1

US Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

Cecil and Harford Counties, Maryland

A. INTRODUCTION

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

(MDOT) prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) and draft Section 4(f) Evaluation in April 

2017 to evaluate the potential environmental impacts for the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge 

Project (Project). MDOT, the Project sponsor, proposes to improve rail connectivity along the 

Northeast Corridor (NEC) by replacing 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 1). FRA is the lead federal agency and the National Railroad Passenger 

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

engineering designs and 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 111 years old, which is beyond the 100-year design lifespan typical for steel 

railroad bridges. 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 Amtrak, the Maryland Area 

Regional Commuter Train Service (MARC), and Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) use the bridge 

to carry intercity, commuter, and freight trains across the Susquehanna River. The existing twotrack 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. 

FRA and MDOT, in collaboration with Amtrak, (the Project Team) prepared the EA to comply 

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 USC § 4321 et seq.). FRA 

makes this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) based on the information in the EA in 

compliance with NEPA, FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 

28545, May 26, 1999), and other related laws and regulations.

FRA signed the EA on March 2, 2017, and made the document and associated technical reports 

available for public comment and review on March 6, 2017. The Project Team posted the EA to 

the Project website at www.susrailbridge.com, circulated electronic copies to a broad mailing 

list, and distributed hard copies to review agencies, local libraries, and other repositories. The 

 

1

https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/1006/987/National-Fact-Sheet-FY2016.pdf, accessed May 5, 

2017.

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

1.17.17

SCALE

0 10 25 MILES

N

Project Location

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project Figure 1

Susquehanna River Bridge

Northeast Corridor
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

2

public comment period for the EA closed on April 6, 2017. FRA and MDOT incorporated 

comments received on the EA into this FONSI, as applicable. 

B. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT 

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

the NEC. This situation inhibits 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 increasingly 

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

conflicts with the need to maintain continuous rail operations on the corridor. 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. 

C. ALTERNATIVES

The Project Team identified the Build Alternatives studied in the EA through a rigorous 

alternatives development and screening process. Of 25 initial alternatives, the Project Team 

retained two for detailed study in the EA: Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B. Based on the EA, 

FRA identified Alternative 9A as the Preferred Alternative for detailed design and construction. 

The report entitled “Alternatives Screening Report and Bridge Types” (available on 

www.susrailbridge.com) describes the development of alternatives. The report includes input 

solicited from the public, agencies, and other stakeholders, and the methodology used to screen

and select alternatives for detailed study. In addition to alignment alternatives, the Project Team 

evaluated bridge type alternatives and selected the girder approach/arch main span, based on 

environmental assessment and coordination with resource agencies, Section 106 consulting 

parties, and the public.

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

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

as-is, with no intervention besides ongoing maintenance and any increase in as-needed repairs

caused by the aging infrastructure. Service over the bridge would worsen in the future under the 

No Action Alternative. The bridge would continue to age, require more extensive and more 

frequent maintenance, and would continue to be a bottleneck on the NEC.

BUILD ALTERNATIVES

As discussed, based on the alternatives development and screening process, the Project Team 

retained Alternative 9A and Alternative 9B for detailed study in the EA. FRA identified

Alternative 9A as the Preferred Alternative. 

The Preferred Alternative consists of the following components:
Finding of No Significant Impact

3

 Construct a new two-track 90 miles per hour (mph) bridge to the west of the existing 

bridge for use primarily by MARC commuter rail and NS freight service, but would also 

serve intercity passenger rail trains.

 Construct a new high-speed two-track passenger bridge (typically reserved for intercity 

passenger rail trains) in the center of the right-of-way of the existing bridge alignment to 

allow for speeds up to 160 mph. 

The main distinguishing feature of Alternative 9A is its ability to achieve 160-mph speeds along 

this stretch of the NEC. Maximum speed proposed for Alternative 9B would limit trains to 150

mph. Alternative 9A, the Preferred Alternative, results in additional minor property impacts to 

resources such as recreational areas (Havre de Grace Middle/High School athletic fields), 

wetlands, and acquisitions. 

D. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

In the short term, the No Action Alternative would not adversely affect the existing social, 

economic, or environmental conditions in the Project study area. In the long term, if left 

unaddressed, safety concerns would require the bridge be taken out of service. This would sever 

connectivity along the NEC, which would threaten economic and social conditions. The No 

Action Alternative would not provide any transportation benefits or meet the purpose and need 

of this Project. 

Based upon the EA, FRA has concluded that the Project is not likely to result in significant 

adverse environmental impacts. Consistent with CEQ Regulations and FRA NEPA guidance, 

FRA considered measures to mitigate and minimize adverse impacts, which will be incorporated 

to the extent possible and practicable or required. The potential for environmental impacts with 

the Preferred Alternative is summarized for each resource category and outlined in Table 1.

Table 1

Preferred Alternative Summary

Resource Effects

Transportation

 Regional benefits (remove bottle neck and improve reliability,

speed, navigation, and safety)

 Minor street realignments

Land Use and 

Community 

Facilities

 Acquires 2.84 acres of property

 Compatible and consistent with current policies

Socioeconomic 

Conditions and 

Environmental 

Justice

 Acquisition of one commercial property

 No disproportionately high or adverse impacts to environmental 

justice populations

Parks, Trails, and 

Recreational

 Acquisition of 0.27 acre of Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park

(including City of Havre de Grace-owned 0.01 acre) 

 Acquisition of 1.5 acres of Havre de Grace Middle/High School 

property
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

4

Table 1 (cont'd)

Preferred Alternative Summary

Resource Effects

Visual  Altered views of cultural and other resources

 Measures in Programmatic Agreement to avoid/minimize/mitigate

Cultural

 Adverse effect on:

- Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and undergrade bridges; 

- Havre de Grace Historic District; 

- Rogers Tavern; and 

- Perryville Railroad Station

 Measures in Programmatic Agreement to avoid/minimize/mitigate

Section 4(f)

 No feasible and prudent alternatives that would avoid use of all 

Section 4(f) properties

 Use of three Section 4(f) Properties:

- Susquehanna River Rail Bridge

- Perryville Rail Road Station/ Perry Interlocking Tower

- Havre de Grace Historic District

 De minimis use of Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park and Havre de 

Grace Middle School/High School

Section 6(f)

 Acquires a portion of Havre de Grace Middle School / High School 

Athletic Fields (approximately 0.55 acre within a LWCF-funded 

area)

 Identifies replacement, continue agency coordination, implement 

measures to minimize and mitigate

Natural

 Construction within the floodplain (2.72 acres effective 100-year), 

tidal wetlands (0.06 acre), and nontidal wetlands (0.83 acre), and 

wetland buffers (0.27 acre tidal, 2.16 acre nontidal)

 2.92 acres forest resources

 6.4 acres Chesapeake Bay Critical Area

 Aquatic biota (0.37 acre permanent, 0.23 acre during construction)

 0.61 acre submerged aquatic vegetation

 Developed avoidance/minimization/mitigation measures with 

resource agencies

Air Quality

 Regional emissions below de minimis levels

 Localized increases in exceedance of the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for 1-hour average NO2 concentration.

 Long-term benefits to air quality in the region

 Best practices during construction

Energy, 

Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions, and 

Climate Change

 Enhances energy efficiency and reduce pollutant emissions

 Accommodates reasonably foreseeable future changes in climate 

and sea levels.
Finding of No Significant Impact

5

Table 1 (cont'd)

Preferred Alternative Summary

Resource Effects

Noise and 

Vibration

 Moderate noise impacts close to the bridge, comparable to existing 

levels, acceptable for residential or open spaces use 

 Vibration levels below impact criteria

 Ground-borne noise levels at one location would exceed impact 

criteria; increase considered barely perceptible

 Vibration monitoring and protection plan during construction

Contaminated 

and Hazardous 

Materials

 Disturbance of existing structures and excavation, relocation and 

off-site disposal of soil (locations and extent to be determined in 

final engineering) 

 Includes health and safety and investigative/remedial measures

Public Health and 

Safety

 Improves reliability and safety along NEC

 Improves structural and operational reliability; eliminate bridge 

malfunctions associated with movable span

Indirect and 

Cumulative 

Effects

 Transportation, energy, and air quality benefits cumulative with 

other planned projects along the corridor

TRANSPORTATION

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

movable span, which opens approximately 10 times per year to accommodate marine traffic. The 

Project would improve the reliability of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and increase 

allowable train speed and capacity over the river. The Project would remove the bottleneck 

caused by the existing bridge and would reduce unscheduled train delays. 

The 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 Project would eliminate the need for bridge openings 

and closings by replacing the movable span of the existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge with

two high-level fixed bridges. This would constitute an improvement to navigation along this 

segment of the Susquehanna River. The Project would also improve navigation by removing the 

remnant bridge piers.

The Project is envisioned as a means to reduce future vehicle miles traveled (VMT) regionally,

compared with the No Action Alternative. In conjunction with other planned initiatives along the 

NEC, the selected alternative would constitute a benefit to regional highways by lowering 

congestion levels and resulting in less wear and tear on road surfaces. 

A slight realignment of Warren Street between N. Adams Street and N. Stokes Street, in Havre 

de Grace, and a slight realignment of Avenue A, in Perryville, may be necessary to 

accommodate the enlarged bridge abutment. Separately, 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 Project Team worked with the 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

6

City of Havre the Grace to design the Project to accommodate these City-sponsored 

improvements. In addition, seven local roadway crossings beneath the NEC would require 

modification. As discussed in Appendix B, “Environmental Commitments,” the Project would 

not preclude construction of the proposed Chesapeake Connector project.

FRA finds the Project would result in significant regional benefits to transportation, including 

railways, roadways, and navigation and that the local roadway modifications would be minimal.

LAND USE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES

The Project would require the full or partial acquisition of several properties located 

immediately adjacent to the existing right-of-way. The total anticipated property acquisition is 

2.84 acres. Where full property acquisition is required, the property owners will be fairly 

compensated for the land acquired and the affected business will be provided with relocation 

assistance to facilitate reestablishment elsewhere, should this be necessary, in accordance with 

the Uniform Act (42 U.S.C. § 4601 et seq.) and all applicable Maryland State laws. Therefore, 

the Project will not substantially change current land uses within the study area, though it would 

require the acquisition of a narrow strip of the Havre de Grace Middle/High School athletic 

fields. The Project Team, in cooperation with the Harford County Public Schools (HCPS), has 

identified measures to minimize the impact to this community facility, as outlined in Appendix 

B, “Environmental Commitments.”

The Project would be compatible and consistent with current policies that govern the Project site 

and study area. Maryland Department of Planning, in their comments on the EA, stated that the 

Project is consistent with the Maryland Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning 

Policy and that the Project complies with the Priority Funding Area (PFA) Law. In March 2016, 

the State’s Smart Growth Coordinating Committee approved the request for an exemption to the 

PFA requirements because the Project is a “growth-related project involving a commercial or 

industrial activity, which, due to its operational or physical characteristics, must be located away 

from other development. More specifically, the Committee found that the Project qualified for a 

PFA exemption as it supports and is related to a passenger transit and rail freight service, a 

commercial or industrial activity that is proximate to a railroad facility.”

Though the Project would result in some property acquisitions, compensation and relocation 

assistance will be provided in accordance with the Uniform Act and the character of and land 

uses in the study area will remain unchanged.

SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

The Project would require the full acquisition of one commercial use property associated with 

the National Tire & Glass Sales Inc., in Havre de Grace. In accordance with the Uniform Act

and all applicable Maryland State laws, property owners will be provided with fair compensation 

and relocation assistance at later stages in the Project, once construction funding is secured. 

Since the business would be relocated, it is not expected that any jobs will be lost as a result. The 

Project will not displace any other commercial or residential properties within the study area. 

The Project would not involve the demolition of any residential structures and would not affect 

the population or housing supply of the area. 

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

low-income populations. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the City of Havre de Grace is 75.7 

percent White, and 24.4 percent minority. The Town of Perryville is 84.6 percent White, and 

15.4 percent minority. The study area is 75.3 percent White, and 24.8 percent minority, of which 
Finding of No Significant Impact

7

the largest portion is Black or African American (17.4 percent). According to 2011-2015

American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, the City of Havre de Grace, the Town of 

Perryville, and the study area have a poverty rate of 11.1 percent, 7.3 percent, and 13.4 percent, 

respectively.

The Project Team encouraged environmental justice communities to attend and participate in 

public outreach information sessions. Throughout the alternatives evaluation and environmental 

review process, the Project Team encouraged environmental justice communities to attend and 

participate in public outreach information sessions. The Project Team 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 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.

The Project would not impact community cohesion, employment, or other socioeconomic 

conditions in the study area, nor would it have a disproportionately high and adverse impact on 

minority or low-income populations.

PARKS, TRAILS, AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES

The Project requires 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. The new bridge 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. FRA and MDOT, 

in collaboration and through extensive coordination with the City of Havre de Grace, developed 

mitigation measures, including the relocation of the boat ramp, as discussed in more detail in 

Appendix B, “Environmental Commitments.”

In addition, the Project 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. The Project will 

result in minor reconfigurations of the existing and proposed ballfields on the school property

and permanent changes to the athletic track just behind the starting block. Proposed plans require 

the high jump facility and associated equipment shed to be relocated on the site. The Project 

includes provisions developed in collaboration with Harford County Public Schools for 

measures minimizing the effects on the Havre de Grace Middle/High School.

The Project has been designed so as not to preclude a future bicycle and pedestrian crossing over 

the river. The Project would not alter or adversely affect the existing trail routes. 

Several 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, Washington-Rochambeau 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 are discussed in more detail in the Programmatic Agreement (Appendix C). The Project 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

8

Team has coordinated with the National Parks Service (NPS) trail Superintendents as part of the 

environmental assessment. As set forth in the Programmatic Agreement (Appendix C), prior to 

initiating construction, the future Project sponsor1 will contact NPS to determine if there are any 

studies or evaluations that are underway or completed related to the following three National 

Historic Trails within the undertaking’s area of potential effect: Captain John Smith Chesapeake 

National Historic Trail, Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail, and the WashingtonRochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail. If additional evaluation is warranted 

to determine if any segments of these trails are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP), the future Project sponsor will consult with the respective NPS trail 

Superintendent to complete such evaluations.

The Project would not result in a significant impact to parklands and recreational facilities.

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, the future Project sponsor will:

 Design any new physical structures that could adversely affect views in accordance with 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties

(Standards). 

 Use form liner emulating stone stained to be compatible with the color of the existing 

stone for the eight historic undergrade bridge (overpass) extensions (including those in 

the Havre de Grade Historic District).

 Work with the community to determine an appropriate, aesthetically-pleasing treatment 

to minimize visual adverse effects to the historic Rodgers Tavern from the widening of 

the bridge approach and the new retaining wall along the embankment.

 Develop plans in accordance with the Standards in order to relocate the Perryville 

Interlocking Tower to within the NEC right-of-way, in close proximity to the Perryville 

Railroad Station.

In addition, as agreed to in the Programmatic Agreement, Amtrak will consider utilizing a 220-

foot span(s) in the City of Havre de Grace as part of ongoing efforts to minimize effects to 

historic properties. Amtrak will submit design documents, with an explanation of how the 

proposed design conforms to the Standards, to concurring parties to the Programmatic 

Agreement and Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer (MD SHPO) for review and 

comment.

FRA believes that the Project would result in minimal impacts on visual resources in the study 

area.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The Project would result in an adverse effect on: the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and 

undergrade bridges (overpasses); the Havre de Grace Historic District; Rogers Tavern; and the 

Perryville Railroad Station. A Phase IA Archaeological Study for the Project identified 

 

1 The likely future Project sponsor is Amtrak. However, depending on the source of future 

funding, there may be other project sponsors.
Finding of No Significant Impact

9

archaeologically sensitive areas in the Area of Potential Effects (APE). Prior to construction, 

Amtrak will conduct additional archaeological studies to identify and evaluate archaeological 

resources that may be affected by the Project. 

Consistent with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), FRA and 

MDOT consulted with the Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), interested 

tribes, and other Section 106 consulting parties, and executed a Programmatic Agreement (PA);

see Appendix C, “Programmatic Agreement.” The Programmatic Agreement sets forth the 

mitigation measures and consultation that FRA and Amtrak will undertake to avoid, minimize, 

and mitigate adverse effects.

FRA expects that the resulting Project effects will not be significant.

SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION

The EA included a draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, pursuant to the requirements of Section 4(f) of 

the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966.1 Based on the Evaluation, FRA 

determined that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives that would avoid use of all Section 

4(f) properties. Therefore, the Evaluation included 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 identified appropriate measures to minimize harm. The Project would 

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

 Susquehanna River Rail Bridge – removal of existing NR-eligible structure and alteration of 

eight of nine associated rail undergrade bridges;

 Perryville Railroad Station / Perry Interlocking Tower – structure removal and 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; 

 Havre de Grace Historic District – a small amount of property acquisition within the NRlisted Havre de Grace Historic District and visual and aesthetic effects on the Historic 

District;

In addition, FRA determined that the Section 4(f) use of Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park 

(acquisition of a narrow strip of the park owned by City of Havre de Grace) and the Section 4(f) 

use of the Havre de Grace Middle/High School athletic fields are de minimis uses. FRA made

the de minimis impact determination after having provided the opportunity for public review,

through public notification, Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation public 

review, and the Public Outreach Information Session on March 23, 2017. FRA received no 

comments regarding the de minimis determination.

The Department of the Interior (DOI) concurred on April 12, 2017 that there is no prudent and 

feasible avoidance alternative to the proposed Section 4(f) use and that the Programmatic 

Agreement details appropriate mitigation measures to address adverse effects.

 

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).
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

10

SECTION 6(f)

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. The LWCF Act, as amended, (54 U.S.C. §200305(f)(3)) prescribes the conditions for 

the use or transfer of parklands or open spaces that have been improved with funds received 

through the LWCF. The Project 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. Approximately 

0.55 acre of the land is within an area for which LWCF monies were used. FRA will continue to 

coordinate with HCPS to submit an application for land conversion to the National Parks Service 

(NPS) Regional Administrator through the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 

FRA will adhere to LWCF prerequisites for conversion, as well as the NPS Small Conversion 

Policy established in 1990 and recently amended (codified at 54 USC §2000305(f)(3), on 

January 3, 2017). The policy was amended to allow more conversions to qualify as “small” 

while still complying with the LWCF Act, NEPA, and National Historic Preservation Act

(NHPA). The required property acquisition for the Project is less than 10 percent of the whole 

LWCF recreation area. Therefore, it would be considered a small conversion under the Small 

Conversion Policy, as amended, if the replacement property is contiguous with the current site or 

another existing park or recreation area. FRA, MDOT, and Amtrak have coordinated and will 

continue to coordinate with HCPS, DNR, and NPS regarding appropriate mitigation and 

replacement, and the property boundary to be considered within the Section 6(f) Evaluation.

A suitable replacement property will be identified, in consultation with NPS, DNR, and HCPS, 

as detailed design for the Project progresses and as construction funds become available. FRA 

and the MDOT have worked with HCPS to minimize and mitigate the impacts that would result 

from the Project. The future Project sponsor will also provide documentation per the LWCF Act 

and applicable DOI regulations for the conversion of parkland (36 CFR 59). 

When funds for the construction of the Project become available and as design of the Project 

progresses, the future Project sponsor would continue to coordinate with HCPS to identify

suitable replacement land for the Section 6(f) area that minimizes or mitigates any impacts to the 

school property, meets HCPS’s needs, and complies with all applicable federal and state laws 

and regulations.

NATURAL RESOURCES

TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS

The Project would affect Prime Farmland Soils and Soils of Statewide Importance, as defined in

the National Soil Survey Handbook. However, on February 8, 2016, the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, using the Farmland 

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

Farmland Protection Policy Act, determined that the Project is not subject to the provisions of 

the Act and therefore exempt. 

FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS/WATERS OF THE U.S.

Portions of the Preferred Alternative occur within regulated 100- and 500-year floodplains. The 

majority of the 1,560-acre study area, however, falls outside the 100- and 500-year floodplains.

The Project would result in some encroachments on the floodplains; most of encroachments 

would result from transverse (non-parallel) crossings (encroachments that cross the valley width 
Finding of No Significant Impact

11

of the floodplain). The encroachments, however, would not be significant within the meaning of 

DOT Order 5650.2. 

The Project will also require fill in two regulated floodways (Lily Run and an unnamed tributary 

to Lily Run) for the new bridge piers. Similar to the other crossings, these floodway 

encroachments would be transverse crossings of the valley width and would be designed such 

that the encroachment does not raise the base elevation of the designated floodway by more than 

one foot, or a smaller increment, as determined by the Maryland Department of the 

Environment. The new crossing of the Susquehanna River would occur in the same location as 

the existing crossing and on the upstream side of the existing crossing, with the bridge piers 

aligned with the stream (parallel to river flow) to minimize any change in flow characteristics. 

The closer spacing of the bridge piers would result in a very slight change in velocity and 

therefore would not produce a significant impact to the hydrologic properties of the river 

upstream or downstream. 

This floodplain encroachment is the minimum practicable and conforms to applicable floodplain 

standards. As such, the future Project sponsor will undertake more detailed hydrologic and 

hydraulic studies to ensure that the Preferred Alternative does not result in increased floodrelated risk due to encroachment within the floodplain, does not adversely impact the natural and 

beneficial values provided by the floodplains being encroached upon, would not result in 

incompatible development within the floodplain, and that the measures integrated into the 

Preferred Alternative (e.g., aligning piers parallel to river flow and orienting crossings 

transversely across stream valleys) minimize adverse effects to the floodplain.

The Project would have relatively minor effects on wetlands (0.89 acre) and streams (3,209 

linear feet). The Project would primarily affect wetlands along or immediately adjacent to the 

Amtrak right-of-way (ROW). These wetlands have been historically altered to a considerable 

degree for the construction and maintenance of the existing rail alignment due to their proximity 

to the Amtrak ROW. As such, there is no practicable alternative to the Project location. 

Nonetheless, as more detailed design of the Project progresses, the future Project sponsor would 

work with the regulating agencies, including MDE, minimize harm to wetlands and to obtain the 

necessary permits for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and to identify and implement 

appropriate mitigation measures to replace the loss of wetlands, streams, or other aquatic 

resources.

The Project would not affect areas that are designated as a Wetland of Special State Concern.

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

The Project would not affect areas known to support terrestrial state-listed threatened or 

endangered species. FRA does not anticipate any construction-related, short-term impacts to 

terrestrial federally or state-listed species, including the northern long-eared bat (NLEB).

The Project would have minor permanent impacts to forest resources (2.92 acres within the 

1,560-acre study area). Recommended mitigation would include reforestation and afforestation 

in accordance with a Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) that the future Project sponsor would 

prepare prior to construction.

The Project would be constructed immediately adjacent to the existing tracks, which are 

surrounded by low-quality habitat, and, therefore, only common resident birds, small mammals,

and a few reptiles and amphibians would be displaced or minimally affected.
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

12

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

along the Cecil County side. Waterfowl would not be permanently affected, but may be 

temporarily displaced during construction of the Project.

The Project would not result in a significant impact to terrestrial resources.

AQUATIC RESOURCES

The Project would not affect groundwater and would only minimally change the hydrology 

through a shift in the arrangement of piers. The future Project sponsor could minimize potential 

short-term and long-term impacts to water quality from construction by strictly adhering to an 

effective Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and implementing stormwater best management 

practices (BMPs). Construction of the temporary piers (composed of a steel/ timber deck 

supported by piles) would provide river access during construction of the new bridge piers. 

These temporary piers would likely avoid the need for dredging by allowing construction access 

in areas too shallow for project vessels and thus the resulting disturbance to river sediments from 

the temporary piers would be relatively minor (0.37 acre of permanent impacts and 0.23 acre of 

temporary impacts). The temporary piers would be removed upon completion of construction.

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

the river bottom and specifically submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). Shading from the 

relatively narrow temporary finger piers would also not have the potential to result in significant 

shading. The resultant shading would not adversely affect benthic organisms, but would 

adversely affect approximately 0.61 acres of SAV by limiting light to the plants. Mitigation for 

this temporal loss of SAV would include replanting the area at a 3:1 ratio, or as otherwise 

specified in project permits. The future Project sponsor will continue to monitor the mapped 

locations of SAVs as the Project design and permitting process progress, as recommended by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) at the March 24, 2017 Interagency Review Meeting 

(IRM).

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. The future Project sponsor will consider the use of demolition 

materials or clean spoil as additional habitat.

Underwater noise levels produced during impact pile driving for the temporary piers would be 

attenuated using wooden cushion blocks such that potential noise impacts to fish would likely be 

discountable. Potential impacts of pier demolition activities on Atlantic and short nose sturgeon 

would be minimized by implementing protective measures, in coordination with NMFS prior to 

the start of demolition. 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. DNR Fisheries Service may make additional recommendations related to nontidal and tidal species.

Threatened and endangered sea turtles are not expected to occur in the Project area. In the future, 

as the Project planning continues, DNR Wildlife and Heritage Service may require restrictions 

on construction projects in order to protect map turtles and Chesapeake logperch that may occur 

within the Project area, including nesting surveys, in-stream time-of-year restrictions, and/or 

removal and relocation of turtles from the work zone. 
Finding of No Significant Impact

13

While there may be impacts to aquatic resources, the impacts would be largely temporary and 

could be minimized by such measures as scheduling construction at times when known species 

are least likely to occur in the Project area and implementing mitigation measures required by 

permitting agencies, as discussed above.

CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL AREA AND COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

The Project 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.” Earth

disturbance, removal of vegetation, placement of fill, and increased impervious area as a result 

of construction of the Project would result in permanent impacts to the Critical Area. The future 

Project sponsor will continue to coordinate with the Critical Area Commission (CAC) during the 

continued design of the Project.

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

will be designed in a manner consistent with the Maryland Coastal Zone Plan. MDE’s review for 

the Project’s consistency with the Maryland Coastal Zone Plan would commence after the 

agency’s receipt of the MDE Joint Permit Application (JPA). The MDE permit authorization, 

received at subsequent phases of the Project, would constitute the federal consistency decision.

AIR QUALITY

Overall, the Project would not substantially affect regional air quality. The total projected 

emissions in each Air Quality Control Region within the study area represent a small fraction of 

the de minimis levels defined in the regulations. This demonstrates that the operation of the 

Project would not require a conformity determination and would not interfere with State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) for attainment of the ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) or maintenance of the particulate matter (PM2.5) standard.

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

average), and annual average nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations with both the No Action 

Alternative and with the Project would be lower than the applicable legal standards. With the 

Preferred Alternative, local exceedance of the 1-hour average NO2 NAAQS could increase up to 

8.6 percent near the proposed track realignment in Perryville; our analysis predicted that in this 

area the standard would also be exceeded under the No Action Alternative. The analysis, 

however, showed that the probability of this exceedance is low.

Overall, air quality with and without the Project is likely to be very similar. Considering the low 

probability of NAAQS exceedance, the small potential increment, and the limited area 

potentially affected, FRA finds the Project would not result in significant adverse impacts to air 

quality. FRA believes the Project would result in long-term benefits by promoting a more 

energy-efficient form of travel, with the goal of reducing pollutant emissions.

ENERGY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND CLIMATE CHANGE

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

travel (nationwide). The energy efficiency of Amtrak is likely even higher than the national 

average along the NEC where ridership is high (resulting in less energy use per passenger mile). 

The Project is a component of the larger sustained effort to enhance passenger rail for the long 

term, benefitting air quality and reducing pollutant emissions overall.

The Project would improve energy efficiency, reduce emissions, and is consistent with public 

policy regarding climate change, including Maryland’s climate change plan.
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

14

NOISE AND VIBRATION

The Project would have the potential for a moderate noise impact at six of the sensitive receptors 

(representative locations within the Project study area) analyzed, according to Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) and FRA guidance. The receptors where the analysis identified moderate 

noise impacts are: (1) the residential area along the east bank (Perryville side) of the 

Susquehanna River, immediately north of the existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge, including 

the pier and park; (2) the residence on South Woodland Farms Lane, in Perryville; (3) residences 

in the area north of the railway, between Aiken Avenue and Coudon Boulevard, in Perryville; 

(4) David Craig Park and Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park, in Havre de Grace; (5) residences in 

the area south of the railway, immediately west of Lewis Lane, in Havre de Grace and (6) 

residences along Williams Drive, in Havre de Grace. Incremental noise level changes would 

range from imperceptible to readily noticeable. However, overall, the total noise levels with the 

Project would be comparable to existing levels in the area and are in the range typically 

acceptable for residential or open spaces use. 

Based on our analysis following FTA and FRA guidance, ground-borne noise levels would 

exceed ground-borne noise impact criteria at the receptor nearest the railway, i.e., the residence 

at North Stokes Street and Otsego Street, but the predicted difference between the level of 

ground-borne noise in the existing condition and with the Project would be a barely perceptible 

increase. At receptors further from the railway, ground-borne noise would be lower and would 

not exceed ground-borne noise impact criteria. 

Vibration from the Project would not exceed vibration impact criteria at any receptors within the 

area studied.

CONTAMINATED AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Construction of the Project would involve disturbance of existing structures and excavation, 

relocation and potential off-site disposal of some existing soil. The exact extent of disturbance 

associated with the Project will not be determined until final engineering. The 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 and potential need for dewatering is identified.

PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND SECURITY

The 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 Project would 

also improve the structural and operational reliability, increasing the safety of employees who 

work on and travel over the bridge. It would eliminate bridge malfunctions resulting from the 

opening of the existing movable span. 

INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The Project is anticipated to have an overall positive impact on the regional economy by 

improving railroad mobility and connectivity. Further positive cumulative effects include the 

promotion of energy-efficient transportation options, aimed at improving regional air quality and 

reducing highway and airport congestion with improved rail service.

FRA is currently leading a corridor-wide study of the NEC called NEC FUTURE, which will 

result in a program of investments to upgrade and improve passenger rail service on the NEC. 

FRA released the NEC FUTURE Tier I Final EIS in December 2016 and evaluated the 
Finding of No Significant Impact

15

cumulative benefits of a package of rail improvement projects along the entire corridor, 

including the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project. In the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge 

Project EA, transportation, air quality, and noise and vibration assessments were based on NEC 

FUTURE train projections for the 2040 timeframe, and were therefore inherently cumulative. 

The Project is consistent with the service goals considered by NEC FUTURE.

With other planned projects along the corridor, the Project would contribute to improved

transportation reliability, connectivity, performance, safety, and resiliency of passenger rail 

service and would promote energy-efficient transportation options.

E. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

The Project Team has undertaken public and community outreach efforts for the Project, along 

with federal, state, and local agency coordination. Numerous meetings informed the public, 

stakeholders and agencies about Project milestones and sought public and agency input. The 

Project Team created a website for the Project: www.susrailbridge.com. Postcards, email blasts, 

press releases, and public meeting announcements notified stakeholders prior to public outreach 

information sessions. All meetings included an open house format giving the public an 

opportunity to comment on the Project and ask questions of the Project Team. The following is a 

list of Public Outreach Information Sessions and topics discussed: 

 April 28, 2014, Purpose and Need / Project Introduction

 August 13, 2014, Feasible Alternatives

 December 10, 2014, Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study

 November 10, 2015, Alternative Retained for Detailed Study and Bridge Types

 April 14, 2016, Preliminary Environmental Analyses Results / Conceptual Mitigation

 March 23, 2017, Environmental Assessment

In addition to notification to the public, the Project Team sent letters to elected officials with 

constituents within the Project study area at each of the above milestones.

The EA was available for public review and comment from March 6, 2017 through April 6, 

2017. The Project Team posted the EA to the Project webpage (www.susrailbridge.com) and 

distributed to the following repositories: 

 Cecil County, Department of Planning & Zoning

 City of Havre de Grace, Department of Planning & Zoning

 Harford County, Department of Planning & Zoning

 Havre de Grace Library

 Perryville Branch Library

 Town of Perryville, Department of Planning & Zoning

Approximately 60 members of the public attended the Public Outreach Information Session held 

on March 23, 2017. Themes and inquiries from the informal question-and-answer period 

included:

 Anticipated Project completion date; 

 Appreciation for outreach process to date; 

 Compatibility with Havre de Grace’s “Gateway” entrance; 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

16

 Location of bridge piers and street reconfigurations, and potential for design changes;

 Short-term vibration impacts to Rodgers Tavern during construction; 

 Long-term noise and vibration impacts to Rodgers Tavern during operations, due to 

additional trains;

 Actions taken during construction to stop damage to historic buildings;

 Impacts to the Havre de Grace Middle/High School athletic fields;

 Construction truck routes, underpass height limitations, and anticipated use of Otsego 

Street as a construction truck route;

 Coordination with the maritime community;

 Estimated Project cost;

 Additional renderings and engineering drawings provided in the EA;

 Impacts to Perryville Interlocking Tower and Perryville Station;

 Alleviating the bottleneck from Perryville, MD to Newark, DE;

 Number of trains that can traverse the bridge simultaneously;

 Removal of the remnant bridge piers;

 Protection of non-historic structures during construction;

 Property acquisition.

Responses to written comments on the EA received from the public are included in Appendix A, 

“Response to Comments.” See Appendix F, “Comments Received” for complete comment 

submittals.

F. AGENCY AND PUBLIC COMMENTS

See Appendix A, “Response to Comments” and Appendix F, “Comments Received.”

G. FINDINGS

FRA finds the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project Environmental Assessment satisfies the 

requirements of NEPA (42 USC § 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental 

Impacts (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999), and FRA’s Update to NEPA Implementing Procedures 

(78 FR 2713, January 14, 2013). The majority of impacts would be temporary, and the Project 

Team has identified appropriate mitigation measures, as detailed in Appendix B, “Environmental 

Commitments” and Appendix C, “Programmatic Agreement”, that would further reduce any 

impacts. The identified impacts are minor and the Project, if constructed, would provide 

substantial benefits to the environment and to transportation. The Project would also maintain 

connectivity along the busiest rail corridor. Without the Project, the existing bridge would 

continue to deteriorate and may eventually need to be taken out of service, causing a major 

disruption to transportation and the regional economy. Therefore, FRA finds that the Project 

would have benefits and no foreseeable significant adverse impact on the quality of the human 

or natural environment. This FONSI is based on the EA, which FRA determined adequately and 

accurately presents the Purpose and Need, areas of environmental consideration, potential 

environmental impacts, and mitigation measures.

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

Appendix A

Response to Comments

May 2017
A-1

Appendix A Responses to Comments

A. INTRODUCTION

This appendix contains a summary of the comments received during the public and agency 

review period for the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project environmental assessment (EA). 

The EA public review period spanned from March 6, 2017 to April 6, 2017. The agency review 

period extended to April 20, 2017. Feedback received is included in Appendix E, “Comments

Received.” These comments came through a variety of methods, including: letters, emails, the 

Maryland Clearinghouse, website submissions, and written forms submitted at the March 23, 

2017 Public Outreach Information Session (POIS).

The March 23, 2017 POIS included an informal question and answer period to enable a 

productive dialogue. POIS presentation and display boards are included in Appendix F, 

“Additional Correspondence and Outreach.” Since the POIS was not a formal public hearing, 

there is no transcript. Attendees were informed that comments and questions discussed during 

the POIS would not become part of the formal public record unless submitted in writing through

a comment form or another method described above. Comment themes from the POIS included:

project cost, design, and schedule; potential impacts to historic properties; noise and vibration 

impacts; construction-period outreach; maritime coordination; and construction traffic (including 

underpass clearance heights).

The following comment summaries convey the substance of agency and public comments, but 

do not necessarily quote the comments verbatim. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) noted 

and carefully evaluated all of the comments received on the EA (including the Draft Section 4(f) 

Evaluation, and the Programmatic Agreement) before issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI). None of the comments raised concerns that warranted changing the conclusions 

reached in the EA regarding potential impact or the selection of the Preferred Alternative. The 

Project Team is grateful for the range and depth of public and agency comments received on the 

EA and will continue to encourage public and agency input as the project planning and design 

moves forward. This will ensure specific concerns are clearly understood and carefully 

evaluated as the project advances.

B. COOPERATING AGENCY COMMENTS 

USDOT FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA), REGION III

Ryan Long, Community Planner, email dated March 24, 2017

Comment 1: At this time FTA does not have any comments on the EA or draft Section 4(f) 

evaluation. We look forward to serving as a cooperating agency as part of this 

project.

Response 1: Comment noted. The Project Team values FTA’s assistance as a Cooperating 

Agency.
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

A-2

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS – BALTIMORE DISTRICT

John J. Dinne, Maryland State Highway Administration Liaison, email dated April 6, 2017

Comment 2: Navigation is presented as one of the critical evaluation criteria and is a public 

interest factor in Corps permit evaluations. The EA includes information about 

navigable waters in several different sections, including the appendices. While 

there is information supporting the evaluation of the various alternatives, there 

does not appear to be a real conclusion in regards to how the proposed project 

affects navigation. Also, the navigation survey is referenced several times in the 

document. It was provided to the US Coast Guard as part of the coordination 

process and used, in part, in the project alternative design process. It would be 

useful to include the survey/results in an appendix of the EA. 

Response 2: In response to the comment, the Project Team provided USACE a copy of the 

January 21, 2014 Susquehanna River Bridge Reconstruction and Expansion 

Project – Navigation Study, prepared by HNTB Corporation. The navigation 

study is also now posted to the project website (www.susrailbrdge.com).

Chapter 3 of the EA (“Transportation”) analyzes the proposed Project’s 

potential effects to navigation. The analysis concluded the Proposed Project 

would result in a benefit to navigation along the Susquehanna River. Refer to

Page 3-9, “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 
Appendix A: Response to Comments

A-3

permit, when received, will finalize the legal navigation clearances for a new or 

reconstructed bridge.” The maritime community is a key stakeholder group

from which the Project Team sought input throughout the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The Project Team will continue to 

coordinate with the maritime community during the subsequent design and 

permitting phases of the project.

U.S. COAST GUARD

Kashanda Booker, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District, email dated May 

15, 2017

Comment 3: The EA needs to assess compliance with Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald 

and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

Response 3: Appendix D, “Errata” addresses Project compliance with the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

C. SOURCE AGENCY COMMENTS 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Lindy Nelson, Regional Environmental Officer, letter dated April 12, 2017

Comment 4: The Department concurs that there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the 

proposed use of 4(f) lands, which consist of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge 

and eight associated rail undergrade bridges, the Perry Interlocking Tower and 

Perryville Train Station Undergrade Bridge and the Havre de Grace Historic 

District. Alternative 9A will have adverse effects on all of these historic 

properties, which constitutes the Section 4(f) use. The Department concurs that 

the draft Programmatic Agreement developed in consultation with the Maryland 

State Historic Preservation Office details appropriate mitigation measures to 

address the adverse effects. The Department recommends including the final, 

signed document with the final Section 4(f). 

Response 4: FRA notes and appreciates the concurrence. As recommended, the 

Programmatic Agreement is included, see Appendix C, “Programmatic 

Agreement.”

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA), REGION III

Barbara Rudnick, EPA Team Leader, Office of Environmental Programs, letter dated March 29, 

2017

Comment 5: EPA has reviewed this project in conjunction with our responsibilities under 

NEPA, Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, and the Council of Environmental 

Quality regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508). While FRA has 

implemented avoidance and minimization strategies to reduce the environmental 

impacts, it should continue to work with the state and Federal resource agencies 

to compensate and mitigate for those impacts that are unavoidable.
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

A-4

Response 5: FRA and the project sponsors will continue to work with federal and state 

agencies during the subsequent design and permitting phases to compensate and 

mitigate for adverse impacts.

NOAA NATIONAL MARINE (NOAA) FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS)

Kristy Beard, Marine Habitat Resource Specialist, email dated March 28, 2017

Comment 6: NOAA-NMFS does not have any additional comments, beyond those submitted 

previously during review of the draft Natural Environmental Technical Report

(NETR).

Response 6: Comment noted. NOAA-NMFS comments on the NETR were incorporated into 

the final version of that report, included as Appendix E of the EA.

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING

Myra A. Barnes, Lead Clearinghouse Coordinator, letter dated March 27, 2017

Comment 7: Thank you for submitting your project for intergovernmental review. Your 

participation in the Maryland Intergovernmental Review and Coordination 

(MIRC) process helps to ensure that your project will be consistent with the 

plans, programs, and objectives of State agencies and local governments. We 

have forwarded your project to the following agencies and/or jurisdictions for 

their review and comments: the Maryland Departments of Commerce, the 

Environment, Transportation, Natural Resources; the Counties of Harford, and 

Cecil; the City of Havre De Grace, the Town of Perryville; and the Maryland 

Department of Planning including the Maryland Historical Trust.

Response 7: Comment noted. 

Bihui Xu, Principal Planner, email dated April 7, 2017

Comment 8: I can’t find the information on “a Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing Hazard Analysis and Security Risk Assessment” in 

the EA. Has the project completed the study? I can’t find any conclusion or 

summary on the ped/bike issue.

Response 8: Chapter 6 of the EA, “Parks, Trails, and Recreational Resources,” Section E,

states that the “Proposed Project would be designed so as not to preclude a 

future bicycle and pedestrian crossing over the river.” Early in the NEPA 

process for the Proposed Project, the Project Team received several requests to 

include a bicycle-pedestrian path on a new rail bridge in order to provide a more 

convenient crossing over the Susquehanna River. The Project Team worked 

closely with many of the interested parties, including trail advocacy groups, 

elected officials, planning agencies, and members of the public, to evaluate the 

level of interest and feasibility of a bicycle-pedestrian path. Although the scope 

of the Project grant does not include the design and study of bicycle and 

pedestrian facilities, FRA, Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), 
Appendix A: Response to Comments

A-5

and Amtrak agreed to assess the feasibility of coordinating the Proposed Project 

with potential bicycle and pedestrian access across the river and hosted several 

stakeholder meetings on the topic. To respond to the input received regarding a 

multi-use path, MDOT and Amtrak agreed to conduct a Susquehanna River Rail 

Bridge Project Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing Hazard Analysis and Security Risk 

Assessment. This study has been completed. The Project Team, however, did 

not rely on the completed study in its environmental analysis because, in July 

2016, during the Proposed Project’s NEPA review, the Maryland Transportation 

Authority (MDTA) announced that bicyclists will be allowed to cross the nearby 

Thomas J. Hatem Memorial Bridge (US 40). Furthermore, prospective funding 

sources, owners, and operators of the multi-use path on the Susquehanna Bridge 

have yet to be identified. Accordingly, the Project Team did not include a multiuse path as part of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project as the bicyclists’ 

request for a more convenient crossing of the Susquehanna River had been met. 

Instead, the Project Team designed the Proposed Project so as not to preclude 

the future addition of a multi-use path. 

Bihui Xu, Principal Planner, email dated April 10, 2017

Comment 9: The suggested editing comments to EA pages 4-2, 4-14 and 20-13 clarify the 

information related to the PFA law and state smart growth initiatives. (see 

Appendix E, “Comments Received” for the complete comment, including 

specific suggested edits.)

Response 9: The Project Team appreciates the clarifying edits. They are incorporated in 

Appendix D, “Errata.”

MDP Review Comments received via the Maryland State Clearinghouse for Intergovernmental 

Assistance via its electronic network, dated April 20, 2017

Comment 10: The project would improve rail-transportation mobility in the State by replacing 

the existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge between the Town of Perryville and 

the City of Havre de Grace. Improving passenger and freight transportation 

addresses State’s multi-modal transportation need and supports Maryland’s 

transportation, economic and environmental goals. 

Response 10: The Project Team appreciates MDP’s acknowledgement that the Susquehanna 

River Rail Bridge project would support Maryland’s larger goals.

Comment 11: The Project is consistent with the Maryland Economic Growth, Resource 

Protection, and Planning Policy. The project also complies with the Priority 

Funding Area (PFA) Law. In March 2016, the project received the exception 

approval from the State’s Smart Growth Coordinating Committee as required by 

the Priority Funding Area Law.

Response 11: The PFA exception is noted in the FONSI. Correspondence regarding PFA is 

included in Appendix H to the EA. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

A-6

Comment 12: It would strengthen the Environmental Assessment by providing the summary 

information from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Hazard and Security Assessments 

Study.

Response 12: Please see Response to Comment 8 regarding the multi-use path and the study.

The Project Team appreciates MDP comments and looks forward to future 

coordination.

MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST (MHT)

Elizabeth Hughes, Director / State Historic Preservation Officer, letter dated April 11, 2017

Comment 13: Maryland Historical Trust previously agreed with FRA that the undertaking will 

have an adverse effect on: the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge & Bridge 

Overpasses; Havre de Grace Historic District; Rogers Tavern; and Perryville 

Railroad Station. We are pleased that the draft Programmatic Agreement (PA)

includes measures to reduce and resolve the undertaking’s adverse effect on 

historic properties, monitors the effects of the undertaking on historic and 

archeological properties as the design develops and during construction, 

establishes procedures for ongoing coordination among the various signatory 

and consulting parties, and provides for appropriate public interpretation as an 

integral part of the project design. We offer specific comments on the PA (see 

Appendix E, “Comments Received” for the complete letter from MHT listing 

specific comments on the PA).

Response 13: FRA appreciates MHT’s comments. They are incorporated into the final signed 

PA; see Appendix C, “Programmatic Agreement”.

MHT Review Comments received via the Maryland State Clearinghouse for Intergovernmental

Assistance via its electronic network, dated April 20, 2017

Comment 14: FRA is working with the Maryland Historical Trust and other involved, 

consulting parties to complete the historic preservation review of the 

undertaking under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The 

parties are negotiating a formal PA to set forth the process by which FRA will 

ensure compliance with Section 106 and resolve the undertaking’s effects on 

historic properties as project planning proceeds.

Response 14: The Project Team appreciates the valuable input from the Maryland Historical 

Trust on the project to date, and looks forward to future coordination as part of 

the Section 106 process.

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR)

Greg Golden, Environmental Review Program, email dated April 6, 2017.

Comment 15: We look forward to further coordination and review at the appropriate timing for 

future planning stages, and eventual construction. This especially includes 

coordination of various time-of-year restrictions for natural resources, which 
Appendix A: Response to Comments

A-7

may include, but not necessarily be limited to, fisheries, rare species, submerged 

aquatic vegetation (SAV), and waterfowl concentration areas. We realize that 

the Project Team may need to work with the resource agencies to negotiate the 

feasible construction timeline that protects resources and allows the necessary 

logistics to complete the project. In the cases of potentially overlapping 

restriction periods or restriction periods that could make certain construction 

practices not feasible, we will be available to help fine tune Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) and restrictions. We greatly appreciate and support the current 

level of BMP consideration for aquatic resources, such as pile installation 

methods.

Response 15: The Project Team appreciates the valuable input from DNR on the project to 

date, and looks forward to future coordination during the subsequent design and 

permitting phases – particularly related to fine-tuning BMPs for restricted 

construction periods. Additional consultation and timing restrictions would be 

negotiated as part of the "Joint Federal/State Application for the Alteration of 

Any Floodplain, Waterway, Tidal or Nontidal Wetland in Maryland."

Comment 16: We would like to emphasize the great importance of water access for fishing, 

boating, and other recreational or water-dependent purposes during and after 

project construction. Further study and planning may be necessary to ensure that 

water access is adequately addressed. Access should be considered to include 

boat ramps, soft ramps for kayaks and other hand carried boats, and 

opportunities for shoreline viewing and fishing, as allowed by local authorities. 

DNR can provide boating and access staff expertise when future coordination is 

conducted.

Response 16: During the next phase of design, construction phasing plans will be advanced 

and the Project Team will coordinate with DNR and other appropriate entities 

regarding water access, keeping in mind the great importance to the access for 

fishing, boating, and other uses during and after project construction. As 

discussed in the EA, the Jean S. Robert Park boat ramp will be replaced in a 

suitable location, in coordination with the City of Havre the Grace and other 

stakeholders.

Comment 17: The Department advocates and requests consideration of all reasonable 

opportunities for the project to participate in fish reef material collaboration, 

partnerships, and associated planning. We can provide expertise in this topic. 

Clean concrete rubble from demolition is of special interest for fish reef 

material, and this might become available from demolition and removal of 

bridge piers, piling, bulkheads, etc. The proximity of the project to navigable 

waters makes this an especially important consideration. 

Response 17: Amtrak can make clean concrete rubble available to the DNR for their use. The 

large majority of the rubble would be stone masonry from the existing piers in 

the river. Please note that the City of Havre de Grace in an Advisory Bulletin 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

A-8

dated January 23, 2015 similarly requested the stone masonry from the piers to 

construct jetties to aide aquatic life, submerged vegetation, river erosion 

protection and river calming.

Comment 18: As the document references, planning any potential Forest Conservation Act 

(FCA) studies and requirements should be clearly incorporated into future plans. 

The Forest Conservation Act requires that any project, on areas 40,000 square 

feet or greater, that is applying for a grading or sediment control permit shall 

have an approved Forest Conservation Plan or Forest Stand Delineation (Nat. 

Res. Art. 5-1601-5-16122, Annotated Code of Maryland). Projects proposed by 

a state or federal agency on state or federal land need to be submitted to the 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources Forest Service for review. Projects 

proposed for private land should be submitted to the local planning and zoning 

authority for review. Please note Critical Area exclusion; we have staff expertise 

and online information available for any needed guidance. 

Response 18: As part of any future applications for a grading or sediment control permit, the 

Project Team will comply with the Forest Conservation Act and prepare for 

DNR approval a Forest Conservation Plan or Forest Stand Delineation. The 

Critical Area exclusion is noted.

Comment 19: Principio Creek is a Use III stream that provides a popular put-and-take fishery. 

Mill Creek is a Use I tributary to Furnace Bay. Although there was no reference 

in the EA, a wild brown trout population has been documented in Mill Creek.

Response 19: The Project Team acknowledges the presence of a wild brown trout population 

in Mill Creek and the need to provide the same protection as a Use III stream. 

This population is upstream of the project, so no adverse effects are anticipated.

Comment 20: The EA states the Chesapeake logperch does not occur in the vicinity of the 

project site; Tidal Bass Program surveys documented the presence of the 

Chesapeake logperch near the project site during the fall of 2014.

Response 20: As DNR states in Comment 25, the Wildlife and Heritage Service is assessing 

the new record of logperch "near the project site". The Project Team will 

continue to coordinate with DNR as they complete their evaluation and develop 

any additional protection comments regarding that species as the project 

planning continues.

Comment 21: The tidal black bass fishery (largemouth and smallmouth bass) in the Upper Bay 

is important recreational and economically important fishery, though only the 

presence of these species is stated in the EA. The gravel shoreline habitat and 

associated SAV within the project area are important habitat for spawning, 

juvenile, and adult bass that will be affected by the project.
Appendix A: Response to Comments

A-9

Response 21: The Project Team acknowledges the presence of important shoreline habitat in 

the project area. Future project planning and design will note and consider this 

recreational and economically-important fishery for tidal black bass.

Comment 22: The finger piers are a preferred alternative to dredging. As noted in the 

Environmental Assessment, dredging can lead to long-term loss of an SAV seed 

bank and benthic habitat as well as temporary impact to existing SAV beds.

Response 22: Finger piers are preferred for the reasons mentioned in the comment. The 

project included the use of finger piers over dredging to address both short and 

long-term effects of dredging on SAV. Finger piers are currently proposed in 

shallow water areas to provide access for needed bridge construction and 

demolition activities while minimizing impacts. The NETR that is included as 

an appendix (Appendix E) to the EA notes that SAV planting will be included to 

mitigate for shading effects of the finger piers. 

Comment 23: Both alternative build scenarios could re-suspend bottom sediment in the 

vicinity of the project site. These actions occur via the construction of finger 

piers at Cecil County, construction of west and east replacement bridge piers, 

and demolition of existing bridge and remnant piers. Because of local public 

sensitivity to such events and its influence on submerged vegetation and fishing 

activities, it is recommended that public notice is provided the Department and 

local area at least two weeks prior to periods when sediment is expected to be 

re-suspended. This will enable the Department to inform boaters and anglers 

about the need for the project and possible, temporary re-suspension of sediment 

at the project site. 

Response 23: The Project Team will notify the Department and the public at least two weeks 

prior to periods when sediment is expected to be re-suspended, as 

recommended.

Comment 24: Reducing harmful sound or pressure waves should be further stressed in 

planning and documentation. Mitigating efforts to address sound waves during 

the installation of piles for the finger pier were addressed in the EA. While 

blasting is not an anticipated method, it is stated that it may be used if the 

contractor deems it necessary to remove the 16 in-water piers from the existing 

bridge and the 13 remnant piers of a prior bridge just downstream to “2’ below

the mudline.” Removing the abutments outside of the navigational channel to

“2’ below the mudline” would likely cause more disturbance/damage to the 

existing ecosystem than leaving them in place to some degree. The remnant 

abutments could provide current breaks and fish habitat if compatible with safe 

navigation.

Response 24: Future planning and documentation for the project will emphasize, where 

appropriate, the best management practices that will be implemented to 

minimize underwater noise during in-water construction. In coordination with 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

A-10

the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the Project Team notes that removal of the 

existing piers and downstream remnant piers is proposed to improve hydraulic 

flow and to remove navigational obstructions for mariners.

Comment 25: Clean spoil material from the demolition of the bridge abutments could be used 

to provide valuable habitat for black bass and other species. This material could 

be used to construct a break wall to provide safe harbor at Elk Neck State Park 

or provide additional habitat near the project site with locations identified 

through a public input process. Black bass abundance correlates with habitat 

consisting of SAV and “structure” (woody debris, docks, reefs, rip-rap, etc).

Response 25: Please see Response to Comment 14.

Comment 26: The loss of the Jean Roberts boat ramp and the prolonged disruption of 

recreational fishing/navigation in the project area will impact popular local 

fishing activities. Mitigation from this project could include the development of 

a boat ramp and parking area capable of supporting large tournament activities 

prevalent in the Upper Bay region, creation of weigh-in stations for bass 

tournaments at Susquehanna River State Park (Lapidum) or at Tydings 

Memorial Park (Havre de Grace) to increase bass survival, or increasing 

boat/trailer parking at Tydings Memorial Park. Such a facility could be an 

economic benefit to the revitalization of the downtown business district and 

waterfront identified in the Havre de Grace Comprehensive Plan.

Response 26: The Project Team looks forward to coordination with DNR regarding these 

issues during the subsequent design and permitting phases. As discussed in the 

EA, FRA and MDOT will also work with the City of Havre de Grace to identify 

and ensure that a replacement for the Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park boat ramp 

is provided in a suitable location. In developing a replacement ramp, the Project 

Team will consider the importance of recreational fishing and navigation and 

collaborate with DNR and the City of Havre de Grace to minimize the effect of 

the Project on these water dependent recreational activities.

Comment 27: Fisheries Service has made and will continue to make to additional comments in 

future planning and design for other migratory and tidal fish species. 

Response 27: Additional coordination is appreciated and welcomed.

Comment 28: Wildlife and Heritage Service has provided comments noting that recent 

information from the Fisheries Service on the State listed Chesapeake logperch 

is new to their program, and they have obtained further information from 

Fisheries Service and are assessing the new record for WHS. The department 

may develop additional protection comments regarding that species as the 

project planning continues. Review and comment on the Northern Map Turtle 

will be considered and should remain on the planning screen, but exact 

comments will depend on the more detailed future project information. 
Appendix A: Response to Comments

A-11

Response 28: The Project Team will continue to coordinate with DNR as they complete their 

evaluation on Chesapeake logperch (Percina bimaculata, synonym Percina 

caprodes) and Northern map turtle (Graptemys geographica). As the project 

planning continues through the subsequent design and permitting phases, the 

Project Team will work with DNR to develop additional measures, if necessary,

to protect these species.

Comment 29: We can concur with the information regarding the project alternatives, including 

the purpose and need of the project. We support the continued study of impacts 

and impact minimization and understand the importance of the preferred 

alternative and targeted rail speeds.

Response 29: The Project Team appreciates the opportunity for continued coordination. The 

Team values your concurrence regarding the project alternatives and target 

speeds.

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (MDE)

Review Comments received by the Maryland State Clearinghouse for Intergovernmental 

Assistance via its electronic network, dated April 20, 2017.

Comment 30: If the proposed project involves demolition, any above-ground or underground 

petroleum storage tanks that may be on site must have contents and tanks along 

with any contamination removed. Please contact the Oil Control Program for 

additional information.

Response 30: If underground petroleum storage tanks are unexpectedly encountered, the 

Project Team will contact the Oil Control Program and comply with applicable 

regulations (see EA Chapter 15, “Contaminated and Hazardous Materials”). 

Comment 31: Any solid waste including construction, demolition and land clearing debris, 

generated from the subject project, must be properly disposed of at a permitted 

solid waste acceptance facility, or recycled if possible. Contact the Solid Waste 

Program for additional information regarding solid waste activities and contact 

the Waste Diversion and Utilization Program for additional information 

regarding recycling activities.

Response 31: The Project Team will provide contractors with appropriate disposal 

instructions. We appreciate the valuable input from the MDE on the project to 

date, and looks forward to future coordination during the subsequent design 

phase.

Comment 32: The Waste Diversion and Utilization Program should be contacted directly by 

those facilities which generate or propose to generate or handle hazardous 

wastes to ensure these activities are being conducted in compliance with 

applicable State and federal laws and regulations. The Program should also be 

contacted prior to construction activities to ensure that the treatment, storage or 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

A-12

disposal of hazardous wastes and low-level radioactive wastes at the facility will 

be conducted in compliance with applicable State and federal laws and 

regulations.

Response 32: The Project Team will contact the Waste Diversion and Utilization Program 

prior to construction activities that may involve handling hazardous waste to 

ensure compliance with applicable regulations. The proposed Project would not 

involve treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous wastes or radioactive wastes 

on site.

Comment 33: The proposed project may involve rehabilitation, redevelopment, revitalization,

or property acquisition of commercial, industrial property. Accordingly, MDE’s 

Brownfields Site Assessment and Voluntary Cleanup Programs (VCP) may 

provide valuable assistance to you in this project. These programs involve 

environmental site assessment in accordance with accepted industry and 

financial institution standards for property transfer. For specific information 

about these programs and eligibility, please contact the Land Restoration 

Program.

Response 33: The Project Team will seek assistance from MDE’s Brownfields Site 

Assessment and VCP, if the need to acquire or redevelop eligible properties 

arises. 

D. STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS

CITY OF HAVRE DE GRACE

Dianne Klair, Planner, letter dated April 4, 2017

Comment 34: Thank you for the opportunity for allowing the City to be represented as a 

Concurring Party to the Programmatic Agreement. I will provide appropriate 

points-of contact when the PA finalized. You will see a separate letter by Mayor 

Martin accepting the offer for the City to be a Concurring Party. 

Response 34: The Project Team appreciates the City’s acceptance to be a Concurring Party 

and the helpful comments received to date.

Comment 35: Thank you for 1) including comments regarding additional language from my 

letter dated November 2, 2016 in the text of the PA, and 2) for your letter dated 

March 13, 2017 where you stated that “[t]he design team is in the process of 

entertaining the use of a 220-foot space as the first span of the bridge on the 

Havre de Grace side of the project”. This is a huge issue for us in Havre de 

Grace and I greatly appreciate your consideration of this solution. I would ask 

that some references to a longer span over the critical intersection of Otsego 

Street and Union Avenue be added in the narrative of the EA itself, since neither 

the text nor the latest engineering in EA Appendix B from June 2016 reflects 

that a longer span is being considered. (See Appendix E, “Comments Received” 

for the complete comment, including specific suggested edits to the EA and PA).
Appendix A: Response to Comments

A-13

Response 35: Comments noted. Please see Appendix D, “Errata” for the text referencing the 

longer span and other requested revisions. Please note that Maryland State 

Highway Administration (SHA) approval is needed for the city-proposed 

roadway realignment of Otsego Street / North Union Street and Water Street.

Comment 36: Specific comments for the PA are as follows:

 The Havre de Grace District is still incorrectly identified as HA-1125; the 

correct identifier is HA-1617.

 Is it possible to change “could” to “would” and “may” to “will” under 

Stipulations I C? If another federal agency were involved, would they have 

to do another (separate) Section 106 Process? Please identify other federal 

agencies would potentially fund this project.

 Please add specific text for the potential for an expanded overland span 

(220-foot) in Havre de Grace.

 Please consider the aesthetic for future pier design, especially in relation to 

the futuristic rendering of the Preliminary Pier design under the Selected 

Bridge Type Design from the March 23, 2017 public meeting.

Response 36: The Project Team revised the PA to reflect the correct identifier (HA-1617). The 

original wording (“could” and “may”) must be retained since another federal 

agency (such as a federal permitting agency) may choose to become a signatory 

to the PA, but it is not required to do so. If that agency does not choose to sign 

on to this PA to fulfill its Section 106 obligations, then that agency would 

conduct its own Section 106 review. The revised PA includes text regarding 

consideration of the 220-foot-long span. Please see Response to Comment 33

regarding pier design.

Comment 37: Please include the following three letters in the EA documentation for the record 

in Appendix H_Public Involvement and Agency Correspondence.pdf under the 

Section 106 Correspondence section: 1) My letter dated November 2, 2016 and 

the two-page attachment for Potential MOA Stipulations, 2) Mayor William T. 

Martin’s letter dated February 15, 2017, and 3) Mr. Brandon Bratcher’s 

response letter dated March 13, 2017. Each of these letters should also be 

referenced within the document in Table 20-2 (on p. 20-10) as part of the 

Section 106 Correspondence Summary for the record. 

Response 37: Please see Appendix D, “Errata” and Appendix F, “Additional Correspondence 

and Outreach” for the requested revisions and the letters.

Comment 38: Statement about Preliminary Pier Design: The Preliminary Pier Design as shown 

on the Selected Bridge Type Design slide was not part of the EA; it was first 

shown at the March 23rd public outreach session and subsequent online 

materials. This is a modern, futuristic rendering as opposed to a more traditional 

pier design as described in the PA. Prior available views show a more traditional 

keyhole arch pier structure, and the Project Team used renderings of the length 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

A-14

of the bridge with keyhole piers in its visual preference survey for the Girder 

Approach/Main Arch Span structure. It would be great to have a more 

understated, timeless aesthetic due to the historic communities in this eastern 

seaboard setting. The ideal is to somehow blend old and new while still meeting 

your engineering design criteria. 

Response 38: As with all renderings presented throughout the course of the project, the pier 

design rendering shown at the March 23, 2017 Public Outreach Information 

Session was an illustrative example intended to solicit feedback and input from 

the communities. The keyhole pier design has not been eliminated from 

consideration. Amtrak will continue to coordinate with the communities 

regarding bridge and pier aesthetics during the subsequent design phase.

William T. Martin, Mayor, City of Havre De Grace, letter dated March 29, 2017

Comment 39: I am deeply appreciative of your letter dated March 13, 2017 where you stated 

that you will consider the use of a 220-foot span over the Otsego Street/Union 

Avenue intersection as an engineering solution for the entrance into our historic 

downtown commercial area. On behalf of the City of Havre de Grace, I accept 

the offer for the City to be a Concurring Party on the Programmatic Agreement 

that gets finalized following the Environmental Assessment comment period for 

the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project. Thank you for your continued 

public outreach and for working with us to accommodate our design concerns. 

Response 39: The Project Team appreciates the acceptance to be a Concurring Party on the 

Programmatic Agreement and looks forward to future coordination and 

collaboration with the City of Havre de Grace. Amtrak will consider utilizing a 

220-foot span(s) in the City of Havre de Grace as part of ongoing efforts to 

minimize effects to historic properties. Amtrak will submit design documents, to 

concurring parties and Maryland State Historical Preservation Officer for review 

and comment.

CITY OF HAVRE DE GRACE AND TOWN OF PERRYVILLE

Review Comments received by the Maryland State Clearinghouse for Intergovernmental 

Assistance via its electronic network, dated April 20, 2017

Comment 40: Since as early as 2012, the City of Havre de Grace and the Town of Perryville 

have submitted advisory comments, as well as, formal comments through the 

Section 106 Process and Environmental Assessment 30-day review period to 

help the Applicant comprehend the potential impact of the Susquehanna River 

Rail Bridge Project on the residents’ quality of life during the projected, useful 

life of the two, new planned bridges. (For a sample of review comments and 

advisories from both municipalities enclosed as part of this comment, please see 

Appendix E, “Comments Received.”

Response 40: The Project Team considered all of the comments received regarding Section 

106, including the Advisory Board bulletins. Input from the City of Havre de 
Appendix A: Response to Comments

A-15

Grace and the Town of Perryville was incorporated where feasible into the 

Programmatic Agreement (see Appendix C, “Programmatic Agreement”).

Correspondence was included in Appendix D and Appendix H of the 

Environmental Assessment. Additional correspondence is included in Appendix 

F to this FONSI, “Additional Correspondence and Outreach.” 

CECIL COUNTY

Review Comments received by the Maryland State Clearinghouse for Intergovernmental

Assistance via its electronic network, dated April 20, 2017

Comment 41: The County finds this project to be consistent with its plans, programs, and 

objectives.

Response 41: The Project Team appreciates the valuable input from Cecil County on the 

project to date, and looks forward to future coordination during the subsequent 

design phase to ensure continued consistency with the County’s plans, 

programs, and objectives.

HARFORD COUNTY

Review Comments received by the Maryland State Clearinghouse for Intergovernmental

Assistance via its electronic network, dated April 20, 2017

Comment 42: The County finds this project to be generally consistent with its plans, programs, 

and objectives.

Response 42: The Project Team thanks Harford County for the thoughtful review. Comment 

noted.

Comment 43: This project is showing potential impacts to 100-year floodplains (and 

floodways), tidal and nontidal wetlands and their buffers, and the Critical Area. 

Any development that occurs in the floodplain area in unincorporated Harford 

County would need a Floodplain Authorization. All impacts must meet Chapter 

131 of the Harford County Code to meet the County’s Floodplain Management 

Program and Critical Area regulations.

Response 43: The project will seek approval regarding floodplains from the appropriate 

regulatory authority.

Comment 44: The commitment to the construction of the long-proposed pedestrian bridge 

from Harford County to Cecil County, preferably from Havre de Grace to 

Perryville, is now, at hand. Harford County firmly believes the approval of this

badly-needed, new railroad bridge crossing over the Susquehanna River should 

be contingent upon co-approval of the pedestrian crossing. Without the approval 

and financial commitment at this time, Harford County fears this pedestrian 

crossing is doomed for good, putting an end to any hope of this very essential 

connection. The completion of the long-awaited land trail on both sides of the 

River with a pedestrian connection from Havre de Grace to Perryville will result 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

A-16

in an economic resurgence for this region. Better yet, a pedestrian crossing 

connecting both sides of the Lower Susquehanna River Trail would provide a 

total package of benefits for both communities including public health, 

recreation, and economic growth, and a source of community pride and identity. 

Instead of focusing on why it cannot be built, the various government agencies 

should be focused on making the pedestrian crossing.

Response 44: The Project Team appreciates the valuable input from Harford County on the 

project to date, and looks forward to future coordination during the subsequent 

design phase. Please see Response to Comment 8 for more information 

regarding the requests for a multi-use path.

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER RAIL BRIDGE PROJECT ADVISORY BOARD

Volney H. Ford, Chair, letter dated April 4, 2017

Comment 45: Based on street geometry a 220/220/220-foot pier placement from the abutment 

location shown would be optimum if designed properly. There are other benefits 

of this span/pier placement. It may afford the best possible gateway view scape 

into the historic downtown district, and should have the least impact on the 

dwelling at the corner. The first pier would be positioned just behind the rear 

corner of this dwelling, giving it the most open frontal and southerly side view 

scape possible with a very broad landscaped area along its side.

Response 45: Amtrak will consider using a 220-foot span(s) in the City of Havre de Grace as 

part of ongoing efforts to minimize effects to historic properties. Please see 

Response to Comment 33 and Response to Comment 36 and note that SHA 

approval is required for the city-proposed street realignment.

Comment 46: It appears that pier placement proposed herein will very conveniently allow the 

first stone pier now in use to be left in place as an artifact and monument to the 

bridge being torn down. The historic plaque mounted on the existing abutment 

should be redisplayed on this pier. Cleaning and restoration work on this pier 

would be more than offset by the cost of its removal, and once restored, would 

be mostly protected from the elements by the new bridge overhead. It is also 

well-removed from the pier locations proposed herein, and does not interfere 

with a Water Street realignment.

Response 46: Amtrak is willing to consider retaining the first existing pier provided it does not 

interfere with the roadway, construction of the project or future bridge 

maintenance access. Please note that considerable discussion with Maryland 

State Highway Administration is needed including approval of the city-proposed 

roadway realignment of Otsego Street / North Union Street and Water Street.

Comment 47: You are no doubt aware of our proposal to redesign and rededicate the adjacent 

David Craig Park into a bridge history theme, displaying key artifacts from the 

existing bridge which we have already identified in Advisory Bulletin #15, 
Appendix A: Response to Comments

A-17

along the interpretive photographs and historical information relating to all 

bridges and modifications that have ever existed in this vista. Saving the first 

pier of the existing rail bridge, as well as that of the long-gone original bridge 

would complement the theme of this park. That abandoned first pier in the river 

should likewise be carefully restored, using components from its sister piers to 

be removed from the river, if necessary.

Response 47: Please see Response to Comment 43 regarding retaining the first pier of the 

existing rail bridge. Restoration of the first in-river pier of the abandoned bridge 

downstream of the rail bridge will be considered by Amtrak. Please note the 

retaining this first in-river pier would require USCG approval.

Comment 48: I wish to thank you, Paul Del Signore of Amtrak, and the bridge project design 

team for making every effort to get the design of this intersection area right, in 

consideration of all interests and concerns that are involved. Again, we strongly 

urge the 220/220/220-foot span proposal as the most acceptable solution for 

Havre de Grace, based on all information made available to us to date. 

Response 48: Comment noted. The Project Team looks forward to future coordination and 

collaboration with the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Advisory Board.

WILMINGTON AREA PLANNING COUNCIL

Dave Gula, Principal Planner, comment form dated March 23, 2017

Comment 49: We appreciate the extensive public outreach program you have undertaken with 

this project. We hope to see the same level of public outreach when the 

construction program is announced. Please contact us for assistance with public 

outreach if necessary. We are looking forward to this presentation at our 

upcoming meeting on April 20.

Response 49: The Project Team notes the need for coordination to continue as design 

advances toward eventual construction. Comments noted.

E. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

Joe Kochenderfer, Havre De Grace, comment form dated March 23, 2017

Comment 50: Water line on Harford Board of Education property should be replaced by 

FRA/MDOT.

Response 50: The water line will be replaced as part of the Proposed Project. 

Comment 51: At Otsego/Union Ave intersection distance between abutment and pier should 

be increased. 

Response 51: The Project Team has been working with the City of Havre de Grace, MHT, the 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Advisory Board and others regarding the bridge 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

A-18

abutment span lengths. As stated above, the Project Team will continue to 

evaluate the feasibility of a 220-foot-long span length.

Marc Dallaire, Perry Point Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC), comment form dated 

March 23, 2017

Comment 52: Instead of cast in place “brick” finish on abutments, consider stone finish or 

stone block to complement historic sense of Rogers Tavern. I am sure some 

residents of HDG would appreciate stone abutments as well. 

Response 52: The renderings shown at the March 23, 2017 Public Outreach Information 

Session were illustrative examples intended to solicit feedback and input from 

the communities. To the extent practicable, Amtrak will make commercially 

reasonable efforts to ensure that the design of the Project is compatible with 

affected historic properties and conforms to the guidance contained in the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties 

(“Standards”).

Alan Snyder, email dated March 29, 2017

Comment 53: I am very concerned about the impact that the bridge project will have on 600, 

604 and 606 Water Street in Havre de Grace, MD. I am especially interested in 

the distance of the bridge from the property line of 600 Water Street, the 

placement of the bridge piers and the new route for Otsego Street. It is important 

that the concerns of the local property owners, especially those that will be 

directly impacted, be taken into consideration before the design is finalized. I 

am formally requesting that I participate in the design discussions that are 

occurring with the town of Havre de Grace. For the record, I have also attached 

a letter that I sent to the Federal Railroad Administration on July 18, 2016 (the 

letter, along with the response to the letter are included in Appendix F, 

“Additional Correspondence and Outreach.” All of the concerns expressed in 

the letter remain valid and have not been addressed. I would like for them to be 

incorporated into your thoughts and plans as you move the project forward so 

that they can be fully addressed.

Response 53: To the extent possible at this stage of the Project, FRA addressed the concerns 

expressed in the July 18, 2016 letter. FRA’s response, dated August 30, 2016, is 

included in Appendix F, “Additional Correspondence and Outreach.” As the 

Project moves forward, the Project Team will continue to coordinate with 

property owners when appropriate.

Rick Kappler, via project website on December 23, 2016; February 28, 2017; March 3, 2017; 

March 14, 2017; March 22, 2017;

Comment 54: Will this bridge have bicycle and pedestrian paths on both sides of the bridge? 

Currently, there is an 80 mile detour to Columbia, Pennsylvania in order to cross 

the river. It is not pleasant to ride a bike with many cars on the highway bridge.

I remember young adults walking on the current railroad bridge to walk from 
Appendix A: Response to Comments

A-19

Perry Point to a more “exciting” Havre de Grace after waiting thirty minutes for 

a taxi. It is great that it is finally legal in these modern times to be allowed to 

ride a bike on the nearby highway bridge during certain hours, but it is not a 

friendly place for kids on bikes riding on the same bridge with Wal-Mart trucks. 

There is no excuse for not accommodating room for both high-speed passenger 

trains along with pedestrian and bike paths. The veterans, employees, and 

visitors of the adjacent Veterans Administration (VA) medical center in Perry 

Point deserve access to the new bridge. The nearby tavern that President George 

Washington visited ought to be removed if there is a possible lack of room for 

the additional bike paths and railroad lines. The obesity epidemic calls for 

building more trails and more protected bike lanes. Pedestrian and bike access is 

about emergency access. Please build the pedestrian and bicycle access on this 

bridge or don’t build the new bridge at all.

Response 54: The Project Team appreciates your comments. Pedestrian and bicycle access is 

discussed in Response to Comment 8. Please note that Rodgers Tavern is a 

protected (Section 106) historic resource. As discussed, the Project Team 

designed the Proposed Project so as not to preclude the future addition of a 

multi-use path.
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

Appendix B

Environmental Commitments

May 2017
B-1

Appendix B Environmental Commitments

A. MITIGATION, COMMITMENTS, AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES

This section identifies commitments and measures that the Project Team considered in the 

Environmental Assessment to mitigate and minimize adverse impacts. The future Project 

sponsor, likely to be Amtrak,1should incorporate these measures during the detailed design and 

construction phases of the Project to the extent possible and practicable or required.

TRANSPORTATION 

The Project would not preclude construction of the proposed Chesapeake Connector project on 

the eastern edge of the project limits. Amtrak will coordinate final design and construction of the 

Project with the MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility project, located on the eastern edge of 

the project limits. The City of Havre de Grace has developed plans to redesign the downtown 

gateway area at the intersection of Otsego Street and North Union Avenue, adjacent to the 

existing bridge abutment. Amtrak will continue to work with the City of Havre de Grace to 

accommodate these City-sponsored improvements. 

LAND USE, COMMUNITY FACILITIES, SOCIOECONOMICS, AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

The Federal funding agency will ensure that property acquisitions and displacements will adhere 

to the Uniform Act and all applicable Maryland State laws regarding relocation services, moving 

payments, and other allowable payments related to the displacement and moving costs. Where 

full property acquisition is required, property owners will be fairly compensated for the land 

acquired and the affected business will be provided with relocation assistance to facilitate their 

reestablishment elsewhere, should this be necessary.

PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES

Amtrak will continue to work with the Harford County Public Schools (see Section 4(f)

commitments) to minimize impacts to the Havre de Grace Middle/High School complex. 

Amtrak will continue to work with City of Havre de Grace to ensure that a replacement for the 

Jean S. Roberts boat ramp is provided in a suitable location. As detailed in the Programmatic 

Agreement (Appendix C), the future Project sponsor will contact National Parks Service (NPS) 

prior to initiating construction to determine whether any studies or evaluations related to the 

Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, Star-Spangled Banner National Historic

Trail, and/or the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail are 

underway or completed. If additional evaluation is warranted to determine if any segments of 

these trails are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the 

 

1 The likely future Project sponsor is Amtrak. However, depending on the source of future funding, there 

may be other project sponsors.
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

B-2

future Project sponsor will consult with the respective NPS trail Superintendent to complete such 

evaluations.

VISUAL & AESTHETIC CONDITIONS

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

views under the bridge. Amtrak will avoid or minimize several potential visual adverse effects 

through the following:

 Design new physical structures such as the retaining walls in accordance with the Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

 Use a traditional design for the new bridges and the bridges’ piers and ensure that the design 

allows greater views under the bridges.

 Apply an appropriate treatment to the retaining wall to minimize the visual adverse effect to 

Rodgers Tavern.

 Implement, to the extent practicable, construction near the Perryville Railroad Station that is

compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion of the station 

complex.

 Shift rather than demolish the Perry Interlocking Tower.

 Design undergrade bridge extensions using a form liner that emulates stone and is stained to 

be compatible with the color of the existing stone.

 Consider utilizing a 220-foot span(s) in the City of Havre de Grace as part of ongoing efforts 

to minimize effects to historic properties. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The future Project sponsor will undertake Phase IB archaeological investigations 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 Project, Phase II archaeological testing will determine the significance 

and the boundaries of the archaeological deposits. Additional information regarding the potential 

underwater archaeological resources within the Susquehanna River is required to determine 

potential impacts to these historic resources. 

The Project Team identified measures to minimize and mitigate adverse effects to architectural 

resources in the Programmatic Agreement (PA), which has been prepared in coordination with 

MHT, concurring parties, and consulting parties. The PA (see Appendix C) includes a series of 

commitments and detailed measures that will be implemented.

SECTION 4(f)

As discussed above, the Project Team identified measures to minimize and mitigate adverse 

effects to architectural resources in the PA, which has been prepared in coordination with MHT, 

concurring parties, and consulting parties. The PA includes a series of commitments and detailed 

measures that parties to the PA should implement. Additionally, future Project sponsor will 

implement the following measures to minimize harm to parkland:

 Continue to work with Havre de Grace to identify appropriate mitigation measures to 

mitigate the adverse impact on Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park and relocate the boat ramp.

 Implement the following measures to minimize harm to the Havre de Grace Middle/High 

School complex in collaboration with Harford County Public Schools:
Appendix B: Environmental Commitments

B-3

- Build the railroad on an elevated structure over the 110-meter hurdle runout area. 

During construction, the runout may be reduced to 8.5 meters; after construction, it will 

be rebuilt to its current 11.5-meter length.

- Relocate the pole vault, high jump, long jump and storage shed. 

- Reimburse Harford County Public Schools for the agreed upon additional design cost. 

- Schedule construction to minimize disruption to athletic facilities, to the extent practical. 

- Redesign the baseball field by shifting home plate three feet away from the railroad and 

rotating the field 2.5 degrees counterclockwise. 

- Work with the baseball field redesign consultant to provide adequate clear area around 

Amtrak’s proposed retaining wall. 

- Provide conduit and embedded inserts for installation of a future score board by Harford 

County Public Schools.

- Install a protective netting to shield the railroad from foul balls. 

- Relocate the water main in a casing, allowing future replacement to be done without 

affecting the athletic facilities. 

SECTION 6(F) RESOURCES

The future Project sponsor will continue to coordinate with Harford County Public Schools 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.

NATURAL RESOURCES

The Project Team has coordinated extensively with natural resource review agencies throughout 

the course of the project. As discussed in the EA, multiple permits and approvals will be 

required prior to construction. These permits and approvals will stipulate the final mitigation 

measures, based on the project’s impacts. Nonetheless, the sections below outline some of the 

anticipated commitments and mitigation measures based on agency coordination and 

information obtained today.

GEOLOGY & SOILS

The future Project sponsor will prepare and implement a grading plan and erosion and sediment 

control plan in accordance with MDE regulations, and secure a Notice of Intent under the 2014 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater 

Associated with Construction Activity. Minimization techniques include:

 Seeding, sodding, and stabilizing slopes as soon as possible 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.

 Using diversion dikes, mulches, netting, energy dissipaters, and other physical erosion 

controls on slopes where vegetation cannot be supported.
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

B-4

FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS/WATERS OF THE US

A Joint Federal/State Application for the Alteration of Any Floodplain, Waterway, Tidal or 

Nontidal Wetland in Maryland will be submitted, as this Project would impact nontidal wetland 

and waterways. The future Project sponsor would also be required to obtain other federal and 

state authorizations. The future Project sponsor will complete mitigation for wetland and 

waterway impacts in accordance with USACE/MDE recommendations. Any mitigation 

measures employed due to 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 

Maryland state compensatory guidelines, as well as other practicable recommendations from 

federal and state resource agencies. Mitigation could include mitigation banking credits, in lieu 

fees, or permittee-responsible mitigation using a watershed approach.

To ensure that floodwater impacts are minimized, drainage structures will be designed to 

maintain the current flow regime and prevent associated flooding, potentially through the 

construction of bottomless culverts and/or other measures. The Project Team may include the 

following minimization and mitigation efforts for floodplain encroachment: increased 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. The future Project sponsor

will seek approval regarding floodplains from the appropriate regulatory authority.

FOREST RESOURCES

The future Project sponsor will offset any forest impacts by planting trees in cleared areas 

(reforestation) and/or in areas not previously forested (afforestation). If applicable, the Project 

future Project sponsor will prepare a DNR-approved Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) that 

prescribes the reforestation and afforestation acreage, any applicable construction work windows

required to protect Forest Interior Dwelling Bird Species (FIDS), mitigation site selection 

process, planting requirements and specifications, and monitoring plan.

AQUATIC RESOURCES

The future Project sponsor will work with the NMFS, DNR, and other resource agencies to 

determine the most appropriate construction timing restrictions for each aquatic resource (e.g., 

Susquehanna River, SAV, streams, etc.) to protect multiple resources potentially occurring 

within the project area, including, federally endangered sturgeon, state endangered map turtle, 

and anadromous fish species. Amtrak will schedule any blasting activities to occur within a work 

window that corresponds to the time period of the year when protected species are least likely to 

occur in the vicinity of the project area, and conduct any blasting in such a manner as to 

minimize the potential for fish mortalities, in coordination with resource agencies. Amtrak will 

use appropriate measures (such as wooden cushion blocks and other Best Management 

Practices) during impact pile driving for the finger piers. The future Project sponsor will 

continue to coordinate with resource agencies regarding the tidal black bass fishery and any new 

information regarding logperch, the Northern map turtle, and other species located near the 

project site.

Amtrak will prepare an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, implement stormwater best 

management practices (BMPs), and use sediment containment techniques, such as turbidity 

curtains, floating booms, and/or other approved best practices, during construction to minimize 

sediment releases that could harm SAV, water, or sediment quality. Mitigation for unavoidable 

impacts to SAV will follow the Federal Compensatory Mitigation Rule and other state 

compensatory mitigation guidelines, to be developed through coordination with federal and state 
Appendix B: Environmental Commitments

B-5

resource agencies. NMFS provided the following recommendations for SAV mitigation after 

removal of the temporary finger piers:

 Allow the sediment to settle.

 Replant the area the following growing season to restore existing conditions.

 Mitigate for the temporal loss of SAV habitat by planting additional SAV at a 3:1 ratio or as 

otherwise specified in project permits, preferably in locations where SAV has been 

successful in the past but has disappeared or has minimal density.

 Monitor the entire project site for five years to determine if there are additional SAV losses 

resulting from the Project that require mitigation and to determine the success of replanting. 

If SAV growth has not been documented by year three, a second round of planting may be 

necessary.

The future Project sponsor will investigate this approach along with other out-of-kind mitigation 

alternatives as the Project advances to later design phases. 

The future Project sponsor will notify DNR and the public at least two weeks prior to periods 

when sediment is expected to be re-suspended, as recommended. As the project design and 

permitting progresses, the future Project sponsor will continue to monitor the mapped locations 

of SAVs and consider the use of demolition materials or clean spoil for the creation of additional 

aquatic habitat. 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR SPECIAL CONCERN TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

The future Project sponsor will coordinate with DNR, as the Project progresses into later phases 

of design, regarding any potential disturbances to waterfowl along the shoreline and adjacent 

open waters and appropriate protection measures.

CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL AREA

Minimization efforts to avoid the Critical Area were incorporated as part of the early design for 

the Project. The future Project sponsor will include further minimization and mitigation 

measures for unavoidable impacts to the Critical Area, such as:

 Strictly enforced erosion and sediment control measures.

 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).

The future Project sponsor will continue coordination with the CAC during the design phase of 

the Project to ensure compliance with all Critical Area criteria, mitigation requirements, and 

regulations.

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

The joint permit application/authorization process with MDE and the USACE will constitute

Coastal Zone Management consistency.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Amtrak will use cement replacements, such as slag, fly-ash, silica fume, and calcined clay, and 

recycled steel as part of the contract requirements, to the extent practicable. The Project will be 

designed to accommodate reasonably foreseeable future conditions due to climate change.
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

B-6

CONTAMINATED & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

To prevent exposure pathways and doses during construction, the Project will include 

appropriate health and safety and investigative/remedial measures. The future Project sponsor

will:

 Determine the need for additional investigation/remediation in consultation with MDE once 

the exact extent of disturbance and potential need for dewatering is identified. 

 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.

 Coordinate with the MDE Oil Control Program, the Solid Waste Program, the Waste 

Diversion Utilization Program, and the Brownfields Site Assessment and Voluntary Cleanup 

Program, as warranted, during future project phases.

CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS

TRANSPORTATION

Coordination will be required between the contractor, the USCG, and local mariners to permit 

safe passage of vessels during construction activities. To avoid damage to commercial fishing 

equipment during the construction period, waterborne construction traffic will use navigation 

routes selected in consultation with the local fishermen’s organization. The future Project 

sponsor will consult with the commercial fishing community as needed during the construction 

process. The future Project sponsor will include provisions to avoid damage to commercial 

fishing equipment, such as advanced communication and schedule coordination, in construction 

documents for the Project. Amtrak will develop a construction access plan in coordination with 

the community, to determine appropriate highway access routes and acceptable street closure 

schedules.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

To avoid accidental damage to adjacent resources, the Amtrak will develop a Construction 

Protection Plan (CPP) in consultation with SHPO for all historic properties that may be subject 

to inadvertent damage resulting from construction activities.

AIR QUALITY 

Amtrak will implement common construction practices to suppress dust emissions, including:

 Prepare a detailed dust control plan to minimize fugitive emissions and define measures 

to be used for each operation type and location.

 Use Tier 4 engines or, where Tier 4 is not available or practicable, Tier 3 engines 

retrofitted with EPA, California Air Resources Board (CARB), or VERT-approved 

after-market diesel particle filters (DPF) where technically feasible (including safety 

considerations) for all non-road diesel engines greater than 60 horsepower (hp). It is 

noted that use of 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 to minimize NO2 concentrations 

in the nearby areas to the extent practicable. 
Appendix B: Environmental Commitments

B-7

 Apply these requirements 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. 

 Minimize localized effects due to increases in on-road mobile source emissions through 

the use of barges or materials transport where feasible and the use of appropriate routes 

for truck deliveries (that avoid residential areas to the extent practicable). 

 Strictly prohibit truck idling, other than in cases where a truck engine is required to 

operate auxiliary devices such as loading and unloading or concrete mixing. 

 Require that all trucks expected to operate onsite, including but not limited to concrete 

mixing trucks and dump trucks, be 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).

 Allow use small portable generators (including truck-mounted generators) up to 50 hp at 

land-based sites only for sites where construction duration would be limited (less than 

two weeks) and where obtaining a grid connection would be impracticable; no use of 

large generators at land-based sites.

NOISE AND VIBRATION

 Amtrak will use appropriate low-noise emission level equipment and implement 

operational procedures to ensure equipment noise emission levels that do not exceed the 

values shown in Table 17-2 in Chapter 8 of the EA. 

 Amtrak will ensure compliance with noise control measures by including them in the 

contract documents as material specifications and by directives to the construction 

contractor. 

 Amtrak will encourage the contractor to use quiet construction equipment. In addition to 

the establishment of a project-wide CPP, special measures set forth by MHT will 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, “Cultural Resources,” of 

the EA for more details), construction contractors will be required to implement special 

vibration protection measures. 

The CPP for historic resources (discussed above under “Cultural Resources”) will 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 will be determined as part of the 

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.
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

B-8

 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 will not begin again until the steps proposed to stabilize and/or prevent 

further damage to the designated buildings were approved.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES

Amtrak will coordinate relocation of the known utilities with the utility provider to minimize 

service disruptions.


Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

Appendix C

Programmatic Agreement

May 2017
PROJECT PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 

Among the 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, 

MARYLAND STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, 

And 

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, 

Regarding the 

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER RAIL BRIDGE PROJECT 

BETWEEN HAVRE DE GRACE, HARFORD COUNTY, MARYLAND 

AND PERRYVILLE, CECIL COUNTY, MARYLAND

WHEREAS, the existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge, located along the National 

Railroad Passenger Corporation’s (Amtrak) Northeast Corridor (NEC) between the City of Havre 

de Grace, Harford County, and the Town of Perryville, Cecil County, was constructed in 1906 and 

is nearing the end of its useful life, with existing structural and operational deficiencies that cannot 

accommodate projected regional high-speed travel requirements on the NEC; and 

WHEREAS, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has provided funding through 

the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program to the Maryland Department of 

Transportation (MDOT) to carry out preliminary engineering (PE) and environmental assessment in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et. seq.) (NEPA) for 

alternatives to replace the existing bridge; and 

WHEREAS, FRA is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to NEPA 

and has coordinated the NEPA processes with consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (54 U.S.C. § 306108) (NHPA), as amended, and its 

implementing regulations at 36 CFR § 800 (hereinafter collectively referred to as Section 106); and 

WHEREAS, the Preferred Alternative identified in the EA consists of demolition and 

replacement of the existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and construction of two new two-track 

bridges over the Susquehanna River with a new track alignment, embankments, and retaining walls 

(hereinafter referred to as the Project) (Attachment 1); and 

WHEREAS, Amtrak, owner and operator of the NEC and the existing Susquehanna River 

Rail Bridge, has acted as the Project designer responsible for carrying out the preliminary 

engineering in support of the NEPA process; and 

WHEREAS, FRA has determined that, should FRA provide financial assistance for the 

Project, it would be an undertaking pursuant to Section 106, and FRA would be responsible for 

compliance with Section 106; and 

WHEREAS, should FRA provide financial assistance for the Project (which could 

include financial assistance for further design, property acquisition, demolition, construction, and 

other related activities), FRA intends to use this Project Programmatic Agreement (PA) to satisfy its 

Section 106 responsibilities; and 

WHEREAS, FRA, in consultation with the Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer 

(MD SHPO), has defined the Project’s area of potential effects (APE) for historic architecture 
Project Programmatic Agreement 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project April 26, 2017 

Page 2 of 26 

(Attachments 2 and 3) and conducted technical studies for both historic architecture and archeology 

pursuant to Section 106 (Attachment 4); and 

WHEREAS, FRA invited parties to consult in the Section 106 process (see Attachment 

5), and FRA has consulted with the following parties who accepted the invitation: 1) Cecil County 

Government; 2) City of Havre de Grace; 3) Friends of Concord Point Lighthouse, Inc.; 4) Harford 

County Government; 5) Havre de Grace Decoy Museum; 6) Lower Susquehanna Heritage 

Greenway; 7) National Park Service (NPS), Chesapeake Bay Office; 8) National Railway Historical 

Society, Perryville Chapter; 9) Town of Perryville; 10) MDOT; and 11) Maryland Transit 

Administration (MTA) regarding the effects of the Project on historic properties, and has afforded 

the public-at-large an opportunity to comment through the concurrent NEPA public involvement 

process; and 

WHEREAS, FRA has made a reasonable and good faith effort to identify Native American 

tribes and groups (the “Tribes”) that could attach religious or cultural significance to sites within 

the APEs upon which the Project could have an effect, namely the Accohannock Indian Tribe, Inc., 

the Assateague Peoples Tribe, Piscataway Conoy Confederacy and Sub-Tribes, Inc., Piscataway 

Indian Nation, Pocomoke Indian Tribe, Inc., Youghiogheny River Band of Shawnee Indians, Inc., 

and Nause-Waiwash Band of Indians, Inc., and invited them by letter dated August 1, 2014 to 

participate as consulting parties under 36 CFR 800.2(c)(2); and while none of the Tribes accepted, 

the Pocomoke Indian Tribe, Inc. attended two Section 106 Consulting Party meetings and expressed 

interest in remaining apprised of the Project; and 

WHEREAS, through consultation, FRA has identified the following thirteen (13) 

architectural historic properties in the APE that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (see Attachments 2 and 3): 

1. Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and nine undergrade bridges (collectively known as the 

“Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Overpasses”) (HA-1712) 

2. Havre de Grace Historic District (HA-1617) 

3. Perryville United Methodist Church (CE-1573) 

4. Perryville Presbyterian Church (CE-1574) 

5. Southern Terminus, Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal – South Lock #1 and Toll House 

(HA-112; HA-113) 

6. Martha Lewis(skipjack) (HA-2189) 

7. Rodgers Tavern (CE-129) 

8. Principio Furnace (Principio Iron Works) (CE-112) 

9. Perry Point Mansion House and Mill (CE-146; CE-244) 

10. Perryville Railroad Station (CE-1442) 

11. Perry Point Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center Historic District (CE-1544) 

12. Crothers House (Furnace Bay Golf Course Clubhouse) (CE-1566) 

13. Woodlands Farm Historic District (CE-145); and 

WHEREAS, through consultation, FRA has determined that the Project, if constructed, 

will have an adverse effect on the following four historic properties: 

1. Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and eight of the nine Susquehanna River Rail Bridge 

Overpasses that carry the NEC (Mill Creek Undergrade Bridge at Milepost 59.00; 

Perryville Railroad Station Undergrade Bridge at Milepost 59.39; Access Road Undergrade 

Bridge at Milepost 59.52; North Freedom Lane Undergrade Bridge at Milepost 60.51; 

North Stokes Street Undergrade Bridge at Milepost 60.56; Centennial Lane Undergrade 
Project Programmatic Agreement 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project April 26, 2017 

Page 3 of 26 

Bridge at Milepost 60.61; North Adams Street Undergrade Bridge at Milepost 60.69; and 

North Juniata Street Undergrade Bridge at Milepost 60.77) (HA-1712) 

2. Havre de Grace Historic District (HA-1617) 

3. Rodgers Tavern (CE-129) 

4. Perryville Railroad Station, including the Station, the Perryville Railroad Station 

Undergrade Bridge at Milepost 59.39, and the Perryville Interlocking Tower (CE-1442) 

WHEREAS, through consultation, FRA has determined that the Project is located in an 

area with the potential for the presence of both pre- and post-contact archeological resources, but 

that the identification of and effects on archeological resources cannot be fully determined based on 

the current PE design; and 

WHEREAS, through consultation, FRA has elected to complete the final identification, 

evaluation, and effects assessment on archeological resources in phases, pursuant to 36 CFR § 

800.4(b)(2) and 800.5(a)(3), and in accordance with the ongoing consultation process specified in 

this PA pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.14(b); and 

WHEREAS, FRA has invited Amtrak, as the Project designer, and owner and operator of 

the NEC, to participate in this PA as an invited signatory with responsibilities under this PA, and 

Amtrak has accepted; and 

WHEREAS, FRA has invited the following four consulting parties to be concurring parties 

under this PA: MDOT, MTA, City of Havre de Grace, and Town of Perryville; and all four have 

accepted; and 

 

WHEREAS, MD SHPO agrees that fulfillment of the terms of this PA will satisfy the 

responsibilities of any Maryland state agency under the requirements of the Maryland Historical 

Trust Act of 1985, as amended, State Finance and Procurement Article §§ 5A-325 and 5A-326 of 

the Annotated Code of Maryland, for any components of the Project that require licensing, 

permitting, and/or funding actions from Maryland state agencies; and 

WHEREAS, in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.6(a)(1), FRA has notified the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) of its adverse effect determination and intention to enter 

into a PA with specified documentation by letter dated August 1, 2014, and the ACHP, by letter 

dated August 22, 2014, declined to participate in the consultation pursuant to 36 CFR § 

800.6(a)(1)(iii); and 

NOW, THEREFORE, FRA, MD SHPO, and Amtrak (each a signatory and together 

signatories) agree the Project will be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in 

order to take into account the effect of the Project on historic properties. 

STIPULATIONS 

I. APPLICABILITY 

A. With the exception of the provisions regarding the identification, assessment, and 

adoption of treatment measures in Stipulations VI, VII, and VIII, this PA applies to 

FRA’s undertaking and only binds FRA if FRA provides financial assistance for 

activities necessary to advance the Project toward and/or through construction. 

B. Notwithstanding Stipulation I.A., this PA applies to all of Amtrak’s activities

necessary to advance the Project toward and/or through construction, including, but 
Project Programmatic Agreement 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project April 26, 2017 

Page 4 of 26 

not limited to, further design, acquisition of property for the Project, demolition, and 

construction that are funded with any amount of financial assistance from FRA or 

non-federal funds. Nothing herein shall be interpreted as agreement by Amtrak that 

Section 106 applies to other Amtrak projects with independent utility that use 

exclusively non-federal funds. This PA does not apply to actions or activities having 

independent utility that Amtrak may carry out, including the normal maintenance, 

upkeep, and continued safe operation of the NEC. 

C. This PA could apply should another federal agency have an undertaking as part of the 

Project; that agency may adopt this PA and agree to comply with its terms to fulfill 

its Section 106 responsibilities, as provided for in Stipulation XIV. 

II. TIMING 

Activities necessary to advance the Project toward and/or through construction may be 

phased or implemented incrementally, as appropriate, relative to the schedule(s) and 

funding availability for further design and construction. 

III. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

A. FRA, as a signatory and the lead federal agency for the NEPA work related to the 

Project, has authority to execute, amend, and/or terminate this PA. FRA will ensure 

that the identification, assessment, and adoption of treatment measures are carried out 

in accordance with the procedures established in Stipulations VI, VII, and VIII, 

regardless of whether or not FRA provides financial assistance for activities 

necessary to advance the Project toward and/or through construction. If FRA 

provides financial assistance for the Project, in addition to ensuring that the 

identification, assessment, and adoption of treatment measures are carried out in 

accordance with the procedures established in Stipulations VI, VII, and VIII, FRA 

will also ensure that all other stipulations and procedures in this PA are carried out, 

as appropriate, in accordance with the terms prescribed in this PA. If FRA provides 

financial assistance for activities necessary to advance the Project toward and/or 

through construction, FRA will continue to consult with all parties identified in the 

initial Section 106 consultation process resulting in the creation of this PA, and FRA 

will identify and invite additional consulting parties, as needed, to participate in the 

implementation of this PA. 

B. MD SHPO, as a signatory with responsibility for regulatory review and compliance, 

has authority to execute, amend, and/or terminate this PA and is also responsible for 

providing formal review and comment for actions requiring the same as part of 

carrying out this PA. 

C. Amtrak, as an invited signatory, has the same rights with regard to seeking 

amendment and/or termination of this PA as other signatories and will ensure that 

specified stipulations and procedures, for which it has assumed responsibility, are 

carried out in accordance with the terms prescribed in this PA.

D. Consulting parties include certain additional individuals or organizations with a 

demonstrated interest in the Project who have already participated in, or who may 

later join in as consulting parties in the Section 106 process due to the nature of their 

legal or economic relation to the Project or affected properties, or their concern with 

the Project’s effects on historic properties. Consulting parties, who may also have 

signed this PA as a concurring party, retain their rights as consulting parties to 
Project Programmatic Agreement 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project April 26, 2017 

Page 5 of 26 

participate in on-going consultation prescribed by this PA, and attain no additional 

rights relative to this PA. 

E. Concurring parties are consulting parties who have been invited to concur in this PA. 

Concurring parties to this PA are able to review and comment on draft documentation 

prepared pursuant to stipulations herein. 

IV. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS 

A. Amtrak will ensure that all work carried out pursuant to this PA will be done by or 

under the direct supervision of a qualified professional in the disciplines of 

Archeology, Architectural History and/or Historic Architecture who meets the 

relevant standards outlined in the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Professional 

Qualifications Standards for Archeology and Historic Preservation (36 CFR § 61) 

(http://www.nps.gov/history/locallaw/arch_stnds_9.htm). 

B. Implementation of the stipulations pursuant to this PA will utilize, as appropriate, the 

following regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines, or any subsequent 

replacements of or revisions to same: 

x Section 106, NHPA, as amended, and its implementing regulations (36 CFR § 

800)

x The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties 

with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing 

Historic Buildings (National Park Service 1995) 

x Historic American Buildings Survey Guide to Field Documentation (National Park 

Service, May 16, 2011) 

x Historic American Buildings Survey Guidelines for Historical Reports (National 

Park Service 2007)

x Heritage Documentation Programs, HABS/HAER/HALS Photography Guidelines 

(National Park Service, November 2011, updated June 2015)

x Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Historical Investigations in 

Maryland (Maryland Historical Trust, 2000)

x Guidelines for Compliance-Generated Determinations of Eligibility (DOEs) 

(Maryland Historical Trust, 2002)

x Standards for Submission of Digital Images to the Maryland Inventory of Historic 

Properties (Maryland Historical Trust, effective January 2008, revised January 

2015)

x Archeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and 

Guidelines (48 FR 44716) 

x Section 106 Archaeology Guidance (ACHP, 2009) 

x Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Investigations in Maryland 

(Maryland Historical Trust, 1994)

x Collections and Conservation Standards, Technical Update No. 1 of the Standards 

and Guidelines for Archeological Investigations in Maryland (Maryland 

Historical Trust, Revised 2005) 

x Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archeological Collections (36 

CFR § 79) 

x Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (43 CFR § 10, 

as amended) 
Project Programmatic Agreement 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project April 26, 2017 

Page 6 of 26 

x Maryland Burial Law (Title 10 Subtitle 4 §§ 10-401 through 10-404 of the 

Annotated Code of Maryland)

x Policy Statement Regarding Treatment of Burial Sites, Human Remains and 

Funerary Objects (ACHP, February 23, 2007) 

V. TREATMENT MEASURES FOR ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES 

A. Amtrak, in consultation with the signatories and concurring parties and, if using FRA 

financial assistance for activities necessary to advance the Project toward and/or 

through construction, as directed by and under the authority of FRA, will mitigate 

Project effects on architectural historic properties according to the stipulations and 

procedures outlined below. Amtrak will initiate the architectural stipulations and 

complete the stipulations in accordance with the Project phasing and the deadlines 

established herein. 

B. Prior to initiating construction, Amtrak will contact NPS to determine if there are any 

studies or evaluations that are underway or completed related to the following three 

National Historic Trails within the undertaking’s APE: Captain John Smith 

Chesapeake National Historic Trail, Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail, 

and the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail. If 

additional evaluation is warranted to determine if any segments of these trails are 

eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, Amtrak will consult with the respective NPS trail 

Superintendent to complete such evaluations. If Amtrak in consultation with FRA (if 

providing financial assistance for the Project), MD SHPO, and NPS identify any 

additional resources listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP, Amtrak will follow 

the procedures described in Section VII. 

C. Design Review 

1. To the extent practicable, Amtrak will make commercially reasonable efforts to 

ensure that the design of the Project is compatible with affected historic 

properties and conforms to the guidance contained in the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (“Standards”). For 

those components of the Project that may affect historic resources, Amtrak will 

develop design documents in consultation with MD SHPO and concurring 

parties. MD SHPO review of design documents (plans and specifications) will 

occur at approximately 30% design and 60% design. These reviews will be 

limited to determining whether proposed designs are compatible with affected 

historic properties and in conformance with the Standards. Amtrak will submit 

design documents, with an explanation of how the proposed design conforms to 

the Standards to concurring parties and MD SHPO for review and comment. 

Amtrak, in consultation with MD SHPO and FRA (if providing financial 

assistance for the Project), will address any design and preservation issues 

identified by MD SHPO at the 30% and 60% stages of design. 

2. Amtrak will ensure individual historic properties and contributing elements of 

historic districts are clearly labeled on all relevant Project plan sheets. 

3. Amtrak will consult with MD SHPO and concurring parties to determine which 

aspects of the design will require additional SHPO coordination regarding 

exterior appearance. For those features for which MD SHPO or concurring 

parties request more information, Amtrak will submit to MD SHPO and 

concurring parties additional material such as color renderings, catalog 

documentation, or material samples. 
Project Programmatic Agreement 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project April 26, 2017 

Page 7 of 26 

4. Amtrak will consider design review comments provided by the signatories and 

concurring parties, but ultimately is responsible for ensuring that the structural 

and engineering design of bridges and other structures meets engineering and 

safety standards for passenger and freight railroads. 

5. To the extent practicable, Amtrak will design the proposed new bridges, 

including the bridge superstructure and piers, to reflect traditional design features 

and to preserve the existing viewshed from the Havre de Grace Historic District. 

6. Amtrak will design the alterations to the eight Susquehanna River Rail Bridge 

overpasses in accordance with the Standards. The proposed treatment will 

include design of the new extensions to include a form liner that emulates the 

look, color, and texture of the bridges’ existing stone; the installation of lighting 

to improve the safety beneath the bridges, and, to the extent practicable, steps to 

eliminate the water infiltration and mineral seepage in the existing stone material. 

7. Amtrak will develop an aesthetic treatment for the retaining wall that is to be 

constructed in close proximity to Rodgers Tavern. The treatment plan will 

include consideration of utilizing a stone form liner to emulate the look, color, 

and texture of the stone in the Rodgers Tavern. 

8. For any proposed retaining wall that has the potential to affect a historic property, 

Amtrak will design the new wall in accordance with the Standards.

9. Amtrak will consider utilizing a 220-foot span(s) in the City of Havre de Grace 

as part of ongoing efforts to minimize effects to historic properties. In accordance 

with Section IV. C above, Amtrak will submit design documents, with an 

explanation of how the proposed design conforms to the Standards, to concurring 

parties and MD SHPO for review and comment. 

D. Mitigation for Construction-Related Impacts 

1. Amtrak will develop plans in accordance with the Standards in order to relocate 

the Perryville Interlocking Tower to a new location that is within the NEC rightof-way and is in close proximity to the Perryville Railroad Station. In 

coordination with the MD SHPO and consulting parties, Amtrak will implement 

such plans and relocate the Perryville Interlocking Tower. 

2. Amtrak will replace in-kind sections of the existing signature sidewalks on Union 

Avenue, Otsego Street, and Water Street in Havre de Grace damaged during 

Project construction. 

3. If the bridge construction staging area occurs on the publicly-owned land along 

Water Street, Union Avenue, and/or St. Johns Street in Havre de Grace, Amtrak 

will repair portions of the sites damaged during Project staging or construction, 

including, as needed, removal of hard pack stone and the replanting of lawn 

areas, the planting of trees and shoreline buffer areas, and the installation (or reinstallation) of Jean S. Roberts Memorial Park and/or David R. Craig Park 

improvements. 

4. Amtrak will prepare and enforce a Historic Properties Construction Protection 

Plan (Protection Plan) to protect against, monitor for, and manage constructionrelated physical effects on identified historic properties. The Protection Plan will 

apply to historic properties located inside, adjacent to, or above the Project limits 

of disturbance, stockpile locations, construction staging areas, and any other area 

where Project activities may take place. 

5. At minimum, the Protection Plan will: identify and map all historic properties 

subject to the Protection Plan; require security fencing; establish vibration 

thresholds; address potential ground displacements; provide monitoring; and 

create a publicly- accessible telephone hotline and emergency response 
Project Programmatic Agreement 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project April 26, 2017 

Page 8 of 26 

procedure for reporting and addressing threats or physical damage to historic 

properties. 

6. Amtrak will develop and distribute the draft Protection Plan with the 90% Project 

plan sheets and specification documents to the signatories and concurring parties 

for review and comment following the steps described in Stipulation XI. Amtrak 

will deliver to the signatories and concurring parties the final Protection Plan 

with delivery of the 100% Project plan sheets and specification documents. 

E. Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS)/Historic American Engineering Record 

(HAER) Documentation 

1. Amtrak will prepare individual Level II HABS/HAER written and photographic 

documentation for deposit with NPS and MD SHPO for the following historic 

resources: 

a) Susquehanna River Rail Bridge: Amtrak will prepare a HAER recordation of 

this historic property focusing on the bridge, which is both individually 

eligible for the NRHP and a contributing element of the Havre de Grace 

Historic District. Photographic documentation will record the complete 

bridge structure and its swing mechanism, setting, and wider railroad 

corridor within the vicinity of the Susquehanna River. Written 

documentation will focus on the history of transportation in the region, the 

role of the Pennsylvania Railroad, and the story behind the final location, 

design, engineering, and method of construction used for building the 

existing Susquehanna River Rail Bridge. 

b) Eight Overpass Bridges: Amtrak will prepare HAER recordations of these 

historic resources focusing on the bridges and their settings. All eight bridges 

contribute to the significance of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge; the 

North Freedom Lane Undergrade Bridge at Milepost 60.51; North Stokes 

Street Undergrade Bridge at Milepost 60.56; Centennial Lane Undergrade 

Bridge at Milepost 60.61; and North Adams Street Undergrade Bridge at 

Milepost 60.69 contribute to the Havre de Grace Historic District; and the 

Perryville Railroad Station Undergrade Bridge at Milepost 59.39 contributes 

to the Perryville Railroad Station complex. The photographic documentation 

will record the bridges, their retaining walls, and the surrounding resources, 

including the Havre de Grace Historic District and the Perryville Station 

complex. The written documentation will address the bridges’ construction 

as part of the Pennsylvania Railroad’s early 20th century construction 

campaign; the railroad’s overall construction and evolution; the importance 

of the stone architecture construction and the relationship to locally quarried 

stone; and the importance of alleys in the physical development of Havre de 

Grace. 

c) Perryville Interlocking Tower: Amtrak will prepare a HAER recordation of 

this resource focusing on the structure and setting of the tower, including the 

Perryville Station and the Perryville Railroad Station Undergrade Bridge at 

Milepost 59.39. The written documentation will address the structure’s 

significance as part of the Pennsylvania Railroad’s early 20th century building 

campaign as well as the station complex’s architectural significance.

2. Amtrak will consult with the NPS Northeast Region HABS/HAER office on the 

final scope, content, format, and disposition of each recordation effort. This 

includes consideration of a procedure for an interim submission of the 

photographic documentation for NPS review and approval, in order to release the 
Project Programmatic Agreement 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project April 26, 2017 

Page 9 of 26 

structures for construction activities prior to completion of the remaining 

recordation package. Amtrak will prepare the photographic documentation using 

digital images consistent with Level II HABS/HAER photography guidelines 

contained in Stipulation IV.B. 

3. Where possible, the HABS/HAER written documentation will draw upon 

original construction documents, historic photographs, and oral interviews with 

local residents or individuals possessing special knowledge. Potential 

repositories to consult for information on individual buildings, structures, and 

railroad resources include, but are not limited to, the Amtrak archive, National 

Archives, Maryland State Archives, Maryland Historical Society, Pennsylvania 

State Archives, and Hagley Archives. 

4. As relevant, the content of the HABS/HAER documentation will draw upon 

research and documentation carried out as part of the interpretive displays 

(Stipulation V.F.). 

5. Amtrak will initiate each HABS/HAER recordation when funds are committed for

activities necessary to advance the Project toward and/or through construction that 

will affect historic properties and/or contributing elements to historic 

districts. Amtrak will complete the photographic recordation phase prior to 

the initiation of construction activities associated with the historic property 

or contributing element to be documented. Amtrak will leave each building or 

structure and its associated parcel of land in an unaltered appearance until the 

photographic documentation phase is completed. 

6. Unless otherwise agreed to by NPS and MD SHPO, Amtrak will ensure that all 

documentation is completed and accepted by HABS/HAER prior to the 

commencement of construction and/or demolition activities associated with the 

historic property or contributing element to be documented. 

7. Unless otherwise agreed to by NPS and MD SHPO, Amtrak will provide final 

copies of each HABS/HAER recordation document to NPS and MD SHPO, and 

offer copies to FRA, the Maryland State Archives, Maryland Historical Society, 

City of Havre de Grace, the Town of Perryville, the Historical Society of Cecil 

County, the Historical Society of Harford County, the Lower Susquehanna 

Heritage Greenway, the B&O Railroad Museum, and the Pennsylvania Railroad 

Technical & Historical Society. 

F. Interpretive Displays 

1. Amtrak will prepare historic interpretive material related to the importance of the 

transportation history of Havre de Grace and Perryville, including a film that 

documents the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge in operation. In consultation with 

the signatories and concurring parties, Amtrak will first develop a plan that 

specifies what interpretive material will be developed, what historic themes will 

be included, and where the material will be located. Possible interpretive themes 

for the displays include, but are not limited to, the area’s transportation history 

and how it affected the development of the area as a regional commercial center; 

the convergence of multiple forms of transportation, e.g., ferry, canal, rail, and 

roadway; the history of the Pennsylvania Railroad and its development of the 

NEC; the architectural and engineering importance of the Susquehanna River 

Rail Bridge and the associated overpass bridges; the use of locally quarried Port 

Deposit granite; and relevant themes associated with the Captain John Smith 

Chesapeake National Historic Trail, the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic 

Trail, and the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic 

Trail. 
Project Programmatic Agreement 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project April 26, 2017 

Page 10 of 26 

2. To the extent practicable, the content of the interpretive displays will draw upon 

research and documentation carried out as part of the HABS/HAER recordation 

(Stipulation V.E.) and archeological studies (Stipulation VI) prescribed in this 

PA. This includes any oral interviews with local residents or individuals 

possessing special knowledge. 

3. Amtrak will submit draft and final outlines, text copy, and exhibition scripts for 

the interpretive displays to the signatories and concurring parties for review and 

comment following the steps described in Stipulation XI. 

4. Amtrak will submit these interpretive display materials to MD SHPO and 

concurring parties for review and comment.

5. Amtrak will complete installation of the interpretive displays in accordance with 

the above-referenced plan prior to completion of Project construction.

6. Amtrak will provide MD SHPO and concurring parties with copies and/or 

photographs of the completed interpretive displays.

G. Salvage Bridge Components 

1. Prior to demolition activities, Amtrak will engage a qualified professional(s) 

meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for 

Archeology and Historic Preservation in the disciplines of Architectural History 

or Historic Architecture to examine the bridge and identify materials 

recommended for salvage. Examples of appropriate salvage materials include, 

but are not limited to: part of a deck truss, the swing span pier top with its ring 

and pinion gear assembly and turning casters, the top layer of granite from the 

circular pier, the motor and drive assembly, the control house, the dedication 

plaque embedded in an original bridge pier near the Perryville shoreline, and 

a large dedication plaque mounted into the face of the current westerly 

abutment. 

2. Amtrak will make a reasonable and good-faith effort to ensure standard care is used

in removing the materials identified for salvage, transporting them to storage, 

and securing them from vandalism, theft, and weather, in accordance with all 

applicable statues and regulations. If salvage items are found to possess or are 

judged likely to be contaminated by hazardous material or waste, Amtrak may 

withdraw the material without making it available for use and handle and dispose 

of the same in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations. However, 

Amtrak will not be required to affirmatively certify the condition of salvaged 

material as safe or appropriate for any particular use. 

3. Amtrak will hold the salvaged material for a period of 12 months from the time it 

is placed into storage, and make it available free of charge and during reasonable 

hours. Amtrak will not be responsible for delivering the salvaged material to a 

party that accepts ownership. At the end of the retention period, Amtrak may sell 

or dispose of the remaining unused materials in accordance with applicable 

statutes and regulations. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to require Amtrak to 

donate material owned by Amtrak in contravention to internal Amtrak policies 

and procedures relating to the donation or gifting of Amtrak property. 

4. Amtrak will provide for a means of notifying the public and specific interest 

groups as to the availability of the salvaged material. Amtrak will provide all 

material for salvage on an “as-is, where-is” basis, and will make no warranty as 

to condition, suitability, serviceability, or degree of contamination for any 

intended subsequent use. Amtrak will prepare and deliver a written receipt 

specifying the terms of acceptance of the salvaged material to all recipients for 

their review and signature. The receipts will become a part of the official Project 
Project Programmatic Agreement 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project April 26, 2017 

Page 11 of 26 

record. Recipients will be required to indemnify Amtrak and other signatories of 

this PA against any and all claims arising from the acquisition and use of 

received salvaged materials. 

5. Amtrak will consult with the signatories and concurring parties on the materials 

proposed for salvage and the provisions and procedures for notification to the 

public of the availability of salvage materials following the steps outlined in 

Stipulation XI. Amtrak will incorporate the same into its final plans and 

specifications for the removal and staging/storage of the salvaged materials. 

VI. TREATMENT MEASURES FOR ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

A. Amtrak, in consultation with the signatories and consulting parties, will identify and 

assess Project effects on archeological historic properties according to the 

stipulations and procedures outlined below. Amtrak will initiate the archeological 

stipulations and complete the stipulations, including mitigation measures, in 

accordance with the Project phasing and the deadlines established herein. Amtrak 

will complete mitigation measures as directed by and under the authority of FRA. 

Amtrak will ensure that no ground-disturbing activities associated with the Project 

take place in areas subject to archeological investigation until the required fieldwork 

is completed and reviewed by the MD SHPO and the location is formally released for 

ground-disturbing activities to commence. 

B. Define Archeological APE 

In consultation with FRA and MD SHPO, Amtrak will define the Project APE for 

archeology (36 CFR § 800.16(d)). The archeological APE will include the Project’s 

limits of disturbance, which consists of the area in which ground disturbance is 

expected to take place, and can include excavation sites, construction staging areas, 

material disposal sites, temporary access roads, utility and storm water management 

sites, and off-site mitigation sites. The archeological APE is subject to change as 

Project plans advance. 

C. Supplemental Phase I Survey 

1. At such time that Amtrak commences additional phases of engineering design, 

and subject to available funding, but no later than when funding is available for 

final design, Amtrak will conduct a Supplemental Phase IA archeological survey 

to update the initial Phase IA archeological survey completed in August 2014, 

and to further refine the archeological context, sensitivity, and predictive models 

for the location of potential sites within the archeological APE. 

2. Amtrak will prepare and submit a technical report containing the results of the 

Supplemental Phase IA archeological survey, together with proposed 

recommendations and required work plans for Phase IB testing surveys, if any, to 

FRA for review. Upon FRA’s approval, Amtrak will submit the Phase IA report 

to MD SHPO and consulting parties for review and comment following the steps 

described in Stipulation XI. 

3. Amtrak will complete one or more Phase IB survey(s), as appropriate, to identify 

archeological resources. 

4. Amtrak will prepare and submit a technical report(s) containing the results of 

each Phase IB survey, together with proposed recommendations and required 

work plans for Phase II survey, if any, to FRA for review. Upon FRA’s approval, 

Amtrak will submit the Phase IB report(s) to MD SHPO and consulting parties, 

as appropriate, for review and comment following the steps described in 

Stipulation XI. 
Project Programmatic Agreement 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project April 26, 2017 

Page 12 of 26 

D. Phase II Evaluation 

1. Amtrak will complete one or more Phase II survey(s), as appropriate, to evaluate 

the NRHP eligibility of any intact archeological resources that may be affected 

by the Project. 

2. Amtrak will prepare and submit a technical report(s) containing the results of 

each Phase II survey, together with proposed NRHP eligibility recommendations, 

to FRA for review. Upon FRA’s approval, Amtrak will submit the Phase II 

report(s) to MD SHPO and consulting parties, as requested, for review and 

comment following the steps described in Stipulation XI. The technical 

document(s) may be combined with the effects assessment as outlined in 

Stipulation VI.D.3, below. 

3. Amtrak will prepare one or more document(s) containing an assessment of 

Project effects on archeological historic properties according to the criteria of 

adverse effects (36 CFR § 800.5), and submit the document(s) to FRA for 

review. Upon FRA’s approval, Amtrak will submit the effects assessment 

document(s) to MD SHPO and consulting parties, as appropriate, for review and 

comment following the steps described in Stipulation XI. If FRA, in consultation 

with the signatories and consulting parties, determines that an archeological 

historic property will be adversely affected by the Project, the signatories and 

consulting parties, as appropriate, will consult on strategies to avoid, minimize, 

or mitigate the adverse effect. Examples include, but are not limited to, 

avoidance, protection, alternative mitigation, or data recovery. The effects 

assessment may be combined with the technical report as outlined in Stipulation 

VI.D.2, above. 

4. Amtrak will memorialize the approach and treatment measures to resolve adverse 

effects to archeological historic properties in a document submitted to the 

signatories and consulting parties, as appropriate, for review and comment 

following the steps described in Stipulation XI. 

5. Upon FRA’s approval of the approach and treatment measures memorialized in 

accordance with Section VI.D.4., above, Amtrak will carry out the approved 

approach and treatment measures. 

E. Phase III Data Recovery 

1. If an adverse effect cannot be avoided or alternatively mitigated, Amtrak, in 

consultation with signatories and consulting parties, will mitigate the adverse 

effect through a program of data recovery. 

2. Amtrak will prepare and submit one or more plan(s) for conducting Phase III 

data recoveries to the signatories and consulting parties, as appropriate, for 

review and comment following the steps described in Stipulation XI. At a 

minimum, each data recovery plan will include: 

a) A list of research questions to be addressed, with a discussion of their 

relevance and importance; 

b) Methods to be used for fieldwork and laboratory analysis, with a justification 

of their cost-effectiveness and how they apply to the particular sites and the 

research questions; 

c) A schedule for completing field and laboratory work, and submitting draft 

and final documents for MD SHPO’s review and comment;

d) Methods to be used in managing and curating artifacts, data, and other 

records; 
Project Programmatic Agreement 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project April 26, 2017 

Page 13 of 26 

e) Procedures for evaluating and treating unanticipated discoveries consistent 

with the provisions of Stipulation VIII; 

f) A procedure for documenting the completion of fieldwork and releasing sites 

for construction activities; and 

g) Provisions for disseminating the research findings to consulting parties, 

professional peers, and the general public. 

3. Upon FRA’s approval of the approach and treatment measures memorialized in

accordance with Section VI.E.2., above, Amtrak will execute the Phase III data 

recovery plan(s). 

F. Curation 

Amtrak will curate all materials and records resulting from archeological 

investigations conducted for the Project in accordance with 36 CFR § 79 at the 

Maryland Archeological Conservation Laboratory (MAC Lab), unless Amtrak cannot 

obtain clear title, Deed of Gift, or curation agreement for the collection. Amtrak will 

notify FRA’s Federal Preservation Officer in writing regarding any such curation 

activities. Amtrak will consult with MD SHPO and FRA regarding the appropriate 

disposition of any materials or records not proposed for curation at the MAC Lab. 

G. Protection of Archeologically-Sensitive Information 

Amtrak will submit copies of all final archeological documents stipulated in this PA 

to FRA and MD SHPO. Interim and final archeological reports and related 

documentation will be distributed to other consulting parties and qualifying agencies 

only upon request, and in redacted form, as appropriate, in order to ensure the 

security of archeological sites. 

VII. PROJECT CHANGES 

A. Amtrak will afford the signatories and consulting parties the opportunity to review 

and comment on Project changes that are of a nature that could potentially affect 

historic properties. Amtrak will submit written documentation, including Project plan 

sheets or sketches showing the modification, a brief explanation why the change is 

needed, and a plan for any proposed Section 106 work, to the signatories and 

consulting parties for review and comment following the steps described in 

Stipulation XI. 

B. Historic Architecture 

1. As needed, and with assistance from FRA and MD SHPO, Amtrak will refine an 

APE in consultation with the signatories and concurring parties. Amtrak will 

conduct an architectural survey to identify historic properties listed in or eligible 

for listing in the NRHP, and prepare and submit one or more technical 

document(s) containing the results of the architectural survey, together with the 

proposed identification of historic properties and recommendations for next 

steps, if any, to FRA for review. Upon FRA’s approval, Amtrak will submit the 

document(s) to MD SHPO and concurring parties, as appropriate, for review and 

comment following the steps described in Stipulation XI. 

2. Amtrak will prepare one or more document(s), containing a proposed assessment 

of Project effects on architectural historic properties according to the criteria of 

adverse effects (36 CFR § 800.5), and submit the document(s) to FRA for 

review. Upon FRA’s approval, Amtrak will submit the effects assessment 

document(s) to MD SHPO and concurring parties, as appropriate, for review and 

comment following the steps described in Stipulation XI. If FRA, in consultation 
Project Programmatic Agreement 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project April 26, 2017 

Page 14 of 26 

with the signatories and concurring parties, determines that an architectural 

historic property will be adversely effected by the Project, then the signatories 

and concurring parties will consult on strategies to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

the adverse effect. 

3. Amtrak will memorialize the approach and treatment measures to resolve adverse 

effects to architectural historic properties in one or more document(s) submitted 

to the signatories and concurring parties, as appropriate, for review and comment 

following the steps described in Stipulation XI. 

4. Upon FRA’s approval of the approach and treatment measures memorialized in

accordance with Section VII.B.3., above, Amtrak will carry out the approach and 

treatment measures. 

C. Archeology 

Project modifications with the potential to impact archeological deposits will be 

addressed pursuant to Stipulation VI. 

VIII. UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERIES 

A. Amtrak will develop an Unanticipated Discoveries Plan (UDP) to be included in 

construction and bidding documents for contractor/team use in the event of 

unanticipated discoveries. The plan will incorporate a procedure for interacting with 

the media, a chain of contact, and other relevant provisions, as needed. Amtrak will 

submit the UDP to the signatories and concurring parties for review and comment 

following the steps described in Stipulation XI. 

B. In the event any previously unidentified historic architectural or archeological 

resource is discovered, Amtrak will require the contractor to halt all work that may 

affect the resource. For any discovered archeological resources, Amtrak will also halt 

work in surrounding areas where additional subsurface remains can reasonably be 

expected to be present. Work in all other areas of the Project may continue. 

C. Amtrak will notify the signatories and consulting parties, and FRA will notify 

appropriate federally recognized Native American tribes, if appropriate, within 48 

hours of the discovery (36 CFR § 800.13(b)(3)). As needed, FRA will also identify 

and invite additional consulting parties to confer on unanticipated discoveries. 

D. Amtrak, in consultation with the signatories and consulting parties, will investigate 

the discovery site and resource(s) according to the professional standards and 

guidelines contained in Stipulation IV. Amtrak will prepare and submit a written 

document containing a proposed determination of NRHP eligibility of the resource, 

an assessment of project effects on historic properties, if appropriate, and any 

recommended treatment measures to FRA for review. Upon FRA’s approval, Amtrak 

will submit the determination of NRHP eligibility, effects assessment, and/or 

recommended treatment measures document, if appropriate, to MD SHPO and 

consulting parties, as appropriate, for review and comment. If the potential resource 

is associated with Native American prehistory or history, FRA will provide the 

documentation to federally recognized Native American tribes within five working 

days for their review with a request for comment. The signatories, consulting parties, 

and federally recognized Native American tribes, if participating, will respond with 

any comments within five (5) working days of receipt. 
Project Programmatic Agreement 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project April 26, 2017 

Page 15 of 26 

E. If it is necessary to develop treatment measures in accordance with Stipulation 

VIII.D., above, Amtrak will carry out the approach and treatment measures after 

approval by FRA. 

F. Amtrak will ensure construction work within the affected area does not proceed until 

FRA, in consultation with MD SHPO and federally recognized Native American 

tribes, as appropriate, determines that either 1) the located resource is not NRHPeligible or 2) the agreed upon treatment measures for historic properties have been 

implemented. 

IX. TREATMENT OF HUMAN REMAINS 

A. If human remains are encountered during archeological investigations or 

construction, Amtrak will require the contractor to immediately halt subsurface 

disturbance in that portion of the Project area and immediately secure and protect the 

human remains and any associated funerary objects in place in such a way that 

minimizes further exposure or damage to the remains from the elements, looting, 

and/or vandalism. 

B. Amtrak will immediately notify the appropriate Police Department to determine if the 

discovery is subject to a criminal investigation by law enforcement, and notify the 

signatories within 24 hours of the initial discovery. 

C. If a criminal investigation is not appropriate, Amtrak will apply and implement all 

relevant laws, procedures, policies, and guidelines contained in Stipulation IV.B 

concerning the treatment and repatriation of burial sites, human remains, and 

funerary objects. 

D. In the event the human remains encountered could be of Native American origin, 

whether prehistoric or historic, FRA will immediately notify the appropriate federally 

recognized Native American tribes and the Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs 

(MCIA), and consult with them and MD SHPO to determine the treatment plan for 

the Native American human remains and any associated funerary objects. 

E. If the remains are not of Native American origin, Amtrak will, as appropriate, 

develop a research design/treatment plan for the appropriate treatment of the remains 

and any associated artifacts, consistent with procedures and guidelines contained in 

Stipulation IV.B. and submit the design and plan for review and comment by the 

signatories and consulting parties following the steps described in Stipulation XI. 

F. Amtrak will ensure the contractor will not proceed with work in the affected area 

until FRA, in consultation with MD SHPO and federally recognized Native 

American tribes, as appropriate, determines the development and implementation of 

an appropriate research design/treatment plan or other recommended mitigation 

measures are completed. However, work outside the area may continue. 

X. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS 

A. Should an emergency situation occur that represents an imminent threat to public 

health or safety, or creates a hazardous condition and has the potential to affect 

historic properties, Amtrak will contact the appropriate Police Department, as 

needed, as soon as possible and notify the signatories and concurring or consulting 

parties, as appropriate, within 24 hours of the condition which created the emergency, 
Project Programmatic Agreement 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project April 26, 2017 

Page 16 of 26 

the immediate action taken in response to the emergency, the effects of the response 

to historic properties, and, where appropriate, further plans to address the emergency. 

This will include any further proposals to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential 

adverse effects to historic properties. 

B. The signatories and concurring or consulting parties, as appropriate, will have seven 

days to review and comment on the plan(s) for further action. If FRA, MD SHPO, 

and concurring or consulting parties do not object to the plan within the review 

period, then Amtrak will implement the proposed plan(s). 

C. Where possible, Amtrak will ensure that emergency responses allow for future 

preservation or restoration of historic properties, take into account the SOI Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and include on-site monitoring by the 

appropriate qualified professional as contained in Stipulation IV. 

D. Immediate rescue and salvage operations conducted to preserve life or property are 

exempt from these and all other provisions of this PA. 

XI. DOCUMENT REVIEW 

A. Unless otherwise stated elsewhere in this PA, the signatories, consulting parties, 

and/or concurring parties will provide comments on the documents they review to 

either FRA or Amtrak, as appropriate, and as set forth herein. 

B. The signatories, consulting parties, and/or concurring parties will have up to 30 

calendar days from the date of receipt to review and provide written comments to 

FRA or Amtrak on documents stipulated in this PA. 

C. FRA and/or Amtrak will consider and incorporate any written comments received 

within the timeframe, as appropriate, into the documentation. 

D. If the signatories, consulting parties, and/or concurring parties do not submit written 

comments to FRA and/or Amtrak within 30 calendar days of receipt of any 

document, it is understood the non-responding parties have no comments on the 

submittal. 

E. If the signatories, consulting parties, and/or concurring parties object to or 

recommend extensive revisions to submissions stipulated in the PA, FRA and/or 

Amtrak will work expeditiously to respond to the recommendations and resolve 

disputes. 

F. If FRA and/or Amtrak cannot resolve the disputes, and if further consultation with 

the signatories, consulting parties, and/or concurring parties is deemed unproductive 

by any party, the parties will adhere to the dispute resolution procedures detailed 

under Stipulation XV, below. 

G. The signatories, consulting parties, and/or concurring parties acknowledge the 

timeframes set forth in this PA will be the maximum allowed under normal 

circumstances. In exigent circumstances (e.g., concerns over construction 

suspensions or delays), all parties agree to expedite their respective document review 

and dispute resolution obligations. 
Project Programmatic Agreement 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project April 26, 2017 

Page 17 of 26 

XII. COMMUNICATIONS AND CONTACT INFORMATION 

Either paper or electronic mail (email) will serve as the official method of 

correspondence for all communications regarding this PA and its provisions. For 

purposes of notices and consulting pursuant to this PA, contact information for each of 

the signatories and concurring parties is provided in Attachment 6. Names and contact 

information therein may be updated, as needed, without an amendment to this PA. 

It is the responsibility of each signatory, consulting party, and concurring party to 

immediately inform FRA and Amtrak of any change in name or contact information for 

any point of contact. 

XIII. ANTI-DEFICIENCY ACT 

FRA’s obligations under this PA are subject to the availability of appropriated funds, and 

the stipulations of this PA are subject to the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 

U.S.C. § 1341 et seq.). FRA will make reasonable and good faith efforts to secure the 

necessary funds to implement this PA in its entirety. If compliance with the AntiDeficiency Act alters or impairs FRA’s ability to implement the stipulations of this 

agreement, or if another federal agency does not assume responsibility as lead federal 

agency, signatories will consult in accordance with the amendment or termination 

procedures found in Stipulations XVI and XVII of this PA. 

XIV. ADOPTABILITY 

In the event that another federal agency not initially a party to the PA receives an 

application for a license, permit, or funding for the Project as described in this PA, that 

agency may fulfill its Section 106 responsibilities by stating in writing it concurs with the 

terms of this PA and notifying the signatories that it intends to do so. Such an agreement 

will be evidenced by an amendment to this PA, which must be filed with ACHP, that 

describes the roles and responsibilities of the new signatory and affirms the party’s 

concurrence with the terms of the PA. 

XV. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 

A. In the event any signatory, consulting party, and/or concurring party to this PA 

objects in writing to any actions proposed or the manner in which the terms of this 

PA are implemented, FRA will consult with the objecting party and other signatories, 

consulting parties, and/or concurring parties as appropriate, within 30 calendar days 

to resolve the objection. If FRA determines that such objection cannot be resolved, 

FRA will proceed as set forth herein. 

B. FRA will forward all documentation relevant to the dispute, including FRA’s

proposed resolution, to the ACHP within 15 calendar days of the determination and 

request that the ACHP provide FRA with its advice on the resolution of the objection 

within 30 calendar days of receiving the documentation. Concurrently, FRA will also 

provide the signatories, consulting parties, and/or concurring parties with the same 

documentation for review and comment following the steps described in Stipulation 

XI. FRA will prepare a written response to the objection, which will constitute FRA’s

decision regarding the objection, that takes into account any timely advice or 

comments regarding the dispute from the ACHP, signatories, consulting parties, 

and/or concurring parties, and provide them with a copy of the written response. FRA 

will then proceed according to its decision. 
Project Programmatic Agreement 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project April 26, 2017 

Page 18 of 26 

C. If the ACHP does not provide its advice regarding the dispute within the thirty (30) 

calendar day time period, FRA may make a decision on the dispute and proceed 

accordingly. FRA will document its decision in a written response to the objection 

that takes into account any timely comments regarding the dispute from the 

signatories, consulting parties, and/or concurring parties and provide the ACHP, 

signatories, consulting parties, and/or concurring parties with a copy of such written 

response. 

D. Should disputes arise under exigent circumstances (e.g., concerns over construction 

suspensions or delays), all parties agree to expedite their respective document review 

and dispute resolution obligations. 

E. The signatories remain responsible for carrying out all other actions subject to the 

terms of this PA that are not the subject of the dispute. 

XVI. AMENDMENTS 

Any signatory to this PA may request that it be amended, whereupon that party will 

immediately consult with the other signatories within 30 calendar days (or another time 

period agreed to by all signatories) to consider such an amendment. FRA will be 

responsible for developing and executing any resulting amendment among the signatories 

in the same manner as the original PA. The amendment will be effective on the date FRA 

files a copy signed by all signatories with the ACHP. 

XVII. TERMINATION 

A. If any signatory to this PA determines its terms will not or cannot be carried out, that 

party will immediately consult with the other signatories to attempt to develop an 

amendment per Stipulation XVI. If within 30 calendar days (or another time period 

agreed to by all signatories) an amendment cannot be reached, any signatory may 

terminate the PA upon written notification to the other signatories. 

B. If the PA is terminated, then, prior to work continuing on the Project, FRA must 

either, 1) execute a new Memorandum of Agreement or PA (36 CFR § 800.6(c) or 

800.14(b)) or 2) request, take into account, and respond to the comments of the 

ACHP under 36 CFR § 800.7. FRA will notify the signatories and consulting parties 

as to the course of action it will pursue. 

XVIII. MONITORING AND REPORTING 

A. Each year, following the effective date of this PA until it expires or is terminated, 

Amtrak will provide the signatories and concurring parties a summary report 

detailing work undertaken and any tasks completed pursuant to its terms. This 

includes activities necessary to advance the Project toward and/or through 

construction. Such a report will include any scheduling changes proposed, problems 

encountered, and disputes and their resolution in the signatories’ efforts to carry out 

the terms of this PA. Amtrak will also ask the consulting parties if they are interested 

in receiving the report, and will provide it to those that express interest. 

B. Ten business days before commencing any activity necessary to advance the Project 

toward and/or through construction, Amtrak will provide FRA notice of the activity 

and any actions to be taken in accordance with this PA. 
Project Programmatic Agreement 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project April 26, 2017 

Page 19 of 26 

XIX. EXECUTION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This PA will go into effect on the date FRA signs the document, which will be the final

signature among all the signatories. Execution of this PA by the signatories, its

subsequent filing with the ACHP, and implementation of its terms demonstrate FRA has

taken into account the effect of the Project on historic properties and afforded the ACHP

an opportunity to comment.

XX. DURATION

This PA will expire when all its stipulations have been completed or in 10 years from the

effective date, whichever comes first, unless the signatories agree in writing to an

extension using the amendment stipulation (Stipulation XVI) herein.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 

Attachment 1 – Project Location Map

Attachment 2 – Havre de Grace Architectural Resources Map 

Attachment 3 – Perryville and Cecil County Architectural Resources Map 

Attachment 4 – List of Prior Technical Studies 

Attachment 5 – List of Invited Consulting Parties 

Attachment 6 – List of Signatories and Concurring Parties 

SIGNATORIES 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer 

INVITED SIGNATORY 

National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

CONCURRING PARTIES 

Maryland Department of Transportation 

Maryland Transit Administration 

Town of Perryville, Maryland

City of Havre de Grace, Maryland 










Programmatic Agreement 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

Attachment 4: List of Prior Technical Studies 

AKRF 

2015 Susquehanna River Rail Bridge, Section 106 Consulting Parties Informational Package, February 

2015. On file, Maryland Historical Trust, Crownsville, Maryland. 

ARCH2

, Inc. 

2016 Effects Assessment for Historic Architectural Resources, Susquehanna River Rail Bridge, 

Perryville, Cecil County and Havre de Grace, Harford County, Maryland, June 2016. Prepared 

for Federal Railroad Administration, Maryland Department of Transportation, and National 

Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). On file, Maryland Historical Trust, Crownsville, 

Maryland. 

Federal Railroad Administration 

2014 Initiation of Section 106 Consultation Letter, April 10, 2014. Prepared for Maryland Historic 

Trust. On file, Maryland Historical Trust, Crownsville, Maryland. 

Maryland Department of Transportation 

2014 List of designated architectural resources in the APE and a list of potential architectural resources 

identified during a reconnaissance-level field survey, September 24, 2014. Prepared for 

Maryland Historic Trust. On file, Maryland Historical Trust, Crownsville, Maryland. 

McCormick Taylor 

2014 Phase IA Archaeological Assessment for the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project, Harford 

and Cecil Counties, Maryland, August 2014. Prepared for AKRF. On file, Maryland Historical 

Trust, Crownsville, Maryland. 
Programmatic Agreement 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

Attachment 5: List of Invited Consulting Parties 

Accohannock Indian Tribe, Inc. 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Assateague Peoples Tribe 

Cecil County Government* 

Chesapeake Heritage Conservancy, Inc. 

City of Havre De Grace* 

Friends of Concord Point Lighthouse, Inc.* 

Harford County Government* 

Havre De Grace Decoy Museum* 

Havre De Grace Maritime Museum 

The Historical Society of Cecil County 

The Historical Society of Harford County, Inc. 

Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway* 

Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs 

Maryland Historical Society 

Maryland Historical Trust* 

National Park Service, Chesapeake Bay Office* 

National Railway Historical Society, Perryville Chapter* 

Nause-Waiwash Band of Indians, Inc. 

Perry Point VA Medical Center 

Piscataway Conoy Confederacy and Sub-Tribes, Inc. 

Piscataway Indian Nation 

Pocomoke Indian Tribe, Inc. 

Post 47/American Legion 

Preservation Maryland 

Principio Furnace Foundation, Inc. 

Susquehanna Museum of Havre De Grace at the Lock House 

Susquehanna State Park 

Town of Perryville* 

Youghiogheny River Band of Shawnee Indians, Inc. 

Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route-National Historic Trail Office 

Federally-Recognized Indian Tribes, if applicable 

* Accepted invitation to serve as a consulting party

Note: Entities without an asterisk (*) declined or did not accept the invitation
Programmatic Agreement

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

Attachment 6: List of Signatories and Concurring Parties

Contact Information

Signatories

Federal Railroad Administration

Laura A. Shick

Federal Preservation Officer

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

(202) 366-0340

laura.shick@dot.gov

Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer

Elizabeth Hughes

Director/State Historic Preservation Officer

Maryland Historical Trust

100 Community Place, 3rd Floor

Crownsville, MD 21032-2023

(410) 697-9591

elizabeth.hughes@maryland.gov

National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Paul DelSignore, PE

Director Structures Maintenance & Inspection

Amtrak

30th Street Station 4S-062

Philadelphia, PA 19104

(215) 349-7000

delsigp@amtrak.com

Johnette Davies

Senior Historic Preservation Specialist

Amtrak

30th Street Station 4S-043

Philadelphia, PA 19104

(215) 349-1354

johnette.davies@amtrak.com
Programmatic Agreement

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

Concurring Parties

Maryland Department of Transportation

Jacqueline Thorne

Project Manager, Priority Projects, The Secretary's Office

Office of Freight and Multimodalism

Maryland Department of Transportation

7201 Corporate Center Drive

Hanover, Maryland 21076

(Office) 410-684-7060

jthorne@mdot.state.md.us

Maryland Transit Administration

Kevin Quinn

Director, Office of Planning and Programming

Maryland Transit Administration

6 Saint Paul Street, Suite 902

Baltimore, Maryland 21202

(410) 767-8361

kquinn@mta.maryland.gov

Town of Perryville, Maryland

James Eberhardt

Mayor

515 Broad Street PO Box 773

Perryville, MD 21903

(410) 642-6066

City of Havre de Grace, Maryland

William T. Martin

Mayor

711 Pennington Avenue

Havre de Grace, MD 21708

(410) 939-1800
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

Appendix D

Errata

May 2017
 D-1 

Appendix D Errata 

A. INTRODUCTION 

The Project Team prepared this errata appendix following publication of the Susquehanna River 

Rail Bridge Project Environmental Assessment (EA). The errata summarize information added 

to the EA or revised in response to comments received as part of public and agency review or 

due to other changes that occurred since the public release of the EA. None of the changes noted 

in this appendix alter the conclusions of the EA in any way. Note that the chapter and page 

numbers referenced in the following sections are chapters and pages of the EA. 

B. ERRATA 

CHAPTER 4: LAND USE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES 

 Page 4-2 includes the following text, which is revised as shown. 

SMART GROWTH INITIATIVE 

MDP emphasizes the importance of smart growth throughout the State. Maryland’s Smart 

Growth Initiative 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 t These goals and visions, MDP serve 

as guiding principles for local comprehensive plans and promotes high-density, mixed-use 

developments in locally designated and state-supported growth areas that already have 

existing infrastructure to discourage avoid urban sprawl and adverse impacts on into rural 

and environmentally sensitive areas. The 1997 Priority Funding Areas Law directs 

emphasize state funding for growth-related infrastructure to Priority Funding Areas, 

providing a geographic focus for state investment in growth. 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. 

 Page 4-13 includes the following text, which is revised as shown. 

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 rail transportation mobility that addresses 

the state’s multimodal transportation needs as well as supports state’s transportation, 

economic and environmental goals. 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 under the PFA law from MDP. The Project Team met with the 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 D-2 

Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Coordinating Committee on March 9, 2016 

to request an exception approval for compliance with the PFA law. 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.). 

CHAPTER 8: CULTURAL RESOURCES 

 Page 8-19, the following text is supplemented as shown. 

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. Amtrak will consider utilizing a 220-foot span(s) in the City of Havre de 

Grace as part of ongoing efforts to minimize effects to historic properties. The City of 

Havre de Grace has expressed interest in making the MD 7/Otsego Street and Union 

underpass a well-designed gateway by way of expanded distance between the piers on 

the overland portion of the bridge. The Project Team will continue to work with the 

Concurring Parties to the Programmatic Agreement as the project moves forward. 

Amtrak will submit design documents, with an explanation of how the proposed design 

conforms to the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties, to concurring parties and MD SHPO for review and comment. The Havre de 

Grace proposed street realignment requires approval from the State Highway 

Administration. 

 Page 8-21, the following text is supplemented as shown. 

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. As discussed, Amtrak will consider utilizing a 220-foot 

span(s) in the City of Havre de Grace as part of ongoing efforts to minimize effects to 

historic properties. The City of Havre de Grace and State Highway Administration have 

identified MD 7/Otsego Street and Union as the entrance into downtown Havre de 

Grace. 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. 
Appendix D: Errata 

 D-3 

CHAPTER 9: DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 Page 9-5 includes the following text, which is supplemented as shown. 

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. Amtrak will consider utilizing a 220-

foot span(s) in the City of Havre de Grace as part of ongoing efforts to minimize effects 

to historic properties. 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. 

 Page 9-11 includes the following text, which is supplemented as shown. 

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. 

 Amtrak will consider utilizing a 220-foot span(s) in the City of Havre de Grace. 

CHAPTER 11: NATURAL RESOURCES 

 The Floodplain and Wetland/Waters of the U.S. entry in Table 11-1 on page 11-2 is 

supplemented as shown below. 

Table 11-1 

Regulatory Context Summary Table 

Technical Area Regulatory Context 

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 

DOT Order 5650.2, DOT Order 5660.1A, FRA’s Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545 and 78 FR 2713) 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 D-4 

 Text on page 11-9 and 11-24 is expanded as shown, in response to Comment 3 from 

U.S. Coast Guard. 

MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT [50 CFR 10, 20, 21, EXECUTIVE ORDER 13186] 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill or 

sell birds listed therein. Over 800 species are currently protected under the Act. The 

statute applies equally to both live and dead birds, and grants full protection to any bird 

parts, including feathers, eggs, and nests. 

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, with several deciduous forests present within the study area along stream 

corridors. The Preferred Alternative would result in only minor forest impacts on the 

south side of the existing rail alignment near Havre de Grace Middle School/High 

School. This forest is relatively narrow and disturbed. Where possible, clearing of this 

area will be timed to avoid the primary bird breeding period. Additionally, where 

unavoidable forest impacts occur, the future Project proponent will offset those impacts 

by planting trees in cleared areas (reforestation) and/or in areas not previously forested 

(afforestation) in accordance with a DNR-approved Forest Conservation Plan. With 

these measures, the Preferred Alternative would be in compliance with the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act. 

BALD AND GOLDEN EAGLE PROTECTION ACT (16 USC 668-668C) 

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits anyone without a permit issued by 

the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the USFWS, from taking bald or golden 

eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The Act defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, 

shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb." 

The lower Susquehanna River is a known breeding, foraging, and roosting area for bald 

eagles1. Twelve nesting sites and 18 communal roosting locations were recorded along 

the lower Susquehanna River in 2011. In order to ensure proper compliance with the 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, prior to construction, the future Project 

proponent will coordinate with US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to identify the 

location of any active nests in proximity to the project site to determine the need to 

submit an application for a bald eagle permit for non-purposeful take, or an application 

for a permit to remove or relocate a bald eagle nest. With these measures, the Preferred 

Alternative would be in compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 

 Text on page 11-21 and 11-22 regarding floodplains is expanded as shown. 

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 

 

1

 Updated Study Report Study to Identify Habitat use Areas for Bald Eagle Rep 3.23 Conowingo 

Hydroelectric Project FERC Project Number 405; Center for Conservation Biology College of William 

and Mary & Virginia Commonwealth University, URS Corporation, Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, 

P.C. (November 2011) 
Appendix D: Errata 

 D-5 

floodways floodplains is not anticipated. However, the Proposed Project will require fill 

in both of these floodways floodplains. The new crossings of the Susquehanna River 

will occur with the bridge piers aligned with the river to minimize any change in the 

flow characteristics. The floodplain encroachment is the minimum practicable and 

conforms to applicable floodplain standards. As such, 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. The Proposed Project would not 

increase flood-related risk due to encroachment within the floodplain, adversely impact 

the natural and beneficial values provided by the floodplains being encroached upon, or 

result in incompatible development within the floodplain. In addition, measures such as 

aligning piers parallel to river flow and orienting crossings transversely across stream 

valleys would minimize adverse effects to the floodplain. 

 Page 11-31 includes the following text, which is supplemented as shown. 

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. Overall, there are a number of ways to minimize harm from floodplain 

encroachment. The most appropriate measure or combination of measures will be 

developed as the Project design moves forward. 

CHAPTER 20: COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION 

 Page 20-13 includes the following text, which is revised as shown. 

OTHER AGENCY COORDINATION 

The Project Team presented the project to the Smart Growth Coordinating Committee to 

request an exception approval under the Priority Funding Area (PFA) law in March 

2016. The Smart Growth Coordinating Committee is responsible for reviewing and 

commenting on the compliance of growth-related projects with the PFA law. 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. 

 Page 20-10, Table 20-2, “Section 106 Correspondence Summary,” is expanded as 

shown to reflect additional correspondence prior to the release of the EA. The letters are 

included in Appendix F to this FONSI, “Additional Correspondence and Outreach.” 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project 

 D-6 

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 2, 2016 

Letter from Havre de Grace and Attachment Regarding Potential MOA 

Stipulations 

November 3, 2016 Letter from Harford County Regarding Potential MOA Stipulations

November 4, 2016 Letter from Town of Perryville Regarding Potential MOA Stipulations 

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. 

February 15, 2017 

Letter from William T. Martin, Mayor of Havre de Grace, providing an 

introduction to the engineering report “Proposed Modifications at Havre 

de Grace End of Bridge” (also listed in Table 20-4) 

March 13, 2017 FRA Response to Havre de Grace regarding bridge span length. 
Appendix D: Errata 

 D-7 

EA APPENDIX A - ALTERNATIVES SCREENING REPORT AND BRIDGE TYPES 

 Page 26 of the “Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study,” the correct identified for the 

Havre de Grace Historic District is HA-1617. 

EA APPENDIX D – CULTURAL RESOURCES 

 Effects Assessment, page i; page 4-5 Table 2; and page 4-9: the correct identifier for the 

Havre de Grace Historic District is HA-1617. These pages incorrectly identified the 

historic district as HA-1125. 
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

Appendix E

Comments Received

May 2017
From: Long, Ryan (FTA)

To: Johnsen, Michael (FRA)

Cc: Dan Reagle; Koenig, Daniel (FTA)

Subject: Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project EA comments

Date: Friday, March 24, 2017 2:28:04 PM

Attachments: image002.png

Hi Michael –

FTA is in receipt of you letter dated March 2, 2017 regarding the Environmental Assessment for the

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project. At this time we do not have any comments on the EA or draft

Section 4(f) evaluation. We look forward to serving as a cooperating agency as part of this project.

Sincerely, 
Re: Susquehanna Rail Bridge EA 

Hi Jack,

Thank you for your comments.  I will share them with FRA and the project team.  I'll get you a copy of the navigation 

study and discuss with Brandon if it can be included as an appendix of the FONSI or posted to the project website.  

Also, I'll discuss how the FONSI can be written to make the impacts to navigation clearer.

Thank you,

Dan Reagle

Environmental Planner

Maryland Transit Administration

Environmental Planning

6 St. Paul Street, Baltimore, MD  21202

Office: 410-767-3771

DReagle1@mta.maryland.gov

________________________________________

From: Dinne, John J CIV USARMY CENAB (US) <JOHN.J.DINNE@usace.army.mil>

Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 3:04 PM

To: Dan Reagle

Subject: Susquehanna Rail Bridge EA

Dan,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Susquehanna Rail Bridge Project.  

The analysis captures the alternative evaluation process very well.  The Corps would offer the following comment 

about the EA:

Navigation is presented as one of the critical evaluation criteria and is a public interest factor in Corps permit 

evaluations.  The EA includes information about navigable waters in several different sections including the 

appendices.   While there is information supporting the evaluation of the various alternatives, there does not appear 

to be a real conclusion in regards to how the proposed project effects navigation.  Also, the navigation survey is 

Dan Reagle

Thu 4/6/2017 3:18 PM 

To:Dinne, John J CIV USARMY CENAB (US) <JOHN.J.DINNE@usace.army.mil>; 

Cc:Bratcher, Brandon (FRA) <brandon.bratcher@dot.gov>; 

Re: Susquehanna Rail Bridge EA - Dan Reagle Page 1 of 2

https://www.portal.mdot.maryland.gov/owa/,DanaInfo=mail.otts.mdot.mdstate,SSL+ 4/6/2017
referenced several times in the document.  It was provided to the US Coast Guard as part of the coordination process 

and used, in part, in the project alternative design process.  It would be useful to include the survey/results in an 

appendix of the EA.

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to review the EA.

Sincerely,

Jack Dinne

Baltimore District, Regulatory Branch

Maryland Section

410 962-6005

Re: Susquehanna Rail Bridge EA - Dan Reagle Page 2 of 2

https://www.portal.mdot.maryland.gov/owa/,DanaInfo=mail.otts.mdot.mdstate,SSL+ 4/6/2017
United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

 Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

 Custom House, Room 244

 200 Chestnut Street

 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-2904

April 12, 2017

9043.1

ER 17/0100

Brandon Bratcher

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

USDOT Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Subject: Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge, City of 

Havre de Grace, Harford County and Town of Perryville, Cecil County, MD.

Dear Mr. Bratcher:

The Department of the Interior (Department) has reviewed the Section 4(f) Evaluation for the 

proposed Susquehanna River Rail Bridge. The purpose of this project is 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. We offer the following comments on this project 

for your consideration. 

Section 4(f) Evaluation Comments

The Department concurs that there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the proposed use of 

4(f) lands, which consist of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge and eight associated rail 

undergrade bridges, the Perry Interlocking Tower and Perryville Train Station Undergrade 

Bridge and the Havre de Grace Historic District. Alternative 9A will have adverse effects on all 

of these historic properties, which constitutes the Section 4(f) use. 

The Department concurs that the draft Programmatic Agreement developed in consultation with 

the Maryland State Historic Preservation Office details appropriate mitigation measures to 

address the adverse effects. The Department recommends including the final, signed document 

with the final Section 4(f). 

IN REPLY REFER TO:
2

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.

Sincerely,

Lindy Nelson

Regional Environmental Officer

cc: SHPO-MD (Elizabeth.Hughes@maryland.gov)

From: Kristy Beard - NOAA Federal

To: Dan Reagle

Cc: Bratcher, Brandon (FRA); Jacqueline Thorne

Subject: Re: Susquehanna River Rail Bridge - EA for comment?

Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 4:56:31 PM

Attachments: image001.png

image003.png

image005.png

image006.png

image008.png

image007.png

Thanks Dan. I do not have any more comments, beyond those I made on the NETR. Please

keep me on your distribution list as this project moves forward.

Kristy

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Dan Reagle <DReagle1@mta.maryland.gov> wrote:

Hi Kristy,

Thank you for your comments at IRM. Afterwards, you asked about a response to your comment

in the 5/5/16 letter regarding the pier spacing potentially leading to increased velocity and impacts

to anadromous fish. I asked our consultants and reviewed the revised NETR and your question is

best addressed on pages E-19 and E-54 of EA Appendix E.

http://susrailbridge.com/documents/ea_2017/ea_appendix_e.pdf

If you feel it was not adequately addressed and/or if you have any other comments on the EA we

request them by 4/6/17. Again, sorry for the short notice and appreciate your flexibility. Please

let us know if you have any concerns.

Thank you,

Dan Reagle

Environmental Planner

Maryland Transit Administration

Environmental Planning Division

6 St. Paul Street, 9th Floor, Baltimore, MD 21202

Office: 410-767-3771 Fax: 410-333-0489

From: Bihui Xu ‐MDP‐ [mailto:bihui.xu@maryland.gov]

Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 9:12 AM

To: Dan Reagle <DReagle1@mta.maryland.gov>

Cc: Scoĥ Hansen ‐MDP‐ <scott.hansen@maryland.gov>; Bob Rosenbush ‐MDP‐ <bob.rosenbush@maryland.gov>

Subject: Re: FW: Susquehanna River Railroad Bridge Project ‐ Review of Environmental Assessment, Dra├ Secĕon 4(f)

Evaluaĕon, and Dra├ Programmaĕc Agreement

Dan,

Attached are the suggested editing comments. The edits meanly clarify the information related to the PFA law and state

smart growth initiatives. Please let me know if you have any question. BTW, I will also forward the comments to our

Clearinghouse system. Thanks.

Bihui
1

MDP Editing Comments

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

Environmental Assessment and Draft 4(f) evaluation

April 10, 2017

Page 4-2: 

SMART GROWTH INITIATIVE

MDP emphasizes the importance of smart growth throughout the State. Maryland’s Smart 

Ggrowth Initiative 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 tThese goals and visions, MDP serve as guiding principles for local comprehensive 

plans and promotes high-density, mixed-use developments in locally designated and statesupported growth areas 

that already have existing infrastructure to discourage avoid urban sprawl and adverse impacts 

on into rural and environmentally sensitive areas. The 1997 Priority Funding

Areas Law directs emphasize state funding for growth-related infrastructure to Priority Funding 

Areas, providing a geographic focus for state investment in growth. 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.

Page 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 rail transportation mobility that addresses the state’s 

multimodal transportation needs as well as supports state’s transportation, economic and 

environmental goals. 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 under the PFA lawfrom MDP. The Project Team met with the Smart Growth

and Neighborhood Conservation Coordinating Committee on March 9, 2016 to request an 

exception approval for compliance with the PFA law. . 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 §5-7B-06(a)(iii)3.).
2

Page 20-13

OTHER AGENCY COORDINATION

The Project Team presented the project to the Smart Growth Coordinating Committee to 

request an exception approval under the Priority Funding Area (PFA) law in March 2016. The

Smart Growth Coordinating Committee is responsible for reviewing and commenting on the 

compliance of growth-related projects with the PFA law. to be funded under Extraordinary 

Circumstances that are not within a Priority FundingArea. 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.
From: Bihui Xu ‐MDP‐ [mailto:bihui.xu@maryland.gov]

Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 1:31 PM

To: Dan Reagle <DReagle1@mta.maryland.gov> 

Cc: Scoĥ Hansen (scott.hansen@maryland.gov) <scott.hansen@maryland.gov>

Subject: Re: FW: Susquehanna River Railroad Bridge Project ‐ Review of Environmental Assessment, Dra├

Secĕon 4(f) Evaluaĕon, and Dra├ Programmaĕc Agreement

Dan,

I have a question for you.

I just reviewed through the EA document and can't find the information on "a Susquehanna River Rail Bridge

Project

Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing Hazard Analysis and Security Risk Assessment." Has the project completed the

study? I can't find any conclusion or summary on the ped/bike issue either.

We will have some editing comments on some sessions of the EA that discuss PFA and state smart growth

policies. Do you prefer that we provide you with the editing comments now or we could submit them to the

clearinghouse process; which has the deadline on 4/17?

Thanks.

Bihui


MD DNR comments on Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project Environmental Assessment 

(EA), 4/6/17

DELETE REPLY REPLY ALL FORWARD

CONTINUE EDITING DISCARD

Mark as unread

Greg Golden -DNR- <greg.golden@maryland.gov>

Thu 4/6/2017 4:01 PM

To:

Bratcher, Brandon (FRA) <brandon.bratcher@dot.gov>;

Dan Reagle;

info@susrailbridge.com;

Jacqueline Thorne;

leslie@calladiumgroup.com;

...

Cc:

Kristy Beard - NOAA Federal <kristy.beard@noaa.gov>;

Ray Li <ray_li@fws.gov>;

Elder Ghigiarelli -MDE- <elder.ghigiarelli@maryland.gov>;

mansolino.michael@epa.gov;

Joseph.DaVia@usace.army.mil;

...

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources is continuing its review and interagency review 

participation for the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project. We are currently reviewing the 

Environmental Assessment (EA) document, and provide the following comments to meet the 

April 6, 2017 requested comment date. We also look forward to further coordination and review 

at the appropriate timing for future planning stages, and eventual construction. 

For a NEPA study of this type, with very significant and important project purpose and need 

elements for the State and regionally, and also an extended timeline until detailed planning and 

construction will occur, it is important to set up information exchange and review processes to 

result in optimized later coordination on impact minimization and review issue resolution. This 

especially includes coordination of various time-of-year restrictions for natural resources, which 

may include, but not necessarily be limited to, fisheries, rare species, submerged aquatic 

vegetation (SAV), and waterfowl concentration areas. We realize that the project team may need 

to work with the resource agencies to negotiate the feasible construction timeline that protects 

resources and allows the necessary logistics to complete the project, after all construction 

techniques and methods to be applied are identified. In the case of potentially overlapping 

restriction periods or restriction periods that could make certain construction practices not 

feasible, we will be available to help analyze individual practice elements, techniques, and 

resource risks to fine tune Best Management Practices (BMPs) and restrictions to the actual work 

and work elements proposed. Later coordination will likely discuss other specific BMPs that 

cannot all be identified and optimized yet at this level of planning. We greatly appreciate and 

support the current level of BMP consideration for aquatic resources, such as pile installation 

methods.
We would like to emphasize at this point in commenting the great importance of water access for 

fishing, boating, and other recreational or water-dependent purposes during and after project 

construction. We noted some analysis of existing boat launch facilities in the EA. Further study 

and planning may be necessary to assure that short term water access is adequately addressed 

during all construction phases, and that long term access is addressed post-project. Access 

should be considered to include boat ramps, soft ramps for kayaks and other hand carried boats, 

and opportunities for shoreline viewing and fishing, as allowed by local authorities. DNR can 

provide boating and access staff expertise when future coordination is conducted. 

As mentioned in recent and previous meetings, the Department advocates and requests 

consideration of all reasonable opportunities for the project to participate in fish reef material 

collaboration, partnerships, and associated planning. We can provide expertise in this topic as 

well. Clean concrete rubble from demolition is of special interest for fish reef material, and this 

might become available from demolition and removal of bridge piers, piling, bulkheads, etc. The 

proximity of the project to navigable waters makes this an especially important consideration.

As the document references, planning for any potential Forest Conservation Act (FCA) studies 

and requirements should be clearly incorporated into future plans. The Forest Conservation 

Act requires that any project, on areas 40,000 square feet or greater, that is applying for 

a grading or sediment control permit shall have an approved Forest Conservation Plan 

and Forest Stand Delineation (Nat. Res. Art. 5-1601–5-16122, Annotated Code of 

Maryland). Projects proposed by a state or federal agency on state or federal land need 

to be submitted to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Forest Service for 

review. Projects proposed for private land should be submitted to the local planning and 

zoning authority for review. Please note Critical Area exclusion; we have staff expertise 

and online information available for any needed guidance.

The following Fisheries Service comments and information have been developed in response to 

the EA document review. Please note that additional comments and recommendations have 

been made and will continue to be made in future planning and design for other migratory and 

tidal fish species as well; the following is focused mainly on non-tidal species and certain tidal 

species such as tidal black bass:

The Environmental Assessment for the Susquehanna Rail Bridge Project was thorough and generally conveyed the fish resource information (DNR) 

provided in our October 22, 2014 letter. After reviewing the Environmental Assessment and the related documents and correspondence with Regional 

Managers, the Freshwater Fisheries Program has the following comments regarding the Susquehanna Rail Bridge Project EA and the potential impacts of 

the project limited to freshwater sport fish and recreational fishing.

- Principio Creek is a Use III stream that provides a popular put-and-take fishery. Mill Creek is a Use I tributary to Furnace Bay. Although there was no 

reference in the EA, a wild brown trout population has been documented in Mill Creek and this stream should receive the same protection as a Use III 

stream to protect this resource. However, the trout resources and trout management areas appear to be upstream of the project influence.

- The EA states the the Chesapeake logperch does not occur in the vicinity of the project site; Tidal Bass Program surveys documented the presence of the 

Chesapeake logperch near the project site during the fall of 2014.

- The tidal black bass fishery (largemouth and smallmouth bass) in the Upper Bay is an important recreational and economically important fishery, though 

only the presence of these species is stated in the EA. The gravel shoreline habitat and associated SAV within the project area are important habitat for 

spawning, juvenile, and adult bass that will be affected by the project.

- The finger piers are a preferred alternative to dredging. As noted in the Environmental Assessment, dredging can lead to long-term loss of an SAV seed 

bank and benthic habitat as well as temporary impact to existing SAV beds.
- Both alternative build scenarios could re-suspend bottom sediment in the vicinity of the project site. Theses actions occur via the construction of finger 

piers at Cecil County, construction of west and east replacement bridge piers, and demolition of existing bridge and remnant piers. Because of local public 

sensitivity to such events and its influence on submerged vegetation and fishing activities, it is recommended that public notice is provided the Department 

and local area at least 2 weeks prior to periods when sediment is expected to be re-suspended. This will enable the Department to inform boaters and 

anglers about the need for the project and possible, temporary re-suspension of sediment at the project site. Contact information: Paul 

Genovese, paul.genovese@maryland.gov or Erik Zlokovitz, erik.zlokovitz@maryland.gov.

- Reducing harmful sound or pressure waves should be further stressed in planning and documentation. Mitigating efforts to address sound waves during 

the installation of piles for the finger pier were addressed in the EA. While blasting is not an anticipated method, it is stated that it may be used if the 

contractor deems it necessary to remove the 16 in-water piers from the existing bridge and the 13 remnant piers of a prior bridge just downstream to "2' 

below the mudline." Removing the abutments outside of the navigational channel to "2' below the mudline" would likely cause more disturbance/damage 

to the existing ecosystem than leaving them in place to some degree. The remnant abutments could provide current breaks and fish habitat if compatible 

with safe navigation.

- Clean spoil material from the demolition of the bridge abutments could be used to provide valuable habitat for black bass and other species. This material 

could be used to construct a break wall to provide safe harbor at Elk Neck State Park or provide additional habitat near the project site with locations 

identified through a public input process. Black bass abundance correlates with habitat consisting of SAV and "structure" (woody debris, docks, reefs, riprap, etc).

- The loss of the Jean Roberts boat ramp and the prolonged disruption of recreational fishing/navigation in the project area will impact popular local fishing 

activities. Mitigation from this project could include the development of a boat ramp and parking area capable of supporting large tournament activities 

prevalent in the Upper Bay region,creation of weigh-in stations for bass tournaments at Susquehanna River State Park (Lapidum) or at Tydings Memorial 

Park (Havre de Grace) to increase bass survival, or increasing boat/trailer parking at Tydings Memorial Park. Such a facility could be an economic benefit 

to the revitalization of the downtown business district and waterfront identified in the Havre de Grace Comprehensive Plan.

Our Wildlife and Heritage Service has provided comments noting that recent information from 

Fisheries Service on the State listed Chesapeake logperch is new to their program, and they have 

obtained further information from Fisheries Service and are assessing the new record for WHS.

The Department may develop additional protection comments regarding that species as the 

project planning continues. Review and comment on the Northern Map Turtle will be 

considered and should remain on the planning screen, but exact comments will depend on the 

more detailed future project information. 

Regarding the alternatives, we have reviewed, discussed in the interagency setting, and can 

concur with the information regarding the project alternatives, including the purpose and need of 

the project, related to rail speed targets for the project use. Our view is generally that maximum 

reasonable utility is desirable to accomplish within the current single project. We support the 

continued study of impacts and impact minimization on the two project ends related to the 

alternatives and rail speed targets, but we understand the importance of maximizing future utility 

of this major transportation project, within the framework of transportation needs study and 

assessment. In other words, the importance of the preferred alternative and targeted rail speeds 

have been clearly communicated.

Our Department will continue to be available for consultation on the variety of natural resource 

issues, and for interagency coordination in the near future, and for future planning stages. Thank 

you for this opportunity to comment.
dnr.maryland.gov

Greg Golden

Environmental Review Program

Department of Natural Resources

Tawes State Office Bldg, B-3

Annapolis, MD 21401

410-260-8331 (office) 

greg.golden@maryland.gov

Click here to complete a three question customer experience survey.
1

April 20, 2017

Review Comments received by the Maryland State Clearinghouse for Inergovernmenal Assistance 

via its elecronic network regarding:

State Application Identifier: MD20170321-0224

Applicant: U.S. Department of Transportation

Project Description: Environmental Assessment (EA) and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation and Project 

Programmatic Agreement: Susquehanna River Rail Bridge

Project Location: Cecil and Harford Counties; Town of Perryville and the City of Havre de Grace

 Approving Authority: U.S. Department of Transportation.

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) stated that their findings of consistency are 

contingent upon the applicant taking the actions summarized below.

DNR would like to emphasize at this point in commenting the great importance of water access for 

fishing, boating, and other recreational or water-dependent purposes during and after project construction. 

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources is continuing its review and interagency review 

participation for the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project. DNR is currently reviewing the 

Environmental Assessment (EA) document, and provide the following comments to meet the April 6, 

2017 requested comment date. DNR also looks forward to further coordination and review at the 

appropriate timing for future planning stages, and eventual construction. 

For a NEPA study of this type, with very significant and important project purpose and need elements for 

the State and regionally, and an extended timeline until detailed planning and construction will occur, it is 

important to set up information exchange and review processes to result in optimized later coordination 

on impact minimization and review issue resolution. This especially includes coordination of various 

time-of-year restrictions for natural resources, which may include, but not necessarily be limited to, 

fisheries, rare species, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), and waterfowl concentration areas. DNR

realizes that the project team may need to work with the resource agencies to negotiate the feasible 

construction timeline that protects resources and allows the necessary logistics to complete the project, 

after all construction techniques and methods to be applied are identified. In the case of potentially 

overlapping restriction periods or restriction periods that could make certain construction practices not 

feasible, DNR will be available to help analyze individual practice elements, techniques, and resource 

risks to fine tune Best Management Practices (BMPs) and restrictions to the actual work and work 

elements proposed. Later coordination will likely discuss other specific BMPs that cannot all be identified 

and optimized yet at this level of planning. DNR greatly appreciates and supports the current level of 

Best Management Practices considered for aquatic resources, such as pile installation methods.

DNR would like to emphasize at this point in commenting the great importance of water access for 

fishing, boating, and other recreational or water-dependent purposes during and after project 

construction. DNR noted some analysis of existing boat launch facilities in the EA. Further study and 

planning may be necessary to assure that short-term water access is adequately addressed during all 

construction phases, and that long-term access is addressed post-project. Access should be considered to 

include boat ramps, soft ramps for kayaks and other hand carried boats, and opportunities for shoreline 

viewing and fishing, as allowed by local authorities. DNR can provide boating and access staff expertise 

when future coordination is conducted. 
2

DNR continued

As mentioned in recent and previous meetings, DNR advocates and requests consideration of all 

reasonable opportunities for the project to participate in fish reef material collaboration, partnerships, and 

associated planning. DNR can provide expertise in this topic as well. Clean concrete rubble from 

demolition is of special interest for fish reef material, and this might become available from demolition 

and removal of bridge piers, piling, bulkheads, etc. The proximity of the project to navigable waters 

makes this an especially important consideration.

As the document references, planning for any potential Forest Conservation Act (FCA) studies and 

requirements should be clearly incorporated into future plans. The Forest Conservation Act requires that 

any project, on areas 40,000 square feet or greater, that is applying for a grading or sediment control 

permit shall have an approved Forest Conservation Plan and Forest Stand Delineation 

(Natural Resource Article 5-1601–5-16122, Annotated Code of Maryland). Projects proposed by a state 

or federal agency on state or federal land need to be submitted to the Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources Forest Service for review. Projects proposed for private land should be submitted to the local 

planning and zoning authority for review.

Please note the Critical Area exclusion; DNR has staff expertise and online information available for any 

needed guidance.

The following Fisheries Service comments and information have been developed in response to the EA 

document review. Please note that additional comments and recommendations have been made and will 

continue to be made in future planning and design for other migratory and tidal fish species as well; the 

following is focused mainly on non-tidal species and certain tidal species such as tidal black bass.

The Environmental Assessment for the Susquehanna Rail Bridge Project was thorough and generally 

conveyed the fish resource information (DNR) provided in our October 22, 2014 letter. After reviewing 

the Environmental Assessment and the related documents and correspondence with Regional Managers, 

the Freshwater Fisheries Program has the following comments regarding the Susquehanna Rail Bridge 

Project EA and the potential impacts of the project limited to freshwater sport fish and recreational 

fishing.

- Principio Creek is a Use III stream that provides a popular put-and-take fishery. Mill Creek is a Use I 

tributary to Furnace Bay. Although there was no reference in the EA, a wild, brown trout population has 

been documented in Mill Creek and this st the Chesapeake logperch does not occur in the vicinity of the 

project site; Tidal Bass Program surveys documented the presence of the Chesapeake logperch near the 

project site during the fall of 2014.

- The tidal black bass fishery (largemouth and smallmouth bass) in the Upper Bay is an important 

recreational and economically important fishery, though only the presence of these species is stated in the 

EA. The gravel shoreline habitat and associated SAV within the project area are important habitat for 

spawning, juvenile, and adult bass that will be affected by the project.

- The finger piers are a preferred alternative to dredging. As noted in the Environmental Assessment, 

dredging can lead to long-term loss of an SAV seed bank and benthic habitat as well as temporary impact 

to existing SAV beds.
3

DNR continued

- Both alternative build scenarios could re-suspend bottom sediment in the vicinity of the project site. 

These actions occur via the construction of finger piers at Cecil County, construction of west and east 

replacement bridge piers, and demolition of existing bridge and remnant piers. Because of local public 

sensitivity to such events and its influence on submerged vegetation and fishing activities, it is 

recommended that public notice is provided the Department and local area at least 2 weeks prior to 

periods when sediment is expected to be re-suspended. This will enable the Department to inform boaters 

and anglers about the need for the project and possible, temporary re-suspension of sediment at the 

project site. Contact information: Paul Genovese, paul.genovese@maryland.gov or Erik 

Zlokovitz, erik.zlokovitz@maryland.gov.

- Reducing harmful sound or pressure waves should be further stressed in planning and documentation. 

Mitigating efforts to address sound waves during the installation of piles for the finger pier were 

addressed in the EA. While blasting is not an anticipated method, it is stated that it may be used if the 

contractor deems it necessary to remove the 16 in-water piers from the existing bridge and the 13 remnant 

piers of a prior bridge just downstream to "2' below the mudline." Removing the abutments outside of the 

navigational channel to "2' below the mudline" would likely cause more disturbance/damage to the 

existing ecosystem than leaving them in place to some degree. The remnant abutments could provide 

current breaks and fish habitat if compatible with safe navigation. 

- Clean spoil material from the demolition of the bridge abutments could be used to provide valuable 

habitat for black bass and other species. This material could be used to construct a break wall to provide 

safe harbor at Elk Neck State Park or provide additional habitat near the project site with locations 

identified through a public input process. Black bass abundance correlates with habitat consisting of SAV 

and "structure" (woody debris, docks, reefs, rip-rap, etc.).

- The loss of the Jean Roberts boat ramp and the prolonged disruption of recreational fishing/navigation in 

the project area will impact popular local fishing activities. Mitigation from this project could include the 

development of a boat ramp and parking area capable of supporting large tournament activities 

prevalent in the Upper Bay region, creation of weigh-in stations for bass tournaments at Susquehanna 

River State Park (Lapidum) or at Tydings Memorial Park (Havre de Grace) to increase bass survival, or 

increasing boat/trailer parking at Tydings Memorial Park. Such a facility could be an economic benefit to 

the revitalization of the downtown business district and waterfront identified in the Havre de Grace 

Comprehensive Plan.

DNR’s Wildlife and Heritage Service has provided comments noting that recent information from 

Fisheries Service on the State listed Chesapeake logperch is new to their program, and they have obtained 

further information from Fisheries Service and are assessing the new record for WHS. The Department 

may develop additional protection comments regarding that species as the project planning 

continues. Review and comment on the Northern Map Turtle will be considered and should remain on 

the planning screen, but exact comments will depend on the more detailed future project information. 

Regarding the alternatives, DNR has reviewed, discussed in the interagency setting, and can concur with 

the information regarding the project alternatives, including the purpose and need of the project, related to 

rail speed targets for the project use. Our view is generally that maximum reasonable utility is desirable 

to accomplish within the current single project. DNR supports the continued study of impacts and impact 

minimization on the two project ends related to the alternatives and rail speed targets, but DNR

understands the importance of maximizing future utility of this major transportation project, within the 

framework of transportation needs study and assessment. In other words, the importance of the preferred 

alternative and targeted rail speeds have been clearly communicated. DNR will continue to be available 

for consultation on the variety of natural resource issues, and for interagency coordination in the near 

future, and for future planning stages.
4

The Maryland Depatment of the Environment (MDE) submitted these consistent comments.

1. If the proposed project involves demolition, any above-ground or underground petroleum storage 

tanks that may be on site must have contents and tanks along with any contamination removed. Please 

contact the Oil Control Program at (410) 537-3442 for additional information.

2. Any solid waste including construction, demolition and land clearing debris, generated from the 

subject project, must be properly disposed of at a permitted solid waste acceptance facility, or recycled if 

possible. Contact the Solid Waste Program at (410) 537-3315 for additional information regarding solid 

waste activities and contact the Waste Diversion and Utilization Program at (410) 537-3314 for additional 

information regarding recycling activities.

3. The Waste Diversion and Utilization Program should be contacted directly at (410) 537-3314 by 

those facilities which generate or propose to generate or handle hazardous wastes to ensure these 

activities are being conducted in compliance with applicable State and federal laws and regulations. The 

Program should also be contacted prior to construction activities to ensure that the treatment, storage or 

disposal of hazardous wastes and low-level radioactive wastes at the facility will be conducted in 

compliance with applicable State and federal laws and regulations. 

4. The proposed project may involve rehabilitation, redevelopment, revitalization, or property 

acquisition of commercial, industrial property. Accordingly, MDE's Brownfields Site Assessment and 

Voluntary Cleanup Programs (VCP) may provide valuable assistance to you in this project. These 

programs involve environmental site assessment in accordance with accepted industry and financial 

institution standards for property transfer. For specific information about these programs and eligibility, 

please contact the Land Restoration Program at (410) 537-3437.

Cecil County found this project to be consistent with their plans, programs, and objectives.

Harford County found this project to be generally consistent with their plans, programs, and objectives, 

but included certain qualifying comments summarized below. This project is showing potential impacts 

to 100-year floodplains (and floodways), tidal and nontidal wetlands and their buffers, and the Critical 

Area. Any development that occurs in the floodplain area in unincorporated Harford County would need a 

Floodplain Authorization. All impacts must meet Chapter 131 of the Harford County Code to meet the 

County’s Floodplain Management Program and Critical Area regulations. The commitment to the 

construction of the long-proposed pedestrian bridge from Harford County to Cecil County, preferably 

from Havre de Grace to Perryville, is now, at hand. Harford County firmly believes the approval of this 

badly-needed, new railroad bridge crossing over the Susquehanna River should be contingent upon coapproval of the pedestrian crossing. Without the approval and financial commitment at this time, Harford 

County fears this pedestrian crossing is doomed for good, putting an end to any hope of this very essential 

connection. The completion of the long-awaited land trail on both sides of the River with a pedestrian 

connection from Havre de Grace to Perryville will result in an economic resurgence for this region. Better 

yet, a pedestrian crossing connecting both sides of the Lower Susquehanna River Trail would provide a 

total package of benefits for both communities including public health, recreation, and economic growth, 

and a source of community pride and identity. Instead of focusing on why it cannot be built, the various 

government agencies should be focused on making the pedestrian crossing
5

The revised (grammar and punctuation only) comments of the Maryland Depatment of Planning follow 

below.

The project would improve rail-transportation mobility in the State by replacing the existing Susquehanna 

River Rail Bridge between the Town of Perryville and the City of Havre de Grace. Improving passenger 

and freight transportation addresses State’s multi-modal transportation need and supports Maryland’s 

transportation, economic and environmental goals. The Project is consistent with the Maryland Economic 

Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Policy. The project also complies with the Priority Funding

Area (PFA) Law. In March 2016, the project received the exception approval from the State’s Smart 

Growth Coordinating Committee as the required by the Priority Funding Area Law. 

The following are specific comments on the Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Report. It would strengthen the Environmental Assessment by providing the summary information from

the Pedestrian and Bicycle Hazard and Security Assessments Study. The Maryland Department of

Planning suggests the following editing changes be made to the sections related to State smart growth and 

the PFA law. 

 

Page 4-2: 

SMART GROWTH INITIATIVE

Maryland’s Smart Growth Initiative 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 in previously-undeveloped areas, 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. These goals and visions serve as guiding principles for local 

comprehensive plans and promote developments in locally designated and state-supported growth areas to 

discourage urban sprawl and adverse impacts on rural and environmentally sensitive areas. The 1997 

Priority Funding Areas Law directs state funding for growth-related infrastructure to Priority Funding 

Areas, providing a geographic focus for state investment in growth areas. The project study area is 

almost entirely within Priority Funding Areas (see Figure 4-2). 

Page 4-13:

PUBLIC POLICY

The Build Alternatives are consistent with local, regional, and statewide planning. The Environmental 

Assessment (EA) and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation and Project Programmatic Agreement regarding the 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge are generally consistent with Maryland’s Smart Growth Initiative. The 

Proposed Project would improve rail transportation mobility that addresses the State’s multi-modal 

transportation needs, as well as, supports the State’s transportation, economic and environmental goals. 

As discussed above, the vast majority of the study area is within Priority Funding Areas. However, any 

proposed project with greater than five percent of the project study area located outside of the PFA 

boundary requires a project exception under the PFA law. The Project Team met with the Smart Growth 

and Neighborhood Conservation Coordinating Committee on March 9, 2016 to request an exception 

approval for PFA law compliance. Based on this meeting, the Committee voted to approve this exception 

to the PFA law requirements due to the proposed undertaking being a growth-related project involving a 

commercial or industrial activity, which due to its operational or physical characteristics, must be located 

away from development [per the Annotated Code of Maryland §5-7B-06(a)(iii)3].
6

Maryland Depatment of Planning continued

Page 20-13

OTHER AGENCY COORDINATION

The Project Team presented the project to the Smart Growth Coordinating Committee to request an 

approval of an exception under the Priority Funding Area (PFA) law in March 2016. The Smart Growth 

Coordinating Committee is responsible for reviewing and commenting on the compliance of growthrelated projects as stated in the PFA law. The purpose of this meeting was to review the project’s

introduction and background section, 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 

located outside of the Priority Funding Area. 

The Maryland Historical Trust stated that the Federal Rail Administration is working with the 

Maryland Historical Trust and other involved, consulting parties to complete the historic preservation 

review of the undertaking under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The parties are 

negotiating a formal Programmatic Agreement to set forth the process by which FRA will ensure 

compliance with Section 106 and resolve the undertaking's effects on historic properties as project 

planning proceeds.

Questions or concerns? Contact Bob Rosenbush, Maryland Depatment of Planning,

Phone: 410-767-4487 or via e-mail at

bob.rosenbush@maryland.gov







































































Jelena Matic <jmatic@akrf.com>

[51154] Susquehanna Bridge Project Follow­up

1 message

Alan Snyder <alan@cas­advisors.com> Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:16 AM

To: Kevin McDermott <kevin.mcdermott@amtrak.com>

Cc: Jeffrey Konrad <jkonrad@hntb.com>, Family <bchrealty@aol.com>, brandon.bratcher@dot.gov, Dianne Klair

<diannek@havredegracemd.com>, info@susrailbridge.com

Kevin,

It was good to meet you last Thursday at the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project meeting in Perryville, MD. As I

expressed in the meeting, I am very concerned about the impact that the bridge project will have on 600, 604 and 605

Water Street in Havre de Grace, MD. I am especially interested in the distance of the bridge from the property line of

600 Water Street, the placement of the bridge piers and the new route for Otsego Street.

It is important that the concerns of the local property owners, especially those that will be directly impacted, be taken

into consideration before the design is finalized. I am formally requesting that I participate in the design discussions that

are occurring with the town of Havre de Grace.

For the record, I have also attached a letter than I sent to the Federal Railroad Administration on July 18, 2016. All of

the concerns expressed in the letter remain valid and have not been addressed. I would like for them to be incorporated

into your thoughts and plans as you move the project forward so that they can be fully addressed.

Please let me know the logistics for the next design meeting with the Town of Havre de Grace.

Thank you,

Alan Snyder

Alan Snyder

CAS Advisors

(m) 571­237­7099

Amtrak Bridge Concerns ­ FRA Letter 7­18­16.pdf

2161K
Bike and walk access on the bridge

1 message

Rick Kappler <rickk@sunsetforest.com> Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 4:16 PM

To: Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project <info@susrailbridge.com>

Please build bike and pedestrian access on the new bridge or don’t build a 

new bridge at all.

RE: RESCHEDULED! The Public Outreach 

Information Session will now occur on Thursday, 

March 23.

Rick Kappler <rickk@sunsetforest.com> Mar 14

to Susquehanna

Please build the pedestrian and bicycle access on this bridge or don’t build the new bridge at 

all. Period.

Pedestrian and bike access

Rick Kappler <rickk@sunsetforest.com> Mar 3

to info

Dear Maryland,

Will the new bridge have pedestrian and bike access? An 80 mile detour into 

Pennsylvania to safely get to the other side from Perry Point is not acceptable. 

Pedestrian and bike access is about emergency access.

Rick
Pedestrian access on the new Susquehanna bridge

Kappler, Richard' via Susquehanna River Bridge <51154@akrf.com> Mar 1

to info, info

Will the new railroad bridge have pedestrian and bicycle access? If not, how do people 

safely walk, ride a bike, or take a wheelchair from Havre de Grace to the train station?

Rick

New bridge for trains and trails

Rick Kappler <rickk@sunsetforest.com> 12/23/16

to info

Will the new bridge have pedestrian and bicycle access? If not, what is the purpose of 

making a new bridge? There is an 80 mile detour to Pennsylvania in order to safely cross 

the river.

Think about it.

New pedestrian and bike access

Rick Kappler <rickk@sunsetforest.com> 11/22/16

to info

Dear Amtrak and others,

What kind of pedestrian and bicycle access will the new bridge have?

Currently, there is an 80 mile detour to Columbia, Pennsylvania in order to cross 

the river. Will the new bridge have paths, benches, and lookout spots on both 

sides of the bridge? It takes a very long time to wait for a taxi in Perry Point and 

it is not pleasant to ride a bike with many cars on the highway bridge.
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project

Appendix F

Additional Correspondence and Outreach

May 2017























July 18, 2016

Mr. Michael M. Johnsen, Acting Division Chief

Environmental & Corridor Planning, Office of Railroad Policy and Development

Federal Rail Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Consulting Party Comments: Susquehanna Rail Bridge

Effects Assessment for Historic Architectural Resources

Dear Mr. Johnsen:

We are grateful for the opportunity to review and provide comments for the 

Susquehanna Rail Bridge project. We believe this to be the most significant 

capital project to impact our community, heritage area and byway for the past 

110 years. Further, it is our position that this project will significantly impact the 

communities of Havre de Grace, Perryville and surrounding areas for the next 

100+ years or so; therefore, we all need to get it right.

The Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway Inc. (LSHG) is a non-profit 

organization who administers a state certified heritage area and state scenic 

byway. The above project is within the boundaries of both, therefore the 

following comments reflect our opinion as to consistency or not with both the 

heritage area and byway plans. The activities of the LSHG and all other state 

certified heritage areas is supervised by the Maryland Heritage Areas Authority 

(MHAA), an independent unit of state government that oversees the 

implementation of local management plans within a system of certified heritage 

areas. Heritage area certification requires the legislative adoption and 

maintenance of the area management plan and its incorporation into local 

master plans.

In accordance with the Maryland Heritage Areas’ statute (Financial Institutions 

Article, Title 13, Subtitle 11, Annotated Code of Maryland), state government 

agencies are required to cooperate and coordinate within certified heritage 

areas to assure compatibility of their actions with the management plan for the 
heritage area. I have enclosed the program guidance for state units (Attachment 1), and hereby 

request a compatibility review and consultation on the following topics:

1. Architectural design of the bridge; Over-pass rail bridges and retaining wall 

design; 

2. Impact mitigation on the Havre de Grace historic district/ Perryville historic 

resources; specifically, the Abraham Jarrett Thomas House (HA-790) which was 

left out of the study;

3. The proposed road network and gateway into two national trail systems, a 

proposed national scenic byway through the historic towns of Havre de Grace 

and Perryville;

4. Elimination of the 1866 bridge piers; and

5. Reestablishment of a bicycle / pedestrian river crossing that existed from 1866-

1943 between Perryville and Havre de Grace on the abandon piers.

General Comments:

We have reviewed and support the comments provided by the City of Havre de Grace and the 

Town of Perryville specifically with regard to their request for participation in the architectural 

design related to the materials used for the bridge piers, overpass and retaining walls. We join 

them in expressing our desire to collaborate and ultimately achieve compatibility with minimal 

negative community impact. 

The loss of the stone undergrade bridges will have a major impact on the “character” that the 

railroad imparts to the community. Their unique character, which is an iconic American 

feature, is part of the “draw” for railroad enthusiasts. Additional renderings of what will 

replace these undergrade bridges should be provided. It is unclear if you propose to emulate 

the existing stone in pattern and color.

Based on the proposed bridge height, this report states that the Martha Lewis will no longer be 

able to travel north to Port Deposit and Susquehanna State Park. Is bridge clearance the only 

limitation now and in the future? How does this movement restriction impact the use and 

operation of our “floating museum”. What comments have you received from the Martha 

Lewis? What mitigation efforts will you offer the vessel? 

Additional renderings of proposed changes should be included in the report so there is some 

record of what is expected to occur. The consulting parties will likely offer additional 

comments once visual representations are provided.

 
Page by page comments:

Page/Section Summary / Comment or Request

1-5; paragraph 3 Information used to prepare this report will also be used in the 

development of an Environmental Assessment (EA).

The LSHG wishes to review baseline information and have the opportunity to consult 

and comment on the EA. 

1-6, paragraph 1 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.

Outreach, information and input should also be sought from state and federal elected 

officials given the size, scope and financial support needed for this project. 

Page 1-8, paragraph 4 Approach Structures: This will require extending the culvert at 

Lilly/ Lewis Run crossing.

Lilly run is the source of city-wide flooding problems during certain weather conditions. 

The City of Havre de Grace commissioned the Lilly Run Improvement Plan (May 9, 2007) 

and filed a Join Permit Application to MDE in March of 2010. It appears that the culvert 

referenced in the project may have an impact on the plan as it is near the Oak 

interlocking MP63.5. Additionally, The Harford County Board of Education has selected 

the adjacent parcel for the construction of a new Havre de Grace High School. 

Remediation efforts for Lilly Run are part of the over-all high school construction plans. 

Design is complete and construction is pending the availability local funding to match 

State of Maryland funds. See the diagram on the next page. Consultation with the City 

of Havre de Grace and Board of Education capital planning division is necessary. I’m 

happy to direct you to the appropriate personnel.
Page 2-1, paragraph 3 MHT approved the list of consulting parties

After review of this document, we recommend that the following organizations be 

permitted to provide technical input: Havre de Grace Historic District Commission, 

Havre de Grace Main Street Inc., Harford and Cecil County Archeological Society, 

Captain John Smith National Historic Trail office, and the Chesapeake Conservancy.

Page 2-1, paragraph 6 Project should have a strong historic transportation theme.

We strongly agree and recommend interpretation of American Indian trails; the Kings 

highway; ferry boat routes, canal routes, rail and vehicle crossings that all occurred 

within the project area. The King’s highway was a roughly 1,300-mile (2,100 km) road 

laid out from 1650 to 1735 in the American colonies. It was built on the order of Charles 

II of England who directed his colonial governors to link Charleston, South Carolina and 

Boston, Massachusetts. Today in this area, it follows portions of MD Rt. 7 (Old Post 

Road) and crosses the Susquehanna at Susquehanna Lower Ferry (modern day Havre de 

Grace at the American Legion and Perryville Rodgers Tavern). 
Page 2-2, last paragraph Phase IA Archeological Assessment has been completed.

The LSHG requests the opportunity to review and provide comments on this document 

as it has not been made available to the consulting parties. Given the sensitivity of this 

information, we request the opportunity to consult with the Maryland Commission of 

Indian Affairs.

Page 3-1, paragraph 2 Initial European Contact (1600-1650)

It is well documented, and archeological evidence shows, that the project area had 

human presence during the Paleo-Indian periods (13,000-7,500 B.C.) with habitation 

during the late Archaic and Early Woodland Periods. Specifically, Garrett Island is a 

documented American Indian settlement. It is a serious over-site to begin a description 

of the area’s history in European context, thus excluding thousands of years of human 

activity. The minor references that have been made are not area, but region specific. It 

is our recommendation that further investigation be conducted in this area and at such 

time we request the opportunity to consult with appropriate parties and review any 

additional information as it relates to this project.

Page 3-3, paragraph 2 John Rogers Ferry

The Harford County site of the ferry (opposite Rodgers Tavern in Perryville) is at the 

present day American Legion. 

Page 3-3, paragraph 4 Garrett Island trading post – additional important information
Garrett Island is the only rock island in the tidal waters of the Chesapeake and in 1622 

was awarded to Edward Palmer as part of a land grant by King James I of England. In 

1637, it was established by William Claiborne as a trading post and the 1643 Proprietary 

Government of Maryland (now the Maryland General Assembly) ordered its fortification 

and on it built Fort Conquest. Garrett Island was the first settlement in Cecil County and 

once home to John C. Paca, grandson of William B. Paca signer of the Declaration of 

Independence and Governor of Maryland. We request this additional significant 

information be included in this report.

Page 3-4 paragraphs 1-2 Agricultural – Industrial Transition Period (1815-1870)

The National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom: The underground railroad 

played a role in our local history. The Perryville Railroad Ferry and Station Site has been 

evaluated by the National Park Service and has been deemed the site as making a 

significant contribution to the Underground Railroad. Details are discussed in the 

attached article (Attachment 2) on Amtrak’s website, A History of America’s Railroad, 

http://history.amtrak.com/blogs/blog/exploring-underground-railroad-heritage-sites

Page 3-4 paragraph 3 Industrialization and Modern Period: Railroad

Reference to the 1866 Susquehanna Bridge is given little significance; however, it was 

used for pedestrian and vehicular travel between Perryville and Havre de Grace linking 

the northeastern corridor of the United States from 1866 - 1943. This double-decker 

bridge pre-dates the US Route 40 Hatem and I-95 Tydings Bridges.
In 1943, as the United State entered into WWII, scrap medal was scarce, therefore the 

double-decker bridge was sacrificed for re-use to make 60 tanks for our national 

defense.

The stone piers ID # HA-836 (Maryland Historic Site Survey), designated in the Lower 

Susquehanna Heritage Greenway Management Plan as architectural resources, are an 

important reminder of the perils of war and community sacrifice. (Attachment 3)
The stone piers should be maintained and repurposed for a pedestrian crossing in 

accordance with the Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway Management Plan. This 

project is described in-depth throughout the LSHG plan, therefore we are requesting 

consultation on this issue in accordance with the guidance document provided.
Page 3-4 paragraph 4 Industrialization and Modern Period: Railroad

Reference to the Wiley Company should also include that 32 tunnel sections for the I-95 

tunnel under Baltimore Harbor, each of which was 320 feet long by 82 feet wide by 40 

feet deep was made on site in Port Deposit.

Page 4-3 and 4-4; Properties considered not eligible for NR

I have attached a list of historic properties in Perryville and Havre de Grace from the 

LSHG Management Plan. Each property listed meets the State of Maryland standards 

for historic property income tax credit. This list should be reviewed and compared with 

those identified in this assessment. (Attachment 4) 

Please explain why the 43 structures in Perryville that were evaluated were deemed not 

eligible for designation. In subsequent appendices it is noted that the reason for not 

including part of Perryville in the National Register was that the structures lacked 

sufficient material integrity. It would be helpful if this was noted in the main text and an 

explanation of sufficient material integrity was provided.
Property item # 70 – Havre de Grace train station ruins. This site is specifically listed in 

the LSHG Management Plan master capital project list for re-development on or near 

the original platform. The goal is to compliment the Perryville station on the north side 

with a Havre de Grace station on the south side. Details can be provided upon request. 

Page 4-5 Identification of cultural resources eligible for NR

It is notable that two architectural resources listed as significant for protection in the 

LSHG Management Plan are not listed in this assessment:

1. The Abraham Jarrett Thomas House (HA-790) at 501 St. John Street, Havre de 

Grace was not evaluated. A copy of the Maryland Historic trust site survey is 

attached (Attachment 5)

2. Old railroad bridge pilings (HA-836). A copy of the Maryland Historic trust site 

survey is attached (Attachment 3).

The LSHG requests consultation and further review of these sites for action and 

mitigation of adverse effects. A list of the National Register of Historic Places properties 

within the heritage area is attached for review. (Attachment 6) 
Page 4-7 Havre de Grace Architectural Resource Map (Figure 5)

This map should be updated to reflect individual properties instead of lumped into a 

“district”. It should be similar to the Perryville map (Figure 6).

Page 49, paragraph 4 Havre de Grace Historic District

It appears that the integrity of the district in totality is heavily weighted against the 

significance of individual sites, therefore different standards are applied to Havre de 

Grace and Perryville. The characterization of the district as having “suffered from a loss 

of architectural integrity, along with some modern intrusions” seems to influence the 

valuation of your assessment. The LSHG requests that more work be done on individual 

sites provided from our management plan.

Page 4-11 Havre de Grace Historic District Photo Key (Figure 8) 

This map illustrates the varied styles of architecture found in the historic district; 

however, it is not representative of the properties listed in my Attachments 4 and 6. 

Updates should be made or a separate map included. 

Page 4-12 Photo 8

This photo is labeled the American Legion and former Lafayette Hotel which is correct; 

however, it is also the Abraham Jarrett Thomas House (HA-790) at 501 St. John Street. 

This property is historically significant and has not been properly identified or reviewed. 

As noted earlier, a copy of the Maryland Historic trust site survey is attached 

(Attachment 5).

Page 4-13 Photo 10

It is unclear why this photo is listed to show a house that has been moved. It has been 

verified that the house is still there. 

Page 4-15 Photo 14

This is the first permanent Roman Catholic Church in Havre de Grace. Previously a small 

framed mission church, it was built in what is now Mt. Erin Cemetery overlooking the 

City of Havre de Grace. The mission church operated from 1840-1847. The church 

pictured in photo 14 was erected of Port Deposit granite in 1847 and operated until 

1908 when St. Patrick’s moved to its current location on corner of Congress Avenue and 

Stokes Street. This property should be evaluated given the age, history, architectural 

design and proximity to the rail project although it is briefly referenced on pages 4-25 

and 4-26 and in Figure 22.
The connecting parcel known as was the rectory for St. Patrick’s Catholic Church. This 

property is located at 425N. Stokes Street (HA-1175) was built in 1862. A copy of the 

Maryland Historic trust site survey is attached. (Attachment 7). This property should be 

evaluated given the age, history, architectural design and proximity to the rail project.

Page 4-26 and 4-27, references to Freedom and Centennial Lanes

Havre de Grace was a primary destination on the eastern route of the Underground 

Railroad in Maryland. Slaves were able to ferry across the Susquehanna from Havre de 

Grace to Perryville in route to safe sites above the Mason Dixon line in the free states of 

Pennsylvania and New York. Freedom and Centennial Lanes and undergrade bridges 

(proposed to be replaced) honor the paths that slaves took to freedom and the people 

of Havre de Grace that offered aid and comfort. It is our recommendation that further 

investigation be conducted in this area to determine the relationship to the 

Underground Railroad. If additional information is uncovered, the LSHG requests the 

opportunity to review and consult with the appropriate parties on how this might 

impact the project.

In October of 2014, Amtrak announced the acceptance of the Perryville Railroad Ferry 

and Station Site into the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom. See 

Attachment 2.

Page 4-31 Principio Furnace

Joseph Whitaker built a Mansion House on property in 1836. It is used as an 

interpretative site for the history and culture of the Iron Works. The Mansion should be 

evaluated for architectural significance to the area and additional information should be 

included in this assessment. 

Page 4-33 Existing Railroad bridge, adjacent granite pilings and 9 undergrade bridges. 

It is noted in this report that the railroad bridge, granite pilings and 9 undergrade 

bridges have been evaluated and determined not to be eligible for National Register. 

The bridge HA-1712 (Attachment 8) and pilings HA-836 (Attachment 3) are eligible for 

state designation. All are listed as important resources within the LSHG Management 

Plan therefore we are requesting consultation on this issue in accordance with the 

guidance document provided.

Furthermore, the dismissal of the idea to re-use the granite pilings for a pedestrian 

crossing or scenic overlook is in direct conflict with the LSHG Management Plan and 

various river-crossing initiatives. Additionally, it denies these communities the ability to 

regain the lost connection between Havre de Grace and Perryville that was used for 77 

years. 
In 2002, the Maryland Department of Transportation conducted the Susquehanna River 

Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Feasibility Study. A copy of the report is available upon 

request. Among the long-term recommendations was a pedestrian bridge between 

Havre de Grace and Perryville. Recently MDTA implemented one of the study’s nonbridge alternatives by permitting bicyclists on the Rt 40 Hatem Bridge.

It is our belief that the existing abandoned piers could be re-purposed and / or 

segments salvaged and incorporated into a new pedestrian bridge. The pedestrian 

bridge could be constructed at the appropriate height to permit navigation or have a 

cantilever or drawbridge design. Alternatively, the second span of the “new railroad 

bridge” can be designed to accommodate a pedestrian path like on the Amtrak Bridge in 

Portland, Oregon, Harper’s Ferry, Virginia and Cologne, Germany. See next page.
Photo credit: Amtrak passenger train shares bridge with trail over Willamette River, 

Portland, Oregon; photo by Stuart Macdonald, August, 2008
Harper’s Ferry, Virginia

Cologne, Germany 
We have determined that community mitigation is necessary, should all of these 

resources be demolished as planned. In addition to actions listed, we asking for a reevaluation of the materials used for the bridge piers, overpass and retaining walls. Form 

line concrete may be inconsistent with the historic character of the community. 

We would like to work with you to develop a sufficient interpretative, recreation and 

educational plan for the project area. We believe there are substantive themes such as 

transportation paths and trails that can address American Indian, ferry, canal, rail, 

vehicular and pedestrian movement. 

Page 5-4 and Pages 5-11 – 17 The Undergrade Bridges

Existing and proposed renderings should be developed and shared with the consulting 

parties for input.

Page 5-6 and 5-7 Photo 46 and 49

We recommend the design style of arched piers with girder approach with main arch 

span to be architecturally consistent with the Rt 40 bridge and existing structures.

Page 5-19 Lilly Run Undergrade Bridge

See previous comments concerning Lilly Run Improvement Plan and construction of a 

new Havre de Grace High School.

Page 5-21 Alternative 9A or 9B

After review of the design plans provided with this report and the potential property 

impact graphic for both alternatives, it is critical that the consulting parties be provided 

with more details to properly evaluate the impact. The chart on page 5-21 illustrates 

the distance from each building to the track for both alternatives; however, I would like 

to see a chart that shows the distance from all eight properties /clusters to the tracks 

for both alternatives. There is discussion in this section of moving the tracks closer to 

historic structures, but there is no explanation of why this relocation was deemed to 

have no impact on the structures. Depictions or examples from other areas showing 

what is proposed would be helpful in understanding potential impact 

The visual and noise effects of moving the tracks 44 feet closer to Rogers Tavern is a 

concern. The graphic depicting the retaining wall is helpful in understanding the visual 

impact. A stone facing wall would likely match the historic character of the area.
In contrast, we have utilized pictometry to determine that the abandoned pilings are 

between 172.7 fee and 205.6 feet from the closest new rail line. This is more than 

sufficient distance for a pedestrian crossing. It will be interesting to contrast the 

proximity to effected private properties.

Page 5-25 

Additional information on how the use of stone does not meet current engineering 

design standards should be provided. Given that it is used internationally as a reliable 

building source, was the determination base upon cost, policy or agency preference? 

 

 Page 5-27

Additional study is needed on the potential loss of these sites. Are any of these 

properties listed on the Harford County or State of Maryland registry of historic 
properties? The LSHG is requesting additional information and evaluation of each site 

so that a determination can be made. What community mitigation is proposed? Should 

these properties be removed from the Havre de Grace Historic District?

Page 5-30

The LSHG supports the Town of Perryville’s request to participate in the architectural 

design and materials used in the retaining wall. The materials selected should be 

consistent with and compliment the architectural design of Rodger’s Tavern. At this 

time, we have concerns over the use of concrete form liner that emulates stone. 

Natural stone may be a better alternative due to the scale and proximity to Rodgers 

Tavern.

Page 6-1 Summary Recommendations

Can you provide this chart electronically so that we can respond to each adverse effect 

with a summary of our above comments and recommendations? We will expedite the 

return to that completed document.

Page 6-3 Mitigation measures

We concur with the measures listed; however, the LSHG wishes to work with the 

consulting parties to develop a sufficient interpretative, recreation and educational plan 

for the project area. We propose that the plan will address input submitted from all 

consulting parties. We believe a community mitigation plan is necessary and should be 

developed by the community consulting parties priority to construction permit 

approval. 

Finally, Underneath the existing rail bridge on the Havre de Grace side is a stone sign that reads 

“Havre de Grace”. The stone used in this sign was re-purposed during the addition to Havre de 

Grace City Hall in 2002. Originally those stones were part of a set of exterior columns and were 

mined locally. It is my hope that when the sign is demolished the stone will be salvaged and 

re-used for a similar purpose. 
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments. We look forward to working with you 

as a consulting party and as we fulfill out statutory heritage area obligation.

Please feel free to contact me at 410-808-6118 or at maryann@upperbaytrails.com if you 

would like more information or explanation of these comments.

Sincerely,

Mary Ann Lisanti

Executive Director
Maryland Heritage Areas Authority Program Guidance 

Coordination between State Units and 

Certified Heritage Area Management Entities 

Introduction 

The Maryland Heritage Areas Authority and the Maryland system of recognized and 

certified heritage areas were established in 1996 by Chapter 601 (House bill 1 ), 1996 

Laws of Maryland (Financial Institutions Article, Title 13, Subtitle 11, Annotated Code 

of Maryland- the heritage areas statute). This legislation is designed to promote historic 

preservation and areas of natural beauty in order to stimulate economic development 

through tourism. Heritage areas are discrete geographic areas or regions with a 

distinctive sense of place embodied in their historic buildings , neighborhoods, traditions , 

and natural features. They may be rural or urban places, where private ownership is 

anticipated to predominate but where development can be creatively guided to attract 

tourism. 

The Maryland Heritage Areas Authority (MHAA), an independent unit of State 

government created by the heritage areas statute, oversees implementation of this heritage 

preservation and tourism initiative. The Authority is housed in the Maryland Department 

of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) and is provided administrative staff 

by DH CD's Division of Historical and Cultural Programs . 

The statute establishes a process for heritage areas to become recognized and certified by 

meeting certain criteria, including the development of a heritage area management plan. 

Heritage area management plans must set forth the strategies, projects, programs, actions, 

and partnerships that will be necessary for an area to achieve its goals. The purpose of the 

management plan is threefold: 

• to provide a strategic action blueprint for coordinating the many collaborative 

efforts required to develop a successful heritage area; 

• to enable the key stakeholders to reach consensus on the roles each will play in 

implementation of the management plan; and 

• to determine the optimum investment of public resources necessary to trigger the 

significant private investment commitments of dollars, energy, and programmatic 

support that will make the heritage area sustainable over time. 

If the Maryland Heritage Areas Authority approves the management plan, the heritage 

area is designated as a Certified Heritage Area (CHA) and becomes, in shorthand, a 

"heritage enterprise zone." Certified Heritage Area benefits include eligibility for grants 

and loan assistance for acquisition, development, public interpretation, and programming, 

as well as tax incentives for the rehabilitation of non-designated historic buildings and 

non-historic buildings in active tourism use. In addition, State government agencies are 
MHAA Program Guidance 

Coordination Between State Units and 

Certified Heritage Area Management Entities 

Page 2 

required to cooperate and coordinate within CHAs to assure compatibility of their actions 

with the management plan for the heritage area. 

This Program Guidance offers suggested strategies for CHA management entities and 

State Units to fulfill their respective responsibilities under the statute. The MHAA 

encourages CHA management entities and State Units to develop effective working 

relationships and partnerships that foster open communication, cooperation, and 

coordination. Through coordinated planning efforts, State Units and CHA management 

entities can help ensure that the actions of State Units are developed and implemented in 

an appropriate manner that not only meets the needs and goals of specific State Unit 

activities, but also are consistent with the strategies and interests of the relevant CHA. 

Background 

The heritage areas statute establishes specific responsibilities for State Units and defined 

roles for the CHA management entities and :MHAA when State Units conduct or support 

activities affecting a CHA. Specifically, Financial Institution Article § 13-1112 (b) states 

that: 

(b) Units of State Government that conduct or support activities affecting a 

CHA shall: 

1) Consult, cooperate, and, to the maximum extent feasible, coordinate their 

activities with the unit or entity responsible for the management of each 

certified heritage area ; 

2) To the maximum extent practicable , carry out the activities of the unit in a 

manner that is consistent with the approved management plan for the 

certified heritage area; and 

3) When conducting a review of State funded, licensed , or permitted 

activitie s under Article 83B, § § 5-617 and 5-618 of the Code, assure that 

the activities will not have an adverse effect on the historic and cultural 

resources of the certified heritage area , unless there is no prudent and 

feasible alternative. 

In this way, the statute gives CHA management entities formal opportunities to consult , 

cooperate, and coordinate with State Units to facilitate and ensure the consistency of state 

sponsored or supported activities with the approved management plan for a given CHA. 

In addition, the statute provides additional opportunities for CHA management entities to 

participate as consulting parties in the state historic preservation revi ew process 

established under the Maryland Historical Trust Act of 1985, Article 83B, §§ 5-617 

through 5-618 , Annotated Code of Maryland (Article 83B), when State Units are 

conducting or sponsoring activities within CHAs. 
MHAA Program Guidance 

Coordination Between State Units and 

Certified Heritage Area Management Entities 

Page 3 

The processes outlined in the heritage areas statute encourage, but do not mandate, 

preservation of a heritage area's historical, cultural, and natural resources and consistency 

with approved heritage area management plans. Sometimes there is no way for a needed 

project to proceed without some effect on a heritage area management plan or heritage 

area resources. Such effects may be either beneficial or adversarial. The review does, 

however, ensure that a heritage area's goals and strategies are factored into State Unit's 

planning and decision making processes. 

This Program Guidance recommends mechanisms for CHA management entities and 

State Units to fulfill their respective responsibilities under the three items specified in the 

heritage areas statute, and to coordinate those responsibilities with the Article 83B 

consultation process, when applicable. This document is intended to serve as general 

guidance. The Authority encourages CHA management entities and State Units to 

develop more detailed procedures for cooperation, coordination, and consultation 

relevant to their particular areas of interest and program goals and objectives. State Units 

may choose to include such procedures as part of the State agency program statements 

required by the heritage areas statute (Financial Institution Article§ 13-1112 (a)). State 

Units required to prepare program statements detailing actions in the areas of planning, 

development , use, assistance, and regulation that support and assist the establishment and 

management of certified heritage areas include the Departments of Housing and 

Community Development, Business and Economic Development, Natural Resources, 

Transportation, and General Services and the Commission on Higher Education. 

Roles and Responsibilities 

The heritage areas statute identifies responsibilities for State Units and roles for the CHA 

management entities for consultation, coordination, and cooperation. Consultation does 

not mandate a specific outcome. Rather, it is the process of seeking consensus about 

coordinating activities, ensuring consistency of State Unit activities with the approved 

management plan, and minimizing project effects on historic properties within CHAs. 

The consultation process is a negotiation conducted between the State Units and CHA 

management entities, and other appropriate parties. 

State Units: State Units are responsible for initiating the consultation process with 

Maryland heritage area management entities. The extent of consultation for a specific 

program or project will vary depending upon the State Unit's planning process, the nature 

of the action, and its potential to impact heritage resources of the CHA. In developing 

procedures for consultation, State Units should take advantage of existing mechanisms 

for sharing information, such as the Maryland Department of Planning's State 

Clearinghouse. Through the consultation process, State Units will acknowledge 

responsibility for effects resulting from their activities within heritage areas and 

accountability for their decisions. 

Certified Heritage Areas: The CHA management entity must determine how actively it 

wishes to participate in consultation with State Units for given programs and projects. 
MHAA Program Guidance 

Coordination Between State Units and 

Certified Heritage Area Management Entities 

Page4 

As a consulting party in this process, CHA management entities are entitled to share their 

views, receive and review pertinent information, offer ideas, and consider possible 

solutions together with the State Unit and other consulting parties. The heritage areas 

statute confers consulting party status on the CHA management entity only. Heritage 

area stakeholders and partners may participate in the consultation process if invited 

jointly by the CHA management entity and the State Unit. 

As a consulting party , the CHA management entity has a role to share information, 

comments, and recommendations with the State Unit regarding the effects of a proposed 

activity on heritage resources of the CHA and the consistency of the proposed action with 

the approved CHA management plan. The State Unit should take into account the 

comments and recommendations of the CHA management entity in its decision making 

process. Based on the comments provided by the CHA management entity, the State 

Unit is expected to carry out its activities to the maximum extent practicable in a manner 

that is consistent with the herit age area management plan. 

Please note that the CHA management entity is not required to participate in the 

consultation process. However, failure by the CHA management entity to consult with 

the State Unit once the State Unit has attempted to initiate consultation in good faith may 

limit future opportunities for the CHA management entity to influence project outcomes. 

Applicability - Determining State Unit and Certified Heritage Area Involvement 

To determine whether a given State Unit must consult with the CHA management entity, 

the State Unit and CHA management entity must first determine: 

1) Whether the activity constitutes an action or program conducted or supported by a 

State Unit; and 

2) Whether the State Unit activity (action or program) is located within a CHA or 

may affect a CHA. 

State Unit Action: If CHAs are concerned about a proposed State activity and whether 

the MHAA may be asked to resolve any specific dispute, the CHA management entity 

must first determine whether a State Unit is involved. Will a State agency fund or carry 

out the project? Is a State permit or license needed? The Authority is authorized to 

resolve disputes regarding activities within heritage areas if a State Unit action is 

involved, so confrrming State involvement is a necessary fust step. 

If it is unclear whether the State is involved in a project, the CHA management entity 

should contact the project sponsor to obtain additional information and to inquire about 

State involvement. The CHA management entity then may write to the agency to request 

a project description, ask about the status of project planning , ask how the agency plans 

to comply with the consultation , cooperation , coordinatio n, and other requirements under 

the heritage areas statute, and voice concerns. CHA management entities should keep the 
MHAA Program Guidance 

Coordination Between State Units and 

Certified Heritage Area Management Entities 

Page 5 

Maryland Heritage Areas Authority advised of their interest and contacts with the State 

Unit. 

Certified Heritage Area: In order for State Units to meet their consultation requirements 

under the statute, they must determine the CHA's boundaries within Maryland and review 

the approved management plan for the areas. The Maryland Historical Trust's website 

www.marylandhistoricaltrust.net lists under its Heritage Tourism section the current 

CHAs, contact information , and links to CHA websites. State Units should contact those 

CHAs to obtain copies of the approved management plans and establish contacts with the 

CHA management entity. Heritage area boundary GIS layers are available from the 

Maryland Historical Trust upon request; contact Jennifer Cosham at 410-514-7649. 

Specific Coordination Requirements 

Cooperation and Coordination: Two requirements of the heritage areas statute require 

that: 

(b) Units of State Government that conduct or support activities affecting a 

certified heritage area shall: 

(1) Consult, cooperate, and, to the maximum extent feasible, coordinate 

their activities with the unit or entity responsible for the management 

of each certified heritage area; 

(2) To the maximum extent practicable, carry out the activities of the unit 

in a manner that is consistent with the approved management plan for 

the certified heritage area. 

Financial Institutions Article, § l 3-l 112(b) (1) and (2) 

When a proposed activity entails any State Unit involvement (including financial 

assistance , permits, licenses, or other activities that may affect a certified heritage area), 

the heritage areas statute requires consultation between the agency ( or its designe e) and 

the heritage area management entity to evaluate whether the activity is consistent with the 

approv ed management plan for the CHA and to develop measures to avoid, reduce, or 

mitigate any adverse effects the activity is expected to have on the goals and strategies 

outlined in the management plan. 

The State Unit conducting the activities must assure that those activities are consistent 

with the heritag e area goals or strategies provided that it is practicable to do so. In this 

case, "practicable" is defined as capable of being done with currently available or 

reasonably obtainable means, resources, methods, technologies, and practices. Given a 

range of options , a State Unit must select an alternative that is consistent with a CHA 's 

management plan unless no alternative is practicable. 
MHAA Program Guidance 

Coordination Between State Units and 

Certified Heritage Area Management Entities 

Page 6 

When the State Unit concludes that an action may affect a CHA management plan, the 

State Unit should contact the CHA management entity and provide written notification 

and description of the proposed action. The State Unit should also offer its assessment of 

how the action may affect the CHA's goals and strategies and the extent to which the 

action is consistent with the CHA's approved management plan, and request input from 

the CHA management entity. The CHA management entity should provide the State Unit 

with its comments regarding the effect State Unit action may have on heritage area goals 

and strategies. 

When the State Unit and the heritage area management entity determine that an action 

may be inconsistent with the heritage area management plan, both parties will consult to 

develop measures to resolve the inconsistency . Consultation may include other invited 

parties (such as local governments, owners of affected properties, or affected groups) 

who have a legitimate interest in the implementation of the heritage area management 

plan. Through the consultation process, the parties should seek to resolve issues of 

concern and ensure consistency of the action with the approved management plan. 

The resolution of inconsistencies of the proposed action with the approved management 

plan may result in the negotiation and execution of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

that specifies the measures the State Unit will ensure are carried out in order to resolve 

issues of concern and ensure consistency of the action with the approved management 

plan. Each MOA is developed on a project specific basis. 

Proiect Review Under Article 838: A third requirement of the heritage areas statute 

requires that: 

(b) Units of State Government that conduct or support activities affecting a 

certified heritage area shall: 

3) When conducting a review of activities under Article 838, §§ 5-617 

and 5-618 of the Code, assure that the activities will not have an 

adverse effect on the historic and cultural resources of the certified 

heritage area, unless there is no prudent and feasible alternative. 

Financial Institutions Article, § 13-l l 12(b)(3) 

When a proposed project entails any State Unit involvement (including financial 

assistance, permits, or licenses), it is subject to review under Article 83B, §§ 5-617 

through 5-619. This historic preservation law requires the involved State Unit to consider 

the effects of the proposed project on significant historic properties, including 

architectural and archeological resources. Part of the review process involves 

consultation between the agency ( or its designee) and the Maryland Historical Trust 

(Trust) to identify and evaluate historic properties that may be affected by the project and 

to develop measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate any adverse effects on significant 

historic properties. When the project may affect historic properties located within a 
MHAA Program Guidance 

Coordination Between State Units and 

Certified Heritage Area Management Entities 

Page 7 

CHA, the review process should also involve the relevant CHA management entity as an 

invited party in the consultation efforts. 

The Trust annually reviews approximately 1500 actions of State Units for their effects on 

historic properties. These projects comprise a wide range of activities including actions 

undertaken by State Units (such as transportation and park improvements or other state 

facilities) and actions that are funded , permitted, or licensed by State Units (such as 

housing rehabilitation, community development activities, sewer and water 

improvements, school facilities, and more). While the Trust typically finds that the vast 

majority of projects have no effect or at least no adverse effect on historic properties , 

adverse effects are sometimes unavoidable given project needs, priorities , and 

constraints . Through the State project review process, the Trust works with State Units 

and other involved parties to seek solutions that balance project needs and historic 

preservation objectives in the best interests of the State and affected historical and 

cultural resources . 

The State Unit conducting the activities must assure that those activities will not 

adversely affect resources located within a CHA that are eligible for listing in the 

Maryland Register of Historic Properties 1 unless there is no prudent and feasible 

alternative to carrying out the activity as proposed. In this case, ''feasible" refers to the 

constructability of a project - whether or not it can be built using currently known 

construction methods, technologies , and practices. The term "prudent" refers to how 

reasonable the alternative is - in essence, whether or not it makes sense in terms of cost, 

public safety, community disruption, and other factors. Given a range of options, a State 

Unit must select an alternative that avoids impacts on a CHA's historical and cultural 

resources unless there is no alternative that is prudent and feasible. This review only 

applies to historic and cultural resources in the CHA but does not apply to natural 

resources and other resources within the CHA. 

When the State Unit and the Trust determine that an action may adversely affect 

Maryland Register-eligible resources, both parties will consult to develop measures that 

will avoid, reduce, or mitigate the adverse effect. Consultation may include other invited 

parties (such as local governments, owners of affected properties , or affected groups) 

who have a legitimate interest in the project or affected resources . The State Unit should 

invite the heritage area management entity to be a consulting party in the resolution 

process. However, it is up to the CHA management entity to decide whether it chooses to 

participate. 

Typically , the resolution of adverse effects results in the negotiation and execution of a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that specifies the measures the State Unit will 

ensure are carried out in order to avoid , reduce, or mitigate the project's adverse effects 

on Maryland Register -eligible resour ces. Mitigation measures may include actions such 

1 Properties are eligible for listing in the Maryland Register of Historic Properti es if they are listed in or 

eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Properti es. 
MHAA Program Guidance 

Coordination Between State Units and 

Certified Heritage Area Management Entities 

Page 8 

as recordation and documentation of important resources, rehabilitation and preservation 

of resources in accordance with professional standards, public education and 

interpretation, recovery of data from archeological sites, or other steps. Each MOA is 

developed on a project specific basis. The State Unit should invite the CHA management 

entity to participate in the consultation process when the project may adversely affect 

historic properties in the CHA, and may invite the entity to be a signatory party to the 

MOA if the entity has defined roles and responsibilities under the agreement. 

When the State Unit concludes that an action may adversely affect Maryland Registereligible resources within a CHA, the State Unit should contact the CHA management 

entity and provide written notification and description of the proposed action. The State 

Unit should also offer its assessment of how the action may affect the CHA's Maryland 

Register-eligible resources. The CHA management entity should provide the State Unit 

with its comments regarding Maryland Register-eligible resources that may be relevant to 

the project. Through the consultation process, the parties should seek to resolve issues of 

concern. The CHA management entity may be invited to be a signatory or concurring 

party to any Memorandum of Agreement developed to resolve the adverse effects of an 

action on Maryland Register-eligible resources in the CHA. 

Resolving Disputes and Appeal Mechanism 

The Maryland Heritage Areas Authority is required to resolve any disputes that are 

submitted to the Authority by the affected CHA management entity in connection with 

the consultation process under the heritage areas statute. Disputes arising as a result of 

the Trust's review of State activities should be resolved through the consultation and 

resolution process specified in Article 83B. The management entity of the CHA may not 

request Authority involvement in such disputes until either consultation under Article 

83B is satisfactorily resolved and a Memorandum of Agreement is executed, or 

consultation is terminated. 

Examples of disputes that may arise and be brought by the CHA management entity to 

the Authority for resolution include: 

• failure of a State Unit to comply with the procedures required under Article 83B, 

including failure of a State Unit to consult with a CHA management entity, and 

failure of a State Unit to consult, cooperate, and coordinate their activities with a 

CHA management entity; 

• lack of agreement between a State Unit and a CHA management entity that the 

proposed State Unit activity will have adverse effects on a heritage area 

management plan; 

• lack of agreement between a State Unit and a CHA management entity that there 

are practicable means to carry out a State Unit activity in a manner consistent with 

a heritage area management plan; 
MHAA Program Guidance 

Coordination Between State Units and 

Certified Heritage Area Management Entities 

Page9 

• lack of agreement between a State Unit and a CHA management entity that there 

are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed State Unit activity. 

The heritage areas statute empowers the Authority to review and resolve such disputes 

and outlines in the broadest terms how the Authority shall exercise this power. The 

Authority by regulation has adopted procedures to manage the dispute resolution process 

(COMAR Title 14, Subtitle 29, Chapter 5). These procedures permit, but do not require, 

the Authority to delegate conduct of the initial hearing to an Administrative Law Judge 

(ALJ) at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), who then submits to the 

Authority proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and a proposed 

decision. Based on these submittals, the Authority then decides whether to accept, reject, 

or accept with modification those fmdings, conclusions, and decision. 

The heritage areas statute also identifies a limited appeals process through the Office of 

Administrative Hearings should the CHA management entity or the State Unit involved 

in the dispute be dissatisfied with the Authority's resolution . Third parties have no 

formal standing in either the initial hearing or appeals process. The Authority's dispute 

resolution procedures authorize OAH to decide appeals of the Authority's decision. 

Alternatively, in specific cases and at the Authority 's discretion, the Authority may 

consult directly with State Units involved in a dispute with a heritage area management 

entity to clarify the responsibilities of State Units under the heritage areas statute. The 

Authority may also consult directly with a State Unit when the Authority has questions or 

concerns about a State Unit action that appears to be inconsistent with heritage area 

management plans. This consultation may include a meeting with the Authority to allow 

the Authority to hear from interested local parties as well as State Unit representatives. 

Conclusion 

This Program Guidance recommends a framework for cooperation, coordination, and 

consultation between State Units and CHA management entities to meet their respective 

roles and responsibilities under the heritage areas statute. The consultation process 

should be based on flexibility, good faith effort, and the open exchange of information 

and ideas. For project-specific coordination, State Units should incorporate relevant 

heritage area responsibilities into the historic preservation review process under Article 

83B. State Units and CHA management entities should work to develop more specific 

procedures for consultation that meet their respective program needs and interests. 

Through coordinated planning efforts, State Units and CHA management entities can 

help ensure that actions and programs are developed and implemented in an appropriate 

manner that not only meets the needs and goals of the State Unit activity but also are 

consistent with the strategies and interests of the affected CHA. 
7/19/2016 Exploring Underground Railroad Heritage Sites- Amtrak : History of America 's Railroad ~ltf-J. 

Exploring Underground Railroad Heritage Sites -Amtrak: 

History of America's Railroad 

February 2, 2015 

Black History Month provides additional opportunities to highlight contributions by African -Americans to our 

national history and culture. Throughout the month , Amtrak is celebrating with various events and exhibitions at 

locations across the country. 

Amtrak is proud that in October 2014 a site on railroad property near Perryville, Md., was accepted into the 

National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom , a program of the National Park Service (NPS). 

Perryville is located on the busy Northeast Corridor (NEC) between the stops at Aberdeen, Md., and Newark, 

Del. 

C£RTif!CATE OF ACCEPTANc~ 

Pevryville,R,a,ily()-CW/ f evry ~ 

Statto-rv S i:t~ 

• 

Tbc N:nionaJ P-atk Scn•icc h.as cn lu.ar.cd this SITE as m:1king 2 

,i~,nificam conoi bu1ion 10 chc undcnuaoding o( the Uodtrgro und R:1Hro2d 

io Aroeric-an history and it mtttJ the requittmcnts for inctusior:1 in t.hc 

N,tion:>I Uod<rground R:ail,osd Network to Ftt tdo m 

Oune Mi Jkf, Nukm.11 l>mc:ram M~mi:« 

N'tewod,; w, f'rttdolll. lu1ioNJ Pd Scrticc 

October 14, 2014 NCT\\OllK m FRE£1)0 M 

The Underground Railroad was a network for those with or without assistance who used resources at hand to 

escape slavery and find a means to head north to the free states or Canada during the antebellum years . The 

NPS established the Network to Freedom to connect more than 500 local historic sites, museums, 

archives and interpretive programs related to the Underground Railroad . 

The Perryville Railroad Ferry and Station site is located close to where the eastern end of the Susquehanna 

River Rail Bridge joins the embankment carrying the tracks. Since colonial times, Perryville and Havre de Grace. 

its sister town located on the opposite bank , have constituted an important crossing point at the meeting of the 

Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay. In the late 17th century, what is now Perryville was known as 

Lower Ferry in recog nition of its import ant role in the local transportation network. 

http://history.amtrak.com/blogs/blog/exploring-underground-railroad-herit age-sites 1/8 
7/19/2016 Exploring Underground Railroad Heritage Sites -Amtrak: History of Amer ica's Railroad 

PW&B Railroad advertisement , 1879. Illustration by Charles 

T. Baker, courtesy of the Library of Congress. 

By 1838, the Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad Company (PW&B) had constructed a rail line 

connecting its namesake cities. The one gap was at Perryville, where steam -powered ferries were used to 

move rail cars across the wide river. The wooden pier on the Perryville side was located just south of the current 

rail bridge. Increased traffic towards the end of the Civil War mandated the construction of a bridge to link the 

two sections of the railroad , and the new structure opened in 1866. The PW&B Perry ville depot, a small wood 

structure, was located close to the eastern end of the bridge. In 1880, the railroad replaced the bridge 's wooden 

trusses with stronger iron spans .

1 

Following a tussle with the rival Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, the Pennsylvan ia Railroad (PRR) gained 

control of the PW&B in 1881; with the purchase , the PRR boasted complete control of a route between Jersey 

City (opposite Manhattan) and the nation's capital. At the dawn of the 20th century , the PRR constructed a new 

Susquehanna River Rail Bridge. Completed in 1906, the multi-span, moveable rail bridge measures 

approximately 4,200 feet long . The stone piers of the first bridge are still visible in the water and on land . 

The bridge is now owned by Amtrak and is used by intercity, commuter and freight trains. The Federal Railroad 

Administration, Maryland Department of Transportation and Amtrak are currently undertaking a study to 

examine future refurbishment or replacement of the span to improve capa city, trip time and safety for all rail 

operators . 

http://history.amtrak.com /blogs/blog/exploring-underground-railroad-heritage-sit es 218 
7/19/2016 Exploring Underground Railroad Heritage Sites -Amtrak: History of America's Railroad 

Building the first rail bridge over the Susquehanna River. Image from Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper (Dec. 

22, 1866), courtesy of the Library of Congress. 

The Perryville site has been added to the Network to Freedom because numerous enslaved persons have been 

documented as using the railroad and ferry to journey northward to free states and Canada. One of those 

freedom seekers was famed abolitionist, thinker and writer Frederick Douglass , who later in life recounted the 

details of his 1838 escape from slavery in Maryland via the newly built railroad and ferry. 

Borrowing identification papers from a free African-American friend who was also a sailor, Douglass dressed the 

part and boarded a train in Baltimore just as it was leaving . He recalled: "It was ... an act of supreme trust on the 

part of a freeman of color thus to put in jeopardy his own liberty [by lending his papers] that another might be 

free .. . Had I gone into the station and offered to purchase a ticket, I should have been instantly and carefully 

examined, and undoubtedly arrested." 2 

http://history.amtrak.com /blogs/blog/exploring-underground-rai lroad-heritage-sites 3/8 
7/19/2016 Exploring Underground Railroad Heritage Sites - Amtrak: History of America 's Railroad 

Frederick Douglass , c. 1850-1860. Image courtesy 

of the Library of Congress. 

As the train neared Havre de Grace, the conductor came through to check tickets and the papers of free 

African-Americans. Douglass described it as "one of the most anxious [moments] I ever experienced." 3 After he 

had crossed the river and boarded the train for Philadelphia , he recognized a ship captain for whom he had 

recently worked in Baltimore sitting on the southbound train. Luckily, in the bustle of the moment , Douglass was 

not discovered . 

In addition to the Perryville site, a 70 mile segment of the Keystone Corridor between Philadelphia and 

Lancaster, Pa., is also included in the Network to Freedom. Much of this historic rail corridor was originally 

owned by the Philadelphia and Columbia Railroad , which began operations in 1834 and connected Columbia , 

Pa., located on the Susquehanna River, with Philadelphia . The railroad was the easternmost segment of the 

state-owned Main Line of Public Works , a series of rail lines and canals that offered a transportation route 

across the commonwealth 's southern tier. 

Beginning around 1835, African-Am erican lumber merchant s used boxcars fitted with secret false-end 

compartments to hide escaping slaves, many of whom arrived in Columbia on their way to Philadelphia, where 

they were cared for by the city's pro-abolitionist Vigilant Committee and assisted in their journey s northward. By 

hiding on the journey to Philadelphia , fugitive slaves avoided slave catchers who searched for runaways in the 

hopes of claiming financial reward s from owners. 

http://history.am tr ak.com/bl ogs/blog/explori rg-undergr ound-rail road-heritage-sites 418 
7/19/2016 Exploring Underground Railroad Heritage Sites - Amtrak : History of America 's Railroad 

Across its national network, Amtrak serves dozens of communities with strong ties to Underground Railroad 

heritage, including homes that served as places of protection for those seeking freedom and archival 

repositories whose documents tell their stories. Below we explore a handful of communities with sites and 

landscapes related to the Underground Railroad. Please keep in mind that many of these are on private 

property and may only be viewed from a distance or with permission of the owner. 

Rouses Point depot 

Located on the shore of Lake Champlain , Rouses Point is the last stop in the United States before the 

Adirondack crosses the border into Canada ; therefore, the town serves as a U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection inspection checkpoint. Amtrak passengers use a platform next to the 1889 Delaware and Hudson 

Company depot, which now serves as a history and welcome center . Rotating exhibits, lectures and 

performances trace the history and culture of the state's Northern Tier region. 

Due to its border location, Rouses Point was a vital stop on the Underground Railroad for formerly enslaved 

persons seeking freedom in Canada . It specifically served the "Champlain Line," an escape corridor 

between Albany, Troy, N.Y. and Quebec Province. Rouses Point included busy rail and dock facilities serving 

trains and steamboats from across New England and the upper Mid-Atlantic . According to the Network to 

Freedom, "Maryland runaway Charlotte Gilchrist entered Canada [via Rouses Point] on a train from the 

Champlain Valley in 1854 ... ln the winter of 1861, Mrs. Lavinia Bell escaped from Texas to Rouses Point where 

a Canadian Underground Railroad agent paid her fare to Montreal." 

Portland depot 

Maine's largest city gained Amtrak service in December 2001, connecting it with Boston and intermediate 

communities in southeast Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts . The start of service followed on more 

than a decade of advocacy by grassroots transportation groups. 

Approximately three miles east of the station , the 1828 Abyssinian Meeting House stands near Eastern 

Cemetery and offers views out to Portland Harbor. The Network to Freedom states that the meeting house was 

the "historical, religious, educational and cultural center of Portland's 19th century African American population ." 

Member s of the congregation were involved with the Underground Railroad and the abolitionist movement. Like 

http://history.amtrak .com/bl ogslblog/explor ing-underground-rai I road-heritage-sites 518 
7/19/2016 Exploring Underground Railroad Heritage Sites - Amtrak : Histor y of Amer ica's Railroad 

Rouses Point, Portland was a hub for fugitive slaves heading to Canada. Congregation members actively hid 

and transported runaways. The building no longer serves a religious purpose. 

Northampton, Massachusetts (Served by the Vermonter) 

Northampton Union Station 

As 2014 came to a close, Amtrak began stopping at Northampton and Greenfield, Mass ., towns located along 

the Connecticut River in western Massachusetts. Service was made possible by the rehabilitation of a rail line 

along the waterway, which allowed the Vermonter (Washington-St. Albans , Vt.) to be rerouted westward. At a 

future date, the train will also stop at Holyoke. 

Prior to the Civil War, Northampton became a center for the abolitionist movement, with some homes serving as 

stops on the Underground Railroad . Following the Mill River northwest of the city center and the campus of 

Smith College, one encounters the village of Florence . In 1841, a utopian community called the Northampton 

Association of Education and Industry (NAEI) was established in Florence with the purpose of promoting 

self-improvement, racial equality, freedom of worship and other societal ideals . 

Members included Sojourner Truth, who was born into slavery in New York but escaped to freedom. Truth, 

along with African -American abolitionist David Ruggles, is estimated to have helped more than 600 enslaved 

persons reach freedom. William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass were among the cooperative 's frequent 

visitors. To support itself, the association owned and operated a silk mill. After five years together, the 

comm unity dissolved itself in 1846, but its members remained active promoters of their various causes. 

One part of the NAEI property was the Ross Homestead, home to member Austin Ross after 1845. The 

Network to Freedom notes that Austin Ross and NAEI member Samuel L. Hill have been identified as local 

agents of the Underground Railroad , and the Ross Homestead operated as a safe house for escaping slaves. 

Northampton is also home to the David Ruggles Center for Early Florence History and Underground Railroad 

Studies. Researchers can take advantage of reproductions of 19th century newspaper articles, booklets, 

narratives and maps relating to the regional abolitionist movement. The Ruggles Center has developed a 

walking tour of important Underground Railroad sites in Florence . 

httpJ/history.amtrak .com/blogs /blog/exploring-under ground-railroad-heritage-sites 6/8 
7/19/2016 Exploring Underground Railroad Heritage Sites - Amtrak : History of America's Railroad 

Cincinnati. Ohio (Served by the Cardinal) 

Cincinnati Union Terminal 

Much like Rouses Point and Portland were important international border crossings, Cincinnati played a 

significant role in the Underground Railroad due to its location on the Ohio River, whose waters separated 

Kentucky and Ohio-slave state and free state , respectively. 

Approximately four miles northeast of magnificent Cincinnati Union Terminal is the near East side neighborhood 

of Walnut Hills. Harriet Beecher Stowe , author of Uncle Tom's Cabin, spent part of her young adulthood in the 

area, which from its high vantage point offered sweeping views of the Ohio River Valley. The Beecher family 

occupied the Italianate style house from the 1830s to the 1850s while Harriet's minister father, Lyman Beecher, 

served as president of Lane Theological Seminary . The school was the scene of various debates over slavery 

in the years leading up to the Civil War. 

According to the Network to Freedom, "In Cincinnati, Harriet Beecher. .. was influenced by activist students at 

Lane Seminary and local abolitionist leaders William Lloyd Garrison and Salmon P. Chase who litigated many 

fugitive slave cases. At one point, she helped her husband transport a fugitive slave along the [Underground 

Railroad] north out of town." 

In 1850, Harriet moved with her husband, Calvin Ellis Stowe, to Brunswick. Maine, where he had gained a 

teaching position at Bowdoin College. While living there, she wrote most of Uncle Tom's Cabin, an anti-slavery 

tome that made her simultaneously one of the most praised and reviled women in an increasingly divided 

nation. 

Today, the Cincinnati home serves as an historical and cultural site focused on the life of Harriet Beecher 

Stowe. Exhibits explore the Beecher and Stowe families and the abolitionist movement in which they played 

important roles. 

Topeka depot 

Kansas found itself at the center of the slavery debate in the mid-1850s when fighting broke out between proand anti-slavery groups who hoped to determine whether the territory would enter the Union as a slave or 

http://history.amtral<.com/blogs/bley;jexploring-underground-railroad-heritage-sites 7/8 
7/19/2016 Exploring Underground Railroad Heritage Sites - Amtrak : History of America 's Railroad 

free state. At a constitutional convention held at Wyandotte, Kan., in July 1859, the representatives finally 

adopted a constitution banning slavery. Two years later, following the start of the Civil War, the constitution was 

approved and Kansas became a state. 

The John and Mary Ritchie House and the site of the John Armstrong House are located in downtown 

Topeka; the Armstrong house stood just a few blocks west of the 1950 Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway 

depot now used by Amtrak. The Ritchies and John Armstrong sheltered escaping slaves , protecting them from 

slave catchers and their owners. According to the Network to Freedom, John Ritchie also served as an 

abolitionist delegate to the Wyandotte Constitutional Convention. 

Check out the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom website for additional information 

about other Underground Railroad heritage sites in towns and cities across the country. 

1 Alan Fox, Images of America : Perryville, (Charleston, S.C.: Arcadia Publishing, 2011 ). Historical information 

about the first rail bridge over the Susquehanna was primarily drawn from this volume. 

2 Frederick Douglass , "My Escape from Slavery," The Century Illustrated Magazine (Nov. 1881), 125-131. 

3 Ibid. 

http://history.amtrak.com /blogs/blogexploring-underground-railroad-heritag~sites 8/8 
-

HA-836 

OLD RAILROAD BRI[X;E PILINGS 

Havre de Grace, Md. 

c. 1866 

These granite pilings are all that remain today of the first bridge 

across the Susquehanna at Havre de Grace; first a Railroad bridge.it 

later became an automobile bridge. 
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST 

HA-8J6 

INVENTORY FORM FOR STATE HISTORIC SITES SURVEY 

DNAME 

HISTORIC Pilings of the First Railroad Bridge across the 

Susquehanna River 

ANO / OR COMMON 

flLOCATION 

STREET & NUMBE R 

Otsego St. at the Susquehanna River 

CITY. TOW N 

Havre de Grace V ICIN ITY OF 

STAT E 

Md. 

DcLASSIFICATioN 

CATEGORY 

_ DISTRICT 

_ BUILOING(Sl 

:if- STRU CTURE 

_ SITE 

_ OBJECT 

OWNERSHIP STATUS 

X-P U BLI C _ OCCUPIED 

_ PRIVAT E _UNO CCUPIED 

_ BOTH _ WORK IN PROGR ESS 

PUBLIC ACQU ISITION ACCESSIBLE 

_ IN PROCESS ]E-YES RESTRICTED 

_ BEIN G CON SI DERED _ YES· UNRESTRI CTED 

_N Q 

DOWNER OF PROPERTY 

NA M E 

CONGRE~IO NAL DIST RICT 

COUNT Y 

Harford 

PRESENT USE 

_AGRIC ULTU RE _ M USEU M 

~OMMERC IA L _ PA:1K 

_ EDUCATIO NA L _ PRIVAT E RESIDEN CE 

_ ENTERTAI NM ENT _ RELIGIOUS 

_ GOVE RNM ENT _S CIENTIFIC 

_ INDUSTR IAL 

_ MI LITARY 

--XR A NSPORT ~ ' IO N 

_QT HER 

Maryland State Highway Dept. Telep hon e# : =-- ~ - --=- -- -- - - -- -=---- - -- - - - -- - STR EET & NUMB ER 

State Office Building CITY. TOWN 

Annapolis - VICINITY OF 

STA TE , Zl.p co de 

IJLOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Liber #: COURTHOUSE. Fo lio # : REGISTRY OF DEEDS. ETC. Harford County STREET & NUMBER 

Main St. CITY . TOWN STATE 

Bel Air Md. 

Ill REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS 

TITL E 

DATE 

DEPOS ITORY FOR 

SURVEY RECORDS 

CJTY. TOWN 

__f EOERAL --STATE _ COUNTY _...LOCAL 

STAT E 
• . 1 --

7'1 ,', - i ,j { 

B DESCRIPTION 

CONDITION 

_ EXCELLENT 

!:'.:.GOOD 

_OETERIORA TED 

_RUINS 

_UNEXPOSED 

CHECK ONE 

_'i)NALTEREO 

-ALTERED 

CHECK ONE 

.!e:'.'.ORIGINAL SITE 

_MOVED DATE __ _ 

_ FAIR 

DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE 

All that remains of the first bridge across the Susquehanna 

River at Havre de Grace are the granite pilings (1866) 

The pilings, perhaps of Port Deposit granite. are about 

20' above water level and about six feet wide. The wide 

sided are on the east and west with the narrow sides to the 

current, The pilings are constructed i ,, two sections; a lighter 

colored more decorative clus:tered block surmounts a massive 

darker base. The piers extend all the'<::"across the river. 

CONTINUE ON SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY 
/ 1 I / N./ ,- '(:_;L., 

,.; -

111 SIGNIFICANCE 

PERIOD AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE·· CHECK AND JUSTIFY BELOW 

_ PREHISTORIC _ARCHEOLOGY -PREHISTORIC _COMMUNllY PLANNING _ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE _ RELIGION 

_ 1400-1499 -ARCHEOLOGY-HISTORIC _ CONSERVATION _LAW _ SCIENCE 

_ 1500 - 1599 -AGRICULTUR~ _ECONOMICS _LITERATURE _ SCULPTURE 

_ 1600 - 1699 _ARCHITECTURE - EDUCATION _MILITARY _SOCIAUHUMANITARIAN 

- 1100 - 1799 _ART .iENGIHHRING _MUS IC _ THEATER 

~1800 - 1899 _COMMERCE _EXPLORATION / SETTLEMENT _ PHILOSOPHY .hRANSPORTATION 

_ 1900 - _COMMUNICATIONS _INDUSTRY _ POUTICSIGDIIERNMENT .J!oTHER (SPECIFY! 

_ INIIENTION t oe.A( ko'sl-oAy 

SPECIFIC DATES I Uo" BUILDER/ARCHITECT 

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 

These granite pilings are all that remain of the first 

bridge across the Susquehanna River at Havre de Grace. 

The evolution of the bridge over the years ls interesting. 

In 1852 the Philadelphia, W1Jlmington and Baltimore Railroad 

began to investigate the possibility of bridging the river, 

since the crossirl«J aided by a hand operated ferry or a steamboat was quite lenghty. In the winter of 1859 railroad 

tracks had been laid across the frozen Susquehanna. By 1866, 

a bridge with wooden spans was opened; the piers having 

been found able to withstand the pressure of water and lee. 

In 1873-75, the wooden spans were replaced with iron and a 

pedestrian walkway was added underneath the bridge. In 1909 

the new bridge built by the Pennsylvania R.R. (who had absorbed 

the Philadelphia, W1llm1ngton and Baltimore R.R.) was opened 

just north of the old bridge. When the new bridge was compl eted, the state required that the old brid g e be reduced 

to the level of the riverbed for safe navigation. Since 

this was a costly project, the R.R. instead sold the bridge 

to some (less than 10) Harford County businessmen for ~100.00 

a pelce. The automobile toll bridge which resulted charged 

$ 1.00 per vehicle,;wagonsstlll used the ferry. Passage on 

the brigde, regulated by a relay stick, was one way. After 

a slow start the bridge became, as the atomobile caught on, 

a huge financial sucess. In 1926, the State Highway Comm1s1on 

bought the bridge and converted it into a double decker 

vehicular bridge, thougt to be one of the first in the country. 

In 1939 the Rt. 40 was built upstream to accomadate the in 

creasing N.Y. to Washington traffic and the double decker 

bridge was closed; in 194 3 it was dismantled and sold as 

scrap iron , .. -- . ·. -

CONTINUE ON SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY. 
IJMAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES 

M.H.T. inventory notes of interview conducted by Jean Ewing 

with Mr. and Mrs. G. Taylor Lyon at their house May 14, 71 

The Harford Directory 1953 p. 150-151 

CONTINUE ON SE~,ARATE SHEET IF NECESS~Y 

II!JGEOGRAPHICAL DATA 

ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY--------

VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION 

LIST ALL STATES AND COUNTIES FOR PROPERTIES OVERLAPPING STATE OR COUNTY BOUNDARIES 

STATE COUNTY 

STATE COUNTY 

mFORM PREPARED BY NAME / TITLE 

oRGANIZATioN Maryland Historical Trust 

Marion Morton-Historic Sites Surveyor DATE May' 77 

sTREET&NuMBER 21 State Circle TELEPHONE 

CITY OR TOWN Annapolis STATE Md. 

The Maryland Historic Sites Inventory was officially created 

by an Act of the Maryland Legislature, to be found in the 

Annotated Code of Maryland, Article 41, Section 181 KA, 

1974 Supplement. 

The Survey and Inventory are being prepared for information 

and record purposes only and do not constitute any infringement of individual property rights. 

RETURN TO: Maryland Historical Trust 

The Shaw House, 21 State Circle 

Annapolis, Maryland 21401 

(301) 267-1438 

PS-1101 
' 

Chapter 11 

Railroads 

WHEN PETER COOPER, the former carriage builder and New York 

merchant, made the first trial run of an American railway train from 

Baltimore to Ellicott's Mills (Ellicott City) on August 28, 1830, inhabitants 

of Harford cheered the great event. This accomplishment demonstrated 

the superiority of steam over motive power of the horse-drawn vehicle. 

Little did they know that the slow, two-hour journey of the Tom 

Thumb would be the beginning of a new era in transportation and that 

Harford County would be one of the first to profit by that bold and daring 

venture. In less than twenty years after the invention of the steam locomotive by George Stephenson, of England, in 1815, a railroad was on its way 

across the southern part of th~county. __ . 

Pennsylvania Railroad 

Plans were begun for the new railroad to extend from Baltimore to 

Philadelphia, but the first step was a line from Baltimore to the Susquehanna River. The road known as the Baltimore and Port Deposit Railroad 

was started from Baltimore in 1834 and by 1836 it was completed as far as 

Havre de Grace. By 1838 a line called the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and 

Baltimore Railroad had been completed to the north and the Baltimore and 

Port Deposit Railroad was taken into the corporation. 

. Many small streams along the route caused construction engineers 

little trouble, as by that date they could build short wooden bridges to 

carry the light trains. The Susquehanna, however, presented not only an 

engin~ering problem, but a financial one. · Trains were therefore ferried 

across the river from 1838 to 1866. This proved to be difficult and slow, as 

the crossing sometimes required one-to-two hours. 

By 1852 the freight and passenger traffic had increased to such an 

extent that engineers began plans for a bridge. It was not until 1866 that 

it was completed and ready for use. The first bridge was erected of wood 

but was gradually replaced with steel during the period from 1873 to 1878. 

This bridge stood the test of time from 1866 to 1939. Its unique history 

has been related in Chapter 9. 

Many interesting stories are told of the difficulties encountered during 

the time the railroad had to use a ferry. Often in winter the ferry boats 

were frozen in at the dock and trains were delayed for hours, and sometimes for days. In 1852 the long, cold winter froze the Susquehanna River 

128 

: -· -~ 

- RAJLROADS 129 

H ' f"I \ ( i' l 'i' 

~ .. 

PAOio bi, Dr. IH.t>id C. Rodg• 

PIERS OF FIRST RAILROAD BRIDGE AT HAVRE DE GRACE 

Built 1866 . Used os rood bridge 1908-1939. 

to a depth of 2 to 3 feet, preventing all ferry service and leaving trains 

halted at the river's edge. Railroad officials overcame this perplexing 

situation by laying tracks across the ice, with trestles for inclines at either 

bank. Freight cars glided down the inclined rails to the ice and were pulled 

by teams of horses to the opposite shore. The horses pulled cars across the 

river by means of ropes in much the same way as a canal boat was pulled 

along the tow path. The cars were pulled up again by the train engines 

waiting on the opposite shore. During the several weeks from January 15 

to February 29, approximately 1,300 cars with a total weight of 10,000 tons 

were hauled across the river. It is significant that none of the eight-wheeled 

cars that crossed this ice bridge was lost and there was no injury to person 

or property. 

The P. W. & B. was absorbed into the Pennsylvania system in 1902. 

In 1908 the present bridge was completed and the original structure was 

converted to a highway bridge and remained in use until 1939. The Pennsylvania line from Philadelphia to Baltimore was electrified about 1930, 

receiving most of its power from the Philadelphia Electric Company, some 

of which came from Conowingo. It was one of the first railroads to convert 

entirely to electric power. 

Baltimore and Ohio Railroad 

While the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad was the pioneer in Maryland 

with its first railroad from Baltimore to Ellicott City, it did not extend its 

~ 

ti .... r'• '° OQ 0-- :::r' ...... r'1" 

~ 

0 (') 

C • 

ti :x tt: !--'• 

Ill I-' ti r'1" Hl 0 0 ::, 

ti 

p. 

~~~~~~--~~~~~-~~~~~---~~~~ 

~ 00 

I.,.) 

0--
'~_.,,· 

~ i 

. I 

·--" 

' 

" . <>-: 

\ 

\ \ 

' \ 

\ \ 

\ \ 

\ 

'\ 

' e•rc \ 

~ 

M 

a> 

d: ' 

:t 

2 

0 ~ "' ~ ....., ..:,- .1 

2 \. 0 

,: r- :s ,...;~ 

~v)~ 2~ 0 g" U) tr" 

4 " "' tl ~ ~ ~ --i~ ~ ! 

I 

I 
I . I 
HA-790 Abraham Jarrett Thomas House 

501 St. John Street 

Havre de Grace, MD 

Well and (background) old RR 

crossing over Susquehanna. 

c. 1894-5 or early 1900's 

Gift from: Mrs. Elise B. Deller 

17b8 Chatham Road 

Camp Hill, PA 17011 

October 27, 1984 

• 
Candidate Historic Properties that may be certified as eligible for the Maryland State Jncome Tax Credit - Havre 

,..- de Grace TIZ 

Havre de Grace - Candidate Historic Properties 

--- -- ·---- - - - - --- ·----- -- ------ - ·--- ,..-- -- -·- -- - ----r -·--- ---- MIHP IMIHP ID'MIHP NO !CLASS iNAME ADDRESS TOWN 

HA-836 

HA-836 "f 

- - _ HA-836 

HA-836 - - HA-836 

HA-836 

HA-836 

HA-836 - HA-836 

HA-836 - -

HA-836 -· HA-836 

HA-798 

HA-815 --

HA-832 

HA-536 - AMTRAK RR Bridge over Union 

.- HA-1712 HA-1712 Susauehanna River Ave.(MD7)&0tseqoSt. Havre de Grace 

Booth Log House (John Handy 

HA-1631 HA-1631 House) Church ville Road (MD 22) Churchville - - Booth Log House (John Handy 

HA-1631 HA-1631 House) Churchville Road <MD 22) Churchville -

HA-113 - HA-112 

HA-544 ----- HA-251 

HA-826 

HA-1108 HA-1108 Gianelli House Erie Street Havre de Grace 

HA-1165 HA-1185 Hawkins House Ontario Street Havre de Grace 

~ - L HA-1184 HA-1184 Gibson Double House !Ontario Street Havre de Grace 

HA-832 ! 

HA-1099 HA-1099 James Hoooer House Ontario Street Havre de Grace 

Abbott's Ice House (Upper 

HA-1182 HA-1182 Chesapeake Bay Yacht Club) Water Street Havre de Grace --·· 

HA-1185 HA-1185 Hawkins House Ontario Street Havre de Grace 

HA-1096 HA-1096 Kitzmiller Apartments Otseao Street Havre de Grace - HA-835 

HA-1175 HA-1175 Old St. Patrick's Recto!}'. North Stokes Street Havre de Grace 

HA-790 - - HA-1104 HA-1104 Cameron -Currier Liverv Stables JN.Stokes&Frariklin Streets Havre de Grace -- -· 

IHA-1109 

Presbyterian Church of Havre de l 

l ___ HA-1109 Grace !Franklin Street - Havre de Grace 

LSHG Management Plan L-2 May 2000 
Havre de Grace - Candidate Historic Properties 

-- -------- - -- ------·--- ----~ -------- 1v11HP IMIHP ID MIHP NO CLASS NAME ADDRESS TOWN 

HA-1166 HA-1166 Ruttledqe House North Union Avenue Havre de Grace 

HA-1158 HA-1158 Mentzer Apartments Franklin Street Havre de Grace ---- HA-797 i 

HA-791 

HA-1174 HA-1174 JoseQh T. Hatem House & Store North Stokes Street Havre de Grace 

HA-1173 HA-1173 Jones House North Stokes Street Havre de Grace ---

---~ HA-1156 jHA-1156!St. James A.M.E. Church Green Street Havre de Grace 

HA-1157 HA-1157 Hecht Hotel Green Street Havre de Grace -

HA-1154 HA-1154 Charshee House Green Street Havre de Grace 

Emory Chapel (Havre de Grace 

HA-1097 HA-1097 Methodist Church) Stokes Street Havre de Grace 

HA-789 I 

HA-788 

HA-792 I 

- - -

Havre de Grace Banking and Trust 

HA-1181 HA-1181 Co. St. John Street Havre de Grace - IHA-1113 --- -- l J-:!A-1113 Old First National Bank BuildinQ St. John Street - Havre de Grace 

~ t orth Washil}gton Street 

HA-794 I -

HA-795 ,___ -

•· -----HA-1123 HA-1123 Newmey_er Building Havre de Grace --

HA-547 

HA-1128 HA-1128 H. Harrison Hopkins House North Union Avenue Havre de Grace -- HA-1167 HA-1167 James Fahey House North Union Avenue Havre de Grace --- HA-1180 HA-1180 Masonic Temple Building North Washinaton Street Havre de Grace 

HA-814 ·---- -- HA-820 

HA-1102 HA-1102 Thompson House North Stokes Street Havre de Grace 

HA-1094 HA-1094 Penninaton House Penninaton Avenue Havre de Grace --- HA-1168 HA-1168 Weber House North Union Avenue Havre de Grace --- HA-816 

HA-801 --

Aledas Dress Shop & The Seville 

HA-1121 HA-1121 Shop North Washinoton Street Havre de Grace 

HA-1179 HA-1179 Ada Asher Buildino North Washingto n Street Havre de Grace 

HA-1114 HA-1114 Bata Shoe Building North Washinaton Street Havre de Gra~ -

---- .____ HA-796 - HA-1164 HA-1164 Quirk House Conoress Avenue Havre de Grace - HA-1169 HA-1169 Correri House South Union Avenue Havre de Grace 

HA-1170 HA-1170 Sutor Apartments South Union Avenue Havre de Grace I --- HA-1171 HA-1171 Mccombs House South Union Avenue Havre de Grace 

HA-553 - HA-1112 HA-1112 Vosburv House South Union Avenue Havre de Grace 

HA-1111 HA-1111 Carver House South Union Avenue Havre de Grace -- -

LSHG Management Plan L-3 May2000 
Havre de Grace • Candidate Historic Properties 

- - ·-·---- -- - -- ·- -- ·- ---- - ·-- -- MIHP IMIHP ID MIHP NO CLASS INAME ADDRESS !TOWN - !Havre de Grace United Methodist S.Union & Congress I 

HA-1125 HA-1125 JChurch Avenue !Havre de Grace 

i jHA-1095 jHA-1095 !Lawder-Wiflis House IConQress Avenue Havre de Grace 

IHA-542 i i 

HA-1129 HA-1129 Carver-Maslin House South WashinQton Street Havre de Grace 

HA-541 I 

HA-540 1-----· - HA-539 

HA-807 

HA-808 

HA-818 . 

HA-1130 HA-1130 Asher House South Wash inqton Street Havre de Grace 

I 

HA-1150 HA-1150 Williams House Bourbon Street - Havre de Grace 

HA-817 ·-- - -· --f- --

HA-1131 HA-1131 Foard Double House South Washinqton Street Havre de Grace - HA-1132 HA-1132 Robert Penninqton House South Washinqton Street Havre de Grace >--

HA-1144 HA-1144 Hewitt House Fountain Street Havre de Grace 

HA-1133 HA-1133 H. Smith House . _ _J_South Washinqton Street Havre de Grace .... HA-1134 l HA-1134 'Neville House !south Washington Street Havre de _~ 

' HA-810 

- HA-1172 HA-1172 Fuller-Mezei Aeartment~ South Union Avenue Havre de Grace 

HA-1107 IHA-1107 Vandiver Mansion South Union Avenue Havre de Grace ---- --- ---- i HA-552 -

===t -·-

HA-1146 HA-1146 Whvte House untain Street Havre de Grace -

H.A-1143 HA-1143 Burns Apartments untain Street Havre de Grace . 

HA-1147 HA-1147 Malin House uth Stokes Street Havre de Grace 

HA-1145 HA-1145 Wardell House Bourbon Street Havre de Grace 

HA-549 -·--

HA-440 1------ -- -~-· 

HA-1135 HA-1135 Fadely House South Washinaton Street Havre de Grace 

HA-811 - -

HA-545 -- I---• -

HA-1136 HA-1136 S. Miller House South Washinaton Street Havre de Grace -- HA-812 -

~ 

HA-1137 HA-1137 Jones Double House South Washinaton Street Havre de Grace --·- HA-1138 HA-1138 Tarbert Double House South Washinqton Street Havre de Grace - HA-1139 HA-1139 White House Farm <Wheeler Ranqe) White House Road Forest Hill 

HA-1116 HA-1116 Putland House South Washinaton Street Havre de Grace ---- HA-1224 HA-1224 Barnes House South Washington Street Havre de Grace 

HA-1223 HA-1223 Manucv House !South Washinaton Street Havre de Grace 

HA-1177 HA-1177 Jacksteit House Market Street Havre de Grace -· 

HA-1187 HA-1187 · DeGroat House Market Street Havre de Grace 

-I---· -

- HA-1127 _.l!:!t-- 1127 Bayou Hotel Commerce & Market Streets lHavre de Grace 

I --- _HA-837 I .. -

LSHG Management Plan L-4 May 2000 
~J Havre de Grace - Candidate Historic Properties 

,,.... 

--- ---~ -- -·-- - - -·----- -- --------------- ~ I MIHP ID MIHP NO I CLASS NAME ADDRESS TOWN 

HA-111 

HA-831 

HA-830 

HA-1167 HA-1167 James Fahev House North Union Avenue Havre de Grace 

HA-1163 HA-1163 Beachlev House Warren Street Havre de Grace -· - HA-1162 HA-1162 Sheaffer House Frank lin Street Havre de Grace -· 

HA-1161 HA-1161 Klair House Franklin Street Havre de Grace 

HA-813 

HA-1105 HA-1105 Parker Mitchell House Franklin Street Havre de Grace 

HA-1159 HA-1159 Tin Front Buildina Franklin Street Havre de Grace ---·· HA-1160 HA-1160 Joseeh Good House and Store Franklin Street Havre de Grace 

Post Office Headquarters (U.S. Post 

HA-1566 HA-1566 Office) North Union Avenue Havre de Grace 

HA-1153 HA-1153 Cook House Green Street Havre de Grace - - HA-1155 HA-1155 Mccomas House Green Street Havre de Grace 

HA-793 

HA-798 

HA-1115 HA-1115 Mclhinnev Buildina -- North Washington Street Havre de Grace 

HA-1750 HA-1750 ---- Maryland House Aoartments Washinaton Street Havre de Grace 

HA-802 ----- HA-537 - HA-1120 HA-1120 A & J Trave l Aaencv North Washinaton Street Havre de Grace 

HA-805 - -

HA-1178 HA-1178 Asher Buildina -· - .. North Washi11_g!Q_n Street Havre de Grace 

HA-543 ·- --- - ·- Borneman Apartments (Havre de i 

HA-1110 HA-1110 Grace Methodist Churctu North Union Avenue Havre de Grace 

HA-544 --· 

HA-1165 HA-1165 Lawder Aoartments Conaress Avenue Havre de Grace 

HA-806 -- -- HA-1151 HA-1151 Keene House Bourbon Street Havre de Grace 

HA-1152 HA-1152 Van Meter House lsou rbon Street Havre de Grace 

-· · HA-809 

I South Union Avenue 

- ----·- HA-548 

HA-1122 HA-1122 Hoke House Havre de Grace - HA-546 - . -· 

HA-1132 HA-1132 Robert Penninaton House South Washington Street Havre de Grace 

HA-822 

Candidate Historic Properties that may be certified as eligible for the Maryland State Income Tax Credit -

Greenway Corridor TIZ (Cecil County): 

LSHG Management Plan L-5 May2000 
Greenway Corridor TIZ (Cecil County) - Candidate Historic Properties 

'--·------ ------· -- ------·----- ---· ·- - ---- -- --- - · MIHP MIHP ID CLASS MIHP NO !NAME ADDRESS TOWN - 474 454 CE-879 CE-0879 Stone Barn Ruin Conowinqo Road (U.S. Rt1) Kilby Corner 

508 440 CE-887 CE-0887 Rowland Plank House Rowlandsville Road(MD338) Rowlandsville 

512 439 CE-885 CE-0885 Rowland House (Dempsey House) Rowlandsville Road(MD338) Rowlandsville 

513 441 CE-788 CE-0788 Hostetter House Rowlandsville Road Rowlandsville 

Mill at Rowlandsville on Octorara 

518 438 CE-42 CE-0042 Creek , site Rowlands ville Rd. (MD338) Rowlands ville 

521 437 CE-882 CE-0882 Rowlandsville Hill House Ramsey Lane Rowlandsville 

Rowlandsville Mill (Davis-Christie 

528 436 CE-789 CE-0789 Mill.Rowland Mitn McCauley Road RowlandsYille 

CE-145 Bridge, McCauley Road over Basin 

532 1031 9 CE-1459 Run (SHA# 091) McCauley Road Conowinoo 

Rowlandsville Iron Bridge over the 

534 435 CE-884 CE-0884 Octoraro Rowlandsv ille Road(MD338) Rowlandsville 

537 434 - ~--= CE-781 --'-- . CE-0781 Christy House Mayse Lane Rowlandsville 

CE-100 Old Harmony Methodist Church I 

' 542 433 6 CE-1006 (Harmonv Chaoel) Dr. Jack Road Rowlandsville 

Concrete Train Bridge over Octoraro 

547 431 CE-883 CE-0883 Creek McCauley Road Rowlandsville ··--- 548 430 CE-881 CE-0881 Rowlandsville Iron Train Bridge Moore Road Rowlandsville 

555 I---- -- ICE-120 

432 4 CE-1204 Basin Run Iron Train Bridge Basin Run Road (MD 338) Rowlandsville 

576 541 CE-46 CE-0046 Hall's Choice Dr. Jack Road Rowlandsv ille 

CE-121 

644 423 7 CE-1217 Doolinq Loa House {Union Hotel) SusauehannaRiYerRd(US222 ) Rock 

694 544 CE-767 CE-0767 Thomas-Holiday House SusauehannaRiverRd (US222) Rock 

CE-122 

746 34 9 ,_g_E-1229 Stump-Smithson House -· Frenchtown Road Bainbridae -

Mt Ararat Manor House 

c...-1§_3 38 CE-142 CE-0142 (Physicks -Water's Housel Mt. Ararat Farm Road Bainbridae 

776 26 CE-525 '---- -· ~- CE-0525 Cokesburv Road Sorina House Cokesbury Road Frenchtown 

Susquehanna River Bridge 

811 7 CE-997 CE-0997 Administration Buildina Pulaski Highway (U.S.40) Perryville - -- ·- Rodgers Tavern (Stevenson's 

824 5 CE-129 . ----------- CE-0129 Tavern) Broad Street & River Road Perrvville 

828 4 CE-244 CE-0244 Perry Point Mill Avenue A Perrv Point 

Perry Point Mansion House (U.S. 

830 3 CE-146 CE-0146 Veterans Hospital) Sixth Street Perry Point 

LSHG Management Plan L-6 May 2000 
Candidate Historic Properties that may be certified as eligible for the Maryland State Income Tax Credit -

_.. Greenway Corridor TIZ (Harford County): 

Greenway Corridor TIZ (Harford County) - Candidate Historic Properties 

------ --- ·----- -..--·-- -- ·-- ·--- ···- --- ----- -- - MIHP MIHP ID MIHP NO CLASS NAME ADDRESS TOWN 

HA-824 

HA-825 -· Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Bridge over 

HA-1782 HA-1782 MD 155 (CSX} Superior Street (MD 155) Havre de Grace 

HA-198 I 

HA-574 

HA-573 

HA-379 

HA-378 

HA-580 --- - HA-579 -- HA-581 

HA-582 -- HA-578 

HA-380 

>--- .. HA-381 

HA-373 

~ 

HA-575 

HA-576 

HA-577 --- HA-377 

HA-374 - HA-375 

HA-1037 HA-1037 Peddler's Run Site upper mill Glen Cove Road Darlington 

HA-1036 HA-1036 Peddler's Run Site, lower mill Glen Cove Road Darlington 

HA-180 - - HA-183 

HA-376 - HA-382 - HA-191 

HA-193 

HA-194 - - - -- HA-195 - HA-195 

HA-195 

HA-195 ---- - HA-195 -- - HA-195 -- ---

t----- HA-192 

HA-196 

_J_ _ - - i HA-197 -· 

LSHG Management Plan L-7 May 2000 
Greenway Corridor TIZ (Harford County) - Candidate Historic Properties 

r----- - - - - --- --- ·-- ·-- --- --- -·-·----. ---- ------------ MIHP MIHP ID MIHP NO CLASS NAME ADDRESS TOWN 

HA-1034 HA-1034 Old road south from Glen Cove Glen Cove Road DarlinQton 

HA-1034 HA-1034 Old road south from Glen Cove Glen Cove Road Darlington 

HA-1034 HA-1034 Old road south from Glen Cove Glen Cove Road Darlinqton 

HA-1035 HA-1035 Glen Cove Road Glen Cove Road Darlinqton - ~ ---- HA-1035 HA-1035 Glen Cove Road Glen Cove Road Darlinaton 

HA-1035 HA-1035 Glen Cove Road Glen Cove Road Darlington 

HA-1035 HA-1035 Glen Cove Road Glen Cove Road DarlinQton - HA-823 

HA-312 ·- HA-4 

The following properties located in the TIZ which are on the National Register of Historic Places are eligible for 

the Maryland Income Tax Credit: 

TIZ - Candidate Historic Properties 

-- - ---- ' ----- ' ---- - -- - SWNRHP SWNRHP ID CLASS ,_ ___ --- 91 127 NR-188 

100 128 NR-1015 

109 131 NR-953 

111 1062 NR-1113 

118 129 NR-196 

122 132 NR-998 

124 130 NR-621 r-----

160 64 NR-164 

161 1059 NR-472 

163 1049 NR-306 

170 45 NR-822 ·-- ·-

176 188 NR-448 -·- 180 1094 NR-795 

182 1095 NR-791 

185 63 NR-1044 --- 195 65 NR-454 

218 183 NR-568 

223 273 NR-1100 

238 1098 NR-381 

243 186 NR-88 

245 185 NR-672 

249 184 NR-314 

261 187 NR-363 

LSHG Management Plan L-8 May 2000 
HA-790 

ABRAHAM JARRETT THOMAS HOUSE 

Havre de Grace, Md. 

c. 1835 

Along with the Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal Lockhouse and t he Concord 

Point Lighthouse, the Abraham Jarrett Thomas House, known as the Lafayette Hotel 

is the town's most prominent landmark. It is a large two and a ha lf story five 

ba y brick bu ilding built ona Georgian plan which has been covered with stucco. 

Situated on the west bank of the Susquehanna River, t he building is on the 

site and per haps t he foundations of the old Ferry House, an inn run in con jun ction 

with t~e old hand operated ferr y boats. 
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST 

INVENTORY FORM FOR STATE HISTORIC SITES SURVEY 

DNAME Abraham Jarrett Thomas House 

HISTORIC 

ANO/OR COMMON 

(lea fayette Hotel) 

.fJLOCATION 

STREET & NUMBER 

501 St, Jahn Street 

CITY. TOWN 

Havre de Grace VICINITY OF 

STATE 

t-iaryland 

IJCLASSIFICATION 

CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS 

_ DISTRICT _P UBLIC .l.oCCUPIED 

~BUILDINGISI .JCl'RIVATE _UNOCCUPIED 

_ STRUCTURE _BOTH _WORK IN PROGRESS 

_SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE 

_OBJECT _IN PROCESS .I.YES : RESTRICTED 

_BEI NG CONSIDERED _ YES: UNRESTRICTED 

_NO 

DOWNER OF PROPERTY 

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 

6 

COUN TY 

Harford 

PRESENT USE 

_AGRICULT U RE _MUSEUM 

_CO MMERCIAL __ PA;ll( 

_EDUCATIONAL _PRIVATE P.ESIOEl'ICE 

X:'.'ENTERTAINM ENT _RELIG :ous 

_GOVERNMENT _ SCIEl'I TIF!C 

_ INDU STRIAL _ TRANSPO'lT ATIO' 

.!'...MILITARY _QTHER 

NAME 

Jasepb J. Davis, Post 49 The American Legion,1n¢'elephone #: 939-0234 

STREET & NUM £!ER ~-==.c...--- -

5QJ St, ,Jabo Street 

CITY. TOWN 

Hayre de Grace - viciNITY oF 

IILOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION 

COURTHOUSE. 

REGISTRY OF DEEDS, ETC. Harford County 

STREET & NUMBER 

CITY.TOWN 

Be) Air 

STATE , Zl.p code 

Man;J aod 2J 078 

Liber #: 311 

Folio #: 58 

STATE 

tdar1J and II REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS 

TITLE 

DATE 

DEPOSITORY FOR 

SURVEY RECORDS 

CITY.TOWN 

_FEDERAL --5TATE _COUN TY _LOCAL 

STATE 
B DESCRIPTION 

_EXCELLENT 

~GOOD 

CONDITION 

_DETERIORATED 

_RUINS 

_UNEXPOSED 

CHECK ONE 

~UNALTERED 

___ALTERED 

CHECK ONE 

X ORIGINAL SITE 

_MOVED DATE ___ _ 

_ FAIR 

DESCRIBE THE PRESENT ANO ORIGINAL IIF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE 

Built in a Hangover Georgian style, 501 St. Jchn Street is a large 

rectangular, detached two and a half story, five bay by one bay brick 

dwellingwith a gable roof, possibly dating fDom the early 19th century. 

The building, now the Joseph L. Davis Post of the American Legion, is 

covered with textured stucco and has a one story cinder block addition on 

the rear. Located between the Susquehanna River and St. John Street . the 

buildin€ faces west toward Legion Square where there is a statue of 

Lafayette, commissioned for the town's Bicentennial celebration. Old 

photographs c. 1920 and 1930 show that the facade is flemish bond while 

the flanks and rear are common bond. The foundations are random rt..bble 

covered with stucco. 

A one story, three bay porch with pillars restinr on a cement floor extends 

across the entire facade supporting a hipped roof. 

Windows are arranged uniformly on the facade; on al l elevations they have 

9/1 light, double hung sash within recessed jam~s. Ac. 1930 photograph 

shows that the windo~s on the facade and south elevation have flat arches 

above them and stone sills and lintels. While there are three windows on 

the first floor, south elevatio~ toriay, the 1930 photograph shows only one 

window slightly off center with the window sash within a deeply recessed 

openine; . Third floor gable end ...-indows contain 6/1 lir-ht sash as do the 

thr ee front and t.,..0 rear dormers. 

The main entrance is in the center bay of the facade; it is framed by 

pilasters supporting an entabliture with a plain frieze. The door contains fifteen raised panels. Other entrances are in the cinder block additior.. 

The building has a gable flank roof, covered with asphalt shingleB, a 

narrow box cornice and a wide molded fascia board on the facade and rear. 

All of the dormers have recessed triangular pediments. Pairs of connected 

end chimneys rise frorr. the r.orth: and south waL.s; like the rest of the 

buildin F , they are covered with stucco. 

Interior: The first floor has one room on either side of a center hall. 

The stairs risin~ to the third floor are on the south wall of the hall. The 

windows framed~;chitrave moldin~· are deeply recessed with wide inner sills. 

The band of molding under the window sills4-rectangular panel is in the 

center. Six panel doors are found thro~~h out the house. The American 

Legion has a Rathskeller in the basement, a large cookin~ fireplace with 

an arched opening is on the north wall of the rear room. There was another 

large fireplace in the adjoining rocm but it has been bricked up. 

CONTINUE ON SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY 
II SIGNIFICANCE 

kA -7f/O 

PERIOD 

.PREHISTORIC 

_1400 - 1499 

_1500-1S99 

_ 1600-1699 

_1700 -1799 

!1&00-1899 

_ 1900 -

AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- CHECK AND JUSTIFY BELOW 

-ARCHEOLOGY-PREHISTORIC 

_ARCHEOLOGY-HISTORIC 

-AGRICULTURE 

..lCARCHITECTURE 

_ART 

..!'.'.'COMMERCE 

_COMMUNICATIONS 

...!'.'.COMMUNITY PLANNING 

_CONSERVATION 

_ECONOMICS 

_ EDUCATION 

_ENGINEERING 

_EXPLORA TIO NI SETTLEMENT 

_INDUSTRY 

_IN\IENTION 

-LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 

_LAW 

_LITERATURE 

_MILITARY 

_ MUSIC 

_PHILOSOPHY 

_POLITICS/GOVERNMENT 

_RELIGION 

_ SCIENCE 

_SCULPTURE 

_ SOCIAL/HUMANITARIAN 

_THEATER 

_ TRANSPORTATION 

_OTHER ISPEC IFYI 

SPECIFIC OATES 

c. 1834 

BUILDER/ARCHITECT 

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 

The Abraham Jarrett Thomas Houseisa two and a half story, five bay brick 

dwelling with a .Elemidtbond facade-now covered with stucco. The building 

and the river front lot on which it is ~ocated figure prominently in the 

Town's history. The early growth of the settlement Known as iiarmerstown, 

Stocketts town,Susquehanna Lower Ferry and finally Havre de Grace was determined by its location on the Susquehanna River a nd the upper Chesapeake 

Bay. Here, tr a velers following the Old Post rload-the major Colonial route 

between the south and Philadelphia crossed the Susquehanna River by ferry. 

Among the early ferry operstcrs was John Rodgers, who seci.;,red a license in 

1776 to operate an "ordinary" at Havre de Grace. Rodgers who bou ght a lot , 

on1 s. washington Street (HA-798)in 1788 on which a dwelling-beleived to have • Pllof'll•• ,.oll been built before 1800 stands today, is better known as t te (c.17 80)•of 

Rodger's Tavern across the river where Geor ge was hin eton was~fre quent vistore 

and as the father of Commodore John Rodgers, the fo under of the American 

Navy. Although the exact location of the tavern run by John Rodger s in Havre 

de Grace is not known, it is logical to assume that it may have stood on 

this site, particularly since we know from t he lan d records that t his land 

was deeded to the Havre de Grace Ferry Co. in lbl8 by william B. Stokes. 

In 1834 the land , comprising ll lots, was sold to Abraham uarrett Thomas , 

for whom the present structure was probably erected, a l thou gh the basement 

may be earlier.A.J. Thomas was a banker a~an early member of St. John's 

Church (rlA-544) . Stevenson Archer ·w. 'illiams in his 11Recollections of Boyhood 

At Medical P..all etc • • " mentions that the Lafa yette Hotel wa.s the Abraham 

Jarrett Thomas house .rhen he was a boy. The, Phi l ade lp hia, #iilrr.ingt on and 

Hal timore Railway later known as the Jal ti more and i~ashi ngtcn Rai l way purchased the propery in 1856 and the building was rt:.n as the Lafa yette Hote l 

until shortly before it tlbame the Post 49, American Legi on head quarters in 

1947 . -. ,. __ r 

Those who pass thrcugh Havre de Grace on the trai n often~ . remar k on t he 

si ght of the old buildin is :.i th the large c hi ~ neys on the river front. The 

mass of the buil ding is s i milar tc t he Wollan ~oubleho use (HA-835 ) a smaller 

dwelling built in an Overhang Geor gian style with lar ge double interior 

end chimneys. Only fo ur buildin gs in Havre de Grace have .tle mi s h bond 

brickwork, The .A.J. 'l'homas House being one cf them althou gh covered with 

stucco. The size of the house (aprc,x. 40' x 30') makes it unusual. as does 

tte presence of a large cookin g fir~place in the basewent. The bu il din ~ deserves further structur· :,l investigation. 

CONTINUE ON SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY 
Williams, Steven.son Archer "Re1798 Tax Assesment-Harford County collections of boyhood at Nedical 

1814 Tax Assesment-.Harford County Hall et~, • · " l 92~ copy at Susquer ~ . ~e-~ ~yre dn ura.ce. Kidwiler, ~lias w. History or navre de Grc ceUThe ~ve In 

Shriver, J. Alexis, Talk Given At the Unveiling of the Historical ~~rker at ~odgers 

Tavern, Perryville, Oct. 15,1932 

CONTINUE ON SE~AR.ATE SHEET IF NECESSARY 

U!JGEOGRAPHICALDATA 

ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY ______ _ _ 

VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION 

LIST ALL STATES AND COUNTIES FOR PROPERTIES OVERLAPPING STATE OR COUNT Y BOUNDARIES 

STATE COUN TY 

-----------------------------------------

STATE COUNTY 

mFORM PREPARED BY NAME / TITL E 

ORGANIZATION 

STREET & NUMBER 

CITY OR TOWN 

Marion l'iorton-Historic ~ites Surveyor 

t•iarylanci Historical Trust 

Annapolis. Maryland 

DATE 

hpri J J 8 , 1977 

TELEPH ONE 

STATE 

The Maryland Historic Sites Inventory was offic iall y created 

by an Act of the Maryland Legislature, to be found in the 

Annotated Code of Maryland, Article 41, Section 181 KA, 

1974 Supplement. 

The Survey and Inventory are being prepared for information 

and record purposes only and do not constitute any infringement of individual property rights . 

RETURN TO: Maryland Historical Trust 

The Shaw House, 21 State Circle 

Annapolis, Maryland 21401 

(301) 267-1438 

PS• 1108 

-.a 
Abraha~ Jarr~tt Thomas House 

311 

Grantor: Havre de Grace 

Josenh L. Davis 

December 1, 1947 

Print anfd Publishing C., Inc. 

Grant e: Post #49, The American Legion, Inc. 

GGB300 September 20, 1946 

Grantors: Michael Fahey anri ~~rr,aret, his wife 

Grantee: Susquehanna Tracing Co. 

DWG 178 

Grantor: 

Grantee: 

i6,ooo.oo 

ALG b 

59 

Baltimore and Nasnington Hailroad 

James i<obinson 

21'-+ 

April 12, 1922 

October?, 1856 

Grantor: Joseph Coudon, executor for Abraham Jarrett Thomas 

Grantee: Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore «ai l road 

Being designated on the cld plat of said town as square no. 245 

and comprising lots ~. t ,lj,18,23 and 28. 

~6,200.00 

rlD 10 

Grantor: Albert Constable, trust <c' e 

Grantee: Abraham Jarrett Thomas 

December 5, lb34 

Equity Case: Dec. 1833 William ~illiams-complainant; Havre de Grace 

F'erry Co., defenc.ant 

52,700.00 Lots-4,8,13,lb,2),2b,33,38,44,5c,56 

With all and singular the Buildings, improvements, advar,ta ges, pri vilid ges, 

rightsways, w&ters, and appurtenances. 

HD l 478 

Grantor: 

Grantee: 

uo,ooo 

willia~ B. btokes 

Havre de Grace Ferry Co. 

lots 4,8,13,18,23,28,33,35,44,50,56 

September 25, 1818 
HA-790 

ABRAHA!"'. JA~ rl.EI'T THOM.AS HOUSE 

Havre de Grace Miscellaneous 1793-1855 

Pringle. Sappington, R.Y. Stokes, et al- purchased 

from William B. Stokes Esq. ten water lots on which stood the 

brick tavern laterly burnt down with the stables now remainthereon and the walls and materials together with the wharf and all 

the said William B. Stokes right of feriage across the river 

Susquehanna. March 17, 1817 

This entry is copied from papers belonging to the Harford 

County Historical Society filed under H de G miscellaneous. 
? I 

-

s. 

. -.,._--2 L 

'-

'., 

17 

r 

..__.,, 

' ../ 

HAVRE DE GRACE, MD. 

SEH HAVR E DE GRACE 15' QUADRANGL E 

N3930- -W7600/7.5 

1953 

PHOTOREVISED 1970 

AMS 5763 II SE SERIES V833 

s 

) 

! 

I 

.HA-7,o I • ' I 'J I 

/ 

I I I 

;:. 

'' 

'I 

I I 

I I 

j ' 

I 

/ 

' ' \ 

\ 

\ 

' \ \ 

\ 

' \ 

,.·· .. ····~ ... 

':..\ : 

• 

' \ \ 

\ 

'\,, 

\ 

\ 

\ 

~ \ 

,_ 

.· ·· . .. '•" :. •. 

./'·, .. 

...... ····,._.\ 

E 



-

pO 

-

-.-Lo 

Cler 

l 

HA-790 Abraham Jarrett Thomas House 

501 st. John Street 

Havre de Grace, MD 

picture taken from a post 

card 

Gift from: Mrs. Elise B. Deller 

1708 Chatham Road 

camp Hill, PA 17011 

October 27, 1984 

.. -~--1 
a , 

Cr---, 

<( , 

1: 

' I 
-

HA-790 Abraham Jarrett Thomas House 

501 st. John Street 

Havre de Grace, MD 

view of back of house taken in 

1922 .. 

Gift from: Mrs. Elise B. Deller 

1708 Chatham Road 

Camp Hill, PA 17011 

October 27, 1984 

~'='~=--

HA-790 Abr·aham Jarrett Thomas House 

501 st. John Street 

Havre de Grace, MD 

view of front of house taken 

in 1922. 

Gift from: Mrs. Elise B. Deller 

1708 Chatham Road 

Camp Hill, PA 17011 

October 27, 1984 

=-----

~~~ .. -~,o,olf 

HA-790 Abraham Jarrett Thomas House 

501 st. John Street 7~0 

Havre de Grace, MD 

picture taken by Mrs. Elise 

B. Deller, June 23, 1984 

Gift from: Mrs. Elise B. Deller 

1708 Chatham Road 

camp Hill, PA 17011 

October 27, 1984 
A-i. -HA 710 - - --
.... 

HA-790 Abraham Jarrett Thomas House 

501 St. John Street 

Havre de Grace, MD 

probable dates, 1894-95 

or early 1900 

Gift from: Mrs. Elise B. Deller 

1708 Chatham Road 

Camp Hill, PA 17011 

October 27, 1984 
Greenway Corridor TIZ (Harford County) - Candidate Historic Properties 

-- --- --·----- ·--·-- -- --- -------- ·---· ---------------- MIHP MIHP ID MIHP NO CLASS NAME ADDRESS TOWN 

HA-1034 HA-1034 Old road south from Glen Cove Glen Cove Road Darlinqton 

HA-1034 HA-1034 Old road south from Glen Cove Glen Cove Road ·- Darlinqton 

HA-1034 HA-1034 Old road south from Glen Cove Glen Cove Road Darlinqton 

HA-1035 HA-1035 Glen Cove Road Glen Cove Road Darlinqton 

HA-1035 HA-1035 Glen Cove Road Glen Cove Road Darlinoton '-- ---- HA-1035 HA-1035 Glen Cove Road Glen Cove Road Darlinoton - -- HA-1035 HA-1035 Glen Cove Road Glen Cove Road - Darlington ... 

HA-823 I 

HA-312 

HA-4 

The following properties located in the TIZ wmch are on the National Register of Historic Places are eligible for 

the Maryland Income Tax Credit: 

TIZ • Candidate Historic Prope rties 

-------- ---------- --- ·---------

§YJNR t!E__ -SWNRljf_l Q_~ LASS 

91 127 NR-188 

100 128 NR-1015 

109 131 NR-953 - - - -- --· 

111 1062 NR-1113 -- --

118 129 NR-196 

122 132 NR-998 

124 130 NR-621 

160 64 NR-164 

161 1059 NR-472 

163 1049 NR-306 

jlQ_ _ 45 NR-822 -- 176 188 NR-448 

180 1094 NR-795 

182 1095 NR-791 

185 63 NR-1044 ---

195 65 NR-454 

218 183 NR-568 

223 273 NR-1100 

238 1098 NR-381 

243 186 NR-88 -- 245 185 NR-672 ·- 249 184 NR-314 

261 187 NR-363 

LSHC Management Plan L-8 May 2000 
HA-1175 

OLD ST. PATRICK'S RECTORY 

Havre de Grace, Md. 

13/ /7 5.!JSOS 

c. 1862 

This two and a half story three bay by two bay f~ame building wit h a 

low hipped roof combines vernacular Greek Revival and Italianate features 

and is nearly square. Now a residence, it was built in 1862 as a rector y 

for St. Patrick's Roman Cat holic. A low granite wall encloses th e 

rectory and the granite foundations of t he church next to it. HA-1109 , a 

dwelling similar to the rectory is a few blocks to t he nort h . 
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST HA-1175 

C 

INVENTORY FORM FOR STATE HISTORIC SITES SURVEY 

HISTORI C Old st. Patrick's Rectory 

ANO/ OR COMMON 

ULOCATION 

STREET & NUMBER 

425 N. Stokes st . CITY. TOWN 

Havre de Grace VICINITY OF 

STATE 

Maryland 

IICLASSIFI CA TI ON 

CATEGORY OWNERSHIP 

_ DISTRICT _ PUBLIC 

Jts u1LDING(S) ..0>R IVATE 

- STRUCTURE _ BOTH 

_ SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION 

_ OBJECT _ IN PROCESS 

_B EING CONSIDERED 

IIOWNER OF PROPERTY 

NAME Mrs John R. Parker 

STREET & NUMBER 425 N. Stokes St. 

CITY.T OWN Havre de Grace 

STATUS 

Ya cC UPIED 

_U NOCCUPIED 

_ WORK IN PROGRESS 

ACCESSIBLE 

_Y ES: RESTRICTED 

_ YES: UNRESTRICTED 

.YNo 

VICINITY OF 

· &LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION 

COURTHOUSE. 

REGISTRY OF DEEDS.ETC. Harford Coun ty 

STREET & NUMBER 

Main st. 

CITY.TOWN 

Be 1 t':..i r , Md. II REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS 

TITLE 

DATE 

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 

6 

COUNTY 

Harford 

PRESENT USE 

_AGRICULTU RE _ M USEUM 

_ COMMER CIAL -. PAilK 

- EDUCATIONA L -~RIVATE RESIDENCE 

- ENTERTAINM ENT _ RELIGIOUS 

_ GOVERNMENT _ SCIENTIFIC 

_IN DUSTRIAL _ TRANSPORTA1 1m J 

_ MILITARY _OTHE R 

Telephone # : 

Md. 

STATe , Z1_p code 

2l0?8 

Liber #: 

Folio #: 

STATE 

JEOERAL -5TATE _COUNTY -1.0CAL 

DEPOSITORY FOR 

SURVEY RECORDS 

CITY.TOWN STATE 
IJDESCRIPTION 

-EXCELLENT 

~ 000 

_ FAIR 

CONDITION 

_ OETERIORATEO 

_ RUINS 

_ UNEXPOSED 

CHECK ONE 

>s_uNAL TEREO 

-ALTERED 

CHECK ONE 

~ ORIGINAL SITE 

_MOVED DATE _ _ _ 

DESCRIBE THE PRESENT ANO ORIGINAL {IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE 

425 N. :tokes St. , is a two and a half storyt three bay wide Italjanate 

frame dwelling on a low stc..,n..:. foundc1ti0n. Located or. N. ::;toke:'5. St . £acing wes t, it was built as a recto r y for st . ;-.:,.trick ' s Roman Cath c:!.ic 

Chu r c h in 1862. The house dnd the former church building next to it 

on the north are both separ2ted fron the street by a low ash lar gr0nite 

wall, the coping llilocks of dhi h ~re five inc~es in lenght and f as t ened 

with two kinds o f iron ;::,ins . The house, uzed as d ;:rivatE: r esiden ce, is 

covered with asbes t 0s sh!1g l es and ?3i~led white with blcick tr:m~ · 

An abov~ grade seven bay verarJa extends across the frrnt and around 

the cnt ire sr:11i th e l ev a t~on . The ve <c.nda h2s a flat roof with a molded 

cornice supported b~ turned and chdnfere<l osts ~nd a fence ,os t balustrade. 

·;1ndows are arc~ngecl evcrly on the fr(nt elevation. Cn th~ fi rst floor 

they contain 1/1 light dotblL h~ng vh jl e thP second story has 6/6 light 

s~sh and th~ s~~ll row 0f attic wind~ws have two lig~l sash . This 

arrargement is consistent through~ ~ t the hoube. 

Th e rn.:,.;in entr;:.nce is i-1 the north bc:1y, front elev:iti cn . ,, ::-ianr·l ed 

door ~i th ~ev2Ied glass !n tne up~cr ~a lf is fr 2med by ~arro~ thr~e 

light side lig hts containing st•ined glo~s and a large three light 

t .r:ansor:1 frorr 1;1hich the stained gl .:1ss has ;--ro bah ly been removed. 

~\ rect, ,n<Jul a r .:,Jdi ti c-n extends f ror' tr e sec ~nd st l""lr:. , south elevation 

- bove the porch; it is <:ither ari olterPd cli el or a bathroom additicr.. 

ThE'- ·house has a low hipped roof v1i t~ a ri-1olJea bo,.. cr-rniee suppo r-t ed 

by paired brackets . The roof, whic~ appuars to be shingled with as,hal ~ has two b r-::.,·k chimneys at the north enc. 

The house has an above grade fr·~t and sjde yards. In the bac~yard 

orE c~nnccted frame outbt...i l dings , st-:;bles and i;,. garage . 

CONTINUE ON SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY 
II SIGNIFICANCE 

l-tA-1175 

PERIOD AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- CHECK AND JUSTIFY BELOW 

_ PREHISTORIC __ARCHEULUliY-PREHISTORIC _CO MMUNITY PLANNING _LANDSCAP E ARCHITECTURE _"RELIGIO N 

_1400 - 1499 -ARCHEOLOGY-HISTORIC _C ONSERVATION _LA W _SCI ENCE 

_ 1500 -1599 __AGRICULTURE _ECONOMICS _L!TE RATURE _SCU LPTURE 

_ 1600 - 1699 ~R CHITECTURE - EDUCATION _M ILITARY _SO CIAVHU MA NITARIAN 

_J 700-1799 _ART _E NGINEERING _MUSIC _T HEATER 

.!!'.°1 800 - 1899 _COMMERCE _EXPLORATIONISETILEMENT _P HILOSOPHY _ TRANSPORTATION 

_1900- _COMMUNICATIONS _I NDUSTRY _POLITICS / GOVERNMENT _O THER (SPECIFY) 

_INVENTION 

SPECIFIC DATES 1862 BUJ LOEA/ ARCHITECT 

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 

425 N. Stokes St. was built 1n 1862 as the rectory for 

St. Patri ck's Roman Catholic Church. Services were held 1n a granite 

building next door until 1907 when the new St Patrick's Church 

was built on Congree Ave. Remaining in their original location 

are the granite foundations of the old church. now surmounted 

by a new structure, and the ·low granite wall enclosing the churc h 

foundations and the rectory. The former rectory is a two and a 

half story three bay by two bay buildin g with a row of small 

windows in the attic story and a bracketed cornice. Located 

two block north of 1t 1s a house combining Italianate and Greek 

Revival features which closely resembles it. See HA-1109 

CONTINUE ON SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY 
IJMAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES 

CONTINUE ON SE~AR.ATE SHEET lF NECES~~y 

lliJGEOGRAPHICALDATA 

ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY ____ __ _ _ 

Joerndt, Clarence V. St . Ignatius, Hickory and I ts Missio n 

1972 Publication Press, In c. Baltimore, Md. 

VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION 

LIST All STATES AND COUNTIES FOR PROPERTIES OVERLAPPING STATE OR COUNTY BOUNDAR IES 

STATE COUNTY 

STATE COUNTY 

D]FORM PREPARED BY 

NAME/ TITLE 

Marion Morton-Hist0ric Sites Surveyor July 7, 1977 

ORGANIZATION DATE 

~ar yla nd Historical Tr ust 

STREET & NU M BER TELEPHONE 

21 stat e Circle 

CITY OR TOWN Sl o\TE 

booapoli:;;, Md. 

The Marylan d Historic Sites Invento ry was officially created 

by an Act of the Maryland Legislature, to be found in the 

Annotated Code of Maryland, Article 41, Section 181 KA, 

1974 Supplement . 

The Survey and Inventory are being prepared for information 

and record purposes only and do not constitute any infringement of individual property rights. 

RETURN TO: Maryland Historical Trust 

The Shaw House, 21 State Circle 

Annapolis, Maryland 21401 

(301) 267-1438 

PS• 1108 
,tt . i 

0 

C 

HA-1175 

Old St. Patrick 's Rectory 

425 N. Stokes St. 

Havre de Grace 

Sanborn Havre De Grace Sept. 1930-Apr. 1962 

Harford County 

w 

WARREN 

__Ji-::\ 

~ 

Cf) 

w 

~ 

0 

1-

(/) 

z 

8.PO.E. LOIJ6IE Hf/U .$N#*' /(. 1" 

,n·.r ~ 

l 

l 

I 

I 

I 

">, I 

u.u--L__ 
SE/ 4 P.AV?.E DE GRAC E 15' QUADRANGLE 

N:-!930-W7600 /7.5 

195 3 

p;.,c,-::Pcc. S[D 1270 

.L.~.'S. 5?05 P !.:E -S =.:RiES V8:S3 

Ill/· ll7SIf' • =-._ 

:) :. . ~Q..! 

· . ..: 

\ \ 

' 

\ \ 

\ ·. ·• 

·- \ 

\ \ 

\ \ 

\ \ 

\ 

' •. '\ ; ...... ·. '\ 

S• nrl 
~

---· ,..,. 

·-

' ... 
~ 

tt:: 

Ut 

-.Jl 

j C VJ ~ fJ 

& 

0 

0 ...t:: l 

- C o ... ~ 

1i ~ J € . 

,; r- ti 2 ~ C: ,.... 

d .. 

'i~ \J \n ~ - <'( 

() :r -:t 2 E \n 

P 4 :.•.<·*·TM ----. ·- ., --- ·-----.....---

Havre De Gra.ce 

Harf ,ord County, :Maryland 

Marion Morton. 1976 

negative on fi 1 e-M·ary ·1 and Historical Trust 

Annapoli.s, M.ary·land HA 11751 

01 d St. Patr 1i ck.' s R:e,ct.ory 

-
HA-823 

MT. ERIN CEMETERY 

Havre de Grace, Md. 

c. 1844 

A granite monument (c. 1896) marks the location of the first Roman 

catholic Church in Havre de Grace. Called st. J ames the Less, the chu rch, 

believed to have been a frame structure, was read y for services in 1844. 

This church was a predecessor of St. Patrick's, Havre de Grace. 

----- · -- - ·-· -----·- - - ... 
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST Ha-82J 

INVENTORY FORM FOR STATE HISTORIC SITES SURVEY 

HISTORIC 

AND/OR COMMON 

Mt. Erin Cemetery (Site of first Roman Catholic Church in Havre 

de Grace) 

flLOCATION 

STREET& NUMBER Grace View Drive, south side, about O.J miles east of rt. 155 

cirv. rowN Havre de Grace 

VICINITY OF 

STATE Md. 

DcLASSIFICATION 

CATEGORY 

_ DISTRICT 

_ BUILDING(S) 

_STRUCTURE 

Jr61TE 

_ OBJECT 

OWNERSHIP STATUS 

_PUB LIC _ OCCUPIED 

~RIVA TE _ UNOCCUPIED 

- BOTH _W ORK IN PROGRESS 

PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE 

_IN PROCESS _YES RESTRICTED 

_BEING CONSIDERED ~YES : UNRESTRICTED 

_NQ 

CONGRESSIONAi,DISTRICT 

COUNTY H f ar ord 

PRESENT USE 

_ AGRIC ULTURE _ MUSEUM 

_COMMERC IAL ~ .PA:1K 

-EDUCA TION A L _ PRIVATE RESIDcN Cc 

_ ENTERTAI NMEN T XRELIGIO US 

__ GOVERNMENT _SC IENTI FIC 

_ IND USTRIAL _ ,RANS PO"T tT ·ON 

_MILITARY _O THER 

DOWNER OF PROPERTY 

c/o St Patrick's Catholic Church NAME Mt Erin Cemetery Telephone # : 

STREET & NUMBER 615 Congress Ave 

ciTY . rowN Havre de Grace 

VICINITY OF 

IILOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION 

COURTHOUSE. 

REG1sTRY oF DEEDs.erc . Harford County 

STREET & NUMBER Main St. 

CITY. TOWN Bel Air 

Liber #: 

Folio #: 

STATE , zip code 

Md. 2I078 

STATE 

Md. 

II REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS 

TITLE 

DATE 

DEPOSITORY FOR 

SURVEY RECORDS 

CITY. TOWN 

_FE DERAL __$TA TE _ COUNTY _L OCAL 

STATE 
II DESCRIPTION 

-EXCELLENT 

_ :&ooo 

_ FAIR 

CONDITION 

_DETERIORATED 

_RUINS 

_UNEXPOSED 

CHECK ONE 

lwNALTERED 

---ALTERED 

CHECK ONE 

~RIGIN A L SITE 

-MOVED DATE _ _ _ 

DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE 

At Mt. Erin Cemetery is the site of the first Roman Catholic Church 

in Havre de Grace. The cemetery is located on hill in the 

north of Havre de Grace which looks south ,southeast to the 

Chesapeake Bay. It is on the south side of Grace View Drive, less 

than 1/2 a mile E. of Rt . 155. A granite monument with a Latin 

cross on top off it was erected in 1896 to mark the location of the 

first church. The monument has inscriptions on the eastern and 

western sides. The eastern face reads " Here stood the First 

Catholic Church at Havre de Grace, Md. , built Anno Domini '43-

1845- 43 ' by Rev . Jas. Reid. This stone erected Nov . 10, 1896, 

James P. Fitzgerald , Pastor." 

A cast iron entrance stands at the west end of the cemetery 

and a frame gazebo , painted green,with a hipped wood shingle roof 

is in the center of the grave yard. The cemetery is divided into 

two sections; the westerly section, in which the monument marking 

the site of the first church is located,is the Roman Catholic 

Burial ground, belonging to St Patrick's Church, whereas the eastern 

section, marked St James, belongs to St James A.M.E. Church (HA-1156). 

CONTINUE ON SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY 
II SIGNIFICANCE 

PERIOD AREAS OF SIGN IFICANCE -- CHECK AND JUSTIFY BELOW 

_PREHISTORI C -ARCHEOUXiY -PREHISTORIC _ COMMUNITY PL.ANNING - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT URE ~ELIGION 

_ 1400 -1499 __ARCHEOLOGY -HISTORIC _ CONSERVATION _LAW _SCIENCE 

-1500 - 1599 __AGRICULTUR~ - ECONOMI CS _ LITERATURE _S CULPTURE 

- 1800 - 1699 __ARCHITECTURE _EDUCATION _ M ILITARY _ SOCIAUHUMAN ITARIAN 

_ 1700-1799 -ART _ENGINEERING _ M USIC _THEATER 

::X:..1800- 1899 _ COMMERCE _ EXPLORATION / SETTLEMENT _ PHILOSOPHY _ TRANSPORTATIO N 

_ 1900 . _COMMUNICATIONS _INDUSTR Y _ POLITICS/ GOVERNMENT _OTHER (SPECIFY} 

_INVENTION 

SPECIFIC DATES BUILDER/ARCHITECT 

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 

A granite marker in Mt, Erin Cemetery erected in 1896 marks the 

location of the first Roman Catholic Church in Havre de Grace. 

Early parish records indicate that the church was named St James 

the Less. On March 17 , 1842, Father James Reid purchased four - teen lots (lots 15-28, square 4 of Reed ' s addition) from Ezra 

Reed and Eliza, his wife, of Havre de Grace. The land records 

reads" for $150.00 and the further consideration that a church 

be dedicated for the service of God." The church . isbelieved to 

have been a small frame structure for which the cornerstone was 

laid in 1843, and services were conducted in by 1844. A small 

rectangular stone marker with a l.atin inscription (possibly a 

cornerstone) is in the ground a few feet east of the granite 

memorial . Perhaps because the Mt. Erin location was so far from 

town , a stone church called St Patricks was erected in 1847-1850. 

Today the foundations of the chuch, surmounted by a later 

structure,and the rectory (HA-1175) can be seen on the corner 

of N. Stokes and Warren Sts. The present St. Patrick's was built 

in 1907. 

CONTINUE ON SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY 
''A 0 " ? "· I .~ '. ·.>' ...._ I ~ •• ....-

Joerndt. Clarence V. St. Ignatius, Hickory and Its Missions 

1972 Publication Press. Inc. Baltimore. Md. 

CONTINUE ON SE~AR.ATE SHEET IF NECESS~Y 

II!JGEOGRAPHICAL DATA 

ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY _______ _ 

VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION 

LIST ALL STATES AND COUNTIES FOR PROPERTIES OVERLAPPING STATE OR COUNTY BOUNDARIES 

STATE COUN TY 

- - - -- -------- -------------- - ---- - - - - - - STATE COUNT Y 

mFORM PREPARED BY NAME / TITLE Marion Morton - Historic Sites Surveyor 

ORGANIZ A TION Maryland Historical Trust DATE May 1977 

STREET 81 NUMBER 21 State Circle TELEPHO NE 

CITY OR TOWN Annapolis STATE 

MD. 

The Maryland Historic Sites Inventory was officially created 

by an Act of the Maryland Legislature, to be found in the 

Annotated Code of Maryland, Article 41, Section 181 KA, 

1974 Supplement. 

The Survey and Inventory are being prepared for information 

and record purposes only and do not constitute any infringement of individual property rights . 

RETURN TO: Maryland Historical Trust 

The Shaw House, 21 State Circle 

Annapolis, Maryland 21401 

(301} 267-1438 

PS · 1101 
r, 

' .. , 

I 

HAVRE DE GRACE. MD. S E/ 4 HAVRE DE ORACE 15' OUA~ n n -, LJ.,r..~JLE 

N 3930·- \'i7f,':CiJ7 5 

1-/11-8 23 

\ \ 

\ 

\ 

\ \ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ \ 

\ \ 

\ 

. '\··. '• 

' . S, r :1 \ 
,-

\ 

\ 

r \ 

\ 

43]] 

<5 

', \ tj)-

s \ p 

\\ e,. 

.·'\~~ 

\ ~- ( -- \ \ I 

'~ I 

I 

! ' 'I./ \ 

/ { I 

~l. ~\~ 6::M.ctElt'( \-IA• 82, ~ 

""C> lo) \.) "'e:.~ \ ~ ~~,~~\&\,.) ~-\J,t 

\.lo..'-' " C. d..t. C,rc:..-. (_ .(! 

t-\A~,o~ Ko~,o~ 

'4 I -,1 

-~ ........................ -vlR~.- ........ ~ , '""' .... -
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY/DISTRICT 

MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST 

INTERNAL NR-ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM 

Property/District Name: Amtrak Railroad or Perryville Road Bridge over the Susquehanna River Survey 

Number: HA-1712 

Project: ACE/MDE Application #199861938 T61955 Agency: COE/MDE 

Site visit by MITT Staff: _x_ no _ yes Name----------- Date-------

Eligibility recomm ended X Eligibility not recommended __ 

Criteria: ._X_A _B ._X_C _D Considerations: _A _B _ C _D _E _F _G 

_None 

Justification for decision: (Use continuation sheet if necessary and attach map) 

The Amtrak Railroad or Perryville Road Bridge (MIIT #HA-1712) is a 1906 Deck-and-Through Truss 

Bridge, made of open hearth steel with stone piers_ The north and south spans are not of equal length, and 

the southern span is the shorter of the two. While most of the spans are deck trusses, the 277' center span is 

constructed of two Pratt through trusses. This span rotates on a center pivot, a feature which popularized 

swing spans among engineers in the early twentieth century. The bridge was constructed by the 

Pennsylvania Railroad and replaced an 1866 wood and steel bridge. There do not appear to be any 

identifying plaques attached to the bridge. Finally, the bridge retains excellent integrity of materials and 

setting. Therefore, based on the information provided, the bridge is eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places under Criterion A, as an example of an early twentieth century railroad bridge built by an 

important American railroad company (transportation) and under Criterion C, as an example of engineering 

which acknowledges two different modes of transportation and allows each to function with little 

interference from the other. 

Documentation on the property/district is presented in: __ P,._r,.,o<J.je""c,,_,t_,R'""e"--'v'--'i-"'-e,.!.!N_,an=d,._C=om=p~li,,,an=c

Prepared by: Harry E. Bailev. Qwest Network Construction Services 

Anne E. Bruder 2/25/98 

Reviewer , Office of Preservation Services Date 

NR program concurrence: ./ yes _ no _ not applicable 

/; I /.-F.",, '7_ \<' . , .i ·\~ -.../ _,A/ \.,/l,, \ ~ 1 !"'--1., V \ ' 

j Reviewer, NR program · 
J 

' 

100 ' o· 

SUSCl.C- Rlvtt 

i or IRIO(j[ 

100' zoo· 300' 

Wi t!~ 

I 

' I 

#00' 

SUSQUEHANNA RIYER 

LAT: 3!r33 ' 

lONC: ?S-05' 

HA-111)... 

soo· 

Qwest 

Communications 

STANDARD 

roR REVIEW 

·····• t::::i 

~· ... 

· ..•. · 

r·. ~r 

-i--

~ 

-J 

,. ..... 

J 
..,,.., fl.lt.:._, 03 00 ,0 1•' k • ~f\•" 

l :'-.It: l>:-,1 \llSl>l l' .\R l ~II :,...1 01111111'.I LRIOK 

NATIONAL PARK. SERVICE 

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

~NVENTORY •• NOMINATION FORM 

FOR NPS USE ONLY 

RECEIVED HA-J 7]2 

SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS 

TYPE ALL ENTRIES -- COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS 

0NAME 

HISTORIC 

AN010R COMMON 

Susquehanna River Bridge 

fJLOCATION 

STREET• NUMBER 

CITY. TOWN 

Havre de Grace VICIN ITY OF 

STAT( CODE 

Marylarrl 24 

IJCLASSIFICA TION 

CATEGORY 

_Ol6TRICT 

-BUILOINGISI 

x_STRUCTVRE 

-SIT£ 

-OBJECT 

OWNERSHIP STATUS 

_PUBLIC lLOCCUl'IEO 

~PRIVATE -UNOCCUPIED 

_BOTH -WORK IN PROGRESS 

PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESS IBLE 

_IN PROCESS -YES · RESTRICTED 

_BEING CONSIDERED - YES UNRESTRICTED 

_NO 

DOWNER OF PROPERTY 

NAME AMTRAK ---- - - - --- - - -- - -- -- STREET• NUMBER 

955 L ' Enfant Plaza, SW 

CITY. TOWN 

Washington, D~•,ciNirvoF 

l)LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION 

COURTHOUSE. 

REGISTl'IY OF OEEO~ETC. Real Estate Department-AIDRAK 

STREET• NUMBER 

955 L'Enfant Plaza, SW 

CITY. TOWN 

Washington, D. C. 

fl REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS 

TITLE 

_NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

CONGRESS IONAL DISTRICT 

1 

COUNTY CODE 

Cecil 015 

PRESENT USE 

--AGRICULTURE __ MUSEUM 

-COMMERCIAL _PARK 

-EDUCAT IONAL _PRIVATE RESIDENCE 

-ENTERTAINMENT _RELIGIOUS 

-GOVERNMENT -SC IENTIFIC 

_ INDUSTR IA L 

_MILITARY 

STATE 

STATE 

.X TRANSPORT A TION 

_OTHER 

Northeast Cbrridor Aerial Iecnnnaissance of Historic Structures 

.,..... -~ 

DATE 

13-15 April , 1977 X...FEOERAL _STATE _COU NTY _LOCAL 

DEPOSITORY FOR 

SUIIVIEY RECORDS 

CITY. TOWN 

Federal Railway Aqministration 

2JQQ 2nd Street, SW., RM 4613 

washington, D. c. 20590 

STATE 

,, 

,._, 

. 

; 
· S DESCRIPTION 

__ tl<CllllNT 

__ c;ooo 

X..FAIR 

CONDITION 

_ Ol lllllORATEO 

_RUINS 

_UNlXPOSEO 

CHECK ONE 

_ UNAlHREO 

_ALTERED 

CHECK ONE 

_QRIG IN.t.l SITE 

~;f.-!11 ""\ 1,N . ,. ~ 

_MOVED OAT( _ _ _ 

DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND OHIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE 

The Perryville Bridge over the Susquehanna River is a center bearing swing 

bridge. 'Ihe s~rstructure of the bridge is of op:m hearth st.eel an::3. the piers 

are stone rnasoory. The substructure's height a.rove nean high water is 52 inches . 

Fran north to south the bridge a:msists of one deck truss 192 feet long; eight deck 

trusses each 255 feet long; a swing span 277 feet long; se ven deck truss spans 

each 195 feet long; an::3. a deck truss span 192 feet long. '.ihe total length is 

4,155 feet. 

The swing span oonsists of t\o.O pratt through ~trusses carrying t\o.O tracks 

on str:ingers and floorbeam:J that frane into the lower crord of the trusses. 

'llle dead loads from the through trusses are carried by a cross girder . The drum 

rolls on steel rollers that ride in a track secured to the masonry . Wren the 

bridge is opened, the dead load of the bridge is carried by the center bearing, 

and the rollers balance the bridge . In the closed pos i tion, "Wedges are driven 

urrler the cross girder at the connection to the trusses. The line load is thus 

carried by the "Wedges and oot the center bearing or rollers. · 

'!he drive machinery is located in the operator's house at the center 

of the span above track level . It is a 150-horsepo.,.,er diesel engine connected 

to a h}'draulic torque converter. 

The structural steel of Perryville bridge is in good coooition but the 

ties and guard titroer are deteriorated . 'lhe operating mach:ioory .....:irks satisfactorily. 

l

' __ 

· 

. . · ' 

. ~ : i, 

1 •. -- t .--· 

r . 

i,: 

r 

( ·, . L -

r .-

t. t . -. f 

~ . 

t-1: · 

f 
I] SIGNIFICANCE 

PERIOD AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE·· CHECK ANO JUSTIFY BELOW 

_PREHISTOR IC _ ARCHtULUuY -l'REHISTORIC _COMMUNITY PLANNING _ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE _REL IGION 

1400 - 1499 __ARCHEOLOGY-HISTORIC _CONSERVATION _LAW _SCIENCE 

_ 1500 15119 _ .AGRICULTURE _ECONOMICS _LITERATURE - SCU LPTURE 

_ 1600 - 11199 --"RCHITECTURE _EDUCATION _MILITARY _ SOCIAI../HUMAN ITARl"N 

_ 1700 17119 _.ART JLENGINEERlNG _ M USIC _THEATER 

_ 1800-1899 _COMMERCE _EXPLORATION/SETTLEMENT _PHILOSOPHY .XTR AN SPORTATION 

.X1900 - _COMMUNICATIONS _INDU STRY _POUTICSIGOVERNMENT _OTHER (SPECIFY! 

_ INVENTION 

SPECIFIC OATES BUILDER/ARCHITECT 

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 

The Perryville Bridge over the S~anna River is one of three center 

bearing swing bridge constructed in 1906 for the Pennsylvania Railroad. 

~ ITOV'able bridge is an ancient type that can be changed in position so as 

to open a clear passage, or to afford an ~eased headway for ships and boats in 

navigable channels . Engineers choose this type of bridge when no other way of 

giving vertical cleararx::e for the passage of vessels on a waterway exists . The 

introduction of railroads to the u .s. in the early 1800' s greatly sμirred the 

developrent and construction of this type of bridge . Along the eastern seaboard 

the large nurber of navigable rivers and inlets to be crossed resulted in the 

construction of fifteen nuvable bridges on what is today the Northeast Corridor 

.-rail line. There are three basic types of rrovable bridges-the bascule, the swing, 

rrl the vertical lift. Q1 the Northeast Corridor there are nine bascule bridges, 

rive swing bridges, am. one vertical lift bridge. 'lbese bridges were prefabricated 

at the construction cacpany's plant and then built by unskilled labor at the site. 

The machinery to operate the bridges was oot staooardized and each one has unique 

nechanical carponents. 

SWing bridges were generally used in place of bascule or vertical lift 

bridges when the waterway ...as wide eoough to allaw for side cleararx,e in the 

chanrel. At the tum of the century swing bridges also allowed for ecoOCtt¥ in 

building and rre.intenance. 

The tw:> types of swing bridges are rim bearing and renter bearing. 

In the U.S. the earliest records of iron bridges shcMs them to be the rim bearing 

type. Later the use of the center bearirxJ type increased until it became nore 

popular than the rim bearing bridge. '!he design of oenter bearing bridges was much 

i.nproved by C.C. Schneider , Engineer of the Perx:oyd Iron Works, in the period 

fran 1887 to 1900. Later, 'While he was Consulting Engineer of the Anerican Bridge 

Carpany his strcng advocacy of this type of swirxJ bridge inflU:mc:Ed the opinions 

of many engineers and fil:mly established the center bearing design in Anerican 

practice. 

In the center- bearing swing bridge, of 'Which Perryville is an 

exanple, the \t.ieight is SUftX)rted by a center pivot. When this type of bridge is in 

an open position, rollers around the circular girder keep the bridge balanced 'While 

the dead load of the stru:=ture is transmitted fran the m:,.in through trusses by 

----~ross girders to the center pivot. When the bridge is closed, ~ges at the center 

ier are inserted under the trusses. so that the load is transferred directly to 

the pier . 

f-·: .' 

'-"; . 

.. 
0M.AJOR BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES 

Condit, earl. Arrerican Building. Chicago: University of Chicago 

Press, 1968. 

Hool, George, ed. z.bvable and I.Dng--8pan Bridges. New York: 

M:Graw-Hill Book co., Inc., 1923. 

Eii)GEOGRAPHICAL DATA 

.... 

ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY ____ l ____ _ 

UTM REFERENCES 

Al.L.a.J 14! 01 6! 61 61 61 J 41 3l 7, 81 & 31 OJ 

ZONE EASTING NORTHING 

el..t-J I I , ! I , 1 , I 

NORTHING 

cLL.J I I I I I , I I I I r I , 1 I 

ZONE EASTIN 

ol.a..J I I I l I I I I J I 

VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION 

This bridge is on the Northeast Corridor railroad line 

across the Susquehanna River at Perryville, Maryland. 

llST ALL STATES ANO COUNTIES FOR PROPERTIES OVERLAPPING STATE OR COUNTY BOUNDARIES 

ST A TE CODE COUNTY CODE 

Maryland 24 Harford 025 

STATE CODE COUNTY CODE 

Maryland 24 Cecil 015 

]FORM PREPARED BY NAME I TITlE 

Anne Baggerman, Cultural P.esources Planner August 10, 1977 

ORG4NIZA TION DA TE 

DeI.euw, ca~, Parsons & As~iates, Northeast corridor Project 

STREET• NUMBER TELEPHONE 

1201 Connecticut Avenue (202) 452-5242 

CITY OR TOWN STATE 

Washingtoo, D. C. 20036 

[fl STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER CERTIFICATION 

THE EVALUATED SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE IS: 

NATIONAL_ STATE_ LOCAL __ 

As the designeted State Historic Preservation Officer for the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Pubhc Law 89 -6651.1 

hereby nominate thia propeny for inclusion m the National Register and certify that it has been evaluated eccording to the 

cnteria and procedures set forth by the National Park Service. 

ST4TE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER SIGNATURE 

TITLE 

f R NPS USE ONLY 

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT nus PROPERTY IS INCLUDED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER 

DIR CTOR. OFFICE OF ARCHEOLOGY ANO HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

rEST: 

KEEPER OF THE NATIONAL REGISTER 

DATE 

OAT~ 

OATE ,: 

. ·.,"-; 

•. 

_ ... 

...... ··\ 

.- -. ~-. 
l""'lll l>Sl.\llSl> l l'\Kl:'-.11 :-..1 OI 1111. l l\ 11.K IOK 

NATIONAL PARK Sl:RVICE 

A TIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 

INVENTORY·· NOMINATION FORM 

CONTINUATION SHEU ITEM NUMBER 9 

M:ljor alograp'hical Re fences : 

FOR NPS USE ONLY 

RECEIVED 

DA TE ENTERED 

PAGE 1 

Hovey, Otis Ellis . M:)vable Bridges, Vol. I and II. New York: 

John Wiley and Sons, Inc. , 1926. 

U.S. oor, l'brtheast Corridor High Speed Rail Passenger Service 

Irrprovarent Project, Tasks 15. 1 and 15 . 2, Vol. VI, Jan. 1977. 

I . 

t 

I .. : t-.-.: 

r' , ~ 

~ ' ~ 

I

,{ ,c r~ 

l . "-

f

r.:_:~ 

. ' 

. 
i 

.. , 

.. ::-' 

--
-

-- :.. -- -· .;,- . .....r- " .. -- -::. ·-- - _;:-·-..,,,. ---~ .. ~. - -~ --:::: -. . . ..... __ ---· ..... - . 

·- -........ 

..... -, . -- -.; 

_......,....... _ ... -·~ ··· :....:-... 

; . . , 

.. --:;-.;.:f 

--... _. ~ .. 

.. ,-· - ·~._. ---

'