TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Section 4(f) and 

Section 6(f) 

Resources

7.16

7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.16-1

7.16 SECTION 4(f) AND SECTION 6(f) RESOURCES

7.16.1 Section 4(f) Resources

7.16.1.1 Introduction

This chapter provides a preliminary assessment of potential

resources protected under Section 4(f) of the Department 

of Transportation Act of 1966 (Section 4(f)) that could be 

affected by the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (Tier 1 Draft EIS) Action Alternatives. Once the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) identifies a Preferred 

Alternative, the Tier 1 Final EIS will address whether

additional Section 4(f) evaluation is appropriate at Tier 2.

The inclusion of a Section 4(f) resource in this Tier 1

assessment does not necessarily mean that resource will be 

used.

This Tier 1 Draft EIS identifies the Section 4(f) resources that 

could be used under Section 4(f) based on an analysis 

utilizing Representative Routes and representative service 

information. As described in Section 7.16.1.8, the 

information contained in this analysis will be used as input 

during Tier 2 evaluations, including in the evaluation of

possible avoidance alternatives. The FRA will not make a 

Section 4(f) determination as part of this Tier 1 EIS process.

Such determinations will be made as part of the Tier 2

environmental compliance process, when more-detailed 

and specific information is available regarding the project 

location and design (i.e., location of alignments, duration 

and extent of construction, specific construction methods,

and staging areas) and information regarding the location, 

boundaries, and significance of Section 4(f) resources are 

known.

Definition of Resource 

Section 4(f) was enacted as a means of protecting the following resources from conversion to 

transportation uses: publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife/waterfowl refuges, as well 

as historic sites of local, state, or national significance (eligible or listed). Historic properties also 

include artifacts, records, and material remains that are related to and located within such properties, 

and properties of religious and cultural importance to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian 

organization, and that meet the National Register criteria. Traditional cultural properties may also be 

protected under Section 4(f) if they are on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places. The FRA has included tribal resources identified as part of the National Park Service (NPS)

2010 database, the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Tribal Directory Assessment Tool (TDAT) 

Key Resource: Section 4(f) Resources

§ Section 4(f) of the U.S. DOT Act 

protects publicly owned parks, 

recreation areas, and wildlife/waterfowl 

refuges, and historic properties. 

Impacts on these resources are 

discouraged and require additional 

analysis to determine the type of 

impact and whether or not identified 

impacts can be avoided or minimized. 

§ Use of these resources requires the 

evaluation of avoidance alternatives 

and a determination that there is no 

prudent and feasible alternative to 

avoid or minimize the impact or a 

finding that the impacts are 

de minimus.

§ Type of effects can include conversion 

of parkland resources to nonrecreational uses, visual changes, 

noise and vibration, and access; and 

loss of or damage to cultural resources 

and historic properties.

Section 4(f) determinations will be 

made during Tier 2 studies. 
7.16 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources

Page | 7.16-2 Tier 1 Draft EIS

database, and correspondence with identified tribes (see Chapter 7.9, Cultural Resources and Historic 

Properties, and Appendix G) in this assessment.

Under Section 4(f), a use occurs under the following conditions: 

4 When a U.S. DOT project permanently incorporates land from a Section 4(f) property into 

transportation use (“permanent use”). Permanent incorporation includes a permanent easement 

required for the purpose of project construction or that grants a future right-of-access onto a 

Section 4(f) property, such as for the purpose of routine maintenance by the transportation 

agency;

4 When a project temporarily occupies land within a Section 4(f) property during construction 

activities that are adverse in terms of the statute’s preservation purpose (“temporary use”).

Examples of temporary occupancy of Section 4(f) land include right-of-entry, a temporary 

easement, or other short-term arrangement involving a Section 4(f) property; or 

4 When a project introduces proximity effects, such as noise or visual effects, which substantially 

impair the protected activities, features, or attributes of the Section 4(f) property that qualify the 

property for protection under Section 4(f) (“constructive use”). Substantial impairment occurs 

when the protected activities, features, or attributes of the Section 4(f) property are substantially 

diminished.

Effects-Assessment Methodology 

The issue of compliance with Section 4(f) in a tiered National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process 

is not specifically addressed in the FRA’s environmental procedures, but is addressed in the 

FHWA/FTA Section 4(f) Policy Paper (2012) and Section 4(f) regulations 23 CFR Part 774), where it 

states, “[w]hen the first-tier, broad-scale EIS is prepared, the detailed information necessary to 

complete the Section 4(f) approval may not be available at that stage in the development of the 

action. In such cases, the documentation should address the potential impacts on the Section 4(f)

property and whether those impacts could have a bearing on the decision to be made. The 

Section 4(f) approval will be finalized in the second-tier study.”1

The FRA used the analyses conducted for parklands, recreational areas, and wildlife and waterfowl 

refuges, and historic resources as the basis for the Section 4(f) evaluation. Table 7.16-1 summarizes 

key factors associated with the effects-assessment methodologies for each category of Section 4(f)

resources evaluated as part of this Tier 1 Draft EIS.

Appendix H, Preliminary Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Evaluations, provides the methodology for 

evaluating Section 4(f) resources and includes the supporting data that the FRA used in its analysis. 

Appendix A, Mapping Atlas, provides the general locations of Section 4(f) Resources in relationship 

to each of the Action Alternatives. 

 

1 While the regulations found at 23 CFR Part 774 do not apply to the FRA, the FRA uses the regulations and the 

FHWA/FTA Policy Paper as guidance when completing its Section 4(f) analysis.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.16-3

Table 7.16-1: Effects-Assessment Methodology Summary: Section 4(f) Resources

Resource Affected Environment Type of Assessment Outcomes

Section 4(f) –

Parklands 

2,000-foot-wide swath 

centered along 

Representative Route 

for each Action 

Alternative

Quantitative: Acres Identification of potential crossing of 

a resource that may result in a

potential use of parklands by the 

Action Alternatives; qualitative 

assessment of constructive use 

introduced by proximity effects

Section 4(f) –

Historic 

Resources*

1-mile-wide swath 

centered along 

Representative Route 

for each Action 

Alternative

Quantitative: Number of NRHP 

and NHL sites identified in NPS 

2010 data base

Tribal counties of interest 

identified through 

coordination with tribes and 

HUD TDAT data**

Identification of potential effects on

historic resources (those listed on 

the National Register of Historic 

Places) by the Action Alternatives

that may result in a use; qualitative 

assessment of constructive use 

introduced by proximity effects

Sources: NEC FUTURE Section 4(f) Effects-Assessment Methodologies, Appendix H, 2014.

* Historic resources eligible for (but not yet included in) National Register of Historic Places listing are not included in the Section 4(f) analysis.

** Tribal coordination and efforts to identify tribal resources are documented in Appendix G, Section 106 Documentation

7.16.1.2 Resource Overview

Implementation of the No Action or Action Alternatives could result in a use of Section 4(f) resources 

through modifications to existing rail infrastructure or construction of new rail infrastructure through 

Section 4(f) properties. For purposes of this Tier 1 Draft EIS, a use of a Section 4(f) property could 

result from a Representative Route crossing2 the resource. Implementation of the No Action or Action 

Alternatives could also result in proximity effects to Section 4(f) properties, such as noise and 

vibration effects caused by new service on new routes or changes in service on existing routes.

This Section 4(f) analysis focuses on the environmental effects identified in Chapter 7.4, Parklands 

and Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Chapter 7.9, Cultural Resources and Historic Properties.

Section 4(f) Resources: Parks, Recreational Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges

Parklands, recreational areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges are scattered throughout the 2,000-

foot-wide Affected Environment. Maryland, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts

have the largest parks in the Affected Environment, while higher acreages of parklands are located in 

areas where the Action Alternatives diverge from the existing NEC and create new segments or 

extend off-corridor, primarily in New York under Alternative 3, and Connecticut and Rhode Island

under all the Action Alternatives. The most individual parks exist in Maryland, Pennsylvania, New 

York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.

 

2 A crossing of a parkland resource indicates an area where, if an Action Alternative is implemented, could result in 

a land conversion from a recreational use to a transportation use. 
7.16 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources

Page | 7.16-4 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Key findings for the analysis of the Action Alternatives’ effects on parklands that are Section 4(f) 

properties are listed below:

4 Benefits:

– Implementation of the Action Alternatives can improve access to existing and future 

parklands. Examples of parklands near new station locations or areas that would experience 

increased service include the following:

o East Coast Greenway: Pennsylvania segment (all Action Alternatives) and Rhode Island 

segment (Alternatives 2 and 3)

o Pelham Bay Park (all Action Alternatives)

4 Impacts:

– Parkland conversions primarily would occur with new off-corridor segments.

o The majority of parkland conversions associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 would occur in 

Rhode Island.

o Under Alternative 3, the majority of parkland conversions would occur in Rhode Island

and New York.

– All Action Alternatives cross a wild and scenic river—the White Clay Creek in New Castle, DE. 

Alternative 3 creates a new crossing south of the existing NEC, whereas Alternatives 1 and 2 

expand the existing crossing.

– Alternative 3 would affect the most parks (between 116 and 130 parks). 

– Alternative 3 would affect the most park acreages (up to 905 acres). 

– The parks that would have the highest acreage potentially affected by the Action Alternatives 

are listed below. Note that the greatest acreages do not necessarily imply that an Action 

Alternative would result in the greatest overall impact to the resource. For example, 

Alternative 1 would affect approximately 180 acres of the Greenway in Washington County, 

RI, which is less than 1 percent of the total park area. As such, the effects to the park are likely 

to be minimal.

o The Greenway, which crosses Kent, Providence, and Washington Counties, RI, would be 

crossed by Alternative 1 (affecting approximately 180 acres in Washington County); by 

Alternative 2 (affecting approximately 95 acres in Providence County); and by Alternative 

3 (affecting about 100 acres in Providence County). 

o Pelham Bay Park in Bronx, NY, would have approximately 70 acres converted to a 

transportation use under Alternative 3.

o Patuxent Research Refuge in Anne Arundel, MD, would have approximately 60 acres 

converted to a transportation use by Alternative 3.

o The Great Swamp Management Area/Great Swamp in Washington, RI, would have 

approximately 50 acres converted to a transportation use by Alternative 1.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.16-5

o Eisenhower County Park in Nassau, NY, and Gunpowder Falls State Park in Baltimore 

County, MD, would have approximately 40 acres converted to a transportation use under 

Alternative 3.

o Saxon Woods County Park in Westchester, NY, and Norfolk County Canoe River 

Wilderness in Norfolk, MA, would have approximately 30 acres converted to a 

transportation use by Alternative 3.

o Natchaug State Forest in Windham, CT, would have 25 acres converted to a 

transportation use under both Alternatives 2 and 3.

Depending on identification of the Preferred Alternative, subsequent project phases would further 

examine the relevant parks listed above to avoid or minimize impacts.

Section 4(f) Resources – Historic Resources

Implementation of the No Action and Action Alternatives could affect cultural resources and historic 

properties through physical disturbance or demolition of the resource, through proximity effects such 

as noise and vibration, or through proposed changes to the visual character or aesthetic qualities. 

The FRA identified numerous historic properties listed on the NRHP, some of which are designated 

as NHLs within the Study Area. NHLs are specifically called out in this analysis because of their national 

importance and because they require the most stringent consultation under Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) to resolve adverse effects. Potential effects on NHLs are an 

important consideration in identifying a Preferred Alternative.

Cultural resources and historic properties are dispersed throughout the Study Area with higher 

numbers of NRHP properties and especially NHLs found in urban areas that were heavily populated 

during the colonial era (i.e., Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York City, Providence, and Boston). 

Typically, greater numbers of historic buildings and districts are associated with areas where the 

Action Alternatives are close to the existing NEC, or divert into new urban areas.

In addition, the FRA identified federally recognized tribes known to have tribal lands or resources, or 

that claim ancestral lands or resources, in counties within the Study Area. The FRA further identified 

those federally recognized tribes that claim ancestral lands or resources in counties traversed by the 

No Action and Action Alternatives. Tribal and ancestral lands have been identified in Suffolk County, 

NY; New London County, CT; and Washington County, RI. Additional ancestral lands have been 

identified in all counties within the Study Area that are located in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New 

York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. 

Key findings of this analysis are:

4 Cultural resources and historic properties have the potential to be affected under all Action 

Alternatives. Of particular note, elements of the existing NEC, including numerous stations, are 

considered historic and may be affected by all Action Alternatives.

4 All Action Alternatives cross counties of interest to federally recognized tribes.
7.16 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources

Page | 7.16-6 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4 The states with the greatest numbers of NRHP-listed resources within the Affected Environment 

are Pennsylvania and Connecticut.

4 The state with the greatest numbers of NHLs within the Affected Environment is Pennsylvania. 

4 Alternative 3 has the highest number of NHLs and NRHP-listed resources affected. 

4 NHLs identified within the Representative Route for each Action Alternative represent the 

greatest potential impact; however, specific effects on these NHLs have not been determined.

The FRA identified the following NHLs within the Representative Route for the Action 

Alternatives:

– Fairmont Waterworks, Philadelphia, PA (Alternatives 1 and 2)

– John Bartram House, Philadelphia, PA (Alternative 2)

– Andalusia, Bucks County, PA (Alternatives 1, 2 and 3)

– Washington Square West Historic District, Philadelphia, PA (Alternative 3)

– Reading Terminal, Philadelphia, PA (Alternative 3)

– John B. Smith Building, Boston, MA (Alternative 3)

7.16.1.3 Affected Environment 

Table 7.16-2 presents a summary of the parks, recreational areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges 

in the Affected Environment. For each of the Action Alternatives, Table 7.16-2 identifies the number 

of federal, state, and/or county parks, total park acreage, and percentage of the total park acreage 

within the Affected Environment. Table 7.16-3 presents a summary of the historic resources (i.e., 

both NHLs and NRHP sites) in the Affected Environment. (See Chapter 7.4, Parklands and Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, for a detailed description of the parks, recreational areas, and wildlife and waterfowl 

refuges. See Chapter 7.9, Cultural Resources and Historic Properties, for a description of the cultural 

resources.) Appendix E, Section E.16, provides all data for each state and county. Appendix A, 

Mapping Atlas, depicts resources by county.

7.16.1.4 Environmental Consequences 

This section provides a broad overview of how the Action Alternatives would affect Section 4(f) 

resources and identifies areas where a potential use would occur. 

For purposes of this analysis, an environmental effect was noted for those parks, recreational areas, 

wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic resources that lie within the Representative Route of 

each Action Alternative. Resources identified within the Representative Route have a higher 

likelihood of being directly affected by an Action Alternative, resulting in a Section 4(f) use.

See Chapter 7.4, Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Chapter 7.8, Cultural Resources and 

Historic Properties, for more information.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequ

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.16-2: Affected Environment: Section 4(f) Resources – Parks, Recreational Areas, and Wildlife and W

Geography

Total 

Acres of 

Resources*

Resources in the Affected Environment

Existing NEC Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

# of 

Parks Acres

% of Total 

Park Acres

# of 

Parks Acres

% of Total 

Park Acres

# of 

Parks Acres

% of Total 

Park Acres

# of 

Parks 

D.C. 1,162 8 200 17% 8 200 17% 8 200 17% 8 

MD 108,124 78 1,020 1% 87 1,030 1% 89 1,090 1% 129 

DE 1,115 12 240 22% 12 240 22% 12 240 22% 12 

PA 10,628 50 560 5% 50 560 5% 47 780 7% 70 

NJ 4,792 14 210 4% 14 210 4% 14 225 5% 15 

NY 11,314 49 745 7% 49 750 7% 57 760 7% 66–91 

CT 63,280 26 825 1% 28 865 1% 36 2,275 4% 7–32 

RI 321,459 30 4,305 1% 31 4,910 2% 38 5,765 2% 27–38 

MA 6,227 8 180 3% 8 180 3% 8 180 3% 8–20 

TOTAL 528,101 275 8,285 2% 287 8,945 2% 309 11,515 2% 342–415 

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: There is one wild and scenic river, White Clay Creek, in the Affected Environment of all of the Action Alternatives. It is located in New Castle, D

for protection under Section 4(f) since the management plan for White Clay Creek addresses recreation and other Section 4(f) uses.

*Most of the resources are only partially located in the Affected Environment. The total number of acres represents the total acreage of the parklan

outside and inside the Affected Environment of the existing NEC or any alternative. 
7.16. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources

Page | 7.16-8 T

Table 7.16-3: Affected Environment: Section 4(f) Resources – Cultural Resources and Historic Properties

Geography Resource Type

Existing NEC

(# of sites)

Alternative 1

(# of sites)

Alternative 2

(# of sites)

D.C. NHL 10 10 10 

NRHP-Listed 27 30 30 

MD

NHL 3 3 3 

NRHP-Listed 90 96 96 

DE

NHL 2 2 2 

NRHP-Listed 79 83 84 

PA

NHL 12 10 10 

NRHP-Listed 130 138 135 

NJ

NHL 4 4 4 

NRHP-Listed 79 86 86 

NY

NHL 10 10 10 

NRHP-Listed 93 102 106 

CT

NHL 8 9 11 

NRHP-Listed 215 218 312 

RI

NHL 6 6 8 

NRHP-Listed 154 158 191 

MA

NHL 6 6 6 

NRHP-Listed 96 125 125 

Alternative Total – NHL 61 60 64 

Alternative Total – NRHP-Listed 963 1,036 1,165 

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: All Action Alternatives assume improvements to the existing NEC; therefore, the number of resources presented is inclusive of the existing NEC as well as any ne

associated with each Action Alternative. Counts of National Register of Historic Places-listed sites and National Historic Landmarks include both individual sites and dist

identified as part of the National Park Service (NPS) 2010 database have been included in the table. Numbers have not been rounded since they are discrete occurrenc

resources eligible for NRHP listing are not included in the Section 4(f) analysis.

*The ranges represent the different alternative route options considered as part of Alternative 3.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.16-9

Section 4(f) Resources – Parklands, Recreational Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges

Table 7.16-4 summarizes the number of parks, recreational areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges 

that could potentially be affected under each Action Alternative. Table 7.16-5 provides the number 

of resources that could potentially be affected for each Alternative 3 route option. (See Chapter 7.4, 

Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers, for a detailed description of the parks, recreational areas, and 

wildlife and waterfowl refuges. Appendix H provides all data for each state and county. Appendix A, 

Mapping Atlas, depicts resources by county.)

While many parks within the Affected Environment are adjacent to the existing NEC and experience 

effects such as visual interference and noise, all or portions of parks that are within the footprint of 

areas where new infrastructure is proposed could be converted to a non-park use and, therefore, 

would experience greater effects. 

In addition, parks adjacent to new infrastructure may also experience proximity effects, such as new 

noise and vibration impacts, from an increase in trains passing and visual impacts resulting from new 

construction and operation of the proposed service. Proximity effects have the potential to prevent 

a resource from being used in accordance with its intended purpose. For example, a park intended 

to be used for meditative purposes could no longer be useable if a proposed action introduces a 

proximity effect, such as new noise. 

Proximity effects could also result in a constructive use. Constructive use may include impacts such 

as noise, access restrictions, vibration, ecological intrusions, and visual impacts. For example, a 

constructive use would occur if increased noise levels substantially interfere with the use of a noise 

sensitive feature such as a campground or outdoor amphitheater. It should be noted, though, that 

the determination of a constructive use of Section 4(f) land is rare. 

More specifically, the following general effects on parklands could occur as a result of the various 

construction types and methods proposed:

4 At-grade: Direct physical disturbance to existing parklands through the construction and 

introduction of new track bed and landscaping, and the installation of utilities and/or catenary 

poles and potential proximity effects (i.e., visual, noise, vibration) that could result in a 

constructive use

4 Trench: Direct physical disturbance to existing parklands through the construction and 

introduction of new trenches and landscaping, and the installation of utilities and/or catenary 

poles and potential proximity effects (i.e., visual, noise, vibration) that could result in a 

constructive use

4 Embankment: Direct physical disturbance to existing parklands through the introduction of new 

retaining walls and/or earthen berms and potential proximity effects (i.e., visual, noise, vibration) 

that could result in a constructive use
7.16. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources

Page | 7.16-10 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.16-4: Environmental Consequences: Parklands, Recreational Areas, and Wildlife 

and Waterfowl Refuges

Geography

Existing NEC Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 31

# of 

Parks

Acres

within the 

Alignment

# of 

Parks2

Acres within 

the Rep. Rte. 2

# of 

Parks2

Acres within 

the Rep. Rte. 2

# of 

Parks2

Acres within 

the Rep. Rte. 2

D.C. 3 10 3 10 3 10 4 25

MD 15 10 15 10 17 25 24 190

DE 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 15

PA 17 20 17 20 18 45 19 50

NJ 5 2 5 2 6 10 6 15

NY 9 50 9 50 9 50 13–16 115–125

CT 17 50 18 55 23 105 21–23 60–90

RI 19 265 20 350 25 345 18–25 265–350

MA 5 25 5 25 5 25 5–7 25–45

TOTAL 95 435 97 525 111 620 116–130 760–905

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015 1The range represents the Representative Route design options for Alternative 3. 2All Action Alternatives assume improvements to the existing NEC; therefore, the number of resources presented is inclusive of the existing NEC 

as well as any new option or off-corridor route associated with each Action Alternative.

Note: While the totals for each alternative include parks that are along the existing NEC, some parks would have additional effects under the 

alternative. For instance, West Park is located along the existing NEC, but it would have additional impacts under Alternative 1 because of the 

proposed bridge. There is one wild and scenic river—White Clay Creek in New Castle, Delaware—which is crossed by the existing NEC and all 

Action Alternatives. Alternative 3 creates a new crossing. White Clay Creek qualifies for protection under Section 4(f) since the management 

plan for White Clay Creek addresses recreation and other Section 4(f) uses.

Table 7.16-5: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route of Alternative 3 Route 

Options – Parklands, Recreational Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges

Geography

D.C. to NYC New York City to Hartford Hartford to Boston

# of 

Parks Acres

via Central 

Connecticut via Long Island via Providence via Worcester

# of 

Parks Acres

# of 

Parks Acres

# of 

Parks Acres

# of 

Parks Acres

D.C. 4 25 — — — — — — — —

MD 24 190 — — — — — — — —

DE 6 15 — — — — — — — —

PA 19 50 — — — — — — — —

NJ 6 15 — — — — — — — —

NY — — 13 120 16 130 — — — —

CT — — 20 55 18 50 3 40 3 15

RI — — — — — — 25 350 18 265

MA — — — — — — 5 40 7 30

TOTAL 59 300 33 175 34 180 33 430 28 310

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: All Action Alternatives assume improvements to the existing NEC; therefore, the number of resources presented is inclusive of the 

existing NEC as well as any new option or off-corridor route associated with each Action Alternative.

— = Not applicable within that alternative/route option.

4 Aerial Structure or Major Bridge: Direct physical disturbance to existing parklands at the site of 

abutments and/or pilings on land and in waterways and disturbance to existing parklandsthrough 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.16-11

the introduction of new aerial structures and potential proximity effects (i.e., visual, noise, 

vibration) that could result in a constructive use

4 Tunnel: Direct physical disturbance to existing parklands at tunnel boring machine (TBM) launch 

sites, ventilation shafts and egress points, and potential proximity effects through vibrations that 

could result in a constructive use

Temporary construction effects could occur where access roads are created and at staging and laydown areas. Impacts could include temporary disturbance to existing parklands. Chapter 8, 

Construction Effects, presents a qualitative description and examples of potential constructionrelated effects for parklands.

Stations 

Table 7.16-6 summarizes the potential Environmental Consequences of the proposed stations to 

Section 4(f) parklands, recreational areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges. The effects described 

in Table 7.16-6 would be the same for all alternatives. Permanent infrastructure and/or operations 

at these stations associated with the Action Alternatives have the potential to result in a permanent 

use to all resources listed.

Table 7.16-6: Environmental Consequences: Stations – Parklands, Recreational Areas, and 

Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges

State County

Station 

ID/Type Station Name Potential Effects for All Representative Routes

MD Baltimore 

City

9/New Upton 4 parks would be acquired 

< Douglas R. Morrison Park

< Fitzgerald Park

< Linden Ave Park

< Park Avenue Median Park

12/New Broadway 2 parks would be acquired 

< Caroline & Hoffman Park

< Ellsworth St Park

PA Delaware 34/New Baldwin Potential partial acquisition of Bicycle Route/PA; potential 

noise and visual effects

NY Bronx 81/New Co-op City Potential partial acquisition of Pelham Bay Park; potential noise 

and visual effects

RI Providence 129/New Providence

Station H.S.

Potential partial acquisition of and visual and noise effects to:

< Greenway

< Roger Williams National Park

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: Quantities of potential impacts associated with stations are not shown. Acreage has been calculated only for new stations and is provided 

in Appendix E, Section E.16. 

H.S. = high speed
7.16. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources

Page | 7.16-12 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Section 4(f) Resource – Historic Properties

Table 7.16-7 presents the historic resources identified within the Representative Route of each Action 

Alternative, all of which could result in a use. Table 7.16-8 provides the number of resources for each 

Alternative 3 route option. Appendix E, Section E.09, contains the number of historic resources by 

county, provides qualitative highlights of the historic resources by county, and qualitative highlights 

of the potential Environmental Consequences for each county. (See Chapter 7.9, Cultural Resources 

and Historic Properties, for a detailed discussion of the potential effects to historic resources.)

Table 7.16-7: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route – Cultural and Historic 

Properties 

Geography Resource Type

Existing NEC

(# of sites)

Alternative 1

(# of sites)

Alternative 2

(# of sites)

Alternative 3*

(# of sites)

D.C. NHL 0 1 1 1

NRHP-Listed 3 7 7 7

MD

NHL 0 0 0 0

NRHP-Listed 0 13 13 17

DE

NHL 0 0 0 0

NRHP-Listed 3 9 9 7

PA

NHL 1 2 3 3

NRHP-Listed 2 5 5 8

NJ

NHL 0 0 0 0

NRHP-Listed 1 12 13 12

NY

NHL 0 0 0 0

NRHP-Listed 2 12 12 13–19

CT

NHL 0 0 0 0

NRHP-Listed 14 47 65 45–51

RI

NHL 0 0 0 0

NRHP-Listed 3 24 33 3–21

MA

NHL 0 0 0 0–1

NRHP-Listed 3 13 14 16–17

Alternative Total – NHL 1 3 4 4–5

Alternative Total – NRHP-Listed 31 142 171 132–150

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2014

Note: All Action Alternatives assume improvements to the existing NEC; therefore, the number of resources presented includes the 

Environmental Consequences inclusive of improvements to existing NEC and any new segment or off-corridor route associated with each 

Alternative. Counts of NRHP-listed sites and NHLs include both individual sites and districts with multiple structures that are counted as one 

individual site.

NHL: National Historic Landmark; NRHP: National Register of Historic Places

* The range represents the Representative Route design options for Alternative 3. See the Alternative 3 discussion below.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.16-13

Table 7.16-8: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route of Alternative 3 Route 

Options – National Register of Historic Places-Listed Resources

Geography

Resource 

Type

Existing 

NEC

Alternative 3

D.C. to 

NYC

(# of sites)

New York City to Hartford Hartford to Boston

via Central 

Connecticut

(# of sites)

via Long 

Island

(# of sites)

via 

Providence 

(# of sites)

via Worcester 

(# of sites)

D.C.

NHL 0 0 — — — —

NRHP-Listed 3 7 — — — —

MD

NHL 0 0 — — — —

NRHP-Listed 0 15-17 — — — —

DE

NHL 0 0 — — — —

NRHP-Listed 3 4–7 — — — —

PA

NHL 1 3 — — — —

NRHP-Listed 2 8 — — — —

NJ

NHL 0 0 — — — —

NRHP-Listed 1 12 — — — —

NY

NHL 0 — 0 0 — —

NRHP-Listed 2 — 13 19 — —

CT

NHL 0 — 0 0 0 0

NRHP-Listed 14 — 25 21 6 3

RI

NHL 0 — — — 0 0

NRHP-Listed 3 — — — 21 30

MA

NHL 0 — — — 0 1

NRHP-Listed 3 — — — 16 17

TOTAL NHL 1 3 0 0 0 0

TOTAL NRHP-Listed 31 46–51 36 40 43 50

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: All Action Alternatives assume improvements to the existing NEC; therefore, the number of resources presented includes the 

Environmental Consequences inclusive of improvements to the existing NEC and any new segment or off-corridor route associated with each 

Action Alternative. Totals for Alternative 3 do not equal the totals presented in Table 7.16-7. This is a result of the way Alternative 3 diverges in 

Hartford, CT, and data were assigned to a specific route option in a conservative manner (i.e., if a resource fell within the Representative Route 

of multiple Alternative 3 route options, it was counted as an effect under each Alternative 3 route option).

— =Not applicable within that alternative/route option.
7.16. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources

Page | 7.16-14 Tier 1 Draft EIS

A summary of the potential effects to Section 4(f) resources by construction type is provided below:

4 At-grade:

– Direct physical and/or contextual disturbance to existing historic properties and/or districts

through the construction and introduction of new track bed and landscaping, and the 

installation of utilities and/or catenary poles and potential proximity effects (i.e., visual, noise, 

vibration) that could result in a constructive use

– Direct physical disturbance to below-grade archaeological resources through excavation 

and/or compaction for track bed, utilities, landscaping, and/or catenary poles 

4 Trench

– Direct physical and/or contextual disturbance to existing historic properties and/or districts

through the construction and introduction of new trenches and landscaping, and the 

installation of utilities and/or catenary poles and potential proximity effects (i.e., visual, noise, 

vibration) that could result in a constructive use

– Direct physical disturbance to below-grade archaeological resources through open pit 

excavation, earth moving, utility installation, landscaping, and/or compaction

4 Embankment

– Direct physical and/or contextual disturbance to existing historic properties and/or districts 

through the introduction of new retaining walls and/or earthen berms and potential 

proximity effects (i.e., visual, noise, vibration) that could result in a constructive use

– Direct physical disturbance to below-grade archaeological resources through excavation, 

earth moving, landscaping, and/or compaction

4 Aerial Structures or Major Bridges

– Direct physical disturbance to existing historic properties and/or districts at the site of 

abutments and/or pilings on land and in waterways and/or contextual disturbance to existing 

historic structures and/or districts through the introduction of new aerial structures and 

potential proximity effects (i.e., visual, noise, vibration) that could result in a constructive use

– Direct physical disturbance to below-grade archaeological resources through excavations for

abutments and/or pilings on land and in waterways, and/or landscaping

4 Tunnel

– Direct physical and/or contextual disturbance to existing historic properties and/or districts 

at TBM launch sites, ventilation shafts and egress points, and potential proximity effects

through vibrations that could result in a constructive use

– Direct physical disturbance to below-grade archaeological resources at TBM launch sites, 

ventilation shafts and egress points, and potential proximity effects through vibrations

Temporary construction effects could occur where temporary access roads are built, and at staging 

and lay-down areas. Impacts could include temporary contextual disturbance to existing historic 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.16-15

properties and/or districts, and direct physical disturbance to below-grade archaeological resources 

through grading, earth moving, compaction, and/or landscaping. 

Stations 

The Action Alternatives include continued service to existing stations along the NEC, modifications to 

existing stations, which may require an increase in the station footprint, and new stations. Based on 

a review of resources included on the NRHP, many of the existing stations along the NEC are NRHPlisted; however, the eligibility of the existing stations was not considered in this analysis.

Adverse effects may occur at existing NRHP-listed or NHL stations where modifications are proposed, 

or to adjacent NRHP-listed or NHL sites, for example, if an increase in station footprint is proposed. 

Major effects may also occur at new stations that affect NRHP-listed or NHL sites. Table 7.16-9

identifies effects by alternative that could be caused by modified or new stations (each identified by 

station ID). (Appendix E, Section E.9, provides detailed support data for Table 7.16-9. Those resources 

that may be eligible for listing on the NRHP were not included in this assessment.)

Table 7.16-9: Environmental Consequences: Cultural Resources and Historic Properties 

Present in Station Locations

Geography County

Station 

ID

Station 

Type Station Name Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

D.C. 1 Existing Washington Union X X X

MD

Prince 

George’s 4 Existing Bowie State X X X

Baltimore 

City

9 New Upton X X X

10 Existing Baltimore Penn Station X X X

11

New

Baltimore Downtown X

12 Broadway X X X

Cecil 23 Elkton X X X

DE New Castle

25 Existing Churchman’s Crossing X X X

26 New Newport X X X

27 Existing Wilmington Station X X X

28 New Edgemoor X X X

29 Existing Claymont X X X

PA

Delaware 32

Existing

Chester X X X

Philadelphia

45 Philadelphia 30th Street X X X

46 Philadelphia Market East X

47 North Philadelphia X X X

Bucks 53 Cornwells Heights X X X

57 Levittown X X X

NJ

Middlesex 64

Existing

New Brunswick X X X

Union 71 Elizabeth X X X

Essex

74 Newark Penn Station X X X

75 Newark Penn Station H.S. X

NY

New York 77

Existing Penn Station New York X X X

New York 9993 Grand Central Terminal X

Westchester 82 Existing New Rochelle X X X

88 Port Chester X X X
7.16. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources

Page | 7.16-16 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.16-9: Environmental Consequences: Cultural Resources and Historic Properties 

Present in Station Locations (continued)

Geography County

Station 

ID

Station 

Type Station Name Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

CT

Fairfield

89

Existing

Greenwich X X X

90 Cos Cob X X X

91 Riverside X X X

92 Old Greenwich X X X

93 Stamford X X X

94 New Stamford H.S. X

95

Existing

Noroton Heights X X X

96 Darien X X X

98 South Norwalk X X X

100 Westport X X X

102 Greens Farms X X X

103 Fairfield X X X

104 Fairfield Metro X X X

105 Bridgeport X X X

108 Stratford X X X

New Haven

109 Existing Milford X X X

111 New Haven Station X X X

112 New New Haven Station H.S. X X

113

Existing

New Haven State Street X X X

114 Branford X X X

115 Guilford X X X

New London

121

Existing New London X X X

122 Mystic X X X

124 New Mystic/New London H.S. X

Hartford

161

New

Newington X

164 Hartford (New) X X

166 Tolland/Storrs X

RI

Washington

123

Existing

Westerly X X X

125 Kingston X X X

126 Wickford Junction X X X

Providence 128 Existing Providence Station X X X

129 New Providence Station H.S. X X

MA

Bristol 132 Existing Attleboro X X X

Worcester 172 Existing Worcester X

Suffolk

139

Existing

Forest Hills X X X

140 Ruggles Street X X X

141 Back Bay X X X

142 New Back Bay H.S. X

143 Existing Boston South Station X X X

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

X = Presence of NRHP-listed sites and/or NHLs within station footprints. Effects and more-detailed identification of NHLs within station 

footprints subject to Tier 2 analysis.

Blank cell = No effects identified for subject resource for listed station for specified alternative.

H.S. = high speed

Environmental Consequences associated with stations in each of the Action Alternatives would occur 

primarily from modifications to existing stations. Many existing stations along the existing NEC are 

NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible sites, meaning that changes to these structures in any of the Action 

Alternatives could result in an adverse effect. However, further design and consultation with the 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.16-17

applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is necessary before finalizing an effects 

determination. That will occur at Tier 2 consistent with the Programmatic Agreement. Alternative 3 

could have more impacts associated with stations than either Alternative 1 or 2, primarily in 

Baltimore City, MD; Philadelphia County, PA; Hartford County, CT; Worcester County, MA; and Suffolk 

County, MA, caused by the modification of existing stations and the potential construction of new 

stations near cultural resources and historic properties. 

7.16.1.5 Context Area 

Section 4(f) Resources – Parks, Recreational Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges

Alternative 1 contains over 1,900 parks in the Context Area, and Alternatives 2 and 3 contain over 

2,000 parks in the Context Area. If the Representative Routes were to shift, it is likely that different 

parks in the Context Area would be encountered, especially the larger parks (those over 100 acres). 

A summary of the parks with large areas in the Context Area is provided below. 

4 Washington, D.C., parks with 100 or more acres include Anacostia Park, National Arboretum, 

National Mall, and East and West Potomac Park.

4 Maryland parks that cross more than one county include: Patuxent River Park, Patuxent Research 

Refuge, Patapsco Valley State Park, and Gunpowder Falls State Park.

4 Delaware parks with over 100 acres include White Clay Creek State Park, Middle Run Valley 

Natural Area, Iron Hill Park, Bellevue State Park, Alapocas Run State Park, White Clay Creek Wild 

and Scenic River, Banning Park, Brandywine Park, and Carousel Park.

4 Pennsylvania parks located across more than one county include Bicycle PA Route E, Cobbs Creek 

Park, East Coast Greenway, Eastwick Regional Park, John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at 

Tinicum, Schuylkill River Water Trail, and Tidal Delaware Water Trail.

4 New York parks located in more than one county include Astoria Athletic Field, Bethpage State 

Park, Bridge Park (George Washington), Cross Island Parkway, East River State Park, Field of 

Dreams Park, Hempstead Playground, Highland Park, Jackie Robinson Park, Laurelton Parkway, 

Pelham Bay Park, and Roberto Clemente State Park. 

4 Connecticut parks located across more than one county: Cockaponset State Forest, Farmington 

Canal Line State Park Trail, Hammonasset Beach State Park, Hop River State Park Trail, and 

Hammonasset Natural Area Preserve, Lake Lillinonah Water Access, Mansfield Hollow Wildlife 

Area, Quinnipiac River Water Access, and Trimountain State Park Scenic Reserve. 

4 Rhode Island parks located across more than one county include Cranston Washington Secondary 

Bike Path, Greenway Trail, and Washington Secondary Bike Path.

4 Massachusetts contains 28 parks with over 100 acres. Borderland State Park is located in two 

counties—Bristol and Norfolk Counties.

See Chapter 7.4, Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers, for a larger discussion of the parks, 

recreational areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges in the Context Area. 
7.16. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources

Page | 7.16-18 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Section 4(f) – Historic Resources

There are numerous geographic areas in the Context Area where there are high densities of NRHPlisted properties and NHLs; these areas are mainly in urban locations. The number of resources in the 

5-mile-wide Context Area outside of the Affected Environment is greater than the number of 

resources identified in the narrower Affected Environment because of the drastically larger size of 

the Context Area. Table 7.16-10 identifies the total number of resources within the Context Area, 

with support data presented in Appendix E, Section E.9.

Table 7.16-10: Context Area: National Register of Historic Places and National Historic 

Landmarks Identified

Study Area

Alternative 1

(# sites)

Alternative 2

(# sites)

Alternative 3

(# sites, range)

Context Area (excluding Affected Environment) 3,576 3,839 4,052–4,936

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: All Action Alternatives assume improvements to the existing NEC; therefore, the number of resources includes the Environmental 

Consequences inclusive of improvements to existing NEC and any new option associated with each alternative. Counts are National Register of 

Historic Places-listed and National Historic Landmarks combined. Only tribal resources identified as part of the National Park Service (NPS) 2010 

database are included in the table. Numbers were not rounded since they are discrete occurrences identified by the NPS.

NHLs within the Context Area are of particular concern because they are designated by the NPS as

nationally significant properties. As a result, they require the additional consultation under Section 

106 of the NHPA to resolve adverse effects. Prominent NHLs in the Context Area for the various Action 

Alternatives include the following:

4 Washington, D.C.

– Corcoran Gallery of Art and the 

Smithsonian Institution Building

4 Philadelphia, PA

– Independence National Historical Park

4 New York City, NY

– African Burial Ground 

4 Hartford, CT

– Connecticut Statehouse

4 Providence, RI

– John Brown House

4 Worcester, MA

– American Antiquarian Society

4 Cambridge, MA

– Old Harvard Yard

– Longfellow National Historic Site

– Several prominent buildings at 

Harvard University

4 Brookline (Norfolk County), MA

– Frederick Law Olmsted House 

– John Fitzgerald Kennedy National 

Historic Site

4 Boston (Suffolk County), MA

– Boston Public Library 

– Trinity Church

4 Boston, MA

– African Meetinghouse

– Massachusetts Statehouse

– Paul Revere House
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.16-19

7.16.1.6 Preliminary Avoidance Alternatives Review 

As described above, there are a number of Section 4(f) resources within the Representative Route of 

the Action Alternatives. The FRA will use the findings from this analysis to inform the identification of 

a Preferred Alternative during the Tier 1 EIS process. Avoidance of use of these resources is possible 

in many cases through minor redesign or narrowing of the disturbance limits, noise walls, or visual 

screening. Resources may also be avoided or impacts minimized by tunneling, cut-and-cover, or other 

construction techniques to reduce surface disruption, and/or land acquisition needs at and near 

Sections 4(f) resources. In addition, a use of a resource could be avoided if one Action Alternative is 

chosen over another. For instance, Alternative 1 would result in the fewest impacts, or uses, to 

Section 4(f) resources than Alternative 3. The Section 4(f) resources most at risk for use that could 

not be avoided are those resources within the footprint of, or closest to the proposed improvements.

In addition, there may be places where avoidance of use cannot be achieved because of the following:

4 Shifting the centerline (and the whole facility) to avoid one or more resources could result in 

greater impacts on other resources. For example, the areas in Connecticut and Rhode Island

include a number of very large Sections 4(f) resources. It may not be possible to fully avoid use of 

all of these resources because by shifting the alignment to avoid one, might result in the use of 

another.

4 The Representative Route could not be shifted easily because of the large turning radii and other 

design considerations. A “minor” shift in one location along the Representative Route could result 

in a substantial shift further up or down the route, potentially resulting in use impacts on other 

Section 4(f) resources.

4 Alternative construction methodologies (tunneling, cut-and-cover) may not always be possible 

due to other constraints such as topography, geology, utilities, and drainage.

In future project-level analyses, the prudence and feasibility of avoidance alternatives would be 

evaluated. A potential avoidance alternative may not be prudent if, for example, it does not meet the 

Purpose and Need, or results in severe social, economic, or environmental impacts.

7.16.1.7 Measures to Minimize Harm

This section describes the measures to minimize harm on Section 4(f) resources.

Section 4(f) Resources – Parks, Recreational Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges

Parkland, recreational areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges are unique in that they each provide 

different recreational opportunities and activities. Potential mitigation should be based on the 

specific resource affected and how the resource is affected. However, examples of potential 

mitigation strategies could include the following:

4 Design or construction modifications to avoid encroaching on or bisecting a parkland resource.

4 The use of context-sensitive design in future stages of project development.

4 The incorporation of natural design features such as earthen berms and tree plantings.

4 Allocation of replacement parkland or open space.
7.16. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources

Page | 7.16-20 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Measures to reduce harm for use impacts, such as noise walls, could result in adverse visual impacts 

on Sections 4(f) resources. The identification and implementation of measures to minimize harm at 

each resource need to be conducted in consultation with the owners of the resources to ensure that 

measures to minimize harm do not adversely affect the values of the resources.

Section 4(f) Resources – Cultural Resources and Historic Properties

Measures to minimize harm to cultural resources and historic properties will be developed during the 

Section 106 consultation process. Some examples of potential measures include the following:

4 Modify construction methods to minimize impacts.

4 Incorporate the use of context-sensitive design.

4 Undertake other design modifications in order to blend proposed infrastructure into the existing 

setting.

4 Shift the location of the Representative Route during the Tier 2 process where there are densities 

of resources that may be affected.

4 Complete archaeological data recovery for sites that cannot be preserved in place. 

4 Develop 0ther measures in consultation with SHPOs, tribes, other consulting parties, and the 

public.

7.16.1.8 Subsequent Tier 2 Analysis 

Section 4(f) applies to projects that receive funding from or require approval by the U.S. DOT. During 

environmental compliance efforts associated with Tier 2 projects, project-level Section 4(f)

evaluations will be completed and permanent and temporary uses, as well as de minimis impacts, will 

be fully evaluated. A Section 4(f) evaluation will include the evaluation of possible avoidance 

alternatives and identification of measures to minimize harm. Continued consultation with the 

officials with jurisdiction for Section 4(f) properties (including tribes for tribal resources) will be 

undertaken as part of Tier 2 activities. 

Section 4(f) evaluation and determinations would be completed during future Tier 2 NEPA analyses 

through the following process. The Tier 2 project proponent(s) would:

4 Prepare detailed plans and profiles of the alternatives under review at Tier 2.

4 Prepare cultural resource surveys and coordinate with State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO) or tribal representatives, and other consulting parties 

to determine resource eligibility for listing in the NRHP. These efforts would be used to determine 

whether and where a use of protected Section 4(f) property(s) would occur.

4 Coordinate with officials with jurisdiction over other potentially affected Section 4(f) properties, 

such as parklands and recreation areas, to confirm property boundaries and to identify planned 

facilities.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.16-21

4 Complete an analysis to identify the type of potential use of each protected property (temporary, 

permanent, or constructive), if any, that would occur, as well as determine whether a permanent 

use can meet the criteria for a de minimis impact.

4 Where there is a potential use of a 4(f) property, determine, through more-detailed design and 

coordination with officials with jurisdiction, if a Section 4(f) property can be avoided or the use 

minimized, including analysis of alignment refinements, or design techniques. 

4 Coordinate with the public to obtain their input on the potential uses.

4 Conduct a least overall harm analysis if more than one alternative is developed as part of the Tier 

2 NEPA document and no feasible and prudent alternative to using a Section 4(f) property exists. 

The least harm analysis would determine which alternative would cause the least overall harm in 

light of the Section 4(f) statute’s preservation purposes and the alternative with the least harm 

to Section 4(f) resources would be selected in that case. 

4 Develop appropriate mitigation measures for any unavoidable potential uses of Section 4(f)

properties, undertake and document all possible planning to minimize harm to each property 

where a Section 4(f) property cannot be avoided.

7.16.1.9 Coordination with Officials with Jurisdiction and Tier 2 Consultation 

The Tier 2 project proponents would identify and consult with the officials with jurisdiction for 

potential Section 4(f) resources to determine the potential applicability of Section 4(f). Consultation 

would be performed with public officials, property owners/officials with jurisdiction, SHPOs, THPOs 

and tribal representatives, and other consulting parties regarding the use of Section 4(f) resources

and potential impacts and measures to minimize harm. In addition, Section 4(f) requires the U.S. DOT 

to seek comments from the U.S. Department of the Interior (and in some cases, other agencies) 

before making any findings.

7.16.2 Section 6(f) Resources

7.16.2.1 Introduction

This section provides a preliminary assessment of Section 6(f) resources evaluated as part of this Tier 

1 Draft EIS. Once an alternative is selected, the FRA will determine the need for additional Section 6(f) 

evaluation, as appropriate, as part of Tier 2 NEPA evaluations.

Definition of Resource

Section 6(f) is included in the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCF) of 1965, which provides 

funds and matching grants to federal, state, and local governments to acquire land and water for 

recreational purposes. Section 6(f) states that those properties acquired or developed with LWCF 

funds will not be converted to a use other than public outdoor recreation without the approval of the

U.S. Secretary of the Department of the Interior, acting through the NPS and at the request of the 

state delegate/state liaison officer. Under the LWCF Act, if there is a conversion of a Section 6(f) 

resource (in whole, or in part), to a non-recreational use, replacement of the property is required.
7.16. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources

Page | 7.16-22 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Effects-Assessment Methodology

Table 7.16-11 summarizes key factors associated with the methodologies for each Section 6(f) 

resource evaluated.

Table 7.16-11: Effects-Assessment Methodology Summary: Section 6(f) Resources

Resource Affected Environment

Type of 

Assessment Outcome

Section 6(f) –

Parklands

2,000-foot-wide swath 

centered along 

Representative Route for 

each Action Alternative

Quantitative:

Acres

Identification of Section 6(f) resources by the 

Action Alternatives and where potential land 

conversion and potential conversion to a nonrecreation use of a Section 6(f) resource may 

occur 

Source: NEC FUTURE Section 6(f) Methodology, Appendix H, Section E. 16, 2014.

Appendix H provides the methodology for evaluating Section 6(f) resources and includes the 

supporting data that was used in the analyses. Appendix A, Mapping Atlas, provides the general 

locations of Section 6(f) Resources in relationship to each of the Action Alternatives. 

7.16.2.2 Resource Overview

Implementation of the No Action or Action Alternatives could result in a conversion of Section 6(f) 

resources due to modification of existing rail infrastructure, such as expansion of rail rights-of-way, 

and/or construction of new rail infrastructure, such as railroad tracks or stations. Federal agencies 

are required to assess the effects of their actions on these resources. 

Section 6(f) resources are scattered throughout the Affected Environment. The highest number of 

Section 6(f) resources is found in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Higher 

acreages of Section 6(f) parklands are located in areas where the Action Alternatives diverge from 

the existing NEC and create new segments or extend off-corridor, primarily in Connecticut and Rhode 

Island. 

The following are the key findings of this analysis:

4 Alternative 3 would convert the most Section 6(f) resources (up to 27), as well as the most acreage 

of Section 6(f) resources (up to 245 acres).

4 Alternative 1 would affect one Section 6(f) resource and Alternative 2 would convert four 

Section 6(f) resources.

7.16.2.3 Affected Environment 

For each of the Action Alternatives, Table 7.16-12 identifies the number of Section 6(f) resources, 

total Section 6(f) resource acres, and percentage of the total Section 6(f) resources acres within the 

Affected Environment. Table 7.16-13 identifies the number of Section 6(f) resources, total Section 6(f) 

resource acres, and percentage of the total Section 6(f) resources acres within the Affected 

Environment for Alternative 3. (See Appendix H for a complete list of all Section 6(f) resources 

identified.)
7. Affected Environment, Environment

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.16-12: Affected Environment: Section 6(f) Resources 

Geography

Total Acres 

Resources*

Existing NEC Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

# of 6(f) 

Resources Acres

% of Total 

Park Acres

# of 6(f) 

Resources Acres

% of Total 

Park Acres

# of 6(f) 

Resources Acres

% of Total 

Park AcresR

D.C. 1,040 4 165 16% 4 165 16% 4 165 16% 

MD 99,940 8 490 0% 10 500 1% 10 500 1% 

DE 90 1 90 100% 1 90 100% 1 90 100% 

PA 4,440 8 165 4% 8 165 4% 8 210 5% 

NJ 410 2 40 10% 2 40 10% 2 40 10% 

NY 4,020 1 1 0% 1 1 0% 1 1 0% 

CT 32,060 5 370 1% 5 370 1% 6 1,400 4% 

RI 2,560 5 320 13% 6 370 14% 7 505 20% 

MA 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 

TOTAL 144,560 34 1,641 1% 37 1,701 1% 399 2,911 2% 3

Sources: National Rivers Inventory; LWCF; National Atlas of the United States; NPS; U.S. Department of Agriculture NRCS; USFWS; District of Columbia Data Catalogue; Washingto

Resources; DE Forest Service; DE Division of Parks and Recreation; PASDA; PA DCNR; CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection; NJDEP; NY OCS; University of Conne

Department of Environmental Management; MA Department of Conservation and Recreation

*Most of the resources are only partially located in the Affected Environment. The total number of acres represents the total acreage of the parklands, including acreages outside 

the existing NEC or any alternative. 

**The ranges represent the different alternative route options considered as part of Alternative 3.
7.16. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources

Page | 7.16-24 

Table 7.16-13: Affected Environment: Section 6(f) Resources – Alternative 3 Route Options 

Geography

Existing NEC

Alternative 3

D.C. to NYC New York City to Hartford H

# of 6(f) 

Resources

Acres

within the 

Alignment

# of 6(f) 

Resources

Acres within 

the Rep. Rte.

Central Connecticut Long Island Providence 

# of 6(f) 

Resources

Acres

within the 

Rep. Rte.

# of 6(f) 

Resources

Acres

within the 

Rep. Rte.

# of 6(f) 

Resources

Ac

with

Rep

D.C. 4 165 4 170 0 0 0 0 0 

MD 8 490 14 990 0 0 0 0 0 

DE 1 90 1 90 0 0 0 0 0 

PA 8 165 9 280 0 0 0 0 0 

NJ 2 40 2 40 0 0 0 0 0 

NY 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 280 0 

CT 5 370 0 0 5 370 5 370 2 1,03

RI 5 320 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 50

MA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

TOTAL 34 1,641 30 1,570 6 371 8 650 9 1,53

Sources: National Rivers Inventory; LWCF; National Atlas of the United States; NPS; U.S. Department of Agriculture NRCS; USFWS; District of Columbia Data Catalogue; Washingto

Resources; DE Forest Service; DE Division of Parks and Recreation; PASDA; PA DCNR; CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection; NJDEP; NY OCS; University of Conne

Department of Environmental Management; MA Department of Conservation and Recreation
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.16-25

7.16.2.4 Environmental Consequences

Table 7.16-14 presents the number and acres of Section 6(f) resources that would be affected by the 

Action Alternatives. Alternative 3 would affect the most Section 6(f) resources (up to 27), as well as 

the most acreage of Section 6(f) resources (up to 245 acres). Table 7.16-15 presents the number and 

acres of Section 6(f) resources that would be affected by the Alternative 3 route options.

Under the LWCF Act, if there is a conversion of a Section 6(f) resource to a non-recreational use, 

replacement of the property is required. Section 6(f) resources that could have a potential conversion 

by an Action Alternative are summarized below. The discussions focus only on those affected Section 

6(f) resources outside of the existing NEC, since those areas would have the highest likelihood of 

being converted to a new use as a result of the Action Alternatives.

Alternative 1

Under Alternative 1, one Section 6(f) resource could be converted to a non-recreational use. 

Approximately 4 acres of the Burlingame Management Area/Phantom Bog located in Washington 

County, RI, is within the footprint of Alternative 1 where an embankment is proposed.

Alternative 2

Under Alternative 2, four Section 6(f) resources could be converted to non-recreational uses. They 

are as follows:

4 About 4 acres of Bartram’s Garden in Philadelphia, PA, is in the footprint for Alternative 2 where 

an embankment and aerial structure are proposed.

4 A proposed major bridge would affect about 7 acres of West Park in Pennsylvania, PA.

4 Approximately 25 acres of the Natchaug State Forest in Windham County, CT, would be bisected 

by Alternative 2 where an embankment and trench are proposed.

4 Approximately 14 acres of the Snake Den State Park/Snake Den in Providence County, RI, would 

be bisected by Alternative 2 where an embankment is proposed.

Alternative 3

Table 7.16-15 presents the number and acres of Section 6(f) resources that would be affected by 

Alternative 3. 
7.16. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources

Page | 7.16-26 

Table 7.16-14: Environmental Consequences: Section 6(f) Resources 

Geography

Existing NEC Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

# of 6(f) Resources Acres

# of 6(f) 

Resources2

Acres within the 

Representative 

Route2

# of 6(f) 

Resources2

Acres within the 

Representative 

Route2

D.C. 2 5 2 5 2 5 

MD 4 1 4 1 4 1 

DE 1 1 1 1 1 1 

PA 4 10 4 10 5 20 

NJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 

NY 0 0 0 0 0 0 

CT 5 25 5 25 6 50 

RI 4 10 5 20 5 20 

MA 0 0 0 0 0 0 

TOTAL 20 52 21 62 23 97 

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015 

*The ranges represent the different alternative route options considered as part of Alternative 3.

2 All Action Alternatives assume improvements to the existing NEC; therefore, the number of resources presented is inclusive of the existing NEC as well as any new option or off-

Alternative.

Note: While the totals for each alternative include parks that are along the existing NEC, some parks would have additional effects under the alternative. For instance, West Park 

would have additional impacts under Alternative 1 because of the proposed bridge.
7. Affected Environment, Environment

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.16-15: Environmental Consequences: Section 6(f) Resources – Alternative 3 Route Options 

Geography

Existing NEC

Alternative 3

D.C. to NYC New York City to Hartford Ha

# of 6(f) 

Resources Acres

# of 6(f) 

Resources

Acres

within the 

Rep. Rte.

Central Connecticut Long Island Providence 

# of 6(f) 

Resources

Acres within 

the Rep. 

Rte.

# of 6(f) 

Resources

Acres within 

the Rep. 

Rte.

# of 6(f) 

Resources

Acres w

the R

Rte

D.C. 2 5 2 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 

MD 4 1 7 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 

DE 1 1 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 

PA 4 10 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 

NJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

NY 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 30 0 0 

CT 5 25 0 0 5 25 5 25 1 25 

RI 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 20 

MA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

TOTAL 20 52 14 170 5 25 7 55 6 45 

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015 
7.16. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources

Page | 7.16-28 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Washington, D.C., to New York City

In the Washington, D.C., to New York City portion of Alternative 3, six Section 6(f) resources could be 

converted to non-recreational uses. They are as follows:

4 Approximately 16 acres of Anacostia Park, Section G in Washington, D.C., would be bisected by 

Alternative 3 where an embankment and major bridge are proposed.

4 Patapsco Valley State Park in Anne Arundel County, MD, would have approximately 26 acres 

bisected by proposed at-grade construction, an embankment, and a major bridge.

4 About 59 acres of Patuxent Research Refuge in Anne Arundel County, MD, would be bisected by 

proposed aerial construction, embankment, and major bridge. 

4 Approximately 39 acres of Gunpowder Falls State Park in Baltimore, MD, would be bisected by a 

proposed aerial structure.

4 About 1 acre of the 4-acre Havre De Grace Activity Center in Harford County, MD, is within the 

footprint of Alternative 3 where at-grade construction and a trench are proposed.

4 Approximately 3 acres of Pennypack Creek Park in Pennsylvania, PA, would be bisected by an 

embankment and aerial construction.

New York City to Hartford

Via Central Connecticut 

In the New York City to Hartford via Central Connecticut portion of Alternative 3, no Section 6(f) 

resources are located outside of the existing NEC that would be converted to non-recreational uses. 

Via Long Island 

In the New York City to Hartford via Long Island portion of Alternative 3, two Section 6(f) resources 

could be converted to non-recreational uses. They are as follows:

4 About 24 acres of Forest Park in Queens County, NY, is in the footprint where an aerial structure 

is proposed.

4 Approximately 6 acres of Connetquot River State Park Preserve in Suffolk County, NY, is located 

in the footprint of Alternative 3 where a trench is proposed.

Hartford to Boston

Via Providence

In the Hartford to Boston via Providence portion of Alternative 3, two Section 6(f) resources could be 

converted to non-recreational uses. They are as follows:

4 Approximately 25 acres of the Natchaug State Forest in Windham County, CT, would be bisected 

where an embankment and trench are proposed.

4 Approximately 14 acres of the Snake Den State Park/Snake Den in Providence County, RI, would 

be bisected where an embankment is proposed.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.16-29

Via Worcester

In the Hartford to Boston via Worcester portion of Alternative 3, no Section 6(f) resources would be

located outside of the existing NEC that would be converted to non-recreational uses. 

Stations 

No Section 6(f) resources would be affected by proposed stations.

7.16.2.5 Context Area 

There are about 180 Section 6(f) resources in the Context Area for Alternative 1, over 190 in the 

Context Area for Alternative 2, and about 200 in the Context Area for Alternative 3. If the 

Representative Routes were to shift, it is likely that a Section 6(f) resource in the Context Area would 

be encountered. As such, a summary of the Section 6(f) resources with large areas in the Context 

Area is provided below:

4 Within the Context Area for all Action Alternatives in Washington, D.C., there are two Section 6(f) 

resources with 100 or more acres in the Context Area: Anacostia Park and the National 

Arboretum. All Action Alternatives and the existing NEC cross Anacostia Park and the National 

Arboretum; these parks extend south along the Anacostia River, away from the corridor.

4 In Maryland, some of the larger Section 6(f) resources that cross more than one county include 

Patuxent River Park, Patuxent Research Refuge, Patapsco Valley State Park, and Gunpowder Falls 

State Park. Patuxent River Park is located less than 1 mile of all Representative Routes on the 

south side, while the Patuxent Research Reserve extends north and east away from the 

Representative Routes for approximately 8 miles. The Patapsco Valley State Park spans a roughly 

20-mile distance, end to end, on both sides of the Northeast Corridor. At the closest point, this 

park is crossed by Alternative 3, while the existing NEC simply runs alongside it. All Representative 

Routes cross Patapsco Valley State Park. Like Patapsco Valley State Park, Gunpowder Falls State 

Park is approximately 15 miles from end to end, and all Representative Routes weave in between 

the parcels that make up the park.

4 In Pennsylvania, there are five Section 6(f) resources with 100 or more acres in the Context Area: 

Cobbs Creek Park, East Park, West Park, Pennypack Creek Park, and Franklin D. Roosevelt Park. 

Cobbs Creek Park is located less than one mile north-northwest of the existing NEC and extends 

approximately 5 miles away from the existing NEC. The Existing NEC and Alternatives 1 and 2 run 

through the far southern ends of East Park and West Park, the primary holdings of Philadelphia’s 

Fairmount Park, on existing rights-of-way. All Action Alternatives and the Existing NEC cross 

Pennypack Creek Park on an existing above-grade rail crossing, which is less than 0.1 mile wide. 

Alternative 3 is proposed to cross Franklin D. Roosevelt Park via a 0.5-mile tunnel. 

4 In New Jersey, there are four Section 6(f) resources with 100 or more acres in the Context Area: 

D&R Canal State Park, Branch Brook Park, Weequahic Park, and Laurel Hill Park. D&R Canal State 

Park is located both to the north and the south of all Representative Routes; at its closest point, 

the park is roughly 0.25 mile from the corridor. Branch Brook, Weequahic, and Laurel Hill parks 

are within 5 miles of one another and are located north of all Action Alternatives and the Existing 

NEC in Essex and Hudson counties. Of the three, Branch Brook Park is farthest away and Laurel 

Hill Park is closest at a distance of just 0.1 mile.
7.16. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources

Page | 7.16-30 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4 In New York, some of the larger Section 6(f) resources in the Context Area include the following: 

Connetquot River/State Park Preserve, Bethpage State Park, Central park, Alley Pond Park, Forest 

Park, Hempstead Lake State Park, and Belmont Lake State Park. Alternative 3 runs immediately 

next to Connetquot River / State Park Preserve, but does not encroach upon it. Bethpage is 

located to the north of Alternative 3 at a distance of 0.25 mile. Central Park lies to the north of all 

Representative Routes and to the west of Alternative 3. Alternative 3 crosses Forest Park for 

about 1 mile. Alley Pond Park is located over 1 mile north of Alternative 3, and Hempstead Park 

is located over 2 miles south of Alternative 3 in Nassau County. Similarly, Belmont Lake State Park 

lies one mile south of Alternative 3 in Suffolk County. 

4 In Connecticut, there are seven Section 6(f) resources that are over 500 acres, some of which 

cross more than one county: Cockaponset State Forest, Natchaug State Forest, Nehantic State 

Forest, James L. Goodwin State Forest, Bluff Point State Park, Hammonasset Beach State Park, 

and Hammonasset Natural Area Preserve. The existing NEC runs through parcels of the 

Cockaponset State Forest, but does not encroach on the park. The park parcels are about 1 mile 

from the Representative Route. Alternative 3 crosses the Natchaug State Forest three times for a 

distance of nearly 5 miles. This park straddles the Representative Route, with tracts of land both 

north and south of the Representative Routes. James L. Goodwin State Forest is contiguous with 

the Natchaug State Forest, but on the far southern end, roughly 1 mile from Alternative 3. The 

existing NEC skirts along the north edge of Bluff Point State Park for about 1.3 miles, but does not 

encroach on it. Hammonasset Beach State Park and Hammonasset Natural Area Preserve are 

clustered together less than 1 mile immediately south of the existing NEC.

4 In Rhode Island, some of the larger Section 6(f) resources include the following: Burlingame 

Management Area, Snake Den State Park, Lincoln Woods State Park, Goddard Park, and 

Cocumcussoc. Burlingame Management Area is a large, multi-parcel recreational area that 

straddles the Existing NEC and Alternatives 1 and 2 for 3 miles. Snake Den State Park is bisected 

by Alternative 3 for a distance of 0.75 mile. Lincoln Woods State Park is farther from the 

Representative Routes at about 2 miles north and west of the existing NEC. At their closest points, 

Goddard Park and Cocumcussoc are less than 1 mile east of the existing NEC. 

4 In Massachusetts, there are two Section 6(f) resources: Tom Larson Recreational Complex / 

Dagget Field and Stony Brook Reservation. Tom Larson Recreational Complex, which actually 

straddles Bristol County, MA and Providence County, RI, is located perpendicular between the 

existing NEC and Alternative 3, less than 1 mile from either Representative Route. At its closest 

point, Stony Brook Reservation is located 0.3 mile away from all the Action Alternatives and 

extends north and westward away from them.

7.16.2.6 Potential Mitigation Strategies

Examples of potential mitigation strategies could include design or construction modifications to 

avoid the conversion of a Section 6(f) resource to a non-recreational use; the use of context-sensitive 

design in future stages of project development so as to not preclude recreational uses; the 

incorporation of natural design features such as earthen berms and tree plantings; and/or the 

allocation of replacement parkland or open space.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.16-31

7.16.2.7 Subsequent Tier 2 Analysis 

This Tier 1 analysis identifies areas where there is potential for effects on Section 6(f) resources. 

Analyses conducted as part of the Tier 2 planning processes would result in a conclusion regarding 

whether a conversion of a Section 6(f) land would occur, as well as include the development of 

mitigation measures and designs that would avoid or minimize effects on Section 6(f) lands. Under 

the LWCF Act, if there is a conversion of a 6(f) resource to a non-recreational use, replacement of the 

property is required and the following requirements must be met: 

4 A conversion request must be made by the state liaison to the appropriate regional office of the 

NPS. 

4 All practical measures to avoid the conversion have been evaluated. 

4 The fair market value of the property has been established. 

4 The property proposed for replacement must be “reasonably equivalent” in terms of usefulness 

and location of the resource being converted. 

4 The property being converted must be evaluated to identify which recreational needs are being 

fulfilled and opportunities available. Likewise, it also requires that the property being proposed 

for replacement must be evaluated to determine if it will meet the needs of the recreation 

opportunities being lost. 

4 All other relevant agency coordination has been has been completed, including Section 4(f) of the 

U.S. DOT Act.

4 The proposed conversion and replacement is in accordance with each state’s Statewide 

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.