Appendix G - Section 4f -Sm

8/10/2019 Appendix G - Section 4f -Sm

1/67

APPENDIXG

Section4(f)


2/67

MARCNORTHEAST

MAINTENANCE

FACILITY

Perryville,Maryland

DRAFTSECTION4(f)EVALUATION

FEDERALTRANSIT

ADMINISTRATION

USDEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION

MARYLANDTRANSITADMINISTRATION

MARYLANDDEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION

DRAFTNovember5,2014


3/67

DraftSection4(f)Evaluation DraftNovember5,2014

MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility 2

Contents

I. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 1

II. RegulatoryFramework.......................................................................................................................... 1

A. Applicability...................................................................................................................................... 1

B.

Use....................................................................................................................................................

2

C. Section4(f)Evaluation..................................................................................................................... 2

1. AnalyzeAvoidanceAlternatives.................................................................................................... 3

2. DetermineAlternativewithLeastOverallHarm........................................................................... 3

3. AllPossiblePlanning..................................................................................................................... 3

4. CoordinatewithOfficialswithJurisdiction................................................................................... 4

III. ProposedAction................................................................................................................................ 4

A. PurposeandNeed............................................................................................................................ 4

B. ProjectBackground.......................................................................................................................... 5

C. ProjectDescription........................................................................................................................... 6

D. PreferredAlternative........................................................................................................................ 7

IV. Section4(f)Properties...................................................................................................................... 9

V. Section4(f)Use................................................................................................................................... 13

VI. AvoidanceAnalysis.......................................................................................................................... 13

A. SitesEvaluatedintheMARCMaintenanceFacilitySiteSelectionReport................................... 14

1. PerryvilleBSiteAvoidanceAlternative,Perryville,Maryland................................................. 14

2. OpusSiteAvoidanceAlternative,Perryman,Maryland........................................................... 18

3. AberdeenProvingGroundSiteAvoidanceAlternative,Edgewood,Maryland....................... 20

4. PrologisSiteAvoidanceAlternative,Edgewood,Maryland..................................................... 22

B. AdditionalAvoidanceAlternativeSitesEvaluated....................................................................... 24

1. NoBuildAlternative................................................................................................................... 24

2. NewBengiesSite AvoidanceAlternative................................................................................. 24

3. ChesapeakeSiteAvoidanceAlternative.................................................................................... 26

4. ChelseaSiteAvoidanceAlternative........................................................................................... 28

5. CarpentersPointSiteAvoidanceAlternative............................................................................ 31

6. MasonDixonSiteAvoidanceAlternative.................................................................................. 33

7. AvoidanceAnalysisSummary.................................................................................................... 36

VII. LeastOverallHarmAnalysis............................................................................................................ 38

A. LocationAvoidanceAlternatives.................................................................................................... 38

1. PerrymanSiteLocationAvoidanceAlternative.......................................................................... 38


4/67



2. SouthPostRoadSiteLocationAvoidanceAlternative................................................................ 40

3. ClarkRoadSiteLocationAvoidanceAlternative......................................................................... 43

4. WestOldPhiladelphiaRoadSiteLocationAvoidanceAlternative............................................. 45

5. ElkNeckStateForestSiteLocationAvoidanceAlternative........................................................ 48

B.

MinimizationAlternatives

to

the

Preferred

Alternative

Site

..........................................................

48

1. MinimizationAlternative1......................................................................................................... 48



C. LeastOverallHarmSummary......................................................................................................... 55

VIII. AllPossiblePlanningtoMinimizeHarm......................................................................................... 58

IX. Coordination................................................................................................................................... 58

A. AgencyCoordination....................................................................................................................... 58

B. Localities......................................................................................................................................... 59

C. PublicComments............................................................................................................................ 59


5/67

DraftSection4(f)Evaluation WorkingDraftOctober17,2014


I.

Introduction

This Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation has been prepared pursuant to Section 4(f) of the US

Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. 303(c), and with the Federal Transit

Administrations(FTA)andFederalHighwayAdministrations(FHWA)Section4(f)regulationsin

23CFRPart774.Additionalguidancewasobtained fromFHWATechnicalAdvisoryT6640.8A

(FHWA1987b)

and

the

revised

FHWA

Section

4(f)

Policy

Paper

(FHWA

2012).

ThisSection4(f)evaluationidentifiespropertiesintheprojectstudyareaprotectedbySection

4(f),evaluates theuseof theseproperties,andpresentsdocumentation required forFTA to

approvetheuseofSection4(f)properties.Afterconsiderationofcomments receivedon this

Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation and in accordance with 23 CFR 774.5(a), a Final Section 4(f)

Evaluationwillprovideadeterminationonwhetherfeasibleandprudentavoidancealternatives

totheuseexist,andwhetherallpossibleplanningtominimizeharmtotheresourceshasbeen

performedforFTAtoapprovetheuseofSection4(f)properties.

The

Maryland

Transit

Administration

(MTA),

in

coordination

with

the

FTA,

as

the

lead

Federal

agency, isproposingtoconstructamaintenancefacilityandtrainstorageyardalongAmtraks

NortheastCorridor(NEC)tosupportMarylandAreaRegionalCommuter(MARC)operations.As

part of this project, public parks, recreation areas, wildlife and/or waterfowl refuges were

identifiedinthestudyarea. Alsoreconnaissancesurveysandintensivefieldsurveysofhistoric

resourceswereconductedwithintheAreaofPotentialEffect(APE). Thesesurveys identified

the Preferred Alternative site for the MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility as part of the

WoodlandsFarmComplexHistoricDistrict,which is listedontheNationalRegisterofHistoric

Places(NRHP). ThelikelyeffectsoutlinedintheDraftEvaluationwillbeusedtodetermineuse

(permanent,temporaryorconstructive)oftheSection4(f)propertyintheFinalEvaluation.

An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to assess the potential impact of the project on the

environmentalandculturalresourceswithinandadjacenttothepreferredalternativelocation

including impacts to Section 4(f) properties. After review of the EA the Federal Transit

Administrationmaymake a FindingofNo Significant Impact (FONSI). The Final Section 4(f)

evaluationwouldbeincludedintheFONSI.

II.

Regulatory

Framework

A. Applicability

Section4(f)

of

the

US

Department

of

Transportation

Act

of

1966,

49

USC

303(c)

is

aFederal

Law

that prohibits the use of publiclyowned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and/or waterfowl

refuges, or any significant historic sites, whether privately or publicly owned. Section 4(f)

requirementsapplytoalltransportationprojectsthatrequirefundingorotherapprovalsbythe

USDOT. As a USDOT agency, FTA must comply with Section 4(f). FTA cannot approve a

transportationprojectthatusesaSection4(f)property,unless:


6/67



TheFTAdeterminesthatthere isnofeasibleandprudentavoidancealternativetothe

useoflandfromtheproperty,andtheactionincludesallpossibleplanningtominimize

harmtothepropertyresultingfromsuchuse(23CFR774.3(a));or

The FTAdetermines that theuseof Section4(f)property, including anymeasures to

minimize harm (such as avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or enhancement

measures)committed

to

by

the

applicant,

will

have

ade

minimis

impacton

the

property

(23CFR774.3(b)).

B.

Use

Pursuantto23CFR774.17,auseofSection4(f)propertyoccurs:

When land ispermanently incorporated into a transportation facility.Pursuant to23

CFR 774.17, a permanent use occurs when land from a Section 4(f) property is

permanently incorporated intoa transportationproject.Thismayoccurasa resultof

partial or full acquisition of the Section 4(f) property, permanent easements, or

temporaryeasementsthatexceedregulatorylimits;

Whenthere

is

atemporary

occupancyof

land

that

is

adverse

in

terms

of

the

statute's

preservationpurposeasdefinedin23CFR774.13(d);thatis,whenoneofthefollowing

criteriafortemporaryoccupancyarenotmet:

o

The duration of the occupancy must be less than the time needed for the

constructionoftheproject,andnochangeofownershipoccurs.

o Both the nature and magnitude of the changes to the Section 4(f) land are

minimal.

o No permanent adverse physical changes, nor interference with activities or

purposesoftheresourcesonatemporaryorpermanentbasis,areanticipated.

o

Theland

must

be

returned

to

acondition

that

is

at

least

as

good

as

existed

prior

totheproject.

o There is documented agreement with the appropriate Federal, State, or local

officialshavingjurisdictionover the land that theabove conditionshavebeen

met.

When there is a constructive use of a Section 4(f) property. As defined in 23 CFR

774.15(a), a constructive use occurs when the transportation project does not

incorporatelandfromaSection4(f)property,buttheproject'sproximityimpactsareso

severethattheprotectedactivities,features,orattributesthatqualifythepropertyfor

protectionunderSection4(f)aresubstantiallyimpaired.

C. Section4 f Evaluation

The term Section 4(f) evaluation is used in this section to refer to the process of

assessing avoidance alternatives, determining the alternative with the least overall

harm, and considering allpossible planning tominimizeharm for the property. This

analysisisrequiredforallusesofSection4(f)propertyexceptinthecaseofademinimis

usedetermination. Thestepsinthisanalysisaredescribedbelow:


7/67



1.

Analyze

Avoidance

Alternatives

Inthisstep,FTAconsidersalternativesthatcompletelyavoidtheuseofaSection4(f)property.

TheavoidanceanalysisappliestheSection4(f)feasibleandprudentcriteria(23CFR774.17(2)

and (3)). Analternative isnot feasible if itcannotbebuiltasamatterofsoundengineering

judgment. Analternativeisnotprudentif:

It compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the

projectinlightofitsstatedpurposeandneed;

Itresultsinunacceptablesafetyoroperationalproblems;

It causes severe social, economic, or environmental impacts even after reasonable

mitigation; severe disruption to established communities; severe disproportionate

impacts to minority or low income populations; or severe impacts to environmental

resourcesprotectedunderotherFederalstatutes;

It

results

in

additional

construction,

maintenance,

or

operational

costs

of

an

extraordinarymagnitude;

Itcausesotheruniqueproblemsorunusualfactors;or

It involves multiple factors above that while individually minor, cumulatively cause

uniqueproblems,orimpactsofextraordinarymagnitude.

2.

Determine

Alternative

with

Least

Overall

Harm

IfnofeasibleandprudentalternativeisidentifiedthatwouldavoidusingaSection4(f)

property,thenFTAmayonlyapprovethealternativethatwouldcausetheleastoverallharmto

Section

4(f)

properties

identified

by

balancing

the

following

factors

(23

CFR

774.3(c)(1)):

(1)

the

abilitytomitigateadverseimpactstoeachSection4(f)property;(2)therelativeseverityofthe

remainingharmaftermitigation;(3)therelativesignificanceofeachSection4(f)property;(4)

theviewsoftheofficialswithjurisdictionovertheproperty;(5)thedegreetowhicheach

alternativemeetsthepurposeandneed;(6)themagnitudeofadverseeffectstoresourcesnot

protectedbySection4(f);and(7)substantialcostdifferenceamongthealternatives.

3.

All

Possible

Planning

All possible planning means that all reasonable measures identified in the Section 4(f)

evaluationtominimizeharmormitigate foradverse impactsandeffectsmustbe included in

theproject.

For public parks, recreation areas and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, the measures may

include (butarenot limited to):designmodificationsordesigngoals;replacementof landor

facilities of comparable value and function; or monetary compensation to enhance the

remainingpropertyortomitigatetheadverseimpactsoftheprojectinotherways.

Forhistoricsites,themeasuresnormallyservetopreservethehistoricactivities, features,or

attributesofthesiteasagreedbytheFTAandtheofficial(s)withjurisdictionovertheSection

4(f)resourceinaccordancewiththeconsultationprocessunder36CFRPart800.


8/67



Inevaluatingthereasonablenessofmeasurestominimizeharm, theFTAwouldconsider the

preservationpurposeofthestatuteand:

Theviewsoftheofficial(s)withjurisdictionovertheSection4(f)property;

Whether the cost of the measures is a reasonable public expenditure in light of the

adverse impacts of the project on the Section 4(f) property and the benefits of the

measuretotheproperty;and

Any impactsorbenefitsof themeasures to communitiesorenvironmental resources

outsideoftheSection4(f)property.

4.

Coordinate

with

Officials

with

Jurisdiction

FTAandMTAarecoordinatingwiththeofficialswithjurisdictionovertheprotectedproperties

forwhichadeterminationismadeinthisDraftSection4(f)Evaluation.

III. ProposedAction

A.

Purpose

and

Need

The purpose of the project is to develop a facility that would efficiently serve operation,

maintenance, inspection and storage requirements of the MARC Penn Line Fleet. The new

facility would accommodate current operational needs, projected ridership growth on the

MARCPennLine,andallowforfutureexpansion.

The MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility project would address four specific needs of the

MARCsystem,asdescribedbelow:

1. NeedforadditionalMARCPennLinetrainstorage.

2.

Needto

consolidate

maintenance,

inspection,

and

storage

functions

for

the

current

MARCsystem.

3.

Need to support expected2035 ridership growth and systemexpansion north of the

SusquehannaRiver.

4.

Becauseofsharedrailroadfacilities,needtosupportAmtraksNortheastCorridor(NEC)

growthplanandplannedexpansionofhighspeedrail.

NeedforadditionalMARCtrainstorage:Currently,MARCstoresandservicessixofthePenn

LinetrainsetsatPennsylvaniaStation inBaltimore,Marylandandtheremainingtwotrainsets

are being stored at the MARC Martin State Airport Facility. Both facilities are at storage

capacitywithnoroomforanticipatedMARCgrowth.

Need to consolidatemaintenance, inspection,and storagefunctionsfor the currentMARC

system:ThecurrentdependenceonAmtrakformaintenanceandinspectionoftheMARCtrains

stored at Pennsylvania Station results in inefficiencies, scheduling conflicts,delays in getting

equipment back online, and high labor costs. Normally Amtraks vehicles have priority

regardingcleaning,repairsandmaintenance. Inaddition,thePennsylvaniaStationworkspaces

areexposedtotheweather,andbecausethereislimitedtrackcapacity,nonewequipmentcan


9/67



be accommodated. An MTAcontrolled facility would allow MARC to prioritize repairs and

improvecosteffectivenessbycompetitivelybiddingfortheoperationofthefacility.

NeedtosupportprojectedridershipgrowthandsystemexpansionnorthoftheSusquehanna

River:TheMARCGrowthandInvestmentPlan(MGIP)isprojectingridershiptodoubleby2035.

The Preferred Alternative would accommodate the storage and maintenance of the needed

additionalequipment

to

meet

the

anticipated

ridership

growth.

Growth

in

ridership

is

an

importantcomponentoftheWilmingtonMetropolitanAreaPlanningCoordinatingCouncilair

qualityplanningandtheMTAsplansforthereductionofgreenhousegasemissionsneededto

meettheGovernors2020emissiongoals. TheabilitytoexpandMARCserviceisconstrainedby

operating on Amtraks NEC tracks and lack of additional storage and maintenance facility

capacity to accommodate additional MARC train equipment. The MTA is addressing the

potential for expansion of MARC service north of Perryville through coordination with the

Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) and the Southeastern Pennsylvania

Transportation Authority (SEPTA). With storage and maintenance facilities currently at Penn

Station

and

Martin

State

Airport,

a

new

storage

and

maintenance

facility

located

within

20

miles of Newark, Delawareis expected to provide the required additional capacity for the

existingserviceareaaswellasalocationconducivetopotentialexpansionoftheMARCservice

north by reducing operational costs associated with significant deadhead travel. The

SusquehannaRiverislocatedapproximately21milessouthofNewark,Delawareandprovides

anappropriategeographicboundaryforconsiderationofpotentialsites.

Need to support Amtraks NEC growth plan and planned expansion of high speed rail:

Amtraks Vision for the Northeast Corridor (2012) proposes expansion of transportation

capacity along the Northeast Corridor, including high speed rail service provided by Acela

Express.AsaresultofAmtrakandMARCsharingtracks,expansionwouldincludeinvestmentin

infrastructurethatwouldallowoperationalseparationbetween interstate,regional,and local

services. The need to support Amtraks NEC growth plan includes consideration of projects

outlinedintheAmtrakNortheastCorridorInfrastructureMasterPlan(2010). TheMasterPlan

identifiesthreebridges innorthernMarylandwhichrequirerehabilitationorreplacementdue

tolimitedcapacityandupgraderequirements.TheSusquehannaRiverRailBridgeisoneofthe

threebridgesrequiringreplacementorrehabilitationandiscurrentlyunderenvironmentaland

engineeringanalysis.

B.

Project

Background

In2012,MTAevaluatedpotentialsitesalongtheNECcorridortoaccommodatetheproposed

MARCNortheast

Maintenance

Facility.

Based

on

MARC

needs,

criteria

were

developed

to

identifyasitetoaccommodateaMARCmaintenancefacility.Minimalcriteriaincluded:

Asite60acresorgreater(theactualfacilityfootprintisdependentonsitespecific

engineeringconstraintsandvariesforeachsiteconsidered.Sixty(60)acresprovidesa

minimumacreagewhichcanbeusedwhenevaluatingpotentialsites).

DirectlyadjacenttotheNEC


10/67



AllowforAmtrakconnectionrequirementswhichincludeaminimumlengthoflead

tracksandtwopointsofconnection

MinimumstoragecapacityforcurrentandfuturePennLinetrains

Enoughspacewithinthe60acreorgreatersitetoaccommodateashopfacility

includinginspectionpitandsandingfacility

AsitegenerallynorthoftheSusquehannaRivertoaccommodateserviceexpansionnorthof

Perryville

Recently,theMTAhasbeguntoexaminethepotentialforexpansionofMARCservicenorthof

Perryville.Whilenotoriginallyincludedinthesiteselectioncriteria,itwaslateridentifiedthata

site isneedednorthof theSusquehannaRiver toaccommodate serviceexpansionaswellas

avoidbottleneckingofhighspeedtrainsattheSusquehannaRiverbridge.With limitedMARC

storageattheMartinStateAirportFacilitymidwaybetweenBaltimoreandPerryville,afacility

atthenorthendofthelinebettersupportscurrentandfutureMARCoperations,includingthe

potentialexpansionofMARCservicenorth.

Inthe

2012

study,

MTA

evaluated

five

potential

locations

to

accommodate

the

proposed

MARC

NortheastMaintenanceFacilitybasedon:acreageandsystems requirements for the railroad

facilities,Amtrak connection requirements,andenvironmentaleffects. Some siteshad fatal

flaws including environmental impacts or operational impacts to Amtrak rail service that

would prohibit construction at those locations. Costs were a consideration in potential

alternative locations, but costs were not used as an absolute measure for feasibility of

locations. This evaluation was documented in the MARC Maintenance Facility Site Selection

Report,February2012. Followingthestudyandfurtheranalysisofthesites,MTAspreferred

locationforthemaintenancefacilityisinPerryville,Maryland,southofPrincipioFurnaceRoad

betweenFirestoneRoadandPrincipioStationRoad,asseeninFigure1.

C.

Project

Description

TheproposedMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldprovideMARCwiththecapabilityof

storing, servicing and inspecting complete commuter rail trainsets daily and of performing

scheduledandunscheduledmaintenanceandrepairworkonbothlocomotivesandpassenger

cars.Theprojectwould support theexistingeight trainsets (10 locomotivesand53coaches)

currentlyoperatingonMARCsPennLinewithapotentialexpansionofthefacilitytosupporta

2035MARCoperatingfleetof25 locomotives,181multilevelcoaches,andonedieselswitch

locomotivetoservicethePennLine.

The

entire

site

is

121

acres,

with

56

acres

needed

for

the

maintenance

facility.

The

site

plan

includes: a servicing and inspection pit covered with a semiopen shed, semipermanent

storagebuildingsforpersonnel,locomotiveservicingstation,parkingarea,fuelingandsanding

pad with two 20,000 gallon aboveground diesel fuel storage tanks, commercial power

substation,access road fromPrincipioFurnaceRoadandaccess roadwayswithin the facility,

andastormwatermanagementfacility.Theestimatedtotalcostforconstructionoftheproject

is$355Million,not including rightofway.Rightofway costs are unknown at this time and

cannotbedetermineduntilNEPAhasbeencompleted.


11/67



D. PreferredAlternative

ThePreferred Alternative site,PerryvilleA, is located on thenorth side of the Amtrak NEC,

south of MD 7 (Principio Furnace Road), south and east of the intersection of MD 7 with

CoudonBoulevardandapproximately1milenorthoftheSusquehannaRiverRailBridgealong

theNEC(Figure1).ThePreferredAlternativesite isapproximately8,000feet longandranges

from30

feet

wide

along

the

railroad

tracks

to

1,500

feet

wide

where

the

access

road

is

proposedandthetotalsiteareaisapproximately121acres.

ThePreferredAlternativesiteisusedforagriculturalpurposes,butiszonedhighdensity

residential.Themajorityofthesiteiscleared,providingpotentiallocationsforonsitemitigation

ofwetlandandforestareaimpacts. Potentialenvironmentalimpactswouldincludelessthan

oneacreofwetlandimpacts,4.4acresofforestedareaimpacts,privatepropertyacquisition

fromtheedgeofagolfcourse,andothercommercialpropertiesalongtheNEC. Thereisahigh

potentialfordemolitionofhistoricresources(farmstead)locatedonthesite.

The Preferred Alternative meets the projects purpose and need, meets all the site criteria

requirementsand

provides

land

for

onsite

wetland

and

forest

area

mitigation.

However,

there

wouldbeanadverseeffecttohistoricresources,andMTAwouldberesponsibleforallrequired

minimizationandmitigationmeasuresinaccordancewith36CFR800.


12/67

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVESITE

FIGURE 1

NOT TO SCALE

FOREST

MITIGATION

AREA


13/67



IV.

Section

4(f)

Properties

There are no publicly owned parks or recreational facilities in the vicinity of the proposed

action. HistoricsiteswereidentifiedinaccordancewiththeSection106processoftheNational

Historic Preservation Act, as amended. Per 23 CFR 774, Section 4(f) requirements apply to

historic sites listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as identified in

accordancewith

the

Section

106

process

of

the

National

Historic

Preservation

Act,

as

amended

AsurveyoftheAreaofPotentialEffects(APE)fortheprojectidentified12propertiesthatwere

greater than 50 years old. Four properties, the Woodlands Farm Historic District, the

Anchorage,CrothersHouse,andLindenwood,areconsideredeligible for theNRHP (Table1).

ThePreferredAlternativewouldhaveadirectuseontheWoodlandsFarmHistoricDistrictand

theusewouldnotbeademinimisimpact.

Table1:SummaryofAboveGroundNRHPHistoricPropertiesandSection4(f)Applicability

PropertyName AddressNRHP

Eligibility

Determinationof Effect Section4(f)Use

TheAnchorage50MillCreek

Road

CriteriaA

andC

IndirectAdverseEffect

forvisualeffectNone

CrothersHouse97Chesapeake

ViewRoadCriteriaC Noadverseeffect None

Lindenwood1287Principio

FurnaceRoadCriteriaC Noadverseeffect None

WoodlandsFarm

HistoricDistrict

Northandsouth

sideof MD

Route7

CriteriaA

andC

DirectandIndirect

AdverseEffect

Yes,directuseto

contributingelements

withinthehistoricdistrict

The Anchorage is a 22acre property with associated farm fields and an 1878 Victorianera

farmhouse, with one historic outbuilding and one nonhistoric outbuilding. The property is

locatedonMillCreekRoad,approximatelytwomilesnorthofthePreferredAlternative. There

isnodirectuseoftheproperty;however,theproposedMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility

wouldbevisiblefromthisproperty.

The Crothers House is a largescale random ashlar clad highstyle Colonial Revival house

constructed in1936.Curvedstonesidewalls flanktheentrancedrive,which is linedwith low

stonewalls.Thedriveandlandscapingchoreographthevisitorsfirstimpressionofthehouse,

providing a grand view of this country estate main house. The landscaping adjacent to the

drivewayandhouse isa characterdefining feature that conveys thedesign intentofa large

countryestate

house.

A

golf

course

surrounds

the

Crothers

House,

but

the

landscaping

is

limitedtotheoneacreboundaryoftheinventoriesproperty. TheFurnaceBayGolfCourseis

notsubjecttoSection4(f)becauseitisaprivatelyownedandoperatedgolfcourse.Itisopento

thegeneralpublicbutsubjecttofees.

TheLindenwoodHouse isa localexampleofaregionallysignificantearly19thcenturyhouse

typewithaHallandDoubleParlor.ThePreferredAlternativewouldhavenoadverseeffecton

the characterdefining features of Lindenwood that make it eligible for NRHP listing under


14/67



CriterionC forarchitectureasan intactand importantexampleofavernacularbuilding type

associatedwiththeMidAtlanticculturalregion. ThePreferredAlternativewouldnothavean

adverseeffecttothisproperty.

The Woodlands Farm Historic District (MIHP CE145) was listed in the NRHP in 1977 and

consistsofalargefarmcomplexlocatedonthenorthandsouthsideofMarylandRoute7,1.5

mileseast

of

Perryville,

Maryland

(Figure

2).

The

assessment

of

the

Preferred

Alternative

resulted

in

aproposedexpansionoftheWoodlandsFarmHistoricDistricttoencompassstructuresandagricultural

fieldssouthofMarylandRoute7.TheWoodlandsFarmHistoricDistrictiseligibleforlistingonthe

NRHPunderCriterionAforagriculturalsignificance,representingalmost150yearsofcontinued

agriculturaluseofalargetractoflandintheregion. ThisHistoricDistrictisalsoeligibleunder

Criterion C for architectural significant and important lands whose individual elements

collectivelyrepresentahistoricallysignificantunit.

The Woodland Farm is divided into a north farm complex and a south farm complex and

includesapproximately350acres.Thenorth farm is locatedonWoodlandsFarmLaneNorth

includesthe

main

house,

carriage

house/garage,

privy,

general

equipment

barn,

managers

house,corncrib,barn,anicehouse/rootcellar,aningroundpoolwithpoolhouse,andatenant

housewithaprivyandmodernutilityshed.Theingroundpoolwithpoolhouseandthetenant

housewithaprivyandmodernutilityshedareconsiderednoncontributingresources.

The Woodlands Farm south complex is located on Woodlands Farm Lane South (Figure 3).

Althoughhistoricallyassociatedwiththe1977WoodlandsNRHPproperty,thesouthfarmwas

not included in the nomination. The FTA made an eligibility determination that the south

complex is part of the NRHP historic district and a revised Maryland Inventory of Historic

Properties(MIHP)formwassubmittedtotheSHPOonJuly22,2014. TherevisedMIHPform

expandsthe

historic

district

boundary

to

include

approximately

200

acres

historically

associated

withtheCoudonfamilyfarmingoperationsandincludes14contributingelements,including11

buildings,twoagriculturalfields,andonearcheologicalsite. Thecomplexofbuildingsincludes

atenanthouse,tenanthousesgarage,bankbarnwithloafingsheds,bullpen,blacksmithshop,

chickenhouse, foremanshouse, foremanhousesgarage,barnwith loafing shed,bungalow,

meathouse,springhouse,andthesurroundingfarmfield(Figure3).Thetenanthousesgarage

isnoncontributing.Someofthebuildingsarenotvisiblefromthepublicrightway.Anasphalt

roadprovidesaccesstothesouthfarmcomplexpropertyfromWoodlandsFarmLaneSouth.

The Woodlands Farm south complex is surrounded by farm fields and is south of Maryland

Route

7

and

north

of

the

Amtrak

(formerly

Philadelphia,

Washington,

and

Baltimore)

rail

lines.

The farm fields in the boundary for the Woodlands Farm Historic District are contributing

featuresfortheirsignificancetotheagriculturalsettingthatconveysthehistoricfunctionofthe

property. Thefieldsaredirectlyassociatedwithimportantthemesofagriculturaldevelopment,

suchastheshiftfromtobaccotograinfarming,AgrarianReform,TenantFarmingandMarket

Farming.ThesizeandimportanceoftheCoudonfarmingoperationscontributedtothearea's


15/67

South Farm Complex

North Farm Complex

Iy

?

A}

A

7

F u r n a c eB a y

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

AVENUEG

PRINCIPIOFU

RNACERD

PERRYVILLE

RD

AVENUED

BROADS

T

EIGHTHST

COUDONBLVD

MILLCREEKRD

BAYS

CAPE

DR

IKEARD

FIFT

HST

CEDA R CORNERRD

JACKSONSTATIONRD

W I N C H

R D

LAUNDRY

DR

PULASKIHWY

September2014

LEGEND

Woodlands FarmHistoric District

Property Boundary800 0 800 1,600400

Feet I

Figure 2:

Woodlands Farm Historic District


16/67

Tenant'sHouse Garage

Tenant'sHouse

Bank Barn w/Loafing Shed

Barn w/Loafing Shed

Bull Pen

Blacksmith's Shop

Foreman's Garage

BungalowForeman's House

Meat House

Chicken House

Spring House

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

Figure 3:

Woodlands Farm South Complex

September2014

LEGEND

Woodlands FarmHistoric District

Property Boundary100 0 100 20050

Feet IHistoric Stuctures within


17/67



economy,productivity,or identityasanagriculturalcommunity,andthehistoric integrityof

thefieldsisaugmentedbytheextanthistoricfarmbuildings,andthefieldsprovidethehistoric

farmbuildingswith integrityof feeling,association, setting,anddesign,clearly reflecting the

historicfunctionoflandscapeduringtheperiodofsignificance.

V.

Section

4(f)

UseOf the110acres in theWoodlandsFarmsouthcomplex (allofwhicharecontributing to the

District itself), approximately 56 acres would be permanently used for construction of the

MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility.Theconstructionofthefacilitywoulddemolishallofthe

standingstructuresontheWoodlandsFarmsouthcomplex,whicharecontributingelementsto

theHistoricDistrict(Figure3). Noneofthestandingstructuresonthepropertyareindividually

eligibleforlistingontheNRHP. ThePreferredAlternativewouldhaveanadverseeffectonthe

WoodlandsFarmHistoricDistrictintermsofSection106oftheNationalHistoricPreservation

Act.IntermsofSection4(f)oftheDepartmentofTransportationAct,theactionwouldresultin

a permanent use of contributing elements of the Historic District. Therefore, an avoidance

alternativeevaluation

and

least

harm

analysis

have

been

prepared

for

the

potential

Section

4(f)

impactsatthePreferredAlternativesite.

VI.

Avoidance

Analysis

A feasibleandprudentavoidancealternativeavoidsusingSection4(f)propertyanddoesnot

causeother severeproblemsofamagnitude that substantiallyoutweighs the importanceof

protectingtheSection4(f)property.InassessingtheimportanceofprotectingtheSection4(f)

property, it is appropriate to consider the relativevalueof the resource to thepreservation

purposeofthestatute.ThepreservationpurposeofSection4(f)isdescribedin49U.S.C.303(a),

which

states:

It

is

the

policy

of

the

United

States

Government

that

special

effort

should

be

madetopreservethenaturalbeautyofthecountrysideandpublicparkandrecreation lands,

wildlifeandwaterfowlrefuges,andhistoricsites.

Analternativeisnotfeasibleifitcannotbebuiltasamatterofsoundengineeringjudgment.

Analternativeisnotprudentif:

It compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the

projectinlightofitsstatedpurposeandneed;

Itresultsinunacceptablesafetyoroperationalproblems;

Itcauses

severe

social,

economic,

or

environmental

impacts

even

after

reasonable

mitigation; severe disruption to established communities; severe disproportionate

impacts to minority or low income populations; or severe impacts to environmental

resourcesprotectedunderotherFederalstatutes;

It results in additional construction, maintenance, or operational costs of an

extraordinarymagnitude;

Itcausesotheruniqueproblemsorunusualfactors;or


18/67



It involves multiple factors above that while individually minor, cumulatively cause

uniqueproblems,orimpactsofextraordinarymagnitude.

MTAevaluatedelevenalternativesthatavoidallSection4(f)properties,includingtheNoBuild

Alternative, have been evaluated by MTA. The avoidance alternatives are analyzed in

accordancewiththedefinitionof feasibleandprudentavoidancealternative found in23CFR

774.17.

Fourofthe10buildalternativeswerepreviouslyevaluatedaspartoftheMARCMaintenance

Facility Site Selection Report (2012). Anadditional sixavoidancealternativeswereevaluated

(includinganobuildoption).Refer toFigure4 foranoverviewof the avoidancealternative

sitesconsidered.RefertoTable2foracomparisonoftheavoidancealternativesconsidered.

A.

Sites

Evaluated

in

the

MARC

Maintenance

Facility

Site

Selection

Report

1.

Perryville

B

Site

Avoidance

Alternative,

Perryville,

Maryland

PerryvilleBSitewouldavoidallSection4(f)properties.PerryvilleBSiteislocatedonthesouth

side

of

the

NEC,

directly

east

of

the

Ikea

Distribution

Center,

northeast

of

Mill

Creek,

and

northwestofFurnaceBay inPerryville,Maryland,northoftheSusquehannaRiver (Figure5).

Thesite isapproximately6,500 feet longandranges fromapproximately30 feetwide (along

the leadtracksadjacenttotheAmtrakmainlinetracks)to1,400 feetwide.Thesitecurrently

houses the Amtrak Maintenance of Way (MOW) base of operations for the personnel and

equipmentthatmaintaintheNEC fromWilmingtontoBaltimore.Theportionofthesitethat

wouldbeoccupiedbyMTAsimprovementswouldbeapproximately44acres.

PerryvilleBSitewouldrequirethecompleterelocationoftheAmtrakMOWfacility(estimated

costof$58Million) inorder toachieveaworkable site layout and constructionof twonew

crossovers in Perry Interlocking. An interlocking is an arrangement of signals and signal

appliances so interconnected that their movements must succeed each other in proper

sequence. Reconstruction of an interlocking is costly due to the construction of new or

refurbishedtrack,signalsandcatenary(additional informationisincludedinAttachmentA).A

crossover isapairof switches that connects twoparallel rail tracks,allowinga trainonone

track tocrossover to theother.Whilecrossoversallowadditional trainmovement flexibility

they requirea reducedspeed (nomore than80milesperhour).This isnotcompatiblewith

AmtraksNECInfrastructureMasterPlanandtheneedforhighspeedrailalongtheNEC. This

sitelocationmaycreatepossibleinterferencewithexistingserviceandproposedfutureAmtrak

capacityimprovementwork.

Theseconditions

are

not

consistent

with

the

project

purpose

and

need,

specifically

Amtraks

NECgrowthplan.Construction timeuntiloperationwould alsobeat leasta year longer, as

AmtraksMOWwouldhave tobereconstructed,and then relocatedbeforeMTAcouldbegin

constructionoftheMARCMaintenanceFacility.PerryvilleBSitewouldrequire15.3acresoffull

property acquisition (MOW Base), 45.6 acres of partial acquisition (Ikea Distribution Center)

and15.8acresof temporaryeasements. The totalestimated cost todevelop this site for a

MARCMaintenanceFacility is$531Million($176MillionmorethanthePreferredAlternative

site).


19/67



PerryvilleBSiteislocatedwithinthevicinityofindustriallandusesthatmayposeahazardous

materials subsurface contamination risk. Additional potential environmental impacts would

include impacts to 2.3 acres of forested area (requiring approximately 13.6 acres of

reforestation);oneacreofimpactswithintheCriticalArea(definedas,alllandwithin1,000feet

of theMeanHighWater Lineof tidalwatersor the landwardedgeof tidalwetlandsandall

watersof

and

lands

under

the

Chesapeake

Bay

and

its

tributaries);

and

in

close

proximity

to

one

historicproperty,listedontheMIHPwitharcheologicalpotential. ItislikelythattheMIHPsite

would be eligible for the NRHP and that the archeological site may extend into the parcel

neededforconstructionofthisalternative.

ThePerryvilleBsite isnotafeasibleandprudentavoidancealternative. It isunreasonableto

proceedwith thesite in lightof theprojectsstatedpurposeandneedbecause the required

relocationofAmtraksMOWdoesnotmeet the statedneed to supportAmtraksNortheast

Corridor (NEC) growth plan and planned expansion of highspeed rail. The relocation and

reconstruction of Amtraks MOW also adds significant cost (approximately 49.5 percent

increase

over

the

Preferred

Alternative

site

not

including

right

of

way

costs)

to

the

project

and

wouldresultinunacceptableoperationalissueswithAmtrakoperationsontheNEC.Forthese

reasons,thePerryvilleBSiteisthereforenotafeasibleandprudentavoidancealternativeand

iseliminatedbecauseitcausessevereproblemsofamagnitudethatsubstantiallyoutweighthe

importanceofprotectingtheSection4(f)properties.


20/67

Figure 4


21/67

40

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGetmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

gure 5 Perryville B Site0 0.3 0.60.15

Perryvi

Intersta

US Hig

MD Hig

Railroa

ober 2014


22/67


23/67

4040

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USAEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

igure 6 Opus Site0 0.3 0.60.15 Mile

InterstateUS Highway

MD Highway

Opus

ctober 2014


24/67



3. AberdeenProvingGroundSiteAvoidanceAlternative,Edgewood,Maryland

TheAberdeenProvingGround (APG)SitewouldavoidallSection4(f)properties identifiedat

the Preferred Alternative site. This site is located on the south side of the NEC, north of

Magnolia Road (MD Route 152) and south of EmmortonRoad (MDRoute 24), south of the

SusquehannaRiver(Figure7). Theproposedprojectsiteisapproximately6,800feetlongand

rangesfrom

30

feet

wide

(along

the

lead

tracks

adjacent

to

the

Amtrak

mainline

tracks)

to

800

feetwideandhasatotalsiteareaofapproximately74acres. Theportionofthesitethatwould

beoccupiedbyMTAs improvementswouldbeapproximately59acres.Theproposedproject

siteislocatedentirelywithinAPG,whichisfederallandandcurrentlyundermilitaryuse.

The APG Site is located within the vicinity of military/industrial land uses that may pose a

hazardous materials subsurface contamination risk and a safety risk associated with the

potentialpresenceofunexplodedordinances. TheAPGSiteislistedontheNationalPriorities

List Database as a Superfund cleanup location. Development of this site would require

relocationofexistingAPGfunctionsandexistingBG&Eaerialelectricaltransmission lines.The

APG

Site

would

require

construction

of

one

new

crossover

and

one

new

turnout

in

MAGNOLIA

Interlocking.

TheSitewouldrequire58.9acresfromAPGthroughanEnhancedUseLease(EUL). Thisprocess

would require coordination with and approval from APG for security clearances; therefore,

construction time isunknown. Asa tenantona superfund site, theMTAmaybe subject to

liabilityconcerns. Anadditional15.1acresoflandwouldbeacquiredforutilityrelocationsand

1.9 acres would be temporarily impacted during construction. The total estimated cost to

constructthissiteforaMARCMaintenanceFacility is$529Million,not includingrightofway

costs,whichis$174MillionmorethanthePreferredAlternativesite.

Additionalpotential

environmental

impacts

would

include

impacts

to

hazardous

materials

(a

known Superfund site); 3.3 acres of wetland/ WUS areas; 1.8 acres of 100 and 500year

floodplains;25.1acresofforestedarea(requiring25.4acresofreforestation);and13.4acresof

ForestInteriorDwellingSpecies(FIDS)habitat.

AlthoughtheAPGSitewouldavoidimpactstotheSection4(f)resourcesidentifiedatthe

PreferredAlternativesite,itisnotafeasibleandprudentavoidancealternative. Itis

unreasonabletoproceedwiththealternativeinlightoftheprojectsstatedpurposeandneed,

asthesiteissouthoftheSusquehannaRiverandthereforedoesnotsupportsystemexpansion

northoftheRiver. Theconstructionofonenewcrossoverandturnout,relocationofelectric

transmissionlines

and

APG

facilities

and

well

as

the

unknown

time

for

construction

on

APG

propertywouldresultinengineeringissuesaddingsignificantcost(approximately49percent

overthePreferredAlternativesite,notincludingrightofwaycosts)totheproject. TheAPG

Siteisthereforenotafeasibleandprudentavoidancealternativeandiseliminatedbecauseit

causessevereproblemsofamagnitudethatsubstantiallyoutweightheimportanceof

protectingtheSection4(f)properties.


25/67


igure 7 Aberdeen Proving Ground Site0 0.3 0.60.15 Mile

Aberdeen Proving Gro

Interstate

US Highway

MD Highway

ctober 2014


26/67



4. PrologisSiteAvoidanceAlternative,Edgewood,Maryland

ThePrologisSitewouldavoidallSection4(f)properties identifiedatthePreferredAlternative

site. ThesiteislocatedinEdgewood,Maryland,southoftheSusquehannaBridge,onthenorth

sideoftheNECandapproximately1,800feetsouthofTrimbleRoad(Figure8).Theproposed

project site is approximately 8,200 feet long and ranges from 30 feet wide (along the lead

tracksadjacent

to

the

Amtrak

mainline

tracks)

to

1,300

feet

wide;

the

total

site

area

comprises

approximately73acres.TheportionofthesitethatwouldbeoccupiedbyMTAsimprovements

wouldbeapproximately56acres.The totalestimatedcost toconstruct this site foraMARC

Maintenance Facility is $483 Million, not including rightofway, which is $128 Million more

thanthePreferredAlternativesite.

ThePrologisSitewillrequiretheextensionofTrack4andconstructionofonenewcrossover

and one new turnout in MAGNOLIA Interlocking. This site requires full acquisition of an

industrialpropertyandseveralpartialresidentialpropertyacquisitions. Severalhomesabutthe

AmtrakrightofwayatthenorthendnearWOODInterlocking,potentiallyrequiring2.6acresof

residential

property

and

65

acres

of

commercial

property.

Further,

this

location

may

require

modificationstotheMDRoute152andMDRoute24bridges,ifitisfoundthatretainingwalls

required to permit the installation of the lead tracks would be insufficient to support the

abutments.

Constructionofthesitewouldrequirerelocationofanexistingstormwatermanagementpond.

Additionalenvironmental impacts include impactstoforestedarea(13.2acres)requiring16.5

acres of reforestation; 100 and 500year floodplain; and 19 wetlands and 6 waterways

systems. There is also the potential for encountering contaminated materials as the site is

adjacenttotheAPGproperty,aknownSuperfundSite.

Althoughthe

Prologis

Site

would

avoid

impacts

to

the

Section

4(f)

resources

identified

at

the

PreferredAlternativesite,itisnotprudent.Itisunreasonabletoproceedwiththealternativein

lightoftheprojectsstatedpurposeandneed,asthesiteissouthoftheSusquehannaRiverand

therefore does not support system expansion north of the River. The extension of Track 4,

constructionofonenewcrossoverandonenewturnout,propertyacquisitions,andpotential

reconstructionoftwohighwaybridgeswouldresultinengineeringissuesaddingsignificantcost

totheproject(approximately36percentoverthePreferredAlternativesite,notincludingright

ofwaycosts).ThePrologisSite is thereforenota feasibleandprudentavoidancealternative

anditisbeingeliminatedbecauseitcausessevereproblemsofamagnitudethatsubstantially

outweightheimportanceofprotectingtheSection4(f)properties.


27/67


igure 8 Prologis Site0 0.3 0.60.15 Mile

Prologis

Interstate

US Highw

MD Highw

Railroad

ctober 2014


28/67



B.

Additional

Avoidance

Alternative

Sites

Evaluated

1. NoBuildAlternative

The NoBuild Alternative would avoid all Section 4(f) properties identified at the Preferred

Alternativesite.UndertheNoBuildAlternative,noimprovementsorconstructionbeyondthat

which isalreadyplannedandprogrammedare included. IfanewMARCMaintenanceFacility

werenotbuilt,growthwouldbelimitedinthatadditionalMARCtrainscouldnotbeacquiredas

currentlythere isnotenoughstoragecapacitytoaddtrains. AlsoMARCservicecouldnotbe

expandednorthofPerryville.

AlthoughtheNoBuildAlternativewouldavoid impactstotheSection4(f)properties, it isnot

prudentbecauseitwouldnotmeetthepurposeandneedfortheproject. Specifically,theNo

Build Alternative would not provide the needed additional MARC train storage or a MARC

managedmaintenancefacility,andwouldnotsupportfutureexpansionofMARCorAmtraks

NECgrowthplan. Therefore,theNoBuildAlternativecausessevereproblemsofamagnitude

thatsubstantially

outweighs

the

importance

of

protecting

the

Section

4(f)

properties.

2.

New

Bengies

Site

Avoidance

Alternative

The New Bengies Site would avoid all Section 4(f) properties identified at the Preferred

Alternativesite. NewBengiesSiteislocatedsouthoftheSusquehannaRiver,onthewestside

of the NEC along New Bengies Road in Baltimore, Maryland across from the Martin State

AirportMaintenanceFacility(Figure9).

ThissitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan, inthatthe leadtrackstoa

maintenancefacilityatthissitewouldhavetodivergefromAmtrakTrack3whichis,andwillbe

in

the

future,

the

southbound

high

speed

track.

Amtrak

does

not

typically

allow

tracks

to

divergefroman125mphtrackintolowspeedfacilities,sotheywillrequiretheconstructionof

a4th

track (Track4)toallowMARCtrainstomakeahighspeeddivergingmoveontoTrack4

where they can then decelerate to a suitable operating speed for entering the MARC yard.

Track4wouldalsoserveasanaccelerationtrackfortrainsenteringtheNEC. Constructionof

Track4wouldbe costlydue to the lengthof track required,possibly fromas far asexisting

GUNPOW InterlockingtothesiteofproposedESSEX Interlocking,adistanceofapproximately

5.3miles,whichcouldresultinapproximately$133Million $177Million1inadditionalproject

costs.

ThereisanexistinghighwaybridgeMDRoute43(WhitemarshBoulevard)thatcrossesoverthe

NEC tracks within the New Bengies Site. This bridge would need to be reconstructed to

accommodatetheleadtracksandwouldthereforeaddsignificantcosttotheproject. Further,

thissiteisconstrainedtothenorthbyalargebuildingcurrentlyunderconstruction. IfAmtrak

wouldallowtheleadtrackstobeconnectedtoTrack3,thelayoutwouldrequiremodification

inordertoprovideadirectconnection.

1Theadditionofnew,electrifiedtrackalongtheexistingNortheastCorridorisestimatedtobeapproximately$25

Millionto$33.33Millionpermile.


29/67


Figure 9 New Bengies Site

0 0.3 0.60.15 M

New Beng

Railroad

Interstate

US Highwa

MD Highw

October 2014


30/67



Developingthissiteforamaintenancefacilitywouldresultinimpactstoapproximately44acres

offorestedarea,4acresofwetlands,and51acresofFIDShabitat. Forestimpactsofthis

magnitudewouldrequiretheMTAtocomplywiththeMarylandForestConservationAct.

Approvalwouldbecontingentuponprovidingadequateforestmitigation,whichislikely50to

60acres. Mitigationcostsforlargetractsofforestimpactsoftenincludethepurchaseofland

formitigation

and

planting

or

payment

into

aforest

conservation

bank.

One

estimate

for

payment intoaforestbank isapproximately$15,000peracre,whichwouldbeapproximately

$750,000to$900,000forthissite.(MasonDixonSiteAnalysisMemo,January3,2014.)

Impacts to wetlands would require coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers and

MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment.Mitigationcostsfortheseimpactswouldlikelycost

approximately $100,000 per acre, for a total of approximately $500,000 for this site, not

includingcostsfordesignorpropertyacquisition.

Constructionofamaintenance facilityattheNewBengiesSitewouldresult inapproximately

0.4

acres

of

residential

property

impacts.

Although this site would avoid impacts to the Section 4(f) resources, it is not prudent. It is

unreasonabletoproceedwiththealternativeinlightoftheprojectsstatedpurposeandneed,

asthesiteissouthoftheSusquehannaRiverandthereforedoesnotsupportsystemexpansion

northoftheRiver. ThissitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan, inthat

theleadtrackstoamaintenancefacilityatthissitewouldhavetodivergefromAmtrakTrack3

whichis,andwillbeinthefuture,thesouthboundhighspeedtrack. Therequiredconstruction

ofoverfivemilesofTrack4andpotentialreconstructionofahighwaybridgewouldresult in

engineering issues adding significant cost to the project. Construction of this site for the

maintenance facilitywouldalso result in impacts to residentialproperties. TheNewBengies

Siteisthereforenotafeasibleandprudentavoidancealternativeandiseliminatedbecauseit

causes severe problems of a magnitude that substantially outweigh the importance of


3.

Chesapeake

Site

Avoidance

Alternative

The Chesapeake Site would avoid all Section 4(f) properties identified at the Preferred

Alternativesite. TheChesapeakeSite is locatedsouthoftheSusquehannaRiver,ontheeast

sideoftheNEC,justnorthofwhereitcrossestheGunpowderRiverandsouthofHoadleyRoad

inEdgewood,Maryland (Figure10). This site ispartof theAberdeenProvingGroundand is

currentlyownedbytheUSGovernment.

AccesstothissiteisprovidedthroughtheAPGproperty. Negotiationsregardingaccessrights

with APG could delay the project for an extended period of time. This site would not be

compatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlanandthestatedpurposeandneedfortheproject,in

that the leadtrackstoamaintenance facilityat thissitewouldhave todiverge fromAmtrak

Track2inacurvewhichis,andwillbeinthefuture,thenorthboundhighspeedtrack.Amtrak

would likelynotallowthisconnectionwithtrackstodiverge froman125mphtrack into low

speedfacilitiesduetosafetyconcerns.Anotheroptionforleadtrackstothissitewouldbe


31/67


Figure 10 Chesapeake Site0 0.3 0.60.15 M

Chesapeake Si

Interstate

US Highway

MD Highway

Railroad

October 2014


32/67



placingtheturnoutontheexistingGunpowderRiverBridgeintangenttrack,butstillinTrack2.

ThisoptionwouldlikelybeevenlessacceptabletoAmtrak.

TheonlyotheroptionforleadtrackstothissitewouldbetoextendexistingTrackAacrossthe

Gunpowder River on a new bridge fromGUNPOW Interlocking to the site, ahuge cost that

wouldlikelybeunacceptabletotheState.

Developingthissite foramaintenance facilitywouldresult in impactstounknownhazardous

materialsontheAPG,53acresofforestedarea,5acresofwetlands,47acresofFIDShabitat,

22 acres within the 100year floodplain, and 12 acres within the Critical Area (CA). Forest

impacts of this magnitude would require extensive coordination, compliance and mitigation

whichwouldbeapproximately$750,000to$900,000forthissite. Impactstowetlandswould

require coordinationwith theUSArmyCorpsofEngineersandMarylandDepartmentof the

Environment.Mitigation forwetland impactswouldcostapproximately$500,000 forthissite

(notincludingcostsfordesignorpropertyacquisition).

Impacts

within

the

100

year

floodplain

resulting

in

added

fill

material

would

require

coordinationwithandapermitfromtheMarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment. Increases

to elevations within the floodplain would require extensive coordination with the Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and potentially the purchasing of floodplain

easements.

Impacts within the Critical Area of the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays would require

coordinationwiththeCriticalAreaCommissionandadherencetotherequirementsstipulated

forworkoccurringwithintheCriticalArea. TheCriticalArearequirementswilldictatethetype,

extentandlocationofimprovementsparticularlywithinthe100footbuffer. TheCriticalArea

requirementsmayinvolvefeeinlieuorplantingstooffsetimpacts.

Although the Chesapeake Site would avoid impacts to the Section 4(f) resources, it is not

prudent. It is unreasonable to proceed with the alternative in light of the projects stated

purpose and need, as the site is south of the Susquehanna River and therefore does not

supportsystemexpansionnorthoftheRiver.ThissitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraks

NECMasterPlan in that the lead tracks toamaintenance facility at this sitewouldhave to

divergefromAmtrakTrack2inacurvewhichis,andwillbeinthefuture,thenorthboundhigh

speed track, or new lead tracks off an existing bridge; both options would likely be

unacceptable to Amtrak for safety and operational reasons. There are unknown risks for

encountering contaminated materials as the site is part of the APG. The Chesapeake Site is

thereforenot

afeasible

and

prudent

avoidance

alternative

and

it

is

being

eliminated

because

it

causes severe problems of a magnitude that substantially outweigh the importance of


4.

Chelsea

Site

Avoidance

Alternative

TheChelseaSitewouldavoidallSection4(f)properties identifiedatthePreferredAlternative

site. Thissiteislocated,southoftheSusquehannaRiver,onChelseaRoadontheeastsideof

theNEC,justnorthofwhereitcrossesBushRiverinAberdeen,Maryland(Figure11).


33/67

4040


gure 11 - Chelsea Site

0 0.6 1.20.3 Mile

Railroad

Interstate

US Highw

MD Highw

Chelsea S

ober 2014


34/67



Thissitewaspreviouslyconsideredintheinitialsitesearchforthe2012SiteSelectionReport,

andwaseliminated.

ThissitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan, inthatthe leadtrackstoa

maintenancefacilityatthissitewouldhavetodivergefromAmtrakTrack2whichis,andwillbe

inthefuture,thenorthboundhighspeedtrack. TobeconsistentwiththeAmtrakplan,Amtrak

willrequire

the

construction

of

the

future

4th

track,

Track

1,

to

allow

MARC

trains

to

make

a

highspeeddivergingmoveontoTrack1wheretheycanthendeceleratetoasuitableoperating

speedforenteringtheMARCyard. Track1wouldalsoserveasanaccelerationtrackfortrains

enteringtheNEC,causingsafetyconcerns. ConstructionofTrack1wouldlikelybeverycostly

duetothelengthoftrackrequired,possiblyasfarasfromexistingBUSHInterlockingtothesite

of proposedBOOTH Interlocking, adistanceof approximately4.4miles, approximately$110

Millionto$147Million1 inadditionalprojectcostsfortheconstructionofthetracksrequired.

Also,thenorth leadtrackwould requireconnection toTrack2 (orTrack1) inacurve,which

would not be permitted due to the superelevation of the tracks and the geometry of the

turnout.

The

north

lead

track

would

have

to

be

extended

approximately

2

miles

northward

to

reachtangenttracknearChelseaRoadoverheadhighwaybridge.

DevelopingtheChelseaSiteforamaintenancefacilitywouldresultinimpactstoapproximately

26acresofforestedarea,oneacreofwetlands,19acresofFIDShabitat,oneacrewithinthe

100year floodplain, and 53 acres within the Critical Area (CA). Forest impacts of this

magnitudewould requireextensivecoordination,complianceandmitigationwhichwouldbe

approximately$400,000forthissite,not includingpropertyacquisition. TheCA includes land

within 1,000 feetofMarylands tidal waters and tidal wetlands, including the waters of the

Chesapeake Bay, the Atlantic Coastal Bays, their tidal tributaries and the lands underneath

thesetidalareas. ImpactswithintheCArequirecoordination,mitigationandapprovalbythe

CriticalAreaCommission(CAC).

Impacts to wetlands would require coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers and

Maryland Department of the Environment, a joint Federal/State Permit, and mitigation.

Wetlandmitigationcostswouldbeapproximately$100,000forthissite,notincludingdesignor

propertyacquisition.

The addition of fill material in the 100year floodplain would require a permit from the

MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment. Increasestoelevationswithinthefloodplainwould

requireextensivecoordinationwith theFederalEmergencyManagementAgency (FEMA)and

potentiallythe

purchasing

of

floodplain

easements.

Impacts

within

the

CA

of

the

Chesapeake

and Atlantic Coastal Bays would require coordination with the CAC, adherence to CA

requirements,andmayinvolvefeeinlieuorplantingstooffsetimpacts.

AlthoughtheChelseaSitewouldavoidimpactstotheSection4(f)resources,itisnotprudent.It

is unreasonable to proceedwith the alternative in light of theprojects statedpurpose and

need, as the site is southof the SusquehannaRiver and thereforedoesnot support system

expansionnorthoftheRiver.ThissitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan,


35/67



inthattheleadtrackstoamaintenancefacilityatthissitewouldhavetodivergefromAmtrak

Track2whichis,andwillbeinthefuture,thenorthboundhighspeedtrack.

TherequiredconstructionofoverfourmilesofTrack4andanadditionaltwomilestoreacha

tangentsectionoftrackwouldresultinengineeringissuesaddingsignificantcosttotheproject,

aswellaspotentialconflictswithsafetyandoperations. TheChelseaSiteisnotafeasibleand

prudentavoidance

alternative

and

is

eliminated

because

it

causes

other

severe

problems

of

a

magnitudethatsubstantiallyoutweightheimportanceofprotectingtheSection4(f)properties.

5.

Carpenters

Point

Site

Avoidance

Alternative

The Carpenters Point Site would avoid all Section 4(f) properties identified at the Preferred

Alternativesite.ThissiteislocatednorthoftheSusquehannaRiver,alongtheeastsideofthe

NECinPerryville,MarylandsouthofUS40andMD7intersection,andeastoftheintersection

ofPrincipioFurnaceRoad(MD7)andBaltimoreStreet(MD267)(Figure12).

ThissitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan,inthatitislocatedadjacent

to

a

portion

of

the

two

track

section

of

the

NEC,

where

both

tracks

are

considered

high

speed.

TheleadtrackstoamaintenancefacilityatthissitewouldhavetodivergefromAmtraksTack2

whichis,andwillbeinthefuture,thenorthboundhighspeedtrack.Tobeconsistentwiththe

Amtrak plan, Amtrak will require the construction of the future 4th track, Track 1, to allow

MARCtrainstomakeahighspeeddivergingmoveontoTrack1wheretheycanthendecelerate

to a suitable operating speed for entering the MARC yard. Track 1 would also serve as an

acceleration track for trainsentering theNEC. ConstructionofTrack1would likelybe very

costlyduetothelengthoftrackrequired,possiblyasfarasfromexistingBACONInterlockingto

the site of proposed FURNACE Interlocking, a distance of approximately 5.4 miles

(approximately$135Millionto$180Million1inadditionalprojectcosts),ortoexistingPRINCE

Interlocking,adistance

of

approximately

6.4

miles

($160

Million

to

$213

Million

1

in

additional

projectcosts).Atthissite,thenorthleadtrackcouldnotconnectintoacurveinthetracks. The

leadtrackwouldhavetobeextendedapproximately2milesnorthwardtoreachatangentto

maketheconnectiontothemainline(approximately$50Millionto$66.7Million1)inadditional

projectcosts).Thiswouldalsorequireasignificant lengthofretainingwallsandtheextension

of (reconstruction) theBaltimore Street andBladenStreetbridgesonRoute267.These two

existinghighwaybridgesthatcrossovertheNECtrackswouldneedtobereconstructedadding

significantcosttotheproject.

Thesouth leadtrackconnectiontoeitherTrack2orTrack1wouldbemade inthevicinityof

thefuture

Amtrak

FURNACE

Interlocking.

This

may

require

additional

future

costs

for

relocationoftheMARCturnouttoaccommodateAmtrakstracklayoutfortheinterlocking.

This property is currently zoned agricultural; however, the entire site is forested and

undeveloped. Developingthissiteforamaintenancefacilitywouldresultin53acresofforest

impactsand53acresofFIDShabitatimpacts. Forestimpactsofthismagnitudewouldrequire

extensivecoordination,complianceandmitigationwhichwouldbeapproximately$750,000to

$900,000forthissite,notincludingpropertyacquisition.


36/67

4040


gure 12- Carpenters Point Site

0 0.55 1.10.275 Mile

RailroadInterstateUS Highway

MD Highway

Carpenters Point

Text

ober 2014


37/67



AlthoughtheCarpentersPointSitewouldavoid impactstotheSection4(f)resources, itisnot

prudent.This sitewouldnotbe compatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan, in that the lead

trackstoamaintenancefacilityatthissitewouldhavetodivergefromAmtrakTrack2whichis,

andwillbeinthefuture,thenorthboundhighspeedtrack. Therequiredconstructionofover

five miles of Track 1, an additional two miles of track to reach a tangent section, potential

reconstructionof

two

highway

bridges,

and

relocation

of

the

MARC

turnout

would

result

in

engineering issues adding significant cost to the project, as well as potential conflicts with

safetyandoperations. Thissiteisthereforenotafeasibleandprudentavoidancealternative

and iseliminatedbecause itcausesother severeproblemsofamagnitude that substantially

outweightheimportanceofprotectingtheSection4(f)properties.

6. MasonDixonSiteAvoidanceAlternative

TheMasonDixonSitewouldavoidallSection4(f)properties. Thesite is locatednorthofthe

Susquehanna River in Perryville, Maryland along Amtraks NEC, south of US 40 and MD 7

intersection,andjustwestoftheintersectionofPrincipioFurnaceRoad(MD7)andBaltimore

Street

(MD

267)

(Figure

13).

This

site

is

part

of

the

active

Mason

Dixon

Quarry.

The

total

site

area needed for improvements to support a MARC Maintenance Facility at this location is

approximately87acres.

ThissitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan, inthat thesitewouldnot

haveaccess to theproposed lowspeed third trackon theeastsideof thecurrent twohigh

speedtracks. TheleadtrackswouldhavetodivergefromAmtrakTrack3whichis,andwillbe

in the future, the southbound high speed track. Amtrak does not typically allow tracks to

divergefrom125mphtrackintolowspeedfacilities,sotheymayrequiretheconstructionofa

4thtrack(Track4)toallowMARCtrainstomakeahighspeeddivergingmoveontoTrack4to

deceleratetoasuitableoperatingspeedforenteringtheMARCyard. Track4wouldalsoserve

asanaccelerationtrackfortrainsenteringtheNEC. ConstructionofTrack4wouldbecostly

duetothelengthoftrackrequired,possiblyfromasfarastheexistingBACON Interlockingto

the site of proposed FURNACE Interlocking, a distance of approximately 5.4 miles

(approximately$135Millionto$180Million1inadditionalprojectcosts),ortoexistingPRINCE

Interlocking,adistanceofapproximately6.4miles($160Millionto$213Million1inadditional

projectcosts).ConstructionofaTrack4mayalsobe incompatiblewithAmtraksNECMaster

Plantrackconfiguration,andconnectionstoTrack3maynotbepossible inthisarea.Amtrak

typicallyonlyapprovesalterationstotheNECtrack includingadditional interlockings, if ithas

been identified through their planning process. The construction of a fourth track in this

locationhas

not

been

identified

in

Amtraks

NEC

Infrastructure

Master

Plan

and

is

thus

unlikely

togainsupportfromAmtrak.

AmtraksNECMasterPlan shows that the twoexisting tracksare slated tobecome thehigh

speed tracks using the proposed new Susquehanna River Bridge. As part of that project,

Amtrakplanstoaddathirdtrack,whichwouldbeanextensionofTrack4(thetracktoconnect

tothemaintenance facility). Thiswouldcutoffaccessbetweentheplanned lowspeedtrack

andthewestsideoftheNEC.


38/67



At this site, the north lead track could not connect into a curve in the tracks to make the

connectionstothemainline. Theleadtrackwouldhavetobeextendedapproximately2miles

northward to reacha tangenton themainline (approximately$50Million to$66.7Million1).

Thiswouldalsorequireasignificantlengthofretainingwallsandtheextensionof


39/67

4040


gure 13 - Mason Dixon Site

0 0.5 10.25 Mile

RailroadInterstateUS Highway

MD Highway

Mason Dixon Site

Text

ober 2014


40/67



(reconstruction) the Baltimore Street and Bladen Street bridges on Route 267. These two

existinghighwaybridgesthatcrossovertheNECtrackswouldneedtobereconstructedadding

significantcost to theproject.Thereareunknown risksassociatedwithanexisting750 foot

deepmineralextractionpit thatwould require fillandotherunknownrefillareasonthesite

thatmaynotbesuitableforrailroadloading.

Theproposed

site

is

heavily

forested

with

an

excavated

settling

pond

at

the

western

end

and

an

openwaterareaattheeasternend.ConstructionofaMARCMaintenanceFacilityatthissite

wouldresultinextensiveenvironmentalimpactsincluding:32acresofforestimpacts,16acres

ofwetlands,8,240 linear feetofwaterways,and59acresofFIDShabitat. Theextentofthe

potentialwetlands,waters,andforestimpactsaresogreattheMTAmaynotbeabletoobtain

the necessary permits from the Army Corp of Engineers and Maryland Department of the

Environment forconstructionon thissite. Inaddition,mitigation for these impactscouldbe

costprohibitive. Preliminary costs for forest mitigation would be between approximately

$450,000and$600,000andwetlandmitigationwouldbebetweenapproximately$2,080,000

and

$8,320,000,

not

including

land

purchase

and

waterway

mitigation.

Although the Mason Dixon Site would avoid impacts to the Section 4(f) resources, it is not

prudent.This sitewouldnotbe compatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan, in that the lead

trackstoamaintenancefacilityatthissitewouldhavetodivergefromAmtrakTrack2whichis,

and will be in the future, the northbound high speed track. The required construction of

approximatelyfivetosixmilesofTrack4,anadditionaltwomilesoftracktoreachatangent

section,andpotentialreconstructionoftwohighwaybridgeswouldresultinengineeringissues

addingsignificantcosttotheproject,aswellaspotentialconflictswithsafetyandoperations.

Therearealsounknown risksassociatedwith theexistingmineralextraction site thatwould

havetobefilledtodevelopthissiteintoamaintenancefacility. Thissiteisnotafeasibleand

prudentavoidancealternativeand iseliminatedbecause itcausesothersevereproblemsofa

magnitudethatsubstantiallyoutweightheimportanceofprotectingtheSection4(f)properties.

7.

Avoidance

Analysis

Summary

Basedontheevaluationpresentedinthischapter,thereisnofeasibleandprudentavoidance

alternativetotheuseofthelandfromtheSection4(f)properties. Table2providesasummary

oftheavoidancealternativesitesconsidered.


41/67


42/67



VII.

Least

Overall

Harm

Analysis

Pursuantto23CFR774.3(c),iftheavoidanceanalysisdeterminesthatthereisnofeasibleand

prudentavoidancealternative,thenonlythealternativethatcausesthe leastoverallharmto

theSection4(f)propertymaybeapproved. Astheprevioussectiondemonstrates,thereare

nofeasibleandprudentalternativestoavoidtheSection4(f)impactstotheWoodlandsFarm

HistoricDistrict;

therefore,

additional

site

locations

and

alternate

site

layouts

at

the

Preferred

Alternative location were evaluated to determine which alternative would cause the least

overallharmtotheresource.

Theseven factorstoconsider in identifyingthealternativethatwouldcausethe leastoverall

harm are listed below and compared by alternative in Table 3 (located at the end of this

section).

i. Theabilitytomitigateadverse impactstoeachSection4(f)property(includingany

measuresthatresultinbenefitstotheproperty)

ii.

The

relative

severity

of

the

remaining

harm,

after

mitigation,

to

the

protected

activities, attributes, or features that qualify each Section 4(f) property for

protection

iii.

TherelativesignificanceofeachSection4(f)property

iv. Theviewsoftheofficial(s)withjurisdictionovereachSection4(f)property

v.

Thedegreetowhicheachalternativemeetsthepurposeandneedfortheproject

vi. Afterreasonablemitigation,themagnitudeofanyadverseimpactstopropertiesnot

protectedbySection4(f)

vii. Substantialdifferencesincostsamongthealternatives

The following discussion describes alternatives to the Preferred Alternative that would

eliminateorreduceimpactstotheWoodlandsFarmHistoricDistrict. Thesitesarepresentedin

two groups: location avoidance alternatives and minimization alternatives. The location

avoidancealternativeswouldcompletelyavoidtheWoodlandsFarmHistoricDistrict,butwould

impact other potential Section 4(f) properties. The minimization alternatives present three

alternative layoutoptions at thePreferredAlternative sitewhichwould continue to directly

impactportionsoftheWoodlandsFarmHistoricDistrict,butwouldminimizeimpactstospecific

contributing elements of the historic district. A determination of whether the Preferred

AlternativewouldresultintheleastoverallharmtoSection4(f)propertieswillbemadeinthe

FinalSection4(f)Evaluation.

A.

Location

Avoidance

Alternatives

1.

Perryman

Site

Location

Avoidance

Alternative

ThePerrymansiteislocated,southoftheSusquehannaRiver,onthewestsideoftheNEC,near

Perryman and Canning House Roadsjust north of the Bush River (Figure 14). This location

avoidance alternative would not meet the project purpose and need in that it would not

support systemexpansion north of the SusquehannaRiveror support AmtraksNEC growth

plan. ThissitealsodoesnotmeetthesitecriteriaestablishedbyMARC,whichstipulatethe


43/67

4040


gure 14- Perryman Site

0 0.5 10.25 Mile

Railroad

Interstate

US Highw

MD Highw

Perryman

Text

ober 2014


44/67



facilityshouldbenorthoftheSusquehannaRiver. Thissitewaspreviouslyconsidered inthe

initialsitesearchforthe2012SiteSelectionReport,andwaseliminated.

Thereareseveralengineeringissueswithlocatingamaintenancefacilityatthissite.Thereisan

existingbridgecrossing (ChelseaRoad) thatcrossesovertheNECtrackswithinthesite. This

bridgewouldneedtobereconstructedtoaccommodatethe leadtracksonthenorthernend

andwould

therefore

add

significant

cost

to

the

project.

Perryman

Road

(MD

Route

199)

would

havetoberelocatedtoskirttheproposedfacility. Thisroadrelocationwouldbeapproximately

7,000feetinlengthandcoulddisplaceresidentialpropertiesatthesouthendoftheproject.

ThereisnoexistingtrackconnectiontoAmtraksNEC. Anewinterlockingplantwillberequired

on theNECnorthof the site. The south lead trackwouldenter theNECwithinacurveand

would therefore require an approximately 4,800foot extension southward to reach tangent

track and make a connection to the mainline at the existing Bush interlocking. The

interlockingadditionswouldprovidethenecessarycrossoverstomakeMARCtrainmovements

betweenanymainlinetrackandadoubleendedfacility. However,Amtrakhasstateditisnot

infavor

of

the

addition

of

anew

interlocking

in

the

section

of

track

north

of

the

site

because

the MARC train crossover movements would slow Amtrak traffic in what is considered high

speed track. Train speeds through interlockings and crossovers are restricted in compliance

with safety requirements.Reduced train speeds along thisportionof theNECwouldnotbe

compatiblewithAmtraksplanforhighspeedrailalongtheNEC.

ThePerrymanHistoricDistrict,recommendedeligiblein1991,isapproximatelylocatednorthof

Hinchman Lane, and extends on either side of Perryman Road to Cranberry Road,

encompassing most of Perryman. The Historic District would be directly impacted by the

PerrymanSite. CranberryMethodistChurchandothercontributing resources to theHistoric

Districtare

located

adjacent

to

or

within

the

footprint

of

the

proposed

site.

ConstructionofamaintenancefacilityatthePerrymanSitewouldrequirethe installationofa

new interlocking inthissectionoftrackdue tothe impactontrainspeedswhichAmtrakhas

statedthatitisnotinfavorof. Developmentofthissitewouldrequirethereconstructionofa

highway bridge to accommodate the lead tracks which would result in engineering issues

adding significant cost to the project. This site would impact the Perryman Historic District

whichisidentifiedaspotentiallyeligiblefortheNRHP.Therightofwayrequiredtodevelopthis

siteasamaintenance facilitywould impactandpossiblydisplaceresidentialproperties. This

site would also result in greater impacts to environmental resources over the Preferred

Alternative;specifically

greater

forest

(5.9

acres),

wetland

(3.7

acres),

and

FIDs

habitat

(1.2

acres)impactsatthePerrymanSite(Table3).

2.

South

Post

Road

Site

Location

Avoidance

Alternative

TheSouthPostRoadsiteislocatedonSouthPostRoadinAberdeenontheeastsideoftheNEC

(Figure15). Thislocationavoidancealternativewouldnotmeettheprojectpurposeandneed

in that it would not support system expansion north of the Susquehanna River or support

8/10/2019 Appendix G -

Documents

Appendix G - Section 4f -Sm