TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Environmental 

Justice

7.11

7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.11-1

7.11 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

7.11.1 Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of the demographic

characteristics of the Study Area and identifies potential 

effects to Environmental Justice (EJ) populations. The 

demographic characteristics establish a baseline for the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to identify minority 

and low-income populations to support its EJ analysis. The 

FRA has presented some specific demographic 

characteristics for context, but this chapter focuses 

primarily on the identification of and potential effects to EJ 

populations. 

7.11.1.1 Definition of Resources

Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income 

Populations, requires all federal agencies to “develop an 

agency-wide environmental justice strategy that identifies 

and addresses disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” 

Following the direction of EO 12898, federal agencies developed their own strategies to implement 

EJ. The guidance applicable to the NEC FUTURE program was formed under guidance from the U.S.

Department of Transportation’s (U.S. DOT) Order to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations 5610.2(a) (May 2012).

U.S. DOT Order 5610.2(a) (U.S. DOT 2012) provides the following definitions, which guided this EJ 

analysis:

4 Minority Individual: The U.S. Census Bureau classifies a minority individual as belonging to one 

of the following groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian American, Native Hawaiian or 

Other Pacific Islander, Black (not of Hispanic Origin) and Hispanic or Latino.

4 Minority Populations: Any readily identifiable groups of minority persons who live in geographic 

proximity, and if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (e.g., 

migrant workers or Native Americans) who would be similarly affected by a proposed U.S. DOT 

program, policy, or activity.

4 Low-income: A person whose household income is at or below the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services poverty guidelines.

1

 

1 Since the NEC FUTURE Study Area includes multiple states, the FRA used the Health and Human Services poverty guidelines to 

ensure consistency across state boundaries. However, as part of Tier 2 analyses, the Federal Transit Administration approach 

could be considered for more focused study areas.

Key Resource: Environmental Justice

§ Executive Order 12898 requires 

federal agencies to assess the effects 

of their actions on EJ populations and 

determine if disproportionately high 

and adverse effects occur. 

§ Identifies concentrations of minority 

populations and low-income 

populations that could benefit or be 

affected by environmental impacts 

occurring in their communities.

§ Identifies effects on resources located 

within EJ populations.
7.11. Environmental Justice

Page | 7.11-2 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4 Low-income Population: Any readily identifiable group of low-income persons who live in 

geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons 

(e.g., migrant workers or Native Americans) who would be similarly affected by a proposed 

U.S. DOT program, policy, or activity. 

Project proponents evaluate potential effects to EJ populations in terms of whether the effects have

disproportionately high and adverse effects on EJ populations. An adverse effect is a significant

individual, cumulative human health, or environmental effect (e.g., the displacement of a household 

structure or business as a requirement to build a project). A Disproportionately High and Adverse 

Effect on Minority and Low-income Populations is an adverse effect that:

4 Is predominately born by a minority population and/or a low-income population, or 

4 Will be suffered by the minority populations and/or low-income population and is appreciably 

more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the nonminority population and/or non-low-income population.

7.11.1.2 Effects-Assessment Methodology 

The FRA developed a resource methodology for EJ that includes the methodology for developing 

demographic profiles and the identification of EJ populations (Appendix E, Section E.11). The effectsassessment methodology further defines the resource and data sources, explains how the Affected 

Environment was defined and established, and how the potential effects on EJ populations were 

evaluated and reported. 

Appendix E, Section E.11, also includes more information on age distribution, income, auto ownership 

(relevant to transit dependency), and housing data broken out by county. Appendix A, Mapping Atlas, 

provides the general locations of EJ populations relative to the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (Tier 1 Draft EIS) Action Alternatives. Table 7.11-1 summarizes key factors associated with 

the methodology for this EJ analysis.

Table 7.11-1: Effects-Assessment Methodology Summary: Environmental Justice Populations

Resource Affected Environment Type of Assessment Outcome

EJ populations 1-mile-wide swath centered 

along Representative Route

for each Action Alternative

Qualitative:

Census tract that meets or exceeds 

10 percentage points higher than the

total minority or low-income percentage 

in the corresponding county 

Evaluate differences among 

alternatives with regard to 

the potential for an Action 

Alternative to either benefit 

or adversely affect EJ 

populations.

Source: NEC FUTURE Environmental Justice Effects-Assessment Methodology, Appendix E, Section E.11, 2014

7.11.2 Resource Overview 

This analysis identifies concentrations of EJ populations within the Study Area that coincide with 

effects identified on resources evaluated in this Tier 1 Draft EIS. Because this Tier 1 Draft EIS 

represents a high-level of analysis for all resources, identifying potential disproportionate effects on 

EJ populations is not possible. However, this analysis presents identified benefits to EJ populations

and those EJ areas that are most susceptible to having multiple resource areas affected because of 

implementation of an Action Alternative.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.11-3

To identify EJ populations, it is important to understand the demographic characteristics of the Study 

Area. This understanding sets the background for identifying if a minority or low-income population

comprises a larger than average portion of the population of a given area.

The Study Area covers eight states plus Washington, D.C., and 124 counties. According to the 2010 

census there are approximately 51 million people living in the Study Area. The central region, 

consisting of New Jersey and New York City, contains almost half of the population in the Study Area, 

with approximately 23 million people. Approximately 24 million people are employed in the Study 

Area. Population and employment within the Study Area generally grew at a rate of 21 percent and 

27 percent,

2 respectively, from 1980 to 2010, and are projected to grow at a rate of approximately 

14 percent and 13 percent, 3 respectively, from 2010 to 2040. Table 7.11-2 lists additional 

demographic characteristics for the Study Area.

Table 7.11-2: Demographic Characteristics by Region

Region

2010 

Population

2010 

Employment

Total 

Housing 

Units

Median 

Household 

Income

% Households 

without 

Vehicles 

Available 

(Transit 

Dependent)

% Living 

Below the 

Poverty 

Level

% of Labor 

Force 

Unemployed

South (D.C., MD, 

DE, PA) 16,437,274 7,970,000 6,735,000 $69,199 11.2% 9.9% 6.7%

Central (NJ, NY) 22,996,246 10,547,000 9,271,000 $65,615 26.6% 12.3% 7.7%

North (CT, RI, MA) 11,993,380 5,866,000 5,104,000 $65,733 10.4% 10.0% 7.4%

Study Area 51,426,900 24,382,000 21,110,000 $66,791 17.7% 11.0% 7.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey; Moody’s Analytics U.S. County Forecast, December 2012.

The minority and low-income population totals for all states within the Study Area provide a 

framework for this Tier 1 Draft EIS EJ analysis. The FRA used these state totals as a benchmark for an 

overall comparison to the more detailed county level analysis conducted for each Action Alternative 

presented in Section 7.11.3.1. Approximately 20.1 million persons (39 percent) living in the Study 

Area are minorities and 5.5 million (11 percent) are low-income. Table 7.11-3 presents the overall 

minority and low-income composition of each state in the Study Area.

 

2 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey

3 Moody’s Analytics U. S. County Forecast, December 2012 
7.11. Environmental Justice

Page | 7.11-4 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.11-3: Total Population and Total Minority/Low-Income Populations by Geography

Geography Total Population

Total Minority 

Population

% Minority 

Population

Total 

Low-Income 

Population

% Low-Income 

Population

D.C. 601,723 392,259 65.2% 101,767 18.5%

MD 5,773,552 2,615,594 45.3% 476,732 8.6%

DE 897,934 311,182 34.7% 93,857 11.0%

PA 12,702,379 2,607,727 20.5% 1,509,858 12.4%

NJ 8,791,894 3,577,016 40.7% 777,968 9.1%

NY 19,378,102 8,073,855 41.7% 2,650,166 14.2%

CT 3,574,097 1,027,835 28.8% 314,306 9.2%

RI 1,052,567 248,882 23.6% 123,396 12.2%

MA 6,547,629 1,562,829 23.9% 658,391 10.5%

TOTAL States 59,319,877 20,417,179 34.4% 6,706,441 11.7%

TOTAL Study Area 51,426,900 20,092,566 39.0% 5,459,173 11.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 census, U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey; 2010 5-Year Estimates

The No Action and Action Alternatives would affect minority and low-income populations throughout 

the Study Area. The key findings of the EJ analysis are:

4 Benefits

– All Action Alternatives improve the transportation network, which decreases travel time and 

increases service reliability and improved access, frequency, and mobility for the entire 

population, including EJ populations, throughout the Study Area. 

– Improved mobility provides for greater opportunities to reach jobs that may not currently be 

accessible for EJ populations living outside of major employment areas. 

4 Impacts

– The No Action Alternative does not realize the same benefits as the Action Alternatives for 

the entire population, including EJ populations.

– The FRA reviewed the effects-assessment of seven environmental resource areas in relation 

to EJ populations: parklands, hazardous materials, historic properties, visual and aesthetic 

resources, noise, vibration, and potential land conversions that could result in acquisitions 

and displacements. Through that analysis, the greatest number of potential impacts on those 

environmental resource areas occur in the following EJ populations:

o Alternative 1 – Baltimore City, MD, and Fairfield County, CT.

o Alternative 2 – Philadelphia County, PA; Middlesex County, NJ; Queens County, NY; and 

Fairfield County, CT.

o Alternative 3 – Baltimore City and Harford Counties, MD; Philadelphia County, PA; Bronx 

and Queens Counties, NY; Fairfield and Hartford Counties, CT; Providence County, RI; 

Worcester County, MA. The FRA identified the greatest number of EJ census tracts in the 

New York City to Hartford via the Long Island route option of Alternative 3. 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.11-5

7.11.3 Affected Environment

The Affected Environment presents EJ at the census tract level. At this more detailed level, a 

qualitative assessment can determine the EJ census tracts that could be affected by the Action 

Alternatives.

Table 7.11-4 identifies EJ populations within the Affected Environment of the existing NEC and each

Action Alternative. Also shown are the number of census tracts that meet the EJ thresholds as defined 

for the presence of minority or low-income populations. Table 7.11-5 presents detailed information

by state, for each Action Alternative, on the location of EJ census tracts.

Table 7.11-4: Affected Environment: Total Environmental Justice Populations by Action Alternative

Total 

Population

Total 

Minority 

Population

% Minority 

Population 

Total 

Low-Income 

Population

% LowIncome 

Population

Total EJ Census 

Tracts

Existing NEC 4,412,318 2,381,775 54% 722,863 17% 647

Alternative 1 4,467,580 2,403,860 54% 727,599 17% 652

Alternative 2 4,889,216 2,533,830 52% 765,170 16% 693

Alternative 3 5,913,596–

6,542,584

2,911,532–

3,357,624 49%–52% 893,764–972,405 16% 787–926

TOTAL Study Area 51,426,900 20,092,566 39% 5,459,173 11% 4,891

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 census, U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey; 2010 5-Year Estimates

Table 7.11-5: Affected Environment: Total Environmental Justice Census Tracts by Action 

Alternative

Geography Existing NEC Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Study Area

D.C. 17 17 17 17 126

MD 75 76 76 92 638

DE 20 20 22 21 48

PA 108 108 95 138 513

NJ 129 132 132 139 788

NY 151 151 161 176–289 1,791

CT 69 70 107 115–122 258

RI 36 36 41 36–41 65

MA 42 42 42 43–77 431

TOTAL 647 652 693 787–926 4,891

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

7.11.3.1 Existing NEC

New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland contain the most EJ census tracts in the Affected 

Environment for the existing NEC. 

Bronx County, NY (88); Philadelphia County, PA (79); Fairfield County, CT (41); and Suffolk County, 

MA (40) contain the most EJ census tracts in the Affected Environment for the existing NEC. 

7.11.3.2 Alternative 1

Alternative 1 contains a slightly higher overall total number of EJ census tracts, and their distribution 

is approximately the same, as compared to the existing NEC. New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 

and Maryland have the most identified EJ census tracts in the Affected Environment for Alternative 1. 
7.11. Environmental Justice

Page | 7.11-6 Tier 1 Draft EIS

However, the following counties have the most EJ census tracts in the Affected Environment for 

Alternative 1: Bronx County, NY (88); Philadelphia County, PA (79); Fairfield County, CT (42); and 

Suffolk County, MA (40). 

7.11.3.3 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 contains a higher total number of EJ census tracts compared to Alternative 1 and the 

existing NEC. New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania have the most EJ census tracts in 

the Affected Environment of Alternative 2. However, the following counties contain the most EJ 

census tracts in the Affected Environment for Alternative 2: Bronx County, NY (86); Philadelphia 

County, PA (74); Queens County, NY (47); and Fairfield County, CT (43). 

7.11.3.4 Alternative 3

To understand the differences in the number of EJ census tracts for the Alternative 3 route options,

the FRA separated the total number of EJ census tracts by route option. Table 7.11-6 presents

detailed information on the location of EJ census tracts for the Alternative 3 route options by 

geography.

Table 7.11-6: Affected Environment: Total Environmental Justice Census Tracts for Alternative 3

Geography Existing NEC

Alternative 3

D.C. to NYC

New York City to Hartford Hartford to Boston

via Central 

Connecticut

via

Long Island

via

Providence

via

Worcester

D.C. 17 17 — — — —

MD 75 92 — — — —

DE 20 21 — — — —

PA 108 138 — — — —

NJ 129 139 — — — —

NY 151 — 176 289 — —

CT 69 — 101 96 22 24

RI 36 — — — 41 36

MA 42 — — — 43 77

TOTAL 647 407 277 385 106 137

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

— = Not applicable within that alternative/route option.

Washington, D.C., to New York City

Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey contain the most EJ census tracts in the Affected 

Environment of this portion of Alternative 3 from Washington, D.C., to New York City. Philadelphia 

County, PA (109); Baltimore City, MD (43); and Middlesex County, NJ (35) contain the most EJ census 

tracts in the Affected Environment for this portion of Alternative 3 .

New York City to Hartford

Via Central Connecticut 

Bronx County, NY (88); Queens County, NY (48); Fairfield County, CT (43); and Hartford County, CT 

(32) contain the most EJ census tracts in the Affected Environment from New York City to Hartford 

via Central Connecticut.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.11-7

Via Long Island 

The portion of Alternative 3 from New York City to Hartford via Long Island has 108 more EJ census 

tracts than the New York to Hartford via Central Connecticut segment. Queens County, NY (142); 

Bronx County, NY (88); and Fairfield County, CT (42) have the most EJ census tracts in the Affected 

Environment for this portion of Alternative 3. 

Hartford to Boston

Via Providence

Suffolk County, MA (41); Providence County, RI (40); and Hartford County, CT (14) have the most EJ 

census tracts in the Affected Environment from Hartford to Boston via Providence.

Via Worcester

Suffolk County, MA (45); Providence County, RI (35); and Worcester County, MA (24) contain the most 

EJ census tracts in the Affected Environment from Hartford to Boston via Worcester.

7.11.4 Environmental Consequences

Table 7.11-7 summarizesthe Tier 1 effects analysis for resource areasthat the FRA used to determine 

potential effects to EJ populations. The table also describes each contributing resource and provides 

additional detail on the interaction between each resource and EJ populations. For the purposes of 

determining Environmental Consequences, the FRA determined the potential for cumulative effects 

in EJ census tracts without regard to intensity. This section presents an overview of Environmental 

Consequences in EJ census tracts for all applicable resources considered for the counties located 

along each Action Alternative.

Table 7.11-7: Resources Considered for Environmental Justice Assessment

Resource Description of Resource Input to EJ Assessment 

Transportation Transportation network and 

services

Present a qualitative discussion on changes in the network and 

potential benefits and impacts to EJ populations caused by 

changes in mobility, access, and other service changes. 

Economic Effects Identification of foundations of 

the local economy in the Study 

Area

Present a qualitative discussion on overall economic changes in 

the region and potential effects to EJ populations caused by

changes in access to institutional facilities (e.g., hospitals, 

schools and social service agencies), increase or decrease in 

jobs, and available training.

Land Cover Land cover within the Affected 

Environment

Determine where potential acquisitions could result in

displacements in developed areas located in EJ census tracts.

Specific details on the number of properties and/or structures 

required are not available for this Tier 1 assessment. 

Parklands Publicly owned parklands and 

parklands receiving funding 

from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act within 

the Affected Environment

Determine where parklands located in EJ census tracts are 

affected. Specific details on the location of parks and gathering 

locations in communities in EJ areas are not available for this 

Tier 1 assessment. 

Hazardous Wastes and 

Contaminated 

Material Sites (HWCM)

Known sources and potential 

suspected sources of 

contaminated and hazardous 

materials sites within the 

Affected Environment

Determine if HWCM sites are located along the Action 

Alternatives in EJ census tracts. State level environmental site 

investigations were not under the Tier 1 assessment. 
7.11. Environmental Justice

Page | 7.11-8 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.11-7: Resources Considered for Environmental Justice Assessment (continued)

Resource Description of Resource Input to EJ Assessment 

Historic Properties Resources listed in or eligible for 

listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places within the 

Affected Environment

Determine location of historic properties in EJ census tracts.

Specific details on impacts to resources of cultural significance 

to EJ populations, such as Native American burial grounds, 

historic churches, and meeting facilities, are not available for 

this Tier 1 assessment. 

Visual and Aesthetic 

Resources

Prominent visual resources and 

aesthetic qualities within the 

Affected Environment

Determine location of visual and aesthetic impacts in EJ census 

tracts. Impacts for this Tier 1 assessment were determined only 

in parklands and open space areas and included specific 

changes in the visual landscape because of stations, station 

modifications, and structural elements (i.e., embankments, 

bridges, parking lots etc.). Specific visual and aesthetic impacts 

to residents and system users are not available for this Tier 1 

assessment. 

Noise and Vibration Ambient noise and vibration 

conditions, and noise-sensitive 

land cover categories locations 

within the Affected Environment 

Determine locations where the Federal Railroad 

Administration/Federal Transit Administration noise and 

vibration exceeds thresholds along the Action Alternatives in EJ 

census tracts. Specific impact ratings for each sensitive 

receptor are not available for this Tier 1 assessment. 

Air Quality (including 

greenhouse gas 

emissions)

Current attainment status for 

criteria pollutants established by 

the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency for air-sheds 

within the Study Area

Determine the locations where air quality impacts or 

improvements would occur throughout the Study Area. 

Safety and Public 

Health

Operational, infrastructure and 

overall modal safety 

Present a qualitative discussion on overall safety and public 

health concerns and mitigation measures for the project.

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

7.11.4.1 No Action Alternative

The FRA did not quantify the effects of the No Action Alternative as part of this analysis as explained 

in the introduction of Chapter 7. The existing NEC services EJ populations and stations located in EJ 

census tracts; however, benefits and burdens to EJ populations will be assessed for each individual 

project as the planned projects included in the No Action Alternatives move forward.

In general, improvements included in the No Action Alternative will not greatly change the services 

provided along the existing NEC; therefore, benefits to EJ populations will likely be minimal. Likewise, 

physical improvements included in the No Action Alternative will generally focus within the existing 

right-of-way, and effects on EJ populations will be negligible. For some larger improvements included 

in the No Action Alternative that may take place outside of the existing right-of-way, effects could 

occur. The project sponsor/lead federal agency for each of those actions will determine whether 

those effects will be disproportionate and adverse. 

7.11.4.2 Alternative 1

As shown in Table 7.11-8, Baltimore City, MD, and Fairfield County, CT, have the greatest number of 

potential environmental resource effects identified within EJ census tracts associated with 

Alternative 1. These two counties would have environmental impacts in six out of seven of the 

resource categories the FRA assessed. Baltimore City and Fairfield County both would have potential 

land cover changes resulting in acquisitions and displacements in developed areas. The FRA identified 

parkland, visual and aesthetic resources, noise impacts, and historic properties within the Affected 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.11-9

Environment of Action Alternative that traverse these counties. In addition to these impacts, Fairfield 

County contains hazardous materials and contaminated waste sites in EJ census tracts.

Table 7.11-8: Alternative 1 – Summary of Potential Effects in Counties where Environmental Justice 

Census Tracts Exist

Geography County Parklands

Hazardous 

Materials

Historic 

Properties

Visual and 

Aesthetic 

Resources Noise Vibrations

Land Cover 

(Acquisitions 

and 

Displacements)

D.C. X X X X

MD

Prince George’s X X X

Baltimore City X X X X X X

Harford X X X X X

PA

Delaware X X X X X

Philadelphia X X X X X

NJ

Mercer X X X X

Middlesex X X X X X

Union X X X

Essex X X X

Hudson X X X X

NY Queens X X X X X

Bronx X X X X X

CT Fairfield X X X X X X

RI Providence X X X

MA Suffolk X X X X

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Blank Cell = No effects identified for subject resource.

All counties within Alternative 1 that have identified EJ census tracts have potential noise impacts, 

and most of these counties have historic properties. Baltimore City, MD; Hudson County, NJ; and 

Fairfield County, CT, have potential acquisitions, which is necessary to accommodate proposed 

infrastructure. The FRA identified displacements that may also occur within the same three counties 

where EJ census tracts exist. However, the FRA has not yet identified specific locations of acquisitions 

and possible displacements. At this time, the FRA has been able to identify only a representative 

approximation of acreage that may be required for each Action Alternative. Vibration impacts are 

present only in one county where the FRA identified EJ census tracts (Baltimore City, MD).

The counties with the fewest number of environmental resource impacts in EJ census tracts 

associated with Alternative 1 are Prince George’s County, MD; Union and Essex Counties, NJ; and 

Providence County, RI. However, environmental resource impacts would occur in these counties. 

Impacts on parklands, visual and aesthetic resources, and noise-sensitive land cover categories occur 

in Prince George’s County, MD. Impacts to hazardous materials and contaminated waste sites 

(HMCW), historic properties, and noise-sensitive land cover categories occur in Union and Essex 

Counties, NJ. Impacts to parklands, historic properties, and noise-sensitive land cover categories 

occur in Providence County, RI.
7.11. Environmental Justice

Page | 7.11-10 Tier 1 Draft EIS

7.11.4.3 Alternative 2

The greatest number of potential environmental impacts in EJ census tracts associated with 

Alternative 2 occurs in Philadelphia County, PA; Middlesex County, NJ; Queens County, NY; and 

Fairfield County, CT (Table 7.11-9). These four counties have potential environmental resource 

impacts in all seven environmental resource categories that the FRA assessed. All counties within 

Alternative 2 that have identified EJ census tracts have the potential to experience noise effects, and 

most of these counties have identified historic properties. Twelve counties have potential 

acquisitions and possible displacements, and seven counties have identified vibration effects. 

Table 7.11-9: Alternative 2: Summary of Potential Effects in Counties where Environmental Justice 

Census Tracts Exist

Geography County Parklands

Hazardous

Materials

Historic 

Properties

Visual and 

Aesthetic 

Resources Noise Vibration

Land Cover 

(Acquisitions 

and 

Displacements

D.C. X X X X

MD

Prince George’s X X X

Baltimore City X X X X X X

Harford X X X X X X

PA Philadelphia X X X X X X X

NJ

Mercer X X X X

Middlesex X X X X X X X

Union X X X X

Essex X X X X

Hudson X X X X

NY Queens X X X X X X X

Bronx X X X X X X

CT

Fairfield X X X X X X X

Hartford X X X X X X

RI Providence X X X X X X

MA Suffolk X X X X

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

X = Presence of resource; effects would be subject to Tier 2 analysis.

Blank Cell = No effects identified for subject resource.

Prince George’s County, MD, has the fewest potential environmental resource impacts within EJ 

census tracts associated under Alternative 2, with impacts occurring on parklands, historic properties 

and noise-sensitive land covers

7.11.4.4 Alternative 3

Washington, D.C., to New York City

Baltimore City and Harford Counties, MD, and Philadelphia County, PA (Table 7.11-10) have the 

greatest potential for environmental resource impacts in EJ census tracts associated with this portion 

of Alternative 3. These three counties have potential environmental resource impacts in all seven 

categories. These three counties contain HMCW locations, would require acquisitions and possible 

displacements, include historic properties and visual and aesthetic resources, and have noise and 

vibration impacts.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.11-11

Table 7.11-10: Alternative 3 – Washington, D.C., to New York City: Summary of Potential Impacts in 

Environmental Justice Census Tracts

Geography County Parklands

Hazardous 

Materials

Historic 

Properties

Visual and 

Aesthetic 

Resources Noise Vibration

Land Cover 

(Acquisitions 

and 

Displacement)

D.C. X X X X X

MD

Prince George’s X X X X

Baltimore City X X X X X X X

Harford X X X X X X X

PA Philadelphia X X X X X X X

NJ

Mercer X X X X X X

Middlesex X X X X X X

Union X X X X X X

Essex X X X X X

Hudson X X X X X X

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

X = Presence of resource; effects would be subject to Tier 2 analysis.

Blank Cell = No effects identified for subject resource.

Counties within the Washington, D.C., to New York City portion of Alternative 3 that have identified 

EJ census tracts have impacts related to noise, acquisitions and displacements, and visual and 

aesthetic resources. Only five counties have vibration effects (Baltimore City, MD; Harford County, 

MD; Philadelphia County, PA; Middlesex County, NJ; and Hudson County, NJ) that have identified EJ 

census tracts. 

Prince George’s County, MD, has the fewest environmental impacts associated with this segment of 

Alternative 3. Impacts identified for Prince George’s County, MD, include parklands, visual and 

aesthetic resources, potential acquisitions and displacements, and noise impacts.

New York City to Hartford

Via Central Connecticut

Bronx County, NY, has the most potential environmental impacts in EJ census tracts associated with 

this option since it is affected in all seven environmental resource categories assessed

(Table 7.11-11).

Queens County, NY, has the fewest environmental impacts in EJ census tracts associated with this 

option. Queens County has impacts to resources in five out of seven environmental categories

assessed: noise, vibration, HWCM sites, historic properties and land acquisitions and displacements.

Via Long Island

Queens County, NY, and Fairfield County, CT, have the highest potential for environmental impacts 

in EJ census tracts associated with this route option. Both counties have potential environmental 

resource conflicts in all seven environmental resource categories assessed (Table 7.11-11). All 

counties within Alternative 3 New York City to Hartford via Long Island route option that have 

identified EJ census tracts have the potential for noise impacts and include identified hazardous 
7.11. Environmental Justice

Page | 7.11-12 Tier 1 Draft EIS

materials and historic properties. Queens County, NY, and Fairfield County and Hartford County, CT, 

have potential vibration effects and land acquisitions and displacements.

Table 7.11-11: Alternative 3 – New York City to Hartford: Summary of Potential Effects in Counties 

where Environmental Justice Census Tracts Exist

State County Parklands

Hazardous 

Materials

Historic 

Properties

Visual and 

Aesthetic 

Resources Noise Vibration

Land Cover 

(Acquisitions 

and 

Displacement)

via Central Connecticut

NY Queens X X X X X

Bronx X X X X X X X

CT Hartford X X X X X X

via Long Island

NY Queens X X X X X X X

Bronx X X X

CT

Fairfield X X X X X X X

Hartford X X X X X X

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

X = Presence of resource; effects would be subject to Tier 2 analysis.

Blank Cell = No effects identified for subject resource.

Bronx County, NY, has the fewest environmental impacts located in EJ census tracts; impacts occur 

in three out of seven environmental resource categories. 

Hartford to Boston

Via Providence

Providence County, RI, has the highest number of potential environmental impacts in EJ census tracts 

within this route option since the FRA identified potential impacts in six out of seven environmental 

resource categories assessed. Hartford County, CT, has the fewest environmental impacts in EJ census 

tracts for this route option since three out of seven environmental impact categories are the source 

of potential impacts (Table 7.11-12).

Via Worcester

Hartford County, CT, and Worcester County, MA, have the highest potential environmental impacts 

in EJ census tracts for this route option because both counties have impacts in five out of seven 

environmental impact categories assessed. Impacts to EJ census tracts in counties within Alternative 

3 Hartford to Boston via Worcester route option include noise, vibration, acquisitions and 

displacements, and visual and aesthetic resources (Hartford County, CT; Worcester County, MA; and 

Suffolk County, MA). 

Providence County, RI, has the fewest environmental impacts in EJ census tracts for this route option. 

This county has noise impacts (Table 7.11-12). 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.11-13

Table 7.11-12: Alternative 3 – Hartford to Boston: Summary of Potential Impacts in Environmental 

Justice Census Tracts

State County Parks

Hazardous 

Materials

Historic 

Properties

Visual and 

Aesthetic 

Resources Noise Vibration

Land Cover 

(Acquisitions 

and 

Displacement)

via Providence

CT Hartford X X X

RI Providence X X X X X X

MA Suffolk X X X X X

via Worcester

CT Hartford X X X X X

RI Providence X

MA

Worcester X X X X X

Suffolk X X X X

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

X = Presence of resource; effects would be subject to Tier 2 analysis.

Blank Cell = No effects identified for subject resource.

7.11.4.5 Transportation 

The FRA analyzed the transportation network to assess the potential for improvements and increased 

connectivity in the network caused by implementing the project. The Action Alternatives improve the 

overall transportation network. Increases in passenger rail and commuter rail options and additional 

station locations result in predicted decreases in automobile, air, and intercity bus travel, which in 

turn result in an increased share of passenger rail trips. These improvements benefit EJ populations, 

and additional benefits to EJ populations could include the following:

4 An expanded transportation network that provides mobility choice

4 An upgraded passenger and commuter rail network for daily or occasional travel

4 Improvements in connectivity, frequency, and accessibility, which would result in reliable service

The ridership estimate for the 2040 horizon year shows that the Action Alternatives increase levels 

of Intercity ridership 74–102 percent compared to the No Action Alternative. This is a potential

benefit to EJ populations since these improvements would provide access to an extended network 

for job, educational, medical, and housing choices. Additionally, network improvements in Hartford, 

CT, would result in time savings and would encourage rail usage for trips from points south to 

Connecticut and points north.

7.11.4.6 Economic Effects

Economic analyses for this Tier 1 Draft EIS included the quantification and evaluation of operational 

costs, direct employment impacts, travel time savings, travel cost, and safety. For low-income and

minority populations, the potential increase in employment opportunities via expanded travel 

options, reduction in overall trip travel time and a decrease in travel cost could be considered as 

positive effects. Capital investments in transportation improvements often lead to jobs and job 

training programs for skilled and unskilled workers. The most prevalent concern for EJ populations 

are travel costs. For this Tier 1 Draft EIS, the FRA estimated study travel costs for 2040. In this year, 
7.11. Environmental Justice

Page | 7.11-14 Tier 1 Draft EIS

the cost of passenger rail would be less expensive than automobile ownership and operation for all 

of the Action Alternatives. However, most low-income households are typically zero-car households 

and are transit dependent. Bus travel in 2040 would still be the least expensive mode of 

transportation for all Action Alternatives. In any case, access to multiple modes provides user choice 

for EJ populations, and station location and access improvements are included throughout the Study 

Area, resulting in improved network options for all users including EJ populations. 

7.11.4.7 Air Quality 

Putnam, NY; Washington, Kent, and Providence, RI; and Bristol, MA, met the current federal air 

quality standards for criteria pollutants before the FRA considered project effects. The FRA 

determined air quality effects for this Tier 1 study at the regional level and were not specific to a 

particular EJ census tract. However, air quality effects at this larger level did provide insight into the 

potential exposure and related health effects to all populations including EJ populations.

The Action Alternatives would reduce criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHG) from roadway 

vehicles for all Action Alternatives since there would be a decrease in vehicle-miles traveled and 

associated vehicle emissions. Criteria pollutants and GHGs caused by aircraft travel and buses are 

expected to decrease under the Action Alternatives because of the potential mode shift from aircraft

and bus travel to passenger rail. On the other hand, increased emissions from power plants due to 

the increased electrical requirements required by the expanded service proposed under the Action 

Alternatives would result in an increase in emissions of criteria pollutants and GHGs in all states for 

all Action Alternatives. 

However, assuming an existing energy profile, the combined net effect of these transportation 

changes is a predicted reduction in all criteria pollutant burdens, with the exception of nitrogen 

oxides under Alternatives 3 (via Central Connecticut/Providence, via Long Island/Providence, and via 

Long Island/Worcester route options) and sulfur dioxide under all Action Alternatives. When 

assuming a future energy profile (i.e., accounting for future increases in renewable energy use), the 

combined net effect of these transportation changes is a predicted reduction in all criteria pollutant 

burdens, with the exception of sulfur dioxide under all Action Alternatives. The net total of GHGs 

would decrease under all Action Alternatives regardless of the energy profile (existing or future) 

assumed.

Construction of the project would result in temporary emissions of criteria pollutants and GHGs

associated with construction equipment and activities. Local levels of criteria pollutants and mobile 

source air toxics could also increase near station locations and parking facilities. These more direct 

emissions could cause localized effects in EJ census tracts and, more specifically, impacts to children 

living near power plants, construction zones, and stations and parking facilities. However, EJ 

populations living near major roadways and airports within the Affected Environment could see a 

decrease in air pollutants and toxins.

7.11.4.8 Safety and Public Health

The safety analysis for this Tier 1 Draft EIS focuses primarily on modal safety, railroad operational 

safety, and railroad infrastructure safety and security. From an EJ perspective,the general assessment 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.11-15

of safety focuses on the connection to health impacts and train operations near children and other 

vulnerable populations.

The FRA establishes safety regulations for passenger- and freight-rail operators, which are applicable 

for the No Action Alternative and the Action Alternatives. These regulations seek to protect the 

traveling public and those near operational trains.

Chapter 7.19, Public Health, provides a qualitative assessment of the effects of the Action Alternatives 

on public health. Temporary effects on public health from construction of any Action Alternative are 

more likely than long-term effects. Temporary effects on public health may result from things such 

as fugitive dust, construction noise and vibration, or an unexpected encounter of a contaminated 

site. Specific health-related conditions exacerbated by the construction and operation of an Action 

Alternative are not anticipated to increase in EJ census tracts such that EJ populations bear a 

disproportionate burden of health-related impacts. 

7.11.5 Context Area

Within the Context Area, the number of EJ census tracts increases significantly simply because the 

Context Area covers a wider area, encompassing 5 miles centered on the Representative Route for 

each Action Alternative. However, potential impacts in EJ census tracts could increase depending on 

shifts in the Representative Route and the location of the environmental resources assessed for 

potential impacts in EJ census tracts. The number of EJ census tracts in the Context Area ranges 

1,790–2,416 for the Action Alternatives.

Table 7.11-13 provides the number of census tracts within the Context Area for the Action 

Alternatives. New Jersey and New York have the highest number of census tracts within the Context 

Area of all the Action Alternatives. 

Table 7.11-13: Context Area: Total Environmental Justice Census Tracts by Action Alternative

Geography Existing NEC Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

D.C. 93 93 93 93

MD 228 231 231 235

DE 34 34 34 34

PA 249 249 245 249 

NJ 345 345 345 360–361

NY 566 566 590 604–1,031

CT 102 102 189 190–202

RI 51 51 51 51

MA 122 122 122 123–173

TOTAL 1,790 1,793 1,900 1,909–2,416

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

7.11.6 Potential Mitigation Strategies

Because the FRA does not identify site-specific adverse effects for EJ populations, proposing potential 

mitigation strategies is premature. During Tier 2 studies, more analysis to identify site-specific 

impacts on EJ populations should occur. Mitigation should reflect the needs of the affected EJ 

communities. 
7.11. Environmental Justice

Page | 7.11-16 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Mitigation examples for resources that may potentially affect EJ communities are provided in the 

various resource-specific sections of this chapter of this Tier 1 Draft EIS. To potentially avoid or 

minimize adverse effects on EJ populations, consideration of the findings of this EJ analysis should 

occur during future phases of project planning and development.

7.11.7 Subsequent Tier 2 Analysis 

Specific impacts to EJ populations were not available for the environmental resources assessed for 

this Tier 1 Draft EIS. However, highlighting the areas where concentrations of EJ populations live and 

understanding their proximity to potential environmental effects underscores the FRA’s commitment 

to EJ principles. A more detailed analysis of environmental impacts that have the potential to be 

borne by EJ populations will be conducted during Tier 2 studies. As part of each Tier 2 study, the lead 

federal agency will ensure compliance with the EO 12898. The lead federal agency for subsequent 

Tier 2 actions should review the demographic and detailed EJ data used in this analysis, as applicable, 

and identify necessary updates to the data set in order to fully assess the effects of Tier 2 actions.

Tier 2 actions sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) would be subject to the FTA’s EJ 

Circular and suggested EJ methodology.