9-1 June 2021

Chapter 9: Cultural Resources1

1 Effects considered under NEPA include both cultural and historic. [40 C.F.R. § 1508.8] Per the NHPA: A 

Handbook for Integrating NEPA and Section 106, “the term ‘cultural resources’ covers a wider range of 

resources than ‘historic properties,’ such as sacred sites, archaeological sites not eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places, and archaeological collections.” All of the resources identified within the APE 

meet both definitions. Therefore, for the purposes of this chapter, the terms “cultural resource” and “historic 

property” as defined at 36 CFR § 800.16(l)(1) are used interchangeably.

9.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the analysis of the potential effects of the No Action Alternative and the 

Preferred Alternative on historic properties.2

2 36 CFR § 800.16(l)(1) defines “historic property” as “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, 

structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places 

maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are 

related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and 

cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register 

criteria.” Historic properties can include both architectural and archaeological resources.

This chapter describes the identification of historic 

properties in the area of potential effects (APE)3

3 The Area of Potential Effect 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 APE is synonymous with the study area for this resource type.

for the Preferred Alternative and an assessment 

of effects of the Preferred Alternative on such properties. The analysis presented in this chapter 

considers potential temporary effects of the Preferred Alternative on historic properties during 

construction and potential permanent operational effects on historic properties.

9.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT

FRA has determined that the Preferred Alternative constitutes an undertaking under Section 106 

of the NHPA(54 USC § 306108), as amended (Section 106), and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation’s (ACHP) Section 106 implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800. FRA is the lead 

Federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 for this project and has prepared this 

analysis in accordance with ACHP’s Section 106 implementing regulations.

FRA has coordinated the Section 106 and NEPA compliance processes in accordance with 36 

CFR § 800.8 and the ACHP guidance entitled NHPA: A Handbook for Integrating NEPA and 

Section 106 (March 2013). There may be historic properties identified during the Section 106 

process that are also subject to review under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act 

of 1966 (see Chapter 21, “Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation”). The regulatory context is also described 

in detail in Appendix B, “Methodology Report.”
June 2021 9-2 

9.2.1 CONSULTATION 

The Section 106 regulations at 36 CFR § 800.2(c) require the lead Federal agency for an 

undertaking to consult with the appropriate SHPO, in this case NYSHPO; Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officers (THPOs) or other appropriate tribal representatives from Federallyrecognized Indian tribes that might attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties 

affected by the undertaking; representatives of local governments; applicants for Federal 

assistance, permits, licenses, and other approvals; and additional consulting parties with a 

demonstrated interest in the undertaking based on a legal or economic relation to affected 

properties, or an interest in the undertaking’s effects on historic properties. FRA, as the lead 

Federal agency, in consultation with NYSHPO and consulting parties, must determine whether the

undertaking would affect historic properties within the APE and seek ways to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate any adverse effects to such properties.

FRA has engaged in consultation regarding the Preferred Alternative and its potential effects on 

historic properties in accordance with Section 106. The details of that consultation are provided in 

Chapter 23, “Public Involvement and Agency Coordination.” FRA’s correspondence with Section 

106 consulting parties is summarized in a table provided in Appendix F1 (see Table F-1). 

9.3 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

FRA developed an Effects Assessment Methodology Report for the Project. The methodology 

report provides the framework that FRA used in this EIS to evaluate the potential effects of the 

Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative on cultural resources. Please see Analysis 

Methodology in Chapter 6 of Appendix B, for a complete description of the analysis methodology 

for this resource category.

Identification and analysis of the Preferred Alternative’s potential effects to historic properties has 

been undertaken by FRA in accordance with the four-step decision-making process established 

in the Section 106 regulations: establish the undertaking; identify and evaluate historic properties; 

assess effects to historic properties; and resolve any adverse effects.

9.4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

In order to describe the affected environment, FRA identified and evaluated cultural resources, 

including historic properties, within the APE.

9.4.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Archaeological resources are defined as “the place or places where the remnants of a past culture 

survive in a physical context that allows for the interpretation of these remains,” meeting the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria for evaluation as defined by 36 CFR part 60.4

4 National Register Bulletin 36, Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archeological Resources, prepared 

by the National Park Service.

Archaeological resources may date to the prehistoric or historic period and may be located in 

terrestrial or submerged environments. 
Chapter 9: Cultural Resources

9-3 June 2021

NYSHPO and the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) previously reviewed 

the two components of the Preferred Alternative (the Platform and the Tunnel Encasement), and 

the Western Rail Yard site has been determined not to be an archaeologically sensitive area. The 

Platform and the Overbuild were reviewed in accordance with Section 14.09 during the SEQRA 

and CEQR process undertaken by the MTA and the New York City Planning Commission (CPC) 

for the Western Rail Yard Project in the 2009 Western Rail Yard Project Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS). For identification of archaeological resources, the 

2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS relied on the assessment of potential archaeological sensitivity 

prepared by MTA and CPC as joint lead agencies for the 2004 No. 7 Subway Extension-Hudson 

Yards Rezoning and Development Program FGEIS (2004 FGEIS), which concluded that the 

Western Rail Yard was not sensitive for archaeological resources. The Tunnel Encasement is the 

third and westernmost segment of the right-of-way preservation concrete casing undertaking that 

previously underwent environmental reviews led by FRA, which included reviews in accordance

with Section 106. In a letter to FRA dated August 3, 2020, NYSHPO noted that it has no 

archaeological concerns with that undertaking (see Historic Architectural Resources Background 

Study [HARBS]/EA report in Appendix F2). The historical maps of the Study Area referenced in 

the cultural analyses conducted for the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS, the 2004 FGEIS, and the 2013 

Environmental Assessment for Construction of a Concrete Casing in the Hudson Yards, New York, 

New York (2013 Concrete Casing EA), show that the shoreline prior to approximately 1850 was 

further east than the location of the present Project Site. Furthermore, the Project Site and APE 

have previously been subject to extensive ground disturbance from the original construction and 

1986 reconstruction of the Western Rail Yard. Therefore, no further work to identify archaeological 

resources was performed for this project. 

9.4.2 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES

A Historic Architectural Resources Study and Effects Assessment (HARBS/EA report) was 

prepared for the Preferred Alternative. The goals of the HARBS/EA report were to identify historic 

properties in the APE, assess the Preferred Alternative’s potential effects on historic properties, 

and provide recommendations with respect to avoiding, minimizing, and/or mitigating any 

identified adverse effects on historic properties. This report is included as Appendix F2. FRA 

provided the HARBS/EA report to NYSHPO, Federally recognized Indian tribes, and consulting 

parties on October 15, 2020. The HARBS/EA was provided to the New York City Department of 

Parks and Recreation (NYC Parks) on March 4, 2021.

Five historic architectural properties were identified in the APE, which NYSHPO previously 

determined were eligible for listing on the NRHP (NRHP-Eligible). These are listed in Table 9-1

and described in detail in the HARBS/EA report (see Appendix F2). In a letter dated November 

13, 2020, NYSHPO concurred with FRA’s efforts to identify historic properties. Copies of 

correspondence between FRA and NYSHPO are included in Appendix F3. 
June 2021 9-4 

Table 9-1 

Historic Properties in the Area of Potential Effects (APE) 

Ref. No.1 Name Address NRHP-Eligible NYCL

1 

New York Improvements and 

Tunnel Extension of the 

Pennsylvania Railroad (NRT)

Spanning between 

Weehawken, New Jersey and 

Long Island City, New York

NYSHPO Opinion

3/21/20112 

2 High Line

Along 30th St. between Tenth 

and Twelfth Aves., and Twelfth 

Ave. between 30th St. and 

34th St.

NYSHPO Opinion 

2/20/2004

3 Hudson River Bulkhead Spanning between Battery Pl. 

and West 59th St.

NYSHPO Opinion

3/31/1997

4 Former W & J Sloane 

Warehouse and Garage

541-561 W. 29th St. and 306-

310 Eleventh Ave.

NYSHPO Opinion

10/30/2003

5 West Chelsea Historic District

Roughly bounded by West 

28th St., Twelfth Ave., West 

26th St., and Tenth Ave.

NYSHPO Opinion

3/19/20093

Designated 

7/15/2008

Notes: 

1 Corresponds to Figure 9-1. 2 OPRHP, 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. 3 The West Chelsea Historic District was additionally certified by the Secretary of the Interior for purposes 

of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 as substantially meeting the requirements for listing on the NR HP on 

September 5, 2013.

NYCL: New York City Landmark.

9.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The reports and recommendations described above were used to assess effects to historic 

properties, from the Preferred Alternative. 

9.5.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

For purposes of analysis in this EIS, it was assumed that with the No Action Alternative, the 

Platform and Tunnel Encasement would not be built. The No Action Alternative would have no 

effect on cultural resources. The No Action Alternative would have no effect on archaeological 

resources, as the APE is not sensitive for the presence of archaeological resources. The No Action 

Alternative would also not adversely affect the historic architectural properties identified in the 

APE. As described in Chapter 3, “Alternatives,” the No Action Alternative would not meet the 

Preferred Alternative’s purpose and need (described in detail in Chapter 2, “Purpose and Need”). 
!

!

!

!

!

HUDSON

RIVER

Convention

Center

Eastern

Rail Yard

Western

Rail Yard

1

3

4

2

5

Hudson

Yards

Tenth Ave

W 34th St

Twelfth Ave

W 31st St

W 33rd St

Dy

e

r

A

v

e

Eleventh Ave

W 30th St

W 29th St

W 27th Dr

W 36th St

Hudson River Greenway

HighLine

W 28th St

W 27th St

WESTERN RAIL YARD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT

Location of Historic Properties

Figure 9-1

Bergen

Essex

Hudson

Bronx

Brooklyn

Manhattan Queens

NJ

NY

!\

5.11.21

0 400 FEET

W 35th St

Project Site (Western Rail Yard)

Area of Potential Effects

Hudson Yards

Approximate Terra Firma Area

Proposed Platform

Existing Concrete Encasement

Proposed Tunnel Encasement

! New York Improvements and Tunnel Extension of the Pennsylvania Railroad

! High Line

! Hudson River Bulkhead

! W & J Sloane Warehouse and Garage

! West Chelsea Historic District

1

2

3

4

5
Chapter 9: Cultural Resources

9-5 June 2021

9.5.2 OPERATIONAL IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

MTA and CPC evaluated the potential effects of the Platform on historic properties in the 2009 

SEQRA/CEQR FEIS, which was prepared and reviewed in accordance with CEQR, SEQRA, and 

Section 14.09 of the New York State Historic Preservation Act. As noted above in Table 9-1, the 

High Line is an historic property that has been determined NRHP-eligible; the section of the High 

Line located on the Western Rail Yard site would be integrated into the overall site plan for the 

Overbuild. Since the final design of the Overbuild had not been determined at the time of the 2009 

SEQRA/CEQR FEIS, and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic 

Preservation (OPRHP) had expressed concerns regarding the relationship of the High Line to the 

Overbuild, the MTA, CPC, and the Overbuild Developer executed a Letter of Resolution (LOR) 

with OPRHP to address the potential for adverse effects to the High Line. The LOR requires 

continued consultation under Section 14.09 regarding aspects of the development’s design that 

could affect the High Line (specifically, review of preliminary and pre-final design plans), as well 

as preparation of a Construction Environmental Protection Plan (CEPP) to protect the High Line 

during adjacent project construction. That LOR remains in effect. The requirement for a 

Construction Protection Plan (CPP) to protect the High Line during adjacent project construction 

was also incorporated into the RD for the 2009 Western Rail Yard project.5

5 The “Construction Protection Plan” (as referenced in the LOR) is part of the “Construction Environmental 

Protection Plan” (as referenced in the RD). 

The Overbuild and its 

potential effects are considered potential indirect and cumulative impacts of the Preferred 

Alternative and are considered in Chapter 20, “Indirect, Cumulative, and Other Impacts.”

Subsequently, in 2013–2014, FRA and NYSHPO consulted regarding the potential of the Tunnel 

Encasement to have adverse effects on historic properties in accordance with Section 106. In a 

letter dated July 22, 2014, OPRHP, acting in its capacity as the NYSHPO, concurred with FRA’s 

determination that the Tunnel Encasement would have no adverse effects on historic properties, 

provided that construction monitoring of the High Line would occur per the New York City 

Department of Building’s (NYCDOB’s) Technical Policy and Procedure Notice (TPPN) #10/88 (see 

Section 9.5.3 below). 

Consistent with these prior determinations, FRA has found that the Preferred Alternative would 

not result in any permanent, operational adverse effects on the context or setting of nearby historic 

properties. The Tunnel Encasement would be buried below ground, and the Platform would be 

minimally visible above-grade separate from the Overbuild, which would be constructed above it. 

Specifically, the Platform may be minimally visible from the Twelfth Avenue sidewalk adjacent to 

the Project Site, between the top of the existing concrete wall to remain and the bottom of the 

Overbuild. The Platform would be set back from the edge of the High Line by approximately five 

feet, and thus may also be minimally visible in elevated views from adjacent portions of the High 

Line. However, the Hudson Yards neighborhood is experiencing a wave of development of new 

tall and modern skyscraper buildings, and the historic properties in the APE already exist in a 

mixed built context of smaller, older and masonry clad buildings and these taller buildings of recent 

construction with metal and glass curtain walls. The High Line runs adjacent to and sometimes 

through large buildings constructed both recently and contemporary to the High Line. The W & J 

Sloane Warehouse and Garage is flanked by new 31-, 33-, and 34-story developments directly to 

the north and south, and the West Chelsea Historic District buildings within the APE are across 

Eleventh Avenue and West 28th Street from the same 34-story development. Twelfth Avenue and 

the Hudson River Greenway provide visual separation between the Hudson River Bulkhead and 

the Project Site and surrounding new development. The New York Improvements and Tunnel 

Extension of the Pennsylvania Railroad, as a subsurface feature, would have no visual relationship 

with the Platform.
June 2021 9-6 

Therefore, FRA has determined, and NYSHPO concurred in a letter dated February 11, 2021, that 

the operation of the Preferred Alternative would not result in any adverse effects to historic 

properties. Potential indirect and cumulative impacts to historic properties, including those of the 

Overbuild, are considered in Chapter 20. Copies of correspondence between FRA and NYSHPO 

are included in Appendix F3. 

9.5.3 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

As detailed in Chapter 3, the Project Sponsor is planning for construction staging for the Preferred 

Alternative to occur on the Project Site, extending into some adjacent sidewalks and parking lanes 

during certain phases of construction. The Project Sponsor is not planning any off-site construction 

staging. Temporary underpinning of the High Line would be required where the Tunnel 

Encasement would cross beneath a portion of the High Line that runs along West 30th Street 

between Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues. The westernmost 80 feet of underpinning on 30th Street 

would re-support columns of the High Line that would require re-support for the Hudson Tunnel

mining approach. Construction of the Platform would require deep footings, reinforced building 

foundations, and a concrete slab to transfer building loads to the bedrock below. Approximately 

four hundred (400) caissons (i.e., watertight columns) 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, to support the Platform and Overbuild. The Platform’s support columns would 

be threaded between the existing railroad tracks and associated infrastructure in the Western Rail 

Yard. When MTA redeveloped the Hudson Yards in 1986, the tracks and other facilities were 

reconfigured, and laid out to accommodate the columns that future development would require; 

as a result, no existing storage tracks would be displaced, and train service would be maintained 

during the construction of the Platform. 

Construction of the Platform would also require demolition of a cleaning platform and three nonhistoric LIRR service buildings on the western edge of the Western Rail Yard (including the LIRR 

Emergency Services Building); new LIRR North and South Block End service buildings would be 

reconstructed in approximately the same footprint once construction of the Platform is complete. 

Construction of the Tunnel Encasement also would require excavation of soil and rock. The Tunnel 

Encasement would be constructed through a terra firma portion of the Western Rail Yard that 

would not be covered by the new Platform. 

MTA and CPC evaluated the potential effects of the Platform construction on historic properties in 

the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS, which was prepared and reviewed in accordance with Section 

14.09 of the New York State Historic Preservation Act. As detailed above, the LOR executed by 

MTA, CPC, and the Overbuild Developer for the Western Rail Yard project requires preparation 

of a CPP to protect the High Line during adjacent project construction. That LOR remains in effect. 

The requirement for a CEPP to protect the High Line during adjacent project construction was also 

incorporated into the RD for the Western Rail Yard project. 

Subsequently, in 2013–2014, FRA and NYSHPO consulted regarding the potential effects of the 

Tunnel Encasement construction on historic properties in accordance with Section 106. FRA 

concluded that while construction activities and equipment for the concrete casing that would be 

visible from street level could result in temporary visual obstructions and could result in temporary 

loss of context for nearby architectural resources, any such impacts would be temporary and 

indirect, and only last the duration of the construction period. In a letter dated July 22, 2014, 

OPRHP, acting in its capacity as the NYSHPO, concurred with FRA’s determination that 

construction of the Tunnel Encasement would have no adverse effects on historic properties, 

provided that construction monitoring of the High Line would occur per the NYCDOB’s TPPN

#10/88. 
Chapter 9: Cultural Resources

9-7 June 2021

Consistent with these prior determinations, FRA does not expect the Preferred Alternative would

result in any construction-related effects to the Hudson River Bulkhead, the former W & J Sloane 

Warehouse & Garage, or the West Chelsea Historic District. Construction activities and equipment 

for the project that would be visible from street level could result in temporary visual obstructions; 

however, there are multiple construction projects currently underway within the APE, and thus 

construction activities and equipment associated with the project would be difficult to distinguish 

from these other activities. Furthermore, as discussed above, Twelfth Avenue and the Hudson 

River Greenway would provide visual separation between the Hudson River Bulkhead and the 

construction activities at the Project Site. The New York Improvements and Tunnel Extension of 

the Pennsylvania Railroad, as a subsurface feature, would have no visual relationship with 

construction of the Platform or the Tunnel Encasement.

No historic properties are located within 90 feet of construction for the Preferred Alternative, with 

the exception of the NRT and the High Line. 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 would include a condition as part of its environmental 

decision regarding the project, i.e., in the ROD for the EIS in accordance with NEPA, to ensure 

that potential vibration-related effects to the NRT are not adverse. The condition in the ROD would 

require the Project Sponsor to develop a CPP for protecting the NRT and the High Line during the 

construction of the Preferred Alternative.

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

overarching CEPP that would be developed for the Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 22). The 

CPP would be required to meet the guidelines set forth in NYCDOB’s TPPN #10/88, the Protection 

Programs 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. 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 NYSHPO and LPC.

Therefore, FRA determined, and NYSHPO concurred in a letter dated February 11, 2021, that 

construction of the Preferred Alternative would not result in adverse effects to historic properties 

provided the Project Sponsor follows certain conditions. Specifically, the Project Sponsor would 

be required to develop a CEPP for the construction of the Preferred Alternative, in order to avoid 

the potential for construction-related effects (including vibration effects) on the High Line and the 

NRT. The CEPP for the Preferred Alternative would include a CPP for the protection of the NRT 

and High Line that sets 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 NYSHPO and LPC. Potential indirect and 

cumulative impacts to historic properties, including those of the Overbuild, are considered in 

Chapter 20. Copies of correspondence between FRA and NYSHPO are included in Appendix F3.
June 2021 9-8 

9.6 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION 

MEASURES

The construction of the Preferred Alternative has the potential to cause effects to the NRT and/or

High Line during construction of the Platform and Tunnel Encasement. FRA would include a 

condition as part of its environmental decision regarding the Preferred Alternative, i.e., in the ROD 

for the EIS in accordance with NEPA, to ensure that these potential effects to historic properties 

are not adverse. This condition would require the Project Sponsor to develop a CPP for protection 

of the NRT and High Line during the construction of the Preferred Alternative. 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 LPC, and the National Park Service’s 

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

Adjacent Construction. 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 NYSHPO and LPC. A CEPP would be 

prepared for the Preferred Alternative (that includes multiple control measures for air quality and 

noise, among others); the CPP for the High Line and the NRT would be included in that overall 

protection plan for the Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 22).

The LOR requires continued consultation under Section 14.09 regarding aspects of the design 

that could affect the High Line (specifically, review of preliminary and pre-final design plans). As 

part of the Federal consultation process, SHPO would require the Project Sponsor to meet all 

requirements set forth in the SEQRA process including compliance with the LOR. 