TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Cumulative 

Effects

7.20

7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.20-1

7.20 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

7.20.1 Introduction

This chapter identifies the resource areas of concern or sensitivity the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) considered in determining cumulative impacts that would result from 

implementation of the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Tier 1 Draft EIS) Action 

Alternatives.

7.20.1.1 Definition of Resources 

Cumulative effects are defined as the combined incremental effects of the direct and indirect impacts 

of the Action Alternatives and other past, present, and future local, regional, and statewide projects 

on resource areas of concern or sensitivity (key resource areas).

1 This Tier 1 Draft EIS describes the 

cumulative effects of the following actions:

4 Action Alternatives: Direct and indirect impacts of the Action Alternatives.

4 Other Transportation Projects: Highway, transit, maritime, and aviation projects identified for 

future implementation.

4 Non-Transportation Projects: Large-scale residential or commercial development or natural 

resource development activity.

Appendix E, Section 19, provides more detailed definitions of cumulative effects.

7.20.1.2 Effects-Assessment Methodology 

The FRA developed a methodology for assessing cumulative effects (see Appendix E, Section E.19). 

The methodology and data sources explain how the FRA defined the Affected Environment and 

evaluated the effects on other environmental resources. Table 7.20-1 summarizes key factors 

associated with the methodology for cumulative effects.

7.20.2 Resource Overview 

The analysis in this Tier 1 Draft EIS is a qualitative evaluation of the potential for the Action 

Alternatives to contribute to cumulative effects of development within the Study Area, which for the 

purposes of this analysis, includes connecting corridors.2 This analysis does not provide a detailed 

quantitative analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. 

Connecticut has the greatest potential for the Action Alternatives to contribute to cumulative effects 

to transportation, land cover, hydrologic/water resources, and ecological resources from both other 

transportation projects and non-transportation projects. This finding regarding impacts in 

Connecticut is consistent across all Action Alternatives. However, among the Action Alternatives, the 

 

1 Key resource areas noted in the cumulative effects analysis are those resource areas identified as having the 

greatest potential to contribute to cumulative effects in the Study Area based on the analysis presented in this Tier 

1 Draft EIS. These are not necessarily the same “key resources” identified in this Tier 1 Draft EIS Summary, 

Chapter 7, or Chapter 9. 2 Connecting corridors are passenger rail corridors that connect directly to another rail corridor (in this instance, 

the NEC) via a station transfer or through-train service. 
7.20. Cumulative effects

Page | 7.20-2 Tier 1 Draft EIS

potential for cumulative effects is greatest in Alternative 3, where the Representative Route includes 

both improvements on the existing NEC and new right-of-way off the existing NEC. Other 

transportation projects would combine with the Action Alternatives to potentially improve the 

multimodal transportation network. However, undeveloped land covers would be developed, 

wetlands and coastal areas adjacent to the Long Island Sound would be negatively affected, and 

ecologically sensitive habitats would likely be subject to increased habitat fragmentation.

Table 7.20-1: Effect-Assessment Methodology Summary: Cumulative Effects

Data Source Affected Environment Type of Assessment Outcome

Readily available 

information from federal 

documentation and 

websites

Study Area, expanded to 

include connecting 

corridors

Past trends that have 

resulted in the current 

condition of the resource 

and the potential for a 

resource’s condition to 

improve or decline in the 

future

Identification of past, 

present, and future trends 

for resource areas

No Action Alternative 

Projects List

Study Area, expanded to 

include connecting 

corridors

Rail, highway, transit, and 

air travel improvement 

projects approved for 

future implementation

Identification of other 

transportation projects, 

present and future 

transportation actions, 

and the potential to affect 

key resource areas

Related Projects List Study Area, expanded to 

include connecting 

corridors

Rail improvement 

projects approved for 

future implementation

Identification of other 

present and future 

transportation actions and 

the potential to affect key 

resource areas

Environmental Resource 

Chapters:

< Transportation

< Economic Effects (see 

Indirect Effects)

< Land Cover

< Hydrologic/Water 

Resources

< Ecological Resources

< Cultural Resources 

and Historic

Properties

< Environmental Justice

< Air Quality

< Climate Change

Environmental 

Consequences of the 

environmental resource

< Existing condition of 

the environmental 

resource

< Effects of the Action 

Alternatives on key 

resources areas

Identification of areas of 

key resources affected by 

the Action Alternatives

Federal and state 

regulatory and resource 

agencies

Study Area, expanded to 

include connecting 

corridors

Reasonably foreseeable 

non-transportation 

projects for future 

implementation

Identification of present 

and future nontransportation actions and 

the potential to affect key 

resource areas

Source: NEC FUTURE Cumulative Effects-Assessment Methodology, Appendix E., Section E.19, 2014
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.20-3

As described in Chapter 4, Alternatives Considered, the No Action Alternative assumes completion of 

planned and programmed improvements to highway, freight rail, transit, air, and maritime modes by 

2040, consistent with the projects identified in the No Action Alternative Project List. The projects 

identified in the No Action Alternative Project List are inclusive of the other transportation projects. 

Therefore, the effect of the No Action Alternative on key resource areas is included in the 

consideration of effects of other transportation projects on key resource areas.

Cumulative effects from the Action Alternatives, other transportation projects, and nontransportation projects would likely combine to have a beneficial effect on air quality in Maryland.

This finding is consistent and equivalent across all Action Alternatives. However, the cumulative 

effects of Alternative 3 and other transportation projects would convert undeveloped land covers to 

developed, and would likely negatively affect water resources associated with the Chesapeake Bay.

7.20.3 Cumulative Effects

7.20.3.1 Identification of Existing Conditions and Trends for Key Resources Potentially 

Affected by Action Alternatives

Key resources are those resources that have the greatest potential to be affected by the Action 

Alternatives thereby likely having the greatest potential to be affected by cumulative effects from 

other projects as well. The key resources discussed in this analysis include the following:

4 Transportation

4 Indirect Effects

4 Land Cover

4 Hydrologic/Water Resources

4 Ecological Resources

4 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties

4 Environmental Justice 

4 Air Quality 

4 Climate Change

Table 7.20-2 presents the key resources and a summary of the existing conditions for each. 
7.20. Cumulative effects

Page | 7.20-4 T

Table 7.20-2: Affected Environment: Existing Conditions and Trends of Key Resource Areas

Key Resource Areas Existing Conditions and Trends

Transportation < In the Study Area growth in non-highway travel outpaced highway travel between 2006 and 2012. Interc

percentage growth in travel volume during this period. As passenger volumes continue to grow, it places 

infrastructure and adds to congestion. 

< The percentage of the workforce driving to work declined in 11 of the 13 metropolitan areas in the Study 

transportation commutation increased in nine metropolitan areas and regional rail ridership rose in eigh

areas. 

< Total and per-capita highway vehicle miles traveled (VMT) throughout the United States have declined in 

decades-long trend of increasing VMT. Overall, VMT has decreased 4.9 percent from the high of 489 mill

465 million in 2012. 

< From 2006 to 2012, in the Study Area total passenger trips on the public transportation network increas

percent from 4.39 billion to 5.17 billion. Growth in public transportation trips was led by heavy rail (subw

percent from 2.42 billion to 3.24 billion trips annually in six years. 

< Intercity rail ridership increased throughout the NEC by approximately 24 percent between 2006 and 20

Station was the busiest intercity passenger rail station in the country in both 2006 and 2012. Washington 

experienced the second highest intercity passenger volume in the country with 5.0 million riders in 2012

with the third largest intercity passenger volume with over 4 million passengers annually. 

< From 2006 to 2012, regional rail ridership within the Study Area increased approximately 4 percent, with 

passenger travel on: the Shore Line East service, where passenger trips grew by 40 percent and annual p

52 percent; on VRE service, where ridership grew by approximately 32 percent; and on MARC service, w

approximately 17 percent.

Indirect Effects < There is a projected population increase of approximately 7.1 million (14 percent) and a rise in employm

million (13 percent) in the Study Area.

< The south region will continue growing at a considerably faster rate than the rest of the Study Area.

< The share of the Study Area’s growth that will occur within its four largest cities—Boston, New York City, 

Washington, D.C.—will continue to be approximately 68 percent. 

Land Cover < Land cover is continuous throughout the Study Area, with developed land cover concentrated around th

areas along the existing NEC. Undeveloped land cover is generally concentrated in rural and natural loca

metropolitan areas and within waterbodies.

< Connecticut and Maryland contain the greatest concentrations of undeveloped land cover. Connecticut 

Open Water, Forest/Shrub, and Wetlands, while Maryland has the most acreage of Grassland/Cultivated 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequ

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.20-2: Affected Environment: Existing Conditions and Trends of Key Resource Areas (continued)

Key Resource Areas Existing Conditions and Trends

Hydrologic/Water 

Resources

< Metropolitan areas include Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, and Boston—all of 

around major waterbodies such as oceans and large rivers.

< The Action Alternatives and the existing NEC cross the Lower White and Red Clay Creeks in New Castle, D

designated Wild and Scenic Rivers. Both waterbodies have associated freshwater wetlands, Special Flood 

and a coastal zone that may be affected by the Action Alternatives. Neither waterbody has special water 

< Connecticut contains the most acres of SFHA, which are associated with the Long Island Sound.

< Saltwater wetlands are associated with Gunpowder River and Chesapeake Bay in Maryland; Christina Riv

Hackensack River and Hudson River in New Jersey; and the East River and Long Island Sound in Connecti

Ecological

Resources

< Ecological resources are dispersed throughout the Study Area, but tend to have higher concentrations in 

and Maryland. States with the most Ecologically Sensitive Habitat (ESH) tend to be composed of large, un

with comparably small, concentrated metropolitan centers. 

< Connecticut tends to have the most ecologically sensitive resources since it is a large state that contains 

contiguous forested and undeveloped land and coastline that span the entire state.

Cultural Resources 

and Historic

Properties

< Cultural resources are concentrated primarily in urban areas such as Washington, D.C.; Philadelphia, PA; 

Providence, RI; and Boston, MA. The FRA identified 1,018 resources* within the Affected Environment o

which are National Historic Landmarks (NHL). 

< Some of the NHLs include the L’Enfant Plan (Washington, D.C.), William Trent House (New Jersey), New Y

York), First Baptist Meeting House (Rhode Island), and New England Conservatory of Music (Massachuse

Environmental 

Justice

< Eight states plus Washington, D.C., cover 124 counties in the Study Area. According to the 2010 census, t

51 million people living in the Study Area, which includes approximately 20 million minority (39 percent) 

(11 percent) low-income persons. 

< Of the cities within the Affected Environment, the most low-income and minority populations include Ne

PA; Hartford, CT; and Boston, MA.

Air Quality < The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 direct the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implem

policies and regulations that will ensure acceptable levels of air quality.

< All states and counties are considered non-attainment or maintenance areas for at least one criteria poll

of Putnam County, NY, counties in Connecticut along the Long Island Sound, counties in Rhode Island, an

Suffolk counties in Massachusetts. 

< According to Federal Highway Administration analysis using the EPA’s MOVES2010b model, even if vehic

traveled) increases by 102 percent (as assumed it will from 2010 to 2050), the total annual emissions for 

source air toxics would be reduced by 83 percent. 
7.20. Cumulative effects

Page | 7.20-6 T

Table 7.20-2: Affected Environment: Existing Conditions and Trends of Key Resource Areas (continued)

Key Resource Areas Existing Conditions and Trends

Climate Change < Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—naturally occurring and human-caused (i.e., anthropogenic)—contrib

global climate. The gas CO2 makes up the largest anthropogenic component of GHG emissions. Continue

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

operations.

< For current climate conditions, the existing NEC is most at risk of sea level rise flooding (e.g., tidal floodin

flooding, and riverine flooding in Connecticut along the Long Island Sound, in Hudson County in New Jers

County in Delaware.

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2014

* Counts are NRHP-listed and NHLs combined.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.20-7

7.20.3.2 Identification of Effects of Action Alternatives on Key Resources

This section identifies the effects of the Action Alternatives within the Affected Environment on the 

key resource areas to identify areas of concern or sensitivity when determining cumulative impacts.

Table 7.20-3 identifies the effects of Action Alternatives on key resources (listed below; see also 

Section 7.20.3.1 for trends in key resource areas affected by Action Alternatives) from Washington, 

D.C., to Boston, MA. Table 7.20-3 provides a qualitative summary of the potential locations of 

greatest effects on key resources as a result of the Action Alternatives. Appendix A, Mapping Atlas, 

identifies the locations of the environmental resources affected by the Action Alternatives. Key 

resource areas considered include:

4 Transportation: The Action Alternatives would result in greater connectivity by expanding the 

reach of the Intercity rail network to serve new markets, increased frequency of service, and 

improved travel times between city-pairs. By providing more travel options, the Action 

Alternatives would generate significantly greater Intercity and Regional rail ridership compared

to the No Action Alternative. Each of the Action Alternatives has the potential to change how 

people travel across the Study Area, reducing the share of trips by automobile, air, and intercity 

bus modes as travelers switch to passenger rail service. The Action Alternatives add new services 

to previously underserved or unserved metropolitan area markets with the potential to attract 

new rail trips. The Action Alternatives improve connectivity at Intercity stations by increasing the

daily duration of rail service at many stations, making rail service available for longer periods of 

the day and hence more convenient to travelers. The Action Alternatives result in more 

convenient passenger rail with increased service frequency at many Regional rail and Intercity 

stations. As such, the Action Alternatives would have a beneficial effect on the transportation 

network.

4 Indirect: Induced growth could encourage positive investment in resources or put a strain on 

resources within the Affected Environment. Induced growth would put a strain on resources 

within the Study Area. There is potential for induced growth, and thus indirect effects, to occur 

in certain areas. These areas include those that have potential for station area development and 

agglomeration effects, or are forecast to see high population and employment growth. In 

addition, areas that contain few or no environmental resources that could constrain 

development, contain other catalysts for development, and/or contain few to no development 

limitations have the potential for indirect effects. The potential to cause effects on the built and 

human environment is higher where induced growth occurs on developed land. Likewise, the 

potential to cause effects on the natural environment is higher where induced growth occurs on 

undeveloped land.

4 Land Cover: Action Alternatives could result in conversions of undeveloped land cover (Open 

Water, Forest/Shrub, Grassland/Cultivated, and Wetlands) within the Representative Route to 

developed land cover. Potential conversions of land cover could result in acquisitions and/or 

displacements of private or public lands. Where there would be potential conversions of 

undeveloped land cover from non-transportation land use to a transportation land use, the 

Action Alternatives would have a negative effect on land cover.
7.20. Cumulative effects

Page | 7.20-8 T

Table 7.20-3: Environmental Consequences: Cumulative Effects – Impact of Action Alternatives on Key Resou

Environmental 

Resources Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alte

Transportation < Passenger rail travel between the 

Washington, D.C., and Boston 

metropolitan area pair would 

result in passenger rail trip making 

occurring more than five times the 

amount of the No Action 

Alternative instead of automobile 

travel.

< Washington Union Station, Penn 

station New York, and Boston 

South Station have the greatest 

increase in daily boardings for 

Intercity and Regional rail service.

< The largest reductions in travel 

times for Intercity trips occur 

between New Haven and Newark 

Penn Station.

< Newark, DE has the greatest 

projected percentage growth in 

regional rail trips.

< Passenger rail travel between the 

Washington, D.C., and Boston 

metropolitan area pair would 

result in passenger rail trip making 

occurring more than five times the 

amount of the No Action 

Alternative instead of automobile 

travel.

< Washington Union Station, Penn 

station New York, and Boston 

South Station have the greatest 

increase in daily boardings for 

Intercity and Regional rail service.

< The largest reductions in travel 

times for Intercity trips occur 

between New Haven and Newark 

Penn Station.

< Newark, DE has the greatest 

projected percentage growth in 

regional rail trips.

< Passenger rail 

Washington, D

metropolitan a

passenger rail 

more than five 

the No Action 

automobile tra

< Washington U

station New Yo

Station have t

daily boarding

Regional rail se

< The largest red

for Intercity tr

Boston South 

New York.

< Newark, DE ha

percentage gro

trips.

Indirect Effects < Potential for induced growth 

spurred by improvements in rail 

capacity and accessibility is 

greatest in the Greater Boston 

Area.

< Potential for induced growth 

spurred by improvements in travel 

time and rail capacity to New York 

City is greatest in the Greater 

Boston and Greater Providence 

areas.

< Potential for induced growth 

spurred by improvements in rail 

capacity and accessibility is 

greatest in the Greater Hartford 

Area.

< Potential for induced growth 

spurred by improvements in travel 

time and rail capacity to New York 

City is greatest in the New YorkNorth Jersey Area and the Greater 

Hartford Area.

< Potential for in

by improveme

accessibility is 

Hartford area.

< Potential for in

by improveme

rail capacity to 

greatest in the 

Area, as well a

Greater Hartfo

Boston areas.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequ

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.20-3: Environmental Consequences: Cumulative Effects – Impact of Action Alternatives on Key Resou

(continued)

Environmental 

Resources Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alte

Land Cover < Most of the potential conversions 

of undeveloped land cover within 

the Representative Route of this 

alternative would occur in 

Connecticut, where the addition of 

the Old Saybrook-Kenyon segment 

is proposed outside the existing 

NEC through New London County, 

CT.

< Most of the potential conversions 

of undeveloped land cover within 

the Representative Route of this 

alternative would occur in 

Connecticut, where the addition of 

the New Haven-HartfordProvidence segment outside the 

existing NEC through New Haven, 

Hartford, Tolland, and Windham 

Counties, which include many 

acres of undeveloped land cover.

< Most of the po

undeveloped l

Representativ

alternative wo

and Maryland

< Maryland cont

potential conv

land cover for 

the Represent

existing NEC th

Harford, and C

many acres of 

Grassland/Cul

land cover. 

Hydrologic/Water 

Resources

< The most freshwater wetlands 

within the Representative Route of 

this alternative are present in 

Connecticut and Rhode Island.

< Most saltwater wetlands and 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

(CZMA) boundaries are in 

Connecticut associated with the 

Long Island Sound.

< The most freshwater wetlands 

within the Representative Route of 

this alternative are present in 

Connecticut and Rhode Island.

< Most saltwater wetlands and 

CZMA boundaries are in 

Connecticut associated with the 

Long Island Sound.

< The most fresh

the Represent

alternative are 

< Most saltwate

boundaries are 
7.20. Cumulative effects

Page | 7.20-10 T

Table 7.20-3: Environmental Consequences: Cumulative Effects – Impact of Action Alternatives on Key Resou

(continued)

Environmental 

Resources Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alte

Ecological Resources < Ecologically Sensitive Habitat (ESH)

impacts within the Representative 

Route of this alternative are 

concentrated in Connecticut, which 

would have the most terrestrial 

and saltwater ESH impacts.

Maryland would have the most 

freshwater ESH impacts. 

< Threatened and Endangered (T&E)

species and their critical habitats 

are of particular concern in 

Connecticut and Maryland.

< Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)

crossings are concentrated in New 

York and Connecticut.

< ESH impacts within the 

Representative Route of this 

alternative are concentrated in 

Connecticut, which would have the 

most terrestrial and saltwater ESH 

impacts. Maryland would have the 

most freshwater ESH impacts. 

< T&E species and their critical 

habitats are of particular concern 

in Connecticut and Maryland.

< EFH crossings are concentrated in 

New York and Connecticut.

< ESH impacts w

Route of this a

concentrated 

would have th

saltwater ESH 

would have th

impacts. 

< T&E species an

are of particul

Connecticut an

< EFH crossings 

York and Conn

Cultural Resources and 

Historic Properties

< The most cultural resources and 

historic properties within the 

Representative Route are 

concentrated in Connecticut.

< The most cultural resources and 

historic properties within the 

Representative Route are 

concentrated in Connecticut.

< The most cultu

historic prope

Representativ

concentrated 

Environmental Justice

(EJ)

< Greatest potential for negative 

environmental effects in EJ census 

tracts in Maryland and 

Connecticut.

< Benefits of decrease travel time 

and increase service reliability and 

improved access, frequency, and 

mobility for the entire population, 

including EJ populations, 

throughout the Study Area.

< Greatest potential for negative 

environmental effects in EJ census 

tracts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, 

New York, and Connecticut.

< Benefits of decrease travel time 

and increase service reliability and 

improved access, frequency, and 

mobility for the entire population, 

including EJ populations, 

throughout the Study Area.

< Greatest pote

environmenta

tracts in Mary

York, Connect

Massachusetts

< Benefits of dec

increase servic

improved acce

mobility for th

including EJ po

the Study Area
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequ

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.20-3: Environmental Consequences: Cumulative Effects – Impact of Action Alternatives on Key Resou

(continued)

Environmental 

Resources Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alte

Air Quality < Reduction in criteria pollutants in 

all states.

< Reduction in mobile source air 

toxics (MSATs) in all states. 

< The net total CO2 emissions 

decrease in all states.

< Reduction in criteria pollutants in 

all states.

< Reduction in MSATs in all states.

< The net total CO2 emissions 

decrease in all states.

< Reduction in c

states.

< Reduction in M

< The net total C

in all states.

Climate Change < The projected increase in the 

number of days per year above 

95o

F is most dramatic in Maryland, 

Washington, D.C., Delaware, 

Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

< Inundation risk is greatest in four 

counties in Connecticut (Fairfield, 

New Haven, Middlesex, and New 

London Counties).

< The projected increase in the 

number of days per year above 

95o

F is most dramatic in Maryland, 

Washington, D.C., Delaware, 

Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

< Inundation risk is greatest in four 

counties in Connecticut (Fairfield, 

New Haven, Middlesex, and New 

London Counties).

< The projected 

of days per ye

dramatic in M

D.C., Delaware

New Jersey.

< Inundation ris

counties in Co

Haven, Middle

Counties).

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
7.20. Cumulative effects

Page | 7.20-12 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4 Hydrologic/Water Resources: Action Alternatives potentially affect water resources including

surface waters and hydrologic systems such as wetlands, coastal zones, and floodplains. Potential 

impacts on floodplains may involve the placement of fill that can divert flow and increase the 

base flood elevation. Changes to land use that increase impervious surface area and remove 

vegetation can increase stormwater runoff and degrade water quality. Overall, these changes 

would negatively affect wetlands and coastal areas by increasing erosion and sedimentation. 

Activities that involve crossing a water body or wetland are expected to have the most direct and 

significant impacts on hydrology and water resources.

4 Ecological Resources: The Action Alternatives would have a negative effect on ecological 

resources, which include Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species, Ecologically Sensitive 

Habitats (ESH), and Essential Fish Habitats (EFH). Impacts to these sensitive habitats and the 

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

Action Alternatives. Those ESH and EFH within the Representative Route would be vulnerable to 

habitat fragmentation. 

4 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties: The Action Alternatives would have the potential to 

disturb cultural resources and historic properties within the Representative Route, or could have 

indirect effects on cultural resources and historic properties outside the Representative Route. 

Resources within the Representative Route are expected to have a higher likelihood of being 

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

operations. Direct physical and/or contextual disturbance to existing historic structures and/or 

districts sites may physically compromise existing historic sites, structures, districts, and known 

and unknown terrestrial and underwater archaeological sites. Indirect effects to these same 

resources occur outside the Representative Route and could include increased noise levels, 

increased vibration, changes to the visual setting, or changes to access. The sensitivity of cultural 

resources includes integrity of the surrounding landscape. Impacting the viewshed or site lines of 

historic properties could adversely affect these resources. As such, the Action Alternatives would 

have a negative effect on cultural resources and historic properties.

4 Environmental Justice: The Action Alternatives would have the potential to affect Environmental 

Justice (EJ) census tracts. Unlike other key resource areas, the intensity of impacts to EJ census 

tracts are correlated to the cumulative effects of the Action Alternatives to land cover, parklands, 

cultural resources, visual and aesthetic resources, noise and vibration, hazardous materials, 

transportation, economic effects, air quality, and safety impacts within EJ census tracts. A benefit 

of the additional capacity, mobility and connectivity associated with the Action Alternatives is 

improved access to EJ communities along the NEC. Increased train frequencies, more 

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

enabling people to have a greater selection and availability of jobs and services. The potential for 

negative impacts of the Action Alternatives in EJ census tracts occur where the Action Alternatives 

affect land cover, parklands, hazardous wastes and contaminated material sites, cultural 

resources, visual and aesthetic resources, and noise and vibration. Specific effects to EJ 

populations would be documented in subsequent Tier 2 analysis.

4 Air Quality: The Action Alternatives would have a beneficial effect on emissions of criteria 

pollutants and GHGs from roadway vehicles since they would decrease vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT) and associated vehicle emissions. Changes in emissions of criteria pollutants and GHGs due 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.20-13

to aircraft travel are expected to decrease under the Action Alternatives, because of the potential 

mode shift from auto and aircraft travel to passenger rail. However, the Action Alternatives would 

increase emissions of criteria pollutants and GHGs from power plants because of the increased 

electrical requirements of the trains under the Action Alternatives. Nonetheless, the net result is 

a decrease in emissions of criteria pollutants and GHGs under the Action Alternatives. 

4 Climate Change: 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 tracks buckling and 

potential electrical failures from sagging catenary wires and overheating power supplies. The 

Action Alternatives would have a beneficial effect on rail assets at risk of inundation by providing 

alternate routes that could assist in maintaining services if inundation issues (or other hazards) 

affect assets or services.

7.20.3.3 Identification of Effects of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future 

Actions

To fully understand the ramifications of multiple projects on key resource areas, trends affecting each 

of those key resources must be identified and considered. Consideration of these key resources 

includes review of implications from other transportation projects and non-transportation projects 

that have recently occurred, are under development, or have been proposed.

Other Transportation Projects

Other non-NEC FUTURE related transportation projects are rail, highway, transit, aviation, and 

maritime projects that are assumed to be built by the horizon year of 2040. Table 7.20-4 includes 

descriptions of the following transportation-related actions of other transportation projects that 

would affect the key resource areas:

4 Planned and programmed improvements to highway, freight rail, transit, air, and maritime modes

using current information compiled from federal, state, and regional transportation planning 

documents and from interviews with federal and state regulatory and resource agencies

4 Actions throughout the Study Area expanded to include the connecting corridors

4 Funded projects or projects with approved funding plans (e.g., federal or state committed 

funding)

4 Funded or unfunded mandates

4 Unfunded projects necessary to keep the railroad running
7.20. Cumulative effects

Page | 7.20-14 T

Table 7.20-4: Environmental Consequences: Qualitative Assessment of Resources Affected by Other Transpo

State Mode Project Name Description

Poten

VA Transit Crystal City/Potomac 

Yard Transitway

< Bus rapid transit and possible streetcar in a later phase connecting 

the blue and yellow lines of the D.C. Metrorail.

< 21 station stops located in the Route 1 corridor in the city of 

Alexandria and Arlington County, VA.

< T

Aviation Dulles International 

Airport Fifth Runway 

(Runway 12R-30L)

< Construct fifth runway parallel to existing runway 12–30 along the 

south side of Dulles Airport property roughly parallel to U.S. 50, 

west of Chantilly ~10,500 feet long and 150 feet wide named 

Runway 12R-30L (existing parallel runway will be renamed 12L30R).

< T

< L

< H

R

D.C. Rail Washington Union 

Station Master Plan

< The Union Station Master Plan sets out a framework for rebuilding 

and expanding the station over the next 20 years. It provides a 

long-term, multi-phased vision for increased capacity with 

additional tracks and wider all high-level platforms; new amenities 

for passengers including sweeping modern concourses and retail 

spaces; and large-scale real estate development above the station’s 

tracks.

< T

< C

H

MD Rail B&P Tunnels Repairs < Critical repairs necessary to maintain tunnels in operating 

condition.

< T

Freight National Gateway 

Freight Rail Corridor

< Package of rail infrastructure and intermodal terminal projects that 

will enhance transportation service options along three major 

freight rail corridors owned and operated by CSX through the 

Midwest and along the Atlantic coast.

< Improvements will allow trains to carry double-stacked containers, 

increase freight capacity and make the corridor more marketable to 

major East Coast ports and shippers.

< T

< H

R

Maritime Masonville Berth 

Construction

< Construct new structure to replace Fairfield Marine Terminal Pier 4, 

a deficient pier of World War II vintage that is currently at the end 

of its useful life and the sole MPA berth for two large auto 

terminals (146 acres).

< Convert Masonville Dredged Material Containment Facility into a 

marine terminal.

< L

< H

R
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequ

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.20-4: Environmental Consequences: Qualitative Assessment of Resources Affected by Other Transpo

(continued)

State Mode Project Name Description

Poten

MD

(cont’d)

Rail Susquehanna Bridge 

Rehabilitation/ 

Replacement 

< Replacement and/or rehabilitation of the Susquehanna River Bridge 

in Maryland, a chokepoint that precludes capacity increases on the 

Northeast Corridor. Engineering and environmental analysis is 

currently funded.

< T

PA Rail Keystone CorridorInterlocking Design< The replacement and reconfiguration of tracks and improvements 

to signal and train control along the Philadelphia-Harrisburg 

Keystone Corridor to improve speed, reliability, and on-time 

performance. Engineering and environmental analysis is currently 

funded.

< T

NJ Rail Elizabeth Intermodal 

Station 

Reconstruction 

< The reconstruction of the passenger platforms and station building 

at Elizabeth Rail Station, including new elevators and stairs, ticket 

and operational office space, and retail space.

< T

< In

Maritime Delaware River 

Deepening

< Deepen river to allow larger ships to access ports in PA and NJ. < H

R

Rail Hunter Flyover < Construction of a grade-separated crossing of the Raritan Valley 

Line trains that would allow RVL to cross NEC tracks without 

interfering with any trains on Tracks 4, 3 and 2. It would permit 

trains to operate at faster speeds and provide substantial additional 

capacity, which could be used to support increased train volumes 

when required.

< T

NY Rail MTA-Long Island Rail 

Road (LIRR) – Penn 

Station New York 

(PSNY) Improvements

< Investments in support of PSNY, focus on customer improvements, 

including the replacement of two-decade old elevators and 

escalators in the MTA-LIRR area of the station, along with 

rehabilitation of stairs, platform lighting and other station 

components.

< The PSNY Complex Improvements project will advance early 

initiatives identified as part of the PSNY Visioning effort. The Vision 

project recommended enhancements to corridors, access points, 

lighting, signage and wayfinding and a general improving of the 

space available for passenger circulation.

< L

< T
7.20. Cumulative effects

Page | 7.20-16 T

Table 7.20-4: Environmental Consequences: Qualitative Assessment of Resources Affected by Other Transpo

(continued)

State Mode Project Name Description

Poten

NY 

(cont’d)

Rail East Side Access < Construction of new tunnels, rail system elements and a new 

station on Manhattan’s East Side for Long Island Rail Road.

< T

< L

< C

Rail Moynihan Station 

Phase 1

< Construct Phase 1 of the Moynihan Station project, which includes 

below-grade transportation improvements, providing increased 

access points to the western portions of the Penn Station 

platforms, above- and below grade, expanded concourses and a 

new emergency ventilation system.

< T

< C

< C

Transit Second Avenue 

Subway Phase I

< Construct 2.3 miles of new subway on Manhattan’s East Side from 

96th Street to 63rd Street, connecting with the existing Broadway 

Line at the 63rd Street Station.

< Construction of three new stations at 96th, 86th, and 72nd Streets.

< Modification of the existing 63rd Street station.

< New tunnels from 92nd to 63rd Streets Stations/ancillary facilities.

< Track, signal, and power systems.

< Procurement of 68 rail cars.

< T

< L

Freight Hunts Point Freight 

Rail Improvement 

Project

< Freight rail improvements at the Hunts Point Terminal Produce 

Market to modernize current infrastructure and create new 

circulation areas, reduce truck traffic and congestion, and improve 

air quality in the community. 

< T

< A

< C

CT Transit Hartford-New Britain 

Busway

< Construct New Britain - Hartford Busway (Busway), a priority 

project designed to allow for connections to some rail stations.

< Provide direct linkage shuttle bus to Bradley Airport and over the 

long term, the feasibility of creating a rail connection to the 

terminal will be assessed.

< T

< A

Rail New England Central 

Railroad Freight Rail 

Project

< The project will complete state-of-good-repair improvements and 

the upgrade of rail and track infrastructure to accommodate 

national standard 286,000-pound (286K) gross-weight rail freight 

cars on the 55 miles of track running through the municipalities of 

New London, Waterford, Montville, Norwich, Franklin, Lebanon, 

Windham, Mansfield, Willington, and Stafford in eastern 

Connecticut.

< T
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequ

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.20-4: Environmental Consequences: Qualitative Assessment of Resources Affected by Other Transpo

(continued)

State Mode Project Name Description

Poten

RI Aviation T.F. Green Airport < Extend Runway 5-23.

< Expand Runway 16-34 Runway Safety Area.

< Relocate Taxiway C farther from Runway 16-34.

< Construct up to seven new gates.

< T

< L

< H

R

MA Maritime New Russia Wharf 

Ferry Terminal and 

Route in Boston

< Implement new ferry route in Boston Inner Harbor, from the 

existing terminal at the Charlestown Navy Yard to a new terminal at 

Russia Wharf, which is located in Fort Point Channel at Congress 

Street.

< T

< H

R

< C

Rail Springfield MA Union 

Station Project

< Integrate multiple transit modes (bus, Amtrak, commuter rail, taxi, 

bicycle, and pedestrian).

< Restore Terminal Building and its central concourse. Remove 

Baggage Building and construct a 24-bay bus terminal and a 146-

space parking garage, with 4 additional bus bays on adjacent site. 

< Reopen and restore passenger tunnel linking the terminal building 

to rail boarding platforms and pedestrian access to the downtown.

< Provide new stair and elevator access from re-opened passenger 

tunnel leading to passenger rail boarding platforms.

< T

< C

Rail MBTA Worcester Line 

Improvements/ 

Service Expansion

< Increase commuter rail service on the Framingham/Worcester line 

between Boston and Worcester with the addition of three new 

inbound and three new outbound trains between the two cities for 

31 stops arriving or departing Worcester station.

< Agreement between CSX and the Commonwealth provides the 

Commonwealth ownership of the rail tracks and control of 

operations along the Framingham/Worcester line, allowing greater 

opportunities for MassDOT to not only improve service but also 

increase service between Boston and Worcester.

< T

< L

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
7.20. Cumulative effects

Page | 7.20-18 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.20-4 is a representative list of present and future transportation projects that would occur in 

the Study Area by 2040. Many of these projects, such as the New Jersey High-Speed Rail Improvement 

Project known as Raceway, are transportation projects included in transportation planning 

documents spanning the current fiscal year. Other projects, such as the Atlantic City Expressway 

Widening, are included in long range planning documents. For a complete list of other transportation 

projects identified in the Study Area, see Appendix E, Section E.19.

The greatest numbers of other transportation-related projects are planned in Pennsylvania, New 

Jersey, and New York. As such, the implementation of the Action Alternatives in these states has the 

greatest potential for cumulative effects. The resources with the greatest potential effects are the 

transportation network itself, hydrologic/water resources, and land cover. 

Non-Transportation Projects

Non-transportation projects include large-scale residential or commercial development projects, or 

natural resource development projects that are assumed to be built by the horizon year of 2040.

Table 7.20-5 includes description of non-transportation actions that would affect the key resource 

areas. These actions include the following:

4 Non-transportation infrastructure improvements that would occur near the Representative 

Route of the Action Alternatives

4 Larger-scale development projects near stations of the Action Alternatives

4 State efforts, plans, or publications related to land cover, air quality, or any other environmental 

resources that relate to key resource areas

Delaware and Massachusetts include the greatest number of non-transportation-related projects. As 

such, the implementation of the Action Alternatives in these states has the greatest potential for 

cumulative effects. The resources subject to the greatest potential effects are the transportation 

network itself, cultural resources, hydrologic/water resources, air quality, and land cover. 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequ

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.20-5: Environmental Consequences: Qualitative Assessment of Resources Affected by Non-Transpor

State Project Name Description

Potent

VA Potomac Shores 

Development

A public private partnership to spur new development, which includes the 

Potomac Shores VRE Station.

< Tran

< Lan

< Hyd

Res

D.C. Navy Yard Master Plan The National Capital Planning Commission approved a modified final 

master plan for the Washington Navy Yard, which includes an addition of a 

100-foot green buffer along the Potomac River riverfront. 

< Lan

< Cult

Hist

MD Executive Order 

01.01.2014.14 Strengthening 

Climate Action in Maryland

Executive Order expanding and modifying the Maryland Commission on 

Climate Change requiring state agencies to integrate GHG Reduction Act, 

consider climate change impacts. The Commission will report every year,

on status of the state's efforts to address the causes and consequences of 

climate change, including future plans and recommendations for 

legislation, if any, for consideration by the General Assembly.

< Air 

< Clim

DE Brownfield Redevelopment Brownfield redevelopment plan to reuse 29 acres of mostly vacant and idle 

land east of the city's most-active riverfront redevelopment area, near the 

Southbridge community. Christina River LLC, led by owners of an export 

company off Pyles Lane in New Castle, secured the 10-year, 1 percent 

interest loan from the Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control for the former New Arc Welding property. The site 

lies off Commerce Street partly along the Christina River, roughly opposite 

the 7th Street Peninsula.

< Lan

First State National 

Monument

First State National Monument’s boundary encompasses a little over 1,000 

acres of federal, state, and city lands in Kent and New Castle Counties in 

Delaware. This is a new national park, which consists of the Woodlawn 

Tract, New Castle Court House, New Castle Green, and Dover Green.

< Cult

Hist

Division of Air Quality’s 

(DAQ) 2015 Air Toxics 

Strategic Plan (2015 - 2019)

The DAQ’s Air Toxics Strategic Plan is a five-year plan of activities to be 

undertaken by DAQ and its partners to reduce the risk of adverse health 

effects caused by the inhalation of air toxics.

< Air 
7.20. Cumulative effects

Page | 7.20-20 T

Table 7.20-5: Environmental Consequences: Qualitative Assessment of Resources Affected by Non-Transpor

(continued)

State Project Name Description

Potent

PA Ardmore Redevelopment 

Project

A redevelopment in downtown Ardmore which includes a high-rise 

apartment and retail complex across from the Ardmore train station.

< Tra

< Lan

CT Stamford Transportation 

Center Transit-Oriented 

Development (TOD)

The TOD project will include approximately 600,000 square feet of 

commercial office space, 60,000 SF of street-level retail space, a hotel with 

approximately 150 rooms and approximately 150 residential units. The 

purpose of the proposed project is to:

< Replace the aging 727-space original parking garage that services the 

Stamford Transportation Center with low maintenance, long service 

life facilities that accommodated a minimum of 1,000 spaces.

< Expand the availability of parking and improve multimodal traffic, 

bicycle, and pedestrian flow around the Stamford Transportation 

Center and Station Place.

< Minimize the public costs for construction and ongoing operations 

and maintenance of the parking facilities serving the Stamford 

Transportation Center by promoting TOD, which leverages and 

enhances the multimodal public transportation services provided by 

the Stamford Transportation Center.

< Tra

< Lan

MA Assembly Station The MBTA opens Assembly Station. Assembly provides a link from 

Somerville’s Assembly Row to Boston and is key to creating transitoriented development in the area, MBTA officials said. Those plans call for 

more than 2.8 million square feet of office space; 635,000 square feet of 

retail shops, restaurants, and other entertainment outlets; and 1,813 

homes at the site.

< Tra

< Lan

< Hyd

Res

Rehabilitation of Springfield 

Union Station

In December 2014, the Springfield City Council authorized spending 

$3.2 million toward the long-awaited, $75.6 million Union Station 

intermodal transportation project.

< Tra

< Lan

< Cul

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2014
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.20-21

7.20.3.4 Assessment of Cumulative Effects by Key Resource

To determine cumulative effects, this analysis focused on identifying locations within the Affected 

Environment of the key resource areas to identify areas of concern or sensitivity to cumulative 

impacts. This section broadly identifies and discloses the potential for incremental effects of the 

Action Alternatives to cause cumulative effects on key resource areas where other transportation 

projects or non-transportation projects also have the potential to affect those resource areas. The 

cumulative effects of the Action Alternatives, other transportation projects, and non-transportation 

projects have the potential to have beneficial or adverse effects on key resources. Areas of concern 

or sensitivity to cumulative effects are highlighted.

Table 7.20-6 through Table 7.20-8 identify the states containing key resources areas affected by the 

Action Alternatives, and the combined actions of other transportation projects, or non-transportation 

projects. See Appendix E, Section E.19 for the number of other transportation projects and nontransportation projects that affect key resources. A full list of other transportation projects and nontransportation projects identified in the Study Area by state is included in supporting documentation.

Alternative 1

Table 7.20-6: Environmental Consequences: Greatest Potential for Cumulative Effects on Key 

Resources – Alternative 1

State

TransportationIndirectLand CoverHydrologic/Water ResourcesEcological ResourcesCultural Resources and Historic PropertiesEnvironmental JusticeAir QualityClimate Change

VA TN T TN TN AT

D.C. AT TN T TN A A

MD T T T T A A ATN AN

DE AT T N T N AN A

PA TN TN T T A A

NJ AT T T T A A

NY AT T T T A T AT T

CT ATN ATN AT AT A A AT A

RI T AT T AT A

MA ATN AT TN TN TN AT

NH A

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

A = Potential for Cumulative Effects due to the Action Alternatives

T = Potential for Cumulative Effects due to one or more other transportation projects

N = Potential for Cumulative Effects due to one or more non-transportation projects

Blank Cell = Minimal potential for cumulative effects identified for key resource area in the listed state. 

The greatest potential to contribute to cumulative effects on key resource areas would occur in 

Maryland, Connecticut, and Massachusetts where the incremental effects of the Action Alternatives, 

other transportation projects, and non-transportation projects have the potential to affect key 
7.20. Cumulative effects

Page | 7.20-22 Tier 1 Draft EIS

resources. In Connecticut there would be potential for adverse effects to land cover due to potential 

conversion of undeveloped land cover, or potential acquisition or displacement of developed land 

cover. In both Connecticut and Massachusetts, there is the potential for a beneficial effect on 

transportation. In addition, the combined effect of the Action Alternatives and other transportation 

projects has the potential to negatively affect ecological resources and hydrological/water resources

in Connecticut. Cumulative effects from the Action Alternatives and other transportation projects

would likely have a beneficial effect on air quality in Virginia, Washington, D.C., Maryland, Delaware, 

New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. 

Alternative 2

Table 7.20-7: Environmental Consequences: Greatest Potential for Cumulative Effects on Key 

Resources – Alternative 2

State

TransportationIndirectLand CoverHydrologic/Water ResourcesEcological ResourcesCultural Resources and Historic PropertiesEnvironmental JusticeAir QualityClimate Change

VA TN T TN TN AT

D.C. AT TN T TN A A

MD T T T T A ATN AN

DE AT T N T N AN A

PA TN TN T T A A A

NJ AT AT T T A A A

NY AT AT T T A T A AT T

CT ATN A ATN AT AT A A AT A

RI T T T AT A

MA ATN AT TN TN TN AT

NH A

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

A = Potential for Cumulative Effects due to the Action Alternatives

T = Potential for Cumulative Effects due to one or more other transportation projects

N = Potential for Cumulative Effects due to one or more non-transportation projects

Blank Cell = Minimal potential for cumulative effects identified for key resource area in the listed state. 

The greatest potential to contribute to cumulative effects on key resource areas would occur in 

Maryland, Connecticut, and Massachusetts consistent with the findings of the cumulative effects 

analysis for Alternative 1. The combined effects of the Action Alternatives and other transportation 

projects have the potential to exacerbate indirect effects in New Jersey, New York, and 

Massachusetts, but would likely have a beneficial effect on air quality. 

Alternative 3

The effects of Alternative 3 on the key resource areas identified in Table 7.20-8 consider the effects 

from Washington, D.C., to Boston for all possible route options. 
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.20-23

Table 7.20-8: Environmental Consequences: Greatest Potential for Cumulative Effects on Key 

Resources – Alternative 3

State

TransportationIndirectLand CoverHydrologic/Water ResourcesEcological ResourcesCultural Resources and Historic PropertiesEnvironmental JusticeAir QualityClimate Change

VA TN T TN TN AT

D.C. AT TN T TN A A

MD T T AT AT A ATN AN

DE AT T N T N AN A

PA TN TN T T A A A

NJ T AT T T A A

NY AT AT T T A T A AT T

CT TN A ATN AT AT A A AT A

RI T AT T T A A

MA ATN AT TN TN TN A AT

NH A

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

A = Potential for Cumulative Effects due to the Action Alternatives

T = Potential for Cumulative Effects due to one or more other transportation projects

N = Potential for Cumulative Effects due to one or more non-transportation projects

Blank Cell = Minimal potential for cumulative effects identified for key resource area in the listed state. 

The greatest potential for cumulative effects on key resource areas would occur in Maryland,

Connecticut, and Massachusetts, consistent with the findings of the cumulative effects analysis for 

Alternatives 1 and 2. The combined effects of the Action Alternatives and other transportation 

projects would likely have an adverse effect on land cover and hydrological/water resources in 

Maryland, as well as experience an increase the number of days per year above 95oF. There is 

potential for cumulative effects on key resources in Massachusetts, where the combined effects of 

the Action Alternatives, other transportation, and non-transportation projects together have the 

potential to affect transportation.
7.20. Cumulative effects

Page | 7.20-24 Tier 1 Draft EIS

7.20.4 Summary

Implementation of all Action Alternatives, when considered in the context of implementation of other 

transportation and non-transportation projects, would have notable effects on air quality, cultural 

resources and historic properties, land cover, and transportation.

Many projects during development would convert undeveloped land to developed land, resulting in 

various effects such as increased impervious surfaces, runoff, and loss or fragmentation of ecological 

resources. These conversions of land cover can also result in the removal or demolition of cultural 

and historic properties. Unlike some resources, loss of cultural and historic properties is irreplaceable. 

For many of the negative effects identified, mitigation measures can be employed to minimize the 

overall cumulative effects. However, multiple effects on like resources within the same Study Area 

can result in much larger and more significant effects that may not be able to be mitigated. Examples 

of this are multiple areas of dredging and filling of wetlands within the same watershed, as sitespecific effects of dredging and filling wetlands can have effects that span a watershed.

Air quality, EJ communities, and the transportation network would likely benefit, as the Action 

Alternatives, other transportation projects, and non-transportation projects coincide to improve the 

overall transportation network. The transportation improvements would increase the role of rail as 

part of the total travel market; provide a better overall transportation network that functions to more 

effectively and efficiently meet the needs of commuters, travelers, freight movers, residents, and 

businesses within the Study Area; reduce emissions of criteria pollutants and GHGs from roadway 

vehicles; and provide more travel choices enabling people to have a greater selection and availability 

of jobs and services.

A specific geographic area of note is Connecticut. As indicated in this analysis, Connecticut has many 

transportation and non-transportation initiatives ongoing or proposed. Implementation of these 

initiatives, in conjunction with the Action Alternatives, has the opportunity to provide numerous 

benefits to Connecticut but could also negatively affect numerous resources within this one state.

7.20.5 Subsequent Tier 2 Analysis 

During subsequent Tier 2 planning efforts, the analyses would further define the specific cumulative 

impacts a project may have on key resources when considered with other past, present, and future 

actions. Coordination with state and federal resource agencies and metropolitan planning 

organizations would provide more specific information about local projects for consideration.