55 555

55 55

5 5555 5

55555555555

55 5

5 5

55 555555555555555555555555555555 555 5555555

5555555 5555555555555

55555 5

5555555 55555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555

55

555

55555 55 5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 55555555555555 555 555555555555555555555

55

555555555555555555555555555

55

55555555

5555555555555

555555555555555555

5

55555 555555555555

555555555555

55

55 555 55 5555 5555555

55

555 55 55 555555555555555555555555555555555555555 55 55555 555 55 55 555 555 55 55 55 55 555

5555555 55 55

55 55 55555

5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555

5555555555

55 5 5555 555555 55

555555555 5555

555555 5

55

55 55 55

55 55 555 55555

5

5555555 555 555 55 55555 5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 5555 555 55555

555555555555 55555

5555 5555 5555 5555 5555 55555 5555 55555 5555555555 55

55

55

55 

55 

55555555555555555555555555555555555555555555

55

5555555555 5

5 5555555

555555555555555555555

5555555555555555555 55 555 555555 5 555 555 55 55 5 55 555 555555555555

55555

5555555555555555555555 55 55555555555 555 55

555 55

55555 555555 55 555 55 5555555555555555555555

55

55 55555

55555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555

5555555555555555555555555 55555 5555 5

5555555555555555555555555555555 55 555 55555 

5

555555555555555555555555555555555

555555 

555555555555555555555

55555555

555555 555 55555 555 55 55 55

5555 555

55

555555555555

55555

555

5555555

55

55

55

55 5

5

5

5555555555555555555555555555

55

55 5555555

55

555 5555555 55555 5

5555555555555555

5555 5 55

5

55555555 555555555555555555555555555

55555

55

55 555 55 5555 5555555 55 5555555

555555555555

5 5

55

555555 55555 555555 55555 55555 55555 555555 55555555 55555555555555 55555555555 555555555 55555555555555555555 5

555 55555555

555555555

55

555555555555555555555555555

55555555 555 55 555 555555

555555555555555555555555 5555555555 5555555 5555555 55 55 555

55555555555 555555555555555555555555555555555555 55

55 55555555555555555555555555555555

555555555

555555

555 5555 555555555555555555555555555

5

5 5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 5555555555555555555555555555555555555555

55

55555 5 55 5555 5 

5 55 5555555555555555

5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555

555555555

5555555555555555555

Lily

Run

Lewis Ln

South Juniata Street

Anderson Ave

Warren Street

Pusey

St

Pennington Avenue

Revolution Street

Fountain Street

North Freedom Lane

Armstrong Ave

North Adams Street

Green Street

South Adams Street

North Stokes Street

Congress Avenue

Bourbon Street

Fountain Street

North Juniata Street

1

0 250 500

Feet

Susquehanna River

Rail Bridge Project

Figure 10-1

Havre de Grace Middle/High

School Athletic Complex

Legend

Havre de Grace Middle School/High School Track and Athletic Fields*

1,000 ft Study Area

Athletic

Complex

Courts

Ballfields

Mixed Use

Fields

Ballfields

Ballfields

Courts

Courts

Courts

Amtrak NEC

*Property partially developed using LWCF Funds (6(f) resource)

Data Sources

Athletic Field Complex Boundary:

Harford County Government, 2011

Havre de Grace

Middle School/High School

Track and Athletic Fields

Havre de Grace

Middle School

Havre de Grace

High School

Conrail Spur
1

Susquehanna River

Rail Bridge Project

Figure 10-2

Development History of

Havre de Grace Middle/High

School Athletic Complex

Not to Scale

1970 1973

1998-1994 2013
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 10-4 

County. Through coordination with NPS and DNR, a draft LWCF boundary has been 

established for this EA (discussed in Section E, “Potential Impacts of the Build Alternatives”). 

In 2015, Harford County Public Schools reported a total student population of 37,451; of these, 

584 students attended the Havre de Grace Middle School and 775 students attended the Havre de 

Grace High School.1

 The middle and high school buildings are not connected; however, they 

share athletic facilities that host a range of recreational activities including football, soccer, 

baseball, and track and field events. The portion of the property that includes the shared 

recreational facilities is approximately 57 acres and is located between the middle and high 

school buildings. The facilities currently include five baseball fields, two multi-purpose courts, 

five tennis courts, two soccer fields, open space, and the James R. Harris Stadium that contains a 

track and football field. According to consultation with Havre de Grace High School, these 

athletic fields are used for school-related sporting events and practices, and are open to the 

public outside of normal school hours and after-school programs unless reserved for a special 

event. 

In addition to the school athletic fields, three parks within the study area—the David Craig Park, 

Swan Harbor Farm, and Lower Ferry Park—have been funded through DNR’s POS (see Chapter 

6, “Parks, Trails, and Recreational Resources”). As described above, funding for POS is made 

available through the Outdoor Recreation Land Loan of 1969 and the LWCF of the USDOI. 

These parks are therefore considered Section 6(f) resources. 

D. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The No Action Alternative assumes the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge will remain in service 

as-is, with no intervention apart from the undertaking of minimal repairs and the continuation of 

the current maintenance regime. Service over the bridge would continue to worsen in the future 

under the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative is a baseline scenario against which 

potential impacts from the Proposed Project will be measured. As part of the No Action 

Alternative, Harford County Public Schools is in the process of finalizing design plans to 

combine the existing Havre de Grace High School located on Congress Avenue with the Havre 

de Grace Middle School currently located on the southern end of the existing school property 

near Lewis Lane. Harford County’s plans to reconstruct the Middle School-High School 

complex are independent of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project. The new complex 

would include new baseball fields and improved pedestrian accommodations. 

E. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVES 

Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B would require expansion of the existing rail right-of-way, 

requiring the acquisition and conversion of narrow strips of land within the Proposed Project 

area, including within the Havre de Grace Middle School-High School complex. 

ALTERNATIVE 9A 

Under Alternative 9A (the Preferred Alternative), the proposed new retaining walls supporting 

the rail tracks would encroach upon the Havre de Grace Middle School-High School complex—

including the existing running track and the planned athletic fields. The Lewis Lane overpass 

near the school complex would be reconstructed to accommodate the new track alignment. 

 

1 https://www.hcps.org/schools/SchoolProfile.aspx?schoolID=78; accessed December 29, 2016. 
Chapter 10: Section 6(f) Evaluation 

 10-5 

Alternative 9A would require the permanent acquisition of a small portion of the athletic 

fields—approximately 1.5 acres of fee simple right-of-way for Amtrak and approximately 1.2 

acres of utility easement for the Harford County Department of Public Works for a total 

potential property impact of approximately 2.7 acres. 

The fee-simple right-of-way is needed to accommodate a retaining wall, which would be 

constructed parallel to the tracks to the south and would be situated mostly on the current school 

property. Fencing would be installed along the top of the retaining wall, which would be 

approximately 17 to 18 feet tall, with a maximum height of 25 feet. An additional temporary 

construction easement may be required to build the retaining wall. Alternative 9A would also 

require a 30-foot-wide maintenance easement for the Harford County Department of Public 

Works. Ten feet of that maintenance easement would be within the proposed acquisition area. 

The remaining 20 feet of the needed maintenance easement (approximately 1.2 acres) would be 

within the school property. 

The proposed rail track would impact only open space, but the proposed retaining wall and the 

associated construction/maintenance easement would impact track and field amenities, including 

the 110-meter hurdle runout area, the high jump/pole vault facility, the long jump facility, and 

storage shed. In addition, the retaining wall and easement would affect the conceptual design of 

the planned baseball fields, which Harford County intends to build to the west of the track. 

Alternative 9A would require minor reconfigurations of the existing and planned ballfields at the 

school complex. Alternative 9A would also physically impact the starting block for the existing 

running track. As mentioned earlier, LWCF monies were used for the construction of the 

original cinder running track, which has since been moved to its current location. The functional 

use of the original LWCF monies acquired for the construction of the original track are no longer 

relevant due to the relocation of that recreation facility. Based on DNR and NPS’s current 

understanding of the Section 6(f) resource boundaries, the existing track and field amenities are 

not subject to Section 6(f). A portion of the land required for Alternative 9A, however, falls 

within the Section 6(f) resource boundaries. NPS and DNR have delineated a draft LWCF 

boundary (see Figure 10-3); Harford County input on this boundary is pending. Alternative 9A 

would require approximately 0.55 acre of land for which LWCF monies were used (see Figure 

10-3). There are no existing or planned athletic fields or other recreational facilities within this 

0.55-acre area. The track and field elements impacted by the Proposed Project are within HCPS 

property, but are outside of the established draft LWCF boundary. 

The Proposed Project may qualify for a small conversion as discussed under the above 

“Prerequisites of Conversion”. Additionally, according to NPS 2008 LWCF State Assistance 

Program Manual, underground utility easements within a Section 6(f) area may not trigger a 

conversion if the site is restored to its pre-existing condition to ensure the continuation of public 

outdoor recreational use of the easement area within 12 months after the ground within the 

easement area is disturbed. The existing water main relocation would result in a 30-foot-wide 

water main easement. Of this 30-foot-wide easement, approximately 10 feet would be located on 

the Amtrak property and approximately 20 feet would be located on the school property. 

According to Section 6(f) guidance (LWCF State Assistance Program Manual, Chapter 8-12),

the water main easement can be excluded from the overall Section 6(f) conversion acreage since 

it would be restored to prior conditions shortly after construction has been completed allowing 

any surface level recreational activities to proceed as intended. Coordination with NPS and DNR 

will continue to confirm that the utility easement area would not be subject to conversion 
LOD 9A Impact

to LWCF:

0.55 acres

£¤40

7

Lewis Ln

Revolution Street

Anderson Ave

Pusey St

Fountain Street

Armstrong Ave

Webb Ln

Pulaski Highway

Bloomsbury

Ave

LWCF Boundary

LOD Comparison

Harford County, MD

0 100 200

Feet

1 1 inch = 300 feet

Susquehanna River

Rail Bridge Project

LOD 9A Calculation Area

LOD 9B Calculation Area

1,000 ft Study Area

LOD 9A LWCF Impact

LWCF Boundary

Figure 10-3
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 10-6 

requirements. Alternative 9A would not impact David Craig Park, Swan Harbor Farm, or Lower 

Ferry Park—the parks within the study area that have received POS funding. 

ALTERNATIVE 9B 

Alternative 9B is similar to Alternative 9A, but would entail a more curved rail alignment 

design, which would limit the rail speed to a maximum of 150 mph and result in fewer right-ofway impacts. As shown in Figure 10-3, Alternative 9B would not extend beyond Amtrak’s 

existing right-of-way at the Havre de Grace Middle School-High School complex, and therefore 

would have no adverse impacts to this resource. Alternative 9B would not impact other Section 

6(f) resources, including David Craig Park, Swan Harbor Farm, and Lower Ferry Park. 

F. MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION OF IMPACTS 

As a first prerequisite of conversion, all practical alternatives to the proposed conversion must be 

evaluated and rejected.” A two-step screening process (i.e. fatal flaw screening followed by a 

detailed screening) was used to evaluate 25 preliminary alternatives for the project (see Chapter 

2, “Project Alternatives”). A “fatal flaw” screening eliminated all but 10 alternatives based on 

rail connectivity, navigational requirements, logical termini, feasibility and constructability, and 

avoidance of critical property impacts. The Project Team conducted a subsequent detailed 

screening of the 10 remaining alternatives based on potential impacts to the human and natural 

environment (including Section 6(f) impacts) as well as operational and engineering 

considerations. The screening determined that Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B best meet the 

goals and objectives of the project, while minimizing environmental and property impacts. 

Six of the alternatives screened in detail (1B, 4C, 4E, 8A, 8B and VE) would have avoided 

impacts to Section 6(f) resources, but were removed from further consideration because they 

either required full acquisition of a low-income senior housing facility, supported less desirable 

train speeds, and/or required similar or higher environmental impacts as Alternative 9B while 

offering fewer operational and engineering benefits. The fatal flaw and detailed screenings 

satisfy the first conversion prerequisite. In addition, Alternative 9A was determined to have the 

least overall harm in light of the preservation purpose of Section 4(f) (see Chapter 9, “Draft 

Section 4(f) Evaluation”). 

The Project Team made efforts to minimize the impacts to Section 6(f) resources during the 

alternatives development and screening process, and have eliminated several alignments that 

could have resulted in greater impacts to Section 6(f) properties, including more extensive 

impacts to the Havre de Grace Middle School-High School athletic fields (see “Alternatives 

Retained for Detailed Study” in Appendix A, “Alternatives Screening Report and Bridge 

Types”). Alternative 4B and Alternative 4D, which were removed from further consideration, 

would have required more than two acres of fee-simple right-of-way from the Havre de Grace 

Middle/High School facility. 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Maryland Department of Transportation 

(MDOT) have been coordinating closely with Harford County Public Schools to develop 

proposed measures to minimize and mitigate the impacts that would result from Alternative 9A. 

Proposed minimization and mitigation for Alternative 9A impacts to the Havre de Grace 

Middle/High School Athletic Fields are discussed in Chapter 9, “Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation”.
Chapter 10: Section 6(f) Evaluation 

 10-7 

G. POTENTIAL SECTION 6(F) REPLACEMENT LAND 

Coordination with DNR, NPS, and the property owner—Harford County Public Schools (HCPS) 

—regarding potential Section 6(f) impacts and replacement parkland opportunities will continue 

as the Proposed Project progresses to the final design phase and once construction funding has 

been allocated for right-of-way purchases. The Proposed Project will likely result in a Section 

6(f) impact (pending finalization of the draft LWCF boundary). Therefore, the Project Team will 

adhere to the nine LWCF prerequisites for conversion listed in Section B, “Regulatory Context 

and Methodology”, as well as the Small Conversion Policy established in 1990 and recently 

amended (codified at 54 USC §2000305(f)(3), on January 3, 2017). The Project Team will also 

provide documentation per the LWCF Act and applicable USDOI regulations for the conversion 

of parkland (36 CFR 59). FRA and MDOT will continue to coordinate with Harford County 

Public Schools to submit an application for land conversion to the NPS Regional Administrator 

through DNR. 

For this Environmental Assessment, the Project Team identified three potential replacement sites 

for further evaluation and coordination with the appropriate parties including DNR, NPS, FRA, 

MDOT and HCPS. The goal of the potential replacement land site search was to adhere to the 

eligibility requirements outlined in the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. 

Table 10-1 provides an overview of the potential replacement parcels that the Project Team 

identified. Figure 10-4 shows the locations of the parcels. 

POTENTIAL PROPERTY CONSIDERATIONS: 

PROPERTY 1 (OWNER: BG&E) 

 This parcel is contiguous to the proposed LWCF boundary but currently has public 

recreational uses on the site. 

 Due to the private ownership of the parcel, the property could potentially be 

considered as replacement land under LWCF guidance and could comply with the 

small conversion requirements. Further coordination regarding the current use 

agreement between HCPS and the land owner BG&E is needed. The Project Team 

will evaluated the viability of using this property as replacement land, once the 

project transitions into detailed design and as construction funds become available. 

Table 10-1

Potential Replacement Land

Property 

Parcel 

Number

Lot 

Number Zoning Area (acre)

Property 1 

Consolidated Gas & Electric Company 1021 1 Commercial 1.47 

Property 2 

Pepco Energy Power Company 182 

1, 2, 3, 

and 4 Commercial 5.1 

Property 3 

T&D Enterprises LLC 0990 1 Commercial 0.7 
Otseg

o Street

S

u

p

erior Street

South Juniata Street

Erie Street

Ontar oi Street

Carbon

Street

Garfield

R

oad

South Adams Street

South Stokes Street

Pearl Street

Conesteo Street

North Adams Street

North Stokes Street

Park Drive

Pennington

Avenue

B

ourb

on Street

C

o

n

gress Avenue

Green Street

Frankl ni Street

Warren

Street

Legion Drive

Warren Street

Water Street

Elizabeth Street

North Juniata Street

Locust Road

Pulaski Highway

South Freedom Lane North Freedom Lane

Lily Run

2.16 ac

1.51 ac

0

9. 3 ac 0.5 ac

1

0 280 560

Feet

Susquehanna River

Rail Bridge Project

Data Sources

Potential Replacement Sites

Parcel Boundaries:

Harford County Government, 2011

Legend

Potential Replacement Sites:

Property 1

Property 2

Property 3

Amtrak NEC

Havre de Grace

High School

Conrail Spur

Figure 10-4

P

arc

el: 018

2

5.1 a

c

P

arc

el: 10

21

1.4

7

a

c

P

arc

el: 0

9

9

0

0.7

a

c
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 10-8 

PROPERTY 2 (OWNER: PEPCO ENERGY POWER COMPANY) 

 This parcel is made up of open space that is contiguous to North Park, which would 

make it eligible for a small conversion. 

PROPERTY 3 (OWNER: T & D ENTERPRISE LLC) 

 This parcel is slightly over 1,000 feet from the school following existing roadway 

surface streets. 

 The site could potentially be used for open space or park and recreation amenities. 

 Since this parcel is not contiguous to the school athletic fields or to another existing 

park or recreation area, it will not fall under the small conversion requirements, but 

could still be evaluated as a full conversion option. 

As previously mentioned, once the project transitions into detailed design and as construction 

funds become available, the Project Team will coordinate with NPS, DNR, and HCPS to finalize 

the LWCF Boundary, identify specific replacement parcel uses and evaluate the potential 

replacement sites, along with any other locations that may be identified in the future as suitable 

with respect to the replacement guidelines.  
 11-1 

Chapter 11: Natural Resources 

A. INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes existing natural resource conditions within the study area for the 

Proposed Project. The natural resources analysis considered topography, geology, and soils; 

floodplains and wetlands/waters of the U.S.; terrestrial resources; aquatic resources; Chesapeake 

Bay Critical Area; coastal zone management; and unique and sensitive areas. This chapter also 

identifies potential adverse impacts on these resources from the Proposed Project, and discusses 

potential avoidance, minimization, and mitigation alternatives to offset these potential impacts. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” this Environmental Assessment (EA) 

evaluates two Build Alternatives: Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B. Alternative 9A was 

selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

B. REGULATORY CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY 

Regulatory context is summarized in Table 11-1 and described in more detail in Appendix E, 

“Natural Environmental Technical Report (NETR).” Methodology is described below. 

TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS 

Maps published by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Maryland Geological 

Survey (MGS) were used to obtain information on the topography and geology of the study area. 

Information on soil types within the study area was obtained from the USDA NRCS in the form 

of County Online Soil Surveys. 

FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS/WATERS OF THE U.S. 

Floodplains were identified within the study area using Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) 

produced by FEMA. Two sets of floodplain maps were available for Harford County, the 

effective FEMA floodplain and a preliminary FEMA floodplain that provides proposed updates 

to the current effective floodplain maps. Both were assessed. Acreages of the 100-year and 500-

year floodplain within the corridor were calculated using a geographic information system (GIS) 

overlay of the FIRM map limits. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and the 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Wetlands Inventory GIS layers were initially 

used to investigate the potential presence of wetlands within the study area. Where the DNR 

wetlands and NWI wetlands overlapped, the combined outer limits of each layer were used to 

create the wetland polygon. NRCS hydric soil layer was also used to note the potential location 

of wetlands within the study area. Estimated wetland limits within the study area were drawn 

using a combination of an inventory level field assessment in April 2014 and August 2014, 

agency field review in March 2015, mapped wetlands, and hydric soils limits. In October 2015, a 

wetland delineation was conducted within the proposed limits of disturbance for the alternatives 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 11-2 

retained for detailed study (Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B). Wetlands were identified in 

accordance with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation 

Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region, Version 2.0 (USACE 2010). The wetland 

delineation was conducted within the existing the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

(Amtrak) ROW. All identified wetlands and waterways were flagged in the field and the flags 

surveyed. Stream resources within the 1,000-foot study area were identified and classified using 

the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) from USGS, Harford and Cecil County hydrology 

GIS layers, FEMA FIRMs, and from the 2015 delineation. 

Table 11-1

Regulatory Context Summary Table

Technical Area Regulatory Context 

Topography, Geology, and 

Soils 

Maryland Department of Environment Erosion and Sediment Control

Regulations (COMAR 26.17.02) 

Farmland Policy Protection Act (FPPA) of 1981 

Floodplains and 

Wetlands/Waters of the U.S. 

Executive Order 11988 

Executive Order 13690 on “Establishing a Federal Flood Risk 

Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and 

Considering Stakeholder Input” 

National Flood Insurance Program 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Maryland Wetlands 

Regulations 

Terrestrial Resources 

Maryland Reforestation Law & Maryland Forest Conservation Act 

Nongame Endangered Species Conservation Act 

Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) (COMAR 27.01.09.04C(2) 

(b)(iv) 

Aquatic Resources 

Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1251-1387) 

Safe Drinking Water Act (42 USC § 330f-300j) 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Executive Order 13508 on Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

(Annotated Code of Maryland, Environment Article, Environment 

Article, Title 9, Subtitle 3, and implementing regulations in COMAR 

26.08.04) 

Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Protection Act 

Coastal Zone Management 

Section 307 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 

(CZMA) 

The Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 

(CZARA) 

Unique and Sensitive Areas 

Natural Heritage Areas (COMAR 08.03.08) 

Scenic and Wild Rivers System Act of 1968 

Maryland’s Green Infrastructure Assessment 

Forest Conservation Act Easements 

Federal Lands 
Chapter 11: Natural Resources 

 11-3 

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES 

Forest boundaries were identified using the most recent publically available aerial imagery and 

vegetation GIS layers from both counties. Forest resources were assessed on a broad scale using 

the Vegetation Map of Maryland (Brush et al. 1976). Forest interior habitat was identified using 

guidelines from A Guide to the Conservation of Forest Interior Dwelling Birds in the Critical 

Area (Jones et al. 2000) and is explained in detail within the NETR in Appendix E, Section C. 

FIDS habitat areas were mapped within the project study area. Forest resources were 

characterized, including the size class and dominant species of trees, understory conditions, and 

degree of disturbance. 

Information on terrestrial wildlife was obtained using data available through DNR Wildlife and 

Heritage Service (WHS) online resources, the 2nd Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Maryland and 

District of Columbia (Ellison 2010), and preliminary data of the Maryland Amphibian and 

Reptile Atlas (MARA) project (MARA Database Online Resource 2010). Wildlife observed 

during the field inventory were recorded and listed in tables within the NETR in Appendix E, 

Section C. 

To assess potential terrestrial rare, threatened, or endangered (RTE) species, project review 

letters, were sent to the DNR-WHS, DNR Integrated Policy Review Unit, and the USFWS. 

Mapped DNR Sensitive Species Project Review Areas (SSPRA) were also reviewed to 

determine areas supporting or providing habitat buffers for RTE species within the study area. 

The lists of current and historic RTE species of Harford and Cecil Counties (DNR 2010) were 

also reviewed to determine which species could potentially occur within the study area. 

AQUATIC RESOURCES 

 Published literature, including information obtained from governmental and nongovernmental agencies, such as DNR, Maryland Department of Planning, and MDE. 

 Data mapping tools provided by state agencies, including tools for watershed boundaries and 

health; designated use classes for surface waters; water quality assessments; and stream 

health data including fish and benthic sampling results. 

 DNR’s response to a request for information on fisheries data, including rare, threatened, or 

endangered species in the study area. 

CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL AREA 

METHODOLOGY 

The Critical Area is defined as all land within 1,000 feet of Maryland’s tidal waters and tidal 

wetlands. It also includes the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, the Atlantic Coastal Bays, their 

tidal tributaries and the lands underneath these tidal areas. The 1,000 foot Critical Area located 

within the study area limits have been determined using statewide mapping developed and 

maintained by DNR as well as written coordination with the CAC. Impacts to the Critical Area 

were calculated using the limit of disturbance (LOD) for Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B (i.e., 

project alternative footprint). 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 11-4 

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT 

The “Guide to Maryland’s CZMP and Federal Consistency Process” issued by MDE was 

reviewed to determine the federal consistency requirements established by the federal CZMA 

and how those requirements are administered through the Maryland CZMP. 

UNIQUE AND SENSITIVE AREAS 

NHAs, Green Infrastructure, and Wild and Scenic Rivers within the study area were determined 

through a review of existing literature and coordination with DNR. 

C. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS 

TOPOGRAPHY 

The topography at the study area ranges from less than 20 feet above sea level to greater than 

100 feet. The topography in the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province (south of the 

study area) is fairly flat. The topography in the Piedmont physiographic province is generally 

rolling hills, rising to over 400 feet north of the study area.

GEOLOGY 

Harford and Cecil Counties lie within the Fall Line separating two physiographic provinces, the 

Piedmont and the Atlantic Coastal Plain. The study area is primarily located within the Atlantic 

Coastal Plain, with a small portion located within the Piedmont Province. The Atlantic Coastal Plain 

Province is underlain by a wedge of unconsolidated sediments including gravel, sand, silt, and clay 

whereas the Piedmont is composed of hard, crystalline igneous and metamorphic rocks. These 

geological formations are depicted in Figure E-1 in Appendix E. In addition to the existing geology, 

mining occurs near the study area. There is a ready source of sand and gravel at the Havre de Grace 

Quarry (Vulcan Havre de Grace Quarry), approximately 7,800 feet northwest of the bridge. 

SOILS 

According to the USDA Web Soil Survey, there are 31 soil series and 47 mapping units within 

the study area (see Table 11-2). 

The Drainage Class identifies the natural drainage conditions of the soil (e.g., very poorly 

drained, poorly drained). Study area soils range from poorly drained (Leonardtown silt loam and 

Othello silt loam) to well drained soils (Elsinboro loam, Matapeake silt loam, Nassawango silt 

loam, and Sassafras and Croom). However, the majority of soil types in the Cecil County portion 

of the study area are Urban soil. Urban soils are mapped in areas where either the native soil has 

been removed or covered with fill. The urban map unit consists of land that has been so altered 

or disturbed by urban works and structure that classifying the soil is no longer feasible. Soil 

mapping units are depicted in Figure E-2 in Appendix E. 

Prime Farmland Soils are defined by NRCS as “having the soil quality, growing season and 

moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high yields of crops” (NRCS 2011). 

Soils of Statewide Importance are defined by NRCS as “having early Prime Farmland quality 

and that economically produce high yields of crops when treated and managed according to 
Chapter 11: Natural Resources 

 11-5 

acceptable Methodology” (NRCS 2011). Figure E-2 in Appendix E illustrates Prime Farmland 

Soils and Soils of Statewide Importance within the study area. However, as shown in the figure, 

most of this land is part of the existing railroad ROW, and, therefore, is not used for agriculture. 

FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS/WATERS OF THE U.S. 

FLOODPLAINS 

Floodplains have been mapped within the study area along: the Susquehanna River, an unnamed 

tributary to Swan Creek, an unnamed tributary to Gashey’s Creek, Gashey’s Creek, an unnamed 

tributary to Lily Run, Lily Run, Mill Creek, and Principio Creek (see Figure E-3 in Appendix 

E). Floodplains along the Susquehanna River are primarily used for waterfront commercial 

properties, parkland and other developed properties. Floodplains within the Harford County 

portion of the study area are dominated by urban development with some isolated open space. 

Within the Cecil County portion of the study area, Mill Creek and Principio Creek floodplains 

largely consist of forest cover. According to the effective FEMA floodplain maps, the majority 

of the 1,560-acre study area is outside the 100- and 500-year floodplain. 

Table 11-2

Soil Characteristics

Map Unit Description 

Drainage Class 

(Dominant) 

Hydric 

Classification 

Farmland 

Classification Erosion Class

AqA Aquasco silt loam 

Somewhat 

poorly drained Partially hydric

Statewide 

importance 

Not highly 

erodible 

BeA Beltsville silt loam 

Moderately well 

drained Partially hydric Prime farmland 

Not highly 

erodible 

EsA

Elsinboro 

loam

Well 

Drained Not hydric Prime farmland 

Not highly 

erodible - 

potentially 

highly

Lr 

Leonardtown 

silt loam Poorly drained All hydric Not prime 

Not highly 

erodible 

MkB 

Matapeake 

silt loam Well drained Not hydric 

Statewide 

importance 

Not highly 

erodible 

MlA 

Mattapex 

silt loam 

Moderately well 

drained Partially hydric Prime farmland 

Not highly 

erodible 

NsA 

Nassawango silt 

loam 

Well 

Drained Partially hydric Prime farmland 

Not highly 

erodible 

Ot 

Othello 

silt loam Poorly drained All hydric 

Statewide 

importance 

Not highly 

erodible 

SME 

Sassafras and 

Croom soils, (15 -

25% slopes) Well drained Partially hydric Not prime 

Highly 

erodible 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 11-6 

Where floodplains exist within the 1,560-acre study area, there are approximately 320 acres of 

FEMA-designated 100-year floodplains. This includes approximately 160 acres within the 

Susquehanna River. For Harford County, the total amount of effective 100-year floodplain 

within the study area is 220 acres. For Cecil County, the total amount of effective 100-year 

floodplain within the study area is 100 acres. The total effective 500-year floodplain within the 

study area is approximately 345 acres, including 222 acres in Harford County and 123 acres in 

Cecil County. Harford County has proposed revised floodplain limits. This preliminary 

floodplain mapping would result in a slight decrease in the 100-year and 500-year floodplain 

area within the study area to 203 acres and 209 acres, respectively. 

FEMA floodplain mapping indicates that within the study area, two of the waterways, an 

unnamed tributary to Lily Run and Lily Run, also have a regulated floodway within the overall 

floodplain. FEMA defines a floodway as “the channel of a...watercourse and the adjacent land 

areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing 

the water surface elevation more than a designated height.” These floodways were designated 

through detailed hydrologic studies conducted by FEMA and are regulated by FEMA, MDE, and 

localities through the permitting process to ensure that development in the floodplain does not 

raise the base elevation of a designated floodway by more than a maximum of 1 foot or a smaller 

increment as determined by MDE (see Appendix E, Section B). 

WETLANDS/WATERS OF THE U.S. 

Across the entire study area, 22 waters of the U.S., including wetlands, were identified. All 

waters of the U.S., including wetlands are depicted in Figure E-4 in Appendix E. The majority 

of the identified systems included nontidal forested wetlands. These systems included a few 

emergent/open water wetland stormwater management ponds or drainage swales and a forested 

wetland ditch along the Amtrak railroad tracks. Two identified forested wetlands and one 

emergent wetland appeared to be hydrologically isolated. Two systems were identified as tidal 

emergent, scrub shrub, or forested wetlands, one along the Susquehanna River and the other 

along the perimeter of Furnace Bay. 

In Harford County, 12 potential nontidal wetlands were identified within the study area (Table 

11-3). These include natural palustrine forested (PFO)/scrub shrub (PSS)/emergent (PEM) 

wetlands and manmade palustrine emergent/open water (POW and PUBH) wetlands. (Note that 

a description of each wetland at stream classification included in Table 11-1 can be found in 

Appendix E, Section B, Table E-3). Eight nontidal intermittent or perennial streams also cross 

the Amtrak ROW within Harford County. 

In Cecil County, two tidal wetland systems and six potential nontidal wetland systems were 

identified within the project study area (see Table 11-3). Mill Creek is the only perennial stream 

that crosses the study area in Cecil County. There are also three intermittent streams that flow 

parallel to the tracks on the south side and one ephemeral channel that drains into Wetland 9. 

Ephemeral channels contain a defined, natural bed and bank, and convey surface water to 

relatively permanent waters following precipitation or snow-melt events. 

The total area of the potential wetlands identified within the Harford County portion of the study 

area is 77.3 acres of PFO/PSS/PUBHx and 2.2 acres of PEM/POW/PUBHx. The total area of 

potential wetlands identified within the Cecil County portion of the study area is 2.3 acres of 

estuarine intertidal with scrub shrub (E2SS), 8.3 acres of estuarine intertidal with an unconsolidated 

bottom (E2US), 4.9 acres of PFO, 2.9 acres of PEM, and 0.1 acre of POW. A brief description of 

each wetland and waters of the U.S. system is provided in Appendix E, Section B. 
Chapter 11: Natural Resources 

 11-7 

Table 11-3

Mapped and Delineated Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.

System 

Number Waters of the U.S. Classification1 

Wetland 

Type 

Approximate 

Area of 

Wetland 

(Acre) 

Approximate 

Length of 

Stream 

(Linear Feet)

Harford County 

1 PFO1A/PFO1C/PSS1A 

R2UB1 (Unnamed tributary to Gashey’s Creek) Nontidal 53.7 

- 

- 

2,800 

2 PEM1/POWHx 

R2UB1(Two unnamed tributaries to Swan Creek) Nontidal 0.2 

- 

- 

2,500 

3 PFO1A/C 

R3UB1 (Gashey’s Creek) 

R2UB3 (Unnamed tributary to Gashey’s Creek) 

Nontidal 

7.8 

- 

- 

- 

2,275 

2,297 

4 PEM1/POWHx Nontidal 1.0 - 

5 PFO1C 

R2UB1/2 (Unnamed tributary to Lily Run) Nontidal 5.4 - 

- 

1,953 

6 PFO1A/C 

PEM1C 

PUBHx 

R3UB1 (Unnamed tributary to Lily Run) 

R4SB3/5 (Unnamed tributary to Lily Run) 

Nontidal 

4.9 

0.2 

0.6 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

2,659 

4,546 

7 PFO1A Nontidal 1.1 - 

8 PFO1A/PUBHx Nontidal 3.3 - 

14 Susquehanna River (R1UBV/R1OWV) Tidal - 2,000 

17 PEM1C 

R2UB1/2 (Lily Run) Nontidal 0.05 - 

- 

2,893 

18 PEM1C Nontidal 0.04 - 

19 PFO1C 

PEM1C 

R4SB3/4 (Unnamed tributary to Lily Run) 

R2UB1 (Unnamed tributary to Lily Run) 

Nontidal 

0.2 

0.1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

725 

228 

20 PFO1C Nontidal 0.9 - 

21 R4SB3 Nontidal - 4,197 

Cecil County 

9 PFO1R 

PEM1N 

PEM1/5N 

Ephemeral 

Tidal 

Nontidal 

0.9 

0.4 

0.8 

- 

- 

- 

- 

128 

10 PFO1E 

R3UB1 (Mill Creek) Nontidal 0.9 - 

- 

2,495 

11 PFO1S 

E2SS1P6 

E2USN6 (Including Furnace Bay) 

Tidal 

2.5 

2.3 

8.3 

- 

- 

- 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 11-8 

Table 11-3 (cont’d)

Mapped and Delineated Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.

System 

Number Waters of the U.S. Classification1 

Wetland 

Type 

Approximate 

Area of 

Wetland 

(Acre) 

Approximate 

Length of 

Stream 

(Linear Feet) 

Cecil County (cont’d) 

12 PFO1C 

R4SB4 (unnamed tributary to Susquehanna River Nontidal 0.4 

- 

- 

2,500 

13 PFO1C 

PEM1C 

R4SB3 (unnamed tributary to Mill Creek) 

Nontidal 

0.2 

0.3 

- 

- 

- 

1,100 

15 PEM1C Nontidal 1.1 - 

16 POW 

R4SB3 (unnamed tributary to Furnace Creek) Nontidal 0.1 - 

- 

1,500 

22 PEM1C Nontidal 0.3 - 

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES 

Terrestrial resources within the study area include forest resources; wildlife; and threatened, 

endangered, or special concern terrestrial species. 

FOREST RESOURCES 

According to Brush et al. (1976), the majority of the study area is mapped within the Tulip 

Poplar Association, with a narrow area of the Sycamore-Green Ash-Box Elder-Silver Maple 

Association mapped within the Mill Creek floodplain in Cecil County. The Tulip Poplar 

Association is dominated by tulip trees (tulip poplar), red maple, white oak, and flowering 

dogwood. The Sycamore-Green Ash-Box Elder-Silver Maple Association is dominated by these 

species and red maple and white oak. The field assessment corroborated the mapped associations 

except in smaller areas of forested wetlands located within the mapped Tulip Poplar Association. 

Within these areas, the dominant trees were red maple and sweet-gum trees with scattered 

tuliptree, pin oak, and sycamore. Mapped forest associations are depicted in Figure E-5 in 

Appendix E. 

A majority of the forest resources within the study area consist of smaller patches of deciduous 

forest that lie between the Amtrak ROW and residential or commercial properties. Therefore, 

these forests are not likely of high quality. One of the exceptions is a large, forested area in the 

southern portion of the study area in Harford County. This area is associated with unnamed 

tributaries to Swan Creek and Gashey’s Creek and the largest wetland crossed by the Proposed 

Project, which contains a Wetland of Special State Concern (WSSC). The interior of this 

forested area may also be considered regulated FIDS habitat, as it is a part of a large (>500 

acres) contiguous forest that lies within the Critical Area. 

Specimen trees with a diameter of 30 inches or greater were not common, but did occur mostly 

as isolated trees on developed properties, such as on the grounds of Rodgers Tavern. 
Chapter 11: Natural Resources 

 11-9 

WILDLIFE 

The majority of the study area is characterized by urban, suburban, commercial, and agricultural 

land uses with few natural habitat areas remaining. Forests in the study area are generally 

fragmented by development and/or past and present agricultural use. Terrestrial habitat within 

the study area consists mostly of smaller patches of low quality deciduous forest that lie between 

the Amtrak ROW and residential or commercial properties. However, there are also several 

deciduous forests present within the study area along stream corridors. The remainder of the 

terrestrial habitat in the study area consists of commercial/residential properties with scattered 

trees and landscaping, undeveloped meadows, agricultural fields, and residential yards. Aquatic 

wildlife habitat within the study area consists of the Susquehanna River, Furnace Bay, numerous 

wetlands, and several perennial and intermittent streams. 

Preliminary data from the MARA indicate that 30 species of reptiles and amphibians have been 

documented within portions of the Aberdeen and Havre de Grace USGS quadrangles that are 

crossed by the study area. The 2nd Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Maryland and the District of 

Columbia (Ellison 2010) indicates that 120 species of breeding birds have been documented 

within portions of the Aberdeen and Havre de Grace USGS quadrangles crossed by the study 

area. Similar statewide distributional data are lacking for mammals. However, the study area 

provides habitat for numerous mammals that are adapted to urban/suburban environments, as 

well as more natural areas. 

The smaller, disturbed forest habitats within the study area would be expected to support 

disturbance tolerant wildlife and edge adapted species. These habitats could support 

herpetofauna species such as eastern toads, common five-lined skink, eastern redbacked 

salamander, northern black racer, eastern ratsnake, eastern garter snake, and the eastern box 

turtle, among other species. Mammals such as mice, voles, the eastern mole, bats, squirrels, 

foxes, raccoon, woodchuck, and white tailed deer, among other species, likely inhabit terrestrial 

areas within the study area. More urban environments such as Havre de Grace may also support 

species such as the Norway rat and the black rat. Bird species likely to occur within the smaller, 

more disturbed forests with abundant edge habitat would be common species such as red-bellied 

woodpecker, downy woodpecker, eastern wood-pewee, American crow, blue jay, Carolina 

chickadee, tufted titmouse, white-breasted nuthatch, Carolina wren, American robin, and 

northern cardinal. With the exception of the eastern wood-pewee, all of these bird species were 

observed during the inventory level field assessment in early April 2014. 

One large, contiguous forest habitat is located within the study area and occurs southeast of the 

Amtrak ROW at the southwestern end of the study area. This forest may support forest interior 

birds known as FIDS. A list of the 25 FIDS potentially occurring within the Critical Area are 

provided in Appendix E, Section C. According to the 2nd Atlas of the Breeding Birds of 

Maryland and the District of Columbia (Ellison 2010), 20 of the 25 FIDS have been documented 

within breeding bird atlas blocks near the study area. It is likely that at least some of these 

species would be found within the forest interior habitat mapped within the study area. 

Wetlands and vernal pools within the study area could support herpetofauna species, such as the 

eastern cricket frog, spring peeper, American bullfrog, northern green frog, pickerel frog, wood 

frog, painted turtle, snapping turtle, northern watersnake, and spotted salamander, among other 

species. The spring peeper was observed during the early spring inventory level field 

assessment. Smaller streams could support the northern two-lined salamander and the long-tailed 

salamander. Larger waterbodies within the study area, such as the Susquehanna River, are also 

habitat for species such as the northern map turtle, red-bellied cooter, American beaver, muskrat, 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 11-10 

and the northern river otter. The northern map turtle is a state-endangered aquatic turtle 

discussed in the Aquatic Resources section below. Bird species using forested wetlands would 

include those listed above, including some FIDS. Within tidal marsh and riverine habitats along 

the Susquehanna River, birds, such as geese, ducks, egrets, herons, rails, and red-winged 

blackbird would be expected. In addition, many species of waterfowl, gulls and terns, and 

raptors, such as the osprey and bald eagle, forage in and rest on the Susquehanna River during 

different seasons. 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR SPECIAL CONCERN TERRESTRIAL SPECIES 

Listed Species 

On April 2, 2015, USFWS listed the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) as threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). The NLEB spends winter months hibernating in caves and 

mines (hibernacula) that have constant temperatures, high humidity, and no air currents. During 

the summer months, NLEB roost underneath bark, in cavities or in crevices of trees. Breeding 

begins in late summer or early fall. A response from USFWS dated January 15, 2016 indicated 

that the NLEB is a threatened species that has the potential to occur within the boundary of the 

Proposed Project, but is not likely to be adversely affected by the Proposed Project. 

The Project Team solicited information on RTE species from DNR. DNR responded by 

identifying a known site within the Furnace Bay wetlands at the eastern end of the study area 

that supports a population of state-listed endangered water horsetail and vetchling, two aquatic 

plant species. DNR also identified a WSSC located within the Swan Creek drainage just south of 

the Amtrak ROW at the western end of the study area and a historic waterfowl concentration and 

staging area within the Susquehanna River. No other state-listed species were documented by the 

DNR as potentially occurring within the study area. Copies of all correspondence are included in 

Appendix E, Attachment E. Coordination is ongoing. 

Waterfowl Concentration Areas & Colonial Waterbird Colonies 

The Critical Area law has identified types of natural resources that should be protected from 

excessive development along the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. These habitat 

protection areas include significant plant and wildlife habitat, including colonial water bird 

nesting areas and aquatic areas of historic waterfowl concentration. The intent of the CBCA law 

is to protect these sensitive areas from water-dependent development activities, such as docks, 

piers, bulkheads, etc. 

According to the Maryland Environmental Resources and Land Information Network 

(MERLIN) online mapping tool, two waterfowl areas occur within the study area, one in the 

Susquehanna River crossed by the existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and the other within 

Furnace Bay at the extreme eastern end of the study area. These are historic waterfowl staging 

areas and wintering sites for waterfowl, such as diving ducks, swans, and geese that forage on 

fish and shellfish near the mouth of the Susquehanna River and within Furnace Bay. Prior to the 

1960s, the expansive submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) beds at the mouth of the Susquehanna 

River supported hundreds of thousands of these waterfowl (USFWS 2013). The rich SAV 

growth began declining in the 1960s as increased development in the watershed above the 

Conowingo Dam led to poorer water quality and quantity. Remaining SAV beds were destroyed 

by Hurricane Agnes in 1972. Since then, SAV have generally rebounded, providing increasing 

habitat for wintering waterfowl. The boundary of the waterfowl area within the Susquehanna 
Chapter 11: Natural Resources 

 11-11 

River lies primarily within Cecil County, from the US 40 Bridge to the mouth of the river. The 

Furnace Bay waterfowl area lies outside of the Proposed Project’s limits of disturbance. 

Colonial water bird colonies are nesting colonies for colonial water bird species, such as herons 

and egrets. No colonial water bird nesting areas occur within the study area. The closest colonial 

water bird nesting site occurs along the Cecil County shoreline of the Susquehanna River near 

the Conowingo Dam. 

AQUATIC RESOURCES 

The study area for aquatic resources comprises the Lower Susquehanna River from the head of 

tide north of Port Deposit to the confluence with the Upper Bay, and the Upper Bay down to the 

Elk River at Turkey Point to include the shallow Susquehanna Flats area where much of the 

larger grained sediment discharged by the Susquehanna River is deposited (STAC 2000). The 

study area also includes the following streams: an unnamed tributary to Swan Creek, an 

unnamed tributary to Gashey’s Creek, Gashey’s Creek, an unnamed tributary to Lily Run, Lily 

Run, Mill Creek, and Principio Creek. 

HYDROLOGY 

The Susquehanna River Rail Bridge crosses the Lower Susquehanna River1, just north of its 

confluence with the Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the United States. Estuaries are 

partially enclosed bodies of water where fresh water from rivers and streams mix with salt water 

from the ocean. The Susquehanna River supplies most of the freshwater (about 60 percent) to the 

Bay (Cerco et al. 2013). Flow within the Lower Susquehanna River is affected by natural flow of 

the river and operation of the Safe Harbor Corporation’s Safe Harbor Dam located upriver from 

the Conowingo Dam. 

The Chesapeake Bay is partially mixed. Freshwater from the tributaries flows downstream 

toward the Atlantic Ocean and saltier water from the Atlantic Ocean flows upstream along the 

bottom. Salinity and tidal gradients exist throughout the Bay, with higher salinities and greater 

tidal fluctuations occurring closer to the mouth. The Lower Susquehanna is tidal up to the 

northern end of Robert Island north of Port Deposit, where Deer Creek discharges to the river on 

the western bank (Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C. 2011). Within the study area, the tide 

ranges from 0.2 feet at Mean Low Water (MLW) to 2.1 feet at MHW at Havre de Grace. The 

Susquehanna River empties into the head of Chesapeake Bay between Concord Point and Perry 

Point. 

Riverbed depths within the Susquehanna River near the project study area were determined by a 

review of the NOAA Nautical Chart: Head of the Chesapeake Bay (NOAA Chart 12274). Where 

the Susquehanna River discharges to the Upper Bay, water depths are up to approximately 42 

feet at MLLW (mean lower low water) and decrease rapidly to the shallow depths of the 

Susquehanna Flats area of the Upper Bay. Near the existing bridge on the Lower Susquehanna 

River, depths at MLLW in the deeper channel range from about 19 feet on the west bank of the 

deeper channel to about 51 feet at MLLW on the east bank where the Susquehanna River flows 

to the east of Garrett Island. Shallow waters on either bank range in depth from about three feet 

to five feet at MLLW. 

 

1

 The Lower Susquehanna River is an approximately 10-mile length of the river in Cecil and Harford 

Counties, Maryland, that extends from Conowingo Dam to the Upper Chesapeake Bay 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 11-12 

A review of Maryland’s Tier II Waters within the study area identified Mill Creek 1 and 

Principio Creek 3 as the only Tier II Catchments, or high quality waters, under the COMAR 

Antidegradation Policy. 

GROUNDWATER 

The groundwater system within the project study area is controlled by the thickness of the 

residual weathered bedrock (saprolite) and the degree of fracturing in the bedrock. The flow 

water table water-bearing zone generally mimics the land surface contours. The flow system is 

recharged by precipitation that infiltrates the saprolite and percolates to the water table unit. 

Groundwater is utilized in Cecil County by public and private water systems and private on-lot 

wells. The latter includes industrial, commercial, institutional, agricultural enterprises, and 

individual domestic wells. The depth of the weathering and topography are such that there 

appears to be little potential for a well of more than 25 gallons per minute (gpm) within the 

vicinity of the study area. In Harford County, the City of Havre de Grace owns and operates a 

surface water treatment plant for which the source is the Susquehanna River. Havre de Grace 

maintains its own water distribution system. Only a small portion of residents utilize private 

groundwater wells since the reported low well yields (average reported well yields of 10 to 15 

gpm with higher yields of about 50 gpm in draws and valleys) are not sufficient for 

consideration as a major groundwater source. 

Designation of wellhead protection areas (WHPA’s) has been established under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act and is implemented through the Maryland Department of the Environment 

(MDE). A WHPA is a designated area, either surface or subsurface, that is regulated to prevent 

contamination of a well or well-field supplying a public water system. Several Source Water 

Assessment Program reports have been conducted within Cecil and Harford counties in order to 

identify and delineate areas that contribute to the water source and identify potential sources of 

contamination. 

WATER QUALITY 

Water quality of the Chesapeake Bay is generally poor, though it varies among the segments of 

the Bay. High nutrient concentrations (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus) promote algal blooms that 

die and sink to the bottom of the Bay and consume oxygen, leading to zones of low oxygen 

(hypoxic) where fish and shellfish cannot survive. High concentrations of suspended sediment 

and algal blooms limit the penetration of light into the water important to the growth and 

survival of SAV and other aquatic biota. Because of these high nutrient and suspended sediment 

concentrations, the waters of the mainstem and tidal tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay are 

considered impaired for aquatic life resources (USEPA 2010). This impairment has persisted 

despite extensive restoration efforts implemented within the Bay over the last 25 years, 

prompting the USEPA to establish the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) on 

December 29, 2010. The Chesapeake Bay TMDL, as required by the Clean Water Act, 

establishes a comprehensive “pollution diet” for the Bay with respect to nitrogen, phosphorus, 

and sediment to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

The MDE classifies the Lower Susquehanna River and Upper Chesapeake Bay within the study 

area as Use Class II-P for tidal freshwater estuaries. Individual designated uses within the Use 

Class II-P grouping for the study area include: growth and propagation of fish, other aquatic life 

and wildlife, water contact sports, leisure activities involving direct contact with surface water, 

fishing, agricultural and industrial water supply, seasonal migratory fish spawning and nursery 
Chapter 11: Natural Resources 

 11-13 

use, seasonal shallow-water SAV use, open-water fish and shellfish use, and public water 

supply. Tidal tributary reaches of the Lower Susquehanna River within the aquatic resources 

study area are classified as Use II streams, with sub-designations within the segment for 

migratory fish spawning and nursery use, shallow water submerged aquatic vegetation, and open 

water fish and shellfish use.2

 

The 8-digit Lower Susquehanna River Watershed is listed on the 2012 303(d) list as impaired for 

total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in fish tissue (MDE 

2012). The 8-digit Conowingo Dam/Susquehanna River Watershed was listed on the 2010 

303(d) list as impaired by nutrients and sediment, both originally designated in 1996. Since then, 

MDE and USEPA have both supported the removal of these listings. Therefore, there are 

currently no TMDL impairments for the Conowingo Dam/Susquehanna River Watershed. The 

Upper Chesapeake Bay is listed as impaired for total nitrogen and total phosphorus. USEPA also 

considers Total Suspended Solids (TSS) to be an “unlisted impairment” for this region of the 

Bay, meaning that a TMDL is required for the parameter, but it is not listed as an official 

impairment in the current 303(d) list. 

The project study area crosses an unnamed tributary to Swan Creek, an unnamed tributary to 

Gashey’s Creek, Gashey’s Creek, an unnamed tributary to Lily Run, and Lily Run on the 

western shore of the Susquehanna, and Mill Creek and Principio Creek on the eastern shore. All 

of these tributaries, except Principio Creek, are nontidal and classified as Use I streams, for 

water contact recreation and protection of aquatic life. Principio Creek is tidal within the rail 

corridor, and its tributaries near the site are classified as Use III streams (natural trout waters). 

Biological monitoring has been conducted by the Maryland Biological Stream Survey or 

volunteer groups on several streams within the study area. Excluding Principio Creek, biological 

monitoring has generally characterized fish and benthic macroinvertebrate communities within 

the study area as “Fair” or “Poor” based on Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scoring. The fish and 

benthic macroinvertebrate communities in Principio Creek were rated as “Good” by the IBI. 

Detailed information on recent biomonitoring can be found in Appendix E, Section D. 

The Chesapeake Bay scientific and management community, which includes a number of public 

and private institutions, produces an annual assessment (or report card) each spring of the Bay’s 

ecosystem health. The overall Bay Health score in 2012 for all regions of the Bay combined was 

47 percent, or a C, which was improved from a D+ in 2011. 

DNR conducts regular water quality monitoring of tidal tributaries and the mainstem of the 

Chesapeake Bay. Water temperature, DO, chlorophyll-a, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and 

TSS were monitored for one DNR sampling station on the Lower Susquehanna River and two 

Chesapeake Bay mainstem sampling locations within the study area. While seasonal and annual 

fluctuations were observed, DO and total nitrogen were generally above criteria at all three 

stations. Excess nutrients, especially nitrogen and phosphorus, can lead to eutrophication and 

excess growth of plant matter. This results in an initial increase in DO levels followed by a sharp 

decline. When these plants decompose, the decomposition process depletes the water of 

 

2

 According to DNR (October 22, 2014 correspondence), several very small tributaries to the Susquehanna River 

on the Cecil County side have been classified as Use Class III and have been documented to support wild trout, 

either consistently or occasionally. Two new Use Class III designations include Happy Valley Branch and its 

tributaries and an unnamed tributary to the Susquehanna River crossing Frenchtown Road in Cecil County. 

These tributaries discharge to the portion of the Lower Susquehanna River within the aquatic resources study 

area but are not crossed by the rail corridor. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 11-14 

available oxygen, which can lead to hypoxic (low DO) or anoxic (lack of DO) conditions and 

result in a loss of aquatic life. Detailed information on water quality monitoring can be found in 

Appendix E, Section D. 

SEDIMENT QUALITY & CONTAMINANTS 

The Lower Susquehanna River bottom within the study area comprises boulders and imbedded 

rock covered with silt that is deposited in this section due to the drop in current associated with 

the widening and deepening of the river in this section (NAI and Gomez and Sullivan 2011a). 

Sediment grain size characteristics demonstrate a distinct gradient from fine to coarse grained 

particles from north to south in the deeper portions of the Bay mainstem; in the tributaries, 

sediments tend to be muddier upstream and coarser near the mouths of the rivers (Hartwell and 

Hameedi 2007). The rate of sediment deposition throughout much of the Bay is less than about 

0.06 inches/year. In the Upper Bay, however, rates of sediment accumulation are influenced by 

the large sediment loads supplied by the Susquehanna River. 

Contaminants enter the Bay via atmospheric deposition, dissolved and particulate runoff from 

the watershed, or direct discharge, and sediments tend to accumulate most toxic contaminants 

(Hartwell and Hameedi 2007). Higher concentrations of contaminants (e.g., PCBs, PAHs, DDT, 

pesticides, and metals) are observed in depositional areas in the Susquehanna Flats and other 

areas where sedimentation rates are high and sediments are fine. In a 2006 sediment quality 

study, there was no toxicity contributing to mortality or reduced rates of reproduction for benthic 

organisms in samples taken in the Lower Susquehanna River (MDE 2008). 

AQUATIC BIOTA 

Phytoplankton & Zooplankton 

Phytoplankton are microscopic plants whose movements within the system are largely governed 

by prevailing tides and currents. From 2010-2012, phytoplankton samples in the Upper Bay 

were dominated by Diatoma, Melosira, Cyanobium, Kirchneriella, Cyclotella spp, 

Synechococcus spp., and unidentified flagellates (DNR 2014a). Zooplankton are an integral 

component of aquatic food webs. They are primary grazers on phytoplankton and detritus 

material, and are themselves used by organisms of higher trophic levels as food. Cladocerans, 

cyclopoid Copepods, and calanoid Copepods are the most abundant zooplankton within the 

freshwater portions of the Bay. 

Benthic Macroinvertebrates 

Tidal-fresh and transitional habitats tend to be the most productive regions in estuarine systems. 

In the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, dominant benthic macroinvertebrate species typically 

include mayflies, non-biting midges, blackflies, and caddisflies (Millard et al. 1999). Polychaete 

and oligochaete worms are the dominant macroinvertebrates in terms of abundance and number 

of taxa within the Susquehanna Flats portion of the study area, followed by clams, snails, and 

amphipods (Hartwell and Hameedi 2007; Holland et al. 1989). Freshwater mussel species may 

occur in the study area; new field data are being developed, and further coordination with DNR 

would determine which species occur in the area. 
Chapter 11: Natural Resources 

 11-15 

SAV 

SAV, also referred to as bay grasses, are submerged plants that grow in the shallow waters of the 

Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. SAV is of critical importance to the health of the estuary, by 

providing food and shelter for waterfowl, fish, shellfish and invertebrates; by adding oxygen to 

the water; and by their capacity to trap sediments, absorb nutrients, and reduce erosion (USEPA 

2004). More than 20 species of bay grasses grow in the Bay and its tributaries, with more 

diversity in less saline areas. Eurasian watermilfoil, wild celery, hydrilla, coontail, water 

stargrass and brittle waternymph are the SAV most commonly found within the Susquehanna 

Flats (Orth et al. 2010 in URS and Gomez and Sullivan 2012). Eurasian watermilfoil and 

hydrilla were the two SAV species found within the Susquehanna River in the northern portion 

of the study area around Robert, Wood, and Spencer Islands (URS and Gomez and Sullivan 

2012). Over a five-year period (2009 to 2013), the location of the SAV beds in the Lower 

Susquehanna River portion of the study area have remained relatively consistent (see Figure E11 in Appendix E). Dense beds present in 2009 and 2010 were negatively affected by Hurricane 

Irene in 2011. However, throughout the Chesapeake Bay region SAV increased 21 percent 

between 2014 and 2015 (VIMS 2016) 

Oyster Beds 

The region of the Chesapeake Bay near the mouth of the Susquehanna River, and the Upper 

Chesapeake Bay in general, does not contain suitable habitat for eastern oysters. Both the current 

and historic northern ranges for eastern oysters are well downstream of the study area. Salinity, 

DO, and depth conditions in the Upper Bay are not suitable for oysters in wet, dry, or normal 

hydrological years (USACE 2012). There are no oyster beds present within the study area. 

Fish 

The tidal fluctuations, presence of SAV beds, range of water depths and variety of bottom 

habitats within the Lower Susquehanna and Upper Chesapeake Bay create spatially and 

temporally dynamic abiotic conditions, which influence the species composition and relative 

abundance of fishes within the study area (Nordlie 2006; Lefcheck et al. 2014). While the 

relative abundance of different fish species has fluctuated over time, the most abundant species 

within the study area are generally gizzard shad, American shad, blueback herring, American 

eel, white perch, channel catfish, banded killifish, sunfish, largemouth bass, and yellow perch. A 

number of anadromous species have been documented as spawning near and/or migrating 

through the study area, including: yellow perch (semi-anadromous), white perch, herring, and 

shad. Game fish known to occur in the mainstem of the Susquehanna River include striped bass, 

walleye, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, and catfish species (Steffy 2013).

Comely shiner, a state-threatened species, is also known to occur in the Lower Susquehanna 

River but was not specifically referenced as a species of concern on the Proposed Project by the 

DNR-WHS. Special attention has been given to the management of American eel in recent years 

due to their ecological and economic importance and their declining population numbers due to 

fish blockages. Since the construction of the Conowingo Dam in the 1920s, the Lower 

Susquehanna River has not supported large runs of Atlantic sturgeon or shortnose sturgeon. 

Recent observations of these federally endangered species in the Susquehanna River are 

similarly scant and limited to just a few individuals in as many years (NMFS 1998; NAI and 

Gomez and Sullivan 2011b). 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 11-16 

The nontidal and tidal tributaries to the Susquehanna River support a number of fish species not 

found in the Susquehanna mainstem, including: blacknose dace, creek chub, common shiner, 

rosyside dace, white sucker, cutlip minnow, swallowtail shiner, northern hogsucker, river chub, 

margined madtom, and satinfin shiner. Additionally, rainbow trout were found within Principio 

Creek. Rainbow trout, a non-native, but intolerant of polllution, gamefish, is often indicative of 

high quality streams. 

Aquatic Invasive Species 

Some of the aquatic invasive species currently known to occur in the Lower Susquehanna River 

Basin include zebra mussels, quagga mussels, Asian clam, purple loosestrife, water chestnut, 

rusty crayfish, and flathead catfish. 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR SPECIAL CONCERN AQUATIC SPECIES/SECTION 7 

CONSULTATION 

Federally Listed Species 

An on-line project review with the USFWS indicated that there are no federally listed species 

within the study area, but critical habitat is present for the federally endangered Maryland darter, 

which has not been found in the study area since 1965 (DNR 2016). The shortnose sturgeon, 

Atlantic sturgeon, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, green sea turtle, and leatherback turtle were 

identified by NMFS as endangered species that may occur within the project area. Threatened 

species that may be found within the study area include Atlantic sturgeon (Gulf of Maine 

Distinct Population Segment) and the loggerhead sea turtle. In June 2016, the entirety of the 

action area was proposed for designation as critical habitat for the Chesapeake Bay Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS) of the Atlantic sturgeon. 

The southern portion of the study area in the vicinity of Turkey Point is designated as providing 

essential fish habitat (EFH) for adult and juvenile stages of windowpane flounder (Chang et al. 

1999). No other EFH has been designated for the study area. The study area is also an important 

migration area for diadromous fish species such as American shad, alewife, blueback herring, 

striped bass, hickory shad, gizzard shad, and American eel.

Shortnose sturgeon is a federally and state-listed endangered species found along the Atlantic 

coast of North America in estuaries and large rivers, including the Susquehanna (Chesapeake 

Bay). It is considered "amphidromous" – that is, like anadromous species it spawns in freshwater 

but regularly enters saltwater. Shortnose sturgeon may occur in the study area year round, but 

are most likely to occur there between January and April based on previous observations 

(NOAA 2007). In preparation for spawning, shortnose sturgeon in many rivers migrate in the fall 

to overwintering areas located in the furthest upstream areas of rivers and in close proximity to 

spawning grounds (Crance 1986; Kynard et al. 2012 Life History and Behaviour of Sturgeon). 

Spawning occurs the following spring, usually during April and May. The Susquehanna River 

may contain suitable spawning habitat and adult shortnose sturgeon have been documented in 

the river in February, April, and June, consistent with spawning time periods. However, it is 

unknown if adequate spawning or nursery habitat is present below the Conowingo Dam, which 

is the first barrier to upstream passage (NMFS 2014). 
Chapter 11: Natural Resources 

 11-17 

Atlantic sturgeon is a federally listed endangered3

 species that also occurs along the Atlantic 

coast of North America in estuaries and large rivers, including the Susquehanna (Chesapeake 

Bay). Similar to the shortnose sturgeon, the Atlantic sturgeon is also typically anadromous, 

sharing much of its range within rivers with the shortnose sturgeon. Although Atlantic sturgeon 

are expected to occur at least intermittently in the study area, it is not found there in 

exceptionally high abundance (USFWS 2007 Atlantic sturgeon reward program). Atlantic 

sturgeon may occur in the study area year round as juveniles and sub-adults (NOAA 2007). The 

Chesapeake Bay DPS spawns in the James River in Virginia (NMFS 2014). There is not a 

spawning population in the Susquehanna River due to the presence of the Conowingo Dam 

(SRAFRC 2010); therefore, Atlantic sturgeon eggs, larvae, and early juveniles are not expected 

to occur in the study area. 

Several species of sea turtles are known to be present in the Chesapeake Bay and off the Atlantic 

coast of Maryland. Leatherback sea turtles are present off the Maryland coast but are 

predominantly pelagic (open ocean) and not expected to occur in the study area. Loggerhead, 

Kemp’s ridley, and green sea turtles are present in the Chesapeake Bay area mainly during late 

spring, summer, and early fall when water temperatures are relatively warm. Sea turtles are 

expected to be present in the Chesapeake Bay between April 1 and November 30. 

State Listed Species 

DNR identified American eel as an important fishery within the study area, as well as noting the 

presence of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. There is also potential for threatened or endangered 

mussel species to be found within the study area, which will require further coordination during 

later phases of project design. The logperch is a state-listed threatened species in Maryland. 

Adult logperch may occur year-round upstream of the study area between the Conowingo Dam 

and the Interstate 95 bridge. The state-listed endangered Northern Map Turtle is also 

documented in the project study area both within and along the banks of the Susquehanna River. 

The shores of the Susquehanna River are used by the Map Turtle for habitat, nesting, and 

foraging and the turtles hibernate on the river bottom in winter. 

CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL AREA 

The Critical Area is defined by the CAC for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays as all 

land within 1,000 feet of the mean high water line of tidal waters or the landward edge of tidal 

wetlands and all waters of, and lands under, the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. In addition, 

state regulations and local Critical Area ordinances require the establishment and maintenance of 

a minimum 100-foot buffer adjacent to all tidal waters, tidal wetlands, and tributary streams. In 

some cases, the Buffer is expanded beyond 100 feet in areas where there are adjacent sensitive 

resources such as steep slopes or soils with development constraints. 

DNR classifies all land within the Critical Area based on the predominant land use and intensity 

of development present. These classifications include: 

 Intensely Developed Areas (IDA)—developed areas where residential, commercial, 

institutional, and industrial land uses predominate. 

 

3

 On February 6, 2012, certain DPS were designated as federally endangered. Atlantic sturgeon 

from the Chesapeake Bay and New York Bight Distinct Population Segment may occur in the 

study area. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 11-18 

 Limited Development Areas (LDA)—developed areas that include residential and some 

light commercial uses, as well as natural areas, wetlands, forests, and developed woodlands. 

 Resource Conservation Areas (RCA)—nature-dominated areas and may include wetlands, 

surface water, and open space. 

Approximately 208 acres of the study area is located within the Critical Area. Acreages of each 

Critical Area land use designation within the study area boundary are listed in Table 11-4. The 

study area is located within designated RCA and IDA Chesapeake Bay Critical Area. The study 

area is primarily designated as IDA around the Susquehanna River within the Corporate Limits 

of the City of Havre de Grace and the Town of Perryville. The study area also encompasses 

smaller portions of RCA designated Critical Area in Harford County near Gashey’s Creek and 

Swan Creek and in Cecil County near the eastern terminus of the study area at Principio Creek 

(see Figure E-12 in Appendix E). 

Table 11-4 

Critical Area within the Study Area 

Study Area Location 

Land Use 

Designation 

CA Acreage within 

Study Area 

Harford County RCA 35.19 

City of Havre de Grace/ Susquehanna River 

Area IDA 50.15 

Town of Perryville/ Susquehanna River Area IDA 61.04 

Cecil County RCA 61.40 

Total 1,000 Foot Critical Area 

Located Within the Study Area 207.78 

The 100-foot Critical Area Buffer is located within the Corporate Limits of Havre de Grace and 

Perryville, as well as the RCA designated portions of the Critical Area located within Harford 

and Cecil Counties. 

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT 

The Maryland coastal zone is composed of the land, water and subaqueous land between the 

territorial limits of Maryland in the Chesapeake Bay, Atlantic Coastal Bays, and the Atlantic 

Ocean, as well as the towns, cities and counties that contain and help govern the thousands of 

miles of Maryland shoreline. The Maryland coastal zone extends from three miles out in the 

Atlantic Ocean to the inland boundaries of the 16 counties (including Harford and Cecil 

Counties) and Baltimore City that border the Atlantic Ocean, Chesapeake Bay, and the Potomac 

River. The entire study area is located within Maryland’s Coastal Zone. 

UNIQUE AND SENSITIVE AREAS 

Unique and Sensitive Areas describes all lands of unique natural resource value, including 

protected lands (Natural Heritage Areas, Forest Conservation Easements, Federal Lands) and 

waters (Scenic Rivers), and lands providing ecosystem connectivity (Green Infrastructure). 

NATURAL HERITAGE AREAS 

According to COMAR 08.03.08, there are no NHAs within or near the study area. 
Chapter 11: Natural Resources 

 11-19 

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE 

Green infrastructure is the strategically planned and managed networks of natural lands, working 

landscapes, and other open spaces that conserve ecosystem functions and provide associated 

benefits to human populations. The DNR, using satellite imagery, road and stream locations, and 

biological data, has identified a green infrastructure network for the state of Maryland. The green 

infrastructure network is comprised of core areas, hubs, and corridors. Core areas are wellfunctioning natural ecosystems that provide high-quality habitat for native plants and animals. 

Hubs are slightly fragmented aggregations of core areas, plus contiguous natural cover. Hubs are 

intended to be large enough to support populations of native species, and serve as sources for 

emigration into the surrounding landscape, as well as providing other ecosystem services like 

clean water, flood control, carbon sequestration, and recreation opportunities. Corridors link core 

areas together, allowing wildlife movement and seed and pollen transfer between them, and 

thereby promoting genetic exchange. 

Gaps are another component of the green infrastructure network. Gaps are areas within the 

Green Infrastructure that do not currently have natural vegetation, such as agricultural, barren, or 

lawn areas. Re-vegetation of these areas with natural land cover would strengthen the integrity 

of hubs and corridors, decrease negative edge effects, ease wildlife movement, and decrease 

opportunities for invasive plants. 

Based on the DNR Green Infrastructure Atlas of Harford and Cecil Counties, a large continuous 

hub of green infrastructure is located near Gashey’s Creek stream valley in Harford County and 

Principio Creek stream valley in Cecil County. These run north and south perpendicular to the 

study area. 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

There are no state wild and scenic rivers or their tributaries located within the study area. In 

addition, there are no nationally listed wild or scenic rivers located within the study area. 

FOREST CONSERVATION ACT EASEMENTS 

According to MERLIN, one forest conservation easement, Frenchman Land Company, occurs 

within the study area in Cecil County. The 0.86 acre easement lies along the north side of the 

existing railroad ROW just east of Firestone Road. The easement comprises a thin strip of 

deciduous forest that lies between the railroad ROW and a developed parcel. 

FEDERAL LANDS 

Federally designated National Wildlife Refuge lands occur on Garrett Island within the 

Susquehanna River just north of the study area. Garrett Island was established as a National 

Wildlife Refuge by legislation in 2005 (Lutz 2009). The approximately 198-acre island is the 

only rocky island in the Chesapeake Bay and forms a link between the Bay and the River. The 

island is part of the Chesapeake Marshlands National Wildlife Refuge complex under the 

jurisdiction of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. 

D. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The No Action Alternative assumes the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge remains in service as-is. 

The No Action Alternative is used as a baseline scenario against which potential project impacts 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 11-20 

will be measured. No significant effects are anticipated from the No Action Alternative for any 

of the natural resources assessed for this EA. Changes to soils, river bathymetry, erosion and 

sedimentation may change due to siltation and other natural processes. Existing floodplains, 

wetlands/waters of the U.S., terrestrial resources, Chesapeake Bay Critical Area, Coastal Zone 

Management, and unique and sensitive areas are expected remain as described in Affected 

Environment above. Water quality and the condition of aquatic communities in the Chesapeake 

Bay watershed are expected to continue to gradually improve as a result of many ongoing largeand small-scale public and private initiatives to restore and protect the bay. Otherwise, aquatic 

resources within the study area would be expected to remain much the same as at present in the 

future without the Proposed Project. No significant in-water construction projects are currently 

planned or ongoing nearby. Hydrology and other abiotic conditions within the Susquehanna 

River would not change under the No Action Alternative, and the same assemblages of aquatic 

organisms would be expected to occur. 

E. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVES 

TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS 

Minimal impacts and/or changes to topography and geology are anticipated in the study area, and the 

anticipated changes are similar for both Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B. Local topography would 

be altered by excavation and grading that would be required for bridge and rail approach construction. 

The majority of the slopes within the vicinity of the Build Alternatives are classified as 0 to 15 percent 

slopes. Highly erodible soils and/or steep slopes associated with the Sassafrass and Croom Soils in 

Cecil County or Elsinboro loam in Harford County would not be impacted by either of the Build 

Alternatives. 

Both Build Alternatives would affect other soils through earthmoving and soil storage and 

through potential erosion and subsequent sedimentation during the construction phase. Removal 

of existing vegetation, primarily at the termini of both Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B, would 

result in increased exposure of soils to weather and runoff potential. Sites where surface water 

currently causes erosion, particularly along the Susquehanna River shorelines, would have a 

greater potential for erosion and sedimentation. 

Both Alternatives 9A and Alternative 9B would affect Prime Farmland Soils and Soils of 

Statewide Importance (see Table 11-5). However, as previously noted, the majority of these soil 

types are located within the existing ROW, which means that they are not subject to FPPA since 

they are in an existing ROW purchased on or before August 4, 1984. For the Prime Farmland 

and/or Soils of Statewide Importance located outside of the ROW, Alternative 9A would affect 

1.37 acres of Prime Farmland and 0.62 acre of Soils of Statewide Importance. 

Table 11-5

Effects to Prime Farmland Soils & Soils of Statewide Importance

Prime Farmland 

Soils (Acres) 

Soils of Statewide 

Importance (Acres) 

Alternative 9A Alternative 9B Alternative 9A Alternative 9B

Harford County 1.37 0.18 0.58 0 

Cecil County 0 0 0.04 0.04 

Total 1.37 0.18 0.62 0.04 
Chapter 11: Natural Resources 

 11-21 

However, on February 8, 2016, the NRCS, using the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form 

(NRCS-CPA-106) for corridor type projects pursuant to FPPA, determined that the Proposed 

Project is not subject to the provisions of the Policy Act and therefore exempt. No further 

coordination is required. 

FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS/WATERS OF THE U.S. 

FLOODPLAINS 

Both Build Alternatives would occur within regulated floodplains. As noted, Harford County has 

a preliminary FEMA floodplain map that is proposed to replace the effective FEMA floodplain 

map. Portions of each Build Alternative occurring within the Harford County effective and 

preliminary 100-year and 500-year floodplains, as well as potential permanent impacts to the 

Cecil County effective 100- and 500-year floodplains, are included in Table 11-6. These values 

represent project footprint encroachments within the floodplain only and do not reflect actual fill 

volumes. Alternative 9A would have slightly higher permanent floodplain impacts than 

Alternative 9B, as result of its broader footprint at the Lily Run crossing. The majority of 

floodplain encroachments would be from transverse crossings for each of the alternatives 

(encroachment that crosses the valley width of floodplains). 

Table 11-6

Potential Effects on Natural Resources from the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

Alignment Alternatives 

Resource Type Resource Category Alternative 9A Alternative 9B

Effective FEMA 

Floodplain (acres) 

100-Year 2.72 2.15 

500-Year 4.83 4.24 

Preliminary FEMA 

Floodplain* (acres) 

100-Year 3.09 2.63 

500-Year 3.16 2.69 

Wetlands (acres) Tidal 0.06 0.06 

Nontidal 0.83 0.71 

Streams (linear feet) Relatively Permanent Waterways 3,190 2,943 

Ephemeral 19 19 

Wetland Buffers (acres) Tidal 0.27 0.27 

Nontidal 2.16 1.72 

Forest Resources (acres) ---- 2.92 2.08 

Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (acres) ---- 6.4 6.1 

Susquehanna Riverbed / 

Aquatic Biota (acres) 

Permanent Impacts 0.37 0.37 

Construction (Temporary 

Impacts, including finger piers) 0.23 0.23 

Submerged Aquatic 

Vegetation – SAV (acres) Permanent Impacts 0.61 0.61 

Note: * Preliminary floodplain available for Harford County only 

Based on the current design of the two Build Alternatives and current guidelines, an increase in 

the base flood elevation (greater than one foot) in the two regulated floodways is not anticipated. 

However, the Proposed Project will require fill in both of these floodways. The new crossings of 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 11-22 

the Susquehanna River will occur with the bridge piers aligned with the river to minimize any 

change in the flow characteristics. More detailed hydrologic and hydraulic studies will be 

undertaken later in design, allowing for more precise floodplain impacts and scour analyses at 

that time. In addition, as the Proposed Project moves into the design phase, regulatory guidance 

issued regarding Executive Order 13690 and/or revisions to Executive Order 11988 will be 

reviewed and incorporated into the overall design of the Proposed Project (e.g., design standards 

and specifications for culvert design and bridge and approach heights), as applicable. 

WETLANDS/WATERS OF THE U.S. 

The two Build Alternatives will have relatively minor effects on wetlands and somewhat greater 

effects on streams. Overall, the proposed new alignments will occur within and immediately 

adjacent to the existing rail alignment where wetlands and streams that are potentially affected 

by the Proposed Project have been historically altered to a considerable degree for the 

construction and maintenance of the existing rail alignment. Potential effects to tidal and 

nontidal wetland buffers take into consideration the existing land use within the buffers. For 

example, areas of existing impervious surfaces, such as pavement or buildings, were not 

included in the buffer impact totals. Permanent impacts to wetlands, wetland buffers, and 

streams for each of the Build Alternatives are summarized in Table 11-6. Wetland impacts by 

system and cover type are shown in more detail in Appendix E, Table E-5). 

Alternative 9A would result in permanent direct impacts to tidal and nontidal wetland resources 

along the Amtrak ROW. Permanent nontidal wetland impacts in Cecil County would occur 

within a wetland that lies between the existing railroad tracks and the access road to the 

Perryville Maintenance Facility, just east of the Perryville Station. The only tidal wetland in the 

study area would also be slightly affected by the construction of the west bridge over the 

Susquehanna River. In Harford County, permanent nontidal wetland impacts would occur on the 

north side of the ROW east and west of Lewis Lane, and on the south side of the ROW east of 

Lewis Lane. 

Alternative 9A would also cross four perennial nontidal streams and three intermittent nontidal 

streams, resulting in minor permanent impacts to these waterways. The total permanent stream 

impact includes 251 linear feet of impact to replace existing culverts and 2,939 linear feet of 

impact for new crossings. This also includes approximately 613 linear feet of intermittent stream 

that currently flows within a maintained ditch along the base of the existing track fill slope in an 

area where no track bed widening is being proposed. An additional 19 linear feet of ephemeral 

channel will also be affected on the Cecil County portion adjacent to the tidal wetland along the 

Susquehanna River. The crossing impacts to Lily Run and an unnamed tributary of Lily Run in 

Harford County and Mill Creek in Cecil County would result from the extension of culverts to 

accommodate the new tracks. For the Mill Creek crossing, the existing stone masonry arch 

culvert will be extended to the south by attaching a culvert extension. A similar culvert extension 

design is proposed for the south side of the existing stone masonry culvert of the Lily Run 

crossing. Smaller concrete culverts would need to be extended for the unnamed tributary to Lily 

Run. The intermittent stream that drains west along the existing tracks may be shifted slightly 

north to accommodate a shift in the track bed, if needed. The intermittent stream on the south 

side of the existing tracks that flows east from east of Lewis Lane would likely need to be placed 

in a culvert, as new ROW will be needed from Havre de Grace Middle School/High School to 

accommodate the track shift in that location, thus likely precluding a shift in the stream channel 

farther to the south. 
Chapter 11: Natural Resources 

 11-23 

Alternative 9B follows the same alignment as Alternative 9A in Cecil County, but has a slightly 

reduced footprint relative to Alternative 9A within Harford County, resulting from slightly lower 

design speeds. As a result, overall permanent wetland and stream impacts are slightly less for 

Alternative 9B. Permanent wetland buffer impacts are also slightly lower overall for Alternative 

9B. Alternative 9B would cross the same streams that Alternative 9A crosses, but total 

permanent stream impacts would be slightly less, resulting from a narrower crossing of Lily Run 

and the unnamed tributary of Lily Run.

The girder approach/arch main span bridge design over the Susquehanna River would include 37 

in-water piers, with a pier diameter of 5.67 feet for all piers except for the piers on either side of 

the navigation channel that will be 6.67 feet in diameter. Eight of the piers, five along the Cecil 

County shoreline and three along the Harford County shoreline, will be encased in permanent 

cofferdams. The remaining piers will be encased in permanent caissons. Permanent pier impacts to 

the riverbed of the Susquehanna River would be 0.37 acre for both alternatives (see Table 11-6). 

Potential impacts to SAV within the Susquehanna River are discussed in the “Aquatic Resources” 

section. 

In addition to the permanent impacts discussed above, temporary wetland impacts could occur 

during construction. Temporary impacts could result from construction staging operations and 

access needs. However, these impacts would likely be minimal and such areas would be restored 

upon completion of construction. Any temporary stream crossings would also be removed. 

Construction of bridge piers for the crossing of the Susquehanna River would likely be 

conducted from barges in the river. Temporary finger piers are proposed on the Cecil County 

side of the river, both upstream and downstream of the bridge crossings, for material access by 

barge. These temporary piers would result in potential impacts to a tidal emergent wetland 

located just upstream of the existing bridge and to SAV located upstream and downstream of the 

proposed bridges (see discussion under “Aquatic Resources”). The temporary tidal wetland 

impact from the upstream finger pier would be approximately 1,743 square feet or 0.04 acre. 

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES 

FOREST RESOURCES 

The two Build Alternatives will have permanent impacts to forest resources, primarily to narrow 

forest strips immediately adjacent to the existing tracks. The largest, contiguous forest resources 

occur at the far western end of the project study area. The Build Alternatives both terminate over 

a mile east of this forested area, thereby avoiding any impact to these resources. 

Alternative 9A would have the larger permanent forest impacts of the two Build Alternatives. 

Permanent impacts would occur to forested habitat between the existing tracks and the Havre de 

Grace Middle School/High School. This forest is relatively narrow and disturbed. Preliminary 

permanent forest impacts from Alternative 9A would total 2.92 acres (see Table 11-6). 

Alternative 9B would also result in permanent impacts to the same forested habitat adjacent to 

Havre de Grace Middle School/High School. However, the footprint for Alternative 9B is 

narrower than that of Alternative 9A, resulting in a potential permanent impact of approximately 

2.08 acres. 

Before a sediment and erosion control permit is issued for a project, the Maryland Forest 

Conservation Act requires that a Forest Stand Delineation (FSD) and a Forest Conservation Plan 

(FCP) be submitted and approved by the DNR, Forestry Division. A more detailed forest 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 11-24 

assessment, including preparation of a FSD and FCP, would need to be completed for the 

Proposed Project during final design and permitting. 

Construction related short-term impacts could result in additional tree clearing for staging and 

access for either alternative. Staging and construction access should be avoided on the north side 

of the ROW between North Juniata Street and Lewis Lane, where larger forest tracts occur along 

Lily Run and unnamed tributaries of Lily Run. In Cecil County, a large forest tract occurs south 

of the existing railroad tracks between a power substation and Firestone Road. Short-term 

impacts to this forest during construction are anticipated to be avoided, as an existing access 

road lies between the forest and the existing tracks, except for a short distance immediately east 

of the power substation. 

WILDLIFE 

Few wildlife impacts are anticipated from either of the two Build Alternatives, as both 

alternatives will be constructed immediately adjacent to and within the same alignment as the 

existing tracks. As noted in “Forest Resources,” permanent impacts to forest will occur only 

adjacent to the Havre de Grace Middle School/High School. This forest is relatively thin and 

disturbed and likely only supports common resident species of wildlife, primarily birds and a 

few species of small mammals. However, mammals and birds would be displaced by the 

clearing of forest habitat. The habitat may also support a few common species of amphibians and 

reptiles that could also be minimally affected or displaced. During construction in this area, birds 

and mammals may be displaced by the clearing of trees and brush. Smaller amphibians and 

reptiles may be crushed by equipment during construction, while more motile species will be 

displaced. 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR SPECIAL CONCERN TERRESTRIAL SPECIES 

In a letter dated January 15, 2016 (see Appendix E, Attachment E), USFWS indicated that 

because the permanent impacts to forests would be relatively small and the absence of 

documented NLEB within the area, the Proposed Project is “not likely to adversely affect” the 

species. The USFWS correspondence further indicated that for these reasons, there would be no 

time of year restrictions on forest clearing related to the NLEB. The letter also stated that other 

than transient species, no other federally proposed or listed threatened or endangered species are 

known to occur within the project area. 

Neither of the Build Alternatives will affect areas known to support terrestrial state-listed 

threatened or endangered species or areas that are designated as a WSSC. The WSSC, and 

associated state listed species, lies over a mile west of the termination of Alternative 9A and 

Alternative 9B. Likewise, the state listed species found within the Furnace Bay wetlands lie over 

a mile and a half east of the termination of both alternatives. As very little natural habitat lies 

within the limits of disturbance for the two Build Alternatives, it is unlikely that state or 

federally listed terrestrial species would occur within the project area. 

The Proposed Project will cross a known historic waterfowl staging area within the Susquehanna 

River along the Cecil County side. Waterfowl will not be permanently affected by either build 

alternative, but may be temporarily displaced from the active construction area. 

No construction related short-term impacts to terrestrial federally or state-listed endangered or 

threatened species are anticipated. Temporary displacements of waterfowl within the 

Susquehanna River are likely during the construction phase of the Proposed Project. 
Chapter 11: Natural Resources 

 11-25 

AQUATIC RESOURCES 

HYDROLOGY 

During operation of the Proposed Project under Alternative 9A, the piers supporting the new 

west and east bridges would not be expected to significantly change river hydrology in the 

project site relative to the existing condition. For the girder approach/arch main span bridge 

design, there would be a net decrease of 4,074 square feet of structure volume below the water 

surface after removal of the existing bridge and the remnant piers. In addition, the majority of 

the west and east bridge piers would be aligned, or nearly aligned with each other and parallel 

with the direction of the river’s incoming and outgoing tidal flow. Replacement of the existing 

bridge with the proposed west and east bridges would likely cause a small shift in the current 

spatial distribution of areas receiving scour and sediment deposition. In-water structures of the 

new bridges under Alternative 9B would be identical to those of Alternative 9A; any differences 

between the two alternatives in other ways would be inconsequential with regard to potential 

operational effects on hydrology. 

GROUNDWATER 

The Proposed Project would be constructed mostly within, or immediately adjacent to, the 

existing ROW and would not introduce a new source of potential pollutants. In addition, 

treatment of surface water runoff from project construction and permanent stormwater best 

management practices (BMPs) will further reduce these negligible project-related impacts on 

groundwater. 

WATER QUALITY 

Construction of Alternative 9A or Alternative 9B would require in-water work with the potential 

to resuspend bottom sediment, resulting in minimal, temporary, and localized effects on water 

quality of the Susquehanna River in the vicinity of the project site. These activities include 

construction of temporary finger piers, construction of west and east replacement bridge piers, 

and demolition of the existing bridge and remnant piers. Aside from minor potential changes in 

sedimentation and scouring, there would be no differences between the operation of the new 

bridges under Alternative 9A and the operation of the existing bridge that would have the 

potential to influence water quality. Operational differences between Alternative 9A and 

Alternative 9B would be inconsequential with regard to potential operational effects on water 

quality. Construction-phase staging areas and haul roads, if needed, could also disturb the 

ground, potentially causing erosion and sedimentation. However, with the minimization 

techniques discussed below, long-term and short-term construction-related impacts to water 

quality from the Proposed Project are expected to be minimal. Potential short-term and longterm impacts to water quality will be minimized through strict adherence to an effective Erosion 

and Sediment Control Plan and implementation of stormwater BMPs that meet the conditions of 

the Maryland Stormwater Act of 2007. 

SEDIMENT QUALITY & CONTAMINANTS 

Sediment containment techniques, such as turbidity curtains and other approved BMPs, will be 

used during construction to minimize sediment releases from the Proposed Project. However, 

under Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B, some minor resuspension of sediment and changes in 

sedimentation properties within the Proposed Project area may occur. Sediment types within the 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 11-26 

study area are primarily sand and gravely sand, which are not easily resuspended and would 

quickly settle. Construction of the proposed temporary finger piers would eliminate the need for 

dredging that would otherwise be required for construction barges to access the project site, and 

would thereby avoid the more substantial disturbance to river sediments that would be caused by 

dredging. Operational differences between Alternative 9B and Alternative 9A would be 

inconsequential with regard to potential operational effects on sediment quality and 

contaminants. Operational effects would be minor and temporary under both alternatives. 

AQUATIC BIOTA 

As discussed above in “Water Quality,” under Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B, operation of 

the replacement bridges in place of the existing bridge would not have effects on water quality or 

other habitat characteristics that would alter the biological community present within the project 

area. Impacts to aquatic biota are anticipated to primarily be construction related. Minimal 

bottom disturbance and sediment resuspension may occur with the drilling of large-diameter 

piles for the replacement bridges and the driving of small-diameter piles for the temporary finger 

piers; however, these disturbances will be temporary and localized and are not expected to 

substantially affect aquatic biota. 

Although the replacement bridges under Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B would result in a net 

increase of 21,095 square yards of shading, both bridges would have a large height to width ratio 

(0.8 [44 feet high by 52 feet wide at their widest point]) that would slightly exceed the level 

below which shading impacts to aquatic organisms (including SAV) are generally considered to 

occur (0.7; Struck et al. 2004). Shading from the relatively narrow temporary finger piers would 

also not have the potential to result in significant adverse effects to benthic organisms, but would 

result in permanent adverse effects to SAV (see below). 

For both Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B, approximately 0.37 acre of the Susquehanna 

Riverbed would be permanently affected and 0.23 acre would be temporary affected from 

construction activities. Construction of the replacement bridges under Alternative 9A and 

Alternative 9B would result in the temporary loss of approximately 680 square feet of benthic 

habitat within the footprint of the piles supporting the temporary finger piers. The temporary loss 

of benthic habitat for temporary cofferdam construction for the bridge piers would total 

approximately 7,926 square feet (0.18 acre) for the girder approach/arch main span bridge 

design. Temporary impact to the riverbed for existing and remnant pier demolition using either 

blasting techniques (inside temporary sheet piles) or cutting using a wire saw would total 

approximately 1.4 acres. However, following demolition of the existing bridge and remnant 

piers this area of river bottom will return to benthic habitat, thereby more than offsetting losses 

from the construction of the replacement bridges. As such, construction of Alternative 9A and 

Alternative 9B would result in a potential net gain of populations of benthic organisms and their 

predators higher in the food web. 

The low-speed vibratory drilling method that would be used to install the five- to six-foot 

diameter piles for the replacement bridge piers would not generate impulse noise underwater, 

and, therefore, would not have significant adverse noise impacts to fish. The smaller, 18 to 24 

inch piles that would support the temporary finger piers would be installed by impact 

hammering, but would not be expected to cause physical impacts to fish because noise levels 

generated during the driving of small piles typically do not exceed 200 dB re 1 μPapeak at a 

distance of 10 meters from the pile (Caltrans 2009). Following best practices for pile installation 

(NOAA 2008), noise from the driving of the finger pier piles would be minimized by first 
Chapter 11: Natural Resources 

 11-27 

allowing piles to sink into the sediment under their own weight before impact hammering the 

remainder of the pile. In addition, impact hammering would begin with a series of light taps of 

gradually increasing strength, which is an effective method to avoid sudden disturbances to fish 

and provide them with an opportunity to move away from the site of the activity (FHWA 2003). 

The most likely response of fish to the underwater sound produced during pile driving for the 

finger piers would be temporary avoidance of the area. Fish would also potentially avoid the area 

of activity during the drilling of the large-diameter piles for the replacement bridges piers. 

Should pile installation cause any fish to temporarily avoid the portion of the Susquehanna River 

in the vicinity of the activity, the extent of the area that would be affected at any one time would 

be negligible relative to the amount of suitable habitat that would remain available nearby, and 

no significant adverse effects to these individuals would be expected to occur. 

As noted above, demolition of the existing bridge piers and remnant piers would be largely 

achieved through the use of mechanical means and methods (e.g., barge cranes, wire saws), 

which will have negligible impacts on aquatic biota. Blasting is not anticipated; however, 

removal of the existing and remnant bridge piers may require the use of blasting techniques as 

per the contractor’s means and methods. Any blasting would be conducted in such a manner as 

to minimize adverse effects on fish. 

SAV 

SAV is regulated at the federal and state levels (see Appendix E, Section D). Alternative 9A and 

Alternative 9B would each have the same number of bridge piers within the Susquehanna River. 

Both alternatives include four bridge piers that would intercept SAV resources in slightly 

different amounts and locations. Permanent cofferdam bridge pier design is proposed 

immediately adjacent to the two shorelines. The permanent impacts to SAV for the girder 

approach / arch main span bridge design would total approximately 3,357 square feet (0.08 acre) 

under both Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B. Indirect SAV shading impacts of the new bridge 

are also possible; however, the new bridges will be slightly higher than the existing bridge, 

providing the potential for sufficient light to support SAV beneath the bridge. 

Impacts to SAV may also occur during the construction of the bridges. Dredging is not currently 

proposed to provide access for bridge pier construction in this location. However, if dredging is 

required, this would uproot SAV species and temporarily displace sediments necessary for SAV 

growth. The suspended sediments could block sunlight necessary for SAV growth and cover 

SAV beds. To avoid the need for dredging, finger piers are proposed in shallow water to allow 

for deep water construction access. These finger piers would remain for at least three years 

during construction build-out of the two rail bridges. Because of the low profile of the finger 

piers and their long-term use during bridge construction, permanent impacts to SAV would be 

expected to occur from finger pier piles as well as shading effects of the finger pier footprint. 

Therefore, though the finger piers would ultimately be considered a temporary construction 

element, owing to the length of time the piers would be in place, they would likely result in 

permanent SAV impacts totaling approximately 0.48 acre. Other SAV impacts could occur from 

the installation of temporary cofferdams in shallow water. The impact to SAV from cofferdam 

installation during construction would be approximately 2,298 square feet (0.05 acre) for the 

girder approach / arch main span bridge design. These structures would be removed once piers 

are completed; however, the cofferdams will likely be in place for longer than six months, 

causing SAV impacts to be considered permanent rather than temporary. Additional disturbance 

of SAV by sediments from the installation of cofferdams could also affect SAV as described 

above for potential dredging operations. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 11-28 

For both Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B, the total permanent SAV impact from bridge 

construction would total approximately 0.61 acre, based on the permanent impacts to SAV for 

the girder approach / arch main span bridge design, finger piers, and cofferdam installation. 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR SPECIAL CONCERN AQUATIC SPECIES/SECTION 7 

CONSULTATION 

As discussed above, under “Aquatic Biota,” operation of the replacement bridges under 

Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B would not be expected to result in significant changes to 

water quality or other aquatic habitat parameters that would affect aquatic organisms. As such, 

the Proposed Project would not have significant adverse impacts to any Atlantic sturgeon, 

shortnose sturgeon, sea turtles, freshwater mussels, logperch, or map turtles potentially occurring 

in the project area. 

Construction of Alternative 9A or Alternative 9B is anticipated to have negligible direct or 

indirect effects on Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon potentially occurring in the Susquehanna 

River. By drilling rather than driving the large-diameter piles for the replacement bridges’ piers, 

underwater noise levels would be minimal and well below both the physical and behavioral 

effect thresholds that have been established by the Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group and 

adopted by NMFS for evaluations of underwater noise impacts to sturgeon and other fish 

species. Impact pile driving for the finger piers would be attenuated by the use of wooden 

cushion blocks to levels where they are likely to be discountable according to the NMFS 

assessment protocol. Potential impacts of demolition activities to remove existing bridge piers 

would be minimized by implementing the protective measures discussed above. In particular, 

any blasting activities would be scheduled to occur within a work window that corresponds to 

the time period of the year when sturgeon are least likely to occur in the vicinity of the project 

area. 

Construction of Alternative 9A or Alternative 9B would not have significant adverse impacts to 

sea turtles at the individual or population level. Kemp’s ridley, green, and loggerhead sea turtles 

have the potential to occur within the project area, while the leatherback sea turtle is a more 

pelagic species that is not expected to occur within the Susquehanna River. By drilling rather 

than driving large-diameter piles for the replacement bridges’ piers, and by driving only smalldiameter piles to support the finger piers, underwater noise levels during construction of 

Alternative 9A or Alternative 9B would not be expected to have harmful effects on any sea 

turtles potentially occurring nearby. As described for sturgeon, the potential impacts of 

demolition activities required to remove existing bridge piers would be minimized by 

implementing the protective measures discussed above and any blasting activities would be 

scheduled to occur within a work window corresponding to the period of the year when sea 

turtles are least likely to occur in the vicinity of the project area. The work barges, delivery 

barges, and crew vessels for this project are expected to have drafts of less than 6 to 8 feet in 

most cases and, therefore, provide vessel clearance above the river bottom of at least 12 feet. 

Because both Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons are demersal (bottom-dwelling) species and 

spend the majority of the time within a few feet of the bottom while foraging, the risk of vessel 

interaction with sturgeon is small. 

As there is a potential for freshwater mussel species to be found within the study area, further 

coordination will be necessary on the potential mussel presence and BMPs for their protection. 

This will include using construction and demolition methods to reduce impacts to freshwater 

mussel species. 
Chapter 11: Natural Resources 

 11-29 

The logperch is a freshwater fish that occurs within the non-tidal portion of the Susquehanna 

River, above the Conowingo Dam. Logperch would not be expected to occur within the project 

area, where conditions are brackish during flood tides. In addition, construction of Alternative 

9A or Alternative 9B would not have significant adverse effects on water quality or other habitat 

conditions for fish, and drilling of the large-diameter piles would avoid potentially harmful 

underwater construction noise levels. Protective measures would be identified in coordination 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and implemented during any blasting activities to 

minimize the potential impacts to logperch, should they occur. As such, construction of 

Alternative 9A or Alternative 9B and demolition of the existing bridge and remnant bridge piers 

would not have the potential to cause adverse impacts to the logperch. 

DNR-WHS may require restrictions on construction projects in order to protect map turtles, 

including, but not limited to; conducting nesting surveys during the nesting season to identify the 

presence/absence of nests within the project area, in-stream time-of-year restrictions, and/or 

removal of turtles from the work zone using trained scuba divers. Map turtles are known to 

occur within the project area and could potentially be affected by construction and demolition. 

Further coordination with DNR-WHS will occur as the Proposed Project progresses, and the 

above-referenced avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented as appropriate. 

CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL AREA 

Permanent impacts to the Critical Area resulting from the Proposed Project are expected to result 

from earth disturbance, removal of vegetation, placement of fill, and increased impervious area. 

The anticipated Critical Area impacts resulting from Alternative 9A are 6.4 acres and for 

Alternative 9B are 6.1 acres. All impacts to Critical Area are limited to the Corporate Limits of 

Havre de Grace and Perryville; no impacts to RCA designated Critical Area are anticipated. 

The CAC for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays was contacted about the Proposed 

Project. In a response letter, the CAC requested continued coordination as the Proposed Project 

becomes more defined to determine whether a full CAC review is required. Copies of all agency 

correspondence can be found in Appendix E, Attachment E. Coordination with the CAC will 

continue during the design phase of the Proposed Project to ensure compliance with all Critical 

Area criteria, mitigation requirements, and regulations. 

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT 

Because the Proposed Project is subject to the provisions of Section 307 of CZMA, the Coastal 

Zone consistency decision is coordinated through the Coastal Zone Consistency Division of the 

MDE. Applicants for federal licenses/permits (including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Section 

10 and Section 404 activities) must certify that their proposed action will be conducted in a 

manner consistent with Maryland’s CZMP. MDE is responsible for coordinating the review with 

appropriate state agencies, consolidating the state’s comments, and forwarding the state’s 

response and decision to the USACE. Examples of state approvals and other state agency actions 

related to the federal consistency decision and the overall review process are provided in 

Appendix E, Attachment B. 

Pursuant to Section 307 of the CZMA, Coastal Zone consistency review will commence after the 

submittal of the MDE Joint Permit Application (JPA). The MDE permit authorization, received 

at subsequent phases of the Proposed Project, will constitute the federal consistency decision. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 11-30 

UNIQUE AND SENSITIVE AREAS 

As there are no NHAs or Wild and Scenic Rivers within the study area, no impacts are 

anticipated. Although Green Infrastructure hubs and corridors occur within the study area, 

neither Alternative 9A or Alternative 9B will affect Green Infrastructure resources. One forest 

conservation easement occurs within the limits of the study area, but lies outside the limits of 

disturbance for either Alternative 9A or Alternative 9B. No impacts to the conservation 

easement are anticipated. The federally protected Garrett Island lies outside the study area limits 

to the north, and will not be impacted by the Proposed Project.

F. MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION OF IMPACTS 

TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS 

For both Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B, several methods could be implemented to decrease 

erosion effects, including structural, vegetative and operational methods during construction. 

These control measures may include: 

 Seeding, sodding, and stabilizing slopes as soon as possible to minimize the exposed area 

during construction, 

 Stabilizing ditches at the tops of cuts and at the bottoms of fill slopes before excavation and 

formation of embankments, 

 Using sediment traps, silt fences, slope drains, water holding areas, and other control 

measures, and 

 Using diversion dikes, mulches, netting, energy dissipaters, and other physical erosion 

controls on slopes where vegetation cannot be supported. 

A grading plan and erosion and sediment (E&S) control plan will be prepared and implemented 

in accordance with MDE regulations. The grading and E&S control plans will minimize the 

potential for impacts to water quality from erosion and sedimentation that would occur before, 

during, and after construction. Furthermore, temporary and permanent controls will be reviewed 

and approved by MDE prior to initiation of construction. Additionally, the Proposed Project 

must obtain a Notice of Intent under the 2014 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity designed to 

control pollution runoff, including sediment, during construction. 

FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS/WATERS OF THE U.S. 

FLOODPLAINS 

Efforts to minimize permanent impacts to 100- and 500-year floodplains are ongoing, and will 

continue throughout the project planning and design process. Longitudinal crossings have been 

avoided where possible to reduce the potential for greater floodplain fill and resulting reductions 

in flood conveyance and floodplain storage. Any construction within the 100-year floodplain 

would require a Waterway Construction Permit from MDE. To ensure that floodwater impacts 

resulting from rail construction are minimized, drainage structures are required to maintain the 

current flow regime and prevent associated flooding. This is being investigated for the proposed 

Lily Run crossing where a new bottomless culvert may be installed to increase the hydraulic 

capacity, resulting in desirable flood relief for the area of Havre de Grace upstream of the rail 
Chapter 11: Natural Resources 

 11-31 

project. Other minimization and mitigation efforts that may be investigated in later planning and 

design phases for impacted 100- and 500-year floodplains could also include: 

 Bridge spans over the 100- and 500-year floodplain, 

 Reducing encroachments by using 2:1 minimum slopes for rail berms, and 

 Building retaining walls where practicable. 

As part of the MDE Waterways Construction Permit application process, hydrologic and 

hydraulic studies will be performed for the selected alternative to determine the effects of the 

proposed track bed fill on floodplain elevations during the design and permitting phase. 

WETLANDS/WATERS OF THE U.S. 

Unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S. will require federal and state 

permit authorizations. These permits and associated agencies include: 

 Section 404 Individual Permit from the USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill materials 

into waters of the U.S. (greater than 2,000 linear feet), including wetlands (greater than 1 

acre) 

 Section 10 permit from the USACE for construction of bridge structures over the navigable 

waters of the Susquehanna River 

 Section 9 (Rivers and Harbors Act) permit from the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) for 

construction of a new bridge over a navigable waterway 

 Section 401 Water Quality Certification from MDE in conjunction with the Section 404 

permit 

 Nontidal Wetland and Waterways permit from MDE for impacts to nontidal wetlands and 

streams, including a 25-foot buffer surrounding the wetland 

 Waterway Construction Permit from MDE for work in streams and floodplains 

 Tidal Wetland License issued by the Board of Public Works for impacts to tidal wetlands 

and waters associated with the Susquehanna River 

The two Build Alternatives would have direct permanent impacts to both nontidal and tidal 

wetland resources and their corresponding buffers (see Table 11-3). Both alternatives would 

also have permanent impacts to streams from culvert extensions, possible relocations, and 

piping, and would have permanent impacts to the riverbed of the Susquehanna River from bridge 

pier installation. Impacts to Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, from the Build Alternatives 

would total less than an acre of wetlands and more than 3,000 linear feet of streams. After all 

practicable measures have been taken to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources, 

unavoidable impacts will require mitigation in the form of creation, enhancement, or 

preservation to replace the loss of wetland, stream, and/or other aquatic resource (e.g., SAV) 

functions. 

The two Build Alternatives retained for detailed study were selected in part because of their 

reduced impacts to wetlands/waterways and other natural resources. These alternatives lie closer 

to the existing track ROW than other alternatives studied, and generally involve replacement of 

the existing track with the new eastbound and westbound tracks. The Project Team has 

incorporated avoidance and minimization measures with respect to wetland impacts, in part by 

optimizing the use of the existing rail ROW. The Project Team will continue to explore 

minimization measures during final design. Construction of the culvert extensions, or 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 11-32 

replacements as needed, will include the minimum extent necessary to provide support for the 

additional rail tracks. Also, these necessary extensions or replacements will use bottomless 

culverts to provide for a more natural stream bed through the culvert. 

Compensatory mitigation must be evaluated in accordance with state and federal regulations and 

guidance. Compensatory mitigation focuses on the replacement of the functions provided by an 

aquatic resource or wetland, in addition to the acreage affected. Traditionally, mitigation 

requirements under Section 404 and COMAR are determined by the ratio of wetland acres 

replaced to wetland acres lost, based on the following ratios: 

 Nontidal emergent wetlands are often mitigated on a 1:1 replacement ratio; 

 Nontidal forested and scrub-shrub wetlands are mitigated on a 2:1 ratio; 

 Tidal emergent wetlands are replaced at a 2:1 ratio; and 

 Tidal forested and scrub-shrub wetlands are mitigated on a 2:1 ratio. 

Table 11-7 summarizes the wetland and stream impacts and potential required mitigation for 

each of the two Build Alternatives. 

Few on-site mitigation options are likely available to compensate for unavoidable nontidal 

wetland impacts given the linear nature of the Amtrak ROW. Even so, opportunities will be 

investigated during project design. If Alternative 9A is selected, wetland creation may also be 

possible within the expanded ROW adjacent to Havre de Grace Middle School. For the tidal 

wetland impacts along the Cecil County shoreline, mitigation could occur in the form of control 

of existing, invasive common reed and establishment of native, tidal wetland species. The area 

of degraded tidal wetland is approximately two acres, more than sufficient size to accommodate 

the higher enhancement ratio of at least 4:1. Other potential onsite mitigation options will also be 

investigated as the Proposed Project advances through later design phases. If further on-site 

mitigation is not an option, compensation could be sought through the purchase of credits at an 

approved mitigation bank or through permittee sponsored mitigation at an approved offsite 

location. 

Table 11-7

Wetland and Stream Impacts and Estimated Minimum Required Mitigation

Resource 

Alternative 9A Alternative 9B 

Impact 

(Ac/Lf) 

Replacement

Ratio 

Mitigation 

(Ac/Lf) 

Impact 

(Ac/Lf) 

Replacement 

Ratio 

Mitigation

(Ac/Lf) 

Nontidal Forest (ac) 0.25 2:1 0.5 0.17 2:1 0.34 

Nontidal Emergent (ac) 0.58 1:1 0.58 0.54 1:1 0.54 

Tidal Forest (ac) 0.05 2:1 0.1 0.05 2:1 0.1 

Tidal Emergent (ac) 0.01 2:1 0.02 0.01 2:1 0.02 

Intermittent and 

Perennial Streams (lf) 3,190 1:1 3,190 2,943 1:1 2,943 

The agencies also typically require compensatory stream mitigation projects to replace stream 

functions when feasible. In addition to stream channel improvements, mitigation measures for 

waterway impacts consider the size, stream order, and location of the stream to determine 

appropriate stream mitigation. Other mitigation measures, such as removal of fish blockages, 
Chapter 11: Natural Resources 

 11-33 

riparian buffer enhancements, in-stream habitat improvements, and water quality improvements, 

may also be used at the agencies’ discretion. 

Based on the currently identified permanent stream impacts, the Proposed Project would be 

expected to provide stream restoration totaling at least 3,190 linear feet for Alternative 9A and 

2,943 linear feet for Alternative 9B (see Table 11-7). However, of these stream impacts, over 

2,500 linear feet of impact is to previously disturbed headwater streams running parallel to the 

existing track that had been relocated during construction of the original rail track. These stream 

reaches are currently linear ditches with mostly rock ballast or sand substrates and little habitat 

structure. To mitigate for these permanent stream impacts resulting from track widening, the 

reaches would be relocated to the new track toe of slope. As part of this relocation, opportunities 

for in-stream habitat and water quality improvements will be investigated. Further mitigation 

options will be determined as the Proposed Project moves forward in design. 

To address the potential need for off-site mitigation, a preliminary desk-top level mitigation site 

search was conducted within the Lower Susquehanna River and Swan Creek watersheds, as 

project impacts will occur within those two watersheds. All nontidal wetland impacts will occur 

within the Lower Susquehanna River watershed so the site search for nontidal wetlands was 

conducted only within that watershed. Site search criteria included non-forested sites located 

within topographic depressions or floodplains with areas of mapped hydric soils providing at 

least an acre of created wetland. The site search also targeted potential tidal wetland creation or 

restoration sites and hardened shoreline areas where more natural shoreline protection measures 

might allow for creation or enhancement of aquatic habitat. For stream mitigation, riparian areas 

within the Lower Susquehanna River and Swan Creek watersheds were investigated for their 

restoration potential, including stream channel stabilization, fish blockage removal, in-stream 

habitat improvements, riparian buffer enhancements, and water quality improvements. After 

potential wetland and stream mitigation sites were selected during the desk-top level site search, 

a windshield survey of publicly accessible sites was conducted to confirm landscape position 

and land use within the potential site. 

Based on the windshield surveys, a total of eight potential nontidal wetland creation sites were 

carried forward. For potential stream restoration sites, one site was extended and the overall 

number of potential stream sites to carry forward was reduced to 17. Sites were eliminated for 

various reasons, including changed site conditions, steep topography, presence of utilities, etc. 

Additionally, an offsite potential tidal wetland enhancement area was identified along the 

Susquehanna River in Harford County. During the subsequent final design and permitting phase, 

these potential sites will be explored in more detail, and property access notification letters will 

be sent seeking permission to conduct more detailed on-site investigations. More detailed 

information on the site search process and full mitigation site descriptions are located in 

Appendix E, Attachment D. 

Any mitigation measures employed due to unavoidable project impacts to waters of the U.S., 

including wetlands, will follow the Federal Compensatory Mitigation Rule (33 Code of Federal 

Regulations [CFR] Parts 325 and 40 CFR Part 230), and Maryland state compensatory 

mitigation guidelines, as well as other practicable recommendations from federal and state 

resource agencies. Mitigation options under both the Federal Rule and state mitigation 

guidelines could include mitigation banking credits, in-lieu fees, or permittee-responsible 

mitigation using a watershed approach in that order of preference. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 11-34 

FOREST RESOURCES 

Avoidance of a larger forest tract at the western end of the study area was accomplished by 

reducing the scope of the Proposed Project to tie back into the existing tracks prior the start of 

the large forest tract. Incorporation of tree protection measures during the development of the 

FCP will be coordinated, reviewed, and approved by DNR. 

Where unavoidable permanent forest impacts occur, Amtrak will offset those impacts by 

planting trees in cleared areas (reforestation) and/or in areas not previously forested 

(afforestation). During the final design and permitting stage, Amtrak will develop and implement 

a DNR-approved FCP that prescribes the reforestation and afforestation acreage, mitigation site 

selection process, planting requirements and specifications, and monitoring plan. 

Goals of the FCP are to: protect all priority forests, specimen trees, and sensitive areas on-site 

where possible; minimize impacts to other on-site vegetated areas to the greatest extent 

practicable; and define mitigation areas for unavoidable impacts to forest resources and 

specimen trees. Priority forests are those that include wetlands, streams, 100-year floodplains, 

endangered species, and specimen trees. 

Forest mitigation must comply with Forest Conservation Act requirements for linear 

transportation projects. Based on afforestation and reforestation rules under this law, preliminary 

calculations of required mitigation for effects including forested and non-forested areas would 

total approximately 5.0 acres of tree planting for Alternative 9A and 3.4 acres of tree planting for 

Alternative 9B. This meets the requirements of the State Forest Conservation Technical Manual

as defined in the Forests Section, Section III. 

AQUATIC RESOURCES 

The Project Team minimized aquatic impacts through refined engineering design and reducing 

the number of in-water piers required for the proposed bridges. Further minimization of aquatic 

impacts is mandated by MDE sediment and erosion control regulations in the form of time of 

year in-stream work restrictions for the protection of fish spawning or migration. These stream 

closure periods prohibit in-stream work from March 1 through June 15 for Use I streams and 

from June 1 through September 30 and December 16 through March 14 for Use II streams. 

Sediment containment techniques, such as turbidity curtains and other approved best practices, 

will be used during construction to minimize sediment releases that could harm SAV. In 

addition, MDE sediment and erosion control regulations require time of year work restrictions 

within designated SAV beds. The closure period for work within designated SAV areas is from 

April 1 through October 15. 

Mitigation for unavoidable permanent impacts to SAV will follow the Federal Compensatory 

Mitigation Rule (33 CFR Parts 325 and 40 CFR Part 230), and other state compensatory 

mitigation guidelines, as well as other recommendations from federal and state resource 

agencies. The typical in-kind compensation ratio for SAV impacts is 3:1. For the estimated 

permanent impacts to SAV from the two selected alternatives, replacement of at least 1.83 acres 

would be required. Mitigation options under both the Federal Rule and state mitigation 

guidelines could include mitigation banking credits, in-lieu fees, or permittee-responsible 

mitigation using a watershed approach in that order of preference. A preliminary site search was 

conducted to identify potential mitigation sites to offset wetland, stream, and SAV. Details of the 

mitigation site search are included in Appendix E, Attachment D. The NMFS has indicated that 

mitigation of SAV impacts should include replanting the beds disturbed during construction 
Chapter 11: Natural Resources 

 11-35 

following project completion. This will be investigated along with other out-of-kind mitigation 

alternatives as the Proposed Project advances to later design phases. The final decision to replace 

function, acreage, or both may be adjusted at the discretion of the USACE or MDE, depending 

on the practicability of the proposed mitigation. 

CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL AREA 

Minimization efforts to avoid the Critical Area were incorporated as part of the early design for 

the Proposed Project. Also, whenever possible, the Critical Area has been further avoided by the 

proposed Alternatives. Further minimization and mitigation measures for unavoidable impacts to 

the Critical Area could include: 

 Erosion and sediment control measures would be provided and strictly enforced to minimize 

impacts. 

 Replacement lands of equal or greater natural resource and economic value. 

 Additional appropriate mitigation measures, such as landscaping (where applicable with 

respect to the resource), would be developed through coordination with the appropriate 

parties. 

Additional discussions are anticipated to occur regarding the Proposed Project’s potential 

impacts to the Critical Area and mitigation measures that could lessen potential impacts. 

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT 

Although minimization/mitigation are not typically identified specifically for Coastal Zone 

Management, appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts to wetlands, 

waterways, and floodplains will be addressed as part of the permit application/authorization 

process with MDE and the USACE, and will be considered the Coastal Zone Management 

consistency review. 

UNIQUE AND SENSITIVE AREAS 

With no impacts anticipated to NHAs or Wild and Scenic Rivers, avoidance and minimization 

measures for these resources are not appropriate for the Proposed Project. Impacts to Green 

Infrastructure hubs have been minimized by placing the Proposed Project within and adjacent to 

the existing rail alignment. In addition, the proposed new alignments tie into the existing 

alignment as close to the river bridge as possible to avoid impacts to a large forested area that 

serves as a hub. Any reforestation requirements due to tree and forest loss could consider 

locations that would promote Green Infrastructure efforts, such as buffer enhancement, forest 

connectivity (FIDS habitat development), and reforestation near, or adjacent to, existing hubs 

and corridors. 

G. REFERENCES 

See Appendix E. 
 12-1 

Chapter 12: Air Quality 

A. INTRODUCTION 

This chapter assesses how operation of the Proposed Project would affect ambient air quality. 

The potential short-term temporary impact on air quality from construction of the Build 

Alternatives is discussed in Chapter 17, “Construction Effects.” 

The air quality analyses are based on the anticipated changes in train operations with the Build 

Alternatives, as described in Chapter 3, “Transportation.” (The alternatives are described in 

detail in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives.”) This chapter examines the effect of changes in train 

operations and track alignment on both regional (mesoscale) emissions and local (microscale) 

concentrations of air pollutants. The Project would not introduce any new, permanent stationary 

emission sources, such as boilers or generators. 

B. REGULATORY CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY 

The methodology, including train volumes and other assumptions, regulatory context, and 

detailed discussion of the results are presented in Appendix F, “Air Quality, Noise, and 

Vibration.” 

C. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Cecil County and Harford County are within a nonattainment area for ozone. In addition, 

Harford County is within a maintenance area for PM2.5, as described in more detail in Appendix 

F. Pollutant levels measured at area monitoring stations are used to characterize existing 

conditions. Table 12-1 shows relevant regulated pollutants studied, including: 

 Carbon monoxide (CO) 

 Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

 PM10: Particulate matter (PM) with aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 

micrometers 

 PM2.5: Particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers 

 Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 

 Ozone (measured in 2014 at monitoring stations closest to the project area) 

These values are the most recent data available at the time the analysis was undertaken, and are 

consistent with the background conditions used in the future conditions analyses (see below). 

Monitored levels of ozone exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as 

discussed in Appendix F. 

While the measured concentrations of pollutants other than ozone are lower than the NAAQS, 

the monitors are not located adjacent to specific sources such as highways or rail lines and do 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 12-2 

not represent concentrations specifically-affected by such operations, but rather the background 

concentrations in the area in general. Concentrations of PM, CO, and NO2 in the existing 

condition near the tracks are likely higher than those presented in Table 12-1. 

Table 12-1

Representative Monitored Ambient Air Quality Data

Pollutant Location Units 

Averaging 

Period Concentration(1) NAAQS

CO Essex, Baltimore County Ppm 8-hour 1.3 9 

1-hour 1.8 35 

SO2 Essex, Baltimore County μg/m3 3-hour N/A 1,300 

1-hour 68 196 

PM10 Baltimore, Baltimore County μg/m3 24-hour 41 150 

PM2.5

Fair Hill, Cecil County μg/m3

 Annual 8.6 12 Edgewood, Harford County 10.3 

Fair Hill, Cecil County μg/m3

 24-hour 24 35 Edgewood, Harford County 21 

NO2 Essex, Baltimore County μg/m3 Annual 21 100 

1-hour 87 188 

Ozone Fair Hill, Cecil County Ppm 8-hour 0.074 0.070 Churchville, Harford County 0.070 

Notes: 1. All concentrations presented are based on 2014 data. CO and PM10 concentrations 

are the second-highest values. SO2 1-hour is the 99th percentile of daily maximum 

1-hour average concentrations. NO2 1-hour is the 98th percentile of daily maximum 

1-hour average concentrations averaged over the 3-year period of 2012 to 2014. 

24-hour average PM2.5 is the 98th percentile. Annual value is the mean for the year. 

8-hour average ozone concentrations are the 4th highest-daily values for 2014.

 Concentrations in bold exceed the NAAQS. 

Sources: USEPA, Air Data, Monitor Values Report for 2014

http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html, accessed January 6, 2016. 

D. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

REGIONAL (MESOSCALE) ANALYSIS 

Regional (mesoscale) emissions are assessed on an incremental basis (emissions change 

resulting from a Build Alternative as compared with the No Action Alternative). Therefore, a 

mesoscale analysis is not presented for the No Action Alternative separately. 

LOCAL (MICROSCALE) ANALYSIS 

Projected maximum concentrations of pollutants in 2040 at locations near the south wye track 

for the No Action Alternative are presented in Table 12-2. The reasons why this location was 

selected for the microscale analysis are discussed in Appendix F. Maximum projected PM2.5

(24-hour and annual average), PM10 (24-hour average), and annual average NO2 concentrations 

would be lower than the respective NAAQS. However, 1-hour average NO2 concentrations 

could potentially exceed the NAAQS in the No Action Alternative. Exceedances could 
Chapter 12: Air Quality 

 12-3 

potentially occur all along the tracks, up to 500 feet to the east and west of the at-grade crossing 

of the Norfolk Southern (NS) Port Road at Ostego Street in Perryville; and up to 200 feet to the 

north and south of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge approach in Perryville (see Figure 12-1). 

Concentrations at other locations along the track, including areas outside the study area, may be 

lower due to lower engine loads (lower grade and/or less track curvature), fewer freight trains, 

and a lack of idling locomotives; however, 1-hour NO2 exceedances are, nonetheless, possible in 

all areas where this level of diesel operations would occur, as discussed in more detail in 

Appendix F. Note that while detailed concentrations in existing conditions were not analyzed, it 

is expected that the concentrations near the tracks in the existing conditions would be similar to 

those projected for the No Action Alternative. 

Table 12-2

Maximum Projected Concentrations— No Action Alternative (μg/m3

)

Pollutant 

Time 

Period 

Background 

Concentration

No Action 

NAAQS

Modeled 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration 

NO2 

1-Hour (1) (1) 283 188 

Annual 24.7 8.29 33.0 100 

PM2.5 

24-Hour 23.5 0.5 24.0 35 

Annual 10.9 0.1 11.0 12 

PM10 24-Hour 44 0.5 44.5 150 

Notes: 

Results in bold exceed the NAAQS. 

1. Consistent with EPA guidance, total NO2 1-hour concentrations include seasonal 

hourly background concentrations developed from hourly monitored NO2

concentrations at the Fair Hill monitoring station over the years 2010 to 2014. 

The above 1-hour average NO2 concentrations were predicted using a conservative modeling 

approach where peak activity within the overnight and daytime periods were modeled 

throughout these respective periods at all hours. Peak overnight activity assumed in the model 

includes three diesel powered freight locomotives, while daytime activity assumed includes one 

diesel powered freight locomotive and three diesel powered MARC locomotives. The approach 

of applying peak activity to all hours a peak may occur ensures that the combination of worstcase emission rates and worst-case meteorological conditions, resulting in peak potential 

concentrations at each of the nearby receptors, are captured. However, due to the infrequent 

number of times that peak activity would occur, it is unlikely that peak activity would 

consistently occur during worst-case meteorological conditions at any one receptor, and 

therefore, this approach results in conservatively high estimates of potential 1-hour NO2

concentrations. To demonstrate this effect, the Project Team analyzed the effect of actual hourly 

freight train activity recorded on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) from September 2015 to April 

2016. With actual recorded hourly freight activity (including hourly number of freight trains by 

direction and train tonnage) projected 1-hour NO2 concentrations resulting from freight rail fell 

below the NAAQS threshold of 188 μg/m3

. While concentrations are only representative of 

freight locomotive sources, these sources would result in the worst-case 1-hour concentrations. 
Areas of Potential Exceedance of the 1-Hour NO2

 Standard

Extent of Potential Exceedance – Build Alternatives

Extent of Potential Exceedance – No Action Alternative

Area of Highest Potential Concentrations

Area of Highest Potential Increment

Extent of Model Projections 

Modeled Railroad Source

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

12.8.16

Figure 12-1
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 12-4 

E. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVES 

REGIONAL (MESOSCALE) ANALYSIS 

Table 12-3 illustrates projected increases in emissions associated with the Build Alternatives 

within each Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) in the study area. These represent the total 

increase in emissions with the Build Alternatives, associated with increased freight movement 

along the rail track between areas to the north towards Pennsylvania and either Baltimore or 

Wilmington. Additionally, the increased MARC train volumes traveling between Baltimore and 

Elkton as well as the exclusive utilization of diesel powered trains are included in the regional 

annual emissions. Note that this analysis does not present the net change in emissions in the nonattainment areas, nor does it account for the overall benefits of the NEC FUTURE region-wide. 

This analysis conservatively compares only the increments with the de minimis thresholds for 

general conformity, demonstrating that the Build Alternatives would not require a conformity 

determination. The projected increases presented do not take into account the shift in intercity 

travel within the nonattainment area from motor vehicles to the improved Amtrak high speed rail 

and MARC service. The Build Alternatives would promote this shift to more fuel efficient 

transportation, reducing vehicle miles traveled—and consequently pollutant emissions—within 

the region. 

Table 12-3 

Predicted Increases in Regional Annual Emissions 

Criteria 

Pollutant 

Emissions Increases (ton/year) 

De Minimis 

Baltimore Threshold 

Philadelphia-WilmingtonAtlantic City 

NOx 39 14 100 

PM2.5 0.5 0.2 100 

VOC 1.5 0.5 50 

Note: This table conservatively present potential increases only, and does 

not show the net change which would include decreases associated 

with the shift from highway travel to rail. 

Regulations under the Clean Air Act (“conformity regulations”) require that federal agencies, 

when taking action to assist, fund, permit, or approve projects in areas with a non-attainment or 

maintenance status regarding any of the NAAQS, ensure that the projects conform to the 

applicable State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for attaining those standards, so as not to interfere 

with the state’s ability to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The total projected emissions in each 

AQCR represent a small fraction of the de minimis levels defined in the conformity regulations. 

This demonstrates that the operation of the Build Alternatives would not require a conformity 

determination and would not interfere with SIPs for attainment of the ozone NAAQS or 

maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS within each AQCR. Emissions increases may also occur in 

other non-attainment areas traversed by affected rail lines beyond the project study area; those 

emissions increases would likely be on the order of those shown in Table 12-3; therefore, no 

conformity determinations would be required for any other non-attainment or maintenance areas. 

Overall, the Proposed Project would not substantially affect regional air quality in the 

nonattainment areas. 

As described above, the conformity analysis for the non-attainment area does not include the 

benefits of shifting of travel from highway to the more efficient rail mode. Furthermore, in the 
Chapter 12: Air Quality 

 12-5 

larger region including the NEC, the NEC FUTURE would promote the more efficient passenger 

rail service. As described in Chapter 13, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change,” 

overall, Amtrak service is 33 percent more efficient per passenger-mile than average highway 

travel (nationwide), and is likely more efficient than that along the NEC where ridership is high. 

The Build Alternatives are a component of the larger sustained effort to enhance passenger rail 

and freight rail for the long term, benefitting air quality and reducing pollutant emissions overall. 

LOCAL (MICROSCALE) ANALYSIS 

Table 12-4 presents maximum total concentrations projected to occur at locations near the south 

wye track west of Perryville Station due to track realignment and increased locomotive activity. 

The projected maximum concentrations and increments presented in Table 12-4 are the same for 

with Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B. Appendix F includes a more detailed discussion of 

results. Similar to the No Action Alternative, maximum projected PM2.5 (24-hour and annual 

average), PM10 (24-hour average), and annual average NO2 concentrations with the Build 

Alternatives would be lower than the respective NAAQS. As with the No Action Alternative, the 

1-hour average NO2 concentrations were projected to potentially exceed the NAAQS up to 500 

feet to the east and west of the at-grade crossing of the NS Port Road at Otsego Street in 

Perryville. Peak hourly freight train volume and alignment will be the same with the Build 

Alternatives and the No Action Alternative; therefore the 1-hour NO2 exceedances in these areas 

would occur in both the No Action Alternative and Build Alternatives, and would not be a result 

of the Proposed Project. The 1-hour average NO2 concentrations were projected to potentially 

exceed the NAAQS up to 280 feet north and south of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge 

approach in Perryville where diesel locomotives operate—80 feet farther from the freight track 

than in the No Action Alternative because of the track realignment and grade changes. 

Table 12-4

Maximum Projected Concentrations

Pollutant 

Time 

Period 

Background 

Concentration

(μg/m3) 

No Action 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) 

Build 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) 

NAAQS

(μg/m3)

NO2 

1-Hour (1) 283 292 188 

Annual 24.7 33.0 34.2 100 

PM2.5 

24-Hour 23.5 24.0 24.3 35 

Annual 10.9 11.0 11.1 12 

PM10 24-Hour 44 44.5 44.8 150 

Notes: 

Results in bold exceed the NAAQS. 

Project concentrations represent results at the wye track under Alternative 9A and 

Alternative 9B. 

1. Consistent with EPA guidance, NO2 1-hour concentrations utilized seasonal hourly 

background concentrations developed from hourly monitored NO2 concentrations at 

Fair Hill monitoring station over the years 2010 to 2014.

While total concentrations at residences adjacent to the track curve re-alignment (south of Broad 

Street and west of the wye track) are projected to be lower than the above maximums (at most 

209 μg/m3

 and 226 μg/m3 in the No Action and Build Alternatives, respectively), the 

concentrations at those locations would nonetheless also potentially exceed the NAAQS, and 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 12-6 

would represent an increase of up to 3 percent over the levels predicted under the No Action 

Alternative (see Figure 12-1). (Note that this section focuses only on potential local effects; for 

discussion of the benefits of efficient rail travel and freight in region-wide air quality and 

greenhouse gas emissions, see the “Regional (Mesoscale) Analysis” section above and Chapter 

13, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change.”) 

As described for the No Action scenario, the above Build Alternative concentrations were 

predicted using a modeling approach that necessarily results in conservative estimates of 

potential 1-hour NO2 concentrations. Due to the infrequent number of times that peak activity 

would occur, it is unlikely that peak conditions would consistently occur during worst-case 

meteorological conditions at any one receptor. To demonstrate this effect, additional modeling 

was performed using actual hourly freight train activity recorded on the NEC from September, 

2015 to April, 2016. When actual hourly freight train activity was modeled, projected 1-hour 

NO2 concentrations fell below the NAAQS threshold of 188 μg/m3

. While concentrations are 

only representative of freight locomotive sources, these sources would result in the worst-case 1-

hour concentrations. Therefore, it is possible that the predicted 1-hour average NO2 NAAQS 

exceedance shown in Table 12-4 is purely due to the conservative nature of the regulatory 

modeling approach. Actual 1-hour NO2 concentrations and the increase in those concentrations 

with the Build Alternatives will likely be lower than shown in Table 12-4. 

The increment as compared with the No Action Alternative is associated with the proposed track 

realignments described above and the increase in freight movement and MARC diesel train 

volumes with the Build Alternatives. Concentrations at other locations near the freight tracks 

between the wye track in Perryville and areas to the north and areas along the NEC to the south 

of the bridge (Havre de Grace and farther south) are also anticipated to increase somewhat with 

the Build Alternatives when compared with the No Action Alternative due to the growth in daily 

and annual freight movement, but would be less than the results presented above since there 

would be no change in track location or grade at those locations. However, peak hourly 

concentrations, including 1-hour average NO2, would not increase in areas outside the study 

areas as compared with the No Action Alternative since peak hour freight train volume would 

not increase.

In summary, local 1-hour average NO2 concentrations may increase near the proposed bridge 

that would be used by MARC and freight trains. Concentrations with the Build Alternatives 

(both the Preferred Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B) could increase by up to 8.6 percent in 

areas where the model predicts an exceedance of the 1-hr NO2 NAAQS under the No Action 

Alternative. Given the necessarily conservative modeling approach required to address the 

complex form of the 1-hour NO2 standard, actual increases of 1-hour NO2 concentrations would 

likely be much lower than the modeled 8.6 percent and actual total concentrations would likely 

not exceed the NAAQS. Furthermore, concentration increases would likely be limited to smaller 

areas than those shown in Figure 12-1. Overall, local air quality with and without the Proposed 

Project is likely to be very similar. Considering all of the above, the low probability of NAAQS 

exceedance, the small potential increment, and the limited area potentially affected, the Build 

Alternatives would not result in a significant adverse impact on air quality. 

F. MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION OF IMPACTS 

Measures to minimize and mitigate the effects of the Proposed Project on air quality that can be 

implemented by the Project Team are discussed in Chapter 17, “Construction Effects.” During 

operation, the Project Team will have limited influence on emissions from rail. 
Chapter 12: Air Quality 

 12-7 

Amtrak trains are electric and therefore have zero emissions at the local level. Furthermore, 

Amtrak actively works on increasing ridership and efficiency. This helps to avoid emissions 

from personal vehicle travel and to minimize per passenger use of electricity (and associated 

regional emissions) to operate the trains. 

Freight trains have diesel locomotives and are operated by Norfolk Southern. Their emissions 

are subject to USEPA regulations and cannot be reduced by the Proposed Project. MARC 

currently has a program to purchase diesel locomotives meeting Tier IV emission standards. 

While Tier IV locomotives would emit less than the diesel locomotives in the existing fleet, 

further emission reductions would be possible if MARC trains were electric. The electrification 

of MARC fleet is beyond the control of the Proposed Project and is therefore not part of 

minimization and mitigation measured for the Proposed Project. 

Should MARC switch to an electric fleet independent of the Proposed Project, total 

concentrations would be only slightly lower than those shown for the Proposed Project in Table 

12-4. However, excluding ambient backgrounds, the 24-hour average and annual concentrations 

would decrease by approximately 5 percent and 22 percent, respectively. The emission reduction 

benefits of possible electrification of MARC service would not decrease the 1-hour average NO2

concentrations reported in Table 12-4, as the 1-hour NO2 concentrations are affected by diesel 

freight trains to a much greater extent than by MARC trains (whether they run on diesel or 

electricity). 
 13-1 

Chapter 13: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change 

A. INTRODUCTION 

This chapter discusses energy use, energy savings, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and GHG 

emissions reduced as a result of the Proposed Project, and its consistency with established 

sustainability measures and GHG reduction goals. As discussed in the Council on Environmental 

Quality’s (CEQ) guidance,1

 climate change is projected to have wide‐ranging effects on the 

environment, including rising sea levels, increases in temperature, and changes in precipitation 

levels. Although this is occurring on a global scale, the environmental effects of climate change 

are also likely to be observed at the local level. The U.S. has established sustainability initiatives 

and goals for greatly reducing GHG emissions and for adapting to climate change. 

While the contribution of any single project to climate change is infinitesimal, the combined 

GHG emissions from all human activity impact the global climate. The nature of the impact 

dictates that all sectors identify practicable means to reduce GHG emissions. Following the CEQ 

guidance and given that the Proposed Project operation would reduce GHG emissions and 

energy use, this chapter does not specify the incremental contributions of the Proposed Project to 

climate effects, but rather identifies opportunities to further reduce energy consumption and 

GHG emissions during operation and construction. GHG emissions and energy are discussed in 

Section B. 

The Proposed Project would constitute a major public investment in infrastructure with a useful 

life on a timescale at which the effects of climate change may become more noticeable. Effects 

of climate change that could affect the rail bridge, its approaches, and associated infrastructure 

include, but are not limited to, more frequent and intense heat waves, severe cold weather, more 

frequent and intense downpours and flooding, sea-level rise, and more intense or more frequent 

storms. Therefore, this chapter discusses the need to consider the potential effects of climate 

change when designing or upgrading the proposed infrastructure. The discussion is consistent 

with the available National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidance. The Proposed Project’s 

resiliency to future climate conditions is discussed in Section C. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” this Environmental Assessment (EA) 

evaluates two Build Alternatives: Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B. Alternative 9A was 

selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

 

1

 Executive Office of the President, CEQ. Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on 

Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews. 

August 1, 2016. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 13-2 

B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND ENERGY USE 

POLICY, REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND BENCHMARKS 

As a result of the growing consensus that human activity resulting in GHG emissions has the 

potential to profoundly affect the Earth’s climate, countries around the world have undertaken 

efforts to reduce emissions by implementing both global and local measures addressing energy 

consumption and production, land use, and other sectors. Although the U.S. has not ratified 

international agreements which set emissions targets for GHGs, in December 2015, the U.S. 

signed the international Paris agreement2

 that pledges deep cuts in emissions, with a stated goal 

of reducing emissions to between 26 and 28 percent lower than 2005 levels by 20253

 to be 

implemented via existing laws and regulations with executive authority of the President. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is required to regulate greenhouse gases 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA), and has begun preparing and implementing regulations. In 

coordination with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), USEPA 

currently regulates GHG emissions from newly manufactured on-road vehicles. In addition, 

USEPA regulates transportation fuels via the Renewable Fuel Standard program, which will 

phase in a requirement for the inclusion of renewable fuels increasing annually up to 36.0 billion 

gallons in 2022. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) is also involved in many 

activities, programs, and partnerships, including collaborations with other federal agencies and 

international organizations, aimed at reducing GHG emission.4,5 

Various federal policies are aimed at reducing GHG emissions. For example, Executive Order 

13514 of October 5, 2009 establishes the policy of the United States that “Federal agencies 

increase energy efficiency; measure, report, and reduce their GHG emissions from direct and 

indirect activities; conserve and protect water resources through efficiency, reuse, and 

stormwater management; eliminate waste, recycle, and prevent pollution; leverage agency 

acquisitions to foster markets for sustainable technologies and environmentally preferable 

materials, products, and services; design, construct, maintain, and operate high performance 

sustainable buildings in sustainable locations; strengthen the vitality and livability of the 

communities in which Federal facilities are located ... agencies shall prioritize actions based on 

a full accounting of both economic and social benefits and costs ...” USDOT’s implementation 

and reporting under this order6

 includes a focus on enhancing, expanding, and improving the 

efficiency of the national freight and passenger rail networks.

There are also regional and state efforts to reduce GHG emissions. Maryland is a participant in 

the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cooperative effort by Northeast and MidAtlantic states to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 10 percent by 2019, 

through a regional cap-and-trade program. The RGGI program is mandated by State law and is 

fully implemented and enforceable through regulations (COMAR 26.09) adopted and enforced 

by Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 

 

2

 Conference of the Parties, 21st Session. Adoption of The Paris Agreement, decision -/CP.21. Paris, 

December 12, 2015. 

3

 United States of America. Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). March 31, 2015. 4

 http://climate.dot.gov/policies-legislation-programs/federal-org-directory.html 5

 http://climate.dot.gov/policies-legislation-programs/dot-partnerships/international-activities.html 

6

 http://www.transportation.gov/mission/sustainability/our-sustainability-efforts-0 
Chapter 13: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change 

 13-3 

In 2009, Maryland Governor O'Malley and the Maryland General Assembly passed the 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act of 2009 (GGRA). The law requires the State to 

develop and implement a plan to reduce GHG emissions 25 percent from a 2006 baseline by 

2020; the bill was reauthorized in 2016 with a new target of 40 percent reduction by 2030. The 

State has also established a goal of doubling transit ridership by 2020 from the 2006 levels. 

These and other strategies for reducing GHG emissions at the state level are described in 

Maryland’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act Plan.

7

 

METHODOLOGY 

Currently, there are no standards or regulations applicable to GHG emission levels or impacts 

from actions subject to environmental review. Accordingly, the potential effects of the Proposed 

Project are evaluated in the context of their consistency with the objectives stated in federal and 

state policies. Potential GHG emissions and emission savings from the Proposed Project are 

qualitatively assessed, and the feasibility and practicability of various measures available for 

reducing GHG emissions are discussed. This level of analysis is commensurate with the level of 

NEPA analysis per the CEQ guidance.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVES 

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and Maryland Area Regional Commuter 

(MARC) enable travel by a mode that is more energy efficient and emits less GHG per 

passenger-mile, and usually per net-trip, than travel by car alone. The U.S. Department of 

Energy (USDOE) has reported that intercity (Amtrak) rail travel (in terms of energy used per 

passenger-mile) is 33 percent more efficient than travel by car.

8

 Amtrak has made efforts to 

reduce CO2 emissions from its diesel locomotive fleet and has made additional voluntary 

commitments and efforts to reduce and report emissions, through the Carbon Disclosure Project 

(CDP) and The Climate Registry (TCR).9

 Based on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

ridership and energy data,10 travel via MARC is 9 percent more efficient than by car (in terms of 

energy used per passenger-mile). MARC is planning for growth in ridership and support of 

transit oriented development (TOD).11 There are several factors indicating that this efficiency 

will increase and associated GHG emission from these passenger rail modes will continue to 

decrease in the future. Passenger rail projects that may result in increased ridership, such as NEC 

FUTURE, will result in higher efficiency per passenger mile because they will result in higher 

ridership per car and/or locomotive. GHG emissions will also decrease in the future as the 

generation of electric power (used by Amtrak trains) becomes more efficient and increasingly 

relies on renewable energy. 

Rail is also an efficient way to move freight. While there is a large variability in efficiency based 

on route, equipment, and other characteristics of freight movement via truck and rail, rail is 

generally much more efficient. For example, a study of a wide variety of competitive freight 

 

7

 Maryland Department of the Environment. Maryland’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act Plan Update. 

October, 2015. 

8

 Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Transportation Energy Data Book. Ed. 34. August 2015. 

9

 Amtrak. How Amtrak Commits to Sustainability. The Official Blog of Amtrak. January 22, 2014. 

10 FTA. National Transit Database (NTD) 2014 Data Tables. Tables 17 and 19. 

http://www.ntdprogram.gov, accessed 3/10/2016. 11 MTA Maryland. MARC Growth and Investment Plan. September 2007. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 13-4 

routes that analyzed 23 routes found rail to be more fuel efficient in all cases, by a factor ranging 

from 1.9 to 5.5.12 

Freight rail operators are also seeking to further improve energy efficiency in their operations. 

Norfolk Southern (NS) has reported that over five years, from 2010 through 2014, the company 

reduced its GHG emissions by 8.5 percent per revenue ton-mile of freight; this is the result of 

several factors, including but not limited to a 2.2 percent increase in locomotive operational 

efficiency, various idle-emissions reduction measures, and efficiency improvements at 

facilities.13 In 2009, NS also introduced a prototype battery-operated switcher locomotive, the 

NS 999, and has continued to refine it. NS continues to investigate cleaner fuel options and 

additional energy efficiency measures, with the intent of continuing this trend and setting a new 

longer-term emission reduction goal. In 2015, NS scored 99 for carbon disclosure in the Climate 

Disclosure Project’s Leadership Index and ranked in the top 10 percent of S&P 500 companies 

that participated in the voluntary survey.14

Therefore, the shift of passengers and freight from on-road modes to rail, enabled by the 

Proposed Project and components of NEC FUTURE, would result in a net reduction in 

operational energy use and ensuing GHG emissions. 

GHG emissions associated with construction of the Proposed Project would result from direct 

sources, such as on-road and non-road vehicles, and other engines. GHG emissions would also 

result from indirect sources, including the energy and emissions associated with producing and 

transporting materials used in construction, especially energy intensive and carbon intensive 

materials, such as cement and steel. 

ELEMENTS THAT WOULD REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS 

As a routine part of designing railway projects, energy efficiency is a primary concern. Track 

grade and curvature—the main design elements affecting energy consumption15—are scrutinized 

to the extent practicable within the constraints of a rail project (such as land use and acquisition, 

connection to existing track). This would be the case for the Proposed Project design. 

Regarding construction, the Proposed Project would use cement replacements, such as slag, flyash, silica fume, and calcined clay to the extent practicable. While the vast majority of structural 

steel and rebar available are from recycled sources, the Proposed Project would nonetheless set a 

minimum target of 25 percent of recycled steel to be used and tracked as part of the contract 

requirements.

Overall, the Proposed Project would result in long-term reductions in GHG emissions from 

freight transport due to the efficient nature of rail versus on-road modes, as described above. In 

general, system-wide, including energy and emissions embedded in construction of roadway and 

railway infrastructure, there is a net energy and GHG benefit of rail systems versus on-road 

 

12 Federal Railroad Administration. Comparative Evaluation of Rail and Truck Fuel Efficiency on 

Competitive Corridors. November 19, 2009. 

13 Norfolk Southern. Norfolk Southern 2015 Sustainability Report. 2015. 14 CDP. https://www.cdp.net, accessed 3/11/16. 

15 Increased grade requires more power to overcome gravity, and the power conserved in the downhill 

direction does not fully compensate for the increase in the uphill direction. Added curvature requires 

more power to overcome friction. 
Chapter 13: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change 

 13-5 

systems.16,17 The Proposed Project would be consistent with state, regional, and federal policies 

for GHG emissions reduction. 

C. CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE 

DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY TO IMPROVE CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE 

In recognition of the important role that the federal government has to play to address adaptation 

to climate change, a federal executive order signed October 5, 2009 charged the Interagency 

Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, composed of representative from more than 20 federal 

agencies, with recommending policies and practices that can reinforce a national climate change 

adaptation strategy. The 2011 progress report by the Task Force included recommendations to 

build resilience to climate change in communities by integrating adaptation considerations into 

national programs that affect communities, facilitating the incorporation of climate change risks 

into insurance mechanisms, and addressing additional cross-cutting issues, such as strengthening 

resilience of coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes communities.18 In February 2013, federal agencies 

released Climate Change Adaptation Plans for the first time. The President’s Climate Action Plan19

outlines a plan for resiliency that includes building stronger and safer infrastructure through agency 

support in investment, developing standards, and other measures, and was followed by an executive 

order20 directing agencies to implement the plan. In January 2015, a Presidential executive order 

was issued21 requiring that federal actions use natural systems and approaches where possible when 

developing adaptation alternatives for consideration. The executive order also redefined the 

floodplain elevation as either: 

 Future projected levels; 

 The level that results from adding 2 feet (or 3 feet for critical actions) to the current base 

flood elevation; 

 The “500-year” elevation (elevation of the flood with 0.2 percent probability in any given 

year); or 

 The level obtained via other methods yet to be developed. 

USDOT is currently working with State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to develop approaches to conduct climate change 

vulnerability and risk assessments of transportation infrastructure. 

 

16 Nahlik et al. Journal of Industrial Ecology. Goods Movement Life Cycle Assessment for Greenhouse 

Gas Reduction Goals. May 2015. 

17 Horvath, A. Int J Life Cycle Assessment. 11: 229. doi:10.1065/lca2006.02.244 February 2006. 

18 The White House Council on Environmental Quality. Progress Report of the Interagency Climate 

Change Adaptation Task Force: Federal Actions for a Climate Resilient Nation. October, 2011. 

19 Executive Office of the President. The President’s Climate Action Plan. June 2013. 

20 The White House. Executive Order—Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change. 

November 1, 2013. 21 The White House. Executive Order [13690]—Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard 

and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input. January 30, 2015. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 13-6 

PROJECTED CHANGES IN CLIMATE IN THE STUDY AREA 

Due to its low-lying topography and proximity to the mid-Atlantic coast, the State of Maryland 

is one of the most vulnerable states in the country to sea level rise. Tide gauge measurements 

show that Maryland has experienced approximately one-foot of sea level rise over the last 

century and impacts, such as increased coastal flooding, inundation of low-lying lands, more 

shoreline erosion, and salt-water intrusion, have been detected.

22 The Scientific and Technical 

Working Group to the Maryland Climate Change Commission23 recommended that while it may 

be acceptable to use the “Best” projection of sea-level rise of 3.7 feet (end of century) for 

planning facilities or public infrastructure that would have a relatively short useful life (not 

extending beyond this century) or which could tolerate very occasional inundation, the “High” 

estimate of 5.7 feet may be more appropriate for investment in infrastructure or facilities with 

longer expected lifetimes or where there is a very low acceptance of any flooding risk. The 

Working Group also recommended that planners and engineers take into consideration 

anticipated changes in storm surge heights and tidal flood levels as a result of future sea-level 

rise. 

Other changes potentially relevant to the Proposed Project would include temperature, wind, and 

precipitation. The Working Group found that 

 Average temperature is projected to increase by approximately 3 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) by 

mid-century; the amount of warming later in the century is dependent on the mitigation of 

GHG emissions, with summer temperatures projected to increase by as much 9°F, and heat 

waves extending throughout most summers. 

 Projections of precipitation are much less certain than those for temperature, but modest 

increases are more likely in the winter and spring. Because of more intermittent rainfall and 

increased evaporation with warmer temperatures, droughts lasting several weeks are 

projected to be more likely during the summer. 

The Working Group did not provide specific projections for Maryland regarding wind. However, 

based on general projections for the region, it is possible that there would be an increase in the 

frequency and/or severity of severe storms, including high wind gust events. 

RESILIENCE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO CLIMATE CHANGE 

Given the scope and anticipated 100-year lifespan of the proposed replacement bridges, and 

based on the above federal guidance, the most appropriate design flood elevation (DFE) for the 

Proposed Project would be the best available estimates for future end-of-century flood 

elevations—in the range of 3.7 to 5.7 feet above the current “100-year flood” elevation (the 

flood elevation with a probability of one percent of occurrence in any given year). Based on the 

current data from FEMA, the future 100-year flood elevation would range up to 13 feet 

NAVD88 over water in the center of the bridge, 11 feet NAVD88 on land in Havre de Grace, 

and 10 feet NAVD88 on land in Perryville. 

 

22 State of Maryland, Climate Change and Coast Smart Construction Infrastructure Siting and Design 

Guidelines, January 2014. 

23 Boesch, et al. Updating Maryland’s Sea-level Rise Projections. Special Report of the Scientific and 

Technical Working Group to the Maryland Climate Change Commission. University of Maryland 

Center for Environmental Science, Cambridge, MD, June 26, 2013.
Chapter 13: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change 

 13-7 

The bridge itself would be designed to provide a 60-foot vertical clearance above MHW to 

reasonably meet current and future demand of the navigation traffic, and would, therefore, be 

well above the future potential flooding levels described above. This clearance would be reduced 

over time by sea level rise, estimated to be between 3.7 feet and 5.7 feet by the end of the 

century. The current moveable swing span provides a 52-foot vertical clearance above MHW in 

the closed position and a 127-foot vertical clearance in the open position, limited by overhead 

electric transmission lines. Based on a detailed navigation study,24 the existing navigation 

channel addresses the needs of most mariners without requiring an opening, with only 3 to 11 

openings per year since 2007. The proposed increase in vertical clearance, from 52 feet to 60 

feet, may provide additional clearance for some vessels, which may be reduced in the future as 

the sea level rises. However, these few vessels do currently pass under the existing bridge at low 

tide, and could continue to do so in the future with the additional 8 feet of elevation. Overall, 

while there may be a small degradation in the benefit of additional clearance provided by the 

new bridge, the penalty for additional elevation beyond that considered for the Proposed Project 

would be substantial energy demand for freight moving across the bridge, and the need for 

additional property acquisition to design the approaches to a higher bridge. 

The bridge approaches, landings, and track elevations modified or constructed by the Proposed 

Project would all be well above the above-mentioned flood elevations and, therefore, no special 

design considerations are necessary. 

In addition to flooding, railways are potentially vulnerable to high temperatures and wind gusts. 

The Proposed Project would include auto-tensioned catenary designed to ensure that overhead 

electrical contact systems do not sag during heatwaves. Track design generally accounts for 

track buckling via design criteria—for the bridges criteria for structural steel temperature 

addresses a range of zero to 120°F. This generally prevents buckling even at rail temperatures of 

up to 150°F.25 The bridge design will also accommodate changes in length of spans due to 

thermal movement. In general, track buckling occurs predominately on continuously welded 

track, though it also can occur on older jointed track when the ends of the track become frozen in 

place.26 Track buckling is most prevalent on an isolated hot day in the springtime or early 

summer, rather than mid- to late summer when temperatures are more uniformly hot. Buckling 

also is more likely to occur in alternating sun/shade regions and in curves. Since the track is 

more stable when the rail is in tension at temperatures below the neutral temperature, the target 

neutral temperature is generally 75 percent of the expected maximum temperature of the region. 

An increase in temperature may slightly raise the neutral temperature used for installation but be 

unlikely to necessitate track design changes.25 

Since there is currently no reliable indication that wind climate will substantially change, the 

bridge and catenary will be designed to resist wind based on the latest wind load design criteria.

Overall, the Proposed Project would be designed to accommodate any reasonably foreseeable 

potential future changes in climate, and would, therefore, be consistent with state and federal 

policies requiring climate change resiliency. 

 

24 HNTB for Amtrak. Susquehanna River Bridge Project Navigation Study. January 2014. 

25 European Commission. Impacts of Climate Change on Transport: A Focus on Road and Rail Transport 

Infrastructures. Available: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC72217.pdf. 2012. 

26 FHWA. U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.7: Impacts of 

Climate Change and Variability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, Phase 

I. March 2008. 
 14-1 

Chapter 14: Noise and Vibration 

A. INTRODUCTION 

This chapter assesses the potential noise impacts due to operation of the Proposed Project by 

comparing existing noise levels with the projected future noise levels at sensitive receptors near 

the project site. The potential for significant vibration impacts with regard to operation of the 

Proposed Project is also assessed. 

The analysis was conducted according to methodology set forth in a guidance manual prepared 

by the Federal Transportation Authority (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 

FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006 as well as a manual prepared by the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact 

Assessment, DOT/FRA/ORD-12/15, October 2005. The FTA guidance manual is used for 

analysis of “conventional” rail activity (i.e., at speeds less than 125 mph), and the FRA guidance 

manual is used for “high speed” rail activity (i.e., at speeds of 125 mph or greater). The guidance 

documents set forth methodologies for analyzing noise and vibration from commuter and 

intercity rail operations and as such are the standard methodology for assessing potential impacts 

of new rail bridges and transit systems. This chapter briefly describes the methodology used and 

results of the analysis conducted. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” this Environmental Assessment (EA) 

evaluates two Build Alternatives: Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B. Alternative 9A was 

selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

B. NOISE FUNDAMENTALS, STANDARDS, AND IMPACT CRITERIA 

AIRBORNE NOISE FUNDAMENTALS 

Sound pressure levels are measured in units called “decibels” (dB). The particular character of 

the noise that we hear is determined by the rate, or “frequency,” at which the air pressure 

fluctuates, or “oscillates.” Frequency defines the oscillation of sound pressure in terms of cycles 

per second. One cycle per second is known as 1 Hertz (Hz). People can hear over a relatively 

limited range of sound frequencies, generally between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz, and the human ear 

does not perceive all frequencies equally well. High frequencies are more easily discerned and 

therefore more intrusive than many of the lower frequencies1

. 

“A”-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL (DBA) 

To bring a uniform noise measurement that simulates people’s perception of loudness and 

annoyance, the decibel measurement is weighted to account for those frequencies most audible 

to the human ear. This is known as the A-weighted sound level, or “dBA,” and because of the 

 

1

 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 14-2 

weighting based on human perception, it is the most often used descriptor of noise levels where 

community noise is the issue. As shown in Table 14-1, the threshold of human hearing is 

defined as 0 dBA; very quiet conditions (as in a library, for example) are approximately 40 dBA; 

levels between 50 dBA and 70 dBA define the range of normal daily activity; levels above 70 

dBA are considered noisy, and then loud, intrusive, and deafening as the scale approaches 130 

dBA. For most people to perceive an increase in noise, it must be at least 3 dBA. At 5 dBA, the 

change will be readily noticeable (Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 1973). An increase of 10 dBA is 

generally perceived as a doubling of loudness. 

Table 14-1

Common Noise Levels

Sound Source (dBA)

Military jet, air raid siren 130 

 

Amplified rock music 110 

 

Jet takeoff at 500 meters 100 

Freight train at 30 meters 95 

Train horn at 30 meters 90 

Heavy truck at 15 meters 

Busy city street, loud shout 80 

Busy traffic intersection 

 

Highway traffic at 15 meters, train 70 

 

Predominantly industrial area 60 

Light car traffic at 15 meters, city or commercial areas or residential areas close to 

industry 

 

Background noise in an office 50 

Suburban areas with medium density transportation 

Public library 40 

 

Soft whisper at 5 meters 30 

 

Threshold of hearing 0 

Note: A 10 dBA increase in level appears to double the loudness, and a 10 dBA decrease 

halves the apparent loudness. 

Source: Cowan, James P. Handbook of Environmental Acoustics. Van Nostrand Reinhold, 

New York, 1994. Egan, M. David, Architectural Acoustics. McGraw-Hill Book 

Company, 1988. 

Combinations of different sources are not additive in an arithmetic manner, because of the 

decibel scale’s logarithmic nature. For example, two noise sources—a vacuum cleaner operating 

at approximately 72 dBA and a telephone ringing at approximately 58 dBA—do not combine to 

create a noise level of 130 dBA, the equivalent of a jet airplane or air raid siren. Rather, the noise 

produced by the telephone ringing may be masked by the noise of the vacuum cleaner and not be 

heard, and the logarithmic combination of these two noise sources would be 72.2 dBA. 
Chapter 14: Noise and Vibration 

 14-3 

EFFECTS OF DISTANCE ON NOISE 

Noise varies with distance. For example, highway traffic 50 feet away from a receptor (such as a 

person listening to the noise) typically produces sound levels of approximately 70 dBA. The same 

highway noise measures 66 dBA at a distance of 100 feet, assuming soft ground conditions (such as 

grass). This decrease is known as “drop-off.” The outdoor drop-off rate for line sources, such as 

traffic, is a decrease of approximately 4.5 dBA (for soft ground) for every doubling of distance 

between the noise source and receptor. For hard ground (such as concrete), the outdoor drop-off rate 

is 3 dBA for line sources. Assuming soft ground, for point sources, such as amplified rock music, the 

outdoor drop-off rate is a decrease of approximately 7.5 dBA for every doubling of distance between 

the noise source and receptor (for hard ground the outdoor drop-off rate is 6 dBA for point sources).2

NOISE DESCRIPTORS USED IN IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

The sound-pressure level unit of dBA describes a noise level at just one moment, but since very 

few noises are constant, other ways of describing noise over more extended periods have been 

developed. One way of describing fluctuating sound is to describe the fluctuating noise heard 

over a specific period as if it were a steady, unchanging sound (i.e., as if it were averaged over 

that time period). For this condition, a descriptor called the “equivalent sound level” (Leq) can be 

computed. Leq is the constant sound level that, in a given situation and period (e.g., 1 hour, 

denoted by Leq(1), or 24 hours, denoted as Leq(24)), conveys the same sound energy as the actual 

time-varying sound. 

A descriptor for cumulative 24-hour exposure is the day-night average sound level, abbreviated 

as Ldn. This is a 24-hour measurement that accounts for the moment-to-moment fluctuations in 

A-weighted noise levels due to all sound sources, combined. Mathematically, the Ldn noise level 

is the energy average of all Leq(1) noise levels over a 24-hour period, where nighttime noise levels 

(10 PM to 7 AM) are increased by 10 dBA before averaging because of increased noise 

sensitivity during nighttime when people are typically sleeping. 

Following FTA guidance, either the maximum Leq(1) sound level or the Ldn sound level is used 

for impact assessment, depending on land use category as described below. 

VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS 

Fixed railway operations have the potential to produce high vibration levels, since railway vehicles 

contact a rigid steel rail with steel wheels. Train wheels rolling on the steel rails create vibration 

energy that is transmitted into the track support system. The amount of vibrational energy is strongly 

dependent on such factors as how smooth the wheels and rails are and the vehicle suspension system. 

The vibration of the track structure “excites” the adjacent ground, creating vibration waves that 

propagate through the various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby buildings. As the 

vibration propagates from the foundation through the remaining building structure, certain resonant, 

or natural, frequencies of various components of the building may be excited. 

The effects of ground-borne vibration may include discernable movement of building floors, rattling 

of windows, and shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls. In extreme cases, the vibration can 

cause damage to buildings. The movement of building surfaces and objects within the building can 

also result in a low-frequency rumble noise. The rumble is the noise radiated from the motion of the 

room surfaces, even when the motion itself cannot be felt. This is called ground-borne noise. 

 

2

 FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA-VA-90-1003-06. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 14-4 

All vibration levels in this document are referenced to 1x10-6 inches per second as is 

recommended in the FTA guidance manual for vibration analysis. “VdB” is used for vibration 

decibels to reduce the potential for confusion with noise decibels. 

EFFECT OF PROPAGATION PATH 

Vibrations are transmitted from the source to the ground, and propagate through the ground to 

the receptor. Soil conditions have a strong influence on the levels of ground-borne vibration. 

Stiff soils, such as some clay and rock, can transmit vibrations over substantial distances. Sandy 

soils, wetlands, and groundwater tend to absorb movement and thus reduce vibration 

transmission. Because subsurface conditions vary widely, measurement of actual vibration 

conditions, or transfer mobility, at the site can be the most practical way to address the 

variability of propagation conditions3

. 

HUMAN RESPONSE TO VIBRATION LEVELS 

Although the perceptibility threshold for ground-borne vibration is about 65 VdB, the typical 

threshold of human annoyance is 72 VdB. As a comparison, buses and trucks rarely create 

vibration that exceeds 72 VdB unless there are significant bumps in the road, and these vehicles 

are operating at moderate speeds1

. Vibration levels for typical human and structural responses 

and sources are shown in Table 14-2. 

Table 14-2 

Typical Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration 

Human/Structural Response 

Velocity 

Level (VdB) Typical Sources (at 50 feet) 

Threshold, minor cosmetic damage 

fragile buildings 

100 Blasting from construction projects 

 Bulldozers and other heavy tracked 

construction equipment 

Difficulty with vibration-sensitive 

tasks, such as reading a video screen

90 Locomotive powered freight train 

Residential annoyance, infrequent 

events 

80 Rapid Transit Rail, upper range 

 Commuter Rail, typical range 

Residential annoyance, frequent 

events 

 Bus or Truck over bump 

70 Rapid Transit Rail, typical range 

Limit for vibration-sensitive 

equipment. Approximate threshold 

for human perception of vibration 

 Bus or truck, typical 60 

 Typical background vibration 50 

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact 

Assessment, May 2006.

 

3

 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006. 
Chapter 14: Noise and Vibration 

 14-5 

NOISE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA 

AIRBORNE NOISE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA 

The FTA guidance manual4

 defines noise criteria based on the specific type of land use that 

would be affected, with explicit operational noise impact criteria for three land use categories. 

These impact criteria are based on either peak 1-hour Leq or 24-hour Ldn values. Table 14-3

describes the land use categories defined in the FTA report, and provides noise metrics used for 

determining operational noise impacts. As described in Table 14-3, categories 1 and 3—which 

include land uses that are noise-sensitive, but where people do not sleep—require examination 

using the 1-hour Leq descriptor for the noisiest peak hour. Category 2, which includes residences, 

hospitals, and other locations where nighttime sensitivity to noise is very important, requires 

examination using the 24-hour Ldn descriptor. 

Table 14-3

FTA’s Land Use Category and Metrics for Transit Noise Impact Criteria

Land Use 

Category 

Noise Metric 

(dBA) Description of Land Use Category 

1 Outdoor 

Leq(h)* 

Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in the intended 

purpose. This category includes lands set aside for serenity and 

quiet, and such land uses as outdoor amphitheaters and concert 

pavilions, as well as National Historic Landmarks with significant 

outdoor use. Also included are recording studios and concert halls. 

2 Outdoor Ldn Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category includes homes, hospitals, and hotels, where a nighttime 

sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of utmost importance. 

3 Outdoor 

Leq(h)* 

Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This 

category includes schools, libraries, and churches, where it is important to avoid interference with such activities as speech, 

meditation, and concentration on reading material. Places for study 

or meditation associated with cemeteries, monuments, museums, 

campgrounds and recreational facilities can also be considered to be 

in this category. Certain historical sites and parks are also included.

Note: * Leq for the noisiest hour of transit-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity. 

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, May 2006. 

Figure 14-1 shows FTA’s noise impact criteria for transit projects. The FTA impact criteria are 

keyed to the noise level generated by the project (called “project noise exposure”) in locations of 

varying existing noise levels. Two types of impacts—moderate and severe—are defined for each 

land use category, depending on existing noise levels. Thus, where existing noise levels are 40 

dBA, for land use categories 1 and 2, the respective Leq and Ldn noise exposure from the project 

would create moderate impacts if they were above approximately 50 dBA, and would create 

severe impacts if they were above approximately 55 dBA. For category 3, a project noise 

exposure level above approximately 55 dBA would be considered a moderate impact, and above 

 

4

 The FRA guidance manual includes noise impact evaluation criteria identical to those in the 

FTA guidance manual. 
1.27.16

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project Figure 14-1

FTA Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects

80

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 8075

85

80

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

Project Noise Exposure, Category 1 and 2

Land Uses (dBA)

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

Project Noise Exposure, Category 3

Land Uses (dBA)

Source: Transit Noise and

Vibration Impact Assessment,

FTA-VA-90-1003-06,

May 2006

Note:

Noise exposure is in terms

of Leq(h) for Category

1 and 3 land uses, Ldn for

Category 2 land uses.

Moderate

Impact

Severe Impact

No Impact
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 14-6 

approximately 60 dBA would be considered a severe impact. The difference between “severe 

impact” and “moderate impact” is that a severe impact occurs when a change in noise level 

occurs that a significant percentage of people would find annoying, while a moderate impact 

occurs when a change in noise level occurs that is noticeable to most people but not necessarily 

sufficient to result in strong adverse reactions from the community. 

VIBRATION STANDARDS AND CRITERIA 

With the construction of new rail rapid transit systems in recent years, the acoustical industry has 

gained considerable experience about how communities react to various levels of building 

vibration. This experience, combined with the available national and international standards, 

represents a good foundation for predicting annoyance from ground-borne noise and vibration in 

residential areas (see Table 14-2). 

The FTA criteria for environmental impact from ground-borne vibration and noise are based on 

the maximum levels for a single event. The impact criteria as defined in the FTA guidance 

manual are shown in Table 14-4. The criteria for acceptable ground-borne vibration are 

expressed in terms of root-mean square velocity levels in decibels and the criteria for acceptable 

ground-borne noise are expressed in terms of A-weighted sound level. As shown in the table, the 

FTA methodology provides three different impact criteria—one for “infrequent” events, when 

there are fewer than 30 vibration events per day, one for “occasional” events, when there are 

between 30 and 70 vibration events per day, and one for “frequent” events, when there are more 

than 70 vibration events per day. It should be noted that these impacts occur only if a project 

causes ground-borne noise or vibration levels that are higher than existing vibration levels. Thus, 

if the vibration level for a building in Category 1 is already 70 VdB (5 VdB above the 65 VdB 

threshold listed in Table 14-4) but a hypothetical project will not increase that level, then the 

project will not be considered to have an impact. 

The limits are specified for the three land use categories defined below: 

 Category 1: High Sensitivity—Buildings where low ambient vibration is essential for the 

operations within the building, which may be well below levels associated with human 

annoyance. Typical land uses are vibration-sensitive research and manufacturing, hospitals, 

and university research operations. 

 Category 2: Residential—This category covers all residential land uses and any buildings 

where people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals. No differentiation is made between 

different types of residential areas. This is primarily because ground-borne vibration and 

noise are experienced indoors and building occupants have practically no means to reduce 

their exposure. Even in a noisy urban area, the bedrooms often will be quiet in buildings that 

have effective noise insulation and tightly closed windows. Hence, an occupant of a 

bedroom in a noisy urban area is likely to be just as sensitive to ground-borne noise and 

vibration as someone in a quiet suburban area. 

 Category 3: Institutional—This category includes schools, churches, other institutions, and 

quiet offices that do not have vibration-sensitive equipment, but still have the potential for 

activity interference. 
Chapter 14: Noise and Vibration 

 14-7 

Table 14-4

Ground-Borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impact Criteria for 

General Assessment

Land Use Category 

GBV Impact Levels 

(VdB re 1 micro-inch/sec) 

GBN Impact Levels 

(dB re 20 micro Pascals) 

Frequent 

Events1

Occasional 

Events2

Infrequent 

Events3

Frequent 

Events1

Occasional 

Events2

Infrequent 

Events3

Category 1: Buildings 

where vibration would 

interfere with interior 

operations 

65 VdB4 65 VdB4 65 VdB4 N/A4 N/A4 N/A4

Category 2: Residences 

and buildings where 

people normally sleep 

72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 38 dBA 43 dBA 

Category 3: Institutional 

land uses with primarily 

daytime use 

75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 43 dBA 48 dBA 

Notes: 

1. “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. 

Most rapid transit projects fall into this category. 

2. “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per 

day. Most commuter trunk lines have this many operations. 

3. “Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. 

This category includes most commuter rail systems. 

4. This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive 

equipment such as optical microscopes. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research will 

require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration 

levels in a building often requires special design of the HVAC systems and stiffened floors. 

5. Vibration-sensitive equipment is not sensitive to ground-borne noise. 

There are some buildings, such as concert halls, TV and recording studios, auditoriums, and 

theaters that can be very sensitive to vibration and ground-borne noise, but do not fit into any of 

these three categories. Special vibration level thresholds are defined for these land uses. 

In addition, FTA has established vibration criteria for fragile buildings (94 VdB, 0.2 in/sec) and 

very fragile buildings (90 VdB, 0.12 in/sec). The operational activities associated with the 

project will not reach these levels and therefore, these criteria are only evaluated in the 

construction impacts assessment (see Chapter 19, “Construction Effects”). 

C. METHODOLOGY 

AIRBORNE NOISE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 

The analysis of airborne noise was conducted according to methodology set forth in the FTA’s 

Transit Noise and Vibration Impact guidance manual and the FRA’s High-Speed Ground 

Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual. Following the 

methodologies set forth in these documents, airborne noise impacts are analyzed using a three-
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 14-8 

step process that consists of a screening procedure, a general noise assessment, and potentially a 

detailed noise analysis. The screening procedure is performed first to determine whether any 

noise-sensitive receptors are within distances where impacts are likely to occur. If the screening 

reveals that there are noise-sensitive receptors in locations where impacts are likely to occur, 

then a general noise assessment is performed to determine locations where noise impacts could 

occur. If this general assessment indicates that a potential for noise impact does exist, then a 

detailed noise analysis may be necessary. The detailed analysis methodology is used to predict 

impacts and evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation with greater precision than can be achieved 

with the general noise assessment. The methodology and results of the noise analysis screening 

procedure are presented below. 

ANALYSIS PROCEDURE 

The Project Team employed the following procedures for the noise analysis: 

 Identified noise-sensitive land uses (i.e., residential, church, certain parks, etc.) within the 

screening distance from the rail corridor; 

 Selected representative noise receptor sites to represent those noise-sensitive land uses 

identified within the screening distance. The selected noise receptor sites provide geographic 

coverage of the study area and represent those locations with the greatest potential to 

experience a significant increase in noise levels associated with the Proposed Project; 

 Determined existing noise levels at the aforementioned receptor sites by performing field 

measurements and using acoustical fundamentals. For sites at which direct access to conduct 

noise level measurements was not available, measurements occurred at a nearby location 

with a comparable level of non-rail noise; 

 Calculated existing rail noise levels at each receptor site using a combination of the FTA’s 

Chicago Rail Efficiency and Transportation Efficiency (CREATE) model for rail activity at 

speeds less than 125 mph and the FRA’s High Speed Rail (HSR) model for rail activity at 

speeds at or above 125 mph as well as data associated with the existing conditions on the 

railway; 

 Subtracted the calculated existing rail noise levels for each receptor site from measured 

existing noise levels to determine the non-rail component of the noise level (e.g., noise from 

vehicular traffic, aircraft, parking lots, etc.) at each site; 

 Calculated future rail noise levels for each Build Alternative according to the CREATE and 

HSR models; 

 Determined future noise levels for each Build Alternative at each receptor site as the sum of 

calculated rail noise level and the calculated non-rail noise level; 

 Used the future noise levels for each Build Alternative to determine the project noise 

exposure at each receptor site; and 

 Compared the project noise exposure for each analysis alternative to the FTA criteria to 

identify potential impacts. 

STEP 1: NOISE SCREENING 

The FTA methodology begins with a noise screening to determine whether any noise-sensitive 

receptors are within a distance where an impact is likely to occur. According to the FTA 

screening methodology, potential impacts may occur if noise receptors are within 750 feet of the 
Chapter 14: Noise and Vibration 

 14-9 

centerline of a commuter rail mainline if the pathway between the track and the receptor is 

unobstructed, or 375 feet from the track centerline if the pathway is obstructed (since 

obstructions block some noise and therefore reduce the distance the noise will travel). Based on 

a review of current aerial photography, site visits, and land use maps, the Project Team 

determined that noise-sensitive receptors are located within the screening distances of the 

Proposed Project site. 

STEP 2: GENERAL NOISE ASSESSMENT 

Since sensitive receptors are present within the screening distance, a general noise assessment 

was conducted to examine the effect of the Proposed Project (including the replacement bridge 

as well as changes in train volume and speed) on noise levels. The assessment used the 

procedures contained in the FTA guidance manual and the calculation method contained in the 

FRA guidance manual for “high speed” rail activity. According to FTA’s guidance document, 

the potential for noise impacts at sensitive land use locations will occur if the project-generated 

noise levels, or “noise exposure,” exceed the levels shown in Figure 14-1. 

The general noise assessment methodology consists of determining the project noise exposure at 

50 feet from the centerline of track, adjusting the noise level based on the actual distance from 

the rail right-of-way (ROW) and the receptor, and comparing the calculated levels with the 

criteria based on land use categories. In order to perform the general noise assessment, FTA’s 

CREATE railroad noise model and FRA’s HSR noise model were used to determine the rail 

component of the total noise level at a receptor location. Both models calculate hourlyequivalent (Leq) or day-night (Ldn) noise levels taking into account the type of trains and types of 

locomotives (freight vs. passenger, diesel vs. electric), the number of locomotives on each train 

and length of train, the number of trains per day, the speed of the trains, characteristics of the 

track, and the time of day. The calculations predict the noise levels from the proposed increased 

train volume, the new rail alignments, and the expected increase in train speeds. 

The (total) noise level at a receptor location near the project site is the sum of the noise 

generated by rail operations and non-rail sources. As described below non-rail noise levels at 

receptor sites were calculated based upon field measurements of existing noise levels. 

VIBRATION AND GROUND-BORNE NOISE METHODOLOGY 

STEP 1: VIBRATION SCREENING 

The FTA methodology begins with a vibration screening to determine whether any vibrationsensitive receptors are within a distance where an impact is likely to occur. According to the 

FTA screening methodology, potential impacts may occur if high-sensitivity vibration receptors 

are within 600 feet of the centerline of a commuter rail mainline, or if residential receptors are 

within 200 feet from the track centerline. Based on a review of current aerial photography, site 

visits, and land use maps, the Project Team determined that residences are located within the 

screening distance of the Proposed Project as shown in Figure 4-1. 

STEP 2: GENERAL NOISE ASSESSMENT 

As mentioned above, there are sensitive receptors within the screening distances from the 

Proposed Project area, so the general assessment methodology was used to evaluate vibration 

associated with the Proposed Project. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 14-10 

The Project Team used the following procedures for the general vibration assessment: 

 Identified vibration-sensitive land uses (i.e., residential, school, etc.) within the screening 

distance from the rail corridor; 

 Selected a representative worst-case vibration receptor site to represent vibration-sensitive 

land uses identified within the screening distance. The selected receptor site represents the 

location with the greatest potential to experience a significant increase in vibration 

associated with the Proposed Project; 

 Calculated future rail vibration levels for each Build Alternative according to the FTA 

general vibration assessment guidance; and 

 Compared the predicted vibration levels for each Build Alternative to the FTA criteria to 

identify potential impacts. 

D. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

AIRBORNE NOISE 

SELECTION OF NOISE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS 

In order to assess potential project impacts, 12 representative noise receptor sites were selected 

to represent all noise receptor sites within the screening distance. Noise analysis results at each 

of the representative receptor sites were applied to other receptors nearby and with comparable 

distance from the rail ROW. The Project Team used information on land use and proximity to 

existing railway to identify those locations that would be particularly sensitive to noise increases 

(e.g., residences, places of worship, parkland, etc.) or that would be likely to experience the 

greatest increases in noise from the project to select representative receptor sites. At each of the 

representative receptor sites, the Project Team performed noise measurements to establish 

existing conditions. 

A combination of 24-hour continuous noise level measurements and 1-hour spot noise 

measurements were conducted at the selected receptor sites. Due to site access and security 

concerns, it was not possible to conduct 24-hour measurements at all of the selected 

representative noise receptor sites. Because the dominant noise source in the study area is the 

existing rail activity, the 24-hour temporal distribution of the noise levels is consistent at each 

site, following the pattern of rail activity over the course of the day. Consequently, at locations 

where the Project Team conducted 1-hour spot noise level measurements, the Project Team 

developed 24-hour noise levels by prorating the 1-hour noise level based on the 24-hour 

distribution of noise levels at the nearest 24-hour noise measurement location. 

The locations of the noise receptor sites considered in this analysis and their land use categories 

are shown in Table 14-5 and on Figure 14-2. 

Perryville 

Of the six noise representative receptor sites selected in Perryville, the Project Team conducted a 

24-hour continuous noise level measurement at one location and 1-hour spot noise level 
!! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

Havre de Grace

Perryville

132

155

222

7

£¤40

7

£¤40

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1 0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Susquehanna River

Rail Bridge Project

Data Sources

Figure 14.2

Noise Receptor Locations

Legend

1,000 ft Study Area

! 1-hour spot noise measurement location

! 24-hour continuous noise measurement location

Aerial Image Source:

Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,

CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,

Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Chapter 14: Noise and Vibration 

 14-11 

measurements at the other five locations.5

 Due to site access and security concerns, it was not 

possible to conduct 24-hour measurements at all of the selected representative noise receptor 

sites. Because the dominant noise source in the study area is the existing rail activity, the 24-

hour temporal distribution of the noise levels is consistent at each site, following the pattern of 

rail activity over the course of the day. Consequently, the Project Team applied the temporal 

distribution of noise levels in the area as measured at the 24-hour measurement location to each 

of the other measurement locations to determine hourly noise levels over a 24-hour period. The 

locations are described below. 

 Site 1 is in the Perryville MARC Station overflow parking area at southeast corner of Broad 

Street and Susquehanna Avenue. A 1-hour spot measurement was conducted at this 

intersection to represent existing noise levels at the residences immediately adjacent to the 

railways in Perryville. 

 Site 2 is at the corner of Elm Street and Susquehanna Avenue. The Project Team conducted 

a 1-hour spot measurement at this intersection to represent existing noise levels at the 

residences in the area bounded by Broad Street, Roundhouse Drive, Locust Street, and 

Evans Street. 

 Site 3 is on River Road north of Broad Street. The Project Team conducted a 1-hour spot 

measurement at this location to represent existing noise levels at the residences along the 

east bank of the Susquehanna River, including the park and piers located immediately north 

of the Susquehanna Bridge. 

 Site 4 is at the south end of South Woodland Farms Lane. The Project Team conducted a 1-

hour spot measurement at this location to represent existing noise levels at the residence on 

South Woodland Farms Lane. 

 Site 5 is at the corner of Avenue D and 1st Street. The Project Team conducted a 24-hour 

continuous measurement at this intersection to represent existing noise levels at residences 

and other noise receptors in Perryville south of the railway. 

 Site 6 is on Ellis Court south of Broad Street. The Project Team conducted a 1-hour spot 

measurement at this location to represent existing noise levels at the residences in the area 

north of the railway between Aiken Avenue and Coudon Boulevard.

Havre de Grace 

Of the six representative receptor sites for noise selected in Havre de Grace, the Project Team 

conducted a 24-hour continuous noise level measurement at one location and 1-hour spot noise 

level measurements at the other five locations. The 24-hour measurement showed the temporal 

distribution of noise levels in the area, which was applied to each of the other measurement 

locations to determine hourly noise levels over a 24-hour period. The locations are described 

below. 

 

5

 The Project Team conducted measurements on Wednesday, April 2, and Thursday, April 3, 

2014 using Brüel & Kjær Noise Level Meters Type 2260 and 2250, Brüel & Kjær Sound Level 

Calibrators Type 4231, and Brüel & Kjær 1⁄2-inch microphones Type 4189. The measuring 

instruments were mounted at a height of approximately five feet above the ground on a tripod. 

The Project Team calibrated the meters before and after readings using Brüel & Kjær Type 4231 

sound-level calibrators using the appropriate adaptors. All measurement procedures conformed to 

the requirements of ANSI Standard S1.13-2005. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 14-12 

 Site 7 is in the parking lot at the intersection of Freedom Lane and Franklin Street. The 

Project Team conducted a 1-hour spot measurement at this intersection to represent existing 

noise levels at the residences in the area south of the railway between South Juniata Street 

and St. John Street. 

 Site 8 is in David Craig Park. The Project Team conducted a 1-hour spot measurement at 

this location to represent existing noise levels at David Craig Park and Jean S. Roberts 

Memorial Park. 

 Site 9 is at the intersection of North Stokes Street and Otsego Street. The Project Team 

conducted a 1-hour spot measurement at this intersection to represent existing noise levels at 

the residences in the area bounded by the railway, Linden Lane, Water Street, and North 

Juniata Street. 

 Site 10 is at the end of the Anderson Avenue cul-de-sac. The Project Team conducted a 1-

hour spot measurement at this location to represent existing noise levels at the residences in 

the area south of the railway and west of Lewis Lane. 

 Site 11 is in the parking area south of Warren Street at Legion Drive. The Project Team 

conducted a 24-hour continuous measurement at this intersection to represent existing noise 

levels at residences north of the railway and west of North Juniata Street. 

 Site 12 is on Williams Drive east of Oakington Road. The Project Team conducted a 1-hour 

spot measurement at this location to represent existing noise levels at the residences along 

Williams Drive. 

Table 14-5

Noise Receptor Sites

Site Location 

Noise Land Use 

Category 

Duration of Existing 

Conditions Noise 

Level Measurement 

1 Broad Street at Susquehanna Avenue, 

Perryville 2 1 hour 

2 Elm Street at Susquehanna Avenue, 

Perryville 2 1 hour 

3 River Road North of Broad Street, 

Perryville 2 1 hour 

4 Woodlands Farm Road South, Perryville 2 1 hour 

5 Avenue D at 1st Street, Perryville 2 24 hours 

6 Ellis Court South of Broad Street, 

Perryville 2 1 hour 

7 Freedom Lane at Franklin Street, HdG 2 1 hour 

8 David Craig Park, HdG 3 1 hour 

9 North Stokes Street at Otsego Street, HdG 2 1 hour 

10 Anderson Avenue Cul-de-Sac, HdG 2 1 hour 

11 Warren Street at Legion Drive, HdG 2 24 hours 

12 Williams Drive East of Oakington Road, 

HdG 2 1 hour 

Notes: For definition of land use categories, see Appendix F, “Air Quality, Noise, and 

Vibration.” 
Chapter 14: Noise and Vibration 

 14-13 

MEASURED NOISE LEVELS 

Table 14-6 shows measured existing noise levels at each noise survey location. The Ldn values 

shown are the calculated values. Data from the measurement program, as well as details of the 

calculations of the Ldn value, are contained in Appendix F, “Air Quality, Noise, and Vibration.” 

Noise levels at each location are a function of traffic on the adjacent roadways as well as 

passenger and freight rail activity. In general, the noise monitoring results reflect the level of 

traffic on the roadway and railway near and adjacent to the noise receptor locations. Based on 

FTA and FRA noise impact criteria, when existing noise levels are high, the allowable increase 

in cumulative noise level with the Proposed Project versus the existing noise level must be 

relatively small to avoid a potential moderate impact or severe impact. 

Table 14-6

Existing Noise Levels (in dBA)

Site Location 

FTA Land 

Use Category

Noise 

Descriptor 

Noise Level 

(dBA) 

1 Broad Street at Susquehanna Avenue, 

Perryville 2 Ldn 67.4 

2 Elm Street at Susquehanna Avenue, 

Perryville 2 Ldn 60.5 

3 River Road North of Broad Street, Perryville 2 Ldn 67.8 

4 Woodlands Farm Road South, Perryville 2 Ldn 57.8 

5 Avenue D at 1st Street, Perryville 2 Ldn 65.0 

6 Ellis Court South of Broad Street, Perryville 2 Ldn 66.8 

7 Freedom Lane at Franklin Street, HdG 2 Ldn 52.6 

8 David Craig Park, HdG 3 Peak Hour Leq(1h) 63.5 

9 North Stokes Street at Otsego Street, HdG 2 Ldn 68.8 

10 Anderson Avenue Cul-de-Sac, HdG 2 Ldn 53.8 

11 Warren Street at Legion Drive, HdG 2 Ldn 62.4 

12 Williams Drive East of Oakington Road, 

HdG 2 Ldn 59.0 

Notes: Field measurements were performed by AKRF, Inc. on April 2 and 3, 2014. 

VIBRATION AND GROUND-BORNE NOISE 

The analysis of vibration and ground-borne noise does not involve an assessment of existing 

vibration and ground-borne noise levels per FTA and FRA guidance. 

E. POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

AIRBORNE NOISE 

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The No Action Alternative assumes the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge will remain in service 

as-is. However, increases in train service (including Northeast Regional and Long Distance, 

Intercity Express, MARC Commuter, and freight) are expected to occur even without the 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 14-14 

replacement of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge. This will result in noise level increases at all 

of the analyzed receptors. Table 14-7 shows the noise levels and incremental change in noise 

levels for the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative noise levels shown in Table 

14-7 are the sum of the rail noise component (calculated using the CREATE and HSR models) 

and the non-rail noise component (which is assumed to be the same level calculated for existing 

conditions). The No Action noise exposure is the level of noise produced by the No Action 

Alternative, and is compared to the impact criteria to determine whether this alternative could 

potentially result in a noise impact. 

As shown in Table 14-7, noise levels with the No Action Alternative would be somewhat higher 

than the existing condition as a result of the increase in train volume, but the increases would be 

imperceptible, and the noise exposure would be considered neither a moderate nor a severe 

impact at any analyzed receptor according to FTA and FRA noise impact criteria. 

Table 14-7

No Action Alternative Noise Levels (in dBA)

Site 

FTA 

Land Use 

Category 

Existing 

Noise 

Level 

Moderate 

Impact 

Threshold1

Severe 

Impact 

Threshold1

No Action 

Noise 

Exposure

Total 

No 

Action 

Noise 

Level 

No Action 

Noise Level 

Increment Impact2

?

1 2 67.4 62.5 67.7 51.6 67.5 0.1 No 

2 2 60.5 58.1 63.7 44.0 60.6 0.1 No 

3 2 67.8 62.7 68.0 54.4 68.0 0.2 No 

4 2 57.8 56.6 62.3 54.3 59.4 1.6 No 

5 2 65.0 60.8 66.2 47.1 65.1 0.1 No 

6 2 66.8 62.0 67.3 57.4 67.3 0.5 No 

7 2 52.6 54.3 60.3 42.2 53.0 0.4 No 

8 3 63.5 64.9 70.3 58.4 64.7 1.2 No 

9 2 68.8 63.5 68.7 53.7 68.9 0.1 No 

10 2 53.8 54.8 60.7 51.2 55.7 1.9 No 

11 2 62.4 59.2 64.7 50.1 62.6 0.2 No 

12 2 59.0 57.2 62.9 52.2 59.8 0.8 No 

Notes:

1. Impact criteria are based on the existing noise level, as shown in Figure 14-1. 2. The noise exposure for the alternative is compared to the moderate impact and severe impact 

thresholds to determine whether a moderate impact and/or sever impact are predicted to 

occur; severe impacts are considered significant adverse impacts and moderate impacts may 

or may not be considered significant adverse impacts depending on site-specific context. 

ALTERNATIVE 9A 

Alternative 9A would construct a new two-track 90 mph bridge to the west of the existing bridge 

and a second new two-track 160 mph bridge on the existing bridge alignment. With this 

alternative, the volume and speed of train service (including Northeast Regional and Long 

Distance, Intercity Express, MARC Commuter, and freight) would increase within the study area 

compared with the existing condition or the No Action Alternative. As discussed in Chapter 3, 
Chapter 14: Noise and Vibration 

 14-15 

“Transportation,” the intercity rail analysis assumes implementation of NEC FUTURE in the 

2040 Build condition6

. Table 14-8 shows the noise levels and incremental change in noise levels 

for Alternative 9A. Noise levels shown for Alternative 9A in Table 14-8 are the sum of the rail 

noise component (calculated using the CREATE and HSR models) and the non-rail noise 

component (which is assumed to be the same level calculated for existing conditions). The 

Alternative 9A noise exposure is the level of noise produced by Alternative 9A, and is compared 

with the impact criteria to determine whether this alternative could potentially result in a noise 

impact. It is important to note that the analysis is based on rail traffic volumes that would not 

result solely from the Proposed Project, but represent the sum of proposed enhancements all 

along the NEC which enable the service levels assumed by NEC FUTURE.7

Table 14-8

Alternative 9A Noise Levels (in dBA)

Site 

FTA 

Land 

Use 

Category 

Existing 

Noise 

Level 

Moderate 

Impact 

Threshold1

Severe 

Impact 

Threshold1

Alternative 

9A Noise 

Exposure

Total 

Alternative 

9A Noise 

Level 

Alternative 

9A Noise 

Level 

Increment Impact2?

1 2 67.4 62.5 67.7 60.2 68.2 0.8 No 

2 2 60.5 58.1 63.7 50.6 60.9 0.4 No 

3 2 67.8 62.7 68.0 63.1 69.1 1.3 Moderate

4 2 57.8 56.6 62.3 61.2 62.9 5.1 Moderate

5 2 65.0 60.8 66.2 55.3 65.4 0.4 No 

6 2 66.8 62.0 67.3 63.1 68.4 1.6 Moderate

7 2 52.6 54.3 60.3 49.5 54.3 1.7 No 

8 3 63.5 64.9 70.3 68.9 70.0 6.5 Moderate

9 2 68.8 63.5 68.7 61.6 69.5 0.7 No 

10 2 53.8 54.8 60.7 58.5 59.8 6.0 Moderate

11 2 62.4 59.2 64.7 57.2 63.5 1.1 No 

12 2 59.0 57.2 62.9 59.5 62.3 3.3 Moderate

Notes:

1. Impact criteria are based on the existing noise level, as shown in Figure 14-1. 2. The noise exposure for the alternative is compared to the moderate impact and severe impact 

thresholds to determine whether a moderate impact and/or sever impact are predicted to 

occur; severe impacts are considered significant adverse impacts and moderate impacts may 

or may not be considered significant adverse impacts depending on site-specific context. 

As shown in Table 14-8, the project noise exposure predicted for Alternative 9A at receptor sites 

1, 2, 5, 7, 9, and 11 would be considered neither a moderate nor a severe impact according to 

FTA and FRA noise impact criteria. Additionally, incremental changes in noise levels between 

Alternative 9A and existing condition would be less than 2 dBA at these receptors, which would 

 

6

 FRA, NEC FUTURE Tier I FEIS, December 2016. 

7

 NEC FUTURE forecasts are being used as a reasonable assumption but do not represent an 

approved project, nor are these numbers included in the No Action condition. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 14-16 

be imperceptible to barely perceptible. Consequently, Alternative 9A would not result in any 

significant adverse noise impacts at these receptor sites. 

At receptor site 3, which is representative of the residences along the east bank of the 

Susquehanna River west of the rail ROW in Perryville, the project noise exposure predicted for 

Alternative 9A would constitute a moderate impact but not a severe impact according to FTA 

and FRA noise impact criteria. However, the incremental change in noise level between 

Alternative 9A and existing condition at this location would be less than 1.5 dBA, which would 

be considered imperceptible. Consequently, Alternative 9A would not result in any significant 

adverse noise impacts at this receptor site. 

At receptor site 4, which is representative of the residence on Woodlands Farm Road 

immediately west of the rail ROW in Perryville, the project noise exposure predicted for 

Alternative 9A would constitute a moderate impact but not a severe impact according to FTA 

noise impact criteria. The incremental change in noise level between Alternative 9A and existing 

condition at this location would be 5.1 dBA, which would be considered readily noticeable. The 

total noise level predicted to occur at this receptor with Alternative 9A would be in the low 60s 

dBA, which is generally considered acceptable for residential uses8

 and is comparable to existing 

noise levels measured at the other receptor sites in Perryville as shown in Table 14-6. 

Furthermore, based on the results of noise level measurements, railroad noise is already the 

dominant noise source at this receptor, so the change in noise levels would not represent a 

change in the character of noise at the receptor. Consequently, the moderate impact predicted to 

occur at this receptor site with Alternative 9A would not constitute a significant adverse impact. 

At receptor site 8, which the David Craig Park directly under the existing Susquehanna River 

Rail Bridge in Havre de Grace, the noise exposure predicted for Alternative 9A would constitute 

a moderate impact but not a severe impact according to FTA and FRA noise impact criteria. The 

incremental change in noise level between Alternative 9A and existing condition at this location 

would be 6.5 dBA, which would be considered readily noticeable. The peak hourly noise level 

predicted to occur at this receptor with Alternative 9A would be 70.0 dBA, which is generally 

slightly higher than recommended for open space uses9

. However, this noise level represents the 

peak hourly level in the location of the park closest to the proposed replacement bridge. During 

quieter hours of the day and at locations further from the bridge, levels would be lower and 

would likely be in the acceptable range for open space uses. Furthermore, based on the results of 

noise level measurements, railroad noise is already the dominant noise source at this receptor, so 

the change in noise levels would not represent a change in the character of noise at the receptor. 

Consequently, the moderate impact predicted to occur at this receptor site with Alternative 9A 

would not constitute a significant adverse impact. 

At receptor site 10, which is representative of residences immediately east of the rail ROW near 

Anderson Avenue in Havre de Grace, the noise exposure predicted for Alternative 9A would 

constitute a moderate impact but not a severe impact according to FTA and FRA noise impact 

criteria. The incremental change in noise level between Alternative 9A and the existing 

condition at this location would be 6.0 dBA, which would be considered readily noticeable. The 

total noise level predicted to occur at this receptor with Alternative 9A would be in the high 50s 

 

8

 Based on United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) noise 

exposure standards as described in the HUD Noise Guidebook, March 2009. 

9

 Based on Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Noise Abatement Criteria as shown in 

Table 3-4 of the FTA guidance manual. 
Chapter 14: Noise and Vibration 

 14-17 

dBA, which is generally considered acceptable for residential uses1

 and is comparable to or 

lower than existing noise levels measured at the other receptor sites in Havre de Grace as shown 

in Table 14-6. Furthermore, based on the results of noise level measurements, railroad noise is 

already the dominant noise source at this receptor, so the change in noise levels would not 

represent a change in the character of noise at the receptor. Consequently, the moderate impact 

predicted to occur at this receptor site with Alternative 9A would not constitute a significant 

adverse impact. 

At receptor site 12, which is representative of residences in the vicinity of Oakington Road east 

of the rail ROW in Havre de Grace, the project noise exposure predicted for Alternative 9A 

would constitute a moderate impact but not a severe impact according to FTA noise impact 

criteria. However, the incremental change in noise level between Alternative 9A and existing 

condition at this location would be 3.3 dBA, which would be considered barely perceptible. 

Consequently, Alternative 9A would not result in any significant adverse noise impacts at this 

receptor site. 

Based on the above discussion, Alternative 9A would not be expected to result in any significant 

adverse noise impacts. 

ALTERNATIVE 9B 

Alternative 9B would construct a new two-track 90 mph bridge to the west of the existing bridge 

and a second new two-track 160 mph bridge on the existing bridge alignment. The difference 

between Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B occurs in Havre de Grace along the east side of the 

corridor from Lewis Lane to the Susquehanna River. Alternative 9B improves the curve in 

Havre de Grace and would allow for a maximum speed of 150 mph. With this alternative, the 

volume and speed of train service (including Northeast Regional and Long Distance, Intercity 

Express, MARC Commuter, and freight) would increase within the study area as compared with 

the existing condition or the No Action Alternative. The potential effects of the proposed 

replacement bridge and increase in train volume and speed on noise levels at the receptors in the 

study area were analyzed using the methodology described above. As discussed, the train 

volumes considered for intercity rail assume implementation of the NEC FUTURE 2040 Build 

condition.10 Table 14-9 shows the noise levels and incremental change in noise levels for 

Alternative 9B. Noise levels shown for Alternative 9B in Table 14-9 are the sum of the rail 

noise component (calculated using the CREATE and HSR models) and the non-rail noise 

component (which is assumed to be the same level calculated for existing conditions). The 

Alternative 9B noise exposure is the level of noise produced by Alternative 9B, and is compared 

with the impact criteria to determine whether this alternative could potentially result in a noise 

impact. It is important to note that the analysis is based on rail traffic volumes that would not 

result solely from the Proposed Project, but represent the sum of proposed enhancements all 

along the NEC which enable the service levels assumed by NEC FUTURE.11

 

10 FRA, NEC FUTURE Tier I FEIS, December 2016. 

11 NEC FUTURE forecasts are being used as a reasonable assumption but do not represent an 

approved project, nor are these numbers included in the No Action condition. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 14-18 

Table 14-9

Alternative 9B Noise Levels (in dBA)

Site 

FTA 

Land 

Use 

Category 

Existing 

Noise 

Level 

Moderate 

Impact 

Threshold1

Severe 

Impact 

Threshold1

Alternative 

9B Noise 

Exposure

Total 

Alternative 

9B Noise 

Level 

Alternative 

9B Noise 

Level 

Increment Impact2

?

1 2 67.4 62.5 67.7 60.2 68.2 0.8 No 

2 2 60.5 58.1 63.7 50.6 60.9 0.4 No 

3 2 67.8 62.7 68.0 63.1 69.1 1.3 Moderate

4 2 57.8 56.6 62.3 61.2 62.9 5.1 Moderate

5 2 65.0 60.8 66.2 55.3 65.4 0.4 No 

6 2 66.8 62.0 67.3 63.1 68.4 1.6 Moderate

7 2 52.6 54.3 60.3 49.4 54.3 1.7 No 

8 3 63.5 64.9 70.3 68.8 69.9 6.4 Moderate

9 2 68.8 63.5 68.7 60.1 69.3 0.5 No 

10 2 53.8 54.8 60.7 58.5 59.8 6.0 Moderate

11 2 62.4 59.2 64.7 57.4 63.6 1.2 No 

12 2 59.0 57.2 62.9 59.5 62.3 3.3 Moderate

Notes: 1 Impact criteria are based on the existing noise level, as shown in Figure 14-1. 2. The noise exposure for the alternative is compared to the moderate impact and severe impact 

thresholds to determine whether a moderate impact and/or sever impact are predicted to 

occur; severe impacts are considered significant adverse impacts and moderate impacts may 

or may not be considered significant adverse impacts depending on site-specific context. 

As shown in Table 14-9, the noise exposure predicted for Alternative 9B at receptor sites 1, 2, 5, 

7, 9, and 11 would be considered neither a moderate nor a severe impact according to FTA and 

FRA noise impact criteria. Additionally, incremental changes in noise levels between 

Alternative 9B and existing condition would be less than 2 dBA at these receptors, which would 

be imperceptible to barely perceptible. Consequently, Alternative 9B would not result in any 

significant adverse noise impacts at these receptor sites. 

At receptor site 3, which is representative of the residences along the east bank of the 

Susquehanna River west of the rail ROW in Perryville, the noise exposure predicted for 

Alternative 9B would constitute a moderate impact but not a severe impact according to FTA 

and FRA noise impact criteria. However, the incremental change in noise level between 

Alternative 9B and existing condition at this location would be less than 1.5 dBA, which would 

be considered imperceptible. Consequently, Alternative 9B would not result in any significant 

adverse noise impacts at this receptor site. 

At receptor site 4, which is representative of the residence on Woodlands Farm Road 

immediately west of the rail ROW in Perryville, the project noise exposure predicted for 

Alternative 9B would constitute a moderate impact but not a severe impact according to FTA 

and FRA noise impact criteria. The incremental change in noise level between Alternative 9B 

and existing condition at this location would be 5.1 dBA, which would be considered readily 

noticeable. The total noise level predicted to occur at this receptor with Alternative 9B would be 
Chapter 14: Noise and Vibration 

 14-19 

in the low 60s dBA, which is generally considered acceptable for residential uses12 and is 

comparable to existing noise levels measured at the other receptor sites in Perryville as shown in 

Table 14-6. Furthermore, based on the results of noise level measurements, railroad noise is 

already the dominant noise source at this receptor, so the change in noise levels would not 

represent a change in the character of noise at the receptor. Consequently, the moderate impact 

predicted to occur at this receptor site with Alternative 9B would not constitute a significant 

adverse impact. 

At receptor site 8, which is the David Craig Park, directly under the existing Susquehanna River 

Bridge in Havre de Grace, the noise exposure predicted for Alternative 9B would constitute a 

moderate impact but not a severe impact according to FTA and FRA noise impact criteria. The 

incremental change in noise level between Alternative 9B and existing condition at this location 

would be 6.4 dBA, which would be considered readily noticeable. The peak hourly noise level 

predicted to occur at this receptor with Alternative 9B would be 69.9 dBA, which is generally 

higher than recommended for open space uses13. However, this noise level represents the peak 

hourly level in the location of the park closest to the proposed replacement bridge. During 

quieter hours of the day and at locations further from the bridge, levels would be lower and 

would likely be in the acceptable range for open space uses. Furthermore, based on the results of 

noise level measurements, railroad noise is already the dominant noise source at this receptor, so 

the change in noise levels would not represent a change in the character of noise at the receptor. 

Consequently, the moderate impact predicted to occur at this receptor site with Alternative 9B 

would not constitute a significant adverse impact. 

At receptor site 10, which is representative of residences immediately east of the rail ROW near 

Anderson Avenue in Havre de Grace, the project noise exposure predicted for Alternative 9B 

would constitute a moderate impact but not a severe impact according to FTA noise impact 

criteria. The incremental change in noise level between Alternative 9B and the existing condition 

at this location would be 6.0 dBA, which would be considered readily noticeable. The total noise 

level predicted to occur at this receptor with Alternative 9B would be in the high 50s dBA, 

which is generally considered acceptable for residential uses14 and is comparable to or lower 

than existing noise levels measured at the other receptor sites in Havre de Grace as shown in 

Table 14-6. Furthermore, based on the results of noise level measurements, railroad noise is 

already the dominant noise source at this receptor, so the change in noise levels would not 

represent a change in the character of noise at the receptor. Consequently, the moderate impact 

predicted to occur at this receptor site with Alternative 9B would not constitute a significant 

adverse impact. 

At receptor site 12, which is representative of residences in the vicinity of Oakington Road east 

of the rail ROW in Havre de Grace, the noise exposure predicted for Alternative 9B would 

constitute a moderate impact but not a severe impact according to FTA noise impact criteria. 

However, the incremental change in noise level between Alternative 9B and existing condition at 

 

12 Based on United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) noise 

exposure standards as described in the HUD Noise Guidebook, March 2009. 

13 Based on Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Noise Abatement Criteria as shown in 

Table 3-4 of the FTA guidance manual. 

14 Based on U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) noise exposure 

standards as described in the HUD Noise Guidebook, March 2009. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 14-20 

this location would be 3.3 dBA, which would be considered barely perceptible. Consequently, 

Alternative 9B would not result in any significant adverse noise impacts at this receptor site. 

Based on the above discussion, Alternative 9B would not be expected to result in any significant 

adverse noise impacts. 

VIBRATION 

As described above, there are receptors located within the screening distance from the railway 

within the Proposed Project area, so a general vibration analysis was conducted for the project. 

The nearest residences to the railway are located at a distance of approximately 90 feet. A 

representative residence at this distance was selected for analysis. This residence is located on 

North Stokes Street south of Otsego Street in Havre de Grace and roughly corresponds to 

receptor site 9 from the airborne noise analysis. 

Vibration levels resulting from rail activity with the Build Alternatives (the differences between 

Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B would not affect the level of vibration at this receptor) were 

calculated for site 9 using the general vibration assessment methodology previously described. 

The frequency of rail activity in the existing condition, with the No Action Alternative, or with 

either of the Build Alternatives would fall into the “Frequent Events” category as described 

above in Table 14-4. Consequently, the vibration impact threshold is 72 VdB for category 2 uses 

(i.e., residences) or 75 VdB for category 3 uses (i.e., open space), and the ground-borne noise 

impact threshold is 35 dBA for category 2 uses or 40 dBA for category 3 uses. Table 14-10

shows the results of the general vibration assessment, and Table 14-11 shows the results of the 

ground-borne noise assessment. 

Table 14-10

Vibration Impact Evaluation

Site 

Vibration 

Land Use 

Category 

Distance 

from 

Track 

Center 

Line 

(feet) 

Existing No Action Alternative Alternative 9A/9B 

Vibration 

Level at 

Receptor 

(VdB) 

Impact 

Exceedance? 

Vibration 

Level at 

Receptor 

(VdB) 

Impact 

Exceedance? 

Vibration 

Level at 

Receptor 

(VdB) 

Impact 

Exceedance? 

9 2 90 68 No 69 No 72 No 

Table 14-11

Ground-Borne Noise Impact Evaluation 

Site 

Vibration 

Land Use 

Category 

Distance 

from 

Track 

Center 

Line 

(feet) 

Existing No Action Alternative Alternative 9A/9B 

GroundBorne 

Noise 

Level at 

Receptor 

(dBA) 

Impact 

Exceedance? 

GroundBorne 

Noise 

Level at 

Receptor 

(dBA) 

Impact 

Exceedance? 

GroundBorne 

Noise 

Level at 

Receptor 

(dBA) 

Impact 

Exceedance? 

9 2 90 33 No 34 No 37 Yes 
Chapter 14: Noise and Vibration 

 14-21 

As shown in Table 14-10, the predicted level of vibration at site 9 would not exceed the 

vibration impact threshold in the No Action or either of the Build Alternatives. The level of 

vibration predicted to occur at the worst-case receptor location with the Build Alternatives 

would be right at the vibration impact threshold, but would not exceed the threshold. This 

receptor location represents the closest point at the closest residence to the railway. At other 

locations and other sensitive receptors, which would be located further from the railway, 

vibration levels would be lower and would consequently also not exceed the vibration impact 

threshold. Consequently, the Build Alternatives would not result significant adverse vibration 

impacts at any nearby receptors. 

The Proposed Project in its operational condition would not have the potential to result in 

vibration at a level that could cause damage to nearby historic structures. As described above, 

vibration produced by the Proposed Project would not exceed the significant impact thresholds 

specified in the FTA guidance document's general assessment methodology. These impact 

thresholds are designed to avoid human annoyance and disruptions to human activity, and as 

such are substantially lower than those that could potentially result in building damage, even at 

historic structures. Because the impact thresholds are based on the more stringent criterion of 

human annoyance, damage to adjacent buildings is not specifically addressed in the FTA's 

general assessment methodology. However, since operational vibration resulting from the 

Proposed Project would not result in exceedances of the vibration impact criteria, it would not 

have the potential to result in vibration levels that could damage historic resources. 

As shown in Table 14-11, the predicted level of ground-borne noise at site 9 would not exceed 

the ground-borne noise impact threshold in the No Action Alternative, and the predicted level of 

ground-borne noise with Alternative 9A, as well as with Alternative 9B, would be 37 dBA, 

which would exceed the ground-borne noise impact threshold for category 2 (i.e., residential) 

uses. However, while the predicted level of ground-borne noise would exceed the impact 

threshold, the predicted difference between the existing condition ground-borne noise level and 

the ground-borne noise level with the Build Alternatives would be 4 dBA, which would be 

considered a barely perceptible change in the level of ground-borne noise. Consequently, 

ground-borne noise produced by the Build Alternatives at site 9 would not constitute a 

significant adverse ground-borne noise impact. At other receptors located further from the 

railway, levels of ground-borne noise would be lower, and the Build Alternatives would also not 

result in a significant adverse impact. 

Based on the above discussion, Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B would not be expected to 

result in any significant adverse vibration or ground-borne noise impacts. 

Overall, the general noise analysis conducted according to FTA and FRA analysis guidance 

found that there would be the potential for a noise impact at five of the receptors. At these five 

receptors, moderate impacts were predicted to occur, but based on the incremental change in the 

noise levels, which would be considered imperceptible to readily noticeable, and considering the 

total noise levels with the Build Alternatives, which were in the typically acceptable range and 

comparable to existing levels measured in the surrounding area, these receptors were predicted 

not to experience significant adverse impacts. The general vibration and ground-borne noise 

analysis found that there would be no potential for exceedances of the vibration impact criteria, 

and that while the ground-borne noise level with the Build Alternatives would have the potential 

to exceed the ground-borne noise impact criteria, the change in ground-borne noise would be 

barely perceptible, and consequently the ground-borne noise would not constitute a significant 

adverse impact. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 14-22 

Based on the conclusion that the Build Alternatives would not have the potential to result in 

significant adverse impacts relating to airborne noise, vibration, or ground-borne noise at any of 

the analyzed receptor sites, and that these receptor sites represent the sites closest to the railway 

having the greatest potential to experience noise and vibration impacts as a result of the Build 

Alternatives, the Build Alternatives would not be expected to result in any significant adverse 

impacts related to noise or vibration. 
 15-1 

Chapter 15: Contaminated and Hazardous Materials 

A. INTRODUCTION 

When conducting construction activities there is potential for contaminated materials to be 

encountered. The term “contaminated materials” refers to soil, groundwater, or building 

materials that contain substances potentially harmful to human health and/or the environment. 

Contaminated materials are most often encountered during construction activities in industrial 

areas or in areas historically used for industrial purposes. This chapter assesses the potential for 

the presence of contaminated materials within the study area, the potential risks to human health 

and/or the environment that may be posed by disturbing any such materials and specific 

measures that would be employed to mitigate any such risks. 

The potential for contaminated materials to be present within the study area was evaluated 

through the use of historical maps and aerial photographs to identify areas of past or present 

industrial use within the study area, a review of regulatory records and databases to identify sites 

known or suspected to contain contaminated materials within the study area, and a review of 

regulatory files for those sites identified. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” this Environmental Assessment (EA) 

evaluates two Build Alternatives: Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B. Alternative 9A was 

selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS 

Historical and regulatory research indicated that portions of the study area were used for various 

purposes that may have contaminated soil and/or groundwater. These uses included railroad 

operations, railroad car repair and maintenance, ship building, electrical substation operations, 

aircraft engine manufacturing, cleaning product, aerosol, and acrylics manufacturing, adhesives 

manufacturing, bulk petroleum/pesticide storage and distribution, dry cleaning, gasoline filling 

stations, automobile maintenance and repair, manufactured gas plant (MGP) operations, and 

polyvinyl chloride (PVC) resin manufacturing. Based on these land uses, there is potential for 

the following contaminants to be encountered during the construction phase of the Proposed 

Project: polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), heavy metals (such as arsenic and lead), volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides, herbicides, 

petroleum compounds, and asbestos. 

The use of PCBs began in the 1930s in electrical capacitors and transformers, hydraulic fluids, 

and in heat transfer systems. Rail lines, railroad maintenance facilities, and electrical 

transformers are potential sources for PCBs in the study area. Arsenic and other herbicides may 

also be present along rail lines as they were often used to control vegetation. Many train engines 

use diesel fuel and therefore diesel range organics (DRO) are a common contaminant in rail 

yards and along rail lines. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 15-2 

Other heavy metals such as antimony, copper, lead, mercury, and vanadium could potentially be 

encountered in the study area as they are widely used in various industrial applications. Slag,, 

historically used as a fill material in industrial areas or as railroad track ballast, is a source of 

heavy metals that could potentially be encountered in the study area. Research has shown that 

heavy metals can leach from slag into soil and groundwater. 

VOCs that may potentially be encountered within the study area include tetrachloroethene (PCE) 

in the vicinity of Havre de Grace as well as 1,1 dichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1,1-

trichloroethane (TCA), trichloroethene (TCE), and vinyl chloride (VC) in the vicinity of Havre 

de Grace. Degreasing and parts washing fluids are also sources of PCE and TCE and are widely 

used in various industrial applications. Other VOCs that could potentially be encountered in the 

study area include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) found in various 

petroleum products. SVOCs that may be encountered in the study area include polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are found in petroleum products and also may be formed by 

incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels like coal. Partially combusted coal and coal 

ash were historically used as fill materials in industrial areas or as railroad track ballast. Coal tar 

and coal tar derived products such as creosote are also sources of PAHs that may be present in 

the study area. Wooden railroad ties were often treated with creosote for preservation. 

Based on the age of the existing bridge, there is also the potential that asbestos-containing 

materials (ACM) are present in the bridge or in the approaches to the bridge (e.g., in electrical 

insulation, tar paper, caulks or utility lines). Asbestos could also potentially be encountered 

within the study area in buildings or areas where buildings were located or in materials have 

been dumped. Removal or disturbance of asbestos is subject to extensive regulatory 

requirements, including those relating to testing, agency notification, licensing and certifications, 

removal and disposal. Similarly, the bridge and other structures in the study area may include 

lead-based paint. Activities with the potential to disturb lead-based paint are also subject to 

multiple regulatory programs including Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

29 CFR 1926.62 - Lead Exposure in Construction). 

B. METHODOLOGY 

REGULATORY CONTEXT 

There are numerous state and federal regulations applicable to the above potential contaminants. 

NEPA, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the National Emissions 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS), and the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA) are examples of federal regulations applicable to these contaminants. Many laws and 

regulations have been enacted throughout the U.S. at the state level to implement these federal 

regulations. The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) is the regulatory agency 

responsible for enacting and enforcing these federal regulations in Maryland. MDE regulations 

are described in the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) under Title 26. 

REGULATORY RECORDS SEARCH 

The Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) subcontracted Environmental Data 

Resources, Inc. (EDR) to search federal, state, and/or local agency databases to find information 

about any sites that may pose environmental concerns within the study area and surrounding 

properties. The EDR search boundary consisted of the study area plus a one-mile buffer and is 
Chapter 15: Contaminated and Hazardous Materials 

 15-3 

depicted on Figure 1 of Appendix G, “Contaminated Materials Technical Report.” The EDR 

Corridor Report is included in Appendix G. Federal and state regulatory agencies maintain 

databases of investigated sites that are then used to identify potential environmental concerns. 

These databases include, but are not limited to, the following:

 National Priority List (NPL) (also known as Superfund sites) 

 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System 

(CERCLIS) 

 CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) list 

 State Hazardous Waste Site (SHWS) - State of Maryland HWS list 

 Maryland Oil Control Program (OCP) Case Sites 

 State of Maryland Historic (HIST) Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) list 

 Maryland Solid Waste Facilities list 

 Maryland Brownfields List 

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Information System: 

- RCRA Treatment, Storage and Disposal (TSD) Sites 

- RCRA CORRACTS and non-CORRACTS (Corrective Action Sites) 

 Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) 

The Project Team evaluated the location of the sites and the (generally limited) information 

provided in the EDR Corridor Report to assess which sites could present potential environmental 

hazards within the study area. The Project Team submitted Public Information Act (PIA) 

requests to MDE to obtain additional information for those sites that appeared to present 

potential environmental concerns based on their listings. After reviewing the information 

obtained from the PIA request, the Project Team conducted a reconnaissance to visually evaluate 

the identified sites of potential concern and other potential environmental hazards within the 

study area not identified in regulatory databases. 

C. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

The historic research, the EDR Corridor Report, and documents obtained from the PIA requests 

to MDE were evaluated to determine sites of potential concern for the Proposed Project. After 

these sites were determined, the available information for each site was evaluated and the sites 

were categorized as green, yellow, or orange. Green sites are low potential environmental hazard 

sites and would generally be regarded as not needing further evaluation or investigation. Green 

sites have minimal environmental issues or are sufficiently far from the study area to likely have 

little or no environmental impact. Yellow sites are moderate potential environmental hazard sites 

that may be impacted by the Proposed Project. These should be regarded with caution because 

moderate contamination may remain in site soil and/or groundwater. Orange sites are high 

potential environmental hazard sites, to be regarded with additional caution due to the likelihood 

of encountering soil and/or groundwater contamination and/or treatment system components. 

A total of 58 sites of potential concern were identified based on the historic research and 

regulatory file reviews. Of the 58 sites, 37 were classified as green, 19 as yellow, and 2 as 

orange. The yellow and orange sites are listed in Table 15-1. The site locations maps and a list 

of green sites are provided in Appendix G. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 15-4 

Table 15-1

Sites of Potential Concern

Yellow Sites 

GAF Transportation Pulaski Highway - East Shoulder, Aberdeen 

Pool Concepts Inc. 2226 Pulaski Highway, Havre de Grace 

Bay Oil, Inc. 2110 Pulaski Highway, Havre de Grace 

Friendly Oil Company - Aero Energy 1757 Pulaski Highway, Havre de Grace 

Osborne Boat Sales 1754 Pulaski Highway, Havre de Grace 

F.W. Haxel Co. 1750 Pulaski Highway, Havre de Grace 

Havre de Grace Exxon 1609 Pulaski Highway, Havre de Grace 

Cytec Engineered Materials, Inc. 1300 Revolution Street, Havre de Grace 

A-1 Sales, Inc. 1200 Pulaski Highway, Havre de Grace 

Auto Ranch - Harbor Station 1005 Pulaski Highway, Havre de Grace 

MCK Trucking Co. 963 Pulaski Highway, Havre de Grace 

Former Carroll's Laundry Franklin Street and Adams Street, Havre de Grace

Former Gas Stations Warren Street and N. Union Ave., Havre de Grace

Gilbert Tank Farm – Gilbert Enterprises Water Street, Havre de Grace 

Former Pennsylvania Railroad Shops Broad Street and Front Street, Perryville 

Perryville Electrical Substation Ave A, Perryville 

Norfolk Southern Railroad 450 - 452 Harford Street, Perryville 

Perryville Chevron - Former Perryville 

Texaco 636 Broad Street, Perryville 

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

(Amtrak) Maintenance Facility Yard - 

Amtrak MOW 644 Broad Street, Perryville 

Orange Sites 

Ames Shopping Plaza - Master Cleaners 2015-2113 Pulaski Highway, Havre de Grace 

Cleaning Solutions Group Site - Cello Site 1354 Old Post Road, Havre de Grace 

The Ames Shopping Plaza-Master Cleaners site is approximately 500 feet west of the study area 

at 2015-2213 Pulaski Highway in Havre de Grace. Dry cleaning operations were conducted at 

the site between 1969 and 2003. Investigations have indicated groundwater PCE concentrations 

up to 77,000 μg/L; well above the MDE groundwater clean-up standard of 5 μg/L. Recent 

investigations have indicated that a significant PCE plume is present in groundwater beneath the 

site and that the plume is migrating east (i.e., towards the study area). Review of a contaminant 

plume cross section prepared by MDE in 2012 indicates that concentrations of PCE as high as 

5,000 μg/L are present within the study area. These concentrations may have increased since 

2012 or may increase over time as significantly higher concentrations of PCE were detected in 

groundwater up-gradient of the study area. 

The Cleaning Solutions Group Site - Cello Site is located partially within the study area at 1354 

Old Post Road in Havre de Grace. Hexall first used the Cello site during the 1940s to 

manufacture aircraft engines. Subsequently Alcolac operated the site, and later, beginning the in 

1960s, the site was operated by Fuild-Stauford, a subsidiary of Alcolac. The operations that 

occurred during Fuild-Stauford’s use are unknown. In 1977, Cello Corporation, purchased the 

site and used it to manufacture cleaning products, aerosols, and acrylics. In 1995, Cello was 
Chapter 15: Contaminated and Hazardous Materials 

 15-5 

purchased by ICI. In March 1996, the Sherwin Williams Company purchased Cello from ICI. 

Site operations under Sherwin Williams have remained essentially the same as the historical 

operations of Cello. Between July 1985 and August 1987, MDE observed the unauthorized 

discharge of pollutants from the Cello site and the placement of pollutants in locations likely to 

result in unauthorized discharges. In 1988, an Administrative Consent Order required that Cello 

conduct an investigation to determine the extent of contamination that may have resulted from 

these unauthorized discharges. Investigations indicated the presence of VOCs in groundwater at 

the site at concentrations exceeding regulatory criteria. VOCs detected in groundwater at the site 

included 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, TCA, trichloroethene (TCE), VC, 

chloroethane, 1,2-DCA, 1,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE), carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,2-

trichloroethane, xylenes, acetone, and methylene chloride. The investigations indicated that 

groundwater beneath the site flows north and then east, i.e., away from the study area. 

D. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the No Action Alternative, the demolition and subsurface disturbance associated with the 

Proposed Project will not occur. Although the assessment above identified a high potential for 

contaminated materials (including groundwater contaminated with chlorinated solvents), without 

subsurface disturbance there would be no significant potential for exposure (and associated 

potential for adverse impacts) to occur. The sites near the study area would continue to be 

addressed by state and federal regulatory agencies, independent of the Proposed Project. 

E. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVES 

This section analyzes the potential for impacts from Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B. Because 

of the similarity in alignments and the existing areas of contamination presented above, the 

following discussion applies to both Build Alternatives.

Construction of the Proposed Project would involve demolition, relocation or other disturbance 

of existing structures and excavation, relocation and potentially off-site disposal of some 

existing soil. Dewatering might also be required. The exact extent of disturbance associated with 

the Proposed Project will not be determined until final engineering, and the presence of 

contaminated materials would only present a threat to human health if exposure to these 

materials occurs. A health risk requires both a complete exposure pathway to the contaminants 

and a sufficient dose to produce adverse health effects. To prevent such exposure pathways and 

doses during construction, the Proposed Project would include appropriate health and safety and 

investigative/remedial measures. The need for additional investigation/remediation will be 

determined, in consultation with MDE, once the exact extent of disturbance is identified. 

The most likely route of exposure would be breathing volatile/semi-volatile compounds or 

particulate-laden air released during demolition, excavation, or construction activities. In order 

to prevent this and other exposure pathways, the Proposed Project would include measures such 

as: 

 Follow established regulatory requirements for pre-construction removal of asbestos and 

appropriate management of lead-based paint and of PCB-containing equipment. 

 Develop and implement an environmental Construction Health and Safety Plan (CHASP), 

conforming to applicable local, state, and federal regulatory requirements, including 

procedures for: 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 15-6 

- Managing known or potential contamination (e.g., railroad ties, creosote-contaminated 

soil and any underground storage tanks unexpectedly encountered); 

- Minimizing and monitoring the generation of dust; 

- Characterizing surplus materials requiring off-site disposal; 

- Dewatering, including pre-treatment prior to discharge if needed; 

- Importing clean fill for grading during construction. 

The Proposed Project documents and construction specifications will address procedures for 

stockpiling, testing, loading, transporting (including truck routes), and properly disposing of all 

excavated materials requiring off-site disposal. Excavated materials will be characterized to 

classify the materials (e.g., as hazardous waste, petroleum-contaminated wastes, chromatecontaminated soils, historical fill containing construction and demolition debris, or 

uncontaminated native soils). Wastes containing hazardous materials require special handling, 

storage, transportation, and disposal methods to prevent releases that could impact human health 

or the environment. Depending on the nature of the materials, federal, state, and local 

regulations require the use of special containers or stockpiling practices for on-site storage of the 

materials to prevent the release of hazardous materials to the environment. The federal, state, 

and local departments of transportation have requirements for transportation of wastes 

containing hazardous materials. Facilities that receive hazardous materials require federal, state, 

and local permits to accept the waste, and generally require that specific representative waste 

sampling and laboratory analysis protocols be conducted prior to accepting materials for 

disposal. The extent and parameters of testing are dependent on the requirements of the waste 

disposal facilities, each of which may have different requirements for representative waste 

sampling and laboratory analysis prior to accepting materials for disposal. 

Dewatering of groundwater will most likely be required in specific locations. Where dewatering 

is required, it is possible that the water will require treatment prior to its discharge to surface 

water or existing sewers. Prior to any such discharge, the water will be tested. Discharge of 

water will be conducted in accordance with applicable requirements, including state 

requirements for discharge to surface water, and state and local requirements for sewer 

discharge. 

With the implementation of these measures, no significant adverse impacts related to hazardous 

materials will result from the demolition and construction activities associated with the Proposed 

Project. In addition, no significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials would be 

expected to result from operation of the Proposed Project. 
 16-1 

Chapter 16: Public Health, Safety, and Security 

A. INTRODUCTION 

This chapter assesses potential public health, safety, and security impacts and benefits related to 

the operation of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project’s potential public health impacts as 

they relate to air quality, noise and vibration, and hazardous materials are described below. The 

safety procedures and security systems that would be implemented to protect rail employees, 

passengers, marine users, freight users, and the general public during the operation of the 

Proposed Project are also described. All potential environmental impacts associated with the 

construction of the Proposed Project are described in Chapter 17, “Construction Effects.” 

As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” this Environmental Assessment (EA) 

evaluates two Build Alternatives: Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B. Alternative 9A was 

selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

B. REGULATORY CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY 

This environmental review is based on the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) Procedures 

for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 Federal Register [FR] 28545 [May 26, 1999]), and 

therefore considers a project’s potential to adversely impact public health and public safety, 

including any impacts due to hazardous materials. FRA guidance requires that environmental 

reviews address safety and security concerns, including the short-term construction effects and 

long-term operational effects on residents and other users of the study area. The review should 

also include potential pedestrian and traffic hazards as well as transit user and employee security 

issues. 

C. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

PUBLIC HEALTH 

Public health may be jeopardized by poor air quality, hazardous materials, significant adverse 

impacts related to noise or odors, solid water management practices, and/or actions that result in 

exceedances in state or federal standards. Federal, state, and local government entities have a 

variety of laws and regulations to protect public health. 

SAFETY AND SECURITY 

EMPLOYEES 

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) complies with all applicable federal 

safety regulations and industry standards. Adequate signaling and communications are currently 

in place to prevent any trains from entering the bridge when the movable span is open or when 

personnel are on site for repairs. Personnel undergo Amtrak Safety Training before they are 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 16-2 

permitted on site. Amtrak inspects all bridge structural components regularly and repairs them as 

needed. 

In 2006, Amtrak instituted a System Safety Program Plan that applies to all Amtrak facilities, 

including the project site. The program provides guidance on hazard management, incident 

reporting, inspection, maintenance and repair of current facilities and stock, training and 

certification, emergency response, environmental management, drug and alcohol programs, and 

a number of security policies. One section of the System Safety Program is devoted to employee 

safety, with a particular focus on field safety. In August of 2009, Amtrak launched Safe-2-Safer, 

a company-wide program designed to improve employee safety and security.1

 This program 

changes at-risk behavior to safe behavior and fosters a more collaborative work environment. 

Safe-2-Safer places emphasis on reporting all potential incidents and removing barriers to 

performing safely in the workplace. 

PASSENGERS 

Amtrak maintains and updates a Passenger Train Emergency Response Plan that must be 

approved by FRA. The plan includes train operations on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) and 

covers the project site. Amtrak also conducts Passenger Train Emergency Response Training. In 

2014, training was conducted for more than 3,000 first responders along Amtrak routes across 

the U.S.2

 A passenger safety specialist position was created in 2014 within Amtrak’s System 

Safety department to address passenger injuries on trains, platforms, and in stations.3

 

MARINE USERS 

To assess current conditions, Amtrak commissioned a Navigation Study in 2013.4

 The study 

focused on vessels greater than 50 feet in height. It found that the existing Susquehanna River 

Rail Bridge opens approximately 10 times per year to accommodate marine traffic. The 

Navigation Study concluded that the existing navigation channel (both height and width) 

addresses the needs of most mariners and vessels. The Navigation Study also determined that 

while the existing horizontal clearance is sufficient, further widening of the horizontal clearance 

could increase sight distance, reduce vessel congestion, and aid tug boat and barge navigation 

through the bridge opening, increasing safety and resilience against potential bridge and fender 

system strikes. 

FREIGHT USERS 

Norfolk Southern (NS) operates between Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Baltimore, Maryland, 

using its “Port Road” route along the Susquehanna River between Harrisburg and Perryville, and 

using trackage rights along the NEC between Perryville and Baltimore. NS also provides freight 

service from points north of Perryville to and through Baltimore. NS has rights to conduct 

freight operations along the NEC in the study area, including over the Susquehanna River Rail 

 

1

 https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/369/338/2014-Amtrak-Sustainability-Report.pdf. Accessed April 22, 

2016. 

2

 https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/259/724/Amtrak-Ink-March-Apri-2015.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2016. 

3

 https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/369/338/2014-Amtrak-Sustainability-Report.pdf. Accessed April 22, 

2016. 

4

 Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Reconstruction and Expansion Project Navigation Study, dated January 

21, 2014, HNTB Corporation. 
Chapter 16: Public Health, Safety, and Security 

 16-3 

Bridge. In addition, CSX Corporation operates freight service on the CSX Susquehanna River 

Rail Bridge approximately 0.9 mile to the northwest of the Amtrak Susquehanna River Rail 

Bridge, and under agreement with NS, has rights to use the Amtrak bridge in the event of failure 

or closure of its own bridge. 

The existing bridge requires that the slow, heavy freight trains and Maryland Area Regional 

Commuter (MARC) trains share track with higher-speed Amtrak trains. The long, slow-moving 

freight trains can create congestion conflicts. For example, when the southbound NEC track is in 

use by an intercity or commuter train approaching the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge (in either 

direction), NS freight trains coming from the west must stop on the Port Road rail line and wait 

for an appropriate window to enter the NEC. Similarly, NS trains coming up from the south 

must wait in Havre de Grace, occupying one of the main tracks to wait their turn to cross the 

bridge. Amtrak works with these freight users to ensure safe scheduling to cross the 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge. 

RESIDENTS ALONG THE NEC 

Due to the highly developed nature of the study area, many residents live in close proximity to 

the active NEC. Schools, public parks, and other publicly-accessible venues also are located near 

the rail right-of-way. 

FRA's Office of Railroad Safety promotes and regulates safety throughout the nation's railroad 

industry. The office executes its regulatory and inspection responsibilities through a diverse staff 

of railroad safety experts.5

 FRA data show that 96 percent of rail-related fatalities, most of which 

are preventable, are the result of incidents at railway-highway crossings and by trespassers.6

Railway-highway crossings are commonly referred to as “at-grade crossings” or “street-level 

crossings”, defined as locations where railroad tracks intersect with a roadway at the same 

elevation—thereby increasing the potential for conflict. There are no at-grade crossings within 

the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project’s study area. 

Amtrak is a leader in the installation of Positive Train Control (PTC), a safety technology 

designed to match train speed to track conditions for improved safety.7

 PTC provides an added 

layer of safety on top of the cab signal and Automatic Train Control safety systems already in 

place. In December 2015, Amtrak activated PTC on track between New York and Washington, 

DC, completing installation on most Amtrak-owned infrastructure on the NEC spine. 

D. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the No Action Alternative, the existing public health, safety, and security measures will 

remain unchanged. Amtrak and MDOT will continue to adhere to current regulations regarding 

public health and safety. The Susquehanna River Rail Bridge will remain as in existing 

conditions. Service over the bridge would worsen in the future under the No Action Alternative. 

The bridge would continue to age, problems would occur more frequently, and the bridge would 

remain as a bottleneck; it would eventually need to be taken out of service. 

In the future, FRA and Amtrak will continue to implement multiple measures to ensure public 

safety and minimize the potential for accidents. As described above, PTC is a control technology 

 

5

 https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0010. Accessed December 2, 2016.

6

 https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L17371. Accessed December 2, 2016. 7

 https://www.amtrak.com/national-facts. Accessed December 2, 2016. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 16-4 

used to prevent or avoid train collisions and derailments. The purpose of PTC is to slow or stop a 

train that is operating at an excessive speed or operating in a manner inconsistent with the 

section of track that it is traversing.8

 In the future, railroads throughout the U.S. will likely 

continue to implement PTC. 

E. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVES 

The Proposed Project would be designed, built, and operated to comply with all relevant federal, 

state, and local regulations. 

PUBLIC HEALTH 

Potential health effects during operation of the Proposed Project would be related to air quality, 

noise and vibration, and hazardous materials. 

AIR QUALITY 

As described in Chapter 12, “Air Quality,” the Proposed Project would not substantially affect 

regional air quality. Increases in local concentrations will occur near the tracks used by trains running 

on diesel. With the Build Alternatives 1-hour average concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) will 

increase up to 8.6 percent, as compared with the No Action Alternative. Like the No Action 

Alternative, the Build Alternatives could result in concentrations above the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). The maximum projected increase in 1-hour average NO2

concentrations (8.6 percent) would occur in a very limited area affected by both the increase in diesel 

train activity and the Proposed Project changes in grade and alignment; in other areas potential 

increases would be much smaller, and in areas where the new track alignment would relocate tracks 

away from sensitive receptors concentrations would decrease. Additionally, 1-hour average NO2

concentrations are projected using conservative assumptions and would likely be lower overall. 

While concentrations above the NAAQS in general are considered to potentially adversely affect 

public health, due to the limited magnitude and area affected by the small increases in concentrations, 

the Proposed Project itself would not cause a significant adverse impact on public health. 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

Based on the information detailed in Chapter 14, “Noise and Vibration,” the Build Alternatives 

would not have the potential to result in significant adverse impacts relating to airborne noise, 

vibration, or ground-borne noise at any of the analyzed receptor sites. Therefore, the Build 

Alternatives would not be expected to result in any significant adverse impacts related to noise 

or vibration. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

As described in Chapter 15, “Contaminated and Hazardous Materials,” construction of the 

Proposed Project would involve demolition, relocation or other disturbance of existing structures 

and excavation, relocation and potentially off-site disposal of some existing soil. The presence of 

contaminated materials only presents a threat to human health if exposure to these materials 

occurs. A health risk requires both a complete exposure pathway to the contaminants and a 

sufficient dose to produce adverse health effects. To prevent such exposure pathways and doses 

 

8

 http://www.necfuture.com/pdfs/tier1_deis/c07_18.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2016. 
Chapter 16: Public Health, Safety, and Security 

 16-5 

during construction, the Proposed Project will include appropriate health and safety and 

investigative/remedial measures. The need for additional investigation/remediation will be 

determined, in consultation with Maryland Department of Environment (MDE), once the exact 

extent of disturbance is identified. With the implementation of these measures, no significant 

adverse impacts related to hazardous materials will result either during the demolition and 

construction activities associated with the Proposed Project or during operation of the Proposed 

Project. 

SAFETY AND SECURITY 

The Proposed Project would improve the reliability of traveling across the Susquehanna River 

and increase the safety of passengers and freight users traveling along the NEC. The Proposed 

Project would provide navigational benefits by improving the reliability of the bridge and 

minimizing delays during bridge openings and closings. 

EMPLOYEES 

Amtrak will design, build, and operate the Proposed Project to comply with all relevant federal, 

state, and local safety regulations. The Proposed Project would improve the structural and 

operational reliability of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge, increasing the safety of employees 

that work on and travel over the bridge. 

PASSENGERS 

The Proposed Project would improve the structural and operational reliability of the 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge, thereby increasing the safety of passengers traveling over the 

bridge. 

MARINE USERS 

The Proposed Project would eliminate the need for bridge openings and closings by replacing 

the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge as two high-level fixed bridges. Under either Alternative 9A 

or Alternative 9B, the Proposed Project would provide a 60-foot vertical clearance and, at 

minimum, a 230-foot horizontal clearance. This would provide sufficient vertical clearance, 

while widening the horizontal clearance. A wider horizontal clearance would improve safety by 

reducing the potential for conflicts between the rail bridge and marine traffic. 

FREIGHT USERS 

The Proposed Project would eliminate bridge malfunctions resulting from the opening of the 

existing movable span. The Proposed Project would also provide a separate track that would be 

used primarily by MARC commuter rail and NS freight rail service. This would improve 

scheduling and help to prevent freight trains from having to wait for an appropriate window to 

cross the bridge. This would improve the reliability of the bridge and scheduling, resulting in a 

long-term benefit to the safety of freight rail service across the bridge. Amtrak will continue to 

coordinate with freight users of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge to minimize any potential 

impacts to freight operations. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 16-6 

RESIDENTS ALONG THE NEC 

Amtrak is committed to creating a safe environment for both their passengers and the 

communities surrounding their infrastructure. FRA continually updates passenger equipment 

safety standards and safety regulations. The safety provisions included in the construction and 

operation of the Proposed Project would comply with all Amtrak policies and Federal safety 

regulations. These provisions would help minimize the potential for significant adverse impacts 

to public safety. 

F. MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION OF IMPACTS 

Specific impact minimization and mitigation measures pertaining to air quality and hazardous 

materials are presented in Chapter 12 and Chapter 15, respectively. 
 17-1 

Chapter 17: Construction Effects 

A. INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the construction process for the Proposed Project and assesses the 

potential environmental impacts associated with these activities. Section B gives an overall 

description of the construction sequence and schedule, Section C includes a description of the 

construction methods and equipment that would likely be used to complete each of the key 

project elements, and Section D discusses potential environmental impacts and mitigation 

measures. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” this Environmental Assessment (EA) 

evaluates two Build Alternatives: Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B. Alternative 9A was 

selected as the Preferred Alternative. The Build Alternatives (Alternative 9A or Alternative 9B) 

would likely be constructed using the same general construction sequencing and methods. The 

No Action Alternative would not involve any construction and is therefore not discussed further. 

The construction means and methods presented in this chapter are based on the current 

conceptual engineering design and the project sponsors’ past experience on similar projects. 

While the construction techniques ultimately utilized for the Proposed Project may vary, the 

potential for environmental impacts and types of mitigation measures described herein would not 

be substantially different. 

B. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND SEQUENCE 

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 

The Proposed Project requires careful scheduling and coordination between various 

stakeholders. Before a construction contract can be awarded, preliminary design, final design, 

environmental permitting, and contractor procurement must be completed. Based on the work 

that needs to be completed prior to the contractor procurement, the Proposed Project schedule 

assumes that contracted construction will commence in 2020, subject to project funding. Certain 

force account work (work performed by railroad personnel rather than a contractor), which also 

requires design and procurement phases, must be completed prior to commencement of 

contracted construction. 

This section presents a construction schedule that is typical for a rail bridge replacement project. 

The schedule for the Proposed Project will comply with in-water restrictions and other 

limitations likely to be required by permits. Federal and state natural resource and permitting 

agencies typically enforce seasonal in-water work restrictions to prevent disturbance to the 

channel bottom during shellfish gestation and development or disturbance of migratory fish 

during spawning. These agencies may impose additional schedule restrictions to protect birds or 

other species. Any federal or state restrictions on in-water work will be more clearly defined 

during the final design and permitting stage. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 17-2 

With these potential limitations to the schedule, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and 

Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) anticipate that contracted construction work 

for Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B can be completed over approximately 5 years, beginning 

in 2020 and ending in 2025. The initial track work and catenary infrastructure installation and 

construction of the new bridges are the critical path elements.

CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 

Construction will be carried out in three phases, plus early action work that would occur prior to 

the start of Phase A. 

Table 17-1

Construction Sequence and Duration

Phase Key Components Estimated Duration 

Early Action 

(Pre-Phase A) Construct OCS/transmission structures 

12 months prior to Phase 

A (Continues concurrent 

with Phase A) 

Phase A 

Construct new west bridge approach spans; complete 

modifications to existing bridges and construction of 

retaining walls. Complete modifications to Prince, 

Perry and Grace Interlockings. 

24 months 

Phase B 

Construct main channel span and install track and 

systems on bridge. Shift service to new west bridge. 

Demolish existing swing span. 

5 months 

Phase C 

Demolish existing bridge approaches. Construct new 

east bridge and approaches. Construct track/systems 

and cut new bridge into service. 

36 months 

Total Phases A-C: 65 months 

Source: HNTB 

C. CONSTRUCTION OF KEY ELEMENTS 

SUBSTRUCTURE 

Substructure construction is similar for the two Build Alternatives. Material transport and debris 

removal would be accomplished through a combination of barge and truck transport. To enable 

barge delivery of materials and equipment access in shallow water areas, finger piers (temporary 

docks) will be constructed both east and west of the proposed bridge alignment in Perryville. 

The finger piers would be constructed within the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

(Amtrak) right-of-way (ROW) east of the proposed alignment, and in a vacant Town-owned lot 

(Plot #231) west of the proposed alignment1

 (see Figure 17-1). The upstream finger pier would 

have an estimated overwater length of 495 feet and width of 38 feet; the downstream finger pier 

would have an approximate overwater length of 260 feet and width of 38 feet. Light required to 

support any submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in this area would likely reach 15 feet in on 

each side of the finger piers, but may adversely affect SAV survival over the 3 to 5 years they 

 

1

 HNTB Constructability Memo, January 2015. 
Perryville

1 0 200 400

Feet

Susquehanna River

Rail Bridge Project

Figure 17-1

Proposed Finger Piers

Legend

Finger Pier

1,000 ft Study Area

Susquehanna

River
Chapter 17: Construction Effects 

 17-3 

are in place, so mitigation is planned. Precast concrete, concrete, steel reinforcement bars, and 

structural steel members could be transported to the Proposed Project site by barge. 

IN-RIVER STRUCTURES 

Construction work is assumed to begin simultaneously at multiple locations. Foundations in 

water are time-consuming but are completely off-line from the existing bridge; therefore, 

construction will start with drilled shafts for in-water piers using barge-mounted equipment. The 

use of several barges is anticipated for the construction of the drilled shafts, caps and piers—

including barges used for mounted cranes, storage barges, and barges to hold materials. In 

shallow water, a temporary finger pier supported on piles or a causeway would be used for 

access and construction; dredging would have considerable adverse effects to benthic habitat and 

is not proposed. For piers located in shallow water, typical cofferdams may be used. For those in 

deeper water, float-in precast forms are anticipated to minimize on-site construction and to 

function as formwork for the caps.

Once the foundations have been completed, the piers will be constructed using the arrangement 

put in place for the construction of the drilled shafts. During this step, construction activity will 

be above the MHW level. Construction of the fender system could start after completion of the 

piers adjacent to the navigable channel. Overall, the loss of 0.37 acre of bottom habitat for 

aquatic biota from construction of the new bridges will be more than offset by the approximately 

0.5 acre of river bottom that would return to benthic habitat upon demolition of the existing 

bridge and remnant piers. All other impacts will be temporary, including the potential loss of 

SAV from the finger piers that will be mitigated; this is expected to result in a potential net gain 

in the populations of benthic organisms and their predators who are higher in the food web. 

LAND-SIDE STRUCTURES 

New abutments can be built simultaneously with the erection of the piers in the water. New 

concrete walls will be built adjacent to existing masonry to support the new structure where 

feasible. New concrete backwalls will be installed. Existing masonry walls may be reinforced 

using tie-backs and wall heights extended as needed. Consolidation surcharge (the precompression of soft soils to avoid future structural damage from soil settlement) may be applied 

at the beginning of construction to minimize settlement of future embankment. Widening of the 

existing embankment will likely be accomplished with the use of modular precast systems (Twalls or similar). 

In Havre de Grace, the alignments of Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B mostly overlap with the 

existing alignment, with a slight westward shift near the waterfront and the abutment. To realign 

the intersection of Otsego Street and North Union Avenue, as requested by the City, the new 

abutment will be located farther south (toward North Freedom Lane). At Perryville, the new 

abutment will be adjacent to the existing abutment, and a slight realignment of Avenue A (at the 

location of the existing abutment) may be necessary to accommodate the shifted abutment (see 

Figure 17-2). 

Along the north and south bridge approaches, one existing overhead bridge (in Havre de Grace) 

and 10 existing undergrade bridges (four in Perryville and six in Havre de Grace) will require 

modification to accommodate the proposed track alignments (see Figure 3-1). Two of the 

undergrade bridges in Perryville and one in Havre de Grace will be extended with a precast 

concrete culvert to extend the existing stone masonry arch; the remaining undergrade bridges 

will likely need to have their superstructures replaced in full, while further engineering studies 
H

a

vre

de

Gra

c

e

Pe

rry

ville

North Union Avenue

Avenu

e

A

Broad St

River Rd

O

t

s

e

g

o

S

t

r

e

e

t

1

st

St

Carbon

Street

Pearl Street

ConesteoS

treet

North Adams Street

North Stokes Street

Owens Landing Ct

Saint John Street

Warren

Street

Water Street North Freedom Lane

1

0300600F

eet

SusquehannaRiver

RailBridgeProject

Figure17-2

ProposedAbutments

Legend

BridgeAbutment

1,000ftStudyArea

Susquehanna

River
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 17-4 

will determine whether their substructures can be replaced or retained and expanded. The Lewis 

Lane overhead bridge in Havre de Grace will need to be replaced under Alternative 9A. 

SUPERSTRUCTURE 

The preferred bridge type combines plate girder approach spans with a network tied arch 

navigation span. The 170-foot-long plate girder approach spans will likely be lifted into place by 

crawler cranes or barge-mounted cranes, based on their location. The network tied arch 

navigation span would be constructed off-site to reduce the schedule and minimize impacts to 

marine traffic in the channel. Upon erection of the approach spans and installation of the channel 

span bearings, the fully assembled network tied arch would be transported by barge to the site 

and lifted into position. Reinforced concrete deck will be cast in place on each of the spans. 

Due to the proximity of the existing and proposed alignments, the existing swing span cannot 

operate once the installation of the new channel span superstructure has started. Therefore, the 

installation of the superstructure over the channel span can only be accomplished between 

November and March, when no openings of the swing span typically occur. The erection of the 

superstructure should be scheduled early during this time window as the track work and removal 

of the existing through truss must also occur during this period. 

DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE 

For both Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B, after erection of the channel span and opening of 

the new structure to rail traffic, the swing span of the existing bridge will not be able to operate 

and will need to be removed. The demolition of the existing structure will most likely use a 

combination of barge crane(s) and barges equipped with transporters to lower the existing truss. 

Once the new bridge is in service, the existing swing span will need to be removed immediately 

in order to reopen the navigation channel. To prevent buckling, the existing truss spans may 

have to be modified prior to demolition. It is presumed that no blasting would be required; the 

anticipated method for removal of the substructure would require divers equipped with wire 

saws to cut the piers down to two feet below the mudline, after which the material would be 

removed with barge-mounted cranes. Another method of construction, which would involve 

blasting, is a cofferdam with blast mats and controlled explosives.

ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES AND SYSTEMS 

Other railroad components will need to be replaced and/or reconstructed as part of Alternative 

9A and Alternative 9B. Fiber optic communications will need to be maintained during all phases 

of construction, as well as other communications infrastructure such as CCTV, telephones, and 

radio equipment. The rail signal system will be redesigned based on the new track configuration 

and new interlockings. A new compound auto-tensioned style catenary system is proposed. This 

will require replacement of some existing catenary structures and modification of others. 

Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B would have minimal impact to the Perryville Electrical 

Substation. The transmission tower on the west side of the tracks may require relocation, but any 

relocation would be in close proximity to the existing tower. It is imperative to maintain the 

existing connections to the power grid throughout the construction period. 
Chapter 17: Construction Effects 

 17-5 

CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND STAGING 

The Proposed Project reserves 10 feet from the embankment toe of slope or face of retaining 

wall for future maintenance along the corridor. In general, this width is sufficient for future 

maintenance with the exception that, at certain intervals, the width must be increased to allow 

for vehicles to pass each other and/or turn around. Based on conceptual design, these turnaround zones can likely be accommodated within Amtrak’s existing ROW and outside sensitive 

environmental resources, avoiding the need for property acquisition and further environmental 

impacts.

The construction access road for the embankment and retaining walls along the corridor would 

be built to remain in place as the permanent access road. As the corridor approaches the 

structures on each side of the Susquehanna River, maintenance access is available utilizing local 

roads. However, staging areas temporarily required for construction fall outside Amtrak’s ROW. 

The staging areas include a vacant Town-owned lot in Perryville, which may be temporarily 

affected to build Pier 1W and Pier 2W. In Havre de Grace, staging and construction access will 

be avoided on the north side of the ROW between North Juniata Street and Lewis Lane, where 

larger forest tracts occur along Lily Run and Lewis Run. This area contains portions of three 

private commercial properties, one nonprofit commercial property (an Elks Club Lodge), and 

one property owned by the Havre de Grace Housing Authority2

. 

Construction access for equipment and materials is not expected to be a major constraint. The 

project area is readily accessible from Interstate 95, US Route 40, several rail lines and the 

Susquehanna River, which supports commercial marine traffic. Access to the undergrade bridges 

along the NEC is achievable through the local roadway network. Access to the existing ROW for 

rubber-tired and rail equipment is available at several points in the project area. A construction 

access plan will be developed in coordination with the community to determine appropriate 

highway access routes and acceptable street closure schedules. 

The contractor would require a large area for site facilities including field offices, equipment and 

material storage, etc. The preferred solution would be to have access to an area within Amtrak’s 

ROW. One option is the area adjacent to the Perryville Electrical Substation. This appears to be 

the only viable location within Amtrak’s ROW; lease of privately owned land is another 

possibility. 

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 

The contractor will dispose of solid waste, including excavated soil or sediment, in accordance 

with all applicable regulations and the requirements of off-site waste disposal facilities. Most of 

the construction and demolition debris, including the existing river bridge structure, would be 

removed by barge. Some debris would be removed by truck. Special provisions will be made for 

handling and disposal of any contaminated or hazardous materials encountered during 

construction and demolition; these procedures are described in Chapter 15, “Contaminated and 

Hazardous Materials.” 

 

2

 Maryland Department of Planning, FINDER Online Light. 

http://mdpgis.mdp.state.md.us/finderonlinejs/pi/index.html, accessed 3/8/2016. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 17-6 

D. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

TRANSPORTATION 

Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B allow for construction during normal hours while maintaining 

train operations without substantial impediment. This would be accomplished by preconstructing the components of the replacement bridge along the new alignment off-site. The 

new bridge would be tied in and rail service would be redirected to it before starting demolition 

and reconstruction of the second new bridge along the existing alignment. 

INTERCITY RAIL, FREIGHT SERVICE, AND COMMUTER RAIL 

During the construction period, intercity, freight, and commuter trains operating through the 

project area may need to operate at slower speeds to ensure safety. Limited track outages may 

also be required to connect the newly constructed bridge approach spans to the existing track. 

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 

Bus Service 

Construction of the Proposed Project would have only minimal effects on bus service. Some 

riders may temporarily switch to bus service to avoid any train service delays caused by the 

construction of the new bridge; however, this effect would be temporary. 

Transportation for the Elderly and Disabled 

Construction of the Proposed Project would have no adverse effects on paratransit service.

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

To reduce the need for ROW acquisitions for the Proposed Project, the new bridge would be 

constructed within the swing of the existing movable span. This will prevent the existing bridge 

from opening for mariners while the channel span is being constructed, restricting navigation to 

vessels less than 52 feet high until the new bridge is placed into service and the existing movable 

through truss is removed. Typically, the existing bridge does not open for a five-month period 

from November 1 to March 31 due to low demand outside the recreational boating season. For 

Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B, it is anticipated that construction of the new channel span 

and removal of the existing swing span could be completed within the five-month window when 

the bridge typically does not open. 

During the swing bridge closure period, there will be some impacts to river navigation beyond 

the restriction of swing bridge openings. Coordination will be required between the contractor, 

the U.S. Coast Guard, and local mariners to permit safe passage of vessels during construction 

activities. The contractor will be working in the channel to construct new bridge elements 

including the channel span piers and superstructure. Most of the contractor's work can be 

performed while maintaining one of the existing navigation channels for mariner use. Brief 

channel closure periods will be needed for erecting superstructure elements, demolishing the 

existing through trusses, and performing selected overhead work. 

In order to avoid damage to commercial fishing equipment during the construction period, 

waterborne construction traffic would use navigation routes selected in consultation with the 

local fishermen’s organization. Additional consultation with the commercial fishing community 
Chapter 17: Construction Effects 

 17-7 

would occur as needed during the construction process. Provisions to avoid damage to 

commercial fishing equipment will be included in construction documents for the Proposed 

Project. 

In summary, construction of the Proposed Project would result in some limited, temporary 

disruptions to mariners. Impacts to navigation will be temporary and limited to the construction 

of the replacement bridge. In addition, efforts will be made to undertake a large portion of the 

required construction activities outside of the recreational boating season, during the winter 

months, which will further reduce impacts to navigation. 

REGIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM 

Construction of the Proposed Project would have no adverse effects on regional highways.

LOCAL ROADWAYS 

Construction access will be primarily from public streets. A construction access plan will be 

developed in coordination with the community, to determine appropriate highway access routes 

and acceptable street closure schedules. With these measures in place, construction of the 

Proposed Project would have no adverse effects on local roadways.

LAND ACQUISITION, DISPLACEMENT, AND RELOCATION 

In addition to the necessary land acquisitions discussed in Chapter 4, “Land Use and Community 

Facilities,” Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B would require temporary acquisition of several 

parcels for construction access and staging. These temporary acquisitions are discussed further 

under “Construction Access and Staging,” above. No significant adverse impacts to local land 

uses are expected from construction of the Proposed Project. 

PARKS AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES 

The City of Havre de Grace recently approved the purchase of four properties, totaling 3.2 acres, 

as part of a proposed plan to develop Waterfront Heritage Park along the Susquehanna River, 

west of the existing NEC. The contractor may consider using this as yet undeveloped site as a 

construction staging area through a lease or other agreement with the City before the onset of 

park development. 

Beyond this potential use and the permanent impacts to parks discussed in Chapter 6, “Parks, 

Trails, and Recreational Resources,” there are no additional temporary impacts caused by 

construction. 

SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

Local businesses will not be significantly affected during the construction period. There will be a 

detour to reconstruct the Otsego-Union Street alignment and local marinas and their customers 

may be affected by the short-term navigation restrictions. Therefore, no significant adverse 

impacts to socioeconomic conditions are expected from construction of the Proposed Project. 

VISUAL AND AESTHETIC CONDITIONS 

During construction, there would be an increase in the level of activity within the study area. As 

the Proposed Project proceeds, cranes and other large pieces of equipment would be visible from 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 17-8 

much of the study area. As described previously in Chapter 7, “Visual Resources,” the locations 

in the study area from which substantial views of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge are 

currently available are recreational resources along the Susquehanna River, the roadways and 

rail corridors that transect the study area, and the river itself, from which boaters have 

uninhibited views of the bridge. The views to visual resources that motorists and rail passengers 

experience are generally of short duration, due to the relatively high speeds at which they tend to 

travel through the study area. Boaters in the immediate vicinity of the bridge and pedestrians in 

nearby recreational areas would experience the longest duration and closest range views of the 

replacement bridge construction area. For the duration of construction, cranes, barges and other 

construction equipment, as well as staging areas on both sides of the Susquehanna River would 

be visible to boaters and pedestrians. These temporary changes would not constitute an adverse 

impact to visual resources.

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Cultural resources include both architectural and archaeological resources. As described in 

Chapter 8, “Cultural Resources,” no adverse effects on archaeological resources are expected to 

result from the construction of the Proposed Project. In terms of architectural resources, the 

S/NR-eligible Susquehanna River Rail Bridge would be replaced under both Build Alternatives. 

The removal of this resource constitutes an adverse effect under Section 106. Additionally, 

adverse effects on the undergrade bridges along the approaches to the Susquehanna River Rail 

Bridge, the Havre de Grace Historic District, the Rodgers Tavern, and the Perryville Railroad 

Station are anticipated as a result of constructing the Proposed Project, as described in Chapter 8. 

In order to avoid accidental damage to adjacent resources as a result of construction activities 

associated with the Proposed Project, a Construction Protection Plan (CPP) will be developed in 

consultation with SHPO for all historic properties that may be subject to inadvertent damage 

resulting from construction activities. Mitigation measures are discussed in further detail in 

Chapter 8. 

AIR QUALITY 

For a full description of the pollutants of concern and the regulatory context for air quality 

analyses, see Appendix F, “Air Quality, Noise, and Vibration.” The pollutants of concern 

include particulate matter (both PM2.5 and PM10) including dust and diesel engine emissions and 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from engine emissions. 

FUGITIVE EMISSIONS 

Fugitive dust emissions from land clearing and grading operations can occur from excavation, 

hauling, dumping, spreading, grading, compaction, wind erosion, and traffic over unpaved areas. 

Actual quantities of emissions depend on the extent and nature of the clearing operations, the 

type of equipment employed, the physical characteristics of the underlying soil, the speed at 

which construction vehicles are operated, wind speed, direction and duration, and the types of 

fugitive dust control methods employed. Much of the fugitive dust generated by construction 

activities consists of relatively large-sized particles, which are expected to settle within a short 

distance from the construction site. 

Common construction practices include extensive mitigation measures that would be 

implemented to suppress dust emissions. Appropriate fugitive dust control measures that could 

be employed include: temporarily paving areas expected to be used extensively, watering of 
Chapter 17: Construction Effects 

 17-9 

exposed areas regularly and/or using approved non-toxic soil stabilizers, minimizing the time 

that bare soil is exposed, requiring the use of continuous water spray on all materials transfer 

(e.g., excavation, loading/unloading) and demolition operations, covering lose materials and 

protecting them from wind, temporary vegetation planting on stockpiled soils, truck wash down 

stations at each exit from each site required to be used by all exiting vehicles, and use of dust 

tarps on trucks. Contracts will require the submission and approval of a detailed dust control 

plan for each site prior to the beginning of operations; the plan will define the precise measures 

to be used for each operation type and location and the enforcement mechanism so as to ensure 

that significant adverse impacts from fugitive emissions do not occur. 

MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS 

Mobile source emissions are emissions of air pollutants from vehicles operating off-site en route 

to and from the site, such as delivery vehicles, employee vehicles, and tug boats, and from onroad and non-road vehicles and engines operating on-site such as dump trucks, readymix 

concrete trucks, tug boats, cranes, excavators, portable generators, and more. Mobile source 

emissions are categorized according to whether they are from on-road sources (vehicles on 

public roadways) or non-road sources (marine engines, construction equipment and 

locomotives). Ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel is the primary fuel, although some smaller 

engines may use gasoline. 

Non-road Engines 

Major construction activities associated with the Build Alternatives would occur simultaneously 

at a number of locations throughout the project area. In order to reduce pollutant emissions from 

non-road engines and to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts on air quality in the area 

surrounding the Proposed Project, construction contracts would include the following 

requirements along with appropriate enforcement mechanisms. 

Tier 4 engines or, where Tier 4 is not available or practicable, Tier 3 engines retrofitted with 

EPA, California Air Resources Board (CARB), or VERT3

-approved after-market diesel particle 

filters (DPF) would be used where technically feasible (including safety considerations) for all 

non-road diesel engines greater than 60 horsepower (hp). After-market DPF for Tier 3 engines 

with ULSD fuel achieve nearly the same particulate matter emissions as the newer Tier 4 

engines, and the use of Tier 3 engines ensures the lowest practicable NOx emissions so as to 

minimize NO2 concentrations in the nearby areas to the extent practicable. These requirements 

will apply to all construction engines including but not limited to marine engines, nonroad 

engines, and portable and/or truck mounted equipment such as generators, pumps, and drills, 

including all phases of construction and any exploratory work such as test drilling. Material and 

equipment delivery via rail is not proposed at this time. A reevaluation would be needed if 

deliveries via rail are proposed in the future. 

On-Road Engines 

In order to reduce pollutant emissions from on-road vehicles and to reduce or avoid potential 

adverse impacts on air quality in the area surrounding the Proposed Project, construction 

contracts would include the following requirements along with appropriate enforcement 

mechanisms. Localized effects due to increases in on-road mobile source emissions would be 

minimized through the use of barges or materials transport where feasible and the use of 

 

3

 An association dedicated to the promotion of best available technology for emission control. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 17-10 

appropriate routes for truck deliveries (that avoid residential areas to the extent practicable); 

these truck routes would be identified and specified in all construction contracts as appropriate. 

Truck idling will be strictly prohibited by contract and enforced, other than in cases where a 

truck engine is required to operate auxiliary devices such as loading and unloading or concrete 

mixing. All trucks expected to operate on site, including but not limited to concrete mixing 

trucks and dump trucks, would be required to be of model year (MY) 2007 or newer or equipped 

with DPF-approved similar to the above non-road requirements; MY 2007 or newer vehicles are 

equipped with advanced systems to substantially reduce both PM and NOx emissions. 

STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS 

Electric power at land-based sites would be provided by applying for an electric grid power 

connection in advance and distributing grid power throughout the various sites where power 

would be needed. The use of small portable generators (including truck-mounted generators) up 

to 50 hp would be allowed at land-based sites only for sites where construction duration would 

be limited (less than two weeks) and at which obtaining a grid connection would be 

impracticable. Large generators would not be used at land-based sites. 

POTENTIAL EFFECTS 

Diesel particulate matter and NO2 are a concern, particularly from non-road engines that have 

traditionally been subject to lower emission standards than on-road sources. The potential for 

adverse air quality impacts during construction of the Build Alternatives would be reduced to the 

extent practicable using the strategies listed above. These measures would be specified in all 

construction contracts, including implementation details, reporting, and enforcement procedures. 

With these measures in place, the construction-related impacts on air quality would be 

substantially reduced, and any remaining impacts would be temporary and limited to the local 

vicinity. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts on air quality are expected from construction 

of the Proposed Project. 

Total maximum annual emissions from construction were estimated at 31 tons per year (tpy) of 

NOx, 4 tpy of VOC, and 3 tpy of PM2.5 in each of the adjacent non-attainment and maintenance 

areas—substantially lower than the de minimis levels defined in the general conformity 

regulations. Therefore, the construction of the Proposed Project would not substantially impact 

region-wide pollutant concentrations, would not interfere with the SIP for region–wide 

attainment of the ozone NAAQS or maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS, and would not require a 

conformity determination. 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

Noise and vibration from construction equipment operation and noise from construction vehicles 

and delivery vehicles traveling to and from the Proposed Project area may occur during 

construction of the Proposed Project. The level of impact of these noise sources depends on the 

noise characteristics of the construction equipment and activities, the schedule, and the location 

of potentially sensitive noise receptors. Noise and vibration levels at a given location are 

dependent on the type and number of pieces of construction equipment being operated, as well 

as the distance from the construction site. Like most construction projects, construction of the 

Build Alternatives would result in increased noise and vibration levels for a limited time period. 
Chapter 17: Construction Effects 

 17-11 

NOISE 

Typical noise levels of construction equipment that may be employed during the construction 

process are provided in Table 17-2. Noise from construction equipment is regulated by U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) noise emission standards. These federal 

requirements mandate that: (1) certain classifications of construction equipment and motor 

vehicles meet specified noise emissions standards; and (2) construction materials be handled and 

transported so as not to create unnecessary noise. These regulations would be carefully followed. 

Appropriate low-noise emission level equipment would be used and operational procedures 

implemented to ensure equipment noise emission levels that do not exceed the values shown in 

Table 17-2. Compliance with noise control measures would be ensured by including them in the 

contract documents as material specifications and by directives to the construction contractor. 

The contractor would be encouraged to use quiet construction equipment. 

Noise generated by construction equipment would decrease with distance. In general, the 

outdoor drop-off rate for moving noise sources is a decrease of 4.5 dBA for every doubling of 

distance between the noise source and the receiver. For stationary sources, the outdoor drop-off 

rate is a decrease of 6 dBA for every doubling of distance between the noise source and the 

receiver. In general, noise caused by construction activities would vary widely in volume, 

duration and location, depending on the task being undertaken and the piece of equipment used. 

Noise caused by delivery trucks, employees traveling to and from the site, and other construction 

vehicles would not be severe in volume or duration, and would be limited to the major access 

roadways leading to the project site. Highway access to the project site is good, minimizing the 

need for project-related trucks to travel on local roads. Major elements of the Proposed Project, 

such as the steel trusses for the river crossings, would be assembled off-site and delivered by 

barge. Some components would be delivered by truck, with the number of daily deliveries by 

estimated to range between 25 and 50 during peak construction activity. This level of truck 

traffic would not be expected to result in noise levels at any residential receptors that would 

constitute significant adverse impacts. 

The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) General Analysis methodology for construction 

noise was used to evaluate the potential for noise impacts resulting from construction of the 

Proposed Project. The General Analysis methodology considers the noise level produced by the 

two loudest pieces of construction equipment compared with construction noise impact criteria, 

which is 90 dBA during daytime hours and 80 dBA during nighttime hours4

. In the case of the 

Proposed Project, two impact pile drivers were assumed to represent the two noisiest pieces of 

equipment. Table 17-3 shows the results of the general construction noise analysis. 

 

4

 While most construction is expected to occur during daytime hours, some specific activities may be 

required to occur during the evening, and schedule constraints may require some night-time work. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 17-12 

Table 17-2

Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels

Equipment 

Typical Noise Level (dBA) 

50 feet from source 

Air compressor 81 

Backhoe 80 

Bulldozer 85 

Compactor 82 

Concrete Mixer 85 

Concrete Pump 82 

Concrete Vibrator 76 

Crane, Derrick 88 

Crane, Mobile 83 

Generator 81 

Grader 85 

Impact Wrench 85 

Jackhammer 88 

Loader 85 

Paver 89 

Pile Driver (Impact) 101 

Pile Driver (Sonic) 96 

Pneumatic Tool 85 

Pump 76 

Rail Saw 90 

Rock Drill 98 

Roller 74 

Saw 76 

Scarifier 83 

Scraper 89 

Shovel 82 

Spike Driver 77 

Tie Cutter 84 

Tie Handler 80 

Tie Inserter 85 

Truck 88 

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006. 
Chapter 17: Construction Effects 

 17-13 

Table 17-3

Construction Noise Levels in dBA

Site Receptor Location 

Distance to 

Work Area (feet) 

Construction Noise 

Level 

1 

Broad Street at Susquehanna Avenue, 

Perryville 118 62.6 

2 Elm Street at Susquehanna Avenue, Perryville 820 45.7 

3 River Road North of Broad Street, Perryville 744 46.6 

4 Woodlands Farm Road South, Perryville >5000 49.5 

5 Avenue D at 1st Street, Perryville 728 46.8 

6 Ellis Court South of Broad Street, Perryville 1200 53.7 

7 Freedom Lane at Franklin Street, HdG 719 46.9 

8 David Craig Park, HdG 109 63.3 

9 North Stokes Street at Otsego Street, HdG 87 65.2 

10 Anderson Avenue Cul-de-Sac, HdG >5000 61.7 

11 Warren Street at Legion Drive, HdG 787 53.4 

12 Williams Drive East of Oakington Road, HdG >5000 59.2 

As shown in Table 17-3, the predicted levels of construction noise are well below the 80 dBA 

threshold that is considered significant even during nighttime hours according to FTA’s 

construction noise evaluation criteria. However, construction activities related to the bridges, 

approach structures, embankment and retaining walls, and new track and ancillary equipment 

along each alignment would result in short-term noise increases in the vicinity of the actual work 

site. At receptors located along the waterfront and along the approach structures, construction 

activity would be audible and would result in perceptible increases in noise level during the 

periods of heavy construction activity, such as excavation and foundation construction. Like 

many corridor-type transportation projects, construction in any given area would be limited as 

the work progresses, minimizing the adverse noise impacts on any one site. 

However, because of the distance between the construction work areas and adjacent receptors, 

no significant adverse noise impacts are expected to result from construction of the Proposed 

Project. 

VIBRATION 

Tables 17-4 and Table 17-5 show architectural and structural damage risk and perceptibility 

distances for residential and historic structures in proximity to the types of construction activities 

that would occur during construction of the Proposed Project. Architectural damage includes 

cosmetic damage, such as cracked plaster, etc. Architectural damage is not considered 

potentially dangerous. As shown in Table 17-4, pile driving has the greatest potential to result in 

architectural damage to most building types. While not shown in the table, controlled blasting 

also can result in high vibration levels in excess of 100 VdB with resultant damage to existing 

structures. Most other construction activities require very small (i.e., less than 25 feet) distances 

between the structure and the construction equipment or the presence of highly fragile buildings 

for impacts to occur. For fragile and highly fragile buildings respectively, FTA recommends a 

limit of peak particle velocities of 0.2 and 0.12 inch per second (in/sec) or 94 and 90 VdB. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 17-14 

Table 17-4 

Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment 

Equipment PPV at 25 ft (in/sec) Approximate Lv* at 25 ft 

Pile Driver (impact) 0.644 104 

Pile Driver (sonic) 0.170 93 

Clam Shovel drop 

(slurry wall) 0.202 94 

Hydromill 

(slurry wall in soil) 0.008 66 

Hydromill 

(slurry wall in rock) 0.017 75 

Vibratory Roller 0.210 94 

Hoe Ram 0.089 87 

Large bulldozer 0.089 87 

Caisson drilling 0.089 87 

Loaded trucks 0.076 86 

Jackhammer 0.035 79 

Small bulldozer 0.003 58 

Note: * RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) re 1 micro-inch/second 

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 

FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006. 

Table 17-5

Construction Vibration Damage Criteria

Building Category PPV (in/sec) Approximate Lv *

I. Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 

II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 

III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 

IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 

Note: * RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) re 1 micro-inch/second 

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 

FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006. 

The structure of most concern with regard to the potential for structural or architectural damage 

due to vibration is Rodgers Tavern in Perryville, west of the north approach to the proposed new 

bridge. Pile driving is the construction activity with the greatest potential to result in high levels 

of vibration. No pile driving is expected to occur within 80 feet of this structure, and 

consequently the maximum Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) expected to occur is less than 0.12 

in/sec, which is the threshold of potential for damage suggested by the FTA for buildings most 

susceptible to vibration damage. Consequently, the vibration resulting from construction of the 

Proposed Project would not have the potential to cause damage at this location. At other 

buildings and structures, which would be located still farther from construction activity, 

maximum PPV values resulting from construction of the Proposed Project would be even lower. 

While the predicted level of PPV is below the threshold that would have the potential to result in 

architectural or structural damage, vibration would be perceptible and have the potential to result 
Chapter 17: Construction Effects 

 17-15 

in annoyance within approximately 500 feet of pile driving activities, or within approximately 95 

feet of other heavy construction activity. While vibration within these ranges would be 

perceptible, it would be of limited duration because construction activity would move along the 

Proposed Project corridor. Consequently, vibration in the perceptible range would not occur over 

a prolonged period of time at any one receptor location. Typically, pile driving in a single pile 

location will take no more than two to five days, depending on the number and size of piles in 

the group to be driven for a single bridge support. Depending on the number of bridge supports 

within 500 feet of a given receptor, the duration of perceptible vibration at the receptor may last 

multiple weeks. Consequently, the vibration resulting from construction of the Proposed Project 

would not constitute a significant adverse impact. 

Special Provisions for Historic Structures 

In addition to the establishment of a project-wide Construction Protection Plan (CPP), special 

measures set forth by the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) would be followed to protect historic 

resources from increased vibration levels associated with construction activities. At any 

construction location where historic resources, and particularly older fragile buildings, are within 

an area of potential effect (see Chapter 8 for more details), construction contractors would be 

required to implement special vibration protection measures. These measures, to be included as 

part of the construction protection program for historic resources (discussed above under 

“Cultural Resources”), would likely include the following: 

 Inspect and report on the current foundation and structural condition of any historic 

resources. 

 Set up a vibration monitoring program to measure vertical and lateral movement and 

vibration to the historic structures within 150 feet of pile-driving activities. Details as to the 

frequency and duration of the vibration monitoring program would be determined as part of 

the Proposed Project’s ongoing consultation process with MHT. 

 Establish and monitor construction methods to limit vibrations to levels that would not cause 

structural damage to the historic structures, as determined by the condition survey. 

 Issue “stop work” orders to the construction contractor, as required, to prevent damage to the 

structures, based on any vibration levels that exceed the design criteria in lateral or vertical 

direction. Work would not begin again until the steps proposed to stabilize and/or prevent 

further damage to the designated buildings were approved. 

With these measures in place, the construction-related vibration impacts would be minimized, 

and any remaining impacts would be temporary and of short duration. Therefore, no significant 

adverse impacts to vibration conditions are expected from construction of the Proposed Project. 

NATURAL RESOURCES AND PERMITTING 

An analysis of construction period impacts on natural resources is provided in Appendix E, 

“Natural Environmental Technical Report.” 

CONTAMINATED AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

An analysis of construction period impacts related to contaminated and hazardous materials is 

provided in Chapter 15, “Contaminated and Hazardous Materials.”
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 17-16 

INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES 

As described above, construction of Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B would require minor 

modifications to Amtrak’s Perryville Electrical Substation. A transmission tower on the west 

side of the tracks provides power to the substation from the Safe Harbor Generating Station. 

Given the importance of the substation and its close proximity to the proposed installation of a 

new large retaining wall, the substation must be protected during construction so as to maintain 

power to the Proposed Project throughout the work. 

Alternative 9A would require that a county‐owned water main currently located on Havre de 

Grace Middle School/High School property be relocated beneath the schools’ track and field 

facility. This would temporarily affect the use of the facility. Alternative 9B will not require 

relocation of the water main, and will not affect the track and field facility. 

Another utility consideration for Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B is a fiber optic duct bank 

that carries Amtrak, AT&T, Qwest, and Verizon Business. The duct bank runs along the east 

side of existing rail for the full length of the proposed alignment; these utilities are carried across 

the existing bridge. Other known utilities that would be affected by the Proposed Project include 

lines owned by Zayo Fiber Optics, Comcast Communication, BGE (electric and gas), Delmarva 

Power (electric), and a Town of Perryville sewer line. The presence of additional aboveground 

and underground utilities may be determined during the final engineering stage. Relocation of 

the known utilities described above will be coordinated with the utility provider to minimize 

service disruptions. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to utilities are expected from 

construction of the Proposed Project. 
 18-1 

Chapter 18: Indirect and Cumulative Effects

A. INTRODUCTION 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)’s regulations implementing the procedural 

provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), set forth in 40 C.F.R. Part 1500 et 

seq., require federal agencies to consider the potential for indirect and cumulative effects from a 

project. Indirect effects are those that are “caused by an action and are later in time or farther 

removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable” (40 C.F.R. 1508.8). Indirect effects can 

include the full range of impact types, such as changes in land use, economic vitality, 

neighborhood character, traffic congestion, air quality, noise, vibration, and water and natural 

resources. For example, transportation projects that provide new service to a neighborhood may 

result in indirect effects by inducing new growth in that neighborhood. Cumulative impacts 

result from the incremental consequences of an action when added to other past and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions (40 C.F.R. 1508.7). The direct effects of an individual action may be 

negligible, but may contribute to a measurable environmental impact when considered 

cumulatively with other past and/or future projects. Since the other analyses presented in this 

Environmental Assessment (EA) assess the potential direct effects of the Proposed Project 

within the defined project study area through 2040, this chapter addresses the potential for 

indirect and cumulative effects (ICE) that could occur within a larger geographic region, as 

discussed in Section D, “Geographic Boundary.” 

B. METHODOLOGY 

This ICE analysis follows the basic framework identified in the CEQ NEPA regulations for 

examining the indirect and cumulative effects of a proposed action, which are as follows: 

 Identify environmental resources of interest; 

 Determine geographic and temporal boundaries; 

 Identify past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects to be considered as a part of 

the ICE analysis; and 

 Assess the indirect and cumulative effects to the environmental resources of interest within 

the geographic and temporal boundary. 

C. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES OF INTEREST 

Environmental resources analyzed are those that would be indirectly affected by the construction 

and operation of the Proposed Project and those that have the potential to experience cumulative 

effects from the Proposed Project and other reasonably foreseeable actions. The resources 

assessed in this ICE analysis are: 

 Transportation 

 Land Use and Community Facilities; 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

 18-2 

 Socioeconomic Conditions and Environmental Justice; 

 Parks, Trails, and Recreational Resources (includes Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) resources); 

 Visual and Aesthetic Conditions; 

 Cultural Resources (includes Section 4(f) resources); 

 Natural Resources; and 

 Public Health, Safety, and Security. 

Direct impacts due to contaminated and hazardous materials would be mitigated at the source as 

part of the Proposed Project and are therefore not considered in the ICE analysis. Elsewhere in 

this EA, the analyses of air quality (Chapter 12), energy and climate change (Chapter 13), and 

noise and vibration (Chapter 14) are cumulative in their scope as they study the effects of 

projected NEC FUTURE train volumes for 2040. Any indirect and cumulative effects on those 

resource areas are addressed in the respective chapters, and therefore these resources need not be 

analyzed in this chapter. 

D. GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARY 

The geographic limits for the ICE analysis extend beyond those used for the direct impact 

analysis, which identified resources within or intersecting the 1,000-foot boundary on any side 

of the current rail right-of-way (ROW). The ICE boundary was established through a synthesis 

of multiple resource boundaries (i.e. study area, census tracts, rail lines, and watersheds) into one 

overall ICE boundary (see Table 18-1). Based on data available from state and county sources, 

the resources were mapped using GIS techniques and analyzed to determine the nature and 

extent of indirect and cumulative effects created by the project. 

Table 18-1

Geographic Boundary Synthesis

Resource Sub-Boundaries 

Transportation Includes the NEC from Wilmington to Baltimore 

Land Use/Community Facilities City of Havre de Grace municipal limits; Town of 

Perryville municipal limits; 1,000-foot study area 

boundary 

Socioeconomic Conditions/ 

Environmental Justice 

Census Block Groups within or intersecting a 1,000-foot 

radius of the current rail ROW 

Parks, Trails, and Recreational 

Facilities 

City of Havre de Grace municipal limits; Town of 

Perryville municipal limits; 1,000-foot study area 

boundary 

Cultural Resources Area of Potential Effect (APE), including the Havre de 

Grace Historic District 

Visual and Aesthetic Conditions Equivalent to study area for direct effects 

Natural Resources Watershed/Sub-watershed boundaries (includes portions 

of Swan Creek-Bush River, HUC 02130706; Lower 

Susquehanna River, HUC 02120201; and Furnace BayElk River, HUC 02130609) 

Public Health, Safety, and Security City of Havre de Grace municipal limits; Town of 

Perryville municipal limits; 1,000-foot study area 

boundary 
Chapter 18: Indirect and Cumulative Effects

 18-3 

E. TEMPORAL BOUNDARY 

Temporal boundaries are the timeframes for the ICE analysis, typically ranging from the year in 

the past when major events within the geographic boundary influenced population and/or land 

use changes to the foreseeable future. The timeframe used for this analysis was determined to be 

between 1976, when the bridge ownership was transferred to the National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation (Amtrak), through 2040. 

F. REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIONS 

The reasonably foreseeable development projects within the ICE boundary are summarized in 

Table 18-2. 

Table 18-2

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Location 

Project/ 

Development Name Description 

Havre De 

Grace 

Bulle Rock 

Continued development of large residential, 

commercial and retail community within Havre de 

Grace that is located south of I-95 and north of the 

historic downtown of Havre de Grace. 

Greenway Farms 

Existing residential community located immediately to 

the east of Bulle Rock; plans to double the number of 

current homes. 

Havre de Grace Waterfront 

Redevelopment 

City of Havre de Grace plans call for potential new 

building heights as tall as 10 stories with the goal 

being to encourage taller development with a smaller 

footprint rather than “shorter and wider” buildings 

along the waterfront. 

Havre de Grace Middle/High 

School Redevelopment 

The County has issued a design contract to combine 

the currently separate high school and middle school 

into one overall modernized facility along with a new 

field house for the football stadium and athletic fields.

Acer Warehouse Expansion The existing warehouse facility has 25 acres where the 

company plans to expand in the future. 

Proposed Waterfront 

Heritage Park 

The City plans to create a new Heritage Park with a 

“Water Shuttle Landing Site”, public waterfront 

promenade and fishing pier. 

Perryville 

MARC Northeast 

Maintenance Facility 

Proposed MARC maintenance facility within the 

northern section of the project limits. FTA issued a 

FONSI in October 2015. 

Perryville Municipal 

Complex 

Development project which includes a new police 

department, town hall, and little league baseball field 

adjacent to the MARC station in Perryville. 

Lower Ferry Park and Pier 

Development of a park which includes a comfort 

station, a band shell, playground equipment, and 

walking paths. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

 18-4 

Table 18-2 (cont’d)

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Location 

Project/ 

Development Name Description 

Conowingo, 

MD 

Relicensing of the 

Conowingo Dam 

The Conowingo Dam connects Cecil and Harford 

Counties in Maryland at river mile 10. The 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC is licensed by 

FERC to operate the Conowingo Hydroelectric 

Project. FERC is reviewing applications to 

relicense three hydropower projects located on 

the lower Susquehanna River, including the 

Conowingo Dam. A Final EIS was issued in 

March of 2015, outlining the new environmental 

measures and those that Exelon proposes to 

continue. 

NEC north of 

Perryville Chesapeake Connector 

WILMAPCO has proposed this project to 

alleviate a freight rail bottleneck by adding a third 

track between Perryville and North East, MD. 

The Proposed Project has been designed so as not 

to preclude construction of the project, which is 

located on the eastern edge of the Susquehanna 

River Rail Bridge Project limits. 

NEC north of 

Perryville 

MARC Northward Service 

Extension 

MTA planning documents propose extending 

service northward, with an eventual shuttle 

connection to the SEPTA commuter rail network 

(presumably at the nearest SEPTA station, in 

Newark, Delaware), by 2030.1

Aberdeen, MD Aberdeen Station Square 

Master Plan 

Aberdeen Station, located south of the study area,

is the next stop on the MARC Penn Line after 

Perryville Station and is also served by Amtrak’s 

Northeast Regional service. The Master Plan 

proposes future development around the 

Aberdeen railroad station. 

Baltimore, MD: 

NEC between 

West Baltimore 

MARC Station 

and Baltimore 

Penn Station 

B&P Tunnel Project 

FRA, MDOT and Amtrak are studying various 

improvements to the B&P Tunnel, constructed in 

1873. The tunnel is nearing the end of its useful 

service life and suffers from deficient track 

geometry and other features that slow rail 

movement, creating a major bottleneck on the 

NEC. A Draft EIS was issued in December 2015, 

outlining alternatives which would replace the 

existing tunnel with new tunnels aligned in a 

broad arc north of the existing tunnel. FRA issued 

the Final EIS in November 2016. 

 

1

 “MARC Growth and Investment Plan Update 2013-2050”, dated September 9, 2013, MTA. 
Chapter 18: Indirect and Cumulative Effects

 18-5 

Table 18-2 (cont’d)

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Location 

Project/ 

Development Name Description 

NEC from 

Odenton to 

Halethorpe, MD 

BWI Rail Station 

Improvements and Fourth 

Track Project 

MTA, with funding from FRA, has proposed 

station and track improvements associated with 

the BWI Marshall Airport Rail Station. The 

project includes construction of a new platform, 

improvements to the current station with possible 

multi-level transit oriented development and the 

addition of a fourth track along nine miles of the 

NEC. The general project area is defined as a 

500-foot-wide corridor centered on the existing 

rail line between the Odenton Station and 

Halethorpe Station. FRA issued a FONSI in 

January 2016, and the Federal Aviation 

Administration issued a FONSI in July 2016. 

NEC from 

Boston, MA to 

Washington, 

D.C. 

NEC FUTURE 

The purpose of the FRA-led NEC FUTURE is to 

upgrade aging infrastructure and improve the 

reliability, capacity, connectivity, performance, 

and resiliency of passenger rail service on the 

NEC between Washington, D.C., and Boston, 

Massachusetts for both intercity and regional 

trips, while promoting environmental 

sustainability and economic growth. The planning 

effort was initiated in early 2012 and a Tier I 

Draft EIS was released in November 2015; a Tier 

I Final EIS was released in December 2016. The 

Preferred Alternative proposes an investment 

program that includes numerous upgrades and 

state-of-good-repair projects along the length of 

the NEC. 

Notes: 

MARC = Maryland Area Regional Commuter; FERC = Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission; MTA = Maryland Transit Administration; EIS = Environmental Impact Statement; 

NEC = Northeast Corridor; SEPTA = Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority; 

B&P = Baltimore and Potomac; BWI = Baltimore-Washington International Airport; FONSI = 

Finding of No Significant Impact. 

G. INDIRECT EFFECTS ANALYSIS 

The purpose of the indirect effects analysis is to assess those impacts caused by an action, such 

as the Proposed Project, which occur later in time or farther removed in distance than direct 

effects, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects are sometimes referred to as induced 

impacts because they are the type of impacts that would not or could not occur if it were not for 

the implementation of the project. Indirect effects include those that occur further away in space 

or time from the direct effects of the action. Indirect effects may also occur if the action changes 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

 18-6 

the extent, pace, and/or location of development and if this change affects environmental 

resources. 

The Proposed Project is an effort to remove the bottleneck caused by an aging railroad bridge 

that is nearing the end of its useful life. For transportation, the primary indirect effect would be 

to improve existing rail service along the NEC, thereby improving trip times. This could lead to 

induced growth and improved socioeconomic outcomes in communities served by stations along 

the NEC due to the improved service and corresponding increases in ridership. However, these 

effects would be quite small due to the continued existence of other restrictions along the NEC, 

which would limit the trip time savings enabled by the Proposed Project alone. No indirect 

effects to parks, trails, and recreational resources, cultural or natural resources, or public health, 

safety, and security are anticipated to result from the Proposed Project. 

H. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS 

In accordance with CEQ regulations, cumulative impact is defined as “the impact on the 

environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or nonFederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 

CFR § 1508.7). A cumulative impact includes the total effect on a natural resource, ecosystem, 

or human community due to past, present, and future activities or actions of Federal, nonFederal, public, and private entities. Cumulative impacts may also include the effects of natural 

processes and events, depending on the specific resource in question. Cumulative impacts 

include the total of all impacts to a particular resource that have occurred, are occurring, and 

would likely occur as a result of any action or influence, including the direct and reasonably 

foreseeable indirect impacts of a Federal activity. Accordingly, there may be different 

cumulative impacts on different environmental resources. However, not all of the resources 

directly impacted by a project will require a cumulative impact analysis. The resources subject to 

a cumulative impact assessment are determined on a case-by-case basis. Table 18-3 provides a 

summary of the cumulative impacts analysis, organized by resource area. 
Chapter 18: Indirect and Cumulative Effects

 18-7 

Table 18-3

Overall Cumulative Impacts Summary

Resource Effects of Past Actions 

Cumulative Effects with 

Proposed Project 

Projects/Actions Considered 

in Cumulative Effects 

Assessment 

Transportation 

Disinvestment and 

deterioration of the rail 

network and associated 

infrastructure; Efforts to 

repair past damage, reach a 

state of good repair, and 

improve the NEC rail 

network 

Planned investment in rail 

network to achieve state of 

good repair and enable service 

increases, including highspeed rail; associated benefits 

include reduced highway and 

airport congestion, faster and 

easier travel on all modes, 

VMT reduction, reduced 

roadway emissions, and 

economic benefits 

NEC FUTURE; Chesapeake 

Connector; MARC Northeast 

Maintenance Facility; MARC 

Northward Service Extension; 

Aberdeen Station Square 

Master Plan; B&P Tunnel 

Project; BWI Rail Station 

Improvements and Fourth 

Track Project 

Land Use and 

Community 

Facilities 

Development and 

redevelopment of residential, 

commercial, industrial and 

transportation uses; 

Development of community 

facilities to support other 

development 

Increased regional mobility 

and accessibility to 

neighborhoods and community 

facilities; Planning in place to 

minimize negative impacts to 

neighborhoods and community 

facilities 

Bulle Rock; Greenway Farms; 

Havre de Grace Waterfront 

Redevelopment; Havre de 

Grace Middle/High School 

Redevelopment; Acer 

Warehouse Expansion; 

Proposed Waterfront Heritage 

Park; Perryville Municipal 

Complex; Lower Ferry Park 

and Pier; Transportation 

projects listed above 

Socioeconomic 

Conditions and 

Environmental 

Justice 

Social and economic 

benefits from development; 

Regulations to avoid or 

minimize disproportionately 

high and adverse effects to 

minority and low-income 

populations 

Increased mobility, access to 

transit, and greater 

employment opportunities 

through continued 

development 

Bulle Rock; Greenway Farms; 

Acer Warehouse Expansion; 

MARC Northeast Maintenance 

Facility; Perryville Municipal 

Complex; MARC Northward 

Service Extension; B&P 

Tunnel Project; BWI Rail 

Station Improvements and 

Fourth Track Project; NEC 

FUTURE 

Parks, Trails, 

and 

Recreational 

Resources 

Development of new parks 

and park facilities; 

Development of lands 

adjacent to public parks limit 

expansion of facilities; 

Limited opportunities for 

connectivity 

Continuing development of 

new parks and park facilities; 

Increased accessibility to 

public parks; Small taking of 

parkland with the project 

Havre de Grace Middle/High 

School Redevelopment; 

Proposed Waterfront Heritage 

Park; Perryville Municipal 

Complex; Lower Ferry Park 

and Pier; NEC FUTURE 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

 18-8 

Table 18-3 (cont’d)

Overall Cumulative Impacts Summary

Resource Effects of Past Actions 

Cumulative Effects with 

Proposed Project 

Projects/Actions Considered 

in Cumulative Effects 

Assessment 

Visual and 

Aesthetic 

Conditions 

Development in viewsheds, 

including residential, 

commercial, and 

transportation uses 

Continuing development of 

residential, waterfront 

commercial, and park uses 

along the Susquehanna 

riverfront; Ongoing 

development along the NEC 

including in the vicinity of the 

Perryville Railroad Station and 

the Havre de Grace Historic 

District 

Bulle Rock; Greenway Farms; 

Havre de Grace Waterfront 

Development; Proposed 

Waterfront Heritage Park; 

Perryville Municipal Complex; 

Lower Ferry Park and Pier; 

NEC FUTURE 

Cultural 

Resources 

Impacts to various cultural 

resources, primarily from 

development on private 

lands 

Ongoing preservation of 

cultural resources; Loss of 

some cultural resources 

including historic rail 

structures; Impacts to historic 

districts from development 

Havre de Grace Waterfront 

Redevelopment; Havre de 

Grace Middle/High School 

Redevelopment; Proposed 

Waterfront Heritage Park; 

Perryville Municipal Complex; 

Lower Ferry Park and Pier; 

Aberdeen Station Square 

Master Plan; B&P Tunnel 

Project; NEC FUTURE 

Natural 

Resources 

Loss of resource areas due to 

draining, ditching or filling 

by development; 

Deterioration of water 

quality; Loss of floodplain 

areas and RTE habitat due to 

development 

Regulations in place to avoid 

or minimize effects to water 

quality, wetland and stream 

resources, floodplains, and 

RTE habitat; Regulations in 

place to govern fill and 

construction in floodplains; 

Potential for habitat loss due 

to land use conversion 

Bulle Rock; Greenway Farms; 

Havre de Grace Waterfront 

Redevelopment; Acer 

Warehouse Expansion; 

Proposed Waterfront Heritage 

Park; MARC Northeast 

Maintenance Facility; Lower 

Ferry Park and Pier; 

Conowingo Dam Relicensing; 

BWI Rail Station 

Improvements and Fourth 

Track Project; NEC FUTURE 

Public Health, 

Safety, and 

Security 

Public health and safety 

improvements due to 

tightened state and federal 

standards for air and water 

quality and rail safety; 

Increased exposure to 

hazardous materials and high 

noise levels due to rail 

activity 

Continuing public health 

improvements due to reduced 

congestion and VMT, 

reducing noise and emissions 

that contribute to air pollution; 

Improved system-wide 

passenger rail safety 

MARC Northeast Maintenance 

Facility; Chesapeake 

Connector; B&P Tunnel 

Project; BWI Rail Station 

Improvements and Fourth 

Track Project; NEC FUTURE 
Chapter 18: Indirect and Cumulative Effects

 18-9 

TRANSPORTATION 

Direct project impacts to Transportation are discussed in Chapter 3, “Transportation.” 

MARC IMPROVEMENTS 

MARC’s Northeast Maintenance Facility and the agency’s ongoing study of extending service 

northward beyond Perryville for eventual connections to SEPTA service would introduce 

MARC activity north of Perryville station, the current northern terminus of MARC service on 

the Penn Line. In combination with other projects along MARC’s Penn Line including the 

Aberdeen Station Square Master Plan, B&P Tunnel Project, and BWI Rail Station 

Improvements and Fourth Track Project, the extension would enable future service increases to 

Perryville and points north, which would have the potential to increase noise, pollutant 

emissions, and other potential effects in the vicinity of Perryville Station and northward along 

the NEC, while decreasing some air pollutant emissions near other roadways and in the region as 

a result of reduced regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT). While it is partially enabled by the 

Proposed Project, this added service is not being proposed as part of the Susquehanna River Rail 

Bridge Project and would be studied under a separate environmental review. 

NEC FUTURE 

NEC FUTURE is a planning effort to develop a comprehensive program for upgrading and 

improving the reliability, capacity, connectivity, performance, and resiliency of passenger rail 

service on the NEC. The NEC FUTURE Tier I Final EIS was released in December 2016. The 

Tier I Final EIS evaluates the cumulative benefits of a Preferred Alternative that includes a 

package of rail improvement projects along the entire NEC, including those of the Proposed 

Project, as they interact with the improvements programmed as part of NEC FUTURE.2

Cumulative benefits include increasing the role of rail as part of the total travel market; 

providing a better overall transportation network that functions more effectively and efficiently 

to meet the needs of passengers, freight railroads, residents, and businesses within the Northeast 

region; reducing emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHGs) from roadway 

vehicles; and providing more travel choices, enabling Northeast residents to access a wider 

selection of jobs and services. Chapter 3, “Transportation,” analyzes the Proposed Project’s 

impacts in the 2040 timeframe utilizing NEC FUTURE train projections, and is therefore 

inherently cumulative in its analysis. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the service 

goals considered in the NEC FUTURE Tier 1 FEIS Preferred Alternative along this section of 

the NEC. 

By increasing capacity, offering improved reliability and better performance between NEC rail 

markets, expanding service to new markets, and offering a greater range of pricing options, NEC 

FUTURE would make rail travel more competitive with other modes and substantially expand 

the accessibility of rail travel along the NEC. Under NEC FUTURE, the volume of intercity 

passenger trips would more than double, and regional rail passenger trips would increase by 

approximately 20 percent, while the volume of trips made using other modes (highway, air, 

intercity bus) would decrease relative to the No Action condition, as some people shift their 

mode of transportation to rail. This would result in a VMT reduction of approximately four 

 

2

 FRA, NEC FUTURE Tier I Final EIS, December 2016. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

 18-10 

million automobile miles traveled in 20403

 as compared with the 2040 No Action condition. The 

VMT reduction would provide a benefit to all travelers in the Northeast region due to reduced 

congestion of highways and airports. Trip times would also decrease substantially; the rail trip 

from Washington, D.C. to Boston would be reduced by approximately 1.5 hours. Chokepoint 

relief projects would also ease movement of freight trains along the corridor, with resulting 

economic benefits to goods movement. As a necessary improvement to the NEC, the 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project would contribute to the reduction of VMT and trip times 

and improvements at chokepoints, with their associated benefits. 

LAND USE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES 

Direct project impacts to Land Use and Community Facilities are discussed in Chapter 4, “Land 

Use and Community Facilities.” 

A number of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable development projects in Havre de Grace and 

Perryville (listed in Table 18-2) will continue the current trend for development of residential, 

commercial, industrial, community facility, and parkland uses in these communities. In 

combination with the transportation improvements described in the preceding section, the 

Proposed Project could contribute to inducement of some additional development. This is 

particularly likely in the vicinity of Perryville station, which will become more desirable for 

development due to improved and expanded rail service, as well as the development of the 

Perryville Municipal Complex directly adjacent to the station. However, any incremental new 

development induced as a result of these improvements would be consistent with existing 

development trends in Perryville and Havre de Grace. Additional induced development would 

also be expected along the length of the MARC Penn Line and NEC due to improved and 

expanded rail service resulting from NEC FUTURE and the other rail improvements described 

above. 

In addition to induced development, the Proposed Project and other transportation improvements 

would cumulatively lead to an intensification of use in the existing transportation corridor, which 

could result in the taking of additional lands for transportation use all along the NEC. However, 

most rail improvements would be made within the existing ROW, and any necessary takings 

would be spread along the 457-mile NEC, so substantial impacts to any given community or 

neighborhood would be limited. Each project would independently analyze and address the 

specific local impacts from land takings and conversion to transportation use, and affected 

property owners would receive assistance in accordance with applicable federal and/or state 

requirements. The acquisition of property and the relocation of residents, businesses, farms and 

non-profit organizations, if needed, would be conducted in accordance with all applicable federal 

laws, regulations and requirements, including but not limited to 23 CFR 710, the Uniform 

Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended and its 

implementing regulations found in 49 CFR 24. 

Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B generally follow the existing transportation corridor, and 

therefore avoid any substantial changes to existing land use. Where acquisition of adjacent land 

is necessary, the Proposed Project will adhere to the provisions of the Uniform Act and 

applicable state laws with regard to relocation services, moving and other allowable 

 

3

 FRA, NEC FUTURE Tier I Final EIS, December 2016. Appendix BB. “Technical Analysis on 

the Preferred Alternative”.” All information cited is based on the Preferred Alternative of the 

Tier I Final EIS. 
Chapter 18: Indirect and Cumulative Effects

 18-11 

compensation related to the displacement of affected businesses. Where full property acquisition 

is required, the owners of properties will be compensated for the land acquired and businesses 

will be provided relocation assistance to facilitate their reestablishment elsewhere. As a result, a 

substantial contribution toward cumulative effects to land use and community facilities is not 

anticipated from the Proposed Project. 

SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Direct Proposed Project impacts to Socioeconomic Conditions and Environmental Justice are 

discussed in Chapter 5, “Socioeconomic Conditions and Environmental Justice.” 

In combination with the transportation improvements and development projects described in the 

preceding sections, the Proposed Project would contribute to cumulative increases in mobility 

and access to transit, as well as greater employment opportunities in Havre de Grace and 

Perryville and throughout the Northeast region. While population, employment, and housing 

supply in the local area and throughout the Northeast are expected to continue to grow, the 

Proposed Project would not make a measurable contribute to these changes. The Proposed 

Project would not contribute to any reasonably foreseeable disproportionate impacts to 

Environmental Justice communities. By improving mobility across the Susquehanna River for 

passenger and freight rail, as well as marine users on the Susquehanna River, the Proposed 

Project would have a beneficial cumulative impact to socioeconomic conditions and 

Environmental Justice populations. 

PARKS, TRAILS, AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES 

Direct Proposed Project impacts to Parks, Trails, and Recreational Resources are discussed in 

Chapter 6, “Parks, Trails, and Recreational Resources.” 

The Proposed Project would have adverse effects on parks and recreational resources (including 

Section 4(f) resources), but with mitigation, as detailed in Chapter 6, Chapter 9, “Draft Section 

4(f) Evaluation,” and Chapter 10, “Section 6(f) Evaluation,” these adverse effects would not be 

significant. Alternative 9A would require the acquisition of a strip of the Havre de Grace 

Middle/High School track and athletic fields, and would require the reconfiguration and 

reconstruction of the track and football field as well as minor reconfigurations of ballfields. Both 

Build Alternatives would result in the elimination of public access to Amtrak-owned portions of 

Jean S. Roberts Park and would further require acquisition of 0.01-acre of the non-Amtrakowned portion and modification of the existing lease agreement and park infrastructure. Because 

these impacts are de minimis, the project would not substantially contribute to cumulative 

effects. Therefore, an adverse effect to the resource is not anticipated. 

Transportation improvements along the NEC have the potential to impact additional parks, trails, 

and recreational resources adjacent to the rail corridor, including Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) 

resources, but these impacts would be spread along the 457-mile NEC, so substantial impacts to 

these resources in any given area would be limited. Therefore, a substantial contribution to 

cumulative impacts to parks, trails, and recreational resources is not anticipated as a result of the 

Proposed Project. 

VISUAL AND AESTHETIC CONDITIONS 

Direct Proposed Project impacts to Visual and Aesthetic Conditions are discussed in Chapter 7, 

“Visual and Aesthetic Conditions.” 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

 18-12 

The Proposed Project is not expected to substantially alter the overall visual and aesthetic 

character of the study area or to block important views to or from visually sensitive resources 

located in the study area. Because the Proposed Project would replace existing rail infrastructure 

with new rail infrastructure, the overall visual character, atmosphere, and use of the study area 

would remain largely the same. While other ongoing developments, including those projects 

listed in Table 18-3 under “Visual and Aesthetic Conditions,” have the potential to cumulatively 

alter the visual environment of the study area, the Proposed Project would not contribute to any 

such cumulative change. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Direct Proposed Project impacts to Cultural Resources are discussed in Chapter 8, “Cultural 

Resources.” 

The Proposed Project would have adverse effects on cultural resources, but with mitigation, as 

detailed in Chapter 8 and Chapter 9, these adverse effects would not be significant. Ongoing and 

reasonably foreseeable future development in the overall geographic boundary has the potential 

to result in adverse impacts to cultural resources; in particular, private developments on lands 

where such resources are unprotected pose the greatest threat. Additionally, improvements along 

the NEC have the potential to impact historic resources in proximity to the rail corridor, and 

induced development in communities with rail stations could affect cultural resources. However, 

as a result of federal and state regulations protecting cultural resources, along with local 

planning efforts to preserve these resources, these effects are not anticipated to be significant. 

Therefore, a significant contribution toward adverse cumulative effects to cultural resources is 

not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Direct Proposed Project impacts to Natural Resources are discussed in Chapter 11, “Natural 

Resources,” and Appendix E, “Natural Environmental Technical Report.” 

FLOODPLAINS 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects constructed in the 100-year floodplain 

within the geographic boundary, combined with foreseeable sea-level rise resulting from global 

climate change, may experience more frequent flooding within and beyond the current 

floodplain. While long, linear features such as the NEC rail alignment would not be able to avoid 

some encroachment on floodplains, proper design can minimize the potential impacts of 

flooding on critical infrastructure and reduce the potential for cumulative effects. With the 

Proposed Project, the rail alignment and associated infrastructure would be situated well above 

the current floodplain, and therefore would not be susceptible to flooding, even with reasonably 

foreseeable increases in flood elevations. In addition, cumulative effects of flooding in the 

geographic boundary would be reduced by implementation of federal and state regulations, and 

thus the potential effect of flooding on the Proposed Project is not anticipated to have a 

cumulative contribution to flooding in the study area. 

WETLANDS/WATERS OF THE U.S. 

Past conversion of native land has adversely affected wetlands/waters of the U.S., and ongoing 

and reasonably foreseeable future development within the geographic boundary has the potential 

to result in further impacts to wetlands/waters of the U.S. and contribute to their loss. The 
Chapter 18: Indirect and Cumulative Effects

 18-13 

Proposed Project would have relatively minor effects on wetlands and somewhat greater effects 

on streams. Under Alternative 9A, 0.89 acre of wetlands would be impacted, along with 2.43 

acres of wetland buffer area and 3,209 linear feet of streams; under Alternative 9B, 0.77 acre of 

wetlands would be impacted, along with 1.99 acres of wetland buffer area and 2,962 linear feet 

of streams. Both alternatives would impact 0.37 acre of Susquehanna riverbed. Through induced 

development in combination with the reasonably foreseeable future development and 

transportation projects listed in Table 18-3 under “Natural Resources,” the Proposed Project 

could contribute to impacts on wetlands and waters of the U.S. However, the Section 404 

permitting process, which implements federal and state regulations for wetlands/waters of the 

U.S., would reduce temporary and permanent effects on these resources. Unavoidable impacts to 

waters of the U.S., including wetlands, will follow the Federal Compensatory Mitigation Rule 

(33 CFR Part 325 and 40 CFR Part 230), and other state compensatory mitigation guidelines, as 

well as other recommendations from federal and state resource agencies. Therefore, significant 

adverse cumulative effects to these natural resources are not anticipated. 

FOREST RESOURCES 

Forest resources within the geographic boundary have been heavily affected by past actions, 

including the development of communities/neighborhoods outside the city limits of Havre de 

Grace and Perryville. Alternative 9A would impact approximately 2.92 acres of forest between 

the existing tracks and the Havre de Grace Middle/High School campus, and Alternative 9B 

would impact approximately 2.08 acres of forest at the same location. This forest is relatively 

narrow and disturbed. The Proposed Project, through induced development in combination with 

the reasonably foreseeable future development and transportation projects listed in Table 18-3

under “Natural Resources,” would contribute to the ongoing loss of forest resources but would 

not result in additional fragmentation of existing forested tracts. State regulations regarding 

projects impacting forests would reduce temporary and permanent effects, and thus contributions 

to significant cumulative effects to these natural resources are not anticipated. 

RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES (RTE) 

Past conversion of native land has adversely affected terrestrial habitat and increased 

sedimentation and runoff affecting aquatic habitat for rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) 

species, and ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future development in the overall geographic 

boundary has the potential to result in further loss of habitat. The Proposed Project is considered 

“not likely to adversely affect” the Northern Long Eared Bat, and it is considered unlikely that 

either Build Alternative would affect any state or federally listed terrestrial species as very little 

natural habitat lies within the limits of disturbance for the project. Through induced development 

in combination with the reasonably foreseeable future development and transportation projects 

listed in Table 18-3 under “Natural Resources,” the Proposed Project could contribute to 

impacts to RTE species. Cumulative effects on these habitats may be anticipated, but the 

permitting process, which implements federal and state regulations for RTE species including 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, would reduce temporary and permanent effects, and 

thus contributions to significant cumulative effects to RTE species are not anticipated. 

PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND SECURITY 

Direct Propose Project impacts to Public Health, Safety, and Security are discussed in Chapter 

16, “Public Health, Safety, and Security.” 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

 18-14 

In combination with other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable projects, in particular the rail 

transportation improvements detailed above, the cumulative effects of the Proposed Project are 

generally beneficial to public health, safety, and security. As discussed above, the Proposed 

Project would contribute toward enabling an increase in passenger rail service on the NEC, 

which in turn would lower the potential for roadway collisions and reduce congestion and VMT, 

thereby minimizing exposure to noise and roadway emissions that contribute to air pollution. 

Diesel emissions from freight locomotives have improved over time and would continue to do so 

in the future, providing further benefits to air quality over time. The safety risks associated with 

passenger rail can be limited by such measures as educational programs and traffic controls at 

grade crossings, such as gates and active warning systems. Safety would also be positively 

affected by the implementation of state-of-good-repair projects along the NEC, including the 

Proposed Project, which reduces the likelihood of infrastructure failures. In summary, 

contributions to significant adverse cumulative effects to public health, safety, and security are 

not anticipated to result from the Proposed Project. 

SUMMARY 

The Proposed Project would contribute both positively and negatively to the overall cumulative 

effects of past and future actions on each of the resources considered. While the Build 

Alternatives may result in minor amounts of conversion of land use and potential displacement 

of some commercial uses, existing land use policies and development regulations support the 

Proposed Project, which would provide a substantial improvement to an established, 

overburdened rail transportation corridor. The Proposed Project is anticipated to have an overall 

positive impact on the regional economy by improving railroad mobility and connectivity. 

Further positive cumulative effects include improvements to regional air quality and a reduction 

in highway and airport congestion and VMT due to improved rail service. Overall, the Proposed 

Project is not expected to significantly contribute to any significant adverse cumulative effects.
 19-1 

Chapter 19: Commitment of Resources 

A. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF 

RESOURCES 

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ)’s implementing procedures under Title 40, Part 1502 of the CFR, 

this Environmental Assessment (EA) includes an analysis of the relationship between short-term 

uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and of 

any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources that would occur if the Proposed 

Project is constructed. An irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources results in the 

permanent loss for future or alternate use of a resource that cannot be replaced or recovered. 

Construction of the Proposed Project would require the irreversible and irretrievable 

commitment of building materials, including construction materials such as concrete, steel, and 

aggregate. The Proposed Project would also consume energy in the form of fossil fuels and 

electricity during the construction and operation of the facility. These materials are available and 

their use for the Proposed Project would not have adverse impacts on their continued availability 

for other purposes. In addition to materials, the Maryland Department of Transportation 

(MDOT) and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) would require funding and 

human labor to design, build, and operate the Proposed Project. 

As described in previous chapters, MDOT and Amtrak have worked to avoid or minimize 

impacts to resources. MDOT and Amtrak endeavor to minimize the use of irretrievable resources 

and to conserve and reuse resources whenever possible. 

B. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT 

OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

Short-term effects on the environment typically result from construction impacts. Long-term 

effects relate to the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, including 

consistency of a project with local and regional economic, social, planning, and sustainability 

objectives. This section compares the short-term uses of the environment with the long-term 

productivity of the Proposed Project. 

SHORT-TERM USES 

Construction of the Proposed Project would have greater short-term effects on the environment 

than the No Action Alternative; however, these effects would be temporary and non-significant, 

as discussed in greater detail in Chapter 17, “Construction Effects.” MDOT and Amtrak will 

endeavor to reduce any construction-related environmental impacts through the implementation 

of best management practices. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 19-2 

LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

The Proposed Project would result in the long-term improvement of connectivity for the intercity 

rail, commuter rail, and freight rail systems that cross the Susquehanna River along the 

Northeast Corridor (NEC). 

SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

Based on the information presented above, the localized short-term impacts that would result 

from construction of the Proposed Project would be temporary, and would facilitate the overall 

enhancement of rail connectivity along the NEC. 
 20-1 

Chapter 20: Coordination and Consultation 

A. INTRODUCTION 

This chapter presents a summary of the coordination efforts used to encourage public and 

agency participation for the Proposed Project’s environmental review phase. Federally funded or 

permitted projects are required to be developed in accordance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), which provides a role for the public in the planning and decision-making 

process. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) guidance encourages citizen involvement 

at every stage of the environmental assessment. As described below, the Project Team has 

undertaken public and community outreach efforts for the Proposed Project, along with federal, 

state, and local agency coordination. 

AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN 

During the early phases of the Proposed Project, FRA and the Maryland Department of 

Transportation (MDOT) prepared an Agency Coordination and Public Involvement Plan (the 

Plan). The Plan identified a proactive approach to effectively engage the public and agencies 

throughout the environmental review process. For the purposes of public outreach, a broad 

distribution list was prepared, which included elected officials, representatives from the City of 

Havre de Grace and the Town of Perryville, representatives from Harford County and Cecil 

County, individuals and organizations who signed up for the mailing list through the project’s 

website, owners of adjacent properties, stakeholder groups, community facilities, agency 

contacts, and potential Section 106 consulting parties. The Project Team has presented the 

Proposed Project at Interagency Review Meetings (IRMs) and public outreach information 

sessions. Members of IRM include representatives from the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA), Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), FRA, Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Maryland Department of 

Planning (MDP), Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), MDOT, Maryland 

Historical Trust (MHT), Maryland Port Administration, Maryland Transportation Authority 

(MdTA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS), Susquehanna River Basin Commission, U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and National Parks 

Service (NPS). 

The Project Team has used a variety of methods to obtain feedback from the public and 

interested stakeholders throughout the planning process. Postcards, press releases, and public 

meeting announcements have been sent prior to public outreach information sessions and a 

variety of comment mechanisms are available. The following goals were established at the 

initiation of the outreach program: 

 Engage with agencies, local entities, the general public, and other interested parties 

throughout the project. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 20-2 

 Provide opportunities for agencies, local entities, the general public, and other interested 

parties to participate in the development of the project by sharing information and providing 

various ways to collect comments, feedback, and suggestions. 

 Specific agency coordination objectives of the Plan include: 

 Build working relationships with agency partners and identify cooperating and coordinating 

agencies to be involved in ongoing agency coordination. 

 Establish the timing and format for agency involvement in: developing the project’s purpose 

and need, study area, analysis methodologies, and range of alternatives to be investigated; 

reviewing the EA; selecting the preferred alternative; and developing conceptual mitigation 

strategies. 

 Establish the timing and format for involvement by local governments that may be affected 

by the Proposed Project. 

 Consult with appropriate agencies under Section 106 and Section 4(f). 

 Describe methods that have been and will be employed by the Project Team to communicate 

with agencies and local governments. 

 Specific public involvement objectives of the Plan include: 

 Establish the timing and format for public input on: environmental, cultural, and community 

resources; the project’s purpose and need; the study area, the range of alternatives to be 

investigated; comment on the EA; selecting the preferred alternative; and developing 

conceptual mitigation strategies. 

 Determine the need for targeted public involvement by identifying tribal entities, 

environmental justice populations, and limited English proficiency (LEP) populations. 

 Describe the communication methods that will be implemented to inform the community 

about the project. 

EARLY COORDINATION 

During the spring and summer of 2013, FRA, MDOT, and the National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation (Amtrak) initiated early coordination with cooperating and coordinating agencies, 

local municipalities and counties, and various regional planning organizations. Cooperating 

agencies include FTA, USACE, and USCG. FTA is a cooperating agency because of the 

Proposed Project’s potential to affect MARC commuter rail services along the NEC. USACE is 

a cooperating agency because permits are required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

and under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. USCG is a cooperating agency because an 

approval will be required pursuant to Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. As part of this 

early coordination, a project notification letter was sent to select agencies and local entities (see 

Appendix H, “Public Involvement and Agency Correspondence” for a copy of the May 15, 

2013 letter and the list of recipients). The letter included general information about the project 

and requested that each respondent provide feedback that may be useful for the planning stage of 

the project by June 30, 2013. 

Amtrak received 25 response letters and emails from May through September of 2013. Most of 

this correspondence was in direct response to the May 15, 2013 project notification letters; the 

remainder was from citizens who learned about the project by media coverage or through other 

sources. All agencies, organizations, and individuals who submitted comments or questions to 

the Project Team were added to the project mailing list (discussed below). The information 
Chapter 20: Coordination and Consultation

20-3

received from this early coordination helped the Project Team identify environmental, cultural, 

and community resources and understand local priorities. This valuable input also was

considered during conceptual engineering.

EARLY COORDINATION MEETINGS

At the request of the City of Havre de Grace and the Town of Perryville and to promote early 

agency coordination, FRA, MDOT and Amtrak gave an introductory presentation to local 

officials on June 10, 2013. Comments received at the meeting included concerns about potential 

impacts to the surrounding natural, socioeconomic and cultural resources. 

On July 17, 2013, FRA, MDOT, and Amtrak delivered a project presentation to federal and state 

agencies as part of an IRM, which is described in detail below. The IRM presentation focused on 

general project background, the project site location, and future planned interagency meetings, 

and served as an initial project introduction for the agencies. 

Also, during the summer of 2013, Amtrak and its representatives reached out to local marina 

owners and operators, shippers, dock managers, the USCG, and other members of the maritime 

community. The purpose of this outreach was to understand the current navigational uses along 

this segment of the Susquehanna River and the anticipated USCG requirements for the vertical 

clearance of any potential fixed bridge. This information was factored into conceptual 

engineering.

INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS

PROJECT WEBSITE

The Project Team created a dedicated website for the Proposed Project: www.susrailbridge.com. 

The website was launched in April 2014 (prior to the first public outreach information session) 

and the site has been updated as needed as the Proposed Project progressed. The project website 

provides up-to-date information regarding the project and any upcoming meetings or events. 

Information on the website includes project description, project history, Purpose and Need, 

frequently asked questions (FAQs), study area map, a description of the NEPA process and EA, 

project schedule and public involvement efforts. The site provides contact information for the 

Project Team, meeting information, and a form to submit comments online. 

MEETING PUBLICITY

Postcards, email blasts, press releases, and public meeting announcements have been sent prior 

to public outreach information sessions. Public outreach information sessions were publicized 

through meeting postcards mailed to the entire project mailing list, as well as local libraries and 

community centers to be publicly posted. Extra efforts were made by posting more notices in 

environmental justice areas. Meeting information was also posted on the project website.

PROJECT DOCUMENT REPOSITORIES

The project website will identify where documents are available for public review, how the 

public can provide input, comment period deadlines, and whom to contact with comments or for 

additional information. Copies of the EA documents will be available for public inspection at 

local municipal offices and libraries.
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

20-4

B. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

PUBLIC OUTREACH INFORMATION SESSIONS

Numerous public meetings have been held throughout the environmental process (see Table 

20-1). Each public outreach information session has been held on at project milestones, 

including project purpose and need, development of feasible alternatives, alternatives retained 

for detailed study, and release of the NEPA document. The public was encouraged to attend and 

participate in these meetings as well as submit any written comments. 

APRIL 28, 2014—PURPOSE & NEED / PROJECT INTRODUCTION 

The first public outreach information session was held in an open house format where 

stakeholders reviewed project displays and a Fact Sheet handout, spoke with Project Team

members, and submitted written comments. This format allowed stakeholders flexibility to 

participate at their convenience and allow them to engage with the Project Team. Topics 

presented to the public included the Purpose and Need, environmental resources and constraints 

within the study area, conceptual alternatives, and the anticipated project schedule. Feedback 

from comment sheets allowed the Project Team to gauge the priorities and concerns of the 

public. This meeting offered the opportunity for new conceptual alternatives or design 

considerations to be suggested by the public and other stakeholders. No interpreters were 

requested for the meeting. All display materials and handouts were posted on the project website 

within one week of the meeting.

This public outreach information session was held at the Havre de Grace Activity Center on 

April 28, 2014, from 5 PM to 8 PM. Approximately 115 people attended and 30 written

comments were provided to the Project Team that night. The major themes of the public 

comments received include: importance of aesthetics and bridge design; construction of a 

bicycle/pedestrian path across the river; transit/traffic/parking improvements; minimizing 

property acquisition; maintaining jobs; enhancing public parks; and encouraging tourism and 

local businesses. At the meeting and in the days following this public outreach information 

session, the public provided input on the long list of alternatives considered in the initial 

screening process, and reiterated critical properties to be avoided if possible. 

AUGUST 13, 2014—FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES 

Based on the input from the April 2014 public outreach information session, the IRMs, and the 

results of conceptual engineering, the Project Team presented the feasible alternatives to the 

public. This included the comprehensive “long list” of all conceptual alternatives identified to 

date. The presentation explained the fatal flaw screening rationale used for eliminating 

conceptual alternatives deemed infeasible. The Project Team developed a summary of comments 

after the meeting and posted all display materials and handouts on the project website within one 

week of the public meeting. As described below, this meeting also served as a Section 106 

consulting parties meeting.
Chapter 20: Coordination and Consultation 

 20-5 

Table 20-1

All Meetings Held to Date 

Meeting Date Meeting Topic 

Public Involvement Meetings 

April 28, 2014 POIS Purpose & Need/ Project Introduction 

August 13, 2014 POIS Feasible Alternatives 

December 10, 2014 POIS Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study

November 10, 2015 POIS Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study and Bridge Types 

April 14, 2016 POIS Review Preliminary Environmental Analyses Results / Conceptual Mitigation 

Stakeholders Meetings

June 6, 2014 Bicycle-Pedestrian stakeholders meeting 

June 17, 2014 Presentation to the Town of Perryville 

July 1, 2014 Presentation to Cecil County 

November 6, 2014 Meeting with Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project Advisory Board 

December 2, 2014 Bicycle-Pedestrian Coordination Meeting 

March 9, 2015 Section 106 Consulting Parties 

March 26, 2015 Meeting with Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project Advisory Board 

July 8, 2015 Meeting with Harford County Public Schools 

July 28, 2015 Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC) Meeting 

August 17, 2015 Meeting with Harford County Public Schools 

August 18, 2015 Section 106 Consulting Parties 

January 20, 2016 Meeting with Harford County Public Schools 

March 17, 2016 Meeting with Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project Advisory Board 

October 11, 2016 Section 106 Consulting Parties 

Agency Coordination Meetings 

July 17, 2013 IRM Project Introduction 

February 19, 2014 IRM Purpose & Need Meeting 

March 19, 2014 Project Coordination Meeting with NS/FRA/MDOT/Amtrak 

April 16, 2014 IRM Purpose & Need/ Conceptual Alternative 

June 18, 2014 IRM Feasible Alternatives 

February 18, 2015 IRM Preliminary Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study 

March 12, 2015 IRM Agency Field Visit 

April 15, 2015 IRM ARDS Field Visit Recap 

June 17, 2015 IRM Refined Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study 

September 16, 2015 IRM Revised ARDS Report 

December 9, 2015 IRM Bridge Types 

December 14, 2015 WILMAPCO Presentation 

March 9, 2016 Smart Growth Coordinating Committee Presentation 

March 17, 2016 WILMAPCO Presentation 

April 20, 2016 IRM Detailed Presentation of NETR 

Notes: See Appendix H, “Public Involvement and Agency Correspondence.” 

POIS = Public Outreach Information Session 

IRM = Interagency Review Meeting 

NS = Norfolk Southern 

FRA= Federal Railroad Administration 

MDOT= Maryland Department of Transportation 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 20-6 

This public outreach information session was held at the Perryville Fire House on August 13, 

2014 from 5 PM to 8 PM. Approximately 60 people attended and 10 written comments were 

received by the Project Team that night. The major themes of the public comments received 

include: construction of a bicycle/pedestrian path across the river; importance of aesthetics and 

bridge design; alternatives preference; removal of remnant piers/existing bridge; and transit 

improvements/concerns. 

A few comments indicated a preference for a particular alternative. From the August 13, 2014 

public information session, one attendee commented in favor of Alternative 9B. Another 

comment from the August 13, 2014 public information session favored Alternative 8A. A 

written submission received September 2, 2014 favored the alternative with the construction of a 

new bridge as well as the replacement of the existing bridge to allow for a total of four tracks. 

The majority of public input did not indicate the preference for a particular alternative. 

DECEMBER 10, 2014—ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR DETAILED STUDY 

A third public outreach information session was held at the Havre de Grace High School on 

December 10, 2014 from 5 PM to 8 PM. As described below, this meeting also served as a 

Section 106 consulting parties meeting. This presentation explained the screening process used 

to determine the alternatives retained for detailed study. A comprehensive alternative 

comparison matrix was presented to the public to explain the detailed screening rationale used to 

determine the alternatives that would progress to detailed study in the EA. Potential property 

impact maps for the alternatives retained for detailed study were shared with the public. Public 

comments received at the meeting indicated no preference for any of the three remaining 

alignments. Overall, the Project Team received positive feedback regarding minimization of 

permanent property impacts. 

NOVEMBER 10, 2015—ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR DETAILED STUDY AND BRIDGE 

TYPES 

A fourth public information session was held at Perryville High School on November 10, 2015 

from 5 PM to 8 PM. As described below, this meeting also served as a Section 106 consulting 

parties meeting. The open house-style format gave an overview of the two alternatives retained 

for detailed study, as well as the four bridge design types. A comprehensive bridge-type 

comparison matrix board was prepared for the meeting, and provided an easy to understand 

visual of the strengths and weaknesses of each bridge type. Street view renderings of all four 

bridge types were also presented from the perspective of both Perryville and Havre de Grace. A 

new comment card was developed for the meeting, which included a bridge survey. The survey 

was designed to receive feedback on bridge type preference and the top three factors of most 

importance to meeting attendees. Based on the completed surveys, the girder approach/arch 

main span bridge design type was overwhelmingly the favorite. 

APRIL 14, 2016—REVIEW PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES RESULTS/ 

CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION 

This public information session was held at the Havre de Grace Activity Center on April 14, 

2016 from 5 PM to 8 PM. The meeting also served as a Section 106 consulting parties meeting. 

The open house-style format gave an overview of all potential environmental impacts from 

Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B, including property acquisitions, parks and Section 6(f) 

properties, Section 4(f) properties, natural resources, historic and archaeological resources, 
Chapter 20: Coordination and Consultation 

 20-7 

visual and aesthetic resources, air quality, and noise and vibration considerations. 

Approximately 60 people attended and seven written comments were received by the Project 

Team. 

COORDINATION WITH LOCAL OFFICIALS 

The Proposed Project is located within Cecil County, Harford County, the Town of Perryville 

and the City of Havre de Grace. Coordination with these local governments is ongoing. 

Briefings with local government officials have been used as an opportunity to introduce the 

project to county/local officials, provide updates at project milestones, and facilitate the flow of 

information between the officials, FRA, MDOT, and Amtrak. 

The Project Team has exchanged written correspondences with municipal representatives and 

elected officials. The Project Team delivered presentations to the Town of Perryville, Cecil 

County, and Havre de Grace. Early input from the Town of Perryville and the City of Havre de 

Grace regarding important local properties was factored into conceptual engineering and the 

fatal flaw screening. 

Three meetings were held with representatives from Harford County Public Schools on July 8, 

2015, August 17, 2015, and January 20, 2016. During the first meeting, the Project Team 

presented plans for Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B and the potential impacts to the Havre de 

Grace High School and Middle School recreational facilities. Alternative 9A would not directly 

impact the football field and grandstands. However, Alternative 9A would impact the existing 

pole vault, shed, and long running start. After the meeting, Harford County provided design 

plans for planned future recreational improvements, including new tennis courts and realigned 

ballfields near the track. 

During the meeting on August 17, 2015, Harford County Public Schools representatives 

provided an overview of their comments on the project alternatives. Key concerns included 

impacts to the race track starting block area, space limitations associated with potential ball field 

relocations, and potential impacts to a proposed City of Havre de Grace floodplain mitigation 

site along Lily Run. Based on the information provided, school officials verbally expressed a 

preference for Alternative 9B over Alternative 9A. Alternative 9B would not require any 

acquisition of school property and would not directly impact the athletic fields. 

At the meeting on January 20, 2016, the Project Team provided updates on design evaluation, 

mitigation options, and the applicability of Section 6(f) and Section 4(f). Key concerns from the 

Harford County Public Schools representatives included the changes to the proposed North 

Baseball Field required under Alternative 9A, safety, construction effects, and the need for 

additional coordination and outreach. 

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER RAIL BRIDGE PROJECT ADVISORY BOARD 

The Project Team is coordinating with Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project (SRRBP) 

Advisory Board. The SRRBP Advisory Board is a group of community representatives selforganized to proactively convey input to the Project Team. The Project Team has been invited 

on two occasions to attend SRRBP Advisory Board meetings (November 6, 2014 and March 26, 

2015). At a meeting on November 6, 2014, the SRRBP Advisory Board itemized the following 

top six priorities: 

 Request for a Special Briefing; 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 20-8 

 Bridge Architecture; 

 Bridge Abutment Area; 

 Westerly Right-of-Way and Alignments; 

 Street and Lane Underpasses; and 

 Rail Commuter Station. 

Since the initial meeting, the Project Team has continued to coordinate with the SRRBP, who 

have provided additional advisory bulletins regarding river navigation, the safe harbor jetty 

proposal, pedestrian and bicycle river crossing, bridge historical preservation and display, 

easterly right-of-way and alignments in Perryville, street underpasses in Perryville, and rail 

operation noise control in Perryville. The Project Team has evaluated the feasibility of 

developing these suggestions in conjunction with the Proposed Project, and the bridge abutment 

area surrounding the Otsego Street and Union Avenue intersection in Havre de Grace would be 

improved as a part of the Proposed Project. To address the Advisory Board’s request to realign 

the intersection located at Otsego, Union, and Water Streets, the Proposed Project would extend 

the Havre de Grace abutment south towards the alley between Union Avenue and Stokes Street. 

BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN STAKEHOLDERS 

The Project Team has received substantial public input requesting inclusion of a bicycle and 

pedestrian river crossing into the Proposed Project. Several organizations responsible for trail 

planning (such as the Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway and the Maryland DNR), 

advocacy organizations (such as the East Coast Greenway Alliance and the September 11th 

National Memorial Trail Alliance), a number of elected officials, and members of the public 

have expressed support for a multi-use path across the river. Specifically, some commenters 

have noted that a connection between Cecil and Harford Counties would fulfill a “missing link” 

in several regional trails and provide a new multi-modal option for travel between communities. 

While bicycle and pedestrian facilities were not expressly addressed in the scope of the project 

grant, as part of the public involvement process, FRA, MDOT, and Amtrak are working with 

government agencies and interested organizations to assess the feasibility of coordinating the 

Proposed Project with potential bicycle and pedestrian access across the river. 

Connectivity to the existing road network and existing or planned trails (and the attendant 

property acquisitions and environmental impacts) must be evaluated in the context of regional 

bicycle-pedestrian planning. MDOT and the Project Team have hosted stakeholder meetings 

(June 2014 and December 2014) with trail planning organizations and bicycle-pedestrian 

advocacy groups to discuss the Proposed Project in the context of ongoing trail and greenway 

planning efforts (including MDOT’s 2014 Maryland Twenty-Year Bicycle & Pedestrian Master 

Plan and MDOT’s 2002 Susquehanna River Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Feasibility Study). 

Furthermore, to respond to the input received regarding a multi-use path, MDOT and Amtrak are 

conducting a feasibility evaluation. The evaluation entails: reviewing prior studies of 

Susquehanna River bicycle/pedestrian crossings; ensuring that the Proposed Project does not 

adversely affect the existing bicycle and pedestrian trails within the Proposed Project’s study 

area; making efforts not to preclude the potential for a future multi-use path across the 

Susquehanna River; and assessing the feasibility of constructing a multi-use path in conjunction 

with a new rail bridge. 
Chapter 20: Coordination and Consultation 

 20-9 

The Project Team is considering a multitude of factors, including visual impacts, safety and 

security, constructability, effects to rail alignments, cost, noise and vibration, in-water impacts, 

functionality, and community impacts. The Project Team will continue to evaluate the feasibility 

of accommodating a multi-use path within the project limits in coordination with the high-speed 

rail project. The Project Team is conducting a Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing Hazard Analysis and Security Risk Assessment. If deemed feasible, 

a separate project would be required for design, environmental review, and identification of 

potential funding for a bicycle/pedestrian crossing. The Project Team will continue to obtain 

input from stakeholders on the feasibility evaluation. 

U.S. COAST GUARD AND MARINERS 

Upon project inception, Amtrak and its representatives reached out to local marina owners and 

operators, shippers, dock managers, the USCG, and other members of the maritime community. 

The purpose of this outreach was to understand the current navigational uses along this segment 

of the Susquehanna River and the anticipated USCG requirements for the vertical clearance of 

any potential fixed bridge. This information was factored into conceptual engineering. As stated 

above, the navigation survey concluded that any new high-level fixed bridge should provide a 

minimum 60-foot vertical clearance. The navigation survey was transmitted to USCG on 

February 18, 2014. 

FREIGHT RAILROADS 

The Project Team has been coordinating with NS and CSX regarding their current and planned 

freight rail operations in the area (CSX trains currently use a separate Susquehanna River 

crossing located to the north of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge). NS trains currently use the 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge. A coordination meeting with NS, Amtrak, FRA, and MDOT 

was held on March 19, 2014. The Project Team will continue to seek input from the freight rail 

operations throughout preliminary and final design. 

MARC 

The Project Team is also coordinating with Maryland Transit Administration (MTA). MTA is 

the operator of the MARC Penn Line service over the bridge. Coordination between the Project 

Team and MTA is also essential to ensuring the Proposed Project's compatibility with MTA's 

proposed MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility. 

SECTION 106 CONSULTATION 

Since the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge is NR-eligible, FRA (as the lead federal agency) has 

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

(NHPA). All correspondence related to Section 106 is attached to Appendix D, “Cultural 

Resources.” This correspondence is summarized in Table 20-2. FRA has invited the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to participate in the Section 106 consultation. On 

August 22, 2014, ACHP declined to participate and will instead rely on the Maryland Historic 

Trust (MHT) to provide comments and concurrence. FRA submitted to MHT a Section 106 

consultation initiation package (dated April 10, 2014), including the proposed APEs, analysis 

methodologies, and a list of potential consulting parties. MHT sent a response letter on June 16, 

2014. The Project Team sent a letter to MHT on September 24, 2014 regarding potential historic 

resources. The Project Team received a letter from MHT on November 12, 2014 providing 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 20-10 

guidance regarding cultural resources and has proceeded accordingly with the cultural resources 

inventory and the effects assessment. The Project Team submitted the Effects Assessment for 

Historic Architectural Resources (see Appendix D) to MHT on May 19, 2016. In a letter dated 

August 24, 2016, MHT agreed with FRA’s effect determinations and encouraged continued 

coordination with the Section 106 consulting parties (see Appendix H). 

Table 20-2

Section 106 Correspondence Summary

Letter Date Recipient/Topic 

April 10, 2014 Project Initiation Letter to MHT 

June 16, 2014 MHT Response to Project Initiation Letter 

September 24, 2014 Section 106 Resources Letter to MHT 

November 12, 2014 MHT Response to Section 106 Resources Letter 

December 17, 2014 Phase IA Archaeological Study to MHT 

January 27, 2015 MHT Response to Phase IA 

February 12, 2015 Determination of Eligibility Forms to MHT 

April 22, 2015 MHT Response to Determination of Eligibility Forms 

May 19, 2016 Effects Assessment submitted to MHT 

July 13, 2016 Letter from City of Havre de Grace Regarding Section 106 

July 15, 2016 Letter from Town of Perryville Regarding Section 106 

July 15, 2016 Letter to Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail 

July 15, 2016 

Letter to Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National 

Historic Trail 

July 20, 2016 

Letter from Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway Regarding Effects 

Assessment 

August 5, 2016 NPS Response Regarding Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail 

August 24, 2016 MHT Response Regarding the Effects Assessment 

October 11, 2016 

SRRBP Advisory Board Letters Regarding Alterations to Undergrade 

Bridges and Case for a Longer Span 

November 1, 2016 

Letter to Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway in Response to 

Comments on the Effects Assessment 

November 22, 2016 

Letter from Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway regarding 

stipulations for agreement on mitigation 

January 18, 2017 

Correspondence with National Parks Service to transmit the Analysis of 

Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Resources with 

Respect to the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project. 

Notes: See Appendix D, “Cultural Resources” and Appendix H, “Public Involvement and 

Agency Correspondence.” 

All Section 106 consulting parties were invited to each public outreach information session and 

a dedicated Section 106 meeting was held on March 9, 2015. The dedicated Section 106 meeting 

was held at the Havre de Grace Activity Center at 1 PM. Several Section 106 consulting parties 

were in attendance. Topics presented included an overview of Section 106 regulations and 
Chapter 20: Coordination and Consultation 

 20-11 

process, and how the Section 106 process would run parallel with the environmental studies 

following the compliance process for NEPA. The Project Team and the consulting parties 

discussed the known adverse effects to the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and Overpasses and 

the Perry Interlocking Tower, along with conceptual ideas for mitigation. The Project Team will 

continue to coordinate with MHT and consulting parties throughout the Section 106 process. 

A second dedicated Section 106 consulting parties meeting was held in Perryville on August 18, 

2015 at 1 PM. Topics included potential project impacts on various historic resources, potential 

avoidance/mitigation measures, and opportunities for design input. The Perry Interlocking 

Tower—a contributing element of the NR-eligible Perryville Railroad Station—was discussed at 

length. The Perry Interlocking Tower was determined to conflict with the proposed rail 

alignment for Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B, but not for other alternatives under 

consideration at the time. The Project Team is investigating the feasibility of shifting the tower, 

rather than demolishing it. Several consulting parties expressed a preference for preserving the 

tower, either in place or in a new location. 

The third dedicated Section 106 consulting parties meeting was held the Havre de Grace 

Activity Center, on October 11, 2016 at 1 PM. Topics included a discussion of adverse effects, 

input received from Section 106 consulting parties and proposed measures to avoid, minimize 

and mitigate adverse effects. The Project Team shared an outline of a draft agreement on 

implementing avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures and continuing consultation. 

C. AGENCY COORDINATION 

INTERAGENCY REVIEW MEETINGS 

This section describes the IRM presentations delivered by the Project Team to date (see Table 

20-1). The Maryland IRM process is intended to achieve the timely and efficient identification, 

evaluation, and resolution of environmental and regulatory issues. IRMs have been held at 

project milestones. 

PROJECT INTRODUCTION IRM MEETING (JULY 17, 2013) 

FRA, MDOT, and Amtrak presented the general history, project goals, and anticipated schedule 

at the IRM. 

PURPOSE AND NEED IRM MEETING (FEBRUARY 19, 2014) 

The goal of the second IRM was to review the project introduction, purpose and need, project 

description, environmental resources, and public involvement. 

PURPOSE AND NEED/CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE IRM MEETING (APRIL 16, 2014) 

The Purpose and Need Statement was circulated to the IRM agencies two weeks prior to the 

meeting. During the presentation, the Project Team solicited agency feedback on the Purpose 

and Need Statement. The remainder of the presentation provided information regarding the 

conceptual alternatives development process. The Project Team responded to agency comments 

regarding the conceptual alternatives. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 20-12 

FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES IRM MEETING (JUNE 18, 2014) 

Based on the input from the April IRM, the public outreach information session (described 

below), and the results of conceptual engineering, the Project Team presented the feasible 

project alternatives to the IRM. This included the comprehensive “long list” of all conceptual 

alternatives identified to date (including alternatives suggested by members of the public). The 

presentation explained the “fatal flaw screening” rationale used for eliminating conceptual 

alternatives deemed infeasible. 

ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR DETAILED STUDY IRM MEETING (FEBRUARY 18, 2015) 

The purpose of the IRM was to review the Project Team’s alternatives screening process, present 

the alternatives retained for detailed study (ARDS) and provide an update on public outreach 

efforts to date. The Project Team reviewed the two-step alternatives screening process that 

included the fatal flaw screening and the more detailed screening based on specific project goals. 

An Alternatives Comparison Matrix along with a Natural Environmental Impacts Matrix was 

presented and used as the basis for choosing Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B for further study. 

The meeting concluded with an agreement to schedule a field visit to allow the agencies to 

observe the range of resources potentially affected by the Proposed Project. 

AGENCY FIELD VISIT (MARCH 12, 2015) 

In response to request made during the February 18, 2015 IRM, the resource agencies attended a 

field visit to evaluate the quality of the natural and human environmental resources within the 

study area. As a result of the field review some of the original resources were re-characterized 

and in some cases new resources were identified. 

ARDS FIELD VISIT RECAP (APRIL 15, 2015) 

The purpose of the IRM was to recap the results of the agency field review, update the agencies 

on the status of the engineering design and to explain the status of the ARDS package. The 

Project Team reviewed the updated natural environmental features including a re-characterized 

wetland/stream system and a newly discovered potential wetland close to the Perryville Railroad 

Station. The Project Team also updated the group on design modifications that would ultimately 

affect the natural and human environmental impacts for the project, relayed updates on the 

bike/pedestrian path feasibility study and presented next steps for the Proposed Project. 

REFINED ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR DETAILED STUDY (JUNE 17, 2015) 

The purpose of the IRM was to provide a project update and overview of the key operational 

considerations associated with maximum allowable speeds and travel times. The Project Team 

presented the agencies with a revised Alternatives Comparison Matrix, which was based on 

updated human/natural resource information and new design details. The Project Team also 

discussed the approach for ARDS package resubmittal. 

IRM REVISED ARDS REPORT (SEPTEMBER 16, 2015) 

The purpose of this IRM was to update agency representatives on the ongoing efforts with the 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project. Topics included recent key stakeholder and Section 106 

meetings, a presentation of the ARDS—Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B, a review of 
Chapter 20: Coordination and Consultation 

 20-13 

responses to agency comments on the ARDS report, and a discussion of the anticipated ARDS 

concurrence milestone and next steps for the project. 

IRM BRIDGE TYPES (DECEMBER 9, 2015) 

The purpose of this IRM was to present a comparison of bridge types and explain the rationale 

for moving forward with the girder approach span/arch main span bridge type. The meeting 

began with a brief overview of the project, followed by a recap of the November 2015 Public 

Outreach Informational Session. The detailed bridge comparison matrix was presented and 

discussed, with the Project Team recommending only taking the girder approach span/arch main 

span bridge type into the EA document. None of the agency representatives objected to 

proceeding with this bridge type in the EA document. Also discussed was an update on wetlands 

delineation. 

IRM DETAILED PRESENTATION OF NETR (APRIL 20, 2016) 

The purpose of this IRM was to present the detailed findings of the Natural Resources Technical 

Report in order to discuss avoidance and minimization measures, describe proposed wetland 

mitigation approach, describe potential on-site or off-site mitigation locations, and provide a 

summary of the mitigation site search results. A summary of all potential environmental impacts 

from Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B was distributed at the meeting. 

OTHER AGENCY COORDINATION 

Other agency coordination includes consultation with WILMAPCO and the Smart Growth 

Coordinating Committee. The Project Team presented to WILMAPCO in December 2015 and 

March 2016. WILMAPCO is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for 

Cecil County, Maryland and New Castle County, Delaware. The purpose of these presentations 

was to give WILMAPCO an introduction to the Proposed Project and discuss the alternative 

screening process, bridge design types, special considerations, and next steps. 

The Project Team presented to the Smart Growth Coordinating Committee in March 2016. The 

Smart Growth Coordinating Committee is responsible for reviewing and commenting on 

projects to be funded under Extraordinary Circumstances that are not within a Priority Funding 

Area. The purpose of this meeting was to review the project introduction and background, 

discuss the alternatives retained for detailed study and environmental considerations, and receive 

an exception to allow the state to fund a project that is partially outside of the Priority Funding 

Area. 

In addition, correspondence related to natural resources is discussed in Appendix E, “Natural 

Environmental Technical Report.” Attachment E of this appendix includes all correspondence 

letters. These letters are summarized in Table 20-3. Other correspondence is listed in Table 

20-4. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

20-14

Table 20-3

Natural Resources Correspondence Summary 

Letter Date Recipient/Topic

February 14, 2014 Critical Area Commission

February 18, 2014 Response from Critical Area Commission

February 14, 2014 National Marine Fisheries Service

March 5, 2014 Response from National Marine Fisheries Service

February 14, 2014 Wildlife and Heritage Service Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

March 20, 2014

Response from Wildlife and Heritage Service Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources

September 1, 2015

Response from Wildlife and Heritage Service Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources

February 14, 2014 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

December 18, 2015 Response from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

January 15, 2016 Response from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

February 14, 2014 Integrated Policy and Review Unit Department of Natural Resources

October 22, 2014

Response from Integrated Policy and Review Unit Department of Natural 

Resources

February 14, 2014 Maryland Department of Planning 

April 7, 2016 Wildlife and Heritage Service Maryland Department of Natural Resources

May 9, 2016 Response from Department of Natural Resources

May 10, 2016 National Marine Fisheries Service

June 14, 2016 Department of Natural Resources

November 28, 2016 National Marine Fisheries Service

Notes: See Appendix E, “Natural Environment Technical Report.”
Chapter 20: Coordination and Consultation

20-15

Table 20-4

Other Correspondence 

Letter Date Recipient/Topic

April 15, 2016 Letter to Havre de Grace Planning regarding de minimis Section 4(f) use

April 22, 2016 Letter to Harford County Public Schools regarding de minimis Section 4(f) use

April 25, 2016 Letter to Harford County Public Schools regarding de minimis Section 4(f) use

June 15, 2016 Havre de Grace Planning response regarding de minimis Section 4(f) use

September 7, 2016 Horford County Public Schools response regarding de minimis Section 4(f) use

October 7, 2016 Letter to Harford County Public Schools regarding de minimis clarifications

December 21, 2016 Harford County Public Schools letter regarding construction schedule 

January 24, 2017 Letter from C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Member of Congress, regarding bridge 

design

February 14, 2017

Letter from Volney H. Ford, Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Advisory Board 

Chair, to Mayor William T. Martin regarding bridge design and accompanying 

report

February 15, 2017 Letter from Mayor William T. Martin regarding bridge design

Notes: See Appendix H, “Public Involvement and Agency Correspondence.”

