TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Climate Change 

and Adaptation

7.15

7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.15-1

7.15 CLIMATE CHANGE AND ADAPTATION

7.15.1 Introduction

This chapter focuses on the effects of climate change on 

rail infrastructure along the existing Northeast Corridor 

(NEC) and proposed Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (Draft EIS) Action Alternatives.

This assessment identifies areas of the existing and 

proposed rail infrastructure that may be vulnerable to the 

effects of climate change, including sea level rise and storm 

surge, increased storm frequency and severity, and morefrequent and severe extreme heat and cold events. Climate 

change effects on rail infrastructure can result in delays and 

closure of rail services and assets. An important 

consideration for the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

is to understand areas that are vulnerable to the effects of 

climate change and to minimize those effects through future planning, design, and potential 

adaptation features of those assets. 

This chapter also considers the analysis of greenhouse gases (GHG) presented in Chapter 7.13, Air 

Quality. GHG emissions are a key contributor to the changing global climate and influence the 

frequency and intensity of storms, rising sea levels, heat waves, and cold snaps.

7.15.1.1 State-level Climate Change-Related Action

Each state within the Study Area has legislative or policy actions that support consideration of climate 

change adaptation in their policies, programs, and investment decisions. The FRA reviewed the U.S. 

Department of Transportation’s (U.S. DOT) 2014 Climate Adaptation Plan and climate change-related 

policies and initiatives that have been published by various government agencies in Washington, D.C., 

and the eight states along the NEC. From these sources, the FRA identified the following common 

themes:

4 Support coordination and cooperation of planning agencies and infrastructure owners and 

operators

4 Increase the understanding of climate science and how hazards may alter over time (e.g., 

downscale climate projections and model higher-resolution inundation and coastal hazards)

4 Assess the vulnerability of infrastructure assets and systems

4 Integrate consideration of climate change and adaptation into existing decision-making 

processes, including planning, emergency management, design and maintenance of assets

4 Build capacity of stakeholders to plan for climate change through education, information sharing,

and development of tools and resources to support decision making

Key Resource: Climate Change and 

Adaptation

§ Identifies areas at highest risk from 

inundation from sea level rise, storm 

surge flooding, and riverine flooding. 

§ Identifies counties where existing and 

proposed infrastructure are vulnerable 

to flooding hazards. 

§ Discusses resiliency benefits of new 

segments proposed by Action 

Alternatives.
7.15. Climate Change and Adaptation

Page | 7.15-2 Tier 1 Draft EIS

The FRA developed a climate change analytical approach for this Tier 1 Draft EIS to be consistent with 

these themes. In particular, this analysis seeks to identify where infrastructure may be most 

vulnerable; to provide information to support identifying a Preferred Alternative that can improve 

resiliency and provide redundancy; and to coordinate with relevant planning agencies, infrastructure 

owners, and operators in incorporating previous studies and planning efforts. 

7.15.1.2 Definition of Resource

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency describes climate change as any significant change in the 

measures of climate lasting for an extended period, which includes major changes in temperature, 

precipitation, or wind patterns (among other effects) that occur over several decades or longer.1 This 

analysis includes consideration of the following climate impact categories:

4 Sea Level Rise Flooding, an impact that puts areas at risk of inundation during high-tide water 

levels (e.g., Mean Higher High Water [MHHW]) associated with current climate conditions, and 

mid-century and end-of-century sea level rise scenarios.

4 Coastal Storm Surge Flooding, an impact that puts areas at risk of inundation from storm surge 

events (e.g., 100-year coastal storm surge event) during current climate conditions, and midcentury and end-of-century sea level rise scenarios.

4 Riverine Flooding, an impact that puts areas at risk of inundation from extreme precipitation 

events (e.g., 100-year precipitation event) during current climate conditions, and mid-century 

and end-of-century sea level rise and climate scenarios.

4 Extreme Heat and Extreme Cold Events are impacts associated with extreme heat and cold 

events associated with current, mid-century, and end-of-century climate conditions.

7.15.1.3 Effects-Assessment Methodology

The FRA developed an effects-assessment methodology for the climate change assessment. The 

methodology provides a detailed definition of climate change, data sources, an explanation on how 

the FRA defined and established the Affected Environment, and how it evaluated and reported the 

effects of climate change. 

The FRA assessed current climate conditions and the following two future climate scenarios:

4 Near-term (mid-century) scenario equivalent to a 30- to 50-year horizon (e.g., 2040–2060), using 

a sea level rise projection of 1 foot (12 inches)

4 Long-term (end-of-century) scenario equivalent to a 50- to 100-year horizon (e.g., 2075–2100+),

using a sea level rise projection of 6 feet (72 inches)

 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014, March 18). Climate Change: Basic Information. Retrieved 

September 10, 2014, from United States Environment Protection Agency: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.15-3

The FRA used this multi-scenario approach to analyze different levels of climate change-related 

effects that encompass the range of projections and forecast timeframes used by researchers and 

regulatory agencies in the Northeast.

The FRA used each of these climate scenarios to examine how climate change would affect the 

existing NEC over time; the climate change effects on the existing NEC serve as a baseline against 

which the FRA can compare the effects of climate change on the Action Alternatives. The FRA applied 

the near- and long-term scenarios to each Action Alternative to understand how proposed 

improvements associated with each Action Alternative affects the resiliency of the NEC passenger rail 

system to sea level rise flooding, coastal storm flooding and riverine flooding, and extreme heat

events. Extreme cold events are less well documented; therefore, a qualitative analysis of the effects 

of extreme cold events is presented. Table 7.15-1 summarizes key factors associated with the climate 

change and adaptation methodology. (Appendix E, Section E.15 provides more detailed information.)

Table 7.15-1: Effects-Assessment Methodology Summary: Climate Change and 

Adaptation

Climate Change 

Effects

Affected 

Environment Type of Assessment Outcome

Sea level rise 

flooding

2,000 feet, 

centered on the 

Representative 

Route

Quantitative: Acres Identification of counties and 

Alternatives at highest risk of inundation

Coastal storm 

surge flooding

2,000 feet

centered on the 

Representative 

Route

Quantitative: Acres Identification of counties and 

Alternatives at highest risk of inundation

Riverine flooding 2,000 feet

centered on the 

Representative 

Route

Quantitative: Percentage 

increase in flood hazard 

zone

Percentage increase in flood hazard 

zones within each state and 

identification of counties and 

Alternatives at highest risk of inundation

Extreme heat 

events

Study Area Quantitative: Change in 

the annual number of days 

over 80o

F, 95oF and 110oF.

(number of days)

Qualitative discussion of potential effects 

of an increase in extreme heat on rail 

infrastructure

Extreme cold 

events

Study Area Qualitative Qualitative discussion of potential effects 

of extreme cold days on rail 

infrastructure

Source: NEC FUTURE Climate Change Affects Assessment Methodology, Appendix E, E.15, 2014.

Data and analysis presented for the Affected Environment provide some understanding of the extent 

of flooding; however, to better understand the effects of inundation risks associated with climate 

change on the existing and proposed rail infrastructure, it is important to focus on the narrower 

Representative Route. This analysis presents a series of graphs that show the percentage of the total 

acreage for the Affected Environment and Representative Route at risk from noted flooding hazards.

This “cumulative” approach allows the analysis to show the total acreage at risk from an end-to-end 

perspective. To establish a point of reference, or baseline, analysis of the existing NEC is included. All 

of the Action Alternatives incorporate improvements to the existing NEC. However, to better 
7.15. Climate Change and Adaptation

Page | 7.15-4 Tier 1 Draft EIS

understand the inundation risks associated with new infrastructure, or off-corridor segments, 

associated with the Action Alternatives, these off-corridor segments have been extracted to help 

show how the inundation risks of these segments compared to those on the existing NEC. Both 

analyses are presented—one showing each climate change effects on each alternative end-to-end, 

inclusive of the existing NEC, as well as a focused analysis comparing the risks associated with the 

existing NEC separate from the proposed off-corridor segments associated with each Action 

Alternative. In this way, the climate change analysis informs the evaluation of the alternatives, by 

examining not only the resiliency and vulnerability of the improvements associated with each Action 

Alternative, but also the effectiveness of the redundant capacity each Action Alternative proposes.

Limitations

The assessment of climate change effects aims to identify which of the Action Alternatives are at 

greatest risk from climate change-related effects, based on the use of existing and readily available 

data and information that are consistent across the Study Area. This assessment estimated the 

change in flood hazard areas but did not undertake flood modeling to develop new inundation maps 

for future climate scenarios for all counties within the Study Area.

When reviewing the findings of this assessment, the FRA applied the following limitations:

4 Site-specific modeling of inundation and flood risks was not conducted.

4 Two sea level rise scenarios (1 foot and 6 feet) were applied consistently across the Study Area. 

This approach does not account for potential regional variation of projected sea level rise or land 

subsidence. 

4 There is potential overlap in the results of the coastal storm surge assessment and the riverine 

flooding assessment, since the riverine flooding assessment was based on the data used in the 

Floodplain analysis, which includes both riverine and coastal floodplains.

4 The projected changes in riverine flooding are based on the FIMA and FEMA 2013 Study.2 This 

study considered changes in climate conditions and estimated percentage changes in flood 

hazard areas across the United States. The FRA applied the percentage increases in riverine flood 

hazard area for only the Affected Environment. A limitation to the approach used in this 

assessment is that if a county has zero acres at risk of inundation from riverine flooding under 

current climate conditions it was estimated that they will also have zero acres at risk under midand end-of-century climate conditions (for example a 20 percent increase on zero acres equals 

zero acres). 

4 To avoid making false assumptions, the assessment of flood risk for mid-century and end-ofcentury scenarios assumes that no adaptation actions would be taken at a regional level. 

 2 Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA) & Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

(2013). The Impact of Climate Change and Population Growth on the National Flood Insurance Program through 

2100. 

http://www.nfrmp.us/frmpw/2013webinarweek/docs/E3%20Coastal%20Climate%20Change/E3_FEMA_MarkCrow

ell_climate_change3.pdf
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.15-5

Adaptation actions may alter the flood risk or lessen the impacts of climate change on 

infrastructure across the No Action Alternative and the Action Alternatives. 

4 For each climate impact category associated with flooding, the assessment focuses on identifying 

the spatial extent of inundation; the analysis does not consider the elevation of existing assets 

and therefore there is potential for those assets within a flood hazard area to be inundated.

4 The assessment of GHG emissions was conducted as part of the Air Quality effects assessment. 

Chapter 7.13, Air Quality, discusses the process, findings, and limitations of the analysis of GHG 

emissions.

Refer to Appendix E, Section E.15, for further discussion regarding the limitations of the climate 

change analysis.

7.15.2 Resource Overview

Increases in GHG emissions contribute to changes in the global climate and weather events, which 

can lead to flooding, storm surges, and extreme heat and cold. As the climate continues to change, 

more-intense and more-frequent storms, rising sea levels, heat waves, and cold snaps3 will worsen 

existing weather-related rail problems and create new hazards for rail asset owners and operators. 

Inundation from flooding presents significant risks to rail assets by restricting access, undermining 

foundations, damaging assets, and increasing maintenance and repair requirements. Inundation may 

be permanent as a result of sea level rise or temporary due to storm surge or riverine flooding. 

Extreme heat events increase the risk of track buckling and potential electrical failures from sagging 

catenary wires and overheating power supplies. Extreme cold temperatures also affect tracks, 

increasing the likelihood of track separations. Snow and ice may also affect equipment, access, and 

operations. This analysis shows that some of the rail assets associated with the existing NEC and those 

affiliated with the Action Alternatives are in areas currently vulnerable to climate change effects, and 

that the risks increase over the mid-century and end-of-century.

While the focus of this assessment is on flooding and temperature-related impacts, climate change 

will worsen other natural hazards (e.g., increasing incidences of high wind events and acidification of 

ocean water). Table 7.15-2 summarizes the likely impacts of these natural hazards to rail assets 

relevant to the NEC. The following Environmental Consequences may result from the identified 

impacts to rail assets:

4 Environmental contamination (e.g., resulting from damage to storage facilities or vehicles 

containing dangerous or hazardous materials)

4 Generation of waste as a result of damaged assets and associated repairs

4 Increased resource consumption to repair, replace, or recover following an inundation or outage 

event (e.g., track buckling or derailment)

 3 Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Retrieved August 15, 2014, from 

http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/reports/global-climate-change-impacts-united-states; and Transportation 

Research Board. (2008). Special Report 290: Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation. National 

Research Council. Committee on Climate Change and U.S. Transportation. Washington, D.C.: Transportation 

Research Board. Retrieved 2014 from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr290.pdf
7.15. Climate Change and Adaptation

Page | 7.15-6 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4 Increased GHG from repair or recovery activities

4 Increased GHG from alternative transport modes used during service interruptions.

Damage to rail assets and disruption to services will also result in financial and social consequences 

due to the need to repair or replace assets, service delays to passengers, and potential safety risks, 

such as risks associated with a derailment and mobilization of contaminants. 

The following are key findings of this analysis:

4 Benefits:

– Under all Action Alternatives, there would be a net total decrease in GHG emissions in the 

year 2040. This is due to predicted shifts in mode choice from bus and aircraft to passenger 

rail and predicted changes in greater renewable energy usage. Rail represents a mode choice 

that has lower GHG emissions when compared to auto or air. Mode shift is a result of 

improved services provided by the Action Alternatives.

– All Action Alternatives afford an opportunity to build and design new or modified rail assets

in such a way that adaptive measures are included to reduce inundation effects.

– Resiliency of passenger rail travel is increased most in areas where Action Alternatives 

propose inland, off-corridor routes, farther away from the Atlantic coastline, resulting in 

fewer acres at risk of inundation from sea level rise flooding and storm surge flooding.

4 Impacts:

– Along the existing NEC, counties within Connecticut and New Jersey are at the greatest risk 

of inundation.

– Under the No Action Alternative, flooding risks, damage to assets, and disruption to services 

will continue to be a problem. 

– All Action Alternatives occur in areas at risk of inundation under the current climate 

conditions; analysis shows that the areas at risk increase over future climate conditions.

– The following counties have or are proposed to have rail assets at highest risk of inundation

by flooding type across all Action Alternatives:

o Sea level rise: Harford, MD; New Castle, DE; Philadelphia, PA; Hudson, NJ; New York City, 

NY; and New London, CT

o Storm surge flooding: New Castle, DE; Philadelphia, PA; Hudson, NJ; New London, CT; and 

New Haven, CT

o Riverine flooding: New Castle, DE; Philadelphia, PA; Hudson, NJ; New London, CT; New 

Haven, CT; and Fairfield, CT

o Under Alternative 3, the counties at highest risk of inundation from all flooding types are 

New Castle, DE, and Hudson, NJ. 
7. Affected Environment, Environment

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.15-2: Flooding and Extreme Temperature-Related Impacts to Rail Assets and Operations

Built Assets \

Climate 

Change 

Effects

Rail Tracks

(at-grade and 

embankment 

construction)

Rail Tracks

(tunnel and 

trench 

construction)

Bridge Structures 

(aerial and major 

bridge 

construction)

Station 

Buildings and 

Platforms

Storage Facilities 

for Maintenance 

Equipment and 

Vehicles

Electrical 

Equipment, 

including 

Substations

Overhead 

Power / 

Catenary 

Wires

Sea Level Rise 

Flooding

(permanent 

inundation)

Permanent 

inundation –

cannot operate. 

Damage to 

assets, 

undermining of 

foundations, 

scour

Permanent 

inundation –

cannot operate. 

Damage to 

assets

undermining of 

foundations, 

scour

Destabilization of 

supporting 

structures, 

increased 

corrosion as a 

result of 

increased splash 

zone. Damage to 

assets

undermining of 

foundations, 

scour

Permanent 

inundation –

cannot 

operate. 

Damage to 

assets

Permanent 

inundation, 

damage to stored 

vehicles, inability to 

access, potential 

for environmental 

impacts from 

mobilization of 

contaminants

Permanent 

inundation, 

destruction of 

asset, loss of 

power

Potential 

destabilization

of supporting 

structures

Coastal Storm 

Surge 

Flooding

(temporary 

flooding)

Temporary 

inundation –

cannot operate, 

damage to 

assets

undermining of 

foundations, 

scour

Temporary 

inundation –

cannot operate, 

damage to 

assets

undermining of 

foundations, 

scour

Destabilization of 

supporting 

structures, 

increased 

corrosion as a 

result of 

increased splash 

zone.

Undermining of 

foundations, 

scour 

Temporary 

inundation –

cannot 

operate, 

damage to 

assets

Temporary 

inundation, 

damage to stored 

vehicles, inability to 

access, potential 

for environmental 

impacts from 

mobilization of 

contaminants

Temporary 

inundation, 

destruction of 

asset, loss of 

power

Potential 

destabilization 

of supporting 

structures

Riverine 

Flooding

Temporary 

inundation –

cannot operate, 

undermining of 

foundations, 

scour

Temporary 

inundation –

cannot operate, 

undermining of 

foundations, 

scour

Destabilization of 

supporting 

structures, 

potential 

restriction of 

access to bridge

Temporary 

inundation –

cannot 

operate, 

undermining 

of 

foundations, 

scour

Temporary 

inundation, 

damage to stored 

vehicles, inability to 

access, potential 

for environmental 

impacts from 

mobilization of 

contaminants

Temporary 

inundation, 

destruction of 

asset, loss of 

power

Potential 

destabilization 

of supporting 

structures
7.15. Climate Change and Adaptation

Page | 7.15-8 

Table 7.15-2: Flooding and Extreme Temperature-Related Impacts to Rail Assets and Operations (continued)

Built Assets \

Climate 

Change 

Effects

Rail Tracks

(at-grade and 

embankment 

construction)

Rail Tracks

(tunnel and 

trench 

construction)

Bridge Structures 

(aerial and major 

bridge 

construction)

Station 

Buildings and 

Platforms

Storage Facilities 

for Maintenance 

Equipment and 

Vehicles

Electrical 

Equipment, 

including 

Substations

Overhead 

Power / 

Catenary 

Wires

Extreme Heat 

Events

Buckling of track

Extreme 

temperature 

Buckling of 

track (trench 

construction 

only)

Increased 

degradation of 

materials. 

Increased 

temperature 

causes expansion 

of concrete 

joints, protective 

cladding, coatings 

and sealants on 

bridges

Degradation 

of materials 

degradation of 

materials, 

increased 

cooling 

requirements

Degradation of 

materials

Failure of 

substations

Degradation of 

materials, 

potential 

failure, 

'sagging'

Extreme Cold 

Events 

(snow /ice)

Snow – access 

issues, 

maintenance 

issues.

Track pullaparts/ 

breakage, brittle 

track, ice 

blocking 

switches

Snow – access 

issues, 

maintenance 

issues.

Track pullaparts/ 

breakage, 

brittle track, ice 

blocking 

switches

Access issues and 

increased 

degradation of 

materials

Increased 

heating costs

Snow – access 

issues, 

maintenance issues

Damage to 

distribution 

lines

Ice cover 

leading to 

sagging/ 

breaking of 

lines

Extreme Wind

No material 

impact

No material 

impact

Increased risk to 

rail bridge 

stability

Direct damage 

to assets and 

potential for 

damage from

wind-blown 

debris 

Direct damage to 

assets and 

potential for 

damage from windblown debris

Direct damage 

to assets and 

potential for 

damage from

wind-blown 

debris

Direct damage 

to assets and 

potential for 

damage from

wind-blown 

debris
7. Affected Environment, Environment

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.15-2: Flooding and Extreme Temperature-Related Impacts to Rail Assets and Operations (continued)

Built Assets \

Climate 

Change 

Effects

Rail Tracks

(at-grade and 

embankment 

construction)

Rail Tracks

(tunnel and 

trench 

construction)

Bridge Structures 

(aerial and major 

bridge 

construction)

Station 

Buildings and 

Platforms

Storage Facilities 

for Maintenance 

Equipment and 

Vehicles

Electrical 

Equipment, 

including 

Substations

Overhead 

Power / 

Catenary 

Wires

Increased 

Ocean Acidity 

Increased rate 

of corrosion of 

assets exposed 

to inundation or 

sea spray

Increased rate 

of corrosion of 

assets exposed 

to inundation or 

sea spray

Increased rate of 

corrosion of 

assets exposed to 

inundation or sea 

spray

Increased rate 

of corrosion of 

assets 

exposed to 

inundation or 

sea spray

Increased rate of 

corrosion of assets 

exposed to 

inundation or sea 

spray

Increased rate 

of corrosion of 

assets 

exposed to 

inundation or 

sea spray

Increased rate 

of corrosion of 

assets exposed 

to inundation 

or sea spray

Sources: NEC FUTURE team, 2015; Federal Transit Administration. (2011). Flooded Bus Barns and Buckled Rails: Public Transportation and Climate Change Ada

http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_0001_-_Flooded_Bus_Barns_and_Buckled_Rails.pdf; Karl, T. M. (2009). Climate Change Impacts in the United States. 

http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/reports/global-climate-change-impacts-united-states; New Jersey Transportation Planning Authority. (2011). Climate C

Assessment of New Jersey's Transportation Infrastructure. Retrieved from http://www.njtpa.org/Planning/Regional-Studies/Recently-Completed-Studies/Vuln

Transporta/FHWAConceptualModel/CCVR_REPORT_FINAL_4_2_12_ENTIRE.aspx; Transportation Research Board. (2008). Special Report 290: Potential Impact

Transportation. Retrieved 2014 from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr290.pdf; and U.S. Department of Transportation. (2014). Climate Adaptation P

Infrastructure and System Resilience. U.S. Department of Transportation. Retrieved November 11, 2014.
7.15. Climate Change and Adaptation

Page | 7.15-10 Tier 1 Draft EIS

7.15.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

GHG emissions are a key contributor to the changing global climate. Continued increases in global 

GHG emissions are projected to lead to more significant changes in extreme weather events and their 

associated risks to rail assets and operations. The analysis presented in Chapter 7.13, Air Quality, and 

Chapter 5, Transportation Effects, indicates that under all Action Alternatives, there would be a net 

total decrease in GHG emissions in the year 2040 due to predicted shifts in mode choice as a result 

of implementing any of the Action Alternatives and predicted changes in greater renewable energy 

usage.

As such, implementation of any of the Action Alternatives would likely be a lesser contributor to GHG

emissions affecting climate change, when compared to the No Action Alternative.

7.15.4 Inundation Risks to Rail Infrastructure

The analysis presented in this section shows that portions of the existing NEC and the Representative 

Routes of all Action Alternatives have some risk of inundation under current climate conditions. The 

extent of that risk increases under both the mid-century and end-of-century scenarios. The following 

subsections discuss the current, mid-century, and end-of-century inundation risks (sea level rise and

coastal storm surge) for the existing NEC and all Action Alternatives. While the FRA assessed the midcentury and end-of-century riverine flood risk for the Affected Environment, because of limitations 

in readily available information, the FRA applied only the current climate conditions to the analysis 

of the Representative Route for riverine flooding (see Section 7.15.1.3).

7.15.4.1 Existing NEC

Much of the existing NEC is along the eastern shoreline of the United States and either crosses or is 

adjacent to numerous streams, rivers, wetlands, and floodplains, rendering it susceptible to 

inundation from various sources (see Chapter 7.5, Hydrologic/Water Resources). Under current 

climate conditions, of the total area within the Affected Environment, 3 percent is at risk for flooding 

associated with sea level rise; 10 percent is at risk for flooding associated with storm surge flooding; 

and 19 percent is at risk for flooding associated with riverine flooding. Under the mid-century and 

end-of-century scenarios, these inundation risks associated from the same sources increase. Under 

the end-of-century scenario, risks associated with sea level rise increase to nearly 10 percent; 

increase to almost 20 percent with storm surge flooding; and increase to over 30 percent with riverine 

flooding.

For each flooding hazard, Connecticut (Fairfield, New Haven, Middlesex, and New London Counties)

contains the highest percentages of lands within the Affected Environment susceptible to each 

flooding hazard.

When focusing on the land encompassed by the right-of-way of the existing NEC—and not the 

broader Affected Environment—the percentage of land area within that right-of-way at risk is

1 percent (sea level rise), 8 percent (storm surge flooding), and 13 percent (riverine flooding). Under 

the end-of-century scenario, those flooding risks for the route of the existing NEC increase to 

approximately 6 percent (sea level rise) and 20 percent (storm surge flooding) (the assessment of 

riverine flooding risk was conducted only for the current climate conditions).
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.15-11

Figure 7.15-1 shows the risk profiles of each flooding hazard for each state and county for the 

Affected Environment for the current climate conditions as well as the mid-century and end-ofcentury scenarios. Figure 7.15-2 shows the same for the route of the existing NEC.

7.15.4.2 No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative includes improvements that primarily exist along the existing NEC. As such, 

the analysis presented for the existing NEC provides a good proxy for identifying inundation risks 

associated with the No Action Alternative. As the climate changes, the risks associated with flooding 

are likely to increase, hastening the degradation of assets along the existing NEC. Without investment 

to provide more resilient infrastructure repair and maintenance costs, disruptions to services are 

projected to increase under the No Action Alternative as a result of the effects of climate change.

7.15.4.3 Action Alternatives

Similar to the existing NEC and No Action Alternative, all Action Alternatives would be at risk from all 

flooding hazards under current climate conditions. Figure 7.15-3 through Figure 7.15-5 compare the 

cumulative percentage of the total acreage in the Affected Environment at risk for each flood hazard

for all Action Alternatives. While the total percentage of Affected Environment at risk from flooding 

varies depending on the flood hazard, the existing NEC has the highest percentage of acreage in the 

Affected Environment at risk for all flooding hazards. Alternative 1 has the next highest percentage

of total acreage at risk from flooding hazards, followed by Alternative 2, and lastly all Alternative 3 

route options. There is some variation within the Alternative 3 route options as to which has the 

lowest percentage of the Affected Environment at risk for each hazard. For example, Alternative 3 via 

Long Island/Worcester (Alternative 3.3) has the lowest percentage of the Affected Environment at 

risk from sea level rise and storm surge flooding, while Alterative 3 via Long Island/Providence 

(Alternative 3.2) has the lowest percentage of the Affected Environment at risk from riverine flooding. 

While the existing NEC is included in the analysis of each Action Alternative, the percentage of acres 

at risk in the Action Alternatives is lower because the total number of acres at risk does not increase 

proportionally with the increase in size of the Affected Environment associated with each Action 

Alternative, thus making the percentage lower.

The percentage of the total acreage in the Affected Environment at risk is projected to increase for 

all flood hazards and Action Alternatives under the mid-century and end-of-century climate scenarios

(refer to the inserts in Figure 7.15-3 through Figure 7.15-5). For sea level rise flooding, the greatest 

increase in the number of acres at risk is likely to occur between mid-century and end-of-century

climate conditions. For storm surge flooding, the greatest increase is likely to occur between current 

climate conditions and mid-century. For riverine flooding, the increase in number of acres at risk is 

likely to be relatively consistent between each time period. Each flooding hazard is discussed in more 

detail below. Discussion of the existing NEC is included to show relative changes in flooding hazards. 
7.15. Climate Change and Adaptation

Page | 7.15-12 T

Figure 7.15-1: Current Climate Conditions (All Flooding Hazards): Cumulative Percentage of the Total Acre

Environment along the Existing NEC at Risk

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequ

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Figure 7.15-2: Current Climate Conditions (All Flooding Hazards): Cumulative Percentage of the Total Acre

Representative Route along the Existing NEC at Risk

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: There is no insert for the change in riverine flood risk over time because the assessment of riverine flooding risk in the Representative Route w

current climate conditions.
7.15. Climate Change and Adaptation

Page | 7.15-14 T

Figure 7.15-3: Current Climate Conditions (Sea Level Rise Flooding): Cumulative Percentage of the Total A

Affected Environment of the Action Alternatives at Risk

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequ

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Figure 7.15-4: Current Climate Conditions (Storm Surge Flooding): Cumulative Percentage of the Total Acr

Environment of the Action Alternatives at Risk

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
7.15. Climate Change and Adaptation

Page | 7.15-16 T

Figure 7.15-5: Current Climate Conditions (Riverine Flooding): Cumulative Percentage of the Total Acreag

Environment of the Action Alternatives at Risk

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.15-17

Sea Level Rise Flooding

The percentage of the Representative Route at risk from sea level rise flooding for the existing NEC 

and all Action Alternatives ranges 1–1.5 percent of the total acreage (Figure 7.15-6) within the 

Representative Route. The existing NEC has the lowest percentage of the Representative Route at 

risk from storm surge flooding under the current and mid-century climate conditions with Alternative

3 via Long Island/Providence (Alternative 3.2) and Alternative 3 via Long Island/Worcester 

(Alternative 3.3) being the next lowest.

Under end-of-century climate conditions, the percentage of the Representative Route at risk from 

sea level rise flooding for all Action Alternatives is likely to increase 5–6 percent. Between the midcentury and end-of-century, the ranking of which Action Alternative has the lowest percentage of the 

Representative Route at risk from sea level rise changes, with Alternative 3 via Long 

Island/Providence (Alternative 3.2) and Alternative 3 via Long Island/Worcester (Alternative 3.3)

having the lowest percentage of the Representative Route at risk from sea level rise flooding.

Alternative 2 has the highest percentage of the Representative Route at risk for sea level rise flooding

and the existing NEC has the second highest percentage of the Representative Route at risk 

(Figure 7.15-6 insert), although the differences are relatively minor.

Coastal Storm Surge Flooding

Under current climate conditions, the percentage of the Representative Route at risk from coastal 

storm surge flooding for all Action Alternatives range 7–8 percent of the total acreage (Figure 7.15-7)

within the Representative Route. The Alternative 3 route options have the lowest total percentage 

of acreage at risk from coastal storm surge flooding. The existing NEC, Alternative 1, and Alternative 

2 have the highest percentages of the Representative Route at risk (Figure 7.15-7 insert). 

The total percentage of the Representative Route at risk of coastal storm surge flooding is likely to 

increase to 15–20 percent under mid-century climate conditions and 16–21 percent under end-ofcentury climate conditions. For each timeframe, the Actions Alternatives maintain the same 

comparative ranking at risk from coastal storm surge as stated for the current climate conditions.

Alternative 3 via Long Island/Providence (Alternative 3.2), followed by Alternative 3 via Long 

Island/Worcester (Alternative 3.3), have the lowest percentage of the Representative Route at risk 

for all timeframes; indeed all Alternative 3 route options notably reduce the percentage of acres 

within the Representative Route at risk of coastal storm surge flooding. The existing NEC has the 

highest percentage of the Representative Route at risk for all timeframes (refer to the insert in 

Figure 7.15-7). 

Riverine Flooding

Under current climate conditions the percentage of the Representative Route at risk of riverine 

flooding for the existing NEC and all Action Alternatives range 12–14 percent of the total acreage. 

Alternative 3 via Long Island/Providence (Alternative 3.2) has the lowest total percentage of acreage 

at risk of riverine flooding (Figure 7.15-8). Alternatives 2 and Alternative 3 via Central 

Connecticut/Worcester (Alternative 3.4) have the highest percentage of the Representative Route at 

risk. 
7.15. Climate Change and Adaptation

Page | 7.15-18 T

Figure 7.15-6: Current Climate Conditions (Sea Level Rise Flooding): Cumulative Percentage of the Total A

Representative Route of the Action Alternatives at Risk 

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequ

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Figure 7.15-7: Current Climate Conditions (Storm Surge Flooding): Cumulative Percentage of the Total Acr

Representative Route of the Action Alternatives at Risk

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
7.15. Climate Change and Adaptation

Page | 7.15-20 T

Figure 7.15-8: Current Climate Conditions (Riverine Flooding): Cumulative Percentage of the Total Acreag

Representative Route of the Action Alternatives at Risk 

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015 

Note: There is no insert for the change in riverine flood risk over time because the assessment of riverine flooding risk in the Representative Route w

current climate conditions.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.15-21

As noted in Section 7.15.4, the FRA conducted an assessment of riverine flooding risk on the 

Representative Route only for the current climate conditions; however, it is likely that the 

total percentage of the Representative Route at risk of riverine flooding will also increase under midcentury and end-of-century climate conditions.

Table 7.15-3 summarizes the three counties located along the Representative Routes of the Action 

Alternatives that have, or are proposed to have, rail assets located where the highest total acreage

at risk from each flood hazard occur under current climate conditions. Also included in the table is 

the percentage of the total acreage within the Representative Routes at risk of flooding accounted 

for by these three counties. It is notable that New London, CT, consistently represents one of the 

counties at highest risk of all types of flooding under all Action Alternatives (with the exception of sea 

level rise flooding under Alternative 3).

Table 7.15-3: Current Climate Conditions: Counties along the Representative Routes of 

the Action Alternatives at Highest Risk of Inundation

Flooding 

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

Sea level 

rise 

flooding

< New London, CT

< Hudson, NJ

< Harford, MD

49 percent of the total 

# acres at risk

< New London, CT

< Hudson, NJ

< New York, NY

56 percent of the total 

# acres at risk

< New London, CT

< Hudson, NJ

< Philadelphia, PA

38 percent of the total 

# acres at risk

< Hudson, NJ

< New Castle, DE

< New York, NY

42 percent-44 percent

of the total # acres at 

risk

Storm 

surge 

flooding

< New London, CT

< New Haven, CT

< New Castle, DE

52 percent of the total 

# acres at risk

< New London, CT

< New Haven, CT

< Hudson, NJ

47 percent of the total 

# acres at risk

< New London, CT

< Philadelphia, PA

< New Haven, CT

44 percent of the total 

# acres at risk

< New London, CT

< Hudson, NJ

< New Castle, DE

40 -42 percent of the 

total # acres at risk

Riverine 

flooding

< New London, CT

< New Haven, CT

< Fairfield, CT

36 percent of the total 

# acres at risk

< New London, CT

< New Haven, CT

< Fairfield, CT

37 percent of the total 

# acres at risk

< New London, CT

< New Haven, CT

< Philadelphia, PA

32 percent of the total 

# acres at risk

< New London, CT

< New Castle, DE

< Hudson, NJ

21 -24 percent of the 

total # acres at risk

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

7.15.4.4 Assessment of Inundation Risk to Off-Corridor Segments of the Action Alternatives 

In Section 7.15.4.3, the analysis included the existing NEC in all Action Alternatives for the purposes 

of calculating the percentage of the Representative Route at risk from each flooding hazard. As a 

result, it was not obvious how the off-corridor segments of each Action Alternative would provide 

resilience benefits by providing an alternate route that could assist in maintaining services if coastal 

or riverine inundation issues (or other hazards) affect assets along the coast of Connecticut and 

Rhode Island. The analysis presented in this section concentrates on the areas where off-corridor 

routing is proposed, because all Action Alternatives generally follow the existing NEC between 
7.15. Climate Change and Adaptation

Page | 7.15-22 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Washington, D.C., and New York City. This analysis focuses on Connecticut and Rhode Island as areas 

where off-corridor routing is proposed as part of all Action Alternatives. 

To identify the comparative level of risk between the existing NEC and select off-corridor segments 

of the Action Alternatives, this section focuses on the percentage of the acreage in the Representative 

Route at risk from all flooding hazards under current climate conditions. The focus is on current 

climate conditions since it simplifies the analysis while still determining the comparative level of risk 

between the existing NEC and the Action Alternatives. The analysis provides a look at a comparative 

segment of the existing NEC to the proposed off-corridor route. As indicated in Figure 7.15-6 to 

Figure 7.15-8, the risks from each flooding hazard identified in this section are likely to increase under 

mid-century and end-of-century climate conditions. 

Within the Representative Route, additional analysis focuses on at-grade and trench construction 

types, as they are more sensitive to flood risk than other construction types (e.g., tunnel, aerial, 

embankment, and major bridge). While at-grade and trench construction types are the focus of the 

assessment, flooding impacts may still affect tunnels, embankments and bridge construction types 

(for example via scour or erosion).

The analysis in this section indicates that the off-corridor segments of the Action Alternatives all have 

a lower percentage of the Representative Route at risk from each flooding hazard than the 

comparative segments of the existing NEC. While the total number of acres at risk of inundation 

within each Action Alternative (and the existing NEC) is likely to increase under mid-century and endof-century climate conditions, the Action Alternatives are likely to continue to have a lower risk 

profile than the existing NEC.

Alternative 1: Old Saybrook-Kenyon (Middlesex County, CT, to Washington County, RI)

An off-corridor segment of Alternative 1 includes the Old Saybrook-Kenyon new segment between

Middlesex County, CT, and Washington County, RI, which is off the existing NEC. Figure 7.15-9

compares the percentage of the total acreage in the Representative Route at risk from all flooding 

hazards under current climate conditions for this new segment. There is minimal difference in the 

risk from sea level rise flooding between the existing NEC and the Old Saybrook-Kenyon new segment 

proposed under Alternative 1, with both routes having approximately 3 percent of the total acreage 

in this segment at risk. However, this new segment has significantly less acreage at risk from both 

coastal storm surge flooding (6 percent) and riverine flooding (9 percent) when compared to the 

existing NEC (25 percent and 29 percent, respectively). For all flooding hazards, New London County, 

CT, accounts for the greatest number of acres at risk (as evidenced by the steep increase in the lines 

on Figure 7.15-9).

Considering the constructions types that are most vulnerable to inundation from flooding,

Figure 7.15-10 further emphasizes the resilience benefits of Alternative 1 in this area. Less than 

0.5 percent of the acreage at risk in the Representative Route relate to at-grade or trench 

construction type, compared to approximately 14 percent of the existing NEC.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequ

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Figure 7.15-9: Current Climate Conditions (All Flooding Hazards): Old Saybrook-Kenyon New Segment – C

Percentage of the Total Acreage in the Representative Route of the Existing NEC and Altern

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
7.15. Climate Change and Adaptation

Page | 7.15-24 T

Figure 7.15-10: Current Climate Conditions (Storm Surge and Riverine Flooding): Construction Type – Total 

Representative Route of Alternative 1 and the Existing NEC at Risk (Old Saybrook-Kenyon N

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015. 
Error! No text of specified style in document.. Error! No text of specified style in document.

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.15-25

Alternative 2: New Haven-Hartford-Providence (New Haven County, CT to Providence County, RI)

Alternative 2 includes a segment between New Haven County, CT, and Providence County, RI, that is 

off the existing NEC corridor. Figure 7.15-11 compares the percentage of the total acreage in the 

Representative Route at risk from all flooding hazards under current climate conditions. There is 

minimal difference in the risk from sea level rise flooding between the existing NEC and Alternative 2

in this area, with both routes having less than 1 percent of the total acreage in this segment at risk. 

This new segment of Alternative 2 has considerably less acreage at risk from both coastal storm surge 

flooding (1 percent) and riverine flooding (9 percent) when compared to the existing NEC (8 percent

and 20 percent, respectively) in this same area. For all flooding hazards, for the existing NEC, New 

London County, CT, accounts for the greatest number of acres at risk (as evidenced by the steep 

increase in the lines on Figure 7.15-11). For Alternative 2, New Haven County, CT, has the highest 

number of acres at risk from storm surge flooding, and Hartford County, CT has the highest number 

of acres at risk from sea level rise flooding and riverine flooding.

Considering the constructions types that are most vulnerable to inundation from flooding, 

Figure 7.15-12 further emphasizes the resilience benefits of Alternative 2 in this area. For both storm 

surge flooding and riverine flooding, this new segment of Alternative 2 has a lower number of acres 

of at-grade or trench construction type at risk. 

Alternative 3: New York County, NY, to Suffolk County, MA 

Alternative 3 includes two route options between New York County, New York, and Hartford, CT, and 

two options between Hartford, CT, and Suffolk County, MA, that are off the existing NEC. 

Figure 7.15-13 and Figure 7.15-15 compare the percentage of the total acreage in the Representative 

Route at risk from storm surge flooding and riverine flooding, respectively. Sea level rise flooding has 

not been included because design and emergency management planning decisions typically focus on 

the 100-year storm events that are represented by coastal storm surge flooding and riverine flooding 

analysis.

All Alternative 3 route options have a lower percentage of the Representative Route at risk from 

storm surge flooding compared to the existing NEC (approximately 4–5 percent compared to 

26 percent for the existing NEC). Of the Alternative 3 route options, Alternative 3 via Central 

Connecticut/Providence (Alternative 3.1) has the lowest percentage of the Representative Route at 

risk of storm surge flooding, and Alternative 3 via Central Connecticut/Worcester (Alternative 3.4) 

has the highest, though there is no significant difference among the Alternative 3 route options.

All Alternative 3 route options have a lower percentage of the Representative Route at risk from 

riverine flooding compared to the existing NEC (between approximately 6 percent and 10 percent 

compared to 15 percent for the existing NEC). Of the Alternative 3 route options, Alternative 3 via 

Long Island/Providence (Alternative 3.2) has the lowest percentage of the Representative Route at 

risk of riverine flooding, and Alternative 3 via Central Connecticut/Worcester (Alternative 3.4) has the 

highest.
7.15. Climate Change and Adaptation

Page | 7.15-26 T

Figure 7.15-11: Current Climate Conditions (All Flooding Hazards): New Haven-Hartford-Providence – Cum

the Total Acreage in the Representative Route of Action Alternative 2 and the Existing NEC 

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

5%

0%

25%

20%

15%

10%

New Haven Middlesex New London Hartford Tolland Washington Kent Providence

Percentage of Representative Route

R

E

R

A

S

E

S

A

S

E

S

A

CT

NOTES: T

end-to-en

of all floo

of Alterna

climate co

cumulativ

addition o

from floo

counties a

A steep sl

indicates 

number o

county.

A flat slo

alternativ

a county o

acres at r

county.

RI
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequ

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Figure 7.15-12: Current Climate Conditions (Storm Surge and Riverine Flooding): New Haven-Hartford-Prov

Construction Type – Total Percentage of Representative Route of Alternative 2 and the Exis

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015. 
7.15. Climate Change and Adaptation

Page | 7.15-28 T

Figure 7.15-13: Current Climate Conditions (Storm Surge Flooding) Cumulative Percentage of the Total Acr

Representative Route of Action Alternative 3 (New York County, NY and Suffolk County, M

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequ

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Figure 7.15-14: Current Climate Conditions (Storm Surge Flooding): Construction Type – Total Percentage o

Route of Alternative 3 (New York County, NY, and Suffolk County, MA, Route Option) and t

Risk 

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015. 
7.15. Climate Change and Adaptation

Page | 7.15-30 T

Figure 7.15-15: Current Climate Conditions (Riverine Flooding): Total Percentage of Representative Route o

York County, NY, and Suffolk County, MA, Route Option) and the Existing NEC at Risk 

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequ

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Figure 7.15-16: Current Climate Conditions (Riverine Flooding): Construction Type – Total Percentage of Re

of Alternative 3 (New York County, NY, and Suffolk County, MA, Route Option) and the Exis

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
7.15. Climate Change and Adaptation

Page | 7.15-32 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Considering the constructions types that are most vulnerable to inundation from flooding, 

Figure 7.15-14 (storm surge flooding) and Figure 7.15-16 (riverine flooding) further emphasize the 

resilience benefits of the Alternative 3 route options. For Alternative 3, less than 1.5 percent of the 

acreage at risk from storm surge flooding in the Representative Route related to at-grade or trench 

construction type, compared to approximately 5 percent of the existing NEC.

Between 1 percent and 2 percent of the acreage at risk from riverine flooding in the Representative 

Route of the Alternative 3 route options are related to at-grade or trench construction type, 

compared to approximately 7 percent of the existing NEC.

7.15.5 Stations at Risk

Figure 7.15-4 summarizes, by Action Alternative, the total number of stations at risk of inundation 

under each timeframe. Appendix E, Section E.15 contains a detailed county-level listing of the stations 

at risk of inundation along each Action Alternative.

Table 7.15-4: Affected Environment (Current, Mid-Century, and End-of-Century Climate 

Conditions): Stations at Risk of Inundation from One or More Flood Hazards 

by Action Alternative

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

CURRENT CLIMATE CONDITIONS

Total New Stations At Risk of Inundation 7 10 15-16

Total Existing Stations At Risk of Inundation* 54 55 55

Total Number of Stations At Risk of Inundation 61 65 70-71

MID-CENTURY CLIMATE CONDITIONS

Total New Stations At Risk of Inundation 10 12 32–33

Total Existing Stations At Risk of Inundation* 61 61 47

Total Number of Stations At Risk of Inundation 71 73 79–80

END-OF-CENTURY CLIMATE CONDITIONS

Total New Stations At Risk of Inundation 10 12 15–17

Total Existing Stations At Risk of Inundation* 63 63 65

Total Number of Stations At Risk of Inundation 73 75 80-82

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

Note: The numbers in this table represent the total number of stations at risk from one or more flood hazard.

* The analysis assumes that existing stations are those that are included in the No Action Alternative.

There would be a small difference in the number of stations at risk of inundation across the Action 

Alternatives. Each Action Alternative has a similar profile of the risk from each flooding hazard with 

riverine flooding accounting for a significant portion of the total number of stations at risk of 

inundation. For example under Alternative 1, there would be 37 stations at risk from sea level rise 

flooding and coastal storm surge flooding. An additional 24 stations would be at risk of inundation

when considering riverine flooding for Alternative 1. While the total number of stations at risk 

increases under mid-century and end-of-century climate conditions, the risk profile from each 

flooding hazard is similar to that of the current climate conditions with riverine flooding accounting 

for a significant portion of the total number of stations at risk. 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.15-33

7.15.6 Context Area

7.15.6.1 Sea Level Rise Flooding and Coastal Storm Surge Flooding

Considerable portions of the Affected Environment associated with the existing NEC and Action 

Alternatives are already close to the coast and are at risk from sea level rise flooding and coastal 

storm surge flooding. Within the Context Area, any shift in the route closer to the coast would likely 

increase the risk of inundation from these flooding mechanisms. Conversely, shifting away from the 

coastline could reduce the area at risk.

7.15.6.2 Riverine Flooding

Considerable portions of the Affected Environment associated with the existing NEC and Action 

Alternatives are already at risk from riverine flooding under current climate conditions. As the climate 

changes, the size of these flood hazard areas within the Context Area would likely increase. 

A review of the flood hazard areas under current climate conditions identified that changes to the 

route within the Context Area could lead to greater increases in flood risk in the following counties:

4 Common to all Action Alternatives:

– Anne Arundel and Harford, MD

– New Castle, DE

– Philadelphia and Bucks, PA

– Middlesex, NJ

– Fairfield, New Haven, Middlesex and New London, CT

– Washington, Kent and Providence, RI

– Norfolk, MA

4 Alternative 3 (New York to Hartford via Central Connecticut)

– Westchester, NY

– Fairfield, New Haven and Hartford, CT

4 Alternative 3 (New York to Hartford via Long Island)

– New Haven and Hartford, CT

4 Alternative 3 (Hartford to Boston via Providence)

– New Haven, Middlesex and New London, CT

– Washington, Kent and Providence, RI

– Bristol, MA

4 Alternative 3 (Hartford to Boston via Worcester)

– Hartford and Tolland, CT

– Worchester and Middlesex, MA 
7.15. Climate Change and Adaptation

Page | 7.15-34 Tier 1 Draft EIS

The counties listed above are consistent with those identified under the impacts to the Affected 

Environment. 

These findings are applicable to all three time periods (i.e., current climate, mid-century, and end-ofcentury). The number of acres at risk within the Context Area would increase as the hazard extents 

increase under each future scenario (e.g., with sea level rise and increases in the frequency and 

intensity of extreme rainfall events at mid-century and end-of-century). 

7.15.7 Extreme Temperature Effects on Rail Infrastructure

The effects of climate change also extend to extreme changes in temperatures. Temperatures that 

are abnormally high or low can also result in effects to rail infrastructure. When rails are exposed to 

prolonged periods of heat or cold temperatures it can cause rail to crack, buckle, pull apart or 

separate resulting in service disruption and delays. As presented in Table 7.15-2, the extreme 

temperature-related impacts to rail assets and operations include the following:

4 Extreme Heat, which causes rail line buckling (also known as sun kinks or heat kinks) refers to an 

event when rails expand and can no longer be constrained by the materials that support the track 

(e.g., rail ties, and ballast, refer to Figure 7.15-17)), overheated electrical equipment, overheated 

vehicles, failed air conditioning systems and threats to customer and worker health and safety.

4 Extreme Cold, which causes rail line pull-aparts (refers to instances where rail lines contract, 

breaking or separating as a result), heavy snowfall blocking lines, ice reducing functionality of, or 

damaging, equipment and threats to customer and worker health and safety.

Figure 7.15-17: Example of Rail Buckle from Extreme Heat

Source: U.S. DOT Volpe Center in Federal Transit Administration. (2011). Flooded Bus Barns and Buckled Rails: Public 

Transportation and Climate Change Adaptation. Retrieved 2015, from http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_0001_-

_Flooded_Bus_Barns_and_Buckled_Rails.pdf.

Factors that influence the occurrence of pull-aparts or buckling include the temperature of the track 

at the time it is installed (i.e., the rail neutral temperature), the age of the track, maintenance of the 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.15-35

track (e.g., if there has been adjustments in a prior season to accommodate heat or cold), the use of 

the track, solar radiation, wind, and the ambient air temperature.

Buckling is a catastrophic event that significantly increases the likelihood of derailment. However, 

pull-aparts are seen as a lower consequence risk event since they typically are detected through the

signaling system or by train engineers, and small breaks can be driven over without causing a 

derailment.

7.15.7.1 Extreme Heat

Information provided by the FRA’s Office of Research and Development indicates that there tend to 

be more buckles in the early summer, often as a result of unreported fixes of winter breaks where 

more track is added, which lowers the neutral temperature of the track. Slow orders (i.e., requests 

to operate the trains at a slower speed) are a key response to managing the impacts of extreme heat 

events. Slow orders minimize the likelihood of track buckling or derailment during an extreme heat 

event. A slow order may be for the whole day, or may be increased as the day continues.4

Each railroad has its own policy regarding slow orders and the relevant thresholds that trigger them:

4 Union Pacific uses an empirical approach by adding an offset (e.g., 30oF) to the predicted ambient 

temperature and issues a slow order if the total exceeds a threshold. For example, blanket heat 

speed restriction Level 1 is issued at ambient temperatures of 80oF to 110oF and Level 2 at 

ambient temperatures of 90oF to 120oF, depending on the location.

4 Amtrak uses sensors to measure the actual rail temperature to inform stages of speed reduction.

Amtrak thresholds5 are:

– If measured rail temperature exceeds 130oF, then slow order to 100 mph.

– If measured rail temperature exceeds 140oF, then slow order to 80 mph.

4 Norfolk-Southern has no specific restrictions.

Recognizing there is a range of temperatures of interest, the FRA evaluated three temperature 

projections for the average number of days where the maximum temperatures exceed 80oF, 95oF, 

and 110oF (Figure 7.15-18) under historical average (1959–1999), mid-century, and end-of-century 

scenarios. State-based projections provide an average of the climate data available for grid references 

closest to the Action Alternative routes, rather than an average for the entire state. 

All states and Washington, D.C., on average, historically experienced more than 50 days a year where 

the maximum temperature exceeds 80o

F, with Washington, D.C., and Maryland recording more than 

100 days per year. The number of days per year above 80oF is projected to increase by 36–46 days at 

mid-century and 58–74 days at end-of-century. While the increase in the total number of days per 

year above 80oF is similar across all states, the projected percentage of days per year above 80oF

increases for mid-century and end-of-century are highest for New York (63 percent and 103 percent, 

 4 Al-Nazer, L. F. (2014a, August 15). Heat Event Thresholds for Rail Performance – NEC Future EIS : Phone 

discussion. (N. F. Team, Interviewer) 5 Email from Leith Al-Nezar (2014b, August 15). Washington, D.C., USA. U.S. DOT
7.15. Climate Change and Adaptation

Page | 7.15-36 Tier 1 Draft EIS

respectively), Connecticut (77 percent and 124 percent, respectively), Rhode Island (92 percent and 

148 percent, respectively), and Massachusetts (80 percent and 129 percent, respectively). 

The projected increase in the number of days per year above 95o

F is most dramatic for the southernmost states (Maryland, Washington, D.C., Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey). These states 

historically experienced 3–6 days annually above 95oF and are projected to experience a total of 17–

34 days at mid-century, and 47–72 days at the end-of century. Figure 7.15-18 illustrates the projected 

change in days over 95oF in each state by the mid-century.

Historically (1950–1999), on average, the temperature threshold of 110o

F has not been exceeded

along the Action Alternative routes. For all states, this is not projected to change at mid-century, with

minimal (i.e., <0.5 day) projected at the end-of-century.

7.15.7.2 Extreme Cold

In North America, climate change is projected to result in increases in hot days and extended warm 

spells (i.e., heat waves), reductions in cold days, cold nights and frosts, and more rapid increases in 

minimum temperature extremes than maximum temperature extremes.6 However, the frequency 

and duration of extreme cold events in the Northeast may be affected by potential increases in 

“blocking” events, described by the National Climate Assessment (NCA) as large-scale weather 

patterns with little or no movement.7 The NCA acknowledges that further research is required since 

conclusions about trends in “blocking” depend on the method of analysis. Because of the uncertainty 

of the climate change-related influence on this hazard, the FRA has made no quantitative projections. 

Table 7.15-2 provides a qualitative listing of the potential effects of extreme cold events (including 

effects of snow and ice) on rail assets. 

7.15.8 Conclusions

Under all Action Alternatives, there would be a net total decrease in GHG emissions in the year 2040, 

when compared to the No Action Alternative.

Flood and extreme temperature-related impacts affect the existing NEC (including the No Action 

Alternative) and will also affect all Action Alternatives. The risks and associated impacts are likely to 

increase under mid-century and end-of-century climate conditions. While a significant portion of the 

existing NEC is along the coast, the Action Alternatives provide a mix of inland and coastal routes, 

particularly in the northern half of the Study Area. Analyses showed that rail assets and infrastructure 

associated with inland routes are at much lower risk of coastal flooding than coastal routes. Rail 

assets located in counties along inland routes, however, are still subject to riverine flooding, as is the 

existing NEC. The geographic area of those risks is likely to increase as a result of climate change. 

 6 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2013). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: 

The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York: Cambridge University Press. 7 U.S. Global Change Research Program. (2014). 2014 National Climate Assessment. Retrieved from 

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.15-37

Figure 7.15-18: Average Annual Number of Days Equal to or Above 95oF, by Climate 

Scenario

Sources: NEC FUTURE team, Historical observed climate conditions: Observational data: Maurer E.P., A.W. Wood, J.D. Adam, 

D.P. Lettenmaier, and B. Nijssen, 2002. “A Long-Term Hydrologically-Based Data Set of Land Surface Fluxes and States for the 

Conterminous United States. J. Climate, 15(22):3237-3251. Mid- and End-Of Century climate projections: RCP 8.5 scenario.

Notes: Downscaled CMIP3 and CMIP5 Climate and Hydrology Projections archive (http://gdodcp.ucllnl.org/downscaled_cmip_projections/)
7.15. Climate Change and Adaptation

Page | 7.15-38 Tier 1 Draft EIS

The No Action Alternative and Action Alternatives all require investment to improve the resiliency of 

the existing NEC infrastructure. The resiliency and redundancy provided by the Action Alternatives 

north of New York City provide a benefit as compared to the No Action Alternative. Investment in 

new infrastructure associated with the off-corridor sections of the Action Alternatives, particularly 

Alternative 3, provides an opportunity to locate and design the infrastructure in a way that minimizes 

its risk to flood and extreme heat related impacts. The following section presents potential mitigation 

and adaptation strategies.

7.15.9 Potential Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies

Understanding that the effects of climate change will continue to worsen, it is important to consider 

ways in which to make improvements to the existing and new rail infrastructure that can better 

withstand the potential effects on inundation and extreme weather events. This section provides an 

overview of potential mitigation and adaptation strategies that could be considered during future 

stages of project development. Chapter 7.13, Air Quality, provides potential mitigation to reduce GHG 

emissions. 

The earlier that adaptation approaches are considered in the infrastructure planning and design 

process, the lower the relative cost and potential disruption associated with implementing the 

changes. For example, the marginal cost of building an embankment to a higher elevation when it is 

first built is significantly cheaper, and less disruptive, than increasing the height of an existing 

embankment and the assets it supports. 

Multiple approaches can be used to adapt rail service and infrastructure to future climate and 

therefore minimize the risk of flood or extreme temperature-related impacts. Typical categories of 

response include the following:

4 Investigations – Specialist assessments and explorations of individual assets, specific issues, and 

solutions (e.g., flood modeling of specific locations to determine likely future risk related to 

riverine flooding).

4 Policy – Changes to policies, standards and guidelines (e.g., design and maintenance 

specifications or adjust standards relating to rail neutral temperatures to ensure projected 

increases in temperature are considered over time).

4 Behavioral – Adjustments to existing processes, operational systems and procedures (e.g., 

emergency management plans or refining the process for determining go-slow orders (e.g., the 

revised Amtrak approach to improved predictions).

4 Physical – Physically engineered solutions (e.g., ensuring the design of assets consider the 

identified risks, particular flood risk – location, elevation, or protective barriers, use of concrete 

ballast and continuous tension catenary wires, or relocation of the tracks).
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.15-39

The FRA reviewed climate change-related policies and initiatives that have been published by various 

government agencies in Washington, D.C., and the eight states along the NEC. From these sources, 

the FRA identified the following common themes:

4 Supporting coordination and cooperation of planning agencies and infrastructure owners and

operators

4 Increasing the understanding of the climate science and how hazards may alter over time (e.g., 

downscaled climate projections and higher-resolution inundation and coastal hazard modeling)

4 Assessing the vulnerability of infrastructure assets and systems

4 Integrating consideration of climate change and adaptation into existing decision-making 

processes including planning, emergency management, design and maintenance of assets

The NEC FUTURE has taken action related to each of these themes by integrating consideration of 

climate change into the Tier 1 EIS process. The climate change analysis has engaged with planning 

agencies, considered climate change projections, and assessed the vulnerability of rail assets.

Table 7.15-5 provides a listing of potential adaptation actions relevant to each asset class and the 

risks they face from flood and extreme temperatures. In addition to asset-specific adaptation actions, 

Action Alternatives that include an inland option provide benefits, improving the adaptive capacity 

of the system (e.g., Alternatives 2 and 3). The existence of an inland route may assist in reducing 

service disruptions should a coastal flooding event affect assets along the coast.

In developing adaptation options specific to the NEC, consideration should be given to regional or 

state-based adaptation actions that may reduce the risk profile of the existing NEC and the Action 

Alternatives.

7.15.10 Subsequent Tier 2 Analysis

Appendix E, Section E.15, provides the limitations of this assessment. Key actions that may be 

undertaken as part of Tier 2 project analysis and design should include the following:

4 Review the latest climate science trends for any applicable updates to the projections and/or 

trends.

4 Undertake targeted, site-specific riverine and coastal flood modeling.

4 Undertake joint probability riverine and coastal flood analysis.

4 Consider additional interim sea level rise scenarios (e.g., between 1 foot and 6 feet) to better 

quantify the timing of the risk and prioritization of improvements.

4 Consider increasing coastal storm surge intensity (as the science progresses), or larger coastal 

storm surge events (e.g., 500-year event).

4 Incorporate adaptation considerations into design to minimize risk exposure and increase ability 

to recover from extreme events.

4 Incorporate consideration of adaptation costs (i.e., more resilient infrastructure) as well as 

increased maintenance costs and service disruptions associated with likely increased flooding and 

extreme heat impacts. 
7.15. Climate Change and Adaptation

Page | 7.15-40 Tier 1 Draft EIS

The above analysis may be guided by the Federal Highway Administration’s Virtual Framework for 

Vulnerability Assessment. Table 7.15-6 provides an overview of the modules contained in the 

framework and how they may be applied to Tier 2 analysis. In addition, consideration should be given 

to the Revised Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management.

8

 8 Federal Emergency Management. (Revised 2015). Agency Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988, 

Floodplain Management. Retrieved from http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1422653213069-

9af488f43e1cf4a0a76ae870b2dcede9/DRAFT-FFRMS-Implementating-Guidelines-1-29-2015r2.pdf
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.15-41

Table 7.15-5: Summary of Potential Climate Change Adaptation Actions for the NEC 

Asset Risk Adaptation Actions

BUILT ASSETS

Rail tracks

(at-grade, 

embankment, 

trench, and tunnel 

construction)

< Inundation leading to 

restriction of service and 

damage to assets from 

destabilization (Scour) 

(Extreme rainfall)

< Buckling of tracks (Extreme 

heat)

< Damage from fire (Wildfire)

< Increase maintenance 

requirements and access 

issues (Snow storm)

< Flood mapping to identify current and projected 1 percent

(100 year) and 0.2 percent (500 year) flood levels across 

planned route. 

< Design to minimize flood risk.

< Include consideration of increased degradation of materials in 

asset management plans and inspection regimes (e.g., 

overtime – more-frequent inspection periods or ensuring 

inspection following extreme events such as wind, heat, rain, 

and freezing).

< Emergency management plan to minimize risk to staff, 

passengers and assets (rolling stock) during flood and heat 

events.

< Emergency backup for pumping of flood waters.

< Review drainage plans to minimize likely flooding of tracks 

(e.g., overcapacity of drainage, or water flowing into cuttings/ 

stations).

< Alternate commuter route (e.g., bus replacement).

< Optimizing go-slow order process.

< Adjusting rail neutral temperatures in line with climate 

projections.

Station platforms < Inundation leading to 

restriction of service and 

damage to assets from 

destabilization (scour) 

(extreme rainfall)

< Increase maintenance 

requirements and access 

issues (Snow storm)

< Ensure station level emergency management planning.

< Design to minimize flood risk.

< Maintenance asset inspection regime.

Station buildings < Inundation leading to 

restriction of service and 

damage to assets stored in 

the facility and from 

destabilization (scour) 

(extreme rainfall)

< Increased cooling 

requirements (Extreme 

heat)

< Increase degradation of 

materials (Extreme heat)

< Damage from wind-blown

debris (Extreme wind)

< Ensure station level emergency management planning.

< Design to minimize flood risk – both risk of flood waters 

entering building and damage if it does (e.g., appropriate 

positioning of electrical supply equipment and other utilities).

< Maintenance asset inspection regime.

< Internal storage of goods in a manner that minimizes damage 

if facility is flooded.

< Green design – energy efficiency and passive cooling.

< Incorporating renewable energy and storage to operate during 

power outages.
7.15. Climate Change and Adaptation

Page | 7.15-42 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.15-5: Summary of Potential Climate Change Adaptation Actions for the NEC 

(continued)

Asset Risk Adaptation Actions

BUILT ASSETS (continued)

Storage facilities 

for rail vehicles

< Inundation leading to 

restriction of access / 

service, damage to assets 

stored in the facility, 

potential for environmental 

impacts from mobilization of 

contaminants (Extreme 

rainfall)

< Increase maintenance 

requirements and access 

issues (Snow storm)

< Emergency management planning to relocate vehicles 

(sensitive equipment).

< Design to minimize flood risk – both risk of flood waters 

entering building and damage if it does (e.g. positioning of 

electricals, WSUD).

< Storage of goods in a manner that minimizes damage if facility 

is flooded.

< Green design – energy efficiency and passive cooling / shading 

of vehicles.

< Incorporating renewable energy and storage to operate during 

power outages.

Storage facilities 

for maintenance 

equipment

< Inundation leading to 

restriction of access / 

service, damage to assets 

stored in the facility, 

potential for environmental 

impacts from mobilization of 

contaminants (Extreme 

rainfall)

< Increase maintenance 

requirements and access 

issues (Snow storm)

< Emergency management planning to relocate vehicles 

(sensitive equipment).

< Design to minimize flood risk – both risk of flood waters 

entering building and damage if it does (e.g., positioning of 

electrics).

< Maintenance asset inspection regime.

< Internal storage of goods in a manner that minimizes damage 

if facility is flooded. Consideration of environmental hazard if 

damage occurs (e.g., Storage and containment of hazardous 

goods and waste materials).

< Green design – energy efficiency and passive cooling.

< Incorporating renewable energy and storage to operate during 

power outages.

Electrical 

equipment 

(substations, 

overhead power / 

catenary wires, 

signaling, 

communications, 

security lighting, 

supporting retail / 

activity centers 

and emergency 

equipment (e.g., 

backup 

generators, 

firefighting / 

water pumps for 

flood treatment)

< Inundation leading to 

damage to and failure of 

electrical equipment 

including substations, 

destabilization of supporting 

structures (e.g., poles) 

(Extreme rainfall)

< Degradation of materials 

(Extreme heat and Extreme 

cold / ice)

< Failure of overhead lines 

(e.g., sagging) (Extreme wind 

and heat)

< Increased potential for loose 

electric currents resulting 

from increased salinity in the 

air and ground

< Flood mapping to identify current and projected 1 percent

(100 year) and 0.2 percent (500 year) flood levels across 

planned route. 

< Emergency management plan / back up power, 

communications and signaling.

< Redundancy for power, signaling and communication.

< Include consideration of increased degradation of materials in 

asset management plans and inspection regimes (e.g., 

overtime – more-frequent inspection periods or ensuring 

inspection following extreme events such as wind, heat, rain, 

and freezing).

< Expanded range of grounding around electrified tracks. 

< Incorporating renewable energy and storage to operate during 

power outages.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.15-43

Table 7.15-5: Summary of Potential Climate Change Adaptation Actions for the NEC

(continued)

Asset Risk Adaptation Actions

BUILT ASSETS (continued)

Bridge structures

(aerial and major 

bridge 

construction)

< Inundation or ground 

movement leading to 

destabilization of bridge 

structures (Extreme rainfall, 

drought)

< Degradation of materials 

including expansion of 

concrete joins, protective 

cladding, coatings and 

sealants) (Extreme heat)

< Flood mapping to identify current and projected 1 percent

(100 year) and 0.2 percent (500 year) flood levels across 

planned route. 

< Consider flows in design.

< Include consideration of increased degradation of materials in 

asset management plans and inspection regimes (e.g., 

overtime – more-frequent inspection periods or ensuring 

inspection following extreme events such as wind, heat, rain, 

and freezing).

Retaining walls

(embankment 

and tunnel 

construction)

< Inundation leading to 

destabilization (scour) 

(Extreme rainfall)

< Damage from fire (Wildfire)

< Degradation of materials 

including expansion of 

concrete joins, protective 

cladding, coatings and 

sealants) (Extreme heat)

< Include consideration of increased degradation of materials in 

asset management plans and inspection regimes (e.g.., 

overtime – more-frequent inspection periods or ensuring 

inspection following extreme events such as wind, heat, rain, 

and freezing).

<

Vehicles < Inundation leading to 

degradation from exposure 

to water, damage to internal 

components (electrical and 

non-electrical)

< Damage from fire (Wildfire)

< Failure of air conditioning 

restricting use (Extreme 

heat)

< Increased operational costs 

(Extreme heat)

< Emergency management plan for where to put vehicles in 

time of storm.

< Regenerative breaking to minimize power costs.

< Ensure air conditioning installed in vehicles to operate up to 

specific extreme heats levels.

Noise walls < Inundation leading to 

destabilization (scour) 

(Extreme rainfall)

< Damage from fire (Wildfire)

< Degradation of materials 

including expansion of 

concrete joins, protective 

cladding, coatings and 

sealants) (Extreme heat)

< Include consideration of increased degradation of materials in 

asset management plans and inspection regimes (e.g., 

overtime – more-frequent inspection periods or ensuring 

inspection following extreme events such as wind, heat, rain, 

and freezing).

< Use of solar panels to generate electricity (refer to Western 

Highway, Anthony’s Cutting Roadway, Victoria, Australia.)
7.15. Climate Change and Adaptation

Page | 7.15-44 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.15-5: Summary of Potential Climate Change Adaptation Actions for the NEC

(continued)

Asset Risk Adaptation Actions

HUMAN ASSETS

(access to / from, health and safety during use / operation)

Operational staff < Restricted access (Extreme 

rainfall)

< Potential injury while 

undertaking work from flood 

waters, heat stress, 

exposure to cold / ice an 

wind-blown debris (Extreme 

rainfall, Extreme heat, 

extreme wind)

< Emergency management plan to minimize exposure to risk

< Standard operating procedures to ensure safe operation 

during extreme heat, cold, storms, wind, etc.

Passengers / 

commuters

< Restricted access (Extreme 

rainfall)

< Potential injury while using 

service from flood waters, 

heat stress, exposure to cold 

/ ice an wind-blown debris 

(Extreme rainfall, Extreme 

heat, extreme wind)

< Design (operation and maintenance) of facilities to ensure safe 

environment during extreme events

< Emergency management plan to minimize exposure to risk

< Communication program to educate commuters of the shared 

responsibility for safety and suggested ways they can reduce 

their exposure to risks

< Backup/alternative transport during extreme events and 

method of communicating with commuters during these times

SUPPORTING SERVICES

Electricity supply < Inundation leading to 

damage to and failure of 

electrical equipment 

including substations, 

destabilization of supporting 

structures (e.g., poles) 

(Extreme rainfall)

< Redundancy of supply / back up facilities

< Emergency management planning to consider loss of power

< Self-sufficiency, generate electricity on site

< Energy efficiency to reduce demand

Emergency 

response

< Inundation disrupting access 

by emergency services 

vehicles (Extreme rainfall)

< Emergency management planning including participation of 

emergency services and tenants and community

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.15-45

Table 7.15-6: Overview of the Federal Highway Administration’s Virtual Framework for 

Vulnerability Assessment’s Modules and Their Application to Tier 2 Analysis

Framework Module Relevance to Tier 2 Analysis

Module 1: Articulate Objectives

Includes:

< Defining the project scope, area of study, and level 

of detail required

< Identifying stakeholders and engaging them in the 

planning process

< Defining the vulnerability assessment objectives

Guidance related to this module could assist in 

setting the scope of Tier 2 analysis. The NEC FUTURE 

Tier 1 analysis can inform the articulation of 

objectives.

Module 2: Identify Key Climate Stressors

Includes selecting climate stressors to analyze, based 

on the sensitivity of transportation assets

The Tier 1 assessment has selected climate stressors 

relating to flooding and extreme temperature as the 

focus. Tier 2 analyses may consider a broader set of 

climate stressors (refer to U.S. DOT’s Sensitivity 

Matrix developed as a part of the U.S. DOT Gulf Coast 

study).

Module 3: Select and Characterize Relevant Assets

Includes determining the following:

< Which assets to evaluate, including the criticality of 

assets

< The temporal scope of assets

< Data availability

Guidance related to this module could be of use in 

developing the scope for Tier 2 analysis (refer to 

Guide to Assessing Criticality in Transportation 

Adaptation Planning developed as a part of the U.S. 

DOT Gulf Coast Study).

Module 4: Assess Vulnerabilities

Includes assessing sensitivity, exposure and adaptive 

capacity of assets and the associated risks

Guidance related to this module could be of use in 

developing the scope for Tier 2 analysis (refer to the 

U.S. DOT Vulnerability Assessment Scoring Tool).

Module 5: Integrate Vulnerabilities into Decision 

Making

Includes identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing 

adaptation options

The work undertaken in the Tier 1 EIS is a 

demonstration of how vulnerabilities are being 

considered in the decision-making process. 

Guidance related to adaptation planning may be of 

benefit in Tier 2 analysis.

Module 6: Monitor and Revisit

Includes developing and implementing a monitoring 

and evaluation plan, engaging stakeholders, evaluating 

outcomes, revisiting inputs into the assessment (e.g., 

climate data, information on assets or operations)

These elements should be considered in the 

development of adaptation options and ongoing 

planning for the NEC FUTURE.

Sources:

1. NEC FUTURE team, 2015

2. U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration. (2015, February 2). Gulf Coast Study, Phase 2 Task 4. 

Retrieved February 23, 2015, from Federal Highway Administration: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/adaptation/ongoing_and_current_research/gulf_coast_study/phase2

_task4/index.cfm

3. U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration. (2015, February 2). Virtual Framework for Vulnerability 

Assessment. Retrieved February 23, 2015, from Federal Highway Administration: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/adaptation/adaptation_framework/