TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

2.Readers’ Guide

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 2-i

Table of Contents

2. READERS’ GUIDE .....................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 ORGANIZATION OF THIS TIER 1 DRAFT EIS .........................................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Main Body........................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.2 Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.2 KEY CONCEPTS ..............................................................................................................................2-3

2.2.1 Environmental Level of Detail and Analysis........................................................................................ 2-3

2.2.2 Horizon Year ....................................................................................................................................... 2-5

2.2.3 Existing NEC, Representative Routes, Affected Environment, and Context Area............................... 2-5

2.2.4 Data Sources and Geographic Information System Tools................................................................... 2-7

2.2.5 Alternatives Development and Terminology...................................................................................... 2-7

Figures

FIGURE 2-1: STUDY AREA MAP .............................................................................................................2-4

FIGURE 2-2: ILLUSTRATION OF REPRESENTATIVE ROUTE, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, AND CONTEXT AREA .........2-6

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 2-1

2. Readers’ Guide

As described in Chapter 1, Introduction, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) determined that 

it was appropriate to use a tiered National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for completing 

the environmental review for NEC FUTURE. Moreover, the size and complexity of NEC FUTURE 

required that the FRA develop specific effects-assessment methodologies and a set of tools for 

analyzing environmental impacts across the multijurisdictional NEC FUTURE Study Area (Study Area).

The Readers’ Guide presents the overall organization of this Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (Tier 1 Draft EIS) and defines key concepts, methodologies, and terminologies used in the 

environmental analyses. 

2.1 ORGANIZATION OF THIS TIER 1 DRAFT EIS

This Tier 1 Draft EIS comprises a main body and multiple appendices, the latter providing supporting 

documentation. The main body—in addition to providing information on existing conditions and 

descriptions of the No Action and Action Alternatives analyzed in this Tier 1 Draft EIS—summarizes 

the findings of the analyses conducted to assess the effects of the Action Alternatives. The appendices 

provide additional information on the development of the Action Alternatives and technical analyses 

of environmental and other resources, including a mapping atlas; the effects-assessment 

methodologies; environmental impact data, agency coordination and public outreach information;

Section 106 documentation; and the Section 4(f)/6(f) evaluation. 

2.1.1 Main Body

The main body of this Tier 1 Draft EIS provides a detailed statement of the Purpose and Need 

(Chapter 3) for NEC FUTURE and descriptions of the Alternatives Considered (Chapter 4) in this Tier 

1 Draft EIS. Subsequent chapters focus on the analysis of the No Action and Action Alternatives for 

various topics:

4 Transportation Effects (Chapter 5) analyzes regional and local effects of the No Action and Action 

Alternatives on the multimodal transportation network, including changes in mode of travel, 

volume of travel, and services offered.

4 Economic Effects and Growth, and Indirect Effects (Chapter 6) analyzes direct and indirect 

economic and induced growth effects of the No Action and Action Alternatives, including 

employment, construction activity, monetized total values for transportation effects, and longterm market effects. 

4 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation (Chapter 7) analyzes 

existing conditions and potential effects of the No Action and Action Alternatives on the built and 

natural environments. 

4 Construction Effects (Chapter 8) presents an overview of the potential construction activities 

associated with each of the Action Alternatives and related short-term effects associated with 

those activities.
2. Readers’ Guide

Page | 2-2 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4 Evaluation of Alternatives (Chapter 9) compares the No Action and Action Alternatives based on 

a range of metrics to evaluate how well the No Action and Action Alternatives perform relative 

to service, operations, ridership, economic benefits, environmental effects, and other evaluation 

criteria.

4 Phasing and Implementation of Alternatives (Chapter 10) describes preliminary phasing plans 

and associated costs and benefits, as well as implementation opportunities and challenges, for 

each Action Alternative.

4 Agency and Public Involvement (Chapter 11) summarizes agency and public involvement 

activities undertaken as part of the development of this Tier 1 Draft EIS. 

4 References (Chapter 12) lists sources and references for the analysis and documentation 

presented.

4 Glossary (Chapter 13) explains terminology and acronyms used throughout this Tier 1 Draft EIS.

4 List of Preparers (Chapter 14) identifies persons involved in the analysis and development of this 

Tier 1 Draft EIS.

4 Index (Chapter 15) guides the reader in finding specific items within this Tier 1 Draft EIS.

2.1.2 Appendices

The following appendices provide the detailed technical documentation, calculations, and relevant 

coordination materials that support the findings presented in the main body: 

4 Appendix A, Mapping Atlas, supports the understanding of the geography of the Action 

Alternatives and the document resources. This atlas presents maps from south to north and 

allows the reader to follow each Action Alternative from Washington, D.C., through New York 

City and into Boston in relation to mapped resources. The atlas highlights areas where new 

infrastructure is proposed for each of the Action Alternatives and coincides with the discussed 

mapped resources (Part 1). It also provides a separate map series that focuses in on the 

Representative Route for each Action Alternative (Part 2).

4 Appendix B, Alternatives Documentation, provides technical reports and memoranda that 

support the development of the Action Alternatives presented in Chapter 4.

4 Appendix C, Transportation, provides the effects-assessment methodology and technical data 

that support the transportation analysis presented in Chapter 5.

4 Appendix D, Economic Effects and Growth, and Indirect Effects, provides the effects-assessment 

methodology and technical data that support the economic effects and indirect effects analysis 

presented in Chapter 6.

4 Appendix E, Environmental Resource Documentation, provides detailed documentation that 

supports Chapter 7. Each resource presented in Chapter 7 has its own corresponding section 

within Appendix E; each of these sections is organized geographically and by alternative to 

provide more detailed information at the state and county level. Each section includes a resourcespecific effects-assessment methodology and a description of the application of the resource-
2. Readers’ Guide

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 2-3

specific effects-assessment methodology that explains the approach to summarizing information 

that is presented in the main body of the Tier 1 Draft EIS, and environmental impact data.

4 Appendix F, Agency and Public Involvement, provides supporting documentation for the agency 

and public involvement described in Chapter 11. Specifically, the appendix includes the public 

involvement plan, agency coordination plan, public Notice of Intent, information related to the

Tier 1 EIS Scoping process, and various stakeholder engagements, briefings, and meetings.

4 Appendix G, Section 106 Documentation, provides documentation relevant to compliance with 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Relevant documentation includes a record 

of the coordination with State Historic Preservation Offices, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and Government-to-Government Tribal coordination. It also provides the draft 

Programmatic Agreement for public review and comment.

4 Appendix H, Preliminary Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Evaluations, documents the preliminary 

assessment and evaluation of Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act and 

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCF Act) resources that were 

identified within the Affected Environment that could be affected by the Action Alternatives. 

2.2 KEY CONCEPTS

The proposed action in this Tier 1 EIS is the adoption of an investment program to improve passenger 

rail service within the Study Area. This Tier 1 Draft EIS documents existing conditions and 

Environmental Consequences of a No Action Alternative and a range of Action Alternatives for the 

proposed action. Effects analyses of the Action Alternatives are based on assumption of full build-out 

of alternatives, and future population and ridership projections for the year 2040 (see also Section 

2.2.2). This Tier 1 Draft EIS describes Environmental Consequences at a programmatic level that is 

consistent with the level of detail and broad geographic extent of the Action Alternatives. It is 

important to recognize that the NEC FUTURE analysis is not intended to provide the basis for selection 

of an exact alignment; therefore, the analysis does not contain the level of engineering or 

environmental detail needed to make a specific alignment decision. That information would be 

developed in Tier 2 NEPA studies.

2.2.1 Environmental Level of Detail and Analysis

The FRA, as the lead federal agency, has determined that a tiered environmental review process is 

appropriate for the following reasons:

4 The Study Area (Figure 2-1) includes a broad geographic area, stretching 457 miles from 

Washington, D.C., in the south to Boston, MA, in the north, and covering over 50,000 square 

miles. The analysis of markets and services connecting to the Northeast Corridor (NEC) considers 

areas outside of the Study Area, such as Virginia and New Hampshire.1

 

1 The NEC refers to the spine or main line of the railroad anchored by Washington Union Station in the south, Penn Station New 

York in the center, and Boston South Station in the north.
2. Readers’ Guide

Page | 2-4 Tier 1 Draft EIS

4 The decision at this stage involves the selection of a preferred investment program to improve 

passenger rail service for the NEC. Tier 2 projects would be defined and project-level approvals 

would be made, in most cases, following the selection of a preferred investment program.

4 At this stage, the FRA is conducting conceptual planning and design, at a level of detail needed to 

support programmatic decisions. More detailed design and environmental analysis would be 

conducted when project-level decisions are made.

Figure 2-1: Study Area Map

Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
2. Readers’ Guide

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 2-5

The size of the Study Area presents special challenges in deciding how to document existing 

conditions and assess Environmental Consequences in a way that is meaningful to the reader and to 

the decisions to be made. For example, existing conditions would typically be described for an entire 

study area. However, the geographic coverage of this Study Area requires an approach that defines 

existing conditions sufficiently to assess Environmental Consequences without creating a voluminous 

encyclopedia of data. Therefore, the FRA describes existing conditions and Environmental 

Consequences for geographic areas within the Study Area. Consistent with the level of detail used to 

define geographic areas, each Action Alternative is defined with a Representative Route rather than 

an exact alignment. The FRA developed a Representative Route for each Action Alternative in order

to assess a range of possible environmental effects (see Section 2.2.3). The effects assessment 

presented is not intended to fully inform the selection of a specific alignment, but rather to represent 

possible effects. 

2.2.2 Horizon Year

As part of a NEPA analysis, a “horizon year” is considered when conducting analysis. The horizon year 

refers to the future timeframe within which Environmental Consequences associated with the 

construction and operation of the No Action and Action Alternatives will be assessed. The horizon 

year is considered to be the year through which future population and employment growth as well 

as travel demand can be reasonably forecasted for the No Action and Action Alternatives, though, as 

with any forecasts, such projections of future population and employment have some degree of 

uncertainty. This Tier 1 Draft EIS uses 2040 as the horizon year. 

2.2.3 Existing NEC, Representative Routes, Affected Environment, and Context Area

To ensure consistency in the level of detail for both defining alternatives and assessing environmental

effects, the FRA developed an approach to define the physical routing of each Action Alternative and 

to establish the boundaries for assessing environmental effects. The following terminology describes

the approach and is used throughout this Tier 1 Draft EIS:

4 Existing NEC refers to the assumed right-of-way of the 

NEC and is the footprint used in this Tier 1 Draft EIS to 

characterize environmental conditions of the existing 

NEC. The FRA standardized the width of the existing NEC 

to 150 feet, conservatively accounting for a four-track 

right-of-way between Washington, D.C., and Boston. The 

150-foot width is inclusive of tracks, ballast, signals, etc. 

4 Representative Route is the route associated with an 

Action Alternative. The Representative Route includes 

the physical footprint of the improvements associated 

with the Action Alternatives. The dimensions of the 

footprint of the Representative Route are based on 

cross sections identifying construction type (e.g., tunnel, viaduct, bridge, embankment, at-grade) 

that are applied to topography or land use type, stations, supporting facilities, and right-of-way 

requirements. The footprints associated with the Representative Routes range from 150 feet to 
2. Readers’ Guide

Page | 2-6 Tier 1 Draft EIS

300 feet wide. Improvements associated with stations and supporting facilities (i.e., tracks, 

platforms, parking) could flare out beyond the dimensions of the Representative Route.2

The width of the Representative Route for an Action 

Alternative includes the existing NEC and any new 

segment(s), where applicable. In some instances, a 

Representative Route consists of the existing NEC and 

new segment being adjacent and parallel to each other. 

In other instances, a Representative Route consists of 

the existing NEC and new segment being separated. An 

example would be a new segment proposed to create a 

bypass or an alternate route option to access a new 

geographic market. (See Section 4.2.4 for additional 

information.)

4 Affected Environment is the geographic area for which 

the FRA identified existing conditions and 

Environmental Consequences for the existing NEC and 

Action Alternatives. The width of the Affected 

Environment varies based on the resource, but at a 

minimum is 2,000 feet wide, centered on the 

Representative Route. In some cases where appropriate 

to accurately characterize the resource, the Affected Environment encompasses the entire Study 

Area.

4 Context Area is a broader geographic area that 

extends beyond the Affected Environment. The 

FRA defines a standardized Context Area of 

uniform width as 5 miles wide, centered on the 

Representative Route, for all resources. For those 

resources for which the Affected Environment 

encompasses the entire Study Area, there is no 

Context Area analysis. The Context Area allows for 

qualitative evaluation of potential shifts in 

Representative Routes. 

Figure 2-2 shows the relationship among the 

Representative Route, Affected Environment, and 

Context Area. These areas are all within the broader 

Study Area.

 

2 The FRA did not evaluate other ancillary facilities, such as maintenance and storage yards, traction power substations, etc. in 

this Tier 1 Draft EIS. The FRA did not identify specific locations of these facilities as part of the development of alternatives (see 

Chapter 4, Alternatives Considered). 

Figure 2-2: Illustration of 

Representative Route, 

Affected Environment, 

and Context Area
2. Readers’ Guide

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 2-7

2.2.4 Data Sources and Geographic Information System Tools

The FRA analyzed readily available secondary source data (e.g., geographic information system [GIS]-

based, published reports, technical analyses), and did not conduct fieldwork or subsurface testing of 

any kind as part of this Tier 1 Draft EIS. 

The FRA created a GIS database for NEC FUTURE to compile, store, and analyze data to use in 

documenting existing conditions and the assessment of Environmental Consequences.

3 The data 

were reviewed carefully to ensure a uniform level of detail since the data were collected from a 

variety of sources. The FRA incorporated future-year projections and calculations relative to 

population and employment, travel demand, and related topics that were developed for NEC FUTURE 

into the GIS database for use in resource-specific analyses. This GIS database also included 

information that was developed to define the characteristics of each Action Alternative, such as 

routes, stations, service types, and frequency. Together, resource-specific data (e.g., land cover, 

demographics, and ecological resources) and information about the Action Alternatives are layers in 

the GIS database. The interaction of these layers defined the Affected Environment and was used to 

assess Environmental Consequences.

2.2.5 Alternatives Development and Terminology

As appropriate, the FRA defines specific terms relevant to the No Action and Action Alternatives in 

the relevant chapter or section. The following terms are fundamental to the initial description of the 

Study Area and its available passenger services:

4 NEC (also referred to as the NEC Spine) is the existing rail transportation spine of the Northeast 

region—anchored by Washington Union Station in the south, Penn Station New York in the 

center, and Boston South Station in the north. The NEC connecting corridors refer to those rail 

corridors that connect directly to a station on the NEC. These include (1) corridor service south of 

Washington Union Station to markets in Virginia (i.e., Lynchburg, Richmond, Newport News, 

Norfolk) and North Carolina (i.e., Charlotte); (2) Keystone (connects Philadelphia 30th Street 

Station to Harrisburg Station); (3) Empire (connects Penn Station New York to Niagara Falls 

Station); and (4) New Haven-Hartford-Springfield (connects New Haven Union Station to 

Springfield Union Station) (Chapter 13: Glossary).

4 Regional refers to traditional peak or off-peak commuter or regional travel, generally defined by 

trips that start or end within the same metropolitan area. Regional trips are typically served by 

commuter or regional railroads within a metropolitan area or within a state. Throughout the Tier 

1 Draft EIS, commuter or regional railroads are referred to as Regional rail.

4 Interregional refers to travel between metropolitan areas that start or end in different 

metropolitan areas. Interregional trips are generally served by Intercity railroads (Amtrak), 

offering services that connect cities or metropolitan areas at speeds and distances greater than 

that of commuter rail.

4 No Action Alternative defines conditions that will exist in the 2040 analysis year if the proposed 

action is not implemented. (Under NEPA, the No Action Alternative is sometimes referred to as 

 

3 See Appendix A, Mapping Atlas, and Appendix E, Environmental Resource Documentation, for GIS sources.
2. Readers’ Guide

Page | 2-8 Tier 1 Draft EIS

the No Build condition.) For NEC FUTURE, the No Action Alternative is a baseline against which 

the FRA compares the effects of each of the Action Alternatives. The No Action Alternative 

represents the condition of the Northeast region’s multimodal transportation system in 2040. 

4 Action Alternatives refer to the action or build 

alternatives considered in this Tier 1 Draft EIS. For 

NEC FUTURE, three Action Alternatives are being 

advanced:

– Alternative 1 maintains the role of rail as it is 

today in the region, with the level of rail service 

keeping pace with the growth in population in 

the Study Area. 

– Alternative 2 grows the role of rail, expanding 

rail service at a rate greater than the 

proportional growth in regional population and employment. 

– Alternative 3 transforms the role of rail, supporting trips over longer distances and to places 

not currently well connected by passenger rail, positioning rail as the dominant mode for 

Interregional travel to urban centers along the NEC. 

The No Action and Action Alternatives all share common termini—they all start at Washington 

Union Station in Washington, D.C., and end at South Station in Boston. All Action Alternatives 

include the existing NEC; none abandon any portion of the existing NEC. All Action Alternatives 

represent an end-to-end service plan between Washington, D.C., and Boston and present an endto-end Representative Route. However, Alternative 3 provides route options between New York 

City and Hartford, CT, and between Hartford and Boston. The following terms are used to provide 

geographic routing context for Alternative 3:

– Washington, D.C., to New York City refers to the southern portion of Alternative 3 between 

Washington Union Station in Washington, D.C., and the New Jersey/New York state line at 

the Hudson River.

– New York City to Boston refers to the northern portion of Alternative 3 between the New 

Jersey/New York state line to South Station in Boston. There are several route options 

between New York City and Boston:

o New York City to Hartford via Central Connecticut refers to the route option that extends 

from New York City to Hartford, CT, by way of Danbury, CT.

o New York City to Hartford via Long Island Sound refers to the route option that extends 

from New York City to Hartford by way of Ronkonkoma, across the Long Island Sound, 

and through New Haven, CT.

o Hartford to Boston via Providence refers to the route option that extends from Hartford 

through Tolland and Windham Counties, CT, to Providence, RI, and continuing to South 

Station in Boston.

o Hartford to Boston via Worcester refers to the route option that extends from Hartford 

through Worcester, MA, continuing to South Station in Boston. 

All Action Alternatives include the following:

§ Improvements to the existing NEC; the 

existing NEC is never abandoned.

§ Representative Service plans developed in 

coordination with stakeholders for the 

purposes of analysis.

§ Representative Routes connecting 

geographic markets.
2. Readers’ Guide

Tier 1 Draft EIS Page | 2-9

In some sections of this Tier 1 Draft EIS, Alternative 3 is represented as Central CT/Providence

(Alternative 3.1), Long Island/Providence (Alternative 3.2), Long Island/Worcester (Alternative 3.3),

and Central CT/Worcester (Alternative 3.4). These are considered the representative end-to-end 

route options for service-related analysis specific to Alternative 3.

The characteristics of the No Action and Action Alternatives, including the geographic location and 

key environmental features of the Representative Route are presented in Chapter 4, Alternatives 

Considered.