PN-24-21 NAB-2023-61267 (National Railroad Passenger Cooperation-AMTRAK/Susquehanna River Railroad Bridge)

                         Public Notice
U.S. Army Corps              In Reply to Application Number
of Engineers                   
                                            NAB-2023-61267 M46 (National Railroad passenger
Baltimore District             Cooperation- AMTRAK/Susquehanna River Railroad Bridge)

PN-24-21                          Comment Period: July 23, 2024 to August 23, 2024                     
THE PURPOSE OF THIS PUBLIC NOTICE IS TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY AND TO SOLICIT COMMENTS. NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED AT THIS TIME.

This District has received an application for a Department of the Army permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344), as described below:

APPLICANT: National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak)

Mr. Dexter Fordyce
1 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, District of Columbia 20001

WATERWAY AND LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED WORK:

The proposed project is located in the Susquehanna River, between Havre de Grace, Harford County, Maryland and Perryville, Cecil County, Maryland (39.554358, -76.086300).

OVERALL PROJECT PURPOSE:

To replace the existing Amtrak Susquehanna River Rail Bridge over the Susquehanna River between Havre de Grace, Maryland and Perryville, Maryland and to maintain safe rail connectivity along the northeast corridor.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is planning to replace 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, and to remove the existing bridge. The existing moveable swing bridge, built in 1906, is beyond the end of its 100-year design lifespan. The project would replace the existing two-track bridge with two new parallel bridges carrying four tracks in the form of east and west spans over the Susquehanna River. The existing bridge will be mechanically demolished after the first new span is complete with existing in-water foundations mechanically removed to 2 feet below the mudline. The project will permanently impact approximately 126,377 square feet (SF) (2.90 acres) of nontidal wetland, 205 SF (0.005 acres) of nontidal open water, 1,009 SF (0.02 acres) of tidal wetlands, 6,137 linear feet (LF) (40,589 SF) of nontidal stream channel, 5,325 SF of tidal waters, 68,357 SF (1.57 acres) of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), and will temporarily impact approximately 10,497 LF (54,481 SF) of nontidal stream channel and 15,316 SF (0.35 acres) of tidal waters.

Please refer to the table below for a summary of aquatic resource impacts.

EFFECTS ON AQUATIC RESOURCES:

LEAD FEDERAL AGENCY:

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), as the lead federal agency, is responsible for all coordination pursuant to applicable federal authorities.

APPLICANT’S PROPOSED AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND COMPENSATORY MITIGATION:

Through coordination with the Corps, State, and resource agencies, the applicant has incorporated the following avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation into the project plans. To minimize the impacts of fill to Lily Run, several retaining walls have been incorporated along the railroad track corridor. To minimize impacts to Lewis Run, Lily Run, and Mill Creek, existing culvert stream crossings will be extended instead of replaced. Other methods of minimizing impacts to wetlands and streams include the use. of stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) to collect and treat stormwater runoff prior to discharging to downstream wetlands and streams. Similarly, the project proposes to remove existing impervious areas upstream of wetlands and streams. For the two new bridge spans (West and East), each bridge structure will require 20 piers for a total of 40 piers for the project. Six piers will be on land and 34 piers will be in the Susquehanna River. Three methods of accessing the in-water piers for construction were evaluated: barge, causeway, and trestle. Each method was evaluated based on the water depth and geological considerations at each pier in conjunction with the anticipated environmental impacts. Through the Joint Federal/State Evaluation process and comments from the regulatory and resource agencies, the applicant proposes to use barges and trestles only, as these construction access methods are less impactful to the aquatic resources than a causeway fill other avoidance and minimization measures that will be implemented during construction including time of year restrictions prohibiting in-water work during specified times to protect anadromous fish and submerged aquatic vegetation and an underwater noise monitoring plan to ensure anadromous fish and other aquatic species are not being affected. The applicant is proposing to use turbidity curtains during shaft construction and decanting and sediment control BMPs for dewatering of temporary suspended cofferdams, to minimize impacts of turbidity to the Susquehanna River.

In terms of overall site selection, due to the requirement that the bridge connects the Northeast Corridor on each side of the Susquehanna River, the alternatives analysis was restricted to an area adjacent to the existing bridge. Build alternatives were identified through an alternative’s development and screening process, where both alignment and bridge type alternatives were considered. Throughout the screening process, the applicant considered input provided through public outreach efforts, coordination with local officials, Section 106 consulting party meetings, Interagency Review Meetings, and other stakeholder meetings. The alternatives screening process considered each alternative’s impacts to environmental resources, both human and natural, as well as each alternative’s ability to meet the project’s operational and engineering goals.

Mitigation for unavoidable nontidal stream and wetland impacts associated with this project are proposed to be satisfied through off-site permittee responsible mitigation and/or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank. Compensatory wetland mitigation will be required at a 2:1 ratio for nontidal forested wetlands and nontidal scrub-shrub wetlands and at a 1:1 ratio of nontidal emergent wetlands. The applicant’s preferred mitigation package includes satisfying compensatory mitigation requirements for nontidal stream and wetland impacts through off-site permittee responsible mitigation at the Simon’s Run site located along unnamed tributaries to Stout Bottle Branch in Forest Hill, Harford County, Maryland. The Simon’s Run site can provide a maximum of approximately 12.77 acres of nontidal wetland creation, 5.19 acres of nontidal wetland enhancement, and 2,825 functional feet of stream mitigation credit. Alternate sites considered to satisfy compensatory mitigation requirements for nontidal wetland and nontidal stream impacts include the Holland’s Branch site and the Pylesville/Schwartz site. The Hollands Branch site is located along Hollands Branch and an unnamed tributary, which flow south to Deer Creek, near Trappe Church Road, in Darlington, Harford County, Maryland. The Hollands Branch site can provide a maximum of approximately 8.12 acres of nontidal wetland restoration and 2,829 functional feet of stream mitigation credit. The Pylesville/Schwartz site is located along two unnamed tributaries to Broad Creek, near Pylesville Road, in Pylesville, Harford County, Maryland. The Pylesville/Schwartz site can provide a maximum of approximately 9.30 acres of nontidal wetland restoration, 10.78 acres of nontidal wetland enhancement, and 1,961 functional feet of stream mitigation credit.

If the total wetland mitigation requirement cannot be fulfilled at either the preferred site or backup sites, credits may be purchased at the Peige or Pheasant Run mitigation banks. The Pheasant Run mitigation bank is located west of Baldwin Mill Road and north of Patterson Road in Baldwin, Baltimore County, Maryland. The Peige mitigation bank is located at 701 Luthardt Road, in Middle River, Baltimore County, Maryland.

Mitigation for unavoidable impacts to tidal wetlands associated with the project area is proposed to be satisfied through on-site tidal wetland enhancement/restoration. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts to SAV associated with the project area is required at a 3:1 ratio and is proposed to be satisfied through off-site SAV restoration. The applicant has provided three potential sites to satisfy compensatory mitigation requirements for SAV, located in the Chesapeake Bay near Northeast, Cecil County, Maryland. SAV restoration site 8 can provide a maximum of approximately 23 acres of SAV restoration, SAV restoration site 9 can provide a maximum of approximately 55 acres of SAV restoration, and SAV restoration site 10 can provide a maximum of approximately 70 acres of SAV restoration. Compensatory mitigation is not required for unavoidable impacts to tidal open waters, as the applicant will be removing the existing bridge piers as part of this work, which will remove approximately 0.51 acres of fill in the Susquehanna River, which is greater than the proposed impacts to tidal waters from the new bridge piers. The applicant is also considering Northern Map Turtle basking platforms, Northern Map Turtle habitat management, and fish passage sites to address the watershed need.

CORPS EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS:

This project will be evaluated pursuant to Corps Regulatory Program Regulations (33 CFR Parts 320-332). The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an

evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both

protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit, which reasonable may be expected to accrue from the proposal, must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors, which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered, including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation,

economic, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, and consideration of property ownership and in general, the needs and welfare of the people. The evaluation of the impact of this project will also include application of the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines promulgated by the Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency.

ENDANGERED SPECIES:

A preliminary review of this application indicates that the proposed work is not likely to adversely affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat, pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended. As the evaluation of this application continues, additional information may become available which could modify this preliminary determination.

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT:

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 04-267), requires all federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service on all actions, or proposed actions, permitted, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), including species of concern, life cycle habitat, or Habitat Areas of Particular Concern. The project site lies in or adjacent to EFH as described under MSFCMA for managed species under the MSFCMA. The Baltimore District has made a preliminary determination that the project will not have a substantial adverse effecton EFH. The Baltimore District has made a preliminary determination that mitigative measures are required to minimize adverse effects on EFH at this time. This determination may be modified if additional information indicates otherwise.

HISTORIC RESOURCES:

Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and applicable guidance, the Corps has reviewed the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places and initially determined that   registered properties listed as eligible for inclusion, therein, are located at the site of the proposed work. The Corps has made the preliminary determination that the proposed project would have no adverse effect on historic properties. The Corps final eligibility and effect determination will be based on coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office as appropriate and required, and with full consideration given to the proposed undertaking’s potential direct and indirect effects on historic properties within the Corps’ identified permit area.

TRIBAL RESOURCES:

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act also requires federal agencies to consult with federally recognized American Indian tribes that attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by the agency’s undertaking. Corps Tribal Consultation Policy mandates an open, timely, meaningful, collaborative, and effective deliberative communication process that emphasizes trust, respect, and shared responsibility. The policy further emphasizes that, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, consultation works toward mutual consensus and begins at the earliest planning stages before decisions are made and actions taken. The Corps final eligibility and effect determination will be based on coordination with interested tribes, in accordance with the Corps current tribal standard operating procedures as appropriate and required, and with full consideration given to the proposed undertaking’s potential direct and indirect effects on tribal resources.

MODIFICATION OF CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS: 33 USC 408 (SECTION 408):

All Section 408 proposals will be coordinated internally at the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The Section 408 decision will be issued along with the Section 404 and/or Section 10 decision. Please see the following link for more information regarding Section 408: https://www.nab.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Section-408-Requests/.

WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION:

The applicant is required to obtain a water quality certification in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS:

Where applicable, the applicant has certified in this application that the proposed activity complies with and will be conducted in a manner consistent with the approved Coastal Zone Management Program. By this public notice, we are requesting the State concurrence or objection to the applicant’s consistency statement.

The applicant must obtain any state or local government permits which may be required.

SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS:

The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; federal, state, and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes; and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition, or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Comments provided will become part of the public record for this action and are subject to release to the public through the Freedom of Information Act. Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity.

Written comments concerning the work described above related to the factors listed above or other pertinent factors must be received by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District within the comment period specified above through postal mail at the address below or electronic submission to the project manager email address below. Written comments should reference the Application Number NAB-2023-61267 M46.

PUBLIC HEARING REQUESTS:

Any person who has an interest which may be adversely affected by the issuance of this permit may request a public hearing. The request, which must be in writing, must be received within the comment period as specified above to receive consideration. Also, it must clearly set forth the interest which may be adversely affected by this activity and the manner in which the interest may be adversely affected. The public hearing request may be submitted by electronic mail or mailed to the following address:

Ms. Nicole Nasteff
nicole.m.voelker@usace.army.mil
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District
Regulatory Branch
2 Hopkins Plaza, Baltimore, Maryland 21201

It is requested that you communicate this information concerning the proposed work to any persons known by you to be interested, who did not receive a copy of this notice. General information regarding the Corps’ permitting process can be found on our website at https://www.nab.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.aspx. This public notice has been prepared in accordance with Corps implementing regulations at 33 CFR 325.3. If you have any questions concerning this specific project or would like to request a paper copy of this public notice, please contact Ms. Nicole Nasteff, (410) 962-1847 or nicole.m.voelker@usace.army.mil . This public notice is issued by the Chief, Regulatory Branch.