Appendix G - Section 4f PDF

APPENDIXG

Section4(f)

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY
Perryville,Maryland
DRAFTSECTION4(f)EVALUATION
FEDERALTRANSITADMINISTRATION
USDEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
MARYLANDTRANSITADMINISTRATION
MARYLANDDEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
DRAFTNovember5,2014
DraftSection4(f)Evaluation
DraftNovember5,2014
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. NewBengiesSiteAvoidanceAlternative.................................................................................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
MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility
DraftNovember5,2014
2.
SouthPostRoadSiteLocationAvoidanceAlternative................................................................40
3.
ClarkRoadSiteLocationAvoidanceAlternative.........................................................................43
4.
WestOldPhiladelphiaRoadSiteLocationAvoidanceAlternative.............................................45
5.
ElkNeckStateForestSiteLocationAvoidanceAlternative........................................................48
B. MinimizationAlternativestothePreferredAlternativeSite..........................................................48
1.
MinimizationAlternative1.........................................................................................................48
2.
3.
C. LeastOverallHarmSummary.........................................................................................................55
VIII.
AllPossiblePlanningtoMinimizeHarm.........................................................................................58
IX.
Coordination...................................................................................................................................58
A. AgencyCoordination.......................................................................................................................58
B. Localities.........................................................................................................................................59
C. PublicComments............................................................................................................................59
I.
WorkingDraftOctober17,2014
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
23 CFR Part 774. Additional guidance was obtained from FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A
(FHWA1987b)andtherevisedFHWASection4(f)PolicyPaper(FHWA2012).
ThisSection4(f)evaluationidentifiespropertiesintheprojectstudyareaprotectedbySection
4(f), evaluates the use of these properties, and presents documentation required for FTA to
approve the use of Section 4(f) properties. After consideration of comments received on 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.
TheMarylandTransitAdministration(MTA),incoordinationwiththeFTA,astheleadFederal
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).Thesesurveysidentified
the Preferred Alternative site for the MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility as part of the
WoodlandsFarmComplexHistoricDistrict,whichislistedontheNationalRegisterofHistoric
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
Administration may make a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The Final Section 4(f)
evaluationwouldbeincludedintheFONSI.
II.
RegulatoryFramework
A.
Applicability
Section4(f)oftheUSDepartmentofTransportationActof1966,49USC303(c)isaFederalLaw
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:
DraftNovember5,2014
TheFTAdeterminesthatthereisnofeasibleandprudentavoidancealternativetothe
useoflandfromtheproperty,andtheactionincludesallpossibleplanningtominimize
harmtothepropertyresultingfromsuchuse(23CFR774.3(a));or
The FTA determines that the use of Section 4(f) property, including any measures to
minimize harm (such as avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or enhancement
measures)committedtobytheapplicant,willhaveademinimisimpactontheproperty
(23CFR774.3(b)).
B.
Use
Pursuantto23CFR774.17,auseofSection4(f)propertyoccurs:
When land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility. Pursuant to 23

CFR 774.17, a permanent use occurs when land from a Section 4(f) property is
permanently incorporated into a transportation project. This may occur as a result of
partial or full acquisition of the Section 4(f) property, permanent easements, or
temporaryeasementsthatexceedregulatorylimits;
Whenthereisatemporaryoccupancyoflandthatisadverseintermsofthestatute'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 Thelandmustbereturnedtoaconditionthatisatleastasgoodasexistedprior
totheproject.
o There is documented agreement with the appropriate Federal, State, or local
officials having jurisdiction over the land that the above conditions have been
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 all possible planning to minimize harm for the property. This
analysisisrequiredforallusesofSection4(f)propertyexceptinthecaseofademinimis
usedetermination.Thestepsinthisanalysisaredescribedbelow:
DraftNovember5,2014
1.
AnalyzeAvoidanceAlternatives
Inthisstep,FTAconsidersalternativesthatcompletelyavoidtheuseofaSection4(f)property.
TheavoidanceanalysisappliestheSection4(f)feasibleandprudentcriteria(23CFR774.17(2)
and (3)). An alternative is not feasible if it cannot be built as a matter of sound engineering
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.
DetermineAlternativewithLeastOverallHarm
IfnofeasibleandprudentalternativeisidentifiedthatwouldavoidusingaSection4(f)
property,thenFTAmayonlyapprovethealternativethatwouldcausetheleastoverallharmto
Section4(f)propertiesidentifiedbybalancingthefollowingfactors(23CFR774.3(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.
AllPossiblePlanning
All possible planning means that all reasonable measures identified in the Section 4(f)
evaluation to minimizeharm or mitigate for adverse impacts and effects must be included in
theproject.
For public parks, recreation areas and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, the measures may
include (but are not limited to): design modifications or design goals; replacement of land or
facilities of comparable value and function; or monetary compensation to enhance the
remainingpropertyortomitigatetheadverseimpactsoftheprojectinotherways.
For historic sites, the measures normally serve to preserve the historic activities, features, or
attributesofthesiteasagreedbytheFTAandtheofficial(s)withjurisdictionovertheSection
4(f)resourceinaccordancewiththeconsultationprocessunder36CFRPart800.
DraftNovember5,2014
In evaluating the reasonableness of measures to minimize harm, the FTA would consider 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 impacts or benefits of the measures to communities or environmental resources

outsideoftheSection4(f)property.
4.
CoordinatewithOfficialswithJurisdiction
FTAandMTAarecoordinatingwiththeofficialswithjurisdictionovertheprotectedproperties
forwhichadeterminationismadeinthisDraftSection4(f)Evaluation.
III.
ProposedAction
A.
PurposeandNeed
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. Need to consolidate maintenance, inspection, and storage functions for the current
MARCsystem.
3. Need to support expected 2035 ridership growth and system expansion north of the
SusquehannaRiver.
4. Becauseofsharedrailroadfacilities,needtosupportAmtraksNortheastCorridor(NEC)
growthplanandplannedexpansionofhighspeedrail.
NeedforadditionalMARCtrainstorage:Currently,MARCstoresandservicessixofthePenn
LinetrainsetsatPennsylvaniaStationinBaltimore,Marylandandtheremainingtwotrainsets
are being stored at the MARC Martin State Airport Facility. Both facilities are at storage
capacitywithnoroomforanticipatedMARCgrowth.
Need to consolidate maintenance, inspection, and storage functions for the current MARC
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
DraftNovember5,2014
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
additional equipment 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
infrastructurethatwouldallowoperationalseparationbetweeninterstate,regional,andlocal
services. The need to support Amtraks NEC growth plan includes consideration of projects
outlinedintheAmtrakNortheastCorridorInfrastructureMasterPlan(2010).TheMasterPlan
identifiesthreebridgesinnorthernMarylandwhichrequirerehabilitationorreplacementdue
tolimitedcapacityandupgraderequirements.TheSusquehannaRiverRailBridgeisoneofthe
threebridgesrequiringreplacementorrehabilitationandiscurrentlyunderenvironmentaland
engineeringanalysis.
B.
ProjectBackground
In2012,MTAevaluatedpotentialsitesalongtheNECcorridortoaccommodatetheproposed
MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility. Based on MARC needs, criteria were developed to
identifyasitetoaccommodateaMARCmaintenancefacility.Minimalcriteriaincluded:
Asite60acresorgreater(theactualfacilityfootprintisdependentonsitespecific
engineeringconstraintsandvariesforeachsiteconsidered.Sixty(60)acresprovidesa
minimumacreagewhichcanbeusedwhenevaluatingpotentialsites).
DirectlyadjacenttotheNEC
DraftNovember5,2014
AllowforAmtrakconnectionrequirementswhichincludeaminimumlengthoflead
tracksandtwopointsofconnection
MinimumstoragecapacityforcurrentandfuturePennLinetrains
Enoughspacewithinthe60acreorgreatersitetoaccommodateashopfacility
includinginspectionpitandsandingfacility
AsitegenerallynorthoftheSusquehannaRivertoaccommodateserviceexpansionnorthof
Perryville
Recently,theMTAhasbeguntoexaminethepotentialforexpansionofMARCservicenorthof
Perryville.Whilenotoriginallyincludedinthesiteselectioncriteria,itwaslateridentifiedthata
site is needed north of the Susquehanna River to accommodate service expansion as well as
avoidbottleneckingofhighspeedtrainsattheSusquehannaRiverbridge.WithlimitedMARC
storageattheMartinStateAirportFacilitymidwaybetweenBaltimoreandPerryville,afacility
atthenorthendofthelinebettersupportscurrentandfutureMARCoperations,includingthe
potentialexpansionofMARCservicenorth.
Inthe2012study,MTAevaluatedfivepotentiallocationstoaccommodatetheproposedMARC
Northeast Maintenance Facility based on: acreage and systems requirements for the railroad
facilities, Amtrak connection requirements, and environmental effects. Some sites had 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.
ProjectDescription
TheproposedMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldprovideMARCwiththecapabilityof
storing, servicing and inspecting complete commuter rail trainsets daily and of performing
scheduledandunscheduledmaintenanceandrepairworkonbothlocomotivesandpassenger
cars. The project would support the existing eight trainsets (10 locomotives and 53 coaches)
currentlyoperatingonMARCsPennLinewithapotentialexpansionofthefacilitytosupporta
2035MARCoperatingfleetof25locomotives,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 from Principio Furnace Road and access roadways within the facility,
andastormwatermanagementfacility.Theestimatedtotalcostforconstructionoftheproject
is $355 Million, not including rightofway. Rightofway costs are unknown at this time and
cannotbedetermineduntilNEPAhasbeencompleted.
D.
DraftNovember5,2014
PreferredAlternative
The Preferred Alternative site, Perryville A, is located on the north 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).ThePreferredAlternativesiteisapproximately8,000feetlongandranges
from 30 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
requirementsandprovideslandforonsitewetlandandforestareamitigation.However,there
wouldbeanadverseeffecttohistoricresources,andMTAwouldberesponsibleforallrequired
minimizationandmitigationmeasuresinaccordancewith36CFR800.
FOREST
MITIGATION
AREA
FIGURE 1
NOT TO SCALE
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SITE
MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

NORTHEAST MARC MAINTENANCE AND
STORAGE FACILITY
IV.
DraftNovember5,2014
Section4(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
accordancewiththeSection106processoftheNationalHistoricPreservationAct,asamended
AsurveyoftheAreaofPotentialEffects(APE)fortheprojectidentified12propertiesthatwere
greater than 50 years old. Four properties, the Woodlands Farm Historic District, the
Anchorage, Crothers House, and Lindenwood, are considered eligible for the NRHP (Table 1).
ThePreferredAlternativewouldhaveadirectuseontheWoodlandsFarmHistoricDistrictand
theusewouldnotbeademinimisimpact.
Table1:SummaryofAboveGroundNRHPHistoricPropertiesandSection4(f)Applicability
PropertyName
TheAnchorage
CrothersHouse
Lindenwood
WoodlandsFarm
HistoricDistrict
Address
50MillCreek
Road
97Chesapeake
ViewRoad
1287Principio
FurnaceRoad
Northandsouth
sideofMD
Route7
NRHP
Eligibility
CriteriaA
andC
IndirectAdverseEffect
forvisualeffect
None
CriteriaC
Noadverseeffect
None
CriteriaC
Noadverseeffect
None
CriteriaA
andC
DirectandIndirect
AdverseEffect
Yes,directuseto
contributingelements
withinthehistoricdistrict
DeterminationofEffect Section4(f)Use
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 in 1936. Curved stone sidewalls flank the entrance drive, which is lined with low
stonewalls.Thedriveandlandscapingchoreographthevisitorsfirstimpressionofthehouse,
providing a grand view of this country estate main house. The landscaping adjacent to the
driveway and house is a characterdefining feature that conveys the design intent of a large
country estate house. A golf course surrounds the Crothers House, but the landscaping is
limitedtotheoneacreboundaryoftheinventoriesproperty.TheFurnaceBayGolfCourseis
notsubjecttoSection4(f)becauseitisaprivatelyownedandoperatedgolfcourse.Itisopento
thegeneralpublicbutsubjecttofees.
TheLindenwoodHouseisalocalexampleofaregionallysignificantearly19thcenturyhouse
typewithaHallandDoubleParlor.ThePreferredAlternativewouldhavenoadverseeffecton
the characterdefining features of Lindenwood that make it eligible for NRHP listing under
DraftNovember5,2014
Criterion C for architecture as an intact and important example of a vernacular building type
associatedwiththeMidAtlanticculturalregion.ThePreferredAlternativewouldnothavean
adverseeffecttothisproperty.
The Woodlands Farm Historic District (MIHP CE145) was listed in the NRHP in 1977 and
consistsofalargefarmcomplexlocatedonthenorthandsouthsideofMarylandRoute7,1.5
mileseastofPerryville,Maryland(Figure2).TheassessmentofthePreferredAlternativeresultedin
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
includes approximately 350 acres. The north farm is located on Woodlands Farm Lane North
includes the 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
expandsthehistoricdistrictboundarytoincludeapproximately200acreshistoricallyassociated
withtheCoudonfamilyfarmingoperationsandincludes14contributingelements,including11
buildings,twoagriculturalfields,andonearcheologicalsite.Thecomplexofbuildingsincludes
atenanthouse,tenanthousesgarage,bankbarnwithloafingsheds,bullpen,blacksmithshop,
chicken house, foremans house, foreman houses garage, barn with 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
Route7andnorthoftheAmtrak(formerlyPhiladelphia,Washington,andBaltimore)raillines.
The farm fields in the boundary for the Woodlands Farm Historic District are contributing
featuresfortheirsignificancetotheagriculturalsettingthatconveysthehistoricfunctionofthe
property.Thefieldsaredirectlyassociatedwithimportantthemesofagriculturaldevelopment,
suchastheshiftfromtobaccotograinfarming,AgrarianReform,TenantFarmingandMarket
Farming.ThesizeandimportanceoftheCoudonfarmingoperationscontributedtothearea's
10
CE
AS K
PUL
y
I
A PE
ST
AT
IO
Y
I HW
DR
CR
LL
MI
North Farm Complex
C
IN
PR
KR
EE
O
PI
R
FU
C
NA
RD
CO
DO
ON
DA
R CORNER RD
C
YS
BA
A
RO
KS
BL
VD
NORTHEAST CORRIDOR
ST
South Farm Complex
A7
}
IK
EA
RD
NU
FI
FT
H
E
AV
ST
Furnace
Bay
RY
L
800
400
LEGEND
EIGHTH
AVEN
U
ED
800
1,600
Feet
ST
Woodlands Farm
Historic District
Property Boundary
Figure 2:
Woodlands Farm Historic District

September 2014
WINCH RD
PERRYVILLE RD
JA
C
RD
Bungalow
Foreman's Garage
Foreman's House
Barn w/
Loafing Shed
Meat House
Tenant's
House
Chicken House
Blacksmith's Shop
Tenant's
House Garage
Bank Barn w/
Loafing Shed
Spring House
Bull Pen
NORTHEAST CORRIDOR
LEGEND
Woodlands Farm
Historic District
100
50
100
200
Feet
Property Boundary
Figure 3:
Historic Stuctures within

Woodlands Farm South Complex
September 2014
DraftNovember5,2014
economy,productivity,oridentityasanagriculturalcommunity,andthehistoricintegrityof
thefieldsisaugmentedbytheextanthistoricfarmbuildings,andthefieldsprovidethehistoric
farm buildings with integrity of feeling, association, setting, and design, clearly reflecting the
historicfunctionoflandscapeduringtheperiodofsignificance.
V.
Section4(f)Use
Of the 110 acres in the Woodlands Farm south complex (all of which are contributing 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
alternativeevaluationandleastharmanalysishavebeenpreparedforthepotentialSection4(f)
impactsatthePreferredAlternativesite.
VI.
AvoidanceAnalysis
A feasible and prudent avoidance alternative avoids using Section 4(f) property and does not
cause other severe problems of a magnitude that substantially outweighs the importance of
protectingtheSection4(f)property.InassessingtheimportanceofprotectingtheSection4(f)
property, it is appropriate to consider the relative value of the resource to the preservation
purposeofthestatute.ThepreservationpurposeofSection4(f)isdescribedin49U.S.C.303(a),
which states: It is the policy of the United States Government that special effort should be
madetopreservethenaturalbeautyofthecountrysideandpublicparkandrecreationlands,
wildlifeandwaterfowlrefuges,andhistoricsites.
Analternativeisnotfeasibleifitcannotbebuiltasamatterofsoundengineeringjudgment.
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
13
DraftNovember5,2014
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
accordancewiththedefinitionoffeasibleandprudentavoidancealternativefoundin23CFR
774.17.
Fourofthe10buildalternativeswerepreviouslyevaluatedaspartoftheMARCMaintenance
Facility Site Selection Report (2012). An additional six avoidance alternatives were evaluated
(including a nobuild option). Refer to Figure 4 for an overview of the avoidance alternative
sitesconsidered.RefertoTable2foracomparisonoftheavoidancealternativesconsidered.
A.
SitesEvaluatedintheMARCMaintenanceFacilitySiteSelectionReport
1.
PerryvilleBSiteAvoidanceAlternative,Perryville,Maryland
PerryvilleBSitewouldavoidallSection4(f)properties.PerryvilleBSiteislocatedonthesouth
side of the NEC, directly east of the Ikea Distribution Center, northeast of Mill Creek, and
northwest of Furnace Bay in Perryville, Maryland, north of the Susquehanna River (Figure 5).
The site is approximately 6,500 feet long and ranges from approximately 30 feet wide (along
theleadtracksadjacenttotheAmtrakmainlinetracks)to1,400feetwide.Thesitecurrently
houses the Amtrak Maintenance of Way (MOW) base of operations for the personnel and
equipmentthatmaintaintheNECfromWilmingtontoBaltimore.Theportionofthesitethat
wouldbeoccupiedbyMTAsimprovementswouldbeapproximately44acres.
PerryvilleBSitewouldrequirethecompleterelocationoftheAmtrakMOWfacility(estimated
cost of $58 Million) in order to achieve a workable site layout and construction of two new
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(additionalinformationisincludedinAttachmentA).A
crossover is a pair of switches that connects two parallel rail tracks, allowing a train on one
track to cross over to the other. While crossovers allow additional train movement flexibility
they require a reduced speed (no more than 80 miles per hour). This is not compatible with
AmtraksNECInfrastructureMasterPlanandtheneedforhighspeedrailalongtheNEC. This
sitelocationmaycreatepossibleinterferencewithexistingserviceandproposedfutureAmtrak
capacityimprovementwork.
These conditions are not consistent with the project purpose and need, specifically Amtraks
NEC growth plan. Construction time until operation would also be at least a year longer, as
Amtraks MOW would have to bereconstructed, and then relocatedbefore MTA could begin
constructionoftheMARCMaintenanceFacility.PerryvilleBSitewouldrequire15.3acresoffull
property acquisition (MOW Base), 45.6 acres of partial acquisition (Ikea Distribution Center)
and 15.8 acres of temporary easements. The total estimated cost to develop this site for a
MARCMaintenanceFacilityis$531Million($176MillionmorethanthePreferredAlternative
site).
14
DraftNovember5,2014
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 the Mean High Water Line of tidal waters or the landward edge of tidal wetlands and all
watersofandlandsundertheChesapeakeBayanditstributaries);andincloseproximitytoone
historicproperty,listedontheMIHPwitharcheologicalpotential.ItislikelythattheMIHPsite
would be eligible for the NRHP and that the archeological site may extend into the parcel
neededforconstructionofthisalternative.
ThePerryvilleBsiteisnotafeasibleandprudentavoidancealternative.Itisunreasonableto
proceed with the site in light of the projects stated purpose and need because the required
relocation of Amtraks MOW does not meet the stated need to support Amtraks Northeast
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
increaseoverthePreferredAlternativesitenotincludingrightofwaycosts)totheprojectand
wouldresultinunacceptableoperationalissueswithAmtrakoperationsontheNEC.Forthese
reasons,thePerryvilleBSiteisthereforenotafeasibleandprudentavoidancealternativeand
iseliminatedbecauseitcausessevereproblemsofamagnitudethatsubstantiallyoutweighthe
importanceofprotectingtheSection4(f)properties.
15
Figure 4
Perryville B
Interstate
US Highway
MD Highway
Railroad
40
Figure 5 Perryville B Site

October 2014
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,
Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
0.15
0.3
0.6 Miles
DraftNovember5,2014
2.
OpusSiteAvoidanceAlternative,Perryman,Maryland
TheOpusSitewouldavoidallSection4(f)properties.Theapproximately57acresiteislocated
on the east side of the NEC, south of Maryland Boulevard (MD Route 715) and north of East
Michaelsville Road in Perryman, Maryland, south of the Susquehanna River (Figure 6). It is
bound on the east side by theAberdeen Proving Ground (APG) property. The portion of the
site that would be occupied by MTAs improvements would be approximately 48 acres,
includinganaccessroadthatwillconnectwithstatehighwaysatthenorthend.
Parts of the site are groundwater recharge areas for the Harford County water supply within
thePerrymanWellfieldProtectionZone.TheuseofthissiteasaMARCmaintenancefacilityis
notcompatiblewithHarfordCountyzoningrestrictions.
The Opus Site would require the construction of two new crossovers in Perry Interlocking as
there are no existing interlockings located nearby on the NEC. This site location will create
interference with proposed future Amtrak capacity improvement work (additional tracks and
AmtraksproposedPOPLARInterlocking).Theseconditionsarenotconsistentwiththeproject
purpose and need, specifically Amtraks NEC growth plan due to the requirement for slower
trainspeedsthroughcrossovers(refertoAttachmentA).Thetotalestimatedcosttoconstruct
this site for a MARC Maintenance Facility is $446 Million, not including rightofway costs,
whichis$91MillionmorethanthePreferredAlternativesite.
TheOpusSiteislocatedwithinthevicinityofindustriallandusesthatmayposeahazardous
materials subsurface contamination risk and would require both a Phase I and Phase II
Environmental Site Assessment prior to selection of the site. Additional potential
environmentalimpactswouldincludeimpactsto3.4acresofforestedarea(requiring11.9acres
ofreforestation).
Although the Opus Site would avoid impacts to the Section 4(f) properties identified at the
PreferredAlternativesite,itisnotaprudentalternative.Itisunreasonabletoproceedwiththe
alternative in light of the projects stated purpose and need, as the site is south of the
SusquehannaRiverandthereforedoesnotsupportsystemexpansionnorthoftheRiver.The
construction of two new crossovers needed to develop this site would result in engineering
issues adding significant cost to the project (approximately 25.6 percent over the Preferred
Alternative site, not including rightofway costs) and result in operational problems with
AmtrakoperationsontheNEC.Forthesereasons,theOpusSiteisthereforenotafeasibleand
prudent avoidance alternative and is eliminated because it causes severe problems of a
magnitudethatsubstantiallyoutweightheimportanceofprotectingtheSection4(f)properties.
18
Interstate
40
US Highway
40
MD Highway
Opus
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,
AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Figure 6 Opus Site

October 2014
0.15
0.3
0.6 Miles
DraftNovember5,2014
3.
AberdeenProvingGroundSiteAvoidanceAlternative,Edgewood,Maryland
The Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) Site would avoid all Section 4(f) properties identified at
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 Emmorton Road (MD Route 24), south of the
SusquehannaRiver(Figure7).Theproposedprojectsiteisapproximately6,800feetlongand
rangesfrom30feetwide(alongtheleadtracksadjacenttotheAmtrakmainlinetracks)to800
feetwideandhasatotalsiteareaofapproximately74acres.Theportionofthesitethatwould
beoccupiedbyMTAsimprovementswouldbeapproximately59acres.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&Eaerialelectricaltransmissionlines.The
APGSitewouldrequireconstructionofonenewcrossoverandonenewturnoutinMAGNOLIA
Interlocking.
TheSitewouldrequire58.9acresfromAPGthroughanEnhancedUseLease(EUL).Thisprocess
would require coordination with and approval from APG for security clearances; therefore,
construction time is unknown. As a tenant on a superfund site, the MTA may be subject to
liabilityconcerns.Anadditional15.1acresoflandwouldbeacquiredforutilityrelocationsand
1.9 acres would be temporarily impacted during construction. The total estimated cost to
constructthissiteforaMARCMaintenanceFacilityis$529Million,notincludingrightofway
costs,whichis$174MillionmorethanthePreferredAlternativesite.
Additional potential 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
transmissionlinesandAPGfacilitiesandwellastheunknowntimeforconstructiononAPG
propertywouldresultinengineeringissuesaddingsignificantcost(approximately49percent
overthePreferredAlternativesite,notincludingrightofwaycosts)totheproject.TheAPG
Siteisthereforenotafeasibleandprudentavoidancealternativeandiseliminatedbecauseit
causessevereproblemsofamagnitudethatsubstantiallyoutweightheimportanceof
protectingtheSection4(f)properties.
20
Aberdeen Proving Ground

Interstate
US Highway
MD Highway
Figure 7 Aberdeen Proving Ground Site

October 2014
0.15
0.3
0.6 Miles
DraftNovember5,2014
4.
PrologisSiteAvoidanceAlternative,Edgewood,Maryland
ThePrologisSitewouldavoidallSection4(f)propertiesidentifiedatthePreferredAlternative
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
tracksadjacenttotheAmtrakmainlinetracks)to1,300feetwide;thetotalsiteareacomprises
approximately73acres.TheportionofthesitethatwouldbeoccupiedbyMTAsimprovements
would be approximately 56 acres. The total estimated cost to construct this site for a MARC
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
residentialpropertyand65acresofcommercialproperty.Further,thislocationmayrequire
modificationstotheMDRoute152andMDRoute24bridges,ifitisfoundthatretainingwalls
required to permit the installation of the lead tracks would be insufficient to support the
abutments.
Constructionofthesitewouldrequirerelocationofanexistingstormwatermanagementpond.
Additionalenvironmentalimpactsincludeimpactstoforestedarea(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.
Although the 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
ofway costs). The Prologis Site is therefore not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative
anditisbeingeliminatedbecauseitcausessevereproblemsofamagnitudethatsubstantially
outweightheimportanceofprotectingtheSection4(f)properties.
22
Prologis
Interstate
US Highway
MD Highway
Railroad
Figure 8 Prologis Site

October 2014
0.15
0.3
0.6 Miles
DraftNovember5,2014
B.
AdditionalAvoidanceAlternativeSitesEvaluated
1.
NoBuildAlternative
The NoBuild Alternative would avoid all Section 4(f) properties identified at the Preferred
Alternativesite.UndertheNoBuildAlternative,noimprovementsorconstructionbeyondthat
whichisalreadyplannedandprogrammedareincluded.IfanewMARCMaintenanceFacility
werenotbuilt,growthwouldbelimitedinthatadditionalMARCtrainscouldnotbeacquiredas
currentlythereisnotenoughstoragecapacitytoaddtrains.AlsoMARCservicecouldnotbe
expandednorthofPerryville.
AlthoughtheNoBuildAlternativewouldavoidimpactstotheSection4(f)properties,itisnot
prudentbecauseitwouldnotmeetthepurposeandneedfortheproject.Specifically,theNo
Build Alternative would not provide the needed additional MARC train storage or a MARC
managedmaintenancefacility,andwouldnotsupportfutureexpansionofMARCorAmtraks
NECgrowthplan.Therefore,theNoBuildAlternativecausessevereproblemsofamagnitude
thatsubstantiallyoutweighstheimportanceofprotectingtheSection4(f)properties.
2.
NewBengiesSiteAvoidanceAlternative
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,inthattheleadtrackstoa
maintenancefacilityatthissitewouldhavetodivergefromAmtrakTrack3whichis,andwillbe
in the future, the southbound high speed track. Amtrak does not typically allow tracks to
divergefroman125mphtrackintolowspeedfacilities,sotheywillrequiretheconstructionof
a4thtrack(Track4)toallowMARCtrainstomakeahighspeeddivergingmoveontoTrack4
where they can then decelerate to a suitable operating speed for entering the MARC yard.
Track4wouldalsoserveasanaccelerationtrackfortrainsenteringtheNEC.Constructionof
Track 4 would be costly due to the length of track required, possibly from as far as existing
GUNPOWInterlockingtothesiteofproposedESSEXInterlocking,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.
Theadditionofnew,electrifiedtrackalongtheexistingNortheastCorridorisestimatedtobeapproximately$25
Millionto$33.33Millionpermile.
24
New Bengies
Railroad
Interstate
US Highway
MD Highway
Figure 9 New Bengies Site

October 2014
0.15
0.3
0.6 Miles
DraftNovember5,2014
Developingthissiteforamaintenancefacilitywouldresultinimpactstoapproximately44acres
offorestedarea,4acresofwetlands,and51acresofFIDShabitat.Forestimpactsofthis
magnitudewouldrequiretheMTAtocomplywiththeMarylandForestConservationAct.
Approvalwouldbecontingentuponprovidingadequateforestmitigation,whichislikely50to
60acres.Mitigationcostsforlargetractsofforestimpactsoftenincludethepurchaseofland
for mitigation and planting or payment into a forest conservation bank. One estimate for
paymentintoaforestbankisapproximately$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.
Construction of a maintenance facility at the New Bengies Site would result in approximately
0.4acresofresidentialpropertyimpacts.
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
ofoverfivemilesofTrack4andpotentialreconstructionofahighwaybridgewouldresultin
engineering issues adding significant cost to the project. Construction of this site for the
maintenance facility would also result in impacts to residential properties. The New Bengies
Siteisthereforenotafeasibleandprudentavoidancealternativeandiseliminatedbecauseit
causes severe problems of a magnitude that substantially outweigh the importance of
3.
ChesapeakeSiteAvoidanceAlternative
The Chesapeake Site would avoid all Section 4(f) properties identified at the Preferred
Alternativesite.TheChesapeakeSiteislocatedsouthoftheSusquehannaRiver,ontheeast
sideoftheNEC,justnorthofwhereitcrossestheGunpowderRiverandsouthofHoadleyRoad
in Edgewood, Maryland (Figure 10). This site is part of the Aberdeen Proving Ground and 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 lead tracks to a maintenance facility at this site would have to diverge from Amtrak
Track2inacurvewhichis,andwillbeinthefuture,thenorthboundhighspeedtrack.Amtrak
wouldlikelynotallowthisconnectionwithtrackstodivergefroman125mphtrackintolow
speedfacilitiesduetosafetyconcerns.Anotheroptionforleadtrackstothissitewouldbe
26
Chesapeake Site
Interstate
US Highway
MD Highway
Railroad
Figure 10 Chesapeake Site

October 2014
0.15
0.3
0.6 Miles
DraftNovember5,2014
placingtheturnoutontheexistingGunpowderRiverBridgeintangenttrack,butstillinTrack2.
ThisoptionwouldlikelybeevenlessacceptabletoAmtrak.
TheonlyotheroptionforleadtrackstothissitewouldbetoextendexistingTrackAacrossthe
Gunpowder River on a new bridge from GUNPOW Interlocking to the site, a huge cost that
wouldlikelybeunacceptabletotheState.
Developingthissiteforamaintenancefacilitywouldresultinimpactstounknownhazardous
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 coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers and Maryland Department of the
Environment. Mitigation for wetland impacts would cost approximately $500,000 for this site
(notincludingcostsfordesignorpropertyacquisition).
Impacts within the 100year 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
NEC Master Plan in that the lead tracks to a maintenance facility at this site would have 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
thereforenotafeasibleandprudentavoidancealternativeanditisbeingeliminatedbecauseit
causes severe problems of a magnitude that substantially outweigh the importance of
4.
ChelseaSiteAvoidanceAlternative
TheChelseaSitewouldavoidallSection4(f)propertiesidentifiedatthePreferredAlternative
site.Thissiteislocated,southoftheSusquehannaRiver,onChelseaRoadontheeastsideof
theNEC,justnorthofwhereitcrossesBushRiverinAberdeen,Maryland(Figure11).
28
Railroad
40
Interstate
40
US Highway
MD Highway
Chelsea Site
Figure 11 - Chelsea Site

October 2014
0.3
0.6
1.2 Miles
DraftNovember5,2014
Thissitewaspreviouslyconsideredintheinitialsitesearchforthe2012SiteSelectionReport,
andwaseliminated.
ThissitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan,inthattheleadtrackstoa
maintenancefacilityatthissitewouldhavetodivergefromAmtrakTrack2whichis,andwillbe
inthefuture,thenorthboundhighspeedtrack.TobeconsistentwiththeAmtrakplan,Amtrak
willrequiretheconstructionofthefuture4thtrack,Track1,toallowMARCtrainstomakea
highspeeddivergingmoveontoTrack1wheretheycanthendeceleratetoasuitableoperating
speedforenteringtheMARCyard.Track1wouldalsoserveasanaccelerationtrackfortrains
enteringtheNEC,causingsafetyconcerns.ConstructionofTrack1wouldlikelybeverycostly
duetothelengthoftrackrequired,possiblyasfarasfromexistingBUSHInterlockingtothesite
of proposed BOOTH Interlocking, a distance of approximately 4.4 miles, approximately $110
Millionto$147Million1inadditionalprojectcostsfortheconstructionofthetracksrequired.
Also, the north lead track would require connection to Track 2 (or Track 1) in a curve, which
would not be permitted due to the superelevation of the tracks and the geometry of the
turnout.Thenorthleadtrackwouldhavetobeextendedapproximately2milesnorthwardto
reachtangenttracknearChelseaRoadoverheadhighwaybridge.
DevelopingtheChelseaSiteforamaintenancefacilitywouldresultinimpactstoapproximately
26acresofforestedarea,oneacreofwetlands,19acresofFIDShabitat,oneacrewithinthe
100year floodplain, and 53 acres within the Critical Area (CA). Forest impacts of this
magnitude would require extensive coordination, compliance and mitigation which would be
approximately$400,000forthissite,notincludingpropertyacquisition.TheCAincludesland
within 1,000 feet of Marylands 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
require extensive coordination with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and
potentiallythepurchasingoffloodplaineasements.ImpactswithintheCAofthe Chesapeake
and Atlantic Coastal Bays would require coordination with the CAC, adherence to CA
requirements,andmayinvolvefeeinlieuorplantingstooffsetimpacts.
AlthoughtheChelseaSitewouldavoidimpactstotheSection4(f)resources,itisnotprudent.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 support system
expansionnorthoftheRiver.ThissitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan,
30
DraftNovember5,2014
inthattheleadtrackstoamaintenancefacilityatthissitewouldhavetodivergefromAmtrak
Track2whichis,andwillbeinthefuture,thenorthboundhighspeedtrack.
TherequiredconstructionofoverfourmilesofTrack4andanadditionaltwomilestoreacha
tangentsectionoftrackwouldresultinengineeringissuesaddingsignificantcosttotheproject,
aswellaspotentialconflictswithsafetyandoperations.TheChelseaSiteisnotafeasibleand
prudentavoidancealternativeandiseliminatedbecauseitcausesothersevereproblemsofa
5.
CarpentersPointSiteAvoidanceAlternative
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
toaportionofthetwotracksectionoftheNEC,wherebothtracksareconsideredhighspeed.
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 trains entering the NEC. Construction of Track 1 would likely be very
costlyduetothelengthoftrackrequired,possiblyasfarasfromexistingBACONInterlockingto
the site of proposed FURNACE Interlocking, a distance of approximately 5.4 miles
(approximately$135Millionto$180Million1inadditionalprojectcosts),ortoexistingPRINCE
Interlocking,adistanceofapproximately6.4miles($160Millionto$213Million1inadditional
projectcosts).Atthissite,thenorthleadtrackcouldnotconnectintoacurveinthetracks.The
leadtrackwouldhavetobeextendedapproximately2milesnorthwardtoreachatangentto
maketheconnectiontothemainline(approximately$50Millionto$66.7Million1)inadditional
projectcosts).Thiswouldalsorequireasignificantlengthofretainingwallsandtheextension
of (reconstruction) the Baltimore Street and Bladen Street bridges on Route 267. These two
existinghighwaybridgesthatcrossovertheNECtrackswouldneedtobereconstructedadding
significantcosttotheproject.
ThesouthleadtrackconnectiontoeitherTrack2orTrack1wouldbemadeinthevicinityof
the future 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.
31
Railroad
Interstate
US Highway
40
MD Highway
40
Carpenters Point Site
Text
Figure 12- Carpenters Point Site

October 2014
0.275
0.55
1.1 Miles
DraftNovember5,2014
AlthoughtheCarpentersPointSitewouldavoidimpactstotheSection4(f)resources,itisnot
prudent. This site would not be compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan, 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
reconstruction of 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 is eliminated because it causes other severe problems of a magnitude that substantially
outweightheimportanceofprotectingtheSection4(f)properties.
6.
MasonDixonSiteAvoidanceAlternative
TheMasonDixonSitewouldavoidallSection4(f)properties.Thesiteislocatednorthofthe
Susquehanna River in Perryville, Maryland along Amtraks NEC, south of US 40 and MD 7
intersection,andjustwestoftheintersectionofPrincipioFurnaceRoad(MD7)andBaltimore
Street(MD267)(Figure13).ThissiteispartoftheactiveMasonDixonQuarry.Thetotalsite
area needed for improvements to support a MARC Maintenance Facility at this location is
approximately87acres.
This site would not becompatiblewith Amtraks NEC Master Plan,in that the site would not
have access to the proposed lowspeed third track on the east side of the current two high
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.Constructionof Track4wouldbecostly
duetothelengthoftrackrequired,possiblyfromasfarastheexistingBACONInterlockingto
the site of proposed FURNACE Interlocking, a distance of approximately 5.4 miles
(approximately$135Millionto$180Million1inadditionalprojectcosts),ortoexistingPRINCE
Interlocking,adistanceofapproximately6.4miles($160Millionto$213Million1inadditional
projectcosts).ConstructionofaTrack4mayalsobeincompatiblewithAmtraksNECMaster
Plantrackconfiguration,andconnectionstoTrack3maynotbepossibleinthisarea.Amtrak
typicallyonlyapprovesalterationstotheNECtrackincludingadditionalinterlockings,ifithas
been identified through their planning process. The construction of a fourth track in this
locationhasnotbeenidentifiedinAmtraksNECInfrastructureMasterPlanandisthusunlikely
togainsupportfromAmtrak.
Amtraks NEC Master Plan shows that the two existing tracks are slated to become the high
speed tracks using the proposed new Susquehanna River Bridge. As part of that project,
Amtrakplanstoaddathirdtrack,whichwouldbeanextensionofTrack4(thetracktoconnect
tothemaintenancefacility).Thiswouldcutoffaccessbetweentheplannedlowspeedtrack
andthewestsideoftheNEC.
33
DraftNovember5,2014
At this site, the north lead track could not connect into a curve in the tracks to make the
connectionstothemainline.Theleadtrackwouldhavetobeextendedapproximately2miles
northward to reach a tangent on the mainline (approximately $50 Million to $66.7 Million1).
Thiswouldalsorequireasignificantlengthofretainingwallsandtheextensionof
34
Railroad
Interstate
US Highway
40
MD Highway
40
Mason Dixon Site
Text
Figure 13 - Mason Dixon Site

October 2014
0.25
0.5
1 Miles
DraftNovember5,2014
(reconstruction) the Baltimore Street and Bladen Street bridges on Route 267. These two
existinghighwaybridgesthatcrossovertheNECtrackswouldneedtobereconstructedadding
significant cost to the project. There are unknown risks associated with an existing 750 foot
deep mineral extraction pit that would require fill and other unknown refill areas on the site
thatmaynotbesuitableforrailroadloading.
Theproposedsiteisheavilyforestedwithanexcavatedsettlingpondatthewesternendandan
openwaterareaattheeasternend.ConstructionofaMARCMaintenanceFacilityatthissite
wouldresultinextensiveenvironmentalimpactsincluding:32acresofforestimpacts,16acres
of wetlands, 8,240 linear feet of waterways, and 59 acres of FIDS habitat. The extent of the
potentialwetlands,waters,andforestimpactsaresogreattheMTAmaynotbeabletoobtain
the necessary permits from the Army Corp of Engineers and Maryland Department of the
Environment for construction on this site. In addition, mitigation for these impacts could be
costprohibitive. Preliminary costs for forest mitigation would be between approximately
$450,000 and $600,000 and wetland mitigation would be between approximately $2,080,000
and$8,320,000,notincludinglandpurchaseandwaterwaymitigation.
Although the Mason Dixon Site would avoid impacts to the Section 4(f) resources, it is not
prudent. This site would not be compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan, 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.
There are also unknown risks associated with the existing mineral extraction site that would
havetobefilledtodevelopthissiteintoamaintenancefacility.Thissiteisnotafeasibleand
prudentavoidancealternativeandiseliminatedbecauseitcausesothersevereproblemsofa
7.
AvoidanceAnalysisSummary
Basedontheevaluationpresentedinthischapter,thereisnofeasibleandprudentavoidance
alternativetotheuseofthelandfromtheSection4(f)properties.Table2providesasummary
oftheavoidancealternativesitesconsidered.
36
DraftNovember5,2014
Table2:MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilityAvoidanceAlternativesComparison
Site
PerryvilleB
Site
OpusSite
APGSite
PrologisSite
NoBuild
NewBengiesSite
ChesapeakeSite
ChelseaSite
CarpentersPointSite
MasonDixonSite
MDRoute7,Perryville
PulaskiHighway,100
FirestoneRoad,MOWBase,
Perryville
ProvingGround
Road,Aberdeen
BetweenMagnoliaRd(MD
152)andEmmortonRd
(MD24)
TrimbleRdand
NuttalAve,
Edgewood
N/A
NewBengies
Road,Baltimore
WSChesapeake
Bay,Edgewood
ArsenalAPG,
Aberdeen
900ChelseaRoad,
Aberdeen
CarpentersPointRoad,
Perryville
MountainHillRoad,
Perryville
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
ResultsinOperationalor
SafetyIssues(Overhead
bridges,3rd/4thrail)
No
Yes(additionaltrack,
relocationofMOWBase
and2crossovers)
Yes(2crossovers)
Yes(1crossover)
Yes(1crossover&
2bridges)
No
Yes(Bridge
crossing,
extensionof4th
track)
Yes(tracksmerge
inacurve)
Yes(extensionof
Track1,trackin
curve)
Yes(ExtensionofTrack1,
sharpcurve,2bridge
crossings)
Yes(Extensionof
4thtrack,sharp
curve)
CausesSevereEnvironmental
orSocialImpacts
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Forest
3.2acres
2.3acres
3.4acres
25.1acres
13.2acres
None
43.9acres
52.7acres
25.8acres
53acres
32acres
Wetland/WatersofUS
1.2acres
NoneKnown
NoneKnown
3.3acres
>morethan50%
ofsiteiswetland
None
4.4acres
4.6acres
1.1acres
0.2acres
15.9acres
8,240lfwaterways
RTESpeciesHabitat
No
NoneKnown
NoneKnown
13.4acresFIDSHabitat
NoneKnown
None
51.3acresFIDS
Habitat
47.3acresFIDS
Habitat
19.2acresFIDS
Habitat
59acresFIDS
habitat
100YearFloodplain
1.8acres
4.5acres
None
21.9acres
1.25acres
CriticalArea
1acre
None
Yes(Ikeaproperty)
Yes(adjacenttoAPG
SuperfundSite)
Yes(APGSuperfundSite)
None
Notknown
12.2acres
Yes(adjacentto
APGSuperfund
Site)
52.7acres
Yes
Notknown
Notknown
Notknown
PropertyImpacts
56acres
61acres(commercial),16
acrestemporary
0
Yes(adjacentto
APGSuperfund
Site)Notknown
2.6acres
(residential),65
acres(commercial)
None
0.4acres
(residential)
60acres(quarry)
ResultsinCostof
ExtraordinaryMagnitude
$355Million,not
includingROW
$531Million
($176Millionmore)
$446Million
($91Millionmore)
$529Million
($174Millionmore)
$483Million
($128Million
more)
N/A
Yes,morethan
PreferredSitedue
toadditionaltrack
needed
Yes,morethan
PreferredSite
duetoadditional
trackneeded
Yes,morethan
PreferredSitedueto
additionaltrack
needed
Yes,morethanPreferred
Siteduetoadditionaltrack
needed
Yes,morethan
PreferredSitedue
toadditionaltrack
needed
Propertyispartofthe
WoodlandsFarm
Complexhistoricdistrict
whicheligibleforthe
NationalRegisterof
HistoricalPlaces
Proximitytohistoric
property
Withinwellfield
protectionzone,not
compatiblewellfield
zoning
APGSiteposesliability
concerns:rightofentry
andsiteaccess,and
resultingscheduledelays
No
N/A
No
No
No
No
No
Prudent
Notprudent
Notprudent
Notprudent
Notprudent
Not
prudent
Notprudent
Notprudent
Notprudent
Notprudent
Notprudent
PrudenceCriteria
SiteAddress
AddressesPurposeandNeed
Potentialfor
ContaminatedMaterials
CausesOtherUniqueFactors
CommentsonPrudence
37
DraftNovember5,2014
VII. LeastOverallHarmAnalysis
Pursuantto23CFR774.3(c),iftheavoidanceanalysisdeterminesthatthereisnofeasibleand
prudentavoidancealternative,thenonlythealternativethatcausestheleastoverallharmto
theSection4(f)propertymaybeapproved.Astheprevioussectiondemonstrates,thereare
nofeasibleandprudentalternativestoavoidtheSection4(f)impactstotheWoodlandsFarm
HistoricDistrict;therefore,additionalsitelocationsandalternatesitelayoutsatthePreferred
Alternative location were evaluated to determine which alternative would cause the least
overallharmtotheresource.
Thesevenfactorstoconsiderinidentifyingthealternativethatwouldcausetheleastoverall
harm are listed below and compared by alternative in Table 3 (located at the end of this
section).
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
TheabilitytomitigateadverseimpactstoeachSection4(f)property(includingany
measuresthatresultinbenefitstotheproperty)
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
TherelativesignificanceofeachSection4(f)property
Theviewsoftheofficial(s)withjurisdictionovereachSection4(f)property
Thedegreetowhicheachalternativemeetsthepurposeandneedfortheproject
Afterreasonablemitigation,themagnitudeofanyadverseimpactstopropertiesnot
protectedbySection4(f)
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 layout options at the Preferred Alternative site which would continue to directly
impactportionsoftheWoodlandsFarmHistoricDistrict,butwouldminimizeimpactstospecific
contributing elements of the historic district. A determination of whether the Preferred
AlternativewouldresultintheleastoverallharmtoSection4(f)propertieswillbemadeinthe
FinalSection4(f)Evaluation.
A.
LocationAvoidanceAlternatives
1.
PerrymanSiteLocationAvoidanceAlternative
ThePerrymansiteislocated,southoftheSusquehannaRiver,onthewestsideoftheNEC,near
Perryman and Canning House Roads just 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 system expansion north of the Susquehanna River or support Amtraks NEC growth
plan.ThissitealsodoesnotmeetthesitecriteriaestablishedbyMARC,whichstipulatethe
38
Railroad
40
Interstate
40
US Highway
MD Highway
Perryman Site
Text
Figure 14- Perryman Site

October 2014
0.25
0.5
1 Miles
DraftNovember5,2014
facilityshouldbenorthoftheSusquehannaRiver.Thissitewaspreviouslyconsideredinthe
initialsitesearchforthe2012SiteSelectionReport,andwaseliminated.
Thereareseveralengineeringissueswithlocatingamaintenancefacilityatthissite.Thereisan
existing bridge crossing (Chelsea Road) that crosses over the NEC tracks within the site. This
bridgewouldneedtobereconstructedtoaccommodatetheleadtracksonthenorthernend
andwouldthereforeaddsignificantcosttotheproject.PerrymanRoad(MDRoute199)would
havetoberelocatedtoskirttheproposedfacility.Thisroadrelocationwouldbeapproximately
7,000feetinlengthandcoulddisplaceresidentialpropertiesatthesouthendoftheproject.
ThereisnoexistingtrackconnectiontoAmtraksNEC.Anewinterlockingplantwillberequired
on the NEC north of the site. The south lead track would enter the NEC within a curve and
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
infavoroftheadditionofanewinterlockinginthesectionoftracknorthofthesitebecause
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 this portion of the NEC would not be
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
Perryman Site. Cranberry Methodist Church and other contributing resources to the Historic
Districtarelocatedadjacenttoorwithinthefootprintoftheproposedsite.
ConstructionofamaintenancefacilityatthePerrymanSitewouldrequiretheinstallationofa
new interlocking in this section of track due tothe impacton train speeds which Amtrak has
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
site as a maintenance facility would impact and possibly displace residential properties. 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.
SouthPostRoadSiteLocationAvoidanceAlternative
TheSouthPostRoadsiteislocatedonSouthPostRoadinAberdeenontheeastsideoftheNEC
(Figure15).Thislocationavoidancealternativewouldnotmeettheprojectpurposeandneed
in that it would not support system expansion north of the Susquehanna River or support
40
DraftNovember5,2014
AmtraksNECgrowthplan.ThissitealsodoesnotmeetthesitecriteriaestablishedbyMARC,
whichstipulatethefacilityshouldbenorthoftheSusquehannaRiver.Thissitecouldalso
41
Figure 15
DraftNovember5,2014
impacttheMitchellFarmcomplex,ahistoricpropertythatwouldlikelybeconsideredaSection
4(f)property.
Thereareseveralengineeringissueswithlocatingamaintenancefacilityatthissite.Thissite
wouldrequirereconstructionoftheindustrialfreighttrackservingtheAPG.Thiswouldrequire
extensivecoordinationandanoperatingagreementwithNorfolkSouthernRailroad.Further,
this site is not compatible with the Amtrak Master Plan which shows two future track
expansions in this area. The southern lead track at the South Post Road Site would have to
connect to Track 2 which is the northbound high speed track. Depending on which future
optionAmtrakelectstoconstruct,itmayrequiretheconstructionofafuture4thor5thtrackto
allow MARC trains to make a highspeed diverging move where they may decelerate to a
suitable operating speed for entering the MARC yard. Track length, distance from proposed
interlockings and required track relocation would likely result in much higher cost than the
PreferredAlternative.
The South Post Road parcel is owned by the US Army and is slated for a large commercial
development. Acquisition of the real estate and changes to county planning may add
substantialtimeandcosttotheproject.
Construction of the maintenance facility at the South Post Road site would require
reconstruction of the Short Lane/Maryland Boulevard bridge over the NEC. The extension of
this overpass could impact 0.9 acres of the Mitchell Farm complex to the west, a historic
propertythatisalsoeligibleforprotectionunderSection106andSection4(f).Thissitewould
also result in greater impacts to environmental resources over the Preferred Alternative site;
specifically greater wetland (16.3 acres), forest (34.8 acres), FIDS habitat (46.6 acres), and
floodplain(0.6acres)impactsattheSouthPostRoadsite(Table3).
3.
ClarkRoadSiteLocationAvoidanceAlternative
TheClarkRoadSiteislocatedat1900ClarkRoadinHavredeGrace,Marylandontheeastside
oftheNEC(Figure16).Thislocationavoidancealternativewouldnotmeettheprojectpurpose
andneedinthatitwouldnotsupportsystemexpansionnorthoftheSusquehannaRiverorthe
site criteria established by MARC, which stipulate the facility should be north of the
SusquehannaRiver.ThislocationavoidancesitealsocouldpotentiallyaffecttheSwanHarbor
HistoricFarm,ahistoricpropertythatislikelyaSection4(f)property.
Thereareseveralengineeringissueswithlocatingamaintenancefacilityatthissite.Bothlead
tracks would connect to the Amtrak high speed rail track at this location. This site is not
compatible with the Amtrak Master Plan which indicates that an additional track would be
constructedinthisarea.Further,thetracksatthislocationwouldhavetobegradeseparated
inordertomeettheapproachforthenewSusquehannaRiverBridge.
To construct the facility at this location would require an extension of the lead track to the
northbyapproximately2,000feetinordertoavoidtheexistingcurve.Thislocationwouldalso
requirereconstructionoftheOakingtonRoadbridgeoverpassovertheNEC,addingsignificant
costtotheproject.
43
Figure 16
DraftNovember5,2014
Further,thissitewouldrequirereconstructionoftheOldLineIndustrialtrack,anactivefreight
railline.ThiswouldrequireextensivecoordinationandanoperatingagreementwithNorfolk
SouthernRailroad.
A Maintenance Facility at the Clark Road site would displace several residences and require
additional property acquisition along Williams Drive. This location avoidance site also could
potentially affect the Swan Harbor Historic Farm a historic property that is also eligible for
protectionunderSection106andSection4(f).Thissitewouldalsoresultingreaterimpactsto
environmental resources over the Preferred Alternative site; specifically greater wetland (7.5
acres),forest(49acres),FIDShabitat(56acres),andfloodplain(10.7acres),andCriticalArea
(17.3acres)impactsattheClarkRoadsite(Table3).
4.
WestOldPhiladelphiaRoadSiteLocationAvoidanceAlternative
ThissiteislocatedonWestOldPhiladelphiaRoadinNorthEast,Maryland(Figure17).Thissite
would require the use of Cecil County open space, which could be a Section 4(f) property.
Coordination with Cecil County will be required to understand the significance of this open
space,butinitialresearchindicatestherearenoknownrecreationalfacilitiesonthisproperty.
This location would not meet the project purpose and need in that it is not compatible with
AmtraksNECgrowthplan.
There are many engineering issues with a maintenance facility at this site. Both lead tracks
wouldconnecttoAmtrakTrack3,thesouthboundhighspeedtrack,in130mphterritory,which
would be unacceptable to Amtrak, especially since there are currently only two tracks in this
area.Amtrakmayrequiretheconstructionofa4thtrack(Track4)toallowMARCtrainstomake
a highspeed diverging move onto Track 4 where they can then decelerate to a suitable
operatingspeedforenteringtheMARCyard.Track4wouldalsoserveasanaccelerationtrack
for trains entering the NEC. In order to provide the acceleration/deceleration distance
required,thistrackwouldhavetoextendfromexistingBACONInterlockingapproximatelyfive
miles, at a minimum. Construction of Track 4 would be costly due to the length of track
required.
Along portions of this track Route 7 is lower than the railroad, which would require the
constructionofretainingwallstosupporttheembankments.Thestripthatwouldbeoccupied
bytheTrack4alsosupportsasignificantstandoftreeswhichprobablyactasapartialbuffer
betweentherailroadandthehousesalongthewestsideofRoute7.ConstructionofTrack4to
thenorthwouldrequirethereconstructionoftheRoute272overheadhighwaybridge.
ConstructionofTrack4tothesouthwouldrequirethereconstructionoftwooverheadhighway
bridgeswhereitwouldcrossunderRoute267attwopointsnearCharlestown:BaltimoreStreet
and BladenStreet. Reconstruction of these bridges to add a span toeach to cross the north
leadtrackwouldaddsignificantcosttotheproject.
This site would also result in greater impacts to environmental resources over the Preferred
Alternative site; specifically greater wetland (8.1 acres), forest (44 acres), FIDS habitat (50.6
45
DraftNovember5,2014
acres),floodplain(14.7acres),andCriticalArea(52acres)impactsattheWestOldPhiladelphia
Roadsite(Table3).
46
Figure 17
DraftNovember5,2014
5.
ElkNeckStateForestSiteLocationAvoidanceAlternative
ThissiteislocatedontheeastsideoftheNECbetweenNorthEastandElktonwithintheElk
Neck State Forest (Figure 18). Elk Neck State Forest is 3,571 acres situated in central Cecil
Countyconsistingoffourseparatetractsofland.ElkNeckStateForestisopentothepublicfor
hunting, hiking, horseback riding and mountain biking. Shooting ranges for bow, hand gun,
shotgunandriflearealsoavailabletothepublic.Thetractofstateforestpropertythatisbeing
consideredforthislocationavoidancealternativeispartoftheNorthEastTract,whichis190
acreswithnopublicroadaccessorparking.
There are both environmental and engineering constraints with constructing a maintenance
facilityatthislocation.ThesiteislocatedprimarilywithintheElkNeckStateForest.Amajor
stream (Mill Creek) crosses and runs parallel to the site at the north end of the parcel.
Therefore, this site would also result in greater impacts to environmental resources over the
PreferredAlternativesite;specificallygreaterwetland(14.8acres),forest(52.7acres),andFIDS
habitat (52.9 acres) (Table 3). Extensive coordination with and approval from both the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources and the Army Corps of Engineers would be
required.Mitigationcostswouldlikelybesignificant.
To construct the facility at this location would require an extension of the lead track to the
northbyapproximately2,100feetinordertoavoidtheexistingcurve.
B.
MinimizationAlternativestothePreferredAlternativeSite
OnAugust27,2014,MHTconcurredwithFTAthatthePreferredAlternativewilldemolish11
contributingbuildings,onearcheologicalsiteandseveralfarmfieldsassociatedwiththe
WoodlandsFarmHistoricDistrict.TheWoodlandsFarmHistoricDistrictcontainsan
architecturallysignificantGreekRivalmainhouseandnumerousagriculturalsupportstructures
thatexceptionallyillustrateover150yearsofCecilCountyagriculturalhistory.Threesite
layoutsonthepreferredalternativesiteweredevelopedthatwouldminimizeimpactstothe
outbuildings.
1.
MinimizationAlternative1
MinimizationAlternative1wouldshifttheMARCmaintenancefacilityapproximately875feet
to the north of the Preferred Alternative location, while maintaining the same general
configurationofallthefeaturesofthePreferredAlternativelayout(Figure19).Themajorityof
thefacilitywouldbelocatedwithinthePerryvilleAproperty.Additionalrightofwaywouldbe
acquiredfromtheprivatelyowned,FurnaceBayGolfCoursepropertytothenortheast.
While this shift would avoid the majority of the outbuildings in the south complex of the
WoodlandsFarmHistoricDistrict,threeofthebuildings,whicharecontributingelementstothe
District,wouldbedirectlyimpacted.Duetotrackgeometryinthisareaandtominimizeeffects
tothesethreebuildings,aretainingwallwouldberequired.
Thenorthernleadtrackwouldbeshortenedandwouldnotincludeadequatespacefor9car
trainstobeheldpriortomaintenanceleadingtooperationalissuesforMARCandthe
functionalityofthelayout.
48
Figure 18
LN
FA
RM
WO
OD
LA
ND
BLVD
GOLF COURSE
RD
E
C
RNA
U
F
O
PI
I
C
N
I
PR
CO
UD
ON
EW
AKE VI
CHESAPE
EK RD
LLCRE
MI
FURNACE BAY
CAR AND LOCOMOTIVE

S WOOD
LAND F
ARM LN
PARKING
MAINTENANCE SHOP
TRAIN
OFFICES AND
WASHER
STORAGE
DIESEL
FUEL TANKS
STORMWATER
SERVICING AND
MANAGEMENT
INSPECTION BUILDING
FACILITY
2-TRACK INSPECTION
AND SERVICING AREA
TRAIN
STORAGE
TRACKS
AMTRAK MOW BASE

IKEA
Figure 19
DRAFT WORK-IN-PROGRESS
STUDY INFORMATION SHOWN SHALL BE USED FOR GENERAL
PLANNING /INFORMATION ONLY AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE
DURING PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
PROPOSED MARC MAINTENANCE AND

TRAIN STORAGE FACILITY - PERRYVILLE, MARYLAND
IMPACT MINIMIZATION DESIGN OPTION 1
Whitman, Requardt and Associates, LLP
Engineers and Planners
SCALE
SEPTEMBER2014
2014
DATE: FEBRUARY
200
400
1" = 200'
600
DraftNovember5,2014
Shiftingthesite875feettothenorthwoulddirectlyimpacttheFurnaceBayGolfCoursesHole
Number1anddrivingrange.TheGolfCoursewouldalsoexperienceincreasednoiseandvisual
impactsresultingfromtheshiftclosertoandwithintheproperty.Inaddition,shiftingthesite
willresultintotalreconstructionofthebridgeovertheNECthatiscurrentlyusedbygolfcourse
patrons to access the entire course. Reconstruction of this bridge will not only result in
additional costs ($2.5M) but will impact Furnace Bay Gold Course operations and business.
Further, the shifted site location would make it more difficult to provide visual and acoustic
screeningforsurroundingpropertiesduetoreducedbufferspace.
Thisshiftwouldnotminimizeimpactstoenvironmentalresources.Infact,theshiftimpactsa
1.25 mile intermittent waterway by cutting off flow from all adjacent systems. This would
greatly increase impacts to wetlands and waterways of the Preferred Alternative site layout
(Table3).
EstimatedconstructioncostswouldbehigherthanthoseofthePreferredAlternativebecause
oftheadditionalcoststoreconstructthebridgeovertheNECanddamagestoFurnaceBayGolf
Course operations and business. In addition, there will be significant costs to mitigate the
additionalwaterwayimpacts.
2.
UnderMinimizationAlternative2,thefacilitylayoutwouldbeshiftedslightlynortheastofthe
Preferred Alternative location, but would remain entirely within the Perryville A Property
(Figure20).Thisalternativewouldavoidthemajorityoftheoutbuildingsinthesouthcomplex
of the Woodlands Farm Historic District; however two buildings, which are contributing
resourcestotheDistrict,wouldbedirectlyimpacted.Aretainingwallwouldberequiredinthis
areaduetotrackgeometry.
ThelayoutofthesitewouldbemodifiedsubstantiallyoverthePreferredAlternativesitelayout
andMinimizationAlternative1.UnderMinimizationAlternative2,trainswouldenterandexit
thefacilityfromthesouth.ThislayoutwouldnotmeetthesitecriteriaestablishedbyMARC,
whichstipulatethefacilityshouldcontaintwopointsofconnectiontotherailline.Thisfacility
wouldbelessfluidfortrainsenteringandexitingthefacilityfroman operationalstandpoint,
increasingcostsandrisks.
Portionsofthefacility,includingthelooptrackandtrainstoragebayswouldbelocatedcloser
to Principio Furnace Road (Route 7) and residential areas. Noise generating features of the
facility,suchasthelooptrackresultinginsignificantnoiseimpacts,wouldbelocatedcloserto
noisesensitivereceptors.Reducedbufferareamaymakeitmoredifficulttoprovidevisualand
acousticscreening.Lightfromthestoragetrackswouldbegreaterandmoredifficulttoshield
thanthePreferredAlternative.
This alternative would not minimize impacts to environmental resources and will have
comparableimpactstowetlandsandwaterwaysofthePreferredAlternativesitelayout.
51
LN
FA
RM
WO
OD
LA
ND
BLVD
GOLF COURSE
RD
E
C
RNA
U
F
O
PI
I
C
N
I
PR
CO
UD
ON
EW
AKE VI
CHESAPE
EK RD
LLCRE
MI
FURNACE BAY
S WOOD
LAND F
ARM LN
PARKING
OFFICES AND
STORAGE
DIESEL
FUEL TANKS
SERVICING AND
TRAIN
STORMWATER
INSPECTION BUILDING
WASHER
MANAGEMENT
FACILITY
2-TRACK INSPECTION
CAR AND LOCOMOTIVE
TRAIN
AND SERVICING AREA
MAINTENANCE SHOP
STORAGE
TRACKS
AMTRAK MOW BASE

IKEA
Figure 20
DRAFT WORK-IN-PROGRESS
STUDY INFORMATION SHOWN SHALL BE USED FOR GENERAL
PLANNING /INFORMATION ONLY AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE
DURING PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
PROPOSED MARC MAINTENANCE AND

TRAIN STORAGE FACILITY - PERRYVILLE, MARYLAND
IMPACT MINIMIZATION DESIGN OPTION 2
Whitman, Requardt and Associates, LLP
SCALE
Engineers and Planners

DATE: SEPTEMBER
2014
FEBRUARY 2014
200
400
1" = 200'
600
DraftNovember5,2014
Construction cost of this alternative is approximately $30 million more than the Preferred
Alternativeduetoincreasedearthworkandtherequirementforretainingwalls.
3.
Alternative 3 would shift the facility approximately 1,275 feet to the north of the Preferred
Alternativelocation,whilemaintainingthesamegeneralconfigurationofallthefeaturesofthe
PreferredAlternativelayout.ThemajorityofthefacilitywouldbelocatedwithinthePerryville
ASite.Additionalrightofwaywouldbeacquiredfromtheprivatelyowned,FurnaceBayGolf
Course property to the northeast, with the possibility of needing to purchase the entire golf
course.
This alternative would avoid the majority of the outbuildings in the south complex of the
WoodlandsFarmHistoricDistrict;howeveronebuilding,whichisacontributingresourcetothe
District,wouldbedirectlyimpacted.Aretainingwallmayberequiredinthisareaduetotrack
geometry.
Thenorthernleadtrackwouldbeshortenedandwouldnotincludeadequatespacefor9car
trainstobeheldpriortomaintenanceleadingtooperationalissuesforMARC.Thenorthern
lead track would be closer to the existing curve in the NEC tracks north of this site. Amtrak
restricts the installation of turnouts to lowspeed tracks within highspeed tracks and also
prohibitsinstallationofturnoutswithincurvesmakingthissitenotfeasiblefromasafetyand
operationalperspective.
Shifting the site 1,275 feet to the north would directly impact several holes and the driving
rangeoftheFurnaceBayGolfCourseaswellasthebridgeovertheNEC.Theestimatedcostfor
reconstructingthebridgeis$2.5Million.TheCrothersHouse,whichservesastheClubhouse
forthegolfcourse,iseligiblefortheNRHP.Thelayoutwouldnotdirectlyimpactthestructure
butthemaintenancefacilitywouldbeincloseproximitytothisNRHPeligibleproperty.TheGolf
Coursewouldalsoexperienceincreasednoiseandvisualimpactsresultingfromtheshiftcloser
toandwithintheproperty.Further,theshiftedsitelocationwouldmakeitmoredifficultto
providevisualandacousticscreeningforsurroundingpropertiesduetoreducedbufferspace.
ThePreferredAlternativeprovidesvisualscreeningfromtheproposedfacilitywithinthebuffer
space. However, with this alternative, there islittle room for berms and landscaping to block
viewsfromtheWoodlands,theAnchorage,thegolfcourseandClubhouseaswellasneighbors
along Principio Furnace Road. In consultation with the MHT the need for landscaping which
reducesvisualimpactstoNRHPeligiblepropertieshasbeenidentified.Bermsandlandscaping
providethedesiredeffectofreducingvisualimpactstohistoricstructureswithinthevicinity;
however, this alternative would not provide appropriate acreage to develop adequate berms
andlandscaping.
Thisalternativeimpactsa1.25mileintermittentwaterwaybycuttingoffflowfromalladjacent
systems. This would greatly increase impacts to wetlands and waterways of the Preferred
Alternativesitelayout.
53
DraftNovember5,2014
EstimatedconstructioncostswouldbehigherthanthoseforthePreferredAlternativebecause
theadditionalcostsfortheimpactstotheGolfCourse(reconstructionofthebridgeoverthe
NEC,rightofwayacquisitions,disturbanceofbusinessoperations,possiblerelocationofholes
and/ordrivingrange,andwaterwaymitigation).
54
C.
DraftNovember5,2014
LeastOverallHarmSummary
Based on the evaluation presented in this chapter, Table 3 provides a summary of location
avoidance alternatives and minimization alternatives compared to the seven factors for least
overallharm,per23CFR774.3(c)(1).
55
DraftNovember5,2014
Table3.SevenFactorsfortheEvaluationofLeastOverallHarmper23CFR774.3(c)(1)
i.Theabilitytomitigateadverse
impactstoeachSection4(f)
property(includingany
measuresthatresultinbenefits
totheproperty)
ii.Therelativeseverityoftheremaining
harm,aftermitigation,totheprotected
activities,attributes,orfeaturesthat
qualifyeachSection4(f)propertyfor
protection
Mitigationmeasuresarebeing
identified.Specificmeasures
wouldbedeterminedthrough
developmentofaMemorandum
ofAgreement,pursuantto
Section106oftheNational
HistoricPreservationAct(36CFR
800).
Aftermitigation,thePreferred
Alternativewouldresultinasevere
impact(demolition)toalloutbuildings
whicharecontributingresourcestothe
WoodlandsFarmHistoricDistrictsite.
(Outbuildingsarecontributingelements
totheHistoricDistrict,butnot
individuallyeligible).
FTAhasdeterminedthatthe
undertakingwouldhavean
adverseeffectontheWoodlands
FarmHistoricDistrictand
archaeologicalsite18CE383
MHTconcurredthatthePreferred
Alternativewouldhaveanadverse
effecttohistoricproperties,
specificallytheWoodlandsFarm
HistoricDistrict.MHTwillhave
opportunitytocommentonthis
DraftSection4(f)Evaluation.
Fulfillspurposeandneed.
56acrespropertyimpacts
4.4acresforest
1.2acreswetlands/WUS
0FIDShabitat
0floodplain
0CriticalArea
$355Millionexcludingproperty
acquisition
LocationAvoidance
AlternativePerryman
Availabilityofmitigationwould
besimilartothePreferred
Alternative.
DirectimpacttothePerrymanHistoric
District
NoeffectontheWoodlandsFarm
HistoricDistrict,butwouldaffect
thePerrymanHistoricDistrict
another4(f)recommendedeligible
property.Nodeterminationhas
beenmaderegardingtherelative
valueoftheSection4(f)
properties.
MHTwillhaveopportunityto
commentonthisDraftSection4(f)
Evaluation.
Meetstheprojectpurposeand
needlessadequatelythanthe
PreferredAlternative.Thesiteis
southoftheSusquehannaRiver
anddoesnotmeetMARCs
criteria.
7.2acrespropertyimpacts
(residentialandcommercial)
5.9acresofforest
1.2acresFIDShabitat
0acresfloodplain
0CriticalArea
Nosubstantialdifferenceincosts
amongthealternativesrelativeto
thePreferredAlternative.
LocationAvoidance
AlternativeSouthPostRoad
Alternative.
DirectimpactstotheMitchellFarm
complexruins(0.9acres)
theMitchellFarmcomplex
another4(f)eligibleproperty.No
determinationhasbeenmade
regardingtherelativevalueofthe
Section4(f)properties.
Evaluation.
PreferredAlternative.Thesiteis
southoftheSusquehannaRiver
anddoesnotmeetMARCs
criteria.
(residentialandcommercial)
34.8acresforest
46.6acresFIDShabitat
0.6acresfloodplain
0CriticalArea
LocationAvoidance
AlternativeClarkRoad
Alternative.
DirectimpacttoSwanHarborHistoric
Farm
theSwanHarborHistoricFarm
another4(f)eligibleproperty.No
determinationhasbeenmade
Evaluation.
PreferredAlternativeanddoesnot
meetMARCscriteriaforsite
selection.Siteisnotnorthofthe
SusquehannaRiver.
(residentialandindustrial)
49.0acresforest
10.7acresfloodplain
17.3acresCriticalArea
LocationAvoidance
AlternativeWestOld
PhiladelphiaRoad
Alternative.
DirectimpacttoCountyOpenSpace
Nodeterminationhasbeenmade
CecilCountyhasnotprovided
commentonthisspecific
alternative.
PreferredAlternative.Not
compatiblewiththeAmtrakNEC
growthplan.
LocationAvoidance
AlternativeElkNeckState
Forest
Alternative.
DirectimpacttoElkNeckStateForest
Nodeterminationhasbeenmade
MarylandDNRhasnotprovided
commentonthisalternative.MTA
wouldconsultwithDNRshould
thisalternativebeadvanced.
Fulfillspurposeandneed
comparabletoPreferred
Alternative.Sitehasengineering
issuesandhighenvironmental
impacts.
(residential)
44.0acresforest
8.1acreswetland/WUS
14.7acresfloodplain
52.0acresCriticalArea
0acrespropertyimpacts
52.7acresforest
14.8acreswetland/WUS
0floodplain
0CriticalArea
Alternative
iii.Therelativesignificanceof
eachSection4(f)property
56
iv.Theviewsoftheofficial(s)with
jurisdictionovereachSection4(f)
property
v.Thedegreetowhicheach
alternativemeetsthepurpose
andneedfortheproject
vi.Afterreasonablemitigation,
themagnitudeofanyadverse
impactstopropertiesnot
vii.Substantialdifferencesincosts
amongthealternatives
DraftNovember5,2014
Table3.SevenFactorsfortheEvaluationofLeastOverallHarmper23CFR774.3(c)(1)
Alternative
i.Theabilitytomitigateadverse
impactstoeachSection4(f)
property(includingany
measuresthatresultinbenefits
totheproperty)
ii.Therelativeseverityoftheremaining
harm,aftermitigation,totheprotected
activities,attributes,orfeaturesthat
qualifyeachSection4(f)propertyfor
protection
ShiftSiteNorth875Feet
Alternative.
LoopLayout
ShiftSitetoNorth1,275Feet
vi.Afterreasonablemitigation,
themagnitudeofanyadverse
impactstopropertiesnot
iii.Therelativesignificanceof
eachSection4(f)property
iv.Theviewsoftheofficial(s)with
jurisdictionovereachSection4(f)
property
v.Thedegreetowhicheach
alternativemeetsthepurpose
andneedfortheproject
Threeoutbuildingsthatarecontributing
resourcestotheWoodlandsFarm
HistoricDistrictwouldbedirectly
impacted.Potentialeffecttothe
CrothersHouseonthegolfcourse.
Evaluation
Evaluation.
andoperationalissues.
Additionalimpactstoa1.25mile
intermittentwaterwaybycutting
offflowfromalladjacentsystems.
Substantialdifferenceincosts
(bridgereconstruction
($2.5Million),FurnaceBayGolf
Courseoperationalimpacts,and
waterwaymitigation)amongthe
alternativesrelativetothe
Alternative.
Twooutbuildingsthatisacontributing
resourcetotheWoodlandsFarm
impacted.
Evaluation
Evaluation.
Significantnoiseandlighting
impactsasaresultofthetight
looptrack.
Approximately$30millionmore
thanthePreferredAlternativefor
earthworkandretainingwalls.
Alternative.
Oneoutbuildingthatisacontributing
resourcetotheWoodlandsFarm
impacted.Potentialeffecttothe
CrothersHouseonthegolfcourse.
Evaluation
Evaluation.
Additionalimpactstoa1.25mile
intermittentwaterwaybycutting
offflowfromalladjacentsystems.
Substantialdifferenceincosts
(bridgereconstruction
($2.5Million),FurnaceBayGolf
Courseoperationalimpacts,and
waterwaymitigation)amongthe
alternativesrelativetothe
57
vii.Substantialdifferencesincosts
amongthealternatives
DraftNovember5,2014
VIII. AllPossiblePlanningtoMinimizeHarm
Allpossibleplanning,asdefinedin23CFR774.17,includesallreasonablemeasuresidentified
in the Section 4(f) Evaluation to minimize harm or mitigate for adverse impacts and effects
mustbeincludedintheproject.
For Section 4(f) uses that cannot be avoided or further minimized, mitigation would be
considered. The level of mitigation would be considered commensurate with the severity of
theimpactontheSection4(f)property.Mitigationwouldbedeterminedthroughconsultation
withtheofficialshavingjurisdictionovereachresourceandpresentedintheFinalSection4(f)
Evaluation.
For historic sites, the measures normally serve to preserve the historic activities, features, or
attributes of the site, as agreed to by the FTA and the official(s) with jurisdiction over the
Section4(f)resource,inaccordancewiththeconsultationprocessunder36CFRPart800.
In evaluating the reasonableness of measures to minimize harm, the FTA would consider 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 impacts or benefits of the measures to communities or environmental resources

outsideoftheSection4(f)property.
MitigationfortheSection4(f)useofthehistoricsiteswouldbespecifiedinaMemorandumof
Agreement (MOA) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800. Potential mitigation measures would be
developedincoordinationwiththeStateHistoricPreservationOfficer(MHT),consultingparties
as appropriate, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). The MOA will be
preparedpriortotheFinalSection4(f)Evaluation,aftercommentsarereceivedontheEAand
thisDraftSection4(f)Evaluation.
All minimization and mitigation measures will be documented in the Final Section 4(f)
Evaluation.FTAwillmakeafinaldeterminationofwhetherallpossibleplanninghasoccurred
based on the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation, after consideration of comments on the Draft
Section4(f)Evaluation.
IX.
Coordination
A.
AgencyCoordination
TheMarylandHistoricalTrusthasjurisdictionovertheWoodlandsFarmHistoricDistrictandhas
had direct representation throughout the project planning process. Coordination included
effortsto:determinetheAPE,identifyhistoricpropertieswithintheAPE,determineeffectsto
historicproperties,developminimizationandmitigationmeasures,anddeveloptheMOA.
58
DraftNovember5,2014
FormalcorrespondencefromMHT,datedAugust27,2014,indicatesthatMHTagreeswiththe
FTAthattheundertakingwillhaveanadverseeffectontheWoodlandsFarmHistoricDistrict
(MIHPNo.CE145).
B.
Localities
TheprojectislocatedwithinHarfordCounty,Maryland.RepresentativesfromtheCountyhave
participated in study scoping in accordance with NEPA and will receive copies of this Draft
Section4(f)Evaluationforreviewandcomment.
C.
PublicComments
ThepublicwillhaveanopportunitytoreviewandcommentontheDraftSection4(f)Evaluation
concurrentlywiththeEA.CommentsfromthepublicrelatedtotheSection4(f)analysiswillbe
respondedtointheFinalSection4(f)Evaluation.
59
DraftNovember5,2014
AttachmentA
DescriptionofInterlockingsandCrossovers
60
TO:
MTA
FROM:
ROBERT JACKSON
SUBJECT: ITERLOCKINGS AND COSTS

DATE:
OCTOBER 17, 2014
Interlocking
The railroad operating rules define an interlocking this way: An arrangement of signals and signal
appliances so interconnected that their movements must succeed each other in proper sequence. An interlocking may be
controlled or automatic. Some other definitions also may be in order to expand on this
definition: Interlocking Appliances The parts of an interlocking that are capable of movement such as: switches,
derails, movable point frogs, movable bridges, etc. Interlocking Signals The fixed signals of an interlocking.
Interlocking Costs
The high cost of an interlocking stems from three primary sources: track work, signal work and
catenary work.
Track Work: In order to allow a train to cross from one track to another two turnouts are
configured as a crossover. The number of tracks that need to be accessed by train movements in
either direction determines the number of crossovers required in an interlocking. To access the lead
track to the maintenance facility a single turnout is installed in one of the mainline tracks. In an
existing interlocking, the lead track turnout would be installed where it would be most advantageous
to allow trains moving to and from the yard access to whatever mainline tracks are necessary for
their operations using the existing crossovers. Installation of a single turnout in an existing
interlocking is the least expensive option because track work is minimal. As crossovers are added to
increase flexibility of train movements, costs rise. Mainline crossovers are typically much longer and
have more movable components than yard turnouts in order to permit higher speeds, and their
installation in existing tracks must be done during track outages which can only be provided during
relatively short work windows on the NEC. Also, all movable components must be equipped with
ice-melting equipment to maintain their operation in inclement winter weather. This all results in
higher costs for materials, equipment and labor to install, as well as the peripheral costs of slowing
trains passing the work area, transporting and housing the personnel necessary to perform the work,
lighting the work area at night, coordination of material delivery to the site, and idle time for labor
while waiting for the track outage to go into effect each night. It is readily seen, then, that these
costs are multiplied by the number of turnouts and crossovers required, and since a new interlocking
will require more of each to be provided, its costs are the highest.
Signal Work: Any new feature added to the track in the NEC has a ripple effect in signal work up
and down the line far beyond the limits of the interlocking in question. Again, installation of a
single turnout in an existing interlocking is the least expensive option because the sequencing of the
signals governing train movements typically requires minimal equipment upgrades and adjustments
1
to the signal logic within the interlocking and up and down the line to other signals. However, as
the number of options for crossover movements of trains increases, signal costs rapidly
escalate. Returning to the definition of an interlocking as stated above, the signals must function in
a certain sequence in harmony with the turnouts and crossovers, etc. (interlocking appliances) in
order to provide for safe movement of trains they are interlocked. This sequence logic is
paramount in governing train speeds, since movements through crossovers and turnouts from one
track to another typically take place at lower speeds than the maximum authorized speed for a
straight-through movement on the main track. The sequence logic is also paramount in governing
train movements because they prevent human error or equipment failure from setting up a
movement that would allow one train to collide with another. The signals in an
interlocking accomplish this by interacting with the signals up and down the line so that high speed
trains have sufficient time to adjust their speed in preparation for any situation or condition that the
signals indicate lies ahead. All of this interaction among signals must be carefully programmed and
provided with fail-safe features and redundancy that permit safe operation of trains, and this all
comes with a high cost in circuit design, programming, and installation of equipment.
Catenary Work: Any changes to track in the NEC are typically accompanied by changes to the
catenary, or trolley wires, that deliver the electric current to electric locomotives. Catenary has to be
maintained under tension, and this is usually accomplished by attaching it to the span wires and
structures that are stretched across the tracks between the catenary poles that line both sides of the
right-of-way. The tension forces in the catenary are usually balanced so that the forces at any given
catenary structure are in equilibrium. A crossover requires a section of the catenary to be set at an
angle to the wires that are above and parallel to the main tracks. This result in an unbalance of the
forces acting on a given catenary structure, and these forces must be balanced by various means
such as guy wires attached to concrete anchors in the ground, stub poles or braces. Concrete
anchors typically are about 4 feet in diameter and are set approximately 20 feet in the ground. Stub
poles and braces are set in similarly sized foundations. Installation of these foundation and poles
also has the greatest possibility of requiring environmental permitting dealing with everything from
contaminated earth disposal to reforestation. Again, materials, equipment and labor are costly, and
the costs increase if the interlocking, either existing or new, is in a relatively inaccessible location or
challenging terrain that make delivery of materials or positioning of machines difficult. The more
crossovers or turnouts that must be installed, the higher the cost.
Interlockings and Amtraks NEC Infrastructure Master Plan
Amtrak identifies where new interlockings are required and outlines this information within their
planning process including the NEC Infrastructure Master Plan. For the reasons outlined above as
well as the requirement for trains to slow down when travelling through an interlocking, Amtrak
does not support the development of new interlockings that are not outlined in their planning
program. Any sites considered which would require the development of a new interlocking would be
very unlikely to gain support by Amtrak.
Crossovers
Crossovers are a pair of switches that connects two parallel rail tracks, allowing a train on one track
to cross over to the other. Crossovers add flexibility to train movements by allowing trains to enter
and exit the rail line. Adding crossovers to the NEC can lead to the requirement for additional
interlocking which are costly to construct and increase the potential for derailment. Additionally
trains are required to slow down to at least 80 mph when travelling through a crossover thus
increasing the number of crossovers along the NEC would result in slower train speeds.
Amtraks NEC Master Plan aims to increase high speed rail service along the NEC. Adding
crossovers would contradict this goal and would be unlikely to be supported by Amtrak.

Appendix G - Section 4f PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Appendix G - Section 4f PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix G - Section 4f PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

When land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility. Pursuant to 23

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

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

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

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

Any impacts or benefits of the measures to communities or environmental resources

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

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SITE

MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

North Farm Complex

South Farm Complex

Woodlands Farm Historic District

Historic Stuctures within

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

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

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

Figure 5 Perryville B Site

Figure 6 Opus Site

Aberdeen Proving Ground

Figure 7 Aberdeen Proving Ground Site

Figure 8 Prologis Site

Figure 9 New Bengies Site

Figure 10 Chesapeake Site

Figure 11 - Chelsea Site

Carpenters Point Site

Figure 12- Carpenters Point Site

Mason Dixon Site

Figure 13 - Mason Dixon Site

Figure 14- Perryman Site

CAR AND LOCOMOTIVE

AMTRAK MOW BASE

PROPOSED MARC MAINTENANCE AND

CAR AND LOCOMOTIVE

AND SERVICING AREA

AMTRAK MOW BASE

PROPOSED MARC MAINTENANCE AND

Engineers and Planners

Any impacts or benefits of the measures to communities or environmental resources

SUBJECT: ITERLOCKINGS AND COSTS

OCTOBER 17, 2014

You might also like