TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Parklands and 

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers

7.4

7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.4-1

7.4 PARKLANDS AND WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

7.4.1 Introduction

This chapter provides a brief description of parklands and 

wild and scenic rivers in the Affected Environment and 

broader Context Area and includes the evaluation of 

potential environmental consequences of the Tier 1 Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (Tier 1 Draft EIS) Action 

Alternatives on these resources. The Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) further examines those parkland 

resources identified in this chapter as potentially affected as 

part of the Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) evaluations

(Chapter 7.16).

7.4.1.1 Definition of Resource

For the purposes of this analysis, parklands include parks 

and outdoor recreational facilities, bird sanctuaries, wildlife 

preserves, resource management areas, federal and state 

forests, and similar resources that are publicly owned.

Wild and scenic rivers are those rivers listed on the National 

Rivers Inventory and defined as “rivers of the U.S. which, 

with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, 

fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values.” (Public Law 90-542; 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.)

These rivers may also be classified as Wild River Areas, Scenic River Areas, or Recreational River Areas, 

but regardless of the classification, they are administered with the goal of protecting and enhancing 

the values that caused it to be designated.

7.4.1.2 Effects-Assessment Methodology

The FRA developed an effects-assessment methodology for parklands and wild and scenic rivers (see 

Appendix E, Section E.04, Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers Effects-Assessment Methodology 

Report). The methodology provides a definition of each resource type, data sources, an explanation 

on how the Affected Environment was defined and established, and how the effects on each resource 

were evaluated and reported. Table 7.4-1 summarizes key factors associated with the methodologies 

for the evaluation of parkland and wild and scenic rivers. In keeping with the Tier 1 level assessment,

the FRA identified only federal, state, and county parklands. The FRA will collect information 

regarding municipal and local parklands and recreational facilities during subsequent project-level 

environmental assessments.

Key Resource: Parklands

§ Section 4(f) of the U.S. DOT Act 

protects publicly owned parks, 

recreation areas, and wildlife/waterfowl 

refuges, and historic properties. 

Impacts on these resources are 

discouraged and require additional 

analysis to determine the type of 

impact and whether identified impacts 

can be avoided or minimized.

§ Analysis of parklands informs 

Section 4(f) analysis.

§ Types of effects can include 

conversion of parkland resources to 

non-recreational uses, visual changes, 

noise and vibration, and access.
7.4. Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers

Page | 7.4-2 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table 7.4-1: Effects-Assessment Methodology Summary: Parklands and Wild and Scenic 

Rivers

Resource Affected Environment

Type of 

Assessment Outcome

Parklands and 

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers

2,000-foot-wide swath 

centered along 

Representative Route for 

each Action Alternative

Quantitative: 

Acres

Identification of federal, state, and county parklands and 

wild and scenic rivers affected by the Action Alternatives

and where the Action Alternative may cross a resource 

and result in a land conversion, or cause proximity

effects, such as visual or noise effects

Source: NEC FUTURE Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers Effects-Assessment Methodology, Appendix E, Section E.04.A, 2014.

7.4.2 Resource Overview 

Implementation of the No Action or Action Alternatives could result in conversion of existing 

parklands to non-recreational uses and expanded or new crossings of designated wild and scenic 

rivers. Conversions of parklands may occur through modifications to existing rail infrastructure or 

constructing new rail infrastructure within parklands. Crossing a wild and scenic river may affect the 

visual character or setting that may be important to the designation. Implementation of the No Action 

or Action Alternatives could also result in proximity effects, such as noise and vibration effects caused 

by new service on new routes or changes in service on existing routes. Parklands exist throughout 

the 2,000-foot-wide Affected Environment, with higher acreages of these lands found in Maryland, 

New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. Higher acreages of parklands are located 

in areas where the Action Alternatives diverge from the existing NEC and create new segments or 

extend off-corridor, primarily in New York under Alternative 3, and Connecticut and Rhode Island

under all the Action Alternatives. 

The most parks occur within the Affected Environment of Alternative 2, and the highest total park 

acreages occur within the Affected Environment of Alternative 3. There is one wild and scenic river—

White Clay Creek in New Castle, Delaware—in the Affected Environment of all of the Action 

Alternatives. 

Key findings for the analysis of NEC FUTURE Action Alternatives’ effects on parklands are listed below.

4 Benefits:

– Implementation of the Action Alternatives can improve access to existing and future 

parklands. Examples of parklands near new station locations or areas that would experience 

increased service include the following:

o East Coast Greenway: Pennsylvania segment (all Action Alternatives) and Rhode Island 

segment (Alternatives 2 and 3)

o Pelham Bay Park (all Action Alternatives)

4 Impacts:

– Parkland conversions primarily would occur with new off-corridor segments.

o The majority of parkland conversions associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 would occur in 

Rhode Island.
7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.4-3

o Under Alternative 3, the majority of parkland conversions would occur in Rhode Island 

and New York.

– All Action Alternatives cross a wild and scenic river, the White Clay Creek in New Castle, 

Delaware. Alternative 3 creates a new crossing south of the existing NEC, whereas 

Alternatives 1 and 2 expand the existing crossing.

– Alternative 3 would affect the most parks (between 116 and 130 parks). 

– Alternative 3 would affect the most park acreages (up to 905 acres). 

– The parks that would have the highest acreage potentially affected by the Action Alternatives

are listed below. Note that the greatest acreages do not necessarily imply that an Action 

Alternative would result in the greatest overall impact to the resource. For example, 

Alternative 1 would affect approximately 180 acres of the Greenway in Washington County, 

RI, which is less than 1 percent of the total park area. As such, the effects to the park are likely

to be minimal.

o The Greenway, which crosses Kent, Providence, and Washington Counties, RI, would be 

crossed by Alternative 1 (affecting approximately 180 acres in Washington County); by 

Alternative 2 (affecting approximately 95 acres in Providence County); and by Alternative 

3 (affecting about 100 acres in Providence County). 

o Pelham Bay Park in Bronx, NY, would have approximately 70 acres converted to a 

transportation use under Alternative 3.

o Patuxent Research Refuge in Anne Arundel, MD, would have approximately 60 acres 

converted to a transportation use by Alternative 3.

o The Great Swamp Management Area/Great Swamp in Washington, RI, would have 

approximately 50 acres converted to a transportation use by Alternative 1.

o Eisenhower County Park in Nassau, NY, and Gunpowder Falls State Park in Baltimore 

County, MD, would have approximately 40 acres converted to a transportation use under 

Alternative 3.

o Saxon Woods County Park in Westchester, NY, and Norfolk County Canoe River 

Wilderness in Norfolk, MA, would have approximately 30 acres converted to a 

transportation use by Alternative 3.

o Natchaug State Forest in Windham, CT, would have 25 acres converted to a 

transportation use under both Alternatives 2 and 3.

Depending on identification of the Preferred Alternative, subsequent project phases would further 

examine the relevant parks listed above to avoid or minimize impacts.

7.4.3 Affected Environment 

For each of the Action Alternatives, the following sections and Table 7.4-2 identify the number of 

federal, state, and county parks, total park acreage, and percentage of the total park acreage within 

the Affected Environment. One wild and scenic river exists in the Affected Environment of all of the 

Action Alternatives: White Clay Creek, in New Castle, DE. 
7.4. Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers

Page | 7.4-4 T

Table 7.4-2: Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers Resources within the Affected Environment

Geography

Total 

Acres of 

Resources*

Resources in the Affected Environment

Existing NEC Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

# of 

Parks Acres

% of Total 

Park Acres

# of 

Parks Acres

% of Total 

Park Acres

# of 

Parks Acres

% of Total 

Park Acres

# of 

Parks 

D.C. 1,162 8 200 17% 8 200 17% 8 200 17% 8 

MD 108,124 78 1,020 1% 87 1,030 1% 89 1,090 1% 129 

DE 1,115 12 240 22% 12 240 22% 12 240 22% 12 

PA 10,628 50 560 5% 50 560 5% 47 780 7% 70 

NJ 4,792 14 210 4% 14 210 4% 14 225 5% 15 

NY 11,314 49 745 7% 49 750 7% 57 760 7% 66–91 

CT 63,280 26 825 1% 28 865 1% 36 2,275 4% 7–32 

RI 321,459 30 4,305 1% 31 4,910 2% 38 5,765 2% 27–38 

MA 6,227 8 180 3% 8 180 3% 8 180 3% 8–20 

TOTAL 528,101 275 8,285 2% 287 8,945 2% 309 11,515 2% 342–415 

Sources: National Rivers Inventory; Land and Water Conservation Fund; National Atlas of the United States; National Park Service; U.S. Department o

Resources Conservation Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; District of Columbia Data Catalogue; Washington, D.C., Department of Parks and Recr

Department of Natural Resources; Delaware Forest Service; Delaware Division of Parks and Recreation; Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access; Pennsylva

Conservation and Natural Resources; Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection; New Jersey Department of Environmental P

Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation; University of Connecticut; Rhode Island Geographic Information System; Rhode Island Divisio

Department of Environmental Management; Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation

Note: There is one wild and scenic river, White Clay Creek, in the Affected Environment of all of the Action Alternatives. It is located in New Castle, D

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

or off-corridor route associated with each Action Alternative.

* Most of the resources are only partially located in the Affected Environment. The total number of acres represents the total acreage of the parklan

outside and inside the Affected Environment of the existing NEC or any alternatives. 
7.4. Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.4-5

The counties that have the most parks in the Affected Environment are Baltimore City, MD (51 to 93 

parks, depending on the Action Alternative); Philadelphia, PA (39 to 59 parks); and Queens, NY (14 to 

40 parks). The counties that have the most park acreage in the Affected Environment for the 

alternatives include Washington County, RI (3,200+ acres); Providence County, RI (up to 2,200 acres); 

and Windham County, CT (over 1,000 acres). (See Appendix E, Section E.04, for a complete list and 

the acreages of parklands and wild and scenic rivers identified.) Some of the largest parks in the 

Affected Environment include the Greenway, which goes through Kent, Providence, and Washington, 

RI; Natchaug State Forest in Windham, CT; and the Great Swamp Management Area in 

Washington, RI.

7.4.4 Environmental Consequences

Table 7.4-3 presents the number and acreage of parks that are within the Representative Route of 

each Action Alternative. This acreage represents the area of parkland crossed by an Action Alternative 

that may result in a land conversion of a parkland resource to a transportation resource. Parklands

within the Affected Environment that are adjacent to the existing NEC and Action Alternatives could 

experience proximity effects such as visual interference or noise that may affect the designated use 

for which the parkland was intended 1 . Proximity effects could result from new service or 

infrastructure, such as new noise and vibration impacts from an increase in trains passing, and visual 

impacts resulting from new construction and operation of the proposed service. For example, a park 

designated for meditative purposes could no longer be useable for meditative purposes if a proposed 

action introduces a proximity effect, such as new noise. However, parklands experiencing the 

greatest effects would be those where all or portions of the parkland are within the Representative 

Route of an Action Alternative. More specifically, the following general effects on parklands could 

occur as a result of the various construction types and methods proposed:

4 At-grade: Direct physical disturbance to existing parklands through the construction and 

introduction of new track bed and landscaping, and the installation of utilities and/or catenary 

poles and potential proximity effects (i.e., visual, noise, vibration)

4 Trench: Direct physical disturbance to existing parklands through the construction and 

introduction of new trenches and landscaping, and the installation of utilities and/or catenary 

poles and potential proximity effects (i.e., visual, noise, vibration)

4 Embankment: Direct physical disturbance to existing parklands through the introduction of new 

retaining walls and/or earthen berms and potential proximity effects (i.e., visual, noise, vibration)

4 Aerial Structure or Major Bridge: Direct physical disturbance to existing parklands at the site of 

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

the introduction of new aerial structures and potential proximity effects (i.e., visual, noise, 

vibration)

4 Tunnel: Direct physical disturbance to existing parklands at tunnel boring machine launch sites, 

ventilation shafts and egress points, and potential proximity effects through vibrations

 

1 The FRA did not identify designated parkland uses for this Tier 1 EIS. Designated parkland uses would be 

identified during Tier II studies. 
7.4. Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers

Page | 7.4-6 Tier 1 Draft EIS

Temporary construction effects could occur where access roads are created and at staging and laydown areas. Impacts could include temporary disturbance to existing parklands. Chapter 8, 

Construction Effects, presents a qualitative description and examples of potential constructionrelated effects for parklands.

Table 7.4-3: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route – Parklands

Geography

Existing NEC Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3*

# of 

Parks

Acres

within the 

Alignment

# of 

Parks

Acres within 

the 

Representative 

Route

# of 

Parks

Acres within 

the 

Representative 

Route # of Parks

Acres within 

the 

Representative 

Route

D.C. 3 10 3 10 3 10 4 25

MD 15 10 15 10 17 25 24 190

DE 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 15

PA 17 20 17 20 18 45 19 50

NJ 5 2 5 2 6 10 6 15

NY 9 50 9 50 9 50 13–16 115–125

CT 17 50 18 55 23 105 21–23 60–90

RI 19 265 20 350 25 345 18–25 265–350

MA 5 25 5 25 5 25 5–7 25–45

TOTAL 95 435 97 525 111 620 116–130 760–905

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

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

inclusive of the existing NEC as well as any new option or off-corridor route associated with each Action Alternative.

Note: There is one wild and scenic river—White Clay Creek in New Castle, Delaware—which is crossed by the existing NEC and 

all Action Alternatives. Alternative 3 creates a new crossing.

* The range represents the Representative Route design options for Alternative 3. See the Alternative 3 discussion below.

Of the Action Alternatives, Alternative 3 would affect the most parks (between 116 and 130 parks).

Alternative 3 would also affect the most park acreages (up to 905 acres). There is one wild and scenic 

river—White Clay Creek in New Castle, Delaware—which is crossed by the existing NEC and all Action 

Alternatives. Alternative 3 creates a new crossing. (See Appendix E, Section E.04, for a complete list 

of all parklands and wild and scenic rivers that would be affected.)

7.4.4.1 No Action Alternative

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

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

would occur within or adjacent to the NEC right-of-way. Land uses in the existing NEC are already 

dedicated to support existing train operations and the right-of-way contains rail infrastructure and 

ancillary facilities located adjacent to parklands and wild and scenic rivers. It is expected that land 

uses would not change under the No Action Alternative and train operations would remain essentially

the same as existing conditions; therefore, no new noise or vibration impacts are expected. The 

introduction of new or modified infrastructure associated with No Action Alternative projects may

result in visual effects to parks and wild and scenic rivers within the Affected Environment for the 

existing NEC. Additional effects could also include sliver 2 takes in parklands directly adjacent to 

 

2 Sliver takes refers to a very narrow take on the fringes of a parkland resource. 
7.4. Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.4-7

existing infrastructure. Project sponsors of the No Action Alternative would be responsible for 

determining the effects on these resources as part of the project.

7.4.4.2 Alternative 1

Table 7.4-4 lists the parks that fall outside of the footprint of the existing NEC and would likely be 

affected by Alternative 1. The potential effects are also described within the table. 

7.4.4.3 Alternative 2

Table 7.4-5 lists the parks that fall outside of the footprint of the existing NEC and that would likely 

be affected by Alternative 2. The potential effects are also described within the table. 

7.4.4.4 Alternative 3

Table 7.4-6 summarizes the number of parks and parks acreage that would be affected by the 

Alternative 3 options. 

Washington, D.C., to New York City

Table 7.4-7 lists the parks that fall outside of the footprint of the existing NEC and that would likely 

be affected by Alternative 3 (Washington, D.C., to New York City). The potential effects are also 

described within the table. 

New York City to Hartford

Via Central Connecticut 

Table 7.4-8 lists the parks that fall outside of the footprint of the existing NEC and that would likely 

be affected by Alternative 3 (New York City to Hartford via Central Connecticut). The potential effects 

are also described within the table. No wild and scenic rivers would be affected.

Via Long Island 

Table 7.4-9 lists the parks that fall outside of the footprint of the existing NEC and that would likely 

be affected by Alternative 3 (New York City to Hartford via Long Island). The potential effects are also 

described within the table. No wild and scenic rivers would be affected.

Hartford to Boston

Via Providence

Table 7.4-10 lists the parks that fall outside of the footprint of the existing NEC and that would likely 

be affected by Alternative 3 (Hartford to Boston via Providence). The potential effects are also 

described within the table. No wild and scenic rivers would be affected.

Via Worcester

Table 7.4-11 lists the parks that fall outside of the footprint of the existing NEC and would likely be 

affected by Alternative 3 (Hartford to Boston via Worcester). The potential effects are also described 

within the table. No wild and scenic rivers would be affected.
7.4. Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers

Page | 7.4-8 T

Table 7.4-4: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route – Parklands (Alternative 1) 

State County Resource of Interest

Total Area

of Resource

(acres)*

Number of 

Acres 

Affected 

% of Total 

Area Affected Construction Type Pot

CT

Fairfield Saugatuck River Water Access 1 1 100% Major Bridge Visual effects

New London Mystic Oral School Water Access 70 10 14% Embankment Potential land conv

acquisition; Visual 

Total CT 71 11 15%

RI Washington

Bradford/Bradford Dye/Grills 

Preserve 480 15 3% Embankment, Aerial

Potential land conv

acquisition; Visual 

Bradford/Grills/Hopkinton Land 

Trust 160 10 6% Embankment, Aerial

Potential land conv

acquisition; Visual 

Burlingame Management 

Area/Burlingame Management 990 1 <1% Trench Potential land conveffects

Burlingame MA/Drew 210 10 5% Embankment, 

Aerial

Potential land conv

acquisition; Visual 

Burlingame MA/Holley 165 5 3% At-grade, Trench Potential land conv

acquisition; Visual 

Burlingame MA/Phantom Bog 260 5 2% Embankment Potential land conv

acquisition; Visual 

Great Swamp MA/Great Swamp 2,835 50 2% Embankment, 

Aerial

Potential land conv

acquisition; Visual 

Great Swamp MA/Pelky 10 1 13% Embankment, 

Aerial Potential land conv

Greenway 104,570 180 <1%

Embankment, 

Aerial, At-grade, 

Trench

Potential land conv

acquisition; Visual 

Stripped 310 1 <1% Embankment, 

Aerial, At-grade

Potential land conv

acquisition; Visual 

Total RI 109,990 278 <1%

TOTAL ALTERNATIVE 110,061 289 <1%

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

* The total number of acres represents the total acreage of the resource, including acres outside and inside the Affected Environment of Alternative 
7.4. Park

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.4-5: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route – Parklands (Alternative 2) 

State County Resource of Interest

Total Area

of 

Resource

(acres)

Acres 

Affected 

under Alt 2

% of Total 

Area Affected

Construction 

Type Potential I

MD

Harford North Deen Park 10 5 50% Trench Potential land conversion; Poten

noise effects

Cecil

Fletchwood Community Park 25 10 40% Embankment, 

Aerial

Potential land conversion; Poten

noise effects

West Branch Community Park 20 5 25% Embankment, 

Aerial

Potential land conversion; Poten

noise effects

Total MD 55 20 36%

PA

Delaware

BicyclePA Route E 295 10 3% Embankment, 

Aerial, At-grade

Potential land conversion; Poten

noise effects

John Heinz National Wildlife 

Refuge At Tinicum 1,070 1 <1% Embankment, Major Bridge Potential land conversion; Visual 

Philadelphia

Bartram's Garden 50 5 10% Embankment 

and Aerial Potential land conversion; Visual 

East Park 610 10 2% Embankment, 

Major Bridge Potential land conversion; Visual 

John Heinz National Wildlife 

Refuge At Tinicum 1,075 15 1% Embankment, Major Bridge

Potential land conversion; Poten

noise effects

Schuylkill River Water Trail 520 1 <1% Major Bridge Visual effects

West Park 1,295 10 1% Major Bridge Crosses into and follows park for 

effects

Total PA 4,915 52 1%

NJ

Middlesex Merrill Park 180 10 6% Embankment Potential land conversion; Poten

noise effects

Union Merrill Park 180* 1 <1% Embankment Potential land conversion; Visual 

Total NJ 180 11 6%

NY

Bronx

Pelham Parkway 80 1 1% At-grade Potential land converesion; Pote

noise effects

Starlight Park 15 5 33% Embankment, 

Aerial

Potential land conversion; Poten

noise effects

Total NY 95 6 6%
7.4. Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers

Page | 7.4-10 T

Table 7.4-5: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route – Parklands (Alternative 2) (continued)

State County Resource of Interest

Total Area

of 

Resource

(acres)**

Acres 

Affected 

under Alt 2

% of Total 

Area 

Affected Construction Type Potentia

CT

Fairfield

Mianus River Water Access 15 10 67% Embankment, Aerial, 

Major Bridge

Potential land conversion; Pot

and noise effects

Saugatuck River Water 

Access 1 1 94% Aerial Potential land conversion; Vis

New Haven Quinnipiac River Marsh 

Wildlife Area 560 10 2% Embankment, Aerial, and Major Bridge

Potential land conversion; Pot

and noise effects

Hartford Silver Lake Water Access 40 1 3% At-grade Potential land conversion.; Po

and noise effects

Tolland Nathan Hale State Forest 1,550 10 1% Trench Potential land conversion; Pot

and noise effects

Windham

Airline State Park Trail 201 1 <1% Embankment Potential land conversion; Vis

Natchaug State Forest 12,600 25 <1% Embankment, 

Trench

Potential land conversion; Pot

and noise effects

Total CT 14,967 58 <1%

RI

Providence

Greenway 104,570 110 <1% Embankment, Aerial, 

At-grade

Potential land conversion; Pot

and noise effects

Killingly Pond MA/Bissel 30 1 3% Embankment Potential land conversion; Pot

and noise effects

Killingly Pond MA/Cate 150 1 1% Embankment Potential land conversion; Pot

and noise effects

Killingly Pond MA/Shippee 370 15 4% Embankment, Aerial, 

Trench

Potential land conversion; Pot

and noise effects

Harris Preserve ASRI

Natural Area 50 1 <1% Embankment Potential land conversion; Vis

Snake Den State 

Park/Snake Den 780 15 2% Embankment Potential land conversion; Potand noise effects

Ten Mile River Greenway 10 1 10% Aerial, At-grade, 

Trench Potential land conversion; Vis

Total RI 105,960 144 <1%

TOTAL ALTERNATIVE 126,172 291 <1%

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

MA: Management Area

*Not included in total to avoid double-counting.

** The total number of acres represents the total acreage of the resource, including acres outside and inside the Affected Environment of Alternativ
7.4. Park

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.4-6: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route of Alternative 3 Route Options – Parkland

Geography

D.C. to NYC New York City to Hartford Hartford to Bo

# of Parks Acres

via Central Connecticut via Long Island via Providence 

# of Parks Acres # of Parks Acres # of Parks Acres # o

D.C. 4 25 — — — — — — 

MD 24 190 — — — — — — 

DE 6 15 — — — — — — 

PA 19 50 — — — — — — 

NJ 6 15 — — — — — — 

NY — — 13 115 16 125 — — 

CT — — 20 55 18 50 3 35 

RI — — — — — — 25 350 

MA — — — — — — 5 45 

TOTAL 59 295 33 170 34 175 33 430 

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

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

or off-corridor route associated with each Action Alternative.

— = Not applicable within that alternative/route option.
7.4. Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers

Page | 7.4-12 T

Table 7.4-7: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route – Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers Re

(Alternative 3 – Washington, D.C., to New York City) 

Geography County Resource of Interest

Total Area of 

Resource

(acres)**

Acres 

Affected 

under Alt 3

% of Total 

Area Affected Construction Type Poten

D.C. Washington

Arboretum/Rec Center 

Grounds 450 1 <1% Embankment Potential land conversioacquisition

Anacostia Park, Section G 570 20 4% Embankment, Major 

Bridge

Potential land conversio

Visual and noise effects

Baltimore Washington 

Pkwy 30 10 33% Embankment, Major Bridge

Potential land conversio

Visual effects

Total D.C. 1,050 31 3%

MD

Prince 

George's

Folly Branch Stream Valley 

Park 235 5 2% At-Grade Potential land conversioVisual and noise effects

Fran Uhler Natural Area 320 10 3% Embankment, Aerial Potential land conversio

Anne Arundel

Patuxent Research Refuge 12,820 60 <1% Embankment, Aerial, 

Major Bridge

Potential land conversio

Visual and noise effects

Midland Park 20 10 50% Embankment Potential land conversio

Visual and noise effects

Patapsco Valley State Park 13,950 30 <1%

At-Grade, 

Embankment, Major 

Bridge

Potential land conversio

Visual and noise effects

Baltimore

Herring Run Park 550 1 <1% Embankment, Aerial Potential land conversio

Gunpowder Falls State 

Park 15,950 40 <1% Aerial Crosses the park; Visual 

Patapsco Valley State Park 13,950 1 <1% Major Bridge Crosses the feature nea

effects
7.4. Park

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.4-7: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route – Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers Re

(Alternative 3 – Washington, D.C., to New York City) (continued)

Geography County Resource of Interest

Total Area

of 

Resource

(acres)**

Acres 

Affected 

under Alt 3

% of Total 

Area 

Affected Construction Type Potent

MD

Harford

Anita C. Leight Estuary 

Center 90 10 11% Embankment, Trench Potential land conversioVisual and noise effects

Belcamp Park 10 1 10% Embankment Potential land conversio

Visual and noise effects

Bush Declaration Natural 

Resources MA 270 1 <1% Embankment, Aerial Potential land conversio

David Craig Park 1 1 100% Major Bridge Crosses Park; Visual effe

Havre De Grace Activity 

Center 5 1 20% At-grade, Trench Potential land conversioVisual and noise effects

North Deen Park 10 1 10% Embankment Potential land conversio

Visual and noise effects

Perryman Park 90 5 6% Embankment, Aerial Potential land conversio

Visual and noise effects

Fletchwood Community 

Park 25 10 40% Embankment, Aerial Potential land conversioVisual and noise effects

West Branch Community 

Park 30 10 33% Embankment, Aerial Potential land conversioVisual and noise effects

Total MD 58,326 197 <1%
7.4. Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers

Page | 7.4-14 T

Table 7.4-7: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route – Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers Re

(Alternative 3 – Washington, D.C., to New York City) (continued)

Geography County Resource of Interest

Total Area

of 

Resource

(acres)**

Acres 

Affected 

under Alt 3

% of Total 

Area 

Affected Construction Type Potent

DE New Castle

Banning Park 150 1 1% At-grade Potential land conversion

Cool Run Park 35 1 3% At-grade Potential land conversion

Fox Point State Park 90 10 11% Aerial, At-grade

Follows outside edge for 

Potential land conversion

Visual and noise effects

Harmony Hills Park 50 1 <1% At-grade Potential land conversion

Pleasant Hills Park 20 1 <1% Aerial Portion of park in the rou

Rutherford Park 10 1 10% At-grade Potential land conversion

White Clay Creek Wild and 

Scenic River 700 2 <1% Embankment, Aerial, At-grade Crosses creek; Visual effe

Total DE 1,055 17 2%
7.4. Park

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.4-7: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route – Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers Re

(Alternative 3 – Washington, D.C., to New York City) (continued)

Geography County Resource of Interest

Total Area

of 

Resource

(acres)**

Acres 

Affected 

under Alt 3

% of Total 

Area 

Affected Construction Type Pot

PA

Delaware BicyclePA Route E 290 15 5% Embankment, Aerial, 

At-grade

Potential land conv

effects

Philadelphia

BicyclePA Route E 290* 1 <1% Embankment, Aerial Potential land conv

effects

East Coast Greenway 160 1 <1% Embankment, Aerial, 

At-grade

Potential land conv

effects

Heitzman Playground 1 1 100% Embankment, Aerial Potential land conv

effects

Part Disston Park 20 10 50% Embankment, Aerial Potential land conv

Visual and noise eff

Pennypack Creek Park 1,330 1 <1% Embankment, Aerial Potential land conv

Visual and noise eff

Pennypack Trail 40 1 3% Aerial Visual effects

Schuylkill River Water Trail 520 1 <1% Major Bridge Visual effects

Trenton & Auburn 

Playground 1 1 100% Trench Potential land conveffects

Bucks

D & L Trail – Delaware Canal 

Towpath 210 1 <1% Embankment, Aerial, At-grade

Potential land conv

effects

Delaware Canal 910 1 <1% Embankment, Aerial, 

At-grade

Potential land conv

effects

Total PA 3,192 33 1%

NJ

Middlesex Merrill Park 180 20 11% Embankment Potential land conv

Visual and noise eff

Union Merrill Park 180* 1 <1% Embankment Potential land conv

effects

Total NJ 180 21 12%

TOTAL ALTERNATIVE 64,098 299 <1%

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

MA: Management Area

*Total Area not included in overall total to avoid double-counting.

** The total number of acres represents the total acreage of the resource, including acres outside and inside the Affected Environment of Alternativ
7.4. Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers

Page | 7.4-16 T

Table 7.4-8: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route – Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers Re

3 – New York City to Hartford via Central Connecticut) 

State County Resource of Interest

Total Area 

of Resource 

(acres)*

Acres 

Affected 

under Alt 3

% of Total 

Area 

Affected Construction Type Pot

NY

Bronx

Edgewater Park 5 1 20% Aerial Portion of park in r

effects

James A Young Memorial Park 1 1 100% At-grade Potential land conv

effects

Pelham Parkway 80 1 1% Embankment and Atgrade

Potential land conv

effects

Pelham Bay Park 2,110 70 3% Embankment, Aerial, 

At-grade

Potential land conv

acquisition; Visual 

Starlight Park 15 10 67% Aerial, At-grade, Major 

Bridge

Potential land conv

acquisition; Visual 

Westchester Saxon Woods County Park 690 30 4% Embankment, Aerial, 

Trench

Potential land conv

acquisition; Visual 

Silver Lake Preserve 240 1 <1% Aerial Portion of park in r

Total NY 3,141 114 4%

CT

Fairfield Saugatuck River Water Access 1 1 94% Major Bridge Portion of park in r

New Haven George C. Waldo State Park 

Scenic Reserve 150 1 2% Aerial Portion of park in r

Total CT 151 2 <1%

TOTAL ALTERNATIVE 3,292 116 4%

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

*The total number of acres represents the total acreage of the resource, including acres outside and inside the Affected Environment of Alternative 
7.4. Park

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.4-9: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route – Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers Re

3 – New York City to Hartford via Long Island) 

State County Resource of Interest

Total Area

of Resource

(acres)*

Acres 

Affected 

under Alt 3

% Total

Area 

Affected Construction Type Potent

NY

Queens

Daniel A Haggerty Park 1 1 100% Embankment, Aerial Potential land conversion; 

Forest Park 540 20 4% Aerial Portion of park in route; V

Jacob Riis Triangle 1 1 100% Embankment Potential land conversion; 

Visual and noise effects

Prospect Cemetery 5 1 20% Aerial Portion in route; Visual an

Nassau Eisenhower County Park 940 40 4% Trench Potential land conversion; 

Visual and noise effects

Suffolk

Connetquot River State Park 

Preserve 3,470 10 <1% Trench Potential land conversion; Visual and noise effects

Lakeland County Park 70 1 1% Trench Potential land conversion; 

Visual and noise effects

South Setauket County 

Nature Preserve 100 1 1% Aerial Visual effects

Total NY 5,127 75 1%

CT

Fairfield Saugatuck River Water 

Access 1 1 100% Major Bridge Portion of park in route; V

Total CT 1 1 100%

TOTAL ALTERNATIVE 5,128 76 1%

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

*The total number of acres represents the total acreage of the resource, including acres outside and inside the Affected Environment of Alternative 
7.4. Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers

Page | 7.4-18 T

Table 7.4-10: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route – Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers Re

(Alternative 3 – Hartford to Boston via Providence) 

State County Resource of Interest

Total Area 

(acres)*

Acres 

Affected 

under Alt 3

% of 

Resource 

Area Affected

Construction 

Type Potent

CT

Tolland Nathan Hale State Forest 1,550 10 1% Trench Potential land conversionVisual and noise effects

Windham

Airline State Park Trail 200 1 <1% Embankment Potential land conversion

Natchaug State Forest 12,600 25 <1% Embankment, 

Trench

Potential land conversion

Visual and noise effects

Total CT 14,350 36 <1%

RI

Providence

Greenway 104,570 98 <1%

Embankment, 

Aerial, Major 

Bridge

Potential land conversion

Visual and noise effects

Killingly Pond MA/Bissel 30 1 3% Embankment Potential land conversion

Visual and noise effects

Killingly Pond MA/Cate 150 1 1% Embankment Potential land conversion

Visual and noise effects

Killingly Pond MA/Shippee 370 10 3% Embankment, 

Aerial

Potential land conversion

Visual and noise effects

Harris Preserve ASRI Natural 

Area 50 1 2% Embankment Potential land conversion

Snake Den State Park/Snake 

Den 780 10 1% Embankment Potential land conversionVisual and noise effects

Ten Mile River Greenway 10 1 10% Aerial, At-grade, 

Trench Potential land conversion

Total RI 105,960 122 <1%

MA

Norfolk

Bay Circuit Trail 1,125 1 0% At-grade Potential land conversion

Norfolk County Canoe River 

Wilderness 140 30 21% Embankment, At-grade

Potential land conversion

Visual and noise effects

Total MA 1,265 31 2%

TOTAL ALTERNATIVE 121,575 189 <1%

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

*The total number of acres represents the total acreage of the resource, including acres outside and inside the Affected Environment of Alternative 
7.4. Park

Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table 7.4-11: Environmental Consequences: Representative Route – Parklands Resources (Alternative 3 – Ha

Worcester) 

State County Resource of Interest

Total Area 

(acres)**

Number of 

Acres 

Affected 

Percentage 

of Park Area 

Affected Construction Type Potential 

CT

Tolland

Nipmuck State Forest 9,540 1 <1% Embankment Potential land conversion; Visu

Nye Holman State Forest 930 10 1% Aerial, Trench Potential land conversion; Pot

Visual effects

Windham Nipmuck State Forest 9,540* 1 <1% Embankment, Aerial Potential land conversion; Pot

Total CT 10,470 12 <1%

MA

Worcester

Midstate Trail 290 1 <1% Aerial Portion in route along Route 9

acquisition; Visual effects

Quinsigamond State Park 40 1 3% Aerial Portion in route along Route 9

acquisition; Visual effects

Total MA 330 2 1%

TOTAL ALTERNATIVE 10,800 14 <1%

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

*Total Area not included in overall total to avoid double-counting.

**The total number of acres represents the total acreage of the resource, including acres outside and inside the Affected Environment of Alternative 
7.4. Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers

Page | 7.4-20 Tier 1 Draft EIS

7.4.4.5 Stations 

Table 7.4-12 summarizes the potential environmental consequences of the proposed stations on 

parklands. The table lists only those locations where impacts would occur, and shows only those 

affected parks that are outside of the alignment of the existing NEC.

Table 7.4-12: Environmental Consequences: Stations – Parklands

State County

Station 

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

MD Baltimore 

City

9/New Upton 4 parks would be 

acquired 

< Douglas R. 

Morrison Park

< Fitzgerald Park

< Linden Ave Park

< Park Avenue 

Median Park

4 parks would be 

acquired 

< Douglas R. 

Morrison Park

< Fitzgerald Park

< Linden Ave Park

< Park Avenue 

Median Park

4 parks would be 

acquired 

< Douglas R. Morrison 

Park

< Fitzgerald Park

< Linden Ave Park

< Park Avenue Median 

Park

12/New Broadway 2 parks would be 

acquired

< Caroline & Hoffman 

Park

< Ellsworth St Park

2 parks would be 

acquired

< Caroline & Hoffman 

Park

< Ellsworth St Park

2 parks would be 

acquired

< Caroline & Hoffman 

Park

< Ellsworth St Park

PA Delaware 34/New Baldwin Potential partial 

acquisition of Bicycle 

Route/PA; potential 

noise and visual effects

Potential partial 

acquisition of Bicycle 

Route/PA; potential 

noise and visual effects

Potential partial 

acquisition of Bicycle 

Route/PA; potential 

noise and visual effects

NY Bronx 81/New Co-op City Potential partial 

acquisition of Pelham 

Bay Park; potential noise 

and visual effects

Potential partial 

acquisition of Pelham 

Bay Park; potential noise 

and visual effects

Potential partial 

acquisition of Pelham Bay 

Park; potential noise and 

visual effects

RI Providence 129/New Providence 

Station H.S.

Potential partial 

acquisition of and visual 

and noise effects to:

< Greenway

< Roger Williams 

National Park

Potential partial 

acquisition of and visual 

and noise effects to:

< Greenway

< Roger Williams 

National Park

Potential partial 

acquisition of and visual 

and noise effects to:

< Greenway

< Roger Williams 

National Park

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015

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

and is provided in Appendix E, Section E.04. 

H.S. = high speed

7.4.5 Context Area

Alternative 1 contains over 1,900 parks in the Context Area, and Alternatives 2 and 3 contain over 

2,000 parks in the Context Area. If the Representative Routes were to shift, it is likely that different 

parks as well as different acreages of the larger parks (those over 100 acres) within the Context Area 

would be encountered. A summary of the parks with large areas in the Context Area is provided 

below:

4 Within the Context Area for all of the Action Alternatives in Washington, D.C., there are five parks 

with 100 or more acres in the Context Area: Anacostia Park, the National Arboretum, National 

Mall, East Potomac Park, and West Potomac Park/Lincoln Memorial/Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

All of the Action Alternatives and the existing NEC cross Anacostia Park and the National 
7.4. Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.4-21

Arboretum; these parks extend south along the Anacostia River, away from the NEC. At its closest 

point, the National Mall is about 0.5 mile from all of the Action Alternatives and extends westward 

away from the NEC. Similarly, East and West Potomac Park are located roughly 2 miles south and 

west of the NEC.

4 In Maryland, some of the larger parks that cross more than one county include Patuxent River 

Park, Patuxent Research Refuge, Patapsco Valley State Park, and Gunpowder Falls State Park. 

Patuxent River Park is located less than 1 mile from the Representative Routes of the Action 

Alternatives on the south side, while the Patuxent Research Reserve extends north and east away 

from the Representative Routes of the Action Alternative for approximately 8 miles. The Patapsco 

Valley State Park spans a roughly 20-mile distance, end to end, on both sides of the Northeast 

Corridor. At the closest point, Alternative 3 crosses this park while the existing NEC simply runs 

alongside it. All Action Alternatives cross Patapsco Valley State Park. Like Patapsco Valley State 

Park, Gunpowder Falls State Park is approximately 15 miles from end to end, and the 

Representative Routes of all of the Action Alternatives weave between the parcels that comprise

the park. 

4 In Delaware, nine parks have over 100 acres in the Context Area for all of the Action Alternatives: 

White Clay Creek State Park, Middle Run Valley Natural Area, Iron Hill Park, Bellevue State Park, 

Alapocas Run State Park, White Clay Creek Wild and Scenic River, Banning Park, Brandywine Park, 

and Carousel Park. Unlike Maryland, most of these parks are located in the Context Area, but do 

not abut the Representative Routes. White Clay Creek State Park, Middle Run Valley Natural Area, 

and Carousel Park are in a cluster to the north and west of the Representative Routes of all the 

Action Alternatives at a distance of approximately 1 to 2 miles. Bellevue State Park, Alapocas Run 

State Park, and Brandywine Park are located in a second cluster about 1 mile to the north and 

west. White Clay Creek Wild and Scenic River has its headwaters in Pennsylvania approximately 

15 miles northwest of the Representative Routes. The Representative Routes of all Action 

Alternatives cross branches of this designated river three times, as well as run immediately 

proximate to the south and east of Banning Park for 0.6 mile.

4 In Pennsylvania, seven parks are located across more than one county: Bicycle PA Route E, Cobbs 

Creek Park, East Coast Greenway, Eastwick Regional Park, John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at 

Tinicum, Schuylkill River Water Trail, and Tidal Delaware Water Trail. Currently, Bicycle PA Route 

runs from the Pennsylvania-Delaware border to the Delaware River crossing at Trenton. Since this 

trail spans 52 total miles, it is unsurprising that it crosses the various Representative Routes five 

times. Bicycle PA Route E is largely to the south of the Representative Routes, though it crosses 

to the north of them in Lower Northeast Philadelphia. The East Coast Greenway follows a similar 

pattern, though it has a slightly different geometry in Central Philadelphia. The Schuylkill and 

Delaware River Water Trails are located along these two bodies of water. The existing NEC and 

Alternatives 1 and 2 cross the Schuylkill River Water Trail at major bridges over the river, while 

the Tidal Delaware Water Trail is crossed by the Representative Routes by an existing bridge. 

Alternative 2 crosses the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge for 1.5 miles on the southeastern 

edge. Eastwick Regional Park is located almost exactly halfway between the existing 

NEC/Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 at a distance of approximately 0.5 mile on either side. Cobbs 

Creek Park is located less than 1 mile north-northwest of the existing NEC and extends 

approximately 5 miles away from the existing NEC.
7.4. Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers

Page | 7.4-22 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4 In New York, 12 parks are located in more than one county: Astoria Athletic Field, Bethpage State 

Park, Bridge Park (George Washington), Cross Island Parkway, East River State Park, Field of 

Dreams Park, Hempstead Playground, Highland Park, Jackie Robinson Park, Laurelton Parkway, 

Pelham Bay Park, and Roberto Clemente State Park. All of these parks except Bethpage State Park 

and Roberto Clemente State Park are New York City parks. Eleven of the 12 parks are in a cluster 

near the border between Manhattan and the Bronx. Bethpage State Park is the only identified 

park on Long Island; it is located to the north of Alternative 3 at a distance of 0.25 mile.

4 In Connecticut, 12 parks are located across more than one county: Cockaponset State Forest, 

Farmington Canal Line State Park Trail, Hammonasset Beach State Park, Hop River State Park Trail, 

and Hammonasset Natural Area Preserve, Lake Lillinonah Water Access, Mansfield Hollow 

Wildlife Area, Quinnipiac River Water Access, and Trimountain State Park Scenic Reserve. The 

existing NEC runs through parcels of the Cockaponset State Forest but does not cross the park. 

The far-western section in New Haven County immediately abuts the Representative Route, but 

to the east, the park parcels are about 1 mile from the Representative Route. The Farmington 

Canal Line State Park Trail runs south to north and crosses Alternative 3 once in southern Hartford 

County. Hammonasset Beach State Park and Hammonasset Natural Area Preserve are clustered 

together less than 1 mile immediately south of the existing NEC. Hop River State Park Trail is a 

20-mile trail that is crossed by Alternative 3. Two parcels make up Lake Lillinonah Water Access, 

the closest of which is 0.5 mile north of Alternative 3. Mansfield Hollow Wildlife Area is a large, 

nearly 2,400-acre park that is crossed by Alternative 3. The crossing occurs at the northwestern 

end of the park; the majority of it is located south and east of the Representative Routes. The

Quinnipiac River Water Access comprises three smaller parcels; the northernmost parcel is 

located less than 1 mile off Alternative 3. Finally, Trimountain State Park Scenic Reserve is located 

about 2 miles east of Alternative 3 near the New Haven/Middlesex County border. 

4 In Rhode Island, three parks are located across more than one county: Cranston Washington 

Secondary Bike Path, Greenway Trail, and Washington Secondary Bike Path. The Greenway Trail 

is a statewide recreational resource that crosses each Representative Route multiple times. The 

Cranston Washington Secondary Bike Path runs parallel to the existing NEC at a distance of 

between less than 1 to 2 miles. No Representative Routes crosses this trail feature. Similarly, the 

Washington Secondary Bike Path runs parallel to the existing NEC for 2 miles.

4 Within the Context Area for all Action Alternatives in Massachusetts, the Context Area contains 

28 parks with over 100 acres. Borderland State Park is located in two counties—Bristol and 

Norfolk Counties. Borderland State Park is located approximately 1.4 miles directly east of the 

Representative Routes.

7.4.6 Potential Mitigation Strategies

Parkland resources are unique in that they each may provide different recreational opportunities and 

activities. Potential mitigation should be based not only on the effect anticipated but also on the 

characteristics of the specific resource affected. Examples of potential mitigation strategies could 

include design or construction modifications to avoid conversion of a parkland resource, the use of 

context-sensitive design in future stages of project development, the incorporation of natural design 

features such as earthen berms and tree plantings, as well as allocation of replacement parkland or 
7.4. Parklands and Wild and Scenic Rivers

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 7.4-23

open space. In addition, fencing and other approaches could be implemented to protect the safety 

of those using the parkland.

7.4.7 Subsequent Tier 2 Analysis 

Subsequent analysis conducted during the planning process for Tier 2 projects would further define 

the effects to parklands and wild and scenic rivers, including municipal and local parks. Information 

would be collected with regard to activities (e.g., passive or active uses) and potentially affected user 

groups. As part of Tier 2 studies, alternatives would be developed to avoid the use of parklands where 

feasible and prudent, in accordance with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 

1966. Where use cannot be avoided, the Tier 2 analysis would include the development of mitigation 

measures and designs that would avoid or minimize effects on parklands and wild and scenic rivers. 

The analysis would be conducted in accordance with federal as part of the Section 4(f) and Section 

6(f) evaluations (Chapter 7.16) and state regulations. The requirements for subsequent Tier 2 

evaluations include compliance with the regulations listed in Table 2 of the Parklands and Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Effects-Assessment Methodology Report.