TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Cultural 

Resources 

and Historic 

Properties

7.9

7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.9-1

7.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES

7.9.1 Introduction

Cultural resources and historic properties are the physical 

evidence or places of past human activity that are 

significant representations of our nation’s history.

Disturbances to cultural resources and historic properties 

by modification, destruction, or changes to visual or 

physical settings can result in a compromise to their 

meaning and context. This chapter provides a description 

of known cultural resources and historic properties in the 

Study Area and identifies the potential for the No Action 

and Action Alternatives to affect these properties. The FRA 

also considered cultural resources and historic properties 

as part of the assessment of Visual and Aesthetic Resources 

(Chapter 7.10), Noise and Vibration (Chapter 7.12), and as 

part of the Section 4(f) evaluation (Chapter 7.16) of this 

Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS).

7.9.1.1 Definition of Resources 

For this Tier 1 Draft EIS, the FRA relies on the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation’s (ACHP)1 and the Council 

of Environmental Quality (CEQ) 2 definitions for historic 

properties and cultural resources. The ACHP defines historic properties as “a prehistoric or historic 

district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register 

of Historic Places. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located 

within these National Register properties. The term also includes properties of traditional religious 

and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, so long as that property 

also meets the criteria for listing in the National Register.” 3 The CEQ and ACHP define cultural 

resources to include historic properties “as well as additional resources such as sacred sites, 

archaeological sites not eligible for the NRHP, and archaeological collections.”4

The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the official list of the nation’s historic places worthy 

of preservation; it is authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and maintained by 

 

1 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is an independent federal agency that promotes the preservation, 

enhancement, and productive use of our nation's historic resources, and advises the President and Congress on 

national historic preservation policy. http://www.achp.gov/aboutachp.html 2 The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) coordinates federal environmental efforts and works closely with 

agencies and other White House offices in the development of environmental policies and initiatives. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/ 3 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. (updated 2010). Protecting Historic Properties: A Citizen’s Guide to 

Section 106, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Retrieved from http://www.achp.gov/docs/CitizenGuide.pdf 4 Council on Environmental Quality and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. (March 2013). NEPA and NHPA, 

A Handbook for Integrating NEPA and Section 106. Retrieved from 

http://www.achp.gov/docs/NEPA_NHPA_Section_106_Handbook_Mar2013.pdf

Key Resource: Cultural Resources and 

Historic Properties

§ NEC FUTURE program identified as 

an “undertaking” under Section 106 of

NHPA.

§ The FRA—in consultation with ACHP, 

SHPOs and tribes, and other 

consulting parties—has developed a 

draft Programmatic Agreement to 

comply with Section 106. 

§ Informs the Section 4(f) analysis. be 

avoided or minimized.

§ Analysis of cultural resources informs 

Section 4(f) analysis.

§ Types of effects include loss of or 

damage to cultural resources and 

historic properties.
7.9. Cultural Resources and Historic Properties

Page | 7.9-2 Tier 1 Draft EIS

the National Park Service (NPS). The NPS or the ACHP may designate the properties on the NRHP as 

traditional cultural properties. Tribal resources identified in the NPS 2010 database and the Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD) Tribal Directory Assessment Tool (TDAT) database have been included 

as part of this assessment. Some NRHP-listed properties have obtained the highest federal 

designation of historic significance. The NPS designates them additionally as National Historic 

Landmarks (NHL) because of their national importance. As a result, they require the most stringent 

consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA to resolve adverse effects. 

For purposes of this Tier 1 analysis, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) did not evaluate cultural 

resources and historic properties that are only listed in or deemed eligible for listing in the state 

register of historic places (state register) or were recognized at the local level as important (county, 

city, village, or town).

Appendix E, Section E.09, contains additional information about data sources and resource 

assessment.

7.9.1.2 Section 106 Compliance

Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties through a consultation process that includes a State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) and other parties. Regulations issued by the ACHP (36 CFR 800) outline 

the requirements for Section 106 consultation. The regulations define an “undertaking” to include “a 

project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a 

Federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out 

with Federal financial assistance; and those requiring a Federal permit, license or approval.”

The FRA has determined that the NEC FUTURE proposed action, the development and adoption of an

investment program to improve passenger rail service on the NEC, is an undertaking with the 

potential to affect historic properties.

5 Therefore, the FRA is conducting a Section 106 consultation

process for NEC FUTURE concurrently with the National Environmental Policy Act process. 

The Section 106 consultation process during Tier 1 has included consultation with the Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA), SHPOs,

6 the ACHP, federally recognized tribes, and other consulting parties.

This process has focused on identification of historic properties listed by the NRHP (“known historic 

resources”) and identification of the types of potential effects on known historic resources that could 

occur as a result of Tier 2 undertakings. The FRA identified known historic resources within a 

preliminary area of potential effect (Preliminary APE), which is intended to include those resources 

that have the greatest potential to be affected by the Tier 1 Draft EIS Action Alternatives (see Section 

7.9.3 for a description of the Preliminary APE). The FRA documented the results of this analysis in this 

chapter of the Tier 1 Draft EIS. More-detailed identification of historic properties, assessments of 

 

5 This determination is based on FRA’s role in sponsoring and funding the development of the Investment Program 

and the likelihood that decisions made by FRA as part of NEC FUTURE will be used to guide future federal funding 

decisions for projects on the NEC over a period of many years.

6 The consulting parties during Tier 1 included the SHPOs from the District of Columbia and the states of Maryland, 

Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.9-3

effects, and resolution of adverse effects will occur as part of Tier 2 undertakings for individual Tier 2 

projects.

As part of Section 106 compliance for NEC FUTURE, the FRA has worked with the FTA, SHPOs, ACHP, 

tribes, and others to develop a Programmatic Agreement; the Programmatic Agreement, establishes 

the process that will be followed for Section 106 compliance during the environmental review process 

for Tier 2 projects. Appendix G provides the draft Programmatic Agreement for review and comment 

during the public comment period associated with this Tier 1 Draft EIS. Based on feedback received 

during the comment period, the FRA will revise and finalize the Programmatic Agreement for 

execution.

During Tier 2 studies for individual Tier 2 projects, the FRA (or another federal agency with Section 

106 responsibilities for the particular Tier 2 project) will determine a project-specific APE and will 

complete the identification of historic properties, assessment of effects, and resolution of adverse 

effects for each Tier 2 undertaking. Consulting parties will be invited to participate in Section 106 

consultation for individual Tier 2 projects, as appropriate, in accordance with the Section 106 

regulations and the Programmatic Agreement.

7.9.1.3 Tribal Coordination

The FRA undertook government-to-government consultation, in compliance with Section 106 of the 

NHPA, with federally recognized tribes identified having lands or resources in the Study Area. The 

FRA identified the following tribes:

4 Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

4 Cayuga Nation of New York

4 Delaware Nation

4 Delaware Tribe

4 Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma

4 Mashantucket (Western) Pequot of Connecticut

4 Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe

4 Mohegan Indian Tribe of Connecticut

4 Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island

4 Oneida Nation of New York

4 Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin

4 Onodaga Nation of New York

4 Seneca Nation of New York

4 Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma

4 Shawnee Tribe

4 Shinnecock Indian Nation

4 Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe

4 Stockbridge-Munsee Mohican Tribe

4 Towanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York

4 Tuscarora Nation of New York

4 Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) of Massachusetts
7.9. Cultural Resources and Historic Properties

Page | 7.9-4 Tier 1 Draft EIS

The FRA contacted each tribe to initiate government-to-government consultation and subsequently 

invited each tribe to participate in the Section 106 process as consulting parties. In addition, the FRA 

identified the tribes known to have tribal lands or resources, or that claim ancestral lands or 

resources, in counties within the Study Area that are traversed by the No Action and Action 

Alternatives. The FRA specifically invited tribes within this smaller group (noted above in bold text) 

to be concurring parties to the NEC FUTURE Programmatic Agreement. As part of the governmentto-government consultation, the FRA met with many of these tribes; the FRA regularly provided all 

tribes information about program updates via emails, letters, and meetings and by inviting the tribes 

to participate in public meetings and/or government-to-government consultations. (Appendix G 

provides a list of correspondence with tribes.)

7.9.1.4 Effect-Assessment Methodology 

The FRA developed an effects-assessment methodology to evaluate cultural resources and historic 

properties(see Appendix E, Section E.09). The effects-assessment methodology defines the resources 

and data sources, explains how the Preliminary APE was defined and established and how potential

effects on each property were evaluated and reported. (Appendix E, Section E.09, provides data that 

supports the analysis presented in this chapter. Appendix A, Mapping Atlas, provides the general 

locations of cultural resources and historic properties associated with each Action Alternative.)

The assessment evaluated the presence of the following within the Study Area: 

4 NRHP-listed properties and NHLs listed by the NPS (NPS 2010 database). (The NPS 2010 database 

does not include confidential archaeological site information, so these sites are not included.)

4 Railroad-related NRHP-eligible7 properties inventoried separately by the NPS.

4 Properties determined to be NRHP-eligible as indicated in letters provided by several SHPOs.

4 Tribal lands and resources identified by the FRA through consultation with federally recognized 

tribes (but not listed on the NRHP).

The FRA collected data for each Action Alternative for the 1-mile-wide Preliminary APE to comply 

with Section 106 of the NHPA and 5-mile-wide Context Area, centered on the Representative Routes.

Table 7.9-1 summarizes key factors associated with the effects-assessment methodology for cultural 

resources and historic properties.

The information available in this Tier 1 process allows for the identification of potential effects on 

known historic properties, but the assessment of effects at Tier 1 is constrained by (1) the limitations

of existing records, which do not comprehensively identify all historic properties that may be eligible 

for listing in the NRHP; and (2) the level of detail known about the Action Alternatives, which are 

developed only at a conceptual level during Tier 1.

 

7 The term eligible for inclusion in the National Register includes both properties formally determined as such in 

accordance with regulations of the Secretary of the Interior and all other properties that meet the National 

Register criteria. For purposes of NEC FUTURE, the FRA does not quantify NRHP-eligible resources with the 

exception of railroad-related properties previously identified by others and those specifically called out by SHPOs. 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.9-5

Table 7.9-1: Effects-Assessment Methodology Summary: Cultural Resources and Historic 

Properties

Resource

Affected 

Environment

(Preliminary 

APE) Type of Assessment Outcome

National Register of 

Historic Places 

(NRHP)-listed and 

National Historic 

Landmark (NHL)-listed 

properties and 

districts

1-mile-wide 

swath centered 

along 

Representative 

Route for each 

Action 

Alternative

■ Number of NRHP and 

NHL properties identified 

in NPS 2010 data base

■ Tribal counties of 

interest identified 

through coordination 

with tribes and HUD 

TDAT data base.*

■ Identification of cultural 

resources and historic 

properties potentially 

affected by the Action

Alternatives (i.e., number of 

NRHP-listed and NHL 

properties and districts that 

lie within the Affected 

Environment).

Source: NEC FUTURE Cultural Resources and Historic Properties Effects-Assessment Methodology, Appendix E, Section E.09, 

2014

*. Tribal coordination and efforts to identify tribal resources are documented in Appendix G, Section 106 Documentation

7.9.2 Resource Overview 

Implementation of the No Action and Action Alternatives could affect cultural resources and historic 

properties through physical disturbance or demolition of the property, through proximity effects such 

as noise and vibration, or through changes to the visual character or aesthetic qualities. The FRA 

identified numerous historic properties listed on the NRHP, some of which are designated as NHLs 

within the Study Area. The FRA specifically called out NHLs in this analysis because of their national 

importance, and they require the most stringent consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA to 

resolve adverse effects. Potential effects on NHLs are an important consideration in identifying a 

Preferred Alternative.

Cultural resources and historic properties are dispersed throughout the Study Area with higher 

numbers of NRHP properties and especially NHLs found in urban areas that were heavily populated 

during the colonial era (i.e., Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York City, Providence, and Boston). 

Typically, greater numbers of historic buildings and districts are associated with areas where the 

Action Alternatives are close to the existing NEC, or divert into new urban areas.

In addition, the FRA identified federally recognized tribes known to have tribal lands or resources, or 

that claim ancestral lands or resources, in counties within the Study Area. The FRA further identified 

those federally recognized tribes that claim ancestral lands or resources in counties traversed by the 

No Action and Action Alternatives. The FRA has identified tribal and ancestral lands in Suffolk County, 

NY; New London County, CT; and Washington County, RI. The FRA identified additional ancestral lands 

in all counties within the NEC FUTURE Study Area that are located Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New 

York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts.
7.9. Cultural Resources and Historic Properties

Page | 7.9-6 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Key findings of this analysis are:

4 Cultural resources and historic properties have the potential to be affected under all alternatives.

Of particular note, elements of the existing NEC, including numerous stations, are considered 

historic and may be affected by all alternatives.

4 All Action Alternatives cross counties of interest to federally recognized tribes.

4 The states with the greatest numbers of NRHP-listed properties within the Affected Environment 

are Pennsylvania and Connecticut.

4 The state with the greatest numbers of NHLs within the Affected Environment is Pennsylvania. 

4 Alternative 3 has the highest number of NHLs and NRHP-listed properties affected. 

4 NHLs identified within the Representative Route for each Action Alternative represent the 

greatest potential impact; however, specific effects on these NHLs have not been determined.

Identified NHLs within the Representative Route for the Action Alternatives include:

– Fairmont Waterworks, Philadelphia, PA (Alternatives 1 and 2)

– John Bartram House, Philadelphia, PA (Alternative 2)

– Andalusia, Bucks County, PA (Alternatives 1, 2 and 3)

– Washington Square West Historic District, Philadelphia, PA (Alternative 3)_

– Reading Terminal, Philadelphia, PA (Alternative 3)

– John B. Smith Building, Boston, MA (Alternative 3)

7.9.3 Affected Environment 

Most counties within the Preliminary APE for the No Action Alternative and each Action Alternative

contain NRHP-listed cultural resources and historic properties; fewer contain NHLs. Table 7.9-2

summarizes the number of cultural resources and historic properties identified as occurring in the 

Affected Environment for the existing NEC and each Action Alternative. Cultural resources and 

historic properties are concentrated primarily in urban areas such as Washington, D.C.; Philadelphia, 

PA; New York City, NY; Hartford, CT; Providence, RI; and Boston, MA. Some of the NHLs identified 

include the United States Capitol (Washington, D.C.); New York Public Library, Empire State Building, 

Grand Central Terminal (New York City); Boston Public Library, Old South Church, Trinity Church, and 

the New England Conservatory of Music (Boston). (Appendix E, Section E.09, provides data for each 

state and county. Appendix A, Mapping Atlas, depicts property counts (NHLs and NRHP-listed 

properties) by county.)
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.9-7

Table 7.9-2: Affected Environment: Cultural Resources and Historic Properties

Geography Type

Existing NEC

(# of properties)

Alternative 1

(# of properties)

Alternative 2

(# of properties)

Alternative 3

(# of properties)

D.C. NHL 10 10 10 10

NRHP-Listed 27 30 30 29

MD

NHL 3 3 3 15

NRHP-Listed 90 96 96 230

DE

NHL 2 2 2 2

NRHP-Listed 79 83 84 84

PA

NHL 12 10 10 27

NRHP-Listed 130 138 135 305

NJ

NHL 4 4 4 4

NRHP-Listed 79 86 86 89

NY

NHL 10 10 10 12–20

NRHP-Listed 93 102 106 131–200

CT

NHL 8 9 11 11–12

NRHP-Listed 215 218 312 322–373

RI

NHL 6 6 8 6–8

NRHP-Listed 154 158 191 156–191

MA

NHL 6 6 6 7–13

NRHP-Listed 96 125 125 129–405

TOTAL NHL 61 60 64 93–109

TOTAL NRHP-Listed 963 1,036 1,165 1,510–1,870

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: All Action Alternatives assume improvements to the existing NEC; therefore, the number of properties presented is inclusive of the 

existing NEC as well as any new route option or off-corridor route associated with each Action Alternative. Counts of National Register of 

Historic Places-listed properties and National Historic Landmarks include both individual properties and districts with multiple structures that 

are counted as one individual property. Only tribal resources identified as part of the National Park Service (NPS) 2010 database have been 

included in the table. The FRA did not round the numbers since they are discrete occurrences identified by the NPS.

7.9.3.1 Tribal Lands

A review of the HUD TDAT database and coordination identified counties where federally recognized 

tribes have claimed (or have indicated to the FRA) that they may have tribal resources within them. 

Table 7.9-3 provides a list of the federally recognized tribes and counties of interest by alternative. 

For any future Tier 2 activities that may occur within these counties, the lead federal agency would 

be required to further consult with identified tribes. 
7.9. Cultural Resources and Historic Properties

Page | 7.9-8 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.9-3: Counties of Interest to Federally Recognized Tribes

State County Alternative(s) Tribe(s)

MD

Prince George’s

1, 2, 3 ■ Delaware Tribe

Anne Arundel

Baltimore County

Baltimore City

Howard

Harford

Cecil

DE New Castle 1, 2, 3 ■ Delaware Tribe

PA

Delaware

1, 2, 3

■ Delaware Tribe Philadelphia

Bucks ■ Delaware Tribe

■ Stockbridge-Munsee Mohican Tribe

NJ

Mercer

1, 2, 3

■ Delaware Tribe

■ Stockbridge-Munsee Mohican Tribe

Middlesex

■ Delaware Tribe

Union

Essex

Hudson

NY

New York

1, 2, 3 ■ Delaware Tribe

■ Stockbridge-Munsee Mohican Tribe

Queens

Kings

Bronx

Westchester

Nassau

3

■ Delaware Tribe

■ Stockbridge-Munsee Mohican Tribe

Suffolk ■ Shinnecock Indian Nation*

Putnam ■ Delaware Tribe

■ Stockbridge-Munsee Mohican Tribe

CT

Fairfield

1, 2, 3

■ Delaware Tribe

New Haven ■ Narragansett Indian Tribe

Middlesex ■ Narragansett Indian Tribe

New London

■ Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe*

■ Mohegan Indian Tribe of Connecticut*

■ Narragansett Indian Tribe

Hartford

Tolland 2, 3 ■ Narragansett Indian Tribe

Windham

RI

Washington

1, 2, 3

■ Narragansett Indian Tribe*

Kent ■ Narragansett Indian Tribe

Providence

■ Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe

■ Narragansett Indian Tribe

■ Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah)
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.9-9

Table 7.9-3: Counties of Interest to Federally Recognized Tribes (continued)

State County Alternative(s) Tribe(s)

MA

Hampden

3

■ Delaware Tribe

■ Narragansett Indian Tribe

Worcester ■ Narragansett Indian Tribe

■ Stockbridge-Munsee Mohican Tribe

Middlesex

■ Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe

■ Narragansett Indian Tribe

■ Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah)

Bristol

1, 2, 3

■ Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe

■ Narragansett Indian Tribe

■ Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah)

Norfolk

■ Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe

■ Narragansett Indian Tribe

■ Stockbridge-Munsee Mohican Tribe

Suffolk

■ Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe

■ Stockbridge-Munsee Mohican Tribe

■ Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah)

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

* = Tribal reservation exists within county for specified tribe.

7.9.4 Environmental Consequences 

As outlined in the effects-assessment methodology and draft Programmatic Agreement, the FRA has 

determined that for purposes of Section 106 compliance, the NEC FUTURE program is an undertaking 

with the potential to affect historic properties. The FRA has taken steps during the Tier 1 process to 

identify historic properties and assess potential effects on historic properties by:

4 Determining a Preliminary APE (see Table 7.9-1);

4 Identifying known historic properties with the Preliminary APE (see Section 7.9.3); and

4 Identifying historic properties located within the Representative Route of each Action Alternative.

This analysis does not include any findings regarding determination of effects for historic properties 

identified in the Preliminary APE. Determinations on effects on historic properties would be made as 

part of Tier 2 undertakings.

In this Tier 1 process, the FRA assessed potential effects on historic properties by using mapping 

overlays to identify historic properties location with the Representative Route of each Action 

Alternative. The FRA noted the properties identified within the Representative Routes as potential 

environmental “effects,” since these properties would be expected to have a higher likelihood of 

being directly affected by the implementation of an Action Alternative during construction or through 

operations. Indirect effects on cultural resources and historic properties, caused by implementation 

of an Action Alternative, could occur outside the Representative Route and could include increased 

noise levels, increased vibration, changes to the visual setting, or changes to access. While no 

determinations have been made on the specific effects of proposed construction types on specific 

properties identified, the following general effects on cultural resources and historic properties could 

occur as a result of the various construction types and methods proposed for the Action Alternatives:
7.9. Cultural Resources and Historic Properties

Page | 7.9-10 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4 At-grade:

– Direct physical and/or contextual disturbance to existing historic structures (such as 

buildings) and/or districts through the construction and introduction of new track bed and 

landscaping, and the installation of utilities and/or catenary poles

– Direct physical disturbance to below-grade archaeological sites through excavation and/or 

compaction for track bed, utilities, landscaping, and/or catenary poles 

4 Trench:

– Direct physical and/or contextual disturbance to existing historic structures and/or districts

through the construction and introduction of new trenches and landscaping, and the 

installation of utilities and/or catenary poles

– Direct physical disturbance to below-grade archaeological sites through open pit excavation,

earth moving, utility installation, landscaping, and/or compaction

4 Embankment:

– Direct physical and/or contextual disturbance to existing historic structures and/or districts 

through the introduction of new retaining walls and/or earthen berms

– Direct physical disturbance to below-grade archaeological sites through excavation, earth 

moving, landscaping, and/or compaction

4 Aerial Structure or Major Bridge:

– Direct physical disturbance to existing historic structures and/or districts at the site of 

abutments and/or pilings on land and in waterways and/or contextual disturbance to existing 

historic structures and/or districts through the introduction of new aerial structures

– Direct physical disturbance to below-grade archaeological sites through excavations for

abutments and/or pilings on land and in waterways, and/or landscaping

4 Tunnel:

– Direct physical and/or contextual disturbance to existing historic structures and/or districts 

at tunnel boring machine (TBM) launch sites, ventilation shafts and egress points, and 

potential indirect disturbance through vibrations

– Direct physical disturbance to below-grade archaeological sites at TBM launch sites, 

ventilation shafts and egress points, and potential indirect disturbance through vibrations

Temporary construction effects could occur during implementation of an Action Alternative, where 

access roads are created and at staging and lay-down areas. Impacts could include temporary 

contextual disturbance to existing historic structures and/or districts, and direct physical disturbance 

to below-grade archaeological sites through grading, earth moving, compaction, and/or landscaping. 

Table 7.9-4 presents the number of NHRP/NHL listed properties identified within the Representative 

Route of each Action Alternative. Table 7.9-5 provides the number of properties for each Alternative 

3 route option. The FRA specifically called out NHLs in this analysis because of their national 

importance, and they require the most stringent consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA to 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.9-11

resolve adverse effects. (Appendix E, Section E.09, contains relevant data for each county, and 

provides further qualitative highlights about those properties identified in this analysis as potentially 

affected.)

Table 7.9-4: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route – Cultural Resources and 

Historic Properties

Geography Type

Existing NEC

(# of properties)

Alternative 1

(# of properties)

Alternative 2

(# of properties)

Alternative 3

(# of properties)

D.C. NHL 0 0 0 0

NRHP-Listed 3 7 7 7

MD

NHL 0 0 0 0

NRHP-Listed 0 13 13 15-17

DE

NHL 0 0 0 0

NRHP-Listed 3 9 9 4–7

PA

NHL 1 2 3 3

NRHP-Listed 2 5 5 8

NJ

NHL 0 0 0 0

NRHP-Listed 1 12 13 12

NY

NHL 0 0 0 0

NRHP-Listed 2 12 12 13–19

CT

NHL 0 0 0 0

NRHP-Listed 14 47 65 45–51

RI

NHL 0 0 0 0

NRHP-Listed 3 24 33 3–21

MA

NHL 0 0 0 0–1

NRHP-Listed 3 13 14 16–17

TOTAL NHL 1 2 3 3-4

TOTAL NRHP-Listed 31 142 171 132–150

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: All Action Alternatives assume improvements to the existing NEC; therefore, the number of properties presented includes

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

associated with each Action Alternative. Counts of National Register of Historic Places-listed properties and National Historic 

Landmarks include both individual properties and districts with multiple structures that are counted as one individual property.

Only tribal resources identified as part of the National Park Service (NPS) 2010 database have been included in the table. The 

FRA did not round numbers since they are discrete occurrences identified by the NPS.
7.9. Cultural Resources and Historic Properties

Page | 7.9-12 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.9-5: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route of Alternative 3 Route 

Options – Cultural Resources and Historic Properties

Geography Type

Existin

g NEC

Alternative 3

D.C. to NYC

(# of 

properties)

New York City to Hartford Hartford to Boston

via Central 

Connecticut

(# of 

properties)

via Long 

Island

(# of 

properties)

via 

Providence 

(# of 

properties)

via 

Worcester

(# of 

properties)

D.C.

NHL 0 0 — — — —

NRHPListed 3 7 — — — —

MD

NHL 0 0 — — — —

NRHPListed 0 15-17 — — — —

DE

NHL 0 0 — — — —

NRHPListed 3 4–7 — — — —

PA

NHL 1 3 — — — —

NRHPListed 2 8 — — — —

NJ

NHL 0 0 — — — —

NRHPListed 1 12 — — — —

NY

NHL 0 — 0 0 — —

NRHPListed 2 — 13 19 — —

CT

NHL 0 — 0 0 0 0

NRHPListed 14 — 25 21 6 3

RI

NHL 0 — — — 0 0

NRHPListed 3 — — — 21 30

MA

NHL 0 — — — 0 1

NRHPListed 3 — — — 16 17

TOTAL NHL 1 3 0 0 0 1

TOTAL NRHP-Listed 31 46-51 36 40 43 50

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: Totals for Alternative 3 do not equal the total presented in Table 7.9-4. This is a result of the way Alternative 3 diverges in 

Hartford, CT, and data were assigned to a specific route option in a conservative manner (i.e., if a resource fell within the

Representative Route of multiple Alternative 3 route options, it was counted as an effect under each Alternative 3 route 

option)..

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

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.9-13

Tribal Lands

Through government-to-government consultations and review of the HUD TDAT database, the FRA 

identified no property-specific tribal resources. As noted in Table 7.9-3, the FRA identified several 

counties within the Study Area as having tribal resources. During government-to-government 

consultation, the tribes reiterated the importance of continuing coordination with them during 

subsequent Tier 2 studies to confirm locations of sacred lands. The tribes further indicated that it 

should not be assumed that future activities taking place within an existing transportation right-ofway would not encounter tribal resources. Their concern is that some of the existing transportation, 

communication, and utility rights-of-way were developed at a time that pre-date the more stringent 

environmental legislation and federal agency review processes in place today; therefore, 

undiscovered tribal resources may exist. During Tier 2 analysis, coordination with identified tribes 

would continue to confirm the absence or presence of tribal resources. 

7.9.4.1 No Action Alternative

Some properties associated with the existing NEC rail infrastructure are listed in or are potentially 

eligible for listing in the NRHP; therefore, it is likely that with actions being undertaken as part of the 

No Action Alternative, cultural resources and historic properties could be affected either temporarily 

by construction activities or permanently. 

7.9.4.2 Alternative 1

Two NHLs lie within the Representative Route for Alternative 1: the Fairmount Waterworks in 

Philadelphia and the historic estate of Andalusia in Bucks County, PA. Because the facilities and 

infrastructure proposed as part of Alternative 1 would be similar to the facilities and infrastructure 

present on the existing NEC, the FRA expects visual impacts to these properties to be minimal since 

changes to the appearance of the Representative Route are not expected. 

Most properties are in urban locations such as Washington, D.C.; Baltimore, MD; Wilmington, DE; 

and Philadelphia. Additional areas of higher properties counts in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and 

Massachusetts result from prior NRHP listing or determinations of eligibility for railroad-related 

properties in these states as part of a prior Amtrak evaluation of properties in this corridor. There are 

142 NRHP-listed properties associated with Alternative 1, including the Old Lyme Historic District in 

New London County, CT; the Rhode Island Statehouse in Providence, RI; and the South End District in 

Suffolk County, MA.

7.9.4.3 Alternative 2

Three NHLs lie within the Representative Route for Alternative 2: the Fairmount Waterworks and the 

John Bartram House in Philadelphia; and the historic estate of Andalusia in Bucks County, PA. The 

types of facilities and infrastructure that would be constructed near these NHLs would be the same 

as the NEC. The FRA expects visual impacts to these properties to be minimal, so changes to the 

appearance of the Representative Route are not expected, with the exception of the John Bartram 

House. Construction of infrastructure proposed under Alternative 2 near the John Bartram House 

would be on an embankment adjacent to Bartram Park surrounding the house. There are 171 NRHPlisted properties associated with this alternative, including Capitol Hill Historic District in Washington, 
7.9. Cultural Resources and Historic Properties

Page | 7.9-14 Tier 1 Draft EIS

D.C.; the Galloway Walker House in New Castle County, DE; and the Mid-Town Historic District in 

Union County, NJ.

The New Haven-Hartford-Providence new segment of Alternative 2 passes through the cities of New 

Haven and Hartford, and Tolland and Windham Counties, CT, each containing numerous identified 

properties. The FRA’s coordination with the CT SHPO indicated that a Representative Route through 

Connecticut could encounter additional properties that have not yet been identified.

7.9.4.4 Alternative 3

Washington, D.C., to New York City

Three NHLslie within the Representative Route for Alternative 3 in the Washington, D.C., to New York

City portion: the Washington Square West Historic District; the Reading Terminal and Trainshed; and 

the historic estate of Andalusia (Pennsylvania). The types of facilities and infrastructure constructed 

near Andalusia would be the same as the NEC,so visual impacts to these properties are not expected.

Construction near the Reading Terminal and Trainshed and Washington Square West Historic District

would be in a tunnel with minimal changes to those areas.

The 46–51 NRHP-listed properties include Woodwardville in Anne Arundel County, MD; the 

Philadelphia Naval Shipyard Historic District in Philadelphia; and the Grand Hotel in New York City.

New York City to Hartford

Via Central Connecticut

No NHLs exist within the Representative Route of this route option, but there are 36 NRHP-listed 

properties, including Southbury Historic District No. 1 in New Haven County, CT; and the Farmington 

Canal-New Haven and Northampton Canal in Hartford County, CT. Hartford County, CT, contains 

18 properties (the highest number of properties of any county for this route option), mostly in the 

city of Hartford. Given the rural, undeveloped nature of the rest of Central Connecticut, the potential 

exists to encounter undiscovered cultural resources and historic properties along this route option.

Via Long Island

No NHLs exist within the Representative Route of this route option. There are 40 NRHP-listed

properties associated with this route option include Prospect Cemetery in Queens County, NY, and 

the Bellarose Village Municipal Complex in Nassau County, NY. There are 16 properties in the 

Representative Route through Hartford County, CT (the highest number of properties of any county 

for this route option), mostly within the city of Hartford. The FRA’s coordination with both the New 

York SHPO and Connecticut SHPO indicated that tunneling under the Long Island Sound could 

encounter archaeological sites and would require more-detailed investigations and field surveys were 

this route option to be advanced further. 

Hartford to Boston

Via Providence

No NHLs exist within the Representative Route of this route option. There are 43 NRHP-listed 

properties in this Representative Route, including Pomfret Street Historic District in Windham 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.9-15

County, CT, and Olmsted Park System in Norfolk County, MA, as well as the NRHP-eligible Waiting 

Room in the NRHP-listed South Station Headhouse in Suffolk County, MA. Providence County, RI,

contains 18 properties, which is the highest number of properties of any county for this option. Within 

Providence County, properties include the NRHP-listed Central Street and College Hill Historic 

Districts.

Via Worcester

One NHL lies within this option—the John B. Smith Building adjacent to Fenway Park in Boston. The 

Representative Route will be at-grade in this area and there is a potential for impact since it is 

adjacent to the property. Although the Representative Route passes through several historic districts 

in Hartford and Tolland Counties, CT; and Middlesex, Worcester, Norfolk, and Suffolk Counties, MA, 

virtually all contributing structures are outside, but near, the corridor. These districts include the 

NRHP-listed Blackstone Canal Historic District in Worcester County, MA, and the Newtonville Historic 

District in Middlesex County, MA.

7.9.4.5 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. Many of 

the existing stations along the NEC are themselves either NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible.

Adverse effects may occur to historic properties where physical modifications are proposed, or to 

adjacent historic properties if there are changes in the setting caused by increases in the station 

footprint (i.e., expansion of or improvements to stations and associated facilities and amenities); such 

adverse effects could occur as part of implementation of an Action Alternative and would be assessed 

through the Tier 2 planning and Section 106 consultation process. Proposed new stations could result 

in adverse effects if they are located near NRHP-listed, NRHP-eligible, or NHL properties. Table 7.9-6

identifies which modified or new stations affect historic properties, by alternative and by station ID.

Appendix E, Section E.09, provides detailed support data for Table 7.9-6.

Environmental Consequences for stations in each of the Action Alternatives would occur primarily 

from proposed modifications to existing stations. Many existing stations along the existing NEC are 

NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible, meaning that physical changes to these stations in any of the Action 

Alternatives could result in an adverse effect. The construction of new stations would affect far fewer 

historic properties since the FRA proposed new stations in locations where fewer historic properties 

have been identified. Alternative 3 could have more station impacts than either Alternative 1 or 2, 

primarily in Baltimore City, MD; Philadelphia County, PA; Hartford County, CT; Worcester County, 

MA; and Suffolk County, MA, which would be caused by the modification of existing stations and the 

potential construction of new stations near existing cultural resources and historic properties. 
7.9. Cultural Resources and Historic Properties

Page | 7.9-16 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.9-6: Environmental Consequences: Cultural Resources and Historic Properties

Present in Station Locations

Geography County

Station 

ID

Station 

Type Station Name Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

D.C. 1 Existing Washington Union X X X

MD

Prince George’s 4 Existing Bowie State X X X

Baltimore City

9 New Upton X X X

10 Existing Baltimore Penn Station X X X

11

New

Baltimore Downtown X

12 Broadway X X X

Cecil 23 Elkton X X X

DE New Castle

25 Existing Churchman’s Crossing X X X

26 New Newport X X X

27 Existing Wilmington Station X X X

28 New Edgemoor X X X

29 Existing Claymont X X X

PA

Delaware 32

Existing

Chester X X X

Philadelphia

45 Philadelphia 30th Street X X X

46 Philadelphia Market East X

47 North Philadelphia X X X

Bucks 53 Cornwells Heights X X X

57 Levittown X X X

NJ

Middlesex 64

Existing

New Brunswick X X X

Union 71 Elizabeth X X X

Essex

74 Newark Penn Station X X X

75 Newark Penn Station H.S. X

NY

New York 77

Existing

Penn Station New York X X

New York 9993 Grand Central Terminal X

Westchester 82Existing

New Rochelle X X X

88 Port Chester X X X

CT Fairfield

89

Existing

Greenwich X X X

90 Cos Cob X X X

91 Riverside X X X

92 Old Greenwich X X X

93 Stamford X X X

94 New Stamford H.S. X

95

Existing

Noroton Heights X

96 Darien X

98 South Norwalk X X

100 Westport X

102 Southport X X

103 Fairfield X X

104 Fairfield Metro X

105 Bridgeport X X X

108 Stratford X
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.9-17

Table 7.9-6: Environmental Consequences: Cultural Resources and Historic Properties 

Present in Station Locations (continued)

Geography County

Station 

ID

Station 

Type Station Name Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

CT (cont’d)

New Haven

109

Existing

Milford X X

111 New Haven Station X X X

112 New New Haven Station H.S. X X

113

Existing

New Haven State Street X X X

114 Branford X X X

115 Guilford X X X

New London

121

Existing

New London X X X

122 Mystic X X X

124 New Mystic/New London H.S. X

Hartford

161

New

Newington X

164 Hartford (New) X X

166 Tolland/Storrs X

RI

Washington

123

Existing

Westerly X X X

125 Kingston X X X

126 Wickford Junction X X X

Providence

128 Existing Providence Station X X X

129 New Providence Station H.S. X X

MA

Bristol 132 Existing Attleboro X X X

Worcester 172 Existing Worcester X

Suffolk

139

Existing

Forest Hills X X X

140 Ruggles Street X X X

141 Back Bay X X X

142 New Back Bay H.S. X

143 Existing Boston South Station X X X

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

X = X = Presence of NRHP-listed properties and/or NHLs within station footprints. Determination of effects and more-detailed 

identification of NHLs within station footprints subject to Tier 2 analysis.

Blank cell = No effects identified for subject properties for listed station for specified alternative.

H.S. = high speed
7.9. Cultural Resources and Historic Properties

Page | 7.9-18 Tier 1 Draft EIS

7.9.5 Context Area 

There are numerous geographic areas in the Context Area where there are high densities of NRHPlisted properties and NHLs; these areas are mainly in urban locations. The number of properties in 

the 5-mile-wide Context Area outside of the Affected Environment is drastically greater than the 

number of properties identified in the narrower Affected Environment because of the drastically 

larger size of the Context Area. Table 7.9-7 identifies the total number of properties within the 

Context Area, with support data presented in Appendix E, Section E.09.

Table 7.9-7: Context Area: National Register of Historic Places and National Historic 

Landmarks Identified

Study Area

Alternative 1

(# properties)

Alternative 2

(# properties)

Alternative 3

(# properties, range)

Context Area (excluding Affected 

Environment) 3,576 3,839 4,052–4,936

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: All Action Alternatives assume improvements to the existing NEC; therefore, the number of properties includes the 

Environmental Consequences inclusive of improvements to existing NEC and any new option associated with each alternative.

Counts are National Register of Historic Places-listed and National Historic Landmarks combined. Only tribal resources identified 

as part of the National Park Service (NPS) 2010 database are included in the table. Numbers were not rounded since they are 

discrete occurrences identified by the NPS.

NHLs within the Context Area are of particular concern because the NPA designates NHLs as

nationally significant properties. As a result, they require the additional consultation under Section 

106 of the NHPA to resolve adverse effects. Prominent NHLs in the Context Area for the various Action 

Alternatives include the following:

4 Washington, D.C.

– Corcoran Gallery of Art and the Smithsonian Institution Building

4 Philadelphia, PA

– Independence National Historical Park

4 New York City, NY

– African Burial Ground 

4 Hartford, CT

– Connecticut Statehouse

4 Providence, RI

– John Brown House

4 Worcester, MA

– American Antiquarian Society

4 Cambridge, MA

– Old Harvard Yard

– Longfellow National Historic Site

– Several prominent buildings at Harvard University

4 Brookline (Norfolk County), MA
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.9-19

– Frederick Law Olmsted House 

– John Fitzgerald Kennedy National Historic Site

4 Boston (Suffolk County), MA

– Boston Public Library 

– Trinity Church

4 Boston, MA

– African Meetinghouse

– Massachusetts Statehouse

– Paul Revere House

7.9.6 Potential Mitigation Strategies 

Potential mitigation strategies, or treatment measures developed as part of resolution of adverse 

effects during the Section 106 consultation process, are dependent upon the type of cultural resource 

or historic property affected and the type of impact(s). The draft Programmatic Agreement presented 

in Appendix G lists standard treatments, stipulations, and methods to resolve adverse effects. With 

respect to Tier 2 evaluations, the Programmatic Agreement lays out roles and responsibilities as well 

as guidance for Tier 2 project-level identification and evaluation of historic properties, and mitigation. 

Some examples of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to cultural resources and 

historic properties include the following:

4 Modify construction methods to minimize impacts.

4 Incorporate the use of context-sensitive design.

4 Undertake other design modifications in order to blend proposed infrastructure into the existing 

setting.

4 Shift the location of the alternatives during the Tier 2 process away from densities of properties

that may be affected.

4 Complete archaeological data recovery for sites that cannot be avoided or preserved in place.

4 Install interpretive signage in locations where above- or below-ground historic properties must 

be removed (or otherwise adversely affected) in order to accommodate new construction.

7.9.7 Subsequent Tier 2 Analysis 

This Tier 1 analysis focuses on previously identified, or known, historic properties. During Tier 2

analysis, the lead federal agency for the Tier 2 undertaking would be responsible for continued

Section 106 compliance and for defining a project-specific APE; cultural resources and historic 

properties identified as part of this Tier 1 Draft EIS would be analyzed in greater detail, and efforts to 

identify and evaluate additional properties within the Tier 2 project APE would be undertaken. In 

addition, resources of state and local importance would be identified. E For any future Tier 2 activities 

that may occur within counties noted as having tribal interests, the lead federal agency would be 

required to further consult with identified tribes. 
7.9. Cultural Resources and Historic Properties

Page | 7.9-20 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Effects to the more thorough and complete listing of cultural resources and historic properties would 

be determined through field surveys as appropriate, and consultation with each relevant SHPO

and/or tribe or THPO and local government. Counties of interest to the federally recognized tribes 

identified in Section 7.9.1.3 exist within the Study Area; therefore, any subsequent Tier 2 actions 

involving these counties would require the lead federal agency to consult with those tribes to confirm 

the absence or presence of tribal resources in relation to a proposed alignment or ancillary facility.

Property-specific treatment measures and designs would be developed that would avoid, minimize, 

or mitigate adverse effects on cultural resources and historic properties. The analyses would comply 

with federal and state regulations identified in the state-specific appendices of the Programmatic 

Agreement (see Appendix G).