Appendix B: Methodology Report
B-1 June 2021

Appendix B: Methodology Report Addendum

B.1 INTRODUCTION

The October 2020, Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project Environmental Impact Statement

Effects Assessment Methodology Report provided the framework that the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) used to evaluate potential impacts resulting from the No Action Alternative 

and Preferred Alternative. As part of the development of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, FRA developed a revised framework and terminology to 

clarify the definition of the Affected Environment, and define the methodology for conducting 

impact analyses. For technical areas using future conditions as the basis for analysis, the analysis 

year was changed from 2030 to 2026 (completion of the Preferred Alternative’s construction 

period). Summarized below are the resulting changes FRA has made to analysis methodologies, 

assumptions, and definitions. 

B.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The No Action Alternative will include a description of actions at the Project Site (Western Rail 

Yard) that would likely happen without the construction of the Proposed Action. The No Action 

Alternative will include any other transportation projects that would maintain the Western Rail Yard 

in its current condition including normal maintenance and/or modernization actions. Transportation 

and development projects that occur outside Western Rail Yard, but within the Study Area, would 

become part of the cumulative impact discussion unless planned for completion before 2026 and 

already included as part of the Affected Environment. 

B.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The Affected Environment is the existing natural, cultural, and social conditions of an area that 

may be impacted by a proposed Federal action. FRA is defining the Affected Environment by 

space (the Study Area) and time (construction or operation). FRA has determined that the 

discussion of environmental consequences will include both adverse and beneficial impacts, as 

applicable. 

The Affected Environment of the various resource categories include any planned transportation 

and development projects within the Study Area that will be operational before or during the 

construction period for the Proposed Action. There will be no separate future affected 

environment. The transportation and development projects identified within the Study Area that 

are planned for completion before 2026, will be part of the Affected Environment. 

The transportation analysis will be the exception to the general analysis and definition of the 

affected environment assessed in other resource categories. In particular, the transportation 

analysis will continue to include an Affected Environment Existing Conditions and an Affected 

Environment Future Conditions. The transportation chapter of the EIS will include a narrative 

explaining how and why this chapter differs from the analysis framework of the rest of the EIS. 
June 2021 B-2 

B.4 EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

The following section clarifies the analysis approach for each resource area that FRA will use to 

determine the potential for the No Action Alterative and/or the Preferred Alternative to result in 

direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. 

Direct impacts: The EIS will identify and analyze the potential direct impacts of the Preferred 

Alternative on each resource category within the Study Area. Resource categories will be analyzed 

for both construction and operational impacts. 

• The Study Area is generally a 1⁄2-mile radius from the Project Site. Each resource category 

chapter will further define the study area for that resource and explain the rationale for 

establishing the study area. 

• Regulatory framework provides the Federal requirements by which analysis thresholds are 

determined for that resource category. In some instances, in lieu of Federal thresholds, FRA

may use State or local thresholds (e.g., Transportation), where applicable and appropriate, as 

defined in the corresponding EIS chapter. 

• Construction impacts of the Preferred Alternative would occur between 2021 and 2026. The 

analysis for each resource section will include, where appropriate, peak construction year 

analysis impacts to show the largest potential impacts that would result from the Preferred 

Alternative on that resource category within the Study Area. 

• Operational impacts are those impacts that would occur at the conclusion of construction for 

the Preferred Alternative (2026), and continue for the operational life of the Platform and 

Tunnel Encasement. The analysis will include potential impacts from the operation and 

maintenance of the Preferred Alternative within the Study Area. 

Indirect Impacts: The EIS will identify indirect impacts within the Study Area that would result 

from the construction and operation of the Preferred Alternative. The Overbuild and any other 

planned development and transportation projects that would likely happen as a result of the 

Preferred Alternative and completed by 2030 will be analyzed in the EIS chapter that addresses 

indirect impacts by resource category. 

Cumulative Impacts: The cumulative impact analysis for each resource category will take a larger 

view of impacts of the Proposed Action aggregated with the impacts of other transportation and 

development projects in the Study Area, as well as applicable regional transportation projects. 

B.5 RESOURCE CATEGORY UPDATES

B.5.1 SAFETY AND SECURITY

The approach to the Safety and Security analysis has been updated since October 2020 when 

the original Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project Environmental Impact Statement Effects 

Assessment Methodology Report was prepared. The EIS addresses elements of safety and 

security issues in a variety of the resource category analyses (e.g., traffic and pedestrian safety 

are addressed in Chapter 6, “Transportation”), rather than collecting these analyses into one EIS 

chapter. This is a departure from what FRA envisioned when the Methodology Report was 

prepared. Considerations that involve or must adhere to specific safety and security measures 

and regulatory requirements are part of the design of the Preferred Alternative. These design 

measures are now part of a descriptive narrative in Chapter 3, “Alternatives,” to illustrate that the 

design complies with all safety and security regulations that apply to the Project Site. The portions 

of the Project Site that will be occupied by the various components of the Preferred Alternative will 

not be accessible to the public and will be secured at all times, with access only allowed by 

authorized personnel. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project

Environmental Impact Statement

Draft Effects Assessments

Methodology Report

October 2020
Final TOC-1 October 2020

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1-1

A. Prior Environmental Reviews ......................................................................................... 1-2

Western Rail Yard Project.................................................................................................. 1-2

Concrete Casing ................................................................................................................. 1-3

B. Current Environmental Review....................................................................................... 1-3

C. Project Description.......................................................................................................... 1-4

Project Site and Study Area ............................................................................................... 1-4

Proposed Action ................................................................................................................. 1-4

Tunnel Encasement ............................................................................................................ 1-6

D. Overview of This Report................................................................................................. 1-6

Affected Environment........................................................................................................ 1-6

Evaluation of Impacts......................................................................................................... 1-7

Chapter 2: Land Use, Land Planning, and Property............................................................. 2-1

A. Regulatory Context ......................................................................................................... 2-1

B. Study Area....................................................................................................................... 2-1

C. Data Sources.................................................................................................................... 2-2

D. Analysis Techniques ....................................................................................................... 2-2

E. Impact Criteria ................................................................................................................ 2-4

F. Mitigation Analysis......................................................................................................... 2-4

G. Correlation With Other Analyses.................................................................................... 2-4

Chapter 3: Transportation....................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Traffic and Parking........................................................................................................ 3-1

A. Regulatory Context ......................................................................................................... 3-1

B. Study Area....................................................................................................................... 3-2

C. Peak Hours...................................................................................................................... 3-3

D. Data Sources.................................................................................................................... 3-3

Physical Roadway Inventory.............................................................................................. 3-5

Traffic Counts .................................................................................................................... 3-6

Parking Survey ................................................................................................................... 3-6

E. Analysis Techniques ....................................................................................................... 3-6

Tier 1 and 2 Trip Generation and Assignment................................................................... 3-6

Affected Environment Existing Conditions (If Required) ................................................. 3-7

Peak Construction Year No Action Alternative Conditions (If Required)......................... 3-7

Peak Construction Conditions (If Required)...................................................................... 3-8

2030 Operational Conditions Summary Assessment ......................................................... 3-9

F. Impact Criteria ................................................................................................................ 3-9

Traffic ................................................................................................................................. 3-9

Parking ............................................................................................................................. 3-10

Bicycles (If Required)...................................................................................................... 3-10
Table of Contents

October 2020 TOC-2 Final

G. Mitigation Analysis (If Required) ................................................................................. 3-10

H. Correlation With Other Analyses .................................................................................. 3-11

3.2 Transit and Pedestrians................................................................................................ 3-11

I. Regulatory Context........................................................................................................ 3-11

J. Study Area ..................................................................................................................... 3-12

K. Data Sources.................................................................................................................. 3-12

Transit............................................................................................................................... 3-13

Pedestrians........................................................................................................................ 3-14

L. Analysis Techniques...................................................................................................... 3-15

Tier 1 and 2 Trip Generation and Assignment.................................................................. 3-15

Transit (If Required)......................................................................................................... 3-16

Pedestrians (If Required) .................................................................................................. 3-18

M. Impact Criteria............................................................................................................... 3-20

Transit – Subway Stairway and Passageway.................................................................... 3-20

Transit – Subway Line Haul ............................................................................................. 3-20

Transit – Bus Routes......................................................................................................... 3-20

Pedestrian.......................................................................................................................... 3-21

N. Mitigation Analysis (If Required) ................................................................................. 3-22

O. Correlation With Other Analyses .................................................................................. 3-23

Chapter 4: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Resilience ................................... 4-1

4.1 Air Quality....................................................................................................................... 4-1

A. Pollutants for Analysis..................................................................................................... 4-2

Carbon Monoxide ............................................................................................................... 4-2

Nitrogen Oxides, VOCs, and Ozone................................................................................... 4-2

Lead .................................................................................................................................... 4-3

Respirable Particulate Matter—PM10 and PM2.5................................................................. 4-3

Sulfur Dioxide .................................................................................................................... 4-4

B. Regulatory Context.......................................................................................................... 4-4

National and State Air Quality Standards........................................................................... 4-4

Naaqs Attainment Status and State Implementation Plans................................................. 4-4

Conformity With State Implementation Plans.................................................................... 4-6

C. Analysis Methodology..................................................................................................... 4-8

Operational Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 4-8

Construction Air Quality .................................................................................................. 4-11

D. Data Sources.................................................................................................................. 4-14

E. Impact Criteria............................................................................................................... 4-15

CO De Minimis Criteria .................................................................................................... 4-15

PM2.5 De Minimis Criteria ................................................................................................ 4-15

Potential Mitigation Measures.......................................................................................... 4-16

F. Correlation With Other Analyses .................................................................................. 4-16

4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Resilience................................................................. 4-17

G. Regulatory Context........................................................................................................ 4-17

Greenhouse Gases of Concern.......................................................................................... 4-17

Policy, Regulations, Standards, and Benchmarks for Reducing GHG Emissions............ 4-19

H. Data Sources.................................................................................................................. 4-20

I. Analysis Techniques...................................................................................................... 4-21

GHG Emissions................................................................................................................ 4-21
Table of Contents

Final TOC-3 October 2020

Potential Mitigation/Reduction Measures........................................................................ 4-22

Correlation With Other Analyses..................................................................................... 4-22

J. Resilience to Climate Change ....................................................................................... 4-23

Regulatory Context and Projections for Adaptation ........................................................ 4-23

Methodology for Evaluating Climate Adaptation and Resilience Measures ................... 4-24

Correlation With Other Analyses..................................................................................... 4-25

Chapter 5: Noise and Vibration............................................................................................... 5-1

A. Introduction and Definitions........................................................................................... 5-1

Airborne Noise ................................................................................................................... 5-1

Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise ................................................................................... 5-2

B. Noise and Vibration Fundamentals................................................................................. 5-2

Airborne Noise Fundamentals............................................................................................ 5-2

Vibration Fundamentals..................................................................................................... 5-5

C. Regulatory Context ......................................................................................................... 5-6

Operational Airborne Noise ............................................................................................... 5-6

Operational Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise ............................................................... 5-7

Construction ....................................................................................................................... 5-7

D. Effects Assessment Methodology ................................................................................... 5-7

Study Area.......................................................................................................................... 5-7

Data Sources....................................................................................................................... 5-7

Analysis Techniques .......................................................................................................... 5-8

Impact Criteria.................................................................................................................. 5-10

Potential Mitigation Measures.......................................................................................... 5-15

E. Correlation With Other Analyses.................................................................................. 5-16

Chapter 6: Cultural Resources................................................................................................ 6-1

A. Regulatory Context ......................................................................................................... 6-1

B. Analysis Methodology .................................................................................................... 6-2

Consultation ....................................................................................................................... 6-2

C. Study Area....................................................................................................................... 6-3

D. Data Sources.................................................................................................................... 6-4

Identification of Historic Properties................................................................................... 6-5

Identification of Archaeological Resources....................................................................... 6-6

E. Analysis Techniques ....................................................................................................... 6-6

F. Criteria of Adverse Effect ............................................................................................... 6-6

G. Mitigation Analysis......................................................................................................... 6-7

Section 106 Coordination With NEPA EIS ....................................................................... 6-7

H. Correlation With Other Analyses.................................................................................... 6-8

Chapter 7: Parks and Recreation Areas................................................................................. 7-1

A. Regulatory Context ......................................................................................................... 7-1

B. Study Area....................................................................................................................... 7-2

C. Data Sources.................................................................................................................... 7-2

D. Analysis Techniques ....................................................................................................... 7-2

E. Impact Criteria ................................................................................................................ 7-3

F. Mitigation Analysis......................................................................................................... 7-3

G. Correlation With Other Analyses.................................................................................... 7-3
Table of Contents

October 2020 TOC-4 Final

Chapter 8: Aesthetics and Visual Quality............................................................................... 8-1

A. Regulatory Context.......................................................................................................... 8-1

B. Study Area ....................................................................................................................... 8-1

C. Data Sources.................................................................................................................... 8-2

D. Analysis Techniques........................................................................................................ 8-2

Ceqr Technical Manual Guidelines .................................................................................... 8-3

E. Impact Criteria................................................................................................................. 8-4

F. Mitigation Analysis ......................................................................................................... 8-4

G. Correlation With Other Analyses .................................................................................... 8-4

Chapter 9: Contaminated Materials........................................................................................ 9-1

A. Regulatory Context.......................................................................................................... 9-1

Federal ................................................................................................................................ 9-1

New York State................................................................................................................... 9-1

B. Study Area ....................................................................................................................... 9-2

C. Data Sources.................................................................................................................... 9-3

D. Analysis Techniques........................................................................................................ 9-5

E. Impact Criteria................................................................................................................. 9-6

F. Mitigation Analysis ......................................................................................................... 9-7

G. Correlation With Other Analyses .................................................................................... 9-7

Chapter 10: Utilities and Energy ...........................................................................................10-1

A. Regulatory Context........................................................................................................10-1

B. Study Area .....................................................................................................................10-1

C. Data Sources..................................................................................................................10-1

D. Analysis Techniques and Criteria ..................................................................................10-2

Construction Impacts........................................................................................................10-2

Operational Impacts..........................................................................................................10-2

Water Supply ....................................................................................................................10-3

Wastewater .......................................................................................................................10-3

Stormwater........................................................................................................................10-4

Solid Waste and Sanitation Services ................................................................................10-4

Energy...............................................................................................................................10-4

E. Mitigation Analysis .......................................................................................................10-5

F. Correlation With Other Analyses ..................................................................................10-5

Chapter 11: Soils and Geology ...............................................................................................11-1

A. Regulatory Context........................................................................................................11-1

B. Study Area .....................................................................................................................11-1

C. Data Sources..................................................................................................................11-1

D. Analysis Techniques......................................................................................................11-2

E. Impact Criteria...............................................................................................................11-2

F. Mitigation Analysis .......................................................................................................11-2

G. Correlation With Other Analyses ..................................................................................11-2

Chapter 12: Water and Natural Resources...........................................................................12-1

A. Regulatory Context........................................................................................................12-1

Federal ..............................................................................................................................12-1
Table of Contents

Final TOC-5 October 2020

New York State ................................................................................................................ 12-2

B. Study Area..................................................................................................................... 12-3

C. Data Sources.................................................................................................................. 12-3

D. Analysis Techniques ..................................................................................................... 12-4

E. Impact Criteria .............................................................................................................. 12-5

F. Mitigation Analyses...................................................................................................... 12-6

G. Correlation With Other Analyses.................................................................................. 12-6

Chapter 13: Coastal Zone Consistency ................................................................................. 13-1

A. Regulatory Context ....................................................................................................... 13-1

Federal.............................................................................................................................. 13-1

New York State ................................................................................................................ 13-1

New York City ................................................................................................................. 13-1

B. Study Area..................................................................................................................... 13-2

C. Data Sources.................................................................................................................. 13-2

D. Analysis Techniques ..................................................................................................... 13-3

E. Impact Criteria .............................................................................................................. 13-3

F. Mitigation Analysis....................................................................................................... 13-3

G. Correlation With Other Analyses.................................................................................. 13-3

Chapter 14: Socioeconomics .................................................................................................. 14-1

A. Regulatory Context ....................................................................................................... 14-1

B. Study Area..................................................................................................................... 14-1

C. Data Sources.................................................................................................................. 14-2

D. Analysis Techniques ..................................................................................................... 14-2

Population and Demographic Characteristics .................................................................. 14-3

Economic Characteristics................................................................................................. 14-3

Direct Residential Displacement...................................................................................... 14-3

Direct Business Displacement.......................................................................................... 14-3

Adverse Effects on a Specific Industry ............................................................................ 14-4

Community Facilities and Services.................................................................................. 14-4

Elderly and Persons With Disabilities.............................................................................. 14-5

E. Impact Criteria .............................................................................................................. 14-5

F. Mitigation Analysis....................................................................................................... 14-6

G. Correlation With Other Analyses.................................................................................. 14-6

Chapter 15: Public Health...................................................................................................... 15-1

A. Regulatory Context ....................................................................................................... 15-1

B. Study Area..................................................................................................................... 15-2

C. Data Sources.................................................................................................................. 15-2

D. Analysis Techniques ..................................................................................................... 15-3

E. Impact Criteria .............................................................................................................. 15-3

Air Quality........................................................................................................................ 15-3

Noise ................................................................................................................................ 15-3

Contaminated Materials ................................................................................................... 15-4

Water Quality ................................................................................................................... 15-4

F. Mitigation Analyses...................................................................................................... 15-4

G. Correlation With Other Analyses.................................................................................. 15-4
Table of Contents

October 2020 TOC-6 Final

Chapter 16: Environmental Justice .......................................................................................16-1

A. Regulatory Context........................................................................................................16-1

B. Study Area .....................................................................................................................16-2

C. Data Sources..................................................................................................................16-2

D. Analysis Techniques......................................................................................................16-3

E. Impact Criteria...............................................................................................................16-4

F. Mitigation Analysis .......................................................................................................16-5

G. Correlation With Other Analyses ..................................................................................16-5

Chapter 17: Safety and Security ............................................................................................17-1

A. Regulatory Context........................................................................................................17-1

B. Study Area .....................................................................................................................17-2

C. Data Sources..................................................................................................................17-2

D. Analysis Techniques and Criteria ..................................................................................17-3

E. Mitigation Analysis .......................................................................................................17-4

F. Correlation With Other Analyses ..................................................................................17-4

Chapter 18: Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts........................................................18-1

A. Regulatory Context........................................................................................................18-1

B. Study Area .....................................................................................................................18-2

C. Data Sources..................................................................................................................18-2

D. Analysis Techniques......................................................................................................18-3

Indirect Effects..................................................................................................................18-3

Operational Cumulative Effects........................................................................................18-6

Cumulative Construction Effects......................................................................................18-8

E. Impact Criteria...............................................................................................................18-9

F. Mitigation Analysis .......................................................................................................18-9

G. Correlation With Other Analyses ..................................................................................18-9

Chapter 19: Section 4(f) Evaluation ......................................................................................19-1

A. Regulatory Context........................................................................................................19-1

De Minimis Impacts .........................................................................................................19-3

B. Analysis Approach ........................................................................................................19-4

Identification of Section 4(f) Properties ...........................................................................19-4

Evaluation of the Proposed Action’s Potential Use of Section 4(f) Properties ................19-5
Table of Contents

Final TOC-7 October 2020

List of Tables

2-1 Data Sources....................................................................................................................... 2-2

3-1 Traffic and Parking Analysis Data Sources........................................................................ 3-3

3-2 Transit and Pedestrian Analysis Data Sources.................................................................. 3-13

3-3 Stairway and Passageway Impact Criteria ........................................................................ 3-20

3-4 Sidewalk Impact Criteria for CBD Location With Platooned Flow ................................. 3-21

3-5 Crosswalk and Corner Impact Criteria for CBD Location................................................ 3-22

4-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) .......................................................... 4-5

4-2 Attainment Status in New York City .................................................................................. 4-6

4-3 Maximum Background Pollutant Concentrations............................................................. 4-11

4-4 Air Quality Analyses Data Sources .................................................................................. 4-15

4-5 Global Warming Potential (GWP) for Major Ghgs.......................................................... 4-18

4-6 Data Sources for GHG Emissions..................................................................................... 4-21

4-7 Data Sources for Evaluation of Climate Adaptation and Resilience Measures................ 4-25

5-1 Common Noise Levels........................................................................................................ 5-3

5-2 Typical Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration........................................................................ 5-6

5-3 Noise and Vibration Analysis Data Sources....................................................................... 5-8

5-4 Fta’s Land Use Category and Metrics for Transit Noise Impact Criteria ......................... 5-10

5-5a Ground-Borne Vibration (GBV) Impact Criteria for General Assessment....................... 5-12

5-5b Ground-Borne Noise (GBN) Impact Criteria for General Assessment............................. 5-12

5-6a Ground-Borne Vibration (GBV) Impact Criteria for Special Buildings........................... 5-13

5-6b Ground-Borne Noise (GBN) Impact Criteria for Special Buildings................................. 5-14

5-7 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment...................................................... 5-15

5-8 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria .......................................................................... 5-15

6-1 Cultural Resource Analysis Data Sources .......................................................................... 6-4

6-2 Criteria of Adverse Effects ................................................................................................. 6-7

7-1 Parks and Recreation Area Analysis Data Sources............................................................. 7-2

11-1 Database and Resources Consulted for Soils and Geology .............................................. 11-1

12-1 Data Sources for Natural Resources, Water Resources and Water Quality Analyses...... 12-3
Table of Contents

October 2020 TOC-8 Final

14-1 Data Sources......................................................................................................................14-2

15-1 Public Health Analysis Data Sources................................................................................15-2

16-1 Data Sources......................................................................................................................16-3

17-1 Safety and Security Data Sources .....................................................................................17-3

18-1 Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts Analyses Data Sources ....................................18-2
Table of Contents

Final TOC-9 October 2020

List of Figures

Following page:

1-1 Project Location............................................................................................................. 1-1 

1-2 Study Area ..................................................................................................................... 1-4 

3-1 Traffic and Parking Study Area ....................................................................... on page 3-3 

3-2 Transit and Pedestrian Study Area..................................................................on page 3-12 

5-1 FTA Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects........................................................... 5-10
Table of Contents

October 2020 TOC-10 Final

Acronym List

AAI - All Appropriate Inquiries

ACHP - Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ACS - American Community Survey

ADA - Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

ADF - Air Discharge Facilities Index

AERMOD - American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulated Model

APE - Area of Potential Effect(s) 

APTA - American Public Transit Association

ASTM - American Society for Testing and Materials

ATR - automated traffic recorder

BAT - best available technology

BCP - Brownfield Cleanup Program

BPIP - Building Profile Input Program

BPIPRM - Building Profile Input Program for the PRIME model

CAA - Clean Air Act (Federal)

CAPCOA - California Air Pollution Control Officers Association

CBS - Chemical Bulk Storage

CEQ - Council on Environmental Quality (Federal)

CEQR - New York City Environmental Quality Review

CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CERCLIS - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information 

System

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations 

CH4 - methane

CHASP - Construction Health and Safety Plan

CMP - New York State Coastal Management Program

CO - carbon monoxide

CO2 - carbon dioxide
Table of Contents

Final TOC-11 October 2020

CO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent

CPC - New York City Planning Commission

CREC - Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition(s) 

CRIS - Cultural Resource Information System (New York State)

CRRA - Community Risk and Resiliency Act (New York State)

CSO - combined sewer outfalls

CWA - Clean Water Act (Federal)

CZMA - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Federal)

dB - decibel

dBA - “A”-weighted sound level

DEIS - Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DHS - U.S. Department of Homeland Security

DM-30 - Dual-Mode diesel-electric engines

DOI - U.S. Department of the Interior

EA - environmental assessment

EIA - Energy Information Administration (Federal)

EIS - Environmental Impact Statement

EO - Executive Order

ERNS - Emergency Response Notification System

ESA - Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

ESI - Phase II Environmental Site Investigation

FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA - Federal Highway Administration (USDOT)

FIRMs - Flood Insurance Rate Maps (Federal FEMA)

FOIA - Freedom of Information Act (Federal)

FOIL - Freedom of Information Law (New York State)

FONSI - Finding of No Significant Impact (Federal)

FRA - Federal Railroad Administration (USDOT)

FTA - Federal Transit Administration (USDOT)

GHG - greenhouse gas emissions

GIS - Geographic Information Systems

GREET - Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation

gsf - gross square feet
Table of Contents

October 2020 TOC-12 Final

GWP - global warming potential

HARBS - Historic Architectural Resources Background Study

HC - hydrocarbon

HFC - hydrofluorocarbon

HHS - U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Federal)

hp - horsepower

HREC - Historic Recognized Environmental Conditions

HUD - U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Federal)

Hz - Hertz

IPAC - Information, Planning, and Conservation System (Federal)

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (United Nations)

ISR - In-Stack Ratio

LEP - Limited English Proficiency

LIRR - Long Island Rail Road (New York State - MTA)

LOS - level of service

LPC - New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission

LTCP - Long Term Control Plan

LWRP - Local Waterfront Revitalization Program

MOA - Memorandum of Agreement

MOSF - Major Oil Storage Facilities

MOVES - Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator

MPO - Metropolitan Planning Organization

MTA - Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York State)

N2O - nitrous oxide

NAA - non-attainment areas

NAAQS - National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

NESHAPS - National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NFPA - National Fire Protection Association

NHL - National Historic Landmark

NHPA - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

NO - nitric oxide

NO2 - nitrogen dioxide
Table of Contents

Final TOC-13 October 2020

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Federal)

NPCC - New York City Panel on Climate Change

NPL - National Priority List

NR or NRHP - National Register of Historic Places

NRCS - Natural Resources Conservation Service (Federal - U.S. Department of Agriculture)

NYC Parks - New York City Department of Parks and Recreation

NYCDCP - New York City Department of City Planning

NYCDEP - New York City Department of Environmental Protection

NYCDOT - New York City Department of Transportation

NYCOER - New York City Office of Environmental Remediation

NYCT - New York City Transit (New York State - MTA)

NYMA - New York Metropolitan Area

NYMTC - New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

NYSDEC - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

NYSDOS - New York State Department of State

NYSDOT - New York State Department of Transportation

NYSHPO - New York State Historic Preservation Office

NYSM - New York State Museum

O3 - Ozone

OPRHP - New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation

OSHA - Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Federal - U.S. Department of Labor)

PA - Programmatic Agreement

PABT - Port Authority Bus Terminal

PANYNJ - Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

PBS - Petroleum Bulk Storage

PFC - perfluorocarbon

PM - particulate matter

PM10 - particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers

PM2.5 - particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers

ppm - parts per million

PS/IS - elementary/intermediate public school

PVMRM - Plume Volume Molar Ratio Method

RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Federal)
Table of Contents

October 2020 TOC-14 Final

REC - Recognized Environmental Condition(s) 

RGGI - Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

rms - root mean square

ROD - Record of Decision

RRIF - Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing

SCA - New York City School Construction Authority

SCO - Soil Cleanup Objectives

SEA - supplemental environmental assessment

SEQRA - New York State Environmental Quality Review Act

SF6 - sulfur hexafluoride

SHPA - New York State Historic Preservation Act

SHWS - State Hazardous Waste Sites

SIP - State Implementation Plan

SO2 - sulfur dioxide

SOx - sulfur oxides

SPDES - State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

SSURGO - Soil Survey Geographic Database

SWF - Solid Waste Facilities

THPO - Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

TIMS - Traffic Information Management System

TIP - Transportation Improvement Program

TRIS - Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System

TSA - Transportation Security Administration (Federal - DHS)

ULSD - ultra-low sulfur diesel

ULURP - Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (New York City)

USDA - U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDOT - U.S. Department of Transportation

USEPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

V/C - volume/capacity

VCP - Voluntary Cleanup Program

VdB - velocity in decibels

VOC - volatile organic compound

WIT - width increment threshold
Table of Contents

Final TOC-15 October 2020

WRP - New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program

WSS - Web Soil Survey

zsf – zoning square feet
Final 1-1 October 2020

Chapter 1: Introduction

WRY Tenant LLC (an affiliate of The Related Companies, LP)1

1 The Related Companies, LP (Related) was the successful bidder of a competitive bid issued by the 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) for the long-term ground leases with option to purchase 

severed fee parcels (for the development air rights over the Hudson Yards from MTA). Related is a 

privately owned, American real estate firm headquartered in New York City.

and the National Railroad 

Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) are partnering in a joint venture (the Project Sponsor) to seek

Federal financial assistance through the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing 

(RRIF) Program, which is a loan program administered by the Build America Bureau (Bureau) of 

the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is 

conducting the environmental analysis to ensure compliance with the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), (42 USC 4321 et seq.) and other applicable environmental laws. 

Financial assistance would fund the construction of a Platform and a Tunnel Encasement on the 

13-acre Western Rail Yard site, located on the western half of the Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority (MTA) Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) John D. Caemmerer Yard (aka “Hudson Yards”) 

(Block 676, Lots 1 and 5) in New York County (Manhattan), New York (see Figure 1-1). The 

Proposed Acton, or Project, includes the Platform and Tunnel Encasement. 

The 9.8-acre structural steel and concrete Platform would be constructed above the MTA’s 

existing rail yard, which is used and operated by LIRR as a commuter railroad storage yard and 

maintenance facility. The yard contains storage tracks for 12-car trains, a car-cleaning platform, 

and other maintenance facilities for LIRR’s commuter rail service into Penn Station. The Platform 

would include building foundations, which would keep interruptions of yard operations to a 

minimum. The construction of the Platform would require the reconstruction and upgrades to 

approximately 20,000 square feet of railroad staff facilities and other LIRR support services 

including existing emergency electrical equipment, and rail car cleaning services. The Platform 

would house other infrastructure, including critical life safety and mechanical, electrical and 

plumbing support services for the yard, including new lighting, sprinklers and an extensive 

platform ventilation system. Once complete, the entire rail yard would contain comprehensive 

state-of-the-art life safety systems, securing this critical infrastructure and protecting both the 

workers and the railroad equipment in the rail yard.
HUDSON

RIVER

Convention

Center

Eastern

Rail Yard

Western

Rail Yard

Hudson

Yards

W 34th St

Dye

r

Ave

W 35th St

W 31st St

W 33rd St

Twelfth Ave

Tenth Ave

High Line

Eleventh Ave

W 30th St

W 29th St

W 27th Dr

Hudson River Greenway

W 28th St

W 27th St

WESTERN RAIL YARD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT

Project Location

Figure 1-1

6.30.20

0 400 FEET

Data source: NYS ITS GIS Program Offce; NYS Digital Orthoimagery Program (NYSDOP), 2018 Imagery

Essex

Hudson

Manhattan

Bergen

Brooklyn

Queens

Bronx

NJ

NY

!\

Project Site (Western Rail Yard)

Hudson Yards

Approximate Terra Firma Area

Proposed Platform

Existing Concrete Encasement

Proposed Tunnel Encasement

Existing High Line Park (Remains Unaltered)
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 1-2 Final

The Tunnel Encasement in Western Rail Yard would extend from Eleventh Avenue to 30th Street. 

Amtrak estimates the concrete casing extension would be 605 feet long, between 50 and 65 feet 

wide and between 27 and 38 feet high under the Western Rail Yard. The Tunnel Encasement in 

Western Rail Yard would extend from the recently completed encasement under Eleventh Avenue 

and the Eastern Rail Yard. Together, the encasement below both rail yards (Western Rail Yard 

and Eastern Rail Yard) would preserve a total ROW of approximately 1,400 feet. No permanent 

operational components, such as tracks, lighting, ventilation, or electrical system, would be 

constructed within the Tunnel Encasement as part of the Proposed Action. This project does not 

include any efforts to make the encasement operational.

The Platform and Tunnel Encasement have each been the subjects of prior environmental reviews. 

These prior studies are described below in Section A, followed by an overview of the current FRA 

environmental review described in Section B, which will be prepared pursuant to NEPA. Section 

C provides a description of each component of the Proposed Action), and Section D provides the 

framework for the resource category analyses that FRA will undertake in the Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS), and an outline for of the remainder of this report. 

A. PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS

FRA will use information developed in previously prepared environmental documents (described 

below) to the extent applicable to support the corresponding impact analysis for the Project. Where 

appropriate, FRA will incorporate findings and analyses from these documents. This will include 

using information such as estimates of construction worker and trucking activity, equipment and 

logistical information, and operational characteristics of the project elements; accounting for any 

updates needed. 

WESTERN RAIL YARD PROJECT

In 2009, The Western Rail Yard site was the subject of a New York State Environmental Quality 

Review Act (SEQRA) and New York City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) EIS, The Final 

EIS was published on October 9, 2009 (“2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS”). The proposed actions 

evaluated in the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS pertaining to the Western Rail Yard site were

addressed the following for the construction and operation of the Platform and a privately funded

mixed-use development (Overbuild) that would sit on top of the Platform. The proposed action 

for the 2009 FEIS included: (1) the lease of, with option to purchase, the air space over the Western 

Rail Yard and related property interests by MTA to the developer; (2) zoning map and text 

amendments and accessory parking special permits by the City of New York pursuant to the 

Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP); (3) the establishment of new legal grades on 

West 33rd Street between Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues; and (4) the site selection by the New 

York City School Construction Authority (SCA) for an elementary/intermediate public school 

(“PS/IS school”) on the Western Rail Yard site. 

Based on the findings of the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS, the zoning actions associated with the 

Overbuild were approved by the New York City Planning Commission (CPC) and adopted by the 

New York City Council as zoning text and map amendments to the New York City Zoning 

Resolution. The Overbuild is now as-of-right development, since it will be built in accordance 

with the New York City Zoning Resolution’s existing zoning controls, which regulate type of use, 

building envelopes, publicly accessible open space areas, street wall controls, retail continuity, 

and maximum floor area ratio (i.e., the ratio of floor area to lot size).
Chapter 1: Introduction

Final 1-3 October 2020

CONCRETE CASING

FRA conducted an environmental assessment (EA) under NEPA for the construction of a concrete 

casing in the Hudson Yards, and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in 2013 for 

the concrete casing project’s EA,2

2 Amtrak and FRA. May 2013. Finding of No Significant Impact, Environmental Assessment for 

Construction of a Concrete Casing in the Hudson Yards, New York, New York. 

and in 2014 for the concrete casing project’s Supplemental EA 

(SEA).3

3 Amtrak and FRA. November 2014. Finding of No Significant Impact, Supplemental Environmental 

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

The purpose of the concrete casing project was to preserve underground passenger 

railroad ROW in Hudson Yards to maintain opportunities to expand passenger rail services, meet 

future demand, and improve intercity and commuter rail system safety and reliability. The 

preservation of the railroad ROW is necessary to ensure the Platform and Overbuild construction 

would not eliminate the possibility of future passenger rail development and expansion through 

Hudson Yards and into New York Penn Station.

Since FRA’s issuance of the 2013 and 2014 FONSIs, the portion of concrete casing extending 

beneath the Eastern Rail Yard has been built. The final section of the concrete casing included in 

the 2013 and 2014 FONSI is the Tunnel Encasement that would be constructed under the Western 

Rail Yard site (see Figure 1-1). The construction of this section of Tunnel Encasement is a 

component of the Proposed Action, as described in more detail below. For more information about 

FRA’s past environmental review of the concrete casing and Tunnel Encasement, please see 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0666. 

B. CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

An environmental review is necessary as an integral part of the overall review for the RRIF loan 

application. Therefore an EIS in accordance with NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality 

NEPA regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508), 23 CFR Part 771, and 23 U.S.C. 139). FRA will 

evaluate direct, indirect and cumulative changes to the human and natural environment resulting 

from the operation and construction of the Platform and construction of the Tunnel Encasement. 

FRA will comply with other applicable environmental laws and regulations, including Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (54 U.S.C. § 306108); the Clean Air 

Act (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.); the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1531); Section 4(f) of 

the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (Section 4(f) 49 U.S.C. § 303) and FRA’s 

implementing regulations at 23 CFR part 774; U.S. DOT Order 5650.2 on Floodplain 

Management; the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq.); and Executive Order 

12898 on Environmental Justice; as well as other related statutes and regulations (collectively 

“environmental reviews”). 

Since the Project is being undertaken in New York City, FRA will, where appropriate, use 

methodologies consistent with the CEQR Technical Manual4

4 https://www1.nyc.gov/site/oec/environmental-quality-review/technical-manual.page

as the basis of quantitative and 

qualitative analysis. FRA intends for the EIS analysis to provide the environmental documentation 

needed for all permits or approvals for the Proposed Action. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 1-4 Final

C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The descriptions provided below for each of the components of the Proposed Action are based on 

the latest available information and the most current design documentation provided by the Project 

Sponsor. FRA will apply the methodologies described in this document to the Proposed Action.

PROJECT SITE AND STUDY AREA

The Project Site is the 13-acre Western Rail Yard site (shown above in Figure 1-1), which includes 

the area for both the Platform and Tunnel Encasement. In the EIS resource category technical 

analyses, FRA will consider the Project Site and a Study Area representing the area where the 

Proposed Action has the potential for community or environmental effects during construction 

and operation. FRA has identified a general overall Study Area for the Project, which includes the 

Project Site and an approximate 1⁄2-mile radius around the Project Site. This overall Study Area is 

generally bounded by West 42rd Street to the north, Eighth Avenue to the east, West 21st Street 

to the south, and the Hudson River to the west (see Figure 1-2). The purpose of this Study Area

is to identify a geographic area large enough to support assessment of potential environmental 

impacts of the Proposed Action to the various resource categories that will be studied in the EIS. 

The Study Areas will differ for different resource categories and analyses because the type and 

range of potential impacts varies. For example, the Study Area for visual and aesthetic 

considerations encompasses areas from which the construction activities or permanent elements 

of the Proposed Action may be visible, while the Study Area for traffic consists of nearby 

intersections where traffic related to the Proposed Action’s construction and operation may 

adversely affect local traffic conditions. Each chapter of this methodology report describes the 

specific Study Area used for each resource.

PROPOSED ACTION

PLATFORM 

An approximately 9.8 acre structural Platform would be constructed to cover the railroad storage 

tracks and maintenance facilities in MTA’s Western Rail Yard, which are used and operated by 

the LIRR. The Platform would consist of deep footings called caissons, shear walls, and a concrete 

slab. Approximately 400 caissons (i.e., watertight columns) would be drilled into bedrock through 

the water table and soil to the rock that is up to 120 feet below the surface of the rail yard’s track 

beds outside of the current track configuration. 

The Platform’s caissons would be threaded between the existing railroad tracks and associated 

infrastructure in Western Rail Yard. For additional support for the mixed-use Overbuild, shear 

walls will be located parallel to and between the existing tracks below the Platform. When Hudson 

Yards was redeveloped in 1986, the tracks and other facilities were reconfigured and laid out to 

accommodate the columns and supporting structures 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. 
W 34th St

W 25th St

W 35th St

Joe Dimaggio Hwy

W 31st St

Ninth Ave

W 26th St

Tenth Ave

W 22nd St

W 33rd St Dyer Av

e

Eighth Ave

W 40th St

W 24th St

W 37th St

W 30th St

W 29th St

W 43rd St

Lincoln Tunnel

W 44th St

Eleventh Ave

W 38th St

W 27th Dr

W 21st St

W 41st St

W 36th St

W 42nd St

W 39th St

W 20th St

W 28th St

W 23rd St

W 27th St

Hudson Blvd E HUDSON RIVER

Chelsea

Park

Chelsea

Waterside

Park

Hudson

River

Park

WESTERN RAIL YARD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT

Study Area

Figure 1-2

0 1,000 FEET

6.30.20

Project Site (Western Rail Yard)

Study Area (1/2-mile perimeter)

A

High Line
Chapter 1: Introduction

Final 1-5 October 2020

Construction of the Platform would also necessitate the installation of critical life safety, 

mechanical, electrical, and plumbing support services for the Western Rail Yard, including new 

lighting, sprinklers, and an extensive platform ventilation system. This infrastructure would be 

necessary for the safe operation of the yard once covered by the Platform. Other LIRR support 

facilities and services would be relocated, reconstructed, and upgraded, including existing 

emergency electrical equipment, rail car cleaning services, and approximately 20,000 square feet 

of railroad staff facilities, which support more than 250 staff. Once complete, the entire enclosed 

Western Rail Yard would contain comprehensive state-of-the-art life safety systems, securing this 

critical infrastructure and protecting both the workers and the railroad equipment in the yard. The 

ventilation system, electrical substation, and maintenance buildings are described in more detail 

below.

• The new ventilation system would provide ventilation necessary to maintain ambient air 

temperatures for LIRR personnel working in the yard. This ventilation system consists of 

distributed intake fan plants which direct outside air into the railyard where the intake air 

mixes with the ambient air. The rail yard air is exhausted through a central plenum which is 

connected to a consolidated exhaust air fan plant in the northwest. The ventilation system will 

also provide for emergency ventilation which will provide a tenable environment for LIRR 

personnel to safely egress the yard, and will also meet temperature and visibility requirements 

for emergency responders into the yard. 

The ventilation system is supplemented with a series of localized exhaust fans that directly 

capture diesel exhaust from Dual-Mode (DM-30) locomotives when parked in assigned 

positions. Localized exhaust hoods would vent diesel exhaust directly into the central exhaust 

plenum where it would be exhausted through the exhaust fan plant. The DM-30 Locomotives 

would operate in diesel for required pre-run testing, as well as for idling to provide power to 

the rest of the train while parked in the yard. 

When completed, the new Western Rail Yard ventilation system would be integrated with the 

Eastern Rail Yard system to provide a single ventilation system for the concurrent monitoring 

and control of all of the track and hood exhaust ventilation fans in both rail yards. This 

component of the new Platform infrastructure that is part of the Proposed Action is important 

to the EIS resource category analyses not only for FRA to examine the potential construction 

effects of this Project component, but also so FRA can examine the potential operational 

effects of these systems (e.g., noise and vibration from fan operations or air quality effects 

from diesel exhaust vented from the rail yard). 

• Block End Buildings A and B will house LIRR replacement facilities. Buildings A and B will 

include employee changing rooms, lockers, offices, and equipment storage to support day-today maintenance and inspection of trains (these facilities would not support major repairs). In 

addition, the Proposed Action includes the construction of temporary interim block buildings 

as replacement facilities for existing LIRR facilities being moved to facilitate Project 

construction. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 1-6 Final

• The new electrical Substation MO3 for the Project Site, will be housed in Building C, which 

will have two stories above grade with a cellar level, and will be constructed on a solid ground 

portion of the Project Site. Building C will be mainly be used to house mechanical and 

electrical equipment. Building C will also house five emergency generators, fuel oil storage, 

office space and LIRR substation equipment. Besides Con Edison service connection and its 

associated electrical equipment, the facility will house the Medium-Voltage Substation (which 

will provide incoming electrical service for Western Yard for the rail operations), five 

emergency generators for the Eastern and Western Railyards, electrical distribution rooms and 

services, Western Rail Yard fire pump and fire protection valve rooms (with sprinklers), and 

communication systems rooms, as well as office and storage spaces associated with the above 

program.

TUNNEL ENCASEMENT

The Tunnel Encasement would effectively be a concrete box. The Tunnel Encasement footprint 

would be between 50 and 65 feet wide and between 27 and 38 feet high. It would start at the 

western edge of Eleventh Avenue, and extend across to the northern edge of West 30th Street

underneath a portion of the High Line.

5

5 The High Line is a 1.45-mile-long elevated linear park, greenway and rail trail created on a former New 

York Central Railroad spur on the west side of Manhattan in New York City under jurisdiction of the New 

York City Department of Parks and Recreation. 

Construction of the Tunnel Encasement would require the 

underpinning of the historic elevated structure during construction. Temporary systems, such as 

sump pumps, lighting, and ventilation would be installed in the Tunnel Encasement to enable its 

construction; therefore, FRA will assess the construction effects of these systems in this EIS. No 

permanent operational components, such as tracks, lighting, ventilation, or electrical system would 

be constructed within the Tunnel Encasement as part of the Proposed Action; therefore, FRA will 

not assess potential effects of the operation of the Tunnel Encasement in this EIS. 

D. OVERVIEW OF THIS REPORT

This Effects Assessment Methodology Report will provide the framework that FRA intends to use 

to evaluate potential impacts resulting from the Proposed Action. FRA will reflect any subsequent 

changes to analysis methodologies directly in the EIS. Setting the framework is an important 

aspect of understanding how the analyses will be performed and enables agencies to effectively 

use the EIS as a basis for other Federal, state, and local actions, such as permits. Study Area

Below is a description of the common terminology that FRA will use to assess each resource, 

analyze data, and characterize potential impacts throughout the EIS.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The Affected Environment is the existing natural, cultural, and social conditions of an area that 

are subject to change because of a proposed Federal action. The EIS will use a wide range of data 

sources to describe the Affected Environment within the Study Area of each resource. The data 

sources used to describe the Affected Environment are summarized in the methodology 

description for each resource. 
Chapter 1: Introduction

Final 1-7 October 2020

The Proposed Action will be assessed during Project construction and at Project completion 

(operational). The Project is anticipated to be operational by 2030. Since construction and 

operation of the Proposed Action would take place in the future, its environmental setting is not 

the current environment, but instead the future environment as it would exist during Project 

construction and once operational. The Affected Environment will be described for each resource 

category by first assessing the 2019 existing conditions within the Project Study Area. In addition, 

extensive private development is occurring in the Project Study Area as a result of recent public 

policy initiatives in the area, and many sites are currently under construction with high-density 

developments. These private development projects will occur independently of the Project, and 

therefore, can be assumed to be implemented prior to the analysis year of 2030. The Affected 

Environment will include consideration of these private development projects in addition to the 

2019 existing conditions. For documentation purposes and to identify the foundational setting of 

the resource category, the 2019 existing conditions will be identified as the Affected Environment 

Existing Conditions. The Affected Environment that includes both the 2019 existing conditions 

and the private development projects will be identified as the Affected Environment Future 

Conditions. The Affected Environment Future Conditions will serve as the resource category 

setting from which FRA will assess the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. Both 

Affected Environments will be documented in the EIS. To further clarify: 

• Affected Environment Existing Conditions: This section of each analysis describes existing 

conditions as of 2019.

• Affected Environment Future Conditions: This section of each analysis describes the affected 

environment as it will be in the future, independent of the No Action Alternative or Proposed 

Action. This section of the evaluation considers the private development projects reasonably 

anticipated to occur in the Project.

EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

The CEQ regulations (40 CFR §§ 1500-1508) define impacts and effects that must be addressed 

and considered by Federal agencies in satisfying the requirements of NEPA. The CEQ also defines 

considerations of how to address both the context and intensity of such impacts and effects. 

Impacts and effects in the EIS will be characterized in the following ways: 

• Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. This EIS will 

discuss how the Platform and the Tunnel Encasement would have the potential to cause direct 

effects on resources. 

• Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are 

still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects 

related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related 

effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. This EIS will discuss how 

the Platform and the Tunnel Encasement would have the potential to cause indirect effects on 

resources, including the Overbuild development, which is an indirect effect of the Platform. 

• Cumulative impacts are the impacts on the environment, which result from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other 

actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant 

actions taking place over a period of time. This EIS will discuss how the Platform and the 

Tunnel Encasement would have the potential to cause cumulative impacts to resources when 

combined with other similar projects. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 1-8 Final

Impacts may vary with regard to their duration, significance, and outcome. For this EIS, FRA will 

consider impacts and effects with the following terms where appropriate: 

• Duration: The impact analyses for each alternative address operational impacts and 

construction impacts. Operational impacts are long-term or permanent impacts associated 

with the operation of the Project. They would occur for the foreseeable future. Construction 

impacts are associated with the construction phase of the Project and would stop with the 

completion of construction activities. In that sense, they are short-term or temporary impacts.

• Context and Intensity: Depending on the nature of the topic, relevant contexts include society 

as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, or the locality. 

Intensity refers to the severity of impact and includes consideration of beneficial and adverse 

impacts. Intensity can be assessed using a wide range of criteria. Among these criteria are 

public health and safety, unique characteristics of the geographic locale, whether the action 

would fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations, and other considerations. 

As part of the EIS impact analysis, FRA will characterize whether the impact is beneficial or 

adverse to the resource category:

• Beneficial impacts would result in positive outcomes to the natural or human environment. 

• Adverse impacts would result in unfavorable or undesirable outcomes to the natural or human 

environment.

FRA will analyze and assess the potential impacts of the No Action Alternative and the Proposed 

Action on environmental resources, as described in this document. The No Action Alternative 

includes planned transportation infrastructure projects that are likely to be in place with or without 

the implementation of the Proposed Action. Each resource category will describe the impacts of 

the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative represents the conditions against which the 

effects of the Proposed Action can be measured.

As mentioned above, the potential impacts of the Proposed Action will be assessed during 

construction and once operational. 

• Construction Conditions: For assessing temporary impacts of the Proposed Action during 

construction, an analysis year during the period of peak construction will be identified as the 

“Peak Construction Condition,” and will be specified in the relevant resource chapters in the 

EIS. Based on the construction schedules provided by the Project Sponsors, construction 

activities for the Proposed Action, including construction of the Platform and its associated 

infrastructure, and the Tunnel Encasement, would occur over an approximately 5-year period 

(late 2021 to late 2026). For most resource category analyses, that entire construction period 

will be discussed and analyzed. However, it is possible that the year the Proposed Action’s 

construction activity would be the most intensive could be different years for different 

resource categories. For example, the peak construction traffic year may not be the same as 

the peak construction noise or peak construction air quality analysis year; which will be 

determined from construction information provided by the Project Sponsors, including the 

construction schedules and stages, site logistics diagrams, and the way the construction 

equipment utilization information overlaps for each component of the Proposed Action. 

• Operational Conditions: Operational impacts would be assessed for the Proposed Action once 

it is operational. This analysis considers the year 2030 as the timeframe when the Proposed 

Action would be built and operational.
Chapter 1: Introduction

Final 1-9 October 2020

In summary, the following terminology will be used in the EIS: 

• Affected Environment Existing Conditions (represents current or Existing Conditions as of 2019)

• Affected Environment Future Conditions (represents the addition of ongoing and reasonably 

anticipated to occur private development, but not transportation projects to Affected 

Environment Existing Conditions) 

• No Action Alternative Conditions (includes Affected Environment Future Conditions adding 

planned transportation projects as of 2030) 

• Peak Construction Conditions (No Action Alternative and Proposed Action)

• Operational Conditions (No Action Alternative and Proposed Action in 2030) 

Chapters 2 through 19 present the laws and regulations that apply to the resource under 

consideration, data sources to be used for establishing the affected environment, and describes the 

methodologies to be used for the impact assessment. Whenever applicable and practicable, the 

analyses have been conducted in accordance with local environmental review policies and 

guidance. In particular, as discussed above in Section B, FRA will, where appropriate, use 

methodologies consistent with the CEQR Technical Manual, including impact criteria to inform 

evaluation of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action. 
Final 2-1 October 2020

Chapter 2: Land Use, Land Planning, and Property

This chapter describes how FRA will document and evaluate the consistency of the No Action 

Alternative and Proposed Action with existing and future land use and Land Planning codes and 

regulations in the EIS. The EIS will consider land use, compatibility of the Project with existing 

zoning and public policy goals, and the potential for land use and land planning impacts, as well 

as identify the need for property acquisitions or displacements for the Proposed Action. This 

chapter of the EIS will also focus on developing the land use information that will be used in other 

chapters (e.g., Transportation, Air Quality, Noise and Vibration, Cultural Resources, Parks and 

Recreation Areas, Socioeconomics, Coastal Zone Consistency, and Environmental Justice) to 

assess impacts.

A. REGULATORY CONTEXT 

Following 23 CFR Part 771 and relevant CEQ guidelines, FRA’s land use analysis will consider 

the project’s potential to impact existing and planned land use and comprehensive regional 

planning. These analyses will be prepared using the methodology guidelines set forth in the CEQR 

Technical Manual (see Chapter 4, Section 300). 

Should this project result in property acquisitions or displacements, FRA will adhere to the 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, 

as codified in Title 42, Section 4601 et seq. of the United States Code (42 USC 4601), and the 

applicable implementing regulations set forth in Title 49, Part 24 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (49 CFR part 24) (collectively, “the Uniform Act”) with regard to relocation services, 

moving payments, and other allowable payments related to commercial and residential moving 

costs and displacement. 

B. STUDY AREA 

The land use, land planning and property analysis for the EIS will use a Study Area of a 1⁄2-mile 

radius from the Project Site, as described in Chapter 1, “Introduction.” The Study Area for this 

resource category is the distance that, based on CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, defines the 

area in which the Proposed Action could cause impacts. The 1⁄2-mile Study Area for the land use 

assessment includes the Project Site and is generally bounded by West 42rd Street to the north, 

Eighth Avenue to the east, West 21st Street to the south, and the Hudson River to the west (see 

Figure 1-2, in Chapter 1, “Introduction”).
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 2-2 Final

C. DATA SOURCES

The data sources for this resource category will consist of existing and proposed land uses that 

FRA will obtain by updating the information from the prior environmental reviews using field 

visits and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping layers, including data obtained from 

the New York City Department of City Planning (NYCDCP), as described in Table 2-1. In 

addition, FRA will identify ongoing and planned development and potential changes to policy or 

plans through coordination efforts with NYCDCP to obtain and confirm land uses, zoning, and 

data related to proposed development and rezoning actions that are anticipated to occur within the 

Study Area by 2030, the operational year of the Proposed Action.

Table 2-1 

Data Sources

Analysis Area Data Source

Land Use and Consistency with 

Land Use Planning and Policy

State Office of Information and Technology

NYCDCP Comprehensive plans

Local planning organizations

Field visits

Zoning New York City Zoning Resolution text and maps

Comprehensive plans

D. ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

The land use assessment will evaluate the compatibility of the No Action Alternative and Proposed 

Action with existing and proposed future land uses and public policy documents. In accordance 

with the guidelines in the CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 4, Section 300), FRA will 

evaluate local land use plans, comprehensive regional plans, and public policies (e.g., Location of 

City Facilities, OneNYC 2050,

1 and Vision 2020: New York City’s Comprehensive Waterfront 

Revitalization Plan) with respect to the Proposed Action to identify any inconsistencies with these 

plans and public policies. The land use, land planning and property assessment in the EIS will 

consider all areas in which the Proposed Action could alter land uses, will identify any need for 

displacements or property acquisition, and will assess the consistency of the Proposed Action with 

public planning and policy documents. The assessment that FRA will perform for land use, land 

planning and property will include the following elements:

A. FRA will provide a detailed description of existing land use and will identify recent land use 

trends in the Study Area. In addition, FRA will identify land uses sensitive to changes in 

environmental conditions (i.e., noise levels or air quality), which may include housing, 

hospitals, schools, and other community facilities and parks.

1 One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City (OneNYC 2050) is the official strategic plan of New 

York City for development based on “principles of growth, equity, sustainability, and resiliency.” It was 

released in April 2015 as the successor document to PlaNYC and has been followed by yearly progress 

reports.
Chapter 2: Land Use, Land Planning, and Property

Final 2-3 October 2020

B. FRA will identify, describe, and graphically portray predominant land use patterns in the 

Study Area based on existing studies, GIS information for the area, and field surveys. FRA 

will describe recent land use trends and major factors influencing land use trends, as 

applicable, based on information that will be obtained from public agencies and private 

development entities, as available.

C. FRA will describe and map existing zoning and recent zoning actions in the Study Area. 

D. FRA will summarize relevant public policies that apply to the Project Site and the Study Area

for this resource category, such as the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council2

2 The New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) is a regional council of governments that 

is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for New York City, Long Island, and the lower Hudson 

Valley. N YMTC provides a collaborative planning forum to address transportation-related issues, 

develops regional plans, and makes decisions on the use of Federal transportation funds.

(NYMTC) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and NYMTC’s Long Range plan, 

OneNYC 2050, the New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program, Amtrak’s Northeast 

Corridor Gateway Program, applicable Smart Growth policies, the New York City Zoning 

Resolution, and other identified public policies. 

E. FRA will tabulate and summarize the future transportation, infrastructure, and private 

development projects in the Study Area that could affect future land use patterns and trends 

by 2030. As part of the analysis of the No Action Alternative, the EIS will consider other, 

independent transportation and infrastructure projects that will be implemented, or are being 

planned by others and appear likely to be implemented within the same timeframe as the 

Proposed Action. In addition, FRA will consider private development projects anticipated 

within the Study Area as part of defining the Affected Environment Future Condition to the 

extent relevant to its environmental analysis. FRA will also consider known private 

development projects, confirmed in collaboration with NYCDCP, in the affected environment 

that will be analyzed in the EIS. FRA will use this information to establish the Affected 

Environment Future Condition. FRA will summarize the plans for public improvements and 

pending zoning actions or other public policy actions as they relate to the Study Area, if any. 

Based on these changes, FRA will assess future land use and zoning conditions for the 

Affected Environment Future Condition, for the No Action Alternative, and the Proposed 

Action. 

F. FRA will identify potential impacts of the Proposed Action during construction and operation 

on land use and land use trends, and consistency of the No Action Alternative and Proposed 

Action with local and regional plans. 

G. FRA will identify potential property acquisitions or displacements resulting from the Proposed 

Action, and how compensation for any necessary displacements or acquisitions would comply 

with the statutory requirements of the Uniform Act.
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 2-4 Final

E. IMPACT CRITERIA

The EIS will describe any changes in land use or land planning that would result from the 

construction or operation of the Proposed Action, and describe the benefits of the Proposed Action. 

The analysis will compare conditions of the Proposed Action during construction and operation 

against the No Action Alternative to determine potential impacts of the Proposed Action. In 

addition, adverse effects of the Proposed Action identified and described in other chapters of the 

EIS (e.g., socioeconomic conditions, visual resources, public open space, transportation, and 

noise) will be examined for their potential adverse effects on land use and land planning. 

F. MITIGATION ANALYSIS

If the Proposed Action would result in adverse impacts to land use, land planning, inconsistencies 

with existing public policies, or property acquisitions or displacements, the EIS will explore 

measures to avoid or mitigate these impacts. 

G. CORRELATION WITH OTHER ANALYSES

FRA will use information from this chapter of the EIS in and to help inform several other resource 

category analyses. The transportation analyses will use the list of planned transportation and 

infrastructure projects that will be included in the No Action Alternative, as well as the planned 

private development projects to generate the Affected Environment Future Condition traffic 

networks. The Air Quality, and Noise and Vibration analyses will use land use information to 

identify sensitive receptors. The cultural resources analyses will use existing land use information 

to identify historic districts. FRA will use land use information to identify potentially affected 

public parks, open spaces, and recreational areas for the impact analyses of Parks and Recreation 

Areas. The socioeconomics resource category analyses will use land use information to identify 

potentially affected residential and commercial property owners. Coastal Zone Consistency will 

use existing land use information to identify the coastal zone and the waterfront revitalization plan 

boundaries. The Environmental Justice analysis will use land use information to identify 

potentially affected residential areas in environmental justice communities. 
Final 3-1 October 2020

Chapter 3: Transportation

This chapter describes the methodology that FRA will use to prepare the analysis of potential 

effects to transportation facilities and systems in the project Study Area from the construction and 

operation of the Proposed Action. This chapter of the EIS will primarily consider the potential for 

construction period effects of building the Proposed Action compared with No Action Alternative 

conditions in the anticipated Peak Construction analysis year, which will be determined as part of 

the EIS analysis. The Peak Construction analysis year is expected to be prior to 2026, which is the 

anticipated year of completion of the Platform and Tunnel Encasement. This assessment will 

include consideration of construction period effects of the Proposed Action on Study Area traffic, 

parking, public transit modes, passenger rail service and operations, bicycles, and pedestrian 

conditions. Once completed, the Proposed Action would not generate any demand for 

transportation, but it would allow for the indirect effect of constructing a privately funded mixeduse Overbuild development that was approved in 2009 (described in Chapter 1, “Introduction,” 

and discussed in Chapter 18, “Indirect and Cumulative Impacts”). 

This chapter of the EIS will include a description of the Affected Environment: Existing 

Conditions and Peak Construction Conditions, as well as a qualitative summary assessment of the 

Operational Conditions in 2030, when the Proposed Action (Platform and Tunnel Encasement) is 

anticipated to be fully constructed. While the Proposed Action has no incremental transportation 

demand on completion, it does allow for the previously approved Overbuild development, which 

is expected to be complete in 2030 (see Chapter 18, “Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts”). 

The Operational Conditions in 2030 also account for the completion of the Overbuild 

development, to enable one analysis year to cover the long term permanent impacts of the 

Proposed Action, and the permanent indirect effects of the Overbuild. The year of peak 

construction activity will be finalized based on the peak levels of activity in terms of construction 

vehicles accessing the site and the highest concentration of construction workers arriving and 

departing the site. 

3.1 TRAFFIC AND PARKING

This section describes the methodology that FRA will use to prepare the analysis of potential 

effects to vehicular traffic on roadways and parking conditions from the construction and 

operation of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action. 

A. REGULATORY CONTEXT 

The CEQ regulations defines the effects and impacts that Federal agencies are to address and 

consider in satisfying the requirements of the NEPA process. The transportation modes in the 

Study Area are regulated and/or monitored by federal, state, and local agencies, including: FRA, 

FTA, NYSDOT, NYCDOT, and CEQR guidelines.
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 3-2 Final

Because the Project is being undertaken in New York City, the potential for transportation impacts 

of the Proposed Action will be evaluated by FRA as NEPA lead agency using, to the extent 

practicable, guidance and methodologies set forth in the CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 

16). The FRA will utilize the guidance regarding the significance of potential effects in terms of 

their context and intensity as established in 40 CFR 150.27. 

According to the CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 16, Section 200), actions proposed below 

110th Street in Manhattan that would result in more than 240 residential dwelling units or 115,000 

gross square feet (gsf) of office development require a traffic analysis. The Proposed Action, by 

itself, would not result in development exceeding these thresholds because the Platform and 

Tunnel Encasement would generate no new vehicular trips or parking demand. However, because 

the Proposed Action would involve a lengthy and intensive construction period in excess of the 

CEQR Technical Manual guidance of 24 months, FRA will undertake a traffic screening analysis, 

(as described below in Section E, “Analysis Techniques”) involving the preparation of a Tier 1 

and Tier 2 trip-generation and assignment for construction worker and truck traffic. These 

screening level analyses (prepared following CEQR Technical Manual guidelines) would be 

included in the Transportation chapter of the EIS to aid the narrative describing the likely changes 

in transportation resulting from construction of the Proposed Action. FRA would use the results 

of these analyses to determine if more detailed quantitative traffic analyses are necessary. Indirect 

impacts of the Proposed Action (i.e., the Overbuild) are discussed in Chapter 18, “Indirect Effects 

and Cumulative Impacts.” 

B. STUDY AREA 

The CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 16, Section 300) guidelines suggest that intersections 

through which 50 or more project-generated vehicles may be expected to travel during peak 

periods should be analyzed as the basis for determining project impacts. Specific traffic study 

locations will be selected by FRA, in coordination with NYCDCP and NYCDOT, as needed. 

In considering the CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, the Study Area for the assessment of 

potential traffic and parking impacts has been established that will encompass West 34th Street 

on the north, West 29th Street on the south, Twelfth Avenue on the west, and Sixth Avenue on the 

east (see Figure 3-1). FRA will analyze all intersections within this Study Area for potential traffic 

impacts using CEQR Technical Manual guidance (discussed in detail in Section F, below). FRA 

chose this Study Area by considering potential sites where construction staging or other 

construction activities could occur that would require lane closures or changes to traffic flow and 

the likely routes workers driving to or from the construction site and the haul routes that trucks 

would use to carry materials to, or debris from, the construction site. 
Chapter 3: Transportation

Final 3-3 October 2020

Figure 3-1 

Traffic and Parking Study Area

C. PEAK HOURS

Hour-by-hour estimates of the vehicular trips likely to be generated by transportation and 

infrastructure projects in the No Action Alternative indicate that trip generation would be greatest 

in the weekday AM, midday, and PM peak traffic periods. Therefore, FRA selected these peak 

periods for analysis of weekday traffic conditions. Weekend vehicular activity expected to be 

generated by construction of the Proposed Action and, while less peaked and lower in total volume 

than weekday trip generation, could result in traffic impacts as well. For this reason, FRA also 

selected the Saturday midday period for analysis. FRA will confirm peak hours with information 

from vehicular automated traffic recorders (ATRs) and other sources, and will conform with peak 

hours developed for other recent and ongoing transportation studies being conducted in the area 

as well, to ensure a coordinated and consistent Affected Environment Existing Condition for this 

Project’s analyses in comparison to other ongoing studies in this part of Manhattan.

D. DATA SOURCES

Table 3-1 describes the sources of data to be used for the traffic and parking analyses. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 3-4 Final

Table 3-1 

Traffic and Parking Analysis Data Sources 

Analysis Area Data Sources

Vehicular Traffic Traffic studies, EIS documents, planning documents from Study Area

agencies and projects.1

Traffic counts conducted for this project (September 2016). 

Traffic information, including ATR data and bicycle counts, obtained 

from NYCDOT

Traffic Information Management System (TIMS) database.

Planned transportation services and infrastructure included in Long 

Range Plans of NYMTC.2

Parking Parking surveys and assessments from other EAS/EIS documents and 

parking surveys conducted for this project (September 2016).

Data Sources Anticipated: Empire Station Development Plan – ESD

Port Authority Bus Terminal – PANYNJ

CBD Tolling Program – TBTA

495 Eleventh Avenue (EIS in Progress) – NYCEDC

Penn Station Master Plan – MTA 

2009 Western Rail Yards FEIS3 – NYCPC and MTA

2004 Hudson Yards FGEIS4 – ESD 

Gateway Program Information – Amtrak

1 “EIS Documents.” EIS Documents Environmental Review – NYCDCP, www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/

applicants/eis-documents.page.

2 NYMTC, 2017, Plan 2045: Maintaining the Vision for a Sustainable Region, www.nymtc.org/RequiredPlanning-Products/Regional-Transportation-Plan-RTP.

3 NYCDCP, 2009, Western Rail Yard Project – Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/applicants/env-review/western-rail-yard.page. (2009 Western Rail Yard 

FEIS)

4 Empire State Development, 2004, 2004 Hudson Yards Final Generic Environment Impact Statement, 

esd.ny.gov/2004-hudson-yards-feis. (2004 Hudson Yards FGEIS)

Available transportation data from previous studies (e.g., the Western Rail Yard 2009

SEQRA/CEQR FEIS, traffic studies, EIS documents for other developments, and agency planning 

documents) pertaining to the proposed Study Area will be utilized whenever possible. FRA will 

evaluate data that is older than three years to determine whether it is appropriate for utilization in 

this study. Since data collection cannot be conducted during the ongoing public health emergency, 

other sources of more current existing traffic network conditions will be identified to supplement 

older data including more recently released traffic impact studies for individual projects in or near 

the study are as well as network information from other ongoing projects by other agencies (most 

notably, the 2018 data collection and network development associated with the Port Authority of 

New York and New Jersey, Port Authority Bus Terminal (PABT) project, as with 2019 data from 

the CBT Tolling Program, and the current existing conditions under development as part of the 

Empire Station project which has a similar construction horizon and an overlapping Study Area) 

as well as NYCDOT’s TIMS database. The TIMS database offers traffic data, including vehicular 

and pedestrian counts, collected by consultants and agencies for numerous projects from the last 

five years. 
Chapter 3: Transportation

Final 3-5 October 2020

Existing networks from other projects that overlap with the proposed Study Area, will be 

compared and calibrated into a reasonable Affected Environment Existing Conditions network, 

reflecting 2019 conditions prior to the ongoing COVID-19 public health emergency. Coordination 

with other ongoing projects will be undertaken to emphasize consistency of existing conditions 

for multiple projects, covering overlapping traffic networks. Specifically, the Empire Station 

project has an existing condition year of 2019 and will be used accordingly as the first layer of 

existing conditions network development for the Weekday AM, midday, and PM peak traffic 

periods. CBD Tolling and PABT projects have an existing condition year of 2018 and 2019, 

respectively, and will be used accordingly to update the 2016 counts originally collected for 

Western Rail Yards for the intersections missing from the Empire Station project network. To 

extrapolate Saturday midday traffic volumes, which were unavailable from the Empire Station 

project, FRA will calculate an extrapolation factor to use between Weekday midday and Saturday 

midday peak traffic periods, based on the comparison of available data from 2018 PABT and 2019 

CBD Tolling ATR data sets. The project team has access, or has requested access, to this 

information. Geometric changes that affect travel patterns between 2016 and 2019 will be 

accounted for in the development and calibration of Affected Environment Existing Condition

networks.

FRA will look at the opportunity to utilize continuous count data as a calibration tool, if possible 

and available, to analyze the Affected Environment Existing Conditions and the environmental 

consequences of the Proposed Action. The following field surveys will likely be required for the 

Proposed Project based on a review of the alternatives for the Project. 

PHYSICAL ROADWAY INVENTORY 

FRA will use physical inventory data on major access roadways in the Study Area to establish 

accurate network link characteristics to develop the traffic model. This inventory information will 

include the following:

• Number of travel lanes,

• Roadway and lane widths,

• Direction of travel,

• Roadway lane utilization

• Traffic control devices (signs and signals) and signal timing from NYCDOT, will be 

compared to field data,

• Curb parking regulations,

• Channelizations and turn prohibitions,

• Posted speed limits, 

• Bicycle facilities and designated bikeways within the Study Area (i.e., Hudson River 

Greenway);

• Bus stop and truck loading areas; and

• Sidewalk and crosswalk widths (as applicable).

Network changes that may have resulted in changes in travel patterns between 2016 and 2019 will 

be documented and accounted for in the Affected Environment Existing Conditions network. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 3-6 Final

TRAFFIC COUNTS

Manual turning movement and vehicle classification counts were conducted for peak weekday 

time periods in September 2016. As shown above in Figure 3-1, red dots are those locations where 

turning movement counts were conducted and blue lines are locations where ATRs were placed. 

The hours of peak traffic levels have been preliminarily identified as 8 to 9 AM in the morning, 

noon to 1 PM in the midday, 5 to 6 PM in the evening, and Saturday 1 to 2 PM. Data will be 

checked and summarized to develop an understanding of background temporal distribution of 

traffic and to determine/confirm peak analysis hours. As available from existing data resources, 

bicycle volumes will also be obtained.

PARKING SURVEY

Public off-street facilities and legal on-street parking spaces within a 1⁄4-mile radius of the proposed 

site will be inventoried, noting their locations, parking regulation, and capacities. FRA will 

compile the results of the parking occupancy survey conducted for the inventoried parking 

facilities located within the Study Area for a representative morning peak hour, such as 8 to 9 AM, 

and at a time of typical maximum occupancy, such as noon to 1 PM, or 1 to 2 PM. to develop 

current parking accumulation and occupancy data. Available parking data from more recent 

studies, primarily PABT, will be used to adjust the parking inventory as appropriate.

E. ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

In accordance with CEQ’s NEPA Implementing Regulations (40 CFR part 1508.27), impacts must 

be considered for their significance with respect to context and intensity. The EIS will assess the 

potential construction and operational impacts of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action. 

Where potential adverse impacts are identified, mitigation to address the impacts will be 

developed, as appropriate and feasible. 

The analysis will be prepared for vehicular traffic and parking. The discussion will be organized 

by mode as follows: 

• Affected Environment Existing Conditions (2019 Base Year)

• Peak Construction Year No Action Alternative Conditions

• Peak Construction Year Proposed Action Conditions

• Peak Construction Year Mitigation Conditions

• 2030 Operational Conditions Summary Assessment 

The analysis of construction and future impacts will utilize a range of criteria. The EIS will 

evaluate temporary changes to traffic and parking that may occur during the construction period 

of the Proposed Action and compare them to No Action Alternative for the Peak Construction 

Year. For traffic conditions, the following framework is anticipated for the environmental 

analyses.

TIER 1 AND 2 TRIP GENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT

For vehicular and parking assessment, a CEQR Technical Manual Tier 1 and Tier 2 Trip 

Generation and Assignment will be conducted. FRA will start with Tier 1 and, if necessary, move 

on to Tier 2; if both thresholds are met, a full analysis will be conducted as set forth in this 

methodology report. 
Chapter 3: Transportation

Final 3-7 October 2020

Tier 1 determines the number of person-trips by mode for all analysis peak hours. A further 

quantified analysis would typically not be needed for a technical area if the proposed development 

would result in fewer than 50 peak hour vehicular trips. FRA will determine trip generation 

utilizing approved available trip generation rates for the Proposed Action, and available modal 

split characteristics for the site, or obtain data from new surveys at a comparable facility nearby 

within Midtown West, Manhattan.

Tier 2 assigns the calculated trips to specific intersections, bus routes, subway lines, or parking 

spaces. If the results of Tier 2 analysis conclude that the Proposed Action would result in 50 or 

more vehicle trips at a given intersection during any analysis peak hour, then additional detailed 

analysis will be undertaken for those affected resources. If vehicle thresholds are exceeded, the 

analysis would be undertaken as detailed below.5

5 “Chapter 16: Transportation.” CEQR Technical Manual, 2014, pp. 16–3-16–17.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT EXISTING CONDITIONS (IF REQUIRED)

The Affected Environment Existing Conditions (2019) for vehicular traffic, intersection 

geometries, and signal timings and operations will be established for the Study Area. The level of 

service (LOS) analysis for signalized intersections, volume/capacity (V/C) ratios, and stopped 

delay values, will be computed in accordance with the standard procedure prescribed in the 

Highway Capacity Manual. The Synchro 10 software accepted by NYCDOT will be used to 

determine traffic operations at critical intersections. Results of these analyses will be tabulated for 

each time period analyzed. 

PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS (IF 

REQUIRED)

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT FUTURE CONDITIONS

The Affected Environment Future Conditions will include the ongoing public and private 

development project occurring in the general project area. This is essential in determining the 

relative impacts to the surrounding traffic and parking networks. Affected Environment Future 

Conditions for vehicular traffic in the Study Area will be determined as follows:

• Affected Environment Existing Conditions will be used to project the Peak Construction 

Condition to the analysis year using appropriate growth factors obtained from the CEQR 

Technical Manual for local growth factors for intersections. 

­ Identify additional vehicular trips and parking maneuvers expected to be generated by 

major private developments that have been approved, are in the process of being approved 

for construction, or are expected to be implemented by the Peak Construction Year in the 

Study Area. These trips will be added to the Affected Environment Existing Conditions 

data to determine the Affected Environment Future Conditions (this condition does not 

include any planned transportation infrastructure projects, which are considered under No 

Action Alternative Conditions). 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 3-8 Final

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

FRA will identify the No Action Alternative transportation projects, and will focus on the largescale transportation network projects expected to be completed by the Peak Construction Analysis 

Year. No Action Alternative Conditions for vehicular traffic in the study are will be determined 

as follows:

• Identify additional vehicular trips and parking maneuvers expected to be generated by major 

transportation/infrastructure developments that have been approved, are in the process of being 

approved for construction, or are expected to be implemented by the Peak Construction 

Analysis year in the Study Area. These trips will be added to the volumes calculated for the 

Affected Environment Existing Conditions. 

• Determine the potential shift in future traffic flow and transportation system conditions due to 

planned or committed major roadway or infrastructure improvements in the Study Area. 

COMBINED NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS 

The combined volumes of the Affected Environment Future Conditions and No Action Alternative 

transportation projects will be added to the Affected Environment Existing Conditions to obtain 

the No Action Alternative Conditions. Traffic and parking conditions with the additional demand 

added to the network will be analyzed for the Peak Construction Analysis Year. A tabular 

summary of the No Action Alternative Conditions traffic levels will be presented, including traffic 

LOS, V/C, and delays. 

PEAK CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS (IF REQUIRED)

The direct effects of the construction activities of the Proposed Action on traffic and parking 

include changes in peak hour intersection volumes based on construction vehicles using local 

roadways and workers driving to and from the site. Construction effects to be analyzed also 

include the identification of any anticipated short-term closure of streets, sidewalk, or subway 

entrances and changes in parking supply and demand.

For the purposes of analyzing the reasonable worst-case development scenarios for construction, 

construction impacts will be evaluated for the year corresponding to the peak period of activity with 

the highest level of on-site workers, use of equipment, and construction vehicles arriving and 

departing the site.

In summary, for the Peak Construction Conditions, the traffic and parking analysis will include 

the following elements:

• Estimate additional trips to be generated by construction of the Proposed Alternative during 

the peak hours on a typical weekday and Saturday midday.

• Project-generated construction trips will be further delineated by mode, e.g., autos, walk, 

transit, and trucks.

• Estimate the anticipated approach and departure directional distributions of the site-generated 

construction traffic.

• Construction related changes to transportation network will be summarized and described 

(i.e., roadway closures, land or sidewalk closures, access to on- and off-street parking). These 

physical changes will be accounted for in the network assumptions.
Chapter 3: Transportation

Final 3-9 October 2020

• Incremental peak-hour project-generated construction trips (all modes) will be distributed to 

the network based on the directional distribution described above.

• No Action Alternative conditions will be combined with the site-generated construction trips 

to establish Peak Construction Conditions for the Proposed Action.

• Analyze the traffic and parking conditions within the Study Area for Peak Construction 

Conditions during the peak periods.

A tabular summary of the Peak Construction Condition for the Proposed Action will be presented, 

including LOS, V/C, and delays. Comparisons will be made to the results of No Action Alternative 

to determine potential traffic impacts.

The number of on-street parking spaces that would be temporarily eliminated due to lane or street 

closure will be estimated for the Peak Construction Conditions. A comparison of the No Action 

Alternative’s parking conditions will be made to assess the potential parking impacts during 

construction.

2030 OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS SUMMARY ASSESSMENT

By the year 2030, the Platform and Tunnel Encasement will all be operational and, therefore, an 

Operational Conditions year of 2030 was chosen. All localized temporary street or sidewalk and 

lane closures required during construction at the Project Site would be restored. Any permanent 

changes to the traffic network would be described and identified. 

The Proposed Action would not generate any additional traffic once operational; therefore, the 

EIS chapter will not include a detailed assessment for Operational Conditions in 2030, as these 

conditions would be the same as the No Action Alternative Conditions in 2030. The EIS will

provide a qualitative summary of conditions. Indirect effects of the Proposed Action, including 

the Overbuild will appear in Chapter 18, “Indirect and Cumulative Impacts.” 

F. IMPACT CRITERIA

TRAFFIC

According to the impact criteria guidelines presented in the CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 

16, Section 410), changes in conditions that can be considered adverse impacts and call for 

examination of mitigation occur if they result in an increase in the Proposed Action conditions of 

5 or more seconds of delay in a lane group over No Action Alternative levels beyond mid-LOS 

D;4-second increase in delay at LOS E; and a 3-second increase in delay at LOS F. In addition, 

impacts requiring mitigation assessment include when levels of service deteriorate from 

acceptable A, B, or C in the No Action Alternative to marginally unacceptable LOS D (a delay in 

excess of 45 seconds, the midpoint of LOS D), or unacceptable LOS E or F in the Proposed Action 

conditions.

For unsignalized intersections, similar impact criteria guidelines are applicable, however for a 

minor street to cause a significant impact, 90 passenger car equivalents must be identified in the 

future with the Proposed Action in any peak hour.

As the Proposed Action will be located in New York City, FRA will use the impact guidelines 

presented in the CEQR Technical Manual to identify adverse traffic impacts for construction of 

the Proposed Action. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 3-10 Final

The CEQR Technical Manual (page 16-2) also calls for a vehicular safety assessment. However, 

this is not required by NEPA, and the Project Site is not located near high crash locations,6

6 Vision Zero View, 30 June 2020, vzv.nyc/.

so this 

assessment will not be conducted.

PARKING

According to the CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 16, Section 450) guidelines, for proposed 

actions within the Manhattan Business District, the inability of the proposed action or the 

surrounding area to accommodate projected future parking demands would be considered a 

parking shortfall but is not deemed to be an adverse impact. This supports New York City policy 

to discourage private vehicles from coming to the Manhattan Business District. FRA will 

determine if the construction or operation of the Proposed Action would result in any parking 

shortfalls in the Study Area. Any unsatisfied demand for parking spaces during the midday peak 

utilization period would result in vehicles parking outside of the parking Study Area and motorists 

walking greater distances to their destinations. However, as parking shortfalls do not constitute 

adverse impacts under the CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, mitigation is not required.

BICYCLES (IF REQUIRED)

In addition to traffic and parking analysis, if required, a qualitative assessment will also be 

conducted of bicycle facilities and designated bikeways within the Study Area (e.g., Hudson River 

Greenway, and Ninth Avenue). Bicycle infrastructure will be inventoried throughout the Study 

Area for the Existing Conditions and, for the future, FRA will note future bicycle inventory 

available during the Peak Construction Condition and the Operational Condition analysis years. 

Engineering judgement, as well as possible past precedent from previous EIS documents, will be 

the primary driver in determining potential impact to bicycle infrastructure within the Study Area. 

G. MITIGATION ANALYSIS (IF REQUIRED)

The Proposed Action construction activities will be planned and designed to minimize traffic and 

parking impacts to the maximum extent possible. However, if significant transportation impacts 

are identified (using the impact criteria discussed above) to occur during the construction phase, 

mitigation measures would be analyzed. For vehicular traffic, potential mitigation could include 

signal phasing and timing modifications, parking regulation modification, lane restriping and 

pavement marking changes, and street direction and other signage-oriented changes. 

The mitigation assessment would include a review of the mitigation measures established in the 

Western Rail Yards 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS or the lager comprehensive 2004 Hudson Yards 

FGEIS mitigation program. Mitigation elements that were approved but not yet implemented 

would be evaluated to see if those measures address impacts identified in this current EIS. 

Remaining significant impacts would be evaluated for new potential mitigation measures that 

could be implemented as part of this EIS. The EIS will disclose any impacts that cannot be 

mitigated.
Chapter 3: Transportation

Final 3-11 October 2020

H. CORRELATION WITH OTHER ANALYSES

The results of the Traffic and Parking Analysis will be informed by or help inform the following 

investigations: Land Use, Land Planning, and Acquisitions; Air Quality, Greenhouse Gasses, and 

Resilience; Noise and Vibration; Socioeconomic Conditions; and Environmental Justice. These 

investigations will use the conclusions of the Traffic and Parking Analysis to determine if potential 

traffic impacts or improvements affect the outcome of their analyses.

3.2 TRANSIT AND PEDESTRIANS

This section describes the methodology that FRA will use to prepare the analysis of potential 

effects to pedestrian conditions and public transportation service conditions from the construction 

and operation of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action.

I. REGULATORY CONTEXT 

CEQ regulations define the effects and impacts that Federal agencies are to address and consider 

in satisfying the requirements of the NEPA process. The transportation modes in the Study Area

are regulated and/or monitored by federal, state, and local agencies, including: FRA, FTA, 

NYSDOT, NYCDOT, and CEQR.

Because the Project is being undertaken in New York City, the potential for transportation impacts 

of the Proposed Action will be evaluated by FRA as NEPA lead agency using, to the extent 

practicable, guidance and methodologies set forth in the CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 

16). The FRA will utilize the guidance regarding the significance of potential effects in terms of 

their context and intensity as established in 40 CFR 150.27.

According to CEQR Technical Manual Chapter 16, Section 200 guidelines, detailed analyses are 

required if a proposed action or project would generate 200 or more peak hour transit trips at a 

particular subway station (street stairways and control areas) or bus route. Similarly, the CEQR 

Technical Manual specifies that detailed analyses are required if a proposed action or project 

would generate 200 or more peak hour pedestrian trips at a particular pedestrian element.

Since the Proposed Action generates no new transit or pedestrian trips when completed, it would 

not result in development exceeding these thresholds and no further analysis would be needed. 

However, the Proposed Action would involve a lengthy and intensive construction period with 

hundreds of construction workers likely to arriving to and from the site on any given day with a 

portion of workers using transit and/or walking to the site. As a result, some level of transit and 

pedestrian analyses will be conducted, beginning with an initial screening analysis of trip 

generation and transit and pedestrian assignments to determine if construction activities would 

result in threshold exceedances. If the quantified analysis thresholds identified in the CEQR 

Technical Manual guidelines for pedestrian and/or transit analysis are not reached, the EIS would 

not include a detailed quantified evaluation of transit and pedestrian conditions. 

The EIS will describe any temporary or permanent changes to pedestrian circulation or transit 

access resulting from construction or operation of the Proposed Action. Additionally, as the 

Proposed Action is being undertaken in an active LIRR rail yard, any potential construction period 

effects to the railyard operations will be described and analyzed. Specific transit and pedestrian 

study locations will be selected by FRA, in coordination with NYCDCP and NYCDOT, as needed. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 3-12 Final

Potential impacts resulting from the Proposed Action will be identified using the methodology 

established in the CEQR Technical Manual, as outlined below. 

J. STUDY AREA 

If additional analysis is required, the Study Area for the assessment of potential transit and 

pedestrian impacts will encompass West 33rd on the north, West 30th Street on the south, Twelfth 

Avenue on the west, and Eighth Avenue on the east (see Figure 3-2). The Study Area includes 

walking routes between the Project Site and the nearest subway stations, bus stops, and New York 

Penn Station.

Figure 3-2 

Transit and Pedestrian Study Area

K. DATA SOURCES

FRA will obtain information on existing and future transit services, operations and passenger 

volumes from the transportation service operators including: Amtrak, NJ TRANSIT, the Port 

Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), MTA, LIRR, New York City Transit 

(NYCT), NYSDOT, NYCDOT, and bus service operators (private carriers, such as Mega Bus and 

GoBus, and NYCT). In addition, NYMTC will be contacted to review the listing of transportation 

projects in the adopted long-range transportation plan that are in or expected to affect the Study 

Area. Table 3-2 describes the sources of data to be used in the transit and pedestrian analyses. 
Chapter 3: Transportation

Final 3-13 October 2020

Table 3-2 

Transit and Pedestrian Analysis Data Sources

Analysis Area Data Sources

Transit

Passenger counts conducted within subway stations for this project. 

Transit studies, EIS documents, planning documents from Study Area agencies and 

projects.7 

Public transportation service operators (NYCT, Amtrak, NJ TRANSIT, LIRR).

Planned transportation services and infrastructure included in the NYMTC Long 

Range Plan.8

Pedestrians

Pedestrian counts and physical inventories collected for this Project 

(September 2016).

Pedestrian studies, EIS documents, planning documents from Study Area agencies 

and projects. 

Data Sources 

Anticipated:

Empire State Development Network Development – ESD 

Port Authority Bus Terminal – PANYNJ

CBD Tolling – PANYNJ

495 Eleventh Avenue (EIS in Progress) – NYCEDC

Penn Station Master Plan – MTA

2009 Western Rail Yards FEIS9 – NYCPC and MTA

2004 Hudson Yards FGEIS10 – ESD 

Gateway (DEIS)

7 “EIS Documents.” EIS Documents Environmental Review – DCP, www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/applicants/

eis-documents.page.

8 NYMTC, 2017, Plan 2045: Maintaining the Vision for a Sustainable Region, www.nymtc.org/RequiredPlanning-Products/Regional-Transportation-Plan-RTP. 

9 DCP, 2009, Western Rail Yard Project- Final Environmental Impact Statement, www1.nyc.gov/site/

planning/applicants/env-review/western-rail-yard.page. (2009 Western Rail Yard FEIS)

10 Empire State Development, 2004, 2004 Hudson Yards Final Generic Environment Impact Statement, 

esd.ny.gov/2004-hudson-yards-feis. (2004 Hudson Yards FGEIS)

TRANSIT

Existing transit services providing access to the Project Site include the following: MTA NYCT 

subway lines, MTA NYCT bus routes, NJ TRANSIT and MTA LIRR commuter rail services 

operating from Penn Station, Amtrak intercity passenger rail services also operating from Penn 

Station, and the New York Waterways ferries operating from Pier 78 at 39th Street. 

Pedestrian volume counts were conducted on subway station elements for the Proposed Action in 

September 2016 at the new Eleventh Avenue–34th Street Station on the No. 7 line and at the 34th 

Street station on the Eighth Avenue subway line served by the A, C, and E lines. Routes within 

the stations that project-generated transit passengers are expected to use to access platforms were 

identified and counts were conducted on key elements along those routes. In the Eleventh Avenue 

station counts were conducted at two escalator banks and their associated inclined elevators, and 

on three stairways connecting the mezzanine to the single platform. At the Eighth Avenue station, 

counts were conducted at one street stair and five internal stairways. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 3-14 Final

Data on the existing public transportation services and infrastructure will be obtained from the 

transit service operators for the Affected Environment Existing Conditions (2019) to match field 

observations collected for the CBD Tolling project. Data on forecasted ridership changes and 

planned future services will be requested from the transit service operators. In addition, data on 

future plans will be obtained from the Study Area’s MPOs, NYMTC and NJTPA.

MTA LIRR and NYCT subway and bus within the Study Area are among the services to be 

examined for construction, operational, or secondary impacts in the EIS. LIRR services share 

PSNY platforms and tracks with NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak trains and could be affected by 

changes to NJ TRANSIT or Amtrak service.

Trip data for 2019 will also be collected from TNCs, such as Lyft, Uber, as well as bikeshare such 

as Citi Bike, with the goal of calculating the numbers of trips originating and ending within the 

Study Area. 

PEDESTRIANS

Pedestrian volume counts were conducted for the Proposed Action in September 2016. Locations 

where project-generated pedestrian activity is expected to affect circulation were identified and 

counted. Pedestrian counts were conducted at 15 intersections (corners and crosswalks) and at 23 

midblock sidewalk locations in the area between Twelfth Avenue on the west, Eighth Avenue on 

the east, 30th Street on the south, and 33rd Street on the north. Measures will be made of the 

critical dimensions of sidewalks and crosswalks in the Study Area, including items that affect 

circulation on the sidewalks such as light and signal poles, fire hydrants, doorways, waste baskets 

and other items.

The Empire Station project has an existing condition year of 2019 and will be used accordingly as 

the first layer of the Affected Environment Existing Conditions network development for the AM, 

midday, and PM peak traffic periods for Eighth Avenue intersections. The 2016 pedestrian counts 

will be updated and calibrated with new available data for all intersections west of Eighth Avenue. 

Additional available pedestrian data from previous studies (e.g., pedestrian studies, EIS 

documents for other developments, and agency planning documents) pertaining to the proposed 

Study Area will be reviewed for use as appropriate. Coordination with other ongoing projects will 

be undertaken to emphasize consistency of existing conditions for multiple projects, including 

pedestrian networks where they overlap. FRA will combine data from the 2016 pedestrian counts 

and 2018 PABT crosswalk counts and conduct a pedestrian trip assignment for buildings that have 

opened since those counts to estimate Affected Environment Existing Conditions pedestrian 

volumes. Changes to sidewalks and crosswalks between 2016 and 2019 will be accounted for in 

the development of the Affected Environment Existing Conditions pedestrian networks. 

To extrapolate Saturday midday traffic volumes, which were unavailable from Empire Station 

project, FRA will calculate a comparison factor between Weekday midday and Saturday midday 

based on the comparison of available data from 2018 PABT and 2019 CBD Tolling data sets. The 

project team has access, or has requested access, to this information. Geometric changes that affect 

travel patterns between 2016 and 2019 will be accounted for in the development and calibration 

of the Affected Environment Existing Conditions pedestrian networks.
Chapter 3: Transportation

Final 3-15 October 2020

L. ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

In accordance with CEQ’s NEPA Implementing Regulations (40 CFR part 1508.27), impacts must 

be considered for their significance with respect to context and intensity. The EIS will assess the 

potential construction and operational impacts of each alternative. Where potential adverse 

impacts are identified, mitigation to address the impacts will be developed, as appropriate and 

feasible. 

Tier 1 and 2 Trip Generation and Assignment Assessment to determine if further analysis is 

required. If necessary, the following will be completed. The transportation impacts analysis will 

be prepared for transit and pedestrians. The discussion will be organized by mode as follows:

• Affected Environment Existing Conditions (2019) 

• Peak Construction Year No Action Alternative Conditions

• Peak Construction Year Proposed Action Conditions

• Peak Construction Year Mitigation Conditions

• 2030 Operational Conditions Summary Assessment

TIER 1 AND 2 TRIP GENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT

For both transit and pedestrian assessment, a CEQR Technical Manual Tier 1 and Tier 2 Trip 

Generation and Assignment will be conducted. FRA will start with Tier 1 and, if necessary, move 

on to Tier 2; if both thresholds are met, a full analysis will be conducted as set forth in this 

methodology report. 

Tier 1 determines the number of person-trips by mode for all analysis peak hours. A further 

quantified analysis would typically not be needed for a technical area if the proposed development 

would result in fewer than 200 peak hour subway/rail or bus transit riders, or 200 peak hour 

pedestrian trips. FRA will determine trip generation utilizing approved available trip generation 

rates for the Proposed Action, and available modal split characteristics for the site, or obtain data 

from new surveys at a comparable facility nearby within Midtown West, Manhattan.

Tier 2 assigns the calculated trips to specific intersections, bus routes, subway lines, or parking 

spaces. If the results of Tier 2 analysis conclude that the Proposed Action would result in 

pedestrian elements with 200 or more pedestrian trips, 50 or more bus trips in a single direction 

on a single route, or 200 or more passengers at a subway station or on a subway line during any 

analysis peak hour, then additional detailed analysis will be undertaken for those affected 

resources. If transit or pedestrian thresholds are exceeded, the analysis would be undertaken as 

detailed below.11

11 “Chapter 16: Transportation.” City Environmental Quality Review Technical Manual, 2014, pp. 16–3-

16–17. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 3-16 Final

TRANSIT (IF REQUIRED)

For analysis of public transportation modes, the evaluation criteria will include changes to capacity 

and ridership at stations and on transit routes serving the site. Line haul capacity and volumes on 

the Number 7 subway and on key bus routes serving the Project Site will be analyzed. Commuter 

railroads and ferries are not expected to be significantly affected by operation of the project so 

detailed analysis for those services is not expected. Analyses of transit conditions will be 

conducted for weekday AM and PM peak time periods.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT EXISTING CONDITIONS

Using the pedestrian counts conducted on select station elements in the 34th Street–Hudson Yards 

(Eleventh Avenue) and 34th Street–Penn Station (Eighth Avenue) stations, a LOS analysis will be 

conducted for key elements within those stations in accordance with procedures described in the 

CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 16, Section 352). Results of these analyses will be tabulated 

for each time period analyzed. Additional use of 34th Street–Penn Station is not expected to 

encourage a look at ridership on the A, C and E lines, nor for the No. 7 line to warrant analysis of 

transfer at Times Square–42nd Street and potential bottlenecks within the station. 

Utilizing data obtained from NYC Transit for subway and bus, the status of existing services will 

be reviewed to identify current service patterns and passenger loading. A line-haul analysis will 

be performed to assess current passenger loading conditions on the No. 7 subway line and the 

M11, M12, and M34 bus routes.

PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Affected Environment Future Conditions

Forecasted ridership changes and planned projects in the Study Area will be reviewed to identify 

changes that will impact public transportation services and infrastructure in the Study Area. This 

will include: 

• Identify additional transit trips expected to be generated by developments that are under 

construction, have been approved, are in the process of being approved, or are expected to be 

implemented by the Peak Construction Condition analysis year in the Study Area. These trips 

will be assigned to detailed routes within the two subway stations serving the area and will be 

added to the Affected Environment Existing Condition volumes. Bus trips generated by the 

project will be assigned to specific bus routes by direction.

• Determine physical changes to transit facilities due to projects currently under construction, 

committed, planned or projected in the Study Area. 

No Action Alternative Transportation Projects 

Forecasted ridership changes and planned transportation and infrastructure projects in the Study 

Area will be reviewed to identify changes that will impact public transportation services and 

infrastructure in the Study Area. This will include:
Chapter 3: Transportation

Final 3-17 October 2020

• Identify additional transit trips expected to be generated by transportation/infrastructure 

developments that are under construction, have been approved, are in the process of being 

approved, or are expected to be implemented by the Peak Construction Condition analysis 

year in the Study Area. These trips will be assigned to detailed routes within the two subway 

stations serving the area and will be added to the Affected Environment Existing Condition 

volumes. Bus trips generated by the project will be assigned to specific bus routes by direction.

• Determine physical changes to transit facilities due to transportation/infrastructure projects 

currently under construction, committed, planned or projected in the Study Area. In particular, 

the Moynihan Station project will affect access to commuter rail and Amtrak services within 

the Study Area. Although it would not be used by most project-related customers, a planned 

new northern entrance at the 34th Street–Eleventh Avenue subway station would shift some 

volumes from the existing southern entrance to that station.

Combined No Action Alternative Conditions

The combined ridership changes of the Affected Environmental Future Conditions and No Action 

Alternative Transportation projects will be added to the Affected Environment Existing 

Conditions to obtain the No Action Alternative Conditions. The study will analyze the transit 

conditions within the Study Area for the No Action Alternative during the three weekday peak 

periods as well as the Saturday midday peak period according to methods described in the CEQR 

Technical Manual (see Chapter 16, Section 353). These analyses will include level-of-service 

analysis for subway station elements and line-haul analyses for the No. 7 subway and three bus 

routes.

PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR PROPOSED ACTION CONDITIONS

Based on the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Trip Generation and Assignment analysis described above, transit

trips generated by the Proposed Action will be assessed and assigned to specific subway stations 

and bus routes as appropriate serving the Study Area. 

Level of service analysis will be conducted for the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action 

using methods described in the CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 16, Section 354). 

Construction of the Proposed Action is not expected to significantly affect crowding on the 

subway or rail services in the Study Area. Traffic construction impacts may adversely affect local 

bus (M11, M12, and M34) and intercity bus (Mega Bus, GoBus) routes that have stops near the 

construction area. Mitigation plans will be put in place to maintain bus service reliability. Any 

required relocations of bus stops will be identified.

Any potential effects on operations in the LIRR Western Rail Yard during construction of the 

Proposed Action will be identified and addressed qualitatively. Construction effects on the rail 

yard would be temporary, limited to the portion of construction when foundation and first tier 

structural works are underway, and would be expected to occur during off-peak hours and or in 

accordance with approved track outage plans and schedules, to minimize impacts to rail 

operations.
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 3-18 Final

2030 OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS SUMMARY ASSESSMENT

By the year 2030, the Platform and Tunnel Encasement will all be operational and, therefore, an 

Operational Conditions year of 2030 was chosen. All localized temporary street, sidewalk, or 

transit entrance closures or restrictions required during construction at the Project Site would be 

restored. Any permanent changes to the transit network expected to be in place by 2030 would be 

identified and described. 

The Proposed Action would not generate any additional transit trips once operational; therefore,

the EIS chapter will not include a detailed assessment for the Operational Condition Analysis Year

(2030). The EIS chapter will provide a qualitative summary of conditions. Indirect effects of the 

Proposed Action, including the Overbuild, will appear in Chapter 18, “Indirect and Cumulative 

Impacts.” 

PEDESTRIANS (IF REQUIRED)

For analysis of pedestrian conditions, the following framework is anticipated for the 

environmental analyses. Pedestrian analyses will be conducted for the weekday AM, midday, PM, 

and Saturday midday peak time periods.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT EXISTING CONDITIONS

The Affected Environment Existing Conditions for pedestrian volumes, sidewalk and crosswalk 

dimensions, and crosswalk signal timings will be established for the Study Area. A pedestrian 

LOS analysis will be conducted for key pedestrian elements (sidewalks, corners, and crosswalks) 

in accordance with procedures described in the CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 16, Section 

363). Results of these analyses will be tabulated for each time period analyzed.

PEAK CONSTRUCTION YEAR NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Affected Environment Future Conditions

Future conditions without the Proposed Action are essential in determining the relative impacts to 

the surrounding pedestrian circulation and the communities using these facilities, the analysis will 

include:

• Identify additional pedestrian trips expected to be generated by developments (not 

transportation/infrastructure) that are under construction, have been approved, are in the 

process of being approved, or are expected to be implemented by the Peak Construction 

condition analysis year in the Study Area. These trips will be assigned to detailed routes in 

the area and added to the Affected Environment Existing Conditions volumes. 

• Determine potential physical changes to pedestrian facilities due to said projects currently 

under construction, committed, planned or projected in the Study Area. As several current 

construction projects have temporarily closed sidewalks in the area, those sidewalks will be 

assumed to reopen in their future configuration and pedestrian volumes will be distributed to 

them.

• As all or most of the growth in pedestrian activity in the Study Area will derive from known 

development projects that are planned or underway, no background growth factor will be 

applied.
Chapter 3: Transportation

Final 3-19 October 2020

No Action Alternative Transportation Projects 

No Action Alternative major transportation projects will also be identified and changes in 

pedestrian demand or circulation patterns resulting from these projects will be integrated into the 

analysis, including:

• Identify additional pedestrian trips expected to be generated by transportation/infrastructure 

projects that are under construction, have been approved, are in the process of being approved, 

or are expected to be implemented by the Peak Construction condition analysis year in the 

Study Area. These trips will be assigned to detailed routes in the area and added to the existing 

volumes. 

• Determine potential physical changes to pedestrian facilities due to said projects currently 

under construction, committed, planned or projected in the Study Area. As several current 

construction projects have temporarily closed sidewalks in the area, those sidewalks will be 

assumed to reopen in their future configuration and pedestrian volumes will be distributed to 

them.

• As all or most of the growth in pedestrian activity in the Study Area will derive from known 

development projects that are planned or underway, no background growth factor will be 

applied.

Combined No Action Alternative Conditions

The combined pedestrian volumes and changes to the circulation patterns from the Affected 

Environment Future Conditions and No Action Alternative Transportation Projects will be added 

to the Affected Environment Existing Conditions to obtain the No Action Alternative Conditions. 

The study will identify the incremental change associated with the combined Peak Construction 

Year No Action Alternative for the pedestrian Study Area. 

PEAK CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS

During the Peak Construction Year, the movement of primarily construction workers to and from 

the job site during peak shift changes and breaks will add demand to the pedestrian network at and 

near the Project Site. These trips will be estimated and added to the network’s combined No Action 

Alternative to determine the incremental changes in volume and level of service. In addition, 

construction of activities may require temporary constriction or closure of sidewalks and 

crosswalks adjacent to the site, which would be incorporated into the pedestrian analysis. 

Maintenance and Protection of Traffic plans, which will include provisions for temporary 

sidewalk width reductions or closures, will be developed by the Project Sponsor for approval by 

NYCDOT. The construction condition will be analyzed for pedestrian conditions in terms of 

changes to sidewalk width and availability. Where significant existing pedestrian volumes would 

be diverted to the opposite side of a street due to a sidewalk closure, the sidewalk on the opposite 

side would be analyzed for the effects of increased pedestrian traffic.

Pedestrian trips generated by the Peak Construction of the Proposed Action will be assessed and 

assigned to detailed routes within the Study Area. It is anticipated that the Platform, associated 

infrastructure, and Tunnel Encasement will not generate future operational period pedestrian trips and, 

therefore, a zero-net change in pedestrian trips compared to the No Action Alternative is expected. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 3-20 Final

2030 OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS SUMMARY ASSESSMENT

By the year 2030, the Platform and Tunnel Encasement will all be operational and, therefore, an 

Operational Conditions year of 2030 was chosen. All localized temporary street, sidewalk, or 

transit entrance closures, restrictions, or changes required during construction at the Project Site

would be restored. Any permanent physical changes to sidewalks and crosswalks associated with 

the Proposed Action will be identified and described. 

The Proposed Action would not generate any additional pedestrian trips once operational; therefore, 

the EIS chapter will not include a detailed assessment for the Operational Condition Analysis Year

(2030). The EIS will provide a qualitative summary of conditions. Indirect effects of the Proposed 

Action, including the Overbuild, will appear in Chapter 18, “Indirect and Cumulative Impacts.” 

M.IMPACT CRITERIA

TRANSIT – SUBWAY STAIRWAY AND PASSAGEWAY

The CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 16, Section 420) evaluates transit conditions for 

stairways and passageways in terms of the minimum width increment threshold (WIT) based on 

the minimum amount of additional capacity that would be required to restore conditions to either 

their No Action Alternative v/c ratio or to a v/c ratio of 1.00 (LOS C/D), whichever is greater. 

Stairways that are substantially degraded in level of service or which experience the formation of 

extensive queues from project generated demand would typically be considered as impacts once 

the thresholds shown in Table 3-3 are reached or exceeded. 

Table 3-3 

Stairway and Passageway Impact Criteria 

Build Alternative v/c

WIT for Significant Impact (inches)

Stairway Passageway

1.00–1.09 8 13

1.10–1.19 7 11.5

1.20–1.29 6 10

1.30–1.39 5 8.5

1.40–1.49 4 6

1.50–1.59 3 4.5

1.60 and up 2 3

Source: 2014 CEQR Technical Manual, Table 16-11

TRANSIT – SUBWAY LINE HAUL 

Increases in per car load levels that remain within NYCT subway car loading guidelines (“guideline 

capacity”) are not considered as generating impacts. A projected Proposed Action increase from the No 

Action Alternative that exceeds guideline capacity is considered an impact pursuant to CEQR Technical 

Manual guidance of an increase of five or more transit riders per car or if the route is projected to operate 

under capacity in the No Action Alternative and overcapacity in the with the Proposed Action. 

TRANSIT – BUS ROUTES

According to the CEQR Technical Manual and NYCT guidelines, additional bus service along a 

route is recommended when load levels exceed maximum capacity at the route’s maximum load 

point. NYCT’s general policy is to provide additional bus service where demand warrants 

increased service, considering financial and operational constraints.
Chapter 3: Transportation

Final 3-21 October 2020

PEDESTRIAN

The determination of significant pedestrian impacts is generally based on comfort and 

convenience characteristics of pedestrian flow and safety considerations. According to the CEQR 

Technical Manual, average pedestrian space on a sidewalk under the Proposed Action with an 

acceptable LOS C or better (greater than 31.5 SF/P) is not considered an impact in CBD areas. If 

the average pedestrian space under the No Action Alternative is between 6.4 and 39.2 SF/P, then 

the determination of whether impacts are identified for the Proposed Action should be determined 

using the formula in Table 3-4, shows a sliding-scale that identifies what decrease in pedestrian 

space is considered an impact for a given amount of pedestrian space.

Table 3-4 

Sidewalk Impact Criteria for CBD Location with Platooned Flow

Baseline Condition Pedestrian Space (sf/ped)*

Build Alternative(s) Condition Ped Flow Increment to be 

Considered a Significant Impact (sf/ped)*

>39.2 Build Alternative Condition < 31.5

38.7 to 39.2 Reduction ≥ 3.8

37.8 to 38.6 Reduction ≥ 3.7

36.8 to 37.7 Reduction ≥ 3.6

35.9 to 36.7 Reduction ≥ 3.5

34.9 to 35.8 Reduction ≥ 3.4

34.0 to 34.8 Reduction ≥ 3.3

33.0 to 33.9 Reduction ≥ 3.2

32.1 to 32.9 Reduction > 3.1 

31.1 to 32.0 Reduction > 3.0 

30.2 to 31.0 Reduction > 2.9 

29.2 to 30.1 Reduction > 2.8 

28.3 to 29.1 Reduction > 2.7 

27.3 to 28.2 Reduction > 2.6 

26.4 to 27.2 Reduction > 2.5 

25.4 to 26.3 Reduction > 2.4 

24.5 to 25.3 Reduction > 2.3 

23.5 to 24.4 Reduction > 2.2 

22.6 to 23.4 Reduction > 2.1 

21.6 to 22.5 Reduction > 2.0 

20.7 to 21.5 Reduction > 1.9 

19.7 to 20.6 Reduction > 1.8 

18.8 to 19.6 Reduction > 1.7 

17.8 to 18.7 Reduction > 1.6 

16.9 to 17.7 Reduction > 1.5 

15.9 to 16.8 Reduction > 1.4 

15.0 to 15.8 Reduction > 1.3 

14.0 to 14.9 Reduction > 1.2 

13.1 to 13.9 Reduction > 1.1 

12.1 to 13.0 Reduction > 1.0 

11.2 to 12.0 Reduction > 0.9 

10.2 to 11.1 Reduction > 0.8 

9.3 to 10.1 Reduction > 0.7 

8.3 to 9.2 Reduction > 0.6 

7.4 to 8.2 Reduction > 0.5 

6.4 to 7.3 Reduction > 0.4 

< 6.4 Reduction > 0.3

Note: * sf/ped = square feet per pedestrian
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 3-22 Final

According to the CEQR Technical Manual, average pedestrian space in a corner or crosswalk 

under the Proposed Action that is at an acceptable LOS C or better (greater than 19.5 SF/P) is not 

considered an impact in CBD areas. If the average pedestrian space under the No Action 

Alternative is between 5.1 and 21.5 SF/P, then the determination of whether the impact is 

considered significant under the Proposed Action would be determined using the formula in Table 

3-5, shows a sliding-scale that identifies what decrease in pedestrian space is considered an impact 

for a given amount of pedestrian space.

Table 3-5 

Crosswalk and Corner Impact Criteria for CBD Location

Baseline Condition Pedestrian 

Space (sf/ped)*

Build Alternative(s) Condition Ped Space Reduction to be 

Considered Significant Impact (sf/ped)*

>21.5 Build Alternative Condition < 19.5

21.3 to 21.5 Reduction ≥ 2.1

20.4 to 21.2 Reduction ≥ 2.0

19.5 to 20.3 Reduction ≥ 1.9

18.6 to 19.4 Reduction ≥ 1.8

17.7 to 18.5 Reduction ≥ 1.7

16.8 to 17.6 Reduction ≥ 1.6

15.9 to 16.7 Reduction ≥ 1.5

15.0 to 15.8 Reduction ≥ 1.4

14.1 to 14.9 Reduction ≥ 1.3

13.2 to 14.0 Reduction ≥ 1.2

12.3 to 13.1 Reduction ≥ 1.1

11.4 to 12.2 Reduction ≥ 1.0

10.5 to 11.3 Reduction ≥ 0.9

9.6 to 10.4 Reduction ≥ 0.8

8.7 to 9.5 Reduction ≥ 0.7

7.8 to 8.6 Reduction ≥ 0.6

6.9 to 7.7 Reduction ≥ 0.5

6.0 to 6.8 Reduction ≥ 0,4

5.1 to 5.9 Reduction ≥ 0.3

< 5.1 Reduction ≥ 0.2

Note: * sf/ped = square feet per pedestrian

The CEQR Technical Manual (page 16-2) also calls for pedestrian and bicycle safety assessments. 

This is not required by NEPA, and the project is not near high crash locations,12

12 Vision Zero View, 30 June 2020, vzv.nyc/.

so this will only 

be conducted if requested.

N. MITIGATION ANALYSIS (IF REQUIRED)

The Proposed Action and its construction and phasing plan will be designed to minimize public 

transit and pedestrian impacts to the maximum extent possible. Potential impacts from the 

construction phase of the Proposed Action may include short-term changes that would be 

coordinated with the public transportation operator during off-peak periods. For pedestrian 

operations during construction, potential mitigation could include low cost readily implementable 

measures such as signal phasing and timing modifications, lane restriping, and pavement marking 

changes. 
Chapter 3: Transportation

Final 3-23 October 2020

However, if significant transportation impacts are identified (using the impact criteria discussed 

above) to occur during the construction phase, mitigation measures would be analyzed. This would 

include a review of the mitigation measures originally established in the 2009 Western Rail Yards 

SEQRA/CEQR FEIS or the lager comprehensive 2004 Hudson Yards FGEIS mitigation program. 

Mitigation elements that were approved but not yet implemented would be evaluated to see if they 

would address identified impacts from this current EIS. Remaining adverse impacts would be 

evaluated for new potential mitigation measures that could be implemented as part of this EIS. 

The EIS will disclose any impacts that cannot be mitigated. 

O. CORRELATION WITH OTHER ANALYSES

The Transit and Pedestrian Analysis is interrelated with the following investigations: Land Use; 

Socioeconomic Conditions; and Environmental Justice. These investigations will use the 

conclusions of the Transit and Pedestrian Analysis to determine if potential impacts or 

improvements affect the outcome of their analyses. 
Final 4-1 October 2020

Chapter 4: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Resilience

4.1 AIR QUALITY

Emissions from stationary sources, mobile sources, and construction sources, all have the potential 

to affect air quality. This chapter describes how FRA will assess the effects of the No Action 

Alternative and the Proposed Action on air quality in the EIS. As described in Chapter 1, 

“Introduction,” the Proposed Action will include the construction of a Platform over the Western 

Rail Yard, including the installation of associated mechanical equipment related to life safety and 

ventilation components of the Platform and LIRR operations and service facilities, and the 

extension of a railroad right-of-way preservation Tunnel Encasement (which would run on a 

diagonal alignment from Eleventh Avenue to 30th Street). The potential for local air quality 

impacts resulting from stationary and construction source will be assessed at sensitive locations 

within a study area extending to at least 400 feet from the Project Site. The Study Area for mobile 

sources will be directly related to the Study Area used for the construction transportation analysis.

This chapter also describes how FRA will estimate the effects of the Proposed Action on 

greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the EIS, and will discuss the Proposed Action’s conformity 

to the current New York City and New York State emission reduction goals and policies as laid 

out in OneNYC 2050 and the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, respectively. 

Finally, this chapter describes how FRA will assess the effect of climate change on the Proposed 

Action in the EIS, in terms of resilience to severe weather events under future conditions affected 

by climate change, and the effect of the Proposed Action on climate change by evaluating GHG 

emissions generated by the construction and operation of the Proposed Action. This analysis 

focuses on the total emissions associated with the construction and operation of new uses to be 

introduced as part of the Proposed Action, and on the effect of measures to reduce those emissions.
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 4-2 Final

A. POLLUTANTS FOR ANALYSIS

Air quality is primarily affected by air pollutants emitted from both mobile (e.g., motor vehicles 

and locomotives) and stationary (e.g., fixed facilities) sources. Ambient concentrations of carbon 

monoxide (CO) are predominantly influenced by mobile source emissions. Particulate matter 

(PM), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and nitrogen oxides (nitric oxide [NO] and nitrogen 

dioxide [NO2]), collectively referred to as NOx) are emitted from both mobile and stationary 

sources. Fine PM is also formed when emissions of NOx, sulfur oxides (SOx), ammonia, organic 

compounds, and other gases react or condense in the atmosphere. Emissions of sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) are associated mainly with stationary sources, and some sources utilizing non-road diesel 

such as large international marine engines. On-road diesel vehicles currently contribute very little 

to SO2 emissions since the sulfur content of on-road diesel fuel, which is federally regulated, is 

extremely low. Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by complex photochemical processes that 

include NOx and VOCs. Ambient concentrations of CO, PM, NO2, SO2, ozone, and lead are 

regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under the Clean Air Act (CAA), 

and are referred to as ‘criteria pollutants’; emissions of precursors (i.e., VOCs, NOx, and SO2) to 

criteria pollutants are also regulated by USEPA.

In general, much of the heavy equipment used in construction is powered by diesel engines that 

have the potential to produce relatively high levels of NOx and PM emissions. Dust generated by 

construction activities is also a source of PM. Gasoline engines produce relatively high levels of 

CO. Since the USEPA mandates the use of ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel for all highway 

and non-road diesel engines, SOx emitted from the construction activities associated with the 

Proposed Action would be negligible. Therefore, the pollutants to be analyzed for the construction 

period are NO2, which is a component of NOx that is a regulated pollutant, particles with an 

aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10), particles with an 

aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), and CO. 

CARBON MONOXIDE

CO, a colorless and odorless gas, is produced in the urban environment primarily by the 

incomplete combustion of gasoline and other fossil fuels. In urban areas, approximately 80 to 90 

percent of CO emissions are from motor vehicles.1

1 Sher, Eran. Handbook of Air Pollution from Internal Combustion Engines – Pollutant Formation and 

Control, 1998.

CO concentrations can diminish rapidly over 

relatively short distances; elevated concentrations are usually limited to locations near crowded 

intersections, heavily traveled and congested roadways, parking lots, and garages. Consequently, 

CO concentrations must be predicted on a local, or microscale, basis.

NITROGEN OXIDES, VOCS, AND OZONE

NOx are of principal concern because of their role, together with VOCs, as precursors in the 

formation of ozone. Ozone is formed through a series of reactions that take place in the atmosphere 

in the presence of sunlight. Because the reactions are slow, and occur as the pollutants are advected 

downwind, elevated ozone levels are often found many miles from sources of the precursor 

pollutants. The effects of NOx and VOC emissions from all sources are therefore generally 

examined on a regional basis. The contribution of any action or project to regional emissions of 

these pollutants would include any added stationary or mobile source emissions.
Chapter 4: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Resilience

Final 4-3 October 2020

In addition to being a precursor to the formation of ozone, NO2 (one component of NOx) is also a 

regulated pollutant. Since NO2 is mostly formed from the transformation of NO in the atmosphere, 

it has mostly been of concern further downwind from large permanent stationary point sources, 

and not a local concern from mobile sources or temporary/intermittent construction sources. (NOx

emissions from fuel combustion consist of approximately 90 percent NO and 10 percent NO2 at 

the source.) However, with the 2010 1-hour average standard for NO2, local sources such as 

construction emissions may become of greater concern for this pollutant, and will be qualitatively 

evaluated for the Proposed Action. 

LEAD 

Airborne lead emissions are currently associated principally with industrial sources. Lead in 

gasoline has been banned under the Clean Air Act, and therefore, lead is not a pollutant of concern 

for this project. Therefore, an analysis of this pollutant is not warranted. 

RESPIRABLE PARTICULATE MATTER—PM10 AND PM2.5

PM is a broad class of air pollutants that includes discrete particles of a wide range of sizes and 

chemical compositions, as either liquid droplets (aerosols) or solids suspended in the atmosphere. 

The constituents of PM are both numerous and varied, and they are emitted from a wide variety 

of sources (both natural and anthropogenic). Natural sources include the condensed and reacted 

forms of naturally occurring VOCs; salt particles resulting from the evaporation of sea spray; 

wind-borne pollen, fungi, molds, algae, yeasts, rusts, bacteria, and material from live and decaying 

plant and animal life; particles eroded from beaches, soil, and rock; and particles emitted from 

volcanic and geothermal eruptions and from forest fires. Naturally occurring PM is generally 

greater than 2.5 micrometers in diameter. Major anthropogenic sources include the combustion of 

fossil fuels (e.g., vehicular exhaust, power generation, boilers, engines, and home heating),

chemical and manufacturing processes, all types of construction, agricultural activities, as well as 

wood-burning stoves and fireplaces. PM also acts as a substrate for the adsorption (accumulation 

of gases, liquids, or solutes on the surface of a solid or liquid) of other pollutants, often toxic, and 

some likely carcinogenic compounds. 

As described below, PM is regulated in two size categories: PM2.5 and PM10, (which includes 

PM2.5). PM2.5 has the ability to reach the lower regions of the respiratory tract, delivering with it 

other compounds that adsorb2

2 Adsorption is the adhesion of atoms, ions, or molecules from a gas, liquid, or dissolved solid to a surface.

to the surfaces of the particles, and is also extremely persistent in 

the atmosphere. PM2.5 is mainly derived from combustion material that has volatilized and then 

condensed to form primary PM (often soon after the release from a source exhaust) or from 

precursor gases reacting in the atmosphere to form secondary PM. 

Diesel-powered vehicles, especially heavy duty trucks and buses, are a significant source of 

respirable PM, most of which is PM2.5; PM concentrations may, consequently, be locally elevated 

near roadways with high volumes of heavy diesel powered vehicles, which are also sources of 

emissions due to brake and tire wear and fugitive road dust.
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 4-4 Final

SULFUR DIOXIDE

SO2 emissions are primarily associated with the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels (oil and 

coal). SO2 is also of concern as a precursor to PM2.5 and is regulated as a PM2.5 precursor under 

the New Source Review permitting program for large sources. Due to the federal restrictions on 

the sulfur content in diesel fuel for on-road and non-road vehicles, no significant quantities are 

emitted from vehicular sources. 

B. REGULATORY CONTEXT 

NATIONAL AND STATE AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

As required by the CAA (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.), primary and secondary National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established for six major air pollutants: CO, NO2, ozone, 

respirable PM (both PM2.5 and PM10), SO2, and lead. The primary standards represent levels that are 

requisite to protect the public health, allowing an adequate margin of safety. The secondary standards 

are intended to protect the nation’s welfare, and account for air pollutant effects on soil, water, 

visibility, materials, vegetation, and other aspects of the environment. The primary and secondary 

standards are the same for NO2 (annual), ozone, lead, and PM, and there is no secondary standard for 

CO and the 1-hour NO2 standard. The NAAQS are presented in Table 4-1. The NAAQS for CO, 

annual NO2, and 3-hour SO2 have also been adopted as the ambient air quality standards for New 

York State, but are defined on a running 12-month basis rather than for calendar years only. New 

York State also has standards for total suspended particles, settleable particles, non-methane hydrocarbons, 24-hour and annual SO2, and ozone which correspond to federal standards that have since 

been revoked or replaced, and for the noncriteria pollutants beryllium, fluoride, and hydrogen sulfide. 

In 2008, an 8-hour ozone standard of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) was established, and the 

previous 1997 8-hour ozone standard was fully revoked effective April 1, 2015. Effective 

December 2015, USEPA lowered the 2008 ozone NAAQS, from 0.075 ppm to 0.070. USEPA 

issued final area designations for the revised standard on April 30, 2018.

NAAQS ATTAINMENT STATUS AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

The CAA, as amended in 1990, defines non-attainment areas (NAA) as geographic regions that 

have been designated as not meeting one or more of the NAAQS. When an area is designated as 

non-attainment by USEPA, the state is required to develop and implement a State Implementation 

Plan (SIP), which delineates how a state plans to achieve air quality that meets the NAAQS under 

the deadlines established by the CAA, followed by a plan for maintaining attainment status once 

the area is in attainment.

In 2002, USEPA re-designated the New York City as in attainment for CO. The area is part of the 

New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island, NY–NJ–CT CO maintenance area. Under the 

resulting maintenance plans, New York is committed to implementing site-specific control 

measures throughout the city to reduce CO levels, should unanticipated localized growth result in 

elevated CO levels during the maintenance period. The second CO maintenance plan for the region 

was approved by USEPA on May 30, 2014.
Chapter 4: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Resilience

Final 4-5 October 2020

Table 4-1 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

Pollutant

Primary

ppm

Primary

μg/m3

Secondary

ppm

Secondary

μg/m3

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

8-Hour Average 9(1) 10,000 None 1-Hour Average 35(1) 40,000

Lead 

Rolling 3-Month Average NA 0.15 NA 0.15

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

1-Hour Average(2) 0.100 188 None

Annual Average 0.053 100 0.053 100

Ozone (O3)

8-Hour Average(3) 0.070 140 0.070 140

Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10)

24-Hour Average(1) NA 150 NA 150

Fine Respirable Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

Annual Mean(4) NA 12 NA 15

24-Hour Average(5) NA 35 NA 35

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 

1-Hour Average(6) 0.075 196 NA NA

Maximum 3-Hour Average(1) NA NA 0.50 1,300

Notes: 

ppm – parts per million (unit of measure for gases only)

μg/m3 – micrograms per cubic meter (unit of measure for gases and particles, including lead)

NA – not applicable

All annual periods refer to calendar year.

Standards are defined in ppm. Approximately equivalent concentrations in μg/m3 are presented.

1 Not to be exceeded more than once per year (on average over 3 years for PM10).

2 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile daily maximum 1-hr average concentration. 

3 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hr average concentration.

4.3-year average of annual mean. 

5 Not to be exceeded by the annual 98th percentile when averaged over 3 years.

6.3-year average of the annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hr average concentration.

Source: 40 CFR Part 50: National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards

Manhattan had been designated as a moderate NAA for PM10. USEPA clarified on July 29, 2015

that the non-attainment designation only applied to the revoked annual standard. 

The five New York City counties and Nassau, Suffolk, Rockland, Westchester, and Orange 

Counties had been designated as a PM2.5 NAA (the New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island, 

NY–NJ–CT NAA) since 2004 under the CAA due to exceedance of the 1997 annual average 

standard, and were also nonattainment with the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS since November 

2009. The area was redesignated as in attainment for that standard effective April 18, 2014, and is 

now under a maintenance plan. As stated above, USEPA lowered the annual average primary 

standard to 12 μg/m3

, effective March 2013. USEPA designated the area as in attainment for the 

12 μg/m3

 NAAQS, effective April 15, 2015. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 4-6 Final

Effective June 15, 2004, USEPA designated Nassau, Rockland, Suffolk, Westchester, and the five 

New York City counties (NY portion of the New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island, NYNJ-CT NAA) as a “moderate” NAA for the 1997 8-hour average ozone standard. In March 2008, 

USEPA strengthened the 8–hour ozone standards, but certain requirements remain in areas that 

were either nonattainment or maintenance areas for the 1997 ozone standard (‘anti-backsliding’). 

USEPA designated the same NAA as a “marginal” NAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, effective 

July 20, 2012. On April 11, 2016, as requested by New York State, USEPA reclassified the area 

as a “moderate” NAA. On July 19, 2017, the New York Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NYSDEC) announced that the New York Metro Area (NYMA) is not projected to 

meet the July 20, 2018 attainment deadline and therefore requested that USEPA reclassify the 

NYMA to "serious" nonattainment. USEPA reclassified the NYMA from “moderate” to “serious” 

NAA, effective September 23, 2019, which imposes a new attainment deadline of July 20, 2021 

(based on 2018–2020 monitored data). On April 30, 2018, USEPA designated the same area as a 

moderate NAA for the revised 2015 ozone standard. SIP revisions are due by August 3, 2021.

New York City is currently in attainment of the annual average NO2 standard. USEPA designated 

the entire state of New York as “unclassifiable/attainment” for the 1-hour NO2 standard effective 

February 29, 2012. Since additional monitoring is required for the 1-hour standard, areas will be 

reclassified once three years of monitoring data are available. 

USEPA has established a 1-hour SO2 standard, replacing the former 24-hour and annual standards, 

effective August 23, 2010. In December 2017, USEPA designated the entire State of New York 

as in attainment for this standard with the exception of Monroe County, which was designated 

“unclassifiable”.

Table 4-2 summarizes the attainment status in New York City. 

Table 4-2 

Attainment Status in New York City

Pollutant Averaging Period Attainment Status

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1-Hour, 8-Hour Attainment1

Particulate Matter (PM10) 24-Hour Nonattainment (Moderate)

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Annual, 24-Hour Attainment2

Ozone (O3) 8-Hour Nonattainment (Serious)

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual, 1-Hour Attainment, Unclassified

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1-Hour Attainment

Notes: 

1 USEPA redesignated the New York City Metropolitan area as in attainment for the 1-hour and 8-hour CO 

NAAQS in 2002. The area is currently under a second maintenance plan.

2 USEPA redesignated the New York area as in attainment for the 1997 annual and 24-hour NAAQS 

effective April 18, 2014. The area is now under maintenance plans.

CONFORMITY WITH STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

The conformity requirements of the CAA and regulations promulgated thereunder (conformity 

requirements) limit the ability of federal agencies to assist, fund, permit, and approve 

transportation projects in non-attainment areas that do not conform to the applicable SIP. 
Chapter 4: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Resilience

Final 4-7 October 2020

Conformity of federal actions related to transportation plans, programs, and projects which are 

developed, funded, or approved under title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. 1601 

et seq.) must be addressed according to the requirements of 40 CFR Part 93 Subpart A (federal 

transportation conformity regulations); all other federal actions are regulated under Subpart B of 

the same section (federal general conformity regulations).

An area’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), together with the State, are responsible for 

demonstrating conformity with respect to the SIP on metropolitan long-range transportation plans 

and TIPs. USEPA must then concur with such conformity determinations. USDOT has final 

approval of conforming plans and TIPs. Transportation projects included in the TIP, by definition, 

conform to the SIP.

The general conformity requirements apply to those federal actions in non-attainment or 

maintenance areas where the action’s direct and indirect emissions have the potential to impact 

one or more of the six criteria pollutants or their precursor pollutants at rates equal to or exceeding 

the prescribed rates. In New York City, the prescribed annual rates are 50 tons of VOCs and NOx

(ozone precursors, ozone serious NAA in transport region), 100 tons of CO (CO maintenance 

area), 100 tons of PM10 (PM10 moderate NAA) and 100 tons of PM2.5, SO2, or NOx (PM2.5 and 

precursors in PM2.5 maintenance area).

The regulation assumes that a proposed federal action whose criteria pollutant emissions have 

already been included in the local SIP’s attainment or maintenance demonstrations conforms to 

the SIP.

In addition to region-wide (mesoscale) emissions, conformity regulations also include provisions 

to ensure that local impacts do not cause or exacerbate exceedances of the NAAQS.

Each federal agency taking action is responsible, separately, for assessing and determining, if 

required, conformity of its action. For the Proposed Action, the lead agency is FRA and general 

conformity applies to the project. Therefore, region-wide emissions will be calculated on an 

annual basis for each year of the Proposed Action’s construction period.

The Proposed Action would include the operation of five (5) emergency diesel generators that 

operate intermittently to provide emergency power to critical functions in the WRY, including the 

ventilation system, in the event of a power failure. Three (3) generators, each rated at 2,500 

kilowatts (kW), would serve the WRY project, while two (2) generators, each rated at 2,000 kW, 

would provide service to the Eastern Rail Yard site, replacing two (2) existing diesel generators, 

with the new generators located near the WRY generators. The new generators will be equipped 

with selective catalytic reduction for control of nitrogen oxides (NOx). The generators will operate 

intermittently for short periods for testing and maintenance. Therefore, annual emissions are 

anticipated to be well below the prescribed rates under general conformity and no further 

assessment is warranted. However, the construction air quality analysis will include any potential 

period of overlap between construction activities and operation of the emergency engines as well 

as address emissions and/or hot spot analyses, as applicable under the general conformity 

requirements. 

The local air quality analyses described below, undertaken for NEPA disclosure purposes, will 

also serve to demonstrate compliance with conformity hotspot requirements, if applicable. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 4-8 Final

C. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

OPERATIONAL AIR QUALITY

The air quality analysis of the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action will assess the 

potential for air quality impacts associated with emission sources. 

The primary emissions that may need to be evaluated are emissions associated with fossil fuelfired systems that are part of the Proposed Action. This may include potential fossil fuel-fired 

equipment and infrastructure related to life safety and ventilation components of the Platform and 

its associated infrastructure (such as venting of diesel locomotive emissions from the area below 

the Platform). 

Life safety equipment is generally intended to operate in the event of an actual emergency 

involving the loss of utility electrical power, or for periodic testing for short periods of time to 

ensure the reliability and availability of the equipment in the event of an actual emergency. If 

required, a quantitative analysis of this equipment will be performed, as discussed in this section. 

The dual-mode (diesel-electric) locomotives entering and leaving Penn Station will continue to 

operate in diesel mode under the proposed Platform in the Western Rail Yard. Diesel-fueled 

delivery, maintenance, and garbage trucks will also continue to operate in the yard. The proposed 

mechanical ventilation system that is a component of the Proposed Action, will exhaust these 

emissions above the Platform.

An analysis will be conducted to determine whether the potential impacts of these emissions would 

adversely impact air quality, as described in detail below. 

EMISSION RATES AND STACK PARAMETERS

Emission rates will be estimated based on the types and sizes of engines operating in the future as 

well as anticipated daily train schedules. 

Short-term and annual emission rates would be estimated based on estimated fuel consumption 

for specific equipment. Fuel consumption associated with the Platform’s emission sources will be 

based on designs of the life safety and ventilation components of the Platform and available

equipment information. 

Stack parameters (stack height, diameter) will be obtained from available design information. The 

exhaust temperature for the below-grade ventilation system will be assumed to be 68°F.
Chapter 4: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Resilience

Final 4-9 October 2020

AERMOD ANALYSIS

Potential air quality impacts will be evaluated using the USEPA American Meteorological 

Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulated Model (AERMOD) Version 19191.3

3 USEPA. User’s Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD). Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. USEPA-454/B-19-027. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. August 2019.

AERMOD is a state-of-the-art dispersion model, applicable to rural and urban areas, flat and complex 

terrain, surface and elevated releases, and multiple sources (including point, area, and volume 

sources). AERMOD is a steady-state plume model that incorporates current concepts about flow and 

dispersion in complex terrain, including updated treatments of the boundary layer theory, understanding of turbulence and dispersion, and includes handling of terrain interactions. The AERMOD model 

calculates pollutant concentrations from one or more points (e.g., exhaust stacks) based on hourly 

meteorological data, and has the capability to calculate pollutant concentrations at locations where 

the plume from the exhaust stack is affected by the aerodynamic wakes and eddies (downwash) produced by nearby structures. The analysis of potential impacts from exhaust stacks was performed 

assuming stack tip downwash, urban dispersion and surface roughness length, with and without building downwash, and elimination of calms. The AERMOD model also incorporates the algorithms from 

the PRIME model, which is designed to predict impacts in the “cavity region” (i.e., the area around a 

structure which under certain conditions may affect an exhaust plume, causing a portion of the plume 

to become entrained in a recirculation region). The Building Profile Input Program (BPIP) program 

for the PRIME model (BPIPRM) will be used to determine the projected building dimensions 

modeling with the building downwash algorithm enabled. The modeling of downwash from sources 

accounts for all obstructions within a radius equal to five obstruction heights of the stack.

METHODOLOGY UTILIZED FOR ESTIMATING NO2 CONCENTRATIONS 

Annual NO2 concentrations from stationary sources will be estimated assuming that all NOx

emitted by these operations is fully transformed to NO2, following USEPA’s Tier 1 guidance. 

EPA has developed further guidance for assessing 1-hour average NO2 concentrations for 

compliance with the NAAQS in their March 1, 2011 Clarification memo.4

4 USEPA Memorandum, “Additional Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W, Modeling 

Guidance for the 1-Hour NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” March 1, 2011. 

This guidance, along 

with guidance from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA),5

5 Modeling Compliance of the Federal 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS”, CAPCOA Guidance Document, October 27, 

2011, http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/Tox_Resources/CAPCOANO2GuidanceDocument10-27-11.pdf

will 

be used to develop representative 1-hour background concentrations based on the latest three years 

of monitored NO2 1-hour concentrations. The seasonal backgrounds will be added to the predicted 

concentrations to determine total NO2 concentrations. Consistent with USEPA and NYSDEC 

guidance, the third highest value from each season (a maximum of 90–92 days) and the hour-ofday averaged over the latest three years of monitored concentrations (2017–2019) will be used for 

the representative background concentration from the Queens College background monitoring station. The seasonal hour-of-day concentrations are determined by organizing all of the NO2 1-hour

concentrations by the hour of the day (1 AM, 2 AM, 3 AM, etc.) for each season of the year in 

descending order and selecting the third highest NO2 concentrations for each hour of the day and 

season. The values are then averaged over the latest three years of monitored concentrations to 

develop representative background concentrations for each season and hour-of-day combination. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 4-10 Final

Total 1-hour NO2 concentrations will be determined following the USEPA “Tier 3” modeling 

approach referenced in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W. The methodology is based on adding 

representative seasonal hour-of-day background concentrations to modeled concentrations, as 

follows: hourly modeled concentrations from pollutant sources are first added to the appropriate 

seasonal hourly background monitored concentrations from the Queens College background 

monitoring station; then the highest combined daily 1-hour NO2 total concentration are determined 

at each location; then the 98th percentile of daily 1-hour maximum concentration for each modeled 

year is calculated within the AERMOD model at each location; finally the 98th percentile 

concentrations are averaged over the latest five years of metrological data at each location 

represent the modeled impact result at each location.

One-hour average NO2 concentration increments from the stationary sources will be estimated 

using AERMOD’s Plume Volume Molar Ratio Method (PVMRM) module to analyze chemical 

transformation within the model. The PVMRM module incorporates hourly background ozone 

concentrations to estimate NOx transformation within the source plume. Ozone concentrations will 

be taken from the NYSDEC Queens College monitoring station, which is the nearest ozone 

monitoring station with a complete five years of hourly data available (2015–2019). Initial NO2

to NOx ratio at a source exhaust stack will be assumed for combustion using USEPA’s database 

of in-stack ratios6

6 USEPA. NOx /NO2 In-Stack Ratio (ISR) Database. https://www.epa.gov/scram/nitrogen-dioxidenitrogenoxide-stack-ratio-isr-database

for specific equipment, which is considered representative. If no appropriate 

source can be determined, a default ratio of 50 percent will be used.7

7 USEPA Memorandum, “Additional Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W, Modeling 

Guidance for the 1-Hour NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” March 1, 2011

 

METEOROLOGICAL DATA

The meteorological data set will consist of five consecutive years of meteorological data provided 

by NYSDEC, with surface data collected at LaGuardia Airport, and concurrent upper air data 

collected at Brookhaven, New York. The meteorological data provide hour-by-hour wind speeds 

and directions, stability states, and temperature inversion elevation over the five-year period. 

RECEPTOR PLACEMENT

Discrete receptors (i.e., locations at which concentrations are calculated) are modeled along the 

existing and proposed building façades to represent potentially sensitive locations such as operable 

windows and intake vents. Rows of receptors at spaced intervals on the modeled buildings will be 

analyzed at multiple elevations. Receptors will also be placed at publicly accessible ground-level 

locations, including sidewalks and open spaces. A map showing the locations of all receptors used 

in the modeling will be included in the EIS documentation.
Chapter 4: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Resilience

Final 4-11 October 2020

Background Concentrations 

To estimate the maximum expected total pollutant concentrations, the calculated impacts from the 

emission sources must be added to a background value that accounts for existing pollutant 

concentrations from other sources (see Table 4-3). The background levels are based on 

concentrations monitored at the nearest NYSDEC ambient air monitoring stations over the most 

recent three-year period for which data are available (2017–2019), with the exception of annual 

NO2, which is based on five years of data, consistent with current DEP guidance (2015–2019). 

For the 24-hour PM10 concentration the highest of the second-highest measured value over the 

three-year period will be used, consistent with applicable guidance. PM2.5 impacts are assessed on 

an incremental basis and will be compared with the CEQR Technical Manual PM2.5 de minimis 

criteria (see Chapter 12, Section 412). The PM2.5 24-hour average background concentration of 

19.67 μg/m3 (based on the 98th percentile concentrations, averaged over 2017 to 2019 was used 

to establish the CEQR Technical Manual de minimis value.

Table 4-3 

Maximum Background Pollutant Concentrations

Pollutant

Average 

Period Location

Concentration 

(μg/m3) NAAQS (μg/m3)

NO2

1-hour IS 52, Bronx 110.6 188

Annual IS 52, Bronx 37.9 100

PM2.5

24-hour Division Street, Manhattan 19.67 35

Annual Division Street, Manhattan 9.0 12

PM10 24-hour Division Street, Manhattan 38 150

Source: New York State Air Quality Report Ambient Air Monitoring System, NYSDEC, 2015–2019.

CONSTRUCTION AIR QUALITY

Emissions from on-site construction equipment and on-road construction vehicles, as well as dustgenerating construction activities, have the potential to affect air quality. The analysis of potential 

construction air quality impacts will include an analysis of the Proposed Action for both on-site 

and on-road sources of air emissions, and the combined impact of both sources, where applicable. 

The analysis will address both local (microscale) and regional (mesoscale) construction period 

emissions. 

The following section outlines the general methodology for the air quality analysis to be 

undertaken in the EIS. Depending on the peak construction activity, its duration, intensity, 

distances to nearby sensitive receptors (i.e., residences, open spaces, etc.), and effects of on-road 

traffic, the construction air quality assessment will contain a detailed qualitative discussion of 

emissions, a quantitative analysis, or a combination of both. The construction periods with 

activities closest to sensitive receptors and with the most intensive activities and highest emissions 

will be selected as the worst-case periods for analysis.

CONSTRUCTION MICROSCALE ANALYSIS (DETAILED QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS)

For a qualitative analysis, emissions will be estimated from construction equipment and vehicles. 

The analysis will then include a qualitative review of the projected activity and equipment in the 

context of emissions intensity, duration, and location relative to nearby sensitive receptors; and identify any project-specific control measures required to further reduce the effects of construction on 

air quality and to eliminate any adverse air quality impacts. Strategies to reduce impacts may include: 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 4-12 Final

• Clean Fuel. ULSD fuel would be used exclusively for all diesel engines throughout the 

construction site.

• Diesel Equipment Reduction. Electrically powered equipment such as welders and saws would 

be used over diesel-powered versions of that equipment, to the extent feasible and practicable. 

• Dust Control Measures. To minimize dust emissions from construction activities, a dust 

control plan, including a watering program, would be required as part of contract 

specifications. For example, all trucks hauling loose material would be equipped with tightfitting tailgates and their loads securely covered prior to leaving the Project Site and water 

sprays would be used for all demolition, excavation, and transfer of soils to ensure that 

materials would be dampened as necessary to avoid the suspension of dust into the air; 

• Idling Restriction. As required by local law, all stationary vehicles on roadways adjacent to 

the Project Site would be prohibited from idling for more than three minutes. The idling 

restriction excludes vehicles that are using their engines to operate a loading, unloading, or 

processing device (e.g., concrete-mixing trucks) or otherwise required for the proper operation 

of the engine. 

• Engine Retrofits. Non-road diesel engines with a power rating of 50 horsepower (hp) or greater 

and controlled truck fleets (i.e., truck fleets under long-term contract with the Proposed 

Action), including but not limited to, concrete mixing and pumping trucks would utilize the 

best available technology (BAT) (e.g., diesel particulate filters) for reducing diesel particulate 

matter emissions. 

• Utilization of Newer Equipment. USEPA’s Tier 1 through 4 standards for non-road engines 

regulate the emission of criteria pollutants from new engines, including PM, CO, NOx, and 

hydrocarbons (HC). All diesel-powered non-road construction equipment with a power rating 

of 50 hp or greater would meet at least the Tier 38

8 The first federal regulations for new non-road diesel engines were adopted in 1994, and signed by USEPA 

into regulation in a 1998 Final Rulemaking. The 1998 regulation introduces Tier 1 emissions standards 

for all equipment 50 hp and greater and phases in the increasingly stringent Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards 

for equipment manufactured in 2000 through 2008. In 2004, the USEPA introduced Tier 4 emissions 

standards with a phased-in period of 2008 to 2015. The Tier 1 through 4 standards regulate the USEPA 

criteria pollutants, including PM, HC, NOx and CO. Prior to 1998, emissions from non-road diesel engines 

were unregulated. These engines are typically referred to as Tier 0. 

emissions standard. Source Location. In 

order to reduce the resulting concentration increments at sensitive receptor locations such as 

residential buildings and publicly accessible open spaces, large emissions sources and 

activities such as concrete trucks and pumps would be located away from these locations to 

the extent practicable. 
Chapter 4: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Resilience

Final 4-13 October 2020

CONSTRUCTION MICROSCALE ANALYSIS (QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS)

For a quantitative analysis, concentrations will be predicted using dispersion models to determine 

the potential for air quality impacts during on-site construction activities and due to constructiongenerated traffic on local roadways. Concentrations for each pollutant of concern due to 

construction activities at each sensitive receptor will be predicted during the most representative 

worst-case time period(s). The potential for significant adverse impacts will be determined by 

comparing modeled concentrations to NAAQS, and modeled increments to applicable CEQR

Technical Manual de minimis thresholds (see Chapter 12, Section 412). As with the detailed 

qualitative analysis approach described above, the quantitative analysis will identify any projectspecific control measures required to reduce the effects of construction and to eliminate any 

significant adverse air quality impacts. 

Section 4.1C, “Operational Air Quality,” above, contains a review of the general methodology for 

stationary and mobile source air quality analyses. Additional details relevant only to the 

construction air quality analysis methodology are presented in the following section.

On-Site Construction Activity Assessment

To determine which construction periods constitute the worst-case periods for the pollutants of 

concern (PM, CO, NO2), construction-related emissions will be calculated for each calendar year 

throughout the duration of construction on a rolling annual and peak day basis for PM2.5. PM2.5 is 

selected for determining the worst-case periods for all pollutants analyzed, because the ratio of 

predicted PM2.5 incremental concentrations to impact criteria is anticipated to be higher than for 

other pollutants. Therefore, initial estimates of PM2.5 emissions throughout the construction years 

will be used for determining the worst-case periods for analysis of all pollutants. Generally, 

emission patterns of PM10 and NO2 would follow PM2.5 emissions, since they scale with diesel 

engine horsepower. CO emissions may have a somewhat different pattern but would also be 

anticipated to be highest during periods when the most activity would occur. Based on the resulting 

multi-year profiles of annual average and peak day average emissions of PM2.5, and the proximity 

of the construction activities to residences and publicly accessible open spaces, worst-case shortterm and annual periods for construction will be identified for dispersion modeling of annual and 

short-term (i.e., 24-hour, 8-hour, and 1-hour) averaging periods. Dispersion of the relevant air 

pollutants from the construction sites during these periods will then be analyzed. Broader 

conclusions regarding potential concentrations during non-peak construction periods, which will 

not be modeled, will be presented as well, based on the multi-year emissions profiles and the 

modeled peak period results.

Engine Emissions

The sizes, types, and number of units of construction equipment will be estimated based on the 

construction activity schedule developed for the Proposed Action. Emission rates for NOX, CO, 

PM10, and PM2.5 from truck engines will be developed using the USEPA Motor Vehicle Emission 

Simulator (MOVES2014b) emission model.

9

9 USEPA, Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES), User Guide for MOVES2014a, November 2015.

Emission factors for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 from 

on-site construction engines, which include exhaust and crankcase emissions, will be developed 

using the NONROAD emission module included in the MOVES2014b emission model.
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 4-14 Final

Dust Emissions

In addition to engine emissions, dust emissions from construction activities (e.g., excavation, 

grading, and transferring of excavated materials into dump trucks) will be calculated based on 

USEPA procedures delineated in AP-42 Table 13.2.3-1.10

10 USEPA, Compilations of Air Pollutant Emission Factors AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point 

and Area Sources, Ch. 13.2.1, NC, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42, January 2011.

 

Analysis Periods

As discussed above, the construction periods with activities closest to sensitive receptors and with 

the most intense activities and highest emissions will be selected as the worst-case periods for 

analysis. 

Source Simulation

For short-term model scenarios (predicting concentration averages for periods of 24 hours or less), 

all stationary sources, such as compressors, pumps, or concrete trucks, which idle in a single 

location while unloading, will be simulated as point sources. Other engines, which would move 

around the site on any given day, will be simulated as area sources. For periods of 8 hours or less 

(less than the length of a shift), it will be assumed that all engines would be active simultaneously. 

All sources would move around the site throughout the year and will therefore be simulated as 

area sources in the annual analyses. 

On-Road Sources Assessment

Since emissions from on‐site construction equipment and on‐road construction‐related vehicles 

may contribute to concentration increments concurrently, on‐road emissions adjacent to the 

construction sites will be included with the on‐site AERMOD dispersion analysis (in addition to 

on‐site truck and non‐road engine activity) to address all local project‐related emissions 

cumulatively.

CONSTRUCTION MESOSCALE ANALYSIS (QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS)

The pollutants of concern on a regional basis are CO, PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SO2, and VOCs. 

Emissions from on-road construction trucks and worker vehicles and from non-road construction 

equipment will be calculated on an annual basis for each year of the Proposed Action’s 

construction period based on the emissions modeling procedures described above for the 

microscale analysis. 

D. DATA SOURCES

Air quality-sensitive receptor locations will be identified based on a review of the 2020 

MapPLUTO 20v4 land use maps. Rail operation data, the preliminary construction schedule, and 

the construction means and methods information (i.e., construction logistics, equipment 

projection, etc.) necessary for the air quality analyses will be provided by the Project Sponsor’s 

design team. In addition, background pollutant concentrations and local meteorological data used 

in the air quality analyses and calculations will be obtained from established government sources. 

Table 4-4 describes the sources of data to be used in the air quality analyses.
Chapter 4: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Resilience

Final 4-15 October 2020

Table 4-4 

Air Quality Analyses Data Sources

Resource Data Source

Receptor Locations Review of MapPLUTO Land Use Maps

Local Meteorological Data

National Weather Service Stations (LaGuardia 

Airport for this Manhattan site); concurrent upper 

air data collected at Brookhaven, New York

Meteorological Data Preprocessing USEPA AERMET Model

Background Pollutant Concentrations New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NYSDEC)

Existing and Proposed Action Future Conditions Project Sponsor Design Team

Construction Schedule and Means and Methods Project Sponsor Design Team

E. IMPACT CRITERIA

The CEQR Technical Manual state that the significance of a predicted consequence of a project 

(i.e., whether it is material, substantial, large or important) should be assessed in connection with 

its setting (e.g., urban or rural), its probability of occurrence, its duration, its irreversibility, its 

geographic scope, its magnitude, and the number of people affected.11

11 New York City. CEQR Technical Manual. Chapter 1, section 222. March 2014

In terms of the magnitude 

of air quality impacts, any action predicted to increase the concentration of a criteria air pollutant 

to a level that would exceed the concentrations defined by the NAAQS (see Table 4-4) at an 

individual receptor would be deemed to have a potential adverse impact. In addition, in order to 

maintain concentrations lower than the NAAQS in attainment areas, or to ensure that 

concentrations will not be significantly increased in NAAs, threshold levels have been defined for 

certain pollutants; any action predicted to increase the concentrations of these pollutants above the 

thresholds would be deemed to have a potential adverse impact, even in cases where violations of 

the NAAQS are not predicted. 

CO DE MINIMIS CRITERIA

New York City has developed de minimis criteria to assess the significance of the increase in CO 

concentrations that would result from the impact of Proposed Projects or actions on mobile 

sources, as set forth in Chapter 17, Section 412.1 of the CEQR Technical Manual. These criteria 

set the minimum change in CO concentration that defines a significant environmental impact. 

Significant increases of CO concentrations in New York City are defined as: (1) an increase of 0.5 

ppm or more in the maximum 8-hour average CO concentration at a location where the predicted 

No Action 8-hour concentration is equal to or between 8 and 9 ppm; or (2) an increase of more 

than half the difference between the No Action Alternative concentrations and the 8-hour standard, 

when No Action concentrations are below 8.0 ppm. 

PM2.5 DE MINIMIS CRITERIA 

The CEQR Technical Manual de minimis criteria, as described in Chapter 17, Section 412.2 and

currently employed for determination of potential significant adverse PM2.5 impacts, are as follows: 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 4-16 Final

• Predicted increase of more than half the difference between the background concentration and 

the 24-hour standard; or 

• Annual average PM2.5 concentration increments that are predicted to be greater than 0.1 μg/m3

at ground level on a neighborhood scale (i.e., the annual increase in concentration representing 

the average over an area of approximately 1 square kilometer, centered on the location where 

the maximum ground-level impact is predicted for stationary sources; or at a distance from a 

roadway corridor similar to the minimum distance defined for locating neighborhood scale 

monitoring stations); or 

• Annual average PM2.5 concentration increments that are predicted to be greater than 0.3 μg/m3

at a discrete or ground level receptor location. 

Actions under CEQR predicted to increase PM2.5 concentrations by more than the CEQR de 

minimis criteria above will be considered to have a potential significant adverse impact. 

While the Proposed Action is not subject to CEQR as a Federal action, FRA will use the above 

CEQR de minimis criteria to evaluate the potential for PM2.5 impacts and determine the need to 

minimize particulate matter emissions resulting from the Proposed Action. 

POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES

If the operation and/or construction of the Proposed Action would result in adverse impacts on air 

quality, the EIS will explore measures to mitigate these impacts to the greatest extent practicable. 

For operational impacts, mobile source impacts could occur due to traffic generated by the 

Proposed Action, which would require an examination of traffic mitigation measures to reduce 

congestion at critical intersections. For stationary sources of emissions, mitigation may include 

restrictions on fuel type, stack heights and locations on fossil fuel fired heating and hot water 

equipment. As discussed above, for temporary construction impacts, mitigation may include, for 

example, use of ULSD, diesel equipment reduction, engine retrofits, utilization of newer 

equipment that meets specified USEPA tier emission standards, location of equipment away from 

sensitive uses, idling restrictions, and dust control measures.

F. CORRELATION WITH OTHER ANALYSES

The air quality analysis will use land use information to identify sensitive receptors. The air quality 

mobile source analysis will use traffic data such as existing traffic counts, projected future growth 

in traffic, and other information developed as part of the construction traffic analysis for the 

Proposed Action. To the extent that any adverse air quality impacts are identified, that information 

would be used to determine if the Proposed Action would have any disproportionate impacts on 

environmental justice populations. 
Chapter 4: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Resilience

Final 4-17 October 2020

4.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND RESILIENCE

As discussed in NYSDEC policy12

12 NYSDEC. DEC Policy: Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact 

Statements. July 15, 2009.

and the CEQR Technical Manual,

13

13 New York City Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination. CEQR Technical Manual. March 2014.

climate change is projected 

to have wide‐ranging effects on the environment, including rising sea levels, increases in 

temperature, and changes in precipitation levels. Although this is occurring on a global scale, the 

environmental effects of climate change are also likely to be felt at the local level. The United 

States, New York State, and New York City have all established sustainability initiatives and goals 

for greatly reducing GHG emissions and for adapting to climate change.

This chapter identifies the proposed methodology that FRA will use in the EIS for assessing 

climate change in relation to the Proposed Action, comprising two sections: (1) the effect of the 

Proposed Action on climate change by evaluating GHG emissions generated by the construction 

and operation of the Proposed Action and its consistency with the state and city GHG reduction 

goals and/or policies, and (2) the effect of climate change on the Proposed Action in terms of 

resilience to severe weather events under future conditions affected by climate change. 

G. REGULATORY CONTEXT 

GREENHOUSE GASES OF CONCERN

GHGs are those gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic, which 

absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of infrared radiation emitted 

by the Earth’s surface, the atmosphere, and clouds. This phenomenon causes the general warming 

of the Earth’s atmosphere, also known as the “greenhouse effect.” Water vapor, carbon dioxide 

(CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane, and ozone are the primary greenhouse gases in the Earth’s 

atmosphere. 

There are also a number of entirely anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as 

halocarbons and other chlorine- and bromine-containing substances, which also damage the 

stratospheric ozone layer (and contribute to the “ozone hole”). Since these compounds are being 

replaced and phased out due to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, there is no need to address them in 

GHG assessments for most projects. Although ozone is technically a greenhouse gas, it does not 

need to be assessed as such at the project level since tropospheric levels are already being 

controlled as a criteria pollutant. Similarly, water vapor is of great importance to global climate 

change, but is not directly of concern as an emitted GHG since the negligible quantities emitted 

from anthropogenic sources are inconsequential. 

CO2 is the primary GHG of concern from anthropogenic sources. Although not the GHG with the 

strongest effect per molecule, CO2 is by far the most abundant and, therefore, the most influential 

GHG. CO2 is emitted from any combustion process (both natural and anthropogenic); from some 

industrial processes such as the manufacture of cement, mineral production, metal production, and 

the use of petroleum-based products; from volcanic eruptions; and from the decay of organic 

matter. CO2 is removed (“sequestered”) from the lower atmosphere by natural processes such as 

photosynthesis and uptake by the oceans. CO2 is included in any analysis of GHG emissions.
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 4-18 Final

Methane and N2O also play an important role since the removal processes for these compounds 

are limited and because they have a relatively high impact on global climate change as compared 

with an equal quantity of CO2. Emissions of these compounds, therefore, are included in GHG 

emissions analyses when the potential for substantial emission of these gases exists.

The CEQR Technical Manual lists six GHGs (see Chapter 18, Section 112) that could potentially 

be included in the scope of a GHG analysis: CO2, N2O, methane, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), 

perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). The analysis of GHGs from the Proposed 

Action will focus mostly on CO2, N2O, and methane. There are no significant direct or indirect 

sources of HFCs, PFCs, or SF6 associated with the Proposed Action.14

14 The gases are associated with leakage from air conditioning and refrigeration systems, and SF6 is mostly 

used electric high voltage and transmission systems as well as other specialty uses.

To present a complete inventory of all GHGs, component emissions are added together and 

presented as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions—a unit representing the quantity of each 

GHG weighted by its effectiveness in changing the energy balance, using CO2 as a reference. This 

is achieved by multiplying the quantity of each GHG emitted by a factor called global warming 

potential (GWP). GWPs account for the lifetime and the radiative forcing15

15 Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a gas has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing 

energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the gas as a GHG.

of each chemical over 

a period of 100 years (e.g., CO2 has a much shorter atmospheric lifetime than SF6, and therefore 

has a much lower GWP, indicating that SF6 is more effective as a GHG overall). The GWPs for 

the main GHGs discussed here are presented in Table 4-5. 

Table 4-5 

Global Warming Potential (GWP) for Major GHGs

Greenhouse Gas 100-year Horizon GWP

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 1

Methane (CH4) 25

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 298

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) 124 to 18,800

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) 7,390 to 12,200

Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 22,800

Note: The GWPs presented above are based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 

Fourth Assessment Report (SAR) of 2007, to maintain consistency in GHG reporting. The IPCC has since 

published updated GWP values that reflect new information on atmospheric lifetimes of GHGs and an 

improved calculation of the radiative forcing of CO2. In some instances, if combined emission factors are 

used from updated modeling tools, some slightly different GWP may have been used for this study. Since 

the emissions of GHGs other than CO2 represent a very minor component of the emissions, these 

differences are negligible.

Source: USEPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014. 2016.
Chapter 4: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Resilience

Final 4-19 October 2020

POLICY, REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND BENCHMARKS FOR REDUCING 

GHG EMISSIONS

There are several regional and local efforts to reduce GHG emissions. In 2009, Governor Paterson 

issued Executive Order No. 24, establishing a goal of reducing GHG emissions in New York State 

by 80 percent, compared with 1990 levels, by 2050, and creating a Climate Action Council tasked 

with preparing a climate action plan outlining the policies required to attain the GHG reduction 

goal; an interim draft plan has been published.16

16 New York State Climate Action Council. New York State Climate Action Plan Interim Report. November 

2010.

The State is now seeking to achieve some of the 

emission reduction goals via local and regional planning and projects through its Cleaner Greener 

Communities and Climate Smart Communities programs. The State has also adopted California’s 

GHG vehicle standards.

The New York State Energy Plan outlines the State’s energy goals and provides strategies and 

recommendations for meeting those goals. The latest version of the plan was published in June 

2015. The new plan outlines a vision for transforming the state’s energy sector that would result 

in increased energy efficiency (both demand and supply), increased carbon-free power production 

and cleaner transportation, in addition to achieving other goals not related to GHG emissions. The 

2015 plan also establishes new targets: (1) reducing GHG emissions in New York State by 40 

percent, compared with 1990 levels, by 2030; (2) providing 50 percent of electricity generation in 

the state from renewable sources by 2030; and (3) increasing building energy efficiency gains by 

600 trillion British thermal units (Btu) by 2030.

New York State has also developed regulations to cap and reduce CO2 emissions from power 

plants to meet its commitment to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Under the RGGI 

agreement, the governors of nine northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states have committed to regulate 

the amount of CO2 that power plants are allowed to emit, gradually reducing annual emissions to 

half the 2009 levels by 2020, and reducing an additional 30 percent from 2020 to 2030. The RGGI 

states and Pennsylvania have also announced plans to reduce GHG emissions from transportation, 

through the use of biofuel, alternative fuel, and efficient vehicles.

Many local governments worldwide, including New York City, are participating in the Cities for 

Climate ProtectionTM campaign and have committed to adopting policies and implementing 

quantifiable measures to reduce local GHG emissions, improve air quality, and enhance urban 

livability and sustainability. New York City’s long-term comprehensive plan for a sustainable and 

resilient New York City, which began as PlaNYC 2030 in 2007, and continues to evolve today as 

OneNYC 2050, includes GHG emissions reduction goals, many specific initiatives that can result 

in emission reductions, and initiatives aimed at adapting to future climate change impacts. The 

goal to reduce citywide GHG emissions to 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 (“30 by 30”) 

was codified by Local Law 22 of 2008, known as the New York City Climate Protection Act (the 

“GHG reduction goal”).17

17Administrative Code of the City of New York, §24‐803.

The City has also announced a longer-term goal of reducing emissions 

to 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 (“80 by 50”), which was codified by Local Law 66 of 

2014, and has published a study evaluating the potential for achieving that goal. More recently, as 

part of OneNYC 2050, the City has announced a more aggressive goal for reducing emissions from 

building energy down to 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 4-20 Final

In December 2009, the New York City Council enacted four laws addressing energy efficiency in 

large new and existing buildings, in accordance with PlaNYC 2030. The laws require owners of 

existing buildings larger than 50,000 square feet to conduct energy efficiency audits and retrocommissioning every 10 years, to optimize building energy efficiency, and to “benchmark” the 

building energy and water consumption annually, using an USEPA online tool. By 2025, 

commercial buildings over 50,000 square feet will also require lighting upgrades, including the 

installation of sensors and controls, more efficient light fixtures, and the installation of submeters, 

so that tenants can be provided with information on their electricity consumption. The legislation 

also creates a local New York City Energy Conservation Code, which along with the Energy 

Conservation Construction Code of New York State (as updated in 2016), requires equipment 

installed during a renovation to meet current efficiency standards.

In April 2019, New York State enacted the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act to 

achieve the GHG reductions goals established in the New York State Energy Plan as well as 

establishing a new long-term goal to reduce statewide GHG by 100 percent, compared with 1990 

levels by 2050. The legislation charges New York State Climate Action Council with establishing 

statewide GHG emission limits and agency regulations to reduce emissions, increase investments 

in renewable energy sources, and ensure that significant portions of investments are made in 

disadvantaged communities. Pursuant to these requirements, the Climate Action Council will 

prepare and approve a scoping plan outlining recommendations for attaining the GHG emission 

limits and reduction goals. A final scoping plan is anticipated to be approved by 2022.

In May 2019, the New York City Council enacted Local Law 97 of 2019—the Climate 

Mobilization Act. For most buildings that exceed 25,000 gsf (excluding electricity/steam 

generation facilities, rent-regulated accommodations, places of public worship, and city-owned 

properties), the City has established annual building emission limits beginning in 2024 and would 

require the owner of a covered building to submit annual reports demonstrating the building is in 

compliance with the current GHG emission limits. For buildings not covered under the GHG 

emissions limits, owners may either demonstrate compliance with the current limits or implement 

specified energy conservation measures where applicable.

A number of benchmarks for energy efficiency and green building design have also been 

developed (green building design considerations include factors such as material selection, which 

affects GHG emissions associated with materials extraction, production, delivery, and disposal.) 

For example, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) system is a benchmark 

for the design, construction, and operation of high-performance green buildings that includes 

energy efficiency components. Similarly, Envision is a voluntary system for benchmarking 

performance and resiliency of physical infrastructure projects. USEPA’s Energy Star is a 

voluntary labeling program designed to identify and promote the construction of new energy 

efficient buildings, facilities, and homes and the purchase of energy efficient appliances, heating 

and cooling systems, office equipment, lighting, home electronics, and building envelopes. 

H. DATA SOURCES

Table 4-6 lists data sources FRA will use to analyze GHG emissions; if during analyses, other 

data sources are used, they will be disclosed in the EIS.
Chapter 4: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Resilience

Final 4-21 October 2020

Table 4-6 

Data Sources for GHG Emissions

Source Type Data Sources

Grid Power eGrid data

New York City GHG inventory data

Mobile Source USEPA MOVES2014b model

USEPA GHG inventory methodologies and data

Construction Materials Lifecycle analyses published by USEPA, Energy Information Administration (EIA), or journals

Information from USGS and manufacturing resources

I. ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

GHG EMISSIONS

Identifying potential GHG emissions from a Proposed Action can help decision makers identify 

practicable opportunities to reduce GHG emissions and ensure consistency with policies aimed at 

reducing overall emissions. There are no established thresholds for assessing the significance of a 

project’s GHG emissions; instead, the analyses seek to identify GHG sources and practicable 

means to reduce them. Therefore, the analysis will present the total GHG emissions potentially 

associated with the Proposed Action and identify measures that would be implemented and 

measures that are still under consideration to limit emissions. 

FRA’s GHG analysis will provide an estimate of the GHG emissions associated with both 

construction and operation of the Proposed Action. The construction analysis will include 

emissions associated with use of electricity, emissions from on-road and non-road vehicle use, 

and emissions embedded in the materials used during construction. These emissions will be 

estimated based on specific estimates of construction activity. 

Operationally, the analysis will include building energy systems, including any systems required 

for the yard equipment and operations associated with the Platform, and emissions associated with 

on-road vehicle use generated by the operation of the Platform and its associated infrastructure, if 

any. Locomotive activity would not be substantially affected by the Proposed Action. 

CO2 is the primary GHG of concern from anthropogenic emission sources and is accounted for in 

the analysis of emissions from all types of projects. GHG emissions for gases other than CO2 will 

be included where practicable or in cases where they comprise a substantial portion of overall 

emissions. The various GHG emissions will be added together and presented as metric tons of 

CO2e emissions per year (see above).

BUILDING ENERGY EMISSIONS

Estimates of emissions resulting from building energy use, including fuel consumption and 

electricity use, will be prepared using projections of fuel and power use developed specifically for 

the Proposed Action by the project engineers and the emission factors referenced in the 2014 GHG 

emissions inventory for New York City18

18 The City of New York Mayor’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability. Inventory of New York 

City Greenhouse Gas Emissions. November 2014.

(which take into account NY grid power sources) or 

appropriate factors such as building energy intensity from the latest available New York City or 

EIA data.
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 4-22 Final

MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS

The number of annual vehicle trips by mode (cars, trucks) that would be generated by construction 

and operation of the Proposed Action will be calculated using the construction data and the 

transportation planning assumptions developed for the air quality analysis. Travel distances for 

construction will be estimated based on information about materials sourcing and disposal, and 

average commuting distances for the area from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey19

19 New York State Department of Transportation. 2009 National Household Travel Survey, New York State 

Add-On for NHTS, Key Table. Table 3: Average Travel Day Person Trip Length by Mode and Purpose. 

2011

and/or other relevant data if applicable. On-road engine emission factors will be calculated based 

on the USEPA MOVES2014b emissions model. 

Construction non-road activity emissions will be calculated by estimating total fuel consumption based 

on detailed engine type and activity data based on the construction activity schedule developed for the 

Proposed Action (hours of operation, daily utilization percentages, and overall utilization percentages) 

and outputs from the NONROAD module of the MOVES2014b emissions model (average load 

factor). Construction nonroad engine emissions will be calculated based on the data developed for the 

air quality analysis, applying the NONROAD module of the MOVES2014b emissions model to 

provide fuel consumption estimates, and fuel emission factors from USEPA inventory methods.

Based on the latest fuel lifecycle model from Argonne National Laboratory,20

20 Argonne National Laboratory. The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in 

Transportation (GREET) Model Software. GREET 1 Version 2016 Revision 1. January 26, 2017.

emissions from 

producing and delivering fuel (well-to-pump) will be estimated to add an additional 25 percent to 

the GHG emissions from gasoline and 27 percent from diesel. The analysis will include total wellto-wheels emissions by applying emission factors and average fuel efficiency rates available from 

USEPA and the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and/or other applicable sources.

CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS EMISSIONS

Emissions embedded in the extraction or recycling, production, and transport of materials, 

including upstream emissions from steel, rebar, aluminum, and cement used for construction will 

be estimated based on quantity estimates for the Proposed Action and on carbon intensity 

information for steel and cement from available lifecycle analyses and other information from 

USEPA and EIA or other sources as applicable. 

POTENTIAL MITIGATION/REDUCTION MEASURES

The analysis will discuss potential measures to reduce GHG emissions, such as energy-efficient 

design and construction options, qualitatively. Where practicable, quantified estimates of emission 

reductions will be included as well.

CORRELATION WITH OTHER ANALYSES

The GHG analysis will draw on energy and emissions analyses developed for the air quality 

analyses, as well as construction information and data developed for the construction analyses. 

Mobile source emissions will rely on data provided by the traffic analysis. The energy assessment 

will draw from the infrastructure analysis being prepared for the Proposed Action.
Chapter 4: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Resilience

Final 4-23 October 2020

J. RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE

REGULATORY CONTEXT AND PROJECTIONS FOR ADAPTATION

The New York State Sea Level Rise Task Force was created to assess potential impacts on the 

state’s coastlines from rising seas and increased storm surge. The Task Force prepared a report of 

its findings and recommendations including protective and adaptive measures.21

21 New York State Sea Level Rise Task Force. Report to the Legislature. December 2010.

The 

recommendations are to provide more protective standards for coastal development, wetlands 

protection, shoreline armoring, and post-storm recovery; to implement adaptive measures for 

habitats; integrate climate change adaptation strategies into state environmental plans; and amend 

local and state regulations or statutes to respond to climate change. The Task Force also 

recommended the formal adoption of projections of sea level rise. 

The New York State Climate Action Plan Interim Report identified a number of policy options 

and actions that could increase the climate change resilience of natural systems, the built 

environment, and key economic sectors—focusing on agriculture, vulnerable coastal zones, 

ecosystems, water resources, energy infrastructure, public health, telecommunications and 

information infrastructure, and transportation.22

22 NYSERDA. New York State Climate Action Plan Interim Report. November 2010.

New York State’s Community Risk and 

Resiliency Act (CRRA)23

23 Community Risk and Resiliency Act. Chapter 355, NY Laws of 2014. April 9, 2013. Signed September 

22, 2014.

requires that applicants for certain State programs demonstrate that they 

have taken into account future physical climate risks from storm surges, sea-level rise and 

flooding, and required NYSDEC to establish official State sea-level rise projections by January 1, 

2016. These projections will provide the basis for State adaptation decisions and are available for 

use by all decision makers. NYSDEC published a draft on November 2, 2015, proposing to adopt 

existing projections for use (see discussion of New York City Panel on Climate Change [NPCC] 

below). CRRA applies to specific State permitting, funding and regulatory decisions, including 

smart growth assessments; funding for wastewater treatment plants; siting of hazardous waste 

facilities; design and construction of petroleum and chemical bulk storage facilities; oil and gas 

drilling, and State acquisition of open space.

In New York City, the Climate Change Adaptation Task Force is tasked with fostering 

collaboration and cooperation between public and private organizations working to build the 

resilience of the city's critical infrastructure against rising seas, higher temperatures, and changing 

precipitation patterns. The Task Force is composed of over 57 New York City and New York State 

agencies, public authorities, and companies that operate, regulate, or maintain critical 

infrastructure in New York City. Led by the Mayor’s office of Resilience and Recovery, the Task 

Force works together to assess risks, prioritize strategies, and examine how standards and 

regulations may need to be adjusted in response to a changing climate.
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 4-24 Final

To assist the task force, the NPCC has prepared a set of climate change projections for the New York 

City region,24

24 New York City Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change Adaptation in New York City: Building a Risk 

Management Response. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. May 2010.

which was subsequently updated,25

25 New York City Panel on Climate Change. Climate Risk Information 2013: Observations, Climate Change 

Projections, and Maps. June 2013. 

and has suggested approaches to create an 

effective adaptation program for critical infrastructure. The NPCC includes leading climatologists, 

sea-level rise specialists, adaptation experts, and engineers, as well as representatives from the 

insurance and legal sectors. The climate change projections include a summary of previously 

published baseline and projected climate conditions throughout the 21st century including heat 

waves and cold events, intense precipitation and droughts, sea level rise, and coastal storm levels 

and frequency. NPCC projected that sea levels are likely to increase by up to 30 inches by the 2050s 

and up to 75 inches by the end of the century (more detailed ranges and timescales are available and 

will be addressed in the analysis). In general, the probability of higher sea levels is characterized as 

“extremely likely,” but there is uncertainty regarding the probability the various levels projected and 

timescale. Intense hurricanes are characterized as “more likely than not” to increase in intensity 

and/or frequency, and the likelihood of changes in other large storms (“Nor’easters”) are 

characterized as unknown. Therefore, the projections for future 1-in-100 coastal storm surge levels 

for New York City include only sea level rise at this time, and do not account for changes in storm 

frequency. These sea level rise projections, applied by both New York State and New York City, 

along with the flood elevations provided in the preliminary flood insurance rate maps available from 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), are the most recent and relevant data for the 

New York City Metropolitan area and will be used for the resiliency analysis. For purposes of 

assessing GHG impacts resulting from the Project, the Study Area is defined as New York City.

There are many additional resources available from various agencies. Some additional resources 

are incorporated here by reference.26

26 NYSEMO. New York State Coastal Counties Hurricane Storm Surge Zones (Map). September 2005. 

METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING CLIMATE ADAPTATION AND RESILIENCE 

MEASURES

DATA SOURCES

Table 4-7 lists the data sources FRA will use to evaluate climate adaptation and resilience 

measures; other sources, if used, will be identified in the EIS.

NYSERDA. Responding to Climate Change in New York State: The ClimAID Integrated Assessment for 

Effective Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in New York State. November 2011 and 2014 

supplements.

FHWA. Climate Change Model Language in Transportation Plans. FHWA-HEP-11-002. November 2010.

USDOT. Climate Adaptation Plan 2014: Ensuring Transportation Infrastructure and System Resilience. 

2014.
Chapter 4: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Resilience

Final 4-25 October 2020

Table 4-7 

Data Sources for Evaluation of Climate Adaptation and Resilience Measures 

Topic Data Sources

Climate Conditions

• New York City Panel on Climate Change reports

• ClimAID reports

• USEPA climate impact and adaptation reports

Current and Projected Flooding

• FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs)

• USGS topographic maps

• New York City Panel on Climate Change reports

Other Climate Impacts • USDOT adaptation plan and other documents

• MTA climate documents

ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

The Proposed Action would introduce critical infrastructure—the Platform over the railyard and 

the Tunnel Encasement—with very long design lifespans (assumed to be greater than 100 years). 

Accordingly, the Proposed Action would be reviewed in the context of climate scenarios projected 

for 2100 (NPCC, as cited above), and interim years (2050s, 2080s) would also be considered for 

adaptive resilience design (i.e., considering potential future resilience measures if necessary which 

may not be implemented by the 2030 analysis year).

The analysis will consider flooding impacts on the Proposed Action as well as any potential for 

affecting other uses. This chapter of the EIS will review the elevations of infrastructure and uses 

introduced by the Proposed Action and any protection measures included such as those that will 

be implemented by the West Side Yard Perimeter Protection Project (considered as part of the No 

Action Alternative) and other relevant measures, identify any potential vulnerabilities, and discuss 

any potential flooding risks identified. If other climate metrics such as changes in precipitation are 

found to be relevant, such as for drainage or other components, they will be evaluated as well. 

CORRELATION WITH OTHER ANALYSES

The climate change adaptation evaluation will not rely on other analyses, although some related 

work will be coordinated with the natural resources and coastal zone consistency analyses. 
Final 5-1 October 2020

Chapter 5: Noise and Vibration

This chapter describes the methodology that FRA will use for assessing the effect of the No Action 

Alternative and the Proposed Action on ambient noise levels and ground-borne vibration in the 

EIS. The methodology describes the purpose of the noise and vibration studies, the types of noise 

and vibration sources, the applicable noise and vibration standards, the sources of noise and 

vibration during the operation and construction of the Proposed Action that will be considered in 

the EIS analyses, and FRA’s approach for assessing the effects of the Proposed Action on ambient 

noise levels and the ground-borne vibration resulting from construction and operation of the 

Proposed Action. 

The infrastructure associated with the Platform component of the Proposed Action would consist 

of new life-safety, mechanical, electrical and ventilation systems, as well as reconstruction and 

upgrades to approximately 20,000 square feet of railroad staff facilities and other LIRR support 

services including existing emergency electrical equipment, and rail car cleaning services (see 

Chapter 1, “Introduction,” for a more detailed description). These components of the Proposed 

Action may have operational noise or vibration and will be considered in operational noise and 

vibration analyses. The Tunnel Encasement and Platform components of the Proposed Action 

would not have any associated operational noise or vibration, so analysis of these Proposed Action 

components will be focused on construction effects. The noise and vibration assessment for 

construction of the Proposed Action will include construction effects from all components of the 

Proposed Action (i.e., Platform, Infrastructure, and Tunnel Encasement).

A. INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS 

AIRBORNE NOISE

Operation of the infrastructure associated with the Platform has the potential to result in noise at 

surrounding receptors. Any unwanted sound constitutes noise. Noise receptors are any locations 

of frequent human use where noise would have the potential to interfere with typical activities; 

such locations would include residences, schools, hospitals, open spaces, etc. Construction of the 

Proposed Action has the potential to result in noise at receptors surrounding the construction 

staging and laydown areas, as well as along routes to and from these areas due to construction 

truck and worker vehicle trips. FRA will examine the operation and construction of the Proposed 

Action to determine whether the level of noise produced at surrounding sensitive receptors would 

constitute an adverse impact.
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 5-2 Final

VIBRATION AND GROUND-BORNE NOISE

Vibration refers to oscillatory motion of solid objects, including ground and/or structures. Fixed 

railway operations have the potential to produce high vibration levels, since railway vehicles 

contact a rigid steel rail with steel wheels. Train wheels rolling on the steel rails create vibration 

energy that is transmitted into the track support system. The amount of vibrational energy is 

strongly dependent on such factors as how smooth the wheels and rails are and the vehicle 

suspension system. The vibration of the track structure “excites” the adjacent ground, creating 

vibration waves that propagate through the various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby 

buildings. As the vibration propagates from the foundation through the remaining building 

structure, certain resonant, or natural, frequencies of various components of the building may be 

excited.

Operation of the infrastructure associated with the Platform component of the Proposed Action 

may have the potential to result in increased vibration at nearby receptors. Construction of the 

Proposed Action has the potential to result in vibration at receptors surrounding the Project Site

where pile installation would occur. This construction vibration could occur as a result of on-site 

impact equipment. FRA will examine construction and operation of the Proposed Action to 

determine whether the level of vibration produced at nearby receptors would constitute an adverse 

impact.

B. NOISE AND VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS

AIRBORNE NOISE FUNDAMENTALS

Quantitative information on the effects of airborne noise on people is well documented. If 

sufficiently loud, noise may adversely affect people in several ways. For example, noise may 

interfere with human activities, such as sleep, speech communication, and tasks requiring 

concentration or coordination. It may also cause annoyance, hearing damage, and other 

physiological problems. Several noise scales and rating methods are used to quantify the effects 

of noise on people. These scales and methods consider such factors as loudness, duration, time of 

occurrence, and changes in noise level with time. However, all the stated effects of noise on people 

are subjective. 

Sound pressure levels are measured in units called “decibels” (dB). The particular character of the 

noise that we hear is determined by the rate, or “frequency,” at which the air pressure fluctuates, 

or “oscillates.” Frequency defines the oscillation of sound pressure in terms of cycles per second. 

One cycle per second is known as 1 Hertz (Hz). People can hear over a relatively limited range of 

sound frequencies, generally between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz, and the human ear does not perceive 

all frequencies equally well. High frequencies are more easily discerned and therefore more 

intrusive than many of the lower frequencies.
Chapter 5: Noise and Vibration

Final 5-3 October 2020

“A”-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL (dBA)

To bring a uniform noise measurement that simulates people’s perception of loudness and 

annoyance, the decibel measurement is weighted to account for those frequencies most audible to 

the human ear. This is known as the A-weighted sound level, or “dBA,” and because of the 

weighting based on human perception, it is the most often used descriptor of noise levels where 

community noise is the issue. As shown in Table 5-1, the threshold of human hearing is defined 

as 0 dBA; very quiet conditions (as in a library, for example) are approximately 40 dBA; levels 

between 50 dBA and 70 dBA define the range of normal daily activity; levels above 70 dBA are 

considered noisy, and then loud, intrusive, and deafening as the scale approaches 130 dBA. For 

most people to perceive an increase in noise, it must be at least 3 dBA. At 5 dBA, the change will 

be readily noticeable (Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 1973). An increase of 10 dBA is generally 

perceived as a doubling of loudness.

Table 5-1 

Common Noise Levels 

Sound Source (dBA)

Military jet, air raid siren 130

Amplified rock music 110

Jet takeoff at 500 meters 100

Freight train at 30 meters 95

Train horn at 30 meters 90

Heavy truck at 15 meters

Busy city street, loud shout 80

Busy traffic intersection

Highway traffic at 15 meters, train 70

Predominantly industrial area 60

Light car traffic at 15 meters, city or commercial areas or 

residential areas close to industry

Background noise in an office 50

Suburban areas with medium density transportation

Public library 40

Soft whisper at 5 meters 30

Threshold of hearing 0

Note A 10 dBA increase in level appears to double the loudness, 

and a 10 dBA decrease halves the apparent loudness.

Source: Cowan, James P. Handbook of Environmental Acoustics. 

Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1994. Egan, M. David, 

Architectural Acoustics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1988.
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 5-4 Final

Combinations of different sources are not additive in an arithmetic manner, because of the decibel 

scale’s logarithmic nature. For example, two noise sources—a vacuum cleaner operating at 

approximately 72 dBA and a telephone ringing at approximately 58 dBA—do not combine to 

create a noise level of 130 dBA, the equivalent of a jet airplane or air raid siren (see Table 5-1). 

In fact, the noise produced by the telephone ringing may be masked by the noise of the vacuum 

cleaner and not be heard. The logarithmic combination of these two noise sources would yield a 

noise level of 72.2 dBA. 

EFFECTS OF DISTANCE ON NOISE 

Noise varies with distance. For example, highway traffic 50 feet away from a receptor (such as a 

person listening to the noise) typically produces sound levels of approximately 70 dBA. The same 

highway noise measures 66 dBA at a distance of 100 feet, assuming soft ground conditions (such 

as grass). This decrease is known as “drop-off.” The outdoor drop-off rate for a line source, such 

as a railway, is a decrease of approximately 4.5 dBA (for soft ground) for every doubling of 

distance between the noise source and receptor. For hard ground (such as concrete), the outdoor 

drop-off rate is 3 dBA for line sources. Assuming soft ground, for a point source, such as a 

stationary piece of construction equipment (e.g., a drill rig), the outdoor drop-off rate is a decrease 

of approximately 7.5 dBA for every doubling of distance between the noise source and receptor 

(for hard ground the outdoor drop-off rate is 6 dBA for point sources).1

1 FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA-VA-90-1003-06. 

NOISE DESCRIPTORS USED IN IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The sound-pressure level unit of dBA describes a noise level at just one moment, but since very 

few noises are constant, other ways of describing noise over more extended periods have been 

developed. One way of describing fluctuating sound is to describe the fluctuating noise heard over 

a specific period as if it were a steady, unchanging sound (i.e., as if it were averaged over that time 

period). For this condition, a descriptor called the “equivalent sound level” (Leq) can be computed. 

Leq is the constant sound level that, in a given situation and period (e.g., 1 hour, denoted by Leq[1], 

or 24 hours, denoted as Leq[24]), conveys the same sound energy as the actual time-varying sound.

A descriptor for cumulative 24-hour exposure is the day-night average sound level, abbreviated 

as Ldn. This is a 24-hour measurement that accounts for the moment-to-moment fluctuations in Aweighted noise levels due to all sound sources, combined. Mathematically, the Ldn noise level is 

the energy average of all Leq(1) noise levels over a 24-hour period, where nighttime noise levels 

(10 PM to 7 AM) are increased by 10 dBA before averaging because of increased noise sensitivity 

during nighttime when people are typically sleeping.

Following guidance in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidance manual, Transit Noise 

and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA Report No. 0123, September 2018), either the maximum 

Leq(1) sound level or the Ldn sound level is used for impact assessment, depending on land use 

category as described below in section 5D, under “Impact Criteria.” 
Chapter 5: Noise and Vibration

Final 5-5 October 2020

VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS

Fixed railway operations have the potential to produce high vibration levels, since railway vehicles 

contact a rigid steel rail with steel wheels. Train wheels rolling on the steel rails create vibration 

energy that is transmitted into the track support system. The amount of vibrational energy is 

strongly dependent on such factors as how smooth the wheels and rails are and the vehicle 

suspension system. The vibration of the track structure “excites” the adjacent ground, creating 

vibration waves that propagate through the various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby 

buildings. As the vibration propagates from the foundation through the remaining structure, certain 

resonant, or natural, frequencies of various components of the building may be excited.

Vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions in which there is no “net” movement. When an 

object vibrates, any point on the object is displaced from its initial “static” position equally in both 

directions so that the average of all its motion is zero. Any object can vibrate differently in three 

mutually independent directions: vertical, horizontal, and lateral. It is common to describe 

vibration levels in terms of velocity, which represents the instantaneous speed at a point on the 

object that is displaced. In a sense, the human body responds to average vibration amplitude, which 

is usually expressed in terms of the root mean square (rms) amplitude.

The effects of ground-borne vibration may include discernable movement of building floors, 

rattling of windows, and shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls. In extreme cases, the 

vibration can cause damage to buildings. The vibration of floors and walls may cause perceptible 

vibration, rattling of such items as windows or dishes on shelves. The movement of building 

surfaces and objects within the building can also result in a low-frequency rumble noise. The 

rumble is the noise radiated from the motion of the room surfaces, even when the motion itself 

cannot be felt. This is called ground-borne noise.

All vibration levels will be referenced to 1x10-6 inches per second as is recommended in FTA and 

FRA guidance. “VdB” (referenced to 1x10-6 inches per second) is used for vibration decibels to 

reduce the potential for confusion with noise decibels.

EFFECT OF PROPAGATION PATH

Vibrations are transmitted from the source to the ground, and propagate through the ground to the 

receptor. Soil conditions have a strong influence on the levels of ground-borne vibration. Stiff 

soils, such as some clay and rock, can transmit vibrations over substantial distances. Sandy soils, 

wetlands, and groundwater tend to absorb movement and thus reduce vibration transmission. 

Because subsurface conditions vary widely, measurement of actual vibration conditions, or 

transfer mobility, at the site can be the most practical way to address the variability of propagation 

conditions.

HUMAN RESPONSE TO VIBRATION LEVELS

Although the perceptibility threshold for ground-borne vibration is about 65 VdB, the typical 

threshold of human annoyance is 72 VdB. As a comparison, buses and trucks rarely create 

vibration that exceeds 72 VdB unless there are significant bumps in the road, and these vehicles 

are operating at moderate speeds. Vibration levels for typical human and structural responses and 

sources are shown in Table 5-2. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 5-6 Final

Table 5-2 

Typical Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration 

Human/Structural Response Velocity Level (VdB) Typical Sources (at 50 feet)

Threshold, minor cosmetic damage fragile 

buildings

100 Blasting from construction projects

Bulldozers and other heavy tracked 

construction equipment

Difficulty with vibration-sensitive tasks, 

such as reading a video screen

90

Locomotive powered freight train

Residential annoyance, infrequent events 80 Rapid Transit Rail, upper range

Commuter Rail, typical range

Residential annoyance, frequent events

Bus or Truck over bump

70 Rapid Transit Rail, typical range

Limit for vibration-sensitive equipment. 

Approximate threshold for human 

perception of vibration

Bus or truck, typical

60

Typical background vibration

50

Source: U.S. Dept. of Transportation, FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Sept 2018.

C. REGULATORY CONTEXT

FRA will use procedures described in the FTA guidance manual, Transit Noise and Vibration 

Impact Assessment (FTA Report No. 0123, September 2018) in the analysis of noise and vibration 

associated with the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. While FRA is the Federal 

lead agency for this EIS, the procedures set forth in the FTA guidance manual have been adopted 

by FRA for analysis of noise and vibration resulting from non-high-speed (i.e., 90 mph or below) 

rail projects. Since the Project Site is within New York City, FRA will also consider impact criteria 

from the guidelines included in the CEQR Technical Manual to identify potential noise and 

vibration impacts. 

OPERATIONAL AIRBORNE NOISE

The analysis of airborne noise associated with operation of the Proposed Action will use 

procedures set forth in the FTA guidance manual. Following the methodologies set forth in this 

document, FRA will analyze airborne noise impacts using a three-step process that consists of a 

screening procedure, a general noise assessment, and a detailed noise analysis. FRA will perform 

the screening procedure first to determine whether any noise-sensitive receptors are within 

distances where impacts are likely to occur. If the screening reveals that there are noise-sensitive 

receptors in locations where impacts are likely to occur, then FRA will perform a general noise 

assessment to determine locations where noise impacts could occur. If this general assessment 

indicates that a potential for noise impact does exist, then a detailed noise analysis may be 

necessary. FRA will use the FTA’s detailed analysis methodology to predict impacts and evaluate 

the effectiveness of mitigation with greater precision than can be achieved with the general noise 

assessment. 
Chapter 5: Noise and Vibration

Final 5-7 October 2020

OPERATIONAL VIBRATION AND GROUND-BORNE NOISE

While neither the Platform nor Tunnel Encasement components of the Proposed Action would 

result in any operational vibration and ground-borne noise at surrounding receptors, the LIRR 

infrastructure associated with the Platform may generate operational vibration or ground-borne 

noise. FRA will conduct an operational vibration and ground-borne noise assessment for that 

aspect of the Proposed Action.

CONSTRUCTION

The analysis of noise and vibration associated with construction of the Proposed Action will also 

use the general quantitative analysis procedures described in the FTA guidance manual. 

D. EFFECTS ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

STUDY AREA

The Study Area for the operational and construction airborne noise studies will include receptors 

surrounding the Project Site and along routes that vehicular traffic associated with the Proposed 

Action would use to travel. For each noise and/or vibration source included in the Proposed 

Action, FRA will identify a screening distance based on the FTA guidance manual, and will 

identify any noise-sensitive land uses within those distances. The area within the screening 

distance of each noise and/or vibration source will constitute the Study Area. FRA will identify 

this area and the noise receptors located within the area as part of the noise and vibration analyses. 

DATA SOURCES

FRA will review existing land uses for the Study Area as described above, and will categorize 

noise-sensitive receptor locations according to the Land Use Categories from the FTA guidance 

manual, which are described below. Based on the types of receptors identified, FRA will select 

noise survey locations, and will develop a noise survey program to measure existing noise levels 

in the Study Area. FRA will select the noise survey locations to provide geographic coverage of 

the Study Area, account for the various noise sources throughout the area (including rail activity, 

vehicular traffic, aircraft activity, industrial sources, etc.), determine the range of Affected 

Environment Existing Condition noise levels throughout the Study Area, and represent those 

locations with the greatest potential to experience a significant increase in noise levels associated 

with the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action. The noise survey will include a combination 

of 24-hour continuous noise level measurements and 1-hour short-term noise measurements taken 

in compliance with FTA guidance manual procedures. At locations where 1-hour noise level 

measurements are conducted, 24-hour noise levels will be determined by prorating, according to 

FTA guidance manual methods the 1-hour noise level based on the 24-hour distribution of noise

levels at the nearest 24-hour noise measurement location if necessary. During each noise level 

measurement, FRA will record and document weather conditions, physical geometry of the 

surrounding area, and contributing noise sources. The Project Sponsors will provide FRA the 

information necessary for the predictive noise and vibration analyses. Table 5-3 describes the 

sources of data to be used in the noise and vibration analyses. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 5-8 Final

Table 5-3 

Noise and Vibration Analysis Data Sources 

Data/Information Source

Receptor Locations Review of land use maps and on-site land use 

observations

Existing Noise Levels To be field measured 

Existing and Proposed Future vehicular traffic 

information To be provided by Traffic Analysis

Existing rail operation information MTA-LIRR

Information on infrastructure associated with 

proposed platform (e.g., equipment specs, 

operational patterns, locations, etc.)

30% and 60% design reports and engineering 

drawings provided by the Project Sponsors

Construction logistics, schedule, and equipment 

information

To be provided by Project Sponsors for all three 

Project components: Platform, Tunnel Encasement, 

and overbuild Mixed-Use Development

ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

OPERATIONAL AIRBORNE NOISE

FRA will analyze operational airborne noise levels using the following procedures:

• Identify noise-sensitive land uses (i.e., residential, church, certain parks, etc.) within the 

screening distance(s) from noise sources included in the Proposed Action. 

• Select representative noise receptor sites within the Study Area, as described above. 

• Monitor existing noise levels at the selected receptor sites by performing field measurements 

and using acoustical fundamentals. For sites at which direct access to conduct noise level 

measurements is not available, FRA will perform measurements at a nearby location with a 

comparable level of noise.

• If applicable for a particular receptor site, FRA will calculate existing rail noise exposure using 

FTA’s general assessment methodology and data associated with the Affected Environment 

Existing Conditions in the rail yard. The existing rail noise exposure will consist of all railrelated noise sources, including ventilation and signal equipment. 

• Calculate future Project Noise Exposure associated with rail sources resulting from the No 

Action Alternative using FTA general assessment methodology.

• Calculate future Project Noise Exposure associated with rail sources resulting from the 

Proposed Action using FTA general assessment methodology. 

• Calculate non-rail noise levels in the future with the No Action Alternative and Proposed 

Action based on projected future changes in vehicular traffic using noise modeling techniques 

as described in the CEQR Technical Manual. 

• Determine total Project Noise Exposure with the No Action Alternative or Proposed Actions 

at each receptor site as the sum of noise exposure from rail sources and vehicular traffic as 

described above. 

• Compare the difference in noise exposure between the No Action Alternative and the 

Proposed Action to the FTA and CEQR Technical Manual noise impact criteria to identify 

potential impacts. 
Chapter 5: Noise and Vibration

Final 5-9 October 2020

CONSTRUCTION AIRBORNE NOISE

Analysis of airborne noise associated with construction of the Proposed Action will use the general 

analysis procedures described in the FTA guidance manual. Noise resulting from the operation of 

construction equipment on-site at a specific receptor location near a construction site is calculated 

by computing the sum of the noise produced by all pieces of equipment operating at the 

construction site. For each piece of equipment, the noise levels at a receptor site are a function of 

the following: 

• The noise emission level of the equipment; 

• A usage factor, which accounts for the percentage of time the equipment is operating;

• The distance between the piece of equipment and the receptor;

• Topography and ground effects; and

• Shielding.

Similarly, noise levels resulting from construction traffic are a function of the following:

• The noise emission levels of the type of vehicle (i.e., auto, light-duty truck, heavy-duty truck, 

bus, etc.);

• Vehicular speed;

• The distance between the roadway and the receptor;

• Topography and ground effects; and

• Shielding.

The analysis will assume a confluence of worst-case conditions—peak project-generated 

construction traffic, peak construction, and lowest ambient noise levels for Affected Environment 

Existing Conditions. This methodology results in a conservative estimate of impacts. FRA will 

calculate the noise effects resulting from construction activities, taking into account the noise 

power levels of the noise sources, attenuation with distance, attenuation due to shielding, etc. 

Based on the projected schedule of construction the expected duration of projected construction, 

FRA will also establish noise levels at each receptor. FRA will compare the projected construction 

noise levels at each receptor to the FTA construction noise impact criteria and CEQR Technical 

Manual construction noise impact criteria to determine the potential for construction noise 

impacts.

OPERATIONAL VIBRATION AND GROUND-BORNE NOISE

The FTA vibration analysis methodology begins with a vibration screening to determine whether 

any vibration-sensitive receptors are within a distance where an impact is likely to occur. For each 

receptor identified within the screening distances, FRA will analyze the vibration and groundborne noise associated with operation of the Proposed Action using the general analysis procedures 

described in the FTA guidance manual. The analysis will assume the most conservative propagation 

of vibration from source to receptor and will not account for any reduction in vibration due to soil 

conditions. FRA will compare the predicted vibration levels to the FTA vibration criteria (see 

Table 5-5) to identify potential operational vibration impacts associated with the Proposed Action.
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 5-10 Final

CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION AND GROUND-BORNE NOISE

FRA will analyze the vibration and ground-borne noise associated with construction of the 

Proposed Action using the general analysis procedures described in the FTA guidance manual. For 

each construction work area using impact equipment (e.g., pile driver, rock excavation equipment, 

etc.), FRA will project the vibration levels to nearby receptors and compare them to FTA vibration 

impact criteria. 

IMPACT CRITERIA

OPERATIONAL AIRBORNE NOISE

FRA will consider impact criteria from both FTA and CEQR Technical Manual guidance in 

evaluating operational airborne noise impacts. 

The FTA guidance manual defines noise criteria based on the specific type of land use that would 

be affected, with explicit operational noise impact criteria for three land use categories. These 

impact criteria are based on either peak 1-hour Leq or 24-hour Ldn values. Table 5-4 describes the 

land use categories defined in the FTA report, and provides noise metrics used for determining 

operational noise impacts. As described in Table 5-4, categories 1 and 3—which include land uses 

that are noise-sensitive, but where people do not sleep—require examination using the 1-hour Leq

descriptor for the noisiest peak hour. Category 2, which includes residences, hospitals, and other 

locations where nighttime sensitivity to noise is very important, requires examination using the 

24-hour Ldn descriptor.

Table 5-4 

FTA’s Land Use Category and Metrics for Transit Noise Impact Criteria

Land Use 

Category

Noise Metric 

(dBA) Description of Land Use Category

1 Outdoor Leq(h)*

Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in the intended purpose. This category 

includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet, and such land uses as outdoor amphitheaters 

and concert pavilions, as well as National Historic Landmarks with significant outdoor use. 

Also included are recording studios and concert halls.

2 Outdoor Ldn

Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category includes homes, 

hospitals, and hotels, where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of utmost 

importance.

3 Outdoor Leq(h)*

Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes schools, 

libraries, and churches, where it is important to avoid interference with such activities as 

speech, meditation, and concentration on reading material. Places for study or meditation 

associated with cemeteries, monuments, museums, campgrounds and recreational facilities 

can also be considered to be in this category. Certain historical sites and parks are also 

included.

Note: * Leq for the noisiest hour of transit-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity.

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, September 2018.
Chapter 5: Noise and Vibration

Final 5-11 October 2020

Figure 5-1, which references Figure 3-2 in the FTA guidance manual, shows FTA’s noise impact 

criteria for transit projects. The FTA impact criteria are keyed to the noise level generated by the 

project (called “project noise exposure”) in locations of varying existing noise levels. Two types 

of impacts—moderate and severe—are defined for each land use category, depending on existing 

noise levels. Thus, where existing noise levels are 55 dBA, for land use categories 1 and 2, the 

respective Leq and Ldn noise exposure from the project would create moderate impacts if they were 

above approximately 55 dBA, and would create severe impacts if they were above approximately 

61 dBA. For category 3, a project noise exposure level above approximately 60 dBA would be 

considered a moderate impact, and above approximately 66 dBA would be considered a severe 

impact. The qualitative difference between “severe impact” and “moderate impact” is that a severe 

impact occurs when a change in noise level occurs that a significant percentage of people would 

find annoying, while a moderate impact occurs when a change in noise level occurs that is 

noticeable to most people but not necessarily sufficient to result in strong adverse reactions from 

the community. Evaluation of operational airborne noise using FTA’s noise impact criteria present 

a conservative evaluation under the CEQR Technical Manual noise impact criteria, and a separate 

evaluation is not necessary. 

OPERATIONAL VIBRATION AND GROUND-BORNE NOISE

The FTA criteria for environmental impact from ground-borne vibration and noise are based on 

the maximum levels for a single event. The impact criteria as defined in the FTA guidance manual 

are shown in Tables 5-5a and 5-5b. The criteria for acceptable ground-borne vibration are 

expressed in terms of RMS velocity levels in decibels and the criteria for acceptable ground-borne 

noise are expressed in terms of A-weighted sound level. As shown in the table, the FTA 

methodology provides three different impact criteria—one for “infrequent” events, when there are 

fewer than 30 vibration events per day, one for “occasional” events, when there are between 30 

and 70 vibration events per day, and one for “frequent” events, when there are more than 70 

vibration events per day. These impacts occur only if a project causes ground-borne noise or 

vibration levels that are higher than existing vibration levels. Thus, if the vibration level for a 

building in Category 1 is already 70 VdB (5 VdB above the 65 VdB threshold listed in Tables 

5-5a and 5-5b) but a hypothetical project will not increase that level, then the project will not be 

considered to have an impact.
8.20.20

Figure 5-1 

FTA Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects

WESTERN RAIL YARD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT

80 

75 

70 

65 

60 

55 

50 

45 

40 

85 

80 

75 

70 

65 

60 

55 

50 

45 

Project Noise Exposure, Category 1 and 2

Land Uses (dBA) 

Project Noise Exposure, Category 3

Land Uses (dBA) 

Note: 

Noise exposure is in terms 

of Leq(h) for Category 

1 and 3 land uses, Ldn for 

Category 2 land uses. 

Moderate

Impact

Moderate 

Impact 

Severe Impact Severe Impact 

No Impact No Impact 

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA) 

Source: Transit Noise and 

Vibration Impact Assessment, 

FTA-VA-90-1003-06, 

May 2006 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 5-12 Final

Table 5-5a 

Ground-Borne Vibration (GBV)

Impact Criteria for General Assessment

Land Use Category

GBV Impact Levels 

(VdB re 1 microinch/sec) 

Frequent Events1

GBV Impact Levels 

(VdB re 1 microinch/sec) 

Occasional Events2

GBV Impact Levels 

(VdB re 1 microinch/sec) 

Infrequent Events3

Category 1: Buildings where vibration would 

interfere with interior operations 65 VdB4 65 VdB4 65 VdB4

Category 2: Residences and buildings where 

people normally sleep 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB

Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily 

daytime use 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB

Notes:

Vibration-sensitive equipment is not sensitive to ground-borne noise.

1 “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most rapid 

transit projects fall into this category.

2 “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most 

commuter trunk lines have this many operations.

3 “Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. This category 

includes most commuter rail systems.

4 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as 

optical microscopes. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to 

define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often requires special 

design of the HVAC systems and stiffened floors.

Table 5-5b 

Ground-Borne Noise (GBN)

Impact Criteria for General Assessment

Land Use Category

GBN Impact Levels 

(dB re 20 micro 

Pascals) 

Frequent Events1

GBN Impact Levels 

(dB re 20 micro 

Pascals) 

Occasional Events2

GBN Impact Levels 

(dB re 20 micro 

Pascals) 

Infrequent Events3

Category 1: Buildings where vibration would 

interfere with interior operations N/A4 N/A4 N/A4

Category 2: Residences and buildings where 

people normally sleep 35 dBA 38 dBA 43 dBA

Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily 

daytime use 40 dBA 43 dBA 48 dBA

Notes:

Vibration-sensitive equipment is not sensitive to ground-borne noise.

1 “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most rapid 

transit projects fall into this category.

2 “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most 

commuter trunk lines have this many operations.

3 “Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. This category 

includes most commuter rail systems.

4 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as 

optical microscopes. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to 

define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often requires special 

design of the HVAC systems and stiffened floors.
Chapter 5: Noise and Vibration

Final 5-13 October 2020

The limits are specified for the three land use categories defined below:

• Category 1: High Sensitivity – Buildings where low ambient vibration is essential for the 

operations within the building, which may be well below levels associated with human 

annoyance. Typical land uses are vibration-sensitive research and manufacturing, hospitals, 

and university research operations.

• Category 2: Residential – This category covers all residential land uses and any buildings 

where people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals. No differentiation is made between different 

types of residential areas. This is primarily because ground-borne vibration and noise are 

experienced indoors and building occupants have practically no means to reduce their 

exposure. Even in a noisy urban area, the bedrooms often will be quiet in buildings that have 

effective noise insulation and tightly closed windows. Hence, an occupant of a bedroom in a 

noisy urban area is likely to be just as sensitive to ground-borne noise and vibration as 

someone in a quiet suburban area.

• Category 3: Institutional – This category includes schools, churches, other institutions, and 

quiet offices that do not have vibration-sensitive equipment, but still have the potential for 

activity interference.

There are some buildings, such as concert halls, TV and recording studios, auditoriums, and theaters 

that can be very sensitive to vibration and ground-borne noise, but do not fit into any of these three 

categories. Special vibration level thresholds, shown in Tables 5-6a and 5-6b, are defined in the 

FTA guidance manual for these land uses that have special sensitivity to vibration and ground-borne 

noise.

Table 5-6a 

Ground-Borne Vibration (GBV)

Impact Criteria for Special Buildings

Type of Building or Room

GBV Impact Levels 

(VdB re 1 micro-inch/sec) 

Frequent Events1

GBV Impact Levels 

(VdB re 1 micro-inch/sec) 

Occasional or Infrequent Events2

Concert Halls 65 VdB 65 VdB

TV Studios 65 VdB 65 VdB

Recording Studios 65 VdB 65 VdB

Auditoriums 72 VdB 80 VdB

Theaters 72 VdB 80 VdB

Notes: 

This table is new for the FEIS.

If the building will rarely be occupied when the trains are operating, there is no need to consider impact.

1 “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most rapid 

transit projects fall into this category.

2 “Occasional or Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 70 vibration events per day. This category 

includes most commuter rail systems.
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 5-14 Final

Table 5-6b 

Ground-Borne Noise (GBN)

Impact Criteria for Special Buildings

Type of Building or Room

GBN Impact Levels 

(dB re 20 micro Pascals)

Frequent Events1

GBN Impact Levels 

(dB re 20 micro Pascals) 

Occasional or Infrequent Events2

Concert Halls 25 dBA 25 dBA

TV Studios 25 dBA 25 dBA

Recording Studios 25 dBA 25 dBA

Auditoriums 30 dBA 38 dBA

Theaters 35 dBA 43 dBA

Notes: 

This table is new for the FEIS.

If the building will rarely be occupied when the trains are operating, there is no need to consider impact.

1 “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most rapid 

transit projects fall into this category.

2 “Occasional or Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 70 vibration events per day. This category 

includes most commuter rail systems.

CONSTRUCTION AIRBORNE NOISE

FRA will use impact criteria from both FTA and CEQR Technical Manual guidance to evaluate 

construction airborne noise impacts. 

The FTA guidance manual specifies separate noise impact thresholds for daytime construction 

and night-time construction. The impact thresholds for construction are 90 dBA (Leq, 1h) during 

daytime hours and 80 dBA (Leq, 1h) during nighttime hours, assessed for the two noisiest pieces of 

equipment for each phase of construction.

Chapter 22, Section 100, of the CEQR Technical Manual breaks construction duration into “shortterm” and “long-term” and states that construction noise is not likely to require analysis unless it 

“affects a sensitive receptor over a long period of time.” Consequently, the construction noise 

analysis considers both the potential for construction of a project to create high noise levels (the 

“intensity”), and whether construction noise would occur for an extended period of time (the 

“duration”) in evaluating potential construction noise effects. As recommended in the CEQR 

Technical Manual the above-described operational noise impact criteria are considered in 

examining the intensity of construction noise. The concept of short-term and long-term is 

considered in evaluating the duration of construction noise. 
Chapter 5: Noise and Vibration

Final 5-15 October 2020

CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION

Table 5-7 and Table 5-8 show architectural and structural damage risk and perceptibility 

thresholds for residential and historic structures in proximity to the types of construction activities 

that would occur during construction of the Proposed Action. Architectural damage includes 

cosmetic damage, such as cracked plaster, etc. Architectural damage is not considered potentially 

dangerous. As shown in Table 5-7, pile driving has the greatest potential to result in architectural 

damage to most building types. While not shown in the table, controlled blasting also can result 

in high vibration levels in excess of 100 VdB with resultant damage to existing structures. Most 

other construction activities require very small (i.e., less than 25 feet) distances between the 

structure and the construction equipment or the presence of highly fragile buildings for impacts to 

occur. For fragile and highly fragile buildings respectively, FTA recommends a limit of peak 

particle velocities of 0.2 and 0.12 inches per second or 94 and 90 VdB.

Table 5-7 

Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment

Equipment PPV at 25 ft (in/sec) Approximate Lv* at 25 ft

Pile Driver (impact) 0.644 104

Pile Driver (sonic) 0.170 93

Clam Shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94

Hydromill (slurry wall in soil) 0.008 66

Hydromill (slurry wall in rock) 0.017 75

Vibratory Roller 0.210 94

Hoe Ram 0.089 87

Large bulldozer 0.089 87

Caisson drilling 0.089 87

Loaded trucks 0.076 86

Jackhammer 0.035 79

Small bulldozer 0.003 58

Note: * RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) re 1 micro-inch/second

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006.

Table 5-8 

Construction Vibration Damage Criteria

Building Category PPV (in/sec) Approximate Lv *

I. Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102

II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98

III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94

IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90

Note: * RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) re 1 micro-inch/second

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006.

POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES

If the Proposed Action is found to have potential adverse noise or vibration impacts, avoidance 

and/or mitigation measures will be considered. Potential operational noise avoidance and/or 

mitigation measures may include vehicle or equipment noise specifications or operational 

restrictions, and/or building noise insulation. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 5-16 Final

Potential construction noise avoidance and/or mitigation measures may include noise barriers or 

equipment enclosures, truck route restrictions, changes to equipment placement, changes to 

operation sequencing and/or scheduling, or selection of alternative construction equipment or 

methods. Potential construction vibration avoidance and/or mitigation measures may include truck 

route restrictions, changes to equipment placement, changes to operation sequencing and/or 

scheduling, or selection of alternative construction equipment or methods. If necessary, FRA may 

specify a program for compliance enforcement, potentially including noise monitoring, vibration 

monitoring, and/or a method of informing the public and responding to complaints, as mitigation.

E. CORRELATION WITH OTHER ANALYSES 

As described above, the noise and vibration resource category analyses will draw on land use 

information to identify sensitive receptors. In addition, the noise and vibration analysis will use 

traffic data such as existing traffic counts, projected future growth in traffic, and other information 

developed as part of the construction traffic analysis. To the extent that any adverse noise and 

vibration impacts are identified, that information would be used to determine if the Proposed 

Action would have any disproportionate impacts to environmental justice populations. FRA will 

address the potential noise and vibration effects on any identified threatened and endangered 

species associated with construction or operation of the Proposed Action in the natural resources 

chapter of the EIS. In addition, in accordance with CEQR Technical Manual guidance, if any 

adverse impacts relating to noise and vibration are identified, an analysis of the potential impacts 

to public health will be performed. 
Final 6-1 October 2020

Chapter 6: Cultural Resources

This chapter describes the methodology that FRA will use to identify and evaluate potential effects 

to historic properties and archaeological resources (collectively, “cultural resources”) from the 

Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project in the NEPA process. The cultural resources analysis

will specifically: 1) identify previously evaluated and unevaluated cultural resources within the 

Project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE); 2) evaluate the potential eligibility of newly identified 

cultural resources for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP or NR); and 3) 

assess the potential effects of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action on cultural 

resources, including properties that are listed on the NR, determined eligible for listing on the NR 

as part of this undertaking, or determined eligible for listing on the NR as part of previous federal 

undertakings (i.e., historic properties that have been previously determined NR eligible but have 

not been formally listed). This methodology will be provided to the New York State Office of 

Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP)/New York State Historic Preservation 

Office (NYSHPO) for review and comment. 

A. REGULATORY CONTEXT

FRA has determined that the Project constitutes an undertaking under Section 106 of NHPA, 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 agency responsible for compliance 

with Section 106 for this Project. FRA will conduct all required consultations and prepare all 

required analyses and determinations of effect. Section 106 requires that lead federal agencies take 

into account the effects of their actions on any historic properties, including National Historic 

Landmarks, National Register-listed, and/or National Register-eligible properties within the APE 

established for the undertaking. 

The Section 106 process will be integrated with NEPA compliance processes in accordance with 

the Section 106 regulations at 36 CFR § 800.8 and a guidance document put forth by the ACHP 

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 U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (see Chapter 19, “Section 4(f) 

Evaluation”). 

The procedures of Section 14.09 of the New York State Historic Preservation Act (SHPA) do not 

apply to federal undertakings, and any review and comment by NYSHPO must be within the 

framework of Section 106 regulations (New York State Historic Preservation Act § 14.09[2]). 

Therefore, the cultural resources study for the Project will fulfill cultural resource compliance 

obligations under NEPA and Section 106. FRA will consult with NYSHPO and other consulting 

parties to identify historic properties that have the potential to be affected by the No Action 

Alternative and Proposed Action and determine the nature of the potential effects on those 

properties. Formal submissions to NYSHPO during the Section 106 process will be made through 

NYSHPO’s online Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS).
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 6-2 Final

If FRA determines that historic properties would be adversely affected as a result of the 

undertaking, and these effects cannot be avoided, FRA will consult with NYSHPO and other 

consulting parties (including ACHP if applicable) to develop and implement measures to minimize 

and/or mitigate such effects, which would be stipulated in a Section 106 agreement document 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or Programmatic Agreement (PA).

B. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Identification and analysis of the Project’s potential effects to historic properties will be 

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

Section 106 regulations.

CONSULTATION

As specified by the Section 106 regulations at 36 CFR § 800.2(c), FRA has identified and invite 

appropriate parties to participate in the review and consultation process as consulting parties. 

Section 106 consulting parties for the undertaking will include NYSHPO, federally and state 

recognized Native American tribes, local historic governments, local preservation organizations, 

and organizations and individuals with a demonstrated interest in the undertaking and its potential 

effects on historic properties. FRA sought NYSHPO input on potential consulting parties and send 

invitation letters accordingly.1

1 FRA sent initial Section 106 consultation invitation letters to the NYSHPO on July 3, 2020, to Federally 

recognized Native American tribes on July 29, 2020, and to ACHP and other identified potential 

Consulting Parties on August 6, 2020. 

FRA also solicited participation from interested parties during the 

Project’s EIS Scoping Meeting. Once the consulting parties are established, FRA will consult with 

them as appropriate and provide relevant project materials to solicit their review and comment 

throughout the Section 106 process.

The ACHP, which promulgates the Section 106 implementing regulations and also provides 

guidance and advice concerning the implementation of the Section 106 process, may choose to 

participate in the Section 106 process when it determines that its involvement is necessary to 

ensure that the purposes of Section 106 and the NHPA are met (36 CFR § 800.2[b]). 

Shortly after initiating Section 106 consultation with NYSHPO, FRA formally notified the ACHP 

about the Project, and asked whether or not it wishes to participate in the Section 106 consultation 

process. If ACHP initially declines to participate, FRA will still provide notification as required 

by 36 § CFR 800.6 (a)(1) if an adverse effect finding is made, and invite the ACHP to participate 

in the development of an MOA or PA to resolve adverse effects.

Public outreach and involvement opportunities utilized by FRA for purposes of NEPA may be 

used to satisfy the public involvement requirements under Section 106, as long as such 

opportunities are adequately advertised for such purposes and the EIS contains adequate 

information about FRA’s efforts to identify and assess the undertaking’s effects on historic 

properties. The EIS Scoping process and public comment period provided an opportunity for 

public participation and comment. In addition, the public comment period of the Draft EIS, 

including public hearing(s), will also provide opportunity for public involvement and comment on 

the Project’s potential effects on cultural resources. 
Chapter 6: Cultural Resources

Final 6-3 October 2020

C. STUDY AREA

A required step in the Section 106 process is determining and documenting the APE, 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]). Historic properties are buildings, structures, sites, objects, or districts that are listed in 

or eligible for listing in the NRHP. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an 

undertaking. The Section 106 APE, and the Study Area for assessing the Project’s potential 

impacts on cultural resources pursuant to NEPA in the EIS, will be the same. 

The APE includes the area in which historic properties may be affected by the undertaking. In 

general, potential effects on historic properties can include demolition, physical alteration, or 

damage, including effects caused by vibration; isolation of a historic property from its surrounding 

environment; and the introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric (e.g., pollutants) elements

that are out of character with a historic property or that alter its historic setting and context (36 

CFR § 800.5(a)(1). FRA will establish the APE based on proposed construction activities for the 

Build Alternative(s) and its potential to affect historic properties, including potential constructionrelated and indirect effects, including from the privately funded, as-of-right mixed-use 

development (Overbuild). 

The proposed APE is consistent with the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS. It encompasses the area 

within 800 feet of the Project Site boundaries, and the Project Site itself. The proposed APE 

encompasses a sufficiently large area to account for construction-related effects as well as the 

permanent visual impacts of the Project, including potential indirect effects of the Overbuild. The 

APE takes into consideration topography, vegetation, and the existing built environment that 

diminish sight lines. Field reconnaissance and information provided by the Project Sponsor 

regarding the characteristics of the Project components were utilized to help define the proposed 

APE. The analysis of potential effects to below-ground (archaeological) resources will be limited 

to the area of anticipated ground disturbance for construction activities, which is within the 

Western Rail Yard site boundary.

On July 3, 2020, FRA submitted a memorandum to NYSHPO that formally delineated the 

proposed APE, including a written description and supporting graphics, for NYSHPO review and 

concurrence. In its response to FRA dated August 3, 2020, NYSHPO concurred with FRA’s 

proposed APE. FRA will provide the memorandum to the consulting parties as part of the Section 

106 consultation to solicit comments and input. In its response to FRA dated August 3, 2020, 

NYSHPO also noted that it has no archaeological concerns with the proposed undertaking.
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 6-4 Final

D. DATA SOURCES 

Historic properties are defined as buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that are over 50 

years old, possess integrity, and meet the NR criteria for evaluation, as defined by 36 CFR part 60 

(the National Register of Historic Places).2

2 Under the NR Criteria for Evaluation, properties that achieved significance within the past 50 years shall 

not be considered eligible for the National Register, unless they meet Criteria Consideration G 

(exceptional importance).

Resource categories to be identified within the APE 

will include National Historic Landmarks (NHLs); National Register listed or eligible resources 

(NR-listed/eligible); and State Register-listed (SR-listed) resources that have either been 

previously identified and evaluated, or are identified during field surveys for the Project and are 

found to meet one or more NR eligibility criteria.

FRA will identify historic properties located in the APE and review previous reports and data that 

include the APE, including the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS prepared for the Western Rail Yard 

Project and the 2013 NEPA EA and 2014 NEPA Supplemental EA prepared for the Tunnel 

Encasement Project. FRA will also conduct additional desktop research and fieldwork as 

appropriate to assess current conditions, particularly any changes in the above-ground/built 

environment since 2009 and 2013/2014, including a review of databases and paper files 

maintained by NYSHPO (see Table 6-1). 

Table 6-1 

Cultural Resource Analysis Data Sources

Resource Data Source

Historic Properties 

• Surveys; 

­ Previously completed relevant environmental documents/cultural resources 

studies (e.g., Western Rail Yard 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS, and NEPA 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the Construction of a Concrete 

Casing Extension in Hudson Yards [2014]); 

• NYSHPO databases/documents on file; 

• Lists of locally designated properties; 

• Information available at state and local repositories (including the New York City 

Landmarks Preservation Commission), historic maps, and other relevant sources 

to identify age, history, and significance of properties such as books and historic 

newspaper articles; and 

• Resources identified through scoping/public outreach/consulting parties.

Archaeological 

Resources 

• Site visits; 

• Previously completed relevant environmental documents/archaeological studies 

(e.g., Western Rail Yard 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS, and NEPA Supplemental 

Environmental Assessment for the Construction of a Concrete Casing Extension in 

Hudson Yards [2014]); 

• Previous environmental studies (e.g., boring data); 

• NYSHPO databases/documents on file; 

• Files located at the New York State Museum (NYSM); 

• Site files and compliance reports available at the local level (including the New 

York City Landmarks Preservation Commission); 

• Archival and cartographic sources available through state, local and online 

repositories including books, journals, historic newspaper articles, and historic 

maps; 

• Geophysical survey data; and 

• Resources of concern identified through scoping/public outreach/consulting parties.
Chapter 6: Cultural Resources

Final 6-5 October 2020

IDENTIFICATION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES

FRA will prepare a Historic Architectural Resources Background Study (HARBS) and Effects 

Assessment for submission to NYSHPO. The HARBS and Effects Assessment will be prepared in 

accordance with NYSHPO’s Standards for Cultural Resources Investigations.

The HARBS and Effects Assessment will provide information regarding historic properties in the 

APE including: a) review of properties identified in the APE for the Western Rail Yard project 

and in other previously completed relevant environmental documents and cultural resources 

studies within the APE; b) verification of the presence/conditions of resources identified in 

previously completed relevant environmental documents and cultural resources studies; c) a 

review of the APE to identify if there are properties that require evaluation if they have reached 

an age of 50 years subsequent to the preparation of the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS or other 

previously completed relevant environmental documents and cultural resources studies; d) 

evaluation of any portions of the APE that have not been previously surveyed to identify potential 

historic properties; and e) assessment of the Project’s potential effects on all identified historic 

properties (see “Criteria of Adverse Effect” section, below). 

For any potentially NR-eligible properties identified, FRA will make a determination regarding 

NR eligibility and will seek NYSHPO’s concurrence with this determination. FRA will submit 

the HARBS and Effects Assessment to NYSHPO and the consulting parties, which will provide 

consulting parties an opportunity to provide input into the identification of historic properties in 

the APE. Where applicable, FRA will obtain data on locally designated or surveyed resources in 

the APE from local government entities, local historical societies, local libraries, and/or municipal 

historians. For previously identified historic properties where no updates are required to address 

changes in condition over time or integrity, existing NYSHPO survey forms will be appended to 

the HARBS and Effects Assessment. 

Using the Western Rail Yard project evaluated in the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS as a basis, 

because of the overlap in the Study Areas for the previous Western Rail Yard project and the 

proposed Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project, the HARBS will also contain a historic context 

that focuses on broad themes such as settlement patterns, economic development, development of 

regional transportation systems, and major events of historic significance. The purpose of the 

historic context is to provide an increased understanding of the built environment of the APE as it 

has changed over time.

FRA will provide a historic properties field survey to confirm conditions in areas previously 

surveyed for the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS, to evaluate if there are properties in previously 

surveyed areas that have reached the 50 years of age criterion, and to identify potentially NReligible historic properties. FRA team members who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History, codified under 36 CFR part 61 will 

conduct or oversee the survey. The purpose of the survey will be to identify known historic 

properties within the APE, and to make recommendations to FRA regarding S/NR-eligibility if 

they meet the NR criteria for evaluation and retain integrity. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 6-6 Final

IDENTIFICATION OF 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 NR 

criteria for evaluation as defined by 36 CFR part 60.3

3 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.

As described above, the Project has previously been reviewed by NYSHPO and the New York 

City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC), and the Western Rail Yard site has been 

determined to not be an archaeologically sensitive area. The 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS relied on 

the assessment of potential archaeological sensitivity prepared for the 2004 No. 7 Subway 

Extension-Hudson Yards Rezoning and Development Program FGEIS (2004 Hudson Yards 

FGEIS), which concluded that the Western Rail Yard was not an archaeologically sensitive area, 

based on LPC’s review of contextual studies, historic maps, and existing subsurface information, 

including boring logs, to confirm prior subsurface disturbance as well as the likelihood of initial 

resource deposition. The historical maps of the study area referenced in the cultural analyses 

conducted for the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS, the 2004 Hudson Yards FGEIS, and 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 area has previously been subject to extensive 

ground disturbance from construction of the Western Rail Yard. In its response to FRA dated 

August 3, 2020 (referenced above), NYSHPO noted that it has no archaeological concerns with 

the proposed undertaking. 

E. ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

After FRA has established the APE with concurrence from NYSHPO and historic properties 

within the APE have been identified, FRA will evaluate the potential for the No Action Alternative 

and Proposed Action to adversely affect such properties, in accordance with the criteria of adverse 

effect (36 CFR 800.5[a]) as described below. 

F. CRITERIA OF ADVERSE EFFECT

FRA will apply the criteria of adverse effect in Table 6-2 to determine if historic properties would 

be adversely affected by the undertaking. FRA’s effects determination will be contained in the 

Effects Assessment. For any historic properties that would be adversely affected by the 

undertaking, FRA, in consultation with NYSHPO and other consulting parties, will seek ways to 

avoid or minimize those adverse effects. FRA will include measures to avoid or minimize adverse 

effects as stipulations in an MOA or PA. 
Chapter 6: Cultural Resources

Final 6-7 October 2020

Table 6-2 

Criteria of Adverse Effects

Criteria of an Adverse 

Effect

“An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the 

characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register 

in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics 

of an historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original 

evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include 

reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther

removed in distance or be cumulative.”

Examples of Adverse 

Effects

Adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to:

1. Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property; 

2. Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, 

stabilization, hazardous material remediation and provision of handicapped access, that is 

not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (36 CFR Part 68) and applicable guidelines; 

3. Removal of the property from its historic location; 

4. Change of the character of the property’s use or physical features within the property’s setting 

that contribute to its historic significance; 

5. Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the 

property’s significant historic features; 

6. Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and 

deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to an 

Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization; 

7. Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of Federal ownership or control without adequate and 

legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the 

property’s historic significance. 

Source: 36 CFR 800.5[a][1] and 36 CFR 800.5[a][2].

G. MITIGATION ANALYSIS

FRA will consult with NYSHPO, the consulting parties, and the ACHP (if participating), to 

develop mitigation measures for any identified adverse effects. Mitigation measures will be set 

forth in a Section 106 agreement document (PA or MOA) to be executed among FRA, NYSHPO, 

the Project Sponsor, ACHP (if participating), and any consulting parties that may be interested in 

being concurring parties to the document or established by FRA as invited signatories if they will 

have responsibilities related to implementation of the mitigation measures. The EIS will document 

the measures identified in the Section 106 agreement document. The Section 106 agreement 

document would be either an MOA or a PA, respectively, depending on whether FRA anticipates 

that all historic properties and Project effects to those properties will be known by the conclusion 

of the NEPA process, or whether there is a need for phased and/or future identification and 

evaluation efforts after conclusion of the NEPA process. 

SECTION 106 COORDINATION WITH NEPA EIS

The results of the Section 106 process will be described in detail in the EIS in a dedicated cultural 

resources chapter, and a determination of impacts on cultural resources will be made pursuant to 

NEPA in the EIS. The results of the Section 106 process will include the establishment of the 

APE; a summary of the prior and updated determination of archaeological sensitivity by 

NYSHPO, the HARBS that will identify cultural resources, and the Effects Assessment that will 

assess potential effects to cultural resources within the APE; and steps taken in consultation with 

NYSHPO, ACHP and other consulting parties to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to 

cultural resources if any such effects are identified. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 6-8 Final

Public outreach and involvement opportunities utilized by FRA for purposes of NEPA may be 

used to satisfy the public involvement requirements under Section 106, as long as such 

opportunities are adequately advertised for such purposes and the EIS contains adequate 

information regarding FRA’s efforts to identify and assess to Project’s effects on historic 

properties. Therefore, advertisements for the Draft EIS public hearing will identify that this is an 

opportunity for the public to participate in the Section 106 process. FRA formally initiated the 

Section 106 process through a letter submitted to the NYSHPO on July 3, 2020. The NEPA 

scoping process began on July 1, 2020, with the Scoping Presentation being made available to the 

public beginning on that date, which provided the public with an opportunity to provide comments 

with respect to cultural resources that could help inform the Section 106 process. The Draft EIS 

will contain information regarding the establishment of the APE, identification of cultural 

resources, and assessment of effects on identified cultural resources. The Draft EIS will be subject 

to a public comment period, allowing an opportunity for public review and comment on the 

Project’s effects on cultural resources, including at public hearings that will be held to solicit 

public comments on the Draft EIS. 

Measures to resolve any adverse effects would be contained in the Section 106 agreement 

document (MOA or PA), with a draft of the Section 106 agreement to be included in the DEIS for 

public comment. The Section 106 agreement will be executed prior to FRA’s issuance of the 

NEPA Record of Decision (ROD).

H. CORRELATION WITH OTHER ANALYSES

Information from the cultural resources analysis will be used to inform other resource category 

analyses in the EIS. Cultural resources will be considered in the identification of visual resources 

in the aesthetic and visual quality analysis, and the results of the cultural resources analysis FRA 

will prepare pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA will inform the Section 4(f) analyses with 

respect to historic properties. In addition, the analyses of potential effects on cultural resources 

will utilize information from the land use and noise and vibration assessments undertaken for the 

Project. 
Final 7-1 October 2020

Chapter 7: Parks and Recreation Areas

This chapter identifies the methodology that FRA will use to identify parks and recreation areas 

(also referred to as open spaces) and to evaluate the potential construction-related and operational 

effects of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action on those resources. In addition, Section 

4(f) resources will be identified in this chapter and inform the evaluation of Section 4(f) resources 

discussed in Chapter 19. As Section 4(f) also include historic properties, Chapter 6, “Cultural 

Resources,” will identify historic properties that may be affected and included in the Section 4(f) 

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

Area; therefore, this methodology will not address assessment of impacts to those resources.

A. REGULATORY CONTEXT

FRA will follow 23 CFR part 771 and relevant CEQ guidelines for the EIS analysis of the Project’s 

potential to impact sites devoted to recreational activities, including impacts on non-site-specific 

activities, such as bicycling, and impacts on non-activity-specific sites, such as designated “open 

space,” will follow 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 771 and relevant CEQ guidelines.

The analysis will also follow Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966. Section 4(f) prohibits 

Department of Transportation agencies from approving any program or project that requires the 

“use” of any publicly owned parkland, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge; or any 

land from a publicly or privately owned historic site of national, state, or local significance 

(collectively, “Section 4(f) properties”), unless a) the agency determines that the use of the 

property will have a de minimis impact; or b) there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative 

to the use of the land, and the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the Section 

4(f) property. In making its Section 4(f) determinations, FRA follows 23 CFR part 774. In 

addition, FRA considers FHWA’s Section 4(f) guidance, known as the Section 4(f) Policy Paper.1

1 FHWA, Section 4(f) Policy Paper, July 20, 2012.

More details on the Section 4(f) methodology FRA will follow for this Project can be found in 

Chapter 19, “Section 4(f) Evaluation.” 

In New York, temporary or long-term use of publicly owned parkland under the jurisdiction of a 

municipality (i.e., city, county, town, or village) for non-park purposes constitutes alienation, and 

requires the approval of the New York State Legislature. Parkland “alienation” occurs when a 

municipality wishes to sell, lease, or discontinue municipal parkland, including subsurface 

easements beneath parkland. Authorization is required in the form of legislation enacted by the 

New York State Legislature and approved by the governor. Alienation is not required for State 

parkland.2

2 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Handbook on the Alienation and 

Conversion of Municipal Parkland in New York, 2012, p. 20. http://nysparks.com/publications/

documents/AlienationHandbook.pdf

The analysis will consider the applicability of this regulation to the Proposed Action.
Western Rail Yards Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 7-2 Final

B. STUDY AREA

The general Study Area for effects on parks and open space will be a radius of 1⁄2-mile from the 

Project Site (as defined in Chapter 1, “Introduction,” and shown in Figure 1-2), generally bounded 

by West 43rd Street to the north, Seventh Avenue to the east, West 21st Street to the south, and 

the Hudson River to the west.

C. DATA SOURCES

All publicly accessible parks and open spaces located within the Study Area will be inventoried 

using information from the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYC Parks), 

Hudson River Park Trust, and GIS mapping layers, including data from NYCDCP, as well as 

information provided in the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS (updated as appropriate to reflect changed 

conditions in the Study Area). 

Table 7-1 

Parks and Recreation Area Analysis Data Sources

Analysis Area Data Source

Parks, Open Space, and Recreation Areas

The New York City Department of Parks and 

Recreation (NYC Parks)

Hudson River Park Trust

NYCDCP data

GIS mapping layers

Field visits

2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS

D. ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

In the absence of FRA-specific guidance for assessment of parks and recreation areas, the analysis 

will be prepared in accordance with the methodology outlined in Chapter 7, “Open Space,” of the

CEQR Technical Manual. 

Under the CEQR Technical Manual analysis methodology guidelines, the first step in the analysis 

of parks and recreation areas is to define a Study Area (see above) and map the resources within 

that area. 

FRA will conduct an inventory of all public parks and recreation areas located within the Study 

Area using information from NYC Parks, Hudson River Park Trust, and GIS mapping layers, 

including data from NYCDCP. Field visits will be undertaken if possible, given the current state 

of accessibility restrictions resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 public health emergency. In 

conducting the inventory, FRA will identify the acreage, current condition, and use of all public 

parks and recreation areas within the Study Area. Information provided in the 2009 

SEQRA/CEQR FEIS will be updated as appropriate to reflect changed conditions in the Study 

Area. 
Chapter 7: Parks and Recreation Areas

Final 7-3 October 2020

The analysis will then identify any expected changes in future levels of open space supply and 

demand, based on other planned development projects within the Study Area and any new parks 

and recreation areas expected to be developed. Open space ratios for worker and resident 

populations will be developed for the Proposed Action and compared with ratios for the No Action 

Alternative to determine expected changes in future levels of adequacy. The analysis will also 

include a qualitative evaluation that considers such factors as the proximity of other parks and 

recreation areas outside the Study Area. In coordination with other tasks, FRA will also identify 

any potential direct impacts on parks and recreation areas from air quality or noise generated by 

the construction and operation of the Proposed Action.

E. IMPACT CRITERIA

Under the analysis methodology guidelines detailed in Chapter 7, “Open Space,” and Section 100 

of the CEQR Technical Manual, a direct effect occurs when a Proposed Project physically 

changes, diminishes, or eliminates a public open space resource. This could include the physical 

loss of a resource because of encroachment onto the space or displacement of the space; changes 

to the use of the resource so that it no longer serves the same user population; limitations on public 

access to the resource; or increased noise or air pollutant emissions or odors that affect the 

usefulness of the resource, whether on a permanent or temporary basis. Parks and recreation areas 

may also experience short-term (temporary) effects during construction of a Proposed Project, 

from activities that would impede the operation of the park or open space (or its uses) for 

construction-related activities, including construction access or staging. The potential for indirect 

effects, such as from an increased user population that would place new demands on such 

resources, will be considered in Chapter 18, “Indirect and Cumulative Impacts.” FRA will apply 

these CEQR Technical Manual guidelines to determine potential adverse impacts to parks, 

recreation areas or other public open space resources from construction or operation of the 

Proposed Action. 

F. MITIGATION ANALYSIS

If the construction or operation of the Proposed Action would result in adverse impacts on parks, 

recreation areas, or other public open spaces, the EIS will explore measures to avoid and/or 

mitigate such impacts to the greatest extent practicable. For temporary construction impacts, 

mitigation may include, for example, the expansion or improvement of another nearby park or 

open space, or the provision of alternate access to a park or open space if public access is limited 

or lost. 

G. CORRELATION WITH OTHER ANALYSES

This analysis will be informed by the land use transportation, air quality, noise and vibration, and 

cultural resources analyses. Section 4(f) resources will be identified in this chapter, and the Section 

4(f) Evaluation and the environmental justice analysis will be informed by information developed 

as part of this chapter. 
Final 8-1 October 2020

Chapter 8: Aesthetics and Visual Quality

This chapter describes the methodology that FRA will use to analyze and evaluate the potential 

effects of the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action on visual and aesthetic resources in 

the EIS.

A. REGULATORY CONTEXT

NEPA requires the consideration of visual resources when analyzing the potential effects of a 

Proposed Project; therefore, FRA will assess the potential for impacts from the No Action 

Alternative and the Proposed Action to aesthetics and visual quality. 

In the absence of FRA-specific guidance for assessment of visual impacts, the analysis will be 

prepared in accordance with the Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects 

(January 2015) prepared by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as appropriate and 

applicable to the Project. Although this project is not a highway project, many of the components 

in the guidance are applicable. Such elements as effects on neighborhood character, viewer groups, 

and viewer sensitivity will be included in the visual assessment.

B. STUDY AREA

The Project Site consists of areas where the Proposed Action would have permanent features or 

where construction activities for the Proposed Action would occur. To consider the effects of the 

Proposed Action, based on the specific features of the Proposed Action and the characteristics of 

the surrounding area. FRA will establish the Area of Visual Effect. Views of visible components 

of the Proposed Action from within the surrounding area may be obscured by obstructions, 

landforms, vegetation, structures, or diminished by distance or environmental conditions.

FHWA guidance identifies types of viewsheds. A viewshed is “what people can see in the 

environment, which is a result of the intersection between the physical constraints of the 

environment and the physiological limits of human perceptions.” The guidance defines “static 

viewsheds” as “what neighbors of the road see from a stationary location. Dynamic viewsheds are 

what travelers ...see as they move through the landscape. The Area of Visual Effect is the sum of 

the viewsheds of all travelers with views from the road and all neighbors with views of the road.” 

To account for the geographic area covered by the Proposed Action and to account for long views 

to the Project Site along Eleventh Avenue and West 30th and 33rd Streets (which border the 

Project Site), the Area of Visual Effect will be defined as the area generally bounded by West 38th 

Street to the north, Tenth Avenue to the east, West 26th Street to the south, and the Hudson River 

to the west. The Area of Visual Effect is considered the Study Area for this resource category 

analysis.
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 8-2 Final

C. DATA SOURCES

For aesthetic and visual resources, site visits, information from the previously prepared 2009 

SEQRA/CEQR FEIS, aerial imagery, GIS data, and information compiled for the analyses of 

cultural resources and parks and recreation will be used to describe the existing visual character 

and visual and aesthetic context of the affected environment, which FRA will analyze to determine 

potential impacts of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action. 

D. ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

FRA will assess visual impacts by evaluating the compatibility of the No Action Alternative and 

the Proposed Action with the surrounding context, sensitivity of the viewers, and degree of impact. 

The assessment of compatibility comprised consideration of the No Action Alternative and the 

Proposed Action’s visual effects in relation to such elements as scale, form, materials, visual 

character, and distance between the viewer and the visual resource.

In accordance with the FHWA guidelines, the visual impact assessment will consist of four phases: 

1) the establishment phase, in which the Study Area is defined and the Area of Visual Effect 

identified; 2) the inventory phase, in which the existing visual quality and the components of the 

affected environment and populations are examined; 3) the analysis phase, in which potential 

impacts on visual quality are evaluated and the degree of impact assessed; and 4) the mitigation 

phase, in which measures to minimize and lessen any negative effects or impacts are identified.

The establishment phase of the analysis process involves examination of supporting 

documentation, such as the project description, purpose and need, scoping document, conceptual 

designs and preliminary engineering, comprehensive plans or municipal ordinances and field 

observation and recording. The Area of Visual Effect was determined by the Project information 

and the visibility of project features through landform, land cover, atmospheric conditions, and 

limits of sight, and as detailed above under “Study Area,” the Area of Visual Effect has been 

defined as the area generally bounded by West 38th Street to the north, Tenth Avenue to the east, 

West 26th Street to the south, and the Hudson River to the west. The Area of Visual Effect is 

considered the Study Area for this resource category analysis. 

Once the Area of Visual Effect was identified, the inventory phase involved identifying and 

describing the existing visual character and existing conditions of the affected environment and 

the affected population. Visual character is a “description of the visible attributes of a scene or 

object...”1

1 FHWA, Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects, January 2015, p. A-3.

Views that are available to the affected population are identified and the quality of 

those views is described in this phase.
Chapter 8: Aesthetics and Visual Quality

Final 8-3 October 2020

During the analysis phase, the impacts of the Proposed Action are identified and described, and 

the compatibility of the impact with the surrounding area is determined and the sensitivity of 

viewers to the impact is evaluated; all of these factors help in assessing the degree of impact on 

visual quality. Visual quality is defined as “what viewers like and dislike about visual resources 

that compose the visual character of a particular scene. Different viewers may evaluate specific 

visual resources differently based on their interests in natural harmony, cultural order, and project 

coherence. Neighbors and travelers may, in particular, have different opinions on what they like 

and dislike about a scene.”2

2 FHWA, pp. A-3, A-4.

Viewer sensitivity is “defined by the ability of viewers to see and care about a project’s impacts. 

The sensitivity to impact is based on viewer sensitivity to changes in the visual character of visual 

resources. Viewers are either sensitive or insensitive to impacts.”3

3 FHWA, p. A-3.

A key view is a “location from 

which a viewer (traveler or neighbor) can see either iconic or representative landscapes, with or 

without the highway (facility), of the project corridor.”4

4 FHWA, p. A-2.

The impact on visual quality may be 

beneficial, adverse, or neutral. A Proposed Project may benefit visual quality by enhancing visual 

resources, creating better views of certain resources, and improving the experience of the viewers. 

Alternatively, it may adversely affect visual quality by degrading visual resources or obstructing 

or altering desired views.

Upon completion of the analysis phase, mitigation may be recommended for operational impacts 

or for construction impacts or both. The mitigation phase identifies potential measures to avoid or 

minimize the effects of adverse visual impacts. Mitigation measures may include screening or 

blocking of undesirable views, or enhancing the visual quality of project elements.

In addition, the CEQR Technical Manual, Chapter 10, Section 300, has detailed methodology for 

the assessment of effects on visual resources, which includes consideration of important public 

view corridors, vistas, and natural and built features. These important aesthetic features will be 

identified in the inventory phase of the analysis described above.

CEQR TECHNICAL MANUAL GUIDELINES

As defined in the CEQR Technical Manual, Chapter 10, Section 100, urban design is the totality 

of components that may affect a pedestrian’s experience of public space. These components 

include the following: 

• Streets—the arrangement and orientation of streets define location, flow of activity, street 

views, and create blocks on which buildings and open spaces are arranged. Other elements, 

including sidewalks, plantings, street lights, curb cuts, and street furniture, also contribute to 

an area’s streetscape. 

• Buildings—a building’s size, shape, setbacks, pedestrian and vehicular entrances, lot 

coverage, and orientation to the street are important urban design components that define the 

appearance of the built environment. 

• Visual Resources—visual resources include significant natural or built features, including 

important views corridors, public parks, landmarks structures or districts, or otherwise distinct 

buildings. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 8-4 Final

• Open Space—open space includes public and private areas that do not include structures, 

including parks and other landscaped areas, cemeteries, and parking lots. 

• Natural Features—natural features include vegetation, and geologic and aquatic features that 

are natural to the area.

Following the methodology of the CEQR Technical Manual, Chapter 10, Section 400, urban 

design impacts are determined “by considering the degree to which a project would result in a 

change to a built environment’s arrangement, appearance, or functionality such that the change 

would negatively affect a pedestrian’s experience of the area.” 

E. IMPACT CRITERIA

FRA will follow the FHWA guidelines described above, in the analysis phase to determine the 

degree of impact on visual quality. The impact on visual quality may be beneficial, adverse, or 

neutral. A Proposed Project may benefit visual quality by enhancing visual resources, creating 

better views of certain resources, and improving the experience of the viewers. Alternatively, it 

may adversely affect visual quality by degrading visual resources or obstructing or altering desired 

views.

To determine whether the Proposed Action would negatively affect a pedestrian’s experience of 

the area, FRA will use the CEQR Technical Manual criteria found in Chapter 10, “Urban Design 

and Visual Resources,” Section 400: Determining Impact Significance. This criteria considers the

degree to which a project would result in a change to the built environment’s arrangement, 

appearance, or functionality and whether the change would negatively affect a pedestrian’s 

experience of the area.

To determine whether the Proposed Action would result in adverse impacts to visual resources, 

FRA will use the criteria found in Chapter 10, “Urban Design and Visual Resources,” Section 

400: Determining Impact Significance of the CEQR Technical Manual, to assess whether the 

Proposed Action “will obstruct important visual resources and whether such obstruction would be 

permanent, seasonal, or temporary; how many viewers would be affected; whether the view is 

unique or do similar views exist; or whether the visual resource can be seen from many other 

locations.”

F. MITIGATION ANALYSIS

If the Proposed Action would result in adverse aesthetic and visual impacts, FRA will explore 

measures to mitigate these impacts, and describe them in the EIS. Mitigation measures would vary 

depending on the type of impact identified. 

G. CORRELATION WITH OTHER ANALYSES

The visual impacts analysis will be informed by other resource category analyses in the EIS, 

including land use, cultural resources, and parks and recreational resources to identify visual 

resources and sensitive viewers. 
Final 9-1 October 2020

Chapter 9: Contaminated Materials

This chapter describes the methodology that FRA will use for the assessment and analysis of 

potential contaminated materials impacts from the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project. The 

analysis in the EIS will present an evaluation of the potential presence and extent of contaminated 

materials that may be impacted by construction of the Proposed Action, and potential operational 

impacts of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action following construction. The Affected 

Environment Existing Conditions for this resource area are the same as the Affected Environment 

Future Conditions, no changes are expected to occur in the future conditions.

A. REGULATORY CONTEXT

FEDERAL 

The environmental evaluation process will be conducted pursuant to the following Federal laws 

and regulations, where applicable to Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) and/or Phase 

II Site investigations:

• USEPA – Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. s/s 1251 et seq. (1977).

• USEPA – Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. s/s 9601 et seq. (1980).

• USEPA – Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. s/s 321 et seq. (1976).

• USEPA – Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. s/s 300f et seq. (1974).

• USEPA – Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. s/s 2601 et seq. (1976).

• USEPA – National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS), 40 C.F.R. 

Part 61.

• USEPA – 40 C.F.R. Parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 266, 268, and 280.

• USEPA – Asbestos Hazardous Emergency Response Act, 40 C.F.R. Part 763.

• Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) – 29 C.F.R. 1910.120, 1910.1001, 

1910.1101, 1926.62, and 1929.58.

• OSHA – Lead: Occupational Health and Environmental Controls, 29 C.F.R. 1926.62.

• OSHA – Asbestos, 29 C.F.R. 1926.1101.

NEW YORK STATE

The environmental evaluation process for the Project Site will be conducted in accordance with 

NYSDEC and New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) regulations 

and guidelines, including the following, as applicable (some provisions may or may not be 

applicable depending on the initial findings of a site assessment for the Project Site, and if further 

investigations would be conducted during the preparation of the EIS):
Western Rail Yards Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 9-2 Final

• Soil Cleanup Objectives (SCOs) as detailed in 6 NYCRR Subpart 375-6: Remedial Program 

Soil Cleanup Objectives.

• Water Quality Regulations for Surface Waters and Groundwater as detailed in 6 NYCRR Parts 

700-705.

• NYSDEC DER-10, Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation.

• CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 12).

• New York State Department of Health, Final Guidance for Evaluating Soil Vapor Intrusion in 

the State of New York, October 2006.

• New York State Environmental Conservation Law – Article 12 – Oil Spill Prevention, 

Control, and Compensation, Article 15 – Protection of Waters Program, Article 17 – State 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit Program.

• NYSDEC – Spill Technology and Remediation Series (STARS) Memo No. 1, PetroleumContaminated Soil Guidance Policy. 

• NYSDEC – Division of Water, Spill Response Guidance Manual, January 1990.

• NYSDEC Division of Water, Sampling Guidelines and Protocols, March 1991.

• 6 NYCRR Part 364, Waste Transporter Permits.

• 6 NYCRR Part 371, Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste.

• 6 NYCRR Part 372, Hazardous Waste Manifest System and Related Standards for Generators, 

Transporters and Facilities.

Applicable regulations will be cited in the contaminated materials assessments, as warranted. New 

York City Office of Environmental Remediation (NYCOER) review and approval will be required 

for investigation and remediation activities associated with hazardous materials at any affected 

(E) Designated sites, i.e., sites that are already subject to institutional controls placed as a result 

of prior CEQR reviews (such as that for Hudson Yards). Sites with an (E) Designation (as shown 

on the New York City zoning map) cannot undergo a change of use or development requiring a 

New York City Department of Buildings permit without first obtaining approval from NYCOER. 

B. STUDY AREA

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E1527-13 defines the distance 

to which various environmental categories pertaining to the historic and current use of nearby 

properties must also be evaluated. Therefore, the Study Area for this analysis will include the 

entire Project Site, and will also extend to the known environmental record sources in accordance 

with ASTM E1527-13, for the contaminated materials assessment. The Phase I ESA will be 

performed to identify potential environmental concerns associated with the Project Site resulting 

from past or current site usage or usage of neighboring properties (i.e., areas adjacent to the Tunnel 

Encasement and Platform) pursuant to ASTM Standard E1527-13 including the associated search 

radii which various environmental categories pertaining to the historic and current use of nearby 

properties must also be evaluated. 
Chapter 9: Contaminated Materials

Final 9-3 October 2020

C. DATA SOURCES

The investigation will include a review of Federal and state environmental agency records 

obtained using a third party service that searches these databases. New York Freedom of 

Information Law (FOIL), or Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests will be 

submitted, as warranted, to NYSDEC, NYCDEP, USEPA, and potentially other agencies to 

review files for certain sites identified as contaminated or potentially contaminated. In addition, 

historical sources, such as Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, aerial photographs, and topographic 

maps will be reviewed for the Study Area to identify RECs, HRECs, and CRECs.

Published literature, available on environmental and contaminated materials studies for the Study 

Area will be obtained for review from Federal and New York government sources.

The potential for hazardous materials contamination at the Project Site was previously examined 

as part of the 2004 Hudson Yards FGEIS and 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS for the Western Rail 

Yard Development. Environmental assessments associated with that examination included a Phase 

I ESA (completed in September 2004) and Phase II Environmental Site Investigation (ESI) 

(completed as part of the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS effort). The 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS, 2013 

FRA EA/FONSI, and the 2014 SEA/FONSI also discussed hazardous materials conditions at the 

Project Site. Petroleum contamination was encountered (spill 04-07411) during the Phase II 

investigation. The Phase I ESA conducted for the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS was conducted in 

accordance with the previous ASTM standard (ASTM E1527-05). The Phase I ESA and hazardous 

materials assessment in the EIS Contaminated Materials Chapter associated with the construction 

of the Proposed Action will include information for the ongoing remediation work associated with 

spill 04-07411 pursuant to a DEC Consent Order, as well as the other findings of recent ESIs and 

relevant information included in the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS, 2013 FRA EA/FONSI, and the 

2014 SEA/FONSI. These studies will be utilized for the contaminated materials analysis for this 

EIS. 

Additionally, at a minimum, the following databases will be searched as part of the Phase I ESA 

that will be prepared for the Proposed Action.

The following Federal databases will be searched as part of the Phase I ESA:

• National Priority List (NPL): The USEPA’s database of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous 

waste sites identified for priority remedial actions under the Superfund Program.

• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System 

(CERCLIS): A compilation of sites the USEPA has or is investigating for a release or 

threatened release of hazardous substances under the CERCLA (Superfund Act) of 1980.

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Facilities: 

A compilation of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste.

• RCRA Generators or Transporters: A compilation of facilities that generate or transport 

hazardous waste.

• Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System (TRIS): Contains information on chemical releases 

reported pursuant to Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know 

Act.

• Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS): A federal listing of reported releases of 

petroleum and other potentially hazardous substances.
Western Rail Yards Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 9-4 Final

• United States Environmental Protection Agency Civil Enforcement Docket: The USEPA’s 

system for tracking civil judiciary cases filed on behalf of the agency by the Department of 

Justice.

The following State databases will be searched as part of the Phase I ESA:

• State Hazardous Waste Sites (SHWS): An inventory of all actual or suspected inactive 

hazardous waste disposal sites maintained by the NYSDEC.

• Petroleum Bulk Storage (PBS): A listing of all petroleum bulk storage facilities registered 

with the NYSDEC. All facilities with a total storage capacity of 1,100 gallons or more are 

required to register.

• Spills: A listing of all active and inactive petroleum or chemical spills or releases reported to 

federal and state agencies, including leaking underground storage tanks.

• Solid Waste Facilities (SWF): Landfills, incinerators, transfer stations, recycling centers, and 

other facilities that manage solid wastes.

• Chemical Bulk Storage (CBS): A listing of all tanks storing hazardous substances registered 

with the NYSDEC. All underground tanks and all stationary aboveground tanks with a 

capacity of 185 gallons or more are required to register.

• Major Oil Storage Facilities (MOSF): Sites in New York State storing more than 400,000 

gallons of petroleum products.

• Permit Compliance System of Toxic Wastewater Discharges: Facilities discharging 

wastewaters with toxic chemicals.

• Air Discharge Facilities Index (ADF): Facilities releasing air pollutants.

• Environmental Restoration Program: A list of New York State sites enrolled in the 

Environmental Restoration Program.

• Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP): A list of New York State sites enrolled in the Voluntary 

Cleanup Program.

• Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP): A list of New York State sites enrolled in the Brownfield 

Cleanup Program.

In addition to the regulatory databases associated with the Phase I ESA research, the Phase I ESA 

will be performed to identify potential environmental concerns associated with the Project Site 

resulting from past or current site usage or usage of neighboring properties (i.e., areas adjacent to 

the Tunnel Encasement and Platform) pursuant to ASTM Standard E1527-13 including the 

associated search radii which various environmental categories pertaining to the historic and 

current use of nearby properties must also be evaluated. 
Chapter 9: Contaminated Materials

Final 9-5 October 2020

D. ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

FRA will conduct a Phase I ESA as part of the contaminated materials analysis. The Phase I ESA 

will be consistent with the requirements of ASTM 1527-13 (the “ASTM Standard”) and is 

intended to satisfy federal “All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI)” criteria to obtain protection from 

potential liability CERCLA as an innocent landowner, a contiguous property owner, or a bona fide 

prospective purchaser. The Phase I ESA will include: a review of available records and historical 

maps and/or aerial photos to determine previous on-site and adjacent land uses; a site inspection 

and general area characterization; interviews with past and/or present site managers, operators and 

occupants of the property (if applicable); an evaluation of regulatory database listings for the 

subject and neighboring properties; a determination of the need for further investigations. Records 

maintained by USEPA and the NYSDEC will be obtained and reviewed to assess the potential for 

contamination, due to the presence of identified problem sites and activities on or adjacent to the 

property. The database search areas will be at least as extensive as those recommended in ASTM 

Standard E1527-13. A list of databases anticipated to be used as part of completed the Phase I 

ESA are listed in the previous section.

ASTM Standard E1527-13 describes the process to be followed to conduct a Phase I ESA. It was 

designed to standardize the process by which commercial real estate transactions are screened for 

potential environmental liabilities. When performed correctly, the ASTM compliant Phase I ESA 

documents known environmental conditions and provides a possible defense as an innocent 

landowner defined by CERCLA, defined in 42 USC 9601(35)(B), in the event that unknown 

environmental contamination is discovered in the future. The ASTM Standard is widely used as a 

framework for environmental reviews and property transactions to identify the presence of 

Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historic RECs (HRECs), Controlled RECs 

(CRECs), and Business Environmental Risk, at the Project Site.

The previous Phase I ESA for the Western Rail Yard was conducted in accordance with the 

previous ASTM standard (ASTM E1527-05); the updated Phase I ESA for the Proposed Action 

will be conducted in accordance with the current ASTM guidance (ASTM E1527-13) and focus 

on areas of potential disturbance associated with the Proposed Action (e.g., the entire Project Site). 

The analysis techniques (described below) for both the Proposed Action and No Action 

Alternative will include a visual inspection of the property; a review of available regulatory 

records, historical land use maps and aerial photographs to determine previous on-site and adjacent 

land uses; and an evaluation of regulatory databases for the Project Site and neighboring 

properties. Records relating to past and current site uses, spills, and other relevant information 

(including available prior environmental reports) will be reviewed for properties located within 

the Study Area and adjacent areas. 
Western Rail Yards Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 9-6 Final

A site reconnaissance will be performed as part of the Phase I ESA for the Project Site. Adjoining 

properties will also be inspected if they are accessible. However, if adjoining properties are 

inaccessible, observations with regard to the potential for contamination will be rendered, to the 

extent possible, from publicly accessible areas including public streets and right of ways. The 

environmental history and regulatory status for the Study Area will be reviewed as part of the 

Phase I ESA, along with prior reports. Potential environmental concerns in the Study Area that 

may be impacted by the Proposed Action will be identified based on the review of historical uses 

and/or the regulatory database information to assess the presence, type, level, and approximate 

extent of subsurface contamination (if applicable), and to evaluate potential contamination issues 

including soil, groundwater, and/or soil vapor conditions. The findings of the assessment will be 

used to support the engineering design and make recommendations for material handling and 

management and will be summarized in the EIS Contaminated Materials Chapter. Remedial 

options will be evaluated, as warranted, including excavation and off-site disposal, on-site reuse, 

in-situ stabilization and treatment, as applicable based on the findings of the Phase I ESA. 

Additionally, FRA will review environmental records to identify potential vapor 

encroachment/intrusion concerns associated with the Proposed Action from contaminated 

materials that may be disturbed as a result of implementing the Proposed Action.

FRA will summarize the Phase I ESA findings in the EIS, and in addition to evaluating remedial 

options, the analysis will identify appropriate health and safety measures to be employed during 

construction to protect workers and the public during intrusive construction activities (e.g., soil 

excavation and disturbance).

According to the guidelines of the CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 12, “Hazardous 

Materials”), public health concerns for which an assessment may be warranted include: increased 

vehicular traffic or emissions from stationary sources resulting in increased exposure to heavy 

metals and other contaminants in soil/dust resulting in significant adverse hazardous materials; the

presence of contamination from historic spills or releases of substances that might have affected 

or might affect ground water to be used as a source of drinking water; and actions for which any 

potential impacts result in an exceedance of accepted Federal, state, or local standards. Drawing 

on other EIS chapters, this task will assess and summarize the potential for adverse impacts on 

public health from potential disturbance activities associated with hazardous materials during 

construction at the Project Site.

E. IMPACT CRITERIA

The impact criteria applicable to the contaminated materials evaluation of the No Action 

Alternative and Proposed Action will be Federal standards as defined by ASTM 1527-13 and 

Chapter 12 of the CEQR Technical Manual, as well as regulatory guidance and action levels 

established for the evaluation of soil, sediment, groundwater, and surface water in these 

jurisdictions. Federal regulatory standards/action levels may include the USEPA RCRA 

characteristic waste tests for Ignitability (D001), Corrosivity (D002), Reactivity (D003), and 

Toxicity (D004-D043).
Chapter 9: Contaminated Materials

Final 9-7 October 2020

F. MITIGATION ANALYSIS

Based on the findings of the updated Phase I ESA, additional subsurface investigation may be 

warranted of soil, soil vapor and/or groundwater (e.g., to investigate potential areas of 

contamination and/or testing to characterize soil/fill for off-site disposal). The results of the Phase 

I ESA and any subsequent subsurface testing would support an evaluation of construction 

protocols that would be necessary to mitigate the potential for impacts from the Proposed Action 

on workers, the public, and the environment. This would take the form of a site-specific 

Construction Health and Safety Plan (CHASP) for implementation during ground disturbance. 

The results of the analysis will be summarized in the EIS Contaminated Materials chapter. The 

mitigation analysis will be used to support (1) planning efforts for the handling and management 

of any known or potentially contaminated materials encountered or generated during construction, 

including soil, sediment, groundwater, and surface water, and (2) potential site remediation 

activities that may be required on properties or portions of properties within the Proposed Action 

considered in the EIS.

The CHASP will be designed to protect construction workers and the public from potential 

exposures that are specific to the Proposed Action, with protocols for community air monitoring 

of particulate and organic vapors, as appropriate, and measures to address potential subsurface 

contamination and/or underground storage tanks encountered during site excavation. The EIS will 

include estimates of the amount of excavated contaminated materials that could require disposal, 

Federal and State regulations governing the disposal of such material, and associated potential 

effects from transporting this material to disposal locations. The mitigation analysis will describe 

the methods that will be used to properly dispose of any excavated fill/soil in accordance with all 

applicable rules and regulations. 

G. CORRELATION WITH OTHER ANALYSES

This subject analysis may be interrelated with and draw information from the following resource 

analyses: land use, cultural resources, soils and geology, water quality, public health, and 

environmental justice. Primarily, the contaminated materials analysis would be used by these 

listed investigations to inform their conclusions. However, there could be more involved 

interaction between investigations. For example, excavation of contaminated soil would be 

accounted for in noise and air quality analyses; groundwater contamination would need to be 

assessed in relation to existing ground- and surface water conditions. Also, transportation routes 

for contaminated materials transport, if necessary, would be considered with the potential need for 

mitigating community impacts or utilizing federal and state hazardous materials transportation 

requirements. In addition, if any adverse impacts relating to contaminated materials are identified, 

an analysis of the potential impacts to public health will be performed using the CEQR Technical 

Manual (see Chapter 20, Sections 200 and 300) for general guidance. 
Final 10-1 October 2020

Chapter 10: Utilities and Energy

This chapter describes the methodology that FRA will use to prepare the analysis of potential 

effects from the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action, under consideration in the NEPA 

review for the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project, to utilities (e.g., water supply, wastewater, 

and stormwater services; solid waste and sanitation services; and energy supply) serving the 

Project Site. The assessment will include the additional demands on the utility infrastructure that 

would result from the operation of the Proposed Action, as well any potential effects to utility 

services during construction of the Proposed Action. Proposed sustainable design measures to 

reduce water consumption, sewage generation, stormwater management, and energy usage will be 

described.

A. REGULATORY CONTEXT

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations define the effects and impacts that 

Federal agencies are to address and consider in satisfying the requirements of the NEPA process. 

The FRA has also developed Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts that will be 

followed in the preparation of the NEPA EIS for the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project. The 

New York Public Service Commission regulates utilities, stormwater, and other related water 

utilities under the New York Energy Law. In addition, NYCDEP – Sewers and Departments own 

and regulate the stormwater collection system within New York City.

B. STUDY AREA

The Study Area includes the approximately 13-acre Project Site (described in Chapter 1, 

“Introduction,” and shown in Figure 1-2), bounded by Eleventh Avenue to the east, West 33rd 

Street to the north, Twelfth Avenue to the west, and West 30th Street to the south. Additionally, 

streets immediately adjacent to the Project Site are also included in the Study Area for this resource 

category. This would include locations where any potentially affected utility infrastructure and 

services that will be crossed or are adjacent to the Project Site are located; these locations will be 

identified and described. 

C. DATA SOURCES

Information on existing and planned utility infrastructure and services for the Study Area will be 

obtained from government entities and private service providers. The following potential sources 

may be contacted for location information including “as-built” drawings or other mapping: 

• MTA and LIRR

• NYCDOT

• NYSDOT

• NYCDEP – Sewers and Departments

• Consolidated Edison
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 10-2 Final

• New York City Department of Sanitation

• Private solid waste disposal providers

• New York Public Service Commission

D. ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES AND CRITERIA

FRA will conduct an assessment of the potential impacts of the Proposed Action to utilities and 

energy for the EIS. Where potential adverse impacts are identified, FRA will develop mitigation 

to address the impacts, as appropriate and feasible. 

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

Existing and proposed utility infrastructure and services locations will be compiled from as-built 

drawings, information obtained for proposed infrastructure (as available), and plotted on graphics 

as appropriate to support the impact analysis of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action. 

Construction-related impacts (short-term and long-term) will be assessed considering key 

questions: 

• Will an existing utility line require protection, relocation or replacement as a result of Project 

construction? 

• To what extent would such impact(s) result in service disruption for the utility (e.g., who 

would be affected, duration of effects)?

• Potential impacts to any proposed, future utility infrastructure will also be evaluated. 

Estimates of construction-related and future operational power consumption by the Western Rail 

Yard Infrastructure Project will be developed by the project designers to ensure that the existing 

Project Area power grid will be able to accommodate the increased load. 

OPERATIONAL IMPACTS

The Platform component of the Proposed Action would have little to no operational power 

consumption associated with it. The analyses will focus on estimating the additional demands that 

the Proposed Action would place on the energy supply from the increased load required to operate 

the new and reconstructed LIRR infrastructure associated with the Platform (e.g., ventilation 

system, life-safety systems, etc.), described in more detail in Chapter 1, “Introduction.” 

The Proposed Action includes a new permanent power sub-station for the operation of the rail 

yard, as described in Chapter 1, “Introduction.” The need and potential location(s) of any 

additional new, temporary, or permanent electric power sub-stations will be evaluated and any 

potential impacts to utilities will be assessed.

NYCDEP has prepared an updated Manhattan Trunk Main Master Plan to identify the 

rehabilitation required to the existing, aging trunk water main system and improvements to 

connect the distribution network to the Water Tunnel No. 3, which is presently under construction. 

Consideration of water supply infrastructure capabilities will include recommendations of this 

Trunk Plan.
Chapter 10: Utilities and Energy

Final 10-3 October 2020

NYCDEP has prepared an Amended Drainage Plan for a portion of the Hudson Yards area that 

includes the area generally bounded by Twelfth Avenue (Route 9A) to the west, West 40th Street 

to the north, West 32nd Street to the south, and Tenth Avenue to the east. The wastewater and 

stormwater analyses described below will take into account the Amended Drainage Plan, as the 

Affected Environment/Existing Condition, and future changes to the combined and separate storm 

systems associated with the Amended Drainage Plan under the No Action Alternative. 

The utility and energy analyses FRA will include in the EIS include the following:

WATER SUPPLY

A. Based on information obtained from NYCDEP, the existing water supply network and 

capacity of the distribution system that currently serves the Project Site will be described. 

Improvements to the water supply system recommended as part of the Trunk Plan that are 

expected to be implemented as part of the Hudson Yards Rezoning and Development Program 

and that relate to the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action will also be identified. 

B. A projection of the demand from the Proposed Action will be developed using water usage 

rates for typical land uses provided in Table 13-2 in Chapter 13, “Water and Sewer 

Infrastructure,” of the CEQR Technical Manual, and estimates of the water demand in the No 

Action Alternative and the Proposed Action will be compared.

C. The potential for impacts on the water supply system’s abilities to maintain adequate water 

supply and operating pressure, as a result of the Proposed Action’s incremental water demand, 

and demand trends citywide including the impacts of Local Law 29 of 1989 will be assessed. 

The potential for reductions in water demand from various water conservation measures and 

sustainable design features will be identified, and to the extent practicable their benefit will 

be quantified.

WASTEWATER 

A. Based on information obtained from NYCDEP, the existing sewer system serving the Project 

Site will be described. The existing average and maximum monthly flows to the North River 

Water Pollution Control Plant for the latest 12-month period will be provided. 

B. Using the water demand determined in the task above and NYCDEP projections, the sanitary 

sewage generation for conditions under the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action 

will be estimated. The Platform (and its associated infrastructure) and Tunnel Encasement are 

not anticipated to generate any significant volumes of wastewater. 

C. The potential for impacts in terms of system conveyance and Water Pollution Control Plant 

treatment capacity as a result of the Proposed Actions’ incremental sanitary sewage demands 

will be assessed. This evaluation would include a screening level assessment that compares 

the estimated stormwater and sanitary volumes and flows that would be discharged to the 

combined sewer under the No Action Alternative. If the screening indicates the need for 

further analyses, modeling would be conducted in consultation with NYCDEP and in 

consideration of the results of the screening level assessment. 

D. The compliance of the North River Water Pollution Control Plant with its permit 

requirements, which protect Hudson River water quality, will be discussed. 

E. The adequacy of the Amended Drainage Plan to meet the requirements of the Proposed Action 

will be assessed.
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 10-4 Final

F. Conformity of the Proposed Action, and Amended Drainage Plan, with the DEP’s Long Term 

Control Plan (LTCP) Project which monitors and assures compliance with applicable 

Administrative Consent Orders between DEC and New York City for the CSO Abatement 

Program. 

STORMWATER 

A. The existing storm and combined sewer system serving the Project Site will be described. The 

description will include the major sewer lines and the location of existing CSOs into the 

Hudson River. 

B. Using NYCDEP design criteria, stormwater runoff rates from the No Action Alternative and 

Proposed Action will be calculated and compared. Based on the project-generated runoff, 

analyses or modeling would be conducted in consultation with NYCDEP, to identify the 

following: modifications to the storm and combined sewer infrastructure that may be required 

to accommodate project-generated runoff, resultant CSO events associated with this increased 

runoff, and stormwater management measures to be implemented as part of the Proposed 

Action. If necessary, the EIS will provide an assessment and description of stormwater 

treatment technologies. The potential for adverse impacts on water quality in the Hudson 

River as a result of these changes will be assessed. 

C. The potential reductions in stormwater runoff from proposed sustainable measures included 

in the design of the Proposed Action will be reflected in the analysis.

SOLID WASTE AND SANITATION SERVICES

This chapter of the EIS will assess the additional demands the operation of the No Action 

Alternative and the Proposed Action would place on solid waste disposal services. During 

construction of the Proposed Action, the only demand for solid waste disposal service would be 

to dispose of construction debris, which would be accommodated by private solid waste carters, 

no municipal solid waste disposal would be required. The construction and operation of the Tunnel 

Encasement and Platform components of the Proposed Action would have little to no demand for 

municipal solid waste and sanitation services associated with them. The analyses will focus on 

estimating the additional demands that the Project Action would place on solid waste and 

sanitation services from the operation of the new and reconstructed LIRR infrastructure associated 

with the Platform (e.g., ventilation system, life-safety systems, etc.), as described in more detail 

in Chapter 1, “Introduction.” 

ENERGY 

A. Based on information obtained from Con Edison, the existing energy distribution systems 

(electricity, natural gas, and steam) serving the Project Site and estimated energy usage at the 

Project Site for the Affected Environment Existing Conditions will be described.
Chapter 10: Utilities and Energy

Final 10-5 October 2020

B. Using energy usage rates for typical land uses provided in Table 15-1 of Chapter 15, “Energy,”

of the CEQR Technical Manual, energy demands for the No Action Alternative and the 

Proposed Action will be estimated. The Tunnel Encasement and Platform components of the 

Proposed Action would have little to no additional energy demand associated with them, so 

the analyses will focus on estimating the additional demands that the Proposed Action would 

place on energy usage from the new and reconstructed LIRR infrastructure associated with 

the Platform (e.g., ventilation system, life-safety systems, etc.), as described in more detail in 

Chapter 1, “Introduction.” The energy demands of the Proposed Action will be considered in 

relation to the energy demands and supply conditions in the No Action Alternative. This 

analysis will include consideration of the projected development in the Study Area as part of 

the energy demand under the No Action Alternative. 

C. The potential for adverse impacts on energy distribution system capacities as a result of the 

incremental energy demand of the Proposed Action will be assessed, and if adverse impacts 

are identified, potential mitigation would be described. If it is found that they are necessary, 

improvements to the energy distribution infrastructure will be identified.

D. Any proposed energy saving contributions of implementing LEED certification or other 

sustainable design elements include in the Proposed Action will also be described.

E. MITIGATION ANALYSIS

The Proposed Action would be planned and designed to minimize infrastructure impacts to the 

maximum extent practicable. Design and construction of the various components of the Proposed 

Action would seek to avoid physical disruption of utility infrastructure. If conflicts are 

unavoidable, mitigation, such as protection, relocation or replacement of the utility infrastructure 

segment impacted, will be proposed to avoid or minimize any long-term impacts. Timing 

restrictions for any unavoidable temporary service disruptions will also be considered as a way to 

minimize impacts to utility customers.

The Proposed Action would be designed to avoid impacts resulting from water use; wastewater 

generation; stormwater generation; solid waste and sanitation services; and energy consumption. 

Mitigation may be implemented if necessary to avoid or minimize such impacts. 

F. CORRELATION WITH OTHER ANALYSES

The Utilities and Energy analysis is potentially interrelated with the analyses of the following 

resource categories: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Resilience; and Safety and Security. 

These investigations will use the conclusions of the utility and energy analysis to determine if 

impacts from utility construction/reconstruction or service disruptions affect the outcome of these 

resource category analyses. 
Final 11-1 October 2020

Chapter 11: Soils and Geology

This chapter describes the methodology that FRA will use for the assessment and analysis of soils 

and geologic conditions, as well as the potential for seismic activity in the area, which would need 

to be accounted for as part of the design of the Proposed Action. These studies will also assess the 

future No Action Alternative conditions and potential construction impacts of the Proposed 

Action. The Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in any operational impacts. The Affected 

Environment Existing Conditions for this resource area are the same as the Affected Environment 

Future Conditions, no changes are expected to occur in the future conditions. Potential 

construction impacts will be evaluated with respect to geologic structure and faults, seismicity, 

slope stability, and unique geologic features, based on available soils and geologic data. 

A. REGULATORY CONTEXT

Requirements of the New York City Building Code and New York City Department of Buildings 

will be followed in the determination of foundation requirements, seismic design criteria and 

excavation practices.

B. STUDY AREA

The Study Area for this analysis will include the boundaries of the Project Site for the analysis of 

soils and geologic conditions. 

C. DATA SOURCES

In addition to any soil investigations performed during the previously prepared 2009 SEQRA/CEQR 

FEIS, 2013 NEPA EA/FONSI, 2014 SEA/FONSI, or by the Project Sponsors during design, the 

analysis of soils and geology will include a review of published information obtained from Federal 

and New York State government sources about the geologic, hydrogeologic, hydrologic, or 

topographic characteristics of the Study Area, including seismic data (as shown in Table 11-1). An 

assessment of the soil units located within the Study Area will also be undertaken, including 

reviewing the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (WSS) and the Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO). 

Table 11-1 

Database and Resources Consulted for Soils and Geology

Data Sources

USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map

USGS National Seismic Hazard Map of New York

USGS maps for southern New York region (bedrock and surficial geologic maps)

New York State Geology Museum for Earthquake epicenters, bedrock geology, surface geology, 

aquifers, and landslides 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO)

NYSDEP for wells, mines, and aquifers
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 11-2 Final

D. ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

The soils and geology at the Project Site, including any available geologic mapping and any 

available soil investigation data, will be analyzed to identify type of soil/geology present at the 

Project Site. This analysis will support the engineering design for the Tunnel Encasement and 

Platform structure foundations, estimating the amount of materials to be excavated from the site, 

and identification of any dewatering needs during construction of the Proposed Action. 

Soils/rock that have the potential to be impacted by the Proposed Action, such as soil or rock 

anticipated to be excavated, will be evaluated to determine if any remediation or special disposal 

is required or if any special removal procedures are required. 

E. IMPACT CRITERIA

The EIS will include estimates of the amount of material excavated from the site, the intended 

method of excavation and the intended disposal strategy. The soil/rock removed will be 

transported and disposed at licensed disposal facilities in accordance with federal and state 

standards, as well as regulatory guidance and action levels established for the evaluation of soil, 

sediment, and geology in these jurisdictions. Excavation performed and material removals would 

be coordinated with New York City Transit Authority, Long Island Rail Road and the 

Metropolitan Transit Authority to limit interference with rail operations during removals. For 

bedrock removal, the Project Sponsor’s contractor will obtain and adhere to the excavation, rock 

splitting and blasting permit from the New York City Department of Buildings. Vibrations during 

construction will be monitored, and action levels developed, to evaluate the potential impacts of 

the contractor’s means and methods for removal of rock and soil on adjacent facilities.

F. MITIGATION ANALYSIS

If adverse impacts are identified, the EIS will recommend measures to avoid or mitigate these 

effects. Mitigation measures could include design changes to address potential impacts.

G. CORRELATION WITH OTHER ANALYSES

This subject analysis may be interrelated with and draw information from the analyses completed 

as part of the contaminated materials analysis. 
Final 12-1 October 2020

Chapter 12: Water and Natural Resources

This chapter describes the methodology that FRA will use to guide the analysis of potential effects 

to natural resources, water resources, and water quality from the No Action Alternative and the 

Proposed Action under consideration in the NEPA review for the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure 

Project. 

The Project Site is a fully developed site with no wetlands, minimal vegetation, and no suitable 

habitat because of the active rail yard and associated LIRR maintenance and operational facilities 

that occupy the majority of the Project Site. Therefore, the analysis of water and natural resource 

are not anticipated to require intensive examination. Similarly, as the Proposed Action would not 

require any in-water construction activities within the Hudson River, the analyses will focus on 

any potential temporary construction impacts or operational effects on water resources and water 

quality that may result from the Proposed Action, and the potential for coastal flooding to affect 

the Proposed Action, as the majority of the Project Site is located within the 100-year floodplain. 

The EIS will also focus on any potential temporary construction impacts or operational effects of 

the Proposed Action on wetlands. Any subsequent changes to analysis methodologies will be 

reflected directly in the EIS. This effects assessment methodology has also been prepared to ensure 

that the EIS will fulfill any applicable federal, state, and local environmental review requirements 

to support review of the document by participating agencies.

A. REGULATORY CONTEXT

The following laws and statutes, Executive Orders (EOs), and regulations apply to natural 

resources, floodplains, groundwater, wetlands, and water quality within the vicinity of the Project 

Site (coastal zone policies and rules, as well as issues and regulations related to hazardous 

materials, will be addressed in separate chapters).

FEDERAL

CLEAN WATER ACT (33 USC §§ 1251 – 1387)

The objective of the Clean Water Act, (CWA) is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, 

and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. It regulates point sources of water 

pollution, such as discharges of municipal sewage, industrial wastewater, and stormwater runoff; 

the discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters and other waters; and non-point 

source pollution (e.g., runoff from streets, construction sites) that enter water bodies from sources 

other than through an outfall or other outlet. Applicants for discharges to navigable waters in New 

York must obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate from the NYSDEC.

Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the 

United States, including to regulated wetlands. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 12-2 Final

EO 11990, “PROTECTION OF WETLANDS” 

In accordance with EO 11990, “Protection of Wetlands,” federal agencies must avoid undertaking 

or providing assistance for new construction in wetlands unless there is no practical alternative to 

such construction and the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to 

the wetland. 

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988 (42 FR 26951)

EO 11988 and USDOT Order 5650-2, “Floodplain Management and Protection,” April 23, 1979 

require federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and short-term adverse impacts 

associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect 

support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. The guidelines 

address an eight-step process that agencies should carry out as part of their decision-making on 

projects that have potential impacts to or within the floodplain. 

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 (16 USC §§ 1531 TO 1544)

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 recognizes that endangered species of wildlife and plants 

are of aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the nation 

and its people. The Act provides for the protection of critical habitats on which endangered or 

threatened species depend for survival. The Act also prohibits the importation, exportation, taking, 

possession, and other activities involving illegally taken species covered under the Act, and 

interstate or foreign commercial activities. 

NEW YORK STATE

STATE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (SPDES) (ECL ARTICLE 3, 

TITLE 3; ARTICLE 15; ARTICLE 17, TITLES 3, 5, 7, 8; ARTICLE 21; ARTICLE 70, TITLE 1; 

ARTICLE 71, TITLE 19; IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS 6 NYCRR ARTICLES 2, 3). 

Title 8 of Article 17, ECL, Water Pollution Control, authorized the creation of SPDES to regulate 

discharges to New York State’s waters pursuant to a delegation by USEPA to New York State of 

permitting authority pursuant to the CWA. Activities requiring a SPDES permit include point 

source discharges of wastewater into surface or groundwater of the state, constructing or operating 

a disposal system (sewage treatment plant), discharge of stormwater, and construction activities 

that disturb one or more acres.

ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES OF FISH AND WILDLIFE; SPECIES OF 

SPECIAL CONCERN (ECL ARTICLE 11, TITLE 5, SECTIONS 11-0535[1]-[2], 11-0536[2], 

[4], IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS 6 NYCRR PART 182) 

The Endangered and Threatened Species of Fish and Wildlife, Species of Special Concern 

Regulations prohibit the taking, import, transport, possession, or selling of any endangered or 

threatened species of fish or wildlife, or any hide, or other part of these species as listed in 6 

NYCRR §182.6. Under these regulations, adverse modification of occupied habitat of endangered 

or threatened species is prohibited without authorization from NYSDEC.
Chapter 12: Water and Natural Resources

Final 12-3 October 2020

B. STUDY AREA

For terrestrial resources and floodplains, the Study Area will be restricted to the Project Site and 

the area immediately adjacent (i.e., the adjacent roadways and portion of the High Line) because 

of the highly developed nature of the surrounding land uses. An exception is made for the 

identification of threatened or endangered species, which will be evaluated for a distance of at 

least 1⁄2-mile from the Project Site. The Study Area for water quality and aquatic biota includes 

the Lower Hudson River, focusing on the area of the river with the potential to receive stormwater 

runoff from the Project Site, combined sewer outfalls (CSOs) with the potential to be affected by 

the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action, and effluent from the North River Water Pollution 

Control Plant.

The Study Area for water resources will include all portions of the Project Site affected by the 

Proposed Action. This will include potential areas of temporary and permanent disturbance, 

including staging areas, and areas adjacent to these areas of disturbance that have the potential to 

be affected by the Proposed Action. The Study Area will be determined primarily based on field 

reconnaissance, inventory and analysis; therefore, the EIS will include a more exact description 

and depiction of the water quality, wetland, and water resource Study Areas.

C. DATA SOURCES

Table 12-1 lists data sources used to characterize floodplains, water quality, wetlands, water 

resources, and natural resources (including threatened or endangered species, wildlife, and 

habitats) within the Study Area. 

Table 12-1 

Data Sources for Natural Resources, Water Resources and Water Quality Analyses

Resource Area Data Sources

Floodplains • FEMA Flood Insurance Rate `Maps (FIRMs)

• USGS topographic maps

Threatened or 

Endangered Species

• USFWS Planning and Conservation System (IPaC) results

• Coordination with USFWS and NMFS for a Section 7 Consultation

• Coordination with NYNHP

• NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper

• NatureServe

• Publicly available empirical studies conducted within proximity to the Project Site

Wildlife and Habitats

• NYSDEC 2000–2005 Breeding Bird Atlas results

• NYSDEC Herp Atlas Project results

• NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper

• Publicly available empirical studies conducted within proximity to the Project Site

• Results from field survey

Wetlands 

• USFWS NWI maps

• USGS topographic maps

• NYSDEC tidal wetlands maps

• NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper

• NYC Oasis Mapper

• Soils data and maps, USDA Web Soil Survey 

• Results from field survey 

Water Quality and 

Water Resources

• NYCDEP Harbor Water Quality Survey reports

• NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper

• Hudson River Estuary Program

• Results from field survey
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 12-4 Final

D. ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

FRA will utilize the data collection tools described above to characterize the current condition of 

Study Area water resources, water quality, and natural resources in the EIS. For example, the EIS 

will identify and describe any wetlands within the Study Area using mapping tools and other 

existing information, field surveys, and agency consultation, as appropriate. The Affected 

Environment Existing Conditions section of the EIS will establish the current conditions of natural 

and water resources. 

The EIS will qualitatively describe existing terrestrial habitats and wildlife present on the Project 

Site and in the Study Area, and will describe the Affected Environment Existing Conditions for 

floodplain, terrestrial resources, and threatened or endangered species. 

The EIS will assess the Affected Environment Future Conditions for natural and water resources 

by considering future private development projects that will be implemented with or without the 

Proposed Action. 

The qualitative assessment of water resources, water quality, and natural resources for the 

Affected Environment Future Conditions will consider both ongoing and proposed projects within 

the Study Area, including, but not limited to the following that would occur by the analysis year:

• Water quality and sediment quality goals of regional and local programs such as the Hudson 

River Estuary Program that may lead to future improvements; 

• Habitat enhancement or restoration activities associated with the Hudson River Estuary 

Program; 

• Effects on aquatic resources from other changes in the Hudson River; and

• Planned projects with the potential to affect water resources and water quality within the Study 

Area. 

FRA will undertake an assessment of the effects of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action 

in the EIS on water resources, water quality, and natural resources, including terrestrial and aquatic 

habitats and wildlife on and near the Project Site. 

FRA will assess potential impacts by examining results of empirical studies conducted by other 

researchers or project proponents within or near the Study Area or other relevant studies performed 

in other geographic areas that relate to the Proposed Action, and identifying potential issues 

through consultation with regulatory agencies. 

Potential impacts to water resources and water quality from the No Action Alternative and 

Proposed Action will be evaluated in order to compare impacts through undertaking the following:

• Assess the potential effects of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action on future water 

quality of the Hudson River. This analysis will consider the potential short- and long-term 

effects of possible stormwater discharges to the Hudson River during construction and 

operation of the Proposed Action. 

• Analyze potential short- and long-term effects to water quality of the Hudson River in the 

vicinity of the North River Water Pollution Control Plant due to projected discharges of 

sanitary sewage to the combined sewer system as a result of the construction and operation of 

the Proposed Action. 
Chapter 12: Water and Natural Resources

Final 12-5 October 2020

• Conduct Section 7 consultation required under the ESA to ensure the No Action Alternative 

and construction and operational impacts associated with the Proposed Action do not 

jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species.

• Assess the potential impacts to the projected future terrestrial and floodplain resources, taking 

into consideration projections of sea level rise (see Chapter 4, “Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions, and Resilience”). 

The outcome of the examination and consultation will determine if the No Action Alternative and 

Proposed Action would result in:

• Temporary and long-term direct impacts such as habitat loss, fragmentation, or modification, 

wetland filling, and/or

• Temporary increases in suspended sediment within surface waters. 

Potential impacts to aquatic resources will consider the following temporary and long-term 

impacts:

• Temporary construction impacts on water quality due to possible dewatering;

• Temporary construction impacts on water quality of the Hudson River from the discharge of 

stormwater during construction;

• Potential long-term operational impacts on water quality associated with the operation of the 

Proposed Action; and 

• Potential impacts to groundwater resources during construction of the project and operation 

of the Proposed Action on the basis of the results of the Contaminated Materials and Soils and 

Geology analyses.

E. IMPACT CRITERIA

Under the CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 11, “Natural Resources,” Sections 100 and 400), 

natural resources include plant and animal species, any area capable of providing habitat for plant 

and animal species, and areas capable of functioning to support ecological systems and maintain 

the City’s environmental stability. Areas that may support plants and animals in urban systems 

include surface water bodies and groundwater; wetland resources, including freshwater and tidal 

wetlands; terrestrial resources, including grasslands, fields, woodlands, gardens and other 

ornamental landscaping; and built resources, including piers and other waterfront structures. An 

adverse impact occurs if the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action would disturb a natural 

resource to such an extent that its values or functions are compromised. To determine whether the 

impacts to ecological communities and wildlife would be adverse, the potential abundance of the 

resource within the region, and the potential impact to the regional population or community from 

a direct loss of individuals or habitat area will be considered. Impacts to natural resources within 

the Study Area will be evaluated against the appropriate regulatory programs and would involve 

coordination with local, state, and federal agencies, on the basis of results of relevant empirical 

studies, and best professional judgement.
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 12-6 Final

Federal Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management,” requires an analysis to identify and 

quantify impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values, and the subsequent preservation or 

restoration of the natural floodplain and its beneficial values as affected by a project. Under DOT 

Order 5650.2, an impact is characterized as a significant encroachment if it would involve: a 

considerable probability of loss of human life; likely future damage associated with the 

encroachment that could be substantial in cost or extent, including interruption of service on or 

loss of a vital transportation facility; or a notable adverse impact on natural and beneficial 

floodplain values.

In accordance with CEQ’s NEPA Implementing Regulations (40 CFR part 1508.27), impacts must 

be considered for their significance with respect to context and intensity. The EIS will assess the 

potential construction and operational impacts of the Proposed Action. Where potential adverse 

impacts are identified, mitigation to address the impacts will be developed, as appropriate and 

feasible.

Impacts to water resources and water quality within the Study Area will be evaluated against the 

appropriate regulatory programs in accordance with federal/state/local guidance and would 

involve coordination with local, state, and federal agencies, on the basis of results of relevant 

empirical studies, and best professional judgement. 

Should it be determined that wetlands would be adversely impacted by the Proposed Action, then 

a Wetland Finding statement as per EO 11990 will be prepared accordingly. This would be 

appended to the EIS being prepared pursuant to the NEPA and CEQR. Impacts to wetlands will 

be described in the EIS and, if necessary, mitigation will be proposed.

F. MITIGATION ANALYSES

If adverse impacts are identified to any of the resources considered in this analysis, FRA will 

recommend measures to mitigate these effects in the EIS. The Proposed Action would first seek 

to identify measures (including changes to design) to avoid, and then minimize impacts to 

protected water resources, water quality, or natural resources to the extent practicable. Where the 

Proposed Action would result in unavoidable adverse impacts, compensatory mitigation would be 

proposed, and would be included as a condition of any applicable permit authorizations from state 

and federal agencies. Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable adverse impacts would be in 

accordance with New York regulations and may take the form of on-site mitigation, off-site 

mitigation, and purchase of compensatory mitigation credits from a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee 

program.

G. CORRELATION WITH OTHER ANALYSES

Analysis of Water Resources and Water Quality will draw upon information developed in several 

other resource category analyses including: Land Use, Land Planning, and Property; Air Quality, 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Resilience; Noise and Vibration; Parks and Recreational 

Resources, Contaminated Materials; Utilities and Energy; Coastal Zone Consistency; 

Socioeconomic Conditions; and Section 4(f) chapters will draw upon information developed in 

the analysis. In addition, if any adverse impacts relating to water resources or water quality are 

identified as part of the analyses, an analysis of the potential impacts to public health will be 

performed (see Chapter 15, “Public Health”). Analysis of Natural Resources will draw upon 

information developed for the resource category analyses related to air quality, greenhouse gas 

and resilience, noise and vibration, utilities and energy, and coastal zone consistency. 
Final 13-1 October 2020

Chapter 13: Coastal Zone Consistency

This chapter identifies the methodology FRA will use for assessing the consistency with the New 

York State Coastal Management Program (CMP) of the No Action Alternative and Proposed 

Action that will be considered in the NEPA process for the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure 

Project. The Affected Environment Existing Conditions for this resource area are the same as the 

Affected Environment Future Conditions, no changes are expected to occur in the future 

conditions. As the Project Site is located within New York City’s Coastal Zone, the operation and 

construction of the Proposed Action will also be assessed for its consistency with the City’s Local 

Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). The EIS will include a detailed analysis of the CMP 

and the LWRP policies and assess the consistency of the Proposed Action with the policies. The 

analysis will draw from various impact analyses throughout the EIS, as relevant to the coastal 

zone.

A. REGULATORY CONTEXT

FEDERAL

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972. The CZMA was established to encourage 

coastal states to manage development within the states’ designated coastal areas to balance 

conflicts between coastal development and protection of resources within the coastal zone. 

Requirements for federal approval of coastal zone management programs and grant application 

procedures for development of the state programs are included in 15 CFR Part 923, Coastal Zone 

Management Program Development and Approval Regulations, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Among other things, these regulations authorize states to 

issue general concurrences for certain activities (40 CFR § 930.53[b]). The Coastal Zone 

Management Act requires that federal activities within a state’s coastal zone be consistent with 

that state’s coastal zone management plan. New York has a federally approved coastal zone 

management program.

NEW YORK STATE

The New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) administers the CMP in New York. New 

York State permits any local government that has any portion of its jurisdiction contiguous to the 

state’s coastal waters to submit a LWRP to NYSDOS for approval. The New York City Waterfront 

Revitalization Program (WRP) is the City’s LWRP, and it’s principal coastal zone management 

tool. 

NEW YORK CITY 

Waterfront Revitalization Program Section (197-a, City Charter). NYCDCP administers New 

York City’s WRP. Because the Project is located within New York City’s Coastal Zone Boundary, 

it will be reviewed for consistency with the WRP policies.
Western Rail Yards Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 13-2 Final

B. STUDY AREA

The Study Area for the coastal zone consistency determination will comprise all portions of the 

Project Site located within the New York State coastal zone boundary. The Project Site is defined 

in Chapter 1 of this Methodology Report. 

C. DATA SOURCES

The data sources used to conduct the consistency determination would comprise the same data 

sources used to characterize existing resources managed by the New York State coastal zone 

program (e.g., natural, cultural, socioeconomic, recreational, land use, floodplain, hazardous 

materials, visual, and other resources). The No Action Alternative and Proposed Action will be 

assessed against the following New York City coastal management policies, stated in the City’s 

WRP: 

1. Support and facilitate commercial and residential redevelopment in areas well-suited to 

such development. 

2. Support water-dependent and industrial uses in New York City coastal areas that are wellsuited to their continued operations. 

3. Promote use of New York City's waterways for commercial and recreational boating and 

water-dependent transportation.

4. Protect and restore the quality and function of ecological systems within the New York 

City coastal area.

5. Protect and improve water quality in the New York City coastal area.

6. Minimize loss of life, structures, infrastructure, and natural resources caused by flooding 

and erosion, and increase resilience to future conditions created by climate change.

7. Minimize environmental degradation and negative impacts on public health from solid 

waste, toxic pollutants, hazardous materials, and industrial materials that may pose risks 

to the environment and public health and safety.

8. Provide public access to, from, and along New York City's coastal waters.

9. Protect scenic resources that contribute to the visual quality of the New York City coastal 

area.

10. Protect, preserve, and enhance resources significant to the historical, archaeological, 

architectural, and cultural legacy of the New York City coastal area.
Chapter 13: Coastal Zone Consistency

Final 13-3 October 2020

D. ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

Each policy or rule listed in the New York State and New York City coastal management programs 

will be reviewed for applicability to the Proposed Action. Those considered applicable will be 

reviewed for consistency based on the criteria and goals described for each and the existing 

conditions, and potential impacts due to construction and operation of the Proposed Action as 

described for each coastal resource in the appropriate chapters of the EIS. Applicable and nonapplicable policies or rules will be listed and identified as such in a table. This chapter of the EIS 

will provide a general understanding of the consistency of the No Action Alternative with the 

coastal management programs and provide a qualitative comparison of the Proposed Action and 

No Action Alternative. The appropriate coastal consistency forms will be completed for the 

Proposed Action, as determined through consultation between FRA and the relevant New York 

State and City agencies. 

E. IMPACT CRITERIA 

FRA will, to the extent practicable, analyze the Proposed Action under the guidance of the criteria 

provided by each of the applicable coastal rules and policies. FRA will identify coastal resources 

managed by a particular rule or policy with the potential to be adversely affected by the Proposed 

Action, provide the reasons why the Proposed Action would not comply with the respective rule 

or policy, and identify mitigation measures that would result in consistency. NYSDOS, in 

consultation with NYCDCP, will issue a concurrence with the consistency certification prepared 

for the Proposed Action.

F. MITIGATION ANALYSIS 

The No Action Alternative and Proposed Action considered in the EIS would avoid impacts to 

coastal resources protected under the applicable coastal management programs (e.g., wetland fills, 

habitat loss) to the extent practicable, and would minimize impacts when avoidance is not 

practicable. If mitigation is required to compensate for the inability to meet the criteria of a coastal 

rule or policy, the mitigation will be described. 

G. CORRELATION WITH OTHER ANALYSES

The Coastal Zone Consistency analysis will be informed by the resource category analyses 

conducted for Land Use, Land Planning and Property; Transportation; Air Quality, Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions, and Resilience; Noise and Vibration; Cultural Resources; Parks and Recreation 

Areas; Contaminated Materials; Utilities and Energy; Water and Natural Resources; and 

Socioeconomic Conditions, to determine the consistency of the Proposed Action with the relevant 

coastal zone policies and rules. 
Final 14-1 October 2020

Chapter 14: Socioeconomics

This chapter describes the methodology FRA will use to evaluate the potential effects of the No 

Action Alternative and Proposed Action on the Study Area’s social and economic characteristics 

from the construction or operation of the Project. In the EIS, FRA will describe the social and 

economic characteristics of the people who live and work within the Study Area, including 

descriptions of employment, jobs, and housing, and the trade and economic characteristics of 

businesses located within the Study Area. The analysis for this resource category will also evaluate 

potential effects of the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action on the elderly and persons 

with disabilities, as well as potential effects on community facilities and services. 

A. REGULATORY CONTEXT 

Following the 23 CFR Part 771 and relevant CEQ guidelines, FRA will consider the No Action 

Alternative and Proposed Action’s potential to impact the social and economic environment. This 

includes the number and types of available jobs likely to be affected by the No Action Alternative 

and Proposed Action, the possibility of demographic shifts, the need for and availability of 

relocation housing, potential impacts on commerce, and impacts on local government services. 

In addition, FRA will consider the potential impact of the Proposed Action on persons with 

disabilities. Guidelines and standards from the American Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VI of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has established regulations and design requirements for the 

construction and alteration of facilities subject to the law. These enforceable standards apply to 

places of public accommodation, commercial facilities, state and local government facilities, and 

programs receiving federal financial assistance. 

B. STUDY AREA

This resource category assessment will consider all areas in which the Proposed Action could alter 

socioeconomic conditions. The size of the Study Area will be based on a consideration of potential 

project impacts during construction, including the location of active construction in combination 

with the potential construction access routes, and operation. As a result, the general Study Area

for socioeconomic effects will be the same as the land use Study Area—a radius of 1⁄2-mile from 

the Project Site will be used, based on the area most likely to be affected in the vicinity of the 

Project. This area also corresponds to the study are for the Environmental Justice analysis. 

However, if during the course of the analyses it is found that the Proposed Action would have 

effects beyond this established Study Area, the Study Area would be expanded accordingly. In 

addition, because much of the socioeconomic resource category analysis will rely on economic 

and demographic data based on geographic boundaries such as census tracts, the Study Area will 

be adjusted to make its boundaries contiguous with these geographic boundaries (i.e., to include 

entire census tracts instead of arbitrarily splitting them, with no way to accurately assign 

corresponding demographic information to a fractional census tract). 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 14-2 Final

C. DATA SOURCES

For socioeconomic conditions, the following data sources will be consulted to gather information 

in understanding existing conditions and likely trends: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community 

Survey (ACS) data, Center for Economic Studies OntheMap data, New York State Department of 

Labor; rental rate and sales price data from local brokerage firms; zoning and land use information 

and GIS mapping layers gathered as part of the broader EIS effort; and site visits (see Table 14-1). 

The primary geography for analysis will be census tracts, but larger geographies may be used 

when appropriate or to provide context.

Table 14-1 

Data Sources 

Analysis Area Data Source

Population Data U.S. Census Bureau, ACS Data

Income Data U.S. Census Bureau, ACS Data

Age Distribution Data U.S. Census Bureau, ACS Data

Language Proficiency Data U.S. Census Bureau, ACS Data

Employment and Business Data U.S. Census Bureau’s OntheMap; New York State Department of 

Labor

Property Data Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping layers; land use 

information, field visits; real estate listings

Housing/Vacancy Data Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping layers; land use 

information, field visits

Community Facilities and Services

Site visits; land use information, previous 2009 SEQRA/CEQR EIS; 

resources and areas of cultural value identified by federal, state, and 

local laws and programs; any resources identified through 

scoping/public outreach

D. ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

FRA will use the CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 5, Section 300) methodology as guidance 

for the analysis of potential impacts to socioeconomic conditions from the construction and 

operation of the Proposed Action. The CEQR Technical Manual contains guidelines for 

preliminary assessment and detailed analysis methodologies for five principal issues of concern 

with respect to socioeconomic conditions and whether an alternative would result in significant 

impacts due to: (1) direct residential displacement; (2) direct business displacement; (3) indirect 

residential displacement; (4) indirect business displacement; and (5) adverse effects on a specific 

industry. For indirect residential displacement and indirect business displacement, those 

assessments are considered in Chapter 18, “Indirect and Cumulative Impacts.” The CEQR 

Technical Manual guidance is further described below for these three issues considered under 

direct effects to socioeconomic conditions. 

The CEQR Technical Manual also has detailed methodology for the assessment of effects on 

community facilities and services, including: public schools, libraries, publicly funded day care 

facilities, outpatient and emergency health care facilities, and police and fire protection services. FRA 

will use the CEQR Technical Manual methodology as guidance for the analysis of potential impacts 

to community facilities and services from the construction or operation of the Proposed Action. 
Chapter 14: Socioeconomics

Final 14-3 October 2020

POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS 

FRA will identify the population and demographic characteristics of the Study Area via the latest 

available ACS 5-Year Estimates and OntheMap data from the U.S. Census Bureau including: total 

population, average household income, number of housing units, and workforce characteristics 

such as employment by industry sector. FRA will identify specific demographic groups including 

populations of those with Limited English Proficiency (LEP), elderly citizens, and low-income 

and minority populations. This will be in addition to the Environmental Justice analyses of low 

income and minority populations which FRA will include in the EIS (see Chapter 16, 

“Environmental Justice,” for more details). FRA will describe the probable shifts in 

socioeconomic conditions given the rapidly developing Hudson Yards area and evaluate the 

Proposed Action’s compatibility with socioeconomic trends.

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

FRA will identify and characterize conditions and trends in employment and business within the 

Study Area using data from the following sources: U.S. Census Bureau ACS and OntheMap; 

ESRI, Inc.; New York State Department of Labor; Dunn & Bradstreet; rental rate and sales price 

data from local brokerage firms; and zoning and land use information gathered as part of the 

broader EIS effort.

DIRECT RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT

Field reconnaissance will confirm the absence or presence of any residences located on or adjacent 

to the Project Site that would be displaced either temporarily due to construction or permanently 

as a result of the Proposed Action. 

As noted above, direct residential displacement is a principal issue of concern under the CEQR 

Technical Manual (see Chapter 5, 321.1). Direct residential displacement occurs when residents 

would be involuntarily displaced from a site that is directly affected by a Proposed Project. In 

accordance with the CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 5, 321.1), FRA will identify and disclose 

the number of residents (if any) that would be displaced by the Proposed Action. FRA will determine 

if the displaced population represents a substantial proportion of the population in the Study Area

(more than five percent is considered substantial). If the displaced population is more than five 

percent of the Study Area population, FRA will conduct a detailed assessment to determine if the 

displaced population has an average income that is lower than that of the Study Area population and 

whether relocation opportunities exist within the Study Area for the displaced households. 

DIRECT BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT

Field reconnaissance will confirm the absence or presence of any business located on or adjacent 

to the Western Rail Yard site that would be displaced either temporarily due to construction or 

permanently as a result of the Proposed Action. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 14-4 Final

As noted above, direct business displacement is a principal issue of concern under the CEQR 

Technical Manual (see Chapter 5, 321.2). Direct business displacement occurs when businesses 

would be involuntarily displaced from a site that is directly affected by a Proposed Project. In 

accordance with the CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 5, 321.2), FRA will conduct a 

preliminary assessment to determine if the displaced businesses provide products or services 

essential to the local economy that would no longer be available in the businesses’ “trade areas.” A 

trade area may be larger than the Study Area depending on the draw of the business. The preliminary 

assessment will also determine if the businesses to be displaced are subject to other regulations or 

publicly adopted plans to preserve, enhance, or otherwise protect it. If either of these preliminary 

assessment conditions are possible, FRA will conduct a detailed assessment with the objective of 

better understanding the displaced businesses, their markets, the potential for relocation, and if the 

products or services they provide would still be available. FRA will also assess the extent to which 

the Proposed Action would displace or necessitate the relocation and reconstruction of any railroad 

facilities or operations, in light of a Project objective to maintain uninterrupted LIRR operations 

during the construction of the Platform and its associated infrastructure, and Tunnel Encasement. 

ADVERSE EFFECTS ON A SPECIFIC INDUSTRY

As noted above, adverse effects on specific industries is a principal issue of concern under the 

CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 5, 323). FRA will conduct a preliminary assessment of 

effects on specific industries using the guidance of the CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 5, 

323). This assessment will determine whether the Proposed Action would adversely affect 

business conditions in any industry or category of businesses within or outside the Study Area, or 

whether the Proposed Action would substantially reduce employment or impair viability in a 

specific industry or category of businesses. FRA will use data from the Land Use assessment and 

the U.S Census Bureau’s OntheMap to determine the presence of specific industries in the Study 

Area that may be affected by the Proposed Action. 

COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

FRA will use the guidance of the CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 6) to analyze the Proposed 

Action’s effect on community facilities and services in the Study Area, including public schools, 

libraries, child care centers, health care facilities, fire protection, police protection, and other 

community facilities. FRA will use data from the Land Uses assessment to determine the presence 

and location of community facilities in the Study Area. FRA will assess the potential direct and 

indirect effects of the Proposed Action on community facilities and services. Direct effects would 

occur if the Proposed Action would displace or physically alter a community facility. Indirect 

effects would occur if the Proposed Action introduces a population that would increase demand 

for existing services. The analysis of police and fire protection in this chapter will be limited to 

service delivery. In Chapter 17, “Safety and Security,” FRA will analyze system safety- and 

security-related requirements, policies, procedures, protocols, and infrastructure and identify new 

elements that will be incorporated into the Proposed Action.
Chapter 14: Socioeconomics

Final 14-5 October 2020

ELDERLY AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 

FRA will assess whether the Proposed Action would displace any facilities serving elderly and/or 

disabled populations, introduce any new populations of elderly or disabled persons, or interfere with 

the movement of these user groups in the area. FRA will estimate the elderly and/or disabled population 

in the Study Area based on information from the U.S. Census Bureau’s ACS. FRA will assess if 

construction or operation of the Proposed Action would affect this population’s access to local 

businesses and health care facilities. FRA will discuss the existence of transit; existing pedestrian 

facilities such as sidewalks and crossings; and adequacy of traffic signal timing as appropriate. 

E. IMPACT CRITERIA

In accordance with CEQ’s NEPA Implementing Regulations (40 CFR part 1508.27), impacts must 

be considered for their significance with respect to context and intensity. The EIS will assess the 

potential construction and operational impacts of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action. 

Where potential adverse impacts are identified, mitigation to address the impacts will be 

developed, as appropriate and feasible. 

The assessment will consider socioeconomic impacts resulting from potential direct residential 

and business displacements, and increased demand for community facilities and services. 

FRA will use the CEQR Technical Manual as guidance in determining if the Proposed Action has 

the potential to result in adverse impacts. The CEQR Technical Manual guidance is as follows 

(see Chapter 5, 420; Chapter 6, 400): 

DIRECT RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT

• A Build Alternative has the potential to result in adverse impacts due to direct residential 

displacement if the Proposed Action would result in the displacement of a low-income 

population that exceeds five percent of the Study Area population or relevant subareas, and 

these low-income households could not be relocated within the Study Area. 

DIRECT BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT

• A Build Alternative has the potential to result in adverse impacts due to direct business 

displacement if the businesses to be displaced provide goods or services that may not be found 

elsewhere within the Study Area or the business is otherwise subject to a regulations or 

publicly adopted plans to preserve, enhance, or otherwise protect it and the business could not 

be relocated into a suitable space within the Study Area. 

COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES 

• A Build Alternative has the potential to result in adverse impacts community facilities and 

services if service delivery would deteriorate to unacceptable levels as a result of a substantial 

(more than five percent) increase in population due to the project. 

ELDERLY AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 

• The CEQR Technical Manual does not provide impact criteria for determining impacts on the 

elderly and persons with disabilities. FRA will determine if the Proposed Action would 

impede the movement of this population in the Study Area or would displace a facility that 

serves this population. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 14-6 Final

F. MITIGATION ANALYSIS

If the Proposed Action would result in adverse impacts to socioeconomic conditions, community 

facilities and services, or to the elderly or disabled, FRA will explore measures to avoid or mitigate 

these impacts, and describe these measures in the EIS. 

G. CORRELATION WITH OTHER ANALYSES

Data presented in the socioeconomic conditions assessment will inform the environmental justice 

analysis. 
Final 15-1 October 2020

Chapter 15: Public Health

This chapter describes the methodology that FRA will use to assess the potential for public health 

impacts from the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. It is important to ensure that 

potential impacts to public health from the construction and operation of the Proposed Action are 

adequately identified and evaluated for the short term and long-term health of people and 

businesses in the vicinity of the Project. This public health assessment methodology has been 

prepared to guide the analyses that will be prepared for the EIS; any subsequent changes to 

analysis methodologies will be reflected directly in the EIS. This effects assessment methodology 

has also been prepared to ensure that the EIS will fulfill any applicable federal, state and local 

environmental review requirements.

A. REGULATORY CONTEXT

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires consideration of the potential effects of 

Federal actions on public health (42 USC 4321). Following 23 CFR Part 771 and relevant CEQ 

guidelines, FRA procedures indicate that public health should be considered. New York City also 

provides guidance in the CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 20, Section 300) for assessing 

potential impacts on public health. 

USEPA is principally responsible for issues of public health caused by environmental factors, and 

has issued a technical memorandum. Promoting the Use of Health Impact Assessment to Address 

Human Health in Reviews Conducted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and 

Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (USEPA Health Impact Memorandum), as guidance for public 

health assessments. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is the lead public health 

agency in the country. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is responsible for 

governing public health conditions at places of employment nationwide. Many of the laws and 

regulations protecting public health are resource-specific—for example, the Clean Air Act of 1970 

and its amendments of 1990 ( 42 USC 7401), and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 

CFR 50). However, it is important to consider these laws and the impacts from resources in regard 

to overall public health concerns. 

NEPA regulations do not require quantitative analysis regarding public health; however, 

environmental, social, demographic, and economic conditions drive the health and well-being of 

communities and will be considered as part of this analysis. The conclusions regarding public 

health will be based on the analyses of those resource categories that may be associated with the 

following public health effects: Air Quality, Noise, Contaminated Materials (concerning 

hazardous materials), and Water Quality. FRA will prepare a public health analysis referencing 

the resource categories identified above, using USEPA guidance in combination with the guidance 

presented in the CEQR Technical Manual, Chapter 20. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 15-2 Final

B. STUDY AREA

The Study Area includes the Project Site and the area extending 1⁄2-mile immediately adjacent to 

the Project Site (as described in Chapter 1, “Introduction,” and shown in Figures 1-1 and 1-2). The 

Study Area accounts for effects that may be felt outside the area of direct impacts, such as changes 

in air quality, noise, or vibration. The Study Area for the public health impacts assessment will 

coincide with the Study Areas of the resource category analyses for Air Quality (see Chapter 4), 

Noise and Vibration (see Chapter 5), Contaminated Materials (see Chapter 9), and Water Quality 

(see Chapter 12). To the extent that the Study Area is different between the resource category 

analyses, the public health Study Area is consistent with the Study Areas identified in those 

chapters, and includes the Project Site, receptors surrounding the Project Site, and along routes 

that vehicular traffic associated with the Proposed Action would use to travel. 

C. DATA SOURCES

For the public health impacts assessment, data sources will include the Air Quality, Noise, 

Contaminated Materials, and Water Quality analyses for the Project, as well as reference guidance 

materials from USEPA and the CEQR Technical Manual shown in Table 15-1. 

Table 15-1 

Public Health Analysis Data Sources

Analysis Area Data Source

Public Health

Project EIS Analyses of: 

- Air Quality

- Noise

- Contaminated Materials

- Water Quality 

Reference and guidance materials, including: 

- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services health data 

- USEPA Human Health Risk Assessment Tools and 

Databases, and Guidelines1

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Human Health Risk Assessment. 

(https://www.epa.gov/risk/human-health-risk-assessment), accessed August 20, 2020.

- USEPA EPCRA existing Tier I and Tier II reports and other 

requirements under that law2

2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. 

(https://www.epa.gov/epcra), accessed August 20, 2020.
Chapter 15: Public Health

Final 15-3 October 2020

D. ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

As stated above, using the relevant CEQ and USEPA guidelines, and the guidance provided in the

CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 20, Section 300), the results of the Air Quality, Noise, 

Contaminated Materials, and Water Quality analyses will be reviewed to determine if there are 

any public health concerns as a result of the construction or operation of the Proposed Action. 

FRA will evaluate potential for public health impacts from the Proposed Action, including both 

qualitative and quantitative methods. FRA will consider both potential temporary (e.g., 

construction) and long-term (permanent) impacts to public health from the Proposed Action. The 

analysis will include a qualitative description of how the Proposed Action could affect public 

health based on a review of the resource category impact analyses for the Air Quality, Noise, 

Contaminated Materials, and Water Quality, followed by a discussion of avoidance and 

minimization measures if needed. The direct impacts related to public health will be analyzed 

through qualitative analysis based on the aforementioned guidelines for public health assessment, 

for the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action for both temporary (construction period) 

and permanent (operational) impacts. 

E. IMPACT CRITERIA

Drawing on the EIS chapters for the resource categories listed below, this task will assess and 

summarize the potential for adverse impacts on public health from activities associated with the 

construction and operation of the Proposed Action.

AIR QUALITY 

According to the guidelines of the CEQR Technical Manual, public health concerns related to air 

quality issues for which an assessment may be warranted include increased vehicular traffic or 

emissions from stationary sources resulting in adverse air quality impacts. 

Emissions from stationary sources, mobile sources, and construction sources, all have the potential 

to affect air quality. FRA will use the methodology to analyze potential air quality impacts

described in Chapter 4, “Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Resilience,” and will 

include both on-site and on-road sources of air emissions, and the combined impacts of both 

sources, where applicable. The analyses will address both local (microscale) and regional 

(mesoscale) emissions where applicable.

NOISE

According to the guidelines of the CEQR Technical Manual, public health concerns related to 

noise for which an assessment may be warranted include increased vehicular traffic or emissions 

from stationary sources resulting in adverse noise impacts.

Emissions from stationary sources, mobile sources, and construction sources, all have the potential 

to affect noise. FRA will use the methodology to analyze potential noise impacts described in 

Chapter 5, “Noise and Vibration,” and will include both on-site and on-road sources of noise 

emissions, and the combined impacts of both sources, where applicable. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 15-4 Final

CONTAMINATED MATERIALS

According to the guidelines of the CEQR Technical Manual, public health concerns related to 

contaminated materials for which an assessment may be warranted include increased vehicular 

traffic or emissions from stationary sources resulting in increased exposure to heavy metals and 

other contaminants in soil/dust resulting in adverse hazardous materials; the presence of 

contamination from historic spills or releases of substances that might have affected or might 

affect ground water to be used as a source of drinking water; and actions for which any potential 

impacts result in an exceedance of accepted Federal, state, or local standards. FRA will use the 

methodology for the contaminated materials analysis described in Chapter 9, “Contaminated 

Materials.” 

WATER QUALITY 

According to the guidelines of the CEQR Technical Manual, public health concerns related to 

water quality for which an assessment may be warranted include discharge of pollutants into 

waterways resulting in adverse water quality impacts. FRA will use the methodology for the water 

quality analysis described in Chapter 12, “Water and Natural Resources.” 

F. MITIGATION ANALYSES

Depending on the impact assessment results, FRA will evaluate the need for public health 

mitigation will provide mitigation recommendations. If an adverse impact to public health is 

identified, mitigation measures that may be utilized will be identified based on the type of the 

impact(s). FRA will assess potential public health mitigation measures based on the magnitude of 

the impacts identified. FRA will assess potential public health mitigation measures for the 

Proposed Action for their effectiveness relative to reducing public health risks related to any or all 

of the following:

• Air quality, as identified in that chapter of the EIS;

• Noise, as identified in that chapter of the EIS;

• Water quality, as identified in that chapter of the EIS; and

• Contaminated materials including solid waste and hazardous materials, as identified in that 

chapter of the EIS. 

G. CORRELATION WITH OTHER ANALYSES

This chapter will be informed by and use information from the analyses of Air Quality, Noise, 

Contaminated Materials, and Water Quality, to support the determination of potential public health 

impacts from the Proposed Action  
Final 16-1 October 2020

Chapter 16: Environmental Justice

This chapter describes the methodology that FRA will use for the assessment and analysis of 

potential impacts to minority and/or low-income populations (collectively, environmental justice 

populations) from the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action considered in the EIS. If 

there are environmental justice populations in the Study Area, the analysis will determine whether 

the construction and operation of the Proposed Action would have any disproportionately high 

and adverse effects on those populations following CEQ, USDOT, other federal guidance and 

New York State guidance. 

A. REGULATORY CONTEXT

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued EO 12898, “Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” The Executive 

Order is designed to ensure that each Federal agency “shall make achieving environmental justice 

part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income populations.”

All federal agencies are required to determine whether their proposed actions (those that are 

undertaken directly by a federal agency or are funded or approved by a federal agency) would 

have a disproportionately high and adverse environmental effect on environmental justice 

populations. CEQ, which has oversight of the Federal government’s compliance with EO 12898 

and NEPA, developed guidance to assist Federal agencies with their NEPA procedures so that 

environmental justice concerns are effectively identified and addressed (Environmental Justice 

Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act, December 1997, referred to in this 

document as CEQ guidance).

Federal agencies may supplement the CEQ guidance with more specific procedures tailored to 

their particular programs or activities. As such, USDOT issued Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (USDOT Order 5610.2[a], May 2, 

2012) which sets forth the USDOT policy to consider environmental justice principles in all 

USDOT programs, policies, and activities. It describes how the objectives of environmental justice 

are integrated into planning and programming, rulemaking, and policy formulation. USDOT Order 

5610.2(a) also requires that any activities that will have a disproportionately high and adverse 

effect on environmental justice populations will only be carried out if: (1) further mitigation 

measures or alternatives that would avoid or reduce the disproportionately high and adverse effects 

are not practicable; and (2) a substantial need for the action exists, and other alternatives that 

would have less adverse impacts on the subject population and still satisfy the need, would either 

have other adverse impacts that are more severe or involve increased costs of extraordinary 

magnitude.
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 16-2 Final

Minority populations, as defined in the USDOT Order 5610.2(a), are any readily identifiable group 

or groups of minority persons who live in geographic proximity and, if circumstances warrant, 

geographically dispersed or transient persons, such as migrant workers or Native Americans, who 

will be similarly affected by the Proposed Project. Minority population includes persons who are 

Black or African American (not of Hispanic origin), American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian 

American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and Hispanic or Latino. This environmental 

justice analysis also considers minority to include persons identified as being either “some other 

race” or “two or more races” in the census data. 

A low-income person, as defined in the DOT Order 5610.2(a), is one whose median household 

income is at or below the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines. 

A low-income population is any readily identifiable group or groups of low-income persons who 

live in geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed or transient 

persons who will be similarly affected by a proposed USDOT, program, policy, or activity.

FTA also issued Environmental Justice Policy Guidance for Federal Transit Administration 

Recipients (FTA Circular 4703.1, August 2012) to provide a framework for conducting an 

environmental justice analysis for transit-related projects. This document further outlines 

procedures for complying with EO 12898 that FRA will use as guidance in this analysis. 

Additionally, the environmental justice analysis will comply with applicable New York State 

Environmental Justice laws, regulations and guidelines, including the recent amendment to the 

New York State Environmental Conservation Law, to include a new Article 48, Environmental 

Justice.

B. STUDY AREA

In general, the Study Area for the environmental justice extends beyond the Project Site, to not 

only include the physical limits of the proposed alternatives, but also to account for effects that 

may be felt beyond the Project footprint, such as air quality, noise, vibration, and land uses that 

may adversely or disproportionately affect low-income or minority communities. FRA will define 

the Study Area for this environmental justice analysis to include all census block groups that are 

at least 50 percent within a 1⁄2-mile radius of the Project Site, consistent with the socioeconomic 

Study Area (see Chapter 14, “Socioeconomics”), which is likely the area where any potential 

adverse impacts resulting from the Proposed Action could occur. As presently defined, the 

environmental justice Study Area includes 22 census block groups. Should the other technical 

analyses in the EIS identify resource impacts in locations outside the socioeconomic Study Area, 

then FRA will amend the environmental justice Study Area to include the additional location or 

locations to assess impacts to environmental justice populations. 

C. DATA SOURCES 

Data for the environmental justice analysis will come from the following source.
Chapter 16: Environmental Justice

Final 16-3 October 2020

The data source FRA will use for the identification of low-income and minority populations is the 

U.S. Census Bureau’s ACS five-year average data for 2014 to 2018 (inclusive). Minority and lowincome populations will be quantified for the census block groups in the Study Area. The ACS is 

an ongoing survey that provides data on age, sex, race, family and relationships, income and 

benefits, health insurance, education, veteran status, disabilities, where people work and how they 

get there, and where people live and how much people pay for essentials. The purpose of the ACS 

is to provide an annual data set that enables communities, state governments, and Federal 

programs to plan investments and services. ACS provides period estimates that describe the 

average characteristics of population and housing over a period of data collection. The ACS is 

administered continually and is a random sampling of people from all counties and countyequivalents in the United States

Table 16-1 

Data Sources 

Analysis Area Data Source

Environmental Justice 2014–2018 American Community Survey (ACS), Table B17001 (or 

more current ACS estimates, if available)

D. ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

Following the guidance documents referred above, FRA will follow a five-step process for this 

analysis to identify whether or not a proposed action would result in a disproportionately high and 

adverse effect on environmental justice populations, and if so, whether further assessment is 

necessary to alleviate those effects, if practicable, FRA will follow the five steps listed below. 

• Define the Study Area; 

• Identify environmental justice populations in the Study Area; 

• Identify adverse effects of the proposed action;

• Determine whether adverse effects are disproportionately high; and

• Determine whether disproportionately high and adverse effects will be borne by 

environmental justice populations.

A key component of an environmental justice analysis is engaging environmental justice 

populations to better understand their concerns. FRA will include and describe the outreach 

undertaken to these populations during the environmental review process in this analysis.

FRA will map the minority and low-income population data to illustrate the location of 

environmental justice populations in comparison to the project area. New York County (the 

Borough of Manhattan) will be used as the project’s primary statistical reference area.

Following CEQ guidance, FRA will identify minority populations where either: (1) the minority 

population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent of the total population; or (2) the minority 

population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population 

percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. For this 

analysis, the minority or low-income population of Census block groups in the Study Area will be 

compared to New York County’s (Borough of Manhattan’s) percentage of minority or low-income 

populations. As Manhattan’s minority populations is 53.1 percent, FRA will use the more 

conservative 50 percent CEQ threshold. Accordingly, FRA will consider any block group with a 

minority population of more than 50 percent, an environmental justice population for the analysis. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 16-4 Final

According to the USDOT order, low-income population means any readily identifiable group of 

low-income persons who live in geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, 

geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who 

will be similarly affected by a proposed USDOT program, policy or activity. In Manhattan overall, 

16.6 percent of people live below the poverty level. Therefore, if a block group has 16.6 percent 

or more of its population living below the poverty level, FRA will identify it as an environmental 

justice population.

These thresholds have been established based on the CEQ guidance discussed above to reflect 

local conditions and set a conservative boundary for defining minority and low-income 

populations in this analysis. In some cases, additional environmental justice populations may be 

identified even in US Census areas that do not achieve the threshold percentages, in accordance 

with USDOT. 

E. IMPACT CRITERIA

The environmental justice analysis will evaluate both the No Action Alternative and the Proposed 

Action to determine whether the respective alternatives would result in disproportionately high 

and adverse effects to minority and low-income populations.

Under USDOT Order 5610.2(a), adverse effects could include, but are not limited to:

• Bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death;

• Air, noise, and water pollution and soil contamination;

• Destruction or disruption of man-made or natural resources;

• Destruction or diminution of aesthetic values;

• Destruction or disruption of community cohesion or a community’s economic vitality;

• Destruction or disruption of the availability of public and private facilities and services;

• Vibration;

• Adverse employment effects;

• Displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or non-profit organizations;

• Increased traffic congestion, isolation, exclusion or separation of individuals within a given 

community or from the broader community; and

• The denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits of USDOT programs, 

policies, or activities.

Based on the FTA Circular, FRA’s evaluation will consider the following criteria in determining 

whether the activity will result in a “disproportionately high and adverse effect on human health 

or the environment”:

• Would the alternative’s adverse impacts be predominantly borne by minority or low-income 

populations? This will be determined by identifying whether adverse impacts are concentrated 

in minority or low-income communities.

• Would adverse impacts to minority or low-income populations be appreciably more severe or 

greater in magnitude than those suffered by non-minority or low-income populations?
Chapter 16: Environmental Justice

Final 16-5 October 2020

• Does the Project affect a resource that is especially important to an environmental justice 

population? For example, does the Project affect a resource that serves an especially important 

social, religious, or cultural function for an environmental justice population?

• What would be the effect of the alternative’s offsetting benefits when considering these 

impacts?

• What would be the effect of mitigation measures that would be incorporated into the 

alternative and any other enhancements or betterments that would be provided in lieu of 

mitigation when considering these impacts?

The analysis of impacts for resource categories listed above (which will be analyzed in their 

respective EIS chapters), will be evaluated with consideration of the location of environmental 

justice populations. FRA will not consider the environmental categories with no adverse effects 

identified in the other technical chapters of the EIS for additional environmental justice analysis 

due to no potential for disproportionately high and adverse effects to minority or low-income

populations.

Where FRA identifies impacts that could occur within and near environmental justice populations, 

the EIS will describe these impacts and whether or not they can be fully mitigated. For any impacts 

that cannot be fully mitigated, FRA will determine whether these are disproportionately high and 

adverse effects that would be borne by environmental justice populations. 

F. MITIGATION ANALYSIS

Under USDOT Order 5610.2(a), where it is found that activities are expected to have a 

disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority populations or low-income populations, 

those activities will only be carried out if further mitigation measures or alternatives that would 

avoid or reduce the disproportionately high and adverse effect are not practicable. In determining 

whether a mitigation measure or an alternative is “practicable,” the social, economic (including 

costs), and environmental effects of avoiding or mitigating the adverse effects will be considered.

If FRA identifies disproportionately high and adverse effects to environmental justice populations, 

FRA will evaluate whether there is a further practicable mitigation measure or practicable 

alternative that would avoid or reduce the disproportionately high and adverse effects. This 

assessment will first examine whether additional mitigation could fully alleviate the 

disproportionately high and adverse effects, and if not, FRA will examine potential alternatives 

that could avoid or diminish the disproportionately high and adverse effects.

G. CORRELATION WITH OTHER ANALYSES

The environmental justice analysis will incorporate the results of all other relevant analyses 

presented in the EIS. 
Final 17-1 October 2020

Chapter 17: Safety and Security

This chapter describes the approach for safety and security measures that the FRA will consider 

as part of the design for the Proposed Action, based on the design developed by the Project 

Sponsor for the Proposed Action. In this chapter of the EIS, FRA will identify existing system 

safety- and security-related requirements, policies, procedures, protocols, and infrastructure and 

new elements that would be considered in the design of the Proposed Action. The Affected 

Environment Existing Conditions for this resource area are the same as the Affected Environment 

Future Conditions, no changes are expected to occur at the Project Site in the future conditions. 

FRA will identify safety and security project elements that would be components of the Proposed 

Action and safety and security measures that would be implemented in the Study Area under the 

No Action Alternative. Vehicular safety, pedestrian safety, and bicycle safety methodology is 

discussed in Chapter 3, “Transportation.” Chapter 14, “Socioeconomics,” discusses the 

methodology for community facilities and services, including police and fire protection services.

A. REGULATORY CONTEXT

FRA is the key agency with regulatory jurisdiction on intercity passenger, commuter, and freight 

railroad safety. FRA has jurisdiction over all aspects of the physical railroad system including 

railroad infrastructure (for example, tracks, bridges, and tunnels), equipment (for example, 

locomotives, and railcars), freight, and passengers.1

1 49 USC 201

Other key agencies in the safety and security 

of railroad infrastructure, material transport, and passenger safety are the USDOT Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the United States Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), and the Transportation Security Agency (TSA), an agency within DHS.
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 17-2 Final

FRA is responsible for the administration of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 and the 

High-Speed Passenger Rail Safety Strategy.2

2 Public Law 110-432

,3

3 USDOT, FRA. 2009. High-Speed Passenger Rail Safety Strategy. Accessed from

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L03624. Accessed September 21, 2020.

The DHS and TSA play a role in monitoring and 

securing freight across the country; this includes the transport of hazardous materials, as well as 

mass transit and passenger rail security and preparedness.4

4 49 CFR 1580

,5

5 DHS, Office of the Inspector General. 2010. TSA’s Preparedness for Mass Transit and Passenger Rail 

Emergencies. Accessed from https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_10-68_Mar10.pdf. Accessed 

September 21, 2020.

The National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA), a trade organization, is also responsible for publishing guidance, codes and 

standards intended to eliminate death, injury, property and economic loss due to fire and related 

hazards. FTA provides financial and technical assistance to local public transit systems, including 

buses, subways, light rail, commuter rail, trolleys and ferries. FTA also oversees safety measures 

and helps develop next-generation technology research.6

6 FTA, 2020. About FTA. Accessed from https://www.transit.dot.gov/about-fta. Accessed September 21, 

2020.

FRA will consult FTA guidance, 

including but not limited to, the Transit Security Handbook, Public Transportation System 

Security and Emergency Preparedness Guide, and Safety Certification Handbook.

MTA is responsible for the operation and maintenance of its trains in the Study Area, as well as 

assessing and implementing safety and security measures within the Western Rail Yard (which is 

also the Project Site, as described in Chapter 1, “Introduction”). 

MTA train operations in the Study Area are regulated and monitored by Federal, state, and local 

agencies, including FRA, FTA, NYSDOT, and local law enforcement.

Regulatory codes and laws on safety and security measures will be obtained from Federal, state 

and local agencies. 

B. STUDY AREA

The Study Area is limited to the Project Site. As defined in Chapter 1, “Introduction,” the Project 

Site includes the entire 13-acre Western Rail Yard site, bounded by Eleventh Avenue to the east,

West 33rd Street to the north, Twelfth Avenue to the west, and West 30th Street to the south. 

C. DATA SOURCES

FRA will obtain information and guidance on safety and security measures from Federal, state 

and local agencies. Governmental agencies and industry organizations that provide safety and 

security related regulations, criteria and guidance include the following entities: OSHA; NFPA; 

FRA, FTA, American Public Transit Association (APTA). FRA guidance includes but not limited 

to Emergency Preparedness Guidelines for Passenger Trains, 49 CFR § 200-299, and Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008. DHS’s rail transportation security 49 CFR § 1580.27. FTA guidance 

includes but is not limited to the Transit Security Handbook, Public Transportation System 

Security and Emergency Preparedness Guide, and Safety Certification Handbook. Table 17-1

presents a listing of this information and data sources that FRA will use in this analysis. 
Chapter 17: Safety and Security

Final 17-3 October 2020

Table 17-1 

Safety and Security Data Sources

Analysis Area Data Sources

MTA Safety and Security programs, 

plans, and procedures MTA, Federal, and NY law enforcement agencies

Federal, state and local design and 

construction codes, regulations, and 

guidelines that are safety and 

security related

Governmental agencies and industry organizations that provide safety 

and security related regulations, criteria and guidance for. Entities include 

the Federal Occupational Health and Safety Agency (OSHA); National 

Fire Protection Association (NFPA); FRA, FTA, American Public Transit 

Association (APTA). FRA guidance includes but not limited to Emergency 

Preparedness Guidelines for Passenger Trains. CEQ’s NEPA 

Implementing Regulations (49 CFR § 200-299), Rail Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008. DHS’s rail transportation security regulation 49 CFR § 

1580.27. FTA guidance includes but is not limited to the Transit Security 

Handbook, Public Transportation System Security and Emergency 

Preparedness Guide, and Safety Certification Handbook.

D. ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES AND CRITERIA

The EIS will describe the approach for incorporating safety and security measures that FRA will 

consider as part of the design for the Proposed Action and during construction of the Proposed 

Action. During the EIS, the safety and security analysis will identify potential safety issues to be 

addressed by the design of the Proposed Action and construction methods and security to be 

provided during construction. FRA will identify and describe existing system safety- and securityrelated requirements, policies, procedures, protocols, and infrastructure. FRA will also describe 

safety and security elements (to the extent possible given the confidentiality of certain elements) 

that will be incorporated into the Proposed Action. FRA will also describe the construction 

practices that will be used to ensure security of the Project Site and safe construction of the 

Proposed Action. 

The Proposed Action would introduce new infrastructure elements that would change the physical 

setting of the rail yard. These changes to the rail yard’s physical setting would affect rail yard 

workers in particular. The new Platform would virtually completely enclose the rail yard and 

would introduce the potential for new hazards for workers and potential new security issues. To 

determine potential impacts, FRA will examine and describe how the change in the rail yard’s 

physical setting resulting from the Proposed Action would affect worker safety, and FRA will 

address the new security issues introduced by the change in physical setting at the Project Site 

from the Platform and Tunnel Encasement. FRA will also identify any potential safety and/or 

security issues resulting from the construction and operation of the Proposed Action in this chapter 

of the EIS, and will describe how these issues will be addressed through the design of the Proposed 

Action, or through construction period or operational security measures to be implemented as part 

of the Proposed Action’s construction or operation. Table 17-1 lists the data sources for 

identifying and guiding the description of the design standards that must be complied with as part 

of the design of the Proposed Action.
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 17-4 Final

Among the design criteria to be applied in the safety and security analysis will be the National 

Fire Protection Association’s Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems—

NFPA 130 (NFPA 130). This will ensure the design of the Proposed Action meets the applicable 

standards set forth for addressing emergency fire conditions in the rail yard. Among NFPA 130, 

requirements to be considered include emergency ventilation, emergency exits, and fire standpipe 

systems. The analysis will also identify and describe any other applicable design criteria that 

would influence the provision of safety and security measures at the Project Site for the Proposed 

Action. The description will identify potential effects and benefits of these and other safety and 

security project elements that would be components of the No Action Alternative and Proposed 

Action. In the No Action Alternative, nothing at the Project Site will change, and the existing 

safety and security systems and practices will remain in place.

E. MITIGATION ANALYSIS

Safety and security elements of the Proposed Action for construction and operation will be planned 

and designed at the Preliminary Engineering level to minimize impacts on the public, police, other 

security services, fire, emergency, and medical services to the maximum extent possible. The 

design and engineering for the Platform and associated railroad infrastructure, and the Tunnel 

Encasement is being developed to incorporate long-term resilience considerations, including 

design elements aimed against evolving security threats, in order to help minimize the potential 

for future life safety and/or security threats to the Project Site. If there are inconsistencies with 

safety and security requirements and procedures, FRA will revise the design and procedures of 

the Proposed Action to be in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. 

F. CORRELATION WITH OTHER ANALYSES

The Safety and Security effects assessment does not rely on analysis in other areas of the EIS. 
Final 18-1 October 2020

Chapter 18: Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts

This chapter identifies the methodology that FRA will follow to assess the indirect effects and 

cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action for the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project. 

Indirect effects are those that are “caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed in 

distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable” (40 CFR § 1508.8). For the Proposed Action, this 

includes the indirect effect associated with the implementation of an as-of-right mixed-use 

development over the Platform (Overbuild). The Overbuild development was comprehensively 

analyzed in the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS and subsequently approved by New York City (as 

described in detail in Chapter 1, “Introduction”). The program as set forth in the 2009 approvals 

and the environmental findings that support the approval will be summarized and described in this 

chapter. Additionally, this chapter will look at the findings of the 2013 FRA EA/FONSI and the 

2014 SEA/FONSI for the Concrete Casing in the Hudson Yards to determine if there is an indirect 

effect associated with the Proposed Action. Following the methodologies set forth in this 

document, FRA’s EIS will analyze the indirect effects of the Proposed Action for both 

construction and operational effects.

Cumulative impacts result from the incremental consequences of an action when added to other 

past and reasonably foreseeable future actions (40 CFR § 1508.7). The direct effects of an 

individual action may be negligible, but may contribute to a measurable environmental impact 

when considered cumulatively with other past and/or future projects. However, as noted 

throughout the technical chapters of this EIS, the Proposed Action itself would generally not result 

in employment, population, and other generation of demand that could yield cumulative impacts 

when considered with other projects. This chapter will identify and evaluate the potential for 

cumulative impact on any given resource category analyzed in this EIS. Following the 

methodologies set forth in this document, the EIS will analyze the cumulative effects of the 

Proposed Action for both construction and operational effects. The EIS chapter on Indirect and 

Cumulative Impacts will include a summary table to summarize indirect and cumulative impacts.

A. REGULATORY CONTEXT

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the potential for indirect and cumulative effects from 

a project. The indirect effects and cumulative impact analysis will be consistent with CEQ and 

other agency guidance documents. CEQ regulations and other relevant sources provide the 

following definitions of indirect and cumulative effects:

• Indirect Effects are “caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance 

but are still reasonably foreseeable.” Indirect effects “may include growth inducing effects 

and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or 

growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including 

ecosystems” (40 CFR § 1508.8[b]). Indirect effects may also result from other actions’ 

impacts created outside the federal decision-making nexus. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 18-2 Final

• Cumulative effects (defined in CEQ guidance as cumulative “impacts”) are “the impact on the 

environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor but collectively major actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR 

§ 1508.7). A transportation action’s direct and indirect effects can contribute to its cumulative 

effects.

FHWA issued a position paper on indirect and cumulative effects in 1992 entitled “Secondary and 

Cumulative Impact Assessment in the Highway Project Development Process,” that lists project 

considerations regarding indirect and cumulative impacts that remain applicable to transit projects 

as well. Two NCHRP guidebooks regarding indirect and cumulative impact assessment are 

particularly relevant. These documents are: “NCHRP Report 403: Guidance for Estimating the 

Secondary Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects,” 1998, and “NCHRP Report 423A: Land 

Use Impacts of Transportation: A Guidebook,” 1999. These documents are the basis for this 

proposed methodology to study indirect effects and cumulative impacts of the Western Rail Yard 

Infrastructure Project.

B. STUDY AREA

The geographic limits for the indirect effects and cumulative impacts assessment will be 

established through an examination of multiple resource boundaries. While the spatial boundaries 

for analysis will vary by resource, some of the resources Study Areas may be larger than those 

used for the direct impacts analyses considered in the EIS due to the potential for indirect effects 

and cumulative impacts to extend over a larger geographic area than direct effects (e.g., effects to 

traffic, air quality, water quality can extend over larger geographic areas). Resources will then be 

mapped and analyzed to determine the nature and extent of indirect and cumulative effects 

resulting from the Proposed Action. The Study Area for the cumulative effects analysis will:

• Include logical boundaries for evaluating effects on resources of the natural and built 

environment.

• Encompass past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that may also contribute 

to effects to the same resources as are affected by the Proposed Action and actively affecting 

those resources within the timeframe impacts being considered.

C. DATA SOURCES

The indirect effects analysis will be based on the same data sets used for the direct effects analyses, 

and may involve additional data collection over a larger geographic and temporal range, using the 

same data collection methodologies. The data sources anticipated for these efforts are summarized 

in Table 18-1. 

Table 18-1 

Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts Analyses Data Sources

Analysis Area Data Source

Indirect Effects Planning documents, local master plans, development applications, municipal 

planning departments, field visits, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 

mapping layers, and other EIS analyses (e.g., land use, traffic)

Cumulative 

Effects

Planning documents, local master plans, development applications, municipal 

planning departments, field visits, GIS, and other EIS analyses (e.g., land use, traffic)
Chapter 18: Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

Final 18-3 October 2020

The indirect effects analysis will require an understanding of reasonably foreseeable future 

projects in the geographic and temporal Study Areas that could, in combination with the Project, 

lead to indirect effects. The “Land Use, Land Planning, and Property” chapter of the EIS will 

include a list of reasonably foreseeable ongoing projects included in the No Build Alternative that 

will inform the indirect effects and cumulative impacts analysis. This will include the previously 

approved (and now as-of-right) private Overbuild development project on the Western Rail Yard 

site, analyzed in the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS, that is made possible by the implementation of 

the Proposed Action. 

The Platform is needed to support the provision of developable land area that would generate 

revenue for the MTA and its subsidiary agencies and modernize state-of-the-art life safety systems 

for the entire Western Rail Yard. Therefore, the indirect effect analyses will predominantly focus 

on the previously approved Overbuild development as described in the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS

that would occur on the Project Site above the Platform and Tunnel Encasement. 

The cumulative impacts analysis will require an understanding of past and reasonably foreseeable 

future projects in the geographic and temporal Study Areas that could, in combination with the 

Project, lead to cumulative impacts. The “Land Use, Land Planning, and Property” chapter of the 

EIS will include a list of reasonably foreseeable and ongoing projects included in the No Build 

Alternative that will inform the cumulative impacts analysis. 

D. ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

INDIRECT EFFECTS 

The EIS indirect effects analysis will include FRA’s assessment of both adverse and beneficial

effects associated with the Proposed Action, including the Overbuild development, on the 

following resource areas: 

• Land Use, Land Planning, and Property 

• Transportation

• Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Resilience

• Noise and Vibration

• Cultural Resources

• Parks and Recreation

• Aesthetics and Visual Quality

• Contaminated Materials

• Utilities and Energy

• Soils and Geology

• Water and Natural Resources

• Coastal Zone Consistency

• Socioeconomics

• Public Health

• Environmental Justice

• Safety and Security
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 18-4 Final

The methodology for these indirect analyses will follow the analysis methodology described in 

the methodology for the direct impact assessment for the relevant resource category and apply 

those to the induced changes resulting from the Proposed Action. 

In addition, for all resource areas listed above and below, FRA will reference the 2009 

SEQRA/CEQR FEIS findings to describe the indirect construction period and/or operational 

effects of the Overbuild development resulting from the Proposed Action in this EIS. FRA will 

also account for any other changes that have occurred in the Study Area that could influence the 

indirect affects assessment in the EIS. FRA will also identify the phasing and sequencing of 

construction activities for the Proposed Action in the EIS, and will examine how these influence 

the identification of peak construction activities for the Overbuild for each resource analysis, as 

applicable. The EIS will note that peak construction activities for the Proposed Action will occur 

earlier and largely independent of the peak construction activities for the Overbuild. Therefore, 

the indirect assessment of construction activities will summarize the findings of the 2009 

SEQRA/CEQR FEIS in terms of anticipated impacts and identified mitigation commitments as 

well as the more current update to construction sequencing, phasing and overall levels of 

construction activities, accounting for any relevant changes in the surrounding neighborhood since 

the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS.

For Transportation, FRA will analyze the effects of the indirect vehicular, mass transit, parking, 

and pedestrian demand resulting from the introduction of additional trips within the Study Area 

associated with the Overbuild. The 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS includes a comprehensive 

evaluation of the transportation demand and potential impacts of the Overbuild. As described in 

Chapter 1, “Introduction,” of this Methodology Report, the Overbuild is not a component of the 

Proposed Action, and is now considered an as-of-right development in accordance with the New 

York City Zoning Resolution; no further land use approvals are required. Therefore, FRA will 

assess the indirect effects of the Overbuild for this EIS based on a summary presentation of the 

changes in transportation demand generated by the Overbuild, and the levels of traffic and 

transportation mitigation commitments that were established in the 2009 SEQRA/CEQR FEIS. In 

the indirect assessment, FRA will identify what, if any, mitigation measures have already been 

implemented and if there have been any intervening updates on mitigation requirements based on 

on-going transportation planning and improvements in the study area since completion of the 2009 

SEQRA/CEQR FEIS.

For Socioeconomics, this analysis includes: indirect residential displacement as a result of the 

introduction of a new population into the Study Area; indirect business or institutional 

displacement as a result of new development and associated effects on rents or property values in 

commercial and industrial buildings, indirect effects to community facilities and services as a 

result of new populations in the Study Area, and indirect impact on elderly, transit dependent, and 

persons with disabilities in the Study Area (if any). The methodology for these indirect analyses 

of effects to community facilities and services as a result of new populations in the Study Area, 

and indirect impact on elderly, transit dependent, and persons with disabilities in the Study Area

(if any) would follow the analysis methodology described in the methodology for the direct impact 

assessment for this resource category (see Chapter 14, “Socioeconomics”). Analysis of indirect 

residential displacement and indirect business or institutional displacement is further described 

below.
Chapter 18: Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

Final 18-5 October 2020

INDIRECT RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT

Indirect (or secondary) residential displacement is the involuntary displacement of residents that 

may result from a change in socioeconomic conditions created by a project. The concern is 

whether a project could lead to increases in property values, and thus rents, making it difficult for 

some residents to afford their homes. The objective of the indirect residential displacement 

assessment is to determine whether the Proposed Action would either introduce a trend or 

accelerate a trend of changing socioeconomic conditions that may potentially displace a vulnerable 

population to the extent that the socioeconomic character of the neighborhood would change. 

According to CEQR Technical Manual guidance (see Chapter 5, 332.1), an assessment of indirect 

residential displacement should be conducted for actions that result in the incremental 

development of more than 200 residential dwelling units. 

If an analysis of indirect residential displacement is warranted, FRA will determine if the Proposed 

Action would introduce a population with a higher average income than that of the Study Area

population. FRA will examine market rents and the planned affordability levels of any new 

residential units added by the Proposed Project to determine the average household income of the 

new population. If the new population would have an average household income that is higher 

than that of the Study Area population, FRA will then determine if the new population would 

result in an increase in population in the Study Area of more than five percent. If the population 

increase is less than five percent, no further analysis is warranted. If the population increase is 

more than five percent but less than ten percent, FRA will look at rent trends in the Study Area to 

determine if the Study Area is already experiencing a trend toward increasing rents. If the 

population increase is more than ten percent of the Study Area population, FRA will conduct a 

detailed analysis of indirect residential displacement. This detailed analysis will determine 

whether there is a low income population in the Study Area living within units not protected by 

rent stabilization, rent control, or other form of government regulations restricting rent, that may 

be at risk of indirect displacement by the Proposed Action. 

According to the CEQR Technical Manual, an adverse impacts due to indirect residential 

displacement may occur if the Study Area contains a vulnerable population potentially subject to 

indirect displacement that exceeds five percent of the Study Area or relevant sub-areas and this 

populations would not be similarly displaced under the No Action Alternative. 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 18-6 Final

INDIRECT BUSINESS AND INSTITUTIONAL DISPLACEMENT

Similar to indirect residential displacement, the concern with respect to indirect business 

displacement is whether a project could lead to increases in property values, and thus rents, making 

it difficult for some businesses to afford their rent. FRA will use the methodology outlined in the 

CEQR Technical Manual (see Chapter 5, 322.2) to assess the potential for indirect business and 

institutional displacement. FRA will begin with a preliminary assessment that describes and 

characterizes conditions and trends in employment and businesses within the Study Area using 

the most recent available data from such sources as the U.S. Census Bureau, as well as private 

sources such as ESRI and real estate brokerage firms, as necessary. FRA will use this information 

to consider: whether the Proposed Action would introduce enough of a new economic activity to 

alter existing economic patterns; whether the Proposed Action would add to the concentration of 

a particular sector of the local economy enough to alter or accelerate existing economic patterns; 

and whether the Proposed Action would directly displace any type of use that either directly 

supports businesses in the area or brings a customer base to the area for local businesses, or if it 

indirectly displaces residents, workers, or visitors who form the customer base of existing 

businesses in the area.

If FRA cannot rule out the potential for adverse impacts due to indirect business displacement in 

the preliminary assessment, then FRA will conduct a detailed analysis. In the detailed analysis, 

FRA would utilize more in-depth analysis of businesses’ operations and industry trends, additional 

field surveys, and interviews with business owners and/or industry experts; identify categories of 

businesses at risk for displacement; and assess potential impacts on any identified categories of 

businesses at risk. 

According to the CEQR Technical Manual, an adverse impacts due to indirect business 

displacement may occur if the Proposed Action would create a trend that would result in the 

displacement of businesses as described above in “Direct Business Displacement” and these 

businesses would not receive relocation assistance or would not be able to relocated to a suitable 

space in the Study Area. An impact could also occur if the Proposed Action would add retail uses 

that draw substantial sales from existing businesses.

OPERATIONAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The analysis FRA will prepare will follow the eight-step methodology presented in NCHRP 

guidance. This methodology is consistent with CEQ guidance on cumulative effects analysis. This 

process includes the following steps:

• Step 1 – Define the Study Area Boundaries and Timeframe sets appropriate Study Area

boundaries for the analysis of indirect and cumulative effects as well as the timeframe for the 

analysis. 

• Step 2 – Identify the Study Area Communities’ Trends and Goals gathers information on 

community trends and goals in the Study Area for the analysis of indirect and cumulative 

effects. 

• Step 3 – Inventory Notable Features identifies specific valued, vulnerable, or unique 

elements of the human and natural environment for assessment for the analysis of indirect and 

cumulative effects. 

• Step 4 – Identify Impact-Causing Activities of the Proposed Alternative identifies the 

cause-and-effect relationships between a transportation action and its potential effects on the 

goals identified in Step 2 or the notable features identified in Step 3. 
Chapter 18: Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

Final 18-7 October 2020

• Step 5 – Identify Potential Impacts for Analysis compares the effects identified in Step 4 

with the inventory of community trends and goals and notable features identified in Steps 2 

and 3. 

• Step 6 – Analyze Impacts determines the magnitude and location of the potential effects 

identified in Step 5. 

• Step 7 – Evaluate Analysis Results evaluates the uncertainties in the methodology used to 

evaluate the effects to better understand the analysis results. 

• Step 8 – Assess Consequences and Develop Mitigation assesses the consequences of the 

effects and develops strategies to address adverse effects. 

FRA will consider the following resource areas under the cumulative analysis for cumulative 

operational effects of the Proposed Action:

• Land Use, Land Planning, and Property: The EIS will reference the findings of the land use, 

land planning, and property analysis for the Proposed Action. If there is a direct impact 

identified, an analysis will be performed using the methodologies listed above in section 18D, 

“Operational Cumulative Effects,” and Chapter 2, “Land Use, Land Planning, and Property.”

• Project Site Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Resilience: Emissions associated 

with stationary source fossil fuel-fired equipment and infrastructure related to life safety and 

ventilation components of the Platform (such as venting of diesel locomotive emissions from 

the area below the Platform) were identified as potential direct impacts. Therefore, potential 

air quality impacts from the Proposed Action alongside stationary sources of emissions that 

may result in a cumulative impact will be evaluated using the USEPA AERMOD dispersion 

model, consistent with the methodology listed above in Chapter 4, “Air Quality, Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions, and Resilience.”

• The EIS will reference the direct GHG emissions from building energy use, including fuel 

consumption and electricity use, as well as indirect impact identified above in section 18D. 

The operational cumulative impact will be conservatively estimated as the summation of both 

the direct and indirect impacts, consistent with the methodology listed above in Chapter 4, 

“Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Resilience.” 

• Noise and Vibration: As described in Chapter 5, “Noise and Vibration,” these components of 

the Proposed Action may have operational noise or vibration associated with operation of the 

critical life safety and mechanical, electrical and plumbing support services for the yard, 

including new lighting, sprinklers and an extensive platform ventilation system. Therefore, 

potential noise and vibration impacts from the Proposed Action alongside stationary sources 

of emissions may result in a cumulative impact and may be evaluated using the methodology 

listed above in Chapter 5, “Noise and Vibration” if a direct impact is determined. 

As described in Chapter 3, “Transportation,” once completed, the Proposed Action does not 

generate any demand for transportation services; therefore, a cumulative analysis on transportation 

is not appropriate for the operation of the Proposed Action. For related analysis of transportation 

for noise and vibration and air quality, there would be no direct impact from mobile source 

emissions associated with the Proposed Action.

The Proposed Action is not anticipated to have a direct operational effect on the following resource 

categories and thus, a cumulative analysis for these resources is not appropriate for the operation 

of the Proposed Action. If there is a direct impact identified, an analysis will be performed using 

the methodologies listed above in section 18D: 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 18-8 Final

• Cultural Resources

• Parks and Recreation Areas

• Aesthetics and Visual Quality

• Contaminated Materials

• Utilities and Energy

• Soils and Geology

• Water and Natural Resources

• Coastal Zone Consistency

• Socioeconomics

• Environmental Justice 

• Safety and Security

For the resource categories that will be considered in the public health assessment, a cumulative 

impact analysis may be completed using the methodology listed above in Chapter 15, “Public 

Health,” if a direct impact to one or more of the resource category assessments pertinent to a public 

health assessment (Air Quality, Noise, Contaminated Materials, and Water Quality) is identified. 

CUMULATIVE CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS

The potential construction effects of the Proposed Action with the construction of the portion of 

the Overbuild development and other projects being constructed within the same vicinity and 

timeframe that is expected to overlap with the construction of the Proposed Action will be 

cumulatively assessed in the following sections where these resources will likely be effected:

• Transportation

• Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Resilience

• Noise and Vibration

• Cultural Resources

• Parks and Recreational Areas

The analysis will follow the procedures outlined in the resource category chapters in this 

document. 

With respect to Greenhouse Gas and Resilience, the EIS will reference the findings of the resource 

category for the Proposed Action. If there is a direct impact identified, an analysis will be 

performed using the methodologies listed above in section 18D. 

The Proposed Action is not anticipated to have a direct construction effect on the following 

resource categories, and thus, a cumulative analysis would not be appropriate for the construction 

of the Proposed Action. If there is a direct impact identified, an analysis will be performed using 

the methodologies listed above in section 18D: 

• Land Use, Land Planning, and Property

• Aesthetics and Visual Quality

• Contaminated Materials

• Utilities and Energy
Chapter 18: Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

Final 18-9 October 2020

• Soils and Geology

• Water and Natural Resources

• Coastal Zone Consistency

• Socioeconomics

• Environmental Justice

• Safety and Security

For the resource categories that will be considered in the public health assessment, a cumulative 

impact analysis may be completed using the methodology listed above in Chapter 15, “Public 

Health,” if a direct construction-related impact to one or more of the resource category assessments 

pertinent to a public health assessment (Air Quality, Noise, Contaminated Materials, and Water 

Quality) is identified.

E. IMPACT CRITERIA

An alternative may have an adverse indirect effect on a resource if the direct effects of the project 

lead to other, indirect effects that meet the criteria for significance for the resource type in 

question.

An alternative may have an adverse cumulative impact on a resource if the project, together with 

other actions, contributes to an effect that meets the criteria for significance for the resource type 

in question. Determining whether a significant cumulative impact has occurred involves 

consideration of:

“...whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but 

cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a 

cumulatively significant impact on the environment.” (40 CFR § 1508.27).”

F. MITIGATION ANALYSIS

If the Proposed Action would result in significant indirect or cumulative impacts, the EIS will 

identify feasible and practicable measures to avoid or mitigate these impacts. Mitigation measures 

to be implemented would depend on the affected resource category in question (as described in 

more detail in the various resource category analysis methodology chapters in this report), and 

may include direct mitigation measures developed to address impacts of the Proposed Action, or 

other measures that would serve to avoid indirect and/or cumulative impacts.

G. CORRELATION WITH OTHER ANALYSES

The analyses prepared in this chapter will draw from many of the other resource category analyses 

prepared for the EIS, including, land use, traffic and other transportation analyses, air quality, and 

noise and vibration, and parks and recreation areas. A critical input to the analyses for this chapter 

is identification of other planned developments and infrastructure projects in the area that would 

be completed or under construction during the analysis timeframe for the Proposed Action. 
Final 19-1 October 2020

Chapter 19: Section 4(f) Evaluation

This chapter describes the methodology that FRA will use for the Section 4(f) evaluation of the 

No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action under consideration in the NEPA process for the 

Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project. The Section 4(f) evaluation will identify whether either

the No Action Alternative and/or the Proposed Action would result in a proposed “use” of 

properties protected under Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966, as explained below.1

1 According to the Section 4(f) guidance, for projects that have impacts below the de minimis threshold, 

those impacts are not considered a “use” under Section 4(f) criteria. If FRA identifies any impacts to 

Section 4(f) properties that qualify under one or more exceptions to Section 4(f) (per 23 CFR 774.13 

and/or Section 11502 of the FAST Act), those impacts will also be presented in this evaluation.

If the 

Proposed Action would result in the “use” of any Section 4(f) properties, and those impacts exceed 

the de minimis threshold, FRA will also evaluate whether there are any feasible and prudent 

avoidance alternatives that would not require the “use” of those properties. If no such alternatives 

are available, the evaluation will include the development of mitigation measures comprising all 

possible planning to minimize impact to the affected Section 4(f) properties. Section 1301 (23 

U.S.C. 138 c/49 U.S.C. 303[e]) requires the Section 4(f) process to be aligned with the processes 

of NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA (54 U.S.C. 306108) to the maximum extent practicable.

A. REGULATORY CONTEXT 

Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 (49 USC § 303), prohibits Department of Transportation 

agencies from approving the “use” of Section 4(f) property unless a) the agency determines that 

there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative to the use of the land, and the action includes 

all possible planning to minimize harm to the property from such use; or b) the agency determines 

that the use of the property, including any measure(s) to minimize harm (such as avoidance, 

minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures) committed to by the applicant, will have a 

de minimis impact on the property.

2

2 “Section 4(f) properties” are defined as any publicly owned parkland, recreation area, or wildlife and 

waterfowl refuge; or any land from a publicly or privately owned historic site of national, state, or local 

significance.

A historic site is considered to be a property that is listed on, 

or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places. When there is a finding of no 

feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives, the Section 106 process may be used to comply with 

the requirement in Section 4(f) to undertake all possible planning to minimize harm. 

In making its Section 4(f) determinations, FRA follows the FHWA/FTA/FRA Section 4(f) 

regulations (23 CFR part 774) as well as FHWA’s Section 4(f) guidance, known as the Section 

4(f) Policy Paper.

3

3 FHWA, Section 4(f) Policy Paper, July 20, 2012.

23 USC 138 also defines the requirements for making a finding of de minimis

impact.

Pursuant to 23 CFR 774.17, a use of Section 4(f) property occurs when: 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 19-2 Final

• Land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility; 

• 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);

4

4 “Temporary occupancies of land that are so minimal as to not constitute use must meet the following 

conditions: 1) duration must be temporary, i.e., less than the time needed for construction of the project, 

and there should be no change in ownership of the land; 2) scope of work must be minor, i.e., both the 

nature and the magnitude of the changes to the Section 4(f) property are minimal; 3) there are no 

anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts, nor will there be interference with the protected activities, 

features, or attributes of the property, on either a temporary or permanent basis; 4) the land being used 

must be fully restored, i.e., the property must be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that 

which existed prior to the project; and 5) there must be documented agreement of the official(s) with 

jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property regarding the above conditions.” A use would occur when a 

temporary occupancy does not meet one or more of the above criteria, which are listed in 23 CFR 

774.13(d).

or

• There is a constructive use of a Section 4(f) property as determined by the criteria in 23 CFR 

774.15.

5

5 “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.”

If FRA determines that a Section 4(f) property experiences a use for a transportation project, FRA 

will prepare documentation to demonstrate that no feasible and prudent alternative exists to the 

use of the 4(f) property, and that the Project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to 

the property. Also, FRA must consult with the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and if 

appropriate, with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and USDA, 

and State and local authorities, prior to approving the use of a 4(f) property (23 CFR 774.5[a]).

As described in 23 CFR § 774.17, an alternative is not feasible if it cannot be built as a matter of 

sound engineering judgment. An alternative is not prudent if:

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

light of its stated purpose and need;

• It results in unacceptable safety or operational problems;

• After reasonable mitigation, it still causes severe social, economic, or environmental impacts;

severe disruption to established communities; severe disproportionate impacts to minority or 

low income populations; or severe impacts to environmental resources protected under other 

Federal statutes;

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

magnitude;

• It causes other unique problems or unusual factors; or

• It involves multiple factors of the above, that while individually minor, cumulatively cause 

unique problems or impacts of extraordinary magnitude.

If there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative, FRA may approve only the alternative 

that causes the least overall harm in light of Section 4(f)’s preservation purpose. As stated in 23 

CFR § 774.3, the “least overall harm” is determined by balancing the following list of factors:
Chapter 19: Section 4(f) Evaluation

Final 19-3 October 2020

• The ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each Section 4(f) property (including any measures 

that result in benefits to the property);

• The relative severity of the remaining harm, after mitigation, to the protected activities, 

attributes, or features that qualify each Section 4(f) property for protection;

• The relative significance of each Section 4(f) property;

• The views of the official(s) with jurisdiction over each Section 4(f) property;

• The degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need for the project;

• After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources not protected 

by Section 4(f); and

• Substantial differences in costs among the alternatives.

DE MINIMIS IMPACTS

FRA’s Section 4(f) regulations (23 CFR Part 774) establish procedures for determining if the use 

of a Section 4(f) property has a de minimis impact on a property. As defined by the Section 4(f) 

regulations, de minimis impacts related to historic sites are defined as the determination of either 

“no adverse effect” or “no historic properties affected” in compliance with Section 106 of NHPA 

(16 USC § 470 et seq.; 36 CFR Part 800). 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 Part 774.17). Section 4(f) 

and the implementing regulations at 23 CFR 774.5(b) provide the below standards for de minimis

impact findings. 23 USC 138 also defines the requirements for making a finding of de minimis

impact.

A finding of a de minimis impact on a historic site may be made when: 

• The process required by Section 106 of the NHPA results in the determination of “no adverse 

effect” or “no historic properties affected” with the concurrence of the NYSHPO and/or Tribal 

Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), if applicable, and ACHP, if participating in the Section 

106 consultation;

• The NYSHPO and/or THPO, and ACHP, if the ACHP is participating in the Section 106 

consultation, is informed of FRA’s intent to make a de minimis impact finding based on their 

written concurrence in the Section 106 determination; and 

• The FRA has considered the views of any consulting parties participating in the Section 106 

consultation.

The impacts of a transportation project on a park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge 

may be determined to be de minimis if: 

• The transportation use of the Section 4(f) property, together with any impact avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation or enhancement measures incorporated into the project, does not 

adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection 

under Section 4(f);

• The official(s) with jurisdiction over the property are informed of FRA's intent to make the de 

minimis impact determination based on their written concurrence that the project will not 

adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection 

under Section 4(f); and 
Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project – Methodology Report

October 2020 19-4 Final

• The public has been afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the 

project on the protected activities, features, and attributes of the Section 4(f) property.

If FRA determines, through appropriate consultation and public involvement, that a transportation 

use of a Section 4(f) property results in a de minimisimpact, then analysis of avoidance alternatives 

are not required and the Section 4(f) evaluation process is complete. FRA will coordinate to 

receive concurrence from the official(s) with jurisdiction (as described above), and document that 

determination consistent with the requirements of 23 CFR Part 774 and relevant CEQ guidelines.

B. ANALYSIS APPROACH

FRA will prepare a Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation in accordance with the FHWA policy paper and 

the Section 4(f) regulations (23 CFR Part 774), to be included in the EIS. The evaluation will 

include sufficient supporting documentation to allow FRA to make Section 4(f) determinations 

and the documentation will be included in the Draft EIS that will be prepared for the No Action 

Alternative and Proposed Action in accordance with NEPA. 

The Section 4(f) chapter will contain the following sections:

• Introduction

• Regulatory Context

• Identification of Section 4(f) Properties

• Use of Section 4(f) Properties

­ Exceptions and Exemptions

­ De Minimis Impacts

• Alternatives to Avoid the Use of the Section 4(f) Property (as relevant)

• Least Overall Harm Alternative (as relevant)

• Measures to Minimize Harm

• Coordination and Public Involvement

The Study Area for the Section 4(f) evaluation will comprise the Project Site and directly adjacent 

blockfronts. The listing of properties in the Section 4(f) evaluation will utilize the information 

collected for relevant chapters of the EIS (i.e., parks and recreation, cultural resources). The 

Section 106 consultation process will identify historic properties that will be included in the 

Section 4(f) evaluation.

IDENTIFICATION OF SECTION 4(F) PROPERTIES

As part of the Section 4(f) evaluation, FRA will identify historic properties, publicly owned parks, 

and wildlife and waterfowl refuges that could experience an impact or Section 4(f) use from the 

No Action Alternative and Proposed Action. The analysis from relevant chapters of the EIS (i.e., 

parks and recreation, cultural resources) will inform the listing of properties in the Section 4(f) 

evaluation. The Section 106 consultation process will identify historic properties that will be 

included in the Section 4(f) evaluation. 
Chapter 19: Section 4(f) Evaluation

Final 19-5 October 2020

EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION’S POTENTIAL USE OF SECTION 4(F) 

PROPERTIES

For each Section 4(f) property identified, FRA will use the analysis methodology described above 

during the preparation of the EIS to evaluate the Proposed Action’s potential use of Section 4(f) 

properties. The analysis will consist of the following steps: 

• FRA will determine whether any exceptions apply as per 23 CFR 774.13; or if the historic 

resource is exempt from Section 4(f) evaluation as per Section 11502 of the FAST Act.

• Assess the potential use of the Section 4(f) property by considering whether the construction 

or operation of the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project will: (1) permanently incorporate 

the resource into the transportation ROW; (2) result in temporary occupancy; and/or (3) result 

in constructive use. 

• FRA will determine whether there is a de minimis impact.

• For any use of Section 4(f) properties that are not considered de minimis, FRA will conduct 

an analysis to identify feasible and prudent alternatives that avoid such use of it and other 

Section 4(f) properties. Section 4(f) regulations require that no Section 4(f) property may be 

used unless there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to that use. The assessment will 

consider the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action identified in EIS to determine 

whether they fit the definition of feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives. In addition, the 

assessment will consider design modifications to the Proposed Action and other alternatives 

that avoid and/or minimize impacts to each Section 4(f) property. The assessment will 

evaluate avoidance alternatives effects on each Section 4(f) property to demonstrate whether 

it would avoid a use. FRA will identify Alternatives that avoid the use of the Section 4(f) 

property, if any exist. In finding that an alternative is not feasible or prudent, FRA’s evaluation 

will consider adverse factors such as environmental impacts, safety, engineering/operational 

deficiencies, poor transportation service, increased costs, and other factors as per 23 CFR § 

774.17.

• If FRA determines that more than one alternative results in a use of a Section 4(f) property 

and there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative, the alternatives must be compared 

to identify which alternative causes the least overall harm in light of the statute’s preservation 

purpose. To determine which of the alternatives would cause the least overall harm, FRA will 

consider the seven factors set forth in 23 CFR 774.3(c)(1) concerning the alternatives (see 

section “Regulatory Context,” above).

• If FRA determines that the Proposed Action would result in the use of any Section 4(f) resource, 

all possible planning will be undertaken to develop measures to minimize harm to affected 

resources. This will include citing stipulations of the Section 106 MOA or PA and any other 

mitigation developed as part of the EIS that is relevant to the proposed Section 4(f) use. 