Appendix D Final Section 4(f) Evaluation
D-1 November 2021

Appendix D: Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

D.1 INTRODUCTION

FRA, as the Lead Federal Agency, prepared the analysis in this chapter to document and 

evaluate the Preferred Alternative’s potential impacts to resources protected under Section 4(f) 

of the USDOT Act, (23 USC 138 and 49 USC 303), and the implementing regulations at 23 CFR 

774.

1 Section 4(f) is a Federal law that protects publicly owned parks, recreation areas, or wildlife 

and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance, and historic sites of national, state, 

or local significance that may be affected by transportation projects approved or funded by the 

USDOT and its operating administrations, including FRA.

D.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT

This analysis was prepared in accordance with Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act. The regulatory 

context for this analysis is described in detail in Chapter 19 of Appendix B, “Methodology Report,” 

in the EIS.

Pursuant to 23 CFR 774.17, a project uses a Section 4(f) property when: 1) land from the Section 

4(f) property is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility; 2) there is a temporary 

occupancy of land that is adverse in terms of the statute’s preservation purpose, as determined 

by the criteria in 23 CFR 774.13(d) (e.g., when all or part of the Section 4(f) property is required 

for project construction-related activities); or 3) there is a “constructive” use of a Section 4(f) 

property, as determined by the criteria in 23 CFR § 774.15(a). A constructive use occurs when the 

transportation project does not incorporate land from a Section 4(f) property, but the project's 

proximity impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify the 

property for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired.

23 CFR Part 774 establishes procedures for determining if a potential use of a Section 4(f) property 

would result in a de minimis impact. The regulations define de minimis impacts related to historic 

sites as those where the responsible USDOT modal administration made a determination of either 

“no effect” or “no adverse effect” pursuant to Section 106, and the SHPO concurred with that 

determination. De minimis impacts on publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges are defined as those that do not “adversely affect the activities, features, and 

attributes” of the Section 4(f) property (23 CFR § 774.17).

D.3 IDENTIFICATION OF SECTION 4(F) PROPERTIES

As detailed in the EIS Appendix B, the Study Area for the Section 4(f) evaluation comprises the 

Project Site and directly adjacent blockfronts, and is focused specifically on the area where a 

potential Section 4(f) use could occur. Within this Study Area, FRA identified three Section 4(f) 

properties based on analyses conducted for this EIS and described in Chapter 9, “Cultural 

1 In 1983, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (USDOT Act) was codified as 

49 USC § 303(c), but this law is still commonly referred to as Section 4(f).
November 2021 D-2 

Resources,” and Chapter 10 of the EIS, “Parks and Recreation Areas.” These are described 

below, listed in Table D-1, and identified on Figure D-1. 

Table D-1 

Section 4(f) Properties in the Study Area 

Description 

Official(s) (Features/

Map Property with Section 4(f) Attributes/ Approximate 

No. Name Location* Jurisdiction Property Type Activities) Size

1 High 

Line

Between Gansevoort 

and 34th Streets west 

of Tenth Avenue

NYSHPO 

NYC Parks

Park and 

Recreational 

Resource 

Historic site

Walkway and 

landscaped area on 

elevated former rail 

line

1.45 miles 

long, 6.73 

acres total

Approx. 1.20 

acres in Study 

Area

2 NRT

Bergen Portal 

Township of North 

Bergen, Hudson 

County, New Jersey to 

the Tenth Avenue 

Portal in New York 

City, New York County

NYSHPO Historic site

Within Study Area: 

subterranean tubes 

containing railroad 

tracks 

N/A

3 

Hudson 

River 

Park 

Hudson River 

waterfront, between 

roughly Chambers 

Street and West 59th 

Street

HRPT

Park and 

Recreational 

Resource 

Within Study Area: 

walkway/esplanade, 

and commercialuse heliport

4 miles long, 

550 acres 

total

Approx. 1.18 

acres in Study 

Area

Note: HRPT = Hudson River Park Trust

See Figure D-1 for locations.

D.3.1 WILDLIFE OR WATERFOWL REFUGES

There are no wildlife and waterfowl refuges or conservation areas within the Study Area. 

Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would not result in the use of any such resources under 

Section 4(f).

D.3.2 PARK AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES

There are two park and recreational resources within the Study Area. These are the High Line and 

Hudson River Park. 

The High Line is a 1.45-mile-long, 6.73-acre linear park on the viaduct structure of a former rail 

freight line, originally constructed by the New York Central Railroad in 1934, that runs between 

and through existing buildings and around the MTA LIRR’s John D. Caemmerer West Side Yard. 

The High Line additionally qualifies for protection under Section 4(f) as a historic site eligible for 

the NRHP; see “Historic Sites” section below. Approximately 1.2 acres of the High Line fall within 

the boundaries of the Study Area. The High Line opened as a publicly owned park in phases, 

starting in 2009. It is owned by the City of New York and maintained, operated, and programmed 

by a non-profit conservancy, Friends of the High Line, in partnership with NYC Parks. The officials 

with jurisdiction for the High Line are NYC Parks and the NYSHPO.

The High Line consists predominantly of a paved walking area lined with landscaped areas of 

native plantings evocative of the plants that grew on the abandoned freight right-of-way before it 

was converted into a park. The entire route is on a steel railroad viaduct approximately 25 to 30 
!

!

!

WESTERN RAIL YARD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT

Section 4(f) Properties

Figure 21-1

3.4.21

0 400 FEET Project Site (Western Rail Yard)

Section 4(f) Study Area

Park/Open Space within the Study Area

! Section 4(f) Property

Note: Although a portion of the Hudson Yards Public Square and Garden is located within the study area,

it is privately-owned public space and thus is not identifed as as a Section 4(f) property.

1

Hudson River Greenway is within

the boundaries of Hudson River Park.

 Figure D-1
Appendix D: Final Section 4(f) Evaluation

D-3 November 2021

feet above street level that cuts between and through buildings. Access is via staircases and 

elevators located every few blocks. The High Line is a long, linear resource, with a range of 

different zones that offer varied experiences for visitors, including segments located in narrow 

corridors between buildings, segments running through buildings, and segments in wide open 

areas. The northern segment of the High Line at the Project Site comprises a predominantly paved

walkway, with limited plantings, some seating areas, and egress points. An adjacent area of former 

railroad tracks and volunteer vegetation between the tracks is intentionally preserved beside the 

walkway to evoke the past functional use of the High Line. This section of the High Line is 

anticipated to be incorporated into the Overbuild, consistent with the adopted zoning regulations 

that govern the High Line and planned open spaces within the Project Site.

Hudson River Park is an approximately 4-mile long, 550-acre linear park along New York City’s 

Hudson River waterfront.2 It extends from just north of Chambers Street in Lower Manhattan to 

West 59th Street, where it connects to Riverside Park South. The park occupies the area from the 

pierhead line to the western boundary of Manhattan’s waterfront arterial, Route 9A (also known 

as Twelfth Avenue near the Project Site).3 Approximately 1.18 acres of the park fall within the 

boundaries of the Study Area. Hudson River Park is the result of long-term efforts by New York 

City and New York State to transform the underutilized industrial Hudson River waterfront into a 

network of open space on upland areas and piers. The Hudson River Park Trust (HRPT), a public 

benefit corporation created by the New York State legislature with the mandate to design, 

construct, and maintain the park, is undertaking construction of Hudson River Park incrementally, 

as funding becomes available. The park includes a waterfront esplanade that runs the length of 

the park, adjacent to a bikeway (the Hudson River Greenway) that is owned by the New York 

State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) as part of the adjacent Route 9A roadway but is 

maintained by HRPT. Closer to the water, the park’s waterside esplanade provides a safe, 

segregated alternative for pedestrians and runners, who are not intended users of the Route 9A 

bikeway. In places where the permanent walkway has not yet been constructed, an interim 

walkway provides public access to the waterfront. The official with jurisdiction over Hudson River 

Park is HRPT.

The area of the park between West 30th and 33rd Street, opposite the Project Site, is not yet 

completed; plans are dependent on the availability of future funding. Today, this section of the 

park consists of an interim walkway adjacent to the Route 9A bikeway, and a privately operated 

commercial heliport, the West 30th Street Heliport, that occupies the area west of the walkway to 

the water’s edge within the boundaries of the park. The heliport is located within the boundaries 

of Hudson River Park on land that is publicly owned and designated for parkland use, which HRPT 

leases to the heliport operator to generate revenue for HRPT. Although within the park boundaries, 

the heliport is a private commercial operation that is not open to the public for recreation. The 

heliport has 10 helipads and provides commercial, general aviation, and air taxi services. A 2013 

amendment to the Hudson River Park Act calls for the relocation of the heliport to a floating 

structure between West 29th and West 32nd Streets, but the timing of such a potential relocation 

2 Acreage includes approximately 400 acres of lands under water.

3 The Hudson River Park Act (HRPA) was passed by the New York State legislature in June 1998 and signed 

into law in September 1998 (New York State Legislature, “Hudson River Park Act,” 1998 Sess. NY Legis 

Ch. 592 (S. 7845), Amended 2005, 2008, 2013, 2018, and 2020). The HRPA establishes the eastern 

boundary of the park as the western boundary of West Street/Eleventh Avenue/Twelfth Avenue, and when 

Route 9A is complete, as certified by the commission of NYSDOT, the eastern boundary of the park will be 

the western boundary of Route 9A. Hudson River Park is being developed in conjunction with the 

reconstruction of Route 9A into a landscaped urban boulevard, also a long-term project that began 

construction in 1994. At this time, the commissioner of NYSDOT has not yet certified the long-term 

reconstruction of Route 9A as complete and therefore the exact location of the boundary between the park 

and the roadway has not yet been established.
November 2021 D-4 

is unknown.4 Although the West 30th Street Heliport is not currently open to the public or used as 

a park, in consideration of the property’s location within the park boundaries and potential future 

park use, consistent with guidance from the Section 4(f) Policy Paper, this analysis conservatively 

treats this space as a Section 4(f) property.

D.3.3 HISTORIC SITES 

Two historic sites were identified within the Study Area, which the NYSHPO previously determined 

were eligible for listing on the NRHP. These are the High Line and the New York Improvements 

and Tunnel Extension of the Pennsylvania Railroad (NRT). These resources and the 

characteristics that qualify them for protection under Section 4(f) are described below. Detailed 

information regarding the resources is provided in the Historic Architectural Resources Study and 

Effects Assessment (HARBS/EA report) for the Preferred Alternative (Appendix F2 of the EIS).

The High Line was determined NRHP-eligible in 2004 as part of the No. 7. Subway Extension – 

Hudson Yards Rezoning and Development Program Project. The full length of the High Line 

between West 34th Street and Gansevoort Street to meet NRHP Criterion A as a significant 

transportation structure from the 20th-century industrial development of the city. As described 

above, the High Line is a former freight railroad viaduct that has been converted to a publicly

owned park. The loop track has a concrete parapet simply ornamented with recessed panels and 

a tubular steel railing broken up with square concrete posts. As it parallels Twelfth Avenue 

between West 30th and West 33rd Streets, the loop track viaduct has a decorative steel parapet 

and railing facing Twelfth Avenue and a tubular steel railing facing the interior of the Project Site. 

The features and attributes that qualify the High Line for protection under Section 4(f) as an historic 

site are its continued presence and its historic integrity, which allow the High Line to serve as a 

physical reminder of one of Manhattan’s important industrial transportation corridors.

The NRT, which extends from the Bergen Portal in the Township of North Bergen, Hudson County, 

New Jersey to the Tenth Avenue Portal in New York City, New York County, New York was

determined NRHP-eligible in 2011, as part of the Amtrak Security Enhancement Project

(PRJ29112351) Replacement and Upgrading of Fire and Life Safety Supervisory Control and Data 

Acquisition System. The subterranean and subaqueous railroad tracks and tunnels meet NRHP 

Criterion A for transportation history and Criterion C for engineering design. The official with 

jurisdiction over the NRT is the NYSHPO.

Built between 1903 and 1910, this linear transportation corridor was the largest and most 

advanced metropolitan railroad project undertaken in the United States at that point in history. The 

system’s engineering represents various construction techniques and designs that met the various 

needs of the project and the geological conditions.5 The resource comprises two subaqueous/ 

subterranean tubes extending under the Hudson River and below the Project Site, each of which 

contains a single set of railroad tracks. It is not publicly accessible.

The analysis of effects to historic properties conducted in accordance with Section 106 and 

summarized in Chapter 9 of the EIS identifies the potential effects of the Preferred Alternative on 

NRHP-eligible or -listed sites. As required by Section 106, FRA established an APE for the 

Preferred Alternative, which is defined as “the geographic area or areas within which an 

undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic 

properties, if such properties exist” (36 CFR § 800.16[d]). The Section 106 APE encompasses the 

area 800 feet in all directions from the Project Site boundary. FRA then identified five properties 

4 2013 Amendment to Hudson River Park Act (Chapter 517 of the Laws of 2013), Section 3(m)(v).

5 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Kathy Howe, Resource Evaluation, 

New York Improvement & Tunnel Extension of the Pennsylvania Railroad from NJ to Manhattan to LIC 

Queens, USN: 06101.018103, March 11, 2011.
Appendix D: Final Section 4(f) Evaluation

D-5 November 2021

that are listed on or eligible for the NRHP in the APE and assessed the effects of the Preferred 

Alternative on those resources. As detailed in Chapter 9 of the EIS, FRA has determined, and 

NYSHPO concurred in a letter dated February 11, 2021, that Preferred Alternative would not result 

in adverse effects to any historic properties provided the Project Sponsor follows certain 

conditions. (Potential indirect and cumulative impacts to historic properties are considered in 

Chapter 20 of the EIS, “Indirect, Cumulative, and Other Impacts.”) Specifically, the Project 

Sponsor would be required to develop a Construction Protection Plan (CPP) for the construction 

of the Platform and Tunnel Encasement to avoid the potential for construction-related effects 

(including vibration effects) on the High Line and the NRT. The CPP would set forth the specific 

protection and monitoring measures that would be implemented during construction to avoid 

inadvertent damage to these historic properties and would be implemented in coordination with 

the New York State Historic Preservation Office and the New York City Landmarks Preservation 

Commission. The CPP for the protection of the High Line and NRT would be incorporated into the 

overarching CEPP that would be developed for the Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 22 of the 

EIS, “Mitigation Measures and Project Commitments”). 

D.4 POTENTIAL USE OF SECTION 4(F) PROPERTIES

D.4.1 HIGH LINE

The High Line is a NRHP-eligible historic site under the jurisdiction of the NYSHPO, as well as a 

park and recreational resource under the jurisdiction of NYC Parks. It has been determined NRHPeligible by NYSHPO as a significant transportation structure important to New York City’s 20th 

century industrial development. The section of the High Line within the Study Area is a 

predominantly paved walkway with limited plantings, some seating areas, and egress points. 

Recreational activities occurring within the High Line include walking and running.

Construction activities for the Preferred Alternative would include temporary underpinning of a 

segment of the High Line, where the Tunnel Encasement alignment would cross beneath the

portion of the High Line that runs along West 30th Street between Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues

(see Figure D-2). Underpinning is a process in which structural support (often using piles) is added 

to support an existing foundation to allow for safe construction adjacent to or below the supported 

structure. The Preferred Alternative would include temporarily underpinning the High Line at this 

location to protect the structural integrity of the resource during construction of the Tunnel 

Encasement. The duration of the underpinning construction would be approximately four months, 

comprising two months for underpinning installation and two months for underpinning removal. 

The underpinning would be in place for an additional 16 months, during excavation and 

construction of the Tunnel Encasement. During the time of constructing the Tunnel Encasement, 

the High Line is envisioned to be supported on steel beams spanning the open cut for the Tunnel 

Encasement. The anticipated temporary underpinning would affect only one approximately 100-

foot-long portion of the High Line within the Project Site boundaries, and for the limited period 

defined above; the remainder of the 1.45-mile-long, 6.73-acre resource would not be affected by 

project construction.

The temporary support would be removed once the load-transfer to the new permanent support 

for the Tunnel Encasement is complete. All underpinning work below the High Line would be 

underground. The foundations for the viaduct structure are part of the resource, for which NYC 

Parks has jurisdiction; however, the land within which the foundations are located is owned by 

MTA. The underpinning work would likely be carried out through a construction permit from NYC 

Parks. There would be no change in ownership of the land or the High Line structure. The High 

Line would remain open and publicly accessible during this temporary construction activity.

The portion of the High Line subject to underpinning would be inaccessible during construction 

activities related to the underpinning; however, the underpinning work is anticipated to occur 
Source: Amtrak 3.4.21

WESTERN RAIL YARD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT Figure 21-2

High Line Structure Underpinning — Existing and Proposed Typical Sections

 Figure D-2
November 2021 D-6 

during hours when the High Line is closed to the public. Construction activities would be less than 

one week in duration, throughout the two month periods for installation and removal of the 

underpinning. The Project Sponsor has committed to include a specification in construction 

documents indicating the following: the only allowable construction work hours on the High Line 

structure and columns for underpinning work (column load transfer) are between 11 PM and 7 

AM—when the High Line is not open—unless otherwise approved by NYC Parks and Friends of 

the High Line. As a result, it is likely the Project Sponsor will need to apply to NYCDOB for approval 

of the hours for the underpinning work. Therefore, the High Line and its park features within the 

Study Area (egress points, walkways, and benches) would not be closed to the public during

typical park hours (currently 7 AM to 7 PM Monday through Friday with no reservations required, 

and 10 AM to 6 PM Saturday/Sunday with reservations required). The underpinning for the 

Preferred Alternative would not preclude the public from using the High Line.

Other construction activities for the Preferred Alternative would occur in close proximity to the High 

Line; these include staging areas within the Project Site, for approximately five years; cut-andcover excavation of soil and rock for the Tunnel Encasement, and construction of the concrete 

Tunnel Encasement, for approximately 28 months; and installation of deep footings (caisson 

drilling), reinforced building foundations, and a concrete slab for the Platform, for approximately 

five years. During these construction activities, the High Line and its protected park features within 

the Study Area (egress points, walkways, and benches) would not be closed to the public during 

typical park hours, and construction of the Preferred Alternative would not preclude the public from 

using the High Line.

These other temporary construction activities for the Preferred Alternative would occur in close 

proximity to the High Line and could be visible from the park, but would not be staged from or 

result in physical alterations to or occupation of the park. The Eleventh Avenue access point to 

the High Line would not be affected. The construction activities would be noticeable to people on 

nearby portions of the High Line and could be temporarily disruptive; however, in the same period 

while the Preferred Alternative is under construction, extensive construction would also be 

occurring in the surrounding area for other projects. Overall, construction activities for the 

Preferred Alternative would not result in an adverse visual quality impact (see Chapter 11 of the 

EIS, “Aesthetics and Visual Quality”).

As detailed in Chapter 8 of the EIS, “Noise and Vibration,” worst-case noise levels at the High Line 

resulting from construction of the Preferred Alternative, projected using the FTA general 

assessment methodology, would be up to 94 dB(A) during construction for the Tunnel Encasement 

and up to 82 dB(A) during Platform construction. The maximum predicted noise level increment 

at this receptor is 23 dB(A) and would occur during hoe ram use periods for the first 20 months of 

excavation for Tunnel Encasement. During non-hoe ram use periods and the remaining 14 months 

of Tunnel Encasement construction, maximum predicted noise level increments would be 

approximately 18 dB(A) resulting from the use of drill rigs. These maximum predicted incremental 

changes in noise levels would occur at the High Line west of Eleventh Avenue, as shown in Figure 

8-2, and would not affect the entire length of the High Line. As noted in Chapter 8 of the EIS, the 

predicted construction noise levels would exceed nuisance levels, as defined by the CEQR 

Technical Manual, and may interfere with speech while construction equipment is in use. While 

the High Line would not experience construction noise levels exceeding FTA construction noise 

impact thresholds for commercial/industrial areas, the construction noise levels at the High Line 

would constitute an adverse noise impact under CEQR Technical Manual guidelines. 

The worst-case noise levels during Tunnel Encasement construction would not extend throughout 

the full 1.45-mile length / approximately 6.73-acre area of the High Line, most of which would be 

substantially distanced from the construction work areas associated with the Preferred Alternative. 

An approximately 0.5-mile-long/1.2-acre portion of the High Line would experience elevated noise 

levels. In addition to the historic significance of the viaduct structure itself, the features and 
Appendix D: Final Section 4(f) Evaluation

D-7 November 2021

activities that qualify the portion of High Line within the Study Area for protection under Section 

4(f) are the walking and running that occur on the paved walkway; these active recreational uses 

are not noise-sensitive. The High Line has not been identified as a publicly accessible outdoor 

area requiring serenity and quiet.6 At portions of the High Line south of 30th Street (i.e., 630 feet 

from the center of the nearest work area), noise levels would not exceed 74 dB(A) and would no 

longer exceed nuisance levels or have the potential to interfere with speech communication. 

Tunnel Encasement construction is not anticipated to occur on weekends, leaving the High Line 

available for use without the effects of Tunnel Encasement construction noise during weekend

times. 

Upon completion of construction, the Preferred Alternative would include one permanent belowgrade structure (the Tunnel Encasement) and one new above-grade structure (the Platform) in 

proximity to the portion of the High Line that extends through the Project Site. A portion of the 

Tunnel Encasement would be located directly beneath one segment of the High Line along West 

30th Street on the Project Site, and the Platform would be located directly adjacent to the segment 

of the High Line along Twelfth Avenue on the Project Site. As described in Chapter 3 of the EIS, 

“Alternatives,” the Tunnel Encasement would be a buried structure, and its presence would not be 

visible from the High Line or affect the protected features and activities in the park (paved walkway, 

egress points, and benches). The Platform would be minimally visible above-grade separate from 

the Overbuild, which would be constructed above it. The Platform would be set back from the edge 

of the High Line park by approximately five feet (per a requirement of the New York City Zoning 

Resolution), and thus may also be minimally visible in elevated views from adjacent portions of 

the High Line. Furthermore, as described in detail in Chapter 5 of the EIS, “Land Use, Land 

Planning, and Property,” the area around the Project Site and the High Line is currently undergoing 

substantial redevelopment, and by the completion of the Preferred Alternative, many high-rise 

buildings would be present within this area, changing the visual context of this resource. The 

operational Tunnel Encasement and Platform would not result in air quality or noise impacts on 

the High Line.

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would not alter any of the public park features of the High 

Line, and the underpinning of the High Line underground foundations would not preclude the 

public from using the High Line during construction. In consideration of the avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation measures identified for the temporary underpinning and the projected 

noise at the High Line during construction of the Preferred Alternative, FRA finds impacts to the 

High Line are de minimis under Section 4(f), as discussed in Section D1.7. FRA has coordinated

with NYC Parks to determine appropriate minimization measures to address impacts to the High 

Line (Section D.5). 

D.4.2 NORTH RIVER TUNNEL (NRT)

The NRT is a NRHP-eligible historic site under the jurisdiction of the NYSHPO. It has been 

determined NRHP-eligible for its significance in transportation history and engineering design. The 

6 The CEQR Technical Manual identifies “outdoor areas requiring serenity and quiet” as a receptor type for 

noise exposure guidelines. “Outdoor areas requiring serenity and quiet” are further defined as “Tracts of 

land where serenity and quiet are extraordinarily important and serve as important public need, and where 

the preservation of these qualities is essential for the area to serve its intended purpose. Such areas could 

include amphitheaters, particular parks or portions of parks, or open spaces dedicated to or recognized by 

appropriate local officials for activities requiring special qualities of serenity and quiet. Examples are 

grounds for ambulatory hospital patients and patients and residents of sanitariums and nursing homes.” 

(CEQR Technical Manual, Chapter 19, Table 19-2) 
November 2021 D-8 

subterranean tunnel carries railroad tracks below and through the Project Site and is not publicly 

accessible.

The Preferred Alternative would not result in the permanent incorporation of any land from the 

NRT. Construction of the Platform would require deep footings, reinforced building foundations, 

and a concrete slab to transfer building loads to the bedrock below. To support the Platform and 

private Overbuild, approximately 400 caissons (watertight columns) for the Platform would be 

drilled on either side of the NRT, through the water table and soil and into the bedrock that is up 

to 120 feet below the surface in certain locations (see Figure D-3). The Platform’s support columns 

would be threaded between the existing railroad tracks and associated infrastructure in the 

Western Rail Yard. To avoid the potential for damage to the NRT from vibration produced by 

caisson drilling, the caissons will be located outside of Amtrak's influence line exclusion zone. 

Furthermore, FRA is including a condition in the ROD to ensure that potential construction-related 

effects to the NRT are not adverse. This condition requires the Project Sponsor to develop a CPP 

for the construction of the Platform and Tunnel Encasement in order to protect the NRT. The CPP 

is required to meet the guidelines set forth in NYCDOB’s TPPN #10/88, the Protection for 

Landmarked Buildings guidance document of the LPC, and the National Park Service’s 

Preservation Tech Notes, Temporary Protection #3: Protecting a Historic Structure during 

Adjacent Construction (see Chapter 9 and Chapter 22 of the EIS). 

The NRT would remain operational during construction of the Preferred Alternative. Upon 

completion of construction, the Preferred Alternative would include one permanent above-grade 

structure (the Platform) in proximity to the portion of the NRT that extends below-grade through 

the Project Site. The Platform’s support columns would be placed around the below-grade NRT 

and thus would not require any modifications to the NRT. Furthermore, to avoid the potential for 

damage to the NRT from vibration produced by caisson drilling during construction, the caissons 

will be located outside of Amtrak's influence line exclusion zone. Train service would be 

maintained during the construction of the Platform. As a subsurface resource, the NRT would have 

no visual relationship with the above-grade Platform.

The Preferred Alternative would not permanently incorporate land from the NRT into a 

transportation facility; nor would the construction or operation of the Preferred Alternative result in 

a temporary occupancy. The Preferred Alternative also would not constitute a constructive use 

under Section 4(f) of the NRT. The characteristics that qualify the NRT for protection as a historic 

site would not be affected by the Preferred Alternative. To avoid inadvertent construction-related

damage to the NRT structure, FRA would require the Project Sponsor to develop a CPP for the 

construction of the Platform and Tunnel Encasement, and the Project Sponsor would implement 

the CPP during construction activities for the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, the protected 

features of the NRT would not be substantially impaired by construction or operation of the 

Preferred Alternative.

FRA has identified the NRT as a Section 4(f) property within the Study Area that would not 

experience a use or impact from the Preferred Alternative.

D.4.3 HUDSON RIVER PARK 

As detailed above, the Hudson River Park is a park/recreational resource under the jurisdiction of 

the HRPT, a New York State public benefit corporation. The section of the park within the Study 

Area is not yet completed; plans are dependent on the availability of future funding. Today, this 

section of the park consists of an interim walkway adjacent to the Route 9A bikeway, and a 

privately operated commercial heliport, and is used for biking, running, in-line skating, and walking.

Construction activities for the Preferred Alternative that would occur in proximity to Hudson River 

Park would include: staging areas within the Project Site, for approximately five years; cut-andcover excavation of soil and rock for the Tunnel Encasement, and construction of the concrete 
Source: WRY Tenant LLC

HYW_PLATFORM LEVEL

33' - 8"

HYW_PLAZA LEVEL

48' - 6"

7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 17

APPROX. TOP 

OF ROCK

PIER (TYP.)

PRECAST 

FRAMING 

(TYPICAL)

C.I.P. 

TOPPING

(TYP.)

EXIST. TRACK 

SLAB (TYP.)

EXISTING NORTH 

RIVER TUNNELS

CAISSON ROCK SOCKET

(SEE CAISSON SCHED., 

DWG. NO. FO-201, TYP.)

FUTURE 

GATEWAY 

TUNNEL

CAISSON 

(TYP.)

C.I.P. CLOSURE 

POUR (TYP.)

SHEAR WALL 

(TYP.)

BUILDING 

STRUCTURE

(SEE XXX SERIES 

DWGS., TYP.)

C.I.P. CORBEL 

(TYPICAL) PRECAST 

PIER CAP 

(TYP.)

CAISSON 

CAP (TYP.) C.I.P. TIE-BEAM 

(TYPICAL)

CONCRETE 

FOOTING

VIERENDEEL 

TRUSS

STEEL 

FRAMING

(TYP.)

SOUTH 

ACCESS 

ROAD

1

1

1

1

HYW_PLATFORM LEVEL

33' - 8"

HYW_PLAZA LEVEL

48' - 6"

18 20 22 23

APPROX. TOP 

OF ROCK

CAISSON

(TYPICAL)

PIER (TYP.)

C.I.P. 

TOPPING

(TYP.)

PRECAST 

FRAMING 

(TYPICAL) EXIST. TRACK 

SLAB (TYP.)

EXIST. EMPIRE 

TUNNEL

PRECAST 

PIER CAP 

(TYP.)

CAISSON ROCK SOCKET

(SEE CAISSON SCHED., 

DWG. NO. FO-201, TYP.)

33RD STREET

BUILDING 

STRUCTURE

(SEE XXX SERIES 

DWGS., TYP.)

C.I.P. CLOSURE 

POUR (TYP.) EXISTING 

STRUCTURE

(TYPICAL)

CAISSON 

CAP (TYP.)

EXIST. AMTRACK 

BUILDING 

PROPERTY 

LINE

VIERENDEEL 

TRUSS

01

02

03

05

06

08

09

07 04

0

Key Plan

Project No.

Drawn By

Issue Date:

© 2016 KOHN PEDERSEN FOX ASSOCIATES PC. All rights reserved.

No. Description Date

Sheet Number

Drawing Title

Drawing Number

4' 8' 16'

New York, NY 10036

11 West 42nd Street

Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates PC

Architect

Tel: 212.977.6500 Fax: 212.956.2526

Architects & Planning Consultants

Tel: 212.801.1000 Fax: 212.801.1048

TBD

Construction Manager

TBD

TBD

Related Companies

60 Columbus Circle

New York, NY 10023

Client

Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers

14 Penn Plaza | 225 W 34th Street

New York, NY 10122

Tel: 917-339-9300

Structural Engineer

Tel: 212.986.7514 Fax: 212.986.7510

Oxford Properties Group

320 Park Avenue, 17th Floor

New York, NY 10022

New York, NY 10005

Ove Arup & Partners PC.

Mechanical, Electrical, 

Plumbing, 

Fire Protection, Fire Alarm, 

Trainshed Ventilation, Lighting, 

Communications, Security

Tel: 212.896.3000

77 Water Street

3/28/2019 5:18:46 PM BIM 360://HY-WRY 2018/2402_HYW_PL_STRU_MRCE.rvt

05/10/17

NS ELEVATION

LOOKING WEST, GRID

LINE A

S-215

Author

2402

S-215 NS ELEVATION LOOKING WEST, GRID LINE A

HYW -PL -S-215

1 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"

GRIDLINE A ELEVATION - 1 OF 2

2 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"

GRIDLINE A ELEVATION - 2 OF 2

MATCH LINE - SEE BELOW

MATCH LINE - SEE ABOVE

1 L.I.R.R. - 30% SUBMISSION 7/31/2017

2 LIRR 30% RESUBMISSION 04.15.2019 03.29.2019

3.4.21

WESTERN RAIL YARD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT Figure 21-3

Caissons Adjacent To North River Tunnel

 Figure D-3
Appendix D: Final Section 4(f) Evaluation

D-9 November 2021

casing, for approximately 28 months; and installation of deep footings (caisson drilling), reinforced 

building foundations, and a concrete slab for the Platform, for approximately five years. 

Construction would normally not occur on weekends, which is the time when Hudson River Park 

has the greatest demand; the exception would be during excavation and foundation activities for 

the Platform, which the Project Sponsor expects to occur over two shifts per day, six days per 

week. Construction activities for the Platform would be conducted in seven overlapping phases, 

with excavation and foundation activities comprising three to nine months of each phase. To 

support the Platform and previously approved as-of-right private Overbuild, the Project Sponsor 

would drill approximately 400 caissons at the Project Site. Construction staging and activities 

would occur within the Project Site, on the adjacent sidewalk, in the parking lane on West 33rd 

Street and Eleventh Avenue, and in the parking lane on West 30th Street, and construction fencing 

would be erected around the construction activities and staging areas.

These temporary construction activities for the Preferred Alternative would occur in proximity to 

Hudson River Park, but would not be staged from or result in physical alterations to or occupation 

of the park. No temporary closures of Hudson River Park would be required during construction 

activities for the Preferred Alternative. The existing concrete wall surrounding the Project Site 

along Twelfth Avenue would remain in the future with the Preferred Alternative; this wall, as well 

as the construction fencing around the construction activities and staging areas on the Project 

Site, traffic on Twelfth Avenue, and trees in the landscaped median along the avenue, would limit 

views from Hudson River Park to construction activities within the Project Site. In the same period 

while the Preferred Alternative is under construction, extensive construction would also be 

occurring in the surrounding area for other projects. Overall, construction activities for the 

Preferred Alternative would not result in an adverse visual quality impact (see Chapter 11 of the 

EIS).

Upon completion of construction, the Preferred Alternative would include one permanent belowgrade structure (the Tunnel Encasement) and one new above-grade structure (the Platform) on 

the Project Site. The Tunnel Encasement would be a buried structure, and would not be visible 

from Hudson River Park. The Platform would be minimally visible above-grade separate from the 

Overbuild, which would be constructed above it. The existing concrete wall surrounding the Project 

Site along Twelfth Avenue would remain in the future with the Preferred Alternative; this wall, as 

well as the traffic and trees in the landscaped median along the avenue, would limit views from 

Hudson River Park to the Platform. Furthermore, as described above and in detail in Chapter 5

and Chapter 20 of the EIS, the area around the Project Site and this portion of Hudson River Park

is currently undergoing substantial redevelopment, and by the completion of the Preferred 

Alternative, many high-rise buildings would be present within this area, changing the visual context 

of the park. The completed Tunnel Encasement and Platform would not result in air quality or 

noise effects on Hudson River Park or affect the protected activities in the park. 

The Preferred Alternative would not permanently incorporate land from Hudson River Park into a 

transportation facility; nor would it temporarily occupy Hudson River Park land. The Preferred 

Alternative also would not constitute a constructive use under Section 4(f) of the Hudson River 

Park. As discussed in Chapter 10 of the EIS, the portion of Hudson River Park adjacent to the 

Project Site could have elevated noise levels during construction of the Preferred Alternative. 

However, noise levels from construction would be expected to be lessened by distance, and the

park is located on a busy and noisy traffic arterial and next to the West 30th Street Heliport.

Hudson River Park has not been identified as a publicly accessible outdoor area requiring serenity 

and quiet.

7 The features and activities that qualify the portion of Hudson River Park within the 

Study Area for protection under Section 4(f) are the biking, running, in-line skating, and walking 

7 Please refer to footnote 6. 
November 2021 D-10

that occur on the esplanade and interim walkway; these active recreational uses are not noisesensitive, and therefore the increase in noise would not substantially impair the protected activity 

(the use of the park for active recreation) during the period when the increased noise from 

construction would occur. In addition, construction would normally not occur on weekends, which 

is the time when Hudson River Park has the greatest demand. Construction noise also would 

affect only a 1.18-acre portion of the 4-mile long, 500-acre Hudson River Park, leaving the majority 

of this linear park available for recreation without increased noise. Overall, construction activities 

for the Preferred Alternative would not impair the protected activity at Hudson River Park (the use 

of the park for recreation).

FRA has identified the Hudson River Park as a Section 4(f) property within the Study Area that 

would not experience a use or impact from the Preferred Alternative.

D.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION 

MEASURES 

To ensure that potential construction-related effects on the High Line and the NRT are not adverse, 

FRA would include a condition as part of its environmental decision regarding the Preferred 

Alternative, a requirement for the Project Sponsor to develop a CPP for the construction of the 

Platform and Tunnel Encasement in order to avoid the potential for construction-related effects 

(including vibration effects) on the High Line and the NRT. The CPP would set forth the specific 

protection and monitoring measures that would be implemented during construction to avoid 

inadvertent damage to the High Line and the NRT and would be implemented in coordination with 

the NYSHPO and LPC. The CPP would be required to meet the guidelines set forth in NYCDOB’s

TPPN #10/88, the Protection for Landmarked Buildings guidance document of the New York 

Landmarks Preservation Commission, and the National Park Service’s Preservation Tech Notes, 

Temporary Protection #3: Protecting a Historic Structure during Adjacent Construction.

In addition, the Amended, Modified, and Restated High Line Easement Agreement (High Line 

Easement Agreement) (see FEIS Attachment 1, Appendix F4) among WRY Tenant LLC, the City 

of New York, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and the Long Island Rail Road Company

that was executed subsequent to the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS, identifies specific rights and 

protections with respect to the High Line in the Western Rail Yard, to ensure that there would be 

coordination between NYC Parks, Friends of the High Line, and WRY Tenant, LLC. The High Line 

Easement Agreement provides for, but is not limited to the following:

• Perpetual easements over the Western Rail Yard for the High Line structure, including “any 

alterations, replacements, substitutions and renewals thereof” and for structural supporting 

elements.

• Reciprocal easements as between the City of New York and the owners of the Western Rail 

Yard parcels to enter the Western Rail Yard parcels and the High Line easement area, 

respectively. The access easement benefiting the City of New York provides explicitly for 

access for City personnel “to perform any inspections, repairs, maintenance, construction, 

restoration, improvements, alterations or capital improvements” to the High Line and related 

support facilities.

• The City’s review of any work that involves the Western Rail Yard developer’s exercise of its 

rights under the Easement Agreement (e.g., construction of the Platform that affects the High 

Line).

• The Western Rail Yard developer’s responsibility for the restoration of any High Line structures 

damaged in the course of the developer’s exercise of its rights under the Easement 

Agreement; and
Appendix D: Final Section 4(f) Evaluation

D-11 November 2021

• Construction-period coordination between the City and the Western Rail Yard developer to 

ensure that the Western Rail Yard mixed-use development (which included the Platform that 

is the subject of the current DEIS) and the restoration and use of the High Line as a park 

proceed in a timely and safe manner. 

The High Line Easement Agreement also includes a perpetual easement that applies to Amtrak’s 

ownership rights of the Tunnel Encasement. The Tunnel Encasement would be 15-20 feet below 

grade and Amtrak’s use and operations of the tunnel will not affect the City’s ability to inspect and 

maintain the High Line. Those activities would be governed by the terms of the High Line 

Easement Agreement (see FEIS Attachment 1, Appendix F4).

FRA consulted with NYC Parks to determine the appropriate steps to protect High Line park users 

and the agency’s ability to maintain the High Line. The Project Sponsor would consult with NYC 

Parks regarding those aspects of the Platform design that relate to the High Line. Design plans 

for the Platform would be submitted at the preliminary and pre-final design stages. If NYC Parks 

identifies substantive concerns with maintenance and operation access, the Project Sponsor 

would continue coordination with NYC Parks to mitigate those concerns. 

The following practices would be used to the extent feasible and practicable to reduce noise and 

vibration levels associated with construction of the Preferred Alternative (see also Chapter 8 of 

the EIS). 

• Noise from construction equipment would comply with noise emission standards of New York 

City. These requirements mandate that certain classifications of construction equipment and 

motor vehicles meet specified noise emission standards, and construction material be handled 

and transported in such a manner to not create unnecessary noise.

• Construction of the Preferred Alternative would include sufficient mitigation to meet the 

NYCNCC construction noise limit of an Lmax of 85 dB(A) at the exteriors of any adjacent 

residential properties. 

• The Project Sponsor would be required to obtain NYCDOB approval for construction outside 

of weekdays 7AM to 6PM, which is prohibited by the NYCNCC. The Project Sponsor expects 

discretionary approval would be granted to reduce interference with LIRR operations.

• To the extent practicable given space constraints at the work sites, construction would use 

acoustical noise tent and/or enclosures surrounding hoe rams, jackhammers, or pavement 

breakers that can provide up to 15 dB(A) of noise reduction during any demolition activities. 

For additional noise reduction, jackhammer noise mufflers that can provide up to an additional 

10 dB(A) of noise reduction can also be used.

• To minimize the noise from the backup warning alarms on trucks, vehicles would be routed 

through the construction sites to minimize the use of alarms. In addition, vehicles would also 

be equipped with OSHA-approved quieter backup alarms.

• Consistent with the protection and monitoring procedures that FRA would develop for the High 

Line, construction vibration monitoring would be required whenever construction would occur 

within 90 feet of the High Line structure to ensure that construction activities do not result in 

vibration levels that would be capable of causing damage. 

• Any blasting activities associated with excavation of rock during Tunnel Encasement would 

be coordinated and conducted with permission from the Fire Department of the City of New 

York (FDNY). The Project Sponsor would provide a blasting schedule to neighboring building 

owners and occupants. Construction vibration monitoring would be required during blasting 

activities to ensure that vibration does not exceed a level that could result in damage to any 

nearby buildings or structures.
November 2021 D-12

• To address potential noise impacts during construction of the Preferred Alternative, the Project 

Sponsor would consult with NYC Parks and Friends of the High Line to determine the 

necessary steps to protect park users, such as providing signage alerting park users to the 

potential for increased noise levels of certain portions of the park where high noise levels are 

anticipated.

Additionally, the Project Sponsor has committed to include a specification in construction 

documents indicating the following: the only allowable construction work hours on the High Line 

structure and columns for underpinning work (column load transfer) are between 11 PM and 7 

AM—when the High Line is not open—unless otherwise approved by NYC Parks and Friends of 

the High Line.

D.6 COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

As set forth in the Section 4(f) regulations (23 CFR § 774.5), Section 4(f) evaluations must be 

provided for coordination and comment to the officials with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) 

resources that will be used by a proposed project, and to the DOI. As noted above, for the 

Preferred Alternative, the officials with jurisdiction are NYC Parks and NYSHPO for the NRHPeligible High Line. NYC Parks and NYSHPO are both NEPA Participating Agencies for this Project 

and have participated in the Section 106 process as consulting parties. Agency Coordination 

materials are provided in Appendix P of the EIS. NYSHPO and consulting parties’ 

correspondence for Section 106 is provided in Appendix F of the EIS. Pursuant to Section 106, 

FRA consulted with the NYSHPO and informed the NYSHPO that the Section 106 no adverse 

effect finding would be used for a de minimis impact finding for Section 4(f) (see Appendix F of 

the EIS for NYSHPO correspondence). On February 11, 2021, FRA received concurrence from 

NYSHPO on its Section 106 no adverse effect determination. 

Section 4(f) requires that public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment must be 

provided on the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. This requirement can be satisfied in conjunction with 

other public involvement procedures, such as the comment period provided on an EIS prepared 

in accordance with NEPA. For this Project, FRA provided an opportunity for public review and 

comment on the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation in conjunction with the public review period for the 

EIS. FRA did not receive any comments from the public on the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation during 

the DEIS comment period. 

FRA also made the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation available to DOI, NYSHPO, and NYC Parks for 

comment during the public review period. In the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, FRA 

proposed a de minimis finding for the High Line. Following the release of the DEIS and Draft 

Section 4(f) Evaluation, FRA continued consultation with the official with jurisdiction, NYC Parks

regarding impacts to the High Line as concurrence was previously obtained from the other official 

with jurisdiction, the NYSHPO. FRA received concurrence from the DOI regarding the Section 4(f) 

Evaluation de minimis finding in a letter dated July 23, 2021, with the requirement that a 

concurrence letter from NYC Parks is also received (see Appendix O3). Following consultation, 

FRA received concurrence from NYC Parks regarding the Section 4(f) Evaluation de minimis

finding on September 3, 2021 (see Appendix O3).

Appendix O3 was added and included in Attachment 1 of this FEIS. 

D.7 CONCLUSION 

This Final Section 4(f) Evaluation has been prepared in accordance with 49 U.S.C. § 303; 23 CFR 

Part 74; and FHWA’s Section 4(f) Policy Paper (2012). 

Because the High Line is both a historic site and a park resource, FRA must find that the criteria 

for both parks and historic sites are met in order to reach a conclusion that the impacts are de 
Appendix D: Final Section 4(f) Evaluation

D-13 November 2021

minimis, NYSHPO is the official with jurisdiction for the High Line as a historic site; NYC Parks is 

the official with jurisdiction for the High Line as a park resource. As noted above, FRA has 

determined there is no adverse effect to the historic property under Section 106. In a letter dated 

February 11, 2021, NYSHPO concurred with the Section 106 finding, and FRA is using this 

concurrence for the de minimis finding. In addition, after taking into account measures to avoid, 

minimize, and mitigate harm to the High Line park, FRA proposed that the project would not 

adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the park. FRA has consulted with NYC 

Parks and informed them of FRA’s intent to find the impacts are de minimis. FRA received 

concurrence from the DOI regarding the Section 4(f) Evaluation de minimis finding in a letter date 

July 23, 2021, with the requirement that a concurrence letter from NYC Parks is also received (see 

FEIS Appendix O3). FRA received concurrence from NYC Parks regarding the Section 4(f) 

Evaluation de minimis finding on September 3, 2021 (see FEIS Appendix O3).

Therefore, FRA determined that a de minimis impact for the High Line would occur with the 

Western Rail Yard Infrastructure project. 