TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Summary of 

Findings

7.1

7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.1-1

7.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

7.1.1 Introduction

This section provides an overview of the Environmental Consequences and benefits documented in 

Chapters 7.2–7.21. It also includes an overview of the effects and benefits identified in Chapter 5, 

Transportation, and Chapter 6, Economic Effects and Growth, and Indirect Effects, since the findings 

in these chapters also influence the analyses conducted for some of the resources presented in 

Chapter 7. Appendix E provides detailed information for each Action Alternative, by state and by 

county. Appendix A, Mapping Atlas, provides a visual overview of where resources are located in 

relation to the existing Northeast Corridor (NEC) and Action Alternatives. Appendix A also provides 

mapping that shows the Representative Route of each Action Alternative.

7.1.2 Summary of Findings

In general, impacts on environmental resources would be greatest in areas where the Action 

Alternatives go off of the existing NEC into less developed areas in a new right-of-way. However, 

some impacts do exist on resources located along and within the existing NEC right-of-way. This Tier 

1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Tier 1 Draft EIS) presents a conservative assessment of 

potential environmental consequences because the analytical approach is based on conceptual 

engineering and a qualitative level of detail.

7.1.2.1 No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative represents the Study Area in 2040 regardless of NEC FUTURE. It includes 

reasonably foreseeable future projects and transportation improvements to highway, freight rail, 

transit, air, and maritime modes that will occur by 2040 that range in scope and complexity. Most of 

the projects and activities included as part of the No Action Alternative occur within the existing NEC 

right-of-way. Under the No Action Alternative, passenger rail service along the NEC operates and 

provides approximately the same level of service as provided today. As a result, “service-related”

effects on noise and vibration are unlikely. However, service-related effects on air quality could result 

due to increased congestion within the overall transportation network. “Footprint” effects on 

environmental resources under the No Action Alternative vary, depending on the scope of the project 

being implemented. Examples of the types of activities occurring under the No Action Alternative 

include, but are not limited to the following:

4 Track rehabilitation

4 Major bridge/tunnel repairs and/or rehabilitation 

4 Signal improvements

4 Installation of rail sidings or run-around tracks to maintain train service

4 Everyday maintenance of railway activities to keep the railroad in operation

4 Station/platform extensions/improvements

4 Highway infrastructure improvements
7.1. Summary of Findings

Page | 7.1-2 Tier 1 Draft EIS

In some cases projects that are part of the No Action Alternative have footprints and effects that

extend beyond the existing NEC right-of-way. Those types of projects, depending on the scope and 

complexity, have a greater potential to affect environmental resources than those activities occurring 

within the existing NEC right-of-way.

Table 7.1-1 summarizes the likely effects, by resource, for activities occurring under the No Action 

Alternative. The extent of likely effects are unknown and not quantified as part of this Tier 1 Draft 

EIS. 

While effects resulting from the No Action Alternative are not quantified (see Chapter 7, Introduction, 

for an explanation of the approach to identifying effects associated with the No Action Alternative), 

effects are likely to occur to various resources that exist within and adjacent to the existing NEC rightof-way. Benefits resulting from the Action Alternatives, such as increased mobility, accessibility and 

connectivity would not occur under the No Action Alternative. In some cases, the No Action 

Alternative would result in adverse effects on some populations, including Environmental Justice 

communities, because capacity is unmet and does not keep pace with population and employment 

growth, thereby negatively affecting mobility, accessibility, and connectivity. Furthermore, unmet 

capacity will require travelers to continue to rely on automobiles, air, and intercity bus for travel in 

the corridor as they do today. Under the No Action Alternative, transportation congestion would 

increase due to projected population growth and continued reliance on automobiles. As a result, the 

increased congestion would result in negative effects on energy consumption and air quality. 

Improvements under the No Action Alternative are subject to varying levels of environmental review 

and permitting (federal, state, local), depending on the activity and funding source(s). The evaluation 

of resource impacts and required permits associated with those activities are the responsibility of the 

implementing agency and project sponsor. 

7.1.2.2 Action Alternatives

A range of benefits and impacts occur with each of the Action Alternatives since each proposes 

varying degrees of investment from both a service and infrastructure perspective. As such, benefits 

and impacts associated with each Action Alternative differ due to the level of service provided and 

infrastructure proposed. 

Each Action Alternative has the potential to change how people travel across the Study Area and 

reduce the number of non-rail trips as travelers switch to passenger rail service. More passenger rail 

stations are added, connecting more people to more places. Train services become more frequent 

providing more flexibility and more options for travelers. Each Action Alternative provides improved 

capacity, mobility, and connectivity. These transportation benefits result in economic benefits to 

regions served by the NEC. The additional capacity enables greater accessibility for workers and 

employers, allows major economies to grow larger and be more productive, and increases 

development around stations due to travel times savings and greater accessibility with more 

connections, services to new locations and prices available to travelers. The improved reliability and 

mobility of service provided contributes to an improved quality of life for people living and working 

within the region; attracts businesses and employees to the region; and in turn supports economic 

growth and development. 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.1-3

Table 7.1-1: Summary of Environmental Effects: No Action Alternative

Resource Environmental/Transportation/Economic Direct Effects*

Transportation (Chapter 5) § Unmet demand for rail travel across the corridor; lack of redundancy 

decreasing reliability of service during maintenance activities or 

catastrophic events

Economic Effects, Growth, and 

Indirect Effects (Chapter 6)

§ Current economic and development trends continue

Land Cover (Chapter 7.2) § Existing conditions continue

Agricultural Lands (Chapter 7.3) § Existing conditions continue

Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers

(Chapter 7.4)

§ Existing conditions continue

Hydrologic/Water Resources

(Chapter 7.5)

§ Dredge/fill of wetlands other Waters of the U.S.

§ Encroachment of floodplains

§ Navigable Waterways

Ecological Resources (Chapter 7.6) § Fragmentation and displacement of Ecologically Sensitive Habitat 

(e.g., dredge/fill of wetland)

§ Temporary disturbances to Essential Fish Habitat

§ Threatened and Endangered species unlikely to occur within rightof-way; transient species may traverse areas for foraging/shelter

Geologic Resources (Chapter 7.7) § Geologic resources may occur within existing right-of-way; extent of 

effects unknown

Hazardous Waste and Contaminated 

Materials Sites (Chapter 7.8)

§ Disturbance of hazardous wastes and contaminated materials 

Cultural Resources and Historic 

Properties (Chapter 7.9)

§ Some elements of existing NEC are considered historic, demolition 

or disturbance of those resources may result in adverse effects

Visual and Aesthetic Resources

(Chapter 7.10)

§ Existing conditions continue

§ New infrastructure may alter visual setting; effects depend on 

surrounding visual quality

Environmental Justice (EJ)

(Chapter 7.11)

§ Existing conditions continue; however, unmet capacity needs likely 

result in adverse effects on mobility, accessibility and connectivity 

for communities, including EJ populations

Noise and Vibration (Chapter 7.12) § Existing conditions continue

Air Quality (Chapter 7.13) § Increased congestion results in degradation of air quality

Energy (Chapter 7.14) § Increased congestions, reliance on automobiles results in increases 

in energy consumption

Climate Change and Adaptation

(Chapter 7.15)

§ Effects of climate change on existing NEC infrastructure related to 

sea level rise and storm surges remain un-mitigated, and will worsen 

as climate change effects become more severe.

Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources

(Chapter 7.16)

§ Existing conditions continue

EMF/EMI (Chapter 7.17) § Existing conditions continue

Safety (Chapter 7.18) § Improvements will be subject to safety regulations/requirements

Public Health (Chapter 7.19) § Existing conditions continue

Cumulative Effects (Chapter 7.20) § Resources affected could contribute cumulatively to effects on 

similar resources within the Study Area

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

*Effects noted are general. If an improvement under the No Action Alternatives requires additional right-of-way, effects may 

occur to a greater degree for any resource.
7.1. Summary of Findings

Page | 7.1-4 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Under the Action Alternatives, modeling predicts a decrease in regional pollutant burdens and 

greenhouse gases (GHG) (in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent) from roadways caused by the 

expected decrease in roadway vehicle-miles traveled (VMT). Likewise, there would be an increase in 

regional pollutant burdens and GHGs from power sources (diesel fuel and electric) because of 

increased train service under the Action Alternatives. The combined effect of these changes is 

predicted to be a reduction in emissions of all criteria pollutant burdens, with the exception of 

nitrogen oxides (NOx) under Alternative 3 and sulfur dioxide (SO2), under all Action Alternatives. GHG 

emissions would decrease under all Action Alternatives in the year 2040 due to predicted shifts in 

mode choice as a result of implementing any of the Action Alternatives and predicted changes in 

renewable energy usage.

Changes in criteria pollutants and GHGs due to bus and aircraft travel would decrease under all Action 

Alternatives because of the expected mode shift from aircraft and bus travel to passenger rail.

Construction would result in temporary emissions of criteria pollutants and GHGs associated with 

construction equipment and activities.

In terms of energy usage, modeling predicts the Action Alternatives result in a decrease in energy use 

from roadways caused by the expected decrease in roadway VMT. Likewise, there would be an 

increase in energy use from power sources (e.g. diesel fuel and electric) because of increased train 

service under the Action Alternatives. The combined effect of these elements is predicted to reduce 

total energy use under all alternatives, with Alternative 3 showing the greatest decrease in energy 

use from the reductions in roadway VMT.

Energy use associated with bus and aircraft travel decreases under all Action Alternatives due to the 

mode shift from aircraft and bus travel to passenger rail. Construction of the Action Alternatives 

would result in non-recoverable uses of energy associated with construction equipment and 

activities. 

Another benefit of the additional capacity, mobility, and connectivity associated with the Action 

Alternatives is improved access to Environmental Justice (EJ) communities along the NEC. Increased 

train frequencies, more connections, new locations and pricing available to travelers would provide 

more choices enabling people to have a greater selection and availability of jobs and services.

From a public health perspective, these improvements to air quality, energy use, and community 

access add up to an overall better quality of life for persons living and commuting throughout the 

Study Area. The temporary effects of future construction activities vary depending on the 

construction methods used. For example, construction activities may result in increased fugitive dust 

emissions, noise and vibration or light pollution that could have temporary effects on the human and 

natural environment. However, appropriate best management practices and mitigation measures 

would be employed to reduce the effects of construction.

Each Action Alternative has the potential to contribute to cumulative effects on various resources.

Cumulative benefits generally include an overall improved transportation network, improved 

opportunities for economic development, reductions in regional pollutant burdens, increased 

resiliency, focused development around station areas that may limit sprawl in some areas, and 

benefits to EJ communities. The Action Alternatives offer benefits to freight movement by easing 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.1-5

select chokepoints in the corridor. Cumulative impacts related to physical improvements associated 

with each of the Action Alternatives include contributing to dredge and fill of wetlands, habitat 

fragmentation, loss of forested areas, conversion of land cover from non-transportation to 

transportation uses, and potential effects on cultural resources and historic properties.

Table 7.1-2 provides a summary and comparison of the quantitative environmental effects identified 

for each of the Action Alternatives. The table identifies that total quantities of a resource potentially 

affected for each Action Alternative. It also shows the quantities of a resource associated with the 

existing NEC for context since each of these Action Alternatives includes improvements to the existing 

NEC. This table also presents the information for each Action Alternative between Washington, D.C.,

and New York City, and New York City and Boston. It does not include transportation, economic 

effects, air quality, energy, public health, construction, or cumulative effects since the FRA 

qualitatively described those effects above.

Each of the Action Alternatives also includes various improvements such as curve modifications, new 

segments, new track, junctions, and station areas. Generally, those improvements that are 

concentrated on the existing NEC, such as new track, junctions, and minor curve modifications would 

have similar footprint-related effects as described for the No Action Alternative in Table 7.1-1. As 

such, these effects do not necessarily help to differentiate the alternatives because these types of 

improvements would be similar across all alternatives. However, where the Action Alternatives 

include new segments or new stations off of the existing NEC in a new right-of-way, there would be 

different effects to footprint-related environmental resources, which would help to differentiate the 

Action Alternatives. (Chapter 4, Alternatives Considered, and Appendix A, Mapping Atlas, provide the 

locations of these new segments and stations.) The discussion that follows seeks to highlight the 

differences among the Action Alternatives, in terms of environmental impacts, by focusing on effects 

of new segments and new station locations for each Action Alternative since the greatest potential 

for effects are likely associated with those types of improvements.
7.1. Summary of Findings

Page | 7.1-6 T

Table 7.1-2: Summary of Effects (totals)

Resource

Environmental Consequences

Washington, D.C. to New York City New York City to 

Existing 

NEC Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Existing NEC Alt. 1 A

Land Cover - Potential Conversion -

Developed (acres) 3,510 3,510 3,985 8,175 2,965 3,365 4,

Land Cover - Potential Conversion -

Undeveloped (acres) 405 415 610 1,675 1,085 1,390 2,

Land Cover – Potential Acquisitions -

Developed (Existing NEC removed 

from Alts) (acres)*

— 65 900 3,995 — 520 1,

Land Cover – Potential Acquisitions -

Undeveloped (Existing NEC removed 

from Alts) (acres)*

— 5 245 1,215 — 400 1,

Prime Farmland (acres) 75 75 140 395 145 205 

Prime Timberland (acres) 325 325 480 1,290 860 1,265 2,

Parklands (acres) 45 45 95 295 390 480 

Wild & Scenic Rivers (acres) 1 1 1 2 0 0 

Freshwater Wetlands (acres) 90 90 150 545 140 195 

Floodplains (acres) 450 455 680 1420 610 680 

Saltwater Wetlands (acres) 55 75 100 190 145 180 

Coastal Zone (route miles) 55 55 70 115 130 170 

ESH Terrestrial (acres) 320 320 510 1,530 650 990 1,

ESH Aquatic Freshwater (acres) 25 25 40 110 20 35 

ESH Aquatic Saltwater (acres) 55 70 100 185 145 180 

T&E (# species in AE) 20 20 20 20 15 20 

EFH (# species) 10 10 10 10 35 35 

EFH (# crossings) 5 10 10 10 30 35 

Note: Effects shown represent the areas/number of a given resource identified within the Representative Route unless otherwise noted to be associ

Environment (AE).

* Acquisitions could result in future displacements; those displacements would be quantified only as part of a Tier 2 studies.

ESH = Ecologically Sensitive Habitat; T&E = Threatened and Endangered Species; EFH = Essential Fish Habitat
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequ

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.1-2: Summary of Effects (totals) (continued)

Resource

Environmental Consequences

Washington, D.C. to New York City New York City 

Existing 

NEC Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Existing NEC Alt. 1 

Seismic Hazards (presence # counties) 7 7 7 7 8 8 

Sole Source Aquifers (presence # 

counties) 6 6 6 6 5 5 

Karst Terrain (presence # counties) 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Naturally Occurring Asbestos 

(presence # counties) 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Acid Producing Soils (presence # 

counties) 13 13 13 13 1 1 

Landslide Susceptibility (presence # 

counties) 4 4 4 4 0 0 

Mineral Resources - Producer (#) 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Mineral Resources - Occurrence (#) 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Mineral Resources - Plant (#) 2 2 2 8 0 0 

Mineral Resources - Inactive Producer 

(#) 0 0 1 2 2 2 

Active Mines (#) 0 0 0 0 0 0 

NPL Superfund (# sites) 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Brownfields (# sites) 20 20 25 60 4 5 

RCRA CORRACTS (# sites) 0 0 0 0 1 1 

RCRA Info (# sites) 2 2 4 15 5 5 

RCRA TSDF (# sites) 0 0 0 1 3 3 

State (# sites) 25 25 40 85 30 35 

Note: Effects shown represent the areas/number of a given resource identified within the Representative Route unless otherwise noted to be associ

Environment (AE).

NPL Superfund = National Priority List

RCRA CORRACTS = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Actions 

RCRA Info = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information Systems

RCRA TSDF = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities

State = State Databases
7.1. Summary of Findings

Page | 7.1-8 T

Table 7.1-2: Summary of Effects (totals) (continued)

Resource

Environmental Consequences

Washington, D.C. to New York City New York City t

Existing 

NEC Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Existing 

NEC Alt. 1 Alt. 

NHL (#) 1 2 3 3 0 0 

NRHP (#) 10 45 45 50 20 95 12

Total Population (AE) 2,068,324 2,087,480 2,013,836 2,483,362 2,343,994 2,380,100 2,875,

Minority Population (AE) 1,227,667 1,242,102 1,195,965 1,417,921 1,154,108 1,161,758 1,337,

Low Income Population (AE) 366,825 370,292 350,335 438,378 356,038 357,307 414,

Percent Minority (AE) 59% 60% 59% 57% 49% 49% 47% 

Percent Low Income (AE) 19% 19% 18% 19% 19% 16% 15% 

EJ Tracts (AE) 349 353 342 407 298 299 35

Noise - severe or moderate

(# counties) N/A 16 16 16 N/A 14 15 

Vibration Impact (# counties) N/A 1 5 9 N/A 2 8 

Climate Change - Total Area at Risk 

of Inundation (Acres)/% of total 

Representative Routes)

Sea Level Rise (Current Climate 

Conditions) 45/< 1% 50/<1% 105/<1% 180/1% 50/<1% 90/1% 90/<

Storm Surge (Current Climate 

Conditions) 210/< 1% 230/3% 460/4% 875/5% 470/7% 530/7% 550/

Riverine (Current Climate 

Conditions) 460/ <1% 475/7% 755/7% 1,665/10% 650/10% 730/10% 940/

Section 6(f) (acres) 15 15 25 170 35 45 70 

Note: Effects shown represent the areas/number of a given resource identified within the Representative Route unless otherwise noted to be associ

Environment (AE).

NHL = National Historic Landmark

NRHP = National Register of Historic Places

AE = Affected Environment

EJ = Environmental Justice
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.1-9

7.1.2.3 Alternative 1

Alternative 1 provides improvements focused on the existing NEC that result in greater capacity, thus 

benefitting the transportation network as a whole along the entirety of the existing NEC. The total 

number of rail passenger trips increases by approximately 16 percent under Alternative 1 over the 

No Action.

Many of the improvements associated with Alternative 1 would have similar types of effects as 

described for the No Action Alternative. However, Alternative 1 proposes four new segments parallel 

to and outside of the existing NEC right-of-way. Table 7.1-3 summarizes the effects associated with 

those improvements. (Appendix E provides additional detail on all effects by state and county

identified for Alternative 1 under the various resource sections.)

Connecticut and Rhode Island would bear the greatest negative environmental effects under 

Alternative 1. This is due to the Stamford and Old Saybrook-Kenyon segments. The Old SaybrookKenyon segment is approximately 50 miles in length and traverses New London County, CT, and 

Washington County, RI. Improvements along this segment would result in notable effects, including 

impacts to numerous water resources, ecological resources, prime farmland soils, and prime 

timberlands; additionally, these effects would occur in the coastal area, which could be inconsistent 

with policies that support adherence to the Coastal Zone Management Act. More than 250 acres of 

floodplain impacts and more than 60 acres of saltwater wetland impacts would occur in New London 

County. New London County has the greatest potential for acquisitions and displacements.

Approximately 60 acres of freshwater wetland impacts would occur in Washington County, RI. The 

climate change analysis indicates that both New London and Washington Counties are subject to 

increased risk of inundation for the near-term (mid-century) climate conditions. New London County 

in particular is subject to an increased risk of sea level rise flooding, coastal storm surge flooding and 

riverine flooding. Washington County, RI, is primarily at risk for riverine flooding. However, when 

compared to the equivalent portion of the existing NEC, the Old Saybrook-Kenyon segment provides 

for redundancy and adds resiliency benefits from risks associated with coastal storm surge and 

riverine flooding. 

The Stamford segment also occurs in Connecticut. This segment is considerably shorter than the Old 

Saybrook-Kenyon segment and is primarily located in Fairfield County. Fairfield County has 

concentrations of water and ecological resources. Fairfield County also has a high potential for 

acquisitions and displacements. Of particular note is that Fairfield County has Environmental Justice 

(EJ) populations. Finally, this segment is in an area faced with a risk of inundation for the near-term 

(mid-century) climate scenario for sea level rise, coastal storm surge, and riverine flooding. 

7.1.2.4 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 provides improvements focused on the existing NEC that result in greater capacity and 

also provides a new inland corridor in CT between New Haven and Providence via Hartford. The total 

number of passenger rail trips increases by approximately 21 percent over the No Action Alternative.

Alternative 2 includes 11 new segments, parallel to and outside of the existing NEC right-of-way.

Table 7.1-3 summarizes the effects. These segments are dispersed throughout and closely aligned to 
7.1. Summary of Findings

Page | 7.1-10 Tier 1 Draft EIS

the existing NEC with the exception of the New Haven-Hartford-Providence segment. This segment 

goes through areas that are much less developed and rural. While development exists around New 

Haven, Hartford, and Providence, in between these cities are stretches of undeveloped land. As such, 

effects on environmental resources would be high throughout the counties of Fairfield, New Haven, 

Hartford, Tolland, and Windham Counties, CT, and Providence, RI. Of particular concern are high 

acreages of impacts to prime timberlands in Tolland and Windham Counties, CT, and Washington and 

Providence Counties, RI. Combined, more than 1,000 acres of prime timberland would be affected in 

these counties. New London, New Haven, and Hartford Counties, CT, would have more than 500 acres 

of floodplain affected by the New Haven-Hartford-Providence segment. However, when compared 

to the equivalent portion of the existing NEC, this new segment provides for redundancy and adds 

resiliency benefits from risks associated with coastal storm surge and riverine flooding.

Alternative 2 would result in high acreages of prime farmland and timberland impacts along a new 

segment in Cecil County, MD, and along the existing NEC in New London County, CT, and Washington 

County, RI. Alternative 2 would also result in acquisitions and potential displacements. The greatest 

acreage of possible acquisitions for Alternative 2 would occur in Fairfield, New Haven, and Hartford 

Counties, CT—all of which are noted to have EJ populations. Alternative 2 is the only Action 

Alternative to bisect the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge in Delaware and Philadelphia, PA, which 

is ecologically sensitive and located within a coastal zone.

7.1.2.5 Alternative 3

Alternative 3 provides improvements focused on the existing NEC that result in greater capacity and 

provides a new second spine between Washington, D.C., and Boston. The second spine generally runs 

parallel to the existing NEC between Washington, D.C., and New York City; however, north of New 

York City variations in routing exist for the second spine. These variations, or route options, reach 

new markets such as Hartford, CT, Long Island, NY, and Worcester, MA. The new markets create 

greater potential for induced growth indicated by the station area development. The potential 

economic-related construction effect is highest with Alternative 3 with 3,534,160 construction jobs

(average across route options), providing a one-time stimulus to the economy. With any of the 

variations of Alternative 3, there are approximately 32 percent more total passenger rail trips over 

the No Action Alternative. Alternative 3 provides excess capacity at all locations along the corridor to 

accommodate additional off-corridor trips and future growth post 2040. The second spine increases

redundancy and resiliency compared to the existing NEC with a lower percentage of the 

Representative Route at risk from riverine and storm surge flooding.

However, Alternative 3 has the greatest impact to Ecologically Sensitive Habitat (ESH), with Maryland, 

Connecticut, and Massachusetts each containing 29 individual areas affected.

The effects of Alternative 3 are presented in segments as follows: Washington, D.C., to New York City; 

New York City to Hartford; and Hartford to Boston. Tables 7.1-5 through 7.1-9 summarize the effects 

for each section of Alternative 3.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.1-11

Washington, D.C., to New York City

To complete a second spine, additional right-of-way would be required. Between Washington, D.C.,

and New York City, acquisitions and displacements would be greatest in Baltimore County, Baltimore 

City, and Harford County, MD; New Castle County, DE; Philadelphia and Bucks County, PA; and 

Middlesex County, NJ. All of these counties are noted as having EJ populations. Anne Arundel and 

Harford Counties, MD, would have more than 300 acres of floodplain effects. New Castle, DE, would 

have more than 200 acres of floodplain effects. Middlesex and Hudson Counties, NJ, would have more 

than 250 acres of affected floodplain, and Hudson County would have more than 100 acres of 

saltwater wetlands that would be affected. Cecil County, MD, would have high acreages of both prime 

farmland soils and prime timberlands affected and Middlesex County would also have high acreages 

of prime farmland affected. New Castle, DE, would also have a high acreage of prime timberlands 

affected. 

New York City to Hartford

Via Central Connecticut

Westchester, NY, and New Haven and New London, CT, combined would have more than 650 acres 

of impact to prime timberlands. The greatest acreage of potential acquisitions would occur in 

Fairfield, CT. This route option would have considerably fewer impacts to water resources than the 

Long Island route option particularly with regards to wetlands. New London County would have more 

than 230 acres of floodplain affected. High concentrations of hazardous waste and contaminated 

material sites are located in Fairfield, CT.

Via Long Island

More than 500 acres of acquisitions of developed land would occur in Suffolk County, NY, and more 

than 400 acres of acquisitions of developed land would occur in New Haven, CT. The highest acreages 

of prime farmland affected would occur in Suffolk County, NY, and New Haven County, CT, as well. In 

New London, New Haven, and Hartford, CT, there would be almost 600 acres of prime timberland 

affected. Two Section 6(f) resources could be affected. More than 200 acres of floodplain impact 

would occur in New London. There is the potential for high ecological resource impact, particularly 

saltwater ESH, Essential Fish Habitat, and federally listed Threatened and Endangered species in 

Suffolk County, NY, and the associated Long Island Sound. Saltwater wetland impacts, totaling more 

than 400 acres, would occur with this route option, with the majority of those impacts occurring in 

Suffolk County, NY. The impact to wetlands is nearly three times the number of acres of wetlands 

compared to the Central Connecticut route option and would traverse through 20 percent more route 

miles of coastal zone.

Hartford to Boston

Via Providence

This route option would have high acreages of prime timberland impacts in almost every county it 

traverses. Windham, CT; Washington, RI; and Norfolk, MA, would have more than 300 acres each of 

prime timberland impacts. Along the existing NEC, high acreages of prime farmland and prime 

timberland affected would occur in Washington County, RI. One National Historic Landmark identified 

north of New York, the John B. Smith Building adjacent to Fenway Park in Suffolk, MA, would be 
7.1. Summary of Findings

Page | 7.1-12 Tier 1 Draft EIS

affected under this segment of Alternative 3. Two Section 6(f) resources could be converted to nonrecreational uses.

This route option would affect 10 percent fewer acres of Special Flood Hazard Areas compared to the 

Worcester route option; however, there are approximately 35 percent more wetlands and nearly 

four times as many route miles of coastal zone would be traversed.

Via Worcester

This route option would also encounter high acreages of prime timberland, primarily in Washington, 

RI, and Worcester, MA, as well as high acreages of prime farmland along the new segment in 

Worcester County, MA. It would also affect the one National Historic Landmark identified north of 

New York—the John B. Smith Building adjacent to Fenway Park in Suffolk, MA.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Con

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.1-3: Summary of Environmental Effects for New Segments (Alternative 1)

State County New Segment

Land ConversionsDisplacement/ AcquisitionsPrime FarmlandPrime TimberlandParklandsWild & Scenic RiversFloodplainsFreshwater WetlandsSaltwater WetlandsNavigable WaterwaysCoastal ZoneESHEFHT&E SpeciesGeologic Resources

ites S HWCM

MD Baltimore City Baltimore Tunnel X X — — — — X — — X — — X X X — 

NJ Hudson 

Hudson River 

third and fourth 

tunnels

— — — — — — X X X X X — X X — — 

NY New York 

Hudson River 

third and fourth 

tunnels

— — — — — — X — X X X — X X — — 

CT

Fairfield Stamford — X X X — — X X X X X X X X — — 

New London Old SaybrookKenyon Segment X X X X — — X X X X X — X X X X 

RI Washington Old SaybrookKenyon Segment — — X X — — X X — — — X — X — — 

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

X = Potential for effects identified for new segment under Alternative 1
7.1. Summary of Findings

Page | 7.1-14 

Table 7.1-4: Summary of Environmental Effects by New Segment (Alternative 2)

State County New Segment

Land ConversionsDisplacement/AcquisitionsPrime FarmlandPrime TimberlandParklandsWild & Scenic RiversFloodplainsFreshwater WetlandsSaltwater WetlandsNavigable WaterwaysCoastal ZoneESHEFHT&E SpeciesGeologic Resources

ites S HWCM 

MD

Baltimore 

City

Baltimore 

Great Circle 

Tunnel (B&P 

Tunnel 

replacement)

X X — X — — X X — X — — X — X — 

Harford Perryville to 

Newark, DE X X X X X — X X X X — X X X X X 

Cecil Perryville to 

Newark, DE X X X X X — X X — — X — X X — 

DE

New 

Castle

Perryville to 

Newark, DE X X X X — — X X X X X X X X X X 

New 

Castle

Wilmington 

Bypass X X X X — — X X X X X X X X X X 

PA

Delaware 

Baldwin to 

Philadelphia 

30th Street via 

Philadelphia 

Int’l Airport

X X — — X — X X — — X — — X X X 

Philadelph

ia

Philadelphia 

30th Street to 

Bridgeburg

X X — X X — X X — — X — — X X X 

NJ Middlesex

North 

Brunswick to 

Secaucus

X X X X X — X X X — — X X X X X 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Con

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.1-4: Summary of Environmental Effects by New Segment (Alternative 2) (continued)

State County New Segment

Land Conversions

Acquisitions Displacement/

Prime FarmlandPrime TimberlandParklands

Rivers Wild & Scenic

FloodplainsFreshwater WetlandsSaltwater WetlandsNavigable WaterwaysCoastal ZoneESHEFHT&E SpeciesGeologic Resources

ites s HWCM 

NJ Hudson 

Hudson River 

third and 

fourth tunnels

X X — — — — X X X X X — X X X X 

NY

New York 

Hudson River 

third and 

fourth tunnels

X X — — — — X — X X X — X X X X 

Queens East River 5th 

and 6th tunnels X X — — — — X — X X X — X X X X 

Westche

ster

New Rochelle 

to Westport, CT 

(Green’s 

Farms)

X X — — — — X X X — X — — X X — 

CT

Fairfield

New Rochelle 

to Westport, CT 

(Green’s 

Farms)

X X — X X — X X X X X X X X X X 

Fairfield

New HavenHartfordProvidence

X X — X X — X X X X X X X X X X 

New 

Haven

New HavenHartfordProvidence

X X X X X — X X X X X X X X X 
7.1. Summary of Findings

Page | 7.1-16 

Table 7.1-4: Summary of Environmental Effects by New Segment (Alternative 2) (continued)

State County New Segment

Land Conversions

Acquisitions Displacement/

Prime FarmlandPrime TimberlandParklandsWild & Scenic RiversFloodplainsFreshwater Wetlands

Wetlands Saltwater 

Navigable WaterwaysCoastal ZoneESHEFHT&E SpeciesGeologic Resources

ites S HWCM 

CT

Hartford

New HavenHartfordProvidence

X X X X X — X X — X — X X — X X 

Tolland

New HavenHartfordProvidence

X X X X X — X X — — — X — — X X 

Windham

New HavenHartfordProvidence

X X X X X — x X — — — X — X — — 

RI Providence

New HavenHartfordProvidence

X X X X X — X X X X — X X X — — 

MA

Bristol

Sharon, MA to 

Westwood, 

MA/Route 128

X X X X — — X X — — — X — X — — 

Suffolk

Sharon, MA to 

Westwood, 

MA/Route 128

X X — — — — X X — — — — — X X — 

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

X = Potential for effects identified for new segment under Alternative 2.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Con

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.1-5: Summary of Environmental Effects by New Segment (Alternative 3 – Washington, D.C., to New Yo

State County

Land Conversions

Acquisitions ent/ Displacem

Prime FarmlandPrime TimberlandParklandsWild & Scenic RiversFloodplainsFreshwater WetlandsSaltwater WetlandsNavigable WaterwaysCoastal ZoneESHEFHT&E SpeciesGeologic Resources

ites S HWCM 

Cultural Resources (NHLs)

D.C. X X — X X — X X — — — — X — X — X 

MD

Prince George’s X X X X X — X X — — — X X — X — — 

Anne Arundel X X X X X — X X — — — X X X X — X 

Baltimore County X X X X X — X — X X — X X X X X — 

Baltimore City X X X X X — X — — X — X X — X X X 

Harford X X X X X — X X X X — X X X X X X 

Cecil X X X X — — X X — — — X X X X — X 

DE New Castle X X X X X — X X X X X X X X X X X 

PA

Delaware X X — — X — X X — — X X X X X X X 

Philadelphia X X — X X — X X — X X X X X X X X 

Bucks X X X X X — X X — — X X X X X X X 

NJ

Mercer X X X X X — X X — X X X X X X X X 

Middlesex X X — X — — X X X — — X X X X X X 

Union X X — — X — X X — — — — X X X X X 

Essex X X — — — — X — X X — — X — X X X 

Hudson X X — — — — X X X X X X X X X X X 

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

X = Potential for effects identified for new segment under Alternative 3.
7.1. Summary of Findings

Page | 7.1-18 

Table 7.1-6: Summary of Environmental Effects by New Segment (Alternative 3 – New York City to Hartford via 

State County

Land Conversions

Acquisitions Displacement/

Prime FarmlandPrime TimberlandParklandsWild & Scenic RiversFloodplainsFreshwater WetlandsSaltwater WetlandsNavigable WaterwaysCoastal ZoneESHEFHT&E SpeciesGeologic Resources

ites S HWCM 

Cultural Resources (NHLs)

NY

New York X X — — — — X — X X X — X X X X — 

Queens X X — — — — X — X X X — X X X X — 

Bronx X X — — X — X — X X X — X X X X — 

Westchester X X X X X — X X — — X X — X X X — 

Putnam — X X X — — — X — — — — — — X X — 

CT

Fairfield X X X X X — X — X X X X X X X X — 

New Haven X X X X X — X X X X X X X X X X — 

Hartford X X X X — — X X — X — X X X X X — 

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

X = Potential for effects identified for new segment under Alternative 3.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Con

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.1-7: Summary of Environmental Effects by New Segment (Alternative 3 – New York City to Hartford via 

State County

Land Conversions

Acquisitions Displacement/

Prime FarmlandPrime TimberlandParklandsWild & Scenic RiversFloodplainsFreshwater WetlandsSaltwater WetlandsNavigable WaterwaysCoastal ZoneESHEFHT&E SpeciesGeologic Resources

ites S HWCM

Cultural Resources (NHLs)

NY

New York X X — — — — X — X X X — X X X X — 

Queens X X — — X — X — X X X X X X X X — 

Kings X X — — — — — — X X X — — — X — — 

Nassau X X — — X — — X — — — — — X X X — 

Suffolk X X X X X — X X X X X X X X X X — 

CT

Fairfield X X — X X — X X X X X X X X X X — 

New Haven X X X X — — X X X X X X X X X X — 

Hartford X X X X — — X X — X — X X X X X — 

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

X = Potential for effects identified for new segment under Alternative 3.
7.1. Summary of Findings

Page | 7.1-20 

Table 7.1-8: Summary of Environmental Effects by New Segment (Alternative 3 – Hartford to Boston via Provid

State County

Land Conversions

Acquisitions Displacement/

Prime FarmlandPrime TimberlandParklandsWild & Scenic RiversFloodplainsFreshwater WetlandsSaltwater WetlandsNavigable WaterwaysCoastal Zone

SH E

EFHT&E SpeciesGeologic Resources

ites S HWCM 

Cultural Resources (NHLs)

CT

Hartford X X X X — — X X — X — X X X X X — 

Tolland X X X X X — X X — — — X — — — X — 

Windham X X X X X — — X — — — X — X — — — 

RI Providence X X X X X — X X — X — X X X — — — 

MA

Bristol X X X X — — X X — — — X — X — — — 

Norfolk X X X X X — X X — — — X — — X X — 

Suffolk X X — — — — X X — — X — — X X X — 

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

X = Potential for effects identified for new segment under Alternative 3.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Con

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.1-9: Summary of Environmental Effects by New Segment (Alternative 3 – Hartford to Boston via Worce

State County

Land Conversions

Acquisitions Displacement/

Prime FarmlandPrime TimberlandParklandsWild & Scenic RiversFloodplainsFreshwater WetlandsSaltwater WetlandsNavigable WaterwaysCoastal ZoneESHEFHT&E SpeciesGeologic Resources

ites S HWCM 

Cultural Resources (NHLs)

CT

Hartford X X X X — — X — — X — X X X X X — 

Tolland X X X X X — X — — — — X — — — X — 

Windham X X — X X — — — — — — X — X — — — 

MA

Worcester X X X X X — X — — — — X — — X X — 

Middlesex X X X X — — X — — — — X — — X X — 

Norfolk X X X X — — X X — — — X — — X — — 

Suffolk X X — — — — X X X — X — — X X — X 

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

X = Potential for effects identified for new segment under Alternative 3.
7.1. Summary of Findings

Page | 7.1-22 Tier 1 Draft EIS

7.1.2.6 Stations

Station effects would be localized, with the greatest potential effects occurring at new station 

locations. Table 7.1-10 summarizes the effects for new stations by county. Impacts and areas of 

concern related to stations are similar to those documented for the Representative Route impacts

for each Action Alternative. Station locations are approximate and would be refined and modified as 

part of subsequent environmental analysis. Station effects could be expected to the following 

resources:

4 Land Cover: There is a potential for land cover conversion and acquisition of public or private 

property in areas where new stations are proposed. Acquisitions could result in future 

displacements, but those displacements are not quantified at this time.

4 Prime Farmland and Timberland: Potential effects would be expected in areas where new stations 

are proposed to overlap existing prime farmland or timberland.

4 Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers: Potential effects have been identified for parklands in 

station areas outside of the existing NEC. There are no potential effects identified for Wild and 

Scenic Rivers as part of the Tier 1 EIS.

4 Water Resources: Numerous water resources have been identified in the corridor; however, no 

new stations have been identified in areas where there would be an effect to water resources.

4 Ecological Resources: ESH, EFH and T&E species have been identified in potential station areas.

The greatest effects could occur in New York and Connecticut.

4 Geologic Resources: New stations that geographically coincide with resources that could present 

engineering difficulties or challenges in obtaining approvals. These resources include sole source 

aquifers, high incidence of landslide occurrences, naturally occurring asbestos, karst terrain, and 

mineral resources.

4 HWCM: Effects to HWCM sites may occur at stations where new stations are proposed and 

overlap with HWCM sites.

4 Cultural Resources: Adverse or major effects may occur at new stations that affect NRHP-listed, 

NRHP-eligible, or NHL sites.

4 EJ: The benefits and burdens to EJ populations will be assessed for each individual project as part 

of subsequent environmental analysis.

4 Noise and Vibration: Due to the lack of detailed design information, the Tier 1 EIS does not include 

a quantitative analysis of impacts from stations.

4 Climate Change: Under mid-century climate conditions, stations at risk of inundation have been 

identified. Since no mapping of future riverine inundation hazard areas was undertaken, this 

assessment does not specifically identify where flood extents will change and therefore which 

additional stations may be at risk under mid-century climate conditions.
7. Affected Environment, Environment

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.1-10: Summary of Environmental Effects for New Stations by County for Action Alternatives

State County Station ID Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Station Type

Land ConversionsPrime FarmlandPrime TimberlandParklandsESHEFH

MD

Anne Arundel 183 — — X Major Hub

Baltimore City

9 X X X Local X 

11 — — X Major Hub 

12 X X X Local X 

13 X X X Hub X X 

14 — — X X X 

Baltimore County 19 — — X Local

20 — — X Hub

Harford 21 — — X Local

Cecil 23 X X X Local 

DE New Castle 26 X X X Local X X X X 

28 X X X X X 

PA

Delaware 34 X X X Hub X 

44 — X X 

Philadelphia 46 — — X Major Hub 

NJ

Mercer 59 — — X Hub

Middlesex 62 X X X Hub X X X 

68 X X X Major Hub X 

Essex 75 — — X Major Hub

NY

Bronx

78 X X X Local 

79 X X X 

80 X X X Hub 

81 X X X Local X X X X 

Westchester 87 X X X Hub 

Queens 145 — — X Hub 

Nassau 146 — — X Hub 

Suffolk 148 — — X Hub 

150 — — X
7.1. Summary of Findings

Page | 7.1-24 

Table 7.1-10: Summary of Environmental Effects for New Stations by County for Action Alternatives (continued)

State County Station ID Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Station Type

Land ConversionsPrime FarmlandPrime TimberlandParklandsESHEFH

NY Westchester 151 — — X Hub X X X

152 — — X

CT

Fairfield

94 X X X Major Hub 

106 — — X Hub 

107 X X X Local 

154 — — X Hub X X X X 

New Haven

112 — — X Major Hub 

155 — — X Hub X X X 

156 — X X X 

Middlesex 120 X — — Hub X X X X 

New London 124 X — — Major Hub X X X 

Hartford 161 X Local X X X 

164 — X X Major Hub 

Tolland 165 — — X Hub X X X X

166 — X X X X X X 

RI Providence 129 — X X Major Hub X X 

130 X X X Local 

MA

Worcester 175 — — X Hub X X X 

Middlesex 181 — — X Hub X X X

Suffolk 142 — — X Major Hub 

182 — — X Hub

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Notes: Land conversions for new stations are inclusive of acquisitions and possible displacements since the FRA assumed that all new station would require acquisitions. There are 

resources identified near new stations. EJ populations were identified on a county level and not affiliated with individual station effects. 

X = Potential for Effects

— = Not applicable within that alternative/option

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

Due to the nature of noise and vibration impacts, they are not affiliated with individual stations.