TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Ecological 

Resources

7.6

7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.6-1

7.6 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES

7.6.1 Introduction

Ecological resources include terrestrial and aquatic 

environments (and the organisms within these 

environments) that are fundamental for maintaining 

balanced earth processes. Within the Study Area, ecological 

resources include forested land, wetlands, and waterways, 

as well as marine and land-based species. Converting these 

habitats to transportation use could affect sensitive 

ecosystems and species. This section describes ecological 

resources within the Study Area, and identifies potential 

effects to sensitive habitats and speciesfrom the Tier 1 Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (Tier 1 Draft EIS) Action 

Alternatives.

7.6.1.1 Definition of Resources 

For the purposes of this analysis, the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) defines ecological resources as the following:

4 Ecologically Sensitive Habitat (ESH) is a term for those areas dedicated to conserving and 

maintaining biological diversity and natural resources, such as national wildlife refuges, parks, or 

forests. Other natural areas (such as wetlands, streams, and coastal areas) can also be considered 

ecologically sensitive. Federal or state agencies do not designate ESHs.

4 Federally listed Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species are vulnerable to endangerment in 

the near future or are in imminent danger of becoming extinct due to the loss of habitat or the 

decline in population numbers. For some T&E species, federal agencies designate and protect 

critical habitats. 

4 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) comprise all aquatic habitats where fish spawn, breed, feed, or grow 

to maturity. These habitats include wetlands, coral reefs, sea grasses, and rivers. 

4 Federally Managed Fish Species are managed under federal Fishery Management Plans and have 

designated EFH. 

7.6.1.2 Effects-Assessment Methodology: Ecological Resources

The FRA developed an effects-assessment methodology for each resource area analyzed in this Tier 

1 Draft EIS. (See Appendix E, Section E.06, for the Ecological Resources Methodology.) The Ecological 

Resource Methodology and the methodology update (also provided in Appendix E, Section E.06)

provide the data sources of each resource, an explanation on how the FRA defined and established 

the Affected Environment, and information on how the FRA evaluated and reported the effects on 

each resource. Table 7.6-1 summarizes key information associated with the analysis of each 

evaluated ecological resource.

Key Resource: Ecological Resources

§ Regulated by numerous federal, state, 

and local laws, regulations, and 

Executive Orders.

§ Adverse impacts may be difficult to 

permit or unallowable and may 

influence identification of a Preferred 

Alternative.

§ Types of effects include loss or 

fragmentation of habitat; changes to 

migratory patterns of transient species; 

effects on protected species.
7.6. Ecological Resources

Page | 7.6-2 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.6-1: Effects-Assessment Methodology Summary: Ecological Resources

Resource

Affected 

Environment

Type of 

Assessment Outcome

Ecologically 

Sensitive Habitat 

(ESH)

3,000-footwide swath

centered along 

Representative 

Route for each 

Action 

Alternative

Quantitative: 

Acres

Identification of ESH including parks, forests, wetlands, 

streams and coastal areas that could be affected by the 

Representative Routes of the Action Alternatives

Threatened and 

Endangered 

(T&E) Species 

Qualitative: 

Occurrence

Identification of federally listed T&E species and their 

critical habitats that could be affected by the 

Representative Routes of the Action Alternatives

Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH) 

Quantitative: 

Number/Acres/

Linear feet

Identification of federally managed fish species that 

could be affected by the Representative Routes of the 

Action Alternatives by waterbody crossings

Source: NEC FUTURE Ecological Resources Assessment Methodologies, Appendix E, Section E.06, 2014

7.6.2 Resource Overview 

Understanding locations of ecologically sensitive resources is an important consideration in 

identifying a Preferred Alternative. Many ecologically sensitive resources provide for foraging by 

wildlife species and habitat. Various federal, state, and local laws and regulations protect many of 

these ecologically sensitive areas and resources. As such, impacts to the resources may present 

permitting challenges that could prevent implementation of an action. This Tier 1 Draft EIS analysis 

identifies the locations of and the potential for impacts to ecologically sensitive resources associated 

with the Action Alternatives. More site-specific analysis at future stages of program development is 

required to determine the extent of impacts on ecologically sensitive resources.

In general, the Study Area consists of many undeveloped terrestrial habitats, including forests, parks, 

and refuges. Aquatic ecological resources include waterbodies that are located along coastlines and 

inland, including estuaries, inlets, bays, and rivers. Impacts to these sensitive habitats and the species 

that occur in these habitats would result from the construction and operation of the Action 

Alternatives, and include the following:

4 Habitat fragmentation—the process by which large, continuous habitats are divided into smaller, 

more isolated areas 

4 Bisection or fragmentation of an ESH within the project corridor, resulting in habitat loss and 

detrimental effect to the sustainability of viable populations of T&E fauna and flora occurring 

within the sensitive habitat

The FRA identified ecological resources within the Affected Environment and Representative Routes 

for each of the Action Alternatives. Table 7.6-2 through Table 7.6-6 summarize the ESHs, T&E species, 

and federally-managed fish species and EFHs within the Affected Environment and Representative 

Routes of the Action Alternatives. (See Appendix E, Section E.06, for a complete list of all identified 

ecological resources broken down by ESH, T&E, and EFH.)

Ecological resources occur throughout the Study Area but higher concentrations tend to occur in

Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and Maryland. States with the most ESH tend to include large, 

undeveloped ESH areas with comparably small, concentrated metropolitan centers. Connecticut is 

one of the geographically larger states with substantial tracts of contiguous forested and 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.6-3

undeveloped land and therefore tends to have the most ecologically sensitive resources. Also, much 

of the Representative Routes of the Action Alternatives within Connecticut lie within the state’s long 

coastline. Maryland, New York, and Rhode Island also have relatively higher ESH quantities across the 

Action Alternatives, attributed in part to the large tracts of contiguous undeveloped terrestrial ESHs, 

the numerous waterbodies, and large spans of coastline located within the Representative Routes of 

the Action Alternatives in each of these states. In contrast, Washington, D.C., tends to have the fewest 

ecological resources since it is a highly developed and relatively small geographic area. 

The following are the key findings of the analysis:

4 Benefits:

– All Action Alternatives propose the use of elevated structures and tunnels that could minimize 

impacts on ecological sensitive resources. Elevated structures and tunnels allow for passage 

of transient species and can minimize direct impacts to ecologically sensitive resources. 

4 Impacts:

– All Action Alternatives have the potential to affect ecologically sensitive areas.

– Impacts are greater where off-corridor routes are proposed.

– Connecticut is the state with highest potential ecological resource impacts (ESH, T&E, EFH) 

across all the Action Alternatives.

o New Haven, New London, and Fairfield Counties, CT, are, in general, the counties with 

highest overall potential ecological resource impacts (ESH, T&E, EFH) across all the Action 

Alternatives.

– Connecticut has the highest number of crossings of waters identified as EFH under all Action 

Alternatives. Alternative 2 has the highest number of crossings in Connecticut.

– The highest total acreage of ESH occurs in Maryland and Connecticut under all Action 

Alternatives. Under Alternative 3, Maryland has more than four times the acreage of ESH 

affected over the existing NEC. Alternatives 2 and 3 more than double the acres affected over 

the existing NEC in Connecticut.

– The Action Alternatives bisect or clip a number of large ESHs and wildlife refuges, including

Patuxent Research Refuge, Anacostia and Gunpowder Falls (MD); John Heinz National Wildlife 

Refuge (PA), Laurel Ridge Setauket Woods Nature Preserve, Pelham Bay Park, and Saxon 

Woods County Park (NY); Great Swamp Management Area/Great Swamp (RI); and Paugussett 

State Forest and Rocky Neck State Park (CT).

– Suffolk County, NY, has the greatest potential T&E species occurrence by county in the 

Affected Environment for all the Action Alternatives.

– Under Alternative 3, Suffolk County, NY, and associated Long Island Sound, would have the 

potential for high ecological resource impacts, particularly to saltwater ESH, EFH, and T&E 

species. 

– Gasheys Run, in Harford County, MD, is the only designated T&E critical habitat occurring 

within the Affected Environment/Representative Route of all the Action Alternatives. This is 

also the only known habitat of the Maryland Darter, an endangered species.
7.6. Ecological Resources

Page | 7.6-4 Tier 1 Draft EIS

– All the Action Alternatives cross the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge in 

Middlesex, CT. The existing NEC currently crosses this refuge; however, the Action 

Alternatives may affect this resource to a greater degree due to proposed expansion 

associated with each Action Alternative. The endangered Roseate Tern is known to occur in 

this refuge. 

7.6.3 Affected Environment

7.6.3.1 Ecologically Sensitive Habitats

The FRA identified ESH by creating a single ESH GIS data layer using federal GIS data sources. This ESH 

layer consisted of three categories of ESHs: terrestrial, saltwater aquatic, and freshwater aquatic. The 

FRA quantitatively and qualitatively assessed ESHs within the Affected Environment, including ESH by 

type (terrestrial, aquatic) and acreage. Appendix E, Section E.06, contains further details. 

By state, Connecticut contains the most ESH acreage for all the Action Alternatives within the 

Affected Environment, including the most total ESH (Alternative 3), and the most terrestrial 

(Alternative 1), and saltwater and freshwater ESH acreages (across all Action Alternatives). New 

London and New Haven Counties, CT, consistently contain more terrestrial and saltwater ESH, 

resulting from all the Action Alternatives running along the Connecticut coastline where these 

counties are located. 

Across all the Action Alternatives, Bucks County, PA, has the most freshwater ESH and Washington, 

D.C., has the least ESH acreage within the Affected Environment, including the least total, terrestrial, 

and total combined aquatic ESH (Table 7.6-2). 

Table 7.6-2: Affected Environment: Total Ecologically Sensitive Habitats

Geography

Existing NEC

(acres)

Alternative 1

(acres)

Alternative 2

(acres)

Alternative 3

(acres)

D.C. 230 230 230 235

MD 9,830 9,880 12,425 15,775

DE 2,160 2,160 2,660 2,555

PA 2,055 2,055 2,495 2,895

NJ 5,115 5,165 5,250 5,515

NY 1,705 1,735 1,890 6,850–9,135

CT 13,645 19,020 27,920 29,850–34,105

RI 6,405 7,695 11,655 6,405–11,655

MA 4,415 4,415 4,780 4,870–14,160

TOTAL 45,560 52,355 69,305 74,950–96,030

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

The general trend for more ESH acreage within the Affected Environment in Alternative 3, and less 

ESH acreage recorded for the existing NEC and Alternatives 1 and 2 is attributed to the large tracts of 

undeveloped terrestrial ESHs, and the quantity and size of the waterbodies that Alternative 3 passes 

through in multiple states. (See Appendix A, Mapping Atlas, for ESH locations.)
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.6-5

7.6.3.2 Threatened and Endangered Species

Appendix E, Section E.06, shows, by county and state, the Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species 

and their federally designated critical habitats, if applicable, potentially occurring within the Affected 

Environment and Context Area for each of the Action Alternatives. The table identifies federally listed 

T&E species, their status as either “T” or “E,” the type of species (e.g., plant, mammal, reptile), habitat 

description and location/range, and federally designated critical habitats.

Twenty-four (24) federally listed T&E species and their habitats potentially exist within the Affected 

Environment/Representative Routes of the Action Alternatives (Table 7.6-3). Species types include 

plants, fish, reptiles, mammals, birds, and insects. 

Table 7.6-3: Affected Environment: List of Threatened and Endangered Species

Scientific Name Common Name

Species 

Type

Threatened 

or 

Endangered

States Where 

Species Occur

Charadrius melodus Piping Plover Bird T NY, CT, RI, MA

Calidris canutus rufa Rufa Red Knot* Bird T MA

Myotis septentrionalis Northern Long-Eared Bat* Mammal T NJ, NY

Cicindela puritana Puritan Tiger Beetle Insect T CT

Amaranthus pumilus Seabeach Amaranth Plant T NY

Isotria medeoloides Small Whorled Pogonia Plant T CT, RI

Helonius bullata Swamp Pink Plant T MD, NJ

Clemmys muhlenbergii Bog Turtle Reptile T MD, DE, PA, NJ, NY, 

CT 

Chelonia mydas Green Sea Turtle Reptile T NY, CT

Caretta caretta Loggerhead Sea Turtle Reptile T NY, CT

Sterna dougallii dougalli Roseate Tern Bird E NY, CT, RI, MA

Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus

Atlantic Sturgeon Fish E DE, PA, NJ, NY, CT, 

MA

Etheostoma sellare Maryland Darter Fish E MD

Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose Sturgeon Fish E MD, DE, PA, NJ, NY, 

CT, MA

Balaenoptera musculus Fin Whale Mammal E CT

Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback Whale Mammal E CT

Myotis sodalist Indiana Bat Mammal E PA, NJ, NY, CT

Eubalaena glacialis Right Whale Mammal E CT

Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf Wedgemussel Mussel 

(freshwater)

E CT

Agalinis acuta Sandplain Gerardia Plant E MD, CT, RI

Eretmochelys imbricate Hawksbill Sea Turtle Reptile E CT

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Reptile E CT

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback Sea Turtle Reptile E CT

Pseudemys rubriventris 

bangsi

Plymouth Red-Bellied 

Cooter

Reptile E MA

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: Species/habitat listed are identified as a species/areas of concern. Species/habitats identified as “species/habitat that 

needs no further evaluation” are not included in the Tier 1 Draft EIS but are listed in Appendix E, Section E.06, T&E data table.

* Newly listed species were reviewed corridor-wide for species occurrence. 
7.6. Ecological Resources

Page | 7.6-6 Tier 1 Draft EIS

In general, most states host the occurrence of 4 to 7 species across the Affected Environment of the 

Action Alternatives. However, Connecticut and New York have higher numbers of T&E 

species/habitats within the Affected Environment. Compared to all other states, Connecticut has the 

most T&E species potentially within the Affected Environment for every Action Alternative. 

Connecticut has 18 T&E species potentially within the Affected Environment for the existing NEC as 

well as Alternatives 1 and 2, and 19 T&E species potentially within the Affected Environment for 

Alternative 3. Of these totals, 13–14 of these T&E species are found within the Affected Environment 

in New Haven and Fairfield Counties for all Action Alternatives. New York has 18 T&E species 

potentially within the Affected Environment for Alternative 3; 16 of these T&E species are situated in 

Suffolk County. Across all Action Alternatives, Washington, D.C., has the fewest T&E species, with 1 

T&E species potentially occurring within the Affected Environment (Table 7.6-4). 

Table 7.6-4: Affected Environment: Threatened and Endangered Species Occurrences

Geography

Existing NEC

(occurrence)

Alternative 1

(occurrence)

Alternative 2

(occurrence)

Alternative 3

(occurrence)

D.C. 1 1 1 1

MD 5 5 5 5

DE 4 4 4 4

PA 5 5 5 5

NJ 7 7 7 7

NY 7 9 9 9–19

CT 18 18 18 19

RI 5 5 4 5

MA 6 6 5 6

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: Totals for Action Alternative are not counted since species occur in multiple states per Action Alternative.

Additional Species under Consideration

The New England Cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis), Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus), Dusky 

Shark (Cacharhinus obscures), and Cusk (Brosme brosme) are four species identified for continued 

monitoring of their Endangered Species Act (ESA)status and occurrence within the Study Area. A final

determination assessment has been completed for the Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa) and 

Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis). The Rufa Red Knot was listed as of January 2015, 

and the Northern Long-Eared Bat was listed as of May 4, 2015. These species are included in this Draft 

Tier 1 EIS T&E analysis.

7.6.3.3 Essential Fish Habitat

Within the Affected Environment of the Action Alternatives, 21 federally managed fish species occur 

in 32 waterbodies (Table 7.6-5). Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined by the federally managed fish 

species (including all life stages, spawning, breeding, and migratory patterns) that inhabit a particular 

EFH. In many cases, an EFH may have more than one fish species occurrence. For example, multiple 

federally managed fish species inhabit the Boston Harbor and/or Long Island Sound as described in 

Table 7.6-5.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.6-7

Table 7.6-5: Affected Environment: Federally Managed Species’ Essential Fish Habitats

Scientific Name Common Name Waterbody

Pomatomus saltatrix Bluefish Chesapeake Bay, Delaware River, East River, Eastchester Bay, Long 

Island Sound, Housatonic River, Quinnipiac River, Branford River, 

West River, Connecticut River, Thames River, Narragansett Bay, 

Providence River, Seekonk River, Boston Harbor

Paralichthys dentatus Summer 

Flounder

Chesapeake Bay, Delaware River, Raritan River, Newark Bay, Arthur 

Kill, Passaic River, Hackensack River, Hudson River, East River, 

Upper New York Bay, Eastchester Bay, Long Island Sound, 

Housatonic River, Quinnipiac River, Branford River, West River, 

Connecticut River, Thames River, Narragansett Bay, Providence 

River, Seekonk River

Scophthalmus 

aquosus

Window Pane 

Flounder

Chesapeake Bay, Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, Passaic River, Hackensack 

River, Hudson River, Jamaica Bay, Eastchester Bay, Long Island 

Sound, Branford River, Connecticut River, Narragansett Bay, 

Providence River, Boston Harbor

Centropristis striata Black Sea Bass Delaware River, East River, Eastchester Bay, Long Island Sound, 

Housatonic River, Quinnipiac River, Branford River, West River, 

Long Island Sound, Connecticut River, Thames River, Narragansett 

Bay, Providence River, Seekonk River

Stenotomus chrysops Scup Delaware River, East River, Eastchester Bay, Long Island Sound, 

Housatonic River, Quinnipiac River, Branford River, West River, 

Long Island Sound, Connecticut River, Thames River, Narragansett 

Bay, Providence River, Seekonk River

Peprilus triacanthus Atlantic 

Butterfish

Jamaica Bay, Long Island Sound, Narragansett Bay, Housatonic 

River, West River, East River, Quinnipiac River, Farm River, Branford 

River, Hammonasset River, Indian River, Hammock River, 

Menunketesuck River, Oyster River, Connecticut River, Niantic 

River, Thames River

Scomber scombrus Atlantic 

Mackerel

Long Island Sound

Clupea harengus Atlantic Herring Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, Passaic River, Hackensack River, Hudson 

River, Jamaica Bay, Eastchester Bay, Long Island Sound, Branford 

River, Connecticut River, Narragansett Bay, Providence River, 

Boston Harbor

Urophycis chuss Red Hake Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, Passaic River, Hackensack River, Hudson 

River, Jamaica Bay, Eastchester Bay, Long Island Sound, Branford 

River, Connecticut River, Narragansett Bay, Providence River, 

Boston Harbor

Pseudopleuronectes 

americanus

Winter Flounder Boston Harbor

Leucoraja erinacea Little Skate Jamaica Bay, Eastchester Bay, Long Island Sound, Housatonic River, 

Quinnipiac River, Branford River, West River, Narragansett Bay, 

Providence River

Merluccius bilinearis Silver 

Hake/Whiting

Jamaica Bay, Long Island Sound, Branford River, Boston Harbor

Leucoraja ocellata Winter Skate Jamaica Bay, Eastchester Bay, Long Island Sound, Housatonic River, 

Quinnipiac River, Branford River, West River

Pollachius pollachius Pollock Eastchester Bay, Long Island Sound, Branford River, Connecticut 

River, Boston Harbor
7.6. Ecological Resources

Page | 7.6-8 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.6-5: Affected Environment: Federally Managed Species’ Essential Fish Habitats 

(continued)

Scientific Name Common Name Waterbody

Zoarces americanus Ocean Pout Long Island Sound, Boston Harbor

Melanogrammus 

aeglefinus

Haddock Long Island Sound, Narragansett Bay, Providence River, Boston 

Harbor

Gadus morhua Atlantic Cod Boston Harbor

Hippoglossoides 

platessoides

American Plaice Boston Harbor

Urophycis tenuis White Hake Boston Harbor

Limanda ferruginea Yellowtail 

Flounder

Boston Harbor

Loligo pealeii Longfin Inshore 

Squid

Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, Jamaica Bay, Eastchester Bay, Long Island 

Sound, Branford River, East River, Connecticut River, Thames River, 

Pawcatuck River, Narragansett Bay, Providence River

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Across all Action Alternatives, Connecticut has the most federally managed fish species occurrences 

within the Affected Environment, with 16 species per Action Alternative (Table 7.6-6). Of this total, 

Fairfield County, CT, has the most federally managed fish species occurrences in the Affected 

Environment, with 15 species associated with all Action Alternatives. Suffolk County, NY, and New 

London and Fairfield Counties, CT, also have higher numbers of fish species occurrences in the 

Affected Environment, with 14 federally managed fish species associated with Alternative 3 in Suffolk

and Fairfield Counties, and 14 species for all the Action Alternatives through New London County.

The disproportionate level of federally managed fish species in Connecticut results from the many 

ESHs—inlets and waterbodies—located proximate to the Connecticut shoreline and within the 

Affected Environment of all the Action Alternatives.

Table 7.6-6: Affected Environment: Federally Managed Fish Species (Number of 

Occurrences)

Geography Existing NEC Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

D.C. 0 0 0 0

MD 3 3 3 3

DE 4 4 4 4

PA 0 0 0 0

NJ 1 1 1 1

NY 13 13 13 13–14

CT 16 16 16 16

RI 13 13 13 13

MA 13 13 13 13

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

A sharp increase in possible species occurrence from New York north to Massachusetts is the result 

of the Affected Environment route passing through the Long Island Sound and the length of the 

Connecticut coastline. Many federally managed fish species and protected marine mammal species 

occur and migrate through the Long Island Sound. Similarly, the Connecticut coastline has an 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.6-9

extensive shoreline with many inlets containing higher concentrations of federally managed fish 

species and protected marine mammals.

Other Aquatic Resources of Concern/Consideration

The FRA is coordinating with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding EFH and 

federally managed fish species associated with the Action Alternatives. In addition to those fish 

species listed in Table 7.6-5, the NMFS has identified other sensitive marine species for consideration.

The NMFS identified and recommended consideration of a number of “species of concern” that are 

not federally managed species (and therefore are not included in the federally managed fish species 

list) but are wetland, waterway, and/or important foraging species about which the agency has 

insufficient information and/or concerns regarding status and threats. Table 7.6-7 lists these species 

of concern that should be further examined during the Tier 2 environmental compliance processes. 

The NMFS is also working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on investigating a number 

of sensitive species. The NMFS and USFWS are jointly conducting a status review of the American Eel 

(Anguilla rostrata) listed in Table 7.6-7, to determine if listing the eel as endangered or threatened is 

warranted. As mentioned in Section 7.6.3.2, the Dusky Shark (Cacharhinus obscures) and Cusk 

(Brosme brosme) are candidate species currently undergoing a status review for potential ESA listing.

The Dusky Shark is also listed as an NMFS federally managed species. The NMFS has identified these 

two species as species of concern since they inhabit the coastal waters of the Greater Atlantic region 

and could occur within the Study Area. The FRA did not evaluate these two species as part of this Tier 

1 Draft EIS; based on readily available data, they do not fall within the Affected Environment of the 

Action Alternatives. These species would be monitored for status and investigated further during the 

Tier 2 environmental compliance processes based on updated/revised data and continued 

coordination with the NMFS. 

The NMFS recommended consideration of three federally managed whale species not included in the 

federally managed fish species list (Appendix E, Section E.06). The Sei (Balaenoptera borealis), Sperm 

(Physeter macrocephalus), and Blue (Balaenoptera musculus) whales (all endangered species 

protected under the ESA) generally inhabit the offshore waters of the Greater Atlantic region and are 

not expected to occur in the coastal waters where the Action Alternatives primarily run. However, 

these whales’ habitats extend throughout the region, and as a result, NMFS has identified them as 

potential species for consideration. 

The NMFS also recommended consideration of four federally managed fish species not included in 

the EFH table in Appendix E, Section E.06. The King Mackerel (Scoberomorus cavalla), Spanish 

Mackerel (Scoberomorus maculates), and Cobia (Rachycentron canadum) predominantly inhabit the 

South Atlantic region waters and are not expected to occur near the Study Area. However, these 

species are also species of consideration by the NMFS because of their extended habitat range into 

the offshore waters of the Mid-Atlantic region. The Clearnose Skate (Raja eglanteria) was analyzed 

and ultimately determined outside of the Action Alternatives’ Affected Environment; as such, it is not 

considered further as part of this analysis. 

These whale and fish species would be investigated further during the Tier 2 environmental 

compliance processes, but are not anticipated to be affected. 
7.6. Ecological Resources

Page | 7.6-10 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.6-7: National Marine Fisheries Service “Species of Concern” 

Scientific Name Common Name Special Designation

Alosa pseudoharnegus Alewife NMFS species of concern1 A. aestivalis Blueback Herring

A. sapidissima American Shad

None2

Morone saxatilis Striped Bass

Perca flavescens Yellow Perch

Alosa mediocris Hickory Shad

Trinectes maculatus Hogchoker

Fundulus diaphanous Banded Killifish

Fundulus heteroclitus Mummichog

Clupea harengus Atlantic Herring

Brevoortia tyrannus Atlantic Menhaden

Anchoa mitchilli Bay Anchovy

Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shard

Morone Americana White Perch

Menidia menidia Atlantic Silverside

Menidia beryllina Inland Silverside

Leiostomus xanthurus Spot

Fundulus majalis Striped Killifish

Anguilla rostrata American Eel Undergoing ESA status review in cooperation with the USFWS3

Carcharhinus obscurus Dusky Shark ESA candidate species, NMFS species of concern4

Brosme brosme Cusk

Sources: 

1 NMFS Species of Concern list (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/concern/). These species are listed in the NMFS 

correspondence.2

2 Species listed in NMFS correspondence to project, “Ecological Resources Effects Assessment Coordination Relative to Section 

7 of the Endangered Species Act,” received December 19, 2014. The NMFS has concerns over these species, but they are not

“Species of concern” or “EFH species.”

3 Species under review for ESA designation (http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E0AG). 

Species is listed in NMFS correspondence. 

4 NMFS federally managed species (Dusky Shark only), and Candidate and Proposed Species under the Endangered Species Act 

list (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/candidate.htm). These species are also listed in the NMFS correspondence.2

The NMFS identified one species included in the NEC FUTURE T&E species list that may be eliminated 

from further investigations. The Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) is an endangered 

species and included in the T&E species Table 7.6-3 as potentially occurring within the Affected 

Environment. The NMFS indicated that this species is not expected to occur in the Affected 

Environment and may therefore be eliminated as a potential project species of concern. The 

Hawksbill Sea Turtle would be investigated during the Tier 2 environmental compliance processes, 

and a final determination will be made as to whether the turtle warrants exclusion from future project 

consideration. 

The NMFS has requested in correspondence that the Distinct Population Segment (DPS) for the 

Atlantic Sturgeon be included on the T&E species list. The Atlantic Sturgeon is a listed endangered 

species under USFWS jurisdiction and is composed of five DPSs, divided by the sturgeon’s species 

range. The NMFS has indicated that wherever the sturgeon is listed for potential occurrence, its 

associated DPS should also be included. The recommendation to make this distinction has been noted 

and would be conducted during the Tier 2 environmental compliance processes.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.6-11

7.6.4 Environmental Consequences

7.6.4.1 Ecologically Sensitive Habitats

The FRA quantitatively and qualitatively assessed Environmental Consequences for ESH by type 

and acreage of impact within the Representative Route. The assessment includes identification of, 

and discussion of impacts (including habitat fragmentation impacts) on, those ESH areas where 

10 percent or greater of the total area of the ESH is potentially impacted.

Based on GIS analysis, the FRA identified ESH areas within the Representative Route for the Action 

Alternatives. The regions with the most and least area (acreage) of total ESH—further subcategorized by terrestrial, freshwater, and saltwater—were determined by state and county for each 

Action Alternative. Table 7.6-8 and Table 7.6-9 summarize the results of the ESH analysis by Action 

Alternative. 

Table 7.6-8: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route – Total Ecologically 

Sensitive Habitats (Acreage)

Geography Existing NEC Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

D.C. 5 5 5 20

MD 230 230 360 995

DE 25 25 70 160

PA 25 25 55 135

NJ 115 130 155 510

NY 70 75 95 420–495

CT 405 660 1,195 1,075–1,475

RI 175 300 445 175–460

MA 170 170 215 525–730

TOTAL 1,220 1,620 2,595 4,015–4,980

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Table 7.6-9: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route of Alternative 3 Route 

Options – Total Ecologically Sensitive Habitats (Acreage)

Geography

Existing 

NEC

Alternative 3

D.C. to NYC

New York City to Hartford Hartford to Boston

via Central 

Connecticut

via Long 

Island 

via 

Providence

via

Worcester

D.C. 5 20 — — — —

MD 230 995 — — — —

DE 25 160 — — — —

PA 25 135 — — — —

NJ 115 510 — — — —

NY 70 — 495 420 — —

CT 405 — 620 660 810 455

RI 175 — — — 295 175

MA 170 — — — 525 730

TOTAL 1,220 1,820 1,115 1,080 1,630 1,360

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

— = Not applicable within that alternative/option.
7.6. Ecological Resources

Page | 7.6-12 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Consistent with the Affected Environment, Representative Routes associated with Alternative 3 

generally would have the most impacts to ESH areas throughout the Study Area compared to the No 

Action and Alternatives 1 and 2 (Table 7.6-8).

Most of the ESH impacts by state would be concentrated in Connecticut, which would have the most 

total, terrestrial, and saltwater ESH impacts occurring across all the Action Alternatives. Maryland 

would have the most freshwater ESH impacts, occurring across all the Action Alternatives. There are 

no saltwater ESH impacts for Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania across the Action Alternatives. 

Washington, D.C., would have the fewest total and terrestrial ESH impacts across the Action 

Alternatives. New York City and Washington, D.C., would have the fewest freshwater ESH impacts, 

with all Action Alternatives being less than 10 acres. 

New London County, CT, would have the most total ESH and terrestrial ESH impacts while Suffolk 

County, NY, would have the most saltwater ESH impacts, and Harford County, MD, would have the 

most freshwater ESH impacts. There are numerous counties that would not have any terrestrial, 

freshwater, or saltwater ESH impacts (less than 0.1 acre) (refer to Appendix E, Section E.06). 

No Action Alternative

Effects of the No Action Alternative are not quantified as part of this analysis as explained in the 

introduction to Chapter 7. However, projects being implemented under the No Action Alternative

that will occur within or adjacent to the existing NEC right-of-way are likely to encounter ESHs. Project 

sponsors will be responsible for implementing measures for avoidance of and minimizing impacts to 

ESHs.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would have the fewest total area of ESH, terrestrial, freshwater, and saltwater ESH 

impacts of the Action Alternative in the Representative Route, a 33 percent increase in total area of 

ESH impact compared to the existing NEC..

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would have the second-most total area of ESH, terrestrial, freshwater, and saltwater 

ESH impacts in the Representative Route, a 113 percent increase in total area of ESH impact 

compared to the existing NEC.

Alternative 3

Overall, the Alternative 3 Representative Route would have the most total area of ESH impacts, as 

well as the most terrestrial, freshwater, and saltwater ESH impacts, an average of 308 percent 

increase in total area of ESH impact compared to the existing NEC.

Washington, D.C., to New York City

From Washington, D.C., to New York City, this portion of Alternative 3’s total area of ESH impacts 

would be greater than all other Action Alternatives, exceeding the total ESH impacts of the No Action 

Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2. This portion of Alternative 3 would also have the most total area 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.6-13

of ESH and saltwater ESH impacts in the Representative Route. Maryland would have the most 

terrestrial and freshwater ESH impacts in the Representative Route. 

New York City to Hartford

Via Central Connecticut

This Alternative 3 route option would almost double the total area of ESH impacts than would be 

incurred by the No Action Alternative. 

Via Long Island

This Alternative 3 route option is a slight decrease from the Central Connecticut route option and 

would also result in almost double the total area of ESH impacts than would be incurred by the No 

Action Alternative. 

Hartford to Boston

Via Providence

This Alternative 3 route option would result in the most total area of ESH impacts of the Alternative 

3 route options north of New York City, and in particular, may be attributed to the route intersecting 

three states with large areas of terrestrial ESH. 

Via Worcester

This Alternative 3 route option would result in the fewest total area of ESH impacts of the Alternative 

3 route options north of New York City. This may be attributed in part to the minimal aquatic impacts 

this route option would incur as well as terrestrial impacts in two states as opposed to three states

(via Providence route option runs through three states).

Stations 

In areas where an Action Alternative proposes new stations that intersect with ESH, there is the 

potential for conversion to transportation use. Alternative 1 proposes 6 new stations, Alternative 2 

proposes 8 new stations, and Alternative 3 proposes 17 new stations. For all the Action Alternatives, 

aquatic impacts for new stations would generally be minimal, not exceeding 4 acres of impacts for 

any given new station. Alternative 3 would have the most terrestrial and freshwater ESH impacts for 

new stations. Most saltwater impacts would be the same across Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. In general, 

Alternative 1 would have the fewest overall ESH impacts for new stations, with few terrestrial and 

saltwater impacts, and no quantifiable freshwater impacts. For all the Action Alternatives, terrestrial 

impacts for new stations would be more concentrated in Connecticut, with Fairfield and New Haven 

Counties recording the most and second-most terrestrial impacts. 

ESH impacts for existing, modified, and new stations along the Representative Route of the Action 

Alternatives would be primarily terrestrial, and would result in only one intersection with a “named” 

park or wildlife refuge. The existing Station 141 located in Suffolk, MA, would affect approximately 

0.6 acre of the Pierre Lallement Southwest Corridor Park in Boston—a bike path situated adjacent to 

the existing tracks. Additionally, the one freshwater ESH impact along the Representative Route 

would occur at a small, unnamed tributary to the east of the intersection of I-495 and I-90 

(Massachusetts Turnpike) within the Sudbury Reservoir Watershed in Worcester County, MA. 
7.6. Ecological Resources

Page | 7.6-14 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.6-10 lists the states and counties for each Action Alternative in which modifications of new 

stations are proposed.

Table 7.6-10: Environmental Consequences: Stations – Ecologically Sensitive Habitats

(Occurrence)

State County

Station 

ID/Type Station Name

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

MD

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

Baltimore City 13/New Bayview X X X

14/New Bayview H.S. X

DE New Castle 26/New Newport X

28/New Edgemoor X X X

NJ Middlesex 62/New North Brunswick X X X

68/New Metropark H.S. X

NY Bronx 81/New Co-op City X X X

NY Westchester 151/New White Plains East X

CT

Fairfield 154/New Danbury X

New Haven 155/New Waterbury South X

156/New Meriden High Speed X X

Middlesex 120/New Old Saybrook H.S. X

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

Hartford 160/New West Hartford X

161/New Newington X

Tolland 165/New Willimantic/Storrs X X

166/New Tolland/Storrs X

RI Providence 129/New Providence Station H.S. X X

MA

Worcester

173/New Grafton-Shrewsbury X

174/New Westborough X

175/New Blue Star Hwy (I-495) X

Middlesex

176/New Southborough/Ashland X

178/New Framingham X

181/New Riverside (I-95) X

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: Quantities of potential impacts associated with stations are not shown. Acreage was calculated only for new stations and 

is provided in Appendix E, Section E.06. 

X = Presence of resource within the Representative Route

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

H.S. = high speed

Impacts 10 Percent or Greater

For each Action Alternative, the FRA conducted an assessment to determine the net/total number of 

ESH areas where 10 percent or greater of that ESH’s total area is affected (Table 7.6-11).
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.6-15

Table 7.6-11: Environmental Consequences: Ecologically Sensitive Habitats Impacts 

10 Percent or Greater 

State County ESH Type Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 3

(Min–Max)

MD

Anne Arundel

Terrestrial

1 1 8

Baltimore — — 2

Baltimore City — — 2

Cecil Terrestrial 1 4 7

Freshwater — — 1

Harford Terrestrial — 2 7

Prince George’s — — 2

MD Total 2 7 29

DE New Castle Terrestrial — 4 5

DE Total 0 4 5

PA

Bucks Terrestrial — — 1

Delaware — — 1

Philadelphia Terrestrial — — 1

Aquatic — — 1

PA Total 0 0 4

NJ

Mercer Terrestrial — — 6

Middlesex 1 3 6

Hudson Saltwater — — 1

NJ Total 1 3 13

NY

Westchester Terrestrial — — 0–4

Freshwater — — 0–1

Suffolk Terrestrial — — 0–2

Queens — — 0–2

NY Total 0 0 4–5

CT

Fairfield Terrestrial 1 1 1

New Haven

Terrestrial 3 12 8–12

Freshwater — — 0–2

Middlesex Terrestrial 2 2 2

New London Terrestrial 9 5 5

Saltwater 1 1 1

Hartford Terrestrial — 3 3–4

Aquatic — — 0–1

Tolland Terrestrial — 1 1–3

Windham — 1 0–1

CT Total 16 26 23–29

MA

Middlesex Terrestrial — — 0–4

Bristol — 1 2–3

Worcester

Terrestrial — — 0–14

Freshwater — — 0–1

Norfolk Terrestrial 2 3 7

Freshwater 1 1 1

MA Total 3 5 11–29

RI

Providence Terrestrial — 1 0–2

Washington 3 1 1

RI Total 3 2 1–3

TOTAL BY ALTERNATIVE 24 47 93–108

— = Impacts that may (or may not) occur in these areas are under the 10 percent threshold.
7.6. Ecological Resources

Page | 7.6-16 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Alternative 3 would have the most and Alternative 2 would have the second-most ESH areas with 

10 percent or greater impacts. Alternative 1, by contrast, would have the fewest ESH areas with 

10 percent or greater impacts. 

In general, Connecticut would have the most counties with 10 percent or greater impacts to ESH 

areas, with seven counties affected in the state (associated with Alternatives 2 and 3). Maryland

would have the second-most counties with 10 percent or greater impacts to ESH areas, with six 

counties affected in the state (associated with Alternative 3). 

Maryland, Connecticut, and Massachusetts would have 29 individual ESH areas with impacts at 

10 percent or greater. 

Within the Study Area, large, contiguous ESH are either bisected or clipped, resulting in some level of 

habitat fragmentation. These include bisected sections of the Anacostia and Gunpowder Falls State 

Parks, and clipped areas such as the Patuxent Research Refuge, in Maryland. All the Action 

Alternatives would bisect or clip large sections of the following ESH areas: John Heinz National 

Wildlife Refuge (Pennsylvania); Laurel Ridge Setauket Woods Nature Preserve, Pelham Bay Park, and 

Saxon Woods County Park (New York); Great Swamp Management Area/Great Swamp (Rhode 

Island); and Paugussett State Forest and Rocky Neck State Park (Connecticut). 

Habitat fragmentation may occur from bisecting or clipping contiguous areas of ESH. For the areas of 

ESH that have greater than 10 percent impact, the following resources would be affected by habitat 

fragmentation: Patterson Park (bisected), Perryman Park, North Deen Park, and the Anita C. Leight 

Estuary Center and Park in Maryland; Fox Point State Park in Delaware; Merill Park in New Jersey; and 

Forest Park in New York. Connecticut also contains large quantities of ESH area, particularly 

terrestrial, that would be affected at 10 percent or greater. However, these ESH areas are 

undeveloped and privately owned, and are therefore not “named” parks or wildlife refuges. 

7.6.4.2 Threatened and Endangered Species

The lack of precision of the T&E boundaries and the lack of available GIS data did not allow for further

assessment at the level of the Representative Route as compared to the Affected Environment and 

Context Area. For the purposes of this broad-scale analysis, the FRA identified, at the county level,

“species/areas of concern” for those species/habitats that occur or could occur within the Affected 

Environment as identified in Table 7.6-3 and Table 7.6-4. If the T&E species/habitat “occurs” in a 

county that is within the Affected Environment, then the FRA assumed for the Representative Route 

that the species/habitat would be identified as a species/area of concern (refer to Appendix E, Section 

E.06). If a T&E species or habitat does not occur in a county within the Affected Environment, then 

the FRA considered the species a “species/habitat that needs no further evaluation” and was not 

included in this Tier 1 Draft EIS (Appendix E, Section E.06) for the Action Alternatives. These findings 

are contingent upon further analysis and consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

The need for subsequent analysis, which would occur during Tier 2 studies for individual projects, for 

species/habitats identified as “species/areas of concern” and “species/areas that need no further 

evaluation” would be identified during later stages of planning and design to determine the true 

extent of species and their habitats.. 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.6-17

Effects of the No Action Alternative were not quantified as part of this analysis as explained in the 

introduction to this chapter. All Action Alternatives include the existing NEC, which is the focus of the 

No Action Alternative; the FRA identified T&E species with each of the Action Alternatives. Therefore, 

it is likely that projects being implemented under the No Action Alternative that would occur within 

or adjacent to the NEC right-of-way are likely to encounter T&E species and critical habitat. Federal 

agencies with approval authority over those projects, together with project sponsors, would be 

responsible for carrying out any required Section 7 consultation and other required environmental 

reviews for those projects; projects sponsors would be responsible for implementing measures to 

avoid or minimize impacts to T&E species and critical habitats, as determined through those 

environmental reviews.

Connecticut and Maryland are of particular importance regarding T&E species and their critical 

habitats. In Middlesex County, CT, the Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii dougalli) is known to occur 

within the Affected Environment, where all the Action Alternatives run adjacent to the Stewart B. 

McKinney National Wildlife Refuge. The Roseate Tern is a seabird found along the Atlantic Coast that 

is listed as an endangered species because of sharp declines in population resulting from hunting, 

changes in vegetation in breeding areas, competition with other birds for nesting sites, and predation. 

During the Tier 2 environmental compliance processes, potential effects to the Roseate Tern as well

as avoidance/minimization would be further assessed.

Gasheys Run within Harford County, MD, is the only designated critical habitat within the 

Representative Route of all the Action Alternatives. The Maryland Darter’s (Etheostoma sellare) (a 

federally listed endangered species) only known habitat encompasses the following waterbodies:

Deer Creek, Swan Creek, and Gasheys Creek (also referred to as Gasheys Run). Deer Creek and Swan 

Creek are partially located within the 5-mile Context Area but flow outside of the Affected 

Environment limits. Gasheys Creek, a tributary of Swan Creek, flows for approximately 3,888 linear 

feet within the 3,000-foot Affected Environment swath for all Action Alternatives. The Maryland 

Darter, Maryland’s only endemic vertebrate, is a rare, small freshwater fish known to exist/occur in 

segments of Gasheys Creek. This geographic area is of concern for the Maryland Darter since the fish 

species has extremely specialized habitat requirements, and any disturbance to these tributaries of 

the Susquehanna River drainage basin could affect species populations still present. All Action 

Alternatives would run through Gasheys Creek, proximate to, or on railway lines already in existence.

Across all Action Alternatives, Harford County, MD, and Middlesex, CT, are noted for the proximity of 

the Representative Route to endangered species habitats/critical habitats. Suffolk County, NY 

(Alternative 3 via Long Island route option), and New Haven and Fairfield Counties, CT (all Action 

Alternatives) have the most T&E species with the potential to be affected throughout the corridor. 

The larger numbers of potentially affected T&E species in Connecticut indicate the greater level of 

potential impacts to T&E species in this state compared to the rest of the project corridor.

Stations 

Alternative 3 has the most proposed new stations intersecting with areas that have the potential for 

T&E species, with up to 21 proposed new stations (Table 7.6-12). By state, New York has the most 

proposed new stations (up to eight) that would intersect with areas that have the potential for T&E 

species. Bronx County, NY, has the most proposed new stations with potential for T&E species 
7.6. Ecological Resources

Page | 7.6-18 Tier 1 Draft EIS

impacts, with four possible new stations (across all Action Alternatives) intersecting with four 

potential T&E species.

Migratory Bird Concerns

This Tier 1 Draft EIS does not include an effects-assessment on migratory bird species. However, 

coordination with USFWS identified the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) as a concern. In 

particular, the USFWS Pennsylvania Field Office identified several Bald Eagle nesting sites near the 

Action Alternatives. During Tier 2 studies, more coordination with the USFWS, field surveys, 

assessments, and screenings would occur, as determined necessary, to ensure compliance with the 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

7.6.4.3 Essential Fish Habitat

The FRA developed waterbody crossing data for the Environmental Consequences analysis. 

Waterbody crossings refer to waterbody locations containing federally managed fish species and 

their EFH that would be crossed by the Action Alternative Representative Routes. The crossing data 

calculated by state, the number of crossings that occur, the number of federally managed fish species 

types that could potentially occur, and the size (acreage and linear footage) of the crossing over each 

waterbody where these species and their EFH potentially occur. Size of crossing impact took into 

account the area (acreage) of the crossing over the waterbody, and the linear footage (or width) of 

the crossing, by direction of flow, over the waterbody. 

The potential impacts of a waterbody crossing may vary since the size (area) of the waterbody 

crossing in a particular location may differ to the width (linear footage) of the crossing. For example, 

the Long Island Sound has the highest acreage of potential impact (it is the largest area of water 

crossing impact in the project corridor) but its linear footage, measuring the width of the crossing 

over the Long Island Sound (in the direction of flow), results in a smaller measurement than the area 

calculation. (Refer to Table 7.6-13 and Table 7.6-14 for the number of federally managed fish species 

types that have the potential to occur in the Action Alternative route crossings by state. Refer to 

Table 7.6-15 for more detailed quantities of acreage and linear footage EFH crossing impacts by state 

for the Representative Route.) 

No Action Alternative

The FRA did not quantify the effects of the No Action Alternative as part of this analysis. However, 

projects being implemented under the No Action Alternative that will occur within or adjacent to the 

NEC right-of-way will likely encounter federally managed fish species. Project sponsors will be 

responsible for implementing remedial actions and measures for avoidance and minimizing any 

potential impacts to fish species.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.6-19

Table 7.6-12: Environmental Consequences: Stations – T&E Species (Occurrence)

State County

Station 

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

MD

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

Cecil 23/New Elkton X X X

DE New Castle 26/New Newport X X X

28/New Edgemoor X X X

PA

Delaware 34/New Baldwin X X X

Philadelphia 44/Existing Philadelphia Airport X X

46/Existing Philadelphia Market East X

NJ Middlesex 62/New North Brunswick X X

68/New Metropark H.S. X

NY

Queens 145/New Jamaica H.S.

X

(D.C. to Boston via Long 

Island and Providence)

Bronx

78/New Hunts Point X X X

79/New Parkchester X X X

80/New Morris Park X X X

81/New Co-op City X X X

Westchester 87/New Cross-Westchester X X X

Nassau 146/New Nassau Hub

X

(D.C. to Boston via Long 

Island and Providence)

Suffolk 148/New Suffolk Hub

X

(D.C. to Boston via Long 

Island and Providence)

CT

Fairfield

94/New Stamford H.S. X

107/New East Bridgeport X X X

154/New Danbury

X

(D.C. to Boston via Central 

Connecticut and 

Providence)

New Haven

112/New New Haven Station H.S. X X

155/New Waterbury South

X

(D.C. to Boston via Central 

Connecticut and 

Providence)

156/New Meriden H.S. X

X

(D.C. to Boston via Long 

Island and Providence)

Middlesex 120/New Old Saybrook H.S. X

Hartford 164/New Hartford (New)

X

(D.C. to Boston via Central 

Connecticut and 

Providence)

RI Providence 129/New Providence Station H.S. X X

130/New Pawtucket X X X

MA Suffolk 142/New Back Bay H.S. X

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: Quantities of potential impacts associated with stations are not shown. Acreage was calculated only for new stations and 

is provided in Appendix E, Section E.06. 

X = Presence of resource within the Representative Route.

Blank cell = No effects identified for subject resource for listed station for specified Action Alternative.

H.S. = high speed
7.6. Ecological Resources

Page | 7.6-20 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.6-13: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route – Federally Managed Fish 

Species (Number of Occurrences)

Geography Existing NEC Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

D.C. 0 0 0 0

MD 3 3 3 3

DE 4 4 4 4

PA 0 0 0 0

NJ 1 1 1 1

NY 13 13 13 14

CT 14 14 15 15–16

RI 6 6 10 6–10

MA 0 0 0 0

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Table 7.6-14: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route of Alternative 3 Route 

Options – Federally Managed Species (Number of Occurrences)

Geography

Existing 

NEC D.C. to NYC

New York City to Hartford Hartford to Boston

via Central 

Connecticut

via Long 

Island 

via 

Providence

via

Worcester

D.C. 0 0 — — — —

MD 3 3 — — — —

DE 4 4 — — — —

PA 0 0 — — — —

NJ 1 1 — — — —

NY 13 — 13 13 — —

CT 14 — 15 16 12 12

RI 6 — — — 10 6

MA 0 — — — 0 0

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

— = Not applicable within that alternative/option.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequ

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.6-15: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route Crossing Impact – Essential Fish Habitat

Geogr

aphy

EFH Crossing Impact (acres/linear feet)

Existing NEC Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 

# of 

Crossings Acres

Linear 

Feet

# of 

Crossings Acres

Linear 

Feet

# of 

Crossings Acres

Linear 

Feet

# of 

Crossings Acr

D.C. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/

MD 3 25 530 4 25 530 4 275 530 4 30 

DE N/A N/A N/A 1 0 125 1 5 150 1 10 

PA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/

NJ 4 15 815 5 20 965 5 20 1,115 5 45 

NY 4 5 600 4 5 600 4 90 1,360 4–5 180–2

CT 25 215 3,935 30 235 4,610 32 240 4,760 31 200–1

RI 1 0 150 1 0 150 2 10 300 1-2 1–1

MA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/

TOTAL 37 260 6,030 45 285 6,980 48 640 8,215 46–48 465–3

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
7.6. Ecological Resources

Page | 7.6-22 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Action Alternatives

Sixteen federally managed fish species and their habitats could be affected by crossings of the Action 

Alternative’s Representative Routes. Consistent with the Affected Environment, Connecticut contains

most of the potential impacts to federally managed fish species at the state and county level. The 

disproportionate level of potential fish species impacts in Connecticut is in line with the Affected 

Environment, with the Action Alternatives’ Representative Routes running proximate to or 

overlapping areas with many inlets and waterbodies near the Connecticut shoreline. Throughout all 

the Action Alternatives, Connecticut has the most federally managed fish species that would be 

affected, total number of EFH crossings, and linear footage of EFH crossing impact (Table 7.6-13,

Table 7.6-14 and Table 7.6-15). These impacts would be concentrated primarily in Fairfield and New 

London Counties, CT, which contain large coastal areas that intersect with the Action Alternatives’ 

Representative Routes. Suffolk County, NY, recorded the most acreage of EFH crossing impact, which 

may be attributed to the Action Alternatives crossing the Long Island Sound where EFH species are 

known to occur.

New Jersey is the only state where, across all Action Alternatives, all crossings within each county

would have only one fish species that could be affected—the Summer Flounder (Paralichthys 

dentatus) (Table 7.6-13 and Table 7.6-15). Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, have 

no reported crossings intersecting federally managed fish species, and therefore no possibility of fish 

species impact. 

Alternative 1

Of the nine states, seven (including the states with zero species) would have six or fewer possible 

federally managed fish species occurrences. New York and Connecticut would have the highest 

concentration of fish species, which may be attributed to the proximity of the Action Alternative 

routes to waterbodies containing fish species, including passing through the Long Island Sound and 

along the Connecticut coastline. 

Alternative 1 ranks as the second-most total number of crossings, the second-least acreage, and the 

second-least linear footage of crossings.

Alternative 2

Of the nine states, six (including the states with zero species) would have four or fewer possible fish 

species occurrences. New York and Connecticut would have the highest concentration of fish species, 

which may be attributed to the proximity of the Action Alternative routes to waterbodies containing 

federally managed fish species, including passing through the Long Island Sound and along the 

Connecticut coastline.

Alternative 2 ranks as the most crossings, and the second-most acreage and the most linear footage 

of crossings. The high total linear footage of EFH crossing impacts in Alternative 2 may be attributed 

to the higher linear footage impacts in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.6-23

Alternative 3

Of the nine states, seven would have 10 or fewer possible fish species occurrences. Crossings range 

from the second-fewest to the most (along with Alternative 2). Alternative 3 would have the 

most acreage of impacts, and the linear footage of EFH crossing impacts would increase to secondmost. 

Washington, D.C., to New York City

Alternative 3 from Washington, D.C., to New York City has similar EFH species per state totals as the

other Action Alternatives (Table 7.6-13). For this section of the alignment, Alternative 3 has the 

most acreage and linear footage of EFH crossing impacts. 

New York City to Hartford

Via Central Connecticut

From New York City to Hartford via Central Connecticut, the Representative Route is in line with the 

Affected Environment, where species occurrence concentration increases in New York City and 

Connecticut. This may be attributed in part to the Representative Route traveling the length of the 

Connecticut coastline, an extensive shoreline with many inlets that have higher concentrations of 

EFH species and protected marine mammals. 

For this section of Alternative 3, EFH crossing impacts would range from 4 (New York City) to 31 

(Connecticut), with ESH crossing impacts ranging from 180 acres (New York City) to 200 acres

(Connecticut), and 940 linear feet (New York City) to 4,460 linear feet (Connecticut) of crossing 

impacts.

Via Long Island

From New York City to Hartford via Central Connecticut, the Representative Route is in line with the 

Affected Environment, where species occurrence concentration increases in New York and 

Connecticut. This may be attributed in part to the Representative Route passing through the Long 

Island Sound, where many of the federally managed fish species and protected marine mammal 

species are known to occur and migrate.

For this section of Alternative 3, New York and Connecticut recorded five EFH crossing impacts each. 

Acreage (2,075 acres) and linear footage (1,465 linear feet) of EFH crossing impacts were also the 

same for both states. 

Hartford to Boston

Via Providence

Massachusetts does not have any EFH species occurrence or crossing impacts. Crossing totals range

from 2 (Rhode Island) to 31 (Connecticut), and crossing impact acreage and linear footage range from 

15 acres (Rhode Island) to 1,465 acres (Connecticut), and 400 linear feet (Rhode Island) to 4,460 linear 

feet (Connecticut). Most of the EFH species and crossing impacts would be concentrated in 

Connecticut because of the Representative Route’s proximity to the coastline where federally 

managed fish species and protected marine mammals are known to occur. 
7.6. Ecological Resources

Page | 7.6-24 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Via Worcester

Massachusetts does not have any federally managed fish species occurrence or crossing impacts.

Crossing totals range from 1 (Rhode Island) to 31 (Connecticut), and crossing impact acreage and 

linear footage ranged from 1 acre (Rhode Island) to 1,465 acres (Connecticut), and 150 linear feet

(Rhode Island) to 4,460 linear feet (Connecticut). Most of the federally managed fish species and 

crossing impacts would be concentrated in Connecticut because of the Representative Route’s 

proximity to the coastline where federally managed fish species and protected marine mammals are 

known to occur.

Stations 

New station impacts to federally managed fish species would generally be minimal across the Action 

Alternatives. Across all the Action Alternatives, two new stations—in New Castle County, DE, and 

Bronx County, NY—could affect EFH by encroaching onto waterbodies containing federally managed 

fish species (Table 7.6-16). Additionally, one existing station where improvements are proposed

encroaches into an EFH waterbody in New London County, CT. Table 7.6-16 identifies occurrences of 

only federally managed fish species and stations where effects may occur. 

Table 7.6-16: Environmental Consequences: Stations – Essential Fish Habitat (Occurrence)

State County

Station 

ID/Type Station Name Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

DE New Castle 26/New Newport X X X

NY Bronx 81/New Co-op City X X X

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: Quantities of potential impacts associated with stations are not shown. Acreage was calculated only for new stations and 

is provided in Appendix E, Section E.06. 

7.6.4.4 Anthropogenic Influences

This Tier 1 Draft EIS considers locations of ESH resources, T&E species, federally managed fish species, 

and EFH in relation to locations of noise and vibration effects; it does not identify specific attributes 

of species or habitats with particular sensitivities to noise and vibration. Increased noise and vibration 

may create unfavorable conditions for a species to exist in those locations, resulting in a potential 

loss of life and habitat. Based on a review of the noise and vibration analyses undertaken for this Tier 

1 Draft EIS, there would be a potential for proximity effects to ESH and T&E and EFH species and their 

habitats from increased noise and vibration levels. Noise impacts would occur in all Action 

Alternatives in all states, whereas vibration impacts would be generally less numerous and more 

varied in counties and states across the Action Alternatives (ranging between 3 counties/states in 

Alternative 1 and 26 counties in 8 states in Alternative 3). As a result, there is greater potential for 

noise impacts to ESH and T&E and EFH species than impacts resulting from vibration.

Ecologically Sensitive Habitat

All states have known potential for total area of ESH impact, and all states within the Affected 

Environment would have (moderate to severe) noise and vibration affects at various locations. Noise 

and vibration acreage of impacts analysis for ESH resources would be similar to the total area of ESH 

Affected Environment and Representative Resource analysis. Connecticut would have the most noise 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.6-25

and vibration acreages of impacts across all Action Alternatives, with the highest overall total area of 

ESH acreage of impact recorded in Alternative 1 (New London County). However, the quantity of 

vibration impacts would vary per state and county across the Action Alternatives, with Alternative 1 

having the lowest occurrence (and therefore lowest potential for impacts) of total area of ESH impact 

and Alternative 2 having the highest occurrence of total area of ESH vibration impacts. able 7.6-17

and Table 7.6-18 summarizes areas of ESH that coincide with identified noise and vibration impacts, 

respectively. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

All states and Washington, D.C., within the Affected Environment would have moderate to severe 

noise impacts. All states (except Washington, D.C.) also have known T&E species occurrences. As a 

result, all states have the potential for noise impacts to intersect with T&E species. From Washington, 

D.C., to Westchester, NY, potential noise impacts to T&E species would be the same for all the Action 

Alternatives. From New York to Massachusetts, Alternatives 1 and 2 would have similar noise impacts

to T&E species from state to state (Alternative 2 would have slightly more impacts), and Alternative 

3 would have higher overall numbers of potential noise impacts to T&E species from state to state. 

The only counties with no T&E species that would have no potential for noise impacts include 

Washington, D.C.; Prince George’s County, MD; Essex County, NJ; Tolland County, CT; and Worcester, 

Middlesex, and Norfolk Counties, MA. Where there is potential for T&E species impacts, potential 

impacts range from 1 (multiple counties and states) to 14 species (Suffolk, NY). Table 7.6-19 and 

Table 7.6-20 summarize occurrences of T&E species with identified noise and vibration effects, 

respectively, by state and county. A complete listing of species and habitat occurrences with noise 

and vibration effects is in Appendix E, Section E.06. 

The quantity of vibration impacts would vary per state across the Action Alternatives with Alternative 

1 having the fewest and Alternative 3 having the most. As a result, by state, Alternative 1 would have 

the lowest potential for vibration impacts to T&E species, Alternative 2 would have mid-range 

potential, and Alternative 3 would have the greatest potential for vibration impacts to T&E species. 

In general, only the eight states (except Washington, D.C.) within the Study Area could have vibration 

impacts and have known T&E species occurrences. Similar to noise impacts, only the eight states 

could have vibration impacts that intersect with T&E species. The only counties with no T&E species 

that would have no potential for vibration impacts include Bucks, PA; Mercer, Union, and Essex, NJ; 

Tolland, CT; and Worcester and Norfolk, MA. Where there is potential for vibration impacts to T&E 

species, potential impacts range from 1 (multiple counties and states) to 14 species (Suffolk, NY).
7.6. Ecological Resources

Page | 7.6-26 T

Table 7.6-17: Ecologically Sensitive Habitat Acreage with Noise Effects

Geography County

Alternative1 

ESH

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

ESHSev Mod S

D.C. 230 N Y 230 

MD Prince Georges 1,080 N Y 1,080 

Anne Arundel 2,305 N Y 2,305 

Baltimore 1,140 N Y 1,140 

Harford 2,245 N Y 2,245 

Cecil 2,960 N Y 5,505 

DE New Castle 2,160 N Y 2,660 

PA

Delaware 145 N Y 285 

Philadelphia 670 N Y 970 

Bucks 1,240 N Y 1,240 

NJ

Mercer 1,430 N Y 1,425 

Middlesex 2,535 N Y 2,600 

Union 65 N Y 70 

Essex 90 Y Y 100 

Hudson 1,050 Y Y 1,050 

NY

New York 730 Y Y 790 

Queens 75 Y Y 85 

Bronx 825 Y Y 830 

Westchester 105 Y Y 160 

Nassau

Suffolk

CT

Fairfield 1,535 Y Y 1,665 

New Haven 4,040 Y Y 5,830 

Hartford 1,990 

Tolland 4,855 

Windham 5,385 

Middlesex 1,980 Y Y 

New London 11,465 Y Y 6,260 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequ

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.6-17: Ecologically Sensitive Habitat Acreage with Noise Effects (continued)

Geography County

Alternative1 

ESH

Alternative 1 Alternative2 

ESHSev Mod S

RI Washington 6,890 Y Y 

Kent 690 Y Y 690 

Providence 110 Y Y 5,365 

MA

Bristol 1,685 Y Y 2,065 

Worcester

Middlesex

Norfolk 2,590 Y Y 2,580 

Suffolk 140 Y Y 140 
7.6. Ecological Resources

Page | 7.6-28 T

Table 7.6-17: Ecologically Sensitive Habitat Acreage with Noise Effects (continued)

Geography County

Alternative 3

Washington, D.C. to New 

York

New York City to 

Hartford via Central 

Connecticut

New York City to 

Hartford via Long Island

Hartford to Boston via

Providence

ESH 

Occurrence Sev Mod

ESH 

Occurrence Sev Mod

ESH 

Occurrence Sev Mod

ESH 

Occurrence Sev Mod

D.C. 235 Y Y

MD Prince 

Georges

1,105 Y Y

Anne Arundel 2,585 Y Y

Baltimore 2,505 Y Y

Harford 3,765 Y Y

Cecil 5,510 Y Y

DE New Castle 2,555 Y Y

PA

Delaware 305 Y Y

Philadelphia 1,320 Y Y

Bucks 1,265 Y Y

NJ

Mercer 1,455 Y Y

Middlesex 2,655 Y Y

Union 70 Y Y

Essex 100 Y Y

Hudson 1,235 Y Y

NY

New York 1,120 Y Y 805 Y Y

Queens 90 Y Y 360 Y Y

Bronx 855 Y Y 825 Y Y

Westchester 5,595 Y Y 105 Y Y

Nassau 575 Y Y

Suffolk 4,135 Y Y

CT

Fairfield 4,700 Y Y 3,360 Y Y

New Haven 8,515 Y Y 7,820 Y Y

Hartford 2,450 Y Y 2,645 Y Y 3,240 Y Y 

Tolland 4,855 Y Y 

Windham 5,385 Y Y 

Middlesex 1,940 Y Y 

New London 6,260 Y Y 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequ

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.6-17: Ecologically Sensitive Habitat Acreage with Noise Effects (continued)

Geography County

Alternative 3

Washington, D.C. to New 

York

New York City to 

Hartford via Central 

Connecticut

New York City to 

Hartford via Long Island

Hartford to Boston via 

Providence

ESH 

Occurrence Sev Mod

ESH 

Occurrence Sev Mod

ESH 

Occurrence Sev Mod

ESH 

Occurrence Sev Mod

RI Washington 5,600 Y Y 

Kent 690 Y Y 

Providence 5,360 Y Y 

MA

Bristol 2,085 Y Y 

Worcester 

Middlesex 

Norfolk 2,630 Y Y 

Suffolk 155 Y Y 

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

Page | 7.6-30 T

Table 7.6-18: Ecologically Sensitive Habitat Acreage with Vibration Effects 

Geography County Alt. 1 Alternative 1 ESH Alt. 2 

D.C.

MD Baltimore Y 1,140 Y 

Harford

Cecil Y 

DE New Castle

PA

Delaware Y 

Philadelphia Y 

Bucks

NJ Mercer

Middlesex Y 

Union

Essex

Hudson

NY

New York

Kings

Queens Y 

Bronx

Westchester Y 

Putnam

Nassau

Suffolk

CT

Fairfield Y 

New Haven Y 

Hartford Y 

Tolland Y 

Windham Y 

New London Y 11,465

RI Washington Y 6,895

Providence Y 

MA

Bristol

Worcester

Norfolk

Suffolk
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequ

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.6-18: Ecologically Sensitive Habitat Acreage with Vibration Effects (continued)

Geography County

Alternative 3

Alt. 3

D.C. to 

NYC

New York City to Hartford 

via Central Connecticut

New York City to Hartford 

via Long Island

Hartford to Boston via

Providence

Alt. 3

ESH 

Occurrence Alt. 3

ESH 

Occurrence Alt. 3

ESH 

Occurrence 

D.C.

MD Baltimore Y 2,505

Harford Y 3,765

Cecil Y 5,510

DE New Castle Y 2,555

PA

Delaware Y 305

Philadelphia Y 1,320

Bucks

NJ Mercer

Middlesex Y 2,655

Union

Essex

Hudson Y 1,235

NY

New York Y 1,120 Y 805

Kings Y 45

Queens Y 90 Y 360

Bronx Y 855

Westchester Y 5,595

Putnam Y 1,450

Nassau Y 575

Suffolk Y 4,135

CT

Fairfield Y 4,700 Y 3,360

New Haven Y 8,515 Y 7,820

Hartford Y 2,450 Y 2,645 Y 3,240 

Tolland Y 4,855 

Windham Y 5,385 

New London

RI Washington

Providence Y 5,360 
7.6. Ecological Resources

Page | 7.6-32 T

Table 7.6-18: Ecologically Sensitive Habitat Acreage with Vibration Effects (continued)

Geography County

Alternative 3

Alt. 3

D.C. to 

NYC

New York City to Hartford 

via Central Connecticut

New York City to Hartford 

via Long Island

Hartford to Boston via 

Providence

Alt. 3

ESH 

Occurrence Alt. 3

ESH 

Occurrence Alt. 3

ESH 

Occurrence 

MA

Bristol Y 2,085 

Worcester 

Norfolk Y 2,630 

Suffolk Y 155 

Blank Cell = No effects identified for subject resource for listed station for specified alternative.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequ

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.6-19: Threatened and Endangered and Federally Managed Fish Species Occurrences with Noise Effec

State County

T&E

Species

Identified

within

County

Federally 

Managed 

Fish

Identified

within

County

Noise Impact Buffers

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

2

Alternative 3

D.C. to 

NYC

New York City to 

Hartford Ha

Central 

Connecticut

Long 

Island Provide

Sev Mod Sev Mod Sev Mod Sev Mod Sev Mod Sev 

MD Anne

Arundel Y N N Y Y Y Y Y

Baltimore Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y

Harford Y Y N Y N Y Y Y

Cecil Y N N Y Y Y Y Y

DE New Castle Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y

PA Delaware Y N N Y Y Y Y Y

Philadelphia Y N N Y Y Y Y Y

Bucks Y N N Y Y Y Y Y

NJ Mercer Y N N Y Y Y Y Y

Middlesex Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y

Union Y N N Y Y Y Y Y

Essex N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Hudson Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

NY New York Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Kings N Y

Queens Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Bronx Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Westchester Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Nassau Y N Y Y

Suffolk Y Y Y Y
7.6. Ecological Resources

Page | 7.6-34 T

Table 7.6-19: Threatened and Endangered and Federally Managed Fish Species Occurrences with Noise Effec

State County

T&E

Species

Identified

within

County

Federally 

Managed 

Fish

Identified

within

County

Noise Impact Buffers

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

2

Alternative 3

D.C. to 

NYC

New York City to 

Hartford Ha

Central 

Connecticut

Long 

Island Provide

Sev Mod Sev Mod Sev Mod Sev Mod Sev Mod Sev 

CT Fairfield Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

New Haven Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Hartford Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Windham Y N Y Y Y 

Middlesex Y Y Y Y N N Y 

New London Y Y Y Y N Y Y 

RI Washington Y N Y Y N N Y 

Kent Y Y Y Y N Y Y 

Providence Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

MA Bristol Y N Y Y Y Y Y 

Suffolk Y N Y Y Y Y Y 

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: Counties that have no T&E or EFH/federally managed fish species impacts are not shown. 

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

Sev = severe

Mod = moderate
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequ

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.6-20: Threatened and Endangered and Federally Managed Fish Species Occurrences with Vibration E

State County

T&E

Species

Identified

within

County

Federally 

Managed 

Fish

Identified

within

County

Vibration Impact Buffers

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 3

D.C. to 

NYC

New York City to Hartford 

Central 

Connecticut Long Island 

MD

Anne Arundel Y N

Baltimore Y Y Y Y Y

Harford Y Y Y

Cecil Y N Y Y

DE New Castle Y Y Y

PA

Delaware Y N Y Y

Philadelphia Y N Y Y

Bucks Y N

NJ

Mercer Y N

Middlesex Y Y Y Y

Union Y N

Hudson Y Y Y

NY

New York Y Y Y Y

Queens Y Y Y Y Y

Bronx Y Y Y

Westchester Y Y Y Y

Nassau Y N Y

Suffolk Y Y Y

CT

Fairfield Y Y Y Y Y

New Haven Y Y Y Y Y

Hartford Y Y Y Y Y 

Windham Y N Y 

Middlesex Y N

New London Y Y Y
7.6. Ecological Resources

Page | 7.6-36 T

Table 7.6-20: Threatened and Endangered and Federally Managed Fish Species Occurrences with Vibration E

State County

T&E

Species

Identified

within

County

Federally 

Managed

Fish

Identified

within

County

Vibration Impact Buffers

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 3

D.C. to 

NYC

New York City to Hartford 

Central 

Connecticut Long Island 

RI

Washington Y N Y

Kent Y N

Providence Y Y Y 

MA

Bristol Y N 

Suffolk Y N 

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: Counties that have no T&E or EFH/federally managed fish species impacts are not shown.

Blank Cell = No effects identified for subject resource for listed station for specified alternative.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.6-37

Essential Fish Habitat

Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts have no federally managed fish species and 

therefore no potential for noise impacts to these fish species. The six remaining states within the 

Study Area could have moderate to severe noise impacts to fish species occurrences. From 

Washington, D.C., to Westchester, NY, potential noise impacts to fish species would be the same 

across the Action Alternatives. From New York to Massachusetts, Alternatives 1 and 2 would have 

similar impacts from state to state (Alternative 2 would have slightly more impacts), and Alternative 

3 would have higher overall numbers of potential federally managed fish species noise impacts from 

state to state. The only counties with no fish species that would have no potential for noise impacts 

include Prince George’s and Anne Arundel Counties, MD; Mercer and Union Counties, NJ; 

Westchester and Nassau Counties, NY; Tolland and Windham Counties, CT; and Washington, RI. 

Where there is potential for federally managed fish species impacts, potential impacts range from 1 

(multiple counties and states) to 15 fish species (Fairfield and New London Counties, CT).

There is variation in the quantity of vibration impacts per state across the Action Alternatives with 

Alternative 1 having the fewest and Alternative 3 having the most. As a result, by state, Alternative 1 

would have the lowest potential for vibration impacts to federally managed fish species, Alternative 

2 would have mid-range potential, and Alternative 3 would have the greatest potential for vibration 

impacts to fish species. Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts have no fish species and 

therefore no potential for vibration impacts. The remaining six states within the Study Area could 

have vibration impacts and federally managed fish species occurrences. Only the following counties 

with no fish species have no potential for vibration impacts: Prince George’s, Anne Arundel, and Cecil 

Counties, MD; Mercer, Union, and Essex Counties, NJ; Kings, Putnam, and Nassau Counties, NY; 

Tolland and Windham Counties, CT; and Washington, RI. Where there is potential for vibration 

impacts to federally managed fish species, potential impacts range from 1 (multiple counties and 

states) to 15 fish species (Fairfield, CT).

7.6.5 Context Area 

The distribution and quantity of ecological resources within the Context Area are similar to the 

Affected Environment for ESH, T&E species, and EFH species.

The Context Area is inclusive of the Affected Environment, and as a result, any T&E or federally 

managed fish species listed in the Affected Environment would also occur in the Context Area. The 

Maryland Darter (Etheostoma sellare) in Harford County, MD, was identified as the only T&E species 

with critical habitat to occur in the Context Area as well as the Affect Environment. The area (linear 

feet) of overlap between the Context Area and species’ critical habitat was calculated and recorded 

for the Context Area (refer to Appendix E, Section E.06).

Three T&E species are known to occur only within the Context Area for the Action Alternatives. These 

species include the Hay’s Spring Amphipod (Stygobromus hayi), an endemic endangered arthropod 

occurring in springs along Rock Creek in Washington, D.C.; the Sensitive Joint-Vetch (Aeschynomene 

virginica), a threatened plant known to occur within the Context Area in Maryland and New Jersey; 

and the Knieskern’s Beaked-Rush (Rhynchospora knieskernii) an endemic threatened plant species 

known to occur within the Context Area in New Jersey.
7.6. Ecological Resources

Page | 7.6-38 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Three federally managed fish species are known to occur only within the Context Area for the Action 

Alternatives. These species include the Monkfish (Lophius americanus) and Clearnose Skate (Raja 

eglanteria), which are known to occur within the Context Area only in Queens County, NY (Jamaica 

Bay); and the Atlantic Halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus), which is known to occur within the 

Context Area only in Suffolk County, MA (Boston Harbor). 

These T&E and federally managed fish species and associated habitats will not be investigated further 

since they are not known to occur within the Affected Environment, and are considered species 

requiring no further evaluation. If an Action Alternative alignment shift were to occur, these species 

would be reevaluated to determine if they fall within the Affected Environment and are species of 

concern. 

7.6.6 Potential Mitigation Strategies

7.6.6.1 Ecologically Sensitive Habitats

Potential mitigation strategies should include restricting ESH area disturbance to the perimeter of the 

habitat area, minimizing habitat fragmentation, implementing a forest conservation/ management 

plan, implementing best management practices with regard to wildlife crossings, native vegetation 

stabilization, and tree replacement. Furthermore, where and when feasible, mitigation strategies 

should also consider removal of obsolete impervious surfaces from riparian and shoreline areas and 

the improvement of ESH areas outside the Study Area, including wetlands and forested land. 

7.6.6.2 Threatened and Endangered Species

Potential mitigation strategies should include continued coordination with the USFWS for specific 

mitigation measures for any affected T&E species, adherence to habitat conservation plans and 

permitting requirements, restricting disturbance of T&E habitat, and implementation of best 

management practices and invasive species control. Program-wide or habitat-specific mitigation 

strategies could be developed with the agencies, as appropriate, through the permit process.

7.6.6.3 Essential Fish Habitat

Potential mitigation strategies should include establishing monitoring and adaptive management 

practices for affected federally managed fish species, establishing a stocking program, improving EFH 

areas not related to the Study Area, and treating elevated levels of chemicals, metals, and other 

contaminants in the waterbodies near the Study Area. 

7.6.7 Subsequent Tier 2 Analysis and ESA Section 7 compliance

Tier 2 assessments would refine the impact assessment based on design and site-specific mapping. 

In addition to analyzing potential impacts to protected resources for the Tier 2 assessment, an 

analysis of impacts to common ecological resources would be required if impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation measures to offset these site-specific impacts would be developed. 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.6-39

7.6.7.1 Ecologically Sensitive Habitat

The information acquired from the evaluation of ESH areas in this Tier 1 Draft EIS would inform and 

direct analysis needed during Tier 2 studies. Subsequent analysis, including field surveys for ESH areas 

would be necessary to identify the most sensitive ESH areas.

7.6.7.2 Threatened and Endangered Species

The information acquired from the evaluation of T&E species analysis in this Tier 1 Draft EIS would

inform and direct analysis needed during Tier 2 studies. Subsequent analysis, including field surveys 

for “species/areas of concern” would be necessary to identify sensitive T&E habitat areas and 

potential impacts to T&E species. Biological assessments should be conducted to determine whether 

suitable habitat is present for listed species. 

Consultation with USFWS under Section 7 of the federal ESA and with the NMFS under Section 7 and 

under Section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act for 

potential impacts to EFH is ongoing and would continue to be required. The FRA hosted presentations 

with the NMFS (August 4, 2014) and the USFWS (January 7, 2015), providing an overview of NEC 

FUTURE and information regarding the Ecological Resources effects assessment. The presentation 

also provided a platform for discussing Section 7 consultation and NOAA/NMFS and USFWS 

expectations for continued agency coordination. It was determined that no formal Section 7 

consultation would occur at the Tier 1 EIS analysis. (See Appendix E, Section E.06, for the email 

correspondence, March 20, 2015.)

The FRA submitted a list of species and critical habitats identified for inclusion in the Tier 1 Draft EIS

to NOAA/NMFS and USFWS: November 3, 2014 (for NOAA/NMFS feedback) and January 13, 2015 (for 

USFWS feedback). NOAA/NMFS provided feedback December 19, 2014, and four USFWS field offices

have provided feedback: Pennsylvania (February 9, 2015), New York (March 2015), New England 

(April 4, 2015), and Chesapeake Bay (May 14, 2015). The FRA reviewed and incorporated the 

correspondence into this Tier 1 Draft EIS. 

Formal consultation by the FRA or other federal action agency with the USFWS and NMFS would be 

considered at the Tier 2 environmental compliance process if the Tier 2 project’s impacts are “likely

to adversely affect” a federally protected species. In most instances, any activity that proposes 

disturbance or “take” of a protected species or habitat is prohibited by the laws and regulations. 

When formal consultation occurs, the USFWS or NMFS must prepare a Biological Opinion, stating 

whether the project would put the continued existence of any listed species or EFH in jeopardy. If 

jeopardy is considered likely and unavoidable, the project must be subsequently exempted or it 

cannot proceed. If jeopardy is not considered likely or if it is avoidable, then the USFWS or NMFS 

would issue an Incidental Take Statement, with any conditions of approval or mitigation measures, 

and the project may commence. 

7.6.7.3 Essential Fish Habitat

The information derived from the evaluation of EFH in this Tier 1 Draft EIS would inform and direct 

the analysis needed during Tier 2 studies. The Tier 1 EIS and Record of Decision will identify any areas 

and fish species of concern that may require subsequent analysis. Formal consultation with the NMFS 
7.6. Ecological Resources

Page | 7.6-40 Tier 1 Draft EIS

would then be undertaken if the federal agency undertaking the action identifies the possibility of 

affecting federally protected EFHs.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) requires the federal 

agency to consult with the Secretary of Commerce with respect to any action authorized, funded, or 

undertaken or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken, by such agency that may adversely 

affect any EFH identified under the Act (refer to previous section for more information). If an adverse 

effect may occur to EFH and federally managed fish species protected under the MSFCMA, a written 

EFH Assessment should be prepared describing the effects of the project on EFH and fish species, and 

identifying proposed mitigation measures. The NMFS will then provide EFH Conservation 

Recommendations to avoid and/or minimize adverse effects to EFH and fish species inhabiting these 

EFHs.