chapter 6

6 D R A F T S E C T I O N 4 ( f ) E V A L U A T I O N

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation6-1

6 DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATIONThis chapter presents the Section 4(f) Evaluation that has been prepared pursuant to Section4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 USC 303) (USDOTAct), for the Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport Rail Station(BWI Rail Station) Improvements and Fourth Track Project (the project).

This chapter identifies the following properties with a Section 4(f) use: Patapsco Valley StatePark (de minimis impact) and the Reece Road Bridge. The Maryland Transit Administration(MTA) determined that the project would not use the BWI Trail under Section 4(f). MTAalso determined that the project would not use three archeological properties and twoarchitectural properties, eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, under Section4(f).

6.1 REGULATORY CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY

Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 USC 303)prohibits the use of land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, orany significant historic site unless the project sponsor can demonstrate that there are nofeasible and prudent alternatives to avoid the property and that the project includes allpossible planning to minimize impacts.

Section 4(f) protects all historic sites, whether or not they are publicly owned, that are on, orhave been determined to be, eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places(NRHP. Section 4(f) also applies to all archeological sites on or eligible for inclusion on theNational Register if the project sponsor has determined, after consultation with theMaryland Historical Trust (MHT) serving as the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO),that they warrant preservation in place.

The following discussion regarding potential Section 4(f) impacts on parklands, recreationalareas, and historic properties follows the USDOT Act; Section 6009(a) of the Safe,Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU, 2005); and the Federal Railroad Administrations (FRA) Procedures for ConsideringEnvironmental Impacts (Federal Register 64 Part 28545, May 26, 1999 and January 14, 2013).This section also considers Section 6(f) of the federal Land and Water Conservation FundAct of 1965 (36 CFR 59), as amended, and the Maryland Program Open Space Programwhich acquires and conserves recreation and open space areas for public use.



6.2 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA), a modal agency of the Maryland Departmentof Transportation (MDOT), in conjunction with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)is studying improvements to BWI Rail Station and the addition of nine miles of fourth trackto the mainline of the Northeast Corridor (NEC) centered on the station. The NEC railsystem serves as a major business and commuter route along the eastern seaboard of theUnited States.

Over the last several decades, the BWI Rail Station has become a critical intermodalpassenger terminal. The purpose of the project is to improve operations at the BWI RailStation along the nine-mile section of the NEC. The project will assist in accommodating thefuture increase in intercity passenger rail ridership anticipated in the region over the next 20years. The existing and future conditions in the project corridor highlighted the need foraction:

x Constrained rail infrastructure harms reliability and reduces on time performancex Inadequate station buildingx Inadequate infrastructure to meet future demandx Legislative mandate

6.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT

The project would address infrastructure conditions within the project corridor in order toincrease operational flexibility and improve rail performance between Baltimore, MD andWashington, DC. The project components would include:

x Nine miles of new fourth track on the NEC between Grove Interlocking and WinansInterlocking to facilitate train operations and minimize delays along this portion ofNEC

x New platform arrangement and additional platforms to better serve the BWI RailStation and meet the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) requirements

x New, replacement BWI Rail Station building to address current constraints onoperational capacity and circulation, and meet ADA requirements

The provision of the fourth track on the east side of the existing rail corridor would requiremodifications to existing structures. The project would potentially impact two Section 4(f)properties: Patapsco Valley State Park and the NRHP-eligible Reece Road Bridge. Theproject would require the construction of a new bridge adjacent to the existing PatapscoRiver Rail Bridge in order to accommodate the new fourth track and, as a result, wouldrequire minor widening of the NEC outside the existing right-of-way. This widening wouldrequire the use of property from Patapsco Valley State Park. The project would also requiredemolition and replacement of the Reece Road Bridge (Bridge No. 0207500), which is



NRHP-eligible and carries Reece Road over the existing three tracks of the NEC, toaccommodate the fourth track. The following sections describe these two impacts in moredetail.

6.4 DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF SECTION 4(F)PROPERTIES

The Area of Potential Effects (APE) considers both direct and indirect effects to built historicproperties, including changes to significant viewsheds. MTA constrained its archeologicalinvestigations to the projects Limits of Disturbance (LOD), which is the area where onlydirect effects would occur. The LOD is a smaller area within the APE. The analysis ofparklands defined the study area as land within 500 feet on either side of the centerline forthe rail alignment between Grove Interlocking and Winans Interlocking.

6.4.1 Public Parklands and Recreational Areas

Two publicly owned parkland or recreational areas, the Patapsco Valley State Park and theBWI Trail, are located in the LOD:

Patapsco Valley State Park

The boundaries of the Patapsco Valley State Park span multiple counties in Maryland, withland in Anne Arundel, Howard, Baltimore and Carroll Counties. The park, whichencompasses a total of 16,043 acres, generally follows the Patapsco River for approximately32 miles. The number of park users or visitors is unknown at this time. Recreationalopportunities include hiking, fishing, camping, canoeing, horseback and mountain biketrails, and picnicking in the parks many pavilions. The park has 170 miles of trails, 70 milesof which are maintained trails. Although many recreational areas and trails are locatedthroughout the park, none is located in the LOD. Access to the closest portion of the park(Avalon area) to the project impact area exists on South Street in Halethorpe, Maryland. Theproject would not impact, limit, or prohibit access to the park in the Avalon area or anyother area of the park.

MTA initiated early coordination with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources(DNR) Maryland Park Service, the owner of Patapsco Valley State Park, in a letter datedFebruary 28, 2011 to confirm the ownership of the lands and facilities, boundaries, andexisting and planned uses of the park within the study corridor (Appendix A). MTA alsorequested the disclosure of the use and types of funding sources, in particular Section 6(f)funding, for acquisition of land or development of park facilities. DNR responded in a letterdated April 27, 2011 and confirmed that the park properties adjacent to the project were notpurchased with federal funding and are not subject to Section 6(f) restrictions (Appendix A).DNR uses the park property adjacent to the project as vegetative buffer and has nodevelopment plans at this time. Section 6.5.1 of this document discusses the Section 4(f) useof the Patapsco Valley State Park.



BWI Trail

The Anne Arundel County Department of Recreation and Parks is the owner of the BWITrail, a paved, hiker/biker path that follows a 12-mile route around BWI Airport. The BWITrail begins at Dorsey Road in Glen Burnie, near where the B&A Trail ends. This BWI Trailhas direct connections to BWI Rail Station and the MTAs Central Light Rail LinthicumStation. The Build Alternative would remain within the existing right-of-way of the NECand would have no impact on the BWI Trail. Therefore, the Build Alternative would nothave a Section 4(f) use on the BWI Trail, and MTA and FRA have not evaluated the BWITrail any further in this section.

6.4.2 Archeological Sites

Section 4(f) applies to archeological sites that are on or eligible for the National Register andthat warrant preservation in place, including those sites discovered during construction.Direct impacts to archeological sites could include physical disturbance through surfacegrading, subsurface excavation, access road construction, and utility line trenching, addingand compacting fill on top of site locations, use of staging areas for heavy equipment andsupplies, and vandalism of archeological materials from temporary or permanent increasedaccess to sites. Any ground-disturbing action in the area of an NRHP-eligible or potentiallyeligible archeological site, or modification to such a site, can affect the physical integrity ofthat cultural property.

There are five archeological sites in the APE Higgins Site (Site 18AN489, NRHP-eligible),Harmans Sites (Sites 18AN29A and 18AN29B, unevaluated for NRHP), Telegraph DorseyPrehistoric Site (Site 18AN1478, unevaluated for NRHP), and OKeefe Site East (Site18AN1482, unevaluated for NRHP). Four of the five sites (Sites 18AN29B, 18AN489,18AN1478, and 18AN1482) are located at least partially within the LOD and potentiallyimpacted by construction of the Build Alternative.

MTA, in consultation with FRA, developed design modifications to avoid or minimizeeffects on identified archeological sites during project planning. Where impacts areunavoidable, additional Phase II archeological investigations are recommended to evaluatesites for NRHP-eligibility as stated in the Phase I Archeological Survey, BWI Rail StationImprovements and Fourth Track Project, Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties (August 2014). Asproject planning proceeds, FRA and MTA will continue to identify design modificationsthat could further avoid or minimize potential effects on archeological sites. With thecompletion of detailed design plans, FRA and MTA will determine the need for Phase IIarcheological investigations in consultation with MHT and other consulting parties. Thedetails and timing of these future investigations will be included in the projectMemorandum of Agreement (MOA)(Appendix H).

MTA submitted the Phase I Archeological Survey Report and Section 106 Assessment of Effectsletter to MHT for review and comment on December 14, 2014. MHT responded on February4, 2015, approving the revised draft of the archeological report and providing concurrence



with the assessment of effects stated above. The project will continue to coordinate withMHT regarding archeological sites.

6.4.3 Architectural Properties

Direct impacts to architectural properties include demolition, alteration of architecturaltraits, structural instability through vibration, short-term audio intrusions duringconstruction, and visual intrusions to historic settings and cultural landscapes. Any visualor audio intrusions to the setting or demolition or alteration of architectural traits, can affectthe physical integrity of an NRHP-listed, -eligible or potentially eligible architecturalproperty.

Three NRHP-eligible architectural properties are located in the APE. As indicated in Section3.12.6, the Build Alternative would not impact the Harmans Post Office or Herbert RunBridge (Bridge No. 3011); therefore, MTA and FRA have not assessed these properties in thisSection 4(f) Evaluation. The project will require the demolition of Reece Road Bridge toinstall the proposed fourth track, which the current bridge span cannot accommodate. Thisdemolition will result in a Section 4(f) use as described in Section 6.5.2 of this document.

6.4.4 Native American Resources

Section 4(f) protects historic sites of national, state, or local significance in public or privateownership regardless of whether they are open to the public. Since federally recognizedNative American Tribes are sovereign nations, Section 4(f) does not consider the land theyown as publicly owned. Therefore, Section 4(f) does not automatically apply to tribal land.However, in situations where it is determined that the property or resource owned by aTribal Government functions as a significant public park, recreational area, or wildlife andwaterfowl refuge (which is open to the general public), or is eligible for the NationalRegister, the land would be considered Section 4(f) property.1

FRA identified eight Native American tribal groups that may be interested in project effectson aboriginal archeological sites. MTA shared information on potentially affected aboriginalarcheological sites with representatives of The Delaware Nation, Delaware Tribe of Indians,Eastern Shawnee Tribe, Oneida Indian Nation, Onondaga Nation, Saint Regis MohawkTribe, Stockbridge Munsee Community of Wisconsin and the Tuscarora Nation. The EasternShawnee responded that the APE contains no known sites of Native American importanceand, because the area has been previously disturbed, additional intact Native American sitesare not likely to occur. However, the Oneida Indian Nation requested, and MTA granted,consulting party status. MTA provided the Oneida Indian Nation with the Phase Iarcheological survey report for review.

1United States Department of Transportation, Section 4(f) Policy Paper, July 20, 2012.



Consultation with Native American groups is ongoing, although MTA has not identified anysensitive Native American resources in the APE. Consultation with the Oneida Indian Nationand other potentially interested tribes will continue as the Phase II investigations of theprehistoric components of Sites 18AN29A, 18AN1478, and 18AN1482 are completed.Appendix A contains correspondence from Native American groups and other stakeholders.

6.5 SECTION 4(F) USE DUE TO THE PROJECT

The project would result in the Section 4(f) use of one publicly owned park, Patapsco ValleyState Park, and one NRHP-eligible architectural property, Reece Road Bridge.

6.5.1 Section 4(f) Use of Patapsco Valley State Park

Patapsco Valley State Park property, owned by DNR, is immediately adjacent to the existingNEC right-of-way beginning just south of I-295 and extending northerly to the PatapscoRiver. DNR, in correspondence dated April 27, 2011, stated that they use the park propertiesadjacent to the project as vegetative buffer for Patapsco Valley State Park and have noplanned development at this time. The project would not limit or prohibit access to the parkand does not affect visitor patronage. DNR also stated that the acquisition of the parcels didnot include Maryland Program Open Space (POS) funding or federal funding.

The Build Alternative would locate the fourth track on the east side of the existingalignment and MTA would construct the track on a new bridge over the Patapsco River,immediately parallel to the existing railroad bridge. Three narrow strips of additional right-of-way, a total of approximately 0.65 acre, would be required from park property as shownin Figure 6.5-1.

On January 24, 2012, MTA notified DNR of its intent to seek a determination from FRA of ade minimis impact on Patapsco Valley State Park. Section 4(f) regulations define de minimisimpacts on publicly owned public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowlrefuges as those that do not adversely affect the activities, features or attributes of theSection 4(f) property. On February 6, 2012, DNR returned written concurrence that theminor permanent impact would not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes ofthe Patapsco Valley State Park and agreed with the de minimis impact finding (Appendix A).FRA may now finalize the determination of de minimis impact without further identificationof avoidance alternatives or assessment under Section 4(f) regulations. The public will havean opportunity to comment on the de minimis impact determination during the publiccomment period for this EA.



FIGURE 6.5-1: PARKLAND ACQUISITIONS



6.5.2 Section 4(f) Use of Reece Road Bridge (Bridge No. 0207500)

In order to facilitate the minimum train speed of 110 miles per hour (mph) (as set forth inthe purpose and need for this project), MTA must incorporate certain design curverequirements for the tracks under the Reece Road Bridge while also maintaining theapproved horizontal clearances to the abutments. At the location of Reece Road Bridge overthe existing three mainline tracks, the clear opening between the abutments is inadequate toaccommodate the addition of the fourth track. Amtrak design criteria call for a minimumclearance of 12 feet 6 inches from a track center to an obstruction. Currently, theconstruction of the new track would occur at a minimum clearance from the east abutmentface the centerline of the nearest track is 6 feet 7 inches. Given the required clearance to theadjacent track and the existing abutment, the available clearance to construct a fourth trackis less than allowable.

In addition, SHAs Highway Needs Inventory identified this portion of Reece Road forwidening. The existing Reece Road Bridge width is already narrower than the existingapproach roadways and sight distance (horizontal and vertical) is substandard for theapproach roadway speeds making retaining it in place not prudent under Section 4(f)definitions. Refer to the BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project Design Report(November 18, 2011) for more details on the evaluation of the Reece Road Bridge.

The Build Alternative proposes to replace the existing Reece Road Bridge with a structureapproximately 96 feet long to accommodate the width of the proposed additional trackbeneath and the shifts in the existing tracks to upgrade the speeds on those tracks. MTAselected this option for inclusion in the Build Alternative as it better achieved the desiredtrack design speeds, reduced right-of-way encroachments into private property, had fewerconstructability concerns, and better maintained traffic on Reece Road during constructionthan other options considered during conceptual engineering. Figure 6.5-2 illustrates theproposed new Reece Road Bridge.

Under the NHPA, an undertaking has an effect on a historic property when the undertakingmay alter characteristics of the property that may qualify the property for inclusion in theNRHP. An effect is considered adverse when it diminishes the integrity of the propertyslocation, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association (36 CFR800.5(a)(1)). The project would require demolition of the Reece Road Bridge toaccommodate the fourth track and track design speed curves, thereby destroying thebridges physical integrity and, subsequently, the bridges NRHP eligibility. Therefore, theBuild Alternative would require a Section 4(f) use of the Reece Road Bridge. The followingsections discuss alternatives to avoid impacts to the bridge.



FIGURE 6.5-2: REECE ROAD HIGHWAY BRIDGE



6.6 ALTERNATIVES EXAMINED TO AVOID THE USE OFSECTION 4(F) PROPERTIES

6.6.1 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative is an avoidance alternative for impacts to Section 4(f) properties.The No-Build Alternative would not affect Section 4(f) properties and would not require anyactions that would adversely affect the existing social, economic or environmentalconditions in the project corridor. However, the No-Build Alternative is not a prudentalternative because it does not meet the project purpose and need.

The No-Build Alternative would continue with the existing three tracks between GroveInterlocking and Winans Interlocking. Of the three tracks serving the BWI Rail Station, onlytwo tracks have platforms. The No-Build Alternative would construct no new tracks withinthe project corridor. In addition, it would have no additional improvements to the platformsat BWI Rail Station, including no platform accessibility to the center track (Track 2). Theexisting station would have no improvements in passenger accommodation or amenities.The No-Build Alternative would not improve current or future congested pedestriancirculation.

6.6.2 Horizontal Alternatives to Avoid Reece Road Bridge

MTA commissioned a study, the BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track ProjectAlternatives Report (June 2014), to examine the avoidance alternatives for impacts to theReece Road Bridge. The avoidance alternatives, as discussed below, would locate the newfourth track either to the west of the existing tracks or to the east of the existing tracks.

Fourth Track New Structure under Reece Road, West of NEC

This avoidance alternative would allow the Reece Road Bridge to remain in place, with anew separate box structure for the fourth track constructed approximately 10 feet to thewest of the existing Reece Road western bridge abutment. This West Alignment alternativeplaced the new fourth track to the west, or outside, of the existing catenary poles and wouldrequire a separate catenary system as well as considerable right-of-way acquisition andembankment widening to accommodate the track and new catenary.

MTA and FRA eliminated the West Alignment alternative from further considerationduring the planning phase due to multiple factors including increased right-of-wayrequirements; adverse impacts to existing structures, streams, parklands; potential impactsto Environmental Justice communities; and higher construction costs. For Section 4(f)purposes, MTA and FRA found that the West Alignment alternative was not feasible andprudent based on the same multiple factors that, while individually minor, cumulativelycause unique problems or impacts of extraordinary magnitude. Refer to the BWI Rail



Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project Alternatives Report (June 2014) for more detailregarding the evaluation of the alignment options west of the NEC.

Fourth Track New Structure under Reece Road, East of NEC

This avoidance alternative would construct the fourth track on an independent alignment tothe east, located far enough to avoid demolition of the Reece Road Bridge. This alternativewould provide a box structure immediately behind the existing eastern abutment andfootings, through the existing embankment, and maintain the current Reece Road centerlineand vertical elevation. This alternative would have major constraints related to operations,safety, and constructability.

SHAs Highway Needs Inventory identifies Reece Road, including the existing Reece RoadBridge, as a highway that will require reconstruction to four lanes in 2035 based onpredicted traffic volumes. In addition, the adopted Anne Arundel County Pedestrian andBicycle Master Plan (March 2003) recommends a bicycle facility along Reece Road. Thecurrent alignment of Reece Road at the bridge is substandard in both horizontal and verticalalignment. The roadway approaches to the Reece Road Bridge are comprised of two travellanes and two 10-foot shoulders, while the bridge is comprised of two travel lanes and two3-foot 6-inch shoulders. Based on this constraint, and with a SHA 2011 safety inspectionrating of poor for deck geometry, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) classifiedthe existing bridge as a functionally obsolete structure because the bridge width is narrowerthan the approach roadways and the horizontal and vertical sight distance is substandardfor the approach roadway speeds.

The existing Reece Road Bridge alignment creates an unsafe sight distance limitation on thisportion of existing Reece Road as well as an impact on vehicular speed. In addition, theexisting Reece Road and Bridge does not provide adequate shoulders. As noted in theFHWA geometric design manual, a lack of shoulders has impacts to most safety andoperational issues such as lane blockage from incidents, inadequate space for emergencypullover, inadequate space for maintenance activities, and bicyclists forced onto travel lanes.A wider replacement bridge will meet standard sight distance and alignment requirements.

The 2011 Safety and Inspection Report indicated that the existing bridge would requiremaintenance and repairs within the next 10 years. The bridge is in fair to poor condition,requiring the near-term need to repaint, re-deck, repair, and upgrade the condition of thestructure.

Maintenance of traffic during construction of the avoidance alternative will require non-routine design and staging due to the close proximity of the proposed underpass to theexisting bridge. Currently, Reece Road is a heavily traveled route, with an average annualweekday traffic volume of over 18,500 vehicles and no convenient parallel route fordetouring traffic. Therefore, SHA cannot close Reece Road to all traffic during construction.Implementing a long-term, estimated two-year, one-lane configuration would be highlyundesirable due to traffic delays during peak hours. The duration of construction activitiescould extend as low as nine months, with the use of accelerated bridge construction



techniques. However, accelerated bridge construction techniques will increase theconstruction cost.

MTA estimated the cost of the avoidance alternative structure as $4.8 million compared tothe replacement bridge structure at approximately $12.3 million. Although the avoidancealternative would require 0.95 acre less right-of-way and would have a small additionalwetland impact which could be avoided or minimized through the construction of aretaining wall of equal length as the replacement bridge MTA and FRA determined thatthe Fourth Track Independent East Alignment Alternative was not prudent as it had severalkey constraints related to operations, safety and constructability, which justified itselimination from further consideration.

6.6.3 Vertical Alternatives to Avoid Reece Road Bridge

Avoidance alternatives that would place the fourth track over or under the Reece RoadBridge would not be feasible and prudent due to operational and other constraints asdescribed below.

Fourth Track Over the Existing Reece Road Bridge

Locating the fourth track over the existing Reece Road Bridge (due to the insufficientexisting width between the Reece Road abutments) is not feasible and prudent becauseReece Road is located very near an area where the existing track ascends to its highestvertical grade. Given the maximum vertical grade allowable by Amtrak, it would require asubstantial distance to tie into the existing track grade on either side of Reece Road. Thedistance required to tie into this vertical alignment would be approximately 1.25 miles oneach side of the Reece Road Bridge, for a total length of approximately 2.5 miles. This longelevated structure would be extremely expensive to construct, would require additionalprivate property acquisitions, and have associated impacts on environmental, communityand existing built resources. Additionally, there would be insufficient vertical clearanceunder the existing Paul Pitcher Memorial Highway (MD 100) Bridge to locate the fourthtrack.

Fourth Track Under the Existing Reece Road Bridge

Locating the fourth track under the existing Reece Road Bridge (due to the insufficientexisting width between the Reece Road abutments) is not feasible and prudent for severalkey reasons. The existing pedestrian underpass located north of the Reece Road Bridgewould be in conflict with the any below-grade alignment and it would take quite a distanceto tie into the existing track grade on either side of Reece Road. The distance ofapproximately 0.8 mile would be required for the existing track to tie into the fourth trackunder the existing Reece Road Bridge. It would be extremely expensive to build such a longunderground structure. Additionally, keeping the fourth track from flooding during rainfallevents would be problematic as the fourth track would be approximately 30 feet below theexisting track at the Reece Road Bridge.



6.7 LEAST OVERALL HARM

When there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative, then only the alternative fromamong those that use Section 4(f) properties and that causes the least overall harm to Section4(f) property, may be approved. After evaluating avoidance alternatives, there are nofeasible and prudent alternatives to avoid the Section 4(f) use of the Reese Road Bridge, andthe East Alignment-BWI East Option is the Build Alternative with the least overall harm.

6.8 EFFORTS TO MINIMIZE HARM AND MITIGATION MEASURES

In addition to determining that no feasible and prudent and alternatives are available toavoid the use of Section 4(f) resources, the Section 4(f) process requires the consideration ofall possible planning to minimize harm on the Section 4(f) resource. Minimization of harmentails both alternative design modifications that lessen the effect on Section 4(f) resources,and mitigation measures that compensate for residual effects.

Mitigation measures involving public parklands and recreational areas, or wildlife andwaterfowl refuges may involve a replacement of land or facilities of comparable value andfunction, or monetary compensation for enhancing the remaining land. Mitigation ofhistoric architectural properties and archeological sites usually consists of those measuresnecessary to preserve the historic integrity of the resource, and agreed to in accordance with36 CFR Part 800, by the sponsoring agency, SHPO, or the Tribal Historic PreservationOfficer, and as appropriate, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

Throughout both conceptual and preliminary design, avoidance and minimization ofnegative effects to environmental resources were priorities for MTA and FRA. While therelatively fixed nature of the project corridor, and rail design requirements, prohibitcomplete avoidance of resource impacts, minimization of impacts was a prominent factor indetermining feasible alternatives and a primary factor in identifying the Build Alternative.

6.8.1 Minimization and Mitigation Measures for Parklands and Recreational Areas

MTA, in conjunction with FRA, would develop general measures to minimize or mitigateimpacts of the Build Alternative through coordination with DNR, the agency of jurisdictionfor the Patapsco Stream Valley Park. Measures could include:

x Maintain temporary and permanent access to Section 4(f) resourcesx Limit clearing to no more vegetation than necessaryx Use best practices during construction activities



6.8.2 Minimization and Mitigation Measures for Architectural Properties

MTA, in conjunction with FRA, would develop general measures to minimize or mitigateimpacts of the Build Alternative through coordination with MHT, the agency of jurisdictionfor the Reece Road Bridge. Prior to the beginning of any construction or demolition, FRAand MTA will provide to MHT black and white photographs sufficient to portray thebridges elevations, its architectural and engineering details and its context in order toprovide an accurate record of the bridge and its setting. FRA and MTA will provide to MHTa copy of any original drawings that may exist for Bridge No. 0207500.

6.8.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures for Archeological Sites

The Build Alternative successfully reduces potential effects to the Higgins Site, sincephysical impacts would now be limited to the extreme western edge of the archeologicalsite. Prior archeological test units excavated for the current project identified only two intact(nondisturbed) soil profiles. As this area of potential intact archeological deposits lieoutside the revised project LOD, MTA and FRA have determined that the Build Alternativewill result in no adverse effect to the site. MTA anticipates that the Maryland HistoricalTrust (MHT) will concur with this determination.

MTA, in conjunction with FRA, will investigate further measures to minimize potentialimpacts of the Build Alternative on the Higgins Site (18AN489) through consultation withMHT; such measures may include protective fencing, field orientation/education forconstruction personnel and on-site archeological monitoring during construction. MTA andFRA are developing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), in consultation with the MHT,Native American tribes and other consulting parties stipulating the minimization andmitigation measures.

6.9 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH AGENCIESHAVING JURISDICTION OVER SECTION 4(F) PROPERTIES

MTA has consulted with agencies and officials having jurisdiction over Section 4(f)properties, or having a role in their use, for input concerning the potential impact of theproject. The following agencies have been involved in the review:

x Maryland Historical Trust, State Historic Preservation Officerx Maryland Department of Natural Resources

In 2001, SHA and MHT determined the Reece Road Bridge to be eligible for the NRHP andlisted the bridge as an Eligible Historic Bridge in SHAs Historic Highway Bridge Program.On December 13, 2013, SHA, the owner of the Reece Road Bridge, agreed to participate as aconsulting party since the project will affect the Reece Road Bridge (SHA Bridge No.0207500 MD 174 over Amtrak).

MTA and FRA will continue to coordinate with SHA regarding the Reece Road Bridge.



MTA and FRA will continue to coordinate with MHT regarding historic architecturalproperties and archeological sites affected by the project. Refer to Appendix A for thecoordination letters. MTA offered the United States Department of the Interior Office ofEnvironmental Policy and Compliance an opportunity to review the EA and submitcomments (see Appendix G); however, no comments were received regarding Section 4(f)properties.

Consultation with Native American groups is ongoing. Consultation with the OneidaNation and other potentially interested tribes will continue as the Phase II investigations arecompleted.

The general public will have an opportunity to review and comment on this draft Section4(f) Evaluation. The Final Section 4(f) Evaluation will include responses to comments fromthe general public, consulting agencies, and other stakeholders.

6.10 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The Section 4(f) evaluation process is complete for the Patapsco Valley State Park since MTAhas received written concurrence from DNR, the official with jurisdiction over the park,stating that the use of the property will not adversely affect the activities and features of thepark (Appendix A). FRA issued a de minimis finding for the use of this Section 4(f) property.

The impacts of the project on the Reece Road Bridge demonstrates that there are uniqueproblems or unusual factors involved in the use of alternatives that avoid this Section 4(f)property or that the cost, social, economic, and environmental impacts, or communitydisruption resulting for this alternative reaches extraordinary magnitudes.

Based upon the above conclusions, there is no feasible or prudent alternative to the use ofthe Reece Road Bridge and the Build Alternative includes all possible planning to minimizeharm to this Section 4(f) property resulting from such use. FRA will make a finaldetermination in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)) after consideration of allcomments received.

chapter 6

Documents