TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7.2 Land Cover

7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.2-1

7.2 LAND COVER

7.2.1 Introduction

This section provides a brief description of the land cover in 

the Affected Environment and broader Context Area and

identifies the potential conversions as well as acquisitions 

and/or potential for displacements that would result from 

the No Action and Action Alternatives. This section also 

includes a review of state and regional plans within the NEC 

FUTURE Study Area (Study Area) to evaluate the 

compatibility of the No Action and Action Alternatives with 

those state and regional efforts.

7.2.1.1 Definition of Resource

Land cover is the observed physical cover on the earth’s 

surface. The identification of land cover classifications is 

based on the National Land Cover Database developed by 

the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium 

within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.1

Land cover was divided into nine categories for the Tier 1 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Tier 1 Draft EIS)

analysis. These categories cover the entire Study Area and 

are further defined within the Land Cover Effects-Assessment Methodology in Appendix E, Section 

E.02. In this Tier 1 Draft EIS analysis, land cover is generally discussed as either developed or 

undeveloped as described below: 

4 Developed land cover represents constructed materials such as single-family housing units, 

apartment complexes, and commercial and industrial structures. The categories of developed 

land include five of the nine land cover categories: Developed, open space; Developed, low 

intensity; Developed, medium intensity; Developed, high intensity; and Barren Land. Barren Land 

is included in the developed land cover because it has development potential, and is compatible 

with transportation use.

4 Undeveloped land cover represents unbuilt natural areas, which include the following four land 

cover categories: Open Water, Forest/Shrub, Grassland/Cultivated, and Wetlands.

Land use is characterized by the physical arrangements, patterns, and activities within a certain land 

cover type that produce, change, or maintain the land cover. Specific land uses, such as residential, 

commercial, or industrial land uses, are not identified or described in this Tier 1 Draft EIS analysis 

because land use is not reported consistently throughout the Study Area. However, land use is 

 

1 Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium partners include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; U.S. Forest Service; U.S. Geological Survey; Bureau of Land Management; National 

Park Service; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; National Agricultural Statistics 

Service; and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Key Resource: Land Cover

§ Critical in understanding effects on 

other key resources. 

§ Identifies acreage of potential 

acquisitions, which may result in future 

displacements.

§ Types of effects include potential for 

land cover conversion to a 

transportation-related land use, or 

changes to existing land cover that 

could result in loss or fragmentation of 

ecological resources; loss of or 

changes to hydrologic resources; 

conversion of recreational resources; 

acquisitions and displacements; and 

conversion of prime farmlands or 

timberlands.
7.2. Land Cover

Page | 7.2-2 Tier 1 Draft EIS

discussed in reference to identified goals and objectives of state and regional plans, and whether the 

Action Alternatives support those goals and objectives.

7.2.1.2 Effects-Assessment Methodology

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) developed an effects-assessment methodology for land 

cover (see Appendix E, Section E.02). The effects-assessment methodology and land cover data 

sources explain how the Affected Environment was defined and established and how the effects on 

land cover were evaluated and reported. Table 7.2-1 summarizes key factors associated with the 

effects-assessment methodology for land cover.

Table 7.2-1: Effects-Assessment Methodology Summary: Land Cover

Resource

Affected 

Environment Type of Assessment Outcome

Land Cover 1⁄2-mile-wide

swath centered on 

the 

Representative 

Route for each 

Action Alternative 

Quantitative: Acres Identification of acres affected by the 

Representative Route for each Action 

Alternative using the NEC FUTURE Land Cover 

Classification categories and identification of 

acres where there is:

■ Potential for conversion of land cover to 

transportation use.

■ Potential for acquisitions and/or 

displacements of public and/or private 

lands.

Land Use

Plans

Study Area Qualitative: Goals and 

objectives within 

statewide land-userelated planning 

documents and regional 

planning documents 

developed by federallymandated metropolitan 

planning organizations.

Identification of land cover-related goals and 

objectives supportive of 1) rail transportation;

2) transit-oriented development; and 3) 

preservation of the built and natural 

environment to determine compatibility with 

the NEC FUTURE goals and objectives.

Source: NEC FUTURE Land Cover Effects-Assessment Methodology, Appendix E, Section E.02, 2014

The FRA reviewed land cover within the Representative Route of each Action Alternative using 

geographic information system (GIS) to identify the number of acres of developed and undeveloped 

land cover in the Affected Environment. GIS was also used to estimate the potential number of acres

that would be converted to a transportation use, as well as to estimate the potential acreages of 

acquisitions and the potential for displacements that would be required for each of the Action 

Alternatives. An acquisition is the process of acquiring real property (real estate) or some interest 

therein. A displacement is the necessary relocation of a land occupant. Acquisitions could result in 

future displacements; however, those displacements would be quantified only as part of a Tier 2 

analysis. The land cover analysis and calculations did not include open waters that extend beyond 

the state and county coastlines.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.2-3

Potential Conversion of Land Cover

To calculate potential land cover conversions, the analysis considered the land cover within the 

Representative Route. The Action Alternatives were considered most compatible with developed 

land cover, which is inclusive of existing transportation use, such as rail tracks, highways, and other 

transportation infrastructure. Therefore, within areas of existing transportation use, there would be

minimal potential for conversion of developed land cover within the Representative Route. 

Undeveloped land cover was considered least compatible with the Action Alternatives since it would 

be converted from undeveloped to developed land cover. Therefore, there would be a greater 

potential for conversion of undeveloped land cover within the Representative Routes that are offcorridor. Where the Representative Route includes a major bridge or tunnel, acreage of potential 

land conversions was not calculated, since the potential for conversion of the land cover at surface 

grade would be negligible.

Potential Acquisitions and Displacements

Potential conversions of land cover may result in acquisitions of private or public lands. Acquisitions 

could result in displacements in developed lands. To calculate the potential acquisitions and the 

potential for displacements, the analysis considered only the land cover where the Representative 

Route did not coincide with the existing NEC right-of-way since there would be minimal potential for 

acquisitions or displacements within the existing NEC right-of-way. Where there would be potential 

conversions of undeveloped land cover, an acquisition or displacement would be more likely. The 

analysis for potential acquisitions and displacements also includes tunnels and major bridge 

construction types because temporary acquisitions may be required to accommodate construction

activities. For purposes of this Tier 1 Draft EIS analysis, it is assumed that for these construction types

(tunnel or major bridge), potential acquisitions associated with construction would not permanently 

convert surface land cover.

7.2.2 Resource Overview

Implementation of the No Action or Action Alternatives could result in the conversion or change of 

an existing land cover type to a different land cover type due to modification of existing rail 

infrastructure, such as expansion of rail rights-of-way, and/or construction of new rail infrastructure, 

such as railroad tracks or stations. Changes in land cover type could result in a land use that is 

incompatible with surrounding land uses. Conversion of developed land cover could result in land 

acquisitions and displacements. Conversion of undeveloped land cover to developed land cover could 

result in loss or fragmentation of animal and/or plant habitat, dredge and fill of wetlands, 

encroachment of floodplains, and conversion of farmland/timberlands to different land uses. 

Developed land cover is concentrated around the major metropolitan areas within the Study Area 

and areas along the existing NEC. Developed land cover includes transportation uses. Therefore, 

transportation uses would be compatible with developed land cover. Undeveloped land cover is 

generally concentrated in rural and natural locations outside the metropolitan areas within the Study 

Area, and includes waterbodies. Transportation uses would be the least compatible for undeveloped 

land covers, since it would convert to developed land cover.
7.2. Land Cover

Page | 7.2-4 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Within the Study Area, Connecticut and Maryland contain the greatest concentrations of 

undeveloped land cover. Within the Affected Environment, Connecticut tends to have the largest 

acreage of the following types of undeveloped land cover: Open Water, Forest/Shrub, and Wetlands;

Maryland has the largest acreages of Grassland/Cultivated land cover. (See Appendix E, Section E.02 

for a description of land cover categories.) This pattern of undeveloped land cover in Connecticut and 

Maryland is consistent across the Action Alternatives, primarily where the Representative Route 

includes new off-corridor segments through undeveloped land cover. (See Section 7.2.3. for full 

details of land cover within the Affected Environment.)

The majority of land conversions associated with all Action Alternatives occurs in Maryland and 

Connecticut. Key findings for the analysis of the NEC FUTURE No Action and Action Alternatives’ 

effects on Land Cover are listed below:

4 Benefits

– The goals and objectives identified for the NEC FUTURE program were found to be generally 

supportive and compatible with approximately 50% of planning documents developed by 

states and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) identified and reviewed by FRA for the 

Study Area in regards to rail transportation, transit-oriented development and preservation 

of the built and natural environment.

– Improvements to the NEC can influence land development patterns that may limit sprawl by 

concentrating development around transportation corridors.

4 Impacts

– Land conversions primarily occur with new off-corridor segments.

o Under all Action Alternatives, Maryland and Connecticut have the highest acreage of 

land conversions. 

o When comparing all Action Alternatives, the least land conversions occur under 

Alternative 1 and the greatest occur under Alternative 3 with the route options via Long 

Island and Worcester.

o The No Action Alternative primarily comprises improvements on the existing NEC, 

thereby minimizing the need for possible land conversions. 

– Land conversions of developed land have the greatest potential to result in acquisitions that 

have associated displacements. 

o Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the greatest conversions of developed land occur in 

Connecticut.

o Under Alternative 3, the greatest conversion of developed land occurs in Maryland, New 

York, and Connecticut.

– Land conversions of undeveloped land have the greatest effect on natural resources.

o Among all Action Alternatives, the greatest conversion of undeveloped land occurs in 

Connecticut under Alternative 2.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.2-5

7.2.3 Affected Environment 

Table 7.2-2 shows the number of acres of developed and undeveloped land cover within the Affected 

Environment of the existing NEC and each Action Alternative. The land cover pattern along the 

existing NEC is a mix of developed and undeveloped lands. Developed lands are located within major 

metropolitan areas such as Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, PA, New York City, NY, and Boston, MA.

Developed land also typically occurs near major transportation corridors and facilities connecting 

these major metropolitan areas. Developed land characteristics along the existing NEC support 

densely populated areas with varying degrees of development densities. Characteristics of 

undeveloped land along the existing NEC are typical of rural areas and include agricultural lands, lowdensity housing, and natural areas such as parks, forested land, and water bodies. This land pattern 

is consistent for all of the Action Alternatives. Large concentrations of undeveloped land occur in the 

more rural areas associated with the Alternative 3 route options through western New York and 

Connecticut. (Appendix E, Section E.02, lists all land cover within the Affected Environment by state

and county.)

Table 7.2-2: Affected Environment: Developed and Undeveloped Land Cover by Action 

Alternative 

Geography Land Cover

Existing NEC 

(acres)

Alternative 1

(acres)

Alternative 2

(acres)

Alternative 3

(acres)

D.C. Developed 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,330

Undeveloped 175 175 175 180

MD Developed 17,180 17,655 18,915 25,555

Undeveloped 10,640 10,645 13,715 16,790

DE Developed 5,480 5,480 6,520 6,405

Undeveloped 1,420 1,420 1,825 1,740

PA Developed 13,945 13,945 14,260 19,345

Undeveloped 1,580 1,580 1,805 1,870

NJ Developed 13,830 13,875 14,585 15,420

Undeveloped 4,365 4,365 4,420 4,645

NY Developed 8,695 8,725 9,945 15,265–28,845

Undeveloped 430 430 485 1,820–6,905

CT Developed 24,385 29,590 39,185 37,875–42,245

Undeveloped 10,220 15,430 24,825 20,865–30,810

RI Developed 8,745 9,375 11,440 8,745–11,445

Undeveloped 6,905 8,500 11,705 6,905–11,700

MA Developed 7,940 7,940 8,395 8,540–20,665

Undeveloped 4,180 4,180 4,575 4,670–12,265

TOTAL Developed 101,500 107,880 124,545 141,810–167,925

Undeveloped 39,910 46,720 63,535 67,070–79,300

Source: National Land Cover Database and NEC FUTURE team, 2015

7.2.3.1 Existing NEC

Of the states within the Affected Environment of the existing NEC, Connecticut contains the most 

acreage of both developed and undeveloped land cover. Forest/Shrub land cover is the most 

prominent undeveloped land cover in Connecticut.
7.2. Land Cover

Page | 7.2-6 Tier 1 Draft EIS

7.2.3.2 Alternative 1

Similar to the existing NEC, of the states within the Affected Environment of Alternative 1, 

Connecticut contains the most acreage of both developed and undeveloped land cover, and 

Forest/Shrub land cover is the most prominent undeveloped land cover. Because of the Affected 

Environment of the Old Saybrook-Kenyon new segment, this Action Alternative includes more acres 

of both developed and undeveloped land cover in New London County compared to the existing NEC. 

7.2.3.3 Alternative 2

Similar to the existing NEC and Alternative 1, of the states within the Affected Environment of 

Alternative 2, Connecticut contains the most acreage of both developed and undeveloped land cover, 

and Forest/Shrub land cover is the most prominent undeveloped land cover. Within the Affected 

Environment of the New Haven-Hartford-Providence routing option outside the existing NEC through 

New Haven, Hartford, Tolland, and Windham Counties, there are many acres of developed and 

undeveloped land cover. 

7.2.3.4 Alternative 3

Washington, D.C., to New York City

Of the states within the Affected Environment of Alternative 3, Washington D.C., to New York City 

portion, Maryland contains the most acreage of both developed and undeveloped land cover. 

Forest/Shrub land cover is the most prominent undeveloped land cover in Maryland.

New York City to Hartford

Via Central Connecticut

Similar to the existing NEC and Alternatives 1 and 2, of the states within the Affected Environment of 

Alternative 3, New York City to Hartford via Central Connecticut portion, Connecticut contains the 

greatest number of acres of both developed and undeveloped land cover, specifically within Fairfield, 

New Haven, and Hartford Counties. Forest/Shrub is the most prominent undeveloped land cover in 

Connecticut.

Via Long Island

Similar to the existing NEC and Alternatives 1 and 2, of the states within the Affected Environment of 

Alternative 3, New York City to Hartford via Long Island portion, Connecticut contains the greatest 

number of acres of both developed and undeveloped land cover. Nassau and Suffolk Counties in New 

York contain a substantial number of developed acreages but not as many as Connecticut. 

Forest/Shrub is the most prominent land cover in Connecticut.

Hartford to Boston

Via Providence

Similar to the existing NEC, of the states within the Affected Environment of Alternative 3, Hartford 

to Boston via Providence portion, Connecticut contains the greatest number of both developed and 

undeveloped land cover. Forest/Shrub is the most prominent undeveloped land cover in Connecticut, 

specifically within Windham County.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.2-7

Via Worcester

For this routing option, of the states within the Affected Environment of Alternative 3, Hartford to 

Boston via Worcester portion, Massachusetts contains the greatest number of both developed and 

undeveloped land cover. Forest/Shrub is the most prominent undeveloped land cover in 

Massachusetts, specifically within Worcester County. 

7.2.4 Environmental Consequences 

7.2.4.1 Potential Conversions

Table 7.2-3 shows the potential numbers of acres of developed and undeveloped land cover by state 

and Washington, D.C., that would be converted within the Representative Route of each Action 

Alternative. Potential conversions of Forest/Shrub and Wetlands land cover, identified as 

undeveloped land cover, include Prime Timberland and Prime Farmland soils, as well as 

environmentally sensitive aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Conversion of these land cover types 

would potentially result in deforestation, loss of natural areas/habitat or fragmentation of habitat, 

dredge and fill of Wetlands, and conversion of agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses. The addition 

of rail service to areas that are not served by rail or that may have limited service may induce change 

and influence land development patterns adjacent to the rail and at new station areas.

Table 7.2-3: Environmental Consequences: Potential Conversions of Developed and 

Undeveloped Land

Geography Land Cover

Existing NEC

(acres)

Alternative 1

(acres)1

Alternative 2

(acres)1

Alternative 3

(acres)1

D.C. Developed 75 75 75 115

Undeveloped 1 1 1 10

MD Developed 1,285 1,285 1,365 3,080

Undeveloped 260 260 415 1,055

DE Developed 385 385 495 990

Undeveloped 35 35 60 160

PA Developed 855 855 820 1,945

Undeveloped 10 10 20 60

NJ Developed 910 910 1,230 2,045

Undeveloped 100 110 115 390

NY Developed 440 440 660 830–1,705

Undeveloped 30 30 30 130–145

CT Developed 1,540 1,895 2,740 1,970–2,755

Undeveloped 495 635 1,085 670–1,030

RI Developed 540 585 585 540–595

Undeveloped 345 515 625 345–630

MA Developed 450 450 500 875–950

Undeveloped 210 210 270 380–635

TOTAL Developed 6,475 6,875 8,470 12,450–14,120

Undeveloped 1,490 1,805 2,620 3,200–4,115

Source: National Land Cover Database and NEC FUTURE team, 2015 1. All Action Alternatives assume improvements to the existing NEC; therefore, the acreages presented include the 

Environmental Consequences inclusive of improvements to the existing NEC and any new routing option or off-corridor route 

associated with each Action Alternative.
7.2. Land Cover

Page | 7.2-8 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.2-4 and Table 7.2-5 show the approximate number of acres of developed and undeveloped 

land cover, respectively, by state that would be converted within the Representative Route for the 

Alternative 3 route options. (See Appendix E, Section E.02, for a complete list of all potential 

conversions by state and county.)

Table 7.2-4: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route of Alternative 3 Route 

Options – Potential Conversions of Developed Land

Geography

Existing NEC

(acres)

Alternative 3

D.C. to NYC

(acres)

New York City to Hartford Hartford to Boston

via Central 

Connecticut

(acres)

via Long 

Island

(acres)

via 

Providence 

(acres)

via Worcester 

(acres)

D.C. 75 115 — — — —

MD 1,285 3,080 — — — —

DE 385 990 — — — —

PA 855 1,945 — — — —

NJ 910 2,045 — — — —

NY 440 — 830 1,705 — —

CT 1,540 — 1,395 1,950 575 960

RI 540 — — — 595 540

MA 450 — — — 875 950

TOTAL 6,475 8,175 2,225 3,650 2,050 2,450

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

— = Not applicable within that alternative/route option.

Table 7.2-5: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route of Alternative 3 Route 

Options – Potential Conversions of Undeveloped Land

Geography

Existing NEC

(acres)

Alternative 3

D.C. to NYC

(acres)

New York City to Hartford Hartford to Boston

via Central 

Connecticut

(acres)

via Long 

Island

(acres)

via

Providence 

(acres)

via

Worcester 

(acres)

D.C. 1 10 — — — —

MD 260 1,055 — — — —

DE 35 160 — — — —

PA 10 60 — — — —

NJ 100 390 — — — —

NY 30 — 145 130 — —

CT 495 — 195 345 685 510

RI 345 — — — 630 345

MA 210 — — — 635 380

TOTAL 1,490 1,675 340 475 1,950 1,235

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

— = Not applicable within that alternative/route option.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.2-9

No Action Alternative

Most activities included as part of the No Action Alternative occur primarily within the right-of-way 

of the existing NEC; therefore, the potential for land conversions of occur under the No Action

Alternative is minimal. 

Alternative 1

Most of the potential conversions of undeveloped land cover would occur in Connecticut, where the 

addition of the new Old Saybrook-Kenyon segment is proposed outside the existing NEC through New

London County. Undeveloped land in New London County is primarily categorized as Forest/Shrub 

and Wetlands. The conversion of Forest/Shrub and Wetlands would result in the potential 

deforestation, dredging and filling of Wetlands, loss of natural habitats or fragmentation of habitats.

The potential benefits to land cover as they relate to Alternative 1 are that improvements would 

generally stay near the existing NEC, which would likely encourage development patterns to remain 

similar to current conditions.

Alternative 2

The potential conversions of undeveloped land cover would primarily occur in Connecticut, with the 

addition of the New Haven-Hartford-Providence route option. This segment occurs outside the 

existing NEC through New Haven, Hartford, Tolland, and Windham Counties and includes many acres 

of undeveloped land cover. The majority of the conversions would occur in New London and New 

Haven Counties. In New London County, Wetlands is the most prominent undeveloped land cover. 

Forest/Shrub is the most prominent undeveloped land cover in New Haven County. Conversion of 

these land cover types would potentially result in dredging and filling of wetland areas, loss of natural 

habitats or fragmentation of habitats. The addition of the New Haven-Hartford-Providence segment 

may encourage development in areas that are not as developed under current conditions.

Benefits on land cover associated with Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1; many

improvements would focus on and occur along the existing NEC, therefore continuing existing land 

development patterns.

Alternative 3

Washington, D.C., to New York City

South of New York City, Alternative 3 provides a second spine adjacent to the existing NEC right-ofway. Six-track segments extend from Washington, D.C., to Baltimore, and Philadelphia to New York

City. Most of the potential conversions of undeveloped land cover would occur in Baltimore, Hartford, 

and Cecil Counties, MD. The greatest acreage of land conversion would occur in Cecil County and 

would include Forest/Shrub, Grassland/Cultivated, and Wetlands between Furnace Bay Golf Course 

and the community of Elk Mills adjacent to the Pulaski Highway. Potential conversions of these land 

types would result in deforestation, conversion of agricultural lands into nonagricultural uses, 

dredging/filling of Wetlands, and loss of or fragmentation of natural habitats.
7.2. Land Cover

Page | 7.2-10 Tier 1 Draft EIS

The addition of the second spine south of New York City would provide the benefit of likely 

encouraging land development patterns to remain consistent with existing land development 

patterns.

New York City to Hartford

Via Central Connecticut

This route option goes off-corridor through New York City and into Connecticut, through Danbury 

and on to Hartford. Westchester County, NY, would account for the greatest acreage of potential 

conversions of undeveloped land cover, primarily Forest/Shrub, in this route option. Potential 

conversions of these land types would result in deforestation and loss of or fragmentation of natural 

habitats.

Via Long Island

This route option also goes off-corridor from the existing NEC and provides a connection to Hartford, 

CT, by way of the Long Island Sound. The most conversions would occur in Connecticut, particularly 

in New London and New Haven Counties. Land cover is primarily Wetland and Forest/Shrub. Potential 

conversion of these land types would result in dredging/filling of Wetlands, deforestation, and loss 

or fragmentation of natural habitats. 

Hartford to Boston

Via Providence

This route option continues east from Hartford, CT, into Rhode Island and begins to parallel the 

existing NEC again in Bristol County, MA. Massachusetts contains the most acreage (approximately 

425 acres) of potential conversions of undeveloped land cover within the Representative Route. In 

particular, Norfolk County, MA, accounts for the greatest acreage of potential conversions of

undeveloped land cover (Forest/Shrub) in this route option. Potential conversion of these land types 

would result in deforestation, and loss or fragmentation of natural habitats.

Via Worcester

This route option continues northeast from Hartford, CT, through Connecticut before entering 

Massachusetts. The most acreage (165 acres) of potential conversions of undeveloped land cover

would occur in Worcester County, MA, where the Forest/Shrub is the most prominent undeveloped 

land cover. 

7.2.4.2 Acquisitions and Displacements

Table 7.2-6 shows the potential acquisitions by land cover type for each Action Alternative. Potential 

displacements have not been individually identified and are not quantified for this Tier 1 Draft EIS. To 

calculate the potential acquisitions, the analysis considered only the land cover where the 

Representative Route does not represent the existing NEC right-of-way since there would be minimal 

potential for acquisitions along the existing NEC right-of-way. (Appendix E, Section E.02, contains a 

complete list of all potential acquisition acreage by state and county.) Table 7.2-7 and Table 7.2-8

show the potential acquisitions of developed and undeveloped land cover, respectively, for the 

Alternative 3 route options.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.2-11

Table 7.2-6: Environmental Consequences: Potential Acquisitions 

Geography Land Cover Alternative 1 (acres)1 Alternative 2 (acres)1 Alternative 3 (acres)1

D.C. Developed — — 60

Undeveloped — — 10

MD Developed 40 175 1,620

Undeveloped — 170 780

DE Developed — 90 385

Undeveloped — 35 110

PA Developed — 325 1,035

Undeveloped — 25 60

NJ Developed 25 310 895

Undeveloped 5 15 255

NY Developed 20 205 620–1,800

Undeveloped — 5 120–340

CT Developed 450 1,340 910–1,500

Undeveloped 250 910 540–1,145

RI Developed 50 170 0–215

Undeveloped 150 280 0–290

MA Developed — 50 350–845

Undeveloped — 45 230–335

TOTAL Developed 585 2,660 6,090–8,140

Undeveloped 405 1,490 2,215–3,225

Source: National Land Cover Database and NEC FUTURE team, 2015 1. All Action Alternatives assume improvements to the existing NEC; therefore, the acreage presented include the 

Environmental Consequences inclusive of improvements to existing NEC and any new routing option or off-corridor route 

associated with each Action Alternative.

— = Not applicable within that alternative.

Table 7.2-7: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route of Alternative 3 Route 

Options – Potential Acquisitions of Developed Land

Geography

Existing NEC

(acres)

Alternative 3

D.C. to NYC

(acres)

New York City to Hartford Hartford to Boston

via Central 

Connecticut

(acres)

via Long 

Island

(acres)

via

Providence 

(acres)

via

Worcester 

(acres)

D.C. 75 60 — — — —

MD 1,330 1,620 — — — —

DE 385 385 — — — —

PA 865 1,035 — — — —

NJ 940 895 — — — —

NY 490 — 620 1,800 — —

CT 1,555 — 675 1,025 240 465

RI 550 — — — 215 —

MA 485 — — — 350 845

TOTAL 6,670 3,995 1,290 2,820 805 1,310

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

— = Not applicable within that alternative/route option.
7.2. Land Cover

Page | 7.2-12 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.2-8: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route of Alternative 3 Route 

Options – Potential Acquisitions of Undeveloped Land 

Geography

Existing NEC

(acres)

Alternative 3

D.C. to NYC

(acres)

New York City to Hartford Hartford to Boston

via Central 

Connecticut

(acres)

via Long 

Island

(acres)

via

Providence 

(acres)

via

Worcester 

(acres)

D.C. 5 10 — — — —

MD 275 780 — — — —

DE 35 110 — — — —

PA 15 60 — — — —

NJ 100 255 — — — —

NY 30 — 340 120 — —

CT 505 — 500 360 675 165

RI 345 — — — 290 —

MA 210 — — — 230 335

TOTAL 1,525 1,215 840 480 1,195 500

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

— = Not applicable within that alternative/route option.

No Action Alternative

Most activities included as part of the No Action Alternative occur primarily within the right-of-way 

of the existing NEC; therefore, the potential for acquisitions and displacements to occur under the 

No Action Alternative is minimal. 

Alternative 1

Most of the acquisitions of both developed and undeveloped land cover would occur in Connecticut, 

particularly in New London County, where the addition of the new Old Saybrook-Kenyon segment 

outside the existing NEC runs through New London County.

Alternative 2

The most acquisitions of both developed and undeveloped land cover would occur in Connecticut, 

where the addition of the New Haven-Hartford-Providence segment is outside the existing NEC 

through New Haven, Hartford, Tolland, and Windham Counties. The most acreage of Forest/Shrub 

land that would be acquired would occur in Windham County. Potential acquisitions in Windham 

County would include Prime Timberland and Prime Farmland soils and environmentally sensitive 

terrestrial habitats.

Alternative 3

Washington, D.C., to New York City

Most of the acquisitions of undeveloped land cover would occur in Maryland, where new track and 

segments outside the existing NEC through Baltimore, Harford, and Cecil Counties include many acres 

of undeveloped land cover.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.2-13

Of the potential acquisitions in Maryland, most would occur in Cecil County. Potential acquisitions to 

undeveloped land cover would include Forest/Shrub, Grassland/Cultivated, and Wetlands on new 

segments between Furnace Bay Golf Course and the community of Elk Mills adjacent to the Pulaski 

Highway.

New York City to Hartford

Via Central Connecticut

Connecticut contains the most acreage of potential acquisitions to land cover within the 

Representative Route. New Haven County, CT, accounts for the greatest acreage of potential 

acquisitions to undeveloped land cover for this route option. Forest/Shrub is the most prominent 

undeveloped land cover in New Haven.

Via Long Island

New York contains the most acreage of potential acquisitions to land cover within the Representative 

Route. Suffolk County, NY, accounts for the greatest acreage of potential acquisitions to undeveloped 

land cover for the route option. Forest/Shrub is the most prominent undeveloped land cover in 

Suffolk County.

Hartford to Boston

Via Providence

Connecticut contains the most acreage of potential acquisitions to land cover within the

Representative Route. Windham County, CT, accounts for the greatest acreage of potential 

acquisitions to undeveloped land cover for the route option. Forest/Shrub is the most prominent 

undeveloped land cover in Windham County.

Via Worcester

Massachusetts contains the most acreage of potential acquisitions to land cover within the 

Representative Route. Worcester County, MA, accounts for the greatest acreage of potential 

acquisitions to undeveloped land cover for the route option. Forest/Shrub is the most prominent 

undeveloped land cover in Worcester County.

Stations

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

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

(Table 7.2-9). There is no potential for conversion of land cover, or acquisition of private or public 

land at existing stations where no modifications would occur. Potential for land cover conversion or

acquisition of private or public land would be minimal at stations where modifications are proposed 

and there is an increase in the station footprint. The potential for conversion of land cover and

acquisition of public or private property is associated with areas where new stations are proposed.

Stations areas considered for potential conversions and acquisitions could result in future 

displacements. The numbers of acres of potential acquisition and displacement at station areas are 

not quantified at this time because part of the station areas are included within the Representative 

Route and are included in Table 7.2-6 through Table 7.2-8. (Appendix E, Section E.02, contains a 

complete list of all land cover within station footprints by state and county.)
7.2. Land Cover

Page | 7.2-14 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.2-9: Environmental Consequences: Stations – Potential Conversions of 

Undeveloped Land Cover

State County

Station 

ID/Type Station Name Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

MD

Anne Arundel 6/New BWI Airport H.S. X

Baltimore City 13/New Bayview X X X

14/New Bayview H.S. X

DE New Castle 26/New Newport X X X

NJ Middlesex 62/New North Brunswick X X X

NY

Bronx 81/New Co-op City X X X

Westchester 151/New White Plains East X

CT

Fairfield 154/New Danbury X

New Haven 155/New Waterbury South X

Middlesex 120/New Old Saybrook H.S. X

New London 124/New Mystic/New London H.S. X

Hartford 161/New Newington X

Tolland 165/New Willimantic/Storrs X X

166/New Tolland/Storrs — — X

MA

Worcester 174/New Westborough — — X

175/New Blue Star Hwy (I-495) — — X

Middlesex

176/New Southborough/Ashland — — X

178/New Framingham — — X

181/New Riverside (I-95) — — X

Source: National Land Cover Database and NEC FUTURE team, 2015

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

provided in Appendix E, Section E.02. 

X = Undeveloped Land Cover within the new station footprint where potential conversion, acquisition, displacement could 

occur; effects would be subject to Tier 2 analysis.

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

— = Not applicable within that alternative.

H.S. = high speed

7.2.5 Context Area

For all Action Alternatives, the Context Area consists of higher percentages of undeveloped land cover

than the Affected Environment. This indicates that should the Representative Route shift, there 

would be a potential to affect a greater share of undeveloped land cover, which could be 

incompatible with transportation uses and result in more land cover conversions, acquisitions, and 

displacements.

7.2.6 State and Regional Plan Analysis 

The FRA reviewed the existing goals and objectives of planning documents developed by the states 

and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) within the Study Area to identify compatibility of NEC 

FUTURE with these plans. Consistent with the NEC FUTURE goals (as identified in Chapter 3, Purpose 

and Need) related to passenger rail improvements, environmental sustainability, and economic 

growth, the FRA performed the following:

1. Identified three land cover-related goals and objectives: improved passenger rail transportation, 

transit-oriented development, and preservation of the built or natural environment
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.2-15

2. Reviewed the existing goals and objectives of planning documents developed by the states and 

MPOs within the Study Area 

3. Identified those planning documents that included land-cover-related goals and objectives of 

improved passenger rail transportation, transit-oriented development, and preservation of the 

built or natural environment

NEC FUTURE is considered compatible with planning documents that identified all of these goals and 

objectives. NEC FUTURE is considered partially compatible with planning documents that identified 

some but not all of these goals and objectives. Based on the review undertaken for this analysis, the 

FRA determined that NEC FUTURE is compatible or partially compatible with the overall goals, 

objectives, and recommendations of the planning documents identified within the Study Area.

Of the approximately 75 unique planning documents identified within the Study Area, NEC FUTURE 

is compatible with 50 percent and partially compatible with the other 50 percent. Approximately 

88 percent of all planning documents included goals and objectives related to passenger rail 

transportation and preservation of the built or natural environment. The No Action and Action 

Alternatives have the potential for inconsistencies with land cover-related goals and objectives 

regarding preservation of the built or natural environment due to potential conversions or 

acquisitions. This is especially true where the representative route goes off of the existing NEC in a 

new right-of-way, such as in Connecticut where the Alternative 3 route options may result in the 

conversion of Forest/Shrub and Wetlands. Approximately 62 percent of all planning documents 

included goals and objectives related to transit-oriented development. The Action Alternatives 

support these goals and objectives. (Appendix E, Section E.02, contains a list of all planning 

documents reviewed within the Study Area.)

7.2.7 Potential Mitigation Strategies 

Potential mitigation measures for land cover conversions should include providing buffers or 

screening between new transportation uses and nearby land cover that may be sensitive to 

transportation use. Similarly, grade separation of some construction types (e.g., tunnel, aerial 

structure, and major bridge) will mitigate the conversion of land cover to transportation use by 

reducing the number of acres of impacts at the surface. Site-specific land cover mitigation measures 

for loss or fragmentation of habitat, dredge and fill of wetlands, encroachment of floodplains, and 

conversion of farmland/timberlands are presented in the resource-specific sub-sections that follow. 

Site-specific mitigation measures will be determined in consultation with localities during the Tier 2

analysis.

Conversion may result in acquisitions or displacements of private or public lands where the 

Representative Route diverts from the existing NEC. Developed land cover is more likely to result in 

displacement, while undeveloped land cover is likely to result in acquisition. Where acquisitions and 

displacements of developed or undeveloped land cover would occur, mitigation strategies should 

include providing relocation assistance and compensation, as appropriate, to affected property 

owners. Specifically, where displacement of households or businesses would occur, mitigation will 

include implementation of a relocation program in accordance with the federal Uniform Relocation 

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

as well as any state regulations. The availability of replacement housing in the Study Area will be 

compared with the housing needs of displaced households, and measures will be proposed to resolve 
7.2. Land Cover

Page | 7.2-16 Tier 1 Draft EIS

special relocation needs, if any. A similar evaluation will be conducted for business and employment 

displacements. Mitigation options for displacements will need to document that the market 

inventory of housing or other facilities (such as commercial space or properties) will be adequate to 

relocate displaced activities. Measures to reduce or avoid adverse effects during the construction and 

operational phases of the project will also be identified, as appropriate.

7.2.8 Subsequent Tier 2 Analysis 

Subsequent Tier 2 studies would further define the actual acreage of land cover that would be 

affected and would address specific effects to properties, zoning regulations, and development. The 

analysis would further identify and evaluate compatibility with state, regional, MPO, and local plans.

Tier 2 analysis would identify acquisitions, temporary easements, and displacements, and would 

require compliance with the Uniform Relocation Act, as described above.